Theresa Frey, Abass Isiaka, and Yann Lebeau School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic was about to severely disrupt international mobility when UNESCO launched in November 2019 a plan to redefine that mobility as a global project. The Global Convention for the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education (hereafter GC) adopted at the 40th General Assembly was indeed “the first UN legally binding standard-setting instrument for global higher education” but is it the game changer its promoters announced towards a global transparent and non-discriminatory recognition of qualifications? The GC’s history dates back to the 1970s, when UNESCO first proposed the idea of a global framework to regulate academic mobility and unify recognition systems worldwide. Eventually, six regional conventions were adopted instead to regulate recognition at regional levels, covering the areas of Latin America and the Caribbean (1974), the Arab and European States bordering the Mediterranean (1976), the Arab States (1978), Europe (1979), Africa (1981), and Asia and the Pacific (1983).

These “first generation” regional conventions were subsequently revised to reflect a changing global landscape of study mobility and are known in their new format as the Lisbon Convention (developed with the Council of Europe in 1997), the Tokyo Convention (2011), the Addis Ababa Convention (2014), the Buenos Aires Convention (2019), and the Arab States Convention adopted in Paris in 2022. Regional conventions were designed to address the implications of trends such as the massification of higher education, the diversification of educational offerings, shifts in learning paradigms, the acceleration of internationalisation and emerging transnationalisation of higher education, as well as the steady rise of transborder professional mobility (UNESCO-IELSAC, 2023).

The GC, therefore, appears to complement instruments already championing the fair recognition of foreign higher education qualifications by universalising their principles and extending them to non-traditional learning modes (e.g. Transnational Education). The GC also offers UNESCO an opportunity to align its Higher Education (hereafter HE) agenda with growing calls for a decolonial and more sustainable internationalisation. And finally, the GC is being promoted as a standard-setting instrument that recognises new challenges, such as the forced internationalisation of HE induced by population displacements and the integration of qualified refugees into the labour markets of host countries.

A closer attention to the timing of the adoption of the GC questions the image of linearity and complementarity of the two types of conventions promoted by UNESCO. One might wonder why UNESCO deemed it appropriate to develop and adopt a global convention when some of the “second generation” regional conventions had yet to be adopted and ratified. In fact, with the exception of the Lisbon Convention of 1997, framing recognition across the European Higher Education Area and North America, revised regional conventions were still in their infancy and facing mistrust, if not resistance, from member states. The question then is: why did UNESCO push ahead with a global recognition agenda instead of investing in the consolidation of regional instruments largely identical in wording? 

To address this question, we returned to how the GC came to be, and to why dominant players (in Europe in particular) in the international HE field joined forces to support the introduction of yet another layer of regulation to a world already tailored to their own economic and symbolic profit. 

International student mobility in a world of polycrisis

Over the past three decades, international student mobility has experienced significant changes and shifts under the deregulation, diversification, and massification of higher education, but also as a result of rising environmental, political, and economic crises challenging the neoliberal economy and ideology of mobility.

In this context, the unilateral flow and attached celebratory narrative of mobility is challenged by scholars and trends alike, in the Global South in particular. New dynamics, particularly the regionalisation of mobility, begin to mitigate the ecological toll of over 7 million globally mobile students and advance the prospect of more sustainable and equitable regional higher education cooperation. Regional initiatives, particularly in South America, also seek to disrupt long-standing South–North dependencies and reimagine mobility beyond the gravitational pull of elite Northern institutions.

In today’s polycrisis context, dotted by protracted wars, climate emergencies, authoritarianism, neo-nationalism and growing displacement, rethinking ISM is not only timely but necessary. As the boundaries between higher education mobility and migration become increasingly porous, the need to develop sustainable frameworks for understanding and supporting mobility becomes ever more urgent. But is a Global Convention the answer?

Meanings and Expectations

The GC adopted in 2019 has so far been ratified by 38 countries. At the heart of this rather slow ratification process is the interpretive work of various actors, including national ministries, universities, international organisations, and stakeholder organisations, each with contrasting interests in the convention and its proposed scope. The expression of these differences is seen in UNESCO’s self-presentation as a “laboratory of ideas”, a global public sphere drawing on tools like the GC, conceived as inclusive discursive spaces shaped by both expert knowledge and member state consensus.

UNESCO highlighted three of the GC’s ten objectives in advancing its agenda for inclusive internationalisation, namely establishing a fair, transparent, and equitable global framework for qualification recognition, promoting a “culture of quality assurance” within HE systems, and ensuring “recognition for all,” including refugees and displaced persons (UNESCO, 2019). Interestingly, this implicit critique of global HE market dynamics and alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) faces incredulity and reluctance from among the Global South countries it is aiming to primarily benefit. This is because the inclusivity gloss of the agenda tends to mask the tangible implications of the norm-setting instrument for national policies. While some Member States support and promote (through their early ratification) the Convention as a tool to expand graduates’ access to international labour markets, reduce brain drain, and integrate displaced populations, others simply do not see its immediate interest, are wary of models from the Global North (such as the European Lisbon Convention or ENQA) seeping through a highly permeable UNESCO, see in the GC a facilitator of transnational education initiatives from the Global North, or are reluctant to further open their HE and labour market opportunities. 

