Article review

T R E N D S / C A S E S

International trends in the public and private financing of higher education

Bikas C. Sanyal • D. Bruce Johnstone

Published online: 18 March 2011 � UNESCO IBE 2011

Abstract 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.

Keywords Higher education finance � Resource allocation � Cost sharing � Private higher education � Privatization of public higher education � Cross-border higher education � Student financial assistance

All over the world, higher education is at a crossroads today. Significant changes, both

qualitative and quantitative, are challenging and changing institutions of higher education

and the roles these institutions are playing in their economies and larger societies. Among

the most salient qualitative changes are the following five.

First, developments in information and communication technology (ICT) are revolu-

tionising our day-to-day lives as well as our colleges and universities. ICT is the source of

B. C. Sanyal (&) UNESCO International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA), Maison De L’Inde, 7(R) Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected]

D. B. Johnstone State University of New York at Buffalo, 459 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Prospects (2011) 41:157–175 DOI 10.1007/s11125-011-9180-z

scientific discoveries in such fields as agriculture, bioinformatics, biotechnology, genetic

engineering, material science, and disaster management, as well as new disciplines like

genomics, metabolic engineering, and solar and wind power technologies. ICT can add

significantly to the costs of higher education, but just as significantly, it has the potential to

lower costs and increase participation.

A second force affecting higher education is the phenomenon of globalization. Glob-

alization is a process of promoting and enhancing interconnectedness among individuals,

groups, institutions, companies, and countries; it is brought about by technological, eco-

nomic, and political changes. Two of the main sources of globalization are information and

innovation—both highly knowledge—intensive and easily portable, and thus both a

product of higher education and a source of much of its change (Sanyal 2008).

A third change is the emergence of knowledge-based societies and knowledge-based

economies, spread by globalization, which are compelling countries to expand access to

higher education and upgrade the quality of their universities and colleges. To create this

knowledge, knowledge-based economies need research universities that meet international

standards; they also need more nationally- and regionally-oriented technical universities

and colleges to train workers in applying this knowledge.

Fourth, the spread of liberal, market-friendly economic policies promotes economic

growth and facilitates the expansion of higher educational quality, capacity, and partici-

pation. However, in its more extreme form, which critics call neo-liberalism, this trend exacerbates social problems such as greed, excessive consumerism, unequal distribution of

wealth and income, and the exploitation of human, physical, and natural resources. Such

problems call for the inclusion of moral and ethical values in higher education pro-

grammes. Market-friendly societies are also changing the financial patterns of institutions

and systems of higher education through cost-sharing, commercialization, marketization,

and the spread of for-profit institutions.

A fifth qualitative change affecting higher education is the increasing concern for

sustainable and ecologically friendly economic development, which requires new behav-

iours, attitudes, and lifestyles from everyone. New knowledge and training capacities in

such fields as food security, water management, forestation, desalination, green technol-

ogy, alternative energy technologies, breakthrough technologies, and ‘‘bio-mimetics’’ all

depend upon higher education (Mountbatten-Windsor 2009; Venter 2007).

The above challenges require us to reassess the content, structure, delivery methods, and

other aspects of higher education programmes so they can turn out graduates with the

following skills (Sanyal 2008):

• exploratory skills to explore natural resources. • exploitation skills to produce those resources efficiently. • negotiating skills to establish fair terms of trade with dominant partners. • managerial skills to manage products and services effectively. • conservation skills to conserve resources for sustainable development, and finally • moral and ethical skills to achieve a just, equitable, and fair society.

At the same time, however, the massive quantitative expansion of higher education

poses an even more visible and daunting financial challenge. This expansion is driven first

of all by the underlying demographic increases in youth cohorts in many, although not all,

countries, especially in Asia (other than China and Japan), Latin America, and Africa, and

including many of the world’s poorest and already most populous countries, such as

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The impact that these demographic

increases have on higher educational enrolments is accelerated by the increased rates of

158 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

secondary school participation and graduation among these increasing youth cohorts.

Again, this rate is greatest in the very low income countries that are experiencing the

greatest increase in the growth of the youth cohorts.

The greater numbers of youth who are completing secondary school and wanting to go

on to some form of higher education is driven on the demand side by the students

themselves and their parents who recognize the high private returns to higher education, in

terms of both lifetime incomes and greater opportunities, status, and attendant social and

political influence. The supply of higher educational opportunities is also increasing—in

spite of the rising costs and the financial squeeze on public revenues—because govern-

ments are recognizing that higher education contributes to economic growth, political

stability, and other social returns. Finally, the supply of higher education has been

enhanced in many countries by growing private sectors and by increased cost-effectiveness

and accessibility through computing and information technology.

Enrolment in tertiary education in the whole world grew by 63% in under a decade,

from 92.5 million in 1999 to 150.5 million in 2007. In the developing countries it increased

by 92% during the same period, from 47.5 million to 91.3 million, and in the developed

countries by 22%, from 36.4 million to 44.4 million. The largest percentage increase

during that period has been in East Asia and the Pacific, at 102% from 22.9 million to 46.3

million. In this region, China has achieved the largest increase in both relative and absolute

terms at 295%, from 6.4 million to 25.3 million. This is followed by Sub-Saharan Africa

at 94%, from 2.1 million to 4.1 million. The South and West Asia region follows

Sub-Saharan Africa, increasing during this time period by 89%, from 9.8 million to

18.4 million. In Central and Eastern Europe, the increase was 68%, from 12.4 million

to 20.8 million, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean at 66%, from 10.7 million to

17.8 million. In Central Asia enrolment increased by 65%, from 1.2 million to 2.0 million.

In the Arab States the increase is 37%, from 5.2 million to 7.1 million—the lowest in the

developing world. Even in North America and Western Europe, where enrolments and

participation rates were already high, the percentage increase has been 21%, from 28.2

million to 34 million (UNESCO 2010).

Despite this massive expansion both of higher education enrolments and of participation

throughout the world, participation rates, as measured by the gross enrolment

ratios (GERs) in the developing world, are not yet large enough to accommodate the

rapidly increasing demand or need for higher education, as described above and noted in

Table 1.

While the developed countries had achieved a GER of 58% in 2007, the developing

countries had reached only 18%. Sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia have the

lowest participation rates, at 6% and 11% respectively. China, with the world’s largest

enrolment in higher education, had a participation rate of 23%, while the world average is

26%. As these figures indicate, the worldwide demand for higher education will continue

to grow.

