Articles

Journal of Studies in International Education

15(3) 221240
Education Hubs: A Fad, 2011 Nuffic
Reprints and permission:
a Brand, an Innovation? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1028315311398046
http://jsi.sagepub.com

Jane Knight1

Abstract
The last decade has seen significant changes in all aspects of internationalization but
most dramatically in the area of education and research moving across national
borders. The most recent developments are education hubs. The term education hub
is being used by countries who are trying to build a critical mass of local and foreign
actorsincluding students, education institutions, companies, knowledge industries,
science and technology centerswho, thorough interaction and in some cases
colocation, engage in education, training, knowledge production, and innovation
initiatives. It is understood that countries have different objectives, priorities, and
take different approaches to developing themselves as a reputed center for higher
education excellence, expertise, and economy. However, given higher educations
current preoccupation with competitiveness, global branding, and rankings, one is
not sure whether a countrys plan to develop itself as an education hub is a fad, the
latest branding strategy, or in fact, an innovation worthy of investment and serious
attention. This article reviews and compares the developments in six countries which
claim to be an education hub. It explores the meaning of education hub, introduces a
working definition, and proposes a typology of three kinds of education hubs as follows:
student hub, skilled work force hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. Furthermore, it
identifies issues requiring further research and reflection on whether hubs are a fad,
a brand or an innovation worthy of serious attention and investment.

Keywords
education hub, crossborder higher education, international students, knowledge
economy, skilled work force, internationalization, conceptualization, branding, Middle
East, Southeast Asia

1
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Jane Knight, PhD, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Email: janeknight@sympatico.ca or jane.knight@utoronto.ca

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

222 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

Introduction
Education hubs represent the third generation of crossborder activities emerging onto
the landscape of our more globalized world. The last decade has seen significant changes
in all aspects of internationalization but most dramatically in the area of education and
research moving across national borders (Knight, 2008; Vincent-Lancrin, 2007). The
most recent developments are education hubs. The term education hub is being used
by countries who are trying to position themselves as centers for student recruitment,
education and training, and in some cases research and innovation. A variety of factors
are driving these efforts and include income generation, modernization of domestic ter-
tiary education sector, economic competitiveness, need for trained work force, building
regional profile, soft power, and a desire to move to a knowledge- and service-based
economy (Knight & Morshidi, in press). However, given higher educations current
preoccupation with competitiveness, global branding, and rankings, one is not sure
whether a countrys plan to develop itself as an education hub is a fad, the latest brand-
ing strategy, or in fact, an innovation worthy of investment.
The term hub is being used by many sectorstransportation, finance, communica-
tion, fashion. Similarly, the concept of cluster is becoming more popular in the world
of business, science, health, and manufacturing. Both terms, when used in an applied
sense, denote a group, gathering, center, nucleus, core, critical mass, or collection.
A hub, the preferred term in this article, can be formed at many different levels and with
a diversity of actors and activities. A review of different types of education hubs indicates
that it is important to note three different aspects: the level or scale of the hub such as city,
zone, country; the reach for attracting actors, activities, services, goods, and so on, to the
hub and finally, the intended range, spread or impact of the hub activities.
To date, most of the information on education hubs is grey literature, such as policy
reports, business plans, and media articles. There is no clear definition of an education
hub and there are no indicators to determine potential for success or sustainability. In
addition, there is a dearth of empirical data or analysis of these new developments.
The purpose of this article is therefore threefold: (a) to review and compare the devel-
opments in countries which claim to be an education hub, (b) examine the meaning of
hub and introduce a working definition and typology, and (c) identify issues requiring
further research and reflect on whether hubs are a fad, a brand or an innovation.
It is important to be clear about the scope of this article as it only focuses on coun-
tries which are claiming to be a hub and are trying to position themselves as a centre of
education, research, and/or knowledge activities. It does not address city level hubs. Six
countries are analyzed and they include three from the Middle EastQatar, Bahrain,
and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and three from Southeast AsiaSingapore,
Special Administrative Zone of Hong Kong, and Malaysia. There are other countries,
such as Botswana, Korea, Saudi Arabia, even Bhutan, which periodically refer to them-
selves as a hub, but because there is very little information on their plans and activities
they are not included. The unit of analysis is a country not an individual zone such as
Incheon Economic Free Zone in Korea, or an individual city such as Boston which is
considered to be a city level hub given the large number of universities.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 223

The concept of an education hub in this article rests on the assumption that it is a
countrys plan and efforts to position itself within the region and beyond as a reputed
center for higher education and research. Therefore an education hub is not an individual
branch campus, or a large number of international students, or a science and technol-
ogy park. It is more than that. Identifying the country as a hub involves a national level
effort to build a critical mass of local and foreign actorsincluding students, education
institutions, training companies, knowledge industries, science and technology centers
who through interaction and in some cases colocation, engage in education, training,
knowledge production, and innovation initiatives. It is understood that countries have
different objectives and characteristics and may specialize in particular activities. For
this analysis it is important to recognize that a hub reflects a national plan and priority
for a country to serve and be recognized as a center of education expertise, excellence,
and economy. Education hubs can involve all types of education but higher education is
the focus.
The outline of the article is as follows: The first section looks at the three genera-
tions of crossborder education to give some historical perspective to the development
of hubs. This is followed by a brief review and comparison of the six hub countries
being analyzed. The third section presents a conceptual analysis of the meaning of hubs
plus a proposed definition and typology of education hubs. The final section identifies
research issues and explores the question of whether education hubs are a fad, a brand
or an innovation.

