Analyzing Educational Governance Regimes through Comparative Regionalism in the European Union and CARICOM

• In Event: The global governance of education: new venues and changing architectures

Proposal

Current literature suggests that there is a need to examine regions, regionalization, and regionalism from a comparative perspective. In this regard, comparative regionalism is the latest wave in the study of regionalism, broadly defined, and in higher education more specifically. This emergent area of inquiry attempts to dismantle the heretofore Eurocentric approach to (educational) regionalism (Söderbaum, 2015). Various scholars have called for applying a comparative lens in this area, from political to educational studies (see, for instance, Börzel, 2011; Hameiri, 2013; Lawson, 2015). In order to expand on the variety of regionalization and regionalism studies, this paper examines the emergence and consolidation of regional governance mechanisms in higher education in the European Union (EU) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Therefore, it offers a critical comparison of two higher education regional regimes/spaces not previously studied in the literature.

Advanced and proposed by Chou and Ravinet (2015; 2016), higher education regionalism as a framework is specifically tailored to study higher education area building via comparison and to elide the use of European regionalism in education as the primary and most convenient explanatory model for region-building in higher education. Our study entails comparing higher education policy in the EU and the CARICOM via the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Caribbean Higher Education Space (CHES) as two distinct regional parallel, but possibly intersecting initiatives. The EU and CARICOM present distinct varieties of higher education regionalism, each with its particular characteristics and architectures arising from their unique geo-political, economic, and social circumstances. We employ higher education regionalism as the overarching framework, while complementary and intersecting theoretical notions are weaved into the framework as conceptual elements that explain governance architectures and mechanisms specific to the two regions under examination here: Intergovernmentalism, neofunctionalism, and supranationalism; Principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; Regime building.

By applying these intertwined theoretical components, we intend to elucidate to what extent global scripts related to the role of higher education in the competitive economy infuse policy action and language in regional integration initiatives in the EU and CARICOM, and whether these transcend these regions’ policy ambitions. Moreover, we will attempt to observe if the resulting policy scripts converge on similar policy objectives in the two regions or, on the contrary, they maintain parallel courses of development without exerting obvious influences on one another. In this context, we formulate a set of targeted guiding questions for our comparative examination of the two regions. For example, what are the higher education regionalization mechanisms in the EU and CARICOM, and how do they intersect, overlap, or diverge? By extension, it is also pertinent to inquire whether the educational regimes in the EU and CARICOM exhibit similar governance mechanisms and, if so, whether any existing emulation in either realm is purely coincidental or deliberate. What commonalities exist between higher education integration initiatives (regionalization) in the EU and the CARICOM? How does the tension between EU agency in other regions and the possibility that EU exerted no influence on the formation of higher education in CARICOM manifest itself in EU-CARICOM dynamics? In addition, how is educational cooperation between EU and CARICOM informed by the disparities between large industrialized countries (which form most of the EU) and small-scale economies (most of the constituent countries of the CARICOM)?

We combine historical process tracing with content and discourse analysis (Krippendorff, 2003) of policy narratives, texts, and legislation. The documents selected for analysis had to meet a fundamental criterion: they had to consist of binding legislation or policy instruments with power to effect policy changes in the coordination of higher education across the two realms. In this regard, first, the founding treaties of both polities were included: the Treaty on European Union (Lisbon 2007 and its precursors) and the Treaty of Chaguaramas (1973, revised in 2001). Second, higher education policy documents in the EU were selected for analysis: the Bologna Declaration and Bologna Follow-Up Group reports with benchmarks and Communiques. The third group of documents consisted of higher education policy documents in the CARICOM, including the 2030 Human Resource Development Strategy (CARICOM 2017), the Future of Education in the Caribbean (CARICOM, 1993), the Caribbean Vocational Qualification Framework (CVQ), and communiques. To provide a consistent approach for a comparative analysis of the two regions’ policy narratives, we employed Mendez and Mendez’s (2010) three-pronged approach entailing policy framing, policy dynamics, and policy instruments.

Pending further analysis, our preliminary findings suggest that, at first glance, the EU was held as a reference model for legal reform in the CARICOM. There are obvious similarities in governing mechanisms between the EU and CARICOM, especially in their observance of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in the two polities’ respective treaties. Translating this legal framing convergence to the higher education domain, it seems plausible to suggest that the CHES and the EHEA represent correspondent higher education architectures in the two regions, but with important distinctions between them.

For instance, in the CARICOM, higher education was embedded at the Treaty level, as a result of the intent to secure and as a mechanism for the implementation of the seamless mobility of nationals across the region. By granting associate status to the University of the West Indies, the region vested institutional symbolism and legislative anchoring, weight, and prerogatives for the eventual emergence of a common area for higher education in the Caribbean. This is in contradistinction with the EU, where matters of higher education coordination were left to the member states in extra-treaty legal frameworks, but that nonetheless led to a gradual voluntary alignment of higher education systems along with common benchmarks and indicators.

In a separate example, by setting up its quality assurance mechanism to fulfill Treaty obligations, CARICOM preceded the EU, at least in policy language and intent. Such mechanisms emerged later in Europe, but would become more coordinated and gradually steered through EU institutions. Further considerations of integrative processes in the higher education governing regimes in the EU and CARICOM will be expanded upon completing the study and presented in full during the conference.

Authors

• Florin Daniel Salajan, North Dakota State University

• Tavis Jules, Loyola University Chicago