고등교육 서비스무역 관점에서 본 중국의 유학생 정책 연구 (1978-2022) = A Study on China's International Student Policy from the Perspective of Higher Education Service Trade (1978-2022)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

XIA Haixia Department of Educational Science Graduate School of Soonchunhyang Unviersity Asan, Korea (Supervised by Professor Kim, Min) Against the backdrop of China’s long-standing deficit in higher education services trade and intensifying global competition in international education, inbound international student policy functions not only as an instrument of educational development and external cooperation, but also as a form of institutional supply that may shape trade-related competitiveness. This dissertation addresses three interrelated questions: how China’s central-level policy system for inbound international students has evolved since reform and opening-up, what has driven its institutional change, and what trade-related outcomes are statistically associated with changes in policy intensity. Drawing on historical institutionalism，supplemented by Multiple Streams Theory and the notion of historical contingency, the study conceptualizes policy change as cumulative and path-dependent, while also punctuated by policy windows in which agenda coupling accelerates institutional layering. The research follows a three-stage analytical strategy. First, using NVivo, the dissertation conducts qualitative coding of 52 central-level policy documents issued between 1978 and 2022, focusing on operational provisions (rather than general slogans), instrument configurations, and governance rules in order to map shifts in policy themes and the structure of policy tools. Second, it constructs an annual Policy Intensity Index (PII) by translating policy quantity, administrative authority, and the degree of regulatory constraint and supportive intervention into a standardized time-series measure. Third, from a services trade perspective, the study computes China’s Trade Competitiveness Index (TCI) and Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) for higher education services over 1978–2022 and estimates baseline regressions, one-year-lag robustness checks, and stage-wise heterogeneity models to test the statistical relationships between policy intensity and competitiveness indicators. The findings are fourfold. First, the policy system exhibits a cumulative trajectory from institutional restoration and framework building, to scale expansion and administrative standardization, to planning-oriented system building, and finally to strategic embedding and quality-oriented governance. Over time, policy instruments expand from foundational management rules toward a broader portfolio encompassing admissions, scholarships, curriculum and standards, quality assurance, and risk governance, with several historically contingent moments producing stepwise increases in policy intensity. Second, trade performance shows a structurally constrained pattern: the TCI remains negative throughout 1978–2022, indicating a persistent net-import position in higher education services, although a pronounced improvement occurs around 2000; meanwhile, RCA rises steadily from a very low base and reaches a period-specific peak around 2017, reflecting the gradual accumulation of comparative positioning rather than a decisive shift to strong advantage. Third, econometric results indicate that PII is positively and significantly associated with both TCI and RCA, with consistently stronger explanatory power for RCA. When the PII is lagged by one year, the positive association remains but attenuates, suggesting that institutional supply operates through partly delayed and cumulative channels. Fourth, the effects of policy intensity are heterogeneous across stages: in earlier periods, stronger policy intensity aligns more closely with improvements in TCI, consistent with a scale-expansion and service-output pathway; in later periods, it aligns more strongly with RCA, consistent with a quality- and structure-upgrading pathway. In sum, these results yield an apparent text–data paradox: governance capacity and institutional supply intensify over time, yet the trade deficit is not fundamentally reversed within the study window. The dissertation argues that this configuration is best understood as the joint outcome of sustained outbound study demand, pricing and subsidy structures, and a policy objective structure framed primarily in political and educational terms. A persistent deficit, therefore, should not be interpreted mechanically as evidence of policy