Higher Education Mobility in the Bologna Process

Working Paper: Higher Education Mobility in the Bologna Process

Panel: Exploring the Paradox of EU Freedom of Movement: Community Formation and Destabilization II Council for European Studies “Resilient Europe?” Philadelphia, April 14-16, 2016

Beverly Barrett1 Hobby Center for Public Policy University of Houston [email protected]

This research is complementary to the forthcoming book Globalization and the Knowledge Economy: The Political Economy of Higher Education Reform in Europe to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2017. The project explains the political economy drivers for higher education policy changes in countries that have transitioned to democracy in Iberia and Central Europe. 1

1

Higher Education Mobility in the Bologna Process

The European community has formed over decades since the end of World War II. Over periods discontent with the politics and the economy, from within Member States of the European Union, has challenged the trajectory towards an ever closer union. More recently mass migration and vulnerability to terrorism are introducing destabilization to domestic politics and at the level of the European Union. This paper discusses mobility as part of higher education policy, and particularly as an objective the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Taking together educational mobility with the recent backdrop of migration, these two elements provide a picture of movement in the common market. The organization of the paper is as follows: an analysis of higher education and mobility policies, a discussion of recent trends in migration in the EU, and an assessment of the policy responses. The regional integration that began with the integration of the economy among the first members of the European Coal and Steel Community, and soon after the European Economic Community, has become more extensive throughout the decades (Pollack 2009). Nevertheless, there have been rising euro-skeptic voices and more political parties the mainstream, as witnessed in the May 2014 elections in the European Parliament. Most recently the region has faced a series of crises over the past decade (Cramme and Hobolt 2015). The external shocks of the global financial crisis (2007-2009), the euro and sovereign debt crises (2010-2015), and mass migration from the Middle East (culminating in 2015) have tested the envisioned ever closer union. Building upon the single market that was complete in 1992, the Bologna Process established the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in 2010. The idea behind these voluntary soft law agreements has been to support the common market by strengthening the region’s knowledge economy (Rosamond 2002). As the EU anticipated expanding eastwards in the 2000s with the historic enlargements in 2004 and 2007, the impetus built to created more linkages in higher education to support employability throughout the region. The Europe we are building up is not only the one of the Euro, of the banks and of the economy; it must be a Europe of knowledge as well. We must strengthen and build upon the intellectual, cultural, social and technical dimensions of our continent (Sorbonne Declaration, May 25, 1998)2

Since the initial treaties of the EU in the 1950s there have been policy entrepreneurs advancing the idea of European education (Corbett 2005). The Bologna Process launched in 1999 expanded regional integration into the space of higher education Europe. While it started then with 29 countries pledge supporting, today 48 countries are participants, including all 28 countries in the EU. That this policy implementation that has continued, even through the

Sorbonne Declaration, May 25, 1998. Available from: http://www.ehea.info/uploads/declarations/sorbonne_declaration1.pdf 2

2


financial downturn of the great recession, demonstrates a path dependency in regional integration (Pierson 1996, 2004). The EU common market is characterized by the four freedoms of goods, services, capital, and mobility of people and labor. This strengthens an economy that is based on knowledge, where education is central in the 21st century (Raivio 2008). The paradox of EU freedom of movement is that this objective which has been developing for decades has become threatened due to instability in the economy and in the social dimension. Since the financial downtown in the first decade of the 21st century, and with the recent migrant crisis, some groups have reconsidered nationalism and protectionism in domestic politics. The Schengen Agreement, which went into effect in 1995, to open the borders for passport free travel across countries has been suspended by national initiative in select countries over the past year. The ongoing threats after incidents of terrorism - in Paris on November 13, 2015 and in Brussels on March 22, 2016 – raise the specter for vigilance by national governments. The destabilization of movement has come as countries have suspended the Schengen Agreement over the past year. Belgium has been the most recent country to suspend the open borders passage. Over the past year, nine countries - Austria, Belgium Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Norway, and Sweden - have had periods of suspension of the Schengen Agreement.3 Belgium suspended passport free travel with France in late February, even ahead of the horrific attacks the month following.4 Last year in 2015 Europe received an additional more than a million migrants than in years’ prior, known as irregular migration. There has been historic mobility of people entering the EU, which b brings new challenges national and regional efforts for integration. The EU leaders met in mid-March 2016, with the president of Turkey, to establish policies to curb irregular migration (Reuters 2016). Prior to the recent migration phenomenon there have been targets for mobility in higher education within the EU and the EHEA. The paper assesses progress on the mobility objectives in higher education. These objectives are viewed from a recently updated perspective on mobility in Europe from the recent influx in migration, given refugees fleeing conflicts in the Middle East. The countries in Central and Eastern Europe have leaders that have resisted integration of migrants, while they continue to move forward with reforms for the Bologna Process. This paper provides a closer look at the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. There are political, economic, and cultural explanations presented through theory, historical analysis of trends, and data assessment on migration and mobility of students in Europe.

