In the early stages of internationalisation, universities have typically focused on international student recruitment and accumulating large numbers of bilateral international university partnerships. Often these partnerships had little strategic value other than as a response to pressure to internationalise. Frequently these partnerships went no further than signatures on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and were not operationalised in any way. While the stated intent of such MoUs was often promoting research collaboration and cooperation, this was rarely communicated to the faculty members who could have made this a reality. In recent years, a number of global university networks have been established, many of which now have waiting lists of potential members. This session will provide an overview of the different types of university networks and institutional partnerships being established across the world and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative models. It will also consider the benefits associated with membership of a global network, as opposed to institutions developing alliances with a more specific focus. Additionally, institutional strategies aimed at encouraging widespread participation and involvement in these partnerships across the university and beyond the international office will be discussed. Asia-Pacific Association for International Education (APAIE) 5th Annual Conference, Griffith University, Brisbane, April 2010

1. Asia Pacific Association for International Education 2010
The role of international strategic alliances in
higher education: a New Zealand perspective
Professor Nigel Healey
Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Canterbury

2. Overview of Part I
 Strategic Alliances 101
 Forms of international cooperation –
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
Uppsala vs non-commercial
 Benefits and costs of each form
 Small or large networks?
 Conclusions
Gold Coast 2010

3. Forms of international cooperation
 Uppsala sequencing model drawn from the
literature on the internationalisation of
business:
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
 Exporting The
 Licensing production ‘third
 Joint ventures/strategic alliances wave’
 Foreign direct investment
 How well does higher education fit this model?
Gold Coast 2010

4. The Uppsala sequence in higher
education
 Exporting educational services = providing education to
foreign students by teaching students on home campus
or „pure‟ distance learning‟
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
 Licensing production = licensing a foreign partner -
“McDonaldization” of higher education
 Third wave = offshore campuses, part– or wholly-owned
by universities, for-profit providers riding third wave
through acquisitions (Doha trade round)
Gold Coast 2010

5. How useful is this model for explaining
universities’ international cooperation?
 Universities mix of public, not-for-profit and for-profit
 Uppsala explains the behaviour of for-profit universities
and “mixed systems” like UK, Australia and New Zealand
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
– public universities with “private” dimensions
 Does not capture other dimensions of universities‟
activities in terms of mission, government policy, non-
commercial goals
 Excludes cooperative activities in terms of:
 Faculty and student exchange
 Joint teaching programmes
 Research partnerships
Gold Coast 2010

6. Benefits and costs of Uppsala
partnership-based cooperation (1)
 Franchising
 Benefit: income generating
 Cost: seen as exploitative, principal-agent problems,
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
misaligned strategic goals, time-limited
 Third Wave
 Benefit: income generating, reach new student markets;
build brand internationally
 Cost: high risk, often built on faulty business models,
potential reputational damage
Gold Coast 2010

7. Benefits and costs of non-commercial
partnership-based cooperation (2)
 Student/faculty exchange
 Benefit: creates international learning opportunities
 Cost: expensive, may get little meaningful engagement
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
 Dual degrees
 Benefit: income generating, reach new student markets;
build brand internationally
 Cost: high risk, misalignment of partners‟ objectives,
quality assurance issues
 Research partnerships
 Benefit: economies of scale/scope, brand/profile
 Costs: top-down, little real collaboration
Gold Coast 2010

8. Bilateral versus multilateral
cooperation
 Increasing economies of scale and scope
 “A single thread can’t make a chord, nor a single tree a
forest” 一个线程不能引起了共鸣，也没有一棵树的森林
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
 versus…
 …increasing coordination and management costs
 Parallel is between bilateral free trade agreements and
multilateral trade negotiations (eg, New Zealand –
China FTA versus WTO Doha Round)
Gold Coast 2010

9. Multilateral cooperation: an
economist’s perspective
$ Marginal cost (coordination costs)
standardisation Marginal benefit
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
(economies of scale)
Costs of research
equipment, faculty
communication
technologies,
standardisation
size of network N*
Gold Coast 2010

10. Multilateral cooperation: a
management perspective
High
“Country Club” “Investment Bank”
Low Coordination costs
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
“Boutique” “Fast Food”
Low Economies of scale High
Gold Coast 2010

11. Multilateral cooperation: a
management perspective
High
Socrates
Universitas 21
Low Coordination costs
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
UMAP
Laureate
LSE/NYU/HKU
Astronomy
Low Economies of scale High
Gold Coast 2010

12. Conclusions
 The increase of international partnerships partly
explained by sequential model of internationalisation…
 …but range of other motives for international
nigel.healey@canterbury.ac.nz
partnerships in terms of universities‟ missions
 Good partnerships can transform learning experience
for students, open up new possibilities for collaborative
research
 Need to be managed carefully to ensure return on
investment, not presidents‟ vanity
 Final thought: is global warming a growing threat to
traditional models of international partnership?
Gold Coast 2010