During 1980, many Western countries launched public administration reforms. These reform waves also blew over to many Asian countries. With the advent of globalization and the rise of knowledge-based society, education and innovation are regarded as the driving forces behind social and economic growth and development. To enhance the national capacity, education reforms have also become common agendas among nation states since the 1980s. This paper aims at critically reviewing and comparing major policies and strategies of the higher education reform adopted by the respective government in Greater China, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan and Singapore. The key research questions are why these countries attempted to reform their higher education and if these countries achieve the desired results and comply with good governance. In this paper, four areas, "Rule of Law," "Transparency," "Effectiveness," and "Accountability" are evaluated to examine how these selected cases' governance in higher education have been implemented in the past 30 years. Copyright ©International Dialogues on Education.

Interpreting modernisation and globalisation in East Asia as processes of Westernisation creates confusion and discomfort among some academics from the region. To illustrate why such discomfort occurs, this article explores the changes in the higher education systems of Hong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China in terms of their ‘Chineseness’ as a potentially unifying regional identity that can be counterposed to Westernisation. The recent and polyvalent theme of ‘Greater China’ is invoked in this article to describe and interpret the institutional frameworks, within which higher education is developing in this imaginary region, as well as to establish possible discursive linkages in the continuing transformation and strategic reorientation of higher education and its role in the recent economic, political and socio-cultural developments. In this regard, the interrelated discourses of Chineseness and Greater China have the following functions: they imply regionalism; they enable a break with their imperial and colonial past; and they provide the basis for different kinds of hybridisation between Chinese and Western intellectual, educational and cultural traditions and values.
[Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.]

The authors rank the management schools in Greater China (including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau) based on their academic publications in the Social Sciences Citation Index management and business journals from 2000 to 2010. Following K. Ritzberger's (2008) and X. Yu and Z. Gao's (2010) ranking method, the authors develop six indices to rank institutions from several aspects, including both the quantity and quality of publications. By doing so, they provide a clear viewpoint about which institutions achieve high levels of academic performance in management and business research. They also find that (a) there is still a large gap in research rankings between business schools in Mainland China and in Hong Kong; (b) some institutions perform well in quantity rankings but poorly in quality rankings; (c) the development of the general management and operation disciplines are much more mature than that of the finance and accounting disciplines in Greater China; and (d) most outstanding institutions cooperate with developed countries at a moderate level. The authors state their contributions and future directions as well.
[Copyright of Journal of Education for Business is the property of Routledge . Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2013.863750]