Prior to European colonial expansion, numerous educational centres existed globally. Examples include Taxila and Maha Viharaya in the South Asian subcontinent, Jixia Academy, Taixue, and Taehak in East Asia, and Timbuktu in Africa. These institutions functioned not only as centres of learning but also as innovative spaces where scholars engaged in debate and intellectual inquiry. The European colonial project, however, disrupted the organic development of these educational and intellectual hubs. European and later North American universities were positioned as the preeminent centres of scholarly excellence. This shift, reinforced by globalisation and modernisation, enabled the Global North to establish itself as the primary locus of academic training. In recent decades, students from the Global South who have participated in these educational programmes have often been regarded as exemplary bearers of “knowledge” and “technical intelligence,” with their expertise frequently accepted without scrutiny. Presently, many countries in the Global South are governed by individuals educated in the Global North or are significantly influenced by European epistemological frameworks, particularly in governance, management, humanitarian work, and development strategies. Nevertheless, it is well established that this epistemological dominance from the Global North has not fulfilled its promises of peace, prosperity, and stability.[1] This essay contends that it is necessary to critically engage with philosophies originating from the Global South and to design, implement, and assess humanitarian and development education by the Global South, for the Global South.
A substantial critique of European and North American-centric higher education already exists, advanced by scholars such as Ivan Illich, Kenneth David Bush, Diana Saltarelli, Neil Smith and many others.[2] They have consistently highlighted that contemporary knowledge transfer to students tends to be repetitive and is often delivered as information without fostering critical thinking or examination. While the flow of information is increasing, higher education institutions in Europe and North America operate largely as corporate organisations driven by profit. In this model, universities treat students as “customers,” providing a service without adequately facilitating intellectual debate, scientific inquiry, or a broader sense of responsibility toward society and nature. Rather than nurturing analytical thinking, these institutions risk cultivating self-indulgence, greed, frustration, and resentment—traits that undermine the training of future humanitarian and development thinkers, policymakers, and practitioners.
Education is a Good Business
Importantly, higher education in most European and North American countries has transformed into a multimillion-dollar business, in step with the assumption that they deliver “quality” education. Given the recent financial challenges, the Chief Executive of Universities UK, Vivienne Stern MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire), claimed, “Our universities are something the UK can be genuinely proud of. They contribute over a quarter of a trillion pounds to the economy each year and are essential to the Government's growth ambitions and the UK’s future economic success. We need them to be firing on all cylinders.”[3] What is important to understand from this statement is that the pride of UK universities does not come from educational or intellectual contributions, but from a financial perspective. In light of financial and business challenges in Europe and North America, universities from these regions are increasingly expanding their reach into the Global South—particularly targeting China and India, the world’s two most populous countries. According to The Times of India, in 2025 alone, 12 universities from Australia, the UK, and Italy have set-up various campuses.[4] When the British Prime Minister visited India in October 2025, there were Vice Chancellors from 14 universities, who were trying to expand their “business” of education.[5] In China, universities from the UK, USA, Australia, and France are already operating their franchise campuses.[6] Against this backdrop, the key question arises: Can universities in the Global South design, deliver, and evaluate high-quality educational programmes?
An analysis of humanitarian and development postgraduate teaching programmes reveals that 85% to 90% of degrees are offered in European, North American, and Australian institutions, while only 5% to 10% are available in Asian, African, and Latin/South American contexts. This indicates that the Global North continues to play a dominant role in teaching humanitarian and development approaches to other regions.
Capabilities and Opportunities
Regardless of the ancient and historical realities of the Global South, countries such as China, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Malawi, South Africa, and Brazil have been dealing with humanitarian and development challenges over the past 75-years. Organizations such as BRAC from Bangladesh and Mercy Malaysia exemplify how local experiences and expertise from the Global South can effectively address challenges within their own regions. Numerous home-grown epistemologies—including Confucianism and Daoism from China, the concept of “The World is One Family” from the South Asian subcontinent, Ubuntu and Akan philosophies from Africa, and Mayan and Inca traditions from the Americas—offer robust approaches to humanitarian and development challenges. These philosophies have been adapted not only by local communities but also by national governments.
According to the New Humanitarian, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported a 35.8% humanitarian budget cut compared to 2024, and support for development programmes, projects, and technical co-operation dropped by 26.3%.[7] This is against the backdrop of the closure of USAID by the US Government as well as various financial and political challenges faced by the DAC countries.[8] Given the failure of the Global North to engage with the global humanitarian and development system meaningfully, as well as their failure to deliver quality higher education programmes on subjects, the opportunity for the Global South to step in has become clearer. Countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Nigeria, South Africa, and Brazil are stepping in already to assist in humanitarian and development crises. Similarly, universities in the Global South can design, develop, and deliver humanitarian and development educational programmes to train future academics, policymakers, and practitioners.
