Copyright CSEND 2003 Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Humanities and Social Sciences Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences Berne, 29 th

Copyright CSEND 2003

Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Humanities and Social SciencesSwiss Academy of Humanities and Social SciencesBerne, 29th April, 2004

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and Higher Education

Dr. Raymond Saner CSEND, www.csend.org

© CSEND, 2003

Objectives of presentation:

1. GATS/ES: what it is and what it is not2. How GATS/ES is being negotiated3. Solutions for GATS/ES within/without GATS context4. Threats & Opportunities for Swiss

higher education

© CSEND, 2003

CSEND/Saner

CSEND/NGRDO, founded 1993, Geneva5 staff (Research & Development)Lecturer, WWZ-Uni Basle, since 1988Member Peer Review I & II: HES/CHSwiss member WG4: ISO 10015 TrainingMember Swiss delegation: OECD Fora on GATS/ES 2002, 2003Publications on GATS/ES, WTO, PRSP, QAMember of SNV since 1994

© CSEND, 2003

GATS & Globalisation(Source: W. Goode, 1998)

Globalisation: growing tertiary sector (services) of world economy: Example: Australia

A) 80% of total jobsB) 75% of GDPC) 13% Exports of ES of total Trade

in ServicesD) ES Exporters are mostly public

universities!

© CSEND, 2003

GATS/ES: Historical Perspective

1. 1947: GATT 18 members

2. 1966: Swiss membership

3. 1986-1994 UR4. 1995: WTO (110

membersa) GATT

(goods)b)

GATS(services)c) TRIPS (Ips)

5. GATS (12 sectors and 160 subsectors6. GATS/ES

a) 5 subsectorsb) 30 Bio US$

7. 2001- ? Doha Round (148 members)

© CSEND, 2003

GATS: purpose and objectives

(GATS) is a multilaterally agreed framework agreement for the trade in services which applies to all 148 WTO Members.

Three main objectives: 1. To progressively liberalise trade in services through successive

rounds of negotiations which should aim at promoting the interests of all members of the WTO and achieving an overall balance of rights and obligations.

2. To encourage economic growth and development thought liberalisation of trade in services, as the GATT does through the liberalisation of trade in goods;

3. to increase the participations of developing countries in world trade in services and expand their services exports by developing their export capacity and securing export opportunities in sectors of export interest to them.

© CSEND, 2003

WTO/GATS Rules

Most Favoured Nation Clause (MFN)No discrimination (Market Access/National Treatment)Binding commitmentsTransparency (Notifications)

© CSEND, 2003

Typology of Existing Barriers to Trade in ES (identified by USA, New Zealand, Australia and Japan)

M1 Prohibition for foreign providers

No possibility for foreign supplier to offer its services (all modes of supply).

M2 Administrative burden and lack of transparency

Domestic laws and regulations unclear and administered in unfair manner (all modes of supply);When governmental approval required for foreign suppliers, extremely long delays encountered; when approval denied, no explication given, no information about necessary improvements to obtain it in the future (all modes of supply);Denial of permission for private sector suppliers to enter into and exit from joint ventures with local or non-local partners on a voluntary basis (Modes 1 &3).

Barriers to Trade Examples

Source: Saner & Fasel, 2003, „Negotiating Trade in Educational Services within the WTOGATS Context“

© CSEND, 2003

Typology of Existing Barriers to Trade in ES (identified by USA, New Zealand, Australia and

Japan) - 2

M3 Fiscal discrimination

Subsidies for education are not made known in a clear and transparent manner (all modes of supply);Repatriation of earnings is subject to excessively costly fees and/or taxes for currency conversion (all modes of supply);Excessive fees/taxes imposed on licensing or royalty payments (Modes 1 and 3).

M4 Accreditation/recognition discrimination

No recognition of degrees/titles delivered by foreign providers (all modes of supply);No recognition of foreign diplomas (Mode 2);No accreditation delivered nationally for foreign providers (Modes 1 and 3).

Barriers to Trade Examples

Source: Saner & Fasel, 2003, „Negotiating Trade in Educational Services within the WTOGATS Context“

© CSEND, 2003

Modes of Supply in GATS/ES

Source: OECD/CERI, 2002

© CSEND, 2003

Table 3. Design of GATS Schedules

Modes of supply:

(1) Cross-border supply (2) Consumption supply (3) Commercial presence (4) Presence of natural persons

I. HORIZONTAL COMMITMENTS

All sectors

Limitations on market access(Art. XVI)

Limitations on national treatment(Art. XVII)

Additional commitments

Mode 1Mode 2Mode 3Mode 4


II. SECTOR-SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS

Sector or sub-sector

1. Primary Education2. Secondary

Education3. Higher Education4. Adult Education5. Other

Limitations on market access(Art. XVI)

Limitations on national treatment(Art. XVII)

Additional commitments



e.g. procurement, pre-commitment to future liberalisation

© CSEND, 2003

Schedule Pre-Doha: USACountry Sub-

sectorCross-border supply

Consumption Abroad

Commercial Presence Presence of natural persons

USA Adult (except flying instruc-tion)

MA: None

NT: Scholar-ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/

or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain states institutions or within certain US jurisdic-tions.

