This is a pre-print copy of the paper published in the Studies of Higher Education. The recommended reference: Oleksiyenko , A., Cheng, K.M. & Yip, H.K. (2012): International student mobility in Hong Kong: private good, public good, or trade in services?, Studies in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.630726
International Student Mobility in Hong Kong: Private Good, Public Good, or Trade in Services?
Anatoly Oleksiyenko, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong1, Kai-ming Cheng, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, and Hak-Kwong Yip, Policy 21, Hong Kong Abstract International student mobility has emerged as a key source of societal and educational transformations in the booming economies of East Asia. International competencies are increasingly valued by employees and employers alike. Given the uneven distribution of international student flows and the inequitable levels of benefit that they bring to various locales and institutions, some jurisdictions are seeking the optimal policy instruments for leveraging public and private interests in the mobility of human resources and knowledge. The case-study of Hong Kong looks at the outbound-inbound student flows and explains how the government facilitates cross-border education balances. The researchers utilized the four modes of the General Agreement on Trades in Services (GATS) framework and found it to be a helpful tool in analyzing the government’s balancing act, despite the challenges associated with the conceptualization of international student mobility as a commodity or trade in services.
1
Correspondence: Dr. Anatoly Oleksiyenko, Department of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong; e-mail
[email protected]
Key words: international student mobility, internationalization, private good, public good, trades in services, higher education
Introduction International student mobility has been widely acclaimed as creating opportunities for both cross-cultural learning and economic development. As such, it has been of particular interest to countries seeking to increase their pool of highly skilled labor, to boost local competitiveness and/or to compensate for a decline of its productive population (Guellec and Cervantes 2001; Guruz 2008; Kehm 2005). In some developed economies, international student mobility has grown into a business, promoting the advanced knowledge to developing country universities through “’trade’ in people” (Kim1998, 338). Some major education providers have argued that educational services should be considered within the framework of trade and advocated the removal of trade barriers on local higher education markets; others have rejected the concept fully and have taken measures to create extra barriers, raising further concerns about fair trade in services (Knight 2002, 2004; Larsen, Martin and Morris 2002; OECD 2002, 2004; Tremblay 2001; Varghese 2008). Growing worries about the capacities of host jurisdictions and institutions to secure safe and productive space for international learners have led to questions about the cultural and economic asymmetries inherent in academic exchange and mobility (Marginson, Nyland, Sawir and Forbes-Mewett 2010). The mobility of human capital has been an integral component of economic integration and competitiveness in many parts of the world (Chapman, Cummings and Postiglione 2010; Kuroda 2007; Labi 2010). Some recent East Asian success stories feature human resources as the foundation of their economic achievement (Li 2011; Sugimura 2008). Among others, Hong Kong has thrived over the last century by attracting entrepreneurial talents from China, Europe and North America and tapping into their aspirations for new opportunities and more prosperous lifestyles (Bray and Koo 2005; Postiglione 2006). Conversely, Hong Kong families used to send
their children for studies abroad to counteract the inaccessibility of the elitist local higher education system (Olsen and Burges 2007). At the same time, high quality credentials from reputable institutions abroad were always perceived as crucial drivers for successful careers in civil, financial or professional services back home. More recently, Hong Kong’s universities have been readapting their strategic positions to increase the accessibility, relevance and visibility of their programs in the larger region, particularly mainland China and Southeast Asia (McBurnie and Ziguras 2001; Mok and Tan 2004; Postiglione 2005). The University Grants Council (UGC) of Hong Kong has been pursuing a determined course of actions to enhance the regional and global standing of local higher education. Internationalization is a buzzword advocated at various policy and consultation forums and the concept is benchmarked by universities on the basis of student enrolment, curriculum change and recruitment of foreign faculty. International student mobility is viewed as being dependent on those variables (as explained below), and local universities have put in place scholarship funds, solicited private donations and established bilateral agreements to encourage the repatriation and acquisition of talent from abroad. Some Hong Kong universities have set ambitious goals aimed at up to 20% international enrollment in their programs. This article analyzes the changing paradigm of higher education in one of the most dynamic jurisdictions of East Asia by examining the tensions between the concepts of “education as a public/private good” and “education as a trade in services”. By using a World Trade Organization (WTO) framework for trade in education services, the article sheds light on Hong Hong’s education discourse, while explaining the nature of the competing forces. The following sections discuss how the four GATS modes: cross-border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and the presence of natural persons – apply to the case of international
student mobility in Hong Kong. The interdependencies among these modes that produce interaction between public and private providers/users are given particular attention. We conclude this article by outlining the limitations of the trade in services framework and suggesting areas that would benefit from further research.
