Original Article

Policy Futures in Education

2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–15
Role of the government in the © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
establishment of world-class sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14782103221101775
journals.sagepub.com/home/pfe
universities in China

Ha Thi Hai Do and Anh Ngoc Mai 

Faculty of Management Science, National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam

Abstract
This study used the historical research method to explore the Chinese government’s role in
building world-class universities. We traced the government’s role in pushing policies for (i) ac-
celerating academic improvement and (ii) enhancing the involvement of provincial governments in
achieving universities’ world-class status. The findings revealed the effectiveness of using both direct
and indirect interventions on establishing universities of world-class status. Talented Chinese
academics working in flagship universities overseas returned and signed tenure contracts with key
Chinese universities following national strategies. However, publication requirements tended to
deter academics’ quality publications. Moreover, the national priority on achieving world-class
status resulted in the concentration of the best Chinese students in major cities for studying and
working, consequently leading to regional stratification. Graduates from elite Chinese universities
also have more opportunities to earn higher incomes and better career prospects than other
graduates. Future studies may adopt a similar strategy to investigate conditions in other countries.

Keywords
strategy, policy, decentralisation, elite university, world-class

Introduction
In the 1990s, higher education development in China was characterised by low levels of teaching
and research quality (Wang and Vallance, 2015; Zha, 2011). To narrow the gap in higher education
quality between Chinese universities and first-rate universities in Western countries, the Communist
Party and the Chinese government released official texts that outlined the restructuring of the
development of China’s higher education system. The Chinese government adopted decentral-
isation measures, allowing the private sector to provide higher education services and independent

Corresponding author:
Anh Ngoc Mai, Faculty of Management Science, National Economics University, 207 Giai Phong Road, Hai Ba Trung
District, Hanoi 10000, Vietnam.
Email: maingocanh@neu.edu.vn
2 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

colleges to be established, approving public investments in key disciplines and universities, and
giving autonomous rights to public universities (Bie and Yi, 2014; Ngok and Gou, 2008). Con-
sequently, world-class universities were built, in parallel with the massification of higher education,
which reached the tail-end phase by 2020. Although the success of China’s higher education sector
has been widely discussed, extensive analyses of the Chinese government’s role in establishing
world-class universities remain valuable, particularly those with a historical review approach.
Indeed, the models for establishing world-class status for universities are dissimilar worldwide.
Even in the West, models differ owing to cultural, historical, and political factors (Wang, 2001).
Likewise, the emerging Chinese models differ from previous ones, as the planned economy was
replaced by the market economy with Chinese characteristics (Song, 2017). The present study
aimed to provide insight into the Chinese government’s role in the establishment of world-class
universities in the context of using macro administration instead of the direct intervention im-
plemented in the past. The unexpected outcomes observed in emerging Chinese models for world-
class universities are also discussed. Specifically, this study addressed the following research
questions:

(i) What is the Chinese government’s role in building world-class Chinese universities?
(ii) What are the consequences of the development of China’s higher education sector and
China’s society?

Literature review and research approach

Although higher education (HE) plays a crucial role in the development of society (Jerome and
Richard, 1970), its delivery differs among institutions. College education is designed to impart
practical skills or know-how for applying knowledge to a situation (United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1997), but education in universities is associated
with theoretical or academic issues (Moodie, 2002). Universities are institutions that encourage
learners to ‘walk out of the ivory tower’ and ‘serve … society’; however, they are distinguished by
their ‘intellectual atmosphere and the tutorial system’ (Wang 2001: 4). Universities can be cat-
egorised as teaching institutions and research universities. Teaching institutions pay attention to
economic and regional development (Yusuf and Nabeshima, 2007), whereas research universities
focus on ‘their research and commercialization activities’ (Wang and Vallance, 2015: 1660). The
knowledge generated from research universities is essential and supports ‘the national innovation
system’ (Salmi, 2009: 70). Top research universities are found only in a few countries, as these
institutions create and disseminate knowledge ‘across a range of disciplines and fields’; therefore,
the infrastructure for teaching and research at research universities must be equipped ‘at the highest
possible level’ (Altbach, 2009: 69).
In the early 21st century, the terms global university, global research university, world-class
university, flagship university, first-class university, and research-oriented institution have been
used interchangeably to refer to research universities (Kim et al., 2017; Li, 2012). The trend of
building world-class universities is associated with the emergence of a ‘knowledge-based economy’
(Byun et al., 2012: 645). Strategies for establishing world-class universities were discussed in the
HE systems of both advanced economies, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia,
Germany, France, and Japan, and developing economies, such as Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong,
South Korea and China (Shin and Kehm, 2013). It was difficult for universities leaders to push their
universities to reach the world-class status as there was no accurate and commonly acknowledged
description of a world-class university (Altbach 2004; Li, 2012).
Do and Mai 3

