IB Revija Revija za strokovna in metodološka vprašanja trajnostnega razvoja ISSN 1318-2803 št. 1 / letnik XLII / 2008 Glavna in odgovorna urednica: dr. Alenka Kajzer Tehnična urednica: Urška Sodja Uredniški odbor: dr. Pavle Gmeiner dr. Drago Kos mag. Stanka Kukar dr. Marjan Ravbar doc. dr. Matija Rojec prof. dr. Tine Stanovnik prof. dr. Pavle Sicherl dr. Janez Šušteršič Lektoriranje: Sektor za prevajanje Generalnega sekretariata vlade RS Oblikovanje: Sandi Radovan Izdajatelj: Urad Republike Slovenije za makroekonomske analize in razvoj, Ljubljana, Gregorčičeva 27 Računalniška postavitev in prelom: Aleš Brečko Tisk: UTRIP Brežice d.o.o., Brežice Vse pravice pridržane. Naklada: 300 izvodov Naročila na revijo sprejemamo pisno na naslov izdajatelja. Revija je vpisana v mednarodno podatkovno bazo Internet Securities in uvrščena v Journal of Economic Literature. IB revijo subvencionira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost RS. Kazalo Milena Bevc: Financiranje, učinkovitost in pravičnost visokega izobraževanja - povezave med temi pojavi in mednarodna konferenca o njih 5 Bruce Johnstone: Financing higher education: some special features of formerly socialist Europe 19 Lorenz Lassnigg, Martin Unger: Funding higher education - where is Austria going? 23 Astrid Schwarzenberger: Funding higher education in Germany: raising the issue of efficiency and equity 31 Hans Vossensteyn: Student financing in the Netherlands: from generosity to cost-sharing - facts, perceptions and effects 41 Borut Kodrič, Nada Trunk Širca, Rok Strašek: Funding higher education in Slovenia: the introduction of a lump-sum instrument 46 Prakash Naidoo: A funding framework to address efficiency and equity in public higher education institutions in South Africa 57 Hans Vossensteyn, Petr Matějů: Challenges in funding, equity and efficiency in higher education 66 Spoštovani bralci in bralke, pred vami je prva številka 42. letnika, ki predstavlja zaokroženo tematsko celoto, saj je namenjena predstavitvi nekaterih zaključkov in prispevkov mednarodne konference, ki je potekala v Sloveniji v angleškem jeziku. Večino objavljenih prispevkov so pripravili tuji avtorji v angleškem jeziku. Izbor prispevkov je naredila doc. dr. Milena Bevc, ki je bila gostujoča urednica in voditeljica konference. Dovolite, da v uvodu navedeva nekaj informacij o konferenci in njeni vsebini. Inštitut za Ekonomska raziskovanja iz Ljubljane in Fakulteta za management iz Kopra sta novembra 2007 (21. - 24.) v Portorožu organizirala mednarodno konferenco Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education (Financiranje, pravičnost in učinkovitost visokega šolstva). Na konferenci smo posebno pozornost namenili trem izzivom na področju financiranja visokega šolstva, s katerimi se srečujemo v Sloveniji, Evropi in preostalem svetu. Prvi je, kako zagotoviti dodatna finančna sredstva za izboljšanje kakovosti, razvoj novih programov in zagotavljanje njegove stabilnosti. Drugi je, kako povečati pravičnost v dostopu do visokega šolstva vsem socialnim slojem mladih, tretji pa, kako izboljšati učinkovitost porabe razpoložljivih sredstev. Za Slovenijo so konferenca in njeni zaključki še posebej pomembni, saj naj bi njenim strokovnjakom in oblikovalcem politike pomagali najti najboljšo rešitev za ureditev sistema financiranja visokega šolstva v državi s kar najbolj ugodnimi učinki v prej navedenih smereh. Konferenca je bila namenjena oblikovalcem politike financiranja visokega šolstva (tako financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov kot tudi finančne pomoči študentom), rektorjem, dekanom, raziskovalcem, študentom in gospodarstvenikom. Udeležilo se je je več kot 60 strokovnjakov z vsega sveta. Glavni govorci na konferenci so bili po uvodnem referatu voditeljice konference Milene Bevc mednarodno uveljavljeni strokovnjaki s področja ekonomike izobraževanja: • George Psacharopoulos iz Grčije, svetovna legenda na tem področju, nekdanji strokovnjak Svetovne banke, • Hans Vossensteyn iz Centra za študije o politiki visokega šolstva (CPES) z Nizozemske, mlajši perspektivni strokovnjak na obravnavanem področju, • Maureen Woodhall iz Velike Britanije, nekdanja strokovnjakinja Svetovne banke za finančno pomoč študentom in • Adrian Ziderman iz Izraela, eden najbolj znanih strokovnjakov za študentska posojila. Med glavnimi govorci je bil tudi češki sociolog Petr Matějů, ki ima velike zasluge za sedanje spreminjanje sistema financiranja visokega šolstva na Češkem. Programska voditelja konference pa sta bila Bruce Johnstone, vodja najbolj znanega tekočega mednarodnega projekta o financiranju visokega šolstva, in že omenjeni Hans Vossensteyn z Nizozemske. Bruce Johnstone se konference žal ni mogel udeležiti (prav tako predvideni govorec iz Svetovne banke Jamil Salmi), je pa kljub temu pomembno prispeval k izpeljavi konference. Predstavitev posameznih navedenih govorcev, PowerPoint predstavitve vseh referatov, program in zaključki konference ter tudi številne druge informacije o konferenci so prikazani na spletni strani http://www.fhe.fm-kp.si/. Pred konferenco je izšel tudi zbornik vseh prispevkov na zgoščenki1. Bevc, M. (ed.) et al. (2007). Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education, International Conference Proceedings (Portorož, 21-24 November 2007). Koper – Ljubljana: Faculty of Management Koper – Institute for Economic Research. Konferenca je bila razdeljena na pet panelnih sekcij: 1. financiranje, pravičnost in učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja - mednarodna perspektiva (pet referatov, od tega eden za Slovenijo - Kodrič s sodelavci), 2. financiranje, pravičnost in učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja - nacionalni primeri (šest prispevkov za pet držav, od tega eden za Slovenijo - Bevc), 3. študentska posojila (štirje prispevki: za Finsko, Madžarsko, Rusijo in Kitajsko), 4. notranja in zunanja učinkovitost visokega šolstva (pet prispevkov, od tega dva za Slovenijo -Polanec-Ahčan, Tajnikar-Debevec), 5. financiranje, pravičnost in učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja - zaključna razprava. V tej številki predstavljamo osem prispevkov, od katerih jih večina (pet) prikazuje tematiko konference za posamezne države. Med njimi trije obravnavajo povezave med financiranjem, učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo (Unger-Lassnigg za Avstrijo, Astrid Schwarzenberger za Nemčijo, Hans Vossensteyn za Nizozemsko), dva (Kodrič s sodelavci za Slovenijo, Prakash Naidoo za Južno Afriko) pa sta osredotočena na prikaz sprememb mehanizma državnega financiranja visokošolskih izobraževalnih ustanov. Preostali trije prispevki pa zajemajo: • prispevek voditeljice konference s ključnimi informacijami o konferenci in uvodnimi razmišljanji o temah, ki jih je zajemala konferenca, • prispevek B. Johnstonea o nekaterih posebnostih financiranja visokega izobraževanja v nekdanji socialistični Evropi; gre za izhodiščni predhodni prispevek za konferenco, ki je objavljen tudi na spletni strani konference, • prispevek H. Vossensteyna in P. Matějů, ki je nastal po konferenci in zajema prikaz sklepov in razprave v zadnji zaključni sekciji. Dr. Alenka Kajzer, urednica IB-revije, in Dr. Milena Bevc, voditeljica konference kot gostujoča urednica IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 5 doc. dr. Milena Bevc* Financiranje, učinkovitost in pravičnost visokega izobraževanja - povezave med temi pojavi in mednarodna konferenca o njih Povzetek Financiranje, pravičnost in ekonomska učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja so tri medsebojno povezane razsežnosti tega izobraževanja, ki so v zadnjih dveh desetletjih v Evropi in drugje po svetu deležne naraščajoče pozornosti znanstvenikov in oblikovalcev politike. Analiza teh pojavov ter povezav med njimi je jedro tega prispevka in je bila tudi jedro mednarodne konference o financiranju, pravičnosti in učinkovitosti visokega izobraževanja, ki je od 21. do 24. novembra 2007 potekala v Portorožu. Prispevek se začenja s predstavitvijo namena in ciljev te konference, nadaljuje s predstavitvijo vsakega od treh pojavov z uporabo enotnega pristopa (opredelitev pojava, njegovo merjenje, prikaz globalnih trendov). Na koncu pa poskuša pokazati, kakšne so možnosti za merjenje povezav med njimi. Konča se z glavnimi sklepnimi ugotovitvami. Ključne besede: visoko izobraževanje, financiranje, pravičnost, učinkovitost. Summary Funding, equity and economic efficiency of HE are three mutually connected phenomena that have been of increasing interest to scholars and policy makers during the last two decades in Europe and elsewhere. Analysing these phenomena and the relations between them is the main topic of this paper, and was also the main topic of the international conference "Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education", which took place in Portorož, Slovenia, 21-24 November 2007. The paper begins by presenting the purpose and goals of this conference, and continues with a presentation of each of the three phenomena using a joint approach (definition of the phenomenon, its measurement, prevailing global trends). Finally, it tries to explore the possibilities of measuring the relationships between them. It ends with some key conclusions. Key words: higher education, funding, equity, efficiency. JEL: I210, I220, I280 1. Uvod Inštitut za Ekonomska raziskovanja iz Ljubljane in Fakulteta za management iz Kopra sta novembra 2007 (21.–24.) v Portorožu organizirala mednarodno konferenco o financiranju, pravičnosti in učinkovitosti visokega šolstva – Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education (v nadaljevanju tudi FEE-HE). V prispevku prikazujemo najprej nekaj osnovnih informacij o tej za Slovenijo pomembni mednarodni konferenci, nato pa še naš pogled na posamezne teme konference in njihove medsebojne povezave. Pri analizi razmerja med financiranjem, pravičnostjo in učinkovitostjo visokega izobraževanja je zelo pomembno dobro poznavanje vsake od teh razsežnosti – njenih značilnosti in merjenja ter glavnih prevladujočih trendov. Poleg tega je pomemben tudi »tok kapitala visoke izobrazbe« (količina in kakovost diplomantov), kajti cilj v vsaki državi je zagotoviti kar največjemu deležu prebivalstva možnost pridobitve kakovostne visokošolske izobrazbe. Vsebinski del prispevka zato začenjamo z glavnimi trendi o vključenosti prebivalcev v visoko šolstvo, nadaljujemo s predstavitvijo vsake od treh proučevanih kategorij * Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja, Ljubljana 6 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 – financiranje, učinkovitost, pravičnost, in sicer z njihovo opredelitvijo, prikazom načinov merjenja ter tudi trendov. Temu sledi predstavitev našega pogleda na medsebojni odnos med temi pojavi oziroma kategorijami. Prispevek bomo končali z glavnimi sklepnimi ugotovitvami. 2. Rojstvo, pomen in cilji mednarodne konference o financiranju, pravičnosti in učinkovitosti visokega izobraževanja (Por torož, 21.–24. 11. 2007) Financiranje visokega šolstva v Evropi in svetu je pred tremi velikimi izzivi: • kako zagotoviti dodatna finančna sredstva za izboljšanje kakovosti, razvoj novih programov, povečanje zmogljivosti visokega šolstva in zagotavljanje njegove stabilnosti, • kako povečati pravičnost pri dostopu do visokega šolstva vsem socialnim slojem mladih ter • kako izboljšati učinkovitost porabe razpoložljivih sredstev. Razmerje med financiranjem, učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo visokega izobraževanja je v zadnjih desetih letih v Evropi in drugje deležno vse večje pozornosti med znanstveniki in oblikovalci izobraževalne politike, v Evropi zlasti v povezavi z uresničevanjem ciljev lizbonske strategije (CEC, 2003, 2006). Pomembna dosežka te povečane pozornosti sta razmeroma visoko soglasje o pojmih »pravičnost« in »ekonomska učinkovitost« izobraževanja ter razvoj kazalnikov za njuno merjenje. Analiza medsebojnih povezav med financiranjem, učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo visokega izobraževanja je glavna tema tega prispevka in mednarodne konference o financiranju, pravičnosti in učinkovitosti visokega izobraževanja, ki ji je namenjena ta posebna številka IB revije. Številne države v zadnjih dveh desetletjih izvajajo delno ali pa celovito reformo svojega sistema financiranja visokega šolstva, da bi dosegle večjo stopnjo učinkovitosti in pravičnosti pri porabi sredstev. Pomembna in dragocena podlaga za oblikovanje ustrezne politike so lahko izsledki mednarodnega projekta o financiranju visokega šolstva in delitvi stroškov med različne nosilce, ki ga vodi Bruce Johnstone in se izvaja od konca devetdesetih let (Johnstone, 1999–2006). Na drugi strani so za te namene pomembne tudi številne mednarodne konference, ki so potekale v zadnjih letih: za južno in srednjo Evropo v Pragi (University Reform and Access to Higher Education, 2003), za države na območju nekdanje Sovjetske zveze v Moskvi (Accessibility of Higher Education, 2004) in za azijske države v Bangkoku (Higher Education Financing Policy, 2006). Zamisel za konferenco FEE-HE se je rodila v Barceloni decembra leta 2005 na svetovni konferenci o financiranju visokega šolstva (World Conference on Funding Higher Education) v razpravi avtorice tega prispevka z Bruceom Johnstonom in nekaterimi ključnimi govorniki na konferenci v Portorožu. Takratna zamisel je bila organizirati konferenco za države na območju Alp in Jadrana (države nekdanje SFRJ, Avstrijo in Italijo) kot nadaljevanje omenjenih regionalnih mednarodnih konferenc o tej temi. Pozneje smo zamisel razširili na Evropo in na koncu imeli referate celo iz ZDA, Azije in Afrike. Glavni cilj konference je bil proučiti stanje, trende in reforme obeh delov sistema financiranja visokega šolstva (financiranje izobraževalnih ustanov, finančna pomoč študentom) v Evropi, zlasti v nekdanjih socialističnih državah. Še posebno pa so nas zanimali učinki sistema financiranja in političnih reform tega izobraževanja na delitev stroškov med različne nosilce, na pravičnost ter učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja. Za Slovenijo so konferenca in njeni sklepi še posebej pomembni, saj naj bi njenim strokovnjakom in oblikovalcem politike pomagala najti najboljšo rešitev za ureditev sistema financiranja visokega šolstva v državi s kar najugodnejšimi učinki v prej navedenih smereh. Slovenija namreč na eni strani zaostaja za razvitim svetom po deležu prebivalcev z visoko izobrazbo, na drugi pa se srečuje z neučinkovitostjo študija, neenako dostopnostjo visokega izobraževanja različnim socialnim slojem ter dilemami v zvezi s srednjeročno in dolgoročno ureditvijo financiranja tega izobraževanja. Tudi demonstracije študentov v zadnjih letih jasno kažejo, da so vprašanja, ki jih je obravnavala konferenca, za Slovenijo zelo aktualna ter da so pri spoprijemanju z njimi znanje in izkušnje iz preostalega sveta zelo koristni. 3. Dostopnost visokega šolstva, merjena z vpisi Dostopnost visokega šolstva je večplasten pojav. Zajema vključenost v visoko izobraževanje na zelo različnih ravneh (v posamezni izobraževalni ustanovi ali skupini ustanov, v posameznem izobraževalnem programu, v želen izobraževani program ipd.), po mnenju nekaterih tudi prehod na višje stopnje visokega izobraževanja, vztrajanje pri izbranem programu, dokončanje šolanja ipd. Zato vključenost v visoko šolstvo na agregatni IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 7 (nacionalni) ravni lahko le zelo pogojno razumemo kot sinonim za dostopnost in jo tudi le pogojno lahko merimo samo z enim kazalnikom – agregatno stopnjo vključenosti. Praviloma jo je treba meriti z več kazalniki. Obenem se je treba zavedati, da je povpraševanje po visokem izobraževanju dejansko lahko večje, kot kažejo stopnje vključenosti. Agregatna vključenost v visoko šolstvo se je v večini držav v zadnjih desetih letih izredno hitro povečevala; bruto stopnja vključenosti za starostno skupino 20–29 let se je v tem obdobju v državah OECD povečala z 18 odstotkov na 25 odstotkov in v državah EU v povprečju z 19 odstotkov na 25 odstotkov (upoštevanih je 19 držav s podatki; OECD, 2007, str. 292). Neto stopnja vključenosti je najvišja za 20-letnike; povprečje za države OECD znaša 34 odstotkov in za države EU (19 držav) 35 odstotkov (prav tam, str. 293), vendar pa so med državami velike razlike. V državah EU je povprečna stopnja vključenosti višja v starih kot v novih članicah. Omejitev vpisa (numerous clauses) in selekcijski mehanizem obstajata v vseh državah EU razen štirih. V državah EU je večina študentov vpisana v javne ustanove; v letu 2003 je bil po posameznih programih ob upoštevanju mednarodne standardne klasifikacije izobraževanja delež vseh vpisov na teh ustanovah tak: ISCED-5B 58 odstotkov, ISCED-5A 74 odstotkov, ISCED-6 78 odstotkov (Eurostat, 2007, str. 28). Število študentov, vpisanih na zasebne ustanove, neodvisne od državnih sredstev, ostaja pod 10 odstotkov na vseh treh stopnjah visokega izobraževanja (prav tam). Za sistem financiranja visokega izobraževanja je pomembna tudi meddržavna mobilnost študentov. V državah EU in OECD se ta v tekočem desetletju hitro povečuje, vendar hitreje v državah OECD, v katerih je obenem relativno število mobilnih študentov in tujih študentov med vsemi vpisanimi (v dani državi) višje kot v državah EU (leta 2005; OECD, 2007). Delež mednarodno mobilnih študentov med vpisanimi v celotnem terciarnem izobraževanju znaša 7 odstotkov za države OECD in 5 odstotkov za države EU (prav tam, str. 317). Na drugi strani pa znaša delež tujih študentov med vsemi vpisanimi 8 odstotkov v OECD in 6 odstotkov v EU (19 držav, prav tam). 4. Izdatki za visoko izobraževanje, sistem financiranja in delitev stroškov med različne nosilce V poglavju bomo najprej opredelili sistem financiranja visokega izobraževanja, njegove glavne sestavine in delitev stroškov visokega izobraževanja med različne nosilce, nato opozorili na glavne značilnosti merjenja obsega naložb v visoko izobraževanje in nazadnje prikazali globalne trende v obsegu naložb in sistemu financiranja tega izobraževanja. 4.1. Opredelitev sistema financiranja in delitve stroškov Sistem financiranja visokega izobraževanja je zelo kompleksen. Glavni pogoji za dober sistem financiranja so: zadostnost sredstev za stabilen razvoj, učinkovitost in pravičnost uporabe sredstev (Psacharopoulos, Woodhall, 1985). Sistem financiranja visokega izobraževanja vključuje, kot smo že povedali, dva dopolnjujoča se dela: financiranje izobraževalnih ustanov in finančno pomoč študentom. V teoriji obstajajo trije »modeli« financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov: 1) model prevladujoče vloge države, 2) model pokrivanja stroškov s strani študenta, 3) model več virov dohodka. Mehanizem neposrednega financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov iz javnih sredstev lahko temelji na inputih oziroma vložkih v izobraževalni sistem, outputih oziroma rezultatih ali obojem. Na drugi strani pa so glavna oblika posrednega financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov iz javnih sredstev vavčerji, ki so kuponi države študentom za svobodno izbrano izobraževalno ustanovo; ta zaračuna šolnino. Nedržavni viri dohodka visokošolskih izobraževalnih ustanov pa so: šolnina, dohodek iz raziskav, izobraževanja in svetovanja za gospodarstvo in od prodaje raziskovalnih dosežkov, darila in prostovoljni prispevki, ustvarjanje dohodka s premoženjem ter mednarodni viri. Šolnina je sredstvo cenovne politike na področju izobraževanja, ki ima lahko vrsto neugodnih učinkov, če je njena višina neustrezna (0 ali nizka): zlasti neugodno strukturo outputov in inputov (pri tem zlasti študentov, ki so glavni input) ter omejen dostop do visokega izobraževanja. Šolnino je treba primerjati s stroški izobraževalne ustanove za poučevanje na študenta in s celotnimi individualnimi stroški visokega izobraževanja (ti zajemajo šolnino in študentove življenjske stroške ter se krijejo iz različnih virov: starši, študenti ipd.). V obeh primerih pomeni v »rednem« oziroma »full-time« izobraževanju v javnih visokošolskih ustanovah šolnina praviloma majhen delež stroškov. Za sprejetje odločitve posameznika o vključitvi v visokošolsko izobraževanje (javno, zasebno) so se pokazali pomembnejši drugi individualni stroški izobraževanja (denarni in nedenarni). Višina šolnine bi morala biti odvisna od cenovne elastičnosti povpraševanja po izobraževanju ter od ekonomske sposobnosti mladih ali/in njihovih staršev. Ob upoštevanju teh razsežnosti so strokovnjaki Svetovne banke v devetdesetih letih za javne visokošolske ustanove, v katerih še nimajo šolnine, predlagali njeno 8 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 vpeljavo na ravni okoli 30 odstotkov stroškov poučevanja na študenta (World Bank, 1995). Praviloma ima vsaka država neki sistem državne finančne pomoči, ki ima več ciljev, ti pa se v času tudi spreminjajo. Ni enotne klasifikacije različnih oblik pomoči študentom. Mogoča je na primer delitev na denarne in nedenarne oblike pomoči, na oblike pomoči iz državnih in nedržavnih virov ali pa delitev na neposredne in posredne oblike. Med različnimi klasifikacijami je za denarno pomoč po našem mnenju najboljša delitev na neposredne in posredne oblike. Neposredne oblike, ki lahko prihajajo iz javnih in drugih virov, zajemajo: prispevek staršev, štipendije iz različnih virov, študentska posojila (z vključenostjo države ali brez nje) in vavčerje (ki so tudi sredstvo posrednega financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov). Posredne (državne) oblike pomoči vključujejo subvencije za storitve študentom (prehrana, prevoz, nastanitev, študijsko gradivo ipd.); plačilo zdravstvenega in socialnega zavarovanja; davčne olajšave študentom, diplomantom in njihovim staršem za izdatke za visoko izobraževanje; otroški dodatek; subvencionirano zaposlenost; subvencionirane šolnine. Pri pomoči študentom ima poseben pomen državna pomoč. Namen, dostopnost, skupen obseg in povprečna višina državne finančne pomoči študentom so odvisni od več dejavnikov, med njimi od strukture izobraževanja (vrste izobraževalnih ustanov: javne in zasebne), financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov (prisotnost šolnine ali odsotnost ter njena višina), razumevanja mladih v starosti 18 in nekaj več let kot finančno odvisnih ali neodvisnih od njihovih staršev/družine, višine študentovih življenjskih stroškov, omejenosti (ali odprtosti) dostopa do terciarnega izobraževanja, pa tudi od ekonomske moči države. V zvezi z iskanjem idealnega razmerja med različnimi oblikami državne pomoči študentom je na podlagi teorije in empiričnih analiz mogoče skleniti naslednje: 1. smiselna je kombinacija več virov pomoči, in sicer taka, ki upošteva cilje pomoči in relativne stroške posameznih oblik pomoči, 2. rešitev, oblikovana v eni državi, je redkokdaj popolnoma prenosljiva v drugo, 3. neposredna pomoč študentom mora za zagotovitev pravične delitve stroškov vključevati štipendije in s strani države podprta študentska posojila ali drug prispevek študenta, 4. povezava med državno finančno pomočjo šolajočim se in vključenostjo mladih v izobraževanje je večplastna (nanjo vpliva še vrsta drugih dejavnikov). Kombinacija študentskih posojil s štipendijami ima številne prednosti v primerjavi s čistim programom štipendij (večja prožnost, večja pravičnost, dolgoročno večji prihranki javnih sredstev), vendar pa le pod določenimi pogoji.1 Med različnimi vrstami posojil so najperspektivnejša posojila, ki so povezana z višino študentovega prihodnjega dohodka (z dohodkom povezana posojila – income-contingent student loans). Z delitvijo stroškov med različne nosilce razumemo delitev denarnih stroškov, s katerimi se srečujejo študenti in njihovi starši (struktura dohodka za kritje teh stroškov), ali pa delitev vsote obeh vrst stroškov na enoto – študentovih življenjskih stroškov in stroškov poučevanja. Glavni nosilci stroškov visokega izobraževanja so študenti (iz njihovih sedanjih ali prihodnjih dohodkov), njihovi starši in davkoplačevalci. Vsi stroški morajo biti pokriti z določeno kombinacijo navedenih virov, hkrati pa vsako zmanjšanje katerega od virov zahteva spremembo deleža enega ali obeh preostalih virov. 4.2. Merjenje obsega naložb Merjenje naložb v visokem izobraževanju se je v zadnjih 10 letih zelo izboljšalo predvsem zaradi prizadevanj strokovnjakov, ki so razvijali kazalnike OECD o izobraževanju (objavljene v publikaciji Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators), in v zadnjem obdobju tudi prizadevanj Eurostata, objavljenih v publikaciji Key Data on Higher Education in Europe (Eurosat, 2007). Izboljšalo se je tudi pokritje zasebnih izdatkov in izdatkov za razvojno-raziskovalno dejavnost. Poleg tega tudi študija Eurostudent (Schnitzer in drugi, 2005) prinaša pomembne podatke za analizo naložb v visoko izobraževanje, zlasti za analizo delitve stroškov med različne nosilce. 4.3. Trendi v naložbah in sistemu financiranja Obseg in struktura naložb. V večini držav EU je glavni vir izdatkov za visoko izobraževanje država – oziroma natančneje javni izdatki – toda od zgodnjih osemdesetih let se pojavljajo spremembe v smeri raznovrstnejših virov s poudarkom na prispevku študenta. V državah OECD predstavljajo skupni izdatki za visoko izobraževanje brez zasebnih izdatkov zunaj izobraževalnih ustanov v povprečju 1,7 odstotka BDP in v EU (19 držav) 1,5 odstotka (leto 2004; OECD, 2007, str. 208 in 230). Javni izdatki predstavljajo v državah OECD 1,4 odstotka BDP (leto 2004; prav tam, str. 230) Ti ključni pogoji so: 1. učinkovito usmerjanje posojil k pravi ciljni skupini študentov, 2. zmanjšanje subvencij v posojilih in sočasno omejevanje zadolženosti prejemnikov posojil oziroma bodočih diplomantov, 3. minimiziranje neodplačevanja posojil. Podrobneje glej v: Bevc, 1999. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 9 in v EU-27 1,14 odstotka BDP (leto 2003, Eurostat, 2007, str. 76). V EU je 84 odstotkov javnih izdatkov namenjenih izobraževalnim ustanovam in razlika finančni pomoči študentom (prav tam, str. 79). Izdatki za izobraževalne ustanove (skupaj iz javnih in zasebnih virov) na študenta predstavljajo 38 odstotkov BDP na prebivalca (prav tam, str. 73) in 67 odstotkov tega je namenjeno poučevanju, 30 odstotkov RRD in 2 odstotka podpornim storitvam (prav tam, str. 84). V strukturi dohodka izobraževalnih ustanov predstavljajo javna sredstva 80 odstotkov, gospodinjstva 12 odstotkov, dohodek drugih zasebnih subjektov 5 odstotkov ter mednarodni viri 1 odstotek (prav tam, str. 93). Vsi podatki za EU se nanašajo na leto 2003. V EU imajo šolnino v 16 državah, vpisnino pa v 13; v nekaterih državah imajo tudi sistem obveznega prispevka za študentsko organizacijo. Znotraj EU se kaže trend k zaračunavanju šolnine za redni študij v javnih ustanovah. Nekatere države so šolnino vpeljale v zadnjih letih, v nekaterih pa o njihovi vpeljavi razpravljajo; publikacija Eurostata o ključnih kazalnikih visokega izobraževanja v Evropi navaja kot edini primer nasprotnega trenda Slovenijo (Eurostat, 2007, str. 86). Šolnino za redni študij večinoma določi država in se v EU giblje med 200 EUR in 1000 EUR. V EU je vpisnina večinoma nižja od 200 EUR, prispevek študentski organizaciji pa je večinoma pod 100 EUR. Za daljši študij od določenega uradnega študenti plačajo v 15 državah EU; v 9 med njimi študenti nekaj plačajo le v tem primeru (vsi podatki v odstavku: Eurostat, 2007). Poglobljeno je državno finančno pomoč študentom na konferenci predstavil H. Vossensteyn. Tu bi radi opozorili le na nekatere glavne značilnosti in trende v EU glede te pomoči. Od dveh oblik neposredne pomoči imajo štipendije v 25 državah EU (v 13 sočasno z ločenim programom posojil, v 7 v obliki kombiniranega sistema posojil in štipendij, v 5 pa so le štipendije); čisti program posojil imajo le v dveh državah. V povprečju predstavljajo štipendije v EU-27 11 odstotkov skupnih javnih izdatkov za visoko izobraževanje in študentska posojila 5 odstotkov (leto 2003, Eurostat, 2007, str. 114). Glavni trendi pri neposredni pomoči študentom v državah OECD in EU so: povečanje deleža študentskih posojil, pri katerih je poudarek na štipendijah, in obratno; povečan obseg pomoči revnim; ostrejši pogoji glede prehodnosti in študijske uspešnosti za ohranitev neposrednih oblik pomoči; vpeljava ukrepov za izboljšanje sedanjih programov posojil in pazljivo načrtovanje novih programov. Mednarodne primerjave delitve stroškov med različne nosilce so redke, ker so precej zahtevne. So pa v zadnjem obdobju take analize pogostejše, predvsem zaradi prizadevanj B. Johnstona in njegovega mednarodnega projekta International Comparative Higher Education Finance and Accessibility Project – ICHEFAP (Johnstone, 1999–2006). 5. (Ekonomska) učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja 5.1. Opredelitev Kot izhaja iz temeljne literature o ekonomski učinkovitosti izobraževanja (Psacharopoulos in Woodhall, 1985; Verry in Wagner, 1971; Hanushek, 1987; Mingat in Tan, 1989), je nujno treba razlikovati med notranjo in zunanjo (ekonomsko) učinkovitostjo izobraževanja. V obeh primerih je učinkovitost opredeljena kot razmerje med inputi in outputi (rezultati), pri čemer so upoštevani denarni inputi. Po Lockheedu in Hanushku (1994, navedeno po CEC, 2006) je pravi pojem pri upoštevanju nedenarnih inputov »uspešnost«. Zunanja učinkovitost izobraževanja je opredeljena kot uresničitev različnih ciljev družbe zunaj izobraževalnega sektorja. V tem primeru se output nanaša na širše družbene cilje (gospodarska rast, povečanje zaposlenosti ipd.). Notranja učinkovitost pa je opredeljena kot razmerje med izobraževalnimi inputi in outputi znotraj izobraževalnega sektorja. Inputi (študenti ipd.) so preoblikovani v outpute (število diplomantov, njihovo znanje ipd.) v proizvodnem (pedagoškem) procesu. Notranja učinkovitost izobraževanja vključuje ekonomsko učinkovitost (proizvodnja maksimalnega outputa z danimi sredstvi) in tehnično učinkovitost2 (proizvodnja maksimalnega outputa z danimi inputi pri dani tehnologiji). Pojem »notranja učinkovitost« izobraževanja je treba razlikovati od drugih pojmov, kot so produktivnost, analiza stroškov in uspešnosti, pa tudi od učinkovitosti/uspešnosti študija v smislu prehodnosti v visokošolskem izobraževalnem sektorju in uspešnosti dokončanja študija. Zadnji pojem je vključen v notranji učinkovitosti izobraževanja. Učinkovitost ali/in uspešnost študija je mogoče opredeliti različno široko (tudi z vidika obdobja opazovanja – ali obdobje uradnega trajanja šolanja ali neko daljše obdobje, kar velja zlasti npr. v ZDA, kjer se pogosto spodbuja, da Po dokumentu Evropske komisije o učinkovitosti in pravičnosti evropskih izobraževalnih sistemov (CEC, 2006) »notranja uspešnost«. 10 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 imajo študenti kakšno leto premora), praviloma pa se opazuje na individualni ravni. Če imamo samo učinkovite študente (če izhajamo iz našega rednega študija, so to študenti, ki opravljajo izpite s pozitivnimi ocenami, redno napredujejo iz letnika v letnik in v predpisanem roku diplomirajo), bo notranja ekonomska učinkovitost visokošolskih izobraževalnih ustanov oziroma sistema visokega izobraževanja največja mogoča – na enoto vloženih sredstev bomo dobili največji mogoči output (v smislu kvantitete). Neučinkovitost študija, ki vključuje ponavljanje in osip, pa obratno vpliva na to, da bomo na enoto vloženih sredstev dobili manjšo količino outputa (število diplomantov) od mogoče. Iz navedenega izhaja, da opazovanje notranje ekonomske učinkovitosti izobraževalnih ustanov ne more mimo opazovanja uspešnosti študija. 5.2. Merjenje Za merjenje notranje učinkovitosti visokega izobraževanja obstajajo preprosti kazalniki in celovitejši kvantitativni postopki (izobraževalna proizvodna funkcija, analiza stroškov in uspešnosti ipd.). Preprosti kazalniki vključujejo stopnjo diplomiranja, stopnjo osipa in trajanje študija; temeljijo lahko na presečnih podatkih ali spremljanju iste generacije/kohorte več let (longitudinalni pristop – metoda čiste kohorte). Drugi pristop je precej boljši od prvega, na žalost pa v večini držav ni na voljo podatkov za tako analizo; to je posebna številka za vsakega šolajočega se (enotna matična ali kakšna druga), ki omogoča individualno spremljanje študentov. Podobno je za merjenje zunanje učinkovitosti mogoče uporabiti preproste ali pa zahtevnejše pristope. Med preproste je mogoče šteti različne kazalnike ekonomskih koristi visokega izobraževanja, kot so relativna stopnja zaposlenosti, brezposelnosti in relativne plače tistih z visoko izobrazbo glede na tiste z manj izobrazbe (običajno s končano srednjo šolo). Kazalniki inputov (delež javnih izdatkov za visoko izobraževanje v BDP) se lahko štejejo kot kazalniki učinkovitosti le, če so inputi primerjani z ouptuti. Na drugi strani pa celovitejši postopki vključujejo te skupine metod (Bevc, 1991): 1) ocena prispevka visokega izobraževanja h gospodarski rasti z analizo agregatne proizvodne funkcije (posredna ocena povezav med visokim izobraževanjem in gospodarskim razvojem), 2) ocena različnih povezav med visokim izobraževanjem in gospodarsko razvitostjo (neposredna ocena povezav med visokim izobraževanjem in gospodarskim razvojem) in 3) izračun stopenj donosa naložb v visoko izobraževanje z analizo stroškov in koristi. Med celovitimi metodami je tretja, ki postaja od zgodnjih devetdesetih let ponovno aktualna, posebej pomembna. 