Shifting Institutional Boundaries Through Cross-Border Higher Education

Policy contexts

In developing CBHE, boundary decisions are influenced by the regulation and policy context of the host country. A study by the British Council developed an “opportunity matrix” (British Council, 2013) to classify a country in terms of its prospects as a CBHE receiver. The policy environment was identified as a main determining factor. This assesses government-implemented policies and processes to facilitate and manage inbound cross-border education. At one extreme lie the countries that offer incentives to attract international providers. At the other extreme, countries pass regulations that place “significant restrictions” on exporting HEIs. The existence of regulatory frameworks is viewed as a positive factor, indicating a degree of commitment to quality assurance (QA) and recognition of qualifications (British Council, 2013). In addition, regulatory frameworks signal stability to encourage the provider to establish operations in a given country. About two thirds of the 25 countries analyzed in the study had some QA system in place for foreign programs (British Council, 2013). The study also found that “the most active/longstanding host countries for TNE are generally those with the most robust QA systems in place” (British Council, 2013, p. 7).

As mentioned earlier, institutional boundary changes are analyzed in three regulation contexts: African Portuguese-speaking countries, Brazil, and Europe. The African Portuguese-speaking countries are characterized by weak regulation enforcement, little demand on quality, and great openness to private activities, explained by these countries’ lack of capacity to create and sustain an HE system of their own. Guinea-Bissau is an extreme example of this benevolence toward foreign private initiative, as in 2008, the national government passed a decree suspending the activity of its only national university and transferring its buildings, students and staff, as well as the authorized study programs, to a Portuguese private organization (Governo da Guiné Bissau, 2008).

Brazil represents the second context, a country with a HE system that includes a variety of public institutions (federal, state, and municipal) and a high percentage of private institutions, the latter representing more than 75% of overall enrollments. Although most of Brazilian HE is private, the operation of foreign institutions on Brazilian soil is not easy. Brazilian authorities forbid franchising activities, and there is no automatic recognition of foreign degrees (Conselho Nacional de Educação, 1997). Brazil has a strict system for the evaluation of postgraduate education (Capes, 2012) and a quality system that aims at measuring the added value of education (INEP, 2014). Brazilian HEIs can be either public or private, whereas private institutions can be either not-for-profit or for-profit or “commercial,” in which case they do not have fiscal benefits. HEIs are classified according to their performance as universities, university centers, faculties, and institutes. Institutes are institutions for vocational training, whereas faculties offer only programs in a limited number of areas and in general do not have research activities.

In Europe, according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the subsidiarity principle applies to education. The Treaty places education firmly under the competence of member states. Article 165 limits the Union’s contribution to encouraging cooperation between member states and to supporting and supplementing their action, if necessary. It also explicitly excludes any harmonization of the member states’ laws and regulations in this domain.

However, other aspects of Community law indirectly undermine member states’ competence in education, giving the European Union (EU) purchase over national educational matters and favoring the marketization of HE. Such is the 2006 Service Directive that intends to remove barriers to the free movement of services within the internal EU market, both as regards their establishment in another member state and their provision without establishment (e.g., franchising). “Services,” in the meaning of the TFEU, imply that they are provided for remuneration. Under the freedom of movement of services, a private education institution is legally enabled to offer services in another member state, should education be classified as a service.

Amaral and Neave (2009) argue that the creeping competence of the Community has been bolstered by the way European legal and political documents are drafted. They refer Dehousse (2005) to argue that “carefully crafted drafting, allied to delicately weighted wording, is designed to pass lightly over and around the incapacity of member states to agree on essential goals and priorities” (Amaral & Neave, 2009, p. 282). The use of ambiguous language, written in the most obscure legal jargon, allows for diverse interpretations of the treaties. This enhances and reinforces the supranational role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which member states view as corroding their sovereignty. The ECJ established that the Community’s common laws and regulations take precedence over the law of Member States (Fagforbundet, 2008). In addition, the ECJ’s interpretations and decisions take their legal basis in the market freedoms laid out in the EU treaties, thus, circumventing the barriers imposed by the subsidiarity principle. Similarly, the vagueness of the wording of the Service Directive does not provide clear orientation and opens it up to interpretation. The Directive has blurred the boundaries between national and European competence even further, impinging on member states’ ability to organize and regulate their education sectors.

Rationales

Rationales underlying behavior and boundary decisions are expected to be in harmony with an institution’s identity. We have earlier referred to internationalization rationales: political, cultural, academic/educational, and economic (Knight & de Wit, 1995).

Until recently, Portuguese internationalization strategies were marginal for public HEIs (Veiga, Rosa, & Amaral, 2006), and more reactive than proactive in pursuing internationalization. Studies attributed the low prioritization of internationalization to the government’s lack of a clear strategy in this area and governmental instability (Rosa, Veiga, & Amaral, 2004; Veiga, Rosa, & Amaral, 2005, 2006).

