Neo-liberal Higher Education in Taiwan - Assignment Example

Neo-liberal Higher Education in Taiwan Neo-liberalism Neo-liberalism is a philosophical stance which asserts that humans accomplish their individualambitions when they have sufficient democratic space. Harvey, in Job et al. (2008), argues that neo-liberalism involves enhancement of individual freedoms and skills for entrepreneurship, which can significantly improve individual well-being. He argues that the State’s role in the improvement of the well being of its citizens is to maintain a strong institutional framework that enhances “strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (p. 1). Neo-liberalism proposes that market-based competition is significant to effective management of human affairs, whereby everything, according to Harvey, is commoditized. Job et al. (2008, p. 1) purport that neo-liberalism holds the view that introduction of market disciplines can eliminate social injustices and therefore government intervention is undesirable. In other words, free operation of the economy needs to be enhanced through encouraging free trade, removal of tariffs and government regulations. Neo-liberalism has also been introduced in other human activities that initially did not apply the market forces, such as education among other public services. It purports that competition and liberalization of the market to support private establishment in offering education increases efficiency (Plant, 2009, p. 92). It led to the emergence of the education market that continues expanding as private entities continue joining the profitable venture (Green, 1999, p. 51). Hatcher (2001, p 37) observes that in a bid to accomplish increased trade and profitability, nation states have removed the barriers to trade such as tariffs, the regulations that govern movements of products and peoples between countries, and legislation as well as other standards that may hinder capital movements among nation states. Countries allow the forces of demand and supply to operate, which has resulted in the further development of market-based economies. Neo-liberalism is characterized by observance of market rules, leading to the removal of some conventional practices such as unionization of labor, which are viewed as hindrances to free flow of capital. Governments reduce public spending in various sectors such as education and health service provision, in order to allow profitable investment by private entities (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). New public management represents a form of neo-liberalism whereby public services are either privatized, reducing government control thereby enhancing profitability and the introduction of capital into the state or, where they are not privatized, they are encouraged to employ strategies such as those used in contemporary private-sector organizations to maximize competitiveness. The market principles and organizational practices have, it is claimed, enhanced planning, adoption of better ways of managing the delivery of services as well as sustainability of government projects (Bradford, 2003). For example, market forces can be applied in the provision of public services whereby the government body that is in charge of the services competes against other players in the field, thereby, it is argued, enhancing the quality of services provided to the public, as well as setting up significant strategies for successful and sustainable management of service delivery. Moreover, the providers are subjected to government and public scrutiny to ensure that they are transparent and accountable for their activities (Vigoda, 2002). Campbell and Ove (2001) argue that New Public Management is meant to enhance effective resource utilization. It is inclined towards elimination of the drawbacks of public service provision through separating political issues from administrative tasks, for example removing higher education governance from direct state control (Campbell and Ove, 2001). According to Vigoda (2002, p 66), the state is viewed as an enterprise that is focused towards customer satisfaction and there are clear performance management strategies. This is different from the conventional approach whereby services were provided through government bureaucracy regardless of the level of public satisfaction. Unlike the previous approach, in which it was assumed that the needs of the public are well known to the government, in the new approach the service providers inquire about consumer satisfaction and develop strategies with consumer needs in mind (Hatcher, 2001). Neo-liberalism portrays such strategies for the management of public resources as the most preferable. With increased opening up of the local market to foreign investors as well as free movement of labor between countries, globalization has been enhanced. Neo-liberalism can be seen as both a facilitator and a result of globalization. Neo-liberalism has enhanced globalization through formation of global organizations that have continued promoting free trade and removal of trade barriers between organizations and these, in turn, promote neo-liberalism. These include the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) among others. For example, the WTO has been significant in opening up foreign markets for developing countries (Kose, 2006). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions have increased as a result of free trade (Mishkin, 2005). In essence, neo-liberalism has significantly influenced globalization in virtually all aspects of human activity. Education has been significantly affected by globalization. Governments have reduced public spending due to neo-liberalism, and have created opportunities for investors to venture in provision of education. The number of private schools has increased in the contemporary states as the neo-liberal approach continues being adopted (Campbell and Ove, 2001). It is argued that, investing in education is just like investing in any other business (Rooney et al. 2005), even though even where governments do not foster for-profit activity in education, they may promote choice between various government and non-government providers to simulate market conditions. The neoliberal perspective is based on the assumption that nations need to be transformed in to knowledge economies whereby individuals acquire knowledge and manage it to accomplish financially viable projects (Hearn et al. 2003 p 67). Rooney et al. (2005, p 88) argue that the knowledge economy draws its principles from the information society. In other words, its roots are based on the knowledge and the skills possessed by individuals, which are vital components of human capital. When people acquire education and the knowhow to accomplish tasks, they are capable of developing an intellectual product that can be traded like any other business product. New knowledge is generated throughout an organization’s lifecycle, which is significant in the accomplishment of organizational goals. The knowledge economy comprises workers who use their intelligence rather than manual work to accomplish goals. A knowledge worker is a person who does things right, i. e. according to the standards of his/her profession and continues to expand the scope of his/her capabilities (Hearn et al. 2003, p 45). This helps in maintaining constant advancement in the organizational capabilities for accomplishing the organizational goals. A knowledge economy is made complete by the application of the knowledge acquired to satisfy people’s needs as well as for them to accomplish social development (Rooney, 2005). The knowledge economy is unique in the sense that it uses a resource that can not be exhausted like other resources, which are usually scarce. The abundance of knowledge is indisputable, and can always be shared to enhance development. Education is therefore seen as a form of capital that individuals need to acquire for their own benefit (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000, p. 71). These arguments regarding the knowledge economy are seen as supporting a neo-liberalist perspective in education. For this reason, neo-liberalism proposes that education should be available in the market for anyone to access. Under such circumstances, the government’s role is to ensure that education made available in the market for any capable individual to acquire. This means that the relationship is a willing buyer to a willing provider of education (John, 2001, p 71). Neo-liberalism asserts the rational choice theory, which is concerned with the role of progressive self-interest at times of decision making (Harvey, 2005). According to this theory, people assess the benefits as well as costs of their decisions and act accordingly. The decisions with the greatest benefits are favored. Education being viewed as an investment, people will be expected to make decisions best when they are not influenced by political interference. The government’s role is therefore expected to be the development of strong policies that enhance the delivery of good quality education services in the marketplace. Since education is not absolutely central to the government’s mission, neo-liberalists such as Hayek (Plant, 2009) propose that it should be accomplished through vertical integration, which means significant changes in the management of institutions such as; setting up performance targets to enhance service delivery and to ensure that the goals of education are accomplished, and decentralization of management which relieves the central government from directly supervising the management of institutions (Gillborn & Youdell, 2000). In certain levels of education such as in institutions of higher learning, neo-liberalists such as Hayek (Plant, 2009) proposed the separation of higher education into commercial and non-commercial divisions. Under such situations, institutions of higher learning have a wing for income generation, which is different from the mainstream wing for which the government shares the cost of education. They are also encouraged to engage in corporate practices whereby they can engage in partnerships with other institutions and also adopt flexible work practices such as non standard workers (Campbell and Ove, 2001). Neo-liberalism emphasizes production and setting of standards that need to be met for success to be accomplished in delivering services to the public. Neo-liberals also proposed financial incentives for the best performing institutions as well as those that have adopted practices that enhance cost cutting. Contemporary institutions therefore ensure that they are able to minimize costs and are usually in a form of competition with others within the state even though they have a common goal of producing graduates to help the states to accomplish their development goals (Hatcher, 