globalization and educational restructuring: …bcct.unam.mx/adriana/bibliografia parte 2/mok k. m....

Globalization and educational restructuring: University merging

and changing governance in China

KA-HO MOKDepartment of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee

Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Abstract. This article sets out in the context of globalization to identify, examine anddiscuss issues related to structural adjustment and educational restructuring in China,with particular reference to university merging and changes in higher education gov-ernance models. While it is basically an historical and documentary analysis of policy

change in Chinese higher education, this article focuses on restructuring strategies thatthe Chinese government has adopted to make its university systems more competitiveand efficient in the global market context. University merging in China should not be

simply understood as a pure higher education reform but rather a fundamental changein higher education governance model from an ‘interventionist state model’ to an ‘ac-celerationist state model’. Rather than globalization bringing about the decline of the

nation state, this article shows transformations taking place in Chinese universities maynot necessarily diminish the capacity of the state but instead make the Chinese gov-ernment a more activist state in certain aspects.1

Globalization challenges to modern nation states

In the 1990s, globalization has become the leading social science mantraand is adopted to conceptualize and account for changes in the economy,developments in technology, culture and value, politics and governance,and political unification of the world (Giddens 1999; Petrella 1996; Pierreand Peters 2000; Sklair 1999; Waters 2001). Interpretations of global-ization impacts on contemporary societies are diverse, strong globalistsput forth the convergence thesis, painting a bleak and depressing pictureof the future of the nation state and the options for autonomousdomestic policy choice (Boyer and Drache 1996; Fukuyama 1992; Moses1994); while skeptics and transformationists have questioned the actualextent of globalization and actual changes caused by globalizationprocesses (Held et al., 1999; Hirst and Thompson 1999).

When examining the capacity of modern states in the context ofglobalization, different scholars may have diverse interpretations (Hirstand Thompson 1999). For skeptics and transformationists, they oppose

Higher Education (2005) 50: 57–88 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6347-zHigher Education (2005) 50: 57–88 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6347-zHigher Education (2005) 50: 57–88 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6347-zHigher Education (2005) 50: 57–88 � Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6347-z

to the convergence thesis proposed by the strong globalists that modernstates are declining in capacity under the impact of globalization. In-stead, they believe nation states still retain the ultimate claim of legallegitimacy within their territories even though they have to respond toexternal pressures generated by international laws and authorities(Jayasuriya, 2001; Pempel 1998). Criticizing the strong globalizists foroverstating the impacts of globalization, other scholars have arguedthere has not been sufficient empirical evidence to develop the causalrelationship between globalization and the receding role of modernstates (Hinnfors and Pierre 1998; Rodrik 1997). Meanwhile, a group ofscholars have called for bringing the regional and national dimensionsback in the analysis of changing state roles and new governance (Daleand Robertson 2002; Evans and Harding 1997; Sassen, 1999). Theyargue, instead, that national governments are far from diminished butare reconstituted and restructured in the growing complexity of pro-cesses of governance in the context of globalization (Held et al., 1999,pp. 7–9; Weiss 1998).

To cope with intensified globalization pressures, modern states havechanged their governance strategies from ‘positive coordination’ to‘negative coordination’, thereby the architecture of modern states hastransformed. For ‘positive coordination’, it refers to an ‘attempt tomaximize the overall effectiveness and efficiency of government policyby exploring and utilizing the joint strategy of options of several min-isterial portfolios’; while for ‘negative coordination’, is designed to‘ensure that any new policy initiative designed by a specialized sub-unitwithin the ministerial organization will not interfere with the establishedpolicies and interests of other ministerial units’ (Scharpf 1994, pp. 38–39). The change in the coordination mode has prevented modern statesfrom being over-burdened by welfare and social/public policy com-mitments (Jayasuriya 2001; Scharpf 1994). Likewise, the institutional-ized state-society linkages (i.e., the mobilization of non-state sourcesand actors to engage in social/public policy provision and financing)may generate additional resources for the state to finance and providesocial services and public policies. In this regard, globalization could beconductive to reconfiguring modern states, driving modern states torestructure their governance models and reform the ways that the publicsector is managed (Pierre 2000; Pierre and Peters 2000). These changescould also be seen as productive forces for modern states to change theirroles and reform their institutions in order to accommodate to, and notjust adapt to, the demands and pressures generated from the externalenvironments.

KA-HO MOK58

Even though there may have seen similar trends and patterns inthe public policy and public management domain along the line ofprivatization, marketization, commodification and corporatization,governments in different parts of the globe may use similar strategiesto serve their own political purposes. Modern states may tacticallymake use of the globalization discourse to justify their own politicalagendas or legitimize their inaction (Cheung and Scott 2003; Hallak2000; Mok 2003). Most important of all, such restructuring processescould have enhanced the state capacity rather than weakening therole of modern states, particularly when modern states may adopt aspectrum of adjustment strategies to cope with globalization chal-lenges. In certain aspects, such restructuring and reconstituting pro-cesses may make modern government a more activist state especiallywhen modern states have chosen the role as regulator, enabler,facilitator instead of heavily engaged in the role as provider andfunder (Kooiman 2000; OECD 1995; Yang 2003).

Globalization, educational restructuring and university merging

Education, like other public policy areas, is affected by the same glob-alization processes. Therefore, globalisation’s substantial effects oneducation is hardly disputed any more, indeed a number of authors havepointed out in recent years (Burbules and Torres 2000; Crossley 2000;Currie and Newson 1998; Jones 1998; Mok 2001; Mok and Chan 2002;Mok and Welch 2003; Welch 2000, 2001). In order to make individualnation-states more competitive, schools and universities in differentparts of the globe have been under tremendous pressures from gov-ernment and the general public to restructure/reinvent themselves inorder to adapt to the ever-changing socio-economic and socio-politicalenvironments. As Martin Carnoy has pointed out, ‘globalization entersthe education sector on an ideological horse, and its effects in educationare largely a product of that financially driven, free-market ideology,not a clear conception for improving education’ (Carnoy 2000, p. 50).Education reforms, under the context of globalization, could be char-acterized by a finance-driven reform emphasizing decentralization,privatization and better performance (Carnoy 2000; Mok and Welch2003).

With heavy weight being attached to the principle of ‘efficiency andquality’ in education, schools, universities, and other learning institu-tions now encounter far more challenges, and are being subjected to an

GLOBALIZATION AND EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 59

unprecedented level of external scrutiny. The growing concern for ‘valuefor money’ and ‘public accountability’ has also altered people’s valueexpectations. All providers of education today inhabit a more com-petitive world, where resources are becoming scarcer; but at the sametime, providers have to accommodate increasing demands from thelocal community as well as changing expectations from parents andemployers (Currie and Newson 1998; Mok and Currie 2002). Attachingfar more weight to entrepreneurial efficiency and effectiveness, con-temporary universities are under immense pressures to transform theirroles to adapt to changes generated from rapid socio-economic andsocio-political changes. It is particularly true when modern governmentshave encountered reduced financial capacity to finance growingdemands for higher education.

In order to generate additional revenues to sustain the developmentof universities, academics nowadays are increasingly involved in ap-plied, commercial, strategic, and targeted research to generate addi-tional resources, proactively engaging in securing research grants andcontracts, service contracts, establishing closer partnerships withindustry and government, technology transfer, or recruiting more fee-paying students (Apple 2000; Slaughter 1998). ‘Satellite operations’ oroff-shore campuses have been set up in Southeast Asia or other parts ofthe globe by institutions based in Britain, Australia and the UnitedStates to market their programmes not only regionally but also inter-nationally, academic institutions and university faculties are increas-ingly involved in business-oriented activities to generate additionalresources (Clark 1998; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Yang 2003). Thus, aprocess of ‘academic capitalization’ is becoming increasingly popular inshaping the higher education sector across the globe (Clark 2002; Mok2001; Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Therefore, a new ‘university–aca-demic–productive sector relations’ has emerged (Sutz 1997); while no-tions such as ‘corporate academic convergence’ (Currie and Newson1998), ‘entrepreneurial universities’ (Marginson 2000), ‘campus inc.’(White and Hauck 2000), ‘capitalization of knowledge’, ‘strong execu-tive control’ and ‘corporate characters’ are used to conceptualize cur-rent changes in contemporary universities (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff1997). It is, therefore, not surprising that ‘the language of human capitaldominates official policy recommendations dealing with growing eco-nomic and social problems’ (Spring 1998, p. 163).

