Higher Education 24, 465-482, 1992. �9 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Higher education in a world market An historical look at the global context of international study

MARY E. McMAHON Education Abroad Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, U.SA.

Abstract. Recognizing that academic, scientific and technological strengths have become increasingly important in international relations, this study hypothesizes that the flow of knowledge resources among nations is interconnected with global political, economic and cultural relationships. As a means of validating this premise, this study analyzes one component of academic interaction - international study at the level of higher education. This article outlines changes in international study patterns in the decades following World War II and explores how the postwar context affected international exchange relationships. Intemational exchange during the 1960s and 1970s indicated strong participation by students from Third World nations and the popularity of five industrialized host nations. These relationships are explored through a statistical study of the flow of students from 18 developing nations out to the world and to the United States in particular. The findings assess the importance of key economic factors (such as involvement in global trade and concentration of trade), educational variables (including national emphasis on education and the availability of domestic opporttmities) and political arenas (such as international assistance and scholarship dependency) in determining intemational study patterns. As current shifts in our postwar world order unfold before us, better understanding of historical factors underlying international exchange may be instrumental as we anticipate its future within the context of new geopolitical alliances.

Introduction

In the decades fol lowing Wor ld War II, science, technology, and informat ion gained acceptance as strategic sources and reflections of nat ional power. These

assets, long understood to be essential to "tradit ional" arenas of power as defined in political, economic and mil i tary terms, were recognized as vital to all areas of internat ional competi t ion and nat ional development . Substant iat ing this change,

Gi lp in (1987) observes that we have witnessed a global transi t ion from energy-

intensive industries to knowledge- in tens ive industries, and from industr ial trade to

a far more intricate exchange of an informat ion economy. Knowledge underl ies these e lements of power. But while knowledge itself is not

a f inite commodi ty , a na t ion ' s abili ty to produce, convey and incorporate it is l imited by resource and structural constraints. Al though strategies for increasing knowledge capabili t ies differ, higher educat ion has often been a central factor. 1

Some nat ions choose to develop their own resources and traditions of advanced learning, while others rely on the academic expertise and insti tutions of other nat ions through internat ional study. The 1960s and 1970s were a part icularly expansive phase in overseas study; this research looks at this critical period dur ing which internat ional study was key for many nat ions in the acquisi t ion and deve lopment of knowledge resources. This period serves as a basel ine study for review and analysis of present and future exchange patterns. Furthermore, as we

466

currently witness daily changes in our global order, analyses of this era may suggest some factors instrumental to the future of international exchange as the postwar, bipolar world gives way to an unknown array of geopolitical alliances.

Records indicate that in 1960, there were nearly 238,000 international university students worldwide; within fifteen years, this figure had nearly tripled. Now more than thirty years later, the number of foreign students in the United States alone exceeds 400,000. Equally striking is confirmation that during this same period transnational study steadily grew along with the expansion of higher education worldwide. While in 1962, 2% of the world's university students were studying outside their national borders, 2% of those engaged in university study were still doing so in 1975.

But there were distinct national patterns within the global fabric of this phenomenon. The top five host countries did not change. The United States, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany held the resources and expertise necessary for systems of higher education both advanced enough to draw and large enough to absorb non-domestic students in significant numbers. For example, in 1962, the United States was the country receiving the most foreign students, host to nearly 65,000. Still the top host in 1990, the United States now received nearly 408,000 foreign students in its colleges and universities.

In terms of sending countries, 2 national patterns and rankings changed dramatically. Although the number of foreign students originating from North America and European nations have increased, they comprised a decreasing percentage of the global flow. The predominant trend has been an increasing flow of students from peripheral to industrialized nations and an increasing percentage of all international students in the United States. The developing world lacked equivalent educational capabilities but had a surplus of students interested in the advanced degrees and the promise of individual advancement that education provided. (For example, in the last thirty years, the People's Republic of China has replaced Canada as the home country of most foreign students in the United States; in fact currently 9 of the top 10 countries with students in the U.S. are in Asia).

Admittedly, various levels of producers and consumers of knowledge combined to create these "migration" patterns. Individuals sought advancement through skills and knowledge valued in what had become a global market. Institutions on both sides played a facilitative role through formal agreements, funding, ease of entry and exit, and emphasis on international experience. Nations of varying capabilities and status sought power through increased national expertise. But nations, institutions and individuals acted and reacted within the same global environment. While these levels are interdependent, this article explores the impact of the national/international level on overseas study. Thus, academic interaction on the part of peripheral nations might be seen as an effort to catch up with (or at least not fall further behind) more advanced nations through foreign study and expertise. It must be assumed that, to a large degree, national measurements are reflective of national characteristics, interests and choices and that the return rate of students from overseas is sufficient to enhance the knowledge capabilities of the sending nation. 3

A research question

467

Seeing the increased activity with the formation of distinct transnational patterns, how did the postwar global context impede or promote international study? This research explores the context for two phenomena in international study in the 1960s and 1970s: (1) the percentage of Third World students overseas worldwide and (2) a concentration of these students in the United States. The countries included in this study are Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezuela and the Republic of Vietnam.

