The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision

Our common understandings of the public/private distinction in higher education are drawn from neo-classical economics and/or statist political philosophy. However, the development of competition and markets at the national level, and the new potentials for private and public goods created by globalisation in higher education, have exposed weaknesses in the traditional notions of public/private. For example, (1) the statist notion that higher education is always/already a public good blinds us to its role in producing scarce positional private goods, even in free systems; (2) because there is no global state, both statists and neo-liberals model the global higher education environment simply as a trading environment without grasping the potential for global public goods in education – goods that are subject to non-rivalry or non-excludability, and broadly available across populations, on a global scale. Yet higher education in one nation has the potential to create positive and negative externalities in another; and all higher education systems and institutions can benefit from collective systems e.g. that facilitate cross-border recognition and mobility. The paper sets out to revise public/private in higher education. Rather than defining public/private in terms of legal ownership, it focuses on the social character of the goods. It argues that public/private goods are not always zero sum and under certain conditions provide conditions of possibility for each other. It proposes (a) units in national government that focus specifically on cross-border effects; (b) global policy spaces – taking in state agencies, individual universities, NGOs and commercial agents – to consider the augmentation, distribution of and payment for global public goods. This paper has been adapted from a keynote address to the Conference of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), University of Twente, Enschede, 19 September 2004. The CHER conference was focused on the public/private question. Warm thanks to Erik Beerkens, Jurgen Enders, Marijk van Wende, Ben Jongbloed, Guy Neave, other colleagues who took part in discussion at the CHER conference, and the reviewers for Higher Education.     

Legal considerations concerning public support for private higher education

RESURGENT POLITICS AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM IN THE NEW SOUTH: NORTH CAROLINA, 1890–1913 by H. Leon Prather, Sr. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Press, Inc., 1979. 303 pp. $20.00.

CHILD AND STORY: THE LITERARY CONNECTION by Kay E. Vandergrift. New York: Neal‐Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1980. 340 pp.

THE HUMANITIES IN AMERICAN LIFE, Report of the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1980. 205 pgs. $3.50 paperback, $12.50 cloth.

ON HIGHER EDUCATION: THE ACADEMIC ENTERPRISE IN AN ERA OF RISING STUDENT CONSUMERISM by David Riesman. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1980. xxxiv + 421 pp. $16.95.     

民办高等教育在高等教育体系中的定位

传统的高等教育类型划分影响了民办大学的准确定位 ,对民办高等教育发展产生了消极影响。本文提出民办高等教育应该属于综合类高等教育 ,民办大学有条件办成以全日制本专科教育为主的综合大学 ,而不是高等职业技术学校     

International trends in the public and private financing of higher education

Beginning by analyzing the major qualitative and quantitative changes in higher education around the world, this article examines international trends in their financial implications. It then demonstrates the state’s inability to bear the entire rising financial burden, and explores the role of self-financing, and of the non-profit and for-profit private sectors, in sharing the enrolment and the cost burden. Examples of cost-sharing from around the world are given, with an analysis of the complexities and ambiguities of the meanings of public and private in reference to financing higher educational institutions. A discussion of private–public partnerships follows, and of the role that non-profit and for-profit cross-border higher education plays in financing. The conclusion offers eight policy themes for coping with the underlying situation of financial strategy and the simultaneous need to supplement scarce public revenues with private revenues, meanwhile increasing access to and participation in higher education for those not yet benefiting from it.     

论高等教育的公益性与私益性

高等教育的公益性与私益性是可以相互转化的,是政策选择的结果。公益性始终是高等教育的本质属性,但在资源不足的情况下,高等教育的私益性生产是不可避免的。大力弘扬高等教育的公益性、正确引导高等教育的私益性是全社会的共同要求,也是政府、高校和社会的共同责任。     

Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education

Academic policy initiatives have long been apowerful lever for mission differentiationwithin U.S. public higher education. Althoughthe higher education literature has examinedbasic issues in the design of public systems,the tension between access and differentiationhas not been explored. Drawing uponcomparative case studies of public highereducation in Massachusetts and New York, thisarticle examines recent policy initiatives toterminate academic programs, eliminate remedialeducation, and promote honors colleges withineach state system. The analysis depicts howthese policies contribute to increasedstratification of programs and students withina state system as well as within particularcampuses in a system. The authors argue thatpolicy analysis in higher education shoulddevelop a more refined conceptualization ofaccess that examines the cumulative impact ofcontemporary policies on the stratification ofstudent opportunity.     

Access to higher education in China: Differences in opportunity

Access to higher education in China has opened up significantly in the move towards a mass higher education system. However, aggregate growth does not necessarily imply fair or reasonable distribution of opportunity. In fact, the expansion of higher education has a rather more complex influence on opportunity when admissions statistics are viewed by geographical region, rural and urban environment, social class, type of school, gender, and ethnicity. Since 1999, gaps in access opportunities have generally diminished, especially in terms of the urban-rural dimension. Efforts to increase university admission rates for women and minorities have resulted in significant progress. However, the gap in university admission between different social classes has been closing more slowly. Children from more advantaged backgrounds have more chances to study at key universities, and differences in access between provinces are still considerable. Social class polarization in secondary school is still a serious issue. Such problems at high school level directly lead to the accumulation and continuation of a gap in opportunities to access higher education. While agreeing that the aggregate growth of higher education provision in China is a positive development, we also strive to improve equality of opportunity.     

