521863

research-article2014
EDRXXX10.3102/0013189X14521863EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERMONTH

Feature Articles

Promoting Human Capital Development: A Typology

of International Scholarship Programs in Higher
Education
Laura W. Perna1, Kata Orosz1, Bryan Gopaul1, Zakir Jumakulov2, Adil Ashirbekov2, and
Marina Kishkentayeva2

This article sheds light on the availability and characteristics of international scholarship programs that are sponsored by
national and federal governments worldwide and that are intended to promote student mobility. Utilizing descriptive and
cluster analyses, the article produces a framework for organizing the population of these programs. The analyses take into
account both the central characteristics of programs and economic and political characteristics of the nations sponsoring
the program. The typology produced in this analysis may be used by policy makers and researchers to facilitate cross-
national comparisons of program design, implementation, and outcomes.

Keywords: cluster analysis; foreign education; human capital; policy; student mobility; taxonomy

D
istinct from other forms of international education
including international studies and technical assistance
(Arum, 1987), international scholarship programs in
higher education have existed for many years. In the early 20th
century, some nations established overseas study abroad pro-
grams to train the administrative elite of their colonies. In the
Cold War era, highly developed democratic countries used
international scholarship programs to counteract the ideological
influence of the Communist Block in Third World countries,
while intergovernmental agencies and private sponsors funded
international scholarship programs for Third World students as
a form of developmental assistance (Varghese, 2008).
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the resulting
disruption of the system of higher education in its successor
states, some newly independent nations created programs that
sent students abroad with the goal of addressing shortages of
highly skilled workers. One example is the Bolashak Scholars
Program of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a government-funded
scholarship created in 1993 received by 9,250 individuals who
earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from foreign univer-
sities between 1994 and 2013 (Zhumagulov, 2013).
More recently, some countries in the Middle East and South
America have launched international scholarship programs to
educate undergraduate and graduate students abroad. Suggesting
the magnitude of some governmental commitments, in 2011
the Brazilian government pledged US$1.7 billion to fund
100,000 undergraduate and graduate students to study abroad
for one year through the Scientific Mobility Program (Travers,
2012). The availability and expansion of some programs may
only increase in the future, as more countries attempt to achieve
the targeted levels of student mobility established by the Bologna
Process and the Lisbon Strategy for Higher Education.
Researchers have examined various aspects of international
scholarship programs (aka student mobility, student exchange,
study abroad, cultural exchange, and international educational
exchange programs). Some studies explore the forces that have
contributed to the establishment of particular programs (e.g.,
Chen, 2013; Denman and Hilal, 2011; OECD and the World
Bank, 2008), whereas others consider the effects of programs on
outcomes for individual participants and the sending country
(e.g., Celik, 2009; Hassan, 1992; Luchilo, 2009). Available
research also considers the experiences of scholarship recipients
during and after program participation (e.g., Douglas, 2005;
Hofer, 2009).
Despite the contributions, the transferability of findings from
available research is often not clear, given the many differences
across programs. Variations in goals, structures, requirements,
and other characteristics are not surprising given the likely value
of adapting a program to a nation’s goals, priorities, and other
characteristics. Although warranted, however, such variation
1
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
2
Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan

Educational Researcher, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 63­–73

