Global Social Policy 2005 Deumert 329 52

Global Migration and Social Protection RightsThe Social and Economic Security of Cross-Border Students in Australia

A N A D E U M E RT, S I M O N M A R G I N S O N , C H R I S N Y L A N D ,G A B Y R A M I A A N D E R L E N AWAT I S AW I RMonash University, Australia

abstract A growing number of students cross national borders fortheir studies. An expanding global market in higher education has beencreated. Yet significant gaps exist in the governance of internationalstudents rights. As well as being educational service beneficiaries,cross-border students are migrants, workers, consumers and humanbeings. A broader view of students, as individuals deserving of socialand economic security, is superior to that which treats them as socialprotection subjects. Recognizing this multiple status, and utilizingin-depth data from 200 interviews with international students inAustralia, the article finds that the existing social protection regimefalls significantly short of recognizing students rights. Problems arelocated in relation to language acquisition, social integration, finances,work and personal safety. The article argues that, as well as law andpolicy, a student security regime should incorporate better universitypractices and more integrated civil society networks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmentalorganization (IGO) coverage.

keywords foreign students, global education markets, migration, socialprotection, student security, temporary

A RT I C L E 329

Global Social Policy Copyright 2005 1468-0181 vol. 5(3): 329352; 057415SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, ca and New Delhi)

DOI: 10.1177/1468018105057415

gsp

at Chulalongkorn University on March 11, 2015gsp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Introduction

Since the late 1980s the international higher education market has beenexpanding vigorously, with many universities becoming highly dependent oncross-border students for revenues. Between 1990 and 2001, the number ofcross-border students studying in Organization for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) nations increased from 1.01m to 1.58m. At theend of this period cross-border students comprised 5.3% of all OECDtertiary enrolments (OECD, 2004a: 31416). Despite this growth, the socialgovernance of international education remains in a state of flux and existingformal social protection instruments fall significantly short of providingadequate coverage. Major gaps exist in the administration of cross-borderstudents rights, with a notable lack of coordination between the various hostcountry rights-enforcement agencies and among institutions at the global,regional and national levels.

This lack of coordination results in the failure of social and economicinstitutions to recognize the multiple vulnerabilities of international students,constructing them mainly as consumers rather than individuals with a varietyof social and economic rights. Stemming from the significant tuition andother fees students must pay for their education, those who cross borders areindeed consumers, but their position is complicated by their status simulta-neously as migrants and human beings, and often as workers given that manyneed to supplement their incomes to support themselves.

Recognizing students multiple rights-bearer status, this article utilizes datafrom 200 in-depth interviews with international students studying inAustralia, the worlds third largest exporter of cross-border education servicesafter the USA and the UK (Mazzarol et al., 2001; OECD, 2003). Though thedata provide information on a variety of issues, they draw particular attentionto problems relating to language acquisition and proficiency, social isolationand loneliness, inadequate finances and incomes, labour market and work-place discrimination, and experiences in relation to personal safety. Given thattraditional understandings of the concept of social protection do not delveinto some of these dimensions of disadvantage, the article argues that studentsare deserving of social and economic security rather than mere protection;thus combining protection, which is formal, with less formal practices fromuniversities and the civil society sector. A student security regime includes notmerely the laws attached to welfare states and other protective programmes,but also recognition of social and economic rights channelled through theformal and ad hoc practices of host universities and colleges, and civil societynetworks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and it begins tocontemplate more direct roles for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Bank and theWorld Trade Organization (WTO).

The first section of the article outlines the main indicators of growth in

330 Global Social Policy 5(3)


international education as a market. The second section reviews the commonunderstanding of social protection at the global and national levels, noting theneed for a broader perspective utilizing social and economic security. Thethird section outlines the articles methodology and provides a first analysis ofthe main findings from the in-depth student interviews. The fourth and finalsection discusses the main implications of the analysis for social protectionand education studies in the field of global social policy.

International Education and the Cross-Border Student Market

Cross-border students are students who cross national borders to acquire aneducation, by studying outside their own country or accessing distanceeducation programmes or branch campuses in their own nation provided byinstitutions from other nations. The most common form of cross-bordereducation consists of students moving from emerging and developing nationsto the nations in the OECD group, which educate 94% of all cross-borderstudents. There is also significant student movement between OECDnations, especially within Western Europe, and into the USA, which is theprimary global demand magnet (Marginson and McBurnie, 2004).

Border crossing for study constitutes a form of temporary migration, andmost nations of study provide student visas. Cross-border study often leadsinto other forms of migration, including temporary migration for work, andpermanent residence (OECD, 2002a). The English-speaking nations, whichtogether attract 55% of cross-border students and 73% of those from Asia(OECD, 2004a: 211), use preferential immigration policies to encouragecross-border graduates to migrate.

Since the end of the 1980s the scale of the growth in the market has beensignificant; as noted, by 2001 cross-border students comprised 5.3% of allOECD tertiary enrolments. There was considerable variation by country,however, the percentage of enrolment being 17.0% in Switzerland, 13.9% inAustralia, 10.9% in the UK, 3.5% in the USA, and just 0.1% in Korea(OECD, 2004a: 31416). The growing demand for cross-border education isfed by the enhanced opportunities and status advantages at home and abroadthat cross-border education creates (Marginson, forthcoming), especially inmobile occupations such as business, information and communicationstechnologies (ICTs) and scientific research. It is enhanced also by the globalutility of the English language skills acquired by living and studying inEnglish-speaking nations, and by desires for migration. Reputable cross-border education confers some advantages whether local tertiary provision isadequate or not, but cross-border study has also been encouraged by inade-quacies in the quantity and quality of tertiary education where the growth ofthe middle classes in expanding economies has outpaced educational

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights 331


provision, notably in China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam(Marginson and McBurnie, 2004).

The main importer and exporter nations are summarized in Table 1. Cross-border education is largely self-financed (OECD, 2004a), and on the demandside is readily understood as a global market where students and their familieschoose between provider nations and institutions. On the supply side,arrangements vary, from free tuition for cross-border students in certainEuropean universities, for example in Germany, to the commercial market inmuch of the English-speaking world and in English-language programmes inEurope, Malaysia and Singapore.

