Bridging Education and Geoeconomics: A Study of Student Mobility in Higher Education Under South Korea’s New Southern Policy

Abstract

This study aims to explore how the macro-geopolitical economic cooperation policy is connected with student mobility in higher education at the micro level. Since the internationalization of higher education and student mobility, which mainly occurred in universities at the institutional level, the relationship between macro governmental goals and economic strategies tends to be less emphasized. Also, the factors influencing student mobility focus more on their characteristics. Therefore, this study investigates how student mobility in higher education has been changed according to the New Southern Policy (NSP) in South Korea, especially focusing on the policy targeted in ASEAN regions. Also, we describe trends of student mobility according to different characteristics of a university under the policy. The findings of this study indicate that when formulating and implementing policy, it is imperative to acknowledge the limitations of a macro-level, strategic approach, even when considering a multitude of factors. Furthermore, this study suggests that macroeconomic policies may exert unanticipated impacts on areas that have not been explicitly addressed.

1. Introduction

The question of whether human exchange or economic cooperation came first remains a subject of debate, much like the classic “chicken or egg” dilemma. Human exchange facilitates the movement of culture and logistics, which, in turn, can generate economic effects. Additionally, it promotes the active movement of human and material resources within a macro-strategic cooperation framework. In the context of higher education in Korea, student mobility can be differentiated by inbound and outbound flows. In the case of outbound mobility, degree programs in English-speaking countries, particularly in the United States, represent a disproportionately high share. In contrast, students from Asia and Southeast Asia, due to their geographic proximity, constitute the majority of inbound students.

Regardless of the chronological relationship between economy and human exchanges, international collaboration in higher education has become increasingly important in fostering cross-border ties, contributing to economic growth, cultural exchange, and social development (Altbach & Knight, 2007; de Wit, 2023; Knight, 2008). In Asia, where economic dynamism and geopolitical shifts are accelerating, the need for enhanced cooperation between countries has reached unprecedented levels (M. N. N. Lee, 2012; Williams et al., 2021). The rapid expansion of Asian economies has underscored the importance of strategic partnerships, with educational exchange emerging as a critical component of these efforts. Student mobility, in particular, has become one of the most visible and impactful forms of international collaboration in higher education, offering students opportunities to gain cross-cultural experiences, improve academic competencies, and build professional networks (Chan, 2012; Yang, 2002). Therefore, the governmental policy endeavors have sought to broaden a country’s international engagement, encompassing diversity (Ota, 2018).

In the context of South Korea (hereafter Korea), student mobility has been a critical issue of the nation’s higher education internationalization policy initiatives, such as the Study Korea Project from 2004. Korea has recently emerged as one of the key destinations for international students, particularly from neighboring Southeast Asian countries. Academic exchanges with countries beyond its traditional partners, which are neighboring countries, have been expanded through shifts in the foreign policy. The government’s policy commitment to working with specific regions and countries will likely yield discernible outcomes. These effects are expected to be both tangible and immediate, particularly in Asian countries where the central government exerts considerable influence (Chin & Smith, 2015). For example, Korea, Japan, and China have similarly sought to cultivate cooperative relations with the ASEAN region through CAMPUS ASIA and ASEAN, as well as AIMS with ASEAN. However, these efforts have focused on higher education student exchanges with only a limited target number of students rather than general students under broader geopolitical or economic cooperation and exchanges.

Korea’s New Southern Policy (hereafter NSP), introduced during the Moon Jae-in administration, is regarded as a key foreign policy initiative focusing on geoeconomic cooperation between Korea and ASEAN countries. This comprehensive diplomatic strategy aims to strengthen South Korea’s ties with Southeast Asia and India, focusing on economic, cultural, and educational collaboration. The NSP places particular emphasis on expanding people-to-people exchanges and fostering tailored forms of cooperation with ASEAN countries as a strategic pivot in the country’s foreign relations. Under this context, international collaboration is primarily driven by human mobility in higher education. While there are numerous aspects of internationalization of higher education, student mobility stands out as the most visible indicator of concrete collaboration. While there are significant differences between studying abroad in Anglophone or developed countries for advanced degrees, the prevalence and diversification of short-term exchanges as well as the degree programs within Asia represent a distinctive trend within the landscape of Korean universities (Song & Kim, 2022).

Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore how student mobility in higher education has been connected to the New Southern Policy initiative in South Korea. Although the New Southern Policy is not explicitly designed to promote student mobility as a central political goal, it is important to examine how this macro-political agenda has led to tangible changes in student exchange. To this end, this study analyzes changes in student mobility before and after the implementation of the policy using actual student mobility data and identifies how mobility differs by higher education institution’s characteristics such establishment public vs. private), location (capital area vs. non-capital area), and its mission (research, research active, doctoral, and comprehensive). Moreover, this study analyzed the NSP effect on the inbound ASEAN students in Korean universities.

From these objectives, we identified three main research questions:

• What are the changes in student mobility in higher education between Korea and ASEAN countries before and after the implementation of the New Southern Policy?
• To what extent do these changes differ by higher education institution type, establishment, location, and mission?
• What effect has the New Southern Policy had on the mobility of ASEAN students studying at Korean universities?

2. Backgrounds and Literature Review

2.1. New Southern Policy1

The New Southern Policy (hereafter NSP), which was adopted in November 2017, represents a diplomatic strategy that is designed to enhance South Korea’s diplomatic relations with India and Southeast Asian countries to a level that is commensurate with that of great powers. It was established as an alternative to South Korea’s existing diplomatic and economic ties with the United States, China, and Japan, as well as the steady increase in the volume of human and material trade between South Korea and Southeast Asian countries and their growing share of the Korean economy. As a signature foreign policy of the administration of President Moon Jae-in, it has continuity from previous policies toward Southeast Asia, which started from President Kim Dae-Jung in the late 1990s, followed by President Lee Myung-bak (Ha & Ong, 2020).

The NSP presented three diplomatic values as 3Ps—People, Peace, and Prosperity—with 16 initiatives and 57 priority projects at the preparatory meeting for the ASEAN–Korea Special Summit in September 2019. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs established a department dedicated to the 10 ASEAN countries. Additionally, a separate bureau, the ASEAN Bureau, was established for 11 Southeast Asian countries, with a primary focus on ASEAN, the core region of the NSP. One illustrative example of the institution-building process undertaken in order to facilitate the implementation of the NSP is the establishment of the Korea-Mekong Summit. As the most significant alteration in response to the outcomes of the 2019 ASEAN–Korea Summit and the ASEAN–Korea Mekong Summit, the 16 tasks and 57 priority projects of the NSP underwent expansion and reorganization, resulting in 19 tasks and 92 priority projects. Three years after the launch of the NSP, the New Southern Policy Plus is a new implementation strategy for the next five years that reflects the changed international environment and cooperation needs due to COVID-19.

Education and human resource development (HRD) are frequently identified as pivotal components within the evolving foreign policy agenda, thereby reflecting shifts in regional cooperation priorities (Hong, 2021). Among the tasks, in particular, the task of human resource empowerment support is mainly relevant to student mobility in higher education based on the Scaling Up Scholarship Invitations project, Expansion of Remote Higher Education project, and the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) project in charge of responsibilities by the Ministry of Education. According to the report of evaluation of this policy (Choi, 2020; Na et al., 2020), the performance of the education field is relatively higher than other fields, and the needs of counterpart countries are also met through building a local workforce and fostering human connections

2.2. Student Mobility in Higher Education

Student mobility is one of the prominent topics in the internationalization of higher education, and previous studies have been extensive across various regions (Knight, 2004; Teichler, 2017). Most studies have focused on the adaptation and academic performance of inbound students in the United States, while the discourse concentrated on intra-continent mobility and quality assurance in Europe. In particular, in Asia, recent efforts are increasingly aimed at increasing intra-Asian mobility and diversifying international student populations, although outbound mobility has traditionally dominated (Chan, 2012).

In addition, a significant shift in the destinations chosen by Asian students seeking higher education was found. Students from Asia tended to choose English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada due to the perceived quality of education and the extensive support systems available to international students. However, there has been a rising trend of students opting for neighboring countries within Asia over the past recent decades, particularly South Korea (Jon et al., 2014). This shift in student mobility based on the development of higher education initiatives aimed at regional integration is driven by several factors, including regional economic growth and increased national competitiveness (Hou et al., 2017).

The establishment of regional student mobility programs and policy initiatives aimed at fostering cooperation between Asian countries was one of the critical key factors behind this shift. Notable examples of the initiatives include the ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS), the Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia (CAMPUS Asia), and the UMAP student mobility schemes. Although these programs share the goal of promoting regionalization in higher education by facilitating student exchanges within Asia, their shared objectives differ significantly in terms of their regulatory frameworks, operational models, and political strategies (Hou et al., 2017). For example, AIMS and CAMPUS Asia face challenges related to political frameworks, immigration policies, and disparities in higher education systems across the region, while these programs are largely driven by government strategies to improve diplomatic and economic ties among participating nations.

