‘Nordic added value’: a floating signifier and a mechanism for Nordic higher education regionalism

ABSTRACT
 This paper contributes to the theoretical debate over a global upsurge in higher education (HE) regionalisms which pursue different region-building processes and create policy spaces beyond national boundaries. Focusing on the Nordic countries, the paper studies parallel processes of intra-Nordic and European HE and research cooperation. Although individual Nordic countries opt for different kinds of relationships with the European Union (EU), they have participated in the Europeanisation process of HE and research while intensifying their Nordic regional identity. Drawing on spatial logics in European integration and HE regionalism theories, the concept of ‘Nordic added value’ (NAV) and three Nordic flagship programmes, this paper addresses two questions: What are the links and outcomes of parallel regionalising processes of the EU-Nordic and intra-Nordic cooperation in HE and research? How has ‘Nordic added value’ been utilised to strengthen Nordic HE regionalism? The paper argues that spatial logics provide new and holistic understandings of rationales for region-building processes, whereas NAV, being a floating signifier, generates regionalising ideas and functions as a distinctive mechanism of Nordic HE regionalism. Both spatial logics and NAV render opportunities for Nordic regional imaginaries, identity-building and Nordic-EU mutual policy learning.


Introduction
There has been a global upsurge in various forms of regional higher education (HE) cooperation projects, which have created spaces beyond national boundaries, such as the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Common Space for Higher Education, the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) Regional Educational Integration in Latin America, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the African Union's Harmonisation of Higher Education Programmes (Dang 2017;Perrotta 2016;Woldegiorgis 2013;Chou and Ravinet 2017;Knight 2012). In Northern Europe, building on their long history of the outcomes of interactions between the Nordic countries and the EU in the HE sector. Therefore, this paper aims to develop novel understandings of the underlying mechanisms of different region-building processes by investigating two questions: 1) What are the links and outcomes of parallel regionalising processes of the EU-Nordic and intra-Nordic cooperation in HE and research? 2) How has 'Nordic added value' been utilised to strengthen Nordic HE regionalism?
The next section presents a theoretical framework gleaned from the literature on spatial logics, regional integration and HE regionalism, and demystifies the concept of 'Nordic added value', viewing it as an underlying mechanism for Nordic HE regionalism. The third section describes the methods used, while the fourth section presents and analyses the empirical data about Nordic region-building processes and interactions with the EU. The concluding section summarises the key arguments and mechanisms underpinning Nordic HE regionalism.

Regional integration: rationales, spatial logics and mechanisms
Classic regional integration theories posit that complex interdependence among states can foster regional integration (Börzel and Risse 2019) because they need to act collectively to resolve common problems. From this perspective, regions are seen as aggregations of states and regional cooperation frameworks are seen as rational and interestbased responses of states. European integration theories expect economic interdependence to promote regionalism by exploiting comparative cost advantages and economies of scale through intra-regional trade (Mattli 1999). These theories assert that market forces, once set in motion in one stage (e.g. customs union), are anticipated to have a spill-over effect in the next stage (e.g. common market; monetary union) and harmonise other social policies (Söderbaum 2016). In the EU context, economic integration heralds HE regionalisation, noticeably since the launch of the Lisbon strategy in 2000, EU-funded HE projects, and new regional institutions (Batory and Lindstrom 2011) led by strategic framework agreements for European cooperation in education and training (ET2010, ET2020, ET 2030).
Despite many similarities to the EU integration, Nordic regionalism has its distinctive features, which I aim to explain by combining different spatial logics (Grundel 2021), regional integration theories (Börzel and Risse 2019), region-building approach (Neumann 1994) and the concept of 'Nordic added value' (NAV), as summarised in Table 1. These theories and logics are overlapping and intertwined in time and space. Together they form a conceptual framework for examining Nordic HE region-building processes and advancing the argument that NAV is an underlying mechanism for Nordic regionalism.

