Doing somersaults in Enschede

1. doing somersaults in Enschede rethinking and inverting public/private in higher education amid the winds of globalisation Simon Marginson CHER 17-19 September 2004

2. Method 1 purpose of inquiry rules concepts; concepts don’t rule inquiry purpose of inquiry is explanatory not policy normative public and private attributes in higher education are not fixed or natural: policy sensitive, historically relative, culture-bound public/private are not universal attributes so whole systems or institutions are one or other: mostly higher education is mixed what matters is the social and economic effects or outcomes of education, which can be either public goods or private goods

3. Method 2 distinguish question of ownership (state/ non-state) from question of outcomes or goods produced (public/private) public/private template not same as state/market template public goods are heterogeneous to private goods, not the aggregation of private goods (social not reducible to individual) public/private goods not mutually exclusive dual, but inter-penetrated, providing conditions for each other public/ private goods not always zero-sum, can be positive-sum

4. Method 3 above all - we need a concept of public/private that works consistently across both national and global dimensions

5. classic definition of public goods non-rivalrous: consumed by any number of people without being depleted (e.g. mathematical knowledge) non-excludable: the benefits cannot be confined to individual buyers (e.g. social tolerance)

6. includes externalities or ‘spillovers’: positive effects of individual higher education not fully captured by the student (e.g. improved productivity of workmates) collective goods: not captured by individuals (e.g. social peace, more diverse cultural exchange)

7. problems of traditional approaches to public/private neo-classical economics: naturalises public/private, biased to private side statism: underestimates potential of markets and civil society both: neglect global, especially public goods

8. definition of public goods in higher education goods with a significant element of non-rivalry and/or non-excludability and goods that are made broadly available across populations

9. examples of public/private goods in higher education private goods: student places that confer individual advantage (‘human capital’), personal cultural capital public goods: knowledge, social literacy, collective cultural formation, systems of recognition, etc.

10. somersault 1:inverting public/private In national higher education systems, higher education is not overwhelmingly public in character. Regardless of formal ownership or fee systems, a substantial part of the goods it produces are private goods

11. somersault 2:inverting private/public In national higher education systems, higher education is not overwhelmingly private in character. Regardless of formal ownership or fee systems, a substantial part of the goods it produces are public goods

12. global private goods in higher education foreign degrees: acquired across borders and often used globally cross-border transfer and adaptation of commercial knowledge

13. global public goods goods that have a significant element of non-rivalry and/or non-excludability and are made broadly available across populations on a global scale ‘whether – and how - global public goods are provided determines whether globalisation is an opportunity or a threat’ (Kaul et al. 2003, p. 2)

14. global public goods in higher education extensive and intensive cross-border networking creates scope for externalities in particular nations both global goods, and global ‘bads’ (e.g. brain drain, cultural subversion by foreign influences) are produced academic knowledge and the systems for circulating and codifying it are probably the most important global goods created in higher education (again note cultural asymmetries) cross-cultural encounters and exchanges, including linkages to strangers (‘bridging’ associations) international understanding and tolerance infrastructures and resources that assist production and trade, government, the development of ideas and images, etc. systems and protocols in higher education for recognition, etc that facilitate people mobility (and hence migration) but global public goods are under-recognised: there is a ‘discrepancy between a globalised world and national, separate units of policy-making’ (Kaul et al. 1999, p. xxvi).

15. somersault 3:inverting private/public In the global environment, higher education involves not just production of private goods in a trading environment, but the production of significant public goods. We need an inter-governmental space in which global educational goods are recognised and facilitated

16. somersault 4:inverting public/private In addition to national governments and international agencies, global negotiations on global public goods in higher education should also take in civil agents, including NGOs, autonomous higher education institutions, disciplinary communities, and professions – and also the relevant market actors, given that their production of private goods can also create public goods

17. conclusions we need tools for measuring and judging cross-border externalities and global collective goods in higher education we need national policy units specifically focused on these elements we need inter-governmental spaces at the global level focused on higher education global agencies have a key potential we need to enhance global access to goods already available, such as research

18. whether – and how - global public goods are provided determines whether globalisation is an opportunity or a threat