THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW 2007€¦ · QUO VADIS: India Reexamined Just How Free Are India’s Labour And Product Markets? Paul Conway, Richard Herd & Sean Dougherty 138 Going For

THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW

2007Volume 4 | Quarterly Issue: 31st December 2007 www.iipmthinktank.com

www.gidf.org

A N I I P M T H I N K T A N K &

G R E A T I N D I A N D R E A M F O U N D A T I O N P R E S E N T A T I O N

RETHINKEDIFYDELINEATE

REIMAGINING INDIA:MORE MARKET,

LESS GOVERNMENT

D eve l o p m e n t A g e n d a

T h e V i s i b l e H an d

Fr e e E x ch an g e

I n d i a Re - e x am in e d

P ro g r e s s W i t h i n L im i t s

T h e O t h e r Pa t h

A N ew B e g i nn i n g

I N S I D E T H I S I S SU E

(F)ACT SHEET

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedifydelineaterethink

edify

delineaterethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedify

delineate


rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

INDIA’S FUTURE: Redesigning Development AgendaLiberalism As The Basis Of Human Rights And DignityChristopher LINGLE 12India’s Future – Knowledge And Learning Societies Or Mere Markets And StateLawrence Surendra 16State And Market Conundrum In The Indian Context –A Need For Debates Pradeep Banerjee 24Larger Market Role, Reduced Government Interventions– Is It A Misnomer?Anandajit Goswami 32

THE VISIBLE HAND: Government’s RoleGovernance, Market, Deprivation And The Political SystemAmal Sanyal 36The Economics Of Social Unrest – Its Causes And CureNilanjan Banik 42More Market, Less Government: A Recipe For Disaster For The Water SectorShripad Dharmadikary 46Inclusive Growth In India: A Case Of Structural And Agrarian Challenges D.M. Diwakar 52Market Economy And The State Of Regional Disparities In IndiaAnu Singh 62Accountable Governance And Pro-poor Markets For Effective Poverty ReductionAnindo Banerjee 68Food Security In India: Issues And Implications Anajani Sinha 74

FREE EXCHANGE: More MarketsWhy Poor Parents Are Choosing ‘More Market, Less Government’ In Education, And What We Should Do About It?James Tooley 80International Trade In Higher Education: What Should India Do?Stephen P. Heyneman 86

10

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate


rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedifydelineaterethink

edify

delineaterethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethink

edifydelineate

rethinkedify

delineaterethinkedify

delineate


rethinkedify

delineate

rethink

edifydelineate

Water Resources In Gujarat And Role Of Water Markets In Breaking Gridlock In Water Scarcity – A Replicable Policy Prescription At National Level Jharna Pathak 94Commodity Futures: A Catalyst For Agricultural DevelopmentV. Shunmugam & D.G. Prasad 102Overseas Investment By Indian Firms: Recent Trends And PatternsDeepika Wadhwa 108Indian Banking Reforms And Policy Reversal: A Vicious CycleAnurag Sharma 116Indian Corporate Bond Market: The Road AheadPramod K. Yadav & Ritesh Agarwal 132

QUO VADIS: India ReexaminedJust How Free Are India’s Labour And Product Markets?Paul Conway, Richard Herd & Sean Dougherty 138Going For Growth Through Economic Reforms: The Case Of India Rok Spruk 146India’s Unique Pattern Of Development: Quo vadis?Kalpana Kochhar 154

PROGRESS WITHIN LIMITS: Environmental EconomicsIndia’s Growing Ecological Footprint: Exploring Past And Future ChangesT R Manoharan 164

A NEW BEGINNING: Law And Public PolicyThe First Sale Doctrine Before The U.S. Supreme Court: Intellectual Property Implications For India Shubha Ghosh 168

SOTTO VOCE: Economic ExpositionLiberty And Prohibition: A Governance DilemmaAli Mehdi 172

THE OTHER PATH: Reimagining IndiaAn Alternative Integrated Development Perspective For The Peripheral Regions: The Case Of Barak Valley In Northeast IndiaBaharul Islam 174

THE ‘OTHER’ INDIA: Tenancy ReformsTenancy Reforms in Orissa: A Critical PerspectiveMrutyunjay Dash 182

