In Western countries, debates relating to the expansion of higher education emerged in the post second world war era, particularly in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Teichler, 1998, 1999). According to Altbach ( 1999), the most notable and distinguishing characteristic of these changes, during the last decades of the 20th century, was the phenomenal growth of higher education systems in all countries. These changes appear to have continued into the early years of the new millennium. Researchers identify the expansion of the system as the key factor behind many other policy changes, particularly in British higher education (Kogan & Hanney, 2000). Clearly, there has been a shift in the so-called 'elitist' model of higher education, towards mass expansion of enrolments leading to what became known as 'massification' of higher education (Teichler, 1998; Trow, 1970, 1972).
This expansion was first experienced, most dramatically, in the United States, followed by Europe (Trow, 1972). According to Trow, most higher education systems in the Western world were moving (or at least were predicted to move) from an 'elite' to 'mass' and then to 'universal' higher education. Elite systems enrolled fewer than 15 percent, mass systems enrolled anywhere between 15 percent and 40 percent and universal systems enrolled over 40 percent of this age group (Trow, 1970). Whilst some scholars contest these figures (Kogan & Hanney, 2000), Bamett (2005) contends that the classification itself may have served a useful purpose in depicting that the mass higher education system was an intermediate stage, placed between the elite and universal systems.
This expansion developed with significant variations. The rapid expansion in most Western countries did not follow through in all countries from elite, to mass to universal as predicted by some commentators. This was partly due to the economic slow down and partly due to changing demographics which slowed down the expansion of higher education in some Western countries. Lately, expansion has occurred in more diversified forms, with enrolment of new age groups of students and also an increasing number of students from developing countries.
2.3.2 Marketisation and Privatisation in Higher Education
Within the discourses of neoliberalism, 'economic' policies with a focus on the 'possessive individual' and 'competition' underpinned the policy-making framework in the public sector. In the 1980s, economic theories of the day also heavily influenced
higher education policies in many capitalist states (Codd, 2005b; Marginson, 1997). This 'ontological shift' (Dale, 2000), where education is subjected to the language and the alleged logic of neoliberal economics, gave rise to policies that forced the application of market processes in higher education.
Markets take on several meanings in higher education. Firstly, there were imperatives to privatise what some considered as an overprotective public sector and thereby force its activities to be competitive (Kogan & Hanney, 2000). Using economic arguments, this led to an operative system based on supply and demand and it aimed to generate optimum returns on investments. The market metaphor also meant competition amongst HErs, in addition to competition for limited resources. An increasing number of institutions competed within common catchment areas for student enrolments. The market was also seen as the prime mechanism for the pursuit of efficiency (Bates, 1996).
Furthermore, as observed by Altbach (1999), a case for private initiatives in higher education also advanced within the 'market' approach to higher education. Consequently, new 'for-profit' institutions, providing a range of post-secondary education, emerged in many countries. The quality within this for-profit sector varied considerably. These developments posed serious challenges in the assessment of quality or standards and they have again accelerated the development and enactment of QA policies and related systems.
Randall (2002), with respect to the United Kingdom's Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), points out that it was the shift to mass higher education and the increasingly global market for qualifications which heavily shaped the QA system designed by that Agency. Within an ever-increasing global market, Randall (2002) contends that countries have begun to realise the economic benefits to be gained from providing trans-national education. This has led to the development of ' frameworks' for higher education qualifications, which provide a basis for an international currency of qualifications.
2.3.3 Changes in Patterns of Funding
Until the 1980s, higher education expansion in Western countries was allied with strong government commitment to finance the system. This trend was in keeping with the notion of higher education as a 'public good'. The prolonged economic crisis and the economic collapse of the welfare state in Western capitalist states triggered the rise
of neoliberal ideologies associated with the New Right doctrines. This phenomenon has been described variously by different commentators (Peters & Roberts, 1999). In Australia, it is referred to as 'economic rationalism' (Marginson, 1993). In New Zealand, the more commonly used term is neoliberalism. In the British context, the phenomenon has been discussed within the debates on 'New Right' s (Giddens, 1994). Within the scope of this thesis, these terms have been used as essentially equivalent, since the underlying principles are basically the same. Concurrent with these significant changes there also occurred changes in the perspectives with regard to overall public spending and the welfare state. These perspectives became instrumental in the application of the neoliberal economic theories which became influential in shaping public policies, including those of higher education.
With the relocation of education in the market place and the 'economizing of education,' (Ozga, 2000) supported by several studies undertaken through the World Bank in the 1990s (World Bank, as cited in Ozga, 2000), higher education began to be viewed as mainly a 'private good' benefiting the individual more than society as a whole (Altbach, 1 999). This change in thinking precipitated the shifting of the burden of financing higher education on to individual users, which resulted in students and/or their families having to meet a higher proportion of the costs involved. Thus, a progressive reduction of government funding per equivalent full-time student (EFTS) for higher education became apparent in most OECD countries during the 1 980s and through the 1 990s.