Financial implications of change and growth

In combination, the needed qualitative changes in the content of higher education and

the huge increases in projected enrolments call for massive and continuing increases in

revenues. These increased revenues, in turn, must come from some combination of five

sources: (a) governments, mainly through taxes or governmental borrowing; (b) parents, though payments for tuition and student living costs; (c) students, through term-time and

International trends in the public and private financing 159

123

summer employment and borrowing; (d) philanthropists or donors, either individuals, foundations, or businesses, and through endowments as well as current giving; and

(e) businesses, as purchasers of services or corporate philanthropists, or as collectors of earmarked taxes that are then passed on to consumers of their products.

Cost-sharing is a term used to describe the fact that these higher educational costs are being shared among these parties—in a form of zero-sum game, where the loss of funding

from one source calls for an increase from one or more of the other sources. It also refers to

the worldwide trend of these costs being shifted from a dominant reliance on governments

to an increasing reliance on parents and students (Johnstone and Marcucci 2010). We turn

next to the single most important of these sources—government, or the state—to examine

the likelihood of the state being able to provide these increasing revenues.

The role of the state in funding higher education

Using data from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS 2010) on 104 countries, we

calculated the changes for the period 1999 to 2009 both in public higher education

expenditures per student and in GDP per capita. This ratio—of public expenditure per

student to the GDP per capita—is a rough measure of the capacity that states have to

accommodate the growth in higher education’s needs for revenue, controlling for the very

great country and regional differences in per capita GDP. We calculated the change in this

ratio for these countries at two points in time: 1999 and 2009. Table 2 shows, by region,

the number of states exhibiting increases or decreases in this key ratio over this time

period.

As Table 2 shows, in 81 out of the 104 countries, this key ratio dropped. All the

reporting Arab states and the South and West Asian countries showed a decrease, along

with 94.7% of the Latin America and Caribbean countries and 80% of the Central Asian

countries. The region where the lowest percentage of countries had a decreased ratio was

Sub-Saharan Africa at 65.2%. A World Bank (2010) report confirmed this finding for

Table 1 Growth in total enrolments and gross enrolment ratios, 1999 and 2007

Enrolment (in millions) Gross enrolment ratio (%)

Year 1999 2007 1999 2007

World 92.5 150.5 18 26

Developed countries 36.4 44.4 55 67

Developing countries 47.5 91.3 11 18

Arab states 5.2 7.1 19 22

Central and Eastern Europe 12.4 20.8 38 62

Central Asia 1.2 2.0 18 24

East Asia and Pacific 22.9 46.3 14 26

Latin America and the Caribbean 10.7 17.8 21 34

No. America and Western Europe 28.2 34.0 61 70

South and West Asia 9.8 18.4 7 11

Sub-Saharan Africa 2.1 4.1 4 6

Source: UNESCO (2010)

160 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

Sub-Saharan Africa: annual public expenditure per student as a percentage of GDP per

capita fell from 352.7% in 1990 to 292.7% in 2006 (p. 21). Although the points of time and

the coverage of the region vary, the trend is expected to continue in the same direction.

This supports the conclusion that in most regions of the world—and especially in the

developing world—states have far from adequate capacity to provide the financial

resources needed for the critical expansion of higher education.

The worldwide economic crisis starting in 2008 has aggravated the situation. The

world’s leading economies are still (as of December 2010) emerging from the worst

economic crisis since the Great Depression. This global economic downturn has adversely

affected the developing countries as well, through reductions in export earnings, remit-

tances, aid flows, and foreign direct investment. The financial impact on education has

been severe. The new government in the United Kingdom is proposing both to slash

university budgets and to increase tuition fees dramatically. Public institutions in the

United States, supported by the 50 states that must balance their budgets in the face of

declining tax revenues and are unable to borrow for operations, are also cutting budgets

and increasing tuition fees. Private universities in the United States, Japan, and other

countries with significant private sectors are losing applicants as middle-class families

suffer from static incomes and high unemployment. Even the wealthy universities in the

United States and the United Kingdom such as Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, and Yale

have lost billions of dollars from their endowments, necessitating commensurate cuts in

their operating budgets.

Two main factors explain why state revenues from taxation and borrowing cannot keep

up with higher education’s already high and very rapidly rising annual revenue needs, apart

from the fact that the global economic slowdown has reduced tax revenues in most

countries, though they should return with economic recovery. The first factor is the sheer

technical difficulty and expense of collecting taxes on property, commercial transactions,

and incomes. This difficulty is exacerbated by tax avoidance, which is made even more

difficult to combat by globalization and the ease of moving businesses and residences to

countries with lower taxes. The second factor inhibiting the availability of tax revenues for

higher education is especially serious in low-income countries that may be experiencing

Table 2 Number of countries exhibiting changes (? or -) in the ratio of public higher education expenditure per student to GDP per capita, by region

Region Increase Decrease Total % Decrease

Arab states 0 7 7 100.0

Central and Eastern Europe 4 10 14 71.4

Central Asia 1 4 5 80.0

East Asia and Pacific 3 8 11 72.7

Latin America/Caribbean 1 18 19 94.7

North America/Western Europe 6 14 20 70.0

South and West Asia 0 5 5 100.0

Sub-Saharan Africa 8 15 23 65.2

Total 23 81 104 77.9

Source: Table created by authors using data in UIS (2010, Table 19)

For each country, the year closest to 1999 was considered as the base year and that closest to 2009 as the final year

International trends in the public and private financing 161

123

the greatest enrolment pressures and therefore the greatest increase in needs for revenue.

This is the competition from other socially and politically compelling needs such as

elementary and secondary education, pubic health, housing, clean water, and improved

transportation, all of which need some of the limited available public revenue. For these

reasons, many countries are turning to the other four sources of revenue—and especially to

parents and students—to supplement the increasingly inadequate public resources for

higher education’s increasing revenue needs.