Traynor, Ian and Helena Smith. 2016. “EU border controls: Schengen scheme on the brink after Amsterdam talks.” The Guardian. January 26, 2016. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/refugee-crisis-schengen-area-scheme-brink-amsterdamtalks 4 Euractiv. 2016. “Schengen in crisis as Belgium reintroduces border controls.” February 23, 2016. Available from: https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/schengen-in-crisis-as-belgium-reintroducesborder-controls/ 3

3


Theoretical background A theoretical perspective of the diffusion of ideas frames the policy objectives put forward for higher education mobility. The idea of internationalization (or internationalisation) was fostered with the formation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), established by the Bologna Process in 2010. International mobility is a core component of internationalisation and involves several key actors in higher education systems. It allows students to acquire valuable competences and skills needed to live and work in the global job market, while helping staff to gain new ideas, methods and skills and develop institutional relationships. Mobility also forces higher education institutions (both home and host institutions) to learn and adapt their management, services and administration procedures. It thus contributes to the internationalisation of higher education systems in ways that are interconnected and relatively complex (Eurydice 2015:225).

The ideas that value the international orientation of education has been adopted by the countries in Europe and has become a global trend over the past decade (Spring 2009). Social constructivism explains how shared ideas and values may become co-constituted knowledge among actors in the Bologna Process (Börzel and Risse 2012; Risse 2010). The values are reflected in the home countries and in the host countries of students and migrants. The national political will to facilitate policy coordination provides for mobility internationally. The negotiation of policies takes place on two levels of governance (Putnam 1988). The domestic policies at the country level and the supranational policies at the EU level shape opportunities for migration and higher education mobility. A diffusion of policies across the countries in the EHEA complements the influence of Europeanization (Börzel and Risse 2012). This research focuses on mobility among the 28 countries in the European Union. The case studies are the Visegrád group countries of Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovak Republic, known as such for their meeting in this Hungarian city in 1991, when they began their period of transition to democracy. Among these countries, Hungary has had the relatively higher levels of higher education mobility and migration in recent years (Eurydice 2015:227). National attitudes on migration policy, given the historic immigration of 2015, provide a current context to consider the objectives for higher education mobility since the launch of the Bologna Process. The dependent variable, in a diffusion model, is, “the propensity of a government to adopt a policy or set of policies,” (Berry and Berry 2014:320). The regional diffusion model assumes that governments in proximity have greater influence on each other’s policies than those at a distance. Geographic neighbors coordinating economic and welfare policies is an effort to influence. Recently in the mass migration into Europe the immigrants have preference for Germany as a destination, given the generous social policies and government programs for migrations. That has not been without contestation impacting on domestic politics. In the midMarch election, challenging parties gained more seats throughout the country.

4


There is an element of intergovernmentalism to diffusion policy explanations, given that government policy implementation is a replication or coordination of policy implementation by other governments (Berry and Berry 2014:308). The influences of Europeanization and intergovernmentalism act upon universities, making them recipients of institutional change before they become agents of change. An aspect of Europeanization comes into effect with provision of financial incentives from the European Commission to induce universities to be agents of change, as has taken place with the Erasmus Mundus international education exchange program (Batory and Lindstrom 2011).

The Commission shapes higher education reform and does this not simply by facilitating learning and emulation through fostering transnational linkages, as Open Method of Coordination (OMC) accounts suggest, or by persuading national governments to adapt, but rather by directly intervening in the higher education sector itself (Batory and Lindstrom 2011:324).

Higher education institutions become agents of change, as envisaged by the European Commission economic growth strategy Europe 2020. They cultivate graduates and researchers with civic knowledge of a socially defined Europe and skills to succeed through employability in the global economy. Higher education institutions are also agents of change in promoting mobility and in creating citizenship and employability for national and European societies and economies. Across the Bologna Process countries, higher education is delivered through both public and private institution, and some institutions have closer alignments with the state than others (Enders and Jongbloed 2007). The complementary influences of Europeanization and liberal intergovernmentalism are found to varying extents in each country. Within each circumstance, one of these influences may be the stronger explanation for institutional change as part of regional integration in higher education. This rationally-intentioned interest of the state captures the essence of intergovernmentalism, in which countries participate in policy coordination at the European level (Moravcsik and Schimmelfennig 2009). Subject to the pressures of globalization, Europeanization has taken hold at national levels to drive forward its institutional changes, including for policies such as higher education (Schmidt 2009).

Internationalization and Mobility Targets in Higher Education The term internationalization was formally introduced into the official documents of the EHEA with the Bucharest Communiqué in April 2012 (Eurydice 2015:209). The term internationalization defines the external orientation of higher education. While this values a mobility component, it also underscores the global context of higher education today. Learning mobility is essential to ensure the quality of higher education, enhance students’ employability and expand cross-border collaboration within the EHEA and beyond. We adopt the strategy “Mobility for Better Learning“ as an addendum, including its mobility

5


target, as an integral part of our efforts to promote an element of internationalisation in all of higher education. (Bucharest Communiqué, page 1).

The mobility target, presented in the Mobility Strategy 2012 for the EHEA, has been for 20 percent of undergraduate students to spend at least three months abroad during their studies. 5 At the most recently Education Ministers conference in May 2015 in Yerevan, Armenia, there was not mention of the same quantitative target for mobility. The “Report on Mobility and Internationalisation” introduced by the working group of Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) in both years. The working group on mobility supports this effort towards internationalization of higher education.6 The Yerevan Communiqué at the meeting of Education Ministers in May 2015 has recognized the importance of mobility in higher education : Greater mobility of students and staff fosters mutual understanding, while rapid development of knowledge and technology, which impacts on societies and economies, plays an increasingly important role in the transformation of higher education and research.7

This 20 percent education mobility target from 2012 may not be possible to attain, giving limitations on funding and on data (Eurydice 2015:265). The mobility of faculty and staff, alongside the mobility of students, has been discussed as a related objective more recently in 2015. The emphasis on quality of student mobility intersects with the Bologna Process components of “quality assurance” in the EHEA. Recently some countries have put up more political barriers to movement for accepting migrants. Paradoxically positioned to these political developments, in higher education the objective remains to pursue international educational mobility, even while there is less emphasis on quantifiable targets. Given economic and politic pressures in the intervening years since the Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA was announced in 2012 the expectations appear to have been tempered concerning mobility targets. The European Commission’s higher education framework, “European Higher Education in the World,” was updated in September 2013, to reflect how its policy initiatives serve global developments in the knowledge economy. The report indicates how mobility has been lower that the target initially developed with the Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA in 2012: In 2012 the average mobility rate for the EU was rather low, at 3.6 % for incoming and 3.5 % for outgoing students (Eurostat 2014). Countries have set mobility targets, ranging from 5 percent for undergraduate programs to 20 percent for graduate programs, to attain by the year 2020 (Eurydice 2015:227-228).

Education mobility within the EHEA has the ultimate aim to support overarching objective of the recognition of academic qualifications across countries. Beyond academia in labor and EHEA. 2012. Mobility Strategy 2020 for the European Higher Education Area. Available from: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/2012%20EHEA%20Mobility%20Strategy.pdf 6Mobility and Internationalisation Working Group Report: Available from: http://bolognayerevan2015.ehea.info/files/MI%20WG%20Report.pdf 7 Yerevan Communiqué. 2015. European Higher Education Area. Available from: http://bolognayerevan2015.ehea.info/files/YerevanCommuniqueFinal.pdf 5

6


employment, there is a growing potential for Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA). These MRAs have been proposed across countries within regions such as the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian National (ASEAN). The argument supporting educational mobility has been that a period of study abroad will make graduates more prepared to work in an international dimension (EHEA 2015). Erasmus, founded in 1986 by the European Commission, has supported that objective. It continues to develop with was Erasmus + (Plus), announced in 2014 to included third countries beyond the EU. The following highlights trends in higher education mobility in recent years.

Mobility in Higher Education Theorizing about higher education migration and mobility takes reference in a variety of perspectives. This research relates most closely to diffusion policy (Berry and Berry 2014; Börzel and Risse 2012). The national policies adopted for mobility in higher education and migration may be explained by regional diffusion and intergovernmental efforts at cooperation. Given the two-levels of policy-making in international negotiations, higher education institutions have two places: as agents (at the national level) and recipients (at the EU level) of policy changes (Putnam 1988). Higher education institutions are agents of mobility, providing opportunities for students and researchers to study and to work beyond their home country. The foundational tenets of the Bologna Process are reciprocity and mobility in higher education. There are administrative barriers such as quotas limiting enrollment and higher tuition costs for foreign students. The mobility of students and the reciprocity of academic degrees are expected to enhance educational quality, student achievement outcomes, and economic development (EHEA 2012). The discourse in the Bologna Process and the EHEA proclamations reveals that mobility is a key value. The importance of mobility is indicated in Bologna Declaration (1999) and in the Prague Communiqué (2001): Promotion of mobility [emphasis mine] by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement with particular attention to: · for students, access to study and training opportunities and related services · for teachers, researchers and administrative staff, recognition and valorisation of periods spent in a European context researching, teaching and training, without prejudicing their statutory rights (Bologna Declaration, 1999). Ministers are affirmed that efforts to promote mobility must be continued to enable students, teachers, researchers and administrative staff to benefit from the richness of the European Higher Education Area including its democratic values, diversity of cultures and languages and the diversity of higher educational systems (Prague Communiqué, 2001).