Three Generations of Crossborder Education

First Generation

The movement of students and scholars around the world is nothing new; it has been
happening for centuries and can be labeled the first generation of academic mobility.
For instance, the number of international students in foreign countries expanded from
238,000 in the 1960s (Chen & Barnett, 2000) to 3.3 million in 2008 (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010).
Of course, the numbers of students, the types of mobility programs, the destination
countries, and the driving rationales have changed dramatically. Nobody could have
forecasted the meteoric rise in student mobility, just as no one would have predicted that
international student recruitment campaigns are now often linked to national science,
technology, innovation, trade, and immigration policies and are part of the great brain
race of the 21st century. The brain train or circulation concept is the current term used to
describe the trek of students and young professionals from country to country for study
and employment reasons. However the notion of circulation masks the fact that there is
net brain drain for some countries, usually smaller developing countries, and there is net
brain gain for more economically advanced countries. It is estimated that 7.8 million
students will be enrolled in foreign countries for their tertiary education by 2025 (Bohm,
Davis, Meares, & Pearce, 2002) indicating that the first generation crossborder education
activities will continue to expand in scope and scale.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

224 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

Second Generation
In the early 1990s the movement of programs and providers across borders began to
increase substantially and have an affect on the number of students who could access
foreign higher education programs and qualifications without leaving home. Examples
of crossborder program mobility include twinning and franchise programs and articu-
lation arrangements, whereas branch campuses and virtual universities are examples
of crossborder provider mobility (Knight, 2007b). Both have become more popular and
absorbed large number of students. New providers such as multinational corporations
and nongovernmental bodies began to provide crossborder programs. Factors driving
this growth included the increased demand for tertiary education arising from larger
secondary school cohorts and the knowledge economys need for a skilled labor force
(Altbach & Knight, 2006). Many countries found it more attractive to host foreign
public and private universities and import programs than to invest in the physical and
human infrastructure needed for an expanded higher education sector (Verbik &
Merkley, 2006). At the same time, regional and world trade agreements began to include
education as a tradable service and private and public education providers saw new
commercial possibilities in crossborder education (Knight, 2007a). It became clear that
large numbers of students found it more attractive and cheaper to study at home with a
foreign provider than to go abroad.
Unfortunately, there is no solid data on the number of students enrolled in cross-
border education programs and facilities. This worrisome lack of data occurs because
some host countries are simply not aware of all foreign providers offering programs in
their tertiary education system or because they do not have formal registration policies
in place (Verbik & Jokivirta, 2005). In other cases, registered foreign providers are sim-
ply not required to report the number of registered or graduated students to the host
country. Furthermore, there is no common understanding of what constitutes a branch
campus, a twinning, franchise, double or joint degree program and thus different defi-
nitions are used to record and track student enrolment patterns. Given this absence
of reliable enrolment data, the only way to get a sense of the extent of program and
provider mobility is to look at the increase in the number of branch campuses during
the last 8 years.
In 2002, there were 24 branch campuses established around the world, and as illus-
trated in Table 1, this number has increased more than five times to 162 by 2009. This
spectacular increase involves 22 different countries with United States, Australia, and
the United Kingdom in the lead, establishing branch campuses in 51 different host
countries primarily in Asia and the Middle East. Although there have been some clo-
sures, 11 since 2002, this is a small number in relation to the new satellite operations
being established (Becker, 2009). Unfortunately, there is no aggregate data for the growth
in program mobility through twinning, franchise, and virtual arrangements but the increase
has been equally impressive. For instance, Malaysia has more than 3,000 foreign pro-
grams being offered in its tertiary education sector (Malaysian Qualifications Agency,
2010) and Singapore has about 1,120 (Ministry of Education, 2010).

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 225

Table 1. Increase in Number of Branch Campuses 2002-2009

Factor 2002 2006 2009

Total number of branch campuses 24 82 162
Number of source/sending countries 17 22
Number of host/receiving countries 36 51
Number of branch campuses hosted by region
Africa 5
Asia 44
Europe 32
Latin America 18
Middle East 55
North America 8
Branch closures 6 5

Source: Becker, 2009.

Although program and provider mobility has multiplied and brings greater access to
postsecondary education, it also introduces new risks related to quality. To deal with the
emergence of rogue providers and diploma/accreditation mills, guidelines have been
developed (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization & Organ-
isation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005) to ensure quality provision
in crossborder education. However, these are guidelines only, not regulations, and
primarily encourage countries to develop new policy frameworks. At the national
level, only a handful of countries, in fact too few given there are 51 countries hosting
branch campuses, have introduced new regulations to register, accredit, and quality
ensure the myriad of new foreign providers delivering new education programs and
setting up satellite campuses in their country (Knight, 2007b). In short, second genera-
tion crossborder education activities have emerged at a time when massification and
privatization/commercialization of higher education are key trends and thus have
brought benefits as well as some risks and unintended consequences.

Third Generation
Education hubs are the latest development and constitute the third wave of crossborder
education initiatives. Education hubs build on and can include first and second genera-
tion crossborder activities, but they represent a wider and more strategic configuration
of actors and activities. An education hub is a concerted and planned effort by a country
(or zone, city) to build a critical mass of education/knowledge actors and strengthen its
efforts to exert more influence in the new marketplace of education. In 2010, there are
only six countries around the world which are seriously trying to position themselves
as an education hub and there are others who may be just using the term hub as a brand-
ing label. There is no single model or one size fits all approach for establishing an education

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

226 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

hub. Each country has its own set of drivers, approaches, and expectations as will
be illustrated in the following brief profiles. It is worth noting that to date, all educa-
tion hub countries are relatively small and share an interest in shifting from a natural
resources or manufacturing economy to one that places more emphasis on knowledge
and service industries (Knight, 2010a).

