Yükseköğretim Hizmeti İçin Bir Finansman Modeli Önerisi: Tamamlayıcı Karma Model

Yıl 2024, , 198 - 211, 20.09.2024

Mehmet Sadık Aydın

https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1466707

Öz

Yükseköğretim hizmetlerinin sunumu belli bir maliyet gerektirmektedir. Genellikle kamusal malların finansmanı zorunlu finansman olan vergilerle yapılırken, yükseköğretim gibi karma malların finansmanı ise zorunlu ve gönüllü finansman olan vergi ve fiyatlarla sağlanır. Bu çalışmada yükseköğretimin finansmanı açısından karma finansman modeli içerisinde değerlendirilebilecek bir model olan tamamlayıcı karma model incelenecektir. Bu modelde belirlenecek kriterlerle üniversitelere kamu bütçesinden bir kaynak tahsis edilecektir. Ancak bu kaynak toplam üniversite bütçesinin belli bir kısmını oluşturacaktır. Bu kaynak dışında öz kaynaklar da kullanılacaktır. Sonraki yıl bütçesi oluşturulurken ise enflasyon oranları dikkate alınarak bir artış öngörülecektir. Üniversite, kriterleri daha ileri taşımışsa kamudan gelecek kaynaklar artırılarak öz kaynağa ihtiyaç duymayacak ve bir teşvik mekanizması ortaya konulacak ancak kriterlerde arzu edilen başarı sağlanamamışsa kamu kaynakları azaltılarak öz kaynak bulması gerekecek bu şekilde bir ceza mekanizması oluşturularak yük üniversitelere yüklenecektir. Bu sayede kurumlar arası rekabetin ve kalitenin artması sağlanabilecektir. Kamunun bu alana aktaracağı kaynaklar daha etkin bir şekilde kullanılmış olacaktır. Çalışmada Türkiye’deki araştırma üniversitelerinin son 3 yıl verileri dikkate alınarak değerlendirme yapılmıştır. Performans göstergesi olarak da TÜMA (Türkiye Üniversiteleri Memnuniyet Araştırması) ve (University Ranking by Academic Performance) URAP sıralama sistemi göstergeleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda kaynakların etkin tahsis edilmediği bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışma ile kaynak tahsisinde etkinlik sağlanması amacıyla politika yapıcılara yol gösterici öneriler sunulması hedeflenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yükseköğretim, Finansman, Performans, Bütçe

A Financing Model For Higher Education Services: Complementary Mixed Model

Öz

The provision of higher education services requires a certain cost. Generally, public goods are financed by taxes, which are compulsory financing, while mixed goods such as higher education are financed by taxes and prices, which are compulsory and voluntary financing. In this study, the complementary mixed model, which is a model that can be considered within the mixed financing model in terms of financing higher education, will be explained. In this model, a resource will be allocated to universities from the public budget based on the criteria to be determined. However, this resource will constitute a certain portion of the total university budget. Apart from this resource, own resources will also be used. When the budget for the following year is created, an increase will be foreseen taking into account inflation rates. If the university has advanced the criteria further, public resources will be increased so that it will not need own resources and an incentive mechanism will be introduced, but if the desired success in the criteria is not achieved, public resources will be reduced and it will be necessary to find own resources, thus creating a penalty mechanism and putting the burden on universities. This will increase competition and quality among institutions. The resources that the public will transfer to this field will be used more effectively. In this study, the last 3 years’ data of research universities in Turkey were taken into consideration. TÜMA (Turkish Universities Satisfaction Survey) and URAP ranking system indicators were used as performance indicators. As a result of the study, it was found that resources are not allocated effectively. The study aims to provide guiding recommendations to policy makers in order to ensure efficiency in resource allocation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Higher Education, Financing, Performance, Budget

