842342

research-article2019
JSIXXX10.1177/1028315319842342Journal of Studies in International EducationKouba

Article
Journal of Studies in International Education
1­–18
Balancing Study Abroad © 2019 European Association for
International Education
Student Inflows and Outflows: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
An Institutionalist Perspective DOI: 10.1177/1028315319842342
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319842342
journals.sagepub.com/home/jsi

Karel Kouba1

Abstract
The determinants of study abroad student inflows and outflows are analyzed by
comparing the faculties of all Czech public universities. The article develops an
institutionalist theoretical perspective that views higher education institutions not
only as passive senders and receivers of students but also as active gatekeepers
that regulate student flows by balancing the inflows with outflows and vice versa.
The theoretical argument is developed against the backdrop of existing theories
that emphasize the “push–pull” factors as key determinants of student flows. The
argument is tested by regression modeling using an original data set. Inflows are
associated with past outflows and vice versa, whereas the importance of push–pull
factors is surprisingly small. Important policy implications of these findings as well as
implications for theory development are discussed.

Keywords
mobility of students and academic staff, international exchange programs, study abroad,
strategic institutional management of internationalization, international cooperation in
higher education

Introduction
What determines the inbound and outbound flows of international higher education
institution (HEI) students? A large literature has appeared in recent years that accounts
for international student mobility flows as a result of push (driving students from the
home country) and pull (attracting students to the host destination) motivational fac-
tors. Although many variables derived from this framework have been successfully

1Department of Politics, Philosophical Faculty, University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

Corresponding Author:
Karel Kouba, Department of Politics, Philosophical Faculty, University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanského
62, Hradec Králové, 50003, Czech Republic.
Email: karel.kouba@uhk.cz
2 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

tested at the macro-level of whole countries and at the micro-level of individual stu-
dents, very little is known about the potential meso-level influences of particular HEIs.
This is troubling both because many features of these institutions (such as location,
quality, or disciplinary focus) are directly related to the push–pull framework and
because HEIs act as filters that translate student preferences into student flows. The
present analysis aims to fill these lacunae by using unique data on international short-
term mobility flows aggregated at the meso-level of the faculties of all Czech public
universities. The article adopts an institutionalist perspective arguing that HEI institu-
tional features that are not related to the push–pull factors are equally or even more
importantly related to international student flows. Chief among these features stands
the tendency of institutions to balance the inflows with outflows and vice versa, con-
verging on roughly equal numbers of inflows and outflows. How does the perfor-
mance of the push–pull model compare with the institutional model? This first research
question is answered by empirically testing the implications of the push–pull frame-
work against this balancing institutional mechanism in the Czech context.
The operation and the failure to operate this balancing mechanism have important
policy implications. Why do some universities receive more international students
than they send out to partner universities and vice versa? This second research ques-
tion aims to understand this balancing mechanism because imbalances between
inbound and outbound exchange numbers lead to important dilemmas on both ends
of the spectrum. Keeping inflows and outflows balanced should be an important
policy goal for maintaining a system of sustainable study abroad programs. Receiving
significantly more students from abroad than sending out creates economic pressure
and is neither sustainable nor economically efficient in the long run because the
direct costs of having an incoming student far outweigh the costs of organizing a
mobility of an outgoing student. These principally include administrative costs and,
in most non-English-speaking HEIs, costs associated with operating additional
courses in English for international students. As a consequence, sending out large
numbers of students to study abroad without compensating with adequate opportuni-
ties for incoming students puts the whole system of exchange student mobility in
jeopardy. Such institutions effectively become free riders: They benefit from the
provision of foreign exchange study programs for their students via partner universi-
ties abroad, but do not compensate by taking on the costs of inbound mobility. Such
behavior may in the long-term result in the underprovision of student exchange
opportunities as a whole because HEIs have the financial incentive to limit the num-
ber of available spots for incoming students. Moreover, highly imbalanced mobility
flows in favor of outgoing exchange students create an ethical dilemma if such
imbalances are directed toward developing countries.
This article seeks to answer the two research questions by focusing on Czech HEIs.
The first section reviews the findings from the push–pull theoretical framework.
Second, the institutionalist theoretical perspective is developed and put into the con-
text of push–pull factors. Third, this theoretical model is operationalized and tested
using a regression analysis. The final section concludes by discussing the policy impli-
cations of the findings and their relevance for existing literature.
Kouba 3

