iRR.4.2019
Global Competition for Talent: A Comparative
Analysis of National Strategies for Attracting
International Students

Rajika Bhandariii

Contentsiv

iv

List of Figuresvi

List of Abbreviationsix

Foreword

xi

Introduction

xii

Overview of the report and its assumptions

xv

Chapter 1: The Growing Competition for Global Talent3

1.1

Status of talent and student flows

8

1.2

Why attract international students? Countries’ Motivations andIncentives

1.3

10

A classification of key strategies

Chapter 2: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host

14

countries

16

2.1

The United States

21

2.2

The United Kingdom

25

2.3

Australia

28

2.4

Canada30

2.5

France32

2.6

Germany

Chapter 3: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging

36

destinations

37

3.1

China

40

3.2

Japan

41

3.3

Netherlands

43

3.4

Ireland45

3.5

Other emerging destinations

48

Chapter 4: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

49

4.1

A World in Flux

50

4.2

Future Projections

54

4.3

Ten Key Takeaways

58

About the Author

59

About the Institute of International Education (IIE)59

About WISE

60

Acknowledgments

62

Bibliography

64

v

v

List of Figuresvi

Figures
Figure 1: TOP HOST DESTINATIONS OF GLOBALLY MOBILE STUDENTS, 2001 & 2018
Figure 2: LEADING PLACES OF ORIGIN OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS BY HOST COUNTRY, 2018
Figure 3: OUTBOUND INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY BY REGION, 2007 & 2017
Figure 4: INBOUND STUDENTS IN SELECT COUNTRIES, 2017 & 2018
Figure 5: CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES’ POLICIES TO ATTRACT INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
Figure 6: SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR FIVE COUNTRIES
Figure 7: U.S. TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2008 - 2018
Figure 8: UNITED KINGDOM TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY
POLICIES, 2007 - 2017
Figure 9: AUSTRALIA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIESFigure 10: CANADA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2007 – 2018
Figure 11: FRANCE TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2008 – 2018
Figure 12: GERMANY TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2007 – 2017
Figure 13: CHINA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2008 – 2017
Figure 14: INBOUND STUDENTS TO CHINA BY TOP SENDING COUNTRIES, 2008 – 2017
Figure 15: JAPAN TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2007 - 2017
Figure 16: IRELAND TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES,
2005 – 2016
Figure 17: INTERNATIONAL STUDENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HIGHER EDUCATIONENROLMENT, 2018vii

Abbreviations

viii

AACRAO

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers

ACE

American Council on Education

APEC

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BMBF

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research

BMZ

German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment

CBIE

Canadian Bureau for International Education

CSC

China Scholarship Council

DAAD

German Academic Exchange Service

EAC

East African Community

ECA

US Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs

EdCIL

Educational Consultants of India

ELT

English Language Training

EU

European Union

FOBESII

US-Mexico Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Research andInnovation

FOCAC

Forum on China-Africa Cooperation

HE

Higher Education

HEA

Ireland’s Higher Education Authority

IB

International Baccalaureate

IIE

Institute of International Education (IIE)

MEXT

Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology

MHRD

India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development

MOOC

Massive Open Online Course

NACAC

National Association for College Admission Counseling

NAFSA

NAFSA: Association of International Educators

ix

NESO

Netherlands Education Support Offices

NIRF

India’s National Institutional Ranking Framework

NZ

New Zealand

OPT

Optional Practical Training

PTE

New Zealand’s Vocational and Technical Education Sector

QQI

Quality and Qualifications Authority of Ireland

SEVIS

Student and Exchange Visitor Information System

STEM

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

TNE

Trans-National Education

TOEFL

Test of English as a Foreign Language

UAE

United Arab Emirates

UK

United Kingdom

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

US

United States of AmericaxForewordxii

Foreword
As the uncertainty and disruptionof geo-political shift have become
hallmarks of our age, the ancient urge
to pursue one’s higher educationin distant lands is shaped by a raftof new pressures that often havelittle to do with education. Growing
numbers of mobile students are taking
advantage of new choices, but also
encounter changing immigration andrecruitment policies in host countries-as well as trends and restrictions
at home-- that are part of the larger
context of national trade strategies
and the exercise of soft power.
This research from our colleagues
at the Institute of International
Education (IIE), a long-time partnerwith WISE and Qatar Foundation, isa full portrait of the current state ofglobal higher education for mobile
students. The report focuses on themeasures the key countries havetaken to attract international students,
and the motivations that underpin
these tactics and strategies. Drawing
on IIE’s core collaborative research
entitled Project Atlas, national policy
documents, and broad literature on
higher education mobility, the reporttaps a unique network of institutional
expertise.
Among the most significant
developments examined in the reportis the current shift away from thelong predominance of Anglophonecountries in the higher education
market, toward the emergence ofothers –including Germany, China,
Russia, and other Asian destinations.
English language teaching is now
common in non-Anglophone
host countries, such as Germany.
Apprenticeship and internship models
are being adapted in China andelsewhere to attract skilled workers tostay.

Of special interest may be thereport’s exploration of the ‘emerging’destinations for higher education,such as China, Japan, the Netherlands,
the Republic of Ireland, and others.
China’s focused approach to building
and marketing its higher education
sector as a destination, paired with its
well-established source of out-goingstudents, are core elements of theambitious Belt and Road Initiative,and dramatize the pivotal role China
plays on the global stage today. At thesame time, traditional and establisheddestinations are having to rethink theirapproach to attracting international
students, especially at a time when
there is a turn toward populism andnationalism among many western
powers. While numbers of overseas
students in U.S. higher education
remain high, a marked uptick in thenumbers choosing other countries
signals a perception that the U.S. isless welcoming. Britain’s unhinged
withdrawal from the European Union(Brexit) –even before it has taken effect-injects regressive dynamics into higher
education that deeply impact global
mobile young people.
The report touches on the related
issues of forced emigration with its
devastating impact for the peopleof Syria and others fleeing conflict,and acknowledges that these stories
cannot be adequately told in thespace. Yet we can be thankful thatthe task of assembling accurate
and timely information on student
mobility worldwide has been taken
up and examined in this report. For
educators and administrators in all
fields, this research is a prerequisite
to understanding the big picture
dynamism of student mobility, andreflects developments that will impact
the emerging character of our global
community in profound and lastingways.

Asmaa Al-Fadala, PhD
Director, Research and Content
World Innovation Summit for
Education (WISE)

xiii

Introduction

xiv
xiv
xiv

The scale and volume with which
postsecondary students arecrossing international borders isunprecedented, and never before
have so many countries vied to attract
these global aspirants to their shores.
At the start of the third decade of
the twenty-first century, this student
demand for a global education
appears to be matched by a potential
supply of college seats, withseveral countries having announced
campaigns or set numerical targets
to attract the approximately fivemillion students—or “migrants withmortarboards” 1 —who are currently
mobile. Whether viewed as an exportindustry that yields significant revenue
for a country or as a means of building
a talent pool to fill skill gaps and offset
a declining domestic population,
attracting international students has
become a key feature of nationallevel policies in higher education.
The global flow of students—andhence knowledge and talent—plays acentral role in broader global debates
about the role of skilled migrants;
nations as winners and losers andthe competing forces of brain-drain,
brain-gain and brain circulation; thecentrality of borderless knowledge
flows to the science and innovationenterprise; and the enduring need for
cultural understanding and diplomacy,
especially with the recent rise ofnationalism and the potential threat ofisolationism.

Student demand for a high-quality
tertiary education—whether domestic
or global—is only expected to growin the coming years, but what hasgiven new shape to student flows
are the many initiatives competing
to attract global talent. While
Anglophone countries are among thelargest hosts of international students
and with just five traditional hostcountries accounting for 50 percentof the world’s international student
enrollment at the postsecondary level,
the past few years have seen a rise in
the numbers of countries launching
ambitious schemes to attract global
talent from around the world, often atlower cost. With the expanding scaleof knowledge-based and innovationdriven economies worldwide, countries
are turning to international students
to provide a pool of global talent andoften from which to recruit highly
skilled job applicants. These include
efforts by non-Anglophone countries in
the West, such as France and Germany,
but also emerging economies anddestinations such as China, Malaysia,
and Russia that have initiated policies
to not only bolster the enrollment ofinternational students, but to retain
them in their labor markets (KnightGrofe & Rauh, 2016; Hemmadi, 2016;
ICEF, 2017; Liu-Farrer, 2009; Nafie,2017).

This term was coined by the Economist in 2013.

1

xv

With its offer of subsidized degree
programs, career incentives, and more
English-taught graduate programs,
Germany’s higher education sector is
becoming increasingly attractive. The
country surpassed its goal to increaseinternational student enrollment to
350,000 by 2020 in 2017, three years
before the target date (Kennedy,
2017; Nafie, 2017). Additionally,
international graduates from nonEU countries have 18 months to findemployment in Germany and a large
number take advantage of this policy.
In China, which aspires to host half-amillion international students by 2020
(and is close to reaching that goal),international students are benefitingfrom new opportunities to undertakeinternships, smoothed pathways toresidency permits, and a variety of
programs which enable graduates
to stay in-country to work. Several
cities – including Beijing, Shanghai,and Shenzhen – have policies toaddress local skills gaps and create
opportunities for international
students in high-technology ande-commerce programs to transition
easily into the workforce (Sharma,2018). These efforts go beyond
individual countries: long-standing
exchange programs, such as Erasmus
in Europe, have also recognized thegrowing demand for employability
skills, with internships andapprenticeships comprising recent
offerings.

xvi

But these efforts to attract moreinternational students do not takeplace in a vacuum. Parallelingthe strong interest in attracting
international students, one of the mostsignificant developments in recent
years has been the rise of nationalism
around the world, and what isperceived as a turning inward of many
traditional host destinations that havetypically attracted large numbers ofstudents and scholars from aroundthe world. The first such development
was the Brexit referendum in the U.K.
in 2016, which will likely have farreaching consequences on student
mobility into and out of the U.K.,
especially the mobility between the
U.K. and continental Europe. Similarly,
political shifts in the United Statesand proposed policies restricting
immigration and visa issuance haveraised many questions about whether
the United States might becomea less attractive destination forpostsecondary international students(QS Survey, 2018) despite a focused
effort and commitment by the U.S.
Department of State to continue
expanding international student
enrollments in the United States. Whiledrawing precise conclusions about
how student flows are responding
to international political changes
will require time and new sets ofenrollment data, there are early signs
that these policy changes are having
an impact both on those host countries
whose policies might now be viewed
as less welcoming as well as thosehosts that are seeing increased interest
as a result of the redirection of student
interest. A case in point is Canada
which has seen a significant uptick ininternational enrollments both due tothe liberalization of its own revamped
internationalization policies, but also
due to students choosing Canada overother destinations.

Given the highly dynamic and shifting
current landscape of international
student and global talent recruitment,
this report takes an in-depth look at
the current national-level strategies
of various established and emerging
host destinations; the relative
success of these strategies; as wellas what conclusions can be drawn,
and projections offered on future
demand and supply of international
education. The analysis for the reportdraws upon IIE’s Project Atlas networkof 25 global international education
agencies; various countries’ policy
documents pertaining to international
student recruitment; as well as thevast research literature in the field.
Launched in 2001 by representatives
from key national bodies and nongovernmental organizations involved
in international educational exchanges
and mobility and now having grown
to 25 countries, Project Atlas offers ashared framework for measuring andunderstanding international mobility
and includes data obtained directlyfrom partner agencies around theworld. As such, some of the countrylevel data contained in this report aswell as the relative order of top hosts
of international students varies fromthe widely-used UNESCO and OECD
mobility statistics.2

Overview of the reportand its assumptions
The current report and its analysis
is grounded in the following key
assumptions:• First, the focus of thisreport is on one aspect ofinternationalization—student
mobility and countries’ efforts
to recruit international students.
Nonetheless, even thoughstudent mobility is still widely
regarded as a fundamental pillarof any internationalization effort,
other internationalization efforts
that focus on scholar mobility
and research collaboration,

cross-border education, andinternationalization at home are
equally critical in developing acomprehensive approach toward
the internationalization of higher
education (Helms, 2015; Helms &Rumbley, 2016).
• Second, because of the report’s
emphasis on attracting global
talent, strategies designed to
attract in-bound or international
students are the focus of the current
analysis, as opposed to strategies
or initiatives that countries haveadopted to send their own students
abroad (although the two are often
connected and part of a broader
internationalization strategy).
• Third, given its focus on nationallevel policies and wider strategies,
institutional-level efforts are not
the focus of this report. However,
it is important to mention thatmany national-level strategies—
particularly ones that are developedin an inclusive way—encompass andengage the higher education sector
and flow down to institutions.
Further, national-level policies areoften connected or exist side-byside with state- or provincial-level
policies. State-level policies thathave focused on international
recruitment are noted where
relevant (such as in the case of
Canada and Australia), but are not
the focus of the current analysis.
• Fourth, it is not possible in areport of this nature to cover
every country and its strategies.
Thus, the selection of regions
and countries herein is based on
criteria such as the status of certain
countries as established hostdestinations as evidenced by theirinternational student numbers, aswell as the stated ambitions andwell-documented efforts of certain
emerging economies and countries.

See the Project Atlas website for further details: www.iie.org/projectatlas.

2

xvii

• Fifth, the forthcoming analysis
in the report makes clear thatpolicies to recruit international
students are often situated within
broader national strategies andefforts related to trade, humancapital development, and skills
development. While the focus of
the report remains on international
student recruitment strategies, it isimportant to note this link.
Finally, as student mobility continues
to grow, so do countries’ efforts to
attract these global aspirants, withnew targets and financial investments
announced almost on a weekly basis.
It is not possible to document allthese shifts as they are happening;
hence this report includes countries’
strategies and approaches in place asof May, 2019. It is possible that new
strategies will have been introduced,
or others revised by the time thisreport is released in November, 2019.
The report begins with an in-depth
review (Chapter 1) of the growing
competition for global talent,situating this phenomenon first andforemost in what the current flows
of globally mobile students look
like, and followed by a discussionof the key motivations for countries
to attract global talent as well as
the types of strategies currently inplace that embody these motivations
and aspirations. Chapter 2 of thereport presents brief case studies
of seven traditional or establishedhost countries and their student
recruitment strategies, marketing
campaigns and targets (if any), while
also including trends of international
student enrollment for each country;
Chapter 3 provides a similar analysisof selected emerging destinations.

xviii

Chapter 4 situates these national-level
efforts in relation to current sociodemographic and political factors thatare having an effect on the student
mobility landscape, including therising importance of policies thatencourage skilled migration, or theflow of highly-educated and skilledmigrants from their home country toanother destination primarily to pursue
better employment opportunities.
This concluding chapter also assesses
future prospects for international
student growth and identifies ten key
takeaways from the current analysis
and report.

CHAPTERONE

The Growing Competition for
Global Talent

22

Chapter
One:Growing
The Growing
Competition
GlobalTalent
TalentChapter
One: The
Competition
forforGlobal

This chapter begins with an overview
of current trends in student mobility
among established and emerging hostcountries, progressing to broader
multi-country approaches that include
regional efforts to attract students
and the establishment of education
hubs. The second half of the chapter
examines countries’ motivations for
attracting international students andhow these incentives translate into
specific strategies and policies3.

1.1 Status of talent andstudent flows
Key host and sending countries
The importance of English in
shaping international student
flows is evidenced by the fact that
Anglophone or English-speaking
countries attract large number ofinternational students, with the U.S.
alone hosting 22 percent of theworld’s mobile students and the
U.K. hosting ten percent (Project
Atlas, 2018). Just five Englishspeaking countries (United States,
U.K., Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand) together host almost half of
all international students. However,
non-English-speaking countries suchas France and Germany also host large
numbers of international students andhave seen considerable recent growth
due to the provision of courses andprograms taught in English (BrennWhite & van Rest, 2012).

In addition to these established or“traditional” hosts of international
students, other countries such as
China, Russia and the Netherlands
are actively recruiting international
students, with China accounting now
for ten percent of globally mobile
students, ahead of many otherlongstanding host countries (Project
Atlas, 2018) 4. The rise of these newer
destinations is due to a complex
mix of factors that includes theirappeal for students from neighboring
countries within the region (especiallyin the case of China and Russia);
enhanced and comprehensive
internationalization efforts; and more
liberal work and immigration policies.
“Regional mobility patterns are partly
a function of geographic proximity
and historical and cultural ties, as wellas concerted efforts at the nationalor regional level to strengthen
connections via student mobility”(Bhandari, Robles & Farrugia, 2018, p. 4).
T O P H O S T D E S T I N AT I O N S , 2001 & 2018
n United States — 28%
n United Kingdom — 11%
n Germany — 9%n France — 7%
n Australia — 4%n Japan — 3%
n Spain — 2%

2001

2.1 million students

n Belgium — 2%n Other — 34%

n United States — 22%
n United Kingdom — 10%
n China — 10%
n Australia — 7%
n Canada — 7%
n France — 7%
n Russia — 6%
n Germany — 5%n Other — 25%

2018

5.0 million students
Source: Project Atlas, 2018; UNESCO, 2018

Figure 1: TOP HOST DESTINATIONS OF GLOBALLY MOBILE STUDENTS,
2001 & 2018

Portions of this chapter have appeared in Bhandari, Robles and Farrugia (2018); Farrugia and Bhandari (2018); and the Open Doors
Reports on International Educational Exchange, 2016 and 2017.

3

4
Based on Project Atlas data obtained from the Chinese Ministry of Education, China is now the third top host of international
students. However, these numbers might not align with those of UNESCO due to definitional and measurement differences.

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

3

Russia
KAZAKHSTANCHINAUZBEKISTANUKRAINE
TURKMENISTAN

China

United Kingdom
CHINA
UNITED STATESGERMANYFRANCEINDIAFranceCanada

MOROCCOALGERIACHINA
ITALY
TUNISIA

CHINA
INDIA
SOUTH KOREAFRANCEVIETNAM

Spain

United States

ITALY
FRANCEUNITED STATESGERMANYMEXICOCHINA
INDIA
SOUTH KOREASAUDI ARABIACANADA

SOUTH KOREATHAILANDPAKISTANUNITED STATESINDIA

SwedenGERMANYFINLANDCHINA
FRANCE
INDIA

Japan
CHINA
VIETNAM
NEPAL
SOUTH KOREATAIWAN

Finland
RUSSIAGERMANYVIETNAMCHINA
FRANCE

Australia
CHINA
INDIA
NEPAL
VIETNAMMALAYSIA

Germany
CHINA
INDIA
RUSSIA
AUSTRIAITALYNew Zealand
CHINA
INDIA
UNITED STATESPHILIPPINESMALAYSIA

Netherlands
GERMANYCHINA
ITALY
BELGIUM
UNITED KINGDOM

Total number of international students in host country:n > 1,000,000

n 300,001–500,000

n 100,001–300,000

n 50,001–100,000

n 20,001–50,000n ≤ 20,000

Figure 2: LEADING PLACES OF ORIGIN OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS BY HOST COUNTRY, 2018

Which countries are“supplying” the world’sinternational students?
Student flows over the past century
have been primarily from thedeveloping to the developed world,
or from the global South to the global
North (with the exception of a strong
tradition of educational exchanges
within Europe). Worldwide, three ofthe five largest senders of students
for overseas study in 2016 were in
Asia, namely China, India, and South
Korea; these three countries together
account for 25 percent of all outboundstudents (UNESCO, 2018). However,
the rise of non-traditional andemerging destinations is beginningto disrupt these historical patterns,
with a growing number of students
studying within their geographic
region or even choosing to stayhome due to expanded capacity
within their home country to offer
quality higher education. For example,
students from within the Asia-Pacificregion accounted for 36 percent of
the 1.3 million international students
hosted by countries in the region in2016, primarily due the large sharesof three top hosts in the region:

4

Australia, China, and Japan. In somekey destinations in Asia, other Asianstudents make up a much larger
proportion of the total international
student body: Hong Kong (91 percent),
Japan (87 percent), and South Korea(75 percent) (Project Atlas, 2017;
UNESCO, 2018).

