Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Introduction

Southeast Asia is being rapidly integrated through market-driven trade and foreign direct investment activities toward the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Community starting from 2015. In this process, the region is also witnessing greater mobility of the people within ASEAN and between ASEAN and other regions. This emerging context places higher education in a pivotal role in developing human resources capable of creating and sustaining globalized and knowledge-based societies and promoting “brain circulation” in and outside Southeast Asia. In particular, in order to facilitate student and academic mobility, the region’s diverse higher education systems and institutions need to share more harmonized frameworks, standards, and mechanisms by developing and introducing a permeable and transparent quality assurance (QA) and credit transfer system (CTS) in Southeast Asia.Footnote 1

Encouraging and supporting students to study abroad is arguably the best way to foster the development of a well-trained international workforce, which can improve the quality and quantity of human resources in the economy as well as the national education sector (OECD/World Bank 2007). This is also true for academic staff, who would be able to access international academic networks, in which many developing countries have little involvement. When Europe was integrated, the European Union created a European Higher Education Area (EHAE) by adopting a program called “Erasmus” as part of the Bologna process to facilitate the mobility of university students and academic staff.Footnote 2 Should ASEAN be more integrated as one ASEAN Community, it is necessary for Southeast Asia to have a similar vision and program but adapted to much more diverse contexts and unique regional characteristics, as well as supported by acceptable standards among universities in Southeast Asia. Such a harmonization process can be facilitated by building upon and strengthening the existing higher education forums, institutions, and networks. There also are increasing interests with the harmonization process among regional organizations and higher education institutions and at emerging regional economic architectures comprising ASEAN, ASEAN+3, and/or East Asia Summit (EAS) countries (ADB 2010).Footnote 3 These increasing interests offer the Asian Development Bank (ADB) a potentially unique opportunity, as a regional development bank, to contribute to promote such harmonization process and university networking by collaborating with government ministries and agencies, regional organizations, and higher education institutions and networks in Southeast Asia under a broader umbrella of ADB’s support to the GMS program (ADB 2013a).Footnote 4

This chapter discusses the GMS program in higher education, by highlighting the ADB’s unique role in supporting higher education harmonization and networking. Following the Introduction (section “Introduction”), section “ASEAN’s common challenge and the GMS program” outlines challenges faced by ASEAN and highlights salient contributions by the GMS program toward an integrated ASEAN Community starting from 2015. Section “Higher education harmonization in the GMS” discusses the importance and need of higher education harmonization to pave the way for greater student and academic mobility in the GMS in light of linkages with ASEAN. Section “ADB’s support for higher education harmonization” introduces ADB’s support for GMS higher education harmonization, and section “Higher education networking in the GMS” discusses GMS university networking. Section “A Proposal for the Greater Mekong Regional University” presents a proposal for establishing a “Greater Mekong Regional University” as a regional platform, which would help GMS countries to improve quality and relevance of their universities and accelerate the process of higher education harmonization and networking in the GMS and beyond. Finally, section “Concluding Remarks” provides concluding remarks.

ASEAN’s Common Challenge and the GMS Program

ASEAN leaders have set a vision to build an integrated ASEAN Community starting from 2015.Footnote 5 The ASEAN Community comprises the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC), and the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), and each Community has its own Blueprint as an action plan (ASEAN 2008, 2009a, b). These are three equally important, independent, and interrelated pillars of the ASEAN Community, of which the primary goal of the ASCC is to contributing to realizing an ASEAN Community that is people centered and socially responsible (ASEAN 2009a). On the other hand, ASEAN leaders have also launched the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) since 2000 to narrow the development divide and enhance ASEAN’s competitiveness. To accelerate the progress made so far, ASEAN leaders adopted the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (MPAC) in October 2010 (ASEAN 2010), which is envisaged to connect ASEAN through enhanced physical infrastructure development (physical connectivity), effective institutional arrangements (institutional connectivity), and empowered people (people-to-people connectivity). The MPAC, whose primary aim is to increase connectivity, also seeks to help narrow development gaps in ASEAN especially by implementing capacity building cooperation arrangements which seek to help Cambodia, Lao Peoples’ Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar, and Vietnam (CLMV) meet ASEAN-wide commitment in building the ASEAN Community. Another common challenge that the ASEAN region faces is to align its education, science, and technology policies to build capable human resources toward an integrated ASEAN Community and better link their education and skills development with the ASEAN-wide labor market demand.

