Trends and Issues Re-shaping Higher Education in Asia-Pacific MOLLY LEE, UNESCO Bangkok, email: m.lee@unescobkk.org Trends and Issues Re-shaping Higher Education in Asia-Pacific

Global trends in HE Massification – quantitative expansion Bureaucratisation – restructuring of governance and management Marketisation – privatisation and corporatisation Diversification – by funding sources and types of institutions Internationalisation – by students, staff, programmes and institutions It is possible to identify a number of global trends in higher education. Here are 5 trends and there could be more. First, there is the massification of HE especially in developing countries where there is rapid quantitative expansion of higher education systems. When a particular higher education system expands it is usually accompanied by the bureaucratization of the system where there is restructuring of the governance and management of the universities. Another trend is the marketisation of HE as reflected by the privatisation of the higher education sector and the corporatisation of public universities in many countries. There is also the diversification of HE in terms of funding sources and types of higher education institutions. Another significant trend is the internationalisation of higher education where there is increasing mobility of students, staff, educational programmes and higher education institutions across borders. I shall deal with each of these trends in greater detail in my presentation.

Thus, the need to reform Higher Education, in response to… The globalisation of the economy The shrinking of the welfare state The increasing commodification of knowledge In the literature, HE reforms can be attributed to 3 main factors, namely the globalization of the economy, the shrinking of the welfare state, and the commodification of knowledge. The global economy is increasingly based on information processing activities, Neo-fordist mode of production and international competition. Neoliberals argue that for the country to be competitive in the global market, it is essential to roll back the costly welfare state, to cut public spending and privatise public services. As the global economy is fast becoming a knowledge-based economy, higher education is central to national strategies for securing shares in the global market. Therefore HE should be reformed in response to the rapidly changing globalised knowledge economy.

The need to restructure Higher Education, resulting in… The rapid expansion of HE by enrolments and number and types of institutions Diversified sources of funding Changes in university governance and management The emergence of cross-border education So the restructuring of HE has become a worldwide phenomenon. Many countries in the Asia-pacific region has undergone massive expansion due to ever increasing social demand partly brought about by population growth, the democratisation of secondary education and the growing affluence of many countries in this region. As a result, HE has expanded in terms of student enrolments, participation rates, number and types of HEIs. The rapid expansion of HE and the rising unit cost have caused tremendous strain on many governments, therefore they have to seek other sources of funding and to restructure their higher education systems. The restructuring of HE in many countries involve the privatization of HE, the corporatization of public universities, the implementation of student fees and the formation of strategic partnership between the public and private sector in the provision of HE. The global trend in HE is a strong orientation to the market and increased accountability where universities are subjected to corporate managerialism which stress on measurement of outputs, productivity and efficiency, as well as performance indicators. Emergence of cross-border education – brought about by open and distance learning as well as some countries such as Australia, India becoming exporters of HE and other countries as importers of HE such as Malaysia, China, Vietnam, and others.

Trend l: Massification of HE Excess Demand Vs Excess Supply The development of a higher education system also depends on the economic, socio-cultural and political context of the country. Hence, there are distinctive differences among the higher education systems in the Asia-Pacific region. Although many higher education systems especially those in developing countries are expanding rapidly, there are a few that are undergoing contraction, namely, Japan, RO Korea and Australia because of demographic shifts. Very few developed countries have fertility rates at replacement level. For example, in Japan, the population ages 18-23 years has decreased from 11.5 million in 1995 to 8.6 million in 2005. In the case of S. Korea, while the number of high school graduates declined from 760,000 in 2000 to 570,000 in 2007, the freshmen quota of higher education decreased from 610,000 in 2000 to 550,000 in 2007. In Australia, population growth is expected to slow down further over the coming decades with a young population in 2026 smaller than today as the Australian population ages. In education terms, that means that some countries will have excess supply of places, while others will continue to experience excess demand. In Japan, it is predicted that the number of available university places will be equal to the number of applicants by next year, whereas in S.Korea, the number of available university places have already exceeded the number of high school graduates. Therefore, countries such as Japan, S. Korea and Japan will have to consider how best to use their higher education capacity.

