What Pakistan’s Higher Education Cooperation with China Tells Us

-

By Bernard Yegiora

An annotated analysis relevant to my PhD research on China’s Higher Education Exchange Programs

Bibi, S., & Amaan, S. (2022). Enhancing Pakistan–China cooperation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education and Development Studies, 2(1), 17–34.

Title page and abstract of Bibi & Amaan (2022), Enhancing Pakistan–China Cooperation in Higher Education, published in the Journal of Higher Education and Development Studies (Vol. 2, Issue 1), outlining the scope of bilateral cooperation across science, engineering, medical, and social sciences within the broader China–Pakistan strategic partnership.

Why this article matters to my PhD research

A central question in my PhD research on China’s Higher Education Exchange Programs (HEEPs) in PNG is why some partner countries receive large-scale doctoral sponsorship from China while others experience more limited outcomes. Pakistan represents a high-visibility case in this regard. Over the past two decades, China has become one of Pakistan’s most significant destinations for overseas study, particularly at the PhD level. The journal article by Bibi and Amaan (2022) is therefore relevant not because it offers new theory, but because it documents what extensive higher education cooperation looks like when it is embedded in long-term state strategy. For PNG, the value of this paper lies in its function as a comparative benchmark, rather than a model to be replicated uncritically.

Summary of the article

Bibi and Amaan (2022) examine the evolution of Pakistan–China cooperation in higher education, focusing on student mobility, doctoral training, institutional partnerships, and research collaboration. The article highlights how higher education cooperation has expanded in tandem with broader political and economic ties between the two countries. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of Chinese Government Scholarships, joint research initiatives, and institutional mechanisms such as Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission and China Study Centres.

The authors present education cooperation as a mutually beneficial component of the bilateral relationship and document its steady growth over time. Doctoral training is framed as a core pillar of cooperation, especially in priority disciplines such as science, engineering, medicine, and technology. Overall, the article provides a descriptive account of how sustained engagement and institutional coordination have supported the expansion of higher education exchange between Pakistan and China.

Analytical strengths

The primary strength of the article lies in its empirical description of scale and structure. It shows clearly that extensive PhD sponsorship does not occur in isolation but is supported by national-level coordination, institutional continuity, and alignment with broader bilateral priorities. For scholars examining China’s education diplomacy, the paper provides concrete evidence that higher education exchange can function as a long-term strategic instrument rather than a short-term diplomatic gesture.

For my PhD, this reinforces an important analytical point: outcomes in China’s HEEPs are shaped as much by partner-country capacity and organisation as by China’s willingness to engage. Pakistan’s experience illustrates how sustained institutional arrangements can translate into durable doctoral training pipelines.

Limitations and gaps

Despite its empirical usefulness, the article has notable limitations that are directly relevant to my research. First, it adopts a largely affirmative and descriptive tone, offering limited critical analysis of trade-offs, risks, or power asymmetries in higher education cooperation. Second, the study relies exclusively on secondary sources and does not incorporate participant-level data, such as student experiences, alumni trajectories, or perceptual shifts resulting from doctoral training in China.

These gaps matter because they leave unanswered questions about how higher education exchange operates as soft power, how doctoral alumni shape policy and institutional cultures, and whether scale alone produces strategic influence. Addressing these questions requires primary data and analytical frameworks that go beyond descriptive accounts.

Relevance to PNG and my PhD project

For PNG, the relevance of this article lies in what it reveals about process rather than outcome. Pakistan’s experience suggests that China’s higher education engagement expands most significantly where partner states articulate clear priorities, maintain institutional coordination, and sustain engagement over time. PNG’s comparatively modest outcomes in PhD sponsorship can therefore be understood as structural rather than relational — reflecting capacity constraints, fragmented coordination, and the absence of a long-term strategy linking education exchange to national development objectives.

In my PhD, this article serves as a comparative reference point that strengthens the explanatory power of the PNG case. It allows PNG’s experience to be analysed against a high-capacity partner, clarifying why variation in outcomes exists across different country contexts.

Policy reflection: lessons without imitation

A careful conclusion follows from this analysis. PNG should not attempt to replicate Pakistan’s approach wholesale; differences in population size, administrative capacity, and geopolitical positioning make that unrealistic. However, Pakistan’s experience demonstrates a critical lesson: doctoral sponsorship outcomes are negotiated and institutionalised, not automatic. They depend on preparation, coordination, and sustained policy engagement rather than goodwill alone.

This insight aligns directly with the policy relevance of my PhD research. Understanding China’s HEEPs is not about endorsement or rejection, but about strategic awareness. Pakistan’s case illustrates what is possible when higher education diplomacy is treated as a long-term investment in human capital and state capacity. PNG’s challenge is to identify which elements of that approach can be adapted to its own context.

Why this matters

For readers interested in education diplomacy, China’s soft power, or PNG’s foreign policy choices, this annotated analysis highlights an important point: outcomes are shaped by domestic preparation as much as by external opportunity. Pakistan’s experience provides a useful comparator, while PNG’s case underscores the need for institutional strategy if higher education exchange is to deliver long-term national benefits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more