For ASEAN to be a more integrated community, the biggest challenge is to narrow development gaps between original ASEAN member countries which have become high- or middle-income countries (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and relatively new ASEAN member countries (CLMV). In order to realize a bigger market, greater economic scale, and more effective division of labor, ASEAN leaders took a subregional approach in addressing development gaps by launching the GMS economic cooperation program in 1992 with the ADB as a coordinator.Footnote 6 The GMS program is a foremost example and a unique attempt in Southeast Asia and has become a model of subregional cooperation in Southeast Asia.Footnote 7 The GMS program encompasses CLMV, Thailand, and the People’s Republic of China (Yunnan Province and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region), constituting an economic bloc of some 250 million people that has a huge capacity for potential growth. The GMS program, which has been implemented over two decades since its launch in 1992, comprises nine priority sectors relating to (1) agriculture, (2) energy, (3) environment, (4) investment, (5) telecommunication, (6) tourism, (7) transport infrastructure, (8) transport and trade facilitation, and (9) human resources development (HRD).

Education is treated as one of the subsectors of HRD (health, labor migration, and social development, among others) (ADB 2013a). A little over half the population of GMS is regarded as potential labor, but a large part of it is currently idle, and there is a shortage in all sectors of human resources that can keep up with the scale and speed of growth. In addition, the low level of literacy among the youth, the inadequate provision of primary and secondary education, and poor health mean that labor productivity cannot be high. CLMV has not yet achieved universal completion of primary and lower secondary education, which is one of the reasons for low employment. To provide people with actual employment, more advanced technical education and vocational training are needed at secondary and tertiary education levels. Education and HRD are and will continue to be the core component of the GMS program (ADB 2012b) and are expected to contribute to narrow development gaps within GMS countries and between GMS countries and the rest of ASEAN, by producing capable human resources on a sustainable basis (ADB 2013a).

Higher Education Harmonization in the GMS

As emerging priorities in the GMS program, ADB and Education Subgroup in the GMS Working Group in HRD (WGHRD) comprising senior officials of GMS countries agreed to support higher education harmonization and networking in the GMS as part of a new program in 2012.Footnote 8 The WGHRD recognized that more harmonized higher education systems and deeper networking among universities will help GMS countries to achieve more mobility of students and academic staff and hence promote knowledge sharing and dissemination.Footnote 9 This activity has to be expedited in view of upcoming ASEAN Community starting from 2015, by supporting a process that builds country and stakeholder engagement in building the capacity in university QA system and building a common CTS across universities in GMS countries. More concretely, this activity is divided into two components:

  1. 1.

    Strengthen the capacity of university QA system and personnel in less developed GMS countries such as CLMV, in collaboration with the ASEAN University Network (AUN)Footnote 10

  2. 2.

    Provide GMS counties with options for harmonizing existing credit transfer arrangements in higher education initially in a few selected fields to ensure applicability across Southeast Asia, in collaboration with the Southeast Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Center for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO-RIHED).Footnote 11

AUN and SEAMEO-RIHED are expected to play complementary roles in (1) harmonizing higher education systems by developing and implementing a common platform for university QA framework and CTS in the GMS, which can be linked with ASEAN and other regions and (2) strengthening regional higher education networks in GMS, Southeast Asia, and beyond the region. An assumption is that more harmonized higher education systems and strengthened higher education networks will help narrow development gaps and contribute to shape the ASEAN Community from 2015 and beyond.

