BOX 6.5 Intermediary organizations
TAMA association in Japana
The aim of the TAMA (Technology Advanced Met- ropolitan Area) association is to improve the com- petitiveness of small and medium enterprises in the Tama region (northwest of Tokyo). The creation of the association was initially supported by the Kanto regional bureau of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. Members of the association include small and medium enterprises, regional tertiary institutes, and banks.
The benefits of belonging to the association accrue mostly to those enterprises engaged in prod- uct innovation, rather than process innovation. So the fi rst condition for this model (and other interme- diary models) to have some utility is the existence of fi rms that are innovation driven, regardless of size.
Knowledge-integrating communityb
A knowledge-integrating community supported by the Cambridge–MIT Institute (a collaboration
between the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, and the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology, United States) may be a good model for government-industry-university collaboration.
One example is the Silent Aircraft knowledge- integrating community of the U.K. government.
Because of the nature of the problem and the indus- try, collaboration among these three parties was seen as essential. A government body was needed to ensure compliance with existing regulations and potentially amending some of these. Industry part- ners (airlines) were involved because they are the end users. The analytical and research part was under- taken by a research institute. The involvement of banks helps address issues of capital.
a. T. Kodama 2008.
b. Acworth 2008.
High-tech subsectors offer potential for university-industry links—and in China, Thailand, and Vietnam particularly, in information technology and electronics. Yet other more medium-tech parts of an econ- omy may offer scope for these links, such as the rubber industry in Thailand, which has shown promising collaboration, nota- bly in testing and standards.75 Some lower- value-added sectors dominated by small and medium enterprises may also offer such scope, to the extent that they are upgrad- ing their technology, or some subsectors in agriculture.76
Stewardship of the
Characteristics of internationalized higher education in East Asia
Perhaps the biggest growing trend in inter- nationalized higher education in East Asia is that of international “people mobility.” Of all East Asian countries, China sends by far the greatest number of students to study in foreign countries. In 2007 more than 421,000 Chi- nese students were enrolled in tertiary educa- tion classes in a foreign country (fi gure 6.6).
While the large disparity between China and other countries in the region on this indica- tor can likely be explained by population differences, the number of tertiary students studying abroad from other less populated countries in the region is not insignifi cant.
More than 54,000 Japanese tertiary students were studying abroad in 2007, 45,000 Malay- sian students, and more than 32,000 students from Hong Kong SAR, China. Among lower- income countries in the region, Vietnam sent about 27,000 tertiary students to study abroad in 2007.
The highest proportion of Asian tertiary students studying abroad in 2007 chose to study in the United States (33 percent;
fi gure 6.7). About 13 percent chose to study in the United Kingdom, 12 percent in Australia, 10 percent in Japan, and 8 percent in Germany. This list of receiving countries is not surprising: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Germany account for almost 80 percent of foreign stu- dents worldwide and more than 76 percent of Asian students.77
Prog ra m mobi l it y (wh ich i nvolve s e-learning and face-to-face teaching in local partner institutions) is the second most popu- lar form of cross-border higher education (box 6.6). Institutional mobility, where uni- versities open campuses in foreign countries, is also an increasingly important, if novel to East Asia, feature of cross-border education.
Cross-border higher education can address several disconnects identified in chapter 3, and countries are pursuing opportunities to improve their higher education systems. The mobility of domestic and foreign students and staff often encourage political, cultural, and academic mutual understanding between
institutions. Some countries see cross-border exchanges as skilled migration: the recruit- ment and retention of talented international students and faculty can pay large dividends for a host country’s knowledge economy and make its higher education system more com- petitive and innovative. In this way, interna- tionalization of higher education can help address the first and second disconnects.
Moreover, giving more foreign students access FIGURE 6.6 Tertiary students studying abroad, 2007
Source: UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) Data Centre.
