IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Rationale for Higher Education Investment in Ibero-America

  • José Joaquín Brunner
Registered author(s):

    A key higher education policy question is about the financing of this sector. Who, why and how higher education should be paid for are debated around the world by governments, the academic community, students, experts and civil society. This is true of Ibero-America. The meetings of their heads of state or governments have, on various occasions, pronounced on this issue. And within the institutions themselves and on the streets of the principal cities in the region, students and professors have voiced their demands for greater funding. This document advocates the need for shared higher education funding – between the state and the private sector, (including students and their families), in a proportion that corresponds approximately to the private and social benefits generated. The proposed public/private cost allocation (1:1) is based on econometric calculations of the respective benefits generated by tertiary education, with approximately one half of the total being private benefits and the other half social benefits and public externalities. From this it follows that HEIs should be funded in the same proportion, diversifying their sources so that the state (taxpayers) and the private sector (households or families, students and graduates) provide 50% each. But the above only makes sense if higher education can ensure that it provides the anticipated private and social benefits and public externalities. The bottlenecks that stand in the way of achieving these expectations have to be removed. So the State should allocate resources in terms of reaching these objectives, and implement policies that encourage institutions to reach the proposed outcomes and standards. Un point central du débat sur les politiques d’éducation supérieure ou tertiaire a trait au financement de ce secteur. Trois questions majeures alimentent les discussions entre gouvernements, chercheurs, étudiants, experts et membres de la société civile à travers le monde : qui doit financer, pour qui et comment. Et l’Amérique latine ne fait pas exception. Les chefs d’État et de gouvernement se sont prononcés à plusieurs reprises sur ce sujet lors des sommets ibéroaméricains. Les enceintes universitaires et les pavés des rues des principales villes de la région ont également servi de tribune aux étudiants et professeurs réclamant davantage de moyens financiers pour les universités. Le document présent plaide pour un partage du financement du système éducatif supérieur entre l’État et les particuliers, c’est-à-dire les étudiants et leurs familles, en fonction des bénéfices privés et sociaux générés. Le modèle de distribution des coûts (1:1) entre le privé et le public s’appuie sur le calcul économétrique des bénéfices respectifs générés, qui se partage de façon égale entre bénéfices privés et bénéfices sociaux ou externalités publiques. La conclusion qui découle de cette analyse consiste à suggérer une diversification des sources de financement des Institutions d’éducation supérieure (IES) de manière à garantir un partage égal des coûts entre l’État (les contributeurs) et les particuliers (ménages ou familles et étudiantes/diplômés). Ceci n’est valable bien entendu qu’à condition que le système éducatif fonctionne de façon optimale et génère effectivement les bénéfices attendus par les individus et la société. Les obstacles qui entravent un tel fonctionnement doivent être levés. Il est du ressort de l’État d’allouer les ressources nécessaires pour parvenir à ces objectifs, et de mettre en oeuvre des politiques publiques qui permettent aux institutions de répondre aux exigences et standards proposés.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k40d67l7l8x-en
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 403 Forbidden (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k40d67l7l8x-en [303 See Other]--> http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/the-rationale-for-higher-education-investment-in-ibero-america_5k40d67l7l8x-en). If this is indeed the case, please notify ()


    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by OECD Publishing in its series OECD Development Centre Working Papers with number 319.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 29 Aug 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:oec:devaaa:319-en
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 2 rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
    Phone: 33-(0)-1-45 24 82 00
    Fax: 33-(0)-1-45 24 85 00
    Web page: http://www.oecd.org/Dev
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Hanushek, Eric A. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2007. "The role of education quality for economic growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4122, The World Bank.
    2. Colm Harmon, 2011. "Economic Returns to Education: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and Where We Are Going – Some Brief Pointers," Working Papers 201115, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Hanushek, Eric A. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2012. "Schooling, educational achievement, and the Latin American growth puzzle," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 497-512.
    4. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    5. Jhon James Mora, 2003. "Sheepskin effects and screening in Colombia," COLOMBIAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL, UN - RCE - CID.
      • Jhon James Mora, 2003. "Sheepskin effects and screening in Colombia," Colombian Economic Journal, Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Economicas, Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad de los Andes, Universidad del Valle, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, vol. 1(1), pages 95-108, December.
    6. Charles T. Clotfelter & Ronald G. Ehrenberg & Malcolm Getz & John J. Siegfried, 1991. "Economic Challenges in Higher Education," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number clot91-1, October.
    7. Robert J. Barro, 2001. "Human Capital and Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 12-17, May.
    8. Juan Pablo Valenzuela & Suzanne Duryea, 2011. "Examinando la prominente posición de Chile a nivel mundial en cuanto a desigualdad de ingresos : comparaciones regionales," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 38(1 Year 20), pages 259-293, June.
    9. Psacharopoulos, George & Patrinos, Harry Anthony, 2002. "Returns to investment in education : a further update," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2881, The World Bank.
    10. Gustavo Yamada, 2006. "Retornos a la educación superior en el mercado laboral: ¿Vale la pena el esfuerzo?," Working Papers 06-13, Departamento de Economía, Universidad del Pacífico, revised Dec 2006.
    11. Jhon James Mora & Juan Muro, 2008. "Sheepskin effects by cohorts in Colombia," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 29(2), pages 111-121, May.
    12. Anna Crespo & Maurício Cortez Reis, 2007. "Sheepskin Effects and the Relationship Between Earnings and Education: Analyzing the Evolution Over Time in Brazil," Discussion Papers 1272, Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA.
    13. Claudio Sapelli., 2009. "Los Retornos a la Educación en Chile: Estimaciones por Corte Transversal y por Cohortes," Documentos de Trabajo 349, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    14. Hungerford, Thomas & Solon, Gary, 1987. "Sheepskin Effects in the Returns to Education," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(1), pages 175-77, February.
    15. Philip Oreopoulos & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2011. "Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 159-84, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:devaaa:319-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.