Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 767 Volume and Issues Obtainable at Center for Sustainability Research and Consultancy Review of Economics and Development Studies ISSN:2519-9692 ISSN (E): 2519-9706 Volume 5: No. 4, 2019 Journal homepage: www.publishing.globalcsrc.org/reads Determinants of Competitiveness of Business Schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Faculty’s Perspective 1 Irum Khattak, 2 Qadar Bakhsh Baloch, 3 Gohar Zaman 1 Ph.D. Scholar at Department of Management Sciences, Islamia College Peshawar, Pakistan. irumkhattak2013@gmail.com 2 Institute of Business Studies and Leadership, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Pakistan. qbbaloch@awkum.edu.pk 3 Women University Swabi, Pakistan. goharshewa@gmail.com ARTICLE DETAILS ABSTRACT History Revised format: 30 Nov 2019 Available Online: 31 Dec 2019 Purpose- The present study was an attempt to enhance the understanding on the competitiveness of business schools (Bschools) and identify the most influential determinants that affect competitiveness of Bschools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from faculty‟s perspective. Methodology- The current study followed the quantitative approach. The sample size was 261 determined by formula of Yamane (1967) and respondents were selected using stratified probability sampling technique. Data was collected through questionnaire using 5-point Likert scale. Principal Component Analysis was applied to assess unifactoriality of the constructs. Hypothesis of study assuming relationship between independent and dependent variables were tested using SEM. Findings- Findings of the study suggests that Teaching staff, Employment prospects, Gender diversity, Leadership and management significantly and positively affect the Competitiveness of Bschools (P< 0.05). On other hand, Industry and Internationalization aspects were found to have significant negative effect on competitiveness of Bschools (P<0.05). Originality/Value- The present study can help the management of business schools to focus on the areas that can increase the competitiveness of business school to meet the challenges of globalization. Moreover, competitiveness was measured using satisfaction and reputation and the empirical testing of effect of determinants on competitiveness of business schools are the theoretical contributions of the study. © 2019 The authors, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Keywords Faculty, Competitiveness, Cost, Employment, Leadership, Business, School JEL Classification: L20, L21 Corresponding author‟s email address: irumkhattak2013@gmail.com Recommended citation: Khattak, I., Baloch, Q.B., and Zaman, G. (2019). Determinants of Competitiveness of Business Schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Faculty‟s Perspective. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 5 (4), 767-780 DOI: 10.26710/reads.v5i4.889 1. Introduction The quality of human force in every country is dependent on its education (Sembiring, (2018). It is due to fact that the most vital factor of globalization is knowledge. Knowledge is affecting every sphere of http://www.publishing.globalcsrc.org/reads mailto:irumkhattak2013@gmail.com mailto:qbbaloch@awkum.edu.pk mailto:goharshewa@gmail.com mailto:irumkhattak2013@gmail.com Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 768 modern times such as technology and sustainable development that is linked directly to the competitiveness of nations (Keser, 2015). The knowledge is the factor that transforms companies into a competitive one and in turn contributes to the competitiveness of a nation. This transformation is take place through competitive labour force. Due to this reason, it is the requirement of a country to nurture a workforce that is globally competitive (Keser, 2015). The aim of creating competitive national workforce can be achieved only through good quality of higher education. Therefore, most developed countries have more emphasis on competitive education quality for economic and social uplift (Stimac & Simic, 2012). The globalization has intense pressure over the countries for producing competitive human resource and new challenges are being encountered by educational institutes (Tan, Goh & Chan, 2015). The changes in education industry such as creation of research universities and universities of applied sciences, pressure from stakeholders and world-class universities etc has given a central role to achieve competitiveness of higher education institutes in present times (Supe, Zeps, Jurgelāne, & Ribickis, 2018). Education providing institutes are now struggling hard to improve their quality to achieve competitive advantage (Tan, Goh & Chan, 2015). Moreover, the change in education sector is compelling institutes towards identifying ways for competitiveness (Supe, Zeps, Jurgelāne, & Ribickis, 2018). Competitiveness can be broadly referred to the ability of a firm to build and sustain competitive advantages (Dimitrova & Dimitrova, 2017). In order to build and identify competitive advantage, it is required to unveil the determinants that can play crucial role in attaining the competitiveness for higher education (Supe, Zeps, Jurgelāne, & Ribickis, 2018). The institutions can gain competitiveness if it fulfills the needs of internal and external stakeholders (Ashmarina, Khasaev, & Plaksina, 2015). Despite the fact that competitiveness in higher education is highly desirable, fewer efforts are seen in the subject area. Various gaps are identified in literature. First, determinants of competitiveness of higher education institutes are explored in one study of Supe et al. (2018) but methodology of study was a systematic review and it was not tested empirically. They insisted on identification of internal and external factors for competitiveness of higher education institutes. Tan, Gou & Chan (2015) also emphasized that determinants that attract and retain students to gain competitive advantage should be explored in higher education. Secondly, the concept of competiveness is not measured through the lens of satisfaction and reputation together (non-financial measures) from perspective of stakeholders in previous studies. Sembiring (2018) establish a link between competitive advantage and image (reputation) of higher education institute but the study lacks the empirical testing of relationship. The effect of determinants of competitiveness using satisfaction and reputation is not seen empirically till date. Third, there is contextual gap in literature that the concept of competitiveness and the determinants of competitiveness is not studied adequately in context of business schools (Bschools) and none of the study is found in the context of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the best of author knowledge. The study will contribute to the body of knowledge by empirically testing the relationship of determinants of competitiveness with competitiveness of business schools. The competitiveness of business schools will be gauge through the internal stakeholder (faculty) perspective that will help the management and policy makers of business schools to understand the requirements of internal stakeholders. The study will identify most influential determinants that can be useful in designing strategies of business schools and to build competitive advantages of business schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. 2. Review of Literature 2.1. Competitiveness Competitiveness can be defined as how well the ability of a firm is to meet its customer needs in comparison to other firms that offer a similar product or service (Melnyk & Yaskal, 2013). The competitiveness of firms is linked to the concept of competitive advantage (Porter, 1985). A competitive advantage can be described as an attainment of superior position of a firm in an industry as compared to its rivals (Depperu and Cerrato, 2005). Competitive advantage is the result of a strategy helping a firm to maintain and sustain a favorable market position (Yasar, 2010). To this struggle of achieving competitive Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 769 advantage, Porter‟s suggested generic strategy framework. According to the Porter (1985), there are two type of competitive advantage a firm can build: Cost leadership and differentiation. A firm can gain competitive advantage either by keeping a lower cost than its competitors or commanding a higher price through product and service differentiation (Porter, 1980 & 1985). Cost leadership is a position of a firm in which they sell their goods or service to customers with a price either equal or lower than average industry price that provide them with a profit margin to gain maximum market share as compared to their rivals (Kamau, 2013; Porter, 1985). Approaches or the competitive factors adopted for differentiation are various. For instance, design or brand image, technology, features, customer service dealer network, high quality product or other dimensions (Porter, 1985). Both type of competitive advantage is the outcome of actual value created by the firm for its customers (Porter, 1985). Further, Porter has also clarified that this competitive advantage can be achieved only by trade-off i.e. choosing single strategy (cost leadership or differentiation) at a time otherwise firm will „stuck in the middle‟. 2.2. Determinants of Competitiveness of Bschools Review of business schools literature provided the determinants of competitiveness of business schools. These determinants can broadly classifid as cost related features and service quality features consistent to the generic strategies concept of Porter (1985). The determinants necessary for the competitiveness of a Bschools are identified in literature review are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Determinants of Competitiveness of Business School The above mentioned determinants of competitiveness of Bschools are operationalized in literature as follows in Figure 1. Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 770 Figure 1. Operationalization of 12 Determinants of Competitiveness of Bschools 2.3 Measures of competitiveness Customer satisfaction and reputation helps a firm in gaining a competitive advantage. Literature supports that firms strive to provide superior value to the customers and build relationship with customers to gain customer satisfaction. And it is due to customer satisfaction that competitiveness of firm or educational institute increases (Bauk and Jusufranic, 2014; Cabiddu, Lui & Piccoli, 2013; Massawe, 2013). Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry (1990) defined satisfaction as an overall judgment, perception or attitude on the superiority of service. The judgment is the result of difference between expectations and actual Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 771 experiences of customer. In more simple way, student satisfaction can be defined as a short-term attitude which is derived from the assessment of the received education service (Elliot and Healy, 2001). The studies of Sembiring (2018) and Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos (2013) linked reputation or image with the competitive advantage. Sofiati & Limakrisna (2017) defined reputation as how the general public understands the brand in terms of its services and communication program. Thus, stakeholders‟ satisfaction and reputation of institution reflects its current level of competitiveness in relation to its competitors. Sallis (2002) divided stakeholders of higher education institute into external customers (Students, Parents, Employers, Government) and internal customers (Faculty). Being an internal stakeholder, faculty perspective is highly important for the fact that they are the service providers. Conceptual Framework Figure 2. Theoretical Framework of study 2.4 Methodology for the study The total population of the study included 568 faculty members from 11 private and 18 Public universities in 2016. The targeted population of study comprised of only those Management Sciences departments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (business schools) affiliated with HEC recognized universities or DAIs. Yamane (1967) formula was used that derived a sample of 261. Stratified random sampling, a technique of probability sampling, was used in selecting respondents. Population was divided into strata and respondents for sample were derived in same proportion as it was representing in population known as proportionate allocation method. 2.5 Discussion on Items The 12 determinants of competitiveness of Bschools (independent variables) were measured through a list of underlying items resulted from detailed and in-depth literature review. The detailed operationalization of these 12 variables is given in Figure 1. The dependent variable “Competiveness” comprised of faculty satisfaction and reputation of bschool was measured with items taken from Owino (2013). Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 772 3 Analysis and Results 3.1 Reliability and Descriptive Statistics The Cronbach‟s Alpha for 13 variables of study is in the range of 0.6-0.8 showing reliability of constructs as the values lies within acceptable limits (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). Reliability and descriptive statistics of the construct are given in Table 2. Descriptive statistics showing Gender diversity has the highest value of 4.42, followed by Network of alumni having value for mean equal to 3.88. It shows the satisfaction of faculty on gender diversity and network of alumni of bschools. Internationalization aspect has the lowest mean of 1.94 showing negative perception of faculty is high over the aspect of internationalization of Bschools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Moreover, the dependent variable Competitiveness the has mean value of 3.8 showing faculty has optimistic view about the overall competitiveness of Bschools in KPK TABLE 2. 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Construct No of Items Cronbach α Mean Std. Deviation Cost 4 0.7 3.23 0.76 Living experience 5 0.8 3.23 0.67 Selection process 4 0.6 3.33 1.05 Teaching staff 8 0.9 2.32 1.01 APS 7 0.9 3.67 1.18 Employment prospects 5 0.8 2.68 0.88 Research aspect 6 0.9 2.05 0.87 Industry aspect 4 0.9 3.56 1.26 Internationalization aspect 4 0.8 1.94 0.80 Network of alumni 3 0.8 3.88 0.90 Gender diversity 3 0.8 4.17 0.70 Leadership 8 0.9 2.16 0.90 Competitiveness 4 0.7 3.78 0.81 3.2 Assumptions’ Statistics for Factor Analysis Principle component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was applied in the study. The two tests KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett‟s test of sphericity were carried before factor analysis. The recommended value for KMO is 0.6 or greater. The results for KMO values for all constructs are higher than 0.6 and satisfying the assumption of sample adequacy that there is no sample size issue. Results for Bartlett test of sphericity depicted that the P-value of the Bartlett‟s statistic for all factors are significant, thus, assumptions of sphericity is satisfied (Leech, Barrett & Morgan, 2005) showing data is suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett‟s test of sphericity means that at least one significant correlation between two of the items is observed. After obtaining satisfactory values for KMO and BTS, items were scrutinized for the values of communalities and factor loadings. Those items were retained in factor analysis having communalities higher than 