Global Assemblage: Singapore, Foreign …Global Assemblage: Singapore, Foreign Universities, and the Construction of a ‘‘Global Education Hub’’ KRIS OLDS * University of Wisconsin-Madison,

World Development Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 959–975, 2007� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

0305-750X/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.014www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Global Assemblage: Singapore, Foreign

Universities, and the Construction of a

‘‘Global Education Hub’’

KRIS OLDS *

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Summary. — In the late 1990s and early 2000s, select cities in Pacific Asia formed or significantlydeepened formal institutional linkages with a variety of foreign (mainly Western) universities. Theobjective of this paper is to examine: the policy objectives of Singapore, a Pacific Asian city-state, inopening up its territory to new forms of foreign educational knowledge, institutional structures,practices, and technologies; the specific programs and practices that have enabled the Singaporeanstate to implement these policy objectives; and the preliminary implications of various ‘‘modes ofentry’’ that the foreign universities have adopted for the formation of university–industry linkagesin Singapore.

Key words — Asia, Singapore, universities, globalization, higher education, services

* Sincere thanks to the representatives of both local

(Singaporean) and foreign universities, as well as repre-

sentatives of the Singapore Economic Development

Board, for their incisive insights into the development

process; to Claudia Hanson Thiem for her exemplary

assistance on many aspects of this project; to the Univ-

ersity of Wisconsin-Madison and the Social Science

Research Council/World Bank program on Universities

as Drivers of Urban Economies for research support; to

Nigel Thrift and Henry Yeung for related collaborations

over the last five years, and; to the Constructing Knowl-

edge Spaces group for intellectual inspiration and guid-

ance. Final revision accepted: May 18, 2006.

1. INTRODUCTION

Our vision, in shorthand notation, is to become theBoston of the East. Boston is not just MIT or Har-vard. The greater Boston area boasts of over 200 uni-versities, colleges, research institutes and thousandsof companies. It is a focal point of creative energy;a hive of intellectual, research, commercial and socialactivity. We want to create an oasis of talent in Sin-gapore: a knowledge hub, an ‘‘ideas-exchange’’, aconfluence of people and idea streams, an incubatorfor inspiration. 1

Singapore, a small Southeast Asian city-state,is known worldwide for its economic develop-ment trajectory over the last three decades. Thetransition from neglected colonial outpost topost-colonial ‘‘air-conditioned nation’’ (George,2000) has provided ample fodder for triumphal-ist sagas (e.g., Lee, 2000), relatively even-handedand incisive analyses (e.g., Chua, 1997; Kong &Yeoh, 2002; Rodan, 1989), and caustic critiques(e.g., Lingle, 1996; Tremewan, 1994).

Regardless of one’s views on the forcefulforms of modernist planning and social engi-neering undertaken by the Singaporean state(as guided by the continually ruling People’sAction Party, PAP), a structural change isunderway in Singapore’s economy. The 1997–

959

98 Asian economic crisis, and the rise of Chinaas a manufacturing powerhouse, has unsettledSingapore and forced the country’s politiciansand officials to think more creatively aboutensuring Singapore adapts to and benefits froman evolving global knowledge-based economy(KBE). In this context a shift from low valueadded manufacturing-based export platformstatus to high value added manufacturing/glo-bal city status is occurring. Statecraft is beingused to shape this restructuring process, in partthrough the targeting of select industrial sectors

960 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

such as the life sciences, chemicals, engineeringand environmental services, professional ser-vices, and, most recently, education services.A discursive reframing is also underway as Sin-gapore seeks to become credibly known, inselective academic, industry, and media circlesas a cosmopolitan and creative space, a vibrantand diverse global city integrating into the lat-tice under girding the global network economy.This reframing is even more important at thisstage of time, I would argue, than the forma-tion of more tangible university–industry link-ages at an intra-urban scale, for it lays thefoundation required to reduce the sense of riskthat many foreign universities grapple withwhen implementing internationalization strate-gies that involve risky forms of institutionalmobility. In the context of an awareness of Sin-gapore’s evolving developmental objectives,this paper focuses on one increasingly highprofile aspect of the planned structural trans-formation—the 1998 to present creation ofopportunities for the provision of new for-eign-led or foreign-linked education services,especially higher education services, within Sin-gapore. The Singaporean state has sought toachieve this goal by opening up its territory,and therefore its society, to the presence of for-eign institutions of higher education and hassought to target ‘‘world class’’ institutions,when at all possible.

Singapore’s attempts to become the ‘‘Bostonof the East,’’ a global knowledge-based hubassociated with innovation, creativity, informeddebate, and significant university–industry link-ages, has triggered a response from over a doz-en universities including Duke, Johns Hopkins,Chicago, Cornell, and Carnegie Mellon. Theyhave established campuses, centers, researchlaboratories, joint ventures with Singaporeanuniversities, and joint degrees, all since the‘‘World Class University’’ (WCU) programwas launched by the government in 1998.

With its Global Schoolhouse program, theSingaporean state is pushing the envelope in arelative sense with respect to the opening upof its territory to the global trade in educationservices, including Mode 3/commercial pres-ence (using GATS parlance):

• Mode 1: Cross-border supply (e.g., on-linedistance education);• Mode 2: Consumption abroad of educa-tion services (e.g., students traveling toanother country to study);• Mode 3: Commercial presence (e.g., estab-lishing a foreign campus);

• Mode 4: Presence of natural persons (e.g.,faculty teaching in another country).

The remainder of this paper provides ananalysis of the planned role of foreign universi-ties in spurring on the global city formationprocess in Singapore. Section 2 outlines theimportance of addressing the global city forma-tion process from a geographically and histori-cally specific perspective. This line of argumentis pursued because the developmental city-statecharacter of Singapore is relatively unique, andthere are few direct lessons about university–industry linkages that can be derived from aplace the same geographic size of the Islandof Montreal yet governed by a powerful andwell-resourced nation state. This said, the Sin-gapore experiment provides fresh insights onassumptions and expectations associated withthe formation of university–industry linkagesin other cities and countries. Following thiscontext-oriented introduction, Section 3 out-lines the Global Schoolhouse development pol-icy. I pay particular attention to the origins andevolution of the policy, and to the articulationof the agendas of the Singaporean state andthe many Western universities that have deep-ened their presence in Singapore since 1997.Section 4 then outlines some of the preliminaryimpacts of the Global Schoolhouse develop-ment policy. It is important to note, however,that the Singapore Global Schoolhouse devel-opment policy has only been implemented ina concerted way since 1998, and that many ofthe foreign universities with Singaporean link-ages are in the process of enhancing or refra-ming them for a variety of reasons. This pointis expanded on in Section 5 where the forma-tion of Singapore–foreign university linkages,and university–industry linkages, is viewedthrough the frame of four ‘‘globalization ofhigher education’’ models (the Import model,the Export model, the Partnership model, theNetwork model).

