《The Impact of Globalisation on Higher Education Governance in Mainland China and Taiwan.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The Impact of Globalisation on Higher Education Governance in Mainland China and Taiwan.doc（30页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、The Impact of Globalisation on Higher Education Governancein Mainland China and TaiwanWilliam Y.W. LoCentre for East Asian Studies, University of Bristol sawillcityu.edu.hkDavid K.K. ChanDepartment of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kongdavid.chancityu.edu.hk1. IntroductionMainland C
2、hina and Taiwan have undergone a series of higher educational reforms in the last two decades. Prior to the reforms, the communist China adopted a highly centralised education system through the adoption of the Soviet model in its higher education sector. Given that education was regarded as an inst
3、rument to spread the official ideology of communism, the Soviet patterns was used to reinforce the tendencies toward the centralisation of knowledge and uniformity of thought (Hayhoe, 1989). In 1952, the Chinese government implemented a reorganisation of higher education sector in order to nationali
4、se all higher education institutions. After the reorganisation, all universities and colleges became state-run institutions, which were made narrowly specialised according to the manpower planning derived from the central planning economy (Min, 1994). The administration of higher education was also
5、based on a centralised model, in which all the colleges and universities throughout the country were under the direct leadership of the government in implementing the unitary instructional plans, course syllabi and textbooks. Similar to the mainland, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the Taiwan gov
6、ernment had a rigid control over the establishment of institutes and departments, the appointment of university executives and academics, the allocation of finance, the design of university curricula, the adoption of textbooks and the procedure of student admissions and graduation (Chen, 2001; Mok,
7、2000: 641). In addition, as an ideological control, all academic publications were assessed and screened by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation of the MOE. Since mainland China has been undertaking economic reforms since the late 1970s and Taiwan has gone through an economic succe
8、ss in the 1970s, both the Chinese and Taiwan governments have recognised that higher education development is essential for sustaining economic development and maintaining the competitiveness of their countries in the knowledge-based economy era. With a mission of promoting economic and social devel
9、opment, the higher education sector in mainland China and Taiwan has upheld the general trend of globalisation which gives a strong emergent theme of changing modes of governance with an innovated scope of state capacity in order to ensure that the becomes more relevant in coping with the growing im
10、pacts of globalisation.This article aims to examine the recent education reforms and development in mainland China and Taiwan within the globalisation discourse, thereby reflecting upon its policy implications for governance. There are four main sections to this article. The first section sketches a
11、 paradigm shift in the policymaking process and the changing state-university relationship within the global context. The second section reviews and compares some recent developments in higher education sectors of mainland China and Taiwan. The third section illustrates on the impacts of these refor
12、m instruments on university governance by putting into public policy perspective. The final section sums up this article by concluding that the university education governance in mainland China and Taiwan is transforming itself towards a mode of fragmentation with strong state under the impacts of g
13、lobalisation.2. Globalisation Challenges and Changing Governance in Higher EducationGlobalisation has become an important concept to the development of economic, social, cultural and political domains since the 1990s (Giddens, 1999; Pierre and Peters, 2000; Sklair, 1999; Waters, 2001; Cerny et al, 2
14、005). Indeed, the notions of globalisation have grabbed many intellectual imaginations in academic and lay thinking over the past two decades. Interpretations of globalisation impacts on contemporary world are diverse. Some prominent analysts even argue that the term globalisation is not nothing new
15、 and hopelessly vague in usage (Schwartz, 1994; Cox, 1996; Panitch, 1996; Strange, 1996; Smith et al, 1999). However, many people agree that changes over the interconnected globe are somehow interrelated and creating new forms of interdependencies between actors, institutions and states (Strange, 19
16、96; van Damme, 2003). The new form of interdependence regarding to cooperation and coordination within and beyond territoriality in global economy provides a ground for discussion and investigation on the role of states within the characteristics of todays world order, i.e. transnationality or supra
17、territoriality (Sassen, 1999; Scholte, 2005). In reinventing governance and reinvestigating state role in global economy, several situations provide us useful guidelines to illustrate the complex and plural phenomena in the same direction. First, even though the global governance institutions, such
18、as the World Bank, IMF and WTO etc., as against what strong globalists predict may not lead to the receding role of the nation state, they are prominent in spreading the notion of neoliberalism, which stresses the ideas of open and borderless world economy. Second, there is a decline of politics owi
19、ng to a transformation from one political public (nationalist discourse) to a global public sphere/civil society in which traditional state actors (politicians, bureaucrats, political parties etc.) focus on formulating new public policies designed to overcome the legacy of the overloaded state and i
20、n breaking up old and building new political coalitions at intergovernmental and state-civil society levels in order to cope with competition brought by globalisation (Marden, 2003; Cerny et al, 2005). Third, there is the growing role of private or quasi-private institutions, groups, and networks su
21、ch as think tanks (Stone, 1996), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), epistemic communities (Haas, 1992) that leads to a paradigm shift in public administration which mainly talks about the restructuring and institutional transformation of nation-state (Rhodes, 2000; Mok and Welch, 2003). Finally,
22、 global is not a concept allegedly distant and isolated from local social space. Globality and locality are inseparable in social practice and therefore the discussion of globalisation should be a matter of blend of local and global (and other spatial sphere) but not of locality versus globality (Sc
23、holte, 2005). The above observations of globalisation impacts draw boundaries in our analysis of global impacts on state governance. As a theoretical framework for social policy and administration, the notion of neoliberal globalisation means liberalisation of all social services in the interests of
24、 global capitalism with the emphasis on economy, efficiency and effectiveness (Beckman and Cooper, 2004). Such an interpretation of globalisation is from a managerial perspective and allied with the new public management (NPM) or managerialism, which stresses corporate management and marketisation.
