International partnerships in global higher education: inevitable trend or passing fashion?

Professor Nigel Healey, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International)

Nottingham Trent University

Overview

• Forms of international cooperation

• Benefits and costs of each form

• Small or large networks?

• Conclusions

Forms of international cooperation

• “Uppsala sequencing model” drawn from the literature on the internationalisation of business:

Exporting

Licensing production

Foreign direct investment: Joint ventures

Foreign direct investment: Sole Ventures

• How well does this explain the emergence of strategic partnerships and alliances in global higher education?

• Are these partnerships the logical next step in the internationalisation of universities?

the „third wave’

Universities as exporters

• Exporting educational services = providing education to

foreign students by:

teaching students on home campus

teaching students through „pure‟ distance learning‟ (ie, without the support of a local agent or campus)

• Huge and growing market globally

first movers Australia and UK, now European and Asian countries attracting international students

limited form of internationalisation

Universities as franchisers

• Franchising = licensing production

• For universities:

franchising = licensing a foreign partner, often a private for-profit college to offer part or all of a degree (1+2, 2+1, 3+0, etc)

“McDonaldization” of higher education

large numbers of such franchises in Asia

primarily UK and Australian universities involved

Universities as foreign investors: the „third wave‟

• Third wave includes:

Foreign investment as part of a joint venture with a local partner

Foreign investment as a sole venture, with the university setting up a branch campus

• Most „branch campuses‟ are small executive training

centres or joint ventures by universities sharing space on

the host‟s campus

• Very few genuine branch campuses, notably in China,

Malaysia, South Africa; all are joint ventures

• For-profit providers like Laureate are investing in foreign

campuses through acquisition

However, most international partnerships and alliances are not following this process…

• World Universities Network (16 members/8 countries)

• Universitas 21 (21 universities/12 countries)

• Asia-Pacific Rim Universities (41 members/17 countries)

• League of European Research Universities (21 members/10

countries)

• ASEAN University Network (26 members/10 countries)

01 February 2013 7

…because universities are not businesses

• Universities mix of public, not-for-profit and for-profit

• Traditional models of internationalisation explain growth of

exporting and franchising in higher education…

• …but almost no universities have managed to make money

from third wave of internationalisation

• Joint ventures and partnerships appear to be driven more

by other considerations

Non-commercial drivers of international partnerships

• Student and faculty (no-fees) exchange

• Joint or dual programmes – degree programmes built around structured student exchange

• Research partnerships

• All three forms of cooperation may be bilateral or multilateral (networks)

• Possible motivations:

– create international learning experience to prepare graduates for global labour market

– leverage teaching/research capabilities through partnership, especially in big science

– ambition to be a global brand

Benefits and costs of Uppsala partnership-based cooperation (1)

• Franchising

– Benefit: income generating

– Cost: seen as exploitative, principal-agent problems, misaligned strategic goals, time-limited

• Third Wave

– Benefit: income generating, reach new student markets; build brand internationally

– Cost: high risk, often built on faulty business models, potential reputational damage

Benefits and costs of non-commercial partnership-based cooperation (2)

• Student/faculty exchange

– Benefit: creates international learning opportunities

– Cost: expensive, may get little meaningful engagement

• Dual degrees

– Benefit: income generating, reach new student markets; build brand internationally

– Cost: high risk, misalignment of partners‟ objectives, quality assurance issues

• Research partnerships

– Benefit: economies of scale/scope, brand/profile

– Costs: top-down, little real collaboration

Bilateral versus multilateral cooperation

• Increasing economies of scale and scope

• “A single thread can’t make a chord, nor a single tree a

forest” 一个线程不能引起了共鸣，也没有一棵树的森林

• versus…

• …increasing coordination and management costs

• Parallel is between bilateral free trade agreements and

multilateral trade negotiations (eg, New Zealand – China FTA

versus WTO Doha Round)

Multilateral cooperation: an economist‟s perspective

size of network

$ Marginal cost (coordination costs)

Marginal benefit (economies of

scale)

communication technologies,

standardisation

N*

Costs of research equipment, faculty

Multilateral cooperation: a management perspective

Low Economies of scale High

Low

C

oord

ination c

osts

Hig

h

“Boutique” “Fast Food”

“Country Club”

“International Banking”

Multilateral cooperation: a management perspective

Low Economies of scale High

Low

C

oord

ination c

osts

Hig

h

LSE/NYU/HKU Laureate

Universitas 21 Socrates

UMAP

Conclusions

• The increase of international partnerships partly explained by

sequential model of internationalisation…

• …but range of other motives for international partnerships

• Good partnerships can transform learning experience for

students, open up new possibilities for collaborative research

• Need to be managed carefully to ensure return on

investment, not presidents‟ vanity

• Final thought: is global warming a growing threat to

traditional models of international partnership?