0 Cambodia
China Hong Kong SAR, China Indonesia Japan Lao PDR Malaysia Mongolia Philippines Singapore Thailand Vietnam
50 100 150 200 250 thousands
300 350 400 450
FIGURE 6.7 Asian students studying abroad in tertiary schools in the top-fi ve receiving countries, 2007
Source: UIS Data Centre.
0 5 10 15 20
percent
25 30 35
United States
United Kingdom
Australia Japan Germany
to domestic higher education can lead to increased revenue generation for institutions, through charging full tuition fees. And cross- border education can offer opportunities for capacity building for sending countries:
fellowship programs for civil servants, aca- demics, and students can be policy-building instruments, in addition to developing teach- ing and research skills. These opportunities can help address the fi rst and second discon- nects, as well as the disconnects between higher education institutions themselves and higher education institutions and other skill providers (fourth disconnect).
In East Asia, the increasing cross-border participation appears to be demand driven:
the growing internationalization of higher education is the result of skilled-worker migration (such as the recruitment of talented international students to work in the host country), revenue generation opportunities
(as when foreign students generate income for institutions through entrepreneurship), and the need to develop a more skilled workforce (such as scholarship programs for domes- tic civil servants and academics to facilitate knowledge transfers between host and local institutions). Malaysia; Hong Kong SAR, China; China; and Singapore have been par- ticularly active in cross-border education dur- ing the past decade.
Recent research confirms that the deci- sions to study abroad are often rooted in the labor market: students decide to enroll in tertiary education abroad to obtain a job in that country.78 Indeed, greater numbers of students decide to pursue higher education in the United States from “lower skill-price”
countries than from “higher skill-price” coun- tries. Moreover, “higher skill-price” countries attract more foreign students than “lower skill-price countries.”
BOX 6.6 E-learning and virtual universities as instruments of internationalization
To increase accessibility to tertiary education, coun- tries are turning with greater frequency to distance- learning centers and virtual universities. For many countries, this trend is attractive for three main rea- sons: it allows the sharing of resources, costs, and infrastructure to deliver e-learning; it provides a platform for competing with international provid- ers; and it can reduce duplication among existing universities.
In most of the world, particularly East Asia, vir- tual universities are a novel activity. While enroll- ments are diffi cult to track, particularly in the region, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Center for Educational Research and Innovation recently surveyed tertiary institutions offering e-learning modules to learn more about their activities. It found that many virtual universities are being used as instruments of internationalization.
For example, the United Kingdom’s Open University enrolls more than 25,000 international students, more than 15 percent of the total enrollment. Similarly, the
Open University Catalunya’s enrollment is more than 20 percent international. German and Mexican vir- tual universities reported similar international enroll- ment ratios.
As virtual universities become more popular, a central challenge will be to ensure quality and consumer protection for students and parents.
National regulatory frameworks will have to take into account international benchmarks to ensure the comparability of degrees and easier comparison against international standards. With these efforts to enhance the international comparability of virtual learning, countries will need to improve the infor- mation available to prospective students so that they can make informed decisions about where to enroll.
Institutional autonomy will also be important. Being able to partner with information technology institu- tions and providers to keep costs manageable will be a continuing challenge for virtual universities.
Source: OECD 2004.
Increasing the number of tertiary insti- tutions in a sending country with a low skill-price increases outbound migration of tertiary students, whereas improving the quality of domestic tertiary institutions decreases student migration.79 This is likely the result of the higher number of college graduates increasing the number of work- ers who would benefit from migrating to high skill-price countries. But higher quality retains students in country.
In East Asia, students who study abroad at the tertiary level tend to return to their home country in larger numbers than do students who study abroad from other regions.80 But foreign-trained students from low-wage coun- tries are less likely to return than foreign- trained students from high-income countries.
Moving forward
While the potential of the internationaliza- tion of higher education for East Asia is great, it must be managed carefully. How can it be handled in ways that promote quality and recognition, increase access and equity, encourage cost-effectiveness, build capacity, and best address the disconnects identifi ed in chapter 3?
