Private higher education: a comparative study of Germany and the United Arab Emirates

ABSTRACT

This article compares the private higher education (HE) systems in Germany and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). We examine the historical, political, and demographic contexts of private universities in both countries, as well as the role of the state in regulating and shaping the private HE sector. We then explore the interrelation of the public and private HE sectors in Germany and the UAE, with a focus on how competitive and market forces, as well as state regulation, affect the HE system. Finally, we reflect on the homogenising and differentiating drivers that contribute to explaining the private HE landscape in both countries. We use neo-institutionalist approach to identify different varieties of isomorphism in the two countries. Even though the growth and shape of the private higher education sector in both countries reflect international normative, mimetic and coercive pressures, our study suggests that the development of the private sector is moderated by country-specific historical developments as well as by political contexts that accelerate or slow down market dynamics.

KEYWORDS:

• Germany
• United Arab Emirates
• private higher education
• international comparison of higher education systems
• neo-institutionalism
• isomorphism
• world society theory

Introduction

In this article, we compare the higher education systems of Germany and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) regarding the role of private higher education institutions (HEIs) in both countries. This comparative focus on private HEI in these two particular nation-states is motivated by three reasons.

First, to our knowledge, the systems of these two countries have never been comparatively analysed. Consequently, it appears promising to compare two systems that share some general similarities (federal structure of the state, economic powerhouse in their region, etc.) while showing considerable dissimilarities (the political context, demographics, the history of higher education in their respective countries, etc.).

Second, the private HE sector is gaining importance worldwide – both in terms of student enrolment (Schofer and Meyer 2005) and the number of institutions (Buckner 2017). With over 250 million students enrolled in 30,000 private institutions globally, non-state engagement in higher education is ubiquitous in the contemporary global setting of mass higher education (Altbach, de Wit, and Woldegiyorgis). This worldwide surge in students and institutions has led to a steep increase in private higher education institutions (HEIs), which now globally outnumbering public ones. This might be an indicator of a dramatic shift in conceptualising HE, i.e. from seeing it as a public good to viewing it as a private good subject to market forces (Buckner 2017). Against this background, we compare the developmental dynamics in both private HE sectors.

Third, a quick glance at the features of both systems reveals that HE differs widely in both countries regarding the role of private HEI in national development. The UAE exhibits a predominantly private higher education sector, which has been driven by state policies over the last 40 years intended to make the UAE competitive globally and increase the role of UAE citizens in the local and global economy. Conversely, in Germany the public higher education has traditionally played a major role in nation-building in Germany and private education has been added recently to meet specific demands for degree programmes.

Against this background, our comparative analysis strives to shed light on some of the origins, features, and driving forces in both HE systems while – in contrast to a long-standing tradition in higher education research to focus on public institutions as the standard model – focusing on HEI in the private sector.

One barrier to researching private HE using an international comparative perspective is the definition of ‘private.’ It is notoriously difficult to discern which organisations are private since the definitions of ‘public’ and ‘private’ vary widely between national contexts, which also affects the availability of official statistics for both sectors (Profanter 2017). However, for our purposes here, we use a part of the definition provided by (Buckner 2017), who distinguishes between public and private higher education according to three criteria: legal ownership (e.g. state versus private ownership), funding (e.g. the share of public versus private funding), and contribution to society regarding the organisational goal (public good vs. private profits). We only adopt the first two criteria for our study since, according to HE discourse, not-for-profit private higher education institutions (HEIs) exist in both Germany and the UAE, and private HEIs may contribute to the public good in terms of a highly educated population. Focusing on these two criteria makes the comparative analysis of private HE in these two countries more rigourous.

All in all, our investigation of quite different HE systems promises insights that comparisons of more similar cases might not be able to offer. Hence, in adopting a methodological approach of juxtaposing both HE systems (Bleiklie 2014), we give an overview of their respective characteristics but try to reveal forces and dynamics that explain their similarities and dissimilarities, especially regarding the private HE sectors.

Materials and methods

Based on the assumptions stated above, our study proceeds in the following steps. In the first step, we depict the historical, political, and demographic contexts of private universities in Germany and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and provide information on institutional types, numbers, and funding mechanisms of higher education institutions (HEIs) in both countries. By adopting this comparative perspective, we endeavour to discern commonalities and disparities between the two national higher education systems and their private HE sectors. In the second step, we investigate the role of the state in both countries concerning the regulation and shaping of the (private) higher education (HE). In the third step, we observe the interrelation of the public and the private HE sector in Germany and the UAE while focusing on the ways and extent to which competitive and market forces – against the backdrop of their regulation by the state – affect the HE system. In the last step, we reflect on which homogenising drivers and differentiating dynamics contribute to explaining the (private) HE landscape in both countries.

