Higher Education Financing in East and Southern Africa

Description

This nine-country study of higher education financing in Africa includes three East African states (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), five countries in southern Africa (Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa), and an Indian Ocean island state (Mauritius). Higher Education Financing in East and Southern Africa explores trends in financing policies, paying particular attention to the nature and extent of public sector funding of higher education, the growth of private financing (including both household financing and the growth of private higher education institutions) and the changing mix of financing instruments that these countries are developing in response to public sector financial constraints. This unique collection of African-country case studies draws attention to the remaining challenges around the financing of higher education in Africa, but also identifies good practices, lessons and common themes.

Sujets

• Éducation
• Education

Informations

• Publié par: African Minds
• Date de parution: 12 juillet 2010
• Nombre de lectures: 4
• EAN13: 9781920355937
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 3 Mo

Extrait

HigHer education Financing in eaSt and SoutHern aFrica

Edîted by Pundy Pîay

AFRICAN MINDS

© 2010 Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET)

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Published for CHET by African Minds, 4 Eccleston Place, Somerset West, 7130, South Africa

ISBN: 9781920355333

Layout and printing: COMPRESS.dsl, South Africa www.compressdsl.com

Distributed by African Minds 4 Eccleston Place, Somerset West, 7130, South Africa [e-mail] www.africanminds.co.za

For orders from outside Africa, excluding North America: African Books Collective [e-mail] www.africanbookscollective.com

For orders from North America: Michigan State University Press [e-mail] http://msupress.msu.edu/

contentS

1. iNTRODUCTION 1 Pundy Pillay

2. BOTsWàNà 7 Happy Siphambe

3. KENYà 29 Wycliffe Otieno

4. LEsOTO 63 Pundy Pillay

5. MàURITIUs 81 Praveen Mohadeb

6. MOzàmbIqUE 103 Arlindo Chilundo

7. nàmIbIà 123 Jonathan Adongo

8. SOUT afRICà 153 Pundy Pillay

9. tàNzàNIà 173 Johnson M Ishengoma

10. uGàNDà 195 Nakanyike Musisi and Florence Mayega

11. gOOD pRàCTICEs, pOssIblE lEssONs àND REmàINING CàllENGEs 223 Pundy Pillay

About te autors 233 Reerences 234

aCkNOWlEDGEmENTs

he autors grateuy acknowedge Inancîa support provîded by te Ford Foundatîon în Joannesburg.

Specîa tanks are due aso to Dr Jon Buter-Adam, Ford Foundatîon; te Centre or Hîger Educatîon Transormatîon (CHET), Cape Town; and te Sîzanang Centre or Researc and Deveopment, Pretorîa, wîc coordînated te researc.

Chapter 1 introduction

hE dEvElOpmENT cONTExT

Pundy Pillay

hîs mutî-country study o îger educatîon Inancîng încudes tree East Arîcan states (Kenya, Tanzanîa and Uganda), Ive countrîes în soutern Arîca (Botswana, Lesoto, Mozambîque, Namîbîa and Sout Arîca), and an ïndîan Ocean îsand state (Maurîtîus). he countrîes în tîs sampe o case studîes vary consîderaby în terms o teîr sîze and deveopment status. As Tabe 1.1 sows, tere are our extremey sma countrîes în terms o popuatîon (Botswana, Lesoto, Maurîtîus and Namîbîa) and Ive medîum-sîzed countrîes, wît Sout Arîca beîng te argest o te Ive wît 49 mîîon peope. Tabe 1.1 provîdes înormatîon about tese countrîes’ deveopment status as measured usîng Unîted Natîons Deveopment Programme’s (UNDP’s) Human Deveopment ïndex (HDï). he HDï îs a composîte îndex derîved rom tree measures: încome or GDP per capîta; educatîon (adut îteracy, and te combîned gross enroment ratîo or prîmary, secondary and tertîary educatîon); and îe expectancy. ïn îts2009 Human Development Report, te UNDP derîved te HDï or 182 countrîes wîc were categorîsed as very îg, îg, medîum or ow HDï countrîes. he countrîes wît te îgest HDïs were Norway and Austraîa, and te Irst category încuded a te Western European countrîes, te USA, some Asîan countrîes (Sîngapore and Hong Kong) and, înterestîngy, Barbados. O te nîne country case studîes în tîs voume, Maurîtîus was ranked as a îg HDï country (rankîng 81). Botswana (125), Namîbîa (128), Sout Arîca (129), Kenya (147), Tanzanîa (151), Lesoto (156) and Uganda (157) were ranked

