This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona] On: 01 April 2015, At: 00:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Globalisation, Societies and Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20 The governance of higher education regionalisation: comparative analysis of the Bologna Process and MERCOSUR Educativo Antoni Verger a & Javier Pablo Hermo b a University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands b Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina Published online: 22 Feb 2010. To cite this article: Antoni Verger & Javier Pablo Hermo (2010) The governance of higher education regionalisation: comparative analysis of the Bologna Process and MERCOSUR Educativo, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8:1, 105-120, DOI: 10.1080/14767720903574116 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720903574116 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Globalisation, Societies and Education Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2010, 105 120 The governance of higher education regionalisation: comparative analysis of the Bologna Process and MERCOSUR-Educativo Antoni Verger a * and Javier Pablo Hermo b a University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; b Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina CGSE_A_457907.sgm 10.1080/14767720903574116 Globalisation, 1476-7724 Original 2010 Taylor 81000000March AntoniVerger tverger@gmail.com and & Article Francis (print)/1476-7732 2010 Societies Ltd and Education (online) The article analyses two processes of higher education regionalisation, MERCOSUR-Educativo in Latin America and the Bologna Process in Europe, from a comparative perspective. The comparative analysis is centered on the content and the governance of both processes and, specifically, on the reasons of their uneven evolution and implementation. We support the comparison by using theories of governance and globalisation/regionalisation. We also focus on the external and non-educational influences affecting MERCOSUR-Educativo and the Bologna Process. In this respect, we conclude that, despite the regional scope of the two processes analysed, both are directly and indirectly affected by economic globalisation. Keywords: MERCOSUR; Bologna; Europe; higher education; regionalism; globalisation Introduction The internationalisation of higher education is a phenomenon that encompasses diverse kinds of policies, programmes and dynamics being developed at different territorial scales (bilateral, regional or global). With regard to the territorial scale, today the internationalisation processes of higher education with the greatest impact are being conducted on a regional level. This paper focuses on two specific regionalisation projects in higher education that are in a relatively advanced state, namely the Bologna Process which is underway in Europe, and the MERCOSUR-Educativo 1, which is the most representative in South America. The internationalisation and, specifically, the regionalisation of higher education, is a topic that has aroused a great deal of interest and that can be explored from multiple perspectives. Our paper shall specifically focus on analysing the emergence and development of the regionalisation of higher education phenomenon, with an emphasis on the socioeconomic, institutional and political contexts in which these processes take place. To achieve this objective, we explore and compare in depth the two above mentioned higher education regionalisation processes. Our analysis focuses on the evolution, governance and scope of the two education projects, as well as on the way the projects are affected by extra-educational factors; specifically, the political and economic dimensions of the regions where they are embedded. The article is organised into four sections. In the first section we develop our theoretical framework and the analytical perspective. Sections two and three contain a *Corresponding author. Email: tverger@gmail.com ISSN 1476-7724 print/issn 1476-7732 online 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14767720903574116 http://www.informaworld.com
106 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo detailed exploration of the Bologna Process and MERCOSUR-Educativo, respectively. Specifically, we set out the origins, actors and events that have been key in the formation of each of these educational regionalisation projects, as well as the form and content they have adopted. In section four we compare the two cases and discuss our results. Theoretical framework Globalisation vs. regionalisation in higher education One of the key theoretical debates on globalisation centres on the scale in which today s internationalisation processes are taking place, both political and economic. This debate largely focuses on the rivalry and tensions existing between the global and regional scales. 2 This tension has clearly crystallised in the field of trade, but it is also observed in the higher education realm. As happens with trade policy (where regionalism is clearly advancing much further than globalism), the regionalisation of higher education is also advancing much faster and in a more concrete manner. At the global scale the more prominent actors are the Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The former advance agendas, whilst the latter seeks to promote debate forums and largescale congresses on higher education. 3 Some declarations of the overarching principles of higher education or the definition of non-binding guidelines on educational quality are global in scope (UNESCO 1998, 2005, 2009). 4 However, none of these spaces or instruments translates automatically or directly into policy measures. In contrast, a broad set of processes involving the internationalisation of higher education with a greater and more tangible political impact is being developed on a regional scale. These include the regional UNESCO conventions on recognition of degrees and diplomas (which are binding in nature), 5 networks or initiatives for the integration of quality standards on a regional level, and ambitious projects to harmonise policies and create common areas of higher education. Some of these projects are more advanced, such as MERCOSUR-Educativo in South America, the Bologna Process in Europe, and others are in a more initial stage, such as an initiative being discussed in the context of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organisation (Sirat 2008). 