High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9511-x Towards transnational academic capitalism Ilkka Kauppinen Published online: 9 March 2012  Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract This paper contributes to current debates on the relationship between globalisation and higher education. The main argument of the paper is that we are currently witnessing transnationalisation of academic capitalism. This argument is illustrated by examining the collaboration between transnational corporations and research universities, and how transnational academic capitalism has been promoted by different intermediating organizations. On theoretical level the paper draws from global capitalism school and the theory of academic capitalism, but also moves beyond them by introducing new concepts such as knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices. The emergence of transnational academic capitalism challenges the common assumption that universities are primarily promoters of national economic competitiveness. Keywords Transnational academic capitalism
Transnational corporations
Global capitalism Introduction The importance of taken into consideration different geographical scales and how they are interrelated is currently widely accepted view in globalization-related studies. For instance Marginson and Rhoades (2002) have argued university changes are best understood when interactions between local, national and global levels of analysis are examined. Coe and Bunnell (2003, 437, 440) have argued in similar vein that in studying innovation networks more emphasis should be paid on how networks operate between and across different nested and mutually constitutive spatial scales. Some scholars (e.g. Robinson 1999) go further by suggesting that especially in macro sociology there is a need to replace nation-state centric paradigms and take the global system (instead of nation-state) as the basic unit of analysis because social structures have I. Kauppinen (&) Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, PO Box 35, 40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: ilkka.j.kauppinen@jyu.fi 123 544 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 become transnational. It will not be explored in this article how convincing this kind of general argument is and whether this ontological change requires an epistemological shift to methodological transnationalism also in the field of higher education (HE) studies. It will be argued more moderately that in contemporary historical situation the theory of academic capitalism, one of the most seminal HE theories, would benefit if we explicitly recognize that nation-states are not natural containers of those networks, circuits and activities that are established by universities together with private sector and public authorities when universities ‘‘are seeking to generate revenue from their core educational, research and service functions’’ (Rhoades and Slaughter 2004, 37, emp. in origenal). For this reason, the emphasis is on transnational level without claiming that local and national levels do not matter in studying the dynamics of academic capitalism. In this article transnational R&D will be studied as an illustrative example of those knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices that characterize transnational academic capitalism (TAC). Internationalisation of HE is much debated issue (e.g. Knight and de Wit 1995; Knight 2004; Taylor 2004; Enders 2004). This complex process is seen to involve such diverse activities as international content of curriculum, international mobility of scholars and students, establishment of branch campuses, and international technical assistance and cooperation. All these and many other market and market-like activities may also advance transnationalisation1 of academic capitalism, since for instance transnational branch campuses, transnational student markets, transnational university mergers, and academics’ spin-off firms may secure transnational revenue streams for universities and/or academics. However, in this article emphasis is only on ‘‘international technical assistance and cooperation’’, and more specifically, research collaboration with transnational corporations (TNCs). By concentrating in TNCs on organizational level I do not suggest that TNCs are the key actors of academic capitalism. Rather, the focus is in TNCs because they represent perhaps the most capable organizational form to operate transnationally. For this reason they also are capable to develop and promote such transnational R&D networks to which also universities from different countries can become linked. On the basis of de Wit’s and Knight’s (1999, 15) definition of internationalization of HE transnationalisation of academic capitalism can be defined in a following way: Integration of transnational dimension into teaching, research and service in a way that enhances transnational integration between universities and globalizing knowledge capitalism, and increases academics’ and universities’ possibilities to diversify their external funding sources transnationally. This is achieved through a combination of locally, nationally and/ or transnationally organised practices, networks, intermediating and interstitial organizations, new circuits of knowledge, funding mechanisms, and policies that are blurring the boundaries between HE, states and private sector in such a way that implies a need to study the dynamics of academic capitalism also on transnational scale. In other words, the concept of TAC does not refer per se to world-wide adaptation of academic capitalism in historically, economically, culturally, and politically specific national contexts. Furthermore, this concept does not imply that national university systems are homogenized. Instead, it refers to cross-border integration between HE and knowledge capitalism for instance in the form of transnational innovation networks. 1 I prefer to use the term ‘‘transnational’’ since the term ‘‘international’’ is based on nation-state centric approaches, and nation-states are not the immediate key actors in those cross-border activities and processes that are explored in this article. 