2. ASSEMBLING SINGAPORE:A DEVELOPMENTAL CITY-STATE

As noted above, Singapore, a SoutheastAsian city-state with a 2004 population of4.24 million (of whom approximately 800,000are foreigner employment or employee-depen-dent visa holders), is often viewed as a modelwith respect to the economic development.Independent from Great Britain since 1959,and Malaysia since 1965, the city-state has seen

Table 1. Key economic indicators on Singapore, 1985–2003

Item 1985 1990 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Population (million) 2.74 3.05 3.53 3.95 4.02 4.13 4.17 4.19Labor force (thousand) 1,288 1,563 1,749 1,976 2,192 2,120 2,129 2,150Employed 1,235 1,537 1,702 1,886 2,095 2,047 2,017 2,034

Agriculture 9 4 3 4 4 5 5 4Manufacturing 314 445 404 396 435 384 368 365Mining 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Other 909 1,087 1,295 1,485 1,655 1,657 1,644 1,664

Unemployment rate (%) 4.1 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.1 3.3 4.4 4.7

Structure of output (% of GDP at current prices)Agriculture 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Industry 34.5 33.0 33.3 32.9 34.1 31.8 33.1 32.7Services 68.8 67.8 65.3 67.8 64.3 68.3 67.5 66.4

Growth of output (annual change, %)GDP 14.6 9.0 8.0 6.9 9.7 �1.9 2.2 1.1Agriculture �8.1 �7.6 �3.1 �1.8 �4.9 �5.9 �5.8 �0.4Industry �0.2 9.4 9.8 6.6 11.1 �9.1 3.5 0.2Services 14.5 10.3 7.4 6.3 7.9 2.5 1.4 1.1

Trade (as a % of GDP) n/a 49.5 63.9 n/a n/a 77.1 78.0 n/aPer capita GDP (at current prices in US$) 6,872 12,110 23,806 20,891 23,043 20,775 21,206 22,070

Source: http://www.adb.org; accessed on March 20, 2005; http://www.worldbank.org, accessed on March 20, 2005;http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/hist/gdp.html, accessed on March 22, 2005.

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 961

considerable growth in virtually all of the typi-cal indicators associated with economic devel-opment. Table 1 provides highlights of but afew of these indicators over the last two dec-ades.

The city-state is also the fourth largest for-eign exchange trading center in the world afterLondon, New York, and Tokyo (Bank forInternational Settlements, 1998), and it usuallyranks as the first or second most ‘‘globalized’’nation in the world (according to the annualsurveys of AT Kearney and Foreign PolicyMagazine). Singapore receives regular acco-lades for its container ports (it is the busiestport in the world in terms of shipping tonnage),Changi airport (annual passenger flow throughequaling Tokyo’s Narita Airport), and telecom-munications infrastructure. UNCTAD’s an-nual World Investment Report regularlyidentifies Singapore as one of the most signifi-cant recipients and of annual FDI inflowsFDI stocks and FDI outflows in Asia and thePacific (e.g., UNCTAD, 2004). In addition, asDicken (2003, p. 61) points out, Singaporehas the highest percentage share of inwardFDI as a share of GDP of any other country(or indeed city) in the world.

These global flows both support and main-tain the ‘‘twin engines’’ of services and manu-

facturing. Approximately 6,000 foreign MNCsand 10,000 foreign SMEs have formal pres-ences in Singapore according to InternationalEnterprise Singapore, a Government of Singa-pore statutory board (also see Yeung, Poon,& Perry, 2001, p. 170). Thus the Singaporeaneconomy is dominated by foreign (mainlyAmerican, European, and Japanese) multina-tionals, as well as a small number of govern-ment-linked corporations (GLCs). Thesefirms, especially the multinationals, draw inand now support Singapore-linked foreign uni-versities (either directly or via partnershiparrangements with Singaporean institutions),especially those with strong engineering, sci-ence, and business programs. Firm representa-tives convey essences of this structuralpressure by lobbying the Government of Singa-pore (especially the Ministry of Trade andIndustry (MTI) and its statutory board, theSingapore Economic Development Board(EDB)) to enhance the quality of the educationsystem so as to (a) provide better quality locallabor supply, while also (b) offering opportuni-ties for life-long learning in Singapore forthe 100,000 or so expatriate staff who callSingapore home at any one time. The impulseis thus generated at a local (Singaporean)scale, though in reality educational upgrading

962 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

(especially executive education and graduateeducation, including the MBA) both dependsupon, and affects, expatriate staff basedthroughout the Southeast Asian, South Asian,and East Asian regions.

Obviously, the university–industry linkagesdiscussed above are framed and mediated bythe territorial state. The state, in its variousinstitutional and spatial forms, exerts a criticalinfluence on the processes and governance ofglobal city formation. There are two aspectsof the state that need to be addressed to makesense of the Global Schoolhouse/university–industry linkage phenomena in Singapore: theunique nature of both the ‘‘developmental’’state, and the global city-state.

First, the development process in Singaporehas been guided by an authoritarian (some-times deemed ‘‘soft-authoritarian’’) govern-ment; one controlled by the PAP continuallysince 1959. The PAP, under the leadership ofLee Kuan Yew (Prime Minister, 1959–90),Goh Chok Tong (Prime Minister, 1990–2004),and Lee Kuan Yew’s son Lee Hsien Loong(Prime Minister, 2004 to present), has devel-oped and used the state apparatus to achievea wide range of social, cultural, political, andeconomic objectives (Chua, 1997; Kong &Yeoh, 2002; Yeung, 2005). The state form istypically characterized as a ‘‘developmentalstate;’’ one guided by an elite bureaucracy, fo-cused on medium- to long-term economicobjectives, and frequently prone to eclecticand effective forms of social control in the sta-ted interests of national development (Wade,1990; Weiss, 1998; Woo-Cumings, 1999).

Second, Singapore is a global city-state. Glo-bal city-states have the political capacity andlegitimacy to mobilize strategic resources toachieve (national) objectives that are otherwiseunimaginable in non-city-state global cities(Olds & Yeung, 2004). Amongst the most im-portant roles vis a vis the Global Schoolhouse/university–linkage development process are

• management of territorial boundaries(e.g., immigration laws vis a vis foreign fac-ulty and students);• production and reproduction of labor(e.g., education–labor market planning);• provision of basic infrastructure (e.g.,funding for new campuses, campus expan-sions, or linking mass transit systems tonew sites of higher education);• legal frameworks to maximize economiccooperation (e.g., intellectual propertyrights).

The politics of city/nation-building tends tobe focused on the strengths and weaknesses ofpolicy options rather than which intra-nationalterritorial unit or institution is deserving ofattention and resources. 2

3. TOWARD THE GLOBALSCHOOLHOUSE

The above discussion sets the context for thearticulation process whereby:

• The Singaporean state introduces struc-tural economic change, in part through itshigher education policy.• Western universities adjust to emergingfashions in higher education, including theestablishment and implementation of ‘‘inter-nationalization’’ programs, including thosewith a strong Pacific Asian focus.

The articulation process is the outcome of themost recent historical phase of the evolution ofscience and technology policy in post-colonialSingapore, and the role of the university inthe implementation of this policy. Kong (nd),drawing upon Saravanan Gopinathan’s work,frames the historical development of such pol-icy as such:

• 1965–86: building technological know-how;• 1985–95: expanding science and technol-ogy education;• 1995–2005: fostering creativity andinnovation.

While space limitations prevent a discussionof the 1965–95 era, it is important to note thatSingapore has single mindedly sought to fash-ion education as a tool for economic develop-ment over all other objectives (e.g., individualself-realization) (Kong, nd). In addition, giventhe relatively small population, and lack of nat-ural resources, economic crises always triggerchanges in policies. The mid-1980s crisis, forexample, led to the emergence of the twin-en-gine strategy of higher valued-added manufac-turing and exportable services, as well as aregionalization drive (ERC, 2002a). It was dur-ing this time that education was identified, forthe first time, as a service sector worthy ofbeing nurtured for its ‘‘revenue growth poten-tial, net worth to the economy, as well as its ex-port earning potential’’ (ERC, 2002b, p. 1).

