1.

Korrektur DER DONAURAUM

Jahrgang 51 Heft 3-4/2011

Jana Baevi

Borders of the Europe of Knowledge? Higher Education, Mobility and Knowledge Transfer in the Western Balkans
Introduction
The objective of this paper is to discuss the implications of the Bologna Process, or, more generally, the European integration of higher education and research and the creation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), for the knowledge transfer in those European countries that are not member states of the European Union, including the Western Balkans. Namely, although the process of European integration of higher education and research has entailed a substantial degree of policy convergence (cf. Dobbins and Knill 2009), it makes sense to assume that the specific contexts and conditions of national systems of higher education and research have also created some divergence as well as a number of contradictions and paradoxes (ibid.; Amaral et al. 2009; Pabian 2009; Kwiek 2004). Policy discourse especially when concerned with the former Communist countries tends to ascribe these contradictions to faults in the domain of implementation: in this paradigm, the policies are functional on the level of creation, but are misunderstood, transformed and redefined by the local actors applying them (cf. Tomusk 2007). However, as for instance Neave (2003, 2002) has argued, the contradictions and paradoxes in the Bologna Process are not only the product of the mode of implementation; rather, faults in implementation may derive from the tensions, contradictions and paradoxes contained within the ideas, discourses and practices of the Bologna Process itself. This paper aims to offer a similar critical examination of some aspects of the creation of the European Higher Education Area and the ways in which they apply to different parts of Europe. In particular, the paper is concerned with the implications of the mobility policies aimed at edifying the Europe of Knowledge, such as the Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus initiatives of the European Commissions Life-long Learning programme. The paper will begin by briefly recounting the objectives and purposes of European

211

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

integration in higher education and, in particular, the mobility programmes involved. Then, it will compare the discourses of the two most prominent among these initiatives Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus and discuss their explicit and implicit aims and purposes as well as the ways in which different objectives are related to different target groups of students and graduates. After this, it will discuss the implications of the differences in the construction and treatment of these different groups. The paper will end by discussing the meanings of these different approaches for knowledge transfer and development within the less developed parts of Europe, including the Western Balkans.

Trouble in paradise? Competing visions of the transformation of higher education in Europe

The transformation of higher education and research in Europe subsumed under the Bologna Process has been described as probably the most dynamic change of European universities since their founding (Maassen and Olsen 2007). Resting on the foundations of the Magna Charta Universitatum signed in 1988, and preceded by the Sorbonne Declaration signed by the ministers of education of France, Germany, Italy and the UK in 1998, the process of European integration in higher education has expanded rapidly. In 1999, representatives of 29 European states of which only 15 were EU members at the time signed the Bologna Declaration. Today, the European Higher Education Area counts 48 signatories. The creation of the European Higher Education Area has been described, in policy terms, as a moving target (Neave and Maassen 2007; Kehm, Huisman and Stensaker eds. 2009). Despite these shifts and oscillations of priorities, certain trends can still be distinguished. The initial actions focused on establishing a system of mutually comparable and readable degrees to stimulate mobility and the attractiveness of Europe as a study destination. This entailed structuring the study programmes into two (and later three) cycles bachelor, master and doctorate based on the measurement of student workload and learning outcomes expressed in ECTS. Commitment to lifelong learning, quality and the social dimension were added later in the process (Corbett 2005). The transformation did not happen only on the organizational and structural levels; on the contrary, it entailed (or heralded) a wave of reflection on the roles and purposes of university in society, or rather the question what higher education is for (Maassen and Olsen eds. 2007). Although the Magna Charta Universitatum as well as the Bologna Declaration emphasised the cultural and social roles of higher education its role in political and

