Internationalization of Higher Education and Emerging National Rationales: Comparative Analysis of the Global North and South

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of national rationales to higher education internationalization in the global north and south countries using content analysis. The results reveal that the socio-economic rationales are dominant across most of the 27 sampled countries. However, they manifest differently across the global north and global south as countries interpret the benefits and effects of internationalization in line with their national priorities. These variations are being shaped by an increasingly complex, competitive, and multipolar higher education internationalization landscape with new global south actors acquiring agency despite the deepening global inequalities. As a result, political rationales are becoming an important driver to internationalization. The current geopolitical environment associated with global conflicts, health pandemics, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, and anti-globalization sentiments is also adding more uncertainty and complexity. Due to increased concerns about this multipolar and self-centred internationalization, a few countries are starting to promote inclusive approaches to internationalization.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Higher Education Policy
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00358-z
1 3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging
National Rationales: Comparative Analysis oftheGlobal
North andSouth
FaraiKapfudzaruwa1
© The Author(s) 2024
Abstract
This paper provides a comparative analysis of national rationales to higher educa-
tion internationalization in the global north and south countries using content analy-
sis. The results reveal that the socio-economic rationales are dominant across most
of the 27 sampled countries. However, they manifest differently across the global
north and global south as countries interpret the benefits and effects of internation-
alization in line with their national priorities. These variations are being shaped by
an increasingly complex, competitive, and multipolar higher education internation-
alization landscape with new global south actors acquiring agency despite the deep-
ening global inequalities. As a result, political rationales are becoming an important
driver to internationalization. The current geopolitical environment associated with
global conflicts, health pandemics, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, and
anti-globalization sentiments is also adding more uncertainty and complexity. Due
to increased concerns about this multipolar and self-centred internationalization, a
few countries are starting to promote inclusive approaches to internationalization.
Keywords Higher education· Internationalization· Rationales· Global north·
Global south
Introduction
During the past three decades, higher education internationalization (HEI) has
emerged as a critical factor shaping higher education. However, the concept is still
a westernized, and Anglo-Saxon paradigm (Jones and De Wit 2012; Van der Wende
2001; Valcke 2020). Limited studies have researched and conceptualized interna-
tionalization within paradigms shaped by global south experiences (Majee and Ress
* Farai Kapfudzaruwa
farai.kapfudzaruwa@up.ac.za
1 Future Africa, University ofPretoria, PO Bag X20, Hatfield,Pretoria0028, SouthAfrica

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
2018, 4; Sehoole et al. 2024). Furthermore, recent studies which have explored
rationales to internationalization have either only focused on specific regions and
countries (e.g. De Wit etal. 2015; Li et al 2023) or higher education institutions
(e.g. Mäkinen 2023; Seeber etal 2016). Therefore, there is a research gap on the
rationales to HEI across geographical regions. This paper responds to this gap by
performing a content analysis of 366 policy documents in 27 global north and global
south countries—building on the conceptual work of De Wit, Knight, and others
(Crăciun 2018; De Wit and Altbach 2021; Knight 2004a, 2012, 2015; Wihlborg and
Robson 2018). In doing so, the paper responds to this overarching question: What
are the main rationales for higher education internationalization between the global
north and the global south countries?
Rationales, particularly those at the national level must be understood because
they shape national policies and institutional approaches relating to a country’s soci-
opolitical, cultural, and economic context. To build on existing national-level studies
on rationales to HEI (Li etal 2023; Teferra 2014; Theiler 2015; Yonezawa 2018),
this study provides a comparative lens by focusing on the global north and global
south—geographical regions which often have varying socio-cultural and economic
contexts. This provides new insights given the current developments in internation-
alization in which new actors are acquiring agency and competing with the tradition-
ally dominant nation-state actors in the global north (Bamberger and Morris 2023).
The comparison of rationales across different geographical regions is impera-
tive in HEI discourse given the potential implications of ongoing global disruptions.
These include Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, realignment of national interest
resulting in wars, and increased nationalistic, anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, and anti-
globalism sentiments (Hawkins 2017; Mäkinen 2023; Mok etal. 2020). These dis-
ruptions have amplified complexities linked to the current multipolar world whilst
distorting and reframing HEI rationales (Mulvey 2022; Stein, 2021a, b).
The Global North andGlobal South Divide
The concepts of “Global North” and “Global South” have become popular meta-cat-
egories for framing research since they emerged in the 1970s and gained prominence
in the “Brandt Report” which sought to capture global inequalities in terms of a
North–South divide (Brandt 1980). As a meta-category in the analysis of world poli-
tics, the “North” correlates with nation-states in North America, Western Europe,
Australia, New Zealand, and some parts of Asia that have historically been defined
as “the West”, “rich”, “developed”, and “first world” due to perceptions of their rela-
tive wealth and global dominance (Odeh 2010). On the other hand, the “South” has
been used to describe countries in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and parts
of Asia and Oceania—regions often characterized as “poor”, “developing”, “third
world”, and synonymous with “uncertain development, unorthodox economies,
failed states, nations fraught with corruption, poverty, and strife” (Comaroff and
Cormaroff 2012, p. 113; Haug etal. 2021).
The qualifier “Global” as an add-on to the “North” and “South” has served to
underline the increasing interconnectedness of social relations between geographical

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
locations in a globalized context (Comaroff and Cormaroff 2012; Riggs 2007). In
this context, the “Global South” has evolved to stand for different sets of cross-
regional and multicultural alliances such as BRICS mostly comprising of formerly
colonized countries challenging the dominance and structural privilege of “north-
ern” states (Gosovic 2016; Kaul 2013). On the other hand, the “Global North”
is usually taken to refer to concrete sets of hegemonic states such as “traditional
donors” or “industrialized economies” that “dominate social structures through eco-
nomic flows, powerful forms of meaning-making and/or explicit coercive measures”
(Haug etal. 2021, p. 1929).
Several authors have highlighted the limitations of using this binary North–South
dichotomy for the analysis of world politics (for example, Horner 2020; Sabzalieva
etal. 2020). The authors argue that these “Global North” and “Global South” meta-
categories often contain simplistic classifications that do not account for complex-
ity. For example, Cooper (2021) analysis of Chinese experiences has revealed that
binary divisions between “North” and “South” or “developed” and “developing”
have less relevance. Braff and Nelson (2022) also argued that the “Global North” is
not monolithic as the societies are internally stratified and diverse, so not everyone
in the Global North is rich and powerful.
Nevertheless, the potential of the “Global North” and “Global South” meta-cate-
gories consist of “a necessary reduction of complexity, as well as point to empirical
patterns that require more detailed attention” (Haug etal. 2021, p. 1933). As such,
the “Global North” and “Global South” classification is helpful as an imprecise but
useful relational category to understand the evolving and overlapping engagements
in higher education internationalization.
Rationales forHigher Education Internationalization
Extant research has shown that rationales for higher education internationalization
have shifted in recent decades from cooperative efforts anchored by political, cul-
tural, and academic arguments towards economically motivated rationales (De Wit
and Altbach 2021; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). The complexities associated with a
changing global order confounded with global competition, geopolitical, and socio-
ecological crisis is also shaping the rationales to HEI. Below is a discussion on cat-
egories linked to these rationales and the associated complexities.
Economic Rationales
De Wit and Altbach (2021) have shown that economic rationales are mostly driven
by competition which is often associated with globalization. With English becoming
the “lingua franca” in higher education, competition is often connected to Anglo-
Saxon countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand which have commodi-
fied higher education and are able to attract more fee-paying international students
(Tight 2021).