This research assumes that international study takes place within a global system of which unequal economic, political and cultural relationships are characteristic and significant. It proposes two hypotheses which incorporate this assumption into gauges of economic strength, the flow of economic resources, relative measures of educational resources, and political relationships. The first hypothesis focuses on dynamics within the sending nation, while the second reflects greater consideration of the international dynamics within which exchange takes place.

HYPOTHESIS I. The flow of students out from a Third World nation to the world at large varied directly with the level of the sending country's economic strength, its involvement in global trade, state emphasis on education, and lower levels of home educational opportunities.

HYPOTHESIS II. The flow of students to the United States varied directly with measures of the economic capacity of the sending nation relative to that of the U.S., levels of trade between the U.S. and the sending nation, the flow of U.S. foreign assistance to the sending nation, and levels of institutional support from the United States.

The study begins in the 1960s and extends into the 1970s. During this time, the expansion of American higher education included an unprecedented outreach to the world. At the same time, there was a worldwide increase in foreign student enrolments; it was particularly significant in the United States. Although free of colonial ties that may have linked nations with the United States, the decentralized and expanding system of American higher education provided a receptive target of opportunity.

Because this study assumes that political and economic relations are relevant to changes in academic interaction, the time period in question is appropriate for it covers important global changes within the international system (e.g., growing industrialization and expansion of education), which may have provided a favorable climate for overseas study. More importantly, it encompasses the ascendance and peak of U.S. political and economic power within the global system which may have attracted greater student numbers. Others have substantiated global trends in other areas of aspects of knowledge production and academic resource distribution that have taken place during this same time. Although this study ends in the mid-1970s, it

468

is relevant to the extent that it lends to our historical understanding of the phenomenon and identifies key variables and their relative influence on international study patterns between more and less developed nations in periods of relatively stable, and therefore measurable, power relationships.

Two models

Presented first is a macro-analysis concerning the flow of students out from 18 nations. Its focus is on national characteristics and patterns of global interaction that may promote or "push" international study in general. Second, a parallel study is undertaken concerning the flow of students from these same 18 nations to the United States, thus emphasizing specific systemic variables that may facilitate or "pull" students to a particular nation for advanced study.

Similar to other research on foreign study (Cummings 1984; Fry 1984; Agarwal and Winkler 1985) and studies concerning international and domestic politics and policies (Cameron 1978; 1982), both use multiple regression analysis (using least squares estimates) based on aggregate national data to indicate the strengths of the relationships among the variables. 4 The comparative design of the cross-national, quantitative section is intended to suggest common factors which may be of significance to understanding the measures of international study.

Each variable is presented below in terms of the concept derived from the research hypotheses and questions, an appropriate indicator and measure and a prediction for each.

HYPOTHESIS I. The outbound, "push" model - Variables which may affect the outflow of third world students

Statistical Equation: Y1 = Bo + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + B4X4 + e

Outcome variable: The level of involvement in overseas study is operationalized as the percentage of a country's tertiary level students studying internationally, and measured as the number of students in higher education overseas relative to the home country tertiary level enrolment in a given year. (Y1)

Explanatory variables: (a) The economic power of the sending nation is gauged by the annual gross

domestic product (GDP) per capita which provides a gross measure of economic activity. A high measure on either scale would indicate greater economic strength on the part of the sending nation. The expected correlation is positive. (B~)

(b) The level of involvement in the international economy is measured by trade, specifically import and export levels relative to sending nation GDP. A high measure is reflective of greater involvement with and reliance upon the international system. A positive correlation is hypothesized. (B2)

(c) State priority on education is reflected in the amount of national resources spent on education as a percentage of GNP. A high measure would indicate education as a relatively high priority of the sending nation state. A positive correlation is anticipated. (B3)

469

(d) The availability of educational opportunities in the home country is the degree to which the existing educational system meets national need. The research will use secondary school enrolment ratio (i.e., number of enrolled students relative to age cohort). A high measure would be indicative of greater opportunity at home and less reliance on overseas placements. Although tertiary education enrolment ratio might be an equally useful measure of this variable, it would create a statistical problem in that the dependent variable incorporates a measure of tertiary education as its denominator. For that reason, secondary education enrolment ratio is used as a proxy measure. Secondarily, this measure suggests to a limited degree the potential magnitude of the student pool eligible for overseas study. A negative correlation is hypothesized. (B4)

HYPOTHESIS II. Inbound or "pull" model - International systems variables which may affect the concentration of overseas students in one world center

Statistical Equation: Y2 = Bo + BsX5 + B6X6 + BTX7 + BsX8 + e Outcome variable: The emphasis on overseas study in a world center is interpreted as the concentration of overseas students in a world center. This will be measured as the number of tertiary level students in the United States relative to the total number of international students from the sending country in a given year. (Yz) Explanatory variables:

(a) Relative national size within the world system is seen as reflected by the economic capacity of the sending nation relative to that of the hosting nation) This will be measured by dividing sending nation GDP by U.S. GDP. A high ranking on this measure would illustrate strong sending nation capacity within the world system. The expected correlation is positive. (Bs)

(b) An economic linkage between the host and sending nation is measured as the concentration of sending nation trade with the United States (trade with the U.S. as percent of total trade). A high measure would indicate stronger economic ties and economic dependence on the part of the sending nation. A positive correlation is anticipated. (B6)

