Content uploaded by Liviu Matei
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Liviu Matei on Apr 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
National Strategies and Practices
in Internationalisation of Higher
Education: Lessons from a Cross-Country
Comparison
Liviu Matei and Julia Iwinska
Keywords National internationalization strategy Higher education system
Comparative higher education International student recruitment
1 Introduction
Internationalisation is not a new or overlooked phenomenon in higher education.
For over two decades by now it has attracted increasing attention both in the policy
arena, at institutional, national, or international level, as well as in the scholarly
literature on higher education policy (Knight 1999; Kehm 2003; Altbach and
Knight 2007; Kehm and Teichler 2007; Teichler 2012). Internationalisation of
higher education is a global phenomenon affecting all countries of the world. There
are considerable differences, however, across countries in what drives the process,
how important it is deemed, how it is understood and managed, or what the
expected outcomes are. The understanding of the concept of internationalisation
remains diverse also among the various higher education stakeholders. Many view
it as equivalent to international student mobility. Others look beyond student
mobility and mobility programmes (like the Erasmus programme in Europe) and
see the process as much more complex, which includes activities such as building
international communication networks in higher education, building and expansion
of international cooperation networks (for example in research), internationalisation
of curricula, establishing international joint degree programs, staff mobility, and,
more recently, opening branch campuses abroad, or ‘virtual mobility’. The ratio-
nales behind various institutional-level efforts, or broader system-level approaches
to internationalisation can also differ. National policy makers in different countries
L. Matei (&)J. Iwinska
Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: mateil@ceu.hu
J. Iwinska
e-mail: iwinskaj@ceu.hu
©The Author(s) 2015
A. Curaj et al. (eds.), Higher Education Reforms in Romania,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08054-3_11
205
can be selectively motivated by one or a combination of reasons, usually including:
national competitiveness and economic development, geopolitical aspects, or
demographic concerns. Institutional leaders, on the other hand, might be more
interested in the opportunities of bringing new talent from abroad to their institu-
tions, joining international research networks or in generating additional income for
their institutions.
One important question that could be asked in this context is whether the
existence of a national strategy for internationalisation has a positive impact or
whether such a strategy is even at all necessary? Some may argue that it could be
more efficient if it was left to the higher education institutions (HEIs) themselves to
decide what to do. It appears, however, that the currently favoured model for
advancing internationalisation in Europe, which is also promoted by the European
Commission, calls for more centralised and comprehensive strategic approaches,
which should address both broader national priorities and institutional interests.
(European Commission 2013; Kehm and Teichler 2007). As suggested by the
responses from 175 higher education institutions across 38 countries to a recent
survey on internationalisation conducted by the European University Association
(EUA), having an EU-level internationalisation strategy could further stimulate
development of national strategies, which in turn would have positive effects on the
institutional efforts in this area, and would attract the much needed public attention
to the topic in general (EUA 2013). Having a well-defined and coherent strategy on
the national level is also mentioned as an important factor for advancing interna-
tionalisation efforts in a study published by the British Council (2011). Other than
simply having an internationalisation strategy at national level, it has also been
argued that in order for such strategy to be effective it should be broad in its scope
and closely connected with other national priority areas including economic
development, science and technology, migration and trade (ibid).
Taking note of the diversity of internationalisation approaches that exist in
Europe at present, the article seeks to analyse and compare system level settings in
four countries. Specifically, it looks at Poland, Germany, Estonia and Romania,
which appear to be at different stages with regard to their overall internationalisa-
tion efforts and strategy development. The article aims not only to compare formal
internationalisation strategies, where they exist, but also to analyse alternative
approaches and mechanisms at work where a government-level, or national strategy
is missing. Furthermore, the article outlines and compares key aspects of strategies
or strategic approaches, such as: the actors involved in and driving the interna-
tionalisation process, the key elements of the strategies, the goals and targets set
nationally, the support structures and resources.
The research is based primarily on the analysis of national policy documents,
such as internationalisation strategies, national strategies for higher education or
national migration strategies, as well as on research articles on higher education
policies and on internationalisation. We note that at this stage not much data is
available on the impact assessment of national-level internationalisation strategies.
In addition to simply presenting findings from the four-country comparison, the
article also raises broader questions regarding the role a national strategy for
206 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
internationalisation of higher education can or should play, what aspects and
stakeholders such a strategy might involve, as well as what alternative approaches
can be used instead of a formal national strategy. The study’s conclusions raise
questions and provides some preliminary rather than final answers about what
might work better in terms of internationalisation strategies and practices for a
country like Romania.
In this way, the article aims primarily to contribute to the ongoing debate on
higher education in Romania, to the process of development of a national strategy
for higher education in this country (currently missing), and in particular to the
debate about a national internationalisation strategy for higher education.
2 The European Context
The European Commission (EC), in its recent Communication on “European higher
education in the world”(EC 2013), reiterates once again the belief in the impor-
tance of internationalisation for Europe, and attempts to put the topic firmly on the
agenda for the coming years. The document itself represents a blue-print for a broad
internationalisation strategy, which identifies priority areas and strategic directions
for the sector at EU/European level. Moreover, this strategy is expected to be
supported by funds secured under the EU multiannual financial framework
2014–20, in particular by part of the over EUR 14 billion that will be allocated to
the ERASMUS+ programme. By presenting an internationalisation strategy for
European higher education, the Commission not only calls the universities “to think
global”but it also emphasises the importance of having such strategies on the
national system level. Following on previous documents from the European Union
institutions, in particular on the series of communications on the modernisation of
higher education (EC 2003,2006,2011), the 2013 Communication is meant as a
guiding tool for the Member States to help them develop their own customised
approaches to internationalisation, and the Commission assures of its readiness to
assist in that process (EC 2013).
