xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19959999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00034
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 3, no. 5 (February 24, 1995).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c February 24, 1995
Diversifying finance of higher education systems in the third world : the cases of Kenya and Mongolia / John C. Weidman.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 3issue 5series Year mods:caption 19951995Month February2Day 2424mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1995-02-24
1 of 13 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 3 Number 5February 24, 1995ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass,Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Educ ation, Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1995, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.Diversifying Finance of Higher Education Systems in the Third World: The Cases of Kenya and Mongolia John C. Weidman Maseno University College, Kenya University of Pittsburgh email@example.comAbstract: In countries throughout the world, there are incre asing pressures to reduce the government share of costs for goods and services with high pay offs to individuals so that the limited available public funds can be used for other needs. This pape r suggests several strategies for reducing government expenditures on higher education, includ ing direct cost recovery, grants from and contracts with external agencies, income-producing enterprises, private contributions, and expansion of the private sector. Policy implication s and examples (e.g., student access and financial aid, tax status of revenues from enterpri ses, deferred cost recovery) are presented for both developing and developed countries. As developing countries struggle to meet the finan cial demands for full participation in the world economy, there is strong pressure to change p atterns of government expenditures in order to meet changing budgetary needs (e.g., funding neg lected infrastructure improvements, especially transportation and communication). Inter national donor agencies and development banks support fiscal policies that reduce what are considered to be patterns of inordinately high expenditures on education and human resources in or der to facilitate necessary reallocation of scarce government resources. This is an example of what are commonly known as "structural adjustment policies" (SAPs). To implement SAPs, governments are encouraged to i dentify those sectors of their economies in which there are possibilities for "cos t sharing," namely, shifting greater portions of
2 of 13the burden of payment to the individuals who are th e recipients or users of the services provided. Hence, it is understandable that a frequent target for cost sharing is higher education, a service that is both very expensive to provide and from whi ch recipients can expect to receive significant financial benefits. Recent research suggests that e ven in the Philippines, an "educationally advanced developing country" (40% baccalaureate-lev el enrollment ratio and more than half of the institutions in the private sector), higher edu cation has demonstrable individual as well as national development payoffs (Hossain & Psacharopou los, 1994). Several options for "widening and diversifying sou rces of finance" of higher education (Woodhall, 1993) are explored in this paper, includ ing (a) direct cost recovery, (b) grants from and contracts with external agencies, (c) income-pr oducing enterprises, (d) voluntary contributions, and (d) expansion of the private sec tor. Comparisons are made between the strategies and approaches used to implement various options in Kenya and Mongolia, two Third World countries under strong pressure to implement SAPs. While both countries have well-developed higher education systems, the prospe cts for maintaining vitality and reaching an internationally competitive standard have become in creasingly remote because neither government can afford to pay world market prices to supply each of their institutions with state-of-the-art educational, scientific, and techn ological materials and equipment. Hence, both countries are involved in efforts to reform higher education through more efficient use of existing resources, strategic planning for new resource acqu isition, and organizational changes that reduce the role of central government and provide greater institutional autonomy. The paper begins with (a) some general background information on the national development contexts and higher education systems i n Kenya and Mongolia, and (b) a general framework for understanding the notion of "revenue diversification" (Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992) in higher education which illustrates the rel ationships among various public and private funding sources. It includes discussion of policy i ssues related to specific types of financial diversification, presenting examples and implicatio ns for higher education in both developed and developing countries. Development Contexts and Higher Education Systems in Kenya and Mongolia Kenya gained its independence from Great Britain