Cost-sharing in higher education

Many economists and policy analysts promote the idea of cost-sharing, or shifting some of

the increasing costs of higher education—including the institutional costs of instruction

and those for food, lodging, and other elements of student maintenance—from govern-

ments and taxpayers to parents and students. One argument for this is equity: in virtually

all societies, the benefits of higher education are realized disproportionately by the sons

and daughters of the better off and the more privileged, while the taxes to pay for the

increasingly costly higher education are borne by all citizens (and under some systems of

finance disproportionately by the poor). Proponents of at least some significant cost-sharing

also claim that charging some fees for tuition, food, and lodging makes for greater effi-

ciency, both in the provision of the higher education and in its consumption. But the more

compelling argument for cost-sharing may be the sheer need for revenue to supplement the

increasingly insufficient sources of public revenue. The position of UNESCO (2004) with

respect to the politically volatile issue of cost-sharing has been clearly, if subtly, stated as

follows: ‘‘With regard to inputs, the general consensus is that financial responsibilities

should be shared by all stakeholders. More concretely, increased contributions are expected

not only from the state but also from students and their families, and from industry and

business’’ (p. 13).

Seven principal forms of cost-sharing have been described, and we summarize them

here (Johnstone and Marcucci 2010; Johnstone 1986, 2004, 2006a, b).

The introduction of more than nominal tuition fees in public institutions of higher education. This was done in China in 1997, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic in 1998, Austria in 2001, and Germany in 2005. With devolution of the constituent countries

of the United Kingdom in 1999, Scotland first replaced up-front with deferred tuition fees, and then abandoned tuition payments altogether in 2008. England and Wales followed suit

by also shifting from up-front to deferred tuition fees. As of late 2010 they seem to be on

the verge of announcing a very large increase in these deferred fees that will be auto-

matically covered by larger student loans. In 2000, more than 20% of the total operating

budgets of Chinese higher education institutions were covered by tuition fees and other

fees paid by students (Arimoto 2006).

The introduction of a dual-track tuition charge, in which free or only nominal tuition fees are preserved for a restricted number of highly qualified students, usually on the basis of examination scores, while other less-qualified students are admitted within a fee-paying track. In this way, governments in which free or very-low-fee higher education is enshrined in a constitution or framework law (especially common in former communist countries)

can claim to be following the law (for these so-called regular students), while earning substantial amounts of revenue from the fee-paying students. Dual-track tuition is practised

in Russia, Eastern and Central Europe, India, Pakistan, and East African countries such as

Kenya and Uganda, among others.

162 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

A very sharp rise in tuition fees—that is, at rates in excess of the increase in actual per- student costs. Such a shift has been happening for more than a decade in the United States and Canada, and in late 2010 seems to be on the verge of happening in the constituent

countries of the United Kingdom. The Indian Institutes of Management and Technology

also increased their fees sharply in recent years. Such increases allow governments to shift

greater portions of the per-student costs onto parents and/or students, or allow pubic sector

institutions to increase enrolments without additional governmental revenue—or both.

The imposition of user charges, to be paid by parents and/or students, on food and lodging that in many countries was formerly provided free or at heavily subsidized rates. This form of cost-sharing may be more politically palatable than tuition payments in countries that have

traditionally provided free or very-low-fee higher education and are meeting resistance from

students and politicians to the rising fees for instruction—but still need the revenue from

some form of cost-sharing. User charges have increased in countries like Norway and

Sweden that continue to charge no tuition fees, as well as in Russia and Ethiopia, which

employ dual track tuition charges. (Oddly enough, the costs for student living are often

considerably higher—and may also be subject to greater yearly increases from inflation—

than are the generally moderate tuition charges of most countries, yet they seem to escape the

political controversies that so often accompany policies to increase tuition payments).

Decreasing the amounts of tax-supported student grants or scholarships and increasing the burden on parents or on the students themselves, who may be expected to assume either additional loans or additional employment or both. Tax support may be reduced by reducing the amount of the average grant, or the number of grants awarded, or both.

Similarly, the government may reduce its costs either by directly cutting back on either the

size or the number of maintenance grants, as in Russia and the United Kingdom, or by

freezing the grants in an otherwise inflationary economy, which diminishes the real value

(and the real cost to the government), as in Morocco. Or, the proportion of tax support in

the student financial assistance package may be reduced through a shift in the form of

student assistance from grants to loans, as in the United Kingdom and the United States.

A decrease in the subsidy cost of the average student loan, either through an increase in the interest rates that student borrowers pay, or an increase in the cost recovery of student loans through better servicing and collecting. For example, collections have been out- sourced, and thus improved, in South Africa and Rwanda. In the United States, certain

(mainly short-cycle, for-profit) colleges with historically high rates of borrower default have

been removed from the list of institutions whose students are eligible for guaranteed loans.

The official encouragement of tuition-dependent private institutions, both non-profit and for-profit, sometimes combined with state subsidies for capital costs, student financial assis- tance, or even operating expenditures. Governments are increasingly recognizing not only that some form or forms of cost-sharing are necessary, but that private institutions can often offer

the same educational benefits for fewer tax dollars, and can even provide models of efficiency

and social responsiveness that benefit the states’ public institutions. In fact, one of the most

striking trends in higher education worldwide has been the growth of private higher education,

both non-profit and for-profit. We discuss this trend in more detail in the next section.

The worldwide growth of private higher education

According to one estimate, 30% of world higher education enrolment is now private

(Bjarnason et al. 2009, p. 8), while in the 1960s and 1970s little existed outside the United

States, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and some countries in Latin America. This growth of

International trends in the public and private financing 163

123

private higher education has been the result not only of increased demand, as discussed

above, but also of differentiated demand in many countries, where government provision of higher education may not be meeting the demand, for example, for religious education

or short-term training in the areas of greatest employment growth such as business or

computer science, or English language instruction. But private higher education and the

reasons for its growth (or failure to grow) vary widely.

Private colleges and universities in the United States, for example, include many of the

highest priced and most elite institutions, supported financially through a range of sources:

large endowments, generous annual donations, and government-provided student financial

assistance that is fully portable to private institutions. Moreover, the United States has a long

history of students and their families paying tuition fees, a middle and upper-middle class

that can afford to do so, and a culture that accepts the financial responsibility of parents, if

financially able, for much of the cost of their children’s higher education. In other countries,

particularly in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, the shift of increasing numbers of students to

the private sector is furthered by the imposition of ceilings on enrolments in the low-fee or

free public universities. This is generally making the public sector more accommodating to

the better prepared students—who are thus becoming more of an elite sector—and mean-

while channelling more and more students into the demand-absorbing private sector.