86 T H E I I P M T H I N K T A N K

At independence, India had twenty universities; today there are 348. From a rate of attendance of less than one percent, today it is 12 percent. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of students in higher education grew by 113 percent. Providers are diverse. Approximately one third of the students attend non-government institutions and 63 percent attend institutions financed by state governments. Of the world’s most fa-mous scientists and economists, many received their training in India. Indian higher education appears healthy. But according to some estimates India needs at least 150 new universities. Al-though enrollment (12 percent) is higher than at any time in India’s his-tory, it is less than any OECD country and has even fallen behind that of Chi-na (with 16 percent). Less then 2 per-cent of the students in India have an opportunity to attend any of the top universities sponsored by the national government. Only $US 406 is spent/

year on the typical university student in India. This includes expenditures for electronic libraries, books, research laboratories, physical infrastructure, and salaries. The typical student in China has seven times more resources at his disposal. The typical student in Malaysia has 30 times more resources available, and a student in Canada has 37 times more resources available. Though overall growth in the last ten years has been rapid, universities with advanced research programs grew by only 51 percent; in the Russian Fed-eration they grew by 113 percent, in China by 167 percent and in Malaysia by 200 percent. Though foreign univer-sities are higher in cost, 160,000 stu-dents leave India each year seeking higher education elsewhere. Over 5,000 Indian students arrive annually to study in the U.S., where the price of attending universities is higher than anywhere in the world. They do this because they cannot find a university in India comparable in quality.

International Trade in Higher Education: What Should India Do?

Stephen P. Heyneman,Professor, International Education Policy,

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee

"Higher education should be left to private en-terprise and for meeting national requirements whether in the various industries, technical arts, belles-letters or fi ne arts. The State Universities should be purely examining bodies, self-sup-porting through the fees charged for examinations. Universities will look after the whole of the fi eld of education and will prepare and approve courses of studies in the various departments of education. No private school should be run without the previous sanction of the respective Universities. University charters should be given liberally to any body of persons of proved worth and integrity, it being always understood that the Universities will not cost the State any-thing except that it will bear the cost of running a Central Education Department.The foregoing scheme does not absolve the State from running such seminaries as may be required for supply-ing State needs."

-Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 2 October 1937

87T H E I N D I A E C O N O M Y R E V I E W

M O R E M A R K E T S , L E S S G O V E R N M E N T

Rank Multi-Disciplinary Schools Internet Bandwidth per student (kbps) Overall Rank 2000

1 Sun Yat-sen University (Taiwan) 33.53 20

2 Kyungpock National University 27.76 35

3 Chungnam National Unviersity 20.84 50

4 Australian National University 19.58 8

5 Taiwan Normal University 19.02 37

6 Seoul national University 17.14 4

7 Tsing Hua University(Taiwan)* 14.77 18

8 Chonnam National University 14.77 1

9 Tohcku University (Japan) 13.52 34

10 Tianjin University (China) 11.84 2

11 National University of Singapore 11.54 46

12 University of Wollongong 10.81 54

13 University of Adelaide 7.1 5

14 Nagoya University 6.92 45

15 Central University (Taiwan)* 6.88 26

16 Nagoya University 6.58 11

17 Central University (Taiwan)* 6.12 24

18 University of Melbourne 6.06 9

19 Kasetsart University 5.56 63

20 Chao Toung University (Taiwan)* 5.5 28

21 Monash University 5.14 30

22 Chonbuk National University 5 43

23 Taiwan University* 4.1 12

24 Pusan National Unviersity 3.99 39

25 City University of Hong Kong 3.9 27

26 Hckkaido University 3.81 19

27 Southeast University (China) 3.56 60

28 Chung Hsing University (Taiwan)* 3.35 65

29 Keio University* 3.24 22

30 Hanyang University 3.16 38

31 University of Western Australia 2.89 23

32 Sungkyunkwan U niversity 2.83 33

33 Ewha Womans University 2.46 32

34 Macquarie University 2.32 56

35 Ritsumeikan University 2.18 67

36 Waseda University 2.13 29

37 Chinese University of Hong Kong 2.1 6

Figure I: Ranking Of Asian Universities By Size Of Bandwidth


R E I M A G I N I N G I N D I A

Although there are many famous In-dian scientists and economists, they often teach in foreign universities. They do this because universities in India cannot offer comparable re-search facilities, programs with com-parable innovation, or comparable levels of remuneration. When one ranks a nation by the number of cita-tions to its published scientific litera-ture, citations from India in 2005 ranked number 21, accounting for only 1.1 percent share of the total. The scar-city of world class faculty in Indian

