12. Regional cooperation in higher education
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar
Lorenzo
12.1
INTRODUCTION
Higher education has, like many other public or semi-public functions, been coordinated by
governments since the rise of the nation state (Neave, 2001), be it at the national and/or the
sub-national level (in countries where such competences are devolved). From a historical
perspective, the need for such coordination was clear: governments had to ensure that their
higher education institutions (HEIs) prepared the workforce needed for the state’s public tasks.
To function properly, the state required well-trained professionals – for example, lawyers,
economists, political scientists – to run the state bureaucracy. But it also needed to take care of
‘manpower planning’ in various public domains, for example doctors and nurses in the field of
health, teachers in education, and a well-trained military force to protect the country.
Two key drivers have put regional cooperation firmly on the higher education agenda.
Chou and Ravinet (2015, p. 361) point at a political driver that has been influential in various
domains: the call for regional cooperation in a multi-polar post-Cold War world. In this
context, higher education was used to strengthen ties between allies, but simultaneously was
also used as a diplomatic tool to build relationships with new partners, including actors at
the other end of the political spectrum. The second driver they distinguish relates to the key
resource in higher education: knowledge. Teaching and learning in higher education entail the
dissemination and application of knowledge, whereas research is about the discovery, conservation, and refinement of knowledge (Clark, 1983). With the increasing salience of knowledge
as a key – if not pivotal – resource of post-World War II economies and societies, nation states
seek collaboration in the ‘handling of knowledge’ at the regional level. In the present context,
in which anticipatory futures define contemporary governance, knowledge remains firmly
rooted in policymaking around the world.
Before nation states emerged, academics and students had already been crossing borders for
ages and likewise had collaborated in international research activities (Schneegans and Soete,
this volume). The difference is that those international – including regional – collaborations
were largely driven by individual motives of scholars and students as free movers along
established and organised networks (Pietsch, 2010; Pietsch and Chou, 2018). Only recently
have national governments and supranational organisations come into the picture for the
development of policies, regulations, etc. to institutionalise regional endeavours by configuring existing networks and creating new ones. This top-down development would be labelled
as regionalism, and this has led Chou and Ravinet (2015, p. 368) to define higher education
regionalism as a ‘political project of region creation’. However, HEIs also played important
roles in these developments, both as implementers of policy initiatives and as proactive agents
at the regional level in the global knowledge economy. Here the concept of regionalisation
would be most appropriate. In this chapter, we use regional cooperation to capture these
266
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 267
multi-directional and multi-level developments, highlighting the political and policy efforts,
as well as the implementation outcomes.
Regional cooperation in higher education occurs in several forms, reflecting the participating policy and institutional actors’ strategy for realising their higher education and policy
ambitions. The dominant form is intra-regional, which is manifested in collaboration between
states and institutions within the world’s recognised geographical areas. The second observed
form of regional cooperation is inter-regional, which is seen in collaboration between entities
across two distinct geographical regions, and often involving regional organisations as key
actors in this undertaking, along with states, institutions, and agencies active in this sector.
The third form of regional cooperation is trans-regional. We use trans-regional to refer to
regional cooperation that does not conform to intra-regionalism and ‘pure’ inter-regionalism
(De Lombaerde et al., 2015). Following De Lombaerde et al. (2015, p. 755), we apply
trans-regionalism to draw ‘attention to a more flexible understanding and conceptualisation
of region/regional organization’, which encompasses a variety of cooperation configurations
(e.g., region-to-state, or state-to-state across multiple geographical regions). In the higher
education sector, trans-regionalism is also on the rise, and a recent example includes the many
higher education and university alliances that China and its higher education institutions have
launched within the broader Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) (see, Cabanda et al., 2019; van der
Wende et al., 2020). As can already be seen, the variety of regional higher education cooperation points to the significance of the regional dimension for states and institutions in their
responses to internal and external demands of this sector.
This chapter provides an overview of regional cooperation in higher education and is
structured as follows. First, the rationales motivating key stakeholders to develop and embrace
regional higher education agendas are unpacked. Second, a picture of what has been put in
place in the various regions to further support these regional agendas is painted; the many
forms of regional cooperation that these efforts have taken are also showcased. Third, the outcomes and impacts are addressed. The final section discusses what could lie ahead for regional
higher education cooperation, reflecting on the findings and the growing complexity of policy
challenges confronting our collective futures.
12.2
WHY COOPERATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION AT THE
REGIONAL LEVEL?
The rationales for regional collaboration in the higher education sector are diverse, have
evolved over time, and reflect the specific historical contexts within which these developments
take place. It is important to point out that these rationales have emerged from, and are shaped
by, nation-state-building efforts, broader regional developments, internationalisation, and globalisation. In short, examining regional cooperation in the higher education sector is a study
into state formation and how the three key institutions of contemporary life – the state, the
market, and the university – interact in a continually interdependent world. This chapter identifies five sets of rationales motivating policy and institutional actors at multiple governance
levels to engage in higher education regional cooperation: human resource development; political development; social-cultural development; commercial trade; and academic development
(cf., de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2015). It is tempting to associate particular rationales exclusively
with the state, the market, or the university, but the discussion shows that these rationales are
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
268
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
not mutually exclusive, and actors affiliated with these three key institutions have invoked
them simultaneously as the raison d’être behind various regional initiatives at different points
in time. Indeed, these rationales intersect, overlap, and compete to steer regional higher education cooperation efforts.
The human resource development rationale stresses the idea that regional cooperation in
the higher education sector contributes to a state’s ability to develop and train its domestic
manpower (capacity planning). This rationale is observable among countries that are small or
newly independent and are unable to provide high-level education for all citizens at the time
due to, for instance, the high costs or lack of human resources associated with this undertaking.
One adopted approach has been joining forces with neighbouring countries or same/similar
language countries. Cooperation in the Nordic countries may serve as an illustration, with
the Nordic Council of Ministers, established in 1952, developing specific regional strategies
and activities, including higher education (Maassen et al., 2008). Concrete policies were
developed regarding student mobility and institutional networking (Nordplus) and agreements
on student admission in the region (Elken et al., 2015). The contemporary examples of establishing regional education hubs can be seen as the next step in this evolution (e.g., Singapore’s
Global Schoolhouse initiative for Southeast Asia).
The political development rationale emphasises the role of diplomacy in regional higher
education cooperation. Here, diplomacy is a form of soft power, ‘a government’s process of
communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its nation’s
ideas and ideals, its institutions and culture, as well as its national goals and current policies’
(Tuch, 1990, p. 3). The diplomacy approach is clearly visible in China’s many university
alliances launched within the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (Xu, 2021). One example
would be the University Alliance of the Silk Road (UASR), led by Xi’an Jiaotong University
and formally established in May 2015. The UASR connects at least 150 universities based
in more than 38 countries around the world (UASR, 2015). Another example of regional
diplomacy is South Africa’s role in knowledge diplomacy in the African continent (Ogunnubi
and Shawa, 2017). The political development rationale also drives former colonial powers to
continue working with countries in Africa, for example, in the context of the Association of
Commonwealth Universities (ACU). In this example, inter- and trans-regional collaboration
clearly intersect; there is cooperation between universities across all continents, but also specific sub-regional collaboration (East and South Africa).
The social-cultural development rationale points to the importance of fostering shared
values through regional higher education cooperation. The ERASMUS programme, launched
by the European Commission in 1987, is an example. In the early days, one of the objectives
of the ERASMUS programme was to increase social-cultural understanding among Europe’s
young people through academic exchanges. The policy idea was straightforward: through
student mobility within Europe, ERASMUS students would broaden their horizons, and
acquire cultural awareness of other European countries. Ultimately, a set of shared European
values would emerge, leading to a more united Europe. These aims are still visible, but different terms are used to stress the importance of the values of social inclusion, Sustainable
Development Goals, democracy, and academic freedom in the current programme (EHEA,
2020). The economic rationale – not so visible in the early stages of ERASMUS – has gained
importance in the context of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The EHEA project
not only aims at establishing joint social-cultural values, but also emphasises employability,
skills and knowledge, digitisation, and excellence. While these examples illustrate that rationMeng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 269
ales may shift over time, they also reveal that many policies and strategies pursue a combination of rationales.
The economic or commercial trade rationale driving regional higher education cooperation
seeks to enhance domestic economies and ongoing efforts in the global competition for the
best and brightest. The European Union’s (EU) Lisbon Strategy (2000, para. 5, emphasis original) was a clear example of a supranational initiative that prioritised this rationale:
The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth
with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.
At the national level, this rationale is visible in two forms of competition: first, for the best
students, which oftentimes include many fee-paying international students who directly
contribute to the economies of their host countries through their significantly higher tuition
fees, accommodation costs, everyday consumption, and more. For countries experiencing
skill shortages and demographic challenges, international students continue to financially
contribute after graduation, when they enter the labour markets of the host countries through
post-study visa pathways. Second, countries and their HEIs compete for academic and scientific talents who contribute to the domestic knowledge economy through: training the needed
knowledge manpower, research outputs, and innovation. Regional cooperation strategies often
emphasise the need to make the region attractive for international students and foreign talents
(brain gain), but also for domestic and regional talents (to curb brain drain). The EU’s directives on students and researchers who are third-country nationals, and measures concerning the
portability of supplementary pensions and researcher recruitment are policy examples (Chou,
2012; Cerna and Chou, 2014).