Case selection and comparative analytical framework

The UAE and Germany are ideal subjects for scholarly examination through a neo-institutional framework, which is the theoretical framework for this study. We have adopted a methodology of juxtaposition as outlined by (Bleiklie 2014) in international comparative higher education research, since it offers significant benefits, including the ability to compare and contrast different systems, which leads to a deeper understanding of the varied cultural, political, and economic contexts influencing these systems. This methodology fosters critical analysis across different contexts, for a comprehensive understanding of global trends and challenges in higher education.

We use (DiMaggio and Powell’s 1983) early neo-institutionalist approach and apply its different varieties of isomorphism to our cases. Despite the fact that the ‘older’ neo-institutionalism expressly aims at identifying homogenising forces, we try to forge a conceptual tool that is capable of explaining homogenisation as well as differentiation dynamics. For this purpose, we distinguish two levels of observation – the global and the national – on which the isomorphic mechanisms push institutional similarities or dissimilarities. Neo-institutionalism serves as a theoretical foundation for this comparison. In the context of private higher education, neo-institutionalism can elucidate the influence of regulatory structures, normative pressures, and mimetic behaviours on the development, operations, and trajectories of private higher education institutions.

Provocatively, we deploy classical neo-institutionalism’s distinction between three forms of isomorphism (coercive, mimetic, and normative) to account for the differentiation within and between these two national HE systems. In doing so, we try to acknowledge national forces, values, blueprints, and social conditions that either lead to a country-specific incorporation or implementation of global ideas and schemes or are strong enough to have a direct impact on the national HE landscape. Thus, in our approach we integrate the local influences that are responsible for shaping the HE system and for adapting global HE trends to local needs and requirements.

The selection of the UAE and Germany for a comparative analysis of their private higher education (HE) systems is grounded in several compelling justifications. First, the two countries have widely diverse contexts, with the UAE representing a youthful, rapidly developing demographic of UAE-born professionals amid an expatriate workforce, and Germany possessing a more established pattern of immigration and integration within a centuries’ old nation state. Second, Germany’s well-established educational heritage contrasts with the UAE’s nascent private HE sector, which is catalysed by globalisation and economic diversification. Third, the divergent regulatory frameworks and governance structures in HE in these countries, with Germany’s historically state-dominated system and the UAE’s market-driven approach, offer a unique lens to examine the impact of governmental policies and market dynamics on private HE. Four, the UAE’s private HE sector, with its numerous foreign institutions and globally-oriented programmes, diverges from Germany’s more regionally embedded private HE institutions. This comparison reveals how global trends and international networks shape private HE within distinct regional contexts. Five, the contrasting market forces driving demand for private HE in the UAE, influenced by a diverse expatriate population, and in Germany, shaped by factors like public HE availability and vocational orientation, illuminate the role of consumer choice and market competition in shaping these systems. Finally, the role of private HE in fulfiling national development objectives differs significantly; in the UAE, it aligns with economic diversification goals, while in Germany, it complements an extensive public HE system to offer alternative or specialised educational pathways.

Through this structured juxtaposition of two unique higher education systems, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nuances and complexities inherent in private HE systems within diverse socio-cultural and institutional contexts, ultimately contributing to broader scholarly discourse and policymaking in higher education.

Data sources

We systematically utilised a comprehensive array of secondary data sources from both countries to inform this research. These secondary data sources encompass a wide spectrum of materials, including government reports, policy documents, academic publications, institutional data, and statistical records. In the case of Germany, authoritative sources such as the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and various academic journals provide a foundation of quantitative and qualitative data. For the UAE, secondary data sources include publications from the UAE Ministry of Education, the UAE’s Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA), and scholarly works on higher education in the region. The synthesis of information from these secondary data sources facilitated our comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the private higher education landscapes in both countries, allowing for a nuanced comparison and a thorough examination of the factors influencing their development and operation.

Results

In our first section, we provide some background information on the political, cultural, and demographic features of Germany and the UAE.

Demographic and political context of Germany and the UAE

Germany and the UAE are political and socio-economic powerhouses in their respective regions. They are both governed by federal political systems in which each state or emirate has its own policies under the umbrella of the federal government. In particular, this is the case regarding HE policy, which is in the hands of each state’s or emirate’s political authorities.

