National Governments' Rationale for Supporting International Student Mobility - Literature review Example

LITERATURE REVIEW National Governments’ Rationale for Supporting International Student Mobility Political reasons Several political scientists and policymakers have reached a consensus that student mobility is an element of foreign policy (Baron, 1993; Greenwood, 2009; (Novak, Slatinsek & Devatak, 2013). From the perspective of both sender and receiver countries’, Baron (1993) indicated that agreements for sending and acceptance of the foreign students is largely viewed to be motivated by foreign policy agenda and objectives. Baron (1993) stated that this was linked to political influences that hoped to facilitate future ties and to prepare grounds and networks for international trade relations. Additionally, national governments in some Western European nations became gradually more aware of the benefits of supporting student mobility as a foreign policy instrument. It is within this perspective that studies by Kuhn (2012) and Mutlu (2011) suggested that that the stronger motivations for student mobility that European nations sought to acquire was linked to gaining direct control over their contribution to student and staff mobility in order to seek favourable foreign ties. Current literature also evidences that national governments promote sending their students for undergraduate and graduate studies to hedge them against likely influences of unstable political situations and poverty in their home countries (Salmela, 2008; Chang and Deng 1992; Xiang 2005). In a study of the history of student mobility in China, Salmela (2008) found that among the reasons that motivated the Chinese government to send students abroad between the 1980s and 1990s was the political situation of the country. Since the 1978 Chinese government reforms, the Chinese government assumed a friendlier approach to sponsoring post-graduate students for courses overseas. Indeed, after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, more Chinese students were sponsored for higher education with Western destinations such as the United States offering them permanent residency (Salmela, 2008). According to Xiang (2005), 10,000 students who had been sent for studies abroad to Canada were given permanent residence, while 20,000 and 28,500 received permanent residency in the United States and Australia respectively. An extensive survey conducted by Chang and Deng (1992) shortly after the Tiananmen Square incident underscored the fact that the perception of the effects of political situation on China’s education was a principal factor that motivated the government to support student mobility (David, Fung & Han, 2008). In his review, Salmela (2008) elaborated that since the Tiananmen Square incident, China became the biggest sender of students to study abroad to date. A large body of researches also shows that some countries have based their rationale for sending students abroad for further studies based on the premise that they would restore their place in global affairs (Baron, 1993; Becker and Kolster, 2012). Baron (1993) illustrated such a trend in his analysis of post-war Germany policies. The researcher argued that for many decades since the late 1940s, the Federal Republic of Germany became preoccupied with restoring its place in international affairs after the World War II. Germany's active policy of sending students abroad and opening doors to foreign students was motivated by the need to seek recognition in global affairs after becoming relatively irrelevant. Great Britain and the United States had pursued similar policies. A survey by Becker & Kolster (2012) illustrates that Germany has been successful in restoring its say in the global affairs, specifically in matter concerning research. According to the researchers, countries such as Netherlands, India, Brazil and China have maintained a clear internalisation strategy that fronts Germany as the most attractive student destination and beneficiary for research and innovation. To this end, Netherlands, India, Brazil and China sent their students to Germany with the view of developing global political ties that facilitate commerce and trade. The Indian government allocates about € 6 million each year to send students to study in Germany through the “Year of Germany and India 2011-2012” student grant programme. Becker & Kolster (2012) agrees that such strategies are credited for attracting most research students across the globe to Germany. The need for political equality has also motivated national governments to support student mobility (Baron, 1993). This remark reflects that made by Saarikallio-Torp and Wiers-Jenssen (2010) in their study of the rationale behind high student mobility in Nordic countries such as Finland and Denmark. The researchers found that among the reasons for supporting Faroese Student Grant Fund by the Danish government was to promote political equality and stability among the people in Faroe Island in Denmark. The political objective of sending students abroad for quality studies was to eliminate the social and economic barriers in order to cope with the insecurity problems on the islands. Saarikallio-Torp & Wiers-Jenssen (2010) discusses that the island faced critical economic and social issues related to political instabilities. The basis of the grant was that by sending Faroese students to study abroad, they will come up to offer effective and friendlier political leadership in the island. The need to create political alliances and integrations is also stressed by past researches (Baron, 1993; Saarikallio-Torp & Wiers-Jenssen, 2010). In a past survey, Baron (1993) illustrated that student mobility for purposes of academic or economic was no longer the objective of the national governments as concern was more on seeking political integration that could open up opportunities for more transnational co-operation. Baron (1993) argued that this inspired the creation of ERASMUS (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) in 1987. He pointed out that the European Commission on numerous occasions considered the need to take a political lead in regards to motivating countries to send their students to study