DOI: 10.3102/0013189X14521863
© 2014 AERA. http://er.aera.net
March 2014    63
creates challenges for policy makers, practitioners, and research-
ers who wish to use the findings from available research to iden-
tify effective programs.
To enable cross-national comparisons of design, implementa-
tion, and impact of government-funded international scholar-
ship programs, policy makers, practitioners, and researchers
need a framework to organize and categorize the many existing
programs. This study uses descriptive and cluster analyses to pro-
pose such a framework.
Guiding Perspectives
A typology is one mechanism for bringing order to a collection
of related but seemingly disparate policies and programs
(Richards, 1998). The construction of this typology of govern-
ment-sponsored international scholarship programs draws from
human capital theory, macroeconomic theories of the role of the
public sector, and political philosophy (Marginson, 2007).
Endogenous theories of economic growth conceptualize
studying abroad and earning a degree from a foreign country as
a form of human capital import, as students returning from
abroad are assumed to “contribute to faster creation of new
knowledge and help other people acquire skills without any
direct costs” (Kim, 1998, p. 338). Human capital theory assumes
that an individual decides to enroll in higher education in gen-
eral or foreign education in particular when the economic and
noneconomic benefits exceed the costs (Becker, 1993). But,
when making enrollment decisions, individuals do not consider
the many societal benefits that may result from their enrollment.
As a result, without government intervention, the level of par-
ticipation in foreign education is below the optimal level for
society (McMahon, 2009). With its emphasis on promoting
cross-border movement of students, foreign education has the
potential to expand the societal benefits produced by higher
education (knowledge, information, common literacy) into
global public goods (Marginson, 2007). Research suggests that
foreign education yields a host of collective benefits for the home
nation, including advancing national economic growth and
productivity (Kim, 1998) and national security (Custer, 2013),
as well as benefits that transcend national borders, includ­ - advanced countries is more easily adaptable and beneficial to the
ing promoting democracy (Spilimbergo, 2009), human rights
(Atkinson, 2010), and international understanding of languages
and cultures (Edelstein & Douglass, 2012).
Governments may use public policy to encourage participa-
tion in foreign education and thus maximize the societal benefits
(national and global public goods) of such enrollment, through
policies that reduce the financial costs of students’ enrollment
(Paulsen, 2001), and/or reduce trade barriers to “consumption”
of higher education abroad (e.g., visa and other immigration
issues; Dee, 2010, p. 26). With an international scholarship pro-
gram, a government “intervenes” in the higher education market
in ways that increase the number of students who are studying at
or earning degrees from a postsecondary educational institution
in a foreign country (Paulsen, 2001).
The way that a government structures its program (through
participation requirements and other program characteristics)
influences the nature of human capital that individuals develop
(Perna, Jumakulov, & Orosz, 2013) as well as the mix of private
64    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
goods, public goods, and “public bads” that are produced
(Marginson, 2007). Whereas global public goods include the
production of common knowledge, information, and culture,
public bads may include the transfer of talent out of a develop-
ing nation (brain drain) and the homogenization of culture
(Marginson, 2007).
One particularly longstanding government-sponsored inter-
national scholarship program is the Fulbright program. Funded
by the federal government of the United States, the Fulbright
program was established in 1946 with the aim of promoting
“international good will through the exchanges of students in
the fields of education, culture and science” (Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, n.d.). The program awards
scholarships to U.S. citizens to study abroad and citizens of other
nations to study in the United States.
Although the Fulbright program is large and well known,
many other programs with different stated missions and orienta-
tions are also available. Available programs vary along multiple
dimensions, including whether the program promotes comple-
tion of a degree or some type of noncredential “educational
exchange” (e.g., Luijten-Lub, Van der Wende, & Huisman,
2005), study level (e.g., undergraduate vs. graduate; Edelstein &
Douglas, 2012), and study duration (e.g., semester, year, several
years; Edelstein & Douglas, 2012; Knight, 2006; Luijten-Lub et
al., 2005). Unlike other program characteristics, however, study
duration is relatively ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish
between programs (e.g., both graduate degree programs and
exchange programs may be 1 year in length).
International scholarship programs also vary in the majors
that students prefer and the majors that a program allows.
Varghese (2008) concluded that foreign students studying in
English-speaking nations tend to focus on science, engineering,
business, and social sciences, whereas foreign students in non-
English-speaking nations tend to focus on arts and humanities.
Kim (1998) concluded that international scholarship programs
in developing nations tend to encourage study in natural sci-
ences, engineering, and medical sciences. Kim speculates that
policy makers in these nations may perceive that, because these
fields are more standardized, “knowledge in these fields from
origin country” (p. 361).
In his comprehensive assessment of the many individual and
societal benefits that result from higher education, McMahon
(2009) concluded that the mechanisms that governments use to
promote higher education investment (and thus advance indi-
vidual and societal prosperity) should reflect the national eco-
nomic context. McMahon argues, for instance, that when the
economy is relatively less technologically advanced, promoting
undergraduate degree attainment may be a more effective use of
finite resources than encouraging increased academic research
and graduate education.
The World Economic Forum (Schwab, 2013) implies the
importance of recognizing the national context when constructing
government programs to build global competitiveness, where com-
petitiveness is defined “as the set of institutions, policies, and fac-
tors that determine the level of productivity of a country” (p. 4).
Drawing on indicators of a nation’s institutions, infrastructure,
macroeconomic environment, health and primary education,
higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labor mar-
ket efficiency, financial market development, technological readi-
ness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation, the
World Economic Forum classifies national economies into three
stages: factor driven, efficiency driven, and innovation driven
(Schwab, 2013). The strategies that a nation requires to improve
its global economic competitiveness depend on its current stage of
competitiveness.
The political context may also shape a government’s approach
to an international student mobility program. Some political
philosophers (e.g., French Marxist Louis Althusser, 1971)
assume that an individual’s actions are determined by the ideo-
logical perspectives of the State, as manifest through the State’s
social practices, including the provision of higher education.
These ideological perspectives and related social practices may be
designed to repress the interests of the working class while
advancing those of the ruling class. Noting that higher education
contributes to highly functioning democratic political institu-
tions, civic involvement, promotion of human rights, and politi-
cal stability and security, McMahon (2009) concludes that
higher education policies in many nations are not oriented
toward equalizing opportunity for higher education, but instead
serve to perpetuate differences across social classes in higher edu-
cation outcomes.
Research Methods
To generate a framework that brings order to the large number
of government-sponsored international scholarship programs,
this study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the programmatic characteristics of the popu-
lation of international scholarship programs sponsored
by federal and national governments worldwide?
2. What are the economic and political characteristics of
nations that sponsor international scholarship programs?
3. How do the programmatic and contextual characteristics
of Fulbright programs compare with the characteristics
of other government-sponsored international scholar-
ship programs?
4. What are the predominant “types” of government-spon-
sored international scholarship programs?
Our procedures draw from those who have developed typolo-
gies to organize policies related to teacher staffing (Rice, Roellke,
& Sparks, 2005), welfare (McKernan, Bernstein, & Fender,
2005), and college enrollment (Perna, Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, Li,
& Thomas, 2008), as well as national policies of higher educa-
tion internationalization (Luijten-Lub et al., 2005), institutional
internationalization (Childress, 2009; Edelstein & Douglass,
2012), global education hubs (Knight, 2011), and transnational
higher education programs (Ong & Chan, 2012).
Population
The first task is to define and identify the population of pro-
grams, a task that necessarily requires specifying inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Given our interest in government-sponsored
programs, we limit the population to programs sponsored by the
national or federal governments of the 196 independent states
identified by the U.S. State Department (Bureau of Intelligence
and Research, 2012).1
Between February and July 2013 we systematically searched
the websites of each nation to identify scholarship programs that
support foreign postsecondary education. Depending on the
governmental structure, these websites are sponsored by depart-
ments or ministries of education, higher education, training,
innovation, science, and culture. We also consulted the U.S.
Fulbright Scholarship Program’s website (Fulbright Commission,
n.d.) and the European Commission’s (2008) online database of
higher education external cooperation. We searched English-
language versions of the websites and used Google Translate as
necessary. In addition to reviewing readily available information
on government-sponsored websites and online repositories, we
conducted web searches using a combination of country names
and terms to locate program descriptions, brochures, and policy
documents available on nongovernmental websites.
The final data set includes programs in the 196 nations that
allow students to earn academic credits or degrees abroad at the
undergraduate, graduate, professional, and doctoral levels, as
well as scholarships that allow students to participate in voca-
tional education and postdoctoral study abroad, because all of
these experiences are designed to promote human capital devel-
opment. We exclude scholarships that enable only on-the-job
training, as on-the-job-training is a form of human capital
investment that is related to, but distinct from, education
(Becker, 1993).
Consistent with our interest in international scholarship pro-
grams as a form of government intervention, we include only pro-
grams that are funded by national or federal governments.
Although not without economic and social benefits for individu-
als and society, programs with other sponsors do not reflect a gov-
ernment’s decisions about how to use finite funds to promote
human capital development or advance other societal goals within
a particular national context. Thus, although potentially worth-
while, we exclude international scholarships funded by such non-
governmental organizations as the Aga Khan Foundation, Open
Society Foundation, and U.S.-endowed enterprise funds in
Central and Eastern Europe; programs sponsored by such inter-
governmental agencies as the Commonwealth of Nations,
European Union, and Organization of American States; scholar-
ships awarded by publicly owned or funded organizations that are
not governmental policy-making entities; and programs funded
by local governments.
To determine whether the national government provides
funding, we considered whether the program was advertised on
a governmental or intergovernmental website and whether gov-
ernmental funding was explicitly mentioned in research papers,
doctoral dissertations, policy documents, and/or brochures
describing the program. Some governmental websites advertise
scholarship programs that are funded by private sources or other
nations; we exclude these programs.
With the exception of the Fulbright program, the population
of programs in this study excludes international scholarships that
are awarded as part of a bilateral or multilateral agreement between
nations, even if government funded. Although referenced on
many governmental websites, details about such agreements are
March 2014    65
 Table 1
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study of International Scholarship Programs
Example of Included Example of Excluded
Criterion Included Programs Excluded Programs