The two countries are very dissimilar regarding type of government, size, population size, socio-historical context and economic structure. The UAE are a federal monarchy in the Middle East made up of seven emirates, with a total population of 9,282,410 million in 2020, according to Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Centre (FCSC) website. Only 1.4 million (15%) of the population are Emirati citizens and the rest of the population is non-native (85–90%) (QAA 2017, 2). According to the World Population Review (WPR) website, South Asians make up the largest group of non-UAE nationals (58%), followed by other Asians (Arabs) (17%) and Western expats (8.5%). Non-UAE nationals are not eligible for free education, but can be entitled to scholarships.

Germany, in contrast, consists of 16 states (called Länder), including three city states, with a total population of about 83.7 million, according to the Federal Statistical Office website. The population structure in the last decades has been shaped, among other factors, by the influx of refugees and immigrants. There were 10.12 million foreign nationals in Germany in 2019 (Petschel 2021). Turkish immigrants made up 12.8% of Germany’s foreign population. By 2020, 42.8% of foreign residents were from EU countries, with Poland providing the highest proportion at 7.6% (EACEA National Policies Platform 2022).

Our comparison of the HE systems of Germany and the UAE below has to deal with very different patterns, with a predominantly public system in Germany, on the one hand, and a mainly private system in the UAE on the other. Germany’s expansive public higher education sector exceeds the size of the private sector by far and offers free education to all. However, higher education in the UAE is predominantly private. Expats and nationals who opt for private education are charged high tuition fees, and only nationals in public institutions enjoy free access to HE. We explore these and additional differences in more detail below.

Historical development of higher education in Germany and the UAE Germany

HE in Germany has a long historical tradition. The oldest university (Heidelberg) was founded in 1386. Many public universities in Germany date from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. More recently, during the first wave of higher education expansion in the 1970s, the system was extended through the establishment of a novel type of HE institution – universities of applied sciences – which focus on practice-oriented learning and applied research. In contrast to the long-established trajectory of the public sector, the majority of private HE institutions (mostly universities of applied sciences) date from the last two decades. The existence of accredited private higher education in Germany has its roots in the 1980s, with the first private university of applied science accredited in 1980 and the first university in 1982 (Schily 2007).

Today, there are a total of 423 HEIs in Germany – including 110 universities, 246 universities of applied sciences, and 57 arts colleges. The private sector comprises 112 state-accredited institutions, of which 20 are universities, 89 are universities of applied sciences, and 3 are arts colleges (cf. www.hochschukompass.de). Accredited private higher education organisations operate either as non-profit or for-profit providers.

The exponential rise of private higher education in Germany since 2000 is the result of the worldwide global expansion of higher education (Altin 2019), the academisation of professions (Wolter and Kerst 2015) and the catering of many private HE institutions to student populations with specific needs and demands (e.g. non-traditional students, students opting for part-time or remote study programmes). Additionally, the temporary introduction of tuition fees at public universities in 2007/2008 (Hübner 2012) produced a founding wave of private universities (Mitterle 2017). Private universities have almost tripled their number since 1999 (N = 43) and doubled their enrolment since 1995, whereas public institutions’ enrolments have grown by 33% (Platz and Dirk 2016). In recent years, the number of students enrolled in public institutions has exceeded 2.4 million, while there are 157,899 in private institutions.

Another reason for the expansion of the private HE sector is the homogenisation of study formats and degrees in the Bologna process. The Bologna process initiated reforms in higher education throughout Europe in 1999 and ultimately impacted regulatory frameworks outside of Europe as well. In Germany, a Bologna-compliant three-year bachelor’s degree and a subsequent two-year master’s degree have replaced the previous diploma system (Frank et al. 2010). All in all, higher education reform in Germany aimed at improving institutional autonomy, strengthening strategic capability, incorporating performance-based financing, improving German universities’ international competitiveness, and attracting more foreign students (Stensaker et al. 2011).

However, even though the number of private German HEIs in total has expanded, the private sector proves to be more volatile in comparison to its public counterpart. Lenhardt et al. (2012) stated that between 1980 and 2006, around 24 of 131 private universities in Germany closed. These closures are mostly due to financial problems, since private institutions are mostly financed by tuition fees, foundation capital, private contributions, profits from training, research and other consultancy services, leasing event facilities, state subsidies, and investment interest (Brockhoff 2011, 19). These funding sources are not as stable as government funding.