2001). However, each institution has its own mission statement. The neo-liberal point of view is that the strategies need to be developed from within while political influence needs to be minimal (Pal, 2001). McLaughlin and Osborne (2002, p 37) observe that neo-liberalism provides an avenue for the privatization of public resources and generating internal competition in the public service. Corporatization has significantly taken over the management of public resources and is viewed as a way of increasing efficiency that the public sector lacks. The neo-liberalist perspective narrows down to the commercial aspect and minimization of the costs of education. Privatization is meant to increase profitability at the expense of the public. Nevertheless, the neo-liberals would presumably argue that this is in the public interest. In essence, efficiency is different from accomplishment of the goals of education. The educational agencies taking up provision of education maintain effectiveness, which is the efficiency that neo-liberals support. Criticisms of Neo-liberalism The ideas proposed in neo-liberalism have adverse effects in terms of the general understanding of “public education” (Campbell and Ove, 2001). Critics such as David Harvey argue that the neo-liberalist approach is prone to inefficiencies such as corruption, which are associated with the application of market based approaches in the provision of public services such as education (Harvey, 2005). There are particular circumstances when the market oriented approach can not apply. For example, commoditization of education has resulted in the emergence of “brief case” educational institutions, which are schools formed by private investors to take advantage of the expanding market for education. Governments fail to set standards for education in the private entities as they avoid barring free investment (Plant, 2009). Lack of regulations leaves the administrators in the institutions to decide what is good for their business regardless of the educational goals (Rhodes, 1996, p. 67). Hearn (2003, p 101) argues continued privatization is undermining government control over public resources, especially schools and universities. The principles of the private sector are different from those of the public service, especially in regard to the inputs and the costs involved in production (Pal, 2001, p 86). Since the private sector is focused on minimizing the cost of production and maintaining high efficiency to realize gains, there is a likelihood of mismanagement of resources when public resources are privatized (Hatcher, 2001, p. 66). There need to be procedures that have rationally been set to protect and to ensure that the public resources are shared equitably and that private entities do not take advantage of the weaknesses resulting from enhanced democratic space to contravene the state policies (Harvey, 2005). In essence, the goals of education are wide ranging (Chang and Ho, 2007). Increasing efficiency through minimizing costs may lead to dissatisfaction among the educators due to inadequate compensation, de-unionizing educators and elimination of their rights thereby arguably lowering the quality of instructions offered to students. Moreover, government control over the cost of education reduces and hence the investors are free to charge what is best for them (Rhodes, 1996). This raises the cost of education making it unaffordable to the poor. Even though the universities are allowed to engage flexible working practices, they do not have complete autonomy as regards making purchases, budgeting, human resource practices such as promotion and training among other motivational activities (Green, 1999). There is rising competition that results from neo-liberalism especially due to the relaxation of trade barriers making it easy for foreign universities to establish branches locally, which leads to the possibility of under enrolment in the near future as the number of universities surpasses the demand. Competition has made it difficult for the local universities to raise funds since the market for higher education is flooded with local and foreign institutions (Dai et al. 2002). There are many critics who are against marketization, supporting education as a means of the collective enlightenment of the society, meaning that citizens are expected to be self sufficient socially and economically once they acquire education, which governments are expected to provide to citizens affordably (or even for free) (Zeichner & Liston, 1996 p. 38). Rooney et al. (2005 p. 91) argue that neo-liberalism results in exclusion and inequalities as regards education. The choice of school in many situations depends on the parents’ capabilities to pay the cost and hence not all people support the marketization of education. Furthermore, Watson and Ryan (2010) note that while higher SES parents are likely to choose the private schools due to their standards, government funding in Australia for private schools fosters a tendency for these schools to choose the students that are presumed to be desirable in their bid to admit the best performers. Admission of some students in the private schools is therefore limited, despite the rhetoric of “choice” even when parents have the ability to pay. In other words, students are not admitted if they do not belong to the “cream group” (i.e. the desirable group of high-performing students). What initiated