TERTIARY EDUCATION FOR THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY:

NEW PRIVATE-PUBLIC MIXES

Presentation for Knowledge Economy Forum III:

Improving Competitiveness Through a Knowledge-Based Economy

Budapest

March 24, 2004

Daniel C. Levy

SUNY Distinguished Professor

University at Albany, State University of New York

INTRODUCTION

  1. TOPIC & THEME
  2. title: “Tertiary Ed (TE) for the Knowledge Economy (KE)”
  3. subtitle: “New Private-Public (P-P) Mixes”
  4. “K” commonly seen as public; “E” more as private
  5. but “KE” = fusing p&p
  6. p&p can have distinctive roles in KE
  7. and p&p can also be usefully mixed/ p vs. p
  8. (new p-p mix theme beyond TE to other policy areas)
  9. TE focus here engages first of KE’s “4 Pillars”
  10. Ed & Training
  11. Links to Info, Ec Incentives, Innovation Systems
  12. Geographical focus:
  13. General & CEE but
  14. country’s traditions, values, power structure
  15. though openness to int’l trends
  1. OUTLINE
  2. Quick overview of the private presence in TE

(privatization in public; private tertiary sector)

  1. Private roles in KE

(access; application; public comparative advantage)

  1. P-P Mixes

(privateness in public; publicness in private)

  1. Conclusions

  1. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIVATE PRESENCE IN TE

A. PRIVATIZATION IN PUBLIC TE

  1. big reform agenda (including World Bank)
  2. (though partial/full privatization)
  3. $ = clearest
  4. governance emulate private (management, efficiency, hierarchy)
  5. mission (including KE tie to economy)
  6. but implementation spotty, due to:
  7. convictions about publicness
  8. political resistance
  9. (CEE public TE still mostly public but change, eg tuition & private slots in public universities

B.THE PRIVATE TERTIARY SECTOR

  1. more dramatic change (though less centrally designed)
  2. USA, static, now just average (21%)
  3. Latin America 40%; Asia 0-over 90%; Africa; Middle East
  4. Western Europe = the major exception (though change)
  5. CEE 1-30%, after near zero
  6. for more on CEE PT see

C. THUS

  1. there is major TE privatization and more to come
  2. yet not mostly based on KE reflection
  3. task: let’s think through how to relate privatization to KE
II.KEY PRIVATE TERTIARY (PT) SECTOR ROLES IN THE KE
  1. PRINCIPLES
  1. spectrum: a. all TE = public; b. PT only for what public cannot do; c. PT frees public for its comparative advantage; d. PT does whatever it can
  2. pragmatic focus here (allowing that values can dictate: eg PT for choice, diversity, freedom; public for national unity, standardization)
  3. “KE” = links more than State protection of TE from econ
  1. ACCESS TO THE KE
  1. (saves State $ and public TE access; see D below)
  2. the bulk of PT is “demand-absorbing”
  3. #s = key to society of KE & information users
  4. even for-profit KE consumers (US & int’l)
  5. (tho CEE demographics: so PT from p-p shift/T growth)
  6. yet Bologna ignores PT
  1. KE APPLICATION
  1. applied research & contracts (and research centers)
  2. partnerships with businesses & civil society
  3. curriculum (& pedagogy) tied to job market
  4. fields of MBA, commerce, law, etc
  5. “training” component of KE
  6. new techniques for skills of KE & innovation systems
D.SO PUBLIC TE CAN CONCENTRATE ON PUBLIC/MARKET
  1. ($ and effort)
  2. KE generation: basic research & graduate education
  3. costly fields & sci-tec/private remuneration
  4. KE equity; access for poor (eg helping lower education levels)
  5. PT rarely does much 2-4 on own (needs public subsidization)
E.CONCLUSION
  1. i.e. basic separate KE rationales for p & p sectors
  2. not anti-public
  3. p & p can innovate and serve KE differently
  4. but we can also see new p-p mixes…(III)

  1. PRIVATE-PUBLIC MIXES
  1. BEYOND P VERSUS P SECTORS
  1. can mix privateness and publicness in each (sub)sector
  2. & p-p partnerships
B. PRIVATENESS IN PUBLIC TE
  1. (we saw privatization in public TE)
  2. for KE incentives, innovation, accountability/isolation
  3. (eg US community colleges (p-p mix); KE role/emulate)
C. PUBLICNESS IN PT
  1. (less discussed or pushed in public policy)
  2. most PT = nearly pure private
  3. with KE problems, esp quality & fit to & other public needs
  4. thus, public policy should:
  5. regulate (prescribe & proscribe)
  6. (CEE “delayed regulation”)
  7. incentivize innovation & KE roles PT can do well
  8. while promoting publicness in PT
  9. ie, $ to the rare PT academic leadership (eg Ivys)
  10. + contracts with PT for public purposes

5. but dangers of regulations that homogenize

  1. via public u lobbying & accreditation (eg CEE?)
  2. need to allow PT innovation & differentiation

D. THUS

  1. there are many ways to mix p&p
  2. + many kinds of p-p partnership
  3. p & p TE with State, business, civil society
  4. & innovative p+p within TE (public KE generation & private access with market dissemination)

IV. SUMMARY

  1. both recent tendencies & KE needs mean new p-p mixes
  2. much of this involves privatization in TE/public monopoly
  3. some via privatization in public T
  4. much via growth of PT
  5. yet too little of either is driven by KE reflection
  6. not to seek one central decision for who does what in KE
  7. better to allow private differences & innovation, and incentivize some
  8. (avoiding much persisting p vs. p polemic)
  9. but let’s think through KE roles of
  10. private and public TE
  11. & privateness in public TE and publicness in private TE
  12. and various partnerships across traditional p-p lines