Higher Education Policy, 2018

 2018 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/18

www.palgrave.com/journals

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]

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals include an explicit commitment to

‘‘substantially expand’’ the study abroad scholarships available to developing countries
(Target 4b). Although this Target indicates a level of consensus about the benefits of
scholarship programmes, it is made ambiguous by assuming coherence among many
types of scholarship programme with different aims, approaches, and undergirding
theories. In this paper, we examine the potential consequences of underpinning Target
4b through three theories: human capital, human rights, and human capabilities.
Through the lenses of these three theories, we find significantly different outcomes
projected for the ways that scholarship programs are linked to sustainable development.
Additionally, failing to comprehend the theoretical frames that undergird scholarship
programs creates an opportunity for diverse (and sometimes perverse) outcomes that
may not serve the world’s compact for a sustainable future. We propose a way forward
through a human capabilities approach.
Higher Education Policy (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0077-1

Keywords: study abroad; scholarships; sustainable development goals (SDGs); human

capital; human rights; human capabilities

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

limited presence in the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development

(Buckler and Creech, 2014), higher education features prominently in SDG Goal 4,
in which signatories resolve to ‘‘ensure equal access for all women and men to
affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including
university’’ (UN, 2015).
The inclusion of higher education within the SDGs is noteworthy given that their
predecessor — the Millennium Development Goals — roundly ignored the
contributions of higher education in global development (Roberts and Ajai-Ajagbe,
2013). More striking than its inclusion, however, is the way in which higher
education access is conceptualized both within and between nations. SDG Target
4b commits signatories to:

By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available

to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island
developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education,
including vocational training and information and communications technol-
ogy, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed coun-
tries and other developing countries. (UN, 2015)
In other words, the UN and 193 member states have agreed that sponsored
international student mobility should be among the tools and outcomes for a
sustainable planet. For the first time in a prominent international-level agenda,
international scholarships are advocated as a tool for development.
Often accessible only to the elite, international student mobility might seem
incongruent with a global sustainable development agenda. Yet many international
organizations and national governments sponsor study abroad with the aim that
students will build skills and connections to drive social, economic, and civic
development in their home countries (see Asian Development Bank, 2007; Perna
et al., 2015). The extent to which scholarships successfully meet the goals of
various stakeholders is the subject of long-running, although often sparsely
detailed, debate (e.g. Strömbom, 1989; Wilson, 2015). Defining and measuring
scholarship programme outcomes and impacts also remains a significant challenge
for a host of practical and conceptual reasons, such as the long timescale of
interventions, difficulty defining an adequate counterfactual, and limited cross-
funder cooperation to conduct broader analyses of outcomes (Mawer, 2017).
Similarly, little critical analysis of Target 4b has been made public since its
adoption in September 2015. This is surprising given the deadline of 2020: any
hope of achieving substantial expansion by this deadline must be underpinned by
financial and administrative actions — paired with policy amendments — now.
This paper unpacks SDG Target 4b by exploring the intended mechanism that
links international scholarships and sustainable development broadly. We do not
aim to determine how or why higher education scholarships were included in the

Higher Education Policy 2018

 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:

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

Scholarship programmes can play a vital role in providing opportunities for

young people and adults who would otherwise not be able to afford to co-
ntinue their education. Where developed countries offer scholarships to st-
udents from developing countries, these should be structured to build the
capability of the developing country…In line with the SDG4 — Education
2030 focus on equity, inclusion and quality, scholarships should be transp-
arently targeted at young people from disadvantaged backgrounds (2016, 14).
UNESCO’s commentary contributes considerably to the definition of Target 4b. It
is clear, for example, that scholarships in developed countries should build capacity
and skills of students from lower-income countries, although the expected
outcomes of scholarships for study in other developing countries remains
ambiguous. UNESCO also clarifies that Target 4b is intended to support young
and disadvantaged individuals who are otherwise unable to afford study and that
the Target should be in line with the values of its parent Goal 4.
Together, these sources provide some insight into the logic assumed by those
who framed and signed the SDGs, but they also leave several theoretical questions
unaddressed. For example, how (if at all) will scholarships contribute to the broader
Goal 4, which includes ‘‘lifelong learning’’, given UNESCO’s exclusive focus on
‘‘young people’’ as the target of scholarships?
Most importantly, there is no mechanism detailed of how scholarships might
‘‘build the capability’’ of the students’ home countries, or how students might use
their newfound skills to achieve social, economic, or civic outcomes. Although
Target 4b and UNESCO have indicated that scholarships — and by extension,
scholarship recipients — should contribute to the capability of the developing
country, there is certainly not a consensus among scholarship funders and designers
about the ways such impacts are best achieved. Moreover, by conflating all
programs into the umbrella term of ‘‘scholarship’’, nuances of programme design
and expectations are lost. The links between the vehicle and the destination are not
explicit.
While it is commonplace to find ambiguity in an international agenda with such
a broad stakeholder group, we see two main reasons that Target 4b is sending
mixed messages. First, the Target aggregates a series of public policy programmes
with very different strategies and methods, exacerbated by no unified definition of
‘‘scholarship’’. Second, these various programs have multiple theories of change,
and numerous related designs based on these theories — some of which contribute
more logically to sustainable development outcomes. It is our contention that much
of the difficulty in Target 4b’s proposition is the absence of an agreed theory to
connect international scholarships and social and economic change in the students’
home countries. These differences need to be better understood and incorporated
into policy to best capitalize on international scholarships to achieve sustainable
development for this planet.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

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.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

HCT aligns with the rationale of many international scholarship programmes’

design: significant financial investment in international higher education will lead
to post-education economic activity, which spills over to generate returns within
the wider community of the student’s home country. This rationale is evident in
many public statements about the aims and outcomes of international scholarships.
The World Bank Institute, for example, introduces the aim of the Joint Japan/World
Bank Graduate Scholarship Program as awarding ‘‘scholarships for graduate
studies to well-qualified mid-career professionals, who are then expected to apply
and disseminate the newly acquired knowledge and skills in promoting the
socioeconomic development of their own and other developing countries’’ (2008,
1). As Perna and colleagues (2014) have noted, the logic underpinning such
statements is that human capital can be ‘‘imported’’ by earning degrees abroad,
helping to overcome shortfalls and improve capacity at home.

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

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

populations. Providing access is ‘‘both a vital component of and necessary to

durable solutions for refugee situations worldwide…DAFI has been and remains
today, by and large, the only option widely available for refugees to continue to
tertiary education’’ (Morlang and Watson, 2007, 7). Similar initiatives have also
been undertaken at the level of non-governmental organizations and higher
education institutions. In the UK, for instance, the Article 26 Network has
promoted access to higher education for refugees through negotiated schemes of
fee waivers, bursaries, and full-ride scholarships (Murray et al., 2014).

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).

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

Empowering individuals to think differently, more expansively, and with a more

refined intercultural understanding is a frequently used rationale for studying
abroad generally (e.g. Pedersen, 2010) and scholarships programmes specifically
(e.g. Atkinson, 2015).
A human capabilities approach also recognizes and underscores the importance
of individual agency: both while on scholarship (e.g., joining an advocacy group)
and in how individuals apply their capabilities afterwards (e.g., start a community
organization). With enhanced capabilities, graduates may employ them in various
ways throughout their life, based on their employment, environment, and other
factors; this choice on how and where to apply their skills is an individual’s
freedom (Sen, 2000). Notably, these choices need not align with the outlook of
external actors, including scholarship funders. Such is the case of government-
sponsored Iraqi, Syrian, and Transjordanian scholarship students who participated
in ‘‘subversive’’ political activity at the American University of Beirut in the early
twentieth century (Kalisman, 2015).

Examining SDG Target 4b Through Three Theoretical Lenses

Human capital and Target 4b
The international development community and national governments are familiar
with the economic logic of inputs and returns: HCT has longstanding influence on
educational planning and policies (Klees, 2016). This familiarity signals that HCT
is a pragmatic framework for understanding Target 4b, given the breadth of
stakeholders involved in the SDGs and the commonplace economic methods for
measuring development (e.g. GDP). Toukan (2017) also provides a compelling
argument of the SDGs being mostly rooted in the same liberalist rationale that
underpins HCT.
HCT also charts a comprehensible pathway for how scholarship programs can
catalyse development. Financial investment made in a person’s education can be
understood directly in terms of economic output and spill over effects. Although
social — particularly non-monetary — gains are notoriously difficult to measure,
they are routinely noted as important outcomes (Klees, 2016). As Pscharapolous
and Patrinos have put it: ‘‘If one could include externalities, then social rates of
return may well be higher than private rates of return to education’’ (2004, 117). In
the context of Target 4b, the working hypothesis is that sponsored international
education will improve individual human capital and create spill over effects,
leading to economic development gains for individual and country.
However, the theory is not as straightforward in practice. For example, an
individual’s rational economic interests and a government’s collective interests
may be misaligned. While government sponsors are likely to identify technical
capacity needs (e.g., shortage of doctors or technicians) that are consonant with
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

other SDGs — such as Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure —

individual scholarship recipients may view their interests in terms of career
trajectory, safety and civic rights, or cultural and social affinity. Similarly, although
some scholarship programmes have far-ranging visions, they are typically rooted in
present capacity needs, whereas individuals may frame their interests in terms of
current and future generations’ opportunities (Baxter, 2014).
Individuals might also make economically rational post-education choices that
do not contribute to sustainable development as intended by the SDG framers.
Consider an individual from a rural area of developing country who wins a medical
school scholarship at a prestigious North American institution. Returning to live in
relative poverty by taking a job at the community clinic in their home town — or
even at a top hospital in the capital city — may not be a rational course of action
when compared to joining a rich country’s hospital staff (and remitting funds
home). Additionally, if primary spill over effects are proximate to the educated
individual or are concentrated in specific high-income centres (see McMahon,
1999; McMahon and Oketch, 2010), then both emigrating from the home country
and migrating within the country (e.g. from rural to urban areas) may deprive needy
regions of the scholarship recipient’s human capital.
These arguments will be familiar to those aware of the debate around ‘‘brain
drain’’, particularly of highly skilled individuals in medical and technical
professions, that has been well-charted (e.g. Uwaifo Oyelere, 2011; Capuano and
Marfouk, 2013). International scholarship programmes are potentially vulnerable to
this cost by providing the means for migration and high-skilled employment abroad
(Ziguras and Gribble, 2015). While there have been various attempts at compelling
scholarship students to return home and work in their home country, the
effectiveness of these arrangements in reducing brain drain in both the short and
long term has been inconclusive (DAMVAD, 2014; Ziguras and Gribble, 2015).
Perhaps the most worrisome consequence of interpreting Target 4b within the
HCT approach, however, is the potential for perverse outcomes. HCT’s concen-
tration on economic development does not usually consider social justice, equity,
and social transformation (Walker, 2012). The SDGs, conversely, are concerned
with these topics — notably ‘‘reducing inequalities in income as well as those based
on age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
within a country’’ (UN, 2015). Therefore, pursuing international scholarships from
a HCT perspective might lead to conflict with other sustainable development goals.
For example, a national government could offer more scholarships to men from
dominant ethnic groups, assuming they are better placed to convert capacity gains
abroad into investment returns at home because of fewer sociocultural barriers (e.g.
less discrimination). However, systematic exclusion for women and minorities
would be a totally unacceptable social result of SDG Target 4b.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

Human rights and Target 4b

A human rights approach is an orthodox paradigm for an international agenda, such
as the SDGs, as equal rights across the globe is a core value of the UN. Human
rights are also prominent in the major international agreements around education,
such as Education For All (Mundy, 2006), and in education work done by
numerous bilateral or non-governmental aid agencies, such as the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency and CARE International (Corn-
wall and Nyamu-Musembi, 2004). Governments around the world are thus familiar
with a rights-based education approach — often interpreted as equal access to
education — and the global governance structures that support these types of
initiatives (see Tikly, 2017). Moreover, access to education is relatively straight-
forward to operationalize if it is the primary goal. Although it takes considerable
investment and organization for education to be available and accessible to all,
success can be analysed through policy analysis and enrolment and uptake
statistics.
Yet using a rights-based theory to underpin Target 4b raises many difficult
questions. First, there is the question of whether international higher education
qualifies as a human right. McCowan’s (2012) argument in favour of access to
higher education, for instance, does not specify international study as part of that
right. For example, should expensive government-sponsored MBA degrees at
Harvard Business School be a right — one that is expanded to be universally
available? Put more generically, is it a human right to have equal access to all
programs, at all universities, in all countries? If not, why not? Even if there is
consensus that international study is a universal right (or constituent within the idea
of education as a human right), it would be financially and logistically impractical
to implement international scholarship programs for all students (or potential
students), especially by Target 4b’s 2020 deadline.
Second, focusing primarily on access to education can generate perverse
outcomes both by ignoring completion rates and disregarding the quality of the
education attained. The easiest way to meet Target 4b under a purely access-driven
approach is to provide scholarships for cheap, low-quality tertiary education for
which the most individuals could meet the entry requirements, regardless of
whether they completed — or derived any benefit from — the course. This would
(at minimum) conflict with SDG Target 4.3, which proposes to ‘‘ensure equal
access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and
tertiary education, including university’’ (UN, 2015, our emphasis). As Robeyns
has argued, rights-based education ‘‘runs the risk of overemphasizing the legal
aspects of rights’’ and can ‘‘induce policy makers [sic] to being contented when
they have strictly followed the rules that a limited interpretation of the rights
imposes on them, even when additional efforts are necessary to meet the goal that
underlies the right’’ (2006, 70).

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

A related concern is that Target 4b can be read as promulgating a right to

educational mobility, rather than a right to a quality education (noted in Goal 4), by
focusing on study ‘‘in developed countries and other developing countries’’ (UN,
2015). Therefore, a female student travelling to attend a lower-quality university
overseas would be considered successful under a rights-based understanding of
Target 4b, although she — and her eventual contributions to sustainable
development — might be better served by studying a higher quality domestic
course.
Finally, and more generally, a rights-based framework views access to education
as an intrinsic good (a goal upon itself), but the SDG agenda has many
contingencies that are dependent on — or at least require support from — this
education having produced quality learning. Examples include the scientific, public
health, and civic goals, such as tackling climate change (Goal 13) and safeguarding
the world’s cultural heritage (Goal 11). Supporting these goals will depend on,
among other factors, relevant and specialized education, reintegration and
knowledge exchange at home, and individuals’ commitment to a sustainable
future. A purely rights-based theory is thus insufficient for underpinning a target for
extending scholarship programmes.

Human capabilities and Target 4b

A capabilities framing of Target 4b would build on the rights-based approach but
shift the focus somewhat from inputs (access to education) to outcomes
(capabilities) and the application of this learning (functionings). Using a human
capabilities approach has three advantages for linking the vehicle of international
scholarships to the destination of sustainable development.
First, individual choice can intersect in a meaningful way with the collective,
public domain in which the SDGs are framed. This intersection follows Sen’s
notion that ‘‘capabilities can be enhanced by public policy, but also, on the other
side, the direction of public policy can be influenced by the effective use of
participatory capabilities by the public’’ (2000, 18). Developing individual
capabilities is thus both a potential remedy to specific deficits identified by the
SDGs (e.g. Goal 2: Zero Hunger and Goal 5: Gender Equality) and a reciprocal
mechanism for empowering individuals to shape policies and ensure their concerns
are represented. This is quite different to the outlook of HCT or rights-based
theories, which largely construct individuals as compliant within the broader
agendas of the ‘‘global knowledge economy’’ and universal human rights.
Second, we might anticipate that international scholarship recipients will both
develop capabilities to act meaningfully and, with appropriately selected study
programmes, be ‘‘well educated to understand the plights of other people’’
(Nussbaum, 2006, 42), indicating greater understanding of local communities, their
complexity and interconnectedness, and increased solidarity with other developing

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

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.

Discussion: Navigating Mixed Messages

Through the lenses of these three theories, significantly different mechanisms,
incentives, opportunities, and outcomes are projected for scholarship programs in
the sustainable development agenda. Following HCT, students will apply their
education to greater economic gain for themselves and their employers, and
generate spill over effects to the community where they currently reside. The
scholarships should be relevant to the developing country labour market and have a
clear pathway to economic returns, but equity of access is less important if the net
outcomes in productivity are sufficient. A human rights approach defines success in
terms of access to international education for students from least developed
countries. Equity is crucial in a rights-based approach, but other concerns are
largely irrelevant, except where they represent a breach of equity resulting in some
citizens accessing better-quality education than others. The human capabilities
approach suggests that students will find ultimate freedom in exercising their
talents as they see fit, ideally choosing the path towards building capacity in the
home country. The relevance, outcomes, and equity of scholarships are all
important for human capabilities, but relevance and outcomes are framed
differently to HCT, and equity is concerned with both access and outcomes.
Ultimately, SDG Target 4b has several potential theoretical frames, each pulling in
different directions.
Following our analysis, we conclude that the theories of HCT and human rights
dominate — and are mixed — in the framing of Target 4b. The academic and
professional fields identified by Target 4b (vocational training and information and
communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes) are
often closely associated with global HCT approaches to building ‘‘knowledge
economies’’ and contributing to economic development (Gürüz, 2011; World Bank,
2000). Yet the Target is situated within the SDG framework, which focuses on
universal common interest and is rooted in the UN human rights approach (Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, n.d., p. 1). Targeting of scholarships
to ‘‘developing countries, small island developing States and African countries’’
may be interpreted through either lens: either as an intervention in geographical
regions where human capital needs are most acute, or as an expansion of access in
places with fewer higher education opportunities.
Conversely, with its focus on individuals developing capabilities through
education and then choosing how to apply them meaningfully, human capabilities
theory appears to be the most viable theory to understand how sponsored
international higher education leads to sustainable development outcomes. The

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

theory supports the transformative potential of education, accommodates the

dynamic interplay between agentic citizen and national policy, and champions
individuals’ agency and innovation to address shifting environments and roles.
Perhaps most importantly, in human capabilities theory, education is seen as
central to individuals comprehending their role in society and their contributions to
a sustainable planet. As Walker reminds us (2012), educated individuals should live
a life with ‘‘‘other-regarding’ goals, and commitments and obligations to use one’s
power on behalf of other human beings by reason of our shared humanity to bring
about sustainable changes that would enhance human development in the world’’
(p. 389). Ruhia, a MasterCard Foundation Scholar studying at the University of
Sustainable Development in Ghana, summarizes this idea convincingly: ‘‘You are
not studying just for yourself; you are studying for the whole world. Let me put it
that way because the whole world looks just like one community; you are trying to
develop a community and that’s the whole world’’ (MasterCard Foundation,
2017b). This focus is especially appropriate when meeting the interconnected,
global challenges outlined in the SDGs.

Synthesis and Ways Forward

Our argument is that, through thoughtful engagement, international higher
education scholarship programmes can better support the global contract for a
sustainable future. Simply offering additional opportunities to pursue education
abroad is not enough and, as we argue above, may actually have perverse effects on
national socioeconomic development, as well as negatively influence the partic-
ipants. Instead, we advocate for scholarships that align with human capabilities
theory and facilitate an individual to experience international study and pursue their
capabilities in ways they see fit, drawing on a rich, sensitizing education that takes
into account individual agency, government policies, technological innovation, and
ecological preservation. Within a human capabilities frame, higher education
scholarships can be integral to accomplishing the SDGs, with recipients serving as
‘‘change agents’’ with a wider worldview, deep understanding of interconnected-
ness and solidarity among peoples across borders, and the capabilities to address
the dynamic and complex nature of current and future global challenges. These are
the types of individuals needed to lead the planet to a sustainable future.
Our analysis suggests several recommendations for operationalizing Target 4b
in a manner congruent with other Goals and the broader agenda for sustainable
development. First, more programme design could be grounded in human
capabilities theory and less based on a narrowly framed version of HCT. While
programme model details fall outside the scope of this paper, scholarship programs
that allow students to pursue diverse fields of study, engage in dynamic education,
and have flexibility after graduation are likely to allow students to exercise personal

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

agency and respond to the pressing challenges of sustainable development. For

similar reasons, our analysis suggests that in fulfilling the substantial increase in
scholarships called for under Target 4b, funders should view study in all disciplines
as potential drivers for sustainable development. Graduates with degrees in
women’s studies, applied economics, agriculture, law, or education can make
significant contributions to many of the SDGs; the horizon of sustainable
development is artificially reduced by focusing only on STEM fields. As noted
above, to tackle these wicked problems facing the global, sophisticated education,
new forms of experts, and dynamic partnerships across disciplines and nations are
needed.
At present, the human capabilities approach is unusual in current international
scholarship programmes, especially those funded by national governments, which
typically adhere more closely to HCT frames. Moreover, among the UN
administration, there may be broad acceptance that individual choice should be
respected and that by developing capabilities generally we advance sustainable
development, but this vision may not be shared by scholarship funders. For
example, foreign governments often have their own bilateral agenda in cultivating
soft power or trade relations (Wilson, 2014). In addition, both home and host
country governments may want to place limits on individual freedom for other
reasons, such as requiring individuals to undertake a post-graduation period of
work for particular organizations. It is also worth noting that some sponsoring
governments may be oppressive regimes who routinely deny freedoms to their
citizens and may discourage young educated individuals to express their
‘‘freedoms’’ in these closed societies.
However, by viewing international scholarship programmes through the lens of
human capabilities, scholarships hold much promise to establish a cadre of
individuals who have developed their capabilities and are poised to address the
challenges facing the planet. Indeed, many graduates of international scholarships
are already working for their national governments, international organizations,
and UN agencies (Campbell, 2017), carrying out work that will help meet the
SDGs. These individuals have developed their capabilities and subsequently have
choices on whether and how they may contribute to their home country’s
development.
In considering future research and programme design, it is imperative to
galvanize support from those already educated (or being educated) through
international scholarship programmes. Post-programme support by scholarship
funders and others will influence how current alumni can better engage with the
SDGs and also provides valuable understanding of how future scholarship
recipients — including those included in Target 4b’s recommended expansion —
can be supported to meet the SDGs. One starting point would be to explore how
opportunities for post-programme support — such as reintegration processes,
research or community project grants, rich and active alumni networks — can be
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

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.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

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.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Anne C. Campbell and Matt Mawer
Clarifying Mixed Messages

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.

Higher Education Policy 2018