5.3. Trendi Notranja učinkovitost, merjena z uspešnostjo napredovanja študentov skozi visokošolski izobraževalni sistem in uporabo presečnih podatkov, se med državami EU zelo razlikuje. Stopnja dokončanja študija se na prvi stopnji visokega izobraževanja giblje med 48 in 95 odstotkov na ISCED-5B ter med 45 in 88 odstotkov na ISCED-5A (Eurostat, 2007, str. 71). Merjenje stopnje dokončanja študija na podlagi longitudinalnega pristopa obstaja le za nekaj držav (glej OECD, 1998, in Eurostat, 2007). Za Veliko Britanijo dajeta oba pristopa podobne rezultate, za Švedsko pa kaže longitudinalni pristop nižjo učinkovitost. Podobno velja za Slovenijo (Bevc, 2007). Merjenje zunanje učinkovitosti s preprostimi kazalniki kaže naslednje: stopnja zaposlenosti za tiste z visoko izobrazbo v primerjavi s tistimi s srednjo je v državah EU (19 držav s podatki) v povprečju 14 odstotkov višja, v državah OECD pa 12 odstotkov višja (2005; OECD, 2007, str. 137). Ta razmerja se v zadnjih 10 letih niso spremenila. Na drugi strani pa je stopnja brezposelnosti za tiste z visoko izobrazbo na primeru držav EU 43 odstotkov nižja in na primeru držav OECD 33 odstotkov nižja kot za tiste s srednjo izobrazbo. Na podlagi teh kazalnikov so mejne ekonomske koristi tistih z visoko izobrazbo v povprečju v EU nekoliko višje kot v OECD. Relativne plače kot tretji preprost kazalnik zunanje učinkovitosti pa so se v obdobju 1997–2005 v večini držav EU in OECD s podatki povečale (OECD, 2007). Merjenje zunanje učinkovitosti s stopnjami donosa naložb v visoko izobraževanje je na konferenci natančneje predstavil G. Psacharopoulos, nacionalne primere pa sta prikazala Polanec in Strawinski. Tu bomo omenili le glavne značilnosti teh stopenj: individualne stopnje so večinoma višje od družbene stopnje, zasebna stopnja donosa se je v zadnjem obdobju v številnih državah povečala, v manj razvitih državah so donosi navadno višji kot v razvitih. 6. Pravičnost s poudarkom na pravičnosti v financiranju Pojma »pravičnost« in »enakost« (equity in equality) se pogosto uporabljata kot sinonima, čeprav ju je mogoče razmejiti. Primanjkuje teoretične jasnosti o teh dveh pojmih, vendar pa se večinoma drugi pojem razume kot širši, obenem se poudarja IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 11 povezava med njima. Po dokumentu Evropske komisije Communication on Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems (CEC, 2006) se enakost in neenakost (equality and unequality) razumeta širše v smislu enakih in neenakih možnosti v življenju. Na drugi strani pa se po tem dokumentu pravičnost razume kot »cilj in praktična stopnja za omogočanje posameznikom priti do kakovostnega izobraževanja in usposabljanja ne glede na socialno-ekonomsko ozadje in v skladu z njihovimi potrebami« (prav tam, str, 7). Isti dokument razlikuje med temi vrstami pravičnosti: 1) v dostopu, 2) v obravnavi, 3) v rezultatih in tudi v 4) vključenosti kot kombinaciji prvih dveh. Številne značilnosti študentov vključno z njegovim socialno-ekonomskim ozadjem, vrsto ustanove ipd. je treba upoštevati pri analiziranju omenjenih razsežnosti pravičnosti, sicer lahko politični ukrepi vodijo k napačnim sklepom ter povečanju neenakosti. Najboljši so tisti ukrepi (prav tam, str. 14), ki: 1) »zmanjšajo povezavo med študentovim socialno-ekonomskim ozadjem in njegovimi rezultati ter 2) zmanjšajo neskladje v znanju med najbogatejšimi in najrevnejšimi z izboljšanjem znanja najbolj prikrajšanih«. Dostopnost visokega izobraževanja je po Suotu in McCoshanu (2005) odvisna od splošnih in posebnih »individualnih« (značilnosti posameznika) dejavnikov. Prva skupina vključuje obseg naložb v visoko izobraževanje, obseg in strukturo finančne pomoči študentom, stopnjo »diplo-miranja« v srednjem izobraževanju, demografska gibanja, velikost individualnih ekonomskih koristi izobrazbe in stopnjo socialne neenakosti. Individualni dejavniki vključujejo starost, spol in socialno-ekonomski položaj mladih. Pravičnost pri financiranju izobraževanja je ožji pojem kot pravičnost pri izobraževanju. Ugotovitve o pravičnosti pri financiranja visokega izobraževanja v posamezni državi so odvisne od uporabljenega merila in metodološkega pristopa. Glavna merila, ki jih najdemo v teoriji in praksi, so (Bevc in drugi, 2001): • zagotavljanje enakosti možnosti vključitve (dostopa) v izobraževanje ne glede na gmotni položaj posameznika – socialna pravičnost, • plačilo v skladu z možnostmi – sposobnostjo plačati (več naj plačajo tisti, ki imajo več), • plačilo v skladu s prejetimi koristmi iz državne blagajne (več naj plačajo tisti sloji, ki so tudi vključeni – imajo koristi od javnih izdatkov), torej skladnost prispevkov posameznih dohodkovnih skupin v državno blagajno s prejetimi koristmi – transferji države. Med temi merili se kot ključni šteje prvi, zadnji pa ima v javnih financah omejen domet/uporabo. Kot dodatno merilo pa se vsaj pri visokem šolstvu pogosto pojavlja tudi drug vidik koristi izobraževanja od prej navedenega, in sicer velikost individualnih ekonomskih koristi te izobrazbe v obliki višjih plač, nižje brezposelnosti itd. Pravičnost je mogoče ocenjevati za celoten izobraževalni sistem ali pa za posamezno raven izobraževanja. Če opazujemo celoten izobraževalni sistem, je ob upoštevanju navedenih meril pravičnost javnega financiranja izobraževanja odvisna od teh dejavnikov: 1) porazdelitve državnih izdatkov izobraževalnim ustanovam po ravneh/stopnjah izobraževanja in med posameznike (državna finančna pomoč šolajočim se), 2) socialno-ekonomske sestave šolajočih se po ravneh/stopnjah izobraževanja in prejemnikov državne pomoči šolajočim se in 3) značilnosti davčnega sistema (progresiven, regresiven). Pravičnost pri »razdelitvi« javnih izdatkov za izobraževanje se torej uresničuje v več fazah, povzamemo pa jih lahko v dve: porazdelitev davčnih bremen in porazdelitev javnih izdatkov (oboje po socialno-ekonomskih skupinah). 6.1. Merjenje Za merjenje pravičnosti izobraževanja v širšem smislu dokument Evropske komisije o pravičnosti in učinkovitosti izobraževalnih sistemov v Evropi (CEC, 2006) navaja za visoko izobraževanje te kazalnike: 1) stopnja vključenosti v visoko izobraževanje po socialno-ekonomskem položaju in/ali izobrazbi študentovih staršev in 2) razpršenost rezultatov visokošolskega izobraževalnega sistema – primerjava Ginijevega koeficienta dohodka in koeficienta koncentracije oseb z visoko izobrazbo. Za merjenje pravičnosti financiranja visokega izobraževanja pa je v razpoložljivih analizah mogoče zaslediti te štiri postopke: 1. neto koristi izdatkov za izobraževanje glede na neto koristi drugih državnih izdatkov po socialno-ekonomskih skupinah prebivalcev, 2. neto koristi izdatkov za izobraževanje po socialno-ekonomskih skupinah prebivalcev, 3. porazdelitev izdatkov za izobraževanje po socialno-ekonomskih skupinah prebivalcev, 4. socialno-ekonomska struktura vključenih v izobraževanje. Med prikazanimi pristopi le prva dva upoštevata obe strani javne blagajne (vire sredstev – davke ipd. in izdatke) za visoko izobraževanje in tako omogočata oceno, ali veljavni sistem financiranja pomeni prelivanje sredstev od enih slojev prebivalstva k drugim. Tretji pristop upošteva le izdatkovno stran te blagajne. Pri uporabi vseh teh treh pristopov je treba upoštevati obe strani javnih izdatkov za visoko izobraževanje, torej izdatke za izobraževalne ustanove in finančno pomoč študentom. 12 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Četrti pristop, ki ne vključuje analize javnih financ, pa je dejansko vmesni korak pri vseh prvih treh navedenih pristopih. Pri tem pristopu gre za analizo vključenosti v izobraževanje različnih socialno-ekonomskih skupin prebivalcev. Z njim torej ocenjujemo enakost/neenakost dostopa do izobraževanja za različne socialne skupine (enakost možnosti izobraževanja), torej uresničevanje prej navedenega ključnega merila pravičnosti. Teoretično je najpravilnejši prvi navedeni pristop, ker proučuje pravičnost državnega financiranja izobraževanja v okviru širše analize pravičnosti celotnih javnih financ. Gre za celovito analizo raznih vrst državnih izdatkov gospodinjstvom (izobraževanje, zdravstvo, pokojnine itd.), ki se v življenju dopolnjujejo. Ta pristop upošteva dvoje: 1. davčni prihodki se zbirajo hkrati za več dejavnosti; 2. v življenju posameznika se pomen različnih vrst državnih izdatkov zanj spreminja. Taka analiza je podatkovno in metodološko zelo zahtevna in je tudi za razvite države izredno redka (nekaj poskusov take analize je bilo narejenih za ZDA). Na drugi strani pa za četrti pristop, ki se uporablja najpogosteje, velja, da tudi zanj pogosto ni podatkov, ki bo omogočili primerjavo več držav. 6.2. Trendi Do nedavnega so bile verodostojne empirične analize pravičnosti financiranja izobraževanja na razpolago le za posamezne države. V zadnjem obdobju (tekoče desetletje) pa so pogostejše in so na voljo z uporabo iste metodologije za več držav. Pri tem pa se od navedenih meril najpogosteje uporablja merilo enakosti možnosti dostopa do visokega izobraževanja, ki se meri s socialnoekonomsko strukturo vključenih v izobraževanje. Velik napredek pri tem je bil dosežen z mednarodno raziskavo Eurostudent (Schnitzer in drugi, 2005). Glavna ugotovitev te in nekaterih drugih analiz (Schnitzer in drugi, 2005; Mora in drugi, 2007; CEC, 2006) je, da povečano vključenost v visoko izobraževanje v Evropi ne spremlja povečana enakost v dostopu za različne socialne sloje. Vključenost revnih se je absolutno povečala, relativno (v primerjavi z bogatimi) pa ne (CEC, 2006). Glavni dejavnik neenakega dostopa do visokega izobraževanja je socialnoekonomski položaj mladih, natančneje dohodek in izobrazba njihovih staršev, pri čemer ima po Mori in drugih (Mora in drugi, 2007) drugi naveden dejavnik večji vpliv. Na drugi strani pa večina redkih analiz, ki temeljijo na uporabi drugih metodoloških pristopov in uporabljajo poleg enakosti v dostopu še druga merila za analizo pravičnosti financiranja, kaže, da čezmerno državno financiranje terciarnega izobraževanja (zlasti kadar ni šolnine, neposredna državna finančna pomoč pa obstaja le v obliki štipendij) praviloma pomeni prelivanje državnih sredstev od revnih k drugim slojem prebivalcev. Sistem brez šolnin je praviloma regresiven, ker imajo od takega sistema največje koristi srednji in bogati sloji. Izjema pa so primeri, ko je davčni sistem zelo progresiven. 7. Razmerje med financiranjem, pravičnostjo in učinkovitostjo visokega izobraževanja Financiranje, pravičnost in ekonomska učinkovitost visokega izobraževanja so tri povezana področja razvoja tega izobraževanja, ki vplivajo na »tok kapitala izobrazbe«, izražen s stopnjami vključenosti (kot približkom za dostopnost). Konkretno merjenje povezav med omenjenimi področji in njihovega učinka na vključenost je zahtevno, predvsem zaradi teh razlogov: - vsako od teh področij vključuje več razsežnosti (na primer financiranje vključuje finančno pomoč študentom in financiranje ustanov, učinkovitost vključuje notranjo in zunanjo učinkovitost, pravičnost financiranja vključuje pravičnost pri dostopu in druge vidike pravičnosti), - posamezne od teh razsežnosti je mogoče meriti na različne načine, - ocena pravičnosti je odvisna od uporabljenega merila in metodološkega pristopa za njeno merjenje, - verodostojno merjenje nekaterih razsežnosti ali področij je težavno zaradi metodoloških razlogov in pomanjkanja podatkov (pravičnost pri financiranju, notranja ekonomska učinkovitost ipd.), - za verodostojno merjenje notranje ekonomske učinkovitosti je potrebno individualno spremljanje študentov (longitudinalno), tega pa v večini držav praviloma ni; zato so navadno meddržavne primerjave te učinkovitosti za visoko izobraževanje zelo redke, - merjenje uresničevanja nekaterih meril pravičnosti financiranja izobraževanja (plačilo v skladu s prejetimi koristmi iz javnih izdatkov) zahteva podatke, ki jih za večino držav ni, - za analizo vseh treh področij (financiranje, ekonomska učinkovitost in pravičnost) je treba poznati denarne stroške izobraževanja, kljub velikemu napredku v zadnjih 10 letih pa je ocena teh stroškov še vedno praviloma prenizka zaradi nepopolnega zajetja zasebnih izdatkov Shema 1. Povezave med financiranjem, učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo visokega izobraževanja- ponazoritev njihove celovitosti* DELITEV STROŠKOV MED RAZLIČNE NOSILCE - javna sredstva - šolnina - drugi viri ekonomska in tehnična } IZOBRAŽEVALNE USTANOVE preprosti kazalniki zapleteni postopki preprosti kazalniki (plače, zaposl., i brezposelnost) stopnja donosa (zasebna, družbena) razsežnosti vpisani, prehodnost FINAN. POMOČ ŠTUDENTOM IN NJIHOVIM STARŠEM po: vrsti viru namenu prejemniku pravičnost pri dostopu MERILA PRAVIČNOST pri financ. drugi socialno-ekon. 'struktura študent. MERJENJE zahtevni postopki * Prikazane so le neposredne povezave. Pri posrednih povezavah je treba upoštevati tudi stroške izobraževanja in doseženo stopnjo gospodarske razvitosti. 14 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 za visoko izobraževanje in izdatkov izobraževalnih ustanov za razvojno-raziskovalno dejavnost, - povezave med vsemi tremi področji so neposredne in posredne; pomemben vmesni del pri teh povezavah je dosežena raven gospodarske razvitosti in pri zunanji ekonomski učinkovitosti tudi obseg zaloge prebivalcev z visoko izobrazbo (kapitala visokega izobraževanja), - metodologija primerljivih podatkov o izdatkih in s tem denarnih stroških izobraževanja se šele vzpostavlja, - v nekaterih primerih so povezave obojestranske, torej gredo v obeh smereh (npr. med financiranjem in notranjo ekonomsko učinkovitostjo). V nekaterih primerih so obojestranske povezave posredne – gredo prek dosežene ravni gospodarske razvitosti; tak primer je vpliv vključenosti v visoko izobraževanje na sistem financiranja tega izobraževanja in notranjo ekonomsko učinkovitost, - javno financiranje visokega izobraževanja lahko vključuje nasprotje med dvema ciljema, to je ekonomsko učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo, - v zadnjih dveh desetletjih se sistem financiranja formalnega izobraževanja, v tem okviru pa zlasti visokega, v obeh razsežnostih (financiranje izobraževalnih ustanov, finančna pomoč šolajočim se) v večini držav spreminja. Iz navedenih razlogov je povezave med financiranjem, notranjo ekonomsko učinkovitostjo, zunanjo ekonomsko učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo ter njihov vpliv na vključenost v visoko izobraževanje v mnogih primerih mogoče oceniti le kvalitativno. Kvantitativno pa je praviloma mogoče oceniti le povezave med nekaterimi razsežnostmi opazovanih področij (na primer vpliv vpeljave šolnine na stopnjo dostopa in pravičnost pri dostopu). Financiranje vpliva na razvoj izobraževanja neposredno (z zagotavljanjem sredstev) in posredno (z vplivom na uporabo sredstev v izobraževalnih ustanovah ter z zagotavljanjem pravičnosti, tj. vključenosti v izobraževanje vsem sposobnim). Obenem gre tudi za nasprotne povezave. Večja notranja ekonomska učinkovitost izobraževalnih ustanov ugodno vpliva na dolgoročno stabilnost financiranja. Vpliv vključenosti v visoko izobraževanje na notranjo ekonomsko učinkovitost in financiranje je posreden - poteka preko njenega vpliva na gospodarski razvoj. Visoko izobraževanje spodbuja gospodarsko rast. Na višji stopnji razvitosti pa je ekonomska učinkovitost izobraževalnih ustanov praviloma višja, na drugi strani pa se tako pri financiranju izobraževalnih ustanov in finančni pomoči študentom uveljavljalo oblike in okoliščine, ki spodbujajo ekonomsko učinkovito porabo sredstev in vključenost v visoko izobraževanje. Shema 1 kaže celovitost povezav/učinkov med tremi področji. Prikazane so le neposredne povezave med financiranjem, pravičnostjo in učinkovitostjo. Povezave med notranjo in zunanjo učinkovitostjo, ki so lahko zelo različne (obe vrsti učinkovitosti sta nizki ali visoki, visoka notranja in nizka zunanja učinkovitost ter obratno), niso zajete. Niso zajeti tudi stroški visokega izobraževanja, prav tako ne dosežena raven gospodarske razvitosti, čeprav ima oboje pomembno vlogo pri posrednih povezavah med nekaterimi od treh področij. V zvezi z učinkovitostjo in pravičnostjo kot ciljema visokega izobraževanja, ki ju je pogosto težko uresničevati hkrati, pa je v zadnjem času doseženo soglasje, da je v daljšem časovnem obdobju mogoče doseči njuno medsebojno pozitivno delovanje. 8. Sklepne ugotovitve Financiranje, učinkovitost in pravičnost visokega izobraževanja so zelo medsebojno povezana vprašanja. Ureditev obeh delov sistema financiranja (financiranje izobraževalnih ustanov, finančna pomoč študentom) ima lahko velik vpliv na delitev stroškov med različne nosilce, dostopnost visokega izobraževanja in druge razsežnosti pravičnosti ter na obe vrsti ekonomske učinkovitosti (notranjo in zunanjo) izobraževanja. Merjenje povezav med financiranjem, pravičnostjo in učinkovitostjo visokega izobraževanja je zahtevno zaradi številnih razlogov, med katerimi so ti še posebej pomembni: 1) prisotnost neposrednih in posrednih povezav, 2) prisotnost učinkov v obeh smereh (obojestranske povezave), 3) celovitost sistema financiranja visokega izobraževanja, ker vključuje dva dopolnjujoča se dela (financiranje izobraževalnih ustanov, finančno pomoč študentom), ki oba učinkujeta na pravičnost in učinkovitost. V Evropi, ZDA in drugje se izvajajo ali načrtujejo številne celovite ali pa delne reforme sistema financiranja visokega izobraževanja za pridobitev dodatnih virov, boljšo delitev stroškov med različne nosilce ter povečanje učinkovitosti in pravičnosti. To je pokazala tudi mednarodna konferenca o financiranju, pravičnosti in učinkovitosti visokega izobraževanja v Portorožu. Glavni pogoji za uspešnost reforme so: 1) zelo dobra priprava in dober operativni načrt, 2) reforma mora upoštevati IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 15 celovitost sistema financiranja – komplementarnost dveh že navedenih delov sistema, 3) reformiran sistem naj bi bolj kot veljavni sistem izpolnjeval tri temeljne zahteve (zadostnost sredstev za stabilen razvoj, učinkovito uporabo sredstev, pravičnost predvsem v smislu zagotavljanja enakosti možnosti izobraževanja), 4) o glavnih sestavinah reforme mora biti doseženo soglasje med vsemi ključnimi akterji, 5) sprememba nekaterih splošnih prepričanj (med njimi zlasti, da je terciarna izobrazba javna dobrina in da je šolnina nepravična), 6) politična volja in moč. Ob upoštevanju dokumenta Evropske komisije (EC, 2006) pa morajo nacionalne reforme upoštevati tudi širšo – regionalno razsežnost. Mehanizem financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov iz javnih sredstev, ki pospešuje ekonomsko učinkovito uporabo sredstev, temelji v precejšnji meri na financiranju rezultatov/outputov. Šolnine se razumejo kot učinkovit in pravičen mehanizem financiranja izobraževalnih ustanov samo, če so kombinirane z ustreznim sistemom državne finančne pomoči za revnejše študente. Neposredna državna finančna pomoč študentom z najpozitivnejšim učinkom na notranjo učinkovitost in pravičnost vključuje kombinacijo študentskih posojil (najboljša so tista, povezana z dohodkom diplomata) in štipendij. Najboljša je taka kombinacija neposredne pomoči študentom, pri kateri se upoštevajo relativni stroški pomoči in njeni cilji. Literatura Accessibility of Higher Education: Challenges for Transition Countries (2004). International conference. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy Moscow – Center for Comparative and Global Studies in Education from State University of New York at Buffalo, June 29–30. Albrecht, D., & Ziderman, A. (1992). Financing Universities in Developing Countries. PHREE Background Paper Series, Document No. PHREE/ 92/61. Washington: World Bank. Barr, N. (1993). Alternative Funding Resources for Higher Education. The Economic Journal, Oxford, 718–728. Bevc, M. (1991). Ekonomski pomen izobraževanja. Radovljica: Didakta – Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja. Bevc, M. (1999). Financiranje, razvoj in učinkovitost izobraževanja. Radovljica: Didakta. Bevc, M. (2007). Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education in Slovenia. V Bevc M. (ed.) Funding, Equity and Efficiency of Higher Education, International Conference Proceedings (Portorož, 21–24 November 2007). Koper – Ljubljana: Faculty of Management Koper – Institute for Economic Research. Bevc, M., Prevolnik - Rupel, V. , in Stanovnik, T. (2001). Pravičnost državnega financiranja izobraževanja v Sloveniji in možnosti za njeno povečanje. Ljubljana: Inštitut za ekonomska raziskovanja. Carlson, S. (1992). Private Financing of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin America and the Caribbean Technical Department Regional Studies Program Report, No. 18. Washington: World Bank. CEC (2003). Investing Efficiently in Education and Training: An Imperative for Europe. Communication from the Commission, COM (2002) 779 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 10. 1. 2003. CEC (2006). Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems. Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European parliament. Commission staff working document, SEC (2006) 1096. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities (8. 9. 2006). Cohn, E. (ed.) (1997). Market Approaches to Education – Vouchers and School Choice. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Constructing Knowledge Society: New Challenges for Tertiary Education (2002). Washington: World Bank. Coombs, P., & Hallak, J. (1987). Cost Analysis in Education – A Tool for Policy and Planning. Baltimore – London: The Johns Hopkins University Press – World Bank. EC (2006). The Long-Term Sustainability of Public Finances in the European Union. European Economy, 2006 (4). Brussels: European commission. Education and Redistribution – Report 3 (2003). Paris: Council for Employment, Income and Social Cohesion. Eurostat (2007). Key Data on Higher Education in Europe – 2007. Luxembourg: European Commission – Eurydice – Eurostat. Hanushek, E. (1987). Educational Production Functions. In Psacharopoulos G. (ed.), Economics of Education – Research and Studies. Oxford – New York – Frankfurt: Pergamon Press. Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and Equity in Schools Around the World, Economics of Education Review, 22 (5), 481–502. Harmon, C., Walker, I., & Westergaard-Nielsen, N. (2001). Education and Earnings in Europe – A Cross Country Analysis of the Returns to Education. Cheltenham – Nortampton – Edward Elgar. 16 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Higher Education in the World 2006 – The Financing Universities (2006). GUNI Series on the social commitment of universities. New York: Palgrave MacMillan – GUNI (Global university network for innovation). Higher Education Financing Policy to Support the Accumulation of Human Capital (2006). International Symposium on Student Loan Policy. Bangkok: Unesco – Tailand Student Loans Fund. March 15–16. Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (2004). International Handbook on the Economics of Education. Cheltenham – Northhampton: Edward Elgary Publsihning Ltd. Jongbloed, B., Vink, M. (1994). Assessing Efficiency of Dutch, British and German Universities. In L. Goedegebuure, F. Vught (eds.), Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education (pp. 195–218). Ultrecht: Lemma. Johnstone, 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, B. (1989). International Comparisons of Student Financial Support. In M. Woodhall (ed.), Financial Support for Students (24–44). London: Kogan Page. Johnstone, B. (1991). The Costs of Higher Education. In P. Altbach (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Higher Education (pp. 59–89). New York: Garland Publishing. Johnstone, B. (2004). The Economics and Politics of Cost Sharing in Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives, Economics of Education Review, 23 (4), 2004, 403–410. Johnstone, B. (2006). Financing Higher Education – Cost-sharing in International Perspective. Boston: Boston College Center for International Higher Education – Sense Publishers. Johnstone, B. (2006a). Higher Education Accessibility and Financial Viability: The Role of Student Loans. In Higher Education in the World 2006: The Financing of Universities (pp. 84–102). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Johnstone, B. (1999–2006). International Comparative Higher Education Finance and Accessibility Project – ICHEFAP. Buffalo: University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Center for Comparative and Global Studies in Education. http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/ index.html Lee, S. S, Ram, R., & Smith, C. W. (1999). Distributive Effect of State Subsidy to Undergraduate Education: The Case of Illinois. Economics of Education Review, 18 (2), 213–221. Loxley, W. (1987). Wastage in Education. In G. Psacharopoulos (ed.), Economics of Education (pp. 62–65). Oxford – New York – Frankfurt: Pergamon Press. Marlow, M. (2000). Spending, School Structure, and Public Education Quality – Evidence From California. Economics of Education Review, 19 (1), 89–106. Martin, C., Velazquez, F. J., & Funck, B. (2001). European Integration and the Income Convergence – Lessons for Central and Eastern European Countries. World Bank Technical Paper No. 514, Washington: World Bank. Micklewritgh, J. (1999). Education, Inequality and Transition, Economics of Transition, 7 (2), 343– 376. Mingat, A. (1988). Analytical Tools for Sector Work in Education. Baltimore – London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mingat, A., & Tan, J. P. (1989). Educational Development in Asia: A Comparative Study Focussing on Cost and Financing Issues. Washington: World Bank. Mora, J. G., Vila, L., Schmidt, E. K., Vossensteyn, H., & Villarreal, E. (2007). Rates of Return and Funding Models in Europe. Final report to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. Valencia: Centro de Estudios en Gestion de la Educacion Superior. OECD (1994). Making Education Count – Developing and Using International Indicators Paris: OECD. OECD (1998). Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 1998. Paris: OECD. OECD (1999). Education and Equity in OECD countries. Paris: OECD. OECD (2001). The well-being of nations. Paris: OECD. OECD (2007). Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2007. Paris: OECD. Psacharopoulos, G. (1981). Returns to Education: An Updated International Comparison. Comparative Education Review, 17 (3), 321–341. Psacharopoulos, G. (1985): Returns to Education: A Further International Update and Implications. Journal of Human Resources, 20 (4), 583–597. Psacharopoulos, G. (1989). Time Trends of the Returns to Education: Cross-National Evidence. Economics of Education Review, 8 (3), 225–231. Psacharopoulos, G. (1994). Returns to Investment in Education: A Global Update. World Development, 22 (9), 1325–1343. Psacharopoulos, G. (ed.) (1987). Economics of Education – Research and Studies. Oxford – New York – Frankfurt: Pergamon Press. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 17 Psacharopoulos, G., & Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for Development – An analysis of Investment Choices. New York – Oxford – London: Oxford University Press – World Bank. Psacharopoulos, G., & Tilak, J. (1991). Schooling and Equity. In G. Psacharopoulos (ed.), Essays on Poverty, Equity and Growth (pp. 53–78). Oxford – New York – Beijing – Frankfurt: Pergamon Press – World Bank. Psacharopoulos, G., & Papakonstantinou, G. (2005). The real university cost in a »free« higher education country, Economics of Education Review, 24 (1), 103–108. Salmi, J., & Hauptman, A. M. (2006). Innovations in Tertiary Education Financing: A Comparative Evaluation of Allocation Mechanisms. Education – Working paper series, No. 4. Washington: World Bank. Schnitzer, K., Kuster, E., & Middendorff, E. (2005). Eurostudent Report 2005 – Social and Economic Conditions of Student life in Europe 2005, Synopsis of indicators for Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands and United Kingdom. Hannover: Hochschul-Informations-System (HIC). Retrived September 10, 2007 from http://www.his.de/abt2/ab21/Eurostudent/ report2005/Downloads/Synopsis%20of%20 Indicators/SY Suoto, O. M., & McCoshan, A. (2005). Study on Access to Education and Training. Final report for the European Commission. Birmingham: ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited. Unesco (1993). Strategies for Change and Development in Higher Education. Paris: Unesco. University Reform and Access to Higher Education (2003). An Invitational Conference on University Reform and Higher Educational Accessibility with a Special Focus on Eastern and Central Europe. Prague: Institute for Social and Economic Analysis from Prague - Center for Comparative and Global Studies in Education from State University of New York at Buffalo, June 15–17. Teixeira, P., Johnstone, B., Rosa, M., & Vossensteyn, H. (eds.) (2006). Cost-sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal? Dordrecht: Springer. Tilak, J. (1993). Trends in Costs and Financing of Higher Education: Tentative Comparison between Developed and Developing Countries. Higher Education Review, 25 (3), 7–35. Tsang, M. C. (1995). Cost Analysis in Education. In M Carnoy (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education (pp. 386–392). Oxford – New York – Tokyo: Elsevier Science. Tsakloglou, P., & Antoninis, M. (1999). On the Distributional Impact of Public Education: Evidence from Greece. Economics of Education Review, 18 (4), 439–452. Vandycke, N. (2001). Access to Education for the Poor in Europe and Central Asia – Preliminary Evidence and Policy Implications. World Bank Technical Paper No. 511, Washington: World Bank. Verry, D. (1987). University Internal Efficiency. In G. Psacharopoulos (ed.), Economics of Education – Research and Studies. Oxford – New York – Frankfurt: Pergamon Press. Verry, D., & Wagner, L. (1977). The Internal Efficiency of Education Institutions. London: Open University Press. Vossensteyn, J. J. (1993). Student Financial Support in the Netherlands – Recent Development in an International and in a Theoretical Perspective. Paper presented at the international conference “Higher Education in a Changing Environment: Regional, National and Trans-National Issues”, Turku: European Association for Institutional Research. Vossensteyn, J. J. (1995). Direct versus Indirect Student Support – An International Comparison. Paper presented at the international conference “Dynamics in Higher Education: Tradition Challenged by New Paradigms”. Zürich: European Association for Institutional Research. Vossensteyn, J. J. (1998). Student Support: An International Inventory of Interesting Aspects and Trends. In J. J. Vossensteyn et al., Education Crediting and Insurance (pp. 59–66). Enschede: CHEPS. Vossensteyn, H. (2006). Perceptions of Student Price-responsiveness. Enschede: Center for higher education policy studies (CHEPS). Ziderman, A. (2004). Policy Options for Student Loan Scheme: Lessons from Five Asian Countries. Bangkok: Unesco. Woodhall, M. (1980). Cost-Benefit Analysis in Educational Planning. Fundamentals of Educational Planning – No. 13 (second edition). Paris: UNESCO. Woodhall, M. (1995). Student Fees. In M. Carnoy (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education (pp. 426–429). Oxford – New York – Tokyo: Elsevier. Woodhall, M. (1995a). Student Loans. In M. Carnoy (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Economics of Education (pp. 420–425). Oxford – New York – Tokyo: Elsevier. Woodhall, M. (2006). Financing Higher Education: The Role of Tuition Fees and Student Support. In Higher education in the world 2006: The financing of universities (pp. 122–130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Woodhall, M. (ed.) et al. (1989). Financial Support for Students – Grants, Loans or Graduate Tax? 18 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 London: Kogan Page – Institute of Education, University of London. World Bank (1995). Priorities and Strategies for Education. Washington: World Bank. World Bank (2006). World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. Washington: World Bank. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 19 Bruce Johnstone* Financing higher education: some special features of formerly socialist Europe Summary Universities and higher educa- The source of the dilemma is three- ering per-student costs (if possible) tional systems throughout the fold: (1) inexorably rising per-stu- and supplementing public revenue world including in formerly Social- dent costs; (2) increased demand with tuition fees and other private ist Europe are experiencing a fi- for university places; and (3) ris- sources. The challenge is how to nancial dilemma as costs both to ing competition for scarce public maintain accessibility in the face the individual institution and to revenue from politically and so- of almost inevitable rising ex-the national system rise faster cially compelling competing needs. penses to both parents and stuthan the available public revenues. Solutions involve some mix of low- dents. Key words: Higher education (or university) costs, cost sharing, tuition fees, access (or accessibility). ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I210, I220, I280 1. Introduction This demand, whether still surging or “flattening,” is accompanied by the second element of higher Underlying many of the financial issues in higher education’s financial dilemma, which is the rapidly education in all countries is the surging demand increasing per-student cost pressures, fueled throughout of the past three or four decades, driven by a belief Europe and worldwide by a resistance of the higher in higher education as a principal engine of social educational enterprise to the kinds of ongoing and economic advancement, both for the individual productivity enhancements typically associated and for the larger society and economy. Most with the goods-producing sectors of the countries in Europe (with some differences among industrialized economies (mainly substituting countries in Western, Central, Eastern and capital for labor). At the same time, governments Southeastern Europe) and their higher education in nearly all countries seem increasingly unable systems have grown, or massified, dramatically since to keep pace with these cost pressures through the mid and late 60s, nearing in some countries a public (that is, tax and/or deficit generated) possible effective saturation, at least of the classical revenues. This inability goes considerably beyond university form of tertiary education. Most countries a mere unwillingness to tax. Taxation and even are still attempting to accommodate this increasing deficit financing are nearly as difficult technically participation, possibly with some form of more as they are unpopular politically.1 Globalization effective sector diversification. Several countries, with and the virtually unlimited mobility of capital and low or even declining birth rates and at or near productive facilities leads multinational goods this apparent saturation, are actually facing the producers to seek a combination of political possibility of significant declines in enrollments, stability, low wages, and low taxes, which limits at least of traditional-age first degree students. At the ability of the advanced industrial countries to the same time, some of these same countries are maintain high taxes and thus limits the size of their still struggling to accommodate the massification public sectors (including their publicly-financed that has already happened (that is, to restore some universities). The so-called transitional countries of the former per-student revenues for their of Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe, long universities and to “catch up,” as it were, on the dependent on relatively easy value added taxes on enrollment surge that has already occurred). state-owned producers, have had to devise new * State University of New York at Buffalo, USA 1 Deficit financing, once at least a “fall back” method of raising public revenue, is highly constrained by the rules of the Euro community. 20 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 means of taxation, none of which have been particularly successful. And to the extent that any of these countries were able to increase their taxes significantly (and to do so year after year), there would remain all of the other compelling public needs (e.g. elementary and secondary education, ageing populations, unemployment and the need for an economic safety net, public health, public infrastructure, and the restoration of the environment) that compete with higher education for these limited additional revenues. What emerges from this confluence of (1) high and rapidly increasing demand; (2) commensu-rately high and rapidly increasing costs; and (3) increasingly limited public revenues are two large, complex, and interrelated issues pressing upon higher educational institutions and governments worldwide. First, how can the demand for greater (but still high quality) higher educational capacity be met at a lower perstudent cost (especially at a lower per-student cost to the taxpayer)? The policy responses to this dilemma include: (1) those that attempt to lower costs (e.g. merging institutions for economies of scale, increasing student/faculty ratios, etc.); and (2) those that attempt to supplement limited public revenue with private revenue (e.g. with tuition, fees, philanthropic donations, and institutional and faculty entrepreneur-ship). The higher educational reform agendas of most countries, including the mature economies as well as the countries of the transitional and the developing worlds, contain elements of both. Second, how can higher education resist (and possibly reverse) its natural inclination to reproduce, and even to exacerbate, existing social disparities and inequalities, whether by parents’ social class, ethnicity or kinship affiliation, language, region, or religion? Access to higher education everywhere is limited by the level and quality of the secondary education, including whatever combination of family cultural capital and private tutors can further enhance the academic preparedness of the aspiring student. Parental income is virtually certain to be a predictor of higher educational participation, especially where means-tested financial assistance and generally available student loans are limited or non-existent. And because parental income is generally correlated with white collar or professional occupation, membership in a dominant ethnic and linguistic group, and access to the best secondary schools (that is, other predictors of academic preparedness and ambition) higher education can reinforce and even accentuate existing social stratification, even while some of the very brightest and luckiest of the poor or the rural or the linguistic or ethnic minorities are able to use higher education to escape from their social and economic marginalization. 2. Internal and external efficiency Both parts of system of funding higher education – state funding of educational institutions and state financial support to students – have important impacts on both the internal and the external economic efficiency of higher education. A very low price of instruction (i.e. low or no tuition fees) does not stimulate students to efficient study. In combination with fellowships as the only direct state financial support to students, such a system results in very high private returns to higher education compared to social returns. Thus, the internal economic efficiency, which includes the efficiency of study, or learning, is as a rule, low in institutions and countries without tuition fees. In many European former socialist countries, private rates of return are high (and have been increasing since the 90s) compared to social returns and also compared to the rates of return in the highly industrialized countries of the OECD. 3. Cost-sharing Worldwide, the most common approach to the need for increasing revenue is some form or forms of cost sharing, or the shift of some of the higher educational per-student costs from governments and taxpayers to parents and students. This trend in the mature economies can be seen in the high and rapidly increasing tuition fees in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand; more recently in the early beginnings of tuition fees in the West European countries of UK, Portugal, The Netherlands, most recently (2001) Austria and (2006) Germany (some Landers); and finally in the so-called dual track tuition fees of post-Communist Russia, Czech Republic, and other East and Central European countries. The economic rationale behind the case for students bearing a portion of the costs of their higher education is that there are substantial private benefits, both monetary and non-monetary, that accrue to the student from higher levels of education and that these benefits justify a tuition, especially one that can be deferred and repaid through some form of loan or a surtax upon income or current earnings. The case for parents bearing a portion of the costs of their children’s higher education (via an up front tuition, but almost always with the caveat of means-testing, or the presumption that the parents actually have the financial ability to pay) is driven partly by the same assumption of private benefits extending to the parents, reinforced by the fact that parents all over the world do pay, and IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 21 partly by the aforementioned fact that public needs seem almost everywhere to be outrunning the available public revenues. Thus, there seem to be few alternatives to some tuition fees (short of denying the universities the revenue that they seem to need and losing either higher educational quality or higher educational capacity or both) to the principal detriment of the poorest or most marginal students, who have such limited options. In fact, at least in the abstract, most economists maintain that some tuition fees—assuming some means-tested grants and/or sufficient available student loans—is actually more equitable than free higher education in that students everywhere are disproportionately from the middle and upper classes and the taxing systems in most countries tend to be proportional or even regressive. Europe remains the last bastion of genuinely free higher education, although three decades of massification, overcrowding, persistent under-funding, and the generally slow economic growth of the 1990s have been placing great pressures on the universities for alternative revenue sources. The UK throughout most of the 90s dramatically reduced its once very generous student grants, and in 1997 for the first time imposed a tuition fee (interestingly, under a Labor Government), although this “up front” tuition fee has since been converted to a deferred tuition, not unlike the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which is repaid through a surtax on the incomes of graduates after their incomes exceed a threshold level.2 France in the early years of the 21st century continues to provide nearly free university education to every graduate of their academic secondary schools, but Austria abandoned free higher education in 2001 and Germany offered possibility to introduce tuition fee in 2005; many observers believe that the rest of the continent will one day follow. The US presumes both a parental contribution based upon the income and some of the assets of the parents (which necessitates some way to test parental means, or financial need) and a student contribution, either from loans or term-time or summer earnings. Scandinavia officially rejects the proposition that parents should be financially responsible for the higher education of their children, but it accepts the notion of a student responsibility for living expenses, born by extensive student loans. Russia, along with most of the rest of the countries of the former Soviet Union, and most of Eastern and Central Europe (all of which have political/ideological legacies of higher education as another entitlement) albeit one that the governments can no longer afford to honor— attempt to have it both ways, with regular, or governmentally-sponsored, students entitled to a traditionally free higher education (presumably selected by competitive examinations), but all others charged tuition. 4. Sector diversification A related issue, still largely financial, in higher education is the form and extent of sector diversification, or the creation and effective use of shorter cycle, more accessible, and more vocationally-oriented alternatives to long (3 or 4 to 6 or 7 year) first degree associated with the classical, research-oriented university. These alternatives—such as the German and Austrian Fachhochschulen, the Dutch HBOs, the French IUTs (Institutes Universitaires Technologies), the Japanese public and private junior colleges, and the American community colleges (to which most US higher educational observers would add the public and private four year and comprehensive colleges and universities)—attempt to provide tertiary level education that is shorter in term, more practical, less academically rigorous, and less costly. Some countries, such as Spain and Italy, have resisted the non-university movement altogether. Britain actually erased what was once a clear binary line dividing the classical research universities, both old and new, from the non-university polytechnics and now exhibits the research drift so prevalent in the US, where colleges and universities that once featured bachelors and master degrees and a teaching emphasis now strive toward research and advanced degrees. Sector diversification will continue to meet resistance from university students and faculty, who frequently see alternatives to the classical university as lower in status and designed mainly to track less well-prepared students (therefore more likely to be from poor or otherwise marginalized families) into forms of tertiary education that will limit their opportunities. Nevertheless, sector diversification will likely remain prominent on the agenda of international higher education reform. Interestingly, what appears to be an unintended consequence of the UK’s shift from an up front to a deferred tuition fee is not a shift back to governmental funding, but a transfer of cost burden from the middle and upper middle class parents (low income parents did not have to pay the means-tested up-front tuition fee) to all students. 22 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 5. Private higher education and privatization of public higher education Private higher education has always been important in the US, as it has been in much of East Asia and Latin America and is rapidly emerging (albeit in very fragile forms) in Russia and the other newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union. This importance can be quantitative, or demand absorbing, as in the relatively low cost, less selective institutions of Philippines, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Brazil, and elsewhere in Latin America that permit the maintenance of a smaller, costlier, more selective, and generally more elite public university sector. Such private institutions are typically highly responsive to the market—that is to the interests of both students and their potential employers (e.g. featuring business, computer science and English language instruction). Or as in the United States, but less often in the rest of the world, they can be elite and leading edge. (The US also has a significant number of the low-cost, non-selective, private non-profit colleges, as well as a large, non-selective, proprietary or for-profit, sector). Considerably more significant in Europe than the rise of privately owned institutions of higher education is the privatization of the public institutions: e.g. charging tuition fees and encouraging entrepreneurship on the part of institutions and faculty alike, granting increased autonomy to institutional management (and diminishing the influence of the faculty), and taking on private sector norms such as marketing and the emphasis on accountability. The issues emerging from privatization include all of the controversies associated with cost-sharing plus the issues associated with the clash of traditional academic values and faculty authority and the newer managerialism. 6. Globalization and the conformance of academic standards Globalization refers to an internationalization of production, of capital (and therefore the ownership and control of this production), of information and knowledge, and of culture itself. Globalization is often associated with the worldwide ascendancy of market capitalism and a perceived increasing hegemony of the OECD nations, and in particular of the United States and the other English language-speaking countries. Higher education is an important engine of globalization, and is in turn profoundly affected by it. The modern university is among the most international of all institutions, and research and scholarly creativity, especially in science and technology, are among the most international of human endeavors. At the same time, critics decry the extent to which globalization weakens local culture, literature, and language, and the intentional or unintentional complicity of higher educational institutions in this process. Finally, even as globalization generates wealth, it also diminishes the ability of states and other governmental units to tax that wealth, thus diminishing the sectors—including public higher education—that depend financially upon public revenue. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 23 Lorenz Lassnigg*, Martin Unger** Funding higher education - where is Austria going? Summary The paper describes the new sys- cussed under these conditions, objective criteria are rarely taken tem of funding Austrian universi- resulting in a very unequal sys- into account. Most of all this is true ties, which is mainly based on per- tem mainly due to the strong so- for the research performance of formance agreements. Secondly, cial selectivity of the school system. the universities. Overall, the effi-the consequences of the old fund- Moreover, reforming the open ac- ciency of the system is hard to ing system with restricted public cess policy will be at the top of the judge because relevant data is budgets in times of a "massifi- political agenda in the near future. lacking. This won't change much cation" of university education We conclude that the new system in the near future. and an open access policy are of funding follows in its core the described. Equity in access is dis- old culture of negotiation, because Key words: Austria, funding, equity, efficiency. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I280 1. Introduction The paper is based on some in-depth analyses about the comparative financing of higher education (evaluation of OECD indicators), a comparative The Austrian system of higher education provides case study about costs and results of individual a unique case in some respects: a recent reform universities, a comparative study of admission has changed a very highly regulated, traditionally mechanisms to higher education, and a set of state-financed, input-oriented system to a system representative student surveys focusing on the relying on autonomous institutions. The funding social study conditions (see Lassnigg, Steiner 2003, of higher education is comparatively low, despite Unger et al. 2005, 2006, Lassnigg et al. 2007, HIS comparatively high overall education and training 2005, Unger, Wroblewski 2007). expenditure. Efficiency is not controlled systematically, and existing indicators point to rather low efficiency. The dropout rate has been 2. System of funding one of the highest, and study duration is very high. The admission system is still based on the right to a study place acquired by a matriculation In the past the system of funding was based on a examination at upper secondary school. The cameralistic system, with predefined budgets for universities are in general not allowed to restrict the universities. Recently the universities have been study places, and thus are in different proportions given a high level of autonomy, and they are overcrowded. In terms of equity, there are financed mainly on the basis of a performance indications that the system is quite unequal in agreement (Leistungsvereinbarungen), with 20% based terms of social background, and except for the on a set of indicators (Formelbudget). Teaching and gender proportion, strong inequality persists. research funds are not separated in the university Austria agreed to join the Bologna process early sector, and the teaching load is not identifiable. on; thus the study structure is in the process of change as well, which opens many questions about Performance agreements (80% of total university budget) the consequences of these changes. Recently the For the first time, performance agreements between first graduates of bachelor’s studies have reached the Ministry and the individual universities were the labour market, and their pathways into further signed at the end of 2006. They cover the period studies are not clear so far. 2007–2009. The agreements describe the status * Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna ** Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna 24 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Table 1: Coverage of performance agreements and intended projects of the University of Vienna as an example Topics of performance agreements Example of the University of Vienna 1. Human resource development Increase in number of professors and doctoral students 2. Research Implementation of research foci, interdisciplinary research platforms, increase in third-party funded research 3. Teaching Improved supervision of theses, implementation of the Bologna structure, expanded e-learning offers, expansion of courses for further education 4. Social objectives Increase in number of female professors, measures for supporting scientific careers of females 5. Internationality and mobility Increased participation in EU funded projects, increase in number of joint degree programmes, rising mobility of students, cooperation in teaching 6. Special units University sport: rising number of participants Source: University of Vienna (Mitteilungsblatt No. 99, 22.3.2007). quo in teaching and research and the intended projects for the next three years in several areas with reference to the university development plans (see Table 1). The universities receive a lump sum for the achievement of the whole performance agreement. There is no money allocated to particular aspects of the contracts. Only the future projects are quantified with indicators (like the number of additional professors) and given a fixed deadline for their achievement. The next period of performance agreements will take into account whether or not the universities fulfilled all points in the foregoing agreement. However, it is not clear how this will be assessed and how over- and underachievements in certain points will be traded off. Moreover, most of the deadlines in the agreements are set for 2009, but as negotiations for the next period of performance agreements should be finished by 2009, their achievement cannot be taken into account. In the agreements there is no connection to the number of students; only the subjects and the type of degrees offered in each subject are fixed. However, the University of Business Administration, for example, signed the contract with the reservation that it can only fulfil it if the number of incoming students does not rise. Moreover, its agreement contains an estimation of future students in the newly established master’s programmes. If more students decide to continue with a postgraduate programme (access is not limited by law), the university will not be able to fulfil the agreement completely. Even more, the estimates of the university (which are part of the contract) assume a dropout rate of 65% – like the current one. Indicator-based allocation of funds (20% of total university budget) Twenty percent of the total university budget is allocated according to an indicator-based system. All parties, the ministry and the universities, agreed on a set of 11 indicators and a very complicated formula of budget allocation based on these indicators (see Table 2). In general, the system takes the status quo of the universities’ funding Table 2: Indicators used for the allocation of 20% of the total university funds Ind ic a to r Weight 1. Number of active students in BA, MA and diploma studies within the official study duration according to the curricula (plus a grace period) 15% 2. Number of graduates in BA, MA and diploma studies 10% 3. Proportion of graduates within the official study duration according to the curricula (plus a grace period) 10% 4. Success rate of students in BA, MA and diploma studies 10% 5. Number of graduates in doctorate and PhD studies 15% 6. Income from research projects funded by the Austrian Science Fund or the EU 15% 7. Income from research projects funded by other sources 15% 8. Proportion of female professors 6% 9. Number of female graduates in doctorate and PhD studies 1% 10. Number of students participating in exchange programmes (outgoing) 2.5% 11. Number of first-time enrolled students in MA, doctorate and PhD studies without a prior degree from Austria 0.5% Source: BMWF (Verordnung über das formelgebundene Budget der Universitäten, BGBl. II No. 120/2006). IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 25 into account, as well as the size of the universities and the improvement of the indicators versus a prior reference period and versus all other universities. Indicators are weighted for the field of study and type of degree, and are standardised according to the size of the university. Scores are calculated with a sigmoid function for each indicator, mostly taking reference values from prior periods into account. The points per indicator are then weighted according to the share listed in the table above and summed for each university. Finally, the total scores are standardised according to the size of the university, and the overall budget is divided by these standardised total score points among the universities. This complicated formula was developed to establish a fair system, which takes into account the different situations of, for example, universities of medicine or the arts. However, the formula is so complicated that the result is again a nontransparent system of budget allocation. Several universities were surprised when they saw the results. They expected an increase in their budget, but the result was a decrease (which is capped). Therefore, the ministry has already announced an evaluation of the formula. Moreover, the complicated formula does not allow for calculating the value of each indicator in monetary terms. For example, if a university increases the proportion of female professors (indicator 8), one does not know how much money is allocated for this. This makes internal processes in the universities more difficult, and the administration can hardly award additional money for certain achievements of sub-units, like additional funding for an institute that appoints a female professor. Another criticised point is the benchmarking of the current situation with the prior period. Improvements should be rewarded and standstills or declines should result in budget cuts. However, the University of Business Administration, for example, claims to have been operating at the limits of its capacity for several years already. Therefore, improvements are not possible anymore in their opinion. Of course, single indicators are criticised as well: to take only students within the defined study duration into account, for example, leads to different results according to the amount of de facto part-time students (officially there are only fulltime students). Several subjects are more easily combined with student jobs or are more attractive for continuing education of the work force than others. Therefore, the average amount of time spent by students for their studies per week varies between the universities, as does the proportion of students finishing in the intended period of time. Apart from the lump sum of the university budget, there is a separate system of funding for additional research, which is very complex, due to different kinds of research (academic, applied, development) situated in different institutions and ministries. Thus, the financing of the services of universities is hardly transparent either. A second and very much smaller sector of higher education, the universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschule), is organised on a very different basis: an accrediting council selects and periodically re-evaluates programmes, and funding is provided by the federal government on a per student ratio which is carefully monitored. The federal government admits a certain number of study places per programme and funds 90% of each place. The amount differs by subject, but it does not include the cost of the infrastructure. The providers of the programmes have to make do with this amount of money or raise additional funds (at least for the infrastructure). They are also allowed to accept more students than the federal ministry admits, but without federal funding. Mostly the necessary additional money is paid by the provincial governments, which are in most cases the providers of the programmes. Tuition fees are allowed up to the amount charged by the universities (less than € 400 per term), but in three of the nine provinces, the institutions do not charge fees. Originally, it was hoped that this new funding system might raise more private money, especially from the business sector. In fact, it brought up the provinces as new players in the higher education sector and therefore resulted in “different” public money instead of notable private funds (Lassnigg, Unger 2006). 3. Consequences of restricted public budgets for higher education Because of the missing regulation of study places, the increase of student numbers since the 1970s has not been matched with additional funds; thus, as in most other countries, the per capita funding went down (in real terms). In Austria, this was to some extent hidden by three facts: first, little or no study activity of a high proportion of the counted student population. A retrospective analysis estimated that around 25% of university students included in the statistics for the year 2000, the year before the introduction of 26 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 fees, were inactive (Pechar, Wroblewski 2002). Therefore, “real” conditions in many areas differed very much from the “official” indicators. Second, no formal part-time status exists, but for example, more than 60% of students work during the term (Unger, Wroblewski 2007). Therefore, the per capita number of enrolled students differs greatly from the number of full-time equivalents, which is not precisely calculable. However, more than 40% of students spent less than 30 hours per week on their study in 2006 (ibid.), a number that provides an indication of the potential part-timers. Third, following from the high proportion of hidden part-timers, the average duration of study is very high in Austria. According to OECD data, the average duration of tertiary type A programmes was 5.6 years in Austria. Only in Germany (6.6) and the UK (5.9) is the average duration of study longer; the OECD average was 4.4 years (OECD 2006). Based on these figures, it may make sense to compare the cumulative expenditures per student over the average duration of studies instead of the annual expenditure. According to this indicator (OECD 2006), Austria spends more than most of the OECD countries for which data are available. Only Switzerland and Sweden have higher expenditures on tertiary education. Nevertheless, a high proportion of a university’s budget is spent for staff. However, the number of scientific personnel could keep up even less with the growth of student numbers. Currently, there are 4.5 times more students enrolled in Austrian higher education institutions than in the year 1970, and the (nominal) budget increased by around four times, but the number of academics has only doubled in the same period (Pechar 2007). Moreover, the allocation of academics was as obscure as was the allocation of funds within the old system. Therefore, the ratio of students per academic shows the results of a system with open access and non-transparent and inadequate funding of the growing number of students. While in some, mainly technical, subjects the ratio of students per academic is average in international comparisons, there are also the so-called “mass subjects” with ratios of more than 400 students per professor. In fact these constitute only a handful of subjects, but the majority of students are enrolled in these subjects. Pechar (2007) calculates that 30% of all university students are enrolled in subjects with an “extremely unfavourable” ratio of 50 or more students per academic, and a further 25% of all students are enrolled in subjects with an “unfavourable” ratio of 37 or more students per academic. Even if one took the proportion of part-time students into account and estimated fulltime equivalents, the picture would still be unfavourable in several subjects. A very intense comparison of institutional budgets supports this argument (Unger et al. 2005): The Technical University of Vienna (which is not overcrowded in most areas) has a similar budget per student available and a similar ratio of students per academic as the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany. However, both universities lag far behind the financial situation of the ETH in Zurich. The situation of “full universities” (excluding medicine) is quite different: on average, the budget of the University of Vienna is far below the budget per student of the universities in Munich and Zurich, as is the ratio of students per academic. However, a look at sub-units shows that the financial situation of the University of Vienna differs not too much from the situation of the University of Munich, apart from humanities, social sciences and economics – areas with vast numbers of students. Here again, the gap between the Austrian and the German universities versus the University of Zurich remains large in all subjects. The expenditures per graduate, however, differ much less among the analysed universities. A comparison of business schools showed similar effects (Unger et al. 2006): the expenditure per student at the University of Business Administration in Vienna (WU) is similar to the one at VSE in Prague and the Faculty of Economics at the University of Hamburg, but far less than at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS) or the Faculty of Economics at the University of Zurich. On the other hand, only Zurich spends more per graduate than Vienna. In a word, the funding of universities has been very opaque, and the available data have not allowed for a sound monitoring of it. Different indicators show very different results. Some reasons for this are the many de facto part-time students, a longer study duration and a high dropout rate. The funding situation differs very much among the subjects. Only a few subjects face severe financial problems; however, these are the subjects which enrol a majority of the students. The situation may improve with the new budget allocation instruments, but they involve mechanisms to prevent financial shocks for single institutions due to a cap of maximal budget cuts; therefore, the reallocation of funds will take time. Concerning research funds separate from higher education funding, there has been a long-standing assessment of very low research expenditure in Austria. However, more recently, research has discovered a quite substantial amount of research IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 27 funding, which had been hidden before. A supplemental funding offensive for research has improved the proportion substantially since the year 2000. These funds are raised mainly by the entrepreneurial sector. 