I Recommendations

Capacity Building in Higher Education and Research: A Key Component of Efficient Global Development

by the editors: Erik W. Thulstrup, Jens Aage Hansen and Jens Jørgen Gaardhøje

Abstract

This paper discusses development through capacity building in higher education and research (CBHER), especially how to achieve this in the context of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG). It is argued that investment in CBHER may be a direct and efficient route to economic development. Based on the presentations and discussions during the Workshop at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, May 17-18, 2005, nine conclusions are developed and presented in this introduction to the Workshop Proceedings by the Programme Committee.

Paradoxes in development and globalisation

It is becoming increasingly clear that the fast growth of three groups of people will dominate international relations during the coming decades. The three groups are:

• The fast growing group of old, relatively wealthy people in Western countries and Japan
• The group of increasingly wealthy and productive younger people in successful developing countries like China and India, and
• The group of young people in high-birth-rate and low economy countries, who are only given few (educational) opportunities for a better life and are increasingly dissatisfied and bitter; this unfortunate situation is a significant part of the root system of terrorism.

At the same time, the group of desperately poor, for example in Africa, is not likely to be reduced fast enough. Globalisation, that has been so useful for China and India, does not seem to help Africa nearly as much.

Thirty years ago South Korea and Singapore were poorer than many African countries, but through a major educational effort that made it possible for them to use up-to-date technologies efficiently, they were able to create fast economic development and have long ago managed to drastically reduce or eliminate poverty. Surprisingly, their successful strategies were not copied much by other developing countries or donors, at least not until China and India started doing so on their own. But the recent success of these huge countries is hard to overlook. Other large developing countries, like Pakistan and Brazil, are trying to follow similar strategies and there are indications that also these countries may be successful, even without much help in the form of foreign aid.

Economists have for years tried to demonstrate a clear relationship between development aid and actual economic development. However, it seems hard to find an obvious correlation between the two (see, for example, R. Rajan in the Dec. 2005 issue of Finance and Development). In the case of Danish aid, the correlation may at times seem negative. Many of the countries, for example in Africa, that receive Danish aid have experienced a striking lack of efficient development, while countries, that many years ago stopped receiving Danish aid, including China and India, recently have been much more successful in creating economic development and reducing poverty. Would Denmark be able to help poor countries in Africa by getting out of the aid business? Several economists would agree, but there may be a better way.

Building capacity in higher education and research

What are the main differences between the traditional aid driven development strategies, for example those supported by Denmark, and the obviously successful ones used by China? One striking difference is that the former tries to make up for the uneven and unfair division of wealth in many developing countries by attempting to support the poorest part of the populations in these countries directly. The latter gives high priority to the creation of wealth, with less initial emphasis on how it is divided. However, experience, e.g. from Singapore and Korea, shows that the poorest part of the population also may benefit significantly from this strategy, while attempts to divide existing wealth more fairly have led to disasters in Sri Lanka.

Another striking difference is the emphasis placed on higher education, especially within science and technology, in the successful developing countries, from Singapore to China. In contrast, the traditional donor guided development strategy puts emphasis on basic (primary) education. While there is no doubt about the usefulness of good primary education, it is not enough to support economic development. Both China and India are these years demonstrating that clever use of research based modern technologies has been able to create economic development much more efficiently, as it was shown earlier by Singapore and South Korea. These successes have been noticed in South Asia: India has started a billion dollar project with the purpose of strengthening engineering education at the ”second level” of higher education institutions, Pakistan has increased funding for university research in Science and Technology by eight thousand per cent(!), and Bangladesh is negotiating a large World Bank loan for S&T university research.

The by far largest development aid project these years is the Chinese development efforts in the backwards, Western part of the country. Not surprisingly, the highly successful and wealthy universities in the rich Eastern China are among the main players in these efforts. In the Danish aid philosophy, higher education is still often considered a luxury – it is felt that the educational needs of developing countries are limited to primary education and vocational training. This seems still to be the case, even after the development banks have started to recognize the key role of higher education for economic development. However, discouraging developing countries from gaining access to knowledge at highest levels, for example high technology knowledge may result in a new form of colonialism and this is hardly what Denmark wants!