In Europe, the number of countries that have comprehensive internationalisation
strategies for higher education does not seem too high at present. There are several
countries, however, like Germany, which have comprehensive, almost “all-
encompassing”formal strategies in place, and are well on the way or in the process
of implementing them on various levels. Interestingly, there are also countries that
have well-articulated internationalisation strategies, like Estonia, but they seem to
be focused on particular aspects of internationalisation, rather than adopting a
comprehensive approach. Estonia, to continue with one of our case studies, focuses
on international student recruitment, and more specifically recruitment of master
and doctoral students. There are other countries that promote targeted international
student recruitment strategies on the national level as their model of an interna-
tionalisation strategy for higher education. For more information on this topic and
for more examples, one could refer to a study by the Netherlands Organisation for
National Strategies and Practices ... 207
International Cooperation’s (Nuffic) on national government policies in the area of
international student recruitment and student mobility covering 11 countries
including the Netherlands, UK, Germany, Switzerland and France from Europe.
1
The target audience, as stated in the report, was the Dutch policy makers and
recruiters at national and institutional levels, who can use the collected data exactly
in the process of development of international student recruitment strategies and
policies (Becker and Kolster 2012).
Other countries in Europe, including some of the “new”EU Member States, are
in less advanced stages of development of any kind of national strategies in higher
education, including regarding internationalisation. Romania, for example, is only
starting the process to develop a comprehensive national strategy for higher edu-
cation, which will eventually incorporate a separate sub-strategy for international-
isation. It is our understanding, based on private reports, that the process is currently
at the stage of technical consultations with international experts. We have not been
able to access any documents about this process. Slovakia also does not have a
strategy in place at present but, as we have learnt informally from a local higher
education expert, it is also planning to develop one in the near future. On the other
hand, in Poland, bottom-up approaches driven by the Rectors’Conference in
cooperation with a non-governmental organisation and local authorities are more
visible than government-level activities (Siwinska 2009).
To conclude this section, the recommendation for more comprehensive, national
strategies for internationalisation, as encouraged by the Commission, certainly
invites a closer examination of the existing system-level approaches in Europe, how
they are constructed (when they exist), and also how they work in practice. The
present study is a non-exhaustive attempt at providing preliminary information for
such an examination.
3 What Is a Good Internationalisation Strategy in Europe?
The European Commission’s view on what a good national strategy for interna-
tionalisation of higher education can be inferred from the Communication men-
tioned above (EC 2013) and preceding documents. The EC endorses a cross-sector
approach, indicating that an internationalisation strategy for higher education
should be coordinated with and support the relevant national polices for external
cooperation, international development, migration, trade, employment, regional
development and research and innovation. Other authoritative actors in interna-
tionalisation elaborate along the same lines, adding, for example, that a well-
developed internationalisation strategy is typically led by the relevant ministry and
if possible captures broader policy goals (British Council 2011). Among the various
1
Other countries analysed in the study were: the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore,
Malaysia and China. .
208 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
recommendations in this area put forward by authoritative sources, the focus on the
coordination with the other policy areas such as migration, trade and economic
development, research, science, and technology are highlighted as particularly
relevant and important for national higher education internationalisation strategies
in Europe. In our own study, it appears that only one country, Germany, lives up to
these expectations, while another one, Estonia, appears to aim at reaching similarly
ambitious goals by a more selective, strategic approach. The other two countries,
Poland and Romania, appear to be quite far, or very far, respectively, from meeting
such high standards.
The European Commission further states that a national internationalisation
strategy should be developed individually and customised based on each country’s
unique set of circumstances rather than in the “one-size-fits-all”spirit (EC 2013).
However, in this Communication about European higher education in the world, the
Commission also provides quite detailed guidelines for the Member States
regarding which common key areas to include when developing individual
national internationalisation approaches for higher education. This could eventually
help harmonise efforts across Europe. The three pillars that are considered key for
internationalisation strategies in Europe, but should still be customised within
national frameworks, are:
•international student and staff mobility;
•the internationalisation and improvement of curricula and digital learning;
•and strategic cooperation, partnerships and capacity building.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) analy-
ses national approaches to internationalisation of higher education from a different
angle. In its 2004 report “Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Chal-
lenges”, four types of approaches are identified based on the rationales and moti-
vations/needs driving different national strategies (OECD 2004, see Table 1). For
each approach, a set of internationalisation tools can be identified. For example,
efforts focusing on fee-paying international student recruitment point to the “rev-
enue-generating approach”, according to this classification. The introduction of
government-funded scholarships for targeted fields of study represents most likely
an interest in the skilled migration approach. The respective approaches are not
mutually exclusive and typically can complement each other within one broader
strategy, depending on the country’s circumstances and priorities. The OECD
Table 1 Types of approaches to cross-border post-secondary education (OECD 2004)
I. The mutual understanding approach encompasses political, cultural, academic and
development aid goals
II. The skilled migration approach
III. The revenue-generating approach
IV. The capacity building approach encourages the use of foreign post-secondary education,
however delivered, as a quick way to build an emerging country’s capacity.
Source OECD. 2004. Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges
National Strategies and Practices ... 209
taxonomy is a simple and useful heuristic tool in analysing and understating various
approaches to internationalisation as well as their links to other policy areas. It also
indicates that combining several ways of looking at internationalisation strategies
and their specific elements could possibly be a helpful guideline for the policy
makers in Europe, including in Romania.
4 Cross-Country Comparison
The four countries included in the analysis, Poland, Estonia, Germany and
Romania, represent different approaches and level of advancement in their inter-
nationalisation efforts on the system level. They are also different in the size of their
higher education populations (student and staff). To give an indication regarding the
sizes of the respective national higher education systems, Estonia had slightly less
than 100,000 students in 2012, Poland had slightly less than 2 million, Germany
had slightly more than 2 million, while Romania went below 1 million (it exceeded
this number a few years ago, then student enrolment went down).
A series of tables organized thematically will be used below to summarize and
help interpret the differences. The differences are indeed important and, quite
remarkably, they become easily detectable at a simple visual inspection of the
tables, even before detailing the substance of the situation in each country. The
spread of choices and practices in different countries is quite significant as well,
which is helpful for the policy reflection in countries like Romania, which has the
chance to build a new approach basically from scratch.
