国立大学法人 一橋大学 森有礼高等教育国際流動化機構

Working Paper SeriesMori Arinori Institute for Higher Education and Global Mobility

No.WP2024-01
Stay, Return, or Relocate: Destination of
Asian Ph.D. Graduates from the United
Kingdom and the United States

Yukari Matsuzuka, Marcel Gérard, andKazuhiro Fukazawa
2024年4月

Stay, Return, or Relocate: Destination of Asian Ph.D. Graduates from theUnited Kingdom and the United States

Yukari Matsuzuka 1*, Marcel Gérard, 2 and Kazuhiro Fukazawa 3
April 10th, 2024
ABSTRACTThis study explores the career destinations of Asian students who obtained their Ph.D.
degrees in the United States or the United Kingdom. Utilizing a unique dataset comprising the
educational and career profiles of over 650 individuals from Korea, Japan, Southeast Asia, and China
who completed their Ph.D. between 1986 and 2015, we found that: (1) mobility trends significantly
vary by origin, with those sponsored by their home countries more inclined to return post-graduation;(2) recipients of Ph.D. degrees in the U.S. show a lower propensity to return to their home countries
compared to their counterparts in the U.K.; and (3) aside from the U.S., countries financing theircitizens' education abroad generally achieve social returns on their investment, aligning with thetraditional human capital hypothesis.

JEL: F22, H52, I23
Keywords: mobility of highly skilled; career pathways; Asian doctoral degrees received in the U.S. andthe U.K.; economic and social return on education

Hitotsubashi University, Mori Institute for Higher Education and Global Mobility. E-mail address:
y.matsuzuka@r.hit-u.ac.jp ORCID: 0000-0002-9262-4616 *Corresponding author
Address: Isono Bldg.#422, Hitotsubashi University, Naka 2-1, Kunitachi-city, Tokyo, Japan, 186-8601
Tel No.: +81 42 580 8861
2
Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain School of Management and LouRIM, CESifo and JSPS. E-mailaddress: marcel.gerard@uclouvain.be3
Hitotsubashi University, Mori Institute for Higher Education and Global Mobility, Center for Global Online
Education. E-mail address: k.fukazawa@r.hit-u.ac.jp
1

This study is supported by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, throughKaken (17H02678 and 20H00097) and by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Sciences through JSPS
Invitational Fellowships for Research in Japan (S19137).

1

1. Introduction
International institutions have observed three key trends concerning the mobility of higher education
students and graduates who cross international borders for study or training. Firstly, this mobility is on
the rise. According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), the population of mobile students
enrolled in tertiary education programs has seen substantial growth over the past two decades. In 2000,
the global count of international students stood at approximately 2.1 million. By 2019, this figure had
escalated to 6.1 million, nearly tripling in two decades. Remarkably, even after the onset of the COVID19 pandemic, the number of international students not only remained steady but increased to 6.36
million in 2020 4. Predominantly, these international students are pursuing graduate-level education. On
average, across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 13% of
master’s and 22% of doctoral students are international, indicating a significant presence in graduate
programs (OECD, 2019).
Secondly, the motivations behind migration are multifaceted, particularly among younger
demographics. The United Nations, in its special issue titled "Youth and Migration" (2013), highlighted
that youth migration stems from a complex mix of personal, socio-economic, and political factors fromtheir countries of origin. While some migrations are forced, due to factors such as poverty, violence, or
natural disasters, a large portion of international students migrate voluntarily for reasons tied to pivotal
life transitions, including higher education and employment opportunities.
Thirdly, migration tends to have a positive impact on migrants, providing them with newopportunities for higher education, employment, professional development, and personal growth. Thisenhances not only their self-confidence but also their skill sets, benefiting both their home and hostcountries. The global knowledge economy intensifies competition for highly skilled workers, who arepivotal to knowledge creation, innovation, and economic growth. This context underpins ourinvestigation into the interrelation between education and career mobility and its variation based on theorigin and destination countries of international students and workers.
We focused on students originating from Asia and hosted by the United States (U.S.) or theUnited Kingdom (U.K.). The U.S. and U.K. are the top two recipients of international students
worldwide, and have the largest Asian student enrollments, particularly in doctoral programs. In the2017 Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities report, the National Science Foundation (2018)
reported that twenty of the top forty origin countries of temporary visa holders who earned doctorates
from U.S. colleges and universities were Asian countries, with 12,391 of them representing 83% of all

The data was extracted on March 21, 2023 from UIS Stat available at the following site:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/ under the “Number and rates of international mobile students (inbound and outbound)”
list.

