Higher Education inDeveloping CountriesPeril and Promise

Higher Education inDeveloping CountriesPeril and Promise

THE TASK FORCE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

©2000 The International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment / THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing February 2000

The material in this publication is copyrighted. The World Bankencourages dissemination of its work and will normally grantpermission promptly.

Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use,for the internal or personal use of specific clients, or foreducational classroom use, is granted by the World Bank,provided that the appropriate fee is paid directly to theCopyright Clearance Center, Inc. 222 Rosewood Drive,Danvers, MA 01923, U.S.A., telephone 978-750-8400,fax 978-750-4470. Please contact the Copyright ClearanceCenter before photocopying items.

For permission to reprint individual articles or chapters,please fax you request with complete information to theRepublication Department, Copyright Clearance Center,fax 978-750-4470.

All other queries on the rights and licenses should beaddressed to the World Bank at the address above or faxedto 202-522-2422.

Book design by Naylor Design, Inc.

ISBN: 0-8213-4630-X

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is in process

Published for the Task Force on Higher Education and Societyby the World Bank

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433, USATelephone: 202-477-1234Facsimile: 202-477-6391Telex: MCI 64145WORLDBANK

MCI 248423WORLDBANKWorld Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.orgE-mail: books@worldbank.org

1

Contents

Acknowledgments 00

Overview 00

The Task Force 00Peril and Promise 00Wider Focus 00System Focus 00Practical Solutions 00The Way Forward 00

Introduction 00

New Realities 00The Knowledge Revolution 00Structure of the Report 00

Chapter 1. Longstanding Problems and New Realities 00

The Current Situation 00Expansion of Higher Education Systems 00Differentiation of Higher Education Institutions 00Knowledge Acceleration 00Characteristics of the Revolution 00Implications for Developing Countries 00Implications for Higher Education 00Conclusions 00

Chapter 2. Higher Education and the Public Interest 00

The Public Interest 00The Influence of Rate-of-Return Analysis 00Access to Higher Education 00Research and the Public Interest 00Higher Education and Democratic Values 00Conclusions 00

2

Chapter 3. Systems of Higher Education 00

Outline of a Higher Education System 00Higher Education Institutions 00Desirable Features of a Higher Education System 00Role of the State 00Financing a Higher Education System 00Conclusions 00

Chapter 4. Governance 00

Major Principles of Good Governance 00The Actual Situation 00Tools for Achieving Good Governance 00Conclusions 00

Chapter 5. Science and Technology 00

A Worldwide Issue 00Background 00Physical and Technical Resources 00Human Resources 00Local, Regional, and International Cooperation 00Reform of the International Intellectual Property Rights Regime 00Strategies for Scientific Development 00University–Industry Cooperation 00Conclusions 00

Chapter 6. The Importance of General Education 00

What Is a General or Liberal Education? 00Who Should Receive a Liberal Education? 00Why is General Education Relevant for Developing Countries? 00What Are the Obstacles? 00Conclusions 00

Conclusions 00

How Higher Education Supports Development 00The Major Obstacles 00What to Do? 00The Bottom Line 00

Statistical Appendix 00

I: International Data 00II: Selected Definitions 00III: Primary Data Sources 00

3

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

Boxes

Box 1: Into the Heart of the Matter—the Travails of HigherEducation in the Democratic Republic of theCongo (DRC) 00

Box 2: What If You Are Very Small? 00

Box 3: The Basics of Rate-of-Return Analysis 00

Box 4: Makerere University in Uganda 00

Box 5: A Double-Edged Sword 00

Box 6: When Students Study Overseas 00

Box 7: African Science Moves Forward 00

Box 8: Gender Agenda 00

Box 9: Home-Grown and Breaking New Ground: AnotherBRAC Initiative 00

Box 10: Singapore’s Curriculum Renewal for National Goals 00

Figures

Figure 1: Tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratios, 1995 00

Figure 2: Average Primary Gross Enrollment Ratios byNational Income, 1965 and 1995 00

Figure 3: Average Tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratios byNational Income, 1965 and 1995 00

Figure 4: Percentage Share of Enrollment in Private Higher Education 00

Figure 5: Schematic Representation of a DifferentiatedHigher Education System 00

4

Tables

Table 1: Ten Largest Distance-Learning Institutions 00

Table 2: Assigning Responsibility for Higher Education 00

Statistical Appendix Tables

Table A: Gross Enrollment Ratios 00

Table B: Tertiary Enrollment Data 00

Table C: Attainment Rates (Percentage of Population over 25) 00

Table D: Public Expenditure on Education—All Sectors 00

Table E: Expenditures on Tertiary Education 00

Table F: Other Educational Data 00

Table G: Other Data 00

5

Acknowledgments

The Task Force on Higher Education in Developing Countries was convenedby the World Bank and The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization (UNESCO).

Task Force MembersMamphela Ramphele (South Africa) Vice-Chancellor, University of Cape Town

(Co-chair and Steering Committee)

Henry Rosovsky (United States) Former Dean of the Faculty ofArts & Sciences and Geyser University Professor Emeritus,Harvard University(Co-chair and Steering Committee)

Kenneth Prewitt (United States) Director, US Bureau of the Census(Vice-chair and Steering Committee)

Babar Ali (Pakistan) Pro-Chancellor, Lahore University ofManagement Sciences

Hanan Ashrawi (Palestine) Former Minister for Higher Education

José Joaquín Brunner (Chile) Director, Education Program, Fundación Chileand former Minister Secretary General

Lone Dybkjær (Denmark) Member, European Parliament andformer Minister for the Environment

José Goldemberg (Brazil) Professor, University of São Paulo and former Minister of Education

Georges Haddad (France) Professor, University of Paris/Panthéon-Sorbonne

Motoo Kaji (Japan) Vice-President, University of the Air

Jajah Koswara (Indonesia) Director, Research and CommunityService Development, Directorate General ofHigher Education

Narciso Matos (Mozambique) Secretary-General, Association ofAfrican Universities

Manmohan Singh (India) Member of Parliament and former Minister ofFinance

Carl Tham (Sweden) Secretary General, Olaf Palme InternationalCenter and former Minister of Education and Science

6

Study Co-Directors

Kamal Ahmad (United States) Attorney, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &Jacobson(Steering Committee)

David E. Bloom (United States) Professor, Harvard University(Steering Committee and Head of Task Force Secretariat)

Not all members of the Task Force attended every meeting or commented on everydraft. Individual differences concerning specific points may remain, but thedocument represents the consensus of all Task Force members. The principaldrafters of this report were David Bloom and Henry Rosovsky.

Task Force SupportersIn preparing this report, the Task Force was greatly assisted by numerous individuals,whose support we would particularly like to acknowledge

Those who made substantive contributions, either verbally or in writing:

Berhanu Abegaz; Dennis Aigner; Gregory Armstrong; Michael Aronson; RobertoArruda; Saleem Badat; Jorge Balán; Charles Beirne; David Bell; Lakshmi Reddy Bloom;Derek Bok; Carolina Bori; Lewis Branscombe; Harvey Brooks; David Canning; HernánChaimovich; Richard Chait; Muhamed Ibn Chambas; The Civic Education Project;Joel Cohen; David Court; Veena Das; Satish Dhavan; Ronald Dore; Eunice Durham;Eva Egron-Polak; Donald Ekong; Ahmed Essop; William Experton; Anna Maria Fanelli;Brian Figaji; Malcolm Gillis; Merle Goldman; Xabier Gorostiaga, SJ; Ada PellegriniGrinover; Göran Grosskopf; Wadi Haddad; Emily Hannum; Chester Haskell; RuthHayhoe; Robert Herdt; Werner Hirsch; Lauritz Holm-Nielsen; Gerald Holton; AdamJaffe; Dimandja Kasongo; Shamsh Kassim-Lakha; Tom Kessinger; Riaz Khan; MiryamKrasilchik; Suzanne Grant Lewis; Gustavo López Ospina; William Loxley; JacobMamabolo; Jacques Markovich; Noel McGinn; G. A. Miana; Daniel Morales-Gomez;José Ignacio Moreno León; Claudio de Moura Castro; Sarah Newberry; DorothyNjeuma; Berit Olsson; Maris O’Rourke; Solomea Pavlychko; Vicky Phillips; PasukPhongpaichit; Luis Piazzón; Colin Power; Sivraj Ramaseshan; Amulya Reddy; Fran-cisco Rivera-Batiz; Jeffrey Sachs; Sarah Seivers; Jan Sadlak; William Saint; Jamil Salmi;Komlavi F. Seddoh; Patrick Seyon; Khalid Hamid Sheikh; Jim Shute; Zillur RahmanSiddiqui; Andrew Sillen; S. Frederick Starr; Rolf Stumpf; Simon Schwartzman;Jamsheer Talati; Lewis Tyler; Emily Vargas-Baron; Hebe Vessuri; Louis Wells; FrancisWilson; Nan Yeld; and Harriet Zuckerman.

7

The Task Force also wishes to warmly recognize the generous financial support itreceived from the following organizations:

The Canadian International Development AgencyThe Ford FoundationThe Norwegian Agency for Development CooperationThe Novartis Foundation for Sustainable DevelopmentThe Rockefeller FoundationThe Swedish International Development AgencyThe Tetra Laval GroupThe William and Flora Hewlett FoundationThe World Bank

The support of one donor, who wishes to remain anonymous, is also gratefully ac-knowledged.

Special ThanksThe Task Force would particularly like to thank the following for their outstandingefforts on its behalf:

Ismail Serageldin, who (along with Kamal Ahmad) recognized early on the need foran independent examination of higher education in the context of internationaldevelopment and whose efforts resulted in the establishment and initial funding ofthe Task Force; Joan Martin-Brown, who also provided enormously practical encour-agement and assistance in these efforts; Larry Rosenberg, whose substantive andadministrative contributions to every aspect of the Task Force were truly exceptional;Philip Altbach, who served as a special consultant to the Steering Committee of theTask Force and whose extensive comments and suggestions are reflected throughoutthis report; Ava Cheloff, who performed the Herculean task of organizing the statis-tical appendix; Ruth Kagia, who did a magnificent job moving the Task Force reportfrom manuscript to publication; and River Path Associates, which did an extraordi-nary job of editing the manuscript and aiding the Task Force in expressing its ideasas clearly and cogently as possible.

In-Kind ContributionsSeveral important in-kind contributions facilitated the work of the Task Force, whichwould like to express their gratitude to:

The Aga Khan Development NetworkThe Aga Khan UniversityThe Harvard Institute for International DevelopmentThe Harvard School of Public HealthThe law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & JacobsonThe Social Science Research CouncilUNESCOThe University of Cape TownThe University of São PauloThe World Bank

8

Research AssistantsThe following individuals, who are warmly thanked by the Task Force, provided out-standing research assistance to the Task Force Secretariat:

Xiaonan Cao; Bryan Graham; Amar Hamoudi; Richard Hopper; Erin Kleindorfer;Stefanie Koch; Andrew Mellinger; Atif Rizvi; and Carolyn Wood.

Administrative SupportStrong administrative support was crucial to the work of the Task Force, which wouldlike to register its appreciation to:

Ida Cooper; Rula Dajani; Jeanne Damlamian; Alice Dowsett; Anders Falk; LauraFusaro; Helen Goodman; Sarwat Hussain; Vivian Jackson; Amina Jacobs; Nancy Juskin;Gail Kovach; Brett Kravitz; Ellen Lee; Sarah Newberry; Maria Papadopoulos; EnidSinequan; and Vera Helena Vieira.

Seminar ParticipantsHelpful comments on earlier versions of this report were received from participantsin seminars and symposia conducted at:

The Aga Khan UniversityThe Goddard Space Flight CenterHarvard University Graduate School of EducationNational Academy of Sciences and Humanities, JerusalemThe National University of SingaporeUNESCO General Conference

Seminar HostsFurther thanks go to the gracious hosts of the various meetings of the Task Force:

The World Bank (Washington, D.C., United States, October 1997)The University of Cape Town (Cape Town, South Africa, February 1998)The Aga Khan Development Network (Geneva, Switzerland, September 1998)The University of São Paulo (São Paulo, Brazil, January 1999)The Social Science Research Council (New York, United States, July 1999)

And finally…There are always a large number of other people and organizations who provide, indifferent ways, support, encouragement, and ideas during such a far-reaching andambitious project. It is, of course, impossible to thank them all by name, but theirhelp is much appreciated.

The Task Force website is www.tfhe.net, where electronic copies of the report can besearched and downloaded. The Task Force can be contacted at info@tfhe.net.

9

The Task Force

The Task Force on Higher Education andSociety was convened by the World Bank andUNESCO to bring together experts from 13countries for the purpose of exploring thefuture of higher education in the developingworld.

Based on research and intensive discussionand hearings conducted over a two-year pe-riod, the Task Force has concluded that, with-out more and better higher education, devel-oping countries will find it increasinglydifficult to benefit from the global knowledge-based economy.

The Task Force has attempted to clarify thearguments for higher education development,especially from the standpoint of publicpolicymakers and the international commu-nity. It has also diagnosed specific problemsthat are common across the developingworld—home to more than 80 percent of theworld’s population—and suggested potentialsolutions. Higher Education in Developing Coun-tries: Peril and Promise is split into six chapters,which address:

• higher education’s long-standing problemsand the new realities it faces;

• the nature of the public interest in highereducation;

• the issue of how focusing on higher educa-tion as a system will yield the benefits ofplanned diversification;

• the need to improve standards of gover-nance;

• the particularly acute requirement for bet-ter science and technology education; and

• a call to develop imaginative general edu-cation curricula for certain students.

Peril and Promise

The world economy is changing as knowledgesupplants physical capital as the source ofpresent (and future) wealth. Technology isdriving much of this process, with informa-tion technology, biotechnology, and otherinnovations leading to remarkable changes inthe way we live and work.

As knowledge becomes more important, sodoes higher education. Countries need toeducate more of their young people to ahigher standard—a degree is now a basicqualification for many skilled jobs. The qual-ity of knowledge generated within highereducation institutions, and its availability tothe wider economy, is becoming increasinglycritical to national competitiveness.

Overview

Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.H.G. Wells, The Outline of History

10

This poses a serious challenge to the devel-oping world. Since the 1980s, many nationalgovernments and international donors haveassigned higher education a relatively low pri-ority. Narrow—and, in our view, misleading—economic analysis has contributed to the viewthat public investment in universities and col-leges brings meager returns compared toinvestment in primary and secondary schools,and that higher education magnifies incomeinequality.

As a result, higher education systems indeveloping countries are under great strain.They are chronically underfunded, but faceescalating demand—approximately half oftoday’s higher education students live in thedeveloping world. Faculty are often under-qualified, lack motivation, and are poorly re-warded. Students are poorly taught and cur-ricula underdeveloped. Developed countries,meanwhile, are constantly raising the stakes.Quite simply, many developing countries willneed to work much harder just to maintaintheir position, let alone catch up. There arenotable exceptions, but currently, across mostof the developing world, the potential ofhigher education to promote development isbeing realized only marginally.

Wider Focus

The Task Force is united in the belief thaturgent action to expand the quantity andimprove the quality of higher education indeveloping countries should be a top devel-opment priority. Developing countries needhigher education to:

• provide increasing numbers of students,especially those from disadvantaged back-grounds, with specialized skills, becausespecialists are increasingly in demand in allsectors of the world economy;

• produce a body of students with a generaleducation that encourages flexibility andinnovation, thus allowing the continual re-newal of economic and social structures rel-evant to a fast-changing world;

• teach students not just what is currentlyknown, but also how to keep their knowl-edge up to date, so that they will be able torefresh their skills as the economic environ-ment changes; and

• increase the amount and quality of in-coun-try research, thus allowing the developingworld to select, absorb, and create newknowledge more efficiently and rapidlythan it currently does.

The Task Force recognizes that there are manydifficulties in achieving these aims, includingthe plethora of competing demands for pub-lic money. Action, therefore, will need creativ-ity and persistence. A new vision of whathigher education can achieve is required,combined with better planning and higherstandards of management. The strengths ofall players—public and private—must be used,with the international community at lastemerging to provide strong and coordinatedsupport and leadership in this critical area.

System Focus

The Task Force recommends that each devel-oping country make it a national priority todebate and determine what it can realisticallyexpect its higher education system to deliver.The debate must be informed by historicaland comparative knowledge about the con-tribution of higher education to social, eco-nomic, and political development—but alsoshould take clear account of the challengesthe future will bring. It should establish foreach higher education system clear goals thatpolicymakers can use to view the higher edu-

11

cation system as a whole, determining whateach part can contribute to the public good.

This kind of holistic analysis of higher edu-cation systems has rarely been attempted. Itdoes not mean reverting to centrally plannedsystems—far from it. Instead, it offers the abil-ity to balance strategic direction with the di-versity now found in higher education systemsacross the developing world. This diversifica-tion—a reaction to increased demand—hasbrought new providers (especially from theprivate sector) into the system and encour-aged new types of institutions to emerge. Itpromises increased competition and, ulti-mately, improved quality.

Unfortunately, this promise will not be de-livered if diversification continues to be cha-otic and unplanned. Players, new and old, willthrive only in higher education systems thatdevelop core qualities. These qualities in-clude:

• sufficient autonomy, with governments pro-viding clear supervision, while avoiding day-to-day management;

• explicit stratification, allowing institutionsto play to their strengths and serve differ-ent needs, while competing for funding,faculty, and students;

• cooperation as well as competition,whereby human and physical capital, as wellas knowledge and ideas, can be profitablyshared within the system, creating, for ex-ample, a “learning commons” where facili-ties—computers, libraries, and laborato-ries—are open to all students; and

• increased openness, encouraging highereducation institutions to develop knowl-edge- (and revenue-) sharing links withbusiness and to deepen the dialogue withsociety that will lead to stronger democracyand more resilient nation states.

On its own, the market will certainly not de-vise this kind of system. Markets require profitand this can crowd out important educationalduties and opportunities. Basic sciences andthe humanities, for example, are essential fornational development. They are likely to beunderfunded, unless they are actively encour-aged by leaders in education who have theresources to realize this vision.

Governments need to develop a new roleas supervisors, rather than directors, of highereducation. They should concentrate on estab-lishing the parameters within which successcan be achieved, while allowing specific solu-tions to emerge from the creativity of highereducation professionals.

Practical Solutions

The Task Force has identified a number ofareas where immediate, practical action isneeded. These include:

• funding—the Task Force suggests a mixedfunding model to maximize the financialinput of the private sector, philanthropicindividuals and institutions, and students.It also calls for more consistent and pro-ductive public funding mechanisms.

• resources—the Task Force makes practicalsuggestions for the more effective use ofphysical and human capital, including anurgent plea for access to the new technolo-gies needed to connect developing coun-tries to the global intellectual mainstream.

• governance—the Task Force proposes a setof principles of good governance (acknowl-edged by many as the central problem fac-ing higher education in developing coun-tries) and discusses tools that promote theirimplementation; better management willlead to the more effective deployment oflimited resources.

12

Figure 1

Tertiary Enrollment Ratios, 1995

This map shows the variation in tertiary enrollment ratios across the countries of the world. In general, people in countries that are moredeveloped economically are more likely to be enrolled in higher education. Nevertheless, there are also regional trends, and numerouscountries have different enrollment ratios than might be expected on the basis of per-capita income.

Cape Verde

Cayman Is. (UK)

Bermuda (UK)

American Samoa (US)

Aruba (Neth)

Channel Is. (UK)

Faeroe Is. (Den)

Isle of Man (UK)

Gibraltar (UK)

French Polynesia

Puerto Rico (US)US Virgin Is. (US)

Neth. Antilles (Neth)

Guadeloupe (Fr)Martinique (Fr)

Monaco

BurkinaFaso

DominicanRepublic St. Kitts and Nevis

Antigua and BarbudaDominicaSt. LuciaSt. Vincent and the Grenadines

GrenadaTrinidad and Tobago

Barbados

Samoa

TongaFiji

Kiribati

HaitiJamaica

Cuba

The Bahamas

Mexico

Panama

Costa RicaNicaragua

HondurasEl Salvador

GuatemalaBelize

Colombia

GuyanaSuriname

Venezuela

Ecuador

Peru Brazil

Bolivia

Paraguay

ChileArgentina

Uruguay

Russian

MoroccoTunisia

AlgeriaFormerSpanishSahara

MauritaniaMali

SenegalThe GambiaGuinea-Bissau Guinea

Sierra Leone

Liberia

Côted’Ivoire

GhanaTogo

Benin

Niger

Nigeria

CameEquatorial Guinea

São Tomé and PríncipeGabo

N

Cze

Slovenia

United States

Canada

Bosnia and Herz

Croatia

F.R. of Yugos(Serb./M

Iceland

Greenland(Den)

Norway

Swed

UnitedKingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Netherlands

GermanyBelgium

France

Spain

Portugal

LuxembourgLiechtensteinSwitzerland

Andorra

Austria

Italy

French Guiana (Fr)

This map was produced by theMap Design Unit of The World Bank.The boundaries, colors, denominationsand any other information shown onthis map do not imply, on the part ofThe World Bank Group, any judgmenton the legal status of any territory, orany endorsement or acceptance ofsuch boundaries.

≤ 5%

> 5% and ≤ 15%

> 15% and ≤ 35%

> 35% and ≤ 50%

> 50%

No Data

13

Mayotte (Fr)

Guam (US)

Northern Mariana Is. (US)

Reunion (Fr)

Palau

Federated States of Micronesia Marshall Islands

Nauru Kiribati

SolomonIslands

Tuvalu

Vanuatu Fiji

EstoniaLatvia

Lithuania

Poland

Fed.

Belarus

UkraineMoldova

RomaniaBulgaria

Malta

Libya A.R. ofEgypt

SudanChad

eroon

Central AfricanRepublic

nCongo

Angola

Dem.Rep.ofCongo

Eritrea

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Somalia

KenyaUganda

Rwanda

BurundiTanzania

ZambiaMalawi

MozambiqueZimbabwe

BotswanaNamibia

Swaziland

LesothoSouthAfrica

Madagascar Mauritius

Seychelles

Comoros

Rep. ofYemen

Oman

United ArabEmirates

QatarBahrain

SaudiArabia

KuwaitWest Bank and Gaza Jordan

Lebanon

SyrianA.R.Cyprus

IraqI.R. of Iran

Turkey

Azerbaijan

ArmeniaGeorgia

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Afghanistan

Tajikistan

KyrgyzRep.

Pakistan

India

BhutanNepal

Bangladesh

Myanmar

SriLanka

Maldives

Thailand

LaoP.D.R.

Vietnam

Cambodia

Singapore

Malaysia

Philippines

Papua New GuineaIndonesia

Rep.ofKorea

Dem.People’sRep.of Korea

Mongolia

China

Russian Federation

IBRD 30716 JANUARY 2000

East Timor

ech Rep.

Hungary

Albania

FYR Macedonia

Slovak Rep.

zeg.

a

laviaMont.)

den Finland

a

y

Japan

Australia

NewZealand

Greece

NewCaledonia

(Fr)

NewCaledonia

(Fr)

Mayotte (Fr)

Guam (US)

Northern Mariana Is. (US)

Reunion (Fr)

Monaco

Palau

Federated States of Micronesia Marshall Islands

Nauru Kiribati

SolomonIslands

Tuvalu

Vanuatu Fiji

EstoniaLatvia

Lithuania

Poland

Russian Fed.

Belarus

UkraineMoldova

RomaniaBulgaria

MaltaTunisia

Algeria

Togo

Benin

Niger

Nigeria

Libya A.R. ofEgypt

SudanChad

Cameroon

Central AfricanRepublic

GabonCongo

Angola

Dem.Rep.ofCongo

Eritrea

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Somalia

KenyaUganda

Rwanda

BurundiTanzania

ZambiaMalawi

MozambiqueZimbabwe

BotswanaNamibia

Swaziland

LesothoSouthAfrica

Madagascar Mauritius

Seychelles

Comoros

Rep. ofYemen

Oman

United ArabEmirates

QatarBahrain

SaudiArabia

KuwaitWest Bank and Gaza

Jordan

LebanonIsrael

SyrianA.R.Cyprus

IraqI.R. of Iran

Turkey

Azerbaijan

ArmeniaGeorgia

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Afghanistan

Tajikistan

KyrgyzRep.

Pakistan

India

BhutanNepal

Bangladesh

Myanmar

SriLanka

Maldives

Thailand

LaoP.D.R.

Vietnam

Cambodia

Singapore

Malaysia

Philippines

Papua New GuineaIndonesia

Rep.ofKorea

Dem.People’sRep.of Korea

Mongolia

China

Russian Federation

IBRD 30716 JANUARY 2000

East Timor

Czech Rep.

Hungary

Albania

FYR Macedonia

Slovak Rep.Slovenia

Bosnia and Herzeg.

Croatia

F.R. of Yugoslavia(Serb./Mont.)

Norway

Sweden Finland

Denmark

GermanyBelgium

France

Austria

Italy

Japan

Australia

NewZealand

Greece

14

• curriculum development, especially in twocontrasting areas, science and technology,and general education—the Task Force be-lieves that, in the knowledge economy,highly trained specialists and broadly edu-cated generalists will be at a premium, andboth will need to be educated more flex-ibly so that they continue to learn as theirenvironment develops.

The Way Forward

Higher Education in Developing Countries: Periland Promise does not offer a universal blue-print for reforming higher education systems,but it does provide a starting point for action.The greatest desire of the Task Force is to cata-lyze dialogue in countries around the world.While the benefits of higher education con-tinue to rise, the costs of being left behindare also growing. Higher education is nolonger a luxury: it is essential to national so-cial and economic development.

15

Introduction

Today, global wealth is concentrated less andless in factories, land, tools, and machinery.The knowledge, skills, and resourcefulness ofpeople are increasingly critical to the worldeconomy. Human capital in the United Statesis now estimated to be at least three timesmore important than physical capital. A cen-tury ago, this would not have been the case.

The developed world is reacting quickly,with education a major political priority. High-quality human capital is developed in high-quality education systems, with tertiary edu-cation providing the advanced skills thatcommand a premium in today’s workplace.Most developed countries have seen a substan-tial rise in the proportion of their youngpeople receiving higher education. Lifelonglearning is also being used to help workersadjust to rapidly changing economies.

And what about developing countries?1

Will they be able to compete in the knowl-edge economy or do they face a future ofincreasing exclusion, unable to develop the

Today, more than ever before in human history, the wealth—or poverty—of nationsdepends on the quality of higher education. Those with a larger repertoire of skills anda greater capacity for learning can look forward to lifetimes of unprecedented economicfulfillment. But in the coming decades the poorly educated face little better than thedreary prospects of lives of quiet desperation.

Malcolm Gillis, President of Rice University, 12 February 1999

skills required for the twenty-first century?This challenge is well understood by most resi-dents of the developing world. President Ben-jamin W. Mkapa of Tanzania, for example, isconcerned that higher education in Africa isbecoming increasingly obsolete. “Our univer-sities,” he says, “must produce men andwomen willing to fight an intellectual battlefor self-confidence and self-assertion as equalplayers in the emerging globalized world.”

In light of these concerns, this report asksthe following three questions:

• What is the role of higher education in sup-porting and enhancing the process of eco-nomic and social development?

• What are the major obstacles that highereducation faces in developing countries?

• How can these obstacles best be overcome?

Some readers will be surprised that we spendthis time reiterating arguments for the impor-tance of higher education. After all, educa-

1 “Developing country” is not a precise term, although morethan 80 percent of the world’s population lives in a devel-oping country, as conventionally defined by the World Bankon the basis of income per capita. Our overview includesAfrica, much of Asia, nearly all of Latin America, and largeparts of the former Soviet Union. Clearly, the developingworld exhibits tremendous variation culturally, politically,

socially, and economically. However, we are confident thatgeneral principles exist and have focused on issues thatarise most frequently, drawing conclusions that can beapplied in many different countries. Exceptions do exist ofcourse, and some readers will feel that certain points donot apply in their country. We hope this reaction will berare.

16

tion is associated with better skills, higher pro-ductivity, and enhanced human capacity toimprove the quality of life. Education at alllevels is needed if economies are to climb fromsubsistence farming, through an economybased on manufacturing, to participation inthe global knowledge economy.

During the past two or three decades, how-ever, attention has focused on primary edu-cation, especially for girls. This has led to aneglect of secondary and tertiary education,with higher education in a perilous state inmany, if not most, developing countries. Witha few notable exceptions, it is underfundedby governments and donors. As a result, qual-ity is low and often deteriorating, while accessremains limited. Higher education institu-tions (and whole systems) are politicized,poorly regulated, and sometimes corrupt.

We believe that a more balanced approachto education at all levels is needed. The focuson primary education is important, but anapproach that pursues primary educationalone will leave societies dangerously unpre-pared for survival in tomorrow’s world.

New Realities

Within a few decades of the end of World WarII, the major colonial empires had disinte-grated. Initially, newly independent countries,and poorer countries more generally, lookedto their higher education systems to deliversupport for national efforts to raise standardsof living and alleviate poverty. They also at-tempted to widen access to higher educationand, in some cases, there was a belief thathigher education could help make societiesmore democratic, while strengthening humanrights.

No country can claim complete success inachieving these traditional “nation-building”goals, but in most countries some progress hasbeen made on all three fronts. Since the 1960s,

higher education has been forced to confrontwhat we refer to as the “new realities”: expan-sion, differentiation, and the knowledge revolution.These are changing higher education and theenvironment in which it exists. All are nowpowerful influences in developing countries,challenging policymakers to look afresh attheir systems of higher education and thinkcreatively about what they can achieve.

Expansion is a result of the tremendous in-crease in the number of students. In the 1940sand 1950s, higher education in developingcountries was characterized by few studentsand graduates, with the students frequentlyin training for either the (colonial) civil ser-vice or a few professions. Today, however,there has been a dramatic shift from class tomass, with half of the world’s students ofhigher education living in developing coun-tries. As more and more children completetheir primary and secondary education, manywish to continue to gain a degree. Develop-ing countries have also seen real incomes ris-ing, bringing further education within thereach of an increasing number of families.

Expansion has produced a variety of con-sequences. In many instances, existing insti-tutions have grown in size, transforming them-selves into mega-universities; in other cases,traditional institutions have been replicatedby public or private means. An even more cre-ative response has been seen in differentiation,a process whereby new types of institutions areborn and new providers enter the sector. De-veloping countries now have a tremendousvariety of colleges and universities, instead ofthe small number of homogeneous institu-tions existing 50 years ago. Private institutionshave joined public ones,2 while a range of

2 The terms “public” and “private” are frequently used inthis report to describe institutions of higher education.“Private,” in particular, requires cautious application. Someprivate schools are philanthropic entities and are not forprofit. Generating surpluses is not the dominant motive ofthese organizations, and in that sense they resemble stateschools.

17

vocational and professional schools nowcomplement the traditional universities.

Expansion has caused the average qualityof education to decline in many countries asresources are stretched increasingly thin. De-veloping countries now need to clarify thenational benefit they receive from educationsystems and to explore the results that a dif-ferentiated (and usually unplanned) systemdelivers. Private institutions are currentlygrowing most quickly, and there is an espe-cially urgent need to explore what the privatesector can and cannot deliver. Policymakerscan then plan for the orderly development ofa higher education system; establish mecha-nisms to maintain quality; and, most impor-tantly, nurture areas for which private fundsare unlikely to be available. These includebasic scientific research, support for the hu-manities, and scholarship support to increaseaccess for underrepresented groups.

The Knowledge Revolution

We live in a period of major structural change.The classic industrial revolution that startedin the United Kingdom at the end of the eigh-teenth century spread gradually and unevenlyto Europe and beyond. By the end of the twen-tieth century, a number of so-called followercountries had joined the ranks of industrialnations, and today industrial countries arefound throughout the world. Some have nar-rowed, and even closed, the gap between richand poor, with the East Asian countries beinga good example. Average incomes havetended to increase across the world (exceptin Sub-Saharan Africa) in the past 20 years,although one-quarter of the world’s popula-tion still lives in abject poverty.

In a predominantly industrial economy, theeconomic processes involved in catch-up arewell understood. Levels of agricultural andmanufacturing productivity must be raised by

combining imported technology from ad-vanced countries with relatively cheap labor,and by moving labor from low- to high-pro-ductivity sectors. In this traditional pattern ofdevelopment, an educated (and healthy) la-bor force is a great advantage, but the empha-sis is on basic literacy and numeracy skills, andthe capacity to learn new tasks.

This pattern is still valid, but the late twen-tieth century saw the growth of a knowledge-centered, as opposed to a manufacturing-cen-tered, economy. The “knowledge revolution”has seen exponential and continuing in-creases in knowledge in advanced countriessince World War II. Many indicators confirmthis, including the number of new patents,databases, and journals, as well as research anddevelopment expenditures. Nearly all indus-tries have been affected, from biotechnologyto financial services, with the nature of eco-nomic growth changing since “tinkerers” andcraftsmen guided the early technology of theindustrial revolution. Systematic knowledgehas gradually replaced experience in further-ing technology, with sophisticated and theo-retical knowledge now the predominant pathfor technical progress. The world's SiliconValleys are pushing the technological enve-lope; they are doing so by building on a thor-ough understanding of the underlying sci-ence.

Advances in information technology, mean-while, have made this ever-increasing volumeof knowledge more accessible, effective, andpowerful. Networked computers and newforms of telecommunications spread informa-tion around the world with dazzling speed.The Internet, in particular, means that moreknowledge than ever is in circulation. Thosewho have the skills to use it have access to anextraordinarily valuable (and sustainable)resource.

Participation in the knowledge economyrequires a new set of human skills. Peopleneed to have higher qualifications and to be

18

capable of greater intellectual independence.They must be flexible and be able to continuelearning well beyond the traditional age forschooling. Without improved human capital,countries will inevitably fall behind and expe-rience intellectual and economic marginali-

zation and isolation. The result will be con-tinuing, if not rising, poverty.

As Knowledge for Development, the 1998–99World Development Report, puts it: “Knowledgeis like light. Weightless and intangible, it caneasily travel the world, enlightening the lives

Box 1

Like most developing countries, the DRC faces pow-erful pressures to expand its higher education sec-tor. After achieving independence from Belgium in1960, what is now the third largest African country,with a current population of 47 million, had only twouniversities, both established in the mid-1950s. Theircombined enrollment was around 2,000 students.Five years later, in 1965, enrollment in higher educa-tion—as a proportion of the number of people atthe ages most relevant to higher education—had stillbarely moved above zero (as compared with the 4percent average of both Asia and Latin America).

Both the government and private organizationshave attempted to address the growing demand. Thegovernment established several pedagogical insti-tutes designed to produce secondary school teach-ers. Continuing pressure for access to higher educa-tion has also led to the establishment of several pri-vate three-year institutes, as well as a few privateuniversities offering, among them, degrees in medi-cine, the sciences, economics, international relations,law, politics, communications, humanities, and phi-losophy.

Despite these initiatives, demand continues to out-strip capacity. Acute shortages are evident in tech-nology, the sciences, and medicine—fields in whichtraining is particularly expensive to provide. The num-ber of requests for enrollment in these fields is sohigh that during the academic year 1995–96, at the

Into the Heart of the Matter—The Travails of Higher Education in theDemocratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Public University of Kinshasa, nearly 2,500 freshmenpacked a single class in biomedical sciences. Andstudents are right to seek to become physicians,given that the DRC has only one doctor for every14,000 inhabitants. By 1995, the country continued tohave an extremely low proportion of its populationenrolled in higher education, compared to other de-veloping countries. Moreover, most of the new schoolsreplicate each other, and programs in medicine, tech-nology, or specialized education remain rare.

The DRC, like many developing countries, facesthe challenge of responding to increasing demandwhile attempting to provide a quality education. Thecurrent situation is extremely difficult. Most universi-ties, public and private, lack the necessary funds toprovide basic educational infrastructure—sufficientlyspacious classrooms, laboratories, equipped teach-ing hospitals, libraries, computers, and Internet ac-cess. In general, students have no textbooks, andprofessors must dictate their notes or copy them ontoa blackboard. The majority of schools have no library,no telephone, and not a single computer that stu-dents can use.

Schools in the DRC share a number of seriousproblems. The DRC as a whole lacks sufficient re-sources to provide adequate support to faculty. Manyprofessors therefore choose either to teach at sev-eral universities to make ends meet, to move to cor-porations, or simply to relocate to a developed coun-

19

of people everywhere. Yet billions of peoplestill live in the darkness of poverty—unneces-sarily.” In part, at least, people live in povertybecause they cannot reach the switch to turnon the light, and that switch is called educa-tion. Higher education has never been as im-

try for higher pay. Several factors help to fomentcorruption and undermine professors’ willingness toevaluate students even-handedly, including low payfor faculty and salary payment delays lasting sev-eral months. The current evaluation system is highlysubjective and leaves students at the mercy of pro-fessors who themselves often need to be evaluated.

Another critical issue is the shortage of facultywith graduate-level training. Most faculty are trainedin overseas universities. The current scarcity of gov-ernment resources and international scholarships foroverseas universities makes it difficult to plan anysignificant training of future faculty to expand highereducation. A plausible solution might begin with theestablishment of a few graduate schools, in a vari-ety of disciplines, through cooperation with inter-national universities and foreign donors.

Another problem with higher education in the DRCis that it is rarely possible to study part-time. In thecurrent official system, all students are registered forfull-time attendance. Failing to pass any course auto-matically cancels all grades obtained that year, evenfor courses that a student has passed. This practicediscourages working people from improving their skillsand contributing to the nation's development. A rareexception is the American University of Kinshasa(Université Franco-Américaine de Kinshasa), a privateuniversity that since 1994 has pioneered a credit-basedsystem that also allows students to program theircourses around a work schedule.

Public universities in the DRC also need the res-toration of managerial and financial autonomy (whichthey lost in 1972). Autonomy could promote qualityeducation by stimulating competition, as was for-merly the case between Université Lovanium,Université Officielle du Congo, and Université Librede Kisangani. Government will still need to play anactive role, overseeing the system and setting poli-cies, standards, and regulations. In summary, theDRC is a textbook example of systemic problemsthat are fundamentally undermining the country’sability to capture the benefits of higher education.

Higher education involves more than teachingrelevant skills to students. Theoretical and appliedknowledge in a multitude of fields is created in uni-versities, which also teach people how to access anduse the world’s knowledge. Developing countriesneed strong universities not only to carry out theirown research, but also to select and absorb knowl-edge from all over the world. Undoubtedly other“green revolutions” will take place, and they arelikely to be even more complicated and knowledge-intensive in their nature and application. Given theinternational setting of higher education—the world-wide community of scholars, study and training, andresearch reaching across borders—universities areideally suited for the tasks of selection and absorp-tion of knowledge.

Box 1 continued

portant to the future of the developing worldas it is right now. It cannot guarantee rapideconomic development—but sustainedprogress is impossible without it.

As the World Bank recognizes, the furtherdeveloping countries fall behind, the more dif-

20

ficulties they face. They are, it says, pursuinga moving target, as the high-income countriesconstantly push the knowledge frontier out-ward and pull away from the rest. At one timethe rich countries might have viewed this fu-ture with indifference, confident that theywere insulated from third-world misery. To-day, with memories of the contagion that ac-companied the first global financial crisis stillfresh in people’s minds, misery has becomean infectious disease.

The new realities do not supersede the tra-ditional goals of higher education, however.Indeed, there are many overlaps. Democracy,for instance, has spread at the same time asthe knowledge revolution has gathered pace.It is founded both on well understood andwidely practiced standards of civic virtue, andon the knowledge that allows widespread par-ticipation in the running of a society, valuesthat can be examined and propagated inhigher education institutions more effectivelythan they currently are.

