Higher education systems, policies and institutions are being transformed by globalization which “the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide `interconnectedness’. Knowledge in any case has never respected national boundaries and has travelled beyond irrespective of political affiliations. This process has got speeded up because of rapid means of transportation and communication. The development of Information Communication Technology has made almost instant communication possible. The World Wide Web has democratized information and knowledge putting power in the hands of individuals.
Another important factor that has enhanced people power is the spread of democracy. As Friedman points out, two major events have been responsible for this. One is the end of the Cold War, which has also been a struggle between two economic systems – capitalism and communism. Second is the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989.” Now there is only one system and everyone has had to orient and adapt to it one way or another. Henceforth, more and more economies would be governed in consonance with interests, demands and aspirations of the people, that is, from ground up rather than by planning from top down. With the spread of democracy, regulated or centrally planned economies have become an idea of the past.
Friedman argues that there have been three great eras of globalization. The first from 1492 when Columbus set sail opening trade between the Old World and the New World, until around 1800. It shrank the world from large to medium. Globalization was about countries and muscle. The driving force was, “brawn how much muscle, how much horse power, wind power or later, steam power your country had and how creatively you could deploy it.”
The second era of globalization lasted roughly from 1800 to 2000, interrupted by the Great Depression and World Wars I and II. This shrank the world from medium to small. The key agent of change in this era, the dynamic force driving global integration, was multinational companies. The multinationals went global for markets and labour, spearheaded first by the expansion of Dutch and English joint-stock companies and then the Industrial Revolution. In the first half of this era, the impetus was given by falling transportation costs, thanks to the steam engine and the railroad; and in the second half, by falling telecommunication costs because of the development of technology. The global economy matured because there was enough movement of goods and information from continent to continent to create a global market, and global arbitrage in products and labour.
Around 2000, the third phase of globalization began. With it, the world shrank further from small to tiny and simultaneously flattened the playing field. What gives this phase of globalization its unique character is the new found power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally. The new information technology has made us all next-door neighbours. It is now for individuals to ask themselves where they fit into the global competition and opportunities of the day and they can, on their own, collaborate with each other globally. The individual empowerment is the most important new feature of globalization but companies, small and big, have also got newly empowered in this era.
“Globalization…. Is the overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country…. It involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before – in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is also producing a powerful backlash from those brutalized or left behind. We have gone from How big is your missile? to How fast is your modem? We have gone from a variety of economic ideologies to a choice between, free market vanilla and North Korea.”
Even economically, as Hawey Feigenbeuon observes in the American context, education and the spread of knowledge are required to increase competitiveness because national and global economies are increasingly based on information and its exchange. Feigenbauon points out that public funding has been very effective in promoting higher education and research. Shalini Venturelli’s argues that pursuit of knowledge and encouragement are the twin goals that have to be pursued in education at all levels from the preschool to the university.
While there is not thought of higher education as an instrument of India’s external relations in other educational agencies apart from the Ministry of External Affairs, they have begun to discuss the issue of internationalization of higher education. This has been largely triggered by the impact of globalization, the exodus of Indian students to foreign universities in India, the setting up of centres by foreign universities in India, the setting up of centres by foreign universities in India and their drive to recruit Indian students, the availability of degrees online through the Internet and other such factors. Internationally, too, education has been a subject of much debate and discussion in the last ten years. October 1998, for instance, was a very significant year for the world of higher education as representatives of 128 nations responsible for education, including higher education, met for the first time in Paris under the auspices of UNESCO to discuss issues of common concern and to agree on the general direction that higher education must take in the present century. The Conference was unanimously of the view that a renewal of higher education was essential for the whole society to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. These included intellectual independence of individual creation and advancement of knowledge; and education and training to shape responsible enlightened citizens and qualified specialists, without whom no nation could progress economically, socially, culturally or politically. The Declaration of the World Conference emphasized that since society was increasingly knowledge-based, higher education and research and become essential components of cultural, socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development of individuals, communities and nations. The development of higher education, therefore, ranked as among the highest national priorities of nations throughout the world as without it, the required human resource could not be created.
