Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.Vietnam’s policy for foreign investment in higher education.
Rationales for the Research
Over the recent years, research into the policy for foreign investment has been emerged as one of the key themes of discussions on its significance in enhancing and governing educational internationalization (Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) Meanwhile, there are a few publications that address the spectrum of national policies and regulatory frameworks for cross-border mobility of programs and providers on an overall worldwide arena, such as studies by Ilieva and Peak (2016); McBurnie and Ziguras (2006); Verbik and Jokivirta (2005b); Ziguras and McBurnie
(2015) However, these studies have been mainly conducted from the perspectives of exporting countries, with an aim to obtain an understanding of the policy contexts generally, build policy frameworks, and categorise the studied countries into relevant groups to understand the opportunities and challenges of managing foreign investment activities in host countries
On the other hand, a number of studies have investigated internationalisation policies in specific regional and local contexts, with a focus on the individual host countries, such as China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore (Aziz
& Abdullah, 2014; Byun & Kim, 2011; Chan & Ng, 2008; Daquila, 2013; Huang, 2003b, 2006a, 2009; Lee, 2014, 2015b; Maclean & Lai, 2012; Mok, 2011; Peak et al., 2018; Richardson, 2015; Sidhu et al., 2011; Tham, 2013; Vyas, 2018) However, a review of these studies reveals a dearth of analysis of the policy for foreign investment in HE
In Vietnam, where educational internationalization has been embraced over the last two decades, policy for foreign investment in HE in Vietnam have received considerable attention from a handful of researchers (e.g., Hoang et al., 2018; Nguyen & Shillabeer, 2013; Nguyen & Lee, 2020; Nguyen & Tran, 2018, 2019; Ziguras & Pham, 2014, 2016) The country has also been included within the scope of research studies conducted by organisations such as OECD and the British Council (Ilieva et al., 2017; Ilieva & Peak, 2016; Knight & McNamara, 2015; McNamara et al., 2013; Peak et al., 2018; Verbik & Jokivirta, 2005b) These earlier studies focused on the analysis of policy documents, with empirical data and insightful views from relevant policymakers, government officials and relevant context informants such as academics and managers from Vietnamese and foreign higher education institutions/providers Policy document analysis is useful in providing a foundation for understanding these government policies However, earlier studies offer limited insights into the determinants on the process of framing the policy for foreign investment in HE in Vietnam, nor the spillover effects of those policy on higher education and investment environment in Vietnam
In an attempt to address some of these gaps, this study focuses on the policy for foreign investment in Vietnam Vietnam presents an interesting case study because it is a fast-growing site for internationalization in education, and potential growth in foreign investment in education is projected As a result, insights into the country’s policy for foreign investment in HE are essential for the host government in their efforts to develop a properly informed regulatory framework.
Research Objects and Scope
Acknowledging that there are various ways to investigate the policy for foreign investment in HE and phenomenon, this section defines a set of limits to guide the study
Research objects: First, the education sector is large and diverse, incorporating schools, vocational colleges, and HEIs and foreign investment occurs at all levels It is therefore impossible to engage all education levels within the limited time and resource parameters of a Master Foreign investment at school and vocational education levels are outside the scope of this study
Second, due to the nature of of foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign indirect investment (FII), this study focuses only on FDI The explanation is the fact that Vietnamese Government do not allow foreign investment in the form of stocks into education sector
Third, foreign investment can be delivered in multiple forms; however, this study excludes online and distance provision Instead, it will only focus on the foreign investment in the form of partner-supported programs, international branch campuses and foreign invested universities This is because foreign invested online provision has recently been officially approved by the Vietnamese Government in October 2020 That is to say, the phenomenon of online provision is relatively new in Vietnam, and at the time of writing this thesis, the delivery of online programs is still in the pilot stage There is a need for investigation of the online provision in Vietnam However, it requires a certain period of time of implementation before it can be comprehensively and extensively investigated
Scope of time: The research focuses on the policy foreign investment in HE within the timeframe from 2000 to 2020
Scope of geography: The research focuses on the policy foreign investment in
The scope and objects of the Thesis has drawn the limitations of the Thesis while suggests research in the future at the same time.
Research Objectives
Establishing why this is the case requires identifying factors which both facilitate and impede the flow of foreign investment into HE sector in Vietnam, it also means highlighting possibilities for overcoming the barriers that are in place
To contribute to this task, this Thesis was informed by three key objectives:
1 To improve understanding of the policy contexts in Vietnam around the foreign investment in HE
2 To identify any situations in Vietnam that the policy for foreign investment in HE confronts with
3 To identify recommendations to Vietnam to collaborate and provide support to stakeholders to reduce barriers to the foreign investment in HE.
Research Questions
To achieve the research objectives, this research is guided by the following overaching research question:
How has the Vietnamese policy for foreign investment in higher education been shaped and implemented since the 1990s?
This central question is divided into three sub-questions:
Question 1: What is the overview of theory and practice of policy for foreign investment in higher education?
