Abstract
This article sheds light on the availability and characteristics of international scholarship programs that are sponsored by national and federal governments worldwide and that are intended to promote student mobility. Utilizing descriptive and cluster analyses, the article produces a framework for organizing the population of these programs. The analyses take into account both the central characteristics of programs and economic and political characteristics of the nations sponsoring the program. The typology produced in this analysis may be used by policy makers and researchers to facilitate cross-national comparisons of program design, implementation, and outcomes.
Distinct from other forms of international education including international studies and technical assistance (Arum, 1987), international scholarship programs in higher education have existed for many years. In the early 20th century, some nations established overseas study abroad programs to train the administrative elite of their colonies. In the Cold War era, highly developed democratic countries used international scholarship programs to counteract the ideological influence of the Communist Block in Third World countries, while intergovernmental agencies and private sponsors funded international scholarship programs for Third World students as a form of developmental assistance (Varghese, 2008).
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the resulting disruption of the system of higher education in its successor states, some newly independent nations created programs that sent students abroad with the goal of addressing shortages of highly skilled workers. One example is the Bolashak Scholars Program of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a government-funded scholarship created in 1993 received by 9,250 individuals who earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from foreign universities between 1994 and 2013 (Zhumagulov, 2013).
More recently, some countries in the Middle East and South America have launched international scholarship programs to educate undergraduate and graduate students abroad. Suggesting the magnitude of some governmental commitments, in 2011 the Brazilian government pledged US$1.7 billion to fund 100,000 undergraduate and graduate students to study abroad for one year through the Scientific Mobility Program (Travers, 2012). The availability and expansion of some programs may only increase in the future, as more countries attempt to achieve the targeted levels of student mobility established by the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy for Higher Education.
Researchers have examined various aspects of international scholarship programs (aka student mobility, student exchange, study abroad, cultural exchange, and international educational exchange programs). Some studies explore the forces that have contributed to the establishment of particular programs (e.g., Chen, 2013; Denman and Hilal, 2011; OECD and the World Bank, 2008), whereas others consider the effects of programs on outcomes for individual participants and the sending country (e.g., Celik, 2009; Hassan, 1992; Luchilo, 2009). Available research also considers the experiences of scholarship recipients during and after program participation (e.g., Douglas, 2005; Hofer, 2009).
Despite the contributions, the transferability of findings from available research is often not clear, given the many differences across programs. Variations in goals, structures, requirements, and other characteristics are not surprising given the likely value of adapting a program to a nation’s goals, priorities, and other characteristics. Although warranted, however, such variation creates challenges for policy makers, practitioners, and researchers who wish to use the findings from available research to identify effective programs.
To enable cross-national comparisons of design, implementation, and impact of government-funded international scholarship programs, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers need a framework to organize and categorize the many existing programs. This study uses descriptive and cluster analyses to propose such a framework.
Guiding Perspectives
A typology is one mechanism for bringing order to a collection of related but seemingly disparate policies and programs (Richards, 1998). The construction of this typology of government-sponsored international scholarship programs draws from human capital theory, macroeconomic theories of the role of the public sector, and political philosophy (Marginson, 2007).
Endogenous theories of economic growth conceptualize studying abroad and earning a degree from a foreign country as a form of human capital import, as students returning from abroad are assumed to “contribute to faster creation of new knowledge and help other people acquire skills without any direct costs” (Kim, 1998, p. 338). Human capital theory assumes that an individual decides to enroll in higher education in general or foreign education in particular when the economic and noneconomic benefits exceed the costs (Becker, 1993). But, when making enrollment decisions, individuals do not consider the many societal benefits that may result from their enrollment. As a result, without government intervention, the level of participation in foreign education is below the optimal level for society (McMahon, 2009). With its emphasis on promoting cross-border movement of students, foreign education has the potential to expand the societal benefits produced by higher education (knowledge, information, common literacy) into global public goods (Marginson, 2007). Research suggests that foreign education yields a host of collective benefits for the home nation, including advancing national economic growth and productivity (Kim, 1998) and national security (Custer, 2013), as well as benefits that transcend national borders, including promoting democracy (Spilimbergo, 2009), human rights (Atkinson, 2010), and international understanding of languages and cultures (Edelstein & Douglass, 2012).
