For the UK, the language has shifted away from headline student targets, but not away from internationalisation as a strategic lever.
“Internationalisation needs to be seen as a strategic enabler, and as a soft power asset,” said Rachel Sandison, deputy vice-chancellor (external engagement) at the University of Glasgow.
Sandison works with two overlapping strategies – the UK government’s refreshed international education strategy and the Scottish government’s international education strategy, launched in 2024 and currently being refreshed.
“There is a very high degree of complementarity between both governments in thinking beyond just student recruitment and student mobility when exploring and supporting all things international,” she told the Glasgow audience gathered for the 2026 European Association of International Education (EAIE) conference.
The UK has removed explicit international student number targets, but still has an education export target of £40 billion by 2030. Alongside this, recent migration policy changes are framed under the banner of “sustainable recruitment”.
Scotland, meanwhile, is placing a strong emphasis on talent attraction.
“Within the Scottish context, there is a real drive to bring global talent to these shores… to really signal Scotland as a welcoming, diverse and inclusive country for study, for research, to work, to live,” said Sandison.
There has also been a shift in who is involved nationally. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is now a formal partner in the UK strategy.
“They are seen as one of the key government partners within the strategy, which wasn’t true before. So it has really shifted.”
Meanwhile, Germany’s 2024-2034 national strategy for the internationalisation of higher education is built around attraction and retention, even in a system where higher education is largely governed at state level.
“Germany has the 16 states, and the states are governing universities in Germany. So the national government doesn’t have to say too much about universities,” explained Kai Sicks, secretary general of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Despite this federal complexity, federal and state governments, DAAD and other stakeholders agreed a joint strategy.
“The number one priority of this strategy is to increase the attractiveness of Germany as a nation for internationals… retaining students in Germany is a top priority.”
The number one priority of this strategy is to increase the attractiveness of Germany as a nation for internationals… retaining students in Germany is a top priority.
Kai Sicks, DAAD
“It talks a lot about how it would like to create framework conditions, also on a legal regulatory basis, to improve the ability to attract students – like we improve visa accessibility of Germany, to make all these bureaucratic procedures more easy.”
He pointed to a new DAAD program, funded by the responsible ministry, that supports almost 100 universities with activities to help international students complete their studies and stay in Germany. The “ground for that was laid in the strategy”, he said.
Meanwhile, Slovenia has moved from a mobility‑focused strategy to a broader, more integrated approach covering both higher education and research.
The first strategy (2016-2020) was mainly about mobility and visibility, but already introduced internationalisation at home. The current 2023-2030 strategy shifts towards long‑term institutional partnerships and stronger links within Europe, while also expanding geographically.
“The Western Balkans is still the major priority… but we also added Africa and East Asia and Canada and Australia and many other countries. So I think in this regard we are a very ambitious little country,” said Alenka Flander, director, the Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programs (CMEPIUS).
“Resources are always sparse, but still we have ambitions to kind of focus on quite big regions.”
In Slovenia, the foreign ministry was not strongly involved in the strategy, which helps explain its focus on education and research rather than broader foreign policy objectives.
Flander cautioned that ambition needs to be balanced with realism at both national and institutional levels and across the discussion, speakers were clear that institutional autonomy remains a core principle.
“Universities really have a very high degree of institutional autonomy… strategy making within a university is an independent process,” said Sicks. “At the same time, a national strategy can serve as orientation or a compass.”
Sandison echoed that national frameworks can be helpful as long as they do not become overly prescriptive. “Institutions should have the flexibility and autonomy to consider how they respond to them, and where they want to really lean in, and where actually some of that national framework may not make sense,” she said.
In the UK, she now sits on an International Education Strategy Action Group which aims to make the framework more concrete.
“It actually then makes that national framework much more tangible and meaningful because it’s not just a lot of nice words on a page, but it’s trying to translate the strategic ambition into something practical in support of the sector.”
