By Dr. Stella Huili Si | TNE-Institute Guest Blog
Why China Matters in Global Transnational Higher Education Today
Over the past four decades, China has become one of the most influential actors in global higher education. Yet its approach to internationalisation—and particularly to transnational higher education (TNE)—differs fundamentally from many Western models. Rather than following a linear path of liberalisation or market-driven expansion, China has developed a state-steered, selectively open, and highly adaptive model that is now shaping international partnerships worldwide.
This blog draws on a recent systematic review published in Higher Education Quarterly to unpack how China’s TNE model has evolved historically, how it is governed today, and why it increasingly matters for foreign universities, policymakers, and international education leaders.
Internationalisation with Chinese Characteristics: A Long View
China’s engagement with international higher education is not new. Historically, Chinese education systems have moved through cycles of openness and closure—absorbing external knowledge when aligned with national priorities and retreating when sovereignty or ideological security was perceived to be at risk.
Using JaneKnight’s well-known framework of internationalisation, China’s trajectory can
be understood across three broad phases:
- Mobility-focused internationalisation, centred on the movement of scholars and ideas;
- Programme- and institution-based internationalisation, including joint programmes and universities;
- Education hubs and system-level internationalisation, where countries actively shape global flows.
What distinguishes China is not the presence of these stages—but how they are governed. Internationalisation in China has never been a purely academic or institutional project. It has consistently been embedded in state-building, economic modernisation, and global positioning strategies.
The Rise of Transnational Higher Education in China
Since the early 2000s, TNE has become a central policy instrument in China’s higher education reform. Sino-foreign cooperative programmes, joint institutes, and fully-fledged joint universities have expanded rapidly—yet always under clear regulatory frameworks set by the Ministry of Education.
Key features of China’s TNE model include:
- Mandatory joint governance structures rather than full foreign control;
- Curriculum localisation alongside international standards;
- Strong quality assurance and approval mechanisms;
- Strategic alignment with national development priorities, not just market demand.
This approach has allowed China to benefit from global academic resources while maintaining institutional sovereignty— producing what can be described as a hybrid governance model rather than a copied Western template.
From Policy Borrower to Policy Shaper
One of the most important findings of the research is that China’s internationalisation is not a story of imitation, but of policy negotiation and innovation.
In earlier periods, China selectively borrowed models from the Soviet Union, the United
States, Europe, and Japan. Today, however, China increasingly exports governance ideas, particularly through:
- Large-scale Sino-foreign joint universities (“supertanker” institutions)
- Experimental zones such as Hainan International Education Innovation Island
- Digitally enabled TNE models accelerated during and after COVID-19
In this phase, China no longer positions itself merely as a recipient of global norms—but as a
co-architect of new TNE arrangements, influencing how transnational education is regulated, delivered, and legitimised.
What This Means for Sino-Foreign Higher Education Cooperation
1. Rethinking “Partnership” in TNE
For foreign institutions, collaboration with China is no longer about exporting programmes with minimal adaptation. Sustainable partnerships require shared governance, cultural translation, and long-term institutional commitment.
2. Governance Becomes a Core Capability
Success in China increasingly depends on an institution’s ability to navigate regulatory complexity, political context, and joint decision-making structures—not just academic reputation.
3. China as a Reference Point, Not an Exception
China’s TNE experience challenges the assumption that internationalisation must follow Anglo-American liberal models. Instead, it demonstrates how state-led, quality-controlled, and strategically selective internationalisation can operate at scale.
Contribution and Significance for International Higher Education
This research makes three key contributions to the field of transnational and international higher education:
Conceptual contribution
It reframes policy transfer in higher education as an active, negotiated, and political process, rather than passive borrowing—particularly in non-Western contexts.
Empirical contribution
By systematically reviewing China’s TNE development across historical stages, it offers one of the most comprehensive evidence-based accounts of how internationalisation is governed over time, not just implemented.
Practical contribution
For international universities, governments, and organisations engaged in Sino-foreign cooperation, the findings provide a realistic governance lens for designing resilient, ethical, and sustainable TNHE partnerships.
Looking Ahead
As global higher education faces geopolitical tension, mobility constraints, and questions of legitimacy, China’s experience offers an important case: internationalisation does not disappear under pressure—it reconfigures.
Understanding China’s TNE model is therefore not only about engaging with China, but about rethinking the future architecture of global higher education itself.
Author note:
Dr. Stella Huili Si is a practitioner-researcher at The University of Manchester, specialising in transnational higher education governance, with extensive professional experience in TNHE partnerships and international talent programmes at StellaLink.
Reference
Si, H. (2026). Higher Education Evolution in China: A Systematic Review of the Internationalisation of Higher Education in China. Higher Education Quarterly, 80(1), e70088.