Is higher education really     internationalising?                                 Professor Nigel Healey2nd Asia-Pacific ...
Overview Universities as international players The Uppsala Model of Internationalisation    universities as exporters  ...
Universities asinternational players   Globalisation seen as a 20th/21st century phenomenon   But…universities ‘born glo...
Universities asinternational players (2) Focus of attention today on this aspect of HE  globalisation:    foreign studen...
The Uppsala Model ofInternationalisation Sequencing model drawn from the literature  on the internationalisation of busin...
Universities as exporters Exporting educational services = providing  education to foreign students (equivalent to  expor...
Universities as exporters     (2): how big?Table 1: International Students in On-shore Higher Education (millions)        ...
Universities as exporters   (3): the MESDCs   Table 2: International Students in On-shore Higher Education (2005)         ...
Universities as exporters      (3): source marketsTable 3: Source Regions of On-shore International Students in Higher Edu...
Universities as exporters(4): virtual exports Distance-learning = ‘virtual’ higher education exports,  but:    boundarie...
Universities as franchisers Franchising = licensing production For universities:    franchising = licensing a foreign p...
Universities as franchisers(2): how big? UK: no definitive data British Council in 2004 estimated:    180,000 off-shore...
Universities as franchisers(3): how big? Australia: only systematic collector of data on  its universities’ off-shore act...
Universities as franchisers  (4): how big in Australia?Table 5: Australian On-Shore and Off-Shore International Students  ...
Universities as franchisers   (5): how big in Australia? Table 6: Number of Australian Off-Shore Programmes               ...
Universities as foreigninvestors: the ‘third wave’ Foreign investment = offshore production and distribution  facilities,...
Universities as foreign investors (2): joint venturesTable 7: Stand-alone Branch Campuses in Malaysia and Singapore       ...
Universities as foreigninvestors (3): joint ventures 2003 ‘Regulations of the Peoples Republic of China on  Chinese-Forei...
Universities as foreigninvestors (4): sole ventures University of New South Wales’ campus in Singapore ‘UNSW Asia is Sin...
A business perspective onuniversities’ internationalisation   Prima facie evidence that universities are following the   ...
A business perspective onuniversities’ internationalisation (2)   So… isn’t it clear?    Higher education is following th...
An alternative explanation:the supply-side Why do (MESDC) universities want foreign students? Most universities publicly...
An alternative explanation:the supply-side (2) Higher education ‘superior good’, participation rates have  increased from...
An alternative explanation:the supply-side (3) Most OECD countries now have, or are considering,  tuition fees for domest...
An alternative explanation:the supply-side (4) Why franchise?    as MESDC universities became dependent on exports,     ...
An alternative explanation:the demand side Why do students (in developing countries) want to study  in foreign (MESDC) un...
An alternative explanation:the demand side (2) Main drivers of demand for higher education in  developing countries are: ...
An alternative explanation:  the demand side (3)Figure 1: IDP Estimates for Global Demand for Higher Education
An alternative explanation:the demand side (4) Now factor in the domestic supply-side:    expansion constrained by high ...
An alternative explanation:the demand side (5)Figure 2: IDP Estimates of Demand for International H.E.
An alternativeexplanation: summary MESDC (mostly public) universities have been driven  into internationalisation by dome...
An alternative explanation:summary (2)Evidence for the government interference thesis:    The US has the highest proporti...
An alternative explanation:summary (3)   The demand for international education is driven by:     excess demand for high...
An alternativeexplanation: summary (4) “If you can get into one of the top 10 Chinese universities, such as Beijing Normal...
The outlook for the internationalisationof higher education?     The Uppsala model suggests continuing globalisation of  ...
Conclusions Globalisation is everywhere Universities are more internationally integrated than ever  before in terms of f...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Is higher education really internationalising?

664

Published on

It is a widely accepted maxim that, like business generally, higher education is internationalising. For many countries, higher education is now a vitally important export sector, with many university campuses attracting international students from around the world. Licensing production, in the form of franchising degree provision to international partners, is beginning to mutate into foreign direct investment as many universities set up campuses in other countries. Driven by advances in information and communication technologies and the growing hegemony of English as the world’s common language, higher education has followed the classic pattern of globalisation so familiar in international business. Or has it? This seminar challenges the orthodox view and offers a different interpretation of developments, offering a different vision for the global higher education ‘industry’ of 2020.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
664
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Is higher education really internationalising?

