International Journal of Lifelong Education
Volume 32 Number 5 2013
Higher Education and the State: changing relationships in Europe and Asia.
Edited by ROGER GOODMAN, TAKEIHO KARIYA AND JOHN TAYLOR
Symposium Books, Oxford Studies in Comparative Education: Oxford, 2013, pp.269.
Flexicover. £28.00 ISBN 978-1-8739927-2
Books which emanate from Conference Proceedings usually have both strengths and
weaknesses. This study is no exception.
To begin with the strengths. There is an impressive range of contributors, most of them
senior and experienced in both policy and leadership positions. Without exception, the
papers are erudite, reflective and well-informed (though one or two are top heavy with
statistics, tables and graphs-and correspondingly light on analysis, let alone theorisation).
The book has four sections, plus an Afterword: an Introductory section; and then a section
each on the United Kingdom; Continental Western Europe; and Japan and Korea. Generally,
the papers demonstrate with clarity and in detail the historical and cultural contexts within
which state and higher education structures and practices have developed.
I was struck by the authors’ emphases upon the similarities and continuities between all
these societies, in terms of their higher education dilemmas. Or perhaps we should say,
following Takehiko Kariya, its ‘trilemmas’, which he defines as the difficult, if not impossible,
tasks of servicing ‘the divergent goals of equality, quality, and cost-bearing’ (p.217). Ivor
Crewe, in his elegantly written and convincing chapter on ‘State-Academy Relations in the
United Kingdom, 1960-2010’, makes a similar though more expansive point. He writes of the
‘state’s ceaseless attempt to reconcile inherently irreconcilable objectives for a mass higher
education in a liberal democracy with a market economy and competitive party system. This
fruitless quest has led to an unremitting shift in the balance of power from the Academy to
the state..’(p.79).
The globalised influences of neo-liberal, utilitarian ideology are universally recognised in this
collection, and generally regretted if not abhorred. The rapid expansion of both HE student
numbers and research funding in most of the systems considered are generally viewed more
positively, although all the contributors point to the range of serious problems arising.
Generally, the tenor of the collection is one of resigned pessimism. (Even the ever-optimistic
David Watson seems a little more jaundiced on this occasion). Paola Mattei, for example, in
her interesting and perceptive analysis of ‘Reforming Italian Universities’, concludes that
despite valiant attempts at reform of Italy’s notoriously problematic HE system, ‘the Italian
university system is still affected by low performance; it is underfunded, with levels of
spending below the OECD average. It is dominated by unclear accountability structures, and
resistant to government pressures to redesign its governance structures’ (p.166). The HE
system’s ‘dynamic conservatism’ (p. 153) has prevented meaningful reform.
Before attempting to identify some of the book’s weaknesses, attention should be drawn
briefly to three other chapters which I found especially interesting. John Taylor’s scenesetting chapter was a clear, concise and reliable overview of the territory: a fitting editor’s
introduction. I also found Hubert Ertl’s chapter on Germany very enlightening, not least in his
detailed delineation of the impact of the impact of the Bologna process and the related
changes (and generally improvements) in the German HE system. Finally, Terri Kim’s
chapter on Korea provides a detailed, critical analysis of a society in a hectic and dynamic
phase of growth and transformation which yet demonstrates surprising continuities in the
relationship between the state and higher education. She concludes her paper with one of
the central questions arising from this study as a whole (but which remains unaddressed
elsewhere): to what extent if any are universities ‘now actually able to provide an
independent alternative voice to that of corporate interests and the state?’ (p.255).
There are then many strengths to this collection; but as noted there are, too, weaknesses.
Some of these are inherent in the nature of the exercise. Why are these three areas singled
out for study? Why, for instance, no BRIC countries-or for that matter, no USA? More
specifically, what is the rationale for the outlier chapter on Korea (excellent though it is)? No
attempt is made (perhaps wisely) by the editors to provide such a rationale.
Similarly, there is no real attempt made at even a generalised comparative framework. The
collection is, in effect, three discrete sections, each with loosely inter-connected papers,
prefaced by a (competently constructed) introduction.
Thirdly, the title is arguably a misnomer. The book is not really about the state and HE: it is
about policy and HE. These are two different conceptual spaces. There is a whole political
science literature about the ‘nature of the state’ - a contested concept - which is not alluded
to here, nor are there many, if any, references to the relevant texts.
Finally, there is a strangely fatalistic tone to the collection- perhaps illustrative of the
somewhat gloomy times. It seems to me significant that there is little discussion of the
radical, counter-cultural and innovative aspects of HE development over the last 20 or 30
years; and for readers of this journal it is worth noting too that I could find no references to
lifelong learning. (It is, however, hard to be certain of this latter point as the book has no
index - see below).
Given the overall tenor of the collection, Ronald Dore probably hits the right note in his brief
Afterword when he notes the ‘brazen populism’ now prevalent in the USA, and elsewhere;
and he concludes that perhaps ‘we are entering a new age’ where governing elites will not
continue to be dominated by those educated in their ‘countries’ best universities and who by
and large shared a common culture’ (p. 263); a sombre note to end a rather depressing,
though valuable and high quality collection.
(As a postscript, I would draw attention to a few ‘technical’ shortcomings. As noted, there is
no index; nor is there a full bibliography; there are too many typographical errors; and there
is at least one instance of poor editing: on p. 123/4 we are promised quotations from David
Friedman and Gunter Grass: Friedman’s follows, but instead of Grass we are given Carles;
the layout of the Contents page seems to have gone awry; and no price for the volume is
given. All this mars an otherwise high quality collection.)
Richard Taylor
Emeritus Professorial Fellow
Wolfson College
Cambridge, UK