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Within the context of policies promoting competitiveness, a distinction can be
made between those focused on improving the competitiveness of the national
higher education system (e.g. EU countries) and those perceived as major contribu-
tors to the successful performance of the national economy as whole (e.g. South
Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and Norway) (Crăciun 2018). Several East Asian countries
launched “excellence” initiatives, for example, the “Brain Korea 21” in South
Korea (Jang etal. 2016), and the “985” project in China (Kim etal. 2018) focused
on enhancing the competitiveness the higher education system. On the other hand,
countries such as Taiwan focus their internationalization policies to balance global
ambition, address local needs, and drive the notion of knowledge-based economies
(Lo and Hou 2020).
Socio‑cultural Rationales
Whilst economic drivers seem to be the main driver for internationalization poli-
cies, there is evidence that cooperation still plays a significant role within this policy
arena. According to Reilly and Sweeney (2021), most continental European coun-
tries pursue a cooperative approach because of the political and value-based systems
which promote free access to higher education as an established right.
In many former colonial states, research by Teferra (2014) also shows that inter-
nationalization policies are sometimes shaped by development cooperation with
European countries based on historical, cultural, and linguistic links. Similar poli-
cies anchored by development cooperation are evident in Central and Eastern Euro-
pean countries considering their relationship with EU countries during their entry
into the European Union (Dobbins and Kwiek 2017).
Critiques of the current internationalization steering mechanisms focused on eco-
nomic and competitive rationales have also highlighted how the process continu-
ally rewards institutions in the global north—exacerbating inequality (Leask and de
Gayardon 2021). As a result, the emerging literature on concepts such as “Inter-
nationalization in Higher Education for Society” (IHES) has analysed policies pro-
moting comprehensive and inclusive visions of internationalization that systemati-
cally and strategically extend its benefits into local communities (see, Brandenburg
etal 2020). As an example, Tran and Bui (2021) study on Australia’s New Colombo
Plan shows how the initiative has been able to catalyse socio-economic impact in
host communities through strengthening bilateral ties and fostering multisectoral
partnerships.
Academic Rationales
Internationalization policies have also been useful to ensure or improve the
quality of higher education. Studies by Alsharari (2018) in the UAE, and Bor-
dean and Borza (2013) in Romania reveal how internationalization policies and
mobility programmes have been instrumental in improving the quality of degree
programmes. A case study analysis in Vietnam by Hoang etal (2018) revealed

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
that the internationalization policy led to the diversification of the institutions,
programmes, activities, and curricula to the benefit of students.
According to Klemenčič (2019), curriculum reform which drove the Bologna
process also aimed to reflect and enhance the professional relevance of study
programmes in Europe to make higher education more responsive to the needs of
industry and society. “Policy travel” of the Bologna process is not only improv-
ing the quality of education but also facilitating regional integration (Wolde-
giorgis 2018). For example, the African Union Higher Education Harmonization
Strategy which is aligned to the Bologna process is facilitating an integrated
knowledge system that strengthens collaboration between African institutions
and informs socio-economic development in the region (Alemu 2018; Wolde-
giorgis 2018). Critiques of higher education integration have highlighted some
challenges related to the impact of the structural changes, and social impact (see
Wihlborg 2019; Wihlborg and Teelken 2014).
Political Rationales
The increased desire to utilize internationalization as a tool for the development
of human capital required for national development and global competitiveness
has also led policymakers in some countries, to “exercise detailed controls over
programme contents, personnel management, and research” (Marginson 2011,
p. 595). Hammond (2016) found this strong nation-state steering and control of
education to be a key commonality of policies in China. In such instances, inter-
nationalization is used as a political tool to inculcate national identities aimed at
legitimatization and institutionalization of political arrangements of state gov-
ernance (Tight 2022).
Emerging economies such as India, China, and Russia have also partly shaped
their internationalization policies to pursue greater global south cooperation
anchored in pre-colonial arrangements. Research by Leal and Moraes (2018)
revealed how the Undergraduate Student Agreement Program (PEC-G) in Bra-
zil, institutionalized in the 1960s, and aimed at providing students from develop-
ing countries with an opportunity to study at Brazilian universities has evolved
to become an important tool to promote south–south cooperation.
The increased policy orientation towards global south cooperation is
aligned with literature on decolonization in higher education challenging the
north–south unidirectional flow of knowledge and ideas which perpetuates the
dominance of Western cultures (Tight 2024). In their analysis of the interna-
tionalization agenda in Zimbabwe, Thondhlana etal. (2021) argue that interna-
tionalization has a transformational element that seeks to contain decolonizing
effects reflected in the curriculum redesign and indigenization. Critiques of this
decolonization literature have emerged arguing that this postcolonial framing
adopts a bipolar view of geopolitics which does not account for the complex
and multipolar geopolitical context (Bamberger and Morris 2023; Stein 2021b;
Mulvey 2022).

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Complexities Influencing HEI Steering Mechanisms
The realigning of national interests in the global south which are also evident in the
global north as evidenced by US-led alliances’ opposition to Chinese and Russian
global machinations has reshaped the rationales to HEI in recent years (Mäkinen
2023). This has been compounded by recent developments, such as rising nation-
alism, the COVID-19 pandemic, technological disruptions, and different conflicts.
In Europe the cultural shifts away from liberal and cooperation values have led to
limits in academic freedoms associated with HEI, whilst Brexit has weakened col-
laboration between UK and EU researchers (Highman etal 2023). In the case of
Russia, its aggressive and isolationist foreign policy has led to the country increas-
ingly becoming “de-internationalized” (Kuzminov and Yudkeivich 2022).
In the global south, the complexity is linked to the shifting trends in interna-
tional student mobility where China, Malaysia, and Eastern European countries are
increasingly enroling more international students—acquiring more agency in the
process (UNESCO Institute of Statistics UIS 2023). The anti-globalism, anti-immi-
gration, and nationalist sentiments in many developed countries are interconnected
to this increased agency of global south countries (De Wit and Altbach 2021; Rizvi
et al. 2022). The HEI impacts of these contestations are illustrated by Hawkins’
(2017) study which showed that as US students increasingly embrace nationalist and
anti-globalism sentiments, they have become less interested in studying abroad, with
only 10% of all undergraduate students having an international learning experience.
Methodology
To investigate the varying rationales for higher education internationalization poli-
cies, this study utilizes a content analysis method comparing 366 policy documents
in 27 global north and the global south countries (Fig.1). Rationales in this context
are defined as “motivations for integrating an international dimension into higher
education policy” (De Wit 2022, p. 84). Content analysis was identified as an ideal
research technique for this study because it enabled the researchers to objectively
quantify the interpretation of the motivations of policymakers (Berg 2001; Kripen-
dorff 2004).
Fig. 1 Overview of collected national documents from the 27 selected countries

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Sampling ofCountries forAnalysis
The study utilized the UNCTAD country economic and geographical classifications to
select the representative global north and global south countries for analysis. Through
these classifications, developed countries are categorized as the global north, whilst
developing countries are categorized as the global south (Hoffmeister 2020). Devel-
oped economies broadly comprise Northern America, Europe, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and New Zealand. The developing economies broadly comprise Africa,
Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia without Israel, Japan, and South Korea, and
Oceania without Australia, and New Zealand.
The limitation of this classification is that there are countries in certain geographical
areas which do not correspond with their designation as developed or developing. For
example, Mexico and Cuba are geographically located in North America, but are not
considered developed. As a result, for this study, Mexico and Cuba are designated as
part of Latin America and the Caribbean which is a “developing”/global south region.
Furthermore, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand do not fit into the
“developing” country classification in Asia and Oceania. Therefore, they are grouped
with China which as the second largest economy in the world, is not comparable to the
Asian developing economies (Morrison 2019).
The rationale for selecting the 27 countries across the six geographical regions is
countries which are considerably active in the HEI policy arena to enable the research-
ers to analyse the policy documents (De Wit at al 2015). Therefore, the criteria for the
selection focused on key quantifiable determinants of active HEI: inbound international
student mobility, percentage of international scientific co-publications, international
collaboration impact, value of awarded research grants, and number of universities
in the top 500 rankings within a country (Demeter 2019; De Wit and Altbach 2021;
Lipura and Collins 2020). Using this criterion, countries which had the highest scores
in their region in at least 4 of the 5 indicators were selected to represent the 6 geograph-
ical regions (see Table1).
The key limitation to using the above criterion is that certain geographical areas
and countries which could have been more representative were excluded. For exam-
ple, countries from Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa are excluded
despite being key players in HEI in recent years. This is primarily because the research
reviewed policy documents in Chinese, English, German, French, Spanish, and Portu-
guese and it was not feasible to adequately translate and review documents in other lan-
guages due to limited language proficiency. Furthermore, there are instances in which
some countries excluded from the list scored higher than some selected countries in
some of the indicators in Table1. This raises the issue of selection bias, firstly on the
selection indicators and the assumptions (Collier etal 2004). However, it is assumed
that the sample is large and representative enough to capture the variations across and
within geographical regions.

