Kim ’ s cafe HSE Summer School Program Doing business in Russia N.I.Guseva.
Funding of higher education in Russia G. Androushchak HSE.
-
Upload
cierra-appleberry -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Funding of higher education in Russia G. Androushchak HSE.
Plan for the talk
• ‘Showroom’– Scale,– Funding
• ‘Behind the curtains’– Research– Contribution to the economy
• Incentives for change
Institutional structure, 2008
• Public universities (~ 6.2 mln. students)– ‘heads’ ~ 660– regional offices ~ 1060
• Private universities (~ 1.3 mln. students)– ‘heads’ ~ 480– regional offices ~ 1000
Student body of universities: Number of students enrolled, thousand
1985
1990
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
budget tuition
19851995
19971999
20012003
20052007
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
full-time part-time (distance)
Number of students per 10 000 of population
Finlan
d
Russia,
2008USA
Australi
aKorea
Slova
kia
Greece
Portuga
l
Chech Rep
ublic UKFra
nce
Turke
y
Mexico
Belgium
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
540467
427
158
124 235
Tertiary educationSecondary professional (~US community college)
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
Preschool SchoolPrimary professional
Public funding of higher education (65-70% of financial resources)
(PPP US$)$US per academic year 2000=100%, adjusted for inflation
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0%
50.0%
100.0%
150.0%
200.0%
250.0%
300.0%
350.0%
400.0%
450.0%
500.0%
Secondary professionalTertiary
USA
Sweden
Norway UK
Netherlands
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Germany
FinlandOECD
Ireland
France EUIsr
aelSpain
New Zealand
Iceland
Korea
Sovenia
Chech Republic
Russia, 2
007 (PPP)
Mexico
Russia, 2
009 (x-ra
te)
Russia, 2
005 (PPP)
Russia, 2
008 (x-ra
te)
Estonia
Russia, 2
005 (x-ra
te)
Russia, 2
000 (PPP)
Russia, 2
000 (x-ra
te)0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Russia 2000-2009 (x-rate $US)
Russia 2000-2007 (PPP $US)
Public spending on per FTE ‘budget’ student in $US(compared to total spending per FTE student in OECD countries in 2006, $US)
Private funding (30-35% of financial resources):
• What families actually pay for?– Official tuition (if any)– Additional education (languages)– Sports– Private tutorship (subjects from curriculums)– Preparation for USE, “olimpiada’s”– Preparation of home assignments, essays, theses– Corruption
Tuition trends in nominal terms, 2000=100%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
PreschoolSchoolPrimary professionalSecondary professionalTertiary
Private funding of higher education on 2000-2008
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
12.219.729.440.651.761.774.186.0
100.0
Registered payments
TertiarySecondary pro-fessionalPrimary pro-fessionalSchoolPreschool
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
20080.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
17.528.3
42.158.2
74.288.5
106.3123.3
143.4
Payments, including non-reg-istered
Structure of public funding and spending of public funds by universities
(‘Rosobrazovaniye’)
46%
18%
22%
15%
Spending
PayrollOther current expenditureOther expenditureInvestments
96.21%
2.17% 1.00%
Funding
InstructionBasic ResearchCapital In-vestmentResearch in ed-ucationOther
Are students going to work within the field of their education?
Agriculture and forestry
Physical education
Humanities
Foreign languages
Education
Services
Economics and social sciences
Natural sciences
Engineering sciences
Information technology
Arts
Health
17.6%
30.8%
34.8%
40.2%
43.9%
45.9%
46.8%
47.2%
49.3%
49.5%
57.2%
79.7%
76.5%
42.3%
46.6%
43.9%
36.8%
43.1%
44.1%
38.2%
38.2%
34.5%
34.9%
18.6%
5.9%
26.9%
18.6%
15.9%
19.3%
11.0%
9.1%
14.6%
12.4%
16.0%
7.9%
Very likely Not sure Unlikely
What employers consider important for hiring decisions
Univ
. rep
utati
on
Cour
ces t
aken
Cred
its, g
rade
s
Reco
mm
enda
-tio
ns (e
mpl
.)