Scholars and global rankings have gradually clarified the definition of a world-class university
and thus ‘the concept of [a] world-class university has evolved’ (Lee, 2013: 234). They now define it
as a status that is key to attracting global scholars and talented students (Salmi and Liu, 2011) who,
in turn, contribute to the output of innovative networks and systems. World-class universities have a
tangible impact on commerce and trade at both the regional and global levels (Byun et al., 2012), as
innovative networks and systems generated from these universities attract external investments
(Salmi, 2009). World-class universities contribute knowledge and education to the development of
humankind (Shin, 2013). They are ranked highly in international university rankings, including the
renowned Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds World
University Rankings (QSWUR), and Times Higher Education World University Rankings
(THEWUR). World-class universities are ranked by the indicators and weights of each system, and
they differ across systems (Hou et al., 2012). Academic qualification appears to be an important
factor contributing to global ranking indicators, including research, citation, teaching, industry
income, international outlook, and employer reputation (Mai, 2022). The better the indicators for a
university, the higher its ranking.
History shows that world-class universities do not attain their status through their isolated efforts
but because of many factors, including policies and strategies of national governments and the
universities themselves. The world-class status of a university depends on, among others, excellence
in research, having outstanding lecturers and prestigious scholars, and the provision of adequate
facilities (Altbach, 2009). National strategies for building world-class universities vary across
countries, including research support, attracting prestigious scholars, or both (Altbach, 2009; Shin
and Kehm, 2013; Shattock, 2016). Although autonomous rights have been given to public uni-
versities, they differ across nations. However, academic, financial, personnel and organisational
autonomy, are essential for universities to achieve a world-class status (Li, 2012).
China’s HE system was mostly destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (Wang and Vallance
2015) and by the implementation of narrow specialisations. Moreover, the shortage of technical
intellectuals who can serve the Chinese socialist industry led to China’s economic stagnation. The
Chinese national government initiated the decentralisation process of its university governance to
replace the centrally prescribed HE system (Mok, 1999) and thus provide an adequately qualified
workforce for regional, national, and international competitiveness. The Chinese government’s role
in governing Chinese universities shifted from direct intervention to a regulatory function.
Considering the Western HE models, the Chinese government intervened in the development of
higher education by supporting political and financial policies (Brown and Neku, 2005). To
overcome the fragmentation in the HE system, the Chinese government granted the Ministry of
Education (MOE) power to decide on the overall planning and administration of HE institutions (Gu
et al., 2018). Provincial governments became responsible for the administration of HE institutions
within their jurisdictions and were in charge of accelerating the linkage between HE institutions and
regional economic development (Bie and Yi, 2014). At the micro level, universities require au-
tonomy to survive in a competitive global market economy. Autonomous rights, including or-
ganisational, financial, staffing, and academic autonomy, had been given gradually to China’s
universities (Mai et al., 2020).
Although China gained some success in the science and technology fields in the late 1970s (Luo,
2013), the innovation systems still lagged compared with Western countries. The Chinese lead-
ership acknowledged that unless cutting-edge technologies are to be developed, industrial reform in
China will never succeed. Without knowledge-based technologies, the national competitive ad-
vantage can never match that of Western nations in a globally competitive environment. Several
government-driven policies or programmes were launched to develop high-tech industries.
4 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

University-affiliated state key laboratories were established; these laboratories served as a platform
for launching projects to develop key disciplines at elite universities in China in the 1990s (Su et al.,
2015).
Despite the Chinese government’s efforts to reconstruct the HE system, universities in China
were recognised only as teaching institutions, because research functions were granted to ‘a separate
national research system’ (Wang and Vallance, 2015: 1662). Until the end of the 20th century,
China’s HE system remained a ‘highly fragmented and segmented system’ as most HEIs were
specialised institutions and under line-management control by various central federal agencies and
sectoral ministries (Cai and Yang, 2016: 72). The country’s human resource development index in
the 1990s was ‘equal to that of the world average in 1970’ (Zha, 2011: 752). A shortage of talent was
a key characteristic of China’s workforce, as only one-tenth of graduates were ‘qualified to work in
multinational companies’ in the late 20th century (Wang et al., 2011: 34).
In a knowledge economy, cutting-edge knowledge production is considered the core compet-
itiveness of countries, and research universities are considered major players in delivering it (Byun
et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2017). Therefore, establishing world-class universities has become a core
factor for national development worldwide, including China. Today, several Chinese universities
have been ranked in global league tables. Therefore, the role of the Chinese government in the
establishment of these world-class universities should be studied.
The role of government in higher education can be understood by examining two aspects: the
functions of government in a higher education system, and the development of the higher education
sector. The role of government in higher education can also be expressed by direct and indirect
intervention, respectively. Direct intervention happens when government subsidies or direct aid are
granted; otherwise, it occurs when governments provide the policies and regulatory functions (Liou,
1998). In the Anglo-Saxon model the government is less directive than other systems. Still, the
growth of higher education has been partially supported by the role of research funding, and these
loans shaped the student market. The role of other governments in European nations is more evident
than in English-speaking countries. These governments have played a crucial role in investments,
designed to create WCU, such as Germany and France (Mai, 2022; Pusser and Marginson, 2013).
This study used historical research, combining inductive and deductive approaches, to clarify the
Chinese government’s role in Chinese universities’ success in obtaining a world-class status, and
examining documents related to their role, concerning the extensive use of both direct and indirect
interventions on (i) accelerating academic improvement and (ii) enhancing the involvement of
provincial governments in building universities with a world-class status.

