This chapter examines the policy conditions that shape how OECD countries attract and retain international students, focusing on four interconnected areas: the expansion of English‑taught degree programmes (ETPs), access to work during studies, post‑study work opportunities, and family admission policies. Drawing on recent reforms, the chapter shows how changes to these policy settings influence the study environment and the longer‑term opportunities available to international students, thereby shaping countries’ capacity to attract and retain global talent.
International Student Mobility
Factors for Attraction and Retention
Abstract
The expansion of English‑taught degree programmes has been substantial across non‑English‑speaking OECD countries, with many systems more than doubling their offer in recent years. This rapid growth has significantly broadened accessibility for international students by reducing language barriers and enabling a wider range of institutions and fields of study to participate in internationalisation efforts.
The rapid growth of ETPs has also triggered policy debates on system capacity, quality, and the role of national languages, leading some countries to adopt measures to regulate or rebalance English‑medium provision in response to domestic concerns.
Rules governing work during studies form an important part of the study environment, and OECD countries usually allow some form of in‑study employment. Rules governing work during studies have generally become more flexible in many OECD countries, with several countries raising weekly hour limits, expanding eligibility, or simplifying procedures in recent years to respond to rising living costs, labour shortages and broader efforts to strengthen the study environment for international students.
Post‑study work frameworks play a significant role in shaping international students’ prospects after graduation, with countries varying widely in the duration, eligibility conditions, and employment restrictions of these policies. Recent reforms illustrate both expansions and tightening of the rules across OECD countries. Evidence from recent reforms shows that adjustments to these policy settings can affect student inflows, with more favourable post‑study work conditions generally associated with increased enrolments, while restrictive changes tend to coincide with declines or slower growth.
Family accompaniment policies vary widely across OECD countries and have overall become more selective in recent years. While most countries allow international students to be joined by dependants, eligibility and partners’ work rights differ substantially by country and study level, with several major destination countries tightening access since 2020, and only a few countries maintaining or modestly expanding rights to support talent retention.
An increasing number of OECD countries are developing comprehensive strategies to attract and retain international students, recognising their potential contribution to skills supply, innovation and economic growth. These strategies go beyond financial considerations such as tuition fees and funding availability discussed in the preceding chapters and increasingly focus on the broader policy environment that shapes international students’ opportunities during and after their studies. There is also a growing interest in retention as a policy priority. International students represent a pool of highly skilled individuals who have already invested in the host country, acquired local language skills, and gained familiarity with its culture and, in many cases, its labour market. Facilitating their transition from study to work can help address skills shortages and strengthen the return on investment in international education.
This chapter builds on the preceding analysis of affordability and enabling environments for study and focuses on policy conditions that shape the environment in which international students live, study and make choices. At the same time, these conditions act as important drivers of student decision‑making, influencing the attractiveness of destinations and affecting both the scale and composition of international student inflows. It specifically examines four interlinked areas:
Expansion of English-taught degree programmes in non-English-speaking OECD countries
The growth of English‑taught degree programmes (ETPs) has been a major driver of international student mobility. For countries whose national languages are less widely spoken globally, offering programmes in English can significantly enhance competitiveness and broaden access to international talent.
Labour market access during studies
Allowing international students to work while studying can improve affordability, support integration, and provide valuable work experience. Policies vary across OECD countries in terms of permitted hours and conditions, with implications for both attraction and progression to post‑study employment.
Post-study work opportunities
Measures enabling graduates to remain and work after completing their studies are central to retention strategies. These policies not only increase the attractiveness of studying in the host country but can also help countries address national skills gaps and labour shortages, strengthen the domestic talent pipeline while providing a transparent pathway from study to skilled employment.
Family reunification and labour market access for spouses
International students are disproportionately enrolled in advanced degree programmes and are often immigrating with dependants. Policies that facilitate family reunification and enable spouses to access the labour market can influence study destination choices and improve student well-being and retention outcomes, making them an important element of a competitive international education offer.
Together, these policy domains shape the overall proposition that OECD countries present to prospective students and their families. The chapter documents cross‑country approaches, highlights recent policy adjustments, and discusses implications for talent attraction and retention.
An important component of many non‑English‑speaking OECD countries’ internationalisation strategies is the expansion of English‑taught degree programmes (ETPs) to attract more international students. One of the most significant trends in tertiary education over the past decade has been the rapid growth of ETPs across these countries.
According to data compiled by Studyportals, a web portal mapping advertised English-taught full degree Bachelor and Master level programmes worldwide, the number of ETPs in higher education continues to expand worldwide. The “Big Four” study destinations (Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States) continue to dominate, supplying 78% of ETPs in 2024 (Studyportals and British Council, 2024[1]). However, ETPs outside of these countries grew by 48% between 2019 and 2024, positioning these countries more competitively vis‑à‑vis traditional anglophone destinations.
Figure 4.1 shows the number of ETPs in OECD countries beyond the four large anglophone destination countries. Among the non-English speaking countries, Germany and the Netherlands lead with more than 2 000 programmes each, followed by Türkiye, Italy, Spain and Sweden with over 1 000 programmes. Most countries have increased their offerings of ETPs since 2019. Countries with the most notable growth in ETPs include Türkiye, France and Italy. Spain, Norway and Denmark stand out for having seen a notable decrease in ETPs between 2019 and 2024.
The proliferation of English‑medium master’s programmes, and increasingly also bachelor’s programmes, has been central to Germany’s rise as a leading destination for international students. France has also expanded its English‑language offer, despite attracting many students from Francophone countries. Nordic countries have long offered English‑taught postgraduate degrees, with Finland and Sweden continuing to highlight the expansion of ETPs into national branding strategies to attract international students. Türkiye has positioned itself as an international education hub partly by increasing English‑taught programmes, contributing to substantial growth in foreign enrolments. Today, Türkiye ranks among the non‑English‑speaking OECD countries with the largest number of ETPs.
Beyond Europe, Japan and Korea have expanded ETP offerings, albeit at a slower pace than OECD European countries. Japan’s Global 30 initiative introduced dozens of undergraduate and graduate programmes in English at leading universities. By 2020, more than 50 Japanese universities offered at least some degrees entirely in English, a significant shift from a decade earlier. Korea likewise promoted English‑taught courses as part of its internationalisation strategy, with international student numbers rising by 70% between 2014 and 2018 alongside the launch of the Study Korea campaign.
This overall expanding trend contrasts with declines in some Nordic countries (except Sweden) and Greece. Reductions in Denmark and Norway coincided with policy changes, as discussed in the next section. Spain also saw a modest decline in the number of ETPs offered between 2019 and 2024.
Estimated number of ETPs in non-English speaking OECD countries, Ireland and New Zealand
Note: Costa Rica and Colombia did not record any English-taught programmes in the database. No data is available for Chile. The Studyportals database mainly focuses on the mapping of English-taught programmes outside the four major English-speaking destination countries for international students (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States), and the figure therefore excludes these four countries.
Source: Studyportals and British Council (2024[1]), Mapping English‑taught Programmes Worldwide, https://studyportals.com/reports/mapping-english-taught-programmes-worldwide/.
OECD-European countries thus remain the largest hub for ETPs beyond the major English-speaking student destinations. Based on the Studyportals database, Wingrove et al. (2025[2]), further refine the methodology to standardise and operationalise English-medium instruction in European higher education institutions, analysing both the spread (share of HEIs offering at least one ETP) and the intensity of ETP provision relative to system size. Over 24 000 ETPs were identified in non-English speaking European countries, which represents a three‑fold increase compared to 2013. In many European OECD countries, a substantial share of institutions now offers at least one English‑taught programme, reflecting the continued diffusion of English Medium Instruction (EMI) beyond its earlier concentration in Northern and Central West Europe. In a majority of the countries, around half the HEIs or more offer at least one ETP (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 further shows considerable variation in the number of masters‑level English‑taught programmes once student population size is considered. Countries with highly internationalised and research‑intensive higher education systems with strong international profiles tend to record the highest number of masters‑level ETPs per 1 000 students (Wingrove et al., 2025[2]). At the other end of the spectrum, several countries show relatively low provision when measured in relation to student numbers, indicating that EMI expansion remains uneven across the region. One notable example is Belgium, with relatively low share of HEIs offering ETPs, while the number of ETPs in relation to student numbers is relatively high.
While bachelor‑level ETPs have also expanded across Europe, their availability remains considerably lower than that of master‑level programmes. Out of the over 24 000 ETPs identified in non-English speaking European countries, 6 7 000 were Bachelor programmes, equivalent to 1.9 ETPs per 1 000 Bachelor students compared to 9.1 ETPs per 1 000 Master students. This likely reflects broader structural patterns, as institutions tend to prioritise postgraduate EMI where international demand is strongest and linguistic barriers are perceived to be lower. However, the Baltic countries and Türkiye are exceptions, showing relatively important ETP volumes at bachelor level (Wingrove et al., 2025[2]).
Finally, the most common fields for ETPs across European OECD countries continue to be business and management, engineering and technology, and computer science and IT. These subjects account for a substantial share of both institutional participation and programme intensity. This is also consistent with global pattern of the concentration of ETPs by disciplinary field (Studyportals and British Council, 2024[1]).
Share of higher education institutions offering ETPs and number of Master level ETPs in relation to student size in European OECD-countries
Source: Elaboration based on Wingrove et al. (2025[2]), “English-medium instruction in European higher education: Measurement validity and the state of play in 2023/2024”, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf020, student enrolment based on Eurostat (2023).
4.2.1. Recent concerns over the growing use of English in higher education
The rapid expansion of English‑taught programmes has sparked debate in several OECD countries, as governments seek to balance internationalisation objectives with domestic priorities. While English‑medium instruction is widely seen as a tool to attract global talent, it has also raised concerns about the anglicisation of higher education, resource pressures, and implications for student integration.
In the Netherlands, record numbers of international students enrolling in English‑taught programmes have been linked to housing shortages and overcrowded classrooms, fuelling public debate on the dominance of English in universities. In response, proposals have included introducing enrolment caps for English‑taught programmes, requiring institutions to meet stricter criteria before launching new English‑medium degrees, and promoting local language acquisition among international students (Nash, 2024[3]). Universities have also introduced self‑regulation measures to moderate enrolments in selected English‑taught programmes and expand Dutch‑language provision. Similar concerns have emerged in Flanders, where universities may only offer programmes in a language other than Dutch if a Dutch‑language option remains available. In 2023 and 2024, the Flemish Government rejected all applications for exclusively English‑taught programmes (Walker, 2024[4]).
Denmark and Norway also took steps to scale back on English-medium instruction to prioritise national language use and contain costs. Denmark cut places in English‑taught programmes in 2021 to reduce costs and prioritise domestic access (OECD, 2024[5]). Norway strengthened its language policy in the early 2020s through the adoption of the Language Act (in force since 2022), followed by targeted measures, including a 2023 action plan to safeguard Norwegian as a professional language in higher education. The introduction of tuition fees for non‑EU/EEA students in 2023 and the subsequent fall in the number of non-EU/EEA students (see Chapter 2) likely also reduced demand and programme availability. Denmark has since partially reversed these measures in light of labour shortages, announcing in early 2023 the opening of 1 100 new places for foreign students in ETPs each year from 2024 through 2028, and a further 2 500 places per year from 2029 onward (ICEF Monitor, 2024[6]).
Beyond language policy, the expansion of English‑medium instruction has raised questions about labour market integration. While English‑taught programmes make it easier to attract international students, they may limit opportunities for local language acquisition, potentially reducing graduates’ ability to find employment in host‑country labour markets after their studies. Some countries have strengthened incentives to study in the national language. In Estonia, Czechia, the Slovak Republic and Finland, for example, tuition fees often differ between programmes taught in the national language and those taught in English, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Alongside tuition fees and living costs, access to the labour market during study is an important factor shaping international students’ ability to finance their stay in host countries. In-study employment can provide a critical supplementary source of income, particularly in contexts with rapidly rising living costs and tuition fee levels as well as limited financial support available for international students. As such, rules governing whether and how much international students are allowed to work during term-time and academic breaks play a central role in the overall affordability of international study.
Beyond its role in helping students cover their costs, employment during study can also support longer-term labour-market integration. Working while studying can allow international students to gain work experience in the host country, develop language and professional skills, build local networks, and support broader social integration. From the perspective of host countries, in-study work rights can therefore contribute both to student well-being and to broader objectives related to skills utilisation and labour supply.
Reflecting these considerations, policies aimed at improving labour-market integration and retention of international students remain a priority for many OECD countries, particularly in the context of persistent labour and skills shortages. While much policy attention has focused on post-study work opportunities and pathways to permanent residence, several countries have also adjusted in-study work rights in recent years.
All OECD countries which took part in in the policy questionnaire allow international students to work at least part-time while studying, with varying levels of restrictions. In most OECD countries international students have the right to work automatically, whereas about a quarter require an application and the issuing of a separate permit (Austria, Switzerland, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Türkiye). When it comes to caps on working hours, internationals students are often allowed to work part-time while studying. Most OECD countries allow students to work between 15 and 25 hours per week (Figure 4.3).
A few countries do not have caps on in-study work hours (Czechia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden) while a few other countries have set their caps quite high, including Spain, Hungary and Finland (30h per week) and Japan (28h per week). Latvia and Türkiye allow international students at master and PhD level to work full-time.
Maximum in-term working hours per week allowed in selected OECD countries, 2025
Note: Unlimited hours are set to 40 hours per week in the figure. In Korea, Latvia and Türkiye, graduate students are allowed to work more hours per week than undergraduate students. In the United States, employment is only allowed on-campus (off-campus work only allowed with pre‑authorisation after minimum one year of studies and based on economic hardship).
Source: OECD policy questionnaire, 2025.
Labour market access also depends on whether international students must obtain a work permit. In most OECD countries, international students are authorised to work automatically and do not need to apply for an additional permit. However, in eight countries (Austria, Switzerland, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Türkiye), students are required to obtain a work permit before entering the labour market (Table 4.1).
Countries generally do not impose sector‑specific restrictions on the types of jobs international students may undertake. However, notable exceptions exist. For example, students are prohibited from self-employment in the United Kingdom and New Zealand; in Korea, they are barred from working in construction and manufacturing; and in Türkiye, they are not permitted to work in domestic service or the entertainment industry (Table 4.1).