Overview of Six Education Hubs

Singapore

The Global Schoolhouse is Singapores multifaceted and ambitious initiative to estab-

lish itself as an education hub. The three major objectives driving this project include
recruitment of foreign talent, economic development through foreign investment, and
attracting research and development firms as well as multinational companies special-
izing in the knowledge economy and service industries (Gribble & McBurnie, 2007).
Edu-tourism and edu-nomics appear to be a high priority for this small nation state void
of natural resources or a vibrant manufacturing sector. It is deeply committed to become
a major player in the knowledge economy, and the Global Schoolhouse project is a part
of an overall strategy to become a recognized and respected hub (Mok, 2008). As of 2008,
the education sector (all levels) contributed about 2% of Singapores GDP and this is
forecasted to reach 5% by 2015 (Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2003).
The focus on tertiary education is clear as it aims to improve the quality and capacity
of Singapores higher education sector by focusing on three strategies such as inviting
and providing financial support for world class universities to establish programs,
research partnerships, and a branch campus in Singapore; recruiting 150,000 interna-
tional students from Asia and beyond by 2015, and modernizing the domestic higher
education institutions (HEIs) through international partnerships with elite universities
from the around world. These are ambitious targets but Singapore seems to be on a
clear path to achieve them. The most recent statistics show that as of 2007 Singapore
is estimated to have 86,000 international students (Lasanowski, 2009). In 2009 it was
home to 12 foreign branch campuses (Becker, 2009) and in 2010 approximately1,120
crossborder education program arrangements were operational (Ministry of Education,
2010). These statistics are concrete proof that Singapore is an attractive destination for
students, international branch campuses as well as programs.
The Global Schoolhouse initiative also includes a strong research focus. The 2006
to 2010 national research and development agenda for Singapore is supported by a US$8
billion fund. The establishment of a US$600 million Campus for Research Excellence
and Technological Enterprise is part of Singapores long-term approach to create sus-
tainable research expertise rather than relying on short-term commercially driven research
and development projects (Sidhu, 2008).
To achieve the objectives and targets for the Global Schoolhouse, reputable univer-
sities have been invited from China, United States, Australia, France, India, Germany,
and the Netherlands to offer niche programs according to their individual strengths.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 227

The most recent developments include the establishment of Singapore University of

Technology and Design in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Zhejiang University from China. It is to be operational in 2011. By offering an interdis-
ciplinary program based on a tripartite model with its American and Chinese partners
Singapore demonstrates it agility to build education and research partnerships with
international universities and further its progress to becoming an education hub.
To date, there has been no evaluation of the results and impact of the Global School-
house project, at least no public assessment. There appear, however, to be valuable les-
sons learned from this five year old initiative. The withdrawal of two foreign institutions
who were invited to develop a branch campus signals a gap between expectations and
realities. It demonstrates the need for both the foreign institution and the Singapore Eco-
nomic Development Board to develop solid business plans and a pragmatic approach to
the costs and expected return on the investments for foreign public and private univer-
sities. A key element of the Global Schoolhouse strategy is capacity building of local
HEIs in terms of research expertise, governance, curriculum innovation, and recruitment
of international students. How much collaboration has taken place for this capacity
building to happen? Is collaboration likely if, in fact, there is competition between local
and foreign institutions for the best and brightest of students, faculty, and research
partnerships. Are there potential areas of conflict here? Singapore has a long history
of franchise, twinning, and articulation models of second generation crossborder edu-
cation, but like other countries in the world, it has limited experience in integrating these
initiatives with knowledge industries into a coherent and strategic education hub model.
The complexities of doing so should not be underestimated (Sidhu, Ho, & Yeoh, 2007).

Malaysia
Malaysia already acts as a magnet for crossborder education activities as in 2008 there
were 70,423 foreign students and 3,218 incoming programs and five branch campuses
(Ministry of Higher Education, 2010a). However several new initiatives indicate the
seriousness with which Malaysia is working toward establishing itself as an education
hub. The first is the development of Educity in Iskandar Malaysia, a major new multi-
dimensional development next to Singapore. The second is Kuala Lumpur Education
City, another strategic education initiative incorporated into a new commercial and resi-
dential project in the Klang Valley south of Kuala Lumpur, and the third is a renewed
international student recruitment plan to attract students from the region as well as from
Islamic countries (Ministry of Higher Education, 2010b).
Iskandar Malaysia is an economic free zone being established in South Malaysia
next to Singapore and will include industries, residential areas, port facilities, medical
park, national and state government area, tourist attractions, and Educity (Iskandar
Malaysia, 2010). Iskandar Investment Berhad (IIB), backed by the governments invest-
ment organization (National Kazanah Berhad ) is responsible for developing Educity.
IIB plans to have eight international universities offer programs in selected fields such
as business/financial studies, creative multimedia, engineering, logistics, hospitality,

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

228 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

and medicine. Students from the region who see Malaysia as a low cost destination to
get an internationally recognized degree will be recruited. The foreign HEIs and stu-
dents will be colocated and share common teaching, research, administration, sport
facilities (Sawahel, 2009). Educity aims to provide high quality education and pro-
duce a skilled workforce to support foreign companies located in commercial zones
of Iskandar Malaysia. It also plans to support academicindustry collaboration through
joint research laboratories and design centers. These are impressive intentions but
the challenges of recruiting the right mix of foreign universities, researchers, and
R&D companies to work in a cross-cultural and disciplinary environment should not
be underestimated.
Both economic and social motives drive the new Kuala Lumpur Education City
(KLEC) enterprise. On one hand, there is a pressing need to invest more into develop-
ing the human capital necessary for Malaysias knowledge economy and on the other
hand, KLEC aims to showcase Malaysia as an environment-friendly, energy-efficient,
and networked knowledge-based regional center. The plan is to gain greater access to
the regional education market especially from the three Asian population giants, India,
China, and Indonesia. Second, the strategy includes the development of the necessary
research infrastructure to position Malaysia as a regional center of excellence and the
central node for an international network of academic institutions, companies, and services
(Financial Express, 2007).
KLEC Ventures, a private investment firm is managing this initiative and expects to
attract eight foreign universities and several local HEIs. Research will have a central
place in KLEC as plans include a research park involving independent or university-
affiliated international research institutes in the areas of life sciences, biomedical engi-
neering, educational, and media technologies (Down, 2009). KLEC is an example of an
ambitious multiuse commercial, academic, residential complex. It is a sign of the times
that education institutions are becoming anchors in these profit making ventures that
seek to position a country regionally in the 21st century knowledge economy. However
can these ambitious plans be realized especially in light of the fact that Educity in
Iskandar has similar plans and nearby neighbors like Singapore and Hong Kong, are all
working toward increasing their numbers of international students and providers.

