Logo

The Influence of Exogenous and Endogenous Factors on the Choice of Georgian Universities by Foreign Students

ნუგზარ თოდუა.jpg
Nugzar Todua

Doctor of Economics Science, Professor and Head of Marketing Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

მაღრაძე_edited.jpg
Magda Magradze

PhD Student, Faculty of Economics and Business, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

Abstract

Problem Relevance and Research Context. The globalization of higher education and the internationalization of educational markets have intensified competition among Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) worldwide. In the modern knowledge-based economy, attracting and retaining high-potential international students represents a strategic pillar of institutional sustainability and national policy. A student's selection of a university and academic program constitutes one of the most critical, complex, and multi-stage financial, professional, and psychological decisions in an individual's life, directly determining prospective employment, career trajectory, and social mobility. According to OECD data, international student mobility is expanding rapidly across the globe: in 2022, 4.6 million international students were enrolled in OECD countries, reaching 6.7 million by 2026. Within this global paradigm, Georgia is increasingly positioning itself as a regional international educational hub. Official data from the National Statistics Office of Georgia indicates that 37,125 international students were enrolled in Georgia during the 2024–2025 academic year, with enrollment surging by 19.7% for the 2025–2026 academic year. Amid this rapid growth, identifying the exogenous and endogenous determinants that drive foreign students to choose Georgian universities is of paramount academic and practical urgency.

Three fundamental research gaps exist in the current literature: (1) existing studies predominantly evaluate selection factors in isolation without providing an integrated structural model; (2) the crucial role of Student Attitude (ATT) as a central psychological mediator that converts external stimuli into decision-making readiness is frequently ignored; and (3) comprehensive empirical investigations focusing on emerging and transition economies, specifically within the Georgian higher education landscape, remain scarce.

Research Objective. The primary objective of this empirical study is to investigate the exogenous and endogenous factors influencing international students' selection of Georgian universities within an integrated theoretical framework combining the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Theory of Reasoned Action and Social Cognitive Career Theory, incorporating Student Attitude (ATT) and the Decision-Making Process (DM) as sequential psychological mediators.

Methodology and Sample Profile. This study utilized a quantitative research design. The target population comprised international students enrolled in accredited higher education institutions in Georgia (37,125 students). With a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, the required sample size was determined to be 384 respondents. Non-probability convenience sampling was employed.

Data collection was conducted using a structured questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). A pilot test was executed in May 2025, followed by mass data collection from June to August 2025. Via social media platforms and email outreach, 501 respondents were contacted, yielding 397 completed surveys (79.2% response rate). Following data cleaning and removal of invalid questionnaires, the final statistical analysis was conducted on N = 371 valid respondents using SPSS-31 and SmartPLS 4.

Sample Demographic Profile: Females accounted for 59.3% and males 40.7%. Age distribution was concentrated in the 18–22 age bracket (72.8%) and 23–25 age group (20.2%). Respondents originated from diverse countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Israel, Ukraine, Turkey, the UK, the USA, and others. Furthermore, 60.9% were enrolled in public universities and 39.1% in private institutions. The measurement instrument comprised 39 optimized indicators structured across 10 latent constructs.

Empirical Findings: OLS Regression and PLS-SEM Results. Outer Measurement Model Assessment: The scale demonstrated high internal consistency and reliability: Cronbach's alpha (α) ranged from 0.535 to 0.715, while Composite Reliability (CR) spanned from 0.761 to 0.825 (exceeding the 0.70 threshold). Outer indicator factor loadings (λ) exceeded critical benchmarks (0.60–0.70). Convergent validity was established as Average Variance Extracted values exceeded 0.50 across all constructs (0.518 ≤ AVE ≤ 0.613). Discriminant validity was confirmed via the Fornell-Larcker criterion (√AVE > inter-construct correlations) and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (all pairwise HTMT < 0.85; max HTMT-SF, EF = 0.718).