4

2

doctoral recipients who were temporary visa holders. 5 According to the Institute of International
Education (2019), during the 2018–2019 period, 279,766 Asian international students enrolled in
graduate courses in the U.S., comprising 74% of all international students in graduate programs. 6
Although the share of Asian students in the U.K. is not as large as in the U.S., it is still substantial.
According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (2020), of the 46,470 non-EU students enrolledin U.K. postgraduate research programs in the 2018–2019 academic year, 14,535 (31%) were from
Asia. 7 Of the top ten countries that sent students to the U.K., six were Asian (China, Hong Kong, India,
Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand). 8 These statistics moved us to investigate what happens to this large
number of Asians following their U.S. or the U.K. studies. 9
This study examines the destinations of Asian Ph.D. holders from U.K. or U.S. universities andthe economic implications of their mobility. Our analysis is grounded in economic theories explaining
the mobility of highly skilled individuals and examines the influence of educational funding on such
mobility. We hypothesize, as per the human capital hypothesis, that investment in education andtraining yields returns, not only for the individual but also in the form of societal benefits, including
economic growth and social welfare enhancements.
The paper is organized as follows: The next section reviews literature on global mobility andits economic impacts, and funding's effect on mobility, laying the groundwork for our analytical model.
Section 3 describes our empirical analysis, utilizing a unique dataset to explore the educational andcareer pathways of Asian Ph.D. recipients from the U.S. and U.K., and the impact of funding on theircareers. Section 4 discusses our findings within the context of existing literature, and Section 5
concludes with suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review, Theoretical Frameworks, and Analytical Approach
The study of mobility within higher education has significantly evolved over recent decades, withnumerous seminal works contributing to our understanding. Gürüz (2008) offered an extensive reviewof the international mobility of students, scholars, programs, and institutions within the global
knowledge economy. Brooks and Waters (2013) discussed theoretical and empirical aspects of student
Calculated by authors based on Table 25 of the National Science Foundation’s (2018) report titled “Top 40
countries or economies of origin of temporary visa holders earning doctorates at U.S. colleges and universities,
ranked by the number of doctorate recipients: 2017.”
6
Data available from the Institute of International Education’s (2019) book titled “2019 Open Doors” under"International-Students-Places-of-Origin."
7
See Table 28. Non-U.K. HE students by HE provider and country of domicile, available at the following link:
https://www.hesa.ac.U.K./data-and-analysis/students/table-28.csv
8Computation based on Higher Education Statistics Agency (2020)
9
Mobile Asian individuals are deemed to have a larger earning capacity than their immobile colleagues do. The
strong positive effects on employability, earnings, and promotion have been reported in Japan by Yokota (2016).
A theoretical and empirical study by Matsuzuka and Gérard shows that Japan loses approximately US$423,721
for each international student that remains in the host country for life (Matsuzuka & Gérard, 2022).
5

3

mobility, migration, and the globalization of higher education, including case studies from East Asia,
mainland Europe, and the U.K. Streitwieser (2014) compiled a series of essays on the rapid
internationalization of higher education, addressing trends, challenges, and implications. Chiswick(2011), and Chiswick and Miller (2014) emphasized the critical role of high-skilled immigration in the
global labor market and highlighted higher education's contribution to this trend.
Higher education has increasingly served as a conduit for skilled migration, a phenomenon
often described as "two-step migration" (Hawthorne, 2010; OECD, 2010). In several countries, thisprocess forms part of a strategic approach to attract skilled individuals amidst a global competition for
talent. Despite challenges posed by immigration policies and domestic labor conditions, Englishspeaking countries such as the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia have developed distinct strategies
to manage the influx of highly skilled migrants (Gregory, 2015; Harrap et al., 2021; She andWotherspoon, 2013). Felbermayr and Reczkowski (2014) explored the benefits host countries gain froman increased pool of foreign talent, suggesting that the costs associated with educating international
students are likely offset by the value these individuals bring.
The prospect of working in the host country post-graduation holds considerable appeal forinternational students. Through a survey conducted among students in three U.K. and two U.S.
universities, Baruch, Budhwar, and Khatri (2007) identified the labor market perception in the hostcountry, adjustment processes, and family ties in both host and home countries as pivotal factors
influencing students' decisions to stay or return. Research on Chinese students by Cao, Zhu, and Meng
(2016) further corroborated the significance of financial aid, employment prospects, and institutional
quality in the host country as major determinants of international academic mobility. Similarly, Zhai,
Gao, and Wang (2019) identified academic requirements, employment opportunities, environmental
factors, and social connections as key motivators for Chinese students opting for education inAustralia.The interaction between international students and their host countries and institutions has
given rise to a marketplace dynamic, where the needs of both parties align. Findlay, King, and Stam(2016), and Findlay, McCollum, and Packwood (2017) emphasized the role of marketing andrecruitment efforts by universities in shaping student mobility patterns. Van Bouwel and Veugelers(2012, 2014) observed that the most talented scholars, particularly those who pursued Ph.D.s ineconomics in the U.S., tend to remain in North America at prestigious institutions, illustrating an "elite
brain drain" from Europe.
Our study also considers the impact of educational funding on mobility patterns. Gérard andUebelmesser (2014b) gathered studies that covered various aspects of education funding and student
mobility issues, including fiscal policy such as those concerning income-contingent loans (Barr, 2014;
Del Rey and Racionero, 2014), migration, and brain gain (Haupt, Krieger, & Lange, 2014), andinterrelation among financing, mobility and economic development (Gérard & Uebelmesser, 2014a).
Usher et al. (2010) noted that while financial considerations might not influence the choice of study,
they significantly affect decisions regarding the location of study. This observation raises complex
4

questions under the human capital hypothesis about the returns on investment in education, especiallywhen students or workers choose to remain abroad. Demange, Fenge, and Uebelmesser (2014)highlighted the economic incentives for countries to attract skilled workers, noting the shifting
dynamics of education cost and benefit realization. Gérard (2012) critiqued the sustainability of current
financing models, proposing alternatives like origin-country financing through vouchers and interjurisdictional transfers. This body of work informs our exploration of how financial structures might
influence the mobility of international students and workers.
2.1. The interplay at work and modeling “à la Borjas”
Figure 1 illustrates the dynamics between origin, host, and potential destinationfor
internationally mobile students. Envision a scenario where a social planner relocates an individual frompoint i to point j to evaluate the impact on global welfare. This narrative initiates at the blue node on
the left, signifying a graduate (holder of a B.A., B.Sc., or equivalent) faced with the prospect of pursuing
advanced studies (Ph.D. or M.D.) abroad, represented by the upper green node in Figure 1. Alternatively,
the individual might decline this opportunity or not pass the entry exam, leading to a pathway that
doesn't involve further education abroad, indicated by the lower green node.
A student who successfully completes their doctoral studies abroad faces three potential paths: staying
in the host country (j), returning to their origin country, or moving to a third country for employment
opportunities—depicted as the top, middle, and bottom orange nodes on the right of Figure 1,
respectively.
This model, inspired by Borjas (1987), posits that potential migrants weigh the long-term
returns against the costs of migration. It suggests that the social welfare of the origin country (i) can be
optimized through the equation:iW=θ f ( n ji ) + q ji n ji − γ ji n ji − cn ji − wn ji ,

