Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Mathies, Charles; Karhunen, Hannu Mathies, C., & Karhunen, H. (2021). Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(3), 298-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1816926 2021 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgse20 Globalisation, Societies and Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20 Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland Charles Mathies & Hannu Karhunen To cite this article: Charles Mathies & Hannu Karhunen (2020): Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland, Globalisation, Societies and Education To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1816926 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 09 Sep 2020. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland Charles Mathies a and Hannu Karhunen b,c,d a Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Labour Institute for Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland; c Statistics Finland, Helsinki, Finland; d Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT The increase in international student mobility raises questions of how many international students choose to stay in their host country and the reasons why some stay and others leave. This study examines factors affecting international students to stay in Finland three years after graduation. Tracking 13 (years) graduating cohorts across national (Finland) data registries, we find family ties and labour market opportunities relate to an increased probability an international student stays in Finland three years after graduation. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 June 2020 Accepted 25 August 2020 KEYWORDS International students; international student migration; stay rate; labour market; family ties Introduction The rapid increase of student mobility raises questions of how many international students choose to stay in the host country and why some stay while others leave after graduation. While the internationalisation of higher education is more than just students’moving across borders, it is an important manifestation of how higher education has become more international (Caruso and de Wit 2015). International students have emerged as prized and contested human resource, particularly for OECD countries, to attract and retain (Hawthorne 2018). Recent research (King and Sondhi 2018; Mosneaga and Winther 2013; Robertson 2013) argues family ties and labour market opportunities are key influences on international students staying in a host country. This study examines, on a national (Finland) level, how family ties and labour market opportunities relate to international students staying in country after they completed their studies. Background An increasing number of students study internationally each year. In 2016, more than five million students enrolled in higher education outside their country, almost double the number 10 years earlier (OECD 2018). In Finland, international students (degree seeking) have substantially increased from 6000 (2 per cent of all students) in 2000 to over 21,000 (7 per cent) studying in 2016 (CIMO 2014; Finnish National Agency for Education 2017). The issue of international student mobility and migration is a topic of considerable policy interest not just in Finland (CIMO 2014; Korhonen 2015; Kuokkanen 2019; YLE 2015) but also throughout Europe (Choudaha and de Wit 2014; Hawthorne 2018; Ministry of Higher Education and Science 2018). There has been a significant shift towards a controlled immigration of international students and increasing measures aimed to improve their stay rates across Europe (Caruso and de Wit 2015). This is occurring in large part © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. CONTACT Charles Mathies charles.f.mathies@jyu.fiFinnish Institute for Educational Research, PO Box 35, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä 40014, Finland, @charles_mathies GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1816926 due to concerns about decreasing or low birth rates and an ageing population; attracting international students is seen as a way to increase the number of needed skilled workers (European Commission 2010; King and Raghuram 2013; Ministry of Interior 2013; Riaño, Van Mol, and Raghuram 2018). International students are ‘ideal’immigrants, they are skilled and most are in prime employment age (Mosneaga and Winther 2013). They are attractive to host countries as they trained for that labour market (Ziguras and Law 2006) and do not require a lengthy or complex process to recognise qualifications (Robertson 2013). In short, international students offer a premium over migrants educated (trained) elsewhere (Hawthorne 2018). Despite increasing migration since 1990, Finland has a relatively homogenous population with roughly only 7.5 per cent of the 5.5 million population (2019) being non-Finnish; Russian (20 per cent of all foreigners) and Estonia (12 