Taken together, the new realities and tradi-tional goals provide a powerful public-inter-est argument for developing higher educa-tion. The Task Force believes that the socialreturns to investment are substantial and ex-ceed private returns by a wider margin thanwas previously believed.

Structure of the Report

Higher Education in Developing Countries:Peril and Promise is aimed at five keyaudiences:

• higher education policymakers, includingeducation ministers, members of govern-ing boards, and others, who need to under-stand the special needs and opportunitiesthat higher education faces in the new cen-tury;

• the wider political community, especiallyministers of the economy and ministers ofindustry, as well as business leaders whosesupport is vital to enabling higher educa-tion to reach its goals;

• higher education professionals, such aspresidents, rectors, vice-chancellors, deans,and professors who are responsible for en-acting reforms and creating institutions thatprovide a high-quality and efficient service;

• lenders and donors, who must decide howthey can best support the enhancement ofhigher education in the developing coun-tries; and

• the general public (including students),whose understanding and support are ab-solutely necessary, given the quantity ofpublic and private resources consumed byhigher education.

The report helps guide these audiencesthrough both the older problems and newrealities faced by higher education. It avoidstreating in detail topics that have been fullyand frequently examined by others, such asfinancing and the use of new technologies ineducation,3 and concentrates instead on ar-eas that have received little consideration, es-pecially those that reflect new pressures onthe system. Expansion, differentiation, andthe knowledge revolution are discussed in

3 On financing see, for example, D. Bruce Johnstone, “TheFinancing and Management of Higher Education: A StatusReport on Worldwide Reforms,” a paper supported by theWorld Bank in connection with the UNESCO World Con-ference on Higher Education, Paris, October 5-9, 1998;World Bank, Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience,1994; and A. Ziderman and D. Albrecht, Financing Univer-sities in Developing Countries, Washington, D.C./London:The Falmer Press, 1995. On technology see, for example,John S. Daniel, Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media:Technology Strategies for Higher Education, London:Kogan Page, 1996; and World Bank, World DevelopmentReport 1998-99: Knowledge of Development, New York:Oxford University Press, 1999.

21

detail, as are neglected topics of considerablecurrent importance, such as the governanceof higher education, the need to considerhigher education as a system, and the publicinterest in higher education. We also includesubstantial discussions on improving scienceand technology research and instruction ininstitutions of higher education, and on thenature and importance of general education.

The report proceeds by reasoned argu-ment, relying heavily on experience and be-lief. Some empirical support is provided fromcase studies and statistical analysis, althoughfurther data analysis would certainly be use-

ful. Each chapter directs attention to a majorissue in higher education, starting a dialoguefrom which we hope more specific policy rec-ommendations will emerge. We have not at-tempted comprehensive studies of individualcountries, or even of specific continents, buthave instead addressed problems that affectmany countries, cultures, histories, and tradi-tions. We hope that each developing country,and each higher education institution, willfind fresh insights in our work—and translatethem into new ways of working in their owncontext.

22

p 22 blank page

23

This chapter examines the current state ofhigher education in developing coun-

tries, and considers the new realities thesecountries face and how they are reshapingtheir response to ongoing challenges. In thepast decades, developing countries have wit-nessed a rapid expansion of higher education,the simultaneous differentiation of highereducation institutions into new forms, and theincreasing importance of knowledge for so-cial and economic development.4 We focuson issues affecting most developing coun-tries—exceptions exist, but should not affectthe main thrust of our argument. In subsequentchapters, we explore the strategies and initia-tives that are needed to meet these challenges.

The Current Situation

Higher education institutions clearly needwell-designed academic programs and a clearmission. Most important to their success, how-ever, are high-quality faculty, committed andwell-prepared students, and sufficient re-sources. Despite notable exceptions, mosthigher education institutions in developingcountries suffer severe deficiencies in each ofthese areas. As a result, few perform to a con-sistently high standard.

Longstanding Problems and New RealitiesChapter 1

Faculty Quality

A well-qualified and highly motivated facultyis critical to the quality of higher educationinstitutions. Unfortunately, even at flagshipuniversities in developing countries, manyfaculty members have little, if any, graduate-level training. This limits the level of knowl-edge imparted to students and restricts thestudents’ ability to access existing knowledgeand generate new ideas.

Teaching methods are often outmoded.Rote learning is common, with instructorsdoing little more in the classroom than copy-ing their notes onto a blackboard. The stu-dents, who are frequently unable to afford atextbook, must then transcribe the notes intoa notebook, and those students who regurgi-tate a credible portion of their notes frommemory achieve exam success. These passiveapproaches to teaching have little value in aworld where creativity and flexibility are at apremium. A more enlightened view of learn-ing is urgently needed, emphasizing activeintellectual engagement, participation, anddiscovery, rather than the passive absorptionof facts.

Improving the quality of faculty is mademore difficult by the ill-conceived incentivestructures found in many developing coun-tries. Faculty pay is generally very low in rela-tion to that offered by alternative professionaloccupations. Pay increases are governed bybureaucratic personnel systems that rewardlong service rather than success in teachingor research. Market forces, which attempt to

4 We realize that the differentiation of higher education in-stitutions is not a new phenomenon, as different types ofcolleges and universities have existed for centuries. Whatis new, however, is the strength of the forces driving differ-entiation, the pace at which it is occurring, and the varietyof institutions being created.

24

reward good performance, are seldom usedto determine pay in the higher educationsector.

While pay disparities make it difficult toattract talented individuals, recruitment pro-cedures are often found to hinder intellectualgrowth. Some developing countries have beenslow to develop traditions of academic free-dom and independent scholarship. Bureau-cracy and corruption are common, affectingthe selection and treatment of both studentsand faculty (see Chapter 4). Favoritism andpatronage contribute to academic inbreedingthat denies universities the benefit of intel-lectual cross-fertilization. These problemsarise most commonly in politicized academicsettings, where power rather than meritweighs most heavily in the making of impor-tant decisions.

Politicization can also have a wider impacton the atmosphere of a system. While politi-cal activity on campuses throughout the worldhas helped address injustices and promote de-mocracy, in many instances it has also inap-propriately disrupted campus life. Research,teaching, and learning are extremely difficultwhen a few faculty members, students, andstudent groups take up positions as combat-ive agents of rival political factions.

Higher education institutions rely on thecommitment of their faculty. Their consistentpresence and availability to students and col-leagues have an enormous influence in creat-ing an atmosphere that encourages learning.Yet few institutions in developing countrieshave strictures against moonlighting and ex-cessive absenteeism. Many faculty work part-time at several institutions, devote little atten-tion to research or to improving theirteaching, and play little or no role in the lifeof the institutions employing them. Facultymembers are often more interested in teach-ing another course—often at an unaccreditedschool—than in increasing their presence andcommitment to the main institution with

which they are affiliated. With wages so low, itis difficult to condemn such behavior.

Problems Faced by Students

In many institutions, students face difficultconditions for study. Severely overcrowdedclasses, inadequate library and laboratory fa-cilities, distracting living conditions, and few,if any, student services are the norm. The fi-nancial strains currently faced by most uni-versities are making conditions even worse.

Many students start their studies academi-cally unprepared for higher education. Poorbasic and secondary education, combinedwith a lack of selection in the academic sys-tem, lie at the root of this problem. Yet rarelydoes an institution respond by creating reme-dial programs for inadequately prepared stu-dents.

Cultural traditions and infrastructure limi-tations also frequently cause students to studysubjects, such as humanities and the arts, thatoffer limited job opportunities and lead to“educated unemployment.” At the same time,there is often unmet demand for qualifiedscience graduates (see Chapter 5), while inmany societies women study subjects that con-form to their traditional roles, rather thancourses that will maximize their opportuni-ties in the labor market. Better informationon the labor market is needed, combined withpolicies that promote economic growth andlabor absorption. Also, many educated peoplecome from wealthier backgrounds and areable to resist taking jobs in locations they con-sider to be undesirable. Promoting an entre-preneurial culture will encourage the creationof more productive jobs.

Students also face the widespread require-ment to choose their area of specializationearly in their course, in some cases ahead ofmatriculation. Once a choice is made, changeis frequently difficult or even impossible. Suchinflexibility closes off options, with students

25

unable to sample courses in different academicareas. Early specialization can prevent costly in-decisiveness, but systems that are unforgivingof early “mistakes” do not develop and unleashthe true potential of many students.

Insufficient Resources and Autonomy

Many of the problems involving higher edu-cation are rooted in a lack of resources. Forexample, developing countries spend far lessthan developed countries on each student.But finding new funds is not easy. Althoughabsolute spending is low, developing countriesare already spending a higher proportion oftheir (smaller) incomes than the developedworld on higher education, with public spend-ing for education growing more quickly thanincome or total government spending. Highereducation is clearly placing greater demandson public budgets,5 with the private sector andinternational donors taking up only some ofthe slack. Redirecting money from primary orsecondary education is rarely an option, withspending per student on higher educationalready considerably higher than is commonat other levels of the education system.

Most public universities are highly depen-dent on central governments for their finan-cial resources. Tuition fees are often negligibleor nonexistent, and attempts to increase theirlevel encounter major resistance. Even whentuition fees are collected, the funds often by-pass the university and go directly into thecoffers of ministries of finance or central rev-enue departments. Budgets must typically beapproved by government officials, who mayhave little understanding of higher educationin general, of the goals and capabilities of aparticular university, or of the local contextin which it operates.

In addition, capital and operating budgetsare poorly coordinated. Often, major new fa-cilities are built, but then are left with no fundsfor operation and maintenance. The devel-oping world is littered with deterioratingbuildings, inadequate libraries, computerlaboratories that are rarely open, and scien-tific equipment that cannot be used for wantof supplies and parts. It is often impossible tocarry over unspent funds for use in later years,and difficult to win a budget that is higherthan the previous year’s actual expenditure.This creates a “use-it-or-lose-it environment,”resulting in overspending and misspent re-sources.

Research universities face an array of espe-cially serious problems. Their role derivesfrom a unique capacity to combine the gen-eration of new knowledge with the transmis-sion of existing knowledge. Recent pressuresto expand higher education, discussed atlength below, have in many cases diverted suchuniversities from pursuing research, and theirfinancial situation is further diminishing theirresearch capabilities. Public universities inAfrica and Asia often devote up to 80 percentof their budgets to personnel and studentmaintenance costs, leaving few resources forinfrastructure maintenance, libraries, equip-ment, or supplies—all key ingredients inmaintaining a research establishment.

The disappearance of a research agendafrom these universities has serious conse-quences. The inability to pursue research iso-lates the nation’s elite scholars and scientists,leaving them unable to keep up with devel-opments in their own fields. As research uni-versities lose their ability to act as referencepoints for the rest of the education system,countries quickly find it harder to make keydecisions about the international issues affect-ing them.

In addition to being severely underfunded,sometimes despite their best efforts, manyhigher education institutions in developing

5 A lack of data on education costs prevents inferences aboutwhether these increased expenditures imply qualitychanges.

26

countries lack the authority to make key aca-demic, financial, and personnel decisions. Theycan also be slow to devolve responsibility fordecisionmaking to constituent departments.Poor governance, in other words, dilutes theirability to spend what money they have.

Expansion ofHigher Education Systems

Problems of quality and lack of resources arecompounded by the new realities faced byhigher education, the first of which is expan-sion, as higher education institutions battle tocope with ever-increasing student numbers. Re-sponding to this demand without further dilut-ing quality is an especially daunting challenge.

Precursors

Over the past 50 years educational develop-ment has focused on expanding access toprimary education. Starting from a low base,the results have been extraordinary. In 1965,less than half the adult population of devel-oping countries was literate—less than one-third in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.By 1995, however, 70 percent of adults liv-ing in developing countries were literate,with literacy levels above 50 percent even inSub-Saharan Africa. Primary school enroll-ments have skyrocketed, with variations inperformance between rich and poor coun-tries shrinking rapidly (see Figure 2).

As increasing numbers of students com-plete primary school, demand for access to

Figure 2

Average Primary Gross Enrollment Ratios by National Income,1965 and 1995

Note: Countries are shown according to income groups as defined by the World Bank. The gross enrollment ratio can exceed 100percent. See definition in Statistical Appendix. Source: Robert Barro and Jong-Wha Lee, Data Set for a Panel of 138 Countries, 1994;UNESCO, Division of Statistics, http://unescostat.unesco.org, March, April, and May, 1999; United Nations, World Population Prospects1950–2050, electronic data set: Demographic Indicators 1950–2050, 1996.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1965 1995

Pri

mar

y G

ross

Enr

ollm

ent

Rat

io %

Low Middle High

Countries by Income

27

secondary education rises. In recent decades,secondary enrollment ratios have increasedsignificantly, and further expansion is almostcertain. For example, between 1965 and 1995the secondary gross enrollment ratio6 in-creased from 16 to 47 percent in Brazil, from5 to 32 percent in Nigeria, and from 12 to 30percent in Pakistan. This has a double impacton higher education. More secondary stu-dents would mean more people enteringhigher education, even if the proportion pro-gressing remained constant. However, theproportion who do want to graduate to highereducation is increasing substantially, as glo-balization makes skilled workers more valu-able and the international market for ideas,top faculty, and promising students continuesto develop.

The substantial widening of access to pri-mary and secondary education has combinedwith two other factors to impel the expansionof the higher education system: (i) a rapidincrease in the number of people at the tradi-tional ages for attending higher educationinstitutions,7 and (ii) a higher proportion ofsecondary school graduates progressing tohigher education. Demographic change, in-come growth, urbanization, and the growingeconomic importance of knowledge and skillshave combined to ensure that, in most devel-oping countries, higher education is no longera small cultural enterprise for the elite. Rather,it has become vital to nearly every nation’splans for development.

As a result, higher education is indisputablythe new frontier of educational developmentin a growing number of countries (Figure 3).The number of adults in developing countrieswith at least some higher education increased

by a factor of roughly 2.5 between 1975 and1990. In 1995 more than 47 million studentswere enrolled in higher education in the de-veloping world, up from nearly 28 million in1980. For most developing countries, highereducation enrollments are growing faster thantheir populations, a trend that will continuefor at least another decade.

This continued expansion of higher edu-cation is clearly necessary to meet increaseddemand. However, it has brought with it somenew problems. For example China, India, In-donesia, the Philippines, and Russia now havesystems of higher education serving 2 millionor more students. A further seven developingcountries—Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iran,Mexico, Thailand, and Ukraine—enroll be-tween 1 and 2 million students. To accommo-date so many students, some institutions havehad to stretch their organizational boundariesseverely, giving birth to “mega-universities”such as the National University of Mexico andthe University of Buenos Aires in Argentina,each of which has an enrollment of more than200,000 students.

Expansion, both public and private, hasbeen unbridled, unplanned, and often cha-otic. The results—deterioration in averagequality, continuing interregional, intercoun-try, and intracountry inequities, and increasedfor-profit provision of higher education—could all have serious consequences.

Imbalances

Although higher education enrollment rosesharply between 1980 and 1995 in both indus-trial and developing countries, the enrollmentrate in industrial countries has remainedroughly five to six times that of developingcountries.

Within countries there are major imbal-ances between urban and rural areas, rich andpoor households, men and women, andamong ethnic groups. We know of no coun-

6 See Statistical Appendix, Part II, Selected Definitions, fordefinition.

7 There is nothing ephemeral about this trend. Demographicprojections show that the number of 20- to 24-year-oldswill continue to increase rapidly in many developing coun-tries over the next decade.

28

try in which high-income groups are notheavily over-represented in tertiary enroll-ments. For example, in Latin America, eventhough the technical and professional strataaccount for no more than 15 percent of thegeneral population, their children account fornearly half the total enrollment in higher edu-cation, and still more in some of the best pub-lic universities such as the University of SãoPaulo and the University of Campinas in Bra-zil, the Simón Bolivar University in Venezu-ela, and the National University of Bogotá inColombia.

Between 1965 and 1995, the female shareof enrollment in higher education in the de-veloping world increased from 32 to 45 per-

cent. Female enrollment is driving nearly halfof the increased demand for higher educa-tion, and will presumably promote greatergender equality. But at present, outside theindustrial countries only Latin America andthe countries in transition have achieved over-all gender balance.

Differentiation of HigherEducation Institutions

Not only have higher education systems ex-panded worldwide, the nature of the institu-tions within these systems has also been shift-ing, through a process of differentiation.

Figure 3

Average Tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratios by National Income,1965 and 1995

Note: Countries are shown according to income groups as defined by the World Bank. The gross enrollment ratio can exceed 100percent. See definition in Statistical Appendix. Source: Robert Barro and Jong-Wha Lee, Data Set for a Panel of 138 Countries, 1994;UNESCO, Division of Statistics, http://unescostat.unesco.org, March, April, and May, 1999; United Nations, World Population Prospects1950–2050, electronic data set: Demographic Indicators 1950–2050, 1996.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Tert

iary

Gro

ss E

nro

llmen

t R

atio

%

1965

Low Middle High

1995

Countries by Income

29

Differentiation can occur vertically as the typesof institutions proliferate, with the traditionalresearch university being joined by polytech-nics, professional schools, institutions thatgrant degrees but do not conduct research,and community colleges. Differentiation canalso occur horizontally by the creation of newinstitutions operated by private providers,such as for-profit entities, philanthropic andother nonprofit organizations, and religiousgroups. The spread of distance-learning op-erations is an increasingly important exampleof differentiation and has both vertical andhorizontal features.

Private education in developing countrieshas been growing since the 1960s. Not all ofthis growth has been in for-profit institutions:private philanthropic institutions have alsobeen expanding. These are not-for-profit in-stitutions that rely on a combination of giftsand fees. Philanthropic institutions haveplayed a particularly significant role in pro-viding high-quality education, although nar-rowly defined and strongly rooted objectivescan limit the extent to which many of theseinstitutions are able to advance the wider pub-lic interest. Philanthropic institutions gener-ally fall somewhere between public and for-profit institutions, sharing some of thestrengths, weaknesses, and objectives of each.In many contexts the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit private institutions isof greater practical significance than the moretraditional division between public and pri-vate institutions, since not-for-profit privateinstitutions frequently resemble public insti-tutions in terms of their mission and theirstructure.

Horizontal Differentiation

The growth of private higher education insti-tutions, especially for-profit institutions, is themost striking manifestation of differentiation.Although the exact scale of private expansion

is difficult to determine, the number of pri-vate institutions increased dramatically inmany parts of Asia and Africa from the 1980sonwards—a process that started much earlierin Latin America, where institutions with reli-gious affiliations are strong.

China now has more than 800 privatehigher education institutions, although theMinistry of Education officially recognizesonly a handful of them. Nearly 60 percent ofBrazil’s tertiary-level students are currently en-rolled in private institutions, which comprisenearly 80 percent of the country’s higher edu-cation system. At independence in 1945 In-donesia had only 1,000 tertiary-level students.It now has 57 public universities and morethan 1,200 private universities, with more than60 percent of the student body enrolled inprivate institutions. In South Africa, roughlyhalf of the country’s students are enrolled inprivate institutions (see Figure 4).

This trend seems certain to continue. De-regulation in many countries is loosening thestate’s grip on the founding and operation ofprivate institutions. Where demand has builtup, growth is likely to be especially strong. Agrowing private sector does not necessarilylead to increased diversity, as new universitiesmay simply imitate the curricular offerings ofthe public universities (as has tended to hap-pen in Latin America). In general, though,new private institutions are likely to be some-what innovative, if only because they do nothave an institutional history to overcome. Theability to respond to the market and greaterlegal freedom may also be important. Privateuniversities in South Asia, for example, haveintroduced innovations in the form of the se-mester system, standardized examinations,and credit systems.

The creation of new universities by religiousorganizations is a particularly important phe-nomenon. For example, the United Method-ist Church established the African Universityin Zimbabwe, with department heads selected

30

Figure 4

Percentage Share of Enrollment in Private Higher Education

Note: In Japan and the few Western European countries that have a high proportion of enrollments in privateinstitutions (for example, Belgium and the Netherlands), higher education continues to be almost entirely financedby the state, which subsidizes both public and private higher education institutions. Source: World Bank, HigherEducation: The Lessons of Experience, 1994.

200 40 60 80 100

PhilippinesKoreaJapan

BelgiumIndonesiaColombia

IndiaBrazil

BangladeshNetherlands

NicaraguaParaguay

JordanPeru

EcuadorChileZaire

NepalPortugal

United StatesGuatemala

ThailandEl Salvador

MexicoVenezuelaArgentinaHonduras

RwandaMalaysia

BoliviaItaly

SpainPapua New Guinea

KenyaZimbabwe

PanamaDominican Republic

AustriaSwedenPakistan

31

from among nationals of different Africancountries. Well-established religious universi-ties—Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim—op-erate in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. A simi-lar phenomenon involving Catholicuniversities occurs in Latin America.

Distance learning, in which students takeclasses primarily via radio, television, or theInternet, has expanded enormously duringthe past decade. (Both Nelson Mandela andRobert Mugabe earned their degrees in thisway, at the world’s oldest distance-learning uni-versity, the University of South Africa.) Thefive largest programs in the world are all basedin developing countries, and all of these havebeen established since 1978 (see Table 1).They claimed an aggregate enrollment ofroughly 2 million students in 1997, and ac-count for about 10 percent of enrollmentgrowth in developing countries during the

past two decades. Educators have long beenusing radio and television to reach studentsin remote areas, but new satellite- andInternet-based technologies promise to ex-tend distance-learning systems to a broadergroup of students, ranging from those insparsely populated, remote areas to those liv-ing in dense urban agglomerations. In theUnited States, for example, the University ofPhoenix is vigorously promoting its onlinecourses, while in the United Kingdom, thepublicly funded Open University has over 100courses that use information technology linksas a central part of the teaching—with 4,000students per day connecting via the Internet.

Distance learning has great potential in thedeveloping world, offering a powerful chan-nel for bringing education to groups that havepreviously been excluded. In the future it isalmost certain to take place increasingly across

Budget Unit costb

Institution Founded Studentsa (million US$) (percent)

Anadolu University, Turkey 1982 578,000 30c 10

China TV University 1979 530,000 1d 40

Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia 1984 353,000 21 15

Indira Gandhi National Open University, India 1985 242,000 10 35

Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, Thailand 1978 217,000 46 30

Korean National Open University 1982 211,000 79 5

National Centre for Distance Learning, France 1939 185,000 56 50

The Open University, Britain 1969 157,000 300 50

University of South Africa 1873 130,000 128 50

Payame Noor University, Iran 1987 117,000 13 25

a Figures are for 1994, 1995, or 1996.b Cost per student as a percentage of average for other universities in that country.c Open Education Faculty only.d Central unit only.

Note: The figures in the accompanying table are the best available, but we recognize that many uncertainties arise in dealing with these andother cross-country comparisons. Source: John S. Daniel, Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Educa-tion, London: Kogan Page, 1996, as cited by Dennis Normile, “Schools Ponder New Global Landscape,” Science, 277, July 18, 1997.

Table 1 Ten Largest Distance-Learning Institutions

32

borders. Already over 12 percent of the UnitedKingdom’s Open University students are resi-dent outside the country. It is also easy to con-ceive of high-quality developing country in-stitutions offering educational programs anddegrees in other parts of the developingworld. While a desirable development, thiswould create a variety of problems relating toquality control and other forms of supervision.

Vertical Differentiation

While horizontal differentiation is driven byincreased demand for higher education, ver-tical differentiation is a reaction to demandfor a greater diversity of graduates. In general,economic development is associated with amore refined division of labor, and highereducation institutions have an essential roleto play in imparting necessary skills. The in-creasing importance of knowledge makes thisrange of skills in wider demand than ever.Today’s developing economy needs not onlycivil servants, but also a whole host of otherprofessionals such as industrial engineers,pharmacists, and computer scientists. Highereducation institutions are adapting and newones are emerging to provide training andcredentials in new areas. As societies acceptmodern medicine, for example, they establishnot only medical schools, but also schools ofpharmacy.

The labor market also creates a demand forgraduates who have undergone training ofdifferent types and intensities. Both publicand private institutions have responded bycreating academic programs that accommo-date students with a wider range of capabili-ties. Some new programs allow students toearn lower-ranking degrees relatively quickly.In Bangladesh, some universities have twostreams of undergraduate students: one thatis admitted for a standard three-yearbachelor’s program, and another that is ad-

mitted to a less demanding two-year program.Both groups take the same classes, with less-advanced students having to complete fewercourses to graduate. As enrollments increase,new specialties can develop, attracting thecritical mass of students and faculty that al-low institutions to set up new departments,institutes, and programs.

Differentiation is spurred on by the relax-ation of state regulations, but this poses seri-ous quality problems. The argument thatmarket forces will ensure suitable quality issimplistic. Private institutions often receivepublic subsidies through tax deductions onfinancial contributions or donations of physi-cal facilities from public sources, or by accept-ing students whose tuition is financed by thegovernment. To the extent that competitionis driven by cost alone, it is likely to abet theprovision of low-quality education. So-calledgarage universities sometimes disappear asquickly as they appeared, leaving students withsevere difficulties in establishing the qualityof their credentials.

Knowledge Acceleration

The expansion and differentiation of highereducation is occurring at the same time as thepace of knowledge creation is dramaticallyaccelerating. The categories into which newknowledge falls are becoming increasinglyspecialized, and a revolution has occurred inpeople’s ability to access knowledge quicklyand from increasingly distant locations. Thesechanges are fundamentally altering whateconomies produce, as well as where and howthey produce it. Organizations are changing,as are the skills needed to run them and theway they utilize human capital.

Industrial countries have been by far thegreatest contributors to, and beneficiaries of,this knowledge revolution. To the extent that

33

this trend continues, the income gap betweenindustrial and developing countries will widenfurther. Higher education institutions, as theprime creators and conveyors of knowledge,must be at the forefront of efforts to narrowthe development gap between industrial anddeveloping counrtries.

Characteristics of the Revolution

The knowledge revolution can be describedin a few key dimensions.

• Worldwide, the rate at which scientific pa-pers are published has doubled in the pasttwo decades. In economies where scientificcapacity is expanding particularly rapidly,such as China, Hong Kong, Singapore,South Korea, and Taiwan, the publicationrate has more than doubled in the pastdecade. The number of academic journalsis now doubling roughly every five years,with new titles reflecting increasingly nar-row specialties.

• In both industrial and developing coun-tries, the number of patent applications hasbeen increasing steadily. For example, in1996 residents of Brazil, India, and theUnited States filed 42, 66, and 71 percentmore patent applications, respectively, thanin 1986.

• A country ranking of published scientificpapers per capita during 1981–94 does notinclude a single developing country amongthe top 15. China and India make the listwhen assessed in terms of the absolute num-ber of papers published, but this is duemainly to the sheer size of their popula-tions.

• To a large extent the knowledge revolutionhas been driven by the use of personal com-puters and the Internet. However, as of

1996 industrial countries had about 20times as many personal computers percapita as middle-income countries (224versus 12 per 1,000 people) and more than100 times as many Internet hosts (203 ver-sus approximately 2 per 10,000 people).

The spectacular advances in recent decadesin computerization, communications, and in-formation technology have greatly enhancedthe ability of researchers and entrepreneursto create new knowledge, products, and ser-vices. Developments in electronics and com-puterization in the 1950s and 1960s laid thegroundwork for incorporating microproces-sors into a totally unanticipated array of de-vices, thereby transforming old machines intonewly “smart” ones, while creating new ma-chines at a breathtaking pace. New serviceshave proliferated, transforming labor-inten-sive tasks such as managing payroll and travelreservation systems into technology-based ac-tivities. Factory production is increasinglybased on robotics and sophisticated computercontrols. Even automobile mechanics usecomputer-based analytical tools.

In recent years advances in communica-tions and information technology have takencenter stage. Fax machines have turned manyisolated offices into active nerve centers, onlyto be superseded by electronic mail. Massivedatabases have consolidated huge quantitiesof information in one place, thereby allowingacademics, entrepreneurs, and the generalpublic to tap into them conveniently and rap-idly. Most recently, the Internet has allowedpeople to access information about an unprec-edented number of topics virtually instantlyand, in most cases, cheaply. One of the fac-tors underlying these changes is a dramaticreduction in the cost and ease of transmittingdata. It will soon be possible to transmit 100times as much data, for approximately one-hundredth the cost, as in 1983.

34

Beyond all these advances lie revolutionsin other fields. New techniques in genetics andmolecular biology have made possible newproducts, therapies, and cures, all of whichpromise to transform radically the quality oflife. Chemists, physicists, and engineers havecreated new materials and processes, propel-ling plastics and ceramics into the heart of in-dustrial operations and adopting fiber opticsas the lifeblood of international communica-tion. These changes are also creating formi-dable new geopolitical, ethical, legal, and hu-man rights issues related to, for example, thedevelopment of new weapons, the possibili-ties inherent in cloning, and the threat to pri-vacy posed by centralized databases and theirphenomenal reach.

Implications forDeveloping Countries

The increasing importance of knowledge, inconjunction with the fact that most developingcountries are falling further behind in their abil-ity to create, absorb, and use it, has some ma-jor implications for developing countries.

• Countries that are only weakly connectedto the rapidly emerging global knowledgesystem will find themselves increasingly ata disadvantage. The gap between industrialand developing countries in per capita in-comes and standards of living will widenunless the corresponding gaps in knowl-edge and access to knowledge are success-fully addressed.

Box 2

The Maldives is a country of just 275,000 inhabitantsscattered throughout the island atolls at the south-ernmost rim of India. With such a small population,the country faces a problem of how to administerhigher education. Currently there are eight highereducation institutions in the capital offering coursesin health, education, technical education, hotel andcatering, administration, law, and maritime training,in addition to a distance-learning center. They all fallunder the umbrella of the Maldives College of HigherEducation (MCHE) and each has branches in theatolls. Currently MCHE does not grant degrees, butover time it will evolve into a degree-granting insti-tution. The problems faced by the Maldives are typi-cal of small-island states, and include diseconomiesof scale, mainly due to a scattered population; se-vere shortages of local, educated labor to staff post-secondary institutes; over-reliance on overseaseducation and training for all degree programs; anda lack of capacity to conduct applied research. These

What If You Are Very Small?

problems are serious and will take time to address.However, international developments in distance

learning and link programs offer true potential tobypass these critical capacity gaps. Access to inter-national distance learning will be tried and closelylinked to foreign university programs. For this to hap-pen, accreditation standards and entrance qualifica-tions of applicants have to rise and collaborativeassistance needs to be worked out with associatedinstitutions. On the whole, the Maldives is pinningits hopes on advanced telecommunications networksthat will eventually make life-long learning inexpen-sive, even in remote islands.

In summary, the Maldives is experimenting witheducation that meets local needs. The issue is notwhether the Maldives needs a traditional university,but rather how best to shape and deliver systemsthat provide high-quality, accredited courses to stu-dents across the country.

35

• Within countries, inequality will probablyrise as some individuals and groups usetheir education (particularly higher educa-tion) to gain access to the knowledge sys-tem and then translate that access intohigher incomes.

• Rectifying this situation is critical, but noteasy. Although higher education is the tra-ditional venue for gaining advanced knowl-edge, in many countries a large proportionof secondary school graduates are ill pre-pared to continue their studies and join theknowledge-centered world. Remedial pro-grams at some higher education institutionsmay help rectify this problem, but strenu-ous efforts to improve primary and second-ary education, including an emphasis onusing technology to gain new knowledge,will also be necessary.

• Compared with investment in the produc-tion of goods, investment in the produc-tion of new knowledge yields potentiallyhigher economic returns, but entails higherrisks. For example, designing and market-ing the best computer-operating system inthe world is enormously lucrative; the sec-ond- and third-best systems are far less prof-itable. This would surely not apply in thecase of steel mills, oil refineries, or food-processing plants. The winner-takes-allcharacter of investment in knowledge de-mands a high level of existing knowledgeand skills even to enter the fray. Few devel-oping countries possess this knowledge. Inthis way, the knowledge gap will effectivelypreclude many upper-middle-income devel-oping countries from participating in, andenjoying the benefits of, a growing andhighly profitable set of economic activities.This issue is less relevant to low- and lower-middle-income countries, whose focus willbe on developing the capacity to access andassimilate new knowledge.

Implications forHigher Education

Knowledge has become a springboard for eco-nomic growth and development, making thepromotion of a culture that supports its cre-ation and dissemination a vital task.Policymakers must keep a number of consid-erations in mind.

• Students must learn not only what is knownnow, but also how to keep their knowledgeup to date. New technology-based tools forgathering knowledge must become centralelements of their education, and curriculashould be designed so that students learnhow to learn.

• Specialization is increasingly important.Institutions of higher education will needto provide opportunities for in-depth studyof particular fields, while also (as we arguein Chapter 6) offering programs of generaleducation that can serve as a solid founda-tion for life-long learning and later special-ization.

• Institutional differentiation is a logical re-sponse to the increased specialization andimportance of knowledge. In many cases,both new and reformed institutions canbest serve the public interest by focusingon a well-defined set of goals for a particu-lar set of students.

• Knowledge is being produced throughoutthe world, and active engagement withscholars in other countries is crucial fordeveloping and maintaining a lively intel-lectual community. Much new knowledgeis an international public good, and its ben-efits will extend well beyond the borders ofthe country in which it is created. Coun-tries that allow information to flow freelywill benefit more.

36

• The advances in communication and infor-mation technology that made such signifi-cant contributions to the knowledge revo-lution mean that emphasis on these fieldsis likely to pay dividends in a wide varietyof areas.

Conclusions

In most developing countries higher educa-tion exhibits severe deficiencies, with the ex-pansion of the system an aggravating factor.Demand for increased access is likely to con-tinue, with public and private sectors seeking

to meet it with an array of new higher educa-tion institutions. Rapid and chaotic expansionis usually the result, with the public sector gen-erally underfunded and the private (for-profit) sector having problems establishingquality programs that address anything otherthan short-term, market-driven needs. A lackof information about institutional qualitymakes it difficult for students to make choicesabout their education, making it hard to en-list consumer demand in the battle to raisestandards. Developing countries are left witha formidable task—expanding their highereducation system and improving quality, allwithin continuing budgetary constraints.

37

For centuries people have gained a substan-tial benefit from the higher education they

have received—and wider society has ben-efited too. This public interest is central tothe argument that collective action is neededto support, nurture, and strengthen highereducation institutions. It also affects decisionson how much should be invested in highereducation and from what sources that invest-ment should come.

It is good to keep in mind that internationalsupport for higher education has passedthrough three overlapping phases in the pasthalf-century:

• general support to strengthen existing uni-versities;

• an accelerated effort to establish a new typeof higher education institution, the “devel-opment university,” focused on serving lo-cal development needs, especially in theareas of agriculture, health, and industrialdevelopment; and

• various attempts to establish centers of ex-cellence, especially in the areas of scienceand technology, but only in a very selectgroup of countries.

These phases have had an uneven impact onuniversities over the decades and have gradu-ally altered the way universities serve the pub-lic interest. This chapter explores the precisenature of the public interest in higher educa-tion and discusses why its importance hastended to be underestimated. It also explores

Chapter 2 Higher Education and the Public Interest

the impact of the new realities—especiallyexpansion and differentiation—on thestrength of the public interest.

The Public Interest

Higher education simultaneously improves in-dividual lives and enriches wider society, indi-cating a substantial overlap between privateand public interests in higher education.Higher education raises wages and produc-tivity, which makes both individuals and coun-tries richer. It allows people to enjoy an en-hanced “life of the mind,” offering widersociety both cultural and political benefits.And it can encourage independence and ini-tiative, both valuable commodities in theknowledge society.

The benefits of education, according to theInter-American Development Bank’s Facing upto Inequality in Latin America (1999), for ex-ample, are substantial. In Latin America as awhole, a worker with six years of educationearns 50 percent more than someone who hasnot attended school. This gap increases to 120percent for those with 12 years of education(i.e., completing secondary school), and ex-ceeds 200 percent for those with 17 years ofeducation (i.e., completing a university di-ploma). These benefits are “private,” althoughthere are also public benefits, as a bettertrained workforce contributes to rising taxstreams, better healthcare, improved institu-tional capital, and so forth.

38

The macroeconomic impact of educationis strong: just as individuals with better edu-cation tend to achieve greater success in thelabor market, so economies with higher en-rollment rates and years of schooling appearto be more dynamic, competitive in globalmarkets, and successful in terms of higher in-come per capita. The point is dramatically il-lustrated by the experience of East Asia. From1991 to 1995, East Asia experienced fastergrowth per year than did Latin America.Economists calculate that the higher educa-tion levels of the East Asian workforce accountfor a full half-point of that difference. It is thusin the interests of a much wider set ofpolicymakers, as well as the business commu-nity, to become more actively involved in na-tional debates about the reform and futureof education systems.

This chapter does not attempt to providean exhaustive catalogue of areas where thereis a public return to investments in higher edu-cation, above and beyond the private return.The intention is to illustrate the public-inter-est perspective as it relates to economic andsocial development, concentrating on highereducation’s ability to:

• unlock potential at all levels of society, help-ing talented people to gain advanced train-ing whatever their background;

• create a pool of highly trained individualsthat attains a critical size and becomes a keynational resource;

• address topics whose long-term value tosociety is thought to exceed their currentvalue to students and employers (for ex-ample, the humanities); and

• provide a space for the free and open dis-cussion of ideas and values.

Developing countries are currently undergreat pressure to meet increased demand forhigher education, and many are finding it

hard to keep up. They are becoming increas-ingly reliant on fee-based education and pri-vate, for-profit providers. In this environment,education becomes more narrowly focused onproviding a skilled labor pool for the imme-diate needs of the economy. Market forces pre-dominate and the public benefits of—and re-sponsibilities for—higher education recedefrom view.

Certainly, competition within the highereducation sector can lead to higher standardsand to significant benefits for individual stu-dents. In many developing countries, however,markets do not function well and this leads toa serious misallocation of resources. Access,for example, is limited by income, excludingpotentially able students and diluting the qual-ity of the student body. Poor market informa-tion dilutes competition, allowing weak, ex-ploitative institutions—some of themforeign—to survive and even prosper, and less-ening the chances of dynamic new entrants.

Even when markets work well and studentsreceive a quality service, private institutionsmay still fail to serve the public interest. For-profit institutions must operate as businesses,facing the market test and trying to maximizethe return on their investment. It may notmake good financial sense for them to investin public-interest functions, and thereforethey may underinvest in certain subjects andtypes of higher education, even if these areimportant to the well-being of society as awhole. The public sector thus retains a vitaland, in our opinion, irreplaceable role in thehigher education sector.

This role can take many forms. Govern-ments can be direct providers of higher edu-cation, offer finance for its provision, or doboth. They can develop legal and regulatoryinstitutions to promote and shape the highereducation system, and regulate individual in-stitutions—even when these are privately char-tered and funded.

39

But governments do not have an open-ended mandate in this area. Whatever theirpolicies, they must be able to demonstrate thatthey are using resources in a way that offerssociety benefits that the private sector cannotsupply. The public interest argument cannotbe a cover for public sector waste, inefficiency,or lack of vision.

The Influence ofRate-of-Return Analysis

Although the concept of human capital datesto Adam Smith’s Inquiry into the Nature andCauses of the Wealth of Nations (1776), it is onlywithin the past 50 years that labor economistshave seriously examined the returns to invest-ment in education. By the mid-1970s tech-niques focused on the difference between av-erage annual earnings among people withdifferent levels of educational attainment (forexample, secondary versus primary schoolgraduates). They also analyzed differences be-tween social and private rates of return, bycomparing the amount of public subsidy re-ceived by education with the amount of extratax society was able to levy on resultant higherearnings.

