higher education in developing countries

Essay Review

JANDHYALA B.G. TILAK

HIGHER EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The Task Force on Higher Education and Society,Higher Educationin Developing Countries: Peril and Promise(Washington, DC: TheWorld Bank, February 2000), 135 pp. Price: $25.00 (paperback) ISBN:08213-4630-X

For a long time, higher education policy in many developing countrieshas been based on several questionable premises. Among these, are thefollowing:

• Higher education has over-expanded in developing regions;• Higher education has expanded at the cost of primary education;• Higher education is heavily subsidized by the state; and• Developing counties do not require higher education.

Policy prescriptions, particularly from the World Bank, have arguedagainst the expansion of higher education, and for the development ofprimary and secondary education instead. Neither the inter-dependenceof the three sectors, nor the crucial role of higher education in economicprogress, has featured prominently. Resource-scarce governments in manydeveloping countries have also found such prescriptions convenient, andeither by necessity or by conviction, have followed them faithfully.Furthermore, global efforts towards ‘Education For All’ (EFA), someof which were initiated on a grand scale at the Jomtien Conference in1990, have also led many educational planners in developing countries toconcentrate exclusively on basic education.

The declining priority given to higher education has serious long termimplications for development. Realizing this, UNESCO organized a WorldConference on Higher Education in 1998. The World Bank also real-ized this even a little earlier, joined UNESCO, and convened in 1997jointly a Task Force on Higher Education and Society. This came aboutmainly at the initiative of Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of Special

Minerva 38: 233–240, 2000.© 2000Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

234 JANDHYALA B.G. TILAK

Programs at the World Bank, who, in the context of rapidly changinginternational developments, recognized the need to independently examineand ‘explore the future of higher education in the developing world’. TheTask Force comprised fourteen experts drawn from thirteen countries – sixfrom developed countries and seven from developing countries, and wasco-chaired by Mamphela Ramphele, Vice Chancellor of the University ofCapetown, and Henry Rosovsky, former Dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Artsand Sciences. The other members included Kenneth Prewitt (USA), BabarAli (Pakistan), Hanan Ashrawi (Palestine), José Joaquín Brunner (Chile),Lone Dybkjær (Denmark), José Goldemberg (Brazil), Georges Haddad(France), Motoo Kaji (Japan), Jajah Koswara (Indonesia), Narciso Matos(Mozambique), Manmohan Singh (India) and Carl Tham (Sweden). Thestudy was directed by Kamal Ahmad and David E. Bloom (both from theUSA). David Bloom and Henry Rosovsky were the principal architects ofthe Report.

The Report provides refreshing insight into the role of higher educationin strategies for development. Against a background in which the provi-sion of higher education has been neglected, if not actually condemned,the Task Force has a message for developing countries that is loud andclear:Higher education is no longer a luxury; it is essential for survival.Higher education is the modern world’s ‘basic education’. The Reporthighlights the limitations of the debate concerning rates of return estimatesin education, which have made the case for higher education in devel-oping countries highly contentious; and chooses instead to emphasize theexternalities of higher education. By highlighting imbalances in terms ofenrolment ratios between developing and developed countries, the TaskForce makes it unambiguously clear that higher education makes thedifference in levels of development. Developing countries need growingnumbers of highly skilled people in order to thrive in the emergingknowledge-based economy. The Report observes that ‘without betterhigher education, it is hard to imagine how many poor countries will cope’(p. 43). The Task Force also warns that: ‘without more and better highereducation, developing counties will find it increasingly difficult to benefitthe global knowledge based economy’. All this sends an important signalto policy makers in developing countries and the international developmentcommunity.

