Cooperation and competition in higher education : a case study into the implications of higher education policy in the European Union for public education

(1)

A CASE STUDY INTO THE IMPLICATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

POLICY IN THE

E

UROPEAN

U

NION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

MASTER THESIS POLITICAL SCIENCE

,

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INVESTMENT AND TRADE

:

THE GLOBAL POLITICS OF CORPORATE SECTORS

AUTHOR: SIMONE GLOVER

STUDENT NUMBER: 10296395

SUPERVISOR: PROF. DR. J.W.J. HARROD

SECOND READER: DR. R.M. SANCHEZ SALGADO

(2)

1. INTRODUCTION

Higher education is increasingly being viewed as big business. According to an article in OECD Observer the total revenue of universities in the United Kingdom (UK) alone amounted to £ 23.4 billion, circa € 31.8 billion, in 2009-‐08 (Yelland, 2011). Over the last 50 years the number of students in higher education has been growing and is expected to continue to do so. In addition higher education has not been left unaffected by globalization. The increasing number of students and the trend to study outside of their home countries has led to growing competition among higher education institutions (Yelland, 2011).

Intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-‐operation and Development (OECD) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) determine to a great extent the content of global educational discourses through their policies (Spring, 2008). Since the beginning of the 1980s international rhetoric and policies have changed when conservatives and public choice economists gained power.

This new public policy has become widely known as neoliberal economics. These policies consist of “a series of interrelated reforms: macroeconomic stability; cutting back government budgets; privatisation of government operations; ending of tariffs and other forms of protection; facilitating movement of foreign capital; emphasizing exports; charging user fees for many public services; and lowering worker protections through flexible labour markets” (Klees, 2008).

(5)

According to avid neoliberals, traditional government services such as schooling should be privatized and their control left to the forces of the marketplace (Spring, 2008). In this regard the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) that came into force under the WTO in 1995 can be regarded as a significant victory for proponents of neoliberal economics. The GATS identifies education as a service to be liberalized and regulated by trade rules (Knight, 2006).

All members of WTO are bound by GATS rules. Members are however permitted to apply measures to restrict quantities and, place limits on forms of legal entity and foreign equity participation. Since primary and secondary education is widely regarded as basic schooling most countries supply these services in the exercise of governmental authority, which allows them to be regarded as non-‐ tradable under GATS (Knight, 2006).

The member states of the EU have not fully committed to GATS in higher education with exception of allowing students to enter their countries for the purpose of study. The right to limit market access to higher education services is thus being exercised. GATS however also contains the principle of progressive liberalization. WTO members are expected to add (sub-‐) sectors to their national schedules and decrease limitations on market access and national treatment with every round of negotiations (Knight, 2006)

In Europe, higher education has historically been regarded as a public good and is mainly funded through public expenditures (Knight, 2006). Indications are found in recent EU policy documents that reforms are underway (EU, 2011). The shift from public to private funding of higher education can be interpreted as a reflection of the increasing dominance of the neoliberal paradigm in the sector (Olssen & Peters, 2007).

(6)

EU higher education policies are directed at creating a knowledge economy whereby education is considered vital to the overall development of the continent. The Bologna Declaration (1999) states:

“A Europe of Knowledge is now widely recognised as an irreplaceable factor for social and human growth and as an indispensable component to consolidate and enrich the European citizenship, capable of giving its citizens the necessary competences to face the challenges of the new millennium, together with an awareness of shared values and belonging to a common social and cultural space.”

The introduction of a neoliberal paradigm in policy-‐making in the EU therefore creates controversy as it has the potential to undermine social policy objectives.

Empirical studies show that the rise of neoliberalism is accompanied by greater income inequalities (OECD, 2011). According to UNESCO, the level of education plays an import role in how a society develops (UNESCO, 2005). Research also gives evidence that the development of persons through education is key to achieving economic growth (Faruq & Taylor, 2011).