(1.1)

( )

Here, f n ji represents the productivity function of individuals i who completed their undergraduate

( )

( )

studies in their home country, with f ' n ji and f '' n ji denoting the first and second derivatives,( )σrespectively, constrained to non-positive values. The model presupposes that f n ji= n ji , 0 < σ < 1 .

This productivity function transforms individuals into specialists if they pursue advanced degrees
abroad, incorporating international experience. The parameter θ is a scale factor on the production
side: the gain from enlarged mobility is higher in industries that are less country-specific. Moreover, q
is a positive externality delivered for free, γ is the excess of tuition fees over the real cost of studies c
supported by the education producer, and w stands for the social opportunity cost, illustrating that5

students do not contribute to GDP. All flows are discounted over a very long period and represented byperpetuities. It turns out that, under the supervision of the benevolent social planner, the efficientnumber of migrants becomes proportional to a series of variables.
1

 σθ
 1−σ
E
n ji ∝  γ ji + c + w 

(1.1)

The efficient number of migrants, as computed by the social planner, increases with incoming migrant
productivity and the complementary nature of the excess tuition fees; but it decreases with the social
opportunity cost, cost of delivering higher education, and excess tuition fees. Equation (1.2) can show
the effect of the economic institutions at stake (i.e., to answer questions like “What is the respective
effect of a change in c and/or a change in w on efficient migration?”). The answer is not obvious andrefers to the meaning of the actual variables. When inspecting Figure 1 and Equation (1.1), it isimportant to distinguish which partner must support which cost to obtain which benefit.
2.2. Analyzing the Distribution of Costs and Benefits Across Destinations
The decision-making process illustrated in Figure 1, particularly at the brown nodes, underscores acomplex interdependence among choices related to the origin, host, and potential destination countries
of mobile students. A pivotal economic inquiry emerges from this scenario: How should the costs andbenefits of the migration process be allocated among the student, origin, and host countries? This
allocation might follow the principles of efficiency and equity, each bearing distinct implications.
Efficiency suggests the creation of a system where the outcomes of decentralized decision-making
mirror those of a centralized approach. Achieving this involves internalizing externalities, a challenging
endeavor given the potential divergence between the objectives of students and countries. Equity, on
the other hand, invokes social values in the distribution process, aligning with concepts such as those
proposed by Bentham or Rawls10.
Table 1 delineates the benefits and costs associated with different financing principles —namely, the host country principle, where the host country bears all costs of education, and the origin
country principle, where the origin country assumes these costs. These costs encompass tuition, travel,living expenses abroad, and opportunity costs — the latter representing the economic loss a country
incurs when its residents are students rather than contributing workers.
Under the host country principle, if an enriched graduate remains in the host country, it benefits
from the individual's contributions, albeit at an opportunity cost to the origin country. Conversely, if
the graduate returns, the host country forfeits its investment, while the origin country reaps the rewardsof this 'enriched' individual. Adhering to the origin country principle entails the origin country bearing
10

See Atkinson and Stiglitz (1976) and Gérard, Gilson, and Ruiz (2012) for detail.

6

all costs of study abroad, benefiting proportionally to the number of returnees. This framework positions
the host country advantageously in attracting students, rendering the origin principle potentially more
appealing to students and necessitating further econometric analysis to uncover the motivations behindthe migration of highly skilled individuals.

3. Empirical Analysis
The majority of existing research on the impacts of studying abroad has predominantly focused on theenhancements to students’ career prospects and personal development. Maddux et al. (2013)
demonstrated the beneficial effects of multicultural engagement during international studies,particularly within Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs, on subsequent job market
success. Similarly, Malony, Sowter, and Botts (2011) provided an insightful analysis from theperspective of employers, drawing on a survey of corporate recruiters to assess the value placed on
skills and experiences acquired through overseas study. Notwithstanding, there has been limited
investigation into the trajectories of individuals who have pursued their studies abroad, including their
origins, destinations prior to studying abroad, and subsequent career paths. One of the notable studies
in this vein is from the Academic Cooperation Association (2005), which conducted a survey amonginternational students in the United States to gather information on their activities or status before theirstudies, alongside their demographic and regional backgrounds, and academic preparations prior toarriving in the United States 11 . Additionally, the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the U.S.
periodically conducts surveys with doctoral recipients to collect comprehensive data on theireducational histories, demographic details, and future plans post-graduation 12. In the U.K., Universities
UK International (2019) reported the medium-term destinations and career outcomes of EU and nonEU graduates of U.K. universities. They investigated these graduates’ job types and wages and foundthat most international graduates return to their home country to work, finding clear evidence that U.K.
graduates play an essential role in filling skill shortages in their home countries (p. 28).
While these studies provide valuable insights, they predominantly rely on self-reported data,
recalling international students' and graduates' experiences and achievements. In contrast, the present
study utilizes a distinct dataset comprising academic and career profiles of individuals who havecompleted doctoral studies in the U.S. or U.K., offering a more objective and comprehensive analysisof the pathways followed by these highly skilled individuals.
3.1. Data Collection and Sample Description