0.50 (Leech et al., 2005) and have factor loading value of 0.5 or higher. Overall, the items deleted for constructs Living experience, Teaching staff, APS, Employability prospects, Research aspect, Industry aspect, Internationalization aspect, Leadership & management and Competitiveness of Bschools were 6,5,14,2,3,3,5,6 and 3 respectively. The KMO, BTS and P values are given in Table 3. TABLE 3. ASSUMPTIONS STATISTICS FOR EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS Constructs KMO BTS P Cost 0.7 251.36 0.000 Living experience (TF) 0.8 343.62 0.000 Selection process 0.7 229.90 0.000 Teaching staff (FT) 0.9 1666.41 0.000 Academic, personality & societal 0.9 1308.15 0.000 Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 773 development (APS) Employment prospects/Placement (PC) 0.7 604.05 0.000 Research aspect(Res) 0.8 937.01 0.000 Industry aspect (Industry_L) 0.7 614.00 0.000 Internationalization aspect (IntlO) 0.7 438.62 0.000 Network of Alumni (Alumni) 0.7 227. 74 0.000 Gender diversity (GBalance) 0.8 365.32 0.000 Leadership & management (LA) 0.8 1314.49 0.000 Competitiveness (CompDV) 0.7 350.71 0.000 4. Structural Equation Modeling Structure equation modeling abbreviated as SEM, used in the study to investigate the hypothesized effect of independent variable on dependent variable. Before SEM, measurement model for each construct was tested to get good model fit. Modifications indices and covariance were applied where required. The results for measurement model for each construct are given in Table 4. The six fit indices were used in the study to check the fitness of model included chi-square/degree of freedom (CMIN/DF), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Means Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR). All the values of fit indices from model 1 to model 13 were in the threshold proposed by Usluel, Askar, and Bas (2008) showing model is good fit. Overall measurement model of 13 factors is presented as Model 14 in Figure 3 and Table 5. Model 14 include all the 12 independent variables and 1 dependent variable. The values of fit indices are also satisfactory and in line with Usluel et al (2008) showing good fit of the model. TABLE 4. 2 SUMMARY OF MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTS Measurement model RMSEA GFI RMR CFI TLI CMIN/DF Optimum Value (Usluel et al., 2008) <0.08 >0.9 <0.1 >0.9 >0.9 <3 Model 1-Cost 0.07 0.98 0.04 0.97 0.95 2.71 Model 2-Living experience 0.05 0.98 0.02 0.99 0.97 1.79 Model 3-Selection process 0.08 0.98 0.10 0.98 0.95 4.13 Model 4-Teaching staff 0.02 0.98 0.02 0.99 0.99 1.13 Model 5- APS 0.05 0.98 0.02 0.99 0.99 1.75 Model 6- Employment prospects 0.03 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.99 1.36 Model 7- Research aspect 0.02 0.99 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.69 Model 8- Industry aspect 0.03 0.99 0.02 1.00 0.99 1.22 Model 9-Internalization aspects 0.06 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.98 2.05 Model 10-Network of alumni 0.07 0.99 0.04 0.98 0.97 3.00 Model 11- Gender diversity 0.02 0.98 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.24 Model 12-Ledership 0.05 0.98 0.02 0.99 0.98 1.70 Model 13-Competitieness 0.08 0.98 0.03 0.99 0.97 0.40 Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 774 FIGURE 3. MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR 13 FACTORS TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF OVERALL MEASUREMENT MODEL OF 13 FACTORS Measurement model RMSEA GFI RMR CFI TLI CMIN/DF Model 14- Overall model of 13 factors 0.06 0.99 0.05 0.98 0.95 2.27 5. Hypotheses Testing After obtaining satisfactory measurement models, the study has used SEM to analyzed relationship between 12 independent and dependent variable. The framed hypotheses from H1 to H12 were tested using SEM. The results are given in Table 6 showing that R 2 ” has a value of 0.319. It implies that 31.9% of variation in Competitiveness of Bschools is explained by 12 independent variables of study. The results depicted that Teaching staff (β= 0.262), employment prospects (β= 0.215), Gender diversity (β= 0.477), Leadership and management (β= 0.214) positively contribute to the Competitiveness of Bschools and results are significant having P< 0.05. On other hand, Industry aspect (β= -0.177) and Internationalization Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 775 aspect (β= -0.116) were found to have significant and negative effect on Competitiveness of Bschools (P<0.05). Moreover, insignificant relationship was found between Cost, Living experience, Selection process, Academic, personality & societal development activities (APS), Research aspect and Network of alumni with dependent variable Competitiveness of Bschools (P>0.05). Therefore, the hypotheses H4, H6, H8, H9, H11, and H12 are accepted and hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, H7, and H10 are rejected. TABLE 6. HYPOTHESIS TESTING Hypothesis Structural Paths Estimate P Results H1 Comp <--- Cost -0.073 0.326 Not supported H2 Comp <--- Living experience -0.022 0.765 Not supported H3 Comp <--- Selection process -0.029 0.601 Not supported H4 Comp <---Teaching staff 0.262 *** Supported H5 Comp <--- APS -0.117 