Economic interdependence and competitiveness
The functional demand for regionalism is driven by both intra-regional and extraregional economic interdependence. For example, compared to all other regions, the EU has the highest volume of intra-regional trade (70%) facilitated by its single market and common currency (Börzel and Risse 2019). However, the economic logic for Nordic regional integration is dependent on both trade within the region (ca. 20% of total trade in 2018), and trade with and investment from other external partners (Nordic Council of Ministers 2022;. Economic interdependence is closely linked to the rise of the knowledge economy and knowledge society, where knowledge is seen as the main source of the wealth of nations, businesses and people (Chou and Gornitzka 2014). Therefore, part of the economic spatial logics involves creating regional HE sectoral spaces and policies to develop talent and attract public and private investments (Grundel 2021). Higher education institutions, research organisations, professional bodies, student unions and alumni associations are also being enlisted to develop novel and variegated forms of regionalism (Robertson et al. 2016) to enhance regional competitiveness and link a region with the global market, including HE and research market (Melo 2016;Maassen, Vabø, and Stensaker 2008).

Imaginaries of large-scale initiatives
The second spatial logic is mainly driven by grand ideas and imaginaries of regions. This logic resonates with the new regionalism theory which argues that regions are constructed through purposeful social, political, cultural and economic interactions among countries which often, but not always, inhabit the same geographical area (Acharya 2012a). Thus, regions are imagined communities socially constructed through ideas and institutions (Söderbaum 2016;Acharya 2012b). 'Imagined' refers to an 'idea of the region' whether conceived from inside or outside the region. The 'Europe of Knowledge' and NORIA are examples of such grand ideas.
Besides the ideational perspective above, regional imaginaries can also be understood from a material perspective as the 'structures, processes and arrangements that are This logic is driven by economic interests connected to globalisation and the market economy. Functional demands for regionalism are driven by both intraregional and extra-regional economic relations. Regionalism as a way to boost competitiveness.

Nordic added value
Scale: imaginaries of large-scale initiatives This logic builds on ideals of regional large-scale projects and regional institutions as the 'best fit' to compete in the global market and stand high in imagined global orders. The institutional design and governance model are constructed in particular regional circumstances. Identity: regional identity, regionbuilding processes This logic is political and cultural, and concerns: -community-building to foster trust and generate public support for regionalism -region-builders, as part of regional projects, imagine a certain spatial and chronological identity for a region, and disseminate this imagined identity to others; -regional identity and region-building processes to gain support from the wider publics both inside and outside a region.
working toward greater coherence within a specific international regime in terms of economic, political, security, socio-cultural and other kinds of linkages' (Dent 2008, 7), such as regional organisations, institutional arrangements, programmes and budgets. Regional institution-building is often accompanied by social constructions of regional identities. In this perspective, regionalism has the capacity to shape regional consciousness and patterns of human activities, such as trading and the movement of people, including students and academics.

Regional identity and region-building processes
An important tenet of this logic is that regions can be seen as imagined communities (Anderson 1983) socially constructed through processes of regional identity-building and community-building. A strong regional and cultural identity is believed to strengthen social capital. In turn, strong social capital is assumed to lead to the enhancement of regional attractiveness and competitiveness (Grundel 2021). In the process of building such an 'imagined community', political actors often stimulate the principles for regional projects, such as kindship, shared ideas, values, cultural norms, thus making them more real (Neumann 1994). Therefore, it is possible to formulate a regional project, such as higher education and research, by making the political ties, cultural similarities, and economic transactional patterns, shared values, etc. relevant to the collective identity of the people involved. In this view, the Nordic region-building process is different from the larger European project in the sense that the Nordics enjoyed stronger emotional support and trust from their people. It is worth noting that it is the regionalising actors who decide which similarities and differences should be made politically relevant, and which should not. Regions are, thus, constructed by region-builders. They are regionalising actors who imagine a certain spatial and chronological identity for a region and disseminate this imagined identity to others. In the case of Nordic higher education and research cooperation, region-builders are multiple, they can be top politicians who interact directly and divert the collaboration efforts through the Council of Ministers, or bureaucrats, experts, university leaders, administrators, academics and students who agree on concrete cooperative arrangements. A regional identity can also be shaped by the self-conscious socialisation of the leaders and peoples of a region, both among themselves and with other actors beyond the region (Acharya 2012b). The Nordic-EU and Nordic-Baltic relationships can be seen as examples of self-conscious socialisation with other actors beyond the region. On the one hand, these relationships resulted in different layers of regional cooperation and parallel, overlapping at times, processes, on the other hand, they also caused scepticism and observations over the EU's supranational governance, thus compelling the Nordic countries to increase their Nordic regional consciousness and identity (McCallion and Brianson 2018;Archer 2000) Regional identity discourses also refer to particular regional experiences, norms and practices. For example, the 'Nordic model' (e.g. school education with high PISA scores, higher education and research, green growth, and social welfare and equality) has received much positive attention and the Nordic identity has become desirable. In a similar vein, having studied the Nordic dimension in five Nordic countries' foreign and security policies, Brommesson (2018) calls this phenomenon 'the renaissance of Nordicness'that is the recognition of a Nordic role in foreign policies. The author also embraces plural meanings of Nordicness because Nordic states approach Nordicness in different ways and to varying degrees.
In sum, the above sections explain Nordic regionalism with three broad inter-linked spatial logics of economic interdependence, competitiveness and regional identity. The next section will focus on the 'how'the mechanism through which the above spatial logics and rationales are operationalised.

