The selling of social work education: What we need to know about the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
Rashmi Luther and Elizabeth Whitmore
This is a synopsis of a paper about GATS and its current and potential effects on social
work education in Canada
. We first present an overview of some of the key features of
GATS, then summarize some emerging trends in the ‘business’ of education. This is
followed by a brief resumé of some important national and cultural concerns. We
conclude that if social work educators wish to influence the future course of our
profession, we must engage actively in these debates.
THE GATS - WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is one of over twenty agreements
administered and enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its mandate is to
eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers to the free movement of services across
national-state borders. GATS “provides for ongoing and systematic commercialization
of all services and further deregulation of government policies affecting services”
(Sinclair, 2000:31). Called the "new MAI"
by some (Council of Canadians; Sinclair,
2000), it is an extraordinarily ambitious and complex undertaking, potentially universal
in scope.
The government of Canada is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of GATS because services are a major part of the new economy. "Ours is a service based economy. Most employment is now in services (vs. manufacturing), trade that is vital to building a strong knowledge based economy and to provide high quality jobs (Canadian Government “Services 2000” WEB site -FAQ about GATS, http://services2000.ic.gc.ca). The government sees enormous potential to export these services. “There has never been a better time for Canadians to export education and training products and service” (Canadian Knowledge Industry, DFAIT. www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/ics-cki). It is quick to reassure the public, however, that Canada's own health care, education and social service systems will not be included, a position that is not likely to be sustainable: “How long can Canada demand that other countries open up their critical education sectors while fully protecting its own…” (Grieshaber-Otto and Sanger, 2002: 124).
THE GATS - A CLOSER LOOK
BACKGROUND
The GATS was established as a framework agreement in 1994 (the Uruguay Round),
along with GATT
and since then, it has served as the guiding basis for WTO decisions
related to services. Initiated, in 1998, by a small group of largely US corporate
executives, academics and public officials to “chart a new direction for liberalizing
global trade in services,” GATS laid out an ambitious agenda for WTO service
negotiations (Grieshaber-Otto and Sanger, 2002; Sinclair, 2000:21). Though the Cancun
WTO meetings in September 2003 collapsed because of failure to agree on key issues
(especially agricultural subsidies), GATS negotiations proceed as part of a built in work
program, and the US continues to press for commitments on higher education. While the
Canadian government’s position remains that ‘public education’ is off the table, officials
are ‘evasive’ about whether they consider higher education to be public or private. The
deadline of January 2005 is likely to be extended (Robinson, April 2004, personal
communication)
.
The neo-liberal agenda
Neo-liberal ideology frames the context of GATS. It makes the unregulated market central in governing economic, social and political life. Based on a belief in the inherent wisdom of the market, it assumes that the rules of the market should govern societies, rather than the other way around. Pivotal concepts include competition, seen as the engine of innovation; privatization, based on the assumption that the private sector will conduct its affairs more efficiently than the public sector; deregulation, allowing the ‘invisible hand’ of the market to balance supply and demand; and commercialization. Central to all this is a commitment to increasing and continued liberalization, meaning that all sectors should eventually be included in the above processes (Wilson and Whitmore, 2000).
WHAT ARE SERVICES?
Services are broadly defined in the GATS as "a product of human activity aimed at satisfying a human need, which does not constitute a tangible commodity" (Sinclair, 2000:22). They "affect virtually all aspects of our lives" (Ibid: 23). Called "the last frontier" by advocates, its range is enormous, including everything from providing water, gas or electricity to customers, to computer advice, to nursing, banking or even firefighting services (Ibid).
Services are much more regulation intensive than goods; no government measure, whatever its aim, is safe from GATS challenge. Its provisions will affect governments at all levels (federal, provincial/state and municipal).
KEY FEATURES OF THE GATS
Top down and bottom up features
Top down features cover all government measures (or actions) affecting trade in services. A measure can be a law, regulation, administrative decision, guideline or even an unwritten practice. These include subsidies and grants, nationality requirements, residency requirements, licensing standards and qualifications, registration requirements, technology transfer provisions, local content provisions, economic quotas or needs tests, licensing or training requirements, restrictions on ownership of property, limitations on access to markets and most tax measures (Sinclair, 2000).
All relevant government actions can be challenged. This includes actions by state enterprises, even NGOs acting on the basis of authority delegated by government (Ibid:31-32). Private individuals or corporate actions are mostly unrestricted.
Bottom-up features are rules that apply only to those sectors specifically listed in a member government’s country schedule. In Canada, while health, education and social services are not on the table, commitments in related sectors could affect post secondary education (eg: research and development, telecommunications, computer services) (Sinclair, June 2003).
Below, we summarize a few of the key features and how these may be challenged.
Key Articles
Article II: Non-discrimination rules.
