This chapter examines how public financial support shapes international student attraction, study outcomes and post‑graduation pathways across OECD countries. It compares government‑sponsored scholarships, access to public student loans, and housing support targeting international students. The chapter further maps where international students can access state‑backed loans and reviews student‑housing provision for international students.
International Student Mobility
Factors for Attraction and Retention
Abstract
Government‑sponsored scholarships remain a central but highly varied policy tool, reflecting diverse objectives across OECD countries, including talent attraction, international development, and diplomacy. Most programmes combine several objectives, and their design differs widely in cohort size, eligibility rules, funding levels and return obligations. Even in countries with large flagship schemes, only a limited share of international students receives government scholarship funding, and most students remain self‑funded.
Return requirements remain a common feature of development‑oriented scholarship programmes, shaping graduates’ post‑study mobility pathways. These obligations aim to support capacity building in origin countries, and limited empirical evidence show that return requirements significantly increase return rates compared with self‑funded students.
Official development assistance (ODA) continues to finance scholarships and covering study costs for international students from DAC-eligible countries, though volumes are concentrated in a few major donor countries and trends vary depending on shifts in national development and scholarship strategies.
Access to government‑backed student loans is generally very limited for international students, with eligibility most often restricted to domestic and EU/EEA students in European OECD countries. Outside Europe, public loan access for international students is very rare.
Public support patterns differ strongly between domestic and international students, with domestic students far more likely to benefit from grants or loans. Only a handful of countries report high levels of public financial support among international students, typically where subsidised housing or universal student aid systems play a larger role.
Housing affordability has become an increasingly important condition shaping international students’ study experiences, as shortages and rising rents in several OECD destinations affect both access and well-being. Dedicated student accommodation can reduce financial pressure and support academic success, but capacity often falls short of demand.
International students are more likely than domestic students to rely on dedicated student housing, reflecting both targeted provision and the challenges newcomers face in navigating local rental markets. Housing support can facilitate integration and influence students’ likelihood of staying after graduation.
As the costs of studying abroad continue to rise, the availability of government support such as scholarships, access to public loan schemes, and subsidised student housing has become an increasingly significant component of countries’ strategies to attract and support international talent. These forms of support not only influence students’ decisions to enrol but also affect their well‑being, academic performance, and potentially also their decision to stay in the destination country after graduation.
Across OECD countries, governments adopt different approaches and rationales when designing financial support for international students. Scholarship programmes often reflect a combination of policy objectives, including talent attraction and internationalisation, development co‑operation, and diplomatic engagement. Government‑backed student loans are generally aimed at ensuring equal access to higher education, although eligibility for international students remains limited in most countries. Access to affordable and adequate housing has also become a critical policy concern, especially in contexts where rising living costs and housing shortages affect both domestic and international students.
This chapter provides a comparative overview of these three forms of financial support and examines their implications for student mobility. It maps the availability and design of government‑funded scholarships across OECD countries and analyses how these programmes’ objectives, eligibility criteria, cohort sizes and return requirements shape student flows. It also reviews the limited but important cases in which international students can access government‑backed loan schemes, primarily within Europe. The chapter further explores the landscape of student housing provision, highlighting how subsidised or regulated accommodation can support student well‑being and facilitate academic success, while also noting the broader pressures that student mobility can place on local housing markets.
International scholarships form an important part of many OECD-countries’ strategies to attract international students. However, scholarships for international students are a component of many OECD countries’ foreign policy and international development strategies as well, with considerable overlap between these strategic goals. This reflects the three broad rationales for offering government-sponsored scholarships:
Talent attraction and internationalisation: This rationale focuses primarily on the interests of the host country and its higher education institutions. International scholarship programmes help enhance the reputation, diversity and talent pool of tertiary institutions by bringing students with different experiences, knowledge and perspectives. In doing so, they can strengthen institutional competitiveness and contribute to broader economic objectives. By attracting high‑achieving students and supporting the development of their skills, scholarship schemes can help address labour market shortages and, more generally, contribute to economic growth in the host country.
International development: International scholarships can contribute to development objectives in several ways. Many programmes target beneficiaries from low‑ and middle‑income countries to support capacity building and human capital development in origin countries, often with the expectation that graduates will return to their country of origin. Other programmes prioritise fields of study that directly address sustainable development needs in origin countries or communities. Some scholarships also aim to promote equality of opportunity by supporting students from marginalised or disadvantaged backgrounds who may otherwise face barriers to accessing high‑quality tertiary education.
Diplomacy and intercultural exchange: Scholarship programmes are long‑standing tools for strengthening bilateral relations and fostering intercultural understanding. By facilitating educational exchange, they help build connections, trust and familiarity between international and domestic students. Scholarship recipients often develop strong personal and professional ties, as well as a deeper understanding of the host country’s culture and institutions, which can support positive relations between countries as recipients advance in their careers. Scholarships can also promote social change, as students exposed to new ideas and policies abroad may later draw on these experiences to inform reforms or collaboration in their home countries.
The objectives of government scholarship programmes often overlap and are not always easily distinguished in practice. A single scheme may simultaneously aim to attract talented students to the host country, contribute to human capital development in partner countries, and strengthen diplomatic relations. The relative weight of these objectives can also depend on students’ post‑study pathways. For example, whether a scholarship ultimately supports talent attraction or development co‑operation hinges partly on graduates’ decisions to return home or to remain abroad while maintaining professional or social ties with their country of origin. Likewise, programmes designed to foster social or institutional change in partner countries can serve multiple purposes: they may disseminate knowledge and values associated with the host country, improving bilateral relations, while also contributing to broader development objectives, including sustainable development.
In addition to national scholarship, international student mobility within Europe is also supported through EU‑level instruments under the Erasmus+ framework. These include Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters, which fund full joint degree programmes in which degree‑seeking students complete their studies in at least two different countries, as well as Erasmus+ higher‑education mobility grants, which primarily support temporary study periods abroad. Under the latter, students typically spend between 2 and 12 months, most often one or two semesters, at a foreign institution without obtaining a degree there, and are therefore credit‑seeking rather than degree‑seeking (OECD, 2022[1]). As EU‑level instruments with distinct objectives and governance arrangements, these programmes are not analysed further in this chapter, which focuses on national systems of public financial support for degree‑seeking international students.
3.2.1. Comparing the design of government scholarship programmes in OECD countries
This section provides an overview of the rationale, size, eligibility conditions, requirements and coverage of government-funded flagship scholarship programmes explicitly targeting international students across OECD countries. The focus is exclusively on scholarship schemes that are funded and centralised/administered by central governments and does not include scholarships that are provided by or exclusively channelled through higher education institutions, whether publicly or privately financed. In several OECD countries, institution‑level scholarships represent the predominant form of financial support for both domestic and international students and thus play a significant role in the overall scholarship landscape, even though they fall outside the scope of this chapter. For example, Finland does not operate a national scholarship programme for international bachelor and master students. Instead, scholarships are decentralised in governance but indirectly state‑funded through universities’ core budgets. However, a national scholarship scheme has been proposed in light of planned increases in tuition fees in 2026. To ensure comparability, the overview includes only scholarships that support degree‑seeking students. Programmes dedicated exclusively to exchange students, short‑term study, language training, or research mobility are excluded. Sub‑national government schemes are also not covered, except for Belgium where the federal structure makes scholarships administered by the Flemish and Walloon Governments integral to the national scholarship offer.
