Waseda University Global COE Program
Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration(GIARI)

2009-E-1
Possibilities and Challenges in Constructing a New Regional
Collaborative Educational
Framework in Asia
Kazuo Kuroda
Professor
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies
Waseda University
June 2009

The primary purpose of this research was to comprehensively capture and analyze theexisting activities that make up regional collaborative educational frameworks in Asia. This
provided the basis for further investigation into possible avenues of cooperation aimed at theestablishment of the “Asian Erasmus Plan” (hereinafter referred to as AEP).
This paper briefly overviews 10 international organizations and international
university associations, as discussed in section 1, for the purpose of organizing the necessary
points of discussion that will enable the construction of a new regional collaborative educationalframework in Asia.
1. The significance of exploring collaborative regional educational frameworks in Asia
Research on educational policies has basically aimed to cover the decision-making
process related to educational policies at the national and increasingly at the decentralized local
levels. The establishment of UNESCO in the aftermath of the Second World War has created
new space for actors from international organizations such as the World Bank and UNESCO toactively play a role in the process of planning educational policies particularly in developing
countries. As presented in research conducted by Philips Jones (2005), discussions ofinternational decision-making processes of educational policies at the global level haveincreased. However, with exceptions in Europe, where significant progress has been made inregional integration, research on the regional-level decision-making processes or frameworks inthe field of educational development has not garnished much attention within the field ofinternational educational policy research. Furthermore, there is hardly any research in thisregard for the East Asia region. Within ASEAN, discussions on the issue of regional integration
have taken a firm rooting only within the last ten years. Moreover, the fact that the First East
Asia Summit was not held until 2005 reveals that, generally speaking, interest in looking atpractices and policies for a regional framework were not high in general, including in the
education sector. In recent years, the direction of discussions on ASEAN integration,
specifically with regard to the framework of an “East Asian Community” at anintergovernmental level and over the long-term, suggests that there is widespread recognition of
the need to consider economic integration as a pressing policy task to be addressed by theconstituent members. The role of higher education harmonization has been recognized as
playing a vital role in this integration.
With regard to higher education, regional exchange within Asia and collaboration
between governments and institutions has increased rapidly. Whereas the interdependent
economies of the region where the only sign of deep regional integration in the past, nowadays
one can also point to an interdependent relationship between education systems in the region.
1

Furthermore, at the Second East Asia Summit, an agreement was made to promote regional
educational cooperation.

Prior to the Fourth East Asian Summit, the Meeting on Higher

Education of ASEAN+3 countries was held in Phuket, Thailand, the outcomes of which suggest
dramatic changes in the environment surrounding educational cooperation in the Asian region. It
can be considered both timely and practical, therefore, to endeavor to capture and analyze thehistory and activities of the existing frameworks in the Asian region in order to construct the
AEP.
2. Patterns of Asian regional educational frameworks
This research focuses on 10 organizations; a mix of international organizations anduniversity associations, which are considered to have particular relevance in any discussion
aimed at the construction a new regional collaborative educational framework in Asia: ASEAN1,
SEAMEO2, APEC3, UNESCO4, ADB5, AUN6, AUN/SEED-Net7, APRU8, UMAP9 and APQN10.
These 10 organizations have been further subdived into the categories offered below.
A first division is established according to member affiliations. For instance, the 10
international organizations can be divided into two groups. Firstly, members of ASEAN,
SEAMEO, APEC, UNESCO and ADB are represented by national governments whereas
members of organizations such as AUN, AUN/Seed-Net, APRU, UMAP and APQN arecomprised of universities and academic institutions. Moreover, within the same university
network, organizations such as AUN and APRU have established limits to their membership,targeting top universities, whereas in organizations such as UMAP, membership is a function ofa wider range of universities where membership is applied through respective national
governments or university associations.
A second division is made according to target regions. Organizations such as ASEAN,
SEAMEO, AUN and AUN/Seed-Net base their activities in the ASEAN region. By contrast,
APEC, APRU, UMAP, APQN and UNESCO are organizations that target the Asia-Pacificregion on a broader scale. UNESCO is a global organization whereas the UNESCO-Asia Pacific1

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)
3
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
4United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
5
Asian Development Bank (ADB)
6ASEAN University Network (AUN)
7
ASEAN University Network/Southeast Asia Engineering Education Development Network(AUN/SEED-Net)
8
Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU)
9University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP)
10
Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN)
22