Harmonization in Quality Assurance System

ASEAN University Network for Harmonization in Higher Education

The AUN is composed of 30 leading or major universities from 10 ASEAN countries that have worked closely to achieve the higher education development toward the ASEAN community building. On November 1, 2012, AUN signed the Memorandum of Understanding at Peking University, People’s Republic of China (PRC), for establishing ASEAN Plus Three University Network (ASEAN+3 UNet) by extending its network initially with five universities in PRC, two universities in the Republic of Korea, and three universities in Japan. Member institutions of AUN and ASEAN+3 UNet are in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Member institutions of ASEAN University Network (AUN) and ASEAN+3 University Network (UNet) (as of February 2014)
Full size table

University QA is an internal mechanism for ASEAN to ensure quality education toward achieving a harmonization in higher education.Footnote 12 The AUN realizes that QA is the bedrock for maintaining, improving, and enhancing teaching, research, and the overall academic standards. To strengthen quality higher education in ASEAN countries, AUN has established the AUN Quality Assurance Network (AUN-QA) since 2000 that successfully developed AUN-QA system including the preparation of AUN-QA Guidelines and Manual for the Implementation of the Guidelines (AUN 2007). Since 2007, the AUN-Assessor teams have conducted the actual quality assessment at program level for 26 undergraduate programs of 7 AUN member universities (AUN, 2011). This quality assessment is one of important activities under AUN-QA for ensuring the quality of program at regional recognition level as well as benchmarking among the universities in ASEAN.

The Need for Strengthening University Quality Assurance System in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar

University QA in CLMV is still a new development in terms of both QA system and QA professional competencies due to the varied background and development stage of QA in each country. AUN member institutions from CLMV (namely, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Royal University of Law and Economics, National University of Laos, University of Yangon, Yangon Institute of Economics, Vietnam National University of Hanoi, and Vietnam National University of Ho Chi Minh City) have been involved in AUN-QA activities, but some universities still need more training and assistance to set up their QA leadership and professionals for the establishment of QA system at their universities. A brief description of the status of university QA system of each country is provided as followsFootnote 13:

  • Cambodia. A law on accreditation has been established in Cambodia, and the establishment of Accreditation Committee of Cambodia in March 2003 has formulated a set of criteria to regulate legally on the quality of higher education institutions. However, it is still difficult for the universities to develop the QA system because of the lack of QA personnel. Therefore, to assist and prepare the universities to be recognized among ASEAN leading universities, there is a clear need to support QA personnel development.

  • Lao PDR. Implementing university QA in Lao PDR faces problems. There is no independent quality assurance agency, and instead, the Ministry of Education and Sports has set up “Educational Standard and Quality Assurance Center” to tackle QA issues. The National University of Lao has established a “QA Office” to promote and regulate quality of education; however, they face several obstacles due to the lack of resources, lack of understanding of QA concept, motivation, and quality culture. It is clear that for QA implementation to be effective, Lao PDR needs not only capacity building of QA personnel but also both policy support and resource.

  • Myanmar. Like Lao PDR, there is no independent quality assurance agency to regulate and ensure the quality of higher education institutions. Myanmar Maritime University considers the QA system to be a very important step toward recognition at national, regional, and international level. Myanmar Maritime University is the only university that has established the quality management system and certified to ISO 9001 standard in 2007–2010. The university also aims to develop further alignment of its QA system with AUN-QA System. Other universities are also interested in establishing QA system at their universities. It is essential to equip their personnel with the capacity for establishing their QA systems in the near future.

On the other hand, universities in Vietnam have QA personnel that are more knowledgeable and experience in QA issues. QA at higher education institutions in Vietnam is well supported by some development partners such as the World Bank. Vietnam established the General Department of Education Testing and Accreditation under the Ministry of Education and Training and has developed a national policy on QA implementation at university level.Footnote 14

Harmonization in Credit Transfer System

Credit transfer is the process of evaluating the components of one qualification for the purpose of determining the equivalence with the components of another qualification to establish credits for individuals. This may take place whether during a course or when enrolling for a new course at a different institution. Credit transfer avoids duplication of studies and saves time and money. An appropriate CTS is a key facilitator of student mobility and cooperation among higher education institutions.

