Introduction

International student mobility has gained an increasing importance with the intensification of globalization and is now an educational trend. International mobility to OECD countries has doubled over the past 20 years, and in 2010, these countries received 4.1 million foreign students, approximately 80 % of the total global count. Furthermore, the number of foreign students within the OECD saw a rapid growth of 100 % over the decade between 2000 and 2010 (Vincent-Lancrin 2011). Such student mobility makes it worth anticipating its positive effects from economic, political, and sociocultural perspectives. Economically, international student mobility is expected to prepare students for careers in a globalized economy, enhance national development and competitiveness, and serve as a means of generating extrainstitutional income. Politically, international student mobility can promote mutual understanding, which is essential for peace and co-existence, and a shared global citizenship identity. Lastly, socioculturally, mobility can cultivate an interculturalism that is critical for the social well-being of multicultural societies (Tiyambe Zeleza 2012, p. 4).

The internationalization of higher education has accelerated in all world regions although the primary driving factors and impact vary among and within regions. Particularly in Europe, higher education exchange is inspired by the principal objective of promoting student mobility within Europe. This goal has been implemented through various programs and agreements. For almost 30 years, the EU has been systematically promoting student mobility within Europe. Through the “European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students” (ERASMUS), the largest student exchange program in Europe, nearly two million students have studied abroad and had the opportunity to learn firsthand about other European peoples and cultures. The Bologna Process, launched in 1999, sought to create an open European Higher Education Area to make the European Union adopt the Lisbon Declaration, which aimed to “make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” (Sigalas 2009, p. 2; Tiyambe Zeleza 2012, p. 8).

As can be observed in Karl Deutsch’s theory and the premise set by Arend Lijphart (1964, p. 252), increased cross-border mobility is one of the critical conditions for the success of international integration and the formation of a “we-feeling” among countries.Footnote 1 Personal contact with other nationalities can improve bilateral and multilateral international relations and facilitate political integration. Therefore, it is true that economic rationale not only serves as an important agent for international student mobility but also demonstrates the definite influence such mobility has on the participating students’ perception and political rationale.

In light of this, this study will attempt to analyze the Collective Action for the Mobility Program of University Students in Asia (CAMPUS Asia) program whose initiation in the North Asia region was agreed upon for political reasons. The origin of the program in the political will of the leaders of the Republic of Korea (ROK), Japan, and China makes the positive effects of the program in contributing to the stability of the rapidly changing unstable political ground of East Asia worth anticipating. Accordingly, this study will examine CAMPUS Asia as a case in which the top-down approach has been taken and attempt to demonstrate how the program makes possible the institutionalization of a trilateral relationship, promotion of mutual understanding, and identity change. It is hoped that the utilization of one-on-one interviews with participant students of the program in particular will enhance the academic contribution of the paper. The conclusion will then explain the current issues of political instability and imbalanced participation faced by the program and end by suggesting measures to overcome these issues. Through this analysis, it is hoped that the paper will produce a vision whereby the CAMPUS Asia program will go beyond its current pilot phase and henceforth develop into a stable program.

Educational exchange as a market vs. cooperation

There are two approaches to educational cooperation. Bottom-up collaborations are initiated by individual universities that build partnerships with foreign universities to open up opportunities for student and faculty exchanges in the service of improving academic quality. In addition, bottom-up collaborations can be seen as having an association with economic rationale. In contrast, top-down mechanisms are often initiated by national governments in their push for international collaboration between universities with the economic and political incentives of governments (Chapman et al. 2010). Meanwhile, top-down collaborations can be seen as associated with political rationale.

Economic rationale has an increasing importance and relevance. As a result of the globalization of the economy, a growing interdependence among nations, and the information revolution, countries are focusing on their economic, scientific, and technological competitiveness (Knight 2004, pp. 21–23). Economic motives and market orientation are also becoming more prevalent. In other words, the most salient trend in higher education throughout the world today is the rapid process of marketization. Partly because of the growth of private universities and the progress made in industry-academic cooperation, the diversification of higher education financing and the idea of self-cost recovery, including the imposition of payments on the beneficiary, is strengthening. Against the background of these changes in higher education lies the increase in the number of students studying abroad at their own expense as well as dramatic changes in the characteristics of international student mobility, as schools attempt to attract “customers” known as students (Kuroda 2012, pp. 7–8). Such moves to promote the acceptance of foreign students, which view students as customers, were not adopted in the past when higher education was part of the public sector and public funding was its main source of income (Kuroda 2012, p. 8).

Evidence consistently shows that countries that invest heavily in higher education benefit economically and socially from that choice. For example, in OECD countries, every dollar invested in attaining high-skills qualifications produces a higher economic return through economic growth. This investment provides tangible benefits to all of society, not just those individuals who avail of the greater educational opportunities (Asian Development Bank 2008; Chapman et al. 2010, p. 6). This is especially so for developing countries such as China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand. These nations have little choice other than to begin sharing fees and to strongly support the private sector’s move into widespread fee-paying higher education.

