This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Del Rosario] On: 30 October 2013, At: 06:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Public Money & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpmm20
Introduction Jane Broadbent & Robin Middlehurst Published online: 21 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Jane Broadbent & Robin Middlehurst (2013) Introduction, Public Money & Management, 33:2, 83-90, DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2013.763412 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763412
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content�) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
83
Theme: Internationalization and private engagement in higher education
Introduction
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
Jane Broadbent and Robin Middlehurst Once an Êlite system dealing with a privileged few, UK universities now have to deal with the challenges of educating many more students. State funding per student has become constrained as the country has struggled to control the increases in costs that the expanded number of students entails. Semiautonomous* universities are therefore looking for revenue streams to bolster increasingly restricted government funding. Two particular issues have emerged as responses to resource constraint as universities and the state have grappled with generating revenue and controlling costs: internationalization and private sector involvement. Both of these are considered here in order to illustrate the context of the theme articles contained in this issue of Public Money & Management. Keywords: Globalization of HE; higher education (HE); HE marketization; HE reforms; internationalization; private providers of HE, resource constraints. Neither internationalization, nor the involvement of private entities in the provision of UK education, are novel initiatives. We argue that the ways in which they have been developed more recently have intensified and have a synergy that may lead to change in the nature of the higher education (HE) system as a whole. Higher educational institutions (HEIs) are seeking to engage directly in more commercial activity, including the provision of education to international students. The UK government is seeking to introduce more commercial acumen and lower cost by enabling wider private sector involvement in the provision of education. Thus we have a commercial imperative arriving from the activities of both parties, albeit in rather different ways. Internationalization UK based activity Internationalization is not a new aspect of university life, although what is meant by *Universities have a level of autonomy but reliance on government funding constrains their autonomy (Broadbent, 2011). This is manifest in a variety of ways, but particularly in control of undergraduate student numbers, limiting the number of home and European Union students that a university can recruit. Š 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION Š 2013 CIPFA
internationalization is contested (De Wit, 2012). Here we consider the education of students from overseas. For many years international students have played a large part in university life in the UK and they have been a source of enrichment of the community and have brought the vibrancy of cultural exchange, as well as introducing intellectual excellence from different nations. While this remains important (for many academics being the main reason for overseas recruitment), overseas recruitment also provides a source of revenue for UK HEIs. In truth, both aspects are significant to universities, but it is the financial aspects of overseas student recruitment and education that provide our focus. Revenue from educating international students is big business for HEIs. Clarification of the nature of HEI funding provided by the state demonstrates the reason. UK HEIs receive a block grant from the state via regional funding councils (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). For many universities the biggest part of their block grant funding relates to teaching undergraduates, and for all universities the teaching funding is important. After September 2012, the state contribution to undergraduate teaching decreased and the
Jane Broadbent is Professor of Accounting, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK and Editor of Public Money & Management. Robin Middlehurst is Professor of Higher Education, Kingston University, London.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2013.763412 PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
84
fee charged directly to students was increased. Students are ultimately responsible for paying their own fees, but the state funds this in the short term by providing loans to students. To control this element of government funding, HEIs are allocated a specific number of undergraduate places for home and European Union students*. These student numbers are therefore regulated; the price that can be charged for them is also regulated. In contrast, postgraduate places and overseas student places are unregulated and the price charged for these programmes is also unregulated by the state. It follows that recruitment of overseas students brings the possibility of increased revenue from high fee paying students. In a sector with high fixed costs, the marginal unregulated income received is very important. The view that overseas student fees are important for the financial health of the HEI sector as a whole and for individual institutions is arguably fair, although some may be offended by the idea of such an instrumental view. It is big business. The worth of the overseas student market to the UK HE sector in 2009/10 was £2 billion, the result of average increases of 10% per annum between 2005/06 and 2009/10 (NAO, 2011, p. 11). Overseas student recruitment does benefit the economy more generally (Conlon et al., 2011), but universities particularly depend on the income from such students. Without the income from overseas students at undergraduate level, postgraduate level and on study-abroad schemes many universities would not have been able to make the investment in staff, research and capital assets that they have been able to do. Student visa arrangements The government policy position on overseas students is nevertheless somewhat contradictory. Political demands to reduce immigration have focused on tightening the requirements to obtain a visa to study in the UK. The government is worried that some would-be immigrants have used the student visa as a means of entering the UK illegally. However, to date, the majority of such abuses have been found outside the publicly-funded university system. The complexity of the pressures on all *University funding arrangements are far more complex than this brief outline suggests, but this explanation deals with the key aspects that impinge upon the arguments in this article.