The Need for a Common Credit Transfer System

Harmonization of higher education and increasing transnational student mobility require a common CTS as an enabling mechanism to create so-called higher education “common space.” An effective system of academic credit transfer has long been recognized as a key element in promoting student mobility and cross-border educational cooperation. Several systems of credit transfer are operating among different subgroups of countries and higher education institutions in Southeast Asia. Although the systems have some features in common, differences in their governance, scope and administration mean that, depending on their locations and fields of studies, students and institutions may be required to deal with more than one system. This can end up with consuming scarce resources and become a barrier to student mobility and cross-border cooperation. Although differences in approach to credit transfer are to be expected in a diverse Southeast Asia, there would be much to gain from harmonizing existing systems of credit transfer for greater region-wide applicability.

Examples of Credit Transfer Arrangements

Among several credit transfer arrangements operating the region, the most notable examples are as follows.Footnote 15 University Mobility in Asia and Pacific (UMAP) has supported a student exchange scheme within the region since 1993. UMAP is a voluntary association of government and non-government representatives of the higher education sector. At present, UMAP has 31 member countries, including 10 ASEAN member countries, and uses the UMAP Credit Transfer System (UCTS). A pilot project to enhance student mobility between Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (M-I-T pilot program) using the UCTS was initiated in 2009 by SEAMEO-RIHED with support from government ministries and agencies in charge of higher education in three countries. Vietnam joined the “M-I-T” pilot program in November 2012, which was renamed to the “ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS)” Program (SEAMEO-RIHED 2012). The AIMS program also uses the UCTS. Member institutions of the AIMS program are in Table 8.2.Footnote 16

Table 8.2 Member institutions of ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) Program (as of September 2013)
Full size table

Meanwhile, the AUN implements the ASEAN Credit Transfer System (ACTS) among AUN 30 member institutions and with the extended network of ASEAN+3 (Table 8.1). Based on enrollment in one or two semesters and academic quality recognition, the ACTS ensures that credits and grades offered by the host AUN universities will be recognized by the home university. University of Indonesia hosts the secretariat for the ACTS.Footnote 17

SEAMEO-RIHED has documented a range of credit transfer arrangements in Southeast Asia and concludes that such initiatives tend to proceed independently of each other and do not constitute harmonization as in the European (Bologna process) sense. One of SEAMEO-RIHEDS’s key conclusions is that it is vital for governments to agree that the region has much to gain from harmonization process in higher education and to recognize that harmonization does not necessarily imply standardization (Dhirathiti and Yavaprabhas 2008).

ADB’s Support for Higher Education Harmonization

In July 2011, ADB hosted an International Conference on Higher Education in Dynamic Asia in Manila, Philippines, which emphasized a neutral role of the ADB in the harmonization process of higher education in Southeast Asia. This neutral role is perceived to avoid competition among higher education institutions and networks and instead to promote collaboration among stakeholders to be facilitated by the ADB. To follow-up with the above International Conference, ADB published a report in which one of the recommendations is to provide a clearinghouse of information on models of regional cooperation and cross-border collaboration in higher education and on regional experience with these models (ADB 2012a).

