63

How will globalization affect higher educa-tion? Will globalization, the scientific com-munity, and the Internet level the playing

field in a new age of knowledge interdependence? Orwill globalization produce worldwide inequality andthe McDonaldization of the university? Is globaliza-tion responsible for all of the contemporary pressureson higher education—from “massification” to thegrowth of the private sector?

The answer is a qualified yes to all these ques-tions. This essay “unpacks” the realities of and clari-fies the misunderstandings about globalization andinternationalization in higher education. It also high-lights the disparate effects of these trends on differentuniversities and systems. The Bologna initiatives, forexample, require European Union countries to syn-chronize degree structures. English-speaking coun-tries benefit from the increasing use of that languagefor science and scholarship. Globalization stronglyaffects higher education in developing countries—where the bulk of future expansion will occur.1

Globalization poses special challenges—andresponsibilities—for Americans. The United States,with the world’s dominant academic system, provides

a model that other countries carefully study. Manynations adopt key American innovations—communi-ty colleges, the credit system, and doctoral studycombining coursework and research, for example.The United States hosts about one-third of theworld’s international students, and American univer-sities hire foreigners in large numbers. American aca-demic thinking today influences practice in othercountries tomorrow. If we divide higher educationinto academic centers and peripheries, the UnitedStates is by far the most important center. Teachersin American academic institutions must understandhow the global system works and ensure thatAmerican academic power is not misused.

Circumstances beyond the campus and acrossnational borders have always affected universities—areality that is often forgotten in analyses of 21st cen-tury globalization. In turn, deep historical roots alsoaffect the ethos and governance of universities. Of theWestern institutions established by 1520, notes ClarkKerr, 85 still exist—the Roman Catholic Church, theBritish Parliament, several Swiss cantons, and over 70universities. Of these enduring institutions, the uni-versities have experienced the least change.2

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal WorldBy Philip G. Altbach

Philip G. Altbach is Monan professor of higher education and director of the Center for International HigherEducation at Boston College. He currently coordinates the New Century Scholars program for the Fulbright Program.

Altbach’s many books include Comparative Higher Education and Student Politics in America. His edited vol-umes include International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia and American Higher Education in the 21stCentury. Altbach is also the former editor of the Review of Higher Education.

The Japan Council for the Promotion of Science and the German Academic Exchange Service are among the agenciesthat have awarded fellowships to Altbach.

Universities began as global institutions thatemployed Latin as a common language, enablingthem to serve an international clientele of students.Professors, too, came from afar, and the knowledgethey imparted reflected the entirety of scholarly learn-ing of that period in the Western world.

All contemporary universities, except for the Al-Azhar in Cairo, stem from the medieval Europeanuniversity—especially the faculty-dominatedUniversity of Paris. Colonial masters imposedEuropean university models on much of the non-Western world, and even non-colonized countries—such as Japan, Thailand, and Ethiopia—adopted theWestern academic model.3 Imposition and adoptionoccurred even where well-established indigenous aca-demic traditions already existed, as in China. Today,the basic institutional structure and orientation toteaching—both derived from the medieval Europeantradition—characterize universities internationally.

But the evolution continued; many countries cre-atively adapted foreign models to domestic realities.The American university amalgamates many interna-tional influences, including the original colonialmodel, imported from England and derived frommedieval practice, the 19th century German researchuniversity, and the homegrown concept of service tosociety. Japan adapted German academic models andAmerican ideas as it built its modern university sys-tem after 1868. Today, the European Union looks to“best practices” worldwide as it moves toward har-monizing national higher education systems in the“common European space.” Foreign influences—degree structures, and the course-credit system, forexample—already helped to produce the emergingacademic patterns.

Globalization, in short, does not lack precedents,at least for higher education. Universities have alwaysbalanced national realities and international trends.English now dominates as the language of researchand scholarship, just as German and Latin held swayin earlier eras. Students have always traveled abroad,and scholars have always worked outside their homecountries. Perhaps the main difference between nowand then: globalization in the 21st century is trulyworldwide in reach—few places can elude contempo-rary trends since modern technology enables rapiddispersion of innovations and practices.

The knowledge economy is central to 21st-centu-ry development. Higher education has assumedunprecedented importance as an educator of people

for the new economy and as a creator of new knowl-edge.4 The current debate over the GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services (GATS)—an effortby multinational corporations and some governmentagencies in rich countries to integrate higher educa-tion into the legal structures of the World TradeOrganization—indicates the importance of universi-ties to a knowledge economy.5

DEFINITIONS

Globalization means everything good to someobservers; for others, it symbolizes the negative sideof contemporary society. This essay examines theeffect of globalization on the international context ofhigher education—how universities deal with privati-zation, for example—not on issues of management.Let’s first define some terms.

Globalization includes the broad, largely inevitableeconomic, technological, political, cultural, and scien-tific trends that directly affect higher education.Academic systems and institutions may make differentaccommodations to these trends, but cannot ignorethem. Globalization, as it applies to higher education,involves information technology and the use of acommon language for scientific communication. Itaddresses mass demand for higher education (massifi-cation) and societal needs for highly educated person-nel. Some examples of how globalization affects acad-eme: changing patterns in the ownership of multina-tional publishing and Internet companies, the world-wide expenditure of research and development funds,and international patterns of cultural diffusion.

