This chapter sets the context for the report by reviewing recent developments in international student mobility across OECD countries and the policy shifts accompanying these trends. It first outlines changes in international student numbers, including patterns of growth, diversification of destinations and emerging signs of stabilisation in major host countries. It then examines how national policy strategies have evolved, distinguishing between countries pursuing expansion and those prioritising sustainability and greater selectivity. The chapter also briefly introduces the main approaches of higher education funding and student financial support that shape tuition settings and support structures for international students.
International Student Mobility
Factors for Attraction and Retention
Abstract
International student mobility has become an increasingly prominent feature of higher education, migration and labour market strategies across OECD countries. In recent years, many governments have sought to expand their international student populations to strengthen research capacity, meet future skills needs and in more rare cases address demographic pressures due to declining youth cohorts. Several OECD countries have recorded sustained increases in international student inflows, often outpacing growth in domestic enrolments. These trends reflect both rising global demand for high-quality education and active policies to attract and retain international students, mostly in tertiary education. At the same time, competition for international talent has intensified, with destination countries adjusting tuition fees, post‑study work opportunities and immigration pathways to remain attractive or minimise the risk of abuse.
Although the increase in international student numbers brings significant benefits, it has also generated challenges in major destination countries. Rapid growth has contributed to pressures on local housing markets, social services and institutional capacity. Ensuring that international students have access to adequate accommodation, high-quality education and appropriate support services has therefore become a central policy concern. These growing inflows have coincided with important structural developments in higher education funding. In several OECD countries, universities have become increasingly reliant on tuition revenues from international students to supplement public funding, particularly in systems where domestic fees are capped or public budgets have tightened, creating financial vulnerabilities when international student demand or mobility patterns change. The COVID‑19 pandemic highlighted these risks in several higher education systems (OECD, 2025[1]). Governments are increasingly seeking to balance continued expansion with social sustainability and institutional capacity. Some countries have also sought to strengthen the integrity of international student recruitment and migration pathways while maintaining attractiveness.
In response to these developments, many OECD countries have reviewed migration policies that affect international students. Some of the major destination countries have recently tightened or adjusted entry, work and residence rules in response to labour market conditions, pressures on public services or wider migration debates (OECD, 2024[2]; OECD, 2026[3]). Others have expanded post‑study work rights or streamlined pathways to permanent residence to strengthen talent attraction.
These developments highlight the need for clearer evidence on the financial, institutional and policy factors shaping international student mobility across OECD countries. This report responds to this need by analysing the costs international students face, the financial support available to them, and the migration frameworks through which they access study, work and post-study opportunities. Taken together, the three chapters provide an integrated view of how these financial and regulatory conditions influence both the attractiveness of OECD countries as study destinations and their capacity to retain international students after graduation.
Throughout the report, the term international student refers to students who moved to another country for the purpose of pursuing tertiary education and is the preferred measure of student mobility. In some countries, comparable data on international students are not available and statistics refer instead to foreign students, defined based on citizenship. Foreign-student data may include long-term residents who did not move internationally for study and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Unless otherwise specified, the report focuses on degree‑seeking students pursuing a full tertiary qualification rather than students participating in short-term credit mobility programmes. Although this report focuses primarily on financial, educational and migration-policy factors, broader aspects of the student experience, including social integration and a sense of belonging, may also influence international students’ study outcomes and longer-term retention.
International students now account for a significant share of new entrants at the tertiary level in OECD countries, particularly in master’s and doctoral programmes. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of international students in the OECD grew by 70% (OECD, 2022[4]). In 2023, over 2.1 million permits were issued in OECD countries, representing a 33% increase with respect to pre‑pandemic levels in 2019, and a 60% increase compared to 2013 (OECD, 2024[2]). However, this upward trend recently moderated, with international student inflows to OECD countries declining in 2024, driven largely by decreases in several major destination countries. There is also a growing trend towards increased stay rates of international students, with higher retention rates for more recent cohorts in OECD destination countries (OECD, 2022[4]).
1.2.1. International student inflows to OECD countries slow after sustained growth, driven by declines in major destinations
Over the past decade, OECD countries have experienced a significant increase in the number of international students enrolled in tertiary education, as well as an increased diversification in terms of both origin and destination countries. After a temporary decline in 2020, the flow of international students to OECD countries saw a quick recovery with accelerating growth in new permits issued to international students after the COVID‑19 pandemic. However, in 2024, flows of tertiary-educated international students to OECD countries decreased for the first time since the COVID‑19 pandemic. The overall decrease was 13%, largely driven by a decrease in inflows in the major student destination countries: Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom (Figure 1.1). Canada and Australia experienced the steepest decreases, with declines of 39% and 22%, respectively, as a result of policy shifts to limited international student numbers as discussed below. This contrasts inflows to other OECD destination countries, which grew by 5% compared to 2023. Countries that saw sharp increases in the inflow of international students between 2023 and 2024 include Japan (20%), Denmark, Korea and New Zealand (OECD, 2025[5]).
