Clarifying Mixed Messages: International Scholarship Programmes in The Sustainable Development Agenda
Clarifying Mixed Messages: International Scholarship Programmes in The Sustainable Development Agenda
Original Article
Clarifying Mixed Messages: International
Scholarship Programmes in the Sustainable
Development Agenda
Anne C. Campbella and Matt Mawerb
a
Graduate School of International Policy and Management, Middlebury Institute of International Studies,
460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
b
The Association of Commonwealth Universities, Woburn House, 20-24 Tavistock Square,
London WC1H 9HF, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Many look to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) as the ‘‘plan of action for
people, planet, and prosperity,’’ which is ‘‘urgently needed to shift the world onto a
sustainable and resilient path’’ (United Nations (UN), 2015). Sustainable devel-
opment is defined by the UN as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’
(2015). Within the SDGs, education is conceived of in multiple ways, including as
both a goal unto itself, a ‘‘metaphor for social betterment’’ (Toukan, 2017, 294),
and a tool to achieve many other development gains, such as greater environmental
sustainability. Despite its omission from the Millennium Development Goals, and
Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages
SDGs, but instead to understand the implications seeking to achieve Target 4b. To
do this, we focus on three theories prominent in understanding international
education for development. As our analysis demonstrates, failing to comprehend
the frames undergirding scholarship programs can create diverse (and sometimes
perverse) outcomes that may or may not lead to sustainable development. The
paper concludes with recommendations to enhance the interpretation of Target 4b
and the role of international scholarships in sustainable development.
Background
Scholarships available to citizens of developing countries to study in developed or
other developing countries have been part of international education for many
decades, with some programs, such as the Rhodes Scholarships, operating for over
a century. Yet initiatives grouped under the broad banner of ‘‘scholarships’’ are
remarkably diverse (Perna et al., 2014), varying by sources and scope of funding;
length, level, and field of study; host country and university; and type and extent of
the conditions placed on awardees. Nearly every conceivable arrangement within
these dimensions is represented in existing (or historical) scholarship programmes.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, administrators and researchers have yet to agree on a
single definition of international scholarship programmes. As such, most compre-
hensive attempts to chart international scholarships do not offer much analytical
utility to understanding SDG Goal 4b. Perna and colleagues (2014), for instance,
identified a typology of characteristics from 183 scholarship programmes, but
based only on those funded by national governments for the outward mobility of
their own citizens. Other commentaries (Wilson, 2015; Campbell, 2016) acknowl-
edge the differences in funders, motivations, and scale of scholarship programmes,
but stop short of offering a formal definition. To date, scholarships have been
typically identified by example rather than definition.
The SDGs also failed to provide a firm definition of ‘‘scholarship’’. In response,
Bhandari and Mirza proposed a definition in their baseline analysis for monitoring
progress against the Target: ‘‘A grant or payment (regardless of funding amount)
made by a developed or developing country’s national government to students from
developing countries to support their education at a tertiary level…that will result
in a degree, certification, or recognized award’’ (2016, 4). Although this definition
highlights the transactional quality of a scholarship, it unfortunately presumes
equivalence among a huge range of initiatives, from fee waivers without travel or
subsistence funds to a full-ride doctoral degree.
Since the publication of the SDGs, additional insight has been offered by
UNESCO:
In an attempt to illustrate the possible legacies of Target 4b, this paper explores
different readings of the Target through three theories — human capital, human
rights, and human capabilities — prominent in understanding international
education for development (e.g. McCowan, 2016). Each approach is introduced,
outlining the theory of change as it relates to international scholarships. Next, the
potential outcomes of Target 4b’s call to ‘‘substantially expand globally the number
of scholarships’’ (UN, 2015) is analysed through the ‘‘lens’’ of each theory. We
argue that by better understanding these frames for Target 4b, national govern-
ments and other donors can thoughtfully and responsibly respond to the UN’s call
for more scholarship programs that lead to sustainable development. While
advocating for specific programs and certain programme attributes is outside the
scope of this paper, we contend that deeper analysis of theoretical underpinnings
can enhance international scholarships efficacy in the sustainable development
agenda, while also being fair to the individuals who participate in such initiatives.
