Name: Helen Sanson Group: Samarbeta Course: Global/Local Learning Assignment: Task 3 Tutors: Zelda Groener, Shirley Walters,

Natheem Hendricks, Rahmat Omar and Kathy Watters Date: 23rd October 2012

1|P ag e

A broad overview of global and local socio-economic and political developments, which have shaped the governments responses to Higher Education under conditions of globalisation Higher Education (HE) in the UK is at the forefront of both the current and previous governments response to globalisation. Universities are predominately state institutions and their part within the governments plans is tied to the national and global view, that there is an emerging knowledge economy that requires a highly skilled workforce. Thus, as Scott (1998, as cited in Eggins 2004) states all universities are subject to the same processes of globalisation- partly as objects, victims even of these processes, but partly as subjects or key agents of globalisation. After the May 2010 elections, the government declared the end of centralism in the UK and a shift to full localism. Despite this, the UKs has positioned all cores services, including education, centrally. Yet, localism is the fast becoming the norm in Europe and elsewhere. Government proposals in the 2011 Education Bill and 2010 Business, Innovation and Skills Strategy services move away from local, accountable bodies and towards centralised ones, which in some cases are being open up to private operators. Coffield and Williamson (2011) argue that the coalition government like its predecessor is centralising the education system rather than devolving power, as is claimed. Power is being centralised at the highest possible level. The only winners from putting everything into on central pot will be the private sector and the government, who are set to increase their power over education whilst undermining the one of the key dimensions of a democracy, namely vertical power sharing between central and local governments (Costa Font, 2012). However, centralist government intervention does not fit the ideology of the coalitions drive towards localism, so it has been rebranded as government flexibility and adaptability (Avis, 2012). This is to mask that they are reverting back to the marketization policies of the 1980s where the state is rolled back to a point that allows quasi -market relations in the public services (Avis, 2012) of which, HE is a good example. The marketization of HE in order to create competition, is also being driven externally by the EU as a way to harmonise university standards across Europe. The Bologna Declaration 1999, sets out a level of national control and conformity in HE across all EU states based on transparency, norms and share practice (Lillie, 2002 as cited in Eggins 2004) A broad overview of the governments responses to Higher Education under conditions of globalisation The rationale behind the UK governments thinking towards HE is the desire for it to help shape, drive and deliver certain socio-economic factors. This need to steer HE in this direction is because as Wende (2002, as cited in Eiggins 2004) states is a response to support the process of reconstruction, nation-building and economic and democratic reform through co-operation, capacity building, knowledge transfer and the education of a local intellectual cohort to modern and international standards. The governments stance is based on consumerism and the status of education based on diversity and choice. This move also sees a shift in emphasis from local and national competitiveness to international. In order to do this over the past 20 years there has been a managerial cultural change in HE through a characteristic of c ontinuous monitoring and auditing of performance and quality (Deem 2003, as cited in Eggins 2004). These measures are used as tools for external reviews of universities to examine their effectiveness and efficiency in the open market (Kear and El Khawas 2002, as cited in Eiggins 2004). The governments desire to support HE as the driver for globalisation is based upon the need for universities to be competitive and economically viable on the international market by supplying students who are in strong demand as employees in the knowledge economy in the global labour market which can continue to absorb the increased supply of highly-educated individuals (OECD, 2012). Thus, universities are required to move beyond their local bases and are no longer called 2|P ag e

