Australian and Chinese Scholarships to Cambodia: a comparative study

Abstract

This is the first comparative study of OECD and Chinese scholarships, and breaks methodological ground in the study of scholarships by its innovative use of surveys. The study is of interest given (a) the interest in comparative analysis of OECD and Chinese development assistance; (b) the fact that scholarships are one of the few forms of aid favored by both OECD donors and China; and (c) the fact that the scholarship literature is relatively sparse, and dominated by retrospective alumni surveys. The particular focus of the thesis is on scholarships in relation to governance. Scholarships will influence governance differentially to the extent that (a) they target different elites; (b) their beneficial impact on the recipient differs; and (c) they influence the thinking of their recipients in different ways. I explore these three issues through a range of quantitative and qualitative methods, including before and after surveys, and through use of a control group. All in all, the thesis collects quantitative and qualitative data from more than 500 Australian and Chinese scholars, past, present and future. The main findings can be summarized as follows. Chinese scholarships are growing rapidly, and now greatly outnumber Australian (OECD) scholarships offered to Cambodia. Chinese scholarship holders (Chinese scholars, for short) are six to seven years younger than Australian ones at the time of award. Unlike Australia, China allows undergraduate scholarships and attracts students with an interest on engineering. China and Australia both attract students with a similar social and academic background, and about half of both sets of scholars will end up working for the public sector. But Chinese scholars are much more likely to end up in the private sector than Australian scholars, who are in turn much more likely to end up in civil society. A minority of Chinese scholars are also well politically connected. Australian scholarships are perceived to be considerably more useful by their recipients once back in Cambodia, but mainly in relation to the utility of skills. Chinese and Australian scholars have different views even prior to departure. Chinese scholarships seem to result in less support for democracy, and more support for cracking down on corruption and a strong role of government. Australian scholarships increase support for democracy. Post-departure, the main difference between the two groups is that Australian scholars look to Australia as a model for Cambodia, and Chinese scholars to China. Overall, Chinese scholarships seem to have more of an impact on attitudes, in part because the students going to China are younger, and in part because China has more of an image problem to overcome. Overall, the study suggests that Chinese and Australian (and presumably OECD) scholarships do wield different influences relevant to governance, benefiting different elites and shaping attitudes in different directions. From a policy perspective, the findings suggest that, although China needs to do more to increase the utility of its scholarships to their holders, overall Chinese scholarships are exercising growing influence.