Gross Enrolment Ratios (%) in Higher Education Country 1965 1975 1985 1995 2000 2005 Korea, Rep. of 6 10 34 52 72 90 Australia 16 24 28 72 63 72 Japan 13 25 29 41 46 55 Singapore 10 9 12 34 n.a. n.a. Thailand 2 4 20 20 32 43 Philippines 19 18 38 30 30 28 Malaysia 2 3 6 11 23 32 Indonesia 3 2 7 11 n.a. 17 Vietnam n.a. n.a. n.a. 4 10 16 China n.a. n.a. 2 5 7 19 India 5 9 9 7 n.a. n.a. Cambodia n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 3 3 Let us take a look at some statistics. This table shows the Gross Enrolment Ratios at the tertiary level in a number of countries in this region for comparison. We can see 3 distinct groups of countries here: High GER: 50% and above: Korea, Australia and Japan Medium GER: 20-49%: Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia Low GER: below 20%: Indonesia, Vietnam, China, India On the whole this time series data show that the GERs are increasing in nearly all the countries with the exception of Japan (2002-51%, 2003-52%, 2004-54%) and Australia (2002- 76%, 2003- 74%, 2004-72%) where the enrolment ratios have either plateau out or even dipping. One way of interpreting this set of data is that the top three countries which are developed countries will have excess supply of places because they have expanded to their full capacities while the rest of the countries will continue to expand their higher education systems. So one of the global trends of HE is the massification of HE with the exception of some developed countries.

Trend II: Bureaucratisation of HE Greater size and complexity of higher education institutions Bureaucratisation and standardisation Corporate managerialism and entrepreneurship Greater concerns over quality, efficiency, productivity and accountability As higher education systems expand they become more bureaucratic and regulated so as to ensure consistency of treatment in various areas pertaining to the management of higher education systems. But as the HE systems expands, they also become more complex, comprising a wide variety of institutions with different missions, scattered in different geographical locations, and thus making it increasingly difficult to be managed centrally. Therefore, a more decentralized management is needed to cope with the future challenges. Secondly, in adopting neoliberal ideology many governments are cutting back on their public and social expenditure which resulted in drastic budget cuts in government funding to universities. To overcome their budgetary constraints, universities need to seek alternative sources of funding and they need to be given freedom to generate their own revenues through engaging in different kinds of market-related activities. Thirdly, as universities find themselves operating more and more in a competitive and market-oriented environment, they need to be flexible and to respond quickly to market pressures. Therefore, many academic leaders recognize these pressures and have started searching for ways to make their institutions more entrepreneurial and autonomous. Fourthly, as many universities continue to grow and expand with limited resources, their stakeholders including the state are concerned with the quality of education they provide. Thus, universities are increasingly subjected to external pressures to achieve greater accountability for their performances.

University Governance and Management Autonomy-accountability trade-off Responsive and responsible universities Quality assurance mechanisms Peer review, performance indicators The relationship between higher education institutions and the state is largely dependent on the issue of autonomy and accountability. The state and higher education institutions are constantly engaged in the redefining of their mutual relationship, with the state demanding more accountability and the higher education institutions insisting on more autonomy. A significant global trend is an increase in institutional autonomy in return for more accountability. In some countries such as the Philippines, institutional autonomy is closely linked to he level of accreditation of that particular higher education institution. The ideal contract between society and university is that university must be RESPONSIVE and RESPONSIBLE. On the one hand, universities must be responsive to the needs of society which includes the students, the economy and the state; and on the other hand universities should also assume crucial responsibilities towards society such as producing public intellectuals who are at the forefront of bringing about societal change; and producing skilled human resources for the labour market. Quality issues dominate the higher education debate in many countries, as ministers, bureaucrats, employers and business interests become increasingly concerned about the outputs of higher education institutions and the suitability of graduates to meet the needs of employers. The main issues in the quality debate are the maintenance and improvement of levels of teaching, learning, research and scholarship; improvements in the quality and adaptability of graduates; how to define and measure quality; management approaches likely to improve outcomes from universities and colleges; the use of benchmarking and performance indicators; and how to convince stakeholders that institutions and systems are doing a competent job in ensuring quality outputs. It has been observed that the state will tend to favour performance indicators as a means of assessing quality; the academic community will tend to favour peer review, whereas a market-led HE system will generate consumer-oriented approaches to quality assessment. The general trend now is a shift away from peer review to both state-led performance indicators and to market-let approaches.

Trend III: Marketisation of HE Corporatisation of universities: Australia, Malaysia, Japan Entrepreneurial universities: Singapore Autonomous universities: Indonesia, Thailand People-founded universities: China, Vietnam Another global trend is the marketization of HE as reflected by corporatized universities in Australia, Malaysia, Japan; entrepreneurial universities in Singapore; autonomous universities in Indonesia, Thailand; and people-founded universities in China and Vietnam.

Common Features of Marketisation University heads as CEOs Increased power of central administration Pressure to generate revenues Pressure for more internal and external quality control Delinking from the civil service It is possible to draw some generalizations from the marketization of HE: The corporatised and autonomous universities have increased institutional autonomy where university heads act like CEOs, making quick decisions without restricted by bureaucratic regulations or much consultation with the academics if they chose not to. In many of these restructured universities, the traditional collegial methods of decision-making have been replaced by top-down executive decisions taken at central administration of the universities. Restructured universities are under pressure to seek diversified sources of funding and they are allowed to engage in market-related activities so as to generate revenues for their operating costs. Most governments still continue to fund the public universities but the funding mechanisms have changed from rigid line budgeting to block grants or formula-based funding or even performance-based funding in some places. Public universities in many of these countries are subjected to more internal and external quality control and in all the cases, some forms of quality assurance agencies or accreditation bodies have been established to perform these tasks. Thailand, Singapore and Japan are some of the countries that have delinked their universities faculty members from the civil service.