Sourced from a U.S. country report on page 47 of Perceptions of European Higher Education in Third
Countries: Final Report, authored by ACA.
12
See the latest report for a survey of earned doctorates in National Science Foundation (2019), and for a surveyof doctorate recipients in National Science Foundation (2020).
11

7

This study's dataset encapsulates the educational and professional trajectories of individuals who earned
doctoral degrees from institutions in either the United States (U.S.) or the United Kingdom (U.K.). It
includes detailed records ranging from bachelor's degrees to doctoral qualifications and encompasses
current employment data, thereby constructing comprehensive career pathways of these highly skilledindividuals. The methodology for assembling this dataset is inspired by the approach of Van Bouwel
and Veugelers (2012), originally applied to investigate the academic trajectories of European
economists with Ph.D.s from North American institutions.
To compile our dataset, we initially utilized the ProQuest Dissertation database to identify Ph.D.
recipients in the field of economics. Subsequently, we expanded our search to include EBSCO Open
Dissertations, enhancing our coverage of U.K.-based graduates. This approach enabled us to amass alarger sample size, crucial for a robust analysis of graduate outcomes. Our research mirrors Van Bouwel
and Veugelers by concentrating on a single discipline — economics — to minimize the variability
attributed to differences in academic and labor market dynamics across fields. The geographic focus
was on East and Southeast Asia, targeting countries with significant student migration to the U.S. and
U.K., namely China (including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao), Japan, Korea 13 , the ASEAN 10
nations, and East Timor. The dataset was constructed through the following steps:•

Identification of Asian Ph.D. graduates from the U.S. and U.K. within selected doctoral
dissertations databases. The origin countries of these graduates were determined using a mix ofindicators: nationality (as listed in their vitae), name and spelling analysis, and the location of
their undergraduate education.

•

Collection of public vitae and career profiles via internet searches, focusing on institutional or
personal websites. This information was anonymized and systematically cataloged for
subsequent analysis. 14
Our sample predominantly includes individuals who completed their Ph.D.s between 2006 and2010, facilitating a detailed examination of their career paths over a decade or more. Due to a lower
number of Ph.D. recipients from countries other than China within this timeframe, we extended theperiod from 2005 to 2015 to ensure a robust sample size. This expansion was necessary to achieve
statistically significant insights. Table 2 presents the distribution of our sample across origin countries
and the years Ph.D.s were awarded.

In our dataset, most students from Korea are estimated to come from South Korea, but some students from
North Korea are possibly included because we use name and spelling analysis to determine their origin country.
14
Although the vitae are all publicly available information, the names in the vitae and all other personallyidentifying information were removed from the database prior to analyses.
138This methodical approach to data collection and analysis sets the stage for an in-depth explorationof the impact of international doctoral studies on the career outcomes of Asian graduates in the fields
of economics.
3.2. Assumptions and Variable Identification
Our statistical analysis is structured around two primary explorative inquiries: (1) examining themobility patterns, or "interplay," among origin, host, and destination countries within the context
provided by Figure 1, and (2) investigating the relationship between these mobility patterns and thenature of doctoral study sponsorship, as informed by the financing principles outlined in Table 1. Thisapproach is inherently exploratory, eschewing rigid hypotheses in favor of more flexible assumptions
to dissect the following dimensions:
1) Mobility Patterns by Origin and Host Countries We postulate the existence of discernible
mobility patterns among doctoral students, influenced by their countries of origin and thecountries that host their studies. Upon completing their doctoral degrees, these individuals
might opt to either remain in their host country, return to their country of origin, or relocate toa third country. For this analysis:a) Origin countries are defined as Japan, China, Korea, and nations within Southeast Asia.
b) The U.S. and U.K. are considered as host countries.
2) Influence of Funding on Mobility Patterns Furthermore, we hypothesize that the mobility
patterns of doctoral graduates are significantly shaped by the source of their funding. The
financing principles depicted in Table 1 suggest that under the host country principle—where
the host country bears the costs of education—the host nation has an incentive to retain
graduates, particularly those who significantly contribute to its economy. Conversely, the origin
country principle posits that the country of origin, being the funder, aims to ensure the returnof its educated individuals, expecting them to enhance the domestic economy with theiracquired skills. Therefore, our analysis incorporates variables related to:a) Instances where students received funding from their country of origin.
b) Instances where students were funded by their host country.

3.3. Estimation
3.3.1

Mobility Patterns: Interplay Among Origin, Host, and Destination Countries

To delve into the mobility patterns of doctoral graduates, we first delineated their origin countries(identified by the location of their bachelor's degree), host countries (where they completed their Ph.D.s),
and destination countries (post-Ph.D. work and residence). Origin countries were ascertained using a9

mix of indicators: (a) listed nationalities in the vitae, (b) analysis of names and spellings, and (c) the
location of the institution awarding their first undergraduate degree.
As illustrated in Table 3, our dataset included graduates from Japan (99), China (156), Korea(193), and Southeast Asian countries (108), all of whom earned their doctoral degrees in economics
from either the U.S. or the U.K. The subsequent job locations of these individuals post-graduation
revealed distinct patterns: those from China and Korea exhibited a higher propensity to stay in their
host countries, especially in the U.S., while graduates from Japan and Southeast Asia were more likely
to return to their countries of origin.
To statistically validate the observed mobility patterns, we employed Probit regression analyses
to estimate the likelihood of graduates returning to their origin countries versus staying in the hostcountry or moving to a third country. The regression formula is as follows:

Pr. (Y = 1| X ) = Φ ( X T b) ,where Pr. denotes probability, supposing variable Y is binary with two possible outcomes (1=return toorigin country to work, and 0=stay in host country or move to a third country to work). X denotes avector of the regressor(s) that is/are assumed to influence the outcome Y (i.e., the origin countries andthe host countries of mobile students), Φ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard
distribution, and the parameter(s) b are estimated by maximum likelihood.
Table 4 presents the regression results, exploring the effects of studying in the U.S. versus the
U.K. (Regression 1), the impact of the graduates' origin countries (Regression 2), and a combined
analysis incorporating both host and origin country variables (Regression 3).
The findings confirm a significant host country effect, with those studying in the U.S. less likely
to return to their origin countries. The origin country also plays a critical role; graduates from China
show a lower propensity to return, whereas those from Japan and Southeast Asia demonstrate a higher
likelihood of returning to work in their countries of origin. Interestingly, the impact of Korean origin
becomes less pronounced in the combined regression model.
These insights, framed within the context of Figure 1, elucidate the nuanced dynamics of
doctoral graduate mobility and highlight the significant influence of both the host and origin countries
on post-graduation career paths.

3.3.2

Mobility Pattern and Funding: The Impact of Sponsorship

In line with the financing principles delineated in Table 1, we hypothesized that the sponsorshipsource—whether the origin country (origin country principle) or the host country (host country
10principle)—significantly influences where international doctoral students choose to work postgraduation. To explore this, we examined the career trajectories of doctoral students in relation to theirfunding sources, focusing on whether sponsorship affects the likelihood of students staying in the hostcountry, returning to their origin country, or moving to a third country.
Using data from personal profiles detailing grants, scholarships, and funding received after theirbachelor’s degree and before completing their doctoral studies, we categorized funding sources andanalyzed their impact on post-Ph.D. job locations. Table 5 and Table 6 present the distribution offunding sources by origin country and the sponsor country's role (host, home, or third country),
indicating a diverse array of funding paths. They revealed that Students from Japan, China, Korea, andSoutheast Asia displayed varied propensities for receiving funding from different sources, with anotable portion of funding originating from host countries, especially for those studying in the U.S.
The core of our investigation, represented in Table 8, examines the relationship between
funding sources and doctoral graduates' employment locations, emphasizing the distinctions between
the host and origin country principles. Our findings suggest:•

Graduates sponsored by the host country are more inclined to work within that country, aligningwith the host country principle.

•

Conversely, those funded by their origin country tend to return there for employment, consistent
with the origin country principle.

Table 9 quantifies these associations, showing statistically significant correlations between sponsorshipsources and job locations. Notably, sponsorship by U.S. and U.K. organizations strongly correlates with
employment in these countries, underscoring the influence of funding on mobility patterns.
Further probing these relationships through regression analysis (detailed in Table 10), we
discovered:•

Sponsorship by the origin country significantly increases the likelihood of graduates returning
to work there, as indicated by a positive coefficient in both regression models.

•Interestingly, U.S. sponsorship emerged as a positive factor for staying or returning, suggestinga nuanced role of host country funding in shaping career paths.
These results affirm the pivotal role of sponsorship in determining the mobility andemployment outcomes of doctoral graduates, highlighting a complex interplay of financial support,
personal choices, and national policies. They suggest that while enriched individuals tend to gravitate
towards the country financing their education, the dynamics of such movements are influenced by amultitude of factors, including the type of sponsor and the graduate's country of origin.

11

This section elucidates the significant yet varied impact of doctoral study sponsorship on postgraduation employment locations, contributing to a deeper understanding of the global flow of academic
talent.
3.3.3

Employment Sectors of Asian Ph.D. Holders

Our investigation extended to the sectors that employ Asian Ph.D. holders, focusing on whether theyfind positions within universities, research organizations, or other types of institutions. The findings,
summarized in Table 11, categorize employment by the origin countries of the Ph.D. holders andelucidate the predominant role of universities as employers.
Key Observations:•Among 397 individuals who specified both their origin country and current place of
employment, a significant majority (86%) are affiliated with universities. This trend isconsistent across individuals from Japan, China, Korea, and Southeast Asian countries.

•

Employment in research organizations accounts for a smaller fraction (4%), while other typesof organizations employ 10% of the reported individuals.

•

This pattern persists across all destination countries—whether the U.S., the U.K., their homecountries, or elsewhere—with universities employing 81% of the 535 individuals who
disclosed their job locations.

These results highlight the pivotal role of universities, particularly those in the U.S., as both sponsors
and employers of international Ph.D. graduates. The strong alignment between sponsorship (as seen in
Table 7) and employment sectors emphasizes universities' integral part in the academic andprofessional trajectories of these highly skilled individuals.

4. Results
Our analysis reveals pivotal insights into the mobility, funding, and employment patterns of highly
skilled Asians with Ph.D.s from the U.S. and U.K.:
1) Mobility Patterns: There's a distinct variance in mobility patterns based on origin and hostcountries. Chinese and Korean Ph.D. holders tend to remain in their host countries, embodying"enriched stayers," while their Japanese and Southeast Asian counterparts are more inclined toreturn to their origin countries, becoming "enriched returnees." This propensity is influenced
by whether they studied in the U.S. or the U.K., with the former seeing a lower rate of return tohome countries.