The Push–Pull Theoretical Framework

The push–pull framework views student mobility flows as result of pull factors
that draw students to a specific host destination and push factors that move the
student away from the location of his or her home university (Mazzarol & Soutar,
2002). Although this conceptual scheme was originally developed for full-degree
student mobility (McMahon, 1992), it is also appropriate for analyzing short-term
mobility, respecting that the importance of particular factors obviously differs
between both types (Beerkens, Souto-Otero, de Wit, & Huisman, 2016; González,
Mesanza, & Mariel, 2011). A large variety of economic, social, motivational,
political factors at the level of both individual students and whole countries have
been identified using this framework. It has come to dominate the field to the
extent that a thorough literature review concluded that “virtually, all of the research
on international student motivations and decision criteria conducted since
McMahon’s study has also adopted the ‘push–pull’ framework” (Wilkins,
Balakrishnan, & Huisman, 2012, p. 418).
Following the pioneering article by McMahon (1992), multiple studies have
explored the determinants of student inflows or inflows aggregated at the level of
whole countries. Chief among them is the finding that students are both pushed and
pulled by instrumental rational choice calculations. The higher the cost of living
measured by the relative price index (which includes student expenses for trans-
port, accommodation, groceries, etc., during their exchange), the less likely are
Erasmus students assumed—and empirically found—to choose that destination
(Bento, 2014). Interestingly, price levels appear to operate differently for Erasmus
mobility in the old versus the new European Union (EU) countries because higher
prices depress the inflows of students in the former group but significantly increase
the inflows in the latter group of countries (González et al., 2011). Similar consid-
erations operate with respect to outflows as students from richer countries study
abroad in larger numbers (Kritz, 2016), and students appear to consider wages as a
pull factor for selecting host country because they augment their chances of obtain-
ing high-wage jobs (Rosenzweig, 2006). Other push and pull factors identified by
the aggregate studies include the level of tuition fees in the host country, the level
of involvement of the source country in the global economy (Naidoo, 2007), supply
and demand for HEI graduates in the home countries (Kritz, 2016), the volume of
merchandise trade between countries or educational factors, such as the student–
teacher ratio and higher education expenditure as percentage of gross domestic
product (GDP; Wei, 2013), or the quality of universities in the host country (Van
Bouwel & Veugelers, 2013).
Additional evidence for the relevance of push and pull factors is provided by the
micro-level analyses at the level of individual students that supply their necessary
microfoundations. Their findings often mirror those of the macro-level research. For
example, economic considerations are also supported by findings from individual-
level studies finding that international student mobility is less likely in destinations
with higher overall mobility costs (Cao, Zhu, & Meng, 2016), or that international
4 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

students select their host destination based on instrumental motivations which include
the ease of university admissions, recognition of qualifications, ease of finding
employment, or the costs of living (Binsardi & Ekwulugo, 2003).
Micro-level analyses have, however, also drawn attention to factors that cannot be
captured by aggregated proxies in the macro-level research. These include the motiva-
tions of students, as well as the background factors such as family relationships or
personal anxieties (Souto-Otero, Huisman, Beerkens, de Wit, & Vujić, 2013). The
decision to study abroad is strongly conditioned by the human and social capital of
both the student and his or her parents (Gerhards & Hans, 2013), whereas another
study similarly reports the importance of social networks and economic capital in
deciding to participate in a study abroad program (Van Mol & Timmerman, 2014).
Other research confirms that student’s motivations (or lack thereof) and perceptions of
barriers to mobility play a key role in Erasmus mobility decisions (Beerkens et al.,
2016). Furthermore, a variety of specific personality traits is associated with the deci-
sion to study abroad. A survey of Erasmus students, for example, reports that students
consider such motivations as living abroad, meeting new people, developing soft
skills, and improving linguistic competences as important reasons to deciding to study
abroad (Brandenburg, Taboadela, & Berghoff, 2014). A French and an Italian survey
reports that basic characteristics of students, such as gender, foreign language compe-
tence, and high school performance, affect the decision to take part in both Erasmus
and non-Erasmus mobility programs (Di Pietro & Page, 2008).

The Institutionalist Perspective and HEIs

Contrary to much of the literature within the push–pull perspective, this article argues
that international student mobility flows are better explained by factors that are not
related to the students’ preferences, but rather by factors intrinsic to the sending/
receiving institution. Situated between the macro-level characteristics of whole coun-
tries and the micro-level individual attributes, this article adopts a meso-level approach
that allows for variance in institutional features. Surprisingly little research on interna-
tional mobility flows has followed a similar path (e.g., Cebolla-Boado, Hu, & Soysal,
2018). The following analysis adopts an institutionalist perspective on student mobil-
ity. Institutions are viewed as constraints that structure political, economic, and social
interaction (North, 1991). Institutions mediate the relationship between individual
values and the resulting social choice by constraining the set of choosing agents, by
molding the alternatives over which preferences are expressed, or even the manner in
which such preferences are revealed (Shepsle, 1986). Rather than viewing interna-
tional student mobility flows as a direct result of the aggregated motives, tastes, and
preferences of students as in the push–pull model, the institutionalist perspective
understands them as conditioned by institutions functioning as filters that translate
these preferences into behavioral outcomes. HEIs act as gatekeepers that shape the
flows of both incoming and outgoing students.
International student flows reflect an institutional logic whereby inbound and
outbound flows of students are interrelated. The numbers of incoming students are
Kouba 5