Diversity of educational experiences through a period of international study is desirable in today’s global knowledge society in order to develop adaptability and to understand foreign cultures. The influence of globalization puts pressure on students to spend at least some of their educational experience beyond their home country. This cultivates an international perspective through living and studying abroad. This distinct component in academic experience may make graduates more desirable when looking for employment in the global knowledge 7


economy. An important strength for students, to have as candidates for employment in the knowledge economy, is personal knowledge of various countries and their cultures and traditions. There exist incentives for a period of study or academic degree attained abroad in order to add the global dimension to the graduate’s academic experience Spring 2009). A specialized program of study, such as for engineering in Germany or for biotechnology in Finland, may be a unique incentive for a student to spend a period of study or the duration of an entire degree abroad. The idea of the Bologna Process, for an academic degree to be recognized abroad, took hold and diffused across Europe as it built upon the previously successful Erasmus scheme of educational exchange for a limited period of time during the academic degree (Amaral and Neave 2008). A decade after the Erasmus exchange program launched in 1986 to provide students with a period of study abroad, the Marie Curie Action programs, supporting mobility of researchers, began in 1996. These European Commission supported programs make Europe an attractive place to study and to research. There is competition within Europe and internationally for locations to study and to research. Beyond the region of Europe, China and India have been increasing their enrollments in the university systems of the United States and the EU. The growing academic diaspora of Chinese and Indians provides new networks of information sharing and transmits knowledge through informal channels of policy diffusion. A joint report of the Migration Policy Institute and the European University Institute has compared mobility challenges and opportunities for the EU and the United States (Fargues et al. 2011). These two regions, being among the most economically advanced in the world, together receive the majority of the world’s migrants who seek relocation for education and employment reasons. Additional funding for study abroad may come from the country of origin or the country of destination in the form of scholarships. Private funding for higher education is a possibility for students and families with the means to support the travel and foreign residential expenses for a period of academic work beyond the home country. Incentives to gain international experience to strengthen a student’s academic experience through mobility may encounter administrative or financial barriers. Administrative barriers include quota limitations on the number of students who may study as foreigners within a country. A barrier to educational mobility is availability of funding at the individual, national, and regional levels. Reciprocity and mobility in the Bologna Process complement the objective of EU Regional Policy to diminish inequalities across the European Union. In the EHEA compatible credits and degrees are measured with the European Credit and Transfer System (ECTS). In the extreme case of policy convergence in theory, with similar degree criteria, there would not be need for reciprocity and mobility in higher education. However, the variations in academic strengths and unique attributes across national cultures attract students to spend a period of study beyond their home country. The importance of national academic strengths assures that countries will not lose expertise as they seek to maintain their comparative advantages in particular professional sectors alongside EHEA policy implementation towards policy convergence.

8


The objective for the assimilation of higher education standards may have beneficial spillover effects to raise the criteria in some countries to reach the EHEA standards. In order for the mobility policies to successful beyond this European level commitment, countries must commit to welcome international students and university institutions must find a place for them as well. The challenges of multi-level governance are manifest in reaching the 20 target in the Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA (EHEA 2012b). There has been steady progress towards the 3 million student mobility target for Erasmus exchanges, which was reached in July 2013 (European Commission 2013b). Higher education mobility programs from the EHEA and Erasmus have been simulated by world regions, and outcomes thus far provide lessons from which to learn successes and challenges.

Figure 1. Number of Erasmus students per year 1987-1988 to 2011-2012 Source: European Commission. 2013. Memo: Erasmus Programme in 2011-2012: The Figures Explained. July 8, 2013, page 2.

. The Erasmus program began operating in the academic year 1987-1988 with 3,244 students. By 2013-2014 there were 272,497 students participating (European Commission 2013b:2). During the academic year 2013-2014 the Erasmus program attained the cumulative 3 million students’ participation target. There was a debate during the second part of 2012 over the appropriate level of Erasmus funding for the EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020. The multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the EU 2014-2020, increased the budget for the program. This demonstrated the commitment to educational exchanges and investments in 9


knowledge policy, at a time with the budgets for most budget components declined. In 2014, the initiative became known as Erasmus+ and included more countries beyond the European Union.