Question 2: How has the policy for foreign investment in higher education in
Vietnam been shaped the development of HE in Vietnam?
Question 3: What are recommendations for policy for foreign investment in higher education in Vietnam?
Research Methodology
To carry out the study, the author combines the research methodology as follows:
Analysis of policy document related to HE development and regulations on foreign cooperation and investment in the HE sector to understand Vietnamese Government’s policy objectives, the contexts and the effects by the policy
The data is collected, quoted from reports, research of experiential and trusted researchers and organizations in the field of foreign investment in HE Since primary data for such study is hard to conduct due to the limitation of resource of the author, secondary data are mainly used.
Literature Review
Given the dynamics of foreign higher education services in the Vietnamese market and growing awareness of the role of policy as an essential part of foreign investment in higher education, a handful of researchers have shown strong interest in Vietnam’s national policies for internationalisation of higher education and regulatory framework for cross-bordered HE (Dang, 2011; Hoang et al., 2018; Nguyen & Shillabeer, 2013; Nguyen & Lee, 2020; Pham, 2014; Welch, 2012; Welch, 2010; Ziguras & Pham, 2016)
Hoang et al (2018) reviewed the history of Vietnamese Government policies on internationalisation since 2001 The researchers argue that Vietnamese Government rationales for internationalisation has shifted from a reluctant, passive, and simplistic approach to proactive engagement and strategic planning The regulation on foreign cooperation and investment in education sector (i.e., related to transnational education) was briefly discussed in Hoang et al.’s (2018) paper, however, no insights of the regulatory framework has been provided Ziguras and Pham (2016) are among TNE scholars that are interested in the regulatory framework for borderless education in Vietnam In their review of the internationalisation in Vietnamese higher education, the researchers expressed their concerns on the unclear rationale for requirements on wages, employees, foreign lecturers, campus size, and investment money that are specified in the regulatory framework for foreign investment in HE The researchers argued that such a regulatory approach focusing on inputs rather than educational outcomes for students, which may place risks on increasing costs, resulting in less investment, higher fees and smaller enrolments Ziguras and Pham’s (2016) research is supported by other studies in different ways Earlier, Pham (2014) argued that the cross-border higher education activities in Vietnam were regulated by a supply- focused regulatory framework From the perspectives of CBHE institutions, the researcher argued that Vietnam’s regulatory framework has become more complex to existing institutions and restrictive to coming providers This may cause some hesitation and/or confusion in foreign cooperation and/or investment into Vietnam’s higher education sector
More recently, Nguyen and Lee (2020) conducted research on the governance of transnational education in Vietnam They point out the issues and challenges in foreign investment governance, which include: the compromise of quality, low governance capacity, incoherent and inadequate regulatory framework, limited university autonomy The researchers also conclude that foreign investment governance in Vietnam has appeared to be less efficient, with loopholes in regulations This is partly due to the fact that the policy for foreign investment in
HE in Vietnam has placed emphasis on ex-ante measures like licensing procedures, rather than ex-post measures such as implementation enforcement and creating enabling factors to incentivise improvements and innovations These findings are concurrent with Nguyen and Shillabeer (2013), who argued in their document analysis of regulations for transnational education in Vietnam that Vietnamese regulations for foreign investment in HE are complex, ambiguous, opaque and poorly implemented and monitored As pointed out by the authors, foreign institutions have been facing with challenges in the implementation, control and monitoring of the regulatory framework, which is unclear and the overlapping roles among governmental agencies in governing transnational education Nguyen and Shillabeer (2013) suggested that the regulations and governance models should be reviewed to provide clarity for all stakeholders and to ensure longevity for education reform in the country
Additionally, foreign investment policy in HE in Vietnam has been compared with other host countries in an international context In their comparative study, Verbik and Jokivirta (2005b) allocated Vietnam in the cluster of host countries that apply moderately liberal approach to regulate transnational education Informed by the divergence of business regulation and quality assurance, this study was revisited by Ziguras and McBurnie (2015), who placed Vietnam in the group that have restrictive business regulation and comprehensive quality assurance (Ziguras & McBurnie, 2015)
However, our understanding of how and why the Vietnamese Government has adopted this regulatory approach and the impacts of these regulations on borderless
HE delivery is notably underdeveloped In 2015, Vietnam was one of the eight economies that participated in a research study undertaken to obtain greater knowledge and understanding of the policy context around the cross-border mobility of HEIs in eight Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies (Richardson, 2015) Insights into different policy contexts have been gathered from policy document analysis and interviews with 68 key HE stakeholders Interviewees from Vietnam represented the government agencies (e.g., the Ministry of Education and Training), foreign agencies (the British Council), foreign HEIs (RMIT Vietnam, the University of Queensland) and Vietnamese HEIs (Hanoi University) Research findings of this study partially supported Verbik and Jokivirta (2005b) in the sense that the policies around HEI mobility in the eight APEC economies vary considerably, ranging from extremely rigorous and well-developed approaches, to much more laissez faire contexts (Richardson, 2015) However, it is important to note that policy contexts and policy implementation are not necessarily equivalent, with a number of participants arguing that while policies may appear welcoming to
HEI mobility they are not always applied in this way, and can sometimes become onerous and bureaucratic (Richardson, 2015)
My thesis demonstrates that research into policy for foreign investment has been primarily based on policy document analysis, with very few exceptional studies that involved interviews with key stakeholders Policy document analysis is useful in providing a foundation for understanding these government policies and regulatory frameworks However, a broader inquiry is necessary to obtain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the policy framing, as well as its impacts and implementation in practice, which are not surfaced in the discourse
In conclusion, the literature review demonstrates that policy for foreign investment in HE has been proliferating in terms of the number of students enrolled, the variety of modes of delivery, and the increasing number of partners and countries involved (Huang, 2006a; Tsiligiris & Lawton, 2018b) Although these studies have provided considerable insights into the spectrum of spillover impacts of foreign investment policy on higher education across academic, skills, economic and social/cultural dimensions, what is missing in these studies is the linkage between the policy and these effects It also rarely addresses how the TNHE regulatory instruments have served to chieve the goals set in the national policy on higher education development Therefore, the current study makes a significant contribution to research into policy for foreign investment in HE by investigating its provision in Vietnam and sheds light on the linkage between the policy and these effects.