conditioned by the numbers of outgoing students from that institution and vice
versa. Over time, this mutual conditioning converges on balanced flows of students
as HEIs receive and send similar amounts of students for international mobility.
HEIs are expected to balance both types of flows as a result of both a (a) conscious
strategy and (b) their institutional environments.
First, a conscious strategy to balance student flows may result from a variety of
considerations. The HEIs act as gatekeepers that may refuse to accept interested
incoming applicants or may fail to advertise study abroad opportunities to both
potential foreign and outgoing students. Other tools are also available to control
both the inflow of students (by limiting the number of international partnerships,
conscious policies to regulate inbound student numbers, organizational capacity of
student admission offices, etc.) and the outflow of outgoing students (e.g., by pre-
selecting the offer of available foreign destinations or student selection processes).
Consequently, these tools are deployed to keep the inflows and outflows in balance.
An important motivation for doing so is an economic incentive. The direct financial
costs of receiving an incoming exchange student substantially exceed the costs of
sending one abroad to a partner HEI. Costs associated with incoming students
include operating a large selection of separate courses in English language that
need to be taught in parallel to the courses with instruction in the native language
(in the Czech Republic, for example, most students study in Czech programs, so
incoming students cannot be simply added to these courses to make them cost-
effective) and administrative costs necessary to provide for students’ orientation
after arrival as well as day-to-day additional services during the semester. These are
nontrivial additional—mostly personnel—costs that are outweighed neither by the
comparatively small organizational costs of sending an outgoing student (inform-
ing, selecting, and nominating the student are the principal direct costs) nor by the
financial benefits from having an incoming student (Erasmus, but also most other
exchange programs, mutually waive fees and allow only for marginal administra-
tive fees, such as library services, to be paid by the student). Because HEIs may
perceive that receiving too many incoming students is economically inefficient
they may choose to regulate their numbers.
As a consequence, some universities have introduced explicit policies to balance
the numbers of student inflows and outflows on the basis of reciprocity. Bilateral
memoranda of understanding between universities often tend to formalize these
reciprocal arrangements of balancing student flows. Some are explicit about striving
to achieve balance with their partner universities, as, for example, the template MoU
of the University of Leiden which also expects that perfect balance may not be
achieved each year but that “reasonable efforts” should be made to achieve parity
within 3 years (University of Leiden, 2018, Section 2.2). Some universities, for
example, the University of Göttingen, even provide in their agreements for mecha-
nisms that evaluate whether balance was achieved on a semestral and yearly basis
and expect both parties to act if imbalances are detected (University of Göttingen,
2018, Section 3.2). Erasmus institutional agreements make the maximum number of
inbound and outbound students per year explicit with an informal norm to balance
6 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

these numbers. Some universities may act to increase student inflows (e.g., by offer-
ing additional student grants) based on the ethical dilemma if their inflows and out-
flows are unbalanced with respect to universities in developing countries.
Second, the balancing mechanism may operate irrespective of purposefully
designed policies reflecting rather a self-sustaining institutional environment favor-
able to international student mobility. On one hand, efficient international offices
that have been originally equipped to organize one stream of student flows, for
example, to foster student outflows, are naturally better prepared to deal with incom-
ing students as well, not least because of the requirements of reciprocity in student
flows. Sending a student to a partner HEI also provides an informational feedback to
that foreign university that a reciprocal student may be exchanged. On the other
hand, such spillover processes are also likely to unfold outside of the administrative
structure. Internationalized HEI settings with a higher share of incoming students
offer greater possibilities for domestic students to interact with foreign students.
Such interactions both inside and outside the classroom have been found to increase
the level of intercultural and global competencies among students (Soria & Troisi,
2014). Acquiring such competencies and attitudes could substantially ease the stu-
dent’s decision, preparedness, and willingness to go abroad himself or herself, not
least because students anxious about experiencing different cultures and intercul-
tural interactions are also more likely to form negative expectations toward studying
abroad (Kim & Goldstein, 2005). Furthermore, the diversity of on-campus interac-
tions—including interactions with foreign students—has been found to directly
increase the likelihood that the student will decide to study abroad (Salisbury,
Umbach, Paulsen, & Pascarella, 2009). Such peer effect does not stop at interactions
with foreign students but is even more pronounced with respect to interacting with
friends who have already participated in a study abroad program and who provide
advice, recommendations, and information about studying abroad (Van Mol &
Timmerman, 2014). In other words, having more outgoing students as a result of
more incoming students is also expected to be due to factors intrinsic to the HEIs,
their environment, organizational structure, and a set of values that are embedded in
such internationally oriented environments. Studying abroad has been found to
spread as a result of a social norm that students are expected by others to follow
(Petzold & Peter, 2015). More internationalized institutional settings where students
interact heavily with larger numbers of foreign peers act to reinforce such a social
norm. All this suggests that both flows exercise a mutually reinforcing effect. HEIs
that lack sufficient numbers of incoming students are expected to experience lower
flows of outgoing students as well. Internationally oriented HEI environments fea-
turing dense interactions between foreign and domestic students are assumed to be
most conducive to high student outflows.

Explanatory Model
The institutional model provides straightforward observable implications that can
be directly tested at the level of Czech HEIs. Aggregate student inflows are
Kouba 7

expected to be directly proportional to past student outflows at the level of indi-

vidual Czech faculties. Concomitantly, student outflows should be positively asso-
ciated with past student inflows. The time lag is expected because faculties adjust
their strategies of recruiting their students to go abroad and of receiving interna-
tional students using past experience. The more incoming (outgoing) students a
faculty received (sent) in the past, the more outgoing (incoming) students it is
expected to have at the current time.
To assess how the institutional model compares with the dominant push–pull
framework, the following factors were selected based on existing theories.
University rankings have become an increasingly important pull factor for interna-
tional student mobility. Students’ choice of host institution appears to be signifi-
cantly driven by their reputation for quality (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002) and the
presence in rankings is therefore an important pull factor that conditions interna-
tional student mobility (Furukawa, Shirakawa, & Okuwada, 2013) to the extent
that university reputation, quality of programs, and presence in rankings were
found to be the strongest influences on student choice of institution among a set of
other factors in a study of international branch campuses (Wilkins & Huisman,
2011). University prestige was found to be a crucial predictor of Chinese student
enrollment in a comparison among British universities and these students were
aware of the importance of university rankings for indicating this prestige (Cebolla-
Boado et al., 2018), and Thai students similarly consider the host university’s
superior reputation as the most important factor influencing their choice among
Australian universities (Pimpa, 2005). Although this factor has most often been
tested on degree-oriented student mobilities, there is evidence to support its rele-
vance also with respect to Erasmus student mobility as countries with more ranked
universities receive significantly more students controlling for other factors
(González et al., 2011). This holds also for the determinants of foreign student
proportions in European countries (Van Bouwel &Veugelers, 2013). Presence in
world rankings may also be considered as an indirect push factor for outgoing
students. Ranked universities are expected to have wider networks of other ranked
universities as potential exchange partners than nonranked ones, allowing more of
their students to study abroad.
The study abroad choice is heavily conditioned by the disciplinary area with study-
ing some majors acting as powerful push and pull factors. Students from humanities
and social science majors are expected to be overrepresented among study abroad
participants (Dessoff, 2006; Salisbury et al., 2009), and students of engineering and
professional majors intend to study abroad in smaller numbers than social science
students perhaps due to different academic requirements in terms of stricter sequences
of classes for the engineering majors (Stroud, 2010). It is therefore expected that
Czech faculties with a focus on social science, humanities, and arts programs will
experience higher inflows and outflows than faculties in science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics (STEM) areas.
The academic quality of students is expected to be an important push factor for
outbound mobility because there is evidence that stronger academic performance
8 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

