灾后村庄重建:公共产品性质变异及其供给特点

学术界就公共产品性质的研究,由"公私二分法"到"二维连续分布",皆关注产品的原始属性;英格·考尔等认为产品性质在很大程度上由政策及其他集体行动来决定,即是一种社会建构.社会建构中,产品性质发生变异,均衡性公共产品是其典型.灾后村庄公共产品供给中,产品性质变异:私人产品转化为纯公共产品、准公共产品,准公共产品向纯公共产品靠拢.性质变异后,公共产品供给呈现出新特点:主要供给基本生活资料,很强的时效性,无偿性,普及性,强制性.     

民办高等教育领域"公私伙伴关系"的构建

"第三部门"理论认为,非营利性组织在提供集体物品上具有比政府组织更大的优势和更高的效率,这一理论要求在公共产品或准公共产品提供中建立"公私伙伴关系".作为非营利组织的一种重要类型,在民办高等教育领域建立"公私伙伴关系",是必要的也是可能的,这对于民办高校的发展将起到积极的促进作用.     

民办高等教育中的公私合作伙伴关系

公私合作伙伴关系产生于新公共管理浪潮,该关系致力于充分发挥公共部门与私营部门的优势,从而提高公共产品服务的质量与效率。作为准公共产品服务,我国民办高等教育领域已经出现了公私合作伙伴关系的多种形式,主要表现在产权、融资和运营三个方面。随着我国政府公共服务职能的日益凸显,公私合作伙伴关系对破解我国民办高等教育发展中的难题,乃至探索高等教育发展的第三条道路,均将发挥积极作用。     

多元化视角中的高等教育产品属性

由于对高等教育产品消费过程的不同认识,经济学家们对高等教育的产品属性持有不同见解.自20世纪70年代中期以来,高等教育个人收益率和学费标准不断提高,高校的财政制度也发生了混合趋势,由此就难以将高等教育的产品属性归为公共产品、私人产品或准公共产品的一种.从所有权、办学经费、学费、学费盈余的所有权四个角度来看,高等教育的产品属性具有多元化的特征.     

公立与私立大学的特征:历史的视角

依照现代高等教育制度下大学的出现时序,可分为私立大学先发型国家和公立大学先发型国家。现有的公私分类法,主要以历史、法律和习惯上的标准来界定大学类型,但这很难对当下的"混合型"大学作出判断。回溯大学发展史,公立与私立大学的特征分析须基于两类大学的本质属性,以高等教育产品属性紧密相联的公共性或公益性的大小为评判标准,这一标准主要体现在大学办学目的、教学科研等方面。     

从高等教育产品的性质看高等教育的供给

从非竞争性和非排他性的角度来看,高等教育并不具备完全公共产品的属性,本文认为由政府提供的高等教育应该属于准公共产品的范畴,而由市场提供的高等教育则是私人产品.因为其所具有的外部性,要求政府在高等教育的供给上必须负有主要供给者的责任.同时也因为其不是纯粹的公共产品,就使市场供给具备了可能性和合理性.从我国的现实情况来看,由于高等教育供给相对不足,所以由政府和市场共同提供应该是在当前条件下的合理选择.     

论民办高校的公共组织属性

民办高校在我国高等教育大众化进程中扮演了重要角色,但因对其组织属性的界定与实际运行不一致,直接影响其发展.明确民办高校的公共组织属性,对改变人们观念,促进民办高校进一步发展意义重大.民办高校的非盈利、由学生学费和国家政策性投资而形成的资产的集体属性和公益性,决定了其公共组织属性.     

我国高等教育财政支出的经济学分析

本文依据公共财政学和制度变迁的理论和方法,从高等教育的准公共产品属性以及高等教育财政的公平和效率两个维度解析高等教育财政支出的规范标准.在此基础上,从制度、管理、模式、目标四个角度提出对策.     

新自由主义常识与全球性大学：高等教育中的知识商品化

知识是组织高等教育活动的基本材料和学术生活的基础。传统上作为公共产品的知识正在发生转向,其商品属性和交换价值趋于增强,成为兼具公共产品与私人产品性质的一种混合型产品。在高等教育领域,知识商品化具有多种表征形式,侵蚀了高等教育的公共性。本文结合哈贝马斯和布迪厄的理论框架,阐述了以下观点:知识的公共产品性质是高等教育的公益性、高校的公共形象和学术人的公共身份的基础,也是基础研究的核心价值观之一。坚持知识的公共产品性质,抵制知识商品化的消极影响,既是知识的内在要求也是高等教育的内在要求。     

知识商品化及其对高等教育公共性的侵蚀

知识是组织高等教育活动的基本材料和学术生活的基础。传统上作为公共产品的知识正在发生转向,其商品属性和交换价值趋于增强,成为兼具公共产品与私人产品性质的一种混合型产品。在高等教育领域,知识商品化具有多种表征形式,侵蚀了高等教育的公共性。本文结合哈贝马斯和布迪厄的理论框架,阐述了以下观点:知识的公共产品性质是高等教育的公益性、高校的公共形象和学术人的公共身份的基础,也是基础研究的核心价值观之一。坚持知识的公共产品性质,抵制知识商品化的消极影响,既是知识的内在要求也是高等教育的内在要求。     

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.     