This was evident in our interviews with officials from TĂĽrkiye, Jordan, and Zambia and with regional UNESCO officials. For example, Turkish officials stated that ratifying the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) and the Tokyo Convention had already integrated their country into a global higher education framework aligned with its internationalisation goals. Ratifying the GC was therefore not a policy priority. For Jordan, the decision was more complex. Yet to ratify a regional convention perceived as equating its qualifications with those neighbouring  countries it does not recognise academically, the country sees the GC as a more valuable route to the global visibility and legitimacy of its qualifications and is  further engaged in its ratification (Interviews, 2024). Meanwhile, in some regional UNESCO offices, officials warned that discounting regional conventions in favour of a single global framework could reinforce existing centre-periphery dynamics.

Complex intertwined influential factors involving voluntary financial contributions, strategic appointments and active diplomatic promotion from dominant State Parties and non-state actors such as regional agencies and organisations (e.g. the EU) complicates the actual agency of member States despite their prerogative over higher education. This is something important for UNESCO to consider. While offering long-sought possibilities for inter-regional collaboration and mobility (particularly within the Global South) and providing an alternative to fragmented and unequal pathways of post-mobility integration into labour markets, the GC also risks reproducing global hierarchies by allowing influences across its policy cycle from formulation to implementation.

In a rapidly changing world of ISM where international league tables and private supra-national accreditation agencies increasingly act as proxies for quality and recognition of programmes and institutions, the GC is as much a political and symbolic instrument as it is a policy tool. Its global appeal lies in its promise of inclusive and sustainable regulation of internationalisation, but its adoption and implementation remain deeply rooted in geopolitical, institutional, and historical inequalities. Understanding the GC, therefore, requires not only attention to its stated aims (or what UNESCO and its state parties seek to achieve with it) but also to the complex interplay of meaning, expectation, and power that underpins its emergence as a global education norm.

References

UNESCO. (2019). Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education.

UNESCO. (n.d.). What is the Global Convention on higher education? | UNESCO. Retrieved February 9, 2025, from

Author Bios

Theresa Frey

Theresa Frey is a PhD student at the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of East Anglia and an adjunct faculty member at State University of New York (SUNY), Westchester Community College. Theresa has been a higher education professional since 2008. Theresa’s research has focused on international education, refugee education, and justice-centred education practices through art and creative approaches for refugee and migrant children. In addition, Theresa’s PhD research focuses on decolonising and futures practices of youth education activists in New York City, United States, through ethnography and participatory action research.

Abass Isiaka

Abass B. Isiaka (PhD) is a Senior Research Associate in Widening Participation at the Centre for Higher Education Research, Practice, Policy and Scholarship (CHERPPS) at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. As an SRA at CHERPPS, he works on a range of evaluation and research projects informing the University’s inclusive policy and widening access and participation for underrepresented and/or disadvantaged groups such as those with specific learning differences (SpLDs), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Yann Lebeau

Yann Lebeau is Professor of Higher Education Research, and Head of the School of Education and Lifelong Learning at the University of East Anglia. He joined the School in 2007 after holding teaching and research positions in France (Brest, Bordeaux), in Nigeria (Ibadan) and at the UK’s Open University. His research interests are in the sociology of higher education communities and where higher education, policy and social change intersect. He has done extensive empirical research on the University/society nexus and on questions of international policy transfers, internationalisation, academic mobility, in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and in Europe. Yann is a member of several education and development research networks. He has been involved for over 20 years in the design and delivery of research training and research capacity building programmes worldwide, notably with the Open Society Foundations and with the Council for the Development of Social Sciences in Africa (CODESRIA).

Abstract

This article examines the introduction of the Nigeria Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) under the Student Loan Act 2024. It raises questions about the promises of the scheme in enabling participative (in)equity in Higher Education (HE) and the potential risks that await the future of the policy if not properly implemented and equitably administered. By evaluating the promises and pitfalls of NELFUND, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on educational financing and access in Nigeria and the broader implications of neoliberal approaches to HE in developing countries.

Introduction

In May 2024, the Nigerian government introduced the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) under the Student Loan (Access to Higher Education) Act 2024, a measure billed as a game changer in increasing access to HE. This Act places Nigeria into the larger worldwide trend of neoliberalising HE — a tendency that shifts HE from a public good to a market-driven commodity. While the government argues that initiatives like NELFUND can widen access by removing financial barriers, we contend that such policies can also exacerbate the commodification of education, putting the burden of access solely on students’ and risking the formation of a debt-ridden generation.

At its root, NELFUND demonstrates how policy debates on the pecuniary benefits of HE are hollowing out its “social good” outcome, thereby shifting the burden of the cost of HE to families through the loan scheme. As Nigeria grapples with soaring unemployment, underfunded universities, and systemic inequalities, the introduction of a large-scale loan scheme raises critical questions: Can NELFUND truly fulfil its promise of broadening inclusion and equity, or will it exacerbate the very inequalities it hopes to address?