From a narrow perspective the establishment of tertiary education as a private good effectively means persons can be excluded from consumption if they cannot pay the price. In broader terms it can be argued that this development has serious implications for democracy since it limits personal freedom and choice (Densmore, 2006). Which ever view is taken it is important to access the potential impacts on society as a whole if higher education were to become solely available as a private good.

Knowledge is power (Francis Bacon). When higher education is no longer a public good and access to tertiary schooling by less affluent members of society is restricted, their social mobility can therefore also be arrested.

(7)

The thesis assesses the influence of the (higher) education policies of the OECD, UNESCO and World Bank on higher education policies in the European Union (EU). The main research question this thesis attempts to answer is:

HOW WILL MULTILATERAL TRADE RULES ON DOMESTIC AND CROSS-‐BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION IMPACT PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE EU?

The EU has been using soft law instruments based on negotiation to address areas, like education, that are under exclusive jurisdiction of member states (Magalhães; et al, 2013). Accordingly the filter down effects of the global higher education policies and multilateral trade rules of intergovernmental organizations on domestic and cross-‐border higher education through supranational policies are included in the assessment.

(8)

2. THE LIBERALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The purpose of the following chapter is to explain the objective of GATS and highlight viewpoints that were found to exist in a selection of literature related to the liberalization of higher education. Firstly a brief description is given about what GATS is. Furthermore writings on the debate about GATS are discussed. The chapter ends with a brief review on the perspectives of higher education as a private good. After reading this chapter the reader should be able to understand the global context with respect to the liberalization of higher education that surrounds the developments of higher education in the EU.

2.1 GATS

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is the first multilateral agreement to establish guidelines for international trade and investment in services. It came into force under the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty that became effective 1 January 1995. The WTO is an intergovernmental organization that currently has 160 member states (WTO, 2014). The WTO has its beginnings in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). GATT was created in 1947 as a negotiating framework to achieve the lowering of trade barriers for manufactured goods in a fair and mutually advantageous manner. Fairness is guaranteed through Article 1 wherein the most-‐favored nation (MFN) principle is agreed upon. This means that the best access conditions that have been granted to one country must automatically be extended to all other participating countries (Barrow, 2003).

(9)

GATT agreements are arrived at through series of negotiation rounds. It was during the eighth GATT round, the Uruguay Round from 1987-‐1994, that WTO was established as an umbrella organization for GATT, GATS and TRIPS (trade-‐ related aspects of intellectual property rights). In addition WTO comprises a Trade Policy Review Body and a Dispute Settlement Body as well as a variety of councils, committees and working groups. All decisions have to be taken by all members and by consensus (WTO, 2014).

Figure 2-‐a: Structure of WTO agreements (source: author; compiled with data from WTO, 2014)

GATS is thus a legally enforceable set of rules that are administered by WTO. The agreement identifies education as a service. The objective of GATS is to promote freer trade in services by removing barriers to trade and increasing the transparency of trade regulations. In relation to higher education such barriers could be for example: a restriction on the import of educational material, a quota on number of students allowed entry, a limitation on foreign direct investment and/or visa restrictions. The agreement exists of three parts:

1. Framework;

2. National schedules; 3. Annexes to schedules.

GATT GATS TRIPS

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

General Agreement on Trade in Services

Trade-‐Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement

AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WTO

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT TRADE POLICY REVIEWS

(10)

The general obligations of the framework apply unconditionally and are often referred to as “top-‐down rules”, for example the most-‐favored nation principle is dictated in Article 2. The “bottom-‐up aspects” refer to the parts of the agreement that individual countries may decide upon (Knight, 2006), i.e. market access and national treatment (Sidhu, 2007). Countries can indicate in their national schedules, which service sector(s) can be entered and the level of market access for foreign providers while the annexes can be used to list specific limitations (Knight, 2006).

Each sector is divided into sub-‐sectors. The education sector has five sub-‐sectors, i.e. primary, secondary, higher, adult, and other. Since primary and secondary education is widely regarded as basic schooling most countries supply these services in the exercise of governmental authority, which allows them to be regarded as non-‐tradable as specified in the GATS framework (Knight, 2006).