Figure 3: OUTBOUND INTERNATIONAL MOBILITYBY REGION, 2007 & 2017

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global TalentWhile Europe is the second largest
sending region of international
students—accounting for 23 percentof the world’s globally mobile
students in 2016—a large part of thismobility is within region, or from one
European country to another largely
due to Erasmus and other European
Union (EU) funding, and the growing
harmonization of higher education
systems across the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) which enablecredit and degree recognition andcredit transfer. Among the more than
878,000 European students who
study outside their home country,
three-fourths remain within Europe
with the top five senders – Germany,
Turkey, France, Italy, and Poland– accounting for almost half (48percent) of this intraregional mobility(Eurostat, 2016; UNESCO, 2017).
Looking beyond the common South toNorth mobility patterns and increasing
regionalization of student flows, otherunique patterns exist that are worth
noting. One such development is the
rapid rise of the numbers of African
students studying in China, where
China is now the second largest hostdestination for African students afterFrance (Nakkazi, 2018). This trend
reflects the expanding economic
and business ties between Africa andChina, as well as China’s commitment
to provide scholarships to African
students. In 2000, the bilateral Forumon China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC)
was established to advance SinoAfrican collaboration in several areas,
including education. The Forum’s
educational initiatives include Chinese
scholarships for African students
and professionals to study or train in
China, as well as Chinese investment
in African schools, development ofinstitutional partnerships between
higher education institutions in Africa
and China, and investment in Africa’s
research capacity (Obamba, 2013). At
the 2018 FOCAC meeting, the Chinese
government expanded its support
to include 50,000 government
scholarships and 50,000 training
opportunities (Nakkazi, 2018).

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

Additionally, thousands of African
students (an estimated 18,000) study
in China using their own funds (Allison,
2013; King, 2014). Other uniquemobility patterns include sizable
numbers of francophone African
students in France as well as Latin
American students in Spain, both due
to factors such as shared languages
and historical ties.

A regional approach toattracting talent
Bi-lateral and multi-lateralgovernment-driven regional initiatives
focused on student mobility or
academic exchange are often acomponent of comprehensive
initiatives to foster diplomatic,
economic and trade ties. Some ofthe earliest such initiatives include
Europe’s Erasmus program, alongwith ASEAN (Association of Southeast
Asian Nations) and APEC (AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation) in
Asia. Two recent initiatives involving
the U.S. include the Bilateral Forumon Higher Education, Innovation,
and Research (FOBESII), a U.S. andMexican government initiative tostrengthen U.S.-Mexico academic
exchange that is aligned with broader
development efforts (Farrugia &Bhandari, 2018). Further, as part of
FOBESII, the Mexican government
established Proyecta 100,000 withthe goal of sending 100,000 Mexican
students to study in the United States
and attracting 50,000 U.S. students
to Mexico. A second U.S. initiative
includes the 100,000 Strong in theAmericas “Innovation Fund” which
was launched in 2011 to encourageincreased student mobility between
the U.S. and Latin American countries.

5In addition to the European efforts
discussed in a preceding section, in
recent years, harmonizing education
provision across regions has become
critical for countries seeking tostrengthen their higher education
sectors. East Africa is an example ofa locale that is expanding its links
and promoting mobility within theregion. While East Africa is comprisedof a diverse set of countries, there
are some common issues that hinder
academic mobility into and out of
the region, not least of which are
the difficult socioeconomic andpolitical environments in which many
universities function. Significant andpersistent challenges for students
who wish to study abroad include:
university management issues;questions about the quality ofeducation and the transferabilityof credits; and difficulty retaining
intellectual capital at the faculty level(Teferra & Altbach, 2004; UNESCO,
2017; Waruru, 2017b). Nonetheless,coordinated efforts are being made toaddress some of these challenges andpromote mobility within the region
with higher education harmonization
announced as a priority of therecently established East Africa Higher
Education Area. Formalized during
the 18th Ordinary Summit of Heads ofState of the East African Community(EAC) in May, 2017, five countries
head the initiative – Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi. The
agenda includes the development ofregional standards, guidelines, andnational commissions and councils forhigher education. To facilitate student
flows at the national and regional
levels, EAC students will be able toenroll in any of the 100 universities
in the region without taking a special
exam, and credits will be transferable
across institutions (Waruru, 2017a).

they are often not part of a clear
national-level internationalization
strategy, we include them in thisreport because one of the main
reasons for a country to host branch
campuses or to position itself as a hub
is to attract international students.
While branch campuses are a“satellite operation of a recognizedhigher education institution orprovider which offers academic
programs and credentials in adifferent country than the homeinstitution” (Knight, 2008, p.

Branch Campuses andEducation Hubs: An alternate
approach to attracting talent181), a hub can include different
combinations of domestic institutions,international branch campuses, andforeign partnerships

The branch campus model and, more
recently, the emergence of regional
education hubs, present new anddifferent approaches adopted bycertain countries to draw talent andinvestment to their shores. Although“and reflects a country’s plan andpriority to serve and be recognized
as a center of education expertise,
excellence, and economic activity
in the region and beyond” (Knight,

6

2018, p. 638). The total number

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

of branch campuses globally has
increased from 24 in 2002 to 249 in2015, with most hosted in the Asia
Pacific region, in Europe and in the
Middle East (Garrett et al, 2016), with
China and Malaysia being key hosts in
Asia. Currently, Botswana, Malaysia,
Singapore, Qatar, and the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) are considerededucation hubs, along with Hong
Kong (Knight, 2014).
Overseas campuses, often belonging
to parent institutions in the U.S.
and the U.K., offer the opportunity
for domestic students in the hostcountry to enroll in well-known andhighly ranked institutions and receive
an education that is international innature. They also attract a significant
proportion of international students
who can enroll in English-taught
courses and receive a foreign
credential while remaining close tohome (British Council, 2014). Throughsuch campuses, host countries arealso able to attract top international
faculty to teach on a visiting or
rotational basis, thus raising theoverall global competitivenessand appeal of their country as adestination (Dessoff, 2012). However,

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

despite their appeal with international
students, it is difficult to ascertain
proportions of enrollment on suchcampuses among international,
domestic, and even expatriate
students. As Knight puts it, “In thiscase, what is their [branch campus
students’] country of origin—the
one where they have lived allof their lives or their countryof citizenship? The situation ismurky” (Knight, 2018, p. 653).

7

1.2 Why attract
international students?
Countries’ Motivations
and Incentives
Ever since the first scholars andphilosophers traveled in the pursuitof knowledge, many countries have
had a long tradition of educationaland cultural exchange through theflows of students and scholars. Mobile
students are seen as bringing new
ideas and perspectives and as being
fundamental to higher educationand learning. For governments
investing in educational and cultural
exchange programs, such initiatives
have also served as a powerful formof diplomacy and “soft power.” In
addition to the overall academic andcultural value of educational opennessand exchange, there are at least
four distinct reasons why countries
have worked to attract international
students. Some of these factors are
longstanding, while others are newer
incentives shaped by changing social,economic and demographic realities.

8•

Internationalization of home
campuses and creating worldclass universities: International
students enable institutions to be
global and to have a diverse andmulticultural student body. This isparticularly important in countries
where few domestic students
might have the opportunity to
study abroad, and whose only
exposure to other cultures andviewpoints might be through thepresence of international students
on campus. More recently, theconcept of comprehensive
internationalization has also
become intertwined with global
rankings and the notion that tobe “world-class” and globallycompetitive, institutions alsoneed to have a student bodyand faculty drawn from all over
the world (Hazelkorn, 2015). For
instance, many of the global
institutional ranking systems suchas the Times Higher Ed rankings
now include internationalization
indicators such as the proportionof the student and faculty bodythat is international. This has led
to the aggressive adoption of aninternational recruitment agenda
by some institutions regardlessof whether it aligns with broader
institutional goals.

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent•

Building knowledge economies:
In countries to which international
students are attracted for the
STEM fields, they contributesignificantly to science andinnovation as graduate students,
as participants in the workforce,entrepreneurs, and as faculty.
For instance, a large proportionof Silicon Valley companies arefounded by what are known as
new immigrant entrepreneurs, or
those who arrived in the U.S. asinternational students. Anotherfactor is that countries want toencourage skilled migration tomeet labor shortages.

•

Declining populations andinternational higher education
strategies: In some parts of
the world, including several
Asian and European countries,
declining birth rates and aging
populations are impacting tertiaryenrollments (Farrugia & Bhandari,2016). In recent years, higher
education sectors are turning tointernationally mobile student
populations to help sustain higher
education enrollment, but also
to meet domestic labor force
needs. Initiatives to support
this goal include: scholarships;
regulations allowing universities
to open international departments
or programs; expansion of
instruction in English; increased
post-graduation employment
opportunities; and visa changes
promoting the transition fromstudent to employee (Custer,
2015; ICEF, 2015).

•

Higher education as an export:
A key motivation to recruit
international students that is lessgrounded in educational needs
and driven more by economic
realities is the massive financial
contributions of such students totheir institutions and the national
economy of the host country. In
the U.S., international students
contributed an estimated US$42.4
billion to the economy in 2017
through their living expenses,
tuition, and fees, and also helped
create over 455,000 jobs (NAFSA,
2018). U.S. postsecondary

education is the fifth largest
service export for the UnitedStates. Although it is sometimes
argued that international students
displace domestic students in the
U.S., recent evidence suggeststhat the revenue obtained
from fee-paying international
students helps offset the highcosts of a college education fordomestic students, particularly
in public institutions (Shih, 2017).
International students also
contribute significantly to theeconomies of other major hostcountries: Australia (US$24.7
billion), Canada (US$15.5 billion),and the UK (US$31.9 billion)(Global Affairs Canada, 2017;
Maslen, 2019; Universities UK,2017).

2017 release2018 release% change

United States

1,078,822

1,094,792

1.5%

United Kingdom

501,045

506,480

1.1%

China

442,773489,200

10.5%

Australia

327,606

371,885

13.5%

France323,933

343,386

6.0%

Canada312,100

370,710

18.8%

Russia296,178

313,089

5.7%

Germany

251,542

265,484

5.5%

Japan

171,122

188,384

10.1%

Spain

94,962

109,522

15.3%

Netherlands

68,47576,462

11.7%

New Zealand

62,57061,402-1.9%

Sweden35,10035,862

2.2%

Finland31,12030,807

-1.0%

Chile

3,243

3,198

-1.4%

Source: Project Atlas 2017 & 2018

Note: numbers reflect the total international students in each receiving
country; release year refers to the calendar year in which the data wasreleased.

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

Figure 4: INBOUND STUDENTS IN SELECT COUNTRIES,
2017 & 20189

1.3 A classification of
key strategies
Building upon the key motivations
identified above, this section examinessome of the key policy interventions
aimed at attracting international
students in the short run, but also as along-term talent pool that is viewed as
critical to innovation and advancement.
These strategies to attract—and insome cases retain—international
students fall into the following four
clear categories:•

Financial incentives suchas scholarships, grants andsubsidized tuition: The ability to
study abroad is widely regarded as
an expensive endeavor, affordable
and accessible by a select few.
While this report does not offer
an in-depth examination ofhigher education costs and theirrelationship to student mobility,
it is important to note that costs
play a significant role in students’decisions about study destinations.
Recognizing the importance ofmaking an international education
affordable, many countries havemade financial assistance a
centerpiece of their international
student recruitment strategies byeither offering subsidized tuition(as in Germany), or by offeringscholarships (as in China). One
long-running major government
grants initiative is the U.S.
government’s Fulbright program,which is designed to strengthenties between the United States
and countries around the world,
while also reaching a diverse
group of students and scholarsthat benefit from the scholarships.
For some countries, government
scholarship programs are viewed
as a form of development aid,
with scholarships from developed
nations made available to students
from developing countries. Morerecently, Target 4.b within Goal
4 (Quality Education) of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) ensures the provision ofscholarships to tertiary students
from developing countries bydeveloped countries (UNESCO

Global Education Monitoring Report,
2016, 2017). Specifically, the target
states: “By 2020, substantiallyexpand globally the numberof scholarships available
to developing countries, inparticular least developed
countries, small island
developing States and Africancountries, for enrolment in higher
education, including vocational
training and information andcommunications technology,
technical, engineering andscientific programs, in developed
countries and other developing
countries.” 5 However, thecurrent global estimate of theprovision of such scholarships is asignificant undercount since mostdeveloped countries providing
such scholarships do not have inplace the systems to report data on
scholarship recipients (Bhandari &Mirza, 2016; Bhandari & Yaya, 2017).

https://www.globalgoals.org/4-quality-education

5

10

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global TalentPolicies byCountry

United States

providing job promoting &relatedimprovinglearning &qualityinternships of education■

easingpathway
to skilledmigration

providingfinancialincentives,
scholarships

changing
curricula &instruction
formats■■■

United Kingdom■*

Canada■■■Ireland■■■

Australia■■■

New Zealand

■

■

China

■

Malaysia

■

Japan

■

India

■

*

■

■

■

■
■

■

■

Germany

■

■

■

■

■

France

■

■

■

■

■

* Indicates the presence of multiple policies that both promote and restrict growth

Figure 5: CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES’ POLICIES TO ATTRACT INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent11

Figure 6: SPECIFIC STRATEGIES FOR FIVE COUNTRIES•Provision of English-language
programs: Language has always
been a driver of global student
mobility and most traditional
Anglophone destinations have
had an advantage over othercountries by being able to attract
international students who seek an
education in English. However, thisbalance is beginning to shift, withmany non-Anglophone countries
now offering courses and even fulldegrees taught in English (BrennWhite & van Rest, 2012). This has
great appeal for international
students as it gives them a wider
array of destination countries
to choose from, such as China,
Germany and the Netherlands.
A potential disadvantage of thisapproach is that English might
eclipse local languages evenfurther, and fewer tertiary students
around the world will be motivatedto learn a foreign language beyond
English.

•Providing opportunities for jobrelated learning and internships:
The opportunity to gain practicalwork experience is growing inimportance as a driver of student
mobility around the globe – bothfor international students who
pursue a full degree in anothercountry and for shorter-term
exchange students. In the U.S.,

12

19 percent of the more than one
million international students in2017/2018 engaged in Optional
Practical Training (OPT)—a periodof work available for international
students who have graduatedfrom a U.S. college or university.
Students value practical work
experience that will help themsecure jobs back home or in their
host country, while others may be
driven by economic conditionsin their home countries thatpush them to take advantage ofstudy-related work opportunities
in the host country. Yet otherstudents value such work-study
opportunities as they provide a
stepping stone to skilled migrationin their host country. Globally,
policies governing students’ability to work have impacted
international student numbers in
top destination countries such as
Canada, Germany, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, and the U.S.
that have traditionally attracted
students not just for study but also
for work-related opportunities.
For example, in recent years thenumbers of Indians students in the
U.K. dipped at around the sametime that policy changes limited
post-study work visas following
graduation (Project Atlas 2016).

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent•

A clear and easier pathway toskilled migration: Related tothe provision of immediate poststudy work opportunities is theavailability of a clearly articulated
pathway from being a student
to becoming a skilled migrant.
Established host countries ofinternational students—primarily
countries in the West—have long
relied on the flows of international
students, and concomitantly
skilled migrants, in building
knowledge economies and fuelinginnovation. Recognizing this criticallink between student flows andsustaining a skilled labor force,countries like Canada and Australia
that have eased the entry into
their labor force are proving to
be popular with globally mobile
students. A related motivation isthat skilled immigrants help offset
labor shortages in societies withdeclining populations or shortages
in certain specific fields. The roleof skilled migration is discussed infurther detail at several points inthis report, both in relation to thestrategies of specific countries, andin the concluding section of thereport.

Chapter One: The Growing Competition for Global Talent

One approach that undergirds these
specific strategies is that of marketing
campaigns, where countries invest
considerable resources to develop
attractive messages through a variety
of mediums—digital, print, in-person—
to reach and attract international
students. Yet these campaigns are
typically successful when they are one
strategic piece of a comprehensive
approach to attracting international
students.
Beyond the types of strategies
described above, additional strategies
fall under the umbrella of institutionaland government internationalization
efforts, and can include a broadarray of exchange programs,
informational resources and supports
for international students, as well asinternational partnerships and faculty
exchanges. However, despite theproliferation of these strategies andthe ambitious targets set by many
countries, the relative effectivenessand impact of these strategies is
not known, thus limiting futureplanning and policymaking aroundinternationalization.

13

CHAPTERTWO

CURRENT POLICIES AND TARGETS:
CASE STUDIES OF ESTABLISHEDHOST COUNTRIES

14

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

The primary criterion for selecting
the countries included in this chapter
is that most are widely regarded
as traditional and establishedhosts of international students andhave enjoyed a strong reputationand high visibility as top student
destinations. The sections on eachcountry are organized according to
the size of their international student
populations, beginning with the U.S.,
host to the largest number of globally
mobile students. There is potentiallysome disagreement in the field about
the relative rank or position of some of
the countries. For the purpose of thisreport we rely on information available
through Project Atlas which includes
mobility data obtained directly fromnational-level education agencies in
key host countries.

Each country case study begins withan overview of the mobility trends
to date, followed by any establishedtargets to increase international
student enrollment. Targets areincluded where available; the absenceof a target is also noted. Somecountries have both economic impact
targets and enrollment targets, either
one, or none. Some, such as the U.K.,
also have targets related to growing
business overseas. These targets
reflect how international education isviewed and the value that it brings toparticular countries and economies.
The section on targets is followed bya discussion of current key strategies
to attract international students.
The case studies for some countries
include a discussion of current
developments as the student mobility
landscape for these countries is
rapidly shifting, even at the time of thewriting of this report in Spring, 2019.

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries152.1 The United States
Mobility snapshot
The United States is the world’s
top destination for globally mobile
students and has retained this position
for many decades. In 2017/18, thetotal number of international students
grew by 1.5 percent to reach 1.09
million, an all-time high but at a lower
rate of growth than in past years,
which suggests possible slowing
growth in the future (Baer, Bhandari,
Andrejko & Mason, 2018). Also, thisoverall increase obscures the factthat the number of students enrolled
in undergraduate, graduate, andnon-degree programs fell by one
percent. Slowing growth in enrollment
was evident beginning in 2015/16,
but 2017/18 marked the first drop
in absolute numbers of enrolled
students since 2005/06. Additionally,
the numbers of new international
students arriving on U.S. campuses—amore sensitive measure of student
flows—declined by seven percent in2017/18. The declines have been due
to a mix of factors and have varied
across institutional types and regions
throughout the United States, withsome institutions reporting increases
and others reporting flat or declining
numbers.
Most of the recent growth in the total
number of international students in

the U.S. is due to Optional Practical
Training (OPT) opportunities after
graduation, with participation in OPT
rising by 16 percent between 2016/17
and 2017/18 (Baer et al., 2018). The
continued rise of OPT participation
is likely due to the STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math)
OPT extension which allows STEM
majors to work in the United States foran additional 24 months beyond thestandard 12-month period available forall international students.
Although there are over 4,000
colleges and universities in the
U.S., only 250 institutions currently
host most (77 percent) international
students and—overall—international
students make up less than six percent
of total higher education enrollment
in the U.S. (with higher proportional
representation at the graduate level).