Internationalization includes policies and pro-grams adopted by governments, and by academicsystems and subdivisions to cope with or exploitglobalization. Internationalization permits significantautonomy, initiative, and creativity in dealing withthe new environment. Globalization cannot be heldcompletely at bay, but it will not necessarily over-whelm countries or institutions, nor must the termsof the encounter be dictated from afar.6

American colleges and universities can use thisautonomy to develop collaborative, mutually benefi-cial initiatives and policies, eschewing profit-makingventures that advance the hegemony of powerful aca-demic institutions and systems. Individual academicsmay work with colleagues in developing countries onprojects contributing to academic advancement over-seas and to international awareness and understand-ing at home.

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education64

Multinationalization means offering one country’sacademic programs in other countries. This practiceoften involves collaboration among institutions inmore than one country. Joint-degree offerings, oftencalled “twinning,” exemplify multinational academicenterprises. Institutions increasingly use the Internetto deliver these programs. Opening offshore institu-tions—a variant often established by franchising orby opening a branch institution—is sometimesreferred to as “McDonaldization.”7

Universities must confront the implications of glob-alization; they become moribund and irrelevant whenthey shut themselves off from economic and societaltrends. Some European universities, for example, lostrelevance when they ignored the Renaissance and theIndustrial Revolution. The French Revolution sweptaway other universities, while von Humboldt had toreinvent the German university model in 1809.8

Conversely, those arguing there is just one model forhigher education in the 21st century are wrong: insti-tutions and systems possess great latitude in dealingwith globalization.

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES IN ANUNEQUAL ENVIRONMENT

The unequal world of globalized higher educationadversely affects many developing countries andsmaller academic systems. Some observers see theInternet and other manifestations of globalization asbringing knowledge equality to the world, but theevidence is mixed. Globalization opens access andmakes it easier for students and scholars to study andwork anywhere, but it reinforces many existinginequalities and erects some new barriers. The debateover globalization in higher education mirrors gener-al analyses. Some economists see globalization asinevitable, but argue that it works against the inter-ests of developing countries by reinforcing interna-tional inequalities.9 Their critiques reveal importantproblems that dominant perspectives overlook.

Powerful universities always dominated the pro-duction and distribution of knowledge, includingresearch and teaching, knowledge dissemination, andorganizational patterns and directions. Weaker insti-tutions and systems with fewer resources and loweracademic standards tended to follow in their wake.Most academic centers benefit from a full array ofresources possessed by larger, wealthier countries.These resources include funding, infrastructures suchas libraries and laboratories for research, academic

staff with appropriate qualifications, traditions andlegislation that support academic freedom, and anorientation toward high achievement levels. Thesetop institutions use a major international languagefor teaching and research, and enjoy appropriate sup-port from the state for their work.

The world of centers and peripheries grows evermore complex.10 The leading research-oriented uni-versities in the North—most use a key world lan-guage (particularly English)—occupy the top tier ofmajor international academic centers. World-classuniversities exist elsewhere—for example, in Japanand several smaller European countries. Some univer-sities in China, Singapore, and South Korea areapproaching the status of world-class research institu-tions. Conversely, many peripheral institutions arefound in countries at the center of the world aca-demic system—the United States, Britain, Germany,France, and to some extent Australia and Canada.

Perhaps 100 of America’s 3,200 postsecondaryinstitutions are research universities. These institu-tions receive more than 80 percent of governmentresearch funds and dominate most aspects ofAmerican higher education. Other types of institu-tions, including comprehensive universities and com-munity colleges, play important social and academicroles. But they produce little research and are consid-ered less germane to the global system. Other coun-tries possess similarly stratified academic systems.Some universities act as regional centers, providing aconduit of knowledge and links to the top institu-tions. The major Egyptian universities, for example,provide academic leadership for the Arabic-speakingworld and channels to the major centers, but con-tribute relatively little research. China’s key universi-ties produce significant research for internal use, andserve as links to the wider academic world.

It is now more difficult to become a major playerin international higher education—to achieve “cen-ter” status—since the price of entry has risen.11

Top-tier research universities require vast resourcesbecause scientific research often involves a largeinvestment in laboratory facilities and equipment.Remaining fully networked for the Internet andinformation technology is also costly. So are libraryacquisitions—including access to relevant databases.Few universities in countries lacking deep financialresources can now become top academic institutions.New institutions, regardless of location, will faceeven stronger obstacles.

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World 65

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education66

Academic institutions at the periphery in largernations, and the academic systems of developing andsmall industrialized countries depend on the centersfor research, the communication of knowledge, andadvanced training. The major universities—especiallyin the United States and the United Kingdom—hostthe key international research journals and databasessince most academic publications are in English.Most universities focus on teaching—virtually allinstitutions in developing countries fit this category—and must look elsewhere to obtain new knowledgeand analysis. These universities lack the facilities forresearch, do not provide degrees beyond the bache-lor’s, and cannot afford current journals and databas-es. Structural dependency is endemic in many aca-demic institutions.