212

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

social integration the emphasis quickly shifted to the role of universities in economic development within the ambition of the Lisbon Agenda to make the European Union the most competitive economy in the world (Olsen and Maassen 2007). The discursive shift to the economic roles and outcomes of higher education is usually connected to the growing influence of the European Commission on the Bologna Process, which some researchers have dubbed creeping competence (Amaral and Neave 2009). The tendency of the European Commission to privilege the economic aspect of higher education is not altogether surprising given that it initially managed to gain ground in higher education policy historically considered the sacred ground of member states via a court ruling on the competences over post-secondary vocational, i.e. professional education known as the Gravier judgement (see Corbett 2009, 2005; Amaral et al. 2009). Thus, the diverging emphases on the cultural and economic aspects of higher education can also be seen as an expression of the tension between the competences of the European Commission and those of the individual member states (Neave and Maassen 2007; de Wit and Verhoeven 2001). However, as revealing as this explanation surely is, it simply begs the question: how relevant is it for the dynamics of the transformation of the entire European Higher Education Area? Namely, as noted above, the European Higher Education Area today counts 48 member states. Out of these, only 27 (soon, with Croatia, 28) are countries of the European Union and thus fall under the administration of the European Commission. The remaining 20 comprise countries that vary significantly in their relationship to the EU from EEA/EFTA countries such as Norway, Iceland or Switzerland to candidate countries such as Macedonia and Turkey, and Central Asian countries such as Armenia or Kazakhstan, to which European Union membership may represent a distant and not particularly relevant prospect, or one without any political future at all, for that matter. Given the differences in their political contexts, one must ask whether the goals of European integration in higher education as seen by the European Commission equally apply to all signatories of the Bologna Declaration. In other words: do policies that are in theory aimed at creating an integrated area of higher education in effect treat countries differently in relation to their political status? In the following sections, this paper will investigate one of the most prominent instruments in the creation of the European Higher Education Area: the European Commissions Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), and specifically its elements aimed at stimulating the mobility of students and staff: Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus. The analysis will focus on the discursive construction and framing of the goals and objectives of these programmes, juxtaposing them with the broader goals and objectives of European integration in higher education both economic and cultural. The interpretation will point to the paradoxes and apparent contradictions in the aims of

213

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

the European Higher Education Area on the one hand, and the specific policies aimed at its construction on the other. The final part of the paper will discuss the implications of these constructions of cultural and policy spaces and environments, especially for the issues related to European integration and knowledge transfer in non-EU countries, including the Western Balkans.

The two faces of Erasmus: growth and development

One of the most important instruments for the development of the European dimension of higher education arguably are the European Commissions mobility programs such as Erasmus, claimed to be a driver in the modernisation of higher education in Europe and inspiration for the establishment of the Bologna Process (e.g. Batory and Lindstrom 2011:316; Corbett 1009). Erasmus is the biggest mobility program in Europe, both in scope and number of participants. In 2009, around 90% of European universities were taking part in Erasmus activities; two million students have participated in it since it started in 1987. Erasmus is open to students from EU countries, EEA-EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) and some third or candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey). In addition to student mobility, Erasmus covers teaching and staff mobility as well as institutional cooperation and development.1 According to its website,
Erasmus has become a driver in the modernisation of higher education in Europe and inspired the establishment of the Bologna Process. The general aim of the Programme is to create a European Higher Education Area and foster innovation throughout Europe.2

Erasmus mobility for studies includes an integrated period of between 3 and 12 months of study at another (foreign) institution, as well as language courses and other preparatory and, in some cases, follow-up programs. The stated objectives of mobility schemes are to
enable students to benefit educationally, linguistically and culturally from the experience of learning in other European countries; promote co-operation between institutions and enrich the educational environment of host institutions; and contribute to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open- minded and internationally experienced young people as future professionals.3

1 Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc80_en.htm 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.

214

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

The Erasmus Mundus program, initially introduced in 2004 as a form of external cooperation, today forms one of the most prominent aspects of the LLP. Erasmus Mundus comprises European joint masters and doctorates, partnerships with nonEuropean higher education institutions and scholarships for students and academics, and it promotes European higher education worldwide. The program is primarily intended for non-European students, but also for students from other European countries ineligible for Erasmus (including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine). Erasmus Mundus
aims to enhance the quality of European higher education and to promote dialogue and understanding between people and cultures through cooperation with Third-Countries. In addition, it contributes to the development of human resources and the international cooperation capacity of Higher education institutions in Third Countries by increasing mobility between the European Union and these countries.4

The objectives of the programme are

the enhancement of quality in European higher education; the promotion of the European Union as a centre of excellence in learning around the world; the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with Third Countries as well as for the development of Third Countries in the field of higher education.5

