Frontier of Private Higher Education Research in East Asia
東アジアにおける高等教育研究のフロンティア

RIIHE Research Series
私学高等教育研究所研究叢書

3

Research Institute for Independent Higher Education (RIIHE)
日本私立大学協会附置 私学高等教育研究所

i

まえがき
私学高等教育の国際比較研究を、日本人としてどのような形で進めるべきか？ 20 年近くの歳月がたってしまったが、私学を中心とした高等教育の発展という切り口で日本の高等教育の特質をとらえ世界の高等教育研究に影響を与えた天野郁夫先生たちや、一足先を行くアメリカの高等教育の動向を示し続けることで日本の高等教育に大きな影響を与えた
喜多村和之先生などは、私たちの世代の日本の高等教育研究者の目標となってきた。高等
教育研究の国際化は、着実に進んでいる。アルトバック先生とともに英語でアジアの高等教育についての著書をまとめられた馬越徹先生のお仕事は、アジア人によるアジア高等教
育研究の水準が高まっていることを見事に示した。また、21 世紀に入って日本人、そしてアジア人の高等教育研究者による英語での発信は、飛躍的に増加している。同時に、現在の英語での出版事情は、すでに「日本」という国に市場価値を見いだせなくなっており、日本人の研究者は「アジア」「OECD」など、国際的な地域やグループの一部として、自らの高等教育システムをとらえ、分析し、発信しなければならない時代となっている。
他方で、高等教育研究のなかでの比較研究の立場は、非常に難しくなってきている。外国の高等教育のあり方を日本語で書くとき、その教育システムや社会全体がもつ文脈を十分語らなければ、なぜ、ある政策手段が選択され、ある効果が起きるのかは説明できない。
そうすると、日本へのインプリケーションをいち早く得たい読者に対し、前提ばかりが妙に長いとの印象を与える。比較研究はそこまで大変な仕事なのに、最近は英語が共通語として普及することで、簡単に外国人と出会い、あるいは一度も会ったことのない外国人とインターネットを通じて「共同研究」ができ、誰とも連絡を取らずとも、ウェブサイトを覗くだけである種の論文は書けてしまう。おまけに、各国の高等教育研究のコミュニティが拡大し、実践との結びつきが増す中で分野が細分化し、純粋な「比較高等教育研究」は、日本のみならず、米国の高等教育学会などでもマイナーな存在となっているようである。
グローバル化は、国際比較研究を日常化させ、同時に、その手軽さのなかで、日本語でも、英語でも、誰をオーディエンスとし、何を問題として提示するのかが不明確になっている。
日本語で、英語以上に早く国際比較の情報を書き続けることは不可能である。
英語もまた、
世界が「フラット」化して国籍を問わず誰もが国際比較研究をリードできる時代が訪れたのはよいが、国境を越えて資金を得て、多様な国の人々をネットワークし、その分野において世界で一番働いて、リーダーとなっていくことは並大抵のことではない。
アジアの高等教育研究者がもっとも身近に感ずる「私学」というフィールドで、自ら国際研究を組織し、新しい研究領域を切り開き、世界に向けて発信することができないかと思い、私どもは、標記のテーマでのワークショップを 2006 年 12 月に開かせていいただい
た。私学高等教育研究所の英語名が示すとおり、私学が「独立 independent」を意味する

ii

のであれば、国境は関係ない。アジア、あるいはさらに広い地理的、社会・経済的広がりの中で、どう自らの世界を定義し、研究枠組みを確立し、世界に発信するのか？また、アジアの私学高等教育のために働く人たちとどう連帯し、還元できるのか？
ワークショップでは、ニューヨーク州立大学のレヴィ教授が、彼の私学高等教育研究プ
ロジェクト（PROPHE）の成果に基づいて、世界的動向の中で、アジアの私学高等教育の特質について整理した。その中で特に指摘されたのは、量的な存在感の大きさと同時に、アメリカのような威信の高い研究大学はアジアを含め、世界のどこにも存在しない、という論点であった。特に後者については、世界的に見ればそう見えてしまうのかという感想と同時に、アジア人の研究者の間には違和感が残った。次に、東京大学の金子元久教授がオーナーシップという観点から日本の私学高等教育をとらえ直す刺激的な話を展開した。
非営利を基本とする私学高等教育という考え方は、日本のみならず、アメリカの影響を受けた多くのアジア諸国に共通するが、同時にそのお膝元を含めて、営利の大学が出現し、淘汰を含めた市場競争的な政策が出されるほど、そのオーナーシップは厳しく問われる。
ブリストル大学のモック教授は、日本を東アジアの主要国の政策動向を網羅する形で、この地域を席巻する新自由主義と私事化との関わりを整理した。また、彼の口頭発表では、アジアの高等教育のアイデンティティへの熱い思いが発せられた。このあと、デリー大学のグプタ博士、北京大学の鮑博士からインド、中国の私学高等教育のもつ文脈についての報告があり、つづいて広島大学のマッキニス教授から、オーストラリアの文脈を踏まえたコメントが寄せられた。東アジアの地理的定義は難しく、実際には、南アジア、オセアニ
アと密接に関わる形で私学高等教育が展開している。その中で、我々の頭の中にはどうしても馬越モデルのような発展段階的ともいえる発想があるわけだが、同時に、もっとフラットな共通枠組みも必要なのだろうと感じられた。
翌日、焦点は、アジアの私学高等教育研究がおかれた文脈に移った。北京大学のヤン教
授からは、彼が中国フォード財団の助成を受けて進めている西安での私学高等教育に対するスタッフ・デベロップメントを主体としたアクション・リサーチの紹介があった。また、
馬越教授からは、日本と韓国での私学高等教育機関職員を対象としたアドミニストレータ
養成の大学院プログラムについての報告がなされた。私学高等教育研究に対して投じられる資金は、世界的にも驚くほど小さい。レヴィ教授の率いる PROPHE は米国フォード財団の資金を得た国際プロジェクトであるが、これを除けば、東欧・南米などで細々とした資金が得られるか得られないか、というのが現状である。その中で、中国、韓国、日本では、私高研自体がよい例であるように、私学高等教育自身から、研究資金が投じられ、私学の高等教育研究をもり立てるべきだという動きがある。では、このような研究者にとってありがたい環境の中で、私学に実務として関わる方々と一緒に、どのように研究をもり立てることができるか、同時に、国際的な学術共同体に対して、どのように学術的貢献ができるか、という２つの異なる目的の間のバランスを考えることが、アジアらしい私学高iii

等教育研究につながるのではないかと感じた。
続いて、私学高等教育の国際的文脈に話題が移り、ブリュネル大学のキム博士から、韓国の私学高等教育及びその教員がもつ国際的な背景が語られた。レヴィ氏の、アメリカ以外に威信が高い私立の研究大学は存在しない、という話は、韓国の事例を通してもきれいに覆ったわけであるが、植民地や社会主義の経験をもつ多くのアジア諸国にとっての「私学」の持つ意味合いに対して、阿部義也先生の名訳が出版されたルドルフが指摘している
アメリカの私学のアイデンティティ問題と併せ、複雑さと同時に歴史的重みを改めて感じた。また、熊本大学の大森教授からは、この地域に不可欠な国境を越えた高等教育の展開についての発表がなされた。氏の議論は、日本が実践的な部分を含め、国際的政策対話に貢献を果たした大きな成果のひとつである。
この日の午後には、今後の研究の方向性についての自由な議論が行われた。主催者として結論的に感じたのは、地道な研究を通しての交流の重要性である。それぞれの国内オーディエンスと英語を通した国際オーディエンスの両方に対してアンビバレントな立場にあるアジア私学高等教育の比較研究にとっては、まずは、質の高い学術的成果を蓄積し、発信することを通して、関心を持つ者のネットワークを広げていくのがもっとも実際的な戦略ではないか。

iv

Preface
From the perspective of a researcher in Japanese higher education
How should we, as Japanese researchers, proceed with cross-national research on private
higher education? For approximately 20 years, two pioneers of higher education researchin Japan have been good influential models for younger generation of Japanese
researchers. Kazuyuki Kitamura, former Chief Researcher at the Research Institute for
Independent Higher Education (RIIHE), had a great influence on Japanese higher
education policies and research by introducing American trends which were relevant to
the Japanese situation. Ikuo Amano developed his research on private higher educationfrom the beginning of modern government, and gave a certain impact to the international
academic community.
The internationalization of higher education research is steadily advancing. The recent,co-edited work of Toru Umakoshi, Asian Universities (Altbach. P. G. and Umakoshi, T.,
Eds. 2004: Johns Hopkins University Press), certainly revealed improvement in Asian
higher education research being conducted by Asians. After entering the 21st Century, thenumber of publications in the English language by Asians as well as Japanese higher
education researchers has been rapidly increasing.
At the same time, ‘Japan’ as a single country ‘case’ no longer has market value in English
publications. Therefore, it is inevitable for Japanese researchers to take, analyze andpublish on their own higher education systems as a part of regional group such as ‘Asia’ ,‘Asia-Pacific’, or of other group categories such as ‘OECD countries’.
On the other hand, the position of comparative researchers in higher education towards
their own language communities is also becoming unstable. For example, when aJapanese researcher writes something on higher education on a non-Japanese country in
the Japanese language, he or she has to have enough knowledge on the education systemand the society of that country so that he or she can explain why a certain policy tool has
been selected, and why a certain effect was observed. Moreover, articles of comparative
researchers tend to be lengthy in “introduction”, while readers wish to go directly to the“implications” for Japanese higher education. Although it is highly time consuming to
explain the adequate contexts of foreign countries as a professional comparative
researcher, now, it is quite easy for anyone to meet and communicate with researchers ofother countries, or to implement ‘joint research’, even without meeting physically. Some
types of research are possible merely through checking websites, without any contacts.

v

Adding to this, the expansion of higher education research communities in numbers ofcountries and increasing connections between research and practice lead to thesegmentation of higher education research into specific areas such as finance, quality
assurance, and etcetera. From this point of view, ‘pure’ comparative higher education
research appears to be a minor exercise in countries with large higher education researchcommunities such as the US and Japan.
Globalization makes comparative research an easy daily exercise and for Japanesecomparative researchers, it is becoming unclear who is the targeted audience of theirresearch regardless whether they write in English or Japanese. In the English speaking
world, although it is very good that the world is becoming ‘flat’, it is extraordinarily
difficult to be a global leading scholar through networking with researchers of various
countries and obtaining research funds which are distributed across the countries.
We, the members of the RIIHE research group on ‘privatization of higher education’,organized a workshop under the title of ‘Frontier of Private Higher Education Research in
East Asia’ at Tokyo in December, 2006. By utilizing the topic of ‘private higher
education’, which is quite familiar for most East Asian higher education researchers, weaimed to plant a seed for our own international research, create a new research area, andraise the ‘voice’ of East Asian researchers to the world.
RIIHE uses the term ‘independent’ higher education to refer to ‘private’ higher education.
If ‘private’ higher education means ‘independent’ from government, there is no national
border in private higher education. How could we define our higher education world in
Asia and in the wider geographical, social and economic space? How could we establish
our research framework and how to raise our voice to the world? How could wecontribute to and collaborate with people working for private higher education in Asia?
In the workshop, Daniel Levy (SUNY, Albany) presented a clear map of global trends inprivate higher education and characteristics of private higher education in Asia, based on
the research projects by PROPHE (which he directs). Two points were especially
impressive: First, private higher education in Asia is quantitatively large; and second,
there is no distinguished elite private university outside of the United States. Among
Asian researchers from countries such as Korea and Japan, this was a shocking statement
because it must be true that outsiders tend to regard Asian top private universities as notdistinctive enough.
Motohisa Kaneko (University of Tokyo) then led a stimulating discussion on Japanese
private higher education from the viewpoint of ‘ownership’. The non-profit status ofprivate higher education has been widely shared among most Asian countries having anviAmerican influence. However, nowadays, the rapid development of for-profit higher
education is observed in the United States, Japan and in other newly developed higher
education systems in Asian counties. There, the ownership issue is becoming morecritical though strengthened policies towards market competition.
Kaho Mok (University of Bristol) cast light on the relationship between neo-liberalism
and privatization in East Asia, covering policy trends of major countries in this area.
Furthermore, he emphatically articulated the need to establish the identity of Asian higher
education in his oral presentation. Subsequent presentations of Indian (Asha Gupta,
University of Delhi) and Chinese (Bao Wei, Peking University) contexts of private higher
education were given. Craig McInnis (formerly of University of Melbourne, now ofHiroshima University) also offered thoughtful comments based on the Australian context.
The definition of private higher education in ‘East Asia’ as a geographical area is actuallydifficult. Namely, private universities in this region are developing closely alongsidetrends in Oceania.
Views of Umakoshi’s (2004) developmental stage model are relatively strong among
Japanese researchers when we discuss the development of Asian private higher education.
In reality, there are many variations among private higher education systems, and a more
‘flat’ comparative framework may become more relevant.
On the second day of the workshop, the focus of discussion shifted to the contexts inwhich private higher education research in Asia is implemented. Fenqiao Yan (Peking
University) introduced his action research project for private higher education institutionsin Xi’an, supported by the Ford Foundation China. Toru Umakoshi made a presentation
on graduate school programs for training administrative staff in the private higher
education institutions in Japan and Korea.
If we take a global perspective, the capital invested in private higher education research issurprisingly small, except for the example of PROPHE, which is supported by the Ford
Foundation. However, in East Asia, associations or groups for private higher education
themselves are willing to offer grants and support private higher education research.
RIIHE is a good example of this tendency.
By utilizing this research-conducive environment, we should continue to discuss how wemight work with practitioners of private higher education through research. At the sametime, we also should contribute academically to the international research community.
Thinking about the balance between these two different purposes is crucial for the future
direction of Asian private higher education research.
The topic then moved to the international context of private higher education. Terri Kim

vii

(Brunel University) gave a discussion on Korean private higher education and theinternational background of its academic staff. Korean private higher education is a good
example whereby some private higher education institutions within an Asian country canenjoy high prestige and be regarded as elite, research-oriented universities. At the sametime, Kim’s presentation reminded us of the importance of the historical context
underlying the public-private distinction, especially in countries which experienced
colonization.
Kumamoto University’s Fujio Ohmori followed with a presentation on the developmentof cross-border higher education, which is one of the key features of the Asia-Pacificregion. His argument is a product of international policy dialogues among countries on
the Pacific-rim and other areas.
In the afternoon on the second day, a free discussion was held on the direction of research.
As an organizer, I felt strongly the need for continuous exchange through steady research
efforts. Comparative research on Asian private higher education tends to take anambiguous position to satisfy both domestic and international audiences. We should
accumulate and publish high quality research, and we should develop networks withothers interested in this area.
I would like to express gratitude to Professor Takizawa and RIIHE for their gracious
support in making our project a success. Thanks are also extended to our distinguishedinternational and Japanese guests, including Professor Daniel Levy, Kaho Mok, Asha
Gupta, Bao Wei, Craig McInnis, Fenqiao Yan, Terri Kim, and Motohisa Kaneko, andall of the project members including Tomoko Yamazaki. Presentations and discussions
were equally enjoyable and productive due to the active participation of all participants.
Finally, special thanks are offered to Mr. Makoto Nagasawa, who worked long and hardfor PROPHE, and did an excellent job in establishing a bridge between RIIHE and
PROPHE, and to Professor Rie Mori, our youngest but most active project member.
Project Leader
Akiyoshi Yonezawa

viii

アジア次元の私学高等教育研究 国際ワークショップを開催して
米澤 彰純

私学高等教育の国際比較研究を、日本人としてどのような形で進めるべきか。20 年近くの歳月がたってしまったが、私学を中心とした高等教育の発展という切り口で日本の高等教育の特質をとらえ世界の高等教育研究に影響を与えた天野郁夫先生たちや、一足先を行くアメリカの高等教育の動向を示し続けることで日本の高等教育に大きな影響を与えた喜
多村和之先生などは、筆者の目標となってきた。
高等教育研究の国際化は、着実に進んでいる。アルトバック先生とともに、英語でアジアの高等教育についての著書をまとめた馬越 徹先生の仕事は、アジア人によるアジア高等教育研究の水準が高まっていることを見事に示した。また、21 世紀に入り、日本人の高等教育研究者による英語での発信は、飛躍的に増加している。同時に、現在の英語での出版事情は、既に「日本」という国に市場価値を見出せなくなっており、日本人の研究者は「アジア」「OECD」など、国際的な地域やグループの一部として、自らの高等教育シス
テムをとらえ、分析し、発信しなければならない時代となっているのは皮肉である。
他方で、高等教育研究の中での比較研究の立場は、非常に難しくなってきている。外国の高等教育のあり方を日本語で書くとき、その教育システムや社会全体が持つ文脈を十分に語らなければ、なぜ、ある政策手段が選択され、ある効果が起きるのかは説明できない。
そうすると、日本へのインプリケーションをいち早く得たい読者に対して、前提ばかりが妙に長いとの印象を与える。
比較研究は、そこまで大変な仕事なのに、最近は英語が共通語として普及することで、簡単に外国人と出会い、あるいは一度も会ったことのない外国人とインターネットを通じて「共同研究」ができ、誰とも連絡を取らずとも、ウェブサイトを覗くだけである種の論文は書けてしまう。おまけに、各国の高等教育研究のコミュニティが拡大し、実践との結びつきが増す中で分野が細分化し、純粋な「比較高等教育研究」は、米国の高等教育学会などでもマイナーな存在となっている。
グローバル化は、国際比較研究を日常化させ、同時に、その手軽さの中で、日本語でも、英語でも、誰をオーディエンスとし、何を問題として提示するのかが不明確になっている。
日本語で、英語以上に早く国際比較の情報を書き続けることは不可能である。
英語もまた、
世界が「フラット」化して、国籍を問わず誰もが国際比較研究をリードできる時代が訪れたのはよいが、国境を越えて資金を得て、多様な国の人々をネットワークし、その分野において世界で一番働いて、リーダーとなっていくことは並大抵のことではない。

ix

アジアの高等教育研究者が、最も身近に感じる「私学」というフィールドで、自ら国際研究を組織し、新しい研究領域を切り開き、世界に向けて発信することができないかと思い、昨年の 12 月 14 日と 15 日、馬越 徹、田中義郎、大森不二雄、森 利枝の各氏とともに「東アジアにおける私学高等教育研究のフロンティア」と題する英語での国際ワークショップを東京・市ヶ谷のアルカディア市ヶ谷を中心に開かせていいただいた。私学高等教育研究所の英語名が示すとおり、私学が「独立 independent」を意味するのであれば、国境は関係ない。アジア、あるいは、さらに広い地理的、社会・経済的広がりの中で、どう自らの世界を定義し、研究の枠組みを確立し、世界に発信するのか。また、アジアの私学高等教育のために働く人たちとどう連帯し、還元できるのか。
ワークショップでは、ニューヨーク州立大学のレヴィ教授が、氏の私学高等教育研究プ
ロジェクト（PROPHE）の成果に基づいて、世界的動向の中でのアジアの私学高等教育の特質について整理した。その中で特に指摘されたのは、量的な存在感の大きさと同時に、アメリカのような威信の高い研究大学は、アジアを含め、世界のどこにも存在しないという論点であった。特に後者については、世界的に見れば、そう見えてしまうのかという感
想と同時に、アジア人の研究者の間には違和感が残った。
次に、東京大学の金子元久教授が、オーナーシップという観点から、日本の私学高等教
育をとらえ直す刺激的な話を展開した。
非営利を基本とする私学高等教育という考え方は、日本のみならず、アメリカの影響を受けた多くのアジア諸国に共通するが、同時に、そのお膝元を含めて、営利の大学が出現し、淘汰を含めた市場競争的な政策が出されるほど、そのオーナーシップは厳しく問われる。
ブリストル大学のモック教授は、日本を東アジアの主要国の政策動向を網羅する形で、この地域を席巻する新自由主義と私事化との関わりを整理した。
また、彼の口頭発表では、アジアの高等教育のアイデンティティへの熱い思いが発せられた。
このあと、デリー大学のグプタ博士、北京大学の鮑博士から、それぞれ、インド、中国の私学高等教育の持つ文脈についての報告があり、続いて、広島大学のマッキニス教授から、オーストラリアの文脈を踏まえたコメントが寄せられた。
東アジアの地理的定義は難しく、実際には、南アジア、オセアニアと密接に関わる形で私学高等教育が展開している。その中で、われわれの頭の中には、どうしても馬越モデルのような発展段階的ともいえる発想があるわけだが、同時に、もっとフラットな共通の枠組みも必要なのだろうと感じられた。
翌日、焦点は、アジアの私学高等教育研究がおかれた文脈に移った。北京大学の閻教授からは、氏が中国フォード財団の助成を受けて進めている、西安での私学高等教育に対するスタッフ・ディベロップメントを主体としたアクション・リサーチの紹介があった。また、桜美林大学の馬越教授からは、日本と韓国での私学高等教育機関職員を対象とした、xアドミニストレータ養成の大学院プログラムについての報告がなされた。
私学高等教育研究に対して投じられる資金は、世界的にも驚くほど小さい。レヴィ教授の率いる PROPHE は、米国フォード財団の資金を得た国際プロジェクトであるが、これを除けば、東欧、南米などで、細々とした資金が得られるか得られないかというのが現状である。その中で、中国、韓国、日本では、私学高等教育研究所自体がよい例であるように、私学高等教育自身から研究資金が投じられ、私学の高等教育研究を盛り立てるべきだという動きがある。
では、このような研究者にとってありがたい環境の中で、私学に実務として関わる方々と一緒に、どのように研究を盛り立てることができるのか。同時に、国際的な学術共同体に対して、どのように学術的貢献ができるのかという、2 つの異なる目的の間のバランスを考えることが、アジアらしい私学高等教育研究につながるのではないかと感じた。
続いて、私学高等教育の国際的文脈に話題が移り、ブリュネル大学のキム博士から、韓国の私学高等教育及びその教員が持つ国際的な背景が語られた。レヴィ氏による、アメリ
カ以外に威信が高い私立の研究大学は存在しないという話は、韓国の事例を通しても、きれいに覆ったわけであるが、植民地や社会主義の経験を持つ多くのアジア諸国にとっての「私学」の持つ意味合いに対して、阿部義也先生の名訳が出版されたルドルフが指摘している、アメリカの私学のアイデンティティの問題と併せ、複雑さと同時に、歴史的重みをあらためて感じた。また、熊本大学の大森教授からは、この地域に不可欠な、国境を越えた高等教育の展開についての発表がなされた。氏の議論は、日本が実践的な部分を含め、国際的政策対話に貢献を果たした大きな成果のひとつである。
この日の午後には、今後の研究の方向性についての自由な議論が行われた。主催者として結論的に感じたのは、地道な研究を通しての交流の重要性である。それぞれの国内オーディエンスと、英語を通した国際オーディエンスの両方に対して、アンビバレントな立場にあるアジア私学高等教育の比較研究にとっては、まずは質の高い学術的成果を蓄積し、発信することを通して、関心を持つ者のネットワークを広げていくのが最も実際的な戦略ではないか。そのあとのことは、また、そのあとで考えたいと思った。
（教育学術新聞「アルカディア学報 268」平成 19 年 1 月 10 日号より）

xi

東アジアにおける私学高等教育研究 のフロンティア
国際ワークショップ報告 ―１―
森 利枝〈国際ワークショップの開催〉
今回から３回にわたり、昨年 12 月に行われた国際ワークショップ「東アジアにおける
私学高等教育研究のフロンティア」について報告する。このワークショップは私学高等教育研究所とニューヨーク州立大学アルバニー校私学高等教育プログラム（PROPHE）とが共催したもので、同時に私学高等教育研究所のプロジェクト「高等教育における私事化と政策」に参加している研究メンバー（米澤彰純、馬越 徹、田中義郎、大森不二雄、筆者）と、当該プロジェクトの研究業績を核として実現されたものである。
このワークショップの概要に関しては、すでに教育学術新聞 2258 号（2007 年 1 月 10日）の本欄（268 回）で米澤彰純研究員から開催の意図とそれ以降の研究遂行の戦略を含めて報告されているが、今回、ワークショップの報告書 Frontier of Private Higher
Education Research in East Asia が私立高等教育研究叢書として私学高等教育研究所から刊行される運びとなったことにあわせて、おのおののプレゼンテーションの内容にわたって詳細に紹介することとしたい。なお本ワークショップは英語を用いて行われたもので、今回刊行される報告書もほぼ全編が英語で記されている。本欄での３回の連載と併せてご参照いただければ幸いである。
〈リーダーシップへの視点〉
本欄 268 回の米澤研究員の報告においても触れられているが、今回、日本、中国、インド、
韓国およびアメリカ、
オーストラリアという各国出身の高等教育研究者が一堂に会し、東アジアの高等教育において最も特徴的な問題のひとつである「私学」の問題を扱ったのは、ひとつにはワークショップの開催を通じて東アジアの私学高等教育の現状に関する最新の情報を収集・交換し、東アジアに共有される課題をあぶり出し、かつそれらの課題に対する高等教育研究者の責務に関して討議するという最大の目的があったためである。しかし同時に、国ごとにモードの差こそあれ、私学高等教育が政策上の課題となっている東
アジア各国における私学高等教育研究のネットワーク化をはかるにあたって、日本の私学
教育研究のひとつの拠点である私学高等教育研究所がいかにすればリーダーシップを果た
しうるかという自問に答えるという課題も、
今回の試みのうちに内包されていたのである。
〈東アジアの私学高等教育の論点〉
これら２つの問いのうち、後者への答えは連載の後半に譲るとして、ここではワークシ

xii

ョップを企画する際に、主催者側、特にホストとなった私学高等教育研究所の側が東アジ
アの私学高等教育の現状のうちどのような側面を討議すべき課題としていたかをご紹介しておきたい。まず、課題の設定にあたって注目した、東アジアの私学高等教育の特徴は次のようなものであった。
・発達過程の多様性
東アジアの私学高等教育には、かなりの多様性が看取される。たとえば日本や韓国、フィリピンなどの私学高等教育とマレーシアの私学高等教育とではその歴史の長さに大きな違いがある。私学高等教育が学術の卓越性を形成することにおいて相当の貢献を行っている国もあれば、拡大する高等教育への需要の吸収をもっぱらとすると見られている国もあり、そこには社会的に果たす機能の多様性が指摘される。法的な位置づけも、教育機関として制度化されているものから、営利企業として位置づけられているもの、あるいは「法的な位置づけがない」ものもある。これらの多様性には国単位で観察されるものもあれば一国における機関間で観察されるものもある。
・需要の拡大東アジアに限らずアジア全体に関していえることは、先にも述べたが高等教育への需要が拡大していることである。この需要に対する供給源には二種類ある。国内の高等教育機
関と、外国の高等教育機関である。また一般に、この需要吸収の機能は主に私学高等教育機関が果たしているとされているが、公立の機関であっても同様な機能を果たすことは可能であり、またそのような実態も観察される。拡大する需要にいかに対応するかという問題に関しては、実際には私立―公立という二局面だけで分析することは難しくなっているのかも知れない。むしろ、伝統的―非伝統的という分析の軸のほうに意味が出てきているとも考えられる。
・非伝統的高等教育
しかし、現状を見る限り非伝統的高等教育の主たる担い手が私立機関であることは否めない。高等教育の供給の「調節弁」としての私立機関の役割が注目されるところである。
ここに指摘される「新規性」とは、たとえばｅ―ラーニングなどの新たな授業配信方法であり、あるいはまた、職業訓練、外国大学とのフランチャイズ展開、学位を与えない課程の提供、
国によっては授業料の徴収、営利大学の設置などに見られる新たな価値観である。
すなわち、私学高等教育に関する議論とは、「高等教育」の名の下に行われる多な新しい試みの正統性に関する議論であるとも整理できる。
以上のような現状認識に基づいて、私学高等教育研究所では PROPHE との討議を重ねながら今回のワークショップのアジェンダを以下のように設定し、各国からの参加者にプレゼンテーションを依頼した。
・各国における私学高等教育の起源
・各国における私学高等教育機関の法的位置づけ

xiii

・私学高等教育が果たしている、あるいはそれに期待されている社会的、経済的機能
・私学高等教育あるいは高等教育全体の将来の見通し
なかでも最後の点に関して、東アジアあるいはアジアの高等教育の将来像に関する見通しの欠如があらかじめ指摘された。また、今回のワークショップに限らず、今後東アジア
全体にわたって高等教育の現状を切り取る切り口としては、次のような視点からの考察が求められることが呈示された。すなわち、国境を越えた学生の移動、国境を越えた教員の移動、国境を越えた教育サービスの移動、これら国境を越えた高等教育の流動化（学生及び学位や単位の互換）を支える各国の政策に関する現状と、求められる改革についてである。
〈ネットワーク化の試み〉
このような問題意識のもとにワークショップが行われた２日間は、東アジアにおける高等教育の将来を見通すという命題を中心に、高等教育研究と高等教育研究者にはどのような役割を果たすことが期待されているか、東アジア域内でどのように共同することができるか、そしてそのネットワーク構築のために誰がどのようにリーダーシップをとるべきかということ（そしてその点において私学高等教育研究所がいかなる役割を果たしうるかということ）について何らかの絵を描くことを問う２日間でもあった。おのおののプレゼン
テーションと議論の詳細は連載の次回以降に譲るが、この、私学高等教育研究所が 2006年に行ったワークショップが、東アジアの高等教育研究者のネットワークを議論する場であると同時に、そのネットワークを構築することをめざしていたことは先にも述べたとおりであり、また研究所としてはそのための一歩を踏み出すことができたと信じている。ワークショップの開催から約一年を経て現在問われているのは、このネットワークのサスティナビリティをいかに保証するべきかということでもある。
（つづく）（教育学術新聞「アルカディア学報 304」平成 19 年 11 月 14 日号より）

xiv

東アジアにおける私学高等教育研究のフロンティア
国際ワークショップ報告 ―２―
米澤 彰純

今回は、昨年 12 月に行われたワークショップ「東アジアにおける私学高等教育研究のフロンティア」の報告の第２回目として、世界的動向を扱った、ダニエル・レヴィ氏（米国ニューヨーク州立大学オルバニー校、PROPHE ディレクター）、東アジアの動向を自身の枠組みから議論したカホー・モック氏（英国ブリストル大学東アジア研究センター教授）、
さらに、日本の高等教育を比較の枠組みから整理した金子元久氏（東京大学教育学研究科長）の３氏の議論の概要を紹介する。
《ダニエル・レヴィ氏「私学高等教育の世界的動向：東アジアへの展望」》〈私学高等教育の規模〉
私学高等教育の規模は、世界全体では 30％程度と考えられているが、それでもこれは十分大きな数字となる。これは、国や地域で多様であり、例えば米国は約 20％、西ヨーロッ
パは最も私学高等教育が少ない地域であるが、それでも、ポルトガル、ドイツなどで私学
高等教育の発展が最近拡大している。他方、東ヨーロッパは、社会主義圏の崩壊にともない、特に経済拡大が著しい地域で急速に私学が発達し、中東および北アフリカでもある程
度同様の傾向が認められる。サブサハラアフリカも近年私学高等教育の発達が著しい。また、中南米もすでに 1980 年代から約 40％に達している。
このなかで、東アジアは私学高等教育の学生数が最も多い地域であり、中国では私学高等教育のシェアが低いが成長は確認できる。これは、研究者や世界銀行などの注目してきたところであるが、おそらく、東アジアモデルの健全性は、高等教育急拡大以前に広く教育を受けた市民層が発達していたことによるものだと言えるだろう。
〈成長パターン〉
私学高等教育の成長パターンとしては、宗教や少数民族などを背景とするものがあるが、東アジアで特に注目したいのは、エリート私学高等教育である。しかし、上海交通大学の最近の世界大学ランキングでは、世界で米国以外の私学は六大学しか含まれておらず、米国以外ではエリート大学の存立がまれであることが明らかになった。また、国公立不合格者の受け皿として私学が機能する傾向があることから、「セミ・エリート」というカテゴリ
ーを用いたいと考えている。他方、需要吸収型の高等教育は、移行経済や新興のパターン
としてみられるが、多くみられるパターンとして、無政府的に突然広がり、そのあとで規制が後追いするというパターンで、これは中国、インド、タイなどが典型例である。また、xv

公と私が連携するパターンとして、ガーナなど、私学が公立大学と連携しなければ存在を認められないなどの例を見ることができる。また、日本は典型だが、女子高等教育において私学が大きな役割を果たすパターンもある。
〈私学高等教育の発達への障害〉
私学高等教育の発達を妨げる要因としては、まず、理念として公立の高等教育が先に存在する場合、私学が知られないか、あるいは教育と「私」との関係が理解されないという場合である。次に考えられるのが、政治経済的な要因であり、例えば学費への規制やアクレディテーション、さらに、公立機関の私事化もまた、大きな障害となりうる。また、日本の場合、少子化が大きな障害となるが、私学が市場から退出することは、一概に悪いこととは言えない。
最後に、営利の大学であるが、これは基本的には私学のパターンを踏襲しつつ、よりダ
イナミックで、過激であるものととらえている。
《カホー・モック氏「国内的な力学がグローバルなトレンドに出会うとき：東アジアの高等教育の自由主義化」》
アジアにおける高等教育の「私事性」の拡大を説明する社会・経済・政治的要因を検討したい。ここでは、グローバルな力学と、国内的な力学が相互作用を経ながらこのような方向へ変化していくと考える。
〈グローバルな力学〉
グローバルな競争力を向上させるため、世界各国・地域では、高等教育システムの再構築が進んでいる。中国や台湾などの東アジアの開発国家の間では、「市場促進国家 market
acceleration state」（強力な国家と自由な市場）が形成されている。日本もまた、新自由主義や経営主義などと無縁ではなく、国立大学の法人化などのガバナンス改革が進んでいる。また、法人化は、シンガポールやマレーシアなど、東南アジアでも盛んである。
他方、アジアでは高等教育の「私事性」が拡大しており、高等教育を市場における商品ととらえる考え方が浸透してきている。これは、高等教育がＧＡＴＳでサービス商品として取り上げられ、各国に外国大学のブランチキャンパスが設立され、留学生市場の一層の拡大が見込まれていることなどからみてとれる。香港、シンガポール、日本などの先進国・地域では国境を越える高等教育を収入源ととらえる傾向があるのに対し、マレーシア、中国などは高等教育への需要圧力に対しての機会拡大としてとらえる傾向がある。
〈国内の力学〉
アジア諸国には、これに加えて教育政策を方向付ける国内的な要因がいくつか存在する。
まず、アジア諸国の多くは日本・英国などの植民地であったことと米国の影響力を強く受けている。また、儒教的価値観の影響が、教育の消費や私的な教育の発展を促しているという指摘が繰り返しなされている。さらに、これらに加え、高等教育の大衆化への対処とxvi