Study Length Exchange Benjamin A. Gilman International  

Scholarship Program (U.S.)
  Degree Turkish Government Scholarships  
(Turkey)
Study Level Vocational Go East Scholarship (Germany) On-the-job training Emerging Markets Development
Advisers Program (U.S.)
  Undergraduate Scientific Mobility Undergraduate  
Program (Brazil)
  Graduate CIHR Doctoral Research and Foreign  
Study Award (Canada)
  Postgraduate Overseas Technology Talent  
Recruitment Programme (Taiwan)
Funder National government Namibian Government Scholarship International organization Organization of American States
and Training Program (Namibia) Scholarships
  Local government Scholarship program of Baden-
Württemberg (Germany)
  University (even if $ from Internationaliseringstaxameter
government) (Denmark)
Place of study Foreign nation Japanese Government Scholarships Home or foreign nation Pell Grant (U.S.)
for Study Abroad (Japan)
Sending–receiving country Nonexclusive Bolashak Scholarship Program Bilateral (exception: Fulbright Action Program Austria–Czech
relationship (Kazakhstan) programs) Republic
  Multilateral Visegrad Scholarship Program
Direction of mobility Send students to foreign BEC.AR Program (Argentina) Attract students from foreign Monbukagakusho Scholarship
nation nation Program (Japan)
Type of aid Grants and scholarships Consejo Nacional De Ciencia Loans only Colfuturo Credito Beca (Colombia)
y Technologia Scholarships
(Mexico)

not consistently published across nations. We also are typically
unable to verify whether these agreements describe existing pro-
grams or signal political commitments that may or may not have
been implemented.
We also include only programs that are specifically designed
to encourage students to obtain higher education abroad. The
U.S. Federal Pell Grant program, Ireland’s tax relief on tuition
and fees incurred at home or abroad, and the higher education
grant and loan programs of Andorra, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, and Liechtenstein are examples of programs that pro-
vide funding for study abroad but are excluded because of this
criterion. Consideration of the implications of this criterion
illustrates the complexities of identifying the appropriate inclu-
sion criteria. Excluding the U.S. Federal Pell Grant seems appro-
priate because the vast majority of recipients use the funding to
study in the home nation and because the U.S. has other pro-
grams that are explicitly designed to encourage study in a foreign
nation. Yet, this criterion also excludes programs in small nations
with less well developed higher education systems (e.g., Marshall
Islands) that may be intended to encourage enrollment in for-
eign nations but for political, administrative, or other reasons
may not explicitly emphasize this focus. Nonetheless, examining
the latter hypothesis is beyond the scope of the current study.
We exclude programs like the Erasmus Mundus scholarships
of the European Union and Japan’s Monbukagakusho scholar-
ship that focus only on attracting students from other nations
to domestic higher education institutions. The goals of attract-
ing scholarships vary, as some nations may use programs to
attract talent or internationalize their higher education institu-
tions and others seek to “gain influence and shape international
political behavior” (Atkinson, 2010, p. 2). Regardless, excluding
scholarships that only attract foreign students is consistent
with our interest in international scholarship programs that pro-
mote human capital of the home population through foreign
education.
Thus, our analyses focus on producing a typology that
describes a specific group within a larger population of what oth-
ers might define to be international scholarship programs. To aid
future researchers who seek to focus on a different population,
Table 1 summarizes the criteria that define the population of
programs that we use to address the research questions.
Data Collection and Analysis
We used Microsoft Excel to organize data about the population
of programs. We recorded the name and corresponding website