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
parties can be illustrated by the controversy in the summer of 2012 about the withdrawal of recognition allowing recruitment of overseas students to London Metropolitan University (see www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/businesssponsors/education-providers for detailed information on the nature of highly trusted status). The UK Border Agency (UKBA) claimed that London Metropolitan University was not controlling the international student intake properly. The problem was reported widely in the UK press, as well as internationally (see, for example, www.bbc.co.uk/news/ education-19419395). This potentially affected over 2000 existing overseas students and whether they could continue their studies. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) created a working party to deal with the issue and legal proceedings followed. It has impacted on London Metropolitan University’s ability to recruit overseas students and is arguably impacting on the UK sector as a whole—on 29 November 2012, the ONS recorded an 8% reduction from the previous year in foreign students coming to the UK. Overseas activity Recruiting students to UK campuses is not the only way to access overseas students and engage in international activity. There is a wellestablished tradition of franchising teaching programmes, or of offering programmes of study based in overseas locations. This type of transnational education gives wider reach to access different student markets and many universities have engaged in this type of activity with varying levels of success. Indeed, trend data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) show that there are now more students studying for UK HE qualifications overseas than there are international students coming to the UK to study for such qualifications. HEIs are also involved in validating the programmes of other institutions abroad. Distance learning programme provision also provides a lucrative market for some institutions—the University of London International Academy (previously the External Programme) is perhaps the oldest and most venerable example of an institution providing this type of engagement. Given the success of overseas student recruitment, and the recognition of the potential market for students who are unable to fund study overseas, some universities have now developed their own overseas campuses. To use a commercial language that some © 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
85
academic colleagues may not enjoy, the aim of this type of venture must surely be for universities to develop their ‘brand’ overseas, build their reputation further, as well as to extract value from that brand. For instance, two high-profile examples of HEIs engaging in this type of activity are the University of Liverpool, which has a joint venture in China with Xi’an Jiaotong University, and the University of Nottingham, which has campuses in Ningbo, China and in Malaysia. Opening branch campuses and centres overseas is an international phenomenon with universities from all over the world looking to this type of strategy; the focus is particularly in the Pacific Rim and the Middle East. The strategy of opening ‘overseas branches’ is seen by the UK government as a successful model and it is now being advocated more actively for another area of public services, the National Health Service— for example Moorfields Eye Hospital already has a facility in Dubai. This aspect of internationalization is a step into the patterns of globalization that commercial organizations have already developed with different levels of success. However, as commercial companies have sometimes found, overseas activity can be more financially risky than activity at home (see, for example, an early example of problems investigated by the National Audit Office: NAO, 1998). Equally, maintaining UK quality standards is also a greater risk and is a key concern of the regulatory agencies such as the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA); this body now carries out dedicated reviews of overseas provision. The involvement of QAA demonstrates that some elements of the institutional structure to protect overseas activities are being built in such a way as to enable more of this type of activity while protecting the reputation of UK universities. Commercialization The commercialization of international student education within the existing HE system in the UK is an established element of strategy and practice for many universities. HEIs rely on international student income from a variety of different types of engagement to support the university more generally. Even given the contradictory signals in the way that the tightening of the student visa regulations has been operationalized, the institutional structures are being built in order to support this type of activity and a commercialization of HE provision is now well underway. The implications of adopting a strategy of © 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
providing education to students from overseas opens up a host of questions about the purpose of the university from the point of view of the state. One element for consideration is the reason for the state’s interest in providing university education for its citizens. There is an established debate about whether the university should provide for the needs of industry and commerce or simply be geared to learning for its own sake. Profound as this question is, it is not the central issue that this article addresses. Instead, this argument is rather more focused on the prior question of the purpose of state involvement in HE. While a key role of the state in the provision of HE is one of providing education for its citizens, an alternative view of the role is that of supporter to an ‘education industry’. These two roles are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even when the role of the state is that of providing an environment