Governments may use public policy to encourage participation in foreign education and thus maximize the societal benefits (national and global public goods) of such enrollment, through policies that reduce the financial costs of students’ enrollment (Paulsen, 2001), and/or reduce trade barriers to “consumption” of higher education abroad (e.g., visa and other immigration issues; Dee, 2010, p. 26). With an international scholarship program, a government “intervenes” in the higher education market in ways that increase the number of students who are studying at or earning degrees from a postsecondary educational institution in a foreign country (Paulsen, 2001).
The way that a government structures its program (through participation requirements and other program characteristics) influences the nature of human capital that individuals develop (Perna, Jumakulov, & Orosz, 2013) as well as the mix of private goods, public goods, and “public bads” that are produced (Marginson, 2007). Whereas global public goods include the production of common knowledge, information, and culture, public bads may include the transfer of talent out of a developing nation (brain drain) and the homogenization of culture (Marginson, 2007).
One particularly longstanding government-sponsored international scholarship program is the Fulbright program. Funded by the federal government of the United States, the Fulbright program was established in 1946 with the aim of promoting “international good will through the exchanges of students in the fields of education, culture and science” (Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, n.d.). The program awards scholarships to U.S. citizens to study abroad and citizens of other nations to study in the United States.
Although the Fulbright program is large and well known, many other programs with different stated missions and orientations are also available. Available programs vary along multiple dimensions, including whether the program promotes completion of a degree or some type of noncredential “educational exchange” (e.g., Luijten-Lub, Van der Wende, & Huisman, 2005), study level (e.g., undergraduate vs. graduate; Edelstein & Douglas, 2012), and study duration (e.g., semester, year, several years; Edelstein & Douglas, 2012; Knight, 2006; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005). Unlike other program characteristics, however, study duration is relatively ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish between programs (e.g., both graduate degree programs and exchange programs may be 1 year in length).
International scholarship programs also vary in the majors that students prefer and the majors that a program allows. Varghese (2008) concluded that foreign students studying in English-speaking nations tend to focus on science, engineering, business, and social sciences, whereas foreign students in non-English-speaking nations tend to focus on arts and humanities. Kim (1998) concluded that international scholarship programs in developing nations tend to encourage study in natural sciences, engineering, and medical sciences. Kim speculates that policy makers in these nations may perceive that, because these fields are more standardized, “knowledge in these fields from advanced countries is more easily adaptable and beneficial to the origin country” (p. 361).
In his comprehensive assessment of the many individual and societal benefits that result from higher education, McMahon (2009) concluded that the mechanisms that governments use to promote higher education investment (and thus advance individual and societal prosperity) should reflect the national economic context. McMahon argues, for instance, that when the economy is relatively less technologically advanced, promoting undergraduate degree attainment may be a more effective use of finite resources than encouraging increased academic research and graduate education.
The World Economic Forum (Schwab, 2013) implies the importance of recognizing the national context when constructing government programs to build global competitiveness, where competitiveness is defined “as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country” (p. 4). Drawing on indicators of a nation’s institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation, the World Economic Forum classifies national economies into three stages: factor driven, efficiency driven, and innovation driven (Schwab, 2013). The strategies that a nation requires to improve its global economic competitiveness depend on its current stage of competitiveness.
The political context may also shape a government’s approach to an international student mobility program. Some political philosophers (e.g., French Marxist Louis Althusser, 1971) assume that an individual’s actions are determined by the ideological perspectives of the State, as manifest through the State’s social practices, including the provision of higher education. These ideological perspectives and related social practices may be designed to repress the interests of the working class while advancing those of the ruling class. Noting that higher education contributes to highly functioning democratic political institutions, civic involvement, promotion of human rights, and political stability and security, McMahon (2009) concludes that higher education policies in many nations are not oriented toward equalizing opportunity for higher education, but instead serve to perpetuate differences across social classes in higher education outcomes.