In total, 45 different government‑sponsored scholarship programmes were identified across 36 OECD countries. No government scholarship programme for international students was identified in Costa Rica. The list of programmes presented in this chapter is not exhaustive. Some relevant schemes may not be captured due to limited public information, recent policy changes, or challenges in distinguishing between general student support systems and dedicated scholarship programmes for international students. As such, the overview should be interpreted as a broad mapping of major government‑funded initiatives rather than a complete inventory of all available scholarship opportunities.
Diplomacy and development support are leading international scholarship objectives
In line with the different rationales for international scholarships presented above, Table 3.1 categorises scholarships into three groups: international development (ID); diplomacy and intercultural exchange (D/IE); and talent attraction and internationalisation (TA/I). Most scholarship programmes align, at least partly, with two of these categories. Just over half of the programmes have an explicit diplomatic objective (either primary or secondary), while just under half pursued an international development goal. Combined, four fifths of the scholarships fell into one of these two categories. Fewer schemes, about two in five, mentioned talent attraction as an explicit objective. Some of the largest schemes with a clear talent attraction focus include the French and German scholarship programmes, as well as public scholarship schemes in Korea, Japan, Türkiye and Hungary.
Scholarships with an international development rationale typically restrict eligibility to students from developing countries. The United Kingdom’s Commonwealth Scholarships, for example, target students who would otherwise lack the means to study in the United Kingdom. The programme links individual opportunity with capacity building in partner countries. Its focus on Commonwealth states also reflects a secondary rationale of maintaining and strengthening ties with former members of the British Empire. Another large development-oriented scheme is Australia’s Australia Awards Scholarships, which select students from developing partner countries and pursue a secondary aim of fostering international links and partnerships. Germany’s DAAD scholarships for development related postgraduate courses (EPOS) support professionals from developing countries in acquiring advanced and development relevant training. Ireland, although funding a relatively small number of scholarships, operates a distinctive programme of highly targeted fellowships that focus on African developing states.
In addition to eligibility restrictions based on country of origin, several development-oriented and, in some cases, diplomatically motivated scholarships require relevant work experience or give preference to applicants who have such experience. Most often, this experience must relate to the development or public sector in the applicant’s country of origin. Work experience is required for the United Kingdom’s Chevening Scholarships, postgraduate level Manaaki Scholarships in New Zealand, the scholarships funded by the Belgian Government, and the Ireland Fellows Programme. For the Flemish Government scholarships, work experience is preferred but not mandatory. The German DAAD EPOS scholarships explicitly target professionals and managerial staff from developing countries. The Spanish Agency for International Development (AECID) requires applicants to hold a civil service position in their country of origin.
Scholarships also serve as long standing tools of diplomacy and international exchange. The United Kingdom’s Chevening Scholarships seek to identify and support future leaders pursuing master’s degrees, and the mission of the programme aligns closely with the United Kingdom foreign policy priorities and global networks (Chevening). The United States’ Fulbright Programme, one of the most recognised scholarship schemes worldwide, accepts applicants from a wide range of countries and plays a longstanding role in international academic exchange. France’s flagship Eiffel Excellence Scholarship programme aims to attract high calibre master’s and doctoral candidates. Although small relative to total student inflows, it is highly visible and strategically branded to promote French higher education globally, particularly in engineering, economics and law (Campus France, 2024). Unlike Chevening, the Eiffel programme does not include a return requirement and therefore combines diplomatic objectives with the goal of attracting talent.
Economic motivations also play an important role in the design of scholarship programmes. Many countries use scholarships to attract international talent who may contribute to national labour market needs, research capacity, and long-term economic development. In Japan and Korea, for example, scholarship programmes are partly aimed at encouraging international graduates to remain in the country and help address workforce shortages associated with demographic ageing. Until 2024, Australia operated a scholarships scheme, Destination Australia, funding both domestic and international students to study at regional universities, linking talent attraction with regional development priorities.1 Several European countries also draw on scholarships to enhance their innovation systems. The Netherlands and Sweden combine merit-based selection with efforts to recruit high achieving students who can contribute to research excellence and national innovation ecosystems. Switzerland and Italy pursue similar objectives through their flagship scholarship schemes, although these operate on a smaller scale. Germany’s DAAD portfolio is particularly notable for integrating a wide range of scholarship types within a single institutional framework. While some programmes target students from developing countries, most funding is directed towards attracting talented and high achieving individuals more broadly, with the long-term aim of supporting their integration into the German labour market.
Scholarships mainly target postgraduate students
Scholarship eligibility is often also restricted in terms of study level. Most scholarship programmes aim to attract prospective students at master’s level and higher, however, several accept students at all study levels, including Hungary’s Stipendium Hungaricum, Japan’s MEXT scholarship, New Zealand’s Manaaki, as well as South Korea’s and Türkiye’s government scholarships. Some scholarships, such as France’s Excellence Major scholarship explicitly target young high school graduates from French schools abroad to come to France for their bachelor’s degree. While the scholarship also provides students with the opportunity to do a master’s, it is only possible to enter at the bachelor’s level. Based on the programmes reviewed in this chapter, Switzerland and Finland were the only countries with flagship government scholarships focused exclusively on PhD students.
While most government‑sponsored scholarship programmes focus on supporting degree‑seeking students, particularly at master’s level, a distinct set of internationally oriented funding instruments targets doctoral candidates and early‑career researchers. These programmes differ in their eligibility rules and in whether they primarily serve as global talent‑attraction instruments or are more strongly embedded in domestic research‑capacity and retention strategies. International attraction efforts are generally more explicit and strategically developed at the postdoctoral stage than at the doctoral level. While PhD students are widely recruited from abroad, doctoral funding is often embedded in domestic training and research systems and not always framed primarily as a talent‑attraction instrument. In contrast, postdoctoral fellowships are more frequently designed, branded and reported as tools to attract internationally mobile research talent and to strengthen research excellence and system performance. Box 3.1 provides an overview of some of the most prominent post-doctoral research fellowships in OECD countries and at EU level.
In addition to national scholarship, international student mobility within Europe is also supported through EU‑level instruments under the Erasmus+ framework, most notably Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters. These programmes fund full, jointly delivered degree programmes or temporary credit mobility, and play a visible role in shaping international study pathways within and beyond Europe. As EU‑level instruments with distinct objectives and governance arrangements, they are not analysed further in this chapter, which focuses on national systems of public financial support for international students.