  1. 1. Is higher education really internationalising? Professor Nigel Healey2nd Asia-Pacific Professional Leaders in Education Conference July 14, 2006
  2. 2. Overview Universities as international players The Uppsala Model of Internationalisation  universities as exporters  universities as franchisers  universities as foreign investors: joint vs sole ventures A business perspective on universities’ internationalisation An alternative explanation for universities’ internationalisation The outlook for the future of internationalisation in higher education
  3. 3. Universities asinternational players Globalisation seen as a 20th/21st century phenomenon But…universities ‘born global’ as religious seminaries in 15th century  international staff (and elite student) base  shared common languages: Latin, German, English  scientific inquiry is a collective, international endeavour Internationalisation of student body on a mass scale is a new phenomenon:  during Cold War, international students part of geo-politics for West  today, there are >2m international students
  4. 4. Universities asinternational players (2) Focus of attention today on this aspect of HE globalisation:  foreign students studying on a university’s home campus; and  foreign students studying for the university’s awards on an off-shore campus or by distance-learning (‘transnational education’) Key question:  Is this process ‘globalisation’ as we understand it in a business context… or something else altogether?
  5. 5. The Uppsala Model ofInternationalisation Sequencing model drawn from the literature on the internationalisation of business:  Exporting  Licensing production  Joint ventures  Sole Ventures Collectively sometimes called the ‘third wave’ How does higher education fit this model?
  6. 6. Universities as exporters Exporting educational services = providing education to foreign students (equivalent to exporting tourism services) by:  teaching students on home campus  teaching students through ‘pure’ distance learning’ (ie, without the support of a local agent or campus) How big is this market?
  7. 7. Universities as exporters (2): how big?Table 1: International Students in On-shore Higher Education (millions) % Change 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000-03Enrolled in All Countries 1.62m 1.65m 1.90m 2.12m 30.6%Enrolled in OECD 1.52m 1.54m 1.78m 1.98m 29.8%Enrolled in OECD as % Total 93.9% 93.5% 93.8% 93.3% Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2005
  8. 8. Universities as exporters (3): the MESDCs Table 2: International Students in On-shore Higher Education (2005) New United United Australia Zealand Kingdom StatesInternationalEnrolments 163,930 30,674 318,395 565,039International as %Total 17.7% 14.0% 13.0% 4.0% Sources: IDP Australia; Education New Zealand; Institute for International Education (US); UK Council for International Education
  9. 9. Universities as exporters (3): source marketsTable 3: Source Regions of On-shore International Students in Higher Education (2003) Australia New Zealand United Kingdom United States Total from Africa 3.7% 0.7% 8.3% 6.9% Total from Asia 71.4% 84.2% 40.8% 62.8% Total from Europe 9.5% 6.0% 40.3% 13.1% of which, from EU 2.9% 4.5% 35.3% 7.7% Total from North America 4.2% 4.8% 8.5% 10.4% Total from Oceania 3.9% 3.9% 0.8% 0.8% Total from Latin America 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 6.0% Not specified 6.3% - 0.3% - Total 100.0% OECD Education at a Glance Source: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2005
  10. 10. Universities as exporters(4): virtual exports Distance-learning = ‘virtual’ higher education exports, but:  boundaries between on-campus and distance-learning constantly changing (WebCT and Blackboard, now merging)  boundaries between virtual exports and franchising/joint ventures changing (where foreign students have local support)  no good data sources on distance learning (only OBHE) But clearly big:  University of Phoenix – 170,00 graduates since 1976  Open University – graduated 200,000th student in 1998, presently has 180,000 enrolments
