Discerning an International Student Mobility and Migration Policy Regime

• In Event: Highlighted Session: New Issues on Research and Study Abroad and International Students

Proposal

Drawing on neo-institutionalist and regime theories, this chapter uses comparative student interview and policy analysis data to explore the viability of a hypothesized international student mobility and migration (ISM) policy regime. This ‘ISM policy regime’ locates within individual sovereign nations the expectation and prerogative to delimit territorial entry criteria and control border ingress (i.e., through visas and study permits) for international students (Czaika et al., 2018). This prospective regime is sourced from regime theory’s construction of international regimes as inter-national conceptualizations of, and assent to, informal norms and conventions in a given arena of international relations. Various scholars have utilized regime theory to explore topics relating to immigration, migration, and global mobility and human flows (e.g., Ghosh, 2000, 2007; Plathner, 2013; Rass & Wolff, 2018; Salter, 2006; Tsianos & Karakayali, 2010), however, it is notable that there appear to be no studies connecting regime theory’s international regimes specifically with international students or ISM policy.

Regime theory, from the field of international relations can be connected with macro forms of institutionalism (Keohane, 1993; Rittberger, 1993a) wherein international regimes can function as “principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given issue-area” (Krasner, 1983, p. 1). International regimes may provide the basis for “the institutionalized co-operation of states for managing conflicts and interdependence problems” (Rittberger, 1993b, p. 7), for example in the absence of a global government “capable of making and enforcing international rules of conduct” (Rittberger, 1993a, p. xii). Contrary to a hypothetical overarching government that could enforce rules, Keohane (1993) describes regimes as functioning through ‘horizontal’ cooperation among states around convergent expectations for the given regime area.

An international regime is defined for this study of ISM policy as an inter-national (i.e., between sovereign nations) conceptualization of and assent to norms and conventions in a specific arena of international relations. As such, regime theory functions to provide an interpretation of the regulatory environment facilitating the development of differing yet compatible national approaches to ISM policy. This study takes as its starting point the idea that local ISM policies may be understood as a component of a specific international regime at the global level. This can be described as an international regime of sovereign national student immigration control (i.e., an ISM policy regime), and it outlines an environment in which national ISM policy development is embedded within a tacit regime (Levy et al., 1995). The ISM policy regime functions to provide new theoretical explication of how a nation’s ISM policy may be similar to that of other countries, while also allowing that local (national) exigencies may influence local (national) solutions to questions of student immigration control and policy.

To explore this theorized regime, this study employs comparative, qualitative content analyses of data from interviews with 40 international students studying in Australia, Canada, and the United States, as well as policy analyses of more than 40 ISM policies from these countries. The theoretical framework made up of regime theory and neo-institutionalism guided the development of the interview questions and the analysis of both the transcripts and policy documents, with analyses conducted through the use of coding and analysis protocols.

Based on findings from the data, the theorized tacit ISM policy regime suggests an environment in which ISM policies may become similar through normative isomorphism as host countries face similar pressures and phenomena as part of the same competitive drive for international student enrollments. The policy analysis outlines how ISM policies are similar between the three case countries, despite an apparent lack of formal alignment of policy arrangements. This includes restrictions on employment activities, enrollment requirements, student switching regulations, and limited duration student visa or study permits during which degrees are expected to be completed. Analysis of the interview data from all three countries also show similarities in students’ ISM policy experiences, such as ISM policy pervasion in academic, professional, and personal areas of students’ lives (Crumley-Effinger, forthcoming).

Despite these similarities, as nations seek to respond to various competitive imperatives such as developing human capital for the knowledge economy and security concerns, sovereign control of local (national) ISM policies indicates that policy responses will likely be molded by national perspectives and semiotic activities of policymakers in relation to how the country is situated within the context of this global, competitive environment (Crumley-Effinger, 2021; Levatino et al., 2018; Riaño, Lombard, et al., 2018). As such, different cultural backgrounds and national exigencies will necessitate varied national policy responses to new economic challenges and opportunities (see Brooks, 2018; Riaño, Van Mol, et al., 2018), perhaps resulting in loose coupling of ISM policy approaches within the ISM policy regime. Examples include the US emphasizing security concerns due to terrorism histories and protectionist stances, and Canada’s emphasis on skilled labor migration pathways to meet competitive, skilled labor growth needs.

This study uses interview and policy analysis data to identify both similarities and differences between ISM policies in these host countries, as well as similarities and differences in the ISM policy experiences of international students in the host countries. In doing so, the study therefore sets a foundation for continued empirical study of ISM policy development processes and rationales to elucidate potential strengths or weaknesses of the hypothesized ISM policy regime. Further empirical research on ISM policies is especially important due to a lack of research on the ways that ISM policies come about, how they are experienced, and how they are changed in the face of new challenges (Crumley-Effinger, 2021; forthcoming). Future research could, through a combination of regime theory, neo-institutionalist, or other approaches, be used to fruitfully explore the semiotic rationales that directly lead to ISM policies, asking, for example: How do policymakers reflect on current local and world situations and phenomena when devising ISM policies? Such continued exploration and development of the ISM policy regime framework can provide insights into the ways that ISM policies are similar and different, as well as the mechanisms that lead to the development of ISM policies in Australia, Canada, the United States, and beyond.

Author

• Max A Crumley-Effinger, Emerson College