Much of the mid-1980s to mid-1990s wasspent devising and implementing a series ofmanufacturing and service sector-orienteddevelopment policies and programs (these are

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 963

outlined in Chui, Ho, & Lui, 1997). It was dur-ing this period that the Singaporean higher edu-cation system experienced the massificationdrive that continues to the present. For exam-ple, student participation rates in Singaporeanuniversities rose from 5% in 1980 to 21% in2001 (Lee & Gopinathan, 2003, p. 117). Singap-orean universities also initiated the launch ofendowment funds, though university gover-nance and financing was still firmly controlledby the Ministry of Education. The era of ‘‘aca-demic capitalism’’ (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004)had yet to seriously emerge.

Concurrently, Singapore became a significantnet importer of educational services, with risingproportions of Singapore-based graduate andundergraduate students enrolling in external(i.e., non-residential) degree programs (Singa-pore Department of Statistics, 2000). This trendprovided some of the impetus to open up Sin-gaporean territory to the provision of in situhigher education degrees via foreign providers.

It was really the Asian economic crisis of1997/98, and concern about China’s fast grow-ing manufacturing capacity, that spurred on adeep rethink of Singapore’s socio-economicdevelopment strategy. In the midst of the crisisa series of rapid adjustments were made(including wage cuts, benefit cuts, tax cuts,reductions in rentals on industrial properties).These adjustments merged with the service-ori-ented agenda, and the slogan of the ‘‘KBE’’that acquired currency globally and regionallyin the 1990s (Coe & Kelly, 2000, p. 418; alsosee Coe & Kelly, 2002).

It is in this context that the strategy to furtherdevelop Singapore’s KBE via hitherto unex-plored regulatory shifts emerged. A particularconception of the KBE was developed, one thatelevated principles of life-long learning, creativ-ity, innovation, competition, entrepreneurial-ism, critical thinking, and talent (see the paperby Wong, Ho and Singh in this special issue).In other words the need for

• enhanced and diversified services and highvalued added manufacturing sectors, as wellas;• better educated and more skilled citizen-subjects; creative ‘‘souls’’ that would con-tribute to contemporary and especiallyfuture development.

Practically, this socio-economic transforma-tion had to be implemented. The MTI is themost important formal institutional mechanismfor governance, with the Ministries of Educa-tion (MOE) and Manpower (MOM) following

its lead though in an integrated fashion. Whilethe MTI has only one functional department—the Singapore Department of Statistics—ninestatutory boards (semi-independent and well-resourced agencies) under the MTI jurisdictioncarry out policy and program work. The mostsignificant MTI statutory boards are

• EDB,• Standards, Productivity and InnovationBoard,• International Enterprise Singapore.

The Singapore EDB was founded in 1961 toformulate and implement economic develop-ment strategy for Singapore (Chan, 2002;Low, 1999; Schien, 1996). While relatively wellresourced and staffed by Singaporeans, theEDB is the front line with respect to Govern-ment of Singapore-business relations, includingrelations with foreign universities seeking ap-proval to establish an institutional (commer-cial) presence in Singapore. It was the EDBthat launched the ‘‘WCU’’ program in 1998.This program was designed to attract ‘‘at least10 WCU to Singapore within 10 years’’ via avariety of linkage mechanisms (from joint ven-tures to autonomous campuses). A series oflinked higher education reforms were then ex-tended or initiated (Kong, nd; Lee & Gopina-than, 2003) including

• comprehensive and integrated reviews ofuniversity governance and funding systems,including via the establishment of an Inter-national Academic Advisory Panel (IAAP)that meets biannually;• greater autonomy for universities, thoughlinked to a need for greater ‘‘accounta-bility;’’• The diversification of financial resourcesfor universities, including private endow-ments designed to draw in corporate andprivate (alumni) monies.

The implications of these reforms for themain Singaporean university, NUS, are clearlyevident in the paper by Wong, Ho, and Singhin this special issue.

While the EDB is the shaper and mediator ofmost economic change within Singaporean ter-ritory, select committees play a powerful guid-ance role on a one-off basis or ad-hoc basis.An example of the former is the Committeeon Singapore’s Economic Competitiveness thatreported on Asian crisis related matters in 1998.An example of the latter is the Economic Re-view Committee (ERC), a Singapore-based net-work of state and private sector representativesresponsible for making recommendations to

964 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

generate structural shifts in economy and soci-ety.

The most recent ERC was set up by PrimeMinister Goh Chok Tong in October 2001 witha mandate ‘‘to fundamentally review our devel-opment strategy and formulate a blueprint torestructure the economy, even as we work toride out the current recession.’’ The Commit-tee’s composition is revealing: nine membersof the government or government functionaries(including the President of the National Uni-versity of Singapore), two union representa-tives, and nine private sector representatives(including Arnoud De Meyer, the first dean ofINSEAD’s Asia campus). Arnoud De Meyeralso served on the Sub-Committee on ServiceIndustries in the ERC.

While the ERC (which issued its final reportin February 2003) was given a relatively newmandate in 2001, it is building upon initiativesfirst established in the mid-1980s, as notedabove, to promote the services sector as activelyas manufacturing, thereby firing up ‘‘twin en-gines’’ in a city-state drive for more diversifiedeconomic growth (ERC, 2002a). In line withthe goal of transforming Singapore into ‘‘a vi-brant and robust global hub for knowledge-dri-ven industries,’’ the EDB accordinglyannounced its detailed Industry 21 strategy, astrategy whose product would be a Singaporecapable of developing:

[M]anufacturing and service industries with a strongemphasis on technology, innovation and capabilities.We also want to leverage on other hubs for ideas, tal-ents, resources, capital and markets.The KBE will rely more on technology, innovationand capabilities to create wealth and raise the stan-dard of living. For our KBE to flourish, we will needa culture which encourages creativity and entrepre-neurship, as well as an appetite for change andrisk-taking. (http://www.sedb.com, accessed May18, 2005).

Such comments illuminate the connection be-tween structural reform (in a sectoral sense)and the need to construct new citizen-subjects.Hence, the shift from ‘‘I21’’ to ‘‘E21’’—fromindustrial development to educational reform.The development of E21 led the state to en-hance support for the WCU program, and fo-cus on the development of a ‘‘world-class’’education sector more generally.

It is in this variegated policy context that the‘‘Global Schoolhouse’’ concept was developed,with education services (at all levels—from pri-mary to postsecondary) being perceived as avehicle to diversify the economy, spur on

restructuring in indigenous institutions of high-er education, while also re-branding Singaporeas a hub of the global KBE.

The education market was segmented, withdemand perceived to come from both consum-ers (i.e., students) and corporations (recallingthat Singapore is a major regional headquartersbase for multinationals). Four broad suppliercategories were delineated, with acknowledge-ment that the supporting services sub-sector(e.g., testing and assessment services) could alsobe attracted to locate in Singaporean territory.Figure 1, from the ERC (2002b) report, con-veys this segmented conceptualization.