TargetWhile the U.S. does not have a specificnumerical target for increasing theenrollment of international students,
recent statements by senior officialsof the U.S. Department of State’s
Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs (ECA) affirm the intent tocontinue attracting large numbers ofinternational students to the U.S. andto expanding the current levels ofenrollment.6

Figure 7: U.S. TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2008 - 2018

Remarks by Assistant Secretary Marie Royce at the annual Open Doors briefing, Washington, DC, Nov. 12, 2018; remarks by Deputy
Assistant Secretary Caroline Casagrande during National Conference Call on Indian Recruitment and Enrollment in U.S. higher
education, April 29, 2019.

616

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

Key Strategies
The higher education sector in the
U.S. is highly decentralized, withmost institutions implementing theirown internationalization policies andstrategies. The U.S. has flourished
as a destination for international
students and has experienced organicand rapid growth even though its
Department of Education does
not maintain regulatory oversightof U.S. higher education nor has
established a national policy aroundinternational higher education—akey difference that sets it apartfrom other destinations (Helms,2015). Yet given the history of highinternational student enrollmentsin the U.S., some may well question
whether the decentralization andindependence of U.S. institutions
have worked to attract students.
Nonetheless—and perhaps to address
the gap of a national policy—other
U.S. government departments andagencies have developed theirown policies and efforts to attract
international students. At the nationallevel, the governmental departments
most involved in this endeavor
include the U.S. Departments ofState and Commerce, as well as
specific research agencies such as the
National Science Foundation.7 While
the U.S. Department of Education
launched an International Strategy
in 2012 titled “Succeeding Globally
Through International Education andEngagement,” the primary focus has
been on internationalizing American
education at home, and on expanding
foreign language and area studies by
providing funding to U.S. students
and faculty to go abroad. The
strategy does not extend to a broader
and integrated approach with theState Department to also attract
international students.
The U.S. Department of Statehas placed value on international
educational exchange as a key
component of educational diplomacy
or “soft power” as embodied in
its flagship grants and fellowships
programs such as Fulbright,

Humphrey, Gilman, and the Foreign
Language Teaching Assistants’programs that bring thousands ofstudents, scholars, and professionals
from other countries to the U.S. andsend many Americans overseas.
Sponsored by ECA, the Fulbright
Program was established in 1946 underlegislation introduced by then-Senator
J. William Fulbright of Arkansas. The
program is administered in partnershipwith over 155 binational FulbrightCommissions/Foundations or U.S.
embassies around the world. To date,the Fulbright program has brought
202,600 individuals to the U.S. topursue advanced studies.8
Also spearheaded by ECA, theEducationUSA network plays a criticalrole globally in disseminating
comprehensive and unbiased
information to market and promote
the U.S. as a higher education
destination. The network is present
in over 178 countries, with over
400 trained advisers who work in
U.S. embassies and consulates, andin partner institutions that include
Fulbright commissions, bi-national
cultural centers, U.S. non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), foreign NGOs,
and foreign universities and libraries(EducationUSA, 2019).9 Advisors guideprospective international students andtheir families regarding the admissions
process and standardized testing
requirements; how to finance a U.S.
education; the student visa process;and preparing for departure to theUnited States.
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s
strategy has focused on promoting
the business and economic value ofinternational students coming to the
U.S. The U.S. Commercial Service, theinternational arm of the Departmentof Commerce, works with businesses,
education institutions, and overseas
recruitment agents to encourageinternational students to study in the
U.S. They assist U.S. higher education
institutions through recruitment fairs,
webinars, virtual education events,

7

See Helms (2015) for a detailed review of U.S. internationalization policies.

8

http://foreign.fulbrightonline.org/about/history

9

https://educationusa.state.gov/foreign-institutions-and-governments/educationusa-network/educationusa-advisers

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

17and personalized services, while
also providing resources on theinternational education industry. An
annual Education and Training Services
Resource Guide provides comparisonsand individual market assessmentsof over 50 countries listed as bestprospects for U.S. training andeducational services. Over the past
twenty years, the U.S. Commercial
Service has also supported thedevelopment of over 40 consortia
of U.S. higher education institutions
designed to highlight the UnitedStates as a study destination.
The U.S. government provides poststudy opportunities in the form of OPT
which allows international students
in all fields to work after their studies
for 12 months, and up to a total of 36
months for STEM students. OPT has
been very appealing to international
students in the U.S., witnessing a 400
percent rise in participation between
2008 and 2016 (Ruiz, 2018). While
recent extensions of the length of OPT
from 12 months to a total of 36 months
for graduates in STEM fields accountfor some of the recent surges in OPT

18

participation, students’ willingness tostay on for work in growing numbers
and for longer periods indicates how
important this aspect of international
education is to many students. Work
opportunities in the United States are
more influential drivers of mobility
for students from certain countries
than from others. Many students from
Asia pursue OPT in relatively highnumbers, including those from India,
Nepal, Taiwan, and China. Indian
students are especially motivated by
the opportunity to work in the hostcountry following graduation and are
the leading participants in OPT, with 26
percent engaged in OPT in 2015/2016.
Bilateral partnerships with key
countries or world regions havealso been a key aspect of the U.S.
government’s strategy to increase
student flows between the twocountries or regions. These include,for example, the 100,000 Strong
in the Americas initiative launchedin 2014 by the U.S. Department ofState in partnership with NAFSA and
Partners of the Americas, with thegoal of increasing mobility within theregion to 100,000 by 2020 (NAFSA,

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

2014). Leveraging a public-private
partnership model, these initiatives
have also relied on corporate
sponsorship, donations, and support
from foreign governments withsupport from private sector funders
such as ExxonMobil, Santander Bank,CAF Development Bank, and Coca
Cola Foundation (Helms & Rumbley,2016). Other similar efforts haveincluded the 100,000 Strong initiativeof the U.S.-China Strong Foundation,and the Passport to India initiative.
Other governmental departments
and specific agencies with some
initiatives that focus more broadly
on internationalization include the
National Science Foundation (NSF) andthe Department of Defense, thoughmost of their efforts are aimed atenabling U.S. students and scholars
to gain global experiences. While
the NSF focuses on international
collaborations, its initiatives are notexplicitly aimed at encouraging theflow of international students to theUnited States.

Other key players
Given the decentralized nature ofinternational education in the U.S.,
there are a range of strategies thatexist at the state, institutional, andnon-governmental levels to attract
international students. Although not
the focus of the analysis of this report,these efforts are worth mentioning
because of the tremendous impact
they have on attracting international
students to the United States. Statelevel efforts include the formationof several consortia that promotea particular state as an appealing
destination (Kacenga, 2019). Many
individual colleges and universities
have in place strategies to attract
international students, or their own
version of a “foreign policy” (Helms& Brajkovic, 2017). While the specificstrategies of various institutions are
too numerous to list here, one thathas gained significant traction overthe past few years is the intentionaluse of social media and campaigns
such as #youarewelcomehere.

The latter is designed to reassureinternational students that the doorsof U.S. colleges and universities areopen to them despite concerns tothe contrary. Many institutions havealso established offices abroad, andare also using commission-based
agents to assist them with recruiting
international students—a practice thatremains somewhat controversial, yet
is well established in other countries
such as Australia and the U.K. and is a
growing approach amongst many U.S.
institutions10.
In addition to these efforts at the
governmental and campus levels,
there is a highly active nonprofit
sector engaged in attracting
international students, includingorganizations such as the Institute ofInternational Education (IIE), NAFSA(the Association of International
Educators), the American Council
on Education (ACE), the National
Association for College Admission
Counseling (NACAC), the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers (AACRAO),
and others. Given the absence ofa coordinated internationalization
policy at the national level in the U.S.,
the importance and impact of thenonprofit sector has perhaps been
more critical than parallel actors inother countries where such nationallevel policies exist.

Current situation
While the U.S. continues to hostover a million students and remains
a popular destination, recent actualor anticipated changes in student
visa, post-study work, and skilled
immigration policies already appear
to be having a dampening impact oninternational student enrollments. Thatsaid, and as described in greater detailbelow, these factors appear to be one
among several other factors affecting
international student enrollment in the
U.S. In a snapshot survey of about 500
U.S. higher education institutions,

See the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) for extensive resources on the use of commissioned
agents to recruit international students: https://www.nacacnet.org/knowledge-center/international/Commisioned_agent_series/

10

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries19

49 percent of institutional respondents
indicated continued declines in newenrollment in Fall, 2018 albeit at asomewhat lower rate than the prior
year; 51 percent reported increasedor level enrollments (Baer, 2018).
Current evidence also indicates that
there is tremendous variability across
U.S. institutions and that factors
such as whether institutions are
public or private, the size and global
recognition of an institution, andthe geographic location are driving
fluctuations in international student
enrollment.
Colleges and universities thatexperienced declines cited multiple
reasons: visa processes, global
competition from other countries toattract international students, theU.S. social and political climate, andhigh tuition costs as factors impacting
enrollment. Further confirming thefindings of the snapshot survey
is newer data from the Student
Exchange and Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) of the U.S. government
which also indicates that the numberof international students enrolled in
U.S. higher education declined by
2.3 percent between March 2018 andMarch 2019 (SEVIS, 2019). Within thisgroup, all academic levels declined,
except for a three percent increasein the number of students pursuing
doctoral degrees; the largest declines
were among international students
pursuing associate degrees or English
language training.

20

Proposed changes of significant
relevance to international students
include the following: a proposal tolimit the duration of status for the F1student visa which, in effect, would
create uncertainty about whether
students would be able to complete
their programs; proposed changes
to the duration of OPT from three
years for STEM students to one
year for all students; stricter rules
around what constitutes “unlawfulpresence” in the U.S. by international
students; increased scrutiny around
Chinese students and scholars due toconcerns of espionage; and changes
to H1-B work visas and other skilled
immigration policies which have anindirect effect on the motivations ofinternational students to come to the
U.S., many of whom—especially from
Asia—are interested in staying on
and working in the U.S. The proposedchanges to the H1-B policies havemixed implications for international
students: while overall there may be
more work visas and therefore more
opportunities available for those whocomplete their studies with a U.S.
institution, international graduate
students will be given preference overundergraduate students, and spousal
employment for H1-Bs is restricted,
making it more difficult for dual income
families and professional to choose theU.S.
To address the concerns aroundslowing and declining international
enrollments in the U.S., some positive
developments include an ongoingcommitment at the highest levelsby the State Department and ECA
to attracting international students,
as also evidenced by a significant
expansion of EducationUSA advisingand related activities around the world.

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries2.2 The United Kingdom

Current target

Mobility snapshot

In 2013 the U.K. had established atarget to gain 90,000 extra overseas
university students by 2018, but thistarget has not been met. An additionaltarget included increasing theinternational higher education market
value to £30 billion (US$38 billion)
by 2020. The most current set oftargets—established in March 2019—
aim to attract 600,000 international
higher education students andgenerate £35 billion (US$44.3 billion) in
export revenues by 2030.

Along with the U.S., the U.K. has long
been a top country for international
students from around the world,
particularly those interested in
Anglophone destinations. There
were 458,490 overseas students
studying at universities in the U.K. in
2017-2018, including over 127,000
European students. At the same time,over 700,000 students study on UK
university programs delivered outside
the UK. There has been small but
limited overall growth in international
student enrollments in recent years,
but the 15 to 20 percent growthtargets and 90,000 raw number
growth goals have not been realized.
As with the U.S., the UK is enrolling
an increasingly smaller portion of all
globally mobile students: almost 11
percent in 2012, down to ten percent
in 2016 (Project Atlas, 2018; UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2018).
Between 2010 and 2013 several factors
led to either the flattening or decline
in international student numbers in the
United Kingdom. These include thetightening of student visas and poststudy work announced in 2012 andenforced in 2013; the lagged effect ofthe 2008 global financial crisis which
impacted self-funded students; andthe dip in EU students whose tuition
fees tripled in line with the increases infees for UK students (the EU numbers
eventually recovered after four years).

Key Strategies
Recent developments and concerns
notwithstanding, the U.K. has always
had a strategic approach and strong
marketing campaigns in place toattract international students. It
is credited with developing the
EducationUK national education
brand in 2000, which was managed
by the British Council and was widely
regarded as the first national education
brand in the world. More recent
efforts—as described below—havebeen aimed at regaining lost groundin international enrollments andfocusing on regions and countries thathave traditionally constituted a large
recruitment pool for the U.K., while
also identifying potential new markets.

Figure 8: UNITED KINGDOM TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2007
- 2017

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

21

The U.K. government announced
its International Education Strategy(IES) in 2013, described in the report
International Education: Global Growthand Prosperity. Developed jointly by
the Department of Education and theDepartment for International Trade,the key features of this strategy
included a specific target of increasing
the number of international students
in the U.K. by 15 to 20 percent in thefollowing five years (i.e., by 2018);
increasing by £30 billion (US$38
billion) the revenue earned throughU.K. educational provisional overseas(primarily through TNE, or TransNational Education); and to attract
an additional 90,000 international
students (HM Government, 2013).
The IES lapsed in 2018 and has now
been replaced by the International
Education Strategy: International
Growth, International Prosperity
announced in March 2019 whichaims to attract 600,000 international
higher education students andgenerate £35 billion (US$44.3 billion)
in export revenues by 2030 (HMGovernment, 2019). This new strategy
assumes an overall growth of just22

under 30 percent in international
student numbers and 75 percent inrevenue over the next decade. In a bid
to address some of the challenges ofthe past few years, this new strategy
extends the post-study work programfor international undergraduate andmaster’s students to six months,
and to a year for those obtaining
a doctoral degree (Civinini, 2019).
Other key elements of the approach
include better collaboration acrossvarious government agencies focusedon international education; a newly
designated “International Education
Champion” role; and ongoingcommitment to the GREAT initiative.
Launched in 2015, the “Education isGreat” campaign was a new pillar of
the U.K. government’s comprehensive
GREAT Britain campaign, focusedon promoting a British education to
students in emerging economies,
particularly in India where student
interest in studying in the U.K. had
been waning. Led once again by the
British Council, the campaign had abudget of approximately £4 million(US$5.1 million) in 2016-17, with anadditional £6m+ (US$7.6 million)
allocated for subsequent years (Marsh,

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

2016). This evolved into the Study
UK Discover You campaign launchedin 2016 and which also focuses ontransnational education (TNE). The
U.K. has also played a large role in theprovision of education overseas. In
fact, there are more students enrolledin U.K. courses and programs overseas
than are enrolled on campuses in the
U.K. itself: almost 708,000 students
were on the U.K.’s higher education
TNE programs in 2016-2017, 1.6
times the number of international
students in the U.K. in the same year
(Universities UK, 2018).

The Study UK Discover You initiative
offered international students the
proposition that by leveraging thebest of what a U.K. education had tooffer, students could tap into theirstrengths and define their paths.
Study UK Discover You focuses onmatching “channels” or outreach withthe appropriate audience, including
the use of social media, alumni
awards, Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs), and partnerships with higher
education institutions.

Source: ‘Discover You’ Campaign, UK: https://study-uk.britishcouncil.org/

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

23Current situation
The past few years have been achallenging time for the U.K. interms of attracting international
students. Although there have beenstrong campaigns to showcase the
U.K. as a welcoming destination (asdescribed above), there have been
simultaneous policies and measuresthat have run counter to these efforts.
Most of these restrictive measures
have to do with immigration andmigration. The U.K. higher education
sector witnessed several significant
policy shifts between 2011 and2012, beginning with a March, 2011
government announcement of stricter
student visa policies that required
institutions to be classified as “highly
trusted sponsors (HTS),” as a way
to restrict poor-quality institutions
from hosting international students. A
high-profile case involved the London
Metropolitan University whose HTS
status was revoked when it wasdetermined that a large number ofinternational students on campus had
violated the terms of their student
visas (PIE News, 2012). Also, the bar
was set higher for students: they
were required to have a higher levelof English than before (May, 2011). At
the same time international students’post-study work opportunities
were constricted and there were
further limits imposed on whether
students could be accompanied bydependents. Most of the declines
between 2011 and 2013 wereamong Indian students due to theadditional scrutiny of potential illegal
immigration as well as tighter visa
processes (Tobenkin, 2014).
Additionally, beginning in 2010, thegovernment has floated controversial
proposals to reduce net migration(the difference between immigrationand emigration numbers) to the U.K.
from approximately 300,000 per
year to mere thousands by 2015,
with this much lower number toinclude international students. This
proposal was vigorously protestedby the U.K. higher education sector
but remains an unresolved issue. The
slew of changes led to declines of
1.2 percent in enrollment by non-EU
international students between 2010
and 2011 and 2015 to 2016 (HESA,

242016). But the enrollment of EU
students remained steady becauseof the generous financial support andacademic mobility schemes within the
EU (although this is poised to changewith Brexit, as discussed below).
In 2018, the UK announced arelaxation of some of the previous
student visa policies, extending thelist of “fast-track” countries from15 to 26 to include countries suchas Argentina, Bahrain, Cambodia,
China, Indonesia, Serbia, Thailand,and easing the stringent educational,
financial and language requirementsthat had existed hitherto. But India, a
top-sending country for the U.K. andone that has long-standing historicaland cultural ties with the U.K., was
not included on the fast-track listing
due to the belief that Indian students
tended to overstay their student visas
once arriving in the U.K. (Sharma,2018). This has led to Indian students’potentially feeling unwelcome in the
U.K. (Kumara, 2018).
At the time of this report’s writing, thebiggest development for the U.K. is ofcourse “Brexit”, with much speculation
about how the exit of the U.K. fromthe European Union will affect theflows of international students fromEU and non-EU countries. The U.K.
government has indicated that current
EU students in the U.K. will not beaffected by any changes throughthe 2019-2020 academic year, but
no assurances have been offered forthe 2020-21 academic year. If there
is no deal between the U.K. and theEuropean Union (a ‘hard Brexit’), EU
students would be treated the sameas other non-EU international students
when it comes to visa regulations andfees. Some projections suggest thatthese developments could result in asignificant drop in the numbers of EU
students studying in the U.K. in the
future. Additionally, post-Brexit, theparticipation of the U.K. in Erasmus+--the largest mobility scheme inEurope— will be restricted. The
potential impact of Brexit on non-EU
international students is less clear.

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries2.3 Australia
Mobility snapshot
Australia has consistently been
regarded as a popular destination
for international students due to its
multicultural educational environment,
its position as an Anglophone country,
and its convenient location andproximity to Asia. The international
education industry is a key revenue
source for the country, and it now
ranks as the top service export andthe fourth largest export industry. In
2018, the numbers of international
students in Australian higher
education institutions increased byalmost 14 percent, totaling 371,885
and reflecting six years of steadilyrising enrollments (Project Atlas, 2018;
Australian Government Departmentof Education and Training, 2018).
International students at Australian
universities increased from almost 22
percent in 2012, to 27 percent in 2016
(Maslen, 2019). Most international
students in Australia come fromthe Asia-Pacific region, with China
and India being the leading placesof origin. This sustained strong
growth and recovery follows aperiod of declines due to changes
in immigration policy that focusedon preventing visa fraud; greater
scrutiny of the skills of international
students in Australia; as well as
negative perceptions about personalsafety amongst international students,
particularly Indian students who had
been the target of attacks.

Targets
Australia has not set any targets forinternational student recruitment.