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Table 1 Selected countries for the content analysis and associated metrics on key HEI activities
International student
inbound mobility rate *
% of international scientific co-
publications (2018-2023)**
International collaboration
impact (2018–2023)**
Awarded Grant Value
(USD) (2018–2023)**
Number of universities in QS
top 500 rankings (2023)***
North America
Regional average 36 17.1 53.539M
Canada 17.37 55 18.0 10.302M 22
USA 4.89 36.2 17.9 43.385M 150
Western and Northern Europe
Regional average 38.8 14.5 66.634M
France 9.14 57.1 17.1 17.135M 12
Germany 11.23 51.5 17.3 23.237M 35
Netherlands 13.72 63.1 20.2 14.866M 13
Norway 4.17 62.5 18.3 5.483M 3
United Kingdom (UK) 21.57 57.8 18.0 41.032M 44
Asia and Oceania (global north)
Regional average 22.2 16.520M 18.2
China 0.37 20.9 19.5 2.833M 50
Australia 21.89 58 20.1 8.304M 23
Japan 5.57 30.8 16.6 13.219M 12
New Zealand 11.98 60 18.1 323M 3
South Korea 4.36 31 18.8 321M 14
Sub-Saharan Africa
Regional average 52.5 12.2 1.933M
Botswana 2.47 73.6 15.8 44M 0
Ethiopia - 49.1 13.3 155M 0
Kenya 1.29 76.8 14.8 365M 0

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
*http:// data. uis. unesco. org/ index. aspx? query id= 3804
**https:// www. scival. com
***https:// www. topun ivers ities. com/ world- unive rsity- ranki ngs? region= North% 20Ame rica& count ries= us
Table 1 (continued)
International student
inbound mobility rate *
% of international scientific co-
publications (2018-2023)**
International collaboration
impact (2018–2023)**
Awarded Grant Value
(USD) (2018–2023)**
Number of universities in QS
top 500 rankings (2023)***
Nigeria - 49.5 12.5 82M 0
South Africa 2.92 52.4 15.7 942M 4
Latin America and Caribbean
Regional average 38.5 12.5 921M
Argentina 3.16 46.3 15.8 200M 1
Brazil 0.25 34.6 13.8 290M 5
Colombia 0.22 48.3 13.0 149M 0
Cuba 2.18 50.1 8.1 – 0
Mexico 1.18 41.7 14.0 80M 1
South and Southeast Asia
Regional average 26.9
Cambodia 0.26 89.7 10.0 1.39M 0
India 0.12 21.1 13.9 328M 0
Malaysia 8.97 48.4 13.8 86M 4
Pakistan - 61.6 15.5 83M 0
Thailand 1.44 42.9 12.8 183M 2

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Document Sampling Process
In this paper, “policy documents” were defined as “written documents that contain
strategies and priorities and define goals and objectives” of a policy issue (Daugb-
jerg etal. 2009, 806). These include strategic policies and plans, legislative laws and
decrees, recommendations and guidelines, and activities and programmes related to
HEI (Fig.1). The policy documents analysis focused on the years 2000–2021 as
this period captures recent and comparable policy developments in HEI amongst the
selected countries. Given the interconnectedness of policy, there are references to
policies prior to 2000 in some instances.
To collect and store the policy documents, the research relied on web scrapping
using Python programming, firstly, from the online World Higher Education Data-
base (WHED) and secondly, from national government agency websites (Lawson
2015). The WHED database is useful because it gathers systematic information
about higher education systems, national bodies responsible for higher education
and international cooperation, and related policies. To search for the HEI related
documents, the Python algorithm focused on HEI internationalization activities
including scholarships, academic mobility, research, cross-border education, cur-
riculum, quality assurance, and science and technology (Knight 2004b, 2012, 2021).
Since the WHED database does not account for other sectoral government agen-
cies which have related internationalization policies and plans, relevant policy
documents were accessed from other government agency websites. With the sup-
port of the International Students Office, six research assistants with proficiency
in English, Chinese, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese were recruited to
identify the web pages of national government agencies in the following six policy
domains associated with HEI between January 2021 and April 2021: higher edu-
cation, research, Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI), youth empowerment,
foreign policy, and trade. The team could not find research assistants proficient in
other languages in the sample countries, and as such relied on published literature,
documents in English or already translated to English. After this two-step process, a
total of 366 policy documents were collected for all 27 countries (Fig.1). The non-
English documents were then translated to English by the research assistants.
Content Analysis Process
The content analysis was conducted in three parts. During the first part, sub-
ject categories and codes on HEI were decided deductively from the literature
(Table2). The codes are short and descriptive labels that symbolically assigned
a summative or salient attribute to units of meaning linked to the categories in
the HEI rationales literature (Saldaña 2021). As discussed in the literature review
above, traditionally, rationales driving internationalization have been categorized
into four groups: socio/cultural, economic, political, and academic (Knight and
De Wit 1997; Knight 2004a, b, 2021). Though there have been complexities and
global disorders with implications on the rationales, the generic categories have

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
remained in analysing internationalization rationales (De Wit 2002a, b; Knight
2021; Wihlborg and Robson 2018). Maringe etal (2012) expanded the four broad
categories to include technological and pedagogical rationales which are mostly
linked to university level activities. As a result, these two rationales are combined
with the academic rationales in this study. To further account for other unknown
codes which might have been missed, 2 researchers examined 50 randomly
selected policy documents from the sample using MAXQDA software. This pro-
cess was valuable in improving the validity of the codes used for the content anal-
ysis. These codes were merged with the deductively derived ones to create those
used for the content analysis in Table2.
The second part included developing a schematic scoring system for the con-
tent analysis of the policy documents. The scoring schematic was developed to
reflect the level of detail in the policy documents towards the codes linked to
the internationalization rationales identified (Table3). Each country was given
a score between 0 and 3, depending on how systematically and rigorously the
policy documents explained or inferences were made of each code—this third
process is discussed in more detail below.
Table 2 Categories and codes
linked to rationales driving
internationalization at the
national level (Adapted from
Knight 2004a, b, p. 23)
Rationale categories Codes
Social/cultural Mutual understanding
Prepare students for global world
Redress and inclusion
International development
Address global problems
Economic Build national reputation/competitiveness
Economic benefits
Workforce development
Long-term national economic development
Academic Knowledge creation and advancement
Improving quality of higher education
Expanding higher education capacity
Political Diplomacy and soft power
National interests (e.g. national identity,
security, peace)
Global citizenship
Table 3 Schematic scoring for the codes linked to rationales to higher education internationalization in
the policy documents
Score Description
0 Not mentioned or inferences at all in the document
1 Mentioned or inferred in the document, but there is no detailed explanation
2 Mentioned or inferred in the document, including brief explanation
3 Mentioned or inferred in the document, and the issue is comprehensively
explained and discussed

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
To code and score the policy documents, latent projective analysis was used.
This method uses normative inferences to discover implied meaning in the texts
(Kleinheksel etal 2020). The method acknowledges that the researcher is intimately
involved in the analytical process and their role is to actively use mental schema,
theories, and lenses to interpret and understand the texts (Hsieh and Shannon 2005).
For this study, the latent projective analysis allowed inferences or interpretations
of the implicit or dominant meaning of the texts, or the implicit intentions of the
authors of the policy documents. This is particularly the case when investigating
the rationales to HEI because the intentions of policymakers are not always obvi-
ous. Due to the complexity of this process, it took 2 researchers 7 months from June
2021 to December 2021 to code the 366 policy documents. MAXQDA software was
used to code the documents, identifying thematic issues or inferences linked to the
codes and then weighing them between 0-3 using the weight function in the soft-
ware. This meant that several codes with varying weights could be interpreted in one
policy document.
A 3 was scored if a clear goal of the policy could be identified or inferred from
the text. This could be related to characterization of a policy goal which might not
be clearly defined but inferences from the coder’s understanding of the literature
could be used to provide guidance to score a 3 for the code. For example, Austral-
ia’s geopolitical posture and competition are not explicit in the policy. However,
the strong pivot to the Asia–Pacific in their internationalization strategy illustrates
a strong focus to strengthen their presence in the region to compete with China. As
such, they were scored a 3 for the diplomacy and soft power code. A score of 2 was
given if the code was mentioned but no detailed explanation was given or the discus-
sion on an issue linked to the code is not extensive. For example, Japan Council for
the Future of Education Creation policy document mentions the country’s intention
to diversify their international student body. However, there is no significant discus-
sion on the issue to provide more context. Therefore, a 2 was given for the diversity
and inclusion code. A 1 was scored if no clear meaning of the goals of the policy
document could be interpreted or the code linked to the rationale is mentioned in
passing. This mostly applies to higher education policies by African countries which
did not have stand-alone internationalization policies. A 0 was given if no inferences
or mention of a code were made in the policy document. At the end of the coding
process, mean values of the weights for each code were calculated for each docu-
ment, tabulated, and presented in graph format per country (Figs.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
Evidently the latent projective analysis used is very subjective. Therefore, to
ensure the reliability of the scoring process, a consensual coding method was
applied to determine whether coders agreed on the coding whilst using the same
coding scheme (Kuckartz 2016). This meant 2 researchers coded 66 randomly
selected documents together, comparing for similarity in segment selection and
coding. Differences between the researchers were discussed, and a common under-
standing of the coding scheme was developed. Thereafter, each coder analysed 150
documents each. The function “intercoder agreement” of the MAXQDA software
was used to determine the distribution of codes at the segment level (Kuckartz and
Rädiker 2019). The results showed between 86 and 95% intercoder agreement indi-
cating a sufficient level of reliability.