4. Cost-sharing Due to the OECD figures, the funding of the Austrian system is almost totally public. Private expenditure covered 7.3% of the total expenditure on educational institutions in 2003 – this figure nearly doubled compared with the preceding years. The OECD average was 24%; in Japan and Korea private expenditures covered 60% to 77%, and in the United States 57% (OECD 2006). Private money is particularly collected in two areas: first, since 2001 relatively small tuition fees are collected (below € 400 per semester), and second, the private sector contributes mainly to applied research. However, these funds are not formally included into the university budget, and much of the funds goes to non-university research institutions. Thus in many areas there is a more or less deep cleavage between academic research on the one hand, and applied research and development on the other. The Austrian private sector is particularly reluctant to finance research in higher education. However, an evaluation of OECD indicators shows that the figures about private funds are hardly comparable, and Austria is lagging behind the shares of private funds in most countries (Lassnigg, Steiner 2003). Totally missing are opportunity costs, which, however, matter very much when it comes to equity questions. Attempts to increase private funds Introducing tuition fees has been one attempt to increase private funds. This issue has been contested very strongly in the political arena; however, the current government has also retained them. Other attempts have been initiatives to raise more private money for research and to increase interaction between academic research and applied research. Different kinds of programmes have been set up for joint research and development centres between university institutes, non-university research centres and enterprises. Some of these programmes have formed rather large and high-quality research and development centres based on academic quality assessment procedures. 5. Equity in access Equity in access has been a more or less neglected issue in Austrian higher education. The system is nominally “open”, as there have been no restrictions to access, which is conditional only on holding the Austrian matriculation examination. Selection is performed mainly by the school system, which is tracked after grade four (age 10 of pupils) in upper-level and lower-level programmes. There is also a strong social bias in the selection of school careers: as the recent census has shown, only 12% of pupils from a lower educational background compared to 77% of children from parents with a university degree attend a college-preparatory secondary school at the age of 12 (Bauer 2005). In other words, your likelihood of attending an upper-level programme is six times higher if your parents finished university, compared to children from parents with only a compulsory school certificate. Even more, according to PISA studies, the performance of pupils in Austria depends very strongly on the educational background of the parents. In reading, for example, the influence of the social background is the strongest among all EU countries (Breit, Schreiner 2006). The social selectivity of the education system continues in the tertiary sector. A recent student survey confirmed earlier studies on this issue: Unger and Wroblewski (2007) calculated a so-called “recruiting quota” that shows the number of incoming students according to their fathers’ educational level per 1,000 men in the population with the same educational level. If the student’s father finished an apprenticeship, the recruiting quota is 7.9. If the student’s father is a university graduate, the quota is 42.9 – more than five times higher. For a simpler description, the population is divided into two groups, fathers with and fathers without a matriculation certificate (Matura, Abitur). The quotas are then 33.2 and 10.7 in favour of the more highly educated fathers (pictures for students’ mothers are similar). According to this simplified indicator, children from higher social classes are over-represented threefold at the universities. This ratio was even higher several decades ago, but has ceased to change over the last decade. The introduction of tuition fees in 2001 led to an overall reduction in the number of incoming students for two years (in accordance with economic predictions about this), which was, contrary to all fears, not socially selective according to the recruiting quota. Meanwhile, the same number of new students started courses of university study as before the 28 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 introduction of fees, and enrolment at the universities of applied sciences even increased. The situation at the universities of applied sciences is a bit less socially selective. Here, fathers with a Matura are “only” over-represented twofold among incoming students, although the sector does not follow an open access policy and each institution selects its students according to its own criteria. Because this sector has been in existence only 13 years and is still expanding, the social selectivity of the total higher education sector is reducing slightly. Currently, more than a quarter of all beginners start at a university of applied sciences, and there are plans to further increase this proportion. However, comparative assessments have shown that the Austrian system is relatively inequitable, despite its so-called “open admission”. The last edition of the Eurostudent report (HIS 2005), for example, presents the ratio of students’ fathers to all men of corresponding age groups with higher education. This ratio is 2.6 in Austria, 2.2 in Germany, 2.0 in France, 1.7 in Italy and Finland, 1.6 in the Netherlands, 1.5 in Spain and 1.1 in Ireland (an indicator of 1.0 would show a socially equal distribution). Only in Portugal is the ratio much higher (5.4), but partly this is affected by various data problems. Usher and Cervenan (2005) published an Educational Equity Index (EEI) for universities based on a similar indicator. Austria, with an EEI score of 38, ranks in 12th place out of 13 countries. The Netherlands is the most equitable country, with an EEI score of 67. As the European Court decided in 2005 that “open admission” must also be applied to non-Austrian EU citizens, big debates about the admission system have come up, and universities claim the right to select students. Some pilot programmes have been installed in certain study fields, for example, medicine. Here, the universities are now allowed to limit the study places and select their students themselves. The Austrian Rectors’ Conference (Universities Austria) has launched a big research project to assess the admission system and to come up with alternative solutions (Badelt et al. 2007). Within this project, Lassnigg et al. (2007) looked at the social selectivity of different admission systems in several countries. Apart from the fact that there is hardly any international comparative literature about this issue, the first finding was that the effects of admission systems have to be analysed in the context of the whole system (including e.g. fees, grants or other supportive measures like tax reductions or child benefits). However, the prior “education pipeline” (and its selectivity) is the most important factor. International studies (e.g. Usher, Cervenan 2005) have shown that systems where the admission to higher education depends on an entitlement of the school system (e.g. Germany, Austria) show the worst results with regard to social equity. In this sense, the open access to Austrian universities is far away from being open to anybody. Instead, it could be called a system with open access for the privileged. However, the consequences of the subliminal discussion about reforms of the admission system are not easy to foresee at the moment. In general, equity issues have gained importance in public debate with the PISA results and swap from time to time with the universities. However, mainly tuition fees are discussed and contested under the equity topic. 6. Economic efficiency Internal economic efficiency We can rate internal economic efficiency as not very good because of the lack of transparency for both input and output. The issue is further complicated by the bulk of recent changes. There is particularly a lack of information about the extent to which the infrastructure is really used by students and by the lack of information about the research activity and output of the staff. Because of the high drop-out rate and the long study duration in the past, even the relatively low budget does not indicate a high degree of internal efficiency. Particularly if we calculate costs per graduate, based on the average per student expenditure, this indicator is very high. On the other hand, some more in-depth studies about research efficiency have obtained a relatively high efficiency. External economic efficiency Because of a lack of income information, there is not much evidence about the external efficiency of Austrian higher education. The individual rates of return of Austrian education and training are average, whereas there are indications that the social rates of return are comparatively low. Some simulations indicate that the public costs are too high; however, this might result rather from schooling than from higher education. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 29 7. Planned and required changes The first change is full implementation of the reform of the university sector. In terms of financing, the first round of performance agreements has just started, and information about the achievement indicators will soon be available. This will bring to light whether or not the reform might really improve efficiency. A second change which can be foreseen is reform of the admission system. There are no clear plans at the moment; however, much points to the direction that the universities will get some discretion in selecting their students – maybe in PhD or master’s programmes firstly. A study about the equity implications of admission systems mainly pointed out that massive and clearly targeted support programmes for applicants with a disadvantaged background are a main ingredient for improving equity (Lassnigg et al. 2007). A third issue is how the system of grants is working, and might work under new conditions of admission. Available studies point out that the existing system of grants might be too broadly dispersed to more wealthy parts of the population, and not generous enough for the part of the population really in need of support. However, results of research also show that financial compensation is a necessary but not sufficient means for improving equity (ibid.). Much broader measures are needed, which also include the responsibility of the higher education institutions for improving equity. A final issue, which is most difficult to point out now, is the impact of the new Bologna structure on financing and equity. It will be interesting to see how the recent priorities about the social dimension of the Bologna process, as signed by the ministers at their London meeting in May 2007, will be implemented in Austria: “National strategies and policies for the social dimension, including action plans and measures to evaluate their effectiveness” (London Communiqué 2007). 8. Conclusions Major reforms have taken place in the Austrian higher education system during the past years, starting with the universities of applied sciences as a new sector in 1994 and continuing with a new university act in 2002 which gave the universities full autonomy and a new system of funding, implemented for the first time in 2007. The old cameralistic system of funding has been criticised of being non-transparent and based on having the right contacts in policy and administration. This culture of negotiation was replaced by a twofold system consisting of performance agreements and a smaller part based on indicators. However, the university budget is allocated as a lump sum and no single performance indicator is valuated in monetary terms. Even the main services of a university, teaching and research, are not separately financed. Neither does the system take the capacities of the universities, e.g. in the form of study places, into account. Apart from a few exceptions, a policy of open access to all university programmes is still the case. In a generalised manner, one can say the old culture of negotiation has mainly been replaced by a different culture of negotiation. Transparency of results is better than before, but still only in a much-aggregated way. In addition to this, performance in research is hardly taken into account. Only the income of third-party funded research projects has a weight of 30% in the indicator-based part of the university budget, which allocates 20% of the total budget. Academics spend up to half of their working time for generally funded research – according to their own answers in the surveys of Statistics Austria. This is not yet considered adequately within the funding system, nor are the outcomes of this research evaluated by other measures – apart from internal evaluations of the universities. The open access of the university system is a euphemism. Due to the strong social selectivity of the school system, one might better talk about open access for the privileged. Research shows that only massive direct interventions and support strategies promise to have positive effects on the reduction of social selectivity. However, the institutions themselves have a responsibility for the social composition of their student body – even more, if they are to be granted the right of regulating access to their studies themselves. It is hard to say anything about the efficiency of the system in the given situation, be it internal or external efficiency. Because efficiency played no significant role in the debates of the last decades, a great deal of important data and information is missing for a well-founded judgement. References Badelt C., Wegscheider W. & Wulz H. (eds.), Hochschulzugang in Österreich. Graz: Leykam. Bauer A. (2005). Volkszählung 2001: Soziodemographische Determinanten der Bildungsbeteiligung. In: Statistische Nachrichten 2/ 2005 (pp. 108–120). Statistik Austria, Vienna. 30 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Breit S. & Schreiner C. (2006). Sozioökonomische Herkunft und Schulleistung. In: Haider G. & Schreiner C. (2006). Die PISA-Studie. Österreichs Schulsystem im internationalen Wettbewerb. Wien: Böhlau. HIS (2005). Eurostudent Report 2005. Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe 2005. Synopsis of Indicators. HIS. Hanover. Lassnigg L. & Steiner P.M. (2003). Die tertiären Bildungsausgaben Österreichs im internationalen Vergleich. IHS research report. Vienna. Lassnigg L. & Unger M. (Eds.) (2006), Fachhochschulen – Made in Austria. Review des neuen Hochschulsektors. Münster, Wien: Lit-Verlag. Lassnigg L., Unger M., Vogtenhuber S. & Erkinger M. (2007). Soziale Aspekte des Hochschulzugangs und Durchlässigkeit des Bildungssystems. In Badelt C., Wegscheider W. & Wulz H. (eds.), Hochschulzugang in Österreich (pp. 361–477). Graz: Leykam. London Communiqué (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. Communiqué of Ministers competent for Higher Education in the countries participating in the Bologna Process. Accessible at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/londonbologna/ uploads/documents/LondonCommuniquefinalwith Londonlogo.pdf. OECD (2006). Education at a Glance. Paris. Pechar H. & Wroblewski A. (2002). Retrospektive Schätzung studienaktiver Studierender an Universitäten der Wissenschaften für den Zeitraum 1996/97-2000/01. Research report for the BMBWK. Vienna. Pechar H. (2007). Der offene Hochschulzugang in Österreich. In Badelt C., Wegscheider W. & Wulz H. (eds.), Hochschulzugang in Österreich (pp. 21–81). Graz: Leykam. Unger, M. & Wroblewski A. (2007). Studierenden-Sozialerhebung 2006. IHS research report. Vienna. Unger, M., Schmutzer-Hollensteiner E., Bönisch M., Vogtenhuber S. & Lassnigg L. (2005). Finanzvergleich von Universitäten in Zürich, München, Darmstadt und Wien. IHS research report. Vienna. Unger, M., Vogtenhuber S., Bönisch M, Pichna M & Erkinger M. (2006). Finanzvergleich von Wirtschaftsuniversitäten in Zürich, Hamburg, Kopenhagen, Prag und Wien. IHS research report. Vienna. Usher, A. & Cervenan, A. (2005). Global Higher Education Rankings 2005. Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 31 Astrid Schwarzenberger* Funding higher education in Germany: raising the issue of efficiency and equity Summary The allocation of public funds to higher education institutions in Germany has been reformed so as to increase the institutions' efficiency. More recently, a source of private funding for higher education institutions has been added in the form of tuition fees. This development will have its own impact concerning discussions on the efficient use of the fees. The introduction of tuition fees has also given rise to much public debate about the extent to which students should take on a share of the costs of higher education, and how far this could mean a damper on equity in participation in higher education. Even before the introduction of tuition fees, participation rates were far from being equal regarding students with different socio-economic backgrounds. Tuition fees and current reforms (bachelor's/ master's structure), as well as new funding criteria are not likely to improve this situation. Key words: Funding higher education institutions (including tuition fees); state support to students; cost-sharing and its consequences for participation and equity. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I220, I280, I290 1. Introduction Efficiency has so far been discussed mainly in the context of the efficiency of the system through which the state allocates funding to higher education institutions. By now, all 16 German federal states (Länder) have reformed their respective funding systems to promote greater efficiency, as will be explained in the first part of this paper. Besides, the very recent introduction of tuition fees as a new source of funding in some of the Länder will also be presented; this development has greatly fanned the discussion on how much (if anything) a student should contribute to funding his/her studies, and how social exclusion could be prevented. The existing forms of state support – many of which are intended to make up for financial disadvantages experienced by some students – are laid out in the second section, and the third chapter explains the differences in cost-sharing that can be observed between students from different social backgrounds, and their implications for equity. The fourth part takes a look at the impacts that current reforms – including those in higher education funding – might have on equity in participation in higher education, and the paper closes with a reference to research aimed at finding out more about differences in cost-sharing. 2. Funding of higher education institutions 2.1. State funding Each of the 16 German federal states (Länder) has jurisdiction over higher education matters within its realm – and can therefore determine how its respective higher education institutions are to be funded. Although the Länder are essentially implementing the same reform programmes, their respective funding models reflect the regional context and their specific political agenda. There-fore, there is a great variety of different solutions: “the” German higher education system, in fact, offers 16 variations of play, which makes Germany a particularly interesting case study. Concerning the state funding of higher education institutions, this contribution will focus on an updated comparative survey by HIS of the funding and steering systems being applied in the German Länder (Leszczensky/Orr 2004; currently being * Higher Education Information System (HIS), Hanover, Germany 32 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 updated and extended). The survey is descriptive-analytic and carried out in cooperation with the 16 ministries of higher education in Germany. A further HIS survey carried out in 2005 collated data on instruments of funding allocation within universities (Jaeger et al. 2005); this report provides background information on the interlinkage between state and institutional levels. One of the main reforms in the German higher education sector starting in the early 1990s was the introduction of new allocation models for institutional funding. By now, practically all of Germany’s federal states have introduced performance-based allocation mechanisms in their respective systems of funding higher education institutions. Likewise, higher education institutions have started to use performance-based procedures for their internal funding allocation. This way, the focus is put on competition between higher education institutions (and faculties at the internal level), and the new allocation systems aim at increasing the institutions’ efficiency (e.g. in terms of graduate numbers). These reforms in the allocation of state support are all the more relevant because the share that state funding represents of a higher education institution’s budget accounts for almost 80% for universities and over 90% for Fachhochschulen (universities of applied sciences). (Kunst- und Musikhochschulen, i.e. universities for the arts and music, are excluded in this paper.) Traditionally, funding was allocated in a discre-tionary-incrementalist way: an institution’s budget would essentially be determined simply by rolling over its previous year’s budget, possibly adjusted for inflation. This was based on the assumption that a higher education institution’s cost structure was quite fixed. There were no explicit hard criteria on which this budgeting was founded, efficient use of the funds made available was not the foremost issue, and whenever changes occurred in higher education policy or the strategy of a higher education institution (e.g. the introduction of a new course of study), negotiations between the ministry and the higher education institution concerning an appropriate adaptation of the budget were required. As the results of such negotiations were never certain beforehand and because the process somewhat lacked transparency, leaving room for discretion in a ministry’s budgetary decisions, funding procedures based on more objective criteria that would also promote an increase of efficiency and would give some degree of transparency and predictability were called for – hence the introduction of indicator-based (also: formula-based) funding. Generally, indicator-based funding models are deemed to: • reduce the burden of funding negotiations; • enable the state to enact policy within a framework of university autonomy; Figure 1: Income sources of higher education institutions (without tuition fees) in 2004 Universities (except medicine) Fachhochschulen 4% Operating income 6% Third-party funding 20% Third-party funding 76% State funding 3% Operating income 91% State funding Source: Own calculations based on Statistisches Bundesamt 2006. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 33 • provide transparent and predictable funding allocations and therefore contribute to the accountability of the higher education sector; • reward performance; • encourage competitive behaviour between institutions; and • improve efficient use of resources. Though this is essentially true, the functioning of such indicator-based models is also largely dependent on the concrete construction of the allocation procedure and on how indicator-based funding is embedded within the whole funding framework. As far as this is concerned, a great variety of procedures can be found in the field. The indicator-based procedures used across the Länder and within institutions show basic similarities with regard to the range and definition of performance indicators. They concentrate on indicators for teaching and learning and for research, though most also use indicators (or at least special weightings) for gender equity and sometimes also for internationalisation. As far as indicators reflecting teaching performance are concerned, there is a clear focus on student numbers and numbers of graduates. Third-party funding, as well as numbers of doctorates and Habilitationen (a Habilitation is a post-doctoral qualification giving the holder the right to be admitted to a university as a professor), are the main indicators for research-related efforts. Furthermore, it is worth noting that – on the state level as well as the internal level – teaching-related indicators are usually weighted higher than research-related parameters. On the level of precise design and model architecture of the funding procedures, by contrast, there are remarkable differences. These concern very central questions such as how much of a budget is to be allocated by formula (between 1% and 95%), how many indicators are necessary (between very few indicators for a clear steering effect and many indicators to reflect different institutional profiles), and what the scope of competition between institutions should be (e.g. unified allocation or sector-specific allocation systems). An overview of characteristics of the respective Länder systems is given in table 1. It is striking that three Länder – Brandenburg, Hamburg and Rhineland-Palatinate – are using indicator-based funding shares that account for almost the entire state budget. However, the indicators used there can be differentiated into two types: those that form some kind of basic grant (like the number of students or the number of professors and other academic personnel) and those that make up a more performance-oriented grant (with indicators quite comparable to those used in the other systems). By establishing the basic grant through indicators rather than by discretionary-incremental decision-making, transparency in funding allocation is achieved, whilst the use of quite stable and predictable indicators does not put the higher education institutions at risk of having to deal with high fluctuations from one year to the next. In the other Länder, the “remaining” 80% or more of the state grant is still allocated mainly on the basis of discretionary-incremental procedures. One of the reasons for this is that such procedures allow for some flexibility that a formula does not offer (as a formula that is to work well should not be changed too often, and therefore cannot too readily be adapted if changes in higher education policy should occur). But even in the Länder appropriating “only” in the order of up to 20% by formula, the impact on the budget thus experienced is not negligible. It must be stressed that owing to the high dependence on state support and because of the higher education institutions’ limited possibilities to influence their spending situation – professors are civil servants in Germany, and the personnel costs that account for some three quarters of a university’s budget can hardly be touched – even a budget change of e.g. 1% of the state grant can be serious for the higher education institution in question. Indeed, to prevent drastic budget changes, some Länder are using (or have initially used and then phased out) cut-off limits beyond which losses in the total budget that should in theory occur, based on the indicator calculations, are capped. 2.2. Introduction of tuition fees The funding situation in Germany’s Länder is not expected to change completely, even where tuition fees are introduced; these are estimated to make up in the order of 10% of a university’s budget (Leszczensky 2004) – so the state grant would definitely still remain by far the most important financial source (and whilst tuition fees are intended to be additional funds for higher education institutions, there is still wide-spread scepticism that their introduction will not, in time, lead to a decrease in the state grant). Regarding tuition fees, this paper is based on a survey on the different models of tuition fees that were installed as the first such models in seven German Länder (Ebcinoglu, 2006). 34 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Table 1: Main characteristics of Länder indicator-based allocation procedures (2006) Share of state grant Number of indicators allocated by formula used (all HEIs or Scope of competition (approx. % values for universities only) universities) Separate competitions between Baden-Wurttemberg 20 13 universities and between Fachhochschulen Separate competitions between Bavaria 1.5 9 universities and between Fachhochschulen Separate competitions by type of Berlin 20 11 HEI and within subject areas Competition between all institutions Brandenburg 95 7 of higher education Benchmarking against past Bremen 10 5 performance Benchmarking against past Hamburg 85 4-5 performance Competition between all institutions Hesse - (model put on hold) (14) of higher education Mecklenburg-West Competition between all institutions 4 8 Pomerania of higher education Separate competitions between Lower Saxony 3 11 universities and between Fachhochschulen Separate competitions between North Rhine-Westphalia 20 5 universities and between Fachhochschulen Separate competitions between Rhineland-Palatinate 95 17 universities and between Fachhochschulen Separate competitions between Saxony 1 11 universities and between Fachhochschulen Benchmarking against nati onal Schleswig-Holstein 5 4 averages Benchmarking against past Thuri ngia 15 6 performance Source: Updates on Leszczensky/Orr 2004. Until recently, a federal law prohibited the use of general tuition fees (although there were exceptions before for students who had exceeded the normal period of study by many years, and for those studying at private institutions); so when speaking of the funding of higher education institutions (and ensuing efficiency debates), this would usually refer to the ca. 80% share of a higher education institution’s funding that was provided by the state. Since a ruling from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in 2005, however, the Länder are free to decide whether or not to introduce such general tuition fees, thus making the students take on a bigger share of the costs of higher education (until then, students only had to pay a small administrative fee). As a result, the Länder have come up with quite different solutions concerning not only the general decision on whether or not to introduce such a fee, but also concerning the time of introduction, the precise circumstances under which an exemption from the fee can be granted, the conditions for a loan specially intended to cover tuition fees, and the measures to deal with the risk of default for such loans. Within certain limits, the Länder can also decide on the amount of the fee: in its ruling, the court referred to the amount most often discussed at the time: € 500 per semester. This was deemed appropriate as compared to students’ overall cost of living. Therefore, this is – so far – the maximum and indeed the most usual amount of general tuition fee charged in any of the Länder. In 2006, the first seven Länder (namely Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland) IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 35 started charging such fees, whilst the others decided against fees – be it for political or pragmatic reasons. In most of the Länder that have introduced fees, the amount of the fee is the same for all institutions (€ 500 per semester), but in Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia, it is up to the higher education institutions to decide upon the amount to be charged (in Bavaria, a certain minimum amount per type of higher education institution is required, so the fees range from € 100 to € 500 at Fachhochschulen, and € 300 to € 500 at universities; in North Rhine-Westphalia, by contrast, all higher education institutions are free to choose any amount between € 0 and € 500/semester – almost all higher education institutions have decided to make use of the possibility to charge fees). This leads to an even greater variety of funding models for higher education institutions. When tuition fees were introduced, there was much concern about how to prevent excluding financially disadvantaged students from studying altogether. Therefore, certain conditions under which a student could be exempt from paying tuition fees were formulated in each of the Länder; but in no two Länder are all these conditions identical. Essentially, such conditions could be the student looking after at least one child of his/her own, the student providing care for seriously ill family members, the student’s number of siblings in higher education, any disabilities the student might have and whether the student could otherwise be deemed to be in need of financial assistance (“hardship cases”). Tuition fees are intended as extra funds for the improvement of teaching; ever since their introduction, there has been – and still is – much debate about how these extra funds could be used in the most efficient and appropriate way. For instance, no one would argue that longer library opening hours or the employment of further tutors would indeed comply with this rule. But when the drastic increase in energy costs during the winter of 2006–07 led some universities to use part of their tuition fee income to make up for the unexpected extra costs that the state would not cover, voices were raised against this interpretation of improving teaching by heating lecture rooms. A great number of higher education institutions that levy tuition fees have installed a forum through which students are participating in deciding on how to best spend the extra funds. At the time of writing, there is no clear evidence to judge whether or to what extent the introduction of tuition fees has led or could still lead to a lasting drop in new enrolment numbers, but there is much concern that this could be a consequence. The number of first-year students has gone down in recent years, but that trend had started already before the actual introduction of tuition fees – though some think that even the debate about the imminent introduction of tuition fees might have kept potential students from enrolling. Indeed, in a survey of those who obtained their higher education entrance qualification in 2005, 25% of the pupils who declared no intent to study stated that if tuition fees were introduced, studying would be beyond their financial limits. And 19% (multiple answers were possible) said that they did not meet the financial prerequisites that studying required. Of these students, 11% declared they were not prepared to put themselves into debt through the BAföG’s loan programme (Heine/Willich 2006). However, fees would hardly be the only criterion for not taking up a course of study; this decision is most often a mixture of several reasons. In this mixture, the increase of study courses that are open only to students with very good grades (the so-called Numerus clausus system) most likely plays a very important role, as well: in 2006, higher education institutions used their own selection criteria for almost two thirds of all bachelor’s courses, though in some Länder, this ratio was much higher, e.g. 92% in Berlin (HRK 2006). Furthermore, 66% of those students who had decided against taking up a course of study explained that they wanted to earn money themselves as soon as possible (Heine/Willich 2006). A survey of those who left school with a higher education entrance qualification in 2006 (when tuition fees were already a given fact) has been carried out, but has not been published at the time of writing, though publication is expected in spring 2008. It should go without saying, though, that even if tuition fees turn out not to be a major deterrent to entering higher education, they certainly do nothing to make enrolling any more likely. 