Focal Theories
Human capital theory
A significant theory undergirding current thinking in education (Klees, 2016),
human capital theory (HCT) holds that financial investment in education leads to
increased individual economic output (Becker, 1993; Schultz, 1963), as well as
influence the social and economic development of communities (Leslie and
Brinkman, 1998; McMahon, 1999). HCT often examines individual wages as the
unit of analysis (Sweetland, 1996), with several wide-ranging studies calculating
dollar-for-dollar return on greater education investment (Bennell, 1996; Psachar-
opoulos and Patrinos, 2004). HCT is based on many neoclassical economic
assumptions, including that individuals act in rational ways and seek to maximize
their interests (Tan, 2014).
McMahon (1999) argues that education contributes to individual returns and
wider ‘‘community structural effects’’, positively affecting the individual’s firm,
household, and community, such as boosting democratization and human rights and
reducing poverty and inequality. Similarly, Vila (2000) shows a connection
between education and reproductive health, environmental awareness, and
stable social structures, among other positive outcomes. In more recent work,
McMahon and Oketch suggest that investment in human capital means that the
‘‘education of each generation generates non-monetary benefits beyond earnings
that benefit each family over the life cycle but also benefits charitable organizations
and civic institutions’’ (2010, 32). These studies, among others, illustrate how HCT
provides a functionalist link between investment in education and individual and
social gains across many focal areas of the SDGs.
Rights-based education
A rights-based approach to education is tightly bound to the UN Declaration of
Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to pursue education and
notes that ‘‘Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms’’ (UN, 1948).
Building from the declaration, a rights-based approach argues for adequate
availability of education, equal access to education in both legislation and
implementation, non-discriminatory school-based policies, and inclusive peda-
gogies (Tomasevski, 2004; UNICEF, 2007). The UN states that higher education
‘‘shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit’’ (1948) and, as McCowan
(2012) argues, this right to higher education should not be embargoed for the elite,
especially when considering the benefits higher education affords for one’s career
and position within society. Increasingly, advocates of rights-based education
include an emphasis on access to quality education, as attending school does not
always indicate learning (Winthrop et al., 2015).
Within this theory, scholarship programmes provide additional access to higher
education, often for those with extremely limited opportunity to pursue this right
without financial support. For designers of the Ford Foundation International
Fellowship Program (IFP), for instance, ‘‘IFP represented a new commitment to
expand access to postgraduate opportunity globally for communities and social
groups experiencing marginalization and exclusion’’ (Zurbuchen, 2009, 40). Like
the UN declaration, IFP intended that increasing access to education would redress
inequities and improve cohesion in wider society (Zurbuchen, 2009). Another
prominent example, the Albert Einstein German Academic Refugee Initiative
(DAFI), provides scholarships to refugees to undertake tertiary-level study and has
operated for decades with the aim of securing the rights of vulnerable displaced
Human capabilities
A human capabilities approach is based on the notion that individual ‘‘freedom’’ is
achieved when one can apply individual choice in the planning and pursuit of life
goals, with the intention of achieving or doing something worthwhile to the
individual (Sen, 2000). Towards this end, education expands one’s range of choices
by helping individuals to develop their capabilities or their ‘‘potential to function’’
(Walker, 2010, 909), leading to greater opportunities, ability to understand and
interact with the world, and making meaningful choices about their lives (Sen,
2000; Nussbaum, 2006). Walker sums up the human capabilities approach to
education: ‘‘Capabilities are the potential to…be knowledgeable, to use one’s
knowledge in worthwhile ways, to be interculturally aware and sensitive, and so on.
The question we ask of education is then: what are people actually able to do and
be?’’ (2012, 388).
In a human capabilities frame, education is successful when individuals are able
to make important choices and live fulfilling lives facilitated by, but not solely
predicated on, individual labour market success and national economic growth (see
Walker, 2012). Sen (2000) and Flores-Crespo (2007), among others, have argued
that economic productivity gains do not necessarily imply development for
individuals (or even collectives): economic prosperity can increase in misogynistic,
polluted, and oppressive environments. Instead, Nussbaum (1998) has stated that
education serves the role of developing a sense of self-awareness and shared
humanity, understanding that all human freedoms are connected (Sen, 2009).
Lozano and colleagues remind us that the capabilities approach suggests that
‘‘education must foster people’s ability to see themselves as linked to all human
beings by ties of recognition and concern’’ (2012, 138).