Regional Bureau for Education promotes regional activities including in South Asia and Central
Asia. In regard to the membership of the ADB, we note that although its members arecomprised of developed countries from outside the region, its substantive scope of activities
corresponds to that of UNESCO.
Furthermore, there are other ways of categorizing the organizations above, besides theones already mentioned. For example, it is possible to focus instead on target sectors andinstitutional mission, among other possible categories. What can be noticed by grouping theseorganizations into categories is that within the regional higher education framework in Asia, notonly governments, but universities and evaluation institutions as well, interact in acomplementary way with government organizations. For instance with regards to AUN, not onlyis it the main university network in ASEAN, but it is also charged with overseeing the entire
regional higher education sector within ASEAN. Similarly, the APQN, a non-governmental
private international institution, also plays an important policy-making function.
From a geographical standpoint, regional cooperation in the field of education in Asia
has developed along two axes, cooperation in the ASEAN region and in the Asia-Pacific. The
regional frameworks for policy-making and coordination, namely ASEAN+3 and the East Asia
Summit, both of which boast an increase in activities recently, do not yet include an educational
cooperation element to them. Thus, if the AEP is to be presented in the meetings of ASEAN+3
or in the East Asia Summit, it will be the first educational framework to be embedded there.
Furthermore, by outlining these organizations according to target sectors andoperational missions, we conclude that there are institutions which target education as one of thesectors of regional integration or one of the various development sectors while other institutions
focus more specifically on the promotion of regional exchanges of universities or quality
assurance of higher education. This is evidence that such frameworks are multi-layered, playing
a complementary role with one another. Although this research argues that the majority of
institutions place importance in establishing cooperative relationships and partnerships withother regional frameworks, it also insists that cooperation develops according to themulti-layered functional roles of institutions.
3. Asian Erasmus Plan (AEP): Four challenges
In order to construct the Asian version of the Erasmus Plan which is to represent a
new regional higher education framework in East Asia, let us examine the existing challenges
arising from the analysis made on the 10 aforementioned organizations.
(1) Challenges regarding the target regions of the Asian Erasmus Plan (AEP)3