Many countries in East Asia are undergoing marketization of higher education, and major changes have been implemented in the higher education policies of various countries and university management. Exchanges in higher education within the East Asian region are also being directly influenced by marketization. The role of the private sector has increased in many East Asian educational markets. For example, the private sector contributes to increasing student capacity and providing potential for greater mobility (Kuroda 2012, p. 8; British Council East Asian Student Mobility Project 2008, p. 11). Some markets have very high proportions of private sector institutions in their higher education sectors, such as Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan. There has been an increase in transnational education (TNE) programs in many East Asian markets, a growth that is expected to continue, in part to address unmet local demand (British Council East Asian Student Mobility Project 2008, pp. 11–12).

Higher education cooperation in East Asia saw two significant changes during the 1990s, including the growth of private sectors and financial diversification (Asian Development Bank 2008; Woodhall 2001). One outgrowth of these changes is an intense interest in the creation of new income streams. A motivation of many higher education institutions to enter cross-border programs is their belief that such programs will yield positive economic return.

Economic rationale can also be interpreted under the logic of commercial trade. It is known that during the past decade, more emphasis has been placed on economic and income-generating opportunities attached to the cross-border delivery of education. New franchise arrangements, foreign or satellite campuses, online delivery, and increased recruitment of fee-paying students are examples of more commercial approaches to internationalization by traditional public and private institutions. The fact that education is now one of the 12 service sectors in the General Agreement on Trade in Services is positive proof that the import and export of education and training programs and education services is a potentially lucrative trade area (Larsen et al. 2002). Therefore, countries are demonstrating increased interest in the potential to export education for economic benefit. The development of new international and regional trade agreements is now providing new regulations that will help to reduce barriers to trade in an attempt to increase the commercial side of international cross-border trade in education (Knight 2004, p. 24).

Another important factor related to economic rationale is the labor market, which is the identification of competencies that are considered essential for new graduates to function in a more international work environment. The research to date has been sporadic at best and has served to highlight the need for further work to be conducted on this issue. Such work will require closer collaboration between the private and education sectors. The private sector can make a useful contribution to identifying the requisite competencies for new graduates to work in both a local and global work environment (Knight 2004, pp. 10–11).

In conclusion, international exchange and cooperation in educational goods and services has grown exponentially over the last decade. The majority of cross border collaborations are motivated by economic forces. Ultimately, the bottom-up approach in which the private sector is heavily involved is driven by the economic rationale of individual businesses and countries.

In contrast, relatively less research exists on the government-led top-down approach when it comes to analyzing the agent for transnational education exchange. This approach is connected to political rationale, which means that political decisions among nations serve as the basis for educational exchange and cooperation. Historically, international education has been seen as a beneficial tool for foreign policy, particularly, with regard to national security and peace among nations. While this is still a consideration today, it does not have the importance it once did (Knight 2012, p. 9). According to the political approach, education, particularly higher education, is often considered a form of diplomatic investment for future political and economic relations. For example, scholarships for foreign students who are seen as promising future leaders are considered an effective means of developing an understanding of and perhaps affinity for the sponsoring country. This affinity may prove beneficial in future years in terms of political and diplomatic relations (Knight 2012, p. 9).

The political approach suggested by the Functional, Organizational, and Political Approach (FOPA) model provides a similar explanation. The functional, organizational, and political approaches of the model are not mutually exclusive. They work in unison, complementing and reinforcing each other (Knight 2013, p. 117). Political will and strategies place higher education initiatives on the agenda of decision-making bodies. The political approach helps to launch major programs or funding schemes and to formalize initiatives. Declarations of intent, binding conventions, treaties, agreements, and special meetings like summit or policy dialogues are instruments for generating political support and visibility in order to make regionalization of higher education a priority. This approach can be characterized as having more of a top-down, formal, and international orientation (Knight 2013, p. 120).

For example, European governments have remained the primary funding source for higher education institutions (Jongbloed 2008, p. 4). Government-oriented funding means that the government chooses which programs are funded based on macroefficiency and other criteria, such as politics (Salerno et al. 2005, p. 186). Higher education in Europe has been traditionally dominated by the government and public provisions (Teixeira 2013, p. 4). Government intervention may work to introduce sufficient incentives to ensure that education providers reveal the quality of their services and that students clearly express their demands and capacities (Teixeira 2013, p. 7).