4.1 Presence (or Lack) of a National Internationalisation
Strategy. Key Elements of National Internationalisation
Strategies or Key Practices/Activities
A synopsis regarding the existence (or lack of) of national strategies and
approaches, and the key documents in which these strategies and approaches are
elaborated is presented in Table 2, below, followed by a detailed discussion.
Table 3provides a summary of the key elements of either strategies or practices
with regard to internationalisation in the countries analysed. Furthermore, Table 3
succinctly illustrates the main targets we have been able to identify in the national
formal strategies or de facto national approaches to internationalisation.
When looking for the presence of a well-developed strategy on the national
level, only Germany and Estonia satisfy this condition in our group of countries.
Germany has a long history of internationalisation and international academic
cooperation, and is one of the top destinations worldwide for international students;
in 2011, 6 % of the total number of international students came to study in Germany
210 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
(OECD 2013). Moreover, a recent research commissioned by the British Council
ranked Germany as number one among 11 countries for its overall internationali-
sation-friendly national policy environment, taking into consideration factors such
as openness, quality assurance, degree recognition, as well as access and equity
(British Council 2011).
It is not a surprise for Germany to be the leader among the countries compared
here since it is also one of the leaders globally. The prominent German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD) has been active and well-funded since the 1950s in
promoting international academic cooperation, and in particular exchange of stu-
dents and scholars. Germany has also had various internationalisation strategies
already since the 1990s (see the Germany chapter by N. Rohde in Ferencz and
Wächter 2012). The most recently developed national-level key strategic docu-
ments supporting internationalisation are: a joint Strategy of the Federal and
Länder Ministers of Science for the Internationalisation of the Higher Edu-
cation Institutions in Germany (2013), the DAAD 2020 Strategy (2013a,b), and
Strengthening Germany’s Role in the Global Knowledge Society. Strategy of
the Federal Government for the Internationalization of Science and Research
(2008).
Table 2 System-level internationalisation strategies and approaches; main documents in which
they are elaborated
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Lack of unified
formal strategy at
system level
Bottom-up
approaches
coordinated by
Rectors’
Conference in
cooperation with a
non-governmental
agency and, in
some cases, local
authorities
Poland’s Migration
Policy (2012)-
partially deals with
status of
international
students,
researchers, etc
Formal, well-
articulated strategy,
elaborated in a series
of recent documents
Internationalization
Strategy 2006–2015;
Agreement on
Good Practice in
Internationalization
of Estonia’s HEIs
(Rectors’
Conference, Ministry
of Education &
Research,
Archimedes
Foundation);
Other documents:
Estonian HE
Strategy 2006–2015
Estonian Research,
Development and
Innovation Strategy
2007–2013
Numerous strategies
in place since 1990s,
well-articulated and
coordinated, also
across sectors and
levels, based on and
presented in formal
documents
Latest:
DAAD Strategy
2020 (2013);
Strategy of the
Federal and Länder
Ministers of Science
for the
Internationalisation
of the Higher
Education
Institutions in
Germany (2013);
Strategy of the
Federal Government
for the
Internationalization
of Science and
Research (2008)
Lack of unified
formal strategy at
system level;
scattered reference in
various documents.
Existing practices
driven mainly by
European/Bologna
processes and
bilateral agreements.
No nationally-driven
approaches, except
towards Moldova
National Strategies and Practices ... 211
Table 3 Synopsis of key elements of national internationalisation strategies, or key practices/
activities
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Key activities: Focus on attracting
MA and PhD-level
students; scholarships
for international MA
and PhD students
9fields of action
(second systematic
phase according to
Teichler 2007)
Participation
in bilateral
and
multilateral
agreements
Bottom-up, HEIs-
driven efforts to recruit
international students:
1. Strategic
internationalisation of
HEIs
2. Improving the legal
framework for
internationalisation
Special
scholarship
program for
students from
Moldova
Marketing campaign
“Study in Poland”(43
HEIs participating)
between 2005 and
2012: participation in
international fairs;
individual presentations
of Polish universities
abroad; joint web portal
Creation of a
supportive legal
environment;
3. Establishing a
culture of welcome
4. Establishing an
international campus
Internationalisation of
teaching: programs in
English.
5. Increasing
international mobility
of students
6. Enhancing
Germany’s
attractiveness as a
place to study
Study in Warsaw,
Study in Krakow
initiatives, in
cooperation with local
authorities.
Development of a
support system for
internationalisation.
7. Attracting excellent
(young) academics
from abroad
8. Expanding
international research
cooperation
9. Establishing
transnational courses
Development of
internationalisation
strategies on individual
HEI level
Other activities and
strategic provisions:
umbrella marketing
campaigns (“Study in
(continued)
212 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
Germany has a very well-elaborated, comprehensive strategy for international-
isation, coordinated across sectors and also across levels of policy making and
implementation, as illustrated in Table 3below (Germany’s column is always the
thickest in any of these tables!). The combined federal and state (Länder) strategy
identifies nine concrete fields of action supporting internationalisation with joint
policy goals for each field. The nine areas effectively combine priorities of all
stakeholders, from individual higher education institutions to the German states
(Länder), and up to the overarching national level. The fields of action range from
very concrete ones (such as “strategic internationalisation of the individual HEIs”),
to broader goals aiming at improvements of the legal structures to support inter-
nationalisation at the national and Länder levels, and to even broader national aims
such development of a “culture of welcome”. The DAAD’s strategic priorities until
2020 work well with the system level fields of action and cover three main areas,
such as merit-based scholarships; support for higher education institutions to help
them realise their internationalisation strategies; and expert advice in the area of
scientific and academic cooperation (DAAD 2013a,b).
Estonia is an interesting case as another country that actually does have a formal
strategy for internationalisation of higher education at the national level since 2006,
the Estonian Higher Education Internationalisation Strategy 2006–2015 (Study
in Estonia website). The strategy is complemented by The Agreement on Good
Table 3 (continued)
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Germany”;“Research
in Germany”)
new Immigration
Law since 2005
improvements in
recognition of foreign
degrees.
