Power, Politics, and Higher Education in Southern Africa: International Regimes, Local Governments, and Educational Autonomy By José Cossa

Power, Politics, and Higher Education in Southern Africa: Interna ...

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Read

ABOUT
- Data
- Description
- Reviews
- About Author
- Cover
RESEARCH
- Bookmarks
- Notes
FONT
- Font Size
  - x-small
  - small
  - medium
  - large
  - x-large
- Line Height
  - 1.00
  - 1.25
  - 1.50
  - 1.75
  - 2.00
- Letter Spacing
  - Default
  - 1 pixel
  - 2 pixels
  - 3 pixels
  - 4 pixels
DOWNLOAD
- Complete Edition
PAGE
- TOC
- Copyright
- Foreword
- References
- Index

This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.

Concerns over the implication of the GATS on national governments have been raised by non-African scholars as well. For instance, Knight (2002) explained that the objectives of her study on borderless higher education will be met if readers are stimulated to think about the potential positive and negative outcomes of increased trade in higher education services and if they enter informed debate on the policy implications for higher education. Altbach (2001) was adamant about the negative implication of the GATS on developing nations and alerts the international academic community of the loss of autonomy that developing nations will suffer under the GATS. He stated the following:

The greatest negative impact of WTO control over higher education would occur in the developing countries. These countries have the greatest need for academic institutions that can contribute to national development, produce research relevant to local needs, and participate in the strengthening of civil society. Once universities in developing countries are subject to an international academic marketplace regulated by the WTO, they would be swamped by overseas institutions and programs intent on earning a profit but not in contributing to national development. It is not clear that accrediting and quality control mechanisms that now exist in many countries would be permitted, at least as they relate to transnational educational providers. (p. 4)

Altbach (2001) called attention to the legally binding nature and complexity of the GATS rules, which require that developing nations take a more proactive and careful approach to international agreements; however, considering their binding nature and complexity is only a step toward unearthing the implication of the GATS on the educational autonomy of developing nations, since such complexity is enhanced by the fact that adherence to the GATS is not legally imposed on signing members; it is consensual. The GATS (2007, Annex 1B) hinged on the following consent by members: