Educators Bring Back Lessons from Seminars Abroad
This article is reprinted by permission from the newsletter Academic Leader(the Newsletter for Academic Deans and Department Chairs) and Magna Publications from the March 2001 issue, Volume 17, no. 3.

The Council on International Educational Exchange has developed a series of faculty development seminars that receive high praise from their participants for organization, substance, and long-term value to the faculty, their students, and their institutions

These seminars are short-term, intensive overseas experiences that take faculty from many disciplines to all corners of the earth -- Australia, Russia, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Haiti, Belgium, Turkey, etc.

The seminars are open to academics from two-year and four-year institutions. About 85% of participants are faculty and 15% are administrators. Seminars are 7 to 13 days in length and are heavily scheduled. Each is organized around a theme, such as Economic Reform, Regional Integration, and Democratization in Argentina and Chile; the Historic Cities of China; Jordan and Geopolitics; Economics, Polity, and Religion in Turkey; London as Text: Art, Theatre, and Cultural Identity. The majority of participants have significant funding supporting from their home institutions.

Participants are urged to complete reading assignments prior to the trip. During the seminar, participants hear presentations and visit economic, educational, environmental, historical, political, religious, and social institutions. Each seminar is hosted by an overseas academic institution and includes opportunities to meet academic counterparts.

One of the main objectives of these seminars is to enhance the course content of individual professors. But another benefit is to "internationalize the curriculum" of the larger institution. What this means depends on the institution. Joti Sekhon attended a South Africa seminar and teaches at Greensboro College, NC, where funds are limited for international research. She brought back a broadened global perspective for her classes on minority relations, social stratification, and race issues, and shared her experience at conferences and informally around the campus. For Richard Payne, who went to Costa Rica and specializes in eco-tourism at Sam Houston State University, TX, internationalization has helped him develop a long-term relationship with an institution in Costa Rica, and become a better advisor to U.S. and international students. And for Glenn Kist of Rochester Institute of Technology, a professor of history who went to Argentina, Chile, and Brazil, internationalization has meant developing vast quantities of topical course content in a short time for his Latin American history courses and broadening his awareness of study abroad opportunities for students back home.

The seminars are designed to be short and intense. (Payne sees the seminars as a good way to assist faculty who have heavy teaching loads achieve their research objectives.) That is their strength and their weakness. The individual participant must make the effort to process the experience to his or her own benefit and for the larger campus. Sekhon calls the seminars a catalyst rather than a product.

For some, the chemistry with other academics on the seminar is of primary benefit. Payne formed an association with another member of his cohort that has blossomed into collaboration on research and grant applications. He was able to expand his relationship with the Costa Rican host institution, the Monteverde Institute, into a visiting lecturer position and place research assistants there.

---

For further information about the Academic Leader newsletter, see: www.magnapubs.com 
Subscription and submission information at dharvill@magnapubs.com. 

---

If you have questions regarding application, contact the International Faculty Development Seminars at 1-800-40-STUDY.

 

Structural Reform and the 1999's:
A Comparative Study and Synthesis of Faculty Development and Exchange

---

Submitted by:
Dr. Jackie Murray Brux
Professor of Economics
University of Wisconsin-River Falls

March 1, 2000

This paper is a comparative analysis of three countries undergoing structural (economic) reform. It is the result of comparative research, professional exchange with international faculty, and participation in short-term international faculty development seminars in Chile (1992), Vietnam (1996), and Ghana (1998). ¹ It demonstrates the value of international education and exchange for university faculty.

STRUCTURAL REFORM

The term structural reform is used interchangeably here with the term economic reform. The term is used broadly to represent a mix of policies designed to foster a transition from a socialist or government controlled economy to one more amenable to the market place. While structural reforms have been most publicized in the formerly socialist economies of Eastern and Central Europe, they have also been adopted in varying degrees by the majority of the less developed countries (LDCs) of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Phases of Reform

Often there are three distinct, but interdependent phases of structural reform. First, a "stabilization" phase reflects efforts to bring under control various macroeconomic indicators, principally inflation rates and balance of payment deficits. Policy in a second phase seeks to alter the underlying "structure" of the economy, in terms of a shift from government controlled prices to market determined ones, from government owned enterprises to privatized ones, and from protectionist trade policies to liberalized ones. A third and final stage envisions a transformation of not just the economy, but a broader "transformation" whereby corruption and mismanagement are reduced, direct foreign investment encouraged, infrastructure improved, and the social sector developed. In many cases, elements of these three phases overlap and take place simultaneously.

The History Behind Reform

For much of the less developed world, the embrace of structural reforms was not necessarily a voluntary one. As a result of rising prices of oil and other imports in the 1970s, coupled with LDC desires for modernization and encouraged by low interest rates and abundant "petrodollars" available for borrowing, many developing countries took on sizeable debt during the time period. While some of the borrowed funds went into productive use, much was used to raise domestic consumption levels, to finance grandiose and inefficient modernization schemes, to line the coffers of corrupt government officials and their cronies, and to leave the country in the form of capital flight. To make a bad situation worse, worldwide recession in the early 1980s, along with rising U.S. interest rates, increased value of the dollar, and declining terms of trade for LDC commodities made debt service obligations of indebted developing countries an impossible burden. Moratoria and default on debt service became a pattern, and the financial affairs of indebted LDCs collapsed. ²

After a series of plans and programs directed by the U.S. and other Western governments and in consultation with debt-owning commercial banks and international organizations, a pattern of agreements negotiated on a country-by-country basis emerged. It is these agreements, now principally under the domain of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that form the basis of the structural adjustment programs and policies that are creating the epoch-reaching transition to market determined economies that we see in the less developed world today. Each individual country is different, however, with differing reform packages and varying degrees of success. This is evident in the three case studies that follow.

THE SEMINARS

Three international faculty development seminars, all sponsored by the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE) and hosted by foreign institutions at various times during the 1990s, form the basis for the case studies. In each case, the foreign institutions provided faculty speakers, written material, and opportunities for collegial exchange. CIEE and directors of the seminars also arranged for many additional expert speakers, site visits, and additional materials. The speakers cited in this paper represent just a portion of the total number of excellent speakers in each of the seminars.

THE CASE STUDIES

The three countries chosen as case studies—Chile, Vietnam, and Ghana— represent an array of the variation in LDC structural reform. While they differ widely in terms of their geography, history, culture, and politics, they also share many similarities in their economic reform packages and contend with many similar issues. And while not necessarily representative, they do encompass the three less developed regions of Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

CHILE

Visitors to Santiago, the capital city of Chile, are struck by the incredible amounts of air pollution, congestion, traffic, and busyness of the Chilean population. Surprisingly, not too many examples of poverty abound. It takes a more fervent investigator to find the tremendous poverty that lies behind the scenes, literally behind the walls of the slums outside of the city. Chile is truly a country with a wide barrier between rich and poor.

Of the three countries under consideration, Chile has the highest level of GNP per capita (gross national product, or roughly income, per person, on average) at $4,810 in 1998. ³ It is one of the leading industrial nations in Latin America, and also exports fruit, wheat, and other products. Chile is a fascinating case study in terms of its recent political and economic history. And while leaders of all political parties agree that Chile grew rapidly under its period of structural reforms, they differ widely as to the nature and distribution of the benefits of this economic growth.

Background

1960s-early 1970s. Under the Presidency of Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei (1964-1970), Chile forged ahead with modernization while attempting to placate the left with its reformist policies. Both the rightist parties and the United States Central Intelligence Agency had been instrumental in Frei’s election. Under Frei, Chile received massive doses of U.S. foreign aid; after all, Chile was a ‘model’ country in terms of keeping the left at bay. Ultimately, Frei and the Christian Democrats alienated both the left and right, and in 1970, leftist Salvador Allende was elected President. Allende tried to implement a social revolution without major backing from Congress. His policies of import substitution industrialization ⁴ , nationalization, and heavy borrowing and printing of money tore apart both the Chilean society and economy. A military regime under the leadership of Augusto Pinochet ousted Allende in 1973. ⁵

Middle 1970s-1980s. The Pinochet era (1973-1990) was a period of reform and repression. Human rights violations flourished, including execution and torture, and particularly targeting the poor, organized labor, journalists, and educators. (Social science programs in the universities were shut down, and university administrations were replaced by the military. A whole generation of social scientists, as well as social science research, was lost, creating an eerie academic emptiness that is still felt today.) Politically, Pinochet’s agenda was to destroy political parties and the party system. Economically, students of the ‘Chicago School of Economics’ were brought in to dismantle import substitution industrialization, restore nationalized enterprises to their private owners, privatize state institutions, eliminate most social programs, and generally embrace structural reforms. Indeed, Chile has experienced the longest history of economic reform in all of Latin America. Most agree that while economic performance was good, Chilean society suffered immeasurably under the brutal rule of Pinochet.

Late 1980s-1990s. In 1988, a plebiscite was held to determine whether Pinochet should continue to rule as President for the next eight years. A majority ‘no vote’ set the stage for new elections in 1989. Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin was democratically elected, and began his four-year term in 1990. Aylwin’s center-left coalition government ended when Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei, son of former President Eduardo Frei, was elected as President, beginning a six-year term in 1994.

