The World Bank prescription for Ethiopian higher education:
the missing antidote in “pursuing the vision”

By Damtew Teferra (Ph.D.)
June 4, 2004

---

This article is to express my professional opinion on the recent
publication
of a Sector Study on Ethiopian higher education by the World Bank
entitled
Higher Education Development for Ethiopia: Pursuing the Vision. The
major
purpose of this paper is to offer, based on this document, unsolicited
commentary on the need to reorient our priorities to foster national
development and enhance our global competitiveness–to effectively
serve our
national interest.

That we live in the knowledge era has now turned into a cliché. The
knowledge era is driven and catalyzed by the increasing capability of
knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination. The institutions that
create, package, and disseminate knowledge, information, and data lie
at the
center of the knowledge market. Universities, especially those in
Africa,
are core institutions that link nations to the emerging global forces
of the
knowledge domain. Simply put, universities are supreme institutions of
national treasure that shape competitiveness and interaction with
increasingly competitive global world. With this blurb as a background,
I
wish to delve into the main thrust of this opinion piece.

I had a good opportunity of reading, with great interest and close
scrutiny,
this Sector Study published in April 2004. The document focuses on
seven
areas of Ethiopian higher education: the cost and financing of higher
education, the proposed new funding formula, strategies for improving
management capacities, academic staff production, implementation of an
effective quality assurance capability, development of information and
communications technologies, and efficient planning and use of physical
infrastructure on campuses.

While the document states that focus is limited to the seven areas so
identified, the fact that the title is overarching prompts me to
consider
the document as comprehensive of great consequence that may affect
tremendously the development of higher education in the country in all
its
forms and shapes. My main focus, however, is directed toward only one
major
area that is poorly represented in this document, and I argue for the
need
to emphasize end enhance it.

First of all, I must say that much of the spirit of the document and
its
recommendations for the development of higher education in Ethiopia are
commendable, even though some of the provisions may remain
controversial or
may even be impracticable, at least in the near future. It should be
also
noted that the document is rich with good intentions which one only
hopes
for its successful implementation as stipulated by the Bank. While at
it, I
just felt the need to express my frustrations that the World Bank
continues
to shape our higher education policy and direction–no matter how good
its
intentions are and sound the recommendations may be–in the presence of
able, competent, and highly qualified Ethiopian higher education
experts
locally and abroad.

The document reiterates, to the Bank’s credit, that Ethiopia has to
strengthen its research capability on higher education–to shape and
inform
national higher education policy. It should be quickly noted that, in
cases
where good research capacity and resources exist locally, the
government as
well as international organizations, including the Bank, should be
advised
to actively engage them for their professional opinion and critical
input.
It won’t do any good–in fact it could be too demoralizing–to have to
bring
external expertise when competent ones exist at home. I would like to
take a
little detour once again to share my other concern–I dear say
disappointment–before I return to the main focus of this paper.

I was stunned by the list of the Ethiopian delegate counterparts that
met
the experts of the World Bank team–a number of whom I have the
pleasure of
knowing and interacting with. The report indicates that three lecturers
from
Ambo College, Bahir Dar and Debub Universities, a coordinator of a
program
from Debub University, one person from educational bureau in Tigray,
and two
people from finance and budget and planning from Jimma University
constituted the Ethiopian delegation. It is possible that my radar
screen is
weak and may even have failed to pick the signal from home–but for
sure
these are not the individuals known to me for their research, analysis
and
opinion on any aspect of higher education development. With due respect
to
the Ethiopian team, I have never seen any reputable or visible work or
paper
they presented or published on higher education issues either locally,
regionally or internationally. It is possible that these individuals
may be
competent personalities or even leading experts in the country on their
respective fields unbeknown to me; but for sure they are part of the
community who live at, what the leading international higher education
expert and my mentor and now close colleague Professor Philip G.
Altbach
calls, the “periphery” of the higher education knowledge terrain. With
greatest respect to the Ethiopian delegates and their respective
institutions they represent, Ethiopia is endowed with and capable of
mobilizing a much more experienced, highly competent, and highly
informed
professionals to face the seasoned and high powered World Bank
delegates–in
writing the blue print for Ethiopian higher education. This is simply a
serious national affair in which the government and the nation must
stand
tall in engaging and accommodating competent and qualified
professionals–that may be controversial and excessively critical, even
at
times arrogant and obnoxious–and their institutions, in such important
and
far reaching issue of great significance–and consequence. The genius
of a
nation takes pride in its capacity to nurture tolerance, descent, and
criticism.

What a shock it was for me to realize the complete absence of highly
respected and greatly acclaimed professionals and experts in the
Ethiopian
delegates who have an extensive knowledge and experience in higher
education
policy and development. What is equally shocking to me was the complete
marginalization of the old and seasoned institutions including, of
course,
Addis Ababa University–the very institution the Bank considers it to
be the
flagship institution of the nation.

It is simply ironic–and even self defeating–on the part of the nation
and
the government to commit, to its credit, massive resources for the
development of higher education in the country and yet isolate and
disengage
its high-level experts at home in shaping the development of the
nation’s
higher education.

In fact, the World Bank itself cannot be spared the criticism for not
engaging comparable heavyweight counterparts. The Bank team should
itself
have at least requested, if not demanded, a competent counterpart for
the
sake of meaningful and constructive two-way interaction. If they have
known
and recommended AAU as a flagship institution, how did they not ask for
representatives from that institution–which has a fairly well
developed
Faculty of Education, Institute of Educational Research, and now a
national
higher education research center? I guess by condoning such actions,
the
Bank is gambling on its credibility, recommendation and policy space. I
wish
to believe that this is an aberrant operation practice on the part of
the
Bank that needs rectifying. But then what is interesting is that the
Bank
attempts to cleanse itself with a long disclaimer at the opening pages
by
stating that the “… findings, interpretations, and conclusions
expressed
in this report … should not be attributed … to the World Bank….”
In
vain, though without much consequence.