Hong KongSpecial Administrative Region

Hong Kong, a city state, has signaled its intention to become an education hub through
its plan to promote Hong Kong as Asias world city. The University Grants Commis-
sion is promoting the vision of Hong Kong as the education hub of the region because
of its strong links with Mainland China, its geographical location, its internationalized
and vibrant higher education sector, and its very cosmopolitan outlook (University Grants
Commission, 2004).
Attracting international students for study and work in Hong Kong is the main
engine driving the development of the hub (Shive, 2010). There is no major plan to
invite foreign institutions to establish branch campuses, instead foreign students will

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 229

be accommodated by increasing the admission quotas assigned to domestic institutions.

The affect on the enrolment of domestic enrolments is unknown. Since the announce-
ments in 2004 and 2007, more scholarships have been provided for international stu-
dents and the immigration policies have been liberalized (Immigration Department of
Hong Kong, 2007). A particularly interesting aspect of the immigration reform has
been a change in regulations for international graduates who left Hong Kong after
their studies but who wish to return for employment purposes. This has major implica-
tions for the multitudes of Mainland Chinese graduates. The aim of these changes is to
strengthen Hong Kongs human capital and competitiveness, enhance the quality of
the workforce and make Hong Kong more attractive to international students and young
professionals.
A recent study on the impact of these policy changes indicates that the vast majority
of international students, or nonlocal students as they are referred to in Hong Kong,
come from the mainland. (Cheng, 2009) For example, 92.6% of the University Grants
Committee funding for international students went to Mainland Chinese students. With
less than 8% coming from other countries in the region one can question whether Hong
Kong is serving as a regional hub or perhaps better described as a gateway or bridge for
students from the mainland.
As of 2010, there were 1,120 different foreign programs and five teaching centers of
offshore universities. They are called teaching centers as they are not comprehensive
branch campuses. The number of nonlocal students is 9,900 (Lasanowski, 2009). Over-
all, Hong Kong is still in the early stages of taking the necessary steps and investments
to position itself as an education hub. Furthermore, Hong Kong is operating within a
region where there is strong competition from neighboring countries.

United Arab Emirates (UAE)

UAE is in the process of moving from an oil-based economy to a knowledge/services
oriented economy. This requires major investments to develop the necessary infra-
structure and to attract businesses from the region and beyond. A key priority is having
skilled and professional workers to support the growing knowledge economy. Of the
seven emirates making up the UAE, only threeDubai, Abu Dhabi, Ras al Khaimah
are currently active in recruiting international universities, faculty, students, and
knowledge industries in an attempt to position UAE as the premier education hub in the
Gulf region. In 2009, UAE had the largest number of foreign branch campuses of any
country in the world. Although it may be home to 40 branch campuses, the enrolments
are relatively small and thus UAE does not have a large total number of international
students (Becker, 2009).
Dubai sees higher education as a critical sector to developing brain power for their
new knowledge-based economy. Fundamental to their strategy is the recruitment of
reputable international HEIs that can lend their brand equity, offer their academic pro-
grams, and provide experienced faculty to teach national and international students. It is
somewhat surprising that HEIs are being primarily recruited as business partners to

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

230 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

educate and train future knowledge workers and less for their research and innovation
expertise. In contrast, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, which has recruited the well-known
Sorbonne and New York University is trying to present itself as a cultural zone yet still
interested in training international students as potential human capital for its economic
aspirations. UAE is a complex arrangement of individual emirates developing plans to
be an education hub without an explicit overall national plan vision or plan.
The owner/sponsor of Dubai International Academic City and Knowledge Village
(KV) is TECOM Investments, a subsidiary of Dubai Holdings. The mission of TECOM
Investments is to create and manage business clusters that contribute to the develop-
ment of knowledge-based industries worldwide. The primary business clusters (also
known as theme cities) include the following: (a) education (b) information and com-
munication technology, (c) media, (d) life sciences, and (e) clean technology. CNN and
Reuters are residents in the Media City, whereas Microsoft and IBM are part of the
Information and communications technology cluster. The well-known KV is home
to business partners oriented to short-term training and professional development by
private firms. The newer Dubai International Academic City is part of the education
business cluster currently home to more than 25 foreign institutions of higher learn-
ing (Dubai Holdings, personal communication, October, 2008). Total enrollment in
2008 was estimated at 11,000 students representing 102 nationalities, indicating small
enrolment rates for most DIAC tenant universities. Academic programs range from
1 to 4 years and include engineering, computer science, finance, media, fashion and
design, biotechnology, environmental studies, quality management, and business man-
agement programs. The plans for the future include an expansion in the number of
universities catering to students from the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia. For
academics who question whether higher education should be treated as a commodity
this 3.27 billion dollar business venture is concrete proof of UAEs commitment to
develop education as a profitable commercial industry.
The 2008 world economic crisis put the aspirations of UAE to be a recognized edu-
cation hub in question, but it appears not in jeopardy, as the number of foreign univer-
sities establishing branch campuses and offering foreign programs is steadily growing
in spite of the struggles to attract sizeable numbers of students (Lewin, 2009). At greater
risk, is recruiting a continuously increasing number of foreign students from the region
and training them as skilled labor for the service and knowledge industries that Dubai
is building.