Research Methods
To generate a framework that brings order to the large number of government-sponsored international scholarship programs, this study addresses the following research questions:
What are the programmatic characteristics of the population of international scholarship programs sponsored by federal and national governments worldwide?
What are the economic and political characteristics of nations that sponsor international scholarship programs?
How do the programmatic and contextual characteristics of Fulbright programs compare with the characteristics of other government-sponsored international scholarship programs?
What are the predominant “types” of government-sponsored international scholarship programs?
Our procedures draw from those who have developed typologies to organize policies related to teacher staffing (Rice, Roellke, & Sparks, 2005), welfare (McKernan, Bernstein, & Fender, 2005), and college enrollment (Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, Li, & Thomas, 2008), as well as national policies of higher education internationalization (Luijten-Lub et al., 2005), institutional internationalization (Childress, 2009; Edelstein & Douglass, 2012), global education hubs (Knight, 2011), and transnational higher education programs (Ong & Chan, 2012).
Population
The first task is to define and identify the population of programs, a task that necessarily requires specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given our interest in government-sponsored programs, we limit the population to programs sponsored by the national or federal governments of the 196 independent states identified by the U.S. State Department (Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 2012). 1
Between February and July 2013 we systematically searched the websites of each nation to identify scholarship programs that support foreign postsecondary education. Depending on the governmental structure, these websites are sponsored by departments or ministries of education, higher education, training, innovation, science, and culture. We also consulted the U.S. Fulbright Scholarship Program’s website (Fulbright Commission, n.d.) and the European Commission’s (2008) online database of higher education external cooperation. We searched English-language versions of the websites and used Google Translate as necessary. In addition to reviewing readily available information on government-sponsored websites and online repositories, we conducted web searches using a combination of country names and terms to locate program descriptions, brochures, and policy documents available on nongovernmental websites.
The final data set includes programs in the 196 nations that allow students to earn academic credits or degrees abroad at the undergraduate, graduate, professional, and doctoral levels, as well as scholarships that allow students to participate in vocational education and postdoctoral study abroad, because all of these experiences are designed to promote human capital development. We exclude scholarships that enable only on-the-job training, as on-the-job-training is a form of human capital investment that is related to, but distinct from, education (Becker, 1993).
Consistent with our interest in international scholarship programs as a form of government intervention, we include only programs that are funded by national or federal governments. Although not without economic and social benefits for individuals and society, programs with other sponsors do not reflect a government’s decisions about how to use finite funds to promote human capital development or advance other societal goals within a particular national context. Thus, although potentially worthwhile, we exclude international scholarships funded by such nongovernmental organizations as the Aga Khan Foundation, Open Society Foundation, and U.S.-endowed enterprise funds in Central and Eastern Europe; programs sponsored by such intergovernmental agencies as the Commonwealth of Nations, European Union, and Organization of American States; scholarships awarded by publicly owned or funded organizations that are not governmental policy-making entities; and programs funded by local governments.
To determine whether the national government provides funding, we considered whether the program was advertised on a governmental or intergovernmental website and whether governmental funding was explicitly mentioned in research papers, doctoral dissertations, policy documents, and/or brochures describing the program. Some governmental websites advertise scholarship programs that are funded by private sources or other nations; we exclude these programs.
With the exception of the Fulbright program, the population of programs in this study excludes international scholarships that are awarded as part of a bilateral or multilateral agreement between nations, even if government funded. Although referenced on many governmental websites, details about such agreements are not consistently published across nations. We also are typically unable to verify whether these agreements describe existing programs or signal political commitments that may or may not have been implemented.
We also include only programs that are specifically designed to encourage students to obtain higher education abroad. The U.S. Federal Pell Grant program, Ireland’s tax relief on tuition and fees incurred at home or abroad, and the higher education grant and loan programs of Andorra, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Liechtenstein are examples of programs that provide funding for study abroad but are excluded because of this criterion. Consideration of the implications of this criterion illustrates the complexities of identifying the appropriate inclusion criteria. Excluding the U.S. Federal Pell Grant seems appropriate because the vast majority of recipients use the funding to study in the home nation and because the U.S. has other programs that are explicitly designed to encourage study in a foreign nation. Yet, this criterion also excludes programs in small nations with less well developed higher education systems (e.g., Marshall Islands) that may be intended to encourage enrollment in foreign nations but for political, administrative, or other reasons may not explicitly emphasize this focus. Nonetheless, examining the latter hypothesis is beyond the scope of the current study.