The academic development rationale in regional activities instrumentalises the basic motivations driving individual scholars and students to cross borders: the refinement of existing
knowledge, and the exposure to and acquisition of new knowledge. As indicated in the
introduction, international and regional collaborations have been part and parcel of academia:
scholars have looked for – and found – colleagues abroad to carry out research projects,
co-publish, and apply for research funding. Likewise, academics have developed cooperative
activities with foreign colleagues in education, through, for example, inviting guest lecturers,
exchanging students, and developing joint programmes. Prestige has always been significant
in these developments. For instance, in medieval Europe, students of medicine, canon law, and
civil law flocked to Bologna, and those interested in the arts and theology sought admission
at Oxford and Paris (de Ridder-Symoens, 1991). In the contemporary prestige economy,
global university rankings have revealed where so-called ‘top universities’ are concentrated.
Policy and institutional actors collaborate at the regional level (as well as nationally and
institutionally) to enhance their prestige through a variety of measures, but most prominently
through funding. While national examples abound (e.g., China’s Double World-Class Project,
Japan’s Top Global University Project), Europe’s Horizon Europe and European Universities
Initiative are regional policy examples.
In the next section, we look more closely at the developments across the different regions,
identifying the key policy and organisational actors, and the policy instruments introduced
for regional higher education cooperation. Our overview is inspired by Knight’s (2014, 2016)
functional, organisational, and political approaches (FOPA), as well as Chou and Ravinet’s
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
270
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
(2015, 2017) higher education regionalism approach. We show that regional cooperation in the
higher education sector around the world is highly diverse, yet also similar in its focused areas.
Indeed, the mobility of students, staff, and faculty, quality assurance, qualification recognition,
and credit transfer are found to be common themes across all regions – invoking, in their own
ways, the above-mentioned rationales for regional cooperation.
12.3
REGIONAL COOPERATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AND LATIN AMERICA
The review here is necessarily incomplete, as it only covers the regions of Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Latin America, and does not include the Middle East and North America. The
case selection is guided by a balanced consideration of coverage (breadth), details of regional
higher education cooperation (depth), and contemporary developments (update). Based on the
assessed literature, a comprehensive review of higher education regional cooperation has yet
to proliferate the knowledge on the subject (cf., de Prado Yepes, 2006; Robertson et al., 2016;
Egron-Polak and Marinoni, 2021), thus, this review seeks to contribute to this much-needed
literature.
To discuss regional developments in the higher education sector around the world, it is
important to also recognise the importance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in kick-starting, supporting, and even steering regional
cooperation. For instance, in Asia, UNESCO introduced one of the earliest policy instruments
for regional higher education cooperation: the 1983 Regional Convention on the Recognition
of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok
Convention); now the Tokyo Convention. In Europe, some of the current initiatives build
on UNESCO’s 1997 Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher
Education in the European Region (Lisbon Convention). In Latin America, it was the 2008
UNESCO Regional Conference on Higher Education that launched the Espacio de Encuentro
Latinamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior (ENLACES) (Cox, 2016; Gacel-Ávila,
2018). In Africa, UNESCO plays a more central role in driving regional developments in
higher education, for example the Arusha Convention.
12.3.1
Europe
In this region, collaboration can be traced back to the period shortly after World War II.
Initially there was a focus on democracy and human rights, leading for example to the formation of the Council of Europe in 1949. But economic rationales became visible in the 1950s
with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. However, since the 1957 Rome
Treaty – effectively the start of the European Economic Community – higher education has not
appeared on the agenda to a great extent (but see Corbett, 2005). Only in the Maastricht Treaty
(EU, 1992) was higher education recognised as an EU competency. The main reason why it
took so long relates to the general feeling across member states that educational policies were
and should be primarily national. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty echoes this:
The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation
between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 271
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of
education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
But long before there was political agreement in the Maastricht Treaty, there were several
initiatives from the EU to support cooperation. The EU’s flagship programme ERASMUS
offers financial support to students intending to spend a period of study at a university outside
their home country. Initially, it only supported physically mobile students from EU member
states for periods of 6 to 12 months, but the programme now also includes short study visits,
extensive language courses, blended learning, and internships. It also allows students and
institutions from non-EU members to participate. ERASMUS likewise financially supports
staff who intend to cross the national border to cooperate with colleagues in teaching and
learning. Another extension of the programme pertains to other cooperative actions between
European universities that aim to reach European higher education objectives (the European
Universities Initiative).
However, these clear examples of regionalism – as in supranational initiatives – do not
convey the full story. The Sorbonne (1998) and Bologna Declarations (1999) show that
regionalisation processes were important as well. Initially these were bottom-up processes in
which member states promised to work on the following action lines: contribute to a system
of easily readable and comparable degrees, a system based on two main cycles, a system of
credits, promotion of student and staff mobility, the establishment of European cooperation
in quality assurance and the promotion of European dimensions in higher education (Bologna
Declaration, 1999). Witte (2006) convincingly argues that some of the elements within the
preceding Sorbonne Declaration can be traced back to solving domestic problems in its
four signatory countries. But – as Witte also witnesses – the Sorbonne/Bologna agendas
also emerged because member states were confronted with challenges that emerged from
increasing levels of internationalisation in higher education, partly spurred by the ERASMUS
programme. The increase in mobility triggered national governments to develop policies and
instruments for credit and diploma recognition and comparable quality standards, etc.
Bi-annual meetings were planned in the Bologna Process to take stock of achievements,
and change – where needed – the action lines (see Kehm et al., 2009; Witte 2006; Huisman,
2014). Importantly, the Bologna Process, through the additional activities and support of the
European Commission, consultative members (e.g., the European Universities Association
and the Council of Europe), and partners, evolved into a multi-level, multi-actor governance
process. Importantly, in this process, the boundaries of what constitutes the European region
became relatively fuzzy, with many partner countries outside the EU becoming signatories
to the Bologna Process, without being member states (Norway, Switzerland) or while being
geographically outside of Europe (Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan).
Concrete activities and policies that stem from the intra- and supra-governmental agendas
relate to quality assurance (through the development of the European Standards and
Guidelines that give direction to quality assurance mechanisms and procedures), mobility
(ERASMUS programme), credit and degree recognition (European Qualification Framework,
National Qualification Frameworks, the credit transfer system and Diploma Supplement), and
educational programmes (ERASMUS Mundus joint study programmes). At the same time,
important elements like the social dimension, have hardly been operationalised and implemented (Yagci, 2014).
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
272
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
Whereas undoubtedly most policies in the European region are geared towards intra-regional
activities of cooperation, many individual countries and the EU have developed important
trans-regional projects. For instance, many countries continue to maintain strong bonds
with former colonies in Africa and Latin America. Also, the European Commission pays
considerable attention to trans-regional activities, such as specific mobility programmes and
partnership programmes with, for example, the US, Canada, China, and Brazil (Balbachevsky
et al., 2020), and with other regions through inter-regionalism on quality assurance (e.g., the
Harmonization of African Higher Education Quality Assurance and Accreditation initiative).
The case of the European region shows the piecemeal addition of various elements to
a framework of policies and initiatives, both through bottom-up and top-down layering –
a governance mode that we also find in other world regions (see below), be it that the European
developments are more strongly driven by supranational powers (EU) than in other regions. At
the same time, some observers (see Vukasovic et al., 2017) warn that the political interest of
national governments is decreasing. This does not mean that the regionalisation/regionalism
project is cracking at the seams, but there are important countervailing responses. For instance,
several cases have been brought to the European Court of Justice (see e.g., Kwikkers and van
Wageningen, 2012) in which national governments take issue with the free movement of
students, pointing at overcrowded domestic programmes and international students returning
home upon graduation, which raises important questions about who is paying for the education
of international students. Also, with Brexit and the rise of neonationalism in various European
countries, important internationalisation and cooperation activities in the region are seriously
under pressure (van der Wende, 2021).
12.3.2
Asia
In Asia, regional cooperation in higher education is a multi-speed affair, with varying levels
of bottom-up and top-down intensities. Developments are concentrated in specific sub-regions
(i.e., Southeast Asia, East Asia, Asia-Pacific), and there have been recent initiatives attempting
to connect sub-region-wide developments into a coherent ‘Asian higher education region’.
It is also in Asia that we observe several active examples of inter-regional cooperation and
the rise of trans-regional higher education cooperation through China’s many university
alliance-building efforts in the BRI context.