Nordic added value
The term 'Nordic added value' appears in almost all Nordic cooperation programmes, but it is interpreted differently by different stakeholders. Following the accession of Finland and Sweden to the EU in 1995, making three out of five Nordic countries members of the Union, Nordic cooperation was seen as a middle layer between the national and European levels. In the 2000s, the EU enlargement posed the risk of diminishing the relative influence on European affairs of small Nordic countries and weakening the Nordic identity (Waever 2002) or even causing the dissolution of the Nordic region (Browning 2007). Nordic countries felt compelled to consider how they could cooperate with the EU and leave a 'Nordic fingerprint' on EU policies. These geopolitical changes triggered a debate about 'Nordisk nytte' -Nordic added value, which denotes the necessity and significance of Nordic regional cooperation in all sectors, including HE and research.
In the late 1990s, the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers introduced a three-point definition of NAV including: -activities that could otherwise be undertaken at the national level, but where tangible positive effects are achieved through common Nordic solutions; -activities that demonstrate and develop Nordic solidarity; -activities that increase Nordic capabilities and competitiveness (NordForsk 2010).
These three points correspond to the above-mentioned spatial logics and point to an ideological direction of how region-building processes should be designed and how Nordic regionalism can be operationalised: the first point refers to impacts of largescale regional initiatives, the second point emphasises community and identity building, the third point explicitly prioritises the economic logic and regional competitiveness.
In the 2000s, the Nordic countries launched the joint Nordic globalisation policy and a Nordic Globalisation Forum to seek solutions to global challenges. This context led to an increasing need for the Nordic region to emphasise its status as an independent collective actor in the global arena, and to invest in building itself as a recognisable entity. Hence, a fourth point was added to the definition: -activities that strengthen the Nordic international influence (Nordisk Råd 2017).
This fourth point tends to emphasise an outward-looking vision of extra-regional relations and the new desired outcome of Nordic regionalism. However, all four points are unclear as to how the positive effects of Nordic solutions, Nordic solidarity, Nordic capabilities or Nordic influence can be understood and operationalised in the HE sector. Therefore, in this paper, I argue that NAV can serve as a floating signifier (Laclau 2015) which is either equivocal or ambiguous. In the first possibility, the same signifier can be attached to different signifieds in different contexts. In the second possibility, the signifier is ambiguous: either an overdetermination or an underdetermination of signifieds prevents from fully fixing it. In both cases, a floating signifier is highly variable and unspecifiable. NAV seems to emerge in this nature and NAV takes on multiple meanings and can function as an operational method in all three spatial logics for regionalism (Table 1). Arguably, the act of defining NAV is an act of developing, expressing ideas and refining meanings that construct a Nordic region. These ideas and meanings are connected with the interests of the Nordic countries and rationales for Nordic regionalism, and therefore have the power to transform policies and guide behaviours of the people involved.
Compared with the EU's soft governance tool for regional integrationthe Open Method of Coordination (OMC), NAV has several important differences. Firstly, NAV's primary objective is to maximise the efficiency of resources and achieve the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas the OMC's objective is to achieve greater convergence of policies and practices across member states. Secondly, the OMC relies on the identification of common goals and timelines for implementation, benchmarks and indicators for assessing member states' progress towards the goals (Lange and Alexiadou 2007), whereas NAV does not specify benchmarks or indicators to compare the performance of individual countries, instead NAV increases synergies between countries. As such NAV promotes 'soft regionalism' which can be defined as cooperation, often voluntary and bottom-up, among members and emphasizing consultation and inclusiveness of different region-builders (Acharya 2012b).
Although the OMC and NAV are 'tools' of governance drawing heavily on the techniques and principles of new public management (e.g. accountability), the OMC tends to measure the quality of education policy (Alexiadou, Fink-Hafner, and Lange 2010), whereas NAV measures the quality of education and research as shown in this paper.
The OMC reflects a wider shift from government to supra-regional governance, in which member states translate the EU common goals into their national contexts. The capacity of the OMC to achieve convergence of education goals and gradually replace national priorities, even in part, is significant (Alexiadou, Fink-Hafner, and Lange 2010). On the contrary, NAV aims to translate and align national priorities with regional cooperation, thus requiring region-builders, such as national ministerial officials, funding agencies, universities or research organisations, to re-scale their priorities, investments, and decision-making power and making them national and regional simultaneously.
In sum, this section has briefly presented the genesis and function of NAV and its differences from the OMC, which helps understand mechanisms of parallel regionalising processes.