by students significantly improves their propensity to study abroad. Applying a

measure of earlier high school performance a study of both Erasmus and non-Eras-
mus study abroad participants found a strong relationship in both countries (Di
Pietro & Page, 2008). Such association is in part due to academically stronger stu-
dents being more likely to succeed in study abroad selection processes that assess
their earlier academic record.
The following pull factors are also expected to condition destination choice.
Exchange students not only choose a particular country or university but also con-
sider attributes of the city where they want to study following the advice that it “is
imperative to take city level into account in future empirical research into interna-
tional student mobility” (Van Mol & Ekamper, 2016, p. 88). Students may be
pulled to a particular destination based on city attributes. There is evidence to
suggest that such choices are based on noneducational considerations by students.
While Erasmus students also join the program for reasons which lead to their pro-
fessional and personal growth, their choice of destination is guided by touristic,
leisure, or vacation-related motives (Lesjak, Juvan, Ineson, Yap, & Axelsson,
2015). Descriptive findings from a full population of Erasmus students suggest
that these are overwhelmingly concentrated in capital cities and second-tier met-
ropolitan areas (Van Mol & Ekamper, 2016). This suggests that the size of cities
where the HEIs are based matters for the choice of host destinations. A second
proxy for the attractiveness of the city destination is its distance from the capital
city Prague, an undisputed leader as a tourist destination in Czechia. Prague is also
the eighth most popular destination for Erasmus students in a Europe-wide com-
parison (Van Mol & Ekamper, 2016) and by far the largest destination for incom-
ing exchange students. Universities located in peripheral regions also perform
different functions than those in the Czech center (Karlsen, Beseda, Šima, &
Zyzak, 2017). Both large city size and proximity to Prague should therefore be
associated with higher student inflows as pull factors which are included in the
empirical model.

Data and Measurement

The unit of analysis are the faculties of Czech public universities. Although private
universities also participate in mobility programs, public ones comprise the vast
majority of Czech HEI students and mobility program participants. Altogether, 130
faculties from 21 public universities are included.1 Table 1 provides summary statistics
for all the variables used in the analysis.
A refined measure of student inflows and outflows weighted by the size of the fac-
ulty was used as the main dependent variable, despite the fact that most aggregate
macro-level studies use absolute numbers of outgoing/incoming students. This prac-
tice has, however, been criticized as too crude a measure because it is correlated with
country size and other structural factors (Kritz, 2016). Refined ratio variables are
therefore recommended. The main dependent variables in this analysis are therefore
the ratio of outgoing exchange students to the overall number of students at the given
Kouba 9

Table 1. Summary Statistics.

M SD Minimum Maximum
Inflows 2017 4.29 3.43 0.27 22.72
Inflows 2016 3.90 3.32 0.10 26.66
Outflows 2017 4.02 3.13 0.20 16.03
Outflows 2016 3.95 3.21 0.10 20.29
Balance −0.27 3.80 −16.85 11.97
University rankings 2.18 1.48 0 4
Social science 0.44 0.50 0 1
Admission rate 0.54 0.22 0.10 0.98
Faculty size (log) 7.17 0.78 4.38 9.09
Distance from Prague 116.25 96.41 0 295
City population (log) 12.45 1.26 7.74 14.06

faculty, the ratio of incoming exchange students to the overall number of students at
the given faculty, and the difference between both figures to capture the extent of bal-
ance between student inflows and outflows. Measures of outgoing and incoming stu-
dents lagged by 1 year were calculated using the same procedure to capture the
conditioning institutional effect. All these variables were multiplied by 100 for ease of
interpretation.
The dependent variables originate in data self-reported by the faculties for the
purpose of budget allocation by the Czech Ministry of Education. One of the bud-
getary criteria measuring the quality of HEIs is the number of days that both incom-
ing and outgoing exchanges students have spent at a given faculty/university. These
data are provided by universities at the end of every October on a yearly basis. The
budgetary motivation by universities ensures that the reported data are accurate and
comparable across universities, conforming to the same definition of outgoing and
incoming mobility. This definition understands incoming exchange students as only
those students who spend at least 30 days at a Czech university and outgoing
exchange as those students who spend at least 30 days on a study abroad program.
These constitute ideal measures of both incoming and outgoing student flows
because they include not only Erasmus students but also any other form of interna-
tional student mobility.
Three variables were used to capture the faculty-level attributes related to push
and pull factors, whereas two push and pull factors describe the city in which the
faculty is based. The presence in university rankings is operationalized as a five-
value ordinal variable that informs about the presence of a given university in four
widely publicized university rankings in 2017. The more respected the rankings
including a university, the higher the value of the variable. Out of the 22 public uni-
versities included in the analysis, the Times Higher Education 2017 World University
Ranking lists 11 of them (“The World University Rankings,” 2017), the Best Global
Universities Ranking published by the U.S. News lists 10 Czech universities (“Best
10 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Global Universities Ranking,” 2017), the QS World University Rankings includes