Cross-border education in Europe often takes the form of short-termstudent exchange, with foreign study frequently included in degrees. In theUSA, which caters for almost one third of cross-border students worldwide,arrangements vary. Whereas 69.7% of cross-border students are financed byself and family, 23.4% are largely supported by the American college oruniversity; including 40.4% of graduate students (Institute for InternationalEducation [IIE], 2004), who are crucial to research support and also provideteaching. Cross-border education is otherwise marginal to doctoraluniversities, where it is treated as a branch of foreign aid and culturalexchange, but can be a vital revenue source in two-year and four-year insti-tutions where it is provided commercially. In the UK, Australia and NewZealand, cross-border students pay full-price tuition fees and cross-bordereducation is an expansionary commercial business, a principal source ofinstitutional revenues and a growing part of national exports. Commercialforeign education is currently growing more rapidly than subsidized places.


table 1 Principal exporters and importers of tertiary education, 2001

Cross-border students Cross-border students

OECD* Proportion of all Nations importing Proportion of allexport nations Number students (%) from OECD* Number students (%)

USA 475,169 3.5 China 124,000 1.0UK 225,722 10.9 Korea 70,523 2.3Germany 199,132 9.6 India 61,179 0.7France 147,402 7.3 Greece 55,074 11.5Australia 110,789 13.9 Japan 55,041 1.4Japan 63,637 1.6 Germany 54,489 2.6Canada 40,667 4.6 France 47,587 2.3Spain 39,944 2.2 Turkey 44,204 2.8Belgium 38,150 10.6 Morocco 43,063 n/aAustria 31,682 12.0 Italy 41,485 2.3

Note: * 93.5% of all tertiary education exports were from OECD nations.Source: OECD, 2004b: 210, 314.


Several factors affect student choice of destination, including price andliving costs, travel distance, student security, language, degree quality,graduate opportunities and migration potential. Research on student choicesuggests that apart from the world market in elite universities such asHarvard, Stanford and Oxford (Marginson, forthcoming), national brandcarries more weight than institutional brand. Universities in the USA andUK enjoy the most prestige, and those nations also provide favourable careeropportunities. These markets are therefore the most preferred destinations,especially the USA (Mazzarol et al., 2001), though the US dollar and sterlingappreciated in the 1990s, forcing many students elsewhere. Australia is placedthird, after these two (Mazzarol et al., 2001; OECD, 2003), having benefitedfrom the currency movements. As discussed further on in the article, nationalchoice, and to some extent institution choice, is also affected by studentssense of their overall security in the host country and in the sub-nationalregion in which they reside. It is to the relationship between security andsocial protection that the analysis now turns.

Student Rights, Security and Social Protection: Institutions andInterpretation

Cross-border students are a significant population, not only commercially butalso as social protection subjects. Accordingly, there is an imperative forscholarly writing on student rights to be trans-disciplinary. Yet research oncross-border students has been driven narrowly by existing policy andbusiness agendas, and for the most part it shares their limitations. A compre-hensive bibliography of Australian research and scholarship on internationaleducation (Harman, 2003) shows that investigations of student rights arelargely confined to discrete aspects of student welfare and pastoral care.Where the international business literature focuses on cross-border educationit is concerned with marketing strategies and the economic factors determiningstudent choice, often exploring the strategies which nation states, regionalgovernments and universities utilize to expand market share, and the potentialof global regulatory instrumentalities to become involved through inclusionin trade agreements (e.g. Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Mazzarol et al., 2001).There is an active discussion about the WTO/General Agreement on Tradein Services (GATS) negotiations on trade liberalization and the consequencesfor national educational provision (e.g. OECD, 2004a; Ziguras and McBurnie,2004). But cross-border trade negotiations and the supporting policy dis-cussion do not encompass the needs of students, and in all neither the businessstudies nor educational literatures have framed student rights holistically ormapped the global regulatory environment as it affects education.

A significant role for traditional social policy and global social policyanalysis is called for. Yet cross-border students rights are not featured



prominently in either of these domains. Work on the national dimension isparticularly deficient when it is considered that, in their home nationsstudents normally enjoy the rights attached to social citizenship as conceivedby Marshall (1950). The detail of these rights may be contested, for examplein relation to welfare entitlements, but the framework of citizen rights is stilllargely taken for granted. When people move from the nation of citizenshipto nations where they enjoy few social citizenship rights, however, migrantspermanent or temporary are in jeopardy. (Refugees lack rights in the nationof origin, but share with other migrants a less than citizen status in the nationof destination.) Non-citizens typically enjoy less access to governmentservices, may be restricted as economic agents for example in opening bankaccounts, securing loans or owning property and they may have lessopportunity for redress in relation to maltreatment and injury. Temporarymigrants typically form lower substrata of the workforce, they are paid lessthan citizens and are more likely to be subject to discriminatory or exploitativework practices.

Global institutions also leave gaps. As discussed, in trade instrumentsstudent rights are absent. The ILO and the International Social SecurityAssociation (ISSA) include migration within their concerns in relation tolabour rights and social security coverage respectively, and the UnitedNations (UN) has the International Convention on the Protection of theRights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ILO, 2004;Paparella, 2004). However, these exclude students from their conception ofmigrants. Though the OECDs research agenda encompasses cross-borderstudents this is limited to questions of labour mobility, national capacity-building, brain drain and brain circulation (e.g. OECD, 2002a,b).

Global social policy scholarship has yet to meet the challenge presented bythis omission. The field of social policy still responds mainly to the operationof national institutions and national phenomena; stemming as inherentlythese do from the nation-state basis of welfare regimes (Mishra, 1995; Ramia,2003: 815). This is despite the now well-established premise that the supra-national and global institutions of social governance are evermore importantin driving social policy analysis (Deacon et al., 1997; Yeates, 2001). It is alsopartly to be expected given that social policys heritage lies in a focus onrecognition of and interplay between formal social protection institutions.This dates back to the earliest works constituting the roots of the social policyfield (Polanyi, 1944; Webb and Webb, 1911) and those works that became keytexts after the institutionalization of the welfare state in the 1950s (Titmuss,1958, 1974).

The dearth of writing on cross-border students in the global social policyliterature also stems from a general shortage of systematic analysis of theintegration between formal welfare institutions and less formal ones. Thelatter encompass the complex of global, supranational and national civilsociety networks and NGOs (e.g. Anheier et al., 2005). As demonstrated in



the remainder of the article, theorization of this lacuna may provide many ofthe keys to understanding international students perceptions of their securityand protection. Such understanding may feed into more streamlinedadministration, policy and governance. This latter endeavour is far fromsimple, however, given that cross-border students are migrants, which as thisvolume highlights is a group too rarely the subject of formal social protectionmechanisms, let alone informal ones. It is to a discussion of the mix betweenformal and informal in the regulation of international students experiencesthat the article turns, with a focus on the Australian context.

