Yükseköğretimin finansmanı: Geleneksel ve modern yaklaşımların karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 28 - 37, 01.04.2012

Jandhyala B. G. Tilak

Öz

Geleneksel olarak yükseköğretim, neredeyse tüm ülkelerde yoğun bir şekilde devlet tarafından desteklenir. Bu durum, eğitimin kendi içinde bir yaşam kalitesi ölçüsü olmasının yanı sıra kamu malı (ve yükseköğretim bakımından kamu malına yakın bir şekilde), değer malları, insan gelişimi için sosyal bir yatırım ve eşitliğin temel bir amacı olarak dış etkiler üretme kapasitesi şeklinde tanınmasıyla gerekçelenmektedir. Gelişmekte olan ve gelişmiş ülkelerin çoğunda neo-liberal ekonomik reformların ortaya çıkışı, yükseköğretime ayrılan kamusal bütçelerin daralmasına yol açmıştır. Yükseköğretimin finansmanındaki son eğilimler, yükseköğretimin rolü üzerindeki algıları değiştirmeyle ilişkilendirilmekte, bunun sonucu olarak, üniversitelerin oluşturulması ve ayakta tutulması sürecinde ticari modeller benimsenmektedir. Örneğin özel üniversiteler, ticari üniversiteler, kurumsal üniversiteler ve girişimci üniversiteler gündem konusu haline gelmektedir. Kamu malı, değer malı, sosyal yatırım ve insan hakları olarak yükseköğretim gibi sıralanabilecek yükseköğretimin çeşitli temel karakteristik özellikleri tehdit altındadır. Son kanıtlar göstermektedir ki birçok üniversite, maliyet kurtarma önlemleri denemekte, öğrenci ücretleri ve diğer sivil kaynaklardan kaynak yaratmaktadır. Sağlam politikalar oluşturmak için, yükseköğretimdeki bu maliyet kurtarma önlemlerinin nicelik, kalite ve eşitlik üzerine etkilerinin incelenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu makale, yükseköğretimin kamusal finansmanı lehinde ve aleyhinde ileri sürülen ve yükseköğretimin finansmanının devlet için ne kadar önemli olduğunu tekrar ifade eden argümanların bazılarına hızlı bir bakış sunmaktadır. Makalede eğitime yönelik kamu desteğinde ciddi bir azalmanın uygun ve (uygun olsa dahi) arzulanabilir olmadığı vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kamu malı, maliyet kurtarma, neo-liberal politikalar, öğrenci kredileri, refah devleti, ücretler.

Financing of Higher Education: Traditional versus Modern Approaches*

Öz

Conventionally, higher education is heavily subsidised by the state in almost all countries. This has been justified by the recognition of education as capable of producing externalities, as a public good (and as a quasi-public good in case of higher education), as a merit good, as a social investment for human development, and as a major instrument of equity, besides as a measure of quality of life in itself. The launching of neo-liberal economic reforms in most developing and developed countries of the world has led to shrinking the pubic budgets for higher education. Recent trends in funding higher education are associated with changing perceptions on the role of higher education. As a result, business models are adopted in setting and running universities. Private universities, commercial universities, corporate universities and entrepreneurial universities are becoming the order of the day. The several basic characteristic features of higher education, such as higher education as a public good, merit good, social investment, and as a human right are under attack. Recent evidence shows that many universities are experimenting with cost recovery measures, generating resources from student fees, and other non-governmental sources. The effects of these cost recovery measures on the quantity, quality and equity in higher education need to be examined for sound policy making. The paper presents a quick review of some of these arguments being made in favor of and against public financing of higher education and restated how important it is for the state to finance higher education. It is argued that significant reduction in public subsidies to education is neither feasible, nor desirable, even if feasible.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cost-recovery, fees, neo-liberal policies, public good, student loans, welfare state.

