Taiwan’s Higher Education Policy: From Neoliberalism to Public Goods (Higher Education in Taiwan: Global, Political, and Social Challenges)

Abstract

Neoliberalism and public goods have each provided an approach to quality assurance in higher education and the interconnected well-being of society. In 2000, in the pursuit of educational excellence and global competitiveness, the Ministry of Education launched a series of competitive funding projects to supplement the general funding scheme. Simultaneously, policies were instituted to provide incentives to universities. These were for the development and reforming of core collegial processes to strengthen the capacity of the academic profession to improve performance. While the concept of public goods has become a crucial purpose in the higher education system for substantive development. The aim of this chapter is to consider the change in Taiwan’s implementation of policy from neoliberalism to public goods. The chapter will review the concept of neoliberalism, public goods, and how policy is being driven by the Higher Education Sprout Project (HESP). First, the development of the higher education system is briefly described. Second, the increasing competition that comes with improved institutional quality within a neoliberal context is discussed. Third, it focuses on the ambiguous university–business links, and the fact that these are questionable and that public concerns have led to the idea that, in neoliberal times, universities should reconsider the locus of their public goods. Fourth, the effect of the HESP is examined and conclusions are drawn. This chapter focuses on the challenges that may be faced by the higher education system under a shift in the policy paradigm. It implies the government’s authoritarian control of higher education institutions began to loosen and universities were handed decision-making powers on matters related to teaching, research, and learning. In answer to the question of whether public goods can work well with higher education reform, the findings suggest that the partners need to engage with the new policy implementation in order for this to be the case.