i n 1963. It had a one-party political system until the end of the 1980's when opposition parties were legalized, though none is a viable threat to the ruling party. According to the World Bank (1994, Table 1), Kenya is among the poorest countries in the world, ranking 19th from t he bottom of its list of 132 economies. Per capita Gross National Product (GNP) was $ 310 in 19 92. Education constituted 20% of central government expenditures which represented 6% of GNP (World Bank, 1994, Table 10). The contemporary history of university-level educa tion in Kenya dates only from 1963 when there were just 571 students enrolled in what was to become the University of Nairobi (Weidman, 1995, Table 2). Education in the newly in dependent Kenya was modeled on the British 7-4-2 system, with 7 years of primary schoo ling followed by 4 years of secondary school and an additional 2 years of advanced secondary edu cation (signified by successful completion of the A-level exams) to qualify for entrance to 3-yea r university bachelor's degree programs. In the 1980's, there was a shift to an American-style 8-44 system with 8 years of primary education followed by 4 years of secondary school and a 4-yea r bachelor's degree curriculum (Mwiria & Nyukuri, 1994, pp. 10-12). Under both systems, stud ents seeking admission to universities were required to take a competitive national examination Mongolia gained its independence from China in 192 1, and following 3 years of a constitutional monarchy headed by Buddhist leaders, established the Mongolian People's Democratic Republic in 1924. Mongolia maintained it s independence for the next 65 years but
3 of 13 had a strong alliance with the Soviet Union that in cluded very close economic ties. In the 1986-89 period, inflows of resources from the Sovie t Union averaged about 32% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)! These resources, which incl uded books and scientific equipment for the universities, stopped by the end of 1990 follow ing the break-up of the Soviet Union (World Bank, 1992, pp. 2, 8). The Asian Development Bank ( 1993, p. 1) estimated the 1992 per capita GNP of Mongolia to be $ 299. According to the World Bank (1992, p. 82), expenditures on education at the end of 1990 were 25% of the govern ment's total budget which constituted a sizable 14% of GDP. The oldest contemporary university-level instituti on of higher education, now named the Mongolia National University, was founded in 1942. Mongolia has a 6-2-2-4 educational system, with primary education lasting 6 years, followed by either a vocationallyoriented 2-year secondary program or a 4-year, university-oriented secondary program. Higher education in Mongolia was originally modeled on the Soviet syste m in which curricula were highly specialized and student places were determined on t he basis of projected manpower needs. Universities were primarily teaching institutions, with responsibility for research and the awarding of the highest scientific degrees vested i n independent institutes under the Academy of Science. A shift is now underway to a less specialized Amer ican-style system in which students will earn bachelor's degrees at the end of four yea rs and places are determined, at least in part, by student demand. Efforts are underway to integrate t he research institutes of the Academy of Science into the universities. Each higher educatio n institution administers its own competitive admissions examinations. Data on higher education enrollments for both coun tries are shown in Table 1. Mongolia has a much smaller population but its overall highe r education enrollment rate is 5.6 times greater than Kenya's. Mongolia also has a much larg er private higher education sector. To put these enrollment rates in perspective, both countri es are above the Sub-Saharan average of 89, but well below both the Latin American average of 1 468 and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) average of 23 92 (Zymelman, 1990, p. 22).Table 1. Enrollment in Baccalaureate-Level Institut ions of Higher Education by Country and Sector1992* Population (millions) BA-level** Enrollment (thousands) Enrollment per 100,000 People PublicPrivatePublicPrivate Kenya25.740.72.01588Mongolia2.417.53.9762169 *Source: World Bank, 1994, Table 1.**Sources: For Kenya public universities (1991-92 ), Republic of Kenya, 1994, Table 1.13; private institutions (1990-91), Saint, 1992, p. 42. For Mon golia (1993-94) Bray, et al., Tables 1 and 2. The historical funding patterns of higher educatio n in Kenya and Mongolia are similar to many developing countries in Africa and the emergin g formerly socialist countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Higher education was not o nly free of charge, but students received additional allowances from the government for their living expenses and study materials. Sanyal and Martin (1991) describe "the relatively high cos t of African higher education" as follows:
4 of 13 ...cost of a graduate of Sub-Saharan Africa, accord ing to one estimate is eight times GNP per capita whereas it is only 3.7 times the GNP per capita for all the developing countries combined (Mingat and Psacharopoulos, 1985 ). The ratio between unit costs in higher and in primary education varies bet ween 30:1 and 50:1 in African countries as against 10:1 in Asia or Latin America (Hinchliffe, 1987). In Kenya, 1992/93 national "recurrent" expenditure s per student in public universities were 46 times higher than those for each primary sc hool student, even though actual total "recurrent" expenditures for primary education were almost three times larger than those for public universities (Weidman, 1995, Table 3; Republ ic of Kenya, 1993, p. 184). Just a small fraction of the eligible age cohort i s enrolled in Kenyan universities. While virtually all children in Kenya enter primary schoo l, only half of the original entering students are still enrolled at the end of primary school. Becaus e just half of the primary school leavers gain admission to secondary school, there is an effectiv e secondary school enrollment ratio of 24% of the nation's young people of secondary school age ( Opondo & Noormohamed, 1989, p. 88). In 1990, there were enough available university places for just 7.5% of the secondary school leavers (Mwiria & Nyukuri, 1994, pp. 10-11), so the effecti ve university enrollment ratio was less than 2% of university-age Kenyans. Only 37% of the stude nts enrolled in government universities are women (Weidman, 1995, Table 2). In Mongolia, virtually all children also enter pri mary school, but 89% complete the eighth grade, and 50% complete secondary school (i.e., ten th grade). Among Mongolians under the age of 34, only 2% did not complete secondary school. I n the total workforce, 16% have completed at least some higher education (World Bank, 1992, pp. 82-83). Women constitute 64% of the students in baccalaureate-level government institut ions of higher education. In private baccalaureate-level programs, 76% of the students a re women (Bray, et al., 1994, Tables 1 and 2). A "Revenue Diversification Model" of Higher Educati on Finance Table 2 illustrates the combination of public and p rivate sector sources from which funding for higher education systems is generated that has been called the "revenue diversification model" (Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992) of higher education fin ance. Even though the model was developed with specific reference to the type of funding stru cture that exists in Great Britain, the basic components appear in a variety of national higher e ducation systems. Table 2. Funding Sources for Higher Education Syste ms by Sector*Public SectorPrivate Sector GovernmentX Grants CommissionX Research CouncilsXX Loan AgencyXXStudentsXXAlumni X Industry X*Adapted from Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992, Chart 1.3, p. 14. Table 2 also suggests the interaction between the public and private sectors in university finance. The public sector is shown to fund univers ities in five different ways, four of which do
5 of 13 not provide resources directly to the institutions but rather through intermediary agencies or through students. In this example, funds are provid ed by the government to students in two ways: (1) through direct grants which can be used to pay university costs, but are not subject to repayment; and (2) through partial funding to an ag ency which offers loans to students. The "private sector" component of the "loan agency" is self-perpetuating, namely, through loan payments made by former students. Many developed countries have been placing increas ing emphasis on loans rather than direct grants to students, thereby reducing the gov ernment share of higher education costs. In the USA, for instance, student aid provided by the fede ral government shifted from 20% loans and 76% grants in 1975-76 to 64% loans and 33% grants i n 1992-93 (Gladieux et al., 1994, p. 134). The British government also finances a "grants com mission" (for capital projects) and "research councils" (for research projects) which p rovide funds to universities on a competitive basis. In this model, industry "may contribute to u niversity finances directly or indirectly through research councils and sponsored students" (Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992, p.13). Alumni of higher education institutions also contribute funds privat ely to universities. Not shown in Table 2, but certainly worth noting, is the contribution made by industry and alumni to the pool of available government funds through the proportion of their in come taxes that is allocated to higher education. It is important, however, to keep the fo llowing cautionary note in mind when considering this type of model: ...Since revenue diversification implies also diver sifying the outputs and activities of the university system, this process may lead to a c hange in the role of universities away from traditional teaching for degrees and rese arch. If revenue diversification is pressed too far, on too broad a front, serious issu es concerning the role of the university may arise (Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992, p. 13). An example of the scope of revenue diversification in a highly developed country is contained in Table 3 which shows the average propor tions of different revenue streams for public and private colleges and universities