These techniques seemed to demonstratethat higher education offered lower privatereturns than primary education. They alsoshowed that social returns were lower and,considering that higher education absorbsconsiderably higher investment, they demon-strated that the public interest in higher edu-cation was substantially lower than that in pri-mary education. Taken together, these resultsprovided a powerful justification—especiallyfor international donors and lenders—for fo-cusing public educational investment at theprimary level. This justification was further re-inforced by the obvious gains in social equityassociated with such a strategy, as highlightedand endorsed by the Jomtien Declaration in

1990. The World Bank drew the conclusionthat its lending strategy should emphasizeprimary education, relegating higher educa-tion to a relatively minor place on its develop-ment agenda. The World Bank’s stance hasbeen influential, and many other donors havealso emphasized primary and, to some extent,secondary education as instruments for pro-moting economic and social development.

The Task Force fully supports the continu-ation of large investment in primary and sec-ondary education, but believes that traditionaleconomic arguments are based on a limitedunderstanding of what higher education in-stitutions contribute. Rate-of-return studiestreat educated people as valuable onlythrough their higher earnings and the greatertax revenues extracted by society. But edu-cated people clearly have many other effectson society: educated people are well posi-tioned to be economic and social entrepre-neurs, having a far-reaching impact on theeconomic and social well-being of their com-munities. They are also vital to creating anenvironment in which economic developmentis possible. Good governance, strong institu-tions, and a developed infrastructure are allneeded if business is to thrive—and none ofthese is possible without highly educatedpeople. Finally, rate-of-return analysis entirelymisses the impact of university-based researchon the economy—a far-reaching social ben-efit that is at the heart of any argument fordeveloping strong higher education systems.

Access to Higher Education

An important ingredient in the public inter-est in higher education is its role in creating ameritocratic society that is able to secure thebest political leaders and civil servants, doc-tors and teachers, lawyers and engineers, andbusiness and civic leaders. These people areoften selected from the most educated, and

40

Box 3

Estimating the “rate of return” on investments in dif-ferent levels of education allows public policymakersto judge the effectiveness of education policies thattarget different levels of the education system. La-bor economists have a long tradition of constructingsuch estimates. One conventional approach involvescomparing the average earnings of individuals at vari-ous stages of educational achievement (for example,those who have completed primary education ver-sus those who have not, or those who have com-pleted higher education versus those whose formaleducation ended with the completion of secondaryschool). After adjusting for direct costs associatedwith the corresponding levels of educational achieve-ment (for example, tuition and fees), and taking ac-count of the fact that the value of a given sum ofmoney will vary depending on the time at which it isspent or received, the (discounted net) earnings dif-ferentials can be expressed in classic “rates-of-re-turn” terms.

Rates of return are considered private if they arebased on differences in take-home pay and the costsof schooling that come out of the pockets of stu-dents and their families. Standard references on thecalculation of rates of return abound, with the lead-ing collection of actual estimates reported by GeorgePsacharopoulos, 1994 (“Returns to Investment in

The Basics of Rate-of-Return Analysis

Education: A Global Update,” World Development,22: 1325–43).

Once both private and social rates of return arecalculated, it is easy to calculate the difference inthese rates—i.e., how much society benefits aboveand beyond the private return. It is this differencethat provides an economic justification for govern-ment action. If the social return exceeds the privatereturn, this tells us that the unfettered operation ofprivate markets (so-called “laissez-faire”) will not pro-duce as much education as is desirable from the pointof view of society. (This is because private marketsbase their decisions on private returns, whereas so-ciety should base its decisions on social returns.) Also,if the social rate of return to primary school exceedsthat for higher education, this in turn suggests thatprimary school is a better social investment thanhigher education.

Such analyses were undertaken, and concludedthat the difference was greater in primary educationthan in higher education, and therefore that govern-ment action was more justified in the former than inthe latter. But the standard rate-of-return analysesstopped there, consistently failing to reflect that thebenefits of higher education extend well beyond theincremental earnings accruing to those individualswho receive it.

an economy is less likely to develop when theyare chosen from the richest, rather than themost talented. The Task Force challenges thenotion that public investment in higher edu-cation is socially inequitable. This notion restson the argument that university graduatesconstitute the future elite of society, and al-ready have the advantage of tending to comefrom the better-off families and are thus notdeserving of public subsidy. This argumentoverlooks two self-corrective tendencies. Aneducated and skilled stratum is indispensable

to the social and economic development of amodern society, giving benefits to the societyas a whole and not merely to those being edu-cated. In addition, higher education has actedas a powerful mechanism for upward mobil-ity in many countries, allowing the talentedto thrive irrespective of their social origins.

Broadening access to higher education isan ongoing process and work still needs to bedone. This should include helping disadvan-taged groups to overcome the endemic prob-lems that exclude them from the system.

41

Equally important is a careful examination ofways to reform tuition and fee structures thatexclude candidates from poorer backgrounds.And finally, measures are required to stamp outcorruption in awarding places in universities.

Problems Facing Women andDisadvantaged Groups

Disadvantaged groups—whether they are ra-cial, linguistic, or religious groups in specificsocieties, or women almost everywhere—findit difficult to compete for places in the highereducation system. They have usually receivedinadequate primary and secondary schooling,making further progression in the educationsystem much harder to achieve. In some situ-ations, for example with South Africa’s Afri-can and colored populations and India’sscheduled castes, the discrimination has beenmore direct, including concerted action toprevent groups from reaching universities orsecuring faculty appointments.

Even if attitudes toward disadvantagedgroups have changed, their members still facesystemic discrimination. For many years, cer-tain groups have been poorly represented inhigher education. This means that the faculty islikely to be unrepresentative of disadvantagedgroups, and there will be real or perceived prob-lems of institutional discrimination. A lack ofrole models can lead to groups concludingthat higher education is “not for them.”

Higher education is also reliant on the restof the education system, and those who havereceived little primary or secondary educationare clearly far less likely to progress to highereducation. A long-term solution thereforerequires public investment at all levels of theeducation system, in order that larger num-bers of well-prepared candidates from disad-vantaged groups can compete for access tohigher education.

Higher education systems need to find away of reconciling the dual values of excel-

lence and equity. In an ideal society, excel-lence is best promoted by policies that selecta society’s most creative and motivated mem-bers for advanced education. But selectionbased on prior achievement will only reinforcea history of discrimination and underachieve-ment. Equally, programs to increase equity willprove unsustainable if they are seen to under-mine the standards of excellence on whichhigher education is based. Merit criteria can-not be relaxed. Awarding degrees or certifi-cates to people who do not deserve them can-not be in the public interest.

The answer seems to be to combine toler-ance at points of entrance with rigor at thepoint of exit. Proactive efforts to attract prom-ising members of disadvantaged groups mustbe coupled with well-designed, consistently de-livered remedial support. With sufficient fund-ing from public or philanthropic funds, thiswill clearly contribute to equity, but it has thepotential to contribute to excellence as well—with institutions drawing their intake from anever-widening pool.

Tuition and Fee Structures

Well-prepared and talented students face dif-ficulties in gaining access to higher educationwhen the costs of education exceed theirmeans. These costs include tuition fees, roomand board, books and materials, and accessto technology, as well as income that is fore-gone while attending school. This problem,which is of course particularly limiting at lowincome levels, is aggravated by the poor func-tioning of financial markets in many develop-ing countries. This means that students can-not secure loans at reasonable rates to financetheir schooling. Using public funds for schol-arships, fellowships, or loan schemes, therebylowering cost barriers for talented studentswho would otherwise be excluded, is economi-cally sound and a time-honored function ofpublic funds. In countries that have diversi-

42

fied systems of higher education, it is in thepublic interest to reduce cost barriers to pri-vate as well as to public institutions.

Corruption

With higher education offering such clearprivate benefits—both economic and social—corruption in the awarding of university placeswithin some systems is unsurprising. Everyhigher education place awarded through cor-ruption gives rise to the possibility that a lessdeserving candidate has been substituted fora more deserving candidate. If the problemis endemic, an education class that fails toreflect the true distribution of aptitude andtalent in the society will develop. Even minorinstances of corruption are corrosive, increas-ing the possibility of disharmony within aninstitution and compromising its reputation.

Research and the Public Interest

One of the most powerful arguments for apublic interest in higher education is the valueto a country of a well-developed system forresearch and generation of knowledge. Thisis of increasing importance within the emerg-ing knowledge economy, allowing a countrynot only to generate new knowledge, but alsoto engage in scholarly and scientific com-merce with other nations.

Privately produced and held knowledge,whether based on military secrecy or commer-cial investment, has a role to play in society.However, basic research and fundamentalknowledge generation thrive where new find-ings are widely shared and are available fortesting and refinement within an open forum.Public support of knowledge generation isessential in developing countries.

Basic, nonproprietary research can be lo-cated in any number of institutions (nationallaboratories, government agencies, and pri-

vate sector research institutes), but is espe-cially well suited to universities and otherhigher education bodies. Research universi-ties—most commonly public institutions—atleast in principle integrate a number of prac-tices that are highly conducive to knowledgegeneration. These include ideological neutral-ity in the selection of research topics, peer re-view and scholarly publication, close linksbetween research and teaching, and the syn-ergies that result from collecting the full rangeof disciplines in one institution (or integratedsystem of institutions).

A strong research system at the nationallevel opens up the possibility that substantialadditional public benefits can be realizedthrough international links. Not all knowledgecan or should be internally produced, whena worldwide system of basic knowledge pro-duction offers the classic economic benefitsassociated with specialization and exchange.International involvement helps countriesguard against parochialism and remain opento broader economic, intellectual, technical,and social possibilities. Institutions of highereducation, especially research universities, areparticularly well equipped to facilitate the flowof new knowledge and to disseminate it inter-nally once it is imported. Exchanges of bothfaculty and advanced students need to be fa-cilitated, along with participation in interna-tional conferences and research projects.Nations must also act to remove legal restric-tions on the flow of scholars and ideas, andensure that there is adequate funding for thisimportant work.

Publicly funded knowledge exchange alsooffers an international public good. Profit-based research is designed to capture andcommercialize the benefits it generates, notto make them universally and freely available.In large measure, academic research standsoutside these commercial transactions. Inter-nationally, higher education is an intellectualcommons represented by the invisible college

43

of independent scholarship, knowledge pro-duction, and scholarly training. This intellec-tual commons allows the world to tackle anumber of widely recognized internationalchallenges: emergent diseases that move eas-ily across national borders; invasive speciesthat damage sites far removed from their pointof origin; and climate fluctuations that disturbtraditional growing seasons in widely scatteredparts of the globe. In addition to these prob-lems that migrate internationally, issues suchas technology application or biodiversity pro-tection emerge in a variety of settings andbenefit from comparative examination.

It is difficult for any single nation to justifyinvesting heavily in research focused ontransnational problems, when other nationscan benefit without having contributed. Cre-ating this knowledge is in the public interestof all nations, but it needs supranational pub-lic investment if it is to be provided. A net-work of research universities and institutes isa natural mechanism for advancing the re-quired research agenda. Public health andmedical schools can collaborate on designingand managing a global surveillance system onemergent diseases, for example, while agricul-tural faculties and research institutes can dosimilar work on invasive species.

International knowledge exchange relieson each nation meeting international stan-dards of higher education, both formal andinformal. For example, a number of profes-sions, including engineering, medicine, ac-counting, international law, and epidemiol-ogy, have developed performance standardsthat are generally recognized worldwide. En-suring that the graduates of each nation’shigher education system meet those standardsallows those graduates to compete in interna-tional markets. It also allows nations to workon a level playing field with internationalagencies and multinational businesses. Forexample, negotiating the terms of structuraladjustment policies necessitates a competence

in economics that matches that of the inter-national donor community. Similarly, ensur-ing the effective operation of tradeable per-mit systems to mitigate global warmingrequires scientific competence within all thenations engaged in the trade regime. Attract-ing direct foreign investment relies on theability to negotiate successfully with interna-tional business, which is likely to be attractedby a high-quality, professional workforce. Itis the educated people of a nation, even ofa poor nation, who will assert their nation’sinterest in the increasingly complex web ofglobal economic, cultural, and political inter-actions. Without better higher education,it is hard to imagine how many poor coun-tries will cope.

Improving higher education is therefore inevery country’s interest, and has legitimateclaims on public funds. We also underscorethe responsibility of international donors toredress current imbalances in research capac-ity across regions, so that every region canparticipate in international efforts to addresskey global challenges. Libraries are a crucialresource in this effort. Their improvementdeserves urgent consideration, an initiativethat could be greatly facilitated by advancesin information technology.

The globalization of higher education canhave damaging as well as beneficial conse-quences. It can lead to unregulated and poor-quality higher education, with the worldwidemarketing of fraudulent degrees or other so-called higher education credentials a clearexample. Franchise universities have also beenproblematic, where the parent universitymeets quality standards set in the home coun-try but offers a substandard educationthrough its franchised programs in othercountries. The sponsoring institution, mainlyin the United States or Europe, often has a“prestige name” and is motivated by pecuni-ary gain, not by spreading academic excel-lence to developing countries.

44

Higher Education andDemocratic Values

Higher education has the additional role ofreflecting and promoting an open andmeritocratic civil society. Civil society is nei-ther state nor market, but is a realm that linkspublic and private purposes. Within thisrealm, higher education promotes values thatare more inclusive or more “public” thanother civic venues, such as religious commu-nities, households and families, or ethnic andlinguistic groups. Higher education is ex-pected to embody norms of social interactionsuch as open debate and argumentative rea-son; to emphasize the autonomy and self-reli-ance of its individual members; and to rejectdiscrimination based on gender, ethnicity,religious belief, or social class. The best highereducation institution is a model and an impe-tus for creating a modern civil society. This isan ideal that is not often realized, but is nev-ertheless a standard against which to measurenational systems.

More generally, a society that wishes tobuild or maintain a pluralistic, accountabledemocracy will benefit from a strong highereducation sector in two respects: the first isthe task of research and interpretation. Asociety’s understanding of what form of po-litical democracy will best suit it can be ad-vanced on the basis of debates and researchthat start in universities and colleges. This isprimarily the responsibility of the social sci-ences, but the humanities also have a key roleto play. Higher education in the humanitiesis home to the most careful reasoning aboutthe ethical and moral values important to thatsociety. It joins the other disciplines in its respectfor objectivity and for testing ideas against ob-servation—with the experience of all societ-ies, across history, upon which to draw.

Second, higher education helps to promotethe enlightened citizens who are necessary fora democracy. It achieves this by instilling the

norms and attitudes crucial to democracy inits own students, who then become the teach-ers, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and busi-ness leaders whose practices should promoteenlightened citizenship across society. Highereducation also contributes insofar as it dem-onstrates pluralism, tolerance, merit, rea-soned argument, and other values that are ascritical to democracy as they are to the educa-tional process.

The deeper values promoted throughhigher education extend beyond those nec-essary for the design and preservation of de-mocracy. Along with other cultural institu-tions, universities and colleges ensure that asociety has a shared memory. This is impor-tant even if the memory is painful, as it is forsocieties trying to escape a racially or ethni-cally intolerant past, or a totalitarian and fear-ful history. Painful national memories, asmuch as celebratory and uplifting memories,constitute part of the culture from which thefuture is built. Higher education is a naturalhome for the study and teaching of history. Itprovides the research that in turn leads to ahistory and civics curriculum in primary andsecondary school.

In pointing out these ambitious public re-sponsibilities, the Task Force is not so naiveas to presume that they are practiced alwaysor everywhere. Higher education institutionshave been home to moral cowardice as wellas to moral courage. A critical social sciencewas sustained in despotic Latin Americancountries only when its intellectual leadersfled universities and established independentresearch centers. Universities in South Africacollaborated with apartheid, and universitiesin Nazi Germany with anti-Semitism. Suchinstances of moral failure recur across timeand place—not often, but often enough toremind us that universities have to earn theright of moral leadership.

Failures notwithstanding, societies have his-torically looked to higher education as a venue

45

for reasoned discourse rather than partisan-ship, for tolerance rather than discrimination,for a free and open search for truth ratherthan secrecy or deception. For these reasons,universities are frequently the first targets ofdictators.

To the extent that a higher education sys-tem meets these public expectations, it con-tributes to a set of values necessary for demo-cratic practices to flourish. While it is, however,very difficult for universities and colleges todisconnect themselves from the politics andculture of their country, at best they aspire toreflect where their societies want to be, ratherthan where they are.

Conclusions

All types of higher education institutions—including those run for philanthropic andprofit motives—can serve the public interest.The system as a whole needs to benefit fromthe vigor and interest of the market and thestate. At the same time, it must not be domi-nated by either. Too close a reliance on mar-

ket forces reduces public benefits, a dangerthat may be magnified by the globalization ofinvestment opportunities, thereby introduc-ing priorities at odds with long-term nationalneeds. However, the private benefits, both toindividuals and in the aggregate, are a power-ful and legitimate justification for higher edu-cation. No system of higher education shouldforego the advantages of the compelling logicof private investment for private benefit.

Equally, higher education must avoid be-ing captured by the short-term partisan inter-ests of the government in power, or being sty-mied by bureaucracy. This is not to disputethat the state has a legitimate interest in thequality and scope of higher education. Thischapter emphasizes the need for state poli-cies to protect and promote the public inter-est in higher education. But a critical prin-ciple of those state policies is sufficientautonomy for higher education. Subordina-tion to government pressures or short-termpolitical considerations will not create a sys-tem of higher education that serves the long-term interest of the public.

46

The preceding chapters have made twocentral points. First, societies have a pro-

found and long-term interest in their highereducation institutions that extends beyond thepecuniary and short-term interests of currentstudents, faculty, and administrators. Second,the current state of higher education in de-veloping countries is generally quite weak.While globalization, technological and demo-graphic changes, and the growing economicimportance of knowledge are making highereducation reform more urgent and challeng-ing than in the past, some of these same fac-tors are also making such reform potentiallymore attainable.

This chapter explores the web of public andprivate education institutions, governing bod-ies, and individuals that form a higher educa-tion system. It also examines the formal andinformal rules that hold the web together,looking for the structure underlying what canappear to be a chaotic set of activities andentities. The Task Force believes that highereducation needs to be developed in a coordi-nated way, guided by a clear strategic vision.We therefore go on to suggest guidelines forreforming higher education institutions sothat they may be integrated more effectivelyas part of a system that efficiently meets na-tional goals.

In the past, few academics or policymakersadopted a systems perspective when discuss-ing higher education, which is why we devotea whole chapter to this topic. Analysts havetended to focus on individual institutions or

Chapter 3 Systems of Higher Education

on education systems as a whole. Although thisis a sound approach in many circumstances,the nature of higher education differs funda-mentally from primary and secondary educa-tion, and confers different benefits upon so-ciety. An examination of higher educationsystems in their own right can help to providemuch needed guidelines for institutions re-garding their roles and aspirations, to high-light society’s interest in higher education,and to suggest specific policy mechanisms toadvance that interest.

Outline of aHigher Education System

A higher education system consists of threebasic elements:

• the individual higher education institutions(public and private, whether profit or non-profit; academic and vocational; under-graduate and graduate; onsite and distance-based, etc.), including their faculties, stu-dents, physical resources, missions, and stra-tegic plans;

• the organizations that are directly involvedin financing, managing, or operatinghigher education institutions, comprisinga range of both public and private bodies;and

• the formal and informal rules that guideinstitutional and individual behavior andinteractions among the various actors.

47

The system is not sealed from the outsideworld: it is at least loosely bound to the over-all education system, for example, to second-ary schools that provide most of its new stu-dents. It is connected to the labor market andthe business community, and to various gov-ernment departments that set the policy en-

vironment in which it operates. It also has in-ternational links, to regional and globalhigher education communities, as well as tobilateral and multilateral donors, foundations,and nongovernmental organizations. (Figure5 graphically depicts a differentiated highereducation system and its place in society.)

Figure 5

Schematic Representation of a Differentiated Higher Education System

Research in universities

Provincial and regional insitutions

Professional schools

Vocational schools

Publiclyfunded

institutions

Private,not-for-profitinstitutions

Private,for-profit

institutions

Internationaldonors and

lenders

Government,including

ministries ofeducation, finance,

planning, labor

Thecommercial

arena

Primary andsecondary

schools

Regionalhigher education

organizations

Universitiesin neighboring

countries

Distanceeducation: can

operate at all levels and in all sectors

of a higher education

Industry

Nongovernmentalorganizations

Educatedcitizens

Trainedlabor force

48

Higher Education Institutions

As we have discussed, higher education acrossthe world is undergoing a process of differen-tiation. This is happening horizontally as newproviders enter the system, and vertically asinstitutional types proliferate. A diverse sys-tem, with a variety of institutions pursuingdifferent goals and student audiences, is bestable to serve individual and national goals.Recognizing the nature and legitimacy of thisdiversity helps ensure that there are fewer gapsin what the system can provide, while prevent-ing duplication of effort. It is also helpful forhalting institutional drift, where an institutionloses focus on its “core business,” failing torecognize that it is already serving a particu-lar group of students well. In the case of mid-level institutions, if their crucial role is notunderstood they may try to gain prestige bymoving up the educational hierarchy. This isunhelpful if it leaves a group of studentspoorly served and if the institutions are un-able to function properly as they move up-stream.

It is therefore useful to characterize themain types of institution that are typical withina higher education system. From the outset,we distinguish between public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit institutions. Tosome extent, the objectives of these institu-tions—teaching, research, and service—over-lap; so, too, does the autonomy they have topursue those objectives. However, there arealso fundamental differences. Notions of thepublic interest count more heavily in defin-ing the mission of public institutions than ofprivate ones. Public institutions also tend tobe subject to greater bureaucratic control,which limits their autonomy. On the otherhand, they are more buffered from marketforces, giving them a greater measure of sta-bility. State regulations do affect private insti-tutions, but generally leave them with greaterautonomy than public institutions experience

in academic, financial, and personnel matters.All private institutions must cover their costs,but private, for-profit institutions also have thegeneration of a surplus as a core goal. Thesefinancial requirements impose considerablelimits on their activities.

Research Universities

Research universities, which stand at the apexof the educational pyramid, tend to be publicand certainly not for profit. Their overridinggoals are achieving research excellence acrossmany fields and providing high-quality edu-cation. They pursue these goals by having rela-tively light faculty teaching loads, emphasiz-ing research accomplishments in recruitmentand promotion decisions, adopting interna-tional standards for awarding degrees, andbeing highly selective in the students theyadmit. They are most closely connected toadvances in knowledge, monitoring break-throughs in many fields and investigating waysto exploit important results for social and pri-vate gain. Their instruction—generally forboth first and post-graduate degrees—shouldbe aimed at the country’s most hard-workingand best-prepared students. Research univer-sities also have the capacity to offer the mostcomplete programs of general education (seeChapter 6).

Provincial or Regional Universities

Institutions that focus predominantly on pro-ducing large numbers of graduates are an-other key component of a higher educationsystem. They emphasize teaching and thetraining of “job-ready” graduates, especiallythose who can meet local skills requirementsin areas such as manufacturing, business, ag-riculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining. Theyare commonly found in both the public andprivate sectors and tend to be geographicallydispersed so that collectively they can cater to

49

the many students who do not leave home toattend school. Provincial or regional univer-sities often produce the majority of a country’sgraduates and tend to lie at the heart of thesystem’s expansion. Some institutions offertwo-year tertiary-level degrees, much like com-munity colleges in many developed countries,offering another potential channel for pro-viding mass higher education.

Professional Schools

Freestanding professional schools—and pro-fessional faculties in universities—providetraining in fields such as law, medicine, busi-ness, and teaching, as well as other areas out-side the jurisdiction of traditional arts andsciences faculties. These schools typically en-roll students directly from high school andoffer study programs that focus almost exclu-sively on technical training in the relevantarea. Most developing countries have an ur-gent need for individuals with specialized pro-fessional skills, so professional schools play acritical role in national development, and of-ten occupy a central place within developingcountry higher education systems. For-profitprivate institutions, in particular, can be di-rected into this area by market forces, con-centrating on preparing students for careerswith high private returns. Professional schoolscommonly pay little attention to providing ageneral education that would serve many stu-dents (and society) well.

Vocational Schools

Vocational schools operate in much the sameway as professional schools, but at a differentlevel. They endeavor to impart the practicalskills needed for specific jobs in areas such asnursing, auto mechanics, bookkeeping, com-puters, electronics, and machining. They maybe parallel to (or part of) the secondary edu-cation system, or part of the post-secondary

system, but they are not often considered acomponent of the higher education systemper se. These schools, many of which are pri-vate and for-profit, play an important role insatisfying real labor-market demands.

Virtual Universities andDistance Learning

Distance learning is an increasingly importantpart of the higher education system, with itsability to reach students in remote areas andaddress the higher education needs of adults.It is not in itself a new idea—the University ofSouth Africa, for example, has offered aca-demic degrees through distance study fordecades—but is growing at an astonishing rate(see Chapter 1 for data on the largest distance-learning institutions).

Distance learning can be offered by tradi-tional educational institutions or by new in-stitutions that specialize in this mode of study.While recent developments in communica-tion technology and computers have vastlyincreased the technical viability of distanceeducation, economic viability is still an issuein many countries because of costly and ex-tensive infrastructure requirements. In manyparts of Africa, for example, the telephone isstill a luxury and long-distance calls are ex-tremely expensive. Efficient distance learningwill require affordable telephone and Internetaccess for this part of the world.

In the past, distance learning has been seenmainly as a cost-effective means of meetingdemand, with policymakers paying inad-equate attention to ensuring that it providescomparable quality to traditional modes ofdelivery. The Task Force believes that distanceeducation offers many exciting possibilities.Innovative curricula can be combined withinteractive, Internet-based technology, tradi-tional educational media such as televisionand print, written materials, and direct con-tact with tutors. It needs, however, to be thor-

50

oughly integrated into the wider higher edu-cation system, subjected to appropriate accredi-tation and quality standards, and linked to theoutside world. Research into how this can beachieved—and how distance learning can fulfilits potential—needs much greater attention.

Desirable Features of aHigher Education System

Effective systems of higher education tend tohave a common set of characteristics. We sus-pect that many of these are prerequisites ofany system that is functioning well, and findit difficult to identify any developing countrieswhose higher education systems would notbenefit from an infusion of at least some ofthe characteristics (and related specific sug-gestions) discussed below.

Stratified Structure

Higher education systems are under greatpressure to improve the quality of the educa-tion they offer—but also to educate increas-ing numbers of students. A stratified system isa hybrid that marries the goals of excellenceand mass education, allowing each to beachieved within one system and using limitedresources. A stratified system comprises onetier that is oriented toward research and se-lectivity and another that imparts knowledgeto large numbers of students. It cements thedistinction discussed above between researchand provincial universities, allowing each topursue clear objectives and avoid the dupli-cation of effort. Stratified systems cater wellto the varied nature of students’ abilities andinterests, and also allow for faculty with dif-ferent skills to be best used. They are economi-cal in terms of satisfying social needs, produc-ing graduates who are able to fulfil a varietyof roles and a generally educated citizenry.Finally, as specialized knowledge becomes in-

creasingly important to economic perfor-mance, they enable a higher education sys-tem to produce a mix of specialized andbroadly trained graduates.

Policymakers need to be more explicitabout expecting different contributions fromdifferent segments of a stratified system. Ex-pressing a clear vision of the goals and struc-ture of a higher education system is funda-mental to setting an agenda for reform, whileensuring that this vision is widely shared is vi-tal to achieving practical results.

Adequate and Stable Long-Term Funding

Higher education institutions can thrive onlyif their funding levels are adequate, stableand—subject to good performance—securein the long term. Institutions must plan farahead if they are to provide consistent instruc-tion and a secure and productive work envi-ronment for their faculty. In many areas, in-secure funding stifles the ability and theincentive to carry out research.

Governments have a crucial role to play inproviding stability. They must finance publicinstitutions on a long-term basis, not as if theywere part of a nonessential government sec-tor with the attendant vulnerability to the va-garies of fluctuations in public spending. Theymust also help create an environment condu-cive to the sustainable financing of private in-stitutions and help the whole higher educa-tion system look to the future, ensuring thattomorrow’s operating budgets will be suffi-cient to maintain and run the new infrastruc-ture higher education will need.

Competition

Traditionally there has been little competitionwithin higher education systems, and the TaskForce believes that more intense competitionbetween similar institutions for faculty, stu-dents, and resources will help improve stan-

51

dards by rewarding merit and performance.Competition also generally promotes benefi-cial innovations and overall quality improve-ments. Competition is exceedingly difficult toachieve through central decree, but requiresa high degree of autonomy for academic in-stitutions, allowing them to exploit theirstrengths and overcome weaknesses. Ad-equate market information is also essential:without it, institutions will continue to thriveeven when they are weak.

One common indicator of competition isfaculty mobility between institutions, whichtends to promote a healthy academic environ-ment through intellectual cross-fertilization.Too much competition is also possible, result-ing in excessive faculty mobility and a lack ofloyalty to institutions. However, most develop-ing countries are a long way from experienc-ing this problem.

Flexibility

Higher education systems need to be flexibleif they are to be most effective. They need tobe able to adapt quickly to changing enroll-ment levels, to the rise and fall of differentfields of study, and to changes in the mix ofskills demanded in the labor market. Opensystems are more likely to keep pace with sig-nificant external changes. Scholarly interac-tion within and between countries, frequentcurriculum review, and strong connections tothe world stock of knowledge (through sub-stantial investments in Internet access, forexample) are all important. Research is alsouseful. Basic demographic data can help for-ward planning, enabling institutions to pre-pare for changes in cohort size, secondaryschool enrollment, and graduation rates.

Well-Defined Standards

Effective higher education institutions articu-late clear standards and set for themselves

challenging goals that are consistent with theneeds of their societies and labor forces. In-ternational standards are especially relevantin a globalized economy. Some standards areneeded for degree requirements when itcomes to student performance, faculty quali-fications, and achievement. Mediocre institu-tions are not transformed into great institu-tions merely by announcing world-classstandards: a realistic approach that concen-trates on promoting achievable improvementsis needed. A culture of accountability is alsoessential, allowing improvement (or deteriora-tion) to be continually monitored and rewarded.

Immunity from Political Manipulation

Higher education systems are effective onlywhen insulated from the undue influence ofpolitical parties, governments, or short-termpolitical developments in educational affairs.Success in research and education requiresconsistency, with academic decisions—con-cerning institutional leadership, curriculum,or the funding of research projects—made foracademic reasons. Excluding partisan politi-cal interests from the operation of a highereducation system helps to safeguardmeritocratic decisionmaking, one hallmark ofan effective higher education system.

Well-Defined Links to Other Sectors

A higher education system does not operatein isolation. An effective system must pay at-tention to a country’s secondary educationsystem in order to take account of studentpreparation. It will also benefit primary andsecondary education through training quali-fied teachers and demonstrating potentialeducational innovations. A quality system ofhigher education will also increase students’aspirations at the primary and secondary lev-els, leading to higher standards as studentscompete for tertiary education places.

52

Strong links between a country’s highereducation system and other systems both inthe immediate region and beyond will havemany beneficial effects, including significantlyaugmenting the resources available to an in-dividual system, helping to overcome intellec-tual isolation, and allowing the achievementof “critical mass” in a larger number of spe-cialized fields. In addition, a higher educationsystem benefits from close coordination withother domestic public and private entities. Forexample, advocates for higher education andindustry can work together to ensure thatgraduates have the skills that industry needs.Finally, advocates for higher education needto work comfortably with government agen-cies responsible for policy setting and finance.

Supportive Legal and RegulatoryStructure

Higher education institutions flourish in alegal and regulatory environment that encour-ages innovation and achievement, while dis-couraging corruption, duplication of effort,and exploitation of poorly informed consum-ers. In many systems, initiative is stifled bycounterproductive legal constraints and cen-tralized decisionmaking. Higher education isfocused on people—regulation needs to fos-ter, not hamper, human potential.

System-Wide Resources

Many tools for improving higher educationwork best when developed centrally andshared widely. Such tools include manage-ment information systems, standardized tests,curriculum, and “knowledge banks” (reposi-tories of information accessible through elec-tronic means). They effectively and efficientlyspread the financial and technical burdens ofhigher education development, allowing mul-tiple institutions to work together.

The government, perhaps aided by inter-

national donors, might also develop “learn-ing commons”—a combination of computingcenters, scientific laboratories, and libraries—accessible to students from all institutions ofhigher education, public and private. A learn-ing commons would permit more effective useof outside higher education resources andpermit some institutions to teach scientificsubjects that they would not otherwise be ableto offer. These commons would need to belocated in strategic places throughout thecountry and be adequately maintained andstaffed. They could also serve as focal pointsfor public information, and contribute in thisway to strengthening civil society.

Technology is an especially important sys-tem-wide resource. The past few decades haveseen an explosion of technological capacityin both the industrial and developing worlds.No system of higher education can hope toserve its students, or the national interest,without developing a robust technological ca-pacity. Higher education systems need to en-courage all constituent institutions, both pub-lic and private, to incorporate advances incomputing and communications technologyinto their administrative structures, theirteaching, and their research. Integrating com-puters into learning is a key task if graduatesare to be prepared for the jobs of the future.Students can also benefit tremendously fromCD-ROM-based and Web-based curricula,which have the potential to bring high-qual-ity educational materials to all parts of thedeveloping world. Moreover, using theInternet as a means for gathering knowledgeconnects students and researchers to theworldwide community of scholars, an invalu-able step in overcoming intellectual isolation.

The Task Force recognizes that acquiringaccess to such technology can be prohibitivelyexpensive. International donors therefore havea particularly important role to play in this area.It is also important to ensure that importingtechnology does not create excessive reliance

53

on education designed abroad. This issueraises serious concerns about cultural incom-patibility and undue external influence. De-veloping countries need to maintain theunique character of their higher educationsystems, strengthening their intellectual self-reliance and making an important contribu-tion to the diversity of the global community.

Role of the State

An effective system of higher education relieson the active oversight of the state. The gov-ernment must ensure that the system servesthe public interest, provides at least those el-ements of higher education that would notbe supplied if left to the market, promotesequity, and supports those areas of basic re-search relevant to the country’s needs. Thestate must also ensure that higher educationinstitutions, and the system as a whole, oper-ate on the basis of financial transparency andfairness. However, the government must alsobe economical in its interventions. It shouldonly act when it has a clear diagnosis of theproblem, is able to suggest a solution, and hasthe ability to apply this solution efficiently.Poorly-thought-through government action islikely to weaken already inadequate highereducation systems.

The exact role of government in highereducation has been subject to extensive de-bate, and can range from extreme state con-trol to total laissez-faire. Under systems of statecontrol, governments own, finance, and op-erate higher education institutions. Politiciansfrequently appoint vice-chancellors, and min-istries dictate degree requirements and cur-ricula. Many developing countries have gravi-tated toward this model in the postcolonialperiod, based on the rationale that govern-ments are entitled to control systems that theyfund. But state control of higher educationhas tended to undermine many major prin-

ciples of good governance. The direct involve-ment of politicians has generally politicizedhigher education, widening the possibilitiesfor corruption, nepotism, and political oppor-tunism.

Growing awareness of the disadvantages ofstate control has led many countries to adoptalternative models. State supervision aims atbalancing the state’s responsibility to protectand promote the public’s interest with an in-dividual institution’s need for academic free-dom and autonomy. So-called buffer mecha-nisms are important to achieving this balance.Buffer mechanisms generally consist of statu-tory bodies that include representatives of thegovernment, institutions of higher education,the private sector, and other important stake-holders such as student organizations. Ex-amples of buffer mechanisms would be:

• councils of higher education that advise thegovernment on the size, shape, and fund-ing of higher education; often they are alsoresponsible for quality assurance, promo-tion mechanisms, and accreditation;

• research councils or agencies that fund andpromote research;

• professional councils that focus on specificareas of higher education; and

• governing councils (or boards of trustees).

To be effective, these bodies require clearmandates, well-established operating proce-dures, and full autonomy from both govern-ment and academia. For example, if a particu-lar body is to allocate research funds basedon competitive applications from researchuniversities, it must adhere strictly and trans-parently to a widely accepted set of proceduresin soliciting and reviewing applications. Itmust also have full control over the resourcesto be allocated and have the authority andtools to sanction parties who do not abide bythe established procedures.

54

Financing a HigherEducation System

No treatment of higher education is completewithout a discussion of financing, althoughthe Task Force’s treatment of this topic is notmeant to be exhaustive.

In financial terms, the global higher edu-cation sector is sizeable and growing rapidly.We estimate that global spending on highereducation is roughly US$300 billion, or 1 per-cent of global GDP, and growing at a fasterpace than the world economy. Nearly one-third of this expenditure is in developing

countries and, with developing country sys-tems heavily dominated by public universitiesthat tend to have low tuition fees, the costsfall predominantly on the state. Any attemptto improve quality will therefore add to highereducation’s daunting financial requirements.

Financial dependence on the state meansthat funding levels fluctuate with the ups anddowns of government resources. This processis exaggerated by the fact that higher educa-tion is perceived as something of a luxury inmost countries. Africa and Latin America inthe 1980s provide clear examples of this “feast-or-famine” syndrome, with financial insecurity

Box 4

Most universities in Africa have had great difficultyin extricating themselves from an inherited modelin which their role as the repository of quality edu-cation and contributor to the public good dependsupon total state control and finance. This conditionpersisted throughout the early postindependenceyears of manpower planning, later experiments withdevelopmental objectives, and the subsequent de-cade of demoralization and deterioration, when stu-dent numbers overwhelmed government resources.In recent years, Makerere University in Uganda hasled others in addressing the pervasive problem ofhow to provide good-quality higher education tolarge numbers equitably, but without undue depen-dence on public resources. Restructuring at Makererehas had three central and interrelated elements:implementing alternative financing strategies, install-ing new management structures, and introducingdemand-driven courses.

During the 1990s, Makerere moved from the brinkof collapse to the point where it aspires to becomeagain one of East Africa’s pre-eminent intellectualand capacity-building resources, as it was in the1960s. It has more than doubled student enrollment,

Makerere University in Uganda

instigated major improvements in the physical andacademic infrastructure, decentralized administra-tion, and moved from a situation where none of itsstudents paid fees to one where more than 70 per-cent do. Where previously the government coveredall running costs, now more than 30 percent of rev-enue is internally generated. Among varied uses ofthis revenue, the most important is application toacademic infrastructure and the retention of faculty,permitting them to devote themselves full-time tothe teaching and research they were trained to do.Funds gained from nongovernment sources havebeen allocated, according to prescribed ratios, tolibrary enrichment, faculty development, staff salarysupplementation, and building maintenance, includ-ing some construction. The most important impactof increased institutional income has been on staffsalary structures and incentive schemes. Professorscan now earn over US$1,300 per month with thepossibility of added supplementation on an hourlybasis from evening classes. The consequence hasbeen to slow the exodus of academic staff and re-move their need to undertake a range of activitiesoutside the university. Makerere has also introduced

55

and instability preventing long-term planning.In many Central American countries, highereducation budgets are constitutionally fixedas a percentage of government spending. Al-though this is intended to depoliticize fund-ing, the Task Force believes that it actuallyweakens the incentives for good performance,as well as creating a wide perception thathigher education receives an unfair slice ofthe national cake. Most students come fromrelatively well-off backgrounds, and other vi-tal sectors are continually forced to competefor their budgetary allotments.

In the long run, investment in higher edu-

cation may be expected to promote thegrowth of national income, providing publicfunds that can, in turn, be used to financebetter quality higher education. But this in-vestment has a long gestation period, far ex-ceeding the patience of financially strappedgovernments. The lack of sustainable financ-ing therefore continues to limit enrollmentgrowth and to skew higher education towardlow-cost, low-quality programs.