Japan, the Republic of Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil and some other countries in

Latin America reflect policies that have shifted costs to parents and students by deliberately

limiting the public sector and encouraging a growing, generally demand-absorbing, private

sector. In Asia, based on an average for the period 2001–2007, Japan had the largest share

of private enrolment at 77%, while Kyrgyzstan had the lowest at 7%. Malaysia,

Kazakhstan, and the Islamic Republic of Iran were roughly one-half private. The Republic

of Korea, Indonesia, and the Philippines were over 70% private. India had 31% private

enrolment, while China had 11%. In the Latin American and Caribbean region, Chile had

the highest share of private enrolment in the period 2002–2007 at 77.6%, followed by

Brazil at 74.6%. El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Peru had more than half private enrolment.

Cuba has none. In Europe, and based on information available from 2003 to 2009, only

Cyprus had more than half of its enrolment private at 67%. All the other countries had less

than 35%, with Slovenia having only 3%. In Africa, from 2003 to 2008, Gabon had the

highest private enrolment at 47%, followed by Mozambique and Ethiopia at 32% and 24%

respectively. South Africa and Nigeria had the lowest share of total enrolment in private

colleges and universities, at 4% (Bjarnason et al. 2009).

Among the Arab states, private higher education has been offered on a very small, but

prominent, scale for many years by the American universities of Egypt, Jordan, and

Lebanon. Now, governments are promoting private higher education in a planned way

throughout the Middle East, often in partnership with European and American universities

and occasionally with World Bank support, such as in Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,

Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (Sanyal 1998). While the number of private insti-

tutions worldwide has increased very rapidly, most of them are small. In virtually all

countries, the ratio of private to public institutions is greater than the ratio of private to

public enrolment—demonstrating that most private institutions are relatively small.

Public and private financing of higher education

The growth of private higher education, and the increasing reliance of public universities

and colleges on tuition payments and more nearly break-even fees for food and lodging,

164 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

are deeply contested. However, the concepts of private and privatization, when used in connection with institutions of higher education, are complex and easily misunderstood.

Private means privately owned. It may be a non-profit entity; if so, ownership of the college or university is vested in a governing board, or trustees, who do not share in profits,

but may share in some of the liabilities, and the institution is generally accorded significant

tax advantages. It may also be a for-profit entity, owned, like any for-profit enterprise, either by a single individual, a group of individuals, or stockholders of a corporation.

A public college or university, on the other hand, is owned by the state, although this

public ownership says little about the degree of public control. Thus, a public university may be like any other governmental agency, with day-to-day control by a government

ministry and employees (members of the faculty) classified as civil servants. On the other

hand, this public ownership may take the form of a public corporation: still publicly

owned, but with substantial autonomy, little or no day-to-day government control, and the

ability to execute contracts, hire its own faculty and staff, and otherwise operate much like

a private non-profit corporation. Public universities are increasingly moving away from the

public agency model and toward the public corporation model, especially in the advanced industrialized countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and even

France, as of 2010 amid much controversy.

Neither public ownership nor public control, however, necessarily means total financial

dependence on the government. Public institutions can be substantially privately funded

through tuition payments, grants and contracts, and even philanthropy, as they increasingly

are in the United States. At the same time, higher educational institutions that are private

and non-profit can be substantially dependent on governmental financing. State financing

of private universities can take many forms, from direct annual appropriations in support of

operations (that is, just like public institutions), to more indirect forms of support. For

example, the faculty and the institution may be eligible for competitive government grants,

and students may be eligible for publicly funded grants and loans. Universities can also get

support for capital construction and land acquisition, along with government guarantees

and other forms of subsidy for institutional borrowing, and tax advantages for philan-

thropy. In short, public institutions almost everywhere have become more privatized, with

tuition payments, philanthropy, and more managerial autonomy, at the same time as pri-

vate institutions in many countries have become dependent on governments and more and

more public in their missions.

State financing of otherwise (non-profit) privately-owned institutions may come in

stages. The nominally private crown-chartered universities of Britain such as Cambridge

and Oxford became virtual public corporations after World War II, as the government took over almost all of the current operating financing (that is, before tuition payments were re-

introduced in 1998). It also assumed control over most aspects of operations, but retained

most of the traditional prerogatives of public corporations, such as the ability to select their

own leaders, hire and set the key terms and conditions of their faculty and staff, hold their

own assets, and invest and assume debt. The constitutionally separate public universities of

some U.S. states are similar: they are quite financially dependent on state financing, but

have constitutional guarantees of autonomy from the state governments in matters of

leadership, management, employment, curriculum, ownership of assets, and the right to

make contracts, issue debt, and sue and be sued like any private corporation. The

dependence of the public universities on annual state appropriations for substantial portions

of their operating expenditures, however, gives governments in any country very consid-

erable leverage over the affairs of any public university—even those with the nominal

autonomy of a public corporation.

International trends in the public and private financing 165

123

In countries where private institutions have only emerged in the twentieth ,

or twenty-

first century, other institutions, including Protestant churches, Roman Catholic religious

orders, and other non-profit entities, may provide the initial investment, capital financing,

and organization, with operating expenditures covered by tuition payments. Later, the

state may intervene, taking over more of the financial responsibility for operations—

often as the necessary tuition payments become too onerous to sustain enrolments—and

thus inevitably assuming more day-to-day control. Even more recent examples in China

are public universities themselves forming non-profit corporate affiliates that can become

free of governmental restrictions, for example on faculty and staff wages and salaries as

well as tuition payments. These become like the self-paying tracks within the public

universities of many formerly socialist countries in the former Soviet Union, East and

Central Europe, East Africa, and elsewhere—but with even more autonomy from gov-

ernmental regulations.

Several Asian countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Philippines,

have encouraged the establishment of a significant number of private institutions by pro-

viding regular annual state operating support. Japanese private colleges and universities

also have had regular state operating support—but with commensurate public control over

their tuition fees and enrolments. Since 2004 the national universities in Japan have been

turned into public corporations, to be run as semi-independent administrative bodies with

much greater autonomy, including major authority over employment and the setting of

tuition amounts, but with decreasing state revenue, and the requirement of accountability

for results. In Europe, an OECD (2004, p. 290) report shows that 69.6% of private

enrolment in the Netherlands and 59.6% of that in Belgium was covered by government

support. Among the reporting non-OECD countries, Israel leads with 76.3% in govern-

ment-supported private tertiary education, followed by Chile at 22.1%. Recently, the

government of Tunisia set up a legal framework to encourage private investment in higher

education; this has led to the creation of a large number of private institutions with

government support (Zaiem 2005).