Number of first residence student permits issued in thousands, excluding intra-EU/EFTA students
Note: Data refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses but excludes intra-EU/EFTA international students. The data do not include professional training courses. Estimates for BEL, CAN, CZE, ESP, GRC, HUN, ISL, ITA, KOR, LVA, PRT, SVN.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), International Migration Outlook 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae26c893-en.
If compared to pre‑pandemic inflows, smaller European destination countries (notably Lithuania, Poland, Finland, and Hungary) together with Korea and Japan have seen the largest growth in international student flows (Figure 1.2).
Percentage change in number of first residence student permits issued, excluding intra-EU/EFTA students
Note: Data refer to international tertiary-level students, including students enrolled in language courses but excludes intra-EU/EFTA international students. The data do not include professional training courses. Estimates for BEL, CAN, CZE, ESP, GRC, HUN, ISL, ITA, KOR, LVA, PRT, SVN.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), OECD International Migration Database.
When looking at the total number of international students enrolled in OECD countries, the main English-speaking student destination countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada) together hosted almost half (49%) of international students enrolled in the OECD in 2023. Outside the major English-speaking destination countries, Germany, France and the Netherlands are the leading student destinations in Europe, while Korea and Japan host increasing numbers of international students (Figure 1.3). The distribution of international students across OECD countries has also been diversifying over the past decade. Emerging destination countries include Türkiye, which has become a leading destination for students from the MENA and Central Asia regions, and, as also seen in the new enrolment figures above, a number of smaller EU countries increasingly attracting international students by, among other things, expanding their English-taught programme offer (OECD, 2025[6]).
In terms of international students as share of the student population in tertiary education, both Australia and the United Kingdom are in the top 3, with 23% and 22% of international students respectively, while in the United States international students account for only 5% of all tertiary-level students. The top OECD destination countries in Europe are Germany (12%) followed by France (9%). Germany is also among the countries recording the largest absolute increase in international students enrolled in tertiary education since 2010.
International students account for half of the tertiary student population in Luxembourg, and close to one in four students in Australia (23%) and the United Kingdom (22%). Austria and Switzerland also have high shares of international students in the student population (Figure 1.3).
Stock of international students (in thousands) and international students as share of all tertiary education students
Note: Data for Canada, Colombia, Hungary, Korea, the Slovak Republic, Türkiye and the United States refer to foreign students instead of international students.
Source: OECD (2025[5]), OECD Education at a Glance database, https://doi.org/10.1787/edu-data-en.
The share of international students rises noticeably with the level of study. On average across the OECD, international students represented about 5% of bachelor’s, 19% of master’s and 27% of doctoral enrolments in 2024 (OECD, 2025[5]), reflecting both programme selectivity and the global nature of advanced research training. International students are also disproportionately enrolled in STEM fields relative to domestic student, with about 30% of international students found in STEM programmes compared to 19% among domestic students (OECD, 2025[6]). This trend is particularly evident in countries like Denmark, Sweden and Türkiye, where over 40% of international students pursue studies in these disciplines.
The composition in terms of students’ countries of origin has remained relatively stable since 2010. Students from Asia account for the majority of international students enrolled in OECD countries, accounting for 58% of international students across the OECD in 2023 (OECD, 2025[7]), with Chinese and Indian students alone making up about a third of all mobile students (OECD, 2025[5]). Europe is the next largest region of origin, making up 19% of international students enrolled in OECD countries.
1.2.2. Many OECD countries are focused on attracting international students, while major destination countries are moving toward stabilisation
In terms of policy, many OECD countries have increasingly focused on attracting international talent to meet labour and skills shortages which also has implications for international student policy. Over the past decade, most OECD countries have introduced policies to attract and retain international students after graduation (OECD, 2022[4]). However, policy approaches to international student mobility across OECD countries have also increasingly diverged, revealing a divide between countries pursuing expansion through explicit growth targets and leading destination countries seeking to stabilise or even reduce inflows. A common trend across both groups has been a move toward greater selectivity to safeguard quality, capacity and system integrity.
