Global

competition and public goods in higher education THE HENRY WHITE PAPER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
Simon Marginson Centre for the Study of Higher Education University of Melbourne s.marginson@unimelb.edu.au National Tertiary Education Union Future of Higher Education Conference University of Sydney, 22-23 February 2012 Greetings to all. This is an important conference, at a turning point for the sector and the country. Will higher education continue its slow climb upwards or will we be hung out to dry as in the decade after 1996? Will the base funding review be sidelined or will it gain traction? Will the next government close up access again, cut public funds and jack up student charges, triggering a massive drop in participation like the current 8 per cent fall in applications in the UK? Will we finally get to grip with system architecture and differential missions? Or will Canberra go to sleep with everything just left for the market to sort out? And what then of the international context and how do we position ourselves in it? There is much to talk about. The global higher education environment is fast moving, more open than the national setting, where the politics are constrained. There are more opportunities, but the inequalities are greater. Global higher education is an immense space for the production of public and private goods, a space of intensified competition, burgeoning trade in student places and IP, the vast growth of open source knowledge, collaborations between equals, capacity building in new systems. A complex mix of public goods and private competition. And then there is rising East Asia and Singapore. It did not make the Grattan Institutes otherwise well argued and in parts very insightful analysis of higher education. This report was prepared as if there is only one higher education system in the world, operating behind closed bordersa case of capitalism in one country. But East Asia dominated Grattans other report, on schooling and student achievement. The world balance of power is shifting rapidly. Education and research are at the heart of it. The global middle class is growing by a billion people and their level of education is rising fast. It seems that in East Asia there are less trade-offs between access and quality, though plenty of inequality. Are competition and private goods dominant, or are collaboration and public goods dominant? Will global market forces, whether they are spontaneous or orchestrated by powerful oligarchs, decide our fate? The jury is still out. It is a crucial struggle, the struggle to place global public goods at the centre of attention. Its even more important than Kevin versus Julia! But what are the

points of entry into that struggle? Public goods are normally produced by nation states. There is no global state and there is very little global governance. Thats the issue of our time. Unless we can move forward on global governance we cannot grip the global challenges: the deteriorating ecology, food and water security, energy and infrastructure, poverty and under-education, cross-border medicine, urban pathologies. How can we become involved in global governance issues? Our politics is national. Global governance cannot be addressed by national governments on the basis of unilateral sovereignty. Chicken and egg. So we work on enlarging global civil society, and play the Internet. Universities as institutions are also in that global civil space, as a matter of ordinary business. I suspect that cross-border cooperation between higher education institutions, especially in research, is one of the keys to the future. It can move the different nations closer to a shared responsibility for world society. Uniquely, in higher education the currency is ideas and the thinking is long-term. The alternative is not worth thinking about. That is to leave it to the market and to might equals right. But we have a long way to go, if we are to talk global governance. We are still a world of nation states. And this is the National Tertiary Education Union conference, not the Global Tertiary Education Union. So let me turn now to Australia and especially Australia in Asia. The big national-global issue. There is no more important process of policy making this year than the White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century led by Ken Henry. A rare case of long- term thinking in government. A rare case of policy having the question before the answer. This White Paper is so important, and the answers so unclear, that it even has bi-partisan support. Though well see if that lasts. Theres always the potential to turn Australia and Asia into a picnic for Fox News style politics. The Henry review invokes the East meets West issues emblematic of the larger global setting, in which the different political cultures have yet to find a common culture. And the Henry review also walks into the minefield of the debate about Australian identity. Our unfinished, never finished pint size union jack identity. The question for the Henry review is not whether Australia should engage more closely in Asia. The panel has been appointed because it knows we must. Its task is to develop Australias engagement effectively, set priorities, and build a lasting national capacity in key areas. And manage the politics. On Asia, the nation is divided in two groups of people. First, those already actively engaged in Asian nations and perhaps with Asian heritage populations in Australia. This includes many people in universities. Second, those that know little of Asia and feel uneasy. The classic split between bogans and latt drinkers (or sashimi snafflers?). Ripe for the picking by Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. Right now another round of reactionary anti-Asian politics would be a disaster. This has constrained the Henry panels background paper, largely confined to trade and security issues. Those issues are easier to discuss because they can be