Research methods and empirical data
A combination of qualitative methods was used, including document and policy review, participatory observations, and semi-structured interviews. The next section synthesises aggregate data gleaned from over 30 Nordic and EU regional policy documents, and the perspectives gathered from 11 interviews with academics, researchers, students, administrators and policymakers in the Nordic countries. These interviewees were recruited on the basis that they have first-hand experience of participating in one of the Nordic flagship initiatives. The interview questions were designed under common themes, such as the meanings of a 'Nordic region' and 'Nordic added value', and the personal views and experiences of NORIA, the Nordic Master programme, and Nordplus. The concrete questions were tailored to each interviewee in order to draw on their expertise and experiences and to obtain diverse perspectives. For example, questions on regional policy objectives and the governance model of the Nordic Master programme were addressed to policymakers, whereas questions about personal experiences of participating in an actual joint master's programme were reserved for students and academics. This method was informed by the work of Burawoy (1998), who suggests that research 'into the world of the participant' is a dialogic intervention. The interviews were conducted in English, transcribed and coded thematically by using the 'transcribe' function in Microsoft Word and manually checking the text against the audio file to ensure accuracy. I used open coding techniques in which themes were identified, modified and refined at different stages from field notes, transcriptions and literature review (Tuckett 2005;Clarke and Braun 2013;Maguire and Delahunt 2017). The reviewed documents include policies, websites, and annual reports related to the above flagship initiatives. The interview data is presented mainly in aggregated form with some direct quotes. The data was also supplemented with the author's direct observations made at many meetings, seminars and conferences about Nordic HE and research cooperation in the past decade.

Spatial logics in Nordic HE regionalism
The idea of a Nordic HE and research region emerged in the early 1970s when the Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research was established and the Agreement on Cultural Cooperation was signed, which created opportunities for students to study in other Nordic countries by providing financial support and mutual recognition of exams and degrees (Nyborg 1996). The first common budget for Nordic research was created in 1972 through the Nordic Industrial Fund. In the 1970s and 1980s, Nordic HE cooperation was seen as an obvious part of cultural cooperation and as a preferable alternative to European cooperation (Maassen, Vabø, and Stensaker 2008).
In the past two decades, many Nordic institutions, either newly set up or expanding their functions, are becoming increasingly involved in making regional HE and research policies. The restructuring and establishment of Nordic Innovation, NordForsk, and the Nordic Master Programme are examples of institution-building and regional governance. Robertson et al. (2016) define this as a new form of sectoral regionalism that promotes and governs HE and research projects on a regional scale. Although these projects entail processes in the HE sector, they are simultaneously cultural, political and economic. The regional projects can involve the whole sector on a grand scale (e.g. Erasmus, the Bologna Process, the Nordic Top-level Research Initiative on climate change), or take the form of institution-to-institution projects involving several countries (e.g. Nordic joint master's degrees). They also vary across space and time because such regions are made and remade intentionally (or non-intentionally) by collective human action and identity formation (Söderbaum 2016). Higher education and research inherently constitute an ideal space for human interactions and regional identity formation, but such regional interactions may not occur by themselves, they are driven by certain logics.