  11. 11. Universities as franchisers Franchising = licensing production For universities:  franchising = licensing a foreign partner, normally a private for-profit college to offer part or all of a degree (1+2, 2+1, 3+0, etc)  sometimes termed ‘McDonaldization’ of higher education
  12. 12. Universities as franchisers(2): how big? UK: no definitive data British Council in 2004 estimated:  180,000 off-shore international students studying UK degrees vs 270,000 on-shore  3m exam invigilated in 2003 by BC UK’s Quality Assurance Agency audits franchised degrees since 1976:  18 Malaysia, 14 Greece, 10 Spain, 8 Israel, 7 Singapore…
  13. 13. Universities as franchisers(3): how big? Australia: only systematic collector of data on its universities’ off-shore activities But host governments monitoring foreign universities’ activities, eg:  Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council, 1994  South African Higher Education Quality Committee, 1997  Singapore Quality Class for Private Education Organisations, 2003
  14. 14. Universities as franchisers (4): how big in Australia?Table 5: Australian On-Shore and Off-Shore International Students 2001 2002 2003Total On-Shore 83,992 131,639 151,884Total Off-Shore 28,266 53,419 58,513Total 112,258 185,058 210,397 Source: Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee
  15. 15. Universities as franchisers (5): how big in Australia? Table 6: Number of Australian Off-Shore Programmes Cumul Pre- -ative 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 TotalChina 98 30 22 24 24 200Hong Kong 154 21 26 23 16 227Indonesia 15 3 2 1 3 25Malaysia 174 59 28 24 29 321Singapore 194 43 30 58 53 375Other 260 62 39 43 18 421Total 895 218 147 173 143 1569 Source: Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee
  16. 16. Universities as foreigninvestors: the ‘third wave’ Foreign investment = offshore production and distribution facilities, part– or wholly-owned by universities Many ‘branch campuses’ are small executive training centres or joint ventures by MESDC universities sharing space on the host’s campus:  University of Chicago – Singapore  University of Stanford – Nanyang Technological University
  17. 17. Universities as foreign investors (2): joint venturesTable 7: Stand-alone Branch Campuses in Malaysia and Singapore Malaysia SingaporeForeign Partner Estab. Foreign Partner Estab.Monash University, 1998 INSEAD, France 2000AustraliaUniversity of 2000Nottingham, UK
  18. 18. Universities as foreigninvestors (3): joint ventures 2003 ‘Regulations of the Peoples Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools’ University of Nottingham Ningbo joint-venture with the Wanli Education Group and Zhejiang Wanli University University of Liverpool joint venture with Xian Jiaotong University and Laureate Educational Limited
  19. 19. Universities as foreigninvestors (4): sole ventures University of New South Wales’ campus in Singapore ‘UNSW Asia is Singapores first comprehensive private University, due to open in 2007... UNSW Asia is owned and operated by the University of New South Wales … [and] is the first wholly owned research and teaching institution to be established overseas by an Australian university’
  20. 20. A business perspective onuniversities’ internationalisation  Prima facie evidence that universities are following the Uppsala sequential model of internationalisation…  …and universities fit criteria in economic literature for horizontal integration across countries:  they have ‘ownership-specific advantages over local universities (research base, curricula, faculty)  these are best exploited by the universities rather than being sold (product linked to faculty, principal agent problem)  it is more profitable to deliver in foreign market than home market (access to new student base)
  21. 21. A business perspective onuniversities’ internationalisation (2) So… isn’t it clear?  Higher education is following the Uppsala model of internationalisation…and  …this model should allow us to predict the future shape of higher education across the world:  the continued proliferation of branch campuses?  the emergence of truly multinational universities (University of Nottingham, UNSW)?  the development of regional clusters (eg, Singapore and Malaysia)?