per cent) diaspora being the largest (Statistics Finland 2020). It is seen as essential for Finland’s economic development ‘…that international students who graduate from Finnish higher education institutions will remain in Finland and become integrated in the society and the labour market’(CIMO 2015, 6). Theoretical framework and research questions Studying abroad, previously positioned as a temporary endeavour, is now a form of labour migration (Robertson 2013;Tremblay2005). This shift occurred in the broader context of a globalised knowledge economy and the global race for skilled workers (Robertson 2013). International student migration (ISM) is a relatively new theoretical framework within global migration and human capital literatures (King and Sondhi 2018). Specifically, ISM sits at a nexus among education and migration policies intersecting with labour market needs and demands (Robertson 2013). It is a staggered process where individuals arrive on student visas and remain on temporary visas until they fulfil criteria for permanent residency; replacing previous models of permanent migration with a fixed entry (Robertson 2013). A critical component of knowledge migration is the skills and knowledge of ‘prospective’skilled workers (Mosneaga and Winther 2013). There are arguments whether students are actually ‘skilled’ because, in most cases, they have not demonstrated their abilities in the labour market (King and Sondhi 2018). However, training (educating) international students within national borders is increasingly important as they augment the supply of skilled workers available to national labour markets and are cheaper (plus easier) to recruit than importing skilled workers trained elsewhere (Ziguras and Law 2006). King and Sondhi (2018) theorise ISM as a subset within four larger conceptual frameworks; highly skilled worker migration, product and mechanism of the globalisation of higher education, global youth cultures, and (social) class analysis. While ISM is concerned with international students coming into a country for a degree (degree mobility), it also takes into account the anticipated future economic benefits (long-term; for students, HEIs, and countries), family influences, and policy (educational, migration, etc.) effects (King and Sondhi 2018). It is a dynamic process where an individual student’s agency is simultaneously constrained and enabled by external factors such as policy, family ties, and labour market opportunities (Mosneaga and Winther 2013). King and Raghuram (2013) argue there is a compelling case for research on the ISM phenomena in quantitative studies linking systems of higher education and knowledge production. Specifically in Finland, the Ministry of Interior (2013) has called for statistical research on international migration including international students. Our study intends to fill these identified gaps as we hypothesise family ties and labour market opportunities relate to the probability international students staying in Finland after graduation. To our knowledge, this study was the first quantitative study examining multiple cohorts (years) of international graduates (13) on a national scale for long-term migration patterns controlling for family ties and labour market opportunities (ISM). Our two specific research questions are: RQ1: What is the stay rate of international graduates in Finland three years after graduation? 2C. MATHIES AND H. KARHUNEN RQ2: Do family ties and labour market opportunities relate, and to what degree, to an increased or decreased probability of international graduates staying in Finland three years after graduation? Research design and data Our sample consisted of international students graduating from universities of applied sciences (UAS, 24) and universities (14) in Finland between 1999 and 2011. 1 The initial sample (N= 13,056) captured all international students graduating according to the Registry of Completed Education and Degrees maintained by Statistics Finland. Individuals, who had foreign nationality in their enrolment year, are conditionally included based on having a valid Finnish personal identity code at graduation; this registry collects data on all completed degrees in Finland. 2 We constrained our sample by excluding individuals who completed secondary education in Finland (2222). Additionally, we removed individuals who speak Finnish or Swedish as their native language (167) and those who were over 45 years old when enrolling (170). Lastly, we removed individuals completing a bachelor degree in universities (224) due to the nature of the Finnish undergraduate degree structure in universities 3 as bachelor’s degrees in Finnish universities are mainly offered only in Finnish and Swedish; international students are primarily admitted into English-taught masters and doctoral programmes within Finnish universities. We sorted students according to highest completed degree so not to count individuals twice. 