Abstract
This chapter tries to explain the impact of the European Commission's ERASMUS programme on national higher education policies of 18 European countries. Based on an analysis of the literature on Europeanisation and policy impact, it is hypothesised that the impact will be very modest, but that there may be indirect impacts and differences in impact across countries dependent on institutional features of the higher education system. The empirical findings support the hypothesis: ERASMUS certainly has increased policy-makers' awareness of the importance and possible consequences of further internationalisation. Nevertheless, ERASMUS has a more profound effect on higher education institutions and students. In addition, policy-makers have been much more influenced regarding their internationalisation policies by the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations. There are some noteworthy differences between the countries that relate to specific domestic characteristics (e.g. language and colonial history).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | International Relations |
| Editors | Malcolm Tight |
| Pages | 5-27 |
| Number of pages | 23 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2005 |
Publication series
| Name | International Perspectives on Higher Education Research |
|---|---|
| Volume | 3 |
| ISSN (Print) | 1479-3628 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Regarding the capacities of actors, we are almost immediately inclined to translate this into financial capacities. Indeed, when national governments lack the financial means to support internationalisation activities (in particular student and staff mobility), this will be a barrier. In the case of the ERASMUS programme, however, the financial support is granted by the European Commission and national governments are free to offer additional support (either by supplementing grants or by establishing mobility grant systems). With respect to the powers of actors, there may be important actors that are able to block policy initiatives if such policies are detrimental to the objectives of those actors. Of particular relevance is the possible resistance of the academic oligarchy against intended change brought about by governmental policies. In the case of internationalisation in general, and student and staff mobility in particular, we estimate that the resistance will be marginal given that these aspects of internationalisation are part and parcel of higher education.
Funding
Regarding the capacities of actors, we are almost immediately inclined to translate this into financial capacities. Indeed, when national governments lack the financial means to support internationalisation activities (in particular student and staff mobility), this will be a barrier. In the case of the ERASMUS programme, however, the financial support is granted by the European Commission and national governments are free to offer additional support (either by supplementing grants or by establishing mobility grant systems). With respect to the powers of actors, there may be important actors that are able to block policy initiatives if such policies are detrimental to the objectives of those actors. Of particular relevance is the possible resistance of the academic oligarchy against intended change brought about by governmental policies. In the case of internationalisation in general, and student and staff mobility in particular, we estimate that the resistance will be marginal given that these aspects of internationalisation are part and parcel of higher education.