Following the widespread university upheavals of the late 1960s, the universities in the western world underwent a transformation which changed their role from producers of knowledge to producers of knowledge workers.1 As significant contributors to the knowledge economy, universities became not just creators of knowledge and trainers of young minds – i e, agents of acculturation – but major agents of economic growth that can augment human capital and help a nation to compete in the global economy. The phenomenal success of Silicon valley, attributed to the Stanford University in US, led policy-makers around the world to emulate this model in their own countries. An example is the former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad’s grandiose plans to invest $40 billion for establishing a multimedia university to create a latter day Silicon valley in Malaysia, which was among the first nations to privatise its educational system in the early 1980s. With these changes, universities were no longer seen as a moral or cultural force but more as incubators of new industries in a technology dominated economy.2

The revolution in information and communication technologies (ICTs) that underpinned the globalisation of trade have fundamentally affected higher education. Digital broadcasting, the web, e-mail, and other fast and user-friendly ICTs have produced a global market in the teaching and training of knowledge workers. The much acclaimed Phoenix (virtual) university, owned by Apollo Communications reaps an annual profit of $127 million without a campus or a permanent faculty, relying on visiting course instructors and assistants as internet specialists.3 Although dominated by the US, the distant learning market is rapidly expanding in Europe and Australia, with private companies providing the capital investment and universities supplying the academic expertise.

With globalisation, the ideal of the university propagated by Alexander von Humboldt – influential in Europe from the 18th to the 20th centuries – began to erode. This perspective saw the academy as an autonomous sphere insulated from economic pressures devoted to the cultivation of the intellect and the training of young minds. In Europe today, the dominant perspective on the university is the one that sees it not as an end in itself but as a means for acquiring globally competitive knowledge workers, for promoting economically beneficial research, and for transferring knowledge to private business. The new corporate model of the university brings in a battery of administrators who challenge the autonomy of the academy and seek to convert it into a profitable enterprise.8

Similar trends are visible in North America where a new corporate model of the university provides for an increased role of management within the faculty. In the public universities in the US, the faculty share of professional positions has declined from 65 per cent in 1977 to 55 per cent in 1989 and continues to fall. Since management personnel cost more than the academic faculty, the unit cost of higher education rises. The corporate model is highly market-oriented and privileges profitable markets over non-profitable ones.9 As a result, funds are being diverted from traditional strengths like the humanities and social sciences towards professional and technological fields. Market models and managerial logic imply a restructuring and renegotiation of social relations within the university such that teachers and researchers are increasingly being turned into hierarchised managers. The neoliberal polices intensify internal differentiation and stratification within the university such that an entry level professional in certain faculties like computer education could be paid more than a full professor in another field.

The shift from the liberal to the neoliberal model has been accompanied by a shift in the balance of power between the state and the university. The traditional autonomy of the university faculty in matters relating to the academic curriculum and student evaluation is being eroded as the state increasingly considers faculty to be middle-level managers. The collegiate system, which originated in the monastic colleges of medieval Europe, and had evolved into a broadly democratic form of governance, with academics elected as rectors, and deans of faculty and in broad-based senates, is losing out to the new management experts. The idea of an academic community is being replaced by the notion of a market-oriented institution where self-employed academics and part-time professionals from the corporate sector supervise instruction, institute quality control and provide accreditation.

The globalisation of higher education has opened up new challenges for the developing countries to compete in the global knowledge economy. Since a few countries dominate the global scientific systems, and the multinational corporations and academic institutions own new technologies based in the western countries, the developing countries are dependent on the academic superpowers.10 Given the inequalities in the international systems of higher education and the intense competitions between the universities world wide, developing countries are at the losing end. They face a major problem in retaining their share of higher education personnel – students, teachers and professionals alike

– not only in proportional terms but even in terms of absolute numbers.11 India provides a good example: it has possibly the oldest system of higher education in the world, which is also by far the largest among third world countries and its total student enrolment of 5.6 million is second only to the US.12 However, despite around 200 academic programmes in higher education using English as the medium of instruction, it has been able to attract only about 10,000 students from abroad, mainly from developing countries. By contrast, India ranks third among the countries sending its students to the US, with more than 42,000 students studying abroad at one time. The so-called “brain drain” has been a long-standing problem of Indian education. A large number of Indian students who study in the US or other western countries don’t return home, despite the fact that elite Indian universities can claim to be of international standard.13

Social science research and teaching in Pakistani universities presents a bleak and depressing picture of the erosion and fragmentation of national human capital. As Akbar Zaidi has argued in his recent book on the “dismal state of the social sciences in Pakistan”, “The ‘crisis of governance’ in World Bank parlance, is manifest in the visible demise of the public sector educational and research institutions in Pakistan”.14 One of the significant factors which led to the demise of public sector in higher education is the imbalance between the quantitative expansion of higher education and the mechanisms for maintaining qualitative control.