HEIs use specially
designed iPhone, and
iPad apps to attract
international students
Targeting foreign
students of Polish
origin (with
government
scholarships)
DAAD 2020 strategy:
Scholarships for the
best
Outward-looking
structures (helping
HEIs realize their
strategies) - Promote
expertise for scientific
and academic
cooperation
Ukraine designated as
a target country.
National Strategies and Practices ... 213
Practice in the Internationalisation of Estonia’s Higher Education Institutions,
which is a joint document signed by the Rectors’Conference, the Ministry of
Education and Research and the Archimedes Foundation in 2007, focusing spe-
cifically on the issue of quality in internationalisation of higher education. More-
over, similar to Germany, the country has developed additional strategic documents
such as the Estonian Higher Education Strategy also for the 2006–2015 period,
and the Estonian Research Development and Innovation Strategy for
2007–2013.
The Estonian Higher Education Internationalisation Strategy clearly states
its objectives, which are to make the system more competitive within the region, to
make it more open by creating adequate legal and institutional tools, and to make
Estonian higher education more visible internationally. The document is divided
into three main strategic areas focusing on: (1) creating supportive legal frame-
works; (2) internationalisation of teaching; and (3) support system for interna-
tionalisation overall. In addition, the voluntary Agreement on Good Practice in
the Internationalisation of Estonia’s Higher Education Institutions signed by
rectors of public, private and professional institutions focuses on specific aspects
relevant to international students but also for international academic staff. The
Agreement touches upon many important subjects in the area of internationalisa-
tion, including the rights of international students, issues related to admissions, such
as language requirements, as well as responsibilities and duties of the higher
education institutions to ensure quality education for international students and also
a suitable environment for international academic staff. For example, the Agree-
ment specifies that: “(…) participating higher education institutions shall ensure
that academic staff involved in the curricula and programmes taught in foreign
languages have the necessary linguistic competence in those languages”. Or that a
“participating higher education institution shall support the adaptation of its inter-
national researchers and teaching staff to life in Estonia by facilitating their close
interaction with its academic and support staff.”(Agreement on Good Practice in
the Internationalisation of Estonia’s Higher Education Institutions). Some of the
changes on the system level, as projected in the strategy, were driven by higher
education institutions joining their forces. For example, universities were able to
influence changes in the legislative environment, and at present graduating students
are allowed to stay in Estonia for 6 months after finishing their studies to work,
while previously they had to leave the country right away (ICEF Monitor 2013).
The overall internationalisation efforts in Estonia seem well-coordinated among
different stakeholders (see Table 5, below), such as the government actors, and
higher education institutions, with the help of the Archimedes Foundation, a non-
governmental organization set up expressly to help implement government strate-
gies and projects in national and international education and research. The Estonian
approach is also a strategic one. For example, Estonia identified priority countries
(top markets) for its internationalisation efforts and is targeting mostly: Finland,
Russia, Latvia, Turkey, and China. The head of Archimedes Communications
claims that it was not the just the Internationalisation Strategy but in fact the
214 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
branding and marketing campaign “Study in Estonia”launched in 2008 that really
made a difference. (ICEF Monitor 2013).
Despite an OECD recommendation in 2007 or the recent EC recommendations,
the higher education system in Poland operates still without a national strategy for
internationalisation or a clearly formulated national level approach. Some provi-
sions that apply to international students are included in policy documents about
international migration (Poland’s Migration Policy 2012). The absence of a national
internationalisation strategy, however, does not mean that internationalisation is not
important for individual higher education institutions in Poland (as indicated in
Table 3, above). On the contrary, universities in collaboration with a non-govern-
mental foundation (Perspektywy Foundation) and, in a very few cases, with local
authorities, seem to be the main (and possibly only) driving forces behind the
existing internationalisation efforts. Interestingly, the focus of their efforts is also on
the international student recruitment (evoking a revenue-generating approach),
which is supported by a “Study in Poland”initiative and marketing campaign
coordinated by the Perspektywy Foundation. There are 43 universities participating
in the “Study in Poland”initiative out of the over 450 institutions in total,
including over 100 public higher education institutions. Recently presented
achievements of the campaign for years 2005–2012 included participation in 55
international educational fairs, presence in 17 countries worldwide, and develop-
ment of a joint web portal as well as newly added social media and other new IT
tools such as applications for mobile phones to attract international students (Si-
winski presentation at conference in Warsaw “Studenci zagraniczni 2013”on 17–18
January 2013). In addition, smaller branding and marketing initiatives of similar
kind have emerged on regional levels and out of cooperation of regional govern-
ments with higher education institutions. For example, collaborative efforts of
Cracow-based universities led to establishment of a “Study in Krakow”campaign
(http://www.study-krakow.com/). Similar activities can be found in Lublin, which
promotes itself with “Study in Lublin”campaign (http://study.lublin.eu/en/). Not
surprisingly, there is also a “Study in Warsaw”campaign and apparently more are
being developed in other cities.
The internationalisation approach and activities are fundamentally bottom-up in
Poland. Which does not mean that they do not include strategic elements. For
example, Ukraine has been designated as a priority target country and special local
recruitment offices have been set up across Ukraine as part of the “Study in Poland”
program (www.studyinpoland.pl).
Romania does not have a national internationalisation strategy, or any set of
coordinated practices, neither top-down nor bottom up (Romania’s columns in
Tables 2and 3are almost empty!). This does not mean that internationalisation
activities are completely missing. Where they exist, they are to a large extent a
result of Romania’s participation in bilateral or international agreements and pro-
grammes for student and staff mobility, such as the Erasmus or CEEPUS pro-
grammes. Romania also participates in European collaborative research
programmes that also facilitate international mobility to some extent. In addition,
Romania has a special program, run jointly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
National Strategies and Practices ... 215
Ministry of Education to support incoming students from neighbouring Moldova,
motivated by cultural, economic, national and geopolitics rationales. Students from
Moldova, who speak the same language, in fact represent half of the total “inter-
national”students in Romania. We have also noted a few individual efforts by
individual universities to attract international fee paying students. They appear to
have only very limited success.
