Opportunities and Impediments: An International Perspective Dr Christopher Ziguras

Themes Globalisation and transnational education The difference between emerging and mature markets Lessons about competing modes of ‘delivery’ Financial lessons Increasing involvement of exporting governments Improving cooperation between small and new providers

Globalisation and transnational education Integration into the global economy drives demand for international education in developing and newly industrialised countries This is happening most rapidly in emerging ‘global cities’, which form regional hubs for international trade, transport, finance, communications and cultural exchange Local education providers are unable to meet demand, both in terms of number of places and types of programs (globally relevant, in English) Trade in education allows institutions with excess capacity (or the potential to extend capacity) to respond to this unmet demand on a commercial basis

The difference between emerging and mature markets Offshore education began in Singapore and Hong Kong, mostly by British and Australian universities – new unis and distance ed providers In emerging markets early entrants vie for most prestigious local partners Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong are now mature markets, with a wide range of overseas programs and local providers Now more specialisation, competition through teaching quality, facilities and student experience

Lessons about competing modes of ‘delivery’ Fully-online delivery is proving unpopular except in small niche programs – the ambitious consortia are facing dificulties (eg. Western Governors University, Open Uni UK in US, Global Universities Alliance, Universitas 21) while some specialist online providers are succeeding (University of Southern Queensland) Joint delivery with local partners is thriving, but requires ongoing commitment to building quality partnerships Branch campuses are small and very expensive (Monash in Malaysia and South Africa, RMIT in Vietnam)

Financial lessons Offshore development is expensive and risk management needs to be a priority Fully-online education is costly to do properly, there is little demand, and students are not prepared to pay high fees Campuses are very expensive and expose the provider to considerable financial risk (eg Monash South Africa)

Monash South Africa projected cumulative surplus/deficit (A$million)

Financial lessons (continued) Joint venture campuses involve less risk but the university risks losing control Many offshore programs were initiated with approval at the faculty level without detailed business plans Now the large offshore providers have stringent requirements for internal approvals Most successful proposals have been initiated and driven from the faculty level, while campuses and consortia have been driven by the centre (eg RMIT GUA, Penang campus, Vietnam campus)

Improving cooperation between small and new providers Sharing: Offshore partners, overseas offices, resident directors Joint development of: Internationally viable projects Internal approvals processes Standard contracts (umbrella agreement and annexes) Offshore quality assurance processes and agreed standards

Increasing involvement of exporting governments Quality assurance – UKQAA, US regional accreditation agencies, AUQA Marketing – British Council, US offices, AEI in Australia (also IDP, which is a QANGO) Trade facilitation – GATS negotiation, bilateral free trade agreements, mediating between offshore providers and governments, maintaining relationships with education ministers

Dr Christopher Ziguras Globalism Institute RMIT University Melbourne