Discussions of globalization cannot avoid con-fronting the deep inequalities ingrained in highereducation. We now turn to specific aspects of thisreality.

A NEW NEOCOLONIALISM?

Efforts of the major powers to dominate the“hearts and minds” of the world’s peoples character-ized the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the UnitedStates spent lavishly on student exchanges, textbooksubsidies, book translations, and institution buildingto influence the world’s academic leaders, intellectu-als, and policymakers. Higher education was a keybattlefield for attaining political and economic goals.The rationale, though sometimes couched in the ide-ological jargon of the Cold War, was often obscuredby rhetoric about cooperation.

Many programs benefited the recipients—includ-ing scholarships to study abroad, high-quality text-books, and scientific equipment. Program participa-tion, though voluntary, was difficult to decline giventhe scarcity of assistance. But such acceptanceincreased ties and promoted long-term dependenceon the donor countries and institutions. Installinglaboratory equipment or computers, for example,meant continued reliance on the supplier for spareparts and training.

Today, politics and ideology are subordinate toprofits and market-driven policies. Multinational cor-porations, media conglomerates, and some leadinguniversities are today’s neo-colonists—seeking powerand influence for commercial gain. Governments,wishing to maintain influence, assist companies basedin their countries. Countries and universities are not

compelled to accept offers of aid or foster exchanges,but, as during the Cold War, the pressures favoringparticipation prevail. Involvement in science andscholarship and obtaining otherwise unavailable bene-fits are considerable inducements. The result stays thesame—the loss of intellectual and cultural autonomyby the less powerful.

THE ROLE OF ENGLISH

English is the Latin of the 21st century. English is used to communicate knowledge worldwide, toinstruct (even in countries where English is not thelanguage of higher education), and to implementcross-border degree programs. Higher educationworldwide must grapple with the consequences of thedominance of English as a factor in globalization.12

English, the world’s most widely studied foreignlanguage, is also the most widely used second lan-guage. Required in many countries, it is the ubiqui-tous second language of choice. English is the medi-um of most internationally circulated scientific jour-nals; it also dominates many other academic fields.Many universities stress the importance of publishingin internationally circulated scientific journals—meaning publishing in English. Scientific and schol-arly websites function predominantly in English; it isthe language of academic transactions on theInternet.

The largest numbers of international studentsattend universities in English-speaking countries—including the United States, the United Kingdom,Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Singapore,Ethiopia, and much of Anglophone Africa also useEnglish as the primary language of instruction.English often functions as a medium of instructionin India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Othercountries are offering more academic programs inEnglish—to attract international students unwillingto learn the local language and to improve theEnglish-language skills of domestic students and thusenable them to work in an international arena.English-medium universities exist in many coun-tries—from Azerbaijan and Bulgaria to Kyrgyzstanand Malaysia. Universities offer English-mediumdegree programs and courses at local universities inJapan, the Netherlands, Germany, and Mexico.Many European Union nations offer study inEnglish to attract students from elsewhere in the EU.English is a ubiquitous language in higher educationworldwide.

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World 67

What does this ubiquity mean for globalization?The role of English affects higher education policyand the work of individual students and scholars. Inmany ways, the place of English at the pinnacle ofscientific communication gives a significant advantageto the United States and the United Kingdom and tothe other wealthy English-speaking countries. As thecountry with the world’s largest academic system andas the most important user of English, the UnitedStates has a double advantage. For example, not sur-prisingly, many scientific journals are edited in theUnited States. This gives an advantage to Americanauthors—not only are they writing in their mothertongue but the peer review system is dominated bypeople accustomed to both the language and method-ology of U.S. scholars. Others must communicate ina foreign language and conform to unfamiliar aca-demic norms. As mentioned earlier, in many placesacademics are pressured to publish in internationallycirculated journals—the sense being that publicationin the “best” scientific journals is a necessary valida-tion of academic work. Increasingly, international andregional scientific meetings are exclusively in English,again placing a premium on fluency in the language.

Many English-language products dominate theinternational academic marketplace. Textbooks writ-ten from a U.S. or U.K. perspective are sold world-wide, influencing students and academics in manycountries and profiting publishers who communicatein English. English-language disciplinary databasesdominate the international market. These resourcesare priced to sell to American or European buyersand are thus extraordinarily expensive to users indeveloping or middle-income countries. English-lan-guage programs and testing materials find a readymarket in these countries, despite the costs.

Countries using “small languages” may be tempt-ed to change the medium of instruction at their uni-versities to English. In the Netherlands, where degreeprograms in English flourish, Dutch was retained asthe main language of instruction out of concern forits long-term survival. Singapore, a multi-lingualnation with Chinese as the mother tongue of themajority of the population, uses English as the solemedium of instruction. English—not the native lan-guage—is almost always the language of instructionfor collaborative degree programs in many nationsincluding Malaysia.

English has largely supplanted French, German, andSpanish as the international medium of scholarship,

though these languages are in no danger of disappear-ing in higher education. Users of English are orientedto the main English-speaking academic systems, there-by further increasing their influence. English willtherefore remain the predominant academic languagefor the foreseeable future.

THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE FORSTUDENTS AND SCHOLARS

More than 1.5 million students study abroad atany one time—the largest proportion of the world’sstudents since the medieval period. Some observersestimate that by 2020 perhaps eight million scholarswill travel abroad temporarily or migrate for academ-ic work. The global marketplace expands as academicsystems become similar, academic degrees becomemore widely accepted internationally, immigrationrules are tailored to people with high skill levels, anduniversities hire the best talent worldwide.

Academic talent largely flows from South toNorth—from the developing countries to the largemetropolitan academic systems. Perhaps 80 percentof the world’s international students move northfrom developing countries to pursue master’s, doctor-al, and professional degrees, and many students donot return. About 80 percent of students from Chinaand India—two of the largest countries that sendstudents to the United States—take jobs in the U.S.after obtaining their degrees. The collapse of theSoviet system produced an exodus of scientists fromRussia to Western Europe and North America. Incontrast, students from industrialized nations whostudy in a foreign country wish to broaden theirhorizons, learn a language, or gain knowledge theycould not acquire at home; few earn degrees.

Most international students pay for their owneducation. The estimated $13 billion coming to theU.S. economy each year is a significant revenuesource and an economic drain on the developingworld. The money spent abroad by students fromsome developing countries, by some estimates, isgreater than incoming foreign aid. Foreign studentsacquire training in their fields while absorbing thenorms and values of the international academic cul-ture. Students who do return home often desire totransform their universities in unrealistic, irrelevant,and unattainable ways.

Numerous visiting scholars from developing coun-tries accept temporary teaching or research positionsin the North. In 2002, US universities hosted more

than 82,000 visiting scholars; the worldwide estimateis 200,000.13 The predominant South-North flownotwithstanding, there is a significant movement ofacademics among the industrialized countries and tosome extent within other regions, such as LatinAmerica. Most visiting scholars return home, butsome use their assignments as springboards to perma-nent emigration.

Many more academics migrate—again, predomi-nantly from South to North—to take jobs in thecountries in which they have obtained their degrees.Other international students compete for positionsabroad from home. This migration substantiallyweakens the academic institutions in many develop-ing countries, especially in Africa. More Ethiopianholders of doctoral degrees work outside of Ethiopiathan at home, for example, and 30 percent of allhighly educated Ghanaians and Sierra Leoneans liveand work abroad.14 South Africa loses many of itsmost talented academics to the North, while itsimultaneously recruits from elsewhere in Africa.

Migration is not limited to developing countries.Academics will take jobs in countries with moreattractive opportunities, salaries, and working condi-tions. Migration levels are especially high in the sci-ences, engineering, information technology, andmanagement. Low salaries and deteriorating workingconditions in the U.K. produce an ongoing small butsignificant exodus to the U.S. and Canada. Inresponse, U.K. authorities offer financial enticementsto keep their best professors at home. The metropo-les sometimes lure scholars from small but well-endowed academic systems, such as Denmark orFinland, by the prospects of research centrality andof access to the latest scientific equipment. The highpercentage of professors in U.S. universities fromother countries working in engineering and comput-er science reflects the increase of foreign doctoralenrollments in these fields to almost half the total.Academic migration occurs at all levels of the aca-demic system. High salaries at top universities attractsome world-famous scholars, while far more modestsalaries lure foreigners to positions that are unappeal-ing to local applicants.

Academic migration follows complex routes. ManyEgyptian, Jordanian, and Palestinian academics workat Arabian Gulf universities. Southeast Asia and theGulf attract Indians and Pakistanis. Singapore andHong Kong recruit academics worldwide. Mexicoand Brazil employ scholars from elsewhere in Latin

America. South Africa, Namibia, and Botswanarecruit other Africans. Some of the best Russian andCentral European scholars and scientists have movedto Western Europe and North America. Trafficamong European Union member states will grow sig-nificantly as the EU harmonizes academic systems.

No one should underestimate the significance of“pull” factors—salaries, working conditions, and thelure of scientific and scholarly centrality.15 The dis-crepancies in salaries and conditions between Northand South mean that in most developing countriesacademics cannot aspire to live in a middle-classlifestyle or expect to have access to the necessarytools of research and scholarship—including the abil-ity to obtain the most current knowledge and to con-nect with the international community of scholars.“Push” factors add to the incentive to migrate: limit-ed academic freedom subjects scholars to restrictionsand even arrest. Favoritism and corruption in aca-demic appointments and promotions erode theattractiveness of some university posts. Some nationsoffer no job security or stability. The “pull” factors atthe centers cannot be altered much since conditionsat Third World universities stem from the scarcity ofresources and the pressure of increased student num-bers on overburdened academic institutions and sys-tems. Developing countries can moderate the “push”factors, though reforms will not end the migration ofacademic talent in a globalized environment.