しても高等教育の私事性が拡大する傾向がある。また、アジア諸国には、キャッチング・
アップをし終えてさらに先を目指している国々と、キャッチング・アップの途上にある国々
があるが、前者は産学連携、後者は家計からの学費支出などにより、私的な資金をその発展の源泉に活用する傾向がある。
以上のように、アジア諸国の高等教育へのグローバル化の影響力については、国家がグ
ローバルな力学を変化の加速に活用しており、また、文化・伝統・歴史などの要素も重要な役割を果たしていることを認識する必要がある。
《金子元久氏「転換期にある日本の私立大学」》
現在の日本の私立大学を巡る諸問題について適切な理解をするためには、日本の高等教育システムや、各高等教育機関の起源などの歴史的背景の検討が不可欠である。特に、1960
年以降は、①市場圧力下の急拡大（70 年代半ばまで）、②規制された市場（90 年まで）、
③構造変動（現在まで）の３段階を経ている。また、創立の分類としては、①自発的協会、②社会団体の支援、③企業的があり、これは米国と大きく異なる。また、高等教育機関は、創立の後、組織を拡大し、教育と研究での高い水準へ到達するという発展段階を取る傾向がある。また、制度的な背景、ガバナンス、財務構造などにも、固有の特徴がある。
世紀の転換点をむかえ、日本の私立大学は、18 歳人口の減少により、財務構造が緊縛度を増すなかで、小泉政権下で規制緩和の中におかれることになった。このような縮小市場の中で、現在までのところ閉校に追い込まれた事例は少ないが、今後は予断を許さない。
これに対して政府は、質の管理、財務破綻の場合の消費者（学生）保護、ガバナンスや財務の透明度の強化などの政策で対処しようとしている。また、大学では財務やガバナンスの変質、具体的には任期制教員の増加などによる支出カットや意志決定の集権化などが進んでいる。
将来への方向性としては、より公的な領域へと進もうとするグループと、私的なオーナーシップを守り、防衛を図るグループと二極化する傾向が見られるが、後者は皮肉にも、新たに出現した営利大学による挑戦を受ける格好となっている。
（つづく）（教育学術新聞「アルカディア学報 305」平成 19 年 11 月 21 日号より）

xvii

東アジアにおける私学高等教育研究のフロンティア
国際ワークショップ報告 ―３―
米澤 彰純

今回は、昨年 12 月におこなわれたワークショップ「東アジアにおける私学高等教育研
究のフロンティア」の報告の最終回として、中国・インドの私学高等教育とその発展を扱った鮑威氏（中国北京大学教育学院研究員）とアーシャ・グプタ氏（インドデリー大学附属カレッジ元校長）、そして、韓国を中心に東アジアの私学高等教育におけるアカデミッ
ク・プロフェッションについて取り上げたテリー・キム氏（英国ブリューネル大学比較高等教育学講師）の３氏の議論の概要を紹介する。
《鮑威氏「中国における民営高等教育の発展：変化と対応」》
中国の民営高等教育の復活と発展は、高等教育の大衆化と密接に関連している。歴史的にみると、中国の高等教育の拡大は、４つの時期に区分される。第一は、萌芽期（1977―78）である。文化大革命後、都市にもどってきた若者に対する補修教育や職業教育のニーズが発生し、これに対応した小規模の「教室」が、中国の民営高等教育の原型となった。
第二は、成長期（1979―85）である。この時期には、経済成長と第二次ベビーブーマーの進学により急拡大した高等教育ニーズを既存の高等教育システムが満たすことが出来なかった。放送大学が設立されたほか、政府文書により民営高等教育の存在が容認されるようになった。現在ある多くの有名民営高等教育機関がこの時期に設立されている。
第三は、安定成長期（1986―98）である。この時期、大学の管理・運営権などの規制緩和が行われ、民営高等教育機関の乱造や不正行為などが発生した。政府は、規制措置での対応に加え、学位授与権の拡大を制限し、また、学位授与権を持たない高等教育機関の卒業生を対象とした学位認定試験という２つの手段により、質のコントロールを行った。
第四は、再構築期（1999―2005）である。1999 年以降、中国の高等教育は、公的雇用の縮小や第三次ベビーブーマーの進学などにより未曾有の大拡張期に入り、高等教育は公
共・民営の両セクターとも大きく拡大した。この中で、政府は、民営高等教育の高等職業教育としての機能を強化すると共に、2002 年の『民営教育促進法』により民営高等教育機
関の営利性を実質的に承認し、賛否両論を引き起こした。同時に、政府は、国立大学附属でありながら学費によってまかなわれる独立学院を正当な存在として認めた。
独立学院は、
公共セクターの私事化を意味し、また、学士の学位を授与でき、急速な広がりを見せた。
同時に、既存の民営高等教育機関の発展は止まり、学位認定試験が必要な民営高等教育機関については、役割を終えたものとして廃止されるなど、民営高等教育システムの再構築

xviii

が進んだ。
民営高等教育の需給の対応構造については、独立学院が、基本的に公共セクターに入学できなかった層の代替としての機能を果たしているのに対し、職業教育を志向した民営高等教育機関は、独自の機能・市場を開拓したと指摘できる。
しかし、民営高等教育機関の歴史が浅く、資金や資源も不十分であるなど、今後の発展に向けての課題は多い。
《アーシャ・グプタ氏「インドの私学高等教育の新たな動向」》
インドの私学高等教育の歴史は、
紀元前 618 世紀にさかのぼることが出来るが、これは、学費徴収ではなく、喜捨に基づくものであった。現在でも、営利の私学高等教育は理念的にはタブーであるが、実際には、新しい私学の多くは莫大な利益をあげている。植民地時
代に建てられたキリスト教系のものも含め、1974 年のインド独立時点で、20 のユニバー
シティと、496 のカレッジが存在していた。そして、私学高等教育は、1990 年代には高等教育セクターの 75％を占めるなど、大きな役割を果たしている。なお、私立大学は協会や法人立となるが、現在でも、学位授与権がある私学のユニバーシティは 350 校にとどまり、
残りは、ユニバーシティに附属する形で教育を行うインド型のカレッジとして活動している。
インドは、多民族・文化により構成される連邦国家であり、連邦と州それぞれが教育に対しての行政権を持ち、その間に矛盾がある場合には連邦の判断が優先される。
また、「私」は、キリスト教などの宗教系や、英語による教育などとしての意味合いで使われることが多く、財政的には州の財政に依存しているものが大部分である。なお、以前
は入学時に高額の手数料を徴収する習慣があったが、1992 年の最高裁判所の判決によりこれが禁止され、同時に上限を定めた授業料を徴収することが可能となり、独立採算への道が開かれた。
インドでは、連邦、州いずれのユニバーシティ及びカレッジも独立採算で専門職教育プ
ログラムを運営することが許されている。また、インド工科大学など、特定の産業やビジネスのニーズに合わせて高額の特別プログラムを提供している例もある。さらに、ユニバ
ーシティは、私学のカレッジや外国の大学のフランチャイズに参加することができる。また、少数民族に対しての教育機会を提供する私学も存在する。
高等教育機関の多くは財政を州政府および家計に頼っているため、連邦レベルの大学基金委員会（UGC）などによる規制は、公・私双方の高等教育機関から激しい挑戦を受けることになる。さらに、インドにおいて国家レベルでのビジョンや方向性、規制などが欠落しているため、私学高等教育の問題は、頻繁に司法による介入を受ける。また、インドは、
被差別カーストの教育問題も抱えている。

xix

《テリー・キム氏「東アジアの私学高等教育におけるアカデミック・プロフェッション」》
東アジアにおいて、私学高等教育は強力な伝統を持つと同時に、その在り方は量的にも質的にも多様である。そのため、そこでの私学高等教育におけるアカデミック・プロフェッションについても、このような国ごとの文脈や多様性のなかで理解されなければならない。
東アジアにおける私学高等教育の発展は、西洋のキリスト教の宣教団の活動と、国の近代化への挑戦と密接に関わっている。
東アジアでは 19 世紀後半から 20 世紀前半にかけてキリスト教の宣教団による高等教育機関の設立が盛んであり、これらの高等教育機関は、第二次世界大戦終結までに生じた列
強支配の弱まりとアジア諸国の独立の中で、大学へと昇格を果たしていった。中国の場合も例外ではないが、内戦を経て 1949 年の人民共和国成立により、全ての私立大学は公共セクターに組み入れられ、80 年代からの民営高等教育機関とは継続性を有しない。
日本は、中国や韓国と異なり、多くの高等教育機関は、主に西洋の高等教育を経験した国のリーダーたちにより、設立された。また、西洋のキリスト教宣教団による大学も数多く設立され、女子高等教育などに大きな役割を果たした。
日本統治下におかれた戦前の朝鮮半島では、この私学の伝統が生き残り、これが独立後研究機能を備えた韓国の私立大学群へと発展した。このため、韓国の私学高等教育は、低い私学助成（３％）
、大衆高等教育の受け皿という性格をもちながら、高い地位を有し、研究資金でもトップランクに入るものがある。さらに、ソウル大学の設立にこれら私学出身者が採用されているほか、非常に高い割合で米国などの博士号取得教員を有している。現
在、韓国は高等教育の国際化を推進しており、留学生の積極的獲得や、外国人教員のシェアの拡大などが進められている。
（おわり）（教育学術新聞「アルカディア学報 306」平成 19 年 12 月 5 日号より）xxProject Members

米澤彰純（研究代表者・編集：東北大学准教授）
Akiyoshi Yonezawa(Project Leader and editor: Associate Professor, Tohoku University)
森 利枝（共編：大学評価・学位授与機構准教授）
Rie Mori (Co-editor: Associate Professor, NIAD-UE)
馬越 徹（桜美林大学教授）
Toru Umakoshi (Professor, Obirin University)
田中義郎（桜美林大学教授）
Yoshiro Tanaka (Professor, Obirin University)
大森不二雄（研究協力者：熊本大学教授）
Fujio Ohmori (Collaborative Member, Professor, Kumamoto University)xxiContents
Chapter 1. Seeking Frontier of Private Higher Education Research in East Asia: Aimsof Tokyo RIIHE International Workshop
Rie Mori
Chapter 2. Global trends in private higher education research and East Asia
Daniel Levy
Chapter 3. When Domestic Forces meet the Global Trends: The Liberalization of thePrivateness in East Asian Higher Education
Ka ho Mok
Chapter 4. Japanese Private Universities in Transition: Characteristics, Crisis andFuture Directions
Motohisa Kaneko
Chapter 5. The Development of Private Higher Education in China:Change andResponse
Bao Wei
Chapter 6. Emerging Trends in Private Higher Education in India
Asha Gupta
Chapter 7. The Academic Profession in East Asian Higher Education
Terri Kim

xxii

Chapter1
Seeking Frontier of Private Higher Education Research in East Asia:
Aims of Tokyo RIIHE International Workshop
Rie Mori

Background
This prefatory chapter introduces the entire report, Frontiers of Private Higher

Education Research and East Asia, which is an outcome of a two-day
international workshop of the same name held in Tokyo, Japan on 14 and 15
December, 2006.

This inaugural workshop was sponsored by the Tokyo-based

Research Institute for Independent Higher Education (RIIHE, hereafter), in
collaboration with the Program for Private Higher Education (PROPHE,
hereafter), operated at the State University of New York, Albany. The workshop
was planned to serve two primary purposes.

One was to explore possible

frameworks for research in private higher education (PHE, hereafter) in East
Asia. The other was to establish networks among researchers interested in PHE
trends particular to the region.
PHE, which is sometimes referred to as independent higher education or
non-public higher education, has been one of the main focal issues in global
higher education research for years.

It is also true, however, that theimportance, status or market share of PHE varies from country to country. East
Asia is one of the regions in which this kind of variation among countries inregion appears excessive.

It is also a region where some national systems ofhigher education are shifting from public-monopoly to public and private
co-existence.
The aim of this chapter is to clarify the fundamental issues considered at theTokyo gathering, as well as to outline the general and common purpose of thefollowing chapters.

1

Central issues
The circumstances leading to the establishment of RIIHE are worth reviewing
prior to entering into a detailed discussion of the underlying purpose of the

Frontiers workshop.
RIIHE was established in 2000 under the umbrella of the Association ofPrivate Universities of Japan (APUJ), an organization representing some 370
private colleges and universities in Japan.

RIIHE was established to promoteresearch in higher education, especially among institutions belonging to theprivate domain.

However, RIIHE focuses not only on domestic private higher

education but also on public or international higher education.

A limited

number of people are employed by the organization on a full time basis, withmany activities being carried out by research associates from other institutions.
Mr. Hiromitsu Takizawa, successor to RIIHE’s founding director, Dr. Kazuyuki
Kitamura, oversees several research projects by supporting studies carried out by
associates.
Associates at RIIHE have clearly identified the issue of privatization as a key
current issue in Japanese and global higher education.

The expansion of higher

education itself virtually ensures a simultaneous expansion of PHE.

This trend

has already become evident in countries where PHE institutions had been very
limited or non existent until only recent times.

The expansion of PHE is

stretching the boundaries of the larger enterprise known as higher education.
Such expansion is partly the result of a growth in non-traditional higher learning
opportunities

providedbyvocational,

e-learning,

non-degree-granting,tuition-fee-taking, foreign-franchised or for-profit institutions.
Another issue which has come to the fore is the lack of attention being devoted
to PHE in policy-making processes.

Many discussions concerned with higher

education policy focus mainly on public institutions.

To be more precise, in East

Asia these discussions are highly public-oriented in terms of both topics and theacademic backgrounds of participants.

In Japan, for example, the private sectorof higher education is dominant to the extent that some seventy percent of2

students belong to PHE institutions 1.
Focusing on these and other PHE issues, in 2005 RIIHE and interested
associates launched a new project, called “Privatization and Policy in Higher
Education”. The expectations of this project were two-fold: First, to more closely
examine the mechanisms of privatization of higher education and second, toforesee what is going to happen in the future and to consider relevant
preparatory measures.

As a case study in the privatization of higher educationand policies governing the trend (i.e., those which foster or hinder privatization),
East Asia is one of the most interesting regions to consider.

Indeed, theselection of the word “frontier” in the workshop title seems well suited to thereality at hand in East Asia.
RIIHE staff had started to prepare for the 2006 Tokyo workshop several
months in advance, while involved in a separate, yet not unrelated project,
Privatization and Policy in Higher Education, which is mentioned above.
Fortunately, RIIHE was able to receive contributions by HE researchers aspresenters from various countries such as Japan, China, India, Australia, theUnited States and the United Kingdom.

Two leading researchers, Dr Daniel

Levy from PROPHE and Dr. Motohisa Kaneko from the University of Tokyo
offered keynote presentations.

The general administration of the entire

workshop, including the articulation of particular aims and objectives, wascollaboratively shared by RIIHE and PROPHE; Dr. Levy, the director of the latterorganization,

wasparticularly

involvedinmeeting

preparations

andimplementation.
East Asia is a region with growing PHE in terms of the importance and size(or market share).
This expansion involves various sub-effectives, such as:

The high diversification of PHE in terms of history (some institutions are old,some are new and others are very new; backgrounds of the establishment of
PHE vary according to place), function (some are spearheading the academic
excellence of the nation, while others are sheltering younger members of the
population which would otherwise be unemployed), legal status (some aredescribed in statues as educational institutes, others are treated as3

commercial enterprises and still others are in the status of legal

laissez-faire), and etcetera. This diversity is found both at the system (ornational) level and at the institutional level;A large pool of students to be absorbed both by local and foreign higher
education institutions (this point is addressed later in this chapter); andStudents’ ethnic distribution is not necessarily consistent with national
demographics. Compared to institutions in Europe, North America or
Oceanian countries, there are limited numbers of non-Asian international
students in any given institution in East Asia; there is, however considerable
intra-Asia student enrolment.

For many institutions in Europe, North

America or Oceanian countries, East Asia is a reliable source of mobile
students.

Without students from East Asia, many of these countries’

institutions could not maintain their status in terms of tuition revenue,
assisting work in teaching and research or academic vividness in classrooms.
As seen in these sub-effectives, PHE in East Asia exhibits both many
commonalities as well as variety in circumstances.
Returning to the aforementioned issue of absorbing students, the public sector
is able, and indeed has already started to serve this function in the face of thequickly growing demands of higher education.

Hence one cannot view the

expansion of higher education solely in the context of a private-public dichotomy.
There must be an axis of analysis, with traditional and non-traditional ideas ofhigher education taken into consideration.

However, it is again true that thetransformation of higher education has being brought about mainly by theprivate sector.

In other words, PHE has a stronger tendency to accord with

non-traditional curricula and methods of instructions.

In this sense, the private

sector is perceived to serve as a kind of “control valve”, to adjust to fluctuations in
the demand for higher education - on the condition that demand continues to
grow.

The private sector meets the demand raised by student applicant

populations (many such applicants represent the first generation in theirrespective family histories to enter higher education) by implementing
innovative instructional methods and novel ideas of value, including vocational4

training,e-learning,

foreign-franchisingor

non-degree
for-profit

conferrals,

endeavors,astuition-fee-taking,previously

mentioned.

Consequently, PHE invited debate as to the legitimacy of new initiatives taken in
the name of “higher education”.
Approaches to private higher education issues in East Asia
Studies on PHE in East Asia must begin by considering the very nature ofprivate and public higher education systems. With this in mind, RIIHE and
PROPHE collaboratively set out to examine the contexts that shape PHE in East
Asian nations and surrounding regions, including following:

The origin of PHE in each country;

The legal status of PHE in each country;

The social and economic function expected of and played by PHE; andThe future outlook of PHE and higher education as a whole
Another issue that should be taken into consideration is the lack of regional

communities for research in East Asian PHE.

The actual situation whichsurrounds PHE, not only in terms of research but also of social status in East
Asia can be summarized as follows:

Policy makers are, by and large, unconcerned with PHE;Despite large numbers of people being involved in the management andoperation of PHE institutions on day to day basis, there is very little
international discourse among those people;

PHE research communities are a new phenomenon and are distinguishable
especially in East Asia.

It is true that the Asia Pacific Quality Network(APQN) is playing a decidedly significant role; this organization, however,tends to focus mainly on quality assurance.

Though quality assurance ispertinent to the theme of the 2006 Tokyo workshop, the establishment ofresearch frameworks was the larger, overarching focus.


There is a lack of regional consensus on the future vision for Asian or East
Asian higher education. We are in a time of great transformation not only for
East Asian PHE but also that of every region in the world; in that this is so,5

it is difficult enough to specify who we are and where we are from - let alone
where we are headed.
Despite an apparently chaotic situation, researchers are given the
responsibility to react in order to establish frameworks, to analyse current
realities and introduce measures to effectively prepare for future challenges.
Communities where people exchange ideas about PHE will likely be exclusively
comprised of researchers.
Here, ultimate questions are:

What can be done by researchers?, and

How will research prove sufficient?
To summarize those activities in which PHE researchers ought to be engaged,

it is helpful to focus on the “frontiers” aspect of the 2006 workshop theme.

Inthe process of preparing for the workshop, it came to be believed that researchers
are responsible to the following:

Policy study: both in terms of theories and practices in higher education;

Forming associations or groups of PHE institutions: RIIHE is a local effort inthis sense and is currently involved in a project on privatization, among
other projects focussing mainly on practices in higher education.
Admittedly, the scope of the project pales in comparison to the significance of
the issue; however, an unusual fact about RIIHE is that it was formed by thestrong initiatives of managers.

As mentioned above, the mother institutionof RIIHE is the Association of Private Universities of Japan, which iscomprised largely of private institutions as high level management. These
private entities were aware enough of the importance of research to help inestablishing and financing RIIHE;Institutional research, which is recently increasing in East Asia, and

Faculty and staff development, again new in the East Asian region.
Related to the “research in East Asia” aspect of the workshop theme, the6question What is needed for international comparative research? arises.
Participants of the workshop sought direction in terms of achieving regionalframeworks for comparative research in the international context.

To this end,

it is useful to divide the above question into two phases of comparative studies
and international context.
In comparative studies, requirements may include:To examine the global trends of privatization, marketization, and so on;To assemble analyses of national cases, especially of PHE but also of entire
systems of higher education; and

To seek a regional theory in East Asia sui generis.
So far, influential research studies with comparative perspective in thisregional framework are few in number. One is by Dr. Toru Umakoshi of Obirin
University 2.

Chart 1 shows the transitional model of private sector types ofhigher education in Asian nations which Dr. Umakoshi proposed after amendinga previous model conceived by Dr. Roger Geiger in 1987.
Chart 1

Transitional Model of Private-Sector Types (Umakoshi)

Privateperipheral
type:
China,
Vietnam,
Malaysia

Private-complementary
type:
Indonesia, Thailand

Private-dominant Type:Japan, Korea, Philippines

Source: Umakoshi, 2004.
The shaded areas of the circles represent the private sector while the core7

white circles stand for the public sector.
andpublic-dominant

type(China,Indicated are the private-peripheral
Vietnamor

Malaysia),

theprivate-complementary type (Indonesia, Thailand) and the private-dominant
type (Japan, South Korea or Philippines).

This model is one of a few influential

ideas about recent higher education in Asia, which can be cited.

Other models

to analyze higher education in East Asia or ones that compliment this model are
expected to emerge from the workshop and subsequent studies by its
participants.
An alternative approach to the question of comparative research is to
examine the international context of problems we share.

Each of the following

can be a focus of international research:Students cross borders, thanks to growing marketing efforts for prospective
international students (countries and higher education institutions export
and import students; many East Asian nations are sought as exporters);

Academics cross borders, thanks to the common language of English andscientific discourse;

Educational services cross borders, thanks to information technology,
alliances between nations and other developed means of delivery; and

Changes in policies and systems which support cross-border exchange
include those related to credit (or student) transferability or the quality
assurance of higher learning.

SummaryThis introductory chapter is devoted to questions which were raised during
and subsequent to the 2006 Tokyo workshop, Frontiers of Private Higher

Education Research and East Asia.

There are two additional questions for

future consideration. First, What material and human resources do we have at

our disposal? Maintaining international networks is costly even in this time of
information communication technology.

Recruiting qualified people who cancontribute their efforts remains a difficult task, and one which approaches

8overwhelming when the issue of remuneration and other financial requirements
is drawn into the picture. Second, Who will take initiative, and how?

Onceagain, this question brings us back to cold, hard, budgetary realities.
At this point of time, these questions – and all others that were raised in thischapter – are open questions.

The 2006 workshop was a pilot experiment in

networking for researchers to carry out comparative studies in East Asian higher
education.

As will become apparent in each of the following chapters, it isanticipated that the initial networks will continue to grow in fostering further
studies in the international context.

1

According to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology ofJapan (MEXT), out of 2.86 million students who attended higher education institutions
which confer baccalaureate and higher degrees, 2.12 million (73.5%) belonged to private
institutions in the 2006 academic year.
2 Umakoshi, T., Private Higher Education in Asia: Transitions and Development”,
Altbach, P. G. & Umakoshi, T. eds, Asian Universities, 2004, pp. 33-49, Johns Hopkins
University Press.

910Chapter 2

Global trends in private higher education research and East Asia
Daniel Levy

My effort here today would be to provide a broad overview of private higher education
with a global thrust though with some extra attention to the East Asian position. I
hope I don’t say too many things that are already very obvious to an expert audience
like this. I will try to concentrate on recent developments, but to do so in the context
of prior developments. I’m firmly convinced from years of study on private higher
education that we do see patterns--not the same private higher education in all
countries, but significant patterns internationally, whereas very often people in one
given country tend to think of their country as separate and even unique.
My talk is not about the other kind of privatization, meaning privatization of public
higher education. As Rie Mori outlined already in Chapter 1, our concentration is on
private institutions of higher education. So as an outline of the talk I would address
first the size of private higher education; second, the patterns of what I call classic
growth and the different types of private higher education, then turning to matters of
new growth and types. After that I would like to address the matter of opposition andthreats to private higher education since continued growth is not inevitable. Then iftime allows I would talk some about private-public sector blurring, but will see where
we are in terms of time. And then finally, I would like to introduce the matter of
for-profit higher education which of course has taken on some particular significancerecently in Japan itself. And I will consider for-profit private higher education as kindof an epitomy of the privateness of private higher education.
So if we can turn to size, in global aggregate, I would very roughly estimate thatprivate higher education has about 30% of the higher education enrollments worldwide.
I have seen estimates as high as 40% and I am convinced that nobody really knows.

11But at least two things are remarkable right at the beginning. One is that even 30%
would be so vastly larger than the private higher education share just a couple ofdecades ago, and the other is that 30% impresses as it is a higher share than thepercentage private in the United States; that come as a surprise to many people, but
the United States is not on the high end. The 30% figure is pushed down globally bymost of the developed countries, and also pushed down by China in spite rapid private
growth, but the figure is pushed up most obviously here by Japan and other East
Asian countries and there are other countries and other regions as well that have amajority of their higher education enrollments in private institutions.
The US however is just about 21% private though the percentage goes higher if we
focus on four year institutions graduation rates and graduate education. In UnitedStates as you all know the private higher education importance goes far beyond
numbers and percentages. In contrast, Western Europe is the region in the world
with the least presence of private higher education. Western Europe has had the verystrong heritage of what scholars sometimes call a continental model, the thrust ofwhich is that the state is at the core. With state standardization and state finance,
there is not much of a private higher education tradition. Yet even in Western
Europe, we do see some breaks. There are MBA programs. Portugal is a country
that has a significant size private sector and Germany as well has begun to breakthrough the monopoly; just about a month ago we saw in the news that a billionaire
philanthropist decided to give a half billion dollars to a private university in Germany
and with the express purpose of trying to encourage giving to private as well as public
higher education, which simply hasn’t been common outside the United States.
Now Eastern Europe is different, in the post-communist period; in fact immediately in
1989 and 1990 private sector surged, it emerged and surged in most countries. The
maximum share that the private sector has is 30% in Poland and one or two othercountries, but it is also significant that the private sector does not continue to grow in
its proportional terms. This was really a revolutionary emergence and growth inabout a five-year period; in the last ten years the private sector has held its own, but
has not continued to gain. As spectacular as that East European surge, other very
recently emerging private sectors are found in the Middle East and North Africa.
Now of course, the overall higher education enrollment is still low, but it can rapidly
expand especially where there is considerable economic development and12marketization of the economic growth model and I list a few examples. However, theMiddle East and North Africa, to some degree, share a pattern which we can associatewith East Asia, which is that the private growth has somewhat more often been either
at the initiative or with the promotion of government. In a lot of the rest of the world
private higher educations have sprung up much to the surprise of the government.
In Sub-Saharan Africa growth has also been spectacular. It’s basically a phenomenonof the 1990s and into our present decade. Although it’s not clear there is a country thathas more than 10% of its enrollments in private higher education, large countries like
Kenya and Nigeria lead the way. Latin America is the region that I most studied
from early on and I would still gauge that the private share is about 40%, this iscompared to maybe about 3% in 1950. And one of the things that Latin America
highlights for us because I already estimated 40% by 1980, now we are a quarter
century later, and I think it’s still about 40%. And so my point here is that even when
private sectors appear stagnant in terms of their share of total enrollments, we must
not let that disguise great change; in fact the private sector has continued to grow inabsolute terms, but the public sector has also grown. And also the contours, thepatterns within the private sector have changed a great deal, and this is one of Rie
Mori’s points about Japan: already that a significant change continues even though it’s
not like the percentage private has gone from 70% to 98%. In Latin America, we see
private majority enrollments in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and other places and all
countries have a private higher education sector, except for Cuba and I think you can
all figure out why Cuba is the exception.
Then coming to East Asia, which is the largest region for enrollments in private sector
cases and I just listed four countries where the private share is at least 70%. After
those countries there appears to be a cluster of countries with a more moderate, but
significant private higher education share and we'll hear more about India from
Professor Gupta, and then a cluster of countries that might be 10% to 14% private, butwith very fast growing private higher education. China, Thailand, Vietnam areexamples. One overview point that I would give about East Asia in comparison to
Latin America and some other places is that East Asia by and large had an
educational expansion or development pattern that was different in the sense thatgovernment greatly prioritized primary rural education before financing great growthin higher education. This has been a matter much discussed by scholars, the World

13

Bank and so forth and perhaps the healthiness of an East Asian model lies indeveloping a widespread educated citizenry before there is a great expansion of higher
education. And then when the higher education level does greatly expand, it’s often
largely with the private sector expansion.
Let me then move from size to some of the other established growth patterns and types.
Very quickly, we often see precursors to modern private higher education, I won’t go
into it, but often they are religious or missionary precursors, so that there are earlyroots of some kind of private higher education, but for the most part what we recognize
today in private higher education generally or often so it’s first form as religious. And
this is a common phenomenon for non-profit sectors; the religious element often has
the initiative to start it. This is very clear in Latin America after secular trends sortof pushed religion out of the mainstream public universities. Similarly, alongside thereligious, we can see, in many countries, examples of private institutions especially for
ethnic minorities like the Russian population in Ukraine.
In East Asia, there are a number of religious private institutions, though I am inclined
to think that the proportion is somewhat less than in some other regions, and with lessof the private, ethnic identity institutions though some. A further type of private
higher education attracts great attention, I call it elite private higher education, andabsolutely the key for our understanding is that it’s extraordinarily rare outside theUnited States. This is one of those many examples I am convinced, one of those many
examples in which people, including policymakers and sometimes scholars, know theirown country and they know the United States, and they assume that private higher
education is often academically prominent and formidable outside their country, andthat’s simply not the truth.
For all its weaknesses, the recent Shanghai rating of universities worldwide shows
only six private universities outside the United States. And the truth is the six are
really more public than private and in places like Western Europe. So, elite private
higher education is almost nonexistent outside the significant US case. This doesn’tmean that there aren’t private institutions that have missions of moving into elite
status; in fact, I think we see that in many countries right now. It’s especially difficultfor private institutions to achieve elite status unless the public university diminishes
in quality and status. That is classically what we saw in Latin America, but it

14

certainly not the East Asian pattern. More often we see a kind of elite presence insocioeconomic terms and maybe in undergraduate education without that sort ofpresence in research in graduate education, and I am inclined to use a term likesemi-elite to categorize the academically leading private institutions outside theUnited States. They’re not really elite, but neither are they low status institutions.
And I think this is common in East Asia where the best students graduating fromsecondary schools have the lead public universities as their first choice, but if they
don’t get in, then their second choice will come from some other good public
universities or the leading private universities.
In a transition to an examination of fresh growth patterns, I would talk about what I
call the demand absorbing private institutions. This type has been around for quite awhile but on the other hand private sectors are new in many countries and they are
generally demand-absorbing. This is the largest growth type by far in the world andthat matter has already been addressed this morning.

These are essentiallyinstitutions that thrive because the demand for higher education is very large andexceeds the supply of public higher education. The demand-absorbing institutions
importantly include what’s often deprecated as garage institutions maybe for profit,
moneymaking, non-interested in academia, fraudulent on the one extreme; but also
demand-absorbing institutions that are deprecated often by critics for low quality, but
it’s not a characterization I would use on many of these private institutions that are infact serious, managed institutions with a direct orientation to the job market.
What was seen in many countries, but as I indicate more in most regions than in East
Asia or the Middle East, is what I’d like to call delayed regulation. In other words,
private institutions spring up by surprise and grow rapidly, and only after thatgovernment and others say, “Wait a minute, what’s going on here?, It’s a kind of
anarchy.”

And then often regulations are introduced.

Finally, the demand

exceeding supply of public spaces, of course, has a lot to do with the fact that there is a
global trend for the state to try to diminish or hold the line on its expenditures, and so
we do see prominent examples of that in countries like India,China, Thailand.
Another kind of private growth, which requires much more attention as long as we are
already addressing the matter of research agenda, is private-public partnership, bywhich I mean something more than public universities partnering with private

15businesses.

I am using the term more restrictively as private higher education

institutions partnering with public higher education institutions. Usually, it’s about
private colleges with public universities. The private colleges get legitimacy, resources,
some form of quality assurance, and maybe access for their student graduates into theuniversity. What does the public university get? Well, first and foremost, it getsincome; it often charges the private colleges pretty hefty fees, and gives the public
universities a chance to help out with access while not having to take the students
directly into their own institutional mainstream. I know of one case, Ghana, where
private higher education is not allowed except in partnership with public. We see anumber of partnerships that have an international scope to them, and the partnershipidea is certainly expanding greatly but as often happens the real world expansion isfaster than scholarly expansion, and we struggle to catch up.
Next I would like to mention what I here call culturally pluralizing private institutions.
Years back, private higher education mostly meant Catholic higher education incountries with significant Catholic populations, but today religious can mean Catholic,it can mean Protestant, Evangelical, and it also can mean Islamic institutions.
Unlike most of the catholic institutions, these private religious institutions tend to bevery involved in the economic marketplace and tend to be politically to theconservative side. These have not been much studied, but in a country like Kenya
you see quite a mix..
A last point, kind of cheating a bit because it’s not really culturally pluralizing per se,
but it’s worth mentioning that private higher education has often played a special role
for women, a kind of social, cultural role. The idea in Japan of preparation to be good
wives, also the fields of study that tend to coalesce in private higher education are by
and large also fields of study that are most pursued by women, and in many places thesafe atmosphere of private institutions as compared to the more bustling andconflictual climate in public institutions is additionally a reason that parents may
want to send their female children more than their male children to private higher
education in many countries.
Thus the talk so far has clearly focused on matters of private higher education growthand presence, what’s made private higher education expand and what are theprincipal patterns or types - what it has expanded into. So up until now we have been

16

talking about dynamic, vibrant, increasingly important private higher education, but I
think it’s already good for us to look towards factors that may indeed inhibit private
higher education growth.
And I organize these into a cluster of factors starting with the idea that there is, as we
all know, often some significant opposition to private higher education. In many
countries, the idea of private with education is strange and seems illegitimate. That
has certainly been the case in the growth in Eastern Europe. There was growth for anumber of reasons, but for much of the population it’s just odd, peculiar and evenwrong that there be private – private profile to higher education.
In general, in the great majority of countries, it is the public sector of higher educationthat emerges first and occupies the mainstream, and – so private is largely unknown.
United States again is an exception.

It's quite common and this is also somethingthat Professor Gupta has addressed in the Indian case. It's quite common, prominentthat private higher education is automatically seen by many as in the marketplace andfor-profit as well as low quality. The concept of non-profit private, which is so wellunderstood in the United States, is more sporadic elsewhere. And then realistically,
opposition comes from the fact that public institutions may be fearful of the challenge;
it’s obviously easier to have a monopoly.
A second cluster of factors that may threaten private growth is what can be called
political economic. Clearly, in times of economic crisis, many students can't pay thetuition that's involved in private higher education. We’ve seen this in the fairly recent
Asian Economic Crisis, which came after the Latin American economic crisis. I would
also point to populist politics, which are very prominent in a good deal of the world
including the developing world as an opposition to neoliberal, dominant current andwhich often makes private sectors scapegoats for problems.

With that populist

politics often come an increase in government regulations over private institutions.
Professor Yan and I at conferences in the last couple of days were discussing this in the
Chinese case and hearing from private institutional heads about the dire consequences
for them when the government sets tuition ceilings.
Tuition ceilings may be popular with the students, but may not allow the private
institutions to operate successfully on the business front.

17

And there may beregulations about program and curriculum, particularly with the rise of accreditation
systems nationally. This can be a great challenge where the accreditation systems
mostly reflect traditional public university notions and they may be very dangerous forprivate institutions. And with the popular politics often we can associate a priority on
equity, and the private higher education is often seen or stereotyped as being
inherently inequitable because the fees are significantly higher than in the public
institutions.