A comparison of the stated outcomes of the two mobility schemes shows certain differences. Erasmus aims to
(1) enable students to benefit educationally, linguistically and culturally from the experience of learning in other European countries; (2) promote co-operation between institutions and enrich the educational environment of host institutions; (3) contribute to the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded and internationally experienced young people as future professionals, with the general aim of creating a European Higher Education Area and fostering innovation throughout Europe. Erasmus Mundus, on the other hand, open to students whose countries do not fall in the above categories, has the following objectives: (1) enhancing quality in European higher education; (2) promoting the European Union as a centre of excellence in learning around the world; (3) promoting intercultural understanding through cooperation with Third Countries; (4) the development of Third Countries in the field of higher education, with the general aim of enhancing the quality of European higher education; promoting dialogue and understanding between people and cultures through cooperation with Third-Countries and contributing to the development of human resources and the international cooperation capacity of Higher education institutions in Third Countries.

4 Cf. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/ erasmus_mundus/programme/about_erasmus_mundus_en.php 5 Ibid.

215

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

A brief comparative analysis of these two mobility programs shows that certain aims and purposes are shared: for instance, developing intercultural understanding and enhancing the quality of European higher education. However, whereas Erasmus places explicit emphasis on learning and the development of a pool of well-qualified, open-minded and internationally experienced young people as future professionals, the wording of developing the labour force is much scarcer in Erasmus Mundus (contributing to the development of human resources). On the other hand, in Erasmus Mundus an explicit focus is put on institutional and national development (the international cooperation capacity of Higher education institutions in Third Countries). Finally, developing the European Higher Education Area and fostering innovation throughout Europe are stated as objectives of Erasmus, but not of Erasmus Mundus. Although the intended personal (individual) outcomes tend to be similar or identical, significant differences occur in the domain of applying the knowledge and skills acquired in mobility programs. Whereas Erasmus emphasises the development of a pool of internationally experienced young professionals whose purpose is to contribute to innovation and competitiveness in Europe, Erasmus Mundus develops human resources with the primary purpose of developing their home countries. In this sense, educational mobility of students from Erasmus countries is presented as contributing to the international (European) labour market, whereas the educational mobility of students from Erasmus Mundus countries contributes to their national labour markets. A study in Revue Elargissement stated that
according to the European Union, student and teacher mobility is an important factor for growth and employment. Indeed, on the one hand it facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and, on the other hand, people who have undertaken part of their studies abroad are more likely to take advantage of an increasingly internationalised labour market.6

There is significantly less talk of the internationalised labour market when it comes to the consequences of mobility programs targeted at students from European Erasmus Mundus countries. What is emphasised instead is development: European Erasmus Mundus students are expected to return to their countries and transfer the knowledge acquired during their mobility in the institutional development of their countries. In this case, growth is associated with innovation and competitiveness in the EU, while development is associated with particular criteria that countries first need to fulfil in order to qualify for contributing to the European pool of knowledge. In this sense, mobility programs bring a very clear political dimension to the concept of the Europe of Knowledge, separating countries into two tracks the one of EU, EEA/EFTA and candidate countries, and the other with the rest.
6 Cf. http://www.euractiv.com/en/education/student-mobility-positive-factor-eu/article-140514