upon to train national citizens and leaders (Waks, 2002). The stress is on universities to align themselves to market forces and business. To put this in context, HE is worth annually 59 billion to the UK economy and is the fourth major export earner. In 2011, HE brought in 5.3 billion or around 3% of all services exports and the international student market is estimated to contribute to around 40 billion to the UK economy (Straw, 2011). Universities in the UK have historically been dependent on government funding, but since the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, the landscaped has dramatically changed and now over half of their budgets come from this source. In the period from 2000-2009 spending on higher education per student saw a greater increase, by 72%, than any other OECD country. However, the funding, despite coming from mainly private sources, of which there was a marked stepped increase from 32.3% to 70.4%, this was not matched by a decrease in expenditure by the government, as it in fact grew by 17% over this time. Yet, the UKs spend of GDP on HE is still well behind the OECD average of 1.5% (OECD, 2012). However, the overall share in public funding on HE has significantly dropped to below 25% in 2011/12 from 80% in 1995, whereas in most OCED countries it has remained at a stable 70% during this same timescale. In 2011, tuition fees were increased and public funding decreased and now UK students pay the third highest annual fees amongst all OECD countries (OECD, 2012). The hike was part of the governments economic recovery plan to stabilise their funding to universities, however most chose to impose the top end fee of 9000, meaning that the cost of a degree at best double but in most cases tripled. The net result was a 7.7% drop in overall applications for 2012 and a 10% drop in English applicants (OECD, 2012). In addition, Peitchs (2011), found that enrolment for Indian students, whom with Chinese students made up the bulk of international students coming to the UK had fallen between 25-40% in 2012. In terms of globalisation, the drop is problematic, as in the UK participation rates in HE have risen year on year since the 1960s. With the global trend towards widening equity and inclusiveness in HE, this means that those from disadvantaged backgrounds and from overseas are avoiding university, which has wider implications for government policies. In addition, the governments agenda of marketization has increasingly seen universities taking a simplistic view that consumer and producer demand will increase with a uniform approach to widening participation ( Singleton, 2010). An overview of Holsts strong and long versions of globalisation of Higher Education The framework for the governments response to globalisation in relation to HE can be viewed through the lens of two competing perspectives: the strong and long/weak versions of globalisation. Each looks at the economic, political and social relationships in capitalist nations and focuses on the whether or not transnational networks of capitalist production and exchange undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state, especially as it relates to the ability countries have to democratically implement economic regulations and social welfare policies (Kollmeyer, 2003) Strong version Many academics, such as Friedman 1999 and Tabb 1997, have stated that the strong version of globalisation is a threat to the role of government. The argument is that a single global market is replacing the nation state/government so that individual countries no longer have a primary institution of governance. Furthermore, the strong version of globalisation claims that in the last 2030 years an economy has appeared where many important national-level economic processes have converged into a worldwide borderless economy in which free market forces have rendered corporatist and social democratic economic policies ineffectual (Kollmeyer, 2003). The strong

3|P ag e

version is pessimistic where ideas of egalitarianism are idealistic and infeasible and the nation-state, and the working class are becoming increasingly irrelevant (Holst, 2007) There is an overarching body, which in effect has taken on the role espoused by supporters of the strong version, which is the EU. It promotes single united European policies to allow free trade and has opened up a borderless European economy. Although, nation states still retain their individual rights of legislature, these governments have as Jarvis (2002, as cited in Holst 2007) states become a part of a superstructure controlled to a considerable extent by those who control capital. Officials, who are less accountable to the electorate than their own national governments, hold the considerable power that the EU has and many are unelected and represent the corporate world, not their member states or the voters (Citvitas, 2012) In regards to HE, one of the main influences that the EU has, is the reform of university systems through the Bologna Declaration. Although this is a voluntary declaration, which is not imposed by the EU, its foundation is the Member States of the European Union (EU), Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action (Eurpoa.eu, 2012). Member states still have full ownership of the teaching and organisation of HE but through the Declaration it sets in motion processes to make degrees comparable, portable and recognisable benchmarked against national standards of quality. The Declaration is a good example of where globalisation tests the independence of government and its autonomy, as referred to in the strong version, because the reforms that the EU are planning, would allow for a greater expansion in HE in order to increase competition and to cut costs across Europe. Some have pointed that the Declaration has been put in place by the EU to follow even wider globalised policies laid out by other bodies that are also not accountable to any nation-state, as Lornez (2006) states Just as the World Trade Organization and GATS propose educational reforms that would effectively erode all effective forms of democratic political control over higher education, so it is obvious that the economic view on higher education recently developed and formulated by the EU Declarations is similar to and compatible with the view developed by the WTO and by GATS." Longer Version Other commentators, such as Held 1999 and Hirst 2009, have questioned the strong version and opt for a weak/longer version of globalisation. Stiglitz (2002, as cited in Eggins 2004) maintains that the role of government is vital as it can, and has played an essential role in not only in mitigating mark et failures but also in ensuring social justice. The weak/longer version states that globalisation is part of the historic expansion and increase in capitalism and free trade. Unlike the strong version, the working class and nation state are important actors in maintaining democratic governance as a viable means of fostering class compromise. (Kollmeyer, 2003) The role of the UK government in relation to HE is extremely strong. Education is still highly centralised and there is no signs of this diminishing. What has happened is as Went (2000, as cited by Holst 2007) states that the governments input is not being reduced; it is being given different tasks, but by no means necessarily fewer. While globalization has limited the states power in some respects [social services], the states role in other fields [aiding capital ex pansion] has become even bigger. Centralism suits the form of localism that the UK Government is opting for, which Won (2012) calls Delegation Localism where all services are owed centrally but are then are delegated out to individual service providers to run. The ideology behind this is to create a climate that empowers 4|P ag e