The financing of higher education does notneed to be limited to the public purse. In fact,higher education can be provided and fi-nanced either entirely publicly, or entirely

evening classes, boosted income from services likethe bookshop and bakery by running them commer-cially, and established a consultancy bureau with staffwhere a portion of the generated revenue goes backinto the university.

The reasons for Makerere’s tradition-breaking ac-complishment can be found in the interplay betweena supportive external environment and an innova-tive institutional context. Among the most importantcontextual factors have been macroeconomic reform,which has led to steady economic growth and in-creased amounts of disposable income, and politi-cal stability, which has strengthened the government’swillingness to respect university autonomy. Inside theinstitution, much of the reform accomplishment canbe ascribed to the energy and imagination of theuniversity’s leadership, their faith in the benefits ofprofessional, participatory, and decentralized man-agement, their unambiguous sense of ownership ofthe reform process, and their commitment to a tra-dition of academic excellence.

The Makerere accomplishment has lessons forother universities in Africa that face similar resourceconstraints. It shows that expansion—and the main-

tenance of quality—can be achieved simulta-neously in a context of reduced state funding. Itputs to rest the notion that the state must be thesole provider of higher education in Africa. It dra-matizes the point that a supportive political andeconomic environment is a prerequisite for institu-tional reform. It also demonstrates the variety ofinstitutional factors involved in creating a manage-ment structure suited to ensuring the use of re-sources, not simply for broadening institutionalofferings, but for creating the academic ethos andinfrastructure on which the university’s contributionto the public good depends.

Clearly, Makerere must make further progress if itis to become a world class institution. Income gen-eration, disengagement from the state, and mana-gerial improvement do not alone ensure academicquality. The flowering of entrepreneurial imagination,and the explosion of course offerings geared to themarket, are refreshing in their relevance and depar-ture from past patterns. However, the challenge forMakerere is to find incentives for quality research, aswell as teaching, and to promote the public interestabove and beyond the limits of the market.

Box 4 continued

56

privately (including by nongovernmental or-ganizations), or by some combination of thetwo. Given that a purely public system is ill-positioned to satisfy the demands for excel-lence and access, and that a purely private sys-tem does not adequately safeguard the publicinterest, hybrid systems deserve serious con-sideration. The range of possibilities is de-picted in Table 2.

There are both advantages and disadvan-tages to the provision and financing arrange-ments that fall into each of the three cells.Public financing and provision of higher edu-cation (cell I in Table 2) is, in many ways, thetraditional paradigm for most developingcountries, and is treated extensively through-out this report.

Private provision of higher education is at-tractive because it can lead to the delivery ofmore or better education at the same overallpublic cost. It can be coupled with public fi-nancing (cell II), as in the case of a vouchersystem in which the government awards fund-ing to students who are free to enroll in dif-ferent institutions (or gives the money directlyto the institution after the student enrolls).In principle, this system gives universities apowerful incentive to provide quality educa-tion at a reasonable cost. However, vouchers

are not a cure-all and are ineffective whencompetition is weak. In many countries reli-able information about competing institutionsis not available and students are thereforeunable to make informed decisions, while insparsely populated (especially rural) areasthere are unlikely to be enough institutionsto allow student choice (although distancelearning may change this to a certain extent).

Private financing is attractive because it re-duces the burden on government budgets,and helps ensure that the costs of higher edu-cation are borne by those to whom the ben-efits accrue. Private financing (cell III) can beachieved in the context of public provision viatuition and fees, as well as grants and contractsfrom foundations and industry. In the case ofprivate, not-for-profit institutions (and, inprinciple, public institutions as well), incomefrom private endowment funds can also be usedto support teaching and research activities.

Pakistan provides an example of a countrywhose higher education system has tradition-ally been dominated by a stifling set of publicinstitutions and oversight bodies. Recently,however, private individuals and corporateentities have proved willing to finance andoperate new philanthropic universities (cellIII). This has proven beneficial both for indi-

Table 2 Assigning Responsibility for Higher Education

Provision

Public PrivateFinancing

I. Free public universities and other in-stitutions of higher education, relyingon public funds to cover operating andcapital expenditures.

II. Voucher systems under which thegovernment pays a preset amount tothe private schools students attend.

III. Tuition, fees, and income from foundation grants, industry contracts, andprivately generated endowment cover full costs.

Public

Private

57

vidual students and for the system as a whole.The Aga Khan University (AKU) and theLahore University of Management Sciences(LUMS) have both been established (andpartly operated) through private philan-thropy. In the case of the AKU, the goal ofestablishing a university was to improve thequality of life of disadvantaged Pakistanisthrough instruction and research in healthsciences, education, and other fields. By con-trast, LUMS was created to overcome prob-lems of low quality in bureaucratic publicuniversities and to help ensure a steady sup-ply of well-trained business people.

An extraordinary level of private and inter-national resources helped make both AKUand LUMS successful. Of course, most initia-tives cannot count on such bountiful finan-cial resources. In addition, entrenched bu-reaucracies can thwart even the soundest ofinitiatives. For example, the Bangladesh Ru-ral Advancement Committee (BRAC), one ofthe developing world’s most celebrated non-governmental organizations, applied in early1997 to Bangladesh’s Ministry of Education,under the Private University Act passed in1992, for permission to start an undergradu-ate institution. Financing for BRAC Univer-sity was projected at a much lower level thanfor AKU or LUMS. Although the applicationwas recommended for approval by the Uni-versity Grants Commission, it still awaits ac-tion by the Ministry of Education, which is inthe midst of working with Parliament on craft-ing a new national education policy. Whereasboth AKU and LUMS serve as vivid proof thatexcellence can be achieved by private institu-tions that have, among other assets, adequateresources and good relations with the govern-ment, the long delays and more limited fund-ing that characterize BRAC’s experience aremore typical in the developing world.

Jordan, Malaysia, and Turkey—among oth-ers—provide additional examples of institu-tions founded through private philanthropy.

However, business and individual philan-thropy toward higher education is relativelyuncommon in developing countries. Resultscould undoubtedly be improved through taxpolicy, as has been shown in Chile, where theprovision of favorable tax incentives provideda powerful boost for higher education. Thecase of Peru provides further confirmation:university fundraising dropped sharply follow-ing the reduction of relevant tax incentivesin the mid-1990s.

There is another important downside toprivate financing—it may preclude the enroll-ment of deserving students who do not havethe ability to pay, and often evokes resentmentamong students who do. Means-tested schol-arship and loan programs are one possibleapproach to addressing this problem, but theyhave proven very difficult to administer dueto the difficulty of assessing ability to pay,sometimes exorbitant administrative costs,corruption, and high rates of default. Theneed for scholarships often provides a com-pelling justification for creating endowmentfunds, especially in philanthropic institutions,but also in public institutions.

The Task Force believes that a higher edu-cation system confined to one of the threecells shown in Table 2 is unlikely to yield de-sirable outcomes. The goals of a higher edu-cation system, which span quality, access, andefficiency, are surely best achieved by a diverseset of arrangements for institutional financeand service delivery. Countries need diversesystems, where some institutions look for fund-ing from a single source while others seek acombination of public and private financing.

Multilateral and bilateral donors also havea role to play in the financing of higher edu-cation, in order to encourage the national andinternational public interest, as well as thecontribution that higher education can maketo social equity. Long-term and concession-ary loans for higher education can help gov-ernments invest in higher education in a more

58

sustained and consistent fashion, while debtrelief can be negotiated in exchange for sys-temic higher education reform. However, theinternational community needs to be carefulabout imposing reforms from outside, andalso needs to consider carefully the extent towhich it can single out higher education forspecial treatment.

An often-neglected policy is to allow indi-vidual institutions the autonomy to developnew ways of raising revenue. Offering execu-tive training programs, marketing the exper-tise of faculty, and providing various other ser-vices such as carrying out laboratory tests andrenting facilities, can all provide valuable in-come. It is necessary to make it legally per-missible to receive such funds and to use themin a discretionary manner, and also to imposelimits on the extent to which proprietary re-search can be conducted. Centralized pro-grams for teacher training and experimentswith distance learning can also help to con-tain costs and improve educational qualitythroughout the system.

Conclusions

The new realities facing higher education (seeChapter 1) mean that many traditional waysof running higher education systems are be-coming less relevant. A laissez-faire approach,which assumes that all the components of ahigher education system will simply fit to-

gether and serve everyone’s needs, is unten-able. System-wide coordination is clearlyneeded. But neither is centralized control theanswer. Diversity is greatly needed, as are au-tonomy and competition among similar in-stitutions. Funding models will also have toadapt, moving toward a flexible system thatdraws on both the public and the private purse.

The balance between the public and pri-vate sector is currently changing. Publichigher education systems cannot meet sharpincreases in demand and, as a result, the pri-vate components of higher education systems(especially for-profit institutions) have grownrelatively quickly. But the growth of the pri-vate sector has tended to be quite haphazard.As a result, in most developing countries noclearly identified set of individuals or institu-tions is working to ensure that all the goals ofthe country’s higher education sector will befulfilled.

A coherent and rational approach towardmanagement of the entire higher educationsector is therefore needed. More traditional,informal arrangements are no longer ad-equate. Policymakers must decide on the ex-tent to which they will guide the developmentof their country’s higher education sector, andthe extent to which they think market forceswill lead to the establishment and operationof a viable system. Overall, the Task Force be-lieves that government guidance is an essen-tial part of any solution.

59

The term “governance” indicates the for-mal and informal arrangements that

allow higher education institutions to makedecisions and take action. It includes exter-nal governance, which refers to relations be-tween individual institutions and their super-visors, and internal governance, which refersto lines of authority within institutions. Gov-ernance overlaps considerably with manage-ment; the latter is seen as the implementationand execution of policies, and is dealt withprimarily under “Tools for Achieving GoodGovernance,” below.

Formal governance is official and explicit.Informal governance refers to the unwrittenrules that govern how people relate to eachother within higher education: the respect ac-corded professors and administrators, thefreedom to pursue research, and the tradi-tions of student behavior, to name a few. It isvital to articulate the rights and responsibili-ties of the various actors and to set rules thatdetermine their interaction in a way that isconsistent with achieving quality higher edu-cation.

The Task Force believes it is difficult to ex-aggerate the importance of good governancefor higher education, with a significant num-ber of those we consulted believing it to bethe key issue. Good governance is not a suffi-cient condition for achieving high quality, butit is certainly a necessary one. Governance setsthe parameters for management. A misman-aged enterprise cannot flourish, and institu-tions of higher education are no exception.

Chapter 4 Governance

Although higher education has much tolearn from the world’s most successful busi-nesses and government organizations, it dif-fers significantly from these institutions. It hasunique attributes developed over centuries—indeed, many of the oldest continually func-tioning institutions in the world are universi-ties—and these must be carefully fostered.Higher education institutions rely on indi-vidual initiative and creativity, and these needtime and space to develop. The institutionaltime horizon is usually much longer than inindustry, with the bottom line blurred. Colle-giality is a value to be cultivated, alongsideconsiderable academic autonomy. In low- andmiddle-income countries, significant work isstill needed to develop academic systems ofgovernance that meet the needs of faculty, stu-dents, and wider society.

Major Principles ofGood Governance

Traditions of governance differ from countryto country. In some, a system-wide approachpredominates over an individualistic, institu-tional approach. The European or continen-tal system of higher education, for example,has been based largely on a state supervisionmodel. As discussed in Chapter 3, some de-veloping countries are moving from state con-trol toward a state-supervised system, with thetransition mediated by intermediary or buffermechanisms that allow active participation by

60

key players in higher education. Considerabledifferences are also apparent between publicand private institutions, with Latin Americadiluting the European model as a growingnumber of private institutions challenge therole of the state within the higher educationsystem.

Individual institutions within each countryalso have their own governance traditions,ranging from hierarchical to cooperative gov-ernance models. American universities, forexample, use a relatively hierarchical (“uni-tary”) style and give great power to presidentsand other executives. The European traditionhas weaker executives. As each institution isdifferent, so is the way it is governed. A re-search university, for example, will surely havea model that is different from that of a juniorcollege or vocational school.

Despite these many variations, the TaskForce believes the following set of principleshas general and lasting applicability.

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is “the right of scholars topursue their research, to teach, and to pub-lish without control or restraint from theinstitutions that employ them” (The ColumbiaEncyclopedia). Without it, universities are un-able to fulfil one of their prime functions: tobe a catalyst and sanctuary for new ideas, in-cluding those that may be unpopular. Aca-demic freedom is not an absolute concept;it has limits and requires accountability. It rec-ognizes the right of academics to define theirown areas of inquiry and to pursue the truthas they see it. Academic freedom can make asignificant contribution to promoting thequality of both institutions and the system asa whole, but it needs to be understood andrespected, both within institutions and by thebodies to which they are accountable.

Shared Governance

Shared governance, also known as coopera-tive governance, is a necessity. It arises fromthe concept of relative expertise and aims toensure that decisions are devolved to thosewho are best qualified to make them. At thesystem level, it entails giving institutions ortheir advocates a role in shaping nationalhigher education policy. At the institutionallevel, it ensures that faculty are given a mean-ingful voice in determining policy. This ap-plies particularly to educational policy, andespecially to curriculum development and aca-demic appointments.

The internal governance of universities re-quires professionals, or rather individuals whounderstand how institutions can best performtheir academic duties. In nearly all circum-stances, individuals with advanced academictraining and experience are the best choicefor performing these tasks. The use of inex-perienced outsiders can be, and frequently hasbeen, damaging. This is not intended to ques-tion the legitimacy of external supervision ofcolleges and universities. That is external gov-ernance and is legitimately the realm of non-specialists who represent the public will. Ulti-mately, however, good decisions must berooted in legitimate professional concerns,with experience showing that shared gover-nance is closely related to institutional quality.

The role of students within a system ofshared governance can be controversial. Stu-dents are a transient population whose stay ateducational institutions lasts only a few years,while faculty members and administratorstend to remain at institutions for long peri-ods of time. Faculty and administrators there-fore have natural authority over students inmany matters of internal governance, particu-larly with respect to academic matters such asadmissions standards, grading policy, and de-gree requirements.

61

Students, however, can play a role in areasthat affect their lives and in which they havecompetence to provide constructive input. Innonacademic areas, this would include extra-curricular activities, and the administration ofhousing and student services. In academicareas, too, there is an appropriate role for stu-dent input, including in the areas of programofferings, teacher evaluation, and infrastruc-ture requirements.

Clear Rights and Responsibilities

Mutually agreed rights and responsibilities foreach element in the higher education systemare essential for good governance. Externally,the roles of ministries of education and highereducation institutions must be clearly articu-lated by law and in national policy documents.Internally, the faculty, students, administra-tors, external supervisors, and others shouldhave a clear understanding of their rights andresponsibilities. Where traditions of highereducation are new, as in many developingcountries, it is especially important that rolesare explicit, through clear laws and institu-tional charters designed as social contracts.

Meritocratic Selection

Higher education can only function if the se-lection and promotion of faculty, administra-tors, and students is based on broadly definedmerit. The particular goals of an institutionmay affect how it assesses merit, but ideology,nepotism, cronyism, or intimidation cannotbe allowed to determine advancement. Selec-tion decisions must be autonomous, madewithin the institution by those closest to theissues, with peer review and wide consultationhelping to set appropriate merit standards.Decisionmaking by distant bureaucrats orpoliticians is not to be encouraged, with legalbarriers that prevent the recognition of merit

being especially unhelpful. In Venezuela andsome other countries, for example, a raise forone faculty member in one institution leads,by law, to the same raise for all faculty mem-bers of equal rank in all institutions. In someinstances, fortunately infrequent, professorsare the greatest barriers to progress andchange in these matters. If that happens, thegoverning authorities must ensure the pres-ence of strong internal leadership that canpush through change.

Financial Stability

Higher education institutions require suffi-cient financial stability to permit orderly de-velopment. Financial uncertainty, sharp bud-getary fluctuations, and political favoritismhinder good governance and make rationalplanning impossible. The importance ofhigher education as a public good must bematched by adequate public investment to en-able institutions to discharge their public re-sponsibilities.

The provider of financing can also under-mine autonomy, with major sponsors tryingto influence the activities of higher educationinstitutions. This is a particular danger in de-veloping countries, where a single institutionsuch as the state or a religious entity tends tocontribute a relatively large share of the re-sources available to higher education institu-tions.

Accountability

Higher education institutions must be ac-countable to their sponsors, whether publicor private. Accountability does not imply un-controlled interference, but it does impose arequirement to periodically explain actionsand have successes and failures examined ina transparent fashion. All interaction shouldoccur within the context of agreed rights and

62

responsibilities. Buffer mechanisms, as alreadydiscussed, may be needed to help determinethe appropriate balance between autonomyand accountability.

Regular Testing of Standards

Those responsible for governance shouldregularly test and verify standards of quality.This is part of institutional accountability, butis of sufficient importance to list as a separateprinciple. Broad consultation should be prac-ticed and standards should be widely agreedupon. Benchmarking is useful in this regard,while peer review encourages the attainmentof benchmarks.

The Importance of Close Cooperation

Effective governance requires close coopera-tion and compatibility between different lev-els of institutional administration. A usefulrule would state that for significant appoint-ments the individual in a supervisory position,for example a dean, has a formal role—morethan merely a voice—in selecting the appoin-tee, for example a chairperson. This couldprevent counterproductive, adversarial situa-tions, a special problem where the traditionof election prevails.

The Actual Situation

Systems of governance must take institutionalgoals into account, and not all principles ap-ply with equal force to all institutions of highereducation. In research universities, the full setis most important, whereas academic freedomor shared governance may be less importantin vocational schools. For-profit, private edu-cation—as noted above, a rapidly growing sec-tor—presents special problems. These busi-nesses are responsible to investors seeking

financial gains, but must also accommodatethese principles within their business modelif they are to play their part in the wider highereducation system.

Despite these variations, it is abundantlyclear that these principles are essential, andalso equally clear that they are routinely vio-lated across the world, in rich and poor coun-tries alike. They are probably violated withgreater frequency in developing countries, asin these four examples:

• A senior observer of the African scene toldthe Task Force that “with the governmentin many countries having assumed thepower to appoint and dismiss the Vice-Chancellor, governance in the universitieshas thus become a purely state-controlledsystem . . . There are countries where evendeans and department heads are also ap-pointed by government and where headsof institutions change with a change in gov-ernment.”

• In China, the presidents of two leadinguniversities, Beijing and Tsinghua, are ap-pointed directly by the State Council, com-prising the Prime Minister and the Cabi-net, acting upon the recommendation ofthe Communist Party.

• The Civic Education Project, a US-based,nongovernmental organization operatingin parts of the former Soviet Union, com-mented to the Task Force “hiring practicesin universities are ad hoc and personnel areunder the influence of high officials in thepresident’s office or the Ministries of Edu-cation. Higher administrative authoritiescan hire or fire any staff or teacher as andwhen they wish. Teachers have hardly anyvoice and influence in reforming the highereducation system. Students are rarely con-sidered as part of the higher education ad-ministrative process. They are never con-sulted on any matter related to their edu-

63

cation. Decisions are made from the topand imposed on the subordinate bodies.There is no public debate or discussion onthe reform of higher education. Even in themost reform-minded central Asian states,the press and media are controlled by gov-ernments and there is no open social dia-logue or debate on reform in such a cru-cial sector of national life as higher educa-tion.”

• Between the early 1980s and 1996, the to-tal number of higher education institutionsin El Salvador increased from six to 42.Many of these were low-quality, “garage”universities, resulting from poor externalgovernance. Despite a law calling for closeregulation of universities by the Ministry ofEducation, supervision was in practice quitelax, with institutions not required to dem-onstrate their competency to provide edu-cation.

These examples are typical and point to poorgovernance as a particular obstacle to the im-provement of quality in the developing world.

Why Governance is a Special Problem inDeveloping Countries

Higher education institutions inevitably re-flect the societies in which they operate. Whena country suffers from deep rifts, these will bepresent on the campus. Undemocratic coun-tries are unlikely to encourage shared gover-nance in higher education. A society in whichcorruption is prevalent cannot expect itshigher education institutions to be untainted.In other words, external factors easily over-whelm institutional efforts to promote changeand are, of course, especially difficult tochange.

For many of the countries in the develop-ing world, political leaders at the start of in-dependence exhibited little understandingand sometimes little sympathy for the needs

of university education. However, at indepen-dence and still today, most problems faced bydeveloping countries were believed to requiresome degree of government guidance andsupervision. Higher education was no excep-tion, leading to policymakers, with little sym-pathy to its needs, managing it in the sameway they managed roads, the army, or customs.The failure to recognize the importance oftaking the long-term view undermined thehigher education sector’s performance andinhibited the development of governance tra-ditions. The proliferation of new institutionsin most developing countries has now dilutedwhatever useful traditions existed and alsocreated shortages of qualified personnel.

The tendency of politicians to intervene inhigher education left many institutions hos-tage to factional policies, with decisions onstudent selection, faculty appointments andpromotions, curriculum design, and similarmatters being made on political groundsrather than on merit. In addition, many coun-try leaders undoubtedly saw universities assources of political danger, with students play-ing a relatively active political role. Govern-ments may fear students because they knowthat these young people could, under certaincircumstances, overthrow a regime. Thereforemany governments expect universities to con-tain student political activism, further corrupt-ing the governance systems within institutions.

Simultaneously, political activism meansthat students are spending a large proportionof their time on politics rather than on edu-cation. The Task Force believes strongly thathigher education institutions should allowopinions on the broader issues that face soci-ety to be expressed and debated respectfully.Student awareness and debate should there-fore be encouraged. There are situations,however, where levels of activism can rise tothe point where high-quality education be-comes impossible. In Africa and elsewhere,students facing the prospect of underemploy-

64

ment or unemployment upon graduationhave demonstrated during examinations toprolong their stay in school. In situations suchas these, where academic pursuits have beentaken hostage, activism may need to be re-stricted.

In conclusion, there are clearly many ob-stacles in the path of achieving good gover-nance within the higher education systemsof developing countries. Despite this, thereare also many tools for achieving improve-ment.

Tools for AchievingGood Governance

The term “governance” refers to a large set ofspecific policies and practices. The Task Forcedoes not offer an exhaustive treatment of gov-ernance and managerial tools, but attemptsto demonstrate available options and theirrespective advantages and disadvantages.

At the system level, the first priority is toreach agreement on the nature of the gover-nance model to be used. At an institutionallevel, there should be clarity over the legalframework, and an understanding of the prin-ciples of central governance. Decisions canthen be made, at both the system and institu-tional levels, as to the best mechanisms or toolsto make the proposed model work effectively.

Faculty Councils (or Senates)

Faculty councils are representative bodies offaculty members responsible for making de-cisions about selected matters of academicpolicy, such as programs offered, curricula,degree requirements, and admissions policy.Delegating powers to a faculty council (or sen-ate) promotes shared governance by limitingthe extent to which higher education institu-tions are run on a top-down basis.

Governing Councils(or Boards of Trustees)

A governing council is an independent bodythat acts as a buffer between a higher educa-tion institution and the external bodies towhich the institution is accountable, such asthe state and religious or secular sponsors.These bodies represent the institution to theoutside world, and at the same time representthe outside world to the institution. Critically,they help insulate higher education institu-tions from excessive external interference.

A governing council needs to think aboutthe future, and it will often be involved indeveloping long-term plans for an institutionand monitoring their implementation. Ap-pointments to the council need to be for longperiods, allowing council members to act in-dependently and remain insulated from short-term political developments. Membershipshould be mixed, with a significant numberof members drawn from outside the academiccommunity.

Similar bodies can be tied to subject areas,rather than institutions. National foundationsfor the natural sciences, the social sciences,and the humanities can sit between the gov-ernment and the university sector. Their in-dependence allows them to implement merit-based procedures for resource allocation thatare relatively immune to political influence.

Budget Practices and FinancialManagement

Creating a transparent, logical, and well-un-derstood set of rules for budgeting and ac-counting can have an enormous influence onthe operation and performance of higher edu-cation institutions. Rules should encourageflexibility, stability, and transparency. In manyinstitutions across the world, bureaucratic ri-gidity results in inefficiency and waste. Allow-ing the flexibility, for example, for institutions

65

to carry surpluses from one year to the next,or to transfer funds from one budgetary cat-egory to another, may counter the “use-it-or-lose-it” attitude referred to in Chapter 1 andlead to a better planned allocation of limitedfunds. Stability is increased by setting multi-year budgets, allowing higher education in-stitutions to extend their planning horizonsand expand their set of feasible options. Flex-ibility helps promote stability when financialrules allow institutions to accumulate capitalassets from private sources, and to build en-dowments whose annual income can be pro-jected far into the future. Transparency, fi-nally, is at the heart of budgeting and financialmanagement and is especially important insituations where corruption is underminingthe higher education sector.

Data for Decisionmaking

Without good data, effective decisionmakingis impossible. Higher education institutionsneed a plethora of data on teaching and re-search performance, student achievement,institutional financial status, and so on. Dataare also essential for systems of monitoringand accountability, which allow institutionalautonomy while promoting competition andthe drive for higher standards.

Higher education needs to take advantageof advances in information technology, whichgreatly facilitate data collection and analysis.With good data, organized in a readily acces-sible information system, higher education in-stitutions will be able to improve theirpolicymaking, ensuring that decisions arebased on evidence and are made in a way thatis clear and understandable to the outsideworld.

Appointment or Election?

Election of academic leaders is common inmany universities across the world, although

it often results in weak leadership and a con-sequent prejudice in favor of the status quo.Appointed leaders, meanwhile, are less likelyto allow their programs to be stalled by lackof consensus and are better placed to makeunpopular decisions when required. However,they can lack widespread support, diluting asense of shared governance. In-depth consul-tation with all stakeholders helps ease thisproblem and increases the appointed leader’slegitimacy.

The Task Force believes that universities inthe developing world urgently need strongleadership, whatever selection method is em-ployed. On the whole, it is in favor of strength-ening appointing powers within universityadministrations, in order to allow strong lead-ers to emerge.

Faculty Appointment andPromotion Decisions

Faculty quality is generally accepted as themost important determinant of the overallquality of a higher education institution.Nepotism, cronyism, and inbreeding are pow-erful enemies of faculty quality. The practiceof rewarding length of service, rather thanacademic performance and promise, is alsoto be discouraged.

The Task Force wishes to emphasize theimportance of external peer review in mak-ing appointments to faculty and deciding onpromotion. Evaluation of faculty research byqualified outsiders allows its quality to bejudged on proper technical grounds. Assess-ments are also more likely to be free of con-flicts of interest. Peer review also promotes thequality of publication decisions and the effi-cient allocation of research funds.

The system of peer review has been devel-oped within research universities. Functionalequivalents need to be developed for institu-tions with different missions. Institutions mustdevelop clear indicators to assess the quality

66

of their organizational objectives. For ex-ample, faculties can be systematically evalu-ated on their success in teaching or impart-ing vocational skills. Regular inspections by“client” representatives can also prove useful.

Security of Employment

Security of employment is important withinhigher education institutions. It allows facultymembers greater academic freedom than theywould have if they could be dismissed at willor were hired on a year-to-year basis. It alsoacts as a form of nonwage compensation, withtalented individuals attracted to secure jobs,even when they could earn more lucrative sala-ries elsewhere.

The Task Force recommends long-termcontracts, though not necessarily indefiniteones. Periodic reviews are also important, al-lowing faculty members to be discharged iftheir performance is substandard.

In some circumstances, however, facultyappointments without any time limit may beappropriate. This system, commonly knownas tenure, has advantages and disadvantages.Tenure has been criticized on the groundsthat it undermines the performance incen-tives of tenured faculty, whose appointmentsare rarely revoked, and even then only in casesof gross neglect, incapacity, morally reprehen-sible behavior, or urgent financial circum-stances. By contrast, tenure is defended asbeing a great promoter of academic freedom,allowing faculty to pursue potentially risky andunpopular lines of research, without fear ofjob loss. Its proponents also argue that ten-ure and prestige are nonpecuniary employ-ment conditions that allow higher educationinstitutions to compete effectively for the ser-vices of the brightest, most creative, and mosthighly motivated members of society.

Tenure has a place in highly politicizedenvironments, where finite-term contractscould be subject to abuse by key institutional

decisionmakers. It can also strengthen thecapacity and potential of research universities,with their more speculative and uncertain pro-cess of basic knowledge generation. Decisionsabout tenure must be taken with particularcare. Extensive, independent, and externalevidence of scholarly achievement and prom-ise is needed, with assessments carried out bythose with the technical skills that qualify themto make such judgments.

Faculty Compensation andResponsibilities

Many faculty members have specialized skillsthat are valued in the job market. This allowsthem to engage in remunerative professionalactivities outside their home institutions inorder to supplement typically low salaries. Inother cases, for example in Latin America,faculty members are forced to seek part-timeappointments at several institutions, as full-time appointments are not available.

Outside work can promote professionaldevelopment by providing inspiration for newresearch and better teaching materials. It alsohelps institutions to develop valuable contactswith the private sector that may lead to jobopportunities for students or the opportunityfor public/private collaborations. There is adownside, however. Outside activities can eas-ily detract from performance and weakencommitment to an institution. Academic staffbecome less available to students, colleagues,and administrators, and the institutional cul-ture is damaged. Faculty moonlighting istherefore rightly regarded as one of the moreserious problems faced by higher educationin developing countries.

Tackling this issue usually means raisingpay, and nearly all developing countries willneed to improve compensation if they are toachieve greater quality in their higher educa-tion systems. Moving to a system of full-timeappointments may also be useful, combined

67

with clear limits on outside activity: for ex-ample, no more than one day of outside ac-tivity (paid or unpaid) per week, with priorapproval required. Institutions need to becareful when imposing limits on outsideconsultancy, however. If pay levels are low, theyrisk driving away the more able members oftheir faculty.

Faculty quality is also greatly threatenedwhen compensation is determined by rigidformulas that fail to account for external la-bor market opportunities—a problem that iscommon in professional schools and institutesof technology. Salary systems must be flexibleacross disciplines: the market for talent hasto be taken into account.

Visiting Committees and Accreditation

Visiting committees, consisting of recognizednational or international experts, can be animportant tool for monitoring institutionalperformance and promoting the responsibleexercise of authority. By conducting indepen-dent reviews, visiting committees provide ob-jective assessments of the achievements of fac-ulties or academic programs in relation to anappropriate regional, national, or interna-tional standard. The cost of visiting commit-tees can be prohibitive for many institutions,and it may be valuable for the public sector tosubsidize these visitations for all types ofschools—including for-profit schools—so asto encourage higher standards throughoutthe system. Even if only a few of the upper-tier institutions use visiting committees, theeffects can be felt throughout the whole sys-tem if there are strong links and open com-petition between institutions.

International standards of accreditation—for example, those used by external examin-ers—also promote institutional quality. Inter-nally, they provide a focus for improvingstandards and help create a sense of institu-tional pride. Externally, they provide the mar-

ket information that is vital to competition.Being accredited has great value in attractingstudents, faculty, and other resources.

El Salvador provides a notable example ofthe power of accreditation. In December1995, the government started to tackle theproliferation of low-quality universities by es-tablishing a new system of accreditation. In-stitutions that did not satisfy specific statutoryrequirements within 24 months were subjectto closure, and the authorities had actuallyclosed 11 institutions by early 1998 (with aprogram for relocating the displaced stu-dents). With the cooperation of Salvadoranuniversities, the Ministry of Education alsoestablished a system of self-study and peer re-view, including the training of 120 volunteerpeer reviewers. The Task Force applauds thiskind of system, which generates objective in-formation that the public can use to judge themerits of competing higher education insti-tutions.

Institutional Charters and Handbooks

An institutional charter establishes the legalbasis and defines the mission of a higher edu-cation institution. It also sets forth rules gov-erning its relations with the state or a privatesponsor, and may specify some internal rulesof operation as well. It centers the institutionand sets the tone for all of its other activities.

Faculty and student handbooks can be animportant tool for promoting good internalgovernance. They must be comprehensive,clearly written, and frequently updated. Fac-ulty handbooks should typically include a gen-eral statement of faculty rights and responsi-bilities, along with detailed information toguide the conduct of faculty members withrespect to their teaching and research activi-ties, their participation in the broader life ofthe institution, and their outside professionalactivities. Student handbooks generally definethe objectives, rules, and requirements of dif-

68

ferent academic programs, as well as students’nonacademic rights and responsibilities.

Conclusions

Good governance promotes educational qual-ity. Traditions of governance vary from coun-try to country and by type of institution, butthe Task Force has suggested a set of basicprinciples that promote good governanceacross a wide variety of situations. Unfortu-nately these principles are frequently not ob-served, especially in developing countries, andespecially where traditions of higher educa-tion are still not firmly established. The TaskForce has therefore offered a number of toolsthat will help higher education systems andinstitutions move closer to the application ofthese principles.

Good governance may be crucial, but it isnot a panacea. In many parts of the world,pedagogy takes the form of canned lecturesby professors and rote memorization by stu-dents; cheating is rampant and tolerated; andletters of recommendation are for sale. Sharedgovernance does not guarantee quality if a ty-rannical majority is determined to preventprogress. Perhaps most importantly, quality isnot likely to be achieved as long as professorsare forced to moonlight as a consequence ofinadequate pay.

The Task Force hopes that higher educa-tion policymakers will start to make better useof the tools of good governance. They will notsolve all problems quickly. But they will startthe process of achieving sustainable and far-reaching improvement.

69

Chapter 5 Science and Technology

A Worldwide Issue

Science and technology advances are trans-forming the world at an astonishing rate.

Developments in computing and communi-cations, in particular, are helping to acceler-ate these changes. Organizations in even themost advanced economies struggle to keep up,while developing countries face seriousthreats, as well as some new opportunities.

The recent World Conference on Science—the first such conference in 20 years—tookplace as the Task Force was drafting this re-port. The Task Force warmly welcomes boththe Declaration on Science and the Use ofScientific Knowledge and the accompanyingFramework for Action, which reflects anddeepens many of the themes outlined below.In particular, we embrace the framework’sclear and unambiguous call that “govern-ments should accord the highest priority toimproving science education at all levels” andshould work closely in this endeavor with theprivate sector and civil society.

Our emphasis is narrower than that of theConference: higher education is, we believe,an absolute and irreducible prerequisite todeveloping a strong science and technologybase. We balance this interest in science witha call for increased priority for general edu-cation (Chapter 6). Tomorrow’s world will

Science education, in the broad sense…is a fundamental prerequisite for democracy andfor ensuring sustainable development.

Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge,World Conference on Science, Budapest, 2 July 1999

demand highly qualified specialists and in-creasingly flexible generalists. Higher educa-tion needs to be ready to meet both these de-mands.

Background

The North–South scientific gap is large andgrowing—in part due to the very nature ofscientific and technological advances in thecomputing age. Further research will be re-quired to quantify the extent of the gap, butthere is enough evidence to show that it is huge.

For example, on a per capita basis developedcountries have nearly ten times as many re-search and development scientists and tech-nicians as developing countries (3.8 versus 0.4per 1,000). They have a much higher shareof their populations studying science at thetertiary level, principally due to substantiallygreater enrollment rates. Further, they arespending some 2 percent of GDP on R&D,compared to a rate of 0.5 percent or less inmost developing countries. Western Europe,North America, Japan, and the newly indus-trialized East Asian countries account for 84percent of scientific articles published. Theseregions also provide more than 97 percent ofall new patents registered in Europe and theUnited States.

70

Science and technology have direct impactson society (Box 5)—and such impacts cantranslate directly into economic growth. Awell-developed higher education sector is fun-damental here: it allows countries to gener-ate new scientific knowledge, to wisely selectand implement existing technologies, and toeffectively adapt them to local circumstances.To achieve these tasks, higher education sci-ence and technology badly needs more invest-ment and more efficient allocation of exist-ing resources. This will require a formidableeffort.

The North–South scientific gap is charac-terized by stark differences in:

• access to high-quality laboratory facilities,equipment, and supplies;

• the availability of well-trained teachers;

• the proportion of well-prepared and moti-vated students;

• links with the international scientific com-munity; and

• access to the global stock of up-to-dateknowledge.

Box 5

Science and technology have a good track record ingenerating and applying new knowledge to improvethe human condition. They can justly claim to havemade a positive difference to the lives of billions.High-yielding varieties of rice, sulfa drugs, powerfulantibiotics, oral contraceptives, electricity, and cheapand durable plastics are just a few examples of sci-entific advances that have had an enormous, direct,and positive impact on living standards across theworld.

Not only is the practice of science and technol-ogy important to development, but so are its intrin-sic values. These values generate, in turn, positivespillovers for the wider task of modernization andsocial transformation as the creativity, objectivity, andhealthy skepticism about both old and new claimsthat are important to science find a wider applica-tion. And it is in higher education institutions thatmany of these values are championed. However, sci-entific and technological “progress” can alsothreaten the public interest. Nuclear missiles posedan extreme threat to world security for decades, but

A Double-Edged Sword

with the Cold War over, developing countries arenow diverting scarce resources into developing theirown nuclear capacity. Advances in genetics bring ahost of moral and practical problems. Private indus-try is currently patenting new ways of producing foodat an astonishing rate. Terminator genes, which areused solely for the purpose of rendering sterile new,high-yielding seeds, are one example of a technol-ogy that appears to be in the interest of industryrather than farmers. Monsanto’s recent announce-ment that it would not pursue their commercial usewas a response to both US farmers’ concerns and acampaign by, and on behalf of, developing-worldfarmers.

But even these problems are exacerbated by alack of indigenous science capacity in developingcountries. Foreign experts can catalyze and contrib-ute to various initiatives, but they cannot provide thesustained input that is needed to help developingcountries use science as a tool for developmentrather than destruction.

71

Science and technology have, to some extent,the character of a public good—and marketforces often provide less demand for scientificresearch than is socially desirable. Nationalgovernments (both singly and in concert)must therefore act to counter this market fail-ure. International organizations must play avital role, recognizing the global public ben-efits of scientific inquiry and education. Na-tional and international organizations havethe ability to finance large investments in thedevelopment and maintenance of scientificcapacity—and to support long-term efforts inscience when exact benefits are often difficultto predict. National and international organi-zations also have a duty to increase the publicunderstanding of science, encouraging pub-lic support for the values embodied in scien-tific inquiry.

The Task Force recommends the followingfive areas for specific action:

• physical and technical resources;

• human resources;

• local, regional, and international coopera-tion;

• strategies for scientific development; and

• university–industry cooperation.

Physical andTechnical Resources

By their very nature, science and technologyhave always demanded significant, ongoinginvestment to establish, maintain, and expandthe “engine” of physical infrastructure—in-cluding laboratories, libraries, and classrooms.They also need a rich (and expensive) fuel oftextbooks, computers, equipment, and othersupplies. Investment in physical capital is of-ten prohibitively expensive, with tariffs onimported goods, particularly computer hard-

ware and software, contributing to the prob-lem. India’s formidable software industry, forexample, did not develop until the removalof high tariffs on imported computers. Hadthese barriers fallen sooner, India might wellhave enjoyed the economic benefits of thisrapidly growing sector much earlier. The TaskForce believes it to be especially importantthat governments consider tariff exemptionsfor scientific and technical equipment im-ported by educational institutions.