in the USA. T he fundamental differences in revenue streams between the two sectors lie in the greater reliance of private higher education institutions on tuition, private gifts, and endowments. At least in the USA, both public and private institutions generate equal amounts through sales and services. It should also be noted that even the public higher education institutions generate, on average, almost half of their revenues from non-government sources. In the next section of this paper, actual strategies for diversifying revenues are described. Table 3. Revenues of Colleges and Universities in t he USA by Sector, 1990-91*PublicPrivate Tuition and fees16%40%Federal government10%15%State governments40%2%Local governments4%1%Private gifts, grants, contracts4%9%Endowment income1%5%Sales and services Educational activities3%3% Auxilliary enterprises10%11% Hospitals10%10%Other 3%4%
6 of 13 Source: The Almanac of Higher Education, 1994, p. 76. Diversifying the Sources of Finance for Higher Educ ation The following are several strategies for diversify ing the funding base of higher education systems suggested in a recent paper by Woodhall (19 93, pp. 8-10) that are also designed to reduce the government's share of costs. Where relev ant, specific reference is made to the current status of efforts to employ the strategies in Kenya and Mongolia. 1. Direct Cost Recovery a. Charge fees to students for tuition. The larges t potential source of funds results from requiring students to pay fees for tuition (basic i nstruction) and related instructional services (e.g., registration, examinations, computer, access to library, etc.). There is considerable variability, both among institutions and among coun tries, in the proportion of costs recovered via tuition and student fees. Some Mongolian students were assessed fees for the 1992-93 academic year and all students enrolled in public higher education in 199 3-94 were being charged. At least as initially determined, it appeared that tuition fees for the p ublic higher education institutions in Mongolia were being set at levels that provided for full rec overy of all costs. Particularly during this period of transition into a market economy and entry into the world economic system, it is important that there not be radical shifts in funding pattern s that would materially harm Mongolia's well-established higher education system. Further, even as students are required to share costs at increasingly greater levels, it is essential that t here be some government funds available for much-needed maintenance and improvement of building s (Harsh winters take their toll.), for instructional facilities such as libraries and labo ratories, for support of students from poor families, and for faculty and program development. Requiring total cost recovery provides virtually no allowance for such investments in the future. With respect to the notion of "cost recovery," it is instructive to note the following observation in a World Bank discussion paper: ...There are no university systems which are charac terized by cost recovery in a pure form (though there are particular universities that are financed in this way); in practice, cost recovery operates in tandem with, an d complements, state subsidy of higher education. Characterizing a system as one of cost recovery in practice relates to the breadth of student coverage of fees and thei r size in relation to costs (Albrecht & Ziderman, 1992, p. 11). In Kenya, public university students are required to pay fees, but the amount continues to be quite low, currently 300 Kenya pounds (6000 Keny a shillings, or about 150 US$) per year. This amount was equal to just over 10% of the total estimated government recurrent expenditures per university student in 1992/93 of 2889 Kenya pou nds (Republic of Kenya, 1993). Any increase in fees should, however, also incorporate some scheme for providing scholarships to poor students with high academic potential. b. Eliminate student stipends. Requiring students to pay charges for board and lodging from their own funds would allow the government to eliminate the costs of providing student stipends for personal expenses, though it may still be desirable to provide small stipends for
7 of 13books and instructional materials. Government stipe nds for Mongolian students were virtually eliminated in 199394. In Kenya, stipends for pers onal expenses are covered under the student loan scheme.2. Contracts and Agreements with Private and Public Sector Agencies a. Sponsorship of students. Institutions of higher education can seek to establish agreements with private sector employers willing to sponsor promising students by paying their tuition and other fees, or by providing scholarship s. b. Contracts for consulting services. Funds can be obtained by contracting with external agencies (e.g., commerce, industry, government, etc .) for the provision of expert services by professors and other skilled staff. This could incl ude contracts for consulting, for applied research, or for other expertise represented within the higher education community. Efforts along these particular lines are now occurring in Mongoli a, especially in the Technical University. c. Paid internships. Arrangements can be made for students to receive salaries and/or tuition support from employers for internships rela ted to their fields of study. Such internships could be done either during a vacation period or du ring a semester away from campus. 