(i) Academic qualification is known as a core value of higher education institutions (HEIs) and
a crucial factor influencing indicators of international university rankings. China’s HEIs still
lag compared with those in Western countries, but it is impossible to upgrade all HEIs to key
universities because of financial constraints. Therefore, a group of key universities and
disciplines were handpicked for substantial investments to reach a level similar to that in
Western countries (Li, 2012). Without autonomous rights, the target of establishing key
fields, key universities, particularly academic improvement, cannot be achieved. The
success of key universities and disciplines is a robust platform for building world-class
universities. Academic progress depends on qualified academics and talented researchers.
Consequently, attracting them has become among a university’s strategies to reach a world-
class status under the Chinese government’s political and financial support. The gov-
ernment also uses qualification accreditation as an administrative tool to prevent having
poor quality education and accelerate academic improvement. Without a certificate of
Do and Mai 5

accreditation issued by stage agencies, universities cannot receive a line-item budget and
additional grants from state allocation, even though they are participating in projects for
qualification improvement sponsored by the government.
(ii) Key universities attract academic merit students because of their future career opportunities.
Consequently, this strategy creates a brain drain problem in provinces as the best students
attend schooling in major cities, where key universities are located (Smolentseva, 2016).
Universities contribute to regional development (Shin, 2013), and provincial governments
must be responsible for administering HEIs within their jurisdiction and contribute to the
latter’s development (Mai, 2022). Therefore, the central government is responsible for
enhancing provincial governments’ involvement in financing key institutions under their
jurisdiction.

Using a historical review combined with inductive and deductive logic, this paper shows China’s
strategies on establishing its world-class universities and the Chinese government’s role in this
process, particularly since the promulgation of the 211 Project with the ambition of establishing key
universities and key disciplines. The paper then concentrates on the launch of the 985 Project for
assisting targeted higher education institutions to reach a status of a world-class institution, up to
implementing the Double First-Class project to strengthen and broaden the number of Chinese
universities at world-class status. The following section concentrates on the Chinese government’s
role in building Chinese universities of world-class status and its outcomes. Finally, by exerting
inductive and deductive approaches to analyse the secondary data, the paper discusses both positive
and negative aspects of the results of the Chinese government’s role in building Chinese universities
at a world-class status. An extensive range of published documents, including policy papers,
government reports, scholarly publications, and website documents, were collected. The extensive
search focused on several keywords, including ‘world-class university, role of the government, and
‘China’s higher education’. However, only related papers from journals indexed by the Web of
Science and renowned institutions were chosen for this study.

Results
The Chinese government’s role in accelerating academic improvement
The Chinese government promoted a transition to a market economy with Chinese characteristics
when China’s higher education was not a perfect machine in educating future specialists to develop
a socialist society. Developing key universities and disciplines has become a national priority for
improving HE qualification and narrowing the gap with the advanced standards of Western
countries (Li, 2012). The State Council promulgated the Outline of Reform and Development of
Chinese Education in 1993 with the ambition of establishing ‘100 key universities and some key
disciplines’ (Ying, 2011: 356). The 211 Project officially started in 1995 and aimed to improve the
quality of teaching, research, and administration in 211 universities, so that the latter reach the HE
qualification of Western countries (Tang, 2020). The 211 Project targeted to improve conditions for
school-running and develop 100 key disciplines from 1996 to 2000 (Ying, 2011). Launched in 1999,
the 985 Project aimed to establish several world-class universities, as key Chinese universities were
required to promote national core competitiveness in science and technology through education
(Wang et al., 2011). 34 universities were chosen for the first phase from 1999 to 2002 (five other
universities were added later), only two elite universities were handpicked by the government with
the aim of attaining a world-class status; other universities were set up depending on the
6 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

commitments in terms of political support and financial contributions from provincial governments
and central ministries. The other 37 universities were oriented toward lower targets, that is, to be
either comprehensive universities, world-renowned universities, or first-class universities mainly
focused on several fields (Ngok and Gou, 2008). In its first phase, some disciplines were targeted to
catch up with advanced international standards (Ngok and Gou, 2008). In its second phase, some
disciplines were targeted ‘to reach the international first-rate level’ (Ying, 2011: 361). Platforms for
scientific and technological innovation were also established to improve supportive conditions for
cooperation and international exchanges and attract and create distinctive global scholars to promote
the establishment of a set of world-class disciplines (Ying, 2011). Some universities would be
nationally well-known and already have the foundation for achieving a world-class status (Ying,
2011).
Recognising university autonomy is essential for the improvement of research and teaching in an
institution for it to be ranked as a world-class university. As soon as the State Commission of
Education promulgated the Opinions about Deepening Reform and Expanding Autonomous Rights
for Universities Affiliated with the Commission of Education in 1992, autonomy had been extended
gradually to public universities in China, except that ‘the executive head runs a public university
under the leadership of the Committee of the Communist Party which acts as a governing body’
(Mai, 2022: 82). (i) Regarding personnel autonomy, the tenure track has been allowed to be used by
China’s universities (Mai et al., 2020). In addition, public universities were granted authority over
deciding on ‘salaries and professional promotion of academics’ based on the number of annually
published papers in high-ranking journals worldwide (Liu, 2016: 64); with the autonomous rights,
China’s key universities have used money to attract outstanding scholars to improve research
capacities. (ii) Regarding academic autonomy, after the promulgation of the Framework for the
Chinese Basic Education Curriculum Reform in 2001, a trend for using Western textbooks became
popular among China’s HEIs, as a part of the policy on implementing higher education that follow
international standards (Bie and Yi, 2014). Key universities were promoted to use textbooks ‘as
those used in Western countries’ (Rhoads and Hu, 2012: 359). China’s HEIs have been granted not
only decision-making powers to design their curriculum, excluding the general education cur-
riculum, but also the authority to introduce new academic programmes within the standard fields of
study promulgated by the Chinese government (Mai et al., 2020). New programmes belonging to
key disciplines can, therefore, be introduced by universities without interference from external
authorities. (iii) Regarding financial autonomy, public universities have been allowed to diversify
their research funding based on the performance and needs of the country. Accordingly, funding
resources for research include expenses from central or provincial governments, both for regular
activities or special research, loans from banks, joint research with other public organisations, and
support from the private sector (Wang and Vallance, 2015). The Chinese government promulgated
policies to enhance the application and dissemination of research outcomes. Accordingly, although
research efforts are funded by the government, research achievements belong to the beneficiary
universities and researchers. The university and the researchers have shared income from trans-
ferring the achievement (Gu et al., 2018).
The Chinese government was aware of the significant contribution of outstanding scholars to
increase the quality of teaching and research in China’s HEIs, particularly for developing key
universities and disciplines. As such, it issued several policies to attract distinguished Chinese
scholars overseas and promote joint research with world-renowned scholars. In line with the
Medium and Long-Term Talent Development Plan (2010–2020) released in 2006, the central
government launched the Thousand Talents Programme and the Thousand Youth Talents Pro-
gramme to attract leading talented individuals and outstanding young overseas academics back to
Do and Mai 7

