Regional cooperation in higher education

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/