The talent migration was once called a brain drainbecause departing scholars retained few, if any, aca-demic links with their home countries. This situationhas changed.16 Today, migrating academics retaincontact with their country of origin via the Internet,often returning home to lecture, consult, collaborateon research, or to accept visiting professorships.Countries with well-developed academic systems,such as China, India, and South Africa, accept theselinks as appropriate and useful. Some academics withcareers abroad—notably scholars from South Koreaand Taiwan—accept senior academic appointments intheir home countries as academic working conditions,salaries, and respect for academic freedom improve.

Industrialized countries benefit from the large poolof scientists and scholars from developing countrieswho bring their skills to the highest bidder. Thedeveloping world thereby helps the North maintainits overwhelming lead in science and scholarship.Immigration policies in some industrialized countriesencourage talented personnel to migrate and establish

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education68

residency. Many academic institutions make it easyfor foreigners to fit into the career structure; converse-ly, countries, such as Japan, suffer by restricting for-eign participation.

The United States—a traditional recipient of tal-ent from around the world—remains by far itslargest beneficiary. Academic salaries are relativelyhigh, and the immigration system permits foreignersto work in the U.S., though access to the countrybecame more difficult after September 11. The num-ber of visiting scholars declined in 2003 for the firsttime in many years.17 Renewed links between migrat-ing academics and their countries of origin mitigatesthis inequity, but developing countries and smaller,more peripheral nations worldwide remain at a dis-advantage in the global academic labor market.

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THECURRICULUM

The field of business and management studiesillustrates the global dominance of ideas from majorEnglish-speaking academic systems. Business admin-istration was established over the past several decadesin most countries to prepare professionals for workin multinational corporations or in firms engaged ininternational commerce. The dominant pattern ofprofessional studies is the American-style M.B.A.degree, which originally prepared Americans forwork in U.S. business. The case study, an Americaninnovation that facilitated instruction in Americanbusiness practices, is a key curricular component ofmany M.B.A. programs. Many local institutionsadopted the M.B.A. model; so did American aca-demic institutions working with local partners or set-ting up their own campuses overseas. Some M.B.A.programs are modified to accommodate the localcontext, but the basic curriculum and degree struc-ture remains American.

Some countries may soon include general educa-tion in the first-degree curriculum. Part of the U.S.undergraduate curriculum for centuries, general edu-cation provides a broad background in the disciplinesalong with skills in critical thinking. A recent influ-ential report, sponsored by the World Bank andUNESCO, recommends general education as analternative to existing largely specialized curricula.18

Increasing international use of common textbooks,course materials, and syllabi is stimulated by multina-tional publishers, the Internet and databases, and bythe growing cadre of professors who return home

with ideas for producing curricular and instructionalmaterials. Most instructional materials originate inthe United States, the United Kingdom, and France.Examining the databases used and the patterns of lan-guage translations reveals a similar pattern.

Disciplines and fields vary in their global homo-geneity. The major academic centers dominate busi-ness studies, information technology, and biotechnol-ogy. Other fields—such as history, language studies,and the humanities—are largely nationally based,though foreign influences affect methodology andapproaches to research and interpretation. The inter-nationalization of the curriculum, like other aspects ofglobalization, proceeds largely from North to South.

THE MULTINATIONALIZATION OF HIGHEREDUCATION

The existence of a global higher education mar-ketplace is manifested in many multinational initia-tives—ranging from “twinning” programs linkingacademic institutions or programs in two countriesto opening branch campuses in other countries.Many cross-border higher education ventures delivertheir programs via the Internet. Both for-profit com-panies and traditional institutions have invested inthese multinational educational initiatives.

The multinationalization of higher education hashistorical roots. Universities in the metropole fre-quently set up branch institutions or sponsored newschools in their colonies. Some examples: the Britishin Africa and Asia, Dutch institutions in what is nowIndonesia, and French initiatives in Africa and Asia.Roman Catholic universities set up new institutionsin Latin America and the Philippines; the Jesuitswere especially active. In the 19th century, AmericanProtestant missionaries set up universities based onthe U.S. model in Lebanon (the American Universityof Beirut), Egypt, and Turkey. Some indigenousgroups opened institutions based on foreign models,often directly linked to universities in themetropole.19

The export of academic institutions is a growing,but not a new phenomenon. Both traditional colo-nialism and the government-sponsored foreign assis-tance programs of the Cold War era exported institu-tional models, practices, and curriculum from themetropole to developing countries. Relationsbetween educational institutions traditionally repre-sented a union of unequals. The academic models,curricula, and programs from the more powerful

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World 69

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education70

academic outside institution almost always dominat-ed the local partner. Alternatively, the new institutionwas based on foreign ideas and non-indigenous val-ues. These disparities persist; rarely, if ever, do aca-demic innovations emanate from the periphery tothe center. Thus, Australian institutions designednew academic institutions in Malaysia and dictatedthe terms of subsequent linkages.

The past decade has witnessed increased institu-tional exports by non-governmental entities in theexporting country. American colleges and universitiessaw a market in Japan in the 1980s, for example—anunusual dyad since both countries were industrial-ized. Several hundred U.S. institutions explored theJapanese “market,” and over a dozen established cam-puses, usually in cooperation with a Japanese institu-tion or company.20 A few Japanese institutionsexplored the feasibility of a U.S. connection; someset up branch campuses. But most of these programsbrought Japanese students to the United States forstudy, while U.S. programs in Japan targetedJapanese students. The exporting institutions werenot the most prestigious schools on either side. By2000, few branches still operated. Colleges facedoverwhelming difficulty in obtaining certification forU.S. programs from the Japanese Ministry ofEducation, while the protracted Japanese economicslowdown affected initiatives on both sides.