universities is one explanation for the fact that of the applications for patents India accounted for only 0.5 percent., and of the ‘capacity to innovate’ in 2005 India ranked 50. No Indian uni-versity appears in the ranking of world universities; and no university appears in the top ranked universities in Asia in terms of what is now considered a sine qua non of university quality: bandwidth (Please refer Figure -I). Of the top ranked 77 universities within Asia, the highest university in India only ranked number 40. Only two uni-

versities were even considered (See Figure-II). It is unfortunate but never-theless it is fair to characterize univer-sities in India as being ‘asleep’, while universities in other countries quickly pass by.

In Medieval Europe it is said that plagues were accompanied by numer-ous theories of ‘what went wrong’. Some attributed impending catastro-phe to insufficient piety. If citizens re-pent they said, their futures would brighten. The problems of Indian high-er education are similarly accompa-nied by theories of ‘what went wrong’. Some theories hold that international evidence to the contrary is irrelevant and that there is nothing wrong. Oth-ers suggest that the problems can only be solved if India does more of what it has done in the past --- finance higher education largely from public tax re-sources, control prices, limit providers and forbid foreign competition. And then there are some theories which point to the unmitigated success of In-dia’s entry into telecommunications. When allowed in, foreign providers quickly rejuvenated India’s ancient tel-ecommunications sector thus making it possible for entrepreneurial spin-offs, which spurred India into high economic growth and a decline in pov-erty. Why couldn’t international com-petition not jump start the Indian higher education sector as it has other

Rank Multi-Disciplinary Schools Internet bandwidth per student (kbps) Over all Rank 2000

38 University of Hong Kong 2.05 3

39 Korew University 2.04 414

40 Cheng Kung University (Taiwan)* 1.6 16

Country Number (Percentage) Highes Rank

Korea 13(16.9) 4

Japan 11(14.9) 1

Australia 10(13.0) 8

Taiwan 10(13.0) 12

Thailand 5(6.5) 51

Philippines 4(5.2) 48

New Zealand 4(5.2) 21

Indonesia 4(5.2) 61

Hong Kong 4(5.2) 3

China 4(5.2) 42

Malaysia 3(3.9) 47

India 2(2.6) 40

Bangladesh 1(1.3) 64

Singapore 1(1.3) 5

Sri Lanka 1(1.3) 77

Figure II. Asia Week: Multi-Disiplinary Ranking: Top 77 Universities in Asia

Source: www.asiaweek.com/features/universities2000/school/multi.overall.html

Figure I: Ranking Of Asian Universities By Size Of Bandwidth (Contd.)



sectors? There are two paths in Indian higher education policy: to continue to protect it or to open it up to interna-tional competition with all of the im-pending implications. The answer will determine India’s future. So what should India do? One problem is that the arguments for and against opening India to higher education trade is gen-erally made by two divergent groups of stakeholders. Macro-economists gen-erally favor international competition; education policy officials generally do not. It might be useful to place each of their arguments on the table and ana-lyze them one by one (Please do refer Figures- III and IV).

Higher Education As A Public GoodThose who oppose international trade in higher education will argue that higher education is a public good and that opening up India to international providers would threaten the mainte-nance of the public interest. Those who favor international trade will point out that overtly sectarian or philosophi-cally dangerous providers can be con-trolled through the accreditation proc-ess. Further, they will argue that

competition stimulates efficiency, wid-er choice, and higher quality (as it does in many sectors). In their view these characteristics are part of public inter-est. Is it in the public interest, they ask, to allow access only to low quality, inefficient and a narrow choice of pro-fessional programs?

