Only the educated are free
Student mobility in the Nordic countries has traditionally been characterized by cultural cooperation and egalitarian values. Yet, the region has not been isolated from international trends towards emphasizing excellence and competition in the global knowledge economy. The article challenges the assumptions of the Nordic countries as a cohesive region, and provides a critical exploration into how justifications for international student mobility include important national translations.
Extract from Mari Elken, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen, Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen (2022) article
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2022.2105255
In the past 20 years, globalization, internationalization, the knowledge economy and competitiveness have become prominent concepts in national policy debates. While higher education has always been an international endeavour, in the last 20 years the number of international students has risen substantially. Between 1998 and 2019, there was an annual average of 5.5% growth in the number of full degree international mobile students; in 2019, 6.1 million students were enrolled in higher education abroad for a full degree (OECD Citation2021). In addition, many students undertake parts of their higher education abroad as exchange students. The global international student market has been marked by increased competition and view of students as a source of revenue (Kälvermark and van der Wende Citation1997; Slaughter and Rhoades Citation2004; Verbik and Lasanowski Citation2007). This is a rather unequal market, where countries such as USA, UK and Australia are highly marketized and have traditionally been among top receiving countries, despite increased competition for this position (de Wit, Ferencz, and Rumbley Citation2013; Meiras Citation2004), while the situation for non-anglophone countries remains more challenging (see, e.g. de Wit, Minaeva, and Wang Citation2022).
The article addresses the following questions: How similar or different are the Nordic countries in how they address the issue of international student mobility? To what extent and how has the economically oriented framing of international student mobility become visible in the Nordic countries? International student mobility is a highly relevant case for examining changing norms and values in Nordic higher education, it is a policy area that by its nature is international and strongly exposed to international trends. We focus on about 25 years of policy developments in four largest Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden; and examine policy framing of both credit and degree mobility. Analytically, the article employs the concept of policy frames to unveil the justifications for international student mobility.
Internationalization and student mobility can be seen as a rather well-established theme in higher education policies in most countries. The rationales for international student mobility are closely related to rationales for internationalization of higher education, as student mobility is often an important component of internationalization policies. A distinction is often made between four types of rationales for internationalization: educational, cultural, economic and political (de Wit Citation2002; Knight Citation2004; Sin, Antonowicz, and Wiers-Jenssen Citation2021; Van der Wende Citation1997; Wang Citation2022), which we employ here as distinct a priori identified frames for international student mobility. Educational frame emphasizes how exchange of ideas has an academic value. Outgoing students bring new ideas upon returning home, and incoming students are often seen as a source of ‘internationalization at home’. Introducing an international dimension to teaching is also linked to overall quality enhancement. For small countries, there may also be an instrumental side to this as they may need to compensate for deficits in diversity and breadth in the domestic provision of higher education. Cultural frame emphasizes the value of intercultural skills necessary to operate in an increasingly global society. Given the increasingly globalized world, higher education graduates need to exhibit understanding of other cultures and languages. Cultural rationales can also have an underlying economic pay-off in the long run, as this cultural competence can contribute to economic development, but this is not necessarily highlighted as an explicit aim. Instead, this rationale emphasizes solidarity with countries and exchange of cultural norms across borders. Economic frame emphasizes economic growth and technology development. On a global scale, this has been one of the main justifications for internationalization and student mobility decades ago (Knight and de Wit Citation1995). In this kind of frame, student exchange becomes an investment, both to economic relations and to competitiveness. Mobility can also mean more direct economic benefits, through tuition fees or local job creation (Meiras Citation2004). Finally, education may also be seen as a dimension of foreign policy and thus having a political frame. In this frame, education is a means for strategic alliances, a means to exercise soft power (see, e.g. Lomer Citation2017 for an analysis of soft power justification in UK policies for international student mobility). Student mobility concerns the creation of new ties between countries, and it contributes to mutual understanding. Student mobility can also become a means of country branding, to some extent touching upon cultural rationales.
To provide some context for the national case analysis, we first present some data on the overall patterns. In all the Nordic countries, the share of incoming international full degree students varies considerably between Bachelor’s and Master’s level (OECD Citation2021), and in all of the countries the share is higher on Master’s level. The share of international students on Bachelor’s level varies between 2% and 3% (Norway, Sweden) and 6% (Denmark, Finland), while on Master’s level the share varies between 7% (Norway) and 20% (Denmark), with Finland and Sweden in between (11% and 12%). There is also a considerable share of international students on doctoral level. In our analysis, we primarily focus on students on Bachelor’s and Master’s level, as Doctoral education in the Nordic countries is often discussed in conjunction with research training rather than ‘regular’ international student mobility. The share of national students who travel abroad for their full degree varies between 2% in Denmark and 6% in Norway. See for an overview of the four Nordic countries in this analysis.