I think that there is in fact a formidable counterargument to thataround the reality that most of the private institutions are access institutions, but theequation of private higher education with elitism is a threat to the private sector.
A next cluster of threats would be the privatization of public institutions, which I said I
wouldn’t talk much about, but it obviously fits here where as in East Asia some public
institutions have to make themselves more corporate and show more attention to themarketplace, most dramatically in some countries public institutions remain very
public in their preexisting scope, but they add a wing of operation, which is essentiallyprivate. Here again Kenya is a good example. If you are really good student you get
into the main stream of the public university, which continues to be free; and if you are
not, then your second choice may be a lesser public institution or it may be a pretty
good private institution, or it may be the private part of the public lead universities.
But in those cases, you are paying tuitions comparable to what students are paying at
the private institution, and generally the way things are run resembles the private
institutions more than it resembles other parts of the same public institution. And
there is fierce competition between these private units within public universities andthe private institutions themselves. There is competition for money, and there iscompetition for students, and there is definitely competition for the best faculty. So,
this is something that merits keen attention.
Probably, most of you in Japan have already thought about another set of factors thatcan provoke private decline. This is demographic, and this is basically a challenge forprivate higher education in the developed world. The US is a bit exceptional in thisrespect because of its growth of minority populations and of the immigrant populations.
The main examples are Japan and Europe.

Yet, we also see and I have beensurprised by some manifestation of this sort of population stagnation alreadyundermining private higher education in places like Brazil, and I just recently learned
about in some of the parts of China. Now, you could take different perspectives on18this. As a scholar of private higher education and one who finds it making some sortsof significant contributions, I still do not regard private decline as necessarily a badthing; the idea that once an institution is created, it should live forever is essentially tome more a public institution idea. Within private sectors, it seems to me natural thatcompetition will produce the elimination of the losers.
In other cases as is happening vigorously in China now, there may be pressure forsmall private institutions to merge. If private sectors are operating with great help,
you generally see different sorts of patterns emerging to innovation and initiative, butsometimes these innovations simply fail and private institutions that do not innovate
may fail. So to me this is just the same as with private primary and secondary
schools in the United States--, people often look at these private institutions that are
dying and are surprised or even horrified. And yet after that you look at the data on
US schools and you see that the private sector holds just as large a share as , but whilesome institutions are dying, others are being created, the evangelical phenomenon inUnited States and elsewhere is a good example. We have to remember that while
we’ve been living in the last few decades and still today in an era of enormous private
surge, our predecessors lived in realities of public higher education with very little
private, and there is no good reason to expect, in my judgment, that private surge will
become the permanent shape of things in higher education.
Now, as I anticipated, I think that I should for the sake of time basically skip section
six on private-public blurring. This fits into the privatization of some of the public
universities and the blurring is very much associated with time, as the longer private
sectors have been around, the more we tend to see private-public blurring instead ofgreater private-public distinctiveness, but that really is too fast a summary. I wanted
to leave time for last major topic, which is for-profit higher education, and of course
here there is experimentation with that right now in Japan.
To me, for-profit higher education epitomizes private higher education patterns. It’s
like they are similar, but they’re more intense; they are more extreme. So, if we lookat what goes on in for-profit higher education, we get a start dramatic picture of whatmuch of private higher education, even if it’s legally non-profit, has been. First andmaybe the clearest example, the for-profits almost always operate without public funds.
A big exception is the United States through student loans, but again it’s a huge

19

exception.

In general, we can associate for-profit with private money andoverwhelmingly with tuition. Students and their families buy what they want andwhat they can in this marketplace. The for-profits are very oriented toward the job
market. They are sometimes even disdainful or at least don’t claim for themselves,the public university tradition of pure knowledge and most advanced thinking. That’s
not what they do. The for-profits are in virtually all cases secular, not religious. In
an increasing number of cases, there is an international presence, and by far the major
example is Laureate Education, which used to be called Sylvan Education. The
for-profits also epitomize the privateness of the private sector in the sense that theytend to be freer from public regulations than the rest of the private higher education
sector.
As far as the for-profits are concerned, there really is less need for formal accreditation.
They are very skeptical about the criteria in formal accreditation, since their claim isthat they are legitimized by the marketplace. Since they charge, people aren’t going
there unless they perceive some success of this for-profit institution.

And thefor-profit institutions in their governance are dramatically characterized by hierarchy.
The for-profit institutions even more than the other private institutions are generally
very centralized internally. University of Phoenix, in fact, is a system of colleges andall run from a central point on a central pattern. The principles of hiring faculty, ofstudent admissions, of curriculum, they’re all pretty much determined at the pinnacleof the University of Phoenix. And so as you can conclude from that, faculty has
extremely little power in the for-profit institutions. Again, I think that epitomizes
what we usually find in private higher education, and to some extent the student isking, the student has the consumer choice, though no voice within the institution oncethe student is accepted.
And the another element that characterizes for-profit and reflects private overall isdramatic growth.

Where does this dramatic growth take place?

depends on definition.

Well, it really

We’re always confronting definitional problems in higher

education, more so in private higher education, and even more so in for-profit. The
one overwhelming reality is that functional for-profit or for-profit in reality is verymuch larger than what’s for-profit legally. In fact, we have a considerable amount defacto for-profit higher education in countries that by law do not allow for-profit higher
education. The US is seeing a sudden expansion of for-profit, even though we’ve had

20for-profit for a long time, about 5% of total higher education enrollments are in
for-profit institutions. That may not sound like much but it was 2% several years back,and 5% of the total enrollment represents one-fourth of the private higher education
enrollment.
A few Latin American countries led by Brazil have now legalized for-profit higher
education. What they said was, “Look, we’ve got all these non-profits by declarationand they’re not really non-profits, they’re behaving just like for-profit institutions inalmost all respects, but since they’re listed as non-profit, we can’t fully tax them. So,
we’ll let them be designated as for-profit and then we tax them the same way we tax
any business.” My judgment is that we’re going to see more and more of this. In a
few countries like South Africa, the for-profit is actually and legally the bulk of theprivate sector.
Now, there is tremendous variety among the for-profits. I mentioned the Universityof Phoenix, this is the largest private higher education institution in the world, with
about 300,000 students, but most for-profit institutions are quite small. They may befamily institutions, they may be essentially vocational institutions. In some cases,
corporations run their own colleges.
Thus, this look at the for-profit sub-sector is already a kind of summary of my remarks
about the private higher education globally: huge expanding importance, threats topublic higher education, new types of privateness, most often very private in theirfinance, governance, and missions. So that would be my summary of the global
trends as I see them, and of course I will be very attentive in the rest of the conference
to learn more about how particular countries represented here fit these patterns anddeviate from it.

21

22

Chapter 3
When Domestic Forces meet the Global Trends:
The Liberalization of the Privateness in East Asian Higher Education

Ka Ho Mok
Introduction
In the recent decades, higher education sectors in Asia have been going
through a few major changes. On the provision front, the state or public higher
education has been reducing in their importance, while the private sector andthe market have become increasingly prominent particularly when many Asian
governments have relied more upon the market and the private initiatives toexpand higher education (Mok, 2005, 2006). Along side with the growing
prominence of the private sector in education provision, it has been a noticeable
trend that state funding to higher education has reduced but the non-state
financial sources have steadily increased in higher education financing. On the
management / governance front, higher education in Asia has experienced
significant restructuring exercises, especially when many traditionally statedominated and centralized- governed public university systems have gone
through the processes of “corporatization” and “incorporation” (Oba, 2006; Mok,
2006a; Tien, 2006). The major objectives of this paper are to examine the majorsocio-economic

andsocio-politicalfactors

accounting

for

the

growing“privateness” in higher education in Asia. 1 A close scrutiny of variables shapingchanges and transformations taking place in Asian higher education systems
has discovered that both the global and domestic forces have interacted and led

1

In this study, when talking about the growing prominence of the “privateness” in higher
education, we refer to the three aspects of governance activities in education, namely,
provision, financing and governance / management.

23

to such changes. Let us now turn to the global forces driving Asian higher
education to become more “private” in nature.
Global Forces

Questing for Global Competitiveness and New Higher Education GovernanceIn order to enhance their global competitiveness, governments in different
parts of the world have started to conduct comprehensive reviews of andimplement plans to restructure their higher education systems (Mok and Welch,2003). In response to the growing pressures generated by the globalization forces,
modern states have attempted to reinvent themselves by moving beyond thewelfare state to become the competition state (Gill, 1995; Moran, 2002; Jordana
and Levi-Faur, 2005). Governments across different parts of the globe, facing
similar competitive pressures, have undertaken regulatory reforms such asprivatization or corporatization of state-owned industries or publicly owned
organizations like post office and university, opening up new markets tomultiple providers and the introduction of new regulatory regimes under thecontrol of independent regulators (Drahos and Jospeh, 1995; Levi-Faur, 1998;
Scott, 2004). To enhance the efficiency of the public policy / public management,
modern states may deregulate some areas while enforcing competition in others,
hence becoming a facilitator or even a generator of markets. Thus, it is common
to witness the extent and the role of reregulation or recentralization in theprocesses of market restructuring is accompanied by the emergence of strong
regulatory states and by the entrepreneurial role states play (Chan and Tan,
2006; Ng and Chan, 2006). Unlike Cerny’s (1997) characterization of thecompetition state as a basically liberal state, Levi-Faur argues the state(particularly in the intensified global competitive environment, my emphasis)
faces a paradox: “the greater the commitment of the competition state to thepromotion of competition, the deeper its regulation will be” (Levi-Faur, 1998:
676). More importantly, the actions and mission of the competition state do notnecessarily result in the retreat of the state from the market but rather areassertion of the role of the state under changing social and economic

24

circumstances (Levi-Faur, 1998: 676).
In order to promote basic national interests through the creation andenforcement of competition, the developmental states in Asia have taken theopportunity offered by the fundamental economic restructuring processes totransform them into “market accelerationist state” by proactively shaping themarket institutions for the benefits of market creation (Mok, 2006b; Lee, 2004).
Unlike the regulatory state in America which evolved against a liberal market
economy context, the regulatory state in Asia has emerged from a context of a
combined strong state and a free market economy, by which the stateideologically commits to an “authoritarian mode of liberalism”. As Jayasuriya
has rightly pointed out, “this authoritarian liberalism presupposes the existenceof a strong (or better described as politically illiberal) state with a capacity toregulate the economy” (2000: 329).

In order to promote competition in themarkets against the context of the authoritarian liberalism, a market

accelerationist state is forming (Mok, 2006b). The market accelerationist state
has the features of a “dualistic state” as what Fraenkel (1941) described: astrong state combined with a liberal market economy. With this kind of statearchitecture in place, the success of the markets rests heavily upon the presenceof strong regulatory institutions. It is against such a wider socio-political context
that far more pro-competition policy instruments are adopted by modern statesto transform the way public sector is governed. Hence, the higher education
sector, like other public policy domains, has gone “private”; while ideas andstrategies along the lines of neo-liberalism and economic rationalism areincreasingly influencing the way public policy is managed (Deem and Brehony,
2005; Neubauer, 2006). The growing privateness in Asian higher education has
evolved from the wider socio-political policy context just outlined above.
Being unsatisfied with the conventional model along the lines of “stateoriented” and “highly centralized” approaches in higher education, Asian
governments have recently tried to “incorporate” or introduced “corporatization”
and “privatisation” measures to run their state / national universities, believingthat the transformations of which could make national universities more flexible

25

and responsive to rapid socio-economic changes (Mok, 2006a; Oba, 2006). Insteadof being closely directed by the Ministry of Education or equivalent government
administrative bodies, state universities in Asia are now required to become moreproactive and dynamic in looking for their own financial resources. Similar to their
Australian and British counterparts, universities in Asia are now under constantpressures to become more “entrepreneurial” to look for alternative funding sourcesfrom the market, strengthening their partnerships with the industry and thebusiness (Olsen and Gornitzka, 2006; Marginson and Considine, 2000).
Adhering more towards the market and corporate principles and practices,
universities in Hong Kong are now run on a market-oriented and businesscorporation model. Universities of the city-state have experienced corporatizationand privatisation processes, whereby higher education institutions in Hong Kong
have proactively engaged in fostering entrepreneurship to search for additional
revenue sources from the market (Mok, 2005a; Lee and Gopinathan, 2005). In
order to enhance efficiency of university governance, the University Grant
Committee (UGC), the organization which shapes the directions of higher
education development in Hong Kong, has recently subscribed to the notion of“deep collaboration” among universities, believing that synergy could be pulled
together if universities in the city-state could better integrate. The UGC evensupports university merging or other forms of restructuring to further establish
Hong Kong as a regional centre for excellence in research and scholarship (Lee,2005; Chan, 2007).
Similarly, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan has decided to change thestatutory position of state universities into independent judicial entity by adopting
principles and practices of corporatization. In order to reduce the state burden inhigher education financing, all state universities in Taiwan have to generate
additional funds from non-state sectors such as the market and enterprises. In
order to generate sufficient funds to finance their institutions, various kinds ofmarket driven strategies have been adopted. More recently, the Taiwan
Government has attempted to restructure its state universities by passing a new

University Bill to make state universities independent legal entities. Influenced by26

the Japan model, state universities in Taiwan have to establish new governancestructures; while they are under immense pressures for searching additional
financial support from the non-state channels especially when the Taiwan
government has reduced significantly its funding to them (Lo and Weng, 2005;
Tien, 2006).
In facing a new market economy context, the Chinese government has only
found the old way of “centralized governance” in education inappropriate (Yang,
2002). Acknowledging that over-centralization and stringent rules would kill the
initiatives and enthusiasm of local educational institutions, the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) called for resolute steps to streamline administration,
devolve powers to units at lower levels so as to allow them more flexibility to run
education. In the last decade of so, higher education in the post-Mao era has
experienced structural reforms ranging from curriculum design, financing,promotion of the private / minban sectors in higher education provision, to
adopting strategies to develop “world-class universities”. In order to promote thecompetitiveness of its higher education in the global marketplace, the Chinese
government has introduced various kinds of restructuring exercises to merge
universities or to streamline the stubbornly sustained bureaucratic university
systems. With strong intention to identify and develop a few Chinese
universities into “world class universities”, the government has implemented
various reform measures such “211 project” and “985 project” to concentratestate resources on a few selected top-tier national universities for boosting them
to become leading universities in the world (Min, 2004; Mok 2005b; Lo and Chan
2006; Chou, 2006).
Like societies in greater China, Japan is not immune from the impact of neoliberalism, managerialism and economic rationalism, three major ideologies
underlying the tidal wave of public sector reforms and reinventing government
projects across the world. With the intentions to make its state university system
more responsive and flexible in coping with intensified pressures generated fromthe growing impacts of globalization, the Japanese government has incorporated

27

all state universities since 2004. Central to the transformation of the existing
national universities into “National University Corporations” are three major
reform aspects: increased competitiveness in research and education; enhanced
accountability together with introduction of competition; and strategic andfunctional management of national universities (Oba, 2006).
Higher education restructuring is popular not only among East Asian states
but also among Southeast Asian societies. Having reflected upon the changing
university governance models and evaluated the recent experiences of SMU, theMinistry of Education in Singapore has decided to change the governance modelsof the existing state universities, namely, National University of Singapore andNanyang Technological University by making them independent legal entity
through the process of “corporatization” (Mok, 2005, 2006a). By incorporatizingthese state universities, the Singapore government hopes that universities on theisland state could become more entrepreneurial. Similarly, public universities in
Malaysia have started a similar project of “incorporation” and “corporatization” ofnational universities since 1998. In the last few years, the private universities
have grown in number, while the public universities are run like as corporations in
Malaysia. According to Lee (2004), “the structural changes in the corporatized
universities show that collegial forms of governance has been sidelined,
entrepreneurial activities have increased, and corporate managerial practices havebeen institutionalised” (Lee, 2004: 15). Putting the above governance /management reforms taking place in the Asian higher education systems into
perspective, it is clear that the recent higher education transformations andrestructuring are part of the wider reinventing state project or the reengineering of
the public sector exercise launched in Asia.

Commodification of Higher Education and Questing for the Education Market
In addition to the global trend of reinventing state movement discussed
earlier, the growing “privateness” in higher education in Asia could beunderstood as the responses of the Asian governments to the emerging higher

28

education market. In 1995 higher education was regarded as a service to beliberalized and regulated by trade rules under the General Agreement on Tradein Services (GATS). Since then, transnational higher education has increased in
number particularly when some developing economies have attempted to expand
higher education enrolments but they simply have not sufficient capacity tomeet such pressing demands. Hence, many of these countries allow overseas
academic institutions to set up the branch campuses or offer academic
programmes on their lands. Using projections based upon 25 selected countries,
IDP Education Australia estimates that the number of international students
looking for learning opportunities either in or from a foreign country will reach
1.4 million in 2010 and rise to 3.1 million in 2050 (Blight, 1995). Similarly,
recent demographic growth estimations suggest there will be a population of 7
billion to 8 billion people by 2025, thus anticipating there would be some 125
million students by 2020. Such changing global demographic trends clearlysuggest a growing demand for higher education despite continual cuts in statebudgets for higher education (Knight, 2006). To capture the rise of the higher
education markets, a wide range of companies from bricks and motor
institutions, e-learning, IT Training, publishers, and soft ware to consultancy
firms have engaged in offering different kinds of transnational education. Since
the last decade, the greatest numbers of receiving countries are located in Asia
Pacific since the pressing demands for higher education and professional
training cannot be satisfied by domestic capacity (Knight, 2006a).
In view of the growing higher education market in the region, the Hong
Kong government has recently planned to establish the city-state as a regional
hub of higher education. Adopting a liberal approach in transnational education,
the Hong Kong government has allowed overseas higher education institutions
to provide academic programmes in forms of joint programmes, distancelearning as well as twinning programmes. Regarding the sources countries ofcourse providers, most institutions are from developed English speaking
countries. The UK, Australia and the US are the most popular exporters of29

education to Hong Kong (Yang, 2005; Mok, 2006b). Unlike Hong Kong, theSingapore government has been playing a more directive role in orchestrating
the higher education market in the city-state. Setting out far more strategic
directions, the Singapore government has tried to develop higher education as
an industry since the late 1990s and thereafter tactically invited “world-class”
and “reputable” universities from abroad to set up their Asian campuses in thecity-state, hoping to develop the island-state as a regional centre for higher
education with significant research output, high-level analysis and high-calibre
graduates(Mok

2006b,

2006c;

Shanmugarantnam,2005).

In

Japan,

international joint agree arrangement has been developed since the late 1980s.
Overseas campuses and various forms of collaborative programmes are available
in the country. E-learning therefore becomes a new front of cross-border supplyof education. Given that there is very limited unmet demand for higher
education, e-learning is mainly adopted in professional postgraduate educationin order to diversify and complement traditional education (Tsuruta, 2006).
Similar developments can be found in Malaysia when the government is
actively developing the country as a regional hub of higher education (Morshida,2006). Currently, there are several institutions working together to promote
Malaysia as a major regional hub of higher education, including the Departmentof Private Education under the MOE, National Association of Private Higher
Education Institutions, the Malaysian Association of Private Universities andColleges, and the Malaysian Education Promotion Council. In addition,
educational promotion offices have been established in China, Indonesia,
Vietnam and the United Arab Emirates (OBHE, 2006). It is the Malaysian
government’s policy objectives to expand the higher education market byencouraging every university to ensure that total student enrolment is made up
of at least 10-15% of foreign students. As at the end of 2005, five foreign
universities have established their branches in Malaysia offering foreign
qualifications. 25 non-university status private colleges conduct 3+0 foreign
degree programmes in collaboration with overseas institutions. In addition,some

privateuniversities,

which

primarily

30

offer

home-growndegreeprogrammes, have also been providing programmes that lead to overseas
qualifications (Malaysian Education Promotion Council, 2006).
After China joined the WTO, the Chinese government began revisinglegislation to allow overseas institutions to offer programmes in the mainland inline with WTO regulations. In September 2003, the State Council started
implementing the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on ChineseForeign Cooperation in Running Schools”. This newly enacted legal document
provides further details for the nature, policy and principle, concrete request andprocedure of applying, leadership and organization, teaching process, financial
management, supervised mechanism and legal liability, etc. More specifically,
the 2003 legal document promotes transnational higher education, particularly
encouraging local universities to cooperate with renowned overseas higher
education institutions in launching new academic programmes designed to
improve the quality of teaching and learning and to introduce excellent overseas
educational resources to local institutions (State Council 2003, Chapter 1,
Article 3). By June 2004, the number of joint programmes provided in Chinese
institutions in collaboration with overseas partners had increased to 745, while
joint programmes which are qualified to award overseas or Hong Kong degrees
increased to 164 (MOE 2006). Most of these programs originate in the countries
and regions with developed economies and advanced technology. As might be
expected from countries with the biggest shares of educational service export in
the world, almost half of the cooperative universities are from the USA andAustralia, with a small, but still significant, number of universities from
European countries have been approved by the Academic Degrees Committee of
the State Council (ADCSC) to grant their degrees to Chinese-Foreign
Cooperation in Running Schools (CFCRS) students (Huang, 2006; Mok and Xu,
2006).
Our above discussions regarding the rise of transnational higher educationin Asia has clearly that for those relative developed economies such as Japan,
Hong Kong and Singapore, they are very keen to develop transnational higher

31education as trade since they believe the development of which could generate
another steady income stream for national revenue. While for those lesseconomically developed economies such as China and Malaysia, they have madeuse of the emergence of the transnational higher education market to create
more opportunities for meeting the pressing demands for higher learning. It
seems that the Asian states’ venture into the higher education market are
driven by the global forces, a close scrutiny has clearly found that even though
there are similar strategies in response to the global pressures, there are also
diverse domestic political or reform agendas which account for such changes.

Domestic Forces

Local History and Basic Orientation
In addition to the global forces, a number of key domestic factors haveshaped the basic orientation of education policy in Asia. Among the selected
Asian countries under review, many of them were colonies of either Japan or
Britain. In addition, the strong presence of the USA in the region should haveshaped Asia’s developments from various fronts (Sutter, 2005; Moore, 2005).
With such socio-political and socio-historical backgrounds, obviously the higher
education systems of these Asian countries initially were affected by theircolonial history. Even when these Asian states are no longer colonies, we caneasily find that many of their ideas and practices in education have still deeply
rooted in their colonial legacy (Morris and Sweeting, 1995). No matter how hard
they have tried to move beyond the colonial influence, we can still witness manyof these Asian governments continue to identify and follow the ways that theirformer colonial states manage education (Mok and Lee, 2000; Mok, 2007). Hence,
when examining educational developments of Asia, we cannot entirely discard
the colonial legacy. After gaining independence from colonial rule (or changing
from a colonial state to a Special Administrative Region of China for the case of
Hong Kong), these Asian governments gave education a very important role insocial and economic development (Tilak, 2000; Bray, 1997). Despite the fact that32

most of the Asian societies under review are primarily anti-welfarist in public
discourse and public policy, they all conceive education as an exception (Asher
and Newman, 2001). Instead of being treated simply as a necessary public
expenditure item, these Asian governments have put emphasis on developing
education as an investment for providing their economies with a high quality
labour. It is particularly true when these Asian governments have now
confronted the intensified pressures generated from the rise of the knowledgebased economy. Without abundant natural resources but being small-scaleeconomies when comparing to other giant developed economies such as theEuropean Union or the United States of America, these Asian states realize thesignificance to improve the global competence of their citizens in order tostrengthen their national competitiveness. Hence, higher education expansion
has become a common trend among these Asian countries in recent years. 2
Another factor shaping educational developments in these societies is socialpsychological, focusing more on the values and attitudes perceived to be
prerequisites for development. Central to the legacy of Confucianism and NeoConfucianism is an emphasis on education and cultural enhancement (Rozman,
1992; So and Chiu, 1995; Morris and Sweeting, 1995). Recent studies regarding
consumption and private tutoring in Asia have repeatedly confirmed how
important Asian parents have attached to education. It has been reported
consistently that Asian parents are willing and also committed to pay for theirchildren’s education. Hence, private tutoring in Asia has become a growing trend
and private school and higher education have therefore become increasingly
popular in Asia (Bray and Bunly, 2005; Bray and Thomas, 1998). More
importantly, education has long been adopted as an instrument, direct andindirect, of nation building in these Asian societies. Education has helped tocreate a sense of belonging and nationhood and so has been important inpolitical legitimation in these Asian states. It has also contributed to that2

See the discussion regarding ‘massification of higher education’ below.

33legitimation through the economic opportunities it has offered and thecontribution it has made to economic growth (Bray and Lee, 2001; Gopinathan,2001). In addition to these general social, political and cultural variables, therise of the privateness in Asian higher education is to do with the massificationof higher education either to reposition the nation states better in the global
market place or to catch up with the late development.

After Catching Up and Moving Ahead
In those more developed Asian countries, like Japan and the Asian four
tigers, some world-class universities exist or a number of universities areapproaching toward the status of world-class research universities (Deem, Lucasand Mok, 2006). In order to rank higher in the world university league table,some Asian states have attempted to make use of the private sector or themarket to reinvent their higher education systems (see Table 1). For instance,
the Japanese government issued a series of policies in the 1980s and 1990s tostrengthen the university-industry linkage in response to the burst of “bubble
economy” and to rebuild Japanese confidence in the global economy’scompetition (Kaneko, 2004, pp. 136-137). To provide incentives for the industryuniversity collaboration, the Japanese government funded the joint research
project between universities and industries, and established “universityindustry cooperation centres” at selected national universities. Faculty members
are even allowed to involve part-time positions in the private enterprises.
Meanwhile, the privatization of national universities, which in a form of
reorganization of national university governance bodies, has been implemented
after a long progress of discussion in order to allow the national universities
becoming more aggressive in acquiring their standing in the market (Kaneko,
2004, pp. 141).

34

Table 1: Universities in East Asia ranked among the world’s top 100 universities
2006
rank

2005
rank

Name

Country

1.

14

15

Beijing University

China

2.

19=

22

National University of Singapore

Singapore

3.

19=

16

Tokyo University

Japan

4.

28

62

Tsing Hua University

China

5.

29=

31

Kyoto University

Japan

6.

33=

41

University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

7.

50=

51

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

58=

43

Hong Kong University Science &Technology

Hong Kong

9.

61=

48

Nanyang Technological University

Singapore

10

63

93

Seoul National University

South Korea

11

70=

105

Osaka University

Japan

8.

Source: Times Higher Education Supplement
Similarly, in Hong Kong, university-industry cooperation has also beenencouraged through the commercialization of research results. For example, anumber of universities in Hong Kong have set up their technology transfer
centres affiliated enterprises for bridging and coordinating industrial contacts
and collaborations and for commercializing and marketing their research results(Mok, 2005a, pp. 554-546). In Taiwan, the government encouraged theparticipation of the industry in curricula as a form of cooperation between
academic and industry. The Taiwan government therefore has launched a
programme called “Last Mile Plan” to encourage the universities to establish
connections with the industrial sector. By the scheme, the industry has theopportunities to engage in the design of curricula, thereby assuring the students’abilities meeting the needs of employers (Lo and Weng, 2005, pp. 145-146).
Similar developments could be found in Singapore. In recent years, the35Singapore government has proactively engaged in pushing the public
universities to become more active in reaching out to the business and industrial
sectors.

The

call

for

“Enterprise

University”

and

the

quest

for

“entrepreneurship” are becoming the catchwords in higher education reform in
Singapore. Our above discussions have also highlighted how the Singapore hastactically selected key partners and top-tier universities from abroad to establish
their branch campuses in the city-state in order to develop Singapore into a
regional hub of higher education (Mok, 2006b). When putting the growing
privateness of higher education into perspective, it is clear that some of the
Asian states have attempted to make use of the “private” sector to boost thehigher education development with the intention to reposition them better in the
global university league table. After the developmental phase of “catching up forlate development”, these relatively developed economies in Asia have made useof the market and the private forces to make the mission of “moving ahead”
possible.

Catching Up for Late Development
However, the situations in those less developed countries are far more
complex. On the one hand, they face the same global challenges that the moredeveloped countries face. Higher education is inevitably given a mission of
nurturing sufficient quality manpower for economic development of thecountries. On the other hand, these countries are still facing a huge demand forhigher education since they have not had sufficient capacity to satisfy suchpressing educational needs. Therefore, the growing prominence of theprivateness in higher education can be interpreted as strategies adopted bysome Asian economies to catch up with other countries by expanding higher
education since they are late-comers in terms of higher education developments.
Realizing that depending upon the state provision and financing alone would
never satisfy the pressing needs for higher education, these countries havetherefore allowed other non-state actors, including the market, to engage in36

providing and financing higher education. These situations can be summarized
as missions of “catching up” and then “moving ahead”. Regarding the mission of“catching up”, higher education has been moving towards mass education in
many less developed countries. Table 2 shows the considerably great range ofenrollment ratio in East Asia.
Table 2: A Comparative Perspective of Tertiary Education in East Asia (2004)
Gross enrolment
ratio (%)

Publicexpenditures perstudent (% ofGDP per capita )N/APrivateenrolment
share (%)

East Asia &19.4
N/A
Pacific1
China219.1
N/A
0.6
Hong Kong
32.1
67.9
3.0
Japan
54.0
17.1
77.0
Korea
88.5
5.0
81.0
Malaysia
32.4
102.4
31.0
3
Singapore
38.0
41.1
N/A
Taiwan
78.6
N/A
71.9
Note:
1. East Asia & Pacific includes: American Samoa, Cambodia, China, Fiji,
Indonesia, Kiribati, Korea, Dem. Rep., Lao PDR, Malaysia, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Mongolia, Myanmar, N. Mariana Islands, Palau,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Thailand, TimorLeste, Tonga, Vanuatu, Vietnam.
2. The figure of private enrolment share is that of in 1999.
3. The figure of gross enrolment ratio is that of in 1999.

Source:World Bank (2006); World Resources Institute (2006); MOE, China (2000); MOE,
Taiwan (2006)
For example, minban education has emerged in China since the early 1990s(see Table 3). To date, private / minban sector has occupied a significant
proportion in higher education sector, although there is not a clear distinction
between public and private but a hybrid of publicness and privateness ofeducation in China (Shi, et al., 2005; Lin, 2006). With the unleashed market

37forces in higher education, China now has the largest number of post-graduate
students in the world (Yang 2002; Ngok and Kwong 2003; Mok, 2000). Similarly,
the rapid higher education in Malaysia is to do with the liberalization of theprivate sector in higher education provision in the last decade. With theamendments of private education law in 1996, we have witnessed a steady
growth of university students graduating not only from the public but also theprivate universities or higher education institutions in Malaysia. Coupled withthe strategies by inviting a few major overseas partners to develop academic
programmes with local institutions, the Malaysia government has successfully
expanded its higher education and created a conducive policy environment for
turning the country into one of the regional hubs of higher education in Asia
(Lee 2006; Mok 2006a; Morshidi, 2006a).
Table 3: The rise of minban education in China
No. of:

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

Minban Primary Schools

3264

4341

4846

5122

6047

Minban Secondary Schools

2593

3316

4571

5362

4219

Minban vocational College

950

999

1040

1085

1633

No. of Minban Higher
Education Institutions(Non-qualification issuing
institutions)
Source: MOE, China (2000)

37(around1000)

43(1282)

89(1202)

133(1202)

228(1187)

Not surprisingly, similar developments could be found in South Korea,
Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong, the rapid expansion of higher education
enrolments in these countries in the last two decades have resulted from therevitalization of the private sector or the liberalization of the market in higher
education. When comparing and contrasting the higher education developments
in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan with those of Hong Kong and Singapore, it isclear that the higher education systems in the former are private dominancewhile the latter is more state dominance (Mok 2003). In order to increase thehigher education enrolment rate, we have also witnessed the growing

38

prominence of the privateness in the higher education of Singapore and Hong
Kong since these Asian states have attempted to make use of the market tofulfill the policy goals of massification of higher education. Therefore, private
higher education sector has paid for much of the higher education sector
expansion, leading to revolutionary changes and imparting a growing“privateness” to Asian higher education systems as what Altbach and Lewis(2005) have argued.

Conclusion
This paper has briefly outlined both the global and domestic factors
influencing the rise of the privateness in higher education in Asia. Our above
comparative study has clearly indicated the growing prominence of theprivateness in higher education in Asia has been driven by both the global andlocal forces. Some of these Asian societies have allowed the private sector toperform increasingly important role for “compensating for their deficiency” andtherefore they make use of the private sources as instruments for “catching up”
or “moving ahead” purposes. In contrast, for those relatively less economicallydeveloped countries, they have used the market as an instrument to fulfill theirpolicy goals of higher education expansion. Most important of all, our above
comparative study has clearly indicated that even though there are similar
trends of higher education developments in Asia, there are equally diverse
domestic / local political and reform agendas (Mok, 2003a). Therefore, we should
not overstate the impact of globalization since the Asian states have also
tactically made use of the global forces to accelerate changes in order to fulfill
their locally driven political / reform agendas (Mok, 2006b). More importantly,
when examining the social context for the rise of private higher education in
Asia, we should not discard the importance of local cultural, traditional andhistorical variables which have significantly shaped educational developments ofthese Asian economies.

39

References
Altbach, P. and Levy, D. (2005). Private Higher Education: A Global Revolution,
Boston: Sense Publishers.
Asher, M. and Newman, D. (2001). “Hong Kong and Singapore: Two approaches
to the provision of pensions in Asia”, Journal of Pensions Management,
7(2): 155-66.
Blight, D. (1995). International Education: Australia’s Potential Demand andSupply, Canberra: AV-CC.
Bray, M. (1997). “Education and colonial transition: The Hong Kong experiencein comparative perspective”, in Bray, M. and Lee, W.O. (eds.) Education

and Political Transition: Implications of Hong Kong’s Change ofSovereignty, Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The

University of Hong Kong.
Bray, M. and Bunly, S. (2005). Balancing the Books: Household Financing ofBasic Education in Cambodia, Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong and Human Development
Unit, East Asia & Pacific Region, The World Bank.
Bray, M. and Lee, W.O. (eds.) (2001). Education and Political Transition:
Implications of Hong Kong’s Change of Sovereignty (2nd edition), HongKong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong
Kong.
Bray, M. and Thomas, R. (eds.) (1998). Financing of Education in Indonesia,
Manila: Asian Development Bank and Hong Kong: Comparative Education
Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Cerny, P. (1997). “Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of politicalglobalization”, Government and Opposition, 32: 251-74.
Chan, D. (2007). “Global agenda, local response: Changing education governancein Hong Kong’s higher education”, Globalization, Societies & Education,
forthcoming.
Chan, D. and Tan, J. (2006). “Privatization and the rise of direct subsidy scheme
schools and independent schools in Hong Kong and Singapore”, Paper
presented at the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association 2006
International Conference, 28-30 November 2006, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong.
Chou, P. (2006). “Taiwan’s higher education at the crossroad: Implications for
China”, Paper presented at the Senior Seminar of Education 2020, 6-11
September 2006, East-West Center, Hawaii, USA.
Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2005). “Management as ideology: The case of ‘newmanagerialism’ in higher education”, Oxford Review of Education, 31(2):213-231.
Deem, R., Lucas, L. and Mok, K.H. (2006). “East meets West meets ‘world-class’:
What is a ‘world-class’ university in the context of Europe and Asia anddoes it matter?”, Paper presented at the Consortium of Higher Education
Researchers Conference, 7-9 September 2006, Kassel, Germany.