The New Millennium. New elections in the year 2000 validated the process of Chilean democracy, and ushered in a socialist president by the name of Ricardo Lagos. With the pledge of reducing income inequality and poverty, Chile may well become the leader of a new Latin American movement to restore social justice to the region.

The Seminar

With the end of military rule as the backdrop, the 1992 faculty seminar entitled "Chile After Pinochet: The Challenges of Reestablishing Democracy" was hosted by the Catholic University of Chile in Santiago and directed by Dr. Arturo Valenzuela, a leading expert on Chilean politics.⁶ The seminar afforded ample opportunity to examine the structural reforms in the context of the newly elected democratic regime.

According to Valenzuela in his opening remarks, Chile’s political system with its coalition government is an exception to the typical two-party system in much of Latin America. Under a coalition government, the views of all political parties are important, and politics intertwines with economics. Furthermore, whereas the rightist and leftist parties in much of Latin America are somewhat similar to each other, Chile’s multi-party system has sharply differing political parties. Despite Pinochet’s objective to do away with the party system, most Chileans seem very attached to the notion of political parties. As with much of Latin America, political parties are important factors in the student movement, unions, professional organizations, and many other facets of society.

The Center

Genaro Arrigada, the National Secretary for the Christian Democratic Party, was responsible for aligning the ‘no vote’ to end the leadership of Augusto Pinochet. His description of the ‘middle of the road’ policies with respect to economic growth and the needs of the poor place the political persuasion of the Christian Democratic Party somewhere in the center. Arrigada stated that he is conservative with respect to macroeconomic growth and structural reform. He is pleased with the low fiscal deficits and low inflation, and believes that reliance on the market place is the way to improve the economy. Nevertheless, unlike Pinochet, Arrigada believes that the state should take responsibility in providing education, health care, infrastructure, and policies designed to meet the needs of the poor. He argued that close to half of the nation’s poor cannot be helped through economic growth alone and depend on the state for help. Poverty is rising and there is extreme income inequality, both of which can be reduced via government policy. Assistance programs should be targeted to small entrepreneurs and the poor, retraining should be provided for displaced coal miners and agricultural workers, taxes should be restructured to improve income distribution, and the government should invest more heavily in education, health care, and other services, especially for the poor and for rural residents.

The Right

The Independent Democratic Union Party (UDI), represented by Hernan Larrarn, is clearly to the right of the Christian Democratic Party. It had its beginnings in the early 1960s at the Catholic University with students concerned that the country was headed to socialism. The UDI, along with students of the ‘Chicago School of Economics’, promoted freedom, private enterprise, and minimal state intervention in the economy. The UDI is dedicated to leading a new popular movement to defeat communist and socialist elements within Chile’s government. Larrarn supports government subsidies for people to choose private health care and vouchers for parents to choose schools for their children. The government should play an important role in developing research and infrastructure, though environmental problems should be solved through the private sector. Larran supports an immediate elimination of tariffs and a program of export-led growth, with emphasis on diversification. He believes that privatization is the way to create economic growth and that a focus on equity cannot achieve such growth. He sums up the rightist position by stating that "The first way to help the poor is through economic development; we must increase the size of the ‘torta’ rather than redistribute the slices."

The Left

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Communist Party of Chile focuses more on equity and redistribution than on economic growth. Jaime Insunza, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, argued that while there is an important role for the market place in the economy, it should not hold the prominent place. The structural reforms have created much hardship, and there is a need for much more government planning and involvement in the economy. Of particular concern are the large numbers of youth who are not in the school system, the youth in poorer community schools and isolated areas with very poor education, the poor who are heavily burdened with taxes, the indigenous people whose rights have been denied, other small landholders who have lost their land, the large share of the labor force that must work overtime in the informal sector in order to receive adequate incomes, the seasonal agricultural workers who find work only during part of the year, the large number of workers who receive declining real minimum wages, and the many workers who have been displaced from their jobs.

Insunza argued for a new left social movement encompassing the redistribution of income, nationalization and ‘transnationalization’ (of foreign enterprises), sustainable development, the rights of people, job training and increased wages, reduced spending for the military, and greater government regulation. He also maintains that Chile should initiate the second phase of export promotion, contributing more value added rather than continued export of raw natural resources. He summarized his party’s concern for the poor by referring to an earlier statement of Central Committee members that "God created the world equally, but governments divided it up unequally". There is a lack of solidarity in Chilean society and too much individualism. Under current policy, conditions will only worsen.

In Addition

In addition to these four speakers, there were also meetings with the U.S. Ambassador to Chile and the Director of the National War Academy. There were additional presentations made by Catholic University faculty, representatives of the Ford Foundation, and other government and party officials. The President of the Chamber of Deputies presided over a visit to Congress in session with the President’s chief of staff and budget director present. A presentation by Roberto Mendez of the public opinion survey firm of Adimark indicated that over 80% of the Chilean population is optimistic regarding the economy, which is the highest ever recorded. The Chilean people’s political identification, as of August 1992, was approximately 23% on the right, 22% in the center, 31% on the left, and 24% independent. Mendez argued that capitalist views are replacing the 1960s-early 1970s ideology that opposed free markets.

Finally, I was graced with a tour by a delightful intelligent woman of the base community in Pudahuel, a poor ‘barrio’ on the outskirts of Santiago. Through the openness and generosity of her and her friends and neighbors, I received first-hand accounts of the conditions of poverty, limitations of government help, and self-help initiatives of the slum residents themselves.

VIETNAM

Vietnam is pursuing a largely successful transition from a centrally planned economic system to one that is more amenable to the market. The term that is used by the Vietnamese is ‘doi moi’, or ‘renovation’. The changes are most evident to outsiders in the flow of Western business into the country since the thaw of the cold war and the easing of relations with the West. However, visitors to Vietnam can’t help but notice the energy of its people. People are up before sunrise, urban shops open at daybreak, and bicycles and motorcycles compete with cars and cyclos (bicycle-driven passenger vehicles) along crowded urban streets.

The poorest of the three countries under consideration, Vietnam’s low GNP per capita ($330 in 1998) places the country among the poorest countries of the world. The industrial and service sectors of the economy have been growing, but agriculture still represents a significant share of the economy, and the majority of the labor force works in agriculture. Crops include rice, cassava, coffee, and forestry products. Thus, it is not surprising that Vietnam’s population is primarily rural, in contrast to the heavily urbanized population of Chile. The predominance of the rural sector is typical for many South and Southeast Asian countries, such as Thailand, Cambodia, and Bangladesh, as well as sub-Saharan African countries such as Ghana.

Background

While U.S. citizens think of the War in Vietnam when they conceptualize the country, the Vietnamese have a much longer history of colonization and warfare. Nationalistic efforts to remove first the Chinese and then the French and the Japanese led to a period of struggle for national independence from 1945 to 1975, as well as a communist government and reunification of the country in 1975.⁷ The Vietnamese victory in the American war (1968–1975), as the Vietnamese refer to it, presented a favorable context for the Vietnamese people to rebuild their country and to try to catch up to the economic progress of the rest of the world. However, the shortcomings of the socialist industrial model soon became evident.⁸

Doi Moi

Like Chile before it, Vietnam is pursuing a transition to a market-based economy. Unlike Chile, Vietnam has a far more extensive background of socialism, which continues despite many reforms. And, in contrast to the transition from socialism in much of Eastern and Central Europe, the reform process in Vietnam has focused on economic change, rather than a combination of economic and political reform. While the Vietnamese government is still dominated by the Communist Party, many feel that the extensive and successful economic reforms that have taken place have set the stage for at least modest political change.

The Seminar

With this background, the 1996 faculty seminar in Vietnam, entitled "Contemporary Vietnam: Recovery, Renewal, and Recognition" provided an excellent opportunity to better understand the Vietnamese process of economic reform, along with its achievements and its continued needs. The seminar was hosted by the Vietnam-USA Society, along with its Vice Director Mr. Vu Xuan Hong and Mr. Hoang Cong Thuy. The Vietnam-USA Society was founded in 1945 as the first bilateral friendship organization in Vietnam. The program was directed by Doan Ngoc Diep, Administration Director of the Council Study Center in Hanoi (in care of the Quaker Service).⁹

1986–1989: Agricultural Reform

Vietnam’s first systematic program of economic reform began in the agricultural sector in 1986. The initial policies focused on changes in land tenure, liberalization (decontrol) of farm prices, and removal of regulations on sales of agricultural output. Prior to this, production had taken place on collective farms, and agriculture was heavily taxed through a combination of price controls and restrictions on procurement. Peasant households are now recognized by policy makers as independent economic units allocated with stable, long-term land use rights, with freedom to transfer, exchange, mortgage, or lease the land. The peasants may now also decide what to produce and whether to sell their produce on the market.