Denmark
Traditionally, internationalization and degree student mobility were not high on the agenda for Danish higher education governance. Nevertheless, the ministry played an important role in setting up and providing administrative and financial support to institutional participation in Nordic and European exchange programmes during the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. COMETT, ERASMUS and Nordplus). The administrative infrastructure was extended in 2000, when Cirius – the Danish Centre for International Cooperation and Mobility in Education and Training, was established. The role of Cirius was to coordinate Danish participation in international programmes across various educational levels. In mid-1990s, the ministry introduced financial incentives to facilitate mobility (taximeter grant) (Maassen, Nokkala, and Uppstrøm Citation2005).
From 1994, the student loan scheme through Danish Education Support (SU) was extended to also include students studying abroad, first for three years, later extended to four years (Bjørsted Citation2010). From 2008, it has been possible to obtain under specific circumstances a grant that also covers tuition fees – for master level and exchange students (Bjørsted Citation2010). In 2013, an additional loan option was added to cover tuition fees. The public support for mobility is also important for credit mobility, and about 70% of the students obtain regular grants/loans for credit mobility (Eurostudent Citation2019).
More strategic focus and introduction of tuition fees
During the early 2000 s, the Danish ministry was working with a more strategic approach towards student mobility, in light of a major reform of the sector in 2002 that made Danish institutions self-owning entities. In 2004, the ministriesFootnote2 issue a policy paper ‘Enhanced Internationalisation of Danish Education and Training’ (UVM Citation2004). It states clearly that the aim is not to provide an entirely new course, but instead ‘internationalisation is more about attitudes, visions, innovation and better utilisation of existing resources rather than making new appropriations’ (UVM Citation2004, 9). The main stipulated aims concern international competitiveness, avoiding brain drain from Denmark and Danish enterprises being ‘vanguards’ of the knowledge economy. Indirectly, the document argues for brain drain towards Denmark. The demands of globalization were argued to require a proactive stance. The framing is rather hybrid, where economic frame has a prominent place. Increased incoming degree mobility is presented as an inherent good – bringing home international experience, international students in Denmark bring ‘opportunity for mutual enrichment’, pointing also to a cultural and educational frame. To achieve this, education should include an international dimension, and there is an emphasis on more English-language programmes to attract ‘highly qualified foreign students and researchers’ (UVM Citation2004, 12). In general, stronger competition is expected to enhance quality and in this manner be beneficiary for Danish students, as well as for attracting increasing number of foreign students. Outgoing mobility is mentioned, but not a major focus in the document. There are also several arguments within the economic frame. Much of the document takes a starting point in an increasingly globalized context, where education has a role to assure Denmark’s competitiveness: ‘education being the key to growth and welfare for individuals, enterprises and society alike’ (UVM Citation2004, 7). Given that at the time Denmark had experienced an imbalance in those who come and stay vs. those who return abroad, there is also a visible concern that too few international students stay after their studies. While not a core of the document, two other issues are quite clearly economically framed: opportunities for Danish institutions to engage in online markets; and international competition on paid-for markets, where education is specifically referred to as a service. Competition here is framed as a means for higher quality. While economic and to some extent educational frames for degree mobility dominate in this policy paper, there is also a hint political frame as internationalization is also linked to various supra/inter-national bodies and international cooperation.
In 2005 the Danish parliament decided to introduce tuition fees to non-EU/EEA students. The stated rationale was to not pay for other countries’ students’ education. In parallel, there were also incentives introduced to attract the best international students to Denmark. The introduction of fees led to more strategic behaviour by the universities concerning which markets to orient towards (Mosneaga and Agergaard Citation2012). This marked an important milestone in Nordic higher education.
In 2007, a decision was reached to use 90 million DKK for internationalization, and on this occasion, a status report was published (Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen Citation2007). The status report reiterates many of the points from the previous strategy in pointing towards the importance of internationalization. It also takes a more explicit point of departure in international cooperation, particularly the Bologna Process; compliance with Bologna is presented as a ‘competitive advantage’ on an international educational market, pointing towards economic justifications. Moreover, it is noted that the share of international students, while higher than in Sweden and Norway, is still below OECD average. A solution for this is a stronger emphasis on global marketing of Danish higher education (Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen Citation2007). Cirius developed a separate national strategy for that in 2007, with an aim to support institutional efforts in this area (CIRIUS Citation2007).