Strategies
A turning point for Australia was2011 when efforts were launchedto address many of the issues that
had caused a drop in international
enrollments in prior years, including
efforts to make students feel safer
and streamlining the visa system.
The Australian government formed
an International Education Advisory
Council to examine the challenges
facing the sector, which then resulted
in the 2013 Chaney Report or the“Australia—Educating Globally”

report, which recommended a multisectoral strategy (Commonwealthof Australia, 2013). These efforts
culminated in a ten-year National
Strategy for International Education
2025, launched in 2016, andinvolving a collaboration amongst
the Department of Education
and Training, Austrade, and theDepartment of Foreign Affairs andTrade (Australian Government,
2016) and an alignment with thegovernment’s National Innovationand Science agenda. Another step
toward a whole government approach
to international education was theformation of the National Council ofInternational Education, constituted
at the same time as the release of the
new strategy. Chaired by the federal
education minister and comprising
six federal ministers and 11 nonministerial expert members, thecouncil was the first of its type in theworld.
The new strategy rests on threebroad pillars: Strengthening thefundamentals; forging transformative
partnerships; and competing globally.
Within these, specific approaches
have included stronger student
support services and protections, anda better student experience; increased
quality assurance mechanisms,
including a national code of practicefor education providers; andexpanded opportunities to integrate
work and learning opportunities
for foreign students (AustralianGovernment, 2016).
Other measures include stronger
engagement with countries in theregion such as China, South Korea andJapan through free trade agreements
and other forms of enhanced mobility;
better alignment of international
education with business, industry andresearch; and promoting the researchpotential of various regions within
Australia in fields such as agriculture,marine science and tropical medicine.

“In turn, regional communities
that have embraced international
students have benefited throughimproved cultural understanding
and international connections,
helping them reach out to theworld” (Australian Government, 2016,p. 30).

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

25Figure 9: AUSTRALIA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIESA unique aspect of Australia’s overall
strategy includes a focus on alumni
engagement through the Australia
Global Alumni Engagement Strategy,
intended to forge long-term networks
and build sustainable bi-lateralrelationships.
Australia’s overall international
education strategy is also backed
by significant and dedicatedfunding for organizational grants for

26

implementation through the AustralianInternational Education: Enabling
Growth and Innovation Program.
As part of the 2016-17 budget, thegovernment earmarked AU$3 million(US$2.1 million) in annual funding, andin 2017-18 eligible organizations could
apply for grants of up to AU$250,000(US$173,274) to implement relevant
projects that position Australia as“a global leader in education”

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

(Australian Government Department of
Education and Training, 2017).
While Australia has benefited
significantly from revenue frominternational students, it has also
provided a number of scholarships
for international students to study inAustralia.
It is estimated that the total
annual value of the Australian
government’s investment ininternational scholarships is AU$200
million (US$138.6 million), althoughthese might include scholarships
for non-tertiary students as well
(Australia Government, 2019).
These scholarships have included:
the Australia Awards; Destination
Australia; the Endeavour Leadership
Program (which includes theEndeavour Scholarships andFellowships and Endeavour Mobility
Grants); the Australia APEC Womenin Research Fellowship; and the New
Colombo Plan. However, in recent
developments in March 2019, the15-year-old Endeavour Leadership
Program (ELP) that facilitated twoway exchanges was abolished infavor of 1,000 annual AustralianGovernment scholarships that are to
be shared equally between domestic
and international students to study atregional university campuses. The endof the ELP means that there will be
no merit-based federal government
program to facilitate in-bound andout-bound mobility for Australia.
These developments have been met
with resistance by the international
education sector (Crace, 2019).
Finally, it is worth noting that
Australian institutions rely heavily on
the assistance of offshore agents to
help recruit international students. In
this space, the Australian government
has played a critical role by issuingstrict regulations and codes ofpractice around the use of agents,
including the 2018 National Code ofPractice for Providers of Education
and Training to Overseas Students(Department of Education andTraining, Australian Government,
2018).

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries27

2.4 Canada
Mobility snapshot
Canada ranks as the world’s sixth mostpopular destination for international
postsecondary students (Project
Atlas, 2018), though it is likely that
this may change if the current highrate of international student growthcontinues. While there were 572,415
international students at all academic
levels in Canada in 2018, among thistotal, 435,415 were postsecondaryinternational students, a 17 percent
increase over the prior year (Canadian
Bureau for International Education,2019). The overall number of 494,525
exceeded, a full five years early, apreviously set target of 450,000
by 2022. International students
make up about 11 percent of thepostsecondary student populationin Canada. The top three fastest
growing student source countries(in order) were Vietnam, India, andIran (although China remains the top
source country. with India a close
second) (CBIE, 2018). International
students contributed almost C$16
billion (US$11.9 billion) to the
Canadian economy and supported
168,860 jobs (Global Affairs Canada,2017).

The astronomical rise of international
students in Canada has been
attributed to the current challenges
facing other key anglophone
destinations; the loss of international
students from those countries has
been a gain for Canada. While thismight be part of the Canadian successstory, it underestimates the very
deliberate, strategic and long-term
efforts by the Canadian government
and individual provinces to put inplace strong internationalization andskilled migration policies that appeal
to international students.

Current targets
In 2014, the government establisheda target of 450,000 international
students in all education sectors by2022; as noted earlier, the target was
exceeded in 2017.

Current Strategies
The newly restructured Department
of Foreign Affairs, Trade andDevelopment, together with theInternational Development ResearchCentre; the Department of Citizenshipand Immigration; Industry Canada;
Employment and Social Development
Canada; and other federal
departments and agencies collaborate
to implement Canada’s international
education agenda.

Figure 10: CANADA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2007 - 2018

28

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

Based on an Economic Action Plan
in 2011 that included funding for thedevelopment of a comprehensive
International Education Strategy andthe recommendations of an advisory
panel, the Government of Canada’s
Global Markets Action Plan,
International Education Strategy,
was announced in November
2013 (Foreign Affairs, Trade, andDevelopment Canada, 2014).The plan
includes international education as
one of the 22 priority sectors where
Canada has a competitive advantage.
In addition to various governmental
agencies, the consultative processof the advisory panel included key
stakeholders such as Canadian
Bureau of International Education(CBIE); Association of Universities
and Colleges of Canada; Associationof Canadian Community Colleges;
Association des universités de lafrancophonie Canadienne, among
others. With a strategy “…firmly

rooted in the federal government’s
focus on creating jobs andeconomic opportunities,” fundingof C$5 million (US$3.7 million) a year
was also allocated to implement thestrategy (Foreign Affairs, Trade, andDevelopment Canada, 2014, p.13).
As with the strategies of manyother destination countries, Canada
too aspires to host students fromemerging economies and also
from countries with whom it has alongstanding relationship such the
U.K., the U.S., France, and others.

A strong and visible marketing brandhas been a key feature of Canada’s
approach for several years. The
federal Edu-Canada pilot program
ran from 2007 to 2012, and included
Canadian institutions, embassies,
and consulates and by the end of thepilot, international students in Canada
had increased by 51 percent (Foreign
Affairs, Trade, and Development
Canada, 2014).
Canada has also offered scholarships
to international students and theseare viewed as a form of human capitaldevelopment, for both students fromdeveloped and developing countries.
Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2013

sanctioned C$13 million (US$9.6
million) to the Mitacs Globalink
Program, which since 2009 has
placed international undergraduateswith Canadian faculty to carry out
research internships. A parallel
portion of the program also provides
similar opportunities for Canadians
to pursue opportunities abroad. The
federal commitments to international
scholarships in 2013-14 were over
C$13 million (US$9.6 million). Foreign
Affairs, Trade, and Development
Canada offers 700+ scholarships
to students in Latin America andthe Caribbean, the U.S., China, andFrancophone countries around theworld. In addition, doctoral andpost-doctoral awards (such as Vanier
Canada Graduate Scholarships andBanting Postdoctoral Fellowships,
which exceeded C$10 million �US$7.4
million) in 2012� are available to both
Canadian and international students.
Because of Canada’s Post-Graduation
Work Permit program, “… many

international students transition
to permanent residency after
entering the workforce througha post-graduation immigration
pathway” (Knight-Grofe and Rauh,
2016, p. 20). In addition to generous

post-study work permits, theCanadian government has liberalized
its Express Entry visa program whichallows an easier and clearer path topermanent residency and citizenshipfor international students who wish tostay on.
Born out of a skills gap in its labor
force and a declining population,
Canada’s Global Skills Strategy,
launched in November 2016, focuseson skilled migration and aims to help
companies attract foreign talent andexpedite the processes for issuingvisas and work permits. Specifically,
it reduces visa and work permit
processing times to two weeks forcertain highly skilled workers; andwaives the need for a work permit
for short period of work of 30 daysor less in certain low-risk fields andfor international students wishing
to work in Canada during brief
academic visits.11 This new strategy,

11
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/work-canada/hire-foreign-worker/temporary/global-skillsstrategy.html

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries29

in combination with Canada’s overall
openness to residency and citizenshipfor global talent, makes the country amagnet for international students.
As with the U.S., where strong
internationalization efforts exist
at the institutional-level, Canada’s
overall efforts to attract international
students are also driven by institutions
within each province. The provincial
impact of international students is
also evident: international students
contributed over C$3.5 billion (US$2.6
billion) to British Columbia’s economy
in 2015 and also helped create almost
30,000 jobs (British Columbia Council
for International Education, 2017).
Finally, while not at the level of anational strategy, pathway colleges
are one of the newest and fastest
growing vehicles for bringing
international students into Canadianuniversities and hence deserve
mention in this report. Sixty-nine
universities in Canada have an
affiliation with a pathway college,
with most owning the college but
others having a partnership with acollege that is owned by a private
educational company (McCartney &Metcalfe, 2018). Such arrangements
have allowed international students
who are less academically preparedor lack the requisite English language
skills to upgrade these skills at thepathway college prior to transitioning
to the Canadian university partneringwith the pathway college. Althoughsuch programs have a place, critics
question the financial motivationof such “middlemen,” and whether
they might have some unintended
consequences for the Canadianhigher education sector, including
community colleges. “Whereas

differential tuition pricing forinternational and domestic
students has already drawn
attention to corporate pricing
models, the pathway college model
permits institutions and theirgoverning boards to operate a‘test case’ for privatization within
the walls of the public university”(McCartney & Metcalfe, 2018, p. 16).

The proliferation of pathway colleges
has also added to the overall growing
reliance of Canadian institutions on
international students as a revenue
stream.

2.5 France
Mobility snapshot
In 2018, there were 343,386
international students in France, a six
percent increase over the prior year
(Project Atlas, 2018). International
students now make up about 13
percent of total higher education
enrollment in France. This recent
period of growth follows several yearsof declining numbers. Yet France
was not among the world’s top 20
countries witnessing the strongest
growth between 2011 and 2016,
leaving its status as a future top
host (in absolute numbers) unclear(Campus France, 2018).

Target:France aims to host 500,000
international students by 2025.12

Strategies
Released in 2016 and with the Frenchgovernment and Campus France
as key players, the Bienvenue en
France/Choose France strategy
is a multi-year effort to increase thenumber of international students
coming to France. Designed toaddress some issues that have been
hurdles to international student
recruitment in the past—such as thequality of student-support services—
the new approach is based on thefollowing key aspects (Campus
France, 2018):•

Simplifying the visa process toinclude a number of reforms
to streamline and ease visa
issuance, and to establish a “talent
passport” which serves as a multiyear residence permit for skilled
foreigners wishing to remain in
France;It is not clear when this target was established.

1230

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

Figure 11: FRANCE TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2008 - 2018•

Increasing international student
enrollment in both intensive
French language studies andEnglish-taught degree programsin France;•

Launching a campaign andworking with institutions
to welcome and support
international students;•

Differentiated fees and increased
scholarships: in order to increase
access and equity, international
students’ fees will vary basedon their origin, with those fromoutside the European Economic
Area or Switzerland paying ahigher tuition;•

Increase France’s presence
and influence abroad throughexpanded overseas offerings;•

Launch a global communications
campaign in 2019 to showcase
France as a destination. “Placed

under the auspices of Campus
France and with the supportof the diplomatic network, thismulti-media and multichannel
communication campaign will
broadcast the same message:
Choose France / Choose
France” (translated from
French – French Government,
2018); and•A new support fund, the Bienvenue
en France support fund, will
be endowed with a significant
investment of €10 million (US$11.1
million).

It is important to note that while
the introduction of differentiatedfees is intended to level the playing
field amongst students, beginning in
September 2019 many international
students will, in fact, pay a higher
fee to study in France. However,
the government is also significantly
increasing the numbers of scholarships
to those who cannot afford to study
in France. For example, scholarships
offered through the Ministry ofEurope and Foreign Affairs will morethan double from 7,000 to 15,000(Mohamedbhai, 2019).

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries312.6 Germany
Mobility snapshot
Germany has continued to attract
international students both fromwithin Europe and outside of Europe
and ranks among the top global hosts
for international students. In 2017,
265,484 postsecondary international
students were enrolled in German
institutions, representing a six percent
increase since 2016 (Project Atlas,2018), and representing 13 percent
of higher education enrollment inGermany (ICEF Monitor, 2018). Overall,including international students at alllevels, Germany’s target of hosting
350,000 international students by2020 was surpassed in late 2017,
three years ahead of the target
date (Kennedy, 2017; Nafie, 2017).
Rankings by Study.EU have placed
Germany at the top for two years in a
row as the most desirable European
destination for international students(Study.EU, 2018). According to therankings, Germany’s “…unbeatablecombination of world-classuniversities and a tuition-freepublic university system make thecountry the first choice for many
students.”

Motivations for attracting international
students include demographic
factors such as an aging population;
the desire to retain a strong
science and research enterprise forwhich Germany is known; and themultiplier economic impact of foreign

students that outweighs a highly
subsidized higher education. One
pool of students drawn to Germany
in increasing numbers are Indian
students whose numbers in Germany
grew by 13 percent between 2017and 2018, making Indian students
the second largest group of students
in Germany after Chinese students(Federal Statistical Office of Germany,2018). This probably reflects the
positive outcome of a policy focus on
attracting Indian students; it is also
the combined effect of more liberal
skilled immigration policies as well
as degrees being taught entirely inEnglish —a very attractive feature for
Indian students. Also, many Indian
students are likely drawn to the strong
tradition of science and engineeringin Germany’s institutions: 82 percent
of Indian students are enrolled inengineering, mathematics, and thenatural sciences in Germany.

Current target
In 2013 Germany set a target of
attracting 350,000 international
students (at all levels of education)by 2020; this target was exceededin 2017. No new target has been
set. Instead, the current focus is on
ensuring both quality and quantity
and tackling issues such as drop-out
rates amongst international students(Hillmann, quoted in Redden, 2018).

Figure 12: GERMANY TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2007 - 201732

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

Strategies
Germany’s efforts to attract
international students have been
undergirded by three clear strategies:
a no-tuition policy for international
students; enhanced post-study
opportunities, and the increased
provision of courses and even entire
degrees taught in English (ICEF, 2018).
In 2013, Germany’s political parties
signed a coalition agreement that
included a focus on increasing by
2020 the numbers of international
students to 350,000 and to also
increase outbound mobility. The
agreement drew upon the German
Academic Exchange Service or
DAAD’s 2020 Strategy, also
launched in the same year, and that
focused on improving in-boundand out-bound mobility among
German institutions. The DAAD playsa central role in higher educationinternationalization in Germany. It
is a registered association and its
members are German institutions ofhigher education and student bodies.
Its budget is derived mainly from thefederal funding for various ministries,
primarily the German Federal Foreign
Office (AA), the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF), andthe Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development(BMZ). Support is also received fromthe European Union, as well from anumber of enterprises, organizations,and foreign governments.
The three pillars of the DAAD 2020
strategy aimed at retaining Germany’s
appeal as a destination include:•

Scholarships for the Best:“Awarding scholarships to thebest German and international
students and researchers who,
in a demanding application
process, demonstrate
exceptional ability andwillingness to accept
responsibility” (DAAD, 2013,
p. 20). Most scholarships are formaster’s or doctoral candidates,
including one-year master’s
programs taught in English; thelatter has grown significantly inthe past several years, offering an
attractive and viable option forinternational students who mightotherwise go to an Anglophone
destination (Brenn-White andFaethe, 2013). Aligned with such
efforts is the explicit intent todevelop alumni networks ofscholarship recipients.

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

33

•Structures of Internationality:“Creating higher education
structures in Germany andabroad (e.g. international
degree programs, bilaterally
founded universities, academic
networks, etc.) which promoteinternational qualification,
mobility and dialogue which,in turn, improves the qualityof research and instruction”(DAAD, 2013 p. 20). A key aspectof this part of the strategy as it
relates to international students
includes an increased focus on
improving their academic successrates to be on par with those ofGerman students, as well as better
integrating international students.

•

Expertise for Academic
Collaborations: “Systematizing,developing and providing
expertise in educational
cultures and systems of higher
learning, which the DAAD has
gained through its work andnetwork and which is essential
for developing internationallysuccessful collaborations”(DAAD, 2013, p. 20).
In 2012, Germany introduced the“blue card”, modeled after the
U.S. “green card”, which allows
international students and others aclear pathway to remaining in the
country permanently. The rules aroundemployment while being a student
have been loosened, as have thosepermitting international students
to work after they complete theirstudies: international graduates from
non-EU countries have 18 months
to find employment in Germany. A
large number take advantage of thispolicy (Open Doors, 2017). Moreover,those with a university degree whohave secured a job at a certain salarylevel may remain in Germany for up
to four years, with scientists andengineers permitted to remain longer.
According to the DAAD, half of theforeign students who earn a degree

34

in Germany choose to stay, and an
estimated 40 percent plan to remain
for at least ten years (Nafie, 2017).
This chapter examined the nationallevel strategies of six countries inrecruiting international students. By
most definitions and classifications,these countries have been consideredlong-standing hosts of international
students, yet they face increasing
competition from emerging, “nontraditional” destinations such as theones discussed in the next chapter.
A common feature among most of
the established host countries—the
U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia,
in particular—is that international
students have pursued the pathway
to skilled migration, thus contributing
significantly to the workforce andeconomies of these countries. Hence,
many of the policies currently inplace have encouraged this typeof migration, while also hindering it
when the value of such migration has
become embedded within broader
national-level debates related
to immigration, the allocation ofdomestic resources, and concerns
about the potential displacement ofdomestic workers. For this group ofcountries, then, with their long andintertwined relationship between
student flows and the development ofknowledge economies, there is muchto consider as their current and future
policies attempt to balance global
competitiveness with local needs.

Chapter Two: Current policies and targets: Case studies of established host countries

CHAPTER
THREE

CURRENT POLICIES ANDTARGETS: CASE STUDIES OF
EMERGING DESTINATIONS

36

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

This chapter examines the nationallevel recruitment strategies of whatmight be considered emerging
destinations. Many of these happen
to be non-Anglophone countries
that now offer competitive options
for international students, especiallythose from the developing world,
through lower costs and increasing
quality of education. Some, such as
China and Malaysia, offer a viable andmore proximate option for students in
Asia.

Thailand, Pakistan, and India. Overall,
students from the region make upover 19 percent of all international
students in China (Project Atlas, 2018).
In recent years, China has seen a sharp
growth in Indian students for medical
studies and amongst African students.

3.1 China

Current strategies

Mobility snapshot

China has been deliberate andstrategic about internationalizing
its entire higher education sector
and in positioning itself as a global
player. “From the late 1970s, theChina has been a remarkable successstory when it comes to increased
international student recruitment.
It now has the distinction of being
both the world’s largest “supplier”
of international students, while also
being one of the top hosts of in-boundinternational students. The numberof these students in China grew byalmost 11 percent between 2017 and2018, making it the third top hostof international students globally(Project Atlas, 2018).13 Despite thisgrowth, international students makeup just one percent of total higher
education enrollment in China. China
has established itself as an importantregional host: with the exception ofa sizeable number of students fromthe U.S., most international students
in China come from South Korea,

TargetIn 2012, China announced a targetof hosting 500,000 international
students at all academic levels by
2020.

internationalization of higher
education in China has been
motivated by a desire to realize‘the four modernizations’ (ofindustry, agriculture, defense,
science, and technology), throughimplementation of economic
reform” (Yang, 2014, p.151).