In response to the demands for greater efficiency and quality edu-cation alongside the reality of growing financial stringency, universitymerging has become a common phenomenon for the latest develop-

KA-HO MOK60

ments of the higher education systems in the United Kingdom, theUnited States, Australia, mainland China and Taiwan. Comparativestudies reveal that the principal goal for university mergers is toachieve administrative, economic and academic benefits by merginginstitutions into a larger unit based on the assumption that larger unitswould yield qualitatively stronger academic institutions, better man-agement and use of administrative resources. Being influenced by theideas of New Public Management (NPM), one of the most popularbeliefs in public management in recent years emphasizing the impor-tance of efficiency, effectiveness and economy, the maximization ofeconomies of scale is conceived to be the most important driving forcefor university mergers to get a more professional and efficientadministration and to save public expenditure being spent on theuniversity sector (Eastman and Lang 2001; Mok 2002; Rowley 1997;Skodvin 1999; Tai 2002). Similarly, Goedegebuure and Meek arguethat large institutions joining the merger process to bring in scarceresources from the government and to diversify to cover as manysubject fields as possible. Particularly during times of retrenchment,the more comprehensive institutions can grasp a better chance toprotect their flows of funds than the relatively vulnerable specializedinstitutions (1991, p. 19). In addition, another major impetus tomerger has come from government policy stressing the importance ofeffectiveness, rational coverage and efficiency in running higher edu-cation (Sanyal 1995, p. 60).

Fig. 1 shows how globalization accelerates higher educationrestructuring along the line of ‘marketization’, ‘corporatization’ and‘privatization’, university merging is becoming an increasingly popu-lar restructuring strategy for promoting efficiency, effectiveness,economy and competition in the higher education sector (Mok 2002;Tai 2002). Up to this point, we have discussed how globalization haschallenged modern states, accelerating processes of structural adjust-ments and education restructuring. The following examines the ori-gin, recent developments and changing higher education governanceafter higher education restructuring and university merging has beenstarted in mainland China.

Changing policy contexts for university mergers in mainland China

Before the economic reform started in the late 1970s, China was heavilyinfluenced by the former Soviet Union, whereby a planned economy


model had been adopted. Since 1978, the post-Mao leaders haveengaged in reforms to promote economic development and improvepeople’s livelihood in China. Starting from the mid-1990s, the Chinesegovernment has endorsed the market economy approach to foster fur-ther economic growth (Lieberthal 1995; Wang and Wong 1999). China,like other parts of the world, has never immune itself from the growingimpact of globalization particularly when the Chinese economy isbecoming increasingly open to the global market. Since 2001, China’saccession to the World Trade Organization has unquestionably sub-jected the mainland to keener regional and global competitions andchallenges. Realizing the newly emerging knowledge economy requirescompetent and highly qualified and professional people, the Chinesegovernment believes the changing domestic, regional and global socialand economic environments have rendered its higher education systemsinappropriate and less competitive in the global marketplace. In orderto improve the ‘global competence’ of its citizens and to make its highereducation systems more efficient, higher education restructuring alongthe line of ‘university merging’ has been launched in the mid-1990s

Figure 1. Globalization, new policy trends and university merging.

KA-HO MOK62

(Yang 2000). A better understanding of the origin and development ofuniversity merging in China could be obtained by comparing andcontrasting the policy models and policy environments in which highereducation policies were made before and after the economic reformstook place in the late 1970s.

Centralized governance model of higher education in the pre-reform era

Before the communists came to power in 1949, there was a co-existenceof state-funded universities and non-state universities and a largenumber of universities were run by missionaries. A new structure ofgovernance of universities was taken shape after the foundation of thenew China through the adoption of the Soviet model in Chinese highereducation system. The reason for using Soviet system was to adapt thehigher education system to meet the economic development needs. TheSoviet patterns had reinforced the tendencies toward the centralizationof knowledge and uniformity of thought (Hayhoe 1989).

Soviet influence was reflected not only on the organization andadministration of higher education but also on the way that textbooks,teaching methods and classroom were designed. At the ideological level,Chinese higher education in the Mao period was heavily influenced bythe Soviet model (Yang 2000). In 1952, the Chinese governmentimplemented policies to nationalize all higher education institutions,including all public, private and missionary universities and colleges.Significant restructuring and readjusting institutions of higher educationwas also implemented in 1952. The reorganization of higher educationsector carried out under Soviet guidance was part of the efforts asso-ciated with the First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957). These reformsinvolved both a geographical rationalization of higher education pro-vision and a complete rethinking of curricular patterns and institutionalidentities. After the reorganization, all universities and colleges becamestate-run institutions, which were made narrowly specialized accordingto the manpower planning derived from the central planning economy(Min 1994). Then a hierarchical, centralized and well-organized networkwas developed (Agelasto and Bob 1998, p. 31). The newly nationalizedsystem was organized and restructured based on a ‘centralized model’,characterized by the direct leadership of the government in imple-menting the unitary instructional plans, course syllabi and textbooks inall the colleges and universities throughout the country. At that time, it


was believed that such a ‘state control model’ could best serve thecentrally planned manpower needs.

Although almost all universities in China were funded and regulatedby the state before the reform started in the 1980s, they were ratherdiversified in terms of governance. Many universities and other highereducational institutions were run and administrated by differentdepartments at the central level, while others were under the control oflocal governments. We can identify three categories of higher educationinstitutions in terms of governance: (a) those under the direct admin-istration of the Ministry of Education (MOE); (b) those under the non-educational central ministries; and (c) those under provincial and otherlocal authorities. Under the planned economy, a large number of spe-cialized economic management departments were established andmaintained in China to implement government’s direct intervention inbusiness. In order to train professional manpower for the specificindustries, these non-educational central departments also establishedand administered their own universities. Therefore, higher educationinstitutions, under those specific economic management departments,were made narrowly specialized in order to fit the manpower planningunder the planned economy. This caused ‘matrix fragmentation’ (tiao/kuai fenge) in educational governance, leading to functional overlap-ping, resources wastage, low economy and efficiency in higher educationsector.

As the top government agency was in charge of educational policy-making, the MOE was to provide general guidance for all institutions ofhigher education and to control major policy decisions concerninghigher education. In addition, the MOE retained direct control overcertain key universities, taking the responsibility for designing curriculaand syllabuses, designing textbooks, student admission, graduate jobassignment, and exerted control over matters like budgets, salary scalesand personnel issues (Mok 1996). Provincial and local education com-missions and bureaus were just mediators to reinforce and implementnational policy. Since the central government had the absolute controlover financing, provision and management of education, the enthusiasmof local governments and higher education institutions was jeopardized.Moreover, such a governance model was also notorious for the sepa-ration of the center and the locality, under which each higher educationinstitution was directed by their departments in charge at the centraland local levels, resulting in lack of coordination among these levels andinefficient administration and ineffective service delivery (Fan 1995,p. 43).

KA-HO MOK64

Policy of decentralization and higher education restructuring inpost-Mao China

Since the late 1970s, the modernization drive, the reform and openingup to the outside world has transformed the highly centralized planningeconomy into a market oriented and more dynamic economy. In thenew market economy context, the old way of higher education gover-nance is rendered inappropriate. Acknowledging that over-centraliza-tion and stringent rules would kill the initiatives and enthusiasm oflocal educational institutions, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)called for resolute steps to streamline administration, devolve powers tounits at lower levels so as to allow them more flexibility to run edu-cation. Central to the reform strategies are closely related to the policyof decentralization, whereby higher education institutions have beengiven more autonomy to run their own businesses (Min 1994; Mok2002a).

