Search results

Academic mobility can contribute greatly to Asia-Europe connectivity in various sectors. The friendship and intellectual capacity created by mobile students and scholars are the key factors to strengthen cultural, scientific, economic and diplomatic ties among ASEM countries. In order to yield such benefits of both intra-regional and inter-regional mobility, and to minimise the adverse effects, ASEM needs innovative policy solutions. This paper argues that education policymaking is value-laden in the sense that values pervade policy processes and policy contents, while values are also justifications for a policy and criteria for evaluating its implementation. Democratic equality, social mobility, and social efficiency are seen as the common values that guide education policies. Academic mobility is understood essentially as a process of individuals' self-formation and self-cultivation, which impacts on productivity, innovation, and social transformation, including reforming and improving education systems. Academic mobility is a way to achieving social mobility that ought to yield benefits, not only for deserving individuals, but also to society as a whole. The history of Asia-Europe academic exchange, and current ASEM policies, demonstrate that cross-border academic mobility encompasses different political, economic, and cultural/intellectual interests at regional, national, institutional, and individual levels. This necessitates ASEM education policymakers to work across sectors and consider a variety of inter-related factors that influence patterns of academic mobility, including domestic education provision, economics, demographics, labour market requirements, and immigration policies. It is proposed that ASEM education policies should strike a balance between educational, social, and economic values of mobility to enhance Asia-Europe connectivity in the long term.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is at a critical juncture caused by Washington's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Beijing's support for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. As the APEC Chair in 2017, Vietnam is urging members to focus on "Creating New Dynamism, Fostering a Shared Future," renewing APEC's agenda, and reaffirming objectives central to its development.
After a solid start and initial achievements, APEC has often been criticised for its slow delivery of tangible outcomes in regional trade and investment liberalisation. In 1994, APEC agreed to create a free trade and investment zone by the two-stage deadlines of 2010 for developed members and 2020 for developing economies. APEC is viewed as failing to expedite this agenda and as having credibility and identity crises.
The "flexibility" principle has caused sharp divisions within APEC: trade liberalisation energised by neoliberal ideologies and structural reforms on the one side, and economic and technical cooperation underpinned by developmentalist ideologies on the other. The APEC agenda has been swinging between different priorities depending on which member is chairing APEC in a given year. Such wavering has added to its identity crisis.
The APEC Summit in November 2017 is under pressure to deliver a bold initiative to revitalise the forum and handle Trump's protectionism. Vietnam is striving to strike a balance between liberal trade and development. The four priorities – sustainable and inclusive growth, regional economic integration, digitalisation, and sustainable agriculture in response to climate change – demonstrate the host's attempt to align APEC with global agendas, reassert APEC's relevance, and defuse its internal crisis.
The road to freer trade in APEC looks bumpy. Although the United States has yet to clarify its new relationship with APEC, a likely outcome is that Asia may choose to transform APEC into an Asia-led grouping and balance US unilateralism via closer ties with the EU. The door is open for the EU to reinforce its focus on Asia. If so, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) might be enhanced at APEC's expense.

Governance in Specific Higher Education Systems (3) -- M. Foroni: Governance in the Italian Higher Education System -- 1. Basic Information -- 2. Participation in the Bologna Process -- 3. System Level Governance: Parliament, Government and Other National Players -- 4. Stakeholder Involvement: Rectors Conference, Students, Staff and Employers' Organizations -- 5. Policy and Policy Instruments -- 6. Institutional Level Governance -- 7. Research Policies -- Q. A. Dang & D. C. Nguyen: Governance in Vietnamese Higher Education -- 1. Basic Information -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Number of Higher Education Institutions -- 1.3 Number of Students and Academic Staff -- 1.4 Types of Higher Education Institutions -- 2. System Level Governance -- 2.1 Central Structures -- 2.2 Other Public Structures -- 3. Policy and Policy Instruments -- 3.1 Policy -- 3.2 Legislation -- 4. Financing Higher Education and Research -- 4.1 Funding for Education (Teaching and Learning) -- 4.2 Funding for Research and Hi-Tech Parks -- 5. Institutional Level Governance -- 5.1 Organisational Structure -- 5.2 Internal Governance Structure -- 6. Ongoing and Upcoming Reforms -- L. Un & S. Sok: Higher Education Governance in Cambodia -- 1. Basic Information -- 2. System Level Governance -- 2.1 Government Structures -- 2.1.1 Competencies of the parliament -- 2.1.2 Competencies of the government -- 2.2 Other Public Structures and Participation of Stakeholders -- 2.2.1 Accreditation and quality assurance -- 2.2.2 Other public structures and mechanisms -- 2.2.3 Other stakeholder structures and participation in system governance -- 2.3 Policy and Policy Instruments -- 2.3.1 The Constitution and legislation -- 2.3.2 Policy on higher education -- 2.4 Public Funding of Teaching and Research -- 3. Institutional Level Governance -- 4. Upcoming HE Reforms