Despite significant social and political resistances, European higher education is increasingly influenced by marketization forces (Teixeira 2013, p. 3; Teixeira et al. 2004). In many Western European countries, a series of reforms are underway and many current reform initiatives have their origin in the recent years. The changing role of the state vis-à-vis higher education institutions is a well-known theme in the last two decades (Jongbloed 2008, p. 4). In terms of the driving force of European higher education, the introduction of market or quasi-market relations increases competition for funding in order to enhance efficiency and quality. In light of this, many European universities have started to concentrate their research on building a strategic action plan. The above changes have been widely documented (Kaiser et al. 2001; Benninghoff et al. 2005) and are all considered to be part of the changing paradigm toward a different governance model for European higher education (Jongbloed 2008, p. 8).

As examined thus far, transnational education exchange can be explained primarily by two approaches: the bottom-up approach emphasizing the role of the private sector and its accompanying economic benefits, and the top-down approach originating from the government and political will. However, recent studies, while generally emphasizing economic rationale, focus on the cooperation of individual universities and contributions of the public sector. Basically put, the logic is that educational exchange in itself is considered a market and that globalization and internationalization promote exchange. However, the importance of political rationale must not be overlooked either because higher education exchange can play a vital role in regional and political integration. For such reasons, this paper will analyze the case of the top-down approach incorporating the CAMPUS Asia program initiated for political reasons in the North Asia region. The aim will be to analyze the positive effects of such initiation by political will and deduce the implication it has on the relationship between the three countries of the Republic of Korea, China, and Japan. The paper will then conclude with an explanation of the current challenges the program faces and suggest what measures are necessary to help the program develop into a stable one.

Overview of the CAMPUS Asia pilot program

The CAMPUS Asia program is an undergraduate and graduate school exchange program agreed upon by the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, and Japan, with the aim of fostering leaders for East Asian cooperation. The program strives to establish a foundation for the long-term liaison of higher education in Asia through the support of credit exchange, dual degrees, and the development and management of joint degree programs. CAMPUS Asia was built on three main objectives: to cultivate Asia’s next generation of leaders, to establish a system of educational cooperation for the increased exchange of university students, and to be led by the governments of the three countries. First, the need to foster Asia’s next generation of leaders arose from the awareness that close cooperation among countries within the region is necessary with Asia’s growing status in the global arena. Therefore, there is a need for young talent that understands and strives for the joint advancement of Asia, which could be achieved by cultivating leaders of the next generation. Second, the program aims to increase mutual understanding among the three countries and establish a foundation for invigorating exchange among universities in Asia by revitalizing student exchange and joint/dual degrees. Its ultimate goal is to expand into a pan-Asian exchange program through the establishment of a cooperative system between the three countries and the universities, and reinforcement and elaboration of the program. Lastly, the three countries are in a favorable position to manage the program smoothly due to their geographical proximity and active exchange among international students. As leading countries in Asia, their aim is to institutionalize student exchange and establish a foundation for its systematic development (Korean Council for University Education 2013).

CAMPUS Asia differentiates itself from other exchange programs in two ways. First, this program is a major institutionalized student exchange and joint degree program whose finances and management are supported by the participating countries based on their agreements. This differs from how, to date, student exchange programs have been managed autonomously by each university. Second, the program differentiates itself in being a trilateral exchange and joint degree program instead of adopting the original form of bilateral exchange and cooperation. Simply put, it is an institutionalized program supported by the state and a new attempt to cultivate leaders who will lead the East Asian era in the three countries.

The vision of the CAMPUS Asia program lies in building an Asia region community that is competitive on a global level. To achieve this, there is a need to establish an Asian Higher Education Area (AHEA) that allows for the exchange of credits and presentation of joint degrees from Asia’s higher education institutions. This emerged from the awareness that for Asia’s higher education and research to achieve competitiveness on a global level, the management of student exchange and joint degree programs needs to be invigorated by policy cooperation among Asian countries, financial support by businesses, and the establishment of a competitive joint program.

In the meantime, the main programs of the CAMPUS Asia project are “student exchange” and “graduate student joint/dual degree.”Footnote 2 First, the student exchange program is for undergraduate students of the partner universities and lasts for a period of 6 months (one semester). Students are provided with financial support such as living and traveling expenses, and the three governments work together to ensure the same numbers of students move in each country. Second, the “graduate student joint/dual degree” program is designed so that participants receive a degree by spending a year at a partner university, studying a predetermined curriculum, and submitting a master’s thesis. With assistance from their academic advisor in their home school, they may also choose an academic advisor at the visiting school and receive guidance on their master’s thesis (Choi 2009a). The joint degree program is expected to take much time and effort to implement because, unlike a dual degree, the three universities must operate their master’s and doctorate curriculums simultaneously. However, it can prove to be an important stepping-stone for the East Asia joint community in that it will create a program with East Asia as the subject.

Linguistic support is also important. The development of English language lectures by the three countries is a basic requirement for the successful operation of the student exchange and joint/dual degree programs. However, due to the pros and cons of running lectures solely in English, it will be necessary not only to improve on the type and content of English lectures but also, depending on the course, to develop lectures in the language of each country. This is because, in this case, if students were to learn the language of their visiting school before participating in the program and continue to study the language once at the school, the effect of such study would be heightened. Language study is an important tool to understanding of each culture and establishing an identity as an East Asian. Therefore, it seems that learning the language of the visiting country will be highly beneficial to cultivating leaders who will lead the future East Asian joint community (Choi 2009b).