five (QS, 2017), and the 2017 Emerging Europe and Central Asia (EECA) University
Ranking includes 12 universities (QS, 2017). The three former rankings have a
global coverage of universities, whereas the last one only has a regional focus. It was
included deliberately to account for the preferences of foreign students from the
Central and Eastern European countries. A university receives a score of 1 if it is
included in a ranking and 0 if not. These scores are summed up across the four rank-
ings resulting in the University rankings variable. The value of 4 indicates that the
university is listed in all four rankings, the value of 3 in only three of the rankings,
and so on. Nonranked universities receive the value of 0.
To capture the effect of the differences in disciplinary focus, a dummy variable was
created indicating whether a given faculty is predominantly oriented toward teaching
social science, humanities, and arts programs. If that was the case, a faculty received
a score of 1, and 0 if otherwise.2 The academic performance of students is proxied by
the admission rate to the faculty which was calculated as the ratio between the number
of applications and the number of enrolled students in 2016 using data from the Czech
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MSMT, 2018). All models control for the
(natural log) of the number of students at a given faculty because faculty size is an
important conceptual variable.
An important advantage of the meso-level approach is that Czech faculties of a
single university are often located in different cities. Seven of the 21 universities
included in the analysis have faculties in two or more Czech cities. Because the city
characteristics are expected to influence international student mobility choice, it is
necessary to allow these city-level variables to vary which would not be possible if
whole universities were the unit of analysis. The City population variable is based on
the data for the number of inhabitants as of 2017 collected from the Czech Statistical
Office (2018). Distance from Prague in kilometers was calculated for every city with
a faculty using the Distance calculator (2018).
The following ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model is estimated based on
these indicators for student inflows across Czech faculties (i):

STUDENT INFLOWSi = α + β1 UNIVERSITY RANKINGSi

+β2 SOCIAL SCIENCEi
+β3 ADMISSION RATEi
+β4 FACULTY SIZEi
+β5 DISTANCE FROM PRAGUEi
+β6 CITY POPULATIONi
+β7 STUDENT OUTFLOWSi ,t −1 + εi

The following equation is estimated for student outflows:

Kouba 11

STUDENT OUTFLOWSi = α + β1 UNIVERSITY RANKINGSi

+β2 SOCIAL SCIENCEi
+β3 ADMISSION RATEi
+β4 FACULTY SIZEi
+β5 DISTANCE FROM PRAGUEi
+β6 CITY POPULATION i
+β7 STUDENT INFLOWSi ,t −1 + εi .

Results
The results of the three OLS regression models are presented in Table 2. Both unstan-
dardized and standardized coefficients are reported to understand the relevance of
each variable within each model. All three models were tested for multicollinearity
which could affect the precision of the estimates of individual variables. However, all
models seem unaffected by this potential problem because the variance inflation factor
(VIF) test for higher order multicollinearity revealed that all the VIFs are below the
commonly accepted threshold. None exceeds the value of 2.
Of the seven variables theorized to affect the inflows of students, only two reach
conventional levels of statistical significance (Model 1). Only one of the factors from
the push–pull framework—city population—appears to be significant suggesting that
the faculties based in larger cities attract more students than those in smaller towns.
Given the strong evidence that universities’ prestige and inclusion in rankings direct
student flows for both degree and short-term student mobility (Cao et al., 2016;
Cebolla-Boado et al., 2018; Furukawa et al., 2013; González et al., 2011; Mazzarol &
Soutar, 2002; Pimpa, 2005; Van Bouwel & Veugelers, 2013; Wilkins & Huisman,
2011), the insignificance of the University rankings variable is surprising. The models
were rerun using dummies for separate rankings to examine whether this is not an
artifact of the measurement strategy, but again none of these coefficients were statisti-
cally distinguishable from 0 (results not presented). Such finding probably reflects that
exchange students—relative to degree students—are less likely to weigh in the univer-
sity reputation in their choice of study destination. This in turn reflects the much higher
stakes involved in selecting an appropriate HEI for full-degree study than choosing a
short-term study abroad destination. Seen from that perspective, students already con-
sidered university reputation when choosing to study at their home institution. In other
words, their original choice of their home university may have served as a first filter
that makes the secondary decision to study abroad at either a ranked or nonranked
university endogenous to this primary choice. Such endogeneity is then reflected in
the lack of difference that university rankings make for student exchange flows. Data
describing university rankings of foreign partner universities would be necessary to
confirm this conclusion.
The other push and pull factors—disciplinary focus, admission rates, and distance
from Prague—similarly lack explanatory power. The results from Model 1, however,
12 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Table 2. OLS Regression of the Determinants of Study Abroad Student Inflows, Outflows,
and Imbalances Across Czech Faculties.
Model 1—student Model 2—student Model 3—inflows and
inflows outflows outflows balance