We have seen in this section that both Germany and Estonia have strategies at
national level for higher education as a whole, and then a separate, but coordinated
strategy for internationalisation. Moreover, both countries have formal strategies at
national level for research, with which the overall higher education strategy and
internationalisation strategy are also coordinated. Even more, all these strategies
(higher education, research, and internationalisation) are coordinated with the
strategies for other sectors. Germany is actually a model-case, illustrating almost
perfectly the ideal model projected by the EC and others, discussed in the first part
of the article. Estonia is not far from this model either. It choices are more strategic
(or focused, as mentioned earlier), and its strategic planning is more recent. It is also
a much smaller population and HE system in comparison to Germany, which might
partially explain the more focused strategic approach. Poland and Romania have
none of these: neither internationalisation strategy, nor higher education or research
strategy, which makes any comment about “coordination”intra-sectoral, or cross-
sectoral, simply superfluous.
This situation might invite the question whether an internationalisation strategy
for higher education, which is our subject, is at all possible without a more complex
set strategic policy and planning process which would include higher education as a
whole, research, and other areas and sectors (such migration, economic develop-
ment, demographic policies) or, more generally, a sound and comprehensive stra-
tegic policy planning process at national level. Our study does not provide sufficient
evidence to answer the question, but it does indicate that it is an important question
to consider.
Another informative dimension of comparison among the four countries proves
to be that of strategic targets in internationalisation of higher education, whether
formal or informal. Findings from the comparison on this dimension contribute to
further refining the conclusions about the four countries, in fact contribute to
drawing individual country profiles with regard to internationalisation. Moreover,
this comparison is informative in assessing both the ambitions and the potential for
success in the four countries, although it does not provide a clear-cut answer to the
question regarding “what works best”. As illustrated in Table 4(below), there are
quite clear targets in Germany, Estonia, and Poland. Romania, on the other side,
appears to place itself again in a special territory, with no targets of any kind, at
least not for the time being.
It is surprising in a way that Poland is in the category “with targets”, since it does
not have a formal national tragedy for internationalisation. The target of increasing
the number of foreign students in Poland to 100,000 or 5 % of the total student
population by 2020 is an informal one, set by HEIs coordinating their interna-
tionalisation efforts, as explained above. What is remarkable in the case of Poland is
216 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
that the bottom-up, non-government driven mobilisation in internationalisation is
quite significant, and although in a way “spontaneous”, it is not disorganized or
chaotic: these activities benefit from strategic choices made by participating insti-
tutions, and are also oriented by clear, although informal targets. We present this
characteristic as an important “statement of facts”. The question whether or not this
“model”is effective, whether it works, remains to be answered.
Estonia’s“targets”column appears remarkably precise and also “strategic”
(clear and well-reflected upon choices), following directly from the focused nature
of the overall internationalisation strategy. It is also quite ambitious, speaking for
example of the objective of having 3 % of permanent teaching staff positions
occupied by foreign professors by 2015, or reaching a threshold of 10 % foreigners
at doctoral and post-doctoral level.
As expected, Germany has an elaborated set of targets, some of which are
already apparent in Tables 2and 3above. We have chosen not to list all of them
(which make the German column artificially thin this time, a very detailed pre-
sentation of targets in the area of student mobility is provided in the Ferencz and
Wächter 2012, in the chapter dedicated to Germany), but rather illustrate the scope
of German ambitions in internationalisation with one example. The number of
foreign students is planned to rise to about 350,000 by 2020, an increase of about
40 % compared with 2011 (over 250,000 international students, see Table 6).
Table 4 Strategic targets in internationalisation: formal or informal
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Unofficial target:
100,000
incoming
foreign students
by 2020
Targets for 2015:
increasing number of
international students to
the level of 2000, mostly
on master and PhD level;
increasing the number of
Estonian students in
exchange programs to the
level of 2000;
3 % of permanent
teaching staff positions are
occupied by foreign
professors;
an opportunity for all
Estonian PhD students to
spend at least one semester
in a foreign university;
10 % of foreigners among
PhD students and post-
doctoral students in
Estonian universities
E.g.: at least
350,000
foreign
students by
2020
No strategy –no stated
targets, except those
resulting from
international commitments
(E.g. as part of Europe
2020 Strategy)
Or 5 % of total
student
population by
2020
National Strategies and Practices ... 217
4.2 Key Actors in Internationalisation Strategies
and Practices
We summarize in Table 5(below) the situation with regard to the key actors in the
four countries considered for the study. For the case of Germany and Estonia, as
already mentioned above, we see a strong and coordinated presence of government
actors. In Germany, the policy landscape is both very complex (both the federal
government and the Länder have important prerogatives in higher education), and it
also appears to be very mature and all coordinated. Special government agencies,
such as DAAD and the German Research Foundation are very important, in fact
they can be responsible in large part for “making a difference”. We also note the
active participation of the German Rectors’Conference. In terms of actors, the
German model appears to be largely “governmental”. We have not been able to
clarify the extent to which non-governmental actors play a role, but they certainly
exist (like the Humboldt Foundation). Most often, however, they appear to work in
cooperation and even with the support of the government.
Estonia also appears to illustrate a governmental model, with the participations
of HEIs’leaders (Rectors Conference). It is interesting to note the role of an
intermediary organization, the Archimedes Foundation, which appears to have
government support but benefits from the operational flexibility of an NGO. This
model of some kind of “intermediary organizations”dedicated to supporting in-
ternationalisation strategy and efforts, is worth taking into account in countries like
Romania, that consider now adopting internationalisation policies and building
adequate support structures.