Internationalization rationales of Portuguese HEIs were mainly cultural and academic (Veiga et al., 2006). The main approaches to internationalization were student and staff mobility in the context of European mobility programs and the enrollment of students from Portuguese-speaking countries. The former followed a political and academic rationale, as staff and student exchanges meant to bring closer alignment between Portugal and Europe. The academic rationale was also present in institutions’ attempts to adapt study programs to the Bologna model. The enrollment of students from Portuguese-speaking countries followed a political and cultural rationale related to the promotion and improvement of cooperation with countries that had gained their independence from Portugal. For these students, Portugal was the first country of choice for language reasons, and special places subsidized by the Portuguese state were created for them. These two internationalization approaches, one looking toward Portuguese-speaking countries and the other looking toward Europe, confronted institutions with a dilemma in relation to the teaching language. Closer integration with Europe would require the use of English, but this would deter students from Portuguese-speaking countries from studying in Portugal.

The economic rationale was not a determinant of the internationalization. A profit argument did not make sense for public HEIs, as they were not allowed to charge higher fees for foreign students. This was permitted in the case of private institutions, confronted with diminishing student numbers, which could thereby respond to an economic rationale. However, the economic rationale was, in practice, discouraged (Veiga et al., 2006). In fact, until quite recently, there were no legal provisions allowing Portuguese HEIs to award a recognized Portuguese degree abroad. And when legislation was passed, it determined that awarding a Portuguese degree abroad would need the prior authorization of the Portuguese accreditation agency (Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education [A3ES]; Governo de Portugal, 2013). So not only did the government not promote internationalization to generate income, it also created obstacles. This may be explained by the recognition of the difficulty in controlling the quality of educational provision in a foreign country. As a result, the Portuguese private institutions, which operated in Portuguese-speaking countries, only awarded degrees under the local national law (Veiga et al., 2006).

In recent years, the financial difficulties experienced by HEIs, due to the decreasing State funding (Teixeira, 2012), and aggravated by the consistently declining number of students enrolling in HE (Fonseca, 2012), have become an incentive for the development of CBHE activities by Portuguese institutions. The funding problems started to be felt more acutely since 2011 as result of the financial crisis. Public institutions had to look for alternative sources of funding due to decreasing public budgets, whereas private institutions tried to cope with a decreasing number of national candidates to HE. Indicative of the increasing relevance of the economic rationale, in 2014, the government passed legislation allowing public institutions to increase fees for non-EU foreign students.

Public institutions

The analysis of international activities undertaken by public HEIs has revealed little interest in the provision of education abroad. Staff and student mobility appears to come high on the agenda of both universities and polytechnics: in Europe, through the Erasmus program, and in the rest of the world, primarily in Portuguese-speaking countries, through bilateral exchange programs. This is confirmed by the responses received from the presidents of the CRUP and the CCISP. According to them, mobility has increased substantially over the last 10 years, which is reflected in the creation of institutional units supporting internationalization activities. In addition, universities seem to invest effort in participation in international research projects, networks, and associations; joint organization of international scientific and pedagogic events; joint supervision of postgraduate dissertations; and joint degrees with U.S. institutions, financed by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, or Erasmus Mundus joint degrees.

Delivery of CBHE is rudimentary in the public sector. A limited number of public universities offer double degrees in partnership with a foreign institution in Europe. Such degrees could, arguably, come closer to cross-border delivery because they involve the award of diplomas from two universities in different countries. Outside Europe, cross-border degrees potentially leading to double degrees or degrees in partnership are rare. For instance, a university offers a double first degree in tourism and leisure with a Brazilian university, a second university is in negotiation with a Brazilian university to establish a first degree in History, and a third institution has entered an agreement with a university in Angola for the delivery of an advanced program in management. In the polytechnic sector, two institutions are taking the first steps toward the delivery of double degrees (e.g., a master’s degree in accounting in Cape Verde and a double first degree in civil engineering in Brazil). In São Tomé e Príncipe, following an agreement with the Portuguese government, a polytechnic is offering five master’s degrees. However, although data on international activities suggest that CBHE is equally undeveloped in both the polytechnic and the university sector, the presidents of CCISP and CRUP assume different positions. The former acknowledges the existence of this kind of provision, contrary to the latter. There is further difference in future intentions: While the president of CRUP declares that internationalization strategies do not contemplate CBHE provision and that this topic has never been discussed among public universities, the president of CCISP speaks of an intention of reinforcing cross-border provision. In his opinion, a major obstacle is the poor regulation for CBHE, including accreditation (mostly in African countries), and therefore, “an important challenge which can stimulate the internationalization of HEIs is to strengthen regulations in this area.”

Other activities beyond national borders, that is, curricular development or other support actions, appear incidental. There is a partnership of a Portuguese university whereby academics from its Accounting Institute traveled to Mozambique to offer training to local teaching staff. One university in partnership with UNICEF and the government in São Tomé is developing a curricular framework for pre-school education, and a polytechnic institute in cooperation with the Tourism Ministry and a university in Mozambique are restructuring the tourism degrees in Mozambique.

