Programa de investigación, desarrollo e innovación en el transporte

In this section, I will discuss the following financing strategies used by countries to support tertiary education, privatization, cost-sharing, tuition fees and dual-track tuition fees.

2.8.1 Privatization

In almost all developing countries, there has been significant growth in private higher education institutions as a result of policy shifts brought on by the wave of liberalisation (Varghese, 2005, p. 25). According to Marimuthu (2008), in Malaysia between 1992 and 2001, “the number of private higher education institutions increased from 156 to 706” (p. 3), In Brazil, “the number of private higher education institutions rose from 689 to 1652” (Bertolin and Leite, 2008, p. 3). Al-Salamat, Kanaan and Hanania (2011) note “that the cost per student in the public universities in Jordan average at about 14% higher than the corresponding cost in the private sector” (p. 10). Barr (2005) argues that “an increase in the number of universities should be accompanied by an increase in quality education due to increased competition” (p. 3). However, Bertolin and Leite (2008) state “that this has not been the case in Brazil as the private sector consistently presented the worst performance in terms of qualitative

indicators related to relevance and effectiveness” (p. 3). Johnstone et al (2008) stated that students from poorer backgrounds are discriminated against because of the high tuition fees at the private university. In Kenya, private universities students account for about 20% of the university population with 50% of the students enrolled were women (Brown, 2001; Nzome, 2000). Students at private universities pay 100% of the fees and therefore only students whose parents can afford to pay can access the private universities (Varghese, 2005). Tewarie (2009) noted “that of the one hundred and fifty institutions in the Caribbean, 60% were public, 30% were private and 10% received limited government support” (p. 122). Having examined this model of financing tertiary education, it is my opinion that most of the students who are from poor families would be disadvantaged because of the inability to pay the fees.

2.8.2 Cost Sharing

Cost-sharing in tertiary education is the undertaking by parents and students to pay a portion of the costs of tertiary education that has been borne by the government or taxpayers. This cost-sharing is well documented in Johnstone (1992, 1993b, 1996, 2002). Johnstone, (2003) states “that the costs of tertiary education are shared among governments or taxpayers, parents, students and philanthropists” (p. 5). Cost-sharing is most associated with tuition fees and user charges for the cost of living expenses or for books and any other costs. According to Johnstone and Marcucci (2007), cost- sharing was introduced in China in 1997, the United Kingdom in 1998 and in Austria in 2001as a result of the introduction of tuition fees. The issue of cost-sharing surrounds the questions of how much should be paid, should it be part of the economic cost, should it be based on academic performance or is it based on family income. In light of the discussion on the social justice theory and the human capital development theory, the answers to these questions must be based on the family income for students from the lower socio-economic level.

The acronym BRIC is used to describe the following countries Brazil, Russia, India and China. With the rapid expansion for the demand of higher education, “all four countries have turned increasingly to make students and their families share in the costs of expanding higher education, either through tuition in a public institution or promoting the expansion of full-tuition private universities and colleges. Some of the BRICs are also putting increased resources into a few elite institutions, while mass

institutions absorb mostly new students at a relatively low cost to the institutions but relatively high cost to the students.” (Carnoy, Loyalka, Dobryakova, Dossani, Froumin, Kuhns, Tikla& Wang 2013, p. 39)

2.8.3 Tuition Fees

Johnstone (2002) argues “that tuition fees are a more equitable way of financing education especially in developing countries where higher education is shared by few, and disproportionately by the children of high-income parents as this reduces the repressiveness of tax financing. Though more equitable than tax financing, tuition fees increase the direct costs of higher education and may further limit enrolment to only those students who are able to afford these fees” (p. 1). Menene and Otieno (2007) indicate “that a highly subsidised fee of $693 per year is charged by public universities in Kenya but because of the capital income of Kenya which is $390, it still makes it expensive for poor households. The idea of tuition fees, has met with some opposition in some countries and its implementation has been slow due to political reasons” (p. 469). Eboh and Obasi (2002) note “that in Nigeria the introduction of cost-sharing policies has led to two very violent student demonstrations which claimed the lives of students” (p. 2). The policy of tuition fees has the effect of preventing students from poor families in accessing tertiary education and a determination will have to be made about those students who will pay. The reality of the situation is that the students who parents can afford to pay would access the instruction.

2.8.4. Dual Track Tuition Fees

Johnstone (2008) notes “that along with the tuition fee there is a dual-track system where less qualified students are enrolled on the basis of payment of full tuition costs” (p. 3). This model provides the universities with revenue; however, it might elicit favouritism towards these students and reduce the places available for the government-supported students. Marcucci, Johnstone and Ngolovoi (2008) postulate that the dual-track policies are “based on the need of the government or the institution to severely ration a limited number of places that are free (or nearly free) for political or legal reasons generally using a single examination while allowing another tuition fee-paying track or tracks for the desperately needed revenue supplementation” (p. 5). Further according to Marcucci et al (2008) in Kenya and Uganda, the question of

equity of this strategy can be challenged as there are limited free spaces, so there is a highly competitive examination process which tends to favour the children of the well-educated and privileged, who would have attended some of the best secondary schools and have access to the wealth of their parents. This policy affords the universities the opportunity to earn revenue by charging international students fees which are higher than those local students pay or when the local don’t pay fees at all. Again, this policy has the effect of disadvantaging the students whose parents can’t afford to pay, but the university benefits.

All of the policies discussed focussed on the response of the government to student funding of tertiary education and the need for revenue-generating policies.