6 Geostrategic orders and regional space Regional higher education projects are becoming much more politically influential than their global counterparts because of the major strategic purchase this scale appears to have on the development of regional territorial orders. The constituent elements of territorial orders, either regional or global, are structure, governance and legitimacy (Hettne 2005). As shown in the following paragraphs, these elements are much more clearly defined and accepted by the parties on a regional than on a global scale. First, in terms of structure (that is, the way the units in the system are interrelated), regional orders are structured based on more balanced power relations than in the global sphere, where disparities among parts are obviously greater. This rule does not solely refer to questions involving economic and military power; rather they also encompass symbolic power. The members of a single region tend to have important
Globalisation, Societies and Education 107 historical and cultural connections (Held 1999). In contrast, on a global level the values, worldviews, epistemologies and other kinds of ideas that come from the west and specifically from the Anglo-Saxon world are clearly predominant. Cultural and identity elements are particularly sensitive in processes involving the supra-state integration of public policies or service markets that are directly related to culture, such as educational services (Kelsey 2008; Verger 2009). Something similar holds true in terms of governance, that is, with regard to the decision-making and political coordination systems among states. Due to the scale factor, although to the cultural proximity and balance of power factors as well, it is more feasible for systems of governance to be more effective and efficient on a regional scale. Finally, on the level of legitimacy, that is, the foundations through which the system is acceptable for the units making it up (Hettne 2005), the regional scope also has a certain advantage. In this sense, regional processes tend to be started voluntarily by the member countries, while global processes (such as setting up open markets on a planet-wide scale) tend to be perceived, especially by Southern countries, as an imposition from wealthy countries or international economic organisations. Furthermore, regional political projects are more deeply rooted in domestic structures and tend to respect the interests of domestic coalitions more (Jayasuriya 2003). Globalisation and other influences in education regionalisation Despite the fact that in the previous sections we have talked about the regional and the global as rival scales, in reality the two scales interact in a more complex way. Actually, educational regionalism cannot be disentangled from the phenomenon of globalisation. As Dale and Robertson (2007) argue, economic globalisation indirectly affects education since it generates the structural conditions for education governance and educational reform. For instance, economic globalisation is altering the patterns of education demand and education mobility. It is also affecting the economic demands and expectations placed on education and the capacity of the state to directly respond to the increasing education demand (Verger 2010). However, educational products (policies, results, and so on) do not purely depend upon strictly educational inputs and procedures, but on transformations happening in non-educational policy sectors with a strong global dimension such as trade, finance or employment. In this paper we are interested in exploring how other policy sectors and, specifically, the commercial and economic nature of the regional blocs, are affecting the projects of higher education regionalisation taking place in their context. In truth, despite the fact that they later developed broader agendas, both the European Union (EU) and MERCOSUR emerged initially as trade blocs under the specific guise of customs unions, with the core objective of strengthening the competitiveness of the regions in the world economy. In this sense, we aim to explore how and to what extent the objectives and contents of regional educational coordination projects, as Neave (2003) implies, are being affected by the regions themselves in their efforts to adjust to economic globalisation. The Bologna Process Origin and governance of the Bologna Process The EU is a pioneering regional integration process and currently one of the most advanced. In certain policy areas, the EU acts as a mechanism of integration while in
108 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo others it coordinates member states policies. The latter is true in education, and specifically in higher education, in which the member states have repeatedly stated their unwillingness to transfer formal sovereignty to a supra-state level. Higher education policies are thus not integrated on a European level, unlike trade or agriculture policy, for example. Nevertheless, the EU, and specifically the European Commission, has a long history of intervening in this matter. The main initiatives include the recently-created European Institute of Technology, the successful mobility programme ERASMUS, the Research Framework Programme, the European Research Funding Council and the initiative to set up a European Research Area (Huisman and van der Wende 2004). Thus, despite the fact that it has no formal competences in this area, the Commission does play an important role in educational governance through financing mechanisms and the dissemination of norms and ideas. The Bologna Process is often associated with the EU, even though Bologna goes beyond the EU s geographical scope. However, the EU interests largely drive Bologna (Keeling 2006; Robertson in this issue), and the EU and its most prominent members have acted as key promoters and catalysts of the regionalisation process of higher education. 