Currently, CAMPUS Asia’s pilot program consists of ten consortiums. The way in which it differentiates itself from existing student exchanges is that each consortium is based on a certain project theme. In other words, the universities of the three countries run their programs and support the students according to a single theme. This has not been observed in the existing bottom-up method, demonstrating that rather than being managed individually, educational exchange and cooperation are occurring within a systematic and stable organization. Such organized management is advantageous in that participating students may feel an increased sense of belonging.

Furthermore, comparing the CAMPUS Asia program with another higher education cooperation program like ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) can help explain the nature of the former. These two programs are similar as both are driven mainly by the governments and offer regional student mobility. AIMS strives to boost student exchanges in the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) member countries, and thus started as a pilot project in 2009 by the Governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (M-I-T) and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Center for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO-RIHED). Under the theme of building “a framework for Regional Integration in Higher Education in Southeast Asia”, a total of 1130 students from 23 universities have since participated in the program from 2010 to 2014. This program shows that exchange among students, academia, researchers, and administration staff is effective in establishing an improved Southeast Asian higher education system. Exchange is almost exclusively at the undergraduate level, and students are helped financially by their respective governments (Clark 2014; SEAMEO RIHED 2008a, p. 9). AIMS is now developing into an expanded program given the pilot program’s successful rollout.

There are three main advantages to participating in the AIMS program. First, the members are able to play a part in uniting and forming a community consisting of ASEAN nations. The program promotes ASEAN national’s collaboration to co-construct a multicultural forum, where diversity in culture, language, and religion is respected; this practice helps participants develop a sense of joint ASEAN citizenship (SEAMEO RIHED 2008b). The second benefit is the development of networks. Such networks are built not only at government-level but also among students, which will become great assets for the future. Another advantage of this network building is it can attract students to travel overseas and to develop skills necessary for working internationally; the extensive exchanges between ASEAN countries and Japan is a good example of this.

AIMS is currently more developed than the CAMPUS Asia program; hence, there is a lot to learn from its higher education mechanisms, including the Southeast Asian quality assurance framework, Southeast Asian credit transfer system, and the contents of ASEAN’s curriculum. In addition, CAMPUS Asia’s long-term plans include cooperating with ASEAN countries; hence, forming future connections with the AIMS program will be necessary for CAMPUS Asia’s success.

Possibilities of the CAMPUS Asia program

Institutionalization of a trilateral relationship

The CAMPUS Asia program was born from a realization that increased understanding and a sense of mutual solidarity among countries in the Asia region is important, with Asia becoming increasingly central in the global arena in various realms such as politics, economics, and diplomacy. The EU supports and runs the ERASMUS program,Footnote 3 which, by promoting student exchange within the region, focuses on overcoming various linguistic and cultural limitations and cultivating a European identity. In other words, the Asian version of ERASMUS is CAMPUS Asia. To date, student exchange in the East Asia region has mainly occurred on the individual or educational institutional level. The participation of organizations such as the AEARU or university associations brought about self-generated or bottom-up cooperation, which is already widespread in the East Asia region. This also means that exchange and cooperation in higher education in the region is controlled by market logic rather than government-led efforts. For such reasons, cooperation in higher education in the region has been limited to attracting and exchanging students rather than expanding into other areas such as developing joint curriculums or joint degree programs.

The way in which the CAMPUS Asia program differentiates itself from other exchange student programs and educational cooperation is the institutionalization of relationships. Exchange and cooperation on the governmental level are possible because the governments of the ROK, China, and Japan led the program from its planning stages to implementation to management, and are also supported by each country’s Ministry of Education. It is important to note that in the process of doing so, discussions on educational cooperation are becoming institutionalized and regularized. Three regularized high-ranking meetings were held in order to initiate the CAMPUS Asia program: the Trilateral Summit, the Trilateral Education Director-General’s Meeting, and the meeting of the Trilateral Committee on Promoting Exchange and Cooperation among Universities.

The Trilateral Education Director-General’s Meeting has been held twice in total since 2006. At the first meeting, the Director-General of each country introduced their respective policies. They also agreed to expand each bilateral exchange program into a trilateral one but mainly, placed significance on their gathering and introductions and decided to continue with discussion of details. At the second Director-General’s Meeting in 2007, the Director-Generals introduced the educational situation of their respective countries and exchanged views on developing trilateral cooperation programs. Furthermore, they discussed the launch of the First Education Ministers’ Meeting aimed at strengthening cooperation between the three countries.