abroad. According to Baron (1993), the absolute and relative increase in the number of the students sent abroad by industrialised countries (such as Great Britain, Denmark and Belgium) that already had greatly developed systems of higher education was linked to political rather than academic or economic reasons. Scholarly arguments reinforce this view in noting that political interest focused more on the need to have a large proportion of students study abroad (Kuhn, 2012; Mutlu, 2011). Baron's (1993) arguments are consistent with several other studies that examined the impact of ERASMUS noted that the program was intended to cause considerable public interest in creating the need for international co-operation (Kuhn, 2012; Mutlu, 2011). Indeed, Baron’s (1993) analysis of ERASMUS shows that the program was more of a political outfit as among its key objectives was to promote European identity as well as facilitate the creation of "People's Europe." Economic reasons A survey of literature points out to the fact that the decision to send students for studies overseas was inspired by economic reasons (Liu and Wang, 2008; Mukhrjee & Chanda, 2012). A study by Mukhrjee and Chanda (2012) showed that national governments have tended to promote student mobility basing on the rationale that the more they become involved in global systems, the more they become integrated. Liu and Wang (2008) also commented that due to the real effects of globalization, businesses in the global economy have become more integrated. Based on this perspective, countries have become involved in sponsoring student mobility with the view of investing in more exposed human capital resources that can handle the issues in the global system. An underlying argument for this is that the nation can benefit from human capital resources that are more aware and competitive in the global economy (Mukhrjee & Chanda, 2012). Such findings reflect an idea fronted by Liu and Wang (2008) that sending students overseas has had a direct impact on the balance of payment of sender and recipient countries because of the revenue from domestic consumption and tuition fees. Liu and Wang (2008) reiterated that this is a primary factor that motivates source countries to encourage and sponsor students to study abroad. Countries have also promoted student mobility to strengthen human capital as well as integrate their regional labour market (Liu and Wang, 2008). Since the 1990s, despite the precipitating globalization and sectorial changes, European countries such as the UK increasingly emphasized sponsoring students for studies abroad to be an economic commodity for use in fostering employability in Europe as well as to advance Europe as a knowledge-based society (Liu and Wang, 2008). As stated in a later study by Qianru (2011), most industrial economics have supported student mobility in the hope that their countries can benefit from highly skilled labour. Indeed, over the last three decades, developed economies such as the United States, Canada and United Kingdom have maintained a policy consensus emphasising the pursuit of knowledge-based economy by upgrading the expertise and skills of their labour force as well as maintaining a sufficient supply of skilled workforce. Indeed, statistics from the OECD (2010) shows that as of 2008, the three countries -- the United States, Canada and United Kingdom -- were among the highest recipients and senders of international students, who held more than one-third of the global students at tertiary level of education. This also signifies that changes in national and international policies to support international studies have significant impact on student mobility trends. Qianru (2011) explained that such policies are triggered by the fundamental human capital theory that proposes that much of the inexplicable increase in economic growth, income and productivity can be justified by the investment in human capital. Becker identified the many forms of investment in human capital, including sponsoring students to study overseas. According to Qianru (2011), students sponsored to study abroad may in this way increase their lifetime earning and in return, governments will be able to improve employment and a steady economic growth (see Brown at al., 2001). Junor and Usher (2008) argue that the reasons why the United States, United Kingdom and Canada have strides in Student mobility is because of the policy change to support student mobility (Greenwood, 2009). According to Junor and Usher (2008), among the dominant study aids and grants originate from these countries. In the United States, Fulbright US Student Program is the leading US exchange program that offers students an opportunity to pursue graduate studies or advanced research. Each year, some 3,500 students across 150 countries are sponsored to study over abroad through the programme. On the other hand, Canada has two such programs, namely Canadian Merit Scholarship Foundation (CMSF) program and the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC) Explore bursary program, both of which offer student mobility incentive. In Britain, the Chevening Scholarships program is the dominant student scholarship program that sponsors students to study abroad (Junor & Usher, 2008). By sending students to study abroad, governments compete for worldwide mobile talent. According to Qianru (2011), because of the impacts of economic globalisation, many governments have changed their economic agenda to essentially compete for global mobile talent. Inability to attract foreign expertise or talent has hence influenced nations to sponsor students to study abroad with the hope that the economy will gain from global class economic talent. Brown et al. (2001) argued that it is indeed clear that policy appeal for investment in human capital continues to be irresistible for governments globally. The researchers posited that the likelihood of achieving economic prosperity is not mere conditioned by the skill aspect, rather the more capable, intelligent and creative the national workforce, the more likely the political issue of opportunity and equality will shape a country’s economic competitiveness. A survey by Shah and Long (2007) found that among the motivations for supporting