Firstly, defining the region the AEP is to target and ultimately operate in remains achallenge. As was previously noted, the region in question is divided along two axes: Southeast
Asia and the Asia-Pacific. A regional framework represents each geographical axis. However, ahigher education framework bringing together the three countries of Northeast Asia (Japan,
China and South Korea), as well as ASEAN countries, does not yet exist. This is an important
challenge to establishing any semblance of policy coherence in the region. International students
who study at higher education institutions in ASEAN are in majority international students from
China. The rapid increase in the number of international students from China in Southeast Asian
higher education institutions has set these institutions on a path of internationalization.
Furthermore, several achievements made with regard to agreements between
universities, along with the creation of institutions based abroad and teacher exchanges shows
just how closely Japanese and ASEAN universities are linked with one another. Taking this into
account, the need to construct a higher education framework under ASEAN+3 is evident and theframework envisaged would address issues relevant to both ASEAN member countries andcountries of Northeast Asia. With regards to Japan, China and South Korea, international
student exchanges and university exchanges are currently progressing rapidly, a pattern which is
not found in other parts of the world and which leads one to conclude that there is a certain defacto integration. Yet in spite of the growing links and collaboration between Northeast Asian
countries in the field of higher education, no framework exists within this region to coordinate
policy measures in higher education.
Similar to the “East Asia Community” framework being discussed within ASEAN’s
main policy coordination frameworks (ASEAN+3 or the East Asia Summit), it is important toemphasize the importance of discussing a way forward within the realm of higher education,
based on the frameworks of ASEAN (like SEAMEO or AUN), which are taking the lead inpolicy coordination at a regional level in Asia. Moreover, further engagement by Japan, China
and South Korea will enhance the growth of this Asian framework. In regard to regional
integration in East Asia, it is considered vital to utilize the “Reverse Hub-and-Spoke System”,
whereby ASEAN, representing a relatively weak economy, will try to engage stronger
economies like China and Japan through FTA agreements. This is opposed to using the“Hub-and-Spoke System” where big nations and larger markets play a central role, working to
involve surrounding countries and markets (Yamamoto 2007, Baldwin 2006). Such a system ofregional development may also be considered relevant in constructing a new regionalframework of higher education.
It is equally important to consider the target regions functionally. Countries like
Australia, New Zealand and India, which are all members of the East Asia Summit, play a4pivotal role in the internalization of higher education in the region – this is particularly true ofthe two countries from Oceania. The important role these countries play justifies their inclusion
in any new framework. In this regard, it leaves the question of what is to be done about the
involvement of the United States given its long history of educational exchanges with the Asian
region and moreover, its strong influence in many other policy circles. Bearing in mind theextremely large and developed higher education in the US, it is a challenge to maintain thecohesion of the regional framework without considering involvement from the US. A challenge
also remains when considering the inclusion of countries like Mexico, Chile or Peru (APEC
member countries) where international exchanges and cooperation between Asia has not yet
developed.
On the one hand, UMAP which is a framework initiated for Asia-Pacific Cooperation
and which currently includes East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, as well as countries
from Oceania among its members, is working as a well-functioning and robust framework.
However, the fact that China plays a major role in higher education in this region and is missing
as one of UMAP’s member countries, seems to drastically weaken the scope, strength andrelevance of UMAP. When considering regional integration and inter-regional cooperation in
Asia, the tension existing between two regional groupings, the Asia-Pacific as represented in
APEC and East Asia as represented in ASEAN+3, creates problems when positioning the US in
relation to this issue. One example of this challenge was observed when the framework for the“East Asia Economic Group,” presented by then President Mahathir of Malaysia in the 1990s,
did not come into being due to a US veto. Moreover on the eve of the East Asia Summit, there
are major political challenges to consider regarding the definition of the term “region”; forexample in cases where participation of the two countries from Oceania and India is strongly
encouraged by Japan for the purpose of counterbalancing a Chinese presence. The establishmentof a regional framework for higher education needs to focus on functional improvement, moreso than political interests.
(2) Challenges in the work plan for the Asian Erasmus Plan
Using existing networks and frameworks as a basis for our approach to the creation of
an AEP, we must decide whether the new framework will promote elite-type exchange or
mass-type exchange. Regarding the framework between universities, which constitutes the main
subject of this research, APRU, AUN and AUN/Seed-Net respectively represent a gathering ofelite universities, whereas the UMAP holds membership consisting of governments anduniversity associations aiming at a wider exchange of students to take place. By making the
Asian version of the Erasmus Plan a network and an exchange mechanism comprised of elites,5its management would be easier and in addition, make for stronger ties amongst member
universities. Moreover, limiting membership to elite universities in each country would set a
certain level of standards in terms of the quality of participants and activities undertaken, andwould also work as a motivating agent amongst constituent universities. In particular, when
considering the diversity of higher education systems in Asia, educational and researchstandards and gaps existing at both national and international levels, and the social hierarchy
embedded in some universities, it is wise to aim for an elite-type exchange at least during theinitial stage of this plan. However in such a case, it is crucial to consider whether elite-typeexchange benefits are able to accrue to participants within the network and how andnon-members will benefit, not to mention whether such types of exchange are sustainable. Suchissues need to be fully examined prior to the creation of a work plan leading to theestablishment of the AEP.
A central point of discussion leading to the AEP should also address the scope of theintentioned framework. Will the AEP be meant simply to be a financial program to promoteexchanges or will it coordinate higher education systems within the region and furthermore help
establish an “Asian Higher Education Zone”, modeling to a certain degree the Bologna Process.
In comparison to UMAP which has attempted to develop international education exchanges bydeveloping credit transfer systems or quality assurance of educational programs, the kind of
support centered on the provision of financial aid to enhance international educational exchange
limits the number of participating universities and moreover creates challenges of sustainability
and undermines impact. AUN, a network comprised of elite universities, engages in activities
related to credit transfer and quality assurance of education in order to promote sustainable
student exchange and research cooperation.
The adoption of the 2006 “Brisbane Communiqué” and the 2008 “Chiba Principles”,
has spurred forward the activities of APQN in regard to the coordination of higher educationand quality assurance in Asia, a trend that is observed in other regions of the world as well.
Moreover, not only are organizations such as SEAMEO and RIHED 11 working towards
assuring the flow of students within the region, but they also operate with the aim of advancing
the coordination of higher education in Southeast Asia by strengthening ASEAN integration,
increasing incentives to attract international students from other regions, as well as increasing
economic competition within the region. With this in mind, it is necessary to consider the Asian
version of the Erasmus Plan as a mechanism that will coordinate higher education within theSoutheast Asian region and may help in the construction of quality assurance and credit transfer
systems. In fact, such a scheme should not be limited to supporting student exchange only.
However a big challenge exists as to whether it is really possible, in Asia, to11

Regional Institute of Higher Education Development (RIHED)

6

accomplish a Bologna-like coordination of higher education systems.

