Abstract
In an increasing number of nations, foreign education providers are becoming part of the educational landscape. This aspect of cross-border higher education raises many questions about how such activities are regulated, particularly the role of the importing and exporting governments. Drawing on a principal-agent framework, this study uses the United States, which is an amalgamation of more than 50 independent regulatory systems, to analyze how governments regulate the importing and exporting of public colleges and universities. The analysis reveals that state regulations primarily focus on issues pertaining to the approval process of expansion, mandating administrative requirements, providing comparable programs, and guarding against unnecessary competition; whereas there is limited focus on quality. Further, states have more extensive regulations for importing activities than exporting activities. These findings can help inform scholars and policymakers interested in multinational cross-border educational activities and the study serves as a prototype for other investigations of cross-border educational regulations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is a growing literature focusing on public and private institutions engaging in distance learning across state borders (e.g., Goldstein et al., 2006; Mayadas et al., 2009) and other research has started to investigate the movement of institutions across national border (e.g., McBurnie and Zyguris, 2007; Green et al., 2008; Croom, 2010; Lane, 2011; Lane and Kinser, 2011).
To identify such entities, we constructed a database using data provided by the regional accreditation agencies and the US Department of Education PEPS database, which tracks all locations where federal financial aid is provided to students.
North Dakota exempts any ‘Postsecondary educational institutions established, operated, and governed by this or any other state or its political subdivisions …’ from having to obtain authorization from the state in order to operate within its borders. (North Dakota Century Code, http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/56-1999/bill-text/JQOL0400.pdf).
A key aspect of agency research is to understand why agents act in ways not desired by the principal. In the case of government bureaucracies, there are numerous examples of an agency not acting in a way desired by politicians or engaging in activities popularly perceived not to be in the best interest of the state's citizenry. This does not negate the presence of the agency relationship. Quite the opposite, principal agent theory can be used to further understanding of why the agency is acting in the way that it is.
The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution also influences the regulation of interstate commerce, which higher education has been classified (Daghlian v. DeVry U., Inc., 2007). In situations where an institution is headquartered in another state, the importing state can provide conditions that have to be met by the institution in order to operate in the state, but those conditions cannot be excessive such that they are meant to unduly inhibit or prohibit the flow of educational providers from other states into their own.
References
Alchian, A. and Demsetz, H. (1972) ‘Production, information costs and economic organization’, The American Economic Review 62 (5): 777–795.
Becker, R. (2009) International Branch Campuses: Markets and Strategies, London: Observatory for Borderless of Higher Education.
Berdahl, R.O. (1971) Statewide Coordination of Higher Education, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
C-BERT. (2011) List of International Branch Campuses. http://www.globalhighered.org/branchcampuses.php.
CHEA. (2011) Exploring the Future of International For-profit Higher Education and Quality Assurance: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here? Washington, DC: CHEA.
CHEA, IAU, AUCC and ACE. (2004) Sharing Quality Higher Education across Borders: A Statement on Behalf of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide, Washington, DC: CHEA.
Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (2008) Policies and Procedures for Statewide Extended Studies, Boulder, CO: Colorado Commission on Higher Education.
Contreras, A. (2009) The Legal Basis for Degree-granting Authority in the United States, Boulder, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Croom, P. (2010) ‘Motivations and Aspirations for International Branch Campuses’, in D.W. Chapman and R. Sakamoto (eds.) Cross Border Partnerships in Higher Education: Strategies and Issues, New York: Routledge, pp. 45–66.
Daghlian v. DeVry U., Inc. (2007) 582 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (CD. Cal. 2007).
Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. and Donaldson, L. (1997) ‘Toward a stewardship theory of management’, Academy of Management Review 22 (1): 20–47.
Dill, D. (1997) ‘Higher education markets and public policy’, Higher Education Policy 10 (3-4): 167–185.
Duryea, E.D. (2000) The Academic Corporation: A History of College and University Governing Boards, London: Falmer Press.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Agency theory: an assessment and review’, Academy of Management Review 27 (4): 118–143.
ENQA. (2010) Quality Assurance in Transnational Higher Education, Brussels, Belgium: ENQA Secretariat.
Ferreri, E. (2009) ‘Atlanta campus to cost NCCU’, Andnewsobserver, 14 January.
Fleming, R.W. (1978) ‘Who Will be Regulated, and Why?’ in W.C. Hobbs (ed.) Government Regulations of Higher Education, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 18–32.
Glenny, L.A. and Bowman, F.M. (1977) ‘State intervention in higher education’, Report prepared for the Sloan Commission on Government and Higher Education, Cambridge, MA: Sloan Commission on Government and Higher Education.
Green, M., Kinser, K. and Eckel, P.D. (2008) On the Ground Overseas: U.S. Degree Programs and Branch Campuses Abroad, Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Goldstein, M.B., Lacey, A.D. and Janiga, N.S. (2006) The State of State Regulation of Cross-border Postsecondary Education, Washington, DC: Dow.