The promulgation of the Decision on Reform of Educational System(hereafter 1985 Decision) by the CCP Central Committee in 1985 marksthe first comprehensive reform in Chinese higher education sector. TheDecision stated that the key to restructuring higher education lies ineliminating excessive government control over the institutions of highereducation and, under guidance of the state policies and plans in edu-cation, extending the decision-making power of the colleges and uni-versities and strengthening their ties with production units, scientificresearch institutions and similar sectors, so that they will have the ini-tiative and ability to serve economic and social development (CCP CC1985). It is note-worthy that this comprehensive higher education re-form blueprint put emphasis on local responsibility, diversity of edu-cational opportunities, multiple sources of educational funds, anddecentralization of power to individual institutions’ authorities in gov-erning their own affairs. Although the State Education Commission(SEC) [a central administrative organization responsible for highereducation policy and management] still performed the role of ‘guiding’and ‘monitoring’ the whole higher education sector, the SEC no longerdirectly controlled and managed nearly every aspect of the highereducation system. Instead, the SEC just assumed an overall leadership,providing policy guidance and direction instead of routine managementand administration after the 1985 reform.2

The Outline for Reform and Development of Education in China issuedby the Communist Party of China in 1993 identified the reduction ofcentralization and government control in general as the long-term goals


of reform (CCP CC 1993). The government began to play the role of‘macro-management through legislation, allocation of funding, plan-ning, information service, policy guidance and essential administration’,so that ‘universities can independently provide education geared to theneeds of society under the leadership of the government’. Thereafter, wehave witnessed a large-scale development of higher education in the1990s and different types of tertiary institutions have evolved in themainland, including both national (public) and private/minban (non-state run) higher education institutions.3 (Chan and Mok 2001; Mok2001a). With the rapid expansion of both higher education institutionsand number of students, the Chinese government sees the need todevelop a better governance model to run and monitor the highereducation sector in the mainland (Fan 1995). Through implementing aseries of policies of decentralization and marketization, the Chinesegovernment has initiated fundamental changes in the orientation,financing, curriculum, and management of higher education (Agelastoand Bob 1998; Chan and Mok 2001; Mok 2001b). It is against thechanging policy context discussed earlier that university merging andhigher education restructuring was started in the 1990s. In 1995, theSEC issued a policy document entitled ‘Suggestions on DeepeningHigher Education Structural Reform’ (‘Suggestions’, hereafter), rec-ommending the four major restructuring strategies, namely, ‘jointdevelopment’ (gongjian), ‘restructuring’ (huazhuan), ‘merging’ (hebing)and ‘cooperation’ (hezuo) to reform its higher education systems. Thefollowing discusses these restructuring strategies, the consequences andthe policy implications of university merging and higher educationrestructuring in China.

University merging and higher education restructuring in China

(1) Restructuring (huazhuan)

Before the proposed restructuring, the majority of regular higher edu-cation institutions were directly under different central ministries,including Ministry of Coal Industry, Ministry of Machine-BuildingIndustry, Ministry of Metallurgical Industry, Ministry of InternalTrade, Light Industry Council and Textile Industry Council, Ministryof Posts and Telecommunications, and Ministry of Forestry, etc. Withthe abolition of these central ministries, the management structures of91 universities need to be restructured. Following the 1995 ‘Sugges-

KA-HO MOK66

tions’, the strategy of ‘restructuring’ was adopted to change the lead-ership and governance structures in higher education, including:

• Transferring all universities originally under the leadership of thecentral ministries mentioned above to be led and governed by localgovernments;

• Restructuring the leadership and governance structures among non-education central ministries;

• Transferring universities originally led and governed by differentministries to education bureaus at the provincial level, autonomousregions and centrally administering cities;

• Restructuring institutions of adult higher learning into trainingcentres under the leadership of different government departments.

Such restructuring initiatives have been the largest scale of man-agement reform and governance change in China’s higher educationsector since the early 1990s. As a result of the restructuring processes,the bulk of the central departments in charge of specialized economicmanagement have been abolished. In 1998, the leadership of 151 uni-versities originally led by different central ministries in the State Councilwas transferred to local governments; while 81 out of them were jointlydeveloped and administered by central government and local govern-ments (General Office of the State Council 1998). In 1999, 59 univer-sities originally run and led by the Ministry of Defence were transferredto be run and governed by local education bureaus. In 2000, 97 uni-versities originally run and led by different ministries at the central levelwere run and governed by local governments; while 55 institutions ofadult higher learning previously run by ministries at the central levelwere transferred to local governments (General Office of the StateCouncil 2000). In order to resolve the problems of overlapping andwastage, the leadership of an additional 66 universities previously runand led by ministries in the central government was transferred to theMOE. Among these 66 universities, 22 were led and governed by theMOE, while 27 of them were merged with the existing universities underthe jurisdiction of the MOE, 11 of them were merged into 5 newinstitutions (General Office of the State Council 2000). After adoptingthe restructuring strategy, non-educational central ministries have rolledgradually back from higher education sector, the relationship betweenthe MOE, non-educational central ministries and provincial govern-ments have gone through significant changes.

Table 1 shows the number of higher education institutionsinvolved in the restructuring processes, some of them have taken the


restructuring strategy while the other are readjusted and transformedby other reform measures like ‘joint development’, ‘merger’ and‘cooperation’.

(2) Joint Development (gongjian)

‘Joint development’ refers to how higher education institutions arereadjusted to be under the dual-leadership of central ministries andprovincial (municipal and autonomous regional) governments withoutthe change of financing channel (Zhou 2000, p. 15). The idea of jointdevelopment was first brought by the Guangdong provincial govern-ment in its study on higher education reform in 1992. In 1993, theformer SEC and Guangdong provincial government proposed to jointlyadminister Zhongshan University and South China University ofTechnology in order to allow the two universities to play a more distinctrole in the economic and social developments of Guangdong. Theproposed ‘joint development’ strategy has not changed the leadershiprelationship between the universities and their supervising authoritiessince they are still under the direct administration of the SEC. Thisensures that the funding from the central government would not beaffected. And the provincial government would place the universitiesunder the local economic and social development plans and provides the

Table 1. Current developments of higher education restructuring in China.

Types ofstructuralchange

JointDevelopment(gongjian)

Restructuring(huazhuan)

Merging(hebing)

Cooperation(hezuo)

1993 5 – – –

1994 15 – 4 (2) 11

1995 40 5 70 (28) 120

1996 56 7 103 (42) 178

1997 100 16 162 (74) 228

1998 114 177 258 (105) 267

1999 197 226 304 (125) 317

2000 – 509 556 (232) –

Note. Figures in blankets refer to the reduced number of institutions after merging.Source. State Education Commission 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998; Ministry of

Education 1999, 2000, 2001.

KA-HO MOK68

capital investment funds for them. In return, the universities would gearto the need of local economic and social development in their curricu-lum and programme design, admission, employment of graduates, andscientific research (Zhou 2000, p. 15). Under such a policy direction, theSchool of Communications and the School of Electric Power have beendeveloped jointly by Zhongshan University and the relevant depart-ments of the provincial Government of Guangdong. Other examplesinclude the Automobile and Engine Research Centre, the ChemicalEngineering Science and Technical Research Centre, and the UltrasonicElectronic and Information Equipment Engineering Research Centrewhich have been jointly developed by the university and relevant localorganizations and industrial conglomerates. In addition, joint devel-opment projects also include those between the South China Universityof Technology and other institutions of higher learning and researchinstitutes in Guangdong (Mok 2003a; South China University of Tech-nology Leaflet 1998, p. 1).

Having seen the success of the Guangdong experience, the MOEbegan to launch a nation-wide university restructuring project in light ofthe four principles of ‘joint development’ (gongjian), ‘restructuring’(huazhuan), ‘merging’ (hebing) and ‘cooperation’ (hezuo). The MOE hasbeen charged with responsibilities to coordinate the entire restructuring/readjustment project. Given the special features and the distinct roles ofsome institutions in students mentoring, teaching and research, a dif-ferentiated administering management model was introduced in themid-1990s for these universities. The basic guiding principle ofrestructuring/readjustment is ‘joint development’ by the central andlocal governments (gongjian). Among the 91 regular higher educationinstitutions, 10 leading universities are under the joint development bythe central and local governments with the former prevailing in majordecision-making and the latter prevailing in the daily management ofthe universities. In fact, all these 10 universities are directly managed bythe MOE. The Ministry is responsible for providing the general ex-penses and the capital investment funds for these universities. TheMOE, together with the Ministry of Finance, and other related minis-tries are obligated to work out the managing methods over these 10universities with the provincial and municipal governments where theseuniversities are located. The State Economic and Trade Commissionand the related state bureaus will continue to take care and supportthese universities for their work in scientific research and informationcommunication, their liaison work with enterprises, and assisting thedevelopment of special programs.