Kaynakça

• Abamosa, J. Y. (2021). Social inclusion of refugees into higher education: policies and practices of universities in Norway. Educational Review, 75(6), 1181-1201.
• Abukari, A. (2010). The dynamics of service of higher education: a comparative study. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 43-57.
• Agha, S. & Carton, T. (2011). Determinants of institutional delivery in rural jhang, pakistan. International Journal for Equity in Health, 10(1), 31.
• Akinkugbe, O. (2000). Higher education financing and equality of educational opportunities in swaziland. International Journal of Social Economics, 27(11), 1074-1097.
• Annamdevula, S. (2012). Development of hiedqual for measuring service quality in indian higher education sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(4).
• Berg, I. (1981). The effects of inflation on and in higher education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 456(1), 99-111.
• Borghei, N. S., Taghipour, A., Roudsari, R. L., Keramat, A., & Noghabi, H. J. (2016). Predictors of prenatal empowerment among iranian pregnant women. Electronic Physician, 8(9), 2962-2968.
• Brammar, L. (2023). A three lenses approach to employability: transdisciplinary approaches to tne students’ careers education. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 13(6), 1204-1217.
• Bringle, R. G. & Hatcher, J. A. (2000). Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 273.
• Burden, A. E. (2018). Pinterest: pinning the gap between sotl and slce in higher education. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 6(1).
• Chi, N. (2022). Factors affecting student satisfaction with higher education service quality in vietnam. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 339-351.
• Cleveland, D. A. (2022). What’s to eat and drink on campus? public and planetary health, public higher education, and the public good. Nutrients, 15(1), 196.
• Dağlı, G., Altınay, F., Altınay, Z., & Altınay, M. (2020). Evaluation of higher education services: social media learning. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(1), 147-159.
• Dankwah, E., Feng, C., Kirychuck, S., Zeng, W., Lepnurm, R., & Farag, M. (2021). Assessing the contextual effect of community in the utilization of postnatal care services in ghana. BMC Health Services Research,
• Demir, M., İnan, M. & Sarıoğlu, F. (2014). Yükseköğretimin Finansmanı: Türkiye’de Öğrenci Eğilimleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme, Maliye Dergisi, 167, 200-226.
• Dohmen, D. (2016). Performance-based funding of universities in Germany - an empirical analysis, Demand for Schooling, Educational Finance and Equity, 111-132.
• Dougherty, K.J., Jones, S.M., Lahr, H., Natow, R.S., Pheatt, L. & Reddy, W. (2016). Performance Funding for Higher Education, John Hopkings University Press.
• Elgelany, A. & Gaoud, W. (2017). Cloud computing: empirical studies in higher education a literature review. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8(10).
• Erguvan, D. (2010). Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Türkiye Yükseköğretim Sistemine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi, Marmara Üniversitesi SBE Doktora Tezi, İstanbul.
• Geyik, O. (2020). Göçün kamu harcamalarına etkisi: Türkiye’deki eğitim ve sağlık harcamaları üzerine bir inceleme (Ed. Özhan, M.). Siyaset ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları, Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi, 89-112.
• Ghatak, N. (2023). Beyond the classroom: a case study on the relationship between education as a public good, social justice and critical pedagogy. Journal of Development Policy and Practice, 9(1), 71-89.
• Hagood, L. P. (2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 189-213.
• Harkins, D. A. (2020). Building relationships for critical service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 26(2).
• Hensley, B., Galilee-Belfer, M., & Lee, J. J. (2013). What is the greater good? the discourse on public and private roles of higher education in the new economy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(5), 553-567.
• Hermannsson, K., Lisenkova, K., Lecca, P., McGregor, P., & Swales, J. (2016). The external benefits of higher education. Regional Studies, 51(7), 1077-1088.
• Hillman, N. & Carrol, D. The Equity Implications of Paying for Performance in Higher Education, Sage Journals, 61(14).1757-1772.
• Hong, C. (2017). The literature reviews about higher education service quality in overseas. DEStech Transactions on Social Science, Education and Human Science.
• Jacobs, L., Moolman, A. M., & Beer, E. D. (2019). Fees must fall and beyond: towards a sustainable national student loan regulatory framework. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(1).
• Jain, R., Sinha, G., & Sahney, S. (2011). Conceptualizing service quality in higher education. Asian Journal on Quality, 12(3), 296-314.
• Junankar, P. N. (2003). Estimating the social rate of return to education for indigenous australians. Education Economics, 11(2), 169-192.
• Kallison, J. M. & Cohen, P. (2009). A new compact for higher education: funding and autonomy for reform and accountability. Innovative Higher Education, 35(1), 37-49.
• Leem, B. (2021). An effect of value co-creation on student benefits in covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13,
• Letizia, A. J. (2015). Revitalizing higher education and the commitment to the public good: a literature review. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 11(2).