Cross-Border Education in the Frames of Open Exchange: A Conceptual Perspective Debates about public and private purposes, as well as means of production and control in education are continuous and contentious. Some researchers argue that these debates often produce a sense of dichotomization that can be misleading or futile (Marginson 2007). Indeed, education is capable of simultaneously meeting both public and private needs. Increasingly, governments, industries and private donors serve concurrently as resource-providers, customers and curators for public and private universities. Public and private values and functions have been overlapping ever more in higher education, because students simultaneously function as intellectuals, economic agents, citizens and donors. Thus, universities are compelled to take into account the diversity of stakeholder roles while strategizing on academic responsibilities (Jongbloed, Enders and Salerno 2008). While public-private borders become blurred, the two competing policy forces – i.e., deregulation and regulation – do not subside: what makes an optimal balance between public and private benefits is not really clear. Public or private, higher education involves a number of economic and financial imperatives. Tuition fees are usually essential to cover instruction costs, infrastructure maintenance, as well as academic development. With a decline in public subsidies for higher education and a marked shift to technologically-sophisticated research, universities in many countries are pressed to generate more revenue by undertaking calculated and entrepreneurial
decisions (Mok and Tan 2004). Differentiation between local and international fees, proactive recruitment of international students, and provision of educational services elsewhere are some of the options available as revenue generating opportunities. Once universities get involved in the global business of moving resources and people, the tensions between market rules and institutional behaviors become more pronounced. The growing influence of business paradigms in higher education has shifted many education activities closer to market modes of operation. Competition for financial and intellectual resources drives many universities to diversify their “education products and services” and launch satellite campuses abroad to enhance their entry opportunities into new markets, as well as to strengthen their acquisition strategies globally (McBurnie and Ziguras 2001). While some institutions can manage the latter well, others become overwhelmed by unexpected transaction costs and prefer to allow global flows to hold sway in a spontaneous way. While rhetoric on the values of vibrant transnational mobility of faculty and students permeates external university communications, in reality many universities underutilize the potential that international students offer. For instance, international alumni networking can be a source of rich opportunities, which are completely missed if there is no institutional or governmental strategy for tapping into such networks to further recruitment, generate research ideas, galvanize stakeholder engagement and pursue other similar goals (Oleksiyenko 2008). Anchoring cross-border mobility policy or institutional strategies into the discourse of public or private goods restricts, rather than generates solutions. The oversight of proprietary issues, revenue distribution, faculty compensation and student fees is still largely driven by entrenched institutional traditions and accountability norms, despite the argument that publicprivate boundaries are disappearing or becoming blurred. Globalization continues to displace and
relocate human resources and to disperse competencies, resulting in benefits to some individuals and their jurisdictions and disadvantages to others (Altbach 2001; Sahni and Shankar 2005). The place-bound character of human resources shapes the competitiveness and excludability of higher education goods, as knowledge and capacities can be “tacit, unique, invisible, complex or path dependent” (Oliver 1997, 704). Exploring barriers in the mobility and exchange of human resources is increasingly important. With markets certainly becoming more influential, if not pervasive around the world, issues of balance, fairness and equity with respect to the exchange processes in higher education become a valid point of focus. In many transforming jurisdictions, markets became popular, as they make it possible to defy or reduce the intervention of controlling political elites and to create more room for individual freedoms. One of the outcomes of this is that the view of higher education as a public good and a public expenditure gives way to a focus on private benefits and costs. Markets are, however, vulnerable to asymmetries in information, costs, and agency roles. With the increasing mobility of those who can pay for higher education and prefer to study outside of their taxpayer base, governments and taxpayers are, or should be, increasingly interested in a balanced exchange among local markets. We approached the conceptualization of international student mobility as an open exchange in the higher education markets and employed the General Agreement of Trade in Services in our analysis. This framework encapsulates four major modes of exchange for global services, including education (see Table 1). “Cross-border supply”, “consumption abroad”, “commercial presence” and “presence of natural persons” all have some relevance and some limitations for the analysis of international student mobility. A large segment of the literature in the field rejects the commercial undertones in higher education, which is still perceived in many
countries as a public good. From the economic perspective, however, there are some meaningful elements in the GATS framework that elucidate supply and demand flows and can be helpful in understanding the existing asymmetries in trade in services in higher education, as well as in thinking about opportunities for creating fair balances. Table 1.
The discussion of the four GATS modes raises some interesting issues for the purposes of measuring the influence of global flows on local higher education. Cross-border trade in educational services has been already used by many countries and educational providers worldwide. Many countries supply their education products through synchronous or asynchronous technologies. They also deliver these programs at home by “hosting” foreign students on their campuses. Universities may also combine actual and virtual mobility and cater to individual learners’ preferences related to time, access and professional needs. Most often, the “cross-border supply” decisions are made by individual universities. The more deregulated the local higher education system, the more flexible the local university’s international arrangements tend to be. The supplying countries can also encourage “consumption abroad,” especially in exceptional programs that provide state-of-the-art knowledge and skills. Deregulation of international travel, immigration, and employment accreditation has helped to facilitate such consumption. Increasingly, various countries encourage the “commercial presence” of their local providers abroad. Satellite campuses and joint programs bring together local and international talents and nourish cross-cultural learning. In addition, the presence of foreign students on many campuses generates opportunities for this type of learning by a wider population of local
students. The intercultural interactions both reduce and increase local motivations for consumption abroad, as graduates can be further encouraged or discouraged to enhance their intermediate learning through direct exposure to specific cultures, languages and geopolitical experiences. Overall, student mobility emerges as a complicated balancing act affecting disparate stakeholder interests and policy agendas at home and abroad (Gribble 2008). We have employed the case-study of Hong Kong to explain in more detail the four modes of the GATS framework and to explore the strengths and limitations of this framework in the conceptualization of fair exchange. The following section elaborates on the streams of public and private interests involved in the balancing act.
Hong Kong’s Higher Education as a Case Study Hong Kong presents an insightful case for the study of the four modes of trade in higher education services for a number of reasons. Hong Kong has been a leading consumer of education abroad for more than a decade. In 2004, Hong Kong held the16th spot among the world’s top 25 countries sending their students abroad (Guruz 2008). Hong Kong’s outbound number at that time constituted more than 20% of the entire student body enrolled in the tertiary sector at home and 7% of the entire school age population at the tertiary level (see Table 2). Table 2.
Nonetheless, consumption abroad remains a privilege of the few. Hong Kong was reported as having 212,400 households (9.6% of the total number of households) with members aged 15 and over holding a foreign credential in 2005 (HK CSD 2005). An earlier higher education survey (HK CSD 2002) noted that the median monthly income of the households with
members studying outside the city was HK$31,300 (approx. US$4,000), much higher than in the households which did not have such students (the median income for that category was at the level of HK$16,500 or US$2,115). These numbers were inflated to HK$35,000 and HK$17,000 respectively eight years later, with 9.5% of all households with income HK$60,000 and over, and only 0.8% of those with income less than HK$10,000 having a young person (aged 25 and below) studying abroad (HKCDS 2010). Olsen and Burges (2007) define Hong Kong as a mature market – which means that the major suppliers of foreign credentials have limited opportunities to take more students out of Hong Kong. At the same time, Hong Kong is endeavoring to become a degree supplier for foreign consumers. Many universities have been conducting active campaigns to increase the number of international students. However, such recruitment can be viewed as being controversial, given that the local higher education demand exceeds the supply for domestic users. Hong Kong’s higher education system consists of 8 publicly funded and 4 private universities, as well as 21 self-financing colleges that provide degree and sub-degree education programs to over 250,000 local students. As Table 3 shows, the school age population at the tertiary level declined from 475,755 in 2003 to 449,035 in 2009, while enrolment to higher education increased from 146,039 to 254,273 during the same period of time. Hong Kong universities were however able to admit only 15.5% of the school leavers born in 1988 eligible for university education (Olsen and Burges 2007). The increase in the higher education access primarily took place due to the growth of the self-financing sub-degree sector. Hong Kong university campuses are noted as having limited “carrying capacity” for student enrolment, despite facility development efforts driven by recent education reforms. The tertiary sector in Hong Kong used to serve the elites during the colonial period and has begun to expand and diversify its structures only recently. The
increasing pace of the undergraduate education reform, which includes plans for extending the length of bachelor degree studies in 2012, adds extra pressure on the government and universities alike. Table 3.