We exclude programs like the Erasmus Mundus scholarships of the European Union and Japan’s Monbukagakusho scholarship that focus only on attracting students from other nations to domestic higher education institutions. The goals of attracting scholarships vary, as some nations may use programs to attract talent or internationalize their higher education institutions and others seek to “gain influence and shape international political behavior” (Atkinson, 2010, p. 2). Regardless, excluding scholarships that only attract foreign students is consistent with our interest in international scholarship programs that promote human capital of the home population through foreign education.
Thus, our analyses focus on producing a typology that describes a specific group within a larger population of what others might define to be international scholarship programs. To aid future researchers who seek to focus on a different population, Table 1 summarizes the criteria that define the population of programs that we use to address the research questions.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study of International Scholarship Programs
Data Collection and Analysis
We used Microsoft Excel to organize data about the population of programs. We recorded the name and corresponding website of each program and coded information about each program based on guidelines that the research team developed and refined through the data collection process. 2 To ensure the consistency and accuracy of information coded by each team member, we created (and revised as necessary) a coding manual.
We engaged in several quality assurance steps. The team reviewed the data set together to confirm that each program met the inclusion criteria. We also verified the consistency of coding, paying particular attention to national and regional variations in the use of particular terms (e.g., “graduate education”). We then asked experts on international higher education in each region of the world to review lists of included programs. We used feedback from these experts to reconsider the criteria defining the population of interest and add programs not identified through the procedures outlined above.
To address the first research question, we used descriptive analyses to assess the prevalence of various programmatic characteristics. The selected characteristics are expected to influence the types of human capital developed through an international scholarship program (Perna et al., 2013) and measure whether the program funds degree completion or non-credential exchange; targets undergraduate or graduate study; is limited to particular major fields; and is limited to particular universities or countries. To capture the extent to which the program tries to minimize “brain drain,” maximize the benefits to the home nation, and minimize public bads (Knight, 2006; Marginson, 2007), we also consider whether the program imposes an obligation on recipients to return to the home nation upon program completion. The analyses also consider the characteristics of participants, including whether the program targets particular groups (women, indigenous people, people from rural areas, teachers, civil servants). We do not include a measure of “access” because eligibility criteria are varied and inconsistently reported; reported criteria include not only many measures of academic achievement but also indicators of educational attainment, citizenship, age, English-language proficiency, medical clearance, field of occupation, prior work experience, prior exposure to foreign nations, and more.
To address the second research question, we consider differences in the availability of programs based on indicators of the national economic, political, and regional context. 3 To measure a nation’s current stage of economic development, we use the Global Competitiveness Index (described in the literature review) developed by the World Economic Forum (Schwab, 2013). 4 To assess potential differences across nations in the extent to which a program may be designed to promote democracy and nation building, we use Freedom House’s (n.d.) Freedom in the World Index. 5 Produced annually since 1972, the index is designed to measure political and civil rights and includes indicators of the freedom of residents to participate in the political process, vote in legitimate elections, express beliefs and opinions, assemble and associate, and enjoy other social and economic freedoms. We also examine variations in program characteristics based on region (Knight, 2006). Regionalization is reflected in the development of regional-based trade groups (e.g., North American Free Trade Association, European Union) as well as regional-based mobility programs (e.g., University Mobility Program of Asia Pacific, Erasmus Programme; Knight, 2006).
To address the third research question, we use cross-tabulations to compare the programmatic and contextual characteristics of Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs. We include only Fulbright programs that are jointly funded by the U.S. and home nation’s governments. Nearly half of the programs identified in our data collection are Fulbright (84 out of 183 programs).