Kaynakça

• Arcelus, F. J., and Levine, A. L. (1986). Merit goods and public choice: The case of higher education. Public Finance 41(3), 303-15.
• Arrow, K. J. (1993). Excellence and equity in higher education. Education Economics 1(1), 5-12.
• Bates, R. (1993). Education reform: Its role in the economic destruction of society. Australian Administrator 14(2-3), 1-12.
• Blaug, M. (1970). An introduction to economics of education. London: Allen Lane the Penguin.
• Blaug, M. (1982). The distributional effects of higher education subsi- dies. Economics of Education Review 2(3), 209-31.
• Blaug, M., and Woodhall, M. (1979). Patterns of subsidies to higher edu- cation in Europe. Higher Education 7 (November: Supplement), 331-61.
• Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the market place. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Colclough, C. (1991). Who should learn to pay? An assessment of neo- liberal approaches to education policy. In C. Colclough, and J. Manor (Eds.), States or markets? Neo-liberalism and the development pol- icy debate (pp. 197-213). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Colclough, C. (1996). Education and the market: Which parts of the neoliberal solution are correct? World Development 24(4), 589-610.
• Eckaus, R.S. (1964). Economic criteria for education and training. Review of Economics and Statistics (May), 181-3.
• Eicher, J.-C., and Chevaillier, T. (1993). Rethinking the finance of post- compulsory education, International Journal Educational Research 19(5), 445-519.
• Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hope, J., and Muller, P. (1988). Financing tertiary education: An exami- nation of the issues. Australian Economic Review 4, 37-5
• Johnson, G. E. (1984). Subsidies for higher education. Journal of Labour Economics 2(3), 303-18.
• Jimenez, E. (1989). Social sector pricing policy revisited: A survey of some recent controversies. Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (pp. 109-38). Washington DC.: World Bank.
• Kirp, D. L. (2005). This little student went to market. In R. H. Hersh, and J. Merrow (Eds.) Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk (pp. 113-130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kodde, D. A. and Ritzen, J. M. M. (1985). The demand for education under capital market imperfections. European Economic Review 28, 347-62.
• Leslie, L. L. and Brinkman, T. P. (1988). Economic value of higher educa- tion. New York: American Council of Education.
• Levin, H. J. (1987). Education as a public and a private good. Journal of Policy and Management 6(4), 628-41
• Loxley, J., and Loxley, S. (2010). Public service, private profits: The political economy of public-private partnerships in Canada. Winnipeg, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
• Lucas, R. E. Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development (Marshall Lecture). Journal of Monetary Economics 22(1), 3-42.
• Maynard, A. (1975). Experiment with choice in education. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
• McMahon, W. W. (1988). Potential resource recovery in higher educa- tion in the developing countries and the parents' expected contribu- tion. Economics of Education Review 7(1), 135-52.
• Mingat, A., and Tan, J.-P. (1986). Who profits from public funding of education? A comparison of world regions. Comparative Education Review 30(2), 260-70.
• Musgrave, R.A. (1959) Theory of public finance. New York: McGraw Hill
• Newman, F. (1985). Higher education and the American resurgence. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
• Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., and Guaqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington DC.: World Bank.
• Psacharopoulos, G. (1977). The perverse effects of public subsidization of education or how equitable is free education? Comparative Education Review 21(1), 69-90.
• Psacharopoulos, G. (1986). The planning of education: Where do we stand? Comparative Education Review 30(4), 560-73.
• Psacharopoulos, G. (1994). Returns to investment in education: A glob- al update. World Development 22(9), 1325-43.
• Psacharopoulos, G., and Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for development. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.
• Ram, R. (1982). Public subsidization of schooling and inequality of edu- cational access, Comparative Education Review 26(1), 36-47.
• Schultz, T. W. (1972). Optimal investment in college instruction: Equity and efficiency. Journal of Political Economy 80 (May/June), S2-S30.
• Shackleton, J. R. (1993). Student assistance in Sweden: Lessons for the UK. Higher Education Review 26(1), 54-63.
• Stewart, F., and Ghani, E. (1992). How significant are externalities for development? World Development 19(6), 569-94.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (1986). Economics of the public sector. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). Reversal of fortune, Vanity Fair (October). Accessed through <http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz 200811> on January 15th, 2009.
• Summers, A. (1987). Comment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6, 641-3.
• Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington DC.: World Bank
• Tilak, J. B. G. (1997a). Lessons from cost recovery in education. In Colclough, C. (Ed.), Marektising education and health in developing countries: Miracle or mirage? (pp. 63-89). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (1997b). The dilemma of reforms in financing higher edu- cation in India. Higher Education Policy (Pergamon) 10(1), 7-21.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2003). Higher education and development. In Kleeves, J.P., and Watanabe, R. (Eds.) The Handbook on educational research in the Asia Pacific region (pp. 809-26). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2006). Private higher education: Philanthropy to profits. In Higher education in the world: The financing of universities (pp. 113- 25). Barcelona: Global University Network for Innovation and Palgrave Macmillan.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2004). Public subsidies in the education sector in India. Economic and Political Weekly 39(4), 343-59.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2008). Higher education: A public good or a commodity for trade? Commitment to higher education or commitment of high- er education to trade. Prospects (UNESCO) 38(4), 449-66.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2009a). Current trends in private sector in higher education in Asia. In the Proceedings of the International Conference on Privatization in Higher Education (pp. 113-43). Haifa, Israel: Samuel Neaman Institute, Technion University (5-8 January 2008). Accessed through 333.pdf> on January 15th, 2009.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2009b). Student loans and financing of higher education in India. In Students loan schemes: Experiences of New Zealand, Australia, India and Thailand and way forward for Malaysia (pp. 64-94). Pulau Pinang: IPPTN and Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2010). Universities: An endangered species? Journal of the World Universities Forum 3(2), 109-27.
• Tilak, J. B. G. (2011). Trade in higher education: The role of the General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS). Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 95. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
• Tilak, J.B.G., and Rani, G. (2002). Changing pattern of university finances in India. Journal of Services Research, 2(2), 5-46.
• Tomilinson, T. R. G. (1986). Public education, public good. Oxford Review of Education, 12, 211-22.
• Tooley, J. (2000). Reclaiming education. London: Cassell.
• Torstel, P. A. (1996). Should education be subsidized? Public Finance Quarterly 24(1), 3-24.
• Vaizey, J. (1962). The economics of education. London: Farber and Farber.
• Weale, M. (1992). Externalities from education. In F. Hahn (Ed.), The market: Practice and policy (pp. 112-35). Basingstoke: Macmillan,
• Weisbrod. B. A. (1988). The non-profit economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.) (1998) To profit or not to profit: The commercial trans- formation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• West. E. G. (1965). Education and the state: A state of political economy. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
• World Bank (1994). Higher eructation: The lessons of experience. Washington DC.: World Bank.
• World Bank (1995). Priorities and strategies for education: A World Bank review. Washington DC.: World Bank.
• World Bank (2000). Attacking poverty: World Development Report 2000/2001. New York: Oxford.
• World Bank (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for ter- tiary education. Washington DC.: World Bank.