Figure 2. Source: European Commission. 2016. Education and Training. “Erasmus+ programme.” Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/statistics_en.htm

Policy Responses in Higher Education to Migration Trends in Europe The policy responses to migration take place on two levels, domestic at the country level and supranational at the EU. The negotiations between the national and international levels remain contentious at EU summits and ongoing (Putnam 1988). The EU countries and Turkey seem to have made some breakthroughs in cooperation in mid-March 2016. At the domestic level, there is a variation in attitudes of political leadership. With Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel being among the most accepting of migrants. The Visegrád four countries have been among the most resistant to welcoming migrants. Germany has taken a proportionally larger number of migrants than the other countries in the EU (Figure 3). The openness of Chancellor Merkel has had domestic political implications, with the attitude emerging that migrants would not be as welcome throughout the country. In the German regional elections on March 13, 2016, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party has lost some representation around the country. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) gained seats with an anti-migration message. Chancellor since 2005, Merkel plans to seek re-election again in 2017, and she faces a new challenge with the shifting domestic political landscape.

10


Figure 3: Source: “Europe’s migrant crisis in numbers.” The Economist, February 5, 2016. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-5

Immigration policy has legal basis national rules and EU rules, with tension between them. That which was considered a strength of an “ever closer union” for the EU has become a vulnerability.8 Through decades of integration in the European project and in the Schengen Agreement, implemented since 1995, there were aspirations to strengthen the transnational character of Europe. Since the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015 and in Brussels on March 22, 2016, the political economy of interconnectedness of Europe has been reconsidered for the sake of security. While there has been a gradual transition from national competence to EU competence, the migration policy which rested at the national level (before the creation of the Single European Market 1986) has become increasingly under EU sovereignty. The following are some migration polices at the EU level. European Migration Policy today includes policies on legal migration, irregular migration, borders, visa, a Common European Asylum System and the external dimension. In addition, the European Union has an Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund to support Member States with the efficient management of migration flows and the implementation, The vision of an “ever closer union” was presented in the Treaty of Rome (1957) that created the European Economic Community (EEC), an institution of the European Union. 8

11


strengthening and development of a common European approach to asylum and immigration (European Commission, Towards a Comprehensive Migration Policy, 2015).

Conflicts in places like Syria and Iraq have left millions stranded in refugee camps on their periphery. As stays in camps extend into years, the long journey to Europe becomes more appealing and more join the trail of migration. Some European nations have responded by unilaterally closing borders and modifying asylum rules for refugees, hoping to discourage migrants. The economic impact of migration can have a detrimental impact on the sending country since emigration often results in brain drain (Collier 2013:195). Since the regional elections in Germany, Chancellor Merkel continues to lead the EU negotiations with Turkey that have the intention to return migrants who are not refugees to their home countries. 9 At the EU level of policy, the European Commission has created a common framework for the integration of third-country nationals, while immigration integration policies remain a competence of the Member States. The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM) is the framework for the EU’s external immigration and asylum policy. Even before the escalation of migration over the past year, In the budget for 2014-2020, €1.46 billion has been designated, for Creative Europe, established within the Directorate General for Education and Culture to promote cultural and linguistic diversity. “The Creative Europe programme provides support for European networks to help the cultural and creative sectors to operate transnationally and to strengthen their competiveness.” The foundational services provided are: 1. specific skills and experience for workforce 2. cultural and creative workforce to cooperate internationally 3. creative new opportunities10 Recently there has been an open call for proposals to Creative Europe to integrate migrants and refugees. This an example of a supranational initiative aimed to provide services for linguistic and cultural training. This educational and cultural service may be delivered through community organizations in addition to through universities.

Pop, Valentina and Laurence Norman. 2016. “EU Leaders to Present Joint Offer on Migration Crisis to Turkey.” Wall Street Journal. March 17, 2016. Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-leadersgather-to-negotiate-migration-deal-with-turkey-1458228884 10 European Commission. 2016. Creative Europe. European Networks. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/opportunities/culture-support/eu-networks_en.htm “Creative Europe launches call for refugee integration.” Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/news/2016/0310-refugee-integration-projects_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/opportunities/cross-sector-support/migration_en.htm 9