4 We have in our sample 3705 international bachelor graduates from UAS (bachelors) and 5049 masters (masters) and 1519 licentiate and PhD (doctoral) graduates from universities. Thus, we observed 10,273 international graduates in total. We tracked our sample for three years after graduation, via Finnish personal identity code, through Finnish national registers administered by Statistics Finland. Data collection was from the Finnish Longitudinal Census (demographic and family ties), the Longitudinal Employment Statistics (economic), and the Income Distribution Statistics (social benefits and taxes). Data on enrolment derived from the Student Registry while the Registry of Completed Education and Degrees provided information on the degree level, discipline, date, and institution granting the degree. Additionally, we created three graduation regions based on the location of the highest degree granting HEI. We placed HEIs located within or near Helsinki into the capital region; HEIs located within or near the cities of Tampere and Turku into the large city region and assigned remaining HEIs into the other region. We constructed the main variable of interest, staying in Finland (dependent variable), using the population registry data on the place of residence and activity during a calendar year according to Finnish Income Distribution Statistics. 5 We defined the decision to stay in Finland as follows: graduate is observed in a place of residence from the registry and if one has positive wage earnings, paid any taxes, or received any transfer payments (social welfare benefit) during the year of interest (3rd year after graduation). Otherwise, we assume that person has left the country. 6 Due to the binary nature of staying in Finland (yes/no), we developed a series of logistic regressions to estimate the probability of an international graduate staying after three years (dependent variable). We control for (independent variables) family ties (marriage, children, parents), labour market ties (employment), personal demographics (age, nationality 7 , gender, earlier stay in Finland 8 ), and characteristics of the degree programme and HEI (discipline, degree type, location). We estimated odds rations and marginal effects for the entire sample and marginal effects separately for each (three) degree type. Findings Table 1 introduces our sample of international students graduating in Finland between 1999 and 2011. Panel A displays all graduates (N= 10,273) and the share of those staying in Finland three years after graduation. We observed 74 per cent of bachelors, 67 per cent of masters, and 65 per cent of doctoral graduates residing in Finland three years after graduation. In Panel B (N= 7389), GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 3 we constrained our sample by excluding those who lived in Finland before enrolment. After we constrained our sample, the share of stayers’declined slightly as 67 per cent of bachelors, 64 per cent of masters, and 63 per cent of doctoral graduates were residing in Finland three years after graduation. In Panel C (N= 5574), we further constrained our sample excluding individuals from EU28 countries. We found the share of stayers’stayed roughly the same as in Panel B as 67 per cent of UAS, 65 per cent of masters, and 62 per cent of doctoral graduates were residing in Finland three years after graduation. Table 2 presents our full sample logistic regression model results. It should be emphasised our explanatory (independent) variables are measured the year before graduation or earlier, and not Table 1. Graduates 1999–2011. Graduates by institution Staying 3 years after graduation Applied university University – Master University – Doctoral Applied university University – Master University – doctoral Panel A: All international students 1999 44 204 75 0.73 0.54 0.55 2000 75 237 80 0.76 0.53 0.75 2001 123 228 85 0.77 0.56 0.65 2002 177 299 92 0.76 0.58 0.71 2003 211 267 103 0.75 0.65 0.56 2004 243 304 114 0.74 0.67 0.68 2005 318 324 125 0.75 0.71 0.66 2006 249 363 131 0.75 0.72 0.63 2007 288 386 134 0.80 0.67 0.66 2008 357 552 114 0.74 0.72 0.70 2009 407 535 160 0.73 0.70 0.70 2010 576 622 150 0.73 0.70 0.63 2011 637 728 156 0.73 0.69 0.58 Total 3705 5049 1519 0.74 0.67 0.65 Panel B: Those who did not live in Finland before enrolment 1999 16 153 62 0.69 0.52 0.48 2000 36 181 51 0.64 0.49 0.69 2001 49 164 64 0.65 0.49 0.64 2002 84 228 71 0.64 0.56 0.68 2003 109 199 77 0.64 0.62 0.56 2004 135 224 85 0.64 0.64 0.62 2005 152 238 89 0.64 0.66 0.69 2006 158 295 101 0.66 0.70 0.56 2007 165 311 110 0.72 0.61 0.65 2008 226 420 90 0.67 0.70 0.69 2009 287 451 121 0.66 0.68 0.69 2010 415 503 105 0.68 0.68 0.64 2011 449 596 119 0.69 0.65 0.57 Total 2281 3963 1145 0.67 0.64 0.63 Panel C: Those who did not live in Finland before enrolment year and outside EU28 1999 10 107 44 0.70 0.51 0.43 2000 24 125 35 0.58 0.51 0.69 2001 35 118 45 0.71 0.50 0.56 2002 68 157 47 0.66 0.56 0.72 2003 94 139 49 0.67 0.66 0.51 2004 107 145 57 0.61 