In the Korean context, policy approaches are crucial for promoting student mobility but most studies on student mobility have focused only on specific policies related to higher education (e.g., Byun & Kim, 2011; Kim, 2017) or separately on the individual experiences of international students (e.g., Alemu & Cordier, 2017; E.-H. Lee et al., 2014). There are limited studies that examined the broader institutional and social environments that influence the mobility and integration of international students into host societies. A more comprehensive understanding of these factors is essential for the effective support of international students as well as the development of policy initiatives.

Governmental initiatives like the Study Korea Project and the Global Korea Scholarship aim to attract international students to Korean universities by providing financial support and fostering an environment conducive to academic and cultural exchange. However, despite these policy efforts, international students face significant challenges in adjusting to academic and social life in Korea (E.-H. Lee et al., 2014; Li et al., 2025). Especially, Chinese students, who constitute the largest group of international students in Korea, often report difficulties adapting to social and cultural differences based on feelings of isolation from Korean peers (A. R. Lee & Yoo, 2022). These social integration challenges of international students are mainly caused by language barriers, and many students from non-English-speaking countries, including China, have difficulty communicating in either Korean or English. This lack of fluency in both languages can hinder academic success and limit social interactions, and lead to a sense of isolation (Lan & Kim, 2011). On top of that, there are studies of discriminatory attitudes or indifference toward international students among domestic students (Jon & Jang, 2012; A. R. Lee & Bailey, 2020; J. Lee et al., 2017).

Chan (2012) reported that the ASEAN region plays an increasingly important role in the internationalization of higher education, particularly with regard to student mobility. However, research on cooperation between ASEAN countries and Korea remains relatively limited. Li et al. (2025) explored ASEAN students’ engagement in East Asian countries, including Korea, and found that ASEAN students in Korea tend to engage with local communities mainly in economic terms. Studies about how ASEAN students are mobile in Korean higher education institutions and how ASEAN students experience different regions and institutions in Korea are necessary, as regional and institutional factors influence international students (Jung & Kim, 2018).

3. Methods

This study explores changes in student mobility in higher education because of Korea’s NSP and examines the forces shaping student mobility based on the characteristics of higher education institutions. As the conceptual framework in Figure 1 shows, student mobility in higher education is closely linked to a country’s broader institutional system, as higher education is influenced by macro-level factors, including government foreign policy and regional relations. As an integral part of a country’s educational and social framework, higher education does not operate in isolation. Therefore, the impact of government policies on student mobility patterns can be considered particularly in the context of Korea’s efforts to deepen engagement with ASEAN countries through the NSP, which aims to strengthen cooperation with Southeast Asian regions and focuses on strengthening political, economic, and cultural ties beyond the Northeast Asian region. The NSP’s broad and macro focus on strengthening ties with ASEAN countries could lead to potential shifts in student mobility patterns in higher education.

The primary data for this study were obtained from “The Status of International Students in Korea” and “The Status of Korean Students Studying Abroad”, annually published by the Ministry of Education of South Korea, which keeps detailed records on student mobility trends2. For a comparative analysis of student mobility patterns, the data from 2013 to 2023 were collected with particular attention to the period before and after the implementation of the NSP. This comparative approach highlights the policy’s impact on student mobility between Korea and ASEAN countries. However, the widespread impact of the pandemic from 2020 to 2022 may cause biases to confirm trends. To mitigate these biases, descriptive analyses were conducted with the data from 2013, 2018, and 2023 based on 5-year terms and compared higher education institutions based on their characteristics, while the panel data were used from 2013 to 2023.

This study focused on the volume of student mobility and on the underlying trends and shifts in mobility patterns. The first question is how the number of Korean students studying in ASEAN countries, as well as the number of ASEAN students studying in Korea, changed before and after NSP, through the general trend in higher education institutions.

Second, this study explored how trends in inbound ASEAN student mobility vary across different characteristics of Korean universities. Therefore, this study contrasted public and private universities. Public universities, with their larger budgets and stronger research reputations, may be better positioned to attract international students, while private universities may face challenges due to limited funding and lower visibility. It also compares universities in the capital region and those in smaller cities or rural regions based on the idea that urban universities may be more appealing to international students (Jung & Kim, 2018). Lastly, it compares how the ASEAN student mobility differs by the mission of universities, with research-oriented institutions attracting more graduate students and comprehensive universities hosting a more diverse student population, including those in short-term exchange programs.