Developing countries could also benefit toa much greater extent from the second-hand,but essentially state-of-the-art, research instru-mentation that can be purchased on theworld market; while the equipment is cur-rently available, many countries are not awareof it. Donor institutions should consider es-tablishing a not-for-profit global clearing-house for this equipment. It would be usefulnot only in higher education, but also in manydeveloping-country industries. But shortagesof scientific equipment are unlikely to be to-tally resolved by these measures alone. Withinlimits, greater government initiatives eitherto purchase such equipment or to engagedonors in providing it would be worthwhile.

The price of appropriate textbooks is alsoa problem. Books are often extremely expen-sive in developing countries, even relative tothe incomes of upper-middle-class students,and, without sufficient books, the access ofuniversity teachers and students to the worldstock of knowledge is limited. Internationalagencies already buy (or subsidize) and dis-tribute textbooks, but they should also con-sider alternative solutions. In many fields, itshould be possible for instructors at differentinstitutions to achieve some degree of coor-dination in their adoption of a relatively smallset of textbooks. Such coordination narrowsthe range of perspectives to which studentsare exposed, but it allows bulk buying of booksthat greatly reduces costs. This policy couldbe combined with the relocating of produc-

72

tion to developing countries. With regionalcooperation, the production of a single Asianedition of a key textbook would be possible,for example using lower-cost local publishinghouses. Successful examples of this policy al-ready exist in other fields, for example inhealth, where the bulk purchase of pharma-ceuticals is common. Higher education insti-tutions should also make more extensive useof editions of books published within the pastyear or two, which are often available at sig-nificant discounts.

Computer-based technologies have thepotential to dramatically transform highereducation in developing countries, and areclearly applicable to science education. Net-works and new forms of teaching media havealready influenced training and research inindustrial countries. They reduce intellectualisolation while providing increased (and ever-faster) access to the very latest scientific in-formation—serving as “learning commons”(see Chapter 3). The research capabilities ofthe Internet, combined with basic word-pro-cessing software, can increase the ability ofresearchers to contribute to mainstream sci-entific publications. Intelligent tutoring sys-tems and instructional software offer uni-formly high-quality training on complex topics.Some of this technology is supplied in novel andflexible ways. Internet cafés are springing up inall corners of the world, providing reliable andrelatively low-cost access to the Internet. Oth-ers must be provided centrally—and requiresubstantial ongoing investment.

Another sector experiencing technology-driven change is distance learning (see Chap-ter 1), which will continue to grow as educa-tion reinvents itself in the digital age. However,science and technology education frequentlydepends on direct, hands-on experience ofcomplex experimental techniques and tech-nologies. As yet these are difficult to delivervia the Internet. Further, it is through a pe-riod of time spent in tertiary education insti-

tutions that almost all seriously able scientistsand technicians enter the marketplace. Andwhile corporate education initiatives continueto develop, more traditional modes of highereducation will continue to have a vital role toplay in skillfully developing the interest, ini-tiative, and knowledge base of science andtechnology students at a critical stage in theirlives.

Computers and Internet connections areavailable in nearly all developing countries,and access will increase sharply as computercosts continue to decline, and wireless com-munications systems and solar-powered elec-tric generators proliferate in remote locations.In the meantime, many countries use out-dated computers that cannot run the latestversions of many programs. Unless computerequipment can be updated frequently, bothstudents and scientists will be frustrated intheir efforts to keep pace with scientific de-velopments in the industrial world. The paceof technological change in the industrialcountries is so fast that some such frustrationis almost inevitable—but for countries andinstitutions where computers are still ex-tremely scarce, older computers, available atlow cost, will be quite valuable. The key to thisis to understand the limits of older softwareand hardware. Older technology is never apanacea when the pace of change is so rapid.If educational institutions can convincepeople (and local small businesses in particu-lar) of the fact that older computers are of-ten perfectly adequate for many tasks, theywill be better placed to sell off such equip-ment in order to invest in newer models. Fur-ther, the notion of global clearing-houses forresearch instrumentation outlined above isequally applicable to computing technology.Similarly, the many imaginative schemes de-veloped by several sectors to provide, for ex-ample, agricultural tools, spectacles, pharma-ceuticals, and books for the developing worldcould also be extended to computing power.

73

Human Resources

Scientists working in developing countrieshave certainly made contributions to theworld’s stock of scientific knowledge and tech-nological know-how. The contribution madeby Chinese traditional medicines tohealthcare has been significant, spanningfrom acupuncture to treatments for a formof leukemia. However, a far greater numberof developing-country scientists have contrib-uted only minimally, often from want of ad-equate training, facilities, supplies, access toscientific literature, and interaction withknowledgeable and imaginative colleagues.

The lack of well-qualified science and tech-nology teachers and researchers is a wide-spread problem in developing countries, par-ticularly in Africa, with its very small base ofindividuals who can create a science-orientedculture (although see Box 7, below).

Faculty salaries and benefits therefore needurgent attention. It is also clear that industryhas a significant role to play in the area of sci-ence and technology. The knowledge societyis encouraging a much closer relationshipbetween governments, researchers, and com-mercial interests, with new alliances increas-ingly recognized. Governments are frequentlydirecting research aims toward the good ofthe national economy, while industry looks forquick commercial development of academicresearch. Within this context, industry canplay a key role in revamping incentive struc-tures for educational institutions, imposingspecific hiring standards, and establishingcompetitive scholarships, loans, work-study, in-ternship, and research grant programs. Sucharrangements can benefit all concerned: busi-ness, educational institutions, and students.

Brain Drain

Outstanding scientists are often peripatetic—they seek imaginative colleagues, excellent

facilities and, increasingly, financial rewards.This is a problem that applies to all countries,but in developing countries, which have so fewscientists, the impact of such migration canbe enormous (see Box 6). Estimates indicatethat about one-third of foreign students study-ing in the United States do not return to theirhome countries. Those who do return fre-quently bring considerable knowledge andskills back with them. There is a drawback,however, since their new expertise may wellbe skewed toward the research agenda of in-dustrialized countries rather than their own.

Another, less widely noted aspect of thebrain drain is known as the “camp-follower”phenomenon. Scientists and other academ-ics in developing countries often orient theirefforts toward those that are taking place inindustrial countries, for example choosingtopics and methods that mimic academics inother regions in order to become (or remain)part of mainstream research. When the focusabroad changes, local researchers also changetheir focus. The goal is often to win a tempo-rary or permanent position abroad or to se-cure international funding for in-countrywork. The intermediate result is that, effec-tively, “brain drain” can take place in the ab-sence of actual emigration.

The widespread outflow of qualified indi-viduals stems from dissatisfaction with localconditions and inadequate scientific sup-port—and from greater intellectual and earn-ing opportunities abroad. Although the newinformation technologies may dampen scien-tists’ and engineers’ incentives to emigrate,the brain drain phenomenon is likely to con-tinue in the absence of specific countervailingactions. The retention of top-level talent indeveloping countries requires improved gov-ernance in higher education institutions,greater intellectual opportunities, higher pro-fessional salaries, and better working condi-tions. Countries must also develop furtherincentives, such as academic freedom, support

74

for international collaboration, and enhancedjob security, in order to lure back and retaintheir most talented scientists and engineers.Sustained imaginative efforts to attract andhost international academic and research con-ferences, for example, would help contributeto the cultural revaluation of science and tech-nology. Exchange schemes, mentor programs,and other innovative approaches could be de-veloped to attract higher caliber researchersto the country. Scholarship and loan oppor-tunities, targeting students who prove thatthey will return home following studiesabroad, may also be a feasible and economi-cally appropriate way to reduce brain drain.

India is a country that has had some suc-cess in reducing brain drain. The near-uni-versal emigration of their computer sciencegraduates a decade ago has now declined to70 percent. This has largely been due to thegrowing number of highly paid jobs with na-tional and multinational corporations thatwere established following market liberaliza-tion. Growing demand for skilled graduatesin fields such as software engineering, finan-cial services, and telecommunications has alsoprovided some impetus for improved train-ing in these fields.

Complex relationships are at work here,with government, industry, and academia all

Box 6

In many countries, both developing and developed,significant numbers of students study at overseasinstitutions. (The appendix to this report givesUNESCO’s figures on this phenomenon.) The ben-efits from this practice can be substantial as studentsare exposed to ideas, techniques, and entire fieldsof study that differ from what is on offer at home.And in many instances the quality of the educationthey receive is better than what is available in theirown country. Not only students, but countries as awhole, can benefit from such study.

Nevertheless, a country whose students goabroad for higher education faces some disturbingconsequences. First, the cost of overseas instruction,particularly if it takes place in a developed country,is generally extremely high. If the student’s homecountry pays for this education for a large numberof students, this can represent a significant fiscaldrain. Even if an outside donor is paying for thestudent’s education, study abroad means that fundsfrom donor agencies are being used to pay for avery expensive type of higher education. Such fundscould, in principle, be used more effectively to pro-

When Students Study Overseas

mote quality higher education in the developingcountry itself.

Second, study abroad is often a student’s first steptoward resettling abroad. A country may invest largeamounts of money in training students abroad onlyto find that they very often do not come back. Thus,even if a student’s family is paying directly for theoverseas education, there is a potential negative con-sequence for the sending country. Various schemeshave been employed to encourage students to re-turn, but in the end they have met with only partialsuccess. It is apparent that the benefits of this ac-crue with donor countries, not developing countries.

The status that accompanies overseas study, alongwith the skills that students learn abroad, mean thatthis practice will undoubtedly continue to play aprominent role in providing tertiary education to asubstantial number of students from developingcountries. However, given the consequences of anindefinite continuation of this tradition, countrieswould benefit by sufficiently improving their highereducation systems to attract a greater portion of theirstudents to study in-country.

75

having a role to play. Fragmented effort willnot suffice. Environment, tourism, and busi-ness development are all areas where govern-ments have begun to recognize a need to thinkand act strategically across departmental in-terests. Science and technology increasinglydefine our future. It is therefore vital to thefuture of developing countries that they turnto the task of systematically nurturing—andretaining—their science and technology talent.

Women in Science and Technology

Although there has been measurable progressover the past 30 years, a global patternwhereby women are under-represented in allsectors of education persists; this pattern doesmask important regional and local variations,

however. The widest gap by gender is seen inSouth Asia, the Middle East and Sub-SaharanAfrica, but women are increasingly well rep-resented in Latin America.8 The gender im-balance is particularly strong in the areas ofmathematics, the physical sciences, and engi-neering, but in many developing countries,this imbalance is notably smaller in the medi-cal sciences. Women are also disproportion-ately enrolled in alternative forms of highereducation, such as distance education, teachertraining colleges, nursing schools, andnonuniversity, tertiary-level institutions. Thereare also clearly social pressures on women topursue traditionally “female” subjects in the

Box 7

African science recently received a boost when aparticularly imaginative proposal—to explore howresources freed by debt relief can be committed toscience and technology—was offered by 50 Africanministers who met at the World Science Conferencein Budapest. This was the largest meeting of Africanscience ministers in more than 20 years. Cameroon’sMinister of Science and Technology (and mathema-tician) Henri Hogbe Nlend said the conference “hasgiven us an opportunity to relaunch inter-African co-operation in science.”

The African ministers will follow the conferencewith another meeting, held by the Organization ofAfrican States, to discuss a pan-African scientificcollaboration protocol. They hope such a protocolwill be signed by heads of state. In particular, theywant to explore building links between richer andpoorer African countries as well as between indus-trialized and developing countries.

African Science Moves Forward

The Task Force hopes these initiatives will buildon existing ones, such as The University Science,Humanities and Engineering Partnerships in Africa(USHEPiA). This is a collaborative program,launched in 1994, building on existing potentialto develop a network of African researchers ca-pable of addressing the developmental require-ments of Sub-Saharan Africa. Involving universi-ties in Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania,Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, USHEPiA ini-tiates fruitful educational exchanges involvingmasters and doctoral students, lecturers, and post-doctoral fellows. USHEPiA also promotes produc-tive, collaborative research on problems challeng-ing Africa.

The Task Force applauds these initiatives andhopes they will be fully developed over the comingyears.

8 World Bank, World Development Indicators 1997,p. 73.

76

humanities, education, and nursing at the ex-pense of science and technology disciplines.

As noted, this problem is by no means con-fined to developing countries. Approximately2 percent of the people on the United King-dom Engineering Council database, for ex-ample, are female. There are also many so-cial constraints to female participation inhigher education in general, with higher edu-cation perceived as a predominantly maleenvironment. The lack of female participationin mainstream higher education and scienceand technology disciplines means that manycountries currently realize only a portion oftheir potential in these areas.

Developing countries should therefore ur-gently explore ways to promote the participa-tion of women in the sciences. The interna-tional development community has come torecognize the great social benefits of educat-ing girls at the primary and secondary levels.Now it must recognize the value of educatingwomen at the tertiary level, including in sci-entific fields. Once initiated, the process will

gain momentum as successful female profes-sionals—including scientists—provide posi-tive role models. A positive result would be anarrowing of the gender gap in science andtechnology and a simultaneous enhancing ofnational scientific achievement. In addition,since professional women tend to be less in-ternationally mobile than men, increasing theshare of investment in science education di-rected toward women will presumably help toreduce brain drain.

Because of numerous social and culturalbarriers, including falling behind their malepeers when they have children, special mea-sures may be required to help women achieveleadership roles in science. Mentoring pro-grams for women in mathematics and sciencehave had a positive effect on retention rates.Increasing scholarship assistance and loans towomen would undoubtedly help. Actively re-cruiting women for graduate study and devel-oping supportive networks (see Box 8) wouldalso help promote a culture of female partici-pation in science and technology.

Box 8

Women’s role in science has come under increasedscrutiny of late, and this was formalized when thefinal documentation emerging from the World Sci-ence Conference in Budapest systematically ac-knowledged gender issues. Sjamsiah Achmad of theIndonesian Institute of Technology in Jakarta, whochaired the gender issues session, noted “it’s thefirst time the issue has entered the world scienceagenda.”

Another Indonesian delegate, Wati Hermawati,welcomed the call to develop gender indicators. Shewill work at the National Focal Point for Gender,

Gender Agenda

Science and Technology (part of Achmad’s Institute)to develop gender indicators on, for example, par-ticipation, education, and career structures. “Untilnow we’ve had no indicators,” she pointed out.OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment) members have carried out compara-tive studies of scientific efforts, but hitherto have notcollected gender data. Meanwhile, UNESCO recentlyannounced its intention to fund a science and tech-nology network for Arab women. Another group iscurrently negotiating a support network in Jakartato serve the Indonesian and Pacific region.

77

Improving Primary andSecondary Preparation

Recent international evidence reveals consid-erable cross-country variation in mathemat-ics and scientific achievement at primary andsecondary levels, both among developing andindustrial countries.9 Science and mathemat-ics are both “building block” subjects in thatprogress is particularly reliant on what hasalready been learned. Country authoritiestherefore need to improve primary and sec-ondary institutions’ curriculum development,teachers’ qualifications, teaching techniques,and access to key inputs such as textbooks,laboratory facilities, and information technol-ogy. Further, systematic attention at the pri-mary and secondary levels to many of thecultural issues regarding gender would alsofacilitate an enhanced flow of women’s par-ticipation.

Local, Regional, andInternational Cooperation

Higher education institutions benefit greatlyfrom connections with similar institutions. Forscientists in the developing world, the paucityof such contacts is often an impediment totheir creativity and productivity. They lack adirect pipeline into current scientific aware-ness, lack opportunities for mainstream pub-lication, and are part of few professional part-nerships or networks. (Few things are moredisconcerting to researchers than to be in-formed that their new “discoveries” were al-ready known to others.) Unlike colleagues in

the humanities or social sciences, much oftheir subject matter is almost totally incom-prehensible to the wider population and it isthus even more important that developing-world scientists be able to plug into those sourcesof support and inspiration that do exist.

Ways of overcoming isolation include or-ganizing conferences, providing travel grantsallowing researchers to reach more distantvenues, and ensuring access to telephones andcomputer-mediated communication. All ofthese actions would help promote interactionamong a corps of geographically dispersed sci-entists. Links could also be promoted, for ex-ample, by the formation of an internationalvolunteer corps of scientists (some of whommight be retired) who could offer their ser-vices by teaching or consulting in specificfields or on particular projects. Such pro bonocooperation, for which successful examplesexist in fields such as financial service, has tobe handled with care (for example, would-behelpers sometimes arrive unprepared), butthe potential benefits are enormous. The Fi-nancial Services Volunteer Corps draws onworking professionals in the banking and cor-porate sector and since 1990 has sent over1,000 volunteers to former communist coun-tries. They have completed over US$100 mil-lion worth of pro bono work, in countries asdiverse as Russia, Hungary, and Moldova (seewww.fsvc.org).

Cooperation is especially important at theregional level, helping individual countries toachieve a critical mass in scientific subjects.Fellowship programs to train energy analystsin developing countries have been establishedin prestigious universities in several countriesin Asia, Africa, and Latin America, for ex-ample. The University Science, Humanitiesand Engineering Partnerships in Africa(USHEPiA) is also doing groundbreakingwork in Africa (see Box 7).

International networks, meanwhile, pro-vide promising opportunities for promoting

9 This is well documented in the Third International Mathand Science Study (TIMSS) by the US Department of Edu-cation. Please read Pursuing Excellence: A Study of USTwelfth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement inInternational Context. More information can be found onthe following websites: www.nces.ed.gov/timss/twelfth/or www.ed.gov/inits/timss or www.nces.ed.gov/timss-r/.

78

scientific innovation appropriate to the needsof developing countries. The ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) is an example of a global programof research on agricultural issues having di-rect relevance to developing countries, suchas rice production, food policy, agroforestry,and irrigation. The World Bank and threeother United Nations agencies established theCGIAR in 1971. The network owes its exist-ence and continuation to the financial sup-port of multilateral donors, amounting tosome US$300 million per year. Many of itsachievements, ranging from the developmentof new rice varieties that sparked the GreenRevolution to appropriate methods of soil andwater conservation, represent internationalpublic goods that are unlikely to have evolvedwithout concerted action.

International research centers such as thosein the CGIAR network are sometimes criti-cized for failing to build scientific capacitywithin their host countries. The Task Forcedoes not believe this is a valid observation.CGIAR centers, for example, have helpedtrain more than 50,000 scientists in develop-ing countries. But we believe more can bedone to ensure that any investment in scien-tific capacity reinforces, rather than competeswith, ongoing national efforts—an approachthat will be further enhanced as national re-sponses become more focused and coordi-nated. Local counterpart institutions, work-ing in conjunction with internationally fundedcenters, can greatly enhance the value of in-ternational networks. Such cooperation giveslocal institutions an entree into the globalresearch world and greatly spurs local efforts.

The Indian Institutes of Technology pro-vide one example of beneficial crossoversfrom the international to a national sciencecommunity. Five institutes were established inthe early 1950s as “institutions of nationalimportance,” modeled explicitly after the bestexamples of technical higher education from

Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, andthe United States. Throughout the 1960s eachof the institutes was heavily funded by a dif-ferent country, and staffed by top-ranking fac-ulty from both India and the funding coun-try. Today the Indian Institutes of Technologyenjoy not only national, but also international,prominence in several technical fields, oper-ating successfully as Indian rather than as in-ternational institutions.

Reform of theInternational IntellectualProperty Rights Regime

As more countries participate in the globaleconomy, protection for the results of invest-ment in knowledge creation has become in-creasingly important. Currently, however,most patents protect advances made in indus-trial countries, and licensing fees for productdevelopment based on new inventions areoften prohibitively high. Universities and re-search institutes in developing countriestherefore face significant financial barriers toresearch and, in the future, whole regions mayfind themselves cut off from participation inthe global network of innovators.

Although this problem is not yet serious,there is growing recognition that it is likely tobecome so as the international intellectualproperty regime becomes more formalized.(The World Science Conference in Budapest,for example, was dominated by intellectualproperty issues.) Wider use of a sliding scalefor licensing agreements, taking into accounta country’s level of development, would behelpful. Alternatively, these countries couldpurchase, perhaps with a subsidy from an in-ternational organization, a countrywide sitelicense for access to software and particularresearch techniques. Another possibilitywould be to promote North–South joint ven-tures in which developed- and developing-

79

country participants earn and share intellec-tual property rights. Advances in this area willneed to be carefully thought through fromthe point of view of both the developing coun-try and the intellectual property holder. Ar-rangements that do not give the propertyholder clear protection regarding the resaleof technology are unlikely to be sustainable.

In this area, in particular, developing coun-tries need to adopt emerging best practicesfrom the industrialized world. The UnitedKingdom’s National Endowment for Science,Technology and the Arts (NESTA),10 for ex-ample, has explicitly committed itself to ex-ploring creative partnerships with innovatorswhere, in exchange for bearing some of therisk and providing financial support, NESTAobtains a percentage of the intellectual prop-erty rights. Profits are fed back into the fund-ing loop. Where models do not exist, however,developing countries should be prepared toinnovate. The knowledge economy will de-mand new and quite different institutions—and these may come more quickly in emer-gent than in mature economies.

Strategies for ScientificDevelopment

The capacity to carry out scientific research isextremely limited in many developing coun-tries. While not every country needs to con-duct basic research in every field, each coun-try must consider the types of scientific andtechnological research that can directly con-tribute to its development. In view of the costsand other difficulties, perhaps the right ques-tion to ask is: what is the minimum level of sci-entific and technological capacity necessaryto achieve national goals?

At the very least, every country needs to beable to turn to a small corps of its own citi-zens for informed guidance and expert ad-vice about scientific and technological devel-

opments. In addition to people who canchoose wisely among technologies, there is aneed to support and promote people who canbegin to build scientific self-reliance. Interna-tional collaboration is important in achievingthis—with regional cooperation essential forthose smaller countries in which a researchuniversity is not practical (see Box 2, Chapter1). Selective excellence is also an importantstrategy, where countries focus on buildingstrength in a few selected scientific disci-plines—which should correspond closely witha country’s needs and its comparative researchadvantage. For example, a country with a longcoastline might naturally gravitate towardmarine biology, while countries subject to vol-canic eruptions and earthquakes would wantexperts in soil mechanics and construction en-gineers skilled in designing earthquake-resis-tant structures.

On a global level, market forces are a cru-cial determinant of the allocation of scientificeffort among competing substantive issues.AIDS and malaria each claim roughly as manylives a year, but AIDS is far more prevalent inricher countries than malaria, and receives farmore research funding. The lack of effectivedemand also explains the paucity of researchin other areas that have great potential forimproving the living standards of the world’spoor. Examples include research into chim-ney and other ventilation systems that wouldprotect household members (mainly womenand young children) from respiratory ail-ments and eye problems caused by indoorpollution; and the development of nonsterilevarieties of hybrid corn and of wheat, rice, andcorn varieties that can better fix nitrogen inthe soil and thereby reduce the use of chemi-cal fertilizers.

Achieving a tighter focus on national, re-gional, and even global research priorities willinevitably involve multiple sets of stakehold-

10 http://www.nesta.org

80

ers. While the World Health Organization hasa global role, so too does the wider interna-tional donor community—who usually haveaccess to substantial high-quality science andtechnology expertise and resources. The morecoordinated response recently outlined byAfrican science ministers (see Box 7) also of-fers a greatly extended opportunity to focusefforts, as do initiatives such as those of theWilliam H. and Melinda Gates Foundation,which recently donated US$50 million forwork on a malaria vaccine. National govern-ments, too, can play a role. For example, thescience and technology community in theUnited Kingdom has seen a shift, in barely adecade, from a research agenda entirely de-fined by scientists and researchers to onedriven more by the outputs that the govern-ment, as the client, wants to buy.

Scientists and researchers themselves canalso help drive the research agenda on globalpriorities. This century has seen many ex-amples of moral leadership by scientists, mostrecently from Nobel prizewinner JosephRotblat of Pugwash (who recently argued thatscientists should take the equivalent of aHippocratic oath). Within higher educationinstitutions—especially research universi-ties—scientists have a great deal of academicfreedom and insulation from commercialpressures. Scientists from all countries have aresponsibility to use this privilege, which isheavily funded by society, for society’s good.The work of scientists constantly challengesus, with its potential to benefit humanity, orto harm it. Nuclear technology can be simul-taneously seen as a curse or a blessing, offer-ing a formidable weapon but also a treatmentfor cancer and a source of plentiful electric-ity. The work of scientists in the field of ge-netics holds before us the opportunity totackle age-old diseases, while it also augurs thespecter of genetic selection. Each advancegives humanity choices that require a specialresponsibility from scientists.

Finally there is the public. There is a strongcase for extensive and effective public com-munication about science, thereby enhancingcultural support for science and technology,and about its content—for example, safer sexcampaigns based on scientific understandingof sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.Public involvement in science must go furtherthan this. If science is in part a public goodthat needs to be at least partly publicly funded,then the public has a clear interest in scien-tific objectives, processes, and outcomes. Strat-egies to support scientific development willneed to encourage the creation of an openand accountable scientific community andrecognize the importance of public supportfor continued scientific development.

University–Industry Cooperation

Developing countries have a great potentialfor strengthening science and technologylinks between higher education institutionsand industry. Universities are predominantlynonproprietary settings and, because theybring together representatives of all disci-plines into a single place, they provide fertilegrounds for cross-pollination. Commercial,specialized research centers also produce top-notch research, but their capacity is sometimeslimited by the narrowness of their focus. Thedevelopment of new technologies consists ofthree types of interconnected activities: (i)research, (ii) technology development andadaptation, and (iii) production and market-ing. The largest role for universities is in car-rying out the initial research, but subsequentproduct development and distribution oftenresult in a fruitful interplay between universi-ties and industry. In many developed coun-tries an increasing number of companies arespinning off from universities, a process thathappens when researchers are encouraged tolook for commercial applications of their

81

work. Because some technical expertise canbe acquired only through learning-by-doing,industrial apprenticeships are also an effec-tive means of training new cadres of highlyskilled workers. In fact, the very nature of theknowledge revolution, and the intimate linksbetween, for example, academia and theInternet or biotechnology, have helped shapea different set of cultural values around suchcollaboration. Where industry’s relationshipwith universities was once based on geographi-cal links or the interests of alumni, today’s col-laborators are seeing a “death of distance” astechnology enables collaborations to work athuge distances. This culture can, in duecourse, extend benefits to developing coun-tries.

Many countries—Argentina, Brazil, Chile,China, Colombia, the Arab Republic of Egypt,India, Kenya, Malaysia, and Nigeria, amongothers—have taken active steps to forge stron-ger links between their academic and indus-trial sectors. In Brazil, this interaction resultedin the development of an alternative fuel thatreplaced half the country’s use of gasolineautomobiles with renewable, domestic sourcesof energy. As another example, high rates ofmaternal mortality in rural areas in Indiacaused by lack of access to blood transfusionsinspired the development, in one medicalresearch center, of low-cost plastics that couldresist the inherent corrosiveness of blood andbe used for storing blood. The internationalmarketing of this product has been handledin a completely commercial manner, withsome of the proceeds being used to subsidizelocal use of the product.

Conclusions

The problem of insufficient scientific capac-ity in developing countries is acute, but it isnot insurmountable. Higher education hasplayed a leading role in bringing about im-

pressive scientific achievements under diffi-cult circumstances in various parts of the de-veloping world. Generally, these achievementshave arisen as a result of an early, deep, andsustained commitment to particular areas ofscience or technology.

Notwithstanding the success stories, devel-oping countries are falling further behindindustrial countries in terms of their scienceand technology capacities and achievements.Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of thistrend is that many areas of scientific inquirythat hold great promise for the developmentof international public goods are receivinginadequate attention. These problems bodeill for social and economic development, andsuggest a further widening of global inequal-ity in standards of living. Many very useful dis-coveries end up sidelined because of a lack ofsupport either from business or government,not because they are inherently inapplicable.In the case of the Baylis wind-up radio thatrequires neither outside sources of electricitynor batteries—a very popular product manu-factured in South Africa that has brought newsand information to many poor families—theinventor spent long, frustrating years tryingto raise the interest of manufacturers. Thisuseful invention would still remain unknownwere it not for some seed money from theBritish government.

Inadequate resources (both physical andhuman) for science education, and the ab-sence of key values and traditions that pro-mote effective scientific inquiry and training,are among the main causes of the deteriorat-ing position of developing countries in thesciences. We have suggested some means bywhich higher education institutions and gov-ernments can address these problems. Stronginternational leadership that provides sus-tained intellectual and financial support forstrengthening the scientific capacity of devel-oping countries is also urgently needed.Equally important are efforts to strengthen

82

scientific links between institutions of highereducation in developing countries and cen-ters of scientific excellence worldwide.

The key question that will exercisepolicymakers in developing countries is“where should promoting science and tech-nology higher education rank in the long listof priorities for resources?” The answer willvary from country to country. Science andtechnology are moving with extraordinaryspeed. Countries such as India and many of

the Southeast Asian economies now play astrong role in the development of softwareand hardware. With the many incalculablespin-off benefits yielded by technologies suchas the Internet, the world is entering the fu-ture before our eyes. Playing a role in thatfuture requires every developing country tothink strategically about how their inevitablylimited resources for science and technologyhigher education might best be deployed tothe advantage of future generations.

83

Chapter 6 The Importance of General Education

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those whocannot learn, unlearn and relearn.

Alvin Toffler (1928- )

In the modern world, the importance ofhighly specialized scientific and technical

education is well recognized. But a broad edu-cation is also important, and this chaptermakes the case for liberal or general educa-tion (the terms are used interchangeably) atthe university level in developing countries.This argument may seem unusual and perhapsalso controversial, but it reflects the TaskForce’s view that this type of education couldplay a more constructive role than is com-monly realized in helping developing coun-tries to achieve their long-term socio-eco-nomic goals.

A higher education system should meetmany different goals. These include:

• satisfying demand from students for an in-creasingly sophisticated and rewarding edu-cation;

• training the people needed to run a mod-ern society and contribute to its further ad-vancement;

• providing a forum in which a society canexamine its problems and identify appro-priate solutions; and

• offering a setting in which a society’s cultureand values can be studied and developed.

In a stratified higher education system, insti-tutions of different types fill these needs indifferent ways. Professional and vocational

schools meet some needs, while open univer-sities and distance-learning institutions satisfyothers. However, developing countries needto be sure that some of their institutions areproviding a sufficient breadth of education togive students the abilities that are needed ina rapidly changing world. A general educa-tion is an excellent form of preparation forthe flexible, knowledge-based careers that in-creasingly dominate the upper tiers of themodern labor force. With knowledge grow-ing at unprecedented rates, higher educationsystems must equip students with the abilityto manage and assimilate greatly expandedquantities of information. A specific expertisein technology will almost inevitably becomeobsolete. The ability to learn, however, willcontinue to provide valuable insuranceagainst the vagaries of a rapidly changing eco-nomic environment.

What is a General orLiberal Education?

A general or liberal education has been de-fined as “a curriculum [or part of a curricu-lum] aimed at imparting general knowledgeand developing general intellectual capacitiesin contrast to a professional, vocational ortechnical curriculum.” It is characterized byits focus on “the whole development of an

84

individual, apart from his occupational train-ing. It includes the civilizing of his life pur-poses, the refining of his emotional reactions,and the maturing of his understanding of thenature of things according to the best knowl-edge of our time.”11 These words were writ-ten over 50 years ago (today one would usemore gender-neutral language).

There are a variety of opinions regardingthe characteristics of a liberally educated per-son. A recent formulation by a member of ourTask Force describes such a person as some-one who:

• can think and write clearly, effectively, andcritically, and who can communicate withprecision, cogency, and force;

• has a critical appreciation of the ways inwhich we gain knowledge and understand-ing of the universe, of society, and of our-selves;

• has a broad knowledge of other cultures andother times, and is able to make decisionsbased on reference to the wider world andto the historical forces that have shaped it;

• has some understanding of and experiencein thinking systematically about moral andethical problems; and

• has achieved depth in some field of knowl-edge.

This definition focuses on cognitive skills. Itconcerns teaching people to think and tolearn. It also stresses breadth of knowledgeacross a number of disciplines. A liberally edu-cated person should have an informed ac-quaintance with the mathematical and experi-mental methods of the physical and biologicalsciences; with the main forms of analysis and

the historical and quantitative techniquesneeded to investigate the development of amodern society; with some of the importantscholarly, literary, and artistic achievements ofthe past; and with humanity’s major religiousand philosophical concepts. A liberal educa-tion should leave students excited by the worldof learning and prepared to continue theireducation, both in the short term—throughin-depth study of a specialist discipline—andin the long term as they continually refreshtheir knowledge in formal and informal ways,through the process of lifelong learning.

In some parts of the world, the term “lib-eral education” has a conservative or tradi-tional connotation, implying a particular wayof looking at the world. The Task Force, how-ever, is not advocating the universal applica-tion of a particular curriculum or teachingmethod across different cultures. Instead, itis recommending that each country design itsown general curriculum to fit the structureand values of its higher education system. In-deed, the exercise of developing a national—though not nationalistic—general educationcurriculum should be socially useful, requir-ing a country to examine the state and direc-tion of human knowledge and establish pri-orities for its higher education system.

As they design and impart a sound, com-prehensive educational foundation, educatorsneed to:

• take into account their own economic, so-cial, political, and institutional environ-ment;

• look for the common unifying themes thatpull together a curriculum and make itmore than an arbitrary combination of al-ternative elements;

• move beyond limits of traditional disciplin-ary boundaries to explore the relationshipsamong different subjects and ways of think-ing about the world;

11 José Ortega y Gasset, Mission of the University. London:Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1946, p.1. The quotes arethe introductory words of Leo Nostrand, the translator.

85

Box 9

The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, orBRAC, is justly celebrated as one of the developingworld's most impressive nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs). Describing itself as a “national privatedevelopment organization,” BRAC has approximately17,000 regular staff and more than 30,000 part-timeteachers covering 50,000 villages. The vast majorityof its clients are women, and for the past 27 years ithas been making loans to the rural poor and othermarginalized populations, as well as offering servicesincluding education, training, healthcare, and familyplanning. The BRAC health program alone coverssome 25 million people, while 1.2 million poor chil-dren now receive primary education through its edu-cation program. About 85,000 groups of the land-less poor, with a membership of over 3 million, havealso been organized. BRAC's annual budget, 60 per-cent of which is self-generated, is now more thanUS$130 million. Among its latest initiatives is an at-tempt to set up an entirely new liberal arts univer-sity, based on an identification of local needs andaspirations.

BRAC started with a significant program of re-search among potential employers, students, andparents, as well as successful local universities. BRACwanted to identify an approach for the proposeduniversity that would ensure not only financial viabil-ity through good initial enrollment rates, but thatwould also ensure that the university's graduatestream would prove attractive to prospective localemployers; this, in turn, would link back to maintain-ing enrollment on an ongoing basis. This initiativetook place in the context of BRAC's wider develop-mental aims for Bangladesh. These include a par-ticular focus on improving the situation and influenceof women, from the household level to the labor mar-ket.

BRAC's research phase threw up several interest-ing insights. For example, employers initially told

Home-Grown and Breaking New Ground: Another BRAC Initiative

BRAC that they sought programs with a strong tech-nical focus, for example in biology, technology, man-agement, and computer science. They wanted gradu-ates who were “ready to go.” However, on furtherprobing, it emerged that local employers' interestswere in fact centered on obtaining a stream of gradu-ates who could demonstrate a strong array of ana-lytical skills and a solid grounding in writing, com-munication, and presentation skills, in addition totheir technical expertise. Their concern—in commonwith many, if not most, modern employers who areconsidering graduates as employees—was to seekout workers with a good ability to analyze and thinkthrough complexity, a useful level of English languageskills, and a well-rounded ability to think indepen-dently and take initiative. This is the very combina-tion of general and specialist skills argued forthroughout this report.

A study of the competition—successful local pri-vate universities—showed two very popular pro-grams: computer science and business administra-tion (a subject that has come to be perceived as a“gilt-edged degree” by students and employersalike). Because of the strong cultural influence theystill exert, parents of prospective students were alsointerviewed about their concerns. Their biggest con-cern—as with all parents—was quality. They wishedto be reassured that the quality of the university edu-cation offered was internationally competitive. Likethe prospective employers, parents were also em-phatic about the importance of English languageskills. Some even stated that they would not sendtheir children to a private university where courseswere taught in Bengali. Further, parents wished tosee their daughters take up higher education (andmost of BRAC's membership base is female), butwere concerned that current educational possibili-

continued…

86

Box 9 continued

ties meant their daughters might have to lookabroad for good study options. This emphasizes oneof the potential roles that educational reform canplay in promoting gender equity.

Although BRAC wished to broaden student en-rollment among its membership base, there was alsorecognition that for many of these poorerBangladeshis, there were issues around both ex-pense and low educational attainment levels. Theproposed fees, of between US$1,500 to US$2,000per annum, are in keeping with the upper limit ontuition levels observed at other private universitiesin Bangladesh, such as North–South University andIndependent University. In other words, the tuitionfees would be much more than those charged bythe public university system (which are entirely nomi-nal at around 50 cents per year; apparently the costof collecting this fee exceeds the amount collected),but not more than other private universities supply-ing a more traditional education with early special-ization.

A real issue remains with respect to how manycan satisfy the test and entry requirements. BRACUniversity therefore intends to take the practical ap-proach and enroll some, but not all, poor students(with partial-to-full scholarships reserved for a mod-est percentage of the student population in the four-year program). There is also a plan to create an en-dowment to help fund these scholarships—the restwill involve cross-subsidies from tuition receipts—while the bulk of students will come from lower-middle-, middle-, and upper-middle-class families.

Through an exhaustive process of research amongthe main stakeholders, BRAC's feasibility study fora university has developed into what is, in effect, aninteresting new hybrid appropriate to developingworld contexts. BRAC intends to place an emphasis

on practical and job-related skills while also honingmore generally portable analytical and English lan-guage skills. The proposed curriculum includes twoyears of liberal arts, which will also cover general skills,including writing, communication, presentation, andanalysis. The core curriculum has courses in devel-opment economics, history, sociology, and the sci-ences (physics or biology) in addition to mathemat-ics and English. Many of these courses would have astrong “development studies” orientation—anotherway in which the curriculum is customized to nationalneeds.

These two years of liberal arts are then followedby two years of specialized technical training (as dis-tinct from, for example, the more common patternof four years' general education with a major andelectives, as seen in the United States). In this com-bination there lies a fusion between old and new thatmore closely reflects students' and employers' aspi-rations for both a better general education and anability to take up jobs requiring technical skills.

While surveys indicated a strong demand for aBRAC University on the part of students, the biggestobstacle to be overcome is finding good faculty, es-pecially given that the plan requires adoption of amore modern and active approach to teaching thanthe traditional “lecture-from-notes” method, wherestudents are asked to simply memorize and then re-gurgitate facts. It is regrettable that, while the appli-cation to become a private university was lodgedwith the Ministry of Education early in 1997, confir-mation has yet to be achieved. This is in part due toan ongoing realignment of higher education priori-ties in the country.

BRAC website: http://www.brac.net

87

• concentrate on the delivery, not simply thecontent, of the curriculum, moving beyondrote learning to give students a deeper, moreengaged and meaningful exposure to the richand varied world of intellectual pursuits.

Who Should Receive aLiberal Education?

Depending on the student and his or hergoals, different levels of general education arepossible. These include:

• a basic grounding for all higher educationstudents, whatever type of institution theyattend or course they study;

• a discrete and substantial component ofgeneral education, which helps broadenthe experience of students engaged in spe-cialist, professional, or technical study; and

• an intensive general education curriculumthat provides exceptionally promising, in-tellectually oriented students with a solidbasis for their careers or for advanced spe-cialist study.

