This panel discussion will consider the ways in which universities use internationalisation, in particular international partnerships and strategic alliances, to supporting their marketing and branding activities with the aim of positioning themselves competitively in a global market. The speakers will offer different perspectives on the development of a university’s brand image and reputation, including the role of consultancies, usually external to an institution, in marketing and brand promotion and the growing use of networks or strategic alliances to shape an institution’s reputation and image. Some case studies of particular universities will illustrate different approaches to this issue. The panel discussion will engage the audience through interactive discussion in reviewing a number of alternative strategic approaches that institutions can consider for their own further development. QS Asia-Pacific Professional Leaders in Education (QS-APPLE) 7th Annual Conference, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, November 2011

1. International partnerships in global higher
education: inevitable trend or passing fashion?
Professor Nigel Healey, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (International)
Nottingham Trent University

2. Overview
• Forms of international cooperation
• Benefits and costs of each form
• Small or large networks?
• Conclusions

3. Forms of international cooperation
• “Uppsala sequencing model” drawn from the literature on the
internationalisation of business:
 Exporting
 Licensing production
 Foreign direct investment: Joint ventures the „third wave’
 Foreign direct investment: Sole Ventures
• How well does this explain the emergence of strategic partnerships
and alliances in global higher education?
• Are these partnerships the logical next step in the
internationalisation of universities?

4. Universities as exporters
• Exporting educational services = providing education to
foreign students by:
teaching students on home campus
teaching students through „pure‟ distance learning‟ (ie, without the
support of a local agent or campus)
• Huge and growing market globally
first movers Australia and UK, now European and Asian countries
attracting international students
limited form of internationalisation

5. Universities as franchisers
• Franchising = licensing production
• For universities:
franchising = licensing a foreign partner, often a private for-profit
college to offer part or all of a degree (1+2, 2+1, 3+0, etc)
“McDonaldization” of higher education
large numbers of such franchises in Asia
primarily UK and Australian universities involved

6. Universities as foreign investors: the
„third wave‟
• Third wave includes:
Foreign investment as part of a joint venture with a local partner
Foreign investment as a sole venture, with the university setting
up a branch campus
• Most „branch campuses‟ are small executive training
centres or joint ventures by universities sharing space on
the host‟s campus
• Very few genuine branch campuses, notably in China,
Malaysia, South Africa; all are joint ventures
• For-profit providers like Laureate are investing in foreign
campuses through acquisition

7. However, most international partnerships
and alliances are not following this process…
• World Universities Network (16 members/8 countries)
• Universitas 21 (21 universities/12 countries)
• Asia-Pacific Rim Universities (41 members/17 countries)
• League of European Research Universities (21 members/10
countries)
• ASEAN University Network (26 members/10 countries)
01 February 2013 7

8. …because universities are not businesses
• Universities mix of public, not-for-profit and for-profit
• Traditional models of internationalisation explain growth of
exporting and franchising in higher education…
• …but almost no universities have managed to make money
from third wave of internationalisation
• Joint ventures and partnerships appear to be driven more
by other considerations

9. Non-commercial drivers of international
partnerships
• Student and faculty (no-fees) exchange
• Joint or dual programmes – degree programmes built
around structured student exchange
• Research partnerships
• All three forms of cooperation may be bilateral or
multilateral (networks)
• Possible motivations:
– create international learning experience to prepare graduates for
global labour market
– leverage teaching/research capabilities through partnership,
especially in big science
– ambition to be a global brand

10. Benefits and costs of Uppsala partnership-
based cooperation (1)
• Franchising
– Benefit: income generating
– Cost: seen as exploitative, principal-agent problems, 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

11. 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
• 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

12. 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
• 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)

13. Multilateral cooperation: an economist‟s
perspective
$ Marginal cost (coordination costs)
Marginal benefit
(economies of
scale)
Costs of
research communication
equipment, technologies,
faculty standardisation
size of network N*

14. Multilateral cooperation: a management
perspective
High
Coordination costs
“Country “International
Club” Banking”
“Boutique” “Fast Food”
Low
Low Economies of scale High

15. Multilateral cooperation: a management
perspective
High
Socrates
Universitas 21
Coordination costs
UMAP
LSE/NYU/HKU Laureate
Low
Low Economies of scale High

16. Conclusions
• The increase of international partnerships partly explained by
sequential model of internationalisation…
• …but range of other motives for international partnerships
• 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?