40

Drahos, P. and Jospeh, R. (1995). “The telecommunications and investment in
the great supranational regulatory game”, Telecommunications Policy, 188:619-35.
Fraenkel, E. (1941). The Dual State, translation from the German by Shils, E.A.
in collaboration with Edith Lowenstein and Klaus Knorr, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gill, S. (1995). “Globalization, market civilization and disciplinary
neoliberalism”, Millennium, 24(3): 399-423.
Gopinathan, S. (2001). “Globalization, the state and education policy in
Singapore”, in Bray, M. and Lee, W.O. (eds.) Education and Political
Transition: Implications of Hong Kong’s Change of Sovereignty, HongKong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong
Kong.
http://www.jsj.edu.cn/mingdan/002.html
Huang, F.T. (2006). “Transnational higher education in mainland China: A focus
on foreign degree-conferring programs”, in Huang, F.T. (ed.) Transnational
Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region, Hiroshima: ResearchInstitute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
Jayasuriya, K. (2000). “Authoritarian liberalism, governance and the emergenceof the regulatory state in post-crisis East Asia”, in Robinson, R., Beeson,
M., Jayasuriya, K. and Kim, H.R. (eds.) Politics and Markets in the Wakeof the Asian Crisis, London: Routledge.
Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D. (2005). “Preface: The making of a new regulatoryorder”, The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 598 March: 1-6.
Kaneko, M. (2004) “Japanese higher education: Contemporary reform and theinfluence of tradition”, in Altbach, P.G. and Umakosji, T. (eds.) Asian
Universities: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges,
Batimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Knight, J. (2006). Higher Education Crossing Border: A Guide to Implications ofGeneral Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) for Cross Border
Education, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization.
Knight, J. (2006a). “The role of crossborder education in the debate of education
as a public good and private commodity”, Paper presented at the Senior
Seminar of the Education 2020 Programme, 6-11 September 2006, EastWest Center, Hawaii, USA.
Lee, H.H. (2005). Major issues of university education policy in Hong Kong”,
Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(2): 103-112.
Lee, H.H. and Gopinathan, S. (2005). “Reforming university education in Hong
Kong and Singapore”, in Mok, K.H. and James (eds.) Globalization andHigher Education in East Asia, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
Lee, M. and Healy, S. (2006). “Higher education in South-East Asia: An
overview”, Lee, M. & Healy, S. (eds.) Higher Education in South-East Asia,
Bangkok: UNESCO.

41

Lee, M.N.N. (2006). “Public Vs private higher education: Tensions orpartnerships? A Southeast Asian Perspective”, Paper presented at thesenior seminar, Education for 2020 Project, East-West Center, 6-12
September 2006, Hawaii.
Lee, M.N.N.. (2004). Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia, Penang:
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Levi-Faur, D. (1998). “The competition state as a neo-mercantalist state:
Understandingtherestructuringofnational
andglobaltelecommunications”, Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(6): 655-686.
Levy, D. (2006). “Government involvement and private expansion in Asian
higher Education”, Retrieved August 8, 2006, from
Lin, J. (2006). “Private universities in China: Expansion and challenges”, Paper
presented at the AAS Annual Meeting, Marriott, San Francisco, USA.
Lo, Y.W. and Chan, D. (2006). “The impact of globalization on higher educationin Taiwan and Mainland China”, paper presented at the GDPism and Risk:
Challenges for Social Development and Public Policy Conference, 12-13
July 2006, University of Bristol.
Lo, Y.W. and Weng, F.Y. (2005). “Taiwan’s responses to globalization:
Decentralization and internationalization of higher education”, in Mok,
K.H. and James, R. (eds.) Globalization and Higher Education in East Asia,
New York and Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
Malaysian Education Promotion Council (2006). The Council’s website, available
at: http://www.mepc.com.my.
Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power,
Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Min, W.F. (2004). “Chinese higher education: The legacy of the past and thecontext of the future”, in Altbach, P. & Umakoshi, T. (eds.) Asian
Universities: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges,
Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ministry of Education [MOE], China (2000). China Educational Finance
Statistical Yearbook 2000, Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe.
Ministry of Education [MOE], China (2006) List of Chinese-Foreign Cooperationin Running Schools Programmes. Retrieved October 31, 2006, from
Ministry of Education [MOE], Taiwan (2006). MOE’s website. Retrieved
December 6, 2006,
from http://english.moe.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=816&CtUnit=507&BaseDS
D=7&mp=1
Mok, K.H. (2000). “Marketizing higher education in post-Mao China”,
International Journal of Educational Development, 20: 109-126.
Mok, K.H. (2003). “Education”, in Holliday, I. and Wilding, P. (eds.) Welfare
Capitalism in East Asia, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Mok, K.H. (2003a). “Similar trends, diverse agendas: Higher education reforms
in East Asia”, Globalization, societies & Education, 1(2): 201-221.

42

Mok,

K.H. (2005). “Pro-competition policy tools and state capacity:
Corporatization of public universities in Hong Kong and Singapore”, Policy& Society, 24(3): 1-26.
Mok, K.H. (2005a). “Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of governmentand higher education governance in Hong Kong”, Research Policy, 34: 537554.
Mok, K.H. (2005b). “Globalization and educational restructuring: University
merging and changing governance in China”, Higher Education, 50: 57-88.
Mok, K.H. (2006). Education reform and Education Policy in East Asia, London:
Routledge.
Mok, K.H. (2006a). “The search for new governance: Corporatization andprivatization experiences in Singapore and Malaysia”, Paper presented at
the International Workshop on University Restructuring in Asia, 16
January 2006, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima
University.
Mok, K.H. (2006b). “Varieties of regulatory regimes in Asia: The liberalization of
the higher education market in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia”,
Paper presented at the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association 2006
International Conference, 28-30 November 2006, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong.
Mok, K.H. (2006c). “The quest for a regional hub of higher education:
Transnational higher education and changing governance in Singapore”,
RIHE International Publication Series, 10: 127-150.
Mok, K.H. (2007). “Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia:
Critical reflections”, Journal of Studies in International Education,
forthcoming 2007.
Mok, K.H. and Lee, H.H. (2000). “Globalization or re-colonization: Higher
education reforms in Hong Kong”, Higher Education Policy, 13(4): 361-77.
Mok, K.H. and Welch, A. (eds.) (2003). Globalization and Educational
Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Mok, K.H. and Xu, X.Z. (2006). “When China opens to the world: A study oftransnational higher education in Zhejiang China”, Paper currently underreview by Asia Pacific Education Review.
Moore, T.G. (2005). “Chinese foreign policy in the age of globalization’, in Deng,
Y. and Wang, F.L. (eds.) China Rising: Power and Motivation in Chinese
Foreign Policy, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Moran, M. (2002). “Review Article: Understanding the regulatory state”, British
Journal of Political Science, 32: 391-413.
Morris, P. and Sweeting, A. (eds.) (1995). Education and development in East
Asia, New York: Garland.
Morshidi, S. (2006). “Transnational education in Malaysia”, in Huang, F.T. (ed.)
Transnational Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region,
Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima
University.
Morshidi, S. (2006a). “Malaysia”, in UNESCO (ed.) Higher Education in SouthEast Asia, Bangkok: UNESCO.

43

Neubauer, D. (2006). “On the public good”, Paper presented at the seniorseminar, Education for 2020 Project, East-West Center, 6-12 September
2006, Hawaii.
Ng, P.T. and Chan, D. (2006). “A comparative study of Singapore’s school
excellence model with Hong Kong’s school-based management”, Paper
presented at the Asia Pacific Educational Research Association 2006
International Conference, 28-30 November 2006, Hong Kong Institute of
Education, Hong Kong.
Ngok, K.L. and Kwong, J. (2003). “Globalization and educational restructuringin China”, in Mok, K.H. & Welch, A. (eds.) Globalization and Educational
Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oba, J. (2006). “Incorporation of national universities in Japan and its impact
upon institutional governance”, Paper presented at the International
Workshop on University Restructuring in Asia, 16 January 2006, ResearchInstitute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education [OBHE] (2006). Organization’s
website, available at: http://www.obhe.ac.uk.
Olsen, J.P. and Gornitzka, A. (2006). “Making sense of change in university
governance”, IAU Horizons, 11.4-12.1: 1-3.
Rozman, G. (1992). “The Confucian faces of capitalism”, in Borthwick, M. (ed.)
Pacific Century: The Emergence of Modern Pacific Asia, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Scott, C. (2004). “Regulation in the age of governance: The rise of the postregulatory state”, in Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D. (eds.) The Politics ofRegulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age ofGovernance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Shanmugaratnam, T. (2005). “Summary of transnational higher education in
Singapore, Assrndum to the president’s address”, Singapore: Ministry of
Education.
Shi, Q.H. (2005). “Affiliated colleges and private education development in
China: take independent colleges as an example”. Retrieved 15 August
2006,
from http://www.ocair.org/files/presentations/Paper2003_044/forum2004/C
hinaHE.pdf.
So, A. and Chiu, S. (1995). East Asia and the World Economy, Thousand Oaks:
CA: SAGE.
State Council, People’s Republic of China. (2003). Regulations of the People’s
Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools.
Retrieved May 3, 2006, from http://www.jsj.edu.cn
Sutter, R.G. (2005). China’s Rise in Asia, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tien, F. (2006). “Incorporation of national university in Taiwan: Challenges forthe government and the academics”, Paper presented at the International
Workshop on University Restructuring in Asia, 16 January 2006, ResearchInstitute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.

44

Tilak, J. (2000). Education and development: Lessons from Asian Experience,
New Delhi: National Institute of Educational Planning and
Administration.
Times Higher Education Supplement (2006). World University Rankings.
Retrieved December 6, 2006, fromhttp://www.thes.co.uk/statistics/international_comparisons/2006/top_unis.a
spx?window_type=popup
Tsuruta, Y. (2006). “Transnational higher education in Japan”, RIHEInternational Publication Series, 10: 59-90.
World Bank (2006). EdStats. Retrieved December 6, 2006,
from http://www1.worldbank.org/education/edstats/index.html
World Resources Institute (2006). Earth Trend. Retrieved December 6, 2006,
from http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.php?theme=4&rcode=1
Yang, R. (2002). The Third Delight: Internationalization of Higher Education in
London: Routledge.
China.
Yang, R. (2005). “Globalization and higher education restructuring: Issues anddebates”, in Mok, K.H. and James, R. (eds.) Globalization and Higher
Education in East Asia, New York and Singapore: Marshall Cavendish
Academic.

45

46

Chapter 4
Japanese Private Universities in Transition– Characteristics, Crisis and Future Directions—

Motohisa Kaneko

1. The Japanese Model of Private Universities
The present issue about private higher education in Japan can not be properly
understood without reflecting on the historical backgrounds of the Japanese higher
education system, and the birth and evolution of individual institutions in it.
Historical Background
Private institutions of higher education in Japan can be traced back to the birth ofmodern higher education some 130 years ago, when such predecessors as Keio and
Waseda started their activities. In the subsequent years, the national institutions
became more powerful as the government concentrated their investment on them
(Kaneko 2004). The private sector nevertheless started expanding by absorbing theexcess demands. The institutional framework underwent significant changes, but thetrend of expansion continued. More specifically, there were three stages from the
1960s to the present.
Rapid Expansion under Market Pressure (1960 – mid 1970s). The demand forhigher education expanded rapidly as a consequence of steady economic growthstarting in the 1960s. This was an era when the market dictated higher education.
On the other hand, the government control on private institutions was relatively lax.
The private sector responded to the growing demands through two paths – expansionof the existing institutions and establishment of new institutions. .
Regulated Market (Mid 1970s – 1990). The enrollment stopped growing as thegovernment started strong regulation to control on expansion. The control was
accompanied with the governmental subsidy to private institutions. Many private
institutions sought to consolidate their finances and market position by controlling47

enrollment while raising tuition. At the same time, many new institutions were given
birth reflecting the excess-demand.
Structural Shift (1990 – present). The government started deregulating control
on education. The size of 18-year old population started declining to shrink margin of
demand over supply. The excess demand that has been the basis of the private sector
is about to disappear.

These factors appear are changing the structuralcharacteristics.
Typology by Birth
Through the processes stated above, more than five-hundred private four-year
institutions of higher education were given birth. There are three major types ofprivate institutions with respect to the process of institutional birth and growth.
1) Voluntary Association. A group of intellectuals, either in teaching position innational universities or engaged in social activities, often lead by a charismatic
leader, organized an institution of higher education. They were motivated byidealism for modernization of the country. Not infrequently, they had different
political views from that of the Meiji Government. Keio, Waseda and some othermajor universities established in the Meiji period fall in this category. In mostcases, those individuals who initiated the institution actually taught in or engaged
in the management of the institution.
2)

Sponsored.

Some institutions were established by social organizations with

sufficient resources to establish and support an educational institution. Most ofthem were established and supported by religious bodies including foreign
Missionaries and Buddhist sects.

Some institutions were established andsupported by business corporations.
3) Entrepreneurial. Typically, a local leader in education built a school, mainly
middle schools and, as it becomes established, built a junior college, and then fullfour—year institution. The original leader, and frequently his/her family members,
tends to keep a strong reign on the management. At the point of retirement,
he/she appoints the successor, often from family members.

These types show that the origins of higher education institutions are very different
from those in the U.S.

Naturally, the historical origin reflected on the form of48

governance as discussed later. .
Stages of Institutional Evolution
It is also important to note that each institution went through stages of evolution,
which can be summarized into the following three.
Stage 1: In the first stage, an institution is established. The context inwhich it is established can be classified in the three types indicated above. In the
postwar expansion, the Entrepreneurial type was the predominant one. They were
induced on one hand by the growing demand in higher education and, on the other, by
the internal needs within a group of schools under the same management.
Stage 2: In the second stage, the institution tries to expand its operation.
In order to be recognized by the prospective students, an institution has to have apresence in the market by being large. Also from the standpoint of financial efficiency,
the size of enrollment has to surpass a certain level. A rule of some is said to be three
thousand students.
Stage 3: The ultimate goal of an institution should be to achieve high levels
in education and research. Being placed in a high place in the hierarchy among theinstitutions implies that there are always a large number of excess demands. Thatallows the institution to be selective in admission. Also, it implies that the financial
basis is secured in the long run.
In the postwar period, many institutions of the Voluntary Association or theSponsored type operating from the prewar period started at Stage 2, and then reachedStage 3 by the 1960’s and 1970’s. Some of the Sponsored-type institutions did notproceed to expand, and sought to enter stage 3 by finding a niche in the market.
Many of the entrepreneurial type, however, had to start anew from Stage 1. A
number of institutions had not gone through Stage 2 when they found themselves
stuck in the shrinking market since the late 1990s.

2 Institutional Framework
The present institutional framework of private universities through the process statedabove can be summarized with respect to the relation between the government andinstitutions, the structure of governance, and the finances.

49

Government and Private Universities
The School Education Law, established in the period of post-war educational
reform, stipulated that private institutions of education constitutes a part of thenational education system.

The legal authority given to the government, as

stipulated by the Private Education Law, did not provide for any effective means inregulating private institutions.

Moreover, the Japan University Accreditation

Association (JUAA), designated to be the organ to sustain quality of higher education
institution, failed to achieve the expected function. Subsequently, the government
managed to acquire two significant instruments to control the quality of private(Figure 1).
Permission of establishment of new institution and new faculty. As the initialaccreditation system turned out to be ineffective, the government succeeded to
introduce a system of assessment on the plan to establish a new institution. A set of
requirements s was stipulated, first after those set by JUAA, but increasingly
elaborate in the following years, and the institutions trying to enter the market were
expected to satisfy them. The same procedure was required in the cases where
existing institution tried to add new faculties.

Even though this procedure was

directed to establishment of new institution or faculty, it also functioned as a tool ofcontrolling the quality of existing institutions. (Osaki 1983)

Figure 1. Major Devices for Governmental Control on Private Institutions
Ministry of Education
Council on
Establishment of
Universities

National Susidy
for Current
Expenditures
Assessment of Eligibility
Built-in Incentives

School Juristic Person
Private Universities

50

Current Cost Subsidy to Private Institutions. After the financial crisis of many
private institutions and rampant campus strife in the late 1970’s, the Parliament
introduced in 1975 the Law of National Subsidy to Current Costs in Private Schools.
In the subsequent years, the national subsidy became to account for about one—thirdof the revenue of private institutions, but later the percentage declined with thedevelopment of financial stringency of the national budget.

The subsidy was also

used as an instrument for control of quality. In order to be eligible for the subsidy, theinstitutions have to satisfy a set of certain criteria, including the limit of the size ofenrollment in excess of the designated level at the time of establishment. Also theamount of the subsidy was determined by a formula comprising some indicators of thecondition of education of institution. The degree to which the formula differentiates
the amount grew steadily in the subsequent years.
Governance
The governance of private institutions in Japan is characterized by its legal
framework, definition of governing bodies, and a few aspects of practices in decision
making.
School Juristic Person. In the postwar reform, all the private institutions ofhigher education were incorporated as incorporated as “School Juristic Person” (SJP
hereafter) by stipulation of School Education Law. Legally, each SJP establishes auniversity or any other types of private schools, but the SJP and the schools are
separate entity. In this sense, it resembles the holding company in the business world.
Through this legal device, one SJP is able to establish not only one, but any number ofeducational institutions. This arrangement turned out to be a vital device to expand
the private sector. There were numbers of new institutions entering the market, mostof them being the Entrepreneurial type. In a typical case, a SJP that had previously
owned a secondary school or Junior College, and had accumulated basic funds fromthose schools, established a four—year institution of higher education. There were a
few cases where the existing SJP with a university established yet other university.
Each of these SJP’s had a few institutions of higher education, and a number of highschools as “feeder” institutions. In this sense, they became a large conglomerate in
the world of education. The governance of the SJP can be summarized by three major
Characteristics (Figure 2).

51

Figure 2. Governance of Private Insitutions
Board of Trustees

Board ofCouncilors

Councilor memerFacultyMemberLay
MemberPresident
University
AdministFaculty
rative Staff
Meeting
Graduates

Dual Governing Body.

By stipulation of the Law of Private Schools, SJP should

be governed in principle by the Board of Trustees. The Law allowed a substantial
degree of discretion by individual institution as to how they define the power ofdecision making. Specifically, it allowed the Board of Councilors, comprising alumni,
academic and administrative members, may be given substantive power in the processof decision making (Figure 2).

The rational of this arrangement lies in the control by

the “member” of the institutions at large. The same rational can be found in theconcept of Court in the British universities. There is also similarity to the Overseers
at Harvard University until the 19th century. This option has been adopted in the
Association Type of institutions, which tend to have a long history and many alumni.
Participatory Management.

In many private institutions academic andadministrative staff members have strong presence in the Board of Trustees and in the
Board of Councilors if it exists. In most cases, the faculty deans, who were elected by
the faculty meeting, become ex officio Trustees. Faculty and administrative members
may be given a seat in the Board of Councilor, and then appointed as Trustees. In
some large and old universities, the President elected through popular election,
becomes the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.
Board of Trustees as the Executing Body.

52

The role and power given to the Board

of Trustees is ultimately that of decision making. But in many cases, it also acts as
the executing body of the institution. It is common that some of the Trustees aredesignated to be the Executive Trustees, who are paid employed of the SJP. Also it iscommon that the president acts as the chairperson of the Board. Through thesearrangements, the lay members from the outside of the university may in fact
constitute the minority in the Board.
Finance
The financial characteristics of Japanese higher education can be summarized inits dependence on tuition revenue and subsidy from the government, and theaccounting scheme to allow for the government subsidy.
Dependence on Tuition Revenue and Internal Accumulation. As discussed above,
most of the private institutions in Japan were mainly dependent on tuition revenues.
The revenues had to provide not only for the current expenditures for the wage ofacademic and administrative members and other costs for education and research, butalso for building new facilities to accommodate the students. In the epoch of rapid
expansion, many institutions borrowed funds from financial institutions, but as the
rapid expansion started to halt, they had to face serious burdens of debt.
Current Cost Subsidy and Accounting Standard.

It was discussed above theCurrent Cost Subsidy was introduced in the mid 1970s as a means to enhance thefinancial status of private institutions.

The scheme, however, involved a criticalquestion. In so far as the private institutions were subsidized by the government,
those institutions should not be allowed to post surplus. On the other hand, it wasvital for the private institutions to accumulate resources towards future to build new
facilities for education and research. The government sought to bypass this dilemma
by devising a new Private Schools Accounting Standard that introduced a peculiar
concept (Figure 3).
According to this Standard, the current account and capital account of private
institution are clearly separated. In the current account, a certain amount can bereserved, for future investment, before obtaining the Expendable Revenue.

The

reserved amount is called the Transfer to the Basic Funds in the capital account side.
The Basic Funds accounts for existing facilities and the cash to be used construct new
facilities in the future.

53

Figure 3. Financial Flow in Private Universities
Current AccountRevenue

ExpenditureTransfer to Basic Funds
Basic Funds
Physical Capital
Capital AccountDuring the epoch of chronicle excess demands and rising tuition levels in the
1980’s, this scheme proved to be effective in stabilizing the financial health in the longrun. In fact, the Transfer to the Basic Funds grew over time in the 1980’s to the levelof more than ten percent of the total revenue.

3. Crisis, Policy Shifts and Institutional Responses
Around the turn of the century, the demographic and socio—economic environment
around private institutions started shifting dramatically.
Changing Environment
Demographic. The most decisive factor has been the decrease in the size of 18
year—olds who constitute most of the demands for undergraduate education (Figure 4).
As the second baby—boom generation, who numbered almost two million, left themarket, the number has dropped down to 1.5 million by 2005, and will reach down to
1.2 million by 2010. On the other hand, the participation rate in four—year college
education has been steadily increasing, to reach the 40 percent level by early 2000’s,
resulting in a small net increase. The participation rate, however, appears to haveceased increasing, and the size of the demand has started shrinking.

54

Figure 4. Changes in 18-year olds, Entrants and Participation Rate at Four-Year Institutions(1960-2020)
3,000,000

18-Year Old

45.0
40.0

2,500,000

Participation in 4-year
Institutions
Participation Rate (right
axis)

35.0

2,000,000

30.0
25.0

1,500,000
20.0
1,000,000

15.0
10.0

500,000
5.0

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

0.0
1960

0

Fiscal. Since the 1990’s, the financial stringency of the government bore strongpressures towards reduction in government spending in any area but such mandatory
areas as the national health insurance and pension plans. The national subsidy toprivate institutions has been stagnating, and will see a net decrease in FY 2007.
Political.

Together with the climate of fiscal stringency, the shift of politicalclimate towards de—regulation has gained momentum under the Koizumi
administration.

That prompted further de—regulation in the field of higher

education, especially in the procedure of Permission of Establishment. The Koizumi
administration also emphasized marketization in any field including higher education.
For—profit universities were allowed to operate in an experimental basis, and waiting
for normalization.
Viability of Private Institutions
The direct consequence of the shrinking market will be the prospect of institutional55

closure. Some institutions are already facing the decline of applicants, and in a numberof cases the freshman class failed to fill the legal sitting capacity. The situation will befurther aggravated towards the 2010’s.

It should be noted that the effect of thedemographic shift is not the same across the institutions. In general, those institutions
at the higher tiers in the institutional hierarchy are least affected by this change. On
the other hand, those at the bottom are hit most hardly. Most of these institutions are
new and small – the new comers among the Entrepreneurial Type. Because theaverage size of enrollment is small, the number of institutions affected will be large fora given size of total reduction in demands.
The reduction in the size of enrollment will inevitably affect the financial health of
the affected institutions, in some cases leading to closure of the institution. Along thehorizontal axis of Figure 5, five-hundred and fifty (550) private institutions in Japanare rank-ordered by the ratio of actual enrollment by capacity from the left to the right.
The enrollment/capacity ratio of each institution is shown by the curve going downfrom left to right and measured by the left axis. The curve rising towards right shows
the accumulated enrollment.

From this figure, it is shown that, out of 550

institutions, only 328 institution have succeeded to fill the capacity at present. It isalso shown that if the total enrollment declines by 10 percent, from 500 thousand to
450 thousand, then only four-hundred and fifty-seven (457) institutions will be enoughto accommodate the students. If the number of demands fell to 400 thousand, then
one-third of the present institutions will become unnecessary.
So far, however, there has been very few case of closure as a consequence of
genuinely fiscal reasons. Many institutions appear to have sizable margins in theircurrent revenue over the cost. Some of them have succeeded to slash cost by either
decreasing the number of employees or slash down the wage levels. Nonetheless, theprospect of closure, however, is definitely looming. How many, and when, institutions
will have to close depends on many factors and remains uncertain at this point.

56

Figure 5. Enrollment/Capacity Ratio and Accumulated Number of Students in Private Universities, 2004

250.0%

500,000
Enrollment/Capacity Ratio (leftmeasure)Accumulated Number of Entrants(right measure)200.0%

450,000
400,000
350,000

150.0%

300,000
250,000

100.0%

200,000
150,000

50.0%

100,000
355

50,000
0

1
19
37
55
73
91
109
127
145
163
181
199
217
235
253
271
289
307
325
343
361
379
397
415
433
451
469
487
505
523
541

0.0%

328
←High

326

Privatre Universities Rank-Ordered by Enrollment/Capacity Ratio

550

457
Low→

What will happen if an institution is faced with financial difficulty? There are few
scenarios. In the most peaceful case, the SJP may seek for financial help from anindividual or an organization.

Or, another SJP may approach to acquire theuniversity in difficulty to take them under its arm. If the prospect for such solution
turned out to be small, then it can declare bankruptcy: the students will be transferred
to neighboring institutions.

In the worst case, the SJP may stop operation and, evenafter liquidation, leaves significant debt and unpaid salary for the employees. Not
only the employees and creditors may not be able to recover their loss, but also thestudent may have to move to other institution and pay for tuition again. (MEXT
2005).

57

The social attitudes towards the prospect of closure remain ambiguous.

The

media has been reporting the likelihood of closure with the tone the incidence isinevitable. Some social critique are arguing that the natural selection is healthy anduseful for improving the efficiency of higher education. Nonetheless, in the event of
massive closure takes place, the public attitude may change quickly.
Shift in the Government Policies
Provided with the changing environment, the government started a few initiatives toreformulate the institutional framework of private education.
Quality Control.

It was stated above that one of the instruments ofgovernment control on quality of education had been

the Permission of

Establishment. With the dramatic shift in the market from excess demand to excess
supply, this instrument should lose its effectiveness. At the same time, the Current
Cost Subsidy has been decreasing its effectiveness as its size relative to theinstitutional income kept declining. Also, the direct control by the government ingeneral became politically disfavored. As the conventional means became obsolete,
the government had to seek other means of quality control.

The government

reintroduced a new regime of accreditation in 2003.
Consumer Protection in the Case of Financial Failure.

With theamendment of Private School Law in 2003, the government established the legal
ground for its authority to demand closing of private institutions in the case it isunable to achieve its educational function.

In a way, this was what the Ministry of

Education had wished for the whole postwar period. It was made possible because
the need of such an action has become likely. The government action beyond that,
however, remains tentative. One possibility for the government will be to establish an
early warning system, which may issue a “Yellow Card” or a “Red Card” to theinstitutions with failing financial health. Such an action, however, may generate
hurtful reputation about the institution, which in turn may prompt the closing of theinstitution. That constitutes infringement on the principle of independence of private
institutions.
Legal Framework of Governance.

The increasingly severe environment

would necessarily require the private institutions to be decisive in their management.
Moreover, the possibility of financial failure makes it necessary for the institutions todefine clearly the extent and nature of power and responsibility attributed to thegoverning bodies as a group and their members as an individual. The government

58

amended the Law of Private Schools in 2003 to provide clearer requirements on
governing bodies.

It was made clear that the Board of Trustees should be theprincipal body for decision making, and only the chairperson of the Board has the legal
power to represent the institution to sign contracts.
Requirements of Financial Transparency.

The amended Law also requiredthat the financial statements of the institution to the stake-holders. Nonetheless, the“stake-holder” clause sill leaves some room of interpretation.

Some institutions

interpreted it as implying the students and their parents together with the employees,
but not the general public.
Responses of Private Institutions
Under these changes, private institutions of higher education are trying to seek for theways to remain active and competitive.
Finance. Obviously, the most acute issue for many private universities isthat of finance.

Many institutions are trying to cut the expenses.

One of thecommon strategies is to employ faculty members with fixed term of employment,
which has been rare in Japan.
It should be noted that even the institutions with relatively strong latentdemand, with small problem in attracting students, may face serious financial problem.
It is because that many of the institutions did not raise wage levels of the employees
during the 1980s and 1990s, but also promised handsome pension plans. Once therevenue of these institutions stops increasing, it is likely that the obligation of payment
may cause serious problems.
One latent issue is the unnatural scheme defined in Private Schools
Accounting Standard that sets the “expendable revenue” by subtracting the amount of
future investment from the total revenue.

Although it was designed to justify

internal accumulation, it has been criticized on the ground that it makes financial
statement unnecessarily confounded.

In recent years, some large universities tend

to post temporary “surplus” rather than transferring it to the Basic Funds. The
Accounting Standard may have to be reconsidered in the coming years.
Governance.

In many institutions, the styles of governance andmanagement appear to have been changing. Increasingly, the power given to theBoard of Councilor has been lessened in many institutions. Also, there is a sign thatthe power given to the faculty meeting may be declining to an extent.

In theuniversities of Entrepreneurial Type the influences of those bodies, which had been59

small before, are becoming even weaker. These signs appear to indicate a stronger
power given to the administrators, which appears to strengthen the ability of theinstitutions to be better positioned to survive. There are, however, two problems inthis change.
In

many

of

the

institutions

theacademic

controlandparticipatory

decision-making remain to be strong. Especially in large institutions, the Faculty
Meeting is still holds decisive power especially at the Faculty level.

In someinstitutions, the participation of administrators in the governing bodies is evengrowing. Academic control may be healthy with respect to academic decisions. Also,
one may argue that the participatory management induces a strong sense of belonging
to the institution and sound moral among administrators. On the other hand, itwould make it difficult for the management to take actions that may hurt the interestsof the employees themselves.

This may turn out to be critical in the age ofconsolidation.
In the Entrepreneurial type institutions, the power of decision making tends to beconcentrated on the Chairperson or a few Executive Trustees. This may make itpossible to make decisive actions when it is necessary.

On the other hand, thoseinstitutions do not have strong power that oversees those decisions from the societal
standpoint or from perspective of stability in the long-run. There are considerable
risks in that sense.

4. Directions Toward Future
As a consequence of these changes, private institutions appear to be increasingly
polarized in their interests. Accordingly, they will seek very different direction toward
future.
Progress to the Public Domain
On one hand, there are a number of institutions that are positioned at the higher
echelon in the market and therefore faced with less acute risk in the market. These
institutions tend to be of large or medium in size, and belong to either Voluntary orSponsored Type. Their strategic goal is to enhance their market-position, and toincrease competitiveness not only against their peers but also against the national
institutions.
If these institutions wish to obtain those goals, they have to achieve certain

60

conditions. They tend to be less attached to the Current Cost Subsidy. They are alsoless persistent on the financial scheme of the Accounting Standards.

They arealready receiving competitive subsidies to primary institutions. They may welcome
the shift from institutional subsidy to individual subsidy through either a direct grant
to students or some form of voucher.
A more significant issue will be the how the donation to the private institution istreated in the tax system.

Under the current system, the donation to private

institutions can be deducted from the taxable income to an extent (Income Deduction),but not from the amount of tax itself (Tax Amount Deduction). The institutions will
have to seek the tax-deduction status in order to become competitive against public
institutions.

This change, however, should require corresponding changes in thegovernance. Being given Tax Amount Deduction implies that the organization ispermitted to accumulate the public funds as their asset. The asset should be owned
by a group of responsible persons who can not get any benefit from the operation of theuniversity.

The decision-making by membership group, or the practice ofparticipatory management, may have to be seriously questioned.
Entrenchment
On the other hand, there are a number of institutions that are faced with thepressures of reduction in demand.

Many of these institutions are striving tostrengthen their competitiveness in their segment of market, and eventually survive
the struggle. Nonetheless, they wish to secure the ground for survival.

From thisstandpoint, the provision of Current Cost Subsidy is indispensable not only for theirvalue as a source of stable income, but also a sign of recognition by the national
government for their function as an educational institution. They would also opposeto the further disclosure of the finances, on the ground that the disclosure may
generate misinformation. Particularly in the institutions of Entrepreneurial Type, it
is unlikely to change their governance and management. In that sense, they would
not expel the element of private ownership. In these senses, they may take thedirection of entrenchment in so far it is possible.
Private Ownership
Ironically, the entrenchment strategy may be challenged by an unexpectedcompetitor – for-profit institutions allowed currently on an trial basis.

The

proponents of the for-profits argue that the present private institutions establishedunder School Juristic Person are in fact generating interests to the people engaged in61management. At the same time, it is likely that some of the bankrupt universities
may be purchased by the enterprises who wish to build for-profit institutions. In
these senses, some part of the private sector is moving towards the private domain.

The discussion above indicates that the private sector of higher education in Japan has
been changing, and it will keep changing towards the future. There have been a wide
variation among private institutions, and there will be a wide variation, albeit ofdifferent nature, in the future.

Such variation and changes are created by the

dynamism of the markets forces in higher education together with the shifts indemographic, social and political factors.

References

Kaneko, Motohisa. 2004. ”Japan’s Higher Education: The Past, Its Legacies
and the Future,” P.Altbach & T. Umakoshi eds. Past and Future of

Asian Higher Education ：Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, pp. 115-144.
Osaki, Hitoshi, 1988. Sengo Daigakushi (Post-war History of Higher Educaiton).
Daiichi Hoki.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sport and Technology) 2005. Keiei
Konnana Gakko Hojin Heno Taio Hoshin Ni Tuite (Guidelines for Government
Actions on Private Institutions with Financial Difficulties).

62

Chapter 5
The Development of Private Higher Education in China:
Change and Response
Bao WeiIntroduction
Private higher education is one of the most dynamic and fast-growing
segments of the postsecondary education worldwide at the turn of the 21st century. In
recent china, with the expansion and differentiation of higher education, private(min-ban) higher education has become a main force of enhancing the supply of higher
education with the public higher education. Since 1999, higher educations in China
have undergone a dramatic shift from the elite education towards mass education.
Meanwhile, as a new private sector, Independent College emerged and developed
during the last seven years. Independent College has its roots in the “second class”
colleges which were created in the public universities to enroll the un-qualified
students who would like to pay the extra tuition fees for admission.
What happens to the private sector of higher education, with the rapid
expansion of the public sector? What change does Independent College bring to current
private higher education institutions? This paper will address the issue in functionaland systemic way of private higher education in China.
In the following discussions, firstly, I will describe the key characteristics of63

development of the private higher education in China in different phases（section 1）.
Secondly, I will discuss the corresponding relationship between the demand side(students and employers) and the supply side (institutions) existing in enrollment
market and labor market (section 2). Finally, characteristics of structure of the private
higher education system in China will be analyzed to show the new orientation in thisfield (section 3).
1． The Growth of Private Higher Education and the Massification of Chinese Higher Education
The reemergence and development of private higher education is closely
related to the massification of higher education in China. Before analysis, a brief
review of the development of private education from the view of historical development(by chronological order) is stated. Figure 1 shows Chinese higher education
institutions(HEIs)’ entrants scale and its annual growth rate from 1977 to 2005, fromwhich it can be seen that during that period of time, Chinese higher education had
undergone three(1978, 1985 and 1999) different scale of the expansion in enrollment.
In the following part, those three years (1978, 1985, and 1999) will be treated as
distinction points and the process of higher education expansion will be divided into
four stages to inspect the key features of private higher education in different phases.

