Globalization’s Muse: Universities and Higher Education Systems in a Changing World (review)

What with student protests over tuition fees, the latest rankings of “world-class” universities, or scandals over immigration, higher education is rarely out of the news these days. Many of the stories that catch the public eye have an international angle; yet what is meant by the “internationalisation” of higher education, and what should be meant by it, are matters for debate—not just in the esoteric circles of institutional research but in the wider public domain.

There are many reasons for this phenomenon: the continuing growth of higher education and of international student numbers; the enduring value of a degree in difficult labour markets; the impact of technology on teaching and learning and on the capacity of institutions to market themselves abroad; and the underlying globalisation of the world economy and the realisation that higher education and innovation are vital for economic growth.

Globalization’s Muse is therefore both timely and relevant. Based on a series of conversations about higher education reform at the University of California’s Center for Studies in Higher Education in Berkeley, it combines new ideas about how policy should be conceptualised with more descriptive case studies, although such is the pace of change that some of these examples are already of little more than historical interest.

At 400+ pages this 21-chapter book contains a wealth of detail to which a short review cannot do justice. However, the central thesis is contained in one of the several chapters by John Aubrey Douglass, one of the three editors along with C. Judson King and Irwin Feller. Human capital theory has led to policy convergence in the world’s leading economies towards a “structured opportunity market” in higher education, which combines elements of deregulation, a focus on outputs, flexibility in provision and delivery, and the beginnings of international harmonisation. The centre of gravity in the triangular relationship of state-regulation, academic autonomy, and market power, identified so presciently by Burton Clark, is continuing to move.

The context is given by my colleague Stephan Vincent-Lancrin’s discussion of public and private higher education. Supported by data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Education at a Glance, he draws out some of the differences in approach between those countries which rely almost entirely on public funding, and those, such as Korea and the United States, which have a much higher private share. He also reveals some of the limitations of the public-private distinction, the need for a new typology, and a greater focus on quality.

The three linked chapters on fees and finance describe developments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia although the description of England has been overtaken by events. The evaluation by Grant Harman of changes in Australia, which have developed over more than two decades, is instructive and generally positive.

Two of Europe’s major players in higher education, France and Germany, started from very different points but both have received substantial new investment from public sources and have developed an enhanced role for managers and leaders in steering institutional development. The wider European picture is seen from the angle of governance rather than financing, and focuses on France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Some reference to the rapid transformations in central and eastern Europe since 1989 would have helped complete the picture. In her essay, Christine Musselin sees potential for further convergence in Europe and further leakage of academic power. Whether this development will be enough to bring about the reforms for which some (such as former Dutch Minister Jo Ritzen) are pleading, remains to be seen.

Marijk van der Wende traces the influence of the Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy as policy drivers. She devotes less attention to the ERASMUS student exchange programme which will arguably, in the long run, be the most influential.

Inevitably perhaps...