Since Pakistan inherited a thin educational infrastructure from the British colonial state, there was an urgency to create a postsecondary system of education.15 At the time of Partition in 1947, there were more than two dozen colleges and technical institutions but only one university in the provincial capital of Punjab, the Punjab University, Lahore. Four years later, the number of universities for general postgraduate education in the social sciences and humanities had increased by three, with two having been set up in Karachi and one in Peshawar. In the early years of the “decades of (industrial) development” in Pakistan during the 1960s under the military regime of Ayub Khan (1958-69), two professional universities were opened for engineering and agriculture, along with a federal university in Islamabad in 1965. The government also tried to reform the educational institution by implementing the recommendations of the Sharif Commission with limited success.16

The populist government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) responded to the popular demands for mass public higher education, and started seven more universities in Sindh and southern Punjab, irrespective of the depleting budgetary allocations for higher education. To promote high quality research in science, engineering, agriculture, biotechnology and psychology, nine centres of excellence and seven area study centres were created through an act of parliament in 1974 in the provincial and federal universities. In the same year, under the federal education minister, a controlling authority formally known as the University Grants Commission (UGC) was put in place to regulate and coordinate inter-university affairs, along the lines of similar institutions in India and Britain. As an apex institution to monitor the quality of university education, the UGC was given the task of disbursing funds to the universities in coordination with the ministries of education and finance.

With the advent of the economic liberalisation policies of the 1980s in Pakistan, there is a visible shift in policies of the state

Economic and Political Weekly December 9, 2006 indicating a clear preference for professional education. Six new public universities in science, technology, engineering and agriculture were opened. The Seventh Five-Year Plan aimed to increase the number of students in technical and vocational schools to over 33 per cent by increasing the number of polytechnics, commercial colleges, and vocational training centres. Although the reform did add to the number of technical schools in the country, there is still a need for further expansion of vocational training at various levels of post-secondary education today.

Private educational institutions reappeared on the Pakistan scene in the shadow of the policy of denationalisation of public sector institutions implemented by the military regime of Zia ul Haq (1977-86). Aga Khan University made a head start in health education with the financial support of the Aga Khan Foundation. And the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) was established with the financial support of industrial groups of Lahore to offer postgraduate education in business and computer education. With the privatisation of primary education, English returned as the medium of instruction, along with the freedom for private elite schools to deviate from the curriculum of state-run schools system. However, in state-run schools and colleges, the imposition of Urdu as a medium of instruction was accompanied by strict adherence to an officially prescribed curriculum imparted through official textbooks.17The political and social consequences of this dual educational system far exceeded the original intentions of the advocates of the privatisation of education.

In the Eighth Five-Year Plan in 1992, the government reiterated the need to mobilise a larger share of national resources for financing education.18 In a bid to decentralise the educational administration, it planned to transfer control of primary and secondary schools to non-government organisations (NGOs). The Eighth Five-Year Plan also aimed to gradually withdraw government control over higher education. But public universities in Pakistan have worked largely under the shadow of the federal ministry of education and finance, which is not directly concerned with facilitating quality research and teaching. Since they accounted for about 67 per cent of the total government funds provided to universities, federal grants became a convenient tool for undermining the autonomy of the universities. The Universities Act of 1974 had already given autocratic powers to vice chancellors, and also entitled the government to control the university administration.

On average, a new university has been started every second year since 1947, irrespective of the capacity of the new institution to deliver quality education. Despite the fact that quantity was prioritised over quality, demand has far exceeded supply.19 According to a recent official estimate, “University level enrolment has expanded almost 100 per cent, compared to a 35 per cent increase at college level over the past four decades”.20

In contrast to the marked increase in the demand for higher education, every year the federal budget allocation for higher education has declined. For the development of human capital, the state relied on student imports from international educational institutions in the UK and the US, while letting Pakistani higher education deteriorate. The increase in research costs also affected the quality of research and teaching, as little money was available for improvements in facilities: Eighty-five per cent of the university budget is spent on salaries and allowances, 10-15 per cent is left for other institutions, and virtually no funds are left for research, libraries, equipment, chemicals, and glassware.21

40 million students “taught by poorly qualified, poorly motivated and (no surprise) poorly compensated faculty”. It said that unless bold actions are undertaken to “train and retain” the best brains, the ability of developing countries to compete in global business will continue to be undermined by more competitive educational systems.