Poland is also an interesting case. The government is almost virtually absent but
HEIs are mobilizing and developing their own institutional internationalisation
strategies and working together to create a national strategic framework, as well as
tools and instruments to support their needs and ambitions. Like in Estonia, we note
the positive role of a NGO created with the specific purpose to assist HEIs,
including, in this case, but not limited to, internationalisation. Unlike Estonia, this
Table 5 Key actors in national internationalisation strategy/practices
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Perspektywy
Foundation; Polish
Rectors’Conference
(43 HEIs
participating in Study
in Poland initiative)
Ministry of
Education and
Research; Rectors
Conference;
Archimedes
Foundation
DAAD; Federal
Foreign Office;
Federal Ministry of
Education and
Science; the Länder;
German Research
Foundation;
Humboldt
Foundation, German
Rectors’Conference
(HRK)
Ministry of
Education, National
Agency of Study
Scholarships and
Loans (Agentia de
Credite si Burse de
Studii); Other
ministries and
agencies
implementing
international
agreements
218 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
NGO appears to operate fully independently from the government with the support
of member HEIs. The Polish case provides some support for the idea that, while the
absence of government involvement may result in serious difficulties for any major
internationalisation efforts, HEIs can organize themselves and find alternative
partners to get things started, at least, and to reach a certain degree of success, rather
that resigning themselves to inaction or to only following the often uncertain push-
and-pull of international commitments made by the respective government that
might have an impact on internationalisation.
The Romanian situation has already been explained, there are no key actors since
there is no national strategy and no consistent national practices, except for those
resulting from bilateral and international agreements (administered by ministries
and state agencies). What is however important to note is the complete absence
from the picture of the Romanian Rectors’Council. Of all four countries, Romania
is the only one in which the organization of the leaders of HEIs play no role. In the
context of our analysis in the present study, it appears that activating this organi-
zation is a good place to start, if not finding an alternative to it.
4.3 Student Mobility Flows
How can we try to answer the question “what works”and (”what doesn’t”)? what
are good strategies, and good practices, in reality, beyond formal and normative
models? The nature of our study does not allow providing any comprehensive, or
even partial but definite, answer. Theoretically, one possible research strategy
would be to look into student mobility fluxes and try to understand what is the
differential impact of definite strategies and practices. Table 6below provide data
about student fluxes in the four countries, again insufficient for a decisive analysis.
What we can see, however, is that Germany (with a comprehensive strategy and
string support system) has the most international students. This is true not only in
absolute numbers, as Germany stands out strikingly in terms of percentage of
international students –well over 10 %, as opposed to about 2 or less than 2 % in
the other cases. Romania (lacking a national internationalisation strategy) has about
the same percentage of international students as Estonia (with a well elaborated
nationals strategy), and more than Poland (with significant bottom-up efforts and an
informal strategy). Is this an indication that a national strategy doesn’t necessarily
make a difference? Difficult to say. We need to note that one country (Moldova)
contribute half of Romania’s number of international students, and students from
Moldova are not exactly “international students”. The numbers would be a lot
worse if Moldova were factored out. Also, Romania has the lowest share of
international students in the EU, in percentage terms, and the trend is decreasing
numbers (UEFSCDI 2013). These facts, in turn, may speak for the need of a
national strategy, or at least for the need of active and well articulated efforts at
national level. The number of Romanian students studying aboard, on the other
side, is increasing, and Romania is already a net exporter of students. If we consider
National Strategies and Practices ... 219
the overall demographic trends in Romania, that is a decreasing population (overall
student enrolment is already affected by these trends), the incapacity to attract
significant number of international students may appear as an additional bad news.
It is a fact that Romania used to be very attractive for international students during
the communist times, although how to interpret this fact is not unambiguous.
Perhaps this fact, however, is an indication of Romania’s greater potential than its
present performance. Certain areas, such as medicine (see Table 6, again) appear to
have particularly promising potential. But as mentioned at the beginning of the
study, internationalisation should not be conceived as being only about attracting
(paying) international students. A good strategy for Romania should identify and
consider other relevant factors and motivations as well.
Table 6 Student mobility flows data
Poland Estonia Germany Romania
Percent of
students
enrolled
abroad
(2010–2012)
2.2 % 7.7 % 4.8 % 2.6 %
Increasing
trend; net
exporter
Incoming
foreign
students ( %
of total
student
population,
2010–2012)
1.39 %
24,253
53 % from
neighbouring
countries (mostly
Ukraine, Belarus,
also Norway,
Sweden, Spain)
13 % increase in
2012 compared
to 2012; 100 %
from 2005/6
One of lowest %
in OECD
2.1 %
1,900
74 % from
neighbouring
countries:
Finland, Latvia,
the Russian
Federation or
Sweden
11.5 %
over 250,000
(13 % China,
7 % Turkey, 5 %
Russia)
2000: 175,000;
2011: over
250,000, making
Germany the
fourth most
popular study
destination
worldwide.
1.98 %
19,308
(1.3 % in 07/
08
Moldova
50 %,
Tunisia
6.3 %,
Greece 5 %,
Israel 4.6 %)
Diminishing
numbers
and %;
lowest shares
in EU
Most popular
programs
among
foreign
students
Medicine
(including dentist
schools),
Management,
Economics,
International
Relations,
Philology,
Tourism
35 %
medical and
paramedical
studies in
2007
Data sources: Ferencz and Wächter 2007—chapters on Germany and Romania; DAAD 2013a,b),
UEFSCDI (2013). OECD (2013), Perspektywy Foundation (2013) and Archimedes Foundation
(2013) for Poland and Estonia
220 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
4.4 Resources
One last comparative zoom-in in this analysis is about resources mobilized in the
respective countries in relation to their internationalisation strategies and activities.
In Estonia, separate funds are made available to support its internationalisation
efforts, specifically the Doctoral Studies and Internationalisation Programme
(DoRa) coordinated by the Archimedes Foundation, and they have grown since
2008, amounting to approximately EUR 32 million for the period 2008–2015
(http://www.kslll.net/PoliciesAndAchievements/ExampleDetails.cfm?id=131#).
Like the other countries in this group, Estonia can also benefit from European funds
in this area. The overall budget for DoRa programme comprises contributions
allocated by the Ministry of Education and Research, 73 % coming from the
European Union Social Fund and 9 % from the Estonian government as well as
18 % share of the budget supported by individual HEIs participating in the pro-
gramme (http://www.mapping-he.eu/Programmes/ProgramDetails.aspx?countryid=
8&sm=1&programid=P149).
