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.
Scott begins by addressing the very pertinent question Awhy are universities afraid of
globalization?@ He describes the present situation as one in
which Amainstream
university response to globalisation ..(ranges).. from reluctant acknowledgment
that globalisation is inescapable...to a steely determination to resist its
alleged corruption of the university=s
core academic and public-purpose values.@ After providing a convincing list of reasons
for this fear, Scott then goes on to describe what he believes will be the
impact of globalization on the university. His analysis on all points is very useful, and well worth reading.
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.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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