Book Reviews

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-158

Martin Hall of University of Salford reviews “Financing Higher Education Worldwide: Who Pays? Who Should Pay?” by D. Bruce Johnstone and Pamela N. Marcucci.. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins, “Explores the financing of higher education from an international comparative perspective, focusing on the strategy of cost-sharing. Discusses diverging trajectories of higher education's costs and public revenues worldwide; financial austerity and solutions on the cost side; the perspective and policy….”

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Bruno Ruffini

As other sectors, higher education can be characterized by the combination of market mechanisms and state intervention in its funding and organization. Although higher education systems of developed countries pursue similar goals (provide high-level manpower, meet individual and social demands, etc.) and face similar challenges (massive expansion, internationalization, MOOCs, etc.) their economic models differ significantly. In some countries, universities are public and charge no or very low tuition fees, whereas in other countries, the cost-sharing with parents and students is much more demanding. The paper will try to underscore and explain these differences by drawing on the lessons of economic analysis and on the historical and cultural background of countries.


Author(s):  
D. A. Ashirbekova ◽  
G. Zh. Nurmukhanova

This article describes the types of higher education institutions financing around the world, as well as the features of university financing and their structural changes in the context of the countries of the world. The management system of higher education around the world is multifunctional, complexly structured. This activity appears to be specially organized by the state authorities jointly with public institutions and is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the higher education sector in the context of the implementation of the goals and objectives of the state in a particular historical period of development. In the last decade, there has been a demand for educational services and a corresponding increase in the cost of financing higher education. The drivers of this increase were wage growth, the cost of modern infrastructure, and the slow response to rising costs. The decline in government revenue has led to more efficient use of resources and careful monitoring of research results, since the priority for the state is to strictly evaluate the results for their funding, and research funded by the private sector has clear goals. Universities in the updated system of values stimulate the development of society, implement the training of personnel required by the market. New challenges – the pandemic and the development of the digital economy-provide new opportunities for people focused on higher education, and at the same time change the education system itself and its financing mechanisms.


1994 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 424
Author(s):  
Gareth Williams ◽  
Leo Goedegebuure ◽  
Frans Kaiser ◽  
Peter Maasen ◽  
Lynn Meek ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-112
Author(s):  
Maryna BILINETS ◽  
◽  
Andrii BURIACHENKO ◽  
Tetiana PAIENTKO ◽  
◽  
...  

The development of higher education is characterized by new priorities, which necessitates the adjustment of higher education funding mechanisms in response to new challenges. The purpose of this article is to identify these key challenges in Ukraine and justify the possibilities to face them. The analysis of funding of higher education was conducted based on macroeconomic indicators for 2005 to 2020. It is also reviewed that financing of higher education in Ukraine is characterized by decentralization and diversification, which are characterized by an increase in the share of local budgets in the structure of higher education funding in Ukraine and the use of extra-budgetary sources of funding, in the form of tuition fees. The analysis has revealed the following key challenges of financing higher education: massification of higher education, which is characterized by the triad of "high availability - low price - low quality"; change in approaches to educational activities and decrease in the number of students as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; inefficient model of financing higher education, which results in producing specialists with higher education that do not meet the needs and demands of the labor market. Overcoming the identified challenges can be achieved through reforming higher education models by aligning the structure, scope and quality of training with the needs of the economy and labour market, and its financing, through changing the cost-based approach to financing by results. This, in turn, would help align budget funding with institutional efficiency and curriculum effectiveness, and reduce the number of unclaimed specialists with higher education.


Author(s):  
D. Bruce Johnstone

Cost-Sharing—meaning the shift of a portion of the costs of higher education (including the costs of student living) that may once have been borne predominantly or even exclusively by governments, or taxpayers, to parents and students—has been deeply contested, but found to be financially necessary (and according to many analysts more equitable) in more and more countries, including in Sub-Saharan Africa. Student loans have been part of this process, allowing students the opportunity to invest in their own further educations, placing needed revenue in the hands of students supposedly at less cost to taxpayers than outright grants (presuming loan recovery), and providing colleges and universities (again presuming loan recovery) with revenue that would not be forthcoming from governments. However, African student loan programs have been largely unsuccessful at providing significant net revenue supplementation: that is, after covering the cost of capital as well as the costs of originating, servicing, and collecting plus covering the substantial costs of defaults. This essay analyzes some of these problems and suggests some principles for making student loans work better in Africa. Le partage des coûts – c’est-à-dire le transfert aux parents et étudiants d’une partie du coût de l’enseignement supérieur (y compris le coût de la vie), qui était auparavant pris en charge majoritairement ou même exclusivement par le gouvernement, ou plutôt les contribuables– a été fortement contesté mais est devenu nécessaire (et selon de nombreux analystes est plus équitable) dans un nombre croissant de pays, notamment en Afrique sub-saharienne. Les prêts étudiants font partie intégrante de ce processus, donnant aux étudiants l’opportunité d’investir dans leur propre éducation, en mettant les revenus nécessaires entre les mains des étudiants, en principe à moindre coût pour le contribuable que les bourses (en présumant le remboursement du prêt), et fournissant aux établissements d’enseignement supérieur (toujours en présumant le remboursement du prêt) des revenus qui ne proviennent pas des gouvernements. Cependant, les programmes de prêts étudiants en Afrique ont largement échoué à fournir d’importants revenus complémentaires, une fois couverts le coût du capital ainsi que les frais de dossier, de service, de collection, et le coût considérable des défauts de paiement. Cet essai analyse certains de ces problèmes et propose quelques principes pour que les prêts étudiants fonctionnent mieux en Afrique.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document