There is ample expertise within countries themselves. As many scholars have repeatedly emphasised, affected communities are often the first responders in times of crisis.[9] Further, there are many intellectuals and policymakers with experience and expertise on humanitarian and development approaches. Combining these pools of experts to design, develop, and deliver higher education programmes in humanitarian and development studies won’t be a challenge. Nevertheless, there is space for intellectuals and experts from the Global North to join this effort and collaborate with their counterparts in the Global South as equal partners to bring positive change.
The report of the South Commission, which was released in 1990, provides a strong foundation for future education of humanitarian and development experts:
The South's vision has to embrace the whole world, for it is part of that world. It cannot isolate itself; nor should it wish to isolate itself from the rest of the world. On the contrary, the South seeks an undivided world in which there would be no ‘South’ and no ‘North’; in which there would not be one part developed, rich, and dominating, and the other underdeveloped, poor, and dominated. The South's goal is a world of equal opportunities in which criss-crossing lines of interaction-political, economic, social, cultural, scientific-may sustain global interdependence; in which nations in their variety would work together in pursuit of jointly agreed goals; in which peace, security, and dignity would be the birthright of all persons and all peoples; in which all can take advantage of the advances of science; and in which the world's resources may be prudently used to satisfy the needs of all and not merely the narrow self-interest of a few.[10]
The reality is that populations in the Global South grapple with humanitarian and development challenges in their everyday lives. Not only do they face these challenges, but they also continuously adapt and develop effective strategies to overcome them. For instance, a woman living in an Indian slum manages to feed her entire family of seven or more on less than two US dollars a day—a feat that defies explanation by many humanitarian and development experts yet showcases her remarkable capacity to learn and adapt. As an ancient African proverb wisely states, “They who learn, teach.”
Janaka Jayawickrama serves as Professor of Social Anthropology and Director of the Research Centre for Health and Wellbeing at Shanghai University, China. Trained in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Janaka has collaborated with communities affected by disasters, conflict, and uneven development in Asia, Africa, and West Asia (also known as the Middle East) since 1994. Janaka also holds honorary positions at universities in the United Kingdom, Sweden, China, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
[1]Jayawickrama, J. and Chakraborty, A., (2024), Decolonizing education: learning from ancient South Asian pedagogies for human and planetary health, Postcolonial Studies, 27(4), pp.421-436.
[2]See, for instance: Illich, I., (1971), Deschooling Society, New York: Harper & Row. Bush, K. D., and Saltarelli, D., (2000), The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children, Innocenti Insight. United Nations Publications. Smith, N., (2000), Afterword: Who rules this sausage factory? Antipode, 32(3), 330–339.
[3]Universities UK, (2025), Universities grip financial crisis – but at what cost to the nation? UUK Media Release, Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/creating-voice-our-members/media-releases/universities-grip-financial-crisis-what
[4]Times of India, (2025), India’s Foreign Campus Push Gathers Pace: Here are 12 Universities Approved in 2025, Published on Dec 27, 2025, Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/indias-foreign-campus-push-gathers-pace-here-are-12-universities-approved-in-2025/articleshow/126204206.cms
[5]The UK Government, (2025), Prime Minister embarks on first major trade mission to India, Press release, 8 October 2025, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-embarks-on-first-major-trade-mission-to-india
[6]Billman, S., (2023), 14 Chinese Universities that Offer International Degrees, China Admissions, Available at: https://www.china-admissions.com/blog/14-chinese-universities-that-offer-international-degrees/
[7]Loy, Irwin, (2026), What the latest OECD numbers tell us about the future of aid? There’s a deeper question beneath the stats: Is development cooperation dead?, The New Humanitarian, Available at: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/maps-and-graphics/2026/04/10/what-latest-oecd-numbers-tell-us-about-future-aid
[8]DAC countries represent 34 countries from North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific region: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, and Romania (associate).
[9]O'Keefe, P., O'Brien, G. and Jayawickrama, J., (2015), Disastrous disasters: A polemic on capitalism, climate change, and humanitarianism. In Hazards, risks, and disasters in society (pp. 33-44), London: Elsevier.
[10]South Commission, (1990), Challenges to the South, The Report of the South Commission, London: Oxford University Press.