4.3.1. Recent changes in labour market access for international students during studies
During and following the COVID‑19 pandemic, some OECD countries temporarily relaxed working-hour restrictions for international students in response to acute labour shortages and subsequently incorporated higher caps into their permanent frameworks. In Australia, the temporary suspension of working-hour limits was followed by a permanent increase in the cap from 40 to 48 hours per fortnight. Similarly, Canada permanently raised the maximum number of hours international students may work off campus during term-time, from 20 to 24 hours per week, after a period during which the cap was temporarily lifted. Spain announced an increase in the limit of working hours allowed for international students from 20 to 30 hours per week in 2022, to enable students to gain professional experience and to supplement their income while pursuing their studies.
Other OECD countries have expanded or clarified in-study work rights through adjustments to existing rules. Germany increased the annual work allowance for international students from 120 full-time days (or 240 half-days) to 280 half-days, in addition to work as a student assistant. At the same time, it introduced greater flexibility by allowing work up to a weekly threshold during the academic term and facilitated changes in residence status prior to graduation. New Zealand expanded eligibility for in-study employment by allowing all students enrolled in full-time programmes leading to a national qualification at Level 4 or higher to work during their studies. From end of November, the number of hours that students can work in-term increased from 20 to 25 per week.
Note: Restrictions on number of hours worked in EU countries applies to international students from third countries.
Source: OECD student policy questionnaire, 2025.
Post study work rights have become a central instrument in countries’ strategies to attract and retain international students. By offering a credible study to work pathway, they increase the expected return on investment from an international degree and can shift destination choices toward systems that offer clear, time bound access to the labour market after graduation. Comparative evidence and recent national reviews indicate that access to post study employment is now among the most salient features influencing student demand, alongside perceived quality and affordability. In the United Kingdom, for example, the 2024 rapid review of the Graduate Route concluded that the pathway should be maintained in its current form, noting its contribution to the higher education ecosystem and to the sector’s international competitiveness. Cross country syntheses similarly highlight that countries use post study visas to meet skill needs and retain talent in knowledge intensive economies.
At the same time, countries have taken different approaches to designing and adjusting these pathways. Expanding post study work rights can support labour market needs, improve graduate retention, and enhance the attractiveness of the higher education sector. However, the impact of such reforms depends on how they interact with broader immigration policy settings, labour market conditions, and domestic considerations. A growing body of evidence highlights the need for coherent policy design that aligns the duration and conditions of post study work with long term migration objectives and system capacity.
4.4.1. Evolving trends in post study work policies across the OECD
Over the past decade, many OECD countries have expanded international graduates’ access to post study employment, reflecting both a growing competition for global talent and the recognition that domestic labour markets benefit from retaining foreign trained graduates. Despite this general trend towards liberalisation, governments have periodically adjusted or partially reversed specific provisions in response to economic pressures, political debates, and concerns about system capacity. In practice, countries have often oscillated between expansion and restriction as they attempt to balance international competitiveness with labour market and migration management objectives.
Several OECD countries illustrate this pattern. Germany temporarily tightened post study work rights in 2009 amid concerns about unemployment, only to extend them again in 2012 and 2024 in response to emerging skill shortages. France similarly re-imposed restrictions in 2011 before reinstating a 12‑month job search permit under a specialised scheme. The United Kingdom abolished its post study work visa in 2012, which led to a significant decline in international enrolments, but reintroduced a revised graduate route in 2021 in recognition of its value for higher education and the wider economy. However, the UK Government have announced a shortening of the Graduate route visa for undergraduate and master graduates from 24 to 18 months from 2027. In these cases, reforms reflect shifting national priorities, as governments weigh the benefits of retaining international graduates against domestic political and labour market constraints.
More recently, several major destination countries have introduced more targeted or technical restrictions rather than eliminating post study rights entirely. Australia’s 2024 migration reform raised English language requirements, reduced the maximum eligible age from 50 to 35, and shortened post study durations to prevent long term reliance on temporary visas. Canada’s measures in 2024 and 2025 tightened eligibility for the Post Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) by linking it to programme accreditation and occupational shortage lists. New Zealand’s 2022 reforms tied post study access to qualification level and national skill needs, while Denmark in 2023 limited job search permits to state-approved programmes. However, international students from state‑approved programmes can stay for up to 36 months after graduation, making Denmark one of the more generous post‑study destinations in Europe for recognised degrees. These adjustments reflect governments’ attempts to reconcile the goal of attracting skilled graduates with concerns around housing shortages, labour market absorption, and broader system pressures.
