International Higher Education, Spring 2005

GATS and Education: An “Insider” View from Norway

Olve Sørensen
Olve Sørensen is a senior adviser in the Department of Higher Education in the Norwegian Ministry of Education, with particular responsibility for GATS and other aspects of international trade in education services. Address: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, P. O. Box 8119, 0032 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: olve.sorensen@ufd.dep.no.

Following the debate on the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) and education over the last few years, you might think that education was a central topic in the GATS negotiations and that countries pursued their schemes and stratagems for the education trade with great determination. In fact, the view from inside provides a completely different picture: very few countries—about 40 in all—have made any commitments or demands regarding education, and only half of those have made firm commitments concerning higher education. In terms of trade liberalization, those who have made commitments generally promise less than the policies they already have in place and request little more from others. Broadly speaking, lobbyists and other opponents of including education in GATS seem to assume that countries follow aggressive strategies to secure markets for their own education industries. In reality, what takes place inside the GATS apparatus is completely different: an almost sleepy disregard for education matters.

It should also be remembered that GATS—the treaty on trade in services, as opposed to goods—is but a single element in the much larger package of trade talks that deal with trade in goods (GATT), intellectual property (TRIPS), government procurement, and so on. While the Doha Round of WTO negotiations should have been finished by the end of 2004, the deadline has been extended until the end of 2005, given the lack of agreement on some of the difficult topics—such as agricultural products.

So, What Happens Now?
Most participants and observers seem to expect that, once the tricky issues in the overall trade negotiations have matured sufficiently, a more or less sudden release of the deadlock will follow and an agreement will be reached. GATS is lower down on the totem-pole and will take signals from the overall progress. Thus, the most likely scenario will be a “stampede” to finalize matters in the GATS segment as soon as possible after a solution has been found for the “big” issues—before everyone decides to call it quits, freezing the positions of all member countries. At the end, no one will want to be caught in a position of having made concessions without receiving any benefits in return. These challenges inspire caution around the table.

Education—Not a Big Deal?
The education sector is never the flavor of the month in GATS. This lack of attention seems curious, both because education represents a fairly hefty volume of trade—probably close to $40 billion a year—and because it has attracted quite a bit of public interest and concern in many countries. Mostly, public opinion on trade in education services tends to be critical. The very mention of education in connection with GATS is widely seen by the education community as consecrating education as a tradable commodity and betraying the tradition of education as a common good.

This background is probably one reason many governments try to avoid bringing the issue of education up at all. Another reason may be that most member countries, including some of the most important ones in the world of education, prefer to leave their ministries of trade or finance in tight control over all aspects of trade negotiations. Sector authorities, such as education ministries, often have a very limited say in defining national positions or sector interests. That emphasizes the dominance of general trade policy over specific sector concerns and explains the relative unimportance of education services in the process.

The View from the North
Norway has chosen a much more sector-focused approach, with every ministry directly involved in the Geneva talks as well as in preparing and formulating relevant GATS policy. For the education sector, that has probably led to a more active policy than would have emerged from pure trade-based policy impulses.

The Norwegian position is, in brief, that as long as global trade in education exists and grows it needs regulation. A gold rush of transnational education services without safeguards would present a serious threat to consumers (i.e., students) and to the weaker education administrations of most developing countries. At the same time, education abroad or from abroad is the only available option for the huge number of hopeful students whose governments have little hope of offering them an adequate education at home. It would be neither possible nor wise to try to ban trade in education services; the challenge is how to make use of its benefits while keeping the less desirable effects in check.

In other words, to us, GATS is a response to globalization far more than the turbocharger of global education trade. In this connection, it should be remembered that no country has as yet been lured by GATS into making giant strides toward a free market in education. Generally, members have stated a more protective position than their current practices. Should all countries suddenly decide to open their education markets only to the extent they have promised in GATS, the result would be a more restrictive market—not the heedless market liberalization feared by GATS opponents.

Norway’s Concept of GATS
It is probably true to say that GATS was conceived purely as a legal framework for trade regulations with well-defined terminology and prescribed procedures but little regard for the actual substance of the services to be traded. Today, some disagreement exists about the nature of GATS, certainly in education circles. Should GATS be allowed to continue to develop as a system of technical treaties and procedures, relegating concerns about the quality of future education services to other forums? Or must the work on GATS reflect joint responsibility for the global education system as well as our ability to meet the world’s overwhelming need for education?

A number of critics, particularly in the developing world, have addressed both concepts of GATS. On the one hand, they would prefer education to be excluded from GATS altogether. If education is to be dealt with at all in GATS, they call for a much more serious approach to the substance of education, not just its trade aspects. On the other hand, many critics feel that the proper arenas for regulating the global education system consist of the specialized international agencies in the field—UNESCO, in particular. In our view, UNESCO represents an important partner in securing the necessary base for future development and regulation of transborder trade in education services. OECD is another, and Norway has provided a lot of political and financial support to the joint efforts of the two organizations. The primary example involves the development of international guidelines for quality assurance that will be finalized during 2005, for which Norway has chaired the working group.

Even so, compared to the binding legal obligations of GATS, the recommendations and guidelines of UNESCO and OECD constitute much blunter instruments. Given the commercial scale and methods of the education market, the Norwegian position is that enforceable legal safeguards must comprise the most rigorous kind of regulation and that GATS offers a suitable framework. That said, international forums such as UNESCO and OECD, professional associations, NGOs, and academic institutions should have an expanded, not a reduced, role in the future development of a global education system that benefits all.

How Can We All Help?
Herein lies an important responsibility. While the details of WTO negotiations will probably continue to be clouded in secrecy, vigorous informed debate, research, and academic discourse on education trade issues will carry significant weight and influence decision makers. Perhaps education is too serious a matter to be left to governments alone.