local people and communities, building a "big society" that will take power away from politicians and give it to people (BBC.co.uk, 2010). However, these services are not fully delegated as central government may choose to regulate parts of central services, such as their funding, but on the whole the government delegates as much as possible without interfering in the operations of these organisations (Won, 2012). Yet, the fundamental flaws with this model of localism is that there are limitations on local accountability and control over what local services are funded and how (Won, 2012). Localism highlights the longer perspective stance that globalisation, far from weakening the grip of government, reinforces the importance of domestic policies, as countries engage in regionalization (Gilpin, 1987 as cited in Guillen 2001). The government has shifted to a personalised agenda where HE has to ensure the countrys labour force has the right skills by creating regional bespoke training packages to deliver skills policies and programmes. Different cities and regions have their own priorities and HE has to ensure the supply of training meets the demands of the industries, businesses and people in these areas. The government is guaranteeing 40 billion for investments in growth training for industries such as telecoms and energy networks with different skills sets be offered according to the locations in which these projects are being launched. (Jones, 2012). The Centre for Cities (2012, as cited by Jones 2012) claim that this form of localism works as s even out of eight of the best performing cities today had above average skills levels in 1901. Meanwhile 80 per cent of cities with vulnerable economies in 2012 fall into the bottom 20 cities for skills levels in 1901. The relationship between global and local developments that have shaped the governments responses to Higher Education under the conditions of globalisation from different perspectives Although the strong and weak/longer perspectives are useful frameworks, both of them overlook the opposing forces that contradict how globalisation and capitalism relate to HE. Holst (2007) cites Allman (2001) as arguing that due to capitalism, there are three fundamental internal relations or contradictions of globalisation that act as opposing forces: a) capital/labour; b)production/circulation; and c) social forces/social relations of production. These are not produced externally on a global/local scale but are internal and are based on a vertical and horizontal axis, which are normally attributed to globalisation. On the vertical axis, capitalism creates market relations where none existed previously (Holst, 2007) and on the vertical axis capitalism expands markets into territories where none existed previously. Therefore, in order to understand how capitalism and globalisation has effected HE, the three contradictions have to be pulled apart. Capital/Labour The UK produces an above-average amount of adults with university qualifications compared to the all the OCED countries (OECD, 2012). This over production of university graduates whilst sustainable, as the OECD trend data (2011/12) shows, as the demand in the global/local labour market has kept up with the increasing supply. The government is fully committed to the EUs global policy of seeing 40% of 30-35 years olds graduate from HE, which is aimed at maintaining the constant flow of graduate labour into the global/local markets. However, to achieve this, students from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds have to be enticed into HE. Yet, despite efforts to widen participation, the band of people who enter university in the UK is narrow, as entrance to this level is based on attainment and socio-economic background. Inequality of opportunity at the university level of education, starts from early schooling in the UK and rarely changes (OECD 2012). Singletons (2010, as cited by Thompson 2011) statistical analysis confirms there are distinct social inequalities of access that also manifest themselves in terms of the geography of educational opportunity. Yet, as Singleton points out there is a need to theorise the links between supply and demand in order to suggest routes towards more efficient and effective distribution of life chances 5|P ag e