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Multiple Regression Analysis:

  • Model 1 (DV = ATT): R = 0.764, R² = 0.584, Adjusted R² = 0.574, F = 75.42, DW = 1.968, p < 0.001. The seven antecedent factors collectively explained 58.4% of the variance in Student Attitude. Institutional Attractions (IA: B = 0.271, SE = 0.049, β = 0.285, t = 5.531, p < 0.001, VIF = 1.342) and Academic Factors (AF: B = 0.238, SE = 0.049, β = 0.248, t = 4.857, p < 0.001, VIF = 1.315) exerted the strongest direct positive effects, followed by Marketing Factors (MF: β = 0.226, p < 0.001), Country Attractions (CA: β = 0.214, p < 0.001), Economic Factors (EF: β = 0.198, p < 0.001), Personal Factors (PF: β = 0.175, p < 0.001), and Social Factors (SF: β = 0.162, p = 0.001).
  • Model 2 (DV = DM): R = 0.612, R² = 0.375, Adjusted R² = 0.373, F = 229.20, DW = 1.912, p < 0.001 (ATT -> DM: B = 0.628, SE = 0.041, β = 0.612, t = 15.139, p < 0.001).
  • Model 3 (DV = MCH): R = 0.684, R² = 0.468, Adjusted R² = 0.466, F = 336.05, DW = 1.945, p < 0.001 (DM -> MCH: B = 0.712, SE = 0.039, β = 0.684, t = 18.332, p < 0.001).
  • Diagnostic Checks: Durbin-Watson values (DW ≈ 2.0) confirmed residual independence. Low VIF values (1.215 ≤ VIF ≤ 1.342 < 3.0) confirmed the absence of multicollinearity.

PLS-SEM Structural Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing (Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples): All nine direct hypotheses (H1–H9) were supported at p ≤ 0.001.

Theoretical and Practical Significance. Theoretical Significance: This study makes a pivotal contribution to higher education marketing and consumer behavior literature by extending Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) into an integrated dual-mediation model. It empirically validates the sequential mechanism (Antecedents -> Attitude -> Decision-Making -> Final Choice), bridging the gap between external macro/micro stimuli and actual student enrollment behavior. Furthermore, the combined deployment of OLS regression and PLS-SEM modeling (39 purified items, 5000 resamples) offers a robust methodological template for investigating international student choice in emerging destination markets.

Practical Significance: The findings provide institutional leadership, international admissions offices, and marketing executives with an actionable framework for student recruitment. By understanding the predictor hierarchy (β) and Cohen's f² effect sizes, universities can strategically allocate resources toward high-impact areas—primarily Institutional Attractions (β = 0.285) and Academic Quality (β = 0.248). Marketing teams gain empirical backing to optimize digital campaigns and social media communication (β = 0.226). Finally, policy-makers can utilize these insights to enhance national country branding and destination safety positioning (β = 0.214) to boost regional competitiveness.

Keywords: Exogenous factors, endogenous factors, behavior of foreign students, university selection, marketing research.