The Conference was preceded by a widespread mobilization of partners, national policy makers, institutional leaders, professors, researchers, students, professional sectors and others. Regional Conferences were held in Havana in November 1996, Dakar in April 1997, Tokyo in July 1997, Palermo in September 1997, and Beirut in March 1998. findings, declarations and plans of action of these conferences provided inputs for the Paris Conference. These were complemented by studies and analyses undertaken by some fifty governmental and non-governmental organizations charged with preparing a series of thematic debates on important issues of higher education. Twelve debates were structured around three main domains. The first was on higher education and development considered as requirements for the world of work. Under this were to be considered higher education and sustainable human development contributing to national and regional development; and higher education staff development as a continuous process. The second domain was new trends and innovations in higher education that encompassed students’ vision of higher education for a new society; the use of new information technologies, challenge and opportunities in research and the contribution of higher education to the education system as a whole. The third domain dealt with higher education and its relationship with culture and society. It had under its umbrella, women and higher education; promoting a culture of peace, mobilizing the power of culture; autonomy and social responsibility and higher education.
At the Conference itself the delegates dealt with issue pertaining to the changing missions of higher education in the twenty-first century. These included interaction of higher education with society; the impact of the change process on higher education together with diversification; increased flexibility of systems and promotion of lifelong learning; and access to higher education. All these factors provided elements that went into the Declaration and Framework for Action and the Conference adopted at the end as “World declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action” and “Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development of Higher Education.” The Conference resolved that “beyond its traditional functions of teaching, training, research and study, all of which remain fundamental”, higher education must `promote development of the whole persons and train responsible, informed citizens, committed to working for a better society in the future.’ It has led to intense activity around the world as country after country has tried to assess the role of higher education in development and what needs to be further done.
The Task Force on Higher Education and Society was convened by the World Bank and UNESCO in the year 2000 to bring together some of the world’s foremost education and development experts. Based on research, intensive discussion and hearings conducted over a two-year period, the Task Force concluded that without more and better education, developing countries would find it increasingly difficult to benefit from the global knowledge-based economy.
India has a large private sector in higher education. This is not new as in colonial India, institutions of higher education were started with little or no support from the Government. Socio-religious trusts, societies and even individuals took the initiative motivated by their ideals and philanthropy. The Sikhs in Punjab formed the Khalsa Diwan in 1873 which established Khalsa schools and colleges. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan founded the Mohammad Anglo-Oriental College in 1877 which grew into Aligarh Muslim University in 1920. The Jamia Millia Islamia was founded by Dr. Zakir Hussain in 1920. The Arya Samaj founded a number of schools and the Anglo Vedic College in Lahore in 1886. The Deccan Education Society was founded in 1880 and started the Fegusson College. In Bombay, the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute was founded in 1887 through local initiative. Dr. Annie Besant of Theosophical Society founded the Central Hindu College in 1909 which was handed over to Banaras Hindu University Society. When she joined Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya to establish the Banaras Hindu University in 1917. In 1921, Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore started Viswa Bharti at Shantiniketan. Mahatma Gandhi motivated the establishment of several institutions in the 1920s – Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth.
The rulers of princely states too took a keen interest in higher education and contributed to the establishment and development of universities like Mysore University (1916), Osmania University (1918) and Annamalai University (1929). Business Houses too made their contribution to higher education and continued till much later after independence although philanthropy in this field largely died out after 1947. The efforts of Jamshedji Tata led to the establishment of Tata Institution for Science now called Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore. Educational programmes initiated by G.D. Birla at Pilani in the early 1900s culminated in the establishment of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani in 1964. B.M. Birla started the Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi in 1955. Banasthali Vidyapeeth (1983), Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (1985) and Bharti Vidyapeeth (196) are all examples of private initiatives.
The situation was not unique to India. Many of the earliest universities of Europe were the products of non-governmental initiative during the second half of the middle ages. They were set up as autonomous institutions by a royal or papal decree. They had a public orientation and ere accountable to the secular or religious authorities. The distinction between the public and private spheres was not marked in medieval times and hence the dichotomy between public and private institutions was also less clear. It is only in the 17th and early 20th centuries that the modern state has expanded and included higher education as a function of the state. Why did this happen? The process began in the 1660s with the emergence of the modern state which came to regard the universities as the suppliers of qualified labour and so sought increasing control over them. As the functions of the state grew, new institutions were started by it on the existing ones regulated so that they could be used to train new members of administration. By the 19th C, the autonomy of the university was impacted as the state sought to regulate the organization of the universities, syllabus, teaching staff and students. In the last decades of the 20th C, this steady process of persistent control of the state over universities has started to be questioned. However, in the process, the universities themselves have become strongly dependent on secular authorities at all levels – financial, administrative, educational and political. The growing role of government funding of universities has been accompanied by greater oversight over them. The ministries of education and similar public administrative structures exercise detailed control over university life.