The earliest regional cooperation in higher education emerged in Southeast Asia. The
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) was set up in 1965 to facilitate regional cooperation in the areas of education, science, and culture, with a regional centre
dedicated to higher education and development (RIHED). Kuroda (2016, p. 143) notes that
the ‘first intergovernmental meeting focusing on education within the ASEAN [Association
of Southeast Asian Nations] framework of education ministers was held in Manila in 1977’,
and the meeting covered many aspects of education, including vocational education and even
an ASEAN university. It was not until the 1990s and 2000s that regional higher education
cooperation in Southeast Asia picked up pace. In 1993, SEAMEO-RIHED was reorganised
and relocated to Bangkok and remains the key intergovernmental forum for higher education
capacity building in Southeast Asia; its policies and measures apply to all HEIs in the region
(Hirosato, 2019). SEAMEO-RIHED oversees the implementation of the ASEAN International
Mobility for Students programme and the Academic Credit Transfer Framework for Asia with
the Asian Development Bank’s support (Chao, 2020). In 1995, ASEAN member states set
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 273
up the ASEAN University Network (AUN) as a unit within its regional organisation. AUN is
an elite university network designed to ‘hasten the development of a “regional identity” and
solidarity and promote “human resources development” by considering ways to strengthen
the existing network of leading universities and institutions of higher learning in the ASEAN
region’ (AUN, 1995). Responsible for 17 Thematic Networks (each network focuses on an
academic subject), Hirosato (2019, p. 13) considers it to be a key driver of the ‘harmonization
process in the region, primarily through AUN Quality Assurance (AUN-QA) and the ASEAN
Credit Transfer System (ACTS)’.
Turning to the Asia-Pacific and East Asia, we find a proliferation of trans-regional higher
education cooperation activities. In 1991, governments of Asia-Pacific countries established
the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP), the Asian ERASMUS (Hirosato,
2019), to promote student exchange between their universities. Currently with over 570
member universities from more than 35 countries/territories, UMAP has set up multilateral
(programme A) and bilateral (programme B) student exchanges and introduced the pioneering
UMAP Credit Transfer Scheme. In 1997, the Presidents of UCLA, Berkeley, Caltech, and
the University of Southern California established the Association of Pacific Rim Universities
(APRU). With a membership of 61 research universities in the Pacific Rim, APRU is the
Asia-Pacific equivalent of AUN. In 2003, the Asia-Pacific Quality Network was created to
‘enhance the quality of higher education’ of 53 countries/territories in Asia (including South
and Central Asian states). The network introduced the Chiba Principles in 2008 as the basis
for quality assurance in the region. In 2006, the ministers attending the Asia-Pacific Education
Ministers’ Meeting adopted the Brisbane Communiqué, inspired by Europe’s Bologna Process.
The Communiqué emphasised the significance of quality assurance and mutual recognition in
the region’s academic mobility. The governments of China, Japan, and South Korea initiated
the Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Studies in Asia (CAMPUS Asia) in
2010, with the aim of providing quality student exchanges between their universities. Kuroda
(2016, p. 147) summed up these developments best when he said:
Although the organizations [and initiatives] include names such as Asia-Pacific and Pacific Rim, they
are diverse and have not been able to configure or converge into a single region in terms of higher
education.
Since the mid-2000s, however, there have been efforts to bridge the divide through ASEAN+3
(ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea), ASEAN+6 (ASEAN+3, Australia, New Zealand,
and India), and the East Asia Summits.
Another important development is the trans-regional higher education cooperation with
Europe. In 1996, the governments of Europe and Asia set up the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM,
n.d.) as an informal forum within which exchanges and discussions can take place that concern
Asia and Europe. Since 2008, ASEM education ministers, together with EU and ASEAN
representatives, have been meeting every two years to develop the ASEM Education Process
towards an ASEM Education Area. In 2015, the EU and ASEAN launched the European
Union Support to Higher Education in the ASEAN Region (SHARE). SHARE seeks to:
… strengthen regional cooperation [within ASEAN, and between ASEAN and the EU], [and] enhance
the quality, competitiveness and internationalisation of ASEAN HEIs and students, contributing to an
ASEAN Community. The main aim is to enhance cooperation between the EU and ASEAN to create
an ASEAN Higher Education Space. (SHARE, 2021; see Chou, 2022)
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
274
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
Finally, while a newcomer to contemporary university alliance building, China has been spearheading some of the newest alliances. Feng and Gao (2020, p. 104) identified 20 university
consortia along the New Silk Road; several have been created after the formal launch of the
BRI in 2013, including the UASR (see above) in 2015 and the Asian Universities Alliance
(AUA) in 2016/2017. Led by Tsinghua University, the AUA connects 15 comprehensive
research universities in Asia over a range of activities, including exchange (students, faculty),
research collaboration, and high-level strategy and policy developments (Cabanda et al.,
2019).
Regional higher education cooperation in Asia is distinct from the case of Europe (see
above). Kuroda (2016, p. 154) argues that Asian higher education cooperation represents a
‘mosaic harmonization’ approach, which ‘seeks many points of connection, as in a mosaic’.
He contrasts this with what he considers Europe’s ‘melting-pot harmonization’ approach,
which ‘aims at a one-size-fits-all standard’. Also contrasting developments in (Southeast) Asia
with those in Europe, Yavaprabhas (2014, p. 101) observes that:
The harmonization in Europe can be compared to the orchestra management with the Bologna process
as a conductor for others to play along. … In Southeast Asia, however, the harmonization process is
more like the ‘jazz management,’ with focus more on the improvisation of every player who takes
turns to be the leader.
In their comparison of European and Southeast Asian higher education regionalisms, Chou
and Ravinet (2017, p. 154) suggest that the European case is ‘one led by a flagship known
as Bologna’ and the Southeast Asian case is like a regatta, with different regional bodies
promoting their own initiatives and policy instruments. The ways in which existing and new
Asian regional higher education initiatives may or may not intersect and reinforce each other
remains to be seen.
12.3.3
Africa
In Africa, the need to reform the region’s higher education as embedded within a knowledge
economy is anchored in the objectives of poverty mitigation and sustainable development
(Shabani, 2008). Intra-regional collaboration could already be observed in the wake of
Africa’s independence in the 1960s. Woldegiorgis (2017) notes that such collaboration was
seen as a mechanism to give legitimacy to the newly formed African governments and to
pursue pan-African nationalism and solidarity that can resist imperialism. UNESCO and the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) were key organisational actors in these developments,
setting up a series of intergovernmental conferences on higher education issues (e.g., in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, in May 1961 and in Tananarive, Madagascar, in September 1962). Despite
the establishment of the OAU in 1962, UNESCO continues to play an active role in Africa’s
regional higher education developments because OAU was seen as ‘not strong enough to
support regional intergovernmental dialogue among African countries during those times’
(Woldegiorgis, 2017, p. 34). Indeed, UNESCO was pivotal in the adoption of the Arusha
Convention.
Considered as the first important legal instrument for the region’s higher education harmonization is the 1981 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates,
Diplomas, Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in the African
States (Arusha Convention). Like other UNESCO conventions (see above), the Arusha
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 275
Convention was revised several times, culminating in a comprehensive revision in the 2014
Addis Convention (UNESCO, 2014). The Arusha Convention provides a regional framework
for intra-regional mobility while ensuring mutual recognition of students’ and professionals’
qualifications (Woldegiyorgis, 2018). Specifically, it lays down the guidelines for a state’s
recognition of other signatory states’ academic degrees, qualifications, and mechanisms at
regional, sub-regional, and national levels through tools like credit transfer (Commonwealth of
Learning and UNESCO, 2002). The Arusha Convention is argued to be different in comparison
to other African higher education policies because it puts forward ‘a comprehensive binding
regulatory framework and implementation strategy that includes national, sub-regional and
regional actors’ (Woldegiorgis, 2017, p. 37).
The transition of the OAU into the African Union (AU) in 2002 marked the triumph of the
economic rationale in regional higher education cooperation in Africa. Up until the end of the
1980s, many intergovernmental dialogues and plans focused on the Africanisation of education. According to Woldegiorgis (2017), this changed at the beginning of the 1990s when
the discourse shifted towards economic development and concerns about unemployment.
The OAU was born out of a politically oriented agenda, specifically to address the region’s
colonial past and to foster unity among African states post-independence. In 1997, it released
its education plan, The First Decade of Education for Africa (1997–2006), advocating for
educational access. However, a combination of intra-regional developments (e.g., the end of
Apartheid, the expansion of advocacy areas like human rights, and criticisms of OAU for not
achieving peace and socio-economic legitimacy) and international factors (e.g. the campaign
of the World Bank and the World Conference on Higher Education for a knowledge economy,
international actors like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and UNESCO
gaining a more prominent role in regional initiatives as OAU became politically and financially weak) has ensured changes in regional objectives, switching the focus from politics to
economics.