References

  1. Abbas, J., Alturki, U., Habib, M., Aldraiweesh, A., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2021). Factors affecting students in the selection of country for higher education: A comparative analysis of international students in Germany and the UK. Sustainability, 13(18), 10065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810065
  2. Ahmad, S. Z., Buchanan, F. R., & Ahmad, N. (2016). Examination of students’ selection criteria for international education. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 1088-1103. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0147
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Al-Abdallah, G., & Ababakr, K. (2025). Exploring the Mediating Effect of Digital Versus Traditional Marketing Communication on Students’ Selection of Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), 5510524. https://doi.org/10.1155/2025/5510524
  5. Albaom, M. A., Sidi, F., Jabar, M. A., Abdullah, R., Ishak, I., Yunikawati, N. A., & Ali, D. A. (2022). The moderating role of personal innovativeness in tourists' intention to use Web 3.0. Sustainability, 14(21), Article 13935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113935
  6. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011013060
  7. Amaro, D. M., Marques, A. M. A., & Alves, H. (2019). The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty mediated by satisfaction. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 16(2), 211-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-019-00228-3
  8. Ammigan, R., & Jones, E. (2018). Improving the student experience: Learning from a comparative study of international student satisfaction. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318773137
  9. Ammigan, R., Dennis, J. L., & Jones, E. (2021). The differential impact of learning experiences on international student satisfaction and institutional recommendation. Journal of International Students, 11(2), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11i2.2038
  10. Arrivabene, L. S., Vieira, P. R. D. C., & Mattoso, C. L. D. Q. (2019). Impact of service quality, satisfaction and corporate image on loyalty: A study of a publicly traded for-profit university. Services Marketing Quarterly, 40(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2019.1630174
  11. Asif, M., Awan, M. U., Khan, M. K., & Ahmad, N. (2013). A model for total quality management in higher education. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 1883–1904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9632-9
  12. Aslan, Y., & Koçak, O. (2023). How do family influence on career choices and perceived social support affect students' life satisfaction in Turkey? International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 21(3), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-023-09602-1
  13. Atento, A. G., & Atento, R. G. (2025). Social media marketing and enrollment intent among college-bound learners. Journal of Enterprise Strategy and Management Innovation, 3(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.65166/bcn4pt87
  14. Babakhani, N., Paas, L., & Dolnicar, S. (2023). Do instructional manipulation checks measure inattention or miscomprehension? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(6), 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2111064
  15. Bakri, R., Sobirov, B., Astuti, N. P., Ahmar, A. S., & Singh, P. K. (2026). Marketing strategies in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1), Article 2656064. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2656064
  16. Buari, N. H., Zulkefley, N. A., & Abdalwahid, A. J. (2023). Career Choice Factors and Clinical Performance Among Health Sciences Students. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 8(24), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v8i24.4617
  17. Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.10701
  18. Casidy, R., & Wymer, W. (2015). The impact of brand strength on satisfaction, loyalty and WOM: An empirical examination in the higher education sector. Journal of Brand Management, 22(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.6
  19. Cayetano-Penman, J., Malik, G., Hampton, K., & Zhong, Y. (2021). Conceptualizing a Program Aimed at Empowering Beginning International Health Science Students. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 13(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v13i1.1994
  20. Chee, C. M., Butt, M. M., Wilkins, S., & Ong, F. S. (2016). Country of origin and country of service delivery effects in transnational higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1103352
  21. Cho, H., Yoo, S.-K., & Park, C. J. (2021). The relationship between stress and life satisfaction of Korean university students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09676-y
  22. Cynthia, R., & Chong, P. Y. (2023). Factors Influencing International Students' Choice to Study at Malaysian Private Higher Education Institutions. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 8(5), e002281-e002281. https://doi.org/10.33094/mjssh.v8i5.2281 D
  23. ao, M. T. N., & Thorpe, A. (2015). What factors influence Vietnamese students' choice of university? International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0110
  24. de Silva, T. (2024). Preferences for undergraduate university programs in Sri Lanka: Evidence from a costless application system. Higher Education, 87(4), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01039-3
  25. Denisov, D. S., & Sigarev, A. V. (2026). On factors affecting applicants' university choice: the Faculty of Economics at LMSU case. Urban Studies and Public Administration, 12(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7802.2026.1.78629
  26. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: The teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2449–2472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
  27. Fernandes, C., Ross, K., & Meraj, M. (2013). Understanding student satisfaction and loyalty in the UAE HE sector. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2012-0082
  28. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
  29. GeoStat. (2026). Higher Education. https://www.geostat.ge/en/modules/categories/61/higher-education
  30. Girardin, F., Blal, I., & Lunardo, R. (2024). The role of brand authenticity for higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(2), 1056–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2172642
  31. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). SAGE.
  32. Heffernan, T., Wilkins, S., & Butt, M. M. (2018). Transnational higher education: The importance of institutional reputation, trust and student-university identification. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2017-0122
  33. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). University choice: What do we know, what don't we know and what do we still need to find out? International Journal of Educational Management, 29(3), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2013-0150
  34. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  35. Heslop, L. A., Papadopoulos, N., & Bourk, M. (1998). An interregional and intercultural perspective on subcultural differences in product evaluations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 15(2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1998.tb00156.x
  36. Hoang, V. H., & Ngo, Q. D. (2025). Embracing the digital frontier: Unveiling the moderating role of personal innovativeness on university choice decisions in Vietnam. SAGE Open, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251329600
  37. Hunaiti, Z., & Altamimi, L. S. (2026). Exploring the factors contributing to the decline in the international student supply chain to UK universities in 2024. Journal of International Students, 16(15), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.32674/3hzsxh31
  38. Hung, N. T. (2021). Higher education in business: a model for international students' choice. Business Process Management Journal, 27(6), 1804-1821. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2020-0504
  39. Huong, D. T. T., & Hoang, P. M. (2025). Factors Influencing Students' Decision to Choose an Economics-Specialized University: A Study in Thai Nguyen City, Viet Nam. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3), 2530–2538. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300198
  40. Jahanshahi, A. A., & Polas, M. R. H. (2023). Moving toward digital transformation by force: Students' preferences, happiness, and mental health. Electronics, 12(10), Article 2187. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12102187

