Will Students Still Travel for Education as China Becomes Wealthier?
What the ‘challengesmakes clear that US$30,000 is a rough threshold derived from only four East Asian cases, not’ could mean for universities and TNE
For decades, one of the assumptions underpinning international student recruitment has been relatively straightforward: as countries become wealthier, more families can afford an international education and outbound student mobility grows.
But what if economic development eventually produces the opposite effect?
A recent paper by Wei Liu, The Education Abroad and Income Paradox: A Research Note, published in the International Migration Review, raises an interesting challenge to this assumption.
Looking at the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan, Liu identifies a striking pattern. In each case, outbound student mobility peaked or began to plateau at around the time GDP per capita reached approximately US$30,000 in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.
Japan reached this level when its outbound student numbers peaked in 2004. South Korea followed a similar pattern around 2011, while comparable trends can be seen in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Importantly, income continued to rise afterwards, but international student mobility did not continue increasing at the same rate.
The figure should be treated with caution. Liu is clear that US$30,000 is a rough threshold derived from only four East Asian cases, rather than a universal rule.
Nevertheless, the underlying question is an important one for universities:
As countries become wealthier, does demand for international education disappear—or does the way students want to access international education begin to change?
Why might greater prosperity reduce student mobility?
At first, the idea appears counterintuitive.
Higher household incomes should make international education more affordable. But economic development changes much more than families’ ability to pay tuition fees.
As countries develop, their domestic higher education systems also tend to develop. Governments invest more in universities, institutions improve their research and teaching capacity, international partnerships expand, and students have access to more high-quality opportunities without leaving their home country.
At the same time, domestic employment opportunities may become more attractive.
The decision is therefore no longer simply between a strong university overseas and limited opportunities at home.
Students may increasingly ask whether the additional financial, cultural and personal costs of relocating overseas are justified when high-quality education and attractive career opportunities are available much closer to home.
Liu describes this in terms of the declining economic disparity between home and destination countries. As that gap narrows, one of the traditional drivers of large-scale international student mobility may weaken.
And this is where the discussion becomes particularly relevant to China.
China may be approaching an important transition
China has been one of the most important international student recruitment markets in the world for more than two decades.
But its higher education environment today is very different from that of twenty years ago.
Chinese universities have expanded significantly in scale, capacity, research strength and international engagement. Students now have access to a much broader range of domestic and internationally connected education opportunities.
Liu categorises China as a “near-threshold” country. Using the IMF data available when the study was written, China's GDP per capita in PPP terms was approximately US$24,991, with the paper projecting that it could exceed US$30,000 around 2028. The author therefore suggests that China's outbound student numbers could eventually plateau or decline, although he emphasises that many other factors will influence this trajectory.
Whether the US$30,000 threshold ultimately proves predictive is less important than the strategic question behind it.
China's international education market is changing.
Universities should therefore be careful about assuming that the recruitment models that worked over the past twenty years will automatically work over the next twenty.
International education does not necessarily require international mobility
A decline or plateau in outbound student mobility would not necessarily represent declining demand for international education.
It could instead signal a change in how international education is consumed.
A student may still want:
- an internationally recognised qualification;
- exposure to different academic approaches;
- access to international academics;
- English-medium teaching;
- opportunities to study abroad for part of their degree;
- international industry connections;
- progression opportunities;
- and the experience of studying within more than one education system.
But increasingly, they may not believe that obtaining these benefits requires spending three or four years overseas.
This is precisely where transnational education becomes strategically important.
Joint education programmes, joint institutes, international branch campuses, dual degrees, articulation arrangements and other forms of TNE allow universities to bring elements of international education closer to students.
Rather than requiring students to travel to education, education increasingly travels to students.
TNE should not be separated from international recruitment strategy
Universities have traditionally treated international student recruitment and TNE as separate activities.
Recruitment teams focus on bringing students to the home campus.
TNE teams focus on partnerships and programmes delivered overseas.
But changing patterns of student mobility suggest that these activities need to be considered together.
A Chinese student studying the first two years of a programme in China and completing the final two years in the UK is both a TNE student and an internationally mobile student.
Another student may complete an entire UK degree through a joint programme in China.
A third may complete an undergraduate degree through TNE and subsequently progress to a UK master's programme.
These are not competing models. They are different points within an increasingly interconnected international student journey.
For universities, the more important strategic question may therefore be changing from:
“How many students can we recruit from China?”
to:
“How do we want Chinese students to engage with our university over the next ten years?”
That is a much broader question.
And it requires universities to think simultaneously about recruitment, partnerships, academic delivery, progression, brand presence, institutional capacity and long-term positioning.
The implications go beyond recruitment numbers
There is another important lesson in Liu's paper.
International education markets do not remain static.
Different markets can be at very different stages of economic and educational development, which means universities may need different approaches in each.
A recruitment-led strategy may continue to make sense in some emerging markets.
In more developed markets, universities may need to place greater emphasis on partnerships, short-term mobility, TNE, postgraduate progression, professional education or research collaboration.
And in a market as large and complex as China, there is unlikely to be a single model.
Institutions need to understand where their disciplines, brand, partners and academic strengths fit within the market.
Simply having a presence in China is not a strategy.
Neither is establishing a TNE partnership because the opportunity happens to be available.
Successful TNE needs to form part of a wider institutional international strategy.
From student mobility to education mobility
Perhaps the most interesting implication of the “education abroad and income paradox” is that we may need to broaden the way we think about internationalisation.
For much of the international education sector, internationalisation has been closely associated with student mobility.
But the next stage may increasingly involve the mobility of programmes, curricula, academics, qualifications, institutions and knowledge.
Students will still travel.
International mobility will remain an important and transformative part of higher education.
But it may become one option within a much wider international education ecosystem rather than the dominant model.
For universities operating in China, that means the question is no longer simply whether Chinese students will continue to study overseas.
The more useful question is:
How will Chinese students want to access international education in the future—and is our institution positioned to meet them there?
Developing your China TNE strategy
At China Connected, we work with universities to develop sustainable approaches to China and transnational education.
This includes supporting institutions with China TNE strategy, market assessment, partner identification and development, programme models, academic delivery, institutional positioning and the development of longer-term pipelines connecting TNE with international recruitment and progression.
The international education environment in China is evolving quickly. Universities considering their next stage of engagement need to look beyond individual projects and think about where China fits within their wider institutional strategy.
If your university is reviewing its China strategy, considering new TNE opportunities or looking at how international recruitment and TNE can work together, we would welcome a conversation.
And we would also be interested in hearing views from across the sector:
Do you think increasing prosperity will reduce international student mobility, or will it simply change the way students access international education?
This article was inspired by Wei Liu's 2025 research note, “The Education Abroad and Income Paradox,” published in the International Migration Review. The US$30,000 GDP per capita threshold discussed in the research is exploratory and should not be interpreted as a definitive predictor of future student mobility.