66    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

of each program and coded information about each program
based on guidelines that the research team developed and refined
through the data collection process.2 To ensure the consistency
and accuracy of information coded by each team member, we
created (and revised as necessary) a coding manual.
We engaged in several quality assurance steps. The team
reviewed the data set together to confirm that each program met
the inclusion criteria. We also verified the consistency of coding,
paying particular attention to national and regional variations in
the use of particular terms (e.g., “graduate education”). We then
asked experts on international higher education in each region of
the world to review lists of included programs. We used feedback
from these experts to reconsider the criteria defining the popula-
tion of interest and add programs not identified through the
procedures outlined above.
To address the first research question, we used descriptive
analyses to assess the prevalence of various programmatic charac-
teristics. The selected characteristics are expected to influence
the types of human capital developed through an international
scholarship program (Perna et al., 2013) and measure whether the
program funds degree completion or non-credential exchange;
targets undergraduate or graduate study; is limited to particular
major fields; and is limited to particular universities or countries.
To capture the extent to which the program tries to minimize
“brain drain,” maximize the benefits to the home nation, and
minimize public bads (Knight, 2006; Marginson, 2007), we also
consider whether the program imposes an obligation on recipi-
ents to return to the home nation upon program completion.
The analyses also consider the characteristics of participants,
including whether the program targets particular groups
(women, indigenous people, people from rural areas, teachers,
civil servants). We do not include a measure of “access” because
eligibility criteria are varied and inconsistently reported; reported
criteria include not only many measures of academic achieve-
ment but also indicators of educational attainment, citizenship,
age, English-language proficiency, medical clearance, field of
occupation, prior work experience, prior exposure to foreign
nations, and more.
To address the second research question, we consider differ-
ences in the availability of programs based on indicators of the
national economic, political, and regional context.3 To measure a
nation’s current stage of economic development, we use the Global
Competitiveness Index (described in the literature review) devel-
oped by the World Economic Forum (Schwab, 2013).4 To assess
potential differences across nations in the extent to which a pro-
gram may be designed to promote democracy and nation build-
ing, we use Freedom House’s (n.d.) Freedom in the World Index.5
Produced annually since 1972, the index is designed to measure
political and civil rights and includes indicators of the freedom of
residents to participate in the political process, vote in legitimate
elections, express beliefs and opinions, assemble and associate, and
enjoy other social and economic freedoms. We also examine varia-
tions in program characteristics based on region (Knight, 2006).
Regionalization is reflected in the development of regional-based
trade groups (e.g., North American Free Trade Association,
European Union) as well as regional-based mobility programs
(e.g., University Mobility Program of Asia Pacific, Erasmus
Programme; Knight, 2006).
To address the third research question, we use cross-tabula-
tions to compare the programmatic and contextual characteris-
tics of Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs. We include
only Fulbright programs that are jointly funded by the U.S.
and home nation’s governments. Nearly half of the programs
identified in our data collection are Fulbright (84 out of 183
programs).
To develop a typology of programs (the fourth research ques-
tion), we employed cluster analysis. The cluster analysis used
three programmatic characteristics (level of study, program
intensity, and Fulbright status) and two measures of national
context (stage of economic competitiveness and political free-
dom). To calculate matching coefficients, we used binary ver-
sions of the five included characteristics, defining study level as
postbaccalaureate (yes/no), program intensity as degree not
exchange, Fulbright (yes/no), economic competitiveness as
innovation driven or transitioning to innovation driven (yes/no),
and political freedom as politically free (yes/no). After listwise
deletion, the analytic sample for the cluster analysis included
159 cases.
We used hierarchical agglomerative clustering with matching
coefficients, the recommended cluster analytical technique for
data sets with categorical variables and a limited number of cases
(Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011; Mooi & Sarstedt, 2001).
Using Stata statistical software, we found that the average link-
ages option for estimating the similarity between observations
produced the most distinctive clustering solutions (Stata Corp.,
2013). The Calinski–Harabasz and the Duda–Hart cluster stop-
ping rules pointed to the four-group solution as the most dis-
tinctive clustering solution. We used the resulting four-category
variable to identify four types of government-sponsored interna-
tional scholarship programs. We excluded other program charac-
teristics (priority field, expenses covered, destination restriction,
return obligation, demographic target) from the cluster analysis
because of high amounts of missing data and limitations on the
permitted number of clustering variables with a small number of
cases (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2001), but used these additional pro-
grammatic characteristics to improve understanding of the four
emergent program types.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, as described above, we
examined a bounded set of international scholarship programs.
Many nongovernment and governmental programs beyond
those in our data set are available to encourage foreign educa-
tion. Second, our findings may overrepresent programs in
nations where information is documented in English (the first
language of half the team members). Although we used Google
Translate to review information on non-English sites, this
approach may have generated incomplete or misleading infor-
mation. Third, we rely on information that is publicly available.
This approach assumes that nations (including non–politically
free nations) use websites to publicize program information and
fully and fairly implement the programs that are advertised.
Fourth, the analyses focus on characteristics that were consis-
tently defined and measured. Although we attempted to collect
data on many other characteristics, information about programs
March 2014    67
on public websites varies dramatically.6 Because of the uneven-
ness in data reporting, we were limited to measuring program
characteristics as dichotomous (yes/no) responses, an approach
that obscures underlying complexities. Finally, our analyses
describe only programs that were in place at the time of our data
collection. We identified, but did not include, discontinued pro-
grams for which data were available.7 We also did not consider
the ways that program characteristics may have changed over
time;8 attention to changes over time is beyond the scope of this
study.
Findings
Using the procedures outlined above, we identified 183 interna-
tional scholarship programs in the 196 nations. Of the 196
nations, 52% have at least one program; 25% have one program,
18% have two programs, and 9% have more than two
programs.
Characteristics of International Scholarship Programs
The majority of government-sponsored international scholar-
ship programs identified in our study target the graduate or post-
graduate level (76%) rather than the undergraduate level, and
encourage degree attainment (78%) rather than exchange. Table
2 shows that nearly all (85%) limit permissible destination coun-
tries. Very few programs (15%) permit recipients to study any
academic specialty area. More than a third (38%) cover all
expenses and more than half (59%) require the recipient to
return to the home nation after program completion.
Characteristics of Nations Sponsoring an International
Scholarship Program
International scholarship programs are sponsored by nations in
all stages of economic development and political freedom and by
nations in all regions in the world. Table 2 shows that the avail-
ability of programs varies based on stage of economic competi-
tiveness, with nearly half (45%) of the programs sponsored by
nations with an innovation-driven economy. Two-thirds (68%)
of programs are sponsored by politically free nations; only one-
tenth (12%) are sponsored by nonfree nations. A plurality (n =
88) of programs are sponsored by European nations.
Fulbright Versus Non-Fulbright Programs
Table 2 shows both similarities and differences in the characteris-
tics of Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs. Both tend to
encourage degree attainment (80% of Fulbright and 77% of non-
Fulbright programs). But support for undergraduate study is more
common among non-Fulbright than Fulbright programs (29% vs.
6%). Both Fulbright and non-Fulbright programs restrict the des-
tination country, although this restriction is more common for
Fulbright than non-Fulbright programs (100% vs. 72%).9
Although not consistently reported, a review of available data
suggests that Fulbright programs tend to emphasize the promo-
tion of cultural understanding across nations, whereas non-Ful-
bright programs tend to stress the development of human
68    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
resources and mobility more generally. This conclusion is sup-
ported by differences between Fulbright and non-Fulbright pro-
grams in the major fields that are emphasized. A considerably
higher share of non-Fulbright programs (69%) than Fulbright
programs (18%) specify priority areas for foreign education.
Several non-Fulbright programs have a clear emphasis on sci-
ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
(6 of 68 programs) or specify STEM fields along with other spe-
cialty areas (15 of 68 programs). Whereas three Fulbright pro-
grams include STEM fields on a list of permissible study areas,
more common (6 Fulbright programs) is attention to areas with
a cultural or diplomatic orientation (e.g., human rights, global
issues, policy studies).
Given that U.S. immigration law requires that citizens of
other nations who receive Fulbright and other governmental
scholarships to study in the United States return to their home
nation for 2 years after program completion, it is not surprising
that virtually all Fulbright programs require recipients to return
to the home nation after program completion (99%). The single
exception is the Fulbright program for U.S. citizens, which does
not impose such obligation. By comparison, only 25% of non-
Fulbright programs report a return obligation. The economic
and political characteristics of nations offering Fulbright and
non-Fulbright programs are not statistically or substantively
different.
Characteristics of Four Program Types
Four types of government-sponsored student mobility programs
emerged from the cluster analysis. Table 3 shows these types vary
in terms of characteristics of the program and the sponsoring
nation. The largest group is Type 3 (94 of 159 programs). Type
3, labeled “Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed
Nations,” tends to promote attainment of degrees rather than
exchange (94%) and study at the postbaccalaureate rather than
undergraduate level (94%). Half (49%) of these programs are
Fulbright; all are sponsored by economically innovation-driven
(100%) nations and nearly all by politically free (90%) nations.
Examples of programs in this type are the master’s scholarships
to the College of Europe and doctoral fellowships to the
European University Institute, as well as Chile’s Becas program,
Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Scholarship Program, Estonia’s Kristjan
Jaak Scholarship Programme, and the Republic of Korea’s GKS
study abroad scholarship program.
In contrast to Type 3, the second largest group, Type 2 (n =
33), includes programs that are sponsored by nations with a
non-innovation-driven economy (100%), the majority of which
are not politically free (70%). Labeled “Development of
Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations,” Type 2 programs
are almost exclusively Fulbright (94%),10 compared with 49% of
Type 3 programs. Despite these clear differences with the pro-
grams in Type 3, programs in Types 2 and 3 both tend to pro-
mote study at the graduate or postgraduate level (97% and 94%,
respectively) and degree attainment rather than exchange (79%
of Type 2 and 94% of Type 3). Compared with other types, a
higher share of Type 2 programs restrict the study destination
(94%) and have return obligations (100%). The Fulbright
 Table 2
Characteristics of Government-Sponsored International Scholarship Programs
Non-Fulbright Fulbright
Characteristic Total (n = 183), % (n = 99), % (n = 84), % Pearson χ2 (p)