12


Focus on Visegrád countries As countries joined the EU, their traditions shaped the landscape of higher education governance in Europe. Neighboring countries have engaged in political cooperation over time, and preceding years of interactions have fostered openness among countries willing to cooperate in the dimension of higher education policy. The Bologna Process is large enough, in the ideological sense, to accommodate various higher educational traditions from across countries. The criteria put forward by the Bologna Process – on degrees, quality assurance, and recognition across countries – while demanding, is not as stringent as to limit higher education institutions to continue to develop aligned with their national traditions. In some cases, such as for countries that had emerged from authoritarian rule in previous decades, the Bologna Process has coincided with the opportunity to embrace new democratic values and academic field studies in the social sciences, international economics, and business management. The Visegrád four countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia have had similar skeptical attitudes to migration and varying participation in higher education mobility. They have been among the most resistant to incoming migrants and refugees. There are multiple reasons – explained by politics, economics, and culture – for their criticism to open migration. Politically, as new democracies since the early 1990s, it has only been a generation that has experienced the governance transition. Considering the recent changes in governance with transition to democracy, citizens remain dedicated to their national polity and democracy (Olsen 2010). Economically, given the resources required to provide social services for integration of migrants, the populations of not been supportive. Culturally, the integration of cultural diverse mostly Muslim religion migrants into traditionally Christina Europe, leaders in the Visegrád countries have been critical. The Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, has specified the cultural reason of religion to be a defining characteristic of Europe (Mackey 2015). In September 2015 he worked with the Hungarian government to set up a limited passage at the border. As party to these three agreements – the Dublin Regulation for asylum seekers, rules on Frontex for the external border of the EU, and Schengen Agreement – Hungary has made modifications to the open borders in response to the irregular migrant patterns in 2015. Mr. Orban has requested not to be criticized for providing national protections, he said. The EU leaders did not have a better recommendation than he proposed wall, he said. They do not wish to give false illusions to people risking their lives through travel, he commented in the press conference at the European Commission (Mackey 2015). While Hungary has been among the countries most resistant to migration, it is among the most highly scoring countries for incoming and outgoing mobility of higher education of students through educational exchange (Eurydice 2015:229, 231). This may be explained by the ethnic Hungarian minority in the seven border countries surrounding Hungary who choose higher education within the country. Considering higher education mobility, on balance there are more incoming students than outgoing students coming into Hungary and the Czech Republic from within and beyond the EHEA, with the ratio for Incoming:Outgoing of 2:1 for Hungary and 13


3:1 for the Czech Republic (Eurydice 2015:238). Hungary is among a group of countries that has set goals for educational mobility abroad, specifically 20,000 students by 2020 (European Commission 2015:227). The United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, Austria, and The Netherlands have the most incoming international students from countries originating within the EHEA (Eurydice 2015:234). Spain remains the top country destination for Erasmus students followed by Germany and France.11 The initial target of 20 percent for student mobility was set in 2012 with the “Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA.” Since then there has been less influence on the quantitative target. Countries with smaller populations such as Luxembourg and Lithuania, have sent approximately 14 percent of students abroad for a period of at least three months, are closer to the previously established target (Eurydice 2015:236).

Figure 4: Source: Eurostat. 2016. Share of Non-Nationals in the Resident Population. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_nonnationals_in_the_resident_population,_1_January_2014_(%25)_YB15.png

The Visegrád countries have among the fewest non-nationals in the resident population in the EU (Figure 4). The resistance to international migration is ongoing, while relatively the countries remain more open to participate in educational exchanges. Slovak Prime Minister, Robert Fico,

European Commission. 2014. “Another record breaking year for Erasmus.” Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-821_en.htm 11

14


remains ready to cooperate with neighboring countries, Austria and Hungary, to deter migration (Euractiv 2016). The Czech Republic’s populist president Milos Zeman and prime minister Bohuslav Sobotka have both been outspoken about migrants. The migration concerns have intensified anti-EU sentiment from these countries. Sobotka has remarked that if the United Kingdom votes to leave the EU (in the referendum to take place on June 23), then the Czech Republic would debate the issue seriously. The majority of Czech citizens oppose accepting any refugees, and 62 percent are unhappy with EU membership (EurActiv 2016). It remains challenging to determine the true status of migrants, who are refugees escaping political persecution and are individuals benefiting from the open borders to pursue economic opportunity. Since March the Turks have negotiated with the EU to stop migrants in their country, which will inhibit their entry into the EU prior to the determination of migrant status. Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo has supported the Turkish proposal, of mid-March 2016, to deter migrants as useful to address the migrant crisis (Reuters 2016). Szydlo is among the central European leaders who have refused to accepted a national quota for refugees. These leaders remain the most outspoken in the diplomacy of migration, and support positions of relative protectionism supported by nationalism values. While on the issue of higher policy, the Bologna Process reforms continue to be implemented with an effort towards internationalization.