To develop a typology of programs (the fourth research question), we employed cluster analysis. The cluster analysis used three programmatic characteristics (level of study, program intensity, and Fulbright status) and two measures of national context (stage of economic competitiveness and political freedom). To calculate matching coefficients, we used binary versions of the five included characteristics, defining study level as postbaccalaureate (yes/no), program intensity as degree not exchange, Fulbright (yes/no), economic competitiveness as innovation driven or transitioning to innovation driven (yes/no), and political freedom as politically free (yes/no). After listwise deletion, the analytic sample for the cluster analysis included 159 cases.
We used hierarchical agglomerative clustering with matching coefficients, the recommended cluster analytical technique for data sets with categorical variables and a limited number of cases (Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011; Mooi & Sarstedt, 2001). Using Stata statistical software, we found that the average linkages option for estimating the similarity between observations produced the most distinctive clustering solutions (Stata Corp., 2013). The Calinski–Harabasz and the Duda–Hart cluster stopping rules pointed to the four-group solution as the most distinctive clustering solution. We used the resulting four-category variable to identify four types of government-sponsored international scholarship programs. We excluded other program characteristics (priority field, expenses covered, destination restriction, return obligation, demographic target) from the cluster analysis because of high amounts of missing data and limitations on the permitted number of clustering variables with a small number of cases (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2001), but used these additional programmatic characteristics to improve understanding of the four emergent program types.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, as described above, we examined a bounded set of international scholarship programs. Many nongovernment and governmental programs beyond those in our data set are available to encourage foreign education. Second, our findings may overrepresent programs in nations where information is documented in English (the first language of half the team members). Although we used Google Translate to review information on non-English sites, this approach may have generated incomplete or misleading information. Third, we rely on information that is publicly available. This approach assumes that nations (including non–politically free nations) use websites to publicize program information and fully and fairly implement the programs that are advertised. Fourth, the analyses focus on characteristics that were consistently defined and measured. Although we attempted to collect data on many other characteristics, information about programs on public websites varies dramatically. 6 Because of the unevenness in data reporting, we were limited to measuring program characteristics as dichotomous (yes/no) responses, an approach that obscures underlying complexities. Finally, our analyses describe only programs that were in place at the time of our data collection. We identified, but did not include, discontinued programs for which data were available. 7 We also did not consider the ways that program characteristics may have changed over time; 8 attention to changes over time is beyond the scope of this study.
Findings
Using the procedures outlined above, we identified 183 international scholarship programs in the 196 nations. Of the 196 nations, 52% have at least one program; 25% have one program, 18% have two programs, and 9% have more than two programs.
Characteristics of International Scholarship Programs
The majority of government-sponsored international scholarship programs identified in our study target the graduate or postgraduate level (76%) rather than the undergraduate level, and encourage degree attainment (78%) rather than exchange. Table 2 shows that nearly all (85%) limit permissible destination countries. Very few programs (15%) permit recipients to study any academic specialty area. More than a third (38%) cover all expenses and more than half (59%) require the recipient to return to the home nation after program completion.
Characteristics of Government-Sponsored International Scholarship Programs
Note. Economic development is measured using the Global Competitiveness Index created by the World Economic Forum. Political Freedom draws on the Freedom House’s classification of nations.
Characteristics of Nations Sponsoring an International Scholarship Program
International scholarship programs are sponsored by nations in all stages of economic development and political freedom and by nations in all regions in the world. Table 2 shows that the availability of programs varies based on stage of economic competitiveness, with nearly half (45%) of the programs sponsored by nations with an innovation-driven economy. Two-thirds (68%) of programs are sponsored by politically free nations; only one-tenth (12%) are sponsored by nonfree nations. A plurality (n = 88) of programs are sponsored by European nations.
