Theorizing advances in international human resource development

Abstract

Abstract In recent presentations at HRD conferences in Europe and Asia, various papers have identified 'Globalization and HRD' as a growing area of intellectual inquiry. Our paper contributes to these theoretical explorations by attempting to map out the terrain of IHRD theory and activity. Drawing on international HRM (IHRM), development economics and development sociology writings we propose that international HRD in the global arena can be categorized under three headings: 'global HRD', 'comparative HRD' and 'national HRD'. We present a development model as a way of analysing HRD. It is argued that this model can be viewed as a heuristic device that may be used to break down the components of IHRD and, in doing so, contributes to IHRD theory formulation and a greater understanding of HRD organization policy and practice within an international context. Our theoretical discussion stresses the broader social development orientations of education and HRD. Key Words: HRDtheoryinternationalglobalizationHRMsocial development Notes 1 Please note we use the more common term MNC rather than TNC. In most cases MNCs are privately owned though some international/region corporations also have controlling government influence (for example, Saudi Aramco). TNC is the preferred term in developmental sociology and, according to Sklair (Citation2002), is the major locus of transnational economic practices. TNCs provide 'the material base for a transnational capitalist class that unquestionably dictates economic transnational practices, and is the most important single force in the struggle to dominate political and culture-ideology transnational practices' (Sklair, Citation2002, p. 9). In other words TNCs have more power than governments. 2 It is noteworthy that, in the case of the UNDP, country-specific publications on human capacity (for example, see UNDP, Citation2003a) are issued under a general series title of National Human Development Report. 3 It is important to stress conceptual debates that have evolved in IHRM writings. In the early stages of HRM theorizing there was a tendency for any research paper that discussed HR systems outside Western corporations to be seen as international (Sparrow et al., Citation2004). To rectify this conceptual confusion there is acknowledgement of global/transnational research that incorporates analysis of international organizations management systems in many countries and comparative HRM, involving detailed socio-cultural assessment of one or more nations (Brewster et al., Citation1996). The current Academy of Management Division of International Business, for example, specifies that international research must include at least two countries. 4 In 1975 the ILO agreed its first HRD policy document (Convention No. 142 and Recommendation No. 150) which represented 'a valid blueprint to guide countries in developing their training policies and systems' (ILO, Citation2002: 3). The recommendations are regularly updated and the Learning and Training for Work in the Knowledge Society Report IV (2002) is the most recent which is relevant to IHRD. 5 As previously highlighted, discussion of IHRM has tended to assume a Western capitalist mode of development. Economic structures in Asian and Middle Eastern countries are significantly different with substantial sectors controlled and owned by government.