Individual Vs. Social NeedsThose who oppose say that interna-

tional trade would serve only the needs of the individual and that service to the community, a natural part of higher education, would be lost if trade barri-ers were liberalized. Those who favor point out that at present human rights are being abrogated. All individuals have the right to education they might say, and if one individual wishes to study in a field provided by a foreign university, what right do we have as a

Cons Pros

Loss of public good character Increased effi ciency, quality and choice

Only serves individual needs Consistent with human rights

Rewards universitites indepen-dent of the broad public good

Breaks the monopoly of having low quality universities defi ne what whould be learned

Weakens public funding Strengthens public funding because it would strengthen public confi dence through in-creased accountability

Eclipses the public sector by the private sector quality

Strengthens the public sector due to competition

Figure III: Pros And Cons For Opening India To International Trade In Education

Cons Pros

Leads to “Knowledge Capitalism” Leads of the strengthening of non-re-sourced subjects through cross-faculty resource transfer

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) would ex-clude low income scholars by main-taining high prices for curriculum materials

Adhering to TRIPS would increse access to high quality products by insuring in-comes from their sale. Hence it would increase supply, the choice of products, and lower the real price

Since knowledge is public good, re-forms in education fi nance with de-crease access to public good

Public goods are never free. Reforms in education fi nance will increase the in-come to public and private producers. Hence, it will increase the supply and ac-cess to a public good.

Threatens the “Social contract” in which the present generation fi nances future generations

Strengthens the social contract by in-creasing access, quality and equity (through cross-subsidization)

Trade jeopardizes human rights be-cause it contradicts national commit-ments supporting free education

Trade would increase human rights by allowing access to education where it is currently denied of unavailable

Figure IV: Pros And Cons (Contd.)



democracy to limit that access to edu-cation? The same might be true to textbooks, foreign faculty, internet facilities and the like. Limitation of education trade itself is an abrogation of human rights.

Universities Would Be Reward-ed Independent Of The Public Good.Those who oppose would say that uni-versities should be rewarded for their research and teaching independent of their abilities to generate revenue; if foreign competition were allowed then Indian universities would have to fol-low commercial rather than intellec-tual incentives. Those who favor say

that competition is necessary to break what is now a monopoly. If only low quality institutions are available, there is little incentive to improve. Instead of being a threat to intel-lectual incentives, foreign competition may be an essential ingredient to stimulate it.

International Education Trade Would Weaken The Case For Public FundingThose who oppose would point out that public funding is essential for uni-versity development and if foreign competition were allowed the case for more public resources would weaken. ‘Let the private sector provide the fa-

cilities’, the politicians might say, ‘Now we can allocate resources to problems other than higher education’. Those who favor argue the opposite. They say that foreign competition would strengthen the case for public funding, not weaken it. It would strengthen the

case because it would increase public confidence in the higher education sector because of increased account-ability. Why should the public allocate additional resources to a sector crip-pled by low quality and inefficiency? Wouldn’t the public be more likely to allocate resources to a sector in which it had more confidence? And wouldn’t open competition help stimulate the supply response in which they could be more confident?

Public Wector Quality Would Be Eclipsed By Private Sector QualityIf foreign competition were allowed, what India now thinks of higher qual-

ity would be eclipsed by foreign private providers. Imagine Oxford in Madras, or Harvard in Bangalore? For econom-ic reasons, there is little likelihood that a high quality provider will open a multi-faculty university. Most would open programs highly specific to voca-tions such as engineering or business. However narrow the presence of inter-national providers would strengthen the quality of current universities be-cause of the competition. They would be more likely to study the syllabi, student services, faculty productivity and other indicators of quality if there is competition than if there is not. Those who argue for international trade would say that it is essential for maintaining the quality of the current public universities.