Fulbright Versus Non-Fulbright Programs
Table 2 shows both similarities and differences in the characteristics of Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs. Both tend to encourage degree attainment (80% of Fulbright and 77% of non-Fulbright programs). But support for undergraduate study is more common among non-Fulbright than Fulbright programs (29% vs. 6%). Both Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs restrict the destination country, although this restriction is more common for Fulbright than non-Fulbright programs (100% vs. 72%). 9
Although not consistently reported, a review of available data suggests that Fulbright programs tend to emphasize the promotion of cultural understanding across nations, whereas non-Fulbright programs tend to stress the development of human resources and mobility more generally. This conclusion is supported by differences between Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs in the major fields that are emphasized. A considerably higher share of non-Fulbright programs (69%) than Fulbright programs (18%) specify priority areas for foreign education. Several non-Fulbright programs have a clear emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (6 of 68 programs) or specify STEM fields along with other specialty areas (15 of 68 programs). Whereas three Fulbright programs include STEM fields on a list of permissible study areas, more common (6 Fulbright programs) is attention to areas with a cultural or diplomatic orientation (e.g., human rights, global issues, policy studies).
Given that U.S. immigration law requires that citizens of other nations who receive Fulbright and other governmental scholarships to study in the United States return to their home nation for 2 years after program completion, it is not surprising that virtually all Fulbright programs require recipients to return to the home nation after program completion (99%). The single exception is the Fulbright program for U.S. citizens, which does not impose such obligation. By comparison, only 25% of non-Fulbright programs report a return obligation. The economic and political characteristics of nations offering Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs are not statistically or substantively different.
Characteristics of Four Program Types
Four types of government-sponsored student mobility programs emerged from the cluster analysis. Table 3 shows these types vary in terms of characteristics of the program and the sponsoring nation. The largest group is Type 3 (94 of 159 programs). Type 3, labeled “Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations,” tends to promote attainment of degrees rather than exchange (94%) and study at the postbaccalaureate rather than undergraduate level (94%). Half (49%) of these programs are Fulbright; all are sponsored by economically innovation-driven (100%) nations and nearly all by politically free (90%) nations. Examples of programs in this type are the master’s scholarships to the College of Europe and doctoral fellowships to the European University Institute, as well as Chile’s Becas program, Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Scholarship Program, Estonia’s Kristjan Jaak Scholarship Programme, and the Republic of Korea’s GKS study abroad scholarship program.
Characteristics of Different Program Types
Note. Economic development is measured using the Global Competitiveness Index created by the World Economic Forum. Political Freedom draws on the Freedom House’s classification of nations.
In contrast to Type 3, the second largest group, Type 2 (n = 33), includes programs that are sponsored by nations with a non-innovation-driven economy (100%), the majority of which are not politically free (70%). Labeled “Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations,” Type 2 programs are almost exclusively Fulbright (94%), 10 compared with 49% of Type 3 programs. Despite these clear differences with the programs in Type 3, programs in Types 2 and 3 both tend to promote study at the graduate or postgraduate level (97% and 94%, respectively) and degree attainment rather than exchange (79% of Type 2 and 94% of Type 3). Compared with other types, a higher share of Type 2 programs restrict the study destination (94%) and have return obligations (100%). The Fulbright programs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mexico, Pakistan, and Rwanda are examples of Type 2 programs.
Like Type 2 programs, Type 1 programs (n = 19) also tend to be sponsored by nations with non-innovation-driven economies (79%) and that are not politically free (100%). Labeled “Development of Basic Skills,” Type 1 programs also tend to support degree attainment rather than exchange (100%). But 68% of Type 1 programs support undergraduate rather than postbaccalaureate studies compared with virtually no Type 2 (3%) and Type 3 (6%) programs. Type 1 programs tend to specify priority areas (74%) and cover all expenses (58%). Examples include Albania’s Excellence Fund, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah Scholarship, and Turkey’s Government Scholarship.
Labeled “Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad,” nearly all (92%) Type 4 programs (n = 13) support educational exchange rather than degree attainment; a majority encourages study at the undergraduate level (69%). Consistent with its emphasis on exchange rather than degree attainment, only 54% of Type 4 programs restrict the destination country or institution compared with 79% of Type 1, 94% of Type 2, and 89% of Type 3 programs. Only 23% of Type 4 programs specify academic priority areas and only 8% of programs cover all study expenses. Like programs in Type 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”), Type 4 programs (“Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad”) tend to be sponsored by nations with innovation-driven economies (85%) and that are politically free (100%). Type 4 includes Brazil’s Scientific Mobility program, Denmark’s Udlandsstipendieordningen program, Germany’s DAAD Scholarship, and the U.S. Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship.