Hence a direct correlation can be seen in the expansion of the government’s economic and social role and the government control over universities. The social welfare state required highly qualified people like teachers, social workers, doctors, engineers, accountants and others. This impacted syllabus formation and priority in the funding of types of programmes thus privileging some over other. Hence expenditure on higher education became a budgetary and political priority and funding was made available for required skills and achievements in scientific research required for military, economic and social life. It also led to the need for mass higher education.
The European pattern of higher education was copied all over the world including India. With the rise of North America, the North American pattern which is different from the European model because of the development of a federal state and its limited role in the higher education, is also beginning to emerge.
In India, where a large number of institutions had been established through private initiative, saw the demise of philanthropy in this sector. For obvious reasons, it chose to follow the European model and more particularly the British model. In this model, since the government had a large control over institutions of higher education, the number of private institutions became insignificant. Higher education was seen as a state responsibility and as an instrument for training elites especially for civil service and public administration. Private higher education was either prevented from being established or not allowed to continue to function.
This situation changed in the 1980s and 1990s because of the growth in demand for higher education by societal and individual forces. At the policy level, the governments see advanced qualification of human resource as the key to promoting economic competitiveness. Therefore, governments interested in enhancing national economic performance are interested in enhancing higher education. This is especially relevant in times of globalization.
Individuals also push for higher education because they see it as an attractive personal investment through which they look forward enviable prospects regarding long-term income and employability in comparison to individuals with lower formal qualifications. This has led to not only massification of higher education but also to heterogeneous and complex systems to meet the new and diverse demand. This diversity makes it nearly impossible to maintain a pattern of detailed regulation of higher education. Hence, new forms of governance are needed.
What is globalization and what has been its impact? It is the key reality of our times. It can be seen as an increasingly integrated world economy, new information and communications technology, the emergence of an international knowledge network. The role of the English language and the impact of other forces beyond the control of academic institutions internationalization is one of the responses to globalization as without it, it is not possible to prepare students for a globalized world. It includes enabling students for a globalised world. It includes enabling students to study abroad, setting up branch campuses overseas, internationalizing the curriculum or engaging in international partnerships.
One response of the system has been to promote market elements in higher education particularly through increased privatization. One effect of privatization is the transfer of ownership and or financial responsibilities from the public to the private sphere. It could also mean development of funding mechanisms and the use of private management in public organizations.
Therefore factors are at work. One is the linking of higher education with national economy which has given rise to emphasis on professional education and consequent employment. The second is the massification of higher education which requires a phenomenal increase in enrolment and can lead to lopsided development of disciplines and programmes and third, globalization that demands fulfillment of the needs of student and professional mobility. These have led to at least two debates that are interlinked and essentially pertain to funding as more and more governments find themselves unable to meet the financial requirements of higher education. One is whether higher education is a public or a private good. The public good argument is that it contributes to society by education the citizens and improving human capital, encourages civic involvement, and boosts economic development. The private good counter argument is that higher education largely benefits the individual and therefore students should pay a significant part of their post secondary education. Perhaps there is truth in both and the answer need not be an either/ or proposition. Both have to coexist.
Shortage of government funds due to massification of higher education have required higher education institutions to generate funds. Also, there is a greater inclination to privatize services that were at one time provided by the state. World wide there is a growing emphasis on cost recovery, higher tuition and university industry linkage. This conflicts with traditional social role and service function of higher education. Economic crisis, massification of higher education and widespread argument of private good have led to a growing privatization of higher education worldwide. However, there is a perception that it leads to deterioration in conditions of study, makes the academic profession uncertain and exploited. And compromises on quality.