64

Entrants（in 10 thousand)

Grouth Rate (%)

600

60

Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Great Expansion

500

50
40
30

400

20
300

10
0

200

-10
-20

100

-30
0

-40
197778 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05［Source]:Eduational Satistics Yearbook,Various Years.

Figure 1. The Expansion of Chinese Higher Education（ 1978 to 2005）



the first stage of expansion (1977-78) : the germination phase

After Chinese Cultural Revolution, to promote the country’s modernization was animportant and urgent mission facing the government. Meanwhile, the flood of the
youth going back to the cities from rural areas caused serious imbalance of the labormarket’s supply and demand. To meet the country’s development demand and ease theemployment pressure, the government made the decision to expand higher education
enrollment scale. With the reconstruction and restoration of education system, thedemand of the mass, which was once deprived, increased dramatically. Against suchcircumstance, in order to meet the needs of the society, some small-scale training andremedial classes emerged in some metropolises, which was founded and funded bysome retired teachers. The target students of classes were mainly the youth going back65

to the cities from rural areas. Those small classes provided them with vocational
training or remediation on the level of secondary education. The classes gave birth toprivate universities thus became the prototype of Chinese private institutions of higher
education.

the second stage of expansion (1979-85) : the shaping phase

The expansion of higher education during this period of time was closely related to there-acceleration of economic development and the problem that the cohort of people
born during the period of the second baby boom (1962-71) had reached their age ofreceiving higher education. However, the existing higher education system could nolonger meet the increasing demand for higher education in the society. To improve thatsituation, while establishing Radio and TV University (1977) and other such
nontraditional higher education institutions as well as setting examination system ofself-learning higher education (1980), the government had also clearly indicated its
supportive and positive attitude towards running school by social forces in theConstitution and Decision on Education System Reformation in 1985. The politicalsupport of the government promoted the development of private education. Duringthat period, private HEIs began to get rid of their old pattern of “training and remedialclasses” and turned into higher education institutions gradually. Now, some famous
private colleges and universities such as Huanghe Science and Technology College inHenan province and Zhejiang Shuren University, were all founded during that period.
By 1985, the number of private HEIs had amounted to over 170, with more than
1,000,000 enrolled students. With the expansion of the number and scale of private

66

HEIs, there were many institution founders who were retired teachers in public
universities, administrators of public universities and people of Democratic Party.
Besides, their regional distribution was no longer restricted within metropolises suchas Beijing and Shanghai, but had expanded to some regions where the public sector’s
provision still lacked.



The third stage of expansion (1986-98) : the steady development phase

After the year 1992, economic development speed continued to accelerate. In
educational field, the government issued the “Outline on Reform and Development of

Education in China”, making the HEIs to obtain a greater freedom and autonomy ongovernance and enrollment. These all contributed to the main factors of promoting thethird stage of expansion of higher education. However, during that time, some private

Table 1. Size of Enrollment and Number of Institutions in Private sector (1996 to 2005)
Size of Enrollment（ten thousand）
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Degreegranting HEIs

1.2

1.6

2.2

4.0

6.8

14.0

31.9

81.0

139.8*

105.2

Non-degreegranting HEIs

108.4

119.0

－

118.4

98.2

103.0

84.2

100.4 105.33

109.2

Number of Institutions
Degreegranting HEIs

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

(21)

(20)

(25)

(37)

(37)

(89)

(133)

(173)

(228)

（252）

Non-degree(1109) (1095) (1200) (1240) (1282) (1202) (1022) (1044) (1187) （1077）
granting HEIs
[sources] Green Paper on Non-Governmental Education in China, Statistical Announcement on Chinese
Education* including the number of students in independent colleges

67

HEIs founders took advantages of the blankness of the government’s relevant
administrative system to obtain economic benefit, so there were serious problems
about the school’s management and operation, such as issuing unqualified students
graduate certificate and dramatic decline of education quality. This led to the distortionof its original purpose and the ruin of private HEIs’ reputation. In order to solve those
problems, on the one hand, the relevant departments of the government issued a seriesof regulations in succession to standardize the administration of private higher
education. On the other hand, by adopting two institutional instruments, thegovernment enhanced its supervision on private higher education quality, namely,
degree-awarding power and system of diploma examination. Besides, another crucial
trend of that time was that the government made private higher educationtransmitted into vocational higher education gradually, by launching laws such as“Law on Vocational Education”(1996), “Regulations on The Running of Educational

Institutions by Social Strength” (1997)and “Views on The Actualizing of Trying Out
Higher Vocational Education According to New Management Pattern and Operation
Mechanism”.
The enhancing of the government’s controlling strength did not impair the developing
trend of private higher education. By 1998, number of private HEIs had increased
from 370 in 1986 to 1225. During that time, many national enterprises and public
institutions joined the team of private HEIs founders. And the regional distribution ofprivate HEIs began to spread to various regions in the country.

68Great expansion(1999-2005): the restructure phase

Since 1999, Chinese higher education had been in a new cycle of tremendous
expansion. The scale of the expansion was larger than those in the past. The expansion
was closely related to the government’s released political aim of entering the age ofhigher education popularization in the early of the 21st century. But, it is undeniable
that the problems such as the increase of the laid-off workers in state-owned
enterprises in recent years and the employment pressure caused by the fact thatpeople born during the third baby boom(1986-88) would enter the labor market soon
were the main reasons made this policy come into being. Since the scale of public
institutions was undergoing great expansion, the scale of private higher education also
expanded dramatically. During 1999 and 2005, the total enrollment number of private
HEIs having authorities to award degrees increased from 40,000 to 1,052,000 and thenumber of institutions also increased from 37 to 252.

During that period, measures taken by the government can be mainly concluded into
the following four aspects:
First, it further strengthened the transformation of private higher education to higher
vocational education. In 2000, with the issuing of Higher Vocational Education

Establishment Standard(attempted version)(The Standard for short) by thegovernment, the previous Higher Education Temporary Establishment Regulation wascancelled, then The Standard became the official requirement for the establishment ofprivate HEIs. This political tendency indicates two-fold meaning, the first one is thatthe possibilities for the private sector to be upgraded to the four-year program69

universities is reduced, the second one is that as shouldering the important function of

Table 2. Type of Institutions in Private Sector(1996-2005)
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Four-year Universities

1

1

1

2

2

2

4

9

9

27

Junior Colleges

14

15

16

31

26

17

15

9

8

6

Colleges of Technology

－

－

－

－

15

66

112

155

197

217

Total

15

16

17

33

43

85

131

173

214

250

[sources] Green Paper on Non-Governmental Education in China,Eduational Satistics Yearbook , Ministryof Education HP

increasing the total amount of higher education opportunities, private HEIs also
shoulder the important responsibility of cultivation higher vocational and skillfultalents. Table 2 shows the tendency of the type change of private HEIs. It can be seenclearly from the table that the characteristic of private higher education has changed
fundamentally, as in 2005, the private vocational education institutions took up 86.8%of the total private HEIs, becoming the core component of private higher education.
Second, to strengthen the inspiring mechanism of running school by social forces, theprofitable feature of private HEIs is admitted. In December 2002, the government
launched “Promotion Law on Private Education”, whose significant feature is that itallows the investor of private schools to get a reasonable profit within the surplus ofschool running, meaning acknowledging the profitable feature of private colleges anduniversities to a certain extent. The coming of this policy embodied the politicalattempt of the government’s willing to strengthen the inspiring mechanism of runninginstitutions by social strength. Unlike the status of the previous private institution
founders, private enterprises managers began to join the team of founders as new70

blood constantly during that time; multi financing mechanism has become a neweye-catching phenomenon of the development of private higher education.
However, it is a pity that this measure was questioned by many people. From theinterviews of the government’s relevant department and private institution founders,
it can be found that the main reasons are: firstly, since the emergence of private HEIs
in the early 1970s, it has existed for only a short period of more than twenty years, forthose many private universities still in the early stage, the possibility of gaining benefit
at this stage is little; Secondly, people from all sectors of society generally held acritical view towards profit-making dealing of colleges and universities, since nomature social general atmosphere of accepting profit-making colleges and universities
was formed.
Besides, by issuing a series of regulations, the government admitted the legitimacy of
independent colleges. In 1999, independent colleges(the original second-class colleges ),as a new type of private HEIs in China, began to appear in Jiangshu and Zhejiangregions and then spread to all over China and got popularized soon. As a consequenceof the public sector’s privatization, independent colleges, which affiliated to public
universities and were established with private finance. They were allowed to grantbaccalaureate degrees without ordinary accreditation procedure. By 2005, the numberof institutions of independent colleges reached 295, with an enrollment number of
1,070,000, contending with ordinary private colleges and universities generally. The
emergence and quick growth of independent colleges posed enormous treat to theexisting private colleges and universities in terms of source of students.

71

The last point to be implemented is that the government cancelled experimental
institutions requiring diploma examinations (specialized colleges). Examination for
diploma of higher education is a transitional type from self-learning examination tonormal higher education, an accredited exanimation organized by the government on
the students who were studying in private colleges which hadn’t been authorized to
grant degrees. Such specialized colleges also have a full-time higher education system
featured by the combination of running schools by private forces and examined by the
Table 3.
Phases ofDevelopment

Administration

theGermination political blankness
Phase

the Shaping
Phase

supportive andpositive attitude

Phase Features of Private Higher Education
Type of
Institutions

Content of Education

Regional
Distribution

retired teachers and small-scaleclassesmen of insight

vocational skills
training/remediationon the level ofsecondary education

concentrated in
metropolitans

retired people in
the emergence of
public universities
the embryo ofand people ofprivate HEIs
Democratic Party

postsecondary
expanding to
education and selflearning examination certain regions
education

Founder

postsecondary
education,
strengthening andemergence of
examination-oriented expanding tostandardizing theexperimental
the Steadyparticipation of
education for selfinstitution
the whole
Development control/delivering thenational enterprises
approval authority torequiring diploma learning examination country
Phaseand diploma
the local government
examinations
examination
promulgation of
Promotion Law/
acknowledgement ofparticipation of
the Restructure independent colleges/
self-owned
cancellation of
Phase
enterprises runners
experimental
institutions needing
diploma examinations

the emergenceand development
give priority toof vocational
vocational higher
colleges andeducation
independent
colleges

expanding to
the wholecountry

government. During the time when lacking public higher education resources andprivate education was greatly needed to be supported, specialized colleges played an72enormous role. Since these colleges had some autonomy on the examination for
diploma, it attracted many students. However, with the enrollment enlargement of the
public sector, more and well-developed private HEIs obtained authorities to award
degrees; the examination for diploma for higher education has successfully finished its
task. The policy could be interpreted as the restructure of the private higher education
system by the government. For those private HEIs with a certain scale on various
aspects, the government will confer them the authority of degree-awarding, thus, they
can be included into the formal HEIs. But for those private HEIs with little-scale andfailed to reach the standard of higher education on various aspects, they will either
close down or become non-diploma education institutions focusing on providing special
vocational trainings in the marketing competition.

The paragraphs above are a brief retrospect of the development of private
higher education within the twenty years. Table 3 is an overview of the features indifferent phases. From which we may see that though suffered from various kinds offrustrations, private higher education has formed a certain scale and become one of the
key forces to realize the massification of China’s higher education. But, after the great
expansion in1999, the change of the government’s various policies leading trend has
posed serious pressure on sustainable development of private higher education.
Confronted with these challenges and changes, what is the response of private colleges
and universities? We will discuss this question in the following part.

73

2． Emergence of the New Market and Development of Private Higher Education
How do the private HEIs exploit new domain in the traditional market? And how dothey promote for sustainable development by responding the new society’s needs in theenrollment market and the labor market? I will examine these questions basing ondata collected from a questionnaire survey entitled” The Survey of Graduates in the
Postsecondary Education”. The questionnaire was conducted in June 2003, with thesampling size of 1,624 students of coastal areas in China (Zhejiang, Fujian andShanghai).

2.1 The corresponding relationship between the supply side and the demand side inenrollment market
In the enrollment market, what social status obtained educational opportunities fromthe private HEIs？In this section, the unique social characteristics of students inprivate HEIs will be considered by the comparison between students in the public
sector and the private sector in terms of academic achievement, birth places and family
backgrounds.

high schools Students graduated (academic achievement)

In the upper secondary education, whether a student enters a senior high school or a
vocational school, or enters an elite senior high school or a non-elite senior high school,or in other words, the segregation of students, is basically decided by their entrance
examination achievements. Therefore, on this aspect, the different types of highschools can be applied as a substitutive indicator to judge their academic achievement.

74

Table 4. Comparison of Academic Achievement (Graduated Schools)
Between Students in Public and Private Sectors
Unit: % (actual number)
PublicPrivate

Total

（644)

(979)

(1623)

junior high school

－

0.6

0.4

secondary vocational education
school

0.2

22.3

13.5

non-elite

21.3

47.2

36.9

elite

（N）

senior highschool

78.6

29.8

49.2

HEIs

－

0.1

0.1

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

It is clearly indicated in Table 4 that students in the public sector are mainly fromsenior high schools, among which 78.6% are from elite senior high schools.
Comparatively, senior high school students take up only 76.9% in the private sector,
and only 29.8% are from elite senior high schools. It is worth noticing that students
from secondary vocational schools take up 22.3% in the private sector. According to theresults of the investigation, due to the emergence of private HEIs, the students who
cannot go to university because of their weaker academic achievement obtain thesubstituted opportunities to take higher education, too. At the same time, students
from secondary vocational schools who cannot take higher education because of thelimitation of the curriculum and their qualifications now can obtain educational
opportunities.

75

Students’ birth places

Household registration system has long been a systematic hindrance of the circulation
between urban areas and rural areas in China. As a result, an inflexible binary logisticsocial structure of “urban-rural” is formed and maintained, leading to the criticalissues of inequality between urban areas and rural areas in terms of opportunities
such as education, employment and health service. Do the emergence and expansion ofprivate HEIs narrow the gap between urban areas and rural areas of receiving higher
education opportunities? In the following part, the birth places of students are divided
into four administrative regions: (1) metropolises (2) medium and small cities (3) towns(4) the rural area, to compare and analysis the difference between the public sector andthe private sector.

Table 5. Comparison of Birth Places Between Students in Publicand Private Sectors
Unit: % (actual number)（N）

PublicPrivate

Total

（636）

（975）

（1611）

metropolises

25.6

18.8

21.5

medium and small cities

31.0

22.8

26.0

towns

15.4

27.9

23.0

the rural area

28.0

30.6

29.5

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

As it is indicated in Table 5, students from urban areas in private sector take up an
obvious lower percentage than those from public sector (public: 56.6%; private: 41.6%).
A sharp contrast is that students from non-urban areas take up a greater percentage
in the private sector than in the public sector (public43.4%; private58.5%). Especially76

as for the number of students from the zones between urban areas and rural areas, inprivate HEIs is nearly two times as that of public universities.
In contradistinction to the public sector, private HEIs change their focus from urban
areas to non-urban areas gradually in terms of regional distribution of higher
education opportunities. Though the percentage of students from rural areas does not
has an obvious increase, on the aspect of popularizing the education opportunities inzones between rural areas and urban areas, private HEIs have played an important
role.



Student’s family backgrounds

The previous research demonstrated that students whose parents were well-educatedand engaged in administrative or professional occupation took up a great part in the
traditional public sector. Table 6 shows the comparative results of family backgroundsof students from the public and private sectors, according to their fathers’ educationlevels and occupations.

77

Table 6.

Comparison of Family Backgrounds Between Students in Public andPrivate Sectors
Unit:% (actual number)
Public
（627)

(964)

primary uncompleted

16.5

23.6

Junior high school

29.3

35.1

senior high school completed（including
secondary vocational education school）

31.1

25.1

university and above

23.1

16.2

subtotal

100.0

100.0

(N)

(N)

fateher’s
educationlevelsPrivate

(602)

(936)

farmer

18.9

11.6

forefront worker

14.1

16.0

routine staff

8.3

11.8

administrator(including civil servant)

23.4

14.6

4.0

4.1

10.8

5.9

18.2

34.2

fateher’s
occupations technician
professional

self-employed individuals or private
enterprises runnerjobless
subtotal

2.2

1.9

100.0

100.0

From the table it can be discovered that in public HEIs, students whose father havetaken senior high school education or above take up 54.2%, while private HEIs only
41.3%. According to their fathers’ occupational status, among the public sector
students’ fathers, traditional elites (administrators, professionals) occupy up to 34.2%,
while the private sector only 20.5%. However, it should be noticed that children of
self-employed individuals or private enterprises proprietors in private HEIs accounts
for up to 34.2%. It should be further complemented that those self-employed workers
or private enterprises runners have the regional features of scattering in jointed areas
and they are all on comparatively less low education level.

78As a summary of the above results, students in private HEIs possess the following
three social features:Firstly, from the point of education opportunities distribution, it is obvious that atpresent, private HEIs accept mainly two kinds of students. The first type of students is
those who failed to be accepted by public universities due to their weak academic
achievement. The second type of students is those who graduated from secondary
vocational schools.
Secondly, from the point of regional supply of educational opportunities, unlike thepublic sector mainly aiming at providing education opportunities to students in thecities, the private sector mainly aims at provide educational opportunities to students
in jointed areas. That shows that though the emergence of the private sector does notchange the traditional binary structure of “urban-rural” fundamentally in terms ofeducational opportunities distribution, it is undeniable that it played an important rolein narrowing the gap between the two areas.
Thirdly, from the point of the sector’s social supportive groups, in private HEIs, until
now, it is hard to find “cadres and intellectuals” who have been an existing central
social supportive strength in public universities and who are well-educated and withhigher social status. Instead, only “self-employed individuals or private enterprises
proprietors”, as the main profit winners after the economic reform in the 1980s, can befound. Those people are mainly in medium small cities or towns, as a new middle class.
Though they have richer economic resources than the other classes, their educational
backgrounds, social status, and reputations do not match their economic status.

79

Therefore, it is the enormous driving force derived from the desire of changing suchsituation that make parents willing to pay high tuition fees for their children forfurther education.

2.2 Analysis on influential mechanism of students’ choices of schools
On the basis of above analysis, we will deepen our analysis on influential mechanismof students’ choices of the private sector.
Why choosing the private sector?

First of all, the reason why people choose the private sector will be discussed in thefollowing section.
Table 7. the Results of Binary Logistic Regression Analysis on the Choice of the Private Sector(dependent variable:whether choosing private sector:yes=1;no=0)
independent variable
constant
gender: male dummy variablebirth places：city dummy variable
students’ socialfeatures

Exp(B)

.336

1.440

－.579 ****

.561

.106

1.112

senior high school ranking：secondary vocational
school=1, non-elite senior high school =2, elitesenior high school=3-1.848 ****

the highest year school completed(father)－.103 ****

.902

the highest year school completed(mother)

.035

1.035

LN(income of their parents).739 ****

2.095

.052

1.053

skills and quelification orientation.245 ****

1.277

future career orientation

1.015 ****

2.760

students’motivation circumstance relevance orientationof entering
university

B-2Log likelihood
chi-square.158

1370.071
652.744****9

df*10%、**5%、***1%、****0.1%

Table 7 shows the results of binary logistic regression analysis on the choice of the80

private sector. In the analytical model, dependent variable serves as the dummy
variable of whether to choose the private sector, and 1 stands for“yes”(choosing theprivate sector) while 0 stands for “no”(choosing the public sector). Independent
variables include students’ social features (to be specific, it includes respondents’gender、region, senior high school ranking ,the highest year school completed andincome of their parents) and students’ motivation of entering universities (to be specific,
the result of factor analysis on motivation of entering university, namely, the factor
score of “circumstance relevance orientation”, “skills and qualification orientation” and“future career orientation”).
Firstly, from the point of the students’ social features, “gender”, “graduated senior highschool ranking” ,”the highest school year completed by their fathers” have a significant
negative effect. This analytical result shows that compared with the group featuring by“male, good academic achievement and father receiving comparatively more years ofeducation”, the group featuring by “female, not so good academic records and father
receiving comparatively less years of education” has a higher probability to choose theprivate sector. Besides, family income has a positive influence, meaning that students
with better family economic conditions tend to choose the private sector.
Moreover, from the result of the analysis, on the basis of making the influential factorsof “gender of students, academic achievement and family background” stable, students’motivation of entering universities can be found. The skills and qualifications
orientation and future career orientation have a significant and positive effect on theirchoices of the private sector. The result also indicates that students with more desire to81acquire vocational knowledge or with a clear future career orientation are moreprobably to choose the private sector.

Why choosing the following institutions: private vocational colleges, experimental
schools needing diploma exanimations and assistant schools for self-learning
examination?

From the analysis of the students’ social features and motivation of entering
universities, we have found that students from private HEIs differs greatly from eachother among different types of institutions. To be specific, students group fromindependent colleges and private four-year universities show similar features as thosein public universities. Comparatively, students group from private vocational colleges,
experimental schools needing diploma exanimations and experimental schools for
self-learning examination are losing the traditional features of universities students
gradually. They show the tendency of being pluralistic on aspects of their academic
achievement, age levels, birth places and family backgrounds and their motivation ofentering universities. What lead to this corresponding structure of the demand and the
supply? In other words, what are the main influential factors of choosing these private
HEIs?
Table 8 shows results of binary logistic regression analysis on the choices of private
vocational colleges, experimental schools needing diploma exanimations and assistantschools for self-learning examination. The specific dependent variable serves as thevirtual variable of whether to choose private vocational colleges, experimental schools
needing diploma exanimations and assistant schools for self-learning examination (182stands for “yes”, while 0 stands for “no” (choosing independent colleges and private
four-year universities ). The same as the above, independent variables include
students’ social features and their motivation of entering universities. In this analysis,
the objects being analyzed are only constrained to the students in private HEIs being
investigated in the sample.

Table 8. the Results of Binary Logistic Regression Analysis on the Choice of Private Vocational
colleges,Institutions Needing diploma examinations and Assistant schools for self-learning
dependent variable:whether choosing Private Vocational Colleges, Institutions Needing Diploma Examinations andAssistant Schools for self-learning: yes =1, no =0
independent variableB
4.856 ****

128.470

gender: male dummy variable－.469 **

.625

birth places：city dummy variable

－.341

.711

senior high school ranking：secondary vocational
school=1, non-elite senior high school =2, elitesenior high school=3-1.802 ****

.165

the highest year school completed(father)

－.056

.945

the highest year school completed(mother)

.016

1.016

LN(income of their parents)

.118

1.125

constant

students’ socialfeatures

Exp(B)

students’motivation circumstance relevance orientationof enteringskills and quelification orientation
university
future career orientation－.301 ***

.740

.478 ****

1.613.695 ****

2.003-2Log likelihood

760.462

chi-square

312.101****df

9*10%、**5%、***1%、****0.1%

Firstly, from the point of the students’ features, it can be found that among the series ofused variables, “gender” and “graduated senior high school ranking” have the mostremarkable negative effect. It indicates that female or people with comparatively lower
academic records have a greater tendency to choose institutions like vocational colleges.
But, the students’ family backgrounds do not have an obvious effect on their choices of83

institutions.
Secondly, from the point of the students’ motivation of entering universities, “skills andqualifications orientation” and “future career orientation” have an obvious positiveeffect. While “circumstance relevance orientation” though does has obvious effect, it isnegative, meaning an obvious negativity on motivation of entering universities. It ismainly because of the change of labor market and the market of entering universitiesor the moratorium adolescent psychology of prolonging career choosing. The groupwith a strong tendency of that is less likely to choose institutions such as vocational
colleges. A contrast to this is that the group showing positive tendency on aspects ofskills and qualifications orientation or future career orientation in terms of motivationof entering universities is more likely to choose that.

2.3 Corresponding structure of the demand and the supply in labor market
The corresponding structure of the different suppliers (provider of higher education)and the demanders (students) in the enrollment market has already been inspected in
the above section. Here, our analytical focus will be changed to the labor market of thegraduated students to analyze the corresponding structure between different suppliers(provider of higher education) and the demanders (the employers) in the labor market.
Through the contrast with the students’ employment tendency in the public sector, thefeatures of students’ employment tendency in private HEIs will be discussed.

84

Where does the new labor market emerge?

In the late 1990s, the labor market for graduated students in China came to the periodof glacier. On the one hand, the employment ability of the state-owned enterprises,
which were the core employment units of graduated students for a long time, isshrinking dramatically. On the other hand, the enrollment expansion since 1999 led tothe quick increasing of undergraduate students’ scale. These two changing tendency
coming from the supply and the demand resulted in the serious decrease of thegraduated students’ employment rate. Under such exterior environment shock, do
graduating students, especially students in private HEIs with an obvious weaker
position in the competition, begin to adapt to the change of the labor market byadopting new ways to choose jobs? Meantime, would such notion change make thegraduates develop employment channels positively and form a new labor market?
Through the analysis of investigation, there are obvious differences between the public
and the private sectors’ graduates in terms of their types of employment unit,
industries, their working regions and their sorts of employment contracts. In the
recent years, non state-owned units such as private enterprises, self-employedindividuals and foreign enterprises play an eye-catching role in the labor market.
According to the investigation, up to 39% graduates from private HEIs work in private
enterprises or township and village enterprises. Comparatively, most graduates fromthe public sector work mainly at government, foreign-funded enterprises andstate-owned enterprises, while only 20% students work at private enterprises andtownship and village enterprises; from the point of working industries, over half thestudents （55%）from private HEIs work in the service industry, and student from the85

public sector only 20%; from the point of working regions, nearly 43% students fromthe private sector leave cities and work in towns or even non-urban areas. Graduatesfrom the public sector are entirely different, since 90% of them work in urban areas;from the point of the sorts of employment contracts, up to 41% students from theprivate sector sign non- institutional contract with the employers, while students fromthe public sector only 14%.
The results of the above analysis indicate that on the aspects of “working regions” and“sorts of contracts”, students from the private sector differ dramatically from thosefrom the public sector. Some of the graduates from the private sector have already goneto their position in the jointed areas, even in rural areas, by the form of signing
contracts directly with the employers. According to the results of this investigation,
graduates’ choices of jobs can be divided into the following three categories:（1）“Urban and institutional contracts” refer to the Employment Contract signedby three parties, the university, the employer and the student himself according to
the government’s regulations in urban areas, thus establishing

employment

relations between employers and students by means of institutional contracts.
According to the investigation, such contract category mainly includes traditional
units such as government administrative organs, banks, research and education
institutions and state-owned enterprises;（2）“Urban and free contracts” refer to employment fields whose contracts are
signed directly with the employer in urban areas. This category mainly
concentrates enterprises such as civilian enterprises and foreign enterprises.
Students who can not obtain “（1）urban and systematic contracts” because ofvarious reasons usually view this category as their second choices;（3）“Non-urban” includes two kinds of graduating students. The first group is
those who are squeezed out of the above two categories. The second group is those
who intend to avoid the direct competition with graduates form the public sector.

86

They are groups who focus on the new demand of the market and adjust their own
position and direction in the labor market actively.

Table 9. The Distributive Situation in the Labor Market of
Graduates in Private and Public Sectors
Unit: % (actual number)
PublicPrivate(1)urban and institutionsl contracts

80.6

46.0

(2)urban and free contracts

13.0

27.8

(3)non-urban

6.5

26.2

(N)

(247)

(485)

Total

100.0

100.0

According to the three categories defined in the analytical frame, Table 9 shows thedifferent features of employment distribution between students from the private andpublic sectors. From the table, it can be discovered that over 80% graduates from thepublic sector still focus on the traditional “(1) urban and institutional contracts” field. A
sharp comparison is that only 46% students from the private sector enter that field. On
the other hand, the percentages of students who enter the field of “(2) urban and freecontracts” and “(3) non-urban” have reached respectively 28% and 26%. The result of
the analysis shows that under the background that graduating students are more andmore difficult to find job, students from private HEIs begin to avoid the traditional
labor market by means of free contracts and new choices of working regions. With new
ways of obtaining jobs, they exploit new market on the boarders of traditional labormarket.



Features of employment field among different types of private HEIs

87

However, the distributive features of employment field of graduates from the private
sector shown above do not equal to the common features of all private HEIs. ThroughTable 10, it can be seen that on the aspect of employment field of graduates, there are
obvious differences between different types of institutions. Different features ofdifferent

privateHEIs

onemployment

fieldsTable 10. The Distributive Situation in the Labor Market of Graduates in Various Types ofPrivate HELs
Unit: % (actual number)independent
collegeprivate fouryear
university

privatevocational
collegeschoolneeding
diplomaexamination

assistantschool for
self-learning
examination(1)urban and institutionsl contracts

81.6

38.5

38.2

33.3

34.1

(2)urban and free contracts

13.6

46.2

27.4

26.4

15.9

(3)non-urban

4.9

15.4

34.4

40.2

50.0

(N)

(103)

(39)

(157)

(87)

(44)

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

are listed blow:
Firstly, among the graduates from independent colleges, nearly 82% students enter theemployment field of “(1) urban and institutional contracts”; while students enter theemployment field of “(2) urban and free contracts” or leave urban areas and enter“(3)non-urban” only take up 14% and 5% respectively. It is obvious that the features of
employment field of students from these institutions do not share the same feature
with the private sector mentioned above. On the contrary, it shows the remarkablefeatures of the public sector, pacing in the traditional employment field.
Secondly, among the graduates from private four-year universities, only 39% students
enter the traditional employment field of “(1) urban and institutional contracts”. And88the most obvious feature of such institutions is that more than 46% graduates enter
the employment field of “(2) urban and free contracts”, much higher than any othertypes of private HEIs.
Furthermore, as same as the above one, among the graduates from private vocational
colleges, experimental schools needing diploma exanimations and assistant schools for
self-learning examination, only less than 40% students enter the traditional
employment field of “(1) urban and institutional contracts”. But the most obvious
feature of such private institutions featuring by their education on special field is thata certain amount of students have threw away the traditional sense of obtaining jobs
in urban areas and turn to find their own positions on the employment field of“(3)non-urban”. The rate of students have that choice from experiential schools needing
diploma exanimations and assistant schools for self-learning examination reached 40%
and 50% respectively.

3. Conclusion
In the above paragraphs, according to the investigated results of the questionnaire
done among the students in universities of Chinese coastal areas, the relevant
structure of the demander of private higher education (students and the employer) andthe supplier (private HEIs) in the labor market and the enrollment market is analyzed
and discussed. As a conclusion of the above analysis, the emergence of private HEIs
has two impacts. The first one is that it brings the overall differentiation of Chinese
higher education system. And at the same time, with the worsen development89atmosphere for private HEIs in the recent years and the enhancing seriousness of thecompetition, some private HEIs are no longer restricted to the margin position ofhigher education system, instead, they exploit their unique niche market by
responding the society’s needs, which lead to the interior functional differentiation ofprivate higher education system. Figure 2 summarized the research results.
Firstly, in the enrollment market, though the students in independent colleges andH

policy control

L(Input)Enrollment
Markettraditionalcustomer(students)

Public Sector(output)

Labor Market

newcustomer(student)

Quasi-private Sector(independent college andfour-year university)

traditional employers(state-owned enterprise/
institutional contracts/
urban areas)

L

Private Sector(vocatinal college etc.)

new employer( private enterprise/freecontracts/non-urban areas

diversification of the demand

H

Figure 2. Corresponding Structure of the Demand and the Supply in Enrollment Market and Labor
Marketprivate four-year universities are in the shade compared with students in the public
sector in terms of academic achievement, they display obviously the same feature with90

those in the public sector in terms of other social features and motivation of entering
universities. It means that these types of private HEIs provide educational
opportunities to students who can not enter public ones, so their function is justsubstitution.
However, a sharp contrast to that is, students entering private HEIs such as vocational
colleges, specialty colleges and specialty schools display new features in terms of socialfeatures and motivation of entering universities. In the process of higher education
expansion, these types of private HEIs began to search for their own customers among
students graduated from different kinds of institutions of high school in different
regions and among different social groups. A great number of those students though
perform weaker in their academic achievement, have strong needs to learn applicableknowledge and skills and with clear career aims. Different from institutions such as
independent colleges, which play the role of substitution and supplement of the public
sector, these types of private HEIs have get rid of the subordinate position and formed
a unique surviving space in the higher education system gradually by their own
unique education features, which can be reflected by their students’ features
mentioned above.
Secondly, in the labor market, from the above real case study, it can be found that withthe ever expansion of higher education scale, ever increasing speed of the non-public
economics and the process of modernization, and the changing opinions and deeds ofgraduates when obtaining employment, the connotation of graduating students’
employment market enlarged. Private HEIs, especially institutions such as private

91

vocational colleges play an important role in the forming of the two new markets.
From the point of the demand of labor market, the form of new markets is closely
related to: firstly, in the non-urban areas along the coastal economic developing areas,
private enterprises, township or village enterprises and such non-public units canaccept more and more students; secondly, these enterprises’ employment mechanism
break through the traditional restriction of household registration system and adopt
flexible employment mechanism. Besides, at present, most of the private enterprises
are still of medium and small scale in the stage of pioneering, so no mature mechanismof on the job training is formed by the enterprise and it is unable to provide theemployees with condensed vocational skills training. Therefore, these enterprises tend
to choose the talent with relevant experience of the same position or with practicalknowledge and skills. Such enterprises need talents from private HEIs, especiallythose from private vocational colleges or some non-diploma educational institutions
emphasizing on practical knowledge and skills. So, those enterprises provide good
opportunities to graduates from such institutions.
From the point of the labor supplier, through analysis, it can be found that the form of
the new labor market mainly because of two strengths. On the one hand, it is theselective feature of institutions. In other words, with the employment competition of
graduates becoming more and more serious, some students from vocational colleges oreven institutions without the authority of issuing diploma are squeezed out of the
traditional employment field of graduates, thus the labor market for graduates is
extended and expanded. On the other hand, the ability trend of graduates, that is92

grasping comparatively more practical knowledge and skills and updating the opinionand deeds of obtaining jobs also help them establish relevant relations with thedemand of non-public units.
Then, what lead to the functional diversifications of private higher education system?
Its driving force comes from two different directions. The first one is the policy trend
and institutional pressure given by the government. The second one is the surviving
stratagem of private HEIs. In recent years, the government strengthened its control on
private higher education by means of diploma issuing authority and examination
system; it applied the system of independent colleges and also made clear its politicaltendency that private higher education should focus on vocational education. It
doubtlessly put heavy pressure on the development and upgrading of private HEIs,
which have less political impact and are still in the early stage of development. To
realize the sustainable development of the institutions, some private HEIs in lower
positions break the original restriction of closed higher education system. Those
institutions make full use of their different features to adapt to the change of market
demand actively and establish multi-development structure. They not only avoid therisk of competing with public universities in the traditional market and it is also easierfor them to form teaching features gradually to realize the sustainable development of
the institution.
However, it is necessary to point out that most of the private HEIs as vocational
colleges were established in the recent years, and they are all confronted withproblems such as lacking capital, imperfection of teaching and researching facilities

93and teachers’ relying on the public sector. How to ensure the existence anddevelopment of the private HEIs, and how to provide them with political and financial
support, is an urgent question posed to the government in the near future.