Based on the above meetings, “Campus World” was introduced at the first report meeting for Korea’s Presidential Council on Nation Branding held in March 2009 and educational cooperation between the three countries officially kicked off. Then, at the ROK-China-Japan summit meeting held in Beijing on October 10, 2009, an agreement on the continued implementation of exchange among universities was reached. This is specified in the joint statement drawn up to mark 10 years of cooperation between the three countries. Following this was the first meeting for the Trilateral Committee on Promoting Exchange and Cooperation among Universities, held in Tokyo in April 2010. At this meeting, committee members reached an agreement on three areas: the title of the project, the procedure, and the working groups. They also recognized that based on the agreement reached at the second Trilateral Summit, developing exchanges between the three countries’ universities with quality assurance is highly important to human resource development in the East Asia region with economic activities in this region becoming increasingly interrelated. For the title of the project, it was anticipated that the universities in the three countries would be the places where students and professors from diverse cultural and regional backgrounds would come together and the merits of each country would be realized. Hence, considering the aforementioned, the project was titled “CAMPUS Asia”.

The second agreement concerned the upcoming procedures. The committee meetings would be held in rotation in the three countries in order to steadily realize the project. The second meeting would be held in China in the fall of 2010 and the third in the ROK within the first quarter of 2011 at the latest, depending on developments in discussions regarding the working groups. The issues to be considered immediately were as follows: (1) mutual understanding of exchange programs and quality assurance; (2) elaborating the guidelines for exchange programs including credit transfer and grading policies, implementing a pilot program, and identifying the necessary support; and (3) mutual understanding of university evaluation, publishing a common glossary of quality assurance, information-sharing on university evaluation, and mutual visitation to find out about evaluation activities.

The third agreement concerned the working groups. In addition to holding this meeting, a Working Group on the Exchange Program and a Working Group on Quality Assurance were organized. The governments would decide on the members of the working groups, and for the Working Group on Quality Assurance, there was a possibility that each country’s representative for higher education policy and the Quality Assurance Agency Committee of the three countries would become members.

The third ROK-China-Japan summit meeting was held on Korea’s island of Jeju on May 30, 2010. Here, the three leaders agreed to expand exchange among universities through credit recognition and joint degree programs, and this was formalized through the “Trilateral Cooperation VISION 2020.” The details of educational cooperation are specified in Article 4 of the agreement entitled “Promotion of Friendly Relations through the Expansion of Human and Cultural Exchange and Cooperation.” The fourth section of this article states, “We will contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of universities and nurturing qualified human resources through exchange programs, such as credit recognition and joint degrees. To this end, we confirm that the China-Japan-Korea Committee on Promoting Exchange and Cooperation among Universities will be convened continuously. We will also promote cooperation among quality assurance agencies in China, Japan, and Korea, and jointly prepare a guideline in order to enhance exchange among universities. Also, we will consider a concrete policy package to facilitate the exchange of prospective students. Meanwhile, to further promote trilateral educational cooperation, we will make full use of meetings to facilitate the establishment of a ministerial meeting mechanism. Moreover, we will promote the exchange of teachers among the three countries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 2010).

What stands out alongside such specification of cooperation on education among the three countries is Article 1 entitled “Institutionalization and Enhancement of Trilateral Partnership.” This article emphasizes the strengthening of high-level contacts and the development of friendship and amity among the people of the three countries through intergovernmental cooperative mechanisms, such as the Summit Meeting, Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, other Ministerial Meetings, and Senior Foreign Affairs Officials’ Consultation. Furthermore, it promises to establish the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat in the ROK in 2011 in order to promote and strengthen trilateral cooperation. The Secretariat would provide support for the operation and management of the trilateral consultative mechanisms and facilitate the exploration and implementation of cooperative projects (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan 2010).

Discussions on the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (hereafter TCS) took shape after the “Agreement on the Establishment of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat Among the Governments of Japan, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea” was signed on December 16, 2010. This demonstrates that the three countries’ meetings for educational cooperation are becoming institutionalized and regularized.

The Trilateral Committee meetings took place three more times after the first in April 2010. The second took place in Beijing in December 2010. At this meeting, the committee mainly discussed a proposal on promoting exchange among the three countries and a plan for implementing a pilot program. The members of the three countries reached a basic agreement on the guidelines for promoting exchange among the three countries in the area of credit transfer and grade evaluation, and agreed to continue discussions to elaborate on the guidelines. Moreover, regarding the specific responsibilities of each country, the guidelines recommended: establishment of an internal quality assurance system; effective implementation of exchange programs; establishment of a comprehensive, coherent, and transparent quality assurance framework; encouragement of relevant universities to participate in the exchange programs; support for the quality assurance agency to conduct activities; quality assurance agencies; maintaining clarification and visibility of procedure; seeking common standards and joint evaluation; capacity building for the staff; and understanding the significance of trilateral exchange (Trilateral Cooperation Library 2010).

