Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 32, 11 - 30, 15.04.2017
https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901

Öz

In the economic literature, the debate on financing higher education remains its actuality. The breadth of area of influence of higher education and the dimension of the debate are carried by different disciplines. In the study, economic rationales for the financing of higher education were quoted and examples of the country were examined. In terms of financing of higher education, two models should be listed. One of them is the Scandinavian model and the other is the Anglo-Saxon model. In Turkey, Scandinavian Model is in close proximity to the financing models. According to this, the financing of higher education in Turkey is largely met by the student contribution (user charges) / tuition fee and the state. In this study, user charges as public revenue were analysed economically. As a result of the economic analysis, it has been observed that user charges / tuition fees are unchanged even though there is an inflationary environment since the academic year of 2010-2011. Although, user charges/tuition fees needs to be calculated on basis of private benefits, it is ascertained that those who benefit higher private benefits pay less in terms of user charges/tuition fees but those who benefits less pays more in terms of user charges/tuition fees conversely. Since graduates obtain different private benefits from different higher education institutions, user charges/tuition fees should not be collected on the same amounts.

Kaynakça

  • Congresional Budget Office (1993), The Growth of Federal User Charges, A CBO Study, Washington.
  • Cullis, J. ve Jones, P. (2009), Public Finance & Public Choice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  • Cummings, Jr. J.L. (2011). User Fees Versus Taxes, Tax Analysts, October.
  • Barr N.A. (2004) Higher education funding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20: 264–283.
  • Barr, N. (2005) Financing higher education, Finance and Development, 42, 34–7.
  • Berger N and Fisher P (2013) A well-educated workforce is key to state prosperity. Economic Analysis and Research Network Report, 22 August. Available at: http://www.epi.org/ files/2013/A%20well-educated%20workforce%20is%20key%20to%20state%20prosperity.pdf.
  • De Fraja, G. (2002) The design of optimal education policies, Review of Economic Studies, 69, 437–66.
  • Pabian, P., Melichar, M., & Šebková, H. (2006). Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems: Country study Czech Republic (OECD publication). Prague: Centre for Higher Education Studies.
  • Fernandez, R. and Rogerson, R. (1995) On the political economy of education subsidies, Review of Economic Studies, 62, 249–62.
  • Garcıa-Penalosa, C. and Wade, K. (2000) Efficiency and equity effects of subsidies to higher education, Oxford Economic Papers, 52, 702–22.
  • Gradstein, M. (2003) The political economy of public spending on education, inequality, and growth, Policy Research Working Paper no. 3162, World Bank, Washington, DC.
  • Gruber J. (2007), Public Finance and Public Policy. Worth Publishers: New York.
  • Hyman, D.N. (1999), Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy. The Dryden Press: London.
  • The International Comparative Higher Education and Finance Project (http://gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/files/Country_Profiles/North_America/United_States_of_America.pdf) Erişim Tarihi: 03/07/2014.
  • Johnstone, Bruce D. (1995) “The Productivity of Learning,” Journal for Higher Education Management, Summer/Fall, 11-17.
  • Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2015). Yükseköğretimin Uluslararasılaşması Çerçevesinde Türk Üniversitelerinin Uluslararası Öğrenciler İçin Çekim Merkezi Haline Getirilmesi, Kalkınma Araştırmaları Merkezi, Ankara.
  • Pabian P., M.Melichar, H.Sebkova (2006). Funding Systems and their Effects on Higher Education Systems-Country Study: Czech Republic (OECD Publication) Prague: Centre for Higher Education Studies.
  • Seligman, E. (1931) Essays in Taxation, Augustus M.Kelley Publication, New York.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2006, 2010, 2014) Kazanç Yapısı Araştırması, Ankara. <http://www.tuik.gov.tr> , Erişim Tarihi: 15/11/2016.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, İstatistikler, <http:www.tuik.gov.tr>, Erişim Tarihi: 17/11/2016.
  • Wolf, A. (2002). Does Education Matter: Myths about Education and Economic Growth, London, Penguin Books.

Türk Kamu Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Öğrenci Katkısı ve Öğrenim Ücretinin Ekonomik Analizi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 32, 11 - 30, 15.04.2017
https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901