Since private education has existed earlier too, what is the difference between the private education then and now. Historically, private institutions were established as not-for profit institutions like the universities. However, the recent growth of private institutions inevitably shows profit seeking behaviour. Even when for profit institutions are not allowed the private institutions are usually for profit although they may claim to be not-for-profit. The regulatory mechanism is unable to deal with them. Further, most private institutions are not universities. They are specialized institutions that provide higher training in some specific fields of study. Research basic especially science research is usually weak because of the large outlay it demands. However in recent time attempts have been made by them to gain legitimacy by showing some amount of research activity. However, they find it difficult to find philanthropic sources of funding and have no access to public research funds. So whatever finances are required for research have to be cross subsidized from teaching funds. Hence, research activity becomes cosmetic and as a means of social prestige. As the system matures, some amelioration may take place. Right now, most of them cater to undergraduate demand which satisfies the current needs of the labour market. The issue of quality becomes an urgent one with them since they find it hard if not impossible to compete in terms of fees with public institutions. Also these institutions face staff issues. Most of them have to rely on part time from public universities or retired faculty from these universities. This `moonlighting’ creates tensions between the public and private institutions and places a question mark on their quality. Also, the lack of availability of faculty disturbs the teacher student ratio that further dilutes the quality. Public angst uses because lack of quality and high fees means that the employment returns do not match the individual investment and expectations. High end programmes demand heavy financial outlay which in turn means very high feel. Since there are no takers for this, either the quality gets diluted or private education gets confined to the popular courses of social sciences, economics business, management and others.
Further what is the expectation from private institutions is often not met. Given the fact that they have more flexibility, it was expected that they would increase diversification both in terms of geographical reach and subjects taught being more responsive to labour market demands. This does not happen because the very nature of private institutions makes them gravitate to capital cities or major urban centres. In fact it is the public institutions that are geographically diverse because of the involvement of local and regional authorities.
However, private education remains a reality as public resources limited. If we see the global situation, massification has been attempted through the public sector, but privatization has been widespread. In Japan over 77% of education is private while the figure for South Korea is higher. Philippines has over 70% private higher education. Private sector educates more than half the population in countries like Mexico, Brazil and Chile. Private universities are expanding in Africa, China and India too have significant private sector. Western Europe does not have a large private sector except for Portugal but the fall of communism brought significant higher education to the countries of former USSR and to the large majority of Central and East Europe. Whereas a few countries have only a tiny private sector but in several others it peaks at around 25-30%.
It is in developing regions that the demand for private education has been very strong. It is usually related to access. Three patterns can be seen. One is where the private sector plays a marginal role in providing access. The second is where it fills an increasing role in coping with massification but is still less than its public counterpart. This is the demand absorption role. The third is where the private sector is the main tool for massification. Most developing countries since the 1980s fall in the pattern of two and three.
And yet public policy lays behind. Some measures need to be taken to enable, promote or even steer private growth but mostly it is just allowed to happen. Thus public universities tend to retain their prestige, remain tuition free or with heavily subsidized tuition. It leads to the perception that private sector is less prestigious than the public and primarily demand absorbing. But given the privatization measures within the public sector, the boundaries get increasingly blurred.
The demand absorption role for the private sector without policy for private education, can be a risky business where through policy private sector is allowed to play the demand absorption role, the two sectors become complementary, although still controversial over quality and cost. But if the demand decelerates, the public and private sectors struggle for the same pie, the issue becomes sensitive, especially if public institutions open fee paying slots as in self financing courses. Hence, it is important to recognize the demand absorbing function of the private sector and facilitate it allowing the public sector to use its limited resources in high end research.
This reality may not have received an upfront legislative response but is obviously recognized by the government and other leaders in society. This is seen by the fact that the government itself empowered public universities and colleges to run `self financing courses’ concurrently with public funded programmes. Also, self financing institutions have been affiliated to public universities. These follow all the academic regulation of the public funded institutions. they now far outnumber the public funded colleges and most of them are the southern states of India. Many private deemed universities have emerged which indicates that the government seeks private help. There are another group of private institutions in the non-university sector that are run by private and corporate initiatives eg. NIIT and APTEC. By law they can’t award degrees but attract students because of the quality and relevance of their programmes and training.