This study examined the NSP’s effect on ASEAN students’ mobility to Korean universities for the third research question. The interrupted time series model was used to confirm that the number and proportion of ASEAN students have increased in Korean universities because of the NSP. This analytical model is a useful tool to analyze changes in time series trends when a policy is introduced (McCleary et al., 1980). Since NSP is a macro-level policy implemented at the national level, it can be assumed that all universities are under the general influence. Therefore, the actual effect of the policy means the difference between time points, and the following formula was used to analyze the effect of the policy intervention.

$$Y_{it}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_1{Trend}_t+{\beta }_2{Policy}_t+{\beta }_3\left({{Trend}_t\cdot Policy}_t\right)+\gamma X_i+{\epsilon }_{it}$$

$Y_{it}$: The number or proportion of ASEAN students at University i at time t;

${\beta }_0$: Constant term (baseline level);

${\beta }_1$: The effect of the Time variable;

${Trend}_t$: Year since policy;

${Policy}_t$: The policy implementation dummy variable;

${\beta }_2$: The effect of the Policy implementation;

${\beta }_3$: The coefficient for the interaction term of Ttrend and Policy, which captures the change in trend after the policy is introduced;

$X_i$: A vector of university-level control variables (establishment, location, and mission);

${\epsilon }_{it}$: The error term.

Quantitative analytical methods were applied to analyze the dataset provided by the Ministry of Education’s webpage for the period 2013–2023. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the overall trends of student mobility between Korea and ASEAN countries to compare the mobility patterns of different groups, including the university’s establishment, location, and mission, using the data from 2013, 2018, and 2023. In addition, an eleven-year panel data from 2013 to 2023 was constructed for Korean universities that hosted ASEAN inbound students during this period, in order to examine the causal effect of NSP on the number of ASEAN students enrolled at the university level.

4. Findings

4.1. Trends in Student Mobility Between South Korea and ASEAN Countries

The number of students from ASEAN countries studying in Korea is increasing significantly every year, as shown in Figure 2. It increased from 8173 in 2013 to 44,517 in 2020 and showed a stagnated trend during the COVID-19 situation in 2020–2021. As of 2023, there are 181,842 international students in Korea, of which 54,509 are from ASEAN countries. Moreover, the proportion of ASEAN students among all international students is increasing every year. The proportion of ASEAN students, which was 9.51% in 2013, increased significantly to 16.9% in 2017 and 23.68% in 2018, and has shown a gradual upward trend since then. However, the number and ratio of outbound Korean students to ASEAN regions have decreased since 2017, even before the onset of the pandemic.

The detailed statistics based on ASEAN countries are illustrated in

Table 1. Student mobility between Korea and ASEAN countries from 2013 to 2023.

		2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
Laos	Inbound	96	96	97	108	116	109	102	104	117	133	144
	Outbound		50	25	57	52	37	20	17	34	24	22
Malaysia	Inbound	874	890	991	1088	1177	1169	1116	878	847	1185	1226
	Outbound		1182	803	1272	1231	1536	1712	1088	1013	841	717
Myanmar	Inbound	285	290	324	418	495	675	830	949	994	1769	3325
	Outbound	48	48	-	88	97	87	100	84	-	2	18
Vietnam	Inbound	3166	3181	4451	7459	14,614	27,061	37,426	38,337	35,843	37,940	43,361
	Outbound	319	992	992	502	695	383	390	1040	625	601	969
Brunei	Inbound	86	86	83	85	63	47	68	15	15	75	91
	Outbound	6	5	2	9	8	3	9	9	22	32	26
Singapore	Inbound	298	310	340	417	493	413	437	183	135	361	323
	Outbound	281	281		600	410	1068	884	587	1128	1028	875
India	Inbound	753	776	899	888	963	1107	1131	1080	1116	1328	1479
	Outbound	559	656	443	291	262	267	296	158	61	29	123
Indonesia	Inbound	1025	1101	1175	1353	1334	1438	1615	1476	1779	2278	2420
	Outbound	267	111	345	90	61	38	110	70	107	107	289
Cambodia	Inbound	337	338	368	392	384	357	351	373	380	414	446
	Outbound	57	55	59	40	52	66	65	69	40	15	5
Thailand	Inbound	632	647	464	577	635	648	716	562	629	961	1009
	Outbound	423	601	493	445	504	492	377	372	390	311	279
Philippines	Inbound	621	641	653	682	657	657	622	560	519	531	685
	Outbound	4668	7073	1004	3772	13,257	900	476	272	498	129	204
ASEAN	Inbound	8173	8356	9845	13,467	20,931	33,681	44,414	44,517	42,374	46,975	54,509
	Outbound	6628	11,054	4166	7166	16,629	4877	4439	3766	3918	3119	3527