The intent of the reform has been to implement a number of quality improvement measures, including the internationalization of higher education. Hong Kong has taken a number of steps to internationalize the university curricula through global partnerships and talent recruitment. Over the last decade, Hong Kong has considerably enhanced its reputation as a provider of education and research products to neighboring countries. The shift in the importexport balance became particularly noticeable with the increasing “consumption” of Hong Kong’s educational services by students from mainland China and Southeast Asia. Thus, Hong Kong began to emerge as a supplier of educational services to foreign users. Creating a balance between the import and export of talents is an undertaking that is of interest to universities, but also sparks their concern. The following section sheds more light on how the various modes in cross-border education evolve and generate influence on the policy analysis structure in the higher education field.
The Mobility Service Modes Mode 1: Cross-Border Supply Hong Kong has a number of motivators to become a supplier of quality education for international consumers. First of all, the intensifying regional competition for reputational supremacy in East Asia, coupled with the growing powers of universities in mainland China,
have urged many Hong Kong universities to take on more aggressive outreach to scholarly talents abroad. Hong Kong universities are eager to attract and retain human capital to enhance the city’s competitive advantages, including the currency associated with its image as an open, entrepreneurial and multilingual place. This ambition fits in well with the global ranking systems, which designate the presence of foreign human capital as an indicator that the quality of the university’s education and socio-spatial conditions is recognized as being outstanding. Whereas few foreign students saw Hong Kong as their destination for studies abroad in the past, the situation began to reverse with the opening up of China and the expansion of its global economic influence. The number of mainland students on Hong Kong campuses soared from 1,495 students in 2001 to 6,826 in 2008 (see Table 4). This constituted 90% of the overall international student inflow to Hong Kong. The 2003/2004 interviews conducted by Li and Bray (2007) with mainland students indicated that internationalization, access to instruction in foreign languages, as well as the quality and scale of education programs, were the key drivers for enrolling at the top universities in Macau and Hong Kong. The authors remarked that children of families belonging to the emerging class of prosperous mainlanders would usually be able to cover the Hong Kong tuition fees, which were higher than those at home. Our observations and interviews with 180 students from one of the provinces in mainland China in the summer of 2010 suggest that the students are primarily attracted to high quality programs that provide both market-oriented competencies and English language skills. Moreover, the trend for studies in Hong Kong is reinforced for many Chinese youngsters by peer pressure focused on the prestige associated with overseas studies, employment abroad and global mobility. Some families also view study abroad programs as a convenient cross-border investment opportunity, as mainland China continues to regulate and restrict domestic investment channels. Some consumers from the
mainland see their studies in the bi-lingual environment of Hong Kong as a launch-pad for subsequent studies in North America, Europe or Australia. Table 4. Meanwhile, the quantity of students from outside of mainland China has remained low. The number of inbound students in that category has grown from 387 in 2001 to 536 in 2008. Thus North American and European students are primarily motivated to study in Hong Kong by an interest in the rise of China. Some also refer to their heritage, having family roots in the city. Meanwhile, the growing inflow from neighboring Asian jurisdictions, such as Malaysia and Macao, is reflective of an increasing economic regionalization and the key role played by Hong Kong in the financial and economic networks. In general, however, universities in Hong Kong are concerned that the number of non-Chinese students has remained very low and that the local universities have yet to make their mark on the global higher education map. To position themselves favorably in the regionalization of higher education, Hong Kong universities have launched online courses that make it possible for local students to mix (virtually, at least) with their peers on the mainland and elsewhere. Some programs have also organized short-term exchanges with visits to the mainland as part of the learning process and research assignments. The combined delivery methods are increasingly popular among advanced and short-term learners, as well as exchange students. Some business schools and executive education programs have developed joint and dual-degree programs to send their students abroad and to host students from partnering schools in return. Hong Kong universities also invite American and European students for summer institutes and deliver custom-made programs for those who are interested in the transformations underway in greater China. Although many policy makers claim that these types of student mobility opportunities are on the rise, they also
acknowledge that they remain underutilized. Accordingly, even though Hong Kong is a global city with a highly sophisticated education infrastructure, its role as a supplier of international education is yet to be fully established.
Mode 2: Consumption Abroad Hong Kong’s consumption of higher education abroad has been a prevailing trend. It often involves an investment strategy that requires an assortment of concurrent financial, educational and family planning. Historically, what has been motivating families to send their offspring to study abroad can be largely linked to the lingering perception of local higher education as elitist and fraught with access challenges. Some studies point to the stressful environment created by the A-level examinations in Hong Kong (see, for example, Yang 2003). The reporters remarked that over 50% of those that passed the difficult exams were left without a place for studies at universities funded by the local University Grants Council (UGC). In 2006/2007, Hong Kong universities were able to provide only 14,500 places to the 93,300 children born in 1988 (Olsen and Burges 2007). In situation like this, many applicants consider alternative strategies and seek placements outside of Hong Kong. Parents who can afford to do so often send their children to boarding schools abroad in order to provide them with high quality secondary schooling and to ease the transition to a university education in the host countries. According to a 2002 household survey, 32.3% of 74,100 persons identified as studying abroad commenced their studies abroad at age 11-15, and 11.1% at age 10 and below (HK CSD 2002). Almost sixty nine percent of those who studied abroad in 2011 began their education there from secondary school (HKCSD 2011).
Hong Kong’s consumption of higher education abroad has been, and remains, correlated with GDP growth. In historical terms, the city’s rise as a consumer of studies abroad began in the mid 1970s (see Figure 1 and Table 5). The number of outgoing students was relatively small in the 1960s (e.g. 3,875 in 1962) and was primarily attributed to families employed by the colonial government and its corporations. The situation began to change with the expansion of the population in the 1970s and, arguably, the rapid growth of the GDP at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. The growth in student numbers reached a zenith of 34,225 in 1992 when the colony’s economy was booming. Hong Kong has remained one of the world’s leading consumers of higher education abroad since then. Figure 1. Table 5.
In the recent decade, household investments in studies abroad have been primarily stimulated by the considerations of social status and career advancement. English language instruction and a degree from a high ranking university are perceived by many families as a means to securing upward mobility in the economically-driven society of Hong Kong. Increasingly, education abroad is viewed as ensuring better career prospects (see Table 6). Table 6.