216

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

However, the membership in tracks looks a bit different when shifted from the domain of discourse to the domain of practice. Specifically, many Erasmus students and graduates do not actually have the right to work in the EU. This right is extended only to nationals of the EU and EEA/EFTA countries, and not in all cases: labour market restrictions related to new EU members allow other countries to protect their labour markets from workers from these countries for up to seven years after accession (for instance, Bulgarian and Romanian nationals still do not have the right to freely work in all other EU countries despite the fact that both countries acceded to the EU in 2007). For many, including nationals of the Western Balkan countries, both the right to reside and to look for employment in an EU country are contingent upon proving that one has sufficient financial means to support oneself, which usually entails a job, and that usually requires prior possession of a work permit. Thus, the EU labour market is not really open to Erasmus students or graduates coming from non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries. Furthermore, the two-track approach to mobility does not apply only to access to labour markets. It also has implications for opportunities of social and political participation. To begin with, whereas students from the EU studying in another EU country have political rights similar or equal to those of native students in that country (for instance, can vote and be voted for in local elections), students from outside the EU, as a rule, do not. Not being citizens of one of the EU countries means that they are also, in most cases, excluded from participation in politics at the local level, even if they are legally resident in their host country. Needless to say, the very process of acquiring residence and/or necessary visas is very complicated for many students coming from European non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries. Technically, mobility students from European non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries can still participate in elections and the political and public life of their home countries. However, even this form of political participation can be complicated by mobility. Access to expatriate voting facilities can be difficult, and travel back home can be expensive and demanding, making it less likely that students would actually attempt it. Likewise, participation in civil society or community activities is not only complicated by students physical absence during the period of studies abroad; their absence can also, in some cases, play a negative role in their participation in political and public life once they (presumably) return to their home countries (see e.g. Bacevic 2010; Horvat 2004; Rivza & Teichler 2007). Similar issues can be identified with regard to students ability to participate in deliberations and governance at the level of higher education institutions. Although there are organizations and networks specifically representing mobility students (such as ESN the Erasmus Student Network), the opportunities for mobility students to effectively participate in issues related to higher education policies more broadly are

217

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

questionable at best. To begin with, the relatively short term of their stay ranging from three months to a maximum of one year makes it less likely that they would have sufficient time to get involved in and take the effort to understand local issues related to student governance. Even if they did, there may be language barriers (assuming that local student activities are more likely to be carried out in the local language, which visiting students may not speak well enough to engage in debates) as well as pressures arising from the need to fulfil academic obligations thus making it difficult to engage in other issues as well.

Implications: who owns human capital?

Although the differences in discourses, frameworks and circumstances relating to mobility between students from the EU, EEA/EFTA or more developed candidate countries and others may be subtle, their implications are worth considering. First of all, they substantially impact the lives of the students who are, or wish to be, mobile. Despite different mechanisms intended to simplify the visa and residence permit procedures in EHEA countries for students who require such permits, the application processes are often complex, lengthy and expensive. In this sense, mobility within the EU is much easier for EU or EEA/EFTA students than for those coming from outside. This implies that at least some non-EU or non-EEA/EFTA students may avoid mobility due to fear of the administrative and/or financial burdens it entails (for instance, the Eurostudent IV National Report for Croatia found that one of the chief reasons surveyed students state for not engaging in mobility are the potential extra costs, see Farnell ed. 2011). In other words, different groups of students are faced with substantial differences in terms of costs and benefits when it comes to mobility; in this context, it appears as if the relatively high numbers of internationally mobile students coming from countries whose citizens require visas and/or residence permits to study in the EU (such as Albania) are primarily a function of differences in quality or diversity of the higher education systems between home and abroad, which push the students to go abroad despite the administrative hurdles this entails. Differences in the treatment of different groups of students remain also once students have gone abroad and, presumably, managed to navigate security checks, processes of acquiring residence permits, finding accommodation, opening bank accounts etc. After graduation, EU/EEA/EFTA students are free to remain in most countries of the EU and look for employment or further education. The graduates from most other (European and non-European) countries either have to return to their home countries immediately or soon afterwards, or, in some cases, can stay or travel for a couple of