(c) Host nation political interests in the sending nation, which may have established a specific "presence" and linkage, is measured by net U.S. government foreign assistance divided by sending nation GDP. A higher level on this measure would be reflective of dependent political linkage between the sending and the host nations. The expected correlation is positive. (BT)

(d) Host nation support of international students may have specifically encouraged or facilitated the flow of students. As a measure, the percentage of students from each sending country funded by U.S. institutional aid relative to the total number of students from that country in the United States is employed. A positive correlation is anticipated. (Bs)

In both models, the strategy is to relate data for the explanatory variables in a given year to the outcome variable in a later year since it is assumed that explanatory variables would not have an instantaneous effect on the flow of students. More

470

likely, a reduction or increase in student numbers would become evident over time as students commence or terminate multiple-year programs of study. While some variables may be equally served by longer or shorter time lags, a two-year time lag was developed on the basis of an assumption about the minimal time needed for the causal variables to impact the outcome. The only exception is the explanatory variable measuring home country educational opportunity in the outbound model; this is measured at the same time period to test overseas opportunity against the current strength of the home country educational system.

Measurements for each variable were taken at three points over the fifteen-year period, and these three measurements of the explanatory variables for each nation were averaged with the prior year to minimize single year fluctuations due to episodic events. By "pooling" three cross-sectional points in time in a single model, this approach assumes a degree of some independence between the different measurements.

The statistical analyses will be enhanced by an additional analytical step which reflects the country's relative position within the world system. This is achieved through a breakdown of the full data set into separate higher and lower income Third World national subsets, that is, two subsets of nine nations done on the basis of gross national product per capita. Although the model already excludes many higher income nations through its limitation to the developing Third World, this additional step would indicate whether there are differences in the overall explanatory power of the model and among variables for Third World countries of significantly differing economic resources.

Eighteen countries were derived from a list of 113 developing countries by geographic region compiled by the World Bank. From the original list of 113, seven countries were chosen from each of three major world areas (Africa, East/Southeast Asia, and the Western Hemisphere), as well as four countries from the Middle East and South Asia. These 25 were selected to include both higher and lower income developing nations and both large and small nation-states within each major world area. From this, eighteen were chosen on the basis of availability of complete data. The list encompasses large and small nation-states within the world system, reflects higher-income (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico), middle-income (Cameroon, Ghana, the Republic of Korea, Thailand), lower- income (Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Pakistan, the Republic of Vietnam) and oil- producing (Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela) developing nations 6 and represents all major developing world areas (except Southern Europe) as defined by the World Bank. Differing political, economic and educational policies and linkages are also reflected, as well as a diversity of languages (more than one-half are neither English-speaking nor former Commonwealth countries in order to reduce a common-language bias). There are former British, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Spanish and Japanese dependencies, though all have been peripheral to the capitalist First World for at least some point during the period of study.

All countries in this sample sent a higher number of students overseas over time, however, based on operationalization of the outcome variables for the first hypothesis (the use of the number of overseas students relative to the home country

471

tertiary enrolment), five of eighteen countries show an increase in the outcome variable over the full period of study, while another four show an increase only during the first half. The remaining nine countries demonstrate a decrease over time.

For the outcome variable linked to hypothesis II (designed to measure the concentration of overseas students in the United States) we find that although all countries exhibited a higher number of students in the United States over time, the operationalization of the variable (the number of students in the United States divided by the total number of students overseas from each sending nation) leads to mixed results. The observations reflect that twelve of the 18 nations show an increase in this variable over the course of the study; six show a decrease. These differences among countries strengthen the statistical tests and facilitate the identification of national and international variables which correspond with levels of participation in overseas study.

The findings

A summary of the statistical outcomes for the hypotheses is presented in Table I. A more detailed presentation of each follows.

Table 1. Summary of statistical tables

Hypothesis I Dependent variable: participation in international study worldwide

Population Set Variable Hypothesized sign Full set Lower income Higher income

Economic strength + - - * - * Global trade + + +* +** State priority/Ed + +* + + Availability of education - - ** + - *

Participation in international study: number of students overseas/number of students in home country tertiary education Economic strength: income (GDP per capita) Global trade: imports and exports/GDP State priority/education: public expenditure on public and private education/GNP Availability of education: secondary education enrolment ratio

Hypothesis II Dependent variable: percentage of aU overseas students from Country X in the United States

Population set Variable Hypothesized sign Full set Lower income Higher income

Comparative economic strength + +** +** + U.S. trade + + - +** U.S. aid + - - + U.S. institutional support + - ** - ** - **

Outcome: number of students in the U.S./total number of students overseas from Country X Comparative economic strength: Country X GDP/U.S. GDP U.S. trade: Country X trade with the United States/all trade by Country X U.S. aid: U.S. foreign assistance to Country X/Country X GDP U.S. institutional support: % of students from Country X in the U.S., supported all or in part by the U.S. host college or university

* = significant at the 0.05 level, ** = significant at the 0.01 level + / - = indication of positive/negative coefficient in single-order multiple regression analysis

472

Hypothesis I: the outbound or "push" model

Full population set Appendix I presents the results that were obtained on the basis of the sequential entry of the variables of the model. 7 For the full set of 18 countries, the overall proportion of variance accounted for by the model is a modest 35%. In contrast to the hypothesis, economic strength was found to be negatively correlated with the percentage of students overseas. As hypothesized, involvement in global trade and national emphasis on education were both positively correlated while home country educational opportunity was negatively correlated with the levels of overseas study. The coefficient associated with home country educational opportunity was found to be the strongest, followed by that of the national emphasis on education. Both are significant in their unique contribution (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively), although the former makes a more sizeable contribution to the overall explanatory power of the model.