The correlation between first-rate higher education and career advancement is in line with other data sources, which suggest that the growth of the service industry in Hong Kong and an increase in management and professional positions call for competitive higher education and better skills in communication and critical thinking. As the July 2008 Hong Kong Monthly Statistics Digest indicates, the proportion of degree holders in the managers/ professionals/
associate professionals category has been steadily on the rise (HK CSD 2008). Between 1996 and 2006, this population segment grew from 19.4% to 27.4%. The proportion of those aged 15 or above who both had a degree and were working in the professional category increased from 6.0% to 8.2% and, in terms of the labour force percentage, it rose from 9.6% to 13.5%. Growing competitiveness in the local labor market is one of the main factors driving Hong Kong residents to choose overseas programs. According to 2005 data from the Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (see Table 7), business and management (41%), as well as engineering and technology (18.9%) were the dominant fields of study selected by the majority of Hong Kong applicants seeking to study abroad. Pragmatism and market-oriented choices have dictated that the same fields have been gaining track with those Hong Kong students that stayed at home. With the labor markets favoring techno-science for a number of years, Hong Kong has emerged as a technocratic society with a lower number of households spending money abroad on study in the social sciences and similar fields. Table 7.
Given the advantage of their bilingual heritage, many Hong Kong residents chose English-speaking countries for their studies abroad. Canada, the UK and the USA topped the list of host countries for Hong Kong students in the 1970s and 1980s (see Table 8). Australia emerged as a key destination in the 1990s, while the UK and North America regained their appeal in the 2000s due to various political circumstances associated with the re-integration of Hong Kong with China. In 2011, among 75,000 persons studying abroad (with 68.3% in postsecondary education), 29.5% took programs in the UK, 23.7% in Australia, and 19.6% in the US (HK CSD 2011). Since re-integration, many Hong Kong families have been urging their offspring to continue the established practice of acquiring dual citizenship through residency
abroad. According to Fenby (2000), 32,500 Hong Kong citizens held Canadian passports, 29,000 – American, and 20,000 – Australian. In line with established patterns, 3,400 respondents in a 2002 study and 4,400 in one from 2005 listed distant family living abroad as influencing their decisions about where they would study (HKCSD 2002, 2005). Many students and their families consider education abroad as an inseparable component of “status and wealth” as well as metropolitan “culture” (Olsen and Burges 2007). Table 8.
The global rise and influence of China’s economy has caused Hong Kong’s “consumption abroad” to change somewhat. The outbound flow from Hong Kong to China grew from 3,000 students in 2002 to 5,500 in 2005. This trend is discussed further in the subsequent section on the emerging commercial presence of Hong Kong universities in mainland China.
Mode 3: Commercial Presence The commercial presence of Hong Kong satellite campuses abroad is still in its early stages. As we have discussed in an article on the impact of financial crises on Hong Kong’s higher education, public funding has remained a pivotal element of government strategy to maintain and promote the emerging prominence of its universities (Cheng, Oleksiyenko and Yip 2010). At the same time, Hong Kong’s University Grants Committee conducted a number of policy debates on public-private balances in the local higher education system, which put forward the view that public funding should not be perceived as a long-term commitment. The dialogue on the role of private universities generated interest among potential local and foreign investors, but also raised a number of concerns about the increasing number of private schemes and commercially oriented programs within public universities.
With the growing domestic demand for higher education and an increasing interest in foreign talents, Hong Kong universities have been looking for opportunities to diversify their facilities and programmatic arrangements. Some Special Administrative Region’s universities began to launch satellite campuses in the neighboring cities of Shenzhen and Zhuhai in mainland China. The emerging programs involve mobility schemes that encourage Hong Kong students to take on the cross-border commute. The universities’ continuing education programs often act as a “developmental periphery” and “test the waters” on the other side of the border in regards to the best approaches to programmatic marketing and stakeholder engagement, as well as the harmonization of academic standards and governance practices. At the same time, there is a growing commercial presence of foreign providers on Hong Kong’s campuses. The government of Hong Kong has made a number of investments to support the growth of self-financing colleges that provide sub-degree programs. Although they have managed to increase access to higher education among the disadvantaged segments of the local population, the quality of the so-called associate degrees is often viewed with skepticism. The graduates’ success in labor markets is often as dependent on the institutional credentials as it is on the quality of the learning environment. Moreover, universities that had established their own college-like self-financing institutions have sometimes been protective and restrictive in the articulation of sub-degrees from alternative providers. The problems with articulation and credit transfer have prompted community colleges in Hong Kong to pursue foreign partnerships and thus lay the groundwork for credit transfer with institutions abroad. This has generated a number of top-up degree schemes, allowing Hong Kong citizens to continue their studies abroad for an additional degree, after completing a significant part of their studies at home.
Overall, Hong Kong universities have been taking proactive steps to reach out to the mainland, where the political and investment climate has been conducive to long-term institutional development. They have proven to be less capable of coping with new institutions that provide higher education as commodity on their own territory. Because the concept of higher education as a commodity has not been fully developed or supported in Hong Kong, local universities have not been able to position themselves as “commercial providers” in markets beyond the mainland.