The lines demarcating public and private in reference to institutions of higher edu-

cation, then, have become almost impossibly blurred. Thus, we avoid trying to distin-

guish unambiguously between private and public institutions of higher education, or even, within institutions that seem to be private, to differentiate unambiguously between

private non-profit and private for-profit. Instead, it may be more useful to look for continua along five public and private dimensions of institutional variation. These are:

(1) ownership; (2) purpose or mission; (3) source of revenue; (4) degree of state control

and regulation (e.g. over the setting of tuition amounts or the terms and conditions of

faculty and staff employment); and (5) the prevailing norms and values of the institution.

This view provides the perspective shown in Table 3, in which we portray public and private as tendencies, or positions on the continua of privatization, for each of these five dimensions.

In this light, two issues are most critical for all governments with regard to their colleges

and universities: (1) the appropriate amount of tax support (both to institutions and to students) relative to all the other competing claims on public revenues; and (2) the

appropriate degree of governmental control, or governmental steering, over colleges and universities, whether public agencies, public corporations, or private institutions, either

non-profit or for-profit. Those who tend to resist the advancement of private higher edu-

cation, and what they perceive as an excessive privatisation of public universities and

colleges, generally emphasize five points:

166 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

• Higher education is mainly a public good, benefitting all members of society not only through increased productivity and economic growth, but also contributing to political,

social and cultural betterment (Vossensteyn 2004).

• Social rates of return, computed on the basis of the external monetary effects alone, account for some 6% to 15% for some developed countries (Blöndal et al. 2002).

Similar evidence exists for developing countries. The addition of significant non-

monetary benefits such as the role of higher education in strengthening civil societies,

political stability, social cohesion and tolerance, and effective democracies, strengthens

the case for state funding and state control.

• Disciplines and programmes that are strategic for the country’s sustainable develop- ment but may not be economically attractive in the short term need to be financed in

large part by the state, whether in private or public universities.

• Without state support, neither banks, nor students, nor parents will have sufficient incentive to invest in higher education in its imperfect market. The benefits of the

investment are not known until after graduation.

• Without state intervention, students from disadvantaged groups may not be able to pursue higher education.

At the same time, others argue for increasing reliance on private funding—both for

some tuition charges in the public sector and for the encouragement of, and state financial

support to, private colleges and universities, as well as for substantial autonomy for

institutions, whether public or private. They make four points:

Table 3 Privatization in higher education as direction or tendency on multiple dimensions

Dimension ;

High ‘‘publicness’’ / Continua of privatization ? High ‘‘privateness’’

Mission or purpose

Serves a clear ‘‘public’’ mission as determined by the state

Mission is avowedly both public and private, but as defined more by the institution

Mission is mainly to respond to students’ private interests, mainly vocational

Mission clearly serves private interests of students, clients, and owners

Ownership Publicly owned: can be altered or even closed by state like any other state entity or agency

Public corporation: public with private characteristics or constitutional entity

Private non-profit: clearly private but with public accountability

Private for-profit: owned by individual proprietor, partners, or stockholders

Source of revenue

Dependent on public, or tax, revenue

Mainly public, but some tuition fees, or ‘‘cost sharing’’

Dependent on tuition fees and donations; some public aid, e.g. to needy students

Tuition fee- dependent

Control by government

High state control, as in agency or ministry

Subject to controls, but less than other state agencies

High degree of autonomy; control limited to oversight

Controls limited to those over any other business

Norms of management

Academic norms; shared governance, antiauthoritarianism

Academic norms, but acceptance of need for effective management

Limited homage to academic norms; high management control

Operated like a business; norms from management

International trends in the public and private financing 167

123

• The state subsidy itself is based on the taxes of all tax-paying citizens, but in all countries the students (that is, the primary beneficiaries) are disproportionately from

higher socio-economic classes or from privileged ethnic or linguistic groups. The

incidence of taxation falling on all citizens, including the poorest, is especially

pronounced when taxes are paid by consumers, whether directly as in sales or con-

sumption taxes, or indirectly as in taxes on businesses that are passed on to consumers,

such as taxes on electricity, fuel, or food. This is especially the case when the state is

borrowing and effectively printing the money, which simply causes inflation that falls

even more heavily on the poor and those with fixed incomes. In short, in most countries

all citizens in most countries pay for the high costs of higher education, but the

beneficiaries are disproportionately from the more privileged groups.

• Higher education has monetary benefits for the individuals pursuing it, in the form of higher private rates of return; among the OECD countries, these rates vary from 8% in

Japan to 18% in the United Kingdom (Blöndal et al. 2002).

• Higher education also provides considerable non-monetary benefits, including greater prestige, more choices of jobs and places to live, and generally a better quality of life.

• Finally, as we discussed above, state (mainly tax) funding in almost all countries simply cannot rise fast enough to keep up with the rapidly rising costs and revenue

demands of higher education. This is especially the case in the low-income countries

that are experiencing the fastest rise in potential enrolments and the greatest

competition for the state’s limited revenues.

For-profit higher education

Above we referred to the private higher education that has been growing throughout most

of the world (albeit less in Europe than elsewhere) and which increasingly has the blessing,

and frequently the direct and indirect financial support, of the state. This education is

legally and at least nominally non-profit. However, higher education that is avowedly and

legally for-profit has also been growing in many countries. This growth has been fuelled by

the soaring demand for higher education, by the limitations on both the capacity and

sometimes the programs offered in the public and non-profit sectors, and by the relatively

high per-student costs of traditional public and non-profit private higher education.

Aggressively efficient private management can offer instruction at very low costs per

student when it is motivated by profits, able to avoid many of the regulatory burdens of

state higher education, unencumbered by faculty unions or traditions of academic gover-

nance, able to selectively offer programs only in low-cost, high-demand fields, and enabled

by new instructional technologies. In the United States, private for-profit institutions can

even benefit from the same kind of tax-supported student financial assistance that is given

to students in the private non-profit sector.

Although for-profit higher education—granting both degrees and short-term certifi-

cates—has grown especially rapidly in the United States, examples are fairly common in

other countries. Legislation to permit for-profit higher education was passed in the United

Kingdom in 2004 and in Australia in 2005. Japan started experimenting with it in 2004.

Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore are also promoting for-profit higher education as

a part of state plans for higher education self-sufficiency, to cite only some examples

(Garrett 2007). In 1999, the People’s Republic of China saw its first publicly listed

for-profit post-secondary education services company with fully accredited universities.

168 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

Since then, it has provided degree programmes to over 21,000 on campus students and

e-learning services to 141,000 students through 15 university partners in an e-learning

network (SUMFOLIO 2009). China’s ‘‘Law for the facilitation of private schools’’,

enacted in 2002, does not encourage making a profit as the primary aim, but does not

explicitly prohibit it either (Cheng 2009). Among for-profit higher education providers, the

University of Phoenix, founded in 1976, stands out in the size of its domain, hosting 13

publicly-held higher education firms in the United States and 19 others in countries around

the world including China, India, Japan, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore.

Courses are offered on-line, and include on-campus interactions in more than 200 locations

for 100 degree programmes at the associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels

(Cheng 2009). This is now the largest college in the United States, approaching half a

million students, with revenues of almost US $4 billion (Smith 2010). The growth of for-profit higher education in the United States has been fuelled by

government funds. For example, the Pell Grant, a post-secondary educational federal grant

program sponsored by the United States Department of Education, provided 24% of its US

$18.3 billion to profit-making institutions in 2008, with the for-profit University of Phoenix

collecting the largest amount at US $656.9 million (SLBA 2010). Another important for-

profit higher education company is India’s National Institute for Information Technology

(NIIT) Limited. Listed on India’s National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock

Exchange, it is one of the world’s largest information technology training and education

companies, with 5 million students in classroom and on-line education across 20 states

within India and 30 countries around the world, including more than 100 educational

centres set up in China and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region. The United States,

Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, China, Indonesia, South Africa, and Nigeria are

among the 29 countries where NIIT Limited has set up centres. In 2009, it, and its

subsidiaries, had annual revenue of some US $255 million (NIIT Limited 2009).

The principal advantages attributed to for-profit higher education are those attributed to

all forms of private enterprise in market economies: their presumably greater efficiency

and responsiveness to the fast-changing demands of both students and job markets. For-

profit higher education—with some important exceptions such as the University of Phoenix

in the United States—generally does not attempt to compete directly with traditional

established universities, either public or private non-profit. Rather, for-profit institutions

more commonly compete aggressively in the short- cycle, vocational, non-degree market

for job-relevant skills, often catering to those who are disadvantaged or otherwise

underserved, as well as to adults. They may thrive where the public institutions have failed

to provide commensurately useful and job-relevant programs. The profit motive encour-

ages both efficiency and accountability. Finally, as with all tuition fee-supported higher

education, the costs to the state are said to be less, although the non-state revenue

advantage of cost-sharing can come as easily from private non-profit higher education. And

in either case, the savings to the state are lessened by amounts that the state may contribute,

as in the United States, to the tuition fees via governmentally provided financial assistance

to students.

At the same time, for-profit higher education is frequently criticized for overly

aggressive recruitment of unqualified students, for the lack of professionalism and cur-

ricular authority in its academic staffs, and for what are sometimes viewed as excessive

profits to owners and management—especially when some or even most of the revenue

taken as profit is actually from taxpayers. In the United States, SLBA (2010), the Student

Loan Borrower Assistance project of the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), claims

that the U.S. for-profit sector is more vulnerable to corruption and fraud. In December 2009

International trends in the public and private financing 169

123

the owner of the University of Phoenix agreed to pay over US $78 million to settle a false

claims lawsuit for violating student aid laws. The NCLC also points out that while students

at for-profit institutions borrow more than students at public or non-profit institutions, their

completion rate is lower, contributing to the higher incidence both of unmanageable debts

and of costly defaults.

Cross-border higher education and its financial implications

Cross-border education refers to the movement of students, researchers, instructors,

knowledge, learning materials, and programmes across national/regional or geographic

borders for educational purposes (Knight 2006). The phenomenon is as old as civilisation.

However, the volume and forms of cross border higher education have increased dra-

matically in the past two decades. The forms have always included students crossing

borders to other countries for degrees, for short-term academic experiences (either with or

without transferable degree credits, referred to in the United states as study abroad), or for dissertation or post-doctoral research. These traditional forms have increased with the

burgeoning worldwide demand for higher education, especially in low- and middle-income

countries where the demand, driven by demographics and surging secondary school

completion, is greatly exceeding the domestic capacity. The demand is increasing espe-

cially in China, India, and other Asian countries, as well as countries in the Middle East

and North African Region where rising incomes, both of states and families, provide the

financial wherewithal to send students to universities in the wealthy nations of the OECD,

and especially to nations that can provide instruction in English, an attribute that privileges

the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In recent years, much of cross-border higher education has taken a commercial turn: as a

source of profits, or export earnings. The cross-border movement of students for profit,

especially those who can afford the higher tuition fees, frequently charged to students from

other countries, is furthered by the increasingly aggressive recruitment of students by the

receiving, or providing, countries, which view the providing of such education as a sig-

nificant source of export revenue. This for-profit cross-border higher education increased

from 1.64 million students in 1999 to 2.45 million in 2004 (Bashir 2007). In 2004, the most

important region that was sending students, thus importing education, was East Asia and the Pacific, with 720,000 students sent elsewhere for higher education, followed by Central

and Eastern Europe sending out some 300,000. In 2004, the country that was most sig-

nificant among these student-sending, or importing, countries was China, which sent some

343,000 students for study abroad, followed by India, which sent some 124,000. During

this period, the three countries receiving the most students, and thus exporting the most education, were the United States, which received 573,000, the United Kingdom, which

received 300,000, and Australia, which received 167,000 (UIS 2006).

Five English-speaking countries—the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, New

Zealand, and Canada—have increased their income from the export of higher education in

two ways. First, they recruit students who will pay full tuition fees and other fees; second,

they offer programmes to foreign students in their home countries through a variety of

delivery modes, charging very high fees. These and other exporting countries are investing

in international campaigns to market their domestic programmes and services; their

ministries of trade, commerce, and foreign affairs are selling their educational programmes

abroad like any other exportable commodity. In 2005, the five higher education exporters

mentioned above received US $28 billion, which was almost eight times the total

170 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

commitments these countries made to bilateral and multi-lateral aid for higher education.