Lessons from the international experience suggest the following:81
First, higher education policies in low-
•
income countries and countries with low skill-prices need to be informed by the causes and consequences of the out- migration of students seeking higher- paying jobs.
Second, as the global competition for skills
•
intensifi es, promoting consumer protec- tion is paramount: students need trans- parent information about the quality and international validity of programs they wish to enroll in. This implies that quality assurance and accreditation systems need to cooperate at the international level and reference international benchmarks.
Third, because student participation in
•
cross-border education is largely fi nanced by students, those of lower income and
educational backgrounds are less likely to participate. Financial support through targeted or means-tested scholarship pro- grams and increased information about cross-border programs could narrow this equity gap. To help universities become more relevant, demand driven, entrepre- neurial, and profi table, they need fi nan- cial autonomy so that they can control the revenue they generate.
Fourth, to build capacity, cross-border
•
initiatives need to meet quality and skill needs of countries in ways that promote lifelong learning, while managing the risk of brain drain.
***
The previous parts of this study docu- mented some of the main constraints that East Asia’s higher education systems are fac- ing. Five fundamental disconnects prevent the region’s higher education systems from contributing to innovation and technologi- cal capability and from addressing the mis- matches between the demand for and supply of skills.
These structural deficits result largely from country failures to implement coherent sets of policies to address the challenges and shape the directions of their higher education systems holistically. This lack of vision has led to ineffi ciencies throughout the system.
There is no magic formula for articu- lating and implementing a fully fledged vision for higher education, but success will depend on two key factors the previous chapters have examined: (a) setting the right incentives and (b) mobilizing and allocating resources effi ciently and effectively. Effec- tive fi nancing policies will need to include a strategic framework that allows further resource mobilization while maximizing the effectiveness and effi ciency of fund use and allocation. Improving the manage- ment of public institutions will require that countries reassess autonomy and account- ability within their systems. And providing effective stewardship will require countries to better coordinate different government
agencies, steer private higher education, encourage university-industry links, and navigate the increasing trend of cross- border education.
Two steps forward, one step back. East Asia’s higher-income economies have made spectacular gains in higher education delivery over the past few decades, but the low- and middle-income economies are struggling to replicate the standard bearers’ success. These final chapters have offered suggestions for how the higher education systems in low- and middle-income countries can close the gap with global leaders—some of which are their neighbors.
Notes
1. World Bank 2010f.
2. World Bank 2010d.
3. Mok 2010.
4. Tertiary Education Commission of New Zealand 2009.
5. This omits some Asian countries with older numbers.
6. Levy 2008b, 2010.
7. Praphamontripong 2010.
8. Although many Chinese PHEIs carry “univer- sity” in their name, there are offi cially no pri- vate universities (Yan 2010).
9. Valisno 2002.
10. Levy 2010.
11. Di Gropello, Kruse, and Tandon 2011.
12. BAN-PT (Indonesia’s National Higher Edu- cation Accreditation Board) was established to introduce a quality-awareness and self- assessment tradition among public and pri- vate sector providers. It has also recently begun to reference international benchmarks in its accreditation processes.
13. World Bank 2010e.
14. In Vietnam in 2006, for example, average published articles per academic staff were only 0.01 percent for private universities but 0.45 percent for public universities (World Bank 2008).
15. Orbeta 2008; Yilmaz 2009.
16. Levy 2008a.
17. Doner, Intarakumnerd, and Ritchie 2010.
18. LaRocque 2002.
19. Semi-elite universities such as Bangkok University, Dhurakij Pundit University, and the University of the Thai Chamber of
Commerce are individually much larger than the country’s demand-absorbing institutions (Praphamontripong 2010).
20. Okada 2005.
21. Levy 2010.
22. Levy 2010.
23. The government policy stance mostly includes the existence of a supportive legal, strategic, and fi scal framework for PHE (PHE promo- tion laws and decrees, PHE growth targets, fi scal incentives) and decisions on public sec- tor expansion.