Mode 4: The Presence of Natural Persons In the review of this mode we were guided by the differentiation of the terms “natural person” vs. “legal or juristic person”. The GATS’s choice in the classification is presumably deliberate to underscore differences between individuals (e.g. faculty and students) and organizations (e.g. universities and their branches). Hence, our discussion below focuses more on the individuals (i.e. “natural persons”) as subjects related to cross-border higher education. The aspiration to get “more for less” and to provide a world-class learning environment for a larger student population staying at home has been urging Hong Kong education reformers to seek a wider engagement of foreign faculty and students in creating an impact in the local classrooms. The rejection of rote learning, subservience, and hierarchical thinking is often at the centre of such change. Among the local residents’ motivations to study abroad, the desire for a “better learning environment” and “independence” both rank high. The 2007 Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department report on education reforms indicates that the majority of 18-year olds “strongly agreed / agreed” that “communication skills” (88.6%), “creativity” (87.5%) and
“critical thinking skills” (84.6%) needed further attention to improve the quality of Hong Kong’s education system (HKCSD 2007). Hong Kong reformers have taken a number of steps to embed change processes by encouraging global talents to stay in the city. The University Grants Council of Hong Kong has created incentives for engaging foreign experts in research and education on the basis of longterm contracts. Local universities responded by recruiting more than 2,000 new world-class professors in preparation for the 2012 undergraduate education reform. For example, the University of Hong Kong, one of the leading universities in Asia, hired 117 staff members in the academic year 2009/10, almost 70 per cent of whom come from the United States, Britain, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Russia and Ukraine, and 20 per cent of whom originate in mainland China (Yeung 2010). To encourage the newest generation of scientists to come and stay in Hong Kong, the Research Grants Council has launched a PhD Fellowship Scheme which offered 170 doctoral places to promising young scholars from abroad in the 2010/2011 academic year alone. The initiatives are viewed as enhancing Hong Kong’s attractiveness at a time of intensifying global competition for scientific talents. Fok (2007) also notes that internationalization has improved the prospects of the local elites for tighter integration with global networks of economic and political influence. The presence of international faculty and students on Hong Kong campuses is viewed as a mutual benefit, deepening the insights of both locals and foreigners with regard to each others’ cultures and traditions. The effect on the local students is that they become more outspoken, innovative, critical and autonomous, and thus gain the qualities that are valued by the global knowledge economy. International students gain a better grasp of China’s languages, histories and transformations. Finally, the dynamic mix between local and international talents is viewed as contributing to the long-term aspiration of
the local elites to benchmark their city regionally and globally as a vibrant intellectual hub with an attractive investment climate. This corresponds with and reinforces the government’s farreaching plans for strengthening Hong Kong’s competitive advantages, particularly in response to the rise of Shanghai and other Chinese metropolises.
Summary: The GATS Framework Uses and Limitations International student mobility in Hong Kong has primarily been the domain of private households, which support their younger members to pursue higher education credentials abroad in order to achieve higher status in society and in labor markets. Increasingly, however, the government of Hong Kong has been initiating measures to regulate the inflow-outflow of students as a response to growing pressures to retain and acquire leading talents in order to enhance the city’s regional and global competitiveness. As the government becomes occupied in planning public expenditures and positioning its educational sector in regional and global markets of higher education, it cannot avoid engagement in the balancing act involving equally valid interpretations of international mobility: as a private good, a public good and a trade in services. In that regard, the GATS framework is a helpful instrument for policy analysis, as it makes it possible to capture a general picture of international student mobility, as well as to divide the flows into specific strands. In Table 9 below, we have summarized these modes and have tried to estimate the degree of influence of each mode on the local higher education system in Hong Kong. A refined assessment would certainly require a more sophisticated set of measurement instruments. Table 9.
While Mode 2 (consumption abroad) has always been strong in Hong Kong, with household economies making significant expenditures to enhance their socio-economic status and opportunities for upward mobility, Mode 1 (cross border supply) has been statistically insignificant, as it was largely dependent on the limited carrying capacities and quality of local higher education. The cross-border supply has been increasingly supported by government scholarships, in accordance with Hong Kong’s global ambitions. Some universities have obtained private gifts, making it possible to develop scholarship funds and thus increase the presence of their students in collaborating countries, as well as to accommodate more international students on their campuses. The growing consumption by China has been making noticeable changes in favor of Mode 1 in Hong Kong’s universities. Similarly, Mode 4 (the presence of natural persons) has been marked with a higher degree of relevance and support in Hong Kong, as the government and local universities adopted strategies aimed at enhancing their institutional positions in the global hierarchies of knowledge. Competition for foreign talents has become a strategic thrust and a source of major public investment in the city. In expectation of growing demand for local degrees, Hong Kong’s government and universities began to explore Mode 3 (commercial presence), by extending their facilities to neighboring mainland cities accessible through the mass transit railway system. Modes 3 and 4 overlap, as foreign providers increasingly collaborate on self-financing programs at sub-degree colleges and universities in Hong Kong. The partnerships have expanded crosscultural learning opportunities for many local students who either aspire to acquire knowledge in a dual English-Chinese learning environment or have limited access to programs abroad. For some students, these collaborative arrangements offer a chance to acquire the enhanced skills and confidence needed to seek follow up opportunities overseas.
Mode 3 is likely to become more influential in Hong Kong’s case, as local investors and industry leaders seek to boost their presence in the Delta River region and Southeast China (e.g. Shenzhen and Guanzhou) with the help of “natural persons” who are strong in world-class R&D and innovative teaching. A number of Hong Kong research universities have collaborated with mainland China’s Project 211 counterparts to launch satellite campuses in close proximity to the China’s leading economic powerhouses. This development has been noted as giving rise to new government incentives, such as scholarships and internships that encourage Hong Kong students to try their fortunes on the mainland. At the same time, Hong Kong universities have also been conducting proactive recruitment campaigns on the mainland to support science and technology innovation on the satellite campuses. Hong Kong universities’ efforts to modulate the demand-supply axis by expanding their “commercial presence abroad” are most likely to be stimulated by resource dependence reasoning. The creation of satellite campuses in mainland China is an opportunity for Hong Kong to solve the problem of “carrying capacity”, and thus to take on a more aggressive recruitment strategy in East Asia. The lower cost per unit of administrative and faculty support on the mainland also justifies the cross-jurisdictional investment. The decline of public subsidies to higher education in Hong Kong acts as an additional incentive for universities to pursue crossborder opportunities. However, once the higher education institutions expand their facilities, they will be guided by survival and growth consideration. With a predicted decline in Hong Kong’s school age population at the secondary level and, consequently, at the tertiary level over the coming years, Hong Kong universities will be compelled to conduct more proactive scanning of demand overloads elsewhere – nationally, regionally and globally. The multi-level outreach will become an imperative for many university recruitment offices pursuing talents, no matter where
they originate. The outreach will be essential for those universities and divisions that prefer not to compromise their quality assurance procedures and admission requirements. Some universities will also be strongly motivated to engage in aggressive and far-reaching recruitment strategies in order to retain and advance their positions in the global ranking systems. In general, the analytical framework proposed here makes it possible to understand the connections between the systemic, institutional and individual choices in public policies related to markets of international student mobility. However, the definitional and statistical variables have their limits. The interpretation of what constitutes an international student became more complicated in Hong Kong, following its reintegration with mainland China. The government of the Special Administrative Region has introduced a new category of students, designating those from the mainland as “non-local” students, rather than international students. This has affected previous calculations, used as indicators of success by some Hong Kong universities targeting a high international student intake. Some universities revised their recruitment plans and strategies accordingly. The immediate impact on individual consumers categorized in this new way is still difficult to grasp. Qualitative data from our study point to issues related to asymmetries that are evolving across the various categories of students, as well as to protectionist measures such as the creation of fraternities or “culture ghettos” within the international student populations. The integration of a larger set of qualitative data on institutional markets and economies would be recommended, in addition to an analysis of its correlations with the data on student behaviors and the “exceptionalism” policies of some states (Mundy and Iga 2003). In conclusion, the changing export-import balance related to international student mobility in Hong Kong has a significant impact on the institutional economies of local universities and colleges, as well as on the Special Administrative Region’s higher education
system. International student mobility in the city is gradually moving to the core of university mandates, as Hong Kong tries to diversify its student population and make its learning places more attractive to the global community. The attribution of public value to the internationalization of higher education serves as a counterweight to private benefit, which was predominantly emphasized at earlier stages in Hong Kong’s history. The new approach, characterized by proactive international outreach that is regulated through public funds, is most likely to strengthen Hong Kong’s competitive position in the world. However, it will also give rise to further questions about balances and fairness in the international student flows, as the global higher education markets inevitably change. Further debates are called for to determine whether it may be possible to achieve a closer integration of public and private imperatives, as well as to establish a balance in the export-import of international talent to Hong Kong.