41. Jain, R., Sahney, S., & Sinha, G. (2013). Developing a scale to measure students' perception of service quality in the Indian context. The TQM Journal, 25(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731311307456

42. James-MacEachern, M., & Yun, D. (2017). Exploring factors influencing international students’ decision to choose a higher education institution: A comparison between Chinese and other students. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(3), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0149

43. Kaynakoğlu, B., Akçay, S., Küsen Sel, H., & Yırtık, H. N. (2025). Factors Influencing University and Program Choices Among Health Sciences Students. Journal of University Research, 8(3), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1700412

44. Khechine, H., & Lakhal, S. (2018). Technology as a double-edged sword: From behavior prediction with UTAUT to students' outcomes. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 63–102. https://doi.org/10.28945/4022

45. Kilpatrick, S., Burns, G., Katersky, R. S., Kerrison, M., & Fischer, S. (2020). Parents Matter: Empowering Parents to Inform Other Parents of Post-Year 10 Pathway Options. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 30(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.47381/aijre.v30i3.275

46. Knight, J. (2016). Transnational education remodeled: Toward a common TNE framework and definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315602927

47. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308

48. Lapina, I., Roga, R., & Müürsepp, P. (2016). Quality of higher education: International students' satisfaction and learning experience. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0029

49. Latif, K. F., Latif, I., Sahibzada, U. F., & Ullah, M. (2019). In search of quality: Measuring higher education service quality (HiEduQual). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(7-8), 768–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1338133

50. Mahmoud, M. A., Oppong, E., Twimasie, D., Husseini, M. M., Kastner, A. N. A., & Oppong, M. (2020). Culture and country choice of international students: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(1), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1688001

51. Malhotra, N. (2020). Marketing research: An applied orientation. 7th ed., Upper Saddle River, N.J.; London: Pearson Education.

52. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push‐pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International journal of educational management, 16(2), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210418403

53. Migin, M. W., Falahat, M., Yajid, M. S. A., & Khatibi, A. (2015). Impacts of Institutional Characteristics on International Students' Choice of Private Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia. Higher Education Studies, 5(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n1p31

54. Mseleku, Z. (2022). Beyond Hard Barriers: Lack of Aspiration as a Soft Barrier to Access Higher Education Amongst Youth. South African Journal of Higher Education, 36(6), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.20853/36-6-4516

55. Newsome, L. K., & Cooper, P. (2016). International Students’ Cultural and Social Experiences in a British University:“Such a hard life [it] is here”. Journal of international students, 6(1), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i1.517