3. Income Producing Enterprises This method of generating funds is currently used by all of the public higher education institutions in Mongolia. The most common of these is maintaining a herd of livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.), but there are others (renting space for a shop, providing copying services, running bookstores, etc.). The public universities in Mongolia which have such enterprises generate income, on the average, equal to roughly 1 0% of their total operating budgets. Most of the government universities in Kenya as well as sev eral private ones also maintain farms to generate revenue.4. Private Contributions and Endowments In many parts of the world, there are annual campa igns to solicit gifts from alumni and staff as well as private donors. When higher educat ion institutions get sufficiently large contributions (either alone or when several gifts a re combined), endowments can be established by making investments from which all or part of the income can be used, usually for specific purposes. Governments often encourage private contr ibutions by providing income tax deductions for gifts made to eligible, non-profit h igher education institutions. Neither Kenya nor Mongolia generate any significant revenues for high er education in this way. Higher education institutions should have sufficie nt autonomy to be able to keep any additional revenue generated from contracts, enterp rises, and contributions, and not have either to return it to the government or to have subsequent b udget allocations reduced by the amount of the income (Woodhall, 1993, p. 12). Institutions sh ould be allowed to control and monitor their own expenditures, preferably using standard reporti ng procedures supported by an automated financial accounting system. It is also essential t hat those government funds which are appropriated to higher education institutions be re ceived in a regular and timely way. 5. Student Employment and National Service Scholars hips
8 of 13 a. Work-study. This is wage earning employment, no t necessarily limited to campus jobs but administered through higher education instituti ons. There are usually some financial need criteria which must be satisfied before a student c an get a workstudy job. b. Scholarships for national service. These progra ms provide participants with the opportunity to accumulate funds, on the basis of es tablished formulae, that can be applied to higher education expenses. Often the government mat ches the participants' contributions at some pre-determined rate. Both of these approaches invol ve government expenditures, but the funds are disbursed in exchange for specified productive activity rather than as outright subsidies. Examples of such programs that have existed in the USA are the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930's, the Peace Corps, VISTA, and the Nationa l Health Service Corps (Gladieux et al., 1994, p. 138).6. Deferred Cost Recovery a. Tax on future earnings of graduates. While like ly to be politically unpopular, this approach requires payment of a tax based on salarie s earned by graduates of publicly supported higher education institutions. It could be a payrol l tax paid by employers or be assessed on the graduates, themselves. b. Tax on private sector employers. This would be a tax based on either the proportion of graduates from higher education employed or on a pe rcentage of total earnings by the company, again depending on the proportion of graduates amon g all employees. c. Student loans. This is the most widely used mod e of deferred cost recovery. The students who borrow money generally either do not h ave the financial resources necessary to pay for higher education during the period of their enr ollment or wish to pay back the tuition costs in inflated currency some years later. If well-structu red and efficiently operated, loan programs can be virtually self-perpetuating. There are five basi c issues that need to be considered in the design of any higher education student loan program: ...First, a deferred payment program requires the p articipation of a credible collection institution with incentives to collect, which in most instances required the direct participation of commercial banks, a taxatio n department or a social security agency. ...Second, with loans, there must be a willingness to charge interest rates equal to or above inflation in order to minimize subsidies. ...Third, the relationship between necessary repaym ents and the likely income of students must be examined to ensure that repayment burdens never pose an excessive burden on graduates. ...Fourth, developing a means of targeting support to needier and more academically deserving students will be crucial to a program's e fficiency. ...Fifth, loan losses can be justified if there are potential social gains that would not be reflected in a graduate's income (Albrecht & Zid erman, 1992, p. 100).