The Structure of the Thesis
This study is organised into 03 chapters Following the Introduction, Chapter 1 outlines the overview of the policy, foreign investment, and higher education and the practice in China, Malaysia, and Singapore
Chapter 2 presents the context of foreign investment policy in higher education in Viet Nam This review specifically highlights and discusses further into the studied objects and its situation, relationships, and influences
Chapter 3 discusses the recommendations in relation to the objectives of the thesis respectively
Finally, this thesis ends with Conclusions, which presents a summary of the key findings, contributions, and limitations of the study, ending with suggestions for further research.
OVERVIEW OF THEORY AND PRACTICE OF POLICY FOR
Overview of Policy for Foreign Investment in Higher Education
In this section, terminology, forms and determinants of policy for foreign investment in HE are gone through for an overview of the theory
As the focus of this study is on the policy and regulatory framework for TNHE, it is important that these key terms be defined clearly to avoid any confusion about how these terms are used Below are the definitions of the three other key terms policy, regulatory framework, and implementation, which will be used frequently throughout this study
Policy: The phrase "policy" has been defined in a variety of ways, and it is widely acknowledged that getting a universally accepted definition "is not an easy task" (Taylor et al., 1997, p 23) There are several definitions of policy, and how the term is conceptualised depends on the viewpoint of the policy researcher, as mentioned by Ozga (2000) (p 2)
What governments decide to do or not do can be regarded the first definition of policy (Dye, 2008, p 2) According to other academics (Ball, 1994b, p 18; Weimer & Vining, 2004), policies are "interventions into practise," which indicate the government's desire for change and are therefore intended to bring about change Similar to this, policy is viewed as a change plan that identifies issues and areas that require improvement (Bacchi, 2009) Policies can also be thought of as problematizing actions (Bacchi, 2009; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016) Osborne (1997) makes a similar argument to Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) that a government cannot start working without first problematizing its area
As a result, policy may be seen as intrusions into practise (Ball, 1994b, p 18; Weimer & Vining, 2004) The concepts and practises of government pursuit of social, political, and economic goals are reflected in this account through government actions and inactions (Fawcett et al., 2010) Policies come in a variety of shapes It might be a "text" and a "discourse" that exemplifies "what is enacted as well as what is intended" (Ball, 1994b, p 10) However, Taylor et al (1997, pp 24–
25) contend that policy can be thought of as "both process and product" involved in the formulation and production of the actual text, ongoing modifications to the text, and implementation processes in practise They claim that policy does not only exist in the form of "a specific policy document or text" The simplest definition of policy is that it "includes a government's expressed intentions and official enactments, as well as its consistent patterns of activity and inactivity" (Fowler, 2013, p 5)
Foreign Direct Investment: Investment, as defined by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), refers to the act of allocating resources, typically financial, with the expectation of generating future benefits or returns It involves the commitment of funds in various assets, projects, or enterprises, aiming to enhance productivity, create employment opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and foster sustainable development UNCTAD generalizes the concept of investment as:
“In a broad sense, investment is usually understood as a sum of money or other resources (including, e.g knowledge or time) spent with the expectation of getting a future return from it Investment may, however, be viewed more narrowly along different dimensions, depending upon the context and purpose.”