0.463 Not supported H6 Comp <--- Employment prospects 0.215 *** Supported H7 Comp <--- Research aspect -0.016 0.902 Not supported H8 Comp <--- Industry aspect -0.177 *** Supported H9 Comp <--- Internationalization aspect -0.116 *** Supported H10 Comp <--- Network of alumni 0.043 0.470 Not supported H11 Comp <--- Gender diversity 0.477 *** Supported H12 Comp <--- Leadership & management 0.214 *** Supported R 2 =0.319, Sig = .000 6. Discussion The results of the study revealed that the determinants which are significantly and positively contribute to competitiveness of Bschools from faculty perspective are Teaching staff, Employment prospects, Gender diversity and Leadership & management. The significant positive contribution of Teaching staff to competitiveness of Bschools is also justified in the studies of Butt & Rehman, (2010), Gibson (2010), Owino (2012) and Shah, Nair, & Bennett (2013). The significant and positive influence of Employment prospects on competitiveness of Bschools is supported in the study of Deuren & Lhaden (2017) and Lenton (2015). The literature also supports the positive impact of Gender diversity. McMillan-Capehart, (2003) and Ali, Metz & Kulik (2007) asserted that gender diversity is positively associated with competitive advantage. The current study also found a positive influence of Leadership & management on competitiveness of Bschools consistent with the previous research studies of Schmidt (1995) and Ravindran & Kalpana (2012). The results of current study supports Peter Senge (1990) concept of learning organization where organization adapts to the changes through people in teamwork and it is the essence of leadership how to make it possible. The results of the study unearth a negative and significant relationship between industry aspect and internationalization aspect with competitiveness of Bschools. The negative effect of industry aspect is in line with studies of Manjarrés-Henríquez, Gutiérrez-Gracia, Carrión-García, & Vega-Jurado (2009) and Kaymaz, & Eryigit (2011). Moreover, the special circumstances of the province cannot be ignored in the context. The province and its industry suffered a huge setback from terrorism. It resulted in large number of closure of industrial units and higher ratios of unemployment (Social Policy and Development Centre Karachi, Pakistan (2010). Due to these reasons, industry became unattractive in the province and may be responsible for negative perception of faculty about industry interface. The Internationalization aspect was also found to have negative influence negating the earlier studies of Kiriakidis & Moos (2010) and Lambert & Usher (2013). It can be assumed from negative perception of the faculty about relationship of internationalization aspect and competitiveness of Bschools that they are not ready to embrace the new model of education because internationalization aspect is one of the important current challenge in Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 776 academic and without faculty‟s will it is not possible to deal with it (Bedenlier and Zawacki-Richter, 2015). The internationalization aspect is affecting teachers directly (Taylor, 2004). Moreover the insignificant result of the study for cost is consistent with the study of Alzoubi & Emeagwali (2016). The insignificant results of the study for Living experience are line with Khan, Ahmed and Nawaz (2011). The insignificant results of the study for Selection process consistent with the view of Yorke (1999) that process is more crucial than input they selected in educational institutes. The insignificant results of the study for Academic, personal and societal development is negating the results of Owino (2012) showing that faculty in KPK are not favoring new teaching methodologies, new roles and new challenges; however these are the facets of globalization (Bedenlier and Zawacki-Richter, 2015). 7. Conclusion The study used SEM to check the relationship between 12 independent variables (determinants of competitiveness) with one dependent variable i.e. Competitiveness of Bschools. The results depicted that teaching staff, employment prospects, gender diversity and leadership & management have a significant and positive effect on dependent variable competitiveness of Bschools. On other hand, industry aspect and internationalization aspects were found to have significant negative influence on competitiveness of Bschools. The effect of determinants cost, living experience, selection process, academic, personality & societal development activities (APS), research aspect and network of alumni on dependent variable competitiveness of Bschools was found insignificant. The future studies should be done on faculty perspective in KP to understand the factors that is creating a negative perception of faculty towards industry and internationalization aspects in Bschools. Moreover, empirical studies should be done on determinants of competitiveness of Bschools in future from other stakeholders‟ perspectives such as top management, parents and employers to identify strategic factors for creating competitive advantage. 