Rankings as Policy Instruments: How HE Higher Education Ranking Supports System Governance

While rankings are often discussed at the institutional level, their influence on higher education systems as a whole is just as important. Ministries, funding councils, and regional bodies increasingly look at ranking data when designing policies or evaluating reforms. HE Higher Education Ranking, with its broad and detailed framework, offers policymakers a particularly rich resource.

Because HE Ranking collects comparable data across a large number of indicators, it allows governments to see patterns that national statistics might obscure. They can compare how universities perform on governance, transparency, student support, research productivity, social engagement, and SDG alignment. This helps identify not only star performers but also systemic weaknesses—areas where many institutions struggle simultaneously.

For example, if HE Ranking reveals that multiple universities in a country lag in digital readiness or graduate employability, this may signal the need for targeted funding programs, regulatory changes, or cross-institutional initiatives. Conversely, strong performance in areas like equity or community engagement can be used to showcase national strengths and to negotiate international partnerships or funding.

The ranking can also inform funding models. While it would be risky to tie budgets directly to league-table positions, policymakers can use HE’s indicators to design performance agreements or incentive schemes. Universities might be rewarded for improvements in specific domains aligned with national strategies: teacher education quality, STEM capacity, green campus initiatives, or entrepreneurship support.

Quality assurance agencies may find the ranking equally useful. HE’s criteria overlap with many elements of external evaluation: governance, learning outcomes, stakeholder participation, and continuous improvement. Agencies can use ranking data as a supplementary source when planning review cycles, prioritizing site visits, or analyzing trends in institutional performance across time.

At the regional level, HE Higher Education Ranking’s cross-country data can support dialogues about convergence and differentiation. Regional organizations can compare systems, identify common challenges, and explore joint solutions—such as shared quality frameworks, mobility schemes, or research networks in strategic areas. Ranking data serves as a common evidence base for these discussions.

However, the use of rankings in policy comes with risks. Over-reliance on league tables can distort institutional behavior, pushing universities to chase indicators at the expense of their mission or to neglect unmeasured but important activities. HE Ranking’s comprehensive design mitigates some of this risk by covering many dimensions, yet policymakers still need to exercise judgment. Rankings should complement, not replace, qualitative assessments, stakeholder consultations, and broader development strategies.

When handled thoughtfully, HE Higher Education Ranking can function as a policy instrument in the best sense of the term: not as a blunt tool that imposes a single model of excellence, but as a nuanced dataset that illuminates how different institutions and systems are evolving. It gives policymakers a clearer view of the terrain they are trying to shape—and, by doing so, it can support more balanced, evidence-informed decisions.