According to GATS there are four ways to trade services. Figure 2-‐b shows these four modes of supply. The modes of supply apply to each sub-‐sector (Knight, 2006). A WTO member can place, so-‐called horizontal restrictions, i.e. restrictions that apply to all service sectors, and set limitations per sub-‐sector and/or mode of supply (Sauvé, 2002).

(11)

Figure 2-‐b: The four modes of supply of services specified in GATS (Knight, 2006)

Nonetheless GATS enforces progressive liberalization. So although each country has the option to determine the extent of commitments, they are expected to add (sub-‐) sectors to their national schedules and decrease limitations on market access and national treatment with every round of negotiations (Knight, 2006). The principle of progressive liberalization is an issue in the debate that is discussed next.

(12)

2.1.1 The GATS debate

There are a variety of opinions on what the GATS debate is about. The literature can be divided between those that focus on seeking an explanation for the divide through discourse analysis (Sidhu and Verger). On the other hand there are authors that discuss issue standpoints (Barrow, Knight, Sauvé and Vlk).

Verger (2007) identifies three themes: national sovereignty, international development, access to education and education quality. According to his research on the discourse, the debate is mostly a clash of beliefs, i.e. public good versus free trade theory. The opponents all seem to be education stakeholders. Sidhu (2007) notes an “epistemic lock-‐in”. Neoliberal norms and codes are being sugar coated with discourse that assumes “humanitarianism, freedom, empowerment, and choice” to hide the “GATS-‐sanctioned commercial agenda”. He foresees growing global injustice.

As Sidhu, Barrow (2003) also shows concern for growing inequality. Rather than through discourse he bases his vision on quantitative data that shows OECD countries to have competitive advantage in the global market. Therefore GATS will “institutionalize a global asymmetry” making developed countries suppliers and developing countries buyers of higher education. Knight (2006) takes a neutral and mainly pragmatic approach. She brings forward potential problems related to quality assurance, access to education and brain drain/gain while briefly touching on how liberalization can pose a threat to traditional values of higher education. The vagueness of the meanings of some articles in the agreement is a matter she also addresses amongst which the principle of progressive liberalization.

(13)

Vlk (2006) is also neutral in his discussion of standpoints. He divides them into two main levels. At the global level, GATS is linked to broader concepts and issues such as globalization and international trade. Secondly the discussion at the national level is focused on general higher education issues such as guarding quality assurance and retaining governance authority. He concludes that the debate has become polarized with on one side GATS proponents that wish to gain access to new markets and to remove major barriers to free trade in services including higher education, and, on the other side its opponents that regard GATS as a threat to public higher education since it has the potential to influence higher education both locally and globally.

Sauvé (2002) is clearly a proponent of GATS. He elaborates on the freedom member states have to limit market access and national freedom. His article is for the greater part aimed at countering threats that opponents are said to relate to GATS with regard to the provision of education as a public service, national sovereignty and the principle of progressive liberalization. He stresses that the internationalization of (higher) education already occurred independent of GATS. In his view GATS is not even useful in overcoming many of the barriers that prevent further internationalization of education services, such as funding problems and recognition of qualifications.

As becomes apparent the discussion evolves around the costs and benefits for education whereby it is in the eye of the beholder what is considered a cost or a benefit. In any case, the issues that the authors put forward essentially lead to whether GATS poses a threat to manner in which higher education can be regulated. In this sense the debate on GATS has added to the controversy surrounding higher education being regarded as a private good. The next section touches on existing perspectives on the public/private divide.

(14)

2.2 P

UBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE GOOD

What defines a good to be public or private? Is higher education (still) a public good? Is higher education sustainable as a public good? Should it matter to public policy whether higher education is private or public? The gist of the literature attempts to answer these questions. Thus conceptual deconstruction (Marginson) flows via a practical view (Devaney & Weber) into a more pragmatic approach (Levy).