Contrary to the conventional idea that governments should reducesubsidies to higher education, the Task Force argues: ‘They [governmentsin developing countries] must finance public institutions [of higher educa-tion] on a long-term basis, not as if they were part of a nonessentialgovernment sector with the attendant vulnerability to the vagaries of fluc-

HIGHER EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 235

tuations in public spending’ (p. 50). It further observes that, ‘Improvinghigher education is . . . in every country’s interest, and has legitimate claimson public funds’ (p. 43). Noting the linkages between secondary and highereducation, the Task Force suggests that, ‘Investment in the quality ofsecondary education is also needed to strengthen higher education. . . ’(p. 95). By emphasizing the public benefits said to flow from highereducation, including a wider appreciation of democratic values, and alsoby emphasizing the importance of general and liberal higher education,the Task Force makes the point that higher education is not confined tonarrowly defined gains in economic growth. Its contribution is necessaryto building a better and humane society. Implicitly, the Task Force holdsthat basic literacy and primary education are not sufficient for this task.

The Report is based on research, debates, and hearings conductedover a 18-month period between 1997 and 1999 at the World Bank, theUniversity of Cape Town, the Aga Khan University, the Aga Kahn Devel-opment Network (Geneva), the University of São Paulo, the Social ScienceResearch Council (New York), the Goddard Space Flight Centre, HarvardUniversity, the National Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Jerus-alem), and the National University of Singapore. The Report analyses thecurrent crisis in higher education in developing countries and outlines avision for the future. It examines several key issues: the rising demand forhigher education, and the implications of the ‘knowledge revolution’; theneed for increased investment in higher education in the ‘public interest’;the importance of designing better governance in higher education; andthe relevance of general and liberal education to the life of modern soci-eties. The Report notes the unplanned and chaotic expansion of highereducation within many developing countries, accompanied by the mush-rooming growth of the private sector, a deterioration in the quality ofeducation, poor quality teaching staff, problems faced by students, inad-equate resources, lack of autonomy, poor management, gender inequities,and inter-regional and inter-country inequalities. Distance education andthe role of technology are briefly reviewed. An appendix contains a gooddiscussion of the nature of international statistics on higher education.

While, however, the Task Force did a commendable job of stressingthe imperatives of higher education in developing countries, its argumentslack the coherence one expects from such a high level Report. Chapter2 provides a strong case for higher education; and so does the Report’sconclusions. But in between, there are several less coherent, if not mutuallycontradictory, arguments concerning the role of the state, the role of theprivate sector, methods of financing higher education, and governance.


As the Task Force notes, ‘the exact role of government in higher educa-tion has been subject to extensive debate’ (p. 53). But neither the flavourof the debate is given, nor is a clear position taken. In fact, the Report’sdiscussion of many issues is neither intensive nor comprehensive. The TaskForce might have been expected to provide a broad strategic vision for thedevelopment of higher education in developing countries. It does presenta good vision of the approach, but not a clear vision of the strategiesrequired.

For example, strategies of development, including the funding of highereducation, tend to favour the familiar model of reliance upon the privatesector. But this is not argued clearly. The Task Force suggests that ‘all typesof higher education institutions – including those run for philanthropic andprofit motives– can serve the public interest’ (p. 45; emphasis added).But earlier, it notes, ‘Even when markets work well and students receive aquality service, private institutions may still fail to serve the public interest’(p. 28). The Task Force notes the distinction between for-profit privateinstitutions and not-for-profit private institutions, but does not distinguishbetween the two in outlining what is desirable and what is not, although atanother place, it states ‘increased for-profit provision of higher education– could all have serious consequences’ (p. 27).

On the financing of higher education, the Task Force observes, ‘Thefinancing of higher education does not need to be limited to the publicpurse. In fact, higher education can be financed either entirely publicly, orentirely privately, or by some combination of the two. . . hybrid systemsdeserve serious consideration’ (pp. 55–56). It would have been usefulif the three models had been compared and contrasted, with empiricalexperience drawn from both developing and industrial countries. Whilecalling for ‘more consistent and productive public funding mechanisms,’the Task Force recommends mixed funding of higher education – i.e.,by the private sector, philanthropic individuals and institutions, students,and government. But citing the case of Makerere University in Uganda(pp. 54–55), which presently generates more than 30 per cent of its revenuefrom non-governmental sources, the Task Force comes down in favourof non-governmental resources for higher education. The basic principlefavouring private financing is based on the consideration that costs areborne by those to whom benefits accrue. But this suggests that the onlybeneficiaries of higher education are students and the industrial sector.Then what about externalities from which the whole society benefits? Andwhat about the ‘public interest’ in higher education, a point forcefullymade by the Task Force otherwise? Does private financing not reduce‘public interest’ in higher education?