On one side of this divide, a number of OECD countries have adopted explicit numerical targets to increase international student enrolments, using higher education mobility as a lever to address demographic decline, strengthen global competitiveness and support long-term skills supply. Examples include France’s Bienvenue en France strategy, that established a target of 500 000 international students by 2027, South Korea’s Study Korea 300K initiative with an explicit goal of hosting 300 000 foreign students within a similar timeframe, Japan’s goal of hosting 400 000 international students by 2033, and Türkiye’s stated objective of hosting 500 000 international students. In these cases, governments have framed international students as a strategic asset and have articulated future enrolment goals as part of broader economic, diplomatic and labour-market strategies. Quantitative targets can serve both as political signals and as co‑ordination devices, aligning visa policy, institutional funding incentives and international marketing efforts around a shared growth trajectory.
In contrast, a number of established destination countries with large and mature international student systems have shifted away from growth objectives and toward stabilisation or managed reduction (OECD, 2026[3]). Canada and Australia have both introduced national caps on international student numbers. Canada capped study permits, at 360 000 for 2025 and adjusted thereafter, and Australia capped new commencements at 270 000 in 2025, rising to 295 000 in 2026. In the Netherlands, concerns about housing capacity, pressure on public services, the position of Dutch as a language of instruction, and the broader sustainability of internationalisation have led to a policy agenda centred on achieving “internationalisation in balance”. This has combined proposed legislative reforms with university-led self-regulation measures, including limits on enrolment in selected English-taught programmes and an expansion of Dutch-language provision, rather than explicit national targets for reducing international student numbers. The United Kingdom has taken a related direction through its 2026 International Education Strategy, which emphasises sustainable recruitment of high‑quality international students without specifying numeric targets (UK Government, 2026[8]). This marks a shift away from earlier growth ambitions of 600 000 international students in higher education by 2030, achieved far earlier than planned. These main destination countries are thus not retreating from internationalisation but are instead redefining success in terms of sustainability and controlling pace and composition rather than continuous volume growth.
In the United States, recent policy developments have also contributed to a more restrictive and uncertain environment for international students. In 2025, the administration proposed reinstating a fixed four‑year maximum stay for F‑ and J‑visa holders, replacing the long‑standing “duration of status” framework and requiring students in longer programmes, particularly PhD candidates, to seek extensions and undergo renewed vetting by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In parallel authorities have expanded enforcement powers, including broader grounds for visa revocation and intensified security screening, generating heightened uncertainty for current and prospective students. These changes have coincided with ongoing debates about the future of Optional Practical Training (OPT), with signals of potential future restrictions or elimination of the STEM extension creating additional concern among students who rely on OPT as a pathway to post‑study employment. Together, these measures indicate a shift toward a de facto stabilisation policy, even in the absence of explicit numerical limits.
Despite contrasting objectives on overall numbers, a shared trend toward increased selectivity is evident across both expansion-oriented and stabilisation-oriented countries. Governments seeking to grow international enrolments are increasingly doing so through more differentiated pathways, often favouring students in higher-level programmes, priority fields or institutions deemed to meet some quality criteria. At the same time, countries aiming to stabilise or reduce numbers are tightening admission conditions, raising financial thresholds, or strengthening compliance and integrity requirements. In both contexts, policy instruments are being recalibrated to ensure that international student mobility delivers intended public benefits while limiting low-quality provision and strengthening the integrity of student recruitment and migration pathways.
OECD countries take diverse approaches to financing tertiary education and supporting students (OECD, 2025[7]). Although these funding models are primarily designed for domestic students, they play a central role in shaping how countries set tuition levels and financial support for international students. The overall financing structure of a higher‑education system, whether it relies predominantly on public funding, student fees, or a combination of both, influences institutional incentives and policy space that governments have to design scholarships, fee regimes and financial support. Understanding underlying funding models is therefore important when interpreting cross‑country variations in international tuition and support policies. Four broad funding models can be identified across OECD countries (Figure 1.4):
Low or no tuition fees combined with high levels of financial support: Public institutions charge minimal or no tuition fees, and a substantial number of students receive public support through grants or loans. These systems reduce upfront costs and promote access but often relies on taxing graduates a higher level later in life. Countries emblematic of this approach are Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden.
High tuition fees combined with strong financial aid systems: In these countries, tuition fees in public fees are high, but a substantial number of students receive financial aid, mostly in the form of student loans or need-based grants. In most countries with this type of system, loans are income contingent, meaning graduates only have to start repaying if they reach a certain income threshold (Australia, England, New Zealand, and the United States), but others have fixed-term repayments (Latvia and Lithuania). In many of these countries, this system has resulted in high levels of student debt.
