Forum on Trade in Education
Services
11. oktober 2004, Sydney,Australia
Bridging the Divide
Honourable Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen,
First let me thank the Australian
government for organizing this important conference and for the
inspiring opening session we have just had.
I’d also like to thank the
organizers of this conference for inviting me to address you on
this important topic. Trade in educational services is a most
pressing challenge to all education authorities, and there is a
need for informed and continued discussion.
We have come together here in
Sydney to consider ways to
“bridge the divide” – the unfair and unnecessary distance
between the global rich and poor, between those who possess a
developed knowledge society and those who still struggle to attain
elementary standards of education. And against this – another
divide, between exporters and importers of educational services;
less definite, but very significant in defining national
interest.
I represent a well-off country, on
the same side of the poverty gap as Australia, our host. But at the
same time Norway is a considerable importer of education and in
that respect we share more interests with some countries in Asia
and with the larger and less wealthy countries in the South.
(I should perhaps mention that I use the terms ‘North’ and
‘South’ in their symbolic, rather than their geographical meaning,
remembering that we are now technically in the South.)
More importantly, though, I wish to
emphasise the common interest we all share in a more equitable
distribution of global education resources, despite our differing
positions. Education paves the way for growth and economic progress
and for democracy and good governance.
John F. Kennedy said:
Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in
education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.
He spoke of national resources, but the same is true of
the world at large –
Our progress as a global community can be no swifter than our
progress in education.
I am pleased to see that this third
– but maybe not the last – Forum on Trade in Education Services is
co-organized by OECD and UNESCO. Their joint mandate and expertise
signify our special effort – we have put the best people on the
job!
The first, the Washington Forum in
2002, was primarily an attempt to establish an arena of dialogue on
globalisation and trade, involving all the education stakeholders.
This dialogue, after a period of growing mistrust, was a timely
attempt to identify the real challenges posed by growing trade in
education. We met to examine possible strategies for facing the
challenges, with or without GATS.
By the next Forum on Trade in
Education – in Norway one year ago – a lot had happened. That
conference particularly dealt with the challenge of ensuring that
transnational educational services are subject to standards of
quality and integrity. The result was an extensive joint effort by
the OECD and UNESCO to establish global guidelines for quality
assurance. This initiative is important measure for all
stakeholders and all countries.
In Sydney we have reached the next
stage and the next questions:
- How can we prevent that the global inequalities of the past
will continue into the new education era?
- How can the future global education market be developed in a
way that gives equal access to its benefits and shared
responsibility for its disadvantages?
- And what are the criteria for success?
The need to build national capacity
is at the root of these questions, and it is natural and necessary
for the international community to discuss it. I shall return to
some comments on the many dimensions of capacity-building.
But first let us reflect on the
connections between the trade agenda and global objectives of
education policy. Following the breakthrough in the WTO
negotiations in Geneva in July, the development dimension of the
Doha round has been strengthened. Leading developing countries have
demanded that the round must produce results that strengthen the
trade position of the poorer countries, and there is consensus
about this. Discriminating measures from rich countries against
export goods from developing countries must be significantly
reduced. This has provoked a lively debate in many countries in the
North. Some of our key sectors have sheltered behind protective
trade barriers. They have even been subsidised in order to compete
with products from developing countries in export markets. My own
country is no exception. But some of the groups that oppose
reduction in protective trade measures, are often at the same time
very vocal in their criticism of the North for selfish policies
that neglect our responsibility for global fairness.
In the field of education a
parallel situation would be to refuse to share knowledge and
competence with the poorer countries, for fear that they might
transform it into successful innovation and cheap products. Such a
strategy is widely denounced as immoral and unlikely to benefit the
countries trying to protect themselves. History offers many stories
about the failure of regimes that cut themselves off from the
global communities of learning. Education, competence and ideas
must cross national borders freely. But not necessarily free of
charge! To my knowledge nobody would deny countries or universities
the right to charge a fair price for their services abroad. But
there are conditions: Quality must be maintained. And the receiving
country must be in full control and able to ensure that the service
supplied is sound and appropriate to the needs of the
population.