With this background, ADB has begun to support “GMS Higher Education Harmonization and Networking (Phase 1)” as part of the regional TA project (footnote 8 and ADB 2009). The TA intends to build capacity in university QA system and conduct a policy action research on building a common CTS in Southeast Asia. More specifically, the TA brings together policy makers and experts from all Southeast Asian countries to (1) develop capacity in university QA system in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar (CLM) and (2) ensure that a common CTS to be emerged would have GMS and then ASEAN-wide applicability. Methodology and key activities of the TA are as follows:

Methodology and Key Activities of Technical Assistance

Capacity Building in University QA System

The TA supports a process that builds country and stakeholder engagement and draws on national and international expertise in QA. Specifically, the TA aims to (1) enhance and strengthen the knowledge on QA system and management particularly based on AUN-QA system, (2) build up qualified university QA personnel teams in CLM, (3) establish QA system to leverage the quality of higher education management in CLM, and (4) provide counties with options for harmonizing university QA system in GMS which would have applicability across Southeast Asia.

Capacity building workshops in university QA system is open to CLM participants from both AUN and non-AUN member universities. A maximum of 25 participants attends each workshop and has been trained by AUN-QA experts from AUN member institutions in middle-income ASEAN countries in close cooperation with the AUN secretariat. Participants who already joined and trained at the “Training on Enhancing Quality Assurance in CLMV” in 2010–2011 or the new participants who also have had some experiences on QA is a prerequisite for attending these capacity building workshops. Another requirement is that they have to establish the university QA system in their countries and conduct Self-Assessment Report (SAR) for Internal Quality Assessment (IQA) after the workshop.

Capacity building activities are conducted in the form of “training the trainers of university QA personnel.” Both the “AUN-QA Manual” and “AUN Actual Quality Assessment at Program Level” are the main documents that are used during capacity building workshops (ANU 2007, 2010). Participants are expected to obtain adequate knowledge of QA so that they are able to conduct in-house training at their own institution as well as to establish QA system and write SAR for IQA. Some assistance from the AUN secretariat and AUN-QA experts may be provided upon request. It is expected that an AUN-QA network would be established in CLM which will have linkages with the rest of GMS countries and the ASEAN region.

Building a Common Credit Transfer System

A policy action research on a common CTS is conducted by taking four steps as follows: (1) explore, (2) experiment, (3) experience, and (4) expand.Footnote 18 The “explore” phase has been implemented in the period of 2012–2013, and other three phases will be implemented under the GMS HRD SFAP (2013–2017) (footnote 54 and ADB 2013b). The policy action research would involve government ministries and agencies that are responsible for higher education, representatives of higher education institutions in the GMS, and regional organizations and networks currently involved with different aspects of credit transfer. Initial steps are underway for the development of a proposed Academic Credit Transfer Framework for Asia (ACTFA) including a common CTS for higher education institutions in Southeast Asia. SEAMEO-RIHED discussed the proposed ACTFA at the stakeholder meeting which was held in Siem Reap, Cambodia, on 8 April 2013.Footnote 19 SEAMO-RIHED plans to conduct a pilot project to implement the proposed ACTFA in the region (“experiment” phase), to evaluate and share lessons learned from the pilot project (“experience” phase), and then to widely disseminate the research results and make them available the ACTFA for adoption by higher education institutions (“expand” phase).

Progress and Future Prospects

In 2012, AUN conducted two workshops in each of CLM on the university QA system. Each workshop was delivered for about 4 days and was led by AUN-QA experts. SEAMEO-RIHED also conducted a series of CTS workshops, a regional conference on CTS in November 2012, and the stakeholder meeting in April 2013. GMS countries endorsed the GMS HRD SFAP (2013-2017) in December 2012, in which “GMS Higher Education Harmonization and Networking (Phase 2)” is included. It is expected that ANU will continue the university QA capacity building in CLM, while SEAMEO-RIHED will conduct remaining phases of the policy action research on building a common CTS by piloting the proposed ACTFA.