218

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

months longer; however, without having previously secured employment or funding many are unable to extend their residence permits or remain in the EU.7 This leads to what Gachter (2007) refers to as forced return the legal requirement and/or expectation that EU university graduates from non-EU/EEA/EFTA countries return to their home countries after graduation. This implies a dualistic perception of the role of higher education and mobility programs in the EU. Whereas one group of students those from EU/EEA/EFTA countries can study and afterwards continue living and working in the European Union and thus probably contribute to its economic competitiveness, students from other countries are seen more as a risk of potential illegal immigration than a source of knowledge and skills that may contribute to the economies of the EU member states. In this context, their primary function is not to contribute to growth, but rather to develop; they are expected to return to their (presumably undeveloped) home countries and help foster economic growth there, but not in the EU. Even if it were possible to justify such different treatment for students who come from European countries vis--vis those who do not, it is very difficult to justify it concerning students from different countries within the European continent. The EHEA is comprised of 48 countries; 21 are currently not members of the European Union. Aiming to develop European integration in higher education through mobility programs whose terms or outcomes discriminate between mobility students on the basis of their citizenship (and not, for instance, their academic merit or social need) then appears at least slightly contradictory. The main source of this contradiction can be traced not to tensions between the member states and the European Commission as in some other cases, but rather to the previously mentioned competing visions of what the European Higher Education Area is for, whom and what purpose it serves. The concept of the EHEA as a form of cultural integration did not at least not explicitly entail any implications related to possible differences in status between countries or individuals; in fact, the only prerequisite for joining the Bologna Process was for the respective country to be a signatory of the European Cultural Convention, a Council of Europe document whose aim it is to encourage mutual understanding among peoples of Europe by fostering cultural exchange and learning.8 However, the competing vision of the Bologna Process that connected it more strongly to the Lisbon agenda, besides shifting the priorities from cultural to economic ones also, in a sense, shifted the potential weight of membership: given that the Lisbon agenda was aimed at developing the economic competitiveness
7 An exception to this rule is the UK; regardless of their nationality, UK university graduates can remain in the UK for one year after graduation to look for work. 8 Cf. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=018&CL=ENG

219

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

of the European Union (not of Europe!), EU member states potentially became more influential in the Bologna Process. This imbalance of powers is already reflected in the fact that all EU member states are represented in the Bologna Process twice once as signatories to the Declaration, and the second time through the European Commission. The paradox of the role of mobility in the European Higher Education Area, then, can be understood in the context of the historical development of the structure or architecture of the process. The first period of the Bologna Process was based on a vague idea of cultural integration as both driver and objective of the process. The question how to achieve this led to the expansion of the mobility programs. Since mobility programs are expensive, however, this in turn led to the increased involvement of the European Commission. Although Erasmus had existed as an independent program since 1987, it was integrated into the Lifelong Learning program and became one of the chief instruments in the EHEA. The entry of the Commission through the back door (according to some authors), however, also enabled the shift of the discursive priorities of European integration in higher education; from a broadly cultural endeavour it became a process explicitly aimed at economic growth and development. Framing the roles and purposes of higher education primarily in terms of economic growth led to the two-track or dual approach to the members of the EHEA: countries were differentiated according to their level of economic development. Thus, mobility students and graduates from the developed countries of the EU and EEA/ EFTA were treated as welcome contributors to the EU labour force; mobility students and graduates from other European countries were expected to return to their home countries and stimulate the development of national economies presumably with the expectation that these would ultimately grow enough to be able to join the developed countries of the European Union. At another level, these differences have important implications for the concepts of human capital and development. Education resides on the assumption that knowledge and skills are, at least predominantly, the property of individuals; these get an education in order to, in a sense, appropriate knowledge and skills related to them by other individuals. Thus, development as an outcome of mobility is based on the assumption that graduates returning to their home countries carry with them actually, in them knowledge and skills that can foster development; this process is known as knowledge transfer. However, this concept tends to ignore the social, shared and contextual aspects of knowledge; in other words, it does not acknowledge that the surrounding has to be conducive for knowledge transfer to occur. In many less developed countries, the environment may not be particularly conducive to this kind of transfer. For instance, the effects of entrepreneurial skills may be offset by endemic corruption; research may suffer from lack of funds, access to information or databases. Thus, the extremely