122) Impact of Sponsorship: A significant correlation exists between the source of funding andpost-graduation destination. Funding from the host country increases the likelihood of Ph.D.
holders staying to work in the host country, whereas funding from the origin country tends topull them back home. This underscores the strategic role of sponsorship in guiding the global
flow of talent.
3) Employment Sectors: Predominantly, Asian Ph.D. holders, irrespective of their staying or
returning, find employment within universities and research-related organizations. Thishighlights the academic sector, especially in the U.S., as a crucial stakeholder in attracting,training, and employing international talent.
4) Complex Dynamics of Funding and Mobility: Our findings suggest nuanced interactions
between funding sources and mobility choices. While economic logic might predictstraightforward outcomes, the actual dynamics reflect a blend of strategic interests, national
policies, and personal decisions.

5. Conclusions
This study aimed to shed light on the post-Ph.D. mobility patterns of highly skilled Asians,
focusing on the implications of their choices for themselves, their origin countries, and their hostcountries. Our findings indicate significant divergence in destination: The choice of post-graduation
destination significantly varies by origin country, influenced by a combination of personal, economic,
and policy-related factors. We also found that the source of doctoral study funding plays a critical rolein determining these mobility patterns, with both host and origin countries leveraging scholarships andgrants to retain or repatriate talent. Also the academic sector emerges as the primary employer of Asian
Ph.D. holders, underscoring its central role in the ecosystem of international education and research.
Our exploration into these patterns introduces a novel approach to understanding the mobilityof international students and highlights the intricate relationship between investment in education andthe global allocation of talent. While our focus has been on East and Southeast Asians, extending thisresearch to include a broader array of nationalities and disciplines could offer more comprehensive
insights into the dynamics at play.
Looking forward, as the dataset expands and more nuanced analyses become possible, we
anticipate deeper investigations into how external factors—such as immigration policies, economic
conditions, and institutional strategies—affect the mobility and career trajectories of international Ph.D.
recipients. This ongoing research will not only enhance our understanding of the global education

13

market but also inform policies and practices aimed at optimizing the benefits of international talentmobility.
This study marks a step toward a more nuanced understanding of how highly skilled individuals
navigate the complex landscape of global education and employment, contributing to the strategic
discussions on harnessing global talent in an increasingly interconnected world.

References
Academic Cooperation Association (ACA). (2005). Perception of European Higher Education in Third
Countries: Final Report. Brussels: ACA.
Atkinson, A. B., and Stiglitz, J. E. (1976). The Design of Tax Structure: Direct versus Indirect Taxation.
Journal of Public Economics, 6(1-2), 55-75.
Barr, N. (2014). Financing Higher Education. In M. Gérard, and S. Uebelmesser, The Mobility ofStudents and the Highly Skilled: Implications for Education Financing and Economic Policy(p. Chapter 7 (in Adobe Digital Edition)). MIT Press.
Baruch, Y., Budhwar, P. S., and Khatri, N. (2007). Brain Drain: Inclination to Stay Abroad After Studies.
Journal of World Business 42, 99-112.
Borjas, G. (1987). Self-selection and the Earnings of Immigrants. American Economic Review, 77(4),531-553.
Brooks, R., and Waters, J. (2013). Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalization of Higher
Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cao, C., Zhu, C., and Meng, Q. (2016). A Survey of the Influencing Factors for International Academic
Mobility of Chinese University Students. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 200-220.
Chiswick, B. R. (2011). High-Skilled Immigration in a Global Labor Market. Washington DC:
American Enterprise Institute.
Chiswick, B. R., and Miller, P. W. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of the Economics of International
Migration. North Holland/Elsevier.
Del Rey, E., and Racionero, M. (2014). Choosing the Type of Income-Contingent Loan. In M. Gérard,
and S. Uebelmesser, The Mobility of Students and the Highly Skilled: Implications for
Education Financing and Economic Policy (p. Chapter 8 (in Adobe Digital Edition)). MIT
Press.
Demange, G., Fenge, R., and Uebelmesser, S. (2014). Financing Higher Education in a Mobile World.
Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16, 343-371.
Felbermayr, G. J., and Reczkowski, I. (2014). International Student Mobility and High-Skilled
Migration: The Evidence. In M. Gerard, and S. Uebelmesser, The Mobility of Students and theHighly Skilled: Implications for Education Financing and Economic Policy, CESifo Seminar
Series (pp. 15-56). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Findlay, A. M., McCollum, D., and Packwood, H. (2017). Marketization, Marketing and the Productionof International Student Migration. International Migration, 55(3), 139-155.
Findlay, A., King, R., and Stam, A. (2016). Producing International Student Migration: An Explorationof the Role of Marketization in Shaping International Study Opportunities. In M. van Riemsdijk,
and Q. Wang, Rethinking International Skilled Migration (Chapter 2) (pp. 19-35 in Kindle).
London: Routledge.
Gérard, M. (2009). Financing Bologna: Which Country Will Pay for Foreign Students? In M.
Dewatripont, F. Thys-Clément, and L. Wilkin, Higher Education in a Globalized World:
Governance, Competition and Performance (pp. 71-84). Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université deBruxelles.