• Lomonosov, A., Lomonosova, O., & Nadtochii, I. (2019). Socio-economic and institutional preconditions for the formation of the educational services market in higher education of ukraine. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 5(2), 104.
• López, D., Rojas, M. J., López, B. A., & Espinoza, Ó. (2019). Quality assurance and the classification of universities: the case of chile. Quality Assurance in Education, 28(1), 33-48.
• Lucey, C. R. (2017). Is medical education a public or a private good?. Jama, 318(23), 2303.
• Machin, S., McNally, S., & Wyness, G. (2013). Educational attainment across the UK nations: performance, inequality and evidence. Educational Research, 55(2), 139-164.
• Mahasneh, R., Tawalbeh, A. H., Al-Smadi, R. T., Ghaith, S., & Dajani, R. (2012). Integrating service learning in jordanian higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 415-425.
• Mansour, A. Z., Ahmi, A., Alkhuzaie, A. S. H., Alhmood, M. A., Popoola, O. M. J., & Altarawneh, M. (2023). State of art in tax evasion research: a bibliometric review. Review of Education, 11(3).
• Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: a global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307-333.
• Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411-433.
• McGorry, S. Y. (2012). No significant difference in service learninng online. Online Learning, 16(4).
• McCarthy, P. & Humphrey, R. (1995). Debt: the reality of student life. Higher Education Quarterly, 49(1), 78-86.
• Molebatsi, P. (2022). Place, public good and higher education in south africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 20(2), 159-184.
• Molebatsi, P. & McCowan, T. (2022). Indicators of higher education and the public good in africa: a dashboard approach. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 20(2), 185-210.
• Msosa, S. K. & Govender, J. P. (2020). Service failure in higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(1), 45-55.
• Nkisi, M. (2020). Higher education financing in lesotho: regulation to realize its sustainability and increase inclusiveness. Journal of African Law, 65(1), 25-45.
• Podger, D., Mustakova-Possardt, E., & Reid, A. (2010). A whole‐person approach to educating for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 339-352.
• Prasad, M. & Singh, S. (2022). Service quality in higher education: a review. Iarjset, 9(1).
• Provazníková, R. & Chlebounová, D. (2018). Discussion on the quality of european higher education systems using cluster analysis. Proceedings of the 6th Teaching &Amp; Education Conference, Vienna.
• Pūraitė, A., Pranevičienė, B., & Vasiliauskienė, V. (2017). State financing impact on autonomy of heis and its link with economic activities of universities. Engineering Economics, 28(5).
• Rozikin, M., Muttaqin, A., Pratama, B. I., Putra, E., Kumalasari, K. P., Sugiastuti, R. H. & Ningsih, D. N. C. (2020). Evaluation of student affairs services in higher education in east java. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(1), 49-55.
• Sacoto-Loor, J., Amor, M. I., & Osuna, M. (2023). Psychometric analysis of the woem-m scale to evaluate women empowerment in the ecuadorian university environment. Sustainability, 15(23), 16484.
• Salawati, S., Sritharan, N., Sheung, S. C. C., & Mohamed, A. S. (2021). Does tax knowledge motivate tax compliance in Malaysia?. Research in World Economy, 12(1), 238.
• Salmi, J. (2018). Social dimension within a quality oriented higher education system. European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies, 141-154.
• Santos, A. A. (2023). Perceptions of homemakers on women empowerment through educational advancement and involvement. International Journal of Research Publications, 128(1).
• Schneider, L. (2018). Access and aspirations: Syrian Refugees’ experiences of entering higher education in Germany. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(3), 457-478.
• Shin, J. C. (2008). Classifying higher education institutions in korea: a performance-based approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247-266.
• Smith-Tolken, A. R. & McKay, M. (2019). To be or not to be. service-learning in a higher education institution. Bordón. Revista De Pedagogía, 71(3), 205-220.
• Sousa, S.B. & Brennan J. L. (2013). Reforming Higher Edication, Springer.
• Stebliuk, N. & Кузьменко, Н. И. (2021). Research of consumer demand in the market of educational services of dnipropetrovsk region. Economies’ Horizons, 3(14), 64-71.
• Sunaengsih, C., Komariah, A., Kurniady, D. A., Thahir, M., & Tamam, B. (2021). Academic service quality survey in higher education. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and Management (ICREAM 2020).
• Taskinsoy, J. (2012). The investment rate of return (irr) to tertiary education in turkey. Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 3(5), 154-164.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2008). Transition from higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good: the saga of indian experience. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2), 220-234.
• Tulip, P. (2007). Financing higher education in the united states. OECD Economics Department Working Papers.
• Wilson-Strydom, M. (2014). Taking up the challenge of implementing higher education for the public good. South African Journal of Science, 110(3/4), 2.
• Yulianto, Y., Rosalia, F., Atika, D. B., & Alamsyah, A. (2019). Determinant of personal tax compliance in indonesia. Humanities &Amp; Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6), 362-372.
• Zatonatska, T., Rozhko, O., Lyutyy, I., Ткаченко, Н., & Anisimova, O. (2019). Global practices of higher education financing: approaches and models. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 22(4), 95-112.