7 The Bologna Declaration was signed by 29 European countries in 1999. In it, the signatories pledged to undertake the reforms needed to establish the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The problems the Bologna Process aims to solve include the comparability of degrees among the member states, and the competitiveness of European universities in an increasingly globalised university environment. In order to resolve these problems, a broad policy programme was adopted that aimed to: (a) adopt a system to make degrees interpretable and comparable on a Europe-wide scale; (b) set up a shared credit system that would facilitate mobility; (c) promote mobility by eliminating obstacles and encouraging recognition of certificates; (d) promote international cooperation on quality assurance; and (e) promote the European dimension in higher education with regard to a wide range of measures such as inter-institutional cooperation and study programmes, as well as integrated training and research. Conducting this ambitious programme has a deadline: 2010. Therefore, should this goal be met, the Bologna Process will have been fulfilled in a record time of 11 years. Currently, the process includes 45 countries and the European Commission as fully-fledged members. The main venues for deliberation and monitoring the Bologna Process are the biannual ministerial conferences. They have been held in Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007) and Louvain (2009). As the outcome of these conferences, the member states sign a public communication in which they assess the headway made and set goals for the development of the process. Non-governmental actors are not authorised to take political decisions within the Bologna Process, a right reserved for the states, but they do have the opportunity to influence the agenda or frame certain decisions. Specifically, these actors play a role in the deliberation and monitoring of the Bologna Process, i.e., associations representing different interests in the field of higher education on a European scale participate as observing members in the ministerial conferences and the associated working groups. They include trade unions (represented by Education International), student unions, quality assurance agencies (represented by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, ENQA), the European employer association and university associations (like the European University Association, EUA). Each of these stakeholders acts in the European territorial sphere, although each in turn is made up of actors whose representativeness and scope of work are based on the
Globalisation, Societies and Education 109 national sphere. In this way, the multi-level governance of the process is reinforced. Plus, some of them, such as ENQA and the EUA, have been resized based on the Bologna Process itself and on the need to have educational interlocutors that work on certain issues on a Europe-wide scale. ENQA was also promoted by the need to have an actor with which joint quality standards could be developed as a requisite in the much-desired intra-regional mobility to which Bologna aspires. On its part, the universities play a prominent role in the implementation of Bologna. For instance, the Tuning project, performed by the universities, has become a key initiative to land Bologna at the local level. A total of 175 European universities have gotten involved in this project, both individually and collegially, the goal of which is to harmonise university policies on several levels and thus develop the avenues of action contained in Bologna. In this way, the European universities have truly taken on the burden of ensuring that the Bologna Declaration is put into practice. Evolution of Bologna: European agenda, national priorities The Bologna agenda is shared in all the participating countries, but its implementation takes place in a decentralised fashion on a state and sub-state level. Therefore, this is a Europe-wide process of harmonisation and coordination of policies in which the member states participate voluntarily and the policy decisions are not prescribed on a supra-state level. The re-contextualisation of Bologna depends largely on institutional scenarios and local organisational cultures, domestic interests, as well as on correlations of forces between the national education stakeholders. Because of this reason, depending on the country in question, certain aspects of the Bologna process are discussed and taken into account more seriously, and others are more secondary in the national debates. This way, as the regulatory regionalism approach claims, the domestic political mainsprings become elements key to understanding the Bologna process and its regional governance, as well as the national variance in the implementation of the agenda (Robertson in this issue). The different higher education traditions and available resources at the country level constitute a first set of variables that enable understanding of the implementation of the Bologna agenda at the national level. Both factors are important, for instance, to understanding why Bologna poses higher challenges and more drastic changes in southern Europe than in Central Europe and, as a consequence, why the implementation of Bologna in places such as Greece, Spain or Italy is a much more contested phenomenon. 8 However, in the main the Bologna Process has been welcomed by key national governments and university authorities around Europe. In some cases, Bologna is used as a legitimisation device to drive the preferences of national education stakeholders, although they may not be necessarily linked to the Bologna agenda. Thus, many policies driven in the name of Bologna are not always related to European prerogatives; rather, they are linked to the aspirations of certain governments to drive their own priorities in the face of opposition at the national scale (Wolf 2009; Huisman and van der Wende 2004). Furthermore, in other cases, extra-educational motivations behind the implementation of Bologna can be identified. For instance, in several eastern countries, Bologna is perceived (and sold to the public opinion) as a mechanism to get more chances to become EU members (Leisyte 2009). Regardless of the reasons, the important point here is that both external and internal motivations come together to favour the implementation of the process at the national level.