Dr. Luu Trong Hieu is the Director of International Programs and the Director of Research at the University of Agriculture and Forestry, Thu Duc, in Ho Chi Minh City. According to Dr. Hieu, the initial reform of the farm sector led to important successes. Higher farm prices and the deregulation of farm sales created incentives for production, and agricultural output climbed. Average paddy yields increased from about 2.1 tons per hectare in 1980 to 3.6 tons per hectare in 1994, and land under paddy cultivation increased by 600,000 hectares. Vietnam went from being a large importer of rice to being the third largest world exporter of rice in just a few years. The same agricultural reforms led to higher incomes of farmers, and a drop in poverty rates in the rural sector.

One aspect that eased the transition from communal farming to family farming is the labor-intensive nature of Vietnamese farming. (Theoretically, it is more difficult to make the shift under a capital-intensive farming system, as in Russia.) Despite this labor-intensity, efficiency gains in the agricultural sector enabled expanded farm output while still freeing up farm labor to move into industrial and service jobs. Nevertheless, according to Hieu, "the future performance of the (agricultural) sector will be the main influence on living standards… (it) will be the mainstay for rising real wages, increasing employment, and alleviating poverty".

1989–1990s: Generalized Economic Reforms

Economic reforms accelerated and spread to the non-farm sectors in 1989. According to Professor Vu Dinh Cu, an expert on renovation in Vietnam, additional reforms envision the following:

• the decontrol of most product prices,  
• an increase in real interest rates,  
• a unified exchange rate and devalued currency,  
• reduced regulations on trade and investment,  
• the encouragement of new private business, including joint ventures of foreign and domestic partners with the Vietnamese government,  
• the elimination of subsidies to many state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and the streamlining of their operations, and  
• monetary restriction and reform of the banking and tax systems.

The most prominent of the liberalization policies was the 1989 decontrol of prices (agricultural prices having been already decontrolled). The Vietnamese refer to this as "a single system of prices" (as opposed to a "two price system" of official and unofficial prices). Price decontrol occurred rapidly on most of the remaining commodities. (Exceptions include power, postal services, water, cement, and fertilizers.) The policies to decontrol interest rates and currency values were also very important in improving domestic savings rates and export levels respectively.

While product price liberalization occurred very quickly, Vietnam is taking a slower pace toward privatization. According to Professor Cu, some sixty thousand small and medium-sized private businesses had been created by 1996, and according to the World Bank, over 800,000 small private businesses were established by 1998. However, it is also true that the state continues to own a large share of the nation’s enterprises, particularly the industrial ones. Indeed, the pattern of privatization is one that is unique to Vietnam, and is referred to as "a multi-sector economy" (with private and government sectors). It is a cautious approach, with the goal of avoiding the massive unemployment created in other transition economies. It retains an important role for the state, and emphasizes competitiveness over privatization.

Like the agricultural reforms, this second phase of Vietnamese reform was also successful, but not without some temporary hardship. According to the World Bank, the rapid elimination of subsidies and the streamlining of SOEs that took place in this second phase resulted in the loss of five thousand Vietnamese enterprises. (Three thousand of these were merged to other state firms, and two thousand actually shut down.) As a result, some 900,000 workers (one-third of all industrial workers) lost their jobs during the time period 1988 to 1992. However, many workers were given financial allowances to facilitate their search for new jobs. And, jobs were quickly restored by the rapidly expanding private economy, enabling output to expand dramatically. Much of this expansion was in the labor-intensive manufactured goods in which Vietnam has a comparative advantage, and efficiency was enhanced in both privately owned and state-owned enterprises.

1990s: The Environment

Dr. Le Thac Can of the Hanoi National University believes that environmental degradation is rapidly becoming a serious problem in Vietnam. In terms of natural resources, deforestation has been occurring at a rate of 1.4 percent per year over 1990 to 1995. According to an article by Dr. Can and his colleague Vo Quy, ¹⁰ "Deforestation has led to serious impacts on water resources, soil erosion, loss of wildlife, and deterioration of landscape and climatic factors". The United Nations and others have been financing reforestation efforts, and reforestation has been occurring at a rate over 100,000 hectares per year during the 1990s.

According to Dr. Can, several other efforts are underway to reduce environmental degradation, including policies to address the problem of rural-urban migration. With major cities becoming ever larger, Can believes that rural development and lower urban/rural salary differentials are necessary to encourage rural people to stay in the countryside. Programs of rural development would include rural credit, commercial income-generating opportunities, provision of water, and development of transportation infrastructure to link rural villages to urban markets. All of these should improve rural conditions and thereby encourage rural residents to remain where they are.

Many of the programs indicated above are receiving help from the United Nation’s children’s program (UNICEF), the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and various non-government organizations. According to Can and Quy, "Internal efforts combined with this external assistance are creating favorable conditions for the implementation of sustainable development in Vietnam."

In addition

In addition to these speakers, there were also lectures on Vietnam’s art, music, and ethnic minorities. There were also very informative visits to the Peace Village, an institution where children affected by dioxin (Agent Orange) are given care and medical treatment, plus several museums and other site visits. Also, a meeting with a representative of the Vietnam Office of the World Bank proved very informative about Vietnam’s programs of structural reform.

GHANA

Like Vietnam, Ghana is one of the poorest countries of the world. Its 1998 GNP per capita of $390 places it well below Chile and slightly above Vietnam. Like Vietnam, the country is heavily agricultural, and most workers are in the agricultural sector. Subsistence food consists of maize, plantains, rice, yams, millet, cassava, and peanuts. Cash crops include cocoa and cocoa products (representing forty-five percent of all exports), timber products, coconut and other palm products, shea nuts, and coffee. Despite the significance of the agricultural sector, Ghana’s industrial base is relatively advanced, at least in comparison with the poorest of the sub-Saharan African countries. Import-substitution industries include textiles, steel, tires, oil refining, simple consumer goods, and vehicle assembly. As in Chile and Vietnam, the people of Ghana are energetic and entrepreneurial, and the nation is struggling to develop under a package of structural reforms.

Like Chile, Ghana is a country with inconsistencies and inequality. Unlike Chile, Ghana’s poor sit side by side of the rich. Extravagant homes are built next to squalid slums. Exquisite hotels stand next to the homeless. Poor children who should be in school accost wealthy tourists in an effort to sell some items for money. The same entrepreneurial spirit that dominates the Chilean and Vietnamese economies holds true for Ghana as well.

Background

Ghana’s history is a fascinating drama of alternating economic policies. Portuguese traders arrived in present day Ghana in 1471, exploiting the area’s gold and establishing headquarters for their slave trade. Great Britain took control of Ghana is 1874, and ruled the colony until 1957. At this time of independence, Ghana was the richest country in sub-Saharan Africa and had the most educated population. Kwame Nkrumah was the nation’s leader for the nine year time period after independence, and he moved the economy away from a relatively market-oriented one to a socialist one with state ownership, import substitution policies, and export taxes. Nkrumah was overthrown in a military coup in 1966 and the nation’s economy alternated between liberalized and socialist policies until a military coup in 1979 once again changed the economic and political situation in Ghana. Under the leadership of Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings, the nation turned to liberalized policies by December 1981, with the first structural adjustment program introduced in 1983 and followed by a second adjustment program in 1986. The structural reforms continue today, and may or may not be affected by the new elections for President to be held in the year 2000. ¹¹

The Seminar

The 1998 faculty development seminar, entitled "Ghana and the Dynamics of Economic Development", was hosted by the University of Ghana in Legon under the leadership of Dr. Michael Williams. Dr. Williams is the Resident Director of the Council Study Center at the University of Ghana. A major portion of the seminar focused on Ghana’s structural reforms.¹²

Economic Crisis

Dr. Kwesi Jonah and Dr. J.R.A. Ayee of the Department of Political Science and Dr. Osei Barfour of the Department of Economics, all at the University of Ghana, are experts in Ghana’s structural reform. According to Dr. Jonah, the Ghanaian economy was in a state of total collapse just prior to the structural reforms. Productive activity had largely ceased. Farmers had plowed under their cocoa trees and produced for subsistence instead of cash. Exports, including cocoa, plummeted. Timber production stopped entirely, since equipment was no longer available to cut and transport the trees. Raw materials, spare parts, and machinery were unavailable for manufacturing production. Both locally produced and imported consumer goods and petroleum were scarce. There were huge budget deficits and soaring inflation rates. Unemployment and underemployment were high. There was a thriving black market for dollars and a very high debt service ratio. Ghana stopped payment on its debt at the height of the crisis. There was literally no direct foreign investment and very limited foreign aid. Not just the economy, but the entire state of affairs in Ghana had collapsed. The state no longer had control and illegal activities freely flourished. Most of the causes of the crisis were economic, including huge numbers of largely inefficient SOEs, a government unable to collect taxes, poor infrastructure, price controls, an over-valued currency, and few incentives for agricultural cash crop production. The time was ripe for reform.

Structural Adjustment

According to Dr. Jonah, the objectives of Ghana’s structural adjustment policies were as follows:

• A reduction in inflation through fiscal and monetary policies.  
• A reduction in balance of payment deficits and management of international debt.  
• The resumption of production incentives and increased availability of consumer goods.  
• The restructuring of state-owned enterprises and banks.  
• An increase in direct foreign investment into top priority sectors of the economy.  
• An improvement in infrastructure, including roads.  
• The recovery of the social sector, especially education.