Note: PC=Partner countries; DC=Developing countries. ID = international development; D/IE = Diplomacy and international exchange, TA/I = talent attraction and internationalisation. Semi-circles in the return required column indicate where return is encouraged but not explicitly required (e.g. the nature of the scholarship programme implied that students would return after their studies).
Source: OECD secretariat based on information from official government websites.
At the European Union level, the Marie Skłodowska‑Curie Actions (MSCA) Postdoctoral Fellowships constitute one of the largest and most visible international postdoctoral schemes worldwide. The MSCA offers two main pathways. European Postdoctoral Fellowships, open to researchers of any nationality, support 1‑2 years of postdoctoral research in an EU Member State or a Horizon Europe Associated Country. Global Postdoctoral Fellowships, open to nationals or long‑term residents of EU or associated countries, fund 2‑3 years of postdoctoral research combining an outgoing phase of 1‑2 years in a non‑associated third country with a mandatory one‑year return phase in Europe. Through these instruments, the MSCA explicitly combines global talent attraction with structured international mobility and reintegration into the European research system.
Several OECD countries operate national fellowship programmes that are explicitly designed as inward international talent‑attraction instruments. Germany provides a prominent example through the Humboldt Research Fellowship, which supports postdoctoral researchers of any nationality to conduct independent research at German universities and research institutes. The programme is fully researcher‑driven and is explicitly framed around strengthening Germany’s international research connectivity and long‑term attractiveness.
Other OECD countries prioritise international mobility for domestically trained researchers, rather than inward recruitment, at the postdoctoral stage. In the Netherlands, the NWO Rubicon Fellowship supports researchers of any nationality who have recently obtained their PhD in the Netherlands to undertake postdoctoral research at leading institutions abroad. Its primary objective is to strengthen early‑career development through international research experience, rather than to attract foreign postdoctoral researchers into the Dutch research system.
A number of OECD countries also operate fellowship schemes that target incoming international researchers, though often in more segmented or selective ways. In Japan, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) administers a portfolio of postdoctoral fellowships that are specifically designed to bring early‑career researchers from abroad into Japanese universities and research institutes. These inbound fellowships are institutionally distinct from domestic postdoctoral schemes and play a central role in Japan’s research internationalisation strategy. Korea follows a more selective model through fellowship programmes administered by the National Research Foundation, which support the recruitment of international postdoctoral researchers as well as Korean nationals residing abroad, primarily in priority fields and host institutions aligned with national science and technology strategies.
In contrast, Canada has recently shifted the design of its national postdoctoral funding framework. The Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships programme, which was explicitly open to researchers of all nationalities and strongly oriented toward attracting top‑tier international talent, has recently been discontinued. It has been replaced by the Canada Postdoctoral Research Award (CPRA), a harmonised tri‑agency programme that remains open to international applicants but only if they are enrolled in a doctoral programme of study at an eligible Canadian institution and caps the share of awards available to applicants that are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents (up to 15% of awards). This redesign reflects a stronger emphasis on system integration and domestic workforce development and a more limited international attraction component.
Source: Postdoctoral Fellowships - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/en/apply/sponsorship-programmes/humboldt-research-fellowship, https://www.nwo.nl/en/researchprogrammes/rubicon, Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research in Japan｜Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/worldwide/south-korea/korea-research-fellowship-foreigner-postdoctoral-researchers, Canada Postdoctoral Research Award program | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Government-funded scholarship programmes vary in size, but cover only a limited share of international students
Beyond their objectives, scholarship programmes also differ markedly in scale and coverage. Estimating yearly beneficiary numbers is challenging, as figures can fluctuate from one year to the next and few countries publish detailed statistics on their scholarship programmes for international students. Moreover, many schemes fund not only degree seeking students but also exchange students or visiting researchers and operate decentralised selection systems where scholarships are allocated through both universities, embassies or partner institutions.
Notwithstanding these limitations, available information points to substantial variation in programme size across OECD countries. At one end of the spectrum are large‑scale schemes enrolling several thousand new beneficiaries each year. Hungary, Türkiye and the United States, for example, admit on the order of 4 000‑5 000 students annually through their flagship programmes, while Germany’s DAAD supports close to ten thousand new degree‑seeking entrants per year across its broader funding system. Japan’s MEXT scholarships and Korea’s Global Korea Scholarships reach into the thousands. Among medium-sized government-sponsored scholarship schemes, Australia, New Zealand and France each support around 1 000 international students or new scholarship recipients annually. By comparison, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands support larger cohorts of roughly 2 000 beneficiaries per year.
At the other end of the spectrum are small, highly selective scholarship schemes with annual intakes below 500 students. These include Sweden’s flagship programmes administered by the Swedish Institute, Austria’s Erhard Busek Grant, Belgium’s ARES and VLIR‑UOS scholarships, and Switzerland’s Government Excellence Scholarships, which focus primarily on doctoral and postdoctoral candidates.
Overall, the share of international students receiving scholarships remains limited. In Japan, for example, around 3% of international students reported receiving Japanese Government funding (JASSO, 2025[2]). In Germany, 4.5% of degree seeking international students were funded through a DAAD scholarship (DAAD, 2025[3]). Based on the OECD policy questionnaire, similar shares are observed in other OECD countries with available information, including Türkiye and Belgium (4%) and Latvia (3%).2 The share is higher in Hungary, at 12%, reflecting the comparatively large number of international scholarships issued.
Most scholarships provide complete financial support for the entire study duration
Most scholarships cover international students’ tuition fees and living expenses for the entire duration of their studies. Many of them also include other allowances, such as an establishment allowance, travel allowances, and health insurance. However, an important number of government scholarships do not cover the entire duration of the study period. For example, the scholarship issued by the Dutch Government is a one‑off payment of EUR 5 000 to help international students with their study related expenses but does not cover tuition fees or include a living stipend. The scholarship sponsored by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs only covers up to half of tuition fees, and a living stipend for one academic year. The Irish Government’s International Education scholarship (GOI-IES) is limited to one year, which means that while master’s students could be covered for the entire study period, this would not be the case for PhD students. This is also the case in Italy and the Latvian state scholarship, which limit the duration of the scholarship to about one academic year.
Some scholarships also cover language training for students who need to complete courses in the national language before beginning their studies. This is particularly common in countries whose languages are less widely spoken internationally. For example, the Japanese scholarship covers a language preparatory course for research students of six months, and of one year for undergraduate student, if they study in the local language. Potential language training of up to one year are also part of the Korean, the Polish, and the Turkish scholarships. Czech government scholarships also include potential language training, as do some of the German DAAD scholarships, and scholarships programmes funded by Greece and the Slovak Republic.
Return requirements remain common in development-focused scholarships
An important feature of many scholarships with a focus on international development and diplomacy is the inclusion of a return requirement. Under such arrangements, beneficiaries commit to returning to their home country for a specified period after completing their studies. The most prominent scholarship programmes with explicit return obligations include the Australia Awards, the Fulbright Programme, the Chevening and Commonwealth Scholarships, and New Zealand’s Manaaki Scholarships. Some German DAAD programmes oriented towards international development also encourage or expect students to return.