3. State support to students Whilst the ways of funding higher education institutions thus differ considerably between the Länder, the basic system of state support to students is the same nation-wide. There are various components of state support to students in Germany. Usually, only the “classic” grant and loan support is taken into consideration: the combined BAföG (Bundes-Ausbildungs-förderungs-Gesetz) grant/loan, state-funded merit-based grants, and other loans. Depending on their parents’ income, students may apply for support as laid down in the BAföG; half of this support is a grant and the other half a loan. 36 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 There is a maximum debt limit (currently € 10,000), beyond which debts are waived. A reduction of loan debt can be granted upon application for a number of reasons, e.g. if the student achieves very good study results, if he/she graduates within a comparatively short period and/or if an early repayment of the debt is made. There are also state-funded non-repayable merit-based grant schemes for students showing outstanding performance in their studies. Loan schemes outside BAföG targeted at students are relatively new in Germany and have only existed for some years. The introduction of tuition fees has given rise to the creation of new public and private loan schemes specifically to cover tuition fees; some of these are specific to the respective Land or even the higher education institution. Since the state would cover for possible default, this is also a means of state support even in cases where the loans are offered by private banks. Besides these obvious modes of student support, there is a great variety of other direct and indirect forms of support to students and their parents that are all linked to student status. Orphans’ pensions are just one of these forms. Students are usually covered by their parents’ health insurance; where this is not the case (due to age limits), they benefit from reduced rates. Besides this, students enjoy cheap food at refectories, since their meals are publicly subsidised. Some student housing offers are also relatively cheap due to public subsidies. On the parents’ side, a number of benefits and different types of tax relief can apply provided the child still has student status. First of all, a child allowance is paid out to the parents of students up to an age limit of 27 years (as of 2007 reduced to 25 years) and a certain limit of the student’s own income. This allowance is supposed to be passed on to the student, but this does not, in fact, always happen – or at least not the entire sum is handed on. Civil servants benefit from further student child-related supplements, and there can be child supplements for house owners, housing benefits, retirement provisions, widow(er)s’ pensions, unemployment benefits, etc., all linked to the child’s student status. Furthermore, tax deductions for a student child and his/her education are possible. All these transfers (even though not all of them can be assessed) add up to a substantial amount of state support to students – though this is hardly perceived as such in the general public discussion. However, calculations for 2004 show that whilst the “visible” BAföG grants (excluding loans and subsidies on loans) amounted to €760 million and child allowances to well over € 2 billion, all other, less obvious exemptions and benefits make up for well above € 3 billion. Altogether, there are some €7 billion spent as public support to students and their parents – compared to the nearly € 10 billion reported by the OECD as having been paid that year in teaching allocations for ISCED 5A/6 institutions, this is a rather substantial figure (Schwarzenberger /Gwosć 2008). 4. Cost-sharing and its consequences for participation and equity By law, everyone who has attained the formal qualification for admission to higher education (Hochschul-zugangs-berechtigung, e.g. the Abitur) has the right to access higher education; higher education still is free in some of the Länder (and was until very recently in the others), and a state support system for financially disadvantaged students (BAföG) and loan schemes to cover tuition fees are in place. Therefore it would seem that no one who qualifies to enter higher education would be kept from actually doing so – thus, in theory, social equity in admission should be achieved in Germany. In fact, access to higher education and equity has not really been considered a big issue so far, at least not in the general public. However, this formal right and the existing support systems do not necessarily mean that social equity is really achieved, since obtaining this qualification means that a number of obstacles must have been surmounted already, and even those who have obtained the qualification do not necessarily all actually enrol in higher education. The social survey on students in Germany (Sozialerhebung; the latest available survey – Isserstedt et al. 2007 – is used as a basis for this text) shows that participation in higher education is to a large extent dependent on whether or not the respective parents have a degree in higher education: out of 100 children whose fathers have an academic degree, 83 enter higher education, whilst only 23 of the 100 children whose fathers have no academic qualification do enrol; so the odds of entering higher education are 3.6 times higher for children of academics than of non-academics (there are other determinants, as well, but parents’ academic status has the greatest single impact on participation in education). One has to bear in mind that a student who does enrol in higher education must have passed other thresholds before that: e.g. the question of which school a child is sent to after primary school and if he/she then moves on to classes that would allow him/ her to obtain a higher education access qualification IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 37 Figure 2: Development in the composition of the student body by social background group in % (rounding discrepancies may occur) 17- ~22 26- 26 23 26 26 "31 27 31 31 27 33 26 37- 38 24------24 — 23 21 ¦ m m m m M K 18 15 14 14 13 12 13 ? high ? elevated ? medium ? low 1982 1985 1988 1991* 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006** Source: Isserstedt et al. 2007, p. 136. * As of 1991, values for both old and new Länder. ** For 2006, data include the so-called Bildungsinländer (students with citizenship other than German, but with a German higher education entrance qualification). also play a very important role here. In fact, children of academics already have considerably higher transition rates at these stages than children whose parents are not academics. The differentiation by social background of the students raises further concerns about equity. Plain as it may sound, “social background” is a construct that combines information on the parents’ job status (worker, employee, civil servant or self-employed; all differentiated a bit further) and their level of education (holder of an academic degree or not). Thus, four groups are formed: low, medium, elevated and high social background (for more information on this particular concept, cf. Isserstedt et al. 2007, p. 492 f.). The developments in the composition of the student body by social background show that the share of students from a high social background has increased over the past years (thus raising further concerns about equity), as is depicted in Figure 2. Within a quarter of a century, the share of students from a high social background has more than doubled at the expense of all other groups. The highest decrease can be registered in the group of students from a low social background: their share in the student body has shrunk to 58% of its value from 1982. It is not surprising that the amount of money which students can dispose of each month is not the same for students from different social backgrounds; these differences, however, are not particularly high: the median revenue a student from a low social background had was € 700 a month, compared to € 711 for students from a medium, € 720 for those from an elevated and € 749 for students from a high social background (arithmetic mean: € 742, € 753, € 767 and € 790 respectively). By contrast, the composition of a student’s income (contributions from parents, BAföG, own earnings and other sources) varies considerably according to his or her respective social background, cf. Figure 3. First of all, the share that the parents contribute to a student’s budget differs greatly between the social background groups: whilst this constitutes only 29% of the budget of a student from a low social background, a high social background student’s budget is made up 65% by the parents’ contribution. It should also be noted that whilst 95% of students in the high social background group received some financial support from their parents, the same was true for only 77% of students from a low social background. Whatever the parents do not or cannot contribute is made up for by BAföG payments and by own earnings. As is to be expected, the higher the social group, the fewer the students who receive any BAföG payments. In this, it should be noted that since 2003, the share of students from a low social 38 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Figure 3: Composition of students’ income sources by social background in 2006 (in %; referring to “normal students”* including Bildungsinländer) 10 11 10 9 29 28 25 ^6l 65 52 29 39 ? other sources ? own earnings ¦ BAföG ¦ parents low medium elevated high Source: Isserstedt et al. 2007, p. 197. * “Normal students” constitute nearly two thirds of the student body: they are unmarried, do not live with their parents any more and are enrolled in their first course of study. background who receive BAföG has gone up from 54% to 58% (whilst the amounts that could be received remained the same), and smaller increases can also be observed for the other groups. Students from a low social background have the highest own earnings (arith-metic mean of € 351 per month compared to €279 for students from a high social background), but the percentage of students that make any own earnings is nearly the same in all groups, and has slightly decreased in all groups since 2003. It may be concluded that without any BAföG support, the number of students from the two lower social background groups would be smaller than it is now. Besides, it was found that the lower a student’s social background, the less he or she considered it likely that the funding of his/her costs of living would be ensured during studies (39% of “normal students” from a low background, as opposed to 72% of those from a high social background agreed that their subsistence costs would be ensured during their study period). 5. Possible developments Whilst the results of the Sozialerhebung show that the situation can be deemed critical enough in terms of participation and equity – especially since participation in higher education in Germany is already below average by international comparison – the introduction of tuition fees is likely only to aggravate this situation and to highlight the differences between students from both ends of the social spectrum. Other changes in the higher education landscape may also cause problems of their own: the introduction of the bachelor’s/master’s structure – which is somewhat more rigid than that of traditional degree courses – leaves students less time than in traditional degree courses for taking on a job during term-time. As the Sozialerhebung 2007 has shown, bachelor’s students spend more hours per week on their studies than the average student (which is caused by a higher amount of time for independent study rather than going to lectures) – there are no data on students in master’s courses yet. This would make it somewhat more difficult for bachelor’s students to work during term-time for as many hours and with the same earnings as students in traditional degree courses. Funding procedures including indicators such as the number of graduates set an incentive for higher education institutions to get their students through the system more quickly, so this may well emphasize the pressure put on students in terms of the time required for studying, leaving less time to work alongside studies. This does not bode well for the social inclusion of students who have to work just to be able to fund their place in higher education – i.e. mainly students from a lower social background. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 39 On the other hand, where the number of students features as an indicator in the state funding system (and the number of graduates, too), it is in the interest of higher education institutions to keep attracting students. Apart from taking out loans – which is traditionally highly uncommon for students in Germany and much resented, since they are hesitant to start off their working life with considerable debt – a possible way out of this dilemma could be the official introduction of part-time courses: in theory, all courses are full-time courses in Germany to date, but de facto some students are studying parttime judging by the number of hours they put into their studies, though the reasons for this may be quite varied. By allowing for part-time enrolments – which should translate into a lesser amount of tuition fees – students who simply have to work to (co-)fund their studies might not be deterred from enrolling due to the hours required for studies/ work per semester. However, this would mean that in terms of years until graduation, part-time students would require more time, so they would take longer to join the “real” work force – which would still put them at a disadvantage regarding their total career income and thus also their pension, and quite possibly concerning their career chances as well. Currently, there is a political debate about raising the BAföG payment by 10% as of 2008 to make up for the increase in the cost of living since the last raise from 2002. If the BAföG is increased, that may help students who would otherwise only just have refrained from studying for financial reasons – but the fundamental differences in the composition of a student’s income depending on his/her social background and the socio-economically influenced participation in higher education are unlikely to be changed. 6. Further research In the cost-sharing analysis made possible through the Sozialerhebung, the more obvious support elements such as BAföG are taken into consideration. However, as was shown above, students and their parents can benefit from a considerable number of public support items that cannot all be included in the calculations made in the Sozialerhebung, since they may, for instance, apply to the parents’ taxation. But these, too, reduce the students’ and parents’ share in the cost of higher education, whilst increasing the state’s share. A very recent study (Schwarzenberger 2008) has shown that the different transfers and other types of support to students and their parents – and thus also cost-sharing between the state and private households – tend to differ according to a student’s socio-economic background. What remains to be explored, however, is the impact of such differences on equity and whether there is a causal relationship between cost-sharing scenarios and enrolment from different social strata. References Ebcinoglu, F. (2006). Die Einführung allgemeiner Studiengebühren in Deutschland. Entwicklungsstand, Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede der Gebührenmodelle der Länder [The introduction of tuition fees in Germany – Stage of development, similarities and differences between Länder tuition fee models]. HIS Kurzinformation A4/2006. Hanover: HIS. Heine, C./Willich, J. (2006). Studienberechtigte 2005. Übergang in Studium, Ausbildung und Beruf. [Those who obtained their entrance qualification to higher education in 2005: Transition to studies, apprenticeships and jobs]. HIS Hochschulforum No. F6/2006. Hanover: HIS. HRK Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (2006). Pressemitteilung 59/06 [Press release 59/06]. 6 November 2006. Bonn: HRK. Isserstedt, W./Middendorff, E./Fabian, G./Wolter, A. (2007). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2006. 18. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgeführt durch HIS Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH [Economic and Social Conditions of Student Life in the Federal Republic of Germany 2006. 18th Social Survey of the Deutsches Studentenwerk, carried out by Higher Education Information System GmbH]. Bonn/Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Jaeger, M./Leszczensky, M./Orr, D./ Schwarzenberger, A. (2005). Formelgebundene Mittelvergabe und Zielvereinbarungen als Instrumente der Budgetierung an deutschen Universitäten: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung [Formula-based funding and target agreements as instruments of budgeting in German universities: Results of a national survey]. HIS Kurzinformation A13/2005. Hanover: HIS. Leszczensky, M. (2004). Paradigmenwechsel in der Hochschulfinanzierung [Paradigm change in higher education funding]. In: Aus Bildung und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, bpb Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Bd. 25/2004, pp. 18–25. Leszczensky, M./Orr, D. (2004): Staatliche Hochschulfinanzierung durch indikatorgestützte Mittelverteilung. Dokumentation und Analyse der Verfahren in 11 Bundesländern [State funding of higher education through indicator-based allocations: 40 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Documentation and analysis of procedures in 11 German states]. HIS Kurzinformation A2/2004. Hanover: HIS. Schwarzenberger, A. (Ed.) (2008): Public/private funding of higher education: a social balance. Hanover: HIS. Schwarzenberger, A./Gwosć, C. (2008): Country report of Germany. In: A. Schwarzenberger (Ed.): Public/private funding of higher education: a social balance. Hanover: HIS 2008, pp. 66–81. Statistisches Bundesamt (2006): Monetäre hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen [Monetary indicators in higher education]. Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.3.2. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 41 Hans Vossensteyn* Student financing in the Netherlands: from generosity to cost-sharing - facts, perceptions and effects Summary In 1986 a generous new system of student financing was introduced in the Netherlands. Over time, many changes were imple- fees, an increased role for student impacted the financial situation of loans, performance requirements students, access and equity in and flexibility for students to work higher education, and how stu-alongside study. This paper ex- dents perceive the influence of cost- mented, including higher tuition plores how these developments sharing. Key words: Netherlands, cost-sharing, tuition fees, student support, price-responsiveness. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I280 1. Tuition fees In the Netherlands, students in publicly funded higher education have had to pay a uniform tuition fee, regardless of the costs related to different study programmes, since 1945. The government annually sets the tuition rate. During the 1980s university students paid slightly higher fees than students in the HBO sector, but in the early 1990s this was equalised again. Students make their tuition payments directly to the higher education institutions, which have full autonomy over this revenue stream. In 2003, tuition fees made up about 17% of institutional revenues in the HBO sector and about 5.5% in the university sector – about 15% of the overall university teaching budget (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2003). This demonstrates that public subsidies to higher education are considerable and private contributions moderate. Figure 1 shows the development of the level of tuition fees in the Netherlands since 1945. The real value of the fees declined in the 1945–1971 period. In that period students had to pay NLG 200 (€ 91) per academic year in nominal terms. After an initial increase to NLG 1,000 (€ 454) in 1972–1973, the level was set at NLG 500 (€ 227) between 1974 and 1980. Since then, tuition levels have gradually increased up to almost € 1,445 in 2003–04. Figure 1 shows that particularly in the period since 1986 the increases in the level of fees often exceeded the rate of inflation. As a result, a larger share of the costs of higher education has been gradually shifted to students and their families, which indicates that the Dutch government did not use the instrument of tuition reduction to expand access to higher education. As such, tuition fees have become an issue of continuous discussion. Proponents argue that tuition fees constitute a “fair” private contribution to the costs of higher education, which brings the individual students considerable future rewards (monetary as well as non-monetary). But the opponents of fees argue that these harm access, particularly for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This has led to many heated political debates about who has to pay the costs of a steadily growing higher education system. As a good Dutch tradition, such debates generally end in compromises that include moderate annual tuition increases accompanied by the full compensation of lower-income students through a system of student financial support. The major discussions on tuition fees in 2002–2003 related to the issue of differential tuition fees. The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science took up the discussion for a number of reasons: to allow institutions to charge higher contributions in return for enhanced quality programmes, and to make particular subjects like science, engineering and teacher training more attractive. However, in the first case opponents fear that this would harm access for poor students, and * Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands 42 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Figure 1: Development of tuition fees (€ , in current prices and in real 2000 prices) € 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 ----------in current prices - in 2000-prices Source: Ministerie van OCW, time series. in the second case it is questioned whether abandoning the equity principle, not to mention the public costs involved, can be justified by the expected number of extra students attracted to the desired programmes. An interesting recent development has been to experiment with allowing institutions to develop programmes that offer additional quality, for which they are allowed to ask higher tuition fees. Up to now, a few such programmes have been accepted by the Ministry of Education. 2. Student support Since 1945, successive Dutch governments gradually developed a system of student support, though with a change of focus over the following six decades (De Regt, 1993). In the early days the major drive was to open up opportunities for small numbers of talented low-income students. Between 1956 and 1972, economic growth and the general tendency of democratisation changed the focus to opening opportunities for all. This period laid the groundwork for the massification of higher education, though student support remained limited to small bursary and loan programmes. Financial support consisted mainly of tax benefits and family allowances for students’ parents. Due to the oil crises of the early 1970s, the actual implementation of a far-reaching student support system was postponed. As a result, we can conclude that before 1986 there was a willingness to expand students’ opportunities, but due to limited government resources, student support was not a very active instrument in encouraging access to higher education. Nevertheless, participation rates considerably increased during this period and the gender imbalance to a large extent disappeared. Most recently the number of female students is slightly higher than the number of male students. A new relatively generous system of student aid was implemented by the Student Finance Act (WSF) in 1986. This system transformed all indirect support like tax benefits and family allowances into direct financial support to students themselves. The system established a compromise between students’ access and financial independence, transparency and simplicity of the system, and affordability for the government (Hupe and Van Solm, 1998). The major characteristics of the system, which is still largely in place, are reflected in the following elements: ¦ A basic grant (basisbeurs) for all full-time students, varying between students who live with their parents and those who do not; ¦ A means-tested supplementary grant for a limited number (about 30%) of students; ¦ Loans that can be taken up on a voluntary basis, carrying a below-market interest rate; ¦ Parental contributions or students’ own income. The parental contributions are strongly interrelated with the (parental) means-tested supplementary grants and loans; ¦ Finally, students can earn up to € 10,527.57 per annum (in 2006) before they start losing any of their grant entitlements. All components together add up to a given amount that students are expected to need for study and living costs according to annual estimates by the 0 IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 43 Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. From this perspective, no (full-time) student should face any financial barriers for entrance into higher education. 2.1. Changes within the current student financing mechanism After 1986, on the basis of demographic developments the government expected a decline in the number of students and thus believed that a relatively generous system for students would be feasible from the viewpoint of public finances. But the opposite happened, and partly as a result, a large number of additional changes have taken place since then (Vossenteyn, 2002): ¦ Tuition fees were increased in real terms. ¦ Basic grants were reduced several times due to growing numbers of students and limited public budgets. ¦ Supplementary grants were increased to compensate for tuition increases, inflation and reductions in the basic grants. This is to guarantee access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (about 30%, based on a means test). ¦ The duration of grants was reduced in two successive steps (1991 and 1996) to the nominal duration of courses (4–6 years). ¦ Student loans gained in importance. As with supplementary grants, student loans also covered reductions in the basic grant, increases in tuition fees and inflation. In addition, students have been permitted to replace (assumed) parental contributions with student loans since 1995. ¦ Performance requirements were imposed. Since 1993 students have had to meet performance requirements in order to remain eligible for grants. Under the so-called “progress-related grant” (Tempobeurs) students had to pass 25% of the annual study credits, or otherwise their grants would be converted into interest-bearing loans (Hupe and Van Solm, 1998). In 1996, the progress requirements were intensified through the “performance-related grant” (Prestatiebeurs). Since then, all grants have been awarded initially as loans, and only if students pass 50% of their exams in the first year and complete their degree within the nominal duration of the programme plus two years (six or seven years in total) are their initial loans converted into a grant. In 2000, the time limit to complete a degree was relaxed to 10 years for all programmes, particularly to allow students to be involved in extra-curricular activities like student activism and part-time work (Ministerie van OCenW, 1999). ¦ Due to the developments addressed above, the emphasis on parental contributions and students’ own resources has gradually increased. In addition, students’ expenditure patterns have gone up, exceeding the standard budget available through student support. Finally, students seem to be debt averse. Consequently there is more pressure on parents and students, who are more likely to have part-time jobs (Vossensteyn, 1997). Most of the changes implicitly meant budgetary reductions and were aimed at encouraging students to pursue more efficient study patterns. Furthermore, the focus of the support policies have shifted: from opening up opportunities for lower income groups until the mid-1980s, followed by creating a basic income provision for all students in 1986, after which the system reverted once again to supporting underprivileged students. The impact of all changes in the student financing system on student choice and students’ enrolment behaviour will be discussed in the next section. 