Hines, E.R. (1988) ‘Higher education and state governments: renewed partnership, cooperation, or competition?’ ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Hodder, I. (1998) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Material, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jaschik, S. (2008) ‘Awarding degrees without permission’, Inside Higher Education, 12 August.
Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976) ‘Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.
Kiewiet, D.R. and McCubbins, M. (1991) The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kinser, K. (2011) ‘Multinational Quality Assurance’, in J.E. Lane and K. Kinser (eds.) Multinational Colleges and Universities: Leadership, Administration, and Governance of International Branch Campuses (New Directions for Higher Education), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 53–64.
Kivisto, J.A. (2007) Agency Theory as a Framework for the Government-University Relationship, Tampere: Higher Education Group/Tampere University Press.
Lane, J.E. (2007) ‘Spider web of oversight: latent and manifest regulatory controls in higher education’, Journal of Higher Education 78 (6): 1–30.
Lane, J.E. (2011) ‘Importing private higher education: international branch campuses’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13 (4): 367–381.
Lane, J.E. (2012) ‘Higher Education and Economic Competitiveness’, in J.E. Lane and D.B. Johnstone (eds.) Colleges and Universities as Economic Drivers: Measuring Higher Education's Role in Economic Development, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 1–27.
Lane, J.E. and Kinser, K. (eds.). (2011) Multinational Colleges and Universities: Leadership, Administration, and Governance of International Branch Campuses (New Directions for Higher Education), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 53–64.
Lane, J.E. and Kivisto, J.A. (2008) ‘Interests, Information, and Incentives in Higher Education: Principal-Agent Theory and Its Potential Applications to the Study of Higher Education Governance’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research Vol. 23, New York: Springer, pp. 141–180.
Lim, F.C.B. (2010) ‘Do too many rights make a wrong? A qualitative study of the experiences of a sample of Malaysian and Singapore private higher education providers in transnational quality assurance’, Quality in Higher Education 16 (3): 211–222.
Lowry, R.C. (2001) ‘Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending’, American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 845–861.
Martin, M. (2007) Cross-Border Higher Education: Regulation, Quality Assurance, and Impact Vols. 1 and 2, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Mayadas, A.F., Bourne, J. and Bacsich, P. (2009) ‘Online education today’, Science 323 (5910): 85–59.
McBurnie, G. and Zyguris, C. (2007) Transnational Education: Issues and Trends in Offshore Higher Education, London: Routledge.
McLendon, M.K. (2003) ‘Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education’, Journal of Higher Education 74 (5): 479.
Miller, G.J. (2005) ‘The political evolution of principal-agent models’, Annual Review of Political Science 8: 203–225.
Moe, T. (1984) ‘Congressional controls of the bureaucracy: an assessment of the positive theory of Congressional D’, Legislative Studies Quarterly 9 (4): 547–585.
Moe, T. (2005) ‘Power and political institutions’, Perspectives on Politics 3 (2): 215–233.
Nicholson-Crotty, J. and Meier, K.J. (2003) ‘Politics, structure, and public policy: the case of higher education’, Educational Policy 17 (1): 80–97.
OECD and UNESCO. (2005) Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education, Paris, France: OECD.
Perrow, C. (1986) Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd edn. New York: Random House.
Rizzo, M.J. and Ehrenberg, R.G. (2003) ‘Resident and nonresident tuition and enrollment at flagship state universities’, Cambridge, MA: NBER. NBER Working Paper No. 9516.
SHEEO. (2008) State Higher Education Agency Contact Information. http://www.sheeo.org/agencies.asp.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Spence, A.M. (1973) ‘Job market signaling’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 87 (3): 355–374.
Stella, A. (2006) ‘Quality assurance of cross-border higher education’, Quality in Higher Education 12 (3): 257–276.
Stripling, J. (2009) ‘Interstate commerce’, Inside Higher Ed, 12 February.
Tuckman, H.P. (1970) ‘Determinants of college students migration’, Southern Economic Journal 37 (1): 183–195.
Volkwein, J.F. (1986) ‘Campus autonomy and its relationship to measures of university quality’, Journal of Higher Education 57 (5): 510–528.
Volkwein, J.F. and Malik, S.M. (1997) ‘State regulation and administrative flexibility at public universities’, Review of Higher Education 38 (1): 17–42.
WICHE. (2008) Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State, Income and Race/Ethnicity, 1988 to 2018, Boulder, CO: WICHE.
Zumeta, W. (2011) ‘State policies and private higher education in the USA: understanding the variation in a comparative perspective’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 13 (4): 425–442.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lane, J., Kinser, K. & Knox, D. Regulating Cross-border Higher Education: A Case Study of the United States. High Educ Policy 26, 147–172 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.23
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.23