Qatar
As of 2009, there are nine branch campuses in Qatar. Seven of them are in the Qatar
Education City (QEC) a 2,500 acre well-equipped complex fully functioning with the
six American and one British university. The critical factor for selection of foreign
HEIs is an internationally recognized curriculum and expertise in disciplines which
are central to broadening Qatars range of higher education programs. Given that each
university has a niche area of curriculum, there is no overlap or competition in academic

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 231

programs among the international HEIs operating in Qatar Education city. This model
tries to avoid duplication of curriculum, prevent unnecessary competition in student
recruitment and provide a stable undergraduate- and graduate-level programming.
These seven institutions are colocated in the complex each with its own state-of-
the-art building but sharing some common facilities thus creating a campus like setting
for the students. All institutions maintain admission standards equal to their home
campus which has presented some challenges to enrolling qualified Qatari students,
especially males. At the current time, enrolments are half domestic students and half
regional/international (Bains, 2009).
In 2009, The Qatar Science and Technology Park (QSTP) was launched as a comple-
mentary initiative to Qatar Education City. It is anticipated that by 2012 it will be fully
operational with the tenant companies such as Microsoft, General Electric, and Shell
conducting commercially oriented research and development in collaboration with the
academic institutions and researchers from QEC. It is estimated Qatar has invested
more than US$800 million to date in the QSTP and more than US$2 billion in QEC
(Witte, 2010). This illustrates the sizable investment Qatar is making to transform itself
into an education hub and grow the knowledge economy. Whether it is a sustainable
model is yet to be seen but it is doubtful that it is an approach that can be replicated by
other countries given the enormous financial investment made to date.

Bahrain
In late 2006, Bahrain announced its intention to become a world class higher education
hub at a total cost of $1 billion. The Bahrain Executive Development Board (BEDB)
made the announcement after agreeing to jointly undertake this major initiative with
the Kuwait Finance and Investment Company. It has a projected enrolment by 2015 of
25,000 students (Bahrain Economic Development Board, 2008). These are ambitious
plans and high expectations for a small state like Bahrain and for a Kuwaiti multi-
national company. An announcement in late 2008 that Sorbonne University of Paris
would be the first tenant of Higher Education City indicates that it is en route to attract-
ing respected institutions.
The drivers and anticipated benefits of the Higher Education City include the follow-
ing: (a) to provide a technologically skilled workforce for the current and future labor
market in Bahrain and the region, (b) to encourage innovation, (c) to leverage increased
direct investments into the Kingdom, and (d) to reposition the Kingdom as a regional
specialist center in higher education. Plans include the establishment of laboratories; an
international center for research; a branch of a U.S.-based university; and a specialist
academy. The courses offered will focus on three areas of study as follows: engineering,
business, and science disciplines.
To date, Bahrain has three branch campuses and as of 2008 there are less than 800
international students enrolled in domestic or foreign institutions located in Bahrain.
It has a steep challenge ahead to compete with its neighbouring countries which started
their education hub initiatives more than 6 years ago.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

232 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

Bahrain has also launched a Science and Technology Park to attract regional and
international businesses working on new technologies such as renewable energy, envi-
ronment, information and communication, and clean technology (Munden, 2009). It is
intended that the Higher Education City will complement and contribute to the work
of the Park by training the necessary skilled and professional knowledge workers as
well as providing ongoing professional development opportunities (Sahawel, 2009).
Bahrain Education City and the related science and technology park are not fully
operational yet. The plans are ambitious but whether they are achievable is yet to be
determined.
These profiles illustrate that countries are at different stages in developing their
capacity and status as an education hub. Qatar and Singapore appear to have the most
strategic and integrated approach to becoming a hub. They are also two of the small-
est countries and have been working on their national strategy for the recruitment of
foreign students, education providers, and research companies for more than 5 years.
A critical question is whether these models are sustainable and replicable. Malaysia and
UAE are larger countries and can be described as taking a proactive yet still fragmented
approach. Each emirate appears to be following its own path without the guidance of
an overall plan to help UAE serve and be recognized as a hub. In Malaysia, there are
individual initiatives such as KLEC and Iskandar, and whereas there are policies in
place, the overall impression is that they are not coordinated and serving to make the
whole greater than the sum of its parts. In other words many of the key elements and
actors may be in place but there is yet to be an integrated and strategic national plan
(Knight & Morshidi, 2010). Hong Kong and Bahrain could still be characterized in the
first stage of development and could perhaps be described as taking a more reactive
approach to exploit the opportunities of the education marketplace and the countrys
commitment to being a successful and sustainable hub.
A clear message from this overview is that the hubs are at different stages of devel-
opment, have different rationales, different priorities, different strategies, different
sponsors, and different expectations. In spite of this diversity, the countries are all
working toward being recognized as an education hub, whatever that means to them
and the rest of the world. Although hubs are a fascinating new initiative in the world
of higher education, they are also a frustrating one because at this early stage of devel-
opment there is no conceptual framework and very little data to monitor and compare
their growth. The purpose of the next section is to discuss the major elements central
to the concept of an education hub and to propose a framework to capture and analyze
the major types of hubs.

Toward a Definition and Typology of Education Hubs

Conceptualizing Education Hubs

Given the relatively recent emergence of education hubs, and the lack of any system-
atic study of the phenomenon to date, a constructivist approach is used to develop a

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 233

working definition of education hubs. The proposed definition is based on an analysis

of existing hub countries and a study of the first and second generation of crossborder
activities. Working on the assumption that the number and types of education hubs
will increase, the proposed working definition is generic enough to apply to all levels
of education hubs (city, zone, country) even though this article only focuses on coun-
try level hubs.

an education hub is a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and interna-
tional actors strategically engaged in education, training, knowledge production,
and innovation initiatives.

