International students and net migration in the UK > Publication

Filter this site

Close

Available tags / Selected:

arts

business and industry

children

citizenship

climate change

communities

constitution

crime

culture

democracy

development and aid

devolution and localism

economy

education

employment

energy

environment

equality

Europe

fairness

faith

families

finance

globalisation

health

higher education

housing

human rights

identity

integration

jobs

justice

leadership

local government

media

migration

older people

personal finances

police

political events

political ideas

poverty

progressive politics

public services

reform

regional issues

resources

schools

science and technology

security

social care

sport

sustainability

taxation

trade

training and skills

transport

UK politics

US politics

welfare

world politics

young people

My Filters

Log in to set or change your
saved filters

Receive daily email alerts

Personalised RSS

>

MyIPPR
Login / Register

Login

Forgotten Member Details

Register

First name:
Surname:
Username:
Email:
Confirm email:
Password:
Confirm password:
Please prove that you are human :
1 + 4 equals

Sign up to our weekly e-newsletter

Your personal information will be held on a database by IPPR. From time to time, we would like to send you information about events and other offers.

Please tick here if you would prefer not to receive this information.
Please tick here if you would like to receive information from our partners and supporting organisations.

You are here

Publications

International students and net migration in the UK

economy, higher education, migration, world politics

Author(s): Alex Glennie, Matt Cavanagh
Published date: 14 May 2012
Download full publication

This report recommends that international students should be excluded from overall net migration figures, as moves to limit incoming student numbers for the sake of long-term migration figures put a valuable export market – higher education – at risk. A survey of the top 10 countries for international students suggests there is no international rule or standard preventing the UK from counting students in this way.

Instead, the report recommends that students are counted in net migration figures only at the point they elect to stay on in the UK after study, for example to work or marry, and so switch into another migration category.

Most students leave the UK after studying, but most students stay for a few years – this means that they count as immigrants long before they count as emigrants. For a government committed to reducing net migration 'to the tens of thousands', this provides an incentive to reduce incoming student numbers and by doing so to 'bank' an apparent net migration saving, despite the fact that most students make no contribution to long-term net migration.

The report estimates that the government's stated policy of 'bearing down' on student migration could cost the UK £2–3 billion per year in economic contribution from the reduction of 50,000 international students per year. Changing the counting method to exclude students from net migration would remove the incentive to 'bear down' and so avoid this substantial loss. Moreover, an alternative 'pro-growth' policy to attract an additional 50,000 students could double this effect, adding to the economic might of the UK's education industry.