Blog/publication: Delivering on the promises of tertiary education in low- and middle-income countries: risks, sustainability and inclusion
This blog summarises messages from a chapter in the International Encyclopaedia of Education written by Rachel Outhred and Fergal Turner. The full article can be found here
The benefits of investment in tertiary education have been pitched as threefold. Tertiary education contributes to individual thriving for those who take part. Increased participation can increase the human capital of a country. Finally, it is positioned as contributing to increased social cohesion aligned to values of citizenship and participation. This is the promise of tertiary education, that through the massification of access to tertiary education these benefits will be realised. Over the last few decades there have been increases in enrolment in tertiary education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) and some are nearing massification. This has been driven by the rapid expansion of secondary enrolment. Donors and policy makers are increasingly interested in how to realise the promises of tertiary education.
Against this backdrop we ask, in a chapter in the International Encyclopaedia of Education, what risks need to be managed for tertiary education to deliver on its promises.
To contextualise this question, our article looks at the massification process in three countries, India, Ethiopia, and Peru. All of these countries are in the process of massification of access to tertiary education. Peru is reaching a point of massification, India is on its way, and Ethiopia is beginning the process. What we see looking at these cases is:
Common language used in policies related to expanding access to tertiary education, focused on massification in the service of economic development (our second promise).
Low levels of inter-generational educational mobility, with those whose families attended tertiary education more likely themselves to attend.
Increasing reliance on the private sector to meet the expanding needs for tertiary education.
Looking at these cases, the commonalities between them, and the global backdrop against which massification is taking place in these countries, we then reflected on some of the common risks they face in achieving the three promises outlined earlier. These traps are: a massification trap, an opportunity trap, and globalisation traps.
The Massification Trap
Looking at the history of the massification of primary and secondary education since the beginning of this millennium we can see the risks that the tertiary education sector faces. The primary risk is that the expansion of access outstrips the ability of the sector to increase the supply of quality education. This leads to the provision of education that is of low quality or is not relevant. This threatens the promise of individual thriving, human capital development, and ultimately social cohesion.
Looking at the case of massification of tertiary education in the global north in the post-war period, another risk we see is a shift in the mandate of universities. As massification has occurred there has been a shift toward managerialism, and differentiation. Managerialism has shifted the focus away from the holistic development of young people (see promise one) towards being organs for supplying a workforce to drive economic growth (see promise two). Differentiation has been caused by the need to expand access rapidly, leading to wide gaps between “high” and “low” quality institutions, which has resulted in the entrenchment of pre-existing social and education inequalities in high income countries.
The Opportunity Trap
OECD research into the relationship between inequality and education has found that:
Income inequality is the key factor limiting social mobility.
Income inequality is a limiting factor in access to tertiary education for under-privileged communities.
The lifetime returns on attendance of tertiary education are lower for under-privileged students.
The conclusion drawn by the authors of the OECD research is that in unequal societies, increasing investment in tertiary education can have the effect of reinforcing inequalities. This can be mitigated by the introduction of policies which universalise tertiary education, either through government funding, or the provision of loans to attend university. Without an explicit focus on equity, massification of tertiary education may reinforce, rather than reduce, inequality in society. In cases where per-student investments in tertiary education are much higher than for primary or secondary education, investment in systems which are skewed towards privileged students are particularly inequitable.
The Globalisation Trap(s)
Our three cases were characterised by varying degrees of international mobility. Globally mobility in tertiary education is expanding rapidly, and its benefits for both sending and receiving (outwardly and inwardly mobile) countries are mixed. For receiving countries, the benefits are two-fold. Firstly, universities have become a significant export industry, and international students represent an important source of income for many universities. Secondly, the students who stay after their studies are an important source of skilled labour for host country workforces.
For sending countries, outwardly mobile students can bring benefits and risks. The benefits for the individuals are clearer, the opportunity to travel and study has a range of benefits for individuals. If those students return to their country they can represent a benefit, however there is the risk of brain drain, as outwardly mobile students stay in the receiving country.
More broadly, international student mobility is deeply embedded in its colonial history. The continued dominance of these universities in the global education market and consciousness is important to reflect upon critically. Epistemologically their primacy reinforces colonial notions of the “centre” where knowledge is held, and the “peripheries” where students must leave to gain legitimate knowledge. Practically it can be argued that mobility towards these “centre” universities comes at the cost of developing universities in the global south.
Avoiding these traps
The conclusion of our chapter is that the process of massification is not straight forward, and its link to fulfilling the three promises of tertiary education is not to be assumed. Often these three promises do not sit easily together, and without careful planning a country may achieve none of them. Our three case study countries are in the process of massifying tertiary education against a backdrop of increased globalisation, as well as the enormous disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they have the opportunity to look at some of the lessons which have been learned about massification of tertiary education over the last fifty years. This presents the opportunity to develop systems of tertiary education which equitably deliver on the triple promise of developing individual capability, growing human capital, and promoting social cohesion.