Higher education is not only useful for the economic development. It may also have a significant political impact by creating cadres of informed and thinking young people in support of democratic reforms. There is little doubt that politics is important, and there is some indication that democratic systems on the whole are more efficient in reducing human suffering than other political systems. Western donors like Denmark have for years tried to strengthen democratic and peaceful developments in developing countries by directly supporting democratization efforts, but often with mixed results. However, many examples show that if young people are given useful higher education at an international level, they will be both able to and motivated for supporting democratisation efficiently, and will be much less tempted, for example, to join terrorist groups.

The civil war in Sri Lanka, that has now lasted over twenty years, was to a large extend triggered by an unfair system for access to higher education. Many young people found a life as fighter or even terrorist more attractive than the only alternative that was available without higher education, a life as a poor farmer. This was recognized many years ago in Sri Lanka, and university enrolments were expanded drastically. However, most of the new educational opportunities were in low-cost subjects that did not lead to employment, especially in the humanities. The country now has to struggle, not only with a civil war, but also with almost 30,000 unemployed and unemployable university graduates (while there still is a shortage of engineers in the country). This has not created political stability or economic development.

Using the capacity

It is not enough to establish capacity, it must also be used. In order to create development, higher education and research must be useful for society and lead to good employment opportunities for the graduates. The universities must be part of the surrounding society and not isolated ivory towers. Too often, donor or development bank funded university projects have attempted to strengthen the academic standards at universities in developing countries, with little regard to the impact on society, as illustrated in Fig. 1

Figure 1. Society and the ivory tower (university) before (left) and after (right) a traditional, donor funded university capacity building project. Clearly, the situation in real life has not changed much (Kornhauser and Kos, 1992, by permission).

Today ”knowledge sharing” is becoming a key phrase – those who have useful knowledge (e.g. good universities) must share it with those who need it (e.g. industry, the public sector, or the public in general, see Box 1). This is not easy: many developing country universities are completely unprepared for such demands, and even local knowledge users, for example industry, are frequently very hesitant to let students invade their facilities. Fortunately, those that have accepted it are usually very satisfied with the performance of the students.

Box 1. Beauty without Pain in Nairobi

Most Danish universities have overcome such knowledge sharing problems and work successfully with industry and other knowledge users. The important integration of education, research, and real life applications has actually been accomplished at modern Danish higher education institutions, e.g. at the universities at Aalborg and Roskilde where problem based learning is practiced at all levels. Using academic capacity in practice is a key competence, which many developing country universities still lack. If they could obtain such skills, development might benefit immensely.

Figure 2. Integration of education, research and real life applications as it is practiced at modern Danish universities. Many developing country universities have not yet accomplished such integration, although it is essential for knowledge sharing.

Workshop observations on the development process

The workshop looked at capacity building in higher education and research for fair global development from different stakeholder positions, e.g. international institutions, industry, donor agencies and universities, representing both donor and recipient countries. In order to put the entire workshop outcome in context, the main points of each speaker are here summarised briefly. This allows for the attempt to conclude the results of the two day exercise at the end of this article. While neither workshop nor discussions were focused on the Danish situation in terms of aid policy or university involvement, Denmark did serve as benchmark in the discussions during the workshop and is used as such in the conclusions.

Industrial viewpoints are expressed by Lene Lange from Novozymes. Growth economies such as in China, India and Brazil were mentioned as attractive to high tech industries due to growing markets, educated labour and good infrastructure. Win-win situations are likely to occur without intervention from international aid agencies. In poor developing countries there is less immediate interest in investment from the high tech industry, which means that there is an urgent need for aid agencies to target action on capacity building and technology transfer. Training of young talents abroad is not necessarily brain drain, but may also be a way of long term capacity building, because many trained individuals return with important, international academic and industrial links. Clean production in for example the agro-industrial sector is but one example of interesting drivers in developing countries that could also attract also foreign industrial investment for win-win projects.

By a virtual analysis of the university of the future and acknowledging the growing need for knowledge, Jamil Salmi from World Bank challenges both industrialised and developing countries to handle a number of daunting, but crucial tasks. These include expanding the capacity for tertiary education, reducing inequality of access, improving quality and relevance of education, and installing more effective governance and management systems. Establishing partnerships with and use of experiences from foreign universities that are leading within learning strategies is one way of reforming tertiary educational sectors. Quality control based on evaluation of graduate competency is another, and flexibility in adaptation to new needs of the country a third.