In the context of the emergence and thenimplementation of the 1998 WCU program,and the issuance of the final report of the Eco-nomic Review Committee (ERC, 2003; seeespecially the education section in Chapter11), a relatively liberal and well-crafted regula-tory framework for foreign providers of highereducation (also deemed tertiary education)emerged. Practically, this new framework sug-gested territorialized forms of foreign universityinvolvement via recognition of the value ofMode 3 (commercial presence) forms of serviceprovision.

There is a clear differentiation component,however, to the higher education componentof the Global Schoolhouse development policy(see Figure 2). The National University of Sin-gapore, Nanyang Technological University,and the newly established (in 2000) SingaporeManagement University (SMU) are targetedas the bedrock (or filling?) of a three-tier uni-versity system, though NUS clearly feels, anddeserves to feel, that it is the preeminent‘‘local’’ institution of higher education.

4. SINGAPORE, FOREIGNUNIVERSITIES, AND THE

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

After the WCU program was initiated in1998, a large number of Singapore–foreignuniversity initiatives have been established (seeTable 2): 3

The foreign universities have been attractedby the nature of development processes in Paci-fic Asia, including the rapid extension of globalproduction and R&D networks into the region(Coe, Hess, Yeung, Dicken, & Henderson,2004; UNCTAD, 2005), and an expectationthat providers of higher education can bothbenefit from and contribute to the Pacific Asian

Figure 1. The market segments for educational services in Singapore. Source: ERC (2002b, p. 4).

Figure 2. Idealized three-tier university system in Singapore. Source: ERC (2002b).

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 965

development process. Singapore has beenviewed as an attractive location to be linkedto, or based in, because of

• the city-state’s strategic geographical posi-tion within Southeast Asia (boosted byChangi Airport), with close proximity toSouth Asia, and the southern parts of EastAsia;• the quality of life for visiting and perma-nent faculty and students;• a significant and often well placed alumnibase in Singapore;• the large number of transnational corpo-rations with presences in Singapore;• Singapore’s political stability;

• the presence of relatively high qualitylocal universities;• the presence of other foreign universities;• Singapore’s well-known commitment toeducation;• previous linkages with Singaporean aca-demics and universities that were forgedduring the 1980s and early 1990s.

The grounding of the foreign universities,including elite Western business schools suchas INSEAD and Chicago Graduate School ofBusiness (GSB), was and is far from guaran-teed. Policies do not beget the stabilization,even if only temporarily, of the heteroge-neous elements which make up the Global

Table 2. Substantial Singapore–foreign university initiatives (1998–2006)

Year Foreign university and discipline(s) Type of linkage

1998 Johns Hopkins University—Medicine (JHU)

Offices established at NUS to facilitate jointresearch and teaching

1998 Centre National de la RechercheScientifique (CNRS)—Engineering

Laboratories established at NUS to facilitate jointresearch

1998 Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT)—Engineering and Computer Science

Joint graduate programs with NUS and NTU viavideo-conference, exchanges, conferences

1999 Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT)—Logistics Joint graduate programs with NUS via in situteaching and exchanges

2000 University of Pennsylvania (Penn)—Business Consultancy to establish Singapore ManagementUniversity (SMU), and subsequent joint research

2000 INSEAD—Business Second campus established in Singapore. Graduatedegrees, executive education, corporate courses,research

2000 University of Chicago Graduate School ofBusiness (GSB)—Business

Third campus established in Singapore. ExecutiveMBA offered. Offers, with SMU, joint conferences,business and customized programs forSingapore-based corporations

2001 US Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)—Military Joint graduate programs with NUS via in situteaching and exchanges

2002 Technische Universitat Munchen (TUM)—Industrial Chemistry and Ecology

Joint graduate programs with NUS via in situteaching and exchanges. Independent research viathe German Institute of Science and Technology(GIST), a private university affiliated with TUM

2002 Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TU/e)—Engineering

Joint graduate programs with NUS via in situteaching and exchanges. Joint research via theSingapore-based Design Technology Institute (DTI)

2002 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign(UIUC)—Engineering

Joint graduate programs with NUS via in situteaching and exchanges

2002 Shanghai Jiao Tong University(SJTU)—Business

Joint graduate programs with NTU via in situteaching and exchanges

2003 Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)—Information Systems

Consultancy to establish School of InformationSystems in SMU, and subsequent joint research

2003 Stanford University—Environmental Scienceand Engineering

Joint graduate programs with NTU via in situteaching, video conference teaching and exchanges

2003 Cornell University—Hospitality Management Joint graduate programs with NTU via in situteaching, exchanges, and research

2003 Duke University—Medicine Joint graduate medical school with NUS2003 Johns Hopkins University—Music JHU’s Peabody Institute collaborated with the

National University of Singapore to create theYong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music (YSTCM)

2003 Karolinska Institutet (KI)—Bio-engineering Joint graduate programs and research in stem cells,tissue engineering and bio-engineering

2004 Australian National University (ANU)—Actuarial Sciences, Economics, Mathematics,Chemistry, Physics

Joint graduate programs with NUS

2004 Waseda University—Business and TechnologyManagement

Joint graduate programs with NTU

2004 University of New South Wales—Comprehensive Full breadth campus being established for up to15,000 students

2004 Ecole Superieure D’Electricite (Supelec)—Engineeering

Joint graduate programs with NUS

2005 Ecole Superieure des Sciences Economiques etSociales (ESSEC)—Business

Private campus currently being established

966 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Table 2—continued

Year Foreign university and discipline(s) Type of linkage

2005 University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV)—Hospitality Management

Private campus currently being established

2005 SP Jain Center of Management (SPJCM)—Business

Private campus currently being established

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 967

Schoolhouse assemblage. What also matters isstatecraft via the powers and capacities of a Pa-cific Asian developmental state (e.g., large scaletargeted financial subsidies), along with dosesof bureaucratic persistence and persuasion.For example, the EDB played an importantrole in courting select universities in R&D richcontexts (e.g., Boston). In order to tempt theuniversities, the EDB played up Singapore’scosmopolitan nature, and then used tangiblematerial resources in the form of financial andother incentives. In another case INSEAD re-ceived $10 million in research funding overthe first four years of its Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU), plus soft loans, re-duced land values (about one-third of the com-mercial price), easier-to-get work permits,housing access, and so on. The University ofChicago GSB, for example, received severalmillion dollars worth of subsidy via the renova-tion of the historic House of Tan Yeok Neebuilding they now use as their campus. TheUniversity of New South Wales is receiving up-wards of $80 million of direct and indirect sub-sidy from the EDB. Finally, the Government ofSingapore effectively funds the Wharton–SMUResearch Center at SMU, providing monetaryand in-kind support for research projects, sem-inars, scholarships and the like. While the exactscale of the subsidies is confidential, and tied to4–5 year Memorandums of Understanding(MOUs) and other contractual forms, sufficeit to say the typical foreign university in the firstfive years of the WCU received several milliondollars of direct and indirect subsidy.

It is also important to note the foreign uni-versities are being attracted by the substantialsums being allocated into R&D by the Govern-ment of Singapore via its Science and Technol-ogy plan. For example, on February 17, 2006,the Government announced that more thanUSD$8.3 billion will be allocated for R&Dexpenditures during 2006–10 (Chang &Choong, 2006). A large proportion of this willfind its way into research programs focusedon biotechnology, water technology, and soft-ware engineering.