The GATS prohibits de-facto discrimination. This is called "like" rules - if suppliers or a service are judged to be similar or "like," then they are entitled to the same treatment. Is an Internet course “like” a campus based one? Is a community based not-for-profit social service “like” a foreign based commercial service provider? (Sinclair,2000:46)? Licensing, accreditation and other “advantages,” now reserved for local non-profit sector and government funds may have to be extended to all providers (Sinclair, 2000:46). A private company would only have to argue that such measures are “capable of altering the conditions of competition” (Sinclair, 2000:44).
Article VI:4 - Domestic regulation
This provision restricts qualification requirements (professional accreditation, educational requirements, certification of competency, etc.), licensing (including professional licensing, university accreditation, licensing of clinics, labs, hospitals, waste disposal permits, etc.), and technical standards (an all inclusive category referring to the ‘technical characteristic’ of a service itself, and also to ‘rules by which service is performed.’) (Sinclair, 2000:76). These provisions are especially relevant for social workers.
This Article would significantly expand WTO’s authority to interfere with the exercise of government authority. Under the GATS, these decisions would be made by WTO tribunals, not elected governments. This provision thus poses one of the more dangerous threats to democratic decision-making.
Article XVI: Market access
This article prohibits numerical limits and eliminates certain policy options altogether, thereby diminishing government authority. For example, measures restricting the number of social work programs would be prohibited, as well as a requirement to provide a broad range of courses (Sinclair, June 2003). It also prohibits measures restricting how a supplier may supply a service - governments can not favour non-profits, for example, including in the education and social services sectors (Sinclair, 2000:67).
Article XVII: National treatment
This provision requires that governments give foreign services and providers the best treatment given to “like” domestic services and providers (both in law and de-facto). “ National treatment can be a strong discipline on the use of subsidies as it requires that governments providing subsidies to domestic service suppliers also have to make an equivalent subsidy available to foreign suppliers operating in the country” (Gauthier, 1999, cited in Sinclair, 2000:86).
These are complex and technical issues, and this summary highlights only a few of the
aspects most relevant to post secondary education, and thus schools of social work.
Below, we will reflect on the potential significance of these provisions for the future of public higher education, especially social work education, and then examine three key trends: education as a business, the role of professional associations and standards, competencies and accreditation, and issues around technology.
The future of public education
There are both advantages and disadvantages associated with GATS with respect to Canadian universities.
On the positive side, GATS could help to lay the ground rules for Canadian universities wishing to export their services. But on the negative side, it could significantly alter what we think of as publicly funded higher education. One thing seems certain: GATS will affect at least some aspects of how universities operate…. (Charbonneau, 2001:9)
Grieshaber-Otto and Sanger (2002:45) conclude that although GATS does not appear, on the surface, to impact the public education system, this is wrong. They argue that government funding for the public education system - primary, secondary and post secondary - is already being eroded and likely to be directly challenged by multinational corporations that anticipate the enormous potential for profit in the “knowledge industry.”
The classification system is designed to be comprehensive and provides a framework for
the GATS system.
What is significant is that some services, widely assumed to be part
of the education system, are left out, such as library services. Others such as cleaning,
food, management, community relations, are all classified under other categories.
Basically, this opens the door to privatisation by stealth, as corporations gradually take
over the education related services while the government still maintains that ‘education’
is not on the table (Grieshaber-Otto and Sanger, 2002).
Another major issue here is the threat to democracy. Because the negotiations are conducted in secret, there is a lack of public awareness that GATS potentially has for limiting the role of elected governments in the delivery of public services (Griffin Cohen, 2000:9; Perez Rocha L., 2001; Sinclair, 2000; Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto, 2002).
Specific aspects of GATS that are of direct relevance to higher education and potentially perceived to be barriers to trade include government financial support through grants and subsidies (foreign providers could demand equal treatment); differential treatment of students enrolled in programs provided by foreign institutions (loans for students enrolled in public institutions); presence of any form of national requirement (requirements for setting up an institution or courses, or receiving government grants); administration of needs tests and curriculum requirements (restrictions on the type or quantity or quality of services, or eligibility for services provided, according to a government’s assessment of what is needed. Smaller countries may support the development of specific research and education materials as a way of providing information germane to the country; restrictions present on foreign teachers (limiting the number of foreign teachers through immigration policies); restrictions imposed on foreign students (through length of stay, ability to work, student fees, and currency controls) (Griffin Cohen, op. cit:11-12).
Education as a Business
Education is being increasingly constructed as a business, tied more directly to fulfilling the needs of the marketplace for trained and skilled workers. The huge investment house, Lehman Brothers, has called it ‘the final frontier of a number of sectors once dominated by public control” (Canadian Perspectives, 2000:5). In this environment, tremendous pressure is being exerted on universities to be more responsive to market needs and more competitive for alternative sources of revenues, to compensate for the decline in state support for public education.