NORIA: economic logic and competitiveness
The idea of NORIA was triggered by the EU's decision to establish the ERA in 2000. This idea was further developed in the two reports commissioned in 2002 by the Nordic Ministers of Education and Research. The first report -'NORIA: White Paper on Nordic Research and Innovation'was chaired by Gustav Björkstrand, a Finnish professor and former Minister of Culture and Science, who said 'we should be able to press ahead of the ERA in areas where Europe is not united. We should also be able to cooperate with other parts of the world and not just shut ourselves inside the ERA' (2003). 1 The NAV was expressed as a vision for the Nordics 'to become a leading research and innovation region' and an idea of a 'resources reunion' (NORDERA 2010). The rationales of this regional initiative include regional competitiveness (a leading region) and also economic interdependence (resources reunion).
The second report -'A Nordic dimension in national research environments -Nordic research institutions under national responsibility'was conducted in 2003 by Professor Dan Brändström, who was the Secretary-General of the European Research Council Expert Group and brought his wealth of EU experience to shape NORIA. His idea of a Nordic region was to nationalise some Nordic-funded research institutes and to use the common Nordic coffer to invest in more flexible funding instruments that promote Nordic excellence in research. This idea implies that regionalism is a way to boost competitiveness and build a regional identity in research (Nordic excellence).
The most important outcome of these reports was the agreement between the Ministers for Education and Research and the Ministers for Trade and Industry on the establishment of NORIA in 2004. Constructed by ideas, NORIA is an imagined space. It needs structures and institutions to transform into entities with the capacity to act as a competent representative actor. Another outcome was the establishment of several regional institutions including Nordic Innovation in 2004 and NordForsk in 2005, and Nordic Energy Research, housed in the same Oslo headquarters. These entities were tasked with developing closer cooperation between research and industry across the Nordic countries to give life to NORIA and engage with the EU.
As an integral part of NORIA, NordForsk administers funding and facilitates Nordic cooperation on research and research infrastructure. NordForsk has devised and embedded its own operational concept of NAV in developing regional research programmes, designing calls for proposals, and assessing grant applications. NordForsk operationalises NAV by translating it into instrumental components. NAV is about enhancing cost-effectiveness by sharing research infrastructure, utilising the Nordic unique data registries and other resources within the Nordic region. It is about forging and strengthening the bond between the Nordic countries, addressing the unique needs of the Nordic countries and using the Nordic level as a springboard for furthering cooperation with the EU or the broader international research community. NORIA is simultaneously a political and an economic project. Within NORIA, a historic regional idea is the Top-level Research Initiative (TRI) in climate, energy and the environment, which originated from the 2006 Nordic globalisation strategy to develop the Nordic countries as a global winner region, and was linked to Denmark's preparations for hosting the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009. TRI is the Nordic largest research programme with a budget of DKK 400 million (EUR 54 million) over five years. With over 70% of all TRI scientific articles published in interdisciplinary journals, TRI represents a significant region-building project (NordForsk 2015).
NAV was substantiated by the 'Nordic Centre of Excellence' (NCoE), aimed at promoting 'excellence of research, excellence of people, excellence of environment' by providing 5-year funding for cooperation between outstanding researchers, research groups and established research institutions in areas of high priority in the Nordic countries (NordForsk 2013). An NCoE is a creative multi-site or single-site research environment with a joint research agenda, joint management, coordinated researcher training (PhD, Postdoc), joint communication activities, and shared research infrastructure across at least three countries. Between 2010 and 2018, a total of 24 NCoEs were funded. This 'Excellence agenda' is widespread in Europe and causes controversial debate on an 'elitist turn' which supports the very best but contravenes the value of equal opportunities in the Nordic egalitarian culture. Subsequently, a new parallel regional initiative -'Nordic University Hubs'was launched by NordForsk in 2016 for all Nordic universities, university colleges and universities of applied sciences. A senior ministerial official shared: … different programmes meet different needs of different institutions. For example, the University of Oslo has a huge international department which can collaborate with countries all over the world, while a small University College in the Western part of the country [Norway] has far fewer people working on it. They, therefore, need a much simpler programme to start collaboration between the Nordic countries.
(Senior ministerial official, interview 5) The Covid-19 pandemic has also given impetus for Nordic joint research in sustainable agriculture, future working life and societal security. These Nordic research projects are expected to ensure Nordic added value and strengthen Nordic cooperation for realising the vision that the Nordic region will be the world's most sustainable and integrated region in the world by 2030.