It appears that both AUN and SEAMEO-RIHED are the two dominant actors in harmonizing QA and CTS systems in the GMS and Southeast Asia. On the QA system, AUN is playing a significant role in improving the internal QA system at the university level. On the CTS, SEAMEO-RIHED administers the AIMS program involving 35 universities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, while AUN is promoting ACTS with leading 30 member universities in ASEAN.Footnote 20

The findings of the policy action research on a common CTS in collaboration with SEAMEO RIHED will include recommendations on how two main CTSs, namely, ACTS and UCTS (being used for the AIMS program), could coexist or merge into a common platform. It is most likely that both ACTS and UCTS could coexist since both systems have mostly different member institutions, and in case there would be overlaps in terms of member institutions, courses offered can be different (see Tables 8.1 and 8.2). As Yavaprabhas (2014) suggests, AUN and SEAMEO-RIHED could cooperate to ensure strong commitment from politicians, education ministers, and high-level policy makers, in light of key characteristics of the European harmonization process, which started from shared vision by politicians and high-level policy makers on harmonization. “GMS Higher Education Harmonization and Networking (Phase 2)” could offer such opportunities for cooperation between AUN and SEAMEO-RIHED (ADB 2013b).

Meanwhile, SEAMEO, with funding support from ADB, established and is implementing the SEAMEO CollegeFootnote 21 for education ministers, high-level policy makers, and education and youth leaders to regularly convene policy and strategic dialogues on ASEAN-wide issues on education and HRD. It is expected that the SEAMEO College would consider, among others, higher education harmonization as a priority agenda of the SEAMEO College (ADB 2013c), and as an outcome of the SEAMEO College, education ministers and high-level policy makers would agree to develop regional policies on higher education harmonization with regard to QA and credit transfer systems in the context of preparing for the ASEAN Community from 2015.

Higher Education Networking in the GMS

Rationale

University networking not only promotes academic and student mobility among universities but also contributes to building a sense of community by forming university association or league including activities on sports, culture, and music. Asia is arguably leading the world in university partnership activity including university networking (Kuroda et al. 2013). University networking is perceived as a mechanism for strengthening participating universities (ADB 2012a). In the GMS and ASEAN, there are a number of university networks in various fields of expertise or disciplines. ASEAN envisions the formation of ASEAN University as a long-term goal, and the AUN is expected to pave the way toward the establishment of ASEAN University in the future. However, in the GMS, university networking is still its early stage, and should there be a solid university network, it can benefit faculty members, academic staff, and students by enhancing their mobility and helping them to build their sense of a common GMS. This would in turn help universities in the GMS to extend their networks with universities in ASEAN including AUN member institutions. Such university networking in the GMS can be facilitated by establishing a “GMS University Consortium.”

Objectives

The objectives of the “GMS University Consortium” are to (1) help strengthen and accelerate cross-border collaboration among universities in the GMS, especially universities located along the economic corridors (i.e., the North-South, East-West, and Southern corridors) and (2) promote student and faculty exchange, credit transfer, and research capacity building and collaboration, among universities in the GMS. The “GMS University Consortium” will also strengthen university governance and management, improve quality and excellence of universities in the GMS, and help universities in the GMS to reach ASEAN/Southeast Asian regional standards. The “GMS University Consortium” involves first tiered universities in the GMS (which are often located in national capital cities) by linking their academic and staff resources with second tiered universities in the GMS (which are mostly located in provincial capital cities). The proposed member institutions can initially include 3–4 institutions from each of six GMS countries, totaling to 18–24 institutions. It is proposed that SEAMEO-RIHED offers a secretariat or incubator function of the “GMS University Consortium” in view of its relationships with government ministries and agencies in charge of higher education and representatives of higher education institutions in the GMS.

A Proposal for the Greater Mekong Regional University (GMRU)

Key Concepts and Principles

In further pursuing higher education harmonization and networking in the GMS and elsewhere, the following five key concepts and principles need to be emphasized (Table 8.3): First is to adopt permeability – from “rigid” standard or platform to “acceptable” standard or platform among key stakeholders (e.g., QA and credit transfer systems, and school calendars). Second is to promote transparency – from “invisible” systems (e.g., QA, credit transfer, and grading systems) to “visible” systems and educational contents.Footnote 22 Third is to maintain neutrality – from “competition” among networks, institutions, and universities to “cooperation/collaboration” to be facilitated by a neural entity. Fourth is to enhance mobility – from “waiting for others’ actions” or “too busy to take actions” to “proactive” drive for change. Fifth is to ensure continuity – from “ad hoc” forum, conferences, or meetings to “regular” actions to bring about the results.