This debate about education (knowledge) and training (skills) is of particular relevance to social work, for the profession encompasses both components. Professional schools are placed in a somewhat tenuous position, vulnerable to pressures exerted by employers and governments, to produce skilled and trained professionals in keeping with their own immediate needs. This conflicts with the academic location of schools of social work that currently emphasize knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, problem-solving and research in addition to skill development. A concrete example is evident in the current debates surrounding social worker competencies and qualifications (Canadian Social Work Forum, 2002; Divine, 2003; Dominelli, 1996; Rossiter, 2002, 2003; Westhues,2002).
Professional Associations and Standards, Competencies and Accreditation
Standards, competencies and accreditation are presently recognized as matters that are under the purview of professional bodies, as mandated by state policies or laws. Under GATS, however, these national differences may be seen as barriers to trade. Considerable pressure may be exerted on state governments, and in turn on professional social work bodies, to develop uniform standards to enable greater labour mobility. As uniform standards are pursued, concerns and debates surrounding the ‘lowering’ of professional standards or the ‘dumbing down’ of the profession are likely to intensify.
These issues have emerged in the debates about the recommendation, in the 2001 report
“In critical demand: Social work in Canada”
for national competency based standards.
If a set of predetermined competencies is the criterion for registration as a social worker,
then anyone, in theory, could teach these. The difference between training and education
would be ignored. Indeed, if learning a set of competencies becomes the sole criterion
for registration as a social worker, one would not need a community college or university
degree at all. In a June 2003 debate on this issue at CASSW, David Divine warned of
‘tick box’ practice in which how well we are (or are not) doing is ‘measured’ by filling
out forms. Competencies are highly technical, decontextualized pieces of practice,
abstracting practice from the social context of people’s lives. It means, in the end, that we
lose our vision of what social work is all about (Divine, 2003).
Until now, the professional associations, such as CASSW, have determined the standards through their accreditation procedures. Power could transfer from professional bodies, run democratically, to trade dispute panels that represent entirely different interests and operate in secret. National competencies could create “pressure for homogenization of curricula in schools of social work” (Rossiter, 2002: 8), diminishing the rich diversity amongst schools as well as “the capacity of the academy in terms of critical thought, innovation, debate and difference” (Ibid). In addition, as has happened in Britain (Dominelli, 1996), ”competency standards tend to deskill professions” (Rossiter, 2002: 8). The experience in France has also been similar (Bourgon, 2002).
Technological advances in the delivery of education to international markets, as well as those in rural and remote communities, is another trend that is much in evidence today. The provision of distance education, including on-line courses, is also linked to debates about both GATS and social work education. While technology provides a valuable means to make education more accessible and less costly to those unable to physically uproot and relocate to the proximity of a university campus, there are potential pitfalls.
These include issues of quality and accessibility. Knowledge could be selected based primarily on its ability to be computerized and sold, rather than “constructed through social learning or intellectual exploration or social struggle” (Sumner, 2002: 101). The primary arguments on the question of accessibility are grounded in the economics of poverty and wealth; the ability to pay substitutes for the ability to learn (Ibid).
Another paradox of technology pertains to its potential as a business tool, one that is capable of generating needed revenues and making profits through the creation of niches, as well as through a more rapid response to emerging needs in the changing marketplace. In thinking and acting in business-like ways, at times required for institutional survival, however, universities and individual faculties can run the risk of becoming complicit in practices that undermine their own independence, (in terms of research and knowledge production).
The role of faculty as creators and disseminators of knowledge is also brought into question as education moves into the “new frontiers” of on-line learning. For, while faculty may be actively pursued for the development of course content, they are less likely to be employed in the delivery process itself which may be contracted out. Perhaps there will be a new category of education worker, the ‘knowledge delivery manager.’ Potential implications of this are faculty job losses, weakened faculty associations, deteriorating working conditions as well as the erosion of academic freedom.
Who Benefits from Erosions to Domestic Autonomy and Cultural Diversity?
Whatever the rhetoric, trade liberalization agreements are being driven primarily by corporate interests in industrially developed countries (Fremeauz, 2001; Miley, 2001). While new markets are sought by corporations for their educational products, the value and recognition accorded to degrees and qualifications obtained outside of North America, Europe, Britain and Australia are being simultaneously diminished. This devaluation inevitably feeds the desire for degrees and credentials from these countries, thereby creating a further demand for their products. As noted earlier, the government of Canada is eager to join this lucrative export market while restricting the import of educational service ‘products’ from other countries.
It is also unlikely that the powerful industrialized countries will want to ease up on the
restrictions that currently apply to foreign students.
