Taiwan’s dilemma
The road to reform in higher education in Taiwan and China as well as their related pursuit to achieve world class standards has revealed significant challenges that both countries must confront and overcome to achieve these goals. For example, the introduction of market economies in the early 1990s, followed by deregulation of government control over the new HEI establishment, has resulted in an unprecedented expansion of higher education in Taiwan. More HEIs now compete for less and less resources and public funding. Mixed results have occurred in terms of educational quality, efficiency and equity. Universities are more accessible to younger generations
than before, but the increasing tuition and declining educational quality, coupled with the drastic decline of fertility rate in Taiwan has aroused another concern about the over-supply of university graduates in the job market.
Challenges on these issues are as follows (Blumenstyk, 2001, 2002; Chou, 2005;
Giroux, 2002; Slaughter, 2001):
• The new changing role of university from being highly regarded to the concept of
“user pays” rules has forced many HEIs to tailor their programs and coursework according to perceived market needs. Students tend to take courses with “practical outcomes”, rather than for personal fulfilment. Teaching faculties are viewed as academic entrepreneurs, treating professional knowledge as a matter of business, rather than engaging in academic pursuit for truth and discovery. Owing to the massive expansion of HEIs and consequent shrinking public budget in the past decade, universities now need to compete for external funding opportunities from the business world. Trade-offs are the possible external corporate intervention with university operations, curriculum design, and personnel appointments.
• In addition, the increase in public and private HEI tuition has become a heavy burden for many students across Taiwan. From 1997 to 2006, tuition at public universities has increased approximately 42%, while private universities have experienced a 14% increase (on an already high cost base). The average salary has increased only about 8%. Taiwanese families (GDP=13,500 USD in 2005) have to bear such high costs, especially for students who attend private institutions. The latter make up about 66% of the total universities and colleges in Taiwan (See Table 7).
Table 7 Public and Private Universities Student Growth in Taiwan Source: Bureau of Statistics, MOE (http://140.111.1.192/statistics)
128939 295880
In sum, Taiwanese higher education has undergone a drastic change with the introduction of a market economy ideology, the expansion of HEIs, and public
financial constraints since early 1990s. Taiwan’s access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2002 has created a more competitive international environment in which the educational sector is regarded as a trade service without national boundary. With limited education resources and an over-supply of college graduates with diverse qualifications, higher education institutes encounter an uphill challenge and competition within both domestic and international arenas. More university restructuring efforts will take place through institutional expansion, mergers, and evaluation, based more on market considerations than on social equity concerns.
China’s challenge
Since the mid-1980s, China, as a former socialist country, has undergone a variety of changes in the political, economic, and other social domains. In particular, the adoption of market economies along with the open door policy became the major force in Chinese higher education reform (Ngok & Kwong, 2003). For example, privatization (sometimes appearing in different forms) in China as part of the reform agenda has been encouraged with the following characteristics: private economic activities receive more support within a climate of increasing deregulation; activities and wages from the public sector have been cut substantially; and more policies aiming for export growth and industrial development have taken away from state responsibility for social welfare in public health, transport, communications and education in particular (Mok & Welch, 2003).
As a result, these economic and political changes shifted the academic climate completely. Higher education reforms since the 1990s have helped to relinquish state governance and responsibilities previously held by the central and local governments.
Universities assumed more responsibility and accountability for their daily operation, while government monitored succession planning, overall structural development, and resource allocation. Mixed results of such deregulation and privatisation policies have emerged with the increase of campus autonomy and financial freedom, especially from those leading HEIs. For example, many university faculty members now have the opportunity to seek additional income from other resources to compensate their relatively low salary. A survey indicated that a common phenomenon arose after China’s economic development in the 1990s. University faculty, especially those from coastal and leading institutes, have been driven by market forces to concern themselves with activities other than teaching and research. Many professors now take part in projects or provide training services for private institutes or companies, generating more external revenues for their institutes and themselves.