Levy (2011) sees an increase in private-‐public blurring higher education systems. This reality overrides the necessity to make a distinction between public and private higher education. For Devaney & Weber (2003) public opinion is paramount. The increased acceptance of tuition fees provides an example of the change in beliefs regarding higher education as a public good. According to Marginson (2007), the divide between public and private stems from ambiguities surrounding the concepts. A public good does not necessarily mean that it needs to be supplied by government just as it is possible for a state to produce private goods.

All authors arrive at the conclusion that the outcome of higher education has benefits for the individual as well as for the public. Devaney & Weber (2003) see the portion of individual benefits growing, thus diminishing the public benefit. Higher education is therefore no longer sustainable as a public good and should not be regarded such. Marginson (2007) believes that these individual benefits can have spill-‐over effects and lead to an increase of the collective benefit. The private/public mix of a higher education cannot be separated since they are a distinct feature of this type of good. Levy (2011) recognizes variety across nations in the judgment on the public and private divide. It is the “identity” of

(15)

education that is a major determinant of public funding, i.e. non-‐profit, religion-‐ based, private elite, etc.

And yet even if law stipulates differences between public and private, “Explicit law has been no guarantee of clarity in practice, however, let alone of policy consensus” says Levy (2011). Marginson (2007) does see an important role for government in policy-‐making. Especially, when the public part of the private/public mix of higher education is taken into account. The increase internationalization of higher education would even give rise to the necessity of “an intergovernmental global space focused specifically on higher education”. The increased benefits of higher education for the individual at the cost of public benefit should lead to consequences state Devaney & Weber (2003). Public de-‐ funding and privatization of higher education are only rational economic responses.

Like in the GATS debate the perspectives show wide variety. Each however acknowledges that higher education provides benefit for the individual. The main question seems to be how much of this individual benefit should be funded by collective taxpayers.

(16)

3. STRATEGY, DESIGN, METHOD, FRAMEWORK AND

CONCEPTS

This chapter starts with a section that discusses the research strategy that was chosen while the following section details the design that was used to conduct the study. In continuation, an explanation about the choice for method is given. A subsection elaborates on the method of data collection that is applied in the qualitative research of policy documents. The next subsection is a brief account of the secondary quantitative data that was investigated. The chapter closes with a description of the framework and the step-‐by-‐step procedure that was followed in data collection. Each step includes an overview of the documents that were perused and/or sources that were used including an explanation for their selection. The concepts are defined and operationalized as they are laid out in this procedure.

3.1 S

TRATEGY

In deciding upon a strategy for research in the social sciences a choice can be made between two ends of a spectrum. At the one extreme is the positivist position. This point of view entails that research should be carried out “according to the same principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences” (Bryman, 2008: 13). On the opposite side is interpretivism. Scientists working from this perspective believe that a strategy must be employed that recognizes the difference between people and objects of the natural world. Thus only through interpretation can the subjective meaning of social action be understood (Bryman, 2008: 16).

(17)

This study partially involved the collection of data from documents to establish whether a particular use of language was present. In the various documents the same wordings can be used however in a different context. As such, interpretation is a deciding factor in determining the manner in which they are used. A positivist approach was therefore not suitable in answering the research question. At the same time a purely interpretivist approach can be lacking with respect to reliability, replication and validity. This research strategy has quantitative features not only to increase reliability and validity but also for the purpose of complementarity (Bryman, 2008: 607). Statistical data was used to assess the social effects of the texts.

From the epistemological position it follows that social phenomena are not considered to exist entirely independent of the meaning social actors attribute to them. An objectivist ontological position is consequently not taken. Nonetheless although a constructivist perspective is assumed in the sense that social objects are believed to be continually (re)constructed through the meanings actors give them, it is acknowledged that the social institutions under research have meanings that have been arrived at through an overlapping consensus. Their existence is “affirmed by the opposing religious, philosophical and moral doctrines likely to thrive over generations” (Rawls, 1987). The research takes an inductive approach; theoretical ideas have been derived from the data (Bryman, 2008: 12). A theory is formulated in Chapter 6.