公共经济视野下的高等教育产品

根据公共经济的分类,高等教育提供一部分纯公共产品,但主要提供准公共产品。纯公共产品是用于满足社会公共需要的产品和服务,准公共产品介于公共产品与私人产品之间。高等教育一方面具有公共产品受益的非排他性、效用的不可分割性和消费的非竞争性的特点;另一方面具有私人产品,可以买卖的商品性质,因此具有排他性、效用的可分割性和消费的竞争性特点;高等教育作为准公共产品,存在一系列经济和生产问题。     

留学生学费定价与资助政策研究

我国对留学生的高等教育服务具有较少的公共产品属性 ,可将其确定为私人产品。成本补偿政策不是留学生学费定价政策的理论基础。应允许高等学校根据市场需求状况、自身教育质量、教育理念、地区、专业等因素 ,自主确定留学生学费并允许赢利。对留学生的高等教育服务可能产生的外部收益具有可分割性 ,据此应取消公费与自费留学生的区别 ,并将目标外部收益分割操作 ,以确定留学生资助政策。据此思路 ,内地对港澳台学生的学费定价与资助政策也应调整     

Higher Education and Public Good

Policy debate about whether to maintain public subsidies for higher education has stimulated reconsideration of the public mission of higher education institutions, especially those that provide student places conferring private benefits. If the work of higher education institutions is defined simply as the aggregation of private interests, this evaporates the rationale for higher education institutions as distinctive social foundations with multiple public and private roles. The private benefits could be produced elsewhere. If that is all there is to higher education institutions, they could follow the Tudor monasteries into oblivion. But what is ‘public’ in higher education institutions? What could be ‘public’? What should be ‘public’? The paper reviews the main notions of ‘public’ (public goods in economics, public understood as collective good and Habermas' public sphere) noting the contested and politicised environment in which notions of ‘public’ must find purchase. A turn to global public goods offers the most promising strategy for re‐grounding the ‘public’ character of higher education.     

政府管制的两个限度与高等教育市场化

高等教育接近于私人物品,但具有公共性;这种公共性为政府的管制奠定了合法性的基础.公共性与管理方式奠定了政府管理高等教育的两个限度.两个限度的实质是政府、市场、社会与高校间的权力分割、责任分担的界线问题.所谓市场化就是要解决界线问题.但仅有市场化是不够的,非政府组织的存在是解决权力分割与责任分担界线问题的必要准备.此外,高等教育市场化的要旨应在于实现公私之间、公立内部之间的充分竞争.     

"教育是公共产品"吗?--对一个流行观点的质疑

作者从界定外部性这一基本的经济学概念出发 ,探讨了公共产品的判断标准及其与外部性的关系。教育的产品属性依赖于它被提供的方式 ,同一层次的教育既可能是公共产品 ,又可能是准公共产品 ,还可能是私人产品。教育作为公共产品只是政府补贴教育的一种特殊制度安排。在市场日益介入教育的情况下 ,政府应该积极探索新的教育补贴方式     

Privatization in education

The private/public divide in education has been with us for a long time, but only recently have we been alerted to the privatization of education. This means two things: first, making public education increasingly dependent on private funds, and, second, encouraging the development of private education by supporting it with public funds. The consequences of this are explored, but above all the paper challenges the ways in which we have traditionally drawn the distinction between public and private responsibilities. There is a need to re‐conceptualize the problem. In doing so, the paper raises underlying ethical and social issues which otherwise get ignored or dismissed. Above all, however, the need to tackle the issues is demonstrated, but as a consequence of privatization, the public sector of education becomes an impoverished substitute for what cannot be bought.     

Changing Understandings of 'Public' and 'Private' in Higher Education: the United Kingdom Case

Where does higher education in the United Kingdom sit today in terms of the public–private distinction, and what does that distinction mean in the higher education context? This article considers these questions and related issues, noting how the particular example of the United Kingdom compares with other systems internationally. Following a historical exploration of the meaning of ‘public’, ‘private’ and other related terms, an examination is undertaken of their currency during the post‐war period in the UK higher education system. This is exemplified through an analysis of the two major British higher education reports of the last 50 years – the Robbins Report of 1963 and the Dearing Report of 1997. It is argued that the contemporary UK higher education system could be seen as suffering from the worst of both worlds, trapped between and suffering from the seemingly contrary pressures of privatisation and nationalisation.     

Education as a global public good: the applicability and implications of a framework

This paper addresses a growing literature on global public goods theory, in particular the use of this framework to promote the equitable provision of goods and social services, such as basic education, on an international scale. Due to a lack of research into this theory’s applicability to education, the author aims to discern how such a framework might be applied, and its possible policy implications, focusing on universal access initiatives and the debate on private provision of schooling. The paper further questions the appropriateness of using global public goods theory given certain critiques.