Political Economy of Student Mobility: How Official Development Assistance politicises student mobility

• In Event: Examining the Role of Global Educational Policies & Practices

Proposal

In a globalized world where knowledge equals power, countries recognize that higher education plays a crucial role in development (Moon and Shin 2016). The ‘race to attract talent’ intensified over the last decades with major implications for world development (Docquier and Rapoport 2009; Bertoli and Docquier 2016; Docquier at al.; Boeri et al. 2012). Scholarships play a vital role in enabling student mobility.

Previous research has examined various types of student exchange programmes, and their funding mechanisms (Edelstein & Douglas, 2012; Knight, 2006; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005; Varghese; Perna et al. 2014). Another strand of research has looked international aid as a form of ‘soft power’ (see Trilokekar 2010 for a review of the literature). Others have looked at Official Development Assistance (ODA) from a social capital perspective (Moon and Shin 2016). However, there is a lack of research on the direct impact of international aid on student mobility. There is also a dearth of research on the evolution of funding availability over time. More broadly, the scholarship on the political economy of international tertiary education remains limited.

Tertiary education (TE) aid represented half million US dollars in 2019 (Galán-Muros, Chacón, and Escribens 2022) – mostly targeted towards higher education. In 2019, half of TE aid flowed via governments while 40% did it through universities, colleges or research institutes. Imputed student costs and scholarships/training in donor country accounted for almost three quarters (71%) of the total TE aid, which may raise questions about their impact on recipient’s TE systems, since those resources never reach the recipient countries directly or in the short term (Galán-Muros, Chacón, and Escribens 2022). In this regard, the contribution of TE aid to national education system is limited. On the other hand, it entails that TE aid shortcuts failing states and corrupted administration to reach directly thousands of individual beneficiaries every year. By doing so, TE aid can empower individuals to make a positive change. Indeed, an abundant literature on high-skill migration claims that academic mobility can have long term consequences for individuals (Chauvet and Mercier 2014; Mercier 2016), their trajectories (Gérard 2013; Gérard and Wagner 2015), and even the history of their countries (Spilimbergo 2009).

The last twenty years have seen dramatic changes in the origin and destination of these international transfers. Looking at the direction of these flows reveals the new geopolitics of higher education, and informs shifting geopolitical priorities.

This paper studies three broad trends in light of insightful case-studies: (1) The example of the US illustrates how traditional big players – such as Canada, Australia, and the United States – gradually lost their prominence and decreased significantly their contribution to tertiary education at the global level. (2) In turn, new actors have emerged: the case of Japan illustrates the quick rise of new donors. (3) Some countries have more complex trajectories, with rises and falls reflecting internal political turmoil, as illustrated with the example of Turkey.

The data confirms the political nature of TE aid – as illustrated for instance by Turkey’s aid to the Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan, and Iraq. During the same period, the US decreased its contribution to Iraq and Afghanistan, but increased its contribution to China, Mexico, and Brazil. While Japan gradually increased its contribution to neighbouring countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Myanmar, and China), reinforcing its leading role in the region.

Reflecting countries’ political agendas, TE aid has very concrete and visible implications for students, and higher education more broadly. Indeed, TE flows affect in a direct manner student mobility, worldwide. For instance, the number of students from Bangladesh and Myanmar enrolled in Japanese institutions increased by threefold between 2014 and 2019 (see figure 1 below).

Empirical strategy

The data analysed is drawn from the following sources:
- ODA flows by sector and by donor (DAC5), with a focus on post-secondary education budget (budget code: 528; constant price, reference year: 2020) from OECD.Stat and total ODA data by donor over the period;
- UNESCO data student mobility (Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics).

This paper is based on descriptive statistics and multilevel regression analyses exploring the relationships between ODA (with a focus on TE aid) and student mobility. The quantitative findings are analysed in light of extensive analyses of secondary sources (reports) to shed light on the national contexts of the countries under investigation.

Research questions

This piece of work is part of three-year research project, led by the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. As a whole this project sheds new light on the links between student mobility and the development of their countries of origin. As part of this larger research, this paper explores how TE aid influences TE flows; in other words, how funding (and notably scholarships) shape student mobility.


More specifically, this paper analyses:
(1) How TE funding reflects donors’ political agendas;
(2) How the education sectors of recipient countries are affected by TE aid;
(3) How TE aid impact student mobility.

In light of exhaustive data about TE aid and student mobility, for the period 2000 to 2020, this paper shows how, TE aid flows constitute a mechanism through which geopolitical priorities affect students’ opportunities – and the countries where they pursue their degrees.

Contribution to the literature and areas for further research

This paper expands upon two bodies of evidence: the literature in comparative international education and the literature in migration studies focusing on student mobility. By looking at the links between ODA and student flows, it also contributes to the literature in political economy.

Key findings include:
(1) The political nature of TE aid, which reflects national political agendas and the evolution of bilateral relations between governments;
(2) The differentiated impact of TE flows on national educational systems, depending on their level of development and resilience;
(3) The significant impact of TE aid on student flows, across contexts.

Authors

• Ilka Vari-Lavoisier, University of Oxford

• Maia Chankseliani, University of Oxford

• Zhe Wang, University of Oxford