Unstandardized Standard Unstandardized Standard Unstandardized Standard

coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient coefficient

University rankings 0.140 (0.222) .060 0.258 (0.193) .121 0.079 (0.244) .031
Social science −0.183 (0.635) −.027 1.469** (0.535) .234 1.133 (0.675) .149
Admission rate 2.078 (1.376) .133 −2.674* (1.164) −.188 −3.384* (1.484) −.196
Faculty size (log) 0.3549 (0.422) .080 −1.315*** (0.347) −.325 −1.111* (0.441) −.228
Distance from Prague 0.001 (0.003) .021 −0.004 (0.003) −.115 −0.004 (0.004) −.093
City population (log) 0.717* (0.283) .264 −0.387 (0.251) −.157 −0.874** (0.312) −.290
Student outflows (t − 1) 0.443*** (0.097) .415
Student inflows (t − 1) 0.268*** (0.077) .284
Constant −10.340* (4.293) 17.931*** (3.539) 20.147*** (4.455)
N 130 130 130
Adjusted R2 .18 .27 .18

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares. Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

provide strong evidence in favor of the institutionalist model as past outflows are
strongly positively associated with the 2017 student inflows. For every 1 percentage
point increase in the share of outgoing students on the number of students at a faculty,
a 0.44 point more incoming students are predicted to arrive the following year.
Moreover, the standardized coefficient suggests that past student outflows are by far
the strongest predictors of the set of explanatory variables overshadowing the explana-
tory power of the push–pull factors.
The relative explanatory value of institutional versus push–pull factors in the out-
going model (Model 2) is more balanced. Studying at a social science, arts, or humani-
ties faculty results in 1.5 percentage points more students who study abroad relative to
faculties in STEM fields. Concomitantly, studying at a more selective faculty (mea-
sured by the admission rate) results in higher likelihood of studying abroad. The rela-
tive contribution of each of these push factors is smaller than that of the variable
measuring the share of incoming students. The institutionalist explanation for student
outflows carries similar weight as that for student inflows in Model 1. Faculties that
send only a handful of students to study abroad balance this figure by receiving only
similarly meager numbers of international students, whereas large senders of students
compensate on average with plentiful opportunities for incoming students. Faculty
size—a factor that is also not related to the push–pull framework—appears to be a
crucial determinant of student study abroad outflows as it significantly declines with
growing numbers of students.
The second research question seeks to understand the imbalances between inflows
and outflows. Their extent and direction are captured by a variable via subtracting the
ratio of incoming students from the ratio of outgoing students in 2017, so that positive
values correspond to universities that sent out more students than they received. A
Kouba 13

Figure 1. Kernel density plot and histogram of the distribution of the imbalances between
student outflows and inflows.

noteworthy indication is the distribution of this variable across the Czech faculties.
Figure 1 presents a kernel density plot displaying that this variable is symmetrically
distributed (with skewness of −0.36 and kurtosis of 7.32). This pattern provides strong
evidence in favor of the balancing hypothesis because most faculties are distributed
around the value of 0 where both inflows and outflows are perfectly balanced (the
mean of the variable is −0.27). There are outliers with significant imbalances in both
directions. The largest “free rider” sends out 11.9 percentage points more students that
it receives (relative to its size). By contrast, the biggest net contributor to the system
of international exchanges is the Faculty of Arts of the Charles University in Prague—
the largest Czech HEI involved in providing education in the social sciences and
humanities. This faculty received 1,328 incoming students while sending only 343 of
its own, resulting in a 16.9-percentage point deficit relative to its student population.
Nevertheless, such imbalances are infrequent and the tall distribution with a strong
peak and heavy tails conforms to the institutionalist expectation that student inflows
and outflows are balanced on average.
The negative and significant coefficient of the size of the faculty is possibly
related to the administrative problems in managing large organizations. Smaller
organizations face fewer coordination and communication problems, and increasing
the size of organizations may also lead to agency problems stemming from the sepa-
ration of management and control (Eisenberg, Sundgren, & Wells, 1998). Larger
faculties may as a result have a harder time limiting the number of incoming stu-
dents, so that it would match the number of outgoing students even if conscious poli-
cies to balance these flows were pursued. Further imbalances in study abroad flows
are generated by the attractiveness of studying in larger cities (a pull factor for
incoming students) and studying with academically higher quality students (a push
factor for outgoing students).
14 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Discussion and Conclusion

These findings challenge the prevalent push–pull framework for analyzing interna-
tional student mobility flows. Although the framework is a useful heuristic device for
understanding the underlying preferences and motivations of students, it is by itself
insufficient to account for the observed patterns of inbound and outbound mobility
flows because these are ultimately filtered through the institutional features of HEIs.
To understand inflows and outflows of study abroad students, analysts should consider
the role of gatekeeping institutions whose actions, policies, and institutional configu-
rations interact heavily with the push and pull factors. This study has revealed that an
institutional balancing mechanism operates within the faculties of Czech public uni-
versities that balance both inbound and outbound student flows. The Czech case pro-
vides reassuring evidence that faculties, on average, balance these flows and only a
few of them exhibit large imbalances on both ends. Furthermore, this mechanism
appears to affect student inflows more than any push and pull factors. As for student
outflows, this balancing mechanism has a roughly equal weight to such push factors as
social science disciplinary focus or students’ academic performance. This is not to
argue that push and pull factors are irrelevant for understanding student mobility
flows. Quite to the contrary, future research should focus on how exactly the interac-
tions of motivational and institutional forces produce student flows. Theorizing on
international student flows should abandon explanatory models based on purely vol-
untarist assumptions.
Two main policy implications could be formulated based on these findings. First,
practitioners and HEI policymakers should consider the interrelatedness of student
inflows and outflows when designing internationalization strategies. Both flows do
not operate independently and administrative policies should consider the spillover
effects of both. For example, efforts to reduce the number of incoming mobilities (e.g.,
as a result of streamlining strategies to cut costs and reduce the quantity of interna-
tional partnerships) might in the long run negatively affect the number of outgoing
students as an unintended consequence. Concomitantly, if HEIs seek to extend study
abroad opportunities and the share of their outgoing students, they should consider
receiving more incoming students. Second, the findings have implications for recruit-
ment and promotion strategies aimed at both incoming students and outgoing students.
Given the omnipresence of rankings in university public relations (PR) and marketing,
emphasizing the presence of a given university in them seems to be a surprisingly inef-
fective tool. Instead, recruiting more incoming students might involve communicating
features that are not connected with the university itself, but rather such aspects as
their location and the size of the city and the associated benefits of an exchange stu-
dent urban life.
There are three limitations of this article that open opportunities for future research.
First, this study has explored determinants of short-term international student mobil-
ity, but it is unclear whether similar factors are applicable for understanding full-
degree international mobility flows. Although some motivating factors operate
similarly, full-degree students are expected to put greater emphasis on factors such as
Kouba 15