The Australian Study

THE EDUCATION EXPORT MARKET IN AUSTRALIAAccording to Australian government data, between 1990 and 2003 the numberof cross-border students enrolled in Australian higher education institutions,nearly all in doctoral universities, jumped from 24,998 to 210,397. (This con-stituted more than 10% of the global market.)1 In total 154,578 were on-shorein Australia and 55,819 accessed branch campuses of Australian universities inimporting nations or distance education programmes. Nearly all were enrolledat Bachelor or Masters levels with just 3.7% in research degrees, considerablyless than in the USA and UK. Cross-border students constituted 22.6% of allstudents in Australian higher education in 2003.2 More than one third (14) ofAustralian universities enrolled over 6000 cross-border students (Departmentof Education, Science and Training [DEST], 2004). One consequence is thatAustralian higher education is now highly dependant on cross-border studentfees, which provided 14.4% of revenues in 2003 (DEST, 2004). In some insti-tutions, there is a much higher level of exposure.

The foreign education market in Australia is highly commercialized, withless than 2% of cross-border students receiving official scholarships (DEST,2004). Universities themselves determine tuition charges and cross-borderstudent numbers, though government immigration policy controls thestudent visas issued to each importing nation. The growth of the market isdriven partly by reductions in federal government funding per student(Marginson and Considine, 2000), which declined by 30% between 1995 and2000, the largest such decline in the OECD. (There was a 17% decline in theUK; see OECD, 2004a: 255.) Revenues from cross-border students havecome to function as a partial substitute for taxpayer funding of teaching andresearch. However, cross-border students also generate additional costs inmarketing, recruitment, student servicing and other areas, and not alluniversities generate a surplus. Nevertheless, income from cross-borderstudents has moved from being marginal to government funding, to asubstitute and an essential component of the core costs of Australianuniversities.



METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGEThe problems faced by international students were investigated through 202intensive semi-structured interviews at nine Australian institutions: theUniversities of Ballarat, Melbourne, New South Wales, Sydney, and CentralQueensland, Deakin, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT),Swinburne and Victoria Universities.

In terms of quantitative scope the study is somewhat smaller than the recentstudy of experiences of cross-border students in New Zealand (Ward andMasgoret, 2004), which included 535 cross-border students at tertiaryinstitutions. However, whereas the New Zealand study used a writtenquestionnaire to elicit yes-no data from students, the study reported here isfirmly grounded in a qualitative research paradigm and data was obtainedthrough face-to-face, in-depth interviews. These gave participants an oppor-tunity to expand and elaborate on topics and problems that were important totheir student experience. The interview programme commenced in August2003 and was completed in early 2005.

Semi-structured interviews were of 3060 minutes duration and conductedwith cross-border students in at least their second semester of study. In mostinstitutions interviews were arranged by staff in charge of internationalstudents. The staff contacted students and organized the time and venue forthe interview. At one of the institutions all international students werecontacted by email and students who were interested in participating con-tacted the interview coordinator. In addition, snowball sampling was usedonce initial contacts had been established. The interviewer was a formerinternational student herself, which helped to create trust and empathy withinthe interview situation, and to elicit information on sensitive topics.

The sample broadly resembles the demography of the total cross-borderstudent population in Australia, except that older and postgraduate studentswere somewhat over-represented: 53% of interviewees were older than 25years. The sample was balanced with respect to gender: 51% were female and49% male (compared to 48% female, 52% male among all cross-borderstudents; DEST, 2004). The interviewees included 74 (37%) at Bachelorlevel, 82 (41%) at Masters level and 46 (23%) in PhD programmes, comparedto 57% at Bachelor level, 29% at Masters level and 3% in doctoral pro-grammes in the total population of cross-border students. In terms of fields ofstudy, the largest group was from Business, Management, Administration andEconomics (henceforth Business) with 67 (33%), followed by Society andCulture (12%) and IT (11%). This compared to 45% Business, 8% Societyand Culture and 15% IT among all cross-border students (DEST, 2004). LikeArts, Science and Education students were also somewhat over-represented inthe interview group. Engineering and Health students were represented inproportions similar to those in the overall cross-border student population.

The 202 students came from 36 different nations with 86% from East,South East or South Asia, a meta-region that constituted 85% of the overall



cross-border student population in 2003. Compared to the total cross-borderstudent population in Australia, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan wereover-represented and Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and the USA under-represented in the sample (Table 2).

HEARING THE STUDENT VOICE: RESEARCH FINDINGSInterviewees were asked a wide range of questions covering the social andeconomic experience of crossing borders for their studies. More specifically,responses provided insights into their knowledge of Australia before theirarrival, their living and financial arrangements in Australia, problems inrelation to academic English, their access to support networks, work arrange-ments, loneliness and isolation, instances of discrimination and personalsafety. In the following overview of salient aspects of the data we provide asummary discussion of selected findings concerning the following themes:language, loneliness/isolation, work and money issues, discrimination andpersonal safety. (The data set is rich, particularly in relation to individualstories, and these issues and other aspects will be expanded upon in sub-sequent articles.) The focus will be on the qualitative nature of the data andthe students voices, with no attempt to be representative of the entire cross-border student population.


table 2 Nation of origin of cross-border students interviewed

Number Percentage of Percentage of cross-border Nation of origin interviewed total interviewees students (2003)

Indonesia 49 24.3 5.6China 28 13.9 12.8India 21 10.4 5.3Other South Asia 19 9.4 4.5(Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal)Malaysia 18 8.9 13.0Singapore 12 5.9 14.2Other East Asia 9 4.5 5.8Middle East/ 8 4.0 2.1North AfricaOther Africa 7 3.5 2.7Europe 8 4.0 5.3Other South East Asia 6 3.0 5.0and PacificLaos, Cambodia & 6 3.0 1.7VietnamCanada, USA 3 1.5 6.9Hong Kong 5 2.5 13.9Latin America 3 1.5 1.0Total 202 100.0 100.0


Language Issues: I Think it is my Biggest Problem HereThat limited proficiency in the language of instruction (and of the widercommunity) can create problems for students has long been recognized and avast industry has emerged to address this issue, ranging from testing tobridging courses and foundation courses, support services and languagecentres. However, despite such wide-ranging efforts cross-border studentsexperience on-going problems at Australian universities because of inade-quate or inappropriate oral, reading and writing communication skills, andresearchers have argued that considerably more and better assistance isnecessary to address these problems (Pearson and Beasley, 1996).