. Examining the composition of international students from ASEAN countries studying in Korea reveals that students from Vietnam comprise the largest percentage of ASEAN inbound international students. As of 2023, of the 54,509 ASEAN students studying in Korea, 43,361 are from Vietnam, accounting for around 80%. With about 6% from Myanmar and 4.5% from Indonesia, students were followed. Vietnam is the second largest portion of international students in Korea after China, accounting for approximately 26.8% of 181,842 international students in Korea in 2023. The number of Vietnamese students studying in Korea was only about 3166 in 2013, but increased significantly to about 7459 in 2016, 14,614 in 2017, 27,061 in 2018, and 37,940 in 2022. It is particularly noteworthy that the number of Vietnamese students studying abroad increased rapidly during the period when the NSP became visible. Since 2018, the proportion of Vietnamese students among ASEAN students in Korea has consistently remained above 80 percent. This trend suggests that the expansion of ASEAN student enrollment in Korea has been concentrated in specific countries, rather than reflecting balanced growth across the various ASEAN nations. According to Vietnamese government data, the top two study abroad destinations for Vietnamese students are Japan and Korea (Nguyen, 2024). Given that Korean students primarily choose English-speaking countries for studying abroad, it can be inferred that Vietnamese students place relatively high value on geographical proximity, employment opportunities, and cultural similarity.

Conversely, the number of Korean students studying abroad in ASEAN countries has been steadily decreasing over the past decade, except for a sharp increase in 2017. As shown in Table 1, the number of outbound Korean students is gradually decreasing, with a decrease rate of about 10% every year: 7166 in 2016, 4877 in 2018, 4439 in 2019, and 3766 in 2020. The reason for the decline in the number of Korean students studying abroad in ASEAN countries was partly due to the impact of COVID-19 that swept the world in 2020–2021. Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic in early 2020, each country has implemented strict lockdowns and restrictions on movement, and ASEAN countries have also experienced a sharp decline in student mobility due to immigration controls and school closures. However, when examining each country individually, it becomes evident that the sharp fluctuations in student numbers are driven by specific countries. Among the 11 countries targeted by the NSP—including Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, India, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and the Philippines—the Philippines has historically hosted the largest number of Korean students. In 2013, 4668 Korean students studied in the Philippines, and this number increased significantly to 13,257 by 2017. However, since 2018, the number of Korean students has declined sharply, reaching only 138 as of 2024. Conversely, the number of Korean students studying abroad has shown a slight increase in Singapore and Indonesia. Although their overall share among international students remains relatively small and exhibits fluctuations, the trend indicates a gradual rise.

The patterns of student exchange between Korea and ASEAN countries, based on data from the Ministry of Education, reveal a clear difference between inbound and outbound mobility. Given that the NSP was introduced in the latter half of 2017 and had a significant impact from 2018 to 2021, it is presumed that the policy strongly influenced the inbound flow of ASEAN students to Korea, while having a limited impact on the outbound mobility of Korean students to ASEAN countries. Notably, the policy-driven increase in inbound student mobility appears to have disproportionately affected specific countries, such as Vietnam, rather than resulting in a uniform impact across all ASEAN nations. Vietnam, as one of the largest economies in ASEAN, maintains a higher trade volume with Korea compared to other ASEAN countries (Indraswari, 2022). When initiatives such as the NSP were introduced, it is likely that student exchanges increased more significantly in countries where pre-existing human and material exchanges with Korea were already well established. As a result, countries with a strong history of bilateral exchange may have experienced greater growth in student mobility, whereas countries with fewer previous exchanges may have seen comparatively smaller increases.

4.2. Patterns of ASEAN Student Mobility to Korea by University Characteristics

In the previous analysis, it was concluded that the NSP did not have a significant impact on increasing the number of Korean students studying in ASEAN countries. However, it may have played a role in attracting ASEAN students to Korea. Instead of influencing student mobility in both directions, the NSP appears to have primarily contributed to the quantitative growth of inbound ASEAN students. Therefore, this study further explores the characteristics of this inbound student mobility in greater detail. The second research question of this study examines whether the flow of ASEAN students to Korea varies based on the characteristics of Korean universities. To address this, the study utilizes data from the Ministry of Education’s The Status of International Students in Korea, which was previously used, focusing on three time points at five-year intervals: 2013, 2018, and 2023. This study investigates whether student mobility patterns differ according to university establishment, location, and mission among universities hosting ASEAN international students.

