York Education Lecture 060306

8/2/2019 York Education Lecture 060306

1/24

Globalization and higher education:

global markets and global public goods

Simon Marginson

Monash University, Australia

York University International Colloquium

6 March 2006


2/24

Five propositions

1. Globalization combines (1) world economic markets operating inreal time and producing mainly private goods with (2) the firstworld-wide system of communications, knowledge and culture,which are predominantly public goods.

2. The main impact of globalization in higher education is inrelation to (2). Higher education is central in the constitution ofresearch and important in communications and culture.

3. But higher education is configured bypolicy to support the

private economy, and organized as a quasi-market competition;4. and this weakens global public goods, reproduces global

inequalities in the distribution of research capacity, and underpinsAnglo-American domination in higher education.

5. The preferred move: enhance and pluralize global public goods.


3/24

Rethinking public/private:

[starting points]

Higher education functions can be private, public or amixture (and in part this is policy determined)

Whether education is government owned is notin itself thecrucial element in determining whether its outcomes arepublic or private. Many public institutions produce scarceand valuable private goods for individuals. And privateinstitutions contribute to collective public goods such as an

educated citizenry Our concepts of public and private should be consistent,

whether we are talking in terms of national higher education orglobal higher education


4/24

A preferred definition of public

[adapted from political economy] Public goods are those goods or outcomes from higher

education that (1) have a significant element of non-rivalry

and/or non-excludability (Samuelson 1954), and (2) are

made broadly available across the population

Goods are non-rivalrous when they can be consumed by

any number of people without being depleted, e.g.

knowledge of a mathematical theorem. Goods are non-

excludable when the benefits cannot be confined toindividual buyers, e.g. law and order, or social tolerance, or

the equitable distribution of social opportunities Public goods are under-produced in competitive markets


5/24


6/24

Globalization

Globalization means worldwide and meta-regional convergence

Globalization combines two distinctive elements:

(1) the formation of integrated world markets producing privategoods, operating in real time. These markets rest on

(2) the first global system of communications, knowledge andculture (which are primarily state supported public goods)

Contemporary globalization is also marked by accelerated and

intensified cross-border mobility of people, commodity trade,and norms of policy and practice. The last includes pro-marketideologies in government and education, which reinforce (1)

Global flows are transformative of practices/ identities


7/24

Globalization and higher education

Higher education is among the most globalized of sectors

Higher education has a central function in the globalknowledge system, and is important in communications and

cultural exchange. For the most part these are, technically,public goods (though their contents are often pro-market)

Higher education has a direct role in the creation of economicvalue but this is much less important

But higher education can be configured as a quasi-economy,based predominantly on the long-standing status competition

Globalization has become associated with the formation of thetwo-tier world-wide higher education market


8/24

Global higher education

as market competition Two tier global markets in higher education:

(1) Super-league of research universities mostly USA/UK

(2) Other universities providing cross-border education A fully capitalist market is found only in part of tier (2)

Preconditions of market competition: (a) traditional statuscompetition especially in research, (b) worldwide networking/

every university visible, (c) policy-driven system organization ofhigher education as market competition in many nations

Increasingly, in many nations, global markets and the super-league overshadow the leading national universities


9/24

Top 100 research universities

2005 data from Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of Higher Education

USA 53

UK 11

Germany 5

Japan 5

Canada 4

France 4

Sweden 4

Switzerland 3

Netherlands 2

Australia 2

others 7

Others: Israel,Finland,

Denmark, Austria,

Norway,Russia, Italy

each1.


10/24

The Super-League in 2005from Shanghai Jiao Tong University data

1HARVARD USA 11Yale USA

2Cambridge UK 12Cornell USA

3Stanford USA 13UC San Diego USA

4UC Berkeley USA 14UC Los Angeles USA

5MIT USA 15Pennsylvania USA

6Caltech USA 16Wisconsin-Madison USA

7Columbia USA 17Washington (Seattle) USA8Princeton USA 18UC San Francisco USA

9Chicago USA 19Johns Hopkins USA

10Oxford UK 20Tokyo Japan


11/24

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

research rankings: weightingscriterion weighting

Alumni of institution: Nobel Prizes and field medals 10%

Staff of institution: Nobel Prizes and field medals 20%

High citation (HiCi) researchers 20%

Articles inNature and Science 20%

Articles in citation indexes in science, social science, humanities 20%

Research performance (compiled as above) per head of staff 10%

total 100%


12/24

HiCi researchers

selected universities, 2005Stanford USA 91

UC Berkeley USA 81

Harvard USA 72

MIT USA 72

Chicago USA 33

Illinois (Urbana) USA 33

Cambridge UK 42

Oxford UK 29

Canada combined 160

U Toronto 26

U British Columbia 17

Australia combined 95


13/24

The global market in degrees2003 OECD data

USA 28%

UK 12%

Germany 11%France 10%

Australia 9%

Japan 4%

Russ. Fed. 3%

Spain 3%

others 20%


14/24

Global public goods

in higher education

Global public goods in higher education

(1) have major elements of non-rivalry and/or non-excludability;