A few prestigious American universities have estab-lished campuses abroad, usually in popular professionalfields such as business administration. The Spanishcampus of the University of Chicago business school,for example, offers Chicago degrees to European stu-dents. The school uses the standard Chicago curricu-lum—taught mostly by Chicago faculty members—with an international focus and includes a period ofstudy at the home campus. The Singapore governmentprovides incentives for prestigious, carefully selectedforeign universities—such as the University ofPennsylvania’s Wharton School and the Paris-basedINSEAD management school—to open new pro-grams. U.S.-sponsored universities have been estab-lished in Kyrgyzstan, Sharjah, Armenia, and Bulgaria.These schools typically originate through local initia-tive, but are generally supervised by the U.S. partnersand accredited in the United States. The language ofinstruction is English and the curriculum is U.S. based.

Conforming to the standard export model, a uni-versity in an industrialized country will set up a pro-gram abroad at the invitation of a host—a corporation,

an educational institution, or a combination of thetwo. Malaysia features many arrangements set up tosatisfy unmet local demand; Australian and U.K. uni-versities are most active in that country. The new pro-grams generated many complaints of low quality, poorsupervision, or inadequate communication betweenthe providers and the hosts. Some small American col-leges and universities—some of lesser quality—offereddegree programs when the Israeli government openedup the market. Vocal criticisms forced restrictions onthe programs; many have closed.

Foreign academic degree programs are sometimes“franchised.” The foreign university lends its nameand curriculum to a local academic institution orbusiness firm, but provides limited supervision andquality control. The new institution may grant adegree of the foreign institution to local students.These franchising arrangements have led to manyabuses. The British press frequently charges thatU.K. institutions, mostly the less prestigious ones,involved in overseas programs are damaging the“good name” of British higher education.Meanwhile, fee-paying overseas students think thatthey’ve received a standard British education, whenin reality these “buyers” do not receive the same levelof education provided in the United Kingdom.

The many “twinning” programs worldwide linkan academic institution in one country with a part-ner school in another country. The links are typicallybetween North and South; the university in theNorth provides the basic curriculum and orientation.Academic degrees are often jointly awarded.Obtaining the stamp of approval of a foreign univer-sity helps “twinned” institutions in the South devel-op new curricular offerings.

The multinationalization of higher education fea-tures some common perspectives and motivations.Most stakeholders, especially in the North, aim toearn a profit. Participating institutions in the Southalso wish to meet the growing demand for access tohigher education and to provide otherwise unavail-able degree programs. Most multinational arrange-ments are marked by the same inequality that charac-terizes other aspects of globalization.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ANDGLOBALIZATION

The information age will significantly changehigher education. No, information technology willalter not the basic functions of traditional academic

institutions, but IT, especially the Internet, affectsthe way scholars communicate, store, and retrieveknowledge.21 IT is the ultimate form of globaliza-tion—it makes knowledge instantaneously availableworldwide. Libraries, once the repositories of booksand journals, now provide access to a range of IT-based products, including databases and websites.22

Scholars depend on the Internet to conduct and dis-seminate research and analysis. Academic institutionsuse IT to deliver curricula to students within theircountries and internationally. IT now shapes teach-ing, learning, and even the management of academicinstitutions.

As with the other aspects of globalization, signifi-cant inequalities exist in access and use of IT. Theinformation and knowledge base available throughthe Internet inevitably reflects the realities of theknowledge system worldwide. The Internet does sim-plify information retrieval for scholars at universitieslacking good libraries—a change that helps democra-tize scientific communication and access to informa-tion. But electronically sophisticated scientific sys-tems provide advanced industrialized countries betteraccess to the Internet’s databases and retrieval mecha-nisms than the less networked academic communi-ties of the developing countries.23 Africa, for exam-ple, has only recently achieved full connectivity tothe Internet.

Disparities affecting access and use of informationalso arise from the extensive use of English on theInternet, its dominance by major universities in theNorth, and the acquisition of many databases andjournals by multinational knowledge corporations.Academic institutions and countries unable to payfor access to these information sources cannot partic-ipate fully in the networking. Tightened copyrightand other ownership restrictions through interna-tional treaties and regulations further consolidateownership and limit access.24

IT has also greatly expanded the reach andmethodological sophistication of distance education.Distance education is not a new phenomenon—theUniversity of South Africa, for example, has offeredacademic degrees through correspondence for manydecades, while the Open University in the UnitedKingdom combines distance methods to deliver itshighly regarded programs. But universities and otherproviders in the industrialized nations now employIT to offer degree and certificate programs in fieldssuch as business administration worldwide, especially

to developing countries. Many providers of distanceeducation—including for-profit corporations such asSylvan Learning Systems, and major multinationalpublishers—see the international market as criticalfor the success of their programs. Microsoft andMotorola are two other large corporations that offercompetency certificates in their fields of expertise.