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Findings
Internationalization Policy Rationales
North America
Socio-economic rationales predominantly drive internationalization policy in North
America (Fig. 2). For example, in the joint statement of principles in support of
international education, the US Department of State and the Department of Edu-
cation recognizes the importance of international education “to the US economy,
job creation, and innovation” (US Department of State & Department of Educa-
tion 2021, p. 3). There are noticeable variations between the two countries in North
Fig. 2 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in North America

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
America with political issues related to national security and international devel-
opment seemingly considered slightly more important drivers in the USA than in
Canada. To illustrate this, the joint statement of principles by the Department of
State and Department of Education emphasizes the value of HEI in supporting “U.S.
diplomacy by promoting people-to-people ties that create goodwill and mutual
understanding [and] mitigate risks from malign actors” (p. 3). The US Fulbright
Program has also played such a role in promoting US science diplomacy (Bettie
2019).
On the other hand, Canada scored better than the USA on inclusion and redress as
well as the need to increase capacity (Fig.2). This is reflected in Canada’s Interna-
tional Education Strategy (IES) 2019–2024 which provides focus on diversifying the
international student body “to foster sustainable growth of Canada’s international
Fig. 3 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in Western and Northern Europe

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
education sector and distribute the benefits more equitably across the country (Gov-
ernment of Canada 2019).
Western andNorthern Europe
Apart from Norway (a non-EU member), which had average scores in some cat-
egories, most countries in Western and Northern Europe, including the UK (a for-
mer EU member), have relatively high scores on most of the socio-economic driv-
ers to internationalization (Fig.3). The EU Commission’s higher education policies
have shaped the direction of some HEI activities of EU member countries, which
include Germany, France, and Netherlands. As an example, the EU’s “Renewed
Agenda for Higher Education” and the “European Skills Agenda for Sustainable
Fig. 4 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in global north countries in Oce-
ania and East Asia

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Competitiveness, Social Fairness and Resilience” puts a lot of emphasis on quality
education “to deliver a bold skills agenda for jobs” (European Commission 2020, p.
3). The adoption of these policy agendas by member countries has been critiqued
extensively, but what is evident is the socio-economic agenda setting direction pro-
vided by the regional bloc to the member countries.
On the other hand, the UK economic priorities are very explicit. The post-Brexit
UK International Education Strategy (2021) has a goal to drive UK education export
income from approximately $20bn to $35bn by 2030 (United Kingdom Government
2021). France’s “Choose France/Bienvenue en France” plan is also illustrative of
this emerging trend with its focus on increasing tuition fees for non-EU students by
16 times higher than their European counterparts since 2019 (Campus France 2018).
There is variation in other motivations related to security and national interests
as well as inclusivity (Fig.3). For example, the UK, France, and the Netherlands
consider national interests as an important driver of internationalization compared
Fig. 5 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in South and Southeast Asia

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
to Norway (Fig.3). In the Netherlands, due to concerns of the growing number of
international students, the language and accessibility bill was initiated in 2019 to
“safeguard the quality of education, promote Dutch language skills and control the
influx of international students” (Haverkort 2023). In his speech providing a road-
map to France’s soft power, France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-
Yves Le Drain noted that since 2017 France had “redefined its cultural presence in
the USA by creating Villa Albertine, a new concept offering French residency pro-
grammes” (Le Drian 2021).
Germany consistently scored very highly on drivers related to redress and
inclusion, international development, and addressing global problems. As one of
the highest recipients of refugees in the past decade, the German Federal Minis-
try for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) launched the special ini-
tiative “Tackling the Root Causes to Displacement—Reintegrating Refugees” to
Fig. 6 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in Sub-Saharan Africa

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
complement ongoing development cooperation and “support the inclusion of refu-
gees in national education and technical vocational education and training systems”
(BMZ 2020).
“Global North Countries” inOceania andEast Asia
Most “developed” economies in Oceania and East Asia also consider socio-
economic rationales as important drivers of higher education internationaliza-
tion (Fig.4). In China, the HEI policies have evolved since the 1980s when it was
focused on socio-economic development mostly through study abroad programme
(MOE 1978). In recent years, whilst there is a continued prioritization of socio-eco-
nomic development as China transitioned to a market economy, internationalization
policies have evolved to focus on China’s global impact and competitiveness (MOE
1999; State Council, 2015), the “care for humankind” (guan huai ren lei) (Central
Fig. 7 National higher education internationalization policy rationales in Latin America and the Carib-
bean

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Committee of the Chinese Communist Party 2017), and integration of Chinese his-
torical and cultural traditions (MOE 2007).
In Australia and New Zealand, the socio-economic drivers are influenced by
national governments’ approach to diversifying their export industries through
higher education (Harman 2004). Australia’s “Strategy for International Education
2021–2030” focuses on “diversifying the international student cohorts and coun-
tries” to “meet the country’s skills needs” whilst “enhancing economic growth and
global competitiveness” (Australia Government 2021, p. 5). Similarly, New Zea-
land’s “International Education Strategy 2022–2030” has a strong focus on fee-pay-
ing international student education experience (MOE New Zealand 2022).
In the case of Japan and South Korea, whilst there is an increased orientation
towards attracting international students and enhancing the competitiveness of the
higher education system (e.g. through the Top University Project in Japan to pro-
mote collaboration globally ranked institutions), there is also a gradual focus on
integrating the export-oriented approach with the knowledge-oriented approach (e.g.
Specified Skilled
Within the political rationales, China and Australia score significantly higher than
other countries on rationales linked to national interests, diplomacy and soft power,
and mutual understanding. The establishment of Confucian institutes is illustrative
of China’s exertion of its culture in partnerships (MOE 2004). Furthermore, due to
concerns of losing its educational sovereignty and the country’s nominal emphasis
on the socialist ideology, China places strict controls on international partnerships
(Lo and Pan 2021). In the case of Australia, section4 of the 2022 International Edu-
cation Strategy together with policy reviews such as the Bradley Review in 2008 and
the Chaney Report in 2013 emphasize the positioning of the country regionally and
ensuring the internationalization strategy fosters the country’s interests (Australia
Government 2021; Bradley etal. 2008; Chaney 2013).
South andSoutheast Asia
Malaysia, Thailand, and India have considerably high scores on socio-economic
rationales compared to the low-moderate scores for Pakistan and Cambodia (Fig.5).
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 outlined the country’s aspirations to cre-
ate a higher education system that enables Malaysia to compete in the “global econ-
omy”, “establish Malaysia as an international hub of higher education”, and “pro-
duce human capital with the first-class mentality” (MMoE 2015, p. 3). This is linked
to the country’s long-term goal to attract 250,000 international students annually by
2025. In doing so, the country is acquiring agency and challenging the traditional
narratives in higher education internationalization.
In the case of India, the country’s 2020 National Education Policy (NEP) and
related regulations have provisions which allow “world class universities” to set
up campuses in the country in collaboration with local partners to ensure progres-
sive competition and increase overall quality of the education system (MHRD
2020). In Thailand, the higher education system has continually been based
on internal models to assist the country’s development and participation in the
global economy (Rhein 2016). On the other hand, Cambodia and Pakistan have

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
relatively limited strategic approaches to higher education internationalization,
often prioritizing policy reform and system expansion (Chao 2016).
Malaysia and India also scored very highly on rationales linked to redress
and inclusion, national interests, diplomacy, and soft power, whilst Thailand had
moderate scores on national interest and diplomacy rationales (Fig.5). In the case
of India, despite the limited resources the country continues to provide educa-
tional and cultural support to several African and South Asian countries, (Isar
2017). This is line with efforts to restore the country as a “Vishwa Guru” (global
teacher) and build south–south partnerships dating back to the pre-colonial era
(MHRD 2020, p. 39).
Thailand’s moderate scores on national interests reflect its gradual pivot on
regionalization. Together with other middle-income countries in the region, Thai-
land has played an important role in promoting regional initiatives such as the
SEAMEO RIHED and ASEAN AIMS Programme with a mission to foster effi-
ciency, effectiveness, and harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia
(Chao 2016).
Sub‑Saharan Africa
Apart from South Africa, all the selected African countries lack explicit interna-
tionalization strategies which explains the relatively moderate to low scores on
most of the rationales (Fig.6). In the case of South Africa, the only country in the
region with a stand-alone internationalization policy, the socio-economic motiva-
tions seem to stand out. The 2021 Policy Framework for Internationalization is
explicit on this with a goal “to position the higher education system to be com-
petitive, advance quality of higher education, benefit society, contribute to the
public good, and development of scholars and scholarship” (DHET 2021, p. 20).
Internationalization is absent or mentioned in passing in the education poli-
cies of the other Sub-Saharan countries. This seems to suggest that HEI, which
is often dominated by outbound student mobility, is dictated by domestic fac-
tors related to access to quality education and developing a globally competitive
workforce (Kritz 2015; Woldegiorgis and Doevenspeck 2015). This is evident
in Kenya and Nigeria’s education policies which to utilize internationalization
to increase STEM programmes and the quality of higher education programmes
(Government of Kenya 2017; FME 2014.
The high scores in diplomacy, soft power, and mutual understanding for South
Africa reflect the country’s standing as the most influential regional geopolitical
force which is the third largest recipient of outbound international students from
Africa (Fig. 6). As such, the internationalization policy framework prioritizes
Southern African Development Community (SADC) states, the African conti-
nent, BRICS, and the global south in its HEI engagements. In line with the Afri-
can National Congress (ANC) led government’s Pan-African roots, South Africa
has been a key driver of BRICS higher education partnerships with Brazil, Rus-
sia, India, and China through the launch of the BRICS University League.