Another issue deserving consideration is that as China’s economic growth continues, leading HEIs have been provided with increased funding for facilities and basic infrastructures. Because these universities have traditionally had the privilege of obtaining additional funding from governments, many of them have had enormous investments in their physical plant, bringing them to world-class level. These HEIs have benefited from the special government funding policy by over-investing in their building construction and material realms, neglecting their internal substance. This phenomenon marks the paradox of a Chinese university, rich in hardware and material range, but poor in software and academic scope, a climate that parallels the improvement of institutional autonomy and freedom. Nevertheless, the Chinese government has recognized this problem and begun to reform the university reward and funding system with salary and promotion scales, providing greater initiatives for institutional accountability and personal growth in research publication and job performance. As a result, Peking University was chosen to rank among the top 100 world-class universities in October, 2006, by the Times Higher Education Supplement from London. This recognition has rewarded Chinese endeavours in upgrading their universities over the last decade, although scrutiny remains about the validity and credibility of university rankings (Ho, 2006).
After China’ s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, an increasing demand for globalizing higher education, such as cross-cultural interactions and exchanges of students and faculty members, has resulted in an even greater pressure on the irreversible internationalizing trend in Chinese higher education (Min, 2005).
In an era of rapid advancements in science and technology, Chinese universities have been called on to play a central role in knowledge-based economic development.
Comparison
Taiwan and China, though distinct in political, social and economic background, are following the global trend of reforming higher education in market-oriented directions.
In comparing the distinctive features in higher education between these two societies after the 1990s, the former aims for deregulation and diversity within the system, competition to gain management efficiency, and integrating societal needs as a way of responding to the market economy. As for China, especially after 1992, the major concern has been to pursue economic efficiency and prosperity rather than ascribe to social equity norms that had once been so strongly articulated in China. The following discussion will highlight some of the comparative issues between Taiwan and China (See Figure 1 ).
Reform policy Taiwan China
the lift of Martial Law in 1987
university project in 2005 (5 year, 50 billion NT Plan) .SSCI, SCI, EI Journal article
phenomenon
. efficiency and prosperity .less concerned with social equity .discrepancy between inland and
coastal areas, poor and rich
.Economic open-door policy after .SSCI, SCI, EI Journal article
phenomenon
Reform policy Taiwan China
Reform features
the lift of Martial Law in 1987
university project in 2005 (5 year, 50 billion NT Plan)
. efficiency and prosperity .less concerned with social equity .discrepancy between inland and
coastal areas, poor and rich
.Economic open-door policy after .SSCI, SCI, EI Journal article
Figure 1 Comparison between Taiwan and China
1. Origin of higher education reform
Changes in Taiwanese higher education have taken place in the context of political democratization, the lift of Martial Law in 1987, and a process of economic restructuring from a labour-intensive to a science and technology industry in the early 1990s. Higher education was in demand for its capability to provide modern citizens with creativity as well as to meet the need for new manpower. On the other hand, Chinese higher education reform originated from the open-door policy and the introduction of a market economy after the early 1990s (Huang, 2005). As the Chinese economy expanded (an average annual GDP growth rate of 8% for the past two decades), the high demand for economic reforms and an open-door policy have helped the Chinese economy to become more integrated into the international economy. Consequently, Chinese higher education has been marked for major change to improve national development and manpower,.
Specifically, differences between the two nations under the market economies date from Taiwan’s lifting of political martial law in 1987, a change that created a social environment for education innovation and openness. Government as well as the general public took complementary roles in developing initiatives for higher education reform. Comparably, China started her reforms following open-market economy policies in the beginning of the early 1980s and accelerated its reform scale in the mid-1990s as the economy developed. Nevertheless, the leading authority of higher education in the aspect of policy and resource in both countries is still confined to the government, although public opinion counts more heavily in Taiwan due to political democratization since the late 1980s.