0.68 0.67 2005 124 170 58 0.63 0.65 0.69 2006 128 189 59 0.66 0.71 0.58 2007 127 227 61 0.72 0.65 0.59 2008 191 312 56 0.69 0.69 0.73 2009 234 349 74 0.63 0.70 0.72 2010 381 398 63 0.68 0.67 0.63 2011 413 481 73 0.69 0.66 0.55 Total 1936 2917 721 0.67 0.65 0.62 4C. MATHIES AND H. KARHUNEN after graduation. Results suggest family ties and labour market opportunities increased the probability international graduates stay in Finland. All three family ties variables, marriage, having children (15 per cent) and other family living in Finland (24 per cent) increased the probability to stay. Compared to non-married graduates, those married to a Finnish spouse had a higher increased probability to stay (20 per cent) than those married to a non-Finnish spouse (five per cent). Employed international graduates had 13 per cent increased probability to stay than those who were unemployed. Examining employment more closely, our results suggest those who worked in a white-collar job (subgroup of employed) had slightly higher probability to stay (15 per cent). Exploring graduates’decision to stay in Finland further, we estimated marginal effects by degree type (Table 3). This provides more clarity on where the marginal effects exist by revealing the heterogeneity that was not clear from the aggregated (whole sample) results presented in Table 2. First with family ties, marriage to a non-Finnish spouse showed increased probability to stay for only Table 2. Background factors and the decision to stay three years after graduation. Dependent variable: 1 = Living in Finland, 0 = otherwise. Odds ratio Marginal effects Enrolment age groups: −20 Ref. group Ref. group 20–24 1.287 (0.107)*** 0.050 (0.016)*** 25–29 1.570 (0.146)*** 0.089 (0.018)*** 30–45 1.458 (0.154)*** 0.074 (0.021)*** Male 0.927 (0.048) −0.015 (0.101) Married: Not married Ref. group. Ref. group. Married to non-Finn. 1.316 (0.091)*** 0.054(0.014)*** Married to Finn. 2.790 (0.210)*** 0.203 (0.015)*** Has a child 2.109 (0.159)*** 0.148 (0.015)*** Other family 3.437 (0.568)*** 0.244 (0.032)*** Earlier stay in Finland 1.384 (0.091)*** 0.064 (0.013)*** Employment: Not-employed Ref. group. Ref. group. Employed 1.966 (0.126)*** 0.134 (0.013)*** Employed in white collar job 2.127 (0.146)*** 0.149 (0.014)*** Completed degree by institution: University –master Ref. group. Ref. group. Applied university 1.192 (0.069)*** 0.035 (0.011)*** University –doctoral 0.555 (0.042)*** −0.116 (0.015)*** Graduation region: Capital region Ref. group. Ref. group. Large city regions 1.102 (0.076) 0.020 (0.015) Other regions 1.524 (0.086)*** 0.083 (0.011)*** Field of education: Social science, Business and law Ref. group. Ref. group. Education 0.873 (0.166) −0.027 (0.037) Humanities and art 1.016 (0.084) 0.003 (0.016) Science 1.526 (0.142)*** 0.083 (0.018)*** Technical 1.302 (0.084)*** 0.052 (0.013)*** Health and welfare 1.449 (0.114)*** 0.073 (0.016)*** Other 1.073 (0.123) 0.013 (0.023) Region of origin: EU-28 Ref. group. Ref. group. Other Europe and Turkey 1.630 (0.121)*** 0.096 (0.015)*** Asia 0.794 (0.051)*** −0.046 (0.013)*** Africa 1.064 (0.091) 0.012 (0.017) Other 0.919 (0.102) −0.017 (0.022) Average predicted probability 0.693 0.693 Pseudo likelihood −5646 −4062 Pseudo R 2 0.109 0.113 Observations 10,273 10,273 Note: Model includes also graduation year dummies to account for business cycle (and other) variation. Significance *** p< 0.01, ** p< 0.05, * p< 0.1. Robust standard errors in parentheses. GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 5 master’s graduates (eight per cent) and doctoral graduates (six per cent) while marriage to a Finnish spouse showed increased probability of staying for all degree types. Having children or other family in Finland had similar positive patterns across all degree types; point estimates were close to the aggregated results presented earlier. Second, estimates for labour market ties showed differences across degree types. For bachelors graduates on average, white-collar employment (15 per cent) related to increased probability to stay than just employment (10 per cent). For masters and doctoral graduates, employment and white-collar employment increased the probability to stay roughly the same (15–16 per cent) compared to those unemployed (reference group). Third, estimates for the location of the HEI showed differences across the three regions. Across all degree types, graduates from HEIs located in the other region related to a higher probability of staying. Panel A of Table 4 reports the marginal effects for interactions among a few explanatory variables. By themselves, masters and doctoral graduates had a decreased probability of staying in Finland than bachelors graduates. However, when interacted with employment, we found all degree types associated with an increased probability to stay. White-collar employment had higher increased Table 3. Background factors & decision to stay three years after graduation by institution (Marginal effects). Dependent variable: 1 = Living in Finland, 0 = otherwise Applied university University –Master University –Doctor Enrolment age groups: −20 Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. 