Keywords
education export
Uzbekistan
Latvia
comparative analysis
institutional strategy
higher education reform
How to Cite
Abstract
The internationalization of higher education has become a defining strategic imperative for universities worldwide. This article presents a comparative analysis of internationalization trajectories in two geographically and historically distinct contexts: Uzbekistan, a rapidly reforming Central Asian state, and Latvia, a European Union member with a post-Soviet transformation experience. Drawing on institutional theory, resource-based view (RBV), and dynamic capabilities frameworks, the study examines policy architectures, institutional strategies, and structural barriers that shape the international positioning of universities in both countries. The findings reveal that while both nations demonstrate a strong political commitment to higher education reform and internationalization, they differ significantly in their integration into global academic networks, capacity for education export, and the maturity of quality assurance mechanisms. The article proposes a convergent strategic model applicable to transitional and post-transitional higher education systems seeking sustainable internationalization.References
1. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
2. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. (2022). Education statistics in Latvia. Riga: CSB.
3. de Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (Eds.). (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. Brussels: European Parliament.
4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
5. European University Association. (2021). EUA Public Funding Observatory Report. Brussels: EUA.
6. Hénard, F., Diamond, L., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Approaches to internationalisation and their implications for strategic management and institutional practice. Paris: OECD.
7. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
8. Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation of Uzbekistan. (2023). Annual report on the state of higher education in Uzbekistan. Tashkent: Ministry of Higher Education.
9. OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
10. OECD. (2022). Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
11. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Presidential Decree PQ-2909. (2017). On measures to further develop the higher education system of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent: Presidential Administration of Uzbekistan.
13. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
14. Rauhvargers, A. (2011). Global university rankings and their impact. Brussels: European University Association.
15. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
16. Soltys, D. (2014). The reform of vocational and higher education in post-Soviet states: Change beyond transition in Kazakhstan, Russia and Uzbekistan. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
17. Suspitsyna, T. (2015). Higher education for economic advancement and engaged citizenship: An analysis of the US Department of Education discourse. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 647–657.
18. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
19. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org