Institutional autonomy is widely recognised as a core principle of higher education governance, yet its formal scope and lived experience vary considerably across systems. In the Flemish Community – an autonomous region within Belgium – the institutional autonomy of universities and university colleges is constitutionally protected, but their formal autonomy, particularly in educational matters, remains relatively limited (Bennot Pruvot, 2023; Song, 2019). While governmental steering of higher education is not fundamentally contested, it remains unclear how such steering is experienced at the institutional level and why comparatively limited formal autonomy is not always perceived as constraining in practice. Existing research offers little insight into how Flemish higher education institutions interpret governmental intervention or how they understand their experienced, or ‘living’, autonomy (Maassen et al., 2017). Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 21 institutional leaders and applying the multidimensional framework of institutional autonomy developed by Verhoest et al. (Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101-118, 2004), this study examines how and why government steering in the organisation of education is experienced as restrictive. The analysis identifies three interrelated mechanisms through which perceived constraints on autonomy emerge: the use of steering instruments whose added value is questioned by institutions; limitations resulting from reduced funding levels or restricted financial flexibility; and dependencies that incentivise institutions to align their policy choices with the preferences and expectations of external actors. By focusing on the gap between formal autonomy and experienced autonomy, this study contributes to broader international debates on higher education governance, state steering, and the conditions under which institutional autonomy is meaningfully exercised.
