Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Higher Education Funding Frameworks Pundy Pillay.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Higher Education Funding Frameworks Pundy Pillay."— Presentation transcript:

1 Higher Education Funding Frameworks Pundy Pillay

2 Outline Part One  Access and Equity in Higher Education  Higher Education and Development Part Two Country Profiles – All SADC countries except Angola, DRC and Malawi Part Three Common Themes, Good Practices, Possible Lessons

3 Access in African Higher Education  Defining HE or ‘tertiary’ education  Participation rates in SSA generally low, around 5%  GER varies from 0.4% in Malawi to 34% in Mauritius  Developed countries: 60-70%  Developing countries: 16%

4 Equity  Gender  Socio-economic status  Location These 3 stratifying factors skew participation in favour of males richer families, and urban households

5 Barriers to Access  Poor and inadequate schooling NER in secondary schooling Developed: 92% Developing: 53% SSA: 25%

6 Contd.  Public commitment to HE spending - varies in terms of both % of national income and of the budget - Where HE exp. is low, there are various reasons 1) Educ. exp. is low generally; 2) Schooling is a priority 3) Inter-sectoral competition for resources 4) HE is a low priority

7 Higher education and development  The role of higher education is changing with increased globalization  HE is now as important for developing, poor countries as it is for rich countries  Why? 1) Social returns to HE underestimated 2) Developing countries have multi-modal patterns of economic development 3) HE critical for economic growth and technological absorption

8 HE Funding: Key Questions  Public Commitment to HE spending  Impact on Access and Equity  Funding Mechanisms – institutions, students  Budgeting and Planning Processes  Efficiency and Effectiveness of HE Financing  Special Initiatives

9 Country Profile: Botswana  Expenditure as % of GDP high (9%)  HE has been “free’ in practice  Scholarships to students in private HEIs  New university being established on PPP basis  Loan system ineffective and inefficient

10 Country Profile: Lesotho  High level of govt. funding of HE  Government provides very large proportion of institutional funding  Govt. funds students thru’ loan/grant scheme  No recovery of loans so far but some plans now underway  High level of bursary expenditure on students outside country

11 Country Profile: Madagascar  Low expenditure on HE even though education takes up 25% of budget  High level of government funding of HEIs  Nominal tuition fees  No funding formula for institutions – allocations on an incremental budgeting basis

12 Country Profile: Mauritius  Govt. spending only 25% of all HE expenditure  Differentiated government funding model  No funding formula – incremental budgeting used by institutions  55% of funding for HE goes from private HHs to overseas HEIs  No national student loan scheme but private ones

13 Country Profile: Mozambique  High level of exp. on HE  Minimal cost sharing – nominal fees  Govt. finances quality improvement initiatives in both public and private HEIs  HEI funding on the basis of inputs (student numbers)  High dependence on donor funding  Provincial scholarships for equity

14 Country Profile: Namibia  High exp. on education and HE gets 15%  National loan scheme benefits relatively few students  No clear criteria for funding allocations  Cost sharing (fees) introduced  Unit costs of HE are high indicating systemic inefficiency

15 Country Profile: South Africa  High commitment to public spending on HE  Very effective loan scheme  Close link between planning and funding  Funding formula redistributed to achieve government’s HE objectives  Substantial cost-sharing  Serious, quality, efficiency and equity issues

16 Country Profile: Swaziland  High level of education expenditure – 20% of budget; 6% of GDP  High level of government funding of HE (80%)  Also relatively high level of tuition fees (20%)  No funding formula – govt. assesses institutional budgets  Substantial student support – grants and loans

17 Country Profile - Tanzania  Educ. exp. as % of budget is high  Govt. main funder of HE – institutions and loans  Limited cost sharing  Significant donor involvement  Loans to students in private HEIs  No cost recovery of loans  TEA provides “soft” loans to both public and private HEIs

18 Country Profile - Zambia  Higher education budget is high  Poor oversight of HE by MoE  No funding formula  Dual track tuition with govt.-sponsored and fee-paying students  Huge institutional debts  New university – state-established but expected to be self-financing

19 Country profile - Zimbabwe  Economic crisis – public HEIs not fully developed  State funding of infrastructure affected by inflation and currency crisis  95% of recurrent expenditure from state  Previous full govt-sponsorship of students replaced by parallel programme  Some means-tested grants to needy students

20 Common Themes  HE financing is often INADEQUATE, and almost everywhere, INEQUITABLE and INEFFICIENT  Enrolments are growing everywhere  Serious financial constraints

21 Common Themes (contd.) Responses:  Cost-sharing – Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe (in some cases, dual- track)  Expansion of private higher education sector

22 Common themes (contd.) Private Higher Education in SADC  Serious equity questions  Questionable quality – Mozambique; Tanzania; Zambia  Absence of regulatory framework to effectively monitor both local and overseas providers

23 Common themes (contd.) Efficiency of HE Expenditure  Inefficient because of poor planning and budgeting – Mozambique; Namibia; Tanzania; Madagascar; Zambia  Inefficient because of no cost recovery of loans – Botswana; Lesotho; Tanzania  No systematic funding mechanism such as funding formula

24 Common Themes (contd.) Inadequacy of Higher Educ. Expenditure Reasons alluded to earlier But also because of weak departments of higher education within Ministries of Ed. Significant involvement of donors in Mozambique and Tanzania, for example – sustainability implications

25 Good practices Financing policies that address inadequacy of public expenditure 1. Public-private partnerships – Botswana; Zambia 2. Differentiated funding model in Mauritius 3. Cost-sharing – Namibia, Swaziland, Zambia, Tanzania, South Africa

26 Good practices (contd.) Financing polices that promote equity 1. Provincial scholarships – Mozambique 2. Loans to students in private HEIs – Botswana, Tanzania 3. Loan scheme to address equity and access – South Africa 4. Funding formula to promote equity – South Africa

27 Good Practices (contd.) Funding policies to promote efficiency 1. Linking HE planning to budgeting – South Africa 2. Funding to improve quality of provision - Mozambique

28 Some Possible Lessons 1. Cost Sharing  CS is necessary in most countries in the light of serious public resource constraints  CS can take a number of forms  Number of advantages and disadvantages to CS  Form of CS must minimise impact on equity/inequity

29 Possible Lessons (contd.) 2. Developing efficient and equitable loan scheme  Look at South African and Kenyan examples  Encouraging signs in Namibia but not anywhere else in SADC  Successful loan schemes need some necessary pre-conditions – e.g. efficient tax system

30 Possible lessons (contd.) 3. HE funding formula to promote effectiveness  Look at South Africa model for resource allocation in HE  Important for the following reasons: predictability of revenue; promoting institutional autonomy and equity; in-built efficiency incentives


Download ppt "Higher Education Funding Frameworks Pundy Pillay."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google