Michael Oborne from the OECD focuses on highly skilled immigrants in OECD countries. There is a clear tendency for several of these countries to attract, educate and keep talent within their borders. But changing conditions make it possible for talent to be trained at high quality universities in for example China and India. Multi-national companies are other active agents of change in that they transfer knowledge and “skilled human capital” across borders according to markets and opportunities. Common to all countries that want to improve development and create a better living for their citizens are that they must create a knowledge based economy, i.e. make long term investment in human capital.

Julia Hassler from UNESCO discusses the mobility of highly skilled manpower, including phenomena such as brain gain, -drain, -return, -exchange, -wastage, etc. She suggests the consideration of brain circulation with potential benefits to all countries involved. International organisations should play a positive role by assisting the mobility of workers in science and technology and maximise benefits. The “diaspora” concept (expatriate skilled capital considered an asset to the home country) together with efficient networking may be an attractive new development tool. She points out that members of the UN family must include in their millennium goals for every country the development of human resources to the highest level. International organisations should be prime movers in the process of connecting educators in a global network to reach the final Millennium Development Goal, i.e. “Global Partnership for Development”.

Tomas Kjällqvist from the Swedish International Development Agency provides evidence of the effect of Swedish support to developing countries through a strengthening of their research capacity, specifically at the institutional level. It happens on the background of a rediscovery among international donors of the significant role of science and technology for development. Cooperation between Swedish and foreign universities has strengthened both local research environments and international scientific information exchange. The aspect of coupling education and research was one reason to concentrate Swedish aid to universities rather than other research institutions. Strengthening of national research policies will be a target for Swedish capacity building programmes, and donor coordination in this field is seen as important. Assisting the mobility of some 50,000 academics (students, faculty and other scientists) each year is one of the results of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) as described by Michael Harms. It is a two-way programme, but the emphasis is on incoming academics (to Germany). The independence of DAAD from the donor community is interesting in terms of programme design and development of new instruments in capacity building within higher education, e.g. demand driven courses and research projects, bottom-up institutional capacity building, and alumni institutions for continuity beyond project periods. The return to the home country of skilled human capital is considerable.

Leiner Vargas describes the Sustainable Development Strategies for Central America (SUDESCA), a project financed by DANIDA (Danish International Development Agency) as part of the ENRECA (Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries) Programme during the period 1996-2006. He emphasises the change from at first research only to a more balanced process involving both education and research. Learning by doing in interaction with local companies is an essential element of success in project implementation. One of the conclusions by Vargas is that university capacity building should concentrate on issues where society can benefit, not only economically but also in terms of general acceptability. The duration of capacity building programmes is crucial for their success. Trust takes time to build from scratch and long term financing must be available for capacity building (CB) projects to succeed.

P. Agamuthu describes Globalisation of Tertiary Education and Research in Developing Countries based on experiences from the DANCED/DANIDA funded capacity building project involving Malaysian and Danish universities. The project focused on industry and urban areas and lasted from 1998-2004. Malaysia belongs to the group of growth economy countries and this may partially explain that the participating Malaysian universities in only 3 years were able to change learning paradigms, acquire new EU funded projects in curriculum development, and establish numerous linkages for career development and scientific collaboration. Agamuthu stresses the mutual recognition of cultural and socio-economic differences as positive and mutually beneficial opportunities for both South and North, i.e. the exchange must be two ways and funding must somehow be matched to achieve this balance in the longer run.

Henrik Secher Marcussen reports on experiences from an ENRECA project in Burkina Faso, 1994-2006. He reviews the project in regard to the initial targets set, but also in a wider context of development in a globalising world. This leads to some key questions and observations that are relevant to capacity building (CB) projects like ENRECA and to aid programmes in general. 1) National rather than donor priorities should determine topic and scope of CB projects. 2) Aid programmes aiming directly at poverty reduction would usually not offer the right context for good national CB programmes; high quality and technologically advanced research and tertiary education may have to be targeted separately. 3) The donor country may have to involve both its aid agency and its ministry for science, technology and innovation when planning and negotiating CB programmes for priority countries.