20–24 0.033 (0.018)* 0.029 (0.026) −0.223 (0.173) 25–29 0.118 (0.024)*** 0.045 (0.029) −0.248 (0.172) 30–45 0.140 (0.029)*** 0.028 (0.034) −0.305 (0.173)* Male 0.013 (0.018) −0.027 (0.015)* −0.047 (0.028)* Married: Not married Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. Married to non-Finn. 0.022 (0.019) 0.079 (0.023)*** 0.062 (0.032)* Married to Finn. 0.140 (0.019)*** 0.245 (0.025)*** 0.238 (0.040)*** Has a child 0.128 (0.024)*** 0.152 (0.024)*** 0.143 (0.031)*** Other family 0.242 (0.040)*** 0.222 (0.050)*** 0.337 (0.161)** Earlier stay in Finland 0.021 (0.018) 0.098 (0.020)*** 0.055 (0.033)** Employment: Not-employed Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. Employed 0.099 (0.016)*** 0.164 (0.021)*** 0.153 (0.042)*** Employed in white collar job 0.145 (0.023)*** 0.159 (0.021)*** 0.151 (0.034)*** Graduation region: Capital region Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. Large city regions 0.015 (0.022) 0.024 (0.024) 0.036 (0.032) Other regions 0.038 (0.016)** 0.154 (0.019)*** 0.101 (0.031)*** Field of education: Social science, Business and law Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. Education −0.068 (0.171) −0.039 (0.051) 0.028 (0.165) Humanities and art −0.005 (0.037) −0.007 (0.025) 0.036 (0.058) Science …0.161 (0.027)*** −0.076 (0.043)* Technical 0.039 (0.016)** 0.058 (0.021)*** 0.029 (0.043) Health and welfare 0.112 (0.022)*** 0.017 (0.028) −0.031 (0.050) Other −0.021 (0.027) 0.041 (0.039) 0.014 (0.071) Region of origin: EU-28 Ref. group. Ref. group. Ref. group. Other Europe and Turkey 0.107(0.025)*** 0.076 (0.024)*** 0.084 (0.039) Asia −0.044 (0.020)** −0.052 (0.020)** 0.012 (0.034) Africa 0.020 (0.023) −0.082 (0.030)*** 0.052 (0.050) Other −0.032 (0.038) 0.004 (0.031) −0.072 (0.063) Average predicted probability 0.744 0.689 0.648 Log likelihood −1773 −2869 −887 Pseudo R 2 0.157 0.105 0.099 Observations 3705 5049 1519 Note: Model includes also graduation year dummies to account for business cycle (and other) variation. Significance *** p< 0.01, ** p< 0.05, * p< 0.1. Robust standard errors in parentheses. 6C. MATHIES AND H. KARHUNEN probability of staying than just having employment, for bachelors and masters graduates; for doctoral graduates though, white-collar employment related to a smaller increased probability to stay than just employment. In panel B of Table 4, we display interactions for marital status and employment. Employment and white-collar employment predicted similar increases in probability of staying (13–14 per cent), but when interacted with marriage, differences arose. For international graduates who were non-married, we observed no large differences between employment (14 per cent) and white-collar employment (15 per cent). Estimates were also close to same magnitude for graduates married to a non-Finnish spouse (15–18 per cent increase). However, for international graduates married to a Finnish spouse, employment before graduation seemed to play a smaller role explaining the decision to stay in Finland (eight per cent increase). Discussion The findings show a high stay rate (RQ1) of international graduates (over 62 per cent) for all degree types and controlling for living in Finland previously. A recent study from the Centre for International Mobility (CIMO 2016) found a stay rate of 72 per cent three years after graduation for Table 4. Selected background factors with interactions (Marginal effects). Dependent variable: 1 = Living in Finland, 0 = otherwise Panel A:Institution and employment Institution Applied university Ref. University –Master −0.033 (0.012)*** University –Doctor −0.140 (0.017)*** Employment Not employed Ref. Employed 0.127 (0.012)*** Employed in white collar job 0.147 (0.012)*** Conditional: Applied university Employed 0.113 (0.015)*** Employed in white collar job 0.158 (0.019)*** Conditional: University –Master Employed 0.123 (0.017)*** Employed in white collar job 0.148 (0.017)*** Conditional: University –Doctor Employed 0.178 (0.033)*** Employed in white collar job 0.117 (0.028)*** Panel B:Marital status and employment Marital status Not married Ref. Married to non-Finn. 0.048 (0.014)*** Married to Finn. 0.176 (0.011)*** Employment Not employed Ref. Employed 0.127 (0.014)*** Employed in white collar job 0.138 (0.012)*** Conditional: Not married Employed 0.139 (0.016)*** Employed in white collar job 0.145 (0.017)*** Conditional: Married to non-Finn. Employed 0.145 (0.025)*** Employed in white collar job 0.179 (0.024)*** Conditional: Married to Finn. Employed 0.082 (0.018)*** Employed in white collar job 0.083 (0.018)*** Number of observations 10,273 Average predicted rate 0.693 Note: Logistic estimations in panel a and b include interaction terms. For other variables, see Table 2. GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 7