Figure 13: CHINA TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2008 - 2017

Note: the estimates of the numbers of international students in China as well as China’s ranking as a host vary based on the sourceof the data and differences in definitions and methodology. Project Atlas data is provided by the Chinese Ministry of Education andtherefore is not comparable to UNESCO data.

13

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

37

China’s comprehensive approachearned it a rating of 4.5 out of fiveon the British Council’s Global
Gauge of Higher Education Policy,
that assesses countries’ efforts to
attract international students. The
measure is based on indicators suchas visa procedures for international
students; the living and working
environment for international
students; foreign degree recognition;and scholarships and financial support
for international students. Further,
the efforts to attract international
students have been supported
by broader efforts to send more
Chinese students and faculty abroad;
integrate an international element
into curricula and pedagogy; andexpand transnational arrangements
between Chinese institutions andtheir foreign counterparts (Yang,2014). These overall efforts to upgrade
the higher education system haveincluded significant investments toimprove the overall quality of Chinese
institutions to be “world-class”, and to
expand STEM-related offerings, all ofwhich have culminated in increasing
the appeal of China for international
students (Schulmann & Ye, 2017).

China’s efforts to attract international
students have also focused on
students from countries with which
it shares regional and historicalassociations. Launched in 2013, theChinese government’s Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI) spans 64 countries
along the so-called “Silk Road” and isintended to foster trade, economic,
and educational ties. While originallyintended to strengthen infrastructure
and trade, BRI has been an effective
vehicle for furthering educational
exchanges and soft power, with close
to half of all international students
in China now coming from thesecountries (ICEF, 2017).
The Chinese government’s latest
National Plan for Medium andLong-term Education Reform andDevelopment for 2010–2020 was
released in 2010 by the Ministryof Education. Chapter 7 of theplan focuses on the broader goalof improving the overall quality of
the higher education sector, while
Chapter 16 of the Plan identifies
a roadmap for “further opening
China’s education” through*Figures estimated for 2015 and 2016**Figure estimated for 2008
Source: Project Atlas 2018

Figure 14: INBOUND STUDENTS TO CHINA BY TOP SENDING COUNTRIES, 2008 – 2017

38

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

promoting international exchanges
and cooperation; introducing
quality education resources abroad;and upgrading exchanges andcooperation.
Amongst the wide array of activities
that fall under these three pillars,a few specific ones are worth
noting, including the expansion ofscholarships, particularly for students
from the developing world. Mostof these scholarships have been
provided under the aegis of the China
Scholarship Council (CSC), a nonprofit
organization established under the
Chinese Ministry of Education, which
offers scholarships to promote themobility of in-bound international
students in China as well as the outbound mobility of Chinese students.
According to the most current
information from CSC, 274 Chinese
institutions are offering scholarships
for international students each year,
and there are also scholarships
for language study and medical
programs. The expansion of medical
programs being taught in English is a
strategy worth noting, as this seems
to be a draw for international students
from countries like India. Indeed,
China has ensured that Chinese
medical institutions are recognizedby the Medical Council of India,
enhancing their attractiveness tostudents from India (Lavakare, 2018).

Scholarships have also been a key
strategy of China’s to attract thosestudents from developing countries
who have greater financial need andwho would find it more affordable
to study in China as compared withexpensive Western destinations. These
supports might explain the huge risein the number of African students now
studying in China: according to theChinese Ministry of Education, thenumber of African students in Chinagrew from 2,757 to almost 50,000
over a ten-year period, i.e. 2005-2015(cited in Gu, 2017).
Finally, China’s approach toattracting students is rounded out
by more liberal visa policies aswell as the provision of work andinternship opportunities. “These

efforts include relaxing rules on
obtaining permanent residency
in some major cities, a pilot
program to replace annual work
permit renewals with a fiveyear permit, allowing foreign
students to participate in shortterm internships, and students
in Beijing to take part time jobs
or create high tech startups”(Schulmann & Ye, 2017).

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

39

3.2 Japan
Mobility snapshot
Japan has been a long-standing hostof students within Asia, especially
students from China and South Korea.
Students from within the region makeup 56 percent of all international
students in Japan (Project Atlas, 2017).
While Japan set ambitious enrollment
targets back in 2008, subsequentinternational enrollment flagged due
to natural disasters; the Fukushima
nuclear disaster; as well as funding
cuts to Global 30, an initiative
specifically designed to recruit
international students to Japan’s top
30 universities. However, beginningin 2014 Japan has seen strong annual
growth in the numbers of international
students it receives, with large
recent flows from Vietnam, South
Asian countries such as Nepal and Sri
Lanka, as well as Bangladeshi students
in Japanese language programs(ICEF, 2018). Japan hosted 188,384
international students in 2018, aten percent increase over the prior
year; these students make up five
percent of total higher education
enrollment in Japan (Project Atlas
2018; JASSO, 2018). International
students at all levels (including
postsecondary) increased to 298,980,
a 12 percent increase, suggestingthat Japan is very close to meetingits target of attracting a total of
300,000 international students by
2020. However, it has been argued

that this overall growth masks thefact that there hasn’t been enoughdiversification among international
students and the sending countries;
most of the growth is in the numberof Chinese students coming to Japan.
Further, most growth has been inlanguage schools, rather than at the
post-secondary level, as originallyenvisioned (Sawa, 2019).

Targets
In 2008, Japan set a target to host
300,000 by 2020. An additionaltarget includes raising theemployment rate for its international
graduates to 50 percent by 2020.

Strategies
Japan has had an “astuteunderstanding that international
students put employability high on
their list of goals when they decide
where to study” (ICEF, 2018). This

realization has resulted in government
policies designed to encourageinternships, enhance opportunities
for post-study employment, andstreamline employment visas.
Additionally, as in the case of
China, Japan’s efforts to attract
international students have beenaccompanied by broader strategies
for making Japanese institutions moreinternational and thus more globallycompetitive and attractive for bothforeign students and faculty.

Figure 15: JAPAN TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2007 - 201740

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

Launched in 2014 by Japan’s Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science,
and Technology (MEXT) and extending
until 2024, the Top Global University
Project (TGUP) is a funding projectthat aims to enhance the international
competitiveness of higher educationin Japan (MEXT, 2019). TGUP prioritizes
and supports 37 Japanese universities’
comprehensive internationalization
efforts, including new efforts tobuild and accelerate partnerships
and exchange programs withleading world-wide universities;
reform personnel and administrative
systems; and strengthen systems
to cultivate the ability of students
to deal with globalization (MEXT).
These universities are regarded as“Top Type” or “Type B” institutions
and have adopted a range ofinternationalization targets that focus
on increasing the ratio of international
students and international faculty;
Japanese students going abroad;classes in foreign languages; and thenumber of courses taught in English.
There is also a move towards using
external tests such as the TOEFL in
entrance examinations. The initiative
has received significant financial
investment by the government with abudget of ¥6.3 billion (US$57.5 million)
in 2017, and ¥7 billion (US$64 million)in the prior year.
Other internationalization strategies
in Japan that preceded TGUP but also
focused on attracting international
students included the Global 30
Project that was in place between
2009 and 2014. The 13 institutions
selected implemented a variety of
approaches, including developing
degree programs conducted in
English and expanding support
for international students. A third
initiative launched in 2011 andcalled the Re-inventing Japan
Project focuses on building bilateralrelationships between Japan andother countries with the goal ofincreasing student flows between
Japan and each partner country. This
project has included a focus on the
U.S. which has seen a steady decline
in the number of Japanese students
studying there (Rose & McKinley,2018). Other countries and regions offocus have included South Korea, theASEAN countries, Latin America, theCaribbean countries, and Turkey.

3.3 Netherlands
Mobility snapshot
The Netherlands has seen strong andconsistent growth in the numberof in-bound international students
both from within Europe and from
non-European countries, withinternational students growing by
332 percent over the past 12 years(Jenkins, Skinner & Trines, 2018).
In 2018-2019, 85,955 international
students studied in the Netherlands,
with the majority pursuing full-degree
study (NUFFIC, 2019). International
students now constitute 12 percent
of higher education enrollment in
the Netherlands and come froman increasingly diverse range ofcountries. This is due in large part to
the wide availability of courses andentire programs taught in English—
the largest number of any European
country (outside the U.K.), with 28
percent of all bachelor’s programsand 76 percent of master’s programstaught exclusively in English in 2018
(NUFFIC, 2019). International students
are considered “a net positive

for the Netherlands knowledge
economy and state finance”(NUFFIC, 2018, p. 10) and it isestimated that they contribute at least€1.57 billion (US$1.8 billion) annuallyto the Dutch economy.

TargetThe Netherlands does not have aformal target for attracting a specificnumber of international students.

Strategies
The Netherlands introduced a newinternational education strategy
in 2014 aimed at increasing both
inbound and outbound mobility,
including a focus on transnational
education and institutional
partnerships. The same year, thegovernment also announced ascholarship scheme that would enable
768 international students to receive
scholarships of €5,000 (US$5,585)
each, while the same number ofDutch students would also receive
scholarships to study abroad.

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

41

The “Make it in the Netherlands” plandeveloped by NUFFIC in partnershipwith research universities, universities
of applied sciences, municipalities andbusinesses was also launched in 2014
and included a focus on expanding
Dutch language training, career
resources for international students
and improving employment options as
well. However, the plan ended in 2016
with no current indications of a new
initiative despite high demand for one
within the higher education sector(NUFFIC, 2018).
One approach of the Netherlands
has been to set up Netherlands
Education Support Offices (NESO) in
11 non-European countries: China,
Indonesia, India, Russia, Turkey, South
Korea, Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan,
and South Africa, with the goal ofstrengthening the Dutch education
brand. These efforts appear to have
paid off; some of the largest gains ininternational student enrollment in the
Netherlands have been from countries
in which NESO were established.
However, in 2015 three of the NESO
were shut down in Thailand, Taiwan,
and Vietnam due to budget cuts.

42

Liberal post-study opportunities
and skilled immigration policies
have driven a lot of the growthof international students in the
Netherlands. This has been largely awin-win situation for the Netherlands
by helping offset the country’s
declining population, meeting its
needs for more STEM knowledge
and talent, and supporting an overall
goal to build a knowledge economy(Jenkins et al., 2018). However, thegrowing presence of international
students has also caused tension
around over-saturation; Dutch
students often feel crowded out byinternational students. Such issues are
not unique to the Netherlands, havingarisen in other countries covered inthis report.

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

3.4 Ireland

Current strategies

Mobility snapshot

Developed by the Ministry of
Education and Skills in partnershipwith the High-Level Group on
International Education, Ireland’s
most recent strategy, Irish
Educated, Globally Connected: An
International Education Strategy
2016-2020 was launched in 2016.
This was preceded by Investingin Global Relationships: Ireland’s
International Education Strategy,
2010-2015, launched in 2010. The
current strategy was designed
and launched after an extensive
consultative process that included
several stakeholder groups, includinginternational students; relevant
government agencies; and several
Irish organizations and institutions.
Key Irish agencies engaged in thisprocess include Enterprise Ireland,
which manages the Education in
Ireland national brand under theauthority of the Department for
Education and Skills and in association
with the Department of Business,
Enterprise, and Innovation (Educationin Ireland, 2019).

There has been a clear commitment
on the part of the Irish government
to establish Ireland as a study
destination over the past twenty
years, as evidenced in its international
education strategies. In 20002001 there were 4,184 international
students attending Irish universities;
by 2017-18 this number had increased
to 16,701, with most students comingfrom Asia (35 percent), the U.S. (34percent), and other countries within
the European Union (Higher Education
Authority --HEA, 2018). A new report
released in April, 2019 found thatinternational students attending Irish
institutions contributed an estimated€386 million (US$431 million) to
Ireland’s economy in 2017-2018(Indecon International Economic
Consultants, 2019).
International students are drawn
to Ireland due to its location within
Europe; its position as an Anglophonecountry; affordable tuition costs;
its reputation as a safe and friendly
destination; and the ease of
application. These factors will playa dominant role in sustaining theappeal of Ireland post-Brexit, as it willcontinue to have strong ties to other
European countries and will benefit
from ease of travel and mobility acrosscountries, which might not be thecase for the U.K.

Current target
Ireland targets an increase ininternational enrollment in higher
education of 33 percent by 20192020; and increased enrollment inEnglish-language teaching programsby 25 percent by 2020. The overall
international education sector(including all levels of education) in
Ireland is worth €1.58 billion (US$1.8
billion per year, and the goal is toincrease this to €2.1 billion (US$2.3
billion) by 2020.

The key pillars of the new international
education strategy include (1) thealignment of international education
with a broader approach that links it
to the National Skills Strategy 2025,
the Foreign Languages Strategy,
the Trade, Tourism and Investment
Strategy and labor market strategies;(2) a focus on institutional quality
and internationally-oriented, globallycompetitive higher education
institutions that build long-term
relationships with students andpartners; (3) stronger growth inEnglish language training (ELT)
through specialized programs andapproaches such as internships
and teaching training; and, (4)strengthening relationships with othercountries and their governments
through diplomatic efforts, long-term
partnerships, and stronger marketingof the Education in Ireland brandoverseas (Department of Educationand Skills, 2016). Regionally, marketing
campaigns are expected to focus
on China, the United States, India,
Malaysia, Brazil, and the Arabian Gulf.

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

43

Figure 16: IRELAND TEN-YEAR INTERNATIONAL INBOUND STUDENT TREND AND KEY POLICIES, 2005 – 2016

This overarching strategy has
also been supported by efforts to
expand post-study opportunities
for international students, and toease visa, immigration and skilled
immigration, including a focus on
student protection, compliance, andpreventing immigration abuse in the
ELT sector which is typically more
vulnerable to fraudulent practices thanother higher education sectors.
The International Education Mark
(IEM) will be established under
new legislation for the Quality andQualifications Ireland (QQI). This will
authorize the designation of providers
that meet particular quality standards.
This includes having statutory Quality
Assurance (QA) arrangements;
arrangements for access, transfer, andprogression; programs in alignment
with the National Framework for
Qualifications (NFQ ); and being
compliant with the Code of Practicefor Provision of Programs of Education
and Training to International Learners(QQI, 2019).
Despite these clearly articulated
strategies, Irish institutions faced
significant funding shortages due tothe 2008 global financial crisis; thisled to significant cuts in state funding
for the higher education sector
between 2008 and 2015 (Clarke,
Hui Yang, Harmon, 2018; Harkin &Hazelkorn, 2015). These financial

44

challenges placed an additionalburden on institutions also charged
with raising their international student
numbers while remaining globallycompetitive as envisioned under theHigher Education System Performance
Framework first established for theperiod 2014-16 (Higher Education
Authority, 2017).
Another area of concern highlighted
in a recent study commissioned by
HEA, Ireland’s statutory planningand policy development body forhigher education and research, isthat Irish institutions perceive a lackof coordination at the national level
and amongst various government
agencies in fully and effectively
promoting Ireland as a destination
for international students (Clark et al.,2018).
Since 2015, public and private
funding has increased in line withimprovements in the Irish economy,
especially for capital projects.
There has been a noticeable
expansion in the number of major
campus developments across theentire university sector. The newly
designated Technological University
Dublin will be head-quartered at amajor new campus at Grangegorman
in Dublin.14 At the same time, there
has been considerable growth in
the number and quality of student
accommodation, particularly targetinginternational students (Rebuilding
Ireland, 2019).

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

Despite recent challenges, Irelandis now one of the fastest growing
economies in the EU and with apopulation growth rate five-times
the EU average. This is attracting U.S.
tech companies and U.K. financial
businesses keen to operate within
the EU (Wright, Benson & Hamre,2019). Another big change has been
the transformation to a multiculturalsociety with people from over
200 different nations now living in
Ireland. Alongside expectations thatstudent domestic demand for higher
education will continue to rise up
to 2029, the number of international
students going to Ireland is also
expected to continue to grow anddiversify.
Following Brexit, Ireland will be thelargest English-speaking country
in the EU; the other is Malta. Thesedevelopments are making Ireland
an attractive place, especially forinternational students seeking an
English-speaking destination.

3.5 Other emerging
destinations
Several other countries have recently
declared their ambitions and plans
to host an increasing number ofinternational students, but these
efforts are in the early stages andit’s too soon to attempt any firm
conclusions about whether they are
yielding results. New Zealand, India,
and Malaysia are three such countries
whose efforts are briefly discussed
below.
New Zealand’s internationalization
strategy 2018–2030, released inAugust 2018 and led by Education
New Zealand and the Ministry of
Education, replaces the earlier 2011
Leadership Statement for International
Education. The new strategy has threeareas of focus: delivering excellent
education to international students
and improving their experience;sustainable growth; and developing
global citizens (New Zealand
Government, 2018). Accompanying
efforts to raise overall quality include
expanded training for agents toensure the quality of services they
provide international students.
Post-study work opportunities havebeen expanded, with postsecondarylevel students able to receive
three-year “open work” visas that
do not bind them to a particular
employer. These efforts, along withNew Zealand’s practice of offeringsubsidized tuition to international
doctoral students and providing an
open work visa for their partners,
as well as free education for theirdependents, provides international
students with advanced levels ofstudy a clear pathway to permanent
residence in New Zealand. Underlying
the overall strategy is also the intent
to broaden the cultural and economic
value of international students byintegrating them into other regionsof New Zealand as opposed to justhttps://www.dit.ie/grangegorman/

14

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

45

Auckland or other major urban areas.
While New Zealand’s new approach
does not set numerical targets forincreasing international enrollments,
it does set clear goals and indicatorsfor measuring progress towards
each goal. But there is a target
to raise the economic value of
New Zealand higher education
to NZD$6 billion (US$3.9 billion),through a combination of attracting
international students to New Zealandas well as education provision
overseas by offshore arrangements.
In 2017, international education
contributed approximately NZD$4.4
billion (US$2.8 billion) to the New
Zealand economy, enrolled 125,390
international students (at all levels of
education), and supported 33,000
jobs (New Zealand Government,
2018). However, the same year New
Zealand also experienced declining
international enrollments in its
vocational and technical education
sector (or PTE) primarily due to a
sharp drop in enrollment from India
and the Philippines. At the sametime, international enrollments in the
public higher education sector grewby seven percent to reach 28,821
students at all levels of post-graduate
study and with an estimated value of
NZD$1.28 billion (US$838.6 million).
Malaysia is regarded as one of the six
major education hubs in the world,
host to seven branch campuses offoreign institutions established in
the past decade (Knight, 2018).
Although it has a clearly articulated
internationalization strategy, its
approach to attract international
students is primarily based on branch
campuses, while also raising theposition of Malaysian universities
in global rankings. In recent years
Malaysia’s branch campuses have
proved very popular with students
from neighboring countries andparticularly amongst students from
Muslim-majority countries (Aziz &Abdullah, 2014). The rise of Malaysian
branch campuses as a destination
comes within an overall strong growthin higher education enrollment inrecent years coupled with a large
investment in expanding higher
education—close to eight percent of
the Malaysian Government’s budget

46

is allocated to higher education, amuch higher proportion than thatof neighboring Asian countries(ICEF, 2015). Following an extensive
review process that began in 2011,
the Malaysian Ministry of Education
released its new National Education
Blueprint, 2013-2025 in 2013
(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013).
In addition to raising overall academic
quality, the blueprint aims to increaseinternational enrollment in Malaysia to
250,000 by 2025.
Although India has not been a major
global destination at par with othercountries, its affordable Englishmedium postsecondary system has
always been a magnet for students
from across South Asia, as well asfrom developing countries in Central
Asia and Africa. Even so, given that it
has the world’s third largest higher
education system, India hosted only
about 46,144 international students
in 2017-18 (AISHE, 2017/18), withinternational students making up just
0.1 percent of all higher education
enrollment in the country (UNESCO,2018). Multiple efforts over the years
to attract international students
have been met with mixed successowing to the variable quality of Indian
institutions with few consideredworld-class (Lavakare, 2018).
Nonetheless, in a renewed effort in
April 2018 the Indian government
announced an ambitious plan—
Study in India—to attract 200,000
international students by 2023,
relying initially on reliable markets
in neighboring countries in Asia, inthe Middle East, and subsequently
expanding outreach elsewhere (EdCIL,2018). The initiative is managed by
EdCIL (Educational Consultants ofIndia), under the Ministry of Human
Resource Development (MHRD).
Specific strategies under the initiative
include an easier visa process;complete or partial fee waivers andscholarships in the form of 15,000
seats at 160 institutions, including
60 institutions with ratings in the top
100 of India’s National Institutional
Ranking Framework (NIRF). It is too
early to tell whether international
students will avail themselves of theseopportunities, but a pilot program
has been launched to test the

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

initiative (Yeravdekar & de Wit, 2018).
Meanwhile, some have questioned
India’s focus on recruiting foreign
students when the country is not able
to meet the educational needs andenrollment demands of its domestic
students (Teri, 2018).