for students as there are strong inequalities in participation rates between those most and least likely to attend university. Despite government efforts to widen participation HE it has mainly been accessible to higher earning groups and the gap in participation based on income has widen (Machin and Vignoles, 2004). Thus, the governments desire to continue the growth of HE is actually added to educational inequalities, as compared to the past, where poorer students were more likely to opt for HE, the chances of them doing so in comparison to their richer counterparts has decreased over the last decade (Machin and Vignoles, 2004). As such despite efforts to close the gap and the continual growth of people entering into HE, the wealth and status that many graduates attain, is not occurring for at least 60% of 17-35 year olds in the UK (OECD 2012). Whilst, only 4.7% of graduates find themselves unemployed and usually on a temporary basis, some 6-10% of young people, who only completed secondary education, find themselves medium to long term unemployed (OECD 2012). In addition, the increase in fees will also adversely affect the chances of those from disadvantaged and mid-to low income backgrounds participating, as they see the accumulation of debt negatively than their more affluent peers. Thus, current policies are more likely to be felt by those who are disadvantaged through their economic, social and personal circumstances. Production/Circulation Higher education is pivotal in the production of social status division by conferring social advantage and social position in society. However, this status is not circulated to the wider populace, especially to those whose education ended at secondary level. Over the past ten years the earnings for people aged 25-64 who attended HE has increased. In 2010, they earned 62% more than adults who have an upper secondary level education in the UK (OECD, 2012). Yet, the production of social status is not just isolated to people who attend HE, but also to universities. Their fight for status is a strong motivating power, as they contest to fulfil the government mantra of the supply and demand of skilled labour for the knowledge economy, which in turn gives them greater competitive clout in the global market, as they position themselves as corporate entities. This is an example of Holsts vertical axis, as status is a new market for universities that never existed to this extent in the past. When tuition was free in the UK, the difference between universities was minor, except for the few red brick ones that had status conferred by history i.e. Oxford and Cambridge. If there was such a thing as a market for status it was between universities and polytechnics, but this was a localised phenomenon based on institutional hierarchy and was confined to England. Overall, the differentiation of status levels was flatter than is seen now where capitalism has created a market force for status, which has seen it become a highly prized asset. Thus, both economic capital and production are closely related each implies that status is a social good whose possession has fecund economic, political and cultural potentials for the possessor (Marginson, 2004). The production and circulation of status in HE has become a commodity that can be bought, sold and lost, but is becoming increasingly precious to both institutions and students alike, as possession opens up many doors. The contradiction for HE institutions is that, as Marginson (2004) points out is the acid test- when faced by choice between a prestigious university with known indifference to undergraduate teaching, and a lesser institution offering better classroom support, nearly everyone opts for prestige. The problem is that with the increase in standardisation, quality assurance and monitoring of good practice, this contradicts the consumerist student orientated marketing so demanded of the new corporate face of universities. The newly formed market of status, has been reduced down to image, as students are not focused upon the teaching quality of different institutions and courses, but on accessing the institutions with top reputations (Marginsin, 2004). Thus, for HE institutions their focus is not on the teaching, pastoral care or the advancement of knowledge but on 6|P ag e