Acknowledgement: The initial version of this article was presented at the UNESCO-Bangkok’s Education Research Institutes Network (ERI-Net) “Regional Seminar on International Mobility of Students”, held on 22-24 March 2011. We would like to thank the organizers and participants for an opportunity to discuss the arguments in a collegial way. Also, this article has benefited from intellectual and organizational support of our respective institutions, and elaborate guidance of this journal’s editorial team. Ultimate responsibility for any shortcomings is however solely ours.
References Altbach, P. 2001. Higher Education and the WTO: Globalization Run Amok. International Higher Education 23, https://htmldbprod.bc.edu/pls/htmldb/f?p=2290:4:1476815515575093::NO:RP,4:P0_CO NTENT_ID:99872 (accessed February 12, 2011).
Bray, M. and R. Koo. 2005. Education and Society in Hong Kong and Macao: Comparative Perspectives on Continuity and Change. Hong Kong: Springer Press. Chapman, D., Cummings, W. and G. Postiglione. 2010. Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education. Hong Kong: Springer/Comparative Education Research Centre. Cheng, K.M., Oleksiyenko, A. and H.K. Yip. 2010. Impact of Financial Crisis on Higher Education: The Case of Hong Kong. Paper presented at the UNESCO-Bangkok Regional Seminar/ Educational Research Institutions Network (ERI-NET), 30 June – 2 July, 2010. Davis, T.M. 2003. Atlas of Student Mobility. New York: Institute of International Education. HK CSD - Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. 2011. Thematic Household Survey: Report No. 46 (Hong Kong Students Studying Outside Hong Kong, pp.5-28). http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/stat_report/social_data/B11302462011XXXXB0 100.pdf (accessed on September 20, 2010). HK CSD - Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. 2010. Hong Kong Monthly Digests of Statistics (2001-2010 data). http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_repo rt/general_statistical_digest/index_cd_B1010002_dt_back_yr_2010.jsp (accessed on September 20, 2010). HK CSD - Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. 2008. Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics: July 2008. http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/general_stat_digest/B10100022008MM07B0500. pdf (accessed on September 20, 2010). HK CSD - Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. 2007. Thematic Household Survey: Report No. 29. Products and Services/ Social Data. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_repo rt/social_data/index.jsp (accessed on September 20, 2010). HK CSD - Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. 2005. Thematic Household Survey Report No. 21. Pattern of study in higher education (pp.8-46). Social Surveys Section. Census and Statistics Department. Products and Services/ Social Data. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_repo rt/social_data/index.jsp (accessed on September 20, 2010). HK CSD - Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics. 2002. Thematic Household Survey: Report No. 9 (Hong Kong Students Studying Outside Hong Kong, pp.3-26). Products and Services/ Social Data. http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/products_and_services/products/publications/statistical_repo rt/social_data/index.jsp (accessed on September 20, 2010). Gribble, C. 2008. Policy options for managing international student migration: the sending country's perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1): 2539. Guellec, D., and M. Cervantes. 2001. International Mobility of Highly Skilled Workers: From Statistical Analysis to Policy Formulation. Paper presented at the International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, France. Guruz, K. 2008. Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy. Albany: SUNY Press. Fenby, N. 2002. Dealing with the Dragon: A Year in the New Hong Kong. New York: Arcade Publishing Inc. Fok, W.K.P. 2007. Internationalization of Higher Education in Hong Kong. International
Education Journal, 8 (1): 184-193. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and C. Salerno. 2008. Higher Education and Its Communities: Interconnections, Interdependencies and a Research Agenda. Higher Education, 56:303324. Kehm, B. M. 2005. The Contribution of International Student Mobility to Human Development and Global Understanding. US-China Education Review, 2 (1): 18-24. Kim, J. 1998. Economic analysis of foreign education and students abroad. Journal of Development Economics, 56: 337-365. Knight, J. 2004. Cross-Border Education as Trade: Issues for Consultation, Policy Review and Research. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 2 (3): 55–81. Knight, J. 2002. Trade in Higher Education Services: The Implications of GATS. London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. (www.obhe.ac.uk) Kuroda, K. 2007. International Student Mobility for the Formation of an East Asian Community. Waseda University. http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/12816/1/37_070321-Kuroda-e.pdf (accessed on October 15, 2010). Labi, A. 2010. University Partnerships and National Policies Drive International Enrollments. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, http://chronicle.com/article/PartnershipsNational/125370/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_ medium=en (accessed on December 12, 2010). Larsen, K., Martin, J.P. and R. Morris. 2002. Trade in Educational Services: Trends and Emerging Issues. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Li, M. 2011. Border Crossing and Market Integration: Mainland Consumers Meet Hong Kong Suppliers. In Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education, ed. D. Chapman, W. Cummings, and G. Postiglione, 319-342. Hong Kong: Springer/Comparative Education Research Centre. Li, M. and M. Bray. 2007. Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push– pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53: 791–818 Marginson, S. 2007. The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53: 307–333 Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. and H. Forbes-Mewett. 2010. International Student Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McBurnie, G. and C. Ziguras. 2001. The regulation of transnational higher education in South East Asia: Studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. Higher Education, 42:85-105. Mok, K.H. and J. Tan. 2004. Globalization and Marketization in Education: A Comparative Analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Mundy, K. and M. Iga. 2003. Hegemonic Exceptionalism and Legitimating Bet-Hedging: Paradoxes and Lessons From the US and Japanese Approaches to Education Services under the GATS. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1 (3): 281 – 319. NationMaster. 2010. World Statistics, Countries Comparison. http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php (accessed on November 12, 2010). OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2004. Internationalisation and trade in higher education - Opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD. OECD- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2002. GATS: The Case for
