ITEM Cross-Border Impact Assessment published: What are the potential cross-border effects of the Dutch language requirements under the legislative bill ‘Internationalisation in Balance’ for border regions?
To achieve more balance between the benefits and challenges associated with the internationalisation of higher education, the former Minister of Education, Culture and Science (Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, OCW) Robbert Dijkgraaf developed a legislative proposal known as the Internationalisation in Balance Bill (Wet internationalisering in balans, WIB). The main elements of the bill are language policy, conditions for offering foreign language education, and the introduction of a numerus fixus. The proposed changes in terms of language mainly concern Bachelor’s and associate degree programmes as well as tracks (e.g., courses or specialisations) within these. The WIB stipulates that educational offerings be provided in Dutch for a minimum of two thirds of the study load. Vice versa, this means that a study programme is regarded as a “foreign-language” degree if more than a third of study credits are assigned for components that are not taught in Dutch. This is only allowed in case an exemption is applicable, that is mainly determined by the so-called Foreign Language Education Test (Toets Anderstalig Onderwijs; TAO).
Higher education institutions and other stakeholders fear, however, that the uniqueness of border regions is not recognised sufficiently by the proposed legislation yet, and that that the introduction of the WIB and TAO could have detrimental effects on the welfare/prosperity (brede welvaart), economy, labour market, and knowledge infrastructure in border regions.
For border regions and higher education institutions located in border regions, like Maastricht University (UM), the question thus arises as to what the possible cross-border effects of the language requirements of the WIB are for border regions. This ITEM Cross-Border Impact Assessment analyses the importance of language regarding internationalisation and international students for cross-border regions and the alignment of the WIB with developments across the European Union and in neighbouring regions.
The report argues that in light of cross-border impact assessments and the perspective of border regions, the debate and legal instruments on internationalisation should be nuanced. The case of Maastricht University makes a strong argument for this nuance, that calls for an differentiation in the umbrella term ‘internationalisation’: Euregionalisation, Europeanisation and Internationalisation. At UM, a significant share of “international” students actually come from the Euregion Meuse-Rhine, rather than from more distant EU or non-EU countries: About 50% of the bachelor students come from within 100km, students with origins from the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium are good for about 70% of all bachelor students. Another 23% comes from other EU Member States and about 7% from non-EU countries. This challenges the definition and distinction between students from the euregion and the “international students” that the WIB aims to target.
It is important to emphasise the difference of the euregional functioning of an higher education institution, like Maastricht University, in a cross-border region compared internationalisation strategies to attract other European and international students. We could define this as euregionalisation instead of internationalisation.
These lenses of euregionalisation, Europeanisation and internationalisation are relevant and important to the WIB, its arguments, effective implications and higher education and internationalisation in a broader context. Indeed, while the focus of the debate is mainly concentrated at the level of higher education institutions, a critical reflection should be made on the initiatives that are closely linked with education. Furthermore, it should be noted that internationalisation and some of its related instruments also favour Europeanisation and euregionalisation. This includes for example English language as European lingua franca, that is used in European and euregional cooperation as well, and the international classroom, that also benefits multicultural competencies for European and euregional cooperation.
The ITEM report also argues that the exemptions allowing a programme to be offered in a foreign language, such as “regional circumstances,” including the institution’s location in a border or shrinking region, are based on an arbitrary definition. Often the concepts of border regions and shrinkage regions are used interchangeably or in the same frames, by politicians, policymakers and the higher education institutions themselves. This report also highlights the importance of making an adequate distinction between shrinkage regions and border regions. There are several territorial distinctions, in which in many cases there can be a combination of territorial characteristics. The different territorial characteristics require a different policy approach. Therefore, the research calls for a more appropriate definition that better reflects the realities of higher education in border regions and cooperation between higher education institutions across borders. Specifically, the research emphasises the need to move away from a one-size-fits all approach. To account for the realities of the respective (border) region and higher education institutions, one should examine on a case-by-case basis what the situation is on the ground and refrain from too generic measures. While both in a border region and with a comparable educational offer as well as total student numbers, the euregional functioning of Radboud University and Maastricht University are, for instance, very different. In this respect, the devil is in the details and the exact application of the TAO are decisive. While there are exemptions defined on paper, there will still be effects on cross-border regions when the criteria and exemptions are applied to the strictest and most limited sense.
Currently, it is expected that the amended bill will be presented in fall 2025, where existing educational programmes may be exempted from the TAO. Also, the exact wording and implications of (border) regions will be subject to the legal amendments. Furthermore, the coalition has fallen, and the bill might be subject of the agenda of political parties during the elections (and the new government). It is therefore important to keep an eye on developments in higher education policy in the Netherlands as well as ongoing research about them. Different higher education institutions are working on additional assessments of the potential consequences of these developments, of which many have not been published yet. They may give additional insights into the effect of the WIB and TAO on higher education institutions and differences between border and non-border regions.
