Internationalisation and globalisation of higher education: Implications for BRICS, particularly for China and India?

Seminar by Dr. Solomon Arulraj DAVID

Faculty of Education and Post Graduate Centre

22 May 2013, 15:30-17:00

Conference Room C, 2nd Floor, Madibeng Building

Auckland Park, Kingsway Campus, University of Johannesburg

Introduction / Background

This study is based on a conference paper ‘Dealing with cross-border higher education: Comparing the Chinese and Indian ways’ presented at XXII CESE conference, Granada, Spain. It was published by Tertium Comparationis, Waxman, Germany. This presentation will focus on essential theories on internationalisation and globalisation of higher education, brief contextual analysis on BRICS, a case study on China and India and some reflection and discussion on BRICS. Internationalisation and globalisation are inevitable developments, having both opportunities and challenges (Giddons, 1990), can’t be stopped but made benefiting all (stiglitz, 2007). Higher education is an important area for international policy of most nations. Important pressures for modern universities is to internationalize their curriculum and be attractive for foreign students (Wende, 2006). Universities need to adapt to global trends to be competitive and relevant, which involves reconsidering their structural and resource commitments to various knowledge areas (Gumport, 2000). The trillion dollar global higher education market is keen on BRICS (40%) particularly China and India, that have 30% world’s population.

Internationalisation vs Globalisation The terms "globalisation" and "internationalisation" are often used interchangeably. According to G. Rocher, internationalisation refers to different exchanges as economics, politics, cultural, between nations.

The term ‘globalisation’ describes the dramatic changes the world is undergoing, as new technology and modern economics have led to increasingly interconnected economies. Internationalization process in which economic activities are extended across national boundaries and a globalization process in which economic activity is also functionally integrated (Wendy M J). Internationalisation is the first process of globalisation. Globalisation is a driving factor to increase / expand the internationalisation process. Internationalisation in Education is a global trend, it seeks to share best practice internationally across the spectrum of education (Mai Trong Nhuan), while globalisation of education address changing global trends in education induced by globalisation process (Simon Marginson).

Relationship between globalization and education

If knowledge is fundamental to globalization, globalization should also have a profound impact on the transmission of knowledge (Carnoy 1999).

Knowledge and information are increasingly becoming the main resources for the modern economy (a result of globalization) that the recent economic development more and more relies on knowledge as compared to other resources such as material and capital (Schugurensky, 2007).

Education across the world is governed by similar pressures, patterns and organization… globalisation plays critical role in reshaping modern education (Torres, 2007).

Globalisation and internationalisation have been phenomenon in transforming modern education and are major factors for the new system of education, knowledge generation and transmission.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of the WTO that entered into force in January 1995. GATT 1947 – 1994. The GATS agreement covers four modes of supply for the delivery of services in cross-border trade:

GATS (Gods) must be crazy

Criteria Supplier Presence

Mode 1: Cross-border supply Service delivered within the territory of the Member, from the territory of another Member

Service supplier not present within the territory of the member

Mode 2: Consumption abroad

Service delivered outside the territory of the Member, in the territory of another Member, to a service consumer of the Member

Mode 3: Commercial presence

Service delivered within the territory of the Member, through the commercial presence of the supplier Service supplier present within the

territory of the Member

Mode 4: Presence of a natural person

Service delivered within the territory of the Member, with supplier present as a natural person

Cross Border Higher Education (CBHEd)

CBHEd includes HEd that takes place in situations where the teacher, student, programme, institution/provider or course materials cross national jurisdictional borders. CBHEd may include HEd by public/private and not-for-profit/for-profit providers. It encompasses a wide range of modalities, in a continuum from face-to-face (taking various forms such as students traveling abroad and campuses abroad) to distance learning (using technologies like e-learning) (OECD/ UNESCO, 2005). The opportunities are increased supply of higher education, greater access for students, support for the knowledge economy, development of joint degrees, fusion or hybridisation of cultures, growing comparability of qualifications, increasing role for the market-based approach, economic benefits for education providers, and diversification and generation of new academic environments (OECD/ UNESCO, 2005). The challenges are concern about quality of provision, inequality of access leading to a two-tier system, the growing problem of physical and virtual brain drain on the developed country-developing country axis but also on other routes, homogenisation of culture, weakening role of the state in establishing national policy objectives, growth in market-oriented programmes such as business and information technology, and decline in some liberal arts and pure science disciplines (OECD/ UNESCO, 2005).

OECD/UNESCO’s guidelines on quality provision in CBHE The Guidelines (OECD, UNESCO, 2005) aim to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education. • Students/learners’ protection from the risks of misinformation, low-quality provision

and qualification of limited validity. • Qualification should be readable and transparent in order to increase their

international validity and portability. Reliable and user-friendly information sources should facilitate this.

• Recognition procedures should be transparent, coherent, fair and reliable and impose as little burden as possible to mobile professionals.

• National quality assurance and accreditation agencies need to intensify their international cooperation in order to increase mutual understanding.

Role of Guest and Host Nations:

• Licensing and regulation procedures for foreign providers.