In addition to these schemes, many other scholarships do not formally require return but nevertheless encourage it or frame it as an expected outcome for at least some of their programmes. The underlying purpose of return requirements is to ensure that scholars contribute to the development goals of the funding programme and to mitigate the risk of brain drain. Approximately one fifth of the scholarship programmes listed in Table 3.1 include a strict return requirement, and a further quarter explicitly encourage return or imply that graduates are expected to go back to their home countries.
Return requirements are typically embedded in the terms of the scholarship contract, obliging recipients to return for a predetermined number of years after graduation. Some funders may also require recipients to repay the scholarship funds, sometimes with penalties, if they choose not to fulfil the return obligation. Enforcement practices vary considerably across programmes. While more than 90% of Chevening and Commonwealth scholars reportedly return after completing their degrees, an evaluation of the Czech scholarship programme estimated a return rate of only 31% (Novotný, Feřtrová and Jungwiertová, 2020[4]).
International students have long featured in debates about brain drain and the potential loss of skilled workers for countries of origin. Earlier perspectives (1960s–1980s) emphasised one‑way flows from lower‑income to higher‑income countries, with many graduates remaining abroad and contributing to human capital losses at home (Bhagwati and Hamada, 1974[5]). Some proposed financial compensation from destination countries to offset these losses (Glaser and Habers, 1978[6]). Since the 1990s, views have shifted as return mobility, digital connectivity and cross‑border collaboration have grown. Policymakers and researchers increasingly highlight “brain circulation,” with returning graduates bringing skills, knowledge and professional networks, and those who remain abroad contributing via remittances, diaspora engagement and transnational collaboration (Lowell, 2002[7]; Saxenian, 2005[8]). According to some observers, concerns about brain drain may be less pronounced when students complete their studies abroad, as the host country bears the education costs, unlike cases where graduates emigrate after completing studies at home (OECD, 2022[1]).
This reappraisal has encouraged some migrant origin countries to promote study abroad as a way to build capacity and to develop incentives for graduate return or engagement from abroad. At the same time, OECD destination countries facing demographic change and skills shortages increasingly view international students as a source of skilled workers and have expanded post‑study work options and retention policies (Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration, 2012[9]; OECD, 2022[1]).
3.2.2. The role of scholarships in student attraction, outcomes and retention
Scholarships play multiple roles in international student mobility. They can influence destination choice, support academic success, and shape post‑study retention. Their impact, however, varies by programme design, including eligibility rules, funding levels and return requirements, and robust empirical evidence on causal impacts remains relatively limited and uneven across countries and programmes.
Scholarships can play an important role in attracting international students, but most international students remain self-funded
Evidence on the direct impact of scholarships on student attraction is limited, but available studies indicate that financial support can influence prospective students’ choice of destination. Surveys show that scholarships and other forms of financial aid rank among the top factors shaping destination choice (Cosentino et al., 2019[10]; IDP, 2024[11]). Students from lower‑income households and emerging economies are particularly sensitive to the availability of funding, often reporting that scholarships determine whether they can study abroad at all. Other surveys similarly identify scholarships and broader cost considerations as key drivers of enrolment decisions (INTO, 2024[12]).
These findings are supported by academic research, which found that living costs in destination countries have a deterrent effect on student attraction (Beine, Noël and Ragot, 2014[13]), and that targeted scholarships can shift applicant flows toward less traditional destinations by reducing financial risk (Perkins and Neumayer, 2014[14]). However, the overall share of international students receiving scholarships remains small. In the United Kingdom, more than 90% of international students were self‑funded in 2021 (Vari‐Lavoisier, 2025[15]). In the United States, approximately one fifth of international students in 2024/25 reported scholarships or sponsorship as their primary funding source, mostly provided by host institutions (Institute of International Education, 2025[16]).
Scholarships can also form part of a wider student recruitment strategy. Even when only a minority of students receive funding, scholarship schemes can raise awareness of a destination, signal institutional or national commitment to international students, and reduce perceived financial barriers. Although evidence of spillover effects for non‑recipients is limited, the visibility of scholarship programmes may nonetheless contribute to overall attractiveness and application behaviour.
Scholarships not only attract students but can also support their academic success. By reducing financial pressures, scholarships allow students to devote more time to their studies and campus integration, which can translate into higher completion rates. Research on general student populations shows that grant recipients perform better academically and are more likely to graduate than non‑recipients (Berlanga and Corti, 2025[17]; Nguyen, Kramer and Evans, 2019[18]). Grants and scholarships also appear more effective in supporting persistence than loans, largely because they reduce the need for paid work during studies (Dynarski and Scott-Clayton, 2013[19]). These effects may be even stronger for international students, who often face employment restrictions and have limited access to local financial support, but empirical evidence on the role of financial aid on the academic success of international students is limited, partly related to methodological challenges in estimating the impact of financial aid programmes, as discussed in Box 3.3.
Scholarships are less frequently used as a tool to retain international students, as many include a return condition
The influence of scholarships on post‑study retention depends heavily on programme objectives. Many of the most prominent scholarship schemes include explicit return requirements aimed at supporting development in countries of origin. These include the Chevening and Commonwealth Scholarships in the United Kingdom, the Australia Awards, the Fulbright Programme, New Zealand’s Manaaki scholarship, and several DAAD programmes. Stay‑rate patterns reflect these rules: more than 90% of Chevening and Commonwealth scholars return home after graduation. This is confirmed by more in-depth studies further shows that scholarship recipients in the United Kingdom are significantly more likely to return home than self‑funded students (Vari‐Lavoisier, 2025[15]). Among international students who arrived between 2006 and 2011 and were still tracked in 2021, 94% of scholarship recipients had left the country compared with 85% of self‑funded students. Funded students were also less sensitive to origin‑country conditions, such as democracy levels or economic prospects, likely because return is required under the terms of many awards. Return patterns were broadly similar across student groups, although differences between funded and non‑funded students were largest for students from the least developed countries.
Evidence from countries without return requirements shows that scholarships alone do not necessarily lead to significantly higher retention. A study from Japan found that 55% of MEXT scholarship recipients returned home after graduation, compared with 31% of non‑recipients (Peng and Dai, 2025[20]). The higher return rate among scholarship recipients was particularly pronounced among students from countries with lower income levels than Japan. The authors suggest several explanations, including self‑funded students’ need to work in Japan to recover education costs and the relatively high value of international qualifications in lower‑income countries.
Not all scholarship programmes achieve their intended return outcomes. Novotny et al. (2020[4]) find that only 31% of alumni funded by Czech Development Co‑operation scholarships had returned home almost three years after graduation. Return was strongly influenced by labour market opportunities in both host and origin countries.