The AU’s influence in African higher education is visible in its campaign for a knowledge
economy. Its Plan of Action for the Second Decade of Education for Africa (2006–2015)
identifies higher education as one of seven focus areas (Hoosen et al., 2009) and targets
harmonisation as a key strategy to bolster cooperation in different areas of higher education
(Mohamedbhai, 2013; Woldergiorgis et al., 2015). As in Asia, harmonisation in African
higher education is understood as a process that seeks coordination and not standardisation
(Gokool-Ramdoo, 2015; Knight, 2017). The 2007 AU Strategy for the Harmonization of
Higher Education Programmes (AU-HEP) delineates five areas for cooperation: the political
commitment to intra-regional harmonization; information exchange; a regional framework for
qualifications; minimum standards in targeted qualifications; and joint curriculum development and student mobility schemes (AU, n.d.). Some major initiatives related to harmonisation
include the African Quality Rating Mechanism (AQRM), Tuning Africa, and the Nyerere
Mobility Program and the Pan-African University (Woldegiorgis et al., 2015; Woldegiyorgis,
2018).
What distinguishes African higher education cooperation is its intensity at the sub-regional
level (Woldegiyorgis, 2018). Although this phenomenon is similar to that found in Asia and
Latin America, the difference lies in the driver of sub-regional processes. The intensity of
sub-regional policies and initiatives in Africa is rooted in the cultural and linguistic homogeneity of its sub-regions. As Woldergiorgis (2017) points out, the African Ministers of Education
proposed first situating the regional mechanisms within the ambit of sub-level due to the shared
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
276
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
culture and language of each sub-region. In this context, the East African Community (EAC),
the Southern African Development Community (SADC), and the Economic Community of
West African Societies (ECOWAS) are important policy actors in African higher education developments. The EAC established the East African Common Market Protocol, with
Article 11 addressing the recognition of qualifications to foster free movement of labour.
Some EAC members signed a memorandum of cooperation in 2006, paving the way for
the Inter-University Council for East Africa (IUCEA) (Hoosen et al., 2009, p. 14). In 2000
the SADC enforced the Protocol on Education and Training, which has two articles relating
to higher education cooperation. The SADC also founded the Southern African Regional
Universities Association (SARUA) in 2005 to advance higher education and research through
enhanced collaboration. ECOWAS instituted the Protocol on Education and Training and the
General Convention on the Recognition and Equivalence of Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates
and Other Qualifications that seeks mutual recognition of qualifications and tackles the issue
of brain drain (Woldegiyorgis, 2018; Sehoole and de Wit, 2014).
As in Asia, we observe a proliferation of policy bodies in Africa. The Association of African
Universities (AAU) is the ‘apex organisation and forum for consultation, exchange of information and co-operation among institutions of higher education in Africa’ (AAU, n.d.-a), specifically in curriculum development, training, research, qualifications, and quality assurance
(AAU, n.d.-b). Some of its crucial initiatives are the Europe-Africa Quality Connect, the introduction of the African Higher Education Area, and the African Quality Assurance Network
(Hoosen et al., 2009; Shabani et al., 2014). The Association for the Development of Education
in Africa (ADEA) is another policy forum, with a working group on higher education to assist
ministers of higher education in institutional capacity building (Hoosen et al., 2009). Some
of its milestones include mapping higher education and research across the region, creating
a toolbox for implementing distance education, increasing inter-quality poles (PQIP) member
countries, and expanding partnerships. Another forum is the African and Malagasy Council for
Higher Education (CAMES). It is a sub-regional forum established in 1968 to manage cooperation and harmonisation processes in the Francophone region of Africa (Hoosen et al., 2009,
pp. 14–15). Similar to the License-Master-Doctorat structure – the French interpretation of the
undergraduate/graduate structure proposed in the Bologna Declaration – CAMES introduced
similar alignment processes of Francophone degrees (Woldegiyorgis, 2018; Wakiaga, 2015).
12.3.4
Latin America
Regional higher education cooperation in Latin America is characterised by overlapping
(Perrotta, 2016a) and increasingly diverse (Gomes et al., 2014) regional projects. Akin to other
regions, Latin American higher education regional projects have been leveraged to address
globalisation challenges. However, the Latin American experience is distinct in that some
regional initiatives are designed explicitly to contest the hegemonic global capitalistic system.
Reconfiguring the regional space as a social mandate for the region, some scholars consider
the Latin American case as post-hegemonic (Riggirozzi and Tussie, 2012) and post-liberal
(Sanahuja, 2012), with no consensus on when this transition occurred (De Lombaerde, 2016).
This broad regional agenda has seeped into the higher education sector, with the specific intent
of mitigating inequities and asymmetries (Perrotta, 2016a) and ‘endorsing a new political panorama of internationalisation and regionalisation of higher education’ (Batista, 2021, p. 477).
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 277
Like Asia and Africa, contemporary Latin American regional higher education cooperation
is more intense at the sub-regional level (Gacel-Ávila, 2021). In 1992, Mercado Común
del Sur (MERCOSUR) member states established the Educational MERCOSUR or Sector
Educativo del MERCOSUR (SEM) to achieve ‘integration through education’ (Batista, 2021,
p. 475). SEM’s core policies focus on three main areas: quality assurance or accreditation;
mobility; and inter-institutional cooperation (Perrotta, 2016a). The Mecanismo Experimental
de Avaliação (MEXA) is an accreditation mechanism (experimental: 2002–2006; permanent:
2008) instrumental for regional mobility as it facilitates the comparability of qualifications and
undergraduate programmes (Gomes et al., 2014; Batista, 2021). MEXA’s affiliated mobility
programme is the Programa de Mobilidad Acadêmica Regional para Cursos Credenciados
(MARCA) established in 2004. It caters to students and researchers affiliated with accredited
courses (Gomes et al., 2014). The EU was active in funding and supporting many of these
mobility programmes (Perrotta, 2016a). Lastly, a major inter-institutional initiative is the
MERCOSUR Centre of Studies and Research in Higher Education (NEMES), created in 2011
to promote research on higher education in MERCOSUR (Perrotta, 2016a). Among all higher
education regional initiatives in South America, Batista (2021) considers MERCOSUR as
the one with extensive higher education development in terms of functional, organisational,
and political approaches, and observes its resilience in spite of some political upheavals and a
‘turn to the right’ occurring in recent years. For Solanas (2009, p. 3), there is even an observed
‘mercosurisation’ of the higher education landscape.
Other sub-regional higher education initiatives emerged that are distinct from the
MERCOSUR approach. For instance, in 2004 Cuba and Venezuela initiated the Bolivarian
Alliance for the People of our America (ALBA) as a counter-hegemonic regional project of
the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region (Batista, 2021; Muhr, 2010). In response
to the crisis of global capitalism and to resist the US-sponsored Free Trade Areas for the
Americas, ALBA espouses an ‘alternative development’ (Gomes et al., 2014, p. 160) and an
‘endogenous development’ based on a ‘twenty-first century socialism’ (Muhr, 2010, p. 40).
The ALBA member states embrace cooperative rather than competitive advantage (Muhr,
2010), renouncing the commodification of higher education (Batista, 2021). A prominent
initiative is Venezuela’s regionalised policy of Higher Education for All (HEFA), anchored
in socialist ethics (philosophy), pursuit of access for all (quantitative dimension), and social
relevance (qualitative dimension) (Muhr, 2010). It is within this context that the Grannacional
projects were established to provide universal access to higher education. For Perrotta (2016a),
the ALBA People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) higher education regional project is a form of
counter-hegemonic or disruptive internationalisation.
Another regional organisation in South America is the Pacific Alliance (PA) established in
2011 through the Lima Declaration. It is considered as a ‘new new’ regionalism that is mainly
economic in nature in contrast to MERCOSUR that is both economic and political (Perrotta,
2016a). The bloc’s focus on trade liberalisation is apparent in its higher education regional
initiatives that place emphasis on student mobility programmes envisioned to generate labour
mobility (Batista, 2021) and on inter-state linkages that can attract students and investors
(Perrotta, 2016a). The regional body overseeing higher education is the Technical Cooperation
Group. The PA’s two core initiatives are the Platform for Student and Academic Mobility and
the Scientific Research Network on Climate Change. The first is largely promoted through
extensive scholarships aiming to advance human capital, making up for an ‘offensive (and
energetic) strategy of internationalization’ (Perrotta, 2016a, p. 71). The latter seeks to forge
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
278
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
research collaborations in climate change. Scholarships are classified for undergraduates, doctoral students, and academics. Mexico spearheads the internationalisation of higher education
mainly through student mobility programmes.
Looking at the Caribbean region, the drive towards the ‘Caribbean Educational Policy
Space’ (CEPS) (Jules, 2013) is situated in the open regionalism that CARICOM member
states adopted in 2006 as envisioned in the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME).
The CEPS is envisaged as a space to facilitate the movement of capital, labour, and service
within CSME (Jules, 2015a, 2015b, 2017). Meanwhile, Forest (n.d., p. 4) suggests the term
‘post-collective’ to describe the tendency of the Caribbean states to pool resources and, thus,
to engage in regional cooperation due to individual states’ relatively small base of resources.
Despite this tendency towards accommodating regional collaborations, higher education initiatives are seen to be overlapping and lacking coherence (Gacel-Ávila, 2021).