Open Services Markets. Paris: OECD. Oleksiyenko, A. 2008. Global portfolios and strategic international partnerships. PhD Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto. Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Combining Institutional and ResourceBased Views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9):697-713. Olsen, A. and P. Burges. 2007. Ten Years On: Satisfying Hong Kong’s Demand for Higher Education. Strategy, Policy and Research in Education, www.spre.com.au/download/TenYearsOn.pdf (accessed on December 12, 2010) Postiglione, G. 2006. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China: Context, Higher Education, and a Changing Academia. In Quality, Relevance and Governance in a Changing Academia: International Perspectives, edited by Huang Futao, Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Number 20, Centre of Excellence (COE) Publication Series, September 2006, 97-114. Postiglione, G.A. 2005. China’s Global Bridging: The Transformation of University Mobility between Hong Kong and the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education 9 (1): 5–25. Sahni, R. and K. Shankar. 2005. GATS and Higher Education: Revealing Comparative Advantage. Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (47): 4947-4953. Sugimura, M. 2008. International Student Mobility and Asian Higher Education Framework for Global Network. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Sub-regional Preparatory Conference for the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Tremblay, K. 2001. Student Mobility between and Towards OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at the International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, France. Varghese, N. V. 2008. Globalization of Higher Education and Cross-border Student Mobility. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO. UNESCO Institute of Statistics. 2010. Statistics Data Centre. Custom Tables. http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=136&IF_Langu age=eng&BR_Topic=0 (accessed on August 31, 2010). World Bank. 2010. Data: Countries and Topics. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries (accessed on September 15, 2010). World Trade Organization – WTO. 2010. Service Chair Issues Report on Doha Negotiations. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news08_e/serv_may08_e.htm (accessed on November 23, 2010). Yang, R. 2003. The China-Hong Kong Connection: A Key to Internationalising Chinese Universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 23(2): 121-133. Yeung, L 2010. HKU scours globe for staff. South China Morning Post (Career Supplement), Saturday, October 9, 2010. p. 4.
Table 1. GATS’ modes of trade in service in higher education Mode Mode 1
Title Cross-border supply
GATS definition “Services supplied from one country to another (e.g. international telephone calls), officially known as “crossborder supply”
Applications in Higher Education
Restrictions and Challenges
Virtual universities; supply of electronic products
Regulations and restrictions on the use of electronic products; attachment to local partners; excessive fees
“Consumers or firms making use Studies abroad; scholarships Visa requirements, immigration and fellowships in other of a service in another country regulations, foreign currencies, countries (e.g. tourism), officially employment regulations, credit “consumption abroad” and qualifications transfer Mode 3 Commercial presence “A foreign company setting up Satellite campuses; joint Limits on ownership; subsidies to subsidiaries or branches to revenue-generating programs local institutions; national policies provide services in another and regulations; foreign faculty country (e.g. foreign banks recruitment restrictions; setting up operations in a difficulties with obtaining country), officially “commercial governmental approvals presence”. Mode 4 Presence of natural “Individuals traveling from their Recruitment of foreign Immigration barriers; labor persons own country to supply services teachers and doctoral students regulations; recognition of in another (e.g. fashion models credentials; taxes and fees at the or consultants), officially time of employment and “presence of natural persons”. repatriation of savings Source: WTO (2010). Note: The definitions in the table are quoted as provided at the WTO’s web-site materials retrieved from http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm6_e.htm on November 29, 2010. Mode 2
Consumption abroad
Table 2. Outbound Student Ratios in Hong Kong, 1999-2009 1999
2000
2001
Student from HK 33,295 25,212 27,920 studying abroad Outbound mobility ratio (%) Gross outbound 7 5 6 mobility ratio Inbound mobility ratio Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2010).
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
31,685
35,024
33,899
33,948
31,475
32,739
33,107
-
24
23
22
20
21
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
-
2
2
3
3
4
-
2009
--
Table 3. Expenditures Trends in Secondary and Tertiary Education in Hong Kong, 1999-2009 1999 School age 609,304 population. Secondary School age 478,584 population. Tertiary Percentage of public expenditures distribution. Secondary (%) Percentage of public expenditures distribution. Tertiary (%) Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private; full and part-time Source: UNESCO 2010
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
605,378
603,066
602,264
602,406
603,604
605,931
609,167
614,086
620,023
623,643
478,763
478,399
477,489
475,755
473,217
469,890
465,891
460,703
454,534
449,035
-
34.2
34.6
34.5
34.9
35.7
36.4
37.1
37.1
38.3
-
33.1
32.2
31.6
31.6
32.1
31.3
28.1
27.6
26.2
-
-
-
146,039
147,724
152,294
155,324
194,236
252,615
254,273
Table 4. Inbound Student Mobility in Hong Kong 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total International 1,882 2,355 students in HK International 36 43 students from North America, Central America and Caribbean International 6 7 students from Africa International 1,665 2,131 students from Asia International 1,495 1,942 students from Mainland China International 13 19 students from Malaysia Macao 12 16 Singapore 14 20 International 70 71 students from Europe Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2010)
2,657
3,270
3,817
4,905
6,274
7,362
-
54
51
59
-
-
-
-
12
12
10
14
11
15
-
2,467
3,079
3,608
4,664
6,102
7,164
-
2,262
2,886
3,407
4,437
5,824
6,826
-
24
30
41
50
62
90
-
16 18 78
13 19 74
25 18 71
42 17 69
69 20 87
85 24 94
-
Table 5. The Growth of Outbound Student Flows in Hong Kong Year
Outbound
Total Population
Local enrolment,
Local enrolment,
GDP per
Total GDP,
Students
(million,
secondary
tertiary
capita,
current $US,
current $US
(bln.)
approx.) 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1995 1992 1990 1985 1978 1977 1974 1968 1965 1962
33,107 32,739 31,475 33,948 33,899 29,769 25,073 33,638 34,225 23,819 22,161 22,165 15,056 13,027 9,436 5,814 3,875
6.98 6.8 6.7 6.2 5.5 4 3
507.3 502.6 491.9 488.0 481.0 475.6 474.8 475.0 453.4 455.8 -
157.8 155.3 152.3 147.7 146.0 -
30,863 29,898 27,699 26,092 24,454 23,559 24,285 24,812 25,375 24,716 23,429 17,930 13,478 6,512 3,920 3,426 2,162 714 676 521
Sources: Davis (2003); Guruz (2008); HK CSD (2010); Nationmaster.com (2010); UNESCO (2010), World Bank (2010).
