IMPACT OF REFORMS ON TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 121 - 143, 23.03.2022

Emine Ayrancı , Mehmet Cahit Güran , Tarkan Çavuşoğlu

https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.858727

Abstract

In this study, the total factor productivity change index of 20 OECD member countries, which implemented and did not implement financial, structural, administrative and quality-based reform in their higher education system between 1998-2012, was analyzed using the Malmquist-Luenberger productivity change index method. Countries reforming their higher education system that recorded an increase in total factor productivity change indices, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Czech Republic do not reform the higher education system, concluded that the decline in total factor productivity change index value has been reached.

Keywords

Malmquist-Luenberger Productivity Index, Higher Education, Reform, Neoliberal Policies

REFORMLARIN YÜKSEKÖĞRETİM SİSTEMLERİNİN TOPLAM FAKTÖR VERİMLİLİĞİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, 20 OECD üye ülkesinin 1998-2012 yılları arasında yükseköğretim sisteminde finansal, yapısal, yönetsel ve kalite temelli reform gerçekleştiren ve gerçekleştirmeyen ülkelerin toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerleri ve bileşenlerinin seyri Malmquist-Luenberger TFV değişim endeks yöntemi aracılığı ile analiz edilmiştir. Reform gerçekleştiren ülkelerin toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerlerinde artış kaydettikleri, reform gerçekleştirmeyen Polonya, Türkiye, Hollanda, İrlanda ve Çek Cumhuriyeti’nin ise toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerlerinde düşüş tecrübe ettikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Malmquist-Luenberger Toplam Faktör Verimlilik Değişim Endeksi, Yükseköğretim, Reform, Neoliberal Politikalar

