Promoting University and Industry Links at the Regional Level: Comparing China’s Reform and International Experience

Abstract

This paper intends to learn from international experiences in order to facilitating China’s ongoing regional university transformation with an ultimate goal to enhance the role of university in regional economic development and innovation. In so doing, this paper compares major models of universities of applied sciences (UAS) around the world from the perspective of the Triple Helix Model with an emphasis on the nature of university-industry relation implied by each model, and then exploring their relevance for China’s UASs transformation. It is concluded that the Finnish model is the most relevant to China. By comparing the Finnish and Chinese practices, a number of recommendations are solicited to Chinese policy-makers.

Keywords:

• China
• regional university transformation
• university-industry relation

Notes

By regions in the Chinese context, they can be either provinces or that of municipal cities, corresponding the two levels of administration for regional universities.

Since 1949, China has adopted the Soviet Union’s model of vocational education and training at the secondary and tertiary levels. After the economic reform of 1978, the Chinese government, the Ministry of Labour in particular, began to promote a German vocational training model, which was renowned for its very practical vocational orientation. After the National Conference on Vocational Education in 2005, the Ministry of Education initiated many projects on vocational training in partnership with foreign donors. It has considered the synthesis of the best practices of each model including the Australian technical and further education (TAFE) system for the delivery of vocational and technical education subjects, the German dual model, the UK unified system, the American and Canadian community college models, and the Indian technical college model, to name a few.

For instance, the collective skill formation model of Germany has not functioned well in China due to a lack of cooperation between firms, associations (of employers and employees) and the state. Most firms are reluctant to participate in school-based or workplace-based pre-service training because there is no guarantee that they can reap the benefits from their training investment. The segmentalist model of Japan has not worked well in China, either. This type of regime requires a high level of firm commitment and a very low level of labor mobility. China’s labor market is characterized by high labor mobility, and thus firms are not willing to invest in their future employees. The liberal skill formation system in the USA requires a matured and flexible external labor market, where high-quality vocational skills are delivered in vocational colleges and students are required to pay the full tuition fees. The government has little influence in vocational education and training, which is not desirable from the perspective of China’s government.

The structure of the New Welfare State model in Finland was built on the basis of strong government following other Nordic countries. In the development of Finnish educational system in 1960s and 1970s, the model countries were Sweden and the German Democratic Republic, both of which used to have centralised systems.

The creations of polytechnics in both countries are responses to skill demands arising from technology change and transformation towards an innovative knowledge-based economy. New needs have emerged for higher-level technicians, which could hardly been trained either by research universities or by secondary vocational schools.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yang Po

Yang Po is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Education, Peking University.

Yuzhuo Cai

Yuzhuo Cai is a senior lecturer and adjunct professor at the Higher Education Group (HEG), School of Management, University of Tampere, Finland, and a guest professor at the Institute of International and Comparative Education, Beijing Normal University, China.

Anu Lyytinen

Anu Lyytinen is a researcher at the Higher Education Group (HEG), School of Management, University of Tampere, Finland.

Seppo Hölttä

Seppo Hölttä is a professor of higher education administration and finance in the Higher Education Group (HEG), School of Management of University of Tampere, Finland.