Price Reform

Among the most important of the reforms have been the resumption of production incentives and the expansion of exports resulting from liberalized prices. Dr. Jonah reported that administered prices on eighty-three different goods were removed during the first phase of reform, and prices of many agricultural products are now determined in the free market. Also, Ghana’s currency (the cedi) was devalued and became fully convertible in several steps from 1983–1990. By the second phase of reform, Ghanaian citizens were allowed to exchange currency legally, thereby destroying the previously thriving black market.

Conspicuously absent from price reform is Ghana’s cocoa prices. Cocoa prices continue to be administered, and are well below market levels. Furthermore, fertilizer price increases have been relatively larger than food price increases, creating difficulties for farmers.

Privatization

Privatization has also been an important aspect of Ghana’s structural reform. Dr. K.A. Tutu, an economist at the University of Ghana, is an expert on Ghana’s privatization process. According to Dr. Tutu, privatization was initiated during the first phase of structural reforms, and was expanded to a large number of SOEs during the second phase. Still, by the beginning of the Public Enterprise Reform Project in 1988, Ghana had about 329 SOEs, employing over 240,000 people. To date, a little over 170 of these 329 enterprises have been privatized. Almost all of the remaining SOEs are slated for privatization.

As a result of the privatization, employment in Ghana has fallen by an average of 25 percent. Many of the SOEs have been purchased by foreigners, and many Ghanaians feel that given the stage of Ghana’s social and economic development, basic enterprises (such as water, electricity, roads, railways, airports, harbors, and telecommunications) should not be privatized.

Some of the privatized enterprises remain extremely inefficient. For example, Ghana Airways is now privatized, but has had a reputation for altering its schedule, making additional stops, and ignoring scheduled stops. The faculty seminar participants experienced a not uncommon four-hour delay going one way on Ghana Airways, and a forty-hour delay going the other way!

Social Programs

Dr. Nana Apt is the Chair and Senior Lecturer of the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana. According to Dr. Apt, Ghana’s social problems include ethnic and religious conflicts, family breakdown (including alcoholism, drug abuse, and poor mental and physical health), and economic deprivation (especially among street and abandoned children, the homeless, and the aged). She argues that women, who are "the movers and doers and hard-workers" of society have poor mental health as a result of their lack of control over the income derived from their labor. Dr. Apt is critical of the World Bank, arguing that "Bank policies have not been doing enough to reduce poverty in Ghana". She is also concerned that the structural reforms that have created fees for hospitalization and education erode the well being of the people.

Agriculture and the Environment

Dr. K.A. Senah of the Department of Sociology at the University of Ghana is very knowledgeable about health and education, as well as environmental issues and problems in agriculture. He is concerned about the below-market prices for some of Ghana’s agricultural products, including cocoa, and the fact that farmers have limited access to markets and information, must pay exorbitant interest rates to money lenders, and face chaos in land ownership due to simultaneous multiple forms of ownership. He is also very concerned about problems of deforestation and declining soil fertility, which he believes result from over-grazing, slash and burn farming techniques, commercial timber operations, and urban use of charcoal. He argues that further timber processing, rather than simply export of raw timber, would benefit Ghana and reduce the need for indiscriminant deforestation.

In Addition

In addition to hearing many other important lectures, seminar participants engaged in tours of the castles of Cape Coast and Elmina, as well as other site visits. I am most grateful to the many Ghanaian urban residents who allowed us into their homes and the many residents of rural villages who allowed me to interview them and learn so much more about their every day lives and lifestyles.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Against the backdrop of the seminar experiences, we must now assess the impact of reform through a comparative analysis of data for Chile, Vietnam, and Ghana. It is important to assess both the economic and socioeconomic effects of structural reform, since the economic results do not by themselves measure the final impact of reform on the lives of people. Indeed, if people are not the beneficiaries of structural reform and development, then the purposes of these become irrelevant.

Macroeconomic Indicators

Table 1 compares the three countries in terms of current macro-economic indicators. The first sets of data in Table 1 simply reaffirm that GNP per capita is highest in Chile and lowest in Vietnam and Ghana, and that Vietnam and Ghana are heavily agricultural. ¹³ As shares of gross domestic product (GDP), gross domestic investment and gross domestic saving are relatively high in Chile and Vietnam, and relatively low in Ghana. Exports as a share of GDP are very high in Vietnam, and relatively low in the two other countries. While Vietnam’s debt is relatively high, its debt service ratio (debt service relative to export earnings), which is the best measure of debt burden, is very low. The debt service ratios in Chile and Ghana are relatively high.

The data below can be summarized by noting that Ghana tends to be the worse off of the three countries in terms of investment, saving, and international trade and finance. Vietnam seems to be doing better than its GNP per capita would suggest, whereas Chile may be doing somewhat worse than expected.

Table 1. Comparative Macroeconomic Indicators, 1998*
Annual Percentage Values Chile Vietnam Ghana

GNP per capita,	$ 4,810,330,390
Agricultural Output/GDP	8 26 37 %
Industrial Output/GDP	35 31 25 %
Gross Domestic Investment/GDP	27 29 23 %
Gross Domestic Saving/GDP	22 21 13 %
Exports of Goods and Services/GDP	25 46 27 %
External Debt ($ billion), 1997	31.4 21.6 6.0 %
Debt Service Ratio, 1995	25.7 5.2 23.1 %

* Most recently available. If not 1998, the year is shown separately.

Source: World Bank, World Development Report (NY: Oxford University Press, selected issues)

Table 2 shows the effects of reform more clearly by displaying the average annual growth rates of macroeconomic variables over the two time periods 1980–1990 and 1990–1998. While economic growth (growth in GDP) was solid in the earlier time period for all three countries, it was particularly high since 1990 in Chile and Vietnam. This is especially remarkable for Vietnam, given the continued trade limitations with the U.S., the loss of Soviet assistance since the end of the Cold War, and the Asian economic crisis that has created havoc throughout the Asian economies. Industrial growth in Vietnam is particularly note-worthy over the recent time period. Export growth is now more rapid in Chile and Ghana, and is remarkable in Vietnam. Finally, while all three countries exhibit inflation rates in or near the double digits (see growth in the GDP deflator), the Vietnam data inflation reductions are nothing short of amazing.

To summarize, we can say that once again, Vietnam appears to be performing particularly well in terms of the macroeconomic variable growth rates, with Chile and Ghana merely doing well.

Table 2. Comparative Average Annual Growth Rates of Macroeconomic Indicators, 1980–1990 and 1990–1997

Average Annual Rate of Growth of: 1980-1990 1990-1998

Country	GDP	Agricultural Value Added	Industry Value Added	Exports	GDP Deflator
Chile	4.2% 7.9 %	5.9% 5.2%	3.5% 6.8%	6.9% 9.8%	20.7% 9.4%
Ghana	3.0% 4.2%	1.0% 2.8%	3.3% 4.4%	2.5% 10.2%	42.1% 28.6%
Vietnam	4.6% 8.6%	4.3% 5.1%	n/a 13.3%	n/a 27.7%	210.8% 19.7%

Source: World Bank, World Development Report (NY: Oxford University Press, selected issues)

Socioeconomic Indicators

Table 3 displays socioeconomic indicators for the three countries. We see from the data that Chile and Vietnam have very high literacy rates, for women as well as men. This comes as no surprise for Chile, given its high level of GNP per capita. It is very unusual, however, for a country as poor as Vietnam to have such high literacy rates, and especially such high literacy rates for women. The very low literacy rates we see for Ghana are much more typical for very low-income countries, particularly those countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It is troubling to witness such low literacy rates for Ghana, given the very high levels of education reported in the past. Also, many people in Vietnam are concerned that school fees and other results of structural reforms may reduce literacy rates in years to come.

The life expectancy that we see in Chile is probably lower than we would expect of a relatively high-income country. The low life expectancy in Ghana is better than most sub-Saharan African countries, and as with literacy rates, Vietnam has a relatively high life expectancy. Once again, many Vietnamese people are concerned that health care fees resulting from structural reforms may ultimately harm the health of the nation, and result in lower life expectancies and higher mortality rates.

Table 3. Comparative Socioeconomic Indicators, most recent available year; 1980, 1990, and 1997; and percentage change from 1980–1997.

Country	Adult Literacy Rate (%)	Adult Female Literacy Rate (%)	Life Expectancy at Birth
Chile	95	95	75
Ghana	67	57	73
Vietnam	92	89	60

MRA *

1980 1997 1980–97 change

Country	Under-Five Mortality Rate (per 1,000 births)	Fertility Rate	Gini Coefficient **
Chile	35 13 -63%	2.8 2.4 -14%	(1994) 56.5
Ghana	157 102 -35%	6.5 4.9 -25%	(1997) 32.7
Vietnam	105 40 -62%	5.0 2.4 -52%	(1993) 35.7

* Most recent available year, 1996 or 1997.
** Based on income for Chile, expenditure for Vietnam and Ghana, most recent available year.