Many are fearful of globalisation
because it may lead to brain drain from the developing countries.
Experience so far seems to support that notion. This is in fact a
strong argument for of global agreements and improved legal
instruments. I believe we can achieve a more equitable distribution
of knowledge and competence in the future, but only through
collective, responsible action. That is why the processes
expressed by this conference are so important.
The topic of this third Forum –
Building Capacity – sets us a very important goal. We do know a few
things about the significance of building national capacity and
competence. A solid competence base is a precondition for stable
societies with a robust infrastructure. The ability to develop and
take advantage of competence explains to a large extent how
countries with previously similar levels of development have shown
very different progress during the last century.
However, many factors contribute to
a country’s capacity to manage and develop its national
intellectual resources. Let me mention a few:
Basic education is crucial and
Education for All is prominent among the UN Millennium Goals. The
quality and capacity of national basic education leads to the
development of a qualified labour force, it teaches citizenship,
basic health care and other fundamental skills to the population at
large. Education provides a labour market for teachers, the most
important channel of dissemination of expanding knowledge
resources. And it is the fertile ground for recruiting future
researchers and teachers into higher education.
At the same time, lifelong learning
is important. Lifelong learning and the ability to reach out to
people outside the formal structures of learning – provides a
chance to jump-start capacity-building. Without waiting for today’s
primary-school pupils to grow up and enter the labour market,
successful adult-education programmes give immediate results on the
factory floor or in the farms.
A developed system of higher
education and research is the most costly element in the national
competence structure, but it is crucial for economic
prosperity.
Attitudes to the higher education
sector in national development processes have varied over the last
two or three decades. I think a consensus now is that a national
education system functions as a whole, and that no one sector can
achieve its goals without the contributions of the others. Many
higher education institutions in the South are essential engines of
growth in their national economies.
Participation in international
co-operation is also important because it provides access to global
learning resources. Whether it is the non-commercial networks and
exchanges, international research funding agencies or transborder
education providers in the national market – all serve to
supplement and expand national capacity.
Therefore, the use of international
resources is a tempting solution to the capacity problems of so
many countries. But it is also a demanding solution. Even with
international regulations, transnational education providers pose
new challenges for national education authorities. I think the
different capacity of national administrations to deal with a
globalized education market may be one of the divides to be
bridged, one of the factors to make some countries more able to
harvest the benefits of internationalisation than others.
For the international community it
is therefore a central task to assist poorer countries in building
their capacity to regulate their own education, to set and enforce
national policy and to develop its own education system.
The issue of ‘brain drain’ is
contentious. Some claim that ‘brain circulation’ is a necessary and
stimulating aspect of international learning and research, and that
it benefits all. However, experience certainly shows that ‘brain
drain’ and ‘brain gain’ hit different countries and regions
unevenly.
As long as studies abroad are
available, and as long as access to further studies and rewarding
research is found more easily in the rich countries, there will be
a flow of brainpower in that direction. One obvious way to reduce
this tendency is to develop more attractive research environments
and opportunities in the home countries. When offered a way to
contribute to the development of their own country, researchers and
scientists may be more willing to stay or return.
What I think merits serious
discussion, is to what extent, if at all, the richer countries make
policy objectives to recruit and retain the most talented students
from developing countries. While brain drain used to be seen as a
problem to be fought, it may for some now appear desirable.
The composition of the future
education market is still far from clear. We do not know yet what
will be the dominant mode of study. It may be study abroad, as
today, or distance learning, by use of the Internet or by other
means, where the provider delivers a service across the border
without leaving home. The Internet does create new learning
opportunities, but a fairly general experience seems to be that
quality is harder to ensure without supplementary support
locally.
So, to realise the full value of
e-learning we must address some drawbacks: For instance an
expensive and complicated technical infrastructure is necessary to
build real competence through pure e-learning. And the absence of
local competence-building is sometimes a problem, since course
materials are generally developed and provided from abroad.