Lower and higher income national sets Stronger findings emerge from the disparate outcomes for the high and low income subsets (see Appendix II). For the higher income set, the overall explanatory power of the model is strongest (R 2 = 0.75). Economic strength remains negative and, in this instance, is significant (p < 0.05) but since greater variance from the full set is accounted for in this subset, it is a less significant variable than for the lower income subset. For those nations sending students overseas in higher percentages, there is a positive but not significant correlation with national emphasis on education, consistent with results of both previous sets of data. The measure of sending nation education opportunity is negatively correlated, as is that of economic strength, and both are significant (p < 0.05) for this subset. Global trade, on the other hand, is positively correlated, makes the greatest contribution to the model, and is highly significant in its unique contribution (p < 0.01).

For the lower-GNP subset, the explanatory power of the model is 53%. We find that economic strength is strongly and negatively correlated and is significant (p < 0.05). Of the three positively correlated variables, involvement in global trade makes the greatest contribution and is significant (p < 0.05), again a very strong and positive "push" to overseas study. The variable measuring home country educational opportunities has a positive correlation in this subset, indicating a positive correlation between educational opportunities at home and participation in overseas study within the context of the full model, although in the correlation matrix a negative correlation is evident between these two variables. However, neither this factor nor national emphasis on education is significant for this relatively poorer set of countries.

Discussion of the outbound model From these configurations of the data and tests of the model, the following is suggested about the "push" toward overseas study from Third World nations. Per capita economic strength in all instances had a negative, not positive, association

473

with high percentages of students overseas. This becomes a significant factor in the subsets differentiated by income grouping. A look at the higher/lower income division of the data indicates that at least in part this is explained by the high positive correlation between economic strength and availability of education in the full set of 18 countries. When the full set is disaggregated by income level, it becomes evident that the correlation between these two explanatory variables is most pronounced in the higher income subset and thus dilutes the unique contribution of economic strength to overseas study. In the lower income set, the availability of education varies and economic strength thus made a greater contribution to the model. Thus, in terms of methodology, we might conclude that separation of the data set into higher and lower income sets of countries provides better insight into the importance of these particular factors. In terms of theory, both findings indicate that national economic weakness, not strength, is associated with the "push" for overseas study.

Involvement in global trade was positively associated with overseas study in all configurations and emerged as particularly strong and significant for the higher income and lower income subsets. For the higher income group, this variable was strongest and most significant (p < 0.01), exceeding the impact of the two other significant variables in the model. It might be hypothesized that these economically stronger nations participated more strongly in the global system, in both economic and academic trade.

State priority on education was an important variable and in all instances was found to be positively associated with higher percentages of students overseas. However, this variable was only significant for the full population. This result may reflect that in many instances state interest is highly correlated with the other measures of national strength.

As anticipated, the variable designed to measure sending nation educational opportunity was found to be negatively correlated with the percentage of students overseas. The difference in negative/positive weights between higher and lower income subsets may indicate that for countries with fewer economic resources, a minimum baseline of home country education corresponded with students overseas in greater numbers. For the higher income nations, their educational need surpassed economic need in importance and was a strong factor in "pushing" students overseas. The relevance of educational strength to the model was also substantiated in the full population set. The consistency of these results indicates that in general educational weakness corresponded with a high percentage of students overseas. In most Third World nations, home country opportunities simply did not satisfy population demands.

The explanatory power of the model is strongest when economic groupings are utilized. The model best explained overseas study patterns in the 1960s and 70s for higher income Third World nations. The following discussion focuses on results for this data set. Here economic strength was a factor of limited importance; perhaps some minimum level of economic strength (achieved a priori by all nations in this group) was a prerequisite for greater participation in overseas study. Instead, global trade was found to be a strong, positive factor in "fueling" overseas study. This

474

supports the hypothesis that greater economic involvement with the world system corresponded with greater academic involvement. Higher levels of global trade might also imply changes in the internal labor market that in turn created greater demand for education and expertise not available through home country education. The model confirms this to a limited degree by the fact that availability of home country education was a significant factor, one which indicates that educational opportunities did not accommodate the potential pool of applicants.

Hypothesis H: the inbound or "pull" model

Full population set For the full population set of 18 countries, the proportion of variance accounted for by this model is 47%; comparative economic size and U.S. institutional support were both found to be highly significant (p <0.01) explanatory variables (Appendix III). As hypothesized, comparative economic size was positively associated with a higher concentration of overseas students in the United States, suggesting that comparative economic capacity is the strongest and most important variable both in its weight and in its unique contribution to the model. Concentration of trade with the United States was also positively correlated as hypothesized but it was not significant for this population group. In contrast to the hypothesis, receipt of U.S. foreign assistance was negatively correlated with the concentration of overseas students in the United States and was not significant in this set nor, as we will see, in any subset. Host institutional support emerged as a significant variable, but in contrast to the hypothesis it was negatively, not positively, correlated with the concentration of students in the United States.