14

Gérard, M. (2012). Who is to Pay for Mobile Students? In A. Suraj, P. Scott, L. Valjean, and L. Wilson,
European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National
Reforms (pp. 727-748). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gérard, M., Gilson, N., and Ruiz, F. (2012). Higher Education and Firms: on the Interaction between
Research and Regional Policies. International Tax and Public Finance, 19, 338-67.
Gérard, M., and Sanna, A. (2020). Postgraduate Mobility and the War for Talents, the Ecuadorian
Origin Country Constraind Scholarship. Proceeding for 76th On-line Annual Congress of theInternational Institute of Public Finance, Reykjavik, Iceland (August 2020).
Gérard, M., and Uebelmesser, S. (2014a). Financing Higher Education When Students and Graduates
are Internationally Mobile. In M. Gérard, and S. Uebelmesser, The Mobility of Students and theHighly Skilled: Implications for Education Financing and Economic Policy (p. Chapter 6 (inAdobe Digital Edition)). MIT Press.
Gérard, M., and Uebelmesser, S. (Eds.). (2014b). The Mobility of Students and the Highly Skilled:
Implications for Education Financing and Economic Policy (CESifo Seminar Series).
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Gnrnz, K. (2008). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge
Economy. Albany.
Gregory, R. G. (2015). Two-Step Australian Immigration Policy and its Impact on Immigrant
Employment Outcomes. In B. R. Chiswick, and P. W. Miller, Handbook of the Economics ofInternational Migration, Volume 1 (pp. 1421-1443). Elsevier.
Harrap, B., Hawthorne, L., Holland, M., McDonald, J. T., and Scott, A. (2021). Australia's Superior
Skilled Migration Outcomes Compares with Canada's. International Migration, 1-17.
Haupt, A., Krieger, T., and Lange, T. (2014). Education Policy, Student Migration, and Brain Gain. In
M. Gérard, and S. Uebelmesser, The Mobility of Students and the Highly Skilled: Implications
for Education Financing and Economic Policy (p. Chapter 10 (in Adobe Digital Education)).
MIT Press.
Hawthorne, L. (2010). How Valuable is “Two-Step Migration”? Labor Market Outcomes forInternational Student Migrants to Australia. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2020). Table 11 - HE student enrolments by domicile and regionof HE provider 2014/15 to 2019/20. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-andanalysis/students/table-11
Institute of International Education. (2019). 2019 Open Doors. Washington D.C.: IEE.
Maddux, W. W., Bigolaru, E., Hafenbrack, A. C., Tadmor, C. T., and Galinsky, A. D. (2013).
Expanding Opportunities by Opening Your Mind: Multicultural Engagement Predicts Job
Market Success Through Longitudinal Increases in Integrative Complexity. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 608-615.
Malony, J., Sowter, B., and Botts, D. (2011). QS Global Employer Survey: How Employers Value anInternational Study Experience. London: QS Intelligence Unit.
Matsuzuka, Y., and Gérard, M. (2022). Student Mobility and Social Welfare: Am Empirical andTheoretical Inquiry into the Social Impact of Skilled Migration. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social
Studies, 53, 19-36.
National Science Foundation. (2018). 2017 Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities. Alexandria,
VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral
and Economic Sciences.
National Science Foundation. (2019). Women, Minorities, and Persons with. Alexandria, VA: National
Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).
National Science Foundation. (2020). Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2019. Alexandria,
VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), Directorate for Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, NSF.
OECD. (2010). International Migration Outlook 2010: SOPEMI 2010. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019* OECD Indicators.
She, A., and Wotherspoon, T. (2013). International Student Mobility and Highly Skilled Migration: A
Comparative Study of Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. SpingerPlus, 2(132),
http://www.springerplus.com/content/2/1/132.
15

Streitwieser, B. (2014). Internationalisation of Higher Education and Global Mobility. Oxford:
Symposium Books.
United Nations. (2013). World Youth Report: Youth and Migration. New York: United Nations
Publication.
Universities UK International. (2019). International Graduates Outcomes 2019: What Do International
Graduates Do? London: Universities UK.
Usher, T., Baldwin, S., Munro, M., Pollard, E., and Sumption, F. (2010). The Role of Finance in theDecision-making of Higher Education Applicants and Students. In BIS Research Paper No. 9.
Institute for Employment Studies and BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills).
Van Bouwel, L., and Veugelers, R. (2012). An “Elite Brain Drain”: Are Foreign Top PhDs More Likely
to Stay in the U.S.? Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2109278 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2109278.
Van Bouwel, L., and Veugelers, R. (2014). The Effects of International Mobility on European
Researchers: Comparing Intra-EU and U.S. Mobility. Research in Higher Education, 56, 360377.
Yokota, M. (2016). Gurobaru Jinzai Ikusei to Ryugaku no Chokiteki na Inpakuto ni Kansuru Chosa(Written in Japanese).
Zhai, K., Gao, X., and Wang, G. (2019). Factors for Chinese Students Choosing Australian Higher
Education and Motivation for Returning: A Systematic Review. SAGE Open, 9(2).

16Figure 1. The Dynamics of International Student Mobility
Migrates to
Host Country (j)to be enriched

Enriched andreturns to Origin
Country (i) =returnee

A graduate of Origin
Country (i) is offereda fellowship.

Enriched andremains in Host
Country (j)Source: Gérard and Sanna (2020)

Remains in
Origin Country(i) and is notenriched

Enriched andmoves to a third
Country

Table 1. Benefits, costs, and alternative financing principles
Country /Financing Principle
Host Country
Principle
Origin Country
Principle

Origin/Home Country
Benefit = returning
graduates
Cost = opportunity
Benefit = returning
graduates
All costs

Host of Higher
Education
Benefit = remaining
graduates
Cost = opportunity
Benefit = remaining
graduates
No costDestination for Work
Purposes
Benefit = attracted
graduates
No costBenefit = attracted
graduates
No costTable 2. Distribution of Ph.D. Recipients by Origin Country and Year
Ph.D. year
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-2000
2001-2005
2006-20102011-2015
Total

