The Hindu Business Line : Fetters on IIMs

THE QUESTION WHETHER Indian Institutes of Management should be allowed to set up campuses abroad, has raised the combination of extreme reactions that anything of quality, catering to a small constituency inevitably draws in India. Emotional rejection of the idea stems from the view that, as state-subsidised institutes, they owe it to the people to do other, socially responsible, things like ``run quality institutions in Bihar''. Viewed only in this way, the `either-or' choice exemplifies the hasty and ill-advised thinking and lack of perspective behind policy prescriptions. First of all, the mere existence of a large unsatisfied `market' in any service (if higher education can be classified as one) is no convincing argument in favour of a ban. Second, just because the state founded the IIMs should not, in this era, give New Delhi ultimate control over all decisions. In social infrastructure, which higher education is, the Ministry should never play the absentee landlord or founder-family. Its influence over strategy-making must be through due process, and within reason.

The issues are: What motivates the plan, and what "going global" means. According to the TV interviews of the three IIMs, the intention is the academic equivalent of global market access, showcasing the India and IIM brands, and stimulating the key people with something different to enthuse over — all eminently laudable goals. The meaning of going global varies — from starting a campus to sending faculty over regularly to run a set of programmes. Many US-based and European business schools have already come in to India for research and executive development programmes. It is only natural that Indian B-schools go abroad as quickly as they can without compromising on the needs of an established market.

The background to the dissent also exposes the level of ignorance among critics of developments in international business schools. Management education the world over is increasingly becoming manager education, not aimed at inexperienced graduates. The duration and pedagogy vary widely, from weeklong intensive courses, face to face, to three-year, partially distance taught degrees, meant exclusively for mid-career professionals. This last variant could meet the opposition from those who argue that the talents of there is a vast `untapped market' and `underserved demand'. A combination of less faculty-intensive methods would prove obviously efficient and attractive, economically. With the world knocking on India's doors, this is not the time to be feeble-minded about sharing the access to world markets in any sphere. The need is also for much wider corporate funding and sponsorship of manager education in jointly promoting higher education alongside IIMs — not just at the student level but to in-career managers too.

The debate on the issue is welcome, however, because it exposes the urgency and the limited options in an increasingly competitive educational world. Of greater concern is the poor record of the IIMs in industry-relevant research, which demands both world-class faculty and better compensation. If neither more money nor challenging assignments is feasible because of the ``owners", then IIMs have a bleak future indeed.