student mobility is to prevent likely impediments of labour mobility, which caused inefficiencies in the nations gross productivity. Inefficiencies in the Australian economy were particularly evident during the White Australian Policy that prohibited integrating with the Asian world. The policy advocated for a homogenous white population (Whitington, 2012). Indeed, among the reforms prioritised by Australia was that of influencing a change in national government regulations to support the flow of goods and services, including human capital across borders. Shah and Long (2007) argued that Australian policymaker felt that the state-based regulations during the era or White Australian Policy impeded labour movements and promoted Aboriginal marginalisation created inefficiencies (Campbell, Kelly & Harrison, 2012). Therefore, major advances had to be made in the areas of promoting labour mobility. Policymakers fronted for the relevance of student mobility in Australian policy agenda. Basing on this perspective, Australian government started the Australian Scholarships to promote student mobility across the Asia-Pacific region. The government commits some AUS$1.4 billion dollars to the program each year. Whitty (2006) and Whitington (2012) argued that Australia became a developed economy partly due to having investing programs that promoted researches and improving skills of its labour force, which was enhanced by labour mobility. A similar perspective is shared by Parey (2007), who stated that student mobility has increased labour mobility, which is beneficial for economic development. Parey (2007) argued that the student mobility in Europe, facilitated by ERASMUS program, has enabled efficient matching between jobs and workers. Social reasons National governments collectively send students abroad to promote their social identities (Kuhn, 2012; Mutlu, 2011). It is against this background that the European Commission (EC) initiated the educational exchange programs such as ERASMUS with the view of instilling a sense of European identity. Since the program’s launching in 1987, countries within the EC have sent some 2.3 million students abroad, as of 2011 (Kuhn, 2012). European countries put high hopes on the significance of interactions and cross-border as precursors of a common identity among the European nations. Indeed, a fundamental rationale for the Erasmus student exchange program has been to enable students to work together in the hope of developing supranational identity (Kuhn, 2012). Mutlu's (2011) findings are consistent with this view. In a survey of ERASMUS students and their respective governments, the Mutlu (2011) found that ERASMUS is one of the most used tools among European governments to create European consciousness. According to Mutlu (2011), developing European dimensions in education with the hope of strengthening the European identity as well as to increase knowledge on socio-political issues. Mutlu (2011) explained that the reason for this is to promote knowledge on the cultural and historical aspect of Europe. In matters of social differences, some national governments have considered promoting student mobility with the hope of reconciling and reaching mutual understanding. Teichler (2003) traces this social perspective to the end of the World War II after countries sought conciliation after preceding years of animosity. Student mobility under such circumstances was viewed to be capable of spreading professional educational achievements both horizontally and vertically. It was also viewed as capable of striking mutual understanding between countries that shared animosity. According to Teichler (2003), such perspectives inspired the need for scholarship programs such as the American Fulbright program, which was started in 1948 with the view of improving international understanding. Such a perspective was instrumental in promoting social cohesion in Europe, after Eastern European countries were regarded as means of socially integrating the countries that were initially dominated by Soviet Union cultures, such as Ukraine (Teichler, 2003). Countries have also considered the need to have a more educated population for sustainable social development. Based on this perspective, the European community initiated 14 programmes in the 1980s and 1990s aimed at providing support for Cooperation of Europe in attaining quality education (Kuhn, 2012; Mutlu, 2011). Among the premier programs includes ERASMUS that aims to provide framework for cooperation of university departments. This ensured curricular coordination as well as ensured that countries achieved returns from host institutions (Teichler, 2003). Fernandes (2011) opined that China's curriculum and skills at the university are in predominantly outdated and focus mostly on teacher-centred learning in addition to recalling facts, passive examination, role learning and passive learning. This sharply contrasts Western learning styles that are predominantly learner-centred and which aim to develop learner's independence, questioning, debating and analytical skills (Fernandes, 2011). Baron's (1993) observations are consistent with these views when he noted that the quest to send students abroad was part of a broad strategy to improve the quality of higher education as well as serve as an education policy. The need for cultural integration is also key motivator. A study by Fernandes (2011) on the variety of factors that motivate source countries to send students overseas established that part of the reason that explains why China is leading as a sender country is because of its culture. According to Fernandes (2011), China's culture has always been to prioritise education because of the country's Confuscionist values. The trend has further been triggered by the country’s one child policy. The researcher however found that the most underlying factor was the fact that China's perception of foreign education, degrees and career advancements. Byrma and Feng (2006) support this view when they suggest that a key outcome of student mobility is the creation of inter-culturally-competent students. According to the researchers, intercultural competence includes meaningful curricular, interaction and service learning. The growing