The Promise of NELFUND

NELFUND seeks to remove financial barriers that have historically excluded students from low-income families. The fund provides loans to qualified Nigerians to cover tuition, cost of living and other basic expenses associated with study in an approved public tertiary academic institution or technical and vocational education centre in Nigeria. The removal of income thresholds and the need for guarantors in the latest amendment of the Act are key features intended to make the loans more accessible to a wider range of students. On the surface, these changes could significantly increase access to higher education, allowing students who might otherwise be unable to afford the opportunity to pursue HE that is still regarded as “free” in publicly funded universities. To understand how significant this initiative is to access HE, the application portal received over 100,000 applications between the 24th of May and July 2024 after it was , even though the application process for many applicants.

Challenges in Achieving Inclusion and Equity

While NELFUND has a huge potential to turn the tide on the perennial problem of equitable access to HE in Nigeria, it faces considerable challenges, primarily due to Nigeria’s economic realities. Nigeria’s unemployment rate, which was over 33% in 2021, shows that a significant number of university graduates remain unemployed. This underlies the complication of repaying student loans for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and may deter them from applying. Without income-contingent loan (ICL) repayment options, as in England and Australia, graduates may find themselves trapped in a cycle of debt, unable to meet their repayment obligations due to a lack of steady income.

A closer look at the UK and US student loan systems is instructive of the future that awaits NELFUND. In the UK, while the ICL offers some relief, it has led to long-term debt for many graduates, with only a small percentage fully repaying their loans. A recent point is the work of and colleagues, which found that graduates aged 25 without student loans are more likely to own homes and less likely , challenging some assumptions about the financial benefits of HE and highlighting how debt can reinforce income inequalities. Mirroring the , with over $1.8 trillion in outstanding loans, it also raises concerns about the sustainability of NELFUND and points to the potential risks to the Nigeria government, if not carefully managed.

Putting the Horse before the Cart

The capitalist idea that providing loan to students will solve the access problem in Nigeria HE is utopic, as there is a palisade of equity issues at the colonial foundation of the Nigerian education in general and HE in particular that must be dealt with. The Nigerian HE system has yet to evolve a comprehensive bill that protects the rights of students who will now become “consumers” going forward. For example, the proliferation of private universities in Nigeria was first viewed as a solution to the post-colonial and post-adjustment challenges of access to HE. However, these institutions have only admitted 6% of admission seekers in the last few years. Their high cost of tuition makes them inaccessible to a more significant percentage of the population, particularly students from low-income families. This privatisation approach creates a divide in which only those with cultural and economic capital may attend HE, leaving a majority of Nigerian youths to scramble for places in an overburdened and underfunded public university system.

Also adopting an ICL repayment model would ensure that graduates only start repaying their loans once they earn above a certain income threshold. This approach would provide a safety net for those who are unemployed or underemployed, reducing the risk of default and financial distress. In addition to reforming the repayment structure, there is a pressing need for policies that stimulate job creation and economic growth. A point in the case is the recent curriculum review through the Core Curriculum and Minimum Academic Standards , which plans to address the mismatch between graduate skills and the needs of the labour market.  The government will now need to encourage job creation in high-impact sectors such as: technology and agriculture by providing seed funding for start-ups to significantly reduce unemployment.

A Path Forward?

Without a doubt, NELFUND carries the promise of transforming access to higher education and promoting inclusion and equity. However, its success will depend not just on accessibility of the loan but on creating a system that protects students from unmanageable debt, protects their rights as stakeholders in the emerging funding model and equips them for the realities of the job market. Without strategic reforms—like income-contingent repayment, curriculum alignment with industry needs, and robust job creation initiatives—NELFUND risks becoming another well-intentioned policy that deepens existing inequalities. The future of Nigerian HE hinges on the government’s ability to implement these changes and truly deliver on the promise of inclusion and equity, not just in rhetoric, but in practice.

Abass Isiaka

Abass B. Isiaka (PhD) is a Senior Research Associate in Widening Participation at the Centre for Higher Education Research, Practice, Policy and Scholarship (CHERPPS) at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. As an SRA at CHERPPS, he works on a range of evaluation and research projects informing the University’s inclusive policy and widening access and participation for underrepresented and/or disadvantaged groups such as those with specific learning differences (SpLDs), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Yusuf D. Olaniyan

Yusuf Damilola Olaniyan is an ESRC/SWDTP-funded PhD student at the University of Bath, United Kingdom, researching access, institutional and graduate outcome experiences of Nigerians moving from rural to urban for University Education. He also works as a Research Assistant at the Department of Education, University of Bath. His research interests include the educational and graduate outcome experiences of the marginal beyond the city, global inequalities and social injustices, mobility, decoloniality and internationalization. Email ku.ca.htabobfsctd-75adab@22ody