Some indicators of the worldwide effect of IT:developing countries house seven of the world’s tenlargest distance education institutions (all ten use ITfor at least part of their programs). Several Africannations created the innovative African VirtualUniversity to harness the Internet to their needs.Scientists and scholars in the developing world wide-ly use e-mail to improve communication and createnetworks. The information revolution, while not apanacea, plays a salutary role in developing countries.

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ANDFRAMEWORKS

Globalization requires international agreementsand arrangements that manage interactions betweenparticipants. These arrangements range from bilateralagreements relating to student and facultyexchanges—the many bi-national commissions gov-erning the American Fulbright programs, for exam-ple—to the mutual recognition of degrees. TheBologna framework is the most comprehensive set ofinternational academic agreements; these agreementsharmonize all European Union higher education sys-tems while fostering specific exchange and scholarshipprograms such as ERASMUS and SOCRATES.NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement,in contrast, has few implications for higher education.

Should the GATS proposal include higher educa-tion in particular and the knowledge industries ingeneral within the framework of the World TradeOrganization? GATS seeks to establish “open mar-kets” for knowledge products of all kinds—includinghigher education. GATS, though not yet fully for-mulated and not currently part of the WTO frame-work, presumes that knowledge is a commodity likeany other and should be freely traded around theworld. Free trade, argue proponents, benefits every-one by permitting competition in the marketplace ofideas and knowledge products.

GATS proponents also seek to provide a legallybinding framework for circulating educational servic-es and for protecting intellectual property. Thus,GATS and the WTO are related to TRIPS (Trade

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World 71

Related Intellectual Property) arrangements andcopyright regulations. These regulatory frameworksaim to rationalize the global trade in knowledge andto ensure open markets and protections for the own-ers of knowledge products. The WTO agreementsand international copyright are international treaties,having the force of law, that protect the sellers andthe providers, not the buyers and users. As a resultthe agreements have negative implications for devel-oping countries.25 Strengthened copyright laws, forexample, protect the owners of knowledge, but lackboth “fair use” provisions that open access to infor-mation and meaningful special arrangements fordeveloping countries.

GATS proponents include multinational knowl-edge companies, and governments focusing onexports.26 Testing companies such as the U.S.-basedEducational Testing Service, publishers, IT and com-puter firms, and for-profit educational providers, alsosee GATS as beneficial. Government departmentsconcerned with trade and export promotion, not theministries of education, are often most focused onGATS. The Department of Commerce, not theDepartment of Education, took the lead in the U.S.The Department of Trade and Industry has been inthe forefront in the U.K. Education groups in theUnited States and Canada have questioned oropposed the GATS proposal. The American Councilon Education, which represents most university pres-idents in the United States, opposes GATS. Mostdeveloping countries have not taken a position onfree trade in education and knowledge products.

Is education a tradable commodity, to be regulat-ed like automobiles or bananas? “I’m skeptical as towhether bringing educational issues under the aus-pices of trade negotiations would be helpful,” notesLawrence Summers, the former U.S. treasury secre-tary and current president of Harvard University. “Tostart with, many educational institutions are non-profit, their motivations are different from the moti-vations of commercial firms that we think of in atrade context.” He adds: “There may be some egre-gious practices that should be addressed, but I wouldbe skeptical about treating education in a way thathad any parallels with financial services, with insur-ance, or with foreign investments.”27

GATS would bring developing countries into aglobal framework of commerce and exchange inhigher education at the cost of reduced autonomy in

educational decision-making. Extending the princi-ple of free trade to education would allow universi-ties, testing companies, and providers of distanceeducation from the industrialized world to count, inprinciple, on having access to desirable markets insignatory developing countries. Regulating or con-trolling these entities is difficult if not impossible.GATS would not help developing countries promoteexports of educational products or institutions; thesecountries are importers, not exporters. Instead, devel-oping countries would be at the mercy of the multi-national providers.

Current arrangements provide that all countriesretain authority over educational imports andexports, subject to some regulatory arrangement suchas international copyright, and patent treaties. Butthese arrangements already permit much internation-al higher education exchange. Additional regulationsare not needed. Many entities are already pursuingcross-border educational transactions. The rule fordeveloping countries is already caveat emptor.

CONCLUSION

Globalization in higher education and science isinevitable. Academe has always been international inscope, but modern technology, the Internet, theincreasing ease of communication, and the flow ofstudents and highly educated personnel across bor-ders accelerate the process. No academic system canexist by itself in the world of the 21st century.

The challenge is to recognize the complexities andnuances of the modern context and then seek to cre-ate a global academic environment that recognizesthe need to ensure that academic relationships are asequal as possible. Recognizing that inequalities con-tinue to characterize higher education is a first step.The second step is to create a world that amelioratesthese inequalities. These tasks, given the marketiza-tion and massification of higher education, are noteasy. But globalization must not turn into the neo-colonialism of the 21st century.