interest in multicultural issues by national governments has also inspired student mobility. Studies have investigated and rationalised why multicultural issues motivate some national governments to participate in student mobility programs (Byram & Feng, 2006; Liu & Wang, 2008)). A study of Japan's motivation for sponsoring its students abroad revealed that from the 1990s, a common destination for the country's students has been the United States and the United Kingdom, partly inspired by the need to have a workforce that can speak and integrate in foreign cultures and languages (Byram & Feng, 2006). This view is consistent with an observation made by Liu and Wang (2008), that the increase in foreign direct investments in Asian countries by Western firms has inspired governments in Asia to sponsor students for studies in Western countries. Rosen and Hanemann (2012) share the view that the Chinese are less familiar with Western practices and cultures and operating overseas. Rather, they instead tend to be fixated with the varied regulatory environment. Such a perspective is shared by Mutlu (2011) who found that the idea that learning a new language as a motivation is indeed true. In a study of how ERASMUS students develop European consciousness, Mutlu (2011) found that learning a new language was critical factor since the emphasis is placed on communication through foreign languages. A similar perspective is taken by Saarikallio-Torp and Wiers-Jenssen (2010) in their survey of student mobility trends in Nordic countries, namely Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Finland. The researcher found that among the factors that motivated governments to send students for studies overseas was to benefit from students who are more globally exposed. Saarikallio-Torp & Wiers-Jenssen (2010) argued that Nordic countries are generally isolated geographically, culturally and linguistically, hence the need for citizenry with multicultural and multilingual skills. Baron (1993) also outlines an almost similar trend in highlighting that Western European nations believed that experience in studying abroad would provide their students with the professional and personal qualifications in regards to intercultural skills, foreign language proficiency. References Becker, R. & Kolster, R. (2012). International student recruitment: policies and developments in selected countries. Retrieved from NUFFIC, Baron, B. (1993). The Politics of Acedemic Mobility in Western Europe. Higher Education Policy 6(3), 50-52 Brown, P., Green, A., & Lauder, H. (2001). High skills: Globalization, competitiveness, and skill formation. New York: Oxford University Press. Byram, M. & Feng, A. (2006). Living and Studying Abroad: Research and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Campbell, P., Kelly, P. & Harrison, L. (2012). The Problem of Aboriginal Marginalisation: Education, Labour Markets and Social and Emotional Well-Being. Geelong: Alfred Deakin Research Institute David, Z., Fung, C. & Han, D. (2008). Redefining the Brain Drain: China’s ‘Diaspora Option’. Science, Technology & Society 13:1 (2008): 1–33 Fernandes, J. (2011). Trends in International Student Mobility: A Study of the Relationship between the UK and China and the Chinese Student Experience in the UK. Retrieved: Greenwood, H. (2009). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe. Boston: IPA Junor, S. & Usher, A. (2008). Student Mobility & Credit Transfer A National and Global Survey. Toronto: Educational Policy Institute King, R. & Findlay, A. (2010). International student mobility literature review. Report to HEFCE, and co-funded by the British Council, UK National Agency for Erasmus Kuhn, T, (2012). Why Educational Exchange Programmes Miss Their Mark: Cross‐Border Mobility, Education and European Identity. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(6), p.994-1010, 2012 Liu, D. & Wang, J. (2008). The determinants of international student mobility - An empirical study on U.S. Data. Economics Master Thesis 15 higher education credits Advanced level 2008 Mukhrjee, S. & Chanda, R. (2012). Indian student mobility to selected European countries-an Overview. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Working Paper No: 365 Mutlu, S. (2011). Development of European consciousness in Erasmus students. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2(1), 87-102 Novak, R., Slatinsek, A. & Devatak, G. (2013). Importance of Motivating Factors for International Mobility of Students: Empirical Findings on Selected Higher Education Institutions in Europe. Organizacija 46(6), 274-280 Parey, M. (2007). Studying Abroad and the Effect on International Labor Market Mobility. London: Centre for the Economics of Education Qianri, S. (2011). International Student Mobility and Highly Skilled Migration: A Comparative Study of Canada, the United States and The United Kingdom. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Rosen, D. & Hanemann, T. (2012). Chinese Direct Investment in California. San Francisco: Asia Society Northern California Saarikallio-Torp, M. & Wiers-Jenssen, K. (2010). Nordic students abroad: Student mobility patterns, student support systems and labour market outcomes. Kela, Research Department, Helsinki 2010 Salmela, S. (2008). Chinese Student Mobility to Finland and the Students transnational Social Reality. Retrieved: Shah, C. & Long, M. (2007). Labour mobility and mutual recognition of skills and qualifications: European Union and Australia/New Zealand. Monash University Centre For The Conomics Of Education And Training. Working Paper No. 65 May 2007 Teichler, U. (2003). Mutual Recognition and Credit Transfer in Europe: Expriences and Problems. Higher Education Forum, 1, 33-53 Whitty, G. (2006). "Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable?" British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 159–176 Whitington, L. (2012). The End of the White Australia Policy in the Australian Labor Party; a Discursive Analysis with Reference To Post-colonialism And Whiteness Theory. University of Sydney Xiang, B. (2005). Promoting Knowledge Exchange through Diaspora Networks. ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford. A report written for the Asian Development Bank. Read More