changes in Taiwanese higher education? Major changes in the Taiwanese higher education system came with the revision of the University Act in 1994, which allowed universities to conduct student intake and also develop their own curricula independently (Chang and Ho, 2007). Further independence as regards utilization of funds was accomplished in 1999 when there was enactment of the law governing the funds for higher education (Chou, 2007). The act allowed the universities to set up their own tuition programs. This meant that fees structures were flexible and the universities could set their own budgets. Strategies for New Public Management were introduced as efficiency was emphasized through cost cutting and increasing revenue for the universities. Cost sharing was emphasized, which means that parents and guardians were to contribute a significant amount of money for education to supplement government expenditure which was expected to decrease (Chou, 2007). Initially, the government provided finances to the students across the board (Dai et al. 2002). Partial grants were introduced for the needy students who are mainly thought to be those from unemployed parents, low income earners, those affected by natural disasters, students from military families as well as those who had exemplary performance in mathematics and sciences. In essence, the educational system changed in terms of finances. Loans were introduced for the students from the low and middle income families, which mainly focused on students to take care of their on tuition fees through repaying the loans after completion (Chang & Ho, 2007). This strategy made education an economic venture rather than a social need. Investors borrow money to invest and pay later once they begin earning profits.  What changes have occurred in Taiwanese system of higher education? The Taiwanese higher education system has undergone significant changes since the mid 20th century when the country boasted only one public university and 3 colleges. Currently, there are more than 150 universities and close to 20 colleges. The enrolment is relatively high, with more than 1.2 million students. There has been a two-fold rise in the number of students joining the institutions of higher education in the last 20 years (Chang & Ho, 2007). However, the marked growth in nation’s higher education is as a result of policies facilitating the increase in private institutions. Decentralization of education in Taiwan in the 1980s is among the changes that have occurred in the past decades. The resulting devolved systems of education significantly helped in maintaining efficiency as the government shifted from control to supervision of higher education (Mok, 2003). Management shifted from the government to the universities, which became autonomous in terms of decision making and control. Scholars in the institutions were able to make independent research given the autonomy depending on their discretion. Denationalization made it possible for the private universities to establish in Taiwan. In 2000, the government introduced funding of the private universities with 25% of the nations finances meant for public universities (Chou, 2007). These funds are offered depending on merit and competence and, according to Lo and Tai (2003, p 147), the government was focused on enhancing performance in the private universities through spending public funds to finance them. The private institutions funded through the public finances are accountable to the Ministry of Education. Marketization and privatization are also significant changes that have helped in reshaping higher education in Taiwan. Even though the government gave autonomy to the universities to manage their own affairs, they are expected to yield maximally, which means that they have to demonstrate competence in offering quality education for financing to. Market oriented approach and privatization are significant in maximizing efficiency due to the fact that education is viewed as an agent of social and economic advancement in the country (Mok & Lee, 2001). Government spending on higher education remains at 21% of the country’s total spending in education, which is relatively high. The government and the people’s perception as regards education have been significant in enhancing development in higher education. It is regarded as an individual’s investment for future career and personal development, which has led to a constant rise in the cut-off points for admission in higher education. The admission process has been made longer and recruitment for admission to public institutions is limited to a few who can go through the process. This means that there are many qualified individuals who are shut out of public institutions due to the standards that have been set by the Joint University Entrance Exam that has a responsibility of selecting the students to pursue further education. The rest are left with the option of enrolling in private institutions (Chou, 2007). The changes in the Taiwanese higher education correspond to the responses of the Anglophone countries as regards the effects of neo-liberalism. There was a general move from government to governance, whereby the policies have become globalized, which is a shift from the conventional system of government that operated through bureaucracy in all the aspects of development and social issues to the new system of governance that involves