their global status and the image that it projects. So the capital that having an increased status brings becomes the chief driving force of HE by turning attainment into a marketable commodity by concentrating on a narrow selection of educational practices that advertises their status, such as qualifications and world ranking. Social Forces/Social Relations In 2011, the government introduced piece of legislation, which formed part of their higher education reforms, but was at odds with the rhetoric of globalisation. The government put in place stringent restrictions on student-based immigration visas, which are set to hurt the very institutions, that the government claim they are trying to protect, as well as the wider UK economy. According to Peitch (2011) the new visa restrictions will see a drop in overseas students by a quarter. Placed in context of globalisation and austerity this policy make little sense, especially as overseas students pay on average 20,000 which has been used to subside British and EU students whose tuition fees barely cover costs (Peitch, 2011). This policy is also at odds with the governments wish to see UK universities maintain their high world ranking status (which they are already struggling to do) and more importantly their overall aim to see them contribute to the production of innovation and skills for the new knowledge economy. The USA and Australia both tried and failed to introduced tougher student immigration restrictions only to reverse them when the number of international students dropped so significantly that the fall in income was going to have too greater a detrimental effect on their home students tuition fees (Pietch, 2011). HE institutions are facing the loss of domestic students, as well as international and for the majority who relied on overseas fees their long-term financial viability is at stake. This is a cause for concern, as the governments HE funding policy is based on a rise in private funds from fees students. The visa restrictions place further challenges in front of HE as it is heavily dependent on global education markets not only for income but in order to expand into new territories. As Sastry (2006, as cited in Robertson 2010), states 8% of income to HE comes from non-EU international students, any decline in this income would have major effects on those universities who have little budget leeway, and who are highly dependent on these global markets. A sharp reversal in international student numbers would, in most heavily exposed institutions, necessitate immediate action to offset the loss of revenue. This has already been seen this year when Metropolitan University lost 55% of its international students, which has caused major financial turbulence for the institution. This shows that there is a vast gulf between the social forces that the government unleashes on to HE and the social relationships universities have with the open market. The fragmented policies of the government and the light touch controls over HE leave universities exposed to the developments and independencies of the market sector. As such, HE is as susceptible to globalisation as the financial markets were which caused their collapse. A comparisons between the UK government initiatives and the South African governments post 1994 initiatives in respect of redressing inequalities in Higher Education under conditions of globalisation Although, this paper has be confined to the UK, it is important to note that many of the issues raised are global and effect other countries including ones that on the surface seem to have little in common; one such place is South Africa. The main link between the two countries is the inequality of opportunity to access HE and the way that this perpetuates a constant cycle of poverty, as people are unable to gain the social-economic status that is bestowed through a university education. However, as the effort and cost required to access HE has risen, this has diminished the worth of a degree to excluded groups, which in turn has widened the equity gap. This situation is further exasperated by HEs inability to reflect upon its own shortcomings in addressing this issue and as such, is helping to reaffirm this deeply entrenched divide. Government policies have not helped the 7|P ag e