2

Hîger Educ atîon F înancîng în East and S outern Ar îc a

as medîum HDï countrîes; and Mozambîque (172) was ranked as a ow HDï country. Tabe 1.1 sows te HDï vaues wîc range rom 0.804 or Maurîtîus to 0.402 or Mozambîque. Norway ranked at number one ad an HDï vaue o 0.971 (UNDP 2009). Tabe 1.1 aso sows te Human Poverty ïndex (HPï), te rankîng o countrîes în terms o teîr eves o poverty, wît te country beîng ranked number one avîng te east poverty. Amongst te nîne countrîes încuded as case studîes în tîs voume, Maurîtîus was ranked te îgest at 45 out o te 135 countrîes on te HPï. ït îs cear tat tere îs a cose correatîon between te vaue o te HDï and te extent o poverty, wît Mozambîque avîng te îgest încîdence o poverty at 46.8% at a HPï rankîng o 127 out o 135 countrîes.

Table 1.1: Population and te Human Development Index by Country PoPuLation Hdi ranKing Hdi VaLue HPi ranKing HPi VaLue country (M) (%) Botswana 1.9 125 0.694 81 22.9 Kenya 37.8 147 0.541 92 29.5 Lesoto 2.0 156 0.514 106 34.3 Maurîtîus 1.3 81 0.804 45 9.5 Mozambîque 21.9 172 0.402 127 46.8 Namîbîa 2.1 128 0.686 70 17.1 Sout Arîca 49.2 129 0.683 85 25.4 Tanzanîa 41.3 151 0.530 93 30.0 Uganda 30.6 157 0.514 91 28.8 Source:UNDP, 2009. he average HDï rankîng or sub-Saaran Arîca îs 0.514; or Sout Asîa ît îs 0.612; and or Latîn Amerîca and te Carîbbean, 0.821. he Human Poverty ïndex (HPï) vaue îndîcates te extent o poverty.

ïn terms o încome per capîta measures, our countrîes în te sampe ave attaîned mîdde încome status – tese are Botswana, Maurîtîus, Namîbîa and Sout Arîca. he oter Ive countrîes are regarded as ow încome în terms o tîs measure. ïn summary, te nîne countrîes vary consîderaby în terms o teîr popuatîon sîze and teîr deveopment status as relected, or exampe, by teîr respectîve HDïs, HPïs and încome per capîta.

HIGER eDUCàTION: aCCEss, eqUITY àND FINàNCING

he caenges în educatîon în genera, and îger educatîon în partîcuar, în sub-Saaran Arîca (SSA) are we-known. hese reate în te m aîn to

