The SDG4 and Equity in Higher Education: Actions and Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region

• In Event: Reforms, sustainable development, and social change in higher education (II)

Proposal

The SDG4 and Equity in Higher Education: Actions and Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region

Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goal 4 (hereinafter SDG4) commits all countries to equal access to affordable and quality education, including higher education, by 2030. This was an important move as higher education was missing from the previous international development agendas such as the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All (Chankseliani & McCowan, 2021). Currently, the Asia-Pacific possesses the largest and fastest growing higher education sector worldwide, but not every countries in this region dedicates to promoting equity in higher education. Extant literature examining higher education policies in the Asia-Pacific rusually focuses on the building of world-class universities and the decolonization, internationalization and localization of higher education (Marginson, Kaur & Sawir, 2011; Collins, et al., 2016; Welch, 2023) while seldom discussing the vital issue of equity in higher education. To fill this research gap, this study conducted a panoramic analysis of equity in higher education in the Asia-Pacific.

Analytical Frameworks
This study adopted Martin Trow’s (1973) elite-mass-universal triptych and OECD’s (2008, 2017) conceptual framework of equity in higher education as the analytical frameworks. Following Trow’s division, higher education moves from elite to mass when enrolment exceeded 15% of the relevant age group, and from mass to universal when it exceeded 50%, this study started with dividing the development stage of higher education of the Asia-Pacific countries, since Simon Marginson (2018) notes that growth of higher education coverage is associated with increased stratification of higher education .

Basing on the OECD’s (2008) definition of equitable higher education systems, which highlights participation in and outcomes have nothing to do with contextual factors, like gender and income, other than individuals’ innate ability and effort, and the target 4.3 of SDG4’s emphasis on the equal access to high education, this study constructed a two-dimensional analysis matrix consisting of the coverage of higher education, technically measured by gross enrolment or attendance ratio, and the parity in access to higher education. Later on, according to OECD’s (2017) distinction between horizontal and vertical equity of higher education, which indicates that horizontal equity considers providing similar resources to similar groups, whereas vertical equity involves providing disadvantaged students or institutions with additional resources based on their needs, a second two-dimensional analysis matrix was developed for the policy analysis of this study. The two poles of the horizontal axis are horizontal equity versus vertical equity, while those of vertical axis are policy for individuals versus institutions.

Research Methodology
A mixed-method approach was employed in this study. APEC’s 21 member economies were identified as the research sample. To comparatively analyze the coverage of higher education among the 21 member economies, a quantitative research methodology was used to collect data. The data was mainly from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. When data was unavailable in UNESCO’s database, data from the authority in the member economies was collected. To understand how different countries define and promote equity in higher education, policies, laws, regulations, strategic planning, and projects/programs for higher education in each member economy were collected for qualitative thematic analysis. They were coded according to the second matrix described above.

Research Results
The analysis shows that the Asia-Pacific as a whole has high participation rate in higher education, but stratification could not be ignored. Except Papua New Guinea, where only 4.27% of the whole population have access to higher education, all the other 20 APEC member economies have reached the development stage of mass higher education. Moreover, 12 economies have reached universal higher education. The gender disparity in the gross attendance ratio (GAR) for higher education in the 21 APEC member economies is relatively small, while females’ GAR is slightly better than that of males. In several economies, GAR for higher education in urban areas is over two to three times higher than that in rural areas. It is notable that the socio-economic disparity of GAR for higher education in the APEC member economies is huge, and the poorest are severely underrepresented.

The APEC member economies have taken actions to achieve the equity in higher education target of the SDG4. Policies to promote horizontal equity for individuals mainly included: (1) increasing equality in admissions; (2) increasing enrolment ratio. More attention was paid for higher education institutions (HEIs), including: (1) increasing the number of HEIs; (2) increasing public investment to HEIs to support their expansion; (3) strengthening quality assurance and institutional accreditation.
Policies at the tertiary level were more focused on promoting vertical equity than those in basic education. Actions for individuals included: (1) offering tuition fee waiver and/or interest subsidized loans for the economically disadvantaged students; (2) establishing special admission programs for non-mainstream groups; (3) building disability-friendly campuses. Policies for HEIs included: (1) diversifying HEIs; (2) increasing flexibility of HEIs; (3) developing supportive programs for disadvantaged HEIs.

Despite of these efforts, it remains a huge challenge for the APEC member economies to achieve equity in higher education. One of the most impeding factors is students’ disadvantaged socioeconomic background. Moreover, the inequity in the preceding levels of education adversely impact the achievement of the equity in higher education (OECD, 2008). In addition, we note that the expansion of higher education has brought about an increasingly serious problem for graduates’ employment, which disproportionately affects vulnerable students.

Conclusion
This study is of theoretical and practical significance to the study of SDG4 and higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. From a theoretical perspective, it validated Marginson’s (2018) recent discussions about the equity in the high participation systems of higher education, and more importantly, constructed conceptual matrixs for understanding the equity in higher education, which is an under-explored research area. From a practical perspective, it collected the policies of the APEC economies in promoting the equity of higher education for countries in this region and across the world to refer to and identified the challenges faced by the APEC economies to achieve equity in higher education, pointing out the future directions to advance the equity in higher education target of the SDG4.

Author

• Ruichang Ding, Institute of International and Comparative Education, Beijing Normal University