Spain, and the United Arab Emirates(UAE).

This chapter presented case studies ofcountries that might be regarded as
emerging or smaller host destinationsof international students. It is
important to note that some have
had in place internationalization
efforts that date back several years(for example, Japan and Netherlands),
yet their international student
numbers are modest, and/or theirgovernments have shown renewed
vigor in establishing new strategies
to attract global talent. Yet others—
like New Zealand and Malaysia—arenewer players in the global area ofinternational student flows, bringing
to the field a new perspective andinnovative approaches to attracting
students. Finally, while it was notpossible to include every single
host country in this report, there areseveral others that play a significant
role as hosts of regionally and globally
mobile students, including Israel,
Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa,

Chapter Three: Current policies and targets: Case studies of emerging destinations

47

CHAPTER
FOUR

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND
EMERGING TRENDS

48

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

Having explored the specificrecruitment approaches of several
established and emerging hostdestinations, this final chapter
focuses on the wider landscapeof socio-political developmentsthat have implications for student
flows, while also exploring avenues
for future growth. It concludes
with some key takeaways from theanalysis of countries’ efforts that
can also offer useful guidance forcountries embarking on their student
recruitment strategies.

4.1 A World in Flux
An altered political climate andthe future of mobility
One of the most significant
developments over the past few
years has been the rise of nationalism
around the world, and what isperceived as an anti-immigrantsentiment and a turning inward ofmany host destinations that havetypically attracted large numbers ofstudents and scholars from aroundthe world. The first such development
was the Brexit referendum in the
U.K. in 2016; Britain’s withdrawal
from the European Union will likely
have far-reaching consequenceson student mobility into and out of
the U.K., and on mobility between
the U.K. and continental Europe.
Political shifts in the United Statesand proposed policies restricting
post-study work and subsequent
skilled immigration have also raised
doubts about the United States as an
attractive destination for international
students. While drawing precise
conclusions will require time and newsets of enrollment data before wecan see with clarity just how student
flows are responding to international
political changes, a sharp uptick in
the international enrollments of othercompeting Anglophone countries
suggests that some of these factors
might already be affecting student
decision-making.

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

Another recent development is thesurge of refugees and forced migrants
around the world, particularly
from the Middle East. Academic
displacement has ensued, and thishas implications not only for thehigher education sectors of the homecountries that have been decimatedbut also the higher education sectorsof countries that receive displaced
students. Displaced students face
many roadblocks in accessing
higher education (UNHCR, 2016).
While such students fall outside
the profile of what is typicallyconsidered an international student,
their circumstances require special
attention from the higher education
community. As displaced students
seek entry to higher education
institutions outside their homecountries, issues of transferabilityof academic credentials, language
preparation, integration and support
on campus, and preparation to enter
labor markets following graduation
will become significant issues forhigher education institutions aroundthe world (Watenpaugh, Fricke & King,
2014).

49

4.2 Future Projections
Given the growth in the numberof globally mobile students overthe past several years, and theaccompanying rise of countries thatwant to host them, it is important toconsider questions of future demandand supply: Which students want a
global education experience, andwhich countries are best positioned
to provide it? In an attempt to offer
an answer, the field has been rifewith various projections, including
speculation that Germany could soon
overtake the U.K. as the top hostdestination in Europe (Custer, 2016).
Another suggests that by 2020 China
will overtake the U.K. as the hostcountry to the second largest numberof international students (student.com,
2016); yet another projection suggeststhat Australia will overtake the U.K.
(Marginson, 2018). Sophisticateddemographic and econometricmodels would be needed to takeaccount of many factors and to
predict with statistical certainty the
future of international student flows.
Even when such predictions havebeen attempted in the past they havefallen short because they failed to
anticipate the rising star of China—
and Asia at large—as a solid higher
education contender, in competition
with western nations and the global
North. The accuracy of projections
notwithstanding, this section attempts
to lay out some considerations thatwill affect future developments inglobal student mobility.

Is there a capacity to sustain
international student growth?
The extraordinary recent growth
in international enrollments incountries like Canada and Australia
raises an important question: Can
countries with small higher education
sectors sustain high growth rates?
For example, the U.S. has 4,540
institutions (including community
colleges), yet international students
make up just 5.5 percent of total
higher education enrollment(although they are represented inhigher proportions at the graduatelevel). On the other hand, Canada
has only 280 institutions (including
vocational educational institutions),
yet international students make up
18 percent of the total student bodyand their numbers have also grownexponentially in recent years. Australia
has 136 institutions; China has 3,623;
Australia, 124; and Germany has 426.

U.K.
21.0%

Australia
32.0%

France12.8%

Canada18.3%

Netherlands
10.7%

Germany
9.5%

Finland
10.4%

U.S.
5.5%

New Zealand15.2%

Sweden10.4%

Russia
7.1%

Japan
5.1%

Spain
7.0%

China
1.1%

Australia, the U.K., Canada, and New Zealandhost the largest shares of international students in comparison
to their total higher education populations.
Source: Project Atlas 2018

Figure 17: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OFTOTAL HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENT, 2018

50

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

A related question is whether andhow countries are managing the
sharp growth of international students
and what problems if any, thisexpanded population of international
students presents? A rapidly growinginternational student population
can present challenges both for
institutions that need to provide thenecessary supports and services, aswell as for local communities withlimited resources to absorb thisgrowth. Urban areas may struggle
with over-population or congestion,
while rural or remote areas may
grapple with adjusting to a large
concentration of foreign residents(Usher, 2018).
From a strategic perspective, then,this suggests that growth that isplanned and managed can enablecountries, their regions and their
institutions to fully leverage thepresence of international students.
Strategic approaches can also ensurethat recruitment efforts are alignedwith domestic educational needs
and capacity, and that the higher
education sector—and the economy
more broadly—is diversified and notover-reliant on international students
as a revenue stream or dependent
on any one group of students (as has
been observed in the U.S. with therecent spike and subsequent decline
of Saudi and Brazilian students). This
also raises the important issue ofquantity vs. quality, with countries
such as New Zealand focusing in amore intentional way of improving
the quality of the international
student experience rather than solely
pursuing larger international student
enrollments.

The role of demographics:
Growing and waning
populations
Demographic shifts are also relevant indetermining where the world’s global
talent will come from, and whichcountries face declining populations
and a potential “talent deficit” due tofactors such as an aging population;rising life expectancy; lower birthrates; and declining higher education
cohorts—all of which result in agreater reliance on drawing talentfrom potential source countries. For
example, Canada’s liberal immigration
policy is designed to address labor
shortages as well as compensate foran aging population and to ultimately
expand Canada’s population to 51
million by 2063 to ensure sustained
economic growth (Statistics Canada,2018).

The credit of coining the now popular term goes to Indian Member of Parliament, Jairam Ramesh.

15

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

51

Similarly, in Japan, South Korea, andTaiwan demographic shifts havespurred new initiatives to attract
mobile student populations fromabroad. In South Korea, declining
birthrates have reduced the size of thedomestic higher education cohort,leading the government to in 2015
set a goal of attracting 200,000
international students by 2023. In
Taiwan, it was projected that the
declining birthrate would result in a
40 percent drop in higher education
enrollments between 2012 and2028 (Chi-Wei & Hsin-Yin, 2017). In
response, the Ministry of Education
launched a Talent Development Policy,
allocating NT$430 million (US$13.6
million) annually over the next three
years in financial support for initiatives
ranging from student recruitment
to overseas internships and branch
campuses, as well as exchange
agreements. As discussed earlier
in this report, Japan aims to raise
domestic enrollments by attracting
international students both fromwithin Asia and from other regions byoffering courses taught in English.
It is estimated that by 2025, higher
education enrollment worldwide will
double to 262 million and that muchof this growth can be attributed to“Chindia”15—a portmanteau that
describes the joint power of China
and India, which together are major
players in the global student mobility
space both as source countries but
also as emerging hosts, especiallyin the case of China. By 2020, Chinaalone will account for almost 30
percent of the world’s university
graduates between the ages of 25
and 34 or, in absolute numbers, there
will be as many Chinese graduatesin that age group as the entire U.S.
population aged 25 to 64 (OECD,2012). India, Asia’s third largest
economy, will add up to 300 million
people to its workforce over the next
two decades—the equivalent of theentire U.S. population. All of India’s
growth will be amongst its youth
population, a “demographic dividend”
whose educational needs cannot
be met by Indian institutions alone(although their capacity is growing
substantially). Thus, they will continue

to seek an international educationin large numbers, whether throughtraditional mobility to a host country
or through other arrangements suchas TNE. An interesting additional layer
in the relationship between India andChina is that an increasing number ofIndian students are now seeking out
China as a destination, primarily for
medical degrees. The Indian student
population in China grew from 8,145
in 2008 to 16,694 in 2015 (Lavakare,2018).
While there has been an inordinate
focus on China and India and theirgrowing demand, Africa as a world
region has not received sufficientattention in the international
recruitment efforts of various
countries. This is despite the fact thatthe proportion of African students who
were globally mobile increased by
49 percent between 2006 and 2017,
reaching a total of 514,737 students(UNESCO Institute of Statistics,
2017).16 In terms of future population
growth and potential demand for
education, Africa has the most people
in the world under 18 and is projectedto account for half of the world’s
population growth between 2015 and2020 (United Nations, 2017). While
outbound students from Francophone
and Anglophone Africa havetraditionally studied in destinations
with a strong linguistic, cultural, or
historical connection—such as France,
the U.S., the U.K., and South Africa—it
appears that they are now beginningto explore other destinations suchas China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, andUkraine (Schulmann & Ye, 2017).
What has drawn African students tothese unlikely destinations is financial
support in the form of scholarships,
as well as the religious and culturalaffinity between Gulf nations andNorth African countries such as Egypt,
Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.

The exceptions are China and India, both of which host large numbers of African students, though China many more than India.

16

52

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

Although Africa might seem to be
the next frontier for international
student recruitment with its large
growth potential and pool of global
aspirants, it is a part of the worldthat continues to experience asignificant loss of human capitalthrough outbound student mobility.
While it is not within the scope of thisreport to do justice to the complex
issue of brain-drain, an examinationof international student recruitment
policies does raise the issue of what
obligations and responsibilities hostcountries have when it comes tobalancing their own needs to fillcritical knowledge and skill gaps
by attracting global talent, with theneeds of developing countries toretain their valuable human capital.
This imbalance is addressed to someextent by scholarships in the formof development aid, awarded to
students from developing countries
by the governments of developed
countries and monitored underTarget 4.b of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. But according toa recent analysis of globally available
scholarship data, the total number ofsuch scholarships is small and serves
only one percent of those from thedeveloping world who seek a global
education (Bhandari & Mirza, 2016).

International student flows
within the larger framework ofglobal competitivenessMoving beyond student mobility
and flows data, a look at broader
trends in global competitivenessreveals interesting findings on how
some of the countries featured in thisreport are faring. Since 2014 the IMDWorld Talent Ranking has assessed
the extent to which 63 countries
develop, attract, and retain highlyskilled professionals (IMD World
Talent Rankings, 2018). The index isbased on three factors: Investment
and Development which measuresresources invested in developing
domestic human capital; Appeal,
which assesses the extent to whicha country attracts foreign talent
while retaining opportunities for its
domestic talent; and the Readinessfactor which quantifies the overall
quality of the talent pool available ineach country. According to the 2018

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

rankings, Switzerland topped the list,
followed by Denmark and Norway.
Canada is the only non-European
country in the top ten, and the U.S.
ranks twelfth.
According to the rankings, Canada
improved its position between
2017 and 2018 due to an increased
priority on talent retention; reducing
the impact of brain drain on theeconomy; and strengthening its
education system. The U.S. improved
its rankings from 16 to 12, owing
mostly to small gains in investment
and development, and appeal.
However, “there is an increase innegative executive views in termsof the quality of life, the country’s
attractiveness for overseas highly
skilled staff and the adequate
protection of personal security
and private property rights” (IMD
World Talent Ranking, 2018, p.
15). The Netherlands ranks fifth,scoring particularly high on readinessindicators because of a strong
education system that develops the
skills and talents needed for the Dutch
economy. Germany ranks tenth, andis a leading talent hub in Europe.
Interestingly, the U.K.’s rankings
have declined since 2014 and its
current rank of 23rd places it below
countries such as Australia, Israel, New
Zealand, Ireland, and Malaysia. Chinaranks relatively low (39th) becauseof challenges around attracting
foreign workers and lower levels ofinvestment in education as comparedwith other advanced nations. Thismight explain China’s recent efforts
to attract global talent, while also
providing incentives that would allow
some of that talent to remain in China.
Another approach to this is looking
at how open countries are tointernational engagement and talent.
As shown in this report, attempts
to attract international students
are often aligned with broader
efforts to develop scientific andinnovation capabilities and strengthen
knowledge economies. Internationalflows of students and researchers
are fundamental to driving thesedevelopments. Evidence from Wagner
et al. (2018) in their study of networks
and international collaborations,53

reveals that researchers andscientists do better science when
they can partner and collaborate
internationally. Scholarly articles
produced through international
collaborations are of higher quality, as
measured by their citations (Wagner,
Whetsell, Baas & Jonkers, 2018). Staff
who travel and are internationallymobile produce more research andhigher impact research, compared to
non-mobile staff. These findings havesignificant implications for countries
attempting to attract international
students and where a large proportionof the scientific workforce is foreignborn, yet where current or future
policies around post-study workand skilled migration might limit thetype of mobility that is essential toscientific endeavors. For example,
studying the networks and circulationof researchers shows the dominanceand centrality of the United States,
United Kingdom, France, Canada, andGermany as talent hubs, all countries
that have benefited over the years
from large in-bound student andtalent flows (Sugimoto et al., 2017).

The Openness Index
The Openness Index finds that “…
openness among advanced sciencesystems is strongly correlated with
impact—the more internationallyengaged a nation is in terms ofco-authorships and researcher
mobility, the higher the impact ofscientific work.”
Wagner et al., 2018, p. 1.

4.3 Ten Key Takeaways
This report set out to examine thecurrent status of global student
mobility flows, with a focus onwhat key countries are doing to
attract international students andtheir motivations for doing so.
Several broad conclusions and key
takeaways emerge from this analysis.
Some findings are consistent acrosscountries, others provide insightspecifically into what seems to workwhen it comes to a national-levelapproach to attracting students.

54

1.

How countries view international
students — as either instrumentsof “soft power” or sources of“global talent” — affects the mixof strategies that are adopted.
Whether students are viewed
as global talent, cultural capitalor a key export determines thefocus of a country’s strategies
to attract students. Indeed,
the report makes clear thatpolicies to recruit international
students are often situated within
broader national strategies
and efforts related to trade,human capital development,
and skills development. Even so,
the overarching aims of global
engagement and talent-building
need not be mutually exclusive.
For example, in the case ofGermany, international students
serve the dual goal of providing
global talent for a society witha declining population but
also are viewed as bringing
important cultural contributions
that help retain the international
environment of Germany’s
institutions and uphold its
commitment to educational andcultural exchange.

2. For international student
recruitment efforts to succeed,
they need to be part of acomprehensive and holistic
approach to internationalizationthat includes efforts to send
domestic students overseas; tointernationalize at home; andto build university linkages andpartnerships that result in an
overall ecosystem and national
environment that is global andultimately attractive to talent fromaround the world. Countries thatare attempting this include Ireland,
Australia, and Japan, where
efforts to increase international
student enrollment have beenmatched by efforts focused onoutbound mobility and wider
reforms in the higher education
sector. Further, a comprehensive
approach needs to engage theentire higher education sector, allrelevant government agencies,

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trendsand the international education
nonprofit sector (as in the case of
the U.S. where this sector plays a
key role in attracting international
students). Where international
recruitment strategies havesucceeded, multiple government
agencies have been engaged
in the process, recognizing that
attracting international students
has multiplier impacts andimplications for diplomacy, cultural
exchange and global knowledge;
for fostering a global higher
education sector; for innovationand entrepreneurship; and forlong-term workforce planning anddevelopment. Partnership withindustry and entrepreneurshipare particularly important for thevalue proposition of international
education, and for attracting
global talent.
A comprehensive and holistic
approach to attracting
international students

International education intersects
with a range of government
portfolios, particularly education,
immigration, tourism, trade andforeign affairs. Change in one area
can have ramifications for others.
Policies, practices and regulationin all areas need to align to support
not just international education but
Government’s broader strategic
objectives around wellbeing anda sustainable, productive andinclusive economy.
New Zealand International Education
Strategy, 2018, p. 6).
3. Skilled immigration policies
are paramount in attracting
international students. If
countries want to attract theworld’s best and brightest
in the global marketplace ofknowledge and ideas, theyshould also expect that thisglobal talent pool will want themost competitive opportunities
in terms of employment andtheir future. While it is difficult toinfer causality, some reasonableconclusions can be drawn fromrecent developments where
post-study work and/or skilled
immigration has either been
Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

curtailed significantly (in the caseof the U.K.) or where its future
is uncertain (as with the U.S.),
and where international student
enrollment numbers have slowed
if not declined. Qualitative surveys
have also shown that international
students, particularly those from
Asian countries such as China andIndia, are interested in the poststudy opportunities that a country
offers and that any constriction
in such policies would likely
give them pause. On the other
hand, both Canada and Australia
have seen recent gains in theirinternational student numbers due
in no small part to an expansion of
their post-study opportunities forstudents.
4. Financial assistance, either
in the form of reduced
tuition or scholarships, is an
enduring vehicle for attracting
international students. China,
the U.S., the U.K., and Canada
have all made scholarships a key
component of their outreach tointernational students. The roleof scholarships in enabling global
flows is critical at a time whenhigher education costs worldwide
are escalating, and many countries
are grappling with issues ofincreasing higher education
access. However, as recent
analysis reveals, an estimatedone percent or less of the world’s
globally mobile students from thedeveloping world are currently
receiving scholarships or financial
support from their host countries
in the global North (Bhandari &Mirza, 2016).
Focusing on international student
success: Germany

We must increase the academic
success rate of international
students to at least 75% whichis equivalent to that of German
students. This will require better
counselling and integrative
support, to which the DAAD
will contribute with its funding
programmes and support ofgood practices. Even before theadmissions process, universities
have to assess the preparedness
and language proficiency of theirinternational applicants.
DAAD Strategy 2020, p. 27.