4.4.2. Overview of current post study work frameworks
Most OECD countries offer some form of post graduate extension, although conditions vary considerably (Figure 4.4). Key policy dimensions shaping graduates’ ability to transition into the labour market include the duration of the post graduate extension, the extent of employment restrictions during this period, procedural requirements for changing status, and the longer-term possibility of progressing to permanent residency or citizenship.
In most countries, post graduate extensions are granted upon request. Only Denmark, Estonia and Luxembourg provide automatic extensions, while Latvia issues a short automatic extension that can be lengthened upon request, albeit with more restrictive labour market access rules. Figure 4.4 illustrates the minimum and maximum duration of post study extensions across countries. Canada, Denmark, Iceland and New Zealand offer some of the longest periods, typically up to three years. Australia issues Temporary Graduate visas allowing degree‑level graduates to stay and work for two to three years, depending on their qualification, with longer durations for Hong Kong and British National Overseas passport holders. In the United States, international students in F‑1 status may apply for up to 12 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT), which allows them to work in a role directly related to their field of study. Eligible graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields may apply for a 24‑month STEM OPT extension, bringing the total possible duration of post‑study work to 36 months (see also Box 4.1). In the United Kingdom, postgraduate research graduates may stay for three years, while bachelor’s and master’s graduates currently receive a two‑year extension which is planned to be shorted to 18 months in 2027.
EU countries that have transposed Directive 2016/801 (Students and Researchers Directive) must provide a minimum nine‑month residence period for job search or business start-up purposes. Even so, Figure 4.4 shows substantial variation in how far countries extend beyond this minimum requirement. At the shorter end of the spectrum, several countries grant extensions of less than one year. Latvia and Switzerland offer the briefest periods at three and six months respectively, while Luxembourg, Hungary, Estonia and Czechia also fall below the one‑year threshold. Where ranges exist, they typically vary by qualification level. In Latvia, for example, the automatic period is four months, with the possibility of applying for an extension of up to nine months.
Minimum and maximum duration of stay, typically to search for a job following graduation, 2025
Note: The United Kingdom has announced changes to the length of the Graduate Route visa for undergraduate and master’s graduates in 2027, shortening it from 24 to 18 months, while the visa length for PhD and other doctoral qualifications graduates remains 36 months.
Source: OECD Policy questionnaire, 2025.
OECD countries generally do not impose restrictions on employment during the post graduate extension period. Where restrictions exist, they typically involve caps on working hours, requirements that employment be related to the field of study or level of qualification, and prohibitions on self-employment. In some systems the extension period is intended primarily for job search (Table 4.2). For example, Hungary allows graduates to conduct job search activities but not to take up paid employment while on the extension. Latvia applies a two‑stage model. During the initial automatic four‑month period graduates may work without restrictions. During the optional extended nine‑month period only job search is permitted.
The majority of the countries responding to the policy questionnaire also provide favourable conditions to change legal status following graduation, facilitating a smoother transition into the labour market (Table 4.2). Only Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Norway and Türkiye do not offer such provisions. Favourable conditions most often include exemptions from labour market tests when international graduates apply for employment-based residence, which reduces administrative barriers and supports timely labour market entry.
Opportunities to remain on a long-term basis are an important consideration for many international students. More than half of participating countries fully count time spent in student status toward the residence period required for permanent residence or citizenship (Figure 4.2). Other countries apply partial or differentiated counting rules, notably:
Partial counting: In Poland, the Slovak Republic and Spain, study years count at half value toward long‑term residence or naturalisation, and in Estonia they count at half value only once the graduate switches to another residence permit.
Limited or no counting: Norway counts study years only toward citizenship, not permanent residence, whereas France, Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden do not count student‑status years toward either. In some cases, however, completing degree‑level studies in the national language can ease naturalisation conditions, including in France.
Note: The UK Graduate visa will be shortened from 24 to 18 months for undergraduate and master’s graduates from 2027. In the United States, international graduates with a STEM degree can, under certain conditions, apply for a 24‑month extension to the regular 12 months post-graduation Optional Practical Training (See also Box 4.1).
Source: OECD policy questionnaire, 2025.
4.4.3. Influence of post-study work policies on student attraction and retention
Post‑graduation work policies play an important role in international students’ destination choices. Survey evidence from Australia shows that 70% of international students selected Australia partly because of the prospect of immigration or employment after graduation (QILT, 2024[7]). In Canada, 70% intended to apply for a Post‑Graduation Work Permit, underscoring the importance of post‑study labour‑market access for attracting international students (CBIE, 2024[8]).
