“The time is now for public-private partnerships in higher learning”

Can Thailand become a research and development and higher learning hub
for Southeast Asia? Of course, but not without serious change to the
way higher learning is structured. To achieve a knowledge society for
the Kingdom, we must face a hard truth: Our universities and the way
they are structured, governed and operated need to change, and
now.

The World Bank’s new report on higher education in Thailand, “Towards A
Competitive Higher Education System in A Global Economy”, confirms
this, saying the system faces real challenges in governance, quality,
financing, and its relationship to the private sector. Yet to build the
architecture to support world-class higher education and research and
development, we must consider new solutions to facilitate the
investments that already cash-strapped governments can seldom afford.
Thankfully, a promising solution is at hand: Public-private
partnerships (PPPs)

A PPP is a venture funded and operated through a partnership of public
and private-sector interests. Such an interface allows a private-sector
firm to assume responsibility for a mission, for example as a service
provider, while maintaining public accountability for essential aspects
of service provision.

The growing importance of private-sector engagement in Thailand was
highlighted by the prime minister during his keynote address at the 6th
Asean Leadership Forum in Bangkok on June 19 2009, when he spoke on the
importance of PPPs for Thailand and Asean. The Thai government has made
it clear it wants to see Thailand, and Bangkok in particular, become a
regional education hub. PPPs should be an essential part of this mix to
create a new model of higher learning for the 21st century – hopefully
emanating from Thailand.

According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), private
financing of higher learning is now a global phenomenon. There are many
indications of a transformation of the relationship between
universities and society that also affect universities’ “publicness”,
or public mission. A number of countries are now using market or
quasi-market mechanisms in the external and internal governance of
universities. In addition, the profusion of distance and cross-border
education is fuelling a rise of private non-profit and for-profit
higher learning providers in certain regions and countries. In Asia,
competition is ratcheting up, and we are now witness to a rise of the
continent’s universities fuelled by unbridled and highly creative
funding mechanisms.

Consider the following recent developments. In the Gulf States,
hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to open branches of top
US and European universities, such as Cornell in Qatar and the Sorbonne
in Abu Dhabi. Late last year, the new King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology opened in Saudi Arabia with a $10 billion
endowment fund that exceeds that of all but five American universities.
In China, the nine universities known as “The C9” receive supplemental
government funding to enhance their competitiveness and become China’s
“Ivy League”. In India, the Education Ministry announced its intention
to build 14 new universities of “world-class” stature. The Indian
government also approved a bill to allow foreign education providers to
set up campuses in India and offer degrees.

Meanwhile, many governments are experiencing difficulties in providing
funding sufficient to accommodate growing numbers of students and
support costly research facilities. In an era marked by global
competition for students and academicians, the maxim is now on proving
value for money, relevance, and quality and excellence in research.
Public-private arrangements can overcome limitations in public funds to
cover investment and increase the quality and efficiency of education.
Introducing the private sector into higher learning also brings
management efficiencies in areas such as marketing, finance, HRD, and
employability of graduates.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group,
which is actively engaged in private education, concurs. The IFC
maintains PPPs should be used to: Support socially responsible and
sustainable development through for-profit and not-for-profit
institutions; expand access to quality education to all income groups;
introduce innovative means of financing and delivering education
services; improve quality standards in education; help students and
institutions obtain access to financial support; and complement public
financing and provision to achieve public education goals.

When the concept of PPPs was hatched more than 25 years ago, it was
strongly contested. Now PPPs are found in the public domain in many
countries, and their number has been rapidly increasing in recent
years. This has resulted in a marked increase in cooperation between
the public and private sectors for the development and operation of a
wide range of economic activities, including education.

Over time, misconceptions have been debunked, including the notion that
private education does not hold a public mission. Clearly, PPPs are not
the same as privatisation. Furthermore, entering into a PPP does not
mean the public sector loses control over educational services.
Public-sector employees need not lose under PPPs and the cost of
services will not necessarily increase to pay for private-sector
partners’ profits. Well structured interface agreements can include
numerous partners to produce multiple-win scenarios.

Conformity and uniformity are anathema to the mission of universities.
Indeed, successful higher learning systems give autonomy and
flexibility to universities, and promote constructive competition and
excellence – to attract the best minds for research and development.
India and China know this and are actively and successfully promoting
PPPs in higher education. In the US, some non-profit higher education
institutions are now teaming up with for-profit partners. Such joint
ventures enable universities to tap into capital markets to fund
academic programmes and research without ceding control.

Thailand too can avail of the expertise existing in the private sector,
and benefit by positioning itself as a regional leader. The next stage,
however, must entail vastly increased investments and comprehensive
public and private synergies in higher learning to catalyse Thai
competitiveness. With the right political will, the country can realise
its vision and become a research and development and higher learning
hub for Southeast Asia. But the time for PPPs in higher learning is
now.

Source:
The Nation.