In the interviews students were asked Does English create difficultiesfor you in your academic work? One third of the student sample replied yes(n = 60). Not surprisingly, there were major variations by national origin.Only a few students from South Asia, where English is well established in theeducation system and often serves as a lingua franca, experienced problems.However, 19 of the 28 students from China reported serious language prob-lems; and there were also higher than average response rates among studentsfrom other East Asian and South East Asian nations including Hong Kong,Taiwan, Japan and Thailand. Interestingly spoken language communicationwas more difficult for many students than written communication, whichgenerally allows for more planning and preparation. This is exemplified incomments from a Taiwanese student:

I dont know about the other students but for me I always think in Chinese first, inMandarin, and then translate it into English. There is a delay in time . . . I dontknow, that is very difficult for us to write essays in English, because you can find alot of resources and you can refer to the resources and then you can write in theacademic format. I think my difficulty is just oral communication, daily language.(Female student, 29, Masters, Sydney, from Taiwan)

Among the resources available to students for writing are language andlearning services at various Australian institutions as well as tutors andgraduate supervisors, who often provide extensive editorial assistance tointernational students. However, while support from supervisors was highlyvalued, language and learning services were often seen as providing onlyinsufficient assistance given the extensive and complex language needs ofAustralias diverse cross-border student population (see also Lee and Salamon,2004). (I = Interviewer, S = Student, female, 29, Masters, Sydney, fromChina).

I: What about in writing . . . Do you need someone to assist you in your use ofEnglish in your written work?

S: Yes, I do, but . . . SUPRA [Sydney University Postgraduate Association] . . . theyoffer somewhere to . . . they have some language experts, they can do proofreadingfor international students. I know the service, but I didnt use it because it charges



some money. We should pay, depends who, how much . . . some PhD they chargelower price, some they charge higher price. No, its not SUPRA, its some otherorganizations. They like students association but only for post-graduate students.

I: Do they have Language and Learning Services?

S: Yes, they have. I go to there . . . yes, its free. But they ask general knowledge,not really help in details like SUPRA offers, but this service you have to paysomething.

Language is not only a serious issue within the academic institution that thestudent attends, but also in everyday encounters with Australian society. Lackof linguistic fluency in English makes it difficult for students to establishfriendship networks with domestic students and contributes to the formationof ethnically exclusive networks among the cross-border student population.Limited language proficiency can also limit access to those social protectionservices that are, in principle, available to cross-border students, but that areprovided exclusively through the medium of English. The quoted studentfrom China, for example, arrived in Australia in 2001 and struggled initiallyto obtain medical attention, not for lack of availability of medical services orhelpfulness from the institution, but as she commented: for languageproblem, i.e. she simply could not follow verbal instructions of where to goand how to obtain help.

Loneliness and Isolation: Ill Cry and Cry on the PhoneOne hundred and twenty-one (or 60% of) students expressed feelings ofloneliness and isolation. The reflections of a 22-year-old ZimbabweanMasters student (provincial city) were emblematic.

I: Have you experienced periods of loneliness or isolation while in Australia?

S: Yes, yes, oh, especially right at the beginning when I first got here. I didnthave anyone to talk to, that was the thing. Initially I came all by myself, so exactlywho to approach, who to talk to, I had no clue. I used to be on the phone everydaywith my Dad I wanna go home. Its like every single day, Ill cry and cry on thephone . . . there was a lot of loneliness.

Older students, students from smaller national groupings and students inregional cities in particular shared their experiences of loneliness and/orisolation. Among the larger national groupings, students from Indonesia fre-quently gave strong reactions to questions. Isolation was felt in institutionalsituations, as well as in students personal lives. In addition, the experience ofbeing a temporary migrant set cross-border students apart form the localstudent cohort and created severe feelings of stress and alienation.

I: Have you experienced periods of loneliness or isolation?

S: Yes. Not in often at university, but within my university life, especially when



I have to deal with Immigration. International Students [Office] or the School ofGraduate Studies always refer you back to the Immigration office, and when youhave to deal with Immigration office yourself, you feel like you are just a piece ofpaper. (Female, 29, PhD, Melbourne, from Indonesia)

Many students testified to the importance of bonding networks: family,friends, and other affinity groups. Friendships with cross-border studentsfrom cultures other than their own were often important; though a numberreferred to an apparent segmentation of the cross-border student population,with a barrier between Asians on one hand and non-Asian students on theother.

I would say in fact that most of my friends do come from other countries. I thinkyou generally find that people in Sydney . . . most of the people who go touniversity here are already fairly entrenched in their social circles and circles offriends; and its generally people that are, say, feeling disenchanted or trapped, thatare seeking out new friends from other places. So most of my friends here probablyare from different countries. A wide array but mostly European countries, SouthAmerican countries or North American . . . I do have a few friends from, say, SouthEast Asia, but most of them are people that I know say through my scholarshipprogram, so thats how we have been introduced to each other. I would say thatwhen Ive been in classes, even with the high mix of foreign students, there doesntseem to be any mixing between say I mean basically you see almost two divisions,where you see students from Asia and then students from North America andEurope. I dont feel like there is very much mixing, especially among people thatyou meet in academic settings. (Male, 24, Masters, Sydney, from USA)

In addition, there were few friendships with locals. Some of the studentsexpressed strong disappointment about this, as noted in previous studies (e.g.Smart et al., 2000).

Work and Money Issues: One of the Reasons may be CulturalWhen asked, Are you experiencing or have you ever experienced financialdifficulties? while studying in Australia, 70 (35%) answered in theaffirmative. Such difficulties increased with age and the probability thatstudents were self-supporting. Of the 21 students with children, 14 (67%)acknowledged overall financial difficulties and others added references tofinancial problems of a specific nature. Financial problems affected 13 of the25 PhD students, who were generally older and likely to be dependent onscholarships and/or their own earnings. Issues of money were more severe forstudents in provincial cities, where jobs were hard to find.