94

Chapter 6
Emerging Trends in Private Higher Education in India
Dr Asha Gupta
The legacy
India has a long tradition of private higher education dating back to the Gurukul
system 700 to 500 years before Christ. Under this system, the select few, mostly
from the Brahmin (the learned) and the Kshatriya (the warrior), attained all-roundknowledge by staying with the guru at his private dwelling or a monastery over along period of time. At the gurukuls, the teachers imparted knowledge of religion,
scriptures, philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, logic, history, economics, politics, law,
literature, grammar, medicine, astronomy, astrology, statecraft and warfare, etc.
The idea was to promote all round and holistic development of an individual –physical, mental and spiritual. The learners didn’t have to pay any fee but after thecompletion of their education-cum-training, the guru could ask for his/her dakshina,
a return that could be anything, materialistic or non-materialistic, depending upon
the capacity of the learners. Imparting education was seen as a noble deed and thecommunity took care of the basic needs of both the gurus and the disciples.
Those days education was seen as charity and in a highly religious and hierarchicalsociety, it was usually believed that Lakshmi (the Goddess of Wealth) andSaraswati (the Goddess of Learning) could not co-exist. Therefore, those engaged in
the quest for knowledge ought not aspire for worldly goods and comforts. Learning
had no bearing on earnings. The Brahmins (the learned class) enjoyed higher social
status than the Kshatriyas (the Warrior) and the Vaishyas (the Commercial). The
Shudras (the manual workers) were seen at the lowest rung. Even after thousandsof years and political liberation, this division of society still prevails in public psyche
and education still continues being perceived as charity by the elite and masses
alike. Although, theoretically for-profit private is still a taboo, in practice, most of the95new privates are making huge profits through underhand dealings and otherdubious means. Only the National Institute ofInformation Technology (NIIT) and APTECH, registered with the Ministry ofTrade, are recognized as for-profit private.
India has the reputation of having ‘medieval cosmopolitan universities’, especiallyat Taxila and Nalanda two thousand years ago and at Vikramshila during the 4th
and 5th centuries (Joshi, 1998), catching the attention of all those who had keeninterest in diverse cultures and ‘knowledge for the sake of knowledge’. Duringcolonial rule, it imbibed the British system of higher education and values. The first
three universities, modeled on the University of London, were set up in 1857 at
Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. The British Parliament was persuaded toauthorize an expenditure of £10,000 annually to promote English literature,knowledge and science among the inhabitants of the British territories in India as
early as 1813 (Mukherjee, 1971: 376). Some of the institutions were also set up byforeign missionaries, such as, the St. Stephens College in Delhi, Presidency College
in Kolkata, St. Joseph’s College in Trichi, St. Xavier’s College in Chennai, etc.
In Vellor, the Christian Medical College was established by a Cornell University
trained American woman physician to train women nurses and doctors in India.
Similarly, Isabella Thoburn College was founded by an American social worker toprovide educational facilities to young women at Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh (Arnold,
2001: 7). A women’s university, first of its kind, was started at Poona in 1916 by D.
K. Karve, known as S. N. D. T. University today. He got the idea from Mr. Naruse
who started the Japanese Women’s University to serve the specific needs of theJapanese women through their mother tongue. He was against blind imposition ofwestern education and culture on the Japanese youth (Basu, 2001: 177).
The main motive of such missionaries was to promote Christianity and westernculture on the one hand and prepare Indian nationals for government employment,on the other. It did not inculcate nationalist feelings or pride in one’s own culture
and civilization. To overcome this deficiency many freedom fighters and social
reformers came out with the idea of Indian alternatives. To promote Indian culture,religions, languages, spirituality, human dignity and integrity, many colleges were
set up in different parts of India, such as, the New English school opened by Vishnu

96Krishna Chiplumkar in Poona in 1880 and Ferguson College set up by the Deccan
Education Society in 1885. A number of nationalist institutions were started in
Bengal during 1905-1912 as part of Swadeshi (Home Rule) Movement. The
Muslims too started Dar-al-ulum at Deoband in 1887 (Rudolph and Rudolph, 1972:
19). The prime objective behind such private initiatives was social transformationand not economic gains.
For instance, a National College was set up at Kolkata under the leadership of Sri
Aurobindo in 1906 and an institution of world repute, Viswa Bharati was set up by
Rabindra Nath Tagore, the Nobel laureate, at Shantiniketan in West Bengal in
1921. Many nationalist universities came up after Mahatma Gandhi took
leadership of the freedom movement in 1921, such as Kashi Vidyapeeth, Bihar
Vidyapeeth, Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, etc. M K Gandhi insisted on vernacular as
the medium of instruction. Gradually, the Arya Samaj, a Hindu Reform Movement
became a pioneer in strengthening Hinduism against its Muslim and Christiancompetitors by starting new schools and colleges. The first Dayanand Anglo Vedic
College was set up in Lahore in 1886.These were funded by social trusts andphilanthropists. Jameshed Tata was the first Indian to start the Tata Institute of
Science and Technology at Banglore in 1911 on the model of John Hopkins
University. He was a great industrialist and philanthropist (Kim, 1985).
At the time of independence in 1947, India inherited 20 universities and 496
colleges with 237,546 students (Basu, 2001: 171) and the private sector and thehouseholds played a substantial role in supporting higher education. The private
sector comprised 57% of the total higher education system by the 1980s and up to
75% by 1990s (Patrinos, 2002). A private university could be established through acentral or a state act by a sponsoring body, such as, a society registered under theSocieties Registration Act of 1860, or a public trust or a company under section 25 of
the Company’s Act of 1956. Though there were many private colleges prior toindependence, there was not a single private university per se. Even today only 350
universities have the power to accord degrees and the rest are affiliated to them
(Agarwal, 2006a: 4645).

The constitutional provisions97

After independence India adopted parliamentary democracy and federal system ofgovernance after great deliberations. It was not easy to arrive at a consensus in acaste-divided, hierarchical, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic andpluralistic society. It took almost three years to prepare a constitution for India thatcame into force on January 26, 1950. Since the country had to undergo great
turmoil due to partition and shifting population during 1947-50, education was left
under the jurisdiction of various states (constituted on the basis of language under
State Reorganization Act of 1956).
After the 42nd amendment in 1976, it came under the Concurrent List, implyingthat both central and state governments can pass legislations about education. In
the case of a conflict, the central law prevails. Though India runs the 3rd largest
system of higher education in terms of number of institutions and has the credit oflargest number of higher education institutions, central government constitutes
barely 23% of the total expenditure on higher education. The rest of the fundingcomes from the state governments, private trusts and household. For instance, theprivate investment amounted to 15.1% as against 6.8% of public investment during
1995-2000 (The Times News Network, April 17, 2003).
In the XI Five year plan (2007-12), the government is planning to raise the share ofhigher education from 0.43% of the GDP to 1.5%, which is too low in terms of likely
escalation in students enrolment from 11% to 20% in next 5 years. It is 2.7% in theUS, 2.7% in South Korea and 2.5% in Canada. Japan spends 1.1% of its GDP on
higher education but we should also give credit to the fact that 70% of the students
in Japan study at private institutions. Private sector constitutes 0.6% of the GDP in
Japan and 1.8% in the US (Lindqvist, 2006). Though private expenditure on higher
education has risen manifold, the contribution of private philanthropy has dropped
from 11.62% in 1951 to bare 2.74% by the end of 2004 (Kapur and Mehta, 2004).
However, in 2006, Anil Agarwal, who heads the London based Vedanta Resources
Corporation proposed US $1 billion as endowment to wards the setting of Vedanta
University on Stanford and Harvard model at Orissa to support 100,000 students
in 95 disciplines at the graduate, postgraduate and research level(Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta_University). Mukesh Ambani of
Reliance Industries has also come out with a proposal to set up a mega university in98

Gujarat to produce 10,000 graduates in different disciplines every year. For Mukesh
Ambani, it is a charity to the state. The Gujarat government will evolve an
educational policy and have tie-ups with at least two reputed foreign universities.
Ambani’s already have two premier institutions (1) The Mudra Institute ofCommunication at Ahmedabad and Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information
and Technology at Gandhinagar. It seems incredible but irresistible at the sametime (Mehta, 2006).
In fact, in India, a lot of ambivalence prevails over the very term “private”. Most of
the private colleges in the southern and western parts of India that had theadvantage of English as the medium of instruction at the school level andsubstantial percentage of Christian population had private higher education
institutions, private in name only as most of them were dependent on state funding(Tilak, 2002). Some of them charged huge capitation fees (huge amounts raised as
lump sum at the time of admission, often beyond the reach of average middle classfamilies in India) through underhand dealings. Only in 1992, the Supreme Court ofIndia put a ban on banned capitation fee in the Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka
case. Instead it put a sealing on the fee to be charged in private colleges and paved
the way for self-financing colleges.
There are four models of self-financing colleges in India – (1) the Manipal model, (2)the marketing model, (3) the sponsoring model and (4) the franchising model. The
Manipal model is based on the philosophy that those students who are willing to
pay should be provided the facilities to pursue courses of their choice. Most private
colleges cater to the needs and demands of those students who have either merit oraffordability. Those who are highly meritorious or needy are absorbed by the public
system of higher education. Surprisingly, public higher education institutions arestill preferred to private professional schools despite the fact that government or
government-aided schools are not preferred. Even parents from lower socioeconomic strata prefer to send their wards to English medium private schools at
exorbitant costs.
Under marketing model, both the central and state universities and colleges areallowed to run professional courses on self-financing basis such as computer
application, bookkeeping, tourism, hotel management, etc. The sponsoring model is99

more popular with the corporate world. The existing professional colleges like the
IITS and IIMS can run special programmes to meet the specific needs of particularindustries and business houses at higher costs. Some universities can enter into
franchise arrangements with private colleges or foreign providers. For instance,
U21 Global, a Singapore-based online graduate school of management has been
granted associate membership of the Federation of Indian Chambers of CommerceinandIndustry(FICCI)
recently(Education
India. http://prayatna.typepad.com/education/higher_education/index.html).

Deemed to be universities: a novel concept
In order to meet the surge in the demand for higher education and meet the needsof the market and society in the knowledge-based and technology-driven economy,
the UGC has come out with a novel concept of ‘deemed to be universities’ for quick
action and avoidance of legal hurdles in the establishment of new privates andforeign branches in India. The ‘deemed to be universities’ status (popularly known
as deemed universities) can be accorded to those post-secondary institutions, whichmeet national goals and aspirations, on the one hand, and fulfil the requisite
academic criteria and infrastructure needs, on the other.
According to Section 3 of the UGC Act of 2000, this status can be conferred on
institutions, which are either:(i) Engaged in teaching programme and research in chosen fields ofspecialization, which are innovative, and of very high academic standards
at the Master’s (or equivalent) and/or research levels. It should have agreater interface with society through extra mural, extension and fieldaction related programmes.
(ii) Making in its area of specialization, distinct contribution to theobjectives of the university education system through innovative
programmes and on being recognized as a university capable of further
enriching the university system as well as strengthening teaching andresearch in the institutions and particularly in its area of specialization.

100

(iii) Competent to undertake application-oriented programmes in emerging
areas, which are relevant and useful to various development sectors andsociety in general.
(iv) Institution should have the necessary viability and a management
capable of contributing to the university ideas and traditions.

There are many provisions under the Constitution of India that allow the social
trusts and minorities to establish higher education institutions of their choice under
Articles 29(1) and 30(1). Besides providing the Right to Equality under Articles 1416 and the Right to Freedom under Articles 19-21, the constitution makes special
provisions for the cultural and educational rights to the minorities under Article 30.
The idea of giving special right to minorities was not to give them a privileged
position but to provide them a sense of security in a country having a billion plus
population having 6 main religions of the world, 18 major languages, 52 tribes, 6000
castes and 1600 minor languages and dialectics (Raju, 2003).
Many states, specially in the southern and western parts of India, started private
colleges in the name of minority institution in early 1970s just to accommodate
those students who could financially afford engineering, medical or otherprofessional education and training but could not be absorbed by the public higher
education institutions on the basis of merit or open competition. All private colleges
sought affiliation with public universities or open learning centers. They had nopower to grant degrees of their own. They had to fulfil the minimum criteria laid
down by the University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical
Education, Bar Council of India, Distant Education Council, Medical Council of
India, Dental Council of India, Indian Nursing Council or National Council for
Teacher Education in terms of admission procedures, programmes, faculty,
infrastructure, financial viability, etc.
Even the course of studies or curriculum had to be approved by their respective
governing bodies and the admission procedures or fixation of fees had to be inaccordance with the norms or guidelines prescribed by the concerned statutory or
regulatory bodies. Such strict adherence to rules and regulations often led to centerstate divide, on the one hand, and frequent judicial interventions, on the other.

101Since the major funding for higher education institutions (public as well as private)comes from the state governments and the household, the dominance by central
bodies, such as, the UGC and AICTE is vigorously contested both by the public andprivate higher education institutions.
Whereas the UGC and AICTE have been asserting their regulatory roles, theprivate and foreign stakeholders have taken the stand that these bodies are only
advisory and cannot de-recognize any university or college duly established underlaw under the UGC Act of 1956. Since the national legislation on Establishment
and Maintenance of Private Universities introduced for the first time in Rajya
Sabha in August 1995 could not be passed till to date, many state governments
passed Private University Acts during 2002-2006. The State of Chattisgarh was thefirst one to pass such an Act in October 2002. Within 2 years of the passing of thisAct, 117 private universities sprang up in Chattisgarh all of a sudden without
proper infrastructure, faculty or legal base. The UGC de-notified 39 of them in 2003
and the Supreme Court of India declared the very Act null and void in Professor
Yashpal Sharma and Others vs. the State of Chattisgarh on February 11, 2005.
Though the Supreme Court conceded to the state governments’ right to establish
private universities after the 42nd Amendment in 1972, it held:
It (the private university) should be a pre-established institution for higher
education with all the infrastructural facilities and qualities which may
justify its claim for being conferred with the status of a University and only
such an institution can be conferred the legal status and the juristic
personality of a University.

Most of the private universities were set up in Chattisgarh merely by making anannouncement through official gazette. Till today the national bill on private
universities’ establishment and regulation could not be passed. Two bills are
currently under pending before the Parliament – (1) the bill seeking regulation of
the private colleges and universities and (2) the bill seeking safe passage for theprestigious foreign universities interested in establishing their campuses orbranches in India. India needs to learn from China, Japan and Malaysia who have102

already allowed foreign universities in their countries on certain terms andconditions in national interest.
It needs to strike a balance between the state imposed regulations in the case ofdomestic universities and needs of the knowledge based and technology-driven
economies today. It must give serious though to the need for regulating the privateand foreign universities in terms of (a) admissions, fees, subsidies and public policy
issues, (b) professional regulations in terms of eligibility, curricula and licensing
requirements, (c) regulations in terms of market compulsions, such as quality
assurance, transparency, protection of students as consumers and (d) self-imposed
regulations in terms of building national or global brand names through selfdiscipline and managerial strategies (Menon, 2006).

Recent judicial interventions
In the absence of national level vision, direction, legislation and regulation, private
higher education in India has already become the cause of too frequent judicial
interventions. Every sundry issue comes before the apex court whether it is theadministrative issue of common entrance tests or fixing of the fees. Although India
has liberalized its economy since 1991, the constitution has preserved the socialistic
provisions and overtone. That’s why we find constant conflicts between the judiciaryand the government. The judiciary is in a difficult position as it is required topreserve the basic structure of the Indian constitution on the one hand and pave theway for the market economy, on the other.
Surprisingly, the Coalition Governments during the past few years (both NDA andUPA) are found tightening their control over higher education institutions despite
liberalization of economy. It is evident from the recent fee-cut controversy at the
Indian Institutes of Managements under the NDA government and the impositionof reservation up to 49.5% for the socially backward classes in all Central
Universities and prestigious professional schools under the current UPA
government. The 93rd Amendment (January, 2006) has made reservation
mandatory even for the private higher education institutions and the Foreign
Universities Bill seeks to make it mandatory even for non-prestigious foreign higher
education institutions in India.

103

Controversy over higher education as an occupation
A serious debate took place during the T. M. A. Pai vs. State of Karnataka case in
October 2002 on the issue whether to treat higher education under the category of a‘profession’, ‘trade’, ‘occupation’ or ‘service’ under Article 19(6) of the IndianConstitution or just as ‘public charity’ under the prevailing Indian culture and ethos.
In an earlier judgment delivered in the State of Bombay vs. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwala case in 1957 (SCR 874), the Supreme Court of India had taken a
stance against the for-profit higher education.
Whereas in an earlier case of Unni Krishnan J. P. vs. The state of Andhra Pradesh(1993), there was some confusion over treating education as an ‘occupation’ in termsof ‘principal business of one’s life’, ‘taking up one’s time, thought and energies’ or a‘job in which one is engaged with a degree of permanency attached’ (Webster
International Dictionary, Third edition: 1650), there was no such confusion in the T.
M. A. Pai case (2002). In the T. M. A. Pai case, the Supreme Court had held:
The establishment and running of an educational institution, where a large
number of persons are employed as teachers or administrative staff, and an
activity is carried on that results in the imparting of knowledge to thestudents, must necessarily be regarded as an occupation, even if there is noelement of profit generation. It is difficult to comprehend that education,

per se, will not fall under any of the four expressions in Article 19(1) g.
‘Occupation’ would be an activity of a person undertaken as a means of
livelihood or a mission of life. The above quoted observations in Sodan

Singh’s case correctly interpret the expression ‘occupation’ in Article 19(1) g.

Under this judgment, the expression ‘private educational institutions’ was used not
only for educational institutions set up by secular persons or bodies but also those
set up by religious denominations. Though the Supreme Court recognizededucation as falling within the meaning of the expression ‘occupation’, it refused toregard it as a ‘trade’ or ‘business’ where profit was the sole motive. It also refused to
uphold its own decision of treating education as an ‘industry’ in the Banglore Water

104

Supply and Sewage Board vs. A. Rajappa and Others case in 1978. Taking adefensive stand in the T.M.A.Pai case, Justice Jeevan Reddy had remarked:
We do not think that the said observation ‘that education as industry’ in adifferent context has any application here.

Earlier also, in the Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case, Supreme
Court had taken a tough stand against for-profit higher education. In thisparticular case it had observed that:
Private colleges ----- are felt necessities of the time. That does not mean thatone should tolerate the so called colleges run in thatched huts with hardly
any equipment, with no or improvised laboratories, scarce facility to learn
in an unhealthy atmosphere, for (sic) from conductive to education. Such ofthem must be put down ruthlessly with an iron hand irrespective of who
has started the institution or who desires to set up such an institution.
They are poisonous weeds in the fields of education. Those who venture are
the financial adventurers without morals or scruples. Their only aim is tomake money, driving a hard bargain, exploiting eagerness to acquire a
professional degree, which would be a passport to employment in a country
rampant with unemployment. They could even be called pirates in the highseas of education.

In the Unni Krishnan J P vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Courtof India banned the Capitation Fee Act of 1984. Instead it allowed 'paid seats' in a
fixed proportion in consultation with the concerned state government. The logic wasthat those who could very well afford to pay might be charged heavily so that they
could provide support not only for themselves but also for few others who could notafford the exorbitant costs of private professional education.
In the historic 318-page judgment in T.M.A.Pai vs. State of Karnataka), theSupreme Court reversed the earlier stand taken by it in Unni Krishnan case. In theUnni Krishnan case, the Supreme Court had allowed the state governments toadminister and regulate admissions into ‘unaided’ and ‘privately promoted’
institutions providing professional education. Rather it took a drastically liberal105

view of some of the constitutional provisions with regard to the Right to Educationin the T.M.A.Pai case. In its October 2002 judgment, the Supreme Court gave agreen signal to financially independent private and minority institutions toestablish higher education institutions of their choice but banned profiteering.
For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court addressed the supply side ofeducation and conferred the right to deliver, and not only to receive education as afundamental right to all citizens. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court
actually played a proactive role and expanded the right to establish educational
institutions granted only to the minorities under Article 26 to all citizens under the
Right to Freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) g of the Indian Constitution. Under
Article 19(1) g, all citizens have 'the right to practice any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business'. Thus the Supreme Court of India allowed
private initiatives and funding in higher education indirectly but stipulated against'commercialization' by the private higher education institutions. By
commercialization we imply managing or exploiting in a way ‘designed to make aprofit’. By profit we imply ‘a financial gain or the difference between an initial outlay
and the subsequent amount earned’. By profiteering we imply ‘making an excessive
or unfair profit’ (Oxford Dictionary).
Under the Islamic Academy of Education and Others vs. the State of Karnataka
and Others, verdict given by the Supreme Court on August 14, 2003, the private
unaided or minority institutions imparting technical and medical education could
decide their own fee structure to be scrutinized by a committee headed by a retired
High Court judge. It was to be constituted of a chartered Accountant, a member ofMedical Council of India or All India Council of Technical Education, State
Education Secretary or Health Secretary and a co-opted independent person of
repute. It was for this committee to ensure that the proposed fee structure didn’t
result into profiteering.

Pending bills on private and foreign universities
Under Indian culture, higher education means quest for knowledge and thevocational schools are generally accorded a lower status. Despite having 348
universities, including 62 deemed to be universities, 17626 colleges, 11 centers of106

open learning, 63 unaided deemed to be universities, 777,650 unaided private
colleges, 150 foreign educational institutions, 10.5 million students and 0.5 million
teachers, only 11% of the youth have access to higher education institutions (Bidwai,2006).
Only 3% of the Indians have access to vocational education and training despite thefact that the Labour Ministry runs 5,114 industrial training institutes and the
MHRD also runs an equal number of such training institutes. This percentage
varies from 60-80% in advanced economies, such as, US, EU, South Korea andJapan. The private sector and the industries have a lot of scope in playing aproactive role as far as TVET is concerned (Choudhury, 2006: 27).
Only 8% of the adults above the age of 25 are engaged in higher education. About
75% of the higher education in India is privately managed (Norton, 2004) and the
public expenditure on higher education is as low as 0.43% of the GDP as per recordsof the 2005-06 fiscal year (Agarwal, 2006b). Though the government promised toraise expenditure on education from 4% to 6% of the GDP by 2008-09, it could raise
it to only 4.27 % during the current fiscal year of 2006-07. Higher education did notreceive its promised share despite 31.5% increase in center’s allocation for educationin general (Thakore, 2006a).
Therefore, it has become imperative to involve private and foreign providers in thebusiness of higher education in India. A lot of debate is going on the two pending
bills before the Parliament this winter (2006). We find a lot of polarization on theentry of foreign providers and private initiatives in India The GoM (Group of
Ministers) has already cleared the Foreign Education Providers (Regulation) Bill on
November 28, 2006. Whereas the Human Resource Ministry is in favour of strict
regulations, the Ministry of Commerce is in a mood to allow prestigious foreign
universities to start their campuses or branches in India. The Commerce Ministry
has an eye on the WTO openings. The MHRD, on the other hand, is eager to retain
the funds, about US $3.9 billion, currently being spent by Indian students every
year on higher education, professional training and living expenses abroad (Soni,
2006: 2).

107

For instance, India sent the biggest contingent to the USA followed by China andSouth Korea in 2005-2006. In a survey it was found that the prime funding forstudents enrolled under foreign programme is provided by the parents in 65.6%,
banks through loans in 26.6% and self in 1.6% cases (Bhushan, 2006: 20). The UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore are the other key stakeholders.
The government in India has now become alert to this enormous brain drain andcapital flight every year. No wonder, it is now willing to allow reputed/accredidated
foreign universities to open its campuses under the status of “ deemed to beuniversities”. Only foreign universities with excellent credentials are likely to be
exempted from regulations under the new legislation. The rest will have to abide by
the UGC and AICTE rules and regulations pertaining to fee structure, curriculum
designing, repatriation of profits back home and mandatory reservation for thesocially backward (Mukul, 2006: 15).
In its consultation paper on “Higher Education in India and GATS: An
Opportunity”, the Department of Commerce, Government of India, has also
recognized the need for the involvement of private initiatives in higher education ina big way. For instance, the McKinsey-NASSCOM study has come out the thesisthat India has great potential of capturing 50% of the global offshore market ofabout US$ 300 million and in the process generate direct employment of about 2.3
million people and indirect employment of about 6.5 million people(http://www.Academics_India.com: 5-6). It has also stated that about 60% of thedemand for higher education will come from India and China in 2025, comprising
one-third of the world’s population. Already India has the 3rd largest pool of skilled
personpower despite 11% access to higher education by the youth in the age groupof 17-23. The UPA government is trying to enhance access and equity by making
reservation mandatory on the one hand and global competitiveness, on the other.
The imposition of reservation of seats up to 49.5% for the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward classes is likely to cost an additionalamount of Rs 165 billion (about US $ 3.6 billion) the exchequer in the next five years
according to the Veerappa Moily Committee (Iype, 2006) has recommended thequantum leap to enhance both access and equity in higher education in India. The
Commerce Ministry is now willing to allow both the private and foreign universities
to have their own curriculum and pay scales. The Commerce Ministry is also

108

willing to allow 100% FDI in the field of education. However, a lot of ambivalence
prevails over including the “creamy layers”(financially effluents amongst thesocially backward) and the Dalit Muslims under mandatory reservation policy. On
the one hand, the UPA government has chosen to accord the group rights to thesocially backward classes, it is also using the criteria of higher economic status to
exclude the ‘creamy layers’ from benefits accruing from reservation in jobs andeducational institutions. In fact, a lot of ambivalence prevails despite recent
legislations and court interventions (Thakore, 2006b).

Reservation: the most contentious issue
It is difficult to say whether reservation should be seen as an ‘economic device’ or‘political strategy’ (Gupta, 1994) but one thing is certain that it is the mostcontentious issue in India for the time being. But for the politically feasible andbeneficial device of reservation, the UPA government could not have created ademand for Rs165.63 billion (about US$ 4.6 billion) for higher education for the next
five years. Out of this Rs 90.92 billion would be on non-recurring component and Rs
74.70 billion on the recurring component. This is due to the demand for further
expansion of infrastructure including new hostels, air-conditioned libraries,
laboratories, and animal houses for students pursuing life sciences and auditoriums
for bigger classes (Sarkar, 2006: 6).
Needless to say, it also satisfies the greasy palms in the name of development.
Higher education has already become a US $3 trillion business across the world.
The US is the biggest exporter of higher education (second most lucrative businessafter defense in the US). The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan andSingapore are also in fray, whereas countries like India, China, South Korea,
Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are at the receiving end. In the name ofinternationalization, globalization, excellence and quality education, the advanced
economies are able to export not only their curriculum but also allied services,
reading materials and teaching faculty.
Coming to the reinforcement of caste as the basis for affirmative action in India, it issurprising to note that the UPA government and the Supreme Court of India havesupported the anachronistic policy of reservations in government jobs, schools and109higher education institutions even in the modern era of globalization, hyper
mobility and breathtaking innovations in the fields of information andcommunication technologies. Whereas the court judgments in the cases of Regentsof the University of California vs. Bakke (1978) and Grutter vs. Bollinger,
University of Michigan (2003) have been “race exclusive” in the USA, the 93rd
Amendment Act and the Supreme Court decision in the P. A. Inamdar & Ors. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. (August 12, 2005) has been “caste reinforcing”.
Instead of rejecting the very idea of expansion of reservation up to 49.5% in all
central universities and prestigious professional schools, such as, the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), thedebate got twisted over expanding reservation to private and minority higher
education institutions in India (Gupta, 2007). By reservation in higher education,
we imply allocation of seats on the basis of criteria (caste and social backwardness,for instance) other than merit. Reservation is different from affirmative action as it
can take the shape of quota (fixed number of seats). Whereas the Supreme Court ofIndia was against imposition of reservation policy on minority and non-minority
unaided private colleges, including professional colleges, the Human Resource
Ministry was in favour of bringing the private universities under the reservation
policy.
The MHRD took the stand that like private schools and private hospitals, private
higher education institutions should also take social responsibility towards theweaker sections of society as they either got government favors either in terms of
free land or tax rebates. However, the Supreme Court in its judgment in the P. A.
Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) case exempted the minority institutions
from mandatory reservation primarily because most of these institutions areallowed to admit students up to 50% from their own communities based upon
religion or language. Since separate Articles apply to the minority educational
institutions under the Constitution of India, even the UPA government had toexempt them from the purview of the 93rd Amendment, making reservation
mandatory for private higher education institutions.
We now find ‘educational wars’ taking place between the political class and the
judiciary, on the one hand, and the center and the states, on the other. Whereas

110some political parties are in favour of extending reservation to all sections of socially
backward classes including the creamy layers (financially affluent), the Supreme
Court and most of the big political parties are in favour of keeping the creamy
layers out. In order to escape the axe of reservation, some of the universities aretrying for the minority status on one pretext or other, such as, the Jamia Milia
Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University. Similarly, the Dalit Muslims (converts
from low caste Hindus) are also seeking benefits accruing from reservations in jobs
and educational institutions on the basis of their minority status, economic or social
backwardness and inadequate representation in higher education. Only 6% of the
Muslims in India hold a graduate degree (The Times of India, Sachar Report, New
Delhi, December 1, 2006: 12).

Issues at stakeIndia must give deeper thoughts to some of the issues related to private higher
education before legally denationalizing higher education. We should not forget thatboth nationalization and denationalization have to be treated like “waves only”,
with no intrinsic value of their own (Gupta, 2000). Many other factors make themgood or bad, desirable or undesirable, successful or failures. In this context, weshould not hesitate from asking about the very causes of the surge in private higher
education, their common traits, emerging public policies towards private initiatives
in higher education worldwide during the last few decades (Levy, 2007).
We must ask: can private higher education be in public interests? How can we
make them more accountable to the general public? How can we ensure quality
education at privately funded or self-financed higher education? How can theinterests of the faculty and students be protected at privately managed higher
education institutions? Do such institutions owe any obligation to the society interms of equity or accessibility? Is it justifiable to impose reservation on private
higher education institutions in the name of social responsibility? Should thegovernment be allowed to withdraw gradually from higher education sector in thename of austerity or ignore it in the name of private gain?
Further questions arise: how can private post secondary institutions be made more
responsible towards their social, national or global obligations, especially if religious,111

linguistic or minority groups at the local level manage them? How should these
institutions be regulated in public interest? Should such institutions be regulated at
all or should these be left to the markets? Should private higher education
institutions be allowed to be publicly funded? Or should the government provide
some other incentives to rope in the private sector? Should there be tax incentives toget public support for private education? Should the prospective employees be madeto share some of the costs in the form of “graduate tax”? Should the private sector beallowed to shift the substantial costs of higher education to the household? Is forprofit private higher education an anathema?
In the same vein, we may ask: what is the ethics involved behind private higher
education? Is private higher education gender-specific or gender neutral? Can
private higher education institutions maintain the elitist nature and yet provide
accessibility? Can they maintain quality in case they decide to go massist? Are
private higher education institutions concerned about only market-oriented or
profitable disciplines? If so, who will take care of social sciences, pure sciences andhumanities? Does private higher education and technical training lead to better
professional growth but at the cost of holistic development? Does it prepare
students for their professional roles and individualism at the cost of social, national,
civic or humanitarian roles expected of highly educated and professional class?
Should higher education be treated as public good or private gain?
Further questions arise: can the private sector deal with the challenges arising due
to sudden escalation in demand for higher education, technology-driven educational
programs and higher levels of public expectations? Can the private sector maintainits elitist nature and yet fulfil the need for equity and accessibility? Can the private
colleges and universities maintain their academic freedom in the era of public
accountability and transparency? Should there be competition or collaboration
between the public and private post-secondary educational institutions? Is it
possible to keep the distinction between the public and private higher education
intact in the era of outsourcing?
Many public universities in India rely on private outsourcing for security, hostels,canteens, transport, medical facilities, career counseling, gymnasiums, sports
facilities, computer application and information technologies, sponsoring of cultural112

events, etc. Similarly, we find the private tutoring business blooming in India. Even
if students enroll at public universities, they seek private coaching at exhorbitantcosts. About 60% of the students rely on coaching centers for clearing the entrance
exams for prestigious professional schools and colleges. These private coaching
schools are making about Rs 70 billion (US $1.6 billion), equivalent to 50% of thetotal amount spent on higher education per annum (Agarwal, 2006c).

Blurring of public-private divide
These days, we find a blurring of public and private boundaries as far as higher
education is concerned. Nor is it possible to define the boundary between the public
and the private higher education institutions or the relationship between the two.
The common interests of the public may be different from those of particular groups
or individuals, yet the public can be seen merely as an extension of individual
behaviour, or realization of the private. We find many examples of ‘private
corruption by public officials’ and ‘enhancement of personal career at the cost of
public gains’ in the wake of privatization in many countries. As such, there may bemutual infiltration between the public and private sectors in all societies depending
upon their historical circumstances, socio-economic development and cultural traits.
The private may call into question the public and reshape it, or the public may
transform the private by helping it grow or by simply absorbing it. Both the ‘public’and the ‘private’ form the important components of the society as a whole. The wellbeing of an individual constitutes the well being of the society and vice versa. It is amyth to say that one can achieve only at the expense of the other. In today’s world
scenario, where the multinationals, transnational and offshore centers coexist withthe local, state and national, we need not think in terms of ‘national versus
international’, ‘state versus market’ and ‘public versus private’. Rather we should
think in terms of ‘national and international’, ‘state and market’, ‘public and private’,etc.
I firmly believe that in the present era, one cannot be a true nationalist without
being an internationalist first. With the growth of civil society, technologicalinnovations and international understanding, the distinction between public andprivate, state and market, national and international is likely to get further blurred.

113

According to the OECD Handbook (2004: 59), classification of an institution can be“public” only if (a) the ultimate control lies with a public education authority, trust
or agency and (b) whose members are appointed by a public authority or elected bypublic franchise. It can be “private” if (a) the ultimate control lies with non-state or
non-governmental organizations and (b) which consists of some members notselected by a public agency or board. However, in practice, this neat classification is
not sustainable.
Moreover, it is a myth to say that public and private always denote ‘ideas in
opposition’. Etymologically speaking, ‘public’ is supposed to be open, whereas
private is supposed to be closed. ‘Public’ is supposed to contain the whole, whereas‘private’ denotes only the part. Public is supposed to be transparent, whereas‘private’ is supposed to be concealed. Similarly, ‘public life’ may signify outer realm,
whereas private life may imply inner realm. Public may signify common interests,
whereas private may signify personal interests. In some contexts, public may imply
official, whereas private may signify unofficial (Starr, 1991: 16-17).
In fact, a preference for the ‘public’ or ‘private’ depends upon the degree ofindividualism and collectivism prevailing in a given society at a given period of time.
For instance, in India, nationalization was a preferred public policy in 1970s, today
we find a shift towards privatization in public interest. Privatization implies
withdrawal from the whole to the part or a shift from public action to private
concerns. The swing is not necessarily from sociability to intimacy, but from civic
concerns to the pursuit of self-interests. We cannot deny any more that it is thenotion of ‘self-interest’ and not ‘selfish interest’ that dominates both the public andthe private these days and there is nothing wrong in working in ‘self-interest’ (Sales,
1991: 296).