The Task Force is, of course, aware of the problems that private financ-ing creates, viz., ‘it may preclude the enrolment of deserving students whodo not have the ability to pay’ (p. 57). And given the complexity, theTask Force seems not very clear what to suggest, and prefers preaching‘commonsense’. No specific suggestions are made favouring high or lowlevels fees. The Report favours non-governmental resources; but at thesame time accepts that high fees and other costs will reduce access amongtalented students, and that ‘it is in the public interest to reduce cost barriersto private as well as to public institutions’ (p. 42). The Report highlightsthe problems associated with high fees in higher education. It laments thatthe developing countries are becoming ‘increasingly reliant on fee-basededucation and private, for-profit providers. In this environment, educationbecomes more narrowly focused upon providing a skilled labour pool forthe immediate needs of the economy. Market forces predominate and thepublic benefits of – and responsibilities for – higher education recedefrom view’ (p. 38). But at the same time, the Task Force is not againstthe market-oriented higher education system. From this, it seems that theapproach of the Task force is unclear, if not downright confusing.

At one point, the Task Force observes that ‘state control of highereducation has tended to undermine many major principles of goodgovernance’ (p. 53); but also warns against reliance on market forces toguide development of higher education. ‘Too close a reliance on marketforces reduces public benefits, a danger that may be magnified by theglobalization of investments opportunities, thereby introducing prioritiesat odds with long-term national needs’ (p. 45). In the same vein, the TaskForce argues, ‘No system of higher education should forego the advantageof the compelling logic of private investment for private benefit’ (p. 45). Itmay not be right to state that the Task Force is not aware of the problemsassociated with the private sector, which is ‘having problems establishingquality programs that address anything, other than short-term, market-driven needs . . . ’ (p. 36). It is also aware that thepublic sector retains ‘avital and . . . irreplaceable role in the higher education sector’ (p. 38). Yet,nothing comes out clearly on the role of the state or of the private sector.The Task Force attempts at proposing a ‘hybrid’ model of higher educa-tion, involving both public and private sectors; but it is not able to clearlydefine what it means. What should be the respective roles of the public andprivate sectors in higher education? The question remains unanswered.

The Task Force highlights the ‘great potential’ of open learning systemsin developing countries. With the exception of the British Open Universityand the National Centre for Distance Learning in France, all the ten largestdistance-learning institutions that the Task Force refers to are in developing


counties – Turkey, China, Indonesia, India, Thailand, and Korea. The TaskForce does not refer to the similar system in Australia. It also does notrefer to the differences between higher education programmes offered by‘open’ versus conventional universities, which are sometimes reflected inthe quality of graduates. Without analysing their strengths and limitations,the Report simply stresses the ‘exciting opportunities’ that these openlearning systems offer. The Task Force also refers in this context to whatcan be called the internationalization of higher education, by which univer-sities offer degrees in foreign countries, but cautions that ‘while a desirabledevelopment, this would create a variety of problems relating to qualitycontrol and other forms of supervision’ (p. 32). This seems so vague as tobe unhelpful.

The most important weakness of the Report is that it looks at problemsof higher education in developing countries in isolation. No specific refer-ences are made to practices obtaining in the advanced countries. This isindeed strange, since the discussion of many issues raised in the Reportcan only be enriched with the experience of advanced countries? AreWestern models that combine equity with excellence not relevant to devel-oping countries? Are profit-driven market models of private institutionsthe only solution to the problems of higher education in developing coun-tries? Is there not a lesson for developing countries in the experience ofthe developed countries? Do developing countries have to learn only fromMakerere University in Uganda, the Maldives College of Higher Educationin the Maldives, the private universities in Pakistan (Lahore Universityof Management Sciences and the Aga Kahn University), and the BRACUniversity in Bangladesh, and the Organization of the African States?