This represents a very

real policy challenge. In the case of Europe, it is understood that movements towards
coordination have been developed with sufficient recognition of the diversity that exist amongst
higher education systems. In Asia, the gaps in diversity are not comparable to those found inEurope. For example, within AUN and AUN/Seed-Net networks of elite universities, many
adjustments or activities have been undertaken in order for universities – in Singapore andCambodia, for instance – to conduct activities together within the same network. Needless to say,in countries like China, Indonesia and the Philippines with thousands of higher education
institutions operating and where there are observable gaps in the quality of education, one mustask how relevant it is to target the whole higher education sector in Asia and to discuss the issueof coordination and integration.
There are several ways to tackle this particular issue. First, there is the AUN method
which adjusts its quality assurance and credit transfer systems by limiting the number ofparticipating universities. Alternatively, there is also the method of restricting membership to
only those universities that have achieved a certain level of standards. Furthermore, in parallelwith APQN, an agreement has been reached to set up a network within ASEAN in the form of a
sub-regional framework of UMAP, which would be similar to the “Big Mekong Delta Regional
University Exchange Work Plan”. This agreement ushers in the possibility of finding newopportunities for a multi-layered coordination and quality assurance mechanism similar to AUN.
Nevertheless, the existing frameworks have expanded their activities based on a strong
recognition of the challenges to diversity and gaps existing both at the national and international
levels of higher education in Asia. Future discussions on harmonization will most probably takeplace on issues of assistance given to such organizations and their prospective developments.
(3) Challenges in positioning the Asian Erasmus Plan (AEP) at the international level

Various attempts have been made so far to explain the theoretical foundationsof regional integration and regionalization. Two contrasting hypotheses have been used;
first, the perspective drawn from the Neorealist tradition, whereby regionalism isconcerned with the formation of a group by states within the region in challenge to whatcomes from outside the region, and second, the perspective drawn from the social
structuralist tradition (analysis of regionalism based on principle, benefit and identity)
whereby a region is structured with the strong influence of social and economic factors.
In reality, both are, to a certain degree, convincing. These concepts may be employed to
discuss the promotion of regional exchanges and harmonization of higher education in
Asia, but the debate would not be complete without recognizing that the movement
7

toward an integrated Asian higher education zone is not simply a passive one intended
to facilitate higher education cooperation based on regional mutual interdependency.
Global higher education trends have been influenced by English dominance and
Neoliberalism in this era of globalization and higher education in North America
remains ensconced in terms of its superiority in comparison to other regions.
Additionally, one should acknowledge yet another perspective that suggests that theErasmus Plan and the Bologna Process, which have served to form the regional higher
education zone in Europe, have increased the competitiveness of European higher
education outside the region. This added competitiveness has prompted the Asian
community to respond in kind and take a closer look at regional collaboration.
Tracing back the origin and history of higher education in Asia, one can seethat higher education systems in many countries are constructed on a Western higher
education model. In many Asian countries, conventional higher education systems haveexisted before modern times, but modern higher education systems were formed
separately from the model of traditional Asian academic research systems. In countries
colonized by Western nations, higher education systems and the language of instruction
were imposed by colonial powers and has become the foundation of modern higher
education. On the other hand, countries which have maintained their independence fromcolonization -- such as Japan, Thailand and China -- have sought out Western-type
higher education systems at their own will in the process of constructing their own
modern higher education systems. In so doing, they have co-opted many of the practices
found in Western nations. After gaining independence from the colonial powers,
higher education systems in Asia were localized to a certain degree, but Westerncharacteristics were preserved.
Thereafter, with the outbreak of the Cold War, academic influence from theSoviet Union and the US reached new levels. During the post-Cold War period, with a
new global marketplace and notions of globalization, the US higher education system,
considered internationally competitive, has continued to hold influential power in theshaping of Asian higher education. Given this situation, Altbach puts forward thecenter-periphery theory of the global knowledge system and higher education. This is inturn based on dependency theory and theories of new colonialism (Altbach andSelbaratnam 1989, Altbach 1998, Altbach 2004). Rooted in this historical explanation,
we find that the construction of a new regional higher education framework anduniversity alliance in Asia can be interpreted as a challenge to the global academic
system centered on Western theories.
However, is it really relevant to perceive the current higher education in Asia as
8the periphery and the Western academic system as the center? Higher education in theWest or produced in the West maintains its influence to a certain degree in terms of its
global reach. Yet, Asian higher education going through dynamic transformations bothin quantity and quality, has shed its role in the “center-periphery” structural theory,
which is used to position the relationship of higher education systems between Westernand non-Western countries.
Umakoshi (2004) points out the limit to the “center-periphery” theory and has
found a certain value in the “East Asian Approach” or the “J-Model” (Cummings 1997)
theory to understand and analyze the current higher education trends in Asia. Cummings
explains the essence of what was shared throughout Asia as the human resource
development strategy, what he termed the “J-Model”. This theory first appeared in his
work entitled, “Human Resource Development: The J-Model”, the last chapter of aco-authored publication with Altbach, The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education:
Implications for America (1997). He defines the J-Model in the following way:
1. The state coordinates education and research with a firm emphasis both on
indigenous value transmission and the mastery of foreign technology.
2. High priority is placed on universal primary education, while state
investment at the secondary and tertiary level is limited primarily to criticalareas such as engineering and the sciences.
3. Individual students, their families and the private sector are expected toprovide critical backup for the education provided by the state.
4. The Asian state in seeking to coordinate not only the development but also
the utilization of human resources involves itself in manpower planning andjob placement and increasingly in the coordination of science andtechnology.
(Cummings 1997, p 275-276)
The J-Model, needless to say, captures well the evolution of human resource
development in Japan. Contrary to the suggestive subtitle of Altbach’s work, Cummings work
does not emphasize the American model of human resource development, but rather, points toJapan as having gained enormous influential power in the development of education systems inneighboring states such as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia andother East Asian countries. Moreover, the model purports that Japan has been a supporting pillarof human resource development in the whole of East Asia. On another note, as stated by
Umakoshi, in terms of analyzing the historical development of Asian higher education,
9