220

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

liberal concept of development implicit in the idea of knowledge transfer ignores the importance of the social, cultural and political contexts for the application of knowledge and skills. The concept of brain drain as one of the decried unwanted effects of mobility rests on a similar assumption. Not only is the development of a country (and its economy) dependent on the knowledge and skills contained in individuals (quite literally, in their brains), but their departure from (or failure to return to) their home countries comprises brain drain, a form of economic loss for the country. Thus, although individuals own knowledge and skills, nation states own individuals; in other words, individuals have an obligation of sorts to devote their brainpower to their countries of origin (cf. Horvat 2004). Although the concept can be justified from a certain economic standpoint, it is quite curiously at odds with the idea of mobility and knowledge exchange supporting the European Higher Education Area. As Markl (2006) notes, in a fully globalized world it would not actually matter where individuals work and study as long as they can contribute to the growth of economies, knowledge, understanding or whatever else they do. The benefits of knowledge should not be limited to specific national economies; ideally, they should be distributed equally. However, the mobilization of knowledge for the purposes of the European Unions economic competitiveness has a significantly different meaning; in this context, knowledge is useful as long as it contributes to the economic growth of EU member states. Within the objective of making the EU the most competitive economy in the world, the differences in the treatment of students and graduates from the EU and other European countries become clearer: investing in EU students is seen as an investment in this goal; investing in the education of non-EU students is seen as an expenditure that may contribute to the development of potential markets for EU exports, or in some cases the economic and/or political stability of partners or future EU members. Overall, however, the ideas that economic development is the prime purpose of education and that individuals should put their knowledge and skills to the use of their national (or, in the case of the EU, supranational) economies seem to exert a strong influence on the ways in which mobility within the EHEA is conceptualized and executed.

Conclusions
Some of the paradoxes of the Bologna Process, at least, seem to originate from the differences in various stakeholders visions of the purpose of European integration in higher education and the struggles for the definition and meaning of the policies related

221

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

to the creation of the European Higher Education Area. Other authors (including Amaral and Neave 2009, Olsen and Maassen 2007) have described the origins of these struggles, their transformations and implications. This paper has used these ideational struggles to offer an explanation for an apparent paradox generated by, or within, the Bologna Process namely, the contrast between the drive for integration of the European Higher Education Area, its roles and purposes vis--vis the actual rules and experiences related to mobility as they apply to citizens of European countries that are not in the EU. The analysis offered in this paper has aimed to show that, although the European Higher Education Area should be open to all citizens of Europe (or, at least, of those countries that are signatories to the European Cultural Convention), in reality the mobility practices within the EHEA may serve to reinforce the concept of Fortress Europe, which identifies the idea of Europe with the European Union and is exclusionary towards all other forms of identities, especially immigrant ones (cf. Balibar 2006). The paradoxes created by this contradiction may have important implications for the future of the European Higher Education Area. In the conclusion, we will briefly examine some of them. To begin with, the invisible borders of the Europe of Knowledge operating within the European Higher Education Area may be adversarial to the goal of making the EU more economically competitive. The strict immigration and employment regulations applied to graduates from non-EU and (in some cases, such as Bulgaria and Romania) even EU countries, including forced return, may be preventing otherwise talented and hard-working individuals from finding employment in a number of EU countries. Imposing labour market restrictions and forcing these individuals to return to their home countries, where environment and surroundings may not be conducive to the further development and application of knowledge, may be a waste of the investment in their education, not to mention a source of personal frustration with constraints or obstacles in knowledge transfer (cf. Bacevic 2010; Angrist and Kugler 2003). Thus, there is hardly an economic justification for forced return policies, even though attempts are made to justify them by appearing to prevent brain drain. The concept of brain drain itself is shown to be related to a highly peculiar understanding of human capital, which, as can be deduced, although contained in individuals should be owned by nation states. Although this understanding can clearly be related to the idea that economic development is the prime purpose and outcome of higher education, it is far less understandable in the context of developing the European Higher Education Area and its cultural and social aspects. Finally, the analysis in this paper confirms the existence of a tension between competing visions of European integration in higher education and research one

