Table of Contents

INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION

National Regulatory Approaches to Transnational Higher Education

Line Verbik and Lisa Jokivirta
Line Verbik is Deputy Director and Lisa Jokivirta is Research Officer at the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 36 Gordon Sq., London, WC1H OPF, United Kingdom. E-mail: l.verbik@obhe.ac.uk and l.jokivirta@obhe.ac.uk. URL: www.obhe.ac.uk.

Transnational higher education is not a new phenomenon but the pace of its global expansion is a new development. (Transnational is used here to designate higher education provided by one country in another and excludes provision where just the students travel abroad.) As foreign delivery becomes increasingly widespread, countries are facing a growing need to regulate this type of provision. Although many countries have yet to establish a clear regulatory framework for the import and export of transnational higher education, ambitions to regulate and offer quality assurance for this type of provision are an emerging international trend.

Transnational higher education serves different purposes in different countries. Overall, the perceived benefits of transnational delivery include domestic capacity building, broader student choice in education systems facing resource constraints, minimizing the resources flowing out of the country, reducing brain drain, and enhancing innovation and competitiveness in the sector. However, provision has a tendency to be concentrated in certain subject areas (e.g., business and information technology). While such provision undoubtedly meets a need, it is unclear to what extent it seriously addresses the development agenda of the host country and thus contributes to real capacity building. Experience with foreign education of low quality has made some countries wary of this type of provision and has prompted them to work on making the sector less of an open and easy market for foreign institutions. Concerns have frequently been raised over the quality of transnational provision, the impact on national authority over higher education, and unfair competition with domestic institutions.

Through a substantial research project, the Observatory has made an attempt to categorize regulatory frameworks for imported transnational provision into six main models. When a significant discrepancy exists between regulations and recognition (e.g., there are no legal barriers but recognition of foreign qualifications is virtually impossible), this is indicated (see “very restrictive” model). Many countries allowing transnational provision have a separate framework to address the recognition of foreign/transnational qualifications.

This article is not intended to provide an exhaustive examination of national regulatory approaches but rather an overview of different models and emerging trends. Some countries will not fit perfectly into a category. Not only is very little statistical data available about transnational provision (few countries systematically collect information on this type of activity), but it is also one of the most rapidly changing fields of higher education. The discrepancies that often occur between the letter and practice of the law are worth noting. The authority over regulation can also be unclear, given that many countries have a decentralized system where individual states or regions control the higher education sector.

Regulatory Models
No regulations. There are no special regulations or control of foreign providers, which are free to operate without seeking permission from the host country. Examples include: Czech Republic, France, Malta, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Serbia, and Sri Lanka.

Liberal. Foreign providers must satisfy certain minimum conditions prior to commencing operations (e.g., official recognition in the home country). Examples include: Argentina, Bahrain, Estonia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Moderately liberal. The importing country is actively involved in licensing and (in some cases) accrediting transnational providers. This model requires that foreign institutions gain accreditation or other formal permission by the host country (e.g., Ministry of Education) prior to commencing operations. This category is diverse, ranging from compulsory registration to formal assessment of academic criteria. Requirements are generally straightforward and nonburdensome. Examples include: Australia, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, Israel, Jamaica, Pakistan, Singapore, and Vietnam.

Transitional—from liberal to more restrictive. A more restrictive regulatory framework is gradually being introduced. Changes in legislation can include: compulsory registration and/or accreditation through the national system in order for foreign institutions to be allowed to operate and/or for their degrees to be recognized, requirements to establish a presence in the country, and criteria for collaboration between domestic and foreign institutions, as well as other factors. Examples include: India.

Transitional—from restrictive to more liberal. New legislation aimed at removing restrictions for foreign institutions wishing to operate in the country is being introduced. The new guidelines usually follow a period where regulations have practically ruled out transnational provision. In some cases, restrictions are only lifted in specified areas (e.g., South Korea), in others changes apply to the entire country (e.g., Japan). Examples include: Japan and South Korea.

Very restrictive—regulations concerning permission to operate. The government or another authoritative higher education body imposes strict requirements on foreign providers. Such institutions may be required to establish a physical presence in the country (i.e., franchised provision is not allowed), only institutions or programs accredited by the host country’s agency are authorized, and foreign providers must change their curricula to be in line with domestic provision, and other factors. Examples include Bulgaria, Cyprus, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates.

Virtually impossible recognition for qualifications obtained through transnational provision. The government does not recognize foreign qualifications obtained through transnational provision. Foreign institutions wishing to grant recognized degrees must become part of the national system (this option may not be straightforward). Examples include: Belgium (francophone) and Greece.

Emerging capacity-building model? If not legally mandated by the importing country, it is suggested that foreign institutions could increasingly be expected to adopt a development-based rhetoric to secure external support and funding from both the importing and exporting countries. Institutions are increasingly aware that to boost capacity, safeguard institutional reputation, and assist in the strengthening of domestic systems, a long-term commitment to the country through sustainable partnerships or other investment is required.

The Main Findings and Observations
The general trend appears to be allowing the import of transnational provision but increasingly attempting to regulate this type of activity. A trend toward adopting any one particular model, however, has not been detected.

There are signs that the issue of providing locally sensitive but sustainable transnational education will be of growing importance for exporting and importing institutions and countries.

A potential trend exists toward developing regulatory frameworks at the regional and international levels, although the actual impact remains less clear.

[Online] Available: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number41/p6_Verbik_Jokivirta.htm