澳洲高等教育市場化政策之批判論述分析

澳洲高等教育發展受新自由主義思潮之引領，於1988 年驟然走向市場化，政策論述強調對高等教育鬆綁使其自由競爭。其後於2003年、2009年發布的高等教育政策亦復如此。然而，從高等教育機構與學者的反映，市場化改革諸多措施，並未如政策論述般給予高等教機構自由發展。許多學者對市場化下國家/政府與高等教育之關係，亦有不同的闡釋。釐清澳洲聯邦政府推動高等教育市場化改革內涵，和相關施為對高等教育而言究竟是鬆綁還是受到政府更多干預？為本研究之焦點。本研究以文件分析法和批判論述分析，先行梳理新自由主義之發展，探究其主要核心理念，以瞭解其如何引領高等教育之市場化；繼之以鉅觀角度分析和綜整歷年政策主要內涵；其後，從澳洲高等教育機構與學者對相關政策實踐之反映的微觀角度，闡明新自由主義的核心理念是否落實於澳洲高等教育市場化進程中；進而說明澳洲高等教育市場化進程中國家/政府與高等教育關係的轉變。經分析後得到以下結論：一、新自由主義的核心理念為堅持保障個人自由之精神，主張以市場機制經濟體系和縮減政府規模與職能二途徑，以達保障個人自由之目的。二、1988 年《高等教育: 政策聲明》確立了澳洲高等教育未來發展走向市場化之方向，大幅調整高等教育體系結構，建立「全國統一高等教育系統」。 2003年《我們的大學支撐澳洲的未來》更進一步強化高教育發展的市場性格，高等教育機構須與聯邦政府簽訂經費「補助協議」，落實「國家治理議定」和「職場生產力計畫」，強調品質與競爭。2009年《轉變澳洲的高等教育體系》對前面兩個階段政策中過與不及的市場化施為，對高等教育領域的衝擊做出修正，創造「以學生為中心的補助體系」，鬆綁高等教育機構招生，並試圖修補聯邦政府與高等教育領域的緊張關係。經濟理性貫串每一階段政策規劃，也凸顯出市場化政策論述與實踐的衝突；在澳洲高等教育改革過程，盡顯聯邦政府於政策中極欲高等教育參與自由市場，卻處處以集權坐收的矛盾。三、市場化下澳洲高等教育發展並未獲得鬆綁，聯邦政府仍以控制經費補助主導高等教育招生、課程發展與研究活動;規範高等教育機構內部治理組織和變更人事聘任制度等措施與經費補助掛勾，並以品質保證、強調績效責任作為管控高等教育的形式。四、澳洲高等教育市場化政策的實踐顯現，中央計畫性質多於高等教育自由發展，不僅未能打破澳洲高等教育既存的階層現象，難以創造有利於自由競爭的高等教育環境，也造成高等教育重視研究和依賴國際學生收入的趨同發展現象。

關鍵字

高等教育；市場化；澳洲；新自由主義

並列摘要

The development of Australia’s higher education has been led by neoliberalism, abruptly moving towards marketization in 1988 and emphasizing in its policy discourse deregulation of higher education for free competition. Policies of higher education released in 2003 and 2009 were the same in nature. However, higher education providers and academics have argued that related measures of marketization did not deregulate the higher education and set it free as stated in policy discourse. Researchers also have had diverse interpretations on the relationship between state/government and higher education in the realm of marketization. This study, therefore, aimed to clarify whether marketization reformation of higher education promoted by the Commonwealth of Australia deregulated or brought about more interventions in its higher education. Document analysis and critical discourse analysis were used to first synthesize the development of neoliberalism, aiming to probe into its core and to understand how it led higher education to marketization. Then a macro perspective was adopted to analyze higher education policies of Australia in a chronicle manner and synthesize the main contents of previous policies. Later, a micro perspective concerning practices of relevant policies reflected from higher education providers and academics was taken to examine whether the core concepts of neoliberalism were realized in the process of marketization of Australia’s higher education. Such an examination further illustrated the shift in the relationship between state/government and higher education during the marketization of Australia’s higher education. The conclusions based on diverse analyses were as follows: 1. The core concepts of neoliberalism lay in the insistence on protecting individual freedom, advocating the use of two ways (market economy and reduction of government scale and functions) to ensure the goal of protecting individual freedom. 2. “Higher Education: a policy statement” issued in 1988 set the direction of Australia’s higher education towards marketization, drastically adjusted the structure of higher education, and established the Unified National System. “Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future” released in 2003 further highlighted the market characters of higher education development, with higher education providers signing mandatory Funding Agreements with the Commonwealth Government to fulfill “National Governance Protocols” and “Workplace Productivity Programs”. In 2009, the release of “Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System” adjusted the impacts on higher education from the marketization measures practiced in aforementioned two policies, aiming to create a student-centered funding system, to deregulate the recruitment of higher education providers, and to improve the tense relationship between the Commonwealth Government and higher education. Economic rationality in each policy highlighted the conflicts between policy discourse and practice of marketization. The contradiction by the Commonwealth Government of desiring higher education to participate in the free market on one hand yet enforcing centralization on the other hand was fully exposed in the reformation of Australia’s higher education. 3. Under marketization, the development of Australia’s higher education was not deregulated. The Commonwealth Government still dominated the recruitment of higher education, curriculum development, and research events with the use of subsidy control. Measures of regulating interior administrative organizations and adjusting personnel recruitment systems were closely linked to subsidies, with quality assurance and accountability emphasis acting as another form of controlling higher education. 4. Marketization of Australia’s higher education showed that centrally-planned development shadowed the free development of higher education. In addition to the inability to break the existing hierarchy of Australia’s higher education and create an environment beneficial to free competition, such a case also led to a convergence of higher education providers’ emphasis on research and dependence on tuition from international students.