Form
al e
xpe-
rienc
e
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
22
10 10
39
60
1 - not important 2 34 5 - very important
Quality of professional education(% of employers who consider qualification of graduates 3 and lower out of 5)
2006 2007 20080
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
41
3538
4550
47
54 56
64
HEI2-year collegesvocational schools
Employers’ collaboration with institutions
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
41
50 4845
67
institutions of higher educa-tion2-year collegesvocational schoolsnot ready to collaborate with institutions of pro-fessional education
No? incentives for change
Public funding momentum and accountability problems
Specific requirements and educational migration barriers
Public funding momentum
• The probability for a university of public funding increases in 2000-2006 was 95% due to absence of means-tested mechanisms– No need to worry about demand
• Ratio of local public finance fluctuated in the range of 4-5%– No need to worry about serving local communities
• University funding constitute 1/3 of appropriations atop of interbudget transfers from federal to local governments– Great lobby of local governors pressing federal authorities to
increase public appropriations
Accountability problems
• Most of the universities are public. The accounting principles are just the same as for any other public organizations– no ‘separate’ accounting for different programs (majors/levels)
• Accountability systems are still based on the soviet ‘procurement’ principles: – counting the heads of doctors, chair- and desk-legs etc.
• Student attainment is measures by the outdated ‘in-house’ tests
• No relevant graduates employment data is available– no good instrument for outcomes
Specific entrance requirements and educational migration barriers
• Pre-2008 there was no Unified Testing of High School graduates; universities formed admission exams themselves– ‘Want to come to us – pay us to get in’
• private tutoring• ‘shadow payments’
• Shortage of dorms and no campus-culture– No educational migration
• Percentage of ‘migrants’ <15%
– Local (limited) competition
Solved by an SAT-like Unified State Examination
Nature of limited competition: what do universities compete for?
• Informally for federal transfers:– Universities
• admit budget-supported students, who show good results at entry exams
• admit commercial students who don’t qualify for budget support– require them to pay tuition that is lower than per-pupil budgetary
spending on budget-supported students
• Federal transfers’ proportion on payroll is limited• Tuition compensates for the limitation– Universities compete for ‘paying’ students
Demographic momentum of the first half of 2010s
0 5 10 15 20 250.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2000200520102015
Age, years
Age
coho
rts,
mln
. kid
s
How to calculate in $US: exchange rate and purchasing power parity puzzle of 2000s
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999
20002001
20022003
20042005
20062007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Exchange Rate PPP
Why exchange rate US$ instead of PPP US$?
• PPP = How much economic agents directly pay for products/services
• Half of the students don’t, hence education PPP low
• However, about 14,5% of actual household expenditure is not visible
• About 28,7% of actual household expenditures take the form of auxilary expenditure
Gross Domestic Product
Actual individual consumption
Food and non-alcoholic beverages
Alcoholic beverages
Tobacco
Clothing and footwear
Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels
Health
Transport
Education
Final consumption
Household final consumption
Government final consumption
12.7
11
16.6
17.2
4.15
26.9
5.52
4.68
21.2
2.78
10.8
13.4
6.41
Ratio of tuition per year of studies to per year spending per yearly spending on budget supported
student across regional universities
Респуб
лика М
арий Эл
Чечен
ская Р
еспуб
лика
Респуб
лика Та
тарста
н
Липецка
я област
ь
Пензен
ская о
бласть
Тамбовск
ая област
ь
г. Москв
а
Респуб
лика Ингуш
етия
Волгоградска
я област
ь
Твер
ская о
бласть
Респуб
лика Коми
Пермски
й край
Ханты
-Ман
сийски
й Автономный О
круг
Забай
кальск
ий край
Приморский кр
ай
Ставропольск
ий край
Оренбур
гская
область
Кировская
область
Рязанска
я област
ь
Вологодская о
бласть
Челяб
инская о
бласть
Иркутск
ая област
ь
Ростовск
ая област
ь
Архангел
ьская
область
Респуб
лика Удмур
тия
Калуж
ская о
бласть
Новоси
бирская о
бласть
Ивановск
ая област
ь
Респуб
лика Кал
мыкия
Новгородска
я област
ь
Краснояр
ский кр
ай
Респуб
лика Сах
а (Яку
тия)
Московск
ая област
ь
Респуб
лика Хак
асия
Респуб
лика Адыгея
Дагеста
н
Карач
аево
-Черке
сская
респуб
лика
Респуб
лика Сев
ерная
Осет
ия0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120% In 2007 only 32 of 660 universities subsidized public students with private funds