International Trade Leads To ‘Knowledge Capitalism’Critics argue that trade in education would result in having knowledge pur-sued if it results in remuneration and ignored if it does not. They ask if it is right for professors to be better re-warded by virtue of the fact that their subject is in higher market demand. They ask what will happen to the pur-suit of truth if it is subject to a price. Others respond by pointing to the fact that knowledge can not be immune from its market value. There is no hid-ing the fact that the demand to study history is less than the demand for commerce. However, competition need not lead to a diminishment of history or other non-revenue producing sub-ject. The major managerial challenge in any university is how to cross-subsi-dize faculties, or transfer resources

Up for consideration should be changes in the entire legal structure, which would allow the creation of endowments often from the overseas diaspora (something China has mastered) and a new tax regime which encourages dona-tions and gifts to education from both citizens and fi rms



within the institution to support under resourced but important subjects. Without cross-subsidization, a univer-sity cannot successfully compete. Hence they would argue that interna-tional trade and the success of master-ing the modern art of university ad-ministration is the key ingredient preventing ‘academic capitalism’.

Trade Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Excludes Low-Income scholars from successfully marketing their own curriculaCritics worry that international trade in education would lower access to lo-cal curricula; international property rights agreements would protect the privileged and freeze-out those who have not yet broken into the market. They imagine that there will be an ava-lanche of foreign books, guidelines, and syllabi entering India, making it difficult for local students to be edu-cated with local materials. Those who favor open trade say that adhering to agreements on intellectual property would increase access to high quality pedagogical materials because it would insure income from their sale. In turn this would increase the incentive to write new curricula, and would lead to greater supply, wider choice, and lower real prices. In their vision, Indian pro-ducers of curricula would compete suc-cessfully, placing the Indian student consumer at a distinct advantage over a circumstance in which there would be no competition.

Privatization Of Education Finance Will Decrease Access

To A Public GoodCritics argue that international trade in education will lead to privatization, meaning that it will lead to an increase in the proportion of higher education finance from sources other than gov-ernment. They say that the higher the privatization the lower the access to a public good. They say that privatiza-tion helps exclude the poor since they are the ones who least can afford it.

Those who argue in favor of trade point out that no public good is ‘free’.

They believe that reforms in educa-tion finance will increase the revenue for both public and private education-al providers; hence, it will increase the supply and will increase access to a public good. Recent international research on stratification and higher education suggests that higher educa-tion expansion reduces inequality; greater privatization is associated with higher levels of expansion and higher levels of social equity. The op-posite is also true: control of expan-sion is associated with a monopoly of state financing,

and hence with greater inequality of access.

Trade Threatens The ‘social Contract’ Between GenerationsIf trade leads to greater privatization (higher portions of the university budget from sources other than gov-ernment), students will have to pay tuition. To do that they will have to rely on the generosity of their families,

hence the present generation is expect-ed to finance the education of future generations; and the social contract is broken. Proponents of more open trade counter with a question and a state-ment. The question is: when did it be-come true that the present generation should not sacrifice to help pay for a future generation? Isn’t that how gen-erations have been organized since the beginning? Also, for those who cannot afford the tuition there would be schol-arship aid. Therefore with tuition there would be more equity, and more eq-uity would help to strengthen the social contract between generations.

Trade Jeopardizes Human Rights Because It Contradicts National Commitments For Free EducationCritics point to the Declaration of Hu-man Rights and other legal contracts associated with the United Nations to suggest that if higher education is not

The problem is that the arguments for and against opening India to higher education trade are generally made

by two divergent groups of stakeholders. Macro-econo-mists generally favor international competition;

education policy offi cials generally do not



free of private cost it constitutes an abrogation of human rights. Those who favor open trade point out that the UN statements on education apply to man-datory education but not necessarily all education. But they also say that trade would increase human rights be-cause it would allow access to educa-tion when currently denied, unavaila-ble, or too costly.

Trade Will Lead To Education CorruptionTrade leads to greater privatization, and greater privatization leads to a de-cline in professionalism. The profit motive is behind corruption; hence trade will lead to greater corruption of education. Proponents of open trade acknowledge the fact that edu-cation corruption is becoming more common and is a serious problem. But they point out that it occurs in local systems without any education trade. They also point to recent evi-dence suggesting that having interna-

tional providers in local education markets puts a break on corruption. Students tend to demand an institution free of corruption and may frequent international higher education provid-ers in part because they adhere to standards of professional conduct in the foreign nation where they are ac-credited. When international providers of higher education services offer pro-grams free of corruption local univer-sities will have to respond with an en-

vironment similarly corruption-free.