Moderate or no tuition fees combined with targeted support: In this model, tuition fees for university programmes in public institutions are very low and largely state financed. However, financial aid is generally means tested and directed only toward the most disadvantaged students based on family income or other criteria, rather than universal. As a result, only relatively few of the students in these countries receive public financial support. Typical examples are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland.
Relatively high tuition fees with limited financial support: In these systems, relatively few students receive public grants or scholarships, while tuition fees are comparatively high for public institutions. As a result, students and their families bear a significant share of the cost, which can create barriers to access to higher education for lower income groups, unless mitigated by support mechanisms. This is a combination observed in countries like Canada and Poland.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on OECD (2025[7]), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
Funding models do not necessarily apply in the same way to international students as they do to domestic students. In many countries, a clear distinction is made between domestic and international student groups when it comes to costs and financial service provision. Within the European Union, equal treatment of EU/EEA students with respect to tuition fees and access to study is largely a consequence of EU law, while countries may differentiate between EU/EEA students and students from outside the EU/EEA. In addition, some countries differentiate tuition fees based on the language of instruction rather than students’ nationality or residency status. Over the past decade, an increasing number of European countries with no or low tuition fees for domestic students have introduced differentiated tuition fees for international students from third countries (see Chapter 2). In a few non‑English‑speaking countries, including Estonia, Czechia, the Slovak Republic and Finland, international students who enrol in programmes taught in the national language are exempted from international‑level tuition fees and instead pay domestic‑level fees.
Against the backdrop of diverging national objectives for international student mobility, the policy tools used to attract, support and retain international students have gained increasing strategic importance. As countries pursue either expansion or stabilisation of international enrolments, financial conditions, student support systems and migration frameworks have become central in shaping not only the volume of inflows but also their composition. Financial parameters, including tuition fees, minimum financial requirements and scholarships, play a critical role in shaping study decisions. Migration‑related policies interact closely with these financial considerations. Rights to work during and after studies, opportunities for family reunification and expanded post-study work rights have become defining elements of the international student offer in many OECD countries.
This report provides a comparative overview of these policy settings across OECD countries. It examines the costs faced by international students, the financial supports and services available to them, and the migration frameworks within which international student mobility operates. By analysing tuition and visa fees, minimum financial requirements, living costs, scholarships, income supports, accommodation measures and migration‑related student rights, the report highlights how the interplay of financial and regulatory instruments shapes international student decisions and outcomes.
The analysis draws on data collected through a 2025 OECD policy questionnaire completed by 31 OECD Member and accession countries,1 complemented by OECD education and migration datasets and national statistical sources. It builds on previous OECD work on international student mobility and provides an updated, integrated assessment of current policy approaches.
The remainder of the report is organised into three chapters:
Chapter 2 assesses the costs faced by international students, including tuition fees, living expenses and the financial requirements associated with visas and residence permits.
Chapter 3 maps the financial supports and services available to international students, such as scholarships, income supports and housing assistance, highlighting cross‑country variation in provision and generosity.
Chapter 4 reviews current migration policy approaches to attracting, admitting and retaining international students, comparing recent reforms in migration pathways, labour‑market access and post‑study opportunities across OECD countries.
Taken together, these chapters provide an integrated overview of the financial, institutional and policy environments shaping international student mobility. The report aims to provide comparative evidence to inform coherent, sustainable and forward‑looking approaches to international student mobility.
References
[3] OECD (2026), International Students in Higher Education: A comparative analysis of trends, challenges and policy responses in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/005ff28d-en.
[7] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[5] OECD (2025), International Migration Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae26c893-en.
[1] OECD (2025), The Financial Sustainability of Higher Education: Insights from Policy in OECD Countries, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f544ccfe-en.
[6] OECD (2025), What are the key trends in international student mobility?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a423a76-en.
[2] OECD (2024), International Migration Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50b0353e-en.
[4] OECD (2022), International Migration Outlook 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/30fe16d2-en.
[8] UK Government (2026), The UK’s International Education Strategy, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696a6164448fedc1eb4248ef/international-education-strategy-2026.pdf.
← 1. Countries responding to the OECD policy questionnaire: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, as well as Romania. In some cases, particularly in Chapter 4, information from the policy questionnaire has been complemented with data from a limited number of major destination countries that did not respond to the survey (notably the United States), drawing on information provided in previous questionnaire rounds and on publicly available information from the relevant authorities' official websites.