The regulation of transnational higher education in Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia

The millennium round of the General Agreement on Tradein Services (GATS) underlines issues relating to the regulationof education as an internationally traded service. Transnationaleducation is a key component of such trade. Southeast Asia issomething of a laboratory in the development and regulation oftransnational education. The region combines high demand, keencompetition among providers, and host country regulatory regimesranging from relatively laissez faire to strongly interventionist.This paper examines the approaches of three Southeast Asiangovernments – Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia – to theregulation of transnational education within their borders. Ineach case the authors provide background on the higher educationsystem, describe the regulatory approaches to transnationaleducation, and analyse the motivations behind regulation. Boththe neoliberal approach of the WTO to trade in educationalservices, and critiques of this approach, are outlined. Theauthors conclude that any attempts to promote global standards orquality principles for transnational education must address themyriad concerns of governments, including consumer protection,advancing national goals and protecting the local system.

[1]  R. Snape Reaching Effective Agreements Covering Services , 1998 .

[2]  J. Trachtman The WTO as an International Organization. , 1998, American Journal of International Law.

[3]  Dirk Van Damme,et al.  Internationalization and quality assurance: Towards worldwide accreditation? , 2000 .

[4]  Czeslaw Majorek,et al.  Education in a Global Society: A Comparative Perspective , 1999 .

[5]  T. Adams The Operation of Transnational Degree and Diploma Programs , 1998 .

[6]  Stuart D. Cunningham,et al.  The Business of borderless education , 2000 .

[7]  J. Braithwaite,et al.  Global Business Regulation , 2001 .

[8]  V. Selvaratnam Ethnicity, Inequality, and Higher Education in Malaysia , 1988, Comparative Education Review.

[9]  N. J. French Transnational Education‐‐Competition or Complementarity: the Case of Hong Kong , 1999 .

[10]  Simon Marginson,et al.  The assessment of universities in Argentina and Australia: Between autonomy and heteronomy , 2002 .

[11]  G. McBurnie,et al.  Transnational Education: An Australian Example , 1998 .

[12]  G. Dhanarajan. Offshore Distance Education: A Malaysian Perspective. , 1987 .

[13]  K. R. McKinnon,et al.  Benchmarking: a manual for Australian universities , 2000 .

[14]  Don Anderson,et al.  Quality assurance and accreditation in Australian higher education: an assessment of Australian and international practice , 2000 .

[15]  S. Marginson Imagining Ivy: Pitfalls in the Privatization of Higher Education in Australia , 1997, Comparative Education Review.

[16]  P. Self Rolling Back the Market: Economic Dogma and Political Choice , 1999 .