1 / 17

Gerald W. Ouma. School of Education University of Cape Town

FINANCING PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN KENYA AND SOUTH AFRICA: WEAKENING RESOURCE DEPENDENCE ON STATE SUPPORT. Gerald W. Ouma. School of Education University of Cape Town. October 28, 2006. Introduction. Funding Higher Education: A Global Perspective

cera
Download Presentation

Gerald W. Ouma. School of Education University of Cape Town

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FINANCING PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN KENYA AND SOUTH AFRICA: WEAKENING RESOURCE DEPENDENCE ON STATE SUPPORT Gerald W. Ouma. School of Education University of Cape Town October 28, 2006

  2. Introduction • Funding Higher Education: A Global Perspective • Globally, universities are faced with immiserating funding regimes. • Russia - HE education expenditures, adjusted for inflation, declined from an index value of 100 in 1992 to 27.9 in 1998 (Morgan, 2002). • Britain - higher education funding per student reduced by 36% in real terms between 1989 and 1997. planned funding for 2003-04 was still 33% below the 1989 level in real terms (OECD, 2004).

  3. US - funding for higher education in the 2000, adjusted for inflation, was US$ 23.4 billion below the peak reached in 1979 (Finken, 2004). • Britain - higher education funding per student reduced by 36% in real terms between 1989 and 1997. planned funding for 2003-04 was still 33% below the 1989 level in real terms (OECD, 2004). • China – China- public allocations to higher education have been reducing since 1993: from 91.8 % of the total expenditure on higher education to 67.24% in 1999 (Shen & Li, 2003).

  4. Uganda- between 1998 and 2003, an average of 10% of the total education budget went to the higher education sub-sector compared to the early 1990s when 19% of total recurrent education budget went to higher education (Bidemi, 2005). • Cutbacks leading to Institutional vulnerability • Economic self-determination a core concern • Diminished funding blamed mainly on global rise of neo-liberalism as the de facto policy framework.

  5. Public Expenditure on HE: Kenya & SA - 1996 – 2005. • Main Indicators • As Percentage of Total Government Expenditure • As a Percentage of State Funding of Education • As Percentage of GDP

  6. Fig. 1.1: Comparison of Funding of Kenya’s and SA’s Funding of HE as % of Total Government Expenditure

  7. Fig. 1.2: Comparison of Funding of Kenya’s and SA’s HE as a Percentage of State Funding of Education

  8. Fig. 1.4: Comparison of Funding of Kenya’s and SA’s HE as a Percentage of GDP, 1996 - 2005

  9. Analysis • Reductions in Kenya’s case may be described as drastic; SA’s is not as extreme. • Allocations in SA’s case keep rising, albeit in nominal Rands. • SA’s funding of HE is not commensurate with the rising costs of higher education provision, and the higher education transformative agenda of the post-apartheid state. • The imbalance between the financial needs of SA universities and financial support from the government could be said to be a consequence of what Clark (1998) describes as “demand overload”.

  10. The two countries encountered globalisation differently: • Kenya – Imposition of SAPs- Coerced policy shifts. • The changes in Kenya’s higher education funding are a product of both local factors and also external forces (de-localised factors). • SA – Relatively strong political economy. Normatively influenced. Shift from RDP to GEAR • Introduction of Enrolment caps (2004): • … the [South African] higher education system has grown more rapidly than the available resources. The resultant short-fall in funding has put severe pressure on institutional infrastructure and personnel, thus compromising the ability of higher education institutions to discharge their teaching and research mandate (DoE, 2004: 3).

  11. Weakening Resource Dependence on Government Funding • it is no longer possible for public universities to depend on the state for their resource needs on a large scale • Like other organisations, universities seek stability. They abhor disequilibrium or destabilisation (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). • When resources are in a state of major flux organisational stability is threatened. Organisational vulnerability occurs. • Under such circumstances organisational efforts are directed at regaining stability.

  12. “[t]he key to organisational survival is the ability to acquire and maintain resources” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978: 2). The overriding long-term organisational goal is autonomy: removing dependence upon resource providers to assure continuing stability and equilibrium (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978: 261).

  13. Figure 1.4: Percentage Share of Revenue from Various Sources in the Total Income of Kenyan Universities, 2001 to 2005

  14. Figure 1.5: Percentage Share of Revenue from Various Sources in the Total Income of South African Universities, 2001 to 2004

  15. Table 1.1: Degree of Dependence on Government Funding by Kenyan Universities.

  16. Table 1.2: Degree of Dependence on Government Funding by South African Universities.

  17. Conclusion • There is a general shift in the patterns of higher education funding; from government sources to those that reflect a creeping market orientation. • Universities becoming privately funded public universities. • Universities are weakening resource dependence on government funding by diversifying their sources of revenue.

More Related