5. MODELS OF GLOBALIZATIONAND THE EMERGENCE OF

UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY LINKAGES

One of the most important mediating factorsthat shapes both the nature of the decision-making process and the impacts of the develop-ment process in Asian cities, including thepreliminary formation of university–industrylinkages, is the model that the foreign universi-ties adopt when implementing their internation-alization/globalization strategy, which in turndetermines their mode of entry into Singapo-rean territory. One way of conceptualizing ofthis process is graphically represented in Figure3, a model developed and operationalized bythe business school INSEAD in relation tothe development of their Asian campus.

The Import model is the classic approach tointernationalization in Western universities.University campuses establish formal andinformal policies, programs, and projects todraw in foreign degree students, as well as for-eign faculty. The level of internationalization istypically associated with measures of relativeproportions of non-citizens on campuses atany one time, or trends over time.

In the Singaporean case, the Import model isbuilt on the assumption that Singaporeans, andSingapore-based students (e.g., employees ofmultinational firms with offices in Singapore),would acquire their knowledge at a non-Sin-gaporean (i.e., foreign) university. This is thetraditional and still important model that trainsup Singaporeans (e.g., the Singapore life sci-ences development agency A*Star sends mostof its scholarship holders to American andEuropean universities) for Singapore-basedindustrial employment. Risk levels vis a visinvestments and potential negative effect uponthe foreign university brand name is relativelylow.

The capacity of the Import model to generatedirect university–industry linkages within Sin-gaporean territory is clearly limited, for stu-dents and faculty are geographically locatedoutside of Singapore. Research, in particular,

Figure 3. Models for the globalization of higher education. Source: De Meyer et al. (2004, p. 108).

968 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

is highly unlikely to be designed to benefit Sin-gapore-based firms or workers. This said, thegeographical inhibitor is mediated by the factthat many GLCs in Singapore offer prestigiousoverseas scholarships. Upon completion oftheir studies, the students return and are often‘‘bonded’’ to work for the GLC for a specifictime period (approximately 3–5 years).

The Export model is built on the assumptionthat core faculty of a foreign university will bebased at a central campus so as to retain criticalmass, and enable the faculty to generate anddisseminate knowledge via research and teach-ing practices. Knowledge is globalized via theexport of courses that are taught by core fac-ulty in home locations. The Export model canalso be implemented via flying core facultyoverseas to teach (a resource intensive obliga-tion). The problems associated with the Exportmodel, with respect to teaching, can also bemediated via the use of distance-learning tech-nologies (video conferencing and the Internet).This model is often combined with the bringingin of local or foreign lecturers to teach a signif-icant proportion of course materials, often withuneven learning results. This is the modeladopted, for example, by the SIM, which coor-dinates approximately 50 academic programs

that are offered by ‘‘foreign’’ universities. How-ever, none of the foreign universities that haveformed linkages with Singapore as part of theEDB-coordinated Global Schoolhouse devel-opment program (as outlined in Table 2) haveadopted this model. This situation reflects thedesire of the Singaporean state to focus their re-sources on facilitating deeper forms of linkagesbetween Singapore and select foreign universi-ties for the reasons outlined earlier in this pa-per. More generally, there is an emergingtendency in Pacific Asia for the state to imple-ment development policies that support in situcapacity building, reflective in part of the desireof the state to lessen dependencies on Westernuniversities for higher education service provi-sion, and the desire to reinforce the groundingof global production networks as well as globalR&D networks that are rapidly becoming terri-torialized within Pacific Asian territory(OECD, 2004; UNCTAD, 2005).

The Partnership model is the most commonmechanism to further the internationalizationobjective of the foreign universities that are ac-tive in Singapore. The model is typically pur-sued via the exchange of students and faculty,via the joint operation of teaching and researchprograms, and via the provision of intellectual

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 969

leadership or consultancy in the establishmentor restructuring of research and teaching pro-grams, departments, schools, and indeed entireuniversities (in the case of SMU). The Partner-ship model is relatively low risk in nature fromthe perspective of the foreign university as wellas the local sponsor. Partnerships are estab-lished following negotiations between localand foreign universities, or else between foreignuniversities and the state. They tend to be insti-tutionalized in the form of time-specific Memo-randums of Understandings (MOUs) orAgreements. 4

In the Singaporean case, the Partnershipmodel has been heavily utilized, in part becauseit supports the diverse and sometimes contradic-tory objectives of both local and foreign univer-sities. From the Singaporean perspective,partnerships enable local universities to acquirelinks with brand name institutions, one of theirkey objectives. Assuming the brand name existsbecause of the quality of the research and teach-ing conducted by the foreign university, thebrand effect enables local universities to differen-tiate themselves from other universities in thePacific Asian region, as well as from universitiesin Australasia. Differentiation is sought so as toenable local universities to compete for facultyand students (especially postgraduate students)at a regional and increasingly global scale.

Equally important, partnerships with foreignuniversities enable local faculty to engage in alearning process with respect to program devel-opment, curriculum development, pedagogicalpractice, and research practice; all in a mannerthat can facilitate the formation of university–industry linkages in the broadest of senses.For example, the University of Pennsylvaniaand Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) haveprovided critically important guidance in theestablishment of SMU, Singapore’s first privatenot-for-profit university. The Wharton Schoolfrom Penn, in particular, provided criticallyimportant intellectual leadership in the forma-tion of SMU’s organizational structure andcurriculum, and will formally continue to doso until 2007. The Penn link was extended inDecember 2003 when the School of Arts andSciences of the University of Pennsylvaniasigned an MOU to help SMU establish indus-try-oriented social science research and teach-ing. CMU signed an MOU with SMU inJanuary 2003 to collaborate on the develop-ment of a School of Information Systems(SIS). The five-year partnership includes the de-sign of undergraduate and graduate/profes-

sional programs, delivery of research andgraduate training, and faculty development.The focus is on IT architecture, informationmanagement skills for enterprise contexts, andbusiness and technology analysis. SMU enroll-ment has grown from 306 students in 2000,3,000 in 2004, to 3,800 in 2006, with a plannedcapacity of 9,500 (6,500 undergraduates and3,000 graduates). A new US$650 million4.5 ha campus opened in Singapore’s down-town in August 2005. The Wharton–SMU Re-search Center was initially established at SMUwith emphasis on ‘‘technopreneurship,’’ knowl-edge transfer, technology-based industries, ande-commerce in the Asian context. SMU contin-ues to develop centers (e.g., the UOB–SMUEntrepreneurship Alliance Centre; the IBMSolution Centre; Asia’s first Centre for SocialInnovation), executive education programs,and customized training programs for Singa-pore-based corporations to further the for-mation of university–industry linkages inSingapore and the broader Asia-Pacific region.Thus, the long experience of Wharton andCarnegie Mellon in strategically facilitatingthe formation of university–industry linkagesin the United States was transferred to Singa-pore, and has created an important formativelegacy.

The capacity to enhance university–industrylinkages is strong in the Partnership model forseveral addition reasons. First, the Partnershipmodel builds upon the existing and potentiallinkages that local universities (NUS, NTU,and now SMU) already have with Singapore-based firms and institutions, be they local ormultinational. Indeed foreign universities suchas MIT, TUM, TU/e, UIUC, Cornell, Karo-linska Institutet, Georgia Tech, and MIT effec-tively used the partnership to extend theirnetworks into both Singapore and the broaderAsian region. The logic behind this is to createnetworks that can be used in the enhancementof the research and teaching process (e.g., viathe acquisition of research funding, industryfeedback, joint research, and guest speakers inclasses). For example, the advisory board ofGeorgia Institute of Technology–NUS Logis-tics Institute—Asia-Pacific is made up sevenpeople, five of whom are Singapore-basedindustry representatives.