Scholarships aim at targeting students who are either exceptionally talented, come from disadvantaged backgrounds, or both. As a result, evaluating the outcomes of scholarship recipients, such as academic success, graduation rates, or career trajectories, presents significant methodological challenges. One core issue is the absence of a natural comparison group. Recipients are typically positively selected from the outset, having outperformed others in competitive application processes. Comparing them directly to non-recipients can therefore overstate the impact of the scholarship itself, as many recipients would likely have succeeded even without financial support. This is especially the case of merit-based programmes, where candidates might have qualified for alternative scholarships.
Moreover, most evaluations are ex-post and rely heavily on self-reported alumni surveys or tracer studies. These are often limited by incomplete data, low response rates, and the inability to track longer-term outcomes or students who remain abroad. Establishing causal links between the scholarship and observed outcomes is particularly difficult without robust counterfactuals. Only a few studies have employed quasi‑experimental methods, such as regression discontinuity designs exploiting scholarship cut-off scores, to more credibly estimate impact, and such data are rarely available at scale (Mawer, 2014[21]; Cosentino et al., 2019[10]). In the absence of experimental or longitudinal designs, attributing development outcomes or behavioural changes (e.g. return migration, public sector employment) to the scholarship itself remains challenging.
3.2.3. ODA‑financed scholarships and imputed student costs for international students
Official Development Assistance (ODA) plays a distinct role in financing the education and training of students from ODA‑eligible countries in donor countries, complementing the broader landscape of government‑sponsored scholarships described earlier in this chapter. In 2024, Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members reported close to USD 4.8 billion in ODA grant disbursements for scholarships and student costs, reflecting a sizeable and highly concentrated component of bilateral ODA flows. While these expenditures represent only a small share of total international student mobility, they constitute one of the most visible channels through which development co‑operation intersects with international higher education.
In DAC statistics, ODA to international students comprises two main components: scholarships and student costs. Scholarships and training in donor countries refer to direct financial support awarded to individual students or trainees who are nationals of ODA‑eligible countries, enabling them to pursue full‑time studies or training programmes in donor‑country institutions. These grants typically cover tuition fees, living expenses and, in some cases, additional allowances related to study or training. By contrast, imputed student costs capture the indirect costs borne by the public sector in donor countries for educating students from ODA‑eligible countries, notably in systems where tuition fees are low or do not fully reflect the cost of provision. These imputed costs correspond to the share of publicly financed education expenditure attributable to students from developing countries, net of any fees paid by the students themselves, and are reportable as ODA when they reflect an explicit development‑co‑operation policy and the involvement of ODA authorities in shaping student intake and training arrangements. Taken together, these two components provide the most comparable cross‑country measure of publicly financed support to international students from developing countries. It should be noted, however, that ODA statistics capture total financial amounts only and do not provide information on the number of scholarships or beneficiaries, which limits the direct comparability of these flows with the programme‑level and recipient‑based figures discussed in previous sections of the chapter.
Figure 3.1 shows the evolution of ODA grant disbursements for scholarships and imputed student costs between 2018 and 2024. Overall, aggregate ODA flows to international students remained broadly stable over the period, with some fluctuations around the COVID‑19 pandemic. Among the largest donors, Germany recorded a steady increase from around USD 1.6 billion in 2018 to nearly USD 2.4 billion in 2024, strengthening its position as the largest provider throughout the period. France maintained comparatively stable levels, fluctuating around USD 1.0‑1.1 billion, while Japan and the United Kingdom showed only limited variation over time. Several smaller donors, including Austria, exhibited a gradual upward trend, particularly in the later years. By contrast, Australia experienced a sharp decline in 2020‑2021, followed by a partial recovery thereafter.
ODA to scholarships and student costs in donor countries, in million USD (constant prices)
Note: The figure displays grant‑gross disbursements, which reflect the actual amounts paid by donor countries for scholarship‑related ODA. Grant‑gross data are used here instead of the newer grant‑equivalent measure, as they allow for longer time‑series analysis and provide a consistent view of historic disbursements.
Source: OECD ODA database, 2025.
Figure 3.2 presents the largest donor countries of ODA for international students, distinguishing between scholarships and training in donor countries and imputed student costs. The distribution is highly concentrated, with the five largest donors accounting for almost 85% of total spending (around USD 4.05 billion out of USD 4.78 billion across all donors). Germany is by far the largest donor, with total disbursements of almost USD 2.4 billion, overwhelmingly driven by imputed student costs (USD 2.38 billion), while expenditures on scholarships and training remain comparatively small. France ranks second, with over USD 1.1 billion in total, combining substantial imputed student costs (USD 895 million) with a relatively large volume of scholarships and training (USD 209 million). Other donors with significant imputed student costs include Austria (USD 241 million) and Poland (USD 150 million), whereas other major donors provide support almost exclusively through scholarships and training programmes, notably Japan (USD 141 million), the United Kingdom (USD 118 million) and Australia (USD 110 million). Among smaller donors, contributions are generally modest and predominantly scholarship‑based, with limited or no imputed student cost reporting.
The composition of donor support also reflects differences in domestic higher‑education financing models, with countries characterised by relatively low or no tuition fees, such as Germany, Austria and Poland, reporting most assistance as imputed student costs, while donors with higher tuition fees, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, channel support predominantly through scholarships and training programmes. France combines both approaches, reflecting a mixed model with relatively low tuition fees alongside sizeable, explicitly funded scholarship schemes.
Expressed as a share of total ODA, scholarships and student costs account for a relatively small proportion of development assistance in most DAC member countries. In several donor countries, including Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland and Japan, these flows represent less than 1% of total ODA, despite in some cases sizeable absolute disbursements. By contrast, a small number of countries devote a much larger share of their aid to scholarships and student costs, notably Hungary (over 60%), Slovenia and Austria (around 30%), and Poland (over 20%). Among larger donors, the relative importance of these flows is more moderate but still notable, accounting for around 8% of total ODA in Germany and close to 10% in France.
Trends in scholarship‑related ODA over the past decade differ considerably across countries. Hungary’s reported disbursements rose sharply, coinciding with the rapid expansion of the Stipendium Hungaricum programme, launched in 2013. Italy also recorded a gradual increase in its scholarship spending following the introduction of its Invest Your Talent in Italy flagship scholarship programme (see Table 3.1). By contrast, Australia’s scholarship disbursements show a declining trajectory from 2014 until the onset of the COVID‑19 pandemic. This pattern partly reflects the effects of its strict “zero‑COVID” policy but is also likely linked to the phase‑out of several major scholarship schemes, including the Endeavour Scholarships and Fellowships and the Destination Australia programme.
ODA grant disbursement for scholarships and student costs, in USD million and as share of total ODA
Source: OECD ODA database, 2025.