8. Theoretical and Contextual Contribution of the Study The study used satisfaction and reputation (non-financial measures) together for measuring competitiveness that is not used before in literature. Moreover, empirical studies on determinants for the competitiveness of higher educational institutes and its effect on competitiveness are not done earlier which is the theoretical contributions of the study to existing knowledge. The current study has a contextual addition to the existing literature as work is not found in discipline of business education and it is novel in the context of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. References Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569-581. Afzal, W., Akram, A., Akram, M. S., & Ijaz, A. (2010, December). On students’ perspective of quality in higher education. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, Lahore, Pakistan. Retrieved from http://www.icaqhe2010.org/Papers%20published%20in%203rd%20ICAQHE%202010/28- Dr%20Waheed%20Afzal.pdf Ali, M., Metz, I., & Kulik, C. (2007). Workforce gender diversity: Is it a source of competitive advantage. Paper presented at 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference: Managing our Intellectual and Social Capital, Sydney Australia. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40898/1/40898.pdf Alzoubi, A. M., & Emeagwali, O. L. (2016). Do generic strategies impact performance in higher educational institutions? A SEM-based investigation. Business and Economic Horizons, 12(2), 42- 52. Ashmarina, S., Khasaev, G., & Plaksina, I. (2015). Methodological basis of higher education institution competitiveness assessment. Review of European Studies, 7(2), 49-57. Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2015). Internationalization of higher education and the impacts on academic faculty members. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(2), 185- 201. Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 777 Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternatives instruments to measure services quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 1-30. Business Today India. (2015). India’s best Bschools. Retrieved from http://bschools.businesstoday.in/ Businessweek. (2001). Business week guide to the best business schools (7th ed.). US: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Bauk, S., & Jusufranic, J. (2014). Competitiveness in higher education in terms of the level of students‟ satisfaction with e-learning in blended environment. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 10(1), 25-42. Butt, B. Z., & Rehman, K. u. (2010). A study examining students‟ satisfaction in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavorial Science , 2 (2), 5446 -5450. Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.W., Piccoli, G. (2013), Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 86-107. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. (2003). Business Research Methods (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Corey. R.E. (1981). Case method teaching. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Debnath, R. M., & Shankar, R. (2009). Assessing performance of management institutions. The TQM Journal, 21(1), 20-33. Delaney, A. (2005). Expanding students‟ voice in assessment through senior survey research. American Institutional Research Professional File, 96, 1-19. Depperu, D., & Cerrato, D. (2005). Analysing international competitiveness at the firm level: Concepts and measures (Working Paper No. 32). Piacenza. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228681715_Analyzing_international_competitiveness_at _the_firm_level_concepts_and_measures/links/02e7e52031fae57208000000 Deuren, L.R., & Lhaden, K. (2017). Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: A comparative study of a Public and a Private college. Bhutan Journal Of Research & Development,4, 40-52. EFMD. (2016). The EQUIS quality standards. Retrieved on 11 December, 2016 from www.efmd.org. Elliot, K.M., & Healy, M.A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10 (4), 1-11. Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169-194. Financial Times. (2016). Business education. Retrieved from http://rankings.ft.com/exportranking/executive-mba-ranking-2016/pdf on 12/4/2016 Fraiman N.M. (2002). Building relationships between universities and businesses: The Case at Columbia Business School Interfaces. 32(2), 52-55. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25062799 on 17/04/2014 Gault, J. (2000). Effects of business internships on job marketability: The employers‟ perspective. Education + Training, 52 (1), 76-88. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Managment, 32 (3), 251- 259 Gill, G.S. (2012). Management education in India: A case study of selected b-schools (Phd‟s dissertation). Punjab College of Technical Education Baddowal, Ludhiana. Hall, S. (2008). Geographies of business education: MBA programmes, reflexive business schools and the cultural circuit of capital. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 33(1), 27-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30131206 on 17/04/2014 Hampton, G. M. (1993). Gap analysis of college student satisfaction as a measure of professional service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9(1), 115 – 128. Huang, Q. (2009). The relationship between service quality and student satisfaction in higher education sector: A case study on the undergraduate sector of Xiamen University of China (Master‟s dissertation). Assumption University, Thailand. Joseph, M. & Joseph, B. (1997). Service quality in education: A student perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 15-19. http://bschools.businesstoday.in/ http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228681715_Analyzing_international_competitiveness_at_the_firm_level_concepts_and_measures/links/02e7e52031fae57208000000 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228681715_Analyzing_international_competitiveness_at_the_firm_level_concepts_and_measures/links/02e7e52031fae57208000000 http://www.efmd.org/ http://rankings.ft.com/exportranking/executive-mba-ranking-2016/pdf%20on%2012/4/2016 Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 778 Kamau, S.M. (2013). Competitive strategies adopted by private universities in Kenya (Master‟s thesis). University Of Nairobi, Nairobi. Kaymaz, K., & Eryigit, K. Y. (2011). Determining factors hindering university-industry collaboration: An analysis from the perspective of academicians in the context of entrepreneurial science paradigm. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 4(1), 639-644. Kelley, C.A., & Gaedeke, R.M. (1990). Student and employer evaluation of hiring criteria for entry-level marketing positions. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 64-71. Keser, H. Y. (2015). Effects Of Higher Education On Global Competitiveness: Reviews In Relation With European Countries And The Middle East Countries. Annals of'Constantin Brancusi'University of Targu-Jiu. Economy Series, 1(1), 58-68. Kiriakidis, P.P., & Moos, J.C. (2010). Globalization: Student satisfaction in studying abroad internationalized courses. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1675936 Kolachi, N.A., & Wajidi, A.Z. (2008). Business education in Pakistan: Identifying weaknesses and suggesting improvements. East-West Journal of Economics and Business, 11(1), 157-178. Kolachi, N.A., & Mohammad J. (2013). Excellence in business education (A “FRUCE” model for higher education commission–Recognized business schools in Pakistan). American Journal of Business Education, 6(3), 311-320. Kolluru, S. (2011).Rankings of Indian business schools: A statistical analysis. ASCI Journal of Management, 40(2), 101–112. Kuh, G.D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24 (3), 309-332. Lambert, J., & Usher, A. (2013). Internationalization and the domestic student experience. Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates. Retrieved from..http://higheredstrategy.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/Intelligencebrief7-HESA-internationalization-FINAL-WEB.pdf LeBlanc, G., and Nguyen, N. (1997). Searching for excellence in business education: An exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(2), 72–79. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate. Routledge Lejeune, C. (2011). Is continuous improvement through accreditation sustainable? A capability-based view. Management Decision, 49(9), 1535-1548. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0025- 1747.htm Lejeune, C and Vas, A. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness in business schools: A test of the accreditation impact. Journal of Management Development, 28 (8), 728-741. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm Lenton, P. (2015). Determining student satisfaction: An economic analysis of the National student survey. Economics of Education Review, 47, 118-127. Mai, L. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 859-878. Maryland Commission on Vocational-technical Education (1989). Fulfilling the promise: A new education model for Maryland's changing workplace. College Park, MD; Author. Massawe, D. (2013). Customer satisfaction and complaints as a means of gaining a competitive advantage in hospitality industry.The Eastern African Journal of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism, 1(1), 1- 12. Manjarres-Henríquez, L., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Carrión-García, A., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2009). The effects of university–industry relationships and academic research on scientific performance: Synergy or substitution? Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 795-830. McMillan-Capehart A (2003) Cultural diversity's impact on firm performance: The moderating influence of diversity initiatives and socialization tactics (Unpublished doctoral‟s dissertation). Louisiana Tech University, USA. Melnyk, O., & Yaskal, I. (2013). Theoretical approaches to concept of competition and competitiveness. Ecoforum, 2 (2), 8-12. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 779 Neelankavil, J. P. (1994). Corporate America‟s quest for an ideal MBA. Journal of Management Development, 13 (5), 38-52. Owino, E. O. (2013). The influence of service quality and corporate image on customer satisfaction among university students in Kenya (Phd‟s thesis). University of Nairobi, Kenya. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition. NY: Free Press Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. NY: Free Press QS World Ranking University. (2014). University Rankings. Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings Qureshi, A.A. (2012). How do perceptions of the importance of service-quality determinants differ across key stakeholder groups in the Pakistan higher education sector (M.Phil‟s dissertation). Loughborough University, England. Qureshi, A.A., Mahmood, U. (2008). Impact of Quality of Service Delivery in Business Education. Paper presented at 11th QMOD Conference, Quality Management and Organizational Development Attaining Sustainability from Organizational Excellence to Sustainable Excellence, Helsingborg, Sweden. Ranjan, J. (2011). Study of sharing knowledge resources in business schools. The Learning Organization, 18(2), 102-114. Retrieved from www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm Ravindran, S. D., & Kalpana, M. (2012). Student‟s expectation, perception and satisfaction towards the management educational institutions. Procedia Economics and Finance, 2, 401-410. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/irum/Desktop/discussion%20material/academic,%20infrstructure%20pifluence%2 0studeent%20satisfaction.pdf Rigotti, S. & Pitt, L. (1992). SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service provider gaps in business schools. Management Research News, 15(3), 9-17. Sallis, E. (2002). Total quality management in education. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis or Routledge. Sembiring, N. (2018). Determinants of Competitive Advantage and Institution Image. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(3), 45. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. Shah, M., Nair, C. S., & Bennett, L. (2013). Factors infuencing student choice to study at private higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education , 21 (4), 402-416. Sichtmann, C., Diamantopoulos, A. (2013), The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 567-585. Social Policy and Development Centre Karachi, Pakistan. (2010). Social development in Pakistan: Annual review 2009-10. Pakistan: Social Policy and Development Centre Karachi, Pakistan. Sofiati, N.A., Limakrisna, N. (2017), Holistic marketing implementation to increase company trust and image on state banking industries (a customer survey on customers of state banks in West Java province). International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(6), 117-130. Stimac, H., & Šimić, M. L. (2012). Competitiveness in higher education: A need for marketing orientation and service quality. Economics & Sociology, 5(2), 23-33. Supe, L., Zeps, A., Jurgelāne, I., & Ribickis, L. (2018). Factors Affecting The Competitiveness Of A Higher Education Institution: Systematic Literature Overview. Research for Rural Development, 2, 245. 252 Tan, C. L., Goh, Y. N., & Chan, H. S. (2015). The determinants of competitiveness in quality: A study among the Malaysian private higher education institutions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 13(2), 371-379. Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm file:///C:/Users/irum/Desktop/discussion%20material/academic,%20infrstructure%20pifluence%20studeent%20satisfaction.pdf file:///C:/Users/irum/Desktop/discussion%20material/academic,%20infrstructure%20pifluence%20studeent%20satisfaction.pdf Review of Economics and Development Studies Vol. 5, No 4, 2019 780 Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 149–171. Times Higher Education, 2016). Asia University Rankings 2016 methodology. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/regional-ranking- methodology The economist. (2016). Which MBA: Methodology. 2016. http://www.economist.com/whichmba University of Surrey. (2016). Self employment. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/careers/current/selfemployment/ Usluel, Y.K., Askar, P., & Bas, T. (2008). A structural equation model for ICT usage in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (2), 262-273. US News. (2015). Methodology: 2015 best business schools rankings. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business- schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-business-schools-rankings Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics, an introductory analysis (2nd ed). New York: Harper and Row. Yasar, F. (2010). Competitive strategies and firm performance: case study on Gaziantep carpeting sector. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute,7(14),309-324. Yorke, M. (1999). Assuring quality and standards in globalized higher education. Quality Assurance in Education. 7(1), 14-24. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free Press. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/regional-ranking-methodology https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/regional-ranking-methodology http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-business-schools-rankings http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2014/03/10/methodology-2015-best-business-schools-rankings