Study level 100 100 100 27.1 (.000)

 Undergraduate 19 29 6  
 Graduate/postgraduate 76 63 92  
 Missing 5 8 2  
Program intensity 100 100 100 1.9 (.383)
 Degree 78 77 80  
 Exchange 14 13 15  
 Missing 8 10 5  
Priority field 100 100 100 55.0 (.000)
  Priority fields 45 69 18  
  Any field with exceptions 16 3 32  
  Any field 15 11 20  
 Missing 23 17 30  
Expenses covered 100 100 100 2.5 (.283)
  Full coverage 38 43 32  
  Other coverage 24 22 25  
 Missing 38 34 43  
Destination restriction 100 100 100 28.0 (.000)
 Yes 85 72 100  
  No restriction/missing 15 28 0  
Return obligation 100 100 100 28.0 (.000)
 Yes 59 25 99  
  No obligation/missing 41 75 1  
Demographic target 100 100 100 1.8 (.186)
 Yes 12 9 15  
  No target/missing 88 91 85  
Economic competitiveness 100 100 100 8.7 (.121)
 Factor-driven 10 7 14  
  1-2 transition 8 6 10  
 Efficiency-driven 14 11 18  
  2-3 transition 19 17 20  
 Innovation-driven 45 54 36  
 Missing 4 5 2  
Political freedom 100 100 100 6.7 (.083)
  Politically free 68 74 61  
  Partially free 20 13 27  
 Nonfree 12 12 12  
 Missing 1 1 0  
Region 100 100 100 9.1 (.245)
 Asia 13 8 19  
  Australia and Oceania 2 1 2  
  Central America and Caribbean 4 5 2  
 Europe 48 54 42  
  Middle East and North Africa 12 12 12  
  North America 5 7 4  
  South America 7 6 7  
  Sub-Saharan Africa 9 7 12  

Note. Economic development is measured using the Global Competitiveness Index created by the World Economic Forum. Political Freedom draws on the Freedom House’s
classification of nations.