The United States alone received US $14.1 billion, with England and Australia accounting

for US $6.1 billion and US $5.6 billion respectively. In 2008, US higher education exports

had reached $17.8 billion (Varghese 2010).

In addition to the aggressive marketing and recruitment, four other factors are pro-

moting the increase in cross-border higher education as an export for profit:

• The countries that receive students (i.e., that export education) are increasingly searching for other revenue to make up for declining state support in their public

sectors. A significant example was the decision of the United Kingdom, before tuition

payments were inaugurated for domestic students, to begin charging full tuition fees to

international students—even from Commonwealth countries—who had earlier not had

to pay.

• In most of the receiving (exporting) countries, private higher education—both non- profit and for-profit—tends to be even more aggressive and successful in its marketing

and recruitment of international students than the public sectors. For-profit cross-border

higher education includes such publicly traded companies as Apollo, Career Education

Services, University of Phoenix, and Sylvan Learning Systems, in the United States;

Informatics in Singapore; NIIT, Tata Infotech, and APTECH in India; and corporate

universities such as those run by Motorola and Toyota (Knight 2006).

• The receiving (exporting) countries are taking their programs into the sending (importing) countries via branch campuses rather than by recruiting students; they are

also adding lodging and travel to the expenses that families must bear.

• Finally, they are exporting cross-border higher education by using instructional technology, which saves the expense of lodging and travel and of establishing branch

campuses.

Beyond attracting fee-paying students from other countries as a form of export earnings,

or profit, many countries have traditionally sought to attract students and scholars from

other countries through grants and travel stipends. These may be a form of state, or even

private, philanthropy, or foreign aid, or a public expenditure for the purpose of spreading

political, ideological, or cultural influence. Such cross-border higher education is financed

mostly by bilateral aid as overseas development assistance (ODA); multi-lateral aid con-

stituted only about 3% of total ODA for higher education (Bashir 2007, Table 7). The

richer countries support higher education in poorer countries by providing scholarships or

by sending academic staff, and instructional and research materials. Donor countries

benefit from these forms of assistance in part by knowing, and being able to influence, what

their aid is procuring. Donor countries also benefit from skilled migration, favourable

conditions for foreign investment, foreign markets for their goods and services, and the

advancement of their geo-political interests. Such ODA for higher education increased

from US $1.34 billion in 1999 to US $3.29 billion in 2004. In that year, France, with its

238,000 overseas students, Germany (with 260,000), and Japan together contributed more

than 80% of the total bilateral aid for cross-border higher education (Bashir 2007).

Other examples of such non-profit, philanthropic and/or politically motivated, cross-

border higher education assistance include these six:

• The American Fulbright Program is jointly financed by the U.S. State Department and the participating countries.

• The Erasmus Program of the European Union (EU) seeks to promote cross-border higher education throughout the EU.

International trends in the public and private financing 171

123

• The EU’s Erasmus Mundus Program provides assistance to non-EU students enrolling in advanced professional programs in consortia of European universities.

• China offers scholarships to students from Africa and other regions it sees as geo- politically important.

• Several of the smaller Gulf states have invested in creating academic cities to attract students from elsewhere in the Islamic world.

• The former Soviet Union once offered generous scholarships to students from developing countries.

Countries seeking to advance their universities in the rankings of so-called world class universities also seek to attract more international students as some of the ranking formulas

include the proportion of students from other countries. Finally, as a further example of

self-interested but non-commercial motives, countries facing a demographic decline in

their own youth cohorts—Japan being a prime example—may seek increasing numbers of

international students in order to maintain their overall enrolments in higher education, in

addition to all the other reasons for seeking students from abroad.

Conclusions: Strategies for public and private financing of higher education

The worldwide condition of higher education is one of increasing austerity. On the one

hand, costs are high and rising, as are the consequent revenue needs, driven by the social

and economic needs for higher education in our increasingly globalized world economy.

Compounding this are the political pressures of surging popular demand for admittance

into colleges and universities that are generally already overcrowded. On the other hand,

even in combination, public and private revenues cannot entirely meet these needs.

Compounding this situation is the continued pervasive poverty throughout the world and

the socially and politically compelling competition for limited public revenues. To make

the situation even more grave, both of these situations—higher education’s increasing

needs for revenue, and the limitations of available public and private revenues—are most

dire in developing countries.

The solutions, then, are clear in concept, although fraught with difficulties in practice.

Efforts to finance higher education—especially in low- and middle-income countries—

must aim to meet eight goals.

1. Maintain public tax support—in the face of all of the other competing claims on scarce

public revenues.

2. Achieve greater efficiencies, in part by granting public universities and colleges more

managerial autonomy—in spite of almost inevitable opposition from politicians,

faculty, staff, and students, and in spite of the fact that most cost-cutting measures

have already been implemented.

3. Additionally, achieve greater efficiencies by rationalizing the public budgeting of all

colleges and universities, building in incentives to reallocate resources and invest in

new programmes (Salmi and Hauptman 2006; Sanyal 1995; Sanyal and Martin 1998,

2006).

4. Diversify the public institutions, simultaneously increasing the resources (and

efficiency) of a select number of research universities that can be dedicated to the

creation of knowledge and the preservation of free inquiry. At the same time, give

relatively more attention and resources to the institutions that are dedicated primarily

to expanding participation in the future job market.

172 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

5. Increase private revenues by charging modest tuition fees and other fees in public

universities—also in spite of the inevitable political opposition.

6. In countries that have not already done so, encourage, and modestly support, a growing

private higher educational sector that can relieve some of the enrolment pressure, and

provide forms of higher education that the public sector either cannot or will not.

7. Implement financial assistance in the form of means-tested grants and student loans

that can cost-effectively maintain and even increase higher educational access and

participation in the face of the almost inevitably rising privately-borne costs mentioned

above.

8. Recognize that a substantial improvement of access to and participation in higher

education—especially among the very poor, those in remote regions, and those of

ethnic and linguistic minority groups—must begin with an improvement of public

middle and secondary education.