Conclusion
This study describes the availability and characteristics of international scholarship programs that are sponsored by federal and national governments worldwide and offers a framework for understanding the central characteristics and effects of these programs. The framework produced in this analysis may be used by policymakers and researchers to facilitate cross-national comparisons of policy design, implementation, and outcomes.
As suggested by prior research (Edelstein & Douglas, 2012; Knight, 2006; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005; Varghese, 2008), international student mobility programs have varying characteristics. The typology produced in this analysis brings order to this variation by identifying four distinct patterns. Types 2 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”) and 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”) are limited to post-baccalaureate study, whereas two-thirds of Type 1 (“Development of Basic Skills”) and Type 4 (“Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad”) programs support undergraduate study. Most Type 1 and 3 programs specify academic priority areas (74% and 55%), compared with a minority of Type 2 and Type 4 programs (18% and 23%). All Type 2 programs (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”) have a return obligation – a mechanism to minimize the “public bad” of brain drain, compared with about half of Type 1 (“Development of Basic Skills”) and Type 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”) programs and only a third of Type 4 programs (“Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad”).
Although a plurality of programs is sponsored by nations located in Europe, with innovation-driven economies, and that are politically free, programs are sponsored by nations across the globe with varying economic and political status. Whereas programs in Types 1 (“Development of Basic Skills”) and 2 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”) tend to be offered in nations with developing economies and that are not politically free, programs in Types 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”) and 4 (“Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad”) tend to be sponsored by governments in nations with innovation-driven economies and that are politically free. These patterns illustrate the importance of considering the regional and national context when examining the availability, characteristics, and effects of programs.
Variations in program characteristics across different national contexts imply different views about the appropriate allocation of government resources and have implications for the nature of human capital, as well as the mix of private, national public, and global public goods, developed through the programs (Kim, 1998; Marginson, 2007; McMahon, 2009). Future research should use the program types that emerged from this study to examine the range of private and public benefits generated by these different configurations in light of the economic and political contexts of the sponsoring nations. Future research should also consider the benefits that accrue to nations that sponsor programs with varying goals. Our review of the purposes of programs that are sponsored by nations with two or more programs (27% of the 196 nations in this study) suggests that some programs are targeted toward promoting human capital development while others seek to promote cultural exchange and international relations. Illustrating these varying purposes, the government of Estonia funds three programs: 1) the Kristjan Jaak Scholarship Program, which aims at training the next generation of university professors and researchers abroad, 2) the Fulbright program, which sends Estonians to study in the United States to promote mutual understanding between the two nations, and 3) a program that supports doctoral studies at the European University Institute, a graduate institution funded by 20 European states that seeks to promote cultural exchange among European nations.
Efforts to identify more nuanced cross-national understandings of program similarities and differences depend on the availability of better data. The analyses in this study are limited by the absence of common or shared standards for publicly reporting program data. Even for the narrow set of characteristics reported in this study, we encountered missing data and were limited to dichotomous indicators of whether or not a program has a particular characteristic. Obtaining consistent and reliable data across programs about other dimensions, including dimensions for which we found the majority of programs to be missing data (e.g., the level of government funding, the numbers of applicants and recipients, and program outcomes), will facilitate the production of meaningful comparative analyses of program design, implementation, and effectiveness.
The four program types identified in this study provide a mechanism for taking into account variation in such key program characteristics as study level and program intensity, as well as the economic and political context of the sponsoring nation. As such, this study offers a useful foundation for developing cross-national understandings of the most appropriate design and implementation of international scholarship programs and assessments of the ways that these programs achieve program goals, produce benefits for individual participants, and advance economic competitiveness, political freedom, and other national and global public goods. Future research should also consider the inclusion and exclusion criteria (as summarized in Table 1) used in this study and identify the applicability of the program types identified in this article for other populations of programs.