Beyond Decentralization: Changing Roles of the State in Education

Abstract

One of the explanations for the success of these East Asian societies in the field of education is in terms of purposeful government. Similarly in the field of comparative social security, state-centric accounts are powerful explanations for the success of developments in these societies ([Kwon 1997]; [White & Goodman 1998]). Of course, the prominent role of education embedded in the tradition and culture of these societies may reinforce the important role of education and, subsequently, give the impetus for governments in these societies to promote education ([Morris & Sweeting 1995]). The governments in these societies are very instrumental in raising the quality of education and in promoting a learning society with the intention to maintain the competitiveness of their societies in both regional and global markets, particularly preparing people for the future knowledge-based economy ([Mok 2000a], [2001a]; [Green 1999]; [Gopinathan 1999]). Unlike the hyperglobalists’ argument¹ that modern states’ capacities are declining and therefore they are unable to cope with the complicated issues resulting from the increasingly globalized world, the above case studies show that in these East Asian states remain the most influential actors in shaping local education policy formulation and directing educational development. The principal goal of this concluding chapter is to contrast and compare the different development experiences in these Chinese societies (involving some central governments and some local governments), particularly reflecting upon the similarities and differences in patterns of educational decentralization/centralization. More specifically, this conclusion examines the role of these East Asian governments in educational developments in the light of the global trend of educational decentralization.