Table 1. The number of regular HEIs administered by different authorities.

1958 1976 1985 1990

MOE 6 — 38 36
Other central ministries and commissions 80 — 285 318
Provincial governments 705 — 691 721
Total 791 392 1014 1075

Source: Gu et al. (2018): 35 and 40.

China. The provincial governments established various talent schemes, such as the 3315 Pro-
gramme of the Zhejiang provincial government, or the talent residence permit of the Fujian
Provincial Civil Service Bureau (Wang and Bao, 2015). Elite universities have benefited immensely
from these policies because of the various types of support they obtain from local and central
governments (Su et al., 2015). They have recruited China-bred researchers working in globally
flagship universities to enhance their high-quality research capacities and publications to catch up
with the top Western standards (Marini and Yang, 2021).
Moreover, a quality guarantee system for higher education was established in China (see Table
1). Accordingly, the Academic Degree Committee of the State Council is responsible for evaluating
the postgraduate level of higher educations, and the MOE’s Centre of Higher Education Evaluation
(HEEC) oversees the assessment of the teaching quality of the HEIs affiliated with central ministries
and newly built HEIs (Liu, 2016; HEEC - Higher education evaluation center of the Ministry of
Education, China, 2017). Based on assessment reports from the relevant provincial departments of
education, the HEEC has explored publishing ‘an annual quality report system of colleges and
universities’ (Bie and Yi, 2014: 1505). The government has further enacted policies to improve the
quality of teaching, as the senior academic staff has been required to teach undergraduate courses
besides working at laboratories or supervising graduate students. As a result, classes taught by
professors and associate professors become inevitable indicators of external assessment. (Liu,
2016). This legal document improves the teaching environment in China’s key universities because
the top Chinese global intelligentsia must instruct their students. Consequently, instead of choosing
a world-class institution abroad for study, potentially talented students could apply to China’s global
research universities for better future careers.

The Chinese government’s role in enhancing the involvement of provincial governments

As universities are administered by either line ministries or provincial governments, they have roles
and responsibilities in developing key disciplines and universities toward the larger goal of es-
tablishing world-renowned, world-class universities located in their regions. Accordingly, the
selective principle of ‘one ministry, one university’ and ‘one province, one university’, except for
key universities under MOE jurisdiction, was promulgated under the 211 Project. Because es-
tablishing disciplines and national, research-oriented or world-class universities to meet the national
strategy requires considerable financial investment, the central government cannot do it alone.
Therefore, the central government decided to initiate the involvement of provincial governments
(Tang, 2020). Both levels of government were assigned roles and responsibilities for the devel-
opment of China’s HE system and world-class universities. Central commissions and other
ministries and provincial governments were granted all decision-making powers for the selected 211
universities under their jurisdiction. Moreover, they were allowed to develop key institutions
8 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

located in their territories to attain world-class status depending on the capacities of their financial
resources (Ngok and Gou, 2008). More than RMB36 billion and RMB31 billion were invested in
the 211 Project and 985 Project, respectively (Ying, 2011); the financial resources were shared by
both central and provincial governments.
To cultivate talented people with a sense of social responsibility, awareness of the rule of law,
innovative spirit, and moral integrity as socialist builders and successors to promote China’s
economic and social development by creating scientific and technological innovation. Accordingly,
the State Council issued the Overall plan to encourage the construction of Double First class in
November 2015, as soon as the 985 Project expired. The Double First-class refers to the con-
struction of First-class universities and First-class disciplines, officially published in 2017. The
Double First-class emphasises the importance of talent training. Unless being trained talents, a
Chinese university cannot be selected in this Project. While Chinese universities at First-class status
have Chinese characteristics, adhering to the correct political orientation, Chinese Disciplines at
First-class status have to link to local economic and social development needs. The Double First-
class was officially promulgated in 2017. The State Council decided the list of First-class uni-
versities and First-class Disciplines based on the proposal submitted by the expert committee
coming from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, National Development and Reform
Commission (Lim and Xue, 2022). Although both central and provincial governments have been
involved in The Double World-class Project, the local governments had little impact on the selection
of participating universities. The involvement of the provincial governments in The Double World-
class Project has been restricted in terms of financial support, as decision-making powers of the
provincial governments on choosing universities for The Double World-class Project have been
withdrawn (Zhao, 2018). First-class universities and First-class Disciplines would have a high
overlap with the 985 project universities and the 211 Project universities; the restricted influence of
provincial governments happens whether they seek changes or maintain the status quo. The in-
tervention of local governments would be more potent at the implementation stage.