The UAE

The UAE has been committed to education since its founding in 1971. The UAE university was established in 1976 as the country’s first higher education institution. A number of public and private universities have been established since then. Higher education has developed along with the fast-paced economic growth of the country since the discovery of oil in the 1960s. As a result of both population growth (by importing foreign workers) and a shift to a more diversified knowledge-based economy that relies less on oil revenues, higher education demand has risen significantly (Emirates Competitiveness Council 2014). This has been reflected in the growing number of non-public institutions, including foreign universities which cater mostly to the needs of the 85% of the UAE population who are expats.

In general, the HE sector in the UAE is difficult to categorise in terms of legal ownership and HE authority since some private entities are also owned and partially funded by the government. These are referred to as semi-public institutions. Therefore, (Badry 2019) distinguishes federal and non-federal HEIs, presuming that it is difficult to categorise non-federal institutions as either private, public, for-profit or not-for-profit organisations, as many of these institutions claim to receive a substantial amount of financial support from the federal government or the Emirate in which they are based. For our analysis we differentiate between public/federal, semi-public, and private universities in the UAE.

According to the UAE’s CAA website, there were 74 active higher education institutions in the UAE in 2022. Three of these are federal (public), two are emirate public, the others are non-federal (semi-public and private). Three federal universities operate on a national level through branches in different emirates: the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Zayed University, and Higher Colleges of Technology. The UAEU offers PhD programmes and master’s and bachelor’s degrees, while the other two offer bachelor’s and master’s degrees. In 2013 and 2014, the National Defence College and Emirates Diplomatic Academy were added to the federal HEI landscape (Nasir 2017). In addition to federal universities, there are also other public HEIs at the emirate level. As an example, the Khalifa University of Science & Technology (KU) in Abu Dhabi was formed by merging the former Khalifa University, the Masdar Institute and the Petroleum Institute in February 2017. Public universities provide free access to higher education for Emirati citizens and offer scholarships for outstanding expat students.

Semi-public universities are partially funded by the federal government or by the local emirate and partly by student fees, and many have a large expatriate student population. The semi-public HEIs differ in terms of government involvement and oversight. For example, the ruler of Sharjah established the American University of Sharjah in 1997 as a private not-for-profit institution (operating on the emirate level and funded through student fees) and the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry owns the University of Dubai (Wilkins 2011). The government of the emirate of Abu Dhabi has funded the establishment of two international branch campuses: Paris-Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi in 2006 and New York University Abu Dhabi in 2010\.

Finally, there are private higher education institutions in the UAE that are owned by local individuals or organisations, or are controlled entirely by foreign HEIs, such as International Branch Campuses (IBCs). The University of Wollongong (Australia), whose UAE branch was founded in 1993, was the first foreign university/branch campus to be accredited by the UAE Ministry of Education (Wilkins 2011). Branch campuses are founded and operated by foreign providers and they facilitate students’ access to curriculum and programmes already established by these providers, rather than building local higher education capacity through collaborations. IBCs cater mostly to expats as well as to international students from neighbouring countries.

The handling of IBCs varies between the Emirates. (Lane 2011), who analysed the dominant educational import strategy in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar, found that Dubai follows a similar approach in HE to its business development strategy: establishing free zones where institutions operate independently and compete against each other to enrol students. These institutions are seen by the author as very market-oriented. Dubai offers generous incentives in terms of 100% foreign ownership, tax exemption and repatriation of profits in order to attract and retain IBCs. Profit earned at IBCs can be sent back to the home campus (Hanada 2013). Dubai with 33 campuses has, therefore, become the second largest higher education hub in the world after China (Cross-Border Education Research Team 2022).

However, IBCs in the UAE cannot be seen as purely private institutions in cases where at least two governments are involved, the home and the host government. For instance, Abu Dhabi takes an approach that differs from Dubai’s policy, as in Abu Dhabi the government heavily subsidised the development of the IBCs and provides generous financial support.

To sum up: private HE in the UAE (including foreign providers) plays a quite dominant role, with 70% of all students enrolled in the private sector (Federal Competitiveness and Statistics Centre 2017) and 30% in the public sector. A number of factors may have contributed to private higher education institutions outnumbering public institutions in the UAE. First, its demographic composition made it necessary to import foreign education to serve the diverse population (Indians, British, Australians, etc.), thus benefitting from the target group-related experience of these foreign education service providers. Second, Dubai’s incentive programme has attracted many foreign investors, thus expanding the private HE landscape. Abu Dhabi, on the other hand, has taken a more conservative approach, attracting only a few reputable foreign universities.