  22. 22. An alternative explanation:the supply-side Why do (MESDC) universities want foreign students? Most universities publicly owned or funded; private universities mostly not-for-profit Higher education is heavily regulated and central part of government policy Traditional view of higher education:  higher education = a ‘public good’  therefore higher education publicly subsidised, tuition free in many countries  why foreign students? - geo-political motives
  23. 23. An alternative explanation:the supply-side (2) Higher education ‘superior good’, participation rates have increased from 3-5% in 1960 to >50% in OECD Challenges to traditional view:  private rate of return so high, no practical need for public subsidies; no impact from higher tuition fees on participation in UK, NZ and Australia  public subsidies lead to regressive distribution of income  governments have had to reduce real value of public subsidies as participation has increased
  24. 24. An alternative explanation:the supply-side (3) Most OECD countries now have, or are considering, tuition fees for domestic students… …but domestic fees still regulated, even though public subsidies inadequate Fees for international student deregulated first MESDC governments have encouraged recruitment of international students, especially in high-margin subjects (eg, business) to cross-subsidise research and domestic students HE exports are not a product of commercial profit- maximisation, but the distortionary effect of government policy and regulation
  25. 25. An alternative explanation:the supply-side (4) Why franchise?  as MESDC universities became dependent on exports, so early partners get increased bargaining power to move from 1+2 to 3+0  scrutiny by home/host agencies increases compliance costs, may deter franchising Why foreign investment?  few real examples and these are all the result of host government policy – Singapore, Malaysia, China, inviting top universities to build up domestic capacity
  26. 26. An alternative explanation:the demand side Why do students (in developing countries) want to study in foreign (MESDC) universities?  MESDCs have most of the world’s top universities; elite students have always wanted to study at Harvard or Oxford  English is the world’s common second language But…  25% of Worlds (THES) Top 50 universities now outside MESDCs – Beijing (15th), Tokyo (16th), HKU (41st), NTU (498th), IIT (50)  many non-MESDC universities teach in English
  27. 27. An alternative explanation:the demand side (2) Main drivers of demand for higher education in developing countries are:  High per capita GDP growth • higher education is a ‘superior good’ • per capita GDP growth leads to proportionately greater demand for higher education  Population demographics (growing proportion of young people)  Income distribution (‘size of middle class’) • 200-300m in India, 60-100m in China
  28. 28. An alternative explanation: the demand side (3)Figure 1: IDP Estimates for Global Demand for Higher Education
  29. 29. An alternative explanation:the demand side (4) Now factor in the domestic supply-side:  expansion constrained by high fixed costs to set up universities  shortage of trained faculty (nationally and globally)  long lead times So the demand for international higher education in developing countries is driven by:  unsatisfied excess demand for domestic higher education (eg IIM success rates 0.15-0.4%)  ability to pay for higher education in MESDC Growth in per capita GDP reinforces both drivers (excess demand and ability to pay)
  30. 30. An alternative explanation:the demand side (5)Figure 2: IDP Estimates of Demand for International H.E.
  31. 31. An alternativeexplanation: summary MESDC (mostly public) universities have been driven into internationalisation by domestic government policy, which has:  reduced public tuition subsidies for domestic students  continued to regulate domestic tuition fees  deregulated international tuition fees Internationalisation is a product of government intervention and policy, not a profit-maximising response to overseas opportunities
  32. 32. An alternative explanation:summary (2)Evidence for the government interference thesis:  The US has the highest proportion of private universities (no fee maxima) and the lowest percentage (4%) of international students  The UK (13%) and NZ (14%) are all public universities; Australia is the highest (18%), with some private schools but a fee maxima  Lower status universities which have less research and other income (endowments) have been most active in international recruitment and franchising  The highest percentage international enrolments are in high-margin subjects and the lowest in expensive subjects
  33. 33. An alternative explanation:summary (3) The demand for international education is driven by:  excess demand for higher education within fast growing developing countries But:  supply-side response faster than foreseen by West • Eg, ‘Project 211’, China’s massive investment in its top 100 universities  perceived value of degrees from lower status MESDC universities falling as consumers become more sophisticated (eg, Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings since 2003)
  34. 34. An alternativeexplanation: summary (4) “If you can get into one of the top 10 Chinese universities, such as Beijing Normal University, Beda, Xinhuan, Fudan, Wuhan etc, then you are set up for life. You will acquire permanent guanxi (a relationship of influence) with the elite of China. You would be very unlikely to give up a place at one of these for a stint at [a foreign] University [like..] XXX or XXX.” BBC - “Britain and the Chinese “sea-turtles”
  35. 35. The outlook for the internationalisationof higher education?  The Uppsala model suggests continuing globalisation of higher education  But if the drivers are government policy in the MESDCs and exceeds demand in the developing world, then within the MESDCs:  pressure to deregulate domestic tuition fees could reduce the attractiveness of international students; and  regulatory scrutiny could curb franchise activity  …and in the developing world:  increasing domestic supply may cut demand for international education faster than expected; and  growing market sophistication may reduce demand for lower status universities
  36. 36. Conclusions Globalisation is everywhere Universities are more internationally integrated than ever before in terms of faculty, students, curricula, etc Prima facie, universities appear to be internationalising in the same way as businesses But:  universities have an educational mission and operate in a highly regulated, politicised environment  the rapid internationalisation of the student body for MESDCs over the period 1990-2005 may prove to be a transitional phenomenon, cased by special factors, rather than part of along-term trend
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×