The budget for this programme in 2008 was EUR 25,000 and it supported 400
grantees. In 2011, the budget reached over EUR 6.5 million and the number of
grantees was 1200. (ibid). As part of the programme, Estonia offers scholarships for
international students, mostly for PhD studies in a set of six fields of study
including areas such as biotechnology, health, materials technology among others.
All of the strategies outlined in Germany are not only comprehensive and well-
developed but they are also supported by significant resources. The DAAD’s
budget alone in 2011 was nearly EUR 400 million, with 45 % funded by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 % by the Federal Ministry of Education, and nearly
14 % by the EU (DAAD: http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/daad_funding_
instruments_usa_germany.pdf).
Germany is unique in its approach to international students as it does not allow
for charging higher tuition fees to international students, which is a common trend
in the rest of Europe (British Council 2011). Overall, Germany seems to focus
mostly on both the mutual understanding and on the skilled migration approaches
based on the OECD typology.
Poland and Romania allocate resources from the national budgets for international
student scholarships, but mainly for co-nationals from other countries, or for special
target countries with particular historical, cultural, and ethnic ties (such as Moldova, in
the case of Romania). In addition, in Poland, the HEIs participating in the “Study in
Poland”programme, pay a fixed annual fee. In the academic year 2012–2013, the fee
to participate in the programme and all of its aspects for an institution with over 15,000
students was roughly EUR 4,300 + VAT (18,000 PLN + VAT) (http://www.
studyinpoland.pl/konsorcjum/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
2580&Itemid=4).
Both countries participate in the European mobility programs, benefiting from
European funding. Universities in both countries have an unmistakable interest in
fee paying international students. A study realized in Romania (UEFSCDI 2013)
National Strategies and Practices ... 221
indicated not only that a national strategy and support infrastructure is missing, but
universities have to face significant bureaucratic hurdles (approval from the central
national authorities is needed) even when they recruit potential fee paying students
through their own efforts.
5 Conclusions: Lessons from a Comparison
The comparison among the four countries was invited by the Romanian Executive
Agency for Funding of Higher Education, Innovation and Development. The
selection of countries was in a way arbitrary, reflecting the interests of the Agency.
Still, the comparison appears to be quite informative, even to a surprising degree.
We have been able to identify four country profiles, with some overlapping
elements. Also, we have been able to identify models, facts, and questions that
would be useful to consider when Romanian stakeholders deliberate about the
opportunity (necessity?) of a national approach (if not strategy) to internationali-
sation of higher education, about conceptual and operational aspects related to such
a future approach or strategy.
In terms of country profiles, we propose the following summary:
•Germany offers an example that is close to a kind of ideal normative model,
promoted by the EC and by other authoritative international actors. This model
includes: a comprehensive strategy not limited to recruitment of international
students, formalized in a series of public documents. Non-governmental actors
are present, but governmental actors (both national and region level) are in the
driving seat, assuming responsibility for internationalisation strategy and prac-
tices, providing direction, resources, policy and administrative support; the
strategy is well coordinated within the sector and across sectors; it is coordinated
across several layers of policy making and implementation; higher education
institutions play a major role, not individually, but through the Rectors’Con-
ference. Finally, this model appears to work (whether it can be exported as
such, is a question). It allows to meet major objectives of national, state, and
sectoral relevance, including relevance for higher education.
•Estonia is an example of a small country committed to developing and imple-
menting a formal, well-articulated strategy, adapted to national conditions; this
strategy is focused, rather than all-encompassing (like in Germany), it involves
narrower “strategic choices”; the strategy is also coordinated within the sector
and with other sectors, and among the relevant policy layers and actors; coor-
dination among actors involves not only technical or strategic matters, but also
ethic aspects in internationalisation (a local innovation); universities participate
and play a key role through the Rectors Conference; as another local innovation,
aflexible organisation was created specifically to support internationalisation
efforts in Estonia, which combines state support, with NGO operational flexi-
bility. It is still early to say whether this model works, or at least we have not been
222 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
able to access data that would allow an evaluation, which would be a very
important exercise, as the model seems to be very promising. Many of its ele-
ments appear to be “transportable”to other countries, but any immediate import
should be considered with care, in particular in the absence of impact evaluation.
•Poland is yet a different example, a different country profile. Internationalisation
efforts are bottom-up, initiated by HEIs; they have even developed a kind of
informal strategy; government authorities are largely absent, and their absence
does not seem to help universities in their efforts; universities coming together
created new instruments; a special structure was created, a foundation, similar but
not identical with that from Estonia, as it appears to be a genuine non-govern-
mental initiative and operation in Poland; universities have been able to identify
alternative partners (local authorities). There is no proper assessment of this
“model”either. On the positive side, the Polish example shows that universities
can act whether the government is absent, and with some good results. What is
unclear is whether the significant non-participation of the government is an
insurmountable obstacle or not.
•Romania has a limited record of activities in internationalisation; it lacks a
national strategy and significant practices, except for “following”, based on
international agreements and except for the special relationship with Moldova;
the advantage is that, starting almost form zero, it has a chance to “get it right”
quickly.
It is difficult to find arguments against the development of a national in-
ternationalisation strategy for Romania. Rather, the real question is how to
develop and implement one. This “question”comprises in fact several “ques-
tions”. The present study offers certain suggestions regarding what these exact
questions might be, and how to approach them. For example:
•Is it an option not to have a national internationalisation strategy? Yes, but it will
probably come at a cost. Also, coordination at national level seems required
anyway. In absence of an active involvement of the government in this regard,
an alternative agent seems to be needed to coordinate efforts on the national
level –for example a non-governmental organisation, active Rectors’Confer-
ence, or a university association.
•Is it the case that government has the key responsibility in internationalisation?
Probably yes, and it must assume it.
•If governmental inaction persists, is it possible to overcome such a situation?
Possibly, but very hard to accomplish, through a mobilisation of universities and
alternative partners. Universities must activate themselves in any case. Action
by the Romanian Rectors Council is a must in any case.
•How to decide on priorities? There are some good examples in Europe (and
there must be some domestic expertise available as well).
•Is there any one-model that Romania could just import and put in practice as
such? Most likely no, but there are good lessons to be learn from selective other
exercises. For example, there is clear merit in cross-sectoral coordination of an
internationalisation strategy.