(18)

3.2 D

ESIGN

HOW WILL MULTILATERAL TRADE RULES ON DOMESTIC AND CROSS-‐BORDER HIGHER EDUCATION IMPACT PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE EU?

A case study of higher education in the EU will be employed to answer the above main research question. The EU is regarded as unique because of the shared sovereignty through multi-‐level governance in an increasing array of policy fields. The EU comprises a single market in which the trade in goods and services is liberalized and, within the free movement of EU citizens is a fundamental right. Notwithstanding member states are not obliged to liberalize services of general economic interest (EU, 2006). Therefore public education is effectively still safeguarded from liberalization.

Higher education plays a significant role in the EU because of its desire to become a leading knowledge economy and as such to achieve economic growth objectives (EU, 2005). The member states of the EU have varying levels of development economically as well as in their respective higher education sectors (Eurydice, 2008). Using a case study, an attempt will be made to answer the following sub questions:

IS THE NEOLIBERAL DISCOURSE IN POLICIES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS REFLECTED IN EU HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY DOCUMENTS?

IS THERE A TREND DISCERNIBLE WITH RESPECT TO A SHIFT FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE FUNDING?

(19)

The amount of time available for research is insufficient to conduct an in depth study of each EU member state. Therefore a focus is made on Denmark, Poland and the United Kingdom (UK). The selection was made based on GDP, annual public expenditure on tertiary education as percentage of total expenditure, level of private funding and level of private higher education. In each of these areas at least one of the chosen countries varies significantly from the others. Therefore they are considered suitable for making reasoned comparisons.

Table 3-‐a: Criteria for selection of case study countries

(source: author; compiled with data from Eurostat, EACEA, ESMU and Levy)

Member state GDP per capita; 2010 figures EU-‐28=100 Annual public expenditure tertiary education as % of total expenditure; 2008 figures

Level of private funding in form of tuition fees; 2008 figures

Level of private higher education independent private as % of total; 2009 figures

(Eurostat, 2013) (EACEA, 2012) (ESMU, 2010) (Levy, 2012)

DK 128 2.41 None 0.1

PL 63 1.04 None 33.4

UK 108 0.84 Above € 500 0.0

3.3 M

ETHOD

As indicated at the beginning of the chapter, the research combines qualitative and quantitative strategies for the purpose complementarity. The other motivation for combining strategies was to ensure reliability, replication and validity. These are the main features that are assessed in the evaluation of social research (Bryman, 2008: 31). Content analysis and critical discourse analysis has been applied in conducting qualitative research. The latter method is explained in more detail in the next section however in discussing reliability it is already indicated here that the analysis of texts involves processes of meaning-‐making.

(20)

These processes have three separable analytical elements: “the production of the text, the text itself, and the reception of the text” (Fairclough, 2004: 10). This latter element calls for interpretation from the analyst.

Interpretation involves understanding, judgment and evaluation of the text. The subjective nature of interpretation may have impacted the consistency in determining whether a text has been identified as exhibiting a neoliberal discourse or a particular type of policy. Subjectivity cannot be overcome but by creating transparency through maintaining a record of the data collection on the neoliberal discourse, its source and categorization, an effort has been made to mediate reliability issues. This database can also be used if a replication of the research were to be undertaken.

The validity issues are deemed minor. Any ambiguity in regard to a concept is discussed in the definition while issues effecting data pertaining to a concept is included in the discussion of the research outcomes. The research articles that were referenced in the run-‐up of this study show that the initial indicators that were chosen to identify a neoliberal discourse are widely accepted as such. On the part of quantitative data it is acknowledged that official statistics in themselves are not a guarantee for reliability and/or validity. However considering the countries involved in this study it is assumed that the data available has been collected in a systematic and organized manner in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics. The data is accessible to the public.