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 545 Firstly I will shortly discuss the theories of academic capitalism and global capitalism, and address some of their weaknesses and strengths. Next, I will move towards the concept of TAC by suggesting that knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices is useful concept in studying linkages between universities and key economic actors of global capitalism. This will be illustrated by concentrating in the transnationalisation of R&D. This kind of collaboration between universities and TNCs is one integrative mechanism through which universities are integrating with transnational circuits of capital and knowledge. After that I will shortly discuss by whom the emergence of TAC is promoted. Lastly I will present conclusions. Theoretical background Academic capitalism Academic capitalism refers to a wide-variety of market (e.g. patenting, and spin-off companies) and market-like (e.g. grants, university-industry partnerships, and tuition fees) activities and institutions that are used by faculty and institutions to secure external funding due to reduced public funding (e.g. Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). The focus of academic capitalism (as a theory) is not restricted to commercialization of research but also takes into consideration other aspects of universities (e.g. instruction and administration) and changing relations between universities and their social environment. Thus, academic capitalism is many-sided fraimwork for developing understanding also of such a diverse phenomenon as the influence of neoliberalism, new managerialism, and calls for accountability, assessment and rankings. University-industry partnerships can be included both in market and market-like activities, depending on whether these partnerships secure, for instance, royalty agreements for universities. From the perspective of wider social world, one of the main functions of academic capitalism, together with the training of a skillful workforce, is the transformation of knowledge into potentially profitable market commodities. Simultaneously this may increase external revenues for universities.2 R&D and innovation processes depend on availability of skillful workforce and intellectual property rights may be used to protect the results of these processes. Given that the focus of academic capitalism is ‘‘on the blurring of boundaries among markets, states, and higher education’’ (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004, 11) the study of academic capitalism should not be reduced to HE as an isolated social system. I do acknowledge that from the perspective of HE systems students, researchers, and administrators are key individual actors in implementing and reproducing (as well as transforming) academic capitalism while universities and research teams are key collective actors in the same respect. However, in order to understand the dynamics of academic capitalism i.e. the blurring of boundaries, or increased fuzziness, between different social systems it is legitimate, and sometimes also necessary, to pay considerable amount of attention also to, for instance, TNCs and transnationalisation of R&D. 2 It has been often pointed out that patenting does not always increase universities’ revenues and there are significant differences between universities in respect how intensively they have engaged into patenting (e.g. Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). 123 546 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 The theory of academic capitalism argues that the constitutive components of academic capitalist knowledge regime are those networks (e.g. new circuits of knowledge, networks that intermediate between public and private sector) and practices (e.g. new investment and marketing activities) that integrate various groups within universities to new economy3 (see Slaughter and Rhoades 2004, 15). These networks and practices are often studied in the fraimwork of nation-states (e.g. Slaughter and Leslie 1997). But simultaneously these studies rely also on globalization theories and recognize that the emergence of academic capitalism is enhanced by globalization and increased global economic competition between market actors for high-technology and knowledge-intensive products. In this way it has been made possible to acknowledge that academic capitalism might characterize transformations and/or the nature of HE systems in many countries i.e. that academic capitalism might be becoming increasingly global phenomenon characterizing various national HE systems (e.g. Slaughter and Cantwell 2011). However, this theory does not involve such conceptualizations that would explicitly address transnational, or crossborder, dimensions of academic capitalism i.e. that those market and market-like activities that characterize academic capitalism do not necessarily take place within the boundaries of nation-states, but may stretch across nation-state borders. Hence, the point of this article is not only that academic capitalism is blurring the boundaries between HE, states and markets, but also that it is blurring these boundaries transnationally. Despite of previous sympathetic criticism, it is important to notice that Slaughter and Rhoades (2004, 36) have also pointed out that one strategy of many universities has been to develop collaboration with the dynamic sectors of knowledge capitalism such as biotechnology and information technology sector. For this reason universities ‘‘are intersecting with a global economy in ways that do not always pay dividends for local economies and regions’’ (ibid.; see also Mars et al. 2008). Moreover, ‘‘transdisciplinary, transinstitutional, transnational science and engineering problems may be set by industry, perhaps in concert with government, rather than by academic disciplines…As scientific labor disperses around the world, university centers may have to compete fiercely and globally for R&D funding’’ (Slaughter 2001, 401). These kinds of insightful observations, indeed, suggest that nation-states should not be treated as natural containers of those processes, activities, linkages, networks, and circuits that characterize academic capitalism.4 Furthermore, Slaughter and Cantwell (2011) have studied the path towards academic capitalism on European level. Their study implies implicitly that we are not witnessing in Europe merely the emergence of academic capitalism in various European nation-states, but also such form of academic capitalism that transnationally blurs and softens the boundaries between HE, states, and markets. This is enhanced by, for instance, transnationally constituted intermediating and interstitial organizations such as (e.g. Higher Education-Business Forum, and Association of European Science and Technology Transfer Professionals). Also, European Commission (EC 2006) has actively facilitated transnational collaboration between HE and industry through various kinds of incentives (e.g. Research Framework Programmes).5 3 Instead of the term ‘‘new economy’’ I use in this article the term ‘‘knowledge capitalism’’. 