Countries
China

Japan

Korea

S. East Asia

0
0
0
19
122
40
181

5
7
11
29
40
40
132

30
44
27
24
73
11
209

9
6
18
25
36
53
147

17

Total
44
57
56
97
271
144
669

Table 3. Origin country, host country, and job location
Origin country=Japan(Bachelor’s degree in Japan: 99)
Host Country
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

Job Location

43
U.S.
10
43
Origin23
43
Others
4
56
U.K.
3
56
Origin44
56
Others4
Origin country=China(Bachelor’s degree in China: 156)

Host Country
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

Job Location

Job Location

U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

Job Location
33
33
33
75
75
75

U.S.
OriginOthersU.K.
OriginOthers

18

47.4%
9.0%
5.3%
21.7%
21.7%
39.1%

Percentage

181
U.S.
72
181
Origin18
181
Others
4
12
U.K.
3
12
Origin6
12
Others1
Origin country=Southeast Asia
(Bachelor’s degree in S.E. Asia: 108)

Host Country

23.3%
53.5%
9.3%
5.4%
78.6%
7.1%

Percentage

133
U.S.
63
133
Origin12
133
Others
7
23
U.K.
5
23
Origin5
23
Others9
Origin country=Korea(Bachelor’s degree in Korea: 193)

Host Country
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.K.
U.K.
U.K.

Percentage

39.8%
9.9%
2.2%
25.0%
50.0%
8.3%

Percentage
5
9
1
6
56
3

15.2%
27.3%
3.0%
8.0%
74.7%
4.0%

Table 4. Probability of returning to the origin country by host and origin countries

Intercept
Ph.D. in U.S.

Regression 1
Regression 2
Regression 3
Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.
.094
.086 -.710***.129 -.425***.148-.984***.110-.481***.130

Bachelor in China
Bachelor in Japan
Bachelor in Korea
Bachelor in SEA-.522***
1.168***-.444**.968***

669.000
Chi-Squared
No. observation
669*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

669.000
669

.186
.184
.174
.178

-.417**
1.109***-.293.839***

.188
.185
.179
.181

670.144669

Table 5. Number of scholarship/grants received by Asian students from their host and origin countries

Countries

Total
Scholarships/
Grants

Japan
China
Korea
S.E. Asia

80
111
63
58

Scholarships/Grants for theSame recipientsMore
One Two Three
Than
Four
8
4
7
9
15
17
10
6
10
6
3
6
4
6
2
6

Table 6. Number of scholarships/grants by sponsor
country
Degrees awarded per
country
Sponsor country
USA
GBR
Total
Host
161
20
181
Home
23
31
54
Third Country
10
11
21
Unknown
33
23
56
Total
227
85
312

19

Sponsor Country
U.S
.

U.K
.

Home

OthersUnknown

43
64
49
12

5
10
0
5

16
16
9
13

3
5
0
6

13
16
5
22

Table 7 outlines the sponsorship types, highlighting universities and other educational institutions as
the predominant funders, followed by government or national research institutions.
Table 7. Number of scholarships/grants by sponsor typeCountries degree
awarded
U.S.
U.K.
Total
152
35
187
15
17
32
7
3
10
8
1
9
5
4
9
4
1
5
36
24
60
227
85
312

Sponsor type
University or school
Government or national research institution
Company or private organization
Academic society
Charity fund or NPO
International organization
Indistinguishable
Total

Table 8. Benefit and cost for the origin, host, and destination countries
Country /Financing Principle
Host Country
Principle
Origin Country
Principle

Origin/Home Country
Benefit = returning
graduates
Cost = Opportunity
Benefit = returning
graduates
All Costs

Host of Higher
Education
Benefit = remaining
graduates
Cost = Opportunity
Benefit = remaining
graduates
No CostDestination for Work
Purposes
Benefit = attracted
graduates
No CostBenefit = attracted
graduates
No CostTable 9. Correlation between funding locations and job locations
Job
in U.S.

Job
in U.K.

Scholarship/grant.234***-.082**
by U.S.
Scholarship/grant-.080**.158***
by U.K.
Scholarship/grant
.046
.042
by Origin Country
Scholarship/grant
.004
-.021
by Other Countries*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1, by Pearson’s estimation20

Job
in Origin
CountryJob
in OtherCountries

.034

-.003

.073*

.054

.162***

-.020

-.035

.144***

Table 10. Probability of returning to the origin country by sponsor, host, and origin country

Intercept
Scholarship/grant by U.S.
Scholarship/grant by U.K.
Scholarship/grant by origin country
Scholarship/grant by other country

Regression 1
Coefficient S.E.
-.582***
.159
-.040
.159
.316
.314
.829***.223-1.010.644-.617***-.336*
1.193***-.133.949***

Ph.D. in U.S.
Bachelor in China
Bachelor in Japan
Bachelor in Korea
Bachelor in SEA
666.985

Chi-Squared
No. observation*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

University
Research organization
Other organization
Total (of thosereporting origin country
and job)

University
Research organization
Other organization
Total (of those reporting
job and location)

Regression 2
Coefficient S.E.
-.550***.160.416**
.187
.002
.355
.773***.245-1.056.682

676.286
699

699

Table 11. Employment Breakdown
by origin country
S.E.
Japan
China
Korea
Asia
74
96
98
73
9
2
2
2
11
16
7
7
94

114

U.S.
166
6
0
172

107

82

By job location
U.K.
Home
25
173
0
12
0
0
25

185

21

.143
.197
.192
.188
.189

Total

Percentage

341
15
41

86%
4%
10%

397

100%

Other
69
5
79

Total
433
23
79

Percentage
81%
4%
15%

153

535

100%