• Quality assurance and accreditation for imported and exported education services.

• Funding protocols including operating grants, loans, subsidies and scholarships.

• Qualification recognition and credit transfer systems (Knight, 2002)

Implications of Globalisation for Higher Education Restructuring

Supranational, National,

Sub-national levels

Integration of

world economy

(Free flow of

people, goods,

capital, ideas)

Neo-liberalism:

Rule of law,

freedom of

market, private

property, less

state regulation

Trade

agreements at

global,

regional, bi-

national levels

Withdrawal of

the state, and its

minimal

interventions

over market

Public Policy

Human resource

development in

view of new

global, national

and market

demands

Cut-down

public fund,

Privatisation,

market

activities

Globalisation Ideological

Package

Global

Development

Higher Education

Restructuring

David SA & Wildemeersch D

Implications of Internationalisation of Higher Education

• Mobility of students is directed from south to north, while mobility of programme is directed from north to south (Yang, 2002).

• Anglophone countries are successful in IHEd., given English as a global language., many others began to offer English taught courses (Varghese, 2005).

• USA is a top destination for IHEd., given some slowdown after 9/11 visa restrictions. Attracting best talents through study route and absorbing them benefit economy (30-40% IITians got settled in USA).

• IHEd., help create access, scholarships help meritorious students, offshore campus offer cheap foreign degrees (Daniel, 2006).

• There is a growing global perspectives in curriculum. Business, ICT, Bio-tech are globally homogeneous, while humanities are national based, although foreign influence is present in methodologies (Altbach, 2003).

• IHEd., Bologna process (EU), helps degree comparison, yet homogenized.

• UK fees: one year masters at IOE – UK – 7000, EU – 9000, Int – 13000

• Presence of foreign universities, threat to local universities (Malaysian case)

Brief History of BRICS

Jim O’ Neill first uses BRIC in Goldman Sachs’ report 2001, saying that these four countries will become major

economies by 2030. BRICS became colorful with the rainbow nation joining 2011. Will BRICS change the course of history is a ? IBSA South South Cooperation –

India, Brazil and South Africa

Brazil Russia India China South Africa

Population (2011-2012)

193,946,886 5th

143,347,100 9th

1,210,193,422 2nd

1,354,040,000 1st

52,981,991 24th

GDP (2012) Million US$

2,395,968 7th

2,021,960 8th

1,824.832 10th

8,227,037 2nd

384,315 29th

Per Capita Income (2012)

$12,000 103rd

$17,700 71st

$3,900 164th

$9,100 120th

$11,300 107th

Growth Rate (2012)

1.3% 3.4% 6.5% 7.8% 2.6%

Human Dev., Index (2012)

.730 (high)

.788 (high)

.554 (medium)

699 (medium)

.629 (medium)

BRICS Economic / Development Analysis

Russia is in G8, others are in G20. BRICS has 40% world’s population (3 Billion). BRICS Development Bank (2013). Is South Africa the odd BRIC out? BRICS keen

in resource of Africa? BRICS economic or political grouping?

Brazil Russia India China South Africa

Population (2011-2012)

193,946,886 5th

143,347,100 9th

1,210,193,422 2nd

1,354,040,000 1st

52,981,991 24th

Literacy Rate 2012

88.6% 99.6% 83.0% 92.2% 86.4%

Universities 2012

2052 PRI 390 PUB

474 PRI 662 PUB

53 PRI 443 PUB

369 PRI 710 PUB

115 PRI 23 PUB

HEd Access 6929324 25%

2011

9330115 54%

2009

20740740 12%

2010

31308378 22%

2011

892936 20%

2010

Enrollment in Private HEd

60% 20% 60% 25% 10%

Higher Education in BRICS

USA – 2541 Private, 1768 Public Universities,

29951 colleges (130 deemed universities) in India,

BRICS gifted with young population (China is an exception)

Source UIS (2012) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total

Brazil 0.8% USA – 8708 FRA – 3540 POR – 2801 GER – 2251 27148

Russia 1.4% GER – 10342 USA – 4784 UKR – 3931 FRA –3822 49585

India 5.6% USA – 103968 UK – 38205 AUS – 20429 NZ - 6650 200627

China 15.8% USA – 126498 AUS – 87588 JAP – 86553 UK – 55496 562889

South Africa 0.2% USA – 1641 UK – 1543 AUS – 839 CUB – 377 6166

Where do students go?

Source UIS (2012) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total

Brazil ANG – 1631 CAPE – 892 POR -830 ARG – 759 8718

Russia KAZ – 24772 BEL – 20063 UKR – 12793 UZB – 9918 107781

India IRAN – 1258 NEP – 1252 UAE – 1110 KEN – 508 8197

China No data available 290000

South Africa ZIM – 14359 NAM – 7264 BOT – 4849 LES – 4004 43255

Where students come from?