(21)

3.3.1 Qualitative research method: Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis is just one name for the various methods and analytical techniques for analyzing texts in the field of applied linguistics. Text is understood as all types of communication in the form of writing, speech and even visual and sound effects. Hidalgo Tenorio (2011) sees a common aim exhibited in the various methods: “A central aim in all the various approaches is that critical analysis raises awareness concerning the strategies used in establishing, maintaining and reproducing (a)symmetrical relations of power as enacted by means of discourse”. The term discourse can refer to the words that are used to exchange thoughts and ideas or as Gee (2001: 7) puts it “discourse” with “a little d” meaning language-‐in-‐use. Discourse can also refer to non-‐ language features of text that conjoined with “discourse” with “a little d” reflect specific identities and activities. Gee refers to this as “big D” Discourses. The topic of this study is concerned with this higher abstract level of discourse and focuses on written texts.

According to Fairclough (2004: 8-‐9) texts can have causal effects. Especially ideological effects are an area of concern in critical discourse analysis as they have the power to ingrain and sustain or change ideologies. He defines ideologies as “representations of aspects of the world, which can be shown to contribute to establishing, maintaining and changing social relations of power, domination and exploitation”. Using techniques that are derived from Fairclough’s book, Analysing Discourse (2004) the intertextuality of policy documents was researched with respect to the neoliberal discourse. Intertextuality refers to “the relations between one text and other texts which are ‘external’ to it, outside it, yet in some way brought into it” (Fairclough, 2004: 39).

(22)

3.3.2 Quantitative research method: Analysis of statistical data

By examining statistics regarding the funding of higher education an assessment was made about the social effects of the texts, namely whether neoliberal economic policies are being implemented. In addition the proportion of funding spent on higher education in relation to other public expenditure was viewed for the purpose of determining whether changes have been made with respect to resource allocation. The figures regarding student enrollment and mobility assisted in finding an indication for an increase in competition between European higher education institutions. All of the statistical data was obtained from the Eurostat database.

3.4 F

RAMEWORK AND CONCEPTS

The framework of this study is twofold. Firstly terms that identify neoliberalism within the educational sector were compiled. For this purpose Spring’s (2008) research on the global discourse surrounding this topic was used in combination with the list of features that neoliberal strategies have for higher education according to Levidow (2006). The following keywords emerged:

Marketization, business relationships, commodities, free markets, privatization, government regulation, human capital, future workers, relationships mediated by software, efficiency, accountability, quality, market terms, market-‐led choice, for-‐profit schooling, government control, curriculum standards and testing.

(23)

These keywords were used to collect data in order to determine the extent of the presence of the neoliberal discourse in the policy documents. Secondly the policy aims that governments have for the internationalization of higher education will show whether the aims are consistent with neoliberalism. The policy aims are categorized according to the four approaches to cross-‐border education as identified by the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Table 3-‐f can be referenced for more details. This section will proceed with a step-‐by-‐step outline of the procedure of data collection. Concepts are defined and operationalized consecutively as they arose in this procedure. The neoliberal discourse, intergovernmental organizations and higher education Neoliberalism is not only theoretically a contested concept due to its many interpretations but also internally as it comprises independent subcategories and dimensions (Cerny, 2010). The concept as used in this study follows Cerny’s categorization of it in the international political economy. There, neoliberalism is regarded as “a normative/prescriptive doctrine and discourse, a framework for formulating and implementing public policy at both the international and domestic levels” (Cerny, 2010).

This new public policy that has become widely known as neoliberal economics emerged in the beginning of the 1980s when international rhetoric and policies changed after conservatives and public choice economists gained power. These policies consist of “a series of interrelated reforms: macroeconomic stability; cutting back government budgets; privatisation of government operations; ending of tariffs and other forms of protection; facilitating movement of foreign capital; emphasizing exports; charging user fees for many public services; and lowering worker protections through flexible labour markets” (Klees, 2008).

(24)

Intergovernmental organizations are defined as formal organizations comprising more than three sovereign states in which institutions are embodied. Institutions are “a set of rules that stipulate the ways in which states should cooperate and compete with each other” (Mearsheimer, 1994-‐95). The EU is an exceptional intergovernmental organization as its members have agreed to relinquish their sovereignty in a number of policy areas to pursue common interests.