As shown in

Table 2. Description of analyzed universities in Korea.

		2013		2018		2023
		N	%	N	%	N	%
Establishment	Public	37	19.5	40	19.5	38	17.6
	Private	153	80.5	165	80.5	178	82.4
Location	Capital Region	82	43.2	90	43.9	99	45.8
	Non-Capital Region	108	56.8	115	56.1	117	54.2
Mission	Research	7	3.7	7	3.4	7	3.2
	Research Active	17	8.9	17	8.3	18	8.3
	Doctoral	26	13.7	26	12.7	26	12.0
	Comprehensive	140	73.7	155	75.6	165	76.4
Total		190		205		216

, the descriptive statistics are as follows. The number of universities analyzed at each of the three time points varies, as only institutions hosting ASEAN international students in the respective years were included in the analysis. In 2013, a total of 190 universities were analyzed: 37 were public universities and 153 were private institutions. University missions were classified into four categories based on Shin (2009): research universities (7), research-active universities (17), doctoral universities (26), and comprehensive universities (140). Regarding university location, 82 institutions were situated in the capital area, while 108 were in the non-capital region. Since this analysis focuses only on universities that host ASEAN international students, the number of institutions analyzed differs each year. Across the samples from 2013, 2018, and 2023, the distribution of institutional establishment, location, and mission has remained relatively stable.

The total number of international students, the number of international students from ASEAN, and the proportion of ASEAN students among all international students are presented in

Table 3. Changes in inbound international student mobility by institutional characteristics.

	2013			2018			2023
	Average Number of International Students	Average Number of ASEAN Students	Share of ASEAN International Students	Average Number of International Students	Average Number of ASEAN Students	Share of ASEAN International Students	Average Number of International Students	Average Number of ASEAN Students	Share of ASEAN International Students
Public	485.22	49.97	14.99	652.30	140.51	27.99	625.11	158.08	33.67
Private	411.89	38.08	15.46	600.50	114.13	28.70	785.63	208.21	38.41
Capital	576.94	54.06	14.58	857.66	147.71	25.68	999.49	195.64	33.34
Non-capital	311.69	30.02	15.98	473.57	125.70	30.04	552.54	202.57	41.16
Research	2405.14	283.57	16.87	3242.57	404.86	18.33	4079.71	392.57	17.16
Research Active	1092.94	98.53	14.54	1708.88	272.65	20.44	1797.11	293.89	25.02
Doctoral	672.00	56.50	8.40	1182.38	241.92	22.54	1361.92	380.12	31.55
Comprehensive	200.60	18.19	16.70	317.15	90.26	30.35	407.76	152.41	40.76

and are categorized by university characteristics, including establishment (public vs. private), location (capital vs. non-capital), and mission (research vs. research active vs. doctoral vs. comprehensive).

First, differences in institutional establishment varied over time, as determined by the analysis from 2013, 2018, and 2023. Both public and private universities experienced an increase in ASEAN students in 2018 and 2023 compared to 2013. However, the trend of having more ASEAN students at public universities than at private universities flipped in 2018. In terms of the proportion of ASEAN students among the total international student population, there were not many differences between public and private universities in 2013 and 2018. However, the difference in proportion between private and public universities increased in 2023. Notably, the proportion of ASEAN international students was higher in private higher education institutions than in public ones. Following the introduction of NSP, the emergence of a difference in the proportion of ASEAN students by university establishment suggests a shift in the universities that ASEAN students primarily choose. Specifically, the policy has resulted in an increasing number of ASEAN students enrolling in private universities in Korea.

Second, Korean universities were classified into two location groups: the capital area and the non-capital area. Universities in the capital area had a higher number of international students and ASEAN students compared to those in non-capital areas. However, the proportion of ASEAN students among the total international students was lower in the capital-area universities. Compared to capital-area universities, non-capital universities had fewer international students per institution and a lower number of ASEAN students. However, the proportion of ASEAN students among international students was higher than that in capital-area universities. These results suggest that, in non-capital universities, a significant share of the relatively small international student population consists of ASEAN students. This trend has intensified in recent years. In 2023, the proportion of ASEAN students at non-capital universities increased more than at capital ones compared to 2013.