Academic globalization poses special challenges forAmericans. The size, wealth, power, and researchproductivity of the U.S. higher education system cre-ates the possibility of hegemony over knowledge andcommunication. Americans must shun this prospectin favor of maintaining a sense of the internationalpublic good, and helping to develop a strong world-wide academic culture.

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education72

NOTES1 Task Force on Higher Education, 2000.2 Kerr, 2001, 115.3 Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989.4 Altbach, 1998a.5 Larsen, Martin & Morris, 2002; Knight, 2002; Altbach,2002.6 Knight, 1997; Scott, 1998; De Wit, 2002.7 Hayes and Wynyard, 2002.8 Ben-David and Zloczower, 1962.9 Stiglitz, 2002; Rodrik, 1997; Rodrik, 1999.10 Altbach, 1998c.11 Altbach, 1998b.12 Crystal, 1997.13 Koh Chin, 2003.14 Outward Bound, 2002, 24.15 Altbach, 2003.16 Choi, 1995.17 Altbach 2004.18 Task Force on Higher Education, 2000.19 Ashby, 1964.20 Chambers and Cummings, 1990.21 Castells, 2000.22 Hawkins & Battin, 1998.23 Teferra, 2003.24 Correa, 2000.25 Raikhy, 2002.26 OECD, 2002.27 “The World According to Larry,” 2002, 38.

REFERENCES

Altbach, P.G. “Higher Education Crosses Borders,”Change 36 (March/April, 2004), 18-25.

_____. “Centers and Peripheries in the Academic Profession:The Special Challenges of Developing Countries.” InP.G. Altbach, (ed.), The Decline of the Guru: TheAcademic Profession in Developing and Middle-IncomeCountries. New York: Palgrave.2003, 1-22.

_____. “Knowledge and Education as InternationalCommodities: The Collapse of the Common Good,”International Higher Education 28 (Summer, 2002),2–5.

_____. Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, theUniversity, and Development. Greenwich, CT: Ablex,1998a.

_____. “Gigantic Peripheries: India and China in theWorld Knowledge System.” In P.G. Altbach (ed.),Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the

University, and Development. Greenwich, Conn.:Ablex, 1998b, 133-146.

_____. “The University as Center and Periphery.” In P.G.Altbach (ed.), Comparative Higher Education:Knowledge, the University, and Development.Greenwich, Conn.: Ablex, 1998c, 19-36.

Altbach, P.G., and Selvaratnam, V. (eds.). FromDependence to Autonomy: The Development of AsianUniversities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1989.

Ashby, E. Universities: British, Indian, African. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964.

Ben-David, J., and Zloczower, A. “Universities andAcademic Systems in Modern Societies,” EuropeanJournal of Sociology 3(1), 1962. 45–84.

Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford:Blackwell, 2000.

Chambers, G.S., and Cummings, W.K. Profiting fromEducation: Japan-United States International Venturesin the 1980s. New York: Institute of InternationalEducation, 1990.

Choi, H. An International Scientific Community: AsianScholars in the United States. Westport, Conn.:Praeger, 1995.

Correa, C.M. Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO andDeveloping Countries. London: Zed Books, 2000.

Crystal, D. English as a Global Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997.

De Wit, H. Internationalization of Higher Education in theUnited States and Europe. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood, 2002.

Hawkins, B.L., and Battin, P. (eds.). The Mirage ofContinuity: Reconfiguring Academic InformationResources for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.:Council on Information and Library Resources,1998.

Hayes, D., and Wynyard, R. (eds.). The McDonaldizationof Higher Education. New York: Praeger, 2002.

Kerr, C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 2001.

Knight, J. “Internationalization of Higher Education: AConceptual Framework. In Knight, J. and deWit, H.(eds.), Internationalization of Higher Education inAsia Pacific Countries. Amsterdam: EuropeanAssociation for International Education, 1997.

_____. Trade in Higher Education Services: TheImplications of GATS. London: Observatory onBorderless Higher Education, 2002(www.obhe.ac.uk).

Koh Chin, H. Open Doors: Report on InternationalEducational Exchange New York: Institute ofInternational Education, 2003.

Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an Unequal World 73

Larsen, K., Martin, J.P., and Morris, R. Trade inEducational Services: Trends and Emerging Issues. Paris:Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 2002.

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. GATS: The Case for Open ServicesMarkets. Paris: OECD, 2002.

“Outward Bound,” The Economist, 2002, September 28,24–26.

Raikhy, P.S. (2002). “Trade in Education Under the WTOPolicy Regime: Implications for India.” In K.B.Powar (ed.), Internationalization of Higher Education.New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2002,127-133.

Rodrik, D. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington,D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1997.

_____. The New Global Economy and the DevelopingCountries: Making Openness Work. Washington, D.C.:Overseas Development Council, 1999.

Scott, P. (ed.). The Globalization of Higher Education.Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press, 1998.

Stiglitz, J. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York:Norton, 2000.

Task Force on Higher Education and Society. HigherEducation in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise.Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000.

Teferra, D. Scientific Communication in AfricanUniversities: External Agencies and National Needs.New York: Routledge-Falmer, 2003.

“The World According to Larry,” Foreign Policy (July-August, 2002), 30–39.

The NEA 2005 Almanac of Higher Education74