Lower and higher income national sets Looking at high and low income divisions of countries (Appendix IV), the explanatory power of this model was stronger in these subsets as well. For higher income countries, the model is strongest (R 2 = 0.69). In contrast with the findings of the full set model, relative economic size appeared to be a weaker variable, whereas concentration of trade with the U.S. emerged as the strongest and highly significant (p < 0.01) variable. Also, the coefficient associated with U.S. foreign assistance was positive in this grouping but still not significant. (A strong correlation between U.S. foreign assistance and host institutional support may be a factor.) U.S. host institutional support remains negative and is again highly significant (p < 0.01).

For the lower income subset, the explanatory power of the model is 52%, with comparative economic size making a very strong, positive contribution to the model in this subset of economically weaker nations. In contrast with the other data sets, the trade variable was in this instance negatively correlated but not significant. Coefficients for both U.S. foreign assistance and receipt of host institutional support are also negative, but only institutional aid emerged as highly significant (p < 0.01). The fact that U.S. aid was not significant may in fact be due in part to a

475

high correlation between U.S. foreign assistance and trade with the United States.

Discussion of the inbound model In seeking better to understand the flow of Third World students to the United States, the importance of economic variables (relative economic size and concentration of trade) is highlighted. In this model, the variation among nations in terms of gross economic capacity (size) relative to that of the United States was an important, strong, and (with the exception of the high income subset of nations) highly significant variable. This suggests that a strong economic resource base was an important factor in higher levels of foreign study in center nations.

On the other hand, the importance of concentration of trade with the host nation varied greatly among the different groupings of the population set. In the higher income population, it made a positive and significant contribution. It may be that, given their common stronger economic base, trade emerged as a more important economic indicator and may have "pulled" students toward a particular world center. (This to some degree parallels results of the outbound model which found that global trade corresponded positively with participation in overseas study.)

In contrast, foreign assistance from the host nation was negatively correlated in most instances (again with the exception of the higher income developing nations), but this variable was in some instances positively correlated with other measures of linkages with the United States (either trade or institutional support) and did not meet a strict test of significance in any configuration of the data. Thus, we might assume that, at least as defined in this instance, foreign assistance was not associated with "pulling" students to a particular center nation.

The final variable, host nation institutional support, was fairly uniform in its significant and negative correlation with the outcome variable. This contrasts with the hypothesized correlation and instead substantiates that U.S. financial aid was not an important factor in the concentration of students in the United States.

Overall, the model best contributes to our understanding of the phenomenon for higher income nations (proportion of variance accounted for was 69%). This highlights the strong, positive contribution of trade with the host nation as a key factor associated with study in that nation. That economic variable was not significant for the higher income subset, but that may simply reflect the common, stronger economic base of that grouping of nations. The results also suggest that foreign assistance was not an important factor, nor did U.S. institutional support "pull" students to the United States.

Conclusions

Combining the results of these two statistical models, some important generalizations can be made concerning the flow of Third World students to world centers of higher education during the 1960s and early 1970s. Substantiating the premise of this investigation, national and international characteristics correlated with patterns of international study by Third World students. More specifically, we

476

find that conditions of home country economic weakness and greater involvement in the global economy were associated with the flow of students overseas for higher education. Emphasis on education in the home country was also a positive, contributing factor. Students were more likely to come from nations with educational weakness, not strength, although some minimal level of educational opportunity (and therefore level of academic preparedness) may have been a prerequisite.

The strength and significance of these factors differed among the diverse nations of the Third World as substantiated by the higher explanatory power of the model for the two subsets. A division on the basis of the income level of the sending country reduces problems of multicollinearity among explanatory variables. Thus it can be surmised that it is neither useful nor appropriate to generalize about the Third World as a whole but to acknowledge that at different points in time and for different sets of nations explanations for the same phenomenon are unique.

The "push" or outbound model was strongest in explaining overseas study from the higher income nations. Those nations engaged in higher levels of overseas study exhibited weakness in economic strength relative to this stronger subset, a national interest in education, and a strong level of involvement in the international economy. These same positive/negative patterns are borne out to varying degrees in other configurations of the data set, and were often associated with a need for additional educational opportunities.

With respect to the second ("inbound") model, again the model was strongest in explaining the flow of students from higher income Third World nations. Additionally, in this higher income subset, concentration of trade with the U.S. was a positive and significant factor, suggesting that a specific nation-to-nation economic linkage corresponded with nation-to-nation academic linkages. Host nation foreign assistance did not appear to "pull" students to the United States, indicating a degree of political autonomy. Furthermore, host university financial aid negatively corresponding with a concentration of students in the United States, indicating another measure of autonomy from the host nation in the determination of student flows. Instead, study in the United States more clearly corresponded with economic factors - the nation's economic capacity relative to that of the United States and trade linkages with the United States.

In sum, patterns of overseas study corresponded with national economic and educational factors, but nations engaged more strongly in overseas study given a relatively strong economic resource base and state-level affirmation of education. Autonomy from the host country in political terms and at the institutional level was suggested for this period of time. From these indications, we might anticipate the continued dominance of economic factors. Greater involvement in international study may originate from developing nations able to maintain strong national economies, accompanied by continued emphasis on international trade and national interest in education.

