This article sheds light on some challenges that internationalisation raises for policymakers regarding public funding of higher education in a welfare state by examining policy logics for introducing tuition fees for international students in Sweden 2011. Using thematic analysis of documents related to the Swedish reform, we identify how an increasing number of international students was the perceived policy problem, threatening national students’ access to free higher education. Policy objectives included sharing the cost of internationalisation but also enabling control of cost and influx of international students, enhancing quality and strengthening national branding. Many of these objectives concur with more established understandings on why policymakers turn to the market according to a more neo-liberal ‘market’ logic. However, a policy mix of tuition fees and scholarships enabled a governance model of control, which more relates to a ‘welfare’ logic. Likewise, the policy problem indicates that a search for profit and revenue cannot simply explain tuition fee reforms for international students. By discussing how underlying normative assumptions at the policy formulation stage contrast reality ten years after the reform, it appears that revenue from the global market has been more significant for Swedish policymakers than the rhetoric suggests. 

The introduction of tuition fees in Sweden in 2011 is an interesting example of how the design of a tuition fee reform for international students surges beyond simple narratives of revenue generation. More than 10 years after implementing the Swedish reform, this article examines to what extent such market-oriented instruments induce HEIs and the government to seek revenue on the global market. Through a comprehensive analysis, the research employs two theoretical models–the ‘revenue-seeking’ and the ‘cost-sharing and control’ model–to explore the inherent hybridity governance features between market and state-centred objectives. The findings reveal that while the reform primarily adheres to its intended goals of cost-sharing and controlled internationalisation, there is an emerging trend towards revenue generation, particularly in HEIs with strong market positions and in lucrative disciplines like Engineering & Technology and Business Management. The study highlights the reform’s multifaceted impact, aligning with state-centric objectives but gradually shifting towards a revenue-seeking approach. This research contributes to understanding the nuanced effects of tuition fee policies on HEIs and calls for further comparative studies to deepen insights into the diverse outcomes of such reforms in the context of higher education internationalisation.

This study explores the role of network administrative organizations (NAOs) in science diplomacy (SD) by means of a qualitative case study approach. The case in point is a Swedish government initiative to coordinate the internationalization efforts of domestic funding agencies. We examine how the NAO IntSam balances between governmental directives and agency autonomy. Utilizing primary data from semi-structured interviews supplemented by internal documents and policy reports, the analysis delves into the challenges and potential of NAOs in harmonizing top-down directives with agency autonomy. The findings highlight IntSam’s role in facilitating collaboration and aligning domestic and international policy landscapes, while also revealing inherent tensions due to divergent governmental and agency priorities. This study contributes to understanding the complexities of coordinating cross-border Science, Technology, and Innovation efforts, offering insights into the nuances, potentials, and limitations of NAOs in the realm of SD.

Amid rising geopolitical tensions, governments increasingly face the challenge of balancing open academic collaboration with China against the imperatives of national security and institutional autonomy. This study examines how the governments of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway operationalise the de-risking agenda through distinct policy instrument mixes related to their research and innovation Sino relationship. The study uses qualitative, comparative policy analysis based on desk research and semi-structured interviews. It employs an abductive approach to analyse the type, coerciveness, and objectives of policy instruments, focusing on whether they enable or restrict collaboration, and how they interact with each other. While all three governments deploy similar instruments such as guidelines, export controls, and coordination forums, their design and combination differ significantly. The interaction of instruments - through reinforcement, layering, or drift - profoundly shapes national governance conditions. A key finding is the varying role of coordination mechanisms, depending on whether they are state-led, intra-academic, theme-specific, or framed around national security. Particularly notable is the involvement of security authorities in Denmark, which contributes to a more protectionist orientation. The study highlights how policy instruments are not neutral but reflect deeper institutional tensions between openness, autonomy, and securitisation in global science governance.