2. Reforms linked with funding and promotion scales
Unlike China’s rapid economic growth during the past two decades, Taiwan’s economic growth has remained relatively stable in the past few years. This economic reality together with the expansion of HEIs in Taiwan, has placed an enormous
promotion as reform incentive
.SSCI, SCI, EI Journal article phenomenon
phenomenon
financial burden on both public and private institutions, and shifted the focus and culture of the profession. For example, in order to enforce a competitive mechanism for institutional and individual funding, the government sets up evaluation criteria based on quantitative indicators and require HEIs and faculty to comply. One key element for accountability depends on the number of journal articles published in the SSCI, SCI and EI databases. This western-dominant evaluation standard has created tremendous pressure on university faculty who now seek more short-term research outcomes as a means to fulfil the criteria for public funding and the self-evaluation process. A series of standardized evaluation systems have been introduced in both nations combining funding and salary scales. The over-emphasis of publication quantity rather than quality, journal articles rather than books, and research over teaching, has driven HEIs to fall into a quasi-corporate world full of external insensitivities and competition rather than an educational entity.
In addition, the bid to raise external revenue coupled with continuing evaluation demands at personal as well as institutional levels has transformed Taiwanese HEIs into market-driven entities. The emerging trend for university faculty to act as academic entrepreneurs at the expense of their role as public intellectuals seems unstoppable. The hope that education reform will facilitate academic autonomy and serve the public seems less and less attainable in an era of academic capitalism.
3. Over-emphasis on pursuing -“World Class Universities” policies
In order to align with international competition and the revolution in information science and technology, universities today are expected to gear towards knowledge-based institutions (Castells, 1991). Taiwanese and Chinese governments have, therefore, initiated policies not only to expand higher education enrolments but also to upgrade some leading national universities to world-class status. These attempts include the ‘World Class Research University’ project in Taiwan and the ‘211 Project’ and ‘985 World-Class University Project’ in China -- have created mixed results. Because public funding has only been allocated to selected universities, the increasing disparity of educational quality has accelerated between public and private, and leading and regular HEIs. It is clear that the new higher education framework in both countries has been prioritized more on accountability and market competition in quantitative terms than on social equity and equality values. These “world-class universities policies” have been characterized as duplicating Western and American university models whose “cultural imperialism” and “cultural reproduction” will, in the long run, impair both societies’ cultural identity and heritage (Hayhoe, 1989; Ho, 2006).
V. Conclusion
As discussed above, higher education reform after the early 1990s in Taiwan and China has followed a similar transitional pattern along with the global expansion of neo-liberalism ideology. Reform policies took various forms, such as deregulation of government control, privatization of public services, introduction of accountability and competition, increasing shared governance and funding resources between the state and HEIs, and implementing more external evaluation schemes to monitor reform outcomes. As a result, college enrolments expanded, university system were restructured, curriculum and instruction were revised, and competition for resources was emphasized over collegial collaboration. In addition, as many national universities have aimed to become world-class institutions, government policy earmarks special funds to implement higher education upgrading plans. In the long run, some leading HEIs in both countries have benefited and made significant progress, especially in physical infrastructure improvement and the publication of more international journal articles. However, quality and equity issues, in-depth discussion and follow-up reflection tend to be neglected under this broad umbrella of global market ideology.
Furthermore, higher education was formerly highly centralized and administered by the government in both counties until the political open-up in Taiwan during late 1980s and the economic restructuring in China in early 1990s. University reforms in both societies generally followed government policies and directions. As the call for democracy and deregulation rose among people in many developing countries since 1980s, reforms in political powers including educational sectors began to take in place.
In Taiwan, the origin of reform began with public demands for social democratization in the early 1990s. Government officials responded by launching reform policy under the recommendation of neo-liberals in government and academe. Overall, the most essential issue in higher education began with the call for decentralization and deregulation of the public institutions in the name of institutional autonomy and academic freedom protected by the constitution. Since the early 1990s, the general public has anticipated a power withdrawal from the government to allow universities to have more autonomy, efficiency and flexibility in decision-making and daily operation. As years pass, universities now enjoy more freedom than before, but are now facing immediate challenges in fund-raising and public demands for accountability.