According to UNCTAD, investment encompasses not only the acquisition of tangible assets like buildings and machinery but also intangible assets such as intellectual property rights and technology transfers It plays a crucial role in promoting trade, facilitating cross-border transactions, and attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) to both developed and developing countries UNCTAD emphasize the importance of creating a favorable investment climate characterized by stability, transparency, non-discrimination, and the rule of law, enabling investors to make informed decisions and mitigate risks
Meanwhile, Vietnamese legislation defines investment under the Law on Investment 2005 According to Article 4 of the Law on Investment in Vietnam (revised in 2020), investment refers to the use of capital, assets, labor, and other resources for the purpose of implementing investment projects in accordance with the law It encompasses activities such as establishing enterprises, contributing capital, purchasing shares, and making investments in the form of business cooperation contracts, public-private partnerships, and other investment forms recognized by the law
The definition provided by Vietnamese legislation highlights the broad scope of investment, which covers a wide range of activities involving the allocation of capital and resources It recognizes that investment can take various forms and structures, depending on the nature of the project and the legal framework governing investment activities in Vietnam
Both UNCTAD's perspective and Vietnamese legislation underscore the significance of investment in driving economic development and achieving sustainable growth While UNCTAD emphasizes the broader global perspective on investment and its role in promoting inclusive development, Vietnamese legislation provides a specific legal framework to govern investment activities within the country The alignment between the two perspectives highlights the recognition of investment as a crucial mechanism for mobilizing resources, transferring technology, creating employment opportunities, and fostering economic progress
Higher Education: Throughout the recent years, in order to understand and properly interpret the inputs, processes and outcomes of education systems from a global perspective in general and educational programs in particular, UNESCO has researched and launched the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) with the latest one as ISCED 2011 This organization also defines higher education as:
“Higher education is a rich cultural and scientific asset which enables personal development and promotes economic, technological and social change It promotes the exchange of knowledge, research and innovation and equips students with the skills needed to meet ever changing labour markets For students in vulnerable circumstances, it is a passport to economic security and a stable future.”
There are 8 levels of education in ISCED 2011 According ISCED, tertiary education (level 5 to level 8) builds on secondary education, providing learning activities in specialised fields of education It aims at learning at a high level of complexity and specialisation Tertiary education incudes:
Short-cycle tertiary education programmes at ISCED level 5 (at least 02 years);
Bachelor’s or equivalent first-degree programmes at ISCED level 6 (three to four years);
Bachelor’s or equivalent long first-degree programmes at ISCED level 6 (more than four years); or
Master’s or equivalent long first-degree programmes at ISCED level 7 (at least five years); or
The successful completion of ISCED level 7 is usually required for entry into ISCED level 8, usually refers as Doctor of Phisolophy
According to this classification, higher education is composed of Bachelor, Master, and Doctor of Phisolophy In other words, tertiary education is an umbrella that encompasses all post-secondary education: it includes technical and vocational education and training (TVET) as well as higher education
Analytical Framework for Policy for Foreign Investment in HE
This section outlines the analytical framework that informs this study As an overarching theoretical framework, this study employs Braithwaite and Drahos’s (2000) key concepts of actors, mechanisms, and principles The key analytical framework underpinning this study is outlined in Table 1.1 and will be discussed below
Table 1.1 How the Analytical Frameworks are Used in this Thesis
- To understand the interaction between the host government (state actor), the foreign higher education institutions/ providers (non- state actors), the use of regulations (mechanisms), and the host government’s underlying rationales (principles) in regulating the establishment and operation of transnational higher education
-To analyse foreign HEIs and providers’ responses to TNHE policy and regulatory frameworks
-To explain how the regulatory frameworks (mechanisms) affect foreign HEIs and providers’ (non-state actors) TNHE modes of delivery
The three key concepts of actors, mechanisms, and principles by Braithwaite and Drahos (2000), as introduced in their seminal work of Global Business Regulation suggest that different actors employ different mechanisms to push for or against specific principles (p.9) These key concepts could be applied in research of TNHE policies and regulatory frameworks (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001) In particular, the concepts provide a useful framework for analysing the role of national governments (actors), their use of legislation (mechanisms), and their rationales (principles) for regulating borderless HE activities
Braithwaite and Drahos (2000) illustrate that there are different types of actors involved in any particular policy domain This may include state actors, such as national governments (for example, the US, the United Kingdom); organisations of state (for example, the World Bank or the World Health Organisation); and non- state actors, such as business organisations, corporations, nongovernmental organisations, the public and interest groups (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000, p.24)
Mechanisms, as identified in the work of Braithwaite and Drahos (2000), are created by different actors and used as a tool in their attempts to achieve desired goals and intentions They are relatively specific actions, which may include legislation, economic rewards or sanctions, and military coercion (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000) However, goals are not always clearly set and therefore the use of mechanisms may result in unintended and negative consequences (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000, pp 16-17)