Discussion and conclusion

In the knowledge economy, professional human resources are a key factor in national competi-
tiveness and economic growth. However, as the quality of higher education in China lagged far
behind other developed countries, the shortage of talent was a significant barrier to China’s de-
velopment in the late 20th century. Establishing world-class universities, therefore, became China’s
national strategy, because they were acknowledged as key players in training the talented workforce
‘needed by the economy’ (Salmi, 2009: 24). Key disciplines and universities were handpicked for
substantial investments to narrow the quality gap in higher education with Western countries. The
strategies for building world-class universities have been quite clear since 1998. Among several
prestigious HEIs, the Chinese government decided to invest a considerable amount of the central
government budget to turn the two targeted universities into world-class institutions, while 37 other
universities were targeted to be world-renowned universities with financial support shared by both
central and provincial governments. Decentralisation in higher education enhanced the participation
of provincial governments in the HE sector in China. Autonomous rights were granted to public
universities, with the exception of the following: (i) political courses, such as Marxism and Maoism,
are required to meet the national objective of promoting socialist modernisation by developing
socially responsible, innovative and pragmatic specialists (HEEC - Higher education evaluation
center of the Ministry of Education, China, 2017); (ii) a unitary governing system is compulsory,
and the executive body runs the university under the leadership of the Committee of the Communist
Do and Mai 9

Party in Chinese public universities, known as a governing body in Western countries (Mai et al.,
2020). To achieve a ‘leap forward in development’, a working environment conducive to attracting
the best talent from home and abroad was created (Ngok and Gou, 2008). With extra money and
other supporting policies enacted by central and local governments, elite universities attracted
talented people globally. Therefore, the objectives of the second phase of the 985 Project were met.
Generally, without receiving political and financial support from the Chinese government, it is
impossible for Chinese universities to reach a world-class status.
By exerting the use of both direct and indirect interventions, the Chinese government succeeded
with the 985 Project. Six universities in this project were included in the global ranking in 2011. The
number of elite Chinese universities increased to nine, in 2014 (see Table 2). The contributions of
the Chinese universities of world-class status, to the development of China’s higher education
institutions are quite impressive in terms of both the teaching and research areas. Regarding
teaching, Chinese world-class institutions have become the leading institutions to promote China’s
key universities (Zong and Zhang, 2017) in providing instruction of ‘821 key disciplines’ (Li, 2012:
324); four out of five doctoral students, two-thirds of graduate students, half of the students abroad,
and one-third of undergraduates, were educated at these key universities (Zhao and Zhu, 2010).
From a research perspective, Chinese world-class institutions have been acknowledged as a pushing
factor for China’s key universities to the increase the number of scientific papers, reaching ap-
proximately 50,000 articles in 2014. The quality improvement of research and teaching in China’s
elite universities promoted the qualifications of China’s HE system and initiated national com-
petitiveness. Consequently, China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy since
2010. In addition, more and more international students have chosen key institutions in China as
learning destinations as these institutions’ qualifications have reached Western standards.
China was ranked immediately after the United States in terms of global research publication
output (Zhong et al., 2019). Nine universities of the 985 Project were included in the global ranking
in 2014, compared with the six in 2011, according to THEWUR (see Table 2). In 2017, the Chinese
government decided to launch the Double World-Class Project, Key Discipline Innovation Plat-
form, and Key Discipline Project, known as the Double World-Class Strategy. The project aims to
turn China into a global higher education power with 42 universities and 456 academic disciplines
ranked globally (Mai, 2022). A three-step process for achieving these aims has been outlined: to
have more world-class universities and world-class disciplines ranked by prestigious global
rankings by 2020; to significantly improve the HE quality with more world-class universities and
world-class disciplines ranked among the best all over the world by 2030,; to be a global higher
education power with a number of institutions ranked among the best by 2050 (Mai, 2022).
By exerting direct and indirect interventions, the Chinese government has successfully
accelerated some of its elite universities to reach a world-class university status. By 2020, seven
universities of the 985 Project were ranked in top 150, and 28 other universities of this project were
ranked from 250 to 1000 of global universities, according to THEWUR (see Table 2). Although the
top world-class status has been attained by two prestigious universities and 34 key universities have
been ranked in global rankings, several problems in China’s HE system persist and must be resolved
before China can attain the position of a global higher education power. Although the Chinese
government has succeeded in playing a regulatory role to build world-class Chinese universities, the
implementation of these policies has created unwanted outcomes for the development of China’s HE
sector and its society.
First, the geographic distribution of elite Chinese universities among regions is unequal, as 25 out
of 39 universities of the 985 Project are in the east while eight of 12 provinces in the west are not
supported (Wang and Vallance, 2015). In addition, students in developed regions enjoy more
10 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Table 2. 36 of out 39 universities in 985 Project ranked by The Times Higher Education World University
Rankings.