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Latin America andtheCaribbean
Brazil and Cuba scored very highly on all the rationales (Fig.7). Cuba`s high scores
are linked to its strong international academic cooperation despite the unfavour-
able international environment that limits its strategies (Gacel-Ávila 2020). Many
of these international agreements are with developing countries, mostly in Latin
America and Africa, combined with growing partnerships with Europe. In relation
to Brazil, despite not having a stand-alone internationalization strategy, the coun-
try has developed internationalization programmes such as Science Without Borders
(SWB) and Capes-Print which promote quality higher education through academic
mobility. The Capes-Print programme’s objectives have strong focus on “stimulat-
ing the formation of international research networks with a view to improving the
quality of academic production” (CAPES 2017, p. 12).
Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia have started prioritizing HEI in recent dec-
ades, with more focus on the socio-economic rationales (Perrotta 2016; Gacel-Avila
2020). For example, the Colombia Ministry of National Education internationali-
zation efforts prioritize “greater exchange of knowledge, technology transfer and
research, and improvement of accreditation standards” (MNE 2017).
Regional-level efforts promoting regional integration such as the Southern Com-
mon Market and Mercosur have been critical in shaping these national efforts
(Batista, 2021; Theiler 2015). Brazil and Argentina together with Paraguay and
Uruguay have led efforts to establish the Triennial Plan for MERCUSOR Education
Area focused on regional economic and academic integration.
Regarding political rationales, Brazil and Cuba have high scores (Fig.7). This is
particularly a result of their regional diplomatic efforts and scholarship programmes
in developing countries, which extend their global diplomatic aspirations that focus
on building strong alliances and mutual understanding across Latin America and the
global south. For example, Brazil’s Programa de Estudantes-Convênio de Gradu-
ação (PEC-G) and the Programa de Estudantes-Convênio de PósGraduação (PEC-
PG) scholarship programmes targeting international students from Africa. The
government considers these programmes as educational cooperation that seeks to
increase Brazil’s role on the international stage through assistance to global south
countries and fostering cultural cooperation and mutual understanding with global
south. (CAPES 2022, p. 11).
Discussion andConclusions
This paper has revealed the varying and related complexities to rationales HEI poli-
cies between the Global North and Global South countries. Within the dominant
socio-economic dimension of internationalization, there was considerable variation
in the manifestation of these rationales depending on the context and priorities. In
the global north, predominantly in the English-speaking countries—UK, Australia,
and New Zealand, internationalization has a strong market and commercialized ori-
entation focused on attracting fee-paying international students (Robertson 2010;
Shukr 2017). This model of internationalization is gradually spreading to Canada

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
and continental Europe—countries which prioritized the social and academic
aspects of internationalization in the past (De Wit and Altbach 2021).
The study also showed that in recent years a few middle-income countries in the
global south (e.g. Malaysia) have also adopted this market-centred and commercial-
ized model of higher education internationalization and started to compete for inter-
national students with the traditional markets. This trend reflects the shifts in agency
in international higher education (Bamberger and Morris 2023; Glass and Cruz
2022). This shows that in the push for and from globalization, traditional models
and trends linked to internationalization are being challenged by multipolar models
in increasingly competitive environments (Ge 2022).
In the global south, the research findings also suggest that the dominant socio-
economic dimensions were mostly shaped by massification and the global knowl-
edge economy (Rumbley etal 2022; Brunner and Labraña 2020). The burgeoning
youth population and reforms in education, particularly, in Africa have increased the
demand for quality higher education (Marginson 2016). To cope with this increased
demand, these countries have facilitated bilateral and multilateral academic and stu-
dent mobility programmes (Choudaha 2017; Riaño etal. 2018; Teichler 2017).
The research findings also reveal that the global knowledge economy has simi-
larly necessitated an increased focus on higher education internationalization in both
the global south and north. In Asia, there is evidence in the reorientation of devel-
opmental states moving from export-oriented, investment-led growth to knowledge-
intensive, investment-led growth—with increased focus on attracting global talent
(Jessop 2016; Altbach and Jalote 2020). At the same time, global north countries
which are experiencing shifting demographics and stagnating Gross Enrolment
Ratios (GERs) are increasingly promoting policies to attract scholars from the global
south (Choudaha 2017; Teichler 2017). This has created tensions in the global north
with policymakers balancing the need for imported skilled talent and nationalists’
pressures to reduce the influx of immigrants (Hazelkorn 2020). These tensions have
been compounded by the current global disorders such as technological disruptions
and geopolitical instabilities.
The manner in which the socio-economic rationales manifest differently across
countries shows how the benefits and effects of internationalization as a “global cul-
tural frame” vary in diverse contexts (Buckner 2019; Suarez and Bromley 2016).
This suggests that policymakers are “translating” and “editing” the globalized
model of internationalization and imbuing it with “new meanings to align to the
language, needs, values, or cultural frames of the local context” (Sahlin and Wedlin
2008, 220).
Political rationales linked to national security, international diplomacy, and
soft power are the second dominant driver to internationalization, predominantly
amongst global and regional powers. This is mostly associated with the competitive
nature of global higher education and the disintegration of the global world order
(Kuzminov and Yudkevich 2022). Global south regional powers (e.g. BRICS mem-
bers with alliances dating back to colonial resistance) were designing internationali-
zation policies to challenge the existing dominant Western paradigms (Alessi 2012).
Postcolonial theories have often been used to describe this political shift which
acknowledges the need to address global political, economic, epistemic, and