24. M. Lee 1999.
25. Mei 2002.
26. Cao 2007; Deng 1997; J. Lin 1999.
27. World Bank 2009b.
28. The diagnostic of the regulatory environment across countries is constrained, however, by lack of systematic and fully comparable information across countries.
29. UNESCO 2006.
30. Cai and Yan 2009.
31. Sukamoto 2002.
32. The share of the private sector has been increasing rapidly in China from less than 9 percent in 2002 to about 20 percent now.
33. Lax regulation is more likely to be an issue where the internal management structure of a PHEI does not support accountability to the broader community.
34. Alternative (nontuition) private funding in East Asia, as elsewhere, is more common in semi-elite and religious or cultural subsec- tors.
35. Valisno 2002; World Bank 2008.
36. Japan is often taken as an example and bench- mark in the advocacy of East Asian govern- ment subsidies to PHEIs.
37. Yonezawa and Baba 1998.
38. Levy 2010.
39. LaRocque 2002.
40. Bjarnason and others 2009.
41. Yonezawa and Baba 1998.
42. Mei 2002.
43. Bastiaens 2009.
44. M. Lee 2004.
45. Postiglione and Mak 1997.
46. Ziderman 2003, 2006.
47. S. H. Lee 1998.
48. Arguments include fairness to the private sec- tor, expansion of PHE, improvement of PHE, increased competition between the public and private sectors, that higher education provides externalities and so merits public subsidies, and that a vulnerable private sector
can lead to a proportional shift that burdens the public sector.
49. Chapman and Drysdale 2008.
50. These are typically business, fi nance, lan- guages, and various social sciences.
51. Limited subsidies have not prevented the sector from expanding (or moving to higher quality) in Korea, for example.
52. Notwithstanding the proportional decline in a couple of countries.
53. In this respect, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam may want to change their policy stance. They might also consider making the impact on PHE one element in their delibera- tions on public expansion.
54. As seen in Taiwan, China.
55. OECD 2008b.
56. Tansisin 2007.
57. Ca 2006.
58. Audretsch 2008.
59. These approaches include classroom lectures, business plans, case studies, entrepreneurs as guest speakers, student business start-ups, busi- ness games, student entrepreneur clubs and net- works, placements with small fi rms, feasibility studies, communication training, consulting for small and medium enterprises, support for graduate student start-ups following the course, universitywide entrepreneurship education, specialist entrepreneurship degrees, distance education programs, external partnerships, and courses for entrepreneurship teachers.
60. Mok 2010.
61. Patton, Warren, and Bream 2009.
62. Hansen and others 2000.
63. Potter 2008.
64. Perhaps no more than fi ve universities in the United States derive signifi cant income from licensing of research fi ndings or from royal- ties (Geiger and Sa 2008).
65. Wu 2010.
66. Chen and Kenney 2007.
67. Chinese universities are also discovering the downside of start-ups and are distanc- ing themselves from direct ownership and responsibilities (Zhou 2008).
68. Miner and others 2001.
69. Bramwell and Wolfe 2008; Lundvall 2007.
70. Yusuf and Nabeshima 2009.
71. Darby, Zucker, and Wang 2004.
72. As Seagate did in Thailand in the late 1990s (Doner, Intarakumnerd, and Ritchie 2010).
73. Ca 2006.
74. In East Asia the case of the dual-training pro- gram in the Philippines is a good example of government, fi rm, and institution collabora- tion in training (di Gropello, Tan, and Tandon 2010).
75. Doner, Intarakumnerd, and Ritchie 2010.
76. See, for example, Brimble and Doner (2007) and Kruss and Lorentzen (2007) on the shrimp industry in Thailand and the wine industry in South Africa, respectively.
77. Rosenzweig 2009.
78. Rosenzweig 2009.
79. Rosenzweig 2009.
80. Rosenzweig 2009.
81. OECD 2004; UNESCO 2006.