After the administrative reform, the other 81 universities are jointlyadministered and jointly run by the central and local governmentswith the latter prevailing in the management. Local governments willmanage their state assets, and be responsible for the management oftheir staff establishment, labor and wage. The universities will beplaced under the local economic and social development plans. Theprovincial governments have the responsibilities to take measures toallow these institutions to play a more distinct role in the promotionof local economic and social developments. Preferential treatment suchas financial support from the local governments available usually tothe local institutions must be made available to these institutions. Inthe first several years, the central government must provide funding tothese universities. After the transitional years, the local governmentwill take over the funding responsibility. In addition, the Ministry ofFinance must transfer funding to the local financial departments tocover expenditure of these institutions on official medical care andhousing reform (earmarked mainly for the housing provident fund).After such a restructuring exercise, these universities will recruitmainly local students and serve to promote local socio-economicdevelopment. It is obvious that the role of the central government isgradually reduced in terms of administration and structure, educationfinancing, curriculum or graduate employment assignment. As a resultof such an administrative restructuring, many universities have beentransferred to be under the jurisdiction of the MOE and provincialgovernments.

With decentralization policies in place, especially the retreat of thenon-educational central departments in higher education, local gov-ernments, especially at the provincial level have strengthened theircoordinating function and enhanced their financial responsibility inhigher education sector. Meanwhile, the local governments haveestablished a close cooperative relationship with MOE to run and fundall MOE-led universities located in their territories. These developmentsmark the new trend of localization of higher education in China. The‘joint development’ between universities could be seen as the testingground for further collaboration or pre-merger study to see how well thepartners/participants involved could really benefit from the collabora-tive processes. More importantly, ‘joint development’ in the Chinesecontext could also be understood as pragmatic strategies adopted bylocal governments and universities to pull resources together tostrengthen the overall teaching and research performance in the region.With enhanced capacity and improvement in performance, the univer-

KA-HO MOK70

sities involved in ‘joint development’ could have occupied higher posi-tion in the national university league table, thus attracting additionalresources and funding from the central government.

(3) Mergers (hebing)

One of the major motives for launching university merger in mainlandChina is to do with the enhancement of efficiency and effectiveness,standard and competitiveness. Instead of a merely formalized merger,pragmatic merger is stressed in the implementation of the reform. Itrefers to the unification of leadership and governance mechanism ofinstitutions. Besides, its progress also involves the readjustment ofprogramme setting, resource distribution, staff personnel and supportunits management. The reform advocates a principle of ‘1+1>2’, thatis an extra value could be added and ‘productivity gain’ could beachieved via merger.

Apart from that, merger is also seen as a way to readjust the strategicstructure of higher education institutions. Through merger, the numberof higher education institution has been decreased. This readjustmenteffectively responds to the problems of functional overlapping, narrowlyspecialized and small scale of institutions. At the same time, compre-hensive universities were established by merging mono-disciplinaryuniversities/colleges without new investment and establishment. Theestablishment of new Zhejiang University in 1998 is a very goodexample for illustrating how university merging is done in mainlandChina. The Zhejiang project was established on the basis of the mergerof Zhejiang University, Hangzhou University, Zhejiang AgriculturalUniversity, Zhejiang Medical University. As a comprehensive univer-sity, programmes of the merged university covers arts, humanity, edu-cation, economics, management, law, agriculture, sciences, engineeringand medicine. In addition, there are national laboratories, researchcenters, post-doctoral stations (areas being identified as excellence inresearch) at the university.4 By transforming it to be a comprehensiveuniversity, the merger was successful to place Zhejiang University in aleading position in size and diversity (Zhou 2000, p. 16). Other examplesof university mergers in mainland China include: Shanghai Universitywas merged with four higher education institutions, including ShanghaiIndustrial University and Shanghai Science and Technology University,in 1994. In 2000, Guangzhou University was merged with eight highereducation institutions in Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong


Province, such as Guangzhou Normal Institute and Guangzhou Insti-tute of Education (Ministry of Education 2002).

Merger is also regarded as a way to reform the management of highereducation institutions through organizational restructuring (Fang 2000,p. 64; Wang 2000, p. 86). The traditional organizational structure ofhigher education institutions in China is a university–faculty–depart-ment establishment, in which university is on bureau (ting) rank; facultyis on vice-bureau (fu-ting) rank; and department is on department (chu)rank.5 In the progress of merger, the establishment of faculty anddepartment will be readjusted/restructured in order to reinforce theleadership and prevent overlapping. Therefore, in accordance withhistorical background and specific situation of the institutions, there arethree types of organizational restructuring of higher education institu-tions in China: (1) preserving the original mode of three levels ofestablishment; (2) three levels of establishment with two levels ofmanagement in a transitional mode, in which university is on bureau(ting) rank; the existing faculty is on vice-bureau (fu-ting) rank, whilethe new established faculty is on (chu) rank; and department is ondepartment (chu) rank; (3) three levels of establishment with two levelsof management, in which university is on bureau (ting) rank; faculty ison (chu) rank; and department is teaching and research unit withoutadministrative rank but preserves its conditions of service. After themerging, faculty does not exist as an autonomous establishment. Itusually consists of a general office only. In some cases, it may consist ofa general office, a teaching and research office, and a student affairsoffice which are obligated to the organization and coordination ofteaching, research and student affairs of its subordinated departments(Fang 2000, pp. 64–65).

(4) Cooperation (hezuo)

As university merger requires a huge amount of energies and time tomaterialize, a middle way to promote university collaboration is toadopt the strategy of ‘cooperation’. ‘Cooperation’ refers to the col-laboration or cooperation between academic units or academic insti-tutions. The adoption of this reform strategy can pull resources ofthose involved institutions together, colleagues and students fromthese institutions joining the collaboration project can enjoy betterresources, including facilities and equipments for teaching, learningand research. In order to strengthen the higher education sector in

KA-HO MOK72

Guangdong, universities in the province are encouraged to shareresources and facilities among universities. Realizing the limitationsfaced by the Guangzhou city-run higher educational institutions(particularly in terms of small student population size, limited spacefor school buildings, and inadequate resources and faculty members),a ‘University City’ in Gaungzhou was conceived to pull resourcesfrom those local higher education institutions such as Jiao TongCollege, Vocational College, Industrial and Business College, Collegeof Arts and Law, and College of Finance together (Ding and Min1997; Min 1999; South China University of Technology Leaflet 1998,p. 1).

In addition, the Guangdong Government has started another ini-tiative to offer favorable policy to attract leading universities from otherparts of the country to engage them in collaborative project by estab-lishing their branch/campus in the province. Leading universities likeBeijing University of Science and Technology, Harbin University ofIndustry, Xian Jiao Tong University, North West University ofIndustry, Beijing Foreign Language University, Tsinghua Universityand Peking University have already set up their branches to offer edu-cation programmes to citizens in the Pearl River Delta. Similarly, theZhuhai government has reached agreements with Zhongshan Universityand Jinan University in Guangzhou, both of them are leading univer-sities in the province, to set up their branch campuses at Zhuhai.Engaging universities into such a collaborative project, local govern-ments can mobilize more resources to offer higher quality education(Chen and Lin 2001).

In Beijing, Peking University and Peking Medical University reachedan agreement in 1995 to join a cooperation project. Having the col-laboration, students can freely choose courses offered by these univer-sities and the credits are mutually recognized. Moreover, they alsojointly offer taught master programmes and PhD research degrees. Staffand students from these universities also share library resources andother facilities are made available to them (Min 1999). In 1999, 13higher education institutions at Xueyuan district of Beijing city started a‘teaching consortium’ to pull resources of 13 institutions together. Withimproved human resources and resources for research and teaching,students from the institutions involved can enroll courses and sharefacilities by the member institutions. In addition, institutions joining thecooperation project also set up academic accreditation mechanisms toassure high quality in education (Shen 2001). Similar cooperation pro-jects can be easily found in other parts of the country such as the


collaborative projects between Beijing University of InternationalBusiness and Economics, Beijing University of Chemical Technology,Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing Fashion College,Financial and Banking Institute of China to offer programmes fortraining. In Nanjing, Nanjing University and Southeast Universityjointly offer academic programmes; while other institutions like ChinaPharmaceutical University, Nanjing Railway Medical College, NanjingCivil Engineering and Mechanics, and Nanjing University of Posts andTelecommunications also reach a collaborative agreement for offeringtraining and learning programmes (Wang 1999). All these exampleshave clearly indicated that universities in mainland China have trieddifferent restructuring strategies to improve the efficiency, effectivenessand quality of their higher education systems.