Higher education reforms in China started as part of the governmental re-structuring process after its economic open-door policy in the early 1990s. Chinese universities have been geared more toward the managerial domain, after re-adjusting relationships between government, society and HEIs. A new shared-responsibility
policy between central and local authorities came into practice in recent years by promoting more burden-sharing and social responsiveness. Market forces have had impacts across university campuses where curriculum, instruction, research, staffing, tuition plans, and many other campus features are expected to be revised on a large scale to empower HEIs to meet market needs.
In spite of this transformation process of neo-liberal policies over the last decade, universities and colleges in both countries are still regulated by the central government in terms of law-making, policy decisions, resource allocation, and execution monitoring. Government maintains its authority in a macro-perspective, while also undergoing a large-scale national restructuring and downsizing process. As the public funding continues to withdraw in accordance with the market formula, universities in Taiwan and China have enjoyed a greater autonomy in decision-making and daily operation levels, with the expectation they become more innovative, creative, and efficient in the long run. Universities are more responsive to societal and student needs as they must meet fundraising agendas dependent on alumni and external sources to offset their public financing deficits. The structure of higher education has been undergoing a series of reforms in order that the system be more adaptive to new social and economic demands.
Overall, higher education reform under market economies has received mixed results in both countries. University education is still considered as a public good rhetorically, but in reality the increasing education costs have put the poor in a more difficult situation and more people have been forced to accept the concept of “user pays”. This is especially the case in Taiwan where universities are more socially relevant and responsive in terms of adapting their education programs and services to the public needs, or even opening up their facilities to the society on a rental-basis.
However, the gap between the poor and rich, and the rural and urban areas has been accelerating, along with greater educational opportunity. Regional discrepancies as well as institutional polarization in education provision between public and private, and leading and regular HEIs have created new agendas for universities to strive for a balance between social equity and economic efficiency in Taiwan and China. The issue merits more attention after both countries joined the WTO and began interacting with more international colleagues and competitors (Chen, 2002.10.17). Thus, their university systems inevitably need to re-adjust into a more flexible form and yet maintain their own educational quality to satisfy individual needs while fulfilling their public mission. Above all, maintaining a traditional heritage and self-identity in both countries despite an overemphasis on the pursuit of a western-dominant, world-class university will be no doubt the imminent challenge of the century.
In sum, both Taiwan and China have attempted to restructure their power over HEIs, nevertheless universities still depend on public funding and, therefore, are prone to comply with public policy requirements regardless of academic autonomy and institutional freedom. Issues such as educational quality versus quality, and efficiency versus equity have been overshadowed by market economies during the last decade in both Taiwan and China.
REFERENCE
Blumenstyk, G. (2002). Chasing the Rainbow: A Venture Capitalist on the Trail of University –Based Companies. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 15, 2002.
Blumenstyk, G. (2001). Knowledge Is a Form of Venture Capital for a Top Columbia Administrator. Chronicle of Higher Education, February 8, 2001.
Chang, Jih-yu (2005.12.26) Focus news: Welcoming the new era of higher education,
accessed on January 4, 2007 from http://epaper.edu.tw/news/941226/941226a.htm
Castells, Manuel. (1991, June 30). University system: Engine of development in the new world economy. Paper presented at the Worldwide Policy Seminar on Higher Education Development in Developing Countries, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chen, Zhili. (2002.10. 17). Historical accomplishments in education reform and development. China Education Daily, Beijing, China.
Chou, C. P. (2005). Neoliberalism and higher education – Cases on New Zealand, Argentina, and the United States. Unpublished report.
Dai, X. X., Mok, K. H. & Xie, A. B. (2002). The Marketization of Higher Education:
A Comparative Study of Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Taipei: Higher Education Publishing.
Dale, R. (2001). Constructing a long spoon for comparative education: Charting the career of the New Zealand Model. Comparative Education, 37,4,493-501
Fang, H.J. & Fan, D. (2001) Reform and development of Higher Education. Beijing:
Tsing-Hua University Publishing.
Tsing-Hua University Publishing.