Within a differentiated higher education sys-tem, the more intensive programs will almostcertainly be offered at the most selective uni-versities, with the majority of professional, sci-entific, and technical courses remaining morenarrowly focused. Selective universities pre-pare many of those who aspire to leadershiproles, and for them a preparation for only theinitial stages of a career is no longer sufficient.Path-finding individuals must update and ac-quire new, and often very different, skills.General education is ideally suited to this pro-cess of lifelong learning, providing the cogni-tive orientation and skills needed to facilitatecontinual re-education.

However, general education should not beconfined to a few traditional universities. Thecapacity for lifelong learning is increasingly

important for the many people who face ma-jor career shifts. Mature students, for instance,often return to education with a determina-tion to change the direction of their lives.Many look for study opportunities outside thetraditional university system, for example,through distance learning. As noted earlier,women also commonly leave the labor forcebecause of family obligations. Flexibility andthe ability to learn new skills have a signifi-cant impact on how successfully they return,often after a decade or more.

Increasing, the supply of general educationcan also help to promote social equity andmobility. In some countries, such as parts ofAfrica, India, and Pakistan, a narrow and privi-leged segment of the population has alreadyreceived its broad education at elite second-ary institutions that offer elaborate and exten-sive general education programs. As highereducation systems expand, they must becomemore tolerant at points of entry, while ensur-ing that quality at the point of exit is main-tained. This means shouldering an increasedshare of the burden of providing general edu-cation, and ensuring that those who have nothad a broad secondary education have thechance to catch up and fulfil their potential.

Why Is General EducationRelevant for DevelopingCountries?

Does general education deserve support in thedeveloping world, or is it just a luxury for thewealthy countries? The Task Force is con-vinced that general education has a clear, prac-tical impact on society, well beyond the loveof learning and human development it pro-motes.

Both industrial and developing countriesneed leaders, educated citizens, and trainedworkers for industry, government and politics,

88

and academia. A liberal education enhancesthe chances that individuals will be able tofulfil these roles with distinction. At present,many developing countries are overly depen-dent on the industrial countries to offer abroadly based education to a few of their(richer) citizens. Women are especially disad-vantaged by this state of affairs, with manyfamilies, especially those in conservative soci-eties, frowning upon young women travelingabroad to study.

General education also has a clear practi-cal impact on a society. It can promote respon-sible citizenship, ethical behavior, educationalambition, professional development in abroad range of fields, and even global inte-gration. It prevents students from becoming“balkanized” in narrowly focused disciplinesand fosters cohesion across cohorts whosemore talented and motivated students are fa-miliarized with a core body of knowledge,some of which is unique to their own cultureand some of which is universal. General edu-cation also promotes civil society through itscontribution to broad-mindedness, criticalthinking, and communication skills, all ofwhich are essential elements of effective par-ticipatory democracy. It should foster toler-ance and ethical values, helping to encour-age the social awareness and philanthropy thatare vital to a society’s health and stability.

General education is also important in thedevelopment process. It helps society look atthe social and ethical questions raised by newdevelopment policies and projects, ensuringthat a country’s long-term interests are givenpriority over short-term gains. Within the edu-cation sector, it encourages countries to definenational intellectual priorities and promote anintellectual identity through the process of de-fining the content of a general curriculumthat meets nationally specific needs.

Finally, better general education mayhelp reduce the brain drain. Providing in-country general education is less expensive

than sending undergraduates abroad. Forexample, there are roughly 350,000 devel-oping-country graduate and undergraduatestudents in the United States alone, at a to-tal cost of approximately US$10 billion peryear, which exceeds the individual grossnational product of more than half theworld’s countries. Students who are edu-cated at home are more likely to remain athome, perhaps even for graduate study.Even in cases where students go abroad forgraduate study—and that is the largestgroup—they are more likely to want to re-turn to a society that has offered them anintellectually stimulating environment dur-ing their undergraduate career.

What Are the Obstacles?

In the developing world, the concept of lib-eral education is associated with a variety ofobstacles. While some are economic, thephilosophical ones may be more significant.

The first obstacle is the issue of costs andbenefits. High-quality liberal education is notinexpensive. It requires more varied facultyresources, interactive rather than passiveteaching techniques, seminars in place of lec-tures, and perhaps a longer period spent inschool. But the payoff to a high-quality liberaleducation is not immediate, and it has a largenonpecuniary component that is difficult tomeasure.

Funding is clearly problematic, but themore extensive general education programsare not meant for all, or even the majority, ofstudents. They should be aimed at the bright-est and most highly motivated in any cohort,with a broader cross-section of students of-fered less intensive forms of general educa-tion. The Task Force attaches great impor-tance to this, as it is far less expensive andtime-consuming than offering such an edu-cation to all.

89

Aiming higher education programs at thebrightest and most motivated students shouldnot be objectionable or characterized as elit-ism in the old sense. First, advantage shouldaccrue to an individual because of intellectualcapacities and efforts, and not because of socialclass or wealth. Second, the Task Force advo-cates special programs for disadvantaged groupsat all stages of education, so that these citi-zens are increasingly able to take advantageof the best educational opportunities. Third,we recognize the value of some general edu-cation in nearly all forms of higher education,with specific programs designed and modifiedfor different types of student and school.

These considerations will not eliminate fi-nancial concerns, but they should lessen theproblem. However, the problem of differentabilities remains. Not all individuals are quali-fied for the same training or the same tasks,given that some tasks are more difficult thanothers. This implies that inequalities in someareas are a natural outcome. Educating themost able for positions of leadership in allspheres of life has to be in the national inter-est; it is a major aspect of stratification.

We have already noted that, while the con-nection between the short-term needs of thelabor market and general education may beweak, in the longer run general education isan excellent investment for both individualsand nations. Some believe that general edu-cation is at odds with the trend toward increas-ing specialization within the labor force, es-pecially the upper tiers. On the contrary,high-quality general education strengthensdisciplinary specialization by providing a solidfoundation for advanced learning and special-ization. It also provides a common intellec-tual currency for interaction among individu-als with diverse specializations.

Because general education involves in-depth and open examination of ideas and as-sumptions of all kinds, it sometimes appearsthreatening to those who have an interest in

preserving the status quo. That desire, how-ever, represents the very opposite of develop-ment. Highlighting the value of liberal edu-cation for effective leadership may also posean implicit challenge to the credentials ofleaders who themselves received differenttraining, and sometimes very little formal edu-cation. Of course, a more educated leadershipis one indicator of socioeconomic progress.

Some will ask why market forces have notcreated a greater supply of general educationif it offers so many benefits. The reasons re-late to a disparity between the long-term pub-lic interest and short-term needs (see Chap-ter 2). General education is not part of theacademic tradition in most developing coun-tries. In addition, students are interested inimmediate, and perhaps more certain, re-turns, especially when education loans andscholarships are difficult to obtain. High-qual-ity general education tends to be expensive,deterring its provision in both public and pri-vate institutions. However, especially in thelong run, societies will do well to serve thepublic interest even if market forces do notcreate the necessary incentives. General edu-cation is, in this sense, in the same categoryas basic research or equitable access.

Conclusions

In some countries, the term “liberal educa-tion” recalls colonial domination and educa-tion. This is unfortunate. While this particu-lar method of education has Western roots,our emphasis is on an educational approachdeveloped by each country, paying specificattention to its own culture and its particularneeds. The goal for all countries is similar—a broad, flexible, interactive education thataddresses the whole human being—but theroad to achieving this goal is unique andcannot simply be transplanted from one coun-try to another. The time has come for nat-

90

ional debates to begin. What is an educatedperson? Once a country has accepted thegeneral education concept, what are the im-plications for curricula and other aspects oftraining?

This debate is under way in a number ofdeveloping countries. Some institutions inIndia, the Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Paki-stan, the Philippines, parts of Latin America,and some others already practice general edu-cation, although the quality of these efforts isuneven. Most recently, the National Univer-sity of Singapore has engaged a major curricu-

Box 10

In the summer of 1999 the National University ofSingapore (NUS) launched its new curriculum for se-lected undergraduates. This was the result of lengthyconsultations that began in 1997, and brought in theviews of leading scholars drawn from several eliteuniversities around the world.

Singapore sought to ensure that its future gradu-ates could walk proudly alongside any graduate fromthe more established schools. They strove to developthe personal, intellectual, and leadership qualities ofstudents to equip them to excel in life.

Key to the new curriculum is exposing students tovarious schools of thought, helping them to under-stand, for example, how a physicist, a biologist, anda historian approach problems. Students select theircore area of study, but are also obliged to selectcourses from an area outside their field.

The curriculum attempts to:

• synthesize and integrate knowledge from diversedisciplines, to establish a connection between allhuman knowledge, and

Singapore’s Curriculum Renewal for National Goals

• infuse students with a concrete understandingof the process of human creativity.

It includes these subjects:

• One module each from the Writing Program andHistory

• Select modules from the Humanities and SocialSciences and from areas of Science and Math-ematics.

The new curriculum has already drawn praise fromthe private sector. “The Core Curriculum programat NUS is designed to deliver well rounded gradu-ates, who are lateral thinkers, innovative, articulateand groomed to lead,” said S. Nasim, ManagingDirector, Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte Ltd., “compa-rable to the best graduates of Harvard or MIT. Theywill be snapped up like hotcakes by industry.”

The Core Curriculum, National University ofSingapore, 1999–2000

lar review with the intention of creating a newcore curriculum (see Box 10). Leaders fromboth government and education concludedthat national preparation for the knowledge-based world required soundly designed liberaleducation, as opposed to exclusive emphasison specialist, and usually technical, subjects.The Task Force hopes this interest in generaleducation will continue to spread across thedeveloping world, and that many more coun-tries will develop increasingly broad, flexible,and innovative curricula.

91

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.W. B. Yeats (1865–1939)

Although developing countries containmore than 80 percent of the world’s

population, they account for just half of itshigher education students, and for a farsmaller proportion of those with access tohigh-quality higher education. Overcomingthese gaps is a daunting challenge that willrequire a concerted effort between develop-ing and developed countries.

In this concluding chapter we return to thethree core questions asked in the Introduc-tion, summarizing the report by synthesizingthe answers to each question as they cut acrossthe various chapters.

• What is the role of higher education in sup-porting and enhancing the process of eco-nomic and social development?

• What are the major obstacles that highereducation faces in developing countries?

• How can these obstacles best be overcome?

The preceding chapters broke these over-arching questions into a set of manageableand reasonably self-contained—though notexhaustive—issues. We have tried to frameeach issue and to explain its importance to-day and, more significantly, the role it is likelyto play in the twenty-first century. We haveconcentrated on what higher education offerssociety as a whole, emphasizing those aspectsof higher education where the public has in-terests that are distinctly different from ormore extensive than private interests.

It is clear that higher education institutionscome in all shapes and sizes, and this meansthat solutions will need to be organic. A stan-dard set of remedies is also doomed to failwhen countries are so diverse. Despite thisdiversity, the main objective of the Task Forcehas been to determine strategies for highereducation reform, as well as general guide-lines and principles for assessing the opera-tion of higher education systems and institu-tions. These benchmarks offer guidance forinformed dialogue aimed at educational re-form—helping to cut through the often con-fusing thicket of institutions and practices.Our analysis and conclusions are a blend ofresearch and discussion with colleagues fromaround the world and the professional exper-tise of our members. We have consciously triednot to emphasize the lessons of one countryat the expense of others.

This report’s findings can be boiled downto two simple conclusions.

• Significant obstacles. Higher education mustovercome formidable impediments if it isto realize its potential contribution to soci-ety. Some of these impediments—such asdemographic change, fiscal stringency, andthe knowledge revolution—are determinedby external forces of considerable powerand must be taken as given. Others can beremoved or mitigated. One example is theineffective management that plagues somuch of higher education, yet this is largely

Chapter 5Conclusions

92

within the overlapping domains of highereducation institutions and national govern-ments to overcome. Change will not be easy.The problems are deep-seated, and effortsto rationalize and strengthen systems andinstitutions will require sustained effort.This work will certainly span several politi-cal cycles in most countries.

• Hope for progress. The problems facinghigher education are not insurmountable.Existing resources can be used more effec-tively, and there are already a number ofareas in which the mobilization of addi-tional resources, both economic and politi-cal, will result in big gains. Conversely, coun-tries that continue to neglect higher edu-cation will tend to become increasinglymarginalized in the world economy, sufferfrom relatively slow social and politicalprogress, and find it ever more difficult tocatch up. Progress is most likely in coun-tries that develop a clear vision of whathigher education can contribute to thepublic interest. Piecemeal fixes must beavoided in favor of a holistic approach, fo-cusing on the complementary and mutu-ally reinforcing nature of a range of pos-sible solutions.

How Higher EducationSupports Development

Statistical analysis, case study, and commonobservation all point to the fundamental im-portance of higher education to development.Higher education promotes the following:

• Income growth. The vitality of higher educa-tion is a fundamental—and increasinglyimportant—determinant of a nation’s po-sition in the world economy. It contributesto labor productivity, entrepreneurial en-ergy, and quality of life; enhances socialmobility; encourages political participation;

strengthens civil society; and promotesdemocratic governance. It does this by cre-ating public goods such as new knowl-edge—a catalyst for rapid development—and by providing a safe space for the freeand open discussion of the values that de-fine the character of a nation’s develop-ment. Economic growth is a powerful de-terminant of poverty alleviation and im-provements in people’s lives. Highereducation’s contribution to growth, there-fore, means better living standards forpeople at all levels of a society.

• Enlightened leaders. Higher education cangive leaders the confidence, flexibility,breadth of knowledge, and technical skillsneeded to effectively confront the eco-nomic and political realities of the twenty-first century. It also generates cadres of well-trained teachers for all levels of the educa-tion system.

• Expanding choices. Development is funda-mentally concerned with expanding thechoices people can make. As such, an ac-cessible higher education system—offeringa wide range of quality options for study—is a major achievement, bolstering socialmobility and helping the talented to fulfiltheir potential.

• Increasingly relevant skills. Higher educationis absolutely necessary for training scien-tists, engineers, and others to help invent,adopt, and operate modern technology inall sectors. When scientists in developingcountries are inspired to define and addresslocal problems, they are likely to contrib-ute to appropriate solutions in such vitalareas as environmental protection, the pre-vention and treatment of illness, industrialexpansion, and infrastructure provision.

These benefits are not automatic. They arelinked to the character of higher educationsystems and institutions, as well as to the

93

broader social, political, and economic sys-tems within which they are situated. Even awell-functioning higher education system, op-erating under the most favorable of circum-stances, is not sufficient for social and eco-nomic development. But better highereducation will certainly be necessary in mostcountries, if more vibrant development is totake place. Indeed in some countries, espe-cially those with extremely low levels of percapita income, higher-education initiatives willnot dominate the policy agenda for the fore-seeable future. Higher education will remainimportant for these countries, but they maydo best by relying, for the time being, on in-stitutions outside their countries, possiblywith donor assistance, as a prelude to buildingstronger higher education systems of their own.

We have not asked whether higher educa-tion matters more than other key sectors suchas agriculture, health, transportation, andbasic education. But we are absolutely confi-dent that it is much more important to devel-opment than one would surmise from thecomparative neglect it has received in mostquarters of the international developmentcommunity in recent decades. Highereducation’s benefits must now be recognizedmore widely so it can take its place in themainstream of the international developmentagenda. The information revolution that isdriving the new economy is dependent oneducated and literate workers; and more thanever, the new ideas fueling this expansion havecome from people with tertiary degrees.

The Major Obstacles

The experience of higher education in devel-oping countries has been disappointing todate. Its contribution to social and economicdevelopment has not mirrored its accomplish-ments in developed countries. The signs ofthis failure are most apparent when judged

by international standards as demanded by theemerging world economy. Poor educationalquality, a dearth of significant contributionsto knowledge, and a failure to advance thepublic interest are all too common.

Strategies for addressing these problemsneed to proceed from an understanding oftheir underlying roots. We believe higher edu-cation in many developing countries is signifi-cantly weighed down by four sets of condi-tions.

• The absence of vision. The social and eco-nomic importance of higher education sys-tems, and of individual institutions withinthose systems, is insufficiently appreciated.Unlike primary and secondary education,there is little in the way of a shared visionabout the nature and magnitude of thepotential contribution of higher educationto development. But this understanding iscrucial to a sector that requires long-terminvestment in return for social benefits thatare difficult to measure. Without it, highereducation institutions are treated, essen-tially by default, in the same way as otherlarge bureaucracies, leaving them withoutthe power to make choices that improvetheir individual and collective perfor-mance.

• Lack of political and financial commitment.Policymakers face a host of pressing prob-lems under conditions of severe resourceconstraints and highly competitive politi-cal settings. It’s no surprise in such a policyenvironment that higher education oftenmisses out. There is a common view that itis not deserving of political support becauseit is the preserve of the elite, who are emi-nently capable of taking care of themselves.While investment in higher education willsurely benefit many already wealthy stu-dents, its social benefits outweigh this, rais-ing a nation’s average income and reduc-ing its poverty. Meanwhile, demand is in-

94

creasing at a great rate, creating complexchallenges associated with managing theexpansion of any system. Without signifi-cant national support and guidance formanaging and planning expansion, qual-ity inevitably suffers.

• Conditions of initial disadvantage. Highereducation in developing countries is se-verely disadvantaged by its poor baseline.Knowledge begets knowledge. Fruitful sci-entific inquiry is often aided by having asuitable intellectual culture. And a criticalmass of scholars and teachers is often re-quired before higher education can thrive.Escaping this low-level trap necessarily re-quires substantial and wide-ranging im-provements, rather than the all-too-fre-quent patchy and incremental steps.

• The disruptions of globalization. The best andbrightest faculty and students will continueto be attracted to the wealthier countries,and competition for quality graduates willremain fierce. The money markets will en-sure that economic fluctuations travel rap-idly around the world, potentially jeopar-dizing institutional budgets when curren-cies collapse. Institutions are at great riskof falling behind if they do not keep up withthe rest of the world in the informationrevolution and take advantage of the op-portunities it offers. It is a two-sided coin,however, and information technology in theform of the Internet can ensure that uni-versities are not pushed further outside theinformation network.

These ills will not cure themselves. They mustbe confronted now, and aggressively. Other-wise, developing countries will miss out on thepowerful boost higher education can give todevelopment, and will face increasingly daunt-ing barriers to system improvement.

What To Do?

This report offers numerous suggestions forunleashing the potential of higher education’scontribution to society. In doing so, our aimhas been to stimulate and provoke, and todemonstrate that a menu of creative optionsexists. Higher education is, by its nature, op-timistic and forward-looking. It is in this spiritthat we offer our conclusions. In addition, astrategy for educational reform must beclosely tailored to conditions in differentcountries—it makes little sense to endorse spe-cific suggestions for application in any genericcontext. Policymakers must also be careful todo more than emulate developed-countrymodels. Many richer countries have outdatedsystems that are also in need of reform. De-veloping countries have the opportunity toleapfrog outmoded models, planning fortomorrow’s world, not yesterday’s.

The Task Force’s recommendations fall intotwo main categories: increasing resources, andimproving the efficiency with which resourcesare used. A larger and more diversified re-source base is needed for:

• improving educational infrastructure, espe-cially computer and Internet access, scien-tific laboratories, and equipment, but alsomore traditional infrastructure such as li-braries, classrooms, dormitories, and rec-reation and cultural facilities;

• the design, testing, and implementation ofnew curricula and academic programs, in-cluding the expansion or introduction ofgeneral education;

• the recruitment, retention, motivation, andlong-term development of well-trained fac-ulty;

• increasing access for economically and so-cially disadvantaged populations; and

95

• conducting more and better science edu-cation and research, both basic and ap-plied.

Investment in the quality of secondary educa-tion is also needed to strengthen higher edu-cation, by improving the preparation of itsnew entrants. Also, if higher education insti-tutions are more respected and accessible, sec-ondary students will feel it is worthwhile tostrive to attend them.

Although the Task Force urges interna-tional donors to increase their support forhigher education, the majority of additionalresources will necessarily have to come fromwithin developing countries. There is no gen-erally accepted formula for assigning respon-sibility for the generation of these resources,and the Task Force did not dwell on this im-portant issue. Nevertheless, common sensesuggests that beneficiaries should share re-sponsibility, with students, private firms, andthe public all included. Countries should fo-cus on rational and effective use of existingresources, while remembering that outsidepartners are happier placing good money ontop of good money. Institutions that squan-der resources and supply substandard educa-tion should not be surprised if they continueto find resource mobilization difficult.

The Task Force has highlighted a numberof approaches to increasing the effectivenesswith which resources are used. We believe thatpoor management is often the single greatestobstacle to stronger higher education. Man-agement practices can be vastly improved byadhering to the principles of good institu-tional governance described in earlier chap-ters. Equally large gains can be enjoyed bydesigning a more rational and coordinatedarchitecture for the system as a whole. Thiswill help eliminate unnecessary duplicationof effort, and cater to neglected social inter-ests in areas such as curriculum, teachingmaterials, admissions processes, and informa-

tion systems. In meeting increased demandat a reasonable cost, new information tech-nology affords remarkable opportunities. Butmore work needs to be done, especially incommunicating how these opportunities canbe advantageous. The public sector must alsoassume an increased role in providing con-structive oversight for private institutions, thushelping to expose the system to greater inter-nal competition, which is in itself an impor-tant driver for educational quality and mana-gerial efficiency.

Perhaps the most natural starting point forhigher education reform involves crafting avision of a rational system—one based on veri-fiable facts and justifiable assumptions. Toachieve this reform, a transparent and in-formed dialogue needs to take place, bring-ing together educators, industry, government,prospective students, and other relevant stake-holders. The system must be customized tofit a country’s stage of development, politicalsystem, social structure, economic capacities,history, and culture. It is also important toavoid the process becoming too political,where a long wish list is produced and agree-ment is only for the least objectionable mea-sures. A common vision should yield a frame-work to guide expansion and reform of highereducation, while also organizing and manag-ing the system in a way that is compatible withsocietal goals. This work will require long-termpolitical and financial commitment, as well ashigh-level support to convince the public ofthe widespread importance of higher educa-tion.

Effective efforts to improve higher educa-tion in developing countries will reflect anoverlapping division of labor among tertiaryinstitutions, public policymakers, and interna-tional donors. As we have argued, institutionsmust take the lead in:

• strengthening their internal governance;

96

• improving the quality of existing academicprograms such as those involving scienceand technology, and developing new pro-grams, especially for the provision of gen-eral education and for helping bright andmotivated students from disadvantagedbackgrounds to overcome their academicdeficits; and

• developing and motivating strong faculties.

Public Policymakers HavePrimary Responsibility For:

• developing the architecture of a rationalsystem of higher education and orchestrat-ing its smooth operation in a manner thatpromotes both mass education and excel-lence;

• advancing the public interest in highereducation, by:

– providing special support for the natu-ral sciences and the preservation of cul-ture;

– combating the tendency for financialconcerns to sideline the principle ofequal opportunity;

– setting standards for degrees, and ensur-ing that the international trade in boguscredentials is brought to public atten-tion;

– generating and disseminating unbiasedand relevant information about differentinstitutions and degree programs;

– protecting higher education as a venuefor free and open discourse on a rangeof matters, even if the subjects are sensi-tive from society’s point of view;

– investing in the establishment of learn-ing commons through which studentsfrom many institutions gain access toeducational resources that individual

schools sometimes cannot afford; typicalexamples would be the Internet, librar-ies, and laboratory facilities;

– regulating the private portion of highereducation so as to encourage high stan-dards while deterring abuses; and

– addressing all planning issues in a glo-bal context, and considering how theirsystems can be linked to the wider world.

Finally, international donors would do well tosupport activities where the principal goalsinvolve:

• catalyzing self-reliant and sustainable initia-tives, including assessments of higher edu-cation systems and institutions;

• providing international public goods,which frequently arises from agricultural,medical, and environmental research, andcan help foster cross-national research part-nerships as well as student and faculty ex-change programs; and

• promoting equity between and within coun-tries through, for example, scholarship pro-grams such as the Japanese-funded WorldBank Scholars program, or by facilitatingaccess to textbooks, computers, or otherequipment.

The Task Force also emphasizes the impor-tance of implementation. The field of inter-national development is littered with goodideas that have yielded no fruit. Only rarelydoes the policy design process adequatelyanticipate the harsh and unforgiving realitiesfound in the field. Projects routinely fail be-cause they do not take adequate account ofthe competence and experience of the staffwho will be relied upon to administer thepolicy or manage the project. Other projectsfail because they do not involve stakeholdersearly in the planning process. We must—above all—be practical if we are to achievesuccessful reform.

97

The Bottom Line

Currently, two billion people live in the world’slow-income countries. Their average incomehas a purchasing power of less than one-six-teenth of that enjoyed by the one billionpeople who live in the high-income countries.Even more astonishing is the ratio of the av-erage income of the poorest and the richestone billion people on the planet: it is—con-servatively—in the region of 1 to 80. The dis-turbing truth is that these enormous dispari-ties are poised to grow even more extreme,impelled in large part by the progress of theknowledge revolution and the continuingbrain drain.

The Task Force believes that strengtheninghigher education is a rational and feasible wayfor many countries to mitigate or avert fur-ther deterioration in their relative incomes,while positioning themselves on a higher andmore sharply rising development trajectory.

Higher education cannot be developed tothe exclusion of other policy initiatives. The

development of infrastructure, better gover-nance, public health improvements, tradereform, and financial market development—these and others will be needed as well. Thebenefits of higher education require a longgestation period. There may be shortcuts toestablishing educational infrastructure, butinfluencing people to understand and con-vey higher education values and best practicewill take decades, as opposed to a few years.For this reason the Task Force urgespolicymakers and donors—public and private,national and international—to waste no time.They must work with educational leaders andother key stakeholders to reposition highereducation in developing countries. Only thenwill it produce larger and better trained poolsof graduates and research of higher quality.The chance is simply too great to miss. As H.G.Wells said in The Outline of History, “Humanhistory becomes more and more a race be-tween education and catastrophe.”

98

I: International Data

International Statistics onHigher Education

As part of its work, the Secretariat for the TaskForce on Higher Education undertook someindependent research describing and analyz-ing cross-country patterns and trends inhigher education. The Secretariat quickly dis-covered that UNESCO is the main, but notthe only, source of basic data on higher edu-cation. The Secretariat also discovered thatthe data available tend to be sketchy in termsof the countries, years, and variables covered.In addition, the quality of the data is gener-ally not well established.

Considerable effort went into assemblingand testing the consistency of the cross-coun-try data on higher education that were usedin crafting portions of this report. These dataare reproduced in this Appendix, in the in-terests of transparency, of providing readerswith the raw data needed to facilitate furthercomparisons, and of sparing other research-ers the time-consuming and tedious task ofduplicating our efforts. To increase the valueof this data supplement, the tables also includemany standard higher education indicatorsnot specifically relied upon in the report, aswell as a number of general indicators of so-cial and economic development.

In addition to the printed tables, the dataare available electronically as part of thewebsite maintained at the Center for Interna-tional Development at Harvard University

Statistical Appendix

(www.cid.harvard.edu). It is anticipated thatthe data maintained on this website will besupplemented from time to time with addi-tional cross-country information related to fac-ulty compensation, international test scores,the nature of higher education laws and regu-lations, faculty-to-student ratios, indexes ofpublic and private tuition, and numbers ofpublic and private higher education institu-tions and average enrollment levels at each.In the course of preparing this report, we haveparticularly felt the absence of reliable dataon the number of institutions of each type.

While assembling these data—all of whichare derived from cross-country compilationsthat aimed at consistency—we have noted in-stances in which the figures given for a par-ticular country do not match those indepen-dently available from sources within thatcountry. For the sake of consistency, we havenot made adjustments to the tables in suchcases.

The tables cover 178 countries, which arelisted alphabetically. They include data on en-rollment, attainment, expenditure, researchoutput, and several other items. Past and cur-rent values are reported for most indicators.Definitions for selected variables covered inthe tables appear in the notes following thetables, as do references to the underlying datasources. Data aggregations for geographicalregions and economic groupings have beencalculated by weighting each country’s databy population. When appropriate, weightinghas been based on population subgroups.

99

Comparative and HistoricalData on Education

The primary international source of dataabout education at all levels is UNESCO, theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organisation. UNESCO’s Institutefor Statistics collects and disseminates data oneducation from all countries and territories.A large amount of data are available from 1960onward.

The Institute’s main sources of informationare official replies to questionnaires sent tocountries annually. Three types of question-naire are used: a questionnaire on educationat pre-primary, first, and second levels; oneon education at the tertiary level; and one oneducational finance and expenditure. Infor-mation is collected on enrollment by level,gender, age, and field of study (for highereducation); teaching staff by level and gen-der; illiteracy; educational attainment; andforeign students and graduates. The Institutefor Statistics also reviews ad hoc national sur-veys designed to meet special needs, as wellas other national publications and reports.They supplement these data with informationfrom other international sources, includingthe Statistics and Population Division of theUnited Nations (for population, literacy, andattainment data), the World Bank (for GNPand other economic data), and the Interna-tional Monetary Fund (for exchange rates).

Within individual countries, the responsi-bility for collecting data most commonly restswith the ministry of education or the centralbureau of statistics. Questionnaires completedby schools are the basis for much of the infor-mation. Statistics on education spending arean exception, and may most often be obtainedfrom central budgetary departments. Data onthe adult population, such as level of educa-tional attainment and literacy rates, are typi-cally collected through national populationcensuses or through sample surveys.

The Institute for Statistics examines thedata it receives, cross-referencing it with othersources and with the information maintainedon its own database. If the new informationappears problematic, they send a letter to thenational authority cited as the source of theinformation and request a clarification. Theiraim is to receive either corrected data, or anunderstanding of why the original data arecorrect despite the apparent discrepancy. Ifthe issue is not resolved to their satisfaction,they may choose not to publish the data or toadd a footnote expressing their concerns.

UNESCO organizes all these data andpublishes it in its annual Statistical Yearbook,which is a major source of internationally com-parable data on education. Many additionalUNESCO publications draw on this data setor supplement it, and are listed within theyearbook. UNESCO data and publications listsare now easily accessed electronically on theUNESCO Institute for Statistics website,www.unesco.org. Computerized data are gen-erally available for 1970 onward. In addition,the very detailed tables of the Statistical Year-book exist as electronic spreadsheets that maybe accessed through queries to the Institutefor Statistics.

Additional sources of international educa-tional data include the World Bank, whichproduces the World Development Report, andother United Nations offices, such as theUnited Nations Development Programme,which publishes the annual Human Develop-ment Report. A review of these publicationsdemonstrates that almost all of their interna-tional data on education are ultimately attrib-uted to UNESCO.

The most significant additional source ofinformation on education is the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD). The OECD collects extensive dataabout its 29 member countries, all highly de-veloped nations. Beginning in 1998, 13 devel-oping nations also began contributing data

100

to the OECD. OECD data on education aresignificantly more detailed than those that areusually available. For example, data on literacyare collected through a specialized instru-ment, the International Adult Literacy Survey,and reflect specific literacy skills of the adultpopulation. At the tertiary level, OECD re-leases information otherwise not easily found,including information on private as well aspublic sources of funding; net enrollment ra-tios (as opposed to the gross enrollment ra-tios more commonly available); and teacher/student ratios at the tertiary level.

Some educational data are constructed byeconomists, based on census data distributedby UNESCO or a similar source. Robert Barroand Jong-Wha Lee, for example, have createdestimates of educational attainment at 5-yearintervals for more than 125 countries. Theirestimation procedure begins with census in-formation on school attainment, provided byindividual governments and compiled byUNESCO and other sources. The census dataprovide benchmark numbers for a subset ofdates under consideration. Missing cells arethen filled in by using school enrollment ra-tios at various levels of schooling to estimatechanges from the benchmarks to a more cur-rent date. The basic idea is that the flow ofthe enrolled population can be added to priorattainment levels to determine future levels.In this manner, full estimates of educationalattainment can be obtained for most coun-tries from the benchmark figures of one ormore years, and from the reasonably completedata on school enrollment ratios.

In Barro and Lee’s 1996 data set, for ex-ample, 310 census observations filled 35 per-cent of the 882 possible cells from 1960 to1990 for 126 countries. The estimation pro-cedure described above allowed them to con-struct a complete data set at 5-year intervalsfor 105 of these countries. The data are in-complete for the remaining 21 countries.

Limitations of the Data

Three main issues arise in using available na-tional-level data on education: the compara-bility of the data, both across nations and overtime; the consistency of the data; and the ac-curacy of the data.

Comparability

The problem of ensuring consistency of edu-cational data across nations is a difficult oneand is broadly recognized. In the 1998 Statis-tical Yearbook, UNESCO authors repeatedlywarn users of the need to take care when ex-ercising comparisons between countries, andespecially across groups of countries. Many ofthe differences between nations are detailedin charts that demonstrate differing years ofeducational entry, different years of school-ing offered at the various levels, and differentrequirements about compulsory education.Readers are warned of particular issues, suchas the counting of full-time and part-timeteachers, which may vary across nations andhave a strong and potentially misleading im-pact on data about teacher/student ratios.

Consistency

Efforts to deal with consistency problems havebeen under way for many years. Work on thestandardization of educational statistics wasfirst begun by UNESCO in 1926. Today’s datareflect the impact of two sets of standards, theISCED (International Standard Classificationof Education), and the RecommendationConcerning the International Standardizationof Educational Statistics that was adopted byUNESCO in 1958 and revised in 1978 to makeit compatible with ISCED. ISCED providesgeneral definitions of eight educational lev-els, and provides definitions for 518 programsof education and for 21 general fields of study.The recommendation details definitions andtabulations under four sections: statistics onilliteracy; on the educational attainment of the

101

population; on enrollment, teachers, and edu-cational institutions; and on educational fi-nance. Together these standards provide somebasis for creating greater international con-sistency for educational data.

That said, there is still reason to interpretmuch of the international educational datawith caution. Definitions, coverage, and data-collection methods still differ across countriesand may vary over time within countries, mak-ing interpretation difficult. The map of theworld changes over time, and countries sub-ject to major transitions, such as those of East-ern Europe, present problems of consistencyand comparability. Periods of war and inter-nal crises will obviously affect a country’s abil-ity to produce sound statistical information.Developing countries, particularly, vary in theamount of expertise and resources theychoose to devote to statistical research oneducation.

Attempts to present information about edu-cational financing across countries are par-ticularly troubled by issues of comparability.One problem is the lack of complete infor-mation. Although many countries providedata on public expenditure on education,some limit their reporting to funds from thecentral ministry of education and neglect toreport financial support from other branchesand levels of government. Few nations reportanything at all about private expenditure,despite the fact that, in many countries, pri-vate spending is a considerable factor at oneor more levels of educational institutions.

Another problem that makes it difficult tocompare financial information across nationsis the blur between operating funds and capi-tal expenditures. For example, one UNESCOtable displaying data on operating expendi-tures for 108 countries had 12 footnotes indi-cating that, for those nations, capital expenseswere also included in the figures.

A final—but particularly troublesome—is-sue in assessing financial data relates to the

difficulties inherent in comparing differentcurrencies across nations and over time. With-out knowledge of inflationary trends within acountry, for example, it can be difficult tocompare the meaning of changing amountsof spending over time. Comparing spendingacross countries is even more difficult. Besidesaddressing inflationary pressures and cur-rency conversion issues, it is necessary to ad-just figures to compensate for differences inpurchasing power from nation to nation overeach year in question. Our research uncov-ered studies in which financial expendituresacross the world were compared without prop-erly considering each of these conversion is-sues.

Accuracy

The overall accuracy of educational data isanother issue of serious concern. JeffreyPuryear (1992) reports conversations in 1992with experts at UNESCO who estimate thatdata from perhaps 70 countries—slightlyfewer than half of UNESCO’s memberstates—suffer from serious accuracy problems.Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen, in their mono-graph India: Economic Development and SocialOpportunity, refuse to use official data on edu-cation, stating that these figures are known tobe grossly inflated, partly due to the incentivethat government employees at different lev-els have to report exaggerated figures.Although official statistics portray a gross en-rollment ratio of 98–99 percent at the primarylevel, they present data from the census and aNational Sample Survey that show that only40–42 percent of rural girls between ages fiveand 14 attend school. India is obviously notalone in having officials overstate rates of en-rollment for political reasons.

Data can also be unreliable due to poorassessment techniques. The data on illiteracypresent one example. Few people realize thatilliteracy rates are typically self-reported onpopulation census forms, and that there is no

102

universally accepted objective standard toevaluate literacy. Among the industrial coun-tries, the OECD has collected data on func-tional literacy, but similar efforts have beenlacking within the developing world. In somecases UNESCO considers attainment of afourth-grade education to be sufficient evi-dence of literacy, even though no data are col-lected about the actual outputs of the educa-tional process, or the skills typicallydemonstrated by students upon completing

a given grade level. Measures such as literacyrates, which purport to reflect actual achieve-ment, therefore need to be viewed somewhatskeptically.

In summary, though some efforts have beenmade to assess and correct issues of compara-bility and accuracy of national-level educationdata, much more work needs to be done.Given how extensively these data are reliedupon, higher priority should be given to ef-forts in this area.

