Prescriptions and antidotes, good intentions and misunderstandings
By
William Saint

June 11, 2004

---

The following discussion is prompted by the recent commentary from Dr. Damtew
Teferra entitled: “The World Bank Prescription for Ethiopian Higher Education:
The Missing Antidote in ‘Pursuing the Vision’,” and seeks to shed additional
light on some of the concerns that he expresses.

Why have I taken the time to
do this? Because I value, as Dr. Teferra does, the enhanced understanding that
can be gained from pluralistic debate. Because the goals, priorities and
strategies that currently guide the development of Ethiopian higher education
would surely benefit from wider engagement by people who can make professional
contributions to this dialogue. But most importantly, because Dr. Teferra’s
well-intentioned commentary flows from four apparent misunderstandings.

The first misunderstanding is that he views the recent World Bank report, Higher
Education Development for Ethiopia: Pursuing the Vision, as the Bank’s
“prescription” for Ethiopian higher education. This is incorrect because a
legitimate prescription already exists. This prescription is contained in the
Government of Ethiopia’s “Higher Education Proclamation” that was approved by
Parliament in June 2003. The Proclamation provides a thoughtful,
forward-looking policy framework for guiding the growth of Ethiopian higher
education over the medium term. As is normally the case with national policy
formulation, it was produced by Ethiopians for Ethiopians. The World Bank did
not participate in the drafting of this Proclamation. Following issuance of the
Proclamation, however, the Ministry of Education did ask the World Bank to
provide it with technical suggestions on how it might implement certain aspects
of the new policy framework, e.g., the funding formula, management preparation
for institutional autonomy. In this context, “Pursuing the Vision” should be
understood to mean implementing the policy vision of Government as contained in
the Proclamation rather than imposing a World Bank vision on Ethiopia.

The second misunderstanding is Dr. Teferra’s assumption that the referenced
report is “of great consequence that may affect tremendously the development of
higher education in the country in all its forms and shapes.” While it would be
gratifying to think that one’s work might be so influential, the fact of the
matter is that this report is unlikely to produce any lasting effects. It is
simply the most recent in a decade-long stream of studies, reports and seminars
on higher education produced by the Ministry, university researchers, and
various development partners, including the Dutch, the Italians, the Swedes, the
Germans, and the British. In most cases, policy formulation draws on a general
consensus about what is useful in such a collection of studies, which is then
tempered and shaped by national political considerations. In this context, no
single report ever has much impact.

The third misunderstanding is that the World Bank has the liberty to dictate the
composition of the counterpart team chosen by the Ministry of Education to work
with Bank staff in the analysis of Ethiopia’s higher education needs and the
design of an investment package to address those needs. This is a process in
which the two sides continually seek areas of agreement and negotiate areas of
difference. In this dynamic of give and take, the Bank team represents the
Bank’s interests, and the Government’s team represents the Government’s
interests. No government would willingly give up its right to constitute its
own team. Consequently, Dr. Teferra’s assertion that “The Bank team should
itself have at least requested, if not demanded, a competent counterpart” is
uninformed by the reality of development practice in these circumstances.
Moreover, he appears to be calling for the kind of heavy-handed World Bank
intervention in national affairs that he has disapproved of on other occasions.

The final misunderstanding is that research is an independent variable within
universities that can be manipulated at will. In fact, research does not exist
in isolation from strong graduate programs. Research is an integral part of
graduate programs and the academic staff who teach them. For this reason, it
would seem a questionable strategy to call for greater emphasis on research, as
Dr. Teferra does, without first assuring that an essential foundation of good
quality graduate programs is in place. That this is generally not the case in
Ethiopia explains why current research output is limited. Indeed, the Ministry
of Education reports that just 9 percent of all university staff possess Ph.D.
degrees. It is for this reason that the World Bank report places much greater
emphasis on the need to develop graduate programs than on the need to produce
research. If the first is achieved, the second will follow. It is important to
get the sequencing right, or one may run the risk of fostering more research,
but of poor quality and limited utility.

Sizeable gaps frequently exist between academic understanding and development
practice. This need not be the case. Indeed, it serves neither academia nor
development. It is my hope that dialogue between these two spheres may lead to
increased understanding and collaboration between them for the benefit of all.
Creating this possibility is the real contribution of Dr. Teferra’s commentary.

The author, William Saint, is higher education specialist for the World Bank and co-author of the referenced
report.