A low-subsidy problem in public higher education

With an exogenous public subsidy and a break-even restriction on university net revenue, tuition discrimination supports a quasi-efficient departure from marginal-cost pricing. In contrast, when the legislature and university interact in their subsidy and tuition decisions, the public subsidy becomes endogenous. With an endogenous public subsidy, support by legislatures is affected by the same factors that influence tuition; this leads to a situation where higher tuition revenue is accompanied by a lower public subsidy. The welfare of students declines when this “low-subsidy” case develops. The university's ability to address this issue depends on its being able to commit to a tuition policy, and credible commitment appears consistent with existing institutional conditions.     

Student performativity in higher education: converting learning as a private space into a public performance

The paper sets out a conceptual analysis of student performativity in higher education as a mirror image of teacher performativity. The latter is well known and refers to targets, evaluations and performance indicators connected with the measurement of the teaching and research quality of university academics. The former is defined as the way that students are evaluated on the basis of how they perform at university in bodily, dispositional and emotional terms. Specifically, this includes rules on class attendance and assessment (‘presenteeism’), an increasing emphasis on participation in class and in groups as part of learning and assessment regimes (‘learnerism’) and the surveillance of students’ emotional development and values (‘soulcraft’). Student performativity is symbolic of the ‘performing self’ in wider society and is transforming learning at university from a private space into a public performance. This negatively impacts student rights to be free to learn as autonomous adults.     

Trends in private higher education in Australia

The last decade has witnessed a significant growth of private higher education around the world. The growth included the number of private education providers, and also the growing number of students. While some countries are experiencing trend growth, others are witnessing decline. Some of the reasons for the decline include increased regulation and stringent accreditation and reaccreditation of higher education institutions and courses, government policies to encourage the growth of public universities, and acquisition of small providers by large private education institutions. The growth of private higher education has increased competition, and it has also established collaboration with public institutions. The growth of private higher education has also raised concerns about ethical governance, maintenance of academic standards, and mechanisms to plan, review, and improve educational outcomes. This paper focuses on Australia where despite growth, there is limited research about private higher education. This paper reviews literature on the global growth and decline of private higher education. It then analyses the trends in Australia and possible scenarios for the future of private higher education in the country.     

Commercial civil society: A perspective on private higher education in China

Two distinctive paradigms have been used in researching higher education phenomena in China’s process of social transformation. The first might be described as “critical realist,” and the second as “interpretivist.” The book Portraits of 21st Century Chinese Universities: In the Move to Mass Higher Education, has inclined toward the second paradigm and a central concept is that of “civil society.” However, the authors of this article argue that the concept of “commercial civil society” may better explain the characteristics of Chinese private higher education. Different from civil society that is based on voluntary action and contributions, commercial civil society is characterized by profit making behavior. This article focuses on analyzing the profit making features of Chinese private higher education, and thus aims to supplement the interpretivist analysis presented in the book. The authors believe that the concept of “commercial civil society” not only reflects certain features of the social environment in which Chinese private higher education operates, but may also be helpful for analyzing private higher education phenomena in other countries.     

Access to higher education for rural-poor students in China

China is now facing significant challenges in funding its rapidly expanding higher education systems, though it has experienced enormous economic growth in recent years. Equity has become a serious concern in Chinese higher education system. This article tries to identify the causes and implications of under-representation of the rural-poor students in China’s higher educational institutions: academic and social preparedness, institutional funding arrangements, the admissions policy, and the socioeconomic background are significant factors that determine an individual’s opportunity to access to higher education. Also, a brief discussion of possible policy recommendations is presented.     

The distributional effects of public higher education: A comment

This paper argues that the evidence presented in the currently available studies does not allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding the distributional effects of public higher education. The source of the problem lies in the use of one year as a sampling frame. It is shown that valid inferences may not be drawn from such a sample. The evaluation of the distributional effects of public higher education must be based on lifetime income and tax streams.     

Access to higher education: the hope for democratic schooling in America

The American aspiration for higher education as a road to a better life for everyone is threatened. As the economic and social gap between the upper third of the population and the bottom third widens, so access to better education, especially to higher education, becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. The traditional role of hope in the American Democratic Dream of a just and fair society is being eroded, as increasing numbers of Americans are marginalized, jailed, recruited into military service, and consigned to jobs with minimal salaries. But low‐paying jobs are not new in American history; what is new is that the hope for higher education and improvement in one's economic and social status is slipping away. The lower expectations result from federal cuts in support of education and for scholarships for higher education. This article reviews the conditions that are undermining the traditional visions of democratic schooling in America.     

论陕西民办高等教育的缘起与发展

陕西民办高等教育有其自身的历史发展特点。促使其发展的成因主要有环境因素(教育环境和政策环境)和人的因素(办学者的动机、素质和性格)。陕西民办高等教育目前存在着一定的问题和困难,需要政府管理层制定相应的对策。     

Public and private sectors in higher education: A comparison of international patterns

This paper seeks to extend understanding of the varying nature and varying forms of private higher education. Three basic structural divisions between private and public sectors of higher education are compared: mass private and restricted public sectors; parallel public and private sectors; and, comprehensive public and peripheral private sectors. The private sectors are then contrasted in terms of such functional characteristics as state authority, financial constraints and dominant orientation toward either academic goals, the student marketplace or external patrons. The highly diverse American private sector is viewed in this context. A consideration of mass private sectors then suggests that parameters of public policy are set by structurally derived characteristics of higher education systems.An earlier version of this paper was delivered to the Third International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia, sponsored by the Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, January 28–29, 1987. This version has benefited from the comments of the Conference participants, as well as those of Paul DiMaggio.