Last, the student mobility results across the three time points differed by university mission. Korean universities were classified into four mission types—research, research-active, doctoral, and comprehensive—based on their research orientation. On average, research-oriented universities enrolled more international students than other three years in all three years (2013, 2018, and 2023), and the number of ASEAN students was likewise higher at these universities. In 2013, the proportion of ASEAN students among all international students did not vary by institutional mission, except in doctoral universities. However, this pattern shifted in 2018 and 2023. The more research-oriented the university, the greater the number of ASEAN students; conversely, the more education-oriented the university, the higher the proportion of ASEAN students within the international student population. These results suggest that the distribution of ASEAN students by university mission became more distinct in 2018 and 2023.

4.3. Effects of the New Southern Policy on the Mobility of ASEAN Students to Korean Universities

While descriptive statistics allow us to observe changes before and after policy implementation at a given point in time, they are limited in explaining whether changes are directly attributable to the implementation of the NSP in 2017. To address this limitation, we use an interrupted time series model to empirically analyze the effect of the NSP, controlling for university characteristics that may affect international student enrollment.

Table 4. Estimated Effects of the NSP on International Student Mobility from ASEAN and Vietnam.

	Number of ASEAN Students	Percentage of ASEAN Students	Number of Vietnamese Students	Percentage of Vietnamese Students
Trend (Year since policy)	15.318 *** (3.053)	1.838 *** (0.351)	13.398 *** (3.210)	1.961 *** (0.364)
Policy (Policy intervention)	71.916 *** (11.339)	6.095 *** (1.300)	84.148 *** (12.090)	7.775 *** (1.358)
Trend · Policy (Year since policy · Policy intervention)	−6.412 † (3.866)	0.115 (0.445)	−7.061 † (4.086)	−0.148 (0.459)
R2	0.223	0.169	0.167	0.223
N	1929 (236 univ.)	1929 (236 univ.)	1730 (225 univ.)	1730 (225 univ.)

^† p < 0.1, *** p < 0.001.

presents the results for the year since the policy, the policy intervention, and the interaction term between these two variables, along with the coefficient values and standard errors. As can be seen from the results, the results of the four models based on the number and proportion of ASEAN students and the number and proportion of Vietnamese students as independent variables were consistent. From the first model, the segmented regression analysis showed that before the NSP intervention, the number of ASEAN students already increased by an average of 15.318 points per year (β = 15.318, p < 0.000). Immediately after the NSP intervention, there was a statistically significant level increase in the number of ASEAN students (level change: β = 71.916, p = 0.000). In addition, the post-intervention trend showed a decrease compared to the pre-intervention period (trend change: β = −6.412), but the coefficient was statistically significant at the 10% level. The time (year since policy) variable denotes the change over the pre-policy period, and the results show a significant increase in the number and percentage of ASEAN students and Vietnamese students over the pre-policy period from the time variable, as the other three models showed statistically significant increases. Also, significant differences were found between the pre-policy and post-policy periods according to the policy intervention variable from the other three models. However, the interaction terms showed that the change over time since NSP was not or limitedly significant. For the model with the proportion of ASEAN students as the dependent variable, the interaction term of Trend and Policy variable had a positive coefficient (0.115), but it indicated that the increasing trend of the proportion of ASEAN students over time since policy was not statistically significant. The other three models showed negative coefficients (β = −6.412, −7.061, and −0.148), indicating that the trends in the number of ASEAN students and the number and percentage of Vietnamese students in Korean universities have declined since the implementation of the NSP. Although the results for the percentage of ASEAN and Vietnamese students were not statistically significant, the coefficient for the number of Vietnamese students was marginally significant at the 10% level.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study raise three key discussion points: (1) the specific direction of student mobility, (2) the specific country to increase student mobility based on the complementary relationship between macro- and micro-level policies, and (3) lower-level universities that absorbed inbound ASEAN students.