From these results, theoretical generalizations can also be identified for discussion. In terms of overseas study patterns from Third World nations, national characteristics of economic weakness and the priority assigned to the education

477

sector by the Third World state were found to be important, and often significant factors in overseas study in the 1960s and 1970s. This reinforces international systems theories which suggest that national characteristics can be important factors in determining and explaining international interactions. The research also substantiated the utilization of world systems measures (in their case, tested through variables concerning relative economic capacity and participation in global trade) to establish that unequal, hierarchical relationships and the degree of involvement with the international system may be associated with certain patterns of international relationships. Less clear, however, was the evidence that dependency linkages (tested here as foreign assistance, concentration of trade, and financial aid) were influential in determining academic study patterns. The findings for the first variable - foreign assistance - were just below significance level in all instances. A second dependency variable - concentration of trade - was significant in two of three population sets. Those of the third - financial aid - were significant but opposite that proposed in the theoretical model, suggesting autonomy rather than dependency.

While instructive in the directions specified above, this historical study has obvious limitations. In conducting an analysis of a global phenomenon, it validates the use of statistical tests for testing a general hypothesis, particularly when data is disaggregated on the basis of important background characteristics (economic size, in this instance). To the extent that the models demonstrate some explanatory power, they further our understanding of global trends and the international structure that underly the transnational flow of knowledge through human resource exchange.

But this provides only a preliminary context and global outline for a specific historical period. Individual case studies are necessary both to validate this generalized statistical research and to augment our understanding of exchange through historical investigations which illuminate specifics such as participation by gender, field of study, funding sources and reintegration in the home country. Since the period explored in this study, the further expansion of higher educational opportunities worldwide (particularly the growth of private colleges and universities in the Third World), the subsequent incorporation of both domestic and internationally trained academics, and the fruition of institutional development efforts in the areas of instruction and research in some Third World nations have supplanted extensive reliance on higher education in the industrialized world. But other studies note the continued dependency of many less developed countries upon developed countries for advanced training. 8 Where this is true, the Sixties and Seventies provide particularly valuable lessons concerning international education. During this time, knowledge, information and training beyond national borders and institutional barriers became accessible as never before, providing a basis for the current climate within which academic personnel, research findings and expertise exchange more freely than in any previous era in the history of intellectual development.

478

Appendix I: Outcome variable = percentage of students overseas worldwide

N = 54 Full Da ta Set

Hypothes ized S ign Beta b s tandard error

G D P C P + - 0 .118 - 0 .0002 0 .0004

G L T R D + 0 .256 0 .813 0 .452

G N P E D * + 0 .360 0 .173 0 .078

CSEC** - - 0 .476 - 2 .494 0 .824

R 2 = 0.35** Constant = 0 .039

Corre la t ion Matr ix

Stu/Overseas G D P C P G L T R D G N P E D CSEC

Stu/Ov 1.000 - 0 .213 0 .354 0 .219 - 0 .322

G D P C P - 0 .213 1.000 0 .190 0 .407 0 .610

G L T R D 0.354 0 .190 1.000 0 .569 0 .177

G N P E D 0.219 0 .407 0 .569 1.000 0 .502

CSEC - 0 .322 0 .610 0 .177 0 .502 1.000

Coefficients presented are Beta weights * = significant at the 0.05 level, ** = significant at the 0.01 level Students Overseas = Students overseas as percentage of total tertiary enrolment GDPCP = Economic strength (gross domestic product per capita) GLTRD = Involvement in global trade (exports and imports relative to GDP) GNPED = National emphasis on education (% GNP allocated for education) CSEC = Availability of home country education (secondary education enrolment ratio) Sources: United Nations (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; United Nations (1957-1975). Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics; UNESCO (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; UNESCO (1971). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1962-1968; UNESCO (1976). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1969-1973; UNESCO (1982). Statistics of Students Abroad, 1974-1978.

Appendix II: Outcome variable = percent of students overseas worldwide

N = 27 L o w e r Income Da ta Set

Hypothes ized S ign Beta b s tandard error

G D P C P * + - 0 .596 - 0,011 0 .004

G L T R D * + 0 .566 3 .800 1.667

G N P E D + 0 .308 0 .217 0 .168

CSEC - 0 .104 1.082 2 .262 R 2 = 0.53** Constant = - 0 .042

Corre la t ion Matr ix

Stu/Overseas G D P C P G L T R D G N P E D CSEC

Stu/Ov 1.000 - 0 .207 0 .570 0 .394 - 0 .393

G D P C P - 0 .207 1.000 0 .246 0 .364 0 .128

G L T R D 0 .570 0 .246 1.000 0,713 - 0.141

G N P E D 0.394 0 .364 0 .713 1.000 0 .013

CSEC - 0 .393 0 .128 - 0.141 0 ,013 1.000 Countries: Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Republic of Vietnam