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT MOBILITY IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA South Africa emerging as a regional hub for study and research

5% sub-Saharan uni students go abroad

Students from SADC region is most mobile

6% SADC HEd students enrolled

abroad, world average 2%

2/3 of SA foreign students come from

SADC

UIS (2012)

The Dragon

and

the Elephant

China: Feudalism – Colonialism (Part of China) – Communism – Neo liberalism. India: Feudalism – Colonialism (Entire India) – Socialism – Neo liberalism.

• China and India are creating a new world order – David Smith. • No conference, high level meeting in USA, Europe end without talking about

China and India. Rise of Asia. 19th – Europe, 20th – USA, 21st – Asia. • One in six is a Chinese and one in six is an Indian. Why are we so much? • India and China reshape global industrial geography. China and India are

becoming factories of the world (dirty jobs to China, stressful jobs to India). • Economic reform in China starts 1980s (from rigid communism to liberal

capitalism), while in India 1990s (from half baked socialism to half baked liberalism). 2020 world economic power houses.

• Indian position - Follow China, when China crash or out of fuel, lead the race. Chinese position – make hay while the sun shines.

• China – infrastructure, land reform, home industry, human capital. India – democracy, young population, English, manpower quality. • China spent its reserve to build infrastructure and builds factories with foreign

loan, while much of Indian foreign loans are spent on infrastructure.

Thomas Friedman on China and India

If India and China were both highways, the Chinese highway would be a six-lane, perfectly paved road, but with a huge speed bump off in the distance labeled "Political reform: how in the world do we get from Communism to a more open society?" [...] India, by contrast, is like a highway full of potholes, with no sidewalks and half the streetlamps broken. But off in the distance, the road seems to smooth out, and if it does, this country will be a dynamo.

When I was growing up, my parents told me, 'Finish your dinner. People in China and India are starving.' I tell my daughters, 'Finish your homework. People in India and China are starving for your jobs’.

Internationalisation of Higher Education in China and India

• China committed for all educational sector but India committed only for HE

at 2005 GATS round. China has 1st, USA 2nd, India 3rd big HEd system. • China has built over 100 high quality HEd institutions (17 among top 400)

where as India lacks that (except IIT’s) (only 2 among top 400) – India, a world class country, with out a world class university (Altbach). SA – 3.

• China holds more patterns, publications, research outputs compared to India. Brain drain – India, Brain gain – China. Diaspora give back to India.

• Unlike India, China is active in both ways of International students traffic. • China is in a better position than India in both infrastructure and access to

HEd, while India tries expanding access through distance, non-formal. • China leads in HEd public spending than India, while India could attract

domestic private investment in HEd. Unlike China, India is still very diversified and is reluctant to create too much uniformity in education.

• Foreign university bill in India is still pending, while China has hosted many foreign universities to set up their campuses.

• China is first choice in Asia for students from USA. China recognizes that huge sum of its money expatriated when Chinese students study abroad.

• Chinese students bullied as spies in Europe / USA.

Regulatory Frameworks India

• The law concern to CBHE is not clear yet, given some guidelines

• 1956 UGC Act permits CBHE, 1999 and 2005 AICTE formulated guidelines for foreign partners and published the list of approved foreign institutions.

• In 2005, CNR Committee was setup to advise the state on CBHE but foreign university bill is still pending.

• India wanted to withdraw the commitment on HE from GATS offer in view of education as public common good, but continued.

Regulatory Frameworks China

Foreign institutions must partner with Chinese institutions. Partnerships must not seek profit as their objective. No less than half the members of the governing body of the institution must be Chinese citizens and the post of president or the equivalent must be a Chinese citizen residing in China. The basic language of instruction should be Chinese; and Tuition fees may not be raised without approval. (Chinese legislation was too strong and WTO expected China to revise this legislation).

Conclusion

• IHEd has resulted in research cooperation, capacity development and knowledge transfer; however adverse developments, such as, the commodification of knowledge and the brain drain can not be ignored.

• China has radically opened its doors in a very well-regulated manner, but India has carefully opened its doors but in a not very well-regulated manner.

• With GATS, the member country is free to choose what to commit and if a country commits and it is the duty of the country to provide proper legislation to regulate.

• Countries that are in knowledge advancement make advantages of CBHE, thus a global negotiation must be triggered to provide space for all to benefit from internationalisation.

• China and India have to be very careful about CBHE, especially they must learn from Malaysia.

• “All the elements in our own culture have to be strengthened, not to resist the Western culture, but truly to accept and assimilate it, and use it for our food and not as our burden” (Tagore).

Discussion Points

• Internationalisation for cooperation or corporatisation?

• Internationalisation for knowledge independence, dependence, inter-dependence?

• Are we trading away our rights to education?

• Should we resist? Allow? Regulate?

• How about fair trade in knowledge services?

• How to manage concerns such as quality assurance with regards to CBHE?

• How do we provide space for all to benefit from internationalisation?

• knowledge was kept private in Asia, while Europe got advanced as knowledge was

made public, but now knowledge is economised, given some open-sources.

• Whose perspectives are global perspectives, particularly in HEd curriculum?

• Would dialogue help us to be knowledge interdependent for mutual benefit?

• Any other?

Thank You