International enrolment trends following policy changes further illustrate this relationship, although post‑study work reforms are often introduced alongside other regulatory adjustments, complicating attribution. In the United Kingdom, for example, the abolition of the Tier 1 Post‑Study Work route in 2012 coincided with a sharp fall in student numbers from key source countries (Figure 4.5). New international student applications declined by 29% between 2010 and 2013, particularly from India, and sponsored student visas fell by roughly one‑fifth over the same period (Trevena, 2019[9]; Cuibus, Walsh and & Němeček, 2025[10]). Although these declines were influenced by multiple concurrent policy changes, such as higher English language requirements and tightened institutional oversight, the absence of a post‑study pathway was cited by 36% of prospective students in 2015 as a key deterrent (Trevena, 2019[9]). Conversely, after the United Kingdom reintroduced a Graduate Route in 2021, the number of new international student visas more than doubled between 2020 and 2022, driven especially by increased enrolments from India. Part of this rise, however, also reflects the rebound following the lifting of COVID‑19 travel restrictions.
Similar dynamics can be observed in other OECD countries. Australia’s introduction of the Skilled Graduate Visa in 2007, which was followed by an increase in international student inflows, and later by a downturn when eligibility was tightened, and finally a strong recovery after the 2013 expansion of post‑study work rights (Figure 4.5). New international student visas rose by nearly 60% between the 2011/12 and 2013/14 academic years. More recent declines in new student visas in 2023‑2025 appear related not only to changes in post‑study pathways but also to broader adjustments in migration settings and post‑pandemic correction.
In Germany and Finland, expanding international graduates’ access to the labour market has also been followed by notable increases in study permits. Germany’s 2012 reform, extending the job‑search period from 12 to 18 months and removing the labour‑market test, was accompanied by a two‑thirds increase in first permits issued for education. In Finland, study permits more than doubled between 2021 and 2023 following the introduction of a two‑year post‑graduation residence permit (Figure 4.5). As with other examples, these increases occurred alongside the easing of pandemic‑related travel restrictions, which largely contributed to the observed growth.
While descriptive trends often show strong associations between post‑study work rights and international student inflows, simple correlations cannot establish causality. Changes in student numbers typically occur alongside other shifts, such as tuition policies, visa processing, geopolitical shocks, or pandemic effects, so isolating the effect of post-study work right reforms requires more rigorous empirical strategies. A small but growing body of research has applied stronger causal methods in OECD countries. One of the most robust examples is recent work evaluating Australia’s extension of the Temporary Graduate Visa. Using a combination of difference‑in‑difference and regression‑discontinuity designs, (Griselda and Shah, 2025[11]) show that longer Post‑Study Work Rights (PSWR) significantly increased international student enrolments, indicating a strong causal attraction effect. They also find that extended PSWR increased the likelihood that graduates remained in Australia immediately after study; however, the reform did not improve short‑term labour‑market outcomes or raise permanent residency rates, underscoring that expanded work rights can affect attraction and retention differently. Empirical evidence evaluating a policy reform in the United States in 2008 provides further evidence of the causal impact of extending post-study work rights on international student behaviour (Box 4.1).
Note: Dotted lines represent the year preceding the tightening (United Kingdom, 2012) or expansion (Australia, 2011; United Kingdom 2019; Germany 2012; Finland, 2021) of post-graduate work rights.
Source: For the UK: Cuibus (2025[10]), Student Migration to the UK, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-Briefing-Student-migration-to-the-UK.pdf; for Australia: Home Office Australia; for Germany and Finland: Eurostat, first residence permits issued for education reasons (migr_resedu), 2025.
The United States provides unusually strong quasi‑experimental evidence on how post‑study work rights shape international student behaviour. Exploiting the 2008 STEM extension to Optional Practical Training (OPT) and subsequent eligibility expansions, two research studies have used differences across time and fields to identify causal effects of the policy change. A first study show that the OPT reform increased international enrolments by around 18% at the bachelor’s level and 30% at the master’s level and raised the quality of entrants, as indicated by greater scholarship/fellowship support and admission into more selective institutions (Amuedo‐Dorantes, Shih and Xu, 2022[12]). A complementary analysis finds that the STEM OPT extension shifted skills composition: foreign‑born students who first arrived on student visas and enrolled after the policy change were about 18% more likely to major in STEM, consistent with extended post‑study work rights steering field‑of‑study choices (Amuedo-Dorantes, Furtado and Xu, 2019[13]).
Additional quasi‑experimental evidence shows that extending OPT terms increases the likelihood that international STEM graduates initially remain in the United States and take up OPT. Larger effects were found for students facing lower earning opportunities at home and for those from less‑selective institutions, suggesting that reduced visa uncertainty eases early labour‑market transitions (Demirci, 2019[14]). Beyond attraction and post-graduation retention, research using regional variation links higher OPT participation to increases in patenting and higher average earnings, indicating innovation spillovers from retaining foreign graduates (Neufeld, 2019[15]). Taken together, these studies provide rare causal evidence that more generous post‑study work rights in the United States boost international student inflows, upgrade the calibre and STEM orientation of entrants, and improve short‑term retention, even as longer‑term settlement outcomes remain mediated by downstream visa caps.