to support an education ‘industry’, one of its objectives can be the education of its citizens. In these circumstances the state may choose to subsidise this objective. Thus, in the UK, the state has provided funding that has supported the universities in providing HE for its citizens. It has provided support to individual students and funding to build the infrastructure in which they study. The extent of the subsidy for the education of citizens has now come into question with changes in government policy. Nevertheless, there remains a good deal of debate around this point, particularly across the different jurisdictions of the UK. In England, the government has changed the balance of responsibility for paying for education between the state and students seeing the latter as receiving an individual benefit. The outcome has been a near tripling of the fees that can be charged to students, with many universities charging the maximum permitted fee of £9000 per annum for an undergraduate education. Those who see an educated citizenship as important have questioned the advisability of this approach. They argue that although HEIs are autonomous institutions, often with a charitable root, they offer a public service and public benefit. In the UK, there is a deeply-rooted suspicion about making profit from public goods such as education and health. However, there are some contradictions in this stance. While it has still been seen as appropriate to subsidise home and European Union students (even with a £9000 fee, undergraduate students are still being subsidised) for some time now HEIs have been content to charge overseas PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
86
students (i.e. all those students not from home or the European Union) a higher fee. Differential fees were enabled by the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983. The logic driving this was that educating the nation’s population is part of the state’s contract with its citizens. This is not the case for overseas students*. Thus, a market for overseas students has developed and HEIs have been active in pursuing the extra revenue available from this unregulated sector of the market. Because the number of overseas students is not controlled by government there is considerable competition between universities to recruit them. For those regulating the sector, the existing levels of marketization and commercialization of the HEI portfolio makes the moves to develop this ethos a little less extreme than might otherwise be the case. The UK government, albeit a government tempered by the demands of coalition, believes in competition and the primacy of the private sector. It is, therefore, unsurprising that we now have a situation in England where private firms are being encouraged to engage in the provision of HE.
encouraged. Further education colleges have been able to bid for student places to increase their HE provision and enter this market. They carry out little research, thus do not carry the cost of providing research capacity—neither are they funded for it. Thus, this group of institutions has offered programmes to a different cohort of students with lower priced provision, as well as more foundation degree programmes than the HEIs. Additionally, the Whitehall government has sought to consider how private sector institutions might be allowed to enter the marketplace, and commentators have considered a range of policy options (Middlehurst and Fielden, 2011). The extent to which this affects the market place is more complex because a range of different models of provision exist. At the moment, the ‘full-service’ private university is not yet commonplace in the UK, although, in many jurisdictions, private universities are well established and indeed unremarkable. The USA is one nation where the private universities, such as Harvard, are venerable and, indeed, world-leading institutions.
Private sector involvement in HE: competition and cost The increasing cost of HE for the state is a driver of the interest in what the private sector has to offer. As noted above, changes in student support in England led to an increase in home and European Union student fees in 2012/13 of up to three times the level of 2011/12. Because the state still funds home and European Union student fees through the provision of loans, the government has an interest in containing this cost. Increases in this commitment will otherwise increase government borrowing, so regulated student numbers are tightly controlled. For that reason HEIs that overshoot their contracted student numbers are ‘fined’, and have to pay back a lump sum of their grant from the government to compensate and ensure that overall government borrowing is not expanded. The creation of a market is one such response. If the working of the market reduces fees overall, as expected, then total government funding of student loans will also be reduced. A range of new providers of HE has been
Private provision in the UK The UK does have a good number of private providers of education. These operate under a number of different business models and they are seen by the government to offer the potential for lower fees and change in the sector. There is, however, a powerful barrier to entry into the market in that those wishing to offer UK degrees in their own name have to have degreeawarding powers (DAP) or have their awards validated by an existing HEI with those powers. They might also offer non-UK qualifications validated by overseas authorities. This has led to a variety of operating models. Just as some UK universities have developed campuses abroad, so HE institutions from other nations have sought to develop activity in the UK. Some overseas institutions have UK bases, but award qualifications under the auspices of overseas authorities for example Schiller International University, which offers a broad range of programmes using US accreditation. Other comprehensive institutions have their own bases and use a range of accreditations. For example, Richmond American International University has some programmes accredited by US authorities and others validated by the Open University. Some companies have set up as specialist providers. These institutions, for example the London School of Business and Finance, have been