Underpinning mechanisms are principles such as transparency, national sovereignty, liberalisation/deregulation, and rule compliance The role of principles is to secure objectives and goals set by the actors involved (Braithwaite & Drahos,
2000) Principles may be defined as norms, which are abstract prescriptions that guide conduct, inform their application, and could be used to create new rules (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000) Unlike rules, principles may or may be juridical in nature, have a lower degree of specificity and can conflict Braithwaite and Drahos
(2000) argue that conflict occurs because decision-makers (actors) assign relative weight to the principles in question to decide which actions are to be pursued In this process, one principle may take precedence over another, which creates contestation among principles and among different actors (Braithwaite & Drahos,
2000) Understanding the conflict of principles “is integral to understanding the globalisation of business regulation The successful weighting of one principle over another has consequences at both the level of conduct and for regulatory change” (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000, p 18)
Markets are where buyers and sellers meet and interact In the case of global markets, buyers, or sellers from one country/territory can cross the borders to meet (face-to-face, through agents or on online platforms) and conduct transactions with buyers or sellers from a different country/territory (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2000) As argued by the authors, regulatory globalisation is the process in which different types of actors use various mechanisms to support principles that fit their goals and objectives or to push against principles that are not in favour Now, education is a service that can be provided in international trade Hence, in order to obtain comprehensive understanding of how trade in goods and services operate, Braithwaite and Drahos (2000) suggest that it is useful to investigate the relationship between actors, mechanisms and principles
1.2.2 Host Country Governments’ Policy Rationales and Objectives of Foreign Investment in Higher Education
It is common knowledge that “a policy usually proposes a vision to achieve and sets goals to meet” (Viennet & Pont, 2017b, p 21) Therefore, it is important to understand what a host country government aims to achieve at the decision-making and policy formulation stage A wealth of literature has addressed government rationales for internationalising HE in importing countries such as China, Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore (see, for example, Byun & Kim, 2011; Daquila, 2013; Huang, 2003a; Knight, 2004; Lee, 2015b; Tham, 2013; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007a) Scholars have generally categorised the rationales for internationalisation into four groups: academic, economic, socio-cultural, and political rationales (De Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004; Maringe, 2010; OECD, 2004; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007a)
From the academic perspective, internationalisation is associated with the objectives of quality enhancement and increased access to HE Activities such as internationalisation of curricula, teaching and research, student and staff mobility, and collaborative research fall under this category In discussion of the economic rationale, internationalisation is viewed as a source of revenue generating from education services, as well as a measure to leverage HE to produce skilled workers to satisfy the labour market Human resources development, generating revenue and enhancing economic growth and competitiveness are typical objectives under this rationale The socio-cultural rationale emphasises the objectives of developing intercultural skills and promoting mutual understanding between different cultures and societies Finally, the political rationale views internationalisation as a strategy to enforce national security, build relationships with other governments and countries through initiatives such as technical assistance, scholarships for foreign students, and regional alliances for student mobility
The key objectives under this category are to exercise soft power and promote national prestige and reputation The rationales of host governments to allow or invite foreign universities to establish a presence in their country also encompasses the above-mentioned rationales and may differ across the various host countries (McNamara et al., 2013; OECD, 2004) The commonly cited objectives of foreign investment in HE, among many others, may include:
• To expand access to higher education
• To expose local students to global perspectives
• To foster economic and human resources development
• To enhance national prestige and reputation
(Healey, 2017; Knight & McNamara, 2017; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007a; Wilkins, 2011)
1.2.3 The Relationship Between Actors, Mechanisms, and Principles
In this study, policy for foreign investment in HE is categorised as mechanisms They are used by the host government (state actor) to govern the establishment and operation of foreign investment by foreign HE providers (non- state actors) in Vietnam In line with this theory, there may be different state actors involved in the design and implementation of policy for foreign investment in HE
Figure 1.1 Actors, Mechanisms and Principles
It is important to investigate if there are any dominant principles that might take precedence over another and if there are any contestation among principles and among different actors Put succinctly, approaching the HE foreign investment policy from this perspective enables the researcher to consider the relationship between the host government (state actor) and foreign HE providers (non-state actors), shed light on how the implementation of the policy (mechanisms) facilitates or impedes the cross-border mobilty of HE providers (non-state actors), and
Non-state actors (cross-border mobilty of HE providers )
Non-state actors (Foreign HE providers) Mechanism
(policy for foreign investment in HE) uncover the underlying rationales for the host government (state actors) to establish the regulations in such a way.