Motivations related to post‑graduation opportunities vary considerably by students’ country of origin. Survey evidence suggests that students from South Asia and Sub‑Saharan Africa place substantial weight on migration and employment pathways when choosing a destination, with access to post‑study work rights emerging as a primary driver of demand (Navitas, 2025[16]). This trend is reflected in the rapid growth of students from India and Nigeria following the reintroduction of the graduate visa in the United Kingdom (Cuibus, Walsh and & Němeček, 2025[10]). In Germany, about two‑thirds of international students, particularly those from Asian and former Soviet countries, reported an intention to stay after graduation, whereas students from neighbouring countries were more likely to return home (DAAD, 2025[17]).
By contrast, survey evidence from Canada and Australia shows that Chinese students tend to place relatively less emphasis on post‑study employment and migration pathways compared with international students from other major origin countries. In Canada, the CBIE International Student Survey found that 62% of Chinese students intend to apply for a Post‑Graduation Work Permit, below the overall international average of about 70%, while 57% intend to apply for permanent residence, aligning with the overall trend (CBIE, 2024[8]). In Australia, survey results show that Chinese students place relatively less importance on migration pathways as motivation for choosing to study in Australia compared to students from other major origin countries (QILT, 2024[7]).
Family accompaniment provisions are a key consideration for internationally mobile students, particularly those in master’s and doctoral programmes who are on average older than domestic students and more likely to have family responsibilities. In general, OECD countries recognise two dimensions of partners’ rights. The first is whether partners may accompany the student during their studies. The second is whether partners may work once admitted. While most OECD countries allow degree seeking international students to be joined by their families and many grant some form of labour market access to partners, important cross-country differences persist. Some systems provide broad access with few restrictions, whereas others limit eligibility to postgraduate or research level students and apply caps on working hours for partners.
While most OECD countries allow partners of international students of all levels to join them during their studies (Table 4.2), France, Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg stand out by generally not allowing student visa holders to be accompanied by partners during their studies. Among the countries with available data, the four top destination countries for international students (Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia) also received the largest numbers of family members of international students in 2024. However, the Nordic countries together with Austria and New Zealand received the highest inflow of family members per students (Figure 4.6).
Some countries apply restrictions to certain student’s groups, often based on the level of education. In the United Kingdom, for instance, only students enrolled in postgraduate research programmes or those sponsored by the government for courses exceeding six months can bring dependants. France allows PhD level students on “Talent Passport – Researcher” to bring dependants with them, but international students at other levels must spend 18 months in the destination country before they can apply for family reunification. Similarly, Lithuania allows dependants only of master’s and doctoral students to join, while requiring bachelor students to have resided for at least two years before being eligible. Denmark and Estonia also limit family reunification to students in officially recognised higher education programmes, excluding those in unaccredited or short-term courses. However, Denmark still receives an important inflow of family members in relation to the number of international students (Figure 4.6).
Number of family members of international students and family members as share of international students
Source: OECD (2025[18]), International Migration Outlook 2025, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae26c893-en.
Among the countries permitting dependants, the scope of labour market access also varies. In around half of the systems reviewed, dependants gain the right to work automatically once residence is granted. In these cases, partners of international students are generally authorised to work without the need for an additional permit, subject to any national employment restrictions.
In a second group of countries, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Poland, and Slovenia, partners must apply separately for work authorisation. Work rights are typically subject to the same rules as for other foreign residents, often involving an employment permit and, in some cases, a labour market test (Table 4.3).
A smaller number of countries do issue accompanying visas but do not allow partners to work, including Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands, and the United States. In the United States, international students in F‑1 status may be accompanied by dependants under the F‑2 visa category, which is limited to the student’s spouse and unmarried children under 21. However, F‑2 dependants are not permitted to work under any circumstances and may only study on a part‑time or recreational basis unless they change status to another visa category.
4.5.1. Recent and anticipated policy changes affecting dependants of international students
Across OECD countries, reforms concerning dependants of international students increasingly reflect the broader political environment around migration management. While earlier trends in the 2000s and early 2010s moved toward more openness, the recent period (2020 to 2024) shows growing selectivity. High intake destinations such as the United Kingdom and Canada have tightened eligibility, whereas a few smaller or Nordic countries (notably Finland and Iceland) have consolidated existing rights to retain talent. The common rationale is to reconcile the attractiveness of the study pathway with public confidence in migration systems, balancing family unity and integration support with labour market, housing, and capacity considerations.