Cummings’ third point relating to a mutually complementary relationship between the state andthe private sector is of great value. There is however, no large difference between discussions of
the “East Asian Miracle”, where East Asia’s economic success was attributed to strong
governments or the “Flying Geese Model” where the economic development model of Japan
being transferred to East Asian states was pictured as a flight of geese. If we apply the
discussion points raised by Umakoshi to the new regional higher education framework in Asia,
we conclude that mutual continuity or continuous linkages between higher education andeconomic development will further strengthen and enhance the relationship which already exists
in Asian higher education.
Hence, whether the framework or alliance becomes externally open or not becomes a crucial
point. Foreign consumption of Asian goods, enabled by open markets in Asia, has had
immensely positive effects on the region’s economy. Now, it is an important challenge forhigher education systems in Asia to consider how they will work with higher education outside
their region, and how to make such cooperation sustainable in the long-term. If a regional higher
education framework is conceived as standing in opposition to a model outside the region, it
will not only prompt a blockade in cooperative relations, but it will certainly not contribute to
the development of higher education worldwide. Higher education in Asia, which has achieved
great successes with regard to standards in both education delivery and research, must remain
diverse and aim for regional harmonization as well as collaborative relationships with partners
outside the region. When considering such a vision, it would be useful to refer to the European
higher education model, which engages the rest of the world in various types of partnerships;
for instance cooperation globally by way of the Erasmus Mundus program, with Asia through
ASEM, and with Africa by way of the “Nyerere Program”, which can be called the African
version of the Erasmus Plan undertaken in partnership with the AU.

(4) Future challenges to embedding the Asian Erasmus Plan regionally
The AEP should play the role of facilitating and promoting mutually interdependent
relationships within the region through exchanges and cooperation, which has developed defacto outside of a regional (ASEAN+3) framework. Moreover, we must consider how ASEAN
integration and the formation of the “East Asian Community,” as well as political and economic
ties strengthened through FTA agreements will impact the establishment of the AEP. Functional
cooperation will contribute to the realization of peace through regional integration and thus theconstruction of the AEP, with diverse regional frameworks enhancing social economic
integration, will also form the basis of political regional integration (Haas 1958). Deutsch
10