March 2014    69

 Table 3
Characteristics of Different Program Types
Type 2 Type 3
“Development “Development
of Advanced of Advanced Type 4
Type 1 Knowledge in Knowledge “Promotion
“Development Developing in Developed of Short-Term
of Basic skills” Nations” Nations” Study Abroad”
Program Characteristic (n = 19), % (n = 33), % (n = 94), % (n = 13), % Pearson χ2 (p)

Clustering characteristics  
  Economic competitiveness 21 0 100 85 188.0 (.000)
  (% innovation-driven)
  Political freedom (% free) 0 30 90 100 97.1 (.000)
  Study level (% graduate/ 32 97 94 31 140.4 (.000)
  postgraduate)
  Program intensity (% degree) 100 79 94 8 175.5 (.000)
  Fulbright (% Fulbright) 0 94 49 0 60.9 (.000)
Additional characteristics  
  Priority field (% priority field) 74 18 55 23 41.3 (.000)
  Expenses covered (% full 58 42 39 8 19.0 (.015)
  coverage)
  Destination restriction 79 94 89 54 15.5 (.004)
  (% restricted)
  Return obligation (% has 47 100 55 38 31.4 (.000)
  obligation)
  Demographic target (% has 21 33 4 8 21.5 (.000)
  target)
Examples Excellence Fund Fulbright (Mexico); Becas (Chile); Bolashak Scientific Mobility  
(Albania); King Abdullah Fulbright (Pakistan); (Kazakhstan); Kristjan (Brazil); DAAD,
Scholarship (Saudi Fulbright (Rwanda) Jaak (Estonia) (Germany); Gilman
Arabia) Scholarship (United
States)

Note. Economic development is measured using the Global Competitiveness Index created by the World Economic Forum. Political Freedom draws on the Freedom House’s
classification of nations.

