We would like to share with you an article recently published in the University World News , which is, we think, of interest for many of our professionals who, the more and more, are seeking work outside the Borders of the EU, towards the East:

Does a Eurasian Higher Education Area exist? The Eurasian Higher Education Area is a concept that recently entered the lexicon of the post-Soviet political space. It refers to a higher education region involving Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union region in different configurations.

Shared educational space is often seen as complementary to a regional organisation such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or SCO, the Commonwealth of Independent States or CIS, the Eurasian Economic Union or EAEU and its predecessor the Eurasian Economic Community, EurAsEc.

In some situations the ‘region’ extends beyond the former USSR – the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – to include countries such as China, India or Pakistan.

At the same time, post-Soviet countries are included in larger projects led by ‘outsiders’, for example the European Higher Education Area or EHEA and China’s One Belt, One Road initiative.

The lack of clear delineation of the area leads to the conclusion that a Eurasian Higher Education Area is still in the making, when different meanings and scenarios are possible.

Origins of the Eurasian Higher Education Area

Eurasian integration can be considered a process of alignment of the former USSR countries underpinned by geographical, historical, economic and geopolitical factors. Cooperation started just after the dissolution of the USSR, but due to a sense of pervasive crisis, a lack of resources and the consequent low priority ascribed to education, it remained mainly rhetorical.

In 1994 Nursultan Nazarbayev, then president of Kazakhstan, proposed the formation of a Eurasian Union which would also include joint work on higher education. But it was not welcomed by some CIS countries which were reluctant to align more closely with Russia, or by Russia itself, where the primary concern at the time was domestic affairs.

Nevertheless in 1997, two years before the Bologna Process came into being, political leaders signed an agreement on the creation of a CIS Common Educational Area, defined as the “affinity of principles of state educational policy, coherence of state educational standards, programmes, coupled with equal opportunities and the right to education in all educational institutions located in CIS countries”.

This new regional space was marked by educational legacies from the Soviet period such as high state regulation and the notion of education as a right. However, this agreement had no clear agenda or tools and lacked support. Implementation as well as funding were left to the discretion of national governments, which meant it became little more than a proclamation on paper.

The Bologna Process in post-Soviet countries

The launch of the Bologna Process in 1999 with the aim of creating the EHEA significantly changed the post-Soviet higher education landscape. Eleven countries from the region joined the process, and consequently are reforming their systems to comply with European common principles.

The Bologna reforms, supported by European Union programmes and funding, resulted in the alignment of higher education systems in the region and the internationalisation of universities.

The subsequent creation of the CIS and SCO network universities as alternatives to European initiatives recognises the significance of inter-university cooperation in building shared educational areas.

In this sense, subsequent Russian-led initiatives can be considered a ‘Eurasian’ sub-region of higher education. These have been based on European principles, but take into account features of post-Soviet countries.

Russia’s ‘independent’ agenda

Pursuing the same goal as the EU – to become one of the world leaders in the global education market – Russia sees the Bologna Process as a means of improving its competitiveness. At the same time, dissatisfied with its ‘periphery’ position in the EHEA, Russia launched an Excellence Programme and spearheaded alternative regional projects under its leadership.

The EurAsEc, a major Russia and Kazakhstan-led project designed for CIS countries that were willing to cooperate more deeply, also helped make significant progress in elaborating regulatory frameworks for international educational cooperation.

A reluctance to engage in integration at the governmental level led to the mounting prominence of Russian universities as driving forces of alignment.

There was a growing understanding that real integration would not be possible without engagement at the grassroots level. Using higher education, older projects were reinvigorated, such as the creation of the SCO and CIS network universities. Both network universities are consortia of leading national universities working together to deliver joint masters degrees, foster student exchanges and undertake collaborative research.

Regardless of the limited scope and funding, the SCO and CIS network universities marked an important milestone by engaging universities in regional cooperation and supplementing intergovernmental processes. However, they include mainly elite universities based in capital cities, and thus represent only a limited number of stakeholders.

Eurasian project deadlock

The overlapping initiatives with similar institutional structures and goals that have emerged within the CIS, SCO and EurAsEC are the result of the search for appropriate forms of cooperation. The transformation of the EurAsEC into the EAEU was expected to be a major project for post-Soviet countries with the potential to consolidate previous efforts to create higher education regionalism.

With the growing importance of the knowledge economy and ideas around competitiveness in policy-making, the shared research and educational area was supposed to be built based on the mutual recognition of qualifications and an EAEU network university. However, it ended up splitting the region and causing tensions even among supporters of post-Soviet integration.

Provisions on the coordination of educational policy were not included in the formal agreement due to the objections of Kazakhstan, which expressed concerns about massive brain drain to Russia. Ultimately, only articles on the mutual recognition of qualifications upon hiring were included.

Considering the situation, Russian universities, not least because of their intentions to develop internationalisation as part of competitiveness strategies and capacities built during their participation in EU programmes, took the lead in fostering cooperation with EAEU universities. For example, in 2016 Tomsk State University launched a joint masters programme with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on Eurasian integration to train students to work in EAEU institutions.

Future of the Eurasian Higher Education Area

The development of Eurasian higher education regionalism is determined by levels of resources and trust in political elites, and at the same time by the interconnectedness of people who used to live in one country and also by the harmonisation of educational systems in line with the Bologna Process.

Thus far, resources and trust have both been rather low, and the probability that politicians from the countries of the region will push for a new educational project in the short- or medium-term is also low.

However, although the process of alignment is frozen at the intergovernmental level, cooperation at inter-university level is developing and this trend will continue. Such cooperation for higher education led by higher education institutions is the best way out of the current deadlock.

Natalia Leskina is a doctoral researcher at the Ural Federal University in Russia. Email: nathalieleskina@gmail.com. This article was first published in the current edition of Higher Education in Russia and Beyond.