These are the only country cases to which the Task Force refers. Notthat developing countries cannot learn from other developing countries,but what are the messages that these convey? Makerere University adopts amarket driven approach – in implementing alternative financing strategies,installing new managements structures and introducing demand-drivencourses; the Maldives College plans to use its national telecommunicationsnetwork for the expansion of life-long learning opportunities in the smallislands of this small country; Pakistan and Bangladesh provide imperfectexamples of private solutions to public deficiencies; and African ministershave discussed using debt relief for science and technology, within a pan-African scientific collaboration protocol. The only case from a relativelyadvanced country is that of the National University of Singapore. Are notthere practices in developed countries from which developing countriescan learn?


‘Brain drain’ is an issue with important implications for both devel-oping and developed countries. The Task Force briefly mentions ways ofreducing brain drain. It also refers to the Indian situation, and to the declinein the rate of emigration of graduates in computer sciences from nearly 100per cent to 70 per cent during the last decade. This has been viewed as a‘success’ attributed to ‘market liberalization policies’. But this can neitherbe accurately described as a success, not can it be attributed to policies ofliberalization. At least part of the decline has been due to changing labourmarket (including wage and visa) policies in the West, and particularly inthe USA. But the message that implicitly follows from the Report is thatliberalization is a solution, or at least a partial solution, to the problem ofbrain drain. On the contrary, it can be argued that liberalization adds to theproblem.

The Task Force is concerned with a situation characterized by a lackof vision, insufficient political and financial commitment, conditions ofinitial disadvantage, and disruptions that globalization has created inhigher education. The concluding chapter describes how higher educa-tion supports development, by increasing income growth, providingenlightened leadership, expanding choices, and increasing relevant skills.The Task Force outlines an impressive agenda: to improve educationalinfrastructure, design better curricula, recruit better faculty, improveaccess, and promote research. Specific suggestions are directed towardsinstitutions, governments and the international community. Higher educa-tion institutions should improve internal governance, and the quality ofacademic programmes. Governments should advance public interest inhigher education. The international community should catalyse a self-reliant and sustainable initiative in higher education, and promote inter-country equity. These are nice, well-intended statements with which fewwould disagree. But incomplete descriptions of problems and solutions donot enhance the credibility of the Report. The Task Force admits that it ‘didnot dwell’ on certain issues, and that it makes its suggestions based largelyon ‘common sense’. But it is unfortunate that such an approach prevailed.Surely, the Task Force must have done a large number of backgroundstudies over its two-year period. At the very least, such studies should havebeen listed in the Appendix.

The Report is aimed at five kinds of audiences, viz., policy makers inhigher education, the wider political community, higher education profes-sionals, the international development community, and the general public.Although each sector is supposed to benefit from the Report, policy makersmay feel a little confused, and professionals in higher education may findnothing new. The initial enthusiasm the Report creates in its arguments for


higher education is not sustained. A strong plea for higher education mustbe supported by an equally powerfully and coherently argued approach tothe planning, providing and financing of higher education.

Despite these limitations, the Task Force has made a significant contri-bution by setting out the argument for a decisive shift in the policies ofdeveloping countries and international organizations. Developing coun-tries are falling behind industrial countries in higher education, and mustact to reverse this trend. If, in a sense, the Report brings us nothing new,it will nonetheless be seen as important, appearing at a crucial time, wheneconomic reforms and structural adjustment policies have crippled highereducation systems. As James D. Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank,observed at its launching in March 2000, ‘we need it [the Report] becausewe’ve forgotten it [higher education], because we don’t give higher educa-tion the weighting that it requires’. With luck, since the World Bank wasa major partner in the Report, and its President has endorsed it, one canhope for a sea change in development thinking. That would indeed be aremarkable contribution.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jandhyala B. G. Tilak is Senior Fellow and Head of the Educational Finance Unitat the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.He has taught in the University of Virginia, the Indian Institute of Education, andthe University of Delhi, and has served on the staff of the World Bank. He haspublished widely on education for development in Asia.

National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration17 B Sri Aurobindo MargNew Delhi 110 016IndiaE-mail: mailto:[email protected]

higher education in developing countries

Documents