In addition, a plan to implement a pilot program was discussed. The aim of this program is to implement, on a trial basis, and under the principle of openness, extensiveness, flexibility, and voluntariness, cooperation and exchanges, credit transfer, and grade evaluation, to enable a cooperative education scheme between universities in the three countries and, based on the outcomes and issues thereof, to develop a large-scale cooperative education scheme for universities in the three countries (Trilateral Cooperation Library 2010).

In the meantime, the third Trilateral Committee meeting was held on the island of Jeju in the ROK on May 17, 2011. During this meeting, the CAMPUS Asia program took on a more concrete form and its implementation was agreed upon. It was also decided that the CAMPUS Asia program would be initiated through a pilot program. In addition, a number of principles such as the exchange subjects, participating units, style, and field of exchange projects, period of exchange projects, number of students to be exchanged, duration, selection process, and language, were confirmed at the third committee. Furthermore, there was a discussion regarding the guidelines for exchange and cooperation between universities in the three countries with regard to quality assurance. These guidelines clearly stipulated the functions and responsibilities of all parties involved in the CAMPUS Asia program including the governments, universities, and quality assurance agencies to be used by each party from the pilot program stage. It was agreed that the three countries should actively disseminate these guidelines to each party.

The fourth Trilateral Committee meeting was held in Japan in 2013. The committee shared and confirmed the significance, openness, and potential of development of the CAMPUS Asia program in higher education in Asia. Responding to the spirit envisaged in the joint declaration from the fifth Trilateral Summit held in Beijing in May 2012, the committee confirmed that it would further promote the development and enhancement of the CAMPUS Asia program on the basis of the pilot programs, with close cooperation and perspectives to further expand the scale and scope of the programs so as to cultivate more and better talents for the region (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea 2013).

While four rounds of Trilateral Committee meetings were held, the fourth and fifth Trilateral Summit meetings were held in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The 2011 Summit, with enhanced cooperation as its motto, visualized the launch of a secretariat by announcing the establishment of a cooperation secretariat for the three countries. The following year, they discussed their progress in cooperation and future direction, and officially initiated CAMPUS Asia’s pilot program. In sum, during the fourth Trilateral Summit meeting in 2011, the three parties decided to continue in their efforts to build the mechanism of the Trilateral Ministerial Meeting to further promote trilateral education cooperation.

Promoting mutual understanding and identity change

Studies on the ERASMUS program demonstrate that cooperation in higher education leads to identity change. Sigalas (2010) focuses particularly on the cross-border mobility of people as a promising method of promoting European integration or the Europeanization of students’ identity. He explores the premise that the ERASMUS student experience abroad and direct interpersonal contacts promote a European identity. The result of his study shows that although studying abroad led to increased socializing with other Europeans, contact with host country students remained limited. Moreover, Sigalas argues that experiences acquired through the ERASMUS program do not seem to strengthen students’ European identity. Increased socializing with other Europeans seemed to have a positive, though modest, impact on European identity (Sigalas 2010). De Wit (2002) also shows that the European Union was one of the main drivers in the creation of the ERASMUS program originally and thus, in a way, the ERASMUS program can also be regarded as a tool that directly serves the purpose of promoting a European identity among young people. A study by Van Mol (2014) also examined the influence of European student mobility on European identity. His findings suggest that mobile EU students, as a result of their experience abroad and their social interaction, adopted Europe almost as a personal project in which the social predominates over the political (Brandenburg 2014, p. 73).

The CAMPUS Asia pilot program, now into its fourth year, sees participation by 100 to 150 students annually from each country. In order to analyze the relationship between program participation and changes in participants’ global awareness, this study used data from a survey conducted on students participating in the CAMPUS Asia program. Respondents were either double degree students or were on exchange, and they had completed the CAMPUS Asia program between January 2012 and March 2015. These participants were either Korean, Chinese, or Japanese students from the ten consortiums. This survey was conducted by institution and researchers who were funded by the Korean Ministry of Education. These participants have seen much positive change in terms of their Asian identity and affinity toward the country they have studied in. There is a significant difference between the changes experienced by these students compared to regular exchange students in particular. This can serve as an important indicator to compare the effect of market-based bottom-up exchange versus government-led top-down exchange.