Second, internships are also incorporatedinto almost all of the partnership programs,further enhancing the formation of foreign uni-versity/local university–industry linkages. Forexample, in 2003/04 and 2004/05 students

Partnership model—Research and teach-ing

• Australian National University (Eco-nomics, Southeast Asian Studies,Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics) andNUS• Carnegie Mellon University (Com-puter Science, Business, InformationSystems, Engineering) and SMU• Centre National de la Recherche Sci-entifique (Engineering) and NUS• Cornell University (Hospitality Man-agement) and NTU• Duke University (Medicine) andNUS• Georgia Institute of Technology(Industrial Systems and Engineering)and NUS• Johns Hopkins University (Medi-cine) and NUS• Johns Hopkins University (Music)and NUS• Karolinska Institutet (Medicine) andNUS• Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy (Engineering) with the NUS andNTU• Shanghai Jiao Tong University(Business) and NTU• Stanford University (Engineering)and NTU• Technische Universitat Munchen(Chemistry, Engineering, Ecology) withNUS and NTU• Technische Universiteit Eindhoven(Engineering) and NUS• University of Illinois, Urbana-Cham-paign (Engineering) and NUS• University of Pennsylvania (Busi-ness) and SMU• US Naval Postgraduate School (Mil-itary) and NUS• Waseda University (Business) andNTU

970 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

enrolled in the five full-time graduate programsthat the Singapore–MIT Alliance offers hadinternships with firms including:

• Accenture Pte Ltd.• Accord Express Holdings Pte Ltd.• Advanced Materials Technologies PteLtd.• Agilent Technologies Singapore Pte Ltd.• Apple Computer Limited, SingaporeBranch• Centre for Advanced Computations inEngineering Science• Chartered Semiconductor ManufacturingLtd.• Centre for Advanced Numerical Engi-neering Simulations• Data Storage Institute Delphi AutomotiveSystems (S) Pte Ltd.• ExxonMobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.• Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Pte) Ltd.• IBM Singapore Pte Ltd.• Institute of High Performance Computing• Institute of Materials Research andEngineering• Institute of Microelectronics• International Semiconductor Products PteLtd.• Keppel FELS Limited• Merck Sharp and Dohme (Singapore)Ltd.• Ministry of Defense• Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd.• National Semiconductor Corporation• Phillips Electronics Singapore Pte Ltd.• PSA Corporation Limited• Shell Eastern Petroleumn (Pte) Ltd.• Silicon Graphics Pte Ltd.• Sun Microsystems Pte Ltd.• Wigetworks Pte Ltd.

Graduates of partnership programs are alsoable to acquire career placements with bothlocal and foreign firms in a relatively easy fash-ion because they are perceived to have a greatercapacity for critical thinking, and agility andopenness of thought.

Third, the medium- to long-term logic of thePartnership model is also to enhance and/orbroaden alumni networks, such that certificateand degree graduates eventually donate toalumni-dependent fund raising foundationsthat are associated with both local and foreignuniversities. Again, this is a very obtuse andindirect form of university–industry linkage,but my research has determined that both for-eign and local universities are intensely strate-gizing vis a vis the creation of the foundations

for long-term university–industry linkages inboth Singapore and the broader Pacific Asianregion. The Partnership model enables themto do this in a relatively low cost and low riskway, especially since the Government of Singa-pore (esp., the EDB and A*Star), as well aslocal universities, are bankrolling most of thepartnership schemes.

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 971

The Network model is the least utilized of allof the globalization of higher education modelsin general, though it is increasingly evident inthe Singaporean Global Schoolhouse case. Inthis model, global networks are created viathe merger of geographically separate institu-tions, or else the establishment of new cam-puses in other countries. One of the keyprinciples underlying the establishment of agenuine network of campuses is their functionalintegration with a relatively intense sharing ofmaterial and non-material resources, and a rel-atively flat hierarchy with respect to the qualityof the multiple campuses and their respectiveroles in knowledge production. The Networkmodel requires an undeniably significant com-mitment of up-front resources, and it is themost risky of all of the models outlined in thispaper. Once commitment is made to implementthe Network model, flows of what might havebeen viewed as ‘‘proprietary knowledge’’ occuracross space between the campuses (De Meyer,Harker, & Hawawini, 2004), and presumablybetween the campuses and the firms based incampus city regions.

In the Singapore case, six universities have orare beginning to adopt the Network model. Thetwo universities that have adopted the Networkmodel and established a tangible presence inSingapore are the University of Chicago (in2000) and INSEAD (in 2000). This said eachcampus is operated differently, and this gener-ates differential opportunities and constraintsvis a vis the formation of university–industrylinkages in Singapore and the Southeast Asianregion.

The University of Chicago GSB established adedicated Singapore campus in July 2000 to of-fer its Executive MBA to a maximum of 84 stu-dents per program. On average, not more than20% of the student base is Singaporean. Thecurriculum is identical to that of the ExecutiveMBA program in Chicago, and is taught byChicago-based faculty who travel to Singaporeto deliver one-week modules. Graduates are of-fered a Chicago GSB MBA degree. Given thisdevelopment approach, the campus is less inte-grated into Singapore’s political economy thanthe INSEAD campus. The absence of residentfaculty in Singapore ensures there are feweropportunities to engage with local and foreignfirms that are based in Singapore and thebroader region. Partly due to this constraint,the GSB entered into an agreement in 2004with SMU to offer joint conferences, businessand customized programs for Singapore-based

corporations. To date, five Singapore-basedcustom programs have been offered at theSMU campus via this joint scheme. In an over-all sense, then, the GSB campus has few link-ages with the local economy. This said thereputation of the Chicago GSB is such that stu-dents throughout the Pacific Asian region regis-ter to take Singapore-based courses. This drawsfuture and current industry leaders into Singap-orean territory. Assuming the experience is apositive one, the theory is that Singapore willbe on their ‘‘radar screen’’ when allocative deci-sions are made with respect to the implementa-tion of regional and global developmentstrategy. This is a rather nebulous dynamic toaccount for, but it is one that was raised withme during numerous interviews.

INSEAD, the prominent global businessschool, established its ‘‘Asia campus’’ in Singa-pore in January 2000. A US$40 million12,000 m2 building was built to enable Singa-pore-based faculty, and European campus visit-ing faculty, to offer full- and part-time courses,as well as executive seminars and an EMBAprogram. European and Asian campuses arefully integrated (a ‘‘global learning network’’),with student exchanges a common componentof the MBA program. The Singapore campusenrolls approximately 373 students and em-ploys 34 permanent faculty. On average, notmore than 10% of the student base is Singapo-rean. Numerous executive education coursesare offered on campus. INSEAD announcedits Singapore campus broke even in 2003, andexpanded in 2005 with an additional 6,000 m2

of floor space, which will enable up to 450MBA students to be based in Singapore atany one time. In addition, it launched acommercial research institute (InnovAsia) tomonitor and disseminate regional emergenttechnologies.