56. Nilsson, P. A., & Ripmeester, N. (2016). International student expectations: Career opportunities and employability. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 614-631. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.355

57. Nuseir, M. T., & El Refae, G. A. (2022). Factors influencing the choice of studying at UAE universities: an empirical research on the adoption of educational marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(2), 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1805561

58. OECD (2026). Education at a Glance 2025. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/09/education-at-a-glance-2025_c58fc9ae.html

59. Olmos-Gómez, M. d. C., Luque-Suárez, M., Becerril-Ruiz, D., & Cuevas-Rincón, J. M. (2021). Gender and Socioeconomic Status as Factors of Individual Differences in Pre-University Students' Decision-Making. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), Article 1344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031344

60. Panxhi, M., Zeneli, G., Hoti, A., & Benga, A. (2025). Mapping Student Choice in Higher Education: Economic, Social and Infrastructure Effects in Albania. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 15(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2025-0202

61. Rutter, R., Roper, S., & Lettice, F. (2016). Social media interaction, the university brand and recruitment performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3096–3104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.025

62. Sahu, P. K., & Kumar, R. V. (2026). Navigating the digital landscape: The impact of social media on higher education enrolment and beyond. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 18(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2026.18.012

63. Sakalasooriya, M. (2025). Exploring University Choice Factors Among School Leavers in Selected Sri Lankan Districts: A Second-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 26(1), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.62370/hbds.v26i1.278627

64. Sentosa, B. M., Pradesti, A., & Khusaini, K. (2025). Determinants of Private University Choice in Banten: The Role of Institutional Reputation and Location. Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif, 15(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v15i1.1082

65. Serpil, H. (2026). From Outcome Expectations to Institutional Preferences: Understanding University Choice From the Perspective of Social Cognitive Career Theory. Journal of University Research, 9(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1937338

66. Siddiqui, N. (2017). Parental Education as a Determinant of School Choice: A Comparative Study of School Types in Pakistan. Research in Education, 99(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717725862

67. Sim, A. K., Tan, K. L., Sia, J. K. M., & Hii, I. S. (2020). Students' choice of international branch campus in Malaysia: a gender comparative study. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2019-0382

68. Stephenson, A., Heckert, D., & Yerger, D. (2016). College choice and the university brand: Exploring the consumer decision framework. Higher Education, 71, 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9919-1

69. Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2019). How service quality affects university brand performance, university brand image and behavioural intention. Journal of Brand Management, 26(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0131-3

70. Todua, N., & Kartsivadze, G. (2026). Students' perceptions of ChatGPT integration in higher education. The New Economist, 20(4), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.36962/NEC20042025-36

71. Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2025). Country-branded universities: A framework for country brand authenticity in transnational higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 50(4), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2351099

72. Wilkins, S., Hazzam, J., Islam Khan, M. Z., Elsayed, M. F., & El-Said, O. (2026). The influences of country brand authenticity in transnational higher education: student satisfaction at country-branded universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 45(7), 2205–2222. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2026.2639620

73. Wilkins, S., Huisman, J., Islam Khan, M. Z., & Elmoshnib, M. (2025). Measuring institutions' country brand authenticity in transnational higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(5), 1242–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2462020

74. Wong, P., Ng, P. M. L., Lee, D., & Lam, R. (2020). Examining the impact of perceived source credibility on attitudes and intentions towards taking advice from others on university choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(4), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0190

75. Yue, Y., Gong, L., & Ma, Y. (2024). Factors influencing international student inward mobility in China: A comparison between students from BRI and non-BRI countries. Educational Studies, 50(5), 597-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.2023023

Share on social media:

The New Economist, N3, 2026, Vol. 21, Issue 3.

axali ekonomisti 3-2026 kda_edited.jpg
pdf
Published Date:

07/10/2026

Copyright (c) 2026 Nugzar Todua, Magda Magradze

Creative Commons

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Article Views: 7