Figure 3.3 shows the top ten recipient countries of ODA grant disbursements for scholarships and student costs in 2019 and 2024, expressed in constant 2024 prices. In real terms, disbursements increased for most of the top ten recipient countries over the period, though trends varied significantly across countries. India became the largest recipient in 2024, with disbursements almost doubling from USD 236 million in 2019 to USD 468 million in 2024. By contrast, the People’s Republic of China, which had been the largest recipient in 2019 (USD 466 million), experienced a decline to USD 386 million in 2024, resulting in a reordering at the top of the distribution. Several countries recorded strong real growth, including Ukraine (from USD 173 million to USD 257 million), Türkiye (from USD 122 million to USD 218 million), Iran (from USD 123 million to USD 215 million) and Pakistan (from USD 77 million to USD 127 million). In contrast, changes were more modest for Morocco and Algeria, while disbursements declined slightly for Syria.
Overall, the figure points to both an expansion of scholarship‑related ODA and a redistribution among major recipient countries, with particularly strong growth concentrated among several upper‑middle ranked recipients. Syria is the only low-income country among the top 10 countries receiving ODA related to international students.
ODA grant disbursements for scholarships and student costs in million USD (2024 constant prices)
Source: OECD ODA database.
In addition to these long‑standing ODA‑funded schemes, recent years have seen the emergence of faster and more flexible tools to support students affected by crises. These include dedicated mechanisms such as the Rapid Response Mechanism for Higher Education in Emergencies (RRM+) (see Box 3.4), as well as emergency‑oriented adaptations of existing programmes, such as the use of extraordinary flexibility provisions within Erasmus+ to support students displaced by the war in Ukraine, and rapid, case‑based support mechanisms operated by networks such as Scholars at Risk. Together, these instruments complement traditional funding arrangements by providing more rapid, context‑specific assistance in crisis situations.
The Rapid Response Mechanism for Higher Education in Emergencies (RRM+) is a multi‑stakeholder platform designed to enable rapid and co‑ordinated responses to higher‑education needs arising from crises, conflicts and forced displacement. Implemented by the Global Platform for Higher Education in Emergencies (APGES), RRM+ seeks to ensure that access to higher education is addressed as an integral part of emergency and recovery responses.
RRM+ mobilises a network of higher education institutions, governments, international organisations and philanthropic partners to deliver emergency academic opportunities for displaced and at‑risk students. Central to the mechanism are emergency scholarships, institutional placements and associated academic and non‑academic support aimed at allowing students to resume or continue their studies with minimal disruption.
Since its launch, RRM+ has supported several hundred students affected by crises, including through the award of more than 600 scholarships each year, with beneficiaries enrolling in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programmes across participating institutions.
Source: https://rrm-online.org/.
Government‑backed student loans serve a different policy purpose from scholarship schemes. Whereas scholarships often aim to attract talent or support development objectives, the primary rationale for public loan schemes is to promote equitable access to higher education. These loans typically offer favourable terms, such as low or zero interest rates and income‑contingent repayment, which are designed to support domestic participation. As a result, the extension of such benefits to international students is generally tightly regulated. Most OECD governments balance considerations of public expenditure and the principle of prioritising domestic students when defining loan eligibility, usually through citizenship or residency requirements. Consequently, access to public student loans remains largely restricted to domestic students, with limited opportunities for international students.
3.3.1. Countries offering state‑funded public loans to EU/EEA students
Among OECD countries, it is primarily in Europe that international students can access state‑funded student loans. In most EU‑OECD Members, public student loan schemes are extended to both domestic and EU/EEA students, reflecting the EU principle of equal treatment for EU citizens. Non‑EU students, however, are typically excluded.
Examples of countries offering state‑funded public loans to international students include:
Netherlands: Dutch and EU/EEA students are eligible for the state student finance system, which combines grants and low‑interest loans. Students from outside the EU/EEA are ineligible for public financing.
Finland, Sweden and Denmark: These countries operate some of the most generous public student aid systems, providing grants and income‑contingent loans to domestic and EU/EEA students. Support for non‑EU students is generally limited.
Germany: The main student aid scheme (BAföG) is largely reserved for German and EU students meeting specific residency conditions, though certain groups of third-country nationals are also eligible, for example recognised refugees under the Geneva Refugee Convention in Germany or those with a German permanent residence permit.
In addition, a few OECD countries offer student loans via commercial banks, backed by government guarantees rather than direct public lending. Access for international students is typically restricted to EU nationals. Latvia constitutes a notable exception; government‑guaranteed study loans are available to non‑citizens, making it one of the few countries where non‑EU international students in theory can apply on similar terms to domestic students. In France, state‑guaranteed student loans are available through commercial banks, but eligibility is generally limited to French and EU nationals.
A small number of countries maintain more open provisions for international students. In Italy, international students are not formally excluded by the eligibility criteria for national student loans, although practical access may still be limited. Overall, both within and outside Europe, government-funded or government-guaranteed student loans for international students remain extremely rare.
There is a lack of consolidated and comparative data on the proportion of international students in OECD countries receiving public support. However, the Eurostudent survey provides relevant insights for EU‑OECD countries regarding the share of students receiving public financial support, including both grants and loans.
Figure 3.4 shows the proportion of domestic and international students in EU‑OECD countries receiving public support. In most countries, the share is considerably higher for domestic students than for international students. Notable exceptions include Hungary, Czechia, Poland and Switzerland (and Romania), where international students report relatively high access to public support. Hungary and Czechia, along with Denmark and France, display some of the highest proportions of international students receiving public support, exceeding 50% of surveyed students.
By contrast, countries such as Latvia, Ireland, Germany and Austria report some of the lowest shares of international students accessing public support, at 10% or less, despite, in Latvia’s case, more permissive eligibility rules for public loans.
For domestic students, access to public support is highest in the Nordic countries, all of which maintain long‑standing policies of offering generous universal student aid packages combining grants and government-funded loans to support full‑time study. Access to public support for international students is also relatively high in Sweden and Denmark, although the share of international students receiving public support remains significantly lower than the share of domestic students. In these countries, EU/EEA students may qualify to receive public study support under certain conditions, while third-country students who arrive solely for education purposes are generally excluded.
Share of international and domestic tertiary level students (%) receiving repayable and non-repayable public support
Note: “International students” are defined as those who left the school system for the first time outside of the country of the survey while “domestic students” hold a higher education entry qualification from the country of survey or have left the school system for the first time there. International students includes both EU and non-EU students.
Source: Eurostudent (2025[22]).
Most EU‑OECD countries extend publicly funded student loan and grant schemes to both domestic and EU/EEA students, at least in theory, while typically excluding students from outside the EU. The sharp decline in new EU enrolments in the United Kingdom after Brexit likely reflects not only the introduction of higher international tuition fees but also the loss of access to UK Government student loans for EU students, which may have amplified the drop in inflows of international students from EU-countries in relation to Brexit discussed in Chapter 2. Although this exceptional case suggests that loan availability can influence international student demand, in most systems such schemes remain highly restrictive and therefore play only a limited role in attracting international students.