Expansion of Private Higher Education With the marketization of HE, there is also rapid expansion of private higher education in the Asia Pacific region. The three top countries with the largest share of student enrolment in private higher education are found in Asia; Philippines (85%) Republic of Korea (80%) Japan (75%)

Trend IV: Diversification of HE Diversification of types of HEIs Diversification of funding sources Diversification of providers The diversification of higher education can be analysed in terms of different types of higher education institutions, multiple sources of funding and the emergence of new types of providers of higher education.

Differentiation of HEIs Stratification of HE Different types of HEIs – traditional, virtual, technical, open learning, community-based, for-profit and non-profit Differentiated missions Open and distance learning Cross-border education The massive expansion of HE has brought about a differentiation of HEIs. There are different types of HEIs with different missions or purposes to cater for the different needs of the diverse groups of students. The different types of HEIs include the traditional universities, virtual universities, polytechnics, technical institutes, open learning institutes, and community colleges. Open universities and regional universities were established in many countries to make HE more accessible to people especially the working adults and those staying in remote rural areas. Another new development is the emergence of transnational education, for many countries in this region are importers of cross-border education from advanced countries like Australia, UK and USA.

Different Learning Pathways Alternative higher education delivery systems Continuous learning pathways and lifelong learning Qualification frameworks Recognition of prior learning Equivalency of qualifications The existence of many different types of HEIs in each country infers that there are different pathways of learning. The challenge is how to develop a single system which allows maximum flexibility in career planning and supports and encourages lifelong learning. The aim is to create a higher education system that will allow mobility in terms of flexible entry and exit into the system. Several countries in the region, such as Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Hong Kong have established qualification frameworks to provide typical learning pathways within and across educational sectors and to support flexible education through recognition of prior learning and to facilitate the articulation of equivalency of qualifications from other countries. In the Philippines, there is the Ladderized Education Program which bridges Technical-Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and Higher Education with the aim of opening up more opportunities for career and educational advancement to students and workers.

Diversification of Funding Sources Privatisation of HE Policy of corporatisation Cost-recovery – tuition fees Full fee-paying foreign students Franchise programmes Overseas campuses Another form of diversity in higher education is the diversification of sources of funding. Although private higher education is a traditional feature in countries such as Japan, S. Korea, Philippines and Indonesia, it is a relatively new development in countries such as Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. The privatization of higher education occurs when the state liberalizes its policy by allowing the private sector to establish higher education institutions to meet excess demand for university places. As mentioned earlier, another recent trend in higher education reforms is the corporatization of public universities where state-run universities are required to generate their own revenue by engaging in market-related activities in the face of budget cuts in government funding. Such a reform has already occurred in Australia and is now occurring in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand and more recently in Japan and Singapore. Another higher education reform is the policy of cost-recovery from students. In recent years, countries such as China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, which did not charge tuition fees in the past, have begun to collect fees from a large portion of their university students. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, universities have long recruited international students and charged them full fees so as to generate revenue to compensate for the budget cuts from their respective governments. The drive to generate more income has led quite a number of universities to franchise their programmes and set up branch campuses overseas. For examples, we have Monash University and Curtin University in Malaysia, RMIT University in Vietnam and Nottingham university in China.

Different funding mechanisms Shift from rigid line budgeting to block grants or formula-based funding Emergence of competitive funding and performance-based funding University ranking and flagship universities As mentioned earlier, in many countries, the mechanisms by which governments disburse public funds to the universities have changed from rigid line budgeting to block grants or formula-based funding. Some countries have introduced performance-based funding and competitive funding especially for research. University ranking is in vogue these days and this has far-reaching implications on the allocation of funds to universities within a particular country. Quite a number of countries in this region aspire to establish world class universities and so the governments allocate more resources to the flagship universities than to other universities in their respective countries. For examples, there is the 985 and 211 projects in China, Brain Korea 21 in S. Korea and Apex universities in Malaysia

Diversification in Types of HE Providers Government Private providers – for-profit, not-for-profit Media companies Multinational companies Corporate universities Consortia of universities Not only are there different types of HEIs, but there are also different types of HE providers such as private providers run by for-profit corporations, non-profit organizations and religious bodies. The marketization of higher education has also brought about many new types of higher education providers. These new providers include media companies such as Pearson (U.K.) and Thomson (Canada); multinational companies such as Apollo (U.S.), Informatics (Singapore) and Aptech (India); corporate universities such as those run by Motorola, Intel and Toyota; and consortia of universities such as Universitas 21.

