From chaos to stability. Are we entering a new international student order?

Over the past eight months, international student policy in a range of leading host countries – in particular Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom – has been rather chaotic and confusing. Caps on international student numbers, increasing visa costs, and reductions in the number of courses taught in English, are some of the measures taken to reduce the number of international students in countries that until recently were actively recruiting them, mainly for reasons of revenue generation and/or skilled immigration.

Arguments in favor of these more restrictive policy settings go from practical concerns, such as lack of student housing, to worries about national security and immigration. But there are also numerous arguments against such measures, including the need for human capital, their negative economic impact on universities and regions, the value of international classroom environments, and the importance of soft power and knowledge diplomacy.

No easy answers

Among those opposed to policies welcoming more international students, are those criticizing such policies as neoliberalist and commodifying higher education; those fearing too much dependence on the income from international students, in particular from the two main sending countries, China and India; as well as nationalists perceiving international students as unwelcome immigrants.

Among those who support increasing the numbers of international students are big industries, who consider them as valuable human capital; governors of regions who fear closure of their higher education institutions and industries as a result of local demographic decline; universities, which see them as an important source of revenue and/or a resource enriching the classroom environment; and degree programs that risk being cancelled.

As always, there are no easy answers or directions. International students are indeed a welcome contribution to society, the economy, and academia, and can bring a positive contribution to knowledge diplomacy. However, risks and negative implications are also clear: increased economic dependence; lack of quality education and services; brain drain; and overrepresentation of students from one or two countries in the classroom. The way forward has to be found in comprehensive strategies involving all stakeholders and allowing for diverse and flexible solutions for different programs and institutional and regional contexts.

The Dutch example

The Dutch case is a good example of the complexity in developing such a plan. At the start of 2024, the former minister of education, Robert Dijkgraaf, proposed a new law to address the many issues at stake and keep the various stakeholders happy. And although most were not really happy, the law was aiming to find a middle way. But the newly formed nationalist government this summer, with members from a majority of anti-immigration parties opposing teaching in English and recruiting international students, will likely take a more negative direction.

In that respect, elections in France and the United Kingdom provide hope for a more positive perspective. Plans by the French government to introduce higher tuition fees for international students were canceled already before the last elections in June and are likely to remain so. The new Labour government in the United Kingdom might seek to reduce the perception of international students and/or their families as unwelcome immigrants.

In Australia and Canada, compromises are likely to be reached on caps on international students numbers that are milder than initially planned. Other leading countries, such as Germany, Spain, and Italy, seem to be more stable in their policies and as such remain attractive options.

The United States, which remains the leading host country for international students, is an interesting case. In the short term, it might benefit from the impact of the negative policies applied in the other Anglophone countries. Even if Donald Trump, with his notorious anti-immigration and nationalist stance, were to be elected, there are signs that international students will continue to be welcome, although most likely only from so-called “friendly nations,” and that those in STEM fields will even be allowed to stay after graduation.

A more competitive and globalized market

So, are we witnessing more stability in international student recruitment by the main host countries in the Global North, after a period of chaos and negativity? Apparently yes, although still much is unclear and some damage is done.

Those more restrictive policy settings are being introduced in an increasingly competitive globalized market, in which the share of the leading countries keeps decreasing. Main sending countries in Asia such as China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and more recently also India, are gradually shifting toward also welcoming international students. Their competitive strengths are clear: lower costs, scholarships, improving reputation and positions in international rankings, and an alternative to unwelcoming and xenophobic trends in the Global North.

Within a changing geopolitical environment, these countries have become more attractive to students from their own regions and from Africa. Other countries moving in the same direction are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East, and Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. And we also see signs of increasing regional recruitment in some countries and institutions in Africa and Latin America. Transnational education (branch campuses, franchise operations, and various forms of articulation programs) is also part of this new global order.

Stability everywhere still far away

This intensified competition in student recruitment does not imply, however, that a major shift in international student mobility from the Global North to the rest of the world will happen any time soon. Also, these new markets face some serious challenges regarding quality of education (most international students go to poor quality, private institutions), xenophobia (see recent attacks on international students in Kyrgyzstan and South Africa), lack of academic freedom and critical thinking (in China, but also elsewhere), wars and political instability (Ukraine, Bangladesh, South Sudan). The global international recruitment order may be shifting, but, for the international student, real questions of stability, quality, equity, and inclusiveness remain.