On the basis of these explanations, we can conclude that the private and public sectors are delineated differently in both countries. Unlike Germany, where the state is only involved in the legal regulation and institutional accreditation of private HEIs, the state’s strong involvement in private HE in the UAE as proprietor or funder has led to difficulties in drawing a clear line between the public and private sector, causing the emergence of a new category called semi-public institutions.

Regulatory frameworks and governance

Higher education has typically and traditionally been understood as a responsibility of the nation-state (or its subunits), while private HE has rarely been imbued with such national significance. (Buckner 2017) found that the expansion of the private sector in the earlier stages was simply not debated, even when an HE system was faced with unmet demand. Therefore, (Buckner 2017) envisaged that public HEIs, not private HEIs, are more likely to be established in eras of nation- and state-building, such as directly after a country’s independence. For instance, the UAE has recently entered an intense nation-building phase, which has gone hand-in-hand with the expansion of public and then private higher education (HE). The first public institution in the UAE was established five years after the state’s foundation in 1971, and the first private institution emerged in the 1980s, mirroring developments in Germany. This coincided with the period of economic liberalisation and globalisation.

In the following section, we focus on the relationship between the state and the private HE sectors in both countries, concentrating on formal regulations, policies, and national accreditation procedures and their impact on the overall HE system.

Germany

German higher education primarily falls under the responsibility of the 16 states (Länder) which form the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Each state regulates and funds its own public higher education system. The federal government provides additional, competitive, and/or purpose-dedicated third-party funds. In terms of legal regulation, the state enjoyed more influence from 1969 until 2006, after which point its role in regulating higher education frameworks was minimised (see Hüther and Krücken 2018).

The founding and operation of non-state and, hence, private higher education institutions, in Germany is subject to two closely intertwined control mechanisms. Basically, a private HEI must be authorised by the state in which the university’s head office is located. To check whether an institution meets the legal requirements, usually the federal German Council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat) is commissioned by the Land to accredit institutions for 3, 5, or 10 years, at which point they have to reapply. Between 2001 and July 2022, the German Science Council completed 242 accreditation procedures for non-state HEIs, of which 21 ended with a negative result (Wissenschaftsrat 2022). The accreditation criteria communicated by the Council encompass institutional ambition, profile and development goals, management structure, organisation and quality management, personnel, study programmes and teaching, research and artistic practice, spatial and material equipment, and funding.

Hence, private higher education in Germany is tightly regulated. It is argued by (Mitterle 2017) that this strong, but indirect influence of the state even affects the very nature of the private status of the institutions in Germany. They are, therefore, ‘not private per se but private by public will’ (Mitterle 2017, 196). In other words, the development of private HEIs in Germany is enabled and, at the same time, restrained by the public authorities that regulate, fund, operate, and control the higher education system(s).

The UAE

Private higher education institutions in each emirate of the UAE are subject to the emirate’s as well as to the federal accreditation system, which is used across the seven emirates. At the federal level, the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA), established in 2001 within the Ministry of Education, licences non-federal educational institutions and accredits programmes. All non-federal (private and semi-public) institutions (except those in free zones) offering one or more higher education programmes must be accredited by the CAA (QAA 2017). Today, the CAA accredits and oversees 68 institutions (CAA 2022).

The semi-independent character of the emirates has led some of them to create so-called ‘free zones,’ which exempt businesses operating within these zones from federal regulation. As a result, new regulatory structures have emerged to govern institutions in free zones as an alternative to the federal accreditation process of the CAA. Dubai was the first to develop the Knowledge & Human Development Agency (KHDA) as a local framework to regulate foreign higher education providers in Dubai’s free zones. Ras Al-Khaimah, like Dubai, established its own framework for its academic zone. However, HEIs in Abu Dhabi are subject to federal oversight.

In addition, state governments in Germany play a greater role than the federal government, especially in relation to legal regulations, as opposed to the UAE, where the federal government is the dominant actor in HE governance. For instance, all accredited private and semi-private institutions in the UAE are regulated by the federal government regardless of their location. However, while in Germany the states have a decisive influence when it comes to regulations and accreditation procedures, the UAE, on the other hand, balance emirate-level autonomy and overall federal control. In both national contexts, however, more freedom is given to branch campuses, which are exempted from state accreditation (Mitterle 2017). In Germany, branch campuses without institutional accreditation are not considered to be German-based higher education institutions, but mere outposts of foreign institutions. This means that they cannot offer their graduates the privileges associated with a German bachelor’s or master’s degree (unless this is guaranteed by transnational contracts). In the UAE, branch institutions can voluntarily opt for federal accreditation. The reason for trying to attain federal accreditation is that graduates from institutions accredited by the federal government are more likely to be employed in the public sector in the UAE, which is an important factor for the institution’s attractiveness.