This definition is a work in progress and one of the first attempts to capture the
fundamental elements of an education hub regardless of the primary actors or in what
country or region of the world it is located. The identification of driving rationales,
expected outcomes, sponsors, major actors, and specific types of activities is inten-
tionally omitted to allow the definition to apply to the emerging diversity of hubs. To
fully understand the meaning and dimensions of the proposed definition it is helpful
to examine each of the major concepts.
The concept of planned effort indicates that a hub is an intentional or deliberate
project and would normally involve a strategy, policy framework, and investment.
In other words, a hub is more than a coincidental interaction or colocation of actors
working in the education and knowledge sectors. The notion of being planned helps to
decrease the chances that it is merely a fad or branding exercise.
The notion of critical mass suggests that there is more than one actor and set of
activities involved. This means that a single branch campus, or franchise program, or
science and technology park does not constitute a hub. A hub is different from indi-
vidual first and second generation crossborder schemes as it brings these kinds of
activities together into some kind of planned or coordinated initiative. The concept of
critical mass intentionally goes beyond a random collection of crossborder activities
as it denotes that there is a key combination of actors to ensure that the impact of the
whole (i.e., the hub) is greater than the sum of its parts. The term colocation was con-
sidered and deliberately not included in the definition even though it is significant to
the meaning of a hub. The use of the term colocation at city, zone, and national levels
can mean different things. Actors can be colocated in a single or multiple locations
because of complementarities of services but it does not imply that all actors must
be colocated in one designated area. Larger countries like Malaysia and UAE are
good examples of multiple activity and multiple colocation sites whereas Qatar and
Singapore are small enough that the notion of one colocation site can apply.
The inclusion of local and international actors indicates that an education hub
involves both domestic and foreign players. They can include local, regional and inter-
national students, scholars, institutions, companies, organizations, research centers,
knowledge industries, and so on. The term actor is used in an inclusive manner so as
to cover providers, producers and users of the education, training, knowledge services,

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

234 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

and products. The diversity of actors will vary from hub to hub depending on the
rationales and functions of the hub and thus types of actors are intentionally not
specified.
The idea of strategically engaged is central to the definition as it emphasizes that
there is a deliberate sense of interaction or relationship among the actors. Although the
nature of the engagement will differ from hub to hub, a fundamental principle is that
there is added value when the actors are connected, collaborate, or share common facil-
ities and resources. This does not deny that there will be competition among actors who
offer similar services or products but the pros of being part of a strategic and interactive
initiative appear to outweigh the cons. The nature and numbers of the interactions is
unlimited given the diversity of local and international actors and users.
Education, training, knowledge and innovation initiatives depict the broad catego-
ries of activities and outputs of hubs. There is a wide selection of initiatives or services
that are available depending on the type of hub, priorities of the individual actors, and
the sponsors strategic plan.
It is important to note that the level of hub is not included in the definition because
the level (zone, city, country) is determined by the scale/sponsor of the hub not the
reach to attract actors or the range of its impact. For example, a zone, city, and country
level education hub can aim to attract actors from their immediate vicinity or beyond
and the impact can be local, national, regional, or global. Therefore level and scope
of activities is not a part of the generic definition but would normally be part of the
description of a specific education hub.
Finally, an education hub has not been defined in physical or spatial terms such as a
designated area as this may be too limiting. Rather the central concept is one of a stra-
tegically connected and engaged set of local and international actors undertaking cross-
border education activities to achieve their individual objectives as well as the collective
goals and outcomes of the sponsoring body whether it is a city, zone, or country.

Three Types of Higher Education Hubs

The diversity of rationales, actors, and activities characterizing education hubs is clear.
Some countries see hubs as a means to build a critical mass of foreign students and
providers to generate income as well as modernize and internationalize their domestic
higher; others want to be a hub to train foreign and local students and employees as part
of a skilled labor force; and still other countries focus on attracting foreign students,
institutions, and companies to build a vibrant research, knowledge, and innovation
sector to lead them into the knowledge economy.
To capture these differences and allow for a more nuanced understanding and explo-
ration of education hubs, a typology of three categories of hubs is suggested (Knight,
2010b). The three types of hubs include student hub, skilled workforce hub, and
knowledge/innovation hub. The typology is based on the rationales and nature of the
activities not on the location, level, or scope of hubs. The typology will become more
robust when hard information on strategic plans, laws, policies, enrolment data, and

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 235

outputs are available but at this early stage of hub development this information is
simply not available.
The Student Hub is the most focused and probably most prevalent type of education
hub. The key activity is the education and training of local and international students.
In addition to recruiting students it also focuses on attracting foreign HEIs to offer
franchised and twinning programs or establish branch campuses to increase access for
all types of students. The primary objectives for student hubs are (a) to generate rev-
enue from international student fees, (b) to provide increased access to higher educa-
tion for local students, (c) to modernize and internationalize domestic HEIs, and (d) to
build profile and increase competitiveness within the regional higher education sector
and beyond.
In this scenario, both local HEIs and foreign providers recruit local and international
students to their programs and campuses. A national recruitment strategy and related
policies need to be in place to successfully grow a student education hub. Such a plan
can include an overall numerical target of foreign students, programs, and campuses
to gain a regional or global reputation as an attractive place to get a quality education.
However, in practice, institutions are individually recruiting students to their own cam-
pus given the high competition for fee-paying students. A student hub gives priority to
foreign students even though there is an interest in providing wider access for local
students. A student hub may have a view to attract students from all parts of the world
but in many cases the majority of students come from neighboring countries in the region.
This is why the term regional hub is often used. In a student hub international students are
recruited to complete their studies in the host country but not to stay. Malaysia is an
example of a student hub with aspirations of moving toward a knowledge/innovation
education hub.
The skilled workforce hub focuses on student education and training but differs from
the student hub because the overarching goal is to develop a skilled work force and for-
eign students are encouraged to remain in the host country for employment purposes.
International HEIs as well as private training/education companies are encouraged to
offer academic programs and professional development opportunities aimed at interna-
tional and national students as well as local employees. The overall goal is human
resource development. The driving key objectives are to (a) educate and train students
to be skilled labor/knowledge workers for knowledge and service led economy and
(b) establish geopolitical status in the region and beyond. The education/training insti-
tutions and companies are often, but not necessarily, colocated in a zone to share facili-
ties and promote collaboration among themselves and with industry. To develop a critical
mass there can be more than one colocation site in a country. UAE is an example of
a skilled workforce hub with several education zones developed across the country to
house the 40 foreign branch campuses and training companies.
The knowledge/innovation hub broadens its mandate beyond education and training
to include the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign actors
including universities, research institutes, companies with major research, and develop-
ment activities, are attracted through favorable business incentives to establish a base

