自20世纪90年代以来，高等学校海外分校迅速发展，有效监管海外分校使其稳健运营已成为国际高等教育关注的焦点；而我国中外合作大学在运营过程中存在由于监管不力而导致运转不良的问题，其监管模式亟待发展和完善；同时，教育输入国高等学校海外分校监管模式相对完善，监管经验较为丰富，这对解决我国中外合作大学监管过程中所存在的与之相似问题、完善其监管模式具有可资的借鉴意义：能够为我国教育部门的政策制定者和中外合作办学的管理者提供决策参考；有利于促进我国政府对高等教育监管职能的转变，凸显其服务性；也有利于改革和完善我国中外合作大学的监管模式，提高对中外合作大学监管的有效性，以使其能够稳健运转。 论文基于教育输入国的视角，按照教育输入国高等学校海外分校有哪些监管模式，这些监管模式的特征是什么以及形成这些特征的原因何为，这些监管模式在实践中存在的问题的逻辑展开。论文以成熟的教育输入国为研究对象国，以教育输入国高等学校海外分校监管模式为研究对象，以公共治理理论为理论基础，运用案例研究法从监管主体、监管策略、监管内容等三个方面研究教育输入国不同类型高等学校海外分校的监管模式；在此基础上，运用比较法探讨这些监管模式的共性特征和差异性特征，并分析其特征形成的成因；同时，剖析其在实践过程中面临的问题；在此基础上，总结成熟的教育输入国对境内高等学校海外分校有效监管的实践经验，以此为借鉴，基于我国国情，探索我国中外合作大学的监管框架。 本研究认为：第一，按照从弱到强的监管强度，教育输入国高等学校海外分校监管模式主要有四种即“无限制型”、“相对限制型”、“限制型”和“严格限制型”，呈现出了从无监管到有监管再到监管模式多样并存的发展趋势。第二，在不同的时期，教育输入国对其境内高等学校海外分校监管所采用的监管模式并非固定不变，可能随着国家监管理念的变化、经济发展、文化需要、高校变革而持续地变动和微调。 第三，教育输入国境内高等学校海外分校监管模式的共性特征主要体现四个方面：相对完善的法律监管框架，多元的监管主体，多样的监管策略，丰富的监管内容。第四，监管模式的差异性特征主要体现在四个方面：监管的切入点、监管的侧重点、政府监管主体的构成以及资格认可的方式等方面。第五，监管模式主要存在三个方面的问题：单一的监管体系未体现出与当地私立高校之间的差异；政府监管与境内高等学校海外分校自主性发展间的失衡；过分强调境内高等学校海外分校要与其母体高校在办学模式上保持一致性。 第六，结合成熟的教育输入国的监管经验，基于我国中外合作办学发展过程中存在的问题，本研究认为，我国在监管中外合作办学过程中应注意以下几方面的问题，力求监管主体多元，确保各司其责、相互配合；使用多种监管策略，确保各有侧重；完善和细化监管内容与标准，推动监管质量稳步提升；建立健全法律法规，确保监管有序运行；加强国际合作，确保监管与国际接轨；注重动态监管，强调监管的过程性和持续性；转变政府职能，增强监管的服务性、激励性。

The branch campuses with institutions of higher education have developed rapidly since the 1990s. The effective regulations of branch campuses with institutions of higher education have been a focal point of international higher education. Due to poor regulations, Chinese-foreign cooperative universities fail to operate well, and the regulation model needs improving. The education importing countries have formed relatively perfect regulation models and have accumulated plenteous regulation experience, which have some actively referential significances to developing and improving Chinese-foreign cooperative universities: providing decision-making references for policy-makers of the education departments and managers of Chinese-foreign cooperative universities; promoting transformation of higher education’ regulation functions of the government, and heightening its service feature; improving the regulation effectiveness of Chinese-foreign cooperative universities, allowing them to operate well. In the dissertation, the regulation models of the branch campuses with institutions of higher education are approached from a perspective of education importing countries, with an emphasis on these questions: What are the regulation models? What are features of the regulation models and what are the reasons they result in these features? What are the problems of regulation models in practice? Relatively mature education importing countries are regarded as countries to research. Regulation models of branch campuses with institutions of higher education are considered as research objects. The Public Governance Theory is looked on as the theory basis. From three aspects of regulation bodies, regulation strategies and regulation contents, the dissertation makes a systematical analysis on different types of regulation models by the case study method. On the basis of the similarities and differences of these regulation models, they are explored by the comparative method including a summary with features of the regulation models. Then, the reasons why different types of regulation models have formed are further expounded. In the meantime, the dissertation also makes an analysis on the existing problems. In the end, based on the above analyses, the effective regulation experience is summarized, which is thought of as a reference to exploring the regulation model of Chinese-foreign cooperative universities. The main findings are as follows. Firstly, according to regulation intensity (from low to high), there are four types of regulation models, namely “the no regulation model”, “the relatively restrictive regulation model”, “the restrictive regulation model” and “the very restrictive regulation model”, which show a tendency that the regulation model experiences from no regulation to the regulation to multiple- coexisting regulation models. Secondly, in different historical period, due to changeable regulation ideas of education importing countries, the development of economy , the need of culture and the reform of universities, the regulation models are changeable of branch campuses with institutions of higher education . Thirdly, the common features of regulation models are following: relatively perfect legal regulation framework, diversified regulation bodies, diversified regulation strategies and rich regulation contents. Fourthly, the different features of regulation models are following: the entry point of regulation, the focus of regulation, the compositions of the subject of government regulation and the recognition of qualifications and so on. Fifthly, there are three main problems about the regulation models: the single regulation system does not reflect the differences with the local private universities; the imbalance between government regulations and the independent development of branch campuses in the higher education; overemphasizing that the branch campuses of higher education should be consistent in school-running models with its parent universities. Sixthly, based on existing problems of Chinese-foreign cooperative universities during regulation, combing with the effective regulation experience of typical education importing countries, the reserch show some enlightenment: regulation bodies should be diversified ensuring that each division is responsible for mutual cooperation; regulation strategies should be multiple, ensuring that each strategy has its own emphasis; regulation contents and standards should be improved and refined , ensuring regulation quality should be steady improvement; Establishing and improving laws and regulations, ensureing regulations operate well; international cooperation should be strengthen, ensuring regulations connect with international cooperation. Paying attention to dynamic regulation, emphasizing the process and continuity of regulation; Transforming government functions, enhanceing the service and incentive of regulations.