Market forces

In this section, we examine how private HEIs in both countries compare to public institutions and which role competition and market forces play (against the backdrop of the decisive role of the state) for the development and current design of both systems.

Germany

As mentioned above, private HEIs – even if they are growing in terms of number and student enrolment – still play a rather minor role in Germany’s higher education system. In the past, the financial situation of German private higher education institutions has sometimes proved unstable. Some private colleges that rely on tuition fees have suffered, and some have even had to close their business. Depending on demand and donations, most German private universities struggle to develop their resources (Mitterle 2017). The state had to save several private higher education institutions in recent years. The shaky financial base of some private HEIs in Germany seems to contribute to their limited legitimacy and still relatively small relevance to the German higher education system.

Furthermore, a lack of top private higher education institutions in Germany is likely to contribute to the still modest role of the private sector in higher education. The German Research Foundation (DFG) did not list any private universities among the top 40 premier research universities in 2011. Private higher education institutions in Germany have struggled to compete in acquiring the DFG’s reputable third-party funding. Although private institutions have continually attempted to appear ‘better,’ they have often failed (Mitterle 2017, 205–206). However, a few highly specialised institutions have successfully accumulated academic reputation as elite institutions in their limited fields.

By focusing on students, offering small classes, providing smart learning environments and extending alumni networks, private higher education attempts to offset its competitive disadvantage, with remarkable success in recent years. Private universities offer degrees that are underrepresented at public universities and attractive for the job market, such as nursing (Brockhoff 2011). Adopting ‘niche’ subjects, such as anthropology and social work, allowed private HE in Germany to triple between 2003 and 2017 (Mitterle 2017). Part-time study, industry-adapted courses, distance learning and dual-study programmes are offered to encourage non-traditional students to apply for graduate programmes (Brockhoff 2011; Mitterle 2017). Through building partnerships with industry and assisting students in finding internships, private universities have gained a stronger standing. Some private institutions offer dual-degree programmes that combine classroom instruction with employment and hands-on learning in companies or non-profit organisations. Small classrooms and a strong emphasis on practice also reduce dropout rates, which can reach up to 30% at public institutions (Müller and Schneider 2013). According to the German network of private universities, the latter provide 26% of all part-time courses and even 37% of all distance learning courses. Private universities enrol about a quarter of all dual-degree students (Platz and Dirk 2016). Meanwhile, some private institutions are presumed to have less stringent admission standards to attract students (Hüther and Krücken 2018).

Even though private HEI enrolment is increasing consistently in Germany, it is still much lower than public sector enrolment. The lower private sector participation in Germany can be attributed to the dominant tradition of public education in Germany, to the fact that many students have the opportunity to attend public HEIs for free (Hüther and Krücken 2018) and to issues of financing. Private higher education is, however, experiencing accelerated growth in demand, not least because these institutions are increasingly attracting students who are looking for flexible schedules and study programmes in niche subjects with excellent job prospects.

The UAE

Private education has a strong footing in the UAE in terms of number of HEIs (97% of HEIs are private), student enrolment (70%), and reputation. Seven of the top ranked universities in the UAE are private or semi-public. There are, however, some less-competitive private higher education institutions with a strong market orientation that attempt to attract students by offering flexible schedules as well as programmes that are more attractive and profitable and require less infrastructure and lower running costs than natural sciences, such as IT and business administration. This leads to a high number of graduates (75%) who fall under two specialisations: business and engineering in Dubai, and business and education in Abu Dhabi (PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) 2019). Students graduating from public universities show more diversity in their specialisations than those from private HEIs. Thus, the private HE sector in the UAE is characterised by the dynamics of supply-and-demand of study programmes and is, hence, driven to a great extent by economic competition on the tertiary education market.

Wilkins (2011) argued that foreign universities contributed to the development of higher education in the UAE by increasing competition. In addition, foreign universities have to adhere to the standards of their host countries, as well as the policies and regulations of their home country. On the other hand, some branch campuses have closed due to low enrolment (Wilkins 2010) and other private institutions are merging to reduce costs. As a result, the number of private higher education institutions varies from one source to another.