110 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo Finally, it should be acknowledged that, despite the relevance of the state scale and local variables (interests, ideas, preferences) to understanding the re-contextualisation of Bologna, the process is clearly monitored and framed on a European scale. This is done, for instance, through reports, conferences, communications, declarations and the like, which are articulated at the biannual ministerial meetings and other parallel venues. Some authors point to the accountability generated at these ministerial meetings as the main mechanism of governance and control among countries (Jayasuriya 2009). The Lisbon Strategy and the key role of the European Commission When reviewing the communications issued at the biannual ministerial meetings from a historical perspective, it becomes clear that the agenda of the Bologna Process has extended, with issues such as the social dimension (Wachter 2004) and lifelong learning (Jakobi and Ruskoni 2009) having been included. Without a doubt, attempts have been made throughout the process to recognise the different ideas and interests of the different parts involved. It could thus be argued that a phenomenon of framebridging has taken place, linking diverse ideas in a single programme to thus please the interested parties. However, there are always doubts as to which rhetorical aspects effectively lead to substantial policy measures and which never go beyond the discursive arena. Still, as many authors point out, the most substantial change that the Bologna agenda has undergone in its history so far lies in its being more closely tied to the EU s Lisbon Strategy (Keeling 2006; Dale 2007; Robertson in this issue; Wolf 2009). To understand this shift, it is crucial to analyse the role played by the EC throughout the entire process. At the Lisbon Summit held in 2000, the EU determined that by 2010 Europe should have become the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world (Keeling 2006). Education played a key role in the discussions that were held at that summit, which was reflected in the expectations placed in education when defining the Lisbon Strategy (European Council 2000). Universities (and therefore the Bologna Process) are a key element in the success of the Lisbon Strategy s modernising agenda for the European economy. This is the logical consequence of the fact that universities are a key institution in the production and dissemination of the human capital and the knowledge needed to strengthen the knowledge economies. Therefore, the Commission, as the executive branch of the EU and the main guarantor of the enforcement and defence of the Union s treaties, chose to intervene in the Bologna Process with a renewed enthusiasm and with the mission of ensuring that Bologna fit in with the Lisbon Strategy (Huisman and Van Der Wende 2004). 9 One of the central governance instruments in the development of the Lisbon Strategy is the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). This method, which is coordinated by the EC, has shown itself to be highly effective when coordinating several economic and social policy measures among the EU member states. The OMC covers three issues related to the higher education sector: educational policy, R&D and the information society (Rik de Ruiter 2008; Veiga and Amaral 2006), and it has served to extend the member states awareness of ideas such as the link between education and employment, the Europeanisation of R&D and the importance of research for the competitiveness of the European economy. Another source of influence at the Commission s disposal is the dissemination of ideas (priorities, norms, causal theories, principles, etc.) through influential
Globalisation, Societies and Education 111 communications (see EC 2003a, 2003b, 2005), and through its financing of international seminars on issues related to the Bologna Process, which are held parallel to the official ministerial gatherings (Wachter 2004). The Commission has also aligned the Tuning project, created to assist in the practical implementation of Bologna and funded by the Commission itself, with the Lisbon Strategy. 10 Through these and other initiatives the Commission recommends specific policies, like linking scholars salary schemes to productivity, tax incentives for university enterprise cooperation and university funding formulas according to results (Keeling 2006). Generally speaking, the Commission focuses on financing policies that supply incentives for universities and the groups and individuals making them up to innovate and provide high quality educational and research services (Dale 2007). The EC shares the existing consensus in the European university community; that Bologna provides a key momentum for turning Europe into an appealing place to attract students, researchers and scholars from all over the world in a context in which increasingly competitive global university markets are being developed. However, the Commission adds that besides promoting the international competitiveness of European universities, the founding of the common higher education area should contribute to universities promoting the international competitiveness of Europe. Thus, and still more in line with the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, the EC has stressed employability and, in general, encouraged university institutions to be more sensitive to the needs of industry (EC 2003). The Lisbon Strategy puts such a clear emphasis on university enterprise links and the role of the universities in economic competitiveness that it seems as if the main focal point of the Bologna Process, from the EU s vantage point, is the European economy itself (Keeling 2006). Obviously, the Commission does not have the capacity to impose its preferences and goals one hundred percent, and they often come upon opposition from the interested parts, like the universities themselves, which refuse to focus their functions on the economically-oriented factors to which the EU seemingly would like to relegate them (Neave 2003). Higher education harmonisation in MERCOSUR Context, origins and evolution of MERCOSUR-Educativo During the 1990s, most Latin American countries implemented a set of education reforms aimed at decentralising educational systems and privatising financing and the educational supply (Bernasconi 2007). These finance-driven reforms were accepted based on the credit conditions imposed by international financial organisations, especially the World Bank, which disbursed huge sums of money in the region during the 1980s and 1990s (Pedró and Puig 1998). In the specific case of higher education, for a variety of reasons many of these reforms focused on quality assessment and accreditation. First of all, after the crisis in the 1980s and the subsequent structural adjustment, public universities gradually deteriorated due to a lack of resources, while they simultaneously had to deal with the challenge of an increasing demand for higher education. Secondly, the private university sector grew in a spectacular, disorderly way with scarce controls put on it. In this context, strategies aimed at regulating and setting quality criteria were tested, and as a result university assessment and accreditation policies began to be developed. In short, the issue of university quality became a top priority, to the point that the nineties qualified as the quality decade in the Latin American education field (Fernández Lamarra 2004).
