中日私立大学公共财政资助之比较及启示

中日两国同属东方文化圈,但私立大学在当今日本高等教育体制中占绝对优势,而在中国高等教育体制中则处于弱势。公共财政资助是日本私立大学成功发展的重要原因之一。通过比较发现,中国私立大学公共财政资助观念淡薄、资助方式单一、资助立法缺乏操作性。因此有必要结合日本的成功经验和中国的具体国情,从比较的视角来重新审视中国私立大学公共财政资助问题:中国私立大学享受公共财政的前提是"非营利性";根据利益获得原则,私立大学应该享受公共财政;适当享受公共财政可实现政府对私立大学的宏观过程管理;公共财政资助方式可采取"两主两辅"模式;加强立法是公共财政资助的有力保障。     

民办高等教育财政资助的研究综述

文献考察发现,不断加大政府财政资助、完善扶持政策成为学界共识。很多学者在分析民办高等教育的公益性、明确民办高等教育在高等教育大众化中的作用和国际资助经验比较的基础上,提出了中国财政资助民办高等教育的方式。     

RETHINKING THE FINANCING OF POST‐COMPULSORY EDUCATION

Throughout the world, the financing of education is in a state of crisis, a condition made even more acute by the simultaneous appearance of a doctrinal crisis with regard to the ends and the utility of education. For European higher education, the situation calls for the diversification of funding mechanisms. The public authorities which up until now have born most of the burden of higher education financing must transfer a goodly portion of the burden to users, i.e., students and parents, and to the private sector. Various methods for financial diversification are explored as well as different formulae for user‐financing.     

私立高等教育的公共性

本文重点分析了私立大学的公共控制问题和私立机构利用公共资源的问题。私立学院和大学将政府提供的资助转换为学费,取得空前的繁荣。不同私立大学在市场化机制下的行为方式是不同的,优秀私立大学带动了学费水平的不断提高。营利性大学是美国高等教育领域中发展最快的一部分。成功商业模式的复制和学生资助政策,是营利性大学快速发展的两个关键因素。私立大学的出现也带来了教育质量等一系列问题。新的政策走向似乎更有利于营利性大学,使之有可能获得更多的公共资源。     

Private for-profit higher education in Australia: widening access,participation and opportunities for public-private collaboration

Private for-profit higher education has grown rapidly in many parts of the world. This growth is attributed to many factors, including a broadening of the student population and the recognition that wider access to higher education will be economically beneficial to individuals, governments and society as a whole. In Australia, the number of students in private for-profit higher education is rising, with dramatic projections for the next 10 years. The Australian government has set a target to increase the participation of students in higher education, with a focus on increasing the access and success of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is unclear, however, what role the burgeoning private for-profit institutions will play in meeting the government's targets, and what incentives will be provided for them to increase the access and participation of students from disadvantaged groups. This paper analyses the key drivers of growth in private for-profit higher education in Australia, and discusses issues around quality and standards. It examines the strengths and limitations of the sector, and the extent to which it contributes to diversity, access and the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It argues that the sector needs clear government directions to improve levels of access, and new government policies to encourage public-private collaborations to help ensure sustainability. The paper also briefly touches on the need for a review into the current structure of Australia's higher education sector as a whole, and whether higher education would benefit from the formation of public community colleges with the explicit aim of widening access for disadvantaged student groups. Further, the paper suggests that encouraging such public-private collaboration may be beneficial to ensure access and participation of students from all walks of life, including disadvantaged groups.     

Rethinking the Financing of Post-Compulsory Education

Throughout the world, the financing of education is in a state of crisis, a condition made even more acute by the simultaneous appearance of a doctrinal crisis with regard to the ends and the utility of education. For European higher education, the situation calls for the diversification of funding mechanisms. The public authorities, which up until now have borne most of the burden of higher education financing, must transfer a goodly portion of the burden to users, i.e., students and parents, and to the private sector. Various methods for financial diversification are explored as well as different formulae for user-financing.     

To profit or not to profit: the private higher education sector in Brazil

Brazil has by far the largest higher education system in Latin America, with a sizable share of students enrolled in private-sector institutions. Its recently established and fast-growing for-profit sector is one of the largest worldwide. The for-profit sector already surpasses the public sector in student enrollment, and its role is growing. Public policy has supported for-profit growth, ostensibly for tax revenue reasons, but the federal government has recently launched social initiatives that include tax exemption policies for the for-profit sector in exchange for need-based scholarships. Through exploratory data analysis, this study explores the role, function, and form of the for-profit sector compared with its nonprofit and public counterparts. The findings reveal that the for-profit sector shares some important characteristics with the nonprofit sector but contrasts sharply with the public sector. The study concludes that countries such as Brazil are moving toward public funding for private higher education to meet enrollment targets. These findings may be able to address issues in other countries by considering similar public policies toward private higher education.     

