Geographies of educational mobilities: exploring the uneven flows of international students

Richard Perkins, Eric Neumayer

Geographical Journal · 2013 · 241 citations · 36 references

Concepts

TL;DR

International student flows are increasing but remain highly uneven across source and destination countries. The study aims to clarify how motives, class advantage, and national competitiveness shape variations in international student mobility. The authors use a theoretical framework linking geographic differentiation advantages of foreign study with labor‑migration cost‑benefit insights. Statistical analysis shows that destination income, colonial ties, language, and migrant stocks drive student flows more than university quality, with distinct determinants across developed and developing countries, suggesting finer country categorizations are needed.

Abstract

A growing number of individuals are choosing to study abroad although, like other manifestations of globalisation, the sources and destinations of these migratory flows are highly uneven. Within the context of ongoing debates about the motives for overseas study, the reproduction of class advantage, and countries' competitive advantage for internationally mobile students, this paper seeks to improve understanding of these variations. We situate international student mobilities within a theoretical framework which connects recent work in geography, emphasising the differentiation advantage derived from foreign study, with insights more commonly applied to labour migration which emphasise costs and benefits. Our findings, based on a statistical analysis of a large sample of country pairs, call into question the central importance commonly ascribed to countries' university quality in shaping the mobilities of international students. Far more influential is income in destination countries, together with relational ties created by colonial linkages, common language and pre‐existing migrant stocks. Unique to the literature, we not only demonstrate important differences in the determinants of international student mobilities between developed and developing countries, but also between different sub‐groupings of developing countries. Indeed, an important insight from our study is that it may be useful to move beyond binary classifications, and to deploy more refined country categorisations in seeking to understand contemporary corporeal mobilities.

References

36