ineffectiveness; rather, policy has improved competitiveness indicators within structural constraints that limit short-run balance reversal. This dissertation contributes in three respects. Conceptually, it repositions inbound international student policy within a higher education services trade competitiveness framework and specifies an indirect linkage mechanism from non-economic policy objectives to institutional environment and, in turn, to trade performance. Methodologically, it demonstrates a replicable integration of policy text analysis and trade indicators by operationalizing policy intensity as a measurable time-series and testing its associations with TCI and RCA under multiple checks. Practically, it proposes policy implications at three levels, strategic design, policy instruments, and governance mechanisms, to support gradual, structurally grounded competitiveness upgrading while remaining compatible with China’s established political and educational priorities.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• LIST OFTABLES I
• LIST OF FIGURE III
• ABSTRACT IV
• I Introduction 1
• 1.1 Research Necessity 1
• 1.1.1 Research Background 1
• 1.1.2 Research Objectives 9
• 1.1.3 Research Significance 10
• 1.2 Research Questions 12
• 1.3 Definition of Core Concepts 14
• 1.3.1 Higher Education Service Trade 15
• 1.3.2 Internationalization of Education 16
• 1.3.3 TC and RCA 17
• 1.3.4 Institutional Change 18
• 1.3.5 Policy for International Students in China 20
• 1.3.6 Multiple Streams Theory (MST) 21
• 1.3.7 Policy Intensity Index (PII) 22
• II Theoretical Foundation and Literature Review 23
• 2.1 Theoretical Foundation 23
• 2.1.1 Institutional Change Theory 23
• 2.1.2 Service Trade Competitiveness 25
• 2.1.3 Multiple Streams Theory 30
• 2.2 Literature Review 33
• 2.2.1 Impact of Institutions and Policies 33
• 2.2.2 Factors Influencing and Measuring the Competitiveness 38
• 2.2.3 Policy Intensity and Institutional Change 42
• 2.2.4 Literature Review and Research Gap 46
• III Research Design and Methodology 50
• 3.1 Research Design 50
• 3.1.1 Research Questions and Variable Definitions 50
• 3.1.2 Data Sources and Collection 57
• 3.1.3 Data Processing and Construction Procedures 61
• 3.2 Research Methodology 64
• 3.2.1 Textual Analysis (NVivo) 64
• 3.2.2 Construction of the PII 74
• 3.2.3 Quantitative Analysis Method (Stata) 79
• 3.2.3.1 Baseline Regression Models 80
• 3.2.3.2 Robustness Checks and Lagged Effects 81
• 3.2.3.3 Heterogeneity Analysis 82
• 3.2.4 Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods 83
• 3.3 Research Procedure 84
• 3.4 Limitations of Policy Text Coding 87
• IVAnalysis of Results 90
• 4.1 Textual Analysis Results 90
• 4.1.1 External Attributes of Policy Texts 90
• 4.1.2 Evolution of Policy Themes 96
• 4.1.3 Analysis of Coding Results 102
• 4.2 Empirical Results 108
• 4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis 108
• 4.2.1.1 Descriptive statistics of key variables 113
• 4.2.1.2 Time-series trends of TC and RCA 114
• 4.2.2 Baseline Regression Results 116
• 4.2.2.1 Correlation Analysis 116
• 4.2.2.2 Baseline Regression 118
• 4.2.3 Robustness Checks and Lagged Effects 122
• 4.2.3.1 Robustness Checks 122
• 4.2.3.2 Lagged Effects of Policy Intensity 124
• 4.2.3 Heterogeneity Analysis 128
• 4.3 Key Findings 131
• 4.3.1 Cumulative Change and Policy Punctuations 131
• 4.3.2 Text–Data Paradox 131
• 4.3.3 Lagged Effects and Temporal Persistence 132
• 4.3.4 Stage Differences in Policy Effects 133
• 4.3.5 Policy Objectives and Interpretation Boundaries 133
• V Conclusions and Discussion 135
• 5.1 Research Conclusions 135
• 5.1.1 Non-economic Policy Framing with Indirect Trade Effects 135
• 5.1.2 Coexistence of Policy Effectiveness and Trade Deficit 136
• 5.1.3 Scale Expansion to Quality and Structure 137
• 5.1.4 Cumulative, Lagged, andWindow-driven Change 138
• 5.1.5 Staged Development and Differentiated Impacts 140
• 5.2 Discussion 145
• 5.2.1 In institutional interpretation 145
• 5.2.2 Rethinking what counts as policy success 146
• 5.2.3 Policy channel transformation 147
• 5.2.4 Path dependence and policy windows 148
• 5.2.5 Why leadership stages matter 149
• 5.3 Policy Implications 151
• 5.3.1 Strategic Design 151
• 5.3.2 Policy Instruments 153
• 5.3.3 Governance Mechanisms 154
• REFERENCES 157
• Appendix 162
• Appendix 1 Policy Documents by Development Stage 162
• Appendix 2 Initial Coding Framework 170
• Appendix 3 Preliminary Thematic Coding 175
• Appendix 4 Coding Consistency Test Results 177
• Appendix 5 PII Calculation Results 179
• DECLARATION 181
• Acknowledgements 182
• 국문요약 185