O niemożliwości zaistnienia kapitalistycznych rynków w szkolnictwie wyższym

• Authors: Simon Marginson

Title variants

EN

The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Przez ponad dwie dekady rządy na całym świecie, ukierunkowane na realizację polityki wywodzącej się z anglojęzycznej sfery politycznej, dostosowywały podległe sobie systemy szkolnictwa wyższego do podręcznikowych przykładów postaci rynków. Reformy, w ramach których zachodziły te procesy, obejmowały korporatyzację, wprowadzanie konkurencyjnych mechanizmów finansowania, opłat dla studentów, standaryzacji wyników pracy oraz raportowania jej efektów. Niemniej żaden z krajów nie stworzył autentycznych mechanizmów gospodarki rynkowej w ramach kształcenia krajowych studentów na pierwszym stopniu. Żaden uniwersytet badawczy nie jest kierowany przez interesariuszy, napędzany motywem zysku, zwiększeniem udziału w rynku, efektywnością alokacji zasobów ani nie uważa, by praca odbywająca się w jego ramach przybierała formę towarową. Rynkowo określane czesne funkcjonuje jedynie w odniesieniu do niektórych form kształcenia zawodowego i kształcenia studentów zagranicznych. Podczas gdy zaostrzanie się konkurencji, przedsiębiorczość czy mówienie o konsumentach dominuje w szkolnictwie wyższym, kapitalizm nie jest istotną częścią jego krajobrazu. Co najwyżej mamy do czynienia z quasi-rynkami, jak w przypadku Wielkiej Brytanii po reformach Browne’a. Sytuacja ta różni się od doświadczeń wielu krajów w zakresie prywatyzacji i komercjalizacji transportu, sieci komunikacyjnych, radia i telewizji czy ubezpieczeń zdrowotnych. W niniejszym artykule twierdzę, że autentyczna reforma rynkowa w szkolnictwie wyższym skrępowana jest przez ograniczenia wpisane w istotę tego sektora (dobra publiczne, konkurencja o status) oraz polityczne czynniki powiązane z tymi ograniczeniami. Sugeruję tym samym, że reforma rynkowa jest utopią, a jej abstrakcyjne wyobrażenie podtrzymywane jest ze względów politycznych, które nie są związane z sektorem (np. ograniczeń fiskalnych, potrzeby państwowej kontroli czy porządkowania treści sektora). Jeśli jednak kapitalistyczne rynki są czymś nieosiągalnym w szkolnictwie wyższym, to potrzebujemy bardziej realnego planu modernizacji.

EN

For more than two decades, governments around the world, led by the English-speaking polities, have moved higher education systems closer to the forms of textbook economic markets. Reforms include corporatisation, competitive funding, student charges, output formats and performance reporting. But, no country has established a bona fide economic market in the first-degree education of domestic students. No research university is driven by shareholders, profit, market share, allocative efficiency or the commodity form. There is commercial tuition only in parts of vocational training and international education. While intensified competition, entrepreneurship and consumer talk are pervasive in higher education, capitalism is not very important. At the most, there are regulated quasi-markets, as in post-Browne UK. This differs from the experience of privatisation and commercialisation of transport, communications, broadcasting and health insurance in many nations. The article argues that bona fide market reform in higher education is constrained by intrinsic limits specific to the sector (public goods, status competition), and political factors associated with those limits. This suggests that market reform is utopian, and the abstract ideal is sustained for exogenous policy reasons (e.g. fiscal reduction, state control, ordering of contents). But, if capitalist markets are clearly unachievable, a more authentic modernisation agenda is needed.

Keywords

PL

szkolnictwo wyższe; konkurencja; rynki; reforma rynkowa; kapitalizm akademicki; dobro publiczne

EN

higher education; competition; markets; market reform; academic capitalism; public good; higher education; competition; markets; market reform; academic capitalism; public good