Öz

İktisat literatüründe, yükseköğretimin finansmanı konusundaki tartışmalar güncelliğini korumaktadır. Yükseköğretimin etki alanının genişliği, tartışmaların boyutunu da farklı disiplinlere taşımaktadır. Çalışmada yükseköğretimin devlet tarafından finansmanın iktisadî gerekçeleri aktarılmış ve ülke örneklerine yer verilmiştir. Yükseköğretimin finansmanı açısından iki modelin ön plâna çıktığı belirtilmelidir. Bunlardan biri Anglo-Sakson Model diğeri ise İskandinav Modelidir. Türkiye, söz konusu finansman modellerinden İskandinav Modeli yakınlık göstermektedir. Buna göre Türkiye’de yükseköğretimin finansmanı büyük ölçüde öğrenci katkıları/öğrenim ücreti ve devlet tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Çalışmada, kamu gelirleri arasında harç özelliği gösteren öğrenci katkı payları ve öğrenim ücretleri ekonomik açıdan analiz edilmiştir. Ekonomik analiz sonucunda, öğrenci katkı payı/öğrenim ücretlerinin 2010-2011 eğitim öğretim yılından bu yana enflasyonist bir ortam olmasına rağmen değişmeden aynı tespit edildiği görülmüştür. Kullanım harcı olarak tahsil edilen öğrenci katkı payı/öğrenim ücretlerinin, kişisel fayda dikkate alınarak hesaplanması gerekirken; bunun tam aksine kişisel faydası yüksek olanlardan daha az ancak kişisel faydası düşük olanlardan daha fazla tahsil edildiği tespit edilmiştir. Benzer bir sonuç, yükseköğretim kurumları açısından da ortaya çıkmaktadır. Farklı yükseköğretim kurumlarından mezun olanların farklı kişisel faydalar elde etmeleri söz konusu olduğuna göre, bütün yükseköğretim kurumları için aynı öğrenci katkı payı/öğrenim ücreti tahsil edilmemesi gerektiği de ifade edilmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Congresional Budget Office (1993), The Growth of Federal User Charges, A CBO Study, Washington.
  • Cullis, J. ve Jones, P. (2009), Public Finance & Public Choice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  • Cummings, Jr. J.L. (2011). User Fees Versus Taxes, Tax Analysts, October.
  • Barr N.A. (2004) Higher education funding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20: 264–283.
  • Barr, N. (2005) Financing higher education, Finance and Development, 42, 34–7.
  • Berger N and Fisher P (2013) A well-educated workforce is key to state prosperity. Economic Analysis and Research Network Report, 22 August. Available at: http://www.epi.org/ files/2013/A%20well-educated%20workforce%20is%20key%20to%20state%20prosperity.pdf.
  • De Fraja, G. (2002) The design of optimal education policies, Review of Economic Studies, 69, 437–66.
  • Pabian, P., Melichar, M., & Šebková, H. (2006). Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems: Country study Czech Republic (OECD publication). Prague: Centre for Higher Education Studies.
  • Fernandez, R. and Rogerson, R. (1995) On the political economy of education subsidies, Review of Economic Studies, 62, 249–62.
  • Garcıa-Penalosa, C. and Wade, K. (2000) Efficiency and equity effects of subsidies to higher education, Oxford Economic Papers, 52, 702–22.
  • Gradstein, M. (2003) The political economy of public spending on education, inequality, and growth, Policy Research Working Paper no. 3162, World Bank, Washington, DC.
  • Gruber J. (2007), Public Finance and Public Policy. Worth Publishers: New York.
  • Hyman, D.N. (1999), Public Finance: A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy. The Dryden Press: London.
  • The International Comparative Higher Education and Finance Project (http://gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/files/Country_Profiles/North_America/United_States_of_America.pdf) Erişim Tarihi: 03/07/2014.
  • Johnstone, Bruce D. (1995) “The Productivity of Learning,” Journal for Higher Education Management, Summer/Fall, 11-17.
  • Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2015). Yükseköğretimin Uluslararasılaşması Çerçevesinde Türk Üniversitelerinin Uluslararası Öğrenciler İçin Çekim Merkezi Haline Getirilmesi, Kalkınma Araştırmaları Merkezi, Ankara.
  • Pabian P., M.Melichar, H.Sebkova (2006). Funding Systems and their Effects on Higher Education Systems-Country Study: Czech Republic (OECD Publication) Prague: Centre for Higher Education Studies.
  • Seligman, E. (1931) Essays in Taxation, Augustus M.Kelley Publication, New York.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2006, 2010, 2014) Kazanç Yapısı Araştırması, Ankara. <http://www.tuik.gov.tr> , Erişim Tarihi: 15/11/2016.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, İstatistikler, <http:www.tuik.gov.tr>, Erişim Tarihi: 17/11/2016.
  • Wolf, A. (2002). Does Education Matter: Myths about Education and Economic Growth, London, Penguin Books.
Toplam 21 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Mustafa Umur Tosun

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Nisan 2017
Gönderilme Tarihi 18 Haziran 2016
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2017 Cilt: 25 Sayı: 32

Kaynak Göster

APA Tosun, M. U. (2017). The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education. Sosyoekonomi, 25(32), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901
AMA Tosun MU. The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education. Sosyoekonomi. Nisan 2017;25(32):11-30. doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901
Chicago Tosun, Mustafa Umur. “The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education”. Sosyoekonomi 25, sy. 32 (Nisan 2017): 11-30. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901.
EndNote Tosun MU (01 Nisan 2017) The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education. Sosyoekonomi 25 32 11–30.
IEEE M. U. Tosun, “The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education”, Sosyoekonomi, c. 25, sy. 32, ss. 11–30, 2017, doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901.
ISNAD Tosun, Mustafa Umur. “The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education”. Sosyoekonomi 25/32 (Nisan 2017), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901.
JAMA Tosun MU. The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25:11–30.
MLA Tosun, Mustafa Umur. “The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education”. Sosyoekonomi, c. 25, sy. 32, 2017, ss. 11-30, doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.286901.
Vancouver Tosun MU. The Economic Analysis of User Charge and Tuition Fee in Turkish Higher Education. Sosyoekonomi. 2017;25(32):11-30.