Table 8.3 Key concepts and principles in higher education harmonization and networking
Full size table

ADB is expected to play a neural role to facilitate higher education harmonization and networking in the GMS. However, ADB’s headquarters is not located in “Bangkok hub” or “Chiang Mai-Vientiane hub” in higher education where several key regional agencies on higher education and higher education institutions are located,Footnote 23 which makes ADB difficult to be a facilitator for higher education harmonization and networking beyond its role as a funding agency. This may call for creating a regional platform as another neutral entity to be located in higher education “hub(s)” in the GMS, which can be a genuine facilitator of higher education harmonization and networking.

Mission, Main Activities, Location, Funding, and Timeframe

Such a regional platform can be tentatively called “Greater Mekong Regional University (GMRU).” Like the “SEAMEO College,” the GMRU would not have a physical structure. The “GMS University Consortium” could be evolved into the GMRU in the future. The GMRU should be based on five key concepts and principles in pursuing higher education harmonization and networking. For example, it could continue to offer a forum for dialogue among key stakeholders such as AUN, SEAMEO-RIHED, and QA agencies at the country level, on internal and external QA systems, a common CTS, and university networking in the GMS and beyond. The GMRU can be considered as an equivalent regional platform such as the European University Institute in Europe and the East Asian University Institute (EAUI).Footnote 24 Mission and mandate, main activities, location, funding, and timeframe are summarized in Table 8.4 and presented as follows:

Table 8.4 Greater Mekong Regional University (GMRU): a proposal
Full size table

Mission and Mandate: to (1) help improve the quality of universities in the GMS by linking with existing/new higher education institutions and networks and (2) help harmonize higher education in the GMS by facilitating development an acceptable platform in areas such as QA, credit transfer, student exchange, research collaboration, etc.

Main Activities Footnote 25: include university president/rector forum; leadership development programs in higher education; high-level dialogue on strengthening internal and external QA systems; building a common CTS; teaching support, research capacity building, faculty development (on-site and distance learning mode); support for cross-border delivery of instruction; and information clearing house (date base, matching university partners, etc.).

Location: The GMRU can be located in “Bangkok hub” and mainly liaises with regional university networks and regional higher education agencies and institutions based in Bangkok. It also can have a satellite office in “Chiang Mai-Vientiane hub” (footnote 23).

Funding: The GMRU can be established as an international NGO with funding from donor agencies, philanthropic foundations, and/or research grants and with staffing by like-minded international and national experts. The GMRU should be able to charge fees from the users of its services such as leadership development programs, teaching support, faculty development, and cross-border distance learning, to increase financial sustainability.

Concluding Remarks

Higher education harmonization and networking in the GMS is a necessary step to harmonize between higher education in East and Southeast Asia. Most universities in GMS countries, especially CLM, need to upgrade their standards and hence to narrow gaps with universities in East Asian and middle-income ASEAN countries. Without strengthening capacity in the QA system in CLM and building a common CTS among universities in the GMS, any further harmonization with universities in East Asian and middle-income ASEAN countries would not be realistic. It is important to implement “GMS Higher Education and Networking (Phase 2)” which is approved by ADB, in collaboration with AUN, SEAMEO-RIHED, other regional agencies, and higher education institutions. Harmonization and university networking in the GMS would be complemented and reinforced by the functions of the proposed GMRU. The SEAMEO College would also contribute to regional policy making including higher education harmonization. These efforts will accelerate the process of building the ASEAN Community from 2015, by narrowing development gaps within the GMS and between the GMS and the rest of ASEAN.