Student mobility? Uncertainty abounds after political change

There have been optimistic reports about international student bounce-back after COVID-19. But we cannot ignore the possible impacts of the current geopolitical reality and instability on higher education mobility and internationalisation, as illustrated by this week’s election victory in the Netherlands of an extreme right anti-immigration party.

2023 is almost a record year for international student numbers in the United States – the most impressive growth rate in four decades, almost back to pre-pandemic levels. European numbers have also been on the rise.

But behind these rosy numbers, and the unsurprisingly positive spin from the international education leadership in the United States, are some realities worth considering that may have a significant impact on future numbers of international students, and for that matter faculty mobility.

And in Europe, international student mobility has become central in the debate about (skilled) immigration, with mixed views between and within countries, as the recent elections in the Netherlands and a U-turn decision on international students in Denmark illustrate.

Global instability

The fact is that the world in 2023 is a highly unstable place.

The war in Ukraine grinds on with no end in sight. The war between Israel and Hamas, as of late 2023, continues. Even if the armed conflict ends soon, there is no doubt that the politics of the Middle East will remain unstable for a considerable period, with unforeseen implications for the region and for academe.

The economic and political tensions between China and Europe, as well as the United States, Canada and Australia continue, even though at a lesser level for the moment.

India and Canada are in conflict with each other, and as the presidential election in Argentina as well as the election for parliament in the Netherlands illustrate, nationalism and populism are still on the rise. International student and faculty mobility are maybe not a leading issue in these conflicts, but they certainly are having a significant impact.

A focus on US instability

Much media discussion has related to the impressive growth in US international student numbers – up 12% over the previous year – while the only marginal recovery in study abroad of US students since the pandemic received less attention. All of the commentary by US international leaders has been entirely positive.

And a new alliance of 11 education organisations, with the remarkably national title “US for Success”, announced this month, advocates for recruitment of more international students and for their contribution to the economy.

But the underlying realities are deeply problematic and deserve attention. Without question, the largest potential challenge is the distinct possibility of a second Donald Trump presidential term. Indeed, a number of respected national and regional polls in the United States show Trump winning if the election were held now.

Of course, the election is a year away and much could change. But the respected British magazine, The Economist, features Trump on its 16 November cover for its “The World Ahead 2024” issue.

Numerous American political pundits are deeply worried. For the international education community to ignore a possible ‘Trump effect’ is the height of unreality. Trump himself has made it clear that his second term would be more hardline than his first, no doubt with implications for visas, government policy and, just as important, messaging.

The 2023 Institute of International Education (IIE) numbers show more diversity in where students are coming from. Numbers from China continue a slow but steady decline, while numbers from India increased by 35%. Numbers from Brazil, Japan, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, Nepal and Canada also expanded significantly.

But some of these countries, especially India, Nepal, Brazil and Nigeria are quite dependent on local economic conditions, the strength of their local currencies, political instability and related factors and might well be quite unstable. While these countries have growing middle classes, they remain vulnerable. This is particularly relevant since 82% of undergraduate students fund their own studies and only 10% receive financial aid.

There are also concerns about conditions in American society. Research by Xiaofeng Wan shows that potential Chinese students and their families are deeply concerned about gun violence, anti-Asian racism and other safety concerns in the United States.

The unpredictable state of US-China relations is also a concern. These factors may apply to other countries. We have already observed over the past years a shift in student mobility from within Asia and from Africa toward countries like China, Malaysia, Singapore and India.

Finally, perhaps a telling statistic is that when the IIE asked administrators what they needed to meet their international enrolment goals, only 24% said they needed to hire more faculty. One wonders who will teach the growing number of international undergraduates if they come?

European complexities and realities

In Europe, the discussion on international mobility is intense but diverse and complex.

It takes place in the context of the debate about immigration, in which incoming students and staff mobility issues are mixed with debates about asylum seekers, unskilled immigrants (most from within the European Union) and skilled immigrants (many from outside the European Union).

In Germany, the government and the CDU-CSU opposition are in favour of attracting international students and faculty as part of the country’s need for skilled immigrants. A few years ago, Denmark decided to put a halt to recruiting international students. But recently, the government there took a complete U-turn and now wants to attract international students, hoping to increase their stay rate and thus fill vacancies in skilled labour.

In the United Kingdom, there is a continuing debate within the Conservative government concerning international student recruitment in relation to immigration, and about how a halt would affect the funding of universities. In France, on the contrary, there is a call to increase numbers and diversify the incoming student population.

In the Netherlands, international students and staff became a key issue in the elections for parliament on 2 November, as part of a call from right-wing parties to stop, or at least drastically reduce, all immigration.

A shortage of accommodation for the Dutch in general, and for local students, is one of the main arguments, the second one being teaching in English, which in their opinion attracts an overload of international students (40% of the new incoming students are international), many of them from within the European Union who are thus also eligible for grants. That means there is a cost factor for the Netherlands.

The victory of the extreme-right Party for Freedom (which had as its lead agenda ‘Dutch first’ and zero immigration) and a likely coalition, including a new party – the New Social Contract – will have a serious impact on the higher education sector, not to mention the need for skilled labour in the economy.

The New Social Contract has on its agenda to stop teaching in English in higher education and reduce the number of immigrants, including international students, from the current 220,000 a year to an absolute maximum of 50,000 a year.

In summary, Europeans still struggle to find a compromise between the need to increase skilled immigration for long-term economic and social sustainability, and short-term calls to reduce overall immigration.

The initiative of the European Commission, published on 16 November, for a Skills and Talent mobility package, including a European Union Talent Pool to match employers in the European Union with job seekers in third countries, as well as measures to promote the recognition of qualifications and learners’ mobility, pushes the region on one side. Nationalist-populist movements in individual countries push on the other side. The result is a lack of decision and direction.

An uncertain outlook

When examining patterns of internationalisation and mobility, it does not make sense to ignore realities and trends that may not fit into a convenient narrative.

One thing is clear: the impact of COVID-19 on mobility patterns was not as serious as some predicted, but there are enough uncertainties and negative trends that require careful analysis. Indeed, even a cursory look at current global political realities and developments presents deeply problematic prospects for higher education mobility and internationalisation more broadly.

Philip G Altbach and Hans de Wit are both professors emeritus and distinguished fellows at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College in the United States.