Three Universal Ambitions For Higher Education And A Uni-versal DilemmaToday virtually every country has three ambitions for higher education. First is the demand for greater access. And in every country the portion of the age cohort with access to post secondary education of some kind is on the increase.

Second is the ambition to improve quality. Over the last decade there has been a revolution in the criteria that help define quality. Higher education

quality now requires electronic moder-nity in classrooms, dormitories, librar-ies, science laboratories, study halls. Students are often older, work part time, and live far away from campus. High quality syllabi are no longer based on textbooks but on the most up-to-date information from print and electronic sources. Students in a mod-ern university need to have access to curricular information wherever they live or travel. Classroom instruction

has changed. Class time is no longer devoted to providing information for students; instead it is devoted to the analysis of information absorbed prior to class. The internet and other forms of electronic information have changed the academic library and enhanced its quality. There is less need for faculty or students to visit the physical place. A high quality academic library used to be defined by the quantity of its ‘holdings’; now it is defined by the quantity of its access to information. The difference is enormous. Every high quality academic library has enough money to join exclusive ‘infor-mation networks’ where holdings are shared with one another, for a fee. Networks of academic libraries are trans-national, and cover university libraries in Europe, Asia and North America. Access to information is what separates the excellent librar-ies from the mediocre. All academic services, both teaching and bibliographic, are delivered through broadband facilities. Universities with

low bandwidth cannot compete in quality with universities with large bandwidth. A third common am-bition is to improve equity, that is, to offer scholarships and fellowships to the able students from impoverished families or from disadvantaged re-gions. First class universities will have enough resources to offer about one third of the students’ scholarships or fellowships from their own resources. Taken together, all three ambitions are expensive and there are few countries where all three can be financed out of public resources alone. With the in-crease in student numbers and with

If foreign competition were allowed, what India now thinks of higher quality would be eclipsed by foreign private provid-ers. Imagine Oxford in Madras, or Harvard in Bangalore?



rising expectations for improvements in quality and in equity, public resourc-es are insufficient. The scarcity of pub-lic resources is likely to be permanent and this poses a dilemma: how can higher education successfully finance its own objectives, including the traditional objectives for serving the public good?

Summary Many university managers welcome the freedom to compete and lobby gov-ernments into changing legislation to make it possible. No rector or univer-sity president who has visited universi-ties in other countries is unaware of the responsibilities and privileges of university managers in less restrictive environments. Public authorities in In-dia should not just allow foreign uni-versities into the country and neglect to significantly reform the legal envi-ronment in which Indian universities are asked to operate. That would nei-ther be fair nor intelligent. Up for con-sideration should be changes in the entire legal structure which would al-low the creation of endowments often from the overseas Diaspora (something China has mastered) and a new tax re-gime which encourages donations and gifts to education from both citizens and firms. Great universities, even public universities, need not depend on government financial allocation, but rather generate their own revenues though careful management. It is im-portant to remember that new univer-sity management is the key to success. Old management styles will likely fail. There are thirty programs offering PhD degrees in university management

in the United States of America, with one (Vanderbilt University) which of-fers a doctorate in university advance-ment (how to raise money). Shouldn’t similar programs be available in India? But in essence India has no choice but to invite competition into higher edu-cation. No university can be competi-tive today unless it has access to its own resources. The best universities have to be wise in the re-allocation of the resources they raise to help pre-serve their public good function. To be sure, institutions will differ in how suc-cessful they are in financing their own objectives. Some are slow because they may not recognize that to be of high quality, all universities have to take finance and management into their own hands.

Some could see this ‘privatization’ trend as being reprehensible, and will want to call for more piety and a return to traditional sources of finance, i.e., from greater allocations of public ex-penditures at the expense of other pub-lic priorities. But others see this trend as no more than a long overdue profes-sionalization of higher education in the legitimate pursuit of excellence. They do not see this as a threat or as ‘copying of the West’, but rather as a successful model without geographic origin in which all higher education systems must participate in order to address what is now a universal dilem-ma of public resource inadequacy and high public demand for quality.

References• Agarwal, Pawan 2006 (May). “High-

er Education in India: The Need for Change,” Working Paper Number

179, ICRIER, New Delhi. • 2006 (November 11th ) “Higher

Education Policy: Many Contradic-tions,” Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 4645 – 8.