In this study higher education signifies studies that are at ISCED levels 5 and 6. ISCED stands for the International Standard Classification of Education and exists of uniform and internationally agreed upon definitions for education statistics and indicators. It was developed by UNESCO in order to make comparisons easier. ISCED is periodically updated. The 1997 version is applicable to this paper as the 2011 update is only being phased in per 2014 (UNESCO, 2014). Any mention of higher education institutions is in reference to schools that offer programs at this level. Higher education may also be referred to as tertiary education.

Identifying the neoliberal discourse in (higher) education policies

Ground zero in the identification of a neoliberal discourse in higher education policies was making a selection from the intergovernmental organizations besides the EU. For the reasons explained in the previous section a focus was made on Denmark, Poland and the UK in this research as opposed to all EU member states. The OECD promotes education predominantly as a means for economic development while for UNESCO it is mostly an aim to achieve poverty reduction. The World Bank combines both views in its funding activities. These organizations were chosen based on the broad membership of nations and because each has a specific aim in the field of education.

(25)

The sample of documents was chosen firstly based on their relevance to education and secondly on most recent date. Where education in general was the topic of a document mainly sections that could be brought in relation to higher education were used. One document each of OECD, UNESCO and the World Bank were selected while two documents of the EU and each of the representative member states were investigated. More recently dated reports from UNESCO were available however these were commissioned reports that did not necessarily reflect UNESCO policy. Therefore the content of the UNESCO document may be outdated in comparison to other documents.

Table 3-‐b: Qualitative research documents used to identify neoliberalism (source: author)

SOURCE DOCUMENT YEAR

OECD Education Today 2013 – THE OECD PERSPECTIVE 2012 UNESCO Higher Education in a Globalized Society 2004 World Bank Learning for All 2011 EU An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems 2011 EU A Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training (‘ET 2020’) 2009 Denmark Enhanced Insight through Global Outlook 2013 Denmark Denmark – An Attractive Study Destination 2014 Poland Higher Education Reform 2011 Poland Reform of Science in Poland – Building on Knowledge 2011 UK Students at the Heart of the System 2011 UK International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity 2013

Table 3-‐c gives an overview of sentences from the source documents that contained the keywords and/or terms that were used as indicators to identify neoliberalism in the policies. During the research of the documents hyponyms and synonyms were encountered and included in the database.

(26)

Table 3-‐c: Initial keywords and terms used to identify the neoliberal discourse (Levidow, 2006; Spring, 2008)

SOURCE DESCRIPTIVE OF NEOLIBERALISM ACCORDING TO SOURCE (keywords highlighted)

Levidow Marketization is justified as self-‐defense by dealing with all relevant constituencies as business relationships Spring Competition is to be the driving force of social institutions

Levidow Courses are recast as instructional commodities

Spring Reinvention of government, i.e. a combination of free markets and privatization with government regulation Spring A vision of students as human capital (as future workers)

Levidow Student–teacher relationships are mediated by the consumption and production of things (e.g., software) Levidow Educational efficiency, accountability, and quality are redefined in market terms

Spring Promotion of market-‐led school choice and for-‐profit schooling Spring Government control through curriculum standards and testing

The words and/or clauses that were found in the OECD, UNESCO and World Bank documents were entered into the database and subsequently arranged in eight categories to facilitate comparison: Commercialization; Competition; Funding; Governance; Human capital; ICT; Measurement; and Quality. In follow-‐up the EU documents were researched for neoliberal elements and matched next to the recorded texts. New instances were listed in the column of previously recorded texts. Techniques of critical discourse analysis were then used to establish intertextuality. A total list was then composed of the thus far recorded observations and the procedure of matching, recording and establishing intertextuality was repeated for the member states’ documents. Overlap between categories existed in a number of the observations. These were given a multiple listing under the appropriate categories. A full list of the observations is found in the Appendix.