framed as if Australia is outside Asia and will remain largely unchanged during the Asian Century. Comforting illusions. But neither will hold. It is the panels job to move us beyond illusionwithout bolting the horses. Tricky. This is not to say the trade and security issues are minor. How should Australia relate to regional concerns about rising China? ANU defence expert Hugh White argues that Australias interests lie in a new security settlement in which the USA is no longer hegemonic in Asia, China shares regional power and there is clear space for middle nations. Thats right. But the deeper question is where Australia sits in relation to the problem. Herein lies the subtlety of the challenge before the Henry review. It has to sell closer engagement with Asia, yes. But it cannot oversell Australia in Asia, any more than it can oversell Asia in Australia. In the long-term Australia will become an Anglo-European-Asian hybrid. We will mix British heritage governance, law and business with elements of Asian culture and demography: a kind of Hong Kong in reverse (though with more space). Already migration from China outweighs numbers coming from the UK and Ireland. The extraordinary growth of international education since 1990, fuelled by rising Asia, is a taste of things to come. But Australia is not there yet. Australia is a European heritage nation on the edge of Southeast Asia, moving from its British history to its Asian geography. Australia is not fully part of Asia. Few decision makers in Asia see Australia that way. Even without the problem of local backlash Australia cannot dive into Asia in a single act of will. The Henry panel needs to advance our engagement while finding a way to open Australians to that willingness to change that is so characteristic of China, South Korea and Singapore. Again tricky. But perhaps this is where higher education comes in. A central feature of recent East Asia and parts of Southeast and South Asia is a potent curiosity about all things Western-modern and the determination to learn and catch up. East Asia has caught up, and in many ways, for example education and infrastructure, it is racing past. Yet rising Asia engenders remarkably little curiosity in Australian society (though East Asian student achievement has begun to surface). Why the lack of curiosity? The British sense of superiority still lingers. The Henry review needs to dent that superiority, while building the confidence of Australians to tackle the new emerging world. Again it is tricky. Higher education has a key role to play in developing the kind of Asia-awareness that can both strip away the illusions and build local confidence. There is much to be gained by researching Asia and injecting that knowledge into the public domain. Undifferentiated stereotypes about Asia still abound. In most Asian nations the role of government is more comprehensive than in Adam Smith style limited liberal states like the USA, UK and Australia. But it is a grave mistake to treat, say, Korea, Vietnam and Malaysia as if the dynamics of government and markets are identical in each case. These political cultures are quite different to each other. Australia needs to know the specifics of each Asian nation, in the way it knows the differences between Germany, France and Italy.

Nevertheless, though area studies must be strengthened, the role of higher education is not simply to supply Asian literacy at the margins of Australian society. Likewise, while the spread of national capacity in Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Indonesian-Malay and other languages is vital, strategic engagement cannot wait for the slow-rollout of language learning. I liked the argument made by Kanishka Jayasuriya from the University of Adelaide, in a research brief last month. He argued that the conventional Asia literacy strategy is prone to rent seeking, and is less effective in generating knowledge about the new social and political dynamics of the region than a strategy geared towards understanding contemporary problems of capitalist transformation in the region. We need Asia literacy but to make Asia literacy our sole strategy puts too much emphasis on cultural determinants at the expense of broader trends that cut across borders. Many of the economic, ecological, urban and social issues facing emerging Asian nations have global origins. Some are felt in Australia as well. Political and social cultures affect the way the issues play out. But the issues are often common. A problem oriented strategy triggers the immediate creation of cooperative projects. It also positions the social sciences at the forefront. There is much scope to grow research collaborations, not only in the social sciences. There are ten research-intensive universities in East Asia and Singapore as large or larger than Australias three largest research players, with similar research quality. There are more parallels at the next size level. Long- term research cooperation solves problems and begins to blend ideas. If the White Paper encourages such collaboration it will advance regional solutions. And if Australian institutions are more active and visible in top end projects in Asia, instead focusing mainly on student recruitment in the region, the Henry review will have more policy-political material with which to work. Thank you for listening.

