Emerging countries need world-class universities

By Simon Marginson. All tertiary education systems face the problem of breadth and depth. More specifically, where should they strike the balance between extending tertiary participation across more of the population in good institutions (breadth), and building the scientific firepower of a small number of outstanding research universities so that they rise in the global rankings (depth)?
Naturally everyone wants both. Equally naturally, resources are scarce and at any given time governments must determine the next investment. Strategies vary. Nations might try to go broad and deep at the same time, like China. Or system building might alternate between a breadth phase – in which many new institutions are built and overall rates of participation are pushed sharply upwards; and a depth phase – in which priority is given to world-class science.
The dilemma is especially acute in developing countries. Resource shortages and other urgent priorities force them into an ‘either-or’ rather than a ‘both and more’ approach. Breadth tends to take priority, if only because universities in the research rankings seem out of reach of nations with a per capita income of less than USD$10,000 per year. The exception is China, which combines a large pre-modern economy with global cities and industrial might.
No golden development path
The political implications differ in each case. Breadth promises to fulfil the aspirations of a much larger proportion of families and lift economic capacity across the board, though only if graduate labour is used effectively. Depth – globally recognised universities – speaks to national pride, industry innovation and the desire for a position near the front row of the global grid. Rightly or wrongly, universities in the rankings are seen as an essential marker of national capacity and preparedness for the technological and economic challenges ahead. Nations give different answers depending not only on economic policy but cultural values. There is no single answer, no one golden development path.
Some nations place a very high priority on building national universities with the gravitas of national banks, peak institutions for leadership training and social selection. There was a long tradition of such institutions in the Confucian world, prior to the modern university with its Humboldtian forms. All East Asian systems are crowned by institutions of this kind: Peking and Tsinghua in China, Tokyo and Kyoto in Japan, National Taiwan University, Seoul National in South Korea, and Hong Kong University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong – not to mention Singapore National University in South East Asia.
These institutions are now expected to be not just nationally dominant but globally prominent. They lead tertiary education systems going from strength to strength. Korea and Taiwan have the world’s highest tertiary participation rates. The Asia Pacific has 25 universities that produced over 4,000 science papers in 2005 to 2009 and had more than 10% of those papers in the world top 10% in their field. Western Europe and the United States each have twice as many such universities, but there is no doubt East Asia is catching up. The peak institutions in the US also tower over the rest.
Interestingly, both the US model and the post-Confucian model are characterised by high rates of participation by international standards. They combine breadth with depth, though only up to a point. If they have a flaw it lies in the long tail of private sector institutions lacking status and resources. Still, if the peak institutions were weakened, this would be unlikely to broaden participation or improve quality at the bottom end, though it might lift the status of upper middle institutions.
Other nations place a larger emphasis on broad-based capacity. This was long a strength of Germany, with many world top 500 research universities, excellent technical universities and on-the-job training, and a modest number of top 100 universities. The Excellence Initiative signalled a change in the balance, with a new emphasis on research concentrations.
Greater emphasis on depth
One common feature of policy in this period, almost everywhere, is a greater emphasis on depth. It is hard to say whether this has been fostered by global rankings, which began in 2003, or has catapulted the rankings into prominence. What is clear is that ‘world-class’ universities will not go away. Policy experts from the developed West often advise developing country governments to eschew the dream of world-class research universities and concentrate on lifting participation rates and standards. There is an obvious realism to this, but it begs the question: When does the aspiration kick in? There is also a hint of condescension: "Leave the science to us, get your basics right, and one day you’ll be ready to join the main game. When we say so."
Unsurprisingly, many policy leaders in emerging countries are not interested in waiting that long. And they have the example of East Asia to encourage them. If China or Korea (and before them Japan) had waited to be told they were ready for universities of Western European standard, they would still be waiting.
The example of East Asia reminds developing country aspirants that to achieve both broad-based tertiary participation and research science, they must have economic growth and modernisation. East Asia has achieved world-class finance and industry as well as world-class tertiary education. You cannot create leading universities out of nothing. Arguably, emerging countries should not use global rankings as a benchmark of national university performance until they are ready to do so, when the top 500 can be reached within the next generation. But nor should they suppress the evolution of their own capacity in global science.
In future years, the absence of global science capacity will be an increasing handicap. Nations unable to interpret and understand research – a capacity that necessarily rests on personnel themselves capable of creating research – will find themselves in a position of continuing dependence. The ambition for world-class universities is not a superficial or elitist whim. It is an entirely valid aspiration.
* Simon Marginson is a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne, where he works at the Centre for the Study of Higher Education. His most recent book is Ideas for Intercultural Education, with Erlenawati Sawir. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, November 2011.