Private universities have been expanding rapidly worldwide but particularly in developing countries, as rising demand for higher education has meant private providers plug a gap that publicly-financed institutions cannot fill fast enough, according to a new study.
Universities are caught in a privatization trap that they built themselves and that will be difficult to take apart, argues Christopher Newfield. This country’s public universities face the Trump administration in a weakened condition. That is partly because they have suffered years of state funding cuts and still aren’t back to pre-2008 levels. But it’s also because they have long embraced a private-funding model that doesn’t work and whose weaknesses Trump and his people can exploit. A painful example is the proposed 18 percent cut to the National Institutes of Health, which Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has contended would not hurt research, as it would mostly focus on cutting back on overhead expenses to universities. An 18 percent budget slash sounds catastrophic -- until you remember that companies take these kinds of hits and survive. So do American families, where illness or job loss lead to cuts far greater than that. The same goes for public universities: few have not had a cut on that scale sometime in the past 25 years, and still fewer have admitted that such losses hurt educational quality. Since universities survived the financial crisis with little damage -- that they have disclosed -- what would keep the citizenry awake at night about an 18 percent cut for medical research? Research directors reply that it would be terrible indeed: National Science Foundation Director France Cordova, for example, has said the proposed cuts endanger the economy, since “half of our present GDP is due to investments in science and technology.” Researchers have noted that the current funding austerity already appears in the form of the declining average success rate for grant applications, which has been cut nearly in half since 2001, from 27 percent to 16 percent. Four in five applications go unfunded, with presumably valuable results to medical knowledge possibly lost. Such arguments might work if voters thought science needed public funding to get to the public. But the unfortunate fact is that
Professor Peter Drahos explains the TRIPS Agreement gave multinational corporate owners of intellectual property rights a global form of private taxing power
The globalization of intellectual property rights will not improve trade, competition, or the livelihood of workers; it leads to underdevelopment, says professor Peter Drahos.
Countries like India and Brazil saw early on how excessive monopoly protection due to intellectual property rights would be an impediment to development, says professor Peter Drahos
In this 7 part series, Professor Peter Drahos explains how multinationals from US, Europe, and Japan collaborated to create a global platform for multinationals to privatize knowledge
In this 7 part series, Professor Peter Drahos explains how multinationals from US, Europe, and Japan collaborated to create a global platform for multinationals to privatize knowledge
In this 7 part series, Professor Peter Drahos explains how multinationals from US, Europe, and Japan collaborated to create a global platform for multinationals to privatize knowledge.
On April 14, 2014, PPP Canada opened up its application process for the sixth round of the P3 Canada Fund. The federal government has committed $1.25 billion in funds to this program and to qualifying projects and municipalities.
The 10-storey, 680,000 square foot state-of-the-art facility has 404 patient beds in rooms designed to accommodate the latest equipment, provide natural light, and organized to facilitate the best patient care. Each floor has shared dining rooms, activity rooms and patient lounges to encourage social interaction and participation. In planning for the future of healthcare, we have also ensured that the design is to be adaptable for future changes.
This guide gives an overview of the privatization, contracting out and contracting in issues CUPE members face – along with sample collective agreement language for local bargaining committees, bargaining councils and staff representatives. Privatizing jobs and services hurts members and the community, as workers’ living standards decline and well-paying jobs disappear. Our first line of defence against privatization is our union contract, negotiated through collective bargaining.
E. Bacchiocchi, M. Florio, und M. Gambaro. Telecommunications Policy, 35 (4):
382 - 396(2011)First published online: March 29, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2011.03.001. (Eurobarometer).