9 of 13 Loan programs may include such incentives as defer red interest payments while a student is enrolled in higher education, loan forgiveness f or graduates working in areas of national need, subsidized interest rates, and government guarantee s to private lenders offering student loans. In all of these cases, the loan programs are not selffunding and require government support, though certainly at a much lower level than direct scholar ship grants. Further, if the government is the primary source of loans, its financial outlay will not be reduced until a significant amount of money is being returned through loan repayment. For a more detailed discussion of specific loan schemes in African and Asian countries, see Woodhal l (1991a and b). The government's inability (or unwillingness) to f inance the student loan scheme that was to have been fully implemented for the 1993-94 acad emic year seems to be a fundamental problem in Mongolia. The national government has ap parently tried to shift the burden of financial responsibility for guaranteeing loans to the local government (aimag) level in Mongolia, but local authorities are understandably reluctant to make commitments on the basis of an uncertain future. Until recently, there has been no effective agency in Kenya for collection of outstanding student loans, with 75-80% never being repaid (Woodhall, 1991a, p. 55). In 1994, the government increased its effort to collect loan s from public employees by instituting a more aggressive program of withholding monthly payments from their paychecks. 7. Expanding the Private Sector One additional way for national governments to red uce their share of the total costs of providing higher education is to encourage the esta blishment and growth of private institutions. Asian countries with large private higher education sectors are Indonesia (58% of national enrollment), South Korea (66% of enrollment), Japan (76% of enrollment), and the Philippines (85% of enrollment). The private higher education i nstitutions in Indonesia and Japan receive 20-30% of their expenses from the government; those in South Korea and the Philippines receive less than 10% of their funding from the government (James, 1991, p. 6). As is shown in Table 1, only 5% of the BA-level students in Kenya are enrol led in private higher education institutions. In Mongolia, the corresponding private enrollment i s 18%. The growth of private higher education institution s in Mongolia appears to be driven by "excess demand:" Excess demand for education often exists when the c apacity of the public school system is less than full enrolment; that is, the op tion of attending a free or lowprice public school is not available to everyone. If the private benefits from education are high (e.g., because of labour market rewards), many people who are left out of the public schools will seek places in private schools, as a "second best" solution (James, 1991, p. 3). In areas such as foreign languages and market-orie nted economics, the public higher education sector in Mongolia is not able to accommo date the numbers of qualified students who seek admission. This is partly due to a vestigial p attern of the old "command economy" in which government, through its National Planning Board, co ntinues to determine the number of places available for each course of study on the basis of projected manpower needs, independent of student demand. It is also partly due to the lack o f sufficient numbers of qualified teachers in these areas within the public higher education inst itutions. Largely because of the Mongolian government's fail ure to fund adequately the national loan scheme in 1993-94, public higher education ins titutions admitted a significant number of self-paying students beyond the centrally establish ed quotas into high demand fields. This was a
10 of 13way of generating revenue to meet operating expense s during the beginning of the academic year while the government tried to get commitments from local authorities to guarantee students' loans. Funds are not being released to higher educa tion institutions by the government until the loans are guaranteed. In Kenya, the private sector has only recently bee n allowed to expand as the government has been more willing to authorize the establishmen t of private higher education institutions. The secondary level in Kenya can, however, be also char acterized as being driven by "excess demand," with just over half of all students attend ing private secondary schools (James,1991, p. 5). A fundamental concern for government authorities i n any country is making certain that private higher education institutions meet reasonab le standards of academic quality and operational procedures. Four areas in which governm ents regulate private educational institutions