NordForsk: imaginaries of Nordic regional governance
The governance model of NordForsk is both regional and national. NordForsk's Board is appointed by the Nordic Council of Ministers and composed of national representatives of the largest research funding agencies from five Nordic countries, a representative from the Association of Nordic University Rectors Conferences (NUS), and observers from the Faroe Islands, Greenland, the Åland Islands, and the Nordic Council of Ministers. The Board is responsible for NordForsk's strategies, personnel policy, and budget negotiations with the participating countries, as well as the final decision on funding awards for successful applications based on recommendations by the research programme committees and the expert peer review panels.
NordForsk's funding mechanism is both regional and national, and characterised by the 'common pot principle'. A common pot for each programme is created by the financial contributions of each participating country through national funding agencies/research councils (2/3) and the Nordic Council of Ministers (1/3). The contribution by a country is determined by the fraction of its gross domestic product. A Nord-Forsk regional research programme is expected to align with national priorities and initiatives. However, the principle of funding allocation is described as a 'real common pot with no fair return' which means that the merits of joint grant applications determine the allocation, not the amount each participating country has contributed to the pot (Administrator, interview 2).
In this example, unlike the EU's OMC, regional governance space is not located above the state, rather, regional projects and processes are located within institutional spaces of the nation-state (Hameiri and Jayasuriya 2011). Nordic regionalism can be realised when national funding agencies buy into NAV and actively participate in regional projects. In other words, regional dimensions are being created within the national policymaking space, and the state re-scales its regulatory spaces, which transform and relocate its authority, from national to regional and vice versa (Robertson 2010).

NORIA-ERA interactions: regional identity and region-building processes
NORIA facilitates Nordic -EU mutual policy learning and also aims to create a role model for Europe in transnational research cooperation. The NORIA-ERA formal links were marked by the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Chair of NordForsk's Board and the European Commission. The socialisation with ERA and ideas drawn from the EU policies have influenced the Nordic policies. For example, NordForsk has changed the recruitment practice at all NCoEs by including a mandatory requirement in the grant agreement, which requires all new researcher positions to be advertised internationally in an open competition according to the basic principles of the EU charter for researchers and the EU code of conduct for the recruitment of researchers (Administrator, interview 3). NordForsk also adopted the EU principles for Innovative Doctoral Training, including researcher mobility into the NCoE. The NORIA-Net programme, inspired by ERA-Net, has also been developed and funded by NordForsk to facilitate a network of Nordic national research funders, managers and researchers, engaged in facilitating Nordic joint activities in research policy.
As mentioned, regions are imagined communities and socially constructed. Hence, the ideas that shape regions also evolve and vary across different sectors, different groups of actors, depending on their interactions and socialisation. NAV in Nordic research cooperation reflects ideas that shape NORIA and Nordic identity as shown in Table 2: In sum, NAV constitutes ideas of an imagined Nordic region, and can therefore be seen as a mechanism for Nordic regionalism. These ideas could be conceived inside or outside the Nordic region through interactions and socialisation between different policy actors or regional builders who also have the power to include (or exclude) certain ideas. The following sections will analyse which and whose ideas are taken up, which structures and institutions are driving region-building processes, with what outcomes.

The Nordic Master Programme: imaginaries of Nordic large-scale initiatives
Launched in 2007, the Nordic Master Programme is a funding scheme that supports Nordic HE institutions (HEIs) to provide two-year full-time master's degrees in English for Nordic and international students. Besides the EU-funded Erasmus Mundus joint master's degrees, the Nordic Master programme provides Nordic HEIs with additional opportunities and resources to create a new and innovative Nordic version of joint master's degrees, not least to create a bond among Nordic HEIs. Each consortium can receive up to DKK 1.5 million seed-funding for developing, planning, and running their programme. Most interviewees think of NAV of this programme as an easy gateway to collaborate with other Nordic HEIs thanks to proximity and a similar culture. It is less competitive to obtain funding from the Nordic Master's programme compared to the Erasmus Mundus scheme (Academic, interview 11) although both programmes use similar tools, such as the Bologna degree structure, ECTS credits, that facilitate programme design and student mobility.
Between 2007 and 2020, the Nordic Council of Ministers supported 41 Nordic Master's degree programmes ranging from mathematics, law, sustainable energy, and polymer technology, to journalism, social work, public management and religions, and music. Approximately 40% of students are from Nordic countries, 20% are from Europe, and 40% are non-European. 2 Although some programmes may have been discontinued or transformed, nearly 30 programmes are currently active. This large-scale initiative has created a web of partnerships across many individuals, HEIs and disciplines, duly reinforcing the ties between them.
The key NAV of the Nordic Master programme focuses on enhancing quality education in the areas/disciplines where the Nordic HEIs have specific and high-level expertise, and attracting the best talent from inside and outside the Nordic region.
the quality of study programmes can be increased or strengthened by Nordic cooperation, at least in the fields where there is a long common tradition.
… this programme is also a way to keep some of the talented Nordic people in the region instead of them going elsewhere (Senior academic, Interview 7). Increasing the ability of the Nordic region to attract talent and investments, and enhancing its appeal as an international partner. Strengthening the Nordic region and its participation in EU programmes and initiatives.