Finding a job here especially in Ballarat . . . Im finding it a bit difficult. I dontknow, maybe the reason may be that there are not enough jobs. One of the reasonsmay be cultural problems. (Female, 34, PhD, regional city, from Sri Lanka)



When asked how they had dealt or would deal with a financial crisis, sometalked about asking their parents for help, and a few referred to friends, or theuniversity. But more commonly students said they would tough it outwithout help.

I count every cent I have and spend and make my budget five times, six times,because Im afraid that I would run out of money and not have enough to pay mybills . . . I try to live within my means to pay my bills as they come and not incurdebt that I cannot afford to pay. [If I was in financial difficulties] I wouldnt speakto anyone. I would just handle it myself because I think it is my responsibility to dothat. I make my budget and live by my budget. (Female, 33, Masters, Melbourne,from Bangladesh)

When asked, Are you working or have you worked while in Australia?, 129(64% of) interviewees said yes. They were also asked, Have you everexperienced problems at work, such as abuse or exploitation?, to which 27(21% of those who had worked) said yes. These problems at work includedsuch factors as exploitative rates of pay, excessive hours or other unreasonabledemands, difficulties in performing the expected functions without propertraining, and/or instances of sexual or other forms of harassment. In thesample problems at work were more common among female (17) than amongmale students (10).

Discrimination: It was not Happening to Anyone ElseStudents were asked if they had experienced discrimination or bad treatmentwhile in Australia. The preamble to the question tied bad treatment todiscrimination and racism. A majority, 101 (50%) said yes. Work, andexperiences in trying to obtain accommodation in the private rental market,were the two main sites of discrimination. Less discrimination was experi-enced on campus. A typical example of work discrimination was the problemsof a Sikh student from India:

I have no job now. I did work part-time before, but that was because my friend hadalready created the job . . . otherwise, you know, people are not very willing to giveme a job because of my appearance. I cant do most of the jobs, I cant be anaccountant, they dont want me there, they dont want me to be anywhere whereIm visible. And as for some other jobs, Im not too comfortable doing them. (Male,30, Masters, Sydney, from India)

Accommodation issues also at times appeared to involve discriminationbased on appearance or perceived cultural background.

When I was looking for a house I felt at the time we were treated differentlycompared with other people from other countries. We applied for many houses, butthere was always somebody else that had taken them. All my friends from othercountries had gone out from [the student accommodation] at the time; but only us



from Indonesia still stayed there, because we found it very, very difficult to find ahouse. Sometimes we thought that there was discrimination, especially for peoplefrom Indonesia. [However] in the campus, I never found any discrimination . . .(Male, 31, Masters, Melbourne, from Indonesia)

Some discrimination-related problems take the form of institutionalizeddisadvantage as a consequence of students temporary residence status. Theabsence of most citizenship rights for cross-border students can affect notonly day-to-day living for example, difficulties in opening a bank account orsecuring subsidized medicine or childrens education but students careeropportunities and academic development as well.

I dont know if you can consider it discrimination as such, or bad treatment either.But when you apply for things like internships or something, I found it is aproblem. Im doing my Masters in Banking and Finance. After my studies I intendto go back to my country, when the visa expires. But when I try to get an internship,which adds a lot to your degree real hands on experience in banking and finance they simply say that it is not open for people who have no permanent residence.I dont want to apply for PR, because I intend to go back to my own country, butthis means Im not getting with my degree what other people are getting, eitherwhen they get back at home, or in the States or Canada. I have no opportunities atall to do an internship. All the places that I applied to, said they are looking forpeople with PR or citizenship. (Female, 22, Masters, Sydney, from India)

Women students were somewhat more likely to report experiences ofdiscrimination than men (57% of female students vs. 43% of male students;the difference between the two groups is statistically significant, p = 0.05). Inaddition, a high proportion over the entire sample of students living inprovincial cities outside Melbourne and Sydney reported experiences ofdiscrimination.

Safety and Personal Security: Even though I give them Everything, they StartHitting MeStudents were asked if they felt safe and secure in Australia 19 (9%) said nooutright and three (2%) a qualified yes. The nos were concentrated inSydney, where 27% answered no. Only 3% of Melbourne-based studentsdid so. The three who qualified their yes responses were from Melbourne orBallarat. Of those in Sydney who did not feel safe and secure, all were eitherfemale Muslim students, males from India, or males and females from EastAsia.

I got bashed twice here. I got robbed twice, it was really a horrible experience. I waswalking home after work, eight guys were there. They saw me and started hittingme all over my head. Everything . . . They took everything, my wallet, they eventook my shirts, I had two shirts in my bag, they took them as well. My digicam, mywallet, my mobile phone, my watch . . . everything [. . .] so I called the police and



they took me to hospital. They put me there for the whole night, just to make sureI didnt have any head injury . . . Actually the police took my bag. And I called themfor the fingerprinting and DNA testing and they havent been sent to me. I calledthem three times and they havent even bothered to call me back. I didnt mentionanything here [at university], there was no need. They cant do anything. And thepolice are not cooperating so what can you expect from [the university]? I wentthrough the scans, the CT scans, x-rays, everything is fine. For 15 days I had a reallybad headache, there was so much pain afterwards. (Male, 24, Masters, Sydney, fromIndia)

Women studying in provincial cities face particular difficulties, more so ifthey are Muslim. The response from a Muslim student from Brunei illustratesthat cultural differences, discrimination and feelings and experiences of loss ofpersonal security often go hand in hand.

S: I wear my headscarf back in Brunei, but now . . . when I first came here last year,I stayed at this bed and breakfast. I walked with my headscarf to school, andeverybody was staring at me. I wore that headscarf for three days, and then I startedtelling myself that its not safe. I didnt feel safe with people staring at me. I decidednot to wear it. And then when I came back here this year, I decided I want to wearmy headscarf again, until . . . well, we were in the class, and somebody threw somestones, to the window . . . It happened again three more times . . . So I told myteacher that I didnt feel safe. Is it because Im wearing my scarf? And my teachersaid yes. Well actually, the first time when they threw the stones, my teacherrealized that was happening, and he was trying to catch those kids, but they ran off.

I: Its not the students?

S: Yes, its some of the students there. The teacher even asked the security to make[special arrangements] because we have a night class until 7 oclock.

Commercially, questions of student security can affect market choices andare thus of interest to the Australian tertiary sector. A logistic regressionanalysis of choice-making by Chinese students (Mazzarol et al., 2001) demon-strated that a safe environment was the most significant predictor (p < 0.001)of intentions to choose Australia over competitor nations. Similarly, focusgroups in Indonesia and Taiwan found that many parents sent their childrento Australia not the USA because Australia was deemed safer (Mazzarol andSoutar, 2002).