103

Statistical Appendix

Table A. Gross Enrollment Ratios .......................................... 102

Table B. Tertiary Enrollment Data ......................................... 106

Table C. Attainment Rates..................................................... 110

Table D. Public Expenditure on Education as a Whole.......... 114

Table E. Expenditures on Tertiary Education......................... 118

Table F. Other Educational Data............................................ 122

Table G. Other Data .............................................................. 126

104

Primary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary 1965 Tertiary 1995

Country 1965 1995 1965 1995 1965 1975 1985 1995 Male Female Male Female

Afghanistan 16 49 2 22 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 1Albania 101 35 11 9 12Algeria 68 107 7 62 1 3 9 12 1 0 14 10Angola 41 77 5 12 0 1 1 1 0Argentina 100 112 28 73 15 27 36 39 17 11 35 44

Armenia 82 79 14 13 14Australia 99 103 62 147 16 24 28 72 22 10 70 74Austria 100 100 52 103 9 19 27 47 13 4 46 47Azerbaijan 104 77 18 18 18Bahamas, The 95 89 24 15 33

Bahrain 69 108 45 97 2 10 20 16 24Bangladesh 49 78 13 19 1 2 5 6 1 0 10 2Barbados 100 99 52 97 3 10 19 29 3 3 24 35Belarus 97 94 43 39 46Belgium 100 102 75 146 15 23 31 56 19 10 56 56

Belize 122 49 1 1 1Benin 34 72 3 16 0 1 3 3 0 0 4 1BermudaBolivia 73 104 18 39 5 11 17 24 7 3 33 15Botswana 65 112 3 64 0 1 2 5 0 0 6 5

Brazil 100 117 16 47 2 11 11 12 3 1 11 12Brunei 108 77 7 5 8Bulgaria 97 78 39 29 50Burkina Faso 12 40 1 9 0 1 1 2 1Burundi 26 51 1 7 0 0 1 1 1 1

Cambodia 126 26 2 3 1Cameroon 94 87 5 26 0 1 2 4 1 0 7 1Canada 100 103 56 107 26 39 56 90 33 20 83 98Central African Republic 56 59 2 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0Chad 34 58 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 0

Chile 100 99 34 70 6 16 16 28 7 5 30 26China 89 118 24 67 2 5 7 4Colombia 84 114 17 67 3 8 13 17 5 1 17 18Comoros 24 74 3 22 0 1 1 0Congo, Dem. Rep. of 70 72 5 28 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 1

Congo, Rep. of 100 114 10 53 1 3 7 8 1 0 13 3Costa Rica 100 107 24 50 6 18 23 33 7 5 36 30Côte d’Ivoire 69 23 2 5 7 2Croatia 86 82 28 28 28Cuba 105 80 13 10 16

Cyprus 91 42 1 2 7 17 1 1 13 20Czech Republic 104 99 22 23 21Denmark 98 100 83 120 14 29 29 45 17 10 39 51Djibouti 39 13 0 0 0Dominican Republic 87 111 12 45 2 10 19 22 3 1 19 25

Ecuador 91 123 17 53 3 27 30 23 5 2 30 17Egypt, Arab Rep. of 75 101 26 74 7 14 20 20 11 3 24 16El Salvador 82 88 17 32 2 8 18 18 3 1 18 18Eritrea 57 19 1 2 0Estonia 91 104 38 35 41

Ethiopia 11 38 2 12 0 0 1 1 1 0Fiji 85 135 20 68 0 3 3 13 0 0 16 10Finland 92 100 76 116 11 27 34 70 11 11 65 76France 100 106 56 111 14 25 30 51 16 12 45 57French Polynesia 115 86 2 2 3

TABLE A. GROSS ENROLLMENT RATIOS (%)

105

Primary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary 1965 Tertiary 1995

Country 1965 1995 1965 1995 1965 1975 1985 1995 Male Female Male Female

Gabon 100 11 0 2 5 8 11 5Gambia, The 21 77 6 25 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1Georgia 82 73 38 35 41Germany 100 103 45 102 9 25 30 44 13 4 47 41Ghana 69 76 13 32 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1

Greece 100 94 49 96 10 18 26 43 13 6 43 42Guam 69 185 66 58 74Guatemala 50 84 8 25 2 4 8 8 4 1 12 4Guinea 32 48 5 12 0 3 2 1 2 0Guinea-Bissau 26 68 2 11 0 0 0 0 0

Guyana 100 95 53 75 1 4 2 10 1 0 10 9Haiti 50 51 5 24 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1Honduras 80 110 10 32 2 5 10 11 2 1 12 10Hong Kong, China 100 96 29 75 5 10 13 26 6 5 28 23Hungary 100 104 60 99 16 24 15 10 22 26

Iceland 98 98 72 104 8 16 22 36 11 5 29 42India 74 100 27 49 5 9 9 7 4 1 8 5Indonesia 72 115 12 50 3 2 7 11 3 1 15 8Iran, Islamic Rep. of 47 94 28 75 2 5 5 17 2 1 21 13Iraq 74 85 28 42 4 9 12 11 6 2 14 9

Ireland 100 103 51 115 12 19 24 39 16 8 37 40Israel 95 99 48 89 20 25 34 41 22 18 39 44Italy 100 99 47 88 11 26 24 41 14 7 38 45Jamaica 100 110 51 70 3 7 4 8 4 3 8 7Japan 100 102 82 103 13 25 29 41 20 6 45 38

Jordan 95 38 2 9 17 2 1 18 17Kazakhstan 96 83 33 29 37Kenya 54 85 4 24 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1Korea, Rep. of 100 95 35 101 6 10 34 52 9 3 66 38Kuwait 100 73 52 64 0 9 15 25 0 0 22 28

Kyrgyz Republic 107 81 12 12 13Lao PDR 102 28 2 2 1Latvia 89 85 26 22 30Lebanon 109 81 27 27 27Lesotho 94 100 4 29 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 3

Liberia 41 33 5 15 1 2 3 3 1 0 5 2Libya 114 102 20 20 20Lithuania 96 84 28 23 34Luxembourg 100 33 3 2 3 3 4 2Macao 27 28 25

Macedonia, FYR 89 57 18 16 20Madagascar 65 73 8 13 1 1 4 2 2 2Malawi 44 135 2 16 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0Malaysia 90 92 28 61 2 3 6 11 3 1 12 10Maldives 133 58

Mali 24 34 4 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0Malta 100 109 26 85 5 5 6 24 7 3 24 24Mauritania 13 79 1 16 0 0 3 4 6 1Mauritius 100 107 26 62 0 1 1 7 0 0 7 7Mexico 92 115 17 61 4 11 16 15 6 1 16 14

Moldova 94 80 25 22 28Mongolia 88 59 15 9 21Morocco 57 83 11 39 1 3 8 11 13 9Mozambique 37 60 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Myanmar 71 101 15 32 1 2 6 2 1 4 7

TABLE A, continued

106

Namibia 133 62 8 6 10Nepal 20 108 5 38 1 2 5 5 2 0 7 2Netherlands 100 107 61 137 17 26 32 49 24 9 50 47New Caledonia 123 102 5 6 4New Zealand 100 104 75 117 15 26 34 58 18 11 51 66

Nicaragua 69 110 14 47 2 8 10 12 4 1 12 12Niger 11 29 1 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0Nigeria 32 88 5 32 0 1 3 4 6 2Norway 97 99 64 117 11 22 30 59 14 8 51 66Oman 80 67 0 0 1 5 6 5

Pakistan 40 79 12 30 2 2 5 3 3 1 4 3Panama 100 104 34 68 7 17 26 30 7 7 24 36Papua New Guinea 44 80 4 14 0 3 2 3 0 0 4 2Paraguay 100 111 13 40 4 7 9 11 4 3 11 12Peru 99 123 25 70 8 15 24 31 11 6 37 25

Philippines 100 116 41 79 19 18 38 30 17 21 25 34Poland 100 96 48 98 13 17 17 25 19 16 21 29Portugal 84 132 42 111 5 11 12 37 7 4 32 43Puerto Rico 42 35 49Qatar 86 80 28 15 42

ReunionRomania 100 78 18 19 18Russian Federation 111 86 42 38 47Rwanda 53 97 2 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1Samoa 103

Saudi Arabia 24 78 4 58 1 4 12 16 16 15Senegal 40 65 7 16 1 2 2 3 2 0 5 2SeychellesSierra Leone 29 53 5 17 0 1 1 2 1 0 3 1Singapore 100 95 45 73 10 9 12 34 13 7 37 31

Slovak Republic 103 94 20 20 21Slovenia 103 91 33 28 39Solomon Islands 100 18Somalia 10 9 2 5 0 1 3 2 4 1South Africa 90 117 15 84 4 6 17 6 2 18 17

Spain 100 106 38 121 6 20 29 49 9 3 45 53Sri Lanka 93 113 35 75 2 1 4 5 2 1 6 4St. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Vincent and the Grenadines

Sudan 29 52 4 19 1 2 2 4 1 0 5 3Suriname 100 28 6 7 13 12 14Swaziland 74 126 8 66 0 3 4 4 0 0 4 4Sweden 95 106 62 136 13 29 31 46 15 11 40 52Switzerland 87 37 8 14 21 33 13 3 41 25

Syrian Arab Republic 78 101 28 43 8 12 18 15 13 3 18 13Tajikistan 91 79 20 26 14Tanzania 32 67 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0Thailand 78 87 14 55 2 4 20 20 2 1 19 22Togo 55 119 5 27 0 1 2 3 0 0 6 1

Trinidad and Tobago 93 96 36 72 2 5 4 8 3 2 8 7Tunisia 91 116 16 61 2 4 6 13 3 1 14 12Turkey 100 108 16 59 4 9 10 18 6 2 22 14Turkmenistan 110 115 20 19 21Uganda 67 73 4 12 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1

Primary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary 1965 Tertiary 1995

Country 1965 1995 1965 1995 1965 1975 1985 1995 Male Female Male Female

TABLE A, continued

107

Ukraine 88 92 42 36 47United Arab Emirates 91 78 0 0 8 11 0 5 19United Kingdom 92 116 66 133 12 19 22 50 17 7 47 52United States 100 102 90 97 40 57 58 81 49 31 71 92Uruguay 100 111 44 82 8 16 24 28 10 7 24 33

Uzbekistan 78 93 35 33 37Vanuatu 105 21Venezuela 94 90 27 35 7 18 26 26 9 5 25 27Vietnam 114 4 6 3Yemen, Rep. of 9 73 0 31 0 1 2 4 0 0 7 1

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 100 72 65 65 13 20 19 21 17 9 19 23Zambia 53 89 7 28 0 2 1 3 0 0 4 2Zimbabwe 100 116 6 47 0 2 3 6 0 0 9 4

World 82 102 32 63 9 14 13 18 11 6 18 18

Low and middle income 76 102 21 55 4 7 7 10 5 2 11 9 Sub-Saharan Africa 45 74 5 25 1 1 2 3 1 0 5 2 East Asia and Pacific 87 115 23 64 5 5 4 7 5 4 9 6 South Asia 67 95 24 44 4 7 8 6 3 1 8 4 Europe and Central Asia 100 101 39 83 9 14 13 32 13 9 29 34 Latin America and the Caribbean 94 112 19 55 4 13 16 18 6 3 18 18 Middle East and N. Africa 62 94 20 62 3 7 11 15 6 2 18 12

High income 99 103 67 106 20 33 37 58 25 14 55 61

Source: Columns 1, 3, 5–7, 9, and 10: Barro and Lee 1994; columns 2, 4, 8, 11, and 12: UNESCO 1999a.

Primary Secondary Tertiary Tertiary 1965 Tertiary 1995

Country 1965 1995 1965 1995 1965 1975 1985 1995 Male Female Male Female

TABLE A, continued

108

Afghanistan 12,256 20,279 22,306 24,333 26,360 142 147Albania 14,568 21,995 22,059 30,185 545 1,080 679 899Algeria 41,847 79,351 132,057 285,930 347,410 530 798 1,146 1,236Angola 2,333 5,034 6,534 8,784 33 71Argentina 596,736 491,473 846,145 1,008,231 1,069,617 1,741 2,792 3,293 3,117

Armenia 109,900 102,700 114,300 39,592 1,890 3,076 2,030 1,090Australia 274,738 323,716 370,048 485,075 964,998 2,203 2,366 2,839 5,401Austria 96,736 136,774 173,215 205,767 238,981 1,812 2,292 2,668 2,970Azerbaijan 186,024 182,145 163,901 118,105 1,720 2,731 1,470 1,568Bahamas, The 4,093 4,531 5,305 6,079 1,949 2,192

Bahrain 703 1,908 4,180 6,868 7,676 550 1,011 1,365 1,445Bangladesh 240,181 461,073 681,965 902,857 272 382Barbados 4,033 5,227 6,651 3,064 1,620 2,075 1,657 2,572Belarus 314,603 339,800 342,400 335,284 313,800 1,760 3,425 1,700 3,031Belgium 159,660 196,153 247,499 276,248 352,630 2,111 2,511 2,725 3,494

Belize 107,000 104,493 101,986 99,483Benin 2,118 4,822 9,063 10,873 11,227 139 225 235 208Bermuda 608Bolivia 49,850 60,900 88,175 102,001 120,756 1,494 1,975Botswana 469 1,078 1,938 2,957 7,920 120 180 299 546

Brazil 1,089,808 1,409,243 1,451,191 1,540,080 1,716,263 1,162 1,052 1,074 1,094Brunei 143 601 1,163 1,270 74 262 395 518Bulgaria 128,593 101,359 113,795 188,479 250,336 1,144 1,270 2,096 2,942Burkina Faso 1,067 1,644 4,085 5,425 9,388 24 52 60 90Burundi 1,002 1,879 2,783 3,592 4,256 45 59 65 74

Cambodia 601 2,213 6,659 11,652 119Cameroon 11,686 21,438 33,177 47,665 135 288Canada 1,079,960 1,172,750 1,639,410 1,916,801 2,011,485 4,035 6,320 5,102 6,984Central African Republic 669 1,719 2,651 3,840 3,450 74 119Chad 547 1,470 1,643 2,242 3,446 38 70 54

Chile 149,647 145,497 197,437 261,800 342,788 1,305 1,639 1,938 2,412China 500,993 1,662,796 3,515,485 3,822,371 5,621,543 117 328 186 461Colombia 176,098 271,630 391,490 487,448 588,322 1,024 1,331 1,496 1,643Comoros 316 281 248 348Congo, Dem. Rep. of 24,853 28,493 40,878 80,233 93,266 105 129 176 212

Congo, Rep. of 3,249 7,255 10,684 10,671 13,806 435 555 479 582Costa Rica 33,239 55,593 63,771 74,681 78,819 2,434 2,414 2,461 2,919Côte d’Ivoire 7,174 19,633 21,650 23,073 55,000 240 219 413Croatia 64,966 55,886 72,342 86,357 1,250 1,917Cuba 82,688 151,733 235,224 242,434 122,346 1,568 2,325 2,285 1,116

Cyprus 602 1,940 3,134 6,554 8,874 308 575Czech Republic 90,649 118,026 107,098 118,194 191,604 1,039 1,867Denmark 110,271 106,241 116,319 142,968 166,545 2,074 2,275 2,625 3,188Djibouti 53 130 10 22Dominican Republic 42,400 123,748 123,724 176,995 1,941 2,223

Ecuador 170,173 269,775 280,594 206,541 174,924 3,321 1,950Egypt, Arab Rep. of 480,016 715,701 854,584 628,233 850,051 1,751 1,717 1,698 1,900El Salvador 28,281 16,838 70,499 78,211 114,998 372 1,508 1,512 2,031Eritrea 3,020 95Estonia 25,500 24,680 25,900 39,726 1,723 1,625 1,636 2,670

TABLE B. TERTIARY ENROLLMENT DATA

Number of Tertiary StudentsNumber of Tertiary Students per 100,000 Inhabitants

1975 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 or 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 orCountry closest yr. LYA** closest yr. LYA**

109

Number of Tertiary StudentsNumber of Tertiary Students per 100,000 Inhabitants

1975 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 or 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 orCountry closest yr. LYA** closest yr. LYA**

Ethiopia 14,368 27,338 34,076 35,027 37 66 68 62Fiji 1,653 1,666 2,313 3,509 263 1,080Finland 114,272 123,165 127,976 165,714 213,995 2,577 2,611 3,326 4,190France 1,038,576 1,076,717 1,278,581 1,698,938 2,091,688 1,998 2,318 2,995 3,600French Polynesia 27

Gabon 1,014 4,031 4,089 4,031 3,972 216 375Gambia, The 1,591 148Georgia 140,578 144,400 148,391 155,033 1,680 2,731 1,900 2,845Germany 2,048,627 2,144,169 2,581 2,628Ghana 9,079 7,951 8,324 9,242 10,170 144 126

Greece 117,246 121,116 181,901 283,415 329,185 1,256 1,831 1,927 3,149Guam 3,800 3,217 5,134 7,052 8,969Guatemala 22,881 50,890 48,283 64,103 80,228 736 741 755Guinea 12,411 18,270 8,801 5,366 7,722 410 176 122 105Guinea-Bissau

Guyana 2,852 2,465 2,328 4,665 7,680 325 294 588 926Haiti 2,881 4,671 6,288 7,905 9,522 87Honduras 11,907 25,825 36,620 43,117 54,106 705 875 854 985Hong Kong, China 44,482 38,153 76,844 85,214 97,392 1,201 1,425 1,635Hungary 107,555 101,166 99,344 102,387 179,563 945 939 970 1,777

Iceland 2,970 3,633 4,724 5,225 7,483 1,593 1,957 2,049 2,756India 3,043,865 3,545,318 4,470,844 4,950,974 5,695,780 515 582 613Indonesia 278,200 543,175 1,277,684 1,590,593 2,303,469 367 749 838 1,167Iran, Islamic Rep. of 151,905 184,442 239,300 312,076 1,048,093 317 469 858 1,533Iraq 86,111 106,709 169,665 209,818 249,971 820 1,240

Ireland 46,174 54,746 70,301 90,296 128,284 1,610 1,979 2,578 3,618Israel 97,097 116,062 134,885 198,766 2,504 2,742 2,790 3,598Italy 976,712 1,117,742 1,185,304 1,452,286 1,775,186 1,981 2,088 2,519 3,103Jamaica 3,963 13,999 10,969 16,018 8,191 656 475 662 770Japan 2,248,903 2,412,117 2,347,463 2,683,035 3,917,709 2,065 1,943 2,328 3,139

Jordan 11,873 36,549 53,753 80,442 99,020 1,713 2,230Kazakhstan 525,400 551,000 537,441 472,000 1,730 3,481 1,710 2,807Kenya 12,986 21,756 31,287 67,371 78 140Korea, Rep. of 318,683 647,505 1,455,759 1,691,429 2,225,092 1,698 3,568 3,899 4,974Kuwait 8,104 13,630 23,678 20,787 28,705 991 1,377 1,244 2,247

Kyrgyz Republic 64,595 71,330 57,563 49,744 1,510 1,777 1,330 1,115Lao PDR 1,408 5,382 4,730 12,732 44 150 116 253Latvia 47,230 43,914 45,953 44,064 1,863 1,692 1,712 1,737Lebanon 79,073 79,500 82,497 81,588 2,963 2,980 3,071 2,712Lesotho 529 1,188 1,771 2,029 4,384 141 113 263 216

Liberia 2,404 4,900 4,889 4,878 4,847 208 218Libya 13,427 20,166 30,000 50,471 106,541 663 1,548Lithuania 70,995 96,500 88,668 75,559 2,063 2,621 1,758 2,023Luxembourg 483 748 759 207Macao 7,930 7,718 7,425 7,485 1,700

Macedonia, FYR 36,049 46,281 38,065 26,515 29,583 1,979 1,372Madagascar 8,385 22,632 38,310 35,824 28,814 257 359 298 194Malawi 1,903 2,591 3,057 4,829 5,561 56 42 63 58Malaysia 57,650 93,249 121,412 191,290 419 595 679 971Maldives

TABLE B, continued

110

Number of Tertiary StudentsNumber of Tertiary Students per 100,000 Inhabitants

1975 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 or 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 orCountry closest yr. LYA** closest yr. LYA**

Mali 2,936 1,631 6,768 6,703 6,687 64 73Malta 1,425 947 1,474 3,123 5,805 292 428 791 1,595Mauritania 5,378 4,526 5,339 8,496 256 281 374Mauritius 1,096 1,038 1,161 3,485 6,799 107 114 208 609Mexico 562,056 929,865 1,207,779 1,310,835 1,420,461 1,387 1,600 1,552 1,586

Moldova 110,200 113,800 104,800 87,700 1,270 2,700 1,250 1,976Mongolia 9,861 34,543 40,099 31,434 38,643 2,234 2,101 1,416 1,569Morocco 45,322 112,405 181,087 255,667 294,502 580 837 958 1,132Mozambique 1,000 1,442 3,698 6,639 8 11 16 41Myanmar 56,083 163,197 179,366 196,052 250,000 478 478 516 564

Namibia 558 1,523 4,157 11,344 280 738Nepal 23,504 34,094 54,452 93,753 102,018 259 424 549 501Netherlands 288,026 360,033 404,866 478,869 491,748 2,545 2,794 2,945 3,176New Caledonia 178 438 761New Zealand 66,178 76,643 95,793 111,504 163,923 2,462 2,950 3,287 4,603

Nicaragua 18,282 35,268 29,001 30,733 50,769 1,259 905 836 1,231Niger 541 1,435 2,863 3,684 5,867 26 60Nigeria 44,964 150,072 266,679 335,824 404,969 191 320Norway 66,628 79,117 94,658 142,521 180,383 1,936 2,279 3,357 4,164Oman 18 990 6,208 9,664 2 670 391 438

Pakistan 127,932 267,742 336,689 371,162 182 266Panama 26,289 40,369 55,303 53,235 76,839 2,064 2,552 2,181 2,921Papua New Guinea 5,040 5,068 6,397 13,663 163 147 318Paraguay 18,302 26,915 32,090 32,884 40,913 855 889 769 1,031Peru 195,641 306,353 452,462 681,801 755,929 1,771 2,321 3,450 3,268

Philippines 769,749 1,276,016 1,402,000 1,709,486 2,022,106 2,621 2,565 2,738 2,981Poland 575,499 589,134 454,190 544,893 747,638 1,656 1,221 1,427 1,946Portugal 79,702 92,152 129,277 185,762 300,573 944 1,305 1,882 3,060Puerto Rico 97,517 131,184 142,407 153,680 164,854Qatar 779 2,269 5,344 6,485 8,271 991 1,494 1,559 1,509

ReunionRomania 164,567 192,769 159,798 192,810 336,141 868 703 711 1,479Russian Federation 5,500,000 5,700,000 5,444,000 5,100,000 4,458,363 2,190 3,768 1,900 2,998Rwanda 1,108 1,243 1,987 3,389 4,791 24 50Samoa 249 976 758 900 1,042

Saudi Arabia 26,437 62,074 113,529 153,967 251,945 662 898 1,035 1,380Senegal 13,626 13,354 18,689 24,081 246 209 253 297Seychelles 144Sierra Leone 1,701 2,166 5,690 4,742 3,794 66 114Singapore 22,607 23,256 39,913 55,672 83,914 963 1,474 2,522

Slovak Republic 77,191 66,002 72,215 91,553 1,247 1,715Slovenia 27,707 29,601 33,565 47,908 1,574 2,489Solomon IslandsSomalia 2,040 2,900 8,221 13,543 20,994 45South Africa 207,620 439,007 617,897 1,524

Spain 540,238 697,789 935,126 1,222,089 1,591,863 1,859 2,431 3,007 4,017Sri Lanka 15,426 42,694 59,377 55,190 63,660 288 370 488 474St. Kitts and Nevis 99 212 325 394St. Lucia 301 367 618 2,760St. Vincent and the Grenadines 736 677 618

TABLE B, continued

111

Sudan 21,342 28,788 37,367 60,134 82,901 154 245Suriname 2,378 2,751 3,994 4,804 676 1,023Swaziland 1,012 1,875 2,732 3,198 3,497 332 421 426 408Sweden 162,640 171,356 176,589 192,611 261,209 2,062 2,115 2,248 2,972Switzerland 64,720 85,127 110,111 137,486 148,024 1,347 1,685 2,048 2,066

Syrian Arab Republic 73,660 140,180 179,473 221,628 215,734 1,611 1,726 1,740 1,559Tajikistan 96,900 95,247 109,653 108,203 1,420 2,086 1,280 1,890Tanzania 3,064 5,000 4,863 5,058 12,776 22 22 21 43Thailand 130,965 361,400 1,026,952 952,012 1,220,481 1,284 2,009 1,763 2,096Togo 2,353 4,750 5,230 8,969 11,639 182 173 226 285

Trinidad and Tobago 4,940 5,649 6,582 7,249 5,348 522 559 591 730Tunisia 20,505 31,827 41,594 68,535 112,634 499 567 851 1,253Turkey 327,082 246,183 469,992 749,921 1,174,299 554 934 1,339 1,960Turkmenistan 69,800 75,800 76,000 76,200 1,240 1,130Uganda 5,474 5,856 10,103 17,578 30,266 45 68 100 154

Ukraine 1,570,100 1,683,500 1,662,000 1,651,700 1,541,000 1,760 3,263 1,700 2,977United Arab Emirates 2,861 7,772 10,196 15,789 282 501 642 801United Kingdom 732,947 827,146 1,032,491 1,258,188 1,820,843 1,468 1,824 2,170 3,135United States 11,184,859 12,096,895 12,247,055 13,710,150 14,261,778 5,311 5,064 5,591 5,339Uruguay 32,627 36,298 53,955 71,612 79,691 1,338 2,315 2,488

Uzbekistan 515,800 567,200 602,700 691,450 1,720 1,650VanuatuVenezuela 213,542 307,133 443,064 550,030 551,912 2,044 2,847Vietnam 80,323 114,701 121,159 129,600 297,900 214 202 404Yemen, Rep. of 7,811 26,673 45,536 65,675 419

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 159,512 1,556Zambia 8,403 3,425 14,492 15,343 10,489 131 221 189 241Zimbabwe 8,479 8,339 30,843 49,361 45,593 117 368 496 626

World 40,267,422 50,758,289 58,394,175 68,275,579 80,459,713 1,021 1,335 1,318 1,531

Low and middle income 18,986,254 26,929,371 33,645,255 37,313,806 44,155,455 602 879 761 980 Sub-Saharan Africa 181,386 618,089 660,360 1,316,906 1,750,684 117 124 181 339 East Asia and Pacific 1,828,765 4,224,145 7,673,191 8,575,155 11,984,521 293 521 441 704 South Asia 3,222,983 3,882,888 5,335,794 6,142,904 7,161,837 445 574 338 608 Europe and Central Asia 9,209,689 11,649,860 11,453,615 11,579,161 11,547,310 1,656 2,539 1,608 2,436 Latin America and the Caribbean 3,590,200 4,945,840 6,389,251 7,267,699 7,923,878 1,346 1,493 1,706 1,638 Middle East and N. Africa 953,231 1,608,549 2,133,044 2,431,981 3,787,225 943 1,053 1,251 1,465

High income 21,281,168 23,828,918 24,748,920 30,961,773 36,304,258 3,033 3,197 3,701 4,071

**LYA Last year available.Source: Column 1: UNESCO 1999a; columns 2 and 4: UNESCO 1999a, supplemented by Bloom and Rivera-Batiz 1999; columns 3 and 5: UNESCO 1998a, supple-mented by Bloom and Rivera-Batiz 1999; columns 6 and 8: UNESCO 1993; columns 7 and 9: UNESCO 1998a.

TABLE B, continued

Number of Tertiary StudentsNumber of Tertiary Students per 100,000 Inhabitants

1975 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 or 1980 1985 or 1990 1995 orCountry closest yr. LYA** closest yr. LYA**

112

TABLE C. ATTAINMENT RATES (%, population over 25)

Afghanistan 4 9 3 3 3 2 3 2 0.9 1.0Albania 7Algeria 10 32 2 9 0 1 2 5 0.6 2.8Angola 1Argentina 72 57 12 25 4 6 8 15 5.2 7.8

Armenia 23Australia 37 27 57 48 5 21 22 24 8.9 10.1Austria 86 43 8 47 3 4 6 12 4.0 7.4Azerbaijan 18Bahamas, The

Bahrain 9 26 6 25 3 3 3 11 1.4 4.6Bangladesh 11 23 6 14 1 1 2 3 0.9 2.2Barbados 81 48 18 42 1 2 6 10 5.4 8.2Belarus 24Belgium 64 48 29 37 5 7 11 16 7.8 8.8

Belize 14Benin 13 1 5 0 0 1 2 1.3BermudaBolivia 22 39 26 11 4 5 8 12 4.2 4.1Botswana 25 41 2 7 0 1 1 2 1.3 2.6

Brazil 44 66 11 5 2 4 6 8 2.8 3.6BruneiBulgaria 63 44 15 36 5 7 9 17 6.4 9.3Burkina Faso 0Burundi 1

CambodiaCameroon 20 38 5 7 0 0 1 2 1.3 2.3Canada 47 16 36 62 14 31 19 29 7.8 10.3Central African Republic 5 22 2 4 0 0 0 1 0.4 1.3Chad 1

Chile 57 57 21 25 2 5 8 12 4.7 6.2China 34 34 1 1 1 2 5.2Colombia 49 52 10 17 2 3 6 9 2.8 4.3Comoros 0Congo, Dem. Rep. of 17 32 1 10 0 0 1 1 0.7 2.2

Congo, Rep. of 21 13 23 3 2 3 4 3.9Costa Rica 69 62 8 11 3 6 12 16 3.8 5.4Côte d’Ivoire 8Croatia 8Cuba 61 57 5 27 2 3 7 12 3.7 6.6

Cyprus 59 41 15 40 1 9 14 13 4.3 7.8Czech Republic 9Denmark 50 39 34 42 16 16 19 21 10.0 11.2Djibouti 0Dominican Republic 48 36 3 11 1 3 6 11 2.2 3.8

Ecuador 52 49 7 9 2 3 14 18 2.9 5.6Egypt, Arab Rep. of 19 16 2 3 5 9 3.6El Salvador 33 54 4 5 1 2 3 8 1.7 3.4EritreaEstonia 15

Primary Secondary Average Years of SchoolingAttained Attained Tertiary Attained in Population over 25

Country 1965 1990 1965 1990 1965 1975 1985 1995 1965 1990

113

TABLE C, continued

Primary Secondary Average Years of SchoolingAttained Attained Tertiary Attained in Population over 25

Country 1965 1990 1965 1990 1965 1975 1985 1995 1965 1990

Ethiopia 1Fiji 64 54 8 33 5 3 5 6 4.7 7.5Finland 84 49 11 35 5 7 14 19 7.7 9.8France 88 58 10 28 3 5 11 16 4.8 6.9French Polynesia

Gabon 3Gambia, The 6 3 6 0 0 0 0.9Georgia 23Germany 81 65 16 22 2 6 8 15 7.9 8.8Ghana 14 24 2 17 1 1 1 1 0.8 2.8

Greece 69 57 10 29 3 5 9 11 5.0 7.7GuamGuatemala 27 37 4 6 1 1 4 5 1.4 2.6Guinea 2Guinea-Bissau

Guyana 82 57 5 30 0 1 2 3 3.7 5.4Haiti 6 28 4 10 0 0 1 1 0.7 2.2Honduras 34 52 3 11 1 1 3 6 1.7 3.7Hong Kong, China 40 30 18 43 5 4 8 14 4.9 8.4Hungary 86 63 8 26 4 6 8 11 6.9 8.4

Iceland 82 53 13 35 4 6 9 13 5.9 8.0India 21 20 3 14 0 2 4 5 1.5 3.6Indonesia 25 54 2 12 0 1 1 4 1.3 3.9Iran, Islamic Rep. of 7 18 3 19 1 2 3 5 0.8 3.3Iraq 3 22 2 13 1 2 5 8 0.4 3.1

Ireland 65 40 27 44 5 6 10 14 6.5 8.2Israel 43 28 27 34 10 16 24 27 6.8 9.0Italy 72 44 14 32 3 4 7 12 4.8 6.2Jamaica 78 64 5 29 1 2 3 4 2.5 4.5Japan 54 34 37 45 7 7 16 22 7.1 9.2

Jordan 16 17 8 18 1 1 11 19 1.7 5.2Kazakhstan 16Kenya 20 45 2 7 0 1 1 1 1.2 2.8Korea, Rep. of 35 22 18 54 4 7 12 19 4.4 9.3Kuwait 36 6 12 34 3 7 13 13 2.7 5.7

Kyrgyz Republic 15Lao PDR 1Latvia 15Lebanon 21Lesotho 57 59 2 6 0 0 1 1 2.7 3.3

Liberia 8 17 2 11 1 2 2 2 0.6 1.9Libya 15 27 1 20 0 1 3 7 0.6 3.9Lithuania 15LuxembourgMacao 9

Macedonia, FYR 16Madagascar 2Malawi 32 39 0 4 0 0 0 1 1.7 2.4Malaysia 39 45 8 27 1 2 2 4 2.7 5.6Maldives

114

Mali 3 8 0 3 0 0 0 1 0.2 0.8Malta 58 44 17 31 2 3 3 5 5.1 6.6Mauritania 2Mauritius 47 49 8 31 1 2 3 2 2.8 5.2Mexico 47 49 4 23 2 3 7 10 2.5 5.9

Moldova 14Mongolia 10Morocco 6Mozambique 8 26 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.7Myanmar 11 32 8 14 1 0 2 3 0.9 2.2

NamibiaNepal 0 9 1 5 0 0 2 3 0.1 1.0Netherlands 82 34 14 46 3 9 14 19 5.6 8.6New CaledoniaNew Zealand 40 37 54 24 5 20 30 39 9.4 11.2

Nicaragua 33 44 3 6 4 5 8 8 2.0 3.3Niger 4 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.6Nigeria 2Norway 77 50 16 32 2 9 14 19 5.6 7.9Oman 1

Pakistan 12 10 4 14 0 3 2 3 0.9 2.3Panama 55 42 15 29 3 5 11 18 4.1 7.6Papua New Guinea 15 24 5 6 0 0 1 1 1.0 1.7Paraguay 67 67 6 14 1 3 5 6 3.3 4.7Peru 45 46 9 17 3 6 12 17 3.0 5.5

Philippines 52 54 10 15 8 12 18 23 3.9 6.7Poland 67 43 22 48 4 7 8 9 7.1 9.6Portugal 50 59 3 11 1 2 5 8 2.2 3.6Puerto Rico 34Qatar 17

Reunion 45 8 1 1 1 2.3Romania 67 24 16 63 3 5 6 8 5.6 9.2Russian Federation 18Rwanda 35 2 2 0 0 0 0 1.5Samoa

Saudi Arabia 7Senegal 28 31 2 4 1 1 1 2 1.4 1.9SeychellesSierra Leone 4 13 2 5 0 0 1 1 0.5 1.3Singapore 26 35 22 31 1 3 4 7 3.5 5.5

Slovak Republic 10Slovenia 11Solomon IslandsSomaliaSouth Africa 27 47 24 23 1 4 2 4 3.8 4.8

Spain 64 64 5 21 4 4 7 13 3.8 6.3Sri Lanka 48 46 20 36 0 2 1 2 3.6 5.4St. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Vincent and the Grenadines

TABLE C, continued

Primary Secondary Average Years of SchoolingAttained Attained Tertiary Attained in Population over 25

Country 1965 1990 1965 1990 1965 1975 1985 1995 1965 1990

115

Sudan 10 21 1 6 0 0 1 1 0.3 1.2SurinameSwaziland 21 43 6 11 0 0 1 2 1.7 3.5Sweden 57 35 35 44 8 12 17 20 7.7 9.5Switzerland 69 29 22 52 9 9 12 14 6.9 8.9

Syrian Arab Republic 24 35 3 14 1 3 8 12 1.3 4.4Tajikistan 13Tanzania 0Thailand 50 65 5 5 1 2 5 10 3.1 5.2Togo 7 23 1 13 0 0 2 2 0.4 2.5

Trinidad and Tobago 75 62 12 29 1 2 3 4 4.4 6.3Tunisia 7 26 3 13 1 1 3 4 0.7 3.0Turkey 33 41 6 12 1 2 4 7 2.1 3.4Turkmenistan 19Uganda 27 31 2 3 0 0 0 1 1.1 1.4

Ukraine 24United Arab Emirates 6 6United Kingdom 69 44 27 39 3 11 13 16 7.2 8.7United States 36 9 44 44 18 25 34 49 9.3 12.0Uruguay 70 56 10 27 5 6 8 14 4.8 6.7

Uzbekistan 23VanuatuVenezuela 44 55 5 12 2 5 10 15 2.4 4.9Vietnam 3Yemen, Rep. of 2

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 59 42 8 31 3 6 9 11 4.8 7.2Zambia 32 50 1 12 0 1 1 1 1.8 4.1Zimbabwe 46 56 2 4 0 1 1 2 1.6 2.3

World 42 34 15 26 3 5 7 10 4.2 5.7

Low and middle income 30 34 6 22 1 2 3 6 2.1 4.4 Sub-Saharan Africa 19 33 5 10 0 1 1 2 1.4 2.5 East Asia and Pacific 31 38 4 30 1 1 2 3 2.0 5.1 South Asia 19 20 3 14 0 2 3 4 1.4 3.3 Europe and Central Asia 60 41 14 35 3 5 6 16 5.4 7.3 Latin America and the Caribbean 49 56 9 14 2 4 7 11 3.1 4.8 Middle East and N. Africa 9 22 3 16 1 2 4 7 0.8 3.4

High income 58 34 28 39 8 13 18 26 7.1 9.4

Source: Columns 1 through 7: Barro and Lee 1996; column 8: Bloom and Rivera-Batiz 1999; columns 9 and 10: Barro and Lee 1996.