222

1. Korrektur
Borders of the Europe of Knowledge?

viewed primarily in cultural terms, the other viewed primarily in economic ones. The economic crisis with its impact on systems of public support to higher education and research is bound to further exacerbate the differences in these competing visions. Simultaneously, the influence of these visions is likely to play a significant role in determining the direction and structure of European integration in higher education and research. Emphasis on the economic outcomes will probably create support for a specific kind of policies, programs and initiatives targeting specific social groups; emphasis on cultural outcomes may result in a different form of actions and different target groups. The tension itself reflective of the deeper challenges and transformations of European universities at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century will most likely substantially shape the future of higher education and research in Europe. As far as the Western Balkans are concerned, the conclusions seem to suggest that their ability to benefit from knowledge transfer generated by the mobility programs of the European Commission will, at least to some extent, depend on the particular countries trajectories in European integration. Given that the latter is in many ways a controversial political issue, defined, among other things, by the relationship of specific governments to the rule of law, to dealing with the recent past, to economic transition, etc., it is far from certain that all Western Balkan countries will become equal players in knowledge circulation within the EU. On the other hand, participation in this process will almost inevitably entail growing influence of the economic concept of higher education and research; value and utility will increasingly be judged in economic terms. Whether the Western Balkans as a whole will challenge or resist this process, and how, is a question that is likely to generate rather interesting answers in the future. References
J. D. Angrist, A. D. Kugler: Protective or counter-productive? Labour market institutions and the effect of immigration on EU natives. In: The Economic Journal 113 (2003), pp. 302331. A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, P. Maassen (eds.): European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer 2009. A. Amaral, G. Neave: On Bologna, Weasels and Creeping Competence. In: A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, P. Maassen (eds.): European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer 2009, pp. 281299. J. Baevi: Higher Education and Human Capital Development in Kosovo: Some Issues for Consideration. In: Impact of Higher Education and Human Capital on the Economic and Political Develoment in Kosovo (=Der Donauraum 50, 2010, Bd. 1), pp. 1124. E. Balibar: European Citizenship and Cosmopolitanism in a Global Era, 2006, online at: http:// www.icorn.org/articles.php?var=6 A. Batory, N. Lindstrom: The Power of the Purse: Supranational Entrepreneurship, Financial Incentives, and European Higher Education Policy. In: Governance 24 (2011) 2, pp. 311 329. A. Corbett: Process, Persistence and Pragmatism: Reconstructing the Creation of the European

223

1. Korrektur
Jana Baevi

University Institute and the Erasmus Programme, 19551989. In: A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, P. Maassen (eds.): European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer 2009, pp. 5980. A. Corbett: Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 19552005. London: Palgrave Macmillan 2005. K. De Wit, J. C. Verhoeven: 2001. The Higher Education Policy of the European Union. With or against the Member States? In: J. Huisman, P. Maassen, G. Neave (eds.) Higher education and the nation state. Oxford: Pergamon Press 2001, pp. 194250. M. Dobbins, C. Knill: 2009. Higher Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence toward a Common Model? In: Governance 22 (2009) 3, pp. 397430. T. Farnell (ed.): 2011. Socijalna i ekonomska slika studentskog ivota u Hrvatskoj: Nacionalno izvjee istraivanja EUROSTUDENT za Hrvatsku. Zagreb: IRO 2001. A. Gachter: Migration Policies for the Highly Skilled: The Case of International Graduates. Migration and Social Mobility Working Papers No. 7, 2007. Online at: www.zsi.at/attach/ p0707drc.doc V. Horvat: Brain Drain. Threat to Successful Transition in South-East Europe? In: South-East European Politics 5 (2004) 1, pp. 7693. B. M. Kehm, J. Huisman, B. Stensaker (eds.): The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2009. M. Kwiek: The Emergent European Educational Policies under Scrutiny: the Bologna Process from a Central European Perspective. In: European Educational Research Journal 3 (2004) 4, pp. 759776. H. Markl: Brain Drain: a Non-Political Perspective. In: European Review 14 (2006) 1, pp. 2331. G. Neave: The Bologna Declaration: Some of the Historic Dilemmas Posed by the Reconstruction of the Community in Europes Systems of Higher Education. In: Educational Policy 17 (2003) 1, pp. 141164. G. Neave: Anything Goes: Or, How the Accommodation of Europes Universities to European Integration Integrates an Inspiring Number of Contradictions. In: Tertiary Education and Management 8 (2002), pp. 181197. G. Neave, P. Maassen: Bologna Process: an Intergovernmental Policy Perspective. In: P. Maassen, J. Olsen (eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer 2007, pp. 135154. J. Olsen, P. Maassen: European debates on the knowledge institution: the modernization of the university at the European level. In: P. Maassen, J. Olsen (eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer 2007, pp. 323. P. Pabian: Europeanization of Higher Education Governance in a Post-Communist Context: the Case of the Czech Republic. In: A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, P. Maassen (eds.): European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer 2009, pp. 257278. B. Rivza, U. Teichler: The Changing Role of Student Mobility. In: Higher Education Policy 20 (2007), pp. 457475.

224