Regional identity
Creating the profile of a leading knowledge-based region Creating a role model for Europe in transnational research cooperation. Source: Adapted from (Arnold 2011;Grundel 2021) This idea of a Nordic HE region is not entirely about elitism and competition, but is also aimed at engaging university colleges, universities of applied sciences, and preserving small disciplines that could not be sustained in one single country (e.g. Viking and Medieval Norse Studies). Each joint degree programme offers not only mobility but also joint ownership of an enriched curriculum across several universities (Senior academic, Interview 9).
Other NAV include: -Nordic experience refers to the mandatory mobility period for students to gain experience of living and studying in several Nordic countries. The NAV concept, in this case, was initially conceived by policymakers and administrators, and was turned into the guiding principle and requirements for the development and delivery of joint master's degrees between several HEIs, which can provide 'a value greater than the sum of its parts' (Nordic Council of Ministers 2015). NAV is also a mechanism for creating a shared Nordic arena by promoting the free movement of knowledge between Nordic universities through interactions and mobility of students and staff. Around 8,500 Nordic young people every year study in another Nordic country through Nordplus and Nordic Master, this academic mobility will also make it easier for graduates to find jobs outside their homeland and for academics to improve their pedagogies (Student and Academic Interviews 8 & 11).
The programme has been reviewed three times in the last 14 years, recognising administrative and legal obstacles related to national legislation, such as different tuition fee policies, closing down English-taught programmes in Denmark, different durations of Arts programmes in Finland, and different legislations in joint degree awards. The evaluation reports amplified the voice of the Association of Nordic University Rectors' Conference and resulted in the flexible usage of grants for planning and managing the programme, and for student mobility. The Nordic Master programme was discontinued in 2021, but other programmes, Nordplus and Nordic University Hubs, are supporting most of the activities. As NAV is an evolving concept, it may generate a new set of regionalising ideas in the future and the Nordic region is continuing to be imagined and socially constructed.

Nordplus: community-building and regional identity
In 1987, when the Erasmus programme was launched as an exchange programme for HE students, Denmark was the only Nordic EU-member country that participated in Erasmus, together with ten other European countries. Shortly thereafter, the Nordic region introduced 'Nordplus' 3 in 1988a mobility programme for HE students and teachers in all Nordic countries. Nordplus was not simply a copy of Erasmus, as it was built on previous Nordic initiatives, such as the 1985-adopted NORDTEK mobility programme for technical university students in their final year of studies, and various Nordic programmes designed to stimulate research collaborations and strengthen cooperation in teacher training, and the mobility of young people for Nordic language learning (Brändström et al. 1992). Nordplus had, among others, an explicit NAV 'to promote wide-ranging and intensive cooperation between the universities of the Nordic countries with a view to establishing a Nordic educational community' (Syversen 1997, 101). Arguably, HE cooperation had its own region-building mission and was no longer subsumed under the general Nordic action plan for cultural cooperation.
Initially, Nordplus served as both a mobility programme giving Nordic students and academics opportunities similar to those offered by Erasmus, and as preparation for future Nordic participation in European programmes. Subsequently, Erasmus became accessible to all Nordic countries (except the Faroe Islands), but Nordplus was not abandoned. On the contrary, as the Nordic HE partnerships grew larger in terms of mobility and network-building, and deeper in terms of curriculum development, the funding amount applied for has increased more than tenfold from DKK 8 million in 1988 to112 million in 1996 (Syversen 1997). Nordplus was perceived not as a supplement to Erasmus, but as an important instrument in its own right within the Nordic region. Hence, it has been maintained and consolidated to meet Nordic political objectives, not least to energise existing Nordic partnerships and strengthen the Nordic identity among young people as part of a close-knit Nordic educational community (Brändström et al. 1992;Melin, Terrell, and Henningsson 2015). As a student put it: It's not focused on marks, but it's focused just on the quality and experience of moving across borders and … establishing and re-establishing, and reproducing the connections between the Nordic countries. … and stronger collaborations for future generations to discover or rediscover each other. That is the first and foremost goal (Student, interview 8).
Nordplus and Erasmus have been designed in a similar form of successive fixed-term programmes, administrative procedures, and an extension to neighbouring countries. Erasmus was also an instrument of the EU neighbourhood policy and, similarly, the Nordplus Neighbour programme with its original aid characterisation was also open to the three neighbouring Baltic countries. The Baltic countries have participated in Nordplus with their financial contributions since 2008, but their role and influence on the programme remain peripheral (Stensaker et al. 2011;Ramboll Management Consulting 2021).
Over time, the Nordplus experience has also become a source of inspiration for Erasmus, which changed to Erasmus Plus in 2014. The well-functioning Nordplus has, for over 35 years, encompassed different sub-programmes, ranging from schools, young people, internships, higher education, and adults to Nordic languages from a lifelong learning perspective. The transparency, flexibility and simplicity, and the nonbureaucratic and non-hierarchical communication culture in Nordplus are seen as a Nordic identity.
In sum, Nordplus is not only an education project, it also has a Nordic vision of HE regionalism embedded in its original design and development trajectories.