Conclusions Since the Bologna Process was launched in 1999 the internationalization of higher education has driven higher education mobility as part of the policy reform at the national level. The mobility working group of the Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) has reported periodically over the past two ministerial conferences in 2012 and 2015. The 48 countries that have become members of the EHEA have the ultimate goal for recognition of academic degrees across countries. This is attained by assimilating degree structure and national quality assurance. Ultimately the countries in the EHEA will recognize academic degrees from countries within this higher education space. The intention is that the recognition of academic degrees will strengthen the common market with the four freedoms of goods, services, labor, and capital. This paper has provided an analysis of two types of movement in Europe: higher education mobility and migration policies. There has been a discussion of recent trends in migration in the EU and higher education in the EHEA. The analysis has proceeded from the theoretical background centered on regional policy diffusion, the mobility in higher education, policy responses in higher education to migration trends in Europe, and focus on Visegrád countries. This research has considered policies for higher education reform and migration as intergovernmentalism and Europeanization. The changing in the regional and global landscape brings about a change in norms. The three principle parts of norm dynamics are: emergence, cascade, and internalization (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). As policy initiatives for mobility are introduced, and as migrants are brought into Europe’s community, there is a diffusion or cascade of ideas. Theoretically the policy diffusion begins with an idea shared internationally, which precedes the idea’s policy implementation and norm integration (Berry and Berry 2014; Börzel and Risse 2012). 15


Bringing together, mobility in higher education and migration, a closer look at the Visegrád countries shows that they have among the fewest non-nationals in their population. While the most mobile students are in Hungary and the Czech Republic, the variation depends partially on national funding available to students. These policy processes in higher education contribute to the evolving conceptions of the knowledge economy in Europe and in the world. The Bologna Process has implications for Europe and for other world regions that learn from this example of international cooperation and institutional change (Raivio 2008). A specific goal for higher education in the Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA has been that 20 percent of students will spend at least three months abroad. This is supported by Erasmus, the European Commission’s flagship academic exchange program since 1986. There have been more recent initiatives to support countries beyond the EU in educational exchange with Erasmus+. Concerning integration of migrants, the European Commission’s program of Creative Europe, established in 2014, is applying economic and educational resources to serve refugee communities throughout the EU. The EU supports refugees through Creative Europe and Erasmus+ for students enrolled in universities, as it makes efforts in cooperation with Member States towards a comprehensive migration policy. The paradox for the EU freedom of movement is the contrary policy objectives in mobility for these two groups of people: for migrants and for higher education of students. Due to irregular patterns over the past year, the objective is to manage migration through a system of national quotas in order to stem the tide of unregulated mobility. By comparison, given the idea and values for internationalization, the Mobility Strategy 2020 for the EHEA aims to support additional mobility of people through academic exchanges. There are political, economic, and cultural reasons for the distinctions in the intentions of policies for both groups. While migrants may stay in a country indefinitely and require economic resources and social services for an unlimited period, students most often are the country for a limited period. Reasons for engagement in educational mobility include access and impact for intercultural dialogue and building a global community (Deardorff 2014:27). This mobility may ultimately support the mobility of labor, one of the common market’s four freedoms. The mobility taking place in Europe, through higher education exchanges and migration, is providing a new perspective on the freedom of movement in the common market.

16


Bibliography: Amaral, Alberto and Guy Neave. 2008. "On Process, Progress, Success and Methodology or the Unfolding of the Bologna Process as it Appears to Two Reasonably Benign Observers." Higher Education Quarterly 62:1/2, 40-62. Batory, Agnes and Nicole Lindstrom. 2011. “The Power of the Purse: Supranational Entrepreneurship, Financial Incentives, and European Higher Education Policy,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 24:2 (April), 311-329. Berry, Frances Stokes and William D. Berry. 2014. “Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research.” In Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (Eds.) Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Börzel, Tanja A. and Thomas Risse. 2012. “From Europeanisation to Diffusion: Introduction.” West European Politics 35:1, 1-19. Collier, Paul. 2013. Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Corbett, Anne. 2005. Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education 1955-2005. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Cramme, Olaf and Sara B. Hobolt. 2015. Democratic Politics in a European Union Under Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deardorff, Darla K. 2014. “Why engage in mobility?” In Bernhard Streitwieser (Ed.) Internationalisation of Higher Education and Global Mobility. Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd. The Economist. 2016. “Big, bad Visegrád.” January 30, 2016. The Economist. 2016. “Europe’s migrant crisis in numbers.” February 6, 2016. EHEA Ministerial Conference. 2015. “The 2015-2016 BFUG Working Group on Mobility and Internationalisation.” Available from: http://bologna-yerevan2015.ehea.info/files/MI%20WG%20Report.pdf EHEA Ministerial Conference. 2012. “Mobility for Better Learning: Mobility Strategy 2020 for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).” Available from: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/(1)/2012%20EHEA%20Mobility%20Strategy.pdf Enders, Jürgen and Ben Jongbloed (Eds.). 2007. Public-Private Dynamics in Higher Education: Expectations, Developments and Outcomes. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers. European Commission. 2016. “Creative Europe launches call for refugee integration.” Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/news/2016/0310-refugee-integrationprojects_en.htm European Commission. 2016. Education and Migrants. “Erasmus+ Helping Refugees.” Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/migration/index_en.htm