112 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo In parallel, and as a result of the new global context into which universities fit, higher education internationalisation and convergence policies began to take shape in Latin America and the Caribbean. In the words of Didou-Aupetit (2005), during the 1990s: in almost the entire region, the government and institutional authorities drove the internationalisation of higher education to respond to globalisation, and more precisely, to regional integration agreements. They launched priority actions, strengthened or created ad hoc management organisations with the expectation of using international cooperation, in its socially conscious sense, to resolve internal dysfunctions and thus reduce the developmental asymmetries among the counterparts. (Didou-Aupetit 2005, 22) In this sense, the construction of regional integration has gone hand in hand with the need to reach a consensus on higher education guidelines and policies inside the regional realms. The process of creating and developing the MERCOSUR-Educativo, framed within the regional integration process of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), is one of the longest-standing specific policies in the region and is one of the prime efforts to coordinate shared policies in non-economic and non-commercial sectors. MERCOSUR and the educational sector MERCOSUR is an economic integration agreement that emerged from the Southern Cone in 1991 and initially included Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Later, Chile (1996), Bolivia (1998), Peru (2003), Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia (2004) signed additional protocols that welcomed them as partner states. The constitution of MERCOSUR generated high expectations compared to other regional integration initiatives that had either failed or currently stalled. However, progress in MERCO- SUR has been uneven since its creation. Some of the difficulties for MERCOSUR in developing an institutional character, for instance, include: the lack of an effective dispute mechanism; lack of a regional body that coordinates policies in a more effective manner; and the lack of commitment of some members (i.e., changing tariffs unilaterally) (Mecham 2003). Beyond the customs union, MERCOSUR was set up with the aim of becoming a political agreement, hence the concern from the start with extra-economic issues, including most prominently education (Phillips 2001; Hermo 2005). In December 1991, the Ministers of Education of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, as part of MERCOSUR, signed an integration protocol that included the following working areas: (a) promotion of citizen awareness in favour of the integration process; (b) training in human resources to contribute to development; and (c) harmonisation of the educational systems. MERCOSUR-Educativo was created to promote exchange among member countries experiences in the field of education, to ensure comparable quality standards in higher education degrees, and to facilitate job mobility within the region. Other key ideas behind MERCOSUR and, specifically, MERCOSUR-Educativo are the achievement of economic competitiveness in the world economy (Phillips 2001), and the achievement of the knowledge economy ideal (Fulquet 2005). MERCOSUR- Educativo, as well as other educational regionalisation projects, is perceived as a competitive device in the global race to attract brains and particularly important in developing regions like South America, to fight against brain drain (Lema 2003).
Globalisation, Societies and Education 113 The main body to govern MERCOSUR-Educativo is the gathering of Ministers of Education. The main purpose of this gathering is to propose to the Common Market Council measures aimed at coordinating the educational policies of the member states. It should be mentioned that in MERCOSUR-Educativo, the first-generation partner countries (Bolivia and Chile) participate under equal conditions as fully-fledged members (Fulquet 2005; Hermo 2003). Parallel to the gatherings of Ministers, MERCOSUR Educational Forums are organised (in June 2008, the fourth edition was held in Buenos Aires). The forums are called by the Educational Sector of MERCO- SUR and all the social and union organisations and movements working in the education sector may participate in them. The goal of these forums is to promote and strengthen the articulation between the state and civil society when identifying and reflecting on the educational challenges in the region. In November 2000, a restructuring of the sector was agreed to, and regional coordination commissions in basic, higher and technological education were set up. Each was charged with defining the policies in their respective fields and proposing the avenues of action at the gathering of ministers. The planning of the work to be performed was agreed to in general terms in Triennial Plans, whose first edition dates back to 1992 1994 (Hermo 2003). Since 2004, MERCOSUR-Educativo has operated a specific fund to support projects and initiatives in the educational sector (Martínez-Larrechea and Chiancone-Castro 2009). Within MERCOSUR-Educativo, the area with the greatest continuity and the one that has produced the most advancement was the area of higher education. Specifically, in this area, policies on accreditation, mobility and legibility of degrees have been considered. Nevertheless, as we highlight below, the policy issue in which the most headway has been made is accreditation. Accreditation policies and their implementation to date The most prominent feature of the higher education convergence policies in MERCO- SUR has been the development of a common accreditation system for degrees which, in turn, has given rise to related policies and spurred major projects in the higher education sector. One of the specific goals of the Gramado Commitment, signed by the Ministers of Education in a MERCOSUR meeting held in 2000, is: to make headway in the evaluation and accreditation process of university degrees and post-graduate degrees in MERCOSUR, promoting the joint efforts of the National Accreditation Agencies as well as: fostering the free movement of actors and resources within the educational system, eliminating the obstacles currently in place. 11 In view of this mandate, the Experimental Accrediting Mechanisms for University Programmes (abbreviated MEXA) were created (Hermo 2005). MEXA is a relatively simple system. It did not lead to the creation of any suprastate MERCOSUR-wide body for accreditation purposes, meaning that the entire process is spearheaded by the accreditation agencies or similar bodies on a national level. The national accreditation agencies are, then, in charge of developing the common procedures agreed to, and proposing the resolution on accreditation that is to be adopted. The Gathering of National Accreditation Agencies (abbreviated RANA) was also created, but it works only as a coordinating body of the efforts of the national accreditation agencies and holds no other authority. In fact, this is perceived as a common problem in the context of MERCOSUR (and in the Latin American region