Ranked by THEWUR
Area
(quantity) List of universities from 985 project Affiliation 2011 2014 2020

Beijing Tsinghua University MOE 58 50 23

Peking University MOE 37 45 24
Beijing Normal University MOE — — 301–350
Beijing Institute of Technology MOFA — — 601–800
Renmin University of China MOE — 226– 501–600
250
China Agriculture University MOE — — 601–800
Central University for Nationalities SEAF — — -
Beihang University MOFA — — 501–600
Shanghai Shanghai Jiaotong University MOE — 301– 157
350
Fudan University MOE — 201– 109
225
Tongji University MOE — — 401–500
East China Normal University MOE — — 501–600
Jiangsu Nanjing University MOE 120 251– 144
275
Southeast University MOE — — 501–600
Tianjin Tianjin University MOE — — 501–600
Nankai University MOE — — 351–400
Guangdong Sun Yat-sen University MOE 171 351– 251–300
400
South China University of Technology MOE — — 501–600
Shandong Shandong University MOE — — 601–800
Ocean University of China MOE — — 1000+
Fujian Xiamen University MOE — — 501–600
Zhejiang Zhejiang University MOE 197 351– 107
400
Liaoning Northeastern University MOE — — 801–
1000
Dalian University of Technology MOE — — 601–800
Heilongjiang Harbin Institute of Technology MOIIT — — 401–500
Jilin Jilin University MOE — — 801–
1000
Shannxi Xi’an Jiaotong University MOE — — 501–600
Northwest Polytechnic University MOIIT — — 601–800
Northwest A&F University MOE — — 801–
1000
Sichuan Sichuan University MOE — — 601–800
University of Electronic Science and Technology of MOE — — 601–800
China
Gansu Lanzhou University MOE — — -
Chongqing Chongqing University MOE — — 801–100

(continued)
Do and Mai 11

Table 2. (continued)

Ranked by THEWUR
Area
(quantity) List of universities from 985 project Affiliation 2011 2014 2020

Hubei Wuhan University MOE — — 351–400

Huazhong University of Science and Technology MOE — — 301–350
Hunam Hunan University MOE — — 401–500
National University of Defense Technology MND — — N/A
Central South University MOE — — 401–500
Anhui University of Science and Technology of China CAS 49 201– 80
225
Source: Statistics from website of The Times Higher Education World University Rankings in May 2020.

opportunities and a lower cut-off to be admitted to top universities than those from poor regions (Jia
and Ericson, 2016: 103). Consequently, the stratification in China’s HE system is characterised by a
widening gap between elite universities and the rest, regardless of the institution’s operating
conditions or students’ learning experiences (Tang, 2020; Zha, 2011). Graduates from elite Chinese
universities have more opportunities to earn higher incomes and better career prospects than other
graduates. The concentration of talented Chinese students in key universities also leads to clustered
gifted students in some developed regions, promoting stratification between areas nationwide.
Second, despite the encouragement given to the diversification of funds for university research,
hardly any private companies have entered a joint venture with public universities, including elite
universities in China, except for state-owned enterprises. Private investment in university-industry
collaboration remains rare (Wang and Vallance, 2015). Floor funding for university research is
inadequate in China. Therefore, given the state’s all-encompassing authority, elite universities have
been assimilated into the dominant political and administrative system (Serger et al., 2015). In other
words, China’s elite universities often function in a constrained environment, with a primary goal of
meeting political requirements (Han, 2020).
Third, Chinese returnees have played an important role in the development of Chinese society
and higher education, and questions have been raised about successfully attracting the best and
brightest returnees. Obviously, several talented overseas Chinese have not returned because of the
disparities between their current cultural and working environments and those of China. Returnees
working in top Chinese universities start their careers with a tenure-track contract. The requirement
of publication volumes and publication impact factors, instead of the actual quality of the research,
are crucial indicators for evaluating returnees’ performance. In addition, soft research environments
including academic culture and international networks of collaboration are not adequately nurtured.
Therefore, some returnees tend to pursue research that is easier to publish to attain good assessment
from their institutions, of which the evaluation measurements are largely followed by the country’s
national strategy (Marini and Yang 2021).
Fourth, despite the number of publications by Chinese scholars being ranked second worldwide
since 2014, and regardless of the number of citations being ranked fourth in 2018, the H-index for
Chinese scholars is still lower than that of scholars from 12 other countries, including the United
States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland,
Australia, Spain, and Sweden (see Table 3). The quality of publications does not appear to be of as
much interest as the quantity given the politics associated with achieving the world-class and world-
renowned status for universities in China.
12 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Table 3. Published documents and H-index among 20 leading publication countries.

Rank Country Documents Citations H Index

1 United States 12070144 297655815 2222

2 United Kingdom 3449243 77355297 1373
3 Germany 3019959 61262766 1203
4 Canada 1744508 39431612 1102
5 France 2120161 42219660 1094
6 Japan 2750108 42767077 967
7 Netherlands 966986 25586850 957
8 Italy 1744314 32252528 953
9 Switzerland 710672 19461396 919
10 Australia 1362848 27018516 914
11 Spain 1376358 23570723 830
12 Sweden 655869 16383158 825
13 China 5901404 48833849 794
14 Belgium 530736 12126138 748
15 Denmark 393204 10115806 705
16 Israel 376506 8735337 665
17 South Korea 1105110 14306940 624
18 Austria 386992 7959145 620
19 Finland 334763 7553739 609
20 Norway 312012 6477670 580
Source: ScimagoLab, 2020.