the quality of host institutions and by career perspectives in the host country than
exchange students (Beerkens et al., 2016). This might help explain the divergence
from most studies regarding the insignificance of the university rankings for interna-
tional students’ choice in the Czech Republic. Moreover, as HEIs have little or no
impact on the decision of outgoing students to study for a full-degree abroad (perhaps
excepting joint degree programs), the institutional balancing mechanism does not nec-
essarily apply there. Institutional-level comparative research on the determinants of
full-degree mobility flows is currently too scant and more nuanced studies are needed.
Second, the meso-level approach adopted here allows for the explanation of varia-
tions in student inflows and outflows by variations in the features of HEIs. This is a
novel contribution to the literature dominated by micro-level research focused on stu-
dents’ intentions and macro-level studies based on country aggregates. The meso-level
approach clearly identified several important factors that would have been impossible
to test using micro- or macro-level analyses. The approach is, however, limited because
both the attributes of students and characteristics of whole countries influence the
decision to study abroad and the choice of a particular destination. Yet, such factors
cannot be controlled in this research design. This choice set is best thought of as mul-
tilevel with factors from each level mutually interacting. Future research should con-
sider hierarchical models of student mobility flows, especially those that interact with
social choice and institutional features.
Third, future research should address the specific causal mechanisms that drive the
institutional logic of international mobility flows. Of special importance is exploring
the extent to which the interrelatedness of inbound and outbound mobility is driven by
conscious institutional policies and to what extent it reflects an unintentional self-
preserving institutional environment. Qualitative research, in particular, has the poten-
tial not only for judging between these two general driving forces but also for
discovering other concrete mechanisms through which student inflows and outflows
become balanced. For example, the importance of the faculty size is a surprising find-
ing of this analysis that needs to be elaborated on in future research. Smaller HEIs
appear to be more successful in mobilizing their students to participate in study abroad
programs. This is an institutional factor that is not directly related to the push–pull
framework. Considering that there is evidence that the small size of Czech faculties is
conducive to highly participatory environments with more intensive student engage-
ment (Kouba, 2018), such cultural settings may also be propitious grounds for other
participatory behaviors such as spreading the social norm to study abroad. Such a
norm was identified as an essential ingredient in study abroad choice (Petzold & Peter,
2015). These crucial issues are unexplored in this article because correlational studies
such as this can only provide indirect evidence for specific causal mechanisms. A par-
ticular emphasis should be placed on using case study qualitative methods which have
a distinct advantage over quantitative techniques in testing observable implications of
the theory through process tracing (Bennett & Elman, 2006). Such multimethod com-
bination of research techniques is likely to improve our knowledge of how specific
institutional configurations affect HEI strategic goals in internationalization, as well as
how such policies are put into practice and with what success.
16 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship
and/or publication of this article: The article is part of the research project “Designing public
policies through institutional analysis in political science” funded by the Philosophical Faculty
of the University of Hradec Králové (Internal Grant Competition – International Research
Teams).

Notes
1. There are 26 public universities in Czechia, but excluded from the data set were two small
polytechnic HEIs (VŠPJ and VŠTE) and two arts academies (AVU and VŠUP) offering
university education because they are not composed of faculties and would not be com-
parable. Furthermore, faculties of the Masaryk University had to be dropped from the
analysis because of the peculiar reporting of student mobility which did not disaggregate
the majority of outflows and inflows at the faculty level. Four faculties of the University of
Economics were also dropped because they did not report data on incoming students.
2. Most faculties are easily classified using such coding but a handful of faculties combine
both natural science and social science focus. If such a combination was detected, the fac-
ulty was assigned a score of 1.

ORCID iD
Karel Kouba https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0974-9144

References
Beerkens, M., Souto-Otero, M., de Wit, H., & Huisman, J. (2016). Similar students and differ-
ent countries? An analysis of the barriers and drivers for Erasmus participation in seven
countries. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 184-204.
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study
methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455-476.
Bento, J. P. C. (2014). The determinants of international academic tourism demand in Europe.
Tourism Economics, 20, 611-628.
Best Global Universities Ranking. (2017, December). U.S. News. Retrieved from https://www.
usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/czech-republic
Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research
on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 21, 318-327.
Brandenburg, U., Taboadela, O., & Berghoff, S. (2014). The Erasmus impact study. Effects of
mobility on the skills and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher
education institutions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Cao, C., Zhu, C., & Meng, Q. (2016). A survey of the influencing factors for international aca-
demic mobility of Chinese university students. Higher Education Quarterly, 70, 200-220.
Cebolla-Boado, H., Hu, Y., & Soysal, Y. N. (2018). Why study abroad? Sorting of Chinese
students across British universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39, 365-380.
Kouba 17

Czech Statistical Office. (2018). Počet obyvatel v obcích k 1.1.2017 [Number of inhabitants
in municipalities, January 1, 2017]. Czech Statistical Office. Retrieved from https://www.
czso.cz/csu/czso/pocet-obyvatel-v-obcich-k-112017
Dessoff, A. (2006). Who’s not going abroad? International Educator, 15(2), 20-27.
Di Pietro, G., & Page, L. (2008). Who studies abroad? Evidence from France and Italy. European
Journal of Education, 43, 389-398.
Distance Calculator. (2018). Available from https://www.distancecalculator.net
Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value
in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48, 35-54.
Furukawa, T., Shirakawa, N., & Okuwada, K. (2013). An empirical study of graduate student
mobility underpinning research universities. Higher Education, 66, 17-37.
Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2013). Transnational human capital, education, and social inequality.
Analyses of international student exchange. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 42, 99-117.
González, C. R., Mesanza, R. B., & Mariel, P. (2011). The determinants of international student
mobility flows: An empirical study on the Erasmus programme. Higher Education, 62,
413-430.
Karlsen, J., Beseda, J., Šima, K., & Zyzak, B. (2017). Outsiders or leaders? The role of higher
education institutions in the development of peripheral regions. Higher Education Policy,
30, 463-479.
Kim, R. I., & Goldstein, S. B. (2005). Intercultural attitudes predict favorable study abroad
expectations of US college students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9,
265-278.
Kouba, K. (2018). Determinants of student participation in higher education governance: The
case of student turnout in academic senate elections in Czechia. Higher Education, 76,
67-84.
Kritz, M. M. (2016). Why do countries differ in their rates of outbound student mobility?
Journal of Studies in International Education, 20, 99-117.
Lesjak, M., Juvan, E., Ineson, E. M., Yap, M. H., & Axelsson, E. P. (2015). Erasmus student
motivation: Why and where to go? Higher Education, 70, 845-865.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international student des-
tination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 82-90.
McMahon, M. E. (1992). Higher Education in a World Market. An Historical Look at the Global
Context of International Study. Higher Education, 24, 465-482.
MSMT (Ministerstvo školství mládeže a tělovýchovy). (2018). Přehled o přijímacím řízení
Uchazeč 2016 [Overview of the Application Process 2016]. Ministry of Education, Youth
and Sports. Retrieved from https://dsia.msmt.cz/vysluch16.html
Naidoo, V. (2007). Research on the flow of international students to UK universities: Determinants
and implications. Journal of Research in International Education, 6, 287-307.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 97-112.
Petzold, K., & Peter, T. (2015). The social norm to study abroad: Determinants and effects.
Higher Education, 69, 885-900.
Pimpa, N. (2005). Marketing Australian universities to Thai students. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9, 137-146.
QS (Quacquarelli Symonds). (2017). QS world university rankings. Retrieved from https://
www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings
Rosenzweig, M. R. (2006). Global wage differences and international student flows. In S. M.
Collins & C. Graham (Eds.), Brookings trade forum 2006: Global labor markets (pp. 57-
86). Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
18 Journal of Studies in International Education 00(0)

Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going global:
Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad. Research in Higher
Education, 50, 119-143.
Shepsle, K. A. (1986). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. In H. F. Weisberg
(Ed.), Political science: The science of politics (pp. 51-81). New York, NY: Agathon.
Soria, K. M., & Troisi, J. (2014). Internationalization at home alternatives to study abroad:
Implications for students’ development of global, international, and intercultural competen-
cies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18, 261-280.
Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., de Wit, H., & Vujić, S. (2013). Barriers to inter-
national student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program. Educational Researcher,
42, 70-77.
Stroud, A. H. (2010). Who plans (not) to study abroad? An examination of US student intent.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 491-507.
University of Göttingen. (2018). Georg-August-Universität Göttingen—Memorandum of under-
standing on student and staff exchange. Retrieved from https://www.uni-goettingen.de/
de/document/download/6534b6290e5ec7e0aca319c842d8571f.docx/Vorlage_MoU%20_
UGOE_F_I_2015_final.docx
University of Leiden. (2018). University of Leiden—Student exchange agreement. Retrieved
from https://www.medewerkers.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/ul2staff/
onderwijs/example-leiden-student-exchange-agreement-under-mou.pdf
Van Bouwel, L., & Veugelers, R. (2013). The determinants of student mobility in Europe: The
quality dimension. European Journal of Higher Education, 3, 172-190.
Van Mol, C., & Ekamper, P. (2016). Destination cities of European exchange students.
Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 116, 85-91.
Van Mol, C., & Timmerman, C. (2014). Should I stay or should I go? An analysis of the deter-
minants of intra-European student mobility. Population, Space and Place, 20, 465-479.
Wei, H. (2013). An empirical study on the determinants of international student mobility: A
global perspective. Higher Education, 66, 105-122.
Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2012). Student choice in higher education:
Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 16, 413-433.
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). Student recruitment at international branch campuses:
Can they compete in the global market? Journal of Studies in International Education,
15, 299-316.
The World University Rankings. (2017, December). Times Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/
page/0/length/25/locations/CZ/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Author Biography
Karel Kouba, PhD is assistant professor of political science at the University of Hradec Králové
in Czechia and his research interests include higher education policy, electoral behavior and
political institutions. He served as Vice-Dean for International Affairs of the Philosophical
Faculty (2011-2016) and as Vice-Rector for International Affairs of the University of Hradec
Králové (2016-2018). His articles were published in journals such as Higher Education,
Democratization, Electoral Studies or Government and Opposition.