Community colleges as an alternative
Of late, we find community colleges drawing the attention of higher education
researchers and practitioners in India and abroad. On the one hand, we find a trend
towards public private partnerships, collaboration between the state and market;
on the other hand, we also find a trend towards the drift away from both the stateand market. In the USA a large number of students attend community colleges, as

114

these are less expensive than the regular four-year public colleges or private higher
education institutions. These colleges aim at preparing their students towards
fulfilling the local needs of their communities by equipping them with the necessary
vocational skills and training with generous support from the community.
The movement towards community colleges can play a very important role inemerging economies in providing an alternative to the entrepreneurial universities
sweeping the advanced economies in recent decades (Bok, 2003). Even in advanced
economies, an urgency is being felt in getting the universities out of their ivory
towers and making them respond to the societal needs by forging partnership with
their respective communities in order to promote common good (Fairweather, 1996).
Learning through community colleges and other institutions of higher learning andvocational training can be defined as “a form of experimental learning in which
students engage in activities that address human and community needs together
with structured opportunities intentionally designed to promote student learningand development” (Jacoby, 1997: 1).
The most important feature of this learning happens to be the integration ofcommunity service with formal education. Even Mahatma Gandhi had emphasized
this sort of combination long ago. But we find systematic efforts towards
incorporating community priorities pertaining to health, law and education into theuniversity curricula since 1970s. The idea is to promote the tripartite purposes ofthe modern universities – teaching, researching and outreaching (Subotzky, 1998:
17). However, the community service learning can take different forms in different
fields. For instance, it took the form of problem-based learning in the field of healthsciences at McMaster University during mid-1960s and a proactive role in the fieldof education against apartheid in South Africa (Norman and Schmidt, 1992).
The Community Service Learning (CSL) is picking up in India, especially in thesouthern parts. For instance, there are 81 community colleges in Tamil Nadu, 8 in
Kerala, 6 in Karnataka, 3 in Chattisgarh, 3 in Andhra Pradesh, 2 in Gujarat, and 1
each in Maharashtra, Uttaranchal and Delhi. Out of these 111 community colleges,
70 are run on NGO Model, 3 on University Model, 1 on Local Body Model and 37 on
Affiliated Model. Most of them cater to the needs of the local employers. A few ofthem offer job-oriented courses along with academic streams leading to degrees in

115

BBA, BCA, B. Com, etc. Others offer courses relevant to the social need of thecommunity, such as, watershed management, nature cure, integrated farming, etc.
(Alphonse, 2004: 101).
These community colleges are playing a very important role in caste and povertyridden rural and urban India. Their sole aim is to empower the “disadvantaged”,“underprivileged” and “women” through skill development leading to gainful
employment in collaboration with local community and industries. These also
encourage the learners from the under privileged sections of society towards selfemployment. These are also generally women-friendly. In 54 community colleges
having 10,107 students on roll, women comprise 69.09%. These colleges can serve
the socially and economically weaker sections better by providing low cost andsocially relevant education.
However, the community college movement has yet to gain momentum in North
India. India has to find its own solutions in terms of enhancing access and equity inhigher education. It cannot have the advantage of a large number of public andcommunity colleges like the US catering to the needs of 80% of the students seeking
higher education in the age group of 18-24. Nor can it emulate the example of its
Asian neighbors, Japan, South Korea or Philippines, where up to 70% of thestudents attend private colleges. Nor can it act as fast as China in allowing privateand foreign universities due to compulsions of parliamentary democracy. Nor can it
provide protection to the students seeking private higher education under theConsumer’s Act like Canada due to the lack of requisite economic and politicalculture.
Whereas we find a rise in public trust in private higher education in advanced
economies, we usually find a lack of trust in the private provision and privatedelivery of higher education in India. India needs a proper legislation on theestablishment and regulation of private and foreign universities to build this trust
first in order to reap the desired results later on. We all know that private higher
education is not only inevitable but also desirable in the current scenario. But it ispremature to say whether the private sector in higher education in India willremain at the periphery or occupy the central position in next few decades. It may

116be better to describe the emergence of private higher education in India as‘parallelization’ rather than ‘privatization’.

References
Agarwal, Pawan. 2006a. ‘Higher Education Policy: Many Contradictions’. Economic
and Political Weekly. November 11. pp 4645-48.
----- 2006b. ‘Higher Education in India: the Need for a Change’. ICRIER Working
Paper No. 179. New Delhi. May.
----- 2006c. ‘Private Tutoring in India’. International Higher Education: 45. Boston.
Fall.
Alphonse, Xavier. 2004. ‘Beyond the Frontiers: The Growth and Future ofCommunity College Movement in India. New Frontiers in Education: 19(5): 100-06.
April. New Delhi.
Arnold, David. 2001. ‘Globalization of Higher Education: What It Means for India’.
A paper presented at the Roundtable on Internationalization of Higher Educationin India. Association of Indian Universities. Mysore, Karnataka. February 26-28.
Basu, Aparna. 2001. ‘Indian Higher Education: Colonialism and Beyond’ in Philip
G. Altbach and Selvaratnam eds. From Dependence to Autonomy: The
Development of Asian Universities. Boston: Center for International Higher
Education.
Bhushan, Sudhanshu. 2006. ‘Foreign Education Providers in India: Mapping the
Extent and Regulation’. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. UK.
March.
Bidwai, Praful. 2006. ‘Our Universities are in a Mess’. September
28. http://www.Rediff.Com/money/2006/sep/288/bidwai.htm.

117

Bok, Derek. 2003. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization ofHigher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Choudhury, Gaurav. ‘Task Force to Overhaul Vocational Education’. The
Hindustan Times. New Delhi. December 7.
Fairweather, J. 1996. Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of
Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gupta, Asha. 2007. ‘India: The New Private Sector’. International Higher
Education. Winter. Forthcoming.
----- 2000. Beyond Privatization: A Global Perspective. UK: Macmillan/Palgrave.
----- 1994. 'Privatization: A Political Strategy or An Economic Device?' in Rudra Dutted. Privatization. New Delhi: Pragati Publications.
Iype, George. 2006. ‘Cost of New Quotas: Rs 165 Billion and Counting’. August
8. http://ia.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2006/aug/08quota
Jacoby quoted by Ward, K. and Wolf-Wendel, L. 1997 in ‘A Discourse Analysis ofCommunity-based Learning: Moving from “I” to “We”’. A paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education held at
Albuquerque, New Mexico. November.
Joshi, Murli Manohar. 1998. ‘Higher Education in India: Vision and Action’. A
Country Paper presented at the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Educationin the 21st Century. Paris. October 5-9.
Kapur, Devesh and Pratap Bhanu Mehta. 2004. ‘Indian Higher Education Reform:
From Half- Baked Socialism to Half-Baked Capitalism’. Center for International
Development Working Paper 108. USA: Harvard College.
Kim, P. Selby. 1985. ‘The Tatas and University Reforms in India: 1898-1914’.
History of Education: 14: 2.

118

Levy, Daniel. 2007. ‘Access Via Private Higher Education Provision’ in Asha Gupta,
Daniel Levy and K. B. Powar eds. Indian Private Higher Education & International
Perspectives. (forthcoming).
Lindqvist, Ossi V. 2006. ‘Beyond the University: Shifting Demographics in Higher
Education in the EU’. Austria: Salzburg Seminar. Session 436. November 7-12.
Mehta, Harit. 2006. ‘Mukesh Plans Mega Varsity in Gujarat’. The Economic Times
Online. June 23. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1669534.cms
Menon, N. R. Madhava. 2006. A talk delivered at a summit organized by FICCI on
Private Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. New Delhi. March 23.
Mukherjee, S. 1971. Quoted by Suma Chitnis and Philip G. Altbach eds. 1993.
Higher Education Reforms in India: Experiences and Perspectives. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
Mukul, Akshaya. 2006. ‘Bill on Foreign Varsities Treads Middle Path’. The Times ofIndia. New Delhi. November 30.
Norman, G. R. and Schmidt, H. G. 1992. ‘The Psychological Basis of Problem-based
Learning: A Review of the Evidence’. Academic Medicine: 67(9).
Norton, Andrew. 2004. ‘Public and Private: A Distinction of Little Value’. A paper
presented at the ACEPT National Conference. Sydney: The Center of Independent
Studies.
Patrinos, Harry Antony. 2002. ‘The Role of Private Sector in Global Market for
Education’. A paper presented at a conference on Shifting Rules, Changing Roles at
The Hague, Netherlands. March 19.
Raju, M. P. 2003. Minority Rights: Myth or Reality? Delhi: Media House.

119

Rudolph, S. H. and Rudolph, L. I. eds. 1972. Education and Politics in India. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Sales, Armaud. 1991. ‘The Private, the Public and Civil Society: Social Realms andPower Structures’. International Political Science Review: 12(4).
Sarkar, Soni. 2006. ‘Rs 165-cr JNU Expansion Plan: Makeover For Quota to
Include New Hostels, AC Libraries and Labs’. The Times of India. New Delhi.
November 30. p 6.
Soni, Varun.2006. ‘Educational Reforms’. The Hindustan Times. New Delhi.
November 22.
Staar, Paul. 1991. ‘The Meaning of Privatization’ in Sheila B. Kamermen and
Alfred J. Khan eds. Privatization and the Welfare State. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Subotzky, George. 1998. ‘Alternatives to the Entrepreneurial University: New
Modes of Knowledge Production in Community Service Programmes’. A paper
presented at the annual ASHE International Conference held at Miami, Florida.
November 4-7.
Thakore, Dilip. 2006a. ‘Union Budget 2006-07: Lip Service to Education’.
April. http://educationworldonline.net/eduworld/article.php?choice=prev----- 2006b. ‘Professional Education Freedom Verdict Sparks Constitutional
Crisis’. http://www.Educationworldonline.net.
Tilak, J. B. G. 2002. ‘Privatization of Higher Education in India’. International
Higher Education: 29. Boston: Center for International Higher Education.

120

Annexures
Table 1: Glimpses of World Higher Education Landscape

•

•

•

•

•

121

Worldwide
84
million students
attend20,000colleges
anduniversities.
66 million adultand more than
50%
of
the
working
peopleparticipate in someform of continuing
education now.
Higher education
constitutes a US
$3.2
trillionmarket.
The
entiredeveloping world
has only 15% of
the share.
The global demandforhighereducation is likely
to
reach
160
million by 2025.

•India and China will be the two biggest countries seeking higher education.
Demand is growing at the rate of 20% per annum in India.

•

Higher education is no longer elitist. It has become more accessible now.

•

There is an increase in the role of household, private and corporate sector inhigher education.

•

We find a surge in online and for-profit private higher education.

•

In 2000, global IT companies certified 1.6 million students worldwide with 2.4
million certificates in Information Technology itself.

Source: Glakas, Nicholas J. 2003. ‘Trends Policies and Issues’. National Council of Higher

Education Loan Programmes. Sarasota, Florida. January 9.

Table 2: Emerging Trends in Higher Education in the 21st Century

 Increased globalization and increased competition.
 Increased importance of quality human resource inknowledge-based and technology-driven economy.
 Changing nature of the labour market in the wake ofglobalization and information revolution.

122 Surge in the demand for highly skilled and technologically competentworkforce able to work under multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multiethnic settings in the wake of hyper-mobility.
 Declining socio-political priority of higher education as a solely statefunded activity.
 Corporatization and privatization of higher education.
 Rise in private, transnational and multinational initiatives in higher
education.
 Commodification and commercialization of knowledge.
 Increase in consumption of higher education by the masses due to sociocultural and economic importance of higher education and changing
power-knowledge realm.
 Increase in the role of information and communication technologies inhigher education.
 More emphasis on lifelong learning.
Source: Based upon Peters, Michael and Roberts, Peter. 2000. ‘Universities, Futurology andGlobalization’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education: 21(2).

123Table 3: Knowledge Revolution and Implications for Developing Countries
Key elements of knowledge revolution

Implications for the developing countries• Increase codification of knowledge anddevelopment of new technologies• Closer links with science base/ increased
rate of innovation/ shorter product life
cycles• Increased importance of education, upskilling of labour force and lifelong
learning• Investment in intangibles (R&D,
education, software) greater thaninvestments in fixed capital.
• Greater value added now comes frominvestment in intangibles such asbranding, marketing, distribution andinformation management.
• Innovation and productivity increase
more important for competitiveness andgrowth terms of GDP.

•

Developing countries run the risk ofbeing left behind as a result of increasing
importance of knowledge, on the one
hand, and widening of knowledge anddigital divide, on the other.

•

They need to develop coherent strategies
to deal successfully with the constantrestructuring resulting from knowledge
revolution.

•

They need to make more effective use ofknowledge for their development. They
need to convert their economies into
knowledge economies.

•

They need to become the producers andexporters of new information andknowledge rather than remain as mere
importers and consumers of a predetermined content.

•

It is not enough to have access to latest
information. There are numerous otherfactors that come into play in theequality of people’s access, such as,
education and training, language andliteracy, bandwidth, web design, etc.

• Constant change and completion implies
need for constant restructuring andupgrading knowledge and skills.

Source: Dahlman, Carl. 2003. ‘Challenges of the Knowledge Economy for Education’. World

Education Market. Lisbon. May 20.

Table 4: On Knowledge Economy“The powerhouses of the
new global economy areinnovation and ideas,“The generation, application and exploitationof knowledge is [sic] driving modern
economic growth. Most of us make our124creativity,
skillsandknowledge. These are now
the tools for success andprosperity as much as
natural resources andphysical labour power
were in the past century” –money from thin air: we produce nothingthat can be weighed, touched or easily
measured. Our output is not stockpiled at
harbours, stored in their houses or shift inrailway cars … that should allow oureconomies in principle at least, to … beorganized around people and the knowledge
David Blunkett.
capital they produce. Our children will nothave to toil in dark factories, descend into
pits or suffocate in mills, to hew raw
materials and turn them into manufactured
products. They will make their livings
through their creativity, ingenuity andFrom: ‘Modernizing Higher Education: imagination” – Charles Leadbetter.
Facing the Global Challenge’, a speechdelivered by the then Secretary of the UK at
the University of Greenwich on February 15,
2000. para 10.

From: Living on Thin Air: The New
Economy. 1999. London: Penguin. p. vii

Table 5: International Comparisons in Select Few Countries
Per
capitaGDP inUS$ (PPP)

Students
enrolled
in HE in
terms
of %

Total
no.
of
students
in terms
ofpopulation

Male
ratio

Female interms ofgenderempowerment
ratio

Publicexpenditure on
HEIs interms ofGDP %in 2004

Privateexpenditure on
HEIs interms ofGDP %in 2004%ofstudents
enrollment inprivateHEIs

Expenditure % of
GDP onHEUSA39,496

26

82

69

96

1.2
(2002)

1.5(2002)

24

2.7(2002)

Canada32,921

19

57

49

66

1.5
(2001)

1.1(2001)―

2.5(2001)

UK

28,938

14

60

51

70

0.8
(2002)

0.3(2002)

100

1.2(2002)

RussianFederation

10,179

30

68

58

79

0.6

―

11

―

Australia

29,893

18

72

65

80

0.8

0.8

1
(2001)

1.6

125

Singapore

26,799

―

―

―

―

―

―

―

―

Indonesia

3,703

7.1

16

18

14

0.3

0.4
(2002)

61

0.7(2002)

Japan

29,906

21

54

57

51

0.4
(2002)

0.6(2002)

77

1.1(2002)

China

5,642

8.1

19

21

17

―

―

10

―

―

29

89

109

67

0.3

1.9

81

2.2

3,080

5.1

11

14

9

0.7
(2002)

0.2(2002)―

0.9(2002)

Republic of
Korea
India

(parity insexes)

Source: Asian Strategic Group. Salzburg Seminar. Session 436. Beyond Universities: Shifting
Demographics in Higher Education. Nov 7-12, 2006. Based upon UNESCO Global Education
Database. May 2006.

Table 6: Growth in higher education institutions and enrolment
Year

1947-48
1950-51
1960-61
1970-71
1980-81
1990-91
2000-01
2005-06

Universities(including
central, state anddeemed)
20
28
45
93
123
184
266
348

Colleges

Total

Enrolment(in million)

496
578
1,819
3,277
4,738
5,748
11,146
17,625

516
606
1864
3370
4861
5932
11412
17973

0.2
0.2
0.6
2.0
2.8
4.4
8.8
10.5

Source: University Grants Commission, New Delhi. www.ugc.ac.in126

Table 7: A Typology of Higher Education Institutions in India

Public universities

Private universities

Government owned and government
financed.
They can raise alternative funds or run
self-financed courses under the UGC
scheme of vocationalization
No. of institutions 240.
Enrolment 1 million.
It is not a growing sector.

Private universities can be government
aided as well as unaided.
There were 7 private universities, 5000
aided colleges and 4000 unaided colleges
with approximately 10,000, 5 million
and 3 million students respectively
during 2002-2003.
A private university" means a university
duly established through aState/Central Act by a sponsoring body,
viz. a Society registered under theSocieties Registration Act, 1860, or any
other corresponding law for the time
being in force in a State or a Public
Trust or a Company registered under
Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Deemed to be universities

Foreign institutions

Deemed to be universities are those,which are likely to acquire the status offull universities, in due course.
These fulfil the conditions stipulated by
the UGC.
These can be aided as well as selffinanced.
There are 62 deemed to be universities.
There are 13 university-levelinstitutions, such as,
IITs, IIMs, NITs, etc.

The UGC is planning to allow foreign
institutions to establish centers incollaboration with public or private
higher education institutions in India.
These institutions must be accredited intheir own home countries and must
follow the rules and regulations laid by
the UGC/AICTE.
There are about 150 foreign institutions
working in India.

Source: Association of Indian Universities. 2003.

127

Table 8: Share of Household Expenditures on Higher Education in India

Other expenses
6%
Private Coaching
10%

Tuition andother fees
41%

Transport
12%

Uniform
4%

Stationery
11%
Books
16%

Source: NSSO (1998). p. A117.

128

Table 9: Discipline-wise Enrolment of Students

Medicine
Commerice
Arts
OthersScience
Law
Veterinary Sciences

18%

1%
3%

46%

1%

20%

0.85%
3%

7%

0.15%

Subject-wise enrolments 2004-2005

Education
Agriculture
Engineering

Source: University Grants Commission. 2006.

Table 10: Comparison between Public and Private Medical and Engineering Colleges(In terms of Management)

State
Andhra Pradesh

Chattisgarh
Delhi
GujaratHaryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
Karnataka
KeralaMedicalColleges
Government Private
14
14
2
0
5
0
8
4
1
2
2
0
0
2
4
22
7
8

%
Private
50.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
66.6
0.0
100.0
84.6
53.3

129

Engineering
Colleges
Government
Private
10
213
2
9
7
7
9
16
7
29
2
3
4
2
13
99
31
51

% Private
95.5
81.8
50.0
64.0
80.5
60.0
33.3
88.4
62.2

Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
OrissaPunjab
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Uttaranchal
West Bengal

5
19
3
3
12
10
0
7

1
18
0
3
7
2
2
0

16.7
48.6
0.0
50.0
36.8
16.7
100.0
0.0

6
16
6
11
16
25
5
15

47
133
38
27
234
58
4
37

88.7
89.3
86.4
71.0
93.6
69.9
44.4
71.2

Source: Gupta, Asha. 2005.‘International Trends in Private Higher Education and the Indian
Scenario’. CSHE Occasional Paper Series. University of California, Berkeley.

Table 11: Status of Assessment and Accreditation Carried Out by the NAAC

NAAC Accreditation Status (June 2005)
100%
80%
Percentage 60%(by type)
40%

PrivateColleges

PublicColleges

PrivateUniversities

PublicUniversities

0%

Overall

20%Type of Institutions
Accredited by NAAC
Source: www.naac-india.com

130

Not accredited by NAAC

Table 12: Growth of Students Loan in India

600000500000400000300000200000100000
0

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

AmountOutstanding

Number of
Accounts

Growth of Education Loan Portfolio in India

1996 1997 1998 2003 2004 2005 2005
June
Year
Number of Accounts

Amount outstanding

Source: Agarwal, Pawan. 2006. ‘Higher Education in India: The Need for Change’.
ICIER Working Paper No. 179.New Delhi. p.29.
Table 13: Judicialization of Higher Education in India
Of late we find the Supreme Court of India playing a proactive role in matterspertaining to higher education. It seems to be a fall out of judicialization of politics
in general. Judicialization implies a process whereby the judiciary indulges into
administrative supervision. It also implies the proactive role played by the
judiciary in social engineering by laying the foundations for the desirable behavior
by the public institutions and the masses alike.
The judiciary is supposed to be in a better position to resolve the contentious issues
in pluralistic and modern complex societies as the judges appear to be apolitical,
neutral and fair to the vast majorities. Moreover, they can give equal attention to
all the aggrieved parties and take a non-partisan and long-term perspective, a featthat cannot be performed by the other two organs. The judges not only adjudicate
between the two litigants in whom the ‘better boxer’ wins the game but also takeside with the ‘just party’. They can do so because they are capable of independent
decisions and autonomous actions whereas the executive and the legislative131branches are found to be too fragmented to do so.
The shift towards judicialization reflects not only the hostility towards partisan
politics and interest groups lobbying but also some hope for logical and rational
solutions. The judicial intervention in the case of the IIM fee cut controversy andreservation in private higher education institutions points to the same. In fact,
private higher education institutions need a separate body for assessment andaccreditation purposes rather than the NAAC or other multiple regulatory bodies.

Source: Gupta, Asha. 2005. ‘Judicialization of Education: The Fee Cut Controversy
in India’.
International Higher Education: 38. Winter.

132

Table 14: Constitutional provisions governing education in India
Article 15(4) inserted after 93rd Amendment. Nothing in this article or in clause 2 0r
article 29 shall prevent the state from making any special provision for theadvancement of any society and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Article 19 (1) (g). All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or tocarry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 19 (6). Nothing in sub-clause (g)... prevents the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on theexercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
Article 26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have the right (a) to establish andmaintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
Article 29 (2). No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
Article 30 (1). All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have theright to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Source: Constitution of India, 1952. New Delhi: Government of India publication.
Table 15: Web of Regulatory Bodies in India
Statutory Bodies/
Associations

University Grants
Commission (UGC)
Established under the UGC
Act of 1956 www.ugc.ac.in

Obligatory
functions

Co-ordination anddetermination ofstandards in all
higher education
and research
institutions

133

Other importantfunctionsDisbursement ofgrants touniversities andcolleges. Fixationof pay scales,
fixation ofminimum
qualifications,assessment
accreditation
through NAAC.

Overlapping offunctions/duties

Some of thefunctions overlap
with AICTE,
DEC, MCI, DCI,
NCTE, BCI,
ICAR, Ministry of
Health, Ministryof HRD, StateCouncils, etc.

Distant Education Council(DEC) established under
section 25 of the IGNOU Act
of 1985 by the Ministry of
HRD www.ignou.ac.in/dec

Responsible forpromotion,
coordination anddetermination ofstandards of the
programmes
provided by open
learning centers inIndia.

Releases grants toopen learning
centers andcorrespondence
course institutes.
There are 11
centers of open
learning in India.
IGNOU enjoys
credibility evenabroad.

DEC has its own
assessment andaccreditation
system. It runs
programmes on
air and television
through Gyan
Bharti. Shares
functions withUGC.

All India Council for
Technical Education(AICTE) established in 1987
by the MHRD
www.aicte.ernet.in

Responsible forenvisaging
planning
coordination anddevelopment oftechnical
education.

Medical Council of India(MCI) established under the
MCI Act in 1953 Ministry of
Health.
www.mciindia.org

Recognizes
medicalinstitutions andprovidesrecognition to
medicalpractitioners.
Determines
eligibility criteria
for admission.
It regulates theprofession andpractice ofpharmacy inIndia.

Approves degrees
and diploma
programmes inarchitecture,pharmacy
engineering andhotelmanagement.
It is responsible
for recognizing
foreignqualifications forpractice in India.
It defines medical
standards in
India.

It has a
programme ofaccreditation
through NBA. It
shares some of the
responsibilities
with UGC, DEC,
CIA, etc.
Sharesresponsibilities
with UGC, DEC
to a limited
extent, State
Medical Councils
and State
Governments.

Responsible forapproval &registration ofpharmacies.
Prescribes
curricula andpractical training.
Accepts
qualifications
awarded byvarious
universities insideand outside India.
Recommends toShares regulatoryrole with the
AICTE and State
Pharmacy
Councils.

Pharmacy Council of India(PCI) established under the
Pharmacy Act, 1948
Ministry of Health.
www.pci.nic.in
Indian Nursing Council(INC) established in 1947.
Ministry of Healthwww.mohfw.nic.in/inc
Dental Council of India

Responsible forsetting uniform
standards fortraining fornurses. Collects
data on them.
Mainly134

Sharesresponsibilities
with State
Nursing Councils
having registering
powers.
It works under(DCI) established in
1948.Ministry of health.
www.dciindia.org
Central Council ofHomeopathy (CCH)
established in 1973. Ministryof Health.
www.cchindia.org
Central Council of Indian
Medicine (CCIM)
established in 1970, Ministryof Healthwww.ccimindia.org

Rehabilitation Council of
India (RCI) established in
1992, Ministry of Social
Justicewww.rehabcouncil.nic.in

National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE)
established in 1993.
www.ncte-in.org

Indian Council for
Agricultural Research(ICAR).It is not a statutory
body. Ministry ofAgriculture.
www.icar.org.in

responsible forregulating dental
education andprofession in
dentistry.
Prescribes andrecognizes
qualifications inhomeopathy.
Prescribes
curricula, code of
ethics, etc.
Prescribes
minimum
standards ofeducation inIndian systems of
medicine, namely,
Ayurveda, Unani,etc.

centralgovernment toallow permission
to start a dental
college/courses.
Maintains central
register ofhomeopaths. Lays
down terms andconditions forrecognition.

the Ministry of
Health. It is
responsible forlaying down the
curricula.
Works incollaboration withstate councils.

Prescribes
curricula, courses,
standards,
professional
conduct, etiquette,
code of ethics forpractitioners.

Works incollaboration withstate councils.

Responsible forstandardization
and regulation of
the training to thepersonnel andprofessionals
engaged in thefield ofrehabilitation andspecial needs.
Responsible forplanning andcoordinatingteacher educationin India andlaying downnorms andstandards.
It coordinates
agriculturalresearch andeducation. Also
accredits
agricultural
universities andResponsible forregistration of theprofessionals,
assessment andaccreditation,
promotion,
recognition of
institutions forphysiotherapy.

Works under the
Ministry of Healthand state councils.

Recognizes
teacher education
institutions within
India.

Sharesresponsibilities
with the UGC andDEC.

It provides funds
to agricultural
education andresearch
institutions at thecenter and statelevel and also to

It shares
responsibilities
with UGC.

135

holds common
admission test.
Lays down
standards ofprofessional
conduct and legal
education.

deemed to beuniversities.
Bar Council of India (BCI)
Maintains the list It sharesestablished under theof members of the responsibilities
Advocates Act of 1962,
bar and foreign
with the Bar
Ministry of Law.
universities whose Councils at the
www.barcouncilofindia.nic.in
qualification arestate level.
valid in India.
Professional Associations for Chartered Accountants/Company Secretaries
Institute of Chartered
Regulates the
It is responsible
It works underAccountants of India (ICAI)
profession offor conducting the the Ministry of
established in 1949,Ministry charteredexams for theCompany Affairs.
of Company Affairs.
accountants in
Charteredwww.icai.org
India. Conducts
Accountants. The
professional
final exam iscourses &considered
coordinates
equivalent topractical training. master’s degree
provided thebachelor’s degree
is obtained before.
Institute of Company
Regulates the
It is responsible
It works under
Secretaries of India (ICSI)
profession offor conducting the the Ministry of
established in 1980, Ministry company
exams for theCompany Affairs.
of Company Affairs.
secretaries in
CharteredIndia. Conducts
Accountants. The
professional
final exam iscourses &considered
coordinates
equivalent topractical training. master’s degree
provided thebachelor’s degree
is obtained before.

Source: Based upon Gupta, Asha. 2006. Looking Beyond Universities: Higher
Education in the 21st Century (forthcoming).

136

Table 16: General perception about private higher education in India
Hypothesis under survey:(1) Private HEIs have a better quality image than Public HEIs.
(2) Employment opportunities are better after graduating from Private HEIs than Public HEIs.
(3) Private HEIs generally have inadequate infrastructure and part-time faculty.
(4) Tuition fees and other expenses are higher at Private HEIs than those at Public HEIs.
(5) There is greater academic freedom in Private HEIs than in Public HEIs.
(6) Private HEIs are more accountable to their stakeholders than Public HEIs.
Findings of a survey dealing with 4000 respondents in 11 Indian cities, Dec. 2005-Jan. 2006
Survey Finding

Implication

Students view private higher
education as a gateway to employment

Research/course curriculum issues would not be amongst
the priorities of the Private HEIs, as demand for
employment-specific courses takes precedence and facultyis limited. Students in Private HEIs are not looking for‘schools of excellence’ but they are looking for ‘schools of
relevance.

hence

Students and parents are willing to
pay the higher fees for the private
higher education
Recruiters prefer the Private HEIs on
account of their relatively better skills
training

They do not perceive any other major differentiation
between the Public and Private HEIs. They rely on
government monitoring of admissions, curricula
designing, fee structure and accreditation.

andA large number of students and theirfamilies now seek more information
about Private HEIs. They are looking
for quick jobs and ‘value for money’

andFaculty in Private HEIs are required
to focus on industry-specific content
and pedagogy requirements

withPrivate stakeholders are concerned
about the prevailing ambivalence andconfusion due to contradictory stands
taken by the government and judiciary

They seek regulation and accreditation to ensure fairness
and transparency.

but

Therefore, all aspects related to branding, transparency
and accountability have become vital and critical.
Little or no concern on academic research and rigor.

therefore

We find lower commitment from private and foreign
stakeholders than their true potential. Hence we findlower incentives to wards private initiatives and fundingin higher education in India.

Source: Based upon FICCI Survey on Understanding of Private Higher Education in India: A
Stakeholders

Perspective.

2006.

March.

_Survey_on_Education.doc.

137

www.ficci.com/press/060318-

138

Chapter 7
The Academic Profession in East Asian Private Higher Education
Terri Kim

The paper considers the internationalisation of the academic profession in East Asian
private higher education. There will be a special emphasis on the case of South Korea.
Private higher education has a strong tradition in East Asia but it is diverse in termsof its origins, scale and size, prestige, reputation, and quality. The shape of theacademic profession thus needs to be understood in these national contexts of diversity.
The origins and early development of private higher education in East Asia are
entwined with the history of internationalisation of higher education and international
political relations.
The paper will first offer a comparative overview of the origins and early developmentof private higher education in East Asia since the late nineteenth century. It will thenshift attention to the case of Korea to discuss some of the distinctive features of Korean
private higher education and the current policy and practice of internationalisation.
The paper argues that the strikingly similar internationalisation strategies
undertaken by the major private universities in Korea point to the “newinstitutionalism” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; 1991; Levy, 2004) which is growing in the
Korean private higher education sector. In conclusion, the paper will discuss some of
the key challenges that old private universities in Korea are facing now.

The relations of private higher education and internationalisation in East Asia
The early development of private higher education in East Asia was closely entwinedwith Western Christian missionary activities in the region, and the rise of national
aspirations for modernisation.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, private higher educational

139

institutions were established by Western missionaries working in East Asia. For
instance, in mainland China in the 1920s and 1930s, there were thirteen Protestantand three Catholic colleges and universities in China with over a thousand faculty
members and six thousand students (Ng, 2002, pp.2-7). However, many of these
private institutions underwent significant change during the first half of the twentiethcentury – the period which saw the decline of the Western imperial powers in East
Asia by the end of World War II. With political independence, private higher
educational institutions in East Asia were upgraded to University status, renamed, oreven nationalised. For example, in mainland China, all private universities were madepublic after 1949. However, there was a new expansion of private universities in China
again from the 1980s onwards.
The discontinuity of the early form of internationalisation through Western Christianprivate higher education is noteworthy in China. For instance, St. John’s University(圣约翰大學) in Shanghai was founded by the Bishop of Shanghai, Samuel
Scherschewsky in 1879. It was the first institution to grant bachelor’s degrees in
China starting in 1907. Before the Chinese Civil War, it was one of the mostprestigious universities in China. It had the Faculty of Science and Natural Philosophy,
and the courses were taught in English. However, in 1952 the Communist government
adopted a policy of creating polytechnic/technical universities, following the Soviet
model of higher education. Under this policy, St Johns was split apart. Most of its
faculties were incorporated into East China Normal University and Fudan University;and the Medical School was incorporated into Shanghai Second Medical University,
which has become the School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University (Harnett,
1998, pp. 7-40; pp. 171-180; Hayhoe, 1996, pp. 49-50; pp. 80-81).
Another example is Yenching (燕京) University which was private and one of the top
universities in China before the Civil War. In 1919, Yenching University integrated
three existing Christian universities in Beijing. Theology, Law and Medical were themain Schools of the university, with Arts and Science studies. In 1928 Yenching
University and Harvard University founded Harvard-Yenching Institute for theeducation of humanities and social sciences in East Asia and Southeast Asia. After the
People's Republic of China was established in 1949, Yenching University was merged
into Peking University to become the major state university in China (Harnett, 1998,
pp. 171-223; Hayhoe, 1996, pp. 43-50; 78-80).

140

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was through Christian private
institutions that higher education became formally available for women for the firsttime in China, as well as in other East Asian countries. For example, Ginling Women's
University (金陵女子大學) founded in Nanjing, was a Christian university granting
bachelor's degrees to female students for the first time in China. In 1951, Ginling
Women’s University was merged with the University of Nanking (金陵大学) - a famous
Christian private university founded in 1888; and subsequently, Nanjing Normal
University was founded on the campus of Ginling Women's University in 1952.
University of Nanking was merged with Nanjing University (南京大学) (Harnett, 1998,

op. cit.; Hayhoe, 1996, pp. 80-84).
In Japan, on the other hand - unlike China and Korea - many of the elite private
higher education institutions, for instance, Keio, Doshisha and Waseda universities,
were founded mainly by the innovative national leaders of the nineteenth century, i.e.,
the Japanese samurai elites who had experienced the Western education system.1
In the early period of the Meiji reformation, however, American and European
academics were appointed to the professorial posts at major Japanese universities 1

Keio University started as the first private institution of higher learning in Japan, whichdates back to the formation of a school for Dutch studies in 1858 in Tokyo. The founder ofKeio, Fukuzawa Yukichi had studied at Brown University in the United States. Keio
University expanded and established its first university faculty in 1890, and became aflagship private university in Japanese higher education.
Another example is Doshisha University which was founded by an ex-samurai named
Niijima Jou (Joseph Hardy Neeshima). He was inspired by the Anglo-American ideas of auniversity after studying Phillips Academy, Amherst College, and Andover TheologicalSeminary. After he returned to Japan in 1875, he founded Doshisha English School (同志社英學校, Dōshisha eigakkō) in Kyoto, which eventually incorporated a law school,normal school, and women's college. By 1920, Doshisha became a full-fledged university
in the Anglo-American tradition.
Waseda University was founded in 1882, also by a samurai scholar politician, Okuma
Shigenobu, who also served as a former Prime Minister during the Meiji era. Waseda
acquired a full university status in 1902.
(For details, see Cummings, 1973; Ninomiya, 1977; Okada, 2005)

141

even at Tokyo Imperial University until the early 1890s. The open policy of foreign
academic staffing ceased, with the strong emphasis on Japanese nationalism at theturn of the century. Tetsujiro Inoue, the first holder of the new German-styleprofessorial chair in Philosophy at Tokyo Imperial University from 1890 affirms thesituation:
We had many foreigners as teachers at Tokyo University in the earlyyears of Meiji, in order to make up the deficiency in Japanese
professors. In principle, however, professors at Japanese universities
should all be Japanese. Accordingly, we managed to dismiss theforeign instructors relatively quickly from the Faculties of Medicine,Law, and Science so that there was not one of them left. That was thepolicy throughout the university… The Japanese university is a place
where Japanese perform the professorial tasks – it is very different
from a colonial university. (Excerpted from Tetsujiro Inoue, 1943,

Kaikyuroku (Reminiscences); translated by Hall; Re-quoted from Hall,
1998, p. 102).
In the early modernisation period, a number of private universities in Japan were also
founded by Western Christian missionaries, who took an active role in expanding
educational opportunities for women. After 1919 several of the private universities
received official status, for instance Kobe College.2
As in Japan, the early private higher education tradition of the nineteenth and earlytwentieth century has also survived in Korea, where private higher educational
institutions were able to develop into major research universities in the country. They
have led the expansion and development of Korean higher education.