Discussion

University merging as administrative reform in China

Like university merging experiences elsewhere (see, for example,Goedegebuure and Meek 1991; Harman and Meek 2002; Skodvin1999), university mergers in China could be understood as a way toenhance the research and teaching performance of universities and as ameans to promote efficiency, effectiveness and economy in higher edu-cation. Nonetheless, university merging and higher education restruc-turing taking place in mainland China should not be purely understoodas only reforms in higher education. Rather, university merging andhigher education restructuring is closely related to the administrativereform initiated by the State Council in 1998. Therefore, a betterunderstanding of university merging in mainland China could beobtained from the wider administrative reform initiated by the StateCouncil in 1998, which injected new dynamics for the changing ofuniversity governance in China. As the market reform proceeds, themechanism of specialized economic management departments directlycontrolling enterprises became increasingly incompatible with therequirements of establishing a modern enterprise system. In order toestablish an administrative system which could be compatible to themarket economy in China and to promote economic and social devel-opment, a new round of administrative reform of the State Council waslaunched in early 1998. The goals of the 1998 administrative reformwere: to streamline the bureaucracy and to establish an efficient, well

KA-HO MOK74

coordinated and standardized governmental administrative system; toperfect national civil service system; to train government personnel to behighly qualified professional administrative personnel; and to graduallyestablish an administrative system adaptive to the socialist marketeconomy as well as to Chinese society (Luo 1998).

Against this policy context, the Chinese government realized theconventional higher education governance structure inappropriate inthe socialist market context and therefore adopted reform strategiesdiscussed earlier to resolve the problems caused by ‘matrix fragmenta-tion’ and the heavy involvement of specific central economic manage-ment departments in higher education. After the restructuringprocesses, a new governance system which is characterized by the two-tier management, based on the division of labor between the central andprovincial governments, and dominated by the coordinated manage-ment of the provincial government has been established. All the effortsdiscussed above aim to eliminate the co-existence of small, specializedand duplicative disciplinary institutions, and to improve the economiesof scale in the higher education sector. Rationalizing the distributionand utilization of resources and improving the quality of teaching andacademic research are the most obvious imperatives for universitymergers in mainland China, where there have been insufficient resourcesavailable for sustaining the mass higher education system (Wang 2000).The restructuring of university systems through mergers is to eradicatethe problem and situation of having higher education institutions gov-erned by central ministries, central and local education authorities,provincial governments, municipal governments, and state-own enter-prises that confusion of higher education policies can be avoided (Guo1998). Merger is therefore a means to streamline the governing andadministrative structure of universities and higher education institutionsand, more importantly, and to clarify and rationalize the relationshipsbetween the state and higher education institutions (Fang 2000).

One point which deserves attention here is that university amal-gamation has taken place in China for quite some years. In the 1980s,there were strong arguments in China dating back to the 1980s thatsome leading Chinese comprehensive universities should have facultiesof medicine and agriculture, for instance. Nonetheless, the market ide-ology had not been popular enough at that time as compared to therecent years to drive for reforms. In addition, institutional amalgama-tion had led to many unintended results such as creating huge admin-istration problems, failure to have efficiency gains, wasting time ontraveling between various campuses. University amalgamation in the


1980s and early 1990s were heavily criticized by eminent professors suchas Prof. Zhu Jiusi and Pan Maoyuan, leading comparative educationanalysts; while other scholars have suggested problems of different typeswhen trying to merge universities (Wang 2000; Guo 1998). With con-siderable resistance from the university sector, institutional amalgam-ation had not been widely implemented in the 1980s. Until the late1990s, the MOE attempted to capitalize the opportunity provided by theState Council to deepen administrative reform. In responding to the callfor governance and administration reform and the call for makingChinese universities ‘world class universities’ in the twentieth century,university merging was made the top of higher education reform agendain the late 1990s (Yang 2000).6

Changing higher education governance

Having contextually and historically analyzing the university amal-gamation in China, higher education restructuring and universitymerging taking place in mainland China has indicated a fundamentalchange in higher education governance. Putting the above observations,coupled with my previous studies of higher education, as well as myvarious field observations generated from various field visits to differentparts of the mainland conducted in the past few years together, a newhigher education governance model has gradually evolved (see Mok1999, 2000, 2002; Mok and Chan 2001; Ngok 2002). In the post-Maoperiod, the Chinese government has allowed different types of institu-tions of higher learning and various governance models to flourish inthe mainland in order to fulfill the policy objective of creating moreeducation opportunities. Realizing the fact that depending upon thecentral government alone could never meet the pressing demands forbetter quality education, local governments therefore have seized on thedecentralization policy and made use of the market and other non-statesources to fill the ‘gap’. In fact, the implementation of the decentral-ization policy has allowed individual higher education institutions moreflexibility and autonomy and empowered local governments to chart thecourse of higher education development in response to the local needs(Mok 2002; Ngok and Kwong 2003). As of 1998, there were 1277minban (non-state run) higher learning institutions in China (Yang2000). In 2000, there were nearly 1 million students registered in theminban higher learning institutions in the whole country (Yang 2002).The continual increase in enrolment in these minban higher education

KA-HO MOK76

institutions has indeed shown the market, non-state sector and otherlocal forces have been revitalized and mobilized to finance and providemore learning opportunities for higher education (Mok 2001, 2002a).

When we contextualize the higher education restructuring and uni-versity merging in the wider public policy contexts of decentralizationand marketization, we realize that China’s higher education has beenexperiencing a fundamental governance change. The diversification ofcoordinating institutions [i.e., the empowerment of local governments,the autonomization of individual higher education institutions, theinvolvement of the market and the community] has suggested the natureof the work the state does has changed from directly coordinating andadministering education itself to determining where the work will bedone and by whom. Unlike the governance model in the Mao era thatthe central administration imposed control on every aspect of highereducation management and governance, leading to the problems of overadministration and over intervention in the three major governanceactivities. As the policy trends and style of the ‘interventionist statemodel’ is characterized by centralization and state-dominance, the‘bureaucratic governance’ is rendered inappropriate in the socialistmarket economy since it would kill the initiatives and enthusiasm oflocal educational institutions and other social forces in creating moreeducation opportunities. In order to unleash non-state sources andmobilize non-state resources, the Chinese government therefore hasstarted the reform and restructuring processes to make its higher edu-cation systems more responsive and competitive in the global marketplace.

The diversification of actors and sectors in higher education financ-ing and provision, the revitalization of the market, the community, thesociety and the individuals and families to contribute to higher educa-tion financing and provision have shown that the state has attempted tochoose these non-state sectors/actors as new policy instruments to re-solve the state’s major financial difficulties in sustaining the traditional‘interventionist state model’. By making use not only the market forcesbut also other forces such as individuals, families, local communitiesand the society, the state is now saved from being over-burdened withcontinual increase in education financing. The growing interdependencebetween the state (public) and non-state (private, community, familyand individual contributions) and the exchange relationships, I antici-pate there will be a decline in hierarchical forms of intervention from thestate but other forms of governance will emerge. When educationfinancing and provision is no longer monopolized by the state, the


conventional ‘interventionist regulation’ framework (implying a hier-archical intervention of the state in imposing micro control of everyaspect of education delivery) is found problematic. The ‘rolling back’ ofthe state as a regulatory state has been clearly shown from the trends ofdecentralization, deregulation, privatization, marketization andadministrative reforms in education.