(1975) on the other hand, presents a theory on a pluralistic (integrated) security community
which enhances regional integration by defining “region” depending on whether human value is
integrated or not as a significant factor.
Yet by looking at ASEAN today, we do not necessarily observe integration of people’svalues or political systems. However, we do observe a situation where respect for sovereignty or
external inviolability, along with a peaceful approach to conflict resolution is repeatedly
reemphasized by way of international exchange (also known as the “ASEAN Way”). Due careand diligence must be used in attempting to apply a theoretical framework of regional
integration to the field of higher education. The theories and perspectives as presented above by
Deutsch and based on observations of European integration, along with observations made on
ASEAN integration by Acharya (2001), indicate that it is not about achieving a balanced andhighly standardized higher education zone as oriented in the European Bologna Process. The
underlying fact is that Asian higher education is characterized by great diversity and gaps inquality. It should not be about making drastic changes or modifications to the internal higher
education systems but rather aiming for harmonization in places where diverse higher education
systems can be linked at points of junction. The first type “melting pot harmonization” and thelatter, “mosaic harmonization” may be more helpful in clarifying the overall picture. In otherwords, the question is whether we aim for harmonization where we strive for a single type ofstandards, creating a single mold for all, or harmonization which seeks to find points of linkage.
Dr. Supachai is the first Director of AUN after its founding and the incumbent Director of
SEAMEO-RIHED. He has led a significant amount of research and led efforts in an attempt toconstruct a higher education zone in Asia. He emphasizes the need for a step–by-step approachto understanding various frameworks and to collaborate comprehensively, and in so doing we
may find linkages as presented in the “mosaic-type of harmonization”.
4. Aiming for a new higher educational framework in Asia
One of the clearest implications that can be drawn from this research is that in Asia
there are various regional higher education frameworks and they are jointly paving the way forthe formation of the Asian “Higher Education Zone”. This has been done through deep
collaboration with each and every actor in the region, all considered to be partners. However,there is no existing framework working under auspices of ASEAN +3 or the East Asian Summit
which serves to harmonize education cooperation in the region. This is what the various actors
in the region are striving for. Hence, the ASEAN frameworks of AUN or SEAMEO/RIHED
should be utilized as the basis to seek possible ways of collaboration with organizations such as
ADB, UMAP, APQN and others. This will likely be the key to any successful initiative that is11meant to be region-wide. At the time when the Erasmus Plan and Bologna Process were being
conceptualized in Europe, it had probably undergone many trials and errors prior to its actual
implementation. In order to see flourish the dream of constructing the “Asian Higher Education
Zone” for the purpose of realizing peace and prosperity in Asia, cooperation and coordination
between related organizations and stakeholders is greatly encouraged.

12References
黒田一雄 2007「『東アジア共同体』形成と国際教育交流」西川潤・平野健一郎編『東時あ共同体の構築－国際移動と社会変容』岩波書店
山本吉宣2007「地域統合理論と『東アジア共同体』」山本武彦・天児慧編『東アジア共同体の構築－新たな地域形成』岩波書店
Acharya, Amitav, 2001, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
Problem of Regional Order, London; New York: Routledge
Altbach, Philip and V. Selvaratnam eds. (1989) From Dependence to Autonomy: The
Development of Asian Universities, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Altbach, Philip (1998) Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University andDevelopment ,Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong

Altbach, Philip and Toru Umakoshi eds. (2004)

Asian Universities: Historical Perspective andContemporary Challenges, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland
Baldwin, Richard,

2006 “Multilaterizing Regionalizm: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocs on

the Path to Global Free Trade, “ World Economy, 1451-1518
Cummings, Williams (1997) Human Resource Development: The J-Model In Williams In
Cummings and Philip Altbach eds. (1997) The Challenge of Eastern Asian Education:
Implications for America, State University of New York Press, Albany
Deutsch, Karl W. et a., 1957, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International
Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press
Haas, Ernst B. , 1958, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economical Forces,
1950-1957. London: Stevens & Sons
Jones, Phillip W. with David Coleman., 2005, The United Nations and Education:
Multilateralism, Development and Globalization. RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group
Umakoshi, Toru (2004) Private Higher Education in Asia: Transitions and Development In
Philip Altbach and Toru Umakoshi eds. (2004)

Asian Universities: Historical Perspective andContemporary Challenges, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland

13

GIARI Working Paper Vol. 2009-E-1,
June 1 2009
Published by Waseda University Global COE Program
Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI),
Waseda University, Nishiwaseda Bldg. 5F#507 1-21-1
Nishi-waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan
E-mail: affairs@waseda-giari.jp
Webpage: http://www.waseda-giari.jp
Printed in Japan by Waseda University International Corporation

14