By the 1980s when the student preference shifted to professional programmes over academic disciplines, particularly in areas related to engineering, medicine, management, computer applications and others, the private providers took to the professional sector in large numbers and did well. How did this happen? It was a popularly unarticulated paradigm shift in the government itself. Among the first indications came in the recommendations of the Eighth Plan (1993-2997) which stated that the opening of new universities and colleges should not be encouraged. Also that private sector and voluntary agencies be involved in the opening and running of higher education institutions with proper checks to ensure maintenance of standards and facilities. Higher education institutions were to be made as self financing as possible. The protests of the academic community were muted by stating that the quality of education would not be compromised. The Report of the CABE on Gnanam Committee (1992) also stated:
“It will not be possible for the state government to fund adequate resources to create endowment funds for each university. Universities, however, should make efforts to raise their own resources but must be ensured that there are no conditions attached like preference on admission etc. Raising of resources should not affect academic standards and universities should lay down guidelines for the same.”
This position was in keeping with what was stated by the International Commission for Education for the 21st century in 1996 in its report “Learning the Treasure Within.”
“It is not only justifiable but also desirable to raise money from private sector in order to ease the pressure on national budgets. Private funding can come from variety of sources, contribution… by families and students towards fees.”
In 1997, the Ministry of Finance in its White Paper on public subsidies called higher education a “non-merit” good. This has long term consequences in public finance as it makes individuals the main gainers from higher education and hence not deserving of public subsidies.
The National Policy on Education, 1986, also stated:
“Resources to the extent possible will be raised by mobilizing donations, asking the beneficiary communities to maintain school buildings and supplies of some consumables, raising fees at the higher levels of education and effecting. Some savings by the efficient use of facilities … all these measures will be taken not only to reduce the burden on state resources but also for creating a greater sense of responsibility within the education system.”
The Birla-Ambani Report of 2001 also suggested that there should be minimal subsidies for higher education and the resources so saved should be used for school education. In order to address the problem of resource constraint the government introduced the Private Universities Establishment and Regulation Bill in August 1995 in the Rajya Sabha. It was referred to the Standing Committee for obtaining its views on involving the private sector. However, the Bill just faded away. Since the matter continued to be discussed at various fore, the HRD Ministry set up a core group in 1999 for their views and recommendations on various issues pertaining to higher education. The private sector was very resentful to some of the provisions of the proposed bill pertaining to endowment fund, regulation by the government bodies, free education to one-third students and other such provisions.
Although in some cases it has been seen as a transitory phenomenon, the evidence seems to suggest that private higher education is becoming a permanent feature of the higher education landscape. As discussed earlier, the resilience of private higher education is strengthened not only in developing countries where the limitations in resources prevent governments from major expansions of their public higher education systems but also in many developed countries, where fiscal constraints conflict with the rising cost of (largely subsidized) public higher education.
In future, private higher education is likely to become a necessary part of the higher education landscape. This is because higher education is likely to persist as an important priority in policy terms. This will push private higher education. There will also be financial challenges on how to expand the supply of higher education. The likely response will be through the strengthening market mechanisms which can only be through increasing the privateness of the system. It is likely to be a complex and controversial issue especially in countries where private institutions remained minimal. Further, private education will get a boost because of massification. Initially they will tend to focus on absorption of unfulfilled demand but gradually may position themselves as high quality/ high cost alternative to mass/ low cost public higher education. The acceptance of private higher education will also depend on the role of the state. As the market orientation of higher education strengthens, the government may increasingly see itself as contractors of higher educational services from autonomous institutions which may be publicly owned rather than as a provider of higher education.
In the post massification phase, the demand absorption pattern is likely to give way to niche institutions which present alternatives to mass higher education rather than reinforcing it. Private institutions tend to position themselves as an elite alternative to a mass public system rather than as a second choice for whose who did not get a place in the latter. The former situation will not disappear but the latter alternative is likely to emerge.
Private institutions will gradually also start paying more attention to research. Up to now the teaching element has been dominant but they will focus on research for legitimacy. They will attempt to improve their academic pedigree with better qualified staff, increase the number of research centres affiliated to them and develop good post graduate programs.
Private institutions will seek greater legitimacy. The first endeavour will be to strengthen their teaching mission both in terms of programs and faculty. They will improve research and develop strong student support mechanisms. Governments will increasingly develop accreditation and evaluation mechanisms often as an instrument to curtail private institutions. this will gain relevance as for-profit institutions emerge and even the not-for-profit behave like for-profit ones private institutions too will seek accreditation.