Source: World Bank, or calculations based on World Bank, World Development Report (NY: Oxford University Press, selected issues)

In terms of child (under-five) mortality rates, the numbers are relatively low for Chile, as one would expect, and relatively high for Ghana, as one would also expect. Once again, Vietnam has a much lower child mortality rate than is typical for such low-income countries. Percentage-wise, the greatest declines over 1980 to 1997 are in Chile and Vietnam.

Also, we see that while fertility rates are still high in Ghana (in absolute as well as relative terms), the Vietnamese fertility rates have declined by the largest percentage among the three countries since 1980. The fertility rates in Vietnam and Chile are both relatively low as of 1997.

Finally, the Gini coefficient is a measure of income distribution, ranging from zero to 100. While not directly comparable between countries, the Gini coefficient for Chile is very high, indicating a very unequal income distribution. The Gini coefficients for Vietnam and Ghana are relatively low indicating a much more equal income distribution. (For comparison, the Gini coefficient for the United States is 40.1.) The Gini coefficients indicate one reason why living standards are lower than one would expect in the relatively high-income country of Chile, while living standards are higher than one would expect in the other two countries, particularly Vietnam. At the same time, many people in Ghana and Vietnam are concerned that the structural reforms may increase income inequality in their countries, with the rural and the indigenous people likely becoming worse off.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the research and seminar experiences, I’ve arrived at several conclusions. But first and foremost, I’ve learned that it is one thing to read about structural reforms and study the data, and it is quite another thing to engage in discussion with the foremost experts as well as the everyday citizens of the country under study. Whereas the former stimulates the mind of the researcher, the sights and sounds of the people of a nation touch the heart.

Other conclusions include the following:

• While economic reform can be successful in creating economic growth, there is no guarantee that this growth improves the well being of the masses of people. The Pinochet era in Chile is a case in point.  
• While economic reform can create an improvement in macroeconomic indicators, other social policies and income distribution will also play important roles. Vietnam is a good example of a very poor country achieving high standards of living as a result of social policies and relatively equal income distribution.  
• Structural reforms that are desirable in one country may not be desirable in another. For example, while Chile welcomes privatization to a degree beyond most of the Western industrialized world, Vietnam continues to retain a high degree of ownership by the government.  
• Insofar as structural reforms create hardship for people, targeted government policy is necessary to alleviate this hardship. For example, while correct (market) prices are necessary to create proper incentives, targeted assistance must be provided to low income farmers who pay high input prices and to low-income consumers who cannot afford to buy staples at high market prices. And, while privatization may improve efficiency, it will most likely also result in layoffs of workers who need retraining and interim support. Other vulnerable groups also rely on direct assistance from the government.
  
• There is no doubt in my mind that the international faculty seminars enhance the teaching, enrich the research, and contribute to the life long learning of the university faculty participants. In the case of the 1990s seminars in Chile, Vietnam, and Ghana, this researcher was able to conduct a comparative study of the structural reforms and their impact on people. This would not have been possible otherwise.

ENDNOTES

1. "Chile After Pinochet: The Challenges of Reestablishing Democracy", Council on International Educational Exchange, 1992; "Contemporary Vietnam: Recovery, Renewal, and Recognition", Council on International Educational Exchange, 1996; and "Ghana and the Dynamics of Economic Development", Council on International Educational Exchange, 1998.  
2. For a more detailed summary of debt history, see Brux, Jackie, Professor of Economics, "International Indebtedness", in Frank N. Magill (ed.), Magill’s Survey of Social Science: Economics (Pasadena: Salem Press, October 1991).  
3. Unless otherwise noted, all statistics are from the World Bank, World Development Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999/2000 and earlier editions).  
4. Import substitution industrialization refers to an industrialization strategy based on the production of consumer goods that had formerly been imported, along with heavy trade restrictions to protect the newly developing ‘infant industry’ from foreign competition. Nationalization refers to the government taking ownership of privately owned enterprises.  
5. Many of these political aspects of Chile’s background were discussed by Dr. Arturo Valenzuela, Director, Center for Latin American Studies, Georgetown University; in his opening remarks for the Chile seminar.  
6. References for the Chile seminar, along with their positions at the time of the seminar, include the following:

• Arriagada, Genaro; National Secretary, Christian Democratic Party, Chile  
• Insunza, Jaime; Central Committee Member, Communist Party, Chile  
• Larrarn, Hernan; Representative of the UDI party, Chile  
• Mendez, Roberto; Director, Adimark, Chile  
• Valenzuela, Dr. Arturo; Director, Center for Latin American Studies, Georgetown University

5. The historical context was discussed by History Professor Phan Huy Le of the Hanoi National University, in his introductory lecture entitled "On Vietnamese History" for the Vietnam seminar. Le is also the Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Director of the Center for Vietnamese and Intercultural Studies, and president of the Vietnamese historians Association.  
6. This and some of the material on Vietnam that follows are from the World Bank, World Development Report 1996: From Plan to Market (NY: Oxford University Press, 1996).  
9. References for the Vietnam seminar, along with their positions at the time of the seminar, include the following:

• Can, Dr. Le Thac, Chair of the National Research Program on Environment, Director of the Center for Environment and Sustainable Development, and Professor at the Hanoi National University, Hanoi  
• Cu, Dr. Vu Dinh, Professor, Hanoi National University; Member, National Assembly Standing Committee; Chair, Committee for Science, Technology, and Environment; Hanoi  
• Hieu, Dr. Luu Trong, Director of International Programs and Director of Research, University of Agriculture and Forestry, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City  
• Can, Dr. Le Thac, Chair of the National Research program on the Environment; and Dr. Vo Quy, Director of the Centre for Natural Resource Management and Environmental Studies at the University of Hanoi, "Vietnam: Environmental Issues and Possible Solutions", Asian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, November 1994.

10. Jackie Brux, "Economic Reform in Ghana", presented at the Third World Studies Conference, Omaha, Nebraska, October 1998; and Michael McCully, Professor of Economics, Highpoint University, North Carolina, "A Structural Analysis of Food Security in Ghana", Diss. (Ann Arbor, UMI, 1989).
    
    
11. References for the Ghana seminar, along with their positions at the time of the seminar, include the following:

• Apt, Dr. Nana, Chair and Senior Lecturer of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon  
• Ayee, Dr. J.R.A., Chair and Senior Lecturer of Political Science, University of Ghana, Legon  
• Barfour, Dr. Osei, Department of Economics, University of Ghana, Legon  
• Jonah, Dr. Kwesi, Senior Lecturer of Political Science, University of Ghana, Legon  
• Senah, Dr. K.A., Department of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon  
• Tutu, Dr. K.A., Lecturer of Economics, University of Ghana, Legon

10. While agricultural output as a share of GDP is only 26% in Vietnam, this is still a relatively high value, since the labor share in agricultural output tends to be much higher than the agricultural output share in GDP in LDCs.

Current Research on Council's Faculty Seminars

---

A Decade of Experience: Data from the Council on International Educational Exchange’s International Faculty Development Seminars


By Bethany S. Oberst, Ph.D.
Professor of Modern Languages
Executive Director, International Programs
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22801 USA

(Published in the Fall 1999 issue of the Journal of Studies in International Education)

The news wasn’t surprising for those who have long suspected that American faculty are not exceptionally international or global. "Internationalism and Insularity," a recent article in Change, documents disturbing facts. "…The American professoriate is the least committed to internationalism. A little more than half of the American respondents feel that connections with scholars in other countries are very important." "American faculty were . . . indifferent about further internationalizing the curriculum with only 45 percent agreeing that it should be done." "The data also show that 65 percent of American academics . . . did not go abroad for study or research in the past three years."

The report is especially worrisome in light of the current rhetoric of U.S. higher education, claiming in mission statements and strategic planning documents that globalization is a priority. But what sparked, in part, this article, was the conclusion that the authors of "Internationalism and Insularity" draw: "What is needed are programs, -- both governmentally and privately funded -- that promote faculty . . . exchange." Those of us who have advocated sending more faculty abroad in hopes of promoting a more internationalized (or at least less parochial) curriculum, will probably endorse the authors’ conclusion. However, governmentally and privately funded programs promoting various kinds of international faculty development have been around for some time. What do we know about international faculty development? Are American higher education policies and structures supportive of such activities? Are the people we send prepared to take advantage of such opportunities? Are the opportunities themselves structured in such a way as to foster intellectual growth? Is there any evidence that international faculty development initiatives have made an impact on the curriculum?

Apart from opinion and advocacy pieces very little has been written about international faculty development. In part this may be due to the lack of commonality in what faculty actually do when sent abroad, regardless of sponsorship. When international faculty development is done, the tendency has been to personalize the experience, building around the individual’s disciplinary or professional expertise or the institutional needs of the sponsoring unit. This may be good for the faculty, but does not yield information upon which to build future efforts. Where can we go to begin to understand the international faculty development process and determine its effects, its context, and its impact?