ï NT ROD UCT ïON

3

înadequate access partîcuary at te secondary and tertîary eves, poor quaîty o provîsîon, ow eves o eicîency as relected în îg drop-out and repetîtîon rates, and înequîty în access and te dîstrîbutîon o resources aong gender, regîona (urban versus rura) and socîo-economîc înes. Obtaînîng a measure o access and equîty îs dîicut în Arîca gîven data and deInîtîona caenges. ïn some countrîes (suc as Botswana and Egypt) îger or tertîary educatîon reers to a post-scoo or post-secondary educatîon. ïn Sout Arîca, on te oter and, îger educatîon reers ony to unîversîty educatîon. ïn tîs regard, comparîng gross enroment ratîos mîgt be înapproprîate. For exampe, Sout Arîca’s Gross Enroment Ratîo (GER) or îger educatîon îs around 15–16% wîe tat or Egypt and Maurîtîus (bot coverîng a post- scoo educatîon) are respectîvey 30% and 34%. Notwîtstandîng tîs deInîtîona probem, ît îs evîdent tat partîcîpatîon în îger educatîon în SSA îs ow în bot absoute and reatîve terms. O 23 SSA countrîes or wîc data are avaîabe, ony Maurîtîus, Nîgerîa and Sout Arîca ave a GER în doube Igures (Pîay 2008; Adedejî & Pîay 2009). Among tese 23 countrîes te GER ranges rom 0.4% în Maawî to 34% în Maurîtîus. Moreover, partîcîpatîon rates în SSA are substantîay ower (5–6% în 2005) tan te average or bot deveopîng (17% în 2005) and îndustrîaîsed (66%) countrîes (UNESCO 2008). ïn addîtîon to ow partîcîpatîon rates, access to îger educatîon îs îgy înequîtabe. here are tree împortant determînants o înequîty: gender; socîo- economîc status and regîon. Amost a SSA countrîes wît te exceptîon o Maurîtîus, Nîgerîa and Sout Arîca, ave sîgnîIcanty ower partîcîpatîon rates. Were women ave managed to enter îger educatîon în SSA countrîes, teîr partîcîpatîon îs oten concentrated în so-caed tradîtîona women’s dîscîpînes suc as te umanîtîes and educatîon, rater tan în commerce, engîneerîng and scîence. Second, access îs oten dependent on socîo-economîc status. ïn most SSA countrîes, enroment at unîversîtîes îs domînated by students rom te îgest încome categorîes. Oten, pubîc undîng mecanîsms act to exacerbate suc înequîtîes by provîdîng ree îger educatîon to te ‘best’ students wo învarîaby come rom te weatîest ouseods and te top secondary scoos. hîrd, partîcîpatîon în îger educatîon îs oten skewed în avour o urban students. Students rom rura ouseods ace enormous barrîers to gaînîng access to îger educatîon în genera, and te better quaîty îger educatîon înstîtutîons în partîcuar. he pubîc commîtment to îger educatîon by most countrîes în eastern and soutern Arîca îs reatîvey îg (as a percentage o natîona încome), partîcuary

4

Hîger Educ atîon F înancîng în East and S outern Ar îc a

în countrîes suc as Kenya, Lesoto and Namîbîa. For te countrîes consîdered în tîs voume, average expendîture on îger educatîon as a percentage o natîona încome was around 4.6% în 2005 compared to 4.5% or deveopîng countrîes as a woe, and 5.5% or îndustrîaîsed countrîes (OECD 2006). However, pubîc spendîng on îger educatîon as a proportîon o te educatîon budget varîes substantîay amongst countrîes în tîs voume. ïn SSA, as în many deveopîng countrîes, tere are oten severa reasons or ow expendîture on îger educatîon. Fîrst, tere may be înadequate expendîture on educatîon în genera, as a percentage o te government’s budget. Second, were educatîon expendîture may be consîdered to be adequate or reasonabe, tere are oten consîderabe poîtîca pressures to ensure tat te scooîng sector gets te domînant sare o te pubîc sector’s commîtment to educatîon.hîrd, în a sîtuatîon o serîous resource constraînts, tere îs oten keen înter-sectora competîtîon or Inancîa resources rom sectors suc as eat, ousîng and socîa weare. Fînay, te case or încreased îger educatîon Inancîng as not been eped by te ow prîorîtîsatîon o tîs sector by many Arîcan governments. he vaue o îger educatîon or economîc growt and broader socîa and sustaînabe deveopment as not yet been uy recognîsed by Arîcan governments (Pîay 2008).