114 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo in general), i.e., the lack of supra-national organisation and the tendency to build international initiatives eminently based on national interests and visions, but not regional or continental ones (Malo 2005). In June 2002 in Buenos Aires, the Ministers decided to gradually implement MEXA, beginning with the field of Agronomy. In October 2002, universities teaching degree programmes in this specialisation were able to voluntarily join this initiative. Nevertheless, there were major delays and the first accreditations of Agronomy degrees were not granted until 2005. Subsequently Engineering and Medicine followed suit, and later on other degrees joined the accreditation process. 12 After that, MEXA was transformed into an ongoing accreditation system (Fernández Lamarra 2004; Hermo 2005). MEXA has made it possible to move towards an academic mobility programme called MARCA (abbreviation of the Regional Academic Mobility in Authorized Degrees) which entered into force in 2005. The next step to be made in the integration process, once the groundwork of accreditation has been put into place, consists of constructing a mobility and credit transfer system, just like the one promoted by Bologna. However, this project is still waiting to get underway. Based on what can be observed, despite the fact that MERCOSUR-Educativo was set up quite a bit earlier than the Bologna Process, it is not advancing as quickly as in Europe. Within the framework of MERCOSUR there are difficulties in coordinating policies and securing the funding they need. These problems can be attributed to: the absence of a supra-national body to catalyse and drive the process and the lack of legitimate policy instruments to intervene on this realm (Bizzozero and Hermo 2009; Brunner 2009); the huge differences between the higher education systems of the region in the way they operate and are organised (Brunner 2009; Martínez-Larrechea and Chiancone-Castro 2009); and structural financial limitations (Malo 2005). Comparative analysis and discussion Our comparative analysis of the Bologna and MERCOSUR-Educativo processes has two core dimensions. First, a comparison to understand the reasons why the two processes are evolving in such a different manner, and secondly, an analysis of the external influences on the regionalisation processes in both regions. Bologna and MERCOSUR-Educativo: the reasons behind the different outcomes The Bologna Process and MERCOSUR-Educativo, as higher education regionalisation processes, have important similarities. On the policy agenda level, both stress aspects such as accreditation, institutional cooperation and intra-regional mobility. Perhaps the main difference in content is the adoption of a shared structure of degrees, which is an issue present in Bologna but absent on the MERCOSUR s agenda. On the other hand, both processes include civil society organisations and nongovernmental actors in their governance structures. They play an important role in the functions of oversight and consultation in both processes, although in the European case they work with more stable platforms for participation. In turn, accreditation agencies and universities play a very important role in the operational aspects of implementation in both processes. In terms of membership, both processes have country participants that are not members of the benchmark regional bodies. Thus,
Globalisation, Societies and Education 115 Bolivia and Chile (despite the fact that they are not fully-fledged MERCOSUR members) are part of the regional coordination of university policies driven by MERCOSUR. However, this aspect is more noteworthy in the Bologna Process in which 18 non-eu member states participate. Finally, both processes are clearly imbricated with global educational ideologies, such as quality education, which have been developed since the late 1990s in a kind of universalising meta-narrative (Morley 2003), and the advance of an imagined knowledge economy the new mantra of international organisations and international development discourses (Robertson 2005). Unquestionably, the main difference between the two processes can be found in the realm of implementation. Despite the fact that it was launched first, and has fewer participating countries (which should make the decision-making processes easier), MERCOSUR-Educativo s advance is slow. The Bologna Process is ambitious in content, geographic scope and pace of implementation. Furthermore, despite setting quite tight implementation deadlines, everything seems to indicate that the majority of participating countries in the European Higher Education Area will meet the 2010 deadline. Some scholars attribute the implementation difficulties of MERCOSUR- Educativo to the diversity and variety of the higher education systems that are part of the regional space (see, for instance, Brunner 2008 and Martínez-Larrechea and Chiancone-Castro 2009). However, the Bologna process includes education systems that are higher in number and even more diverse than the systems that are part of the construction of MERCOSUR. Hettne s theory on regionalism provides a set of variables that allow us to understand the uneven evolution of higher education regionalisms in a more complex way (specifically, he defines three core variables for territorial orders: legitimacy, structure and governance). Based on what we have observed, both processes show similar conditions of legitimacy and structure, but diverge considerably in terms of governance. Additionally, the comparison shows that the availability of resources is a necessary condition for the regionalisation projects to advance. 13 So, along these lines, we want to note the existence of three key factors that explain the variation in implementation between Bologna and MERCOSUR- Educativo: (a) available resources; (b) supra-state institutionalisation; and (c) the broad regional context. Resources We do not have precise budgetary or human resources figures for each of the processes but the difference is extraordinarily in favour of the European one. One overwhelming indicator can be found by tracking the mobility programmes in both regions. The European programme, ERASMUS, mobilised 150,000 people in 2006, while MARCA, the MERCOSUR programme, only mobilised 150 people in 2008. 14 Without a doubt, the unequally available resources are the logical consequence of the fact that, unlike in MERCOSUR-Educativo, some of the countries with the highest GDPs in the world are involved in the Bologna Process. Moreover, the poorer countries earn Cohesion Funds from the EU to implement the reforms. Furthermore, significant turmoil manifested in the Latin American economies in the last decade and, in particular, the Brazilian devaluation in 1999 and the Argentinean financial crisis in 2001 negatively affected the resources available in MERCOSUR-Educativo.