Firstly, there has been much change in perception toward the student’s visiting country. When asked about the psychological distance felt toward the visiting country on a scale of 1 (very distant) to 6 (very close), the mean figure changed from 3.2 preparticipation to 4.7 postparticipation, as shown in Fig. 1. In addition, the psychological distance felt toward the citizens of the visiting country showed even greater change from 3.2 to 4.9. This shows that direct interaction with citizens of the country had more positive than negative influences.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Psychological distance felt toward the visiting country on a scale of 1 (very distant) to 6 (very close) of visiting country and its citizens between preparticipation and postparticipation

Full size image

Such reduction in psychological distance is also connected to increased interest in and understanding of the country. A survey measuring the change experienced by 111 people on a scale of 1 (no change) to 6 (much change) demonstrates this effectively. As shown in Fig. 2, the results were as follows: (1) I feel an affinity toward the country—4.5; (2) I have come to be able to understand and be considerate toward the visiting country even when it comes to sensitive issues that I want to avoid—4.6; (3) I have come to separate the country from the individual—4.6; (4) I have come to understand the different position the country has from my country in terms of political, social, and historical issues—4.7; (5) I have a better understanding of my visiting country’s culture and people—4.8; and (6) I have maintained my interest in the country despite my return home—4.9. This demonstrates that there were noticeably positive changes in all six areas.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Positive change in attitude toward visiting country on a scale of 1 (no change) to 6 (much change) postparticipation (N = 111). (1) I feel an affinity toward the country; (2) I have come to be able to understand and be considerate toward the visiting country even when it comes to sensitive issues that I want to avoid; (3) I have come to separate the country from the individual; (4) I have come to understand the different position the country has from my country in terms of political, social, and historical issues; (5) I have a better understanding of my visiting country’s culture and people; (6) I have maintained my interest in the country despite my return home

Full size image

The biggest obstacle to cooperation among the three countries is mutual lack of trust and understanding. Despite active economic cooperation, differing views and conflicts on historical and territorial issues make political cooperation difficult. Such conflicts escalate mutual distrust, serving as a factor that hinders stability in the East Asia region. Considering this, it is evident that the younger generation’s positive changes in perception of their visiting countries are meaningful. The participants in the CAMPUS Asia program, in particular, are in higher education, which means they are mostly in their 20s. Assuming that there is a high possibility that they will become decision makers for important policies 10 to 20 years after participating, it can be predicted that the younger generation’s changed perception will contribute to increased mutual understanding and cooperation among the three countries.

In the meantime, positive changes regarding identity formation have also been detected. Taking the EU as an exemplary case, there has been increased recognition and action taken on the need to form a community in the East Asia region. It can be seen that the CAMPUS Asia program has had significant influence on forming an East Asian identity. A study on the change experienced by 111 students on a scale of 1 (no change) to 6 (much change) demonstrates this. As shown in Fig. 3, the results were as follows: (1) I feel pride as a member of the East Asia community—3.9; (2) I regard myself as a member of the East Asia community—4.3; (3) I believe that participation and efforts on an individual level can contribute to the development of the East Asia community—4.3; (4) I have held a continued interest in East Asian issues—4.5; and (5) I have come to believe that I should contribute to advancing relations between ROK-China-Japan—4.5. In all, the five areas averaged positive change of 4.3, and 84.3 % of the respondents anticipated in particular that the CAMPUS Asia program would contribute much to cooperation between the three countries.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Positive changes in identity formation on a scale from 1 (no change) to 6 (much change) post-participation (N = 111). (1) I feel pride as a member of the East Asia community; (2) I regard myself as a member of the East Asia community; (3) I believe that participation and efforts on an individual level can contribute to the development of the East Asia community; (4) I have held a continued interest in East Asian issues; (5) I have come to believe that I should contribute to advancing relations between ROK-China-Japan

Full size image

Such changes could also be observed from the one-on-one interviews with students participating in the program.Footnote 4 “Discussing East Asia issues provided me with the opportunity to broaden my perception because I could listen to the different views each country has, and I’ve come to be able to think from the other country’s point of view” (J.C./dual-degree student, Fudan University). “The CAMPUS Asia program has taught me an important lesson in how to communicate about trust and peace” (Y.S./exchange student, Fudan University). “It was a chance for me to hear about each country’s opinion regarding a single historical fact” (L.X./dual-degree student, Fudan University). “I’ve come to have an expanded understanding of the three countries, which seem similar yet are different” (T.L./exchange student, Fudan University). “It was a chance for me to think about the situation of the existing circumstances such as the need to manage crises and territorial disputes” (K.N./dual-degree student, Kobe University). “I have a better understanding of the other person because we got to discuss sensitive topics in a free atmosphere” (Y.H./exchange student, Kobe University).

Conclusion—the challenges of the CAMPUS Asia program

The CAMPUS Asia pilot program, born from an agreement between the ROK, China, and Japan, and supported financially by each country’s Ministry of Education, is representative of transnational educational exchange stemming from political will. As explained by existing studies, economic rationale has brought about the marketization of many educationally cooperative projects. Considering the current condition of educational cooperation, the CAMPUS Asia project holds undeniable significance with regard to encouraging stability within the region. The first significant factor is the institutionalization of a trilateral relationship. A trilateral consultative body exists and is becoming institutionalized because the program is based on agreements on the governmental level. The second is that it promotes mutual understanding and identity change. Participant students tend to recognize themselves as being part of a meaningful program that encourages trilateral cooperation rather than as typical exchange students. In addition, through increased understanding of their visiting countries’ politics, history, society, and culture, they are forming identities as Asians. It would be difficult to anticipate such an effect from exchange programs managed on the individual university and private sector level.