营利非营利分类管理下 民办学校税收问题与建议

现有教育税收优惠规定是在实施民办学校分类管理前出台的，针对的是非营利性民办学校。营 利性民办学校虽然登记为企业法人，但企业减税降费的利好政策对其影响甚微。此外，还存在非营利性民 办学校同等税收优惠落实不到位、营利性民办学校税收优惠不系统、现有民办学校转设税收政策不明确等 问题。建议切实落实非营利性民办学校税收优惠政策，针对营利性民办学校进行税收政策系统设计，同时 参照企业重组、改制的经验制定现有民办学校转设企业法人税收优惠政策。     

A financial perspective: categories of higher education institutions

From a financial perspective, the criteria for category distinction of higher education institutions should be based on the ownership of institution property and income for recurrent expenditure. The development of modern higher education witnessed the period wherein higher education institutions have both private property and private payment for recurrent expenditure. The development also saw the period wherein all the institution properties were owned by the state and all the recurrent expenditure were paid by the government. Accordingly, universities could be divided into two categories of “public” and “private” institutions until the 1970s. However, things have been changing greatly over the past 20 years. Property ownership and payment for recurrent expenditure have been separated. The public institutions appeal to more and more individuals sharing recurrent expenditure, while private institutions ask for more and more public financial support. Therefore, some financially mixed institutions came into being and “three categories with sub-groups” has become a new phenomenon. __________ Translated from Peking University Education Review, 2004 (2)     

民办高校内部治理选择:从私人性走向公共性

随着分类管理改革的推进,现有民办高校将真正分为营利性和非营利性两种不同的法人组织。法人属性的差异,意味着民办高校内部治理机构的调整和变化。从公共性视角来看,目前我国现有民办高校内部治理呈现出较为典型的私人性特征,表现在治理目的、治理主体、治理机制等方面。对于非营利性民办高校来说,其内部治理从私人性转向公共性,是现代大学公共属性、民办教育政策导向、获取公共财政支持的综合使然。提升非营利性民办高校内部治理的公共性,应形成树立以公共利益最大化的治理目的,构建多元共治的治理主体,建立公平、透明的治理机制。     

我国独立学院制度:问题与转型

作为一种制度安排,独立学院在我国高等教育系统中已经客观存在。独立学院是"制度性寻租"的结果,独立学院制度存在着明显的"营利的伪装",是公立大学制度与私立大学制度折衷、妥协与调和的产物,并没有真正实现制度创新,而是一种制度失范。未来时期,独立学院要想继续在我国高等教育系统中存在并获得发展,必须进行制度转型,即从非营利性转向营利性,成为中国式的股份制私立营利性大学。     

Blurred Vision?: Public and Private Higher Education in Indonesia

If, as some have argued, private higher education is now the most dynamic segment of higher education, it is also the case that its growth, partly in response to the increasing mismatch between spiralling demand and limited state capacity, is often ad hoc. The article examines the contours of this trend in Indonesia, where the balance of public and private higher education has shifted sharply over the last two decades. While the private sector has been responsible for much of the expansion in higher education, its role in relation to quality is more questionable. Indonesia’s economic burdens, sharply exacerbated by the effects of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, make it likely that the trend towards privatisation, including of its public institutions, will continue. Together with the current rise of trans-national higher education, however, this is only likely to sharpen existing difficulties around longstanding issues of quality, equality, and regulatory capacity.     

营利性民办学校享受税收优惠的体系化进路

营利性民办学校税收优惠待遇的廓清不仅关乎差异化财税扶持政策的落实,还攸关民办学校分类管理的实效。然而,充满歧义的民办教育立法、杂乱无章的税法以及它们在分类优惠上的理念分歧使得营利性民办学校的税收优惠待遇处于悬而未决的状态。衡诸受教育权保障关联性、税种属性以及教育公共服务供需状况等因素对营利性民办学校享受税收优惠待遇的影响,营利性民办学校税收优惠待遇的边界有望廓清。为此,须秉持法际整合的立场,在综合权衡教育公益性与资本逐利性的关系以及融贯税法与教育法的价值理念的基础上,从增强民办教育立法税收优惠条款的指向性、完善税法中涉及学校的优惠条款表达以及部门联合出台营利性民办学校专项税收优惠政策等不同层面破解营利性民办学校税收优惠待遇难题。     