First, the NSP has emphasized the importance of human exchanges, education, and human resource development. However, these aspects have already been a focus in Korea since the 1990s, with globalization serving as a pivotal factor in shaping this trajectory (Hong, 2021). Therefore, it is challenging to isolate the direct impact of NSP on student mobility in higher education. The data for the increasing number of ASEAN students indicates that this trend was already in progress before the NSP took effect. It suggests that the policy acted more as an amplifier than as the driving force of student mobility. Nonetheless, this study highlighted an imbalance in the mobility of students between Korean and ASEAN universities, especially before and after the policy, and its impact on ASEAN inbound student mobility was limited. While the mobility of Korean students to ASEAN countries has remained stable since before the pandemic, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of ASEAN students coming to South Korea. This trend in ASEAN students’ mobility was observed across all universities, regardless of their specific characteristics. However, Korean students, once drawn to the Philippines for affordable English language learning opportunities, now increasingly tend to migrate to more developed countries, especially English-speaking nations. These observations suggest a discernible shift in student mobility patterns, with Korean students favoring developed countries and English-speaking regions, while ASEAN students are increasingly seeking opportunities in South Korea. Although internationalization is generally expected to foster more equitable relations in higher education (Yang, 2002), the imbalances in mobility between South Korea and ASEAN countries remain evident. Also, the increasing trends of ASEAN inbound students were hardly accepted as the effect of NSP. In other words, the observed increasing trends may not be attributed to the NSP, as the trends began with the policy implementation. Alternatively, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic—particularly during the years 2020 to 2022 (or more), following the policy’s introduction—may have disrupted the policy’s intended impact.

Second, some countries benefit more from the NSP, while others see fewer benefits from its implementation. This discrepancy may arise from different backgrounds and environments that influence the outcomes of the policy. The NSP aligns with previous government policies and underscores its incompatibility with isolated implementation. The movement of students occurs within the institutional system, where various factors interact and influence each other. Moreover, while the NSP serves as a catalyst to enhance the importance of human and material exchanges between countries and regions, detailed policy initiatives for the internationalization of higher education play a critical role. These initiatives provide specific strategies to increase student mobility, such as quality assurance within the existing legal framework (Ifuku & Takenaka, 2022). A particularly distinct example is the collaboration between Vietnam and South Korea, which has led to increased student mobility. This surge in student mobility cannot be adequately explained by the increase in university cooperation alone. Instead, it is driven by a complex array of economic, social, and political factors, including the expansion of physical and human resource exchanges, greater cultural understanding, and the growing presence of businesses. Therefore, recognizing the limitations of political and economic relief from a macro perspective, it is essential to strategically link both macro and micro approaches to achieve more comprehensive outcomes.

Third, the number of inbound international students from ASEAN countries has increased significantly in Korea since the implementation of the NSP, with a broad range of universities absorbing these students. However, this growth has occurred without sufficient preparation to diversify the international student body. Notably, the proportion of ASEAN students was higher in non-capital regions compared to the capital regions, and in comprehensive institutions rather than in research-oriented or more competitive universities. Korean universities face increasing pressure to attract more international students in order to remain viable and sustainable in the context of a declining domestic student population (Jung, 2024). However, less competitive institutions tend to have a higher proportion of ASEAN students, and many ASEAN students choose to pursue higher education in Korea not for academic reasons, but for economic benefits, such as better employment opportunities (Li et al., 2025). This trend reflects reciprocal needs on both sides: universities in Korea are striving to meet quotas, while ASEAN students are drawn by the perceived economic advantages. Therefore, unaddressed critical issues about the adaptation of ASEAN students in Korean higher education remained, such as the recruitment of qualified students, curriculum development tailored to their needs, and engagement with local communities, among others. Furthermore, these challenges need to be discussed and prepared for to ensure the sustainable integration of ASEAN students into Korean higher education.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the trends in student mobility between Korea and ASEAN countries under the NSP initiative. The results revealed that the imbalance of inbound and outbound student mobility between Korea and ASEAN countries continues to persist. Additionally, the patterns of inbound international student mobility were shown based on the characteristics of universities in Korea. Specifically, a higher proportion of ASEAN students was found at less research-focused universities and in those located in rural areas. While this study contributes to the understanding of the overall trends and patterns of student mobility before and after the NSP implementation, as well as the effect of the policy, the data have limitations when it comes to applying more advanced analytical methods, considering the critical event of the pandemic after that occurred after policy implementation. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution, and there is room for more comprehensive investigations in further studies. While this study was unable to provide clear evidence of the NSP’s direct effect on increasing the number of ASEAN students in Korean universities, the continued structural imbalance and the overall upward trend in student mobility suggest that macro-level initiatives alone have a limited impact without a goal-oriented institutional strategy. Additionally, detailed research on the experiences and perceptions of international students from ASEAN countries is necessary to advance policy development to take into account the real practices. Further analysis is also needed to better understand the immediate impact of the NSP on student mobility and to refine the understanding of its long-term effects.