International Student Mobility and Tertiary Education Capacity in Africa

Abstract

In Africa, 5.8 per cent of enrolled tertiary students go outside their homelands for tertiary study. No other world region has this high a share of outbound student mobility. In this study, I examined why African countries have larger student outflows than other regions and, in particular, I considered the importance of tertiary education capacity in the region for student mobility. I evaluated the determinants of student outflows from African countries for three different measures: the total number of tertiary students abroad, the percentage of the tertiary age cohort studying abroad and the percentage of total enrolled students abroad. In addition to showing that country rankings differ on these mobility measures, the findings indicate that their determinants also differ. The study premise was that student outflows should be lower from countries that have a greater supply of tertiary training capacity and that thesis received strong support in models that estimated the percentage of total enrolled students abroad. In models for that outcome, student outflows were also larger if countries had high tertiary demand and populations under 2 million. The findings for models that estimated total numbers abroad and share of the tertiary cohort abroad were similar after controlling for interactions between tertiary education supply and GDP per capita. In addition, population size and per capita GDP were stronger correlates of student mobility in those models, which suggests that it is more difficult for education supply and demand measures to account for student outflows when crude outflow measures are used. I concluded that strengthening tertiary education supply at home would be a cost-effective way for African governments to increase their human capital and reduce brain drain losses.

Escaping Homelands with Limited Employment and Tertiary Education Opportunities: Outbound Student Mobility from Post-Soviet Countries

“…The two control variables used in the regression analysis are gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and population size, as these are shown to be important correlates of student mobility (Kritz, 2013(Kritz, , 2015. In the analysis, I use the statistics on GDP per capita in current US dollars for 2011.…”

Study choices and returns of international students: On the role of cultural and economic capital of the family

“…Many of the recent works on international student mobility still focus on the classic question of brain drain, which was behind research interest in the topic decades ago. However, they currently focus not only on developing or former USSR countries (Chankseliani, ; Kritz, ) but also on Europe (Van Bouwel, ; Van Bouwel & Veugelers, ), Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark (Wiers‐Jenssen, ), or the Netherlands (Oosterbeek & Webbink, ). The potential for brain drain has been typically explored using surveys of the intentions of international students to stay in the destination country once their studies are completed (Alberts & Hazen, ; Hazen & Alberts, ; Soon, ).…”

UK policy discourses and international student mobility: the deterrence and subjectification of international students

“…In the academic literature and policy circles, changing patterns in ISM are often understood with reference to the 'push-pull model' (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002). This model first suggests students might leave their home country to study abroad due to push factors such as limited availability of places in HE (Healey 2008), good provision of secondary education domestically (Kritz 2015), perceptions of low quality in domestic HE (Chen 2007), and a weak domestic economy (Zheng 2014). Second, students might be attracted to certain countries because of pull factors such as perceptions of high quality of life and educational standards (Perkins and Neumayer 2014), availability of part-time work (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002), shared language and colonial linkages (Zheng 2014), existing social connections (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002), and thriving economies (Perkins and Neumayer 2014).…”