Latin America is also the site of inter-regional cooperation. For instance, the EU sponsors inter-regional projects like the Europe America Latina Formação Acadêmica (ALFA)
(Azevedo, 2014) and the EU-LAC (renamed later as ALCUE) Higher Education Common
Area (Barlete, 2020). Both Perrotta (2019) and Batista (2021) highlight the influence
of extra-regional or international actors (e.g., UNESCO, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, and the World Bank) over the region, endorsing agendas and
ideologies within the knowledge economy context.
12.4
OUTCOMES, IMPACTS, AND EFFECTS OF REGIONAL
COOPERATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
To start off with a warning: whereas the outcomes (as in resulting activities and programmes)
of the regional policies can be mapped, the impacts and effects of regional cooperation are
much more difficult to assess. Caution is needed for various reasons. First, objectives regarding regional collaboration are relatively easily formulated, but whether goals are achieved
may not be that easy to assess. For example, how do we evaluate whether diplomatic relations
between countries have been improved or which measures are most suitable for assessing
people-to-people connectivity? Second, many of the regional projects are moving targets
(Kehm et al., 2009) in that objectives and instruments have been changed over time, which
makes it difficult to determine how actions have led to certain effects. Also, third, many of
the regional policies are in fact, high-ambition packages of policies (see e.g., the action lines
of the Bologna process), which also complicates the evaluation. Fourth, as a corollary of the
other challenges, there is an attribution problem. Regional higher education policies intersect
with domestic strategies and even with global trends and developments, which complicates
the analysis of causes and consequences. Fifth, whereas there are many small-scale studies,
for instance focusing on a particular HEI, a specific discipline or one element of regional
cooperation (e.g., joint study programmes), there are remarkably few comprehensive studies
examining developments over time. Below, we offer our (cautious) assessment based on
published studies and reports, providing both positive and critical perspectives concerning the
results of regional higher education cooperation in the chosen regions.
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 279
12.4.1
Europe
Much has been realised in this region. Being aware that the space here is too limited to fully
address all the effects and impacts, comprehensive studies that focused on the success/failure
of the Bologna Process, the impact of ERASMUS+, and employability issues are addressed.
The 2010 Bologna Process evaluation (Westerheijden et al., 2010) concludes that most of
the regulatory elements of the EHEA have been implemented, but that there is not yet sufficient evidence for goal achievement with respect to the key objectives of compatibility and
competitiveness. In other words, there was a great deal of attention on the implementation of
policies (through, e.g., bi-annual stocktaking reports), but this does not offer an insight into
goal achievement. Likewise, the growing market share of the EHEA in global mobility signals
that European higher education has become more attractive, but at the same time it needs to
be acknowledged that there is a considerable imbalance across the countries. Also, Curaj et
al. (2018) note achievements and shortcomings (see also Voegtle, 2019; Bergan, 2019), especially regarding the different speeds at which the Bologna signatories move. Critical voices
(Huisman, 2014) argue that incoming mobility to Europe has not changed significantly since
the Bologna Declaration; moreover, Crosier and Parveva (2013) claim that the ambitious
mobility objectives have not been reached.
The ERASMUS+ impact study (Souto-Otero et al., 2019) offers insight into the experiences
and perceptions at the student, staff, and institutional level. The report – stressing that the study
did not measure causal effects but associations – shows considerable (perceived) benefits
of the mobility programme in the graduates’ skills, knowledge, and attitudes; the benefits
are – across the board – higher for ERASMUS+ participants vis-à-vis graduates without an
ERASMUS experience. Similar results are found for mobile staff: they have improved their
inter-cultural understanding, transferable, and social skills. Finally, representatives of HEIs
report that ERASMUS+ is important or essential to them.
Whereas the impact study clearly shows positive associations, Kroher et al. (2021), focusing on enrolments, study success, mobility, and employability, show much more ambiguity
and lack of clarity in the studies they reviewed. For instance, for only a very few countries
has the impact on enrolments been researched, with increases in the fast-reforming countries
of Italy and Portugal and no effect in Germany. Moreover, the introduction of a Bachelor’s/
Master’s degree system seemed to have increased rather than decreased social inequalities. For
study success, the review suggests the higher chances of graduating on time, but no general
decrease in dropout rates. Support for increased mobility – due to the Bologna Process – could
not be found. Regarding employability, studies point out that Bachelor’s degree holders face
worse labour market prospects than Master’s degree holders, but the underlying mechanisms,
be these Bologna-related or not, are unclear.
12.4.2
Asia
How do we evaluate the impact (success, failure) of a ‘mosaic harmonisation’ approach in
practice? When the regional approach is intentionally designed to accommodate multiple
(sometimes competing) policy instruments, institutional structures, and stakeholder groups,
coherence or convergence cannot be used as a yardstick to measure outcomes. At the same
time, some observers have noted how ‘Asian regionalism development is lagging behind
European regional developments’ (Chao, 2018, p. 76; cf., Chou and Ravinet, 2017). In the
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
280
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
absence of (regular) comprehensive studies, the focus is on the following aspects of regional
higher education cooperation in Asia’s case: the impact of regional mobility programmes
(scale, contribution to Asia’s attractiveness as an academic destination), and the usability of
credit transfer systems in enhancing the student mobility experience.
Published studies on the mobility programmes in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific have
reported various figures for the total numbers of participating students. For instance, the 2010
review of SEAMEO-RIHED’s mobility programmes hailed their success (SEAMEO-RIHED,
2010). Also, the CAMPUS Asia project has offered significant levels of mobility (Chao,
2020). Looking at the four major scholarship programmes in the region (i.e., SHARE, AIMS,1
AUN, and UMAP), it was said that ‘approximately 7500 students in total from 2010 to 2018’
benefited from the support (SHARE, 2020, p. 12). Chao (2020, p. 11) finds that ‘Low-income
ASEAN countries (with the exception of Vietnam) have the tendency for intra-ASEAN
student mobility, while all other income category ASEAN countries (with the exception of
Brunei and Indonesia) are inclined toward extra ASEAN student mobility’. This imbalance
deserves further reflection. Comparing these figures against the number of outbound ASEAN
students studying within the region and outside the region, one may generally conclude that
these mobility programmes have made a modest contribution in scale and in enhancing the
attractiveness of (Southeast) Asia.
Turning to the usability of credit transfer system, the authors of a 2016 study identified ‘the
negative impact of the divergent credit transfer systems (CTS) in the ASEAN … The lack
of consensus leads to the coexistence of three different CTS, with some HEI[s] using more
than one system while others seem to ignore them’ (SHARE, 2016, p. i). Reporting from
their survey results, the authors point out that ‘credit transfer is considered to be an obstacle
for about a third of respondents (28%)’ (SHARE, 2016, p. 21). From a practice perspective,
the ‘mosaic’ approach has proved challenging in facilitating student mobility. Indeed, Hou
et al. (2017, p. 21) conclude that ‘diversity in national regulations, academic calendars, and
grading policies in Asian higher education would continue to challenge the implementation’
of adopted measures.
12.4.3
Africa
In response to Africa’s contemporary issues, the creation of a common African Higher
Education and Research Space (AHERS) has become imperative. However, the making and
managing of AHERS has been fraught with issues, which Mohamedbhai (2013) clusters into
three core issues. Firstly, these diverse higher education systems across linguistic sub-regions
are not easily comparable, making mobility a challenge (see also Hoosen et al., 2009). The
underfunding of higher education has also affected the quality and development of the sector.
In conjunction with this is the inadequate resources invested in research (see also, Maassen,
2020). Another crucial factor is the lack of differentiation among HEIs, resulting in a less
diversified workforce that cannot properly meet the current region’s labour demands (see also
Diarra, 2015). Although these issues have undoubtedly given rise to some setbacks, they have
also acted as catalysts in revitalising Africa’s higher education sector (Mohamedbhai, 2013)
and in strengthening intra-regional higher education cooperation (Knight and Woldegiorgis,
2017).
Other scholars (Gokool-Ramdoo, 2015; Mohamedbhai, 2013; Shabani et al., 2014;
Woldegiorgis, 2017; Woldegiorgis et al., 2015; Sehoole and de Wit, 2014) also highlight
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 281
a number of structural, financial, technical, and political hurdles to be overcome in the successful implementation of Africa’s higher education regional initiatives. Structurally, many
national education regulatory bodies/national information centres lack a database for documenting and disseminating pertinent information for policy guidelines, and many states lack
national quality assurance mechanisms. The implementing bodies, ranging from national to
regional, also lack coordination in mobilising resources for implementation (Mohamedbhai,
2013; Woldegiorgis, 2017). Financial constraints continue to limit regional and sub-regional
institutions in the effective implementation of their initiatives (Shabani, 2013; Sehoole and de
Wit, 2014). Technically, there is the concern that the recognition of qualifications does not
necessarily equate to quality qualifications and that the criteria for recognition rest more on the
rules stipulated by each institution rather than region-wide standards (Mohamedbhai, 2013).
