External evaluation of Erasmus institutional and national impact Appendices
A B C D E F G H Country Reports Bibliography Glossary Storyboard Analysis Tool Survey of Institutional Impact Site Visit Reports Methodological Notes Terms of Reference 2 40 49 51 65 75 91 92

1

APPENDIX A Country Reports 1.1 Introduction

The country reports will be presented in this chapter. As has been explained in chapters 1.4.6 and 1.4.7, the country reports are based on desk research (analysis of policy documents and secondary literature) and on interviews with relevant actors involved in policy-making. The guiding questions for the desk research were: (a) what have been the objectives of national policies; (b) what is the relationship between internationalisation policies and overall national higher education policies; (c) what have been the instruments; (d) why have these objectives and instruments been chosen; and (e) (particularly) how have governments reacted to/anticipated the ERASMUS programme. Interviews took place to discuss the draft country reports and to take stock of the interviewees’ responses to the three statements on the possible impact of ERASMUS. After the redrafting of the country reports on the basis of the interviews, interviewees were given the opportunity to comment one more time on this draft. As such, the respondents verified the finalised country versions (apart from the countries for which contact persons did not respond to our invitation to participate in the research project: Italy and Spain). 1.2 Flanders/Belgium

The end of the 1980s was characterised by the federalisation of the Belgian state, carried out in 1989. As a consequence of the third phase of federalisation, the three language communities received competence for policy-making and organisation in the field of education. Before this, competence was at the level of the Federal State, which, as one of the first countries in the EU, had made adjustments in regulations concerning