The decision to pursue a relatively embeddedcampus model sprang out of a relatively long his-tory of research on Asian business systems, 5

and INSEAD’s commitment to ‘‘a non-dog-matic learning environment that brings togetherpeople, cultures and ideas from around theworld, changing lives, and helping transformorganizations through management education.’’The institutional paradigm that shapes the cur-riculum also logically led INSEAD to establisha site in the center of Asia. The capacity of thisversion of the Network model to enhance uni-versity–industry linkages is relatively stronggiven that it requires a significant commit-ment to being embedded in space, and therefore

Network model—Research and teaching

• Ecole Superieure des Sciences Eco-nomiques et Sociales (Business)• INSEAD (Business)• SP Jain Center of Management(Business)• University of Chicago GraduateSchool of Business• University of Nevada at Las Vegas(Hospitality Management)• University of New South Wales(Comprehensive)

Table 3. Select INSEAD activities (2000–04)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Case studies published 61 67 89 123 110MBA programme participants 681 773 836 829 870Of whom started on Asia campus 53 114 244 244 281Number of weeks of executive education 365 378 364 374 426Of which were given in Asia 60 72 74 73 94

Source: Derived from INSEAD (2005, p. 3).

972 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

geographically specific institutions and net-works are generated over time (assuming thecampus is well managed).

The Network model functions particularlywell in global cities; a socio-economic forma-tion that is built upon global flows of people,ideas, and technologies (Abu-Lughod, 1999;Olds, 2001; Sassen, 2001). Students and facultyregularly travel between campuses; indeed pro-grams tend to be designed such that compo-nents are held in multiple locations. Thenodal location also enables the university toleverage off of these flows. For example, whileI was conducting research at INSEAD’s Asiacampus the Germany-based chairman of theBayer Group was speaking at a large executivefunction for Bayer staff from the entire Asia-Pacific region. INSEAD’s presence in Singa-pore, in conjunction with the Bayer regionalHQ (Bayer (South East Asia) Pte Ltd.), helpedto elevate Singapore’s status and capacity as aplace to dialogue about corporate strategy.On a more systematic basis, INSEAD’s MBAand Executive Education offerings have in-creased significantly once the Asia campuswas established in 2000, as has its capacity toproduce cases (an increasing number of whichare focused on Pacific Asian themes) (see Table3).

Finally, the Network model enables animportant symbolic statement to be made giventhe commitment of significant resources, and apublic recognition that geography matters, thatregional difference exists despite the forces ofglobalization. Commitment to an Asian city(either through the Network model, or somevariants of the Partner model) also generatesthe desired branding effect. For example, thepresence of INSEAD and University of Chi-cago campuses in Singapore enables the city-state to register on globally circulated andhighly influential ranking schemes in businessnewspapers such as the Financial Times fornow two of the top 10 leading business schools

list ‘‘Singapore’’ as one of their countries (a keysorting column).

While the impact of this form of textual pres-ence is difficult to assess, it is clear that Singa-pore’s image as a place for particular forms oflife-long learning is being enhanced.

6. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The emergence of a complex of Western uni-versity campuses, programs, and joint venturesin Singaporean space, and substantial local uni-versity reforms (Lee & Gopinathan, 2003) isobviously designed to further the developmen-tal objectives of the Singaporean state and thelong-ruling PAP. As noted above these objec-tives include those of both a material andnon-material nature:

• the diversification of Singapore’s labormarket;• the generation of opportunities forcompetition and synergy between foreignproviders of education services, and indige-nous institutions of higher education includ-ing the National University of Singapore,Nanyang Technological University, andSMU;

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 973

• the emergence of Singapore as a ‘‘globalknowledge hub,’’ associated with knowledgeproduction, innovation, R&D activities, andsignificant university–industry linkages;• the creation of a conducive base for profes-sional expatriate residence; a base affordingopportunities to attend lectures, seminars,workshops, short-term courses, etc.;• the registering of Singapore in benchmark-ing venues, especially the Financial Times,the Times Higher Education Supplement,and disciplinary-specific discursive fields.

In summary, foreign institutions of highereducation are recognized by the Singaporeanstate as playing a fundamental role in restruc-turing the economy via the refashioning of thelocal citizenry, while simultaneously providingretooling opportunities for the 100,000 or soprofessional migrants who use Singapore as atemporary base. The key idea is the creationof a virtuous circle: draw in the ‘‘best universi-ties’’ with global talent; this talent then createsknowledge and knowledgeable subjects; theseknowledgeable subjects, through their actionsand networks, then create the professional jobsthat drive a vibrant local KBE with profitableregional links.

While the structural pressures to create a‘‘Boston of the East’’ are immense, and theGovernment of Singapore has sunk enormousresources into generating complex of active uni-versities and affiliated institutions, it is clearthat foreign universities themselves play a criti-cal role in shaping the development process.The specific modes of entry that universitiesuse in the globalization process—the Importmodel, the Export model, the Partnershipmodel, the Network model, and any numberof hybrids—bring with them a range of oppor-tunities and constraints with respect to the for-mation of university–industry linkages.

Regardless of which model is adopted, muchalso depends upon institutional histories, dom-inant disciplinary paradigms, and ‘‘facultychampions’’ regarding the unfolding of the uni-versity–industry linkage development process.Moreover, the vast majority of the Singapore–foreign university linkages that have beencreated, to date, have been focused at the

undergraduate and masters levels and in a verytargeted (in disciplinary terms) sense. This isparticularly the case with respect to the manyjoint and double degree programs that bind to-gether local and foreign universities. Given thatforeign universities have been, to date, unableor very hesitant about transplanting or extend-ing advanced research and development opera-tions to Singaporean territory, we are unlikelyto witness deep and multitudinous forms ofuniversity–industry linkages being formed inSingapore territory. Indeed this weakness is re-flected in the substantial Government of Singa-pore resources that are currently available forsupporting the establishment of two or threenew full breadth foreign university campuses.The current development of the University ofNew South Wales campus in Singapore (to beopened in 2007) might change this situation,though the failure of the EDB to convince glob-ally recognized research universities (e.g., MIT,Stanford, Imperial College), as well other re-search active universities (e.g., the Universityof Warwick, LSE), to establish overseas cam-puses in Singapore highlights a disconnect be-tween Government of Singapore policy goalsand the reality of institutional globalization inhigher education at this point of history.

These are early days in the most recent highereducation reform era of Singapore’s history,and in the globalization of higher education(especially the variants involving the establish-ment of commercial presence in foreign territo-ries). Moreover, there are a variety ofsubmerged yet important factors that underliethe entire development process; factors suchas the nature of academic freedom in Singaporefor foreign faculty (Olds & Thrift, 2005), andthe outcome of the withdrawal of Governmentof Singapore subsidies over time. The globalassemblage known as Singapore GlobalSchoolhouse is clearly the outcome of a varietyof actor-networks; actor-networks that arebeing shaped by broader structural transforma-tions, as well as actor-networks shaping thesebroader structural transformations. Regardlessof one’s views on this approach to develop-ment, the experiment is certainly worthy ofgreater attention and illumination.

NOTES

1. Source: Extracts from an address by RADM (NS) TeoChee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Ministerfor Defense at the Alumni International Singapore (AIS)

Lecture on January 7, 2000 at the NUSS Guild Hall @ 6.35pm, available at http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp10012000.htm, accessed on March 19, 2005.