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
ontological power inequalities (Stein 2021a; Suspitsyna 2021; Xu 2023). However,
authors such as Bamberger and Morris 2023; Stein 2021b; Mulvey 2022 have cri-
tiqued this conceptual framing. These authors argue that this postcolonial framing
adopts a bipolar view of geopolitics which does not serve as the organizing frame
in an increasingly complex and multipolar geopolitical context. The critiques also
argue that global south states such as China and India which have high politi-
cal rationales scores are capable of perpetuating dominant national identities and
visions in their regions which may become imperial or colonial (Bamberger and
Morris 2023; Tröhler 2023).
The political rationales in the global south also indicate the increased importance
of regionalization as a driver to internationalization as regional blocs conformed to
or challenged developments in the EU Higher Education Area and the global north
(Knight and Woldegiorgis 2017; Chou and Ravinet 2015; Khalid etal. 2019; Batista
2021; Kim 2016). This was informed by shared values and identity in these regional
blocs, particularly, Southeast Asia and Latin America. The research in Europe shows
some of the limitations of regional higher education models. For example, Vellamo
etal (2022) showed how Finnish institutions have resisted losing their autonomy in
relation to the Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Programmes in the EU.
The results also suggest that narrow self-interest priorities shaped by global com-
petition are starting to be challenged as they undermine addressing complex socio-
ecological global challenges. Due to these critiques, this paper provides evidence
from a few countries mostly in Western Europe and in the global south which sug-
gest a shift linking internationalization to global common goals—giving rise to
the notion of “internationalization for society” (Jones etal. 2021). This perspec-
tive also aligns with efforts to link internationalization with the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) (de Wit and Altbach 2021). However, some scholars
have argued that this overwhelmingly positive and depoliticized approach does not
facilitate transformational change as it continues the “enduring patterns of Euro-
centric knowledge production, exploitative relationships, and inequitable access to
resources” (Stein 2021a, b, p. 1773, see also Bamberger and Morris 2023; Mulvey
2022; Ziai 2019).
The above analysis points to complexity in eliciting meaning to HEI in differ-
ent contexts. The evidence from this paper shows that whilst the HEI concept and
related rationales have been framed as a contemporary economic and commercial-
ized trend driven by the global north, the phenomenon is increasingly complex and
multipolar with new global south actors acquiring agency (Tight 2022; Glass and
Cruz 2022). More so, local, national, and regional contexts, and the current geopo-
litical disorders are steadily shaping the HEI agendas, pointing to diverse ways in
which actors are interpreting the benefits of the global phenomenon in consideration
of their nation’s particular priorities.
Funding Open access funding provided by University of Pretoria.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Alessi, C. (2012) Does the BRICS Group Matter [Interview with Martin Wolf]. Retrieved from https://
www. cfr. org/ inter view/ does- brics- group- matter.
Alsharari, N.M. (2018) Internationalization of Higher Education Systems: An Interpretative Analysis.
International Journal of Educational Management 32(3): 359–381.
Altbach, P. G. and Jalote, P. (2020) When will India Build World-Class Research Universities. World
University News. Retrieved from: https:// www. unive rsity world news. com/ post. php? story= 20200
92111 22037 67.
Australia Government. (2021) Australian Strategy for International Education 2021-2030. Available
Online: https:// www. educa tion. gov. au/ austr alian- strat egy- inter natio nal- educa tion- 2021- 2030/ resou
rces/ austr alian- strat egy- inter natio nal- educa tion- 2021- 2030.
Bamberger, A. and Morris, P. (2023) ‘Critical Perspectives on Internationalization in Higher Education:
Commercialization, Global Citizenship, or Postcolonial Imperialism?’, Critical Studies in Educa-
tion 1–9.
Batista, M.V. (2021) Higher Education Regionalization in South America. Higher Education Policy
34(1): 474–498.
Berg, B.L. (2001) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bettie, M. (2019) Exchange Diplomacy: Theory, Policy, and Practice in the Fulbright Program. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy 16: 212–223.
Bordean, O.N. and Borza, A. (2013) Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions: The Case of
Romania. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 92: 98–103.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H. and Scales, B. (2008) A Final Report on the Review of Australian
Higher Education: Discussion Paper, Canberra: Commonwealth Australia.
Braff, L. and Nelson, K. (2022) ’The Global North: Introducing the Region’, in K. Nelson and T. Fernan-
dez (eds.) Gendered Lives: Global IssuesNew York: Suny Press.
Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., Leask, B. & Drobner, A. (2020) ‘Internationalization in Higher
Education for Society (IHES): Concepts, Current Research and Examples of Good Practice’, Ger-
man Academic Exchange Service.
Brandt, W. (1980) ‘North-South: A Programme for Survival’, Report of the Independent Commission on
International Development Issues.
Brunner, J.J. and Labraña, J. (2020) ’The Transformation of Higher Education in Latin America: From
Elite Access to Massification and Universalisation’, in S. Scwartman (ed.) Higher Education in
Latin America and the Challenges of the 21st CenturyCham: Springer, pp. 31–41.
Buckner, E. (2019) The ‘Internationalization of Higher Education: National Interpretations of a Global
Model.’ Comparative Education Review 63(3): 315–337.
Campus France. (2018) Choose France, La stratégie d’attractivité des étudiants. Retrieved from: https://
www. campu sfran ce. org/ fr/ choose- france- strat egie- attra ctivi te- etudi ants- inter natio naux- bienv
enue- en- france.
Chaney, M. (2013) Australia: Educating Globally, Canberra: International Education Advisory Council.
Chao, R.Y. (2016) ’Changing Higher Education Discourse in the Making of the ASEAN Region’, in S.L.
Robertson, K. Olds, R. Dale and Q.A. Dang (eds.) Global Regionalism and Higher Education:
Projects, Processes, PoliticsLondon: Edward Elgar, pp. 124–142.
Chou, M. and Ravinet, P. (2015) ’The rise of Higher Education Regionalism: An Agenda for Higher
Education Research’, in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D.D. Dill and M. Souto-Otero (eds.) The Pal-
grave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and GovernanceLondon: Springer, pp.
361–378.
Choudaha, R. (2017) Three Waves of International Student Mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher
Education 42(5): 825–832.

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Collier, D., Mahoney, J. and Seawright, J. (2004) ’Claiming Too Much: Warnings about Selection Bias’,
in H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.) Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standard-
sRowman and Littlefield, pp. 85–102.
Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J.L. (2012) Theory from the South or How Euro-America is Evolving Towards
Africa, London: Routledge.
Cooper, A.F. (2021) China, India and the pattern of G20/BRICS engagement: Differentiated Ambiva-
lence between “Rising” Power Status and Solidarity with the Global South. Third World Quarterly
42(9): 1945–1962.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). (2017a) Programa Institu-
cional de Internacionalização—Capes-PrInt EDITAL nº. 41/2017. Available Online: https:// www.
gov. br/ capes/ pt- br/ centr ais- de.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). (2022) Evolução do SNPG no
decênio do PNPG 2011-2020. Brasilia: Ministério da Educação-CAPES.
Crăciun, D. (2018) ’National Policies for Higher Education Internationalisation: A Global Comparative
Perspective’, in A. Curaj, L. Deca and R. Pricopie (eds.) European Higher Education Area: The
Impact of Past and Future PoliciesLondon: Springer, pp. 95–106.
Daugbjerg, S.B., Kahlmeier, S., Racioppi, F., Martin-Diener, E., Martin, B., Oja, P. and Bull, F. (2009)
Promotion of Physical Activity in the European Region: Content Analysis of 27 National Policy
Documents. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 6(6): 805–817.
De Wit, H. (2002a) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America and
Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis, Westport: Greenwood Press.
De Wit, H. (2022) ’Mestenhauser’s Influence on Future International Education Policy’, in A.M.
D’Angelo, M.K. O’brien and G. Marty (eds.) AM DAngeloLondon: Mestenhauser and the Possibil-
ities of International Education Illuminating Pathways for Inquiry and Future Practice. Routledge,
pp. 197–209.
De Wit, H. and Altbach, P.G. (2021) Internationalisation in Higher Education: Global Trends and Recom-
mendations for its Future. Policy Reviews in Higher Education 5(1): 28–46.
De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L. and Egron-Polak, E. (2015) Internationalisation of Higher Education:
Study, Brussels: Report submitted to the European Parliament.
De Wit, H., Rumbley, L., Crăciun, D., Mihut, G. and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019) International Mapping
of National Tertiary Education Internationalisation Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs): Analytical
Report, Boston, MA: Centre for International Higher Education.
Demeter, M. (2019) The World-Systematic Dynamics of Knowledge Production: The Distribution of
Transnational Academic Capital in Social Sciences. Journal of World-Systems Research 25(1):
111–144.
De Wit, H. (2002b) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the United States of America and
Europe: A Historical, Comparative and Conceptual Analysis, Westport: Greenwood Press.
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) (2021) Policy Framework for Internationalisation
of Higher Education in South Africa, Pretoria: DHET, Republic of South Africa.
Dobbins, M. and Kwiek, M. (2017) Europeanisation and Globalisation in Higher Education in Central
and Eastern Europe: 25 Years of Changes Revisited (1990–2015). European Educational Research
Journal 16(5): 519–528.
Commission, European (2020) European Skills Agenda for Sustainable Competitiveness, Social Fairness
and Resilience, Brussels: European Commission.
Federal Ministry of Education (FME). (2014) National Policy on Education. FME, Government of Nig-
era. Available Online: https:// educa tion. gov. ng/ natio nal- policy- on- educa tion/# 66.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2020) Internationalisation of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. In
Need of Robust Policies. International Journal for African Higher Education 7(2): 141–149.
Ge, Y. (2022) Internationalisation of Higher Education: New Players in a Changing Scene. Educational
Research and Evaluation 27(3–4): 229–238.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development (BMZ). (2020) Recommenda-
tions On working towards the Inclusion of Refugees in National Education And TVET Systems.
Retrieved from https:// Globa lcomp actre fugees. org/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ 2021- 12/ Inclu sion% 20of%
20Ref ugees% 20in% 20Nat ional% 20Edu cation% 20Sys tems% 20% E2% 80% 93% 20Les sons% 20Lea
rnt% 20from% 20Ger many% E2% 80% 99s% 20Dev elopm ent% 20Coo perat ion. pdf.
Glass, C.R. and Cruz, N.I. (2022) Moving towards Multipolarity: Shifts in the Core-Periphery Struc-
ture of International Student Mobility and World Rankings (2000–2019). Higher Education 85(2):
1–21.

