1. Copyright CSEND 2003 Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Humanities and Social Sciences Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences Berne, 29 th April, 2004 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and Higher Education Dr. Raymond Saner CSEND, www.csend.org

2. © CSEND, 2003 Objectives of presentation: 1. GATS/ES: what it is and what it is not 2. How GATS/ES is being negotiated 3. Solutions for GATS/ES within/without GATS context 4. Threats & Opportunities for Swiss higher education

3. © CSEND, 2003 CSEND/Saner CSEND/NGRDO, founded 1993, Geneva 5 staff (Research & Development) Lecturer, WWZ-Uni Basle, since 1988 Member Peer Review I & II: HES/CH Swiss member WG4: ISO 10015 Training Member Swiss delegation: OECD Fora on GATS/ES 2002, 2003 Publications on GATS/ES, WTO, PRSP, QA Member of SNV since 1994

4. © CSEND, 2003 GATS & Globalisation (Source: W. Goode, 1998) Globalisation: growing tertiary sector (services) of world economy: Example: Australia A) 80% of total jobs B) 75% of GDP C) 13% Exports of ES of total Trade in Services D) ES Exporters are mostly public universities!

5. © CSEND, 2003 GATS/ES: Historical Perspective 1.1947: GATT 18 members 2.1966: Swiss membership 3.1986-1994 UR 4.1995: WTO (110 members a) GATT (goods) b) GATS(services) c) TRIPS (Ips) 5. GATS (12 sectors and 160 subsectors 6. GATS/ES a) 5 subsectors b) 30 Bio US$ 7. 2001- ? Doha Round (148 members)

6. © CSEND, 2003 GATS: purpose and objectives (GATS) is a multilaterally agreed framework agreement for the trade in services which applies to all 148 WTO Members. Three main objectives:  1. To progressively liberalise trade in services through successive rounds of negotiations which should aim at promoting the interests of all members of the WTO and achieving an overall balance of rights and obligations.  2. To encourage economic growth and development thought liberalisation of trade in services, as the GATT does through the liberalisation of trade in goods;  3. to increase the participations of developing countries in world trade in services and expand their services exports by developing their export capacity and securing export opportunities in sectors of export interest to them.

7. © CSEND, 2003 WTO/GATS Rules Most Favoured Nation Clause (MFN) No discrimination (Market Access/National Treatment) Binding commitments Transparency (Notifications)

8. © CSEND, 2003 Typology of Existing Barriers to Trade in ES (identified by USA, New Zealand, Australia and Japan) M1 Prohibition for foreign providers No possibility for foreign supplier to offer its services (all modes of supply). M2 Administrative burden and lack of transparency Domestic laws and regulations unclear and administered in unfair manner (all modes of supply); When governmental approval required for foreign suppliers, extremely long delays encountered; when approval denied, no explication given, no information about necessary improvements to obtain it in the future (all modes of supply); Denial of permission for private sector suppliers to enter into and exit from joint ventures with local or non-local partners on a voluntary basis (Modes 1 &3). Barriers to TradeExamples Source: Saner & Fasel, 2003, „Negotiating Trade in Educational Services within the WTOGATS Context“

9. © CSEND, 2003 Typology of Existing Barriers to Trade in ES (identified by USA, New Zealand, Australia and Japan) - 2 M3 Fiscal discrimination Subsidies for education are not made known in a clear and transparent manner (all modes of supply); Repatriation of earnings is subject to excessively costly fees and/or taxes for currency conversion (all modes of supply); Excessive fees/taxes imposed on licensing or royalty payments (Modes 1 and 3). M4 Accreditation/ recognition discrimination No recognition of degrees/titles delivered by foreign providers (all modes of supply); No recognition of foreign diplomas (Mode 2); No accreditation delivered nationally for foreign providers (Modes 1 and 3). Barriers to TradeExamples Source: Saner & Fasel, 2003, „Negotiating Trade in Educational Services within the WTOGATS Context“

10. © CSEND, 2003 Modes of Supply in GATS/ES Source: OECD/CERI, 2002

11. © CSEND, 2003 Table 3. Design of GATS Schedules Modes of supply: (1) Cross-border supply(2) Consumption supply(3) Commercial presence (4) Presence of natural persons I. HORIZONTAL COMMITMENTS All sectors Limitations on market access (Art. XVI) Limitations on national treatment (Art. XVII) Additional commitments Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 II. SECTOR-SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS Sector or sub-sector 1.Primary Education 2.Secondary Education 3.Higher Education 4.Adult Education 5.Other Limitations on market access (Art. XVI) Limitations on national treatment (Art. XVII) Additional commitments Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 e.g. procurement, pre-commitment to future liberalisation