situation either, the UK and South Africa are two of the most unequal countries in the world, as the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest has rapidly increased since the mid-90s (Hall, 2012). The history of both countries is such that inequality is something that stretches far back in their histories. Each countrys governments have implemented policies to try and reduce inequalities; after the end of the apartheid-era in from 1994, the ANC government introduced a range of policies that included extensive social transfers and affirmative action policies centred on the concept of black economic empowerment. These policies have resulted in dramatic changes within race categories. But, at the same time, the structure of overall inequality has persisted (Hall 2012). In the UK, consecutive governments have introduced many initiatives to combat inequalities, such as the current widening participation in HE policy, but this is tokenistic and will never seriously challenge the status quo. In both the UK and South Africa there are similar poverty traps such as the inequality of outcome in the secondary school system which shapes education opportunities at all stages in life (Hall, 2012). Currently, HE in the UK is facing the same issues that South Africa faced some twenty years ago. However, where in South Africa the main focus was on race, in the UK inequality is based on a mix of class, race, gender and money. Since 2010, the UK has been moving towards using contextual data for admissions based upon the academic performance of the applicants school, the proportion of pupils in the school living in relative poverty (measured by entitlement to free school meals) and relative rate of participation in higher education in the area in which the applicant lives (which is closely associated with indices of multiple deprivation) (Hall, 2012). This contextual data for admissions is very similar to the special admissions, which were first introduced 30 years ago at the University of Cape Town. Thus, the UK has to catch up with what South Africa learnt over 20 years ago, that even with special admission criteria, this still is not enough to change the socio-economic background of most graduates or remove inequality of opportunity. Developing a new conceptualisation of Higher Education The coalition government has stated that power should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level' Coffield and Williamson (2011); however the reality is the complete opposite for education. For HE its fate lies in the hands of the of the highest powers of office- the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Universities are now actors in the overall scheme of things, reduced to delivering the latest government round of initiatives and to be put under the microscope of scrutiny through micro and macro management review processes. In the eyes of the government, HE has become a skills factory to produce employees for the global knowledge economy. Thus, the increased centralism questions how democratic education is, if all government policy does is 'induce a sense of powerlessness which is the enemy of democracy' (Brighthouse, T as cited in Coffield and Williamson 2011). What is needed is a restoration of democracy to those who are actively involved in HE such as lecturers, researchers, students and parents, and a move away from centralism, overt regulation and a narrow of the role HE in society. Coffield and Williamson (2011), argue that HE needs a firmer democratic base in order to build communities of discovery where learners and educators work together democratically to discover new ways of addressing global threats. They contend that learning has to become the cornerstone of HE institutions and those involved in the practice of teaching and learning are given the opportunity to experience a equitable and harmonious means of living, learning and working together Coffield and Williamson (2011). However, the only way to open up HE to a more democratic is to introduce a more drastic approach that opens it up to all. At present, HE is highly selective and entry is based solely on attainment, achievement and socio-economic status. Hall (2012) posits that A more radical approach, such as the one adopted in South Africa, is required. 8|P ag e

Curriculum change should prioritise inter-disciplinary approaches, and build on the capabilities approach, which enables people to take advantage of opportunities. The problem is, as Hall, 2012 points out, is that even by widening the focus from just inequality to look at other access to HE issues, the South African transformation has hardly had the impact that was desired. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a weary country such as the UK would follow suit and try something truly radical. In contrast to this, Saunders (2012, as cited in Hall 2012) counters this, as although the South African model is not perfect, there are debates that still occur there which focus on transformation and the kind of university education which is worthwhile, ethical and advances a democratic society, and is always embedded in debates about the good and right that have always been missing from discussion on UK HE. He argues that if the UK would entertain these debates, what might come out of them are practical solutions to widen access and participation and the understanding that access is not just about students changing but that universities have to change as well. Conclusion Ideologically and rhetorically, the governments HE policies come from the grasp that capitalism has over them and the perceived lack of an alternative economic structure to replace it, as well as the drive towards centralism/delegated localism and free market choice i.e. globalisation. The problem with this is the inequality and inefficiencies that it causes. The relationship between education and state is complex and messy and highlights that the way politicians present the dichotomy between the public and private sector, as one based on the principles of ideology, is over simplistic and unhelpful. The government is driven by how best to manage capitalism and to secure conditions favourable to the accumulation of capital and on-going profitability (Avis, 2012). Thus, the main influence over the government is not their ideology but capitalism; as capitalism is the framework from which they must view the world through and any party rhetoric. The move to bring services, such as education back to the centre to be delegated locally maybe dressed up as ideologically driven but the force behind it is capitalism and the quest for economic growth. The governments role to create and secure a state of affairs that is conducive to capitalism cannot be over emphasised, as crucially, this is why it still regulates many aspects of service delivery, as it over comes what Avis, J (2012) calls neo-liberal market fundamentalism Globalisation, as can be seen is multifaceted concept, which greatly affects the UKs HE system both nationally and internationally. There are two contrasting sides of the globalisation of HE, on one hand its about cultural and academic foundations- transparency, equity and cooperation. Then on the other are the political and economic foundations, which look towards free trade, marketization and competition. However, it is important to appreciate that these two sides are interlocked and that the reason for picking them apart is to be able to understand the effects of the relationships between HE, government, society, globalisation and capitalism on the UK. This is vital if HE is to be seen as more than just a vehicle for driving the economic dimension of globalisation and start to be seen as an agent for transforming the social and cultural landscape of education, by challenging head on the problems of inequality of access and opportunity in a new way.