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Gosovic, B. (2016) The Resurgence of South-South Cooperation. Third World Quarterly 37(4): 733–743.
Government of Canada. (2019) Building on Success: International Education Strategy 2019–2024.
Global Affairs Canada. Available online.
Government of Kenya. (2017) National Education Sector Strategic Plan: 2018-2022. Nairobi: Ministry
of Education, Republic of Kenya. Available Online: https:// www. dlci- hoa. org/ assets/ upload/ educa
tion- docum ents/ 20200 80401 16123 62. pdf.
Hammond, C.D. (2016) Internationalization, Nationalism, and Global Competitiveness: A Comparison of
Approaches to Higher Education in China and Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review 17: 555–566.
Haug, S., Bravebov-Wagner, J. and Maihold, G. (2021) The ‘Global South’ in the Study of World Politics:
Examining a Meta Category. Third World Quarterly 42(9): 1923–1944.
Haverkort, A. (2023) Website article ‘Minister Published Long-Awaited Letter on International Students
in Higher Education’, Available online: https:// www. vbk. nl/ en/ legal update/ minis ter- publi shes-
long- await ed- letter- inter natio nal- stude nts- higher- educa tion.
Hawkins, J.N. (2017) Mixing Metaphors: Globalisation, Internationalization, Localism—Competing
Impulses in Higher Education. Paper presented at the meeting of Contesting Globalisation and
Implications for Asian Pacific Higher Education: Resurgent Nationalism in International Higher
Education; October, Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
Hazelkorn, E. (2020) Higher Education in the Age of Populism: Public Good and Civic Engagement.
International Higher Education 74(100): 507–525.
Highman, L., Marginson, S. and Papatsiba, V. (2023) Higher Education and Research: Multiple Nega-
tive Effects, and No New Opportunities after Brexit. Journal of Academy of Social Sciences 18(2):
216–234.
Hoang, L., Tran, L.T. and Pham, H. (2018) ’Vietnamese Government Policies and Practices in Inter-
nationalisation of Higher Education’, in L. Tran and P. Marginson (eds.) Internationalization in
Vietnamese Higher Education: Higher Education Dynamics, vol. 51, Cham: Springer, pp. 19–42.
Hoffmeister, O. (2020) Development Status as a Measure of Development. UNCTAD Research Paper No.
46. UNCTAD/SER.RP/2020/5.
Horner, R. (2020) ‘Towards a New Paradigm of Global Development? Beyond the Limits of International
Development. Progress in Human Geography 44(3): 415–436.
Hsieh, H. and Shannon, S.E. (2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative
Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.
Jang, D.H., Ryu, K., Yi, P. and Craig, D.A. (2016) The Hurdles to Being World Class: Narrative Analysis
of the World Class University Project in Korea. Higher Education Policy 29(2): 234–253.
Jessop, B. (2016) Putting Higher Education in its Place in (Easy Asian) Political Economy. Comparative
Education 52(1): 8–25.
Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2012) Globalization of Internationalisation: Thematic and Regional Reflections
on a Traditional Concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democ-
racy 3: 35–54.
Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandeburg, U. and de Wit, H. (2021) Global Social Responsibility and the Interna-
tionalisation of Higher Education for Society. Journal of Studies in International Education 25(4):
330–347.
Kaul, I. (2013) The Rise of the Global South: Implications for the Provisioning of Global Public Goods.
Occasional Paper 2013/08: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Khalid, J., Ali, A.J., Nordin, N.M. and Shah, S.H. (2019) Regional Cooperation in Higher Education: Can
it Lead ASEAN Towards Harmonization. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 8(1): 81–98.
Kim, T. (2016) Internationalisation and Development in the East Asian Higher Education: An Introduc-
tion. Comparative Education 52(1): 1–7.
Kim, D., Song, Q., Liu, J., Liu, Q. and Brimm, A. (2018) Building World Class Universities in China:
Exploring Faculty’s Perceptions, Interpretations of and Struggles with Global Forces in Higher
Education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 48(1): 92–109.
Kleinheksel, A.J., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H. and Wyatt, T.R. (2020) Demystifying Content Analy-
sis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 84(1): 127–137.
Klemenčič, M. (2019) 20 Years of the Bologna Process in Global Setting: The External Dimension of the
Bologna Process Revisited. European Journal of Higher Education 9(1): 2–6.
Knight, J. (2004a) New Rationales Driving Internationalisation. International Higher Education 34(Win-
ter): 3–5.
Knight, J. (2004b) Internationalisation Remodelled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of
Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Knight, J. (2012) ’Concepts, Rationales, and Interpretive Frameworks in the Internationalisation of
Higher Education’, in D.K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J.D. Heyl and T. Adams (eds.) The SAGE Hand-
book of International Higher EducationThousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 27–42.
Knight, J. (2015) ’Meaning, Rationales and Tensions in the Internationalisation of Higher Education’, in
S. McGrath and Q. Gu (eds.) Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development-
London: Routeledge, pp. 325–340.
Knight, J. (2021) Higher Education Internationalisation: Concepts, Rationales and Frameworks. Revista
Redalint 1(1): 65–88.
Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2017) Regionalization of African Higher Education: Progress and
Prospects, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (1997) Internationalisation of Higher Education in the Asia Pacific Countries,
Amsterdam: EAIE.
Krippendorf, K. (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kritz, M. (2015) International Student Mobility and Tertiary Education Capacity in Africa. Interna-
tional Migration 53(1): 29–49.
Kuckartz, U. (2016) Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software,
London: Sage.
Kuckartz, U. and Rädiker, S. (2019) Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA, London: Springer.
Kuzminov, Y. and Yudkevich, M. (2022) Higher Education in Russia, Maryland: John Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Lawson, R. (2015) Web Scraping with Python, UK: Packt Publishing.
Le Drian, J. (2021) Address by Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, French Minister for Europe and Foreign
Affairs - Cooperation and Cultural Action Counsellor networking days—Paris, 14 December
2021. Available Online: https:// www. diplo matie. gouv. fr/ en/ the- minis try- and- its- netwo rk/ the-
work- of- the- minis try- for- europe- and- forei gn- affai rs/ roadm ap- for- france- s- soft- power/.
Leal, F.G. and Moraes, M.C. (2018) Higher Education, South-South Cooperation and Brazilian For-
eign Policy: Analyzing the Programa Estudante Convênio de Graduação (PEC-G). Revista
Internacional De Cooperación y Desarrollo 5(1): 12–30.
Leask, B. and Gayardon, A. (2021) Reimagining Internationalization for Society. Journal of Studies in
International Education 25(4): 323–329.
Li, X., Dai, K. and Zhang, X. (2023) Transnational Higher Education in China: Policies, Practices,
and Development in a (Post-)Pandemic Era. Higher Education Policy 36(4): 815–836.
Lipura, S. and J. and Collins, F.L. (2020) Towards an Integrative Understanding of Contemporary
Educational Mobilities: A Critical Agenda for International Student Mobilities Research. Glo-
balisation, Societies and Education 18(3): 343–359.
Lo, T.Y. and Pan, S. (2021) The Internationalisation of China’s Higher Education: Soft Power with
Chinese Characteristics. Comparative Education 57(2): 227–246.
Lo, W.Y. and Hou, A.Y. (2020) ‘A Farewell to Internationalisation? Striking a Balance between Global
Ambition and Local Needs in Higher Education in Taiwan. Higher Education 80: 497–510.
Majee, U.S. and Ress, S.B. (2018) Colonial Legacies in Internationalisation of Higher Education:
Racial Justice and Geopolitical Redress in South Africa and Brazil. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 50(4): 463–481.
Mäkinen, S. (2023) Internationalisation in Challenging Times: Practices and Rationales of Internal
and External Stakeholders. European Journal of Higher Education 13(2): 126–141.
Malaysia Ministry of Education (MMoE). (2015) Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025. Putra-
jaya: Ministry of Education, Putrajaya: Government of Malaysia.
Marginson, S. (2011) Higher Education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian Model.
Higher Education 61: 587–611.
Marginson, S. (2016) Higher Participation Systems of Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Edu-
cation 87(2): 243–271.
Maringe, F., Foskett, N. and Woodfield, S. (2012) Emerging Internationalisation Models in an Uneven
Global Terrain: Findings from a Global Survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Inter-
national Education 43(1): 9–36.
Ministry of Education (MOE) Government of New Zealand. (2022) Internationa Education Strategy
2022-2030. Wellington: Government of New Zealand.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China (1978) Jiaoyubu Guanyu Zengxuan Chuguo
Liuxue-shen gDe Ton gzhi[Notice concerning increasing and selecting oversea students by the
Ministry of Education], Beijing: Hainan Press.

