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)

Offshore Students by Partner

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade

Wuhan University of Science & Technology

Civil Aviation University of China

Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Nanhai Normal School

Hong Kong Management Association

Hong Kong Arts Centre

Hong Kong Baptist University

Superguide Consultants

International Education Programs (IEP)

Japanese Chiropractic Association

Hanseo University

Malaysian Institute of Management

Metropolitan College

RIIAM/KLSE

Limkokw ing Institute of Creative Technology

Auckland City Art Gallery

Singapore Institute of Management

Informatics

LaSalle-SIA College of the Arts

IMC Technologies

Alberton Management Centre

Technikon SA

China Airlines

RIUV

China Hong Kong Indonesia JapanKorea Malaysia New Zealand SingaporeSouth Africa Taiwan 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

providersSharing:• Offshore partners, overseas offices, resident

directorsJoint 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

christopher.ziguras@rmit.edu.au