Academic Journal of Business & Management, 2025, 7(7); doi: 10.25236/AJBM.2025.070713.
Yanrong Li1, Lyusheng Li2, Yucheng Shen3
1International Education School, Guangzhou College of Technology and Business, Guangzhou, China
2International College, Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani, Thailand
3Teacher Education College, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA
This study employs a Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to examine the impact of transaction costs and relational capital on governance performance in private higher education institutions (HEIs) across the Taiwan Strait. Using 200 stakeholder surveys and 10 expert questionnaires conducted in 2025, the analysis highlights stakeholder trust and information-sharing as critical drivers. Taiwan’s decentralized governance prioritizes trust, while Chinese mainland’s centralized model emphasizes coordination efficiency. Financial data from Taiwanese HEIs, revealing 65% tuition reliance, underscores the need for cost-effective governance. Visual Figures illustrate regional differences, offering comparative insights. The findings provide actionable strategies for HEI administrators to enhance governance, foster trust, and optimize resources, contributing to higher education policy in East Asia.
Fuzzy ANP, Institutional Governance, Private HEIs, Relational Capital, TOPSIS
Yanrong Li, Lyusheng Li, Yucheng Shen. Fuzzy ANP-TOPSIS Analysis of Transaction Costs and Relational Capital in Governance of Private HEIs across the Taiwan Strait. Academic Journal of Business & Management (2025), Vol. 7, Issue 7: 95-101. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJBM.2025.070713.
[1] Altbach, P. G., & Levy, D. C. (2005). Private Higher Education: A Global Revolution. Sense Publishers.
[2] Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
[3] Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Pärn, E., & Edwards, D. J. (2018). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19(5), 436–452.
[4] Hölttä, S., & Karjalainen, K. (1997). Cybernetic institutional management theory and practice: a system of flexible workload for university teachers. Tertiary Education and Management, 3(3), 229–236.
[5] Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer.
[6] Johnstone, D. B. (2006). Financing Higher Education: Cost-Sharing in International Perspective. Sense Publishers.
[7] Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership, or structures and formal processes? New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 35–46.
[8] Li, F., & Hayhoe, R. (2012). Private higher education in China: Problems and possibilities. In J. B. G. Tilak (Ed.), Higher Education in the BRIC Countries: Sharing Experiences (pp. 1057–1070). Springer.
[9] Lin, C. L., Chen, J. J., & Ma, Y. Y. (2023). Ranking of service quality solution for blended design teaching using fuzzy ANP and TOPSIS in the post-COVID-19 era. Mathematics, 11(5), 1255.
[10] Mok, K. H., & Welch, A. R. (Eds.). (2003). Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region. Palgrave Macmillan.
[11] Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
[12] Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications.
[13] Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Free Press.