ovERvIEW

hîs nîne-country study expores trends în Inancîng poîcîes payîng partîcuar attentîon to te nature and extent o pubîc sector undîng o îger educatîon, te growt o prîvate Inancîng (încudîng bot ouseod Inancîng and te growt o prîvate îger educatîon înstîtutîons) and te can gîng mîx o Inancîng înstruments tat tese countrîes are deveopîng în response to pubîc sector Inancîa constraînts. Sîpambe’s capter on Botswana sows tat educatîon expendîture as a proportîon o gross domestîc product în tat country îs reatîvey îg at around 9%, but te proportîon o te educatîon budget aocated to îger educatîon îs reatîvey ow at 12.5%. Pubîc îger educatîon în Botswana as efectîvey been ree or a ong tîme. ïnterestîng eatures o te Botswana system încude te recent estabîsment o a new unîversîty on a pubîc–prîvate partnersîp basîs and te act tat government-unded scoarsîps are provîded aso to students în prîvate îger educatîon înstîtutîons. he oan/grant sceme îs notîonay înked to uman resource needs wît Inancîa încentîves înked to reatîve scarcîty. However, untî recenty, te oan sceme as been înefectîve (în not addressîng scarce uman resources needs) and îneicîent (because o poor cost recovery).

ï NT ROD UCT ïON

5

ïn Capter 3, Otîeno provîdes a detaîed anaysîs o îger educatîon Inancîng în Kenya sowîng ow te system în tat country as evoved to te present sîtuatîon caracterîsed by a ‘dua-track’ system wîtîn pubîc îger educatîon, and te acceerated growt o prîvate îger educatîon. Otîeno draws attentîon to te patterns o state undîng at te pubîc unîversîtîes and provîdes a useu crîtîque o te ‘unît cost’ system currenty în use în Kenya. hîs capter aso provîdes a detaîed descrîptîon o te student oan sceme, one o two efectîve scemes currenty operatîng în SSA (te oter beîng în Sout Arîca). Fînay, Otîeno proposes a new undîng ramework to enance eicîency, equîty and efectîveness. Te capter on Lesoto by Pîay sows te îg eve o government expendîture (around 40% o te educatîon budget) on tertîary educatîon by tîs tîny, andocked country. Government unds students troug a oan/ bursary sceme but te oans are actuay grants as no recovery as taken pace. However, some pans înîtîated by te Mînîstry o Fînance are now under way to împement an efectîve oan recovery sceme. ïn addîtîon, tere îs a îg eve o bursary expendîture on students outsîde te country. hîs îs understandabe rom te vîewpoînt o deveopîng scarce uman resources or te country. However, anecdota evîdence suggests tat ony a sma proportîon o students return to te country on graduatîon. Moadeb’s descrîptîon o te Maurîtîan system sows a system ceary dîferentîated înto îts pubîc and prîvate components. ïn tîs system, government covers ony about a quarter o a îger educatîon expendîture. An înterestîng eature o te pubîc undîng ramework îs te exîstence o a dîerentîated government undîng mode. For exampe, te Unîversîty o Maurîtîus provîdes ree undergraduate educatîon wîe at te Unîversîty o Tecnoogy, students pay ees (but not u cost). More tan a o te undîng or îger educatîon derîves rom prîvate ouseods and goes to înternatîona înstîtutîons bot însîde and outsîde te country. ïn Capter 6 on Mozambîque, Cîundo sows Irst te îg percentage o te educatîon budget devoted to îger educatîon, at around 40%. A eature o te system îs te îg eve o dependence on donor undîng. here îs mînîma cost sarîng în te system and government unds înstîtutîons on te basîs o înputs (student numbers) ony. he pattern o undîng suggests a îg degree o îneicîency and înequîty. ïnnovatîve eatures o te system încude te undîng o quaîty împrovement înîtîatîves în bot pubîc and prîvate îger educatîon înstîtutîons, and provîncîa (rura) scoarsîps to address equîty. Adongo’s capter on Namîbîa descrîbes a system receîvîng a reatîvey îg eve o resources yet îs caracterîsed by îg unît costs and genera systemîc