Moreover, the lack of political will as shown in the low ratification rate of the Arusha
Convention also leads to weak implementation and demonstrates lack of awareness about the
Convention among African governments and higher education stakeholders (Mohamedbhai,
2013; Shabani et al., 2014). This lack of awareness and involvement among key stakeholders (Shabani, 2013) thus raises issues on ownership, inclusiveness, and leadership (Teferra,
2012). Being a legal instrument, the Arusha Convention has served as a mechanism to address
the fragmentation of African higher education. The Convention is argued to have yielded
positive results on different levels with the establishment of regulatory bodies at the national,
sub-regional, and regional level (Gokool-Ramdoo, 2015). However, it is criticised for its
general provisions, which lack coordinated and specific terms, making implementation of the
Convention largely elusive (Woldegiorgis, 2017).
Another issue when reviewing the effectiveness of Africa’s higher education regionalisation is the lack of detailed background and progress studies about it. More attention is
paid to thematic and sub-regional initiatives that are seen to be more effective. However, as
Woldegiyorgis (2018) contends, this situation poses some risks to harmonising and coordinating processes across the region. He also argues that initiatives at the regional level are
implemented in a piecemeal manner owing to the dependency of AU on external donors that
largely fund these projects on a case-by-case basis. Although there is a strong leaning towards
intra-regional cooperation (Knight, 2008), regional initiatives have not made a significant dent
on patterns of intra-regional student mobility in the sense that preferred academic destinations
are still located in the developed countries in the West (Ogachi, 2009). In sum, one can argue
that there is no shortage of regional higher education initiatives in Africa, but the greater
challenge lies more in implementation (Sehoole and de Wit, 2014) and coordination (Hoosen
et al., 2009).
12.4.4
Latin America
Although there are expressions of support for pan-regional higher education cooperation,
these are mostly rhetorical in nature, coming from policymakers of member states and leaders
of HEIs. Political will is lacking among member states, as is evident in the insufficiency of
funding and the organisational and programmatic structures (Gacel-Ávila, 2020). It is in this
context that Gacel-Ávila, (2020, 2021) argues that no significant progress has been made and
the future of academic integration remains uncertain. Existing intra-regional programmes have
expanded, with the greatest impact being felt in terms of student mobility and intra-regional
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
282
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
mobility, but their results are uneven and tend to fall short of expectations. Unlike other
regions, no existing higher education integration policy has materialised in Latin America.
The challenge of mobilising political support is intertwined with the region’s heterogeneous political and economic landscape, ranging from a capitalist to a socialist orientation that
challenges the other’s agenda (Muhr, 2016). Given the divergent mandates underpinning
educational and internationalisation projects, the regional policies and programmes turn out to
be complementary, overlapping, and/or contradictory at the same time. In addition, member
states vary in capacity (Gacel-Ávila, 2021), and there are only a few countries (e.g., Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico) that occupy a dominant position in regional higher
education schemes (Perrotta, 2016a). Notwithstanding these political complexities, regionalism has served as a tool to mobilise reforms regardless of the type of government involved
(Perrotta, 2016b).
The progressive or ‘redistributionist’ governments (Perrotta, 2013) in the region have
catalysed an alternative regional trajectory for development and higher education. The social
mandate permeating in ALBA’s case is argued to go beyond the rhetorical level and has
produced real results in mitigating inequities. Muhr (2010) points out that its higher education
regional projects have resulted in increased participation of students and eliminated illiteracy.
The Grannacional projects have been instrumental in establishing new study programmes, and
ALBA’s recognition system benefited almost 14,000 students in 2009 (Muhr, 2010).
The case of MERCOSUR’s higher education cooperation can be said to offer some alternative paths to regional higher education cooperation while not being entirely disruptive of
hegemonic order (Perrotta, 2016a). Its regional research networks have become instrumental
in strengthening internationalisation within the region. One of its core programmes, MARCA,
has facilitated the intra-regional mobility of students although the actual number of participants is lower than the designated slots (Batista, 2021). According to Perrotta (2016a), the
usage rate of mobility programmes was only 59 per cent. Furthermore, the mobility flows are
largely concentrated in a few participating countries (Argentina and Brazil) and do not include
all member states like Paraguay and Venezuela. Funding is also a problem because it can
change on a yearly basis, depending on the annual budget of the Educational Ministry (Batista,
2021). Further still, despite the political salience of MERCOSUR, its higher education still
occupies a subordinate position with respect to other policy sectors (Gomes et al., 2014).
Other Latin American regional blocs have offered mobility programmes, but these have not
yet made substantial progress. In the case of PA, the bloc managed to award 1,840 scholarships
between 2013 and 2017 (Batista, 2021, p. 487), mostly at the undergraduate level. In the case
of Caribbean states, internationalisation is regarded as crucial for the region’s development;
however, the construction of Caribbean space for higher education remains elusive, with challenges pertaining to fiscal constraints and lack of political will (Gacel-Ávila, 2021).
12.5
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has shown that the region is nowadays an accepted governance level for higher
education cooperation between states, HEIs, and supranational agencies (Chou and Ravinet,
2015; 2017). With roots in the post-war and post-colonial period, a myriad of programmes
and activities have emerged in the past five decades or so that intend to foster regional cooperation. At the same time, the region is very much an imaginary space, in that the regional
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 283
boundaries are not clearly demarcated, and actors embark on ‘regional’ collaboration that most
fits their needs at the time (i.e., state-to-state, within/across regions, region-to-region, and/or
region-to-state) (De Lombaerde et al., 2015). This is most visible in the Asian and African
regions, where patchworks of sub-regional initiatives loom large. But, even in a relatively
orchestrated region like Europe, regional boundaries are easily crossed, with, for example,
non-European countries participating in the Bologna Process (Vukasovic et al., 2017).
Moreover, higher education regional cooperation implies, partly through the global nature
of the handling of knowledge (Clark, 1983), both inter-regional as well as trans-regional collaboration. Next to the blurring of boundaries, another common thread across the regions is
that many programmes, policies, and activities prioritise student mobility, with accompanying
actions to support mobility (credit transfer, recognition of qualifications), and quality assurance. This also explains why regional cooperation has been equated with internationalisation
in much of the academic literature (Knight, 2015; 2017). Also, in all the initiatives at the
different levels, one recognises the five different rationales (Section 12.2) for regional cooperation, albeit that many activities may serve different purposes at the same time, for example
commercial motives combined with political rationales. It appears that the commercial/economic rationale has gained prominence over the last decades.
That said, the differences across the regions are remarkable. Obviously, historical contexts
have left their imprint on the key motivations for cooperation (e.g., post-colonialism in Africa
and Asia, post-hegemonic tendencies in Latin America, post-war reconciliation in Europe).
These motivations also partly explain why, across regions, different actors and agencies are
in the driving seat regarding policy developments and implementation: a relatively strong
European Commission in Europe versus much more engagement at the domestic levels in
most of the other regions, although also in these regions supra-national agencies like the World
Bank and UNESCO have been – and still are – important (Woldegiorgis, 2017). It is tempting
to say that in Europe regional cooperation is more top-down than in the other regions, but it
should be acknowledged that in this region there are probably as many national and bottom-up
institutional programmes and activities as in the other regions.
Surprisingly, considering the many policies and activities, there is limited insight on the
effects of higher education regional cooperation. For sure, there are many specific evaluations
of particular initiatives (Section 12.4), but much is based on surveying those that have participated in mobility programmes (Souto-Otero et al., 2019; Chao, 2020). Our knowledge base
is thus rather limited and scattered. Hopefully, in the future more researchers will investigate
and compare regional higher education processes and activities, for there is – both from an
academic and policy perspective – a clear need for understanding the outcomes and impact of
regional cooperation.
NOTE
1.
Asian International Mobility for Students Programme, https:// rihed .seameo .org/ portfolio/ aims
-programme/
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
284
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
REFERENCES
AAU (n.d.-a) ‘About us’, accessed on 2 November 2021 at https://forum.aau.org/?_ga=2.238079872
.1663058110.1635803388-41422258.1635803388
AAU (n.d.-b) ‘About’, accessed on 2 November 2021 at https://aau.org/about/
ASEM (n.d.) ‘Overview’, accessed on 17 October 2023 at https://aseminfoboard.org/overview/
AU (n.d.) ‘Education’, accessed on 2 November 2021 at https://au.int/en/directorates/education
AUN (1995) ‘Charter of the ASEAN University Network’, accessed on 28 November 2021 at http://
agreement.asean.org/media/download/20190702041832.pdf
Azevedo, M.L.N. (2014) ‘The Bologna Process and higher education in MERCOSUR: Regionalization
or Europeanization?’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(3), 411–427.
Balbachevsky, E. et al. (eds.) (2020) Building higher education cooperation with the EU: Challenges
and opportunities from four continents. Leiden/Boston: Brill/Sense.
Barlete, A.L. (2020) ‘The policy trajectory of the EU-Latin America and Caribbean inter-regional project
in higher education (1999–2018)’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 4(1), 45–67.
Batista, M.V. (2021) ‘Higher education regionalization in South America’, Higher Education Policy,
34, 474–498.