MA: None

NT: Scholar-ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/ or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdic-tions.

MA: The number of licences for cosmeto-logy schools in Kentucky is limited to 48 total licences, with a total of 8 licences allowed for operation of such schools per congressional district.

NT: Scholarships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdictions.

MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizon-tal section

NT: Scholar-ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/ or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdic-tions.

© CSEND, 2003

Schedule pre-Doha: AustraliaCountry Sub-sector Cross-border

supplyConsumption Abroad

Commercial Presence

Presence of natural persons

Australia Secondary (covers general as well as tech-nical and voca-tional education at the secondary level in private institutions)

MA: None

NT: None

MA: None

NT: None

MA: None

NT: Unbound

MA: Unbound except as indi-cated in the hori-zontal section.

NT: Unbound except as indi-cated in the hori-zontal sectionHigher (covers

provisions of private tertiary education servi-ces including at university level)

Other (covers English language tuition)

© CSEND, 2003

Schedule pre-Doha: Norway

Country Sub-sector Cross-border supply

Consump-tion Abroad

Commer-cial Presence


Norway Education-al services leading to the confer-ing of State recognized exams and/ or degrees

Education-al services not leading to the con-ferring of State re-cognized exams and/ or degrees

Primary MA: As mode 3NT: None

MA: None

NT: None

MA: Primary & second-ary

NT: None

MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section

NT: Unbound except as indicated in the horizon-tal section. Teaching qua-lifications from abroad may be recognized, and an exam must be passed.

Secondary (lower & upper)

Higher

Adult

Primary MA: None

NT: NoneMA: None

NT: None

MA: None

NT: None

MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section.

NT: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section

Secondary (lower & upper)

Higher

Adult

© CSEND, 2003

Schedule pre Doha: Switzerland

Country Sub-sector Cross-border supply

Consump-tion Abroad

Commer-cial Presence


Switzer-land

Private Educa-tional Services

Primary MA: Unbound

NT: Unbound

MA: Unbound

NT: UnboundMA: None

NT: NoneMA: Unbound

NT: UnboundSecondary

(Compulsory)

Secondary

(Non-Com-pulsory)

MA: None

NT: NoneMA: None

NT: None

MA: None

NT: NoneMA: Unbound except as indi-cated in the horizontal sec-tion.

NT: Unbound except as indi-cated in the horizontal sec-tion

Higher

Adult

© CSEND, 2003

National Treatment Commitments in H.E. By Mode, No. Of Country Commitments


© CSEND, 2003

Market Access Commitments in H.E. By Mode, No. Of Country Commitments

© CSEND, 2003

35 Initial ES Requests by November 2003

Not public, only offers will be (MFN)Made public so far:

Canada: no Rs on health, education, social service, cultureSwitzerland, no Rs on educationEU on USA only: HE to make commitments in modes 1, 2 and 3 for privately funded educational services and in mode 4 to commit for privately funded educational services as referred to in the section “horizontal commitments”. New Zealand and Norway: made initial RQs on ES

© CSEND, 2003

ES & Globalisatin: Two realities

Within GATS/ES contextA) souvereign right of each country to make or not make commitments B) souvereing right to difine what „public service“ should beC) souvereign right to engage in Request/Offer in ES or not

Outside GATS/ES contextA) Internationalisation of higher education happens independent of GATS/ESB) Danger of „Degree mills“ C) Students (Parents) vote with their feet

© CSEND, 2003

Solutin sets to trade in education

Structural Solutions1. Within GATS/ES

• Example: by profession (GATS/Accountants)• Plurilateral Agreeement (like Public Procurement)2. Outside GATS/ES• Example: UNESCO/OECD WG on quality assurance,

recognition of degress, professional standards

Functional Solutions (within GATS)1. Social knowledge (like TK/TRIPS)

2. Multi-developmental ES (like multifunctional agriculture)

© CSEND, 2003

Alternatives for ES

GATS/ES is not of the devil! (e.g. does not require privatisation of ES).GATS/ES is one but important option to develop, open and participate in global education marketGATS/ES is as good as the strategy of WTO member countries allow, if there is one at all?IF „Niet“ to GATS/ES: WHAT IS THE ALETRNATIVE FOR THE FUTURE?