Few universities in the UAE define themselves as research universities. Two key examples are the public UAEU and Zayed University and semi-public ones such as the University of Sharjah. Limited research funding for private institutions has led to extremely heavy teaching and administrative loads for faculty members (O’Sullivan 2015) and academic job insecurity limits both commitment and engagement of the academic staff (Austin et al. 2014) in the private sector.

Discussion

The globalisation of private higher education has gained momentum in the past few decades, fuelled by the rise of the knowledge society, the ongoing globalisation of the economy, and the spread of related cultural models and ideologies. Although comparative higher education research has long emphasised the diversity of HE systems across national boundaries (Huisman et al. 2015), our study partially supports neo-institutionalism theory that national education policies are shaped by the broader global institutional environment. A key insight of neo-institutionalism in the last 25 years is that the external environment socially constructs common definitions of social problems and solutions while also providing templates or blueprints for what may be considered legitimate policies and structures in response (Meyer 2010). Nation-states often adopt external models of appropriateness due to local political and economic calculations, but also as a way of demonstrating their legitimacy in the global arena (Meyer et al. 1997).

In line with these assumptions, our comparison shows that the expansion of the private higher education sector in the two analysed countries is influenced by global trends, aligning with the worldwide growth in higher education. This development reflects a broader movement towards the marketisation and globalisation of higher education, indicating that these countries are integrating into global education networks. The influence of global factors suggests that these changes are part of a systemic shift in higher education, influenced by market forces and the increasing interconnectedness of educational systems across the world, pinpointing a potential convergence in higher education practices and structures globally.

Our study suggests that the composition, structure, and shape of both HE systems are influenced to a considerable extent by national policies that are inspired by the country’s specific vision of how its education sector should be developed. One may ask, is early neo-institutionalism’s idea of three types of isomorphism that account for trends of growing similarity between organisations in organisational fields (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) suited to account for differentiation dynamics as well?

Coming back to the three forms of isomorphism (coercive, mimetic, and normative), we consider the isomorphic forces that contribute to the growing homogeneity of HE systems. Coercive forces are largely imposed by external actors. Coercive isomorphism means that institutions are standardised by ‘formal and informal pressures’ (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 150) – with the state being the most dominant coercive force. Second, the likelihood of mimetic homogenisation under conditions of uncertainty increases first and foremost when some organisations are regarded as more successful than others and, consequently, are copied by others (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). A successful and valid model spreads rapidly within and beyond an organisation, serving as a template for other institutions in the field. A third method of generating isomorphism is normative pressure. Normative mechanisms are those that indicate what should be done by organisations, and these are typically products of professionalisation processes. These processes can be observed on the international level as well. Ideas about appropriate forms of education become codified as best-practice blueprints in international development discourse and are spread by professionals and powerful international organisations.

However, our observations of country-specific differences do not support the basic tenet of early neo-institutionalism that the three mechanisms exclusively bring about isomorphism and a decrease in institutional diversity. In contrast, the three mechanisms can also be used to explain the coexistence of global homogenising forces and of increasing differentiation between national HE systems. This requires that the mechanisms are used as conceptual tools on different levels of observation – in our case: on the international and the national level of HE.

On the international level, mimetic homogenisation is likely to occur when, as already pointed out, in times of uncertainty or reform other systems or organisations are thought to be more successful than the one that is in need of (re)shaping. This might lead to an imitation of role models which can be fostered by normative isomorphism through professional consultants. The result is a growing homogeneity of the global HE landscape.

However, on the national level, even if coercive isomorphism through legal regulation and funding by the state accounts for the internal homogenisation of HE institutions, the state’s coercive influence is, at the same time, responsible for the differences between one national HE system and other HE systems. The reason for this is that the state’s impact is culturally rooted in and widely guided by established, traditional ideas of higher education which differ between countries or regions. This implies that the state’s coercive influence may contribute to an internal isomorphism among HE institutions (mostly backed by mimetic and normative-professional dynamics which transport and amplify the core ideas of public HE policy), but that it also advances discrimination in comparison to other HE systems and, thus, a differentiation between national HE landscapes.