One rare source of information is the files of the Council on International Educational Exchange’s International Faculty Development Seminars (IFDS). The IFDS program is perhaps the only sustained effort in the United States to provide international faculty development in a consistent format. Since 1990 Council has offered a series of short-term (typically six to ten days) international programs designed exclusively for college and university faculty. Each seminar is organized around a theme such as "Conflict Resolution: On the Threshold of Peace in Northern Ireland," "Sustaining the Masses: Environmental Protection and Economic Development in China," "Russia and the Republics: Union or Disunion?" Typically, the IFDS staff select an educational institution or agency on site to partner with it in presenting the seminar, which consists of lectures, visits, discussions, debates and demonstrations. Participants apply individually to the program, and are asked to outline their learning objectives, but disciplinary expertise in the theme is not required. The IFDS began a decade ago with programs in England, Germany and Poland enrolling 82 faculty. By the end of 1999, a total of 93 programs will have been run in 25 countries, with 1560 participants from 613 colleges and universities.

While program sites and themes have varied over the years, the seminars share a common approach. Faculty are viewed as a unique audience with special needs, both personal and intellectual. The seminars emphasize the advantages of gaining experience abroad over the need to develop an advanced learning agenda for narrow specialists. They recognize that financing such activities is a challenge and attempt to keep costs under control.

Given the need for more solid information about the international faculty development process, it is fortunate that from the start, IFDS leaders have attempted to obtain feedback on the experience from seminar participants. Faculty are asked to complete an evaluation form one the closing day of the seminar, then often a post-seminar survey has been sent to each person six months later.

The data collected from these evaluations and surveys are both "dirty" and "useful." The data are dirty for many reasons: questions changed over time as four directors provided leadership to the program; response rates varied; questions were designed largely for internal program improvement. In addition, there is little consistency in question design, some sets of data were missing from the files, in some cases there are more evaluation forms filled out than enrollment records indicate, and the paper-and-pencil formats encourage hand-written responses that are impressionistic, undecipherable, creative. But this last item reveals why the dirty data are also "useful." Somewhere between Council’s interest in feedback and the participants’ interest in telling Council about their experience can be found some valuable information about one organization’s decade-long efforts to make American faculty more international in outlook.

To make the most of this untidy set of information, I was eclectic in the use of methodologies, citing statistics where available, but not hesitating to report general trends drawn from incomplete or partial data, or to expand upon a few individual responses if they appear to shed light on a significant issue. In addition, I drew upon three decades of experience in American higher education and the experience of attending two IFDS for insight into the seminars and the college and university environment from which the participants come. It is my hope that this approach will provide an honest look at the information coming from those surveys and will also motivate others to learn more about international faculty development.

I. Information Gathering and Response

Over the years, both the evaluations and the post-seminar surveys underwent several transformations. Questions were added and reworded, but seldom subtracted.

Below is a summary of questions posed to participants in one or the other of the questionnaires.

1. How would you rate the overall organization of the seminar?    
2. How would you rate the overall content of the seminar?    
3. What motivated you to participate in an International Faculty Development Seminar?    
4. How has the seminar met your expectations?    
5. Was pre-departure information adequate?    
6. Which session(s) did you find most valuable/interesting?    
7. What session(s) did you find least valuable/interesting?    
8. To what extent were you able to interact with counterparts from the host country/institution? Was such interaction a valuable aspect of the seminar? How do you think contact and exchanges between participants and host faculty could be better facilitated?    
9. Please rate your accommodations.    
10. What publicity channels should CIEE use for the International Faculty Development Seminars? What professional journals or newspapers do you read on a regular basis?    
11. Would you recommend this seminar to a colleague? Why or why not?    
12. Are you willing to be interviewed for an article in a CIEE publication describing this seminar?    
13. My institution is: public; private; two year community or junior college; four year college/university devoted primarily to undergraduate education; research or comprehensive university with graduate programs; other    
14. At the time of my participation, my academic position was: faculty; administrator; in ______ department.    
15. Prior to attending the Council seminar, how much time had you spent abroad?    
16. Please evaluate your seminar experience in terms of its impact on the following: development of new courses; revision of existing courses; development of new research projects; enhancement of ongoing research projects; participation in other study and/or travel abroad programs; overall impact on your professional life.    
17. Apart from your regular teaching, have you given any special lectures or presentations resulting from your seminar experience? To which audiences? On what topics?    
18. What academic activities have resulted from your seminar experience?    
19. Have any new activities been established as a result of contacts made during the seminar? If yes, what type of activity? If no, how can Council and the host institution facilitate new activities?    
20. Did your institution actively support your participation in any of the following ways: funding; encouragement by my dean or department chair; recognizing my participation in the annual salary/merit review; recognizing my participation in tenure or promotion review; arranging opportunities to share my experience upon return; drawing on my participation in curriculum design efforts; supporting presentations at professional conferences or meetings; asking for my input on the development of international programs or exchanges.    
21. Please feel free to share anything else regarding the impact of this faculty development seminar, whether personally or professionally.    
22. How was your seminar financed?    
23. Did you receive funding from your President? Your dean? Your department chair? Your vice provost? Your chief academic advisor? Your office of international education? Other?    
24. How do faculty learn about international development opportunities on your campus?    
25. How did you learn about the seminars?

Table 1 summarizes the seminars by year, by location, indicating enrollment and the number of evaluations and post-seminar surveys which were included in this study.

Occasionally seminars have been cancelled, when world conditions impinge on safety, or when enrollments are not sufficient to run the program economically.

II. Participant profiles

The 1,560 people who have participated in one or more IFDS come from 613 public and private institutions. (The split is 330 public, 283 private.) 85% of the participants are from four-year institutions. 14% are from two-year institutions. In the early years of the seminars there were also a handful of non-traditional participants, from government agencies and from overseas institutions. 85% of the participants are faculty, the rest are administrators. 9% of the participants have attended more than one seminar. Of the faculty attending the 1999 programs, 17% are repeating the experience. Most institutions have sent more than one person. In a commercial sense, this repeat business is a good sign of "customer" satisfaction. For future investigation, it might be interesting to follow up with those institutions that have a tradition of involvement to determine the collective impact on curriculum, research and service.

Those early non-traditional participants suggest an avenue for future program development. Since "triangulation" is a popular concept today, it might make for an even richer experience if the seminars’ predominantly American participant base were expanded to include colleagues from countries other than the program site. At this decade mark in this history of the IFDS, it might also be time to reconsider the one seminar given in the U.S. In 1991 seven people enrolled in a seminar held in Baton Rouge, at Southern University. Evaluations were strong, especially from participants from overseas. An argument can be made that for many people in the U.S., understanding and appreciating differences between regions of their own country represent as big an intellectual challenge as comprehending differences between the U.S. and countries overseas. And certainly there are academics from abroad who would benefit from an IFDS approach to learn about the U.S.

Table 2, listing the disciplines represented in the seminar participants, maps well onto the figures we have about participation of American undergraduate students in study abroad programs. The majority of students going abroad come from the humanities and the social sciences. So it is not surprising that IFDS programs are largely populated by humanists and social scientists. The literature is growing on reasons why students in the sciences, technology and professional programs do not go abroad in large numbers. These reasons include the highly structured nature of the curriculum and the dominance of U.S. science. These IFDS figures reinforce the fact that students in science, technology and professional fields are not surrounded by faculty who themselves are involved in international activities. The long-range implications of this are important and worrisome.

III. Financing

The first cost data available come from 1992, when the lowest cost program was $1000. This fee did not include airfare or incidentals, an arrangement that continues today. In 1999, all programs remain under $2000. Fort purposes of this article, however, rather than looking at program costs over time, it is more interesting to consider how many individual faculty will invest their own money to engage in international faculty development.

Unfortunately, the part of the surveys which address sources of funding and the amount of contribution coming from individual budgetary units within institutions are not well suited to providing detailed, precise or even consistent information. It would be interesting, for example, to see where funding resides, who dispenses it, what formulas govern the amount covered, etc. But it is possible to confirm from scanning the surveys that the majority of faculty respondents have invested a significant amount of money (here defined as over 10% of the total cost of participation) to attend an IFDS. In some cases, participants paid the entire cost themselves. In a few cases, money came from extra-mural grants.

The fact that part of the cost of IDFS participation is regularly covered by faculty may be attributable at least in part to the campus climate. It is a sad fact that international travel remains a hot button to many within U.S. higher education, to say nothing of the suspicion it engenders in public officials outside the academy. It is easier to defend sending a faculty member to an eight-day seminar overseas if the institution is sharing the cost with the participant. We have some way to go until we can say that international projects involving travel will not be subjected to special scrutiny.

An interesting sidelight in this discussion is the discovery that for some faculty who pay their own way, the seminars serve as a vacation. Taking the "busman’s holiday" approach, they confess that they like to travel to interesting places, learn important things, and do it all with congenial academic colleagues.

IV. Impact and rewards

This next part of the article will be of interest to those outside higher education who are interested in outcomes, and to those making the case for or against international faculty development inside a university or college. In both cases, they will ask whether anything happens as a result of sending someone overseas for an intensive period of study.