The theory of change rooted in human capabilities posits that international
scholarships should help individuals understand their place in society — and their
ability to change it. For example, the Open Society Foundations emphasizes this
approach in describing their scholarships: ‘‘University-based education will
empower these [scholarship grantees] to explore and develop intelligent and
humane ideas generated by free and open inquiry, critical analysis, and a nuanced
understanding of the complex challenges facing open societies’’ (2017).
and developed nations. Not only does this point underscore the transformative
nature of education, but it also suggests that scholarship programme graduates are
likely to be effective actors within a sustainable development agenda. Solidarity
and interconnectedness are central to the SDGs, as is evident in their moniker of the
‘‘Global Goals’’ (UN, 2015). Also, as noted above, international scholarship
programmes often focus on concepts such as ‘‘intercultural awareness’’ and may be
well placed to ‘‘sensitize’’ individuals in the manner Nussbaum advocates (see, for
instance, Tarrant et al., 2014). A human capabilities approach, with its endorsement
for global interconnectedness, also alleviates some restrictive pressure on
individuals to return and remain at home yet emphasizes a sense of solidarity
with those living in the home country.
Third, and building the preceding point, many scholarship programmes allude to
a ‘‘change agent’’ or ‘‘opinion leader’’ model (Wilson, 2015), suggesting that
expanding an individual’s capabilities through education is a prelude to increasing
capabilities for a wider population. The MasterCard Foundation Scholars
Program’s emphasis on transformative leadership helps to illustrate this point:
transformative leadership is defined as ‘‘the act of engaging others, in an ethical
manner, to generate positive and lasting change’’ (MasterCard Foundation, 2017a,
26). Following similar logic, UNESCO’s injunction for scholarships to ‘‘build the
capability of the developing country’’ (2016, 14) implies that the mechanism for
building capability must primarily be based on the action of the individual
scholarship recipients, not just in having more foreign study opportunities
available. Target 4b could thus be seen as linking to the remainder of the
sustainable development agenda by focusing on empowering individual scholarship
recipients to develop a broad base of ‘‘change agents’’ able to address the SDGs.
One difficulty with a human capabilities interpretation of SDG Target 4b is that
there is no guarantee that scholarship recipients will choose to apply their
capabilities in a way congruent with the SDGs or their home country’s
development strategy. Sen’s formulation of agency illustrates this tension: ‘‘[An
individual’s] achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and
objectives, whether or not we assess them in terms of some external criteria as
well’’ (2000, 19). Taking the perspective of the SDG framers and signatories, an
expansion in available scholarships is not merely to empower individual agents
who can act according to their own values, but who will act according to the values
that underpin the SDGs. For example, an individual with a degree in mining
engineering who develops quicker, but not environmentally sound, ways to extrude
minerals may be achieving their own career objectives (exercising personal agency)
but is unlikely to be acting in line with the objectives promoted in Goal 7:
Affordable and Clean Energy. Similarly, while it is not explicitly stated in Target
4b, it seems reasonable to conclude that by specifying fields of study (e.g.
engineering), individuals are expected to use their capabilities to specific aims (e.g.
enhancing the quality of infrastructure). This outlook is quite different to one
Higher Education Policy 2018
Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages
focused on developing into who you can be and choosing freely how to apply your
capabilities.
made more widely available, consistently supported, and most effectively used.
These activities, designed with an eye towards organizing around the SDGs, might
also open the possibility for cross-donor or cross-programme collaborations.
Supporting alumni and evaluating programmes are also issues of sustainability:
Target 4b is fundamentally about individuals and so confers a moral imperative
both to understand the programmes’ influence on its participants and, where
possible, to ensure the impact is positive.
References
Asian Development Bank. (2007) ADB’s Japan Funds: Japan Scholarship Program, Manilla: Asian
Development Bank.
Atkinson, C. (2015) ‘The role of U.S. elite military schools in promoting intercultural understanding and
democratic governance’, All Azimuth 4(2): 19–29.
Baxter, A.R. (2014) ‘The burden of privilege: navigating transnational space and migration dilemmas
among Rwandan scholarship students in the U.S.’, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Organizational
Leadership, Policy and Development, University of Minnesota.
Becker, G.S. (1993) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to
Education (3rd edn), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bennell, P. (1996) ‘Rates of return to education: does the conventional pattern prevail in sub-Saharan
Africa?’ World Development 24(1): 183–199.