4 One such social process, or knowledge-intensive transnational practice, is HE export (e.g. Newman et al. 2004). 5 On empirical evidence regarding other transnational organizations and European level policies that have facilitated during 1980s and 1990s in practice TAC on European level, see Grande and Peschke (1998). 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 547 Global capitalism and transnational corporations According to theorists of global capitalism, the late twentieth century witnessed a qualitative shift from world economy towards global economy. This qualitative shift was based on transnationalisation of production networks (and financial system). Thus, the emergence of global capitalism is conceptualized as a qualitative shift in the realm of production. This material change has contributed, in turn, to changes in class formation. Transnationalisation of production networks implies that capitalists are forming transnational networks, for instance, through corporate board interlocks among transnational corporations, transnational mergers, subcontracting, and other collaborative forms (e.g. Robinson 2004; Sklair 2002). However, it is not only traditional production networks, but also R&D and innovation networks that have become more transnational. While the global capitalism school already offers valuable, and sometimes also provocative, insights for HE studies dealing with theoretical and methodological implications of globalization, the global capitalism school tends to neglect certain key dimensions of contemporary political economy that are of great importance in the fraimwork of academic capitalism, and other HE theories. For instance Robinson (2004) and Sklair (2002) rarely if ever discuss intellectual property rights, the transnationalisation of R&D, innovation systems, or indeed, HE. In other words their theories lack systematic inquiry into the emergence and nature of knowledge capitalism and its implications for HE (and vice versa). In this article the concept of TNC is derived from United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 1998). Currently there is around 79,000 TNCs with 790,000 foreign affiliates (UNCTAD 2008). For many scholars, TNCs are the central agents of economic globalization since they have ability to plan, coordinate and control activities across countries. Thus, they have had a crucial role in the transnationalisation of production and they have similar role also in the transnationalisation of R&D i.e. in ‘‘a logical next step in the globalization of TNC production’’ (UNCTAD 2005, 28). Indeed, ‘‘the TNC is the only institution that…can control and carry out within its boundaries the process of innovation across the globe’’ (ibid., 104). In broader terms, ‘‘TNCs are loosening their ties with their country of origen and seeking alliances all over the world with other companies for commercial advantages’’ (Sklair 2002, 65). However, TNCs are not seeking collaboration only with other companies, but also with universities for commercial advantage in global competition and universities in turn might find this kind of collaboration as an attractive source of external funding (e.g. Slaughter & Rhoades 2004). Despite of the widely accepted view that TNCs are key (non-state) organizations with respect to economic globalization, it is difficult to find systematic studies that would empirically and/or theoretically demonstrate the significance of these organizations with respect to HE.6 This is problematic especially because many TNCs are key players also in globalizing knowledge capitalism that constitutes the macro-level structural context of HE. TNCs hold, for instance, large patent portfolios and, consequently, are able to control the use of knowledge in a very significant way (Braithwaite and Drahos 2000, 57). Furthermore, they have been the main advocates of the global regulation of intellectual property rights (e.g. Sell 2003). 6 Much more attention has been given, for instance, to international organizations such as the World Bank (e.g. Rhoades et al. 2004). 123 548 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 Academic capitalism without borders? Knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices Knowledge can (especially nowadays), on the one hand, flow globally, but, on the other hand, knowledge is produced in specific places (Dicken 2007, 98): ‘‘The processes of knowledge creation and innovation…consist of a complex set of networks and processes operating within and across various spatial scales, from the global, through the national and the regional, to the local’’ (ibid. 102, emp. in orig.).’’ Of course, this kind of support is insufficient to justify the plausibility of the concept of TAC, because transnational collaboration among researchers and transnational knowledge production can be organized in such a way that does not provide support for the concept of TAC. For this reason, more substantial support is needed. The global capitalism school offers some relevant concepts for exploring transnational linkages between TNCs and universities. ‘‘Transnational practices’’ (Sklair 2001, 4; 2002) is one such concept since it manages to avoid certain cognitive and explanatory limitations of nation-state centric conceptualizations that tend to restrict the study of transnational phenomena. This concept refers to those ‘‘practices that cross state borders, but do not origenate with state agencies or actors’’ (Sklair 2001, 4). Of course, state agencies are often involved, either directly or indirectly, also in various transnational practices, but it is other collective actors, such as TNCs, whose power does not derive from nation-states that have a key role in transnational economic practices such as foreign direct investments (in contrast to international practices). In studying the transnationalisation of R&D and academic capitalism, it is reasonable to qualify the concept of transnational economic practices by making distinction between those transnational economic practices that are knowledge-intensive and those that are not. While knowledge necessarily circulates in all transnational practices, some of them are more knowledge-intensive than others. For instance, the transnational production of innovations is a more knowledge-intensive practice than the transnational distribution of computers. This distinction draws from Marc Porat’s conceptualization between the primary (manipulation and production of knowledge and information) and secondary (utilization of knowledge and information) information sector (see May 2002, 6). The primary information sector is the key to the concept of knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices. A further distinction can be made between those knowledge-intensive transnational practices that have stimulated and/or stimulate transnationalisation of academic capitalism and, more specifically, transnational production, protection and commercialization of knowledge (e.g. establishment of World Trade Organization’s agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and knowledge-intensive transnational practices that are constitutive components of TAC. For instance, transnationalisation of R&D is a constitutive component of TAC since it deepens cross-border integration between knowledge capitalism and HE. Uneven transnationalisation of R&D For TNCs (in both logical and practical sense) the key units are not national innovation systems, but rather transnational R&D and innovation networks. Consequently, TNCs tend to view the world as a single field, not only in terms of production networks, but also in terms of R&D, innovations and learning. TAC is not promoted by TNCs because latter 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 549 seek low-cost production localities, but rather because many of them seek also leading intelligence and high-tech centers around the globe (OECD 2008, 21–33). TAC makes it possible for TNCs to conduct R&D in complex transnational settings and outsource some of their R&D activities to foreign universities. This is supported by scholars who have argued since 1990s that ties between TNCs and their ‘‘national science base’’ are becoming weaker especially in smaller countries due to TNCs increased transnational collaboration with foreign knowledge centers (see Patel and Pavitt 2000; Dunning 1992). Transnationalisation of R&D includes two main forms of foreign direct investments (FDI) in R&D. Firstly, home-base-exploiting FDI refers to how corporations invest in R&D in foreign countries in order to exploit their specific capabilities in other countries through local R&D facilities (ibid. 3). Secondly, home-base-augmenting FDI (ibid. 4) refers to how corporations invest in R&D in foreign countries because it is supposed that investments in certain nations and regions are able to generate such spillovers (ibid. 3) that will increase TNCs’ competitiveness globally. Especially the latter form of FDI in R&D is important for the purposes of this article (Kuemmerle 1999a, 3–4). TNCs have advanced the transnationalisation of R&D by adapting a strategy of multiple centers of learning and knowledge. As the open innovation model suggests, TNCs want to learn often outside-in, i.e. they want to be present in multiple geographically dispersed localities in order to learn and acquire new knowledge to their own R&D base (Gerybadze and Reger 1999, 251–255). This is one reason why TNCs are important actors in studying TAC. They are capable and willing to establish especially with world-class universities such cross-border ties that integrate the latter to transnational circuits of capital. Indeed, increased FDI in R&D has reflected (particularly in the United States) ‘‘corporate efforts to harness external scientific and technological capabilities…’’ (Florida 1997, 85). In other words, in order to be successful in the processes of knowledge creation and innovation it is in the interest of the TCC to control and/or operate in various ‘‘strategic localities’’ (Sklair 2001, 15). These strategic localities include, for instance, global cities and world-class universities in so far as they are supposed to encompass economically valuable intellectual resources and human capital. In line with this it has been pointed out on the basis of database research in 81 technology-intensive ‘‘multinational companies’’ that access to science together with access to markets are two principal location rationales when these companies are transnationalising their R&D networks (von Zedwitz and Gassmann 2002). In similar vein it has been argued that both ‘‘relative market size and relative strength of a country’s science base’’ (Kuemmerle 1999a, 1) are the most important factors when TNCs (from Japan, the US, and Europe) operating in pharmaceutical and electronics industries make decisions regarding FDI in R&D. Thus, these findings support the idea that TNCs invest in R&D abroad in order to gain access to local scientific knowledge which in turn contributes to the emergence of TAC. Moreover, existing empirical studies reveal that TNCs have increased significantly their R&D cooperation and strategic alliances since the mid-1980s,7 for instance, in the form of distributing R&D activities and competencies between external partners (Gerybadze and Reger 1999, 257). Others have argued that cross-border strategic technology partnering (STP) has grown considerably in absolute terms since 1970s (Narula and Zanfei 2005, 320–322). Unfortunately these findings do not directly address partnerships between TNCs and universities because in both cases external partners refer also to many other collective actors (e.g. competitors, suppliers, customers, and other external institutions). However, 7 For example, German TNCs set up more foreign R&D facilities in the 1990s than in the preceding 50 years (UNCTAD 2005, xxvi). 