*This is not to suggest agreement with this rationale, but simply to indicate the logical line of this argument. It is interesting to observe that several other continental European countries have since followed suit in charging higher fees to non-EU students (than to domestic students), albeit not as high as in the UK. PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
© 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
87
formed to provide a narrower range of programmes meeting specific markets, usually professional qualifications and degrees often in the area of business, law and accounting. They, again, use a range of validating institutions. The fees charged by these institutions are variable and, while they do not set out to compete solely on price, they are competitive. Often their mission is to teach and they do not necessarily engage in research. This might be seen as giving the possibility of a price advantage to this group of institutions as supporting research activity is expensive. However, as noted above, the lack of DAP, and some difficulties of access to government loans for their students, restricts the entry of these institutions into the market and this is an issue that is likely to continue in the short term. Barriers to market entry Obtaining DAP is not a straightforward matter in the UK. One main barrier for private providers is their need to show a record of operating in the UK for four years, as a part of a range of requirements, to the QAA to demonstrate that they are of a quality to warrant the award of DAP. Earning DAP is difficult, but obtaining DAP will be very valuable to a private sector institution. (It would be interesting to see some research investigating the value of BPP, which became part of the Apollo Group following its obtaining taught degree awarding powers—TDAP.) The difficulty of obtaining DAP in the UK creates a structural problem for the state in seeking to use private institutions to create a market for HE. Entry to the market for this group of institutions is a medium-term venture under current legislation. There is also another problem for private providers and for the state. In order to enable new providers to enter the market without increasing the overall cost of student support, the overall numbers of students obtaining funding through the student loans company, and thus being funded by the state, cannot increase without increasing government borrowing. Thus, if government borrowing is to be controlled, there is a need to reduce the student numbers that are currently allocated in existing contracts with HEIs in order to make them available to new providers. Existing HEIs must therefore suffer a contraction of their funded student places. This has the potential to destabilize many existing HEIs, and the education of the students within them, as they run the risk of financial nonsustainability. If existing institutions fail to © 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
recruit to their student number contract, numbers will be withdrawn and reallocated to the private sector. This has the potential to lead to ongoing instability. There have been discussions between government ministers and representatives of some of the larger international private providers. These have been reported in the press, but the content of these discussions remains opaque. The assumption is that the discussions are related to how barriers to entry might be eased to enable greater private sector involvement. Change is underway Change has already started. As previously mentioned, the long-term providers of professional education, BPP, have earned TDAP and are now called BPP University College. As well as training students to pass their professional examinations in law and accountancy, they now offer degrees in these areas. Regent’s College, a registered charity and established private provider of undergraduate and postgraduate education based in London, with American roots, has also been given TDAP. Previously other UK-based institutions validated its degrees, but it began accrediting its own degrees in September 2012. In late November 2012, it was announced that the College of Law will become the University of Law and will award its own degrees making students eligible for state funding. This will be the first for-profit university in the UK. A number of other private providers already delivering education internationally would appear to have ambitious aspirations to enter the UK market. In short, the UK HE sector is now facing increased levels of international competition. Alongside the Apollo Group, which is the owner of BPP College, two further examples are Laureate International Universities, and the education publisher, Pearson. Laureate Education, Inc. operates across the globe in a number of different ways, offering full service universities and other modes of learning such as distance learning programmes. They already offer online MBAs validated by the University of Liverpool and have announced a partnership with the University of Roehampton for business elearning programmes. Both of these partnerships offer programmes with fees that are less expensive than their on-campus offerings. Laureate have built their network of universities through a process of partnership and acquisition. They are a profit-making enterprise with a socially responsible mission PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
88