Fig. 2 shows how the three major coordinating institutions changetheir role/involvement in the three major education governance activi-ties. The state gradually reduces its role in higher education financingand provision; while the market and other non-state sectors arebecoming more important in these aspects. Conceptualizing the effortsthat the Chinese government has adopted to restructure its highereducation sector, it is clear that the state has gradually moved beyondthe ‘interventionist state model’ towards the ‘deregulated state model’and the ‘accelerationist state model’. By ‘deregulated state model’, thepolicy trend and style is characterized by decentralization and mobili-zation and ‘deregulated governance’ is central to this model. The centralfeatures of the ‘accelerationist state model’ are marketization, privati-zation and societal-sources-led. When analyzing education provision,financing and delivery in light of this model, the state may instrumen-tally make use of the market and other non-state sectors/actors to re-solve the problems originally be addressed and resolved by the state. Ianticipate ‘market governance’ will become popular, whereby internalcompetition and efficiency drive will be the determining forces to highereducation policy and development.

Although the overall responsibility for providing education still lieswith the central government in China, the state cannot adopt the same

Figure 2. Changing roles of coordinating institutions in education governance.

KA-HO MOK78

interventionist regulatory framework to govern the relationship betweenthe state and the non-state/private/non-state actors, special arrange-ments are to be made in allowing private/non-state actors to participatein policy making and implementation; delegating power to these non-state actors and self-regulatory framework should be established ingoverning these newly emerging private/non-state education coordina-tion institutions. The proliferation of private/non-state actors in edu-cation will certainly pose challenges to the conventional regulatoryframework, driving the state to move away from the ‘interventionistregulation’ framework to ‘interfering regulation’ and ‘regulated self-regulation’ frameworks, especially when cooperative patterns of inter-action between private and public actors in education delivery (seeFig. 3).

One point deserves particular attention here is that even though Iargue the higher education restructuring processes taking place in Chinaseems to suggest a fundamental change of higher education governancetowards the ‘deregulated state model’ and ‘accelerationist state model’, Ihave never underestimated the central government and local govern-ments still maintain a considerable extent of control over higher edu-cation policy and development. Hawkins (1999) has rightly pointed out‘China, unlike other socialist states in transition, has moved cautiouslyin all of its efforts to disengage the state from various aspects of Chinesesociety and as a result has avoided some of the catastrophic problemsother nations have faced’ (p. 7). Such observations lead us not tooverstate the degree of autonomy of the university sector by arguingthat there already exists a ‘civil society’ or a ‘public sphere’, by which wewould mean a binary opposition between state and society. Whenanalyzing how the processes of decentralization and marketization ingeneral and higher education structural reforms in particular has

Mode of StateInterventionist

StateDeregulated

StateAccelerationist

State

Mode of Governance BureaucraticGovernance

DeregulatedGovernance

Market Governance

Policy Trend and Style CentralizationState

Dominance

DecentralizationDiversificationMobilization

MarketizationPrivatization

Societal-Sources-ledForm of Regulation Interventionist

RegulationInterferingRegulation

RegulatedSelf-Regulation

Figure 3. Three forms of governance.


affected the modes of governance of China’s higher education, we mustbe aware that the relationship between the authoritarian state and themore autonomous university sector is an interactive one (Mok 2000a).As the center still keeps close watch on developments and changes thattaken place in the university sector, it is less likely that a genuinedevolution of authority can take place in mainland China especiallyunder a single dominant party retaining Maoist and Leninist traditions(Hawkins 1999).

Most significant of all, the changing mode of the state, together withthe changing mode of governance and policy trends and styles, haspointed out that the dichotomy between the market and the state isanalytically problematic and practically unrealistic. The Chinese casehas clearly demonstrated that the state may tactically make use of themarket as a policy instrument to reduce the burden of the state in highereducation financing and provision, the adoption of such a policyinstrument may well strengthen the state capacity. Such observationsdraw us to a special issue edited by Rhodes in Higher Education,highlighting the importance of interactions between national, regionaland global levels when doing policy analysis (Rhodes 2002). Attemptingto take comparative studies beyond the conceptual confines of nationalstates, economies, and systems of higher education, Marginson andRhodes (2002) offer an alternative model, namely, ‘glonacel agencyheuristic’, for stimulating comparative policy analysts to pay particularattention to examine the interactive dimensions of global, national, andlocal organizational agencies and human agency. Analyzing policychanges in the higher education sector across different parts of the globein light of the proposed framework, Marginson and Rhoades discoverorganizational agencies and human agency at various levels operatesimultaneously in the three domains of existence – global, national andlocal. In addition, they also find policy change and policy makingprocesses are so complicated that politics, markets and professionalsworking at global, regional, national and local levels interact frequently,heavily involving in bargaining and negotiating processes in shapingpolicy agendas and decisions.

Thus, we must pay particular attention to the interactions, tensionsand changing relationships between the state, the market, the societyand other non-state sectors. The case study discussed earlier has shownhow the Chinese government can reconstitute and restructure the waythat the higher education sector is managed, the restructuring processesof which may make the state a more activist state rather than dimin-ishing state capacity. By adopting adjustment strategies and changing

KA-HO MOK80

the governance modes appropriate to the changing socio-economic andsocio-political environments, the national entities not only can chal-lenge, undermine and define alternatives to global patterns but also canshape the configuration of global flows as Marginson and Rhodes(2002) have rightly suggested. Hence we must appreciate the dynamicand tensions between various forces ranging from local, regional andglobal dimensions. Particular attention must be given to examine whatstrategies of adjustment modern governments have adopted in responseto external and domestic changes. The choice of policy instruments isbecoming far more complicated and we must be sensitive to the contextsin which policy changes and policy transformations take place, tryinghard to make sense of the interactions between local, regional andglobal forces in shaping governance in modern states. If the nation statecan successfully ride over the national, regional and global forces, therestructuring processes could have rejuvenated the state and make itmore proactive and active in shaping local/national policy agendas andpolicy directions.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed how globalization has accelerated changes andrestructuring processes in contemporary societies. Our above discussionon higher education restructuring and university merging in mainlandChina should be understood as strategies adopted by the Chinesegovernment to deepen the administrative reform and to reinvent itsbureaucracy. The university merging and restructuring projects con-ducted in mainland China are to reduce the financial burden of the statein higher education financing and provision. Only when we place thehigher education restructuring in China’s unique political culturalcontext and its broader decentralization in both political and economicrealms, could we be able to have a better grasp of the tensions anddilemmas that China is now facing. On the one hand, the central gov-ernment is keen to make use of the energies and potential unleashedfrom the socialist market. On the other hand, the socialist regime isworried that the state’s ability to exercise control over social andpolitical scenes will be weakened during the same process of liberal-ization/decentralization.

Therefore, we should not discard the role of the state in determiningpolicy options and we must be sensitive to the unique constitutional andinstitutional context in which the choice and the mix of policy instru-


ments are determined. The Chinese government may well articulate itslegitimate call for pushing higher education restructuring by the justi-fications of globalization. The paradigm shift from the ‘interventioniststate model’ to the ‘accelerationist state model’ may be interpreted aspragmatic and instrumental strategies adopted by the state to strengthenits capacity to deal with pressing demands for higher education ratherthan a genuine ideological shift from socialism to a philosophicalcommitment to the neo-liberalism values of the market economy. Suchobservations and findings have indicated that globalization may notnecessarily bring about ‘the end of the state’, comparative policy ana-lysts must be sensitive to the interactions and dynamics between variouslevels of governments and particular attention should be given to howlocal, national, regional and global entities and agents organize them-selves in shaping local policy agendas in the context of globalization.

Notes

1. The author wants to thank City University of Hong Kong for offering research grantto support the present research project. Special thanks also extends to Prof. JonPierre and the reviewers of this article, their comments are very useful to improve the

present article.2. When discussing about decentralization in higher education in China, we should not

simply interpret the process of decentralization would automatically provide localgovernments and individual institutions a significant degree of autonomy and free-

dom to run their institutions as those higher education institutions in westernssocieties (particularly for those in the democratic and developed economies). Onemay argue that even with decentralization policy in place, Chinese higher education

system remains highly centralized by international standard. Nonetheless, therelaxation of SEC control over the higher education sector in the 1990s has signifi-cantly changed the role of the state in higher education governance, see following

discussion.3. For ‘minban’ higher learning institutions, I refer to those higher education institu-

tions run and operated by the non-state sectors. The funding sources of these minban

academic institutions primarily come from students’ tuition fees, donations fromlocal communities, enterprises’ investment or other sources generated from society atlarge. For details, see, for example, Huang (2003).