974 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

2. It is also worth noting that the most prominentglobal city-states—Singapore and Hong Kong (until1997)—are the products of colonialism, and then post-colonial political dynamics. Colonial origins helped toshaped urban destinies that were (and still are) tightlyintertwined with the evolving global economy. Thiscolonial history has helped to engender openness toconstant change, and an outward-oriented and relativelycosmopolitan sensibility. Colonialism also helped to laythe legal, linguistic, and technological (esp., transport)foundations for integration into the contemporaryglobal economy.

3. While beyond the scope of this paper, it is alsoimportant to note that foreign universities have beenreaching into Singapore for several decades via a seriesof locally registered institutions. For example, theSingapore Institute of Management (SIM) currentlyworks with 10 international universities to coordinate avariety of undergraduate and postgraduate programs. Inaddition, Singapore is also the base for Universitas 21

Global, the on-line graduate business school that isjointly operated by the Thomson Learning Corporation.

Numerous corporate and business media organizationssuch as the Center for Creative Leadership (which wasranked as the number 10 Executive Education school inthe Financial Times in their May 2005 survey), theSingapore Financial Learning Centre, Lucasfilm Ani-mation, DigiPen (the digital media school) and Boeing(their pilot and flight attendant training unit) have set uptraining programs in Singapore over the five years.

4. The main differences between these two inter-partydocuments is that an Agreement is ‘‘legally binding ifthere is the intention to create legal relations,’’ while anMOU is ‘‘usually a document which records the under-standing of the parties on a proposed project and istherefore not legally binding’’ (Ministry of Education,memo, no date, available at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/pdf/MOE-Educational-18dft.pdf, accessed onMarch 15, 2005).

5. INSEAD was founded in 1957, an Asian businessprogram was established in 1974, and the Euro-AsiaCentre at its Fountainbleau campus in France wasopened in 1980.

REFERENCES

Abu-Lughod, J. (1999). New York, Chicago, Los Ange-les: America’s global cities. Minnesota: University ofMinnesota Press.

Chang, A.-L., & Choong, M. Y. (2006). Govt pumpsUS$8.3 b into boosting R&D. Straits Times, Febru-ary 17.

Chua, B. H. (1997). Political legitimacy and housing:Stakeholding in Singapore. New York: Routledge.

Chui, S., Ho, K. C., & Lui, T.-L. (1997). City-states inthe global economy. Boulder: Westview Press.

Coe, N., Hess, M., Yeung, H., Dicken, P., & Henderson,J. (2004). ‘‘Globalizing’’ regional development: Aglobal production networks perspective. Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers, 29(4), 468–484,New Series.

Coe, N., & Kelly, P. (2000). Distance and discourse inthe local labour market: the case of Singapore. Area,32(4), 413–422.

Coe, N., & Kelly, P. (2002). Languages of labour:Representational strategies in Singapore’s labourcontrol regime. Political Geography, 21, 341–371.

De Meyer, A., Harker, P., & Hawawini, G. (2004). Theglobalization of business education. In H. Gatignon,& J. Kimberly (Eds.), The INSEAD–Wharton alli-ance on globalizing: Strategies for building successfulglobal businesses. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Dicken, P. (2003). Global shift: Reshaping the globaleconomic map in the 21st century (4th ed.). London:Sage.

ERC. (2002a). Report of the ERC Subcommittee onServices Industries: Part I, Singapore: ERC. <http://

www.mti.gov.sg/pu blic/ERC/frm_ERC_default.asp?sid=99> Accessed 20-05-05.

ERC. (2002b). Developing Singapore’s EducationIndustry, Singapore: ERC. <http://www.mti.gov.sg/public/ERC/frm_ERC_default.asp?sid=99> Acces-sed 20-05-05.

ERC. (2003). New challenges, fresh goals—Towards adynamic global city, Singapore. <http://www.mti.gov.sg/public/ERC/frm_ERC_default.asp?sid=99>Accessed 20-05-05.

George, C. (2000). Singapore: The air-conditioned nation.Essays on the politics of comfort and control, 1990–2000. Singapore: Landmark Books.

INSEAD (2003). INSEAD: One school, two campuses:Going to Asia, Case 303-041-1. Singapore: INSEAD.

INSEAD (2005). INSEAD 2005: In profile. Singaporeand Fountainbleau: INSEAD.

Kong, L. (nd). Science and education in an Asiantiger. <www.brightminds.uq.edu.au/TRC/downloads/ScienceEducationAT.pdf>.

Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. (2002). The politics of landscape inSingapore: Constructions of ‘Nation’. Syracuse: Syr-acuse University Press.

Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: TheSingapore story, 1965–2000, Singapore, Times Edi-tions.

Lee, M., & Gopinathan, S. (2003). Reforming universityeducation in Hong Kong and Singapore. HigherEducation Research & Development, 22(2), 167–182.

Lingle, C. (1996). Singapore’s authoritarian capitalism:Asian values, free market illusions and politicaldependency. Fairfax, VA: The Locke Institute.

GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGE 975

Low, L. (Ed.) (1999). Singapore: Towards a developedstatus. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

OECD (2004). Internationalisation and trade in highereducation: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD.

Olds, K. (2001). Globalization and urban change. Capital,culture and Pacific rim mega-projects. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Olds, K., & Thrift, N. (2005). Cultures on the brink:Reengineering the soul of capitalism—on a globalscale. In A. Ong, & S. Collier (Eds.), Global assem-blages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropolog-ical problems (pp. 270–290). Oxford: Blackwell.

Olds, K., & Yeung, H. (2004). Pathways to global cityformation: A view from the developmental city-stateof Singapore. Review of International Political Econ-omy, 11(3), 489–521.

Rodan, G. (1989). The political economy of Singapore’sindustrialization: National state and internationalcapital. London: Macmillan.

Sassen, S. (2001). The global city (2nd ed.). Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Schien, E. (1996). Strategic pragmatism: The culture ofSingapore’s Economic Development Board. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Singapore Department of Statistics (2000). Educationalupgrading through external degree programmes.Singapore Statistics Newsletter.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capital-ism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Teo, C. H. (2000). Speech by Teo Chee Hean, Ministerfor Education and Second Minister for Defense atthe Alumni International Singapore (AIS). Lectureon January 7, 2000 at the NUSS Guild Hall @ 6.35pm. <http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp10012000.htm>.

Tremewan, C. (1994). The political economy of socialcontrol in Singapore. London: St. Martin’s Press.

UNCTAD (2004). World Investment Report 2004: Theshift towards services. UNCTAD, Geneva.

UNCTAD (2005). World Investment Report 2005:TNCs and the internationalization of R&D. UNC-TAD, Geneva.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the market: Economic theoryand the role of government in East Asian industrial-ization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Weiss, L. (1998). The myth of the powerless state:Governing the economy in a global era. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Woo-Cumings, M. (Ed.) (1999). The developmental state.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Yeung, H. (2005). Institutional capacity and Singapore’sdevelopmental state. In H. Nesadurai (Ed.), Globali-sation and economic security in East Asia: Governanceand institutions (pp. 85–106). London: Routledge.

Yeung, H., Poon, J., & Perry, M. (2001). Towards aregional strategy: the role of regional headquarters offoreign forms in Singapore. Urban Studies, 38(1),157–183.