Largest research universities in the Asia-Pacific region

Institution

Science papers 2005-2009

Proportion of papers in top 10% most cited in field

Proportion of papers involving international collaboration

Tokyo U JAPAN Kyoto U JAPAN Seoul National U SOUTH KOREA Zhejiang U CHINA Osaka U JAPAN National U Singapore SINGAPORE Tohoku U JAPAN Tsinghua U CHINA National Taiwan U TAIWAN Shanghai Jiao Tong U CHINA U Sydney AUSTRALIA U Melbourne AUSTRALIA Peking U CHINA U Queensland AUSTRALIA Kyushu U JAPAN Hokkaido U JAPAN Yonsei U SOUTH KOREA U New South Wales AUSTRALIA Nagoya U JAPAN Nanyang Technol. U SINGAPORE National Cheng Kung U TAIWAN Fudan U CHINA Tokyo Institute of Tech. JAPAN U Hong Kong HONG KONG Monash U AUSTRALIA U Science and Tech. China CHINA Nanjing U CHINA Shandong U CHINA Chinese U Hong Kong HONG KONG

18,382 14,941 13,052 13,037 12,266 11,838 11,736 11,478 11,302 10,683 10,155 9724 9153 9088 8462 8043 7399 7263 7203 7136 7126 7061 6932 6820 6797 6789 6584 6087 6029

% 10.2 9.5 8.9 9.2 8.1 13.8 7.9 10.8 8.9 8.2 10.1 11.9 10.4 11.8 6.8 6.1 7.8 10.6 8.1 11.9 8.5 11.1 8.3 11.5 10.4 13.0 10.7 7.6 10.1

% 15.8 14.0 14.1 12.0 12.8 28.0 15.3 12.0 12.7 11.0 24.6 24.3 18.2 26.7 11.8 13.2 13.5 24.6 13.7 26.5 9.4 17.2 12.7 20.8 22.4 12.0 12.0 11.1 18.0

Criterion: Over 6000 science papers in 2005-2009. Source: Leiden University Centre for Science and Technology Studies, 2011. Data from Thomson-ISI

Higher quality research universities in the Asia-Pacific region

Institution

Science papers 2005-2009

Proportion of papers in top 10% most cited in field

Proportion of papers involving international collaboration

Tokyo U JAPAN National U Singapore SINGAPORE Tsinghua U CHINA U Sydney AUSTRALIA U Melbourne AUSTRALIA Peking U CHINA U Queensland AUSTRALIA U New South Wales AUSTRALIA Nanyang Technol. U SINGAPORE Fudan U CHINA U Hong Kong HONG KONG Monash U AUSTRALIA U Science and Technol. China CHINA Nanjing U CHINA Chinese U Hong Kong HONG KONG Australian National U AUSTRALIA Korea Advanced IS&T SOUTH KOREA Jilin U CHINA Wuhan U CHINA Hong Kong Polytechnic U HONG KONG Sun Yat-sen U CHINA U Auckland NEW ZEALAND Nankai U CHINA National Tsinghua U TAIWAN City U Hong Kong HONG KONG Hong Kong U S&T HONG KONG Lanzhou U CHINA Pohang U S&T SOUTH KOREA

18,382 11,838 11,478 10,155 9724 9153 9088 7263 7136 7061 6820 6797 6789 6584 6029 5551 5319 5072 4590 4579 4481 4264 4211 4011 3903 3568 3531 3264