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 1(45)
• Pages: 11-37

Dates

published

2015-12-01

Contributors

author

Simon Marginson

• Institute of Education, University College London

References

• Abbott, M. (2006). Competition and reform of the New Zealand tertiary education sector. Journal of Education Policy. 21(3) 367-387.
• Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). 2011, 2012. http://www.arwu.org [30. 12.2015].
• Ainley, P. (2004). The new “market-state” and education. Journal of Education Policy. 19(4): 497-514.
• Aspers, P. (2009). Knowledge and valuation in markets. Theory and Society. 38: 111-131.
• Bashir, S. (2007). Trends in international trade in higher education: Implications and options for developing countries. Education Working Paper, nr 6, Washington, DC: World Bank.
• Beaton-Wells, M., Thompson, E. (2011). The economic role of international students fees in Australian Universities (PowerPoint presentation). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
• Boer, H. de, Enders, J., Jongbloed, B. (2009). Market governance in higher education. W: B. Kehm, J. Huisman, B. Stensaker (red.), The European higher education area: Perspective on a moving target (79-104). Rotterdam: Sense.
• Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
• Breneman, D., Pusser, B., Turner, S. (2006). Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
• Brint, S. (2002). Higher education in “The age of money”. Paper to a Ford Foundation Meeting on markets in higher education, Tampa, June, Riverside: University of California.
• Brown, R. (red.) (2011). Higher education and the market. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Buchanan, J., Tullock, G. (1965). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan.
• Cerny, P. (2007). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalisation. Government and Opposition. 32(2): 251-274.
• Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Clarke, J. (2007). Citizen-consumers and public service reform: At the limits of neoliberalism? Policy Futures in Education. 5(2): 239-248.
• Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). 2011. Statistics relating to higher education. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/publications_higher_education_statistics_collections.htm [30.12.2015].
• Dill, D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy. t. 10, nr 3-4: 167-185.
• Frank, R., Cook, P. (1995). The winner-take-all society. New York, NY: The Free Press.
• Friedman, M. (2008). Rola rządu w edukacji. W: Kapitalizm i wolność (171-210). Tłum. B. Sałbut. Gliwice: Onepress.
• Geiger, R. (2004). Market coordination of higher education: The United States. W: P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, A. Amaral (red.). Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (161-183). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Gulson, K.N. (2007). “Neoliberal spatial technologies”: On the practices of educational policy change. Critical Studies in Education. 48(2): 179-195.
• Hansmann, H. (1999). Higher education as an associative good. Working Paper nr 99-13, Yale Centre for International Finance, Yale Law School. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
• Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hay, C. (2001). The “crisis” of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in Britain. W: J. Campbell, O. Pedersen (red.). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis (193-218). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Hayrinen-Alestalo, M., Peltola, U. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education. 52: 251-281.
• Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Horta, H. (2009). Global and national prominent universities: Internationalisation, competitiveness and the role of the State. Higher Education. 58: 387-405.
• Lewis, N. (2005). Code of Practice for the pastoral care of international students: Making a globalising industry in New Zealand. Globalisation, Societies and Education. 3(1): 5-47.
• Lomax-Smith, J. (2011). Higher education base funding review. Final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
• Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education. 52: 1-39.
• Marginson, S. (2008). Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and relations of power in worldwide higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 29(3): 303-316.
• Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education. 61: 587-611.
• Marginson, S., Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McMahon, W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Mok, K. (2009). When neo-liberalism colonizes higher education in Asia: Bringing the “public” back in the contemporary university? Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
• Murphy, P. (2012). The collective imagination: The creative spirit of free societies. Farnham: Ashgate.
• Naidoo, R. (2004). Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher education, inequality and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4): 457-471.
• Naidoo, R. (2008). The competitive state and the mobilised market: Higher education policy reform in the United Kingdom (1980-2007). Critique Internationale. 39(2): 47-65.
• Niklasson, L. (1996). Quasi-markets in higher education – a comparative analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 18(1): 7-22.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004). Internationalisation and trade in higher education. Paris: OECD.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society. t. 1 i 2. Paris: OECD.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.
• Podolny, J. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology. 98(4): 829-872.
• Porter, T. (2008). Locating the domain of calculation. Journal of Cultural Economy. 1(1): 9-50.
• Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.
• Samuelson, P. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics. 36(4): 387-389.
• Santiago, R., Carvalho, T., Amaral, A., Meek, V. (2006). Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education. 52: 215-250.
• Shattock, M. (2012). Making policy in British higher education 1945-2011. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. W: I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, M. Stern (red.). Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century (308-325). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, C. (2002). Modern social imaginaries. Public Culture. 14(1): 91-124.
• Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D., Amaral, A. (red.) (2004). Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? Amsterdam: Springer.
• Thompson, J., Bekhradnia, B. (2011). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system. An analysis of the higher education White Paper. London: Higher Education Policy Institute.
• UNESCO (2012). Institute for Statistics. Tertiary Indicators. http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=167&IF_Language=eng [30.12.2015].
• University of Phoenix (2012). University of Phoenix releases 2011 Academic annual report. http://www.phoenix.edu/news/releases/2012/02/university-of-phoenix-releases-2011-academic-annual-report.html [30.12.2015].
• Vedder, R. (2007). Over invested and over priced: American higher education today. Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
• Verbik, L., Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE).
• Williams, G. (1997). The market route to mass higher education: The British experience. Higher Education Policy. 16(3-4): 275-289.
• Winston, G. (2003). Towards a theory of tuition: Prices, peer wages, and competition in higher education. Discussion Paper 65, Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education. Williamstown: Williams College.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/nsw.2015.1.1