Stig Enemark reports on the planning of a recent CB project from Mozambique. The project is not likely to become funded and implemented due to lack of mutual understanding and coordination between the key stakeholders. It is argued that capacity building in higher education and research should be part of university strategy portfolios and be supported by relevant stakeholders such as donor agencies, ministries, trade and industry. It is important that such capacity building activities be seen as mutually beneficial, i.e. not only as key drivers for societal development in the recipient countries, but also as necessary for building relevant international capacity and institutional innovation in donor countries.

Conclusions

Base on the presentations and discussions during the workshop the following may be concluded:

• CBHER should more specifically enter the MDG
• CBHER is a prerequisite for skilled human capital and economic development
• Investment in CBHER should preferentially be separated from other aid issues, at least initially
• The poorer the economy, the longer support for CBHER is required
• Stakeholder commitments and facilitating infrastructures are vital for CBHER
• Capacity building must also target concrete societal needs
• International partnerships at the university level improve global trust and fair trade
• Mobility and staff exchanges are needed to enhance CBHER and create mutually beneficial brain gains
• Efficient CBHER at universities in the South often requires a new-mind set and creative actions by stakeholders in the North, including governments.

The UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) number 8 prescribes “global partnership for development”. The workshop provides ample evidence that this requires more specific mention of capacity building in higher education and research. While “universal primary education” has its own MDG number (2), it has to be recognised that higher education and research has become a basic need, not only in industrialised countries. Also in developing countries a considerable effort is requited, if they want to participate in the new global economy.

Several examples presented by speakers and participants showed that economic growth is necessary for development to take place, and that higher education (skilled human capital) and research are key factors for any country to realise economic development.

Investments in higher education and research serve a long-term development goal. Thus it may have to be initially separated from other concerns in order not to confuse matters, e.g. by not asking for poverty reduction as an immediate outcome, although it is on the top of the list and absorbs the majority of donor concerns.

Growth economies are different from developing country (stagnation) economies and the ways to implement capacity building in higher education and research will have to differ accordingly. The poorer the economy, the longer the process may have to last. A staggered approach will possibly benefit both donor and recipient country. Important ingredients in the process are mutual trust building between partners (e.g. universities) in South and North, as well as agreed quality assurance measures (e.g. the use of output and competency building rather than input as key parameters).

Stakeholder co-ordination and facilitating infrastructures are necessary in both recipient and donor countries for CBHER projects to succeed. Stakeholders are, for example, government, industry, trade, and universities.

University capacity building should also target concrete societal needs especially by making them part of problem based learning (Fig. 2). This is beneficial for all parties involved, from the students in the learning process to the problem provider who will benefit from new information and understanding of the problem and may even find new innovative solutions.

International partnerships between donors and developing countries at the university level help create mutual trust and prepare for future trade relations. Understanding between new generations of leaders, democratic development, and fair deals between friendly partners rather than edgy and alienated competitors may be some of the outcomes of cooperation at this level.

Mobility and scholarships are vital instruments in capacity building in higher education and research. Sweden and Germany offer role models in this connection worthy of further analysis and possible use in other countries. One of the interesting observations from the presentations at the workshop is that increased mobility reduces the brain drain problem, because in a long term perspective there will be sharing of knowledge and skilled human capital. Mobility is given high priority in a variety of programmes within the EU, but only for the 25 member states. A comprehensive programme for mobility between the EU countries and the rest of he world, especially the developing world, is missing. It might be possible for North European countries to create a basis and a model for increased mobility between North and South. Among other, the alumni model of the German DAAD programme may deserve further analysis in terms of mechanisms, costs and development impact.

Capacity building at universities in the South through partnerships must be part of the development strategies of universities in the North, if researchers and educators are to become fully engaged. Support from ministries, other agencies and private stakeholders in the donor country will be necessary, but is essentially absent in many countries. This is, for example, the case in Denmark, in contrast to the official Danish government strategy for participation in global economic development (published April 2006 under the title “Progress, Innovation and Social Security”). There is a need for an improved understanding of the new global situation, and priorities must be accordingly revised, if aid programmes are to produce a long-term increase of human capital in developing countries as the backbone of sustainable economic development.

This page is included in the publication "Capacity Building in Higher Education and Research on a Global Scale"
© The Ministry of Education 2006