• Heyneman, SP. 1980 “Investment in Education in India: Uneconomic?” World Development No. 4 p. 145 – 63

• 1997 “Economics of Education: Dis-appointments and Potential,” pp. 25 – 51 in Economics of Human Behav-iour edited by T. Lakshmanasamy Mumbai: Allied Publishers Ltd.

• 2001 “The Growing International Market for Education Goods and Services,” International Journal of Education Development Vol. 21 No. 4 (July), pp. 345 – 61.

• 2006 “Global Issues in Higher Edu-cation” 2006 eJournal USA Wash-ington D.C.: U.S. Department of State. http://usinfo.state.gov/jour-nals/journals.htm.

• Heyneman, S.P., Anderson, K. H. and Nuraliyeva, Nazym. 2008 “The Cost of Corruption in Higher Edu-cation,” 2008 Comparative Educa-tion Review (forthcoming)

• Yossi, Shavit, Arum, Richard and Gamoran, Adam (eds.) 2007 Strati-fication in Higher Education: A Comparative Study. Stanford, Cali-fornia: Stanford University Press

• Tilak, Jandhyala B.G. 2005 (De-cember 2nd.) “Higher Education: A Public Good or a Commodity for Trade: Commitment to Higher Edu-cation or Commitment of Higher Education to Trade?” Barcelona (Spain): Second Nobel Laureates Meeting. Global University Net-work for Innovation.

001.pdf003.pdf004.pdf005.pdf006.pdf007.pdf008.pdf009.pdf010.pdf011.pdf012.pdf013.pdf014.pdf015.pdf016.pdf017.pdf018.pdf019.pdf020.pdf021.pdf022.pdf023.pdf024.pdf025.pdf026.pdf027.pdf028.pdf029.pdf030.pdf031.pdf032.pdf033.pdf034.pdf035.pdf036.pdf037.pdf038.pdf039.pdf040.pdf041.pdf042.pdf043.pdf044.pdf045.pdf046.pdf047.pdf048.pdf049.pdf050.pdf051.pdf052.pdf053.pdf054.pdf055.pdf056.pdf057.pdf058.pdf059.pdf060.pdf061.pdf062.pdf063.pdf064.pdf065.pdf066.pdf067.pdf068.pdf069.pdf070.pdf071.pdf072.pdf073.pdf074.pdf075.pdf076.pdf077.pdf078.pdf079.pdf080.pdf081.pdf082.pdf083.pdf084.pdf085.pdf086.pdf087.pdf088.pdf089.pdf090.pdf091.pdf092.pdf093.pdf094.pdf095.pdf096.pdf097.pdf098.pdf099.pdf100.pdf101.pdf102.pdf103.pdf104.pdf105.pdf106.pdf107.pdf108.pdf109.pdf110.pdf111.pdf112.pdf113.pdf114.pdf115.pdf116.pdf117.pdf118.pdf119.pdf120.pdf121.pdf122.pdf123.pdf124.pdf125.pdf126.pdf127.pdf128.pdf129.pdf130.pdf131.pdf132.pdf133.pdf134.pdf135.pdf136.pdf137.pdf138.pdf139.pdf140.pdf141.pdf142.pdf143.pdf144.pdf145.pdf146.pdf147.pdf148.pdf149.pdf150.pdf151.pdf152.pdf153.pdf154.pdf155.pdf156.pdf157.pdf158.pdf159.pdf160.pdf161.pdf162.pdf163.pdf164.pdf165.pdf166.pdf167.pdf168.pdf169.pdf170.pdf171.pdf172.pdf173.pdf174.pdf175.pdf176.pdf177.pdf178.pdf179.pdf180.pdf181.pdf182.pdf183.pdf184.pdf185.pdf186.pdf187.pdf188.pdf189.pdf190.pdf191.pdf192.pdf

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice


















































/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe)

Documents

THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW 2007€¦ · QUO VADIS: India Reexamined Just How Free Are India’s Labour And Product Markets? Paul Conway, Richard Herd & Sean Dougherty 138 Going For