programs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mexico, Pakistan, and Rwanda
are examples of Type 2 programs.
Like Type 2 programs, Type 1 programs (n = 19) also tend to
be sponsored by nations with non-innovation-driven economies
(79%) and that are not politically free (100%). Labeled
“Development of Basic Skills,” Type 1 programs also tend to
support degree attainment rather than exchange (100%). But
68% of Type 1 programs support undergraduate rather than
postbaccalaureate studies compared with virtually no Type 2
(3%) and Type 3 (6%) programs. Type 1 programs tend to spec-
ify priority areas (74%) and cover all expenses (58%). Examples
include Albania’s Excellence Fund, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah
Scholarship, and Turkey’s Government Scholarship.
Labeled “Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad,” nearly all
(92%) Type 4 programs (n = 13) support educational exchange
rather than degree attainment; a majority encourages study at
the undergraduate level (69%). Consistent with its emphasis on
exchange rather than degree attainment, only 54% of Type 4
programs restrict the destination country or institution com-
pared with 79% of Type 1, 94% of Type 2, and 89% of Type 3
programs. Only 23% of Type 4 programs specify academic pri-
ority areas and only 8% of programs cover all study expenses.
70    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
Like programs in Type 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge
in Developed Nations”), Type 4 programs (“Promotion of Short-
Term Study Abroad”) tend to be sponsored by nations with
innovation-driven economies (85%) and that are politically free
(100%). Type 4 includes Brazil’s Scientific Mobility program,
Denmark’s Udlandsstipendieordningen program, Germany’s
DAAD Scholarship, and the U.S. Benjamin A. Gilman Interna­
tional Scholarship.
Conclusion
This study describes the availability and characteristics of inter-
national scholarship programs that are sponsored by federal and
national governments worldwide and offers a framework for
understanding the central characteristics and effects of these pro-
grams. The framework produced in this analysis may be used by
policymakers and researchers to facilitate cross-national com-
parisons of policy design, implementation, and outcomes.
As suggested by prior research (Edelstein & Douglas, 2012;
Knight, 2006; Luijten-Lub et al., 2005; Varghese, 2008), interna-
tional student mobility programs have varying characteristics. The
typology produced in this analysis brings order to this variation by
identifying four distinct patterns. Types 2 (“Development of
Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”) and 3
(“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”)
are limited to post-baccalaureate study, whereas two-thirds of Type
1 (“Development of Basic Skills”) and Type 4 (“Promotion of
Short-Term Study Abroad”) programs support undergraduate
study. Most Type 1 and 3 programs specify academic priority areas
(74% and 55%), compared with a minority of Type 2 and Type 4
programs (18% and 23%). All Type 2 programs (“Development
of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”) have a return
obligation – a mechanism to minimize the “public bad” of brain
drain, compared with about half of Type 1 (“Development of
Basic Skills”) and Type 3 (“Development of Advanced Knowledge
in Developed Nations”) programs and only a third of Type 4 pro-
grams (“Promotion of Short-Term Study Abroad”).
Although a plurality of programs is sponsored by nations
located in Europe, with innovation-driven economies, and that
are politically free, programs are sponsored by nations across the
globe with varying economic and political status. Whereas pro-
grams in Types 1 (“Development of Basic Skills”) and 2
(“Development of Advanced Knowledge in Developing Nations”)
tend to be offered in nations with developing economies and that
are not politically free, programs in Types 3 (“Development of
Advanced Knowledge in Developed Nations”) and 4 (“Promotion
of Short-Term Study Abroad”) tend to be sponsored by govern-
ments in nations with innovation-driven economies and that are
politically free. These patterns illustrate the importance of consid-
ering the regional and national context when examining the avail-
ability, characteristics, and effects of programs.
Variations in program characteristics across different national
contexts imply different views about the appropriate allocation
of government resources and have implications for the nature of
human capital, as well as the mix of private, national public, and
global public goods, developed through the programs (Kim,
1998; Marginson, 2007; McMahon, 2009). Future research
should use the program types that emerged from this study to
examine the range of private and public benefits generated by
these different configurations in light of the economic and polit-
ical contexts of the sponsoring nations. Future research should
also consider the benefits that accrue to nations that sponsor
programs with varying goals. Our review of the purposes of pro-
grams that are sponsored by nations with two or more programs
(27% of the 196 nations in this study) suggests that some pro-
grams are targeted toward promoting human capital develop-
ment while others seek to promote cultural exchange and
international relations. Illustrating these varying purposes, the
government of Estonia funds three programs: 1) the Kristjan
Jaak Scholarship Program, which aims at training the next gen-
eration of university professors and researchers abroad, 2) the
Fulbright program, which sends Estonians to study in the United
States to promote mutual understanding between the two
nations, and 3) a program that supports doctoral studies at the
European University Institute, a graduate institution funded by
20 European states that seeks to promote cultural exchange
among European nations.
Efforts to identify more nuanced cross-national understand-
ings of program similarities and differences depend on the
availability of better data. The analyses in this study are limited
by the absence of common or shared standards for publicly
reporting program data. Even for the narrow set of characteris-
tics reported in this study, we encountered missing data and were
limited to dichotomous indicators of whether or not a program
has a particular characteristic. Obtaining consistent and reliable
data across programs about other dimensions, including dimen-
sions for which we found the majority of programs to be missing
data (e.g., the level of government funding, the numbers of
applicants and recipients, and program outcomes), will facilitate
the production of meaningful comparative analyses of program
design, implementation, and effectiveness.
The four program types identified in this study provide a
mechanism for taking into account variation in such key pro-
gram characteristics as study level and program intensity, as well
as the economic and political context of the sponsoring nation.
As such, this study offers a useful foundation for developing
cross-national understandings of the most appropriate design
and implementation of international scholarship programs
and assessments of the ways that these programs achieve pro-
gram goals, produce benefits for individual participants, and
advance economic competitiveness, political freedom, and other
national and global public goods. Future research should also
consider the inclusion and exclusion criteria (as summarized in
Table 1) used in this study and identify the applicability of the
program types identified in this article for other populations of
programs.
Notes
This article arises out of the research project “Internationalization
as a Strategic Factor in the Development of Education and Science in
the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Environment of Socio-economic
Globalization,” a collaboration between researchers at the University of
Pennsylvania and Nazarbayev University. The research was supported
in part by Nazarbayev University with funds from the Republic of
Kazakhstan Ministry of Education and Science. The opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the funder. An
earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the
European Conference on Educational Research in Istanbul, September
2013. Andres Castro Samayoa, Ellen Hazelkorn, Karoly Jokay, Jenny
Lee, Teboho Moja, Alan Ruby, and Dante Salto provided useful feed-
back on the data we collected.
1
The U.S. State Department identifies 195 independent states, as
well as Taiwan, acknowledging that Taiwan claims to be independent
but is also claimed by the Government of the People’s Republic of
China. We consider Taiwan an independent state in these analyses.
2
To avoid duplication, we considered as one program groups of pro-
grams that have the same or similar name and are administered by one
organization. For example, we listed only one Fulbright program for
each country although most countries offer Fulbright scholarships for
graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, teachers, and/or experts.
3
See the “Countries of the World” website, http://www.photius.
com/rankings/, for one compilation of the many available indicators of
the national context.
4
We also examined two of the subscales that are part of this index,
the higher education and training pillar and the nation’s composite
score on the innovation and business sophistication factor. As the pat-
tern of results mirrored the pattern for the Global Competitiveness
Index composite, we report only the latter in this article.
March 2014    71
 5
The Corruption Perceptions Index created by Transparency
International (n.d.) and the Economic Freedom Index produced by the
Heritage Foundation (n.d.) are additional indicators of national con-
text. We use the Freedom of the World Index as it represents a broader
measure of the political and cultural context.
6
For instance, the majority of programs in our data set are missing
data for year of launch (73%), annual funding (92%), and total appli-
cants (98%).
7
Examples of discontinued programs include Romania’s special
scholarship for civil servants (ended in 2007) and the NWO Rubicon
Fellowship of the Netherlands (ended in 2010).
8
For a discussion of how the characteristics of one program
(Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Scholars Program) have changed over time, see
Perna et al. (2013).
9
Fulbright programs place some limitations on the countries where
U.S. citizens may study and require citizens of other countries to hold
the Fulbright scholarship in the United States.