% 10.2 13.8 10.8 10.1 11.9 10.4 11.8 10.6 11.9 11.1 11.5 10.4 13.0 10.7 10.1 12.9 11.4 10.2 10.0 10.5 10.9 10.0 13.4 10.5 12.7 14.9 11.9 14.1

% 15.8 28.0 12.0 24.6 24.3 18.2 26.7 24.6 26.5 17.2 20.8 22.4 12.0 12.0 18.0 31.2 12.9 9.9 10.4 15.7 14.7 29.5 11.8 11.5 19.2 19.6 8.4 17.3

Criterion: Over 3000 science papers and more than 10% of all science papers in top 10% most cited in their field, 2005-2009. Source: Leiden University Centre for Science and Technology Studies, 2011. Data from Thomson-ISI

Impact of research in largest Asia-Pacific research institutions

Institution Science publications 2005-2009 Proportion of publications involving international collaboration Normalized impact of publications

Chinese Academy Sciences CHINA 144,269 U Tokyo JAPAN 48,947 Tsinghua U CHINA 41,197 Zhejiang U CHINA 40,140 Kyoto U JAPAN 34,813 Shanghai Jiao Tong U CHINA 34,484 Osaka U JAPAN 30,670 Tohoku U JAPAN 29,480 Peking U CHINA 28,119 Harbin Institute Technology CHINA 27,509 Seoul National U SOUTH KOREA 26,725 Huazhong U of S&T CHINA 26,035 National U of Singapore SINGAPORE 25,188 U Sydney AUSTRALIA 24,709 U Melbourne AUSTRALIA 23,561 National Taiwan U TAIWAN 22,614 Council Scientific & Industrial Research INDIA 20,841 U Queensland AUSTRALIA 20,436 Kyushu U JAPAN 19,785 National Instit. Advanced Industrial S&T JAPAN 19,547 U New South Wales AUSTRALIA 18,989 Nagoya U JAPAN 18,828 Xian Jaiotong U CHINA 18,537 Tokyo Institute Technology JAPAN 18,453 Japan Science & Technology Agency JAPAN 18,446 Fudan U CHINA 18,341 Wuhan U CHINA 18,284 Nanyang Technological U SINGAPORE 18,252

% 21.5 26.3 18.6 15.7 24.0 14.5 21.7 24.9 24.3 10.4 25.3 11.5 44.0 40.5 38.3 20.7 15.2 42.1 20.4 21.3 37.6 22.6 12.5 22.6 20.1 24.0 12.3 40.7

% 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.6 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.6 1.3

Source: SCImago Research Group, 2011. Data from Scopus. Criterion: Over 18,000 publications 2005-2009 Note 1: Publication count includes not just journal papers, reviews and letters as in the Leiden data, but also short reviews and conference papers. Normalized impact shows the relationship of an institutions average scientific impact with the world average. A score of 1.5 means the institution is cited 50% above the world average. Unlike the Leiden data the SCImago data have not been normalized for field. Publication and citation rates are higher in some disciplines (e.g. Medicine) than others. Note 2: Normalized impact is 1.5 for all of Monash U (16,978 publications), ANU (13,816), U Western Australia (11,606) and CSIRO (11,443). Largest publication count in New Zealand is U Auckland (10,382) with a normalized impact of 1.6. Highest normalized impacts in Australia/New Zealand for institutions with over 1000 publications are Royal Melbourne Hospital (1868) 2.2, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (1173) 2.2, Auckland City Hospital (1067) 2.4. Highest normalized impact in Australia/New Zealandand the whole SCImago Tableis the 6.17 at the George Institute for International Health (362 publications in 2005-2009). The normalized impact ranking is dominated by medical research institutions. The three top US universities are Harvard (2.40), MIT (2.35) and Stanford (2.27). Melbourne is at 1.68.