3. Impact of tuition and support policies on student enrolment behaviour Until the mid 1980s, student financial support was relatively moderate or poor in the Netherlands and thus could not be expected to generate massification in higher education. Nevertheless, rapid expansion of higher education happened during the 1960s and 1970s, also reducing the gender imbalance to a large extent. These developments seem to be the result of general societal tendencies rather than active access policies. However, the introduction of a relatively generous system of student support in 1986 could be expected to boost access and participation, although its purpose was to guarantee equal access for all students regardless of their backgrounds. There have been a number of studies on student choice behaviour that also looked at the potential relationships between financial support and participation. However, most of these studies indicated no clear relationships between changes in student finance and the composition of the student body (De Jong et al., 1991; De Jonge et al., 1991). Also the deterioration of student support, particularly during the 1990s, has been studied for its impact on access to higher education (Vossensteyn, 2002). The gradual shift towards cost- 44 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 sharing in the Netherlands might be expected to have led to changes in student enrolment behaviour, for example in terms of lower participation, the choice of cheaper (shorter) or easier study programmes, or better study progress. However, hardly any such changes in student choice seem to have occurred. Only a few tendencies can be indicated. First, the introduction of study progress requirements, which meant a serious “cultural change”, had only a temporary effect on participation in higher education. Initially, the number of new entrants to university studies decreased slightly, some (potential) students postponing actual enrolment and some university-qualified candidates entering HBO programmes (De Jong et al., 1996). However, within a few years the traditional enrolment patterns appeared again. A second interesting development is that, regardless of the growing emphasis on loans, the number of students actually taking up loans decreased substantially, from 40% in 1991 to about 15% in 1997 (De Vos and Fontein, 1998). One reason is that since 1992 interest has been charged. However, take-up rates have gone up slightly since 2000 to about 24% in 2005. Instead of acquiring student loans, students prefer to take part-time jobs, which enable them to avoid accumulating debts and even to upgrade their standard of living. Moreover, students are also willing to borrow outside the student loan system, either from family or by having a bank overdraft. Many even take up flexible and temporary loans from private banks to cover extraordinary expenses, such as computer equipment or holidays (Kerstens and De Jonge, 1999). In 2005, Vossensteyn found that lower SES students indeed prefer not taking up loans, showing debt-averse perceptions, but that they take as much in student loans as higher SES students anyway. With respect to the impact of tuition fees, most studies show that the real increases in tuition fees did not seem to impact access in terms of enrolment patterns. Student choice behaviour in general seems to be price inelastic! Such price-unresponsiveness dates back to the 1980s and continues into the 1990s (Oosterbeek and Webbink, 1995). A simulation model showed that even substantial tuition fee increases will hardly affect enrolment rates, except for students from lower socio-economic families (Sterken, 1995). Furthermore, a recent survey by Felsö et al. (2000) indicated that students would not change their preferences in cases where tuition fees were either increased or reduced by € 450. Some simulation studies devoted attention to the problem of a declining interest in science and engineering studies. They found that guaranteeing students a job after graduation and increasing engineers’ salaries would have a stronger influence in attracting extra students to these studies than increasing scholarships or reducing tuition (De Jong et al., 2001; Felsö et al., 2000). In fact some universities of technology have experimented with giving students additional scholarships, but this did not attract extra students. All in all, various studies, covering different time periods, have all come to the conclusion that student choice is not so much affected by financial incentives, except for students from disadvantaged groups. This more or less confirms the findings of international studies on student choice (Heller, 1997; Hossler et al., 1999). References CBS (2007). Statline, www.cbs.nl. Felsö, F., M. van Leeuwen and M. van Zijl (2000). Verkenning van stimulansen voor het keuzegedrag van leerlingen en studenten, Amsterdam: Stichting voor Economisch Onderzoek der Universiteit van Amsterdam (SEO). Heller, D.E. (1997). “Student Price Response in Higher Education: An Update to Leslie and Brinkman”, Journal of Higher Education, 68, 6, pp. 624–659. Hofman, A., M. van den Berg, J. de Boom, U. de Jong, J. Roeleveld, M. van Leeuwen and D. de Graaf (2001). Studentenmonitor 2000, Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek 75, Den Haag: Sdu Grafisch Bedrijf. Hofman, A., U. de Jong, M. van Leeuwen, J. de Boom, I. van der Veen, J.A. Korteweg and E. Heyl (2003). Studentenmonitor 2003, studeren in het hoger onderwijs, Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek 94, Den Haag: Sdu Grafisch Bedrijf. Hossler, D., J. Schmit and N. Vesper (1999). Going to College: How Social, Economic and Educational Factors Influence the Decisions Students Make, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hupe, P.L. and A.I.T. van Solm (1998). Het Zoetermeerse labyrint, Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek 55, Den Haag: Sdu Grafisch Bedrijf. Informatie Beheer Groep (1987–2007). Studiefinanciering hoger onderwijs, maandbedragen, Groningen: IBG. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 45 Jong, U. de, H. Oosterbeek, J. Roeleveld, C.N. Teunings and H.D. Webbink (1991). Wel of niet verder studeren? Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek, nr. 26, Den Haag: DOP. Jong, U. de, D. Webbink, H. Meulenbeek, M. Voorthuis, F. Haanstra and F. Verbeek (1996). Uitstel of afstel? Een onderzoek naar de achtergronden en motieven om niet direct verder te studeren, Amsterdam: Stichting voor Economisch Onderzoek (SEO)/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Jong, U. de, M. van Leeuwen, J. Roeleveld and M. Zijl (2001). Deelname aan hoger onderwijs, Toegankelijkheid in beweging, Kiezen voor hoger onderwijs 1995–2000, Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, Beleidsgerichte studies hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek 81, Den Haag: Sdu. Jonge, J.F.M. de, L. Huvers, D.M. Ligtermoet and A. Ziegelaar (1991). Effectiviteit en efficiëntie van de Wet op de studiefinanciering, Leiden: Research voor Beleid. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen (1999). Flexibele studiefinanciering, Een stelsel dat past, Den Haag: Sdu Grafisch Bedrijf. Oosterbeek, H. and D. Webbink (1995). “Enrolment in Higher Education in the Netherlands”, De Economist, 143, 3, pp. 367–380. Sterken, E. (1995). “De collegegeld-gevoeligheid van deelname aan het WO”, Economisch Statistische Berichten, 10.5.1995, pp. 454–456. Vos, K. de, and P. Fontein (1998). Actualisering leengedrag en schuldopbouw in de WSF, Tilburg: Economisch Instituut Tilburg (EIT). Vossensteyn, H. (1997). Student Financial Assistance in the Netherlands: A Contextual Report. Enschede: CHEPS. Vossensteyn, J.J. (1999). “Where in Europe Would People like to Study? The Affordability of Higher Education in Nine Western European Countries”, Higher Education, 37, pp. 159–176. Vossensteyn, J.J. (2002). “Shared Interests, Shared Costs: Student Contributions in Dutch Higher Education”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24, 2, pp. 145–154. Vossensteyn, J.J. (2004). “Fiscal stress: worldwide trends in higher education finance”, Journal of Student Financial Aid, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 39–55. Vossensteyn, J.J. (2005). Perceptions of student price-responsiveness: A behavioural economics exploration of the relationships between socio-economic status, perceptions of financial incentives and student choice (dissertation), Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente. 46 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Borut Kodrič*, Nada Trunk Širca**, Rok Strašek*** Funding higher education in Slovenia: the introduction of a lump-sum instrument Summary The paper presents an analysis of able discrepancies were noted in increasing the percentage of stand-the existing higher education connection with funding received ard funds within the total annual funding system in Slovenia. The for particular study activities and budget, average funds per student findings of this analysis, which the average operating cost of study gradually approximate the aver-focused on full-time undergradu- activities among individual study age expenditure within individual ate studies, show significant dif- groups. In compliance with the study groups, based on which it ferences in the operating costs of mentioned findings, the study car- can be claimed that the process study activities among different ried out an analysis of the effects of decreasing the percentage of institutions within individual study of changing the ratio between basic funds has been too slow. groups, as well as different study basic and standard annual funds fields. At the same time, consider- within the total annual funds. By Key words: Funding of education institutions, higher education institutions, Decree on the Public Financing of Higher Education and Other University Member Institutions 2004-2008, basic funds, standard funds. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I220 1. Introduction Lisbon goals. Public funds should be granted to higher education institutions in such a way that The question of higher education funding is very effectiveness, efficiency and quality are promoted. high on the agenda in most EU countries (EC, Funding mechanisms should provide incentives for 2004; Jacobs, van der Ploeg, 2006). On 23–24 change and innovation. However, due to limited March 2006 the European Council called on the public budgets there is also clear pressure to ensure member states “to facilitate, in line with national the more efficient use of existing funds and a practices, universities’ access to complementary stronger appeal to increase private contributions. sources of funding, including private ones, and to remove barriers to public-private partnerships with The share of total public expenditure for tertiary businesses”, and concluded that reforms must be education in GDP in Slovenia is around 1.34%. “stepped up to ensure high-quality education However, the Slovenian government has made it systems which are both efficient and equitable”. an objective to raise this to 1.4% in the Master Slovenia is no exception, as there has been a lot of Plan for Higher Education. Tertiary education in debate about the level of funding and the right Slovenia is mainly publicly funded. However, one public-private mix of higher education funding in third of all students in tertiary education (part-the last few years. time students) pay tuition fees, which are not negligible. At the EU level, the new investment paradigm in education and training was first set out in January In this paper we do not focus on what the optimal 2003 in the Communication Investing efficiently in public-private mix should be, but instead education and training: an imperative for Europe. The need concentrate on the allocation mechanism of public for a substantial increase in investment in human funds that are regulated by the Decree on the resources was highlighted in view of achieving the Public Financing of Higher Education and Other * Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia ** Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia ***Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 47 University Member Institutions 2004–2008 (hereinafter: decree), which replaced the Standards for Financing Higher Education adopted by the government in 1992. The decree was adopted in December 2003 for a fixed period of time. The most important change in the funding system was the introduction of a lump-sum instrument that defines the allocation of public funds among higher education institutions (hereinafter: HEIs) in relation to their outcome. Even though the lump-sum instrument was chosen to replace direct payments for individual HE activities and costs, a “link” remained with the former funding system. The new allocation mechanism defines basic funds and standard funds, which form the total annual funding for each HEI. The share of basic funds in 2004 amounted to 80% of the funds received in 2003 and was set to decrease by 2.5 percentage points each year. However, the funds received in 2003 represented direct payments according to the former standards. So, even though the allocation was supposed to be related to the outcome of HEIs, the majority of funds was still allocated according to the former standards. Not all HEIs faced the same situation with the introduction of the lump-sum instrument. HEIs with large staff numbers (and possibly facing decreasing enrolments in the last few years) that had received quite substantial funding according to the former standards were in a more favourable position than the newly emerging HEIs, usually with small staff numbers but facing an expansion of their activities. That is why the introduction of the proposed allocation mechanism brought about a lot of discussion about the right basic-standard mix of annual funding. In this paper we analyse the effects of changing the ratio between basic and standard annual funds within the total annual funds. The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 briefly describes the funding system of tertiary education, with a focus on the lump-sum funding of study activities at HEIs. Section 3 describes the methodology and data used in the analysis. Section 4 presents the results of the analysis and, finally, Section 5 concludes the paper. 2. Tertiary education funding in Slovenia The share of total public expenditure on tertiary education in GDP amounted to 1.34% in 2003 (see Table 1). In the Master Plan for Higher Education, the Slovenian government made it an objective to raise this to 1.4%. When comparing annual expenditure on education institutions per student in Slovenia and in EU countries, we can see that Slovenia is lagging behind. However, the difference shrinks when we make a relative comparison based on annual expenditure on education institutions per student compared to GDP per capita. A quarter of total public expenditure on education at the tertiary level is spent on financial aid to students, which is outstanding in comparison with EU countries. Slovenian tertiary education is offered by higher (post-secondary) vocational colleges and higher education institutions, which consist of professional colleges, faculties and art academies. Higher Table 1: Key indicators of tertiary education funding, Slovenia and the EU, 2003 Indicator Country with Country with SI EU-25 EU-15* the lowest the highest value value Total public expenditure on education as % of GDP, at tertiary educati on level (ISCED 5-6) 1.34 1.15 1.16 0.74 (Latvia) 2.48 (Denmark) Annual expenditure on public and private education institutions per student in EUR PPS, at tertiary education level (ISCED 5-6) 5,743 8,060 8,868 3,245 (Lithuania) 13,717 (Sweden) Annual expenditure on public and private education institutions per student compared to GDP per capita, at tertiary education level (ISCED 5-6) 34.8 36.7 37.4 27.4 (Ire la nd ) 54.5 (Sweden) Financial aid to students as a % of total public expenditure on education, at tertiary education level (IS C E D 5-6) 25.2 16.1 16.9 0.4 (Poland) 56 (Cyprus) Source: Eurostat, 2007. Note: * The EU-15 group comprises Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. 48 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 vocational education is organised parallel to higher education and not as an integrated part of it. The first vocational colleges were established in 1996–97. Programmes are markedly practice-oriented and closely connected with the world of work. According to the Higher Education Act, an HEI may be established by the state or by private (national and foreign) natural persons and legal entities. Public HEIs are established in order to provide public services. In certain conditions, a private HEI may be granted a concession for a public service (and consequently for public co-financing) by a government decree on the basis of a public tender. In such cases, private HEIs are co-financed on the same conditions as the state ones. In the 2005–06 academic year, three out of five free-standing HEIs delivered undergraduate programmes with such a concession. The financing of vocational colleges is regulated by the Standards for Financing Vocational Colleges adopted by the government in 1996. Study activities are publicly financed for all full-time students, whereas part-time students pay tuition fees. Since two-thirds of higher vocational students (part-time students) pay tuition fees, we can say that government funding plays a minor role. However, the funding of vocational colleges is not the focus of this paper. 2.1. Funding higher education institutions The funding of HEIs is more complex and comprises funding for study activities, funding for research and funding for investment. Only the funding of study activities, especially the related allocation mechanism, is of interest in this paper. Funding of study activities Study activities of HEIs comprise: - educational and related research, artistic and professional activities of higher education teachers and staff and scientific staff; - library, information and other professional activities; and - organisational, administrative and infrastruc-tural activities. The financing of higher education differentiates between undergraduate and postgraduate studies. Undergraduate study activities are publicly financed for all full-time students, while part-time students pay tuition fees. The state allocates funds to HEIs based on the methodology set by the Decree on the Public Financing of Higher Education and Other University Member Institutions 2004–2008 (hereinafter: decree), which replaced the Standards for Financing Higher Education adopted by the government in 1992. The decree regulates the public financing of study and extracurricular activities, investment, and investment maintenance and development tasks at universities and free-standing higher education institutions established by the Republic of Slovenia, and the financing of certain tasks of national importance. The provisions on the financing of study and extracurricular activities and development tasks also apply to private higher education institutions with a concession, while the provisions on the financing of development tasks also apply to private higher education institutions providing certified study programmes if they receive public funding. The public financing of study activities for a university or free-standing higher education institution is defined as total funds (a lump sum). There is no division between academic and professional study programmes. Postgraduate students pay tuition fees. However, the state provides public funding for the co-financing of these tuition fees through: - a public tender for the co-financing of postgraduate studies that finances 60–80% of tuition fees for students whose faculties fulfilled the conditions of the tender (among others, the tuition fee must not exceed the one set by the state). The tender was issued for the first time in 1998, when 27% of students received co-financing. In the 2004–05 academic year this percentage was 53%; - an additional 9% of postgraduate students receive co-financing through the “Young Researchers” financing scheme, which covers the full tuition fee, some of the material costs for the research in which the student is involved, and the salary for the young researcher. 2.2. Lump-sum funding The introduction of lump-sum funding, which is used to fund the study activities of undergraduate programmes at HEIs, was driven by the following drawbacks of the former standards: - the distribution of funds for study activities among HEIs was mainly in the domain of the ministry. The lack of autonomy at the university level did not promote efficiency in the use of the funds; - financial monitoring mainly focused on the cash flow rather than on the realisation of the set long-term goals and performance and quality indicators of HEIs; and IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 49 - the slow responsiveness of HEIs to changes in society and the economy. The instrument of lump-sum funding was chosen to replace direct payments for individual HEI activities and costs so the HEIs would gain greater financial autonomy. Increased institutional autonomy, which is also advocated by the communications of the European Commission and endorsed by the European Council (EC, 2007), should allow greater flexibility in resource management and promote the more efficient use of public funds. The long-term objectives of the reform were: - to increase the flexibility of HEIs, which should result in a higher rate of responsiveness to labour market and society needs; - to maintain a diverse higher education system and to guarantee equality of opportunity (wide access to higher education, particularly for people from disadvantaged backgrounds); and - to promote the more efficient use of funds and a higher degree of transparency. The new system was introduced for a limited period of time (from 2004 to 2008). Since the lump-sum funding instrument relates funds to outcomes, the HEIs needed to completely change their financial management and administration. The increased financial autonomy of HEIs must be accompanied by a higher level of responsibility for the efficient use of public money, and the way money is spent should be made transparent. However, the formula currently proposed by the ministry, which includes only the number of students and graduates as outcome indicators, does not give strong incentives to improve educational quality. There is a need to establish a quality evaluation system based on performance indicators and clearly set targets; otherwise there is a risk of grade inflation. The methodology for the allocation of funds is divided into two parts: - planning the budget; and - allocating funds to higher education institutions. Planning the budget at the state level The budget is planned so that the annual budget funds for study activities from the previous fiscal year are increased each year in real terms by at least the growth of gross domestic product, but by not less than 2.5% with regard to the realisation for the previous year for study activities. From all the funds planned for higher education at the relevant ministry, at most 4% is reserved by the minister for specific policy and development goals. These funds are delivered through public tenders for specific developmental activities. Allocating funds to higher education institutions The annual funds for the study activities of a higher education institution (LS) comprise basic annual funds (OLS) and standard annual funds (NLS). Basic annual funds for a higher education institution (OLS) are defined in the decree. For 2004 they were set at 80% of the annual funds for the study activities of an HEI in 2003. The share of basic annual funds was set to decrease each year by 2.5 percentage points, reaching 70% of the annual funds for the previous year’s study activities of the HEI in 2008. The standard annual funds for an HEI (NLS) are determined by taking account of the annual initial value (LIV), the total number of students (Š), and the number of graduates (D) multiplied by the weighting (Ud) and a factor for the study group f(s) to which the higher education institution belongs (NLS = LIV * ? [{ Š + D * Ud} * f(s)]). The annual initial value (LIV) means the standard annual funds per student in the first study group. Students (Š) are full-time students in undergraduate study programmes excluding graduands at the HEI in the current academic year. Graduates (D) are the graduates of full-time undergraduate study programmes at the HEI in the previous calendar year. The graduate weighting (Ud) is currently set at a value of 4. Study groups (s) combine higher education institutions by their dominant study fields or subfields according to the ISCED classification of study fields (UNESCO, November 1997). The factor of the study group f(s) expresses the ratio between the funds allocated for the provision of education in the study group compared to the first study group. There are six study groups, whose values vary from 1.00 to 4.50. The funds are allocated annually by contract. 3. Data and Methodology The analysis was based on data provided in annual reports for 2004 and 2005 by the HEIs and on data provided by the ministry. In this context, it should be emphasised that the methodology used for the cost calculation of study activities is not clearly defined, and therefore probably not completely uniform, among individual HEIs. 50 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Table 2: Average expenditure on study activities per full-time undergraduate student by study group, EUR, 2004 and 2005* Study group 2004 2005 Min Max Average Min Max Average Group 1 480 3,768 2,195 (UM PF) (VSŠP) 409 3,768 2,387 (UL FU) (VSŠP) Group 2 1,1141 4,34811 3,146 (UM VZŠ) (UL FŠ) 1,340 4,486 3,109 (UM VZŠ) (UL FŠ) Group 3 2,387 4,949 3,764 (POLITEH) (UL FS) 2,441 5,212 3,910 (POLITEH) (UM FS) Group 4 2,804 4,640 4,198 (UL FFA) (UL BF) 3,288 4,974 4,565 (UL FFA) (UL FFA) Group 5 5,008 5,955 5,633 (UM FKKT) (UL FMF) 4,528 7,349 6,113 (UM FKKT) (UL FMF) Group 6 6,6772 28,2512 2 10,040 (UL ALUO) (UL AGRFT) 6,084 26,552 10,286 (UM MF) (UL AGRFT) Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST(2005), own calculations Trunk Širca et al. Notes: * See the list of HEIs in the Appendix. 1 UP VŠZI i s not included. 2 UM MF is not included. However, the annual reports were the only source of expenditures on study activities available at the time of the analysis. We calculated the average expenditure per student within study groups and took the group averages as benchmarks when analysing the effects of changing the ratio between basic and standard funds within the total annual funds. We started the analysis with a comparison of the average funds received per student and average expenditure of study activities per student within study groups to find out the relative position of an HEI in different educational groups. Then we continued with the same comparison; however, it was undertaken at different ratios between basic and standard funds to see how the position of an HEI in each of the study groups would change. 3.1. Expenditure on study activities Table 2 contains the lowest, highest and average expenditure per student in each of the six study groups in 2004 and 2005. Some HEIs were not included in the analysis for 2004 since they did not exist yet or their data were unavailable. However, we do not consider the bias to be Figure 1: Distribution of average expenditure on study activities per full-time undergraduate student by study group, EUR, 2004* 12000" i T , T 10000 ~ 6000" 1-------1 T T ± 4000" T i I I 2000" 0" 34 Study group Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST (2005). Note: * See the list of HEIs in the Appendix. UL AGRFT is not included in Group 6. 5 6 IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 51 Figure 2: Distribution of average expenditure on study activities per full-time undergraduate student by study group, EUR, 2005* VSŠP o FŠ FVV O . vzs o T T "T 1 i i 234 Study group Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST (2005). Note: * See the list of HEIs in the Appendix. UL AGRFT is not included in Group 6. significant, since the number of students in these HEIs in 2005 was small and so were the weights when calculating the group averages (weighted). First, we can see large differences in expenditure per student among HEIs in the first and second study groups (see Table 2 and figures 1 and 2). As was evident from the documentation, the deficit was financed from other sources. On the other hand, HEIs in the second group were overfunded in 2004 and 2005, while HEIs in the fourth and fifth group were only overfunded in 2004. Second, it is almost impossible to draw a line between HEIs from study groups 1 to 4, since the distributions in these groups overlap (figures 1 and 2). These findings hardly justify the distribution of HEIs by the six study groups defined by the decree; however, this is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.2. Efficiency of the allocation of funds Table 3 contains the average funds received per student and the average expenditure on study activities per student in each of the six study groups in 2004 and 2005. Again, some HEIs were not included in the analysis since they did not exist yet or their data were unavailable. We can see that HEIs from the first study group were underfunded by 23% in 2004 and by 24% in 2005. HEIs from the sixth study group were also underfunded in 2004 and 2005 (by 7% and 5%). With some exceptions, the situation was very similar among all HEIs within each study group. As we can see, the funds were not efficiently allocated in 2004 and 2005. We see the reason for this in the excessive share of basic funds within the total annual funds of each HEI. For 2004, the basic funds of each HEI were set at 80% of the annual funds for the study activities of an HEI in the previous year (2003). For 2005 the share of basic funds dropped to 77.5% of the total annual funds for the study activities of the HEI in the previous year (2004). Since the funds of each HEI in 2003 represented direct payments according to the former standards, we can conclude that the majority of funds in 2004 and 2005 were still allocated according to the former standards, even though the lump-sum instrument had been introduced. HEIs with large staff numbers (and possibly facing decreasing enrolments in the last few years) that received quite substantial funds according to the former standards 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 '.' ¦-• 6 52 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Table 3: Funds received per student and expenditure on study activities per student by study group, EUR, 2004 and 2005* Study group 2004 2005 Funds per Expenditure per student student Funds/ expenditure ra ti o Funds per Expenditure per student student Funds/ expendi ture ratio Group 1 1,690 2,195 0.77 1,8031 2,3871 0.76 Group 2 31762 3,1462 1.01 3,196 3,109 1.03 Group 3 3,668 3,764 0.98 3,872 3,910 0.99 Group 4 4,306 4,198 1.03 4,553 4,565 1.00 Group 5 5,859 5,633 1.04 5,984 6,113 0.98 Group 6 9,3813 10,0403 0.93 9,769 10,286 0.95 Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST(2005), own calculations Trunk Širca et al. Notes: * See the list of HEIs in the Appendix. 1 UL FU is not included. 2 U P V Š ZI i s no t i nc l ud e d . 3 UP MF not is included. were in a more favourable position than the newly emerging HEIs that usually have small staff numbers but face an expansion of their activities. 3.3. The simulation Since we found the proposed ratio between basic and standard funds within the total annual funds of each HEI caused the inefficient allocation of funds, we did some simulations of the effects of changing the ratio between basic and standard funds. The simulations were based on the following assumptions: - we simulated the allocation of public funds among the HEIs for the 2004–2010 period; - the total budget in 2004–2006 equals the realisation in these years; for the 2007–2010 period the total budget was estimated according to the decree; - the number of students in 2003–2007 equals the number of full-time students in undergraduate study programmes excluding graduands at the HEIs in the current academic year; in the 2007–2010 period the number of students equals the number of full-time students in the 2006–07 academic year; - the number of graduates in the 2003–2005 period equals the number of graduates from full-time undergraduate study programmes at the HEIs in the previous calendar year; in the 2006–2010 period the number of graduates equals the number of graduates in 2005; - from all the funds planned for higher education in the 2007–2010 period, 4% is reserved by the minister for specific policy and development goals. These funds are being delivered through public tenders for specific developmental activities; - since the variation in expenditures on study activities within study groups was found to be very high, we took group averages as benchmarks. We assumed the averages should be less biased than individual data on expenditure and this should, at least partly, eliminate the already mentioned problem of a lack of uniformity in the cost calculation methodology among HEIs. When analysing several scenarios, three aspects must be considered: - a comparison of funds received and average expenditure on study activities within individual study groups in 2004 and 2005 to find out which basic-standard mix of funds helps to approximate the funds received to the average expenditure within individual study groups; - a comparison of the funds/expenditure ratio in 2004 and 2005 between study groups to find out which redistribution effects appear when changing the share of basic funds; and - a comparison of funds received per student in each year of the 2004–2010 period by average funds per student in the whole period to analyse the stability of the funding system from the point of view of each HEI. The relative deviation was the criterion chosen to evaluate the discrepancies between the funds received and average expenditure or average funds in the case of the analysis of time stability. The relative deviation was estimated in the following way: - First, we compared funds for study activities received per student with average expenditure in the study group: funds _per _studentit jt expenditure per student *100 IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 53 We calculated the absolute deviation (expressed in index points): D 100-I. Finally, we calculated the weighted average deviation from the average expenditure for each study group: ADt= ?(Dit * studentsit ) ?studentsit The relative deviation defined as described above is expressed in index points. 4. Results The following scenarios were evaluated: - The allocation of funds according to the decree. The actual realisation in 2004–2006 was taken as a benchmark, whereas the allocation in 2007–2010 was estimated according to the assumptions mentioned in the previous section. - The allocation of funds according to the decree, without exceptions. The total budget in 2004–2006, including additional funds according to Article 18 of the decree, was allocated according to the formula. The allocation in 2007–2010 was estimated according to the assumptions noted in the previous section. - The allocation of funds according to the formula defined in the decree, but at different ratios between basic and standard funds within the total annual funding of each HEI – 70%:30%, 60%:40%, 50%:50%, 40%:60% and 100% standard funds. Several remarks may be made concerning the results: - When the allocation is performed according to the decree, we see the HEIs from the first and sixth groups were underfunded in 2004 Table 4: Comparison of average funds received per student according to different ways of allocation, with average expenditure per student, by study group, 2004 and 2005 (index) Ye a r Study group Decree1 Decree, without exceptions2 70 S:30 N3 60 S:40N4 50 S:50 N5 40 S:60 Na 100S7 Group 1 80 80 80 81 82 82 85 Group 2 104 103 103 103 102 102 101 Group 3 101 102 101 101 101 101 100 Group 4 105 105 107 109 110 112 119 2004 Group 5 104 104 103 103 102 101 98 Group 6 94 93 93 92 92 91 89 Group 6 with o u t academies 88 88 89 89 90 90 93 Group 1 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 Group 2 106 103 102 101 101 100 100 Group 3 103 103 103 103 102 102 103 2005 Group 4 105 105 107 109 111 113 117 Group 5 95 96 95 94 94 94 95 Group 6 96 92 92 92 92 92 94 Group 6 with o u t academies 92 87 88 90 91 92 96 Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST (2005), own calculations Trunk Širca et al. Notes: 1Actual realisation of Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (exceptions were taken into account). 