However, there is resistance to the idea of privatization among a vociferous section of society, causing certain levels of fluidity and stagnations in formulating a concrete national policy towards privatization. Their contention is that “education has never been a commerce in this country, making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities to the nation.” However, these contentions are not reflected in the actual practices. When it comes to medical care (arguably the most sacrosanct priority of the social sector), the moment one is sick there is rush for the best private nursing home. This patent hypocrisy is evident in the education sector as well. It is not uncommon to see flourishing coaching academies, tutorial colleges and parallel colleges where substantial fees are uncollected for unregulated academic programmes. Fees are willingly paid or the school education and computer institutes but when it comes to formal higher education there is fierce resistance to even reasonable fees.
What is needed is a national legislation on private higher education in India. Failing a national legislation, many state governments have enacted legislation for the establishment of private universities. This is badly needed.
Many models for private education are already available in the country. There are at least four distinct ones. One is the Manipal model where the approach is to provide access to students who can pay and who may not have got admission for various reasons in a public sector university. Manipal Academy of Higher Education is a pioneering center for self financing higher education, managed and funded by private enterprise.
The second is the marketing model in which already existing institutions receiving aid from the government central or state are allowed to start some professional courses a the undergraduate and postgraduate level on the self financing pattern.
The third is the sponsoring model which is popular with the corporate sector in which it sponsors its managerial and executive personnel to enable them to update their skills and knowledge. For this they are attached to some leading institutions for a short period of training.
Finally there is the franchising model in which self financing institutions have to select courses designed by the university and follow the teaching as per norms prescribed by the affiliating university. However, these colleges do not receive grant from the government. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi ahs a large number of privately managed self-financing courses in different professional fields such as engineering, technology, management studies, medicine, pharmacy, education, law ans others are affiliated to it.
What is it that is stimulating private higher education institutions in India. India is at the beginning of the massification phase of higher education while its economy is growing rapidly. The strains on Indian higher education are evident. Indian institutions hardly figure anywhere in global higher education rankings. The overall enrolment percentages are lower than of China and other middle-income countries. Efforts are being made to reach 20% by 2017. Most industrialized nations educate 50% or more of the relevant age group. The leader in this was USA. Further, India lacks significant research based universities at the top but also does not fulfill the demand for higher education at the bottom. This skill formation is inadequate and not of a high order. This will be an increasing challenge as the economy matures and ever higher skills are needed. A small number of institutions like the IITs and IIMs provide world class education but they are specialized institutions and not research universities. None of the universities are “world class” or have international competitiveness. India needs perhaps fifty internationally competitive research universities if it is to provide the highly educated personnel needed and the research output required for a modern economy.
Except for a few niche institutions, the bulk of Indian higher education institutions have no clear mission. Its universities are not provided resources or the mandate to build a distinctive and innovative profile. Clearly differentiated missions and patterns of funding are part of successful academic systems. Then there is lack of accountability and quality assurance. India’s academic arrangements have been derived from British colonialism are neither effective nor do they encourage quality. In the affiliating system, undergraduate colleges have been put under the control of universities which has put them in a highly bureaucratized and controlled environment that has impeded innovative and autonomy because of being subject to common policies. The universities receive their funding from the government. While they have formal autonomy they are basically under the control of central or state governments. Also, they have been politicized. All this has made issues of quality assurance very ambiguous.
India has a large private sector in higher education but it is tightly controlled by the public sector. However, the unsubsidized private sector is expanding. The challenge will be to ensure that it delivers. This cannot be done without a proper policy intervention for the private sector. It should have three components (i) promotion, (ii) facilitation and (iii) regulatory control. The promotional role needs policies that stimulate private efforts through expansion of higher education. Facilitation requires enacting of appropriate legislation and regulatory control to ensure good quality in private institutions as well as to safeguard against any exploitation of the gullible public.
The government has to be clear. If it needs the private sector for resource mobilization and its other strengths, it has to facilitate it and see it as complementary in discharging its responsibility of expanding the higher education base. If this is the perception, then potential private providers can be given incentives. Appropriate legislation for private education will go a long way in the development of private higher education as it will make the will of the state clear. Open and transparent policies can attract big corporations who might have enough funds to establish institutions and staying power to not expect immediate returns. Security by legal action would constitute the first step in promoting quality private participation. Promotional efforts will have to be on the lines of what the governments do to attract both local and foreign investments in manufacturing the other industries.
While it is clear that India is affected by global trends. So far, there is little evidence that India is seriously considering the lessons of the global academic environment or systematically creating an internationally competitive academic system.