TABLE C, continued

Primary Secondary Average Years of SchoolingAttained Attained Tertiary Attained in Population over 25

Country 1965 1990 1965 1990 1965 1975 1985 1995 1965 1990

116

Afghanistan 1.1 2.0 12.7Albania 10.3 5.8Algeria 7.9 31.6 7.8 24.3 5.5 21.1 5.8 14.7Angola 4.9 10.7Argentina 9.1 2.7 15.1 1.1 10.9 3.3 11.6

Armenia 7.3 20.5Australia 4.1 13.3 5.5 14.8 5.4 14.8Austria 4.5 8.1 5.5 8.0 5.4 7.6 5.7 10.6Azerbaijan 7.0 23.5 2.9 17.5Bahamas, The 4.8 19.4 4.3 17.8

Bahrain 20.0 2.9 9.4 5.0 14.6 4.8 12.8Bangladesh 1.5 7.8 2.0 10.3Barbados 5.8 21.2 6.5 20.5 7.9 22.2Belarus 18.7 4.9 5.6 17.1Belgium 6.0 16.3 5.1 3.1 5.8

Belize 3.8 2.4 14.5 4.8 18.5 5.3 19.6Benin 3.2 15.2Bermuda 3.6 18.8 4.0 3.3 14.5Bolivia 3.4 28.4 4.4 25.3 2.7 6.6Botswana 4.7 6.0 16.0 6.9 17.0 8.6 15.8

Brazil 2.9 10.6 3.6 5.5Brunei 13.9 11.8 2.5Bulgaria 9.1 4.5 5.6 4.0Burkina Faso 2.2 19.8 2.7 1.4Burundi 3.4 16.7 4.1

Cambodia 5.8 23.5Cameroon 3.4 19.6 3.6 20.3 3.5 19.6Canada 8.7 24.1 6.9 16.3 6.8 14.2Central African Republic 2.2Chad

Chile 5.1 22.0 4.6 11.9 2.7 10.4 3.0 14.0China 1.2 4.3 2.5 9.3 2.3 12.8 2.3Colombia 1.9 13.6 2.4 19.2 2.6 16.0 4.0 18.6ComorosCongo, Dem. Rep. of 2.6 24.2

Congo, Rep. of 5.9 23.7 7.0 23.6 5.9 14.4 6.2 14.7Costa Rica 5.2 31.8 7.8 22.2 4.4 20.8 4.6 19.8Côte d’Ivoire 5.5 19.3 7.3 22.6 5.2Croatia 5.3Cuba 4.2 18.4 7.2 6.6 12.3 10.9

Cyprus 17.4 3.5 12.9 3.4 11.3 13.2Czech Republic 5.8 13.6Denmark 6.9 16.9 6.9 9.5 8.2 13.1Djibouti 10.5Dominican Republic 2.9 15.9 2.2 16.0 1.9 13.2

Ecuador 4.2 23.2 5.6 33.3 3.1 17.2 3.4 15.2Egypt, Arab Rep. of 4.8 15.8 4.0 4.8 14.9El Salvador 2.6 27.6 3.9 17.1 2.0 28.1 2.2EritreaEstonia 6.9 25.5

TABLE D. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION AS A WHOLE

% of % of % of % of% of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’tGNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending

Country 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1995 1995

117

% of % of % of % of% of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’tGNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending

Country 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1995 1995

Ethiopia 14.1 10.4 3.4 9.4 4.0 13.9Fiji 4.2 15.6 5.1 4.7Finland 5.9 5.3 5.7 11.9 7.6 12.2France 4.8 24.9 5.0 5.4 6.1 11.1French Polynesia 0.3

Gabon 3.2 16.2 2.7 2.8Gambia, The 2.3 10.8 3.3 4.2 14.6 6.0GeorgiaGermany 4.8 9.5Ghana 4.3 19.6 3.1 17.1 3.3 24.3

Greece 1.7 9.6 2.5 2.9 8.2GuamGuatemala 2.0 17.5 1.8 11.9 1.4 11.8 1.7 18.2GuineaGuinea-Bissau

Guyana 4.7 13.2 4.8 4.4 4.3 8.1Haiti 1.5 14.9 1.5 20.0Honduras 3.1 18.4 3.2 14.2 3.6 16.5Hong Kong, China 2.4 22.8 2.4 14.6 2.8 17.4 2.9Hungary 6.9 4.7 5.2 6.1 7.8 5.3 9.4

Iceland 3.6 17.7 4.4 14.0 5.6 5.0 12.3India 2.6 10.7 3.0 11.2 3.9 12.2 3.4 11.6Indonesia 2.6 1.7 8.9 1.0 1.4 7.8Iran, Islamic Rep. of 9.6 7.5 15.7 4.1 22.4 4.0 17.8Iraq 3.0

Ireland 4.8 10.8 6.3 5.6 10.2 6.1 13.5Israel 5.6 8.1 7.9 7.3 6.2 11.3Italy 3.7 11.9 3.2 4.7 9.0Jamaica 3.6 7.0 13.1 5.4 12.8 6.4 7.7Japan 3.9 20.4 5.8 19.6

Jordan 3.7 9.3 6.6 14.4 8.9 17.1 8.7 21.Kazakhstan 3.2 17.6 4.6 17.6Kenya 5.0 17.6 6.8 18.1 7.1 17.0 6.8 16.9Korea, Rep. of 3.4 21.4 3.7 23.7 3.5 22.4 3.7 17.5Kuwait 4.2 11.2 2.4 8.1 3.5 3.4 5.7 8.9

Kyrgyz Republic 22.2 8.4 22.5 6.9 23.1Lao PDR 1.3 2.3Latvia 3.3 15.3 3.8 10.8 6.7 16.8Lebanon 16.8 13.2 2.6 8.7Lesotho 3.0 16.2 5.1 14.8 3.6 12.2

Liberia 2.0 9.5 5.7 24.3Libya 4.5 17.4 3.4Lithuania 15.4 4.8 13.8 5.7 21.8Luxembourg 3.6 14.8 5.7 14.9 2.6 10.4 4.1 15.1Macao 10.7

Macedonia, FYR 5.5 18.7Madagascar 4.4 1.5Malawi 4.6 13.2 3.4 8.4 3.3 11.1 5.5Malaysia 4.2 17.7 6.0 14.7 5.5 18.3Maldives 6.3 10.0 6.4 10.5

TABLE D, continued

118

% of % of % of % of% of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’tGNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending

Country 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1995 1995

TABLE D, continued

Mali 3.7 30.8 2.2Malta 6.3 13.0 3.0 7.8 4.0 8.3 5.2 11.4Mauritania 3.3 21.9 5.1 16.2Mauritius 3.1 11.5 5.3 11.6 3.5 11.8Mexico 2.3 4.7 20.4 3.7 12.8 4.9 23.0

Moldova 5.6 17.2 7.7 22.9Mongolia 15.6 19.1 12.9 17.6 6.0 17.0Morocco 3.5 16.6 6.1 18.5 5.5 26.1 5.8 24.7Mozambique 4.4 12.1 6.0 12.0Myanmar 3.1 17.9 1.7

Namibia 7.4 8.4 24.6Nepal 0.6 6.7 1.8 10.5 2.0 8.5 3.2 14.0Netherlands 7.2 7.6 22.6 6.0 14.8 5.2 8.7New Caledonia 0.2New Zealand 4.7 5.8 23.1 6.6

Nicaragua 2.3 18.1 3.4 10.4 3.7Niger 1.1 17.7 3.1 22.9Nigeria 1.0 0.9 11.5Norway 5.4 15.5 6.5 13.7 7.3 14.6 8.1 16.7Oman 2.1 4.1 3.5 11.1 4.4 16.3

Pakistan 1.7 4.2 2.0 5.0 2.6 2.8 7.1Panama 5.3 22.1 4.9 19.0 4.9 20.9Papua New Guinea 4.5 13.2Paraguay 2.2 15.3 1.5 16.4 1.1 9.1 3.4 18.0Peru 3.3 18.8 3.1 15.2

Philippines 2.8 24.4 1.7 9.1 2.9 10.1 2.2Poland 5.2Portugal 1.5 6.6 3.8 4.3 5.5Puerto Rico 7.8Qatar 3.3 8.9 2.6 7.2 3.4

Reunion 15.6Romania 8.0 3.3 6.7 2.8 7.3Russian Federation 3.9 3.5 3.5Rwanda 2.3 26.6 2.7 21.6Samoa 20.0 4.2 10.7

Saudi Arabia 3.5 9.8 4.1 8.7 6.0 17.8 5.5 17.7Senegal 3.8 21.3 4.0 26.9 3.6 33.1Seychelles 4.2 11.5 5.8 14.4 8.1 14.8 7.6 16.3Sierra Leone 3.2 17.5 3.5 11.8Singapore 3.1 11.7 2.8 7.3 3.0 18.2 3.0 23.4

Slovak Republic 5.1 5.1Slovenia 5.8 12.6Solomon Islands 13.8 5.6 11.2Somalia 1.0 7.6 1.0 8.7South Africa 6.5 6.8 20.5

Spain 2.0 15.2 2.3 14.7 4.4 9.4 4.9 12.8Sri Lanka 4.0 13.6 2.7 7.7 2.7 8.1 3.0 8.1St. Kitts and Nevis 9.7 5.3 9.4 2.8 3.7 9.8St. LuciaSt. Vincent and the Grenadines 5.8 6.9 13.8

119

% of % of % of % of% of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’t % of Gov’tGNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending GNP Spending

Country 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1995 1995

TABLE D, continued

Sudan 3.9 12.6 4.8 9.1 0.9 2.8Suriname 7.3 17.9 6.7 22.5Swaziland 4.9 17.3 6.0 5.9 19.5 7.6 19.9Sweden 7.6 9.0 14.1 7.7 13.8 8.1 11.6Switzerland 3.9 18.4 4.9 18.8 4.8 18.7 5.3 14.7

Syrian Arab Republic 3.9 9.4 4.6 8.1 4.3 17.3 3.3 11.2Tajikistan 29.2 9.7 24.7 2.4 16.1Tanzania 16.0 11.2 3.4 11.4Thailand 3.2 17.3 3.4 20.6 3.6 20.0 4.1 20.1Togo 2.2 19.0 5.6 19.4 5.6 26.4

Trinidad and Tobago 3.4 14.0 4.0 11.5 4.0 11.6Tunisia 7.1 23.2 5.4 16.4 6.2 13.5 6.8 17.4Turkey 2.1 13.7 2.2 10.5 2.1 2.2Turkmenistan 4.3 21.0Uganda 4.1 17.7 1.2 11.3 1.5 11.5 2.6 21.4

Ukraine 5.5 28.1 5.6 24.5 5.2 19.7 7.2United Arab Emirates 1.3 1.7 14.6 1.8 16.3United Kingdom 5.3 14.1 5.6 13.9 4.9 5.4United States 7.5 22.7 6.7 5.2 12.3Uruguay 3.9 26.1 2.3 10.0 3.1 15.9 2.8

Uzbekistan 23.0 9.5 20.4 7.4 22.8Vanuatu 32.1 4.4 4.9Venezuela 4.1 22.9 4.4 14.7 3.1 12.0Vietnam 7.5Yemen, Rep. of

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.)Zambia 4.5 9.0 4.5 7.6 2.3 8.7 2.2 7.1Zimbabwe 3.4 6.6 13.7 10.4

World 3.1 12.1 3.5 12.2 3.4 13.2 3.4 13.0

Low and middle income 2.4 10.0 3.0 11.6 3.1 13.2 3.3 13.2 Sub-Saharan Africa 3.8 16.0 4.0 15.5 3.4 12.8 3.4 15.2 East Asia and Pacific 1.6 6.3 2.4 9.7 2.3 12.8 2.3 10.7 South Asia 2.5 10.0 2.7 10.2 3.5 11.9 3.3 11.0 Europe and Central Asia 4.0 17.5 3.7 16.2 4.3 17.1 5.0 18.1

Latin America and the Caribbean 3.0 14.5 3.8 17.8 3.0 13.6 4.6 18.1

Middle East and N. Africa 5.0 15.9 6.1 16.2 4.7 21.1 4.9 17.0

High income 5.4 19.3 5.8 17.3 4.9 13.4 5.0 11.4

Source: Columns 1 through 8: UNESCO 1999a; columns 1 and 2 supplemented by UNESCO 1999b.

120

TABLE E. EXPENDITURES ON TERTIARY EDUCATION

AfghanistanAlbania 10.3 36AlgeriaAngolaArgentina 19.2 21.0 10 17

Armenia 13.2 19Australia 30.5 29.8 30 30Austria 16.6 21.4 38 32Azerbaijan 7.8 13Bahamas, The

BahrainBangladesh 10.4 7.9 47 30Barbados 22.3Belarus 14.0 11.0 33 20Belgium 16.7 20.3 35 35

Belize 2.3 7.4Benin 18.8 240Bermuda 21.4Bolivia 28.7 67Botswana 17.2 665

Brazil 0BruneiBulgaria 12.4 15.8 21Burkina Faso 30.7 3,371Burundi 19.8 15.6 941

CambodiaCameroon 27.4 363Canada 28.7 34.7* 28 36Central African Republic 18.8 24.0Chad 9.0 234

Chile 20.3* 18.1 21China 21.8 15.4 81Colombia 21.2 18.5 41 29Comoros 17.2Congo, Dem. Rep. of 28.7 749

Congo, Rep. of 34.4 28.0 224Costa Rica 41.4 30.9 76 44Côte d’Ivoire 17.1 16.4CroatiaCuba 12.9 15.4 29

Cyprus 4.2 6.5Czech Republic 14.7 41Denmark 21.9 22.8 55DjiboutiDominican Republic 20.8 9.0 5

Ecuador 17.8 18.1 22 34Egypt, Arab Rep. of 35.4 108El Salvador 7.2 103 8EritreaEstonia 17.6 40

Public Current Spending on Higher Tertiary ExpenditureEducation as % of Total Public per Student as

Current Spending on Education % of GNP per Capita

1985 or 1995 or 1980 1995closest yr. LYA**Country

121

Ethiopia 14.4 14.9 592FijiFinland 18.7 28.8 28 46France 12.9 17.0 22 24French Polynesia

GabonGambia, The 13.8 10.9 235Georgia 18.5 28Germany 22.6 35Ghana 12.5

Greece 20.1 22.6* 27 29GuamGuatemala 15.5 33Guinea 23.5 17.2 498Guinea-Bissau

Guyana 17.8 7.7Haiti 10.8 65Honduras 21.3 16.6 72 59Hong Kong, China 25.1 37.1 52Hungary 16.9 18.3 75 73

Iceland 20.8India 15.3 13.7 78IndonesiaIran, Islamic Rep. of 10.7 22.9 62Iraq 25.0*

Ireland 17.7 22.6 39 38Israel 18.9 18.2 52 31Italy 10.2 15.0 23Jamaica 19.4 23.1 167 193Japan 12.1 21 16

Jordan 34.1 34.9 111Kazakhstan 12.5 20Kenya 12.4 13.7 808 540Korea, Rep. of 10.9 9.5* 7 6Kuwait 16.7 29.9 28

Kyrgyz Republic 8.8 8.3 49Lao PDR 4.0 55Latvia 10.3 12.2* 45LebanonLesotho 22.3 17.0 642 399

LiberiaLibyaLithuania 18.0 51Luxembourg 3.3 4.8Macao

Macedonia, FYR 22.2Madagascar 27.2Malawi 23.3 20.5 1,137 979Malaysia 14.6 16.8 149 77Maldives

Public Current Spending on Higher Tertiary ExpenditureEducation as % of Total Public per Student as

Current Spending on Education % of GNP per Capita

1985 or 1995 or 1980 1995closest yr. LYA**

TABLE E, continued

Country

122

Mali 13.4 17.7 522Malta 8.2 12.7Mauritania 17.5 20.1 157Mauritius 163Mexico 17.2 61

MoldovaMongolia 17.3 17.9 74Morocco 17.1 16.5 74MozambiqueMyanmar 11.7 21

Namibia 9.4 86Nepal 33.4 17.3 272 156Netherlands 26.4 29.9 54 44New CaledoniaNew Zealand 28.3 29.4 33 39

Nicaragua 23.2 86Niger 1,493Nigeria 345Norway 13.5 27.1 29 50Oman 15.3 5.8

Pakistan 18.2 13.2 236Panama 20.4 24.8 29 47Papua New GuineaParaguay 23.8 19.7 52Peru 5

Philippines 22.5Poland 18.2 14.6* 42Portugal 12.7 16.4 25Puerto RicoQatar

ReunionRomania 15.9* 40Russian FederationRwanda 11.5Samoa

Saudi Arabia 27.1 17.8 63Senegal 19.0 23.2SeychellesSierra Leone 15.1Singapore 27.9 34.8 31 32

Slovak Republic 16.7 39Slovenia 16.9 38Solomon IslandsSomaliaSouth Africa 24.8 15.4 59

Spain 15.1 18Sri Lanka 9.8 12.2 62 64St. Kitts and Nevis 2.1 11.6St. Lucia 4.5 12.5St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Public Current Spending on Higher Tertiary ExpenditureEducation as % of Total Public per Student as

Current Spending on Education % of GNP per Capita

1985 or 1995 or 1980 1995closest yr. LYA**

TABLE E, continued

Country

123

Sudan 441Suriname 7.7 7.6Swaziland 21.0 27.5Sweden 13.1 27.7* 26 76Switzerland 18.1 19.7 56

Syrian Arab Republic 33.6* 25.9*Tajikistan 7.7 10.3 30 39Tanzania 12.7 2,195Thailand 13.2 19.4 25Togo 22.8 32.9 892 521

Trinidad and Tobago 8.9 13.3 55 77Tunisia 18.2 18.8 194 89Turkey 23.9 34.7 108 51TurkmenistanUganda 13.2

Ukraine 13.5 10.7 39 20United Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom 19.8 23.7* 80 44United States 25.1 25.2* 48 23Uruguay 22.4 27.0 28

Uzbekistan 9.7 28Vanuatu 6.4Venezuela 57VietnamYemen, Rep. of

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 21.8Zambia 18.3 23.2 762 160Zimbabwe 9.0 17.3* 260 234

World 18.8 16.0 163 77

Low and middle income 18.5 15.7 259 91 Sub-Saharan Africa 19.1 16.7 802 422 East Asia and Pacific 21.4 15.4 149 76 South Asia 15.3 13.1 143 74 Europe and Central Asia 17.3 18.3 67 36 Latin America and the Caribbean 19.5 18.1 19 43 Middle East and N. Africa 15.9 25.5 194 82

High income 20.3 18.2 39 26

*Data include capital expenditures. These data are not included in regional and world aggregations.**LYA Last year available.Source: Columns 1 and 2: UNESCO 1998a; columns 3 and 4: World Bank 1998.

Public Current Spending on Higher Tertiary ExpenditureEducation as % of Total Public per Student as

Current Spending on Education % of GNP per Capita

1985 or 1995 or 1980 1995closest yr. LYA**

TABLE E, continued

Country

124

Afghanistan 22Albania 35 24Algeria 103 291 561 1,814 7.4 14 52Angola 26Argentina 1,051 2,589 10,015 28,240 37 30

Armenia 248 1,249Australia 10,519 18,088 147,733 301,320 32 29Austria 2,735 5,287 28,921 94,144 4.1 34 29Azerbaijan 208 444 38Bahamas, The

Bahrain 39Bangladesh 123 355 1,385 2,299 34Barbados 39 19Belarus 1,033 4,220 2.2 35Belgium 4,273 8,167 67,888 166,223 15 25

BelizeBenin 18 19BermudaBolivia 21Botswana 26 24

Brazil 1,913 5,440 14,446 55,170 0.7 40 22Brunei 6Bulgaria 1,109 1,374 4,683 11,198 48 25Burkina Faso 21 18Burundi 45

CambodiaCameroon 38 144 149 1,386 18.2 35Canada 19,560 33,426 299,529 669,313 1.4 22Central African Republic 34Chad 12 14

Chile 673 1,376 6,521 15,940 17 42China 1,293 11,435 8,517 77,841 2.1 18 37Colombia 135 294 1,015 4,138 36 31ComorosCongo, Dem. Rep. of 34

Congo, Rep. of 8 11Costa Rica 71 193 538 1,882 41 18Côte d’Ivoire 163 98 520 1,515 28 26Croatia 898 8,138 38Cuba 139 344 382 2,289 25 23

Cyprus 104.1 33 19Czech Republic 3,150 21,106 36Denmark 3,855 6,414 73,093 147,212 38 24DjiboutiDominican Republic

Ecuador 21Egypt, Arab Rep. of 1,304 2,091 5,133 9,730 0.9 38 15El Salvador 50 25EritreaEstonia 390 4,314 34

TABLE F. OTHER EDUCATIONAL DATA

Summary Publication and Citation Statistics on Nationals Studying Tertiary ScienceResearch in the Sciences and Social Sciences Abroad as % of Enrollment as % of

Number of Number of Number of Number ofPapers Papers Citations Citations Students at Home Total Tertiary

Country 1981 1995 1981–85 1993–97 1995 or LYA** 1987–88 1995

125

Summary Publication and Citation Statistics on Nationals Studying Tertiary ScienceResearch in the Sciences and Social Sciences Abroad as % of Enrollment as % of

Number of Number of Number of Number ofPapers Papers Citations Citations Students at Home Total Tertiary

Country 1981 1995 1981–85 1993–97 1995 or LYA** 1987–88 1995

TABLE F, continued

Ethiopia 47 193 521 1,609 37 36Fiji 35Finland 2,615 5,732 41,094 119,304 50 37France 23,101 41,039 319,296 782,069 1.5 24French Polynesia

Gabon 22Gambia, TheGeorgia 48Germany 33,602 53,160 467,933 1,068,338 2.1 46 35Ghana 81 116 435 892 30

Greece 968 3,259 8,981 34,790 13.3 43 30GuamGuatemala 39GuineaGuinea-Bissau

Guyana 41 43HaitiHonduras 29 26Hong Kong, China 375 2,382 3,770 24,706 36.1 43 36Hungary 2,598 3,047 21,591 39,407 32 29

Iceland 44 255 852 5,521India 13,623 14,883 56,464 90,162 0.7 32Indonesia 89 310 694 3,364 1.0 39 28Iran, Islamic Rep. of 253 438 894 2,441 2.6 39 37Iraq 208 84 774 327 33

Ireland 881 1,891 9,047 27,772 9.1 35 31Israel 4,934 8,279 73,973 148,182 4.8 13 27Italy 9,618 24,695 133,715 442,636 2.1 39 28Jamaica 136 154 1,143 1,261 37Japan 27,177 58,910 378,092 930,981 1.6 26 23

Jordan 56 278 263 1,018 15.4 28Kazakhstan 221 690 3.4 42Kenya 362 542 2,963 6,364 21Korea, Rep. of 234 5,393 2,656 43,561 3.1 31 39Kuwait 134 324 695 1,576 35 23

Kyrgyz Republic 28Lao PDR 42 45Latvia 275 2,234 34Lebanon 111 110 572 715 12.9 45 17Lesotho 16 25

LiberiaLibyaLithuania 292 3,218LuxembourgMacao

Macedonia, FYR 41Madagascar 20 23Malawi 37 18Malaysia 229 587 1,332 3,450 21.5 34Maldives

126

Summary Publication and Citation Statistics on Nationals Studying Tertiary ScienceResearch in the Sciences and Social Sciences Abroad as % of Enrollment as % of

Number of Number of Number of Number ofPapers Papers Citations Citations Students at Home Total Tertiary

Country 1981 1995 1981–85 1993–97 1995 or LYA** 1987–88 1995

Mali 3Malta 38 13Mauritania 12 8MauritiusMexico 907 2,901 8,779 28,589 0.8 36 33

Moldova 8.0 34Mongolia 56 24Morocco 92 554 597 3,031 11.9 59 29Mozambique 25 50Myanmar 32 36

Namibia 9 5Nepal 30 17Netherlands 7,270 16,702 143,320 384,977 2.3 30 20New CaledoniaNew Zealand 2,200 3,539 23,181 53,775 29 20

Nicaragua 43Niger 24Nigeria 1,062 741 3,670 3,559 30 41Norway 2,306 4,264 34,601 70,109 4.7 30 19Oman 34

Pakistan 189 618 935 2,803 2.4Panama 32 80 525 1,818 32 26Papua New Guinea 114 105 584 989 11Paraguay 50 25Peru 72 143 620 1,614 1.1 25

Philippines 243 294 1,379 2,893 31Poland 4,563 7,097 30,960 71,003 1.4 37 29Portugal 237 1,580 2,956 19,617 2.7 35 30Puerto RicoQatar 10

ReunionRomania 950 1,154 3,970 7,894 2.0 51Russian Federation 24,958 159,065 0.3 49Rwanda 25Samoa 14

Saudi Arabia 299 1,409 1,494 7,826 2.8 34Senegal 31Seychelles 45Sierra Leone 30Singapore 192 1,914 1,302 16,257 19.7 29

Slovak Republic 1,901 8,691Slovenia 693 7,969 18Solomon Islands 29Somalia 18South Africa 2,211 3,413 19,549 35,056 47 57

Spain 3,462 15,367 31,272 227,637 1.3 32Sri Lanka 121 139 616 967 37St. Kitts and Nevis 14St. Lucia 40St. Vincent and the Grenadines

TABLE F, continued

127

Summary Publication and Citation Statistics on Nationals Studying Tertiary ScienceResearch in the Sciences and Social Sciences Abroad as % of Enrollment as % of

Number of Number of Number of Number ofPapers Papers Citations Citations Students at Home Total Tertiary

Country 1981 1995 1981–85 1993–97 1995 or LYA** 1987–88 1995

Sudan 133 101 615 852 27SurinameSwaziland 22Sweden 6,891 12,825 145,644 289,268 3.5 42 29Switzerland 6,160 11,510 146,664 341,129 5.2 40 32

Syrian Arab Republic 6.8 31 29Tajikistan 23Tanzania 98 198 554 2,638 9 39Thailand 373 648 2,419 8,398 1.3 25 19Togo 52 16

Trinidad and Tobago 57 82 269 557 43 45Tunisia 111 300 567 2,148 9.4 31 24Turkey 332 2,449 2,139 15,404 3.2 21TurkmenistanUganda 41 13

Ukraine 3,723 16,679 1.4United Arab Emirates 11 224 30 1,352 46United Kingdom 38,580 61,734 684,437 1,334,782 1.3 42 31United States 174,123 249,386 3,496,945 6,475,200 0.2Uruguay 42 170 588 2,763 48

Uzbekistan 356 1,371VanuatuVenezuela 348 660 3,962 7,847 26Vietnam 49 192 203 1,657Yemen, Rep. of 12

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 1,148 747 8,150 5,618 4.5Zambia 46 81 242 552Zimbabwe 96 212 522 1,687 32 23

World 459,457 772,036 7,138,219 15,116,724 29 33

Low and middle income 72,871 108,929 365,818 830,881 28 34 Sub-Saharan Africa 4,337 5,839 29,740 56,110 29 36 East Asia and Pacific 2,390 13,571 15,128 98,592 22 35 South Asia 14,056 15,995 59,400 96,231 32 17 Europe and Central Asia 43,975 53,543 201,892 398,790 38 39 Latin America and the Caribbean 5,576 14,426 48,803 152,108 35 27 Middle East and N. Africa 2,537 5,555 10,855 29,050 35 30

High income 386,586 663,107 6,772,401 14,285,843 34 29

**LYA Last year available.Source: Columns 1 through 4: ISI 1998; column 5: UNESCO 1998a; column 6: UNDP 1992; columns 7 and 9: UNDP 1998; column 8: UNDP 1990 and UNDP 1998.Data for column 5 are not aggregated by region because only 50 countries are represented.

TABLE F, continued

128

AfghanistanAlbania 85 70.6 0.656Algeria 25 62 1,584 2,569 68.1 0.746Angola 42 1,062 710 47.4 0.344Argentina 93 96 5,018 5,634 72.6 0.888

Armenia 99 70.9 0.674Australia 99 8,823 15,952 78.2 0.932Austria 99 6,144 13,334 76.7 0.933Azerbaijan 96 71.1 0.623Bahamas, The 95 98 10,687 73.2 0.893

Bahrain 53 85 9,302 72.2 0.872Bangladesh 25 38 1,136 1,662 56.9 0.371Barbados 92 97 3,274 6,755 76.0 0.909Belarus 98 69.3 0.783Belgium 99 99 6,749 13,778 76.9 0.933

Belize 70 4,265 74.2 0.807Benin 10 37 1,191 1,082 54.4 0.378BermudaBolivia 58 83 1,346 1,845 60.5 0.593Botswana 44 70 574 2,398 51.7 0.678

Brazil 68 83 1,871 4,114 66.6 0.809Brunei 57 88 75.1 0.889Bulgaria 94 98 5,461 71.2 0.789Burkina Faso 8 19 373 490 46.3 0.219Burundi 18 35 390 426 44.5 0.241

Cambodia 65 52.9 0.422Cameroon 32 63 673 912 55.3 0.481Canada 99 8,664 17,213 79.1 0.960Central African Republic 13 60 663 516 48.4 0.347Chad 24 48 736 357 47.2 0.318

Chile 88 95 3,264 5,703 75.1 0.893China 52 82 577 2,047 69.2 0.650Colombia 81 91 1,816 3,774 70.3 0.850Comoros 42 57 646 480 56.5 0.411Congo, Dem. Rep. of 44 77 548 211 52.4 0.383

Congo, Rep. of 75 1,084 1,863 51.2 0.519Costa Rica 88 95 2,459 3,817 76.6 0.889Côte d’Ivoire 16 40 1,400 1,111 51.8 0.368Croatia 98 71.6 0.759Cuba 82 96 75.7 0.729

Cyprus 94 2,717 77.2 0.913Czech Republic 99 72.4 0.884Denmark 99 8,436 15,170 75.3 0.928Djibouti 23 46 49.2 0.324Dominican Republic 68 82 1,271 2,396 70.3 0.720

Ecuador 75 90 1,591 2,865 69.5 0.767Egypt, Arab Rep. of 32 51 1,024 1,974 64.8 0.612El Salvador 56 72 1,739 2,090 69.4 0.604Eritrea 25 50.2 0.275Estonia 99 69.2 0.758

TABLE G. OTHER DATA

Life HumanAdult Expectancy Development

Literacy GDP per GDP per at Birth IndexRate (%) Capita Capita (Years) (HDI)

Country 1970 1995 1965 1995 1995 1995

129

Life HumanAdult Expectancy Development

Literacy GDP per GDP per at Birth IndexRate (%) Capita Capita (Years) (HDI)

Country 1970 1995 1965 1995 1995 1995

Ethiopia 16 36 290 321 48.7 0.252Fiji 74 92 2,160 4,166 72.1 0.869Finland 99 6,514 12,762 76.4 0.942France 99 99 7,304 14,286 78.7 0.946French Polynesia

Gabon 26 63 2,587 3,718 54.5 0.568Gambia, The 17 39 724 728 46.0 0.291Georgia 99 73.2 0.633Germany 99 7,912 15,419 76.4 0.925Ghana 31 65 883 1,001 57.0 0.473

Greece 93 97 3,067 7,112 77.9 0.924GuamGuatemala 44 65 1,781 2,147 66.1 0.615Guinea 16 36 545 778 45.5 0.277Guinea-Bissau 30 55 612 665 43.4 0.295

Guyana 91 98 1,575 1,417 63.5 0.670Haiti 24 45 894 525 54.6 0.340Honduras 54 73 1,121 1,385 68.8 0.573Hong Kong, China 79 92 3,492 18,240 79.0 0.909Hungary 98 99 4,874 68.9 0.857

Iceland 99 6,215 13,019 79.2 0.942India 34 52 751 1,467 61.6 0.451Indonesia 56 84 608 2,478 64.0 0.679Iran, Islamic Rep. of 35 69 3,364 3,618 68.5 0.758Iraq 30 58 4,412 58.5 0.538

Ireland 99 4,000 11,690 76.4 0.930Israel 93 95 4,644 11,006 77.5 0.913Italy 95 98 5,691 13,174 78.0 0.922Jamaica 70 85 2,104 2,473 74.1 0.735Japan 99 99 4,491 15,338 79.9 0.940

Jordan 54 87 1,604 3,187 68.9 0.729Kazakhstan 99 67.5 0.695Kenya 43 78 614 901 53.8 0.463Korea, Rep. of 87 98 1,058 9,250 71.7 0.894Kuwait 57 79 8,046 75.4 0.848

Kyrgyz Republic 97 67.9 0.633Lao PDR 32 57 1,652 52.2 0.465Latvia 99 68.0 0.704Lebanon 80 92 69.3 0.796Lesotho 47 71 409 1,138 58.1 0.469

Liberia 824Libya 76 64.3 0.806Lithuania 99 70.2 0.750Luxembourg 99 8,569 18,939 76.1 0.900Macao

Macedonia, FYR 94 71.9 0.749Madagascar 46 1,111 586 57.6 0.348Malawi 38 56 412 501 41.0 0.334Malaysia 57 84 1,671 6,916 71.4 0.834Maldives 87 93 63.3 0.683

TABLE G, continued

130

Life HumanAdult Expectancy Development

Literacy GDP per GDP per at Birth IndexRate (%) Capita Capita (Years) (HDI)

Country 1970 1995 1965 1995 1995 1995

TABLE G, continued

Mali 7 31 435 523 47.0 0.236Malta 91 1,487 8,523 76.5 0.899Mauritania 27 38 882 895 52.5 0.361Mauritius 65 83 3,136 6,821 70.9 0.833Mexico 75 90 3,351 5,899 72.1 0.855

Moldova 99 67.8 0.610Mongolia 63 83 1,420 64.8 0.669Morocco 21 44 1,221 2,109 65.7 0.557Mozambique 16 40 1,265 783 46.3 0.281Myanmar 72 83 415 58.9 0.481

Namibia 76 2,325 2,834 55.8 0.644Nepal 14 28 650 1,177 55.9 0.351Netherlands 99 7,396 13,917 77.5 0.941New CaledoniaNew Zealand 99 9,032 12,582 76.6 0.939

Nicaragua 57 66 2,246 1,436 67.5 0.547Niger 6 14 641 428 47.5 0.207Nigeria 21 57 624 951 51.4 0.391Norway 99 6,950 17,171 77.6 0.943Oman 59 7,862 70.3 0.771

Pakistan 20 38 889 1,461 62.8 0.453Panama 79 91 2,014 3,481 73.4 0.868Papua New Guinea 47 72 1,700 1,799 56.8 0.507Paraguay 81 92 1,277 2,122 69.1 0.707Peru 71 89 2,501 2,531 67.7 0.729

Philippines 84 95 1,243 1,760 67.4 0.677Poland 98 99 4,396 71.1 0.851Portugal 78 90 2,407 8,075 74.8 0.892Puerto Rico 4,414Qatar 58 79 11,473 71.1 0.840

Reunion 1,526Romania 96 98 590 1,725 69.6 0.767Russian Federation 99 65.5 0.769Rwanda 350 412Samoa 98 68.4 0.694

Saudi Arabia 36 63 5,991 6,510 70.7 0.778Senegal 15 33 1,143 1,116 50.3 0.342Seychelles 88 1,338 72.0 0.845Sierra Leone 13 31 1,114 609 34.7 0.185Singapore 74 91 1,864 15,774 77.1 0.896

Slovak Republic 99 70.9 0.875Slovenia 96 73.2 0.887Solomon Islands 62 2,219 71.1 0.560Somalia 959South Africa 70 82 2,617 3,150 64.1 0.717

Spain 93 97 4,580 10,132 77.7 0.935Sri Lanka 80 90 1,179 2,495 72.5 0.716St. Kitts and Nevis 90 5,407 69.0 0.854St. Lucia 82 3,797 71.0 0.839St. Vincent and the Grenadines 82 3,802 72.0 0.845

131

Life HumanAdult Expectancy Development

Literacy GDP per GDP per at Birth IndexRate (%) Capita Capita (Years) (HDI)

Country 1970 1995 1965 1995 1995 1995

TABLE G, continued

Sudan 21 46 52.2 0.343Suriname 82 93 2,272 70.9 0.796Swaziland 49 77 1,705 2,603 58.8 0.597Sweden 99 9,402 14,393 78.4 0.936Switzerland 99 11,150 15,667 78.2 0.930

Syrian Arab Republic 41 71 2,011 4,977 68.1 0.749Tajikistan 99 66.9 0.575Tanzania 37 68 371 50.6 0.358Thailand 78 94 1,136 4,869 69.5 0.838Togo 23 52 489 464 50.5 0.380

Trinidad and Tobago 92 98 6,428 8,277 73.1 0.880Tunisia 28 67 1,236 3,158 68.7 0.744Turkey 57 82 1,812 3,935 68.5 0.782Turkmenistan 98 64.9 0.660Uganda 37 62 614 627 40.5 0.340

Ukraine 98 68.5 0.665United Arab Emirates 54 79 13,855 74.4 0.855United Kingdom 99 7,679 13,711 76.8 0.932United States 99 11,649 18,980 76.4 0.943Uruguay 93 97 3,698 5,401 72.7 0.885

Uzbekistan 99 67.5 0.659Vanuatu 64 1,513 66.3 0.559Venezuela 76 91 7,512 6,678 72.3 0.860Vietnam 73 94 66.4 0.560Yemen, Rep. of 38 56.7 0.356

Yugoslavia, FR (Serb./Mont.) 2,407Zambia 48 78 1,110 578 42.7 0.378Zimbabwe 66 85 946 1,161 48.9 0.507

World 53 76 2,641 4,532 66.3 0.647

Low and middle income 48 71 1,031 2,208 64.3 0.593 Sub-Saharan Africa 30 56 841 933 51.2 0.385 East Asia and Pacific 55 83 632 2,253 68.0 0.654 South Asia 32 49 805 1,495 61.3 0.446 Europe and Central Asia 84 96 1,500 3,864 68.0 0.751 Latin America anf the Caribbean 73 86 2,738 4,348 69.3 0.801 Middle East and N. Africa 32 60 2,201 3,228 66.1 0.669

High income 95 98 7,665 15,358 77.2 0.934

Source: Columns 1, 2, 3, and 4: Gallup 1999; columns 5 and 6: UNDP 1998.

132

II: Selected Definitions

Attainment rates

These rates measure the highest level of edu-cation in which individuals were enrolled. Thedata reflect the attainment rates for the popu-lation that is over age 25. Attainment rates donot imply that all students completed this levelof education.

Citation statistics over5-year time periods

The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)database is used to track publication and cita-tion statistics, and typically attributes citationsto the year the paper was published. Recentyears therefore show dramatically lower cita-tion numbers than earlier years, as there hasbeen less time for newer papers to be cited.

To track trends in citations over time, ISIdeveloped a 5-year-window approach. Each 5-year block measures citations made in a timeperiod for only those papers published in thatperiod. More recent 5-year windows are there-fore comparable to older time periods, andgrowth or decline in citation numbers overtime can be noted.

GDP per capita

Real GDP per capita is expressed in constantdollars using the Chain index (1985 interna-tional prices). For years up to the early 1990s,data are supplied directly from the Penn WorldTables 5.6. In cases where the Penn World Tablesdo not have data for a more recent year, theWorld Bank’s figures for GDP per capita areconsulted. Because the World Bank figures areexpressed in 1987 international dollars, therate of change of GDP per capita from year toyear is extracted from the World Bank dataand applied to the Penn World Table base. The

resulting figure is expressed in 1985 dollars.Data are courtesy of John Gallup, Center for In-ternational Development, Harvard University.

Gross enrollment ratio

The gross enrollment ratio is the total enroll-ment at a given educational level, regardlessof age, divided by the population of the agegroup that typically corresponds to that levelof education. The specification of age groupsvaries by country, based on different nationalsystems of education and the duration ofschooling at the first and second levels. Fortertiary education, the ratio is expressed as apercentage of the population in the 5-year agegroup following the official secondary school-leaving age. Gross enrollment ratios may ex-ceed 100 percent if individuals outside the agecohort corresponding to a particular educa-tional level are enrolled in that level.

Human Development Index (HDI)

This index measures the average achieve-ments in a country in three basic dimensionsof human development—longevity, knowl-edge, and a decent standard of living. A com-posite index, the HDI, thus contains threevariables: life expectancy, educational attain-ment (adult literacy and combined primary,secondary, and tertiary enrollment), and realGDP per capita (in dollars adjusted for pur-chasing-power parity). The HDI is calculatedby the United Nations Development Pro-gramme.

Life expectancy at birth

This is the number of years a newborn infantwould live if prevailing patterns of mortalityat the time of birth were to stay the samethroughout the child’s life.

133

Public current spending on highereducation as percentage of total publiccurrent spending on education

This measures the percentage of public spend-ing on education that is devoted to tertiaryeducation. Only current spending (i.e., recur-ring, noncapital expenses) is considered.

Public expenditure on education aspercentage of GNP

This measures the total public expenditureon education (both current and capital ex-penses) expressed as a percentage of the grossnational product (GNP) for a given year. Thisindicator shows the proportion of a country’swealth generated during a given year that hasbeen devoted by government authorities tothe development of education.

Public expenditure on education aspercentage of government expenditure

This measures the total public expenditureon education (both current and capital ex-penses) expressed as a percentage of totalgovernment expenditure in a given year. Thisindicator shows the proportion of a govern-ment’s total expenditure for a given year thathas been spent on education.

Tertiary education

Education at the tertiary level (InternationalStandard Classification of Education, ISCED,levels five, six, and seven), includes universi-ties, teachers’ colleges, and higher profes-sional schools—requiring as a minimum con-dition of admission the successful completionof education at the secondary level, or evi-dence of the attainment of an equivalent levelof knowledge.

134

III: Primary Data Sources

Barro, Robert, and Jong-Wha Lee. 1993. “International Comparisons of Edu-cational Attainment.” NBER Working Paper 4349.

———. 1994. Data Set for a Panel of 138 Countries. Harvard University, Cam-bridge, Mass., January. Mimeo.

———. 1996. “International Measures of Schooling Years and SchoolingQuality.” American Economic Review 86(2): 218–23.

Bloom, David, and Francisco Rivera-Batiz. 1999. Global Trends in the Financingof Higher Education: Prospects and Challenges for the Next Decade, Statisti-cal Appendix. Unpublished.

Drèze, Jean, and Amartya K. Sen. 1995. India: Economic Development and SocialOpportunity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gallup, John. 1999. Data set expressing GDP per capita in constant dollarsusing 1985 international prices. Primary data sources are Penn WorldTables 5.6, Univerisity of Pennsylvania and World Development Indicators1998, World Bank. Center for International Development, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Mass.

ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). 1998. National Science Indicators onDiskette, 1981–97, Version 1.5. Philadelphia, Penn: ISI.

Puryear, Jeffrey M., 1992. “International Education Statistics and Research:Status and Problems.” International Journal of Educational Development,15(1):79–91, 1995.

Sen, Amartya K. 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1992. Human DevelopmentReport 1992. New York: Oxford University Press.

——— . 1998. Human Development Report 1998. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation).1993. World Education Report 1993. Paris.

——— . 1998a. World Statistical Outlook on Higher Education: 1980–1995. Work-ing document of the World Conference on Higher Education, Paris,October 1998. Paris.

——— .1998b. UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1998. Paris.

135

——— . 1999a. Division of Statistics Data. Available athttp://unescostat.unesco.org/Index.asp. March, April, May.

——— . 1999b. Correspondence about public expenditures on education.Division of Statistics, Paris. Received April.

United Nations Population Division. 1996. World Population Prospects 1950–2050. New York: United Nations.

World Bank 1994. Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Washington, D.C.

——— . 1998. World Development Indicators 1998. CD-ROM. Washington, D.C.

——— . 1999. World Development Report 1998/99: Knowledge for Development.New York: Oxford University Press.

III: Primary Data Sources, continued