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

236 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

in the country and to collaborate with local partners to develop applied research, knowl-
edge, and innovation. The primary objectives are to (a) help build a knowledge and
service-based economy, (b) educate and train skilled labor for knowledge/innovation,
(c) attract foreign direct investment, and (d) increase regional or global economic com-
petitiveness and soft power. Collaboration among the key playersforeign and local
education institutions, industries, research centers, and companiesis a key factor to
building a knowledge and innovation hub and providing added value for the major
actors. Singapore is an example of a country trying to establish itself as a knowledge/
innovation type of education hub.
The proposed typology is a work in progress and will continue to be refined as
the master plans and operations of education hubs evolve and more information and
hard data are gained. Many questions emerge from the typology. For instance, does
this typology assume that there is a progressive development from student hubto
skilled workforce training hubto knowledge/innovation hub? Or, is it possible to
make a quantum leap from student hub to knowledge hub? Furthermore, is it fea-
sible to develop from the get go an education hub which is focused on knowledge/
innovation development? How would the current six initiatives be categorized in terms
of their current status and ultimate aspirations to be an education hub? Is the hub
phenomenon and label particular to smaller countries rather than the giants of crossbor-
der education like Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States? Is it possible
to have an objective set of indicators or measures to assess and categorize hubs?
What would a set of indicators measurereadiness, potential, output, sustainability?
How does a hub model relate to a gateway model, as proposed by Japan, or a
bridge model? The answers to these questions are not obvious and need further
exploration.
Education hubs are full of lofty expectations and fraught with potential challenges.
There are a myriad of issues that require further reflection and examination by researchers,
policy makers, and the hub sponsors. Issues vary by the type of hub but include regula-
tory, policy, and operational questions related to an array of topics including registration
and quality assurance of education and training providers; recognition of qualifications
for further study and employment in different countries; universityindustry partner-
ships; intellectual property rights for new knowledge and innovation; employment and
immigration policies incentives to attract foreign education providers and companies;
relevance of teaching/training methods in light of cultural diversity; compliance with
regional and international trade laws; and so on.
There are macro and more theoretical issues to be explored, including higher educa-
tion as an economic and soft power actor; the centrality of commercial competitiveness
in education hubs; implications from the intercultural, interdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral
nature of education hubs: the role of education hubs in regional building; affect of brain
gain through a hub; the relationship between local and foreign actors; and the sustain-
ability of education hubs. These are but a few examples of the issues related to intended
and unintended consequences of establishing education hubs to further a countrys
engagement and competitiveness in the knowledge economy.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 237

Fad, Brand, or Innovation

Education hubs are important new developments. They represent a new generation
of crossborder education activities where critical mass, colocation, and connection
between international/local universities, students, research institutes, and private
industry are key. However are they just a fad? Are they more rhetoric than reality?
A common perception is that being recognized as an education hub will increase a
countrys reputation, competitiveness, and geopolitical status within the region and
beyond. Are education hubs nothing more than a branding exercise designed to increase
status and a sense of soft power?
To ensure that education hubs are more than a brand and can achieve their goals and
become sustainable requires substantial planning; policy preparedness; human resources,
infrastructure; and financial investment. It remains to be seen whether student educa-
tion hubs are sustainable given the intense competition among countries for fee paying
students; or whether skilled workforce training type hubs are feasible in light of immigra-
tion policies and unemployment rates for domestic workers. Finally, it is still unknown
whether knowledge/innovation type education hubs can be developed successfully
through universityindustry collaborations. Ensuring that education hubs are sustain-
able and an innovative new development represents the next challenge facing countries
keen to shift to a knowledge and service-based economy and gain a competitive edge
and profile in the region and beyond.

Acknowledgments
Grateful appreciation is extended to Stephan Vincent-Lancrin and Hans de Wit for their insightful
and helpful comments on the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2006). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations
and realities. In NEA Almanac of Higher Education (pp. 7-36). Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
Bahrain Economic Development Board. (2008). Education and training. Retrieved from http://
www.bahrainedb.com/education-training.aspx
Bains, E. (2009, September 21). Qatar Education citys key institutions. Meed Supplements.
Retrieved from http://www.meed.com/supplements/education-citys-key-institutions/3000797
.article