12. © CSEND, 2003 Schedule Pre-Doha: USA Countr ySub- sector Cross-border supply Consumption Abroad Commercial PresencePresence of natural persons USA Adult (except flying instruc -tion) MA: None NT: Scholar- ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/ or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain states institutions or within certain US jurisdic- tions. MA: None NT: Scholar- ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/ or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdic- tions. MA: The number of licences for cosmeto- logy schools in Kentucky is limited to 48 total licences, with a total of 8 licences allowed for operation of such schools per congressional district. NT: Scholarships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdictions. MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizon-tal section NT: Scholar- ships and grants may be limited to US citizens and/ or residents of particular states and may, in some cases, only be used at certain state institutions or within certain US jurisdic- tions.

13. © CSEND, 2003 Schedule pre-Doha: Australia CountrySub-sectorCross-border supply Consumption Abroad Commercial Presence Presence of natural persons AustraliaSecondary (covers general as well as tech- nical and voca- tional education at the secondary level in private institutions) MA: None NT: None MA: None NT: None MA: None NT: Unbound MA: Unbound except as indi- cated in the hori- zontal section. NT: Unbound except as indi- cated in the hori- zontal section Higher (covers provisions of private tertiary education servi- ces including at university level) Other (covers English language tuition)

14. © CSEND, 2003 Schedule pre-Doha: Norway Countr ySub-sectorCross- border supply Consump -tion Abroad Commer -cial Presence Presence of natural persons NorwayEducation- al services leading to the confer- ing of State recognized exams and/ or degrees Education- al services not leading to the con- ferring of State re- cognized exams and/ or degrees PrimaryMA: As mode 3 NT: None MA: None NT: None MA: Primary & second- ary NT: None MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section NT: Unbound except as indicated in the horizon- tal section. Teaching qua- lifications from abroad may be recognized, and an exam must be passed. Secondary (lower & upper) Higher Adult Primary MA: None NT: None MA: None NT: None MA : None NT: None MA: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section. NT: Unbound except as indicated in the horizontal section Secondary (lower & upper) Higher Adult

15. © CSEND, 2003 Schedule pre Doha: Switzerland CountrySub-sectorCross- border supply Consump- tion Abroad Commer- cial Presence Presence of natural persons Switzer- land Private Educa- tional Services Primary MA: Unbound NT: Unbound MA: Unbound NT: Unbound MA: None NT: None MA: Unbound NT: Unbound Secondary (Compulsory) Secondary (Non-Com- pulsory) MA: None NT: None MA: None NT: None MA: None NT: None MA: Unbound except as indi- cated in the horizontal sec- tion. NT: Unbound except as indi- cated in the horizontal sec- tion Higher Adult

16. © CSEND, 2003 National Treatment Commitments in H.E. By Mode, No. Of Country Commitments Source: OECD/CERI, 2002

17. © CSEND, 2003 Market Access Commitments in H.E. By Mode, No. Of Country Commitments

18. © CSEND, 2003 35 Initial ES Requests by November 2003 Not public, only offers will be (MFN) Made public so far: Canada: no Rs on health, education, social service, culture Switzerland, no Rs on education EU on USA only: HE to make commitments in modes 1, 2 and 3 for privately funded educational services and in mode 4 to commit for privately funded educational services as referred to in the section “horizontal commitments”. New Zealand and Norway: made initial RQs on ES

19. © CSEND, 2003 ES & Globalisatin: Two realities Within GATS/ES context A) souvereign right of each country to make or not make commitments B) souvereing right to difine what „public service“ should be C) souvereign right to engage in Request/Offer in ES or not Outside GATS/ES context A) Internationalisation of higher education happens independent of GATS/ES B) Danger of „Degree mills“ C) Students (Parents) vote with their feet

20. © CSEND, 2003 Solutin sets to trade in education Structural Solutions 1. Within GATS/ES Example: by profession (GATS/Accountants) Plurilateral Agreeement (like Public Procurement) 2. Outside GATS/ES Example: UNESCO/OECD WG on quality assurance, recognition of degress, professional standards Functional Solutions (within GATS) 1. Social knowledge (like TK/TRIPS) 2. Multi-developmental ES (like multifunctional agriculture)

21. © CSEND, 2003 Alternatives for ES GATS/ES is not of the devil! (e.g. does not require privatisation of ES). GATS/ES is one but important option to develop, open and participate in global education market GATS/ES is as good as the strategy of WTO member countries allow, if there is one at all? IF „Niet“ to GATS/ES: WHAT IS THE ALETRNATIVE FOR THE FUTURE?