2 Allocation according to the decree, but without making exceptions - additional funds represent that part of the total budget allocated according to the formula. 3 Simulation when basic funds represent 70% and standard funds 30% of the annual funds of each HEI. 4 Simulation when basic funds represent 60% and standard funds 40% of the annual funds of each HEI. 5 Simulation when basic funds represent 50% and standard funds 50% of the annual funds of each HEI. 6 Simulation when basic funds represent 40% and standard funds 60% of the annual funds of each HEI. 7 Simulation when standard funds represent 100% of the annual funds of each HEI. 54 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 and 2005, whereas HEIs from the fifth group were only underfunded in 2005 (see Table 4). We ran two separate estimations for the sixth group, one with art academies included (as defined in the decree) and the other with art academies left out of the system, since we consider them exceptional cases that should be treated individually. When excluding the art academies, the deficit per student is even higher (12% in 2004 and 8% in 2005). - Increasing the share of standard funds means relating funds more and more to outcome indicators. As we can see in Table 5, increasing the share of standard funds helps to reduce the deficit in the first group by nearly 5% when total annual funds are defined as standard funds. - Results for the sixth group differ when art academies are left out. Again, increasing the share of standard funds within the total annual funds helps to reduce the deficit by nearly 5% (2004) or 4% (2005) when the total annual funds are defined as standard funds. - On the other hand, increasing the share of standard funds helps to reduce the surplus in the second and third groups, which were overfunded. - The only exception is group 4, where the surplus even grows when increasing the share of standard funds. We consider this to be a consequence of overestimating the factor of group 4 in the decree. In accordance with the above findings, we can conclude that by increasing the share of standard funds within the total annual funds, average funds per student gradually approximate the average expenditure within the individual study groups. It can be seen (Table 5) that by increasing the share of standard funds within the total annual funds, the average relative deviation of funds received from average expenditure decreases by nearly one third in 2004 and by about 15% in 2005. 5. Conclusion The findings of this analysis reveal significant differences in the operating costs of study activities among different institutions within the individual study groups, as well as the different study fields. At the same time, considerable discrepancies were noted in connection with funding received for particular study activities and the average operating cost of study activities among individual study groups, especially the groups numbered 1 and 6. We have showed that by raising the percentage of standard funds within the total annual budget, average funds per student gradually approximate the average expenditure within individual study groups, based on which it can be asserted that the process of decreasing the percentage of basic funds and increasing the share of standard funds (within the total annual budget for study activities) has been too slow. Relating funds more to outcome indicators would help to increase efficiency in the allocation of funds among HEIs. We also recommend that greater attention be paid in the future to the reporting system of higher education institutions, since the lack of uniformity in that system poses an important limitation to the comparability of the data. References European Commission (2004). The Financing of Higher Education in Europe. Table 5: Average relative deviation of funds per student from group average expenditure according to several scenarios, 2004 and 2005 (index points) Year HEI Decree1 Decree, without exceptions2 70S:30N3 60S:40N4 50S:50N5 40S:60Na 100S7 All 17.7 17.0 15.7 14.5 13.3 12.7 12.2 2004 Without academies 16.6 16.1 14.9 13.8 12.7 12.3 12.2 All 14.6 14.6 13.8 13.1 12.7 12.4 12.3 2005 Without academies 14.3 14.5 13.7 13.0 12.6 12.4 12.4 Source: MHEST (2004), MHEST (2005), own calculations Trunk Širca et al. Note: 1Actual realisation of Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (exceptions were taken into account). 2 Allocation according to the decree, but without making exceptions - additional funds represent that part of the total budget allocated according to the formula. 3 Simulation when basic funds represent 70% and standard funds 30% of the annual funds of each HEI. 4 Simulation when basic funds represent 60% and standard funds 40% of the annual funds of each HEI. 5 Simulation when basic funds represent 50% and standard funds 50% of the annual funds of each HEI. 6 Simulation when basic funds represent 40% and standard funds 60% of the annual funds of each HEI. 7 Simulation when standard funds represent 100% of the annual funds of each HEI. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 55 URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/ studies/financing1_en.pdf, 10.9.2007 European Commission (2007). PLA on “Steering on System Performance”. The Hague, 7–9 March 2007. Eurostat (2007). Population and Social Conditions. URL:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572592&_dad=portal&_ schema=PORTAL, 5.9.2007 Jacobs, B., Frederick van der Ploeg (2006). How to Reform Higher Education in Europe. Economic Policy, July 2006 (535–592). MHEST (2004). Annual report on HEIs – 2004. Ljubljana: Ministry of Higher Education, Science ant Technology. MHEST (2005). Annual report on HEIs – 2005. Ljubljana: Ministry of Higher Education, Science ant Technology. MHEST (2006). Decree on the Public Financing of Higher Education and Other University Member Institutions 2004–2008. Official gazette RS, No. 132/ 06, Ljubljana: Ministry of Higher Education, Science ant Technology. Trunk Širca, N., Kodrič B., Strašek R. & Marjetič D. (2007). Izdelava ekonomskega modela za simulacijo učinkov sprememb sistema financiranja terciarnega izobraževanja – zaključno poročilo. Koper : University of Primorska, Faculty of management Koper. 56 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Appendix Table A.1: The list of higher education institutions in Slovenia Code Title UL - University of Ljubljana UL AG Music Academy UL AGRFT Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television UL ALUO Academy of Fine Arts and Design UL BF Biotechnical Faculty UL EF Faculty of Economics UL FA Faculty of Architecture UL FDV Faculty of Social Sciences UL FE Faculty of Electrical Engineering UL FFA Faculty of Pharmacy UL FGG Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering UL FKKT Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology UL FMF Faculty of Mathematics and Physics UL FPP Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transport UL FRI Faculty of Computer and Information Science UL FSD Faculty of Social Work UL FS Faculty of Mechanical Engineering UL FŠ Faculty of Sports UL FU Faculty of Administration UL FF Faculty of Arts UL MF Medical Faculty UL NTF Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering UL PEF Faculty of Education UL PF Faculty of Law UL TEOF Faculty of Theology UL VF Veterinary Faculty UL VŠZ Professional College for Health Sciences UM - University of Maribor UM EPF Faculty of Economics and Business UM FERI Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science UM FE Faculty of Energy Engineering UM FG Faculty of Civil Engineering UM FKKT Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology UM FK Faculty of Agriculture UM FL Faculty of Logistics UM FNM Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics UM FOV Faculty of Organisational Sciences UM FS Faculty of Mechanical Engineering UM FVV Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security UM VZŠ P rofessi onal C ollege for Health S ciences UM FF Faculty of Arts UM MF Faculty of Medicine UM PEF Faculty of Education UM PF Faculty of Law UP - University of Primorska UP FHŠ Faculty of Humani sti c S tudi es K oper UP FM Faculty of Management Koper UP PEF Faculty of Education Koper UP TURISTICA Turistica - College of Tourism Portorož UP VŠZI College of Health Care Izola Independent higher education institutions POLITEH Nova Gorica Polytechnic VSŠP GEA College of Entrepreneurship, Piran VŠUP School of Business and Management, Novo mesto IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 57 Prof. Prakash Naidoo* A funding framework to address efficiency and equity in public higher education institutions in South Africa Summary Funding of higher education from public sources in South Africa prior to 2004 was based on a formula designed in 1982-83 which could not assist the government in addressing the goals set out in the Education White Paper 3 of 1997. A new funding framework replaced the old formula funding in 2004 and directs the allocation towards achieving the goals stipulated in the white paper. In addition, it specifies how funds are to be distributed in order to achieve the sustainability of institutions, as well as to promote equity and efficiency. This paper analyzes these distributive mechanisms and the extent to which the funding framework achieves the goals described in the Higher Education Act (1997): equity, efficiency and sustainability of the higher education sector. Key words: South Africa, funding framework, higher education, efficiency, equity. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ JEL: I220 1. Introduction In 1994, the post-apartheid government set out to achieve a new society that could benefit all its citizens. For higher education this means fulfilling the general purposes as set out in the white paper of 1997, the Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education. The National Commission on Higher Education in 1995 set in motion specific policy goals and initiatives for the higher education system, resulting in the National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa (NPHE) being released in February 2001. The NPHE set out five major goals and strategies for higher education. These goals relate to providing educational opportunities to youth in order to “produce” skilled graduates for the South African economy, promoting equity in order to reflect the demographic profile of the country, ensuring a diversified higher education system, securing and advancing high-level research capacity, and restructuring the higher education landscape. One direct consequence of the NPHE was a major restructuring of the higher education landscape. The minister of education set about rationalizing the number of higher education institutions from a total of 36 institutions to 23. Up to 2003 the 36 institutions comprised traditional universities and “technikons”. Technikons are essentially the equivalent of polytechnics existing in other countries. The name “technikon” has now been replaced by “university of technology”. The development of technikons evolved from the era of technical colleges in the 1950s, mainly to provide a career-oriented education. The effect of rationalization addressed the original racially classified institutions into a more geographically coordinated system, and redesignated institutions as reflected in Table 1. 2. The history of financing higher education The financial problems facing higher education institutions in South Africa are the same ones facing other higher education systems worldwide. According to Johnstone (2004:001), these relate to the cost of higher education per student and the increase in enrolment due to the legitimate expectations of the school-leaving youth. In 2000, the Taskforce on Higher Education and Society (2000:54) estimated that total public expenditure on higher education in the entire world is approximately USD 300 million, or 1% of the gross domestic product. It is also estimated that about one third of this expenditure occurs in developing * Vaal University of Technology, South Africa 58 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Table 1: Changes in the public higher education landscape in 2004 in South Africa Higher education institution No. of institutions Headcount enrolment (% ) Historically advantaged universities 11 54 Historically disadvantaged universities 10 14 Before 2004 Historically advantaged technikons 8 24 Historically disadvantaged technikons 7 8 Traditional universities 11 36 After 2004 C omprehensive uni versi ti es 6 44 Universities of technology 20 Source: Council on Higher Education, 2004:40; Council on Higher Education, 2006:184. countries, where higher education is heavily subsidized by the government, with a low fee charged to students. Higher education institutions in South Africa derive their income from three main sources: state grants and subsidies, tuition fees, and third-stream income (income from other sources), i.e. income received from research contracts and donations. Prior to the introduction of a new funding framework for higher education in South Africa, the following formulae and mechanisms were used to fund higher education institutions: • The Holloway formula for funding universities implemented in 1951; • The formula recommended by the Van Wyk de Vries Commission for funding universities implemented in 1977; • The South African Post-Secondary Education (SAPSE) formula for funding universities implemented in 1984; • An adaptation of the SAPSE formula for funding technikons implemented in 1987; • A revised SAPSE formula for funding both universities and technikons implemented in 1993. The new funding framework, which is the main subject of this paper, came into effect in the 2004–05 fiscal year. The largest sources of income for most higher education institutions in South Africa are state grants and subsidies, whilst in most institutions tuition fees and third-stream income contribute approximately 25% each (Figure 1). Figure 1: Sources of funds of public higher education institutions in South Africa Student tu it ion and other fees 25% *3l Other private income 25% ANNUAL FUNDS FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION 100% 6 Source: South Africa, 2004c. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 59 3. Inflow and outflow of higher education obtained a grade 12 certificate. Figure 2 represents the number of students in the public higher education sector from 1989 to 2005, and Figure 3 ref lects the current transfer of students from Most entrants into the South African higher education system may enrol only if they have secondary to tertiary education. Figure 2: Headcount enrolment in higher education institutions 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Academic Year Sources: Council on Higher Education, 2006:24; South Africa, 2005a:30; South Africa, 2006b:29. Figure 3: Flow of students from grade 12 into higher education institutions – South Africa, 2003 Full-time learners writing grade 12 exams 508,000 ' i ' y Fail exams 161,000 32% Pass without exemption 261,000 51% —> Cannot enter further or higher education I Enter • Public further education • Private further education • Private higher education • Labour market • Other 264,000 (50%) Enter a university or technikon after grade 12 76,000 15% Sources: South Africa, 2004c; South Africa, 2006b. 60 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 4. The financing of higher education Prior to 2004, South African higher education institutions were subsidized on the basis of the old formula approach. The South African Post-Secondary Education System (SAPSE) identifies and defines 11 programmes that describe all of a university’s potential activities (South Africa, 1985:15). These eleven educational and general programme activities comprise the following: instructional programme, research programme, public service programme, academic support programme, student services programme, institutional support programme, operation and maintenance of plant programme, bursaries programme, auxiliary enterprises programme, hospital programme and independent operations programme. The formula operated on the basis of ten different types of “cost units” to ensure that the cost of higher education was appropriately subsidized. The ten cost units related to state subsidies for three categories of salaries (one category each), for supplies, buildings and equipment, two separate categories for subsidizing books and periodicals in the humanities, and two separate categories for subsidizing books and periodicals in the natural sciences. In December 2003 a new public higher education funding framework was released after a consultative process (South Africa, 2003:5–6). It indicates, amongst other issues, that “the new framework is a goal-directed and performance-related distributive mechanism which explicitly links the allocation of funds to academic activity and output, and in particular to the delivery of teaching-related and research-related services which contribute to the social and economic development of the country”. The new framework is also compatible with the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) process used by the government. The MTEF process allows the formal motivation and annual negotiation of funds with three-year cycles. The National Treasury reviews budgets by considering growth, affordability within the fiscal framework, the spending and policy priorities of each department in terms of its contribution towards government’s strategic objectives, inflation adjustments, and sector-specific issues. Issues specifically related to higher education are increases in enrolment and graduation rates, costs, efficiency in the sector, and restructuring the higher education sector. The MTEF allocation for the 2007–10 fiscal period (Table 2) shows an average increase of public expenditure on higher education by approximately 10% per year. The higher education budget in the new framework is allocated into three broad categories: block grants, earmarked funds and institutional restructuring. The purpose of block grants is to provide performance-related funds for higher education institutions. These grants are subdivided into five categories: teaching input grant, teaching output grant, research output grant, institutional factor grant and various types of earmarked grant. Firstly, a teaching input grant is generated by full-time equivalent (FTE) students. These are weighted in terms of a cost-based funding grid and a detailed planning grid as summarized in Table 3. This funding is based on the classification of educational subject matter (CESM) categories used in the higher education management information system (HEMIS). Student enrolment plans of institutions must also be pre-approved by the minister of education. FTE calculations are based on enrolments of the year n-2. The teaching input grid applied in 2004 continues to be used, although the minister has indicated that it will be reviewed in the future (South Africa, 2004b). For 2007–08, approximately 52% of the total public expenditure on higher education has been allocated to higher education institutions in the form of teaching input grants. Expenditure for this purpose will increase by approximately 8% and 9% in 2008–09 and 2009–10 respectively. Table 2: Allocation of public expenditure on higher education in South Africa for 2007–2010 2007-2008 (in ZAR millions) 2008-2009 (in ZAR millions) 2009-2010 (in ZAR millions) BLOCK GRANTS EARMARKED GRANTS INSTITUTIONAL RESTRUCTURING 10,689 11,582 12,712 1,768 2,303 3,214 600 600 0 13,057 14,485 15,926 S o urc e: S outh A fri c a, 20 07 :6. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 61 Table 3: Funding grid used as weighting factors for the teaching input factor – South Africa, 2004 Price ratio (weight) Funding group CESM categories U* M+3 Hons* M+4 M** M+5 D** M+6 Education, law, librarianship, psychology, social services/public administration 1.0 (0.5) 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 4.0 Business/commerce, communication, computer science, language, philosophy/religion, social sciences 1.5 (0.75) 3.0 (1.5) 4.5 6.0 Architecture/planning, engineering, home economics, industrial arts, mathematical sciences, physical education 2.5 (1.25) 5.0 (2.5) 7.5 10.0 4 Agriculture, fine and performing arts, health sciences, life and physical sciences 3.5 (1.75) 7.0 (3.5) 10.5 14.0 Source: South Africa, 2004a. Legend: U = undergraduate degree, Hons = honours degree, M=master's degree, D= doctoral degree, M+3 = grade 12 (last high school grade) + minimum 3 years post-school education. * Weight for distance institutions is given in brackets. ** Ratios are the same for contact and distance institutions. Table 4: Weighting factors for calculation of graduates – South Africa, 2004 Weighting factor -actual teaching output *Graduation benchmark % 1st certificates and diplomas, 2 years or less 1st diplomas and bachelor's degrees, 3 years Professional 1st bachelor's degrees, 4+ years Postgraduate and post-diploma Postgraduate degrees Honours degrees/higher diplomas Non-research master's degrees and master's diplomas 0.5 22.5 (13.5) 1.0 22.5 (13.5) 1.5 18 (9) 0.5 54 (27) 1.0 54 (27) 0.5 54 (27) 0.5 30 (22.5) Source: South Africa, 2004a. *Distance education institution benchmarks are indicated in brackets. Teaching output grants are based on the graduate outputs of universities, which are determined by the weights attached to these outputs and the benchmarks specified by the minister of education. The weighting and the benchmarks set are shown in Table 4. The improvement in student graduation rates is one of the planned outcomes of the National Plan for Higher Education (South Africa, 2001a:27). Research master’s and doctoral graduates do not qualify for teaching output grants, as these fall under the research output grant. For the 2007–08 academic year, approximately 13% of the state higher education budget was allocated for the teaching outputs of institutions. This will also increase by approximately 8% and 9% in 2008–09 and 2009–10 respectively. Most institutions failed to meet the teaching output benchmarks set by the minister of education. In order to allow institutions some time to improve their outputs, the minister of education approved a strategy to ensure that institutions will not face major financial setbacks through the application of the new funding framework. The minister has referred to this as a “migration” strategy, which will enable institutions to benefit from the allocation of a teaching development grant for an interim period. This will be discussed later in this paper. Research output grants are performance grants allocated to institutions for actual publication in journals accredited by the Department of Education and for research master’s and doctoral graduates. Research subsidies are distributed using weighting and prices for research as it is presented in Table 5. Table 5: Weighting factors used to calculate research output grants – South Africa, 2004 OUTPUT WEIGHT Publication 1.0 Master's degree 1.0 Doctoral degree 3.0 Source: South Africa, 2004a. 2 3 62 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 The minister of education annually determines the elements of research output, the weighting to be attached to different research outputs, and the benchmark ratios applicable to the different categories of higher education institutions. The current benchmark (2007–08) is 1.25 units and 0.5 units (per permanent teaching/research staff) for universities and former technikons (now mostly universities of technology) respectively. For 2007–08, approximately 11% of the total higher education budget has been allocated to institutions for actual research output. This will also increase by approximately 8% and 9% in 2008–09 and 2009–10 respectively. Most institutions failed to meet the research output benchmark set by the minister of education. In order to allow institutions some time to improve their research outputs, the minister of education approved a special strategy, similar to that of the teaching development grant, which enabled institutions to benefit from the allocation of a research development grant for an interim period. An institutional factor grant is also built into the funding framework to address socio-economic inequities and institutions that may receive a smaller subsidy because of their size. The Department of Education has decided to use the percentage of students classified as African and Coloured to calculate a “disadvantaged factor” for an institution. The current application is on the basis that higher education institutions with less than 40% FTE students (disadvantaged) will receive no additional funds to their teaching input grant. Those institutions with FTE students (disadvantaged) of above 80% will receive the maximum 10% in addition to their teaching input grant, while those with above 40% but less than 80% FTE students (disadvantaged) will receive a proportionate increase in their teaching input grant, greater than 0% but less than 10%. The institutional factor grant also enables smaller institutions to benefit due to their number of FTE students. A sliding scale is used in which institutions with more than 25,000 FTE students receive no additional benefits, whilst institutions with 12,000 FTE students receive 9.3% in addition to their teaching input grants, and up to a maximum scale of 15% added on to the teaching input units for higher education institutions with 4,000 or less FTE students. The new funding framework also provides additional funds in the form of a multi-campus allocation for institutions which are required to deliver teaching services on more than one campus as a result of the changes in the higher education landscape of the country. As an interim measure, merged institutions have been allocated a larger institutional factor grant on the assumption that the “old” institutions prior to mergers still exist. The total amount allocated as institutional factor grants will be held as a constant value of approximately 6% of the total higher education budget, with annual increases of approximately 8%. Whilst block grants represent the largest percentage of the state higher education budget, the minister has earmarked grants for specific purposes. The first category of these grants is the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which was initiated to assist students who have academic potential but cannot afford to pursue higher education. The basis of the scheme is that students meeting the requirements for the provision of funds based on their poverty level receive a low-interest loan, the repayment of which starts only when they are gainfully employed above a certain income threshold. For 2007–08, qualifying students are granted a maximum loan of up to ZAR 35,000, which is sufficient to pay for their tuition fees and books and provide them with a reasonable living allowance. Depending on the students’ academic performance, up to 40% of the loan could be converted by NSFAS into an outright bursary. For 2007–08, approximately 9% of the total higher education budget has been allocated for NSFAS. A second category of earmarked grants relate to funds for infrastructure and output efficiency funds. The main purpose of these funds is to improve the institutional infrastructure so that institutions can increase their graduate and research output to acceptable benchmarks. The minister intends to provide an increase of over 63% in 2008–09 and an increase of over 100% in 2009–10. These funds also assist institutions that were affected by the changes in the higher education landscape. The new framework also earmarks funds for foundation programmes. These programmes are entry-level programmes designed to assist students from disadvantaged educational backgrounds to acquire sufficient knowledge and skills to enable them to register for a mainstream diploma or degree programme at public higher education institutions. Institutions will have to make formal applications for funding for a three-year period. Once an application is approved, the grant applies for a three-year period. The funding grant will be dependent on the funds available for a particular year. For the 2007–08 financial year approximately 1% of the total higher education budget has been allocated for this purpose, with an increase of approximately 8% in 2008–09 and 6% in 2009–10. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 63 For the first time in the 2007–08 fiscal year, the minister has allocated an initial amount of ZAR 8 million for the clinical training of health professionals in the form of other earmarked funds. This will increase substantially in the period 2008–10. Before applying the new funding framework in 2004–05, the ministry took into account that the full application of the new framework could destabilise the higher education system because some institutions would have faced a massive reduction in state grants. The minister of education applied a strategy from 2004–05 that ensured institutions would not become unsustainable as a result of the application of the new funding framework. In 2006–07 the minister first used the teaching and research output benchmark of the funding framework to determine the normative values of these outputs. After allocating the funds available for teaching and research outputs actually earned by institutions, the minister decided to allocate the remaining funds to help institutions improve both their teaching and research outputs. These allocations are referred to as “teaching development grants” and “research development grants”. The minister has stressed that the allocation of both grants will not be automatically awarded to institutions. All future allocations will be based on the progress made by institutions in respect of teaching and research outputs in each cycle. In 2007 the minister also recognized that each institution had to be considered on its own merits, and therefore set institution-specific benchmarks for teaching and research outputs to be achieved by the end of this MTEF cycle, i.e. 2009–10. 5. The realities and challenges of the new funding framework Like many other countries, South Africa has also sought an innovative approach to financing higher education. As we have seen, the demand for higher education in South Africa has risen sharply in the post-apartheid years. Salmi and Hauptman’s (2006:3) reasoning for such high demands for higher education corresponds to the South African situation. These reasons include the following: the economic value of having higher education is greater than just having secondary education, social pressures encourage children to enter once they have finished their secondary education, and higher education curricula are becoming more relevant to the real economy. This acute demand for access to higher education places an additional demand on the state to provide sufficient funding for aspiring entrants into higher education. Many of these aspirations are further fuelled by pressure from parents who did not have the opportunity to continue their education for either political or financial reasons. The South African government has done well in providing a funding framework that addresses the following key objectives, also spelt out in the Education White Paper 3 (South Africa, 1997): • equitable distribution of funds amongst institutions; • providing access to students who could not normally afford to enter higher education institutions; • efficiencies through setting benchmarks for both teaching output and research output; • additional funding to assist institutions with specific needs. A deeper analysis suggests that more ought to be done to address the expectation created in a postapartheid South Africa. Whilst the higher education system has undoubtedly addressed the previous fragmented higher education system, the system may have not changed the elite status accorded to some institutions. Institutions like the University of Cape Town, University of Pretoria, University of the Witwatersrand, Rhodes University, University of Stellenbosch and other formerly advantaged institutions are still regarded by many as preferred institutions. They attract the best-quality students, both black and white. There might seem nothing wrong with this, but the current funding framework does not fully take into account that many of the less elite institutions are competing on equal footing for funds. Elite institutions attract better-quality students and would therefore find it easier to achieve the higher education benchmarks set by the Department of Education. In addition, the elite institutions never seem to turn away students who come from less impoverished backgrounds and therefore have the ability to pay a higher tuition fee, afford better accommodation and be more focused on their studies. It is commendable that the new higher education landscape in South Africa has created open access for all those who qualify to enter it. Wallace (1993:15) correctly emphasizes that targeted financial aid will subsidize those who do not have the financial resources to enable them to enter higher education. In South Africa poor students passing a family income means test will be able to receive support via the National Student Financial 64 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Aid Scheme. The reality of this is that these poor students will also be saddled with a debt burden well before they earn enough to pay it back. Since 1989 the number of students entering higher education has almost doubled; public expenditure on higher education has increased more slowly. The obvious result is that pressure will be on increasing tuition fees to ensure that there are sufficient funds to provide a quality education. The Department of Education provides clear guidelines on how the funding framework will be applied via a ministerial statement in every cycle. The timing of this information may create time lags in the planning cycle of institutions, which could have a negative impact especially on enrolment patterns. In addition, the actual higher education funding support of the government is not in balance with the political perception that there are no restrictions on the number of students that can be accommodated in the higher education sector. The drive to achieve benchmarks set by the Department of Education for teaching output grants could lead to concerns about the quality of output, despite quality being checked by the Higher Education Quality Committee every five years. This must be seen against the background of an approximately 100% increase in student numbers since 1989, with no state provision for infrastructure development in the application of the new framework up to the 2006–07 financial year. Infrastructure development relates both to academic infrastructure and support for the welfare of students, e.g. a better residential environment, sports facilities, etc. The greatest challenge still remains the shifting of higher education access for an increasing proportion of the previously disadvantaged population, as envisaged in the Education White Paper 3 (South Africa, 1997a). This has to be done in a country where the sectors of health, transport and housing are also facing huge resource constraints. 