The paper presents possible strategies for managing risks of accession to GATS as options for Russian education sector in a comparative perspective. It starts with a review of the WTO members’ states positions on education sector, using a special formula of for assessing the degree of liberalization, whereas   «Full Liberalization of the Sector»is elimination of all limitations by all WTO members on all subsectors and all modes of delivery both on Market Access and National Treatment expressed as:

151С * 5S * (4 1) SM * 2R = 7550 units

whereas 151С –  151countries,

5S –5 subsectors,

(4 1) SM – four supply modes with subdivision of natural persons presence into subtypes*,

2R –two regimes– MA and NT.

Natural persons presence subdivisions into Intra-corporate transfers (ICT) and Business visitors (BV) are considered together as the modality of their treatment is mostly similar. Contractual service suppliers (CSS)  are accounted separately.

Drawing on the results of the assessment the authors define several categories of risks associated with accession to GATS for the Russian education sector:

• Risks for the status and legal regime of the education institutions and their activities;
• Risks for the content of education;
• Risks for the language of education;
• Risks related to education quality and qualifications;
• Risks related to financial aspects;
• Risks related to employment and status of the sector employees;
• Risks related to intellectual property rights of Russian specialists and institutions;
• Risks connected with changes in cooperation conditions with other  states in the sphere of education.

Exploring means for mitigating the risks the authors propose policy options for managing the process. The options include five strategies:

Strategy 1. Full protection of the sector, which implies retaining limitations for all subsectors and modes of supply.

Strategy 2. Selective protection of subsectors and regimes with protection of primary and secondary education, granting MA to foreign suppliers in higher and adult education with certain exceptions on mode 3, and retaining limitations on mode 4 except horizontal commitments.

Strategy  3. Flexible approach to commitments by mode of supply and subsector, which implies making commitments on the 2nd and 3d mode for all subsectors with commitments on MA and NT for commercial presence with exceptions for certain areas of education and training, introducing professional requirements, conditions of ensuring quality and limiting access to privately funded services only; retaining limitations on commercial presence in compulsory education services and limitations on NT for natural persons.

Strategy 4. Selective protection by subsector, with commitments on MA for all subsector and modes of supply with inclusion of exceptions for certain areas of education and training and qualifying demands related to conditions and qualification of natural persons ’s presence; retaining limitations on NT except types of educational services not provided by national suppliers, and commitments on MA for natural persons  and retaining limitations on NT except horizontal commitments.

Strategy 5, implying transition from Strategy 1 to Strategy 3.