Bhandari, R. and Mirza, Z. (2016) Scholarships for Students from Developing Countries: Establishing a
Global Baseline (ED, GEMR, MRT, 2016, P1, 11 REV), Paper Commissioned for the Global
Education Monitoring Report, Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for all,
Paris: UNESCO.
Buckler, C. and Creech, H. (2014) Shaping the Future We Want: UN Decade of Education for
Sustainable Development (Final Report), Paris: UNESCO.
Campbell, A.C. (2016) ‘International scholarship graduates influencing social and economic develop-
ment at home: the role of alumni networks in Georgia and Moldova’, Current Issues in Comparative
Education, 19(1): 76–91.
Campbell, A.C. (2017) ‘How international scholarship recipients perceive their contributions to the
development of their home countries: findings from a comparative study of Georgia and Moldova’,
International Journal of Educational Development 55: 56–62.
Capuano, S. and Marfouk, A. (2013) ‘African brain drain and its impact on source countries: what do we
know and what do we need to know?’ Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and
Practice 15(4), 297–314.
Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004) ‘Putting the ‘rights-based approach’ to development into
perspective’, Third World Quarterly 25(8): 1415–1437.
DAMVAD. (2014) Evaluation of the Quota Scheme 2001–2012: Assessing Impact in Higher Education
and Development, Oslo: DAMVAD.
Flores-Crespo, P. (2007) ‘Situating Education in the Human Capabilities Approach’, in M. Walker and
E. Unterhalter (eds.) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 45–65.
Gürüz, K. (2011) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge
Economy (2nd ed), Albany: SUNY Press.
Kalisman, H.F. (2015) ‘Bursary scholars at the American University of Beirut: living and practising
Arab unity’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 42(4): 599–617.
Klees, S. (2016) ‘Human capital and rates of return: brilliant ideas or ideological dead ends?’,
Comparative Education Review 60(4): 644–672.
Leslie, L.L. and Brinkman, P.T. (1998) The Economic Value of Higher Education, New York: American
Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company.
Lozano, J.F., Boni, A., Peris, J. and Hueso, A. (2012) ‘Competencies in higher education: a critical
analysis from the capabilities approach’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 46(1): 132–147.
MasterCard Foundation. (2017a) Education in Support of Social Transformation: Learning from the First
Five Years of the MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program, Toronto: MasterCard Foundation.
MasterCard Foundation (2017b) — ‘Ruhia’, http://www.mastercardfdn.org/scholar/ruhia/. Accessed 24
June 2017.
Mawer, M. (2017) ‘Approaches to analyzing the outcomes of international scholarship programs for
higher education’, Journal of Studies in International Education 21(3): 230–245.
McMahon, W.W. (1999) Education and Development: Measuring the Social Benefits, New York:
Oxford University Press.
McCowan, T. (2012) ‘Is there a universal right to higher education?’, British Journal of Educational
Studies 60(2): 111–128.
McCowan, T. (2016) ‘Theories of Development’, in T. McCowan and E. Unterhalter (eds.) Education
and International Development: An Introduction, London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 31–48.
McMahon, W. and Oketch, M. (2010) Bachelor’s and Short Degrees in the UK and US: New Social
Rates of Return and Non-market Effects on Development, London: Centre for Learning and Life
Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies.
Morlang, C. and Watson, S. (2007) Tertiary Refugee Education Impact and Achievements: 15 Years of
DAFI (Albert Einstein Academic Refugee Initiatives (DAFI) Programme), Geneva: UNHCR.
Mundy, K. (2006) ‘Education for all and the new development compact’, International Review of
Education 52(1/2): 23–48.
Murray, R., Hope, J. and Turley, H. (2014) Education for all—access to education for people who have
sought asylum; a guide for universities, http://article26.hkf.org.uk/policy-resources/education-for-
all. Accessed 30 May 2017.
Nussbaum, M.C. (1998) Cultivating Humanity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2006) Frontiers of Justice, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.) Transforming our world: human rights in the
2030 agenda for sustainable development, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/MDGs/Post2015/
HRAndPost2015.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2017.
Open Society Foundations. (2017) Scholarship programs, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
about/programs/scholarship-programs. Accessed 27 May 2017.