© CSEND, 2003

5 Major Exporters of ES, US$ million and as a % of total exports in Services

© CSEND, 2003

Ratio of Foreign Students per Domestic Students Abroad in Tertiary Education


© CSEND, 2003

Example of China’s Education Strategy and Use of GATS/ES

Shanghai • 15 million people• public schools• competitive exams

Private school suburb


Private school province


© CSEND, 2003

Example of China’s Education Strategy and Use of GATS/ES

Tuition fee (maximum)

Qualification criteria of teachers

Regulatory requirements

Top grade allowance

Required entry points (minimum & maximum specifications)

Tuition fee (minimum)

Location of school

Shanghai • 15 million people• public schools• competitive exams

AUSTRALIA e.g. Sydney University

- graduate degrees (MBA, Ph.D.)- immigration/ work permit/ possible citizenship - opportunities for wealth creation- remittence/ FDI to China- return to China

© CSEND, 2003

Example: USA 2004 (post 9/11)

(Source: Robert Gates, IHT, 3th April 2004)

Impact of 9/11 related security measures:1. Application for HE fall 2004/USA:

1. Chinese: 76% reduction2. Indians: 58 % reduction2. Application to Research Universities

38% drop compared to 2003

Negative Impact:

Lower income for US universitiesLower rate of innovation for US universities & R&D InstitutesInsufficient US students for key fields: engineering, ITReduction of PR Image impact on rest of world (US way of life)

© CSEND, 2003

ES: Strategic considerations

How to ensure innovation of teaching methods & research capabilities of Swiss universities and HES?How to ensure exchange with „rest of the world“ in matters pertaining to ES & R&D?How to ensure participation of Swiss academics in knowledge creation at global levels?How to ensure recognition of Swiss degress, professional qualifications, quality standardsHow to ensure adequate supply of highly educated persons for all vital sectors of Swiss economy and society now and in future?How to ensure equality of access to ES for all Swiss potential students?How to ensure cost efficient & learning effective higher education in Switzerland?

© CSEND, 2003

Données statistiques disponibles sur "l'internationalisation de la formation

supérieure en Suisse Rapport final, OCDE GATS/ES forum, Trondheim 2003

Fourniture transfrontalière




IN Etudiants étrangers suivant des offres de formation à distance fournies par les universités suisses : pas de données, offre peu importante

Etudiants étrangers suivant des offres de formation à distance fournies par les universités suisses : pas de données, offre peu importante



OUT Etudiants suisses suivant des cours à distance fournis par une université étrangère : pas de données

Etudiants suisses suivant des cours à distance fournis par une université étrangère : pas de données



© CSEND, 2003

What approach- What Philosophy?

1. Rational-Deductive-Normative Model

• Mandatory accreditation scheme at national level, based on

national laws

•Mandatory QA systems as part of accreditation scheme within each

school or university

•Mandatory regulation of recognition of qualifications within accreditation schemes based

on national laws

Plus

logical-deductive – rational-transparent (law)

equal-level-playing field at national level for all schools and universities

Minus

bureaucratic, costly, lenghty, stiffling innovation protectionist (trade barrier)

© CSEND, 2003

What approach- What Philosophy? Cont.

3. Pragmatic-Emerging Model

• No overarching mandatory accreditation system at national level. Schools & Universities free to select

national or foreign accreditation systems- or none at all

• Selection of QA system left to schools and universities

• But Recognition of Qualifications regulated by

governments exerting upward pressure to ensure minimum

QA-standards

Plus

ensures minimum performance levels (Rec. - Qualifications)

leaves open space for innovation

Minus tension between Rec.-Qualification at national level vs at international level

Possible “take over” by foreign Accreditation & QA schemes

© CSEND, 2003

What approach- What Philosophy? Cont.

2. Decentralised-Deregulated- “Market” Model

Plus easy to position and re-position schools & universities at national and international level

non-protectionist but possibly influenced by industry-cartels dominant schools and universities

Minus possible race to the bottom: low cost-low quality-low equity

elitist split (“excellent” and “lousy” schools and universities)

• No mandatory QA system at schools and universities

• No recognition of qualifications at national level

• No accreditation law nor mandatory practice at national level

Copyright CSEND 2003

Thank you for your attention

Documents

Copyright CSEND 2003 Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Humanities and Social Sciences Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences Berne, 29 th