10
The only non-Fulbright programs in this type are the DGHE’s
Overseas Scholarships, Beasiswa Luar Negeri program of Indonesia,
and the Namibian Government Scholarship and Training Program.
Membership in Type 2 programs was influenced by statistical dependen-
cies in the data, namely, the relationship between Fulbright status and
study level, one of the clustering variables: 92% of Fulbright programs are
available for graduate/postgraduate studies. However, the cluster analysis
assigned Fulbright programs to both Type 2 and Type 3. The results indi-
cate some differences in the characteristics of Fulbright programs that are
funded by economically competitive, politically free nations rather than
economically developing, politically nonfree nations.
References
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays, Part 2 (Ben
Brewster, Trans.). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. http://
www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70ii.html
Arum, S. (1987). International education: What is it? A taxonomy
of international education of U.S. universities. CIEE Occasional
Papers on International Educational Exchange, 23, 5–22.
Atkinson, C. (2010). Does soft power matter? A comparative analysis
of student exchange programs 1980-2006. Foreign Policy Analysis,
6, 1–22.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis,
with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (n.d.). Fulbright pro-
gram history. Retrieved from http://eca.state.gov/fulbright/about-
fulbright/history
Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (2012). Independent states in the
world. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. Retrieved
from http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
Celik, S. (2009). In their own words: Government sponsored Turkish EFL
teachers. Are we really investing, or wasting? (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3390262)
Chen, Y. (2013). Modernization or cultural imperialism. A critical read-
ing of Taiwan’s national scholarship program for overseas study. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher educa-
tion institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13,
289–309.
Custer, S. (2013). Libya scholarships to send 40,000 abroad. The
Pie News. Retrieved from http://thepienews.com/news/libya-ld-
3-28-billion-proposed-to-send-40000-students-abroad/
Dee, P. (2010). International student movements and the effects of
barriers to trade in higher education services. In C. C. Findlay &
72    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER
W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Globalisation and tertiary education in the
Asia-Pacific: The changing nature of a dynamic market (pp. 39–71).
Singapore: World Scientific.
Denman, B. D., & Hilal, K. T. (2011). From barriers to bridges: An
investigation on Saudi student mobility (2006-2009). International
Review of Education, 57, 299–318.
Douglas, A. A. L. (2005). Still in transition: An ethnographic case study of
the academic and cultural adjustment experiences of Kuwaiti students
enrolled in a formal agreement partnership between an American uni-
versity and the state of Kuwait (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3170668)
Edelstein, R., & Douglass, J. (2012). Comprehending the international
initiatives of universities: A taxonomy of engagement and institu-
tional logistics. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.19.12.
Berkeley: University of California.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture
of the European Commission. (2008). Mapping study on external
cooperation in education and training. Retrieved from http://www
.mapping-he.eu/programmes/Default.aspx
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analy-
sis (5th ed.). London: Wiley.
Freedom House (n.d.). Freedom in the world. Retrieved from http://
www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world
Fulbright Commission. (n.d.). Foreign Fulbright student program.
Retrieved from http://foreign.fulbrightonline.org/thinking_of_
applying.html
Hassan, S. M. (1992). Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Saudi Arabian
scholarship grant programs for master’s degree students studying in the
United States (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (9308507)
Heritage Foundation. (n.d.). Economic freedom index. Retrieved from
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
Hofer, V. J. (2009). The identification of issues serving as barriers to posi-
tive educational experiences for Saudi Arabian students studying in the
state of Missouri (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (3392682)
Kim, J. (1998). Economic analysis of foreign education and students
abroad. Journal of Development Economics, 56, 337–365.
Knight, J. (2006). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of
internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 15, 221–240.
Luchilo, L. (2009). Los impactos del programa de becas del CONACYT
Mexicano: Un análisis sobre la trayectoria ocupacional de los
ex becarios (1997-2006). Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia,
Tecnología y Sociedad, 5(13), 175–206.
Luijten-Lub, A., Van der Wende, M., & Huisman, J. (2005). On coop-
eration and competition: A comparative analysis of national poli-
cies for internationalisation of higher education in seven Western
European countries. Journal of Studies in International Education,
9, 147–163.
Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A
global revision. Higher Education, 53, 307–333.
McKernan, S., Bernstein, J., & Fender, L. (2005). Taming the beast:
Categorizing state welfare policies: A typology of welfare poli-
cies affecting recipient job entry. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 24, 443–460.
McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private
and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). Cluster analysis. In E. Mooi &
M. Sarstedt (Eds.), A concise guide to market research (pp. 237–
284). Berlin: Springer.
OECD and the World Bank. (2008). Chile’s international scholarship
program. Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: Author.
Ong, K. C., & Chan, D. K. K. (2012). Transnational higher educa-
tion and challenges for university governance in China. Higher
Education Policy, 25, 151–170.
Paulsen, M. B. (2001). The economics of the public sector: The nature
and role of public policy in the finance of higher education. In
M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher educa-
tion: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 95–132). New York,
NY: Algora.
Perna, L. W., Jumakulov, Z., & Orosz, K. (2013, September). The role
of an international scholarship programme in developing human capi-
tal in a nation with a transitioning economy. Paper presented at the
European Conference on Educational Research, Istanbul.
Perna, L. W., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Bell, A., Li, C., & Thomas, S. L.
(2008). Typology of federal and state policies designed to promote
college enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 243–267.
Rice, J. K., Roellke, C., & Sparks, D. (2005, March). Piecing together
the teacher policy landscape: A multi-level case study linking policies to
problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Finance Association, Louisville, KY.
Richards, C. E. (1998). A typology of educational monitoring systems.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 106–116.
Spilimbergo, A. (2009). Democracy and foreign education. American
Economic Review, 99, 528–543.
Schwab, K. (2013). The global competitiveness report: 2013-2014.
Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Stata Corp. (2013). Introduction to cluster analysis commands. Retrieved
from http://www.stata.com/manuals13/mvcluster.pdf#mvcluster
Transparency International. (n.d.). Corruption perceptions index 2012.
Retrieved from http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Travers, E. (2012, March 18). University initiatives melt borders
with Brazil. University World News. Retrieved from http://www
.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2012031523350556
Varghese, N. V. (2008). Globalization of higher education and cross-
border student mobility. Paris: UNESCO.
Zhumagulov, B. (2013, April 16). Speech of the Minister of Education
and Science at government meeting. Retrieved from http://www
.edu.gov.kz/ru/about/o_ministerstve0/ministr/vystuplenija/
vystuplenie/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4821&cHash=30513ad
c08e0ad410e85b6cbb8fb6492
Authors
LAURA W. PERNA is executive director of the Alliance for Higher
Education and Democracy (AHEAD) and professor at the Graduate
School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104, lperna@gse.upenn.edu. Her research focuses on
understanding how to improve college access and success, especially for
students from historically underrepresented groups.
KATA OROSZ is a research assistant and PhD student at the Graduate
School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19104; oroszka@gse.upenn.edu. Her research focuses
on the relationship between higher education policy and the economic
and noneconomic benefits of higher education in different national
contexts, and the internationalization of higher education.
BRYAN GOPAUL is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Graduate
School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104; bgopaul@gse.upenn.edu. His research
focuses on doctoral education, the changing academic profession, and
the public good of higher education.
ZAKIR JUMAKULOV is a junior researcher at Nazarbayev University
Graduate School of Education, 53 Kabanbay Batyr ave, Astana,
Kazakhstan, 010000; zakir.jumakulov@nu.edu.kz. His research focuses
on internationalization and policy borrowing in higher education.
ADIL ASHIRBEKOV is a junior researcher at Nazarbayev University
Graduate School of Education, 53 Kabanbay Batyr ave, Astana,
Kazakhstan, 010000; aashirbekov@nu.edu.kz. His research focuses on
internationalization and policy borrowing in higher education.
MARINA KISHKENTAYEVA is a director of Department of
Continuing Education, Development and Projects, at Nazarbayev
University Graduate School of Education, 53 Kabanbay Batyr ave,
Astana, Kazakhstan, 010000; mkishkentayeva@nu.edu.kz. Her research
focuses on internationalization of higher education, higher education
governance and funding, economics of education and school finance.
Manuscript received October 30, 2013
Revision received December 16, 2013
Accepted January 6, 2014
March 2014    73