From ‘soft power’ to ‘economic diplomacy’

The absence of a federal ministry of education and the largely circumscribed role of the federal government in education in both the United States and Canada result in international education policy falling between the cracks of federal (foreign-international affairs) and state-provincial (higher education) responsibility.

The two jurisdictions thus provide an interesting comparative context to examine factors shaping the federal role in international education and consequently its influence on higher education.

Historical roots in the US and Canada

The term ‘international education’ has deeper and wider roots in US federal history starting as early as the 1940s with the establishment of the Institute of International Education, or IIE, and the initiation of its key flagship Fulbright exchange programme.

The 1950s saw the creation of the National Defense Act and with it the establishment of international centres, programmes and administrative titles within US institutions.

In the 1960s the Canadian federal government initiated its efforts and the first international office on a university campus was established. The federal government engaged Canadian universities in international development assistance programmes, largely in response to the country’s position as a middle power, post World War II, and its foreign policy of ‘humane internationalism’.

The US federal government continued expanding its investments in international educational and cultural exchanges throughout the 1960s and supported university student and scholar mobility, technical assistance-educational cooperation, and curriculum, language and area study programmes.

While the nature of these federal programmes depended on a close association between the federal government and academic faculty and institutions in the US, such direct federal government involvement in higher education and engagement of academics in foreign policy was considered unacceptable in Canada.

Changing policy contexts

US federal policy rationale shifted in the Cold War period – the 1970s. From an objective of promoting mutual understanding and world peace, cultural and educational exchanges and initiatives such as the new Title VI programme were seen as tools to secure national interests and promote anti-communist and pro-America sentiments.

The Canadian government was also invested in promoting its image abroad, but in the context of establishing a strong Canadian national identity and strengthening the ‘Canadianisation’ of higher education against US influence. It thus created Canadian studies programmes abroad and committed to a focus on cultural diplomacy.

The 1980s and 1990s marked a new era for both the US and Canadian federal governments’ involvement in international education. The post-Cold War period challenged the US to ‘re-invent’ diplomacy and carve out a new global role.

Soon the rhetoric of globalisation and a global knowledge-based economy meant that both governments were invested in building national economic competitiveness through international mobility and recruitment of highly qualified and highly skilled talent.

For the first time, there was close alignment of policy orientations between the two governments.

The economic rationale for international education took prominence, the federal governments’ interests were greatly influenced by domestic agendas, and a more instrumental view on higher education to meet national objectives took hold.

In Canada a wide range of new immigration regulations was introduced to make Canada more attractive for international students and scholars.

The Canadian federal government established an Educational Marketing Unit within Foreign Affairs and supported new Canadian educational marketing centres abroad; the ‘bullish’ focus on international trade in Canadian foreign policy penetrated education, now seen as an export industry.

September 11 and international education

September 11, 2001 dramatically changed the landscape of international education in the US, and is often referred to as a ‘period of crisis’. International education came to be viewed by the US federal government as a risk to national security.

Restrictive immigration and visa policies and processes diminished the attractiveness and accessibility of US higher education to international students and scholars, to the benefit of countries like Canada.

In Canada, the demands to fill domestic labour market shortages further strengthened the government’s resolve to both recruit the ‘best and brightest’ international students and retain them as immigrants.

A strong policy hook, this rationale ultimately resulted in the Canadian federal government’s 2014 announcement of its first-ever international education strategy.

Paradoxically, post 9/11, international educational and exchange programmes in the US received a boost through its federal government’s public diplomacy efforts to strengthen America’s image and understanding in the world while also increasing America’s understanding of the rest of the world.

Government and international education policy

In both the US and Canada, higher education is the primary responsibility of the state or provincial governments; however the federal governments have always invested in international education under the aegis of their federal role in foreign policy and responsibility to protect national interests.

But the nature of these federal investments has been distinctly different.

In the US the federal government has worked directly with faculty and higher education institutions to develop scholarships and curricula, and set up international research centres. The level and scope of funding has also meant greater dependence of US institutions on federal funds for international activities.

In Canada, the federal government steered away from direct funding and support of initiatives for Canadian faculty and higher education institutions, and focused on overseas institutions.

As a result, Canadian universities have had to rely on their own resources for developing their international activities; some universities have invested even larger amounts than the federal government.

The Canadian approach has also meant minimal input and engagement of academics in the federal government’s policy initiatives; while the US approach could raise flags on government interference with institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

Soft diplomacy

A clear distinction can be made between the two federal governments’ overall policy orientations, which have changed over time.

The US approach has been more closely aligned with ‘soft power diplomacy’, where international education supports aims of national security and America’s geopolitical interests as a ‘super power’.

The Canadian approach, begun initially as soft power cultural diplomacy, transformed into ‘economic diplomacy’, where international education supports international trade and domestic economic agendas.

What is most interesting is that the US ‘soft power’ approach results in an international education agenda supporting the internationalisation of the academic curriculum, encouraging mobility and more broadly supporting ‘internationalisation at home’.

The Canadian ‘economic diplomacy’ approach results in an exclusive focus on the marketing of Canadian higher education and international student recruitment and retention strategy: a rather risky proposition for Canadian higher education as proven by the experiences of other jurisdictions, such as Australia.

In conclusion, while the federal role in international education falls within the realm of foreign policy, the specific approach to diplomacy – often determined by a nation’s geo-political location, its characteristics and specificities – ultimately determines the nature of the federal role, its engagement with academics and higher education institutions and its subsequent impacts on the higher education sector.

* Roopa Desai Trilokekar is an associate professor in the faculty of education at York University in Toronto, Canada. Her research interests include federalism and higher education, the internationalisation of higher education and the student experience as a result of international education. This article is based on a recent presentation she gave at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, USA.