Overall, there exist differences between the experiences of the largestnational groupings in the sample. Language problems and work place prob-lems were particularly common among Chinese students, while Malaysianstudents reported above average experiences of financial difficulties, lone-liness and discrimination. Lack of safety was a concern, in particular forIndian and Chinese students.



International and Global Implications and Significance

THE AUSTRALIAN REGIMEFeedback provided in our in-depth interviews leaves little doubt that the livesof cross-border students in Australia are strongly affected by a wide range ofsocial and economic security problems. There are two issues which dominatethe data, however, affecting students lives on a daily basis: finances, and thenecessity of English as lingua franca. More students than expected reporteddiscrimination, and there were less data concerning problems at work and inthe labour market than might be expected.3

While our sample cannot be representative in the technical sense, the dataare significant in a qualitative sense: not merely for Australia, but elsewhereas well, given that Australia is one of the worlds top education exportereconomies. It is apparent that security coverage is uneven by institution,region and category of student. Security is also heavily dependent on uneveninformal networks, and problems originating within universities have gener-ated significant lacunae. This is largely because universities and governmentsat both the State and Federal levels have adopted a commercial approach todelivery of foreign education based on expanding market share, full costrecovery and maximum surplus (Marginson, 2003). Universities arepositioned as quasi-independent firms with the government providing a rightsframework that is minimal in character, being geared towards citizens ratherthan cross-border students, who hold only temporary visas. The policy focusis almost exclusively on cross-border students as consumers, with littleattention given to their social rights.

The Australian approach contrasts with the regulatory framework providedin another exporting nation, New Zealand. The New Zealand code ofpractice for the pastoral care of cross-border students (New Zealand Ministryof Education, 2004) covers the educational and linguistic preparation ofstudents; cultural sensitivity in recruitment; assistance to students facingdifficulties in adapting to the new cultural environment; supervision oftemporary student accommodation; advice in relation to accommodation,travel, health and welfare; information and advice on addressing harassmentand discrimination; the monitoring of student attendance and courseprogress, and mandatory communication with the families of students at risk.All university staff and agents, including offshore agents, are subject to thecode, which also specifies staff training. New Zealand has also established anindependent public agency, the International Education Appeals Authority(IEAA), with the power to receive and adjudicate on complaints receivedfrom cross-border students and their authorised agents/representatives con-cerning breaches of the code (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2004).4

The New Zealand model highlights the limitations of the Australianexperience. In Australia the growth of the cross-border student market hasthus far produced a greater scrambling for student numbers as revenue



sources by most universities, which have yet to extend comprehensive pastoralcare to students in return for their dollar. This is despite the potential longer-term commercial pay-offs from a more care-focused approach. Amid thescrambling, alarm bells for universities were sounded in the late 1980s, whenthe Australian government was forced to respond to the collapse of severalrevenue-reliant English-language colleges, whose cross-border studentcustomer populations were left without education or the return of their fees.The negative impact on the reputation of all education providers compelledlegislative changes, culminating in the Education Services for OverseasStudents (ESOS) Act 2000, whereby institutions must secure registration,comply with a national code of behaviour and contribute to an AssuranceFund that guarantees student fees. Yet the Fund represents commercial risk-management rather than pastoral care. The code of behaviour enforced byESOS focuses on such matters as fair advertising, and properly informingstudents before binding contracts are signed. It does not spell out pastoral orsocial responsibilities. To the contrary, among the purposes of the ESOS Actare obligations on education providers to police aspects of student behaviouron behalf of government. This militates against the implied pastoral role ofuniversities.

The fact that pastoral care and rights-enforcement responsibilities are notcodified reveals several regulatory gaps, which are instructive for othernations and suggest innovations are needed at the level of global governance.First, under a highly marketized regime there is scope for variation betweendifferent universities in the coverage of security matters; hence national and/or international standards are needed. Second, given that foreign education isa profit-seeking business, universities have a vested interest in unit costminimization, which may be incompatible with a consistent rights frameworkuniversal to all students. Third, particular difficulties are created whensecurity problems originate in the university itself. There is no point ofaccountability or appeal external to the university whereby students mightseek redress, unless a model like that of New Zealand is followed. Fourth,there are gaps in security coverage beyond the university. This was seen in ourinterview data, particularly in student dealings with immigration authoritiesand potential and actual employers.

NATIONAL AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONSThe lacunae identified here suggest a lack of institutional streamliningbetween the national and global levels of governance. They also suggest thatthe role of civil society within the governance of cross-border education ishighly uncertain, though certainly less formal than it should be. This issymptomatic of broader contemporary understandings of globalization bothwithin and outside the fields of education studies and global social policy(Ramia, 2003). Theorists have not elaborated on the substantive linkagepoints between the national and global levels of governance. It is also



symptomatic of notions of government and policy space that remain overlydependent on formal legal boundaries and notions of sovereignty, and areunable to fully encompass the subtlety of contemporary relations betweengovernment, civil society, and the sphere of home/family. This latter lacunabecomes more significant in relation to cross-border people mobility,precisely because of the lack of streamlining and fit between national andglobal governance, and the central role of civil and private institutions inproviding for security.

In the analysis of cross-border education and the provision of studentsecurity, an appropriate pattern of coordination between the national andglobal levels engages: the individual student; the university or other educationprovider; governments and their agencies at both the national and sub-nationregional levels; civil society groups at all levels which represent students aswell as those acting as intermediaries between the state and the market(increasingly in the form of publicprivate partnerships); global regulatorybodies like the ILO (for students labour and social welfare concerns); and,economic institutions such as the World Bank (providing an interfacebetween education and the needs of the developing economies from whichstudents often originate). In addition, given that education has become amajor international trade commodity, the WTO needs to engage witheducation services more fully than it has in order to ensure minimumprotection and security standards underpin cross-border student regulation.Global social policy analysts can make major contributions to the analysis ofsuch possibilities as part of their pursuit of social democratic global gover-nance. That social considerations can and should underpin the globaleducation market is suggested by the current analysis.