55

5. A focus on international students’experiences, perspectives,and outcomes is important.
An interesting finding fromthe current review is that few
countries squarely situate theinternational student experienceat the heart of their recruitment
strategies and even fewer actively
involve international students
in shaping policies that affectthem. In this regard, Australia
and New Zealand stand out as
two countries that have involved
international students and student
councils in the consultative
process when designing theirinternationalization strategies.
Further, both countries havemade an explicit commitment
to focusing on the qualityof, and satisfaction with, theinternational student experience,
while also protecting the rights
of international students, as
enshrined in Australia’s Education
Services for Overseas Students
Act 2000 (ESOS). Germany has
also focused recent efforts on
raising the academic success levelof its international students. In
contrast, while U.S. institutions
are renowned for the level of
support and services offered
to international students, thequality and regulation of such
efforts is largely left to individual
institutions and is not a part of any
national policy.
6. Alumni who were international
students in the past may wellbe the best ambassadors fortheir host country, yet few
countries tap into international
alumni networks and this highly
effective and low-cost approachto attracting future international
students. Among countries thatleverage the power of alumni, theCanadian government references
alumni in its policy to attract
international students, while
Australia has a dedicated Australia
Global Alumni Engagement
Strategy. The Netherlands has also
been very active in this area via its
Holland Alumni Network.17

17

7.

Countries are responding to, andtapping into, new patterns ofmobility and relationships suchas the increase of regionalization,
South-South mobility, anddiasporic connections that
attract students with a historicalor cultural affinity with the hostcountry. These include, forexample, Australia, China, andJapan as part of APEC and ASEAN
which enables these countries
to also capitalize on regionalties, associations and trade
agreements, as well as China’s
growing role in attracting students
from the developing world.

8. Attracting international
students through alternate
modes of delivery is a key tool.
The U.K., Ireland, and Australia
have pioneered the deliveryof offshore education or Transnational Education (TNE), as well
as distance education. On theother hand, India has resisted
the establishment of foreign
branch campuses out of concernthat they would overtake India’s
own higher education system.
Meanwhile, Malaysia has embraced
such arrangements and is now
home to several branch campusesin the belief that they will attract
both domestic and international
students. Beyond sucharrangements, one aspect thatremains largely unexplored is therole of technology in attracting
international students. How istechnology being integrated intohigher education provision both
domestically and to facilitate
international learning, but also
how can it be used to address
issues of access? It is not clear
what technological advancements
mean for traditional student flows,
whether such developments
will impede mobility as weknow it or continue in parallel,
complementing the traditional
experience but not replacing
it. However, if countries turnmore insular and limit student
flows, then the connectivity oftechnology might be needed
more than ever.

https://www.hollandalumni.nl/

56

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

9. Many countries are aiming to
improve the quality of higher
education and to be worldclass. However, it is not clear
what exactly is meant by thenotion of “quality” and how it isoperationalized. Does it mean
raising the overall quality of thehigher education system thatreceives international students?
Does it mean attaining a positionin the world rankings? Or doesit mean offering international
students a high-quality
experience? For example, China’s
policy alludes to “raising quality
in an all-around way.” Among thepolicies reviewed for this report,
New Zealand and Australia were
two countries that have clearly
articulated goals around highquality international student
experiences, including a focus on
quality assurance.
R
10. Related
to the issue of what
constitutes quality is that of alack of systematic evidence
on whether or not countries’
recruitment strategies areworking. It was not clear fromthis review whether any of thecountries featured had in place
an effective system for measuring
their performance against
established targets and strategies.
Beyond a mention in Canada’s
strategy and benchmarks
established for New Zealand’s
new internationalization strategy,
it was challenging to find clear,country-level evaluations orassessments of whether specificinterventions and strategies haveworked. Even in cases where there
was a shift in strategy over time, it
was not clear whether there werelessons learned or key takeaways
that could inform future policies.
This is an area for future research.

of both established and emerging
countries to recruit international
students. However, little rigorous
evidence exists on the relative meritsof these strategies and their impact on
ebbs and flows in student enrollment,
and whether the existence or absenceof such strategies is correlated withinternational student growth. Going
beyond national-level policies, there
is a multitude of push-and-pull factorsthat affect the wider landscape ofinternational student enrollment.
These include, among others, theimpact of university tuition and fees asa factor in student choice; students’and families’ perceptions of personalsafety and feeling welcome; the roleof agents in student recruitment; theexpanding higher education capacityof prospective international students’home countries; and the impact ofbroader socio-political developmentsthat either welcome or deter visitorsand students from other countries.
The role of national policies is just one
factor—albeit the most significant
one—in the overall complex
ecosystem of international student
mobility and talent flows.

In a rapidly evolving landscapeof higher education provisionand student mobility, these ten
takeaways offer some insights into
widely adopted strategies that othercountries can look to as examples.
This report set out to identify
and compare the national-levelgovernmental policies and strategies

Chapter Four: Future Prospects and Emerging Trends

57

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rajika Bhandari
Rajika Bhandari, Ph.D., provides
strategic guidance to the Instituteof International Education’s (IIE)
research, evaluation and thought
leadership activities and directs
the Center for Academic Mobility
Research and Impact through which
she leads the flagship Open Doors
and Project Atlas projects on global
student mobility. With over 20
years of experience in the nonprofit,
private and higher education sectors,
Dr. Bhandari serves as a senior
spokesperson for IIE on global higher
education issues, is a frequent speaker
and widely published author, includingof six books, and has written for the
Guardian, Times Higher Ed, the Huff
Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education,and University World News. Prior tojoining IIE, Dr. Bhandari was a SeniorResearcher at MPR Associates (nowpart of RTI International) in Berkeley,
California, and an Assistant Director
for Evaluation at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill. She has
been an Adjunct Associate Professor
at Teachers College and been a
Commissioner on the U.S. National
Commission for UNESCO. She iscurrently on the Board of Advisors for
AIFS Study Abroad and on the Boardof Trustees of the AIFS Foundation. She
holds a B.A. (Honors) in Psychology
from the University of Delhi, India,
and a Ph.D. in Psychology from North
Carolina State University in the U.S.

58

About the Institute ofInternational Education(IIE)

Established in 1919 with the founding
premise that international exchange
could make the world a moreinterconnected place, the Instituteof International Education has
championed international educationand pioneered new models of
collaboration across institutions ofhigher education with a worldwide
reach. Today, IIE proudly supports
flagship educational and cultural
exchange programs on behalf of
the U.S. Departments of State andDefense, in addition to government,
corporate and foundation programs.
IIE is proud to assist scholars, students
and artists threatened by conflict andunrest in their home countries.

ABOUT WISE

The World Innovation Summit for
Education was established by Qatar
Foundation in 2009 under theleadership of its Chairperson, Her
Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser.
WISE is an international, multi-sectoral
platform for creative, evidence-based
thinking, debate, and purposefulaction toward building the futureof education. Through the biennial
summit, collaborative research and arange of on-going programs, WISE is a
global reference in new approaches to
education.
The WISE Research series, producedin collaboration with experts fromaround the world, addresses key
education issues that are globally
relevant and reflect the priorities of
the Qatar National Research Strategy.
Presenting the latest knowledge,
these comprehensive reports examinea range of education challenges
faced in diverse contexts aroundthe globe, offering action-oriented
recommendations and policy guidance
for all education stakeholders. Past
WISE Research publications haveaddressed a wide range of issues
including access, quality, financing,teacher training and motivation,school systems leadership, educationin conflict areas, entrepreneurship,
early-childhood education, twentyfirst century skills, design thinking, andapprenticeship, among others.

59

Acknowledgments

60

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Her Highness
Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, Chairpersonof Qatar Foundation, and theleadership of Qatar Foundation, fortheir unwavering commitment to thecause of education globally. It was thevision and guidance of Her Highness
that led to the creation of the World
Innovation Summit for Education(WISE). Without her ongoing support,
this WISE Report would not have beenpossible.
Several individuals contributed theirtime and insights to this report, bothat IIE and within the broader fieldof international higher education.
At IIE, I would like to acknowledge
Jodi Sanger who helped with desk
research and graphics for the report,
and Peggy Blumenthal and Jonah
Kokodyniak who reviewed the reportand provided valuable feedback.
The following experts contributed
their time to review and improve thereport: Janet Ilieva, Laura Rumbley, Rui
Yang, Ellen Hazelkorn, Jill Welch, andPhil Honeywood.
Thanks, also, to Dr. Asmaa Al-Fadala,
Director of Research and Content,
and Dr. Ahmed Baghdady, Manager ofResearch and Content Development
at WISE and the rest of the WISE
Research Team for their generous
support for this report. Thanks to
Malcolm Coolidge for proofreading
the report, and the Frazil House
Advertising team for design andlayout formatting of the report.

Bibliography
62

Bibliography

Achkhanian, M. (2018, May 22). Fiveyear student visas will make UAE
an education hub, academics say.
Gulf News. Retrieved from https://
gulfnews.com/uae/education/
five-year-student-visas-will-makeuae-an-education-hub-academicssays-1.2225390
Anderson, N. (2015, December 6). In
Qatar’s Education City, U.S. colleges
are building an academic oasis.
Washington Post. Retrieved fromhttps://www.washingtonpost.
com/local/education/in-qatarseducation-city-us-collegesare-building-an-academicoasis/2015/12/06/6b538702-8e0111e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.
html?noredirect=on&utm_
term=.396bf604d8a5
Anderson, N. (2015, December 6).
Sheikha Moza: The woman behind
Doha’s Education City. Washington
Post. Retrieved from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/
grade-point/wp/2015/12/06/
sheikha-moza-the-woman-behinddohas-education-city/?utm_
term=.017efb9e7363

ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community(ASCC). (2015). Fact Sheet on ASEAN
Socio-Cultural Community. Retrieved
from https://asean.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/05/10.-FactSheet-on-ASEAN-Socio-CulturalCommunity-ASCC.pdf
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.
(n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions.
Retrieved from https://www.apec.
org/FAQ
Australian Government. (2016). National Strategy for International Education 2025. ISBN 978-1-76028-692-7(PDF). Retrieved from https://nsie.
education.gov.au/sites/nsie/files/
docs/national_strategy_for_international_education_2025.pdf?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_pulse_read%3BIa7m%2BclwTGWcFSaLanEzug%3D%3D

Bibliography

Australian Government Departmentof Education and Training. (2017,
December 14). Australian International
Education: Enabling Growth andInnovation 2017-18 Grant Funding
Round Opens. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/news/
enabling-growth-and-innovationworld-opportunities-australia-sinternational-education-sector
Australian Government. (2019).
Scholarships to study in Australia.
Retrieved from: https://www.
studyinaustralia.gov.au/english/
australian-education/scholarships
Australian Government Departmentof Education and Training.
(n.d.). International Education
Online. Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/
Pages/default.aspx
Baer, J., Bhandari, R., Andrejko, N., &Mason, L. (2018). Open Doors Reporton International Educational Exchange.
New York, NY: Institute of International
Education.
Bhandari, R., Robles, C., & Farrugia, C.
(2018). International higher education:
Shifting mobilities, policy challenges,
and new initiatives. Background
paper prepared for the 2019 UNESCO
Global Education Monitoring
Report. Retrieved from: https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000266078
Bhandari, R., & Mirza, Z. (2016).
Scholarships for students fromdeveloping countries: Establishinga global baseline. Background
paper prepared for the UNESCO
Global Education Monitoring
Report. Retrieved from https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000245571
Boston College. (n.d.). Center forInternational Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.bc.edu/
bc-web/schools/lsoe/sites/cihe.html

63

Brenn-White, M. & van Rest, E. (2012).
English-Taught Master’s Programs in
Europe: New Findings on Supply and
Demand. New York: Institute of International Education.

Chi-Wei, H. & Hsin-Yin, L. (2017). Low
birth rate challenges higher educationin Taiwan. Focus Taiwan. Retrieved
from http://focustaiwan.tw/news/
asoc/201703290009.aspx

Brenn-White, M., & Faethe, E. (2013).
English-Taught Master’s Programs in Europe: A 2013 Update. IIE
Center for Academic Mobility Research.
Retrieved from https://www.iie.org/
Research-and-Insights/Publications/
English-Language-Masters-BriefingPaper-2013-Update

China Education and Research
Network. (n.d.). Retrieved
from http://www.edu.cn/
cooperate_1406/20060323/
t20060323_17533.shtml

British Columbia Council forInternational Education. (2017).
An assessment of the economic
impact of international education in
British Columbia in 2010 and 2015.
Retrieved from http://bccie.bc.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2017/02/RKAInternational-education-Rpt-toBCCIE-final-revised-1.pdf
British Council. (2016). Global Gauge
of HE policy. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/globallandscape/global-gauge
British Council. (2016, March 18). UK
and china agree principles for deliveryof TNE. Retrieved from https://www.
britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/uk-and-china-agreeprinciples-delivery-tne
British Council International Education Services. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttps://ei.britishcouncil.org/
Canada: Optimistic outlook forforeign enrolment in 2017. (2017,
March 1). ICEF Monitor. Retrieved fromhttp://monitor.icef.com/2017/03/
canada-optimistic-outlook-foreignenrolment-2017/
Canadian Bureau for International
Education. (2018). CBIE research inbrief. Retrieved from https://cbie.ca/
research-library
CBIE. (2018). Press release: International
students surpass 2022 goal. Retrieved
from https://cbie.ca/internationalstudents-surpass-2022-goal/

64

China Power Team. “Is China botha source and hub for international
students?” China Power. September
26, 2017. Updated October 31, 2017.
Accessed July 31, 2019. https://chinapower.csis.org/chinainternational-students/
Civinini, C. (2019). U.K. government
announces new international education
strategy. Retrieved from: https://thepienews.com/news/uk-govtannounces-new-intled-strategy/
Clarke, M., Hui Yang, L., & Harmon,
D. (2018). The Internationalisation of
Irish Higher Education. Commissionedby the Higher Education Authority
and funded by the Irish ResearchCouncil. Retrieved from http://
hea.ie/assets/uploads/2018/07/
report_internationalisation_of_
education_2018.pdf
Courtois, A. (2018). Brexit andUniversities: Toward a Reconfigurationof the European Higher Education
Sector? International Higher Education,
94, 10-12. Retrieved from: https://doi.
org/10.6017/ihe.2018.0.10557
Crace, A. (2019). Australia to fundregional student repopulation by
axing scholarship scheme. PIE News.
Retrieved from: https://thepienews.
com/news/endeavour-program-cutin-favour-of-destination-australia/
Custer, S. (2016, May 31). Germany
set to overtake UK as top European
study spot, report predicts. Retrieved
from: https://thepienews.com/news/
germany-set-to-overtake-uk-astop-european-study-spot-reportpredicts/

Bibliography

Custer, S. (2013, January 21). ChinaMalaysia recognition increases
mobility. Pie News. Retrieved fromhttps://thepienews.com/news/
china-malaysia-mutual-recognitioninceases-mobility/
Custer, S. (2013, January 22). China
launches first state-backed branch
campus. Pie News. Retrieved fromhttp://thepienews.com/news/chinalaunches-first-state-backed-branchcampus/
Custer, S. (2013, December 19).
German coalition treaty aims for
350,000 foreign students by 2020.
Pie News. Retrieved from https://thepienews.com/news/germancoalition-treaty-aims-350000international-students-2020/
DAAD (German Academic Exchange
Service). (2013, May). Strategy DAAD
2020. Retrieved from https://www.
daad.de/imperia/md/content/presse/daad_strategie2020.pdf
DAAD (German Academic Exchange
Service). (n.d.). Budget and Funding
Bodies. Retrieved from https://www.
daad.de/der-daad/zahlen-undfakten/en/30736-budget-andfundingbodies/
DAAD (German Academic Exchange
Service). (n.d.). Annual Report.
Retrieved from https://www.daad.
de/medien-und-publikationen/
en/29887-annual-report/
Department of Education and Skills.
(2016). IRISH EDUCATED, GLOBALLYCONNECTED: An International
Education Strategy for Ireland, 20162020. Retrieved from https://www.
education.ie/en/Publications/PolicyReports/International-EducationStrategy-For-Ireland-2016-2020.
pdf

Department of Education and Training,
Australian Government. (2018).
National Code of Practice for Providersof Education and Training to Overseas
Students. Retrieved from: https://internationaleducation.gov.au/
Regulatory-Information/Pages/
National-Code-2018-Factsheets-.
aspx
EdCIL. (2018). Study in India
Implemented by EdCIL (India) Limited.
Retrieved from https://www.
studyinindia.gov.in/about
Education in Ireland. (2019).
Education in Ireland. https://www.
educationinireland.com/en/aboutus/
Esses, V., Sutter, A., Ortiz, A., Luo,
N., Cui, J., & Deacon, L. (2018,
June). Retaining International
Students in Canada Post-Graduation:
Understanding the Motivations
and Drivers of the Decision to Stay.
Retrieved from https://cbie.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Intlstudents-post-graduation-RiB-8EN-1.pdf
European Commission. (2013,
November 19). Green light for
Erasmus+: More than 4 million to get
EU grants for skills and employability.
Retrieved from http://europa.eu/
rapid/press-release_IP-13-1110_
en.htmEuropean Commission. (n.d.) Discover
Erasmus+. Retrieved from https://
ec.europa.eu/education/discovererasmus_en
Falvo, N. (2010). The Pathway College
Concept. Academic Matters: OCUFA’s
Journal of Higher Education. Retrieved
from: https://academicmatters.
ca/2010/09/the-pathway-collegeconcept/
Farrugia, C., & Bhandari, R. (2018).
Global Trends in Student Mobility. In P.
Nuno Teixeira & J. Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education
Systems and Institutions. New York, NY:
Springer.

Bibliography

65

Farrugia, C., Bhandari, R., Baer, J.,
Robles, C., & Andrejko, N. (2017). OpenDoors Report on International Educational Exchange. New York, NY: Institute ofInternational Education.
FEFU Press Service. (2018, September
19). 130 foreign universities offer
exchange programs to the studentsof the Far Eastern Federal University
in the new academic year. Retrieved
from https://www.dvfu.ru/en/news/
en_international_cooperation/130_
foreign_universities_offer_exchange_programs_to_the_students_of_the_far_eastern_federal_university_in_the_new_academic_year/
France Diplomatie. (2016, February
18). Boosting France’s attractivenessto skilled foreigners – Establishmentof “talent passports.” Retrieved
from https://www.diplomatie.
gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/
economic-diplomacy-foreign-trade/
events/article/boosting-france-sattractiveness-to-skilled-foreignersestablishment-of-talentCampus France. (2018). STRATÉGIED’ATTRACTIVITÉ POUR LESÉTUDIANTS INTERNATIONAUX.
Retrieved from https://ressources.
campusfrance.org/agence_cf/
plaquettes/fr/Dossier_presse_
Strategie_attractivite_etudiants_
internationaux_fr.pdf
Canadian Bureau for International
Education (CBIE). (2019). Anotherrecord year for Canadian international
education. Retrieved from: https://cbie.ca/another-record-year-forcanadian-international-education/
French Ministry of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation. (2017).
15. FOREIGN STUDENTS IN HIGHEREDUCATION. Retrieved from https://publication.enseignementsuprecherche.gouv.fr/eesr/10EN/
EESR10EN_ES_15-foreign_
students_in_higher_education.php

66

Gohain, M.P. (2018). Govt launches
Study in India initiative, targets 2
lakh foreign students by 2023. Timesof India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/govt-launchesstudy-in-india-initiative-targets2-lakh-foreign-students-by-2023/
articleshow/63819599.cms
Grace, A. (2018, August 10). NZ: New
strategy moves focus from numbers to
global citizenship. Pie News. Retrieved
from https://thepienews.com/news/
nz-new-strategy-moves-focusfromnumbers-to-global-citizenship/
Grierson, J., Campbell, D., & Walker,
P. (2018, June 14). Immigration cap
on doctors and nurses to be lifted torelieve NHS. The Guardian. Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/
society/2018/jun/14/sajid-javidconfirms-cap-on-foreign-doctorsand-nurses-will-be-lifted
Guiren, Y. (2010, February 28). Opening
Remarks At the Press Conference on
The National Outline for Medium andLong Term Educational Reform andDevelopment. Ministry of Educationof the People’s Republic of China.
Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.
cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/
moe/s3501/201008/97185.html
Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the
Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle
for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Quality and Qualifications Ireland(QQI). (2019). National Framework of
Qualifications. Retrieved from: https://
www.qqi.ie/Articles/Pages/NationalFramework-of-Qualifications-(NFQ).
aspx
Harkin, S., & Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Institutional Mergers in Ireland. In A. Curaj, L.
Georghiou, J.C. Harper, & E.E. Polak (Eds.),
Mergers and alliances in higher education: International practice and emerging
opportunities (pp. 105-121). New York,
NY: Springer.