Information about the impact the seminars had on the professional responsibilities of the faculty participants comes from the post-seminar surveys. Three different sets of questions were asked over the decade, but all revolved around the traditional activities of teaching, research and service.

The first set of surveys came from 66 participants in six seminars offered in 1990 and 1991. Responses to individual questions varied. Two questions were asked, with responses in a "yes, some, no" format.

1. Did the IFDS have an impact on your courses?

Scale	Number	Percentage
Yes	56	92%
Some	3	5%
No	2	3%

2. Did the IFDS have an impact on your research?

Scale	Number	Percentage
Yes	23	39%
Some	7	24%
No	29	49%

These participants also indicated being involved in activities which on most campuses would be classified as "service," including special lectures on and off campus, working with student and faculty exchanges, participation in conferences and seminars.

The second set of surveys came from 107 participants in eight seminars offered in 1991 and 1992, although response rates to individual questions varied. Five questions about impact required responses scaled on five points between "no effect" to "strong effect."

1. What was the effect of the IFDS on the development of new courses?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no effect	35	35%
2	15	15%
3	16	16%
4	14	14%
5 = strong effect	21	21%

2. What was the effect of the IFDS on the revision of existing courses?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no effect	10	10%
2	8	8%
3	19	18%
4	39	37%
5 = strong effect	29	28%

3. What was the effect of the IFDS on the expansion of courses to include an international dimension?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no effect	27	27%
2	9	9%
3	10	10%
4	34	34%
5 = strong effect	21	21%

4. What was the effect of the IFDS on the development of new research?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no effect	33	32%
2	10	10%
3	20	19%
4	21	20%
5 = strong effect	19	18%

5. What was the effect of the IFDS on current research?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no effect	29	28%
2	5	5%
3	23	23%
4	20	20%
5 = strong effect	25	25%

This set of participants also indicated that they published 19 articles, gave 78 lectures or presentations, and established 34 new projects.

The third set of surveys came from 119 participants in 21 seminars offered in 1996 and 1997, although response rates for individual questions varied. Six questions were asked about the impact on teaching, research, service and professional life. Responses came in the form of a four-point scale from "no impact" to "strong impact."

1. What was the impact of the IFDS on the development of new courses?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	46	40%
2	21	18%
3	32	28%
4 = strong impact	14	12%

2. What was the impact of the IFDS on the revision of existing courses?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	7	6%
2	19	16%
3	54	47%
4 = strong impact	36	31%

3. What was the impact of the IFDS on the development of new research?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	31	28%
2	31	28%
3	28	25%
4 = strong impact	20	18%

4. What was the impact of the IFDS on the enhancement of on-going research?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	35	32%
2	24	22%
3	34	31%
4 = strong impact	18	16%

5. What was the impact of the IFDS on your participation in other studies abroad programs?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	31	28%
2	13	11%
3	27	34%
4 = strong impact	29	26%

6. What was the overall impact of the IFDS on your professional life?

Scale	Number	Percentage
1 = no impact	1	1
2	17	15
3	57	49
4 = strong impact	41	35

This entire set of participants also indicated that they were involved in a wide range of other "service" activities, including publications in various places, lectures both on campus and off, and student and faculty exchanges. The data, however, do not lend themselves to summary.

These figures coming from the post-seminar surveys make a strong case for the effectiveness of the seminars in bringing about change in the curriculum and the research agendas of the faculty. The data also show that seminar results overflow into the realm of service to the campus and the community.

The results provoke other questions about what is happening back home to set up expectations of outcomes. In other words, having made the assignment of resources to send a faculty member abroad, how does the sending institution prepare that person for the experience in terms of stating expectations of results? This question goes well beyond the scope of the IFDS surveys, but urgently needs to be answered by individual campuses. Clear workload expectations for faculty, well articulated and applied reward policies, comprehensible promotion and tenure policies, well delineated avenues for significant curricular reform and creativity, open forums for the dissemination of new ideas, orderly access to campus leaders, all these help to create an expectation for significant outcomes from investments in faculty development. In particular, having a clear workload expectation means that if a college pays for a faculty member to attend an IFDS, there will be in writing a negotiated agreement about what will result from that participation in terms of new course development, campus discussions, curriculum assessment, scholarly or creative activities, grant proposals, recruiting or advising activities. And these expectations will be worked out before departure, thus guiding the activities of the participant.

One figure in particular causes us to question the state of readiness of American colleges and universities to implement their commitment to internationalization. In 1996 and 1997, a total of 356 faculty attended a seminar. Of those, 119 filled out a post-seminar survey. Of those 119, only 25 said their participation in the seminar was part of their salary increase or merit review.

V. The Mobil Report

In 1997 and 1998, the Council on International Educational Exchange obtained a grant of $50,000 from the Mobil Foundation, Inc., for fellowships to be awarded to faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. As a follow-up, the consulting firm of Thomas & Associates was asked to report on the impact of the fellowships on the awardees’ campuses. The study was based on interviews with participants and on questionnaires sent to administrators and faculty from the sending campuses. Where the consultant’s questions overlapped the questions included in the IFDS evaluations and surveys, the results were consistent with those reported in this article.

According to the report the seminars had a strong impact on curriculum design and development and on research. Directly attributed to seminar participation are lectures and presentations, publications, increased enrollment by international students, increased interest in study abroad, linkages with overseas institutions, the use of new pedagogical approaches, and enhanced international awareness.

In addition to recommending continued and increased funding for this program, which was deemed very successful, the report’s conclusions focus primarily on the issue of expectations. It recommends that better understanding is needed about what participants are expected to accomplish in scholarly publication, in work with recruiting international students, and in curriculum development.

VI. Observations

This study would not be complete without some discussion of the anecdotal information coming from the surveys.

IFDS participants have been overwhelmingly pleased with their experiences abroad. Time and again faculty, even those well traveled, comment on how delighted they were to have had a chance to learn on site.

Participants come from a broad range of academic disciplines, and because of that, they bring with them quite individualized learning objectives. This has the potential of creating some problems. Experts on a topic are sometimes irritated by the lack of expertise of their colleagues, but generalists can criticize presentations overloaded with details. While reading lists are provided to participants, only in some cases are there expectations that certain materials will be read by everyone prior to the opening of the seminar. For some, site visits to offbeat places (such as a mattress factory in Ankara) play a role in gaining economic and social context. For others, little can be derived from such visits, which appear less relevant to the central theme of the seminar than a lecture or discussion. Tension between the practical and the applied is never absent, with some of the most articulate suggestions for improving the seminars coming from people advocating the inclusion of more non-academics as lecturers.

If we generalize from these surveys, American academics can be a bit finicky about travel accommodations, have only moderate tolerance for temporary discomfort and are keenly aware of time. Survey questions about food and lodging frequently evoke impassioned paragraphs about hotels, although less about food. The organizational aspects of a seminar – particularly a new seminar - in a country less accustomed to welcoming foreign visitors, or where concepts of time are different from those in the U.S., can come under sharp criticism. Delays are particular irritants. We would have to compare these reactions to those of the general public on a vacation tour to tell whether academics are much different, but we can at least notice that extensive higher learning does not necessarily make people relaxed and open world travelers. Informal, unstructured and unplanned learning experiences meet with widely varying reactions among academics, but this may be a consequence of the structure of the survey.

VII. Conclusions

The data coming out of the IFDS files are tantalizing. It brings us closer to being able to build a persuasive, data/based case for the effectiveness of international faculty development which includes structured visits overseas and a directed curriculum. A plan to gain maximum information from existing processes of surveying IFDS participants would greatly benefit the cause of globalization.

The distribution of participation, with numbers skewed so heavily in the direction of the humanities and social sciences, should be considered carefully, especially by those colleges and universities which have already recognized the IFDS as an effective vehicle for faculty development. Faculty from less traditionally areas should be drawn into the process.

Expectations are important. Sending institutions can tell participants what they are expected to do upon their return to campus. Participants can help by attending seriously to their obligation to prepare for the seminars through advance study. IFDS staff can help by developing clear agendas for each seminar and providing mechanisms for reflection and intellectual growth while on site.

Foundations and other funding groups should follow the lead of the Mobil Foundation and begin providing support for these programs in the form of scholarships to participants.

The IFDS should explore becoming a two-way street for faculty development by offering U.S.-based seminars for overseas faculty and by building international participation in all their overseas seminars.

Finally, calls for more international faculty development should grow stronger. We have information telling us that the curriculum of our colleges and universities is strongly driven by the experience and expertise of our faculty. When they have international experience, they will globalize the campus, which is what we all say we want to have happen.

Impact Study of 'Mobil Faculty Fellowships' on Historically Black Colleges and University Campuses

---

Submitted by Dr. Percy W. Thomas,
President Thomas & Associates
310 Brighton Dam Road
Brookeville, MD 20833

January 25, 1999
Overall Summary
Participants were overwhelmingly grateful to Mobil for providing the means to participate in Council's International Faculty Development Seminars, and felt that their participation had significant impact on the internationalization of their respective campuses.