215.3 207.0 189.9 177.8 165.8 158.6 163.8 166.6 169.1 163.2 144.2 104.0 76.8 35.5 18.3 15.7 9.3 2.7 2.4 1.7
Table 6. Major Motifs of Persons Studying outside Hong Kong in 2002 and 2005 Major motifs
2002 No. of % persons (‘000)
2005 No. of persons (‘000)
%
2011 No. of % persons (‘000)
Receive a different mode of education 34.9 47.1 To improve English proficiency 28.8 38.8 25.6 35.2 30.4 40.5 Better learning atmosphere outside Hong Kong 18.8 25.3 13.0 17.8 14.6 19.5 To gain experience of studying overseas 13.2 17.7 To achieve a wider academic exposure 8.8 12.1 10.8 14.4 The selected education institution outside HK had a higher 4.6 6.3 reputation in the selected field of study The selected program of study was not offered in local 3.0 4.2 education institutions To learn to be independent 10.6 14.3 10.2 14.0 26.7 35.6 Unable to get a good place in good schools of Hong Kong 10.3 13.9 9.2 12.7 7.0 9.4 Dissatisfied with the quality of Hong Kong graduates 8.1 10.9 To have a fresh start in a new educational and social 8.0 10.8 3.0 4.1 environment Easier to seek jobs in the future 6.6 8.9 Better job prospects 10.7 14.7 14.5 19.4 To pave way for taking up work outside Hong Kong in 5.6 7.6 future Too much pressure/ too many assignments when studying 5.5 7.4 in HK Less pressure in studying outside HK 8.3 11.4 7.1 9.5 To live with family members there 3.4 4.6 -Had relatives there -4.4 6.0 Dissatisfied with the education system in HK 2.2 3.0 8.2 11.2 13.5 18.0 Dissatisfied with the education reform in HK 3.9 5.4 5.2 6.9 Lower school fees outside HK 1.8 2.4 2.2 3.0 Entitled to overseas education allowance 1.2 1.6 -To improve Putonghua proficiency 1.7 2.4 5.4 7.3 Others 2.4 3.2 4.3 5.9 Total Number Surveyed 74.1 72.8 75.0 Sources: HKCSD 2002; 2005; 2011. Note: Multiple answers were allowed. In 2002, persons aged 25 and below were asked; while in 2005 persons aged 15 and over, studying outside of HK were asked. Moreover, some questions were re-formulated in 2005 and some were omitted in 2011.
Table 7. Hong Kong Students (Age 15 and over) and Their Choice of the Fields of Study Abroad Studying higher education outside HK Field of Study
Business and Management Engineering and Technology Sciences Social Sciences Arts and Humanities Medicine, Dentistry and Health related Education Total Source: HK CSD 2005.
Studying higher education in HK
Completed higher education outside HK in the recent three years No. of % persons (‘000)
No. of persons (‘000)
%
No of persons (‘000)
%
29.8
41
55.7
32.9
13.9
13.7
18.9
32.2
19.0
9.7 8.3 7.4 3.1
13.3 11.4 10.1 4.2
24.3 16.7 19.5 11.3
0.8 72.8
1.1 100.0
9.8 169.4
Completed higher education in HK in the recent three years No. of Persons (‘000)
%
36.2
36.4
33.4
6.9
18.1
25.3
23.3
14.3 9.8 11.5 6.7
8.2 4.3 3.4 1.0
21.4 11.3 8.9 2.5
12.7 10.9 9.4 5.9
11.6 10.0 8.6 5.4
5.8 100.0
0.6 38.5
1.6 100.0
8.3 109.0
7.6 100.0
Table 8. The Hong Kong Students Abroad: by Major Country-Recipients Country 1975 1984 1986 1988 Australia 572 1658 1687 1889 Canada 6644 7723 6730 5840 Taiwan 2626 3816 3854 3850 UK 4434 6500 6935 7300 USA 11930 9000 9720 9160 Mainland China Source: Bray and Koo 2005; HK CSD 2002, 2005, 2011.
1990 3864 6372 3633 7700 12630 -
1992 6707 6600 3450 7600 14018 -
1994 11932 6589 2663 7400 12940 -
1998 17135 5000 1487 5450 8730 -
2000 20739 5000 1171 5200 7545 -
2002 16400 19600 -16100 13200 3000
2005 19000 11000 -17800 13400 5500
2011 17800 6700 -19400 14700 6900
Table 9. International Student Mobility and the GATS Service Modes in Hong Kong Title
Examples in Hong Kong
Degree
Mode 1
Cross-border supply
Low
Mode 2
Consumption abroad
Mode 3
Commercial presence
Mode 4
Presence of natural persons
Hong Kong universities recruiting students from abroad and providing them with degree programs in Hong Kong; foreign universities sending their students for exchange and training in Hong Kong (short-term or long-term) Hong Kong households making financial provisions and sending their members for a degree program abroad; the arrangement of training schemes abroad attached to the undergraduate or graduate programs in Hong Kong Foreign commercial providers creating joint degree programs in HK and engaging exchange components that allow HK students to take a part of the program abroad; HK universities and colleges reaching out with satellite campuses to mainland and encouraging HK students to travel to mainland Mainland China and Western students residing on Hong Kong campuses and serving as a source of culture, language, and “other” knowledge for local students; Hong Kong students becoming a source of culture, language and local knowledge on campuses abroad
Mode
Source: Authors.
High
Low
Medium
Figure 1. The Growth of Outbound Students in Hong Kong
Number of students
Hong Kong Outbound Students 19622008 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980
1990 2000 2010 2020
Years
Source: Guruz (2008); UNESCO (2010).