Recent housing shortages in some OECD destination countries have drawn growing attention to the role of international students in local rental markets. While housing pressures are not universal across OECD countries and are often concentrated in particular cities and regions, rapid growth in international student enrolments has increased demand in some local housing markets where the supply of affordable housing is already constrained. In these contexts, international students have become a visible part of broader debates about housing affordability, availability and urban infrastructure. Although international students are only one factor shaping housing outcomes, alongside population growth, changing household structures and limited new construction, their accommodation needs have come under increasing policy scrutiny in several major destination countries. These housing pressures may also affect the attractiveness of study destinations, as concerns about the availability and affordability of accommodation can influence students’ destination choices.
Where housing costs are high or accommodation is difficult to secure, housing becomes an important factor shaping both international students’ destination choices and the feasibility of enrolment. Student surveys and empirical research show that cost‑of‑living pressures remain a leading deterrent to studying abroad (QS, 2023[23]; IDP Connect, 2023[24]; Beine, Noël and Ragot, 2014[13]), with prospective students reporting that they reconsider destinations or defer study when expected living costs rise, with rent being the largest single component of those costs (IDP Connect, 2023[24]). As highlighted in Box 2.3 in Chapter 2, a substantial share of students faces housing cost overburden, with international students generally more exposed. National student surveys from major student destination countries similarly indicate that securing appropriate accommodation is one of the most significant challenges for international students upon arrival in Canada, Germany, Australia and the Netherlands (CBIE, 2024[25]; DAAD, 2025[3]; QILT, 2025[26]; Nuffic, 2023[27]).
Housing affordability and security can also influence the time students can devote to their studies. Evidence from Germany shows that publicly subsidised halls of residence operated by local student councils offer significantly lower rents, thereby reducing the need for part‑time work and long commutes. These factors can, in turn, support stronger academic engagement and higher persistence rates (Deutsches Studierendenwerk).
Housing conditions can further also be linked to well-being and mental health. Exposure to sudden rent increases, insecure leases or exploitative landlord practices can heighten stress, particularly for international students who often navigate unfamiliar rental markets with limited social support. A study from Australia find that difficulties accessing safe and affordable accommodation among international students are associated with higher levels of anxiety and social isolation. While similar links between housing insecurity and well-being are observed in the broader population, the effects may be more pronounced for international students (Corney et al., 2024[28]).
International students, and especially those from low‑ and lower‑middle‑income countries, are over‑represented in precarious housing situations. Evidence from Australia shows that subsidised or regulated student housing reduces exposure to harassment, sudden eviction and rental scams, by providing vetted, price‑controlled accommodation options (Berg and Farbenblum, 2019[29]).
Beyond affordability, housing conditions influence international students’ academic performance, well-being and social integration. Residential environments shape students’ ability to build social networks, engage with campus life and feel connected to their host community. These factors are also associated with post‑graduation retention, as students with strong social ties and positive living experiences are more likely to stay in the host country after completing their studies (Istad et al., 2021[30]).
3.5.1. Provision of student housing in the OECD
Student housing provision across the OECD can be broadly grouped into three, often overlapping, models: publicly subsidised student housing, institution‑managed housing (typically on campus), and private purpose‑built student accommodation located off campus.
Publicly subsidised student housing remains a defining feature of student welfare systems in many European and some Asian OECD countries. In Germany, France, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, several Central and Eastern European countries, Japan and Korea, dedicated student residences are provided or supported by public or non‑profit entities, typically at rents below market levels. These systems generally apply similar conditions to domestic and international students, although demand frequently exceeds supply.
In Germany, for example, regional Studierendenwerke provide the majority of publicly subsidised housing, hosting around 10% of all students, while approximately 18% of students live in some form of student residence overall. In France, the CROUS network accommodates about 7% of all students, with an additional 4% living in other university-operated residences (Kroher et al., 2023[31]; Feres et al., 2023[32]). In the Netherlands, student housing is largely supplied by non‑profit social housing organisations operating in close partnership with universities, rather than by the universities themselves.
In East Asia, Japan and Korea also offer subsidised or institutionally supported student housing, although the organisation differs. In Japan, provision combines university dormitories, municipal initiatives and facilities affiliated with the Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO). In Korea, most housing takes the form of university dormitories with some public or municipal involvement, but overall capacity remains limited as university‑managed dormitories in Korea can accommodate around 22.6% of enrolled students nationwide.
In contrast, English‑speaking OECD countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, generally lack national systems of subsidised student housing. While on‑campus accommodation is available and typically accessible to international students, rents are often set at or near market levels, and such housing does not benefit from sustained public subsidies. In these contexts, student housing is usually considered an institutional responsibility or a private market activity rather than a component of social or housing policy. University‑operated residences may also serve as a source of revenue. Private purpose‑built student accommodation plays an especially important role in the United Kingdom, Australia and, increasingly, Canada, complementing institutional housing but remaining largely unsubsidised.
Some European countries complement subsidised student housing with housing allowances or rent subsidies. In Portugal, for instance, EU students and certain non‑EU students from Lusophone countries may access housing grants through reciprocal agreements. In France, all international students are currently eligible to apply for housing benefits, although this policy is currently under review.
3.5.2. Student residence use across OECD countries
Figure 3.5 illustrates the share of international and domestic students living in dedicated student accommodation across OECD countries. The data show substantial cross‑country variation, reflecting differences in policy frameworks and provision models. Across most countries, international students remain more likely than domestic students to reside in dedicated student accommodation. This reflects both policy design, where subsidised or regulated housing often prioritises mobile or first‑year students, and practical considerations. For newly arrived international students, purpose‑built student residences offer ready‑to‑occupy accommodation, reduce search costs and provide a degree of housing security. For many, especially during their first year, student housing also facilitates social integration and eases the transition into the host country.
International students are considerably more likely than domestic students to live in dedicated accommodation in Finland, the Slovak Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Czechia, Latvia and Germany, where between 38% and 48% of international students reside in student accommodation, compared with often less than 20% of domestic students. These differences partly reflect targeted support for internationally mobile students and the fact that domestic students may have access to parental housing or informal networks. In the Netherlands and Sweden, the gap in student accommodation use between international and domestic students is narrower, even if international students are still more likely to live in dedicated student accommodation.
In the United Kingdom, administrative data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency indicate that around 28‑30% of students live in student accommodation (university or private halls), with international students substantially more likely to use such housing (around 30%) than domestic students (around 19%), reflecting the large and diversified student housing sector, including a significant presence of private purpose‑built student accommodation (PBSA). In contrast, Australia has a much smaller PBSA sector, with provision covering only around 6‑7% of students overall (CBRE, 2024[33]). Survey-based evidence from the Australian Government’s Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) Student Experience Survey, which reports that 17% of international undergraduate students and 13% of international postgraduate coursework students live in purpose‑built student accommodation, indicating that international students are slightly overrepresented in PBSA. In Canada, student residence capacity is similarly constrained, covering around 10% of students overall. While nationally disaggregated data by domicile are not available, evidence from Statistics Canada shows that international students are primarily active in the private rental market, pay higher rents and are less likely to live in subsidised housing than the native‑born population (Statistics Canada, 2024[34]). Japan presents a comparable pattern, with data from the Japan Student Services Organization indicating that around 23% of international students live in university dormitories, while the vast majority of both international and domestic students rely on private rental housing or live at home (Figure 3.5).