多国高等教育大众化模式比较研究

根据经费来源的不同可以把世界各国高等教育大众化的模式归纳为四种:美国模式、西欧模式、东南亚以及拉丁美洲模式、转型国家模式。总结和比较不同模式的特点,我们发现:充分利用民间资金是解决高等教育大众化过程中经费难题的根本途径;高等教育质量的高低,与办学体制并没有必然联系,相反,民办高等教育的发展,有利于激活竞争机制,更好地培养适应社会需求的人才。     

我国民办教育产权分割的方式及其逻辑

我国民办教育产权分割的方式有三种,即"一分法"、"三分法"和"两分法"。"一分法"的逻辑是学校提供的是公共产品、教育具有公益性以及办学资金主要来源于学费;"三分法"的逻辑是学校提供的产品是多样的、非营利性民办学校数量较少以及教育财政投入比例呈递减趋势;"两分法"的逻辑是依据经济属性确定组织性质、与世界惯例接轨以及明确分类标准和完善制度体系。     

Do Costs Differ Between For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Producers of Higher Education?

In theory, not-for-profit organizations will be characterized by higher production costs per unit of output than for-profit producers of otherwise-identical goods/services, since profit maximization implies cost minimization per unit of output; breaking even does not imply cost minimization and, indeed, may imply inflated costs. We explore the empirical validity of this hypothesis in the context of higher education. Using 1996 data, we estimate multiproduct cost functions for 1,450 public, 1,316 private, not-for-profit, and 176 private, for-profit institutions of higher education in the United States. We fail to find a statistically significant difference between for-profit and not-for-profit private providers, but do find a statistically significant difference between private, not-for-profit institutions and public institutions.     

民国时期上海私立学校的管理模式

Private schools were very prosperous in Shanghai during the Republican period. Shanghai Municipal Educational Bureau adopted a pattern of indirect management, especially attaching importance to normalizing and guiding the mechanism for operating a school by taking the basic measures for the registration administration. Meanwhile, appropriate funding was given to private school so that they could enjoy fair treatment and full confidence. What was more, necessary interventions were made on finances and running a school. Indirect model of managing many private schools dramatically reduced the financial burden on Shanghai municipal public education. It also provided an important prerequisite for urban educational administration to concentrate on macro management system. __________ Translated from Shehui Kexue 社会科学 (Social Sciences), 2007, (2): 99–109     

The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Education: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform

Recent years have seen a shifting landscape around private engagement in K-12 public education, one that involves a reorientation of education policy and practice around the principles of the marketplace. In this article, we examine the roles of both not-for-profit and for-profit agencies, as distinct from government agencies, in this movement. Past research has generally focused on subsets of these private actors (i.e., for-profit firms, charter management organizations, or alternative preparers of educators for public schools). We try to look more broadly in order to examine how private actors and the roles of those players in K-12 education are changing, both in terms of the scope of their engagement and the extent to which their role increasingly involves areas at the core of educational practice. In doing so, we consider some of the reasons for these changes, including the influence of federal policy, markets as drivers, and the broader political context. We conclude by raising questions for future research and examining how these developments intersect with values such as democratic voice, equitable distribution of resources, and the public purposes of schooling.     

关于民办高校分类管理的思考

在落实《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020年)》中有关民办高等教育发展的内容时,相当多的地区将视线放在非营利性和营利性民办高校的区分上,希望以此来推进民办高校的分类管理。借鉴理论成果与实践的经验,本文认为应遵循稳步推进、尊重选择、既往不咎、鼓励公益、坚持改革、和谐发展等原则来进行民办高校的分类管理。     

私有化与美国高等教育财政的新趋势

1990年以来,私有化成为美国高等教育发展的主流趋势。众多大学热衷于资助与企业合作的教育研究项目,并且积极参与商业活动。在高等教育领域中,营利性大学呈现出最为积极的发展态势。此外,各种形式的学生经济资助力度的加大使得美国高等教育财政发生了翻天覆地的变化。对于公立和私立大学而言,私有化均意味着市场力量的大力介入。本文从以下三个视角审视美国高等教育财政的发展变化:考察1990年以来高等教育私有化的宏观发展趋势,分析该时期高等教育在校生规模、大学学费及其收入支出的变化趋势,研究当前经济危机对公立和私立高等教育部门产生的影响。大学学费的稳步增长使美国高等教育财政由政府资助转向学生及其家庭分担。学生经济资助,尤其是联邦学生贷款的大幅增长对美国高等教育财政产生了重要影响,而这种影响作用在私立非营利性大学、公立大学、私立营利性大学的表现是截然不同的。最后,私有化潮流对不同性质高等教育机构的财政及其学术研究产生了不同的动态影响。面对高校收入来源及其总额的变化,美国大学的高度自主特质使得各院校必须独立作出适应,这也由此提升了高校对于市场力量的积极响应。