(27)

Table 3-‐d: Critical discourse analysis techniques used to identify neoliberal discourse (source: author; compiled using Fairclough, 2004)

# TECHNIQUE GUIDING QUESTION 1. Search for patterns

Can distinctive patterns of co-‐occurrence or collocation between keywords and other words be identified?

2. Identify semantic relations of words

-‐ Can instances of hyponymy be found? -‐ Is synonymy being used?

3. Identify types of assumptions Is a particular type of assumption being made? -‐ Existential assumption: assumptions about what exists -‐ Propositional: assumption about what is or can or will be -‐ Value: assumption about what is good or desirable

Cross-‐border education

The definition of cross-‐border education is used that was developed by UNESCO and the OECD in a joint effort and can be found in the Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-‐border Higher Education:

“higher education that takes place in situations where the teacher, student, program, institution/provider or course materials cross national jurisdictional borders. Cross-‐border education may include higher education by public/private and not-‐for-‐profit/ for-‐profit providers. It encompasses a wide range of modalities in a continuum from face-‐to-‐face (taking various forms from students travelling abroad and campuses abroad) to distance learning (using a range of technologies and including e-‐learning).”(As quoted by Knight, 2006)

Cross-‐border education is a subset of the internationalization of higher education, i.e. “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research, service) and delivery of higher education” (Knight, 2006). The terms are used interchangeably in this research.

(28)

Identifying the approaches to cross-‐border education

The below documents were used in researching the approaches to cross-‐border education of the EU and the sampled member states. In the case of Poland no (English language) document could be found in which specific policy aims for internationalization is set. An inference on Poland’s objectives was therefore made on the hand of information on the website of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education with respect to international cooperation (PL, 2009-‐12) and the document in Table 3-‐e.

Table 3-‐e: Policy documents used to determine approach to cross-‐border education (source: author)

SOURCE DOCUMENT YEAR

EU Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 establishing Eramus+ 2013 DK Denmark – An Attractive Study Destination 2014 PL POLAND.STUDY IN ENGLISH 2012 UK International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity 2013

As explained at the beginning of this chapter, four categories were used to determine the extent of neoliberal features in the approaches to cross-‐border education. These approaches are not necessarily exclusive to one policy rather a policy can contain varying degrees of each type of approach (OECD/CERI, 2004: 220-‐233). The various approaches are described in the following table.

(29)

Table 3-‐f: Four approaches to cross-‐border education (source: author; compiled using OECD/CERI, 2004)

APPROACH EXPLANATION

Revenue-‐generating In this approach cross-‐border education is seen as an export industry and can be used to generate revenues to improve the trade balance. Examples of possible components of policies based on this approach are differential tuition fees for international tertiary-‐level students, immigration/visa policy that facilitates incoming foreign students, coordinated international marketing activities to promote the national universities, etc.

Skilled migration The main aim of the skilled migration approach is to attract large numbers of foreign students. The idea is that skilled students may become skilled immigrants of the receiving country and in addition stimulate competiveness in the higher education system. Both factors are considered vital to achieve economic growth and overall competiveness for the knowledge economy.

Capacity building The most prevalent approach to internationalization of higher education in developing nations is the capacity building approach. Cross-‐border education is viewed as means to meet domestic demand in terms of quantity and quality. The expectation is that students that study abroad will acquire skills to help improve higher education when they return home. Teachers, academics, and support staff are also encouraged to train in other countries.

Mutual understanding

Historically this is the oldest approach. It is aimed at strengthening ties between countries by building an international network of political and business elites. This approach is cooperation based. No economic gain is sought although it can arise from the partnerships.

Public and private funding of higher education

Public funding of higher education is defined as the amount of funds that is spent on higher education by a government while private funding refers to the amount that is spent on higher education by private households.

Selection of variables to assess policy effects on public and private funding

The quantitative data was derived from the Eurostat database. An overview of the definitions of the concepts, as provided by Eurostat, relating to the variables that were used to assess public and private funding is found in Table 3-‐g.