This blog was authored by Dr Andra le Roux-Kemp, Associate Professor in Law at the University of Lincoln and a DBA Higher Education Management student at the University of Bath.
In the UK higher education sector, the possibility of a provider failing is no longer hypothetical. Universities are making tough choices about staffing, course portfolios and long-term sustainability, while policy makers and sector leaders are discussing mergers, strategic collaboration and the chance that some providers may not survive in their current form.
Amid these debates, one reality has become harder to ignore: although universities are often described as competitors in a market, few would seriously argue that every university holds the same position or would be treated the same if its future were threatened. Instead, it is widely accepted that UK providers are unlikely to converge on a single institutional model and that shared funding arrangements, common evaluation frameworks for teaching and research and standardised performance metrics have created an appearance of homogeneity, rather than a genuinely level playing field. These observations expose the limits of the market narrative that has guided higher education policy for more than two decades. They suggest the sector is shaped as much by long-standing institutional relationships and differences as by competition.
Competitive markets are generally understood to reward performance, not pre-existing position. Competitors may differ in size and resources, but they are assumed to compete on broadly equal terms, with success depending on how well they perform rather than where they start. The UK higher education sector, however, has never fully conformed to that model. Universities differ in missions, histories, research strengths and student populations, but also in reputations, institutional networks and standing in the sector. These characteristics shape how providers are perceived, influence opportunities for collaboration and access to resources, and determine the roles different universities are expected to play. Competition certainly exists, but universities compete within a sector where long-standing differences already set the opportunities available to them, long before they compete for students, research funding, philanthropic investment, academic talent, partnerships, reputation or influence.
These long-standing differences have built up over decades through institutional histories, missions, professional relationships and the ways providers have come to recognise one another’s standing. They are neither random nor explained solely by performance. In my research, I use the concept of clubs and clans to describe communities of providers that share history, mission, prestige or purpose (clubs), and the relationships of recognition, trust and affiliation that develop between those communities (clans). The Russell Group is an obvious formal club. But many of the relationships that shape the sector are far less visible because they have grown informally over time, not through membership. Universities with similar histories, missions or disciplinary strengths often collaborate, benchmark against each other, recruit from similar pools of staff and students, and look to one another as peers. These overlapping, often informal relationships are what I describe as clans. What the idea of clubs and clans captures is that universities do not simply compete; they also belong.
From this perspective, the current financial crisis affecting UK higher education is more than an economic challenge; it brings into sharper focus how the sector is organised. When providers face financial distress, the discussion rarely centres on financial performance alone. Instead, debates tend to raise questions of civic importance, research capacity, regional impact, [international reputation](https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/05/10/leading-with-impact-how-universities-can