Pedersen, P. (2010) ‘Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study abroad
program’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(1): 70–80.
Perna, L.W., Orosz, K., Gopaul, B., Jumakulov, Z., Ashirbekov, A. and Kishkentayeva, M. (2014)
‘Promoting human capital development: a typology of international scholarship programs in higher
education’, Educational Researcher 43(2): 63–73.
Perna, L.W., Orosz, K. and Jumakulov, Z. (2015) ‘Understanding the human capital benefits of a
government-funded international scholarship program: an exploration of Kazakhstan’s Bolashak
program’, International Journal of Educational Development 40: 85–97.
Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H.A. (2004) ‘Returns to investment in education: a further update’,
Education Economics 12(2): 111–134.
Roberts, L. and Ajai-Ajagbe, P. (2013) Higher Education and the Millennium Development Goals:
Where are We Coming from, and Where are We Going, London: The Association of Commonwealth
Universities.
Robeyns, I. (2006) ‘Three models of education: rights, capabilities and human capital’, Theory and
Research in Education 4(1): 69–84.
Schultz, T.W. (1963) The Economic Value of Education, New York: Columbia University Press.
Sen, A. (2000) Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor Books.
Sen, A. (2009) The Idea of Justice, London: Penguin.
Strömbom, M. (1989) ‘Evaluation of fellowships awarded to developing countries: what do the studies
tell?’, Higher Education 18(6): 707–724.
Sweetland, S.R. (1996) ‘Human capital theory: foundations of a field of inquiry’, Review of Educational
Research 66(3): 341–359.
Tan, E. (2014) ‘Human capital theory: a holistic criticism’, Review of Educational Research 84(3):
411–445.
Tarrant, M.A., Rubin, D.L. and Stoner, L. (2014) ‘The added value of study abroad: fostering a global
citizenry’, Journal of Studies in International Education 18(2): 141–161.
Tikly, L. (2017) ‘The future of education for all as a global regime of educational governance’,
Comparative Education Review, 61(1): 22–57.
Tomasevski, K. (2004) Manual on Rights-Based Education: Global Human Rights Requirements Made
Simple, Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.
Toukan, E.V. (2017) ‘Expressions of liberal justice? examining the aims of the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals for education’, Interchange 48(3): 293–309.
UNESCO. (2016) Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4: Education 2020 (ED-16/ESC-PCR/GD/
1), http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002463/246300E.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2017.
UNICEF. (2007) A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All, New York: UNICEF.
United Nations. (1948) Declaration of Human Rights, New York: United Nations.
United Nations. (2015) Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/
RES/70/1), New York: United Nations.
Oyelere, R.U. (2011) ‘Brain drain, waste or gain? what we know about the Kenyan case’, Journal of
Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective 2(2), 113–129.
Vila, L. (2000) ‘The non-monetary benefits of education’, European Journal of Education 34(1): 21–32.
Walker, M. (2010) ‘Critical capability pedagogies and university education’, Educational Philosophy
and Theory 42(8): 898–917.
Walker, M. (2012) ‘A capital or capabilities education narrative in a world of staggering inequalities?’
International Journal of Educational Development 32(3): 384–393.
Wilson, I. (2014) International Education Programs and Political Influence: Manufacturing Sympathy?,
New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Wilson, I. (2015) ‘Ends changed, means retained: scholarship programs, political influence, and drifting
goals’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 17(1): 130–151.
Winthrop, R., Anderson, K. and Cruzalegui, I. (2015) ‘A review of policy debates around learning in the
post-2015 education and development agenda’, International Journal of Educational Development
40: 297–307.
World Bank. (2000) Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, Washington: The
Task Force on Higher Education and Society, World Bank.
World Bank Institute. (2008) Joint Japan/World Bank Graduate Scholarship Program: Tracer Study 8,
Washington D.C: World Bank.
Ziguras, C. and Gribble, C. (2015) ‘Policy responses to address student ‘‘brain drain’’ an assessment of
measures intended to reduce the emigration of Singaporean international students’, Journal of Studies
in International Education 19(3): 246–264.
Zurbuchen, M. (2009) ‘The Question of ‘‘Disadvantage’’’, in T. Volkman, J. Dassin and M. Zurbuchen
(eds.) Origins, Journeys and Returns: Social Justice in International Higher Education, New York:
Social Science Research Council, pp. 37–60.