integrating structures, society and processes to establish the decision making patterns as well as determination of the exercise of power in the public domain (Plumptre and Graham, 1999). Governance is associated with the move to the New Public Management whereby the public sector has become autonomous as regards preservation of efficiency and cost reduction (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). This requires partnerships that can enhance funding and competitiveness in the market. For example, there is a large global market for higher education, which requires institutions to strategize their entry and maximize benefits. Higher education in Taiwan followed the course that education had taken globally, influenced by the neo-liberal approach. Just as in the Anglophone countries, higher education in the country needed to acquire the global standards that enable the institutions to produce qualified graduates who are well equipped with skills to utilize the emerging opportunities beyond political boundaries (Henry et al. 2001). Neo-liberal Response in Taiwan and Western (Anglophone) Countries The neo-liberal response of Taiwan is similar in various ways to that of the Anglophone countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the US, for example, referring to education in economic terms such as referring to it as human resource development (Priestley, 2008). Education is also being promoted through reforms in governance whereby the states’ bureaucracy has been reduced to pave way for more autonomous governance in the educational institutions, as well as marketization of education. The education market is constantly expanding and more private investors are establishing. As in Australia, in Taiwan there is also increased prominence given to the educational standards as well as accountability in the educational institutions, and governments have implemented policies to fund private educational institutions (Chen and Lo, 2007; Watson and Ryan, 2010). The differences between Anglophone countries and Taiwan may be due to the fact that the Taiwanese educational system is not influenced by political interventions as is the case in many Anglophone countries, where governments exercise central control of the national curricula, examinations, performance appraisal of staff, policy development as well as auditing (Priestley, 2008). The Taiwanese system of education, in contrast, has been successful in accomplishing decentralization in the management of funds as well as in matters concerning education such as curricula (Chen and Lo, 2007). For example, proposals for performance based pay of educators in Australia and the government’s influence on the teachers pay in the UK through the threshold payments have not been pursued in Taiwan (Priestley, 2008; Dai et al. 2002). In some Anglophone countries such as England and Wales, technological advancements have allowed teacher surveillance to maintain close supervision of the educational systems. In Taiwan, however, professional ethics are considered to be more important than teacher surveillance in ensuring accountability. The major reason for the similarities in the ways that neo-liberal reform has played out in Taiwan and in Anglophone countries is the influence of globalization, which has led to adoption of common strategies for running public affairs through the new public management. However, Taiwan does not share the commonalities of language and Western culture that exist between Anglophone countries (Baugh and Thomas, 2002). Moreover, the Anglophone countries are ahead of Taiwan in terms of economic development (Dai et al. 2002). These factors may explain the differences between the Taiwanese and Anglophone countries’ experiences of neo-liberalism. How does Taiwan pursue world-class universities? The Taiwanese higher education has undergone comprehensive reviews in a bid to make it conform to world class universities (Ministry of Education Taiwan, 2000) . The reviews are mainly focused on the expansion of the higher education systems as well as improving governance, and they include lifting of martial law in 1987 increased the democratic space of Taiwan, which paved way for implementing reforms in the higher education. Internationalization of the country’s universities was a major government undertaking, which involved encouraging the universities to institute connections with universities abroad through exchange programs and joint research projects. The government has also focused on improvements in the effectiveness of universities through funding as well as promotion of strategic management to enhance accomplishment of the goals of higher education (Mok & Lee, 2001). New public management strategies were introduced to improve the status of universities. Privatization was one of the policies developed to attract funding from non-governmental sources to expand education to international standards. The internationalization of universities began with the Educational Reform Movement in the 1990s, which has facilitated the growth of higher education institutions. The legal limitations that hindered development of the educational system have been relaxed, while on the other hand the system of university admission has become diversified to allow entry of international students. Efforts of the ministry of education are geared towards having one university from the existing ones ranked among the top 100 