The Association for Quality Economics (AQE) has launched a policy overview report examining how degrees and universities are regulated, accredited, and quality assured across the United Kingdom. Serving as a reference document for understanding the current policy landscape, particularly highlighting the relatively thin quality assurance mechanisms that exist for Economics degrees compared to other disciplines, the report will guide us as we explore becoming an accrediting body.
What’s going on in Higher Education?
The UK higher education sector finds itself in an uncertain and disparate regulatory landscape. Our report examines the approaches to regulation, quality assurance and accreditation taken in the different nations of the UK, and also analyses the role of some of the key institutions and mechanisms by which universities are supported to maintain high standards.
Economics in particular faces weak quality assurance. Unlike disciplines such as Medicine, Law, or Engineering, Economics lacks a Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) to accredit degrees. While the QAA's Economics Subject Benchmark Statement exists, universities are not obligated to follow it, leading to substantial disparities in graduate skillsets and programme content across institutions.
Key findings and insights
The report reveals several areas of significant relevance to AQE’s work in the current system:
The Voluntary Nature of Standards: While the QAA produces detailed Subject Benchmark Statements through collaborative panels of academics and industry representatives, these remain essentially "loose guidelines" with no enforcement mechanism. This protects academic freedom but creates significant variability in what an Economics graduate might know or be able to do, with knock-on effects for graduate skills and future prospects.
Limited Industry Voice: The analysis of benchmark review panels shows concerning gaps in representation. For Economics, the Government Economic Service, the UK's largest employer of economists, holds no official seat on the review panel, potentially allowing academic standards to diverge from employer needs.
The English Exception: Following the QAA's withdrawal, England now operates a risk-based approach through the Office for Students, intervening only when problems are identified. This contrasts sharply with Scotland and Wales, which maintain peer-review systems focused on continuous quality enhancement rather than mere compliance.
Student Voice Challenges: While frameworks exist for student participation in quality processes, representation remains limited. Most subject benchmark panels include only one student member, and many have no student representation at all.
Learning from other disciplines
In this report, we draw extensively from other disciplines to understand how accreditation can benefit providers, students and graduate employers. The Royal Statistical Society's accreditation framework provides a particularly relevant model, demonstrating how voluntary accreditation can achieve high uptake through clear benefits: automatic membership status, networking opportunities, and enhanced employability credentials. Major universities including Edinburgh, Warwick, and LSE have sought RSS accreditation, often in response to student demand.
Similarly, bodies like the Royal Society of Chemistry successfully balance academic autonomy with quality assurance by focusing on outcomes and competencies rather than prescriptive teaching methods. Their requirements for practical skills, such as 300 hours of laboratory work, ensure graduates meet industry standards while allowing pedagogical flexibility.
The path forward
This policy overview deliberately avoids prescriptive recommendations, instead establishing a knowledge base for future discussions about Economics degree accreditation. However, several themes emerge as critical considerations:
Balancing Freedom and Standards: Any new accreditation framework must protect the pluralism and academic freedom that characterises UK higher education while addressing legitimate concerns about consistency and graduate preparedness.
Embedding Modern Values: Recent QAA benchmarks emphasise sustainability, equality, diversity, and inclusion. A new Economics accreditation body could incentivise meaningful implementation of these themes rather than token compliance.
Strengthening Peer Review: The erosion of peer review mechanisms, particularly in England, represents a significant loss. Professional bodies can fill this gap by facilitating collaborative improvement between institutions.
Building Industry Connections: Effective PSRBs create bridges between academia and employers, ensuring curricula remain relevant while supporting student career development.
What’s next for AQE?
This report marks the beginning of a critical conversation about the future of Economics education in the UK. The Association for Quality Economics plans to follow this policy landscape overview with a focused examination of how Economics specifically could benefit from degree accreditation.
As the higher education sector grapples with funding pressures, changing student expectations, and evolving employer needs, the question isn't whether Economics needs better quality assurance mechanisms – it's how to design them effectively. This report provides the essential groundwork for that vital discussion, mapping the terrain on which future solutions must be built.
The full report, "Accreditation and Regulation of Degrees in the United Kingdom: An Overview of the Policy Landscape," is now available from the Association for Quality Economics.