Share of international and domestic tertiary level students (%) living in dedicated student housing
Note: Student housing comprises both publicly subsidised and private purpose-built accommodation. Reported shares generally refer to students living away from home, except for Australia, Canada and Japan, where the available data do not distinguish students by living arrangement. In the Eurostudent data, “International students” are defined as those who left the school system for the first time outside of the country of the survey while “domestic students” hold a higher education entry qualification from the country of survey or have left the school system for the first time there. Data for the United Kingdom refers to undergraduate students. Eurostudent data were collected in 2022, Canadian data were collected in 2023, data for Australia and Japan are from 2024.
Source: EU countries: Eurostudent (2025[22]), Canada: CBIE (2024[25]); Japan: JASSO (2025[2]); Australia: QILT (2025[26]).
References
[13] Beine, M., R. Noël and L. Ragot (2014), “Determinants of the international mobility of students”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 41, pp. 40-54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.003.
[29] Berg, L. and B. Farbenblum (2019), “Living Precariously: Understanding International Students’ Housing Experiences in Australia”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550890.
[17] Berlanga, V. and F. Corti (2025), “Impact of scholarships on university academic performance: a comparative analysis of students with and without scholarships”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1554073.
[5] Bhagwati, J. and K. Hamada (1974), “The brain drain, international integration of markets for professionals and unemployment”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 1/1, pp. 19-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(74)90020-0.
[25] CBIE (2024), The Student Voice - National Results of the 2023 CBIE International Student Survey, Canadian Bureau for International Education, https://cbie.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2023-ISS-the-student-voice.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2025).
[33] CBRE (2024), Australian student accommodation 2024 edition, CBRE Research, https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/14134357310.
[28] Corney, T. et al. (2024), “‘If you are feeling alone and you are not feeling safe, it impacts everything’: a mixed-methods exploration of international students’ accommodation, subjective wellbeing and mental health help-seeking”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 24/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18691-8.
[10] Cosentino, C. et al. (2019), “Can scholarships provide equitable access to high-quality university education? Evidence from the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 71, p. 102089, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102089.
[3] DAAD (2025), Internationale Studierendenmobilität in Deutschland: Ergebnisbericht zum zweiten Benchmark internationale Hochschule (BintHo) im Wintersemester 2023/24, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, Bonn, https://doi.org/10.46685/DAADStudien.2025.09.
[19] Dynarski, S. and J. Scott-Clayton (2013), “Financial Aid Policy: Lessons from Research”, The Future of Children, Vol. 23/1, pp. 67-91, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0002.
[22] Eurostudent (2025), Eurostudent VIII: Database, German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), https://database.eurostudent.eu/drm/ (accessed on 22 October 2025).
[32] Feres, B. et al. (2023), Repères Conditions de vie – 2023, Observatoire national de la vie étudiante, Paris, https://www.ove-national.education.fr/publication/reperes-conditions-de-vie-2023/ (accessed on 4 November 2025).
[6] Glaser, W. and G. Habers (1978), The Brain drain: emigration and return, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
[11] IDP (2024), Emerging Futures 6: Voices of International Students, https://resources.idp-connect.com/hubfs/USA%20-%20Emerging%20Futures%206%20Infographic%20Report.pdf (accessed on December 2025).
[24] IDP Connect (2023), Emerging Futures survey, IDP Education.
[16] Institute of International Education (2025), International students by primary source of funding, 1999/00-2024/25, https://opendoorsdata.org/data/international-students/international-students-primary-source-of-funding/ (accessed on December 2025).
[12] INTO (2024), Student Arrival Survey 2024, https://media.intostudy.com/image/upload/v1758795958/2024-arrival-survey-global-report-final.pdf.
[30] Istad, F. et al. (2021), “Global Korea Scholarship students: Intention to stay in the host country to work or study after graduation”, Politics & Policy, Vol. 49/6, pp. 1323-1342, https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12436.
[2] JASSO (2025), Result of International Student Survey in Japan, 2024, https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/en/_mt/2025/04/data2024z_e.pdf.
[31] Kroher, M. et al. (2023), Die Studierendenbefragung in Deutschland: 22. Sozialerhebung - Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in Deutschland 2021, Bundesministerin für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin, https://www.bmftr.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/4/31790_22_Sozialerhebung_2021.html (accessed on 6 November 2025).
[7] Lowell, L. (2002), Some development effects of the migration of highly skilled persons, International Labour Office, Geneva, https://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/102225.
[21] Mawer, M. (2014), A study of research methodology used in evaluations of international scholarship schemes for higher education.
[18] Nguyen, T., J. Kramer and B. Evans (2019), “The Effects of Grant Aid on Student Persistence and Degree Attainment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 89/6, pp. 831-874, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877156.
[4] Novotný, J., M. Feřtrová and L. Jungwiertová (2020), “Postgraduate migration behaviour of international university students supported from the Czech Development Cooperation scholarships”, Population, Space and Place, Vol. 26/7, https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2361.
[27] Nuffic (2023), Staying after graduation, Nuffic, The Hague, https://www.nuffic.nl/en/onderzoek-en-cijfers/onderzoeken/staying-after-graduation-0 (accessed on 31 October 2025).
[1] OECD (2022), International Migration Outlook 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/30fe16d2-en.
[20] Peng, X. and E. Dai (2025), “The impact of a scholarship with no compulsory service requirements on international students’ migration decisions upon graduation”, Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 86, pp. 779-793, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2025.04.003.
[14] Perkins, R. and E. Neumayer (2014), “Geographies of Educational Mobilities: Exploring Unevenness, Difference and Changes in International Student Flows”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1857523.
[26] QILT (2025), 2024 Student Experience Survey: International Report, Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) survey program - Social Research Centre, https://www.qilt.edu.au/resources?survey=SES (accessed on 24 November 2025).
[23] QS (2023), QS International Student Survey 2023, https://magazine.qs.com/qs-insights-magazine-11/intl-student-survey.
[9] Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (2012), Mobile Talente? Ein Vergleich der Bleibeabsichten internationaler Studierender in fünf Staaten der Europäischen Union, https://www.svr-migration.de/publikation/mobile-talente-ein-vergleich-der-bleibeabsichten-internationaler-studierender-in-fuenf-staaten-der-europaeischen-union/.
[8] Saxenian, A. (2005), “From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China”, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 40/2, pp. 35-61, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02686293.
[34] Statistics Canada (2024), Do international students and temporary foreign workers pay more than Canadian‑born individuals in the rental market?, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2024010/article/00004-eng.htm.
[15] Vari‐Lavoisier, I. (2025), “Financing the Future: The Contribution of Scholarship and Self‐Funded International Students to Short‐ and Long‐Term Migration to the UK”, International Migration, Vol. 63/5, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.70089.