Increasing concern for efficiency has also altered the patterns of funding higher education. With reduced funding from governments, HEIs were expected to meet the additional requirements through more efficient use of their resources. The changing expectations of parents and employers, coupled with the heightened expectations and growing concerns from the state for greater ' efficiency and quality', 'value for money' and 'public accountability', subjected these institutions to an unprecedented level of external scrutiny (Mok, 2005). This has resulted in organisational changes within the institutions and it has also triggered further expansion of the system, through the establishment of a private sector in higher education. Tertiary education institutions
5 This term appears to have been used with different connotations. Some writers have used the term to refer to an alliance of interests, comprising market liberals and political conservatives. Others have used it when referring to an uneasy blend of conservatism, liberalism and right-wing economics (Olssen, Codd, & O'Neill, 2004, pp. 134-135).
faced increasing demands from their local communities, not only to accommodate newer groups for studying but also in terms of achieving higher quality. In turn, these changes have accelerated the emergence of the debate on QA (Neave, 1988).
2.3.4 Changing Role of the State
In the Western context, the change In patterns of funding has also led to transformations in the role of the state in the organisation of higher education systems. With the adoption of market approaches in Western countries, there has been a shift from the more interventionist form of government, based on the Keynesian paradigm (Apple, 2000), to a less intrusive form of governance. These changes depict parallels with the emergence of the 'evaluative state' (Neave, 1988, 1998). This tends to limit the commitment of the state in higher education provision and replace it by the market. As Neave ( 1998) argues:
. . . the rise of the Evaluative State is accompanied by two major shifts in the timing, purpose and location of evaluation in the process not only of policy-making, but also 'policy adhesion' . . . . The second is a clear shift towards a posteriori evaluation . . . . a posteriori evaluation seeks to elicit how far goals have been met, not by setting the prior conditions but by ascertaining the extent to which overall targets have been met through the evaluation of 'product' . . . [it] works through the control of product, not through the control of process' . (pp. 10-12)
Thus the changing role of the state in institutional autonomy was a shift from 'process control' to 'product control'. This shift in focus is away from questions of provision and access, social equality and equity. It redefines the purpose of higher education not in relation to individual demand, but in keeping with the perceived needs of the market. The consequence of this shift is the 'steering' of higher education more closely towards national priorities. Marginson describes this modified relationship between the government and the HEI as a neoliberal paradox of 'steering from a distance' (Marginson, 1997).
Arguably, these newer forms of governance of HEIs have not reduced the involvement of the state in higher education: they have only modified its role and the relationship. Dale ( 1997) argues that the three main governance activities of funding, regulation and delivery have been restructured. According to Mok (2005), the role of the state has been restructured to become "more involved in performing the roles of enabler, regulator, quality controller, facilitator, and coordinator of services" (p. 298). In turn, these changes produced 'tighter' controls of what emerged from HEIs. The characteristics of the Evaluative State perhaps thus represent a powerful challenge to
presumptions of professional control over higher education. It certainly represents an advancement in managerial controls over the individual academic.
In view of the financial constraints of the nation states, new non-state actors come into play in the funding and provision of higher education. From this perspective, it is pertinent to observe that the market, the local community and the civil society now are involved increasingly in the financing and provision of education.
The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the influence of neoliberalism and the adverse consequences of the market models applied in education. Towards the end of the 1990s, the competitive market approach in education, at least in the case of New Zealand according to Codd (2005a), seemed to have given way to accommodate a more cooperative, more inclusive and more equitable education system, thus heralding a new phase of political and economic reforms. This new phase, or what has come to be known as 'Third Way politics', according to Giddens (1998, 2000), offers an alternative, both to the neoliberalism of the 1980s and 1990s and to the interventionist welfare state. The 'Third Way' approach to higher education policy, with its attendant emphasis on 'knowledge economy and society' is quite specific to New Zealand. This 'Third Way' rejects both the market principles of neoliberalism and state domination of the 'old style' socialism of the Keynesian welfare state (Codd, 2005a). On the one hand 'Third Way' emphasises the renewal of the civil society, inclusiveness and social responsibility but on the other hand it also embraces individualism, economic freedom and globalisation. Critics of Third Way rhetoric argue that it is only a 'softer' version of neoliberalism (Callinicos, as cited in Codd, 2005a) because it remains committed to the neoliberal agenda embedded in globalisation. Whilst Third Way politics in New Zealand has some wider relevance to New Labour policies in Britain, the view of many analysts is that it is little more than a means of managing neoliberalism (Co dd, 2005b; Roberts, 2005).