In 2013, a new internationalization agenda was launched. The agenda was launched into two parts – first concerning sending students abroad (launched in 2013), and in the second part about attracting more students to Denmark (launched in 2014). The first part (UFM Citation2013) starts with an introductory vision statement: Denmark is presented as a responsible participant in solving global challenges, and, as an interconnected global economy with considerable export activity. The underlying problem is linked both to international competitiveness and excellence, while this is not explicitly stated. The problem in the document is thus not an existing challenge but rather the necessity to take advantage of the opportunities. The stated aim of student mobility is to obtain intercultural competencies. Three main aims are presented. First aim is to send out more students to study abroad, as the share of Danish students going abroad is too low. This is both the case for degree and credit mobility, and the aim is to increase both. Here, educational and cultural frames are quite explicit, e.g. ‘The stay abroad must first and foremost contribute with relevant academic education for the individual but also provide experiences with other cultures’ (UFM Citation2013, 6). The plan suggests both simplification of the process and assuring that all would have the opportunity, independent of their means. The second aim is to facilitate internationalization at home, by creating international learning environments. While this document has a stronger emphasis on outward mobility, Danish export of education and the goal of attracting talented (and fee-paying) students nevertheless gets attention also here. The strategy notes that the number of students from non-EU/EEA countries had been reduced and it was necessary to reverse this trend. Emphasis is particularly on BRICs countries and the so-called ‘next eleven’ cluster of emerging countries, suggesting hints of an implicit political frame while it is not spelled out entirely. The third aim is related to language competencies, where justifications are primarily associated with the needs of a more globalized labour market. Specific emphasis is on non-English speaking countries, with particular focus on high-growth countries, suggesting also an underlying political and economic frame. Overall, the strategy for outgoing students has a more academic and cultural emphasis, yet this has an underlying focus on how this all can contribute to the Danish economy. Thus, while educational frame is presented, it does not have a value on its own, it is a means for something else.
The second part of the new internationalization strategy focused in incoming student mobility (UFM Citation2014). This document mirrors the previous in that it starts with a specific vision and then outlines two specific goals. The vision part has both an academic and economic frame, summarizing the two main goals of the whole strategy:
‘We will only be [among the best] if we can attract and educate the most talented from all over the world, and subsequently get them to stay and take jobs in Denmark (…) Economically, there is a strong benefit to attract the most talented young people from all around the world’. (UFM Citation2014)
In other words, brain drain is not a problem, it is the solution. The first goal is to attract the best international students. This is first presented from an academic frame – as a part of enhancing quality and relevance: ‘Highly-qualified international students are both a benefit to the Danish students’ academic development and their goals of obtaining international experiences, and also help to raise the quality of the Danish educations by contributing new knowledge and insight.’ (UFM Citation2014, 8). The strategy does distinguish credit and degree mobility, noting that very few exchange students remain after their studies, but even the few who do, generate economic benefits for Denmark. To attract the best and brightest, the strategy suggests among other things new scholarships, provide support through private foundations, provide better information and marketing, a more strategic and flexible tuition fee policy for institutions and a number of measures to make the bureaucratic processes around relocation easier. The second goal is focused on keeping the talent that has come, clearly building on a skilled migration theme. It is noted that one year after graduation, only half of the international full degree graduates still remain. The framing for this is clearly economic – this is necessary for the Danish labour market and a good economic decision for Denmark. In July 2014, agreement was reached on a new grant programme for Master students to attract talented students to Denmark. The agreement included DKK 25 million in the period 2015–2017 and has specific focus on disciplines of strategic importance to innovation capacity. The target group is primarily non-EU/EEA students.
From growth to contraction
More recently, a debate that has (re)emerged concerning internationalization is that too few international students stay after their studies, and in some programmes, new cap is introduced for how many international students can be admitted. Additionally, the number of English-speaking programmes has been reduced. In June 2021, the ministry launched an initiativeFootnote3 to further reduce the number of English-speaking programmes in areas where few students remain in Denmark after their studies. This more restrictive emphasis represents a clear trend over several recent years and is also associated with the rise of stronger neo-nationalist sentiments (Brøgger Citation2021). The overall frame for the debates is clearly economic, yet not from a competitiveness argument, but from a public expenditure argument.
In sum, from the initial emphasis on aiming to attract more students, Denmark is now actively aiming to reduce the number of international students who travel to Denmark, at least those who do not stay in Denmark after their studies. The cultural and educational frames earlier visible in debates of internationalization at home have largely disappeared. The political frame remains implicit in that there are specific priority countries that are often mentioned, but it is not necessarily specified why these are a priority. Thus, the view of student mobility as an inherent good seems to have disappeared from the political debate. Both degree and credit mobility seems to be viewed as a vehicle for attracting labour force. In cases where it does not function as such and students return home, it is viewed as an undesired cost.