Policy for Foreign Investment in Higher Education in some Asian
As globalization continues to thrive, countries recognize the importance of attracting international institutions and fostering collaborations to enhance educational standards, promote knowledge exchange, and develop a competitive workforce In this context, several Asian countries have formulated policies to facilitate and regulate foreign investment in their higher education sectors This article will focus on the policies of selected Asian countries, namely China, Malaysia, and Singapore
These countries have been chosen for their diverse approaches and prominence in the Asian higher education landscape While China is governed by a similar legislation to Vietnam, Malaysia is an emerging but attractive international education hub and Singapore has long story in calling for foreign investment into its higher education By examining the policies of these countries, we can gain insights into the various approaches taken to attract foreign investment in higher education, the regulatory frameworks in place, and the opportunities and challenges faced by both foreign and domestic educational institutions
From 2012 to 2022, China's education has made significant progress China has adopted a comprehensive strategy to enhance upper secondary education since
2012 (Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Kingdom of Belgium,
2022) China invested 64 billion dollars (466,6 billion yuan) in general education by 2022, up from 32 billion dollars (231.7 billion yuan) in 2012 The aggregate enrollment rate in postsecondary education will surpass 90% in 2020 and 91.4% in
2021, a 6.4% increase from 2012 China has the largest higher education system in the world based on the number of students to 44.3 million students (domestic and international) by 2022 (Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Kingdom of Belgium, 2022) According to statistics, China's university enrollment rate in
2021 will be 57.8%, a 27.8% increase from 2012 The Chinese government has long encouraged exchange and international cooperation in the field of education through transnational forms of education in order to promote the development of education (QAA, 2020)
Foreign investment in higher education is a rapidly growing sector and accounts for an increasingly large share of the education system in China (Clayburn,
2022) At the local level, transnational education is encouraged by the governments of many Provinces/Cities in China and has become part of a joint development and investment plan, among other sectors According to Clayburn (2022), investment in education cooperation is considered as a key factor for provinces/cities in China to increase their position and competitiveness with other provinces/cities
The development of foreign investment in China began nearly 30 years ago In
1995, the Chinese Ministry of Education issued a provisional regulation on international cooperation in educational activities, officially introducing cross- bordered education into the country's education system (British Council, 2022) In
2000, after becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China's education market officially opened to the world through its commitment to open the service market Accordingly, China commits to not restrict the provision of educational services across borders, to have no barriers to the acquisition of foreign education, and to not cause obstacles to cooperation between foreign institutions and individuals foreign and Chinese in the management of educational institutions (Ding et al., 2009)
In China, the University of Nottingham Ningbo was established in 2004 as a joint venture between the University of Nottingham of the United Kingdom and Wanli Education Group in China’s Zhejiang Province (Garrett et al., 2017; Verbik & Merkley, 2006) In the meantime, as reported by the Beijing-based Venture Education (2020), Sino-foreign joint programs were 2,240 as of 2019 Online provision of education is not allowed by this Government Although the estimation of students enrolled in cross-bordered programs is not always accurate and reliable due to the lack of data, what is clear is that there has been a consistent upward trend in the TNE student enrolments
Malaysia is a country that actively pursues the development of foreign investment in higher education from a young age on all levels of education and has accomplished remarkable feats in comparison to other East Asian and Southeast Asian nations
According to the Malaysian Ministry of Education, there are presently ten international branch campuses (IBC) in operation in Malaysia (Services, n.d.) (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2020) Notable IBCs such as Nottingham University Malaysia, University of Southampton Malaysia, and Monash University Malaysia have considerably contributed to Malaysia's development of transnational higher education Malaysia presently has more than
180 international high schools in 16 provinces and cities across the country
Malaysia aimed to be a regional hub for higher education, as pointed out in Malaysian government policy studies, and has now successfully transformed from an importer to an exporter of higher education (Aziz & Abdullah, 2014; Mok, 2011; Tham, 2013) In order to realise their goals, Malaysia has been an early adopter of twining programs and developed policies to attract foreign universities from developed countries like the UK, Australia and the United States to open their branch campuses in Malaysia Currently, In Malaysia, there are illustrative examples of local governments (Sarawak and Iskandar), partnering with foreign universities (e.g., Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak; Curtin University of Technology, Sarawak; University of Reading Malaysia, Iskandar; University of Southampton Malaysia, Iskandar) and making substantial contribution in terms of financial and physical resources and as a way to attract foreign institutions (Aziz & Abdullah, 2014; Lane, 2010; Lee, 2014)