This leaves us to question whether
arguments advanced by proponents of trade liberalization (i.e., responding to demand,
creating choice, providing flexibility) are just euphemisms to couch the further
entrenchment of imperial practices. “Given the existence of huge disparities between
countries, is the idea of placing national education systems in a competitive situation not
tantamount to selling out the education systems in the weakest countries to a handful of
large transnational corporations?” (EI, 1999:17)
The impact of GATS with respect to cultural policies and cultural diversity is also inextricably linked to discussions about national autonomy and authority to establish policies and priorities directly related to their own needs and interests. Uniformity is also feared not only with respect to educational models but also cultural beliefs, practices and modes of intervention. If educational programs such as social work become more standardized, based primarily on US or British models, it is probable that the Euro-American knowledge and training components that are integral to those models will be even more distant from the needs and concerns of the communities themselves.
Cultural impacts are also likely to be experienced in the area of language of instruction. If the language of instruction is primarily English, then questions of access for those whose first language is other than English emerge. Class issues related to language and wealth are important to acknowledge here as well, for the programs are likely to be provided on a substantial cost-recovery basis.
It is imperative that all social work educators recognize the implications of the trade agreements currently being negotiated. This recognition is a prelude to conducting local and national discussions on the contradictions presented by these trends and their implications for national cultural autonomy. Without collaboration (between social work practitioners, educators and regulators), “ governments would likely take on the responsibility of clarifying the skills and qualifications…in order to accommodate trade agreements and reduce non-tariff barriers” (Canadian Social Work Forum, 2002).
Since “GATS is a work-in-progress - an unfinished framework designed for continuous expansion through perpetual renegotiation,” there may be no sweeping changes, however, just “an inexorable ratching down of public policy options” (Greishaber-Otto and Sanger, 2002: 46). Yet this also provides an opening for an informed public to intervene. Public pressure and political will are needed and this means that all social work constituents – educators, practitioners, administrators, and users of services – must become engaged in the process. The stopping of the MAI proves that the process can be influenced. The active involvement in the GATS debate by the social work community - in Canada, and elsewhere– is as urgent as it is critical.
------------------------------------
References
Bourgon, Michele (2002). Title? Panel presentation at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Toronto.
Canadian Perspectives (2000). Corporate takeover: Can national cultures survive globalization.
Canadian Social Work Forum (2001). www.casw-acts.ca/English/SW-Forum
Charbonneau, Leo (December 2001) “The prospect of GATS”, Ottawa: AUCC, (8-11)
Divine, David (June 2003). Beyond competencies. Presentation at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Halifax.
Dominelli, Lena (1996). Deprofessionalizing social work: Anti-oppressive practice, competencies and postmodernism. British Journal of Social Work, 26:153-175.
(EI) Education International/Public Services International (1999). “The WTO and the Millenium Round: What is at stake for public education?” www.ei-ie.org/pub/english/epbeipsiwto.html
Fremeaux, Philippe. “A Contribution to the Study Day for ATTAC activists on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)”, Education, Health and Culture in the Firing Line, May 12, 2001. www.attac.org/fra/list/doc/fremeauxen.html
Grieshaber-Otto, Jim and Sanger, Matt (2002). Perilous lessons: The impact of the WTO services agreement (GATS) on Canada’s public education system. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Griffin Cohen, Marjorie (2000). Trading away the public system: The WTO and post-secondary education. In Turk, James L. (ed.) The corporate campus: Commercialization and the dangers to Canada’s colleges and universities. (pp.123-139). Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, Ltd.
Jackson, Andrew and Sanger, Matthew (2003). When worlds collide: Implications of international trade and investment agreements for non-profit social services. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Miley, Viv. “Higher education on the GATS chopping block”, www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/448/448p13.html
Perez Rocha L., Manuel (September 2001). The struggle: Global rules and local choices. Social Development Review 5(3):14-17.
Rossiter, Amy (2003). Beyond competencies. Panel presentation at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Halifax.
Rossiter, Amy (2002). The social work sector study: A response. Canadian Social Work Review 19(2): 341-348.
Sinclair, Scott (June 2003). Canadian higher education and the GATS: Key issues. Panel presentation at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Halifax.
Sinclair, Scott and Grieshaber-Otto, Jim (2002). Facing the facts: A guide to the GATS debate. Ottawa; Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Sinclair, Scott (2000). GATS: How the World Trade Organization’s new ‘services’ negotiations threaten democracy. Ottawa. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Sumner, Jennifer (March 2002). Dumbing down distance education: The corporate agenda and the end of quality. In Doherty-Delorme, Denise and Shaker, Erika (eds.) Missing pieces III: An alternative guide to Canadian post-secondary education. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Westhues, Ann (2002). The social work sector study: Reflections on process and issues of concern. Canadian Social Work Review 19(2): 329-340.
Wilson, Maureen G. and Whitmore, Elizabeth (2000). Seeds of fire: Social development in an era of globalism. Halifax: Fernwood and New York: Apex Press.