Bibliography

Kumari, P. (2018). Staying ahead:
Are international students going
down under? Southwark, UK: Policy
Connect. Retrieved from https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/
research/report-staying-ahead-areinternational-students-going-downunder
Education now New Zealand’s
fourth-largest export sector.
(2018, November 28). ICEF Monitor.
Retrieved from http://monitor.icef.
com/2018/11/education-now-newzealands-fourth-largest-exportsector/
EducationUSA. (2019). Retrieved
from: https://educationusa.state.
gov/foreign-institutions-andgovernments/educationusanetwork/educationusa-advisers
Erasmus+ Programme. (n.d.).
International Exchange Erasmus
Student Network. Retrieved fromhttps://www.esn.org/erasmus
Foreign enrolment surging in China.
(2017, March 8). ICEF Monitor.
Retrieved from http://monitor.icef.
com/2017/03/foreign-enrolmentsurging-china/
France launches new international
recruitment strategy. (2018, November
21). ICEF Monitor. Retrieved fromhttp://monitor.icef.com/2018/11/
france-launches-new-internationalrecruitment-strategy/
Germany confirms its foreign
enrolment growth for 2017. (2018,
April 15). ICEF Monitor. Retrieved fromhttp://monitor.icef.com/2018/04/
germany-confirms-foreignenrolment-growth-2017/

Bibliography

Global Affairs Canada. (2017).
Economic impact of international
education in Canada, 2017 update.
Retrieved from https://www.
international.gc.ca/education/
report-rapport/impact-2017/index.aspx?lang=eng&utm_
source=TCS&utm_
medium=inContent&utm_
content=&utm_
campaign=TCSKuninEng2017
Helms, R.M. (2015). Internationalizing
U.S. higher education. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Retrieved from https://www.acenet.
edu/news-room/Documents/
Current-Policies-Future-DirectionsPart-2-US.pdf
Helms, R.M., & Rumbley, L. (2016,
January 10). National Policies forInternationalization – Do They Work?
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/
blogs/world-view/national-policiesinternationalization-%E2%80%93do-they-workHelms, R.M., & Brajkovic, L. (2017).
Mapping Internationalization on U.S.
Campuses: 2017 Edition. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Retrieved from https://www.acenet.
edu/news-room/Documents/
Mapping-Internationalization-2017.
pdf
Higher Education Authority. (2018).
Ireland higher education statistics.
Retrieved from: https://hea.ie/
statistics/
Higher Education Authority. (2017).
Higher Education System Performance
2014-2017 (Third report of the Higher
Education Authority to the Minister for
Education and Skills). Dublin: Higher
Education Authority. Retrieved
from http://hea.ie/assets/
uploads/2018/01/Higher-EducationSystem-Performance-2014-17report.pdf

67

Higher Education Marketing. (2018,
March 28). HOW NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL EDUCATION STRATEGIESARE CHANGING INTERNATIONALSTUDENT RECRUITMENT. Higher
Education Marketing. Retrieved
from https://www.highereducation-marketing.com/blog/
national-regional-educationstrategies-changing-internationalstudent-recruitment
HM Government. (2019). International
education strategy: Global potential,
global growth. Retrieved from:https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/internationaleducation-strategy-global-potentialglobal-growth
HM Government. (2013). International
Education: Global Growth and Prosperity.
London: Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills. Retrieved fromhttps://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/340600/bis-13-1081international-education-globalgrowth-and-prosperity-revised.pdf
Hokkaido University. (n.d.). Top
Global University Project (Type A)
Hokkaido University. Retrieved fromhttps://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/data/
torikumigaiyou/h26-29/sgu_h2629initiatives_e_a01.pdf
Human Resources Development
Working Group. (2017). APEC
Education Strategy. Retrieved
from http://mddb.apec.org/
Documents/2017/HRDWG/EDNET/17_hrdwg_ednet_003.pdf
Ibrahim, A.S. (2012, February 23).
Dubai’s Knowledge Village andCreating a Knowledge Economy in the
United Arab Emirates. Washington, DC:
Middle East Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://www.mei.edu/publications/dubais-knowledge-village-andcreating-knowledge-economyunited-arab-emirates

68

IHE Staff. (2017, July 31). Coping witha Blockade. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.
com/news/2017/07/31/qatarfoundation-leader-discusseseducation-city-and-blockadesimpact
Indecon International Economic
Consultants. (2019). Indecon
Independent Assessment of the
Economic and Social Impact of Irish
Universities. Retrieved from: https://saveourspark.ie/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/Full_Indecon_
Report_Independent_Assessment_of_the_Social_and_Economic_
Impact_of_Irish_Universities.pdf
Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science. (n.d.). Top Global University
Project. Retrieved from https://www.
jsps.go.jp/english/e-tgu/selection.
html
Japan Society for the Promotionof Science. (2012). Number ofApplications and Selection, The FY
2012 Project for Promotion of Global
Human Resource Development.
Retrieved from http://www.jsps.
go.jp/j-gjinzai/data/shinsa/h24/
H24_gjinzai_kekka_e.pdf
Japan well on its way to 300,000
international students. (2018, January
11). ICEF Monitor. Retrieved fromhttp://monitor.icef.com/2018/01/
japan-300000-internationalstudents/
Kennedy, K. (2017, November 30).
Germany surpasses international
student target three years early.
Pie News. Retrieved from https://thepienews.com/news/germanysurpasses-international-studenttarget-three-years-early/
Knight, J. (2018). International
Education Hubs. In P. Meusburger,
M. Heffernan, & L. Suarsana (Eds.),
Geographies of the University (pp. 637655). Springer, Cham. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-755939_21

Bibliography

Knight, J. (Ed.). (2014). International
education hubs: Student, talent, knowledge-innovation models. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Knight-Grofe, J., & Rauh, K. (2016). A
world of learning: Canada’s performanceand potential in international
education. Canadian Bureau forInternational Education. Retrieved
from https://cbie.ca/wp-content/
uploads/2017/07/A-World-ofLearning-HI-RES-2016.pdf
Korea aims for 200,000 foreign
students by 2023. (2015, October 13).
ICEF Monitor. Retrieved from http://
monitor.icef.com/2015/10/koreaaims-for-200000-foreign-studentsby-2023/
Lavakare, P.J. (2018). India and China:
Two Major Higher Education Hubs in
Asia. International Higher Education,
94, 12-13. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.6017/ihe.2018.0.10558
Letchumanan, R. (2015, February 13).
What is ASEAN Community 2015 All
About? The Diplomat. Retrieved fromhttps://thediplomat.com/2015/02/
what-is-asean-community-2015-allabout/
Malaysia releases landmark education
blueprint. (2015, April 23). ICEF
Monitor. Retrieved from: http://
monitor.icef.com/2015/04/
malaysia-releases-landmarkeducation-blueprint/
Marsh, N. (2016). Campaign launched
to market UK education, TNE tointernational students. Retrieved from:https://thepienews.com/news/
campaign-launched-market-ukeducation-tne-intl-students/
Maschmann, E. (2018). At what cost?
A study of Canada’s first public-private
post-secondary matriculation pathways
partnership (Master’s Thesis). Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver.
Retrieved from https://open.
library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0363882

Bibliography

Maslen, G. (2019). Top universities
go for Chinese over Australian
students. University World News.
Retrieved from https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20190123142649726
May, T. (2011, March 22). Majorchanges to student visa system.
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/news/major-changesto-student-visa-system
Mohamedbhai, G. (2019). “Choose
France”—with increased tuition.
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/
blogs/world-view/choose-franceincreased-tuition
McCartney, D.M., & Metcalfe,
A.S. (2018). Pathway Colleges: A
New Institutional Form in Canada.
International Higher Education, 94,
15-16. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.6017/ihe.2018.0.10560
MEXT: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan. (n.d.). Top Global University
Project. Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/
sdetail02/1395420.htm
MEXT: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan. (n.d.). Inter-University
Exchange Project (Re-Inventing Japan
Project). Retrieved from http://www.
mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/
sdetail02/1373893.htm
MEXT: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan. (n.d.) Project for Promotion of
Global Human Resource Development.
Retrieved from http://www.mext.
go.jp/en/policy/education/highered/title02/detail02/
sdetail02/1373895.htm

69

MEXT: Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan. (n.d.). Global 30 Project-Establishing University Network
for Internationalization. Retrieved
from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/
policy/education/highered/title02/
detail02/sdetail02/1373894.htm
MEXT: Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology-Japan. (n.d.). Project
for Establishing University Network
for Internationalization: Global 30.
Retrieved from http://www.mext.
go.jp/component/a_menu/
education/detail/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2017/03/30/1383779_06.
pdf
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
(2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint
2013-2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary
Education). Putrajaya, Malaysia:
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/
dyn/youthpol/en/equest.fileutils.
dochandle?p_uploaded_file_id=406
Ministry of Education of the People’s
Republic of China. (2010, March).
China pledges to ensure fair, highquality education in decade ahead.
Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.
cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/
moe/s3501/201003/82808.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s
Republic of China. (n.d.). National
Outline for Medium and Long-Term
Education Reform and Development(2010 – 2020). Retrieved from http://
old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/
business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2792/
index.html
Ministry of Education of thePeople’s Republic of China.
(2009, September 17). Applicationfor Studying in China. Retrieved
from http://en.moe.gov.cn/
Cooperation_Exchanges/201506/
t20150626_191374.html

70

Ministry of Education of the People’s
Republic of China. (2010). Outlineof China’s National Plan for Medium
and Long-term Education Reform andDevelopment (2010-2020) (English).
Archived News, Australian Government
Department of Education andTraining. Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.
au/News/newsarchive/2010/
Documents/China_Education_
Reform_pdf.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of thePeople’s Republic of China. (2014,
April). China’s Policy Paper on the EU:
Deepen the China-EU Comprehensive
Strategic Partnership for Mutual Benefit
and Win-win Cooperation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/
wjdt_665385/wjzcs/t1143406.shtml
NAFSA. (2014). Vice President Biden
and Secretary Kerry Launch 100,000
Strong in the Americas Partnership.
Retrieved from https://www.nafsa.
org/Policy_and_Advocacy/What_
We_Stand_For/Education_Policy/
Vice_President_Biden_and_
Secretary_Kerry_Launch_100,000_
Strong_in_the_Americas_
Partnership/
Nakkazi, E. (2018, September 7).
China ramps up support for African
higher education. University World
News. Retrieved from https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20180907083412817
Nayyar, D. (2018). Will India’sInstitutes of Eminence finally put thesubcontinent’s HE system on theworld stage? THE World University
Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/
features/will-indias-instituteseminence-finally-put-subcontinentshe-system-world-stage
New Zealand Government. (2018).
International Education Strategy (HERAUTAKI MĀTAURANGA A AO) 2018–
2030. Retrieved from https://enz.
govt.nz/about-enz/internationaleducation-strategy

Bibliography

New Zealand Immigration. (2018,
August 8). Changes to post-study
work rights for international students.
Retrieved from https://www.
immigration.govt.nz/about-us/
media-centre/news-notifications/changes-to-post-study-workrightsfor-international-students
New Zealand opens up post-study
work rights. (2018, August 15). ICEF
Monitor. Retrieved from http://
monitor.icef.com/2018/08/newzealand-opens-post-study-workrights/
NUFFIC. (2018). Incoming student
mobility in Dutch higher education
2017-2018. Retrieved from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/publications/
NUFFIC. (2019). Incoming degree
student mobility in Dutch higher
education 2018-2019. Retrieved
from https://www.nuffic.nl/en/
publications/incoming-degreestudent-mobility-dutch-highereducation-2018-2019/
OECD. (2012). Education indicators infocus: how is the global talent poolchanging? Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyondschool/2088471.pdf
OECD. (2002). Report on commitments
under the GATS in Educational
Services. Retrieved from http://www.
oecd.org/education/50495363.pdf
Olds, K., & Robertson, S. (2014,
April 13). Towards harmonization ofhigher education in Southeast Asia.
Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/
blogs/globalhighered/towardsharmonization-higher-educationsoutheast-asia
O’Malley, B. (2018, July 26).
Internationalisation hampered by‘lack of investment’. University World
News. Retrieved from http://www.
universityworldnews.com/article.
php?story=20180726210040199

Bibliography

100,000 Strong in the Americas.
(n.d.) Retrieved from http://
www.100kstrongamericas.org
Ortiz, A. (2018, June 12). International
Student Pathways to Permanent
Residence in Canada: Canada Researchin Brief. World Education News + Reviews.
Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.
org/2018/06/international-studentpathways-to-permanent-residencein-canada
Outrage as UK excludes India
from relaxed student visa rules.
(2018, June 16). The Times of India.
Retrieved from https://timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/world/uk/
outrage-as-uk-excludes-indiafrom-relaxed-student-visa-rules/
articleshow/64613959.cms
QS Applicant Survey 2018. What
Drives an International Student Today?
QS Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from:https://www.qs.com/portfolioitems/2018-qs-applicant-surveywhat-drives-an-internationalstudent-today
Rebuilding Ireland. (2019). National
Student Accommodation Strategy.
Retrieved from: https://www.
education.ie/en/Publications/
Policy-Reports/National-StudentAccommodation-Policy.pdf
Redden, E. (2018). For international
students, shifting choices of where to
study. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2018/08/24/internationalenrollments-slowing-or-decliningsome-top-destination-countrieslook
Redden, E. (2017, June 6). Crisis in
Qatar. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved fromhttps://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2017/06/06/foreign-branchcampuses-qatar-monitor-majordiplomatic-rift71

Sawa, T. (2019). Foreign numbers
don’t tell whole tale. The Japan
Times. Retrieved from: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/
opinion/2019/04/12/commentary/japan-commentary/foreign-studentnumbers-dont-tell-whole-tale/#.
XNXIR6Qh1dg
Schulmann, P., & Ye, C. (2017).
China: Can the world’s top source
for international students become its
leading destination? World Education
News + Reviews. Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.org/2017/08/chinacan-the-worlds-top-source-forinternational-students-become-itsleading-destination
Sharma, Y. (2018, January 19). Pacific
Rim universities work to step up
policy impact. University World
News. Retrieved from https://www.
universityworldnews.com/post.
php?story=20180117143038659
Sharma, Y. (2018, June 19). UK visachanges ‘discriminate’ against
Indian students. University World
News. Retrieved from http://www.
universityworldnews.com/article.
php?story=20180619132721781
Semotiuk, A. (2018, June). Foreign
Students To Deal With Uncertainties
Under New U.S. Immigration
Policy. Forbes. Retrieved fromhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/
andyjsemotiuk/2018/06/13/raisingthe-bar-on-international-studentsnew-uscis-policy-looks-to-targetcollege-students/#3992bc4355fb
Sirat, M. (2018). Malaysia’s International
Education by 2020 and Beyond:Re-examining Concept, Targets andOutcome. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.
com/blogs/globalhighered/malaysia%E2%80%99sinternational-education-2020-andbeyond

72

Smith, B. (2017, June 14). Canada
eases entry from foreign researchers.
Pie News. Retrieved from https://thepienews.com/news/canadascraps-work-permits-short-termresearch-projects/
Sugimoto, C. R., Robinson-García,N., Murray, D. R., Yegros-Yegros, A.,
Costas, R., and Lariviere, V. (2017).
Scientists have most impact when they
are free to move. Nature 32, 29–31 doi:
10.1038/550029a
Teri, D. (2018). How good is the ‘Studyin India’ initiative? The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/education/
how-good-is-the-study-in-indiainitiative/article24179724.ece
Thomas, D. (2012, August 30). London
Met loses highly trusted sponsor
status. Pie News. Retrieved fromhttps://thepienews.com/news/
london-met-loses-highly-trustedsponsors-status/
Tobenkin, D. (2014).
Internationalization Strategies:
The United Kingdom. International
Educator, Nov-Dec 2014. Retrieved
from https://www.nafsa.org/_/
File/_/ie_novdec14_uk.pdf
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2018).
Retrieved from http://data.uis.
unesco.org
UAE announces five-year student visas
and residency opportunities. (2018,
May 29). ICEF Monitor. Retrieved fromhttp://monitor.icef.com/2018/05/
uae-announces-five-year-studentvisas-and-residency-opportunities/
United Nations. (2017). World
population prospects: Key findings
and advance tables. Retrieved fromhttps://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
Publications/Files/WPP2017_
KeyFindings.pdf

Bibliography

Universities UK. (2018). The scale ofUK higher education transnational
education 2016-17. Retrieved from:https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/
International/Documents/UUKi%20
the%20scale%20of%20HE%20
TNE%20education%202016-17.pdf
US Department of Education. (2012,
November 16). U.S. Departmentof Education’s International
Strategy. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/
internationaled/internationalstrategy-2012-16.html
US Department of State. (n.d.).
100,000 Strong in the Americas.
Retrieved from https://www.state.
gov/p/wha/rt/100k/
Usher, A. (2018). How many
international students is too
many? Retrieved from: http://
higheredstrategy.com/manyinternational-students-many/
Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T., Bass, J.,& Jonkers, K. (2018). Openness andimpact of leading scientific countries.
Front. Res. Metr. Anal, 3:10. Retrieved
from: https://www.frontiersin.org/
articles/10.3389/frma.2018.00010/
full

Wright, W., Benson, C., & E. Hamre.
(2019). Brexit and the City: the impact
so far. New Financial. Retrieved from:https://newfinancial.org/theimpact-of-brexit-on-the-city/
Xiamen lures bumi and Indian
students. (2017, March 31). The
Star Online. Retrieved fromhttps://www.thestar.com.my/
news/nation/2017/03/31/
xiamen-lures-bumi-and-indianstudents-xmum-offeringscholarships-for-new-intake-indrive/#hjTJCcIeuq1fJ4P8.99
Yang, R. (2014). China’s Strategy for
the Internationalization of Higher
Education: An Overview. Frontiersof Education in China, 9(2), 151162. . https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03397011
Yeravdekar, V., & de Wit, H. (2018).
Increase International Students: India’s
Initiative. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.
com/blogs/world-view/
increase-international-studentsindia%E2%80%99s-initiative

WAM. (2015, November 22). UAE
announces 300-billion plan on
knowledge economy. Khaleej Times.
Retrieved from https://www.
khaleejtimes.com/uae-announces300-billion-plan-on-knowledgeeconomy
Watenpaugh, K.D., Fricke, A.L. & King,
J.R. (2014). We will stop here and go
no further: Syrian university students
and scholars in Turkey. Retrieved from:http://www.scholarrescuefund.org/
sites/default/files/pdf-articles/wewill-stop-here-and-go-no-furthersyrian-university-students-andscholars-in-turkey-002_1.pdf

Bibliography73

74