When we apply this approach to our objects of investigation, it shows that the rapid expansion of private HEIs in the UAE is not the result of increased demand and limited resources, as is the case in Germany, but – partially – the result of mimetic processes on the international level. The UAE’s approach may have played a significant role in making private HE an acceptable policy solution by borrowing ready-made successful models. This has led to a particular institutionalisation of the public-private divide in the UAE’s HE system. In the UAE, public sector higher education alone is not widely regarded as sufficient for national development. The development of its private higher education aligns with the country’s goals for economic diversification. In contrast, in Germany, private higher education serves as a complement to an extensive public higher education system, offering alternative or specialised educational pathways

Germany, on the other hand, was somewhat less influenced by global trends, even if the Bologna Process impacted German HE and some other elements of foreign higher education frameworks have been adopted and adjusted to national conditions. It seems that there is a correlation between the increase in private higher education and the overall expansion of higher education in Germany. As more public degree programmes approach their maximum intake capacity, introduce stricter admission procedures and as public universities can no longer cater to the immense diversity of needs within the student population, an increasing number of students opt for private undergraduate programmes, particularly in business administration/economics. So the expansion of private HEIs in Germany is a result of increased demand, which private institutions are hurrying to meet – with a special focus on niche markets. However, market forces in HE are subject to and limited by the traditionally strong regulatory influence of the state that sets, as a coercive mechanism, the conditions for the integration of private institutions into the larger HE context.

Conclusion

We suggest that the country-related differences in funding the private sector and in how and why public and private HEIs are established and regulated stem from different national trajectories and traditions. National ideas on what HEIs are, what HE policy should aim at, and how HE should be governed and operated vary considerably. In the UAE, the growth of public and private institutions alike is aimed at promoting its national development and international status. As such, even in periods of decreasing budgets for HE, public HE institutions still have important nation-serving functions, such as maintaining the nation’s cultural character and supporting research and knowledge dissemination. In the 19th century in Germany, HE had a similar role in fostering the early establishment of the nation-state through the provision of academically trained civil servants.

Reconsidering our comparison of both HE systems, we conclude that, on the one hand, both countries have adopted global models. In the UAE, this happened as universities borrowed successful models or created transnational branch campuses. Additionally, normative mechanisms that are a product of rationalisation and professionalisation processes have contributed to adapting the UAE’s HE system to international conditions. On the other hand, we have shown that the private HE sector in Germany, as well as in the UAE, is thoroughly shaped by the state’s policies and regulations which either unleash or keep market forces at bay.

Even though the growth and shape of the private higher education sector in both countries also reflect international normative, mimetic, and coercive pressures, our study suggests that the development of the private sector is moderated by country-specific historical developments as well as by political contexts that accelerate or slow down market dynamics. In Germany, there is the time-honoured, public-dominated system with a broad variety of domestic HEIs and the recent growth of the private sector in Germany is driven by students’ demand for specific study programmes and study conditions. On the other hand, the young, private-dominated system in the UAE largely imports foreign education providers. Its HE system is relatively young (founded in 1976), and it has imported ready-made global models and providers and adapted to global conditions through normative mechanisms that result from rationalisation and professionalisation.

In this regard, our investigation hints at the relevance of internationally homogenising and nationally differentiating forces within the two higher education systems under investigation. Whereas insight into the coexistence of differentiation and homogenisation is not new, our usage of the normative, mimetic, and coercive isomorphic dynamics to explain both national differentiation and international homogenisation at the same time offers a novel approach for our comparative investigation and explanation of HE systems in Germany and the UAE.

Ethical approval statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Academic Integrity Code of the institutions the authors are affiliated to.

Acknowledgement

Open Access funding is provided by the Qatar National Library.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Sanaa Ashour

Dr. Sanaa Ashour is a Professor of Gulf Studies at Qatar University. Previously, she served as the director of the Sociology program at the College of Education, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Al Ain University in the United Arab Emirates. She also served as a visiting professor at TU Dresden, the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), and Forschungsinstitut für Bildungs- und Sozialökonomie (FiBS) in Germany. She has a PhD in Development Studies from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Bonn, Germany, and a master’s degree in Social Policy and Planning from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Her research explores the intersection of educational policies and institutional frameworks, influencing the dynamics of higher education and stimulating debates on its advancement for societal benefits. Additionally, she has authored a book on ethnic politics and policy-making.

Bernd Kleimann

Bernd Kleimann is professor for “Governance in Higher Education and Science” at University of Kassel and head of the eponymous research area at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) in Hannover, Germany. He received his postdoctoral qualification in sociology with particular regard to higher education research and organisational sociology from the University of Kassel in 2015. In 2000 he was awarded a doctoral degree in philosophy from the University of Gießen. He studied philosophy and German literature at the Universities of Hagen, Marburg, and Tübingen and worked as researcher at the University of Hamburg. His scholarly interests pertain to the internal and external governance of higher education organisations, to organisational sociology, sociology of evaluation, social theory and sociology of communication.