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China (1999) Action Plan for Revitalisation of
Education in the 21st Century, Beijing: Hainan Press.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China. (2004) Implementation Methods for Regu-
lations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in running schools.
Beijing. Available Online: https:// www. crs. jsj. edu. cn/ news/ index/6.
Ministry of Education (MOE) People’s Republic of China. (2007) National Educational Development
‘Eleventh Five-Year Plan’ (2006-2010). Beijing: Available Online: http:// www. gov. cn/ zwgk/
2007- 05/ 23/ conte nt_ 623645. htm.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology, Japan (MEXT). (2014) Top Global
University. Tokyo: Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(MEXT). Available Online: https:// tgu. mext. go. jp/ en/ about/ index. html.
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). (2020) National Education Policy 2020. Min-
istry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Available Online: https:// www.
educa tion. gov. in/ sites/ upload_ files/ mhrd/ files/ NEP_ Final_ Engli sh_0. pdf.
Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2017) Internationalization of Higher Education. MNE,
Columbia Government. Available Online: https:// www. mined ucaci on. gov. co/ portal/ Educa cion-
super ior/% 20Inf ormac ion- Desta cada/ 196472: Inter nacio naliz acion- de- la- educa cion- super ior.
Mok, K.H., Wang, Z. and Neubauer, D. (2020) Contesting Globalisation and Implications for Higher
Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges and Prospects. Higher Education Policy 33:
397–411.
Morrison, W.M. (2019) China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the
United States. Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western Asia 28(2): 189–242.
Mulvey, B. (2022) Participatory Parity as a Way Forward for Critical Internationalisation Studies.
Studies in Higher Education 47(12): 1–13.
Odeh, L.M. (2010) A Comparative Analysis of Global North and Global South Economies. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa 12(3): 338–348.
Perrotta, D.V. (2016) Regionalism and Higher Education in South America: A Comparative Analy-
sis for Understanding Internationalisation. Journal of Supranational Policies of Education 4:
54–81.
Reilly, J. and Sweeney, S. (2021) ’Erasmus and the Bologna Process’, in T. Hoerber, G.M. Weber
and I. Cabras (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of European IntegrationsLondon: Routledge, pp.
78–91.
Rhein, D. (2016) Westernisation and the Thai Higher Education System: Past and Present. Journal of
Educational Administration and History 48(3): 261–274.
Riaño, Y., Van Mol, C. and Raghuram, P. (2018) New Directions in Studying Policies of International
Student Mobility and Migration. Globalisation, Societies and Education 16(3): 283–294.
Riggs, J. (2007) An Everyday Geography of the Global South, London: Routledge.
Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. and Rinne, R. (2022) Reimagining Globalization and Education, New York:
Routledge.
Robertson, S. (2010) Globalising UK Higher Education. LLAKES Research Paper 16.
Rumbley, L.E., Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Leask, B. (2022) ’Trends in Global Higher Education
and the Future of Internationalization—Beyond 2020’, in D.K. Deardoff, H. De Wit, B. Leask
and H. Charles (eds.) The Handbook of International Higher EducationNew York: Routledge,
pp. 34–61.
Sabzalieva, E., Martinez, M. and Sa, C. (2020) Moving Beyond “North” and “South”: Global Per-
spectives on International Research Collaborations. Journal of Studies in International Educa-
tion 24(1): 3–8.
Sahlin, K. and Wedlin, L. (2008) ’Circulating Ideas: Imitation, Translation and Editing’, in R. Green-
wood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Insti-
tutionalismLondon: Sage.
Saldaña, J. (2021) ’Coding Techniques for Quantitative and Mixed Data’, in A.J. Onwuegbuzie and
R.B. Johnson (eds.) The Routledge Reviewer’s Guide to Mixed Methods AnalysisNew York:
Routledge, pp. 56–87.
Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J. and Paleari, S. (2016) Why do Higher Education Institutions
Internationalize: An Investigation of the Multilevel Determinants of International Rationales.
Higher Education 72: 685–702.

1 3
Internationalization ofHigher Education andEmerging National…
Sehoole, C., Strang, K., Jowi, J.O. and McVeely. (2024) Reframing Global North-South Collabora-
tions through the Lens of Aware, Connect, Empower (ACE) Principles. Journal of International
Students 14(2): 32–43.
Shukr, M. (2017) Commodification of Education in United Kingdom. Journal of Law and Society
Management 4(1): 64–72.
State Council (People’s Republic of China) (2015) Coordinate development of world class universities
and first class disciplines overall program. ((国发〔2015〕64 号). Beijing. Available Online:
http:// www. gov. cn/ zheng ce/ conte nt/ 2015- 11/ 05/ conte nt_ 10269. htm.
Stein, S. (2021a) What Can Decolonial and Abolitionist Critiques Teach the Field of Higher Educa-
tion? The Review of Higher Education 44(3): 387–414.
Stein, S. (2021b) Critical Internationalisation Studies at an Impasse: Making Space for Complex-
ity, Uncertainty, and Complicity in a Time of Global Challenges. Studies in Higher Education
46(9): 1771–1784.
Suarez, D. and Bromley, P. (2016) ’Institutional Theories and Levels of Analysis: History, Diffusion,
and Translation’, in J. Schrwiewer (ed.) World Culture RecontextualisedNew York: Routledge,
pp. 23–45.
Suspitsyna, T. (2021) Internationalization, Whiteness, and Biopolitics of Higher Education. Journal
of International Students 11(1): 50–67.
Teferra, D. (2014) The Shifting Landscape of Development Cooperation: Repercussions for African
Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education in Africa 12(2): 1–28.
Teichler, U. (2017) Internationalisation Trends in Higher Education and the Changing Role of Inter-
national Student Mobility. Journal of International Mobility 1(5): 177–196.
Theiler, J.C. (2015) ’Internationalization of Higher Education in Argentina’, in H. De Wit, C. Jara-
millo, J. Gacel-Avila and J. Knight (eds.) Higher Education in Latin America: The Interna-
tional DimensionWashington DC: World Bank, pp. 71–100.
Thondhlana, J., Abdulrahman, H., Garwe, E.C. and McGrath, S. (2021) Exploring the Internationali-
sation of Zimbabwe’s Higher Education Institutions Through a Decolonial Lens: Postcolonial
Continuities and Disruptions. Journal of Studies in International Education 25(3): 228–246.
Tight, M. (2021) Globalization and Internationalization as Frameworks for Higher Education
Research. Research Papers in Education 36(1): 52–74.
Tight, M. (2022) Internationalisation of higher education beyond the West: Challenges and Opportu-
nities—The Research Evidence. Educational Research and Evaluation 27(3–4): 239–259.
Tight, M. (2024) ‘Decolonization and Higher Education: A Critical Review of a Contemporary Con-
cern. Policy and Theory’, Higher Education Policy 37: 59–72.
Tran, L.T. and Bui, H. (2021) Public Diplomacy and Social Impact of Australian Student Mobility to
the Indo-Pacific: Host Countries. Perspectives on Hosting New Colombo Plan Students’, Jour-
nal of Studies in International Education 25(4): 425–442.
Tröhler, D. (2023) Comparative Education or Epistemological Power Games for World Domination.
Comparative Education 59(3): 458–474.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). (2023) Inbound internationally mobile students. Retrieved from
http:// data. uis. unesco. org/ index. aspx? query id= 3806.
United Kingdom Government. (2021) International Education Strategy: Global Potential, Global
Growth. Available online: https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ inter natio nal- educa
tion- strat egy- Global- poten tial- Global- growth/ inter natio nal- educa tion- strat egy- Global- poten
tial- Global- growth.
US Department of State & Department of Education. (2021) Joint Statement of Principles In Support
Of International Education. Retrieved from https:// educa tionu sa. state. gov/ sites/ defau lt/ files/
intl_ ed_ joint_ state ment. pdf.
Valcke, J. (2020) ’Beyond English-Medium Education: From Internationalisation to Sustainable
Development’, in H. Bowles and A.C. Murphy (eds.) English-Medium Instruction and the Inter-
nationalisation of UniversitiesLondon: Springer, pp. 259–279.
Van Der Wende, M. (2001) Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and contrasting Para-
digms. Higher Education Policy 14(September): 249–259.
Vellamo, T., Kivisto, J. and Pausits, A. (2022) Steering by stealth? Influence of Erasmus Mundus
Joint Master’s Programmes in European Higher Education Policy. European Journal of Higher
Education 13(2): 179–196.
Wihlborg, M. and Robson, S. (2018) Internationalisation of Higher Education: Drivers, Rationales,
Priorities, Values and Impacts. European Journal of Higher Education 8(1): 8–18.

F.Kapfudzaruwa
1 3
Wihlborg, M. (2019) Critical Viewpoints on the Bologna Process in Europe: Ca we do otherwise?
European Educational Research Journal 16(2): 135–157.
Wihlborg, M. and Teelken, C. (2014) Striving for Uniformity, Hoping for Innovation and Diversifica-
tion: A Critical Review Concerning the Bologna Process—Providing an Overview and Reflect-
ing Criticism. Policy Futures in Education 12(8): 1084–1100.
Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2018) ’Policy Travel in Regionalism of Higher Education: The Case of Bologna
Process in Africa’, in A. Curaj, A. Deca and R. Pricopie (eds.) European Higher Education
Area: The Impact of Past and Future PoliciesCham: Springer, pp. 43–60.
Woldegiorgis, E.T. and Doevenspeck, M. (2015) Current Trends, Challenges and Prospects of Student
Mobility in the African Higher Education Landscape. International Journal of Higher Educa-
tion 4(2): 105–115.
Xu, Z. (2023) ‘Whiteness as World-class Education? Internationalization as Depicted by Western
International Branch Campuses in China. Higher Education 85: 919–936.
Yonezawa, A. (2018) Japan: World Class Universities for Social Innovation. International. Higher
Education 96: 21–23.
Ziai, A. (2019) Towards a More Critical Theory of ‘Development’ in the 21st Century. Development
and Change 50(2): 458–467.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.