National Strategies and Practices ... 223
•How detailed should such a strategy be? Should it go to the level of detail as in
Estonia indicating specificfields of study that are more ‘desired’and specific
‘target countries’, or being too top-down would not allow enough flexibility for
the institutional implementation? We believe a Romanian strategy could build
on some of the existing individual HEIs efforts to date, and effectively combine
broader national goals with elements that are more attractive for individual
institutions, to ensure effective implementation. It might not be possible to opt
out from the revenue-generating approach, but it should not be the exclusive
focus for the long run.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
References
Agreement on Good Practice in the Internationalisation of Estonia’s Higher Education Institutions.
(2007). Study in Estonia. Available at: http://www.studyinestonia.ee/images/tekstid/
headetavadelepe.pdf.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of higher education: Motivations and
realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4 Fall/Winter), 290–305.
Becker, R., & Kolster, R. (2012). International student recruitment: policies and development in
selected countries. The Hague: Nuffic. Accessed online at: http://www.nuffic.nl/en/library/
international-student-recruitment.pdf.
British Council. (2011). Global gauge. Education Intelligence Report Series.
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Supporting growth and jobs –an agenda for the
modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems.
DAAD. (2013a). Facts and figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in
Germany. Wischenschaft weltoffen. Bielefeld: Bertselmann Verlag.
DAAD. (2013b). Strategy 2020. Available online at: https://www.daad.de/portrait/presse/
pressemitteilungen/2013/Strategie2020.
De Wit, H. (2010). Internationalisation of higher education in Europe and its assessment, trends
and issues. NVAO Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie.
EC-Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Communication from the Commission –
The role of universities in the Europe of Knowledge.
EC –European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions. European higher education in the world.
EC -Commission of the European Communities. (2005). Communication from the Commission –
Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: Enabling universities to make their full contribution to
the Lisbon Strategy.
EC -Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament. Delivering on the modernisation agenda for
Universities: Education, Research, and Innovation.
EC -European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European and Economic and Social.
Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). Strategy for the internationalisation of
Estonian higher education over the \s 2006–2015. Access from: http://www.studyinestonia.ee/
about-us/higher-education-in-estonia/strategy-documents.
224 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
Estonian Parliament. (2006). Estonian higher education strategy, 2006–2015. Retrieved from:
http://www.studyinestonia.ee/about-us/higher-education-in-estonia/strategy-documents.
Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. (2007). Knowledge-based Estonia. Estonian
Research and development and innovation strategy 2007–2013. Tartu.
European University Association (EUA). (2013). Internationalisation in European higher
education: European policies, institutional strategies and EUA support. European University
Association asbl: Brussels.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2008). Strengthening Germany’s role in the global
knowledge society. Strategy of the Federal Government for the Internationalization of Science
and Research. Available online at: http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/Internationalisierungsstrategie-
English.pdf.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2013). Strategy of the Federal and Länder Ministers
of Science for the internationalisation of the higher education institutions in Germany.
Resolution of the 18th Meeting of the Joint Science Conference in Berlin on 12 April 2013.
Available at: http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/Internationalisierungsstrategie_engl.Fassung.pdf.
Ferencz, I., & Wächter, B. (Eds.), (2012). European and national policies for academic mobility.
Linking rhetoric, practice, and mobility trends. ACA Papers in International Cooperation and
Education. Bonn: Lemmens.
http://www.studyinpoland.pl/konsorcjum/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
2580&Itemid=4.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/daad_funding_instruments_usa_germany.pdf.
(http://www.mapping-he.eu/Programmes/ProgramDetails.aspx?countryid=8&sm=1&programid=
P149).
ICEF Monitor. (2013) How Estonia established its international education brand. Published on 7
November 2013. Available online at: (http://monitor.icef.com/2013/11/how-estonia-
established-its-international-education-brand/.
Kehm, B. M. (2003). Internationalisation in higher education: From regional to global. In R. Begg
(Ed.), The dialogue between higher education research and practice (pp. 109–119). The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kehm, B. M. & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal
of Studies in International Education,11(3/4 Fall/Winter): 260–273.
Knight, J. (1999). Issues and trends in internationalization: A comparative perspective. In S.L.
Bond & J.P. Lemasson (Eds.), A new world of knowledge.Canadian Universities and
Globalization (pp. 201–238). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Ministry of Interior of Poland. (2013). Polityka Migracyjna Polski –stan obecny i postulowane
dzialania (“Migration policy of Poland –the current state of play and the further actions”).
Warsaw: Migration Policy Department.
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004) Trade in higher
education: Opportunities and challenges. Paris: Author.
OECD –Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Education at a
glance 2013. Paris: OECD.
Poland's Migration Policy. (2012). Original title of the document in Polish: Polityka Migracyjna
Polski –stan obecny i postulowane dzialania. Dokument przyjęty przez RadęMinistróww
dniu 31 lipca 2012 r. Accessed online at: http://PMP_przyjeta_przez_Rade_Ministrow_31_
lipca_2012__2_.pdf.
Siwinska, B. (2009) The problems of internationalization in Poland. International higher
education,55(Spring 2009), 11–12.
Siwinski, W. (2013). Ilu studentow zagranicznych potrzebuje Polska? (How many international
students does Poland need?). Presentation at conference: Studenci Zagraniczni w Polsce 2013
(International Students in Poland 2013); 17–18 January 2013; Warsaw, Poland. Available at:
http://www.studyinpoland.pl/konsorcjum/pdfy/konferencja2013/1/ilu_studentow_
zagranicznych.pdf.
Teichler, U. (2007) Die Internationalisierung der Hochschulen: Neue forderungen and Strategien.
Frankfurt, Main: Campus.
National Strategies and Practices ... 225
Teichler, U. (2012). International student mobility in the context of the Bologna process. Journal
of International Education and Leadership, 2,1.
UEFISCDI -The Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation
Funding. (2013). Internationalisation of Higher Education in Romania. Bucharest.
226 L. Matei and J. Iwinska