Trend V: Internationalisation of HE The increased mobility of students, staff, programmes and institutions Greater demand for foreign education – students, families, and governments The view that Higher Education is a trade service The expanded number of importers and exporters of cross-border education The internationalization of higher education is reflected by the increased mobility of students, academic staff, educational programmes and higher education institutions across national borders. The driving forces for internationalization have included greater demand for foreign education by students, families and governments. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on economic growth and income generating opportunities that are associated with cross-border higher education, leading to the fact that education is now one of the 12 service sectors in GATS. The number of importers and exporters of cross-border higher education in the Asia-Pacific region has expanded rapidly in the past two decades.

International Mobility of Students 1.85 million in North America and Western Europe 83% of total in five countries – USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada USA- largest number, market share declining UK- 2nd largest number, also market share declining Largest source: 32% from Asia and the Pacific The 2005 UIS statistics show that 1.8 million foreign students were studying in North America and Western Europe The United States is by far the most popular destination, attracting almost 590,128 students in 2005. The top 5 destinations – the US, the UK, Germany, France and Canada – together attracted 83% of the total number of foreign students in North America and Western Europe. But the market share for foreign students is changing. For example, the market shares in both the US and the UK have declined in recent years, but the number of foreign tertiary education students in Australia grew more than six-fold between 1990 and 2003, and its market share has grown from 8.5% to 10%. Overall, the largest source of foreign students in North America and Western Europe is Asia and the Pacific, home to 32% of all foreign students.

Students flow in Asia-Pacific region Flowing out more than flowing in Leading destinations –Australia, UK and USA Largest outflow – China Regional providers – Australia and Japan Just briefly on the flow of students in the Asia-Pacific region. Statistics show that the flow of international students OUT of the Asia-pacific region are NOT matched by student flows INTO the region. More students from the A-P region go out to study compared to students coming into the region. Asia heads the list of regions sending tertiary level students abroad. About 70% of all Asian students abroad study in the three leading English-speaking destinations, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. In 2005, China has 92,370 students studying in USA, 52,677 students in UK, 40,316 in Australia and 27,129 in Germany. Japan has 44,092 students in the US while S. Korea has 55,731 students in the US. Within the Asia-Pacific region, Australia and Japan are the main regional providers. The 2005 data show that Australia has 207,264 foreign students and most of them come from Malaysia (18,538); Hong Kong (13,525); Indonesia (11,302); and Singapore (11,206). Japan has 125,917 foreign students and most of them come from China (83,264) and S. Korea (22,571).

International Mobility of Programmes Twinning programmes Franchising Branch campuses E-learning As for the mobility of educational programmes, there are different ways by which this can be achieved. Partial mobility occurs through twinning arrangements where part of the programme is offered both domestically and abroad. More substantial mobility is achieved when a domestic programme is offered abroad through a different institution under a franchise arrangement. Complete mobility is achieved when the parent institution establishes a branch campus in its own name in another country. There is also the case of distance and e-learning where the programme can be delivered in another country through the use of ICT. Data on enrolment that results from program mobility have shown that there is a general increase in the process. For Australian universities, 26% of their foreign students in 1996 were studying in their own home country. Five years later, the figure had risen to 37% since new enrolments of foreign students offshore exceeded new enrolments by foreign students going to Australia to study.

Major Issues and Challenges Funding and resources Quantity and quality dilemma Pressure for more and better HE Increasing role of ICT No “one size fits all” solution Tension between world ranking and meeting local needs Challenge of community engagement Employability of graduates Balance between regulation and autonomy Balance between competition and cooperation Here is a short list of what I deem are major issues and challenges facing HE in this region. This list is by no means exhaustive. The perennial need to find sufficient resources to facilitate expansion of HE in many developing countries, on the one hand, and the need to find ways in utilizing the higher education capacity in those countries that are experiencing declining population growth. Then there is the Quantity and quality dilemma. There is an increasing pressure for more and better HE in order to cope with the rapidly developing information and knowledge society The increasing role of ICT as a driving force and its impact on HE. The great diversity among countries at different stages of development in the Asia-Pacific region also means that there will be no “one size fits all” solution to these challenges. The increase pressure to become world-class universities, at times, may be in conflict with attending to local needs and developing the community-university relationship. There is the continual challenge of, what is sometime called, the “Third mission” of the universities which is related to community engagement and the issue of “socially engaged scholarship”. there is the issue of the employability of graduates Last but not least, there is a need to balance between regulation and autonomy in higher education, and also a balance between competition and cooperation.

THANK YOU