The Korean pattern of private higher education development

2

Kobe College was founded by two American female missionaries in 1875, which started
as Kobe Girls’ School for the education of young women in Kobe. It was renamed as Kobe
College in 1894 to serve as a private higher education institution. In 1948, with thegovernmental reform of the educational system, Kobe College became the first women's
college in western Japan (http://www.kobe-c.ac.jp/ekc/3set.htm).

142

The Korean pattern of private higher education development shows some distinctive
features, which differentiate its position from neighbouring countries in East Asia.
First of all, the Korean government has kept strict and direct regulation over private
higher education. The pattern of governmental regulation of all aspects of both public
and private higher education in Korea is a continuity of the Japanese model since thecolonial period. In the case of Japan, however, this governmental intervention could,
from 1970 on, be justified by the government subsidies to private education - up to 30%of their total income in the mid-1980s (Currie, 2002; Yonezawa and Baba, 1998: 146).
On the other hand, in Korea, Government’s subsidies for private HEIs started only inthe 1990s. Although the amount of government funding has increased since then, it
covers on average less than 3% of the income of private universities (which is still low
compared with the contemporary Japanese figure of 10%). Most higher education
funding (around 80%) in Korea comes from private sources. Public financial
expenditures on higher education as a percentage of GDP are very low at 0.3% in
Korea, compared to the OECD mean of 1.1%. The proportion of government subsidies
against the total revenue of universities was 22.7%, much lower than the OECDaverage (78.1%); the USA (45.1%); and Japan (41.5%) (MOE statistics published on 11
May 2006, and reported in the University News Network, 12 May 2006).
Overall, the Korean government has been a regulator rather than a purveyor of higher
education. In other words, contractual relations of the Government and the University- based on the principle of public funding allocation - have developed late in Korea. It
may also be suggested that the Korean government has regulated the domestic higher
education market with egalitarian and meritocratic principles to ensure equity andaccess in higher education. Perhaps the relatively low level of international
competitiveness of the Korean universities in general can, in part, be attributed to theover-emphasis on equity and access during the period of rapid expansion of higher
education.
Second, the expansion of Korean higher education has been led by the private sector,
which has resulted in universal access to higher education in a relatively short periodof time. In Korea in 2005, 97% of 18-year-olds graduated from high school, and 82.1%of the age cohort went on to higher education institutions (KEDI, 2005). In terms ofthe number of institutions and student enrolments, private higher education accounts

143for almost 80% of the Korean higher education sector, which is higher than theJapanese case (about 76-77%).3 Despite the large private higher education market,
however, there is a lack of strategic diversification among four-year universities in
Korea. The proportion of four-year general universities producing postgraduate
degrees in Korea is about 75 %, which is higher than in the US (61%) and Japan(48.5%) (Ryu, 2006, p. 26).
Third, what makes Korean private higher education even more distinctive is that
unlike Japan or China, the status of private universities in Korea is not necessarily
lower than public institutions in general. Unlike Japan4 and China, public higher
education institutions in Korea – apart from Seoul National University - have notenjoyed elite status. National and public universities are not superior to the major
private higher education institutions in Korea. Among the top-tier universities, theKorean version of the ‘golden triangle’ is the so-called “SKY” universities. The acronym
stands for Seoul National, Korea and Yonsei Universities. Both Yonsei and Korea
universities were established as private institutions in 1885 and 1905 respectively, andhave been the apex private higher educational institutions in Korea.
According to the University League Table based on a comprehensive evaluation
conducted and published by Joongang Ilbo for the last twelve years, an average ofeight out of the top ten universities have been private institutions in Korea.
Table 1: University League Table 2005
Ranking

University

3

Japan has 709 four-year higher education institutions (87 national, 80 local public, and542 private institutions). The total number of undergraduate enrolments is 2,809,295, while
the student share of private institutions is 77% (MEXT, 2004; Re-quoted from Akabayashi
and Naoi, 2005).
4

In terms of quality of education and research, the social and academic reputation ofprivate universities in Japan is generally lower than that of national institutions. According
to the Asahi Ranking, only one private university – Keio - was listed in the top 30
universities in Japan (Currie, 2002). According to the world-wide university ranking
published by Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2004), five Japanese national universities
were included among the world top 100, whereas only one Japanese private university wasamong the world top 200-300 (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm).

144

1

POSTECH(private, specialising in Science and Technology)

2

KAIST
(national, specialising in Science and Technology)3

SNU (national, general)

4

YONSEI (private, general)

5

KOREA (private, general)

6Sung Kyun Kwan (private, general)

7

Hanyang (private, general)8

Seogang (private, general)

9

Ewha (private, general)

10

Kyunghee (private, general)

Source: Joongang Ilbo, 4 October 2005
(http://article.joins.com/article/article.asp?ctg=12&total_id=1693753)
In terms of research funding, the gap between elite and low quality private
institutions in Korea is also significant, whilst competition among the major research
universities in Korea (regardless of the public-private sectors division) has increased.
As shown in Table 2, among the top ten research universities ranked by the amount ofresearch funding allocation in 2005, six universities were private.
Table 2: University Ranking by the amount of Research Funding allocation
Ranking

University

Previous Years’ Ranking

2005

2004

2003

1

Seoul National

1

1

2

Yonsei (private)

2

2

3

KAIST

3

3

4

Hanyang (private)

4

6

5

Sung Kyun Kwan (private)

5

4

6

Korea (private)

7

5

7

Chonnam National

15

11

8

POSTECH (private)

6

7

9

Kyungpook National

8

5

10

Inha (private)

9

9

145

Source: University News Network (http://www.unn.net/gisa/gisa_read.asp?key=36724)
The following section will examine more closely the origins and development of Korean
private higher education and explain why and how private higher educational
institutions have played a leading role in the development and internationalisation ofhigher education in Korea.

Private Higher Education and the internationalisation of the academic profession
University history in Korea is not long - less than 130 years. The ideas about a‘modern university’in Korea were a mixture of the Anglo-American ideas and theJapanese colonial state’s imported version of a Prussian model of the University (Kim,
2001).
The Anglo-American liberal model of higher education developed early in the form ofprivate institutions such as Yonsei and Ewha, which were established by American
missionaries in 1885 and 1886. When the country fell under Japanese colonial
domination, Korean nationalism was nurtured within the private higher educational
institutions newly established by the Korean national leaders as well as the Westernmissionaries.
However, these private higher educational institutions were directly subject to theJapanese colonial government’s rules and regulations. There was no buffer space tosafeguard the autonomy of private higher educational institutions - given the colonial
government’s legal framework (Kim, 2001). The Japanese State’s imported version of a
Prussian (German) university model also developed as an Imperial University in
Korea as well as in Japan during the colonial period. The raison d'etre of public higher
education was thus subordinated to the Japanese colonial purpose.
During the colonial period, the national and public higher educational institutions
established by the Japanese colonial state in Korea provided an indirect channel toWestern knowledge for Koreans.5 For instance, the Japanese colonial government
5

The Imperial University in Korea was established in 1926 with the same principles,forming an elite group for the systemic development of Korea and stressing Japanese146selected able Korean students to study in Japan and not in Western countries(whereas Japanese students and scholars were sent to the Western world to absorb
directly the knowledge needed for modernisation).
In Korea, it was the private higher education sector that opened a direct path toWestern knowledge for Koreans (Kim, 2001, pp. 64-72; pp. 85-89). In that sense it canbe suggested that, historically, the internationalisation of higher education in Korea
has been led by private universities.
During the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945), the embryonic Korean academic
profession was being shaped by the Japanese colonial State’s control over the
meritocratic principle in education, which was fundamentally defined by ‘nationality’(Kim, 2001). For instance, the professorships in Kyung Sung Imperial University wereopen only to Japanese. Accordingly, the private sector of higher education was thealternative favoured by the Korean academic candidates for a professional career. The
US model of higher education in the private sector was the major academic route open
for a national (and nationalistic) Korean elite to enter the academic profession (Kim,
2001; Joung, 2002).
In academe, there were different channels for absorbing Western knowledge andculture in the Japanese imperial university, and in the nationalist private institutionsof higher education (Kim, 2001). Overall, the dual history of Korean higher education
originated from the Japanese colonial education system. The first generation of theuniversity academic profession in the public sector was mainly Japanese, whereas in
the private sector the academic profession was dominated by the foreign educated –including Western expatriates as well as Korean nationals.
After political independence in 1945, Korean higher education came under direct
American influence. There were structural reforms in the higher education sector

culture and obligations to the Japanese state. As indicated, Kyung Sung Imperial University
catered mainly for the Japanese residents in Korea, and only a third of the highly selectedstudents were from a Korean background. When Kyung Sung Imperial University wasestablished, 220 Japanese and 89 Koreans were enrolled (Jung, S.E.(2002) Kyung Sung JeKook Dae-Hack Yeonkoo [A Study of Kyung Sung Imperial University], Seoul: Muneum-sa,
p. 96).

147

immediately after 1945, as a result of deliberate efforts to eradicate the Japanesecolonial legacy. Kyung Sung Imperial University was renamed as Seoul National
University in 1946. More precisely, Seoul National University was a reorganisationand integration of the former Kyung Sung Imperial University and nine professional
schools formerly sponsored by the Japanese colonial government. Some of the leading
Korean academics who had been teaching in the leading private higher educational
institutions such as Yonsei, Korea (called Bosung then), and Ewha were recruited toSeoul National University to fill the vacancies left by the departure of Japanese
academics after political independence. The three private higher educational
institutions were also upgraded to the status of University in the same year.
By the time of the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948, there were four
universities (i.e. Seoul National, Yonsei, Korea and Ewha), 23 independent colleges (3national, 4 public and 16 private), 4 junior colleges (all private) and 11 miscellaneous
schools of collegiate standing, with a total enrolment of 1,265 faculty members and24,000 students (Kim, 2001, p. 152). Since then, the expansion of Korean higher
education has been remarkable. As of 2005, there are a total of 411 higher education
institutions, which include 171 general universities (145 of which are private) and 158
junior colleges (143 of which are private), with an enrolment of 62,631 faculty
members and 3,278,197 students in Korea (KCUE, 2005).
Despite the strong American influence on the development of a new Korean higher
education system after political independence from Japan, the style of government
regulation of private higher education has remained fundamentally the same,reflecting the Japanese colonial legacy. In other words, the pattern of GovernmentUniversity relations survived even after political independence and still continue, eventhough there has been, continuously and consciously, a deliberate effort to eradicate
the Japanese colonial legacy in Korean education by adopting an American model.
The Korean academic profession has also reflected this trend. On the surface, theacademic profession has been also shaped under American influence. According to the
Korean Council for University Education (KCUE), the proportion of doctorates in theuniversity academic profession in Korea is 82.9% and about 40% of them gained PhDs
overseas (KCUE, 2000). More than two thirds of the PhDs were obtained in the USA.
In the case of Pohang University of Science and Technology – a new flagship private

148higher education institution in the fields of Science and Technology - 93.3% of theacademic staff took PhDs in the USA, and in the case of Yonsei University, theproportion of American doctorates is 81% and in Seogang and Ewha Women’s
University, it is estimated at 81.3% and 80.2% respectively (Joongang Ilbo, 2002,
November 15). Among newly appointed university academics in Korea in 1999, thepercentage of those with overseas PhDs was estimated at 52.2%; and the proportion ofAmerican PhDs in the group was 70.5% (KCUE, 2000).
However, the old colonial legacy of Japanese modernisation strategy, often identified
with the slogan ‘Eastern spirit, Western science (東道西器論)’, has survived in the
Korean academic profession. In fact, a foreign higher degree itself is not the mostimportant element in Korean academic recruitment. Arguably, academic bonding(hack-yeon in Korean) has been regarded as more crucial for successful academic
employment and career development in Korea. The academic power networks havebeen most evident in the proportion of alumni faculty members at major universities:
for instance, in 2002, the proportion was 95.5% at Seoul National University, 80% at
Yonsei University, 68% at Korea University, and 60% was the national average. In
comparison, at Harvard and Stanford, the proportion of alumni among the faculty
members was only 12% and 1% respectively (KBS 1TV Report, 10 June 2006).
In summary, it can be suggested that professional relations are also personal in Korea
and are based on highly exclusive academic networking and the prestige of an early
Korean academic background of high status, which can be further strengthened byforeign academic qualifications – normally from American institutions (Kim, 2001, pp.
177-183).
The strong desire of ordinary Korean people to enter elite educational routes in Korea
and then to receive advanced degrees from major universities overseas (especiallyfrom the USA) has been further intensified as the national economy has continued todevelop. According to OECD, Korea has the second largest absolute number ofstudents (after China) studying abroad. The number of primary and secondary school
students in Seoul who have gone abroad to study was 7,001 between March 2005 andFebruary 2006, marking an increase of 15% (Source: Seoul Metropolitan Office of
Education; Reported in Dong-A Ilbo, 11 May 2006). The number of Korean students
who obtained US doctoral degrees between 1999-2003 also exceeds that of any other149

group of foreign nationals in the U.S.A. Among the foreign nationals who obtained US
doctoral degrees, the number of Seoul National University graduates were estimatedas 1,655, ranking 1st, and Yonsei University graduates 720, ranking 5th, and Korea
University graduates 445, ranking 8th (Hankyoreh Shinmun, 17 May 2006).
The financial implications are significant. According to the Korean International Trade
Association, Koreans studying abroad spent US$ 4.6 billion in 2002 on tuition fees andliving expenses, while foreigners studying in Korea spent only US$ 20 million (Requoted from the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, Breaking news article,
27 August 2004: www.obhe.ac.uk).
All in all, the current pattern of educational migration in Korea points to the fact that
there is strong public demand for internationalised higher education at all levels in
Korea. Given this and the ongoing pressure from the WTO/GATS, the Korean
government has removed restrictions for foreign institutions to provide educational
services directly in Korea. At the same time, major private universities are in severe
competition to increase international competitiveness.

The contemporary state of internationalisation of Korean private higher education
Given the government higher education policy of internationalisation framed byperceptions of economic globalisation, university academics in Korea are experiencing
structural and cultural changes. The vision of internationalisation was clear: toupgrade major Korean universities to the level of a global standard of excellence andsolidify South Korea’s reputation as one of the region’s “knowledge economies”.
The specified “global standard” in Korea, however, has relied upon the quantity ofinternational publications and the international ranking of research universities on
the basis of internationally published Scientific Citation Indices (SCI). Major Korean
newspapers report that the number of SCI-level publications by Korean academics
have increased from 3765 in 1998 to 7060 in 2004 (Dong-A Ilbo, 5 September 2006).
The Korean government also announced that the international ranking of the Korean
university academics - in terms of international publications recognised by the SCI has moved up from 17th in 1998 to 14th in 2001 (MOE, Republic of Korea, 2002).

150

Nevertheless, there have been growing concerns about the level of internationalisationachieved by Korean universities as the quantitative measurement is not sufficient toshow real quality based on the international impact of Korean academic research andpublications

byKoreanuniversity

academics.

The

level

of

international

competitiveness of Korean universities in general has not improved significantly as
indicated by the IMD World Competitiveness indicators (Dong-A Ilbo, 5 September2006).
In addition to the number of international publications in the SCI/SSCI ranked
journals, a newly emphasised criterion in Korea to measure internationalisation ofuniversities is the number of foreign students and staff.
The government has created a new fund to invite to Korea 431 distinguished foreignscholars in science and advanced fields of research, and to implant state-of-the-art
research and education (MOE, May 17, 2002). Thus, elite universities in South Korea
are now in competition to recruit foreign students and scholars, to conduct morelectures in English, and to establish an infrastructure for welcoming foreign students.
The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development has recently released
numbers that show the figures for foreign students and professors at Korean
universities have continued to rise. Since 2000, the number of international students
at Korean universities has risen nearly six-fold from 3,969 in the year 2000 to 22,624
for 2006. The numbers of foreign professors in Korea have also increased during thesame time period, doubling from 1,313 to 2,540. International students from China
account for 65 % of all enrolments, and students from Japan (3%) and Taiwan (3%) are
the second and third highest concentrations of students from any one country. The
vast majority (6,610) of foreign students studying in South Korea are concentrated in
the capital, Seoul (The Korea Times, 4 September 2006).
In response to the government’s international policy, the number of universities in
Korea having foreign academics as more than 10 % of the total academic staff
members has also increased from 9 in 2005 to 13 in 2006. Among such universities, thesuccess of some of the mid-ranking medium-sized specialist private higher education
institutions is impressive. For example, Pusan University of Foreign Studies has 25%of its academic staff positions filled with foreigners from 18 different countries; and151

Hansei University has 22.7% and Dongseo University has 22.2%. All three areinnovative and rather specialised private institutions that have gained a new prestige.
It is noteworthy that all of the three universities were established by Koreans with
Christian backgrounds. Christian values are strongly grounded in the mission
statements

of

these

universities

which

have

been

successful

in

both

internationalisation and specialisation.6

New elite private universities
There are new flagship private universities that were established in the regions
outside the Seoul metropolitan area, and have been recognised as successful inundertaking internationalisation strategies, with close links with industry and thecorporate sector, and diversification and specialisation in either teaching or
researching on selected areas.
For instance, POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology) is a researchled private higher educational institution established in Pohang city in the Southeast
region in 1987. As Korea’s premier research-centred private university specialising in
Natural Science and Advanced Technology) POSTECH has been ranked top in thenational university league table since 1996 - within less than ten years after its
establishment, and recently, 49th in the world university ranking (in terms ofcitation/faculty, according to The Times in 2005). The proportion of international
academic staff is currently 9% and that of courses taught in English is 25%(undergraduate) and 35% (postgraduate). Its 2020 vision is to be within the world top
twenty universities by the year 2020 (http://www.postech.ac.kr/vision2020/).
Another example is Handong Global University (HGU) which is an outstanding
teaching-led private higher educational institution established in 1995. With special
emphasis on Christian education for cultivation and global education, the mission
statement of HGU is to become a world changing global Christian university. Nearly6

For details, visit the website of each university:
http://eng.pufs.ac.kr/about/overview.aspx;
http://www.hansei.ac.kr/Hansei_English_Website/uProgram_Divisions.html;
http://www.dongseo.ac.kr/main_eng.html?Menu_Code=14-01.

152

100% of the academic staff members have their PhDs from major international
universities such as Harvard, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. Both English andChinese are required subjects of study for two years, and there are many courses
taught in English (http://www.handong.edu/n_english/sub_01-03.html). Among 138
full-time academic staff members, 25 are international professors who are native
speakers of English (http://www.handong.edu/n_handong/about/status_01.html) It
plans to recruit a total of 40 international academics within the next three years.

Old prestigious private four-year general universities
The international recruitment policy of foreign students and staff alike is also a highpriority among the flagship four-year general universities in Korea, which show strong
similarities in their internationalisation strategies. Among the universities leading thecontemporary trends of internationalisation in Korea, there are traditional prestigious
private universities – e.g. the Big 3 private universities: Yonsei, Korea, and Sung
Kyung Kwan.
As the oldest university in Korea, Yonsei University (延世 大學校) was first establishedin 1885. With its student body comprising the top 1 percent of high school graduates in
Korea, Yonsei University is proud of its long history as the leading institution of higher
education in Korea, as well as its reputation as the most international university in
Korea. Currently, there are approximately 3,500 foreign students from 69 different
countries enrolled at Yonsei. As the leading private university, Yonsei’s budget isestimated as approximately 10% of the combined budget of all private universities in
Korea.
Yonsei University was the first institution of higher education in Korea to introduce
English as a mandatory course in its undergraduate curriculum, to implement foreignexchange student programs, to establish a Graduate School of International Studies(GSIS), and to develop an International Division devoted exclusively to foreign
undergraduate and graduate students.
Yonsei University’s new Underwood International College (UIC) runs undergraduate
education programmes entirely in English for first-class international students
recruited from the Asian region and elsewhere. Yonsei’s new ‘Vision 2020’ strategy is153summarised as “in-bound internationalisation”, to create an international learning
environment on campus where students naturally acquire intercultural competence
while studying at Yonsei. UIC will make such a counter-balance of the out-boundinternationalisation trend which is very common in Korea. Accordingly, it has beenreported that more Korean higher school students studying abroad are returning to
Korea to enrol in international undergraduate programmes available at major Korean
universities – such as Yonsei Underwood International College (Dong-A Ilbo, 24
September 2005).
In terms of international academic staffing, Yonsei University Underwood
International College has recruited world-class scholars, such as the winner of the2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology professor Kurt
Wuethrich, Stanford University professor David Brady, Cornell University professor
Naoki Sakai, and the secretary-general of the OECD Donald Johnston (Joongang

Daily Newspaper, 10 June 2006; Dong-A Ilbo, 24 September 2005).
However, Yonsei University has somewhat taken an extreme measure in international
academic staffing policy for Underwood International College: that is, only foreign
nationals can apply for the full-time faculty positions at Underwood International
College, Yonsei University - as if those foreign passport holders would guarantee theinternational standard of UIC. Given the condition, no Korean nationals, however
excellent he or she may be as international scholars, would be eligible to apply for any
faculty position at Yonsei Underwood College, unless they had given up their Koreannationality. Overall, it looks like the international staffing policy at Yonsei Underwood
College would support a counter-discrimination practice against Korean nationality inthe name of ‘internationalisation’.
For the ordinary faculty positions at Yonsei University, a foremost essential selection
criterion now includes the number of international publication in the SCI/SSCI ranked
journals. However, there is another irony here. For instance, since Educational Studies,regardless of subject areas, are all categorised as a field of Social Sciences at Yonsei forthe purpose of academic staff recruitment and appraisal, those specialising in Arts andHumanities, e.g. Korean Philosophy of Education can be disadvantaged. However,such a conformist rule to use simple categorisation and metrics-based researchassessment

as

the

most

importantcriterion154

tomeasure

the

level

of

internationalisation and the academic excellency is quite common and widespread in
Korea universities nowadays.7
With the University's 120th anniversary last year (2005) as an impetus, Yonsei had
also proclaimed its “Global 5-5-10 Project”, through which the University wishes toadvance into the global top 10 in at least five research fields within 5 years. By
investing intensively in medical science as well as life science and engineering fields,
Yonsei University is determined to boost the number of SCI (Scientific Journal
Citation Index) registrations from the current 132nd rank to be within the top 50
within five years (Korea IT Times, 1 April 2006). Yonsei University has also announced
that it will open a new campus for residential college life by 2010 in the government’splanned ubiquitous city, New Songdo which will be a free-enterprise zone where
English will be the lingua franca (The New York Times, 5 October 2005).
Along with the internationalisation policy and practice, English is increasingly used asa medium of instruction in higher education in Korea - for example, over 30% of degree
courses at Korea University are now conducted in English.
Korea University (高麗大學校) was founded as Bosung College in 1905; and re-named
as Korea University in 1946 after Independence, and has developed as one of the best
private universities in Korea. With the “Global KU project” (initiated by the President
Euh, Yoon-dae in 2003), Korea University aims to become world’s top 100 schools by
2010. Korea University ambitiously plans to conduct 60% of its courses cross all
disciplines in English by 2010. All new faculty are required to lecture in English, and7

For instance, one of the essential criteria for academic staffing at Seoul National
University is that candidates for a faculty position need to have two journal articles
published in the past year to be considered for employment. For example, those who are
publishing books rather than journal articles would be disadvantaged. Similarly, a
candidate who might have made a major contribution to his/her field three years earlier
might not be considered. This problem was also indicated by the international panel on
Educational Excellence organized by the South Korean government in 2001. This wascomposed of invited prominent international university academic managers mostly fromthe USA and the UK: Under the new government’s guidelines for academic staffing,scholars like “Daniel McFadden, a Nobel laureate in economics who had one article inprint when he was granted tenure three years after arriving at Berkeley, would not be
eligible to teach at SNU.” (SNU, 2001: 22).

155

over 50 new faculty positions have been allocated for foreign faculty. All students are
required to pass English proficiency exams in order to graduate. The total number offoreign students at KU also increased dramatically from 1,375 in 2002 to 3,432 in 2005.
More recently Korea University has signed a collaborative agreement with NUS and
Fudan University to establish the "S3 University Alliance" (S3UA). S3 stands for
Shanghai, Seoul and Singapore. The new alliance marks the beginning of a thriving
partnership between the three leading Asian universities. Research and education
programmes initiated under S3UA will be globally oriented, with a significant focus on
Asia. The three universities will strategically develop joint-programmes focusing on
Asian MBA at Korea University, bio science and technology at Fudan University andAsian financial markets at NUS. Expected to be launched within a year, these joint
programmes aim to be the best in Asia within five years, and among the world's top
five in 10 years. (http://newshub.nus.edu.sg/headlines/0605/s3_19may06.htm)

Sung Kyun Kwan, originally the old Confucian university established in 1398,
reincorporated as a modern university in 1946. In the 2003 University League Table,
SKK University became one of the ‘Big 3’ private HEIs in Korea. It also devised“Vision2010+” as strategic development plans aiming to enter the Asian top 10, andthe world ranking top 100 by 2010.
As a part of internationalisation strategies, the SKK-GSB (Sung Kyun Kwan
Graduate School of Business established in 2004) has recruited an American Dean,
Professor Robert Klemkosky, and its curriculum has been patterned after the MIT
Sloan School of Management and other top-ranked US MBA programmes to educate
the Asian leaders for the 21st century global economy. The university researchdevelopment strategies also have a special focus on Chinese studies and Legal studies.
Conglomerate sponsorship was essential in realising the Sung Kyun Kwan vision
2020: e.g. Samsung Digital School on campus provides specially designed elite
education in the field of Nano technology for the 200 students recruited annually, all ofwhom are under full scholarships and given free accommodation. All courses aretaught in English.
Overall, there are similarities in the vision of internationalisation and their strategies among these major private universities.

156

Conclusion
The development of Korean higher education has been led by private sector initiatives
and by private finance, and the role of Government in higher education has been as aregulator, coordinator, assessor and chastiser simultaneously. Many of these private
universities, those successful in internationalisation in particular, often have a
Christian motif in their history and current mission statements. This is not just a
coincidence. In the development of Korean private higher education, American
influence has been strong, which can be traced in both the Christian values of thesuccessful private institutions and the internationalisation of academic staffing in
Korea.
On the policy level, Korea seems to follow, again, the Japanese path ofinternationalisation - with a specific target number of international students and staff
to recruit.
In Japan such internationalisation strategies were included in the 1983 Nakasone
Plan, which set the goal of increasing the number of international students in Japan
from about 10,000 to 100,000 by the beginning of the 21st century (Tsuruda, 2003).
Similarly, the Korean government announced in March 2005 new plans to increase thenumber of international students studying in South Korea from 17,000 to 50,000 overthe next five years. The so-called ‘Study Korea’ project is designed to establish South
Korea as an educational hub in Asia. (In 2006, about 85% of foreign students studyingin Korea are from Asian countries). The Korean government is also planning toincrease the number of scholarships for foreign students by 25 % next year, and toestablish off-shore high schools and cultural centres in Vietnam, China, thePhilippines, and other Asian countries. The government is also encouraging South
Korean corporations to provide internships and guaranteed employment to foreign
students after they graduate (OBHE, Breaking News Article: 16 September
2005: http://www.obhe.ac.uk/cgi-bin/news/article.pl?id=407&mode=month).
The Korean government also set a target to increase the number of foreign students
and foreign academic staff to 17% in the public sector of higher education, and 30% in
all higher education. It was announced that 103 new foreign academics would be paid
up to 100,000 US dollars to start working in the thirteen national universities from157

the autumn of 2002. The so-called “Brain Pool” scheme has been implemented as a
new incentive to attract foreign academics to South Korea within new fields such as
Information Technology and Bio-technology and basic sciences (Kang, H.S., 2002, May
20).
Thus it is clear that structural change is likely, given the government’s new steps ininternationalisation policy.
The strong desire for drastic change in internationalisation policy was also signified by
the appointment of Professor Robert Laughlin, the American Nobel Prize laureate in
Physics in 1998, to the presidency of State-run Korea Advanced Institute of Scienceand Technology (KAIST) in May 2004. KAIST became become the first state-funded
university in Korea to be headed by a foreigner (Kim, 2005).
In East Asia, unlike Europe, there is no regional integration of higher education areasat the supranational governmental level, but many national governments andindividual universities are eager to increase international academic exchange links
and to recruit foreign academics, as a part of ‘internationalisation’ policy and practice.
At one level, recruiting foreign academics is welcome as a positive change to diversify
and internationalise the organisation of the national university culture as well as toincrease the international competitiveness of knowledge production. At another level,
it is often considered as a short-term way to meet a policy target.
However, for foreign academics, there is no legal protection for equality of job
opportunity - unlike in the UK, USA, Australia, or Canada. There are more foreign
academics employed at private than at national universities in Korea, but a large
majority of them are part-time or on short-term contracts. They are, in general,
excluded from academic management roles and the administrative business of theuniversity.
Overall, it has been taken for granted in both Korea and Japan that foreign academic
staff are not employed on the same legal terms as the local staff (although in Japan,
revisions to the law now mean that foreign academic personnel can be appointed as
regular faculty members at national universities).

158

In the UK, in contrast, foreign nationality is not automatically an issue in theacademic recruitment process. The equal opportunities law requires information about
ethnic origin of applicants (instead of nationality), along with the age, disability, andgender. In other words, ethnic background is considered a more important criterion
than nationality for the surveillance of equal opportunity in academic staffing in UK
universities. In France, on the other hand, the legal framework for employment isdifferent from the UK. Officially ethnic background is not supposed to be documented
in job applications. French university staff are all civil servants who are de jurerequired to possess French nationality; however, foreign scholars can de facto be
employed by French universities.
In comparison, Korea, as illustrated earlier, is still emphasising numbers - e.g. thenumber of international publications and the number of foreign students and staff - as
if internationalisation is achievable by quantitative growth. The major public andprivate universities are all undertaking similar internationalisation strategies, with a
set target based on achieving world ranking by a certain time deadline. The discourse
is about becoming a “world class”, “global” university.
In

other

words,

withinthisinternationalisation

policydiscourse,“newinstitutionalism” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; 1991; Levy, 2004) has become firmly
grounded in the everyday practice of university life in Korea - ranging from mission
statements and strategic planning for internationalisation to international academic
recruitment, research & publication, teaching and academic appraisal. Overall, newinstitutionalism among these internationalising private universities in Korea and asearch for a position in world university rankings has been strongly visible among theold private universities in Korea. Internationalisation policy and practice have beenroutinised: these are taken for granted as ‘the way to do these things’. The current
challenges ahead of the old major private universities in Korea would be whether they
can try to opt out of this convention, the world competition game; and develop new andoriginal international visions.
References
Akabayashi, H. and Naoi, M. (2005) ‘Why is There No Harvard Among Japanese
PrivateUniversities?’

(June

7),

Faculty159

of

Economics,

Keio

University

(http://www.econ.keio.ac.jp/staff/hakab/akabayashi_naoi_university.pdf).
Cummings, W. (1973) ‘The Japanese Private University’ In Minerva, 11 (3), July
(Springer Netherlands), pp. 348-371.
Currie, W. S.J. (2002) ‘Japan’s Top 30 Universities’ In International Higher Education,
Winter

2002, Centre

forInternational

Higher

Education, Boston

College(http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News26/text014.htm).
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’ In American

Sociological Review 48, pp.147-160.
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1991) ‘Introduction’ In Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P.
(eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 1-38.
Hall, I. (1998) Cartels of the Mind: Japan’s Intellectual Closed Shop, New York andLondon: W W Norton & Company.
Harnett, R. A. (1998) The Saga of Chinese Higher Education from the Tongzhi

Restoration to Tiananmen Square: Revolution and Reform, Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen.
Hayhoe, R. (1996) China’s Universities, 1895-1995 A Century of Cultural Conflict, New
York: Garland Studies in Higher Education.
Joung, S.E. (2002) Kyung Sung Jekook Daehak Yeonkoo [A Study of Kyung Sung

Imperial University], Seoul: Mooneum-Sa.
KEDI (2005) Yearbook of Educational Statistics in Korea 2005, Seoul: Korean
Educational Development Institute.
Kim, T. (2001) Forming the Academic Profession in East Asia: a Comparative Analysis,
New York & London: Routledge.

160

Kim, T. (2005) ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education in South Korea: Reality,
Rhetoric, and Disparity in Academic Culture and Identities’ In The Australian Journalof Education, 49(1), Special Issue: International Education. Edited by C. Joseph, S.
Marginson, and R. Yang. Published by the ACER (Australian Council for Educational
Research), pp: 89-103.
Levy, D. (2004) ‘The New Institutionalism: Mismatches with Private Higher
Education’s Global Growth’ PROPHE Working Paper No. 3, January.
Ng, Peter Tze Ming (2002) Changing Paradigms of Christian Higher Education in

China (1888-1950), Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Okada, A. (2005) ‘A History of the Japanese University’ In Eades, J.S., Goodman, R.,
and Hada, Y. (eds) The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese Higher Education: The 2004 Reforms

and the Dynamics of Change, Rosanna, Victoria: Trans Pacific Press (Jointly publishedby Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University).
Ryu, J-S et. al. (2006) Seven Strategies for University Reform, Seoul: Samsung
Economic Research Institute (published in Korean).
SNU (Seoul National University) (2001) Elevating Seoul National University to a

World-Class Research University: Findings and Recommendations from the Panel on
Educational Excellence. Seoul: Seoul National University.
Tsuruda, Y. (2003) ‘Globalisation and the Recent Reforms in Japanese Higher
Education’ In Goodman, R. and Phillips, D. (eds.) Can the Japanese Change Their

Education System? Oxford, Symposium Books, pp. 119-150.
Yonezawa, A. and Baba, M. (1998). 'The Market Structure for Private Universities inJapan: How has Japan Achieved Mass Higher Education in the Private Sector?' inTertiary Education and Management, 4/2: 145-52.

161