Finally, although the number of foreign-student enrolment in China’s institutions dramatically

increased, placing China’s ranking after the United States and the United Kingdom, most inter-
national students in China come from developing nations and participate in undergraduate courses,
event short-term language programs; foreign undergraduate and graduate students from developed
countries account for a small portion. The search for truths is nurtured by world-class universities in
the American talent-driven model and the British and Australian commerce-driven models. By
contrast, although universities have been given autonomous rights, political capital is the primary
pursuit in Chinese universities, driven by the Chinese government, including the flagship ones.
Most of them reflect that ‘ideological discourse in classroom teaching’ differs from ideological roots
(Gao and Liu 2020). As a result, talented Chinese students planning to go abroad to study and
foreign students from bilateral agreements between Chinese governments and other developing
countries appear as recruited targets of Chinese flagship universities.
The government’s role in establishing world-class universities continues to serve as a proxy for
political debates. Drawing comparative studies related to the role of the government in the es-
tablishment of world-class universities across non-Anglo-Saxon systems or discussing China’s
university governance model in the context of the industrial revolution 4.0 in China due to unwanted
outcomes from building world-class Chinese universities is an interesting topic for future research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Do and Mai 13

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Anh Ngoc Mai  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5243-2097

References
Altbach PG (2004) The costs and benefits of world-class Universities. Academe 90(1): 20–23.
Altbach PG (2009) Peripheries and Centers: research universities in developing countries. In: Sadlak J and Cai
LN (eds), The World-Class University as Part of a New Higher Education Paradigm: From Institutional
Qualities to Systemic Excellence, 69-96. Bucharest, Romania: UNCESCO-CEPES.
Bie D-R and Yi M-C (2014) The context of higher education development and policy response in China.
Studies in Higher Education 39: 1499–1510. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.949545.
Brown M and Neku RJ (2005) A historical review of the South African social welfare system and social work
practitioners’ views on its current status. International Social Work 48(3): 301–312. DOI: 10.1177/
0020872805051733.
Byun K, Jon J-E and Kim D (2012) Quest for building world-class universities in South Korea: Outcomes and
consequences. Higher Education 65: 645–659. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-012-9568-6.
Cai Y and Yang X (2016) Mergers in Chinese higher education: lessons for studies in a global context.
European journal of higher education 6: 71–85. DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1099458.
Gao Y and Liu J (2020) International student recruitment campaign: experiences of selected flagship uni-
versities in China. Higher Education 80: 663–678. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00503-8.
Gu J, Li X and Wang L (2018) Higher Education in China. Taipei, China: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-
0845-1.
Han S (2020) Experimental governance in China’s higher education: stakeholder’s interpretations, interactions
and strategic actions. Journal of Studies in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1725876.
HEEC - Higher education evaluation center of the Ministry of Education, China (2017) Annual Quality Report
of Undergraduate Education in China 2016. Bejing, China: Higher education evaluation center of the
Ministry of Education.
Hou AYC, Morse R and Chiang C-L (2012) An analysis of mobility in global rankings: making institutional
strategic plans and positioning for building world-class universities. Higher Education Research &
Development 31(6): 841–857. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.662631.
Jerome EL and Richard DS (1970) The public University: prospects of power. The Journal of Higher Education
41(2): 116–129. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.1970.11773895.
Jia Q and Ericson D (2016) Equity and access to higher education in China: lessons from Hunan province for
university admissions policy. International Journal of Educational Development 52: 97–110. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ijedudev.2016.10.011.
Kim D, Song Q, Liu J, et al. (2017) Building world class universities in China: exploring faculty’s perceptions,
interpretations of and struggles with global forces in higher educationA Journal of Comparative and
International Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 48(1):
92–109. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2017.1292846.
Lee J (2013) Creating world-class universities: implications for developing countries. Prospects 43: 233–249.
DOI: 10.1007/s11125-013-9266-x.
Li J (2012) World-class higher education and the emerging Chinese model of the university. Prospects 42:
319–339. DOI: 10.1007/s11125-012-9241-y.
14 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Li J and Xue E (2022) Rethinking how to create world-class universities in China: A policy mapping per-
spective. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(1): 81–91. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1876668.
Liu S (2016) Quality Assurance and Institutional Transformation: The Chinese Experience. Singapore:
Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-0789-7.
Liou KT (1998) The role of government in economic development: the chinese experience. International
Journal of Public Administration 21(9): 1257–1283. DOI: 10.1080/01900699808525347.
Luo Y (2013) Building world-class universities in China. In: Shin JC and Kehm BM (eds) Institutionalization
of world-class university in global competition. Singapore: Springer, pp. 165–183. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-
007-4975-7.
Mai AN (2022) The effect of autonomy on University Rankings in Germany, France and China. Higher
Education for the Future 9(1): 75–92. DOI: 10.1177/23476311211046178.
Mai AN, Do HTH, Mai CN, et al. (2020) Models of university autonomy and their relevance to Vietnam.
Journal of Asian Public Policy: 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/17516234.2020.1742412.
Marini G and Yang L (2021) Globally bred Chinese talents returning home: an analysis of a reverse brain-drain
flagship policy. Science and Public Policy 48(4): 541–552. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab021.
Mok K-H (1999) Education and the market place in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Higher Education 37(2):
133–158. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003542916506.
Moodie G (2002) Identifying vocational education and training. Journal of Vocational Education and Training
54(2): p249–266. DOI: 10.1080/13636820200200197.
Ngok K and Guo W (2008) The quest for world class universities in China: critical reflections. Policy Futures in
Education 6(5): 545–557. DOI: 10.2304/pfie.2008.6.5.545.
Rhoads RA and Hu J (2012) The internationalization of faculty life in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education
32(3): 351–365. DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2012.711293.
Salmi J (2009) The challenge of establishing world-class universities. In: Sadlak J and Cai LN (eds), The World-
Class University as Part of a New Higher Education Paradigm: From Institutional Qualities to Systemic
Excellence, 23-68. Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO-CEPES.
Salmi J and Liu NC (2011) Paths to a world-class university. In: Liu NC, Q Wang and Y Cheng (eds), Paths to a
World-Class University: Lessons from Practices and Experiences, ix-xviii. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
ScimagoLab (2020). Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Developed by Scimago Lab and powered by Scopus.
Available at: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php.
Serger S, Benner M and Liu L (2015) Chinese university governance: tensions and reforms. Science and Public
Policy 42(6): 871–886. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scv010.
Shattock M (2016) The ’world class’ university and international ranking systems: what are the policy im-
plications for governments and institutions? Policy Reviews in Higher Education 1: 4–21. DOI: 10.1080/
23322969.2016.123666.
Shin JC and Kehm BM (2013) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. In: Shin
JC and Kehm BM (eds) Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 17–32. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4975-7.
Shin JC (2013) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. In: Shin JC and Kehm
BM (eds) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. Singapore: Springer,
p17–32. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4975-7.
Smolentseva A (2016) Universal higher education and positional advantage: Soviet legacies and neoliberal
transformations in Russia. Higher Education 73: 209–226. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-016-0009-9.
Song J (2017) Creating world-class universities in China: strategies and impacts at a renowned research
university. Higher Education 75(4): 729–742. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-017-0167-4.
Do and Mai 15