Although these policy solutions will differ in their applicability and urgency in different countries, and although all of these recommendations must be considered in light of

radically different political, economic, and cultural realities on the ground, they are, in principle, applicable to virtually all countries regardless of their stage of economic

development or prevailing political and economic system. Most importantly, these policies

need the support and participation of the World’s multinational agencies such as UNESCO,

OECD, the international development banks, international scholars and policy analysts,

and a host of other NGOs dedicated to strengthening higher education.

References

Arimoto, A. (2006). Structure and functions of financing Asian higher education. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (Ed.), Higher education in the world: The financing of universities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bashir, S. (2007). Trends in international trade in higher education: Implications and options for developing countries. Education Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Bjarnason, S., Cheng, K.-M., Fielden, J., Lemaitre, M. J., Levy, D., & Varghese, N. V. (Eds.) (2009). A new dynamic: Private higher education. Background document prepared for the World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Blöndal, S., Field, S., & Girouard, N. (2002). Investment in human capital through upper-secondary and tertiary education. OECD Economic Studies. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/52/264 0202.pdf.

Cheng, K.-M. (2009). Public-private partnership. In S. Bjarnason, K.-M. Cheng, J. Fielden, M. J. Lemaitre, D. Levy, & N. V. Varghese (Eds.), A new dynamic: Private higher education. Background document prepared for the World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Garrett, R. (2007). For-profit higher education internationally: Trends and issues. Paper presented at the CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) International Meeting, February 1, 2007, Washington, DC.

Johnstone, D. B. (1986). Sharing the costs of higher education: Student financial assistance in the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Sweden, and the United States. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost-sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403–410.

Johnstone, D. B. (2006a). Financing higher education: Cost-sharing in international perspective. Boston/ Rotterdam: Boston College Center for International Higher Education/Sense Publishers.

Johnstone, D. B. (2006b). Higher education accessibility and financial viability: The role of student loans. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (Ed.), Higher education in the world: The financing of universities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

International trends in the public and private financing 173

123

Johnstone, D. B., & Marcucci, P. (2010). Financing higher education in international perspective: Who pays? Who should pay?. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Knight, J. (2006). Commercial cross-border education: Implications for financing higher education. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (Ed.), Higher education in the world: The financing of universities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mountbatten-Windsor, C. (HRH the Prince of Wales) (2009). Facing the future. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, July 8, 2009, London. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speechesandarticles/the_richard_ dimbleby_lecture_titled_facing_the_future_as_del_573388579.html.

NIIT Limited (2009). Annual report 2008–2009. Gurgaon, India: NIIT. http://www.nit.com/investo rrelations/consolidated%20Results/Report08-09pdf.

OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2004). Education at a glance, 2004: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_2649_201185_33712 135_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Salmi, J., & Hauptman, A. W. (2006). Resource allocation mechanisms in tertiary education: A typology and an assessment. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (Ed.), Higher education in the world: The financing of universities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sanyal, B. C. (1995). Innovations in university management. Paris: UNESCO IIEP. Sanyal, B. C. (1998). Diversification of sources and the role of privatisation in financing higher education in

the Arab region. Paper presented at the Regional Conference on Higher Education for the Arab Region, Beirut, 2–5 March, 1998. Paris: UNESCO IIEP.

Sanyal, B. C. (2008). Globalisation and higher education: implications for India. In: Convocation address delivered on the occasion of the conferment of Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa), 21st convocation, University of Kalyani, India.

Sanyal, B. C., & Martin, M. (1998). New strategies for the management of finance in universities. Prospects, 38(3), 429–441.

Sanyal, B. C., & Martin, M. (2006). Financing higher education: International perspectives. In Global University Network for Innovation (GUNI) (Ed.), Higher education in the world: The financing of universities. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

SLBA [Student Loan Borrower Assistance] (2010). For-profit higher education by the numbers. http://www. studentloanborrowerassistance.org/blogs/wp-content/www.studentloanborrowerassistance.org/uploads/ 2007/03/BytheNumbersJan2010.pdf.

Smith, M. (2010). College, Inc. [Program on WGBH television series Frontline]. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/.

SUMFOLIO (2009). China casts smart bet on for-profit education in China. http://sumfolio.com/chinacasts - smart-bet-on-for-profit-education-in-china-076.

UIS [UNESCO Institute for Statistics] (2006). Global education digest. Montreal: UIS. UIS [UNESCO Institute for Statistics] (2010). Data centre, Predefined tables, education. Montreal: UIS.

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/ReportFolders/ReportFolders.aspx. UNESCO (2004). Final report of the meeting of higher education partners at World Conference on Higher

Education ?5. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001352/135213e.pdf. UNESCO (2010). EFA global monitoring report 2010: Reaching the marginalized. Paris: UNESCO. Varghese, N. V. (2010). Higher education and the global economic crisis. IAU Horizons, 16(1), 12–13. Venter, J. C. (2007). A DNA driven world. The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, December 4, 2007, London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/12_december/05/dimbleby.shtml. Vossensteyn, H. (2004). Fiscal stress: Worldwide trends in higher education finance. NASFAA Journal of

Student Financial Aid, 34(1), 39–55. World Bank (2010). Financing higher education in Africa. Washington DC: The World Bank. Zaiem, M. H. (2005). Current situation and prospects for higher education funding in Tunisia. IAU Horizons,

11(1), 8.

Author Biographies

Bikas C. Sanyal (India) After directing the higher education programmes of the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) for almost three decades, Dr. Sanyal served as special adviser to the UNESCO director general in 1999 and special advisor to the IIEP from 2000 to 2005. An editor of the four volumes of the Higher Education in the World Series published by Palgrave Macmillan from 2006 to 2009, he authored or co-authored more than thirty monographs and studies on higher education for member states of UNESCO. He was appointed a member of the Governing Board of the UNESCO International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA) in 2005 and was elected its vice chairman in 2008.

174 B. C. Sanyal, D. B. Johnstone

123

D. Bruce Johnstone (USA) is Distinguished Service Professor of Higher and Comparative Education Emeritus at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo and director of the International Comparative Higher Education, Finance, and Accessibility Project. His principal scholarship is in international comparative higher education, and higher education finance, governance, and policy formation, and he is the author of many books, monographs, articles, and chapters on these topics. Before moving to SUNY Buffalo, he held the posts of vice president for administration at the University of Pennsylvania, president of the State University College of Buffalo, and chancellor of the SUNY system. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Harvard and a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

International trends in the public and private financing 175

123

Copyright of Prospects (00331538) is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.