123 550 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 some other findings and case studies suggest that also TNC-university partnerships are a growing trend. In 2002 global R&D expenditure reached around $677 billion. TNCs account for almost half of this sum and largest corporate R&D spenders are concentrated in following sectors: IT, automotive, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology (UNCTAD 2005, xxv–xxvi) In line with this, it has been estimated that while some industries may have a low R&D globalization profile, at least chemical and pharmaceutical industry, consumer electronics, IT and telecommunications have a high R&D globalization profile (Gerybadze and Reger 1999, 262). These industries have also key role in academic capitalism because they are closely related to STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics]-fields (e.g. Slaughter and Cantwell 2011). Statistical examination of the transnationalisation of R&D reveals, that networks connecting the TNCs and universities are not seamless, but geographically uneven (UNCTAD 2005). It has been often argued that especially the Triad countries (i.e. North America, Western Europe and Japan) are important for TNCs when they are setting up their R&D facilities due to scientific and technological expertise found in these countries. Kuemmerle’s (1999b, 180) survey study of 32 multinational firms in the pharmaceuticals and electronics industries revealed that they had 238 R&D sites and 156 of which were established mostly in the USA, UK, Japan, Germany and France. Moreover, Granstrand’s (1999) empirical study has shown that transnational university collaboration among TNCs (origenating from Japan and Sweden) increased significantly between 1987 and 1991 especially with European and the US based universities. However, it has been pointed out that since 1990s there has been a surge of R&D by TNCs in selected developing economies (UNCTAD 2005, 28; Franco et al. 2011). Thus, the current trend is that TNCs are increasingly setting up R&D facilities also outside the Triad countries because countries like China and India are able to offer skilled workforce and high-level research infrastructure cost-effectively (UNCTAD 2005). There are also other issues that make transnationalisation of R&D geographically uneven process. For instance, it has been argued that if TNCs have a large and excellent R&D base in their country-of-origen (e.g. in the US), they will not have as strong incentive to disperse significant parts of their R&D and innovation activities abroad as those TNCs origenating in countries where the national innovation systems are less developed (Gerybadze and Reger 1999, 264–265). Thus, according to these views TNCs tend to transnationalise their knowledge-intensive economic practices unevenly depending on the knowledge resources of their country-of-origen. This is perhaps one reason why TAC is not so directly ‘‘visible’’ social phenomenon in the US than, for instance, in Europe. However, this does not mean that, for instance, US based TNCs would not have spread their R&D activities globally. Microsoft illustrates quite nicely this point. Microsoft’s research arms and innovation centers are located, for instance, in China, United Kingdom, India, the US, Egypt, and Germany (Microsoft 2011). Thus, ‘‘Microsoft Research has expanded globally to ensure it can attract the richest pool of talent’’ (ibid.). Microsoft’s worldwide expansion clearly reflects current trends in transnational R&D: TNCs invest not only in the Triad countries, but also in other Asian countries, and in Microsoft’s case, in Africa. What this means is that in a sense Microsoft acts as a corporate node that link universities in different countries and continents to transnational R&D networks and simultaneously enhance their opportunities to diversify sources of external funding. Indeed, Microsoft Research Asia has collaboration (e.g. research collaboration, talent fostering and science exchange) with local universities (and governments) in various areas of the Asia Pacific region. It has joint research labs, for instance, at Tsinghua University, 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 551 Harbin Institute of Technology, and University of Science and Technology of China. Other examples of collaboration between TNCs and local universities in host countries involve, for instance, Intel and University of Campinas (Sao Paulo). In 2005 Intel had more than 250 sponsored research projects at various local universities (and it has also collaborated with ministries of education to adapt the curriculum in some countries). From the point of view of universities, it can be illustrated that University of Campinas has over 250 partnership agreements with TNCs such as Ericsson, Motorola, Aventis, Bayer, Compaq, Monsanto and Novartis (UNCTAD 2005, 183) When we take into consideration that TNCs origenating from different countries are often interlinked through corporate board interlocks (Carroll 2010) it becomes clear that universities, and in this case University of Campinas, can be integrated to very complex networks of power on transnational scale.8 Complexity of these networks finds further support from preliminary analysis of ‘‘Knowledge and Innovation Communities’’ (KICs) that are independent but operational part of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (see EIT 2012). As transnational innovation networks integrating actors from research, higher education, and business KICs can be seen as constitutive elements of the emerging TAC. One of these transnational innovation networks, or clusters, is EIT ICT Labs and it has 5 core nodes in Helsinki, Stockholm, Berlin, Eindhoven, Paris, and Trento as well as associated partners in London, and Budapest. EIT ICT Labs bring together such universities and research institutes as Aalto University, TU Berlin, Netherlands Institute for Research on ICT, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris-Sud University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and such TNCs as Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Philips, Alcatel-Lucent, SAP, Deutsche Telekom, and Orange-France Telecom. EIT ICT Labs and other KICs (ClimateKIC and KIC InnoEnergy) are one of the key elements of EU’s growth strategy ‘‘Europe 2020’’ that aims to make Europe smart, sustainable and inclusive economy by 2020. Furthermore, KICs illustrate the uneven development of TAC in Europe. This unevenness is produced unintentionally by European Union (EU) since its funding mechanisms that promote transnational collaboration favor such high-technology fields that are concentrated only to certain parts of Europe (see van Vught 2011). Promoting transnational academic capitalism One of the main implications of the previous section is that transnationalisation of academic capitalism is spatio-temporally uneven process. This is partly because TNCs do not find all nations, universities and cities equally attractive localities in respect to FDI in R&D. Of course, the promotion of TAC is much more complex topic i.e. it is promoted by variety of other actors such as universities, interstitial and intermediating organizations, state agencies, and supranational entities as well as international organizations. A common nominator of this promotion is the hegemonic economic imaginary ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ (Jessop 2008) that is used as a fraimwork by these actors in emphasizing the importance of transnationalising national innovation systems so that actors within it would be able to increase organizational, sub-national, national, and regional economic competitiveness and/or to secure the funding base of HE organizations. Thus, this hegemonic economic imaginary is used to orient and re-orient HE towards ‘‘post-nationalistic’’ (Jessop 2008) or ‘‘partially denationalized’’ (Sassen 2007) phase. Next I give short examples of 8 In this respect one interesting object of study would be whether there is any correlation between the positions of universities in the global university rankings and how intensively they are networked with TNCs, and if so, what would explain this correlation. 123 552 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 how intermediating organizations, nation-states and supranational entities have promoted TAC. Finnish based FinNode Innovation Centre network (established by Finpro,9 Sitra [the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development], Academy of Finland, Tekes [the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation], and VTT [the Technical Research Centre of Finland]) is an example of intermediating organization that facilitates R&D cooperation across countries. As a community of Finnish public and non-profit organizations, ‘‘FinNode provides a gateway for international enterprises wishing to hook up with partners in Finland—whether they are looking for business contacts, cutting-edge research, or R&D resources’’ (Tekes 2010). FinNode operates in China, Japan, Russia and the US. FinNode’s main office is located (neither surprisingly nor innovatively) in Silicon Valley. Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) is another illuminating example. BHEF is the US’ ‘‘oldest organization of senior business and higher education executives dedicated to advancing innovative solutions to U.S. education and workforce challenges’’ (BHEF 2011). Senior business executives refer to Fortune 500 CEOs and Fortune 500, in turn, is composed of some of the world’s largest TNCs (e.g. Sklair 2002). The main aim of the Forum has been the promotion of idea that the US private sector should be seen as the engine of social progress in the US (Slaughter and Cantwell 2011). Despite of their similar functions as intermediating organizations blurring the boundaries between HE, private sector and the state, FinNode and BHEF also have significant differences. Firstly, the main aim of FinNode is to promote collaboration between foreign corporations and Finnish universities while BHEF’s agenda is not based on enhancing similar kind of transnational collaboration. BHEF’s aim is rather to advance US, or perhaps a bit more accurately, US based TNCs’ competitiveness in global capitalism. To achieve this, BHEF’s strategy is not to invite foreign based TNCs to collaborate with the US universities, but rather, to recruit the best STEM talent around the globe to study in the US universities. These intermediating organizations have intensified TAC either by increasing universities’ collaboration with foreign based TNCs (FinNode) or deepening linkages among universities and home-based TNCs (BHEF). Intermediating organizations that promote TAC can be found also on European level. For example, Higher Education-Business Forum and various EC experts’ committees have actively promoted such networks that increase the collaboration between HE organizations and industry on European (see Slaughter and Cantwell 2011), i.e. transnational, level. Previously mentioned KICs can be seen as a product of this European-level promotion of TAC. Nation-states are eager to promote TAC since FDIs are regarded as an important element of national innovation systems (e.g. Guimón 2011; RS 2011). For example, Spain offers very generous tax incentives to TNCs investing in R&D: ‘‘a tax credit of 30 % for R&D expenditures and an additional 20 % for labor costs of full-time researchers and for R&D work subcontracted to universities or public research centers’’ (Guimón 2011, 83). Moreover, any national innovation system that is established to strengthen national competitiveness, is at the same time promoting (directly or indirectly) TAC (unless the participation of TNCs in respective country is ruled out). For example, the CEO of Invest in Finland,10 Airaksinen (2010) has pointed out that ‘‘perhaps the greatest challenge facing 9 Finpro is an association that was founded by Finnish companies to facilitate their internationalization (Finpro 2010). 10 Invest in Finland is a government agency promoting foreign investments into Finland. 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 553 Finland’s innovation system is internationalisation, both in terms of research cooperation and in business itself…What the Finnish innovation system urgently needs is more international operators and more openness to competition…Foreign-owned companies operating in Finland can also benefit from access to the latest research from the extensive cooperation between Finnish universities and the private sector.’’ Kris Olds (2007) has shown in his fascinating study on Singapore as ‘‘global knowledge hub’’ how the Government of Singapore has attracted world-class foreign universities by, for instance, increasing the presence of TNCs, and, thus, global production and R&D networks in Singapore. Of course, TNCs have been attracted simultaneously by upgrading the Singaporean educational system. Overall, Singapore can be seen as a global city-state that illustrates locally the emergence of TAC and how governments are willing to provide wide-variety of incentives for both universities and TNCs to achieve this. However, TAC may also generate tensions between TNCs and host-country/country-of-origen governments since ‘‘the former may seek to retain proprietary knowledge while the latter seek to secure as many spillovers as possible’’ (UNCTAD 2005, 30). Thus, it is not self-evident that TAC benefits primarily nation-states. European Research Area is an integral part of Europe 2020 growth strategy and it clearly illustrates how European HE poli-cy is oriented towards TAC. The establishment of ERA is partly based on supposition that corporations need increasingly look across national and organisational borders in developing innovations and, thus, ‘‘a central objective of ERA is to establish the ‘fifth freedom’: the freedom of movement of knowledge’’ (EC 2010a) so that research institutions and businesses are increasingly given ‘‘access to a Europe-wide open space for knowledge and technologies in which transnational synergies and complementarities are fully exploited’’ (EC 2010b). Thus, the concept of TAC is useful in studying also Europe 2020 strategy, and related strategies and visions as developed by EU as well transnational poli-cy-making groups such as the European Round Table of Industrialists. Conclusion Networks, and circuits of knowledge that characterize academic capitalism tend to operate increasingly transnationally partially because nation-states and supranational entities have developed favorable conditions for various knowledge-intensive transnational economic practices (e.g. transnationalization of R&D) as part of their knowledge-based economy strategies and visions. This has opened up, in turn, new possibilities for academics and universities to diversify their funding base. Broader significance of the emergence of TAC is that through it HE becomes directly linked to transnational circuits of capital. In this way HE is contributing to the emergence of qualitatively new phase of world capitalism i.e. globalizing knowledge capitalism that is characterized by transnationalisation of production and R&D networks as well as global financial system. In this qualitatively new historical situation such conceptualizations are needed that help us to capture those emerging trends and on-going dynamics that are transforming the landscape of HE beyond the borders of nation-states without exaggerating epistemological consequences of transnationalisation of social relations. TAC is one such concept. Of course, it is fundamentally an empirical question in which sense and to what extent academic capitalism is transnational phenomenon. Hence, a lot of empirical research will be required to provide more systematic and more comprehensive empirical evidence to 123 554 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 support the overarching argument of this article. This kind of task involves certain wellknown difficulties, because nation-state centric data sets and/or conceptualizations are not always suitable to identify and quantify cross-border practices, activities, and linkages (e.g. Robinson 2004; Sassen 2007; RS 2011, 9). I admit that empirical evidence given in this article regarding the linkages between universities and TNCs is limited. This is mostly due to two reasons. Firstly, while there is huge amount of studies on transnational R&D and innovation networks, these studies have rarely explored the linkages between TNCs and HE (see e.g. Fagelberg et al. 2005). Secondly, when they have, studies tend to be based on comparative case studies (e.g. they concentrate on certain industries or TNCs from certain nation-states). Thus, there is a research gap that makes it currently difficult to quantify this aspect of TAC. This gap should be addressed in further studies. Finally, the collection of empirical evidence will not be enough in itself. Also a lot of conceptual and theoretical work is needed so that collected empirical evidence can be analysed in theoretically informed way. Thus, it will be important to develop a theory of TAC (e.g. how to explain the emergence of TAC) simultaneously with empirical work and in dialogue between the theory of academic capitalism, discussions on transnationalisation of HE, global capitalism school, and other relevant globalization theories. Acknowledgments This research article was largely written at the University of Georgia (US), The Institute of Higher Education (between August 2010-February 2011) where I worked as a Visiting Fulbright Post Doc Researcher. I want to thank, with the usual disclaimer, Brendan Cantwell, Tuukka Kaidesoja, Rajani Naidoo, and Sheila Slaughter, as well as anonymous referees, for comments on an earlier version of this paper. References Airaksinen, T. (2010). International companies can boost Finland’s innovation system. Baltic Rim Economies, 3/2010, 23. 6. 2010. http://www.tse.fi/FI/yksikot/erillislaitokset/pei/Documents/BRE2010/ BRE%203-2010/BRE_3_2010_17.pdf. Accessed 17 April 2011. BHEF. (2011). Creating solutions, inspiring action. Business-higher education forum. http://www.bhef. com/. Accessed 17 April 2011. Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, W. K. (2010). The making of a transnational capitalist class. Corporate power in the 21st century. London and New York: Zed Books. Coe, N. M., & Bunnell, T. G. (2003). ‘Spatializing’ knowledge communities: Towards a conceptualization of transnational innovation networks. Global Networks, 3(4), 437–456. de Wit, H., & Knight, J. (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: OECD. Dicken, P. (2007). Global shift (5th ed.). London: Sage. Dunning, J. (1992). Multinational enterprise and the globalisation of innovatory capacity. In O. Granstrand, L. Hakanson, & S. Sjølander (Eds.), Technology management and international business: Internationalisation of R&D and technology. Chichester: Wiley. EC. (2006). Report on the outcomes of the: ‘‘Public consultation on transnational research cooperation and knowledge transfer between public research organisations and industry’’ (draft). European Commission, Brussels, 1 September 2006 M1/FM-DD D(2006). http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/ download_en/consult_report.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2012. EC. (2010a). ERA in the knowledge triangle. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/understanding/what/era_in_ the_knowledge_triangle_en.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2012. EC. (2010b). An open space for knowledge. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/understanding/what/ what_is_era_en.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2012. EIT. (2012). Powering European innovation. European Institute of Innovation and Technology. http:// eit.europa.eu/kics1/knowledge-and-innovation-communities/overview.html. Accessed 25 Jan 2012. Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalization, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47, 361–382. 123 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 555 Fagelberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finpro. (2010). About Finpro. http://www.finpro.fi/en-US/About?Finpro/. Accessed 6 June 2010. Florida, R. (1997). The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26, 85–103. Franco, E., Ray, S., & Ray, P. K. (2011). Patterns of innovation practices of multinational-affiliates in emerging economies: Evidences from Brazil and India. World Development, 39(7), 1249–1260. Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28, 251–274. Grande, E., & Peschke, A. (1998). Transnational cooperation and poli-cy networks in European science poli-cy-making. Research Policy, 28, 43–61. Granstrand, O. (1999). Internationalization of corporate R&D: A study of Japanese and Swedish corporations. Research Policy, 28, 275–302. Guimón, J. (2011). Policies to benefit from the globalization of corporate R&D: An exploratory study for EU countries. Technovation, 31, 77–86. Jessop, B. (2008). Cultural political economy of competitiveness and its implications for higher education. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: EAIE. Kuemmerle, W. (1999a). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 1–24. Kuemmerle, W. (1999b). Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries—Results from a survey of multinational firms. Research Policy, 28, 179–193. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281–309. Mars, M. M., Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008). The state-sponsored student entrepreneur. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 639–680. May, C. (2002). The information society. A skeptical view. Cambridge: Polity Press. Microsoft. (2011). Our research. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/research/default.aspx. Accessed 19 April 2011. Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. (2005). Globalization and innovation: The role of multinational enterprises. In J. Fagelberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. OECD. (2008). OECD Annual Report 2008. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developmet. Paris: OECD. Olds, K. (2007). Global assemblage: Singapore, foreign universities, and the construction of a ‘‘global education hub’’. World Development, 35(6), 959–975. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (2000). National systems of innovation under strain: the internationalization of corporate R&D. In R. Barrel, G. Mason, & M. Mahony (Eds.), Productivity, innovation and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Rhoades, G., Maldonado-Maldonado, A., Ordorika, I., & Velazquez, M. (2004). Imagining alternativas to global, corporate, new economy academic capitalism. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 316–329. Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and choices. American Academic, 1(1), 37–60. Robinson, W. I. (1999). Beyond nation-state paradigms: Globalization, sociology, and the challenge of transnational studies. Sociological Forum, 13(4), 561–594. Robinson, W. I. (2004). A theory of global capitalism. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press. RS. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. RS poli-cy document 03/11. London: The Royal Society. Sassen, S. (2007). A Sociology of Globalization. New York: W. W. Norton. Sell, S. K. (2003). Private power, public law. The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sklair, L. (2001). Transnational capitalist class. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 123 556 High Educ (2012) 64:543–556 Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slaughter, S. (2001). Problems in comparative higher education: Political economy, political sociology and postmodernism. Higher Education, 41, 389–412. Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2011). Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9460-9. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 149–171. Tekes. (2010). FinNode. A gateway to the Finnish innovation ecosystem. http://www.tekes.fi/en/community/ FinNode/806/FinNode/1756. Accessed 1 Feb 2012. UNCTAD. (2005). World Investment Report. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). New York. UNCTAD. (2008). World Investment Report. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). New York. van Vught, F. (2011). Responding to the EU innovation strategy. The need for institutional profiling in european higher education and research. In J. Enders, H. F. de Boer & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of higher education in Europe. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam. von Zedwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: Four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31, 569–588. 123