22. © CSEND, 2003 5 Major Exporters of ES, US$ million and as a % of total exports in Services

23. © CSEND, 2003 Ratio of Foreign Students per Domestic Students Abroad in Tertiary Education Source: OECD/CERI, 2002

24. © CSEND, 2003 Example of China’s Education Strategy and Use of GATS/ES Shanghai 15 million people public schools competitive exams Private school suburb Private school province Private school suburb

25. © CSEND, 2003 Example of China’s Education Strategy and Use of GATS/ES Tuition fee (maximum) Qualification criteria of teachers Regulatory requirements Top grade allowance Required entry points (minimum & maximum specifications) Tuition fee (minimum) Location of school Shanghai 15 million people public schools competitive exams AUSTRALIA e.g. Sydney University - graduate degrees (MBA, Ph.D.) - immigration/ work permit/ possible citizenship - opportunities for wealth creation - remittence/ FDI to China - return to China

26. © CSEND, 2003 Example: USA 2004 (post 9/11) (Source: Robert Gates, IHT, 3th April 2004) Impact of 9/11 related security measures: 1.Application for HE fall 2004/USA: 1. Chinese: 76% reduction 2. Indians: 58 % reduction 2. Application to Research Universities 38% drop compared to 2003 Negative Impact: Lower income for US universities Lower rate of innovation for US universities & R&D Institutes Insufficient US students for key fields: engineering, IT Reduction of PR Image impact on rest of world (US way of life)

27. © CSEND, 2003 ES: Strategic considerations How to ensure innovation of teaching methods & research capabilities of Swiss universities and HES? How to ensure exchange with „rest of the world“ in matters pertaining to ES & R&D? How to ensure participation of Swiss academics in knowledge creation at global levels? How to ensure recognition of Swiss degress, professional qualifications, quality standards How to ensure adequate supply of highly educated persons for all vital sectors of Swiss economy and society now and in future? How to ensure equality of access to ES for all Swiss potential students? How to ensure cost efficient & learning effective higher education in Switzerland?

28. © CSEND, 2003 Données statistiques disponibles sur "l'internationalisation de la formation supérieure en Suisse Rapport final, OCDE GATS/ES forum, Trondheim 2003 Fourniture transfrontalière IN Etudiants étrangers suivant des offres de formation à distance fournies par les universités suisses : pas de données, offre peu importante OUT Etudiants suisses suivant des cours à distance fournis par une université étrangère : pas de données

29. © CSEND, 2003 What approach- What Philosophy? 1.Rational-Deductive-Normative Model Mandatory accreditation scheme at national level, based on national laws Mandatory QA systems as part of accreditation scheme within each school or university Mandatory regulation of recognition of qualifications within accreditation schemes based on national laws Plus  logical-deductive – rational-transparent (law)  equal-level-playing field at national level for all schools and universities Minus  bureaucratic, costly, lenghty, stiffling innovation protectionist (trade barrier)

30. © CSEND, 2003 What approach- What Philosophy? Cont. 3. Pragmatic-Emerging Model No overarching mandatory accreditation system at national level. Schools & Universities free to select national or foreign accreditation systems- or none at all Selection of QA system left to schools and universities But Recognition of Qualifications regulated by governments exerting upward pressure to ensure minimum QA-standards Plus  ensures minimum performance levels (Rec. - Qualifications)  leaves open space for innovation Minus  tension between Rec.-Qualification at national level vs at international level  Possible “take over” by foreign Accreditation & QA schemes

31. © CSEND, 2003 What approach- What Philosophy? Cont. 2. Decentralised-Deregulated- “Market” Model Plus  easy to position and re-position schools & universities at national and international level  non-protectionist but possibly influenced by industry-cartels dominant schools and universities Minus  possible race to the bottom: low cost-low quality-low equity  elitist split (“excellent” and “lousy” schools and universities) No mandatory QA system at schools and universities No recognition of qualifications at national level No accreditation law nor mandatory practice at national level

32. Copyright CSEND 2003 Thank you for your attention