Court, David (2004) “Comments on "The Promise of Partnership and Continuities of Dependence" in African Studies Review v. 47, no. 1.
Court believes Carrol and Samoff have held back from critical review of the data they write about – just as the paper ends, Court says, it should be beginning. There is ‘no real interrogation’ of the material.
This point is especially important in light of the issues – page 1 – “ . . . global forces of the information technology revolution, the emergence of knowledge economies, the digital divide, borderless education, the WTO, and the variety of other forces of the brave new world that are bearing down on us.”
p. 2: “The discussion of the BRAIN DRAIN is one of the few places in the report where the authors become animated, even passionate, on behalf of a position, in this case the virtues of academic mobility on which we all depend. They make important arguments about the under-recognized complexity of this phenomenon and its two-way benefit. The issues are presented in some detail, although perhaps the balance sheet does not fully acknowledge the potentially detrimental effect of mobility for particular beleaguered universities suffering from regional brain drain.”
p. 2: “. . . one of the most important new challenges is that of countering and controlling (or competing with) the impact of borderless education in the form of unscrupulous franchise institutions, against which most universities in Africa have as yet no effective defense through state regulation.”
Court – writing about Carrol and Samoff – page 3: “. . . the authors have a strong point of view about the impact of partnerships: “In our view,” they say, “external support to higher education in general and partnerships in particular can and do play a prominent role in the perpetuation of dependence, and, through the dependence of higher education, in the perpetuation of poverty in Africa” (p. 72). This is a powerful indictment, but this basic premise of the report – that partnerships reinforce dependence and produce increased poverty – is not presented or explained vigorously.”
Question – how to engage partnerships in ways that challenge dependency?
Methinks he doth protest too much: Court – now with World Bank, long with Rockefeller and Ford (?) – makes a blanket statement – page 3 – “The authors are also inaccurate in their statement that “most of the aid providing organizations . . . have been guided by and seek to promote national interests” (p. 86). This is not true for foundations, which are international in reality, personnel and outlook.”