I have no qualms on the professionalism and competency of the World
Bank
delegates though this could have been immensely enhanced by engaging
competent national counterparts. By the same token, I have also no
illusions
that the allegiance and commitment of this delegate are situated within
the
confines of the institutions their represent and work for–but not with
the
nations they advise.
I am in no way advocating for the curtailment of external input and
advice
on national policy development. Far from it. In fact,
cross-fertilization of
ideas is very healthy and greatly constructive, and must be highly
encouraged. But ultimately a country has to make an informed decision
as to
where it wishes to go. And this should remain an exclusive prerogative
of
the nation and its informed nationals. This is where we desperately
need our
own and actively engage them.

To its credit, the Bank recognizes one major graduate based university
and
names Addis Ababa University as the flagship research institution in
the
country around which other institutions should revolve. One of my major
worries of the report which prompted me to write this piece is the
limited
focus and emphasis on research in the country. While the two paragraphs
that
narrate on research are commendable, the fact that they were squeezed
into
two short paragraphs–in a comprehensive document (of 109 pages
long)–does
not appear to convince me, or even others, the seriousness of the tone
on
the part of the Bank for the development of research in the country.
This I
think is a great anomaly in the context of the world we live in and a
major
“missing antidote” if Ethiopia is to become part of the global
knowledge
community. On this account, I urge the World Bank itself to reiterate
strongly and loudly the need to establish a strong research base in as
many
universities as we may have–for sure, and realistically, in up to
three
major flagship institutions, including Addis Ababa University, of
course. In
fact, doing so is in line with what is recommended by the Bank itself
and
emboldens the Bank’s recommendation. As public funding for higher
education
reaches its climax (within the context of what the country is currently
capable of generating in terms of revenue) increasingly competing with
other
social sectors, the financial and technical challenges of building many
flagship institutions is nearly impossible. For sure, the great need to
establish solid and prominent institutions cannot be overemphasized. It
should be taken as a serious national matter–as serious as national
security.

The World Bank report, as comprehensive and substantial as it may be,
it
simply lacks the drive to enunciate Ethiopia’s vision–and its
aspirations–in building competent and solid national research
institutions
that can catalyze the socioeconomic progress of the country and its
competitiveness. As a higher education researcher–and as an
Ethiopian–who
wishes all good fortunes for my country and its people–I find the
report
and its recommendations on research development rather weak and feeble,
consequently forfeiting our destiny, our aspirations, and our
future–literally.

The major World Bank report Constructing Knowledge Societies (2002)
warns
that countries with limited or virtually no meaningful
knowledge-creating
capacities will be marginalized even further in the increasingly
globalized
knowledge market unless they revitalize and overhaul their knowledge
institutions–universities. I simply failed to see the spirit, the
fervor,
and the thrust of this highly visible document of the Bank in
developing the
framework of the Ethiopian higher education system. If it did, I simply
did
not grasp it. Universities, as the sole research and knowledge hub in
much
of Africa, and Ethiopia is no exception, the sector report is short in
underscoring the very position it took when it published the seminal
document.

If I understood the sector study well, it assumes that the development
of
higher education in Ethiopia as stipulated by the Bank may ultimately
bring
about a sound research environment in the country. [I feel appropriate
to
point out that a good number of the recommendations proposed in the
study
have been already reiterated by the higher education community in the
country though their voice has not been as loud and as far reaching as
the
Bank.] The point is that the nation should not only focus on expanding
access to higher education institutions, but also develop a clear
policy and
serious commitment in revitalizing research in select institutions–for
sure, at least in one flagship university, i.e. Addis Ababa University.
In
my paper “Re-Engineering Ethiopia’s Knowledge Centers” published on
Medrek
(2003), the organ of the Forum for Social Science (an Ethiopian based
social
science think tank), I advocated for the establishment of an autonomous
and
independent Ministry of Higher Education and Science and Technology to
strengthen, streamline, and catalyze research with special emphasis on
science and technology. I have yet to see this growing global trend,
and
Africa in particular, further pondered or considered.

I am aware that research is a very expensive exercise and I have no
illusions that a poor country like Ethiopia can afford to support many
research based universities. But with clear policy, attractive
incentives,
and great determination, the country has to make a painful short-term
decision for the sake of long-term national interest. As a developing
country confronting multiple challenges, we have no option but to build
solid institutions not only to address the day-to-day challenges but
emerge
as a competitive nation. We simply cannot afford to ignore the power
and
impact of research and the institutions that nurture it for the sake of
our
future wellbeing.

Last, but not least, our national vision–and our aspirations–should
not
necessarily be compatible with the World Bank nor should they be
expected to
be so, for the Bank is and will remain an external and multinational
institution for which Ethiopia’s national interest and its priorities
do not
keep this powerful global institution up all night. It is naïve to
expect
the Bank, or any external organization for that matter, to act on our
behalf
with the same interest, zeal and devotion. As an Ethiopian adage goes
“yemogn zemed keljih ekul adrgegn yilal” which translates roughly to
“An
unwitting relative foolishly expects treatment and care on a par with
ones
own siblings.” Unlike the unwitting relative, we need to wisely
establish
what, when, where, and how much to expect from our “adoptive family” in
collectively shaping our lives and determining our national interest.