(2) are made broadly available across populations;

(3) affect more than one group of countries, and are broadlyavailable within countries

for example

(a) common or collective goods like the research system, andrecognition systems that facilitate cross-border mobility;

(b) cross-border externalities, i.e. the effects of higher education

in one nation on higher education in another nation


15/24

Global public goods in

higher education are

Under-recognized (due to the jurisdictional gap)

Under-produced in markets, and under-provided overall Global public goods are not unambiguous goods. Note that

cross-border externalities are not always positive (e.g. brain

drain in many nations is a global public bad). And the

research system tends to occlude work in languages other thanEnglish. We must ask the question whose global public

goods? Who is included in public? Who decides?


16/24

Anglo-American hegemony[especially US hegemony]

The nations that dominate global markets in higher educationalso dominate global public goods (yet they under- recognize the

public character of goods like research and evade the democraticresponsibilities suggested by public)

Global higher education markets powerfully sustain Anglo-American hegemony. Competition pulls status, resources and

people to the USA/UK, reproducing the unequal distribution of

academic capacity between naitons. Competition legitimates thesupremacy of American universities and models

English dominates research and the US/UK lead world output

The US is the world doctoral school, with half the worlds

foreign doctoral students (200,000 +), many of whom stay on


17/24

Unequal global knowledge flowsnumber of published papers in science and social science 1993-1997:

World Bank data 2000

3105,393 11,435

14,883 18,08833,426

53,160 58,91061,734

249,386

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Indonesia Korea China India Australia Canada Germany Japan UK USA


18/24

Global competition for brains (1)2000-2004 data, various sources, Purchasing Power Parity

nation data year Professorial salary

USD p.a.

USA (salary only, 9-10 months) 2003-04 $101,000 average

Singapore 2001 $92,000-130,000

Australia 2003 $75,000 base level

Korea (private universities only) 2000 $71,000 average

Germany, Netherlands 2002-03 $60,000-70,000

France, Spain, Finland 2002-03 $40,000-70,000

Argentina 2001 $12,000-22,000


19/24

Global competition for brains (2):

doctoral students crossing bordersPercentage (%) of all foreign students who are enrolled in research degreesOECD data for 2003 except USA 2003-2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

US doctoral

universities

Swizerland Sweden UK Australia


20/24


doctoral graduates staying in USAOECD/US data for 2000nation of origin of doctoralgraduates (selected nations)

proportion of doctoralgraduates planning to stay

India 83%

China 82%

UK 76%

Iran 67%

Argentina 62%

Germany 59%

Canada 58%

Australia 46%

Mexico 42%

Korea 37%


21/24


Clinton era globalization of US

roleOECD 2002 data

Doctoral degrees in science and engineering 1985 1990 1995

all doctoral degrees 18113 22867 26515

doctoral degrees to foreign students 2401 5002 7842

foreign graduates as % of all doctoral graduates 13.3% 21.9% 29.6%

foreign graduates planning to stay in US 1201 2449 5533

planning to stay, as % of all foreign graduates 50.0% 49.0% 70.6%


22/24

Enhancing and changing global

public goods in higher education

Creation of inter-governmental and multilateral spaces fornegotiating recognition systems, cost-sharing, the managementof cross-border externalities

Specialist units in national governments responsible formonitoring and negotiating cross-border effects

Involve non-government interests, market actors, universities

themselves in negotiation of global goods Cultural diversity in higher education ,on the basis of equal

respect, can become a primary global public good

This broader spread of higher education capacity as a common

global objective (rather than market competition)


23/24

Central propositions

1. Globalization combines (1) world economic markets operating

in real time and producing mainly private goods with (2) the

first world-wide system of communications, knowledge and

culture, which are predominantly public goods;2. The main impact of globalization in higher education is in

relation to (2), where it is central to research and culture. Yet

higher education is configured bypolicy to support the private

economy, and organized as a quasi-market competition;

3. This downplays global public goods, reproduces global

inequalities in the distribution of research capacity, and

underpins Anglo-American domination in higher education.


24/24

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you!

[email protected]

http://www.education.monash.edu.au/centres/mcrie/p

ublications/

after 1 July 2006 based at Centre for the Study of Higher

Education, University of Melbourne

Documents

York Education Lecture 060306