Education is complex to regulate globally, because if globalization isunderstood as the widening, deepening and speeding up of all kinds ofworldwide interconnectedness (Held et al., 1999: 14), then cross-bordereducation is both a function and a driver of globalization in cultural,educational and economic life. Global interdependency fosters demand forglobally mobile people, and mobile students and graduates extend andintensify global interconnectedness. Questions of the social and economicsecurity of temporary migrants highlight the transformative effects of global-ization, in the domains of regulation and political and human rights. Theyinvoke problems of national and international law, policy and governance thathave immediate practical importance for many people but are inherentlydifficult to address because they push beyond nation-state frameworks (Held,2004; Held et al., 1999). There is a jurisdictional gap standing in the way ofattempts to harmonize protection and security at the various levels; adiscrepancy between a globalised world and national, separate units ofpolicy-making (Kaul et al., 1999: xxvi). Precisely because issues of cross-border student security are generated in cross-border movement, singlenational governments do not own those issues and are not under the normal



domestic political pressures to address them. For nations sending studentsabroad, the problems of their citizen-students have been moved outside theirjurisdiction, and are only addressed in exceptional circumstances by theirforeign missions; and/or through bilateral negotiation with the nation(s) ofeducation. For nations that receive students for the purposes of education,these are not their own citizens. Typically, their rights are understood asconsumer rights, or second class pastoral rights, not human and civil rights even though cross-border students often contribute to society and culture,working cross-border students pay taxes, and many cross-border studentslater become citizens.

Concluding Comments

Security issues have become more pressing worldwide since the 11 September2001 attacks on civilian and military targets in the USA. American authoritieshave tightened visa requirements and more closely scrutinize incomingstudents, changes that have fallen disproportionately on non-white applicantsand students from Muslim nations. At the same time American civil societyhas become less friendly to Muslims. Thus, amid heightened attention to thesecurity of Americans, the security of cross-border students has been reduced.In both 20023 and 20034 there were sharp falls in students entering theUSA from the Middle East and from other Muslim nations such as Indonesia,Malaysia and Pakistan. In 20034 there was also a 4.6% drop in Chinesestudents entering the USA. These data suggest that questions of studentsecurity will be significant, and probably very significant, in determining thefuture trajectory of the cross-border student market in the USA, with likelyflow-on effects to other nations of study including Australia.

The conjuncture that drove the rapid growth of Australian educationexports has now altered. A comparative analysis in 2004 indicated thatAustralias cost advantage relative to American public universities had largelydisappeared, due to US dollar depreciation and rising living costs, particularlyaccommodation, in Australian cities; and the cost advantage relative to UKuniversities had been eroded (IDP Education Australia, 2004). This suggeststhat future student numbers will be increasingly determined by factors otherthan cost, such as the academic reputation of Australian universities; percep-tions of the quality of the learning experience as relayed by foreign graduates;and extra-curricular factors including climate, inter-cultural relations; andgenerally the social and economic security of cross-border students. Issues ofcross-border student security extend beyond physical safety to include healthand welfare, ease of passage through social and economic institutions, culturalacceptance, protection from maltreatment and exploitation, and assistance indifficulty and crisis.

It is unlikely that in the context of the possible downturn in the US share of



the education market, nations like Australia will increase their market sharewhile universities and governments continue to neglect their social and moralresponsibilities to cross-border students. More than this, nations need tocoordinate with institutions and civil society at the global level to ensure thatstudents can make their choice of study destination based on factors like thequality of the education, rather than questions over their security.

acknowledgements

The authors have collaborated on this project as part of a programme of research onGlobal People Movement and Social Protection supported by the cross-facultyMonash Institute for the Study of Global Movements, Monash University, Australia.This article forms part of a broader project entitled, The Social and EconomicSecurity of International Students in the Global Education Market, funded by anAustralian Research Council Discovery Grant over 2005 to 2007.

notes

1. Foreign student numbers in other sectors of education also increased. In 2002there were 385,000 foreign students studying in Australian education in allsectors, including schools, vocational training institutions and specialist Englishlanguage learning colleges, with 49% of these students in higher education(Australian Education International [AEI], 2003).

2. This proportion is higher than the OECDs datum for 2001 (13.9%): the differ-ence in the figures indicates both a different basis of calculation (the inclusion ofthe full number of off-shore students) and the rapid growth of foreign studentnumbers, which rose by 13.7% between 2002 and 2003 alone.

3. There may have been under-reporting here. Given that students who work morethan 20 hours in a week are in breach of visa conditions, despite guarantees ofanonymity, some students may have been reluctant to talk in detail about workexperiences.

4. The IEAA has published a summary of cases accumulated since 1996 (IEAA,2004).

references

Anheier, H., Glasius, M. and Kaldor (eds) (2005) Global Civil Society 2004/5. London:Sage.

Australian Education International (AEI) (2003) Data on Cross-Border Students,accessed 1 December 2004, http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/ResearchDatabase/Default.htm

Deacon, B. with Hulse, M. and Stubbs, P. (1997) Global Social Policy: InternationalOrganizations and the Future of the Welfare State. London: Sage.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2004) Selected HigherEducation Statistics, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.dest.gov.au

Education Services for Overseas Students Act (2000) Education Services for OverseasStudents Act and National Code of Practice, http://www.dest.gov.au/esos/default.htm



Harman, G. (2003) Bibliography on International Education Prepared for OECD.Armadale: University of New England.

Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the WashingtonConsensus. Cambridge: Polity.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformation.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

IDP Education Australia (2004) Data on the Comparative Costs of Courses, accessed1 December 2004, http://www.idp.com.au

Institute for International Education (IIE) (2004) Data on US Foreign Students,accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.iie.org/

International Education Appeals Authority (IEAA) (2004) Cases October1996October 2001, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.minedu.govt.nz

International Labour Organisation (2004) Towards a Fair Deal for Migrant Workers inthe Global Economy. Geneva: ILO.

Kaul, I., Grunberg I. and Stern, M. (1999) Global Public Goods: International Cooperationin the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lee, J. and Salamon, W. (2004) Communications Breakdown: Comment (A PersonalPerspective on the Everyday Dilemmas of International Students at AustraliasTertiarz Institutions), Meanjin 63: 1607.

Marginson, S. (forthcoming) Dynamics of National and Global Competition inHigher Education in Higher Education, Higher Education (accepted for publication15 December 2004).

Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000) The Enterprise University. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. and McBurnie, G. (2004) Cross-Border Post-Secondary Education inthe Asia-Pacific Region, in OECD (ed.) Internationalisation and Trade in HigherEducation (pp. 137204). Paris: OECD.