The genesis of these remarkable developments is the Malaysian government's perception of the insufficient training capacity of public institutions, which cannot meet the high demand for higher education In the 1990s, according to UNESCO, only 7.2% of the university-age population of Malaysia was enrolled in tertiary institutions, compared to 35.8% in Argentina and 54.2% in Korea According to a report by the OECD, Malaysia confronted a massive influx of domestic students at the beginning of the 21 st century as it became one of the top 20 exporters of students to universities abroad In 1995, in response to this issue, Malaysia published the
"Vision 2020" strategy to promote the comprehensive development of Malaysia's economy and society by 2020 According to this strategy, Malaysia's primary objective is to become an education hub in the region, emphasising the expansion of access to public higher education and the development of private higher education, including transnational education (Morshidi, 2006)
This reform provided the necessary legal framework for the privatisation of education on a large scale to satisfy the country's social and economic needs The Education Act of 1996, the Private Higher Education Act of 1996, the National Council of Higher Education Act of 1996, and the Council Act are all laws pertaining to education The National Accreditation Board Act of 1996 was enacted by the Malaysian legislature, paving the way for a variety of institutional structures and the provision of transnational higher education in Malaysia
Malaysia has established the Malaysian Qualifications Agency in order to accredit and certify its higher education programmes, including transnational education This agency ensures that the programmes offered by transnational educational institutions meet required standards and are consistent with national learning outcomes frameworks, thereby establishing a solid reputation among institutions In addition, the government of Malaysia has implemented flexible financial policies, enabling international educational institutions in Malaysia to collaborate with large corporations (Hou et al., 2018) For instance, the Sunway Group provided Monash University with land and financial support Land for the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus was donated by Boustead Holdings Berhad and YTL Group, Executive Summary Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2013-2025, 2015
Singapore has the most evolved education system in Southeast Asia In 2020, 10% more Singaporeans than in 2010 will possess a postsecondary degree, diploma, professional qualification, or university-level certificate 33% of the population has a bachelor's degree or higher, an increase of 9% since 2010 (Ong, 2021) This is due to the nation's promotion of transnational education
POLICY FOR FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN HIGHER
Overview of Vietnam’s Policy and the Landscape of Foreign Investment
2.1.1 Evolution of Policies for Foreign Investment in Higher Education in Vietnam
At present, Decree 86 governs foreign investment in Vietnamese higher education Market entry standards include capitalization and performance requirements for buildings, curriculum, academic personnel, and Vietnamese student enrolment In August 2018, the Decree 86 replaced Decree 73, 2012 After almost two decades since the first regulatory framework for foreign education providers was introduced in 2000 (Decree 06), this is the third amendment with updates To understand the evolution of the Vietnamese policy on foreign investment in HE, it is helpful to briefly review Decree 06 and Decree 73 before looking at Decree 86
Table 2.1 Policy relevant to foreign investment in HE
2000 Regulation for for-profit cooperation and investment with foreigners in health, education, and research (Decree 06)
Revised in 2012 (Decree 73) and in 2018 (Decree 86)
2005 Investment Law Revised in 2014 and 2020
2012 Higher Education Law Amended in 2019
2018 Regulation for foreign cooperation and investment in education sector (Decree 73)
Replaced Decree 06 Revised in 2018 (Decree 86)
2019 Decree 99, providing guilines for Higher
Before joining the WTO in 2007, Vietnam had restricted foreign investment The socialisation Policy 1997 and Education Law 1998 legalised worldwide programme and institution mobility The Vietnamese government had to write a decree to restrict international education collaboration and investment In 2000, Decree 06 established the first regulations for for-profit foreign education providers in Vietnam RMIT Vietnam, the first 100% foreign-invested university in Vietnam, was founded in Ho Chi Minh City in the same year (Welch, 2010; Wilmoth, 2004)
Decree 06 regulates exclusively for-profit foreign education investment, while Decree 18/20001/NĐ-CP (Decree 18) was enacted in 2001 to regulate non-profit education investment Decree 06 regulates foreign investment in education, healthcare, and research and technology Thus, in 2005, MOET and MPI produced Circular 14/2005/TTLT-BGD&ĐT-BKH&ĐT to give required implementation advice for for-profit foreign education investment Decree 06 and Circular 14 permitted wholly foreign-owned (WFO) education establishments at all levels, from early childhood to postsecondary
In 2007, a significant milestone was achieved with Vietnam’s successful accession to WTO membership after 11 years of negotiations with WTO’s Working Party (WP) and with each interested WTO member (Cling et al., 2009; OECD,
2018) The Vietnamese Government is committed to legal framework formulation and modification in response to demands from WTO members (Cling et al., 2009; OECD, 2018) This has resulted in numerous, successive regulatory reforms to bring Vietnam closer to its international commitments For example, Vietnam has vowed to comply with WTO’s “non-discrimination” principles, including mostfavoured-nation (MFN) and national treatment
Under Vietnam’s WTO commitments to educational services (see Table 2.2), the development of wholly foreign owned HEIs is officially permitted, starting in
2009 (Welch, 2010) However, some restrictions still remain by allowing foreign education providers to deliver educational programs only in certain fields, such as natural sciences and technology, business administration, economics, accounting, international law and language training, under the government’s guidelines (ICEF, 2012; WTO, 2006, p 34) It is also notable that there are no commitments for wholly foreign owned education institutions at the secondary education level and Vietnam is not committed to cross-border supply in education services at all levels.