N = 27 Higher Income Data Set

Hypothesized Sign Beta b

479

standard error

GDPCP* + - 0.291 - 0.0002

GLTRD** + 0.687 0.635

GNPED - 0.265 0.047

CSEC* - - 0.375 - 0.749

R 2 = 0.75** Constant = 0,053

0.000

0.114

0.029

0.302

Correlation Matrix

Stu/Overseas GDPCP GLTRD GNPED CSEC

Stu/Ov 1.000 - 0.356 0.732 0.268 - 0.195

GDPCP - 0.356 1.000 0.033 0.266 0.423

G L T R D 0.732 0.033 1.000 0.474 0.190

GNPED 0.268 0.266 0.474 1.000 0.653

CSEC - 0.195 0.423 0.190 0.653 1.000

Countries: Ghana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Republic of Korea, Malaysia

Coefficients presented are Beta weights * = significant at the 0.05 level, ** = significant at the 0.01 level Students Overseas = Students overseas as percentage of total tertiary enrolment GDPCP = Economic strength (gross domestic product per capita) GLTRD = Involvement in global trade (exports and imports relative to GDP) GNPED = National emphasis on education (% GNP allocated for education) CSEC = Availability of home country education (secondary education enrolment ratio) Sources: United Nations (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; United Nations (1957-1975). Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics; UNESCO (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; UNESCO (1971). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1962-1968; UNESCO (1976). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1969-1973; UNESCO (1982). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1974-1978.

Appendix III: Outcome variable = concentration of overseas students in the United States

N = 54 Full Data Set

Hypothesized Sign Beta b standard error

CMSTR** +

USTRD +

USAID +

USSUP** + R 2 = 0.47**

0.428 5.566 1.429

0.207 0.252 0.140

- 0.213 - 1.401 0.534

- 0.325 - 0.629 0.212

Constant = 0.393

Correlation Matrix

STDUS CMSTR USTRD USAID USSUP

STDUS 1.000 0.512 0.354 - 0.232 - 0.379

CMSTR 0.512 1.000 0.219 - 0.167 - 0.007

USTRD 0.354 0.219 1.000 0.189 - 0.286

USAID - 0.232 - 0.167 0.189 1.000 - 0.040

USSUP - 0.379 - 0.007 - 0.286 - 0.040 1.000

480

Coefficients presented are Beta weights * = significant at the 0.05 level, ** + significant at the 0.01 level STDUS = Students in U.S. as percentage of total overseas tertiary enrolment from the sending country CMSTR - Relative economic capacity (sending nation GDP as percentage of US GDP) USTRD = Concentration of trade with U.S. (trade with U.S. relative to all global trade) USAID = Receipt of U.S. foreign assistance (amount of U.S. aid relative to sending nation GDP) USSUP = Percentage of students from sending nation f'manced all or in part by U.S. host institution Sources: Institute for International Education (1955-1990). Open Doors; Institute for International Education (annual reports). Profiles; United Nations (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; United Nations (1957-1975). Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics; UNESCO (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; UNESCO (1971). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1962-1968; UNESCO (1976). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1969-1973; UNESCO (1982). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1974-1978; United States (1958-1977). Statistical Abstract of the United States.

Appendix IV: Outcome = concentration of overseas students in the United States

N = 27 Lower Income Countries

Hypothesized Sign Beta b standard error

CMSTR** + 0.612 7.256 1.860

USTRD + - 0.118 - 0.212 0.323

U SA ID + - 0.246 - 0.986 0.721

USSUP** + - 0.456 - 0.906 0.313

R 2 = 0.52** Constant = 0.537

Correlation Matrix

STDUS CMSTR USTRD USAID USSUP

STDUS 1.000 0.542 - 0.080 - 0.283 - 0.237

CMSTR 0.542 1.000 0.101 - 0.154 0.210

USTRD - 0.080 0.101 1.000 0.523 - 0.232

U S A I D - 0.283 - 0.154 0.523 1.000 - 0.263

USSUP - 0.237 0.210 - 0.232 - 0.263 1.000

Countries: Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Republic of

Vietnam

N = 27 Higher Income Countries

Hypothesized Sign Beta b standard error

CMSTR + 0.115 1.733 2.106

USTRD** + 0.547 0.558 0.138

U SA ID + 0.159 1.652 1.458

USSUP** + - 0.468 - 0.939 0.288

R 2 = 0.69** Constant = 0.344

Correlation Matrix

STDUS CMSTR USTRD USAID USSUP

STDUS 1.000 0.467 0.699 - 0.041 - 0.546

CMSTR 0.467 1.000 0.393 - 0.253 - 0.379

USTRD 0.699 0.393 1.000 0.088 - 0.198

USA ID - 0.041 - 0.253 0.088 1.000 0.468

USSUP - 0.546 - 0.379 - 0.198 0.468 1.000

Countries: Ghana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Republic of Korea, Malaysia

481

Coefficients presented are Beta weights * = significant at the 0.05 level, ** = significant at the 0.01 level STDUS = Students in U.S. as percentage of total overseas tertiary enrolment from the sending nation CMSTR = Relative economic capacity (sending nation GDP as percentage of U.S. GDP) USTRD = Concentration of trade with U.S. (trade with U.S. relative to all global trade) USAID = Receipt of U.S. foreign assistance (amount of U.S. aid relative to sending nation GDP) USSUP = Percentage of students from sending nation financed all or in part by U.S. host institution Sources: Institute for International Education (1955-1990). Open Doors; Institute for International Education (annual reports). Profiles; United Nations (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; United Nations (1957-1975). Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics; UNESCO (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook; UNESCO (1971). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1962-1968; UNESCO (1976). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1969-1973; UNESCO (1982). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1974-1978; United States (I 958-1977). Statistical Abstract of the United States.