Allowing foreign education
institutions to set up branches on national soil has the advantage
of increasing capacity very quickly. It does, however, pose some
serious questions related to sustainability. Most countries have an
elite that is able and willing to pay for education under the
quality stamp of a foreign university. Unless there is a real
effort to include a significant national competence and a
nationally-based learning and research environment, the net effect
may be a crippling loss of revenue for local institutions.
Foreign institutions are forced to
keep an eye on their balance sheet. They are free to come and go,
and with shifting tides may choose to change or even to close down
activities in any host country.
It is my view and the Norwegian
view, that the established principle of long-term sustainable
development must be applied to transnational education. As far as I
can see, this does not conflict with a reasonable and sound
business practice that every service provider has to follow. It may
conflict, however, with pure profit goals as a higher priority than
the established basic ideas of a sustainable global academic
community.
The European Ministers of Education
emphasised the idea of education as a collective responsibility in
the “Berlin Communiqué”, as part of the “Bologna Process” when they
decided to:
…reaffirm their position that higher education is a public good
and a public responsibility … and
…that in international academic cooperation and exchanges,
academic values should prevail.
A number of consensus initiatives
over the last few years have sought to confirm this principle of
academic good practice in trade in education, and have left me
feeling optimistic. Apart from the UNESCO Global Forums, carrying
on the work after the World Conference on Higher Education, I’d
like to mention the thorough reporting by the OECD on quality
assurance and transnational education; the UNESCO resolution at its
last General Conference, proposed by Norway, Iceland, Japan,
Mozambique and Tanzania; and the OECD/UNESCO working-group on
guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher
education.
Many countries are probably poorly
equipped with structures and methods to protect students against
low-quality institutions. Building competence also means addressing
the need to build capacity in quality assurance. Countries should
develop both institutions and legal instruments, and they need
technical, academic and administrative competence to ensure the
objective integrity of quality assessment.
Building research capacity, as I am
convinced we have all experienced in our different countries, is
long-term, painstaking work with no short-cuts leading to the
high-quality research that we strive for. But there are tools.
Participation in the international
research community is one necessary element, resources to fund
national centres of excellence another.
Allow me briefly to describe one
program run by Norway which aims to facilitate the transfer of
research capacity to developing countries and to assist
institutions in these countries in gaining access to the
international community of learning:
It is called the NUFU programme of
academic research and educational co-operation, and is based on
equal partnerships between institutions in Norway and in the South.
The objective is to promote mutually beneficial co-operation based
on priorities by the institutions in the South. The element of
institution-building is also very strong, and there are a number of
examples that show lasting effects.
Co-operation in the fields of
research and education also has an effect on political diversity
and democracy. The co-operation gives Norwegian researchers access
to experience and materials that both enhance and challenge
academic perspectives and provide good conditions for the
development of new perspectives.
Altogether almost 1000 Ph.D. and
Master candidates from our partner countries have been educated
under the NUFU programme since the start in 1991. In 2003, 235
candidates were in the process of finalising their education. In
the same period almost 4000 publications have been published.
We are convinced that this kind of
co-operation is a very effective tool in building national research
capacity. In my view two aspects are essential to the success of
the programme:
First, emphasis on priorities in
the developing countries and on the equality of the partnerships
ensures both relevance of activities and sustainability of the
capacity in our partner countries.
Secondly, the funded activities are
important to both partner institutions, rather than a one-way
transfer of knowledge. Therefore there is a common interest in the
quality of the projects and of the results.
Ladies and gentlemen, to
conclude:
Transnational education provides
important contributions to capacity building – one that many
countries cannot do without. Our common task must be to ensure that
this contribution has sustainable effects. We need guidelines and
improved legal instruments as well as national capacity in all
countries to steer transnational education in a direction that can
benefit the interests and the education agenda of all.
I hope this Forum may contribute to
the development of a common agenda for the future structures that
can promote the overall ambition of the UN Millenium Goals.
Education is a noble cause in many ways, but in addition to its
inherent values it contributes to almost any other development
agenda you may care to mention.
After all, if you take a lofty view
what we want is simple: The eradication of poverty and a just
world.
And again – thanks to the OECD,
UNESCO and to Australia for organizing this conference and to you
all for your attention!
Thank you!