are (1) physical facilities health and safety sta ndards, space and furniture, target enrollments related to physical facilities; (2) academic regula tions curriculum, degree requirements, national examinations, language of instruction; (3) organiza tional and reporting requirements periodic financial reports, minimum investment, tax status; and (4) teachers and students teacher qualifications, procedures for hiring and firing te achers, allowable student fees, student selection criteria, government representatives on institution al governing bodies (James, 1991, p. 25). Governments vary, of course, in the emphases place d on any specific area of regulation. With respect to allowable profits, for instance, th e governments of Korea and the Philippines regulate both the amount of tuition that can be cha rged in private higher education institutions and the numbers of students, thereby limiting incom e. There is also the issue of tax status of revenues generated by auxiliary enterprises in both public and private higher education institutions as well as fairness of price competiti on with private enterprise providers of similar products and services. Such concerns are common in both developed and developing countries. Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of g overnments to establish policy with respect to the diversity of funding sources for hig her education; the levels of student fees, the types of loan or subsidy programs that will be made available to assist needy students in the payment of fees in order to ensure broad access to higher education; the mix of public and private sector institutions; standards for the accreditatio n and operational authorization of both public and private sector higher education institutions; a nd the degree of autonomy higher education institutions will have in the control and managemen t of their finances. This paper has provided some specific examples, but any application of the various strategies for revenue diversification mentioned will have to be adapted to fit the partic ular social, political, cultural, and economic environment of the host country.Note: This is the revised version of a paper that was or iginally presented at a conference on "Reform of Higher Education in Mongolia" sponsored by the German Foundation for International Development (DSE) in Ulaanbaatar, Mon golia, 18 November 1993. It was subsequently revised and the material on Kenya adde d for presentation in a seminar held on 8 June 1994 at the Institute of Research and Postgrad uate Studies, Maseno University College, Maseno, Kenya. Grateful acknowledgement is accorded to participants in both the DSE conference and the Maseno seminar as well as three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.ReferencesAlbrecht, Douglas and Adrian Ziderman. 1992 (August ). Financing Universities in Developing
11 of 13Countries. Washington, DC: Education and Employment Division, Population and Human Resources Department, The World Bank (Document No. PHREE/92/61). The Almanac of Higher Education 1994. Prepared by the Editors of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Asian Development Bank. 1993. Mongolia: Country Per formance Indicators. Manila: Asian Development Bank.Bray, Mark, Surengiin Davaa, Seth Spaulding, and Jo hn C. Weidman. 1994. "Transition from Socialism and the Financing of Higher Education: Th e Case of Mongolia." Higher Education Policy Vol. 7 (No. 4), 36-42. Gladieux, Lawrence E., Arthur M. Hauptman, and Laur a Greene Knapp. 1994. "The Federal Government and Higher Education." Pp. 125154 in P hilip G. Altbach, Robert O. Berdahl, and Patricia J. Gumport (Eds.), Higher Education in American Society. Third Edition Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.James, Estelle. 1991. Private Finance and Managemen t of Education in Developing Countries: Major Policy and Research Issues. Issues and Method ologies in Education Development: An IIEP Series for Orientation and Training, 5. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning (UNESCO).Hinchliffe, K. 1987. Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa London, Croom Helm. Hossain, Shaikh I. and George Psacharopoulos. 1994. "The Profitability of School Investments in an Educationally Advanced Developing Country." International Journal of Educational Development Vol. 14 (No. 1), pp. 35-42. Mingat, Alain and George Psacharopoulos. 1985. "Fin ancing Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Issues of Equity and Efficiency of Investment Som e Policy Alternatives." Finance and Development Vol. 22 (March), pp. 35-38. Mwiria, Kilemi and Mulati S. Nyukuri. 1994. The Man agement of Double Intakes: A Case Study of Kenyatta University. IIEP Research and Studies P rogramme: Improving the Managerial Effectiveness of Higher Education Institutions. Par is: International Institute for Educational Planning (UNESCO).Opondo, Fred and Sodik Osman Noormohamed. 