Notes

1. "Higher" or "tertiary education" is used according to the UNESCO definition. 2. "Sending" is used as in Cummings ' 1984 article which links overseasstudy decisions with national

situations in the country of origin. The term "hosting" is used to focus on the nation receiving foreign students although it does not imply financial responsibility.

3. This was substantiated in two case studies (Thailand and Brazil) completed as part of my dissertation entitled Knowledge Acquisition in the Global Market: Third World Participation in International Study (Stanford University, School of Education, September 1988).

4. The statistical tests were undertaken as first-order multiple regression equations with simultaneous entry of all variables. Controls for relative national size within the world system are provided where possible using comparisons with the common host nation, resource flows relative to GDP or GNP as a gauge of national strength, or a relevant domestic population pool as appropriate. (Taylor and Jodice, 1983).

5. The previous economic strength variable measures economic product relative to population demands - an internal check; this second variable measures gross national resource capacity relative to a major world power, the United States - an external gauge.

6. Designated on the basis of GNP per capita in the early 1970s. 7. Although measures of economic strength have been tested in earlier studies (Cummings 1984;

Agarwal and Winkler 1985), it is included in this study in order to correctly specify the model and avoid the possibility of spurious results. Time as an explanatory variable was also tested by the sequential numbering of observations by year to ascertain whether the overseas phenomenon might simply be a result of the passage of time. This was not found to be the case; those results are not reported.

8. Ong, Paul, M., Cheng, Lucie, and Evans, Leslie (1991). 'Brain drain boomerang: the migration of highly educated asians', in International Educator I(2), 26-29.

References

Agarwal, V.B. and Winkler, D.R. (1985). 'Foreign demand for United States higher education: a study of developing countries in the eastern hemisphere', Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(3), 623---644.

Altbach, P.G. and Kelly, G. (eds.) (1978). Education and Colonialism. New York: Longman. Altbach, P.G. (1987). The Knowledge Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Distribution of

Knowledge. New York: SUNY Press. Altbach, P.G., Kelly, D. and Lulat, G.-M. (1985). Research on Foreign Students and International

4 8 2

Study: An Overview and Bibliography. New York: Praeger Publishers. Altbach, P.G. (1980). 'The university as center and periphery', in Spitzberg, I. (ed.), Universities and the

International Distribution of Knowledge. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp. 42-60. Barber, E.G. (ed.) (1985). Foreign Student Flows. New York: Institute of International Education. Barber, E.G., Althach, P.G. and Meyers, R.G, (eds.) (1984). Bridges to Knowledge: Foreign Students in

Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cameron, D. (1982). 'On the limits of the public economy', The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science 459, 46--62. Cameron, D. (1978). 'The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis', The American

Political Science Review 72(4), 1243-1261. Coombs, P.H. (1964). The Fourth Dimension of Foreign Policy: Educational and Cultural Affairs. New

York: Harper & Row. Coombs, P.H. (1985). The Worm Crisis in Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Cummings, W.K. (1984). 'The Asian experience of foreign study', Comparative Education Review

28(2), 241-257. Cummings, W.K. and So, W.C. (1985). 'The preference of Asian overseas students for the United

States: an examination of the context', Higher Education 14, 403-423. Fry, G. (1984). 'The economic and political impact of study abroad', Comparative Education Review

28(2), 203-220. Fuenzalida, E.F. (1982). 'The contribution of higher education to a new international order', in Sanyal,

B. (ed.), Higher Education and the New International Order. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 124-144. Gilpin, R. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University

Press. Institute for International Education (1955-1990). Open Doors. New York: Institute of International

Education. Institute for International Education (annual reports). ProftTes. New York: Institute of International

Education. Mazuri, A. (1975). 'African university as a multinational corporation', Harvard Educational Review

45(2), 191-210. McMahon, M.E. (1988). Knowledge Acquisition in the Global Market: Third Worm Participation in

International Study. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, School of Education. Ong, P.M., Cheng, L. and Evans, L. (1991). 'Brain drain boomerang: the migration of highly educated

Asians', in International Educator I(2), 26-29. Perkins, J.S. (1971). International Programs of U.S. Colleges and Universities: Priorities for the

Seventies. New York: International Council for Educational Development. Shive, G. (1991). 'The new regionalism: a model for analyzing the migration of talent', in International

Educator I(2), 23. Sutton, F.X. (1971). Internationalizing Higher Education: A United States Approach, International

Council for Educational Development. Taylor, C.L. and Jodice, D.A. (1983). World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators, 3rd ed., Vol.

I. New Haven: Yale University Press. United Nations (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook. New York: United Nations. United Nations (1957-1975). Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics. New York: United Nations. UNESCO (1958-1975). Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (1971 ). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1962-1968. Pads: UNESCO. UNESCO (1976). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1969-1973. Pads: UNESCO. UNESCO (1982). Statistics of Students Abroad. 1974-1978. Pads: UNESCO. United States (1958-1977). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing.