One of the recommendations of the National Education Policy 2020 was to allow universities in the top 100 category of the World University Rankings to operate in India. Although this recommendation has generated a lot of discussion, one major gap is the inadequate focus on the potential role and suitability of international branch campuses (IBC) in the Indian environment.
According to the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT), hosted at the State University of New York at Albany and Pennsylvania State University, an IBC is an “entity that is owned, at least in part, by a foreign higher education provider; operated in the name of the foreign education provider; and provides an entire academic program, substantially on site, leading to a degree awarded by the foreign education provider.” A general perception in India is that there is only a single model of IBC, i.e., a self-funded model in which foreign universities establish campuses on their own without any major support from the host country. However, studies show that there are various other models of IBCs such as those fully or partially funded by the host government, supported by private organisations, availing government facilities in designated hubs/zones, and functioning in collaboration with a local partner in the partner’s campus. There have been many success stories as well as failures of these models across different national contexts.
India’s late mover advantage
More than 300 IBCs are functioning in around 80 countries. According to data compiled by C-BERT’s Kevin Kinser and Jason E. Lane, a large number of these are operated by universities from the U.S., the U.K., Australia, France and Russia. Countries such as China, Malaysia, Qatar and Singapore host most of them. Interestingly, a few Indian private institutions also operate IBCs in countries such as Australia, Mauritius, Uzbekistan, Singapore, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
When considering the establishment of IBCs, it would be useful to review the experiences of not only the countries that have hosted them but also the top 100 universities that have ventured out of their home country to establish IBCs abroad. Such an approach would be helpful in mitigating potential risks. The lessons from the impact of Australia’s Monash University’s branch campus in South Africa from 2001 to 2019 is one such example which may prove useful.
South Africa’s branch campus strategy over the past two decades has been focussed on a dual-track approach in which the IBCs were promoted in parallel with the pre-existing higher education system. The South African regulatory framework permits foreign universities to operate as private entities, legally registered as a company. Although IBCs in South Africa cannot use the ‘university’ tag, they can offer accredited degrees and diplomas. South Africa has three IBCs. Monash was the first to obtain registration in 2001 to operate an IBC in Johannesburg as ‘Monash South Africa (MSA)’. Monash is a public university, currently among the top 100 universities in the QS World University Ranking. It operates IBCs in China and Malaysia.
The student population at MSA had increased to around 4,000 in 2018. While almost half of them were from South Africa, 40% of the remaining were from other African countries. According to a study by Ashley Gunter and Parvati Raghuram, Monash’s Australian main campus had invested approximately $130 million in its South Africa campus until it started operating as a joint venture with U.S.-based majority owner Laureate Education in 2013. Under this partnership agreement, Monash University sold 75% of its shares to Laureate. In 2018, Monash and Laureate jointly decided to transfer the ownership of the campus to Independent Institute of Education (IIE) South Africa, a subsidiary of the ADvTech group, a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Monash South Africa is now called IIE-MSA. According to reports, the teach out process would be completed by the end of 2022.
Facing up to ground realities
These are some of the biggest lessons from Monash University’s South Africa experience. One, the public nature of a foreign university may not be reflected in its branch campus. Two, even a university that is among the top 100 could become a local private institution through mergers and acquisitions. Three, ensuring parity with the quality of programmes offered at the home campus would be a challenge. Four, domestic market demand influences course offerings, and there is dependence on contract academic staff. Finally, there are limitations in substituting existing institutions.
The above experience illustrates the big gap between the state’s desired objectives and the actual impact on the ground. Therefore, reviewing the various delivery models existing in different national contexts may be helpful in the policy formulation process.
Eldho Mathews is a researcher in higher education based in New Delhi