The report was presented in February 2003 at the Aga Khan University in Karachi and at LUMS in Lahore, in an assembly of international organisations, academics and government representatives. The principal authors of the World Bank and UNESCO report of 2000, Henry Roskovosky and David Bloom were also present. For David Bloom, the task of strengthening higher education in Pakistan was rendered more difficult by its poor health and education indicators and the burgeoning deficits in government spending and foreign trade. “A natural step”, he argues, “is to devise ways to use available resources more effectively”. The suggestions for managerial reforms are made with strong recommendations for a “science and technology base”.

This international report on higher education forms the basis of the report of the Task Force on the Improvement of Higher Education, which was instituted by the new military government of president Pervez Musharraf (1999 to date) to restructure the higher education system in Pakistan. According to its terms of reference, the Task Force was supposed to “recommend ways of improving higher education in Pakistan”, and to “identify ways and means of funding higher education in Pakistan, including new approaches for financial sustainability”.27

Critics of this reform process see “striking similarities and near universal nature of the reform proposals in countries with diverse cultures and educational traditions” as pointing to a common agenda of change: Neoliberal economic ideology and globalisation have been cited as the bases of the current push towards restructuring of public institutions. Corporatisation of public universities is being seen as a global agenda that will make higher education amenable to international trade in higher education.28

The membership of the Task Force, and of the subsequent Steering Committee on Higher Education (SCHE) set up to implement the recommendations of the Task Force, indicated the basic orientation of the current reforms. While the heads of two elite private universities acted as the co-chairs of the Task Force and the SCHE, there was a token representation of vice chancellors from the public universities, who are usually politically appointed administrators rather than practising academics.29

The report of the Task Force, which provided a blue print for higher education reforms, makes for provocative reading. It summarily dismissed the existing higher educational infrastructure without adequate analysis. The “Effectiveness of Higher Education in Pakistan” is assessed in two paragraphs, with a quotation from a study by a consultant of the Task Force who painted a deplorable picture of Pakistan public universities. These fleeting observations are buttressed with statistics provided by the UGC on the demographics of higher education in Pakistan. In 1996, “of a population of 140 million, only 2.6 per cent of the age cohort of 17-23 years (less than 5,00,000 persons) were enrolled in the colleges and university of Pakistan”.30

In the next two paragraphs a laundry list of “Past Educational Policies and Plans” is cited, with quotes from the report of the Commission on National Education of 1959, without even a passing comment. An analysis of “the outcome of policies and five-year plans” is readily furnished by drawing on a paper prepared by the chairman of UGC for the Task Force, which provides a ready-made “Conclusion”. The universities suffered from inadequate funding due to low priority given to education in national development. Most of the recommendations made by past educational commissions and reiterated in five-year plans to improve the administrative and academic functions have not been put in place. “Sadly, whatever funds were available to the education sector were used for quantitative expansion and not for qualitative improvement.”31

Despite its lament that “since the planners have never been able to estimate the country’s needs, the institutions of higher education have had no guidance for defining goals”, the Task Force makes no attempt to assess the supply and demand for higher education in Pakistan. No reference is made to base line studies of the problems in public sector universities, except brief extracts from the reports of the past educational commissions in the appendices. The section ends with the “Establishment of the Task Force” and its activities. A “Vision Statement” resembling a high-minded corporate document is offered, along with a schedule of meetings held by the Task Force.

Section Two, which includes a “Situation Analysis”, starts with a statistical appraisal of “Systems of Higher Education”. A review of “Higher Education in Private Sector” provides a rationale and as well as a model of good governance in higher education. With 18 universities and nine degree awarding institutes in the country, the government’s Education Sector Reforms Action Plan for 2001-04 envisages an enhancement of the share of enrolment in private sector universities from the current 15 per cent to 40 per cent by the year 2004. This is to be achieved “through the pursuit of liberal policy to encourage the establishment of new institutions of higher education in the private sector”.32 The new dispensation privileges a “corporate model of higher education” which will not only deepen educational inequalities – the poor will be increasingly unable to improve their lives through education – but will also lead to a disproportionate investment in science and technology at the expense of the social sciences and humanities.