17


European Commission. 2016. Education and Training. “Erasmus+ programme.” Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/statistics_en.htm European Commission. 2015. Towards a Comprehensive European Migration Policy: 20 Years of EU Action. March 4, 2015. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-154544_en.htm European Commission. 2014. “Another record breaking year for Erasmus.” Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-821_en.htm European Commission. 2013a. “European Higher Education in the World.” COM(2013) 499 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. July 11, 2013. European Commission. 2013b. Memo: Erasmus Programme in 2011-2012: The Figures Explained. July 8, 2013. European Commission. 2011. “Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher education systems.” COM 2011 (567) final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. September 20, 2011. European Commission. 1997. “Towards a Europe of Knowledge.” COM (97) 563 final. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. November 12, 1997. Euractiv. 2016. “Schengen in crisis as Belgium reintroduces border controls.” February 23, 2016. Eurostat. 2016. Europe 2020 Indicators – Education. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators__education Eurydice: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. 2015. The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Available from: http://bologna-yerevan2015.ehea.info/files/2015%20Implementation%20report_20.05.2015.pdf Fargues, Philippe, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, Giambattista Salinari, and Madeleine Sumption. 2011. “Shared Challenges and Opportunities for EU and US Immigration Policymakers.” European University Institute and Migration Policy Institute Report. Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization, 52:4 (Autumn), 887-917. Keeling, Ruth. 2006. “The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: The European Commission’s Expanding Role in Higher Education Discourse.” European Journal of Education, 41:2, 203-223. Loomis, Steven and Jacob Rodriguez. 2009. "Institutional Change and Higher Education." Higher Education 58:4 (October), 475-489.

18


Mackey, Robert. 2016. “Hungarian Leader Rebuked for Saying Muslim Migrants Must Be Blocked ‘to Keep Europe Christian’” New York Times. September 3, 2015. Moravcsik, Andrew and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2009. “Liberal Intergovernmentalism.” In Wiener, Antje and Thomas Diez (Eds.). European Integration Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olsen, Johan. P. 2010. Governing through Institution Building: Institutional Theory and Recent European Experiments in Democratic Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pamuk, Humeyra and Gabriela Baczynska. 2016. “EU welcomes bold Turkey plan to stop migrants, defers decision.” Reuters. March 8, 2016. Patrick, Stewart. 2016. “An Ever-Looser Union.” Foreign Affairs. March 29, 2016. Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Analysis, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pierson, Paul. 1996. “The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 29:2,123-163. Pollack, Mark A. 2009. “The New Institutionalism and European Integration.” In Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (Eds.). European Integration Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125-143. Putnam, Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42:3 (Summer), 427-460. Raivio, Kari. 2008. “University Reform – A Prerequisite for Success of Knowledge-Based Economy?” In Carmelo Mazza, Paolo Quattrone and Angelo Riccaboni (Eds,). European Universities in Transition: Issues, Models, and Cases. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, viii-xviii. Risse, Thomas. 2009. “Social Constructivism and European Integration.” In Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (Eds.). European Integration Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144-169. Rosamond, Ben. 2002. “Imagining the European Economy: ‘Competitiveness’ and the Social Construction of ‘Europe’ as an Economic Space.” New Political Economy 7:2, 157-177. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2009. “The EU and its Member States: From Bottom Up to Top Down.” In David Phinnemore and Alex Warleigh-Lack (Eds.). Reflections on European Integration: 50 Years of the Treaty of Rome. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 194-211. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2005. “Democracy in Europe: The Impact of European Integration.” Perspectives on Politics 3:4 (December), 761-779. Spring, Joel. 2009. Globalization of Education: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Sumption, Madeleine, Demetrios G. Papademetriou, and Sarah Flamm. 2013. Skilled Immigrants in the Global Economy: Prospects for International Cooperation on Recognition of Foreign Qualifications. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute. 19