“Countability not answerability?” Accountability in Hong Kong and Singapore universities

Singapore and Hong Kong are vying to be the principal educational hub for the Asia-Pacific region and have begun to compete with Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA in providing cross-border education. Although these four Anglo-American countries still dominate cross-border education, Singapore and Hong Kong hope to make inroads into this export market and compete on the global stage. To create “world-class” universities, Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced quality assurance mechanisms, diversified funding sources, and restructured their university governance systems. This article compares the accountability measures introduced into Hong Kong and Singapore universities, and the responses of academics and administrators to these measures. The results indicate that both countries introduced greater autonomy as they augmented accountability for their universities, and the term “decentralised centralism” describes the kind of government control exerted in these Asian universities in the twenty-first century.

[1]  L. Chun,et al.  Centralization and Decentralization in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong and Taiwan , 2004 .

[2]  Carmen Luke,et al.  Capital and Knowledge Flows: Global higher education markets , 2005 .

[3]  Anthony Welch,et al.  The Cult of Efficiency in Education: Comparative Reflections on the Reality and the Rhetoric. , 1998 .

[4]  Lesley Vidovich,et al.  Changing accountability and autonomy at the 'coal-face' of academic work in Australia , 1998 .

[5]  Beyond Decentralization: Changing Roles of the State in Education , 2004 .

[6]  K. Mok Centralization and decentralization : educational reforms and changing governance in Chinese societies , 2001 .

[7]  A. Appadurai Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization , 1996 .

[8]  Jeannette Taylor,et al.  Improving Performance Indicators in Higher Education: The academics' perspective , 2001 .

[9]  R. Sidhu,et al.  A Tale of Two Cities: Education Responds to Globalisation in Hong Kong and Singapore in the Aftermath of the Asian Economic Crisis , 2003 .

[10]  S. Marginson,et al.  Interrogating global flows in higher education , 2005 .

[11]  Martin Trow Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: a comparative perspective , 1996 .

[12]  Jeroen Huisman,et al.  Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? , 2004 .

[13]  I. Parker Facts and figures. , 1973, The Probe.

[14]  G. E. Karlsen Decentralized centralism: framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education , 2000 .

[15]  Michael Power,et al.  The audit society : rituals of verification , 1997 .

[16]  William F. Massy,et al.  Energizing Quality Work: Higher Education Quality Evaluation in Sweden and Denmark. Project 6, Quality and Productivity in Higher Education. , 1999 .

[17]  S. Ball,et al.  Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society? , 2000 .

[18]  David Turner,et al.  World University rankings , 2008 .

[19]  John Jones,et al.  Academic staff views of quality systems for teaching and learning: a Hong Kong case study , 2005 .

[20]  J. Fairweather,et al.  Variations in Faculty Work at Research Universities: Implications for State and Institutional Policy , 2002 .

[21]  J. Stier Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism , 2004 .

[22]  S. Ranson Public accountability in the age of neo‐liberal governance , 2003 .

[23]  Henry Miller The Management of Change in Universities: Universities, State and Economy in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. , 1995 .

[24]  S. Gopinathan,et al.  Centralized Decentralization of Higher Education in Singapore , 2001 .

[25]  Ka Ho Mok,et al.  The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international benchmarking in Hong Kong , 2005 .