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

238 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

Becker, R. (2009). International branch campuses: Markets and strategies. London, UK: The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.
Bohm, A., Davis, D., Meares, D., & Pearce, D. (2002). The Global student mobility 2025
report: Forecasts of the global demand for international education. Canberra, Australia:
IDP Education.
Chen, T., & Barnett, G. (2000). Research on international student flows from a macro perspec-
tive: A network analysis of 1985, 1989 and 1995. Higher Education, 39, 435-453.
Cheng, Y. C. (2009). A technical research report on the development of Hong Kong as a
regional education hub. Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China: The Hong Kong Institute
of Education.
Down, D. (2009, September 6). Malaysia: Future hub of international education? University World
News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2009090
3203756838
Financial Express. (2007). Strategies towards a global education hub. Retrieved from http://
www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2007/08/31/9637.html
Gribble, C., & McBurnie, G. (2007). Problems within Singapores global schoolhouse. International
Higher Education, 48, 2-3.
Hong Kong University Grants Council. (2004). Hong Kong higher education to make a differ-
ence to move with the times. Retrieved from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/publication/
report/policy_document_e.pdf
Immigration Department of Hong Kong SAR Government. (2007). Developing Hong Kong as a
regional education hub: Immigrationrelated policies. Retrieved from http://www.studyinhk
.net/Public/Files/3957412291.pdf
Iskandar Malaysia. (2010). Comprehensive development plan. Retrieved from http://www
.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/comprehensive-development-plan-cdp
Knight, J. (2007a). Implications of crossborder education and GATS for the knowledge enter-
prise. Commissioned Research Paper for UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research
and Knowledge UNESCO, Paris, France.
Knight, J. (2007b). Cross-border Tertiary Education: An Introduction. In Cross-border tertiary
education: A way towards capacity development (pp. 21-46). Paris, France: OECD, World
Bank and NUFFIC.
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Knight, J. (2010a). Quality dilemmas with regional education hubs and cities. In S. Kaur,
M. Sirat, & W. Tierney (Eds.), Quality assurance and university rankings in higher edu-
cation in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for universities and nations. Penang, Malaysia:
Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.
Knight, J. (2010b). Regional education hubs: Rhetoric or reality? International Higher Education,
59, 20-21.
Knight, J., & Morshidi, S. (in press). The complexities and challenges of education hubs: Focus
on Malaysia. Journal of Higher Education.
Lasanowski, V. (2009). International student mobility: Status report. London, UK: The Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

Knight 239

Lewin, T. (2009, December 27). University branches in Dubai are struggling. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/education/28dubai.html
Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2010). Data from Malaysian qualifications agency. Retrieved
from http://www.mqa.gov.my/
Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2010). List of external degree programmes (EDPs). Retrieved
from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/private-education/edp-list/
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2010a). International students. Malaysia Government.
Retrieved from http://www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/STUDENT/
INTERNATIONAL_STUDENT/Student_International_Bilangan
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2010b). Malaysias incentive and support pack-
age for higher education investment. Retrieved from http://jpt.mohe.gov.my/RUJUKAN/
MALAYSIA%27S%20INCENTIVE%20AND%20SUPPORT%20PACKAGE%20
FOR%20HIGHER%20EDUCATION%20INVESTMENT.pdf
Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore. (2003). Panel recommends global schoolhouse
concept for Singapore to capture bigger slice of US$2.2 trillion world education market.
Retrieved from http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/507/doc/DSE_recommend.pdf
Mok, K. H. (2008). Singapores global education hub ambitions: University Governance change and
transnational higher education. International Journal of Education Management, 22, 527-546.
Munden, D. (2009, September 29). Bahrain top research hub. Gulf daily news. Retrieved from
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/september-2009/bahrain-top-research-hub/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Education at a glance 2010.
Organization for Economic and Community Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd
.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html
Sawahel, W. (2009, September 27). Knowledge hub in progress. University world news. Retrieved
from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090925024920661
Shive, G. (2010). Exporting higher education services: An engine of growth for Hong Kong?
Retrieved from http://www.hkjournal.org/PDF/2010_spring/4.pdf
Sidhu, R. (2008). Knowledge economies: The Singapore example. International Higher Educa-
tion, 52, 22-23.
Sidhu, R., Ho, K-C., & Yeoh, B. (2007, July 2-3). The global schoolhouse: Governing Singapores
knowledge economy aspirations. Paper presented at the Transnational Education and Migration
in Globalizing Cities, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization & Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border
higher education. Paris, France: Author.
University Grants Commission. (2004). Hong Kong higher educationTo make a difference
To move with the times report. Hong Kong, Peoples Rebublic of China: University Grants
Commission.
Verbik, L., & Jokivirta, L. (2005). National regulatory frameworks for transnational higher
education: Models and trends. part 1 and part 2 (Briefing Notes). London, UK: Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education.
Verbik, L., & Merkley, C. (2006). The international branch campus-models and trends. London,
UK: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015

240 Journal of Studies in International Education 15(3)

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (Ed.). (2007). Cross-border tertiary education: A way towards capacity

development. Paris, France: OECD, World Bank, and NUFFIC.
Witte, S. (2010). Inside education city: The persistent demographic and gender imbalance in
Qatar. London, UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Bio
Prof Jane Knight, University of Toronto, focuses her research and professional interests on the
international dimension of higher education at the institutional, national, regional and interna-
tional levels. Her work in over 60 countries with universities, governments, UN Agencies, and
foundations helps to bring a comparative, development and international perspective to her
research, teaching and policy work. She is the author of numerous articles/chapters/books on
internationalization concepts and strategies, quality assurance, institutional management,
mobility, cross-border education, trade, education hubs and regionalization. Recent books
include Higher Education in Turmoil-The Changing World of Internationalization (author),
Financing Access and Equity in Higher Education (editor), and Higher Education in Africa: The
International Dimension (coeditor). She is an adjunct professor at Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education, University of Toronto, a Fulbright New Century Scholar 2007-2008, the recipient
of several awards including an Honorary LLD for her work on internationalization, and sits on
the advisory boards of several international organizations and journals.

Downloaded from jsi.sagepub.com at UNIV DE FORTALEZA Parent on September 17, 2015