Su D, Zhou D, Liu C, et al. (2015) Government-driven university-industry linkages in an emerging country: the
case of China. Journal of Science & Technology Policy Management 6(3): 263–282. DOI: 10.1108/
JSTPM-02-2015-0008.
Pusser B and Marginson S (2013) University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education
84(4): 544–568. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2013.11777301.
Tang Y (2020) Government spending on local higher education institutions (LHEIs) in China: analysing the
determinants of general appropriations and their contributions. Studies in Higher Education 47: 423–436.
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1750586.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1997) International Standard Classification
of Education. France, UK: UNESCO. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/docs/isced_1997.
htm.
Miao L and Wang H (2017) Reverse migration in China: contemporary Chinese returnees. In: Miao L and
Wang H (eds), International Migration of China, 53–84. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6074-8_3.
Wang Q H, Wang Q and Liu NC (2011) Building World-Class Universities in China: Shanghai Jiao Tong
University. In: Altbach PG and Salmi J (eds) The Road to Academic Excellence. Washington, DC: World
bank, pp. 33–62. https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/978-0-8213-8805-1.
Wang X and Vallance P (2015) The engagement of higher education in regional development in China.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33: 1657–1678. DOI: 10.1177/
0263774X15614143.
Wang Y (2001) Building the world-class university in developing countries: Universals, Uniqueness, and
Cooperation. Asia Pacific Education review, 2, 3–9, Yang, D. (2011) Chinese Higher Education during the
Past Thirty Years: The Transformation of Public Policy. In: Xuilan Z (ed) China’s Education Development
and Policy, 1978–2008. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 317–372.
Ying C (2011) A Reflection on the Effects of the 985 Project. Chinese Education & Society 44(5): 19–30. DOI:
10.2753/CED1061-1932440502.
Yusuf S and Nabeshima K (2007) How Universities Promote Economic Growth. Washington, DC: World bank.
Zha Q (2011) China’s move to mass higher education in a comparative perspective. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 41(6): 751–768.
Zhao L and Zhu J (2010) China’s Higher Education Reform: What Has Not Been Changed. Singapore: East
Asian Institute, National University of Singapore.
Zhao L (2018) China’s World-Class 2.0: towards more institutionalized and participatory policymaking? The
Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies 36(1): 5–27. DOI: 10.22439/cjas.v36i1.5510.
Zhong Z, Liu L, Coates H, et al. (2019) What the U.S. (and Rest of the World) should know about higher
education in China. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 51(3): 8–20. DOI: 10.1080/00091383.
2019.1606571.
Zong X and Zhang W (2017) Establishing world-class universities in China: deploying a quasi-experimental
design to evaluate the net effects of Project 985. Studies in Higher Education 44: 417–431. DOI: 10.1080/
03075079.2017.1368475.

Author Biographies
Ha Thi Hai Do, Assoc.Prof. Dr, National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Her primary
research interest is public administration and policies.
Anh Ngoc Mai, Assoc.Prof. Dr, National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam. His primary
research interest is public administration and policies.