116 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo Supra-state institutionalisation The Bologna Process has generated more institutionalisation in terms of solid organisational and governance structures at the supra-state level than MERCOSUR- Educativo. As proof of this institutionalisation variance between the two regions, it is interesting to note the role played by accreditation agencies. In South America, the national agencies have constituted a very low-profile supra-national organisation with the sole function of coordinating the working meetings held as part of MERCOSUR-Educativo. In contrast, ENQA, the European agency, has its own structure (Secretariat, General Assembly, Board of Directors) and financing (which largely comes from the EC), and it plays an important role in defining standards and harmonising policies on an Europe-wide scale. Something similar has happened with the participation of civil society organisations and other non-state stakeholders, which have worked with more stable participation spaces in the Bologna process than in the South American one. Likewise, although it has been harshly criticised by educational analysts, the European Commission s leadership has played a key role in the Bologna Process and its institutionalisation. The Commission has guaranteed continuity, links and coherency between the EU s own policies on the matter and the policies associated with the Bologna process. Furthermore, the Commission has also injected a significant amount of resources to reach this goal. It has also funded parallel projects, such as Tuning, and introduced innovative governance instruments such as the OMC, which have reinforced Bologna in different manners. Strength of the regional context In both regions the international organisations (the EU and MERCOSUR) support the educational regionalisation process. However, the levels of maturity, institutional robustness and consolidation are very different in these two organisational settings. The EU is a pioneering process of regional integration that is in a highly advanced stage (the issue of a single regional currency or the fact that Europeans have a single voice in multilateral forums such as the WTO are outstanding proofs of the high level of integration existing and the political commitment of the member states). In Europe, the constitution of a regional economic space and a common labour market pressure for the integration of higher education, including the need for certification and comparability of education degrees at a regional scale. Despite being one of the more successful regionalisation processes under way in the Americas, MERCOSUR still has many key unresolved issues on its economic agenda (such as tariffs, which is a basic issue for a customs union). Nor has headway been made on basic institutional aspects, such as the creation of an international body with centralised bureaucratic structures or an effective dispute mechanism. No progress has been made, either, in joint investment in shared programmes which, when attempted, rely on complex ad hoc financial mechanisms. Furthermore, while regionalisation in Europe advances through a combination of politicisation and constitutionalisation, MERCOSUR, as well as regionalism in Latin America in general, is in a more incipient and largely politicised state. Therefore, the latter regional body is more susceptible to the variability and political wills of the governments in power at any given time.