9|P ag e

References Avis, James 2011 More of the same? New Labour, the Coalition and education: markets, localism and social justice, Educational Review, 63:4, 421-438 BBC.co.uk 2010 Cameron and Clegg set out 'big society' policy ideas [online] available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688860.stm [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Civitas, 2001 Arguments against the EU [online] available at http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/OS/OS13.htm [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Coffield, Frank and Williamson, Bill 2011 From Exam Factories to Communities of Discovery: the Democratic Route, Institute of Education Costa Font, Joan 2012 The centralisation of education funding and the new health reforms are inconsistent with localism and accountable government [online] available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/04/09/decentralisation-welfare-accountability/ [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2012 UNITED KINGDOM [online] available at: www.oecd.org/.../EAG2012%20-%20Country%20note%20-%2520United%2520Kingdom.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Education indicators in focus 2012/15 OECD [online] available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/highereducationandadultlearning/educationindicatorsinfocus.htm [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Eggins, H (2004) Globalization and reform: necessary conjunctions in higher education. Open University Press. London Europa.eu, 2012 The Bologna process: setting up the European Higher Education Area [online] available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11088_en.ht m [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Guillen, Mauro F. 2001 Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive Or Feeble? A Critique Of Five Key Debates In The Social Science Literature. The Annual Review of Sociology. 2001. 27:23560 Hall, Martin 2012 Inequality and higher education: marketplace or social justice? Stimulus paper [online] Available at: www.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/Inequality-and-Higher-Educationpublished-Jan-2012.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Jones, Sarah 2012 Localism works but we need leadership [online] Available at: http://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/localism-works-but-we-need-leadership [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Kollmeyer, Christopher J 2003 Globalization, Class Compromise, and American Exceptionalism: Political Change in 16 Advanced Capitalist Countries Critical Sociology, Volume 29, Issue 3, 2003 Lorenz, Chris 2006 Will the universities survive the European integration? Higher education policies in the EU and the Netherlands before and after the Bologna Declaration [online] available at: 10 | P a g e

www.ii.umich.edu/FUMICH/ces/Home/Resources/Michigan/Paper/Series/Lorenz_Will_Universities_ Survive.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Machin, Stephen and Vignoles, Anna 2006 Educational Policy in the UK [online] available at: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedp/Fceedp57.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Marginson, Simon 2004 Competition and Markets in Higher Education: a glonacal analysis, Australia Policy Futures in Education, Volume 2, Number 2, 2004 Middlehurst, Robin 2002 The developing world of borderless higher education: markets, providers, quality assurance and qualifications. [Online] available at: http://portal.unesco.org/Feducation/files_middlehurst_document.doc_middlehurst_document.doc [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Paun, Akash and Hazell, Robert 2008 Centralised Power and Decentralised Politics in the Devolved UK [online] available at: www.ucl.ac.uk/people/Frobert-hazell/centralised_power_Sept08.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Pietsch, Tamson 2011 Let's learn from Australian HE's mistakes on student visas [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2011/oct/21/student-visa-reformsaustralia?INTCMP=SRCH [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Robertson, S.L. 2010 Globalising UK Higher Education [online] Available at: http://www.llakes.org [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Thompson, David 201 Educational opportunity: the geography of access to higher education, Educational Review, 63:4, 512-513 Waks Leonard J. 2002 In the Shadow of the Ruins: globalization and the rise of corporate universities Policy Futures in Education, Volume 2, Number 2, 2002 278 Won, L 2012 Three types of localism [online] available at: http://hopingformorethanslogans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/three-types-of-localism.html [Accessed 20 October 2012]. Wyness, Gill 2012 Tuition fees: have increases left the UK government and taxpayer better off? [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-educationnetwork/blog/2012/oct/15/tuition-fees-government-taxpayer-savings [Accessed 20 October 2012].

11 | P a g e