6. Concluding remarks The country experienced a reasonable economic growth of around 5% in the past year (Manuel, 2007), thus suggesting more funds will be available for education. The minister of education’s hopes of increasing the participation rate to 20% by 2015 may meet with some difficulty if fewer students pass mathematics and sciences with grades acceptable for university entrance (Jansen, 2006). In 2005 only 12% of the headcount enrolled students attained their first qualification and 4% completed their postgraduate qualification (South Africa 2006b:34). This clearly suggests that more resources, amongst other factors, are needed to improve the graduate rate in higher education. Whilst most higher education institutions have introduced additional academic support programmes for students coming from substandard schools, it will not be possible to achieve a higher graduation rate within a context of relatively decreasing funds. At the same time universities are reluctant to force substantial tuition fee increases, especially in an environment where over 70% of university drop-outs were black students coming from very low income families (Letseka, 2007). Financial dependence on the state means that funding levels vary with the availability of government resources for higher education. The importance of higher education needs to be matched by adequate public and private investment to enable institutions to produce the graduates required by both the public and private sector, without interfering with the autonomy of institutions. It is clear that the economy is greatly dependent on the skilled workforce produced by higher education institutions, but the contradiction remains that higher education institutions need more resources. This paper has discussed many questions which must be solved for the better operation of higher education institutions in South Africa. More importantly, the issues of access, academic performance and moving away from elitism must be more fully discussed and communicated to the public. The new funding framework has in some aspects moved away from the old formula to create a better system for planning the growth and financial sustainability of institutions. The results of the implementation of the new funding framework up to 2009–10 will provide valuable information on whether real benefits are derived from this innovative approach. References Council on Higher Education in South Africa. 2004. South African Higher Education in the First Decade of Democracy. Council on Higher Education in South Africa. 2006. Higher Education Monitor: The Impact of Changing IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 65 Funding Sources on Higher Education Institutions in South Africa. Ehrenberg R.G. 2007. The Future of Government Financing of Higher Education. Presentation made to the American Enterprise Institute Conference on “Higher Education after the Spelling Commission: An Assessment.” Washington D.C. Holm-Nielsen L.B. 2001. Challenges for Higher Education Systems. Presented at the International Conference on Higher Education Reform. Jakarta. Jansen J. 2006. We Have Settled for a Dual System That Nurtures Students’ Vain Hopes. Sunday Tribune. 31 December 2006. Johnstone D.B. 2004. Higher Education Finance and Accessibility: Tuition Fees and Student Loans in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa. Letseka M. 2007. Human Sciences Research Council. Why Students Leave: The Problem of High Drop-out Rates. HSRC Review. Vol. 5, No. 3. Manuel T. 2007. 2007 Budget Speech to the South African Parliament. Cape Town. 21 February 2008. [Available on the Internet athttp://www.info.gov.za.] Melck A. 2004. The Public Funding of Higher Education in South Africa and Its Implications for Higher Education Institutions. PricewaterhouseCoopers conference. Port Elizabeth. Pandor, G.N.M. 2006. Statement by the Minister of Education on the Release of the 2006 Senior Certificate Examination Results in Parliament. 28 December 2006. [Available on the Internet at http:/ /www.info.gov.za.] Salmi J. & Hauptman A.M. 2006. Innovations in Tertiary Education Financing: A Comparative Evaluation of Allocation Mechanisms. World Bank Education Working Paper Series. South Africa. 1985. Department of National Education. An Investigation of Government Financing of Universities. Report 110. Pretoria. South Africa. 1996. National Commission on Higher Education in South Africa. A Framework for Transformation. South Africa. 1997a. Department of National Education. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for Transformation of Education. Pretoria. South Africa. 1997b. Higher Education Act No. 101. 19 December 1997. Government Gazette No 18515. Pretoria. South Africa. 2001a. Department of National Education. National Plan for Higher Education in South Africa. February. Pretoria. South Africa. 2001b. Comments on the New Funding Framework. South African Universities’ Vice-Chancellors’ Association and Committee of Technikon Principals. Pretoria. South Africa. 2002. Transformation and Restructuring: A New Landscape for Higher Education. 21 June. Government Gazette No. 23549. Pretoria. South Africa. 2003. Public Higher Education Funding. 9 December. Government Gazette No. 25824. Pretoria. South Africa. 2004a. Department of Education. Ministerial Statement on Higher Education Funding: 2004–05 to 2006–07. South Africa. 2004b. Department of Education. A New Funding Framework: How Government Grants Are Allocated to Public Higher Education Institutions. South Africa. 2004c. Department of Education. Enrolment Planning 2005–2007. July. Pretoria. South Africa. 2005a. Department of Education. Education Statistics in South Africa at a Glance in 2004. Pretoria. South Africa. 2005b. Department of Education. Ministerial Statement on Higher Education Funding: 2005–06 to 2007–08. South Africa. 2006a. Department of Education. Ministerial Statement on Higher Education Funding: 2006–07 to 2008–09. South Africa. 2006b. Department of Education. Education Statistics in South Africa at a Glance in 2005. Pretoria. South Africa. 2006c. Department of Education. Preliminary Funding Allocations for 2007–08. South Africa. 2007. Department of Education. Ministerial Statement on Higher Education Funding: 2007–08 to 2009–10. Task Force on Higher Education and Society. 2000. Higher Education in Developing Countries – Peril and Promise. World Bank Publication. Wallace T.P. 1993. Public Higher Education Finance. Change. U.S.A. 66 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Hans Vossensteyn*, Petr Matějů** Challenges in funding, equity and efficiency in higher education Summary Equity and efficiency are complex issues in higher education financing. The issue is whether or not it is fair and efficient to have students pay for part of their higher education costs. This paper, based on a discussion by a panel of experts, explores whether tuition fees and student support can be geared in a constellation so that partici- pation in higher education can be expanded without interfering with the accessibility of higher education for students from disadvan-taged socio-economic groups. The discussion indicates that an optimal level of tuition fees cannot be found, nor an optimal level of grants, scholarships or loans. All is context related, in which history and the labour market are important factors. But whatever the situation, it seems fair that students should have to pay part of the costs, but will also be insured against major financial punishments if they end up in lower-earning jobs after leaving higher education. Key words: Cost-sharing, tuition fees, student support. JEL: I220 1. Introduction The concluding session of the conference “Funding, Equity and Efficiency in Higher Education”, held 21–24 November in Portorož, Slovenia, wrapped up many of the issues presented in the previous sessions and placed those issues into the wider perspective of higher education policy. The discussion panel consisted of: Dr Milena Bevc Dr Petr Matějů (co-chair) Dr George Psacharopoulos Dr Hans Vossensteyn (chair) Dr Maureen Woodhall The discussion was structured along a number of topics: • Equity and efficiency in the debate on funding higher education. • Do we want to increase participation in higher education and, if so, how? • Do students need to pay a larger share of the costs? • Do we want tuition fees? How should students be supported: grants, family support or loans? If loans, what type of loans? What about transparency of the financing system? If we want to make changes, where do we start? The following text reflects the opinions of the panellists as well as the audience, and addresses the questions stated above separately. 2. Are equity and efficiency in higher education at odds? There was a general conviction that efficiency (i.e. cost effectiveness) and equity are multi-faceted concepts in the debate on higher education. On the one hand, higher education systems in many countries produce more graduates and research with relatively less funding, making higher education more efficient. On the other hand, there are still many unexploited resources that could make higher education more efficient – for * Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands ** Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 67 example, parental contributions from high-income families in systems with no or low tuition fees. In addition, one could consider students’ own financial contributions, for example, through student loan systems. In terms of equity, public opinion as well as the opinion of politicians inclines toward free higher education because this is felt to be “fair”. However, the conference concluded that this often has a perverse regressive economic effect because it implies that the average taxpayers pay for the education of people that primarily come from higher socio-economic backgrounds and that will belong to higher socio-economic classes in the future. As such, free higher education stimulates social reproduction at the expense of the average taxpayer. Regarding the question of whether equity and efficiency can be developed at the same time, the answer was to charge tuition fees and develop a fair system of financial support for students. In most countries, the majority of students come from higher socio-economic classes with distinct under-representation of students from lower socio-economic groups. Many studies have shown that the introduction or abolishment of tuition fees and changes in student support mechanisms have had no impact or a very small temporary impact on the socio-economic composition of the student population. These findings call for further research into more efficient and equitable mechanisms to finance higher education, with precise design and careful implementation. 3. Participation in higher education There are mixed answers to the question of whether we want to further expand participation in higher education. Some countries already have a relatively high participation rate, whereas others would still like to expand their systems substantially. Many labour markets can handle higher numbers of graduates for high-skilled jobs. The issue is who decides on the expansion of the system and in what direction. The audience called for greater differentiation in terms of types of higher education institutions, programmes and qualifications. In addition, it was stated that merely expanding current public systems without charging tuition fees would attract greater numbers of students without increasing quality, or perhaps even lower the average quality of students and graduates. The conference agreed that it is necessary to stimulate participation in higher education by talented but disadvantaged socio-economic groups. The larger issue highlighted at the conference is that major educational inequalities become manifest much earlier than in higher education; these begin as early as preschool and primary education. In addition, strong tracking systems in secondary education may discourage transition into higher education. 4. Do students need to pay a larger share of the costs through tuition fees? Previous analysis presented at the conference already indicated that the majority of participants favour tuition fees in higher education. Students should contribute to the costs of education through user charges (i.e. tuition fees) for both quality (of students and of programmes) and efficiency, as well as for equity reasons. The debate then moved to the returns of higher education. Analyses at the conference showed that individuals benefit greatly from higher education, both in financial terms as well as in non-monetary terms, such as cultural development, appreciation of leisure and happiness. Of course these benefits differ between countries, institutions, disciplines and individuals. Regardless of such differences, tuition fees can easily be argued for due to the private rates of return. Nevertheless, it was also widely recognised that higher education also generates substantial externalities and positive social rates of return. These call for continued public investment in higher education. Some participants claimed that higher education should be tuition-free because graduates pay tax at higher levels. Although higher-earning graduates indeed move into higher taxation brackets, this also holds for high-earning non-graduates that did not make use of the expensive higher education system. In addition, general income taxes do not differentiate between the public services that they pay for. Therefore higher education costs cannot be addressed through presumed higher taxation rates. Addressing private contributions to the costs of higher education, the audience was undecided about the level of fees to be charged. Some arguments were made that the marginal costs of education should somehow be brought into balance with the marginal benefits. Of course, this is very difficult to calculate for individual students with different capacities and in different institutions and programmes. The issue of differential tuition fees also created some mixed opinions. On the one 68 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 hand, differential fees accommodate greater diversity in the system very well; on the other hand, it was also feared that differential fees might lead to a greater disparity between students from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds because the latter have more difficulty investing in higher-cost programmes. With regard to whether tuition fees should be charged up-front or through a deferred payment system, the latter option was preferred because it is viewed as related to future income position rather than family background. It also removes any argument about liquidity constraints at the moment of enrolment. International practice has shown that deferred payment mechanisms such as those in Australia and the UK do not hamper access. 5. How should students be supported? Practice shows that governments make use of an enormous range of arrangements to support students and their families. Systems that are in place are not easy to change. For example, indirect support through students’ parents in the form of family allowances and tax benefits may not be changed easily because these often are more generic arrangements for larger target groups. In addition, these are often accompanied by parental maintenance obligations towards children that are formulated in national (i.e. constitutional) law. In addition, such support often can take hidden forms, such as free health insurance and transportation subsidies. Grants to students are often more explicitly targeted to full-time students, to high-performing students, to poor students, or to a combination of these. Such direct subsidies may be vulnerable to political change and public demands for budget cuts. Regardless of their more targeted nature, grants often provide subsidies to students who do not really need them, particularly generic or merit-based grants. Generic grants often go together with the idea of making students financially independent (as much as possible), as in the Nordic countries. However, the participants agreed that addressing access issues particularly requires grants based on parental income as a way to stimulate students from disadvantaged backgrounds to participate in higher education. However, student support in the form of student loans was generally preferred by the participants as a way to overcome liquidity constraints and to move the burden of higher education costs to the time when future graduates are realising the economic benefits of their education, mainly through employment. 6. What type of loans? How student loans should be given shape was still an issue of debate. Whether loans should be available to all students or only to needy students to a large extent depends on the amount of resources/capital that can be made available. It was undecided whether loans should cover living costs or tuition costs in particular; nevertheless, loans do have an investment character, and tuition paid for education is an investment in future employability. As such, they may be a natural link between tuition and employability. With relation to the repayment mechanism, some prefer income-related repayment schedules in which one repays faster if one earns more, whereas others prefer traditional mortgage-style loans because national tax and debt collection mechanisms are not as efficient as needed. An important issue regarding student loans is whether or not interest subsidies should be applied. The basic argument is that one should not offer student loans with interest subsidies. In doing so, the government subsidises students in a hidden way; the longer the repayment period, the greater the burden on public funds, and students do not perceive this as a subsidy or gift. Of course there is a case for keeping student loans as attractive as possible – for example, through using government borrowing rates that often are lower than private banking interest rates, which are often perceived as too high for students. However, there may be very strong political reasons for interest subsidies on student loans – for example, to make loans acceptable politically and in the media. Furthermore, if one switches from grants to loans, the subsidy on loans is lower than on grants. Nevertheless, systems with low or no interest rates may lead to situations in which loans are in fact a gift of 50% to even 70%. This is an expensive way to lend money to students while those students continue to regard the instrument as a loan rather than a grant. This should be a serious consideration for student loan policies. Finally, some loan systems include a risk premium. For example, in the Hungarian case the interest rate has a top-up risk premium of 1.7% to 2.0% to cover default costs. This represents solidarity among the pool of borrowers, whereby the well-earning graduates pay a little extra for the low- IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 69 earning graduates. This means that public subsidies can be fully used for direct grants to needy students. 7. Transparency and quality This part of the discussion argued that any student financing mechanism should be clear and transparent. The government or student financing agency, as well as the media, should communicate very clearly the objectives of the student financial arrangements by providing proper statements on the following issues: • What are the costs of higher education: study-related costs and maintenance costs? • What are the benefits of higher education? (Rates of return, non-financial returns, differences for various disciplines, etc.) • What are the tuition arrangements? • How are students supported? What are the subsidies? (Direct subsidies such as grants and hidden subsidies through family support, tax relief, interest subsidies, debt remission, etc.) • What are the eligibility criteria? • Have as few instruments as possible and make uni-directional incentives: tuition fees can be addressed through loans, and maintenance costs can be subsidised through grants (and loans). • Use similar mechanisms for different institutions, regions and target groups (even simple systems are often barely understood by prospective students and their parents). • Monitor what is happening through student choice behaviour. An interesting part of this discussion also addressed issues of efficiency, equity, tuition fees and student support in relation to teaching quality. What do students receive in return for their investments? To what extent does efficient operation lead to reduced quality? If resources are reduced or the number of students is increased, to what extent will this harm the quality of instruction? Finally it was argued that increases in private contributions through tuition fees and student loans should not be accompanied by decreases in public funding. Students should have the idea that they receive value for money alongside the fact that higher private costs should make them more responsible in the decisions they make. Another interesting aspect touched upon was that we may ask students to contribute more to education costs, but that this is not the only way in which the current generation needs to contribute more to public and semi-public services, such as health care, social security and pension schemes. Regardless of the fact that each of these changes in public systems can be persuasively argued for, together these arrangements can lead to a generation that is much poorer than previous generations, particularly in countries with strong demographic declines. 8. Where do we start? The final part of the discussion was devoted to the question of “where we need to start” if we want to make higher education more efficient and equitable. There was a general sense of urgency that higher education institutions should first become more autonomous in how they spend their money without having to face budget cuts. Because resources (money, political will, administrative capacity) are often insufficient to realise all the desired changes simultaneously and within a short timeframe, selected instruments should be implemented gradually. Introducing tuition fees and student loans, as well as clarifying information on hidden subsidies and perhaps also restructuring them into direct subsidies, requires a great deal of political will and strength. This is particularly difficult because many such measures are not favoured by students (who benefit from “free” higher education), and public opinion, political actors and the media remain convinced that private contributions will have a harmful effect on the participation of disadvantaged students. Nonetheless, most international research on these issues shows that these convictions are not supported by such arguments. Nevertheless, the participants were convinced that more research is needed on the impact of financial incentives on student choice behaviour, particularly on people who do not participate in higher education. The final remarks at this conference related to the potential impact on student financing policies from the European Union. The EU could provide incentives for national governments to develop more efficient and equitable higher education systems. All in all, the conference made a valuable contribution to the general understanding of efficiency and equity in higher education. One important step was recognition of the impact of structures and opportunities in preschool, primary and secondary education on opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education. The more egalitarian an education system is, the more likely it is that 70 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 students will be accepted into higher education on the basis of ability rather than social background. Student financing is a mechanism to further fine-tune participation policies and the incentives for investing in higher education. IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 71 Navodila avtorjem za oblikovanje in pošiljanje znanstvenih in strokovnih prispevkov za objavo v IB reviji Prispevke objavljamo v slovenskem jeziku, na avtorjevo željo in v skladu z uredniškim programom IB revije pa tudi v angleškem jeziku, v takem primeru mora biti povzetek v slovenskem jeziku nekoliko daljši (ena stran). Dolžina besedila naj ne presega eno avtorsko polo (16 strani - avtorska stran obsega 30 vrstic v širini 60 znakov ali skupaj 1800 znakov s presledki in ločili) oziroma 30.000 znakov. Prispevek naj bo opremljen s ključnimi besedami in povzetkom v angleškem in slovenskem jeziku. Tabele, grafe, slike je treba kot priloge predložiti v izvirniku, opremljene z naslovi in legendo. Za vse članke oziroma prispevke velja obojestransko anonimni recenzentski postopek. Recenzenta sta lahko dva in ju izbere uredništvo. Uredništvo si pridržuje pravico zavrnitve članka brez zunanjega recenziranja. Zaradi anonimnega recenziranja naj bodo podatki o avtorju priloženi na posebni naslovni strani. Ta naslovna stran naj vsebuje ime in priimek avtorja, strokovni naziv, domači naslov in polni naslov ustanove, telefonsko številko, ter predlog tipa po tipologiji, ki se uporablja pri vodenju bibliografij v sistemu COBISS, ter izjavo, da predloženo besedilo še ni bilo objavljeno oziroma ni v pripravi za tisk. Če je naslov članka zelo dolg, naj avtor predlaga tudi skrajšani naslov. V primeru, da je delo skupinsko, je treba navesti soavtorje skupaj z ustreznimi podatki. IB revija je bila sprejeta v mednarodno bazo revij Journal of Economic Literature (JEL). Zato je potrebno članek opremiti s trištevilčno kodo JEL klasifikacijskega sistema, ki ga najdete na spletni strani: http://www.econlit.org/subject_descriptors.html#J. Uporabljeno literaturo in vire je treba navesti v seznamu na koncu članka in urejeno po abecednem redu priimka avtorjev. Osnovna oblika reference v besedilu je (Kovač, 1998), v seznamu na koncu članka pa: Priimek, začetnico imena. (Leto). Naslov knjige (Prispevka. Naslov revije ali zbornika, številka, strani). Kraj: Založba. Opombe je treba v besedilu označiti z zaporednimi številkami od začetka do konca besedila, nadpisanimi na ustreznem mestu v rokopisu in po enakem vrstnem redu razvrščene pod besedilom. Vse prispevke lektoriramo. Če ob lektoriranju prihaja do večjih sprememb, uredništvo članek vrne v avtorizacijo. Prispevek je treba oddati v tiskanem izvodu in v elektronski obliki: na disketi, zgoščenki ali po e-pošti. Prispevke pošljite na naslov uredništva: Urad RS za makroekonomske analize in razvoj, Gregorčičeva 27, 1000 Ljubljana, ali na e-pošto tehnične urednice: urska.sodja@gov.si. Za vse nadaljnje informacije se obrnite na uredništvo IB revije. Uredništvo 72 UMAR IB revija 1/2008 Druge publikacije UMAR Zbirka Delovni zvezki letnika 2007 in 2008 2/2008: Poslovanje gospodarskih družb in zadrug v letu 2006, J. Mirjana Novak 1/2008: Razvitost in dejavniki konkurenčnosti nefi nančnih tržni h storitev, M. Koprivnikar Šušteršič 12/2007: Poslovanje gospodarskih družb v 2006 - pregled po dejavnostih, R. Kmet Zupančič in drugi 11/2007: Zasebna potrošnja - teoretična i zhodi šča in analiza potrošnje v Sloveniji v obdobju 1995-2006, B. Ferk 10/2007: Dinamika zunanjega zadolževanja Slovenije, J. Markič 9/2007: Obseg in učinkovitost slovenske politike subvencioniranja gospodarskih družb, A. Murn 8/2007: Scenariji gospodarskega razvoja Slovenije do leta 2030, B. Tavčar, I. Zakotnik, I. Strmšnik, T. Kraigher 7/2007: Paradigma konkurenčnosti držav in analiza Slovenije po sistemih WEF in IMD za leto 2006, A. A. Chiaiutta 6/2007: Innovation Cooperation and Innovation Activity of Slovenian Enterprises (Inovacijsko sodelovanje in inovacijska aktivnost slovenskih podjetij) (Delovni zvezek je v angleškem jeziku, vsebuje povzetek v slovenščini), A. Jaklič, J. P. Damijan, M. Rojec 5/2007: Domet in možni elementi politike aktivnega spodbujanja tujih neposrednih investicij (TNI) v Sloveniji M. Rojec, T. Redek, Č. Kostevc 4/2007: Okoljska komponenta gospodarskega razvoja Slovenije v zadnjih letih, M. Vendramin 3/2007: Strukturne spremembe v mrežnih dejavnostih - učinki liberalizacije, R. Kmet Zupančič, J. Povšnar 2/2007: Napovedovanje sprememb dodane vrednosti dejavnosti kmetijstva v Sloveniji v tekočem srednjeročne m o b d o b j u, M . K o va č, E . Erjavec, S. Kovač 1/2007: Zadolževanje in prezadolženost prebivalstva, B. Ferk Socialni razgledi SR podajajo sliko tega, kako dobro ali slabo živimo v Sloveniji. Pri analizi socialne stratifikacije slovenske družbe smo opredelili štiri dohodkovne razrede in jih uporabili za analizo podatkov o dohodkih in porabi gospodinjstev. Številne podatke smo povezali v enoten okvir analize družbene kohezije, socialnega kapitala in zadovoljstva z življenjem. SR prinašajo novosti tudi z obravnavo posebne teme - dolgožive družbe. Ukvarjamo se z izzivi in priložnostmi, ki jih razvojno dejstvo staranja družbe postavlja ne zgolj sistemom socialne varnosti, temveč tudi sistemom vedno bolj (pre)obremenjenih opornih omrežij in medosebnih odnosov, ki se lahko lomijo pod previsokimi pričakovanji in bremeni. Pomladansko / Jesenska napoved Pomladanska napoved gospodarskih gibanj 2008, 2008 Jesenska napoved gospodarskih gibanj, 2007 Zbirka Analize, raziskave in razvoj Poročilo o razvoju 2007, 2007 Strategija razvoja Slovenije (SRS 2006-2013), 2005 Slovenia - On the Way to the Information Society, 2004 Slovenija v novem desetletju: trajnost, konkurenčnost, članstvo v EU povzetek Slovenija v novem desetletju: trajnost, konkurenčnost, članstvo v EU (SGRS 2001-2006) IB revija 1/2008 UMAR 73 Naročilnica Podatki o naročniku______________________ Fizična - pravna oseba (ustrezno obkrožite) Ime in priimek/Naziv podjetja: Ulica, hišna številka: Elektronska pošta: Tel./faks: Davčna številka SI____________ Davčni zavezanec da - ne (ustrezno obkrožite) Nepreklicno se naročam na Letna naročnina* Publikacija Znesek letne naročnine (v evrih) Vpišite število letnih naročnin Ekonomsko ogledalo 66,77 (11 številk) Ekonomski izzivi 10,43 Poročilo o razvoju 12,52 IB Revija 41,73 (4 številke) Slovenian Economic Mirror 66,77 (11 številk) Development Report 12,52 *Naročilo se avtomatično obnavlja za naslednje leto. Odpoved naročnine velja po izteku leta, za katerega je bila obnovljena. Posredovana mora biti pisno, in sicer najkasneje do konca koledarskega leta.___________________________________________ Posamezni izvodi Publikacija Znesek za en izvod (v evrih) Vpišite številko publikacije in število izvodov Ekonomsko ogledalo 6,26 Ekonomski izzivi 10,43 Poročilo o razvoju 12,52 Socialni razgledi ________________16,00________________ IB Revija 12,52 (16,69 dvojna številka) Slovenian Economic Mirror 6,26 Development Report 12,52 Social Overview 26,00 8,5-odstotni DDV ni vključen v ceno. Popusti se določajo po dogovoru (pri naročilu večjega števila izvodov ene publikacije do 25 %). Izpolnjeno naročilnico lahko pošljete na elektronski naslov publicistika.umar@gov.si, faks 01/4781070 ali na Urad RS za makroekonomske analize in razvoj, Gregorčičeva 27, 1000 Ljubljana. Naročene publikacije in račun vam bomo poslali po pošti. Poštna številka, kraj: Datum naročila: Žig in podpis odgovorne osebe Ostale knjižne izdaje si lahko ogledate na naši spletni strani www.umar.gov.si, za dodatne informacije pa se obrnite na elektronski naslov publicistika.umar@gov.si ali telefonsko številko 01/478 10 43.