4. When ranking universities in China, performance of individual universities is assessed

along the lines of the number of doctoral programmes and doctoral advisors, re-search output and the amount of research grants. Such ranking exercises conductedin China in recent years have aroused heated debates.

5. Universities run by the state sector follow the organizational structure adopted by theChinese government. Before merging taken place in Chinese universities, the tradi-tional organizational structure of state run universities was a university–faculty–

KA-HO MOK82

department (three-level structure). After institutional restructuring, the three levels of

establishment will gradually be reduced into two-level structure to streamline thestructure to make university administration more efficient.

6. The author wants to thank one of the reviewers of this article, whom has directed him

to various sources to develop a more comprehensive analysis of university merging inChina.

References

Agelasto, M. and Bob, A. (1998). Higher Education in Post-Mao China. Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press.

Apple, M.W. (2000). ‘Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: Education andconservatism in a global context’, in Burbules, N.C. and Torres, C.A.(eds.), Glob-alization and Education: Critical Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Boyer, R. and Drache, D. (eds.) (1996). States Against Markets: The Limits of Glob-alization. London: Routledge.

Burbules, N.C. and Torres, C.A. (eds.) (2000). Globalization and Education: Critical

Perspectives. New York and London: Routledge.Carnoy, M. (2000). Sustaining the New Economy in the Information Age: Reflections on

our Changing World. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Chan, D. and Mok, K.H. (2001). ‘Educational reforms and coping strategies under the

tidal wave of marketization: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Mainland’,Comparative Education 37(1), 21–41.

Chen, Wanpeng and Lin, Weiming. (2001). ‘Making use of merging an opportunity to

expand higher education development’ (Yihebing weiqiaji shixian xuexiao kuayueshifazhan) Zhongguo gaodeng jiaoyu (China Higher Education) 12, 35–36.(in Chinese).

Cheung, A and Scott, I. (eds.) (2003). Governance and Public Sector Reform in Asia.

London and New York: Routledge Curzon.Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of

Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

Clark, B. R. (2002). Entrepreneurial Universities. Hong Kong: Comparative EducationPolicy Occasional Paper Series, No. 1, Comparative Education Policy ResearchUnit, Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of HongKong.

(CCP CC) Communist Party of China Central Committee (1985). The Decision of theCentral Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Reform of EducationalStructure. Beijing: People’s Press.

(CCP CC) Communist Party of China Central Committee (1993). Outline for Reformand Development of Education in China. Beijing: People’s Press.

Crossley, M. (2000). ‘Bridging cultures and traditions in the reconceptualisation of

comparative and international education’, Comparative Education 36(3), 319–332.Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.) (1998). Globalization and the Universities. London: Sage.Dale, R. and Robertson, S. (2002). ‘The varying effects of regional organizations as

subjects of globalization of education’, Comparative Education Review 46(1), 10–36.

Ding, Xiaohao and Min Weifang (1997). ‘Theory of efficiency and higher educationrestructuring’, Gaodeng Jiaoyu Yanjiao 2, 1–8.


Eastman, J. and Lang, D. (2001). Mergers in Higher Education: Lessons from Theoryand Experience. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (eds.) (1997). Universities and the Global KnowledgeEconomy. London and Washington: Pinter.

Evans, R. and Harding, A. (1997). ‘Regionalisation, regional institutions and economic

development’, Policy & Politics 25(1), 19–30.Fan Limin. (1995). ‘The administrative adjustment of higher education in mainland

China’, Issues and Studies 31(2), 36–54.Fang, Weiying (2000). ‘On handling properly some relations in the amalgamated uni-

versity’ (Lun gaoxiao hebing ying chulihao de jige guanxi), Higher AgriculturalEducation (Gaodeng nongye jiaoyu) 103, 63–66.(in Chinese).

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.

General Office of the State Council (1998). State Education Commission’s Suggestions onHigher Education Restructuring. Beijing: General Office of the State Council, Peo-ple’s Republic of China (in Chinese).

General Office of the State Council (2000). Suggestions on Restructuring of HigherEducation Institutions run by Central Ministries of the State Council. Beijing: GeneralOffice of the State Council, People’s Republic of China (in Chinese).

Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World. London: Profile Books Ltd.Goedegebuure, L. and Meek, L. (1991). ‘Restructuring higher education: A comparative

analysis between Australia and the Netherlands’, Comparative Education 27(1), 7–22.Guo Biyu. (1998). ‘The current situation of management system of higher education

institutions and preliminary study of the modes of merger’, (Gaoxiao guanli tizhixianzhuang yu hebing moshi chutan). Coal Higher Education (Meitan gaodeng jiaoyu)4, 21–23. (in Chinese).

Hallak, J. (2000). ‘Globalization and its impact on education’, in Mebrahtu, T.,Crossley, M. A and Johnson, D. (eds.), Globalization, Educational Transformationand Societies in Transition. London: Symposium Books.

Harman, K. and Meek, L. (2002). ‘Introduction to special issue: Merger revisited: inter-national perspectives on mergers in higher education’, Higher Education 44, 1–4.

Hawkins, J. N. (1999). ‘Centralization, decentralization, recentralization: Educationalreform in China’, Paper presented at the Workshop on Centralization versus

Decentralization: Educational Reform in East and West, 20–21 October 1999,Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

Hayhoe, R. (1989). China’s Universities and the Open Door. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations.Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hinnfors, J. and Pierre, J. (1998). ‘The politics of currency crises in Sweden: Domestic

policy choice in a globalized economy’, West European Politics 21, 103–19.Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1999). Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity Press.Huang, Teng. (ed.) (2003). Book Series on Minban Education in China (Zhongguo

Minban Jiaoyu Congshu), Beijing: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press (inChinese).

Jayasuriya, K. (2001). ‘Globalization and the changing architecture of the state: Theregulatory state and the politics of negative coordination’, Journal of European

Public Policy 8, 102–123.Jinan Jiaoyu. 2001. 1, 51–55.

KA-HO MOK84

Jones, P. (1998). ‘Globalisation and internationalism: Democratic prospects for worldeducation’, Comparative Education 34, 143–155.

Kooiman, J. (2000). ‘Societal governance: Levels, models and orders of social–politicalinteraction’, in Pierre, J. (ed.), Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Lieberthal, K. (1995). Governing China. New York and London: W.W. Norton &Company, Inc.

Luo, G. (1998). ‘The explanatory notes of the program of the institutional reform of theState Council’, in the Secretariat of the General Office of the State Council (ed.), The

Organizational Institutions of the Central Government. Beijing: Reform Press.Marginson, S. (2000). ‘The enterprise university’, Paper presented at the Annual Con-

ference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 29 November to 2

December 2000, Melbourne.Marginson, S. and Rhoades, G. (2002). ‘Beyond national states, markets, and systems

of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic’, Higher Education 43, 281–309.

Min, Weifang (1994). ‘People’s Republic of China: Autonomy and accountability: Ananalysis of the changing relationships between the government and universities’,in Neave, G. and van Vught, F. (eds.), Government and Higher Education Rela-

tionships Across Three Continents: The Winds of Change. Oxford: Pergamon.Min, Weifang (1999). Improving the Effectiveness of Higher Education Institutions

through Inter-university Co-operation: The Case Study of Peking University. Paris:UNESCO.

Ministry of Education (1999). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education Year-book). Beijing: Ministry of Education (in Chinese).

Ministry of Education. (2000). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education Year-

book). Beijing: Ministry of Education (in Chinese).Ministry of Education. (2001). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education Year-

book). Beijing: Ministry of Education. (in Chinese).

Ministry of Education, PRC (2002). The Situation of Higher Education Institutions’Mergers since 1992 (92 nian yilai gaoxiao hebing qingkuang). Accessible at http://www.moe.edu.cn/highedu/gxtz/gxhb0.htm (in Chinese).

Mok, K.H. (1996). ‘Marketization and decentralization: Development of education and

paradigm shift in social policy’, Hong Kong Public Administration 5(1), 35–56.Mok, K.H. (1999). ‘Education and the market place in Hong Kong and Mainland

China’, Higher Education 37, 133–158.

Mok, K.H. (2000). ‘Marketizing higher education in post-Mao China’, InternationalJournal of Educational Development 20(2), 109–126.