References

• Agasisti, T. (2011). Performances and Spending Efficiency in Higher Education: A European Comparison Through Non-Parametric Approaches. Education Economics, 19 (2), 199–224.
• Al-Bagoury, S. (2013). Using DEA to Evaluate Efficiency of African Higher Education. Educational Research, 4 (11), 742-747.
• Aubyn, M. S., Pina, A., Garcia, F. ve Pais, J. (2009). Study on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Public Spending on Tertiary Education. Brussels: European Commission Economic Papers.
• Barr, N. (2009). Financing Higher Education: Lessons from Economic Theory and Reform in England. Higher Education in Europe, 34 (2), 201-209.
• Becker, R. F. (2009). States, Markets and Higher Education Reform: The Netherlands and England. J. Zajda, & V. Rust (Ed.), Globalisation, Policy and Comparative Reseach (157-170). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Burgess, C., Gibson, L., Klaphake, J. ve Selzer, M. (2010). The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese Higher Education Reform: an Example of a ‘Closing in’ or an ‘Opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8 (4), 461-475.
• Bursalıoğlu, S. A. (2012). Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Yükseköğretim Kamu Harcamalarının Karşılaştırmalı Etkinlik Analizi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi: Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
• Bursalıoğlu, S. A. ve Selim, S. (2015). Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimde Etkinliği Belirleyen Faktörler. Bilig, 74, 45-70.
• Canton, E. (2002). Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right. The Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
• Chambers, R. G., Fare, R. ve Grosskopf, S. (1996). Productivity Growth in APEC Countries. Pacific Economic Review, 1 (3), 181-190.
• Chung, Y. H., Fare, R. ve Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51 (3), 229–240.
• de Boer, H., Enders, J. ve Schimank, U. (2007). On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. D. Jansen (Ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations (137-152). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the Market to Rule: The Case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57 (2), 136-157. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M. ve Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries. The American Economic Review, 84 (1), 66-83.
• Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, P., Fitznor, L., Stensaker, B. ve Van Der Steen, M. (2008). OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education New Zealand. OECD.
• Gürüz, K. (2003). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de Yükseköğretim Tarihçe ve Bugünkü Sevk ve İdare Sistemleri. Ankara: ÖSYM. Heller, D. E. (2009). The Context of Higher Education Reform in the United States. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21 (2), 1-18 .
• Hinfelaar, M. (2012). Emerging Higher Education Strategy in Ireland: Amalgamate or Perish. Higher Education Management and Policy, 24 (1), 1-16.
• Jonasson, J. T. (2004). Higher Education Reforms in Iceland at the Transition into the Twenty-First Century. I. Fagerlind ve G. Strömqvist (Ed.), Reforming Higher Education in the Nordic Countries- Studies of Change in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden (137-188). Paris: UNESCO.
• Katsomitros, A. (2018). Higher Education Reforms and Economic Crisis in Italy and Spain. Erişim 03 Nisan 012, http://www.obhe.ac.uk/newsletters/borderless_report_june_2012/higher_education_reforms_italy_spain Lee Dow Ao, K. ve Braithwaite, V. (2013). Review of Higher Education Regulation Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
• Maruyama, F. (2012). Financing Universities in Japan. F. Maruyama, & I. R. Dobson (Ed.), Cycles of University Reform: Japan and Finland Compared (13-29). Tokyo: Center for National University Finance and Management. Nyborg, P. (2007). Higher Education in Norway – Fifty Years of Development. Erişim: 08 Mart 2018, http://www.uhr.no/documents/50_years_HE_Norway.pdf
• Obadic, A. ve Aristovnik, A. (2011). Relative Efficiency of Higher Education in Croatia and Slovenia: an International Comparison. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 13 (30), 362-376.
• OECD. (2006). Funding Systems and Their Effects on Higher Education Systems; Country Study – Czech Republic. OECD.
• OECD. (2006). Education at a Glance. OECD.
• OECD. (2006). IMHE Project "Funding Systems and their Effects on Higher Education Systems"- Norway. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance. OECD.
• OECD. (2014). OECD Education at a Glance Country Note, Italy. Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance. OECD.
• OECD. (2015). Education Policy Outlook 2015; Making Reforms Happen. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2018). Erişim 7 Ocak 2021, http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/#d.en.194378
• Olesen, O. B., Petersen, N. C. ve Podinovski, V. V. (2015). Efficiency Alaysis with Ratio Measures. European Journal of Operational Research, 245 (2), 446-462.
• Olesen, O. B., Petersen, N. C. ve Podinovski, V. V. (2017). Efficiency Measures and Computational Approaches for Data Envelopment Analysis Models with Ratio Inputs and Outputs. European Journal of Operational Research, 261 (2), 640-655.
• Özden, Ü. H. (2008). Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) ile Türkiye’deki Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 37 (2), 167-185.
• Pechar, H. (2005). Backlash or Modernisation? Two Reform Cycles in Austrian Higher Education. A. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, & A. Amaral (Ed.), Reform and Change in Higher Education (269-285). The Netherlands: Springer.
• Pitman, T. (2016). The Evolution of the Student as a Customer in Australian Higher Education: a Policy Perspective. The Australian Association for Research in Education, 43 (3), 345–359.
• Pusztai, G. ve Szabo, P. C. (2008). The Bologna Process as a Trojan Horse: Restructuring Higher Education in Hungary. European Education, 40 (2), 85-103.
• Raciti, M. (2010). Marketing Australian Higher Education at the Turn of the 21st Century: A Précis of Reforms, Commercialisation and the New University Hierarchy. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 4 (1), 32-41.
• SCImago. (2018). Erişim: 01 Şubat 2015, http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php Szkudlarek, T. ve Stankiewicz, L. (2014). Future Perfect? Conflict and Agency in Higher Education Reform in Poland. International Journal for Academic Development, 19 (1), 37-49.
• Toth, R. (2009). Using DEA to Evaluate Efficiency of Higher Education. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce (s. 79-82). Budapest: Agroinform Publishing House.
• Welsh, H. A. (2009). Higher Education Reform in Germany: Advocacy and Discourse. German Politics and Society, 27 (1 (90)), 1-23.
• Yamamoto, S. (2012). Higher Education Reforms in Japan: Changing Relationship Between Government and Universities. H. G. Schuetze, & G. A. Mendiola (Ed.), State and Market in Higher Education Reforms (201-211). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• YÖK. (2007). Türkiye'nin Yükseköğretim Stratejisi. Ankara: YÖK.