Marshall, T.H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class, in T.H. Marshall (ed.) Citizenshipand Social Class (pp. 185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2002) Push-Pull Factors Influencing Foreign StudentDestination Choice, The International Journal of Educational Management 16(23):8291.

Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., Smart, D. and Choo, S. (2001) Perceptions, Information andChoice: Understanding how Chinese Students Select a Country for Overseas Study.Canberra: Australian Education International.

Mishra, R. (1995) Social Policy an the Challenge of Globalization, in P. Saunders andS. Shaver (eds) Social Policy and the Challenges of Social Change: Proceedings of theNational Social Policy Conference, 57 July, Social Policy Research Centre (pp. 1534).Sydney: UNSW.

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2004) Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care ofForeign Students, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.minedu.govt.nz

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002a) InternationalMobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002b) Migration and theLabour Market in Asia. Paris: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) Education at aGlance. Paris: OECD.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004a) International-isation and Trade in Higher Education. Paris: OECD.



Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004b) Education at aGlance. Paris: OECD.

Paparella, D. (2004) Social Security Coverage for Migrants: Critical Aspects, paperpresented at ISSA European Regional Meeting, Oslo, 213 April.

Pearson, C.L. and Beasley, C.J. (1996) Reducing Learning Barriers AmongstInternational Students: A Longitudinal Developmental Study, AustralianEducational Researcher 23(2): 7996.

Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economical Origins of ourTime. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Ramia, G. (2003) Global Social Policy, NGOs and the Importance of StrategicManagement, Global Social Policy 3(1): 79101.

Smart, D., Volet, S. and Ang, G. (2000) Fostering Social Cohesion in Universities.Canberra: DEST.

Titmuss, R.M. (1958) The Social Division of Welfare: Some Reflections on theSearch for Equity, in R.M. Titmuss (ed.) Essays on the Welfare State (pp. 3455).London: Unwin University Books.

Titmuss, R.M. (1974) Social Policy: An Introduction, edited by B. Abel-Smith and K.Titmuss. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Ward, C. and Masgoret, A.-M. (2004) The Experiences of International Students inNew Zealand, Report on the Results of a National Survey. Wellington: Ministry ofEducation.

Webb, S. and Webb, B. (1911) The Prevention of Destitution. London: Longmans,Green & Co.

Yeates, N. (2001) Globalization and Social Policy. London: Sage.Ziguras, C. and McBurnie, G. (2004) Comments on the Impact of the Proposed Free

Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America on HigherEducation, submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Free TradeAgreement Between Australia and the United States of America, Canberra, April,accessed 4 July 2005, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/index.htm

rsum

Migration Globale et Droits de Protection Social: La ScuritSociale et conomique des tudiants Migrants en Australie

Un nombre croissant dtudiants franchissent les frontires internationales afin deraliser leurs tudes. Un march global dducation suprieure, qui est en expansion,a t cr. Il existe toutefois des insuffisances importantes dans la gouvernance desdroits des tudiants internationaux. Tout en tant bnficiaires de services dducation,les tudiants qui franchissent des frontires sont des migrants, des travailleurs, desconsommateurs et des tres humains. Une vision plus ample des tudiants, qui lesconsidre comme individus ayant droit une scurit sociale et conomique, estprfrable celle qui les traite comme de simples sujets couverts par la scurit sociale.En reconnaissant ce statut multiple et en utilisant les informations de 200 entretiensapprofondis raliss avec des tudiants internationaux en Australie, cet article enconclut que le rgime de protection sociale existant ne reconnat pas pleinement lesdroits des tudiants. Les problmes sont lis a lacquisition de la langue, lintgration



sociale, aux finances, au travail et la scurit personnelle. Larticle soutient, ainsi quele fait la loi et les politiques, quun rgime de scurit tudiante doit inclure demeilleures pratiques universitaires et des rseaux plus resserrs au niveau de la socitcivile, de mme que des ONG et une couverture OIG.

resumen

Migracin Global y Derechos de Proteccin Social: La SeguridadSocial y Econmica de los Estudiantes Internacionales enAustralia

Un nmero cada vez mayor de estudiantes atraviesa fronteras para realizar susestudios. Sin embargo, existen brechas significativas en la administracin de losderechos de tales alumnos que son tanto beneficiarios de un servicio educativo comomigrantes, trabajadores, consumidores y seres humanos. Estos estudiantes deben serconsiderados desde una perspectiva ms amplia, en tanto individuos que merecenseguridad econmica y social, y no solamente como sujetos de proteccin social. Elreconocimiento de esta condicin mltiple se aborda en este artculo que utiliza datosde 200 entrevistas exhaustivas con estudiantes extranjeros residentes en Australia. Elestudio permiti determinar que el rgimen actual de proteccin social dista mucho dereconocer los derechos de los estudiantes. El documento sostiene que un rgimen deseguridad para los estudiantes debe incluir tanto leyes y polticas como mejoresprcticas en las universidades y una cobertura ms integrada de las redes de la sociedadcivil y de las Organizaciones No-Gubernamentales e Intergubernamentales.

biographical notes

A N A D E U M E RT is a sociolinguist who works in the Faculty of Arts, MonashUniversity, Australia. Her research covers language planning/policy, language andmigration, language contact and second language acquisition. Please addresscorrespondence to: Dr Ana Deumert, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Victoria3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

S I M O N M A R G I N S O N is an Australian Professorial Fellow who works on comparativeand international higher education in the context of globalization, in the Faculty ofEducation, Monash University, Australia. He is Director of the Monash Centre forResearch in International Education. Please address correspondence to: ProfessorSimon Marginson, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia.[email: [email protected]]

C H R I S N Y L A N D works on international business and the history of economic andmanagement thought in the Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University,Australia. Please address correspondence to: Professor Chris Nyland, Department ofManagement, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia.[email: [email protected]]



G A B Y R A M I A works on international business and social policy in the Faculty ofBusiness and Economics, Monash University, Australia. Please address correspon-dence to: Dr Gaby Ramia, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University,Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

E R L E N AWAT I S AW I R is an Indonesian national and a sociolinguist who works oninter-cultural communication, globalization and international education as a ResearchFellow in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. Please addresscorrespondence to: Dr Erlenawati Sawir, Faculty of Education, Monash University,Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]



Documents

Global Social Policy 2005 Deumert 329 52