Countries tightening eligibility and conditions
The most significant restrictions occurred in countries seeking to curb rapid growth in international student inflows or address perceived system abuse. In the United Kingdom, the inflow of dependants who enjoy work rights increased by 750% between 2019 and 2023, leading to a restriction in dependants’ eligibility to join in 2024, restricting it only to students enrolled in postgraduate research programmes or government sponsored courses. This has led to a large drop in the number of permits issued for dependants of international students in 2024 compared to 2023 (OECD, 2025[18]). Since January 2024, international students are no longer permitted to bring spouses or children with them, except for full-time postgraduate students, those on government scholarships, and those studying at doctoral or postgraduate level courses lasting at least nine months. Students from India and Nigeria have been driving much of the increase in the growth of international students from 2018 to 2022, as well as the decline in international students from outside the EU from 2022 to 2023. These two nationalities are also particularly likely to remain in the United Kingdom post-graduation and more likely to bring dependants before the recent restrictions were put in place, indicating that these two groups of students were largely affected by both policy changes (Cuibus, Walsh and & Němeček, 2025[10]).
Canada announced plans to narrow the eligibility for open work permits for spouses of international students. From January 2025, only spouses of certain postgraduate students will qualify, a shift away from the previous policy of allowing most partners to work. Denmark restricted family accompaniment to international students in government approved programmes in 2023. In Estonia and Italy stricter rules for family reunification introduced, with students now needing to have at least two years of legal residence before being able apply for their partners to join.
Source: OECD policy questionnaire, 2025.
Countries expanding or clarifying rights
On the other hand, several countries have introduced measures that clarify or somewhat expand dependants’ entitlements, though such reforms are less frequent. Since 2021, Finland grants international students a continuous residence permit, rather than a temporary one, which extends to family members, entailing broader rights and easier labour market access. Lithuania introduced family reunification rights for dependants of master’s students for the first time, EU norms. Luxembourg extended family reunification rights to certain doctoral students under specific income and residence conditions. Korea has recently eased restrictions on employment for accompanying family members of master and doctoral students. While work rights were previously limited to spouses of students enrolled in master’s programmes of at least 16 months, a pilot programme introduced in March 2026 (initially until February 2027) grants broader employment rights and simplified application procedures for spouses of international students pursuing master’s and doctoral degrees. The measure forms part of wider efforts to attract highly skilled international talent and support family-based settlement.
References
[13] Amuedo-Dorantes, C., D. Furtado and H. Xu (2019), “OPT policy changes and foreign born STEM talent in the U.S.”, Labour Economics, Vol. 61, p. 101752, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.101752.
[12] Amuedo‐Dorantes, C., K. Shih and H. Xu (2022), “The implications of optional practical training reforms on international student enrollments and quality”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 61/2, pp. 253-281, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13128.
[8] 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).
[10] Cuibus, M., P. Walsh and P. & Němeček (2025), Student Migration to the UK, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2025-Briefing-Student-migration-to-the-UK.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2025).
[17] DAAD (2025), Internationale Studierendenmobilität in Deutschland: BintHo‑Bericht 2023/24., https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/infos-services-fuer-hochschulen/expertise-zu-themen-laendern-regionen/daad_2025_bintho-bericht_2023-24.pdf.
[14] Demirci, M. (2019), “Transition of international science, technology, engineering, and mathematics students to the U.S. labor market: the role of visa policy”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 57/3, pp. 1367-1391, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12795.
[11] Griselda, S. and H. Shah (2025), From Study to Work: The Effect of Extending Post‑Study Work Rights., e61 Institute, https://e61.in/from-study-to-work-the-effect-of-extending-post-study-work-rights/.
[6] ICEF Monitor (2024), Lessons from Denmark: The downside of limiting international student flows., https://monitor.icef.com/2024/03/lessons-from-denmark-the-downside-of-limiting-international-student-flows/ (accessed on 9 January 2026).
[3] Nash, P. (2024), Dutch universities agree to curb internationalisation, https://thepienews.com/dutch-universities-agree-curb-internationalisation/ (accessed on 9 January 2026).
[15] Neufeld (2019), Optional Practical Training (OPT) and International Students After Graduation, https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/old_uploads/2019/03/OPT.pdf.
[18] OECD (2025), International Migration Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ae26c893-en.
[5] OECD (2024), International Migration Outlook 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50b0353e-en.
[7] QILT (2024), Student Experience Survey, 2024 Internatioanl Report, The Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT), https://qilt.edu.au/surveys/student-experience-survey-(ses) (accessed on February 2026).
[1] Studyportals and British Council (2024), Mapping English‑taught Programmes Worldwide., https://studyportals.com/reports/mapping-english-taught-programmes-worldwide/.
[9] Trevena, P. (2019), Post‑Study Work Visa Options: An International Comparative Review, Scottish Government, Social Research, https://www.gov.scot/publications/post-study-work-visa-options-international-comparative-review/.
[4] Walker, L. (2024), Flanders rejects English‑language university programmes again, https://www.brusselstimes.com/940770/flanders-rejects-english-language-university-programmes-again (accessed on 9 January 2026).
[2] Wingrove, P. et al. (2025), “English-medium instruction in European higher education: Measurement validity and the state of play in 2023/2024”, Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf020.