noted on their website as: ‘Expanding access to quality higher education to make the world a better place’. Pearson, through Pearson College, offers a degree programme that is differentiated through its design and delivery by a FTSE 100 company. It emphasises its links into the business world. It also emphasises the quality assurance requirements in the UK and describes how it intends to achieve these standards through the accreditation relationship with an English university, Royal Holloway, University of London. The programme is based on a blended learning approach and is highly flexible with regard to the study pattern—it can be taken full time or part time over a range of different lengths of study. Their fees are at the lower end of the range of fees currently charged in the public universities in England. Given their modes of delivery and their modes of operation elsewhere, it is clear that the business models of many private providers incorporate the use of a good number of casual tutors. Many of the programmes, for example, provide an emphasis on e-learning or blended learning approaches that offer the possibility of online working for casual staff. This allows a very economical use of tutor time. Equally, these private universities tend to be very much less focused on a research led mission and do not have to fund such activity; they are geared instead to direct teaching. They offer a narrower set of programmes (and only those with high demand) than the public universities in England. This approach is likely to hold some attraction to a government seeking to cut costs and that is committed to a market model. There are, however, some downsides to the development of private education companies, especially if these companies are able to obtain support from the state for their activities. In the USA, some companies have been criticised following the findings of the Harkin Report (Harkin, 2012), which raised worries about the poor completion rates of their students. In essence this means that the public funding that has been provided to the for-profit sector is not used effectively. It also means that some students who have not completed their programmes of study are left with significant debt for no return. Discussion: an agenda of items for consideration We have argued there is benefit in considering the two different streams of activity; PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
•Internationalization of HE. •The greater involvement of private educational businesses. These two streams of activity are separable, yet have some synergies. They have implications that may be welcomed, but have not been particularly planned at the national level. In coming together, they are creating a greater commercialization of HE provision than we are currently used to in the UK. This is driven on the one hand by the need for HEIs to raise greater streams of income and, on the other, the need for the state to control and, indeed, seek to cut the cost of HE at a time of austerity. To ensure that these new challenges are met, and that the potential benefits are realized, we first must understand them well and this suggests an agenda of items for consideration. What follows provides some suggestions: it is not suggested that these are the only issues, but they provide a starting point. The state’s role in maintaining reputation of UK HE in a global market The two streams of activity we have identified are increasing the pace of development of the current HE system as it engages in commercial activity. The outcome is growing globalization in the provision of HE. If we see the role of the state as providing the environment to ensure the working of the economy (Offe and Ronge, 1982), then it has an important role in developing the institutional structures required to enable that activity. On the whole, the state has supported the activity of UK HEIs in this endeavour by creating institutional structures to support global activity. Currently the state seems to be conflicted as other institutional forces undermine the efforts of HE to build global business. The actions of UKBA in seeking to control the issue of student visas has been controversial and threatens the potential of one of our more successful international business sectors. The position of the UKBA is seen as undermining a successful business opportunity and creating reputational risk for the sector as a whole. There is an urgent need to clarify how the government can support the entry of students who wish to study in the UK without undermining other aspects of its policies. Suggestions are already being made about how those entering the country on student visas could be taken out of immigration figures. Entrepreneurial universities have sought to develop direct overseas activity—exporting their intellectual capital and brand by opening © 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA
89
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
campuses overseas and by offering distancelearning opportunities. The increased risk of such activity will need to be monitored carefully for the sake of the UK reputation as a whole. Continuing consideration of the institutional structures that are in place to protect the reputation of the HE systems and the economic activity that is generated at home and abroad is required. This is especially the case as new providers enter the market. The implications of opening up a market The UK government must control the cost of HE in England, especially in times of austerity. It sees that opening up of a market for HE is one way of introducing choice for students and more competition for HEIs and assumes this will lead to cost reductions. Facilitation of the entry of private providers into the HE market is clearly an agenda item, therefore. New providers currently face entry barriers that protect the reputation of UK HE that the HEIs do not wish to lose, as this will introduce competition from institutions with very different missions. However, there is a need for HEIs to bring in more unregulated income as the UK government continues to reduce funding. This is enabling partnerships with private providers, that will in the medium term enable those providers to enter the market independently. By validating