Conclusions
This paper set out to explain the 'why' and the 'how' of Nordic HE regionalism in the context of European integration. Drawing on the spatial logics and regional integration theories, I have analysed the three interlinked rationales of Nordic regionalism which are driven by a) economic interdependence and competitiveness, b) imaginaries of largescale projects and regional institutions; and c) regional identity and community-building. These spatial logics helped explain why the Nordic countries continue to invest in intra-Nordic cooperation in HE and research while they all participated in the European HE and research programmes. This paper has also proposed a novel way of conceptualising 'Nordic added value' as a distinctive mechanism for Nordic regionalism and argued that NAV is a floating signifier -an open and evolving concept with multiple meanings determined by different regionbuilders, such as policy makers, universities, funding agencies, academics and students. NAV is about creating and strengthening the bond between the Nordic countries and using the Nordic level as a springboard for furthering cooperation with the EU and beyond.
The empirical cases illustrated how Nordic countries engaged in parallel region-building processes and multi-layered interactions within and between the Nordic region and the EU in three Nordic flagship programmes. NORIA and the Nordic Master programme are more related to the logic of economic competitiveness, whereas Nordplus is more attuned to the logic of community and regional identity-building. These three major Nordic initiatives have illustrated how the concept of NAV has been utilised to generate ideas that strengthen Nordic HE regionalism. The Nordic regional approach is pragmatic, 'they [the Nordics] proceed where the roads are ready and open. They do not try to blaze the trail' (Ørvik 1974, 64). This assessment, made almost five decades ago, still captures the characteristics of Nordic regionalism today. Although the Nordic flagship initiatives shared similarities with the EU initiatives, they have their own regional history, rationale and identity. The parallel regional processes and interactions between the Nordic region and the EU have increased the Nordic regional consciousness and facilitated mutual policy learning.
As analysed earlier, the Nordic regional governance model differs from the supranational characteristics of the European integration process, preferring to concentrate on technical and functional projects within defined sectors, without challenging national sovereignty or the existing power within each country (Söderbaum 2016). The Nordic projects strike a balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches. NORIA/Nord-Forsk, Nordplus and the Nordic Master programme effectively create new spaces for policymaking and constitute a broader and transformed regulatory context. Thus, the governance of HE has become less national and more regional (Jayasuriya 2010). The 'soft' regionalism approach which involves voluntary participation of members and multiple networks of actors as seen in the Nordic region, is about the re-scaling of governance and policymaking to regional spaces that is simultaneously regional and national (Hameiri and Jayasuriya 2011). Both spatial logics and NAV render opportunities for Nordic regional imaginaries, identity-building and Nordic-EU mutual policy learning. Nordic HE regionalism may present an opportunity for other comparative sub-regional studies.