international universities by 2013. The ministry was also aspiring to have one university ranked as number one in Asia by 2010. Scholarships for the purposes of motivation for the universities were established, and the universities are expected to fall in either of the four categories which includes; teaching, development, profession, community and research. New evaluation techniques that are recognized globally are expected to be used by the universities, such as the Engineering Index (EI), Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index SSCI among others. Moreover, the Ministry of Education has increased its budget for the seven top universities in the country that have a potential of acquiring world class status (Carnoy, 2006). What are the resulting challenges in higher education? Human societies continue developing, which compels them to leave the conventional practices and embrace new strategies. These developments pose a major challenge to Taiwanese higher education since the demands of the society are increasing the competition from other areas for the resources available for development of universities. Generally, societal demands are as a result of human progress whereby with increased enlightenment, pressure groups have emerged advocating for special institutions such as aboriginal learning, special education and other non-conventional institutions that compete for the funds allocated for education. These have posed a challenge to higher education since the state finances that would otherwise be used for higher education are used for other human needs (Chen and Lo, 2007). Human progress increases needs in the sense that the more people become knowledgeable regarding the various aspects of their lives, they realize the gaps that require attention and in therefore further resources must be sacrificed to satisfy these needs (Vigoda, 2002). Such needs that lead to the reduction in the finances available for higher education include; efforts to curb HIV, hunger and global warming among other issues affecting citizens in Taiwan. Such needs could be satisfied and leave the resources for education intact, but the priority of the government and the citizens is to first deal with the threats to human existence (Pal, 2001). Advancements in information technology have led to the emergence of new ways of education delivery, which is affecting the importance of universities, for example in the contemporary educational system, people can acquire education from home and hence the capital invested in universities may end up being underutilized. If this trend continues, universities will lose their clients to individuals offering education through online systems. The continued enrollment of students in online learning is evidence of the growing shift from class-room based education to online education (Huang, 2005). Higher education institutions are emerging at a high rate and there is a lack of effective quality control of university education (Huang, 2005). A major financial challenge was as a result of the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and the aftermath of the economic crunch. With the new approach that is market oriented, the universities were affected by the crisis just like other profit making institutions, which on the other hand affected the capacity of universities to maintain academic staff. Consequently, the quality of education was affected and the society did not get the anticipated benefits from education during the crisis (Carnoy, 2006). There are also constant political influences as new governments come with new opinions as regards university education. Moreover, the universities’ independence is limited by government’s influence. The various campuses have poor management because of the limited democracy. Government rules and regulations are a major stumbling block especially in regard to the restrictions on revenue and spending of public institutions of higher learning (Mohrman et al. 2008). What will happen next to Taiwanese higher education? The development of higher education in Taiwan since 1980s indicates that there is a possibility of further changes especially due to the constant reforms that continue to enhance decentralization, marketization, autonomization and privatization of universities. Changes are imminent especially with the increased technology that has enhanced flexibility in learning. As Huang (1997) observes, there is a possibility of more student enrollment in distance learning programs and an upsurge in the number of universities. The demand for university education is expected to rise and hence the additional institutions will cater for the soaring population of students. The diversification of admission is expected to increase in future to allow more international students, which will be within the efforts towards internationalization of the country’s universities. For example, the Joint University Entrance Exam may be removed through the reforms to allow students to join universities depending on the SAT performance as well as their applications and recommendations. This will increase the number of eligible students to join the universities. Cyber learning is also likely to increase with developments in Information Technology. The impact of neo-liberalism is likely to increase thereby influencing the government to drop its control over universities and allow private investors greater control