programmes of activity, and by partnering publicly-funded institutions with private sector institutions, the latter can build expertise and reputation that will enable them to build a foundation for a DAP application. The implications of this (both intended and unintended) need to be understood and their consequences explored. It is probable that the current public sector is undervaluing their input into collaborative activity. (It is worth noting that reciprocal learning and exchange is also available through such partnerships in that publicly-funded institutions are seeking to gain commercial insights and expertise as their business expands and income is diversified.) More research to value the commercial premium that will accrue to those private sector institutions is needed to ensure that the intellectual property of the public services is not sold cheaply in order to develop a market place. The benefits of being able to engage in the UK HE market are significant and valuable. Š 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION Š 2013 CIPFA
Protecting students The UK government may well seek to find ways to provide allocations of student numbers to enable English home students to study in private institutions. However, existing interests, including HEIs and the academic trade unions, question whether the private universities can provide the quality of education to match that of the public HEIs. Clearly the example of institutions such as Harvard in the USA demonstrates that high quality education can be provided by private (if charitable) institutions. Experience so far in the UK shows that most private suppliers of education are focused more on the provision of professional education and are not currently as interested in engaging in research as existing HEIs. The professional emphasis leads them to use a higher proportion of part-time faculty who may well also be practitioners. The emergent patterns of education are worthy of study. The impact of this on the nature of the educational experience of students and the consequent impact on the perceived quality and value of UK education needs consideration. Conclusion The internationalization of UK HE and the entry of private providers into the UK market for education are underway. They are the result and the driver of commercialization in the HE sector. This is the consequence of reduced government funding for the sector which is driving HEIs to find new income streams. This brings risks. HEIs have successfully developed commercial activity and the UK’s reputation for HE is strong. It is a concern that the policy-making impacting on HEIs is, as yet, not joined up enough to ensure this remains the case. If the UK is to gain economic benefits by selling HE to overseas nations and individuals, or to open up this opportunity for private sector providers, we should be doing so with knowledge and understanding. We may wish to question whether private providers should obtain this opportunity without some form of payment. (The UK has auctioned off 3G and 4G capacity to telecoms firms for example.) HE should not be frightened of international or private sector competition. However, while the state continues to regulate undergraduate student numbers and limit the budget for student support, PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
Downloaded by [Universidad Del Rosario] at 06:19 30 October 2013
90
they also regulate the market and competition is not free. In particular, the research mission of existing UK HEIs underwrites the reputational position, yet it is costly. It is necessary to find some way of balancing the need to provide lower cost provision and support the world-class position of those institutions that provide a full portfolio of research and teaching. The entry of private providers to the UK market and the increasing internationalization of HE are two phenomena that will doubtless continue to drive change in the HE sector. However, we should not forget that there are other drivers of potentially major change for the HEIs and for current business models arising from international developments in research—such as deeper consortia arrangements between UK universities and international partners—and further international developments in teaching linked to the open access and open source movements. In the latter case, the emergence of ‘Massive Open Online Courses’ (MOOCs) may give rise to new HE businesses and new collaborations between publicly-funded and private sector institutions, as well as adding further layers of competition and complexity to the marketplace. If one puts all these elements together, then the UK HE sector may face larger-scale restructuring of the kind that many other sectors (such as the music and media industries) are
PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT MARCH 2013
undergoing. But this is a topic for another debate—and all contributions to continue and extend the discussion are welcome References Broadbent, J. (2011), Discourses of control, managing the boundaries. British Accounting Review, 43, 4, pp. 264–277. Conlon, G., Litchfield, A. and Sadler, G. (2011), Estimating the Value to the UK of Education Exports. BIS Research Paper 46 (London). De Wit, H. (2011), Globalisation and Internationalization of Higher Education (Greenwood Press, Westport). Harkin, T. (2012), For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.). Middlehurst, R. and Fielden, J. (2011), Private Providers in UK Higher Education: Some Policy Options (Higher Education Policy Institute, London). NAO (1998), Overseas Operations, Governance and Management at Southampton Institute, HC 23 (London). NAO (2011), Regulation of Financial Sustainability in Higher Education, HC 816 (The Stationery Office, London). Offe, C. and Ronge, V. (1982), Theses on the theory of the state. In Giddens, A. and Held, D. (Eds), Classes, Power and Conflict (Macmillan, London), pp. 249–256.
© 2013 THE AUTHORS JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2013 CIPFA