1989. "Co st-sharing in Education." Annex 4 (pp. 87-107) in J.E.O. Odada and L.O. Odhiambo (Eds .), Report of the Proceeding of the Workshop on Cost-sharing in Kenya: Naivasha 29 Marc h 2 April 1989. Nairobi: UNICEF, Kenya Country Office, Ministry of Planning and Nati onal Development, and Kenyan Economic Association.Republic of Kenya. 1994. Development Plan, 1994-96. Nairobi: Government Printing Office. Republic of Kenya. 1993. Economic Survey 1993. Cent ral Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Vice President, and Ministry of Planning and Nation al Development. Nairobi: Government Printer.Saint, William S. 1992. Universities in Africa: Str ategies for Stabilization and Revitalization. World Bank Technical Paper Number 194, Africa Techn ical Department Series. Washington,
12 of 13 DC: World Bank.Sanyal, Bikas C. in association with Michaela Marti n. 1991. "Staff Management in African Universities." Document prepared within the framewo rk of the IIEP research programme on "Improving the Effectiveness of Higher Education In stitutions: Studies of the Management of Change." Paris: International Institute for Educati onal Planning (UNESCO). Document IIEP/Prg.BS/91.160.Weidman, John C. 1995. "Prospects for the Developme nt of Higher Education in Kenya." Journal of the Third World Spectrum Spring. Woodhall, Maureen. 1993 (September). "Financial Div ersification in Higher Education: A Review of International Experience." Unpublished pa per. Woodhall, Maureen. 1991(a). Student Loans in Higher Education: 3. English-speaking Africa. Educational Forum Series No. 3. Paris: Internationa l Institute for Educational Planning (UNESCO).Woodhall, Maureen. 1991(b). Student Loans in Higher Education: 2. Asia. Educational Forum Series No. 2. Paris: International Institute for Ed ucational Planning (UNESCO). World Bank. 1994. World Development Report 1994 New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank. 1992. Mongolia: Toward a Market Economy Washington, DC: World Bank. Zymelman, Manuel. 1990. Science, Education, and Dev elopment in SubSaharan Africa. World Bank Technical Paper Number 124, Africa Technical D epartment Series. Washington, DC: World Bank.About the AuthorJohn C. Weidman Professor of Education and of Sociology University of Pittsburgh, School of EducationDepartment of Administrative and Policy Studies5M36 Forbes QuadranglePittsburgh, PA 15260Phone: 412-648-1772; FAX: 412-648-1784 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW Homepage http://www.pitt.edu/~weidman John Weidman's Professional Resume Copyright 1995 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the LISTSERV known as EPAA at LISTSERV@asu.edu. (To sub scribe, send an email letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu whose sole contents are SUB EPAA y our-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in three forms.
13 of 13Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@a su.edu and making the single line in the letter rea d GET KEMMIS V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entire ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@asu.edu: INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, tha t is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDEX EPAA F=MAIL.The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/epaaEducation Policy Analysis Archives are "gophered" at olam.ed.asu.edu To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu and include the single l ine GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.ed u or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)Editorial Board John Covaleskiejcovales@nmu.edu Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis firstname.lastname@example.org Mark E. Fetlermfetler@ctc.ca.gov Thomas F. Greentfgreen@mailbox.syr.edu Alison I. Griffithagriffith@edu.yorku.ca Arlen Gullickson email@example.com Ernest R. Houseernie.firstname.lastname@example.org Aimee Howleyess016@marshall.wvnet.edu Craig B. Howley email@example.com William Hunterhunter@acs.ucalgary.ca Richard M. Jaeger firstname.lastname@example.org Benjamin Levinlevin@ccu.umanitoba.ca Thomas Mauhs-Pughthomas.email@example.com Dewayne Matthewsdm@wiche.edu Mary P. McKeowniadmpm@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Les McLeanlmclean@oise.on.ca Susan Bobbitt Nolensunolen@u.washington.edu Anne L. Pembertonapembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrieprohugh@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Richard C. Richardsonrichard.firstname.lastname@example.org Anthony G. Rud Jr.email@example.com Dennis Sayersdmsayers@ucdavis.edu Jay Scribnerjayscrib@tenet.edu Robert Stonehillrstonehi@inet.ed.gov Robert T. Stoutstout@asu.edu