Table 2.2 Viet Nam’s WTO Commitments on Educational Services 1
Mode 4: Movement of natural persons
Only in technical, natural sciences and technology, business administration and business studies, economics, accounting, international law, and language training fields
With regards to points (C), (D) and (E) below: The education content must be approved by VietNam’s Ministry of Education and Training
Mode of delivery: (1) Cross-border supply, (2) Consumption abroad, (3) Commercial presence, (4) Presence of natural person
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in the horizontal section
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in the horizontal section
E Other education services (CPC 929) including foreign language training)
Upon accession, only in the form of joint-ventures
Majority foreign ownership of such joint ventures is allowed
(3) Foreign teachers who wish to work in foreign invested schools shall have at least 5 years of teaching experience, and their qualifications
E Other education services (CPC 929) including foreign language training)
Decree 18 and Decree 06 were replaced with Decree 73 in 2012 as part of the regulatory reform following Vietnam's WTO membership Decree 73 was created in compliance with the Investment Law 2005, the Education Law 2005, and its 2009 Amendment As of early childhood through tertiary levels, Decree 73 includes both for-profit and non-profit foreign investment in education (ICEF, 2012) Additionally, this regulation document outlines the conditions for entering the market in the form of financial requirements for a minimal investment as well as operational requirements for facilities, academic staff, curriculum, and a certain percentage of Vietnamese students to enrol (ICEF, 2012; Pham, 2012)
Decree 73, which limited the enrollment of Vietnamese students in international schools to 10% at the primary (Years 1-5) and secondary levels (Years 6-9) and 20% at the high school level (Years 10–12), was criticised as a barrier to foreign education investors despite being intended to encourage international cooperation and investment in education (Ha Chinh, 2017) Additionally, no Vietnamese children younger than five were permitted to enrol in programmes for foreign early childhood education On the other side, there are no restrictions on participation in joint programmes or international higher education institutions Despite the criticisms, these limits did not breach Vietnam's WTO obligations in the
2009, 100% foreign-invested education entities are permitted After
3 years from the date of accession: none
(4) Unbound, except as indicated in the horizontal section shall be recognised by the competent authority area of educational services because there is no obligation to open the market to commercial presence at the primary and secondary levels of education
In an effort to improve the quality of foreign investment in education and to encourage the cross-border mobility of international institutions and programmes, the most recent Decree 86 reinforces certain aspects of Decree 73
Examinations have been conducted on the requirements for the establishment and quality assurance of foreign education and higher education providers, such as minimum investment capital and quality assurance requirements (facilities, curriculum, and academic staff) In accordance with Decree 73, the minimal investment capital requirement for establishing a HEI with foreign investment has been increased to VND 1 trillion, or approximately US$45 million This increased investment amount is the subject of much debate, with industry professionals and some government officials expressing concern that it may have the unintended effect of discouraging the types of investors the government hopes to attract
Foreign-invested educational institutions are compelled to provide an average of 25 square metres of space per student, which is the same as Decree 73 Foreign- invested educational institutions are now permitted to lease facilities, per a new provision In addition, Decree 86 stipulates that all academic staff must possess a Master's degree and that foreign academics must have at least five years of experience Additionally, the percentage of academic personnel with PhDs is increased from 35% (Decree 73) to 50%
2.1.2 The Landscape of Foreign Investment in Higher Education in Vietnam Distribution of FDI
Under the support of the government, international program mobility has proliferated in Vietnam in various configurations, including advanced programs (chương trình tiên tiến) and joint training programs (chương trình liên kết đào tạo) The second form of international programs are the so-named “advanced program”, which were first introduced in 2006 (Hoang et al., 2018, p 29; Tran et al., 2018, p
56) These programs borrowed curricula from leading international universities ranked in the top 200 in the world, in an effort to give students access to materials and content from the most innovative programs in prestigious foreign universities (Tran, Le, et al., 2014; Tran et al., 2018) It should be noted that not only the content of the foreign programs, but also other aspects such as course design, teaching methodologies and assessment are imported These programs are offered in selected disciplines, mainly STEM and business education, across almost 20 universities in Vietnam (Tran, Le, et al., 2014; Tran et al., 2018)
Although both advanced and joint training programs are categorised under the international program mobility, there are three main differences between these two forms of program mobility First, advanced programs are designed by importing foreign curricula of the world’s top 200 universities and are offered at selected Vietnamese universities In contrast, joint training programs could be delivered at any Vietnamese university in partnership with foreign universities, with no boundaries to the world’s top 200 Second, while graduates of advanced programs are awarded the Vietnamese universities’ degrees, students of joint training programs usually receive foreign partner university degrees For dual-degree programs, students are awarded one degree from their local university and one from the foreign university Third, while advanced programs are partially sponsored by the state budget, with 60% of total expenses funded by the government (Tran et al.,
2018), no government subsidy is provided for joint training programs
Policy for Foreign Investment in Higher Education in Vietnam
With a growing economy and a focus on human capital development, Vietnam recognizes the importance of international collaboration and the contribution of foreign institutions in enhancing the quality of education and nurturing a skilled workforce This section explores the policy framework for foreign investment in higher education in Vietnam, using the analytical framework mentioned in Chapter One
2.2.1 Actors, Mechanisms, and Principles in Policy for Foreign Investment in HE in Vietnam
The State Actor: Vietnam act as state actor, the host government, to govern the establishment and operation of foreign investment The Government is responsible for creating and shaping policies related to foreign investment in HE with developing guidelines, regulations, and frameworks that govern the entry and operation of foreign educational institutions within their jurisdictions This includes setting criteria for approval, defining quality standards, determining financial