Abstract
We address the following question: how does a higher education funding system influence the trade-off that universities make between research and teaching? We do so by constructing a model that allows universities to choose actively the quality of their teaching and research when faced with different funding systems characterised by the pivotal role of the university funding budget constraint. In particular, we derive the feasible sets that face universities under such systems and show how, as the parameters of the system (the research block grant element, the research quality premium and the incentives-triggering quality threshold) are varied, the nature of the university system itself changes. Different ‘cultures’ of the university system emerge such as the ‘research elite’ and the ‘binary divide’.
References
Barr, N., and Crawford, I. (1998). The Dearing report and the government’s response: a critique. The Political Quarterly, 69(1): 72–84, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.00138/abstract.Search in Google Scholar
Beath, J., Poyago-Theotoky, J., and Ulph, D. (2003). Optimal incentives for income generation in universities: the rule of thumb for the Crompton tax. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9): 1301–1322, http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v21y2003i9p1301-1322.html.Search in Google Scholar
Borooah, V. (1994). Modelling institutional behaviour: a microeconomic analysis of university management. Public Choice, 81: 101–124, http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v81y1994i1-2p101-24.html.Search in Google Scholar
Chapman, B. (1997). Conceptual issues and the Australian experience with income contingent charges for higher education. The Economic Journal, 107(442): 738–751, http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v107y1997i442p738-51.html.Search in Google Scholar
Charlemagne (2004). Battling for brains: the parlous state of European universities. The Economist, page 52, http://www.economist.com/node/3220340.Search in Google Scholar
Clotfelter, C. (1999). The familiar but curios economics of higher education: introduction to a symposium. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13: 3–12, http://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v13y1999i1p3-12.html.Search in Google Scholar
De Fraja, G., and Iossa, E. (2002). Competition among universities and the emergence of the elite institution. Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(3): 275–294, http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/buecrs/v54y2002i3p275-93.html.Search in Google Scholar
Del Rey, E. (2001). Teaching verses research: a model of state university competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 49: 356–373, http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juecon/v49y2001i2p356-373.html.Search in Google Scholar
Drennan, L., and Beck, M. (2001). Teaching quality performance indicators: key influences on the UK universities’ scores. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(2): 92–102, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=839675.Search in Google Scholar
Dundar, H., and Lewis, D. (1995). Departmental productivity in American univesities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14(2): 119–144, http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v14y1995i2p119-144.html.Search in Google Scholar
García-Peñalosa, C., and Wälde, K. (2000). Efficiency and equity effects of the subsidies of higher education. Oxford Economic Papers, 52: 702–722, http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v53y2001i1p187.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gary-Bobo, J., and Trannoy, A. (2004). Efficient tuition fees, examinations, and subsidies. Working Paper 1189, CESIfO, http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_1189.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gautier, A., and Wauthy, X. (2007). Teaching versus research: a multi-tasking approach to multi-department universities. European Economic Review, 51(2): 273–295, http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v51y2007i2p273-295.html.Search in Google Scholar
Glass, J., McCallion, G., McKillop, D., and Stringer, K. (2006). A ‘technically level playing-field’ profit efficiency analysis of enforced competition between publicly funded institutions. European Economic Review, 50(6): 1601–1626, http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v51y2007i2p273-295.html.Search in Google Scholar
Grazzini, L., Luporini, A., and Petretto, A. (2010). Competition between state universities. Working Paper 02/2010, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Università degli Studi di Firenze, http://ideas.repec.org/p/frz/wpaper/wp2010_02.rdf.html.Search in Google Scholar
Greenaway, D., and Haynes, M. (2003). Funding higher education in the UK: the role of fees and loans. The Economic Journal, 113: F150–166, http://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v113y2003i485pf150-f166.html.Search in Google Scholar
Hare, P. (2002). Why do academics work? Institutions and incentives. Mimeo, Herriot-Watt University.Search in Google Scholar
Johnes, G. (2007). Funding formulae where costs legitimately differ: The case of higher education in England. Education Economics, 15(4): 385–404, http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/edecon/v15y2007i4p385-404.html.Search in Google Scholar
Kaiser, F., Raymond, F., Koelman, J., and van Vught, F. (1992). Public expenditure on higher education. A comparative study in member states of the European community. Higher Education Policy Series, 18, London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Kemnitz, A. (2007). University funding reform, competition and teaching quality. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 163(2): 356–378, http://ideas.repec.org/a/mhr/jinste/urnsici0932-4569.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, D. (2005). Benchmarking in universities: League tables revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 31(3): 353–371, http://www.mendeley.com/research/benchmarking-universities-league-tables-revisited/.Search in Google Scholar
© 2012 John Beath et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
