The Research Group International Cooperation investigates the acquisition of international competencies by internships or study abroad, the international competencies of lecturers, the needs and demands for international competencies of alumni and employers and which factors are important to attract international students to stay and work in the Netherlands. Sending students abroad is, by itself, not enough to develop international competencies, just as bringing students of different nationalities together in an international classroom is, by itself, not enough. The Research Group International Cooperation has therefore developed a training module to prepare students for the purposeful acquisition of international competencies (PREFLEX, Preparation for your Foreign Learning Experience). The Hague University of Applied Sciences wishes to be and to present itself as an international institute of higher education. That requires both a whole package of interventions to strengthen its international character and a clear message to Dutch and foreign partners and to prospective international and Dutch students. In order to bring policy, implementation, profiling and research together, The Hague University of Applied Sciences organized on 15 March 2013 an international conference for team leaders and directors, for internationalization and internship coordinators, for researchers and foreign partners and for international Dutch and foreign students. The aim was to sharpen the vision and the profile of The Hague University of Applied Sciences and to equip the participants with the ideas and the tools to engage all lecturers and students in international cooperation. After the introduction by Susana Menéndez and the keynote lecture by Lisa Childress, the workshops gave the participants an opportunity to go deeper into various aspects of internationalization and to engage actively in discussions with the workshop chairs, who introduced the topics. I hope that these proceedings will give all participants an insight in all workshops and also that non-participants can taste the fruits of this most inspiring and informative gathering.
Burgers en politici hebben behoefte aan verantwoording over ingezette middelen voor ontwikkelingshulp en de bereikte doelen. De resultatenrapportage van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken biedt in theorie een mooi overzicht dat ten dele inzicht verschaft. Het rapport schetst echter een te mooi beeld. Met behulp van de kwantitatieve analyse op performance indicatoren wordt een causale relatie verondersteld die in werkelijkheid niet zomaar kan worden aangenomen. Zo is bij de doelstelling 'succesvolle lobby op het gebied van goed bestuur ' niet duidelijk wat er onder succesvol wordt verstaan. Het wordt zo wel erg makkelijk om te zeggen: het is gelukt! In de resultaatketen is bovendien geen ruimte voor alle andere partijen die aan dezelfde doelstellingen werken. Er wordt dus een relatie verondersteld tussen de output van Nederland en het totale maatschappelijke effect. Doordat overheden op basis van kwantitatieve monitoring effecten claimen, ontstaat mogelijk een schijnwerkelijkheid die burgers en Kamerleden tevreden moet stellen en die de legitimatie zou moeten zijn voor toekomstige toekenning van middelen. Het rapport besteedt eveneens geen aandacht aan het samenspel van effecten of de mogelijk tegengestelde effecten als outcome van het handelen. In dit artikel wordt beargumenteerd dat op basis van de kwantitatieve resultaten alleen niet zomaar conclusies getrokken mogen worden over behaalde effecten onder meer omdat dat de kwantitatieve resultaten zoals die zijn voorgesteld weinig zeggen over de kwaliteit ervan. Bovendien komt naar voren dat de kwantitatieve verantwoording over de resultaten bij alle donorlanden uitnodigt tot interne attributie waar het om positieve maatschappelijke effecten gaat en uitnodigen tot strategisch gedrag. Tot slot is modelmatig weergegeven dat de verhouding tussen input van het donorland en de maatschappelijke effecten zoals in het rapport wordt voorgesteld veel te simplistisch is. ABSTRACT Citizens and politicians need information on the used resources for development aid and the reached goals. The result report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives a nice overview that gives insight to a certain extent. However, the picture is painted too optimistic. Using the quantitative analysis based on performance indicators a causal relation is assumed that in reality may not exist. One of the issues is the limited objective quantifiability of the output. The goal "creating a successful lobby for good governance " doesn't specify what would be considered successful. This makes it very easy to say: we did it! The result chain doesn't show all other parties striving for the same goals. A relation is assumed between the Dutch output and the total changes in society. Because governments make claims based on quantitative monitoring alone, a false view on reality that should satisfy both citizens and politicians and that should be a legitimation for future investments, may arise. The report doesn't acknowledge the combination of effects or the possible counterproductive effects as outcome of the actions. This article argues that no conclusions may be drawn on realized effects based on quantitative information alone, among other reasons because the quantitative date as presented give no view of the achieved quality. Moreover the article shows that the quantitative way of accounting for the investment of resources with all donor countries invites strategic behavior and internal attribution as far as the positive results are concerned. A model was drawn to show that the relation between input from the donor country and societal effects as the proclaimed in the report are way too simplistic.
We empirically investigate the factors that drive the uneven regional distribution of foreign direct investment (FDI) across Chinese provinces from 1995 to 2006. We first perform a factor analysis to summarize information embodied in around 40 variables and derive four FDI determinants: ‘institutional quality’, ‘labour costs’, ‘market size’, and ‘geography’. Applying these estimated factors, we then employ instrumental variable (IV) estimation to account for endogeneity. In line with theoretical predictions, we find that foreign firms invest in provinces with good institutions, low labour costs, and large market size. The Arellano-Bond dynamic panel generalised method of moments (GMM) results show strong agglomeration effects that multinationals tend to invest in provinces which attract other foreign firms, consistent with the economic geography literature. Several robustness tests indicate that low labour costs combined with improvements in institutions are the key for attracting FDI in China.
LINK