However, despite such positive effects, there are some structural limitations to the program. The first is the instability that arises from the political reality within the East Asia region. The current CAMPUS Asia program is in its pilot stage and is set to end in February 2016. The educational ministries of the three countries will convene during the latter half of 2015 for discussions on how to expand and develop the program into its full form but a concrete date has yet to be set. The professors, faculty, and public officials participating in the program are predicting the extension of the project due to its appropriateness, but it is true that they are cautious. This is because the project originated from an agreement between the three governments, and hence, political backing such as a supportive statement by the leaders of the three countries is important. However, considering the instability of the state of affairs in the region, it is questionable whether an agreement as enthusiastic as that in 2009 can be reached. Many issues are serving as obstacles including the China-Japan territorial dispute regarding the East China Sea, the ROK-Japan territorial dispute on the East Sea, the conservative swing of the Japanese leader, and the nationalistic sentiment prevalent in China and the ROK. The consensus among the trilateral working group members is that the worse the political situation, the more critical it is to foster educational cooperation. However, despite this, it is unclear what decision the top policy makers will come to, just as in the regional situation.

Considering this, should the CAMPUS Asia program be continued, it will be necessary to devise a system that will protect it from the influences of political instability. Possible solutions could be the formation of a joint fund or the dispersion of risk with a larger number of stakeholders. The main concern regarding the current pilot phase is the stable provision of funds. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare a joint fund allocated by the governments and businesses of the three countries and ensure the program itself is not affected by temporary political instabilities. ERASMUS, the similar program in Europe, has implemented this policy, making efforts to secure money through the participation of both the governments and major businesses.

The second limitation is imbalanced participation. Occasionally, dissatisfaction occurs due to the imbalanced contribution of the three countries regarding the implementation of the program. This is closely correlated with China’s administrative system. While the educational ministries of the ROK and Japan have secured separate budgets for CAMPUS Asia, China does so from the scholarships for the entire country and therefore, there have been incidents where the students have not received their scholarships despite the commencement of the semester. Students sent from China have also encountered difficulties with administrative issues such as late visa issuance and failed dormitory assignment. Some participating students have even had to depart a month after the semester started because the Chinese embassy failed to issue their visas on time. Because the universities of ROK and Japan have staff assigned solely to the CAMPUS Asia program, immediate action can be taken for problems but due to the lack of manpower in China, the rate of complaints is relatively high.

Imbalanced participation arises not only from China’s administrative system but also from its relative indifference. China, which is undergoing rapid globalization and internationalization, is also pursuing active exchanges with countries such as the USA and those in Europe. Therefore, outstanding Chinese students who seek to learn English undeniably prefer to participate in the programs in the USA and Europe. The Chinese government is also backing this by investing more personnel and money into its exchanges with the West. For these reasons, participation in the CAMPUS Asia program, which could symbolize East Asian cooperation and peace, falls behind in order of priority for China.

Such imbalanced contribution can only lead to hindered responsibility, and in the long run is expected to lead to lower motivation for participation in the program. In addition, a country’s unenthusiastic attitude can bring about dissatisfaction by the partner countries. Therefore, in order to resolve the issue of imbalanced participation, it will be necessary to incorporate an inducement strategy such as providing China with motivation through an environment in which they can hold more leadership. It is necessary to provide China with the motivation to participate in the program more aggressively and responsibly by feeling an increased sense of belonging.

However, such imbalanced contribution is not unique to the CAMPUS Asia program. There was a case with the AIMS program when Vietnam did not hand in a country report on time or failed to hand it in due to financial difficulties. However, flexible policies ensured that such unexpected situations were handled smoothly. Malaysia also played a pivotal role by leading the program. Thus, having another key member country guide the activities should be considered for the CAMPUS Asia program. Generally speaking, the three universities will need to collaborate closely to resolve each issue at the consortiums. Furthermore, governments should provide clear guidelines as well as monitoring and evaluating participants’ performance in accordance to said guidelines. It is worth noting that the ERASMUS and AIMS programs place great importance in joint monitoring and quality assurance so as to resolve such issues.

In order for the CAMPUS Asia program not to halt at its pilot phase, a number of other tasks must be addressed such as the development of a quality assurance system and the development of a joint degree system. Most critical, however, will be the acknowledgement of the importance and necessity of the program by the participating countries. They cannot depend on economic rationale but must consider CAMPUS Asia a long-term mechanism for regional integration. In other words, they must recognize the difference between CAMPUS Asia and other existing programs and adopt a suitable sense of responsibility. Only when this is incorporated will the CAMPUS Asia program attain its ultimate goal of expanding into the South East Asia region and see the establishment of an Asian university.