Mok, K.H. (2000a). Social and Political Development in Post-Reform China. Basing-

stoke: Macmillan.Mok, K.H. (2001). ‘Academic capitalisation in the new millennium: The marketisation

and corporatisation of higher education in Hong Kong’, Policy & Politics 29(3),

299–316.Mok, K.H. (2001a). ‘From state control to governance: Policy of decentralization and

higher education in Guangdong’, International Education Review 47(1), 123–149.Mok, K.H. (2001b). ‘Education Policy Reform’, in Wong, L. and Flynn, N. (eds.). The

Market in Chinese Social Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.


Mok, K.H. (2002). ‘Globalization and university merging: International perspectives’,Paper presented at the International Conference on University Merging, 6–7

December 2002, Tamkang University, Taipei (in Chinese).Mok, K.H. (2002a). ‘Policy of decentralization and changing governance of higher edu-

cation in post-Mao China’, Public Administration and Development 22, 261–273.

Mok, K.H. (2003). ‘Similar trends, diverse agendas: Higher education reforms in EastAsia’, Globalization, Societies & Education 1(1), 201–221.

Mok, K.H. (2003a). ‘Globalization and educational restructuring: Challenges andresponses of higher education in Guangdong’, in Cheng, J. (ed.), Guangdong: Pre-

paring for the WTO Challenge. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.Mok, K.H. and Chan, D. (eds.), (2002). Globalization and Education: The Quest for

Quality Education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Mok, K.H. and Currie, J. (2002). ‘Reflections on the impact of globalization on edu-cational restructuring in Hong Kong’, in Mok, K.H. and Chan, D. (eds.), Global-ization and Education: The Quest for Quality Education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:

Hong Kong University Press.Mok, K.H. and Welch, A. (eds.), (2003). Globalization and Educational RE-structuring in

the Asia Pacific Region. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mosses, J. (1994). ‘Abdication from national policy autonomy: What’s left to leave?Politics and Society 2, 125–148.

Ngok, Kinglun. (2002). ‘The relationship between the state and higher education in themarketization context’, in Tai, H.H., Mok. K.H. and Tse, A.B. (eds.), The Mark-

etization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Taiwan, Hong Kong andChina. Taipei: Higher Education Press. (in Chinese).

Ngok, Kinglun and Kwong, J. (2003). ‘Globalization and educational restructuring in

China’, in Mok, K.H. and Welch, A. (eds.), Globalization and EducationalRestructuring in the Asia Pacific Region. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

(OECD) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, (1995). Gover-

nance in Transition. Paris: OECD.Pempel, T.J. (1998). Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political

Economy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Petrella, R. (1996). ‘Globalization and internationalization: The dynamics of the

emerging world order’, in Boyer, R. and Drache, D. (eds.), States Against Markets:The Limits of Globalization. London: Routledge.

Pierre, J. (ed.) (2000). Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierre, J. and Peters, G.B. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Rhodes, G. (2002). ‘Globally, nationally, and locally patterned changes in higher edu-

cation’, Higher Education 43, 279–280.Rodrik, D. (1997). ‘Sense and nonsense in the globalization debate’, Foreign Policy 107,

14–37.

Rowley, G. (1997). ‘Mergers in higher education: A strategic analysis’,Higher EducationQuarterly 51(3), 251–263.

Sanyal, B. (1995). Innovations in University Management. Paris: UNESCO.Sassen, S. (1999). ‘Embedding the global in the national: Implications for the role of the

state’, in Smith, D.A., Solinger, D.J. and Topik, S.C. (eds.), States and Sovereigntyin the Global Economy. London: Routledge.

KA-HO MOK86

Scharpf, F. (1994). ‘Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination inembedded negotiations’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 61, 27–53.

Shen, Songhua. (2001). ‘A case study of the teaching consortium of the Beijing xueyuanroad’, Zhongguo daixue jiaoyu (China University Education) 4, 1–4.

Sklair, L. (1999). ‘Globalization: New approaches to social change’, in Taylor, S. (ed.),

Sociology: Issues and Debates. London: Macmillan.Skodvin, O.J. (1999). ‘Merger in higher education – success or failure? Tertiary Edu-

cation and Management 5, 65–80.Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the

Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, NJ: Johns Hopkins University Press.Slaughter, S. (1998). ‘National higher education policies in a global economy’, in Curie,

J. and Newson, J. (eds.), Universities and Globalization. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.South China University of Technology (1998). South China University of Technology

Leaflet. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology.

Spring, J.H. (1998) Education and the Rise of Global Economy. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

State Education Commission (1994). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education

Yearbook). Beijing: Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe (in Chinese).State Education Commission (1995). State Education Commission’s Suggestions on

Deepening Higher Education Structural Reform. Beijing: State Education Commis-sion.

State Education Commission (1996). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese EducationYearbook). Beijing: Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe (in Chinese).

State Education Commission (1997). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education

Yearbook). Beijing: Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe (in Chinese).State Education Commission (1998). Zhongguo Jiaoyu Nianjian (Chinese Education

Yearbook). Beijing: Renmin Jiaoyu Chubanshe (in Chinese).

Sutz, J. (1997). ‘The new role of the university in the productive sector’, in Etzkowitz, H.and Leydesdorff, L. (eds.), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy. Londonand Washington: Pinter.

Tai, Hsiou-hsia. (2002). ‘A comparative study of higher education merging: Interna-

tional experiences’, Paper presented at the International Conference on UniversityMerging, 6–7 December 2002, Tamkang University, Taipei (in Chinese).

Wang, Changce. (1999). ‘Problems of higher education restructuring in China in the

1990s’, (Jiaoshi niandai woguo gaodeng jiaoyu de tiaozheng lianhe wenti), Journal ofPuyang College of Education 12(4), 34–35 (in Chinese).

Wang, Changce. (2000). ‘A discussion of the problems and criteria of cooperation and

merger of higher education institutions in China’ (Lun woguo gaoxiao hezuo yuhebing banxue de kunnan he tiaojian), Journal of University of Science and TechnologyBeijing (Social Sciences Edition (Beijing keji daxue xuebao [shehui kexue ban])

16(4), 85–88 (in Chinese).Wang, G.W. and Wong, J. (eds.) (1999). China: Two Decades of Reform and Change,

Singapore: Singapore University Press and World Scientific.Waters, M. (2001). Globalization. London: Routledge.

Weiss, L. (1998). The Myth of Powerless State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Welch, A. (2000). ‘Quality and equality in third world education’, in Welch, A. (ed.),

Third World Education: Quality and Equality. New York: Garland.


Welch, A. (2001). ‘Globalization, post-modernity and the state: Comparative educationfacing the third millennium’, Comparative Education 37, 475–492.

White, G. and Hauck, F. (2000). Campus, Inc. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.Yang, Dongping. (2000). ‘Educational development and its problems’, in Xin Ru, Xueyi

Lu, and Tianlun Shan. (eds.), 2000: Analysis and Forecast of Social Situation in

China (2000: zhongguo shehui xingshi fenxi yu yuce). Beijing: Social Science Doc-umentation Publishing House (in Chinese).

Yang, Dongping. (2002). ‘Educational development and its problems’, in Xin Ru, XueyiLu, and Tianlun Shan. (eds.), 2002: Analysis and Forecast of Social Situation in

China (2002: zhongguo shehui xingshi fenxi yu yuce). Beijing: Social Science Doc-umentation Publishing House (in Chinese).

Yang, Rui. (2000). ‘Tensions between the global and the local: A comparative illus-

tration of the reorganization of China’s higher education in the 1950s and 1990s’,Higher Education 39, 319–337.

Yang, Rui. (2003). ‘Globalization and higher education development: A critical anal-

ysis’, Higher Education 49(3–4), 269–291.Zhou, Yijue. (2000). ‘Streamlining administrative structure and quickening higher

education restructuring’, Chinese Administration and Management 12, 15–17.

Zhongguo Gaodeng Jiaoyu. (2001) 12, 35–36.

Address for correspondence: Ka-ho Mok, Department of Public and Social Adminis-tration, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong,China.

Phone: +852-27888915; Fax: +852-27888926; E-mail: [email protected]

KA-HO MOK88

globalization and educational restructuring: …bcct.unam.mx/adriana/bibliografia parte 2/mok k. m....

Documents