Bergan, S. (2019) ‘The European Higher Education Area: A road to the future or at way’s end?’, Tuning
Journal for Higher Education, 6(2), 23–49.
Bologna Declaration (1999) The Bologna Declaration of 1999: Joint declaration of the European
Ministers of Education, accessed on 24 January 2022 at http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/
Ministerial_conferences/02/8/1999_Bologna_Declaration_English_553028.pdf
Cabanda, E., Tan, E.S. and Chou, M.-H. (2019) ‘Higher education regionalism in Asia: What implications for Europe?’, European Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 87–101.
Cerna, L. and Chou, M.-H. (2014) ‘The regional dimension in the global competition for talent: Lessons
from framing the European Scientific Visa and Blue Card’, Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1),
76–95.
Chao Jr., R.Y. (2018) ‘Regionalism, regionalization of higher education, and higher education research:
Mapping the development in regionalization of higher education research’, In: Jung, J., Horta, H. and
Yonezawa, A. (eds.) Researching higher education in Asia. Singapore: Springer, pp. 73–109.
Chao Jr., R.Y. (2020) ‘Intra-ASEAN student mobility: Overview, challenges and opportunities’, Journal
of Applied Research in Higher Education, ahead of print, https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-07-2019
-0178
Chou, M.-H. (2012) ‘Constructing an internal market for research through sectoral and lateral strategies:
Layering, the European Commission, and the fifth freedom’, Journal of European Public Policy,
19(7), 1052–1070.
Chou, M.-H. (2022) ‘Actors and actorhood in higher education regionalism’, In: Klemenčič, M.
(ed.) From actors to reforms in (higher) education. Festschrift for Pavel Zgaga. Cham: Springer,
pp. 127–140.
Chou, M.-H. and Ravinet, P. (2015) ‘The rise of “higher education regionalism”: An agenda for higher
education research’, In: Huisman, J. et al. (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher
Education Policy and Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 361–378.
Chou, M.-H. and Ravinet, P. (2017) ‘Higher education regionalism in Europe and Southeast Asia:
Comparing policy ideas’, Policy and Society, 36(1), 143–159.
Clark, B. (1983) The Higher Education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO (2002) Arusha Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications
in Higher Education in Africa, accessed on 27 October 2021 at http://oasis.col.org/bitstream/handle/
11599/1476/2002_%20COL_UNESCO_Arusha_Transcript.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Corbett, A. (2005) Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurship in European Union higher education policy, 1955–2005. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cox, K.B. (2016) ENLACES: ‘Transformative educational policy for the Latin American and Caribbean
region’, Capstone Collection, 2935, accessed on 2 November 2021 at https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/
capstones/2935
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 285
Crosier, D. and Parveva, T. (2013) The Bologna Process: Its impact in Europe and beyond. Paris:
UNESCO.
Curaj, A., Deca, L. and Pricopie, R. (eds.) (2018) European Higher Education Area: The impact of past
and future policies. Cham: Springer.
De Lombaerde, P. (2016) ‘Theorizing Latin American regionalism in the 21st century’, Fédéralisme
Régionalisme, 16, 1–6.
De Lombaerde, P., Söderbaum, F. and Wunderlich, J.-U. (2015) ‘Interregionalism’, in Jørgensen, K.E.
et al. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of European Foreign Policy. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.,
pp. 750–765.
de Prado Yepes, C. (2006) ‘World regionalization of higher education: Policy proposals for international
organizations’, Higher Education Policy, 19, 111–128.
de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1991) ‘Mobility’, In: de Ridder-Symoens, H. (ed.) A History of the University
in Europe. Volume 1: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 280–304.
de Wit, H. (2002) Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe:
A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Diarra, M.C. (2015) ‘Diversify and differentiate African higher education systems!’, Policy Brief,
accessed on 3 November 2021 at https://www.adeanet.org/en/policy-briefs/diversify-and-differentiate
-african-higher-education-systems
Egron-Polak, E. and Marinoni, G. (2021) ‘Regional approaches to the internationalization of higher
education’, In: Deardorff, D.K et al. (eds.) The Handbook of International Higher Education, 2nd edn.
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, pp. 75–94.
EHEA (2020) ‘Rome Ministerial Communiqué’, accessed on 24 January 2022 at http://www.ehea.info/
Upload/Rome_Ministerial_Communique.pdf
Elken, M., Hovdhaugen, E. and Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2015) ‘Higher education in the Nordic countries:
Evaluation of the Nordic agreement on admission to higher education’, TemaNord 526/2015,
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
EU (1992) ‘Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), Treaty of Maastricht’, Official Journal of
the European Communities C 325/5; 24 December 2002, accessed on 24 January 2022 at https://www
.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39218.html
Feng, Z. and Gao, L. (2020) ‘International university consortia on the New Silk Road’, In: van der
Wende, M. et al. (eds.) China and Europe on the New Silk Road: Connecting universities across
Eurasia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 100–118.
Forest, J.J.F. (n.d.) ‘Regionalism in higher education: An international look at national and institutional
interdependence’, accessed on 15 November 2021 at https://higher-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/
09/regionalism.pdf
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2018) ‘Educación superior, internacionalización e integración en América Latina y el
Caribe’, In: Guajardo, P.H. and Juri, H. (eds.) Conference regional de educación superior de América
Latina y el Caribe: Cordoba 2018, Resúmenes ejecutivos, Caracas: UNESCO-IESALC, pp. 45–85.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2020) ‘Internationalisation of higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean: In
need of robust policies’, International Journal of African Higher Education, 7(2), 141–157.
Gacel-Ávila, J. (2021) ‘Introduction: Higher education, internationalization, and integration in Latin
America and the Caribbean, In: Thondhlana, J. et al. (eds.) The Bloomsbury Handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global south. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 163–181.
Gokool-Ramdoo, S. (2015) ‘Harmonization of higher education in Africa or why we need to hang in
there together’, Policy Brief, accessed on 27 October 2021 at https://www.adeanet.org/en/policy
-briefs/harmonization-of-higher-education-in-africa-or-why-we-need-to-hang-in-there-together
Gomes, A.M., Robertson, S.L. and Dale, R. (2014) ‘Globalizing and regionalizing higher education
in Latin America’, In: Araya, D. and Marber, P. (eds.) Higher education in the global age: Policy,
practice and promise in emerging societies. New York: Routledge, pp. 160–183.
Hirosato, Y. (2019) ‘Regional cooperation in Southeast Asian higher education’, Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Education, 1–31, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.45
Hoosen, S., Butcher, N. and Njenga, B.K. (2009) ‘Harmonization of higher education programmes:
A strategy for the African Union’, African Integration Review, 3(1), 1–36.
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
286
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
Hou, A.Y.C. et al. (2017) ‘A comparative study of student mobility programs in SEAMEO-RIHED,
UMAP, and Campus Asia: Regulation, challenges, and impacts on higher education regionalization’,
Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 11(1), 12–24.
Huisman, J. (2014) ‘Europeanization and higher education’, In: Mattei, P. (ed.) University adaptation in
difficult economic times. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–136.
Jules, T.D. (2013) ‘The political economy of “open regionalism” and education in small (and micro)
states: The construction of the Caribbean Educational Policy Space in CARICOM’, Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 12(4), 474–497.
Jules, T.D. (2015a) ‘“Educational regionalization” and the gated global: The construction of the
Caribbean Educational Policy Space’, Comparative Education Review, 59(4), 638–665.
Jules, T.D. (2015b) ‘The Caribbean educational policy space: Educational gradualism, zero-sum policy
reforms, and lesson-drawing in small (and micro) states’, Journal of Supranational Policies of
Education, 3, 307–327.
Jules, T.D. (2017) ‘“Mature regionalism” and the genesis of “functional projects”: “educational regionalism” in small (and micro-states)’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(4), 482–498.
Kehm, B.M., Huisman, J. and Stensaker, B. (eds.) (2009) The European Higher Education Area:
Perspectives on a moving target. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J. (2008) ‘Africa in relation to other world regions’, In: Teferra, D. and Knight, J. (eds.) Higher
education in Africa: The international dimension. Boston: Center for International Higher Education,
Boston College and Association of African Universities, pp. 534–552.
Knight, J. (2014) ‘Towards African higher education regionalization and harmonization: Functional,
organizational and political approaches’, The Development of Higher Education in Africa: Prospects
and Challenges, 21, 347–373.
Knight, J. (2015) ‘Meaning, rationales and tensions in the internationalisation of higher education’, In:
McGrath, S. and Gu, Q. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of International Education and Development.
London: Routledge, pp. 345–359.
Knight, J. (2016) ‘Regionalisation of higher education in Asia: Functional, organizational, and political
approaches’, In: Collins, C.S. et al. (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Asia Pacific Higher Education.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 113–127.
Knight, J. (2017) ‘The concept and process of higher education regionalization’, In: Knight, J. and
Woldegiorgis, E.T. (eds.) Regionalization of African higher education: Progress and prospects.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 11–28.
Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2017) ‘Introduction’, In: Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (eds.)
Regionalization of African higher education: Progress and prospects. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers,
pp. 1–10.