1. Continue the Mobil Grant funding.

2. Explore resources for new and increased funding.

3. Clarify expectations regarding the writing and publishing of articles.

4. Clarify expectations regarding the role of Mobil Faculty Fellows with regard to the inflow of international students.

5. Clearly communicate the objectives and expectations of the program to institutional decision-makers, as well as participants.

6. Build in expectations (on the part of participants and institutional decision-makers) concerning the integration of the international experience into the campus/curriculum. Consider requiring signatures of people on an institutional plan incorporating program participation before departure, to assist with: (1) implementation of international activities on campus; and (2) tracking impact of program participation back on campus.

7. CIEE should take a proactive role in marketing internally and externally the results that derive from the program. Impact Study of Mobil Faculty Fellowships on HBCU Campuses January 25, 1999 Report prepared by Thomas & Associates

Purpose of Evaluation 

In 1997 and 1998 the Council on International Educational Exchange received $50,000 from the Mobil Foundation to provide funding to faculty and administrators from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to participate in the Council on International Educational Exchange's (CIEE) International Faculty Development Seminars. The funding received in 1998 carried with it a stipulation that Council submits to Mobil an evaluative study of the impact that seminar participation is having on HBCU campuses (where participants teach).

The program under evaluation is a joint initiative of Mobil Foundation, Inc., CIEE, and NAFEO, under the auspices of The Committee on Diversity and Globalization, a committee of Council's Board of Directors.

The National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) recommended Thomas & Associates to CIEE to conduct the evaluation. Thomas & Associates is a Maryland-based organization development consultant company with extensive experience working with and knowledge of HBCUs.

Dr. Percy W. Thomas is the president of Thomas & Associates and is the principal investigator leading the Mobil evaluative study. He has extensive experience working with HBCU faculty and administrators. Dr. Thomas is a HBCU graduate and has held faculty appointments at three HBCU institutions.

Evaluation Focus

The study seeks to answer the following questions:

• To what extent has Council's International Faculty Development Seminars impacted HBCU campuses? 
• To what extent have participating faculty benefited professionally from this experience? 
• To what extent has this experience impacted directly on increasing international opportunities for students?

Answers to these questions will provide insights as to how to improve the program. It will also contribute information about the faculty development needs at participating institutions. A sense of how the program contributes to the quality of education for students is expected from the questions posed. It is further anticipated that continued funding of the Mobil Faculty Fellowship program would be a direct outcome of this evaluative study.

Aside from the three major questions explored in this study, several other areas will be examined to add depth and breadth to the understanding of what the Mobil Faculty Fellowship program means to faculty and their respective institutions. The areas explored are as follows:

• Impact on creation of new courses(s) 
• Impact on revision of existing course(s) 
• Impact on new research 
• Impact on enhancement of current research 
• Impact on developing new international exchanges 
• Impact on giving lectures/presentations/seminars

Methodology 

Thomas & Associates conducted 16 interviews with individuals who participated in Council's Faculty Development Seminars program. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in the conduct of the study. The qualitative interview method is used to collect data regarding the individual experiences of each participant. Specifically, qualitative data has been gathered through 30-minute telephone interviews with each respondent. In addition, approximately 20 questionnaires were sent to administrators and faculty at the participating colleges. The answers to the questions presented above generated data that will be helpful in making critical program decisions. All data has been collected and analyzed and presented as follows:

Presentation of Data and Analysis

I. Qualitative Data Analysis (verbatim excerpts from interviews)

Quality of CIEE Programs
"It was a marvelous experience… It was well organized."
"The organization of the program was a major highlight."
"The program was geared so well to the needs of college professors."
"This is a very good program and being involved on international campuses was marvelous."
"The coordination of the program is a definite strength of the program."
"Council programs are comprehensive in achieving the aims of faculty."
"The program is excellent!"
"Learned from my colleagues in the program."
"The networking was fantastic and resulted in developing linkages with Angola on international curriculum development and globalization."

Summary
The experience resulted in creating valuable networking opportunities. Strong academic and administrative relationships between faculty and administrators have been established for the purpose of collaborative work between domestic and international institutions.

All respondents spoke favorably about the overall high quality of the CIEE program management. Specifically, they expressed their satisfaction with the organization, coordination, and comprehensiveness of the seminars.

Influence on Curriculum Development
"Teaching in Latin America gave me personal experience in the culture… and it has allowed me to introduce material on Brazil in my classes from a personal experience perspective."
"My goals were met. I was able to add more relevant information to my courses."
"I am able to make the curriculum come alive with my actual experiences."
"It has enhanced my teaching to students and provided a global perspective in my classes."
"This program has helped me develop a new course titled Global Experiences."

Summary
The overall response overwhelmingly supports that participating on the Mobil Faculty Fellowship program has influenced the development of curriculum. The participants believe that this experience has enhanced their ability to incorporate global perspectives in curriculum development.

Value to University
" We have successfully articulated the Council model to our president and provost. They have decided to revisit their strategic planning efforts to prioritize the internalization process campus-wide."
"Academic programming has been enriched in the development of new international courses and a renewed emphasis on travel/study abroad in academic advisement to students of our international studies department."
"Having participated will help me perform my duties better on the international committee at my university."
"It has given the university a key person to contact on all international affairs."
"I have been appointed to the Board of Regents committee on Global Technical Transfer."
"It has provided the university with an international specialist."
"The University is seen as promoting study abroad."

Summary
All respondents reported that the program added significant value to their respective university's interest in international programs. Overall, respondents indicated that as a result of their experiences, their institutions are actively engaged in the development and enhancement of international programs.

Value to Instructor 
"Shared international experiences with administrators and other faculty."
"One faculty member is now on a Fulbright Scholarship in Africa."
"This program has enhanced my teaching ability in the international studies department."
"The program has helped me develop ideas for promoting international trade."
"Improved knowledge."
"I now have linkages with international programs abroad."
"I am a much better lecturer."

Summary
Participants indicated that participating in the Mobil Faculty Fellowship program improved their ability to teach and present international subject matter. Further, the acquired knowledge and skills has enabled faculty to develop more culturally specific curriculum.

Value to Students
"Improved academic advisement to students of our international studies department."
"Shared information from faculty seminars with students."
"The program prepared me to have a positive impact on international students."
"I am better equipped to teach in the international arena which benefits students."
"I have a better understanding of how to arrange study abroad opportunities for students."
"Students in my classes grow and are more motivated to go abroad to study."
"I am able to link my students with other international students around the world."
"Students relate better to the course material."
"Students seem to have a greater grasp of international subject matter presented in class."
"I used material learned in the seminar to improve how I advise students."
" I am more motivated to find international experiences for students." "
I have seen students learn and grow from their international travel."

Summary
The consensus opinion is that participating in this program has enhanced service to students. Students have increased opportunities to participate in international learning experiences, both at home and abroad.

Value of Networking
" Interacting with students in foreign countries was a great learning experience"
"I have established linkages with programs in several countries in Africa."
"Established international relationships with other professionals in the program."
"Established interactions with fellows and administrators across the country."
"I was able to interact with and bounce ideas off of other faculty in the seminars."
"I learned from my colleagues in the program."
"The networking was fantastic."
"I developed linkages with Angola on international curriculum development and globalization."

Summary
The Mobil Faculty Fellowship experience resulted in creating valuable network opportunities. Strong academic and administrative relationships between faculty and administrators have been established for the purpose of collaborative work between domestic and international institutions.

Value of Funding
"I am so grateful for the opportunity … I would like more faculty to have this opportunity. Salaries are so low that they can't afford to pay for the experience and the University does not have the money."

"We appreciate the CIEE program… it has enabled us to do some things would not normally do."

"This experience would not be possible without Mobil funding."
"Having the funding is another benefit."
"We need more grants to fund faculty and students in international experiences."
"HBCUs need more programs like this."
"If there is anyway to get more funding, please encourage CIEE to do it."
"We are very grateful for the Mobil funding, but we need more."
"We need more people to participate in more than just one experience."
"We would like to send more people each year but the University just does not have funding to do so."

"HBCUs have very limited funds to carry out their business."
"We have no funding to grant faculty release time to explore international study abroad."

"If we don't have assistance, we can't explore international study opportunities."
"The money received through the Mobil Faculty Fellowship and CIEE helped level the playing field."

Summary
HBCUs are extremely appreciative of the Mobil grant. They are equally appreciative of the CIEE international programs at their institutions. The need to expand international programs at HBCUs is great, and there is very little funding (if any) to support the development of the large number of faculty who have an interest in international studies. The consensus is that more funding is needed to support development.

The consensus is that more funding is needed to support development.

Quantitative Data Analysis

The survey contained 17 questions and 21 people responded. Over 300 data points were analyzed. Participants were asked to rate each question on a scale of 1 to 5.

The key for the rating is as follows:

	Shortened	Value
Strongly Disagree	SD	1
Disagree	D	2
Neutral	N	3
Agree	A	4
Strongly Agree	SA	5

The mean for each question was calculated. Next, a frequency distribution was calculated and the results were put into a graph. Finally, from the distribution data, percentages were calculated for those who agreed, disagreed, or were neutral to each question.

The results of those calculations follow:

The charts compiled from this data can be found in the attachment.