These findings suggest that CBHE is not prominent among public institutions at the moment. Yet, the difference in future intentions between universities and polytechnics is worth bearing in mind. Their international undertakings seem guided firstly by an academic rationale related to development opportunities for staff and students, academic improvement that results from interaction with other contexts and scientific progress. Second, a cultural rationale is also present, related to cooperation with and support for Portuguese-speaking countries. The economic rationale is hardly visible, although according to the president of CCISP, polytechnic institutes have recently started to operate in China, which suggests the existence of economic reasons. As to internationalization at home, the economic rationale might gain some weight in the following years further to the diminishing numbers of Portuguese traditional entrants and to the possibility to increase fees for non-European students. The intention of attracting foreign students is stated in the responses of the CRUP and CCISP presidents.

Private institutions

Contrary to public institutions, CBHE is rather prominent on the agenda of private institutions, at least the larger ones, as stated by the president of APESP who confirms that CBHE features in their strategic plans. Data have revealed that several private HEIs deliver CBHE in Africa, Brazil, and even in Europe, in partnership with local governments, business associations, and HEIs. The countries where CBHE is more prevalent are Mozambique, Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and São Tomé and Príncipe. The great majority of study programs offered are first degrees, with master’s and PhDs being residual. Study programs are mainly offered in social sciences, followed, at a distance, by engineering, manufacturing and construction, and health and social protection.

According to the APESP representative, the shape CBHE takes depends on the “existing conditions in the destination countries.” Africa appears as the preferred destination, justified by the need to develop HE in those regions, coupled with the response capacity of Portuguese HEIs, more able to understand local needs because of the common language. Local administration is pointed as one obstacle, as are the quality of facilities, teaching resources, libraries, and so on. In Brazil, only one HEI operates, being the owner of three small faculties in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Bahia, all “commercial.” Another institution operated for a short time in Pernambuco, but went into bankruptcy, and the owners fled the country after collecting the fees for a full semester.

Although CBHE has been mainly developed in Portuguese-speaking countries, one private HEI has been attempting to establish branch campuses in Europe, namely, in Italy, France, and Spain, offering courses mainly in health sciences. In Italy, legislation passed in February 2012 revoked the university’s authorization to operate with the justification that it did not present any added value to students (Italian Government, 2012). Moreover, the programs were offered in areas tightly regulated by professional bodies, setting conditions difficult to meet by foreign providers. In France, the institution opened branches that offered programs in health sciences and social sciences, awarding Portuguese diplomas, which the university’s website claimed to be valid in Europe, therefore allowing students to practice in France. The courses on offer caused indignation among students, professionals, and trade unions for charging high fees and for not respecting the numerus clausus for the health professions. Further to the controversy, French legislation regulating programs in health sciences was amended in May 2013 (Assemblée Nationale, 2013). Such programs were required to have double approval both from the minister in charge of HE and the minister in charge of health. They were also required to operate in partnership with a public health establishment. Further to the law amendment, the programs of that institution in France became illegal. In Spain, the institution managed to open a branch in the Canary Islands, but only because the refusal of the Spanish authorities came later than the deadline established by law. The law, which eventually recognized that institution in Spain, came in 2014 (Parlamento de Canarias, 2014). However, although it began to offer courses (also in Health Sciences), there were concerns about the recognition of degrees and graduates’ ability to practice in Spain.

The regulation applicable to Portuguese degrees abroad implies program approval by the Portuguese accreditation agency (Governo de Portugal, 2013). This is aligned with the Service Directive that stipulates approval and control in the country of origin. As none of the programs offered abroad by the above institution were accredited by the agency, the university is not authorized to award Portuguese diplomas. Should it opt for awarding national diplomas of the country where it establishes branch campuses, it would have to comply with the national regulations of that country.

These results allow concluding that private HEIs are active in terms of CBHE. Their internationalization strategies go beyond the more “traditional” ones (student and staff mobility and enrollment of foreign students), as they imply delivering HE in countries other than Portugal, where the institutions are located. This strategy allows HEIs to find additional funding in a context marked by the decrease in student numbers (and therefore the revenue from fees), due to demographic changes, and by economic difficulties driven by the financial crisis affecting Portugal, with a negative impact over individuals and organizations. Therefore, one may argue that the rationale behind the strategy of developing internationalization based on CBHE seems to be, in the case of Portuguese private HEIs, mainly economic. The predominance of an economic rationale is also visible in the statement of the APESP representative, who stresses the private institutions’ intention of attracting postgraduate students to Portugal, facilitated by these institutions’ presence in the students’ countries of origin. In relation to foreign student recruitment, he mentioned that strategies have been developed to attract students from Latin America and Africa, including the increasing participation in international fairs in Europe, Asia, Brazil, and the United States.

However, other rationales are also visible in the case of private HEIs. An analysis of the partnerships established with foreign institutions (A3ES accreditation reports) reveals the presence of political, cultural, and academic rationales. The political and cultural rationales can be seen in the exchange protocols, aiming to promote student and staff mobility with both European (in the Erasmus framework, for instance) and non-European HEIs. The academic rationale can be identified in the partnerships for collaboration in research, teaching, and faculty training, also mentioned by the APESP president. These partnerships consist mainly in the establishment of general agreements for international cooperation or integration of international scientific and pedagogical projects and networks with both European and non-European countries, primarily the Portuguese-speaking ones.