Globalisation, Societies and Education 117 The influence of competitiveness in the global economy The cases of Bologna and MERCOSUR-Educativo show that the processes of higher education regional convergence are subordinated to (or at least strongly conditioned by) the processes of economic, commercial and political integration of the regions where they are implemented. Moreover, in both processes, the commercial, employment and social agendas of the regions clearly penetrate the higher education regional agenda. We mentioned above that the role and leadership of the EU is a factor of success in the constitution of the EHEA. However, the Commission s strong involvement in Bologna comes also with major political implications. Based on this involvement, the economic rationality of the Bologna Process has become more important than the underlying educational or cultural logic (Wolf 2009). The Commission has taken advantage of the political opportunities being generated by Bologna to drive its own competitiveness and employability agenda in several ways: first of all, by promoting the introduction of quasi-markets into European university systems; secondly, by promoting the recruitment of students and research staff that enrich European universities and make them (and Europe itself) more competitive; and finally, by putting universities and their scientific endeavours to work for the European economy and industry. With regard to South America, we have also seen how MERCOSUR has placed education at the top of its agenda, as a complement to the commercial agenda and in order to make job mobility more feasible in the region and to foster the competitiveness of the member states in an increasingly globalised economy in which brain drain is becoming one of the most serious economic problems. In short, the processes of educational policy regionalisation are not exclusively rooted in the regions of reference. Regional educational coordination is also affected, as suggested by Neave (2004) and Dale (2007), by the regions themselves in their efforts to adjust to economic globalisation. Conclusions The higher education regionalisation processes in Europe (Bologna) and in South America (MERCOSUR-Educativo) have adopted a similar form in terms of policy agenda and membership structure. However, they differ significantly in terms of their evolution and political impact in national education systems, the Bologna process being much more successful than MERCOSUR-Educativo. We have attributed the differences in this realm to the governance structures and to the resources available in each region. In Europe, a much more solid supra-national organisation, which includes state and non-state education stakeholders, is organised, and the political commitment of member countries with regional policy coordination is much higher than in South America. Furthermore, the broader regional context where the higher education regionalisation projects are embedded also matters. In the case of Europe, the role of the European Commission to make Bologna work for the European common labour market and for the trade and economic competitiveness strategy of Europe has given a boost to the process. However, both education regionalisation processes are clearly affected by the regions themselves in their efforts to enhance their global competitiveness. In one sentence, the form and content of higher education regionalisation projects, apart from education criteria and priorities, are also linked to the economic and commercial priorities of the regions in which they are implemented.
118 A. Verger and J.P. Hermo Notes 1. MERCOSUR stands for Common Market of the South. 2. We define a region as a cluster of different contiguous states that have certain attributes in common (Held 1999). In turn, regionalism is a project spearheaded by the states designed to reorganise a given region along certain economic and political lines (Hettne 2005). 3. Well-known examples include the World Higher Education Conferences (1998, 2009) and the Global Forum on International Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications. 4. Probably the WTO s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is the only global or multilateral instrument that has the power to affect higher education systems on a large scale. Despite this, many countries are avoiding compromising their higher education in this agreement (either because they are cautious when bringing education into the realm of a commercial agreement, or because the WTO-level negotiations are not moving forward as quickly as expected) (Bizzozero and Hermo 2009; Verger 2009). 5. See the numerous Regional Conventions on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education at http://www.unesco.org/legal/index.shtml. 6. The same holds true for multiple regional free trade agreements that include higher education in their sphere of action and are approved year after year (as of today, there are around 200 of them in force), thus overshadowing the scope of influence of the WTO/GATS (see http://rtais.wto.org/ui/publicmaintainrtahome.aspx). Plus, these regional agreements include more drastic measures for the commercial liberalisation of education than those contained in the same multilateral agreement (Abugattas 2005). 7. In fact, the declaration that preceded the Bologna Declaration, known as the Sorbonne Declaration (1998) and whose contents are quite similar to those of Bologna, was spearheaded and signed by the Ministers of Education of four leading EU countries: the UK, Italy, Germany and France. 8. First, Bologna promotes the standardisation and emulation of prevalent standards in the English-speaking university system (Hartmann 2009), which is more alien to the southern European universities than the university systems in other points on the continent. Second, the successful implementation of this model requires a more intensive use of resources (economic, human, material), which the crowded southern universities do not usually have. 9. However, it is fair to mention that the Commission s involvement and interest in higher education go beyond Bologna. In fact, the Commission s activism and capacity for financing in higher education (which we referred to above) is the main source of power and legitimacy in the eyes of the university community when participating in the governance of Bologna. 10. See http://www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=com_frontpage&itemid =1. 11. See Compromiso de Gramado in: http://www.mcye.gov.ar/dnci/ /docs/compromiso_de_ gramado.rtf. 12. To date, architecture, nursing and veterinary science. 13. In our explanation we aim to distance ourselves from cultural explanations (e.g., Europeans are more efficient than Latin Americans ), which are often commented behind closed doors. 14. These figures speak for themselves, although to perform a comparison in strictu senso it should be borne in mind that ERASMUS has been operating for almost 20 years longer than MARCA and that it covers all the university degrees (MARCA is only for Agronomy), not to mention a much more extensive geographic area. Notes on contributors Antoni Verger was awarded a PhD in sociology from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) for his work on the WTO/GATS and higher education. In the context of the UAB, he has worked in the research projects, Globalization and inequalities in Latin America and, Beyond targeting the poor: Education, development and anti-poverty policies in South America. Currently, he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies (AMIDSt) of the Universiteit van Amsterdam. His principal research areas are the global governance of education, and higher education and international development.