Kroher, M. et al. (2021) ‘Did the “Bologna Process” achieve its goals? 20 years of empirical evidence
on student enrolment, study success and labour market outcomes’, Working Paper 10, accessed
on 24 January 2022 at https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/11457/
WorkingPaper10_Bologna_Consequences.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Kuroda, K. (2016) ‘Regionalization of higher education in Asia’, In: Collins, C.S. et al. (eds.) The
Palgrave Handbook of Asia Pacific Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 141–156.
Kwikkers, P. and Van Wageningen, A. (2012) ‘A space for the European Higher Education Area: The
guidance from the EU Court of Justice to Member States’, Higher Education Policy, 25, 39–62.
Lisbon Strategy (2000) Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000),
accessed on 2 October 2022 at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/
en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm
Maassen, P. (2020) ‘Developing equal, mutually beneficial partnerships with African universities:
Recommendations for a new European collaboration strategy’, The Guild Insight Paper 1, accessed on
27 October 2021 at https://www.the-guild.eu/publications/insight-papers/insight-paper-one
Maassen, P., Vabø, A. and Stensaker, B. (2008) ‘Translation of globalisation and regionalisation in
Nordic cooperation in higher education’, In: Gornitzka, Å. and Langfeldt, L. (eds.) Borderless knowledge: Understanding the ‘new’ internationalisation of research and higher education in Norway.
Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 125–139.
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Regional cooperation in higher education 287
Mohamedbhai, G. (2013) ‘Towards an African higher education and research space (AHERS):
A Summary Report’, accessed on 27 October 2021 at https://www.adeanet.org/en/publications/
towards-african-higher-education-research-space-ahers
Muhr, T. (2010) ‘Counter-hegemonic regionalism and higher education for all: Venezuela and the
ALBA’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1) 39–57.
Muhr, T. (2016) ‘Equity of access to higher education in the context of South–South cooperation in Latin
America: A pluriscalar analysis’, Higher Education, 72, 557–571.
Neave, G. (2001) ‘The European dimension in higher education: An excursion into the modern use of
historical analogues’, In: Huisman, J., Maassen, P.A.M. and Neave, G. (eds.) Higher education and
the nation state: The international dimension of higher education. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier,
pp. 13–73.
Ogachi, O. (2009) ‘Internationalization vs regionalization of higher education in East Africa and the
challenges of quality assurance and knowledge production’, Higher Education Policy, 22, 331–347.
Ogunnubi, O. and Shawa, L.B. (2017) ‘Analysing South Africa’s soft power in Africa through the knowledge diplomacy of higher education’, The Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 15(2), 81–107.
Perrotta, D.V. (2013) ‘“MERCOSUR Brand”: Regionalism and higher education’, paper presented to the
‘International Workshop on The Transformative Power of Europe’, Freie Universität Berlin, 22–23
November.
Perrotta, D.V. (2016a) ‘Regionalism and higher education in South America: A comparative analysis for
understanding internationalization’, Journal of Supranational Policies of Education, 4, 54–81.
Perrotta, D.V. (2016b) La internacionalización de la Universidad: Debates globales, acciones regionals.
Buenos Aires: Instituto de Estudios y Capacitación-IEC-CONADU.
Perrotta, D.V. (2019) ‘Integración regional e internacionalización universitaria en América Latina’,
Política Universitaria, 6(2), 10–19.
Pietsch, T. (2010) ‘Wandering scholars? Academic mobility and the British World, 1850–1940’, Journal
of Historical Geography, 36, 377–387.
Pietsch, T. and Chou, M.-H. (2018) ‘The politics of scholarly exchange: Taking the long view on the
Rhodes Scholarships’, In: Tournès, L. and Scott-Smith, G. (eds.) Global Exchanges: Scholarships and
Transnational Circulation in the Modern World. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 33–49.
Riggirozzi, P. and Tussie, D. (2012) The rise of post-hegemonic regionalism. Dordrecht: Springer.
Robertson, S.L. et al. (eds.) (2016) Global Regionalisms and Higher Education. Projects, Processes,
Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sanahuja, J.A. (2012) ‘Post-liberal regionalism in South America: The case of UNASUR’, EUI Working
Paper RSCAS, 2012/05, accessed on 2 November 2022 at https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/20394
SEAMEO-RIHED (2010) M-I-T study mobility programme: Pilot project review. Bangkok:
SEAMEO-RIHED.
Sehoole, C. and de Wit, H. (2014) ‘The regionalization, internationalization, and globalisation of African
higher education’, International Journal of African Higher Education, 1(1), 217–241.
Shabani, J. (2008) ‘The role of key regional actors and programs’, In: Teferra, D. and Knight, J. (eds.)
Higher education in Africa: The international dimension. Accra: Association of African Universities,
pp. 464–489.
Shabani, J. (2013) ‘Quality regimes in Africa’, International Higher Education, 73, 16–18.
Shabani, J., Okebukola, P. and Oyewole, O. (2014) ‘Quality assurance in Africa: Towards a continental
higher education and research space’, International Journal of African Higher Education, 1(1),
139–171.
SHARE (2016) Mapping student mobility and Credit Transfer Systems in ASEAN region. Jakarta:
ASEAN Secretariat.
SHARE (2020) Study on enhancing intra-ASEAN university student mobility. Jakarta: ASEAN
Secretariat.
SHARE (2021) ‘About SHARE’, accessed on 28 November 2021 at https://www.share-asean.eu/about
-share
Solanas, F. (2009) ‘El impacto del MERCOSUR en la educación superior: Un análisis desde la
‘Mercosurización’ de las políticas públicas’, Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 17(20),
1–18.
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
288
Handbook of regional cooperation and integration
Sorbonne Joint Declaration (1998) ‘Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the
European higher education system, 25 May 1998’, accessed on 24 January 2022 at http://ehea.info/
media.ehea.info/file/1998_Sorbonne/61/2/1998_Sorbonne_Declaration_English_552612.pdf
Souto-Otero et al. (2019) ‘Erasmus+ higher education impact study’, Final Report. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Teferra, D. (2012) ‘Harmonization and Tuning: Integrating the African higher education space’,
accessed on 4 November 2021 at https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view/harmonization
-and-tuning-integrating-african-higher-education-space
Tuch, H. (1990) Communicating with the world: US public diplomacy overseas. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
UASR (2015) ‘Introduction’, accessed on 25 November 2021 at http://uasr.xjtu.edu.cn/About_UASR/
Introduction.htm
UNESCO (2014) ‘Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees
and Other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States’, accessed on 2 November
2021 at https://en.unesco.org/node/297937
van der Wende, M. (2021) ‘Neo-nationalism in the European Union and universities’, In: Douglass,
J.A. (ed.) Neo-nationalism and universities: Populists, autocrats and the future of higher education.
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 117–140.
van der Wende, M. et al. (eds.) (2020) China and Europe on the New Silk Road: Connecting universities
across Eurasia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Voegtle, E.M. (2019) ‘20 years of Bologna – a story of success, a story of failure’, Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(4), 406–428.
Vukasovic, M., Jungblut, J. and Elken, M. (2017) ‘Still the main show in town? Assessing political salience of the Bologna Process across time and space’, Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1421–1436.
Wakiaga, L.A. (2015) ‘Assuring quality, excellence and relevance in African universities’, Policy
Brief, accessed on 3 November 2021 at https://www.adeanet.org/en/policy-briefs/assuring-quality
-excellence-and-relevance-in-african-universities
Westerheijden, D.F. et al. (2010) ‘The Bologna Process independent assessment. The first decade of
working on the European Higher Education Area’, accessed on 24 January 2022 at https://op.europa
.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6226c3e4-34ef-4142-8801-7aeefb97021f
Witte, J.K. (2006) Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing adaptations of European
higher education systems in the context of the Bologna Process. Enschede: University of Twente.
Woldegiorgis, E.T. (2017) ‘Historical and political perspectives: On regionalization of African higher
education’, In: Knight, J. and Woldegiorgis, E.T. (eds.) Regionalization of African higher education:
Progress and prospects. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 29–46.
Woldegiorgis, E.T., Jonck, P. and Goujon, A. (2015) ‘Regional higher education reform initiatives
in Africa: A comparative analysis with the Bologna Process’, International Journal of Higher
Education, 4(1), 241–253.
Woldegiyorgis, A.A. (2018), ‘Harmonization of higher education in Africa and Europe: Policy convergence at supranational level’, Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 5(2), 133–157.
Xu, B. (2021) ‘Understanding education on China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A cultural political
economy approach’, Beijing International Review of Education, 3, 56–71.
Yagci, Y. (2014) ‘Setting policy agenda for the social dimension of the Bologna Process’, Higher
Education Policy, 27, 509–528.
Yavaprabhas, S. (2014) ‘The harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia’, In: Yonezawa,
A. (ed.) Emerging International Dimensions in East Asian Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer,
pp. 81–102.
Meng-Hsuan Chou, Jeroen Huisman, and Maria Pilar Lorenzo - 9781800373747
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 02/15/2024 10:07:18AM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/