25、Corporate management refers to introducing private sector management methods to the public through performance measures, managing by results, value for money, and closeness to the customer, while marketisation refers to introducing incentive structures into public service provision through contracti
26、ng-out, quasi-markets, and customer choice (Rhodes, 2000: 56). Globalists believe alongside NPM the public sector will transform towards less government (or less rowing) but more governance (or more steering) by distinguishing policy decision and service delivery (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). They fu
27、rther interpret good governance as encouraging competition and markets, privatisation of public enterprises, reducing over staffing of the civil service, introducing budgetary discipline, decentralisation of administration and making use of NGOs (Williams and Young, 1994: 87). In short, good governa
28、nce has been married to NPM and neoliberalism (Rhodes, 2000). These theories of new governance have brought the concept of co-governing into societal governance thereby advocating the mobilisation of non-state sources and actors to engage in social policy provision and financing through public-priva
29、te partnership (Kooiman, 2000: 148-151). On the one hand, this can generate additional resources for the state to finance and provide social services. Thus, these changes can be identified as productive forces for modern states to change their roles under the external pressure (Mok, 2005). One the o
30、ther hand, this changing governance brought by globalisation can be seen as a form of internalizing globalisation, which refers to practices used by domestic government for reshaping their economic constitution through neoliberal marcoeconomic policies like privatisation, deregulation, marketisation
31、 and coroporatisation in order to defend their own interests and pursue their goals (Cerny et al, 2005; Scholte, 2005). Apart from the above instrumental approach of analysis, globalists also provide an institutional approach in analyzing the changing governance in globalisation discourse. They argu
32、e that nation-states have changed their governance strategies from positive coordination to negative coordination (Jayasuriya, 2001). According to Scharpfs definition, positive coordination is an attempt to maximise the overall effectiveness and efficiency of government policy by exploring and utili
33、zing the joint strategy of options of several ministerial portfolios and negative coordination is designed to ensure that any new policy initiative designed by a specialised sub-unit within the ministerial organisation will not interfere with the established policies and interests of other ministeri
34、al units (Scharpf, 1994: 38-39). Instead of the retreat of the state, the change in coordination type means refashioning of the modalities of governance, in which the role of state is to provide the institutional foundations for the autonomy of regulatory institutions and to constitute procedures fo
35、r the functioning of these institutions (Jayasuriya, 2001: 110) and therefore has prevented corporatist states being overburdened by social and economic policy commitments (Jayasuriya, 2001; Mok, 2005). A parallel process of formation of regulatory government can be found on the boundary between pub
36、lic and private. From the perspective of an institutional approach, the co-governing concept discussed above captures the diffusion of public power to private organisation by creating new private and quasi-private agents that located outside the formal state apparatus. Hence, instead of empowerment
37、of civil society, the public in private form governance is understood an implantation of public power in non-governmental organisations (Jayasuriya, 2005). These structural adjustments produce a new governing pattern that emphasizing the hollowing-out of state centre, coordination and self governanc
38、e and networks and partnership management in order to replace the traditional hierarchical governing that stressing state intervention and control (Rhodes, 2000; Kooiman, 2000). The increasingly use of private sectors techniques to public sector has altered peoples value expectations. Social progres
39、s is seen to lie in achieving in continual increases in productivity (Bottery, 2000). As a consequence, globalisation enters education on an ideological horse, and its effects in education are largely a product of that financially driven, free-market ideology, not a clear conception for improving ed
40、ucation (Carnoy, 2000: 50). The application of managerialism and structural adjustment throughout the education sector has been justified as strategies, measures and policy instruments along with the ideas of decentralisation, marketisation, privatisation and corporatisation (Mok, 2005). These polic
41、ies can be reflected by the call for the running of education is like the running of a business which requires educational institutions to be more efficient and effective in decision-making and in response to the various changes of global challenge (Ball, 1990; Ball, 1998; Bridges and McLaughlin, 19
42、94). In this context, an encouragement of a consumer ethos is promoted as a commitment to the market-oriented provision of services in the ethics of educational governance. This is because both the schools and universities alike as need to face a cutback of government funding for education. The orig
43、inal responsibility of education provisions that used to be shouldered solely by the government is now beginning to be shared and delivered by other non-state sectors through various means, such as the adoption of the user-pay principle, the introduction of the private sector in education provisions
44、, and the mobilisation of social donations, among others. As a result, educational institutions have to face the request for showing maximum outputs from the resources and inputs given to them from the government and community. And various sorts of accountability practices, such as quality assurance
45、 mechanism, have become important indicators of justification of the spending of public resources, particularly in the circumstance of financial stringency as well as in the process of the massification of higher education. In response to the increased pressure of adopting managerial ideologies, the
46、re is a tendency to strengthen executive leadership or to centralise certain aspects of decision making within educational governance framework (Currie et al, 2002). Without affecting the autonomous role of academics, senior administrators of educational institutions are more likely to transform the
47、ir role into managers and chief executive officers who can behave more proactively in facing changes, exercise more discretionary power in financial arrangements and decision-making process, and enjoy more freedom to innovate their organisations (Bottery, 2000; Currie and Vidovich, 1998). As a conse
48、quence, even though some studies show that the practices of accountability are mostly in soft forms and they are not seen as particularly effective in changing behavior of faculty members, managerial accountability now begins to replace the traditional type of professional accountability that used t
49、o be exercised in the educational sector (Chan, 2002; Currie et al, 2002). In this sense, nation-state has gone through the process of re-regulation by strengthening the mechanisms of auditing and quality assurance characterised by performance-based merit system, marketisation, privatisation and corporatisation in order to uphold the notion of accountability, while adopting the policies of decentralisation and deregulation.The changing higher education governance has been featured by a commi
