The other day I Googled Amarket-state higher education Bobbitt@, and came up with several interesting hits. One of these was a 2004 speech by Peter Scott, Vice Chancellor of Kingston University entitled The Impact of Globalization on Universities.
For me, Scott=s most thought provoking point begins with the statement that most universities have been created as a consequence of policies of States. As such, he argues, the university=s identity is ultimately aligned with the interests of its State. Of course, those interests have changed over time as constitutional organization has moved from the Princely State through the Nation-State, and universities have changed in response. Consequently, he concludes, the modern university is in myriad ways closely defined by the aspirations and organization of the Nation-State, and, in particular, its own Nation-State.
Our issue, then, is that the university of today is a Nation-State institution in a world transforming into a Market-State!
To me, this point goes to the core of the debate over future directions for higher education. In the Nation-State model, the university is responsible for contributing to improvements in the life of the nation in many ways - educating its young, producing new knowledge and inventions that will lead to new wealth creation within the State, providing service to local and national organizations and governments, etc. It is sheltered from most serious competition in order to facilitate its meeting these responsibilities. In the Market-State, what is the role to be, and most pertinent, what role will the State want the university to play? Scott describes very nicely some of the consequences of globalization to the university. However, without an understanding of the role society and the government will want the university to play in a Market-State, it is difficult to define effective responses to those changes.
One might argue that the Nation-State model for corporations was pretty well captured in congressional testimony during the 1950's by the then CEO of General Motors, Charles Wilson, AWhat is good for the country is good for General Motors and what is good for General Motors is good for the country.@ (Tracking down this exact quote is difficult. Most quotes drop the first clause of the sentence- an interesting sociological point in itself - and a BusinessWeek article has the clauses reversed. This form, for what it is worth, is from congressional testimony). This symbiotic close coupling of the health of a corporation and that of its home State could have applied to many, if not most, corporations at the time. However, the recent divergence between the health of the American economy and prospects for survival of General Motors points out how the Market-State has broken down these old relationships. In general, corporations in the Market-State era are healthy if they have used globalization effectively, and consequently the connection to a particular State is becoming more and more nominal. Conversely, the Nation-State=s determination to protect the economic health of certain corporate providers of mission-critical products, e.g. weaponry, is decreasing as alternative international sources, judged to be dependable, are identified.
Even though we have a developing understanding of the new roles of the corporation in the Market-State, the situation with regards higher education seems less obvious. The knowledge economy clearly plays a central role in the Market-State, and higher education plays a pivotal role in that economy. Thus, no advanced State can willingly allow its institutions of higher education to turn themselves into global organizations with little connection to their national roots unless there is assurance that educational needs can be met by other global educational organizations. Even then, the role of educational institutions in defining and supporting national cultural identity complicates the situation enormously. In the US and a few other countries, the situation is even further complicated because of the existence of a strong private higher education sector which already plays a somewhat different role than the public higher educaation sector. Thus it is not likely that all countries will respond in the same way to this transformation of constitutional expectations.
Several States do seem to be working to evolve a new role for their universities in this changing world. Australia, for example, has a recent history of encouraging globalization of its universities not only to bring in foreign exchange, but to raise the profile of the country and its institutions. At the same time, it has recognized that educational providers from other countries must have the symmetric right to enter the Australian market, and this has led to changes in domestic rules of e.g. accreditation.
I intend to explore the issue of Market-State expectations for higher education in future posts. In the meantime, give a read to Scott’s interesting speech.
Very interesting blog!
I have to come back often and with more time to comment.
So, I'll be back soon.
Posted by: Luis Moutinho | March 30, 2006 at 01:49 AM