World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu has written an
entertaining and informative book, based on the economic issues he dealt with
when he was chief economic adviser (CEA) to the previous Union government (UPA
II). The book combines analysis with stories that make it a good read. In his
final chapter, however, he turns to some broader thoughts on India’s economic
future. This chapter is titled “The Road Ahead,” and the section that
interested me the most has the enticing heading of “Striking Gold with Higher
Education.” Basu argues that Indian higher education can take off without any
long-run fiscal burden or macro-policy shift, but simply through “virtually
costless reforms to the regulatory system.” The outcome he envisions is that
India can be a global hub for higher education.
 | |
|
Basu points out that India has a long-standing tradition of
excellence in higher education (at least, compared to other developing
countries), and that English is widely used in the education sector. These
represent important natural advantages. Basu’s interest in the topic also comes
from his stint as CEA, when he served on the grandly-named Committee to Advise
on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education, more commonly known as the
Yashpal Committee. He expressed disappointment with the committee’s process and
final report, and indeed, he appended a dissenting note to that report. He is
very clear in stating where he sees one of the main causes of India’s losing
its initial advantages in the sector: “The tendency to have higher education
services largely by the state [that is, the government] and to have it
controlled centrally, such as by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and
also the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), has had a
deleterious effect on this sector.”
The first recommendation made by Basu consists of
drastically reorganising the UGC to make it a modern regulatory body that
focuses on providing objective information on the quality of higher education
institutions. The second is to concentrate public resources on flagship
institutions, and to make these globally competitive in terms of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary rewards for top faculty members. The third is to ease entry of
the private sector, and also ease collaborations with foreign universities.
Interestingly, Basu makes a compelling argument that, if the
reforms he proposes are well-designed, India can attract students from rich
countries, not just other developing countries. Universities in England and the
United States have become quite expensive, and he suggests that India can
compete primarily on price, while offering reasonable quality. He notes
challenges such as the need to modify visa rules to be able to handle an influx
of foreign students, but argues that attention to these details can lead to
significant success and the creation of a vibrant knowledge sector in India.
I think Kaushik Basu’s suggestions are excellent. India’s
higher education sector is in desperate need of reform, and it is failing the
country’s current needs on many fronts. I would like to offer some additional
perspectives. The idea of attracting students from rich countries is a
beguiling one. It is reminiscent of medical tourism, and even of export-led
growth strategies, since having rich foreigners buy services in India has the
same impact on the country’s balance of payments as exporting goods. But it may
be that the biggest benefit from Basu’s suggestions will be for India’s own
students. Already, the shortage of even moderate quality higher education in
India is leading to students going abroad to study loan in second-
and third-tier universities. It would be wonderful if those students could be
given better options at home.
Furthermore, the demographics do not favour attracting
students from North America and Europe. Already, US universities, including public
institutions, are trying to balance their budgets by enrolling more foreign
students, as the number of young people going to college flattens out. Chinese
student numbers in America are swelling as a result. India’s demographics, on
the other hand, favour a massive expansion of higher education just to meet
domestic demand.
Perhaps an even bigger barrier is the non-monetary cost.
India is not a particularly hospitable place for young women from abroad—a
function of the country’s internal problems with treating women equally in
society at large. While elderly medical tourists can be easily served, it will
be much harder for India to absorb large numbers of young Westerners used to
more liberal societies, unless they are insulated from the country around them.
To avoid this, they could be recruited from more conservative areas, but then
they are much less likely to consider several years studying abroad, away from
their peers. Finally, the reputations required for Indian universities to
attract Western students in significant numbers will take a long time to build.
There is still room for foreign collaborations, and an
expansion of programmes that involve spending a semester or two abroad, but the
vision of India as a global higher education hub seems to be some distance in
the future. Meanwhile, however, Kaushik Basu’s proposals for reforming higher
education can provide enormous benefits to India’s own young people who need
that education, and, by keeping students home who might otherwise study abroad,
have similar balance of payments effects.