Identifying “politicisation” and “inadequate funding” as the key factors responsible for the poor quality of higher education in public universities, the report of the Task Force on Higher Education suggested measures to diversify the resource base of public universities in order to attract high quality faculty and generate research.33 However, by its own admission, the problem of inadequate funding has already been solved by raising the tuition fee. According to the report, the “structural problem” lies with “archaic financial management” rather than with inadequate funding as such.34 The section concludes with an argument for freeing the universities from “political, governmental and bureaucratic or other extraneous influences”, which freedom is to be earned through financial autonomy. That the current reforms in higher education intend to privatise public universities remains implicit and unclear. The effects of the withdrawal of public expenditure on higher education on the lower and middle-income groups are conveniently ignored.35 It is also assumed without sufficient evidence that improvement in higher education will have a trickle-down effect on the lower tiers of education.

Economic and Political Weekly December 9, 2006

The current process of institutional reforms initiated in 2000 to improve the quality of research and teaching in universities and colleges, led to the replacement of the UGC with a much larger body of academics, technocrats and management professionals called, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in 2002. A Federal Model University Ordinance was also promulgated in the same year to restructure higher education in Pakistan.36

Public universities have provided the locus of much of social science research and publication in higher education in the country. Journals and books are the primary indicators of research activity. Most of the studies of higher education research in social sciences in Pakistan pointed to its dubious quality, with isolated exceptions of individual achievement. Of the 25 national research journals cited by Akbar Zaidi in his review of social sciences research and teaching in Pakistan, not a single one is refereed. Most of them are “university affairs”, meant to facilitate the promotions of university faculty.37

Until recently, the funding for higher education remained abysmally low at 2.3 per cent of GNP, which is much lower than the 4 per cent recommended by UNESCO. This has resulted in decline in the quality and quantity of higher education research. The Task Force, Study Group and later the Steering Committee on Higher Education have all recommended an enhancement of government funding. Funds are badly needed for improving recruitment and retention of competent and qualified faculty; developing infrastructure for research; providing adequate library facilities including electronic access; and for maintenance and refurbishment of the physical facilities of universities.38

The HEC’s Research and Development Division is responsible for developing and carrying out research programmes and projects. It also offers scholarships that support research in science, technology and social sciences. In April 2001, HEC announced a grant of Rs 600 million to promote research in higher education, and an increase in PhD allowances for the university faculty to Rs 5,000 for sciences and Rs 1,500 for the arts and social sciences.39 Through the efforts of HEC the special grant for “promotion of research in universities” has been enhanced from Rs 47 million in 2002-03 to Rs 270 million for the year 2003-04.

To strengthen research in higher education, HEC has launched several programmes to provide university faculty a chance to improve their qualifications. One such programme is the “indigenous PhD fellowship programme”, under which 1,000 PhD scholars are to be enrolled each year in Pakistani universities. To ensure quality of supervision, HEC has selected a pool of more than 170 supervisors who are provided funds to purchase equipment and necessary supplies and have access to more than 16,000 research journals made available through the digital library programme.40

However, as critics of HEC have pointed out, improvements in the quality of higher education can only come about if all levels of university education are uplifted. The pre-university education system, which provides the basis for university education is outside the purview of the HEC. The ministry of education, which controls primary, secondary and post-secondary education in the provinces, works independently of the changes in the structure of university education. Unless there is an active collaboration between the HEC and the ministry, no long-term changes can occur in the higher education system in Pakistan. The hasty plans to expand the number of doctoral students and increase the honorarium paid to supervisors have led to a situation where some supervisors are reportedly taking on dozens of PhD students, irrespective of their capacity to supervise such a large number.

Appendix

This note does not deal with the more “regional” aspects of state policies on higher education in south Asia that persist in the age of globalisation and the knowledge economy. As a reminder of the continued presence of these aspects of state policy, I am reproducing below an official notice from the former University Grants Commission (UGC) which was circulated among all faculty members in public educational institutions in Pakistan in October 2001. The circular actually named a specific researcher, but I have changed the name here to a fictitious one.

University Grants Commission Circular, No D 1783/2001-IC.V, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education, Islamabad, dated October 12, 2001.

Economic and Political Weekly December 9, 2006

Notes

Education, 13/4 (nd)

Economic and Political Weekly December 9, 2006