of the higher education system. However, there needs to be a system to check the quality of education that is likely to be affected by the influx of investors in the education market. Such a drawback may result from more focus on the earnings from the investment than the quality of education (Dai et al. 2002). References Barry G. (2008). Globalization and the Global Politics of Justice, Reiters Scientific Books. Baugh, A. C. and Thomas, C. (2002). A history of the English language (5th ed.). Routledge. Bradford, N. (2003). Public-Private Partnership? Shifting Paradigms of Economic Governance in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Political Science Vol. 36 (5), pp 1005-1033 Studies, Vol. 6 (44) pp 652-657 Campbell, J. L. and Ove K. P. (2001). The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, Princeton University Press Carnoy, M. (2006). “Rethinking the comparative and the International”. Comparative Education Review. p 177-178 Chang, K. W. & Ho, M. S. (2007). “Half-hearted Neo-liberal reform: Analyzing Taiwan’s college tuition policy and controversy”. Education and Social Studies, Vol. 12 pp 67-78 Chen, I.R. and Lo, Y.W. (2007) “Critical reflections of the approaches to quality in Taiwans higher education”, The Journal of Comparative Asian Development 6(1): 165–185. Chou, C. P. (2007). “Beyond University tuition fee: A nationwide on-line survey on university student living cost”. Journal of Education Research, Vol. 154 pp 73-78 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 Gillborn, D & Youdell, D (2000). Rationing Education: Policy, practice, reform and equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Green, A (1999) “Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia: convergent and divergent trends”. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 14(1), pp 55-71.  Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatcher, R. (2001). “Getting down to the business: schooling in the globalised economy”. Education and Social Justice, 3 (2) pp.45-59. Hearn, G., Mandeville, T., & Joseph, R. (2003). Public Policy in Knowledge-Based Economies: Foundations and Frameworks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Henry, M. Lingard, B. Rizvi, F. & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, Globalization and Education Policy, Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon Huang, C. J. (1997). Problems and Solutions on current university education reform. Taipei: Hanwen Huang, F. (2005) “Qualitative enhancement and quantitative growth: changes and trends of Chinas higher education”, High Education Policy 18: 117–130. John B. (2001). Innovation, Entrepreneurship and the Firm: a Post-Schumpeterian Approach, of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, England, UK Job, P., McCollow, J. and Currie, W. (2008). “Who let the Economists Loose in Educational Research?” Symposium: MCC091151 Kose M. (2006). ‘Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal’, WP/06/189, Research Department, International Monetary Fund. McLaughlin, K. & Osborne, S. P. (2002). New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, London: Routledge Mok, H. K. & Lee M H-h (2001) “Globalization and Changing Governance: Higher Education Reforms in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China” paper presented to AARE Conference   Mok, H. K. (2003) “Globalisation and Higher Education Restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China”, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol. 22(2), pp 117-129.   Mohrman, K., Ma, W.H. and Baker, D. (2008) “The research university in transition: the emerging global model”, Higher Education Policy Vol. 21(1): pp 5–27. Mishkin, F. S. (2005) “Is Financial Globalization Beneficial?” Working Paper 11891, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge Ministry of Education [MOE], Taiwan. (2000) List of Projects for the First Round of the Programme for Promoting Academic Excellence of Universities, Taipei: MOE. Pal, L. A. (2001). Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times. Toronto: Nelson Thomson Learning Plant, R. (2009). The Neo-Liberal State, Oxford University Press. Plumptre, T. and Graham J, 1999, Governance and Good Governance: International and Aboriginal Perspectives, Otawwa: Institute on Governance Prasad, M. (2006). The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany and the United States. University of Chicago Press. Priestley, M. (2008). “Global Discourses and National Reconstruction: the Impact of Globalization on Curriculum Policy”, Globalization and Education, pp 1-25 Rhodes, R. 1996. “The New Governance: Governing without Government.” Political Studies, Vol 44 (4), 652-67 Rooney, D., Hearn, G., & Ninan, A. (2005). Handbook on the Knowledge Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B (2010). Globalizing Education Policy, Routledge, London.   Vigoda, E. (2002). “From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens and the next generation of public administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62(4), 527, p.13 Zeichner, K. & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective Teaching: an Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing Watson, L. and Ryan, C. (2010) “Choosers and losers: the impact of government subsidies on Australian secondary schools”. Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 54(1) viewed on 2nd June 2010 at, Read More