我国高等教育机构融资问题分析

普通本科生毕业论文（设计）诚信承诺书AbstractEducation is an important part for people 'lisfe. Education imparts knowledge whereby making discoveries and implementing them for the betterment of the society becomes possible. Education, especially higher education has undergone a long development history, both in China and western countries. In terms of higher education, it has different characteristics in China and western countries. Nowadays, it is widely acknowledged that most of the western countries have more advanced higher education than China. However, we shall also notice the existing problems in education, especially higher education. Nowadays, our main channel of funding is focused on banks for which there is tight constrain of back policy by the People's Bank of China and Banking Supervision Commission. It is hard for students to get direct loan and for universities to stock up new equipments. Therefore, more and more universities put the eyes on the mode of cooperation with both national and international funding corporation and sponsors to put large amount of money in our educational system and relief the economic pressure for educational department and universities themselves.This paper mainly aims at discussing the funding issue for higher education institutions in China and meanwhile, this paper will also try to put forward some solutions to deal with this issue.【Key Words】higher education, funding, problems, solutions, China摘要教育是人一生中一个重要的组成部分。

教育为人们带来知识，发现未知，并为人们创造一个更好的社会。

中国和西方国家的教育，尤其是高等教育，经历了较长的发展历史。

中国和西方国家的高等教育有着不同的特点。

现今，人们普遍认为西方国家的高等教育比中国更加先进。

然而，我们也注意到教育体系中存在的问题，尤其是高等教育。

目前我们高校的融资渠道主要集中在银行，由于人民银行和银监会的政策对所有银行有着制约作用，导致学生直接贷款越来越困难，许多项目建设与设备采购计划陷入停顿。

因此许多高校采取了与国内外融资公司和投资商合作的方式，把大量的资金投入到我国教育系统，以减轻当地教育部分及高校的经济压力。

本篇论文主要意在阐述中国高等教育机构融资问题分析，同时，本文也将试图提出一些处理这个问题的方案。

关键词：高等教育、融资、问题、解决方案、中国AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Wang, both for his intellectual guidance and for his warm and constant encouragement during the process of writing this thesis. With patience and prudence, he labored through drafts of this thesis and pointed out defects in my theorizing. Therefore, I owe all the merits in this thesis, if any, to him, though I am fully aware that the thesis might still contain some mistakes, for which I bear the whole responsibility.My cordial and sincere thanks go to all the teachers in the Department, whose interesting and informative courses have benefited me a lot during my college years. The profit that I gained from their profound knowledge, remarkable expertise and intellectual ingenuity will be of everlasting significance to my future life and career.I am also very grateful to my classmates, who have given me a lot of help and courage during my stay in the University and throughout the process of writing this thesis.Last but not the least, big thanks go to my family who have shared with me my worries, frustrations, and hopefully my ultimate happiness in eventually finishing this thesis.Table of Contents普通本科生毕业论文（设计）诚信承诺书 (i)Abstract (ii)摘要 (iii)Acknowledgements (iv)Table of Contents ................................................................................. v...1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1...1.1 Research Background .............................................................................. 1 ...1.2 Research Significance .............................................................................. 3..2. Introduction of Higher Education Funding in Foreign Countries .....3.2.1 Funding Mechanism for Higher Education Institutions in Different Countries42.2 Comparison of Higher Education Funding in Different Countries (7)3. Funding Issue for Higher Education Institutions in China (8)3.1 Current Situation for Higher Education Institutions Funding in China (9)3.2 Problems in Higher Education Institutions in China ................................ 1..04. Measures and Solutions ................................................................. 1.1...4.1 Increase Fiscal Funding ............................................................................ 1..1..4.2 Standardizing Higher Education Cos.t .................................................... 1..34.3 Self-Generated Funding.......................................................................... 1..44.4 Increase Funding Channel.s ................................................................... 1..55. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 1..6.. References ....................................................................................... 1..7.1. IntroductionEducation gives us knowledge of the world around us. It develops in us a perspective of looking at life. It helps us build opinions and have points of view on things in life. People debate over the subject of whether education is the only thing that gives knowledge. Some say, education is the process of gaining information about the surrounding world while knowledge is something very different. They are right. But then, information cannot be converted into knowledge without the catalyst called education. Education makes us capable of interpreting things rightly. Education is not just about lessons in textbooks. It is about the lessons of life. However, with the advancement of globalization and competition, only receiving primary school and high school education is not sufficient for a person to obtain the required knowledge or gain a decent position in one ' s professional life. Therefore, higher education nowbecomes a must for everyone. People with higher education are more likely to get jobs which give lots of health benefits as well as pension benefits to the individual, in his or her old age. Thus, a college degree is the key to a better life. People who are well educated and well paid, are more likely to live fulfilled lives. They make better partners, parents and employees. They believe in following the societal norms and seldom indulge in anti-social behavior. Educated people are more tolerant of other people, and thus, help in keeping the society peaceful. Higher standards of living, peace, good family life - all these things help in strengthening the country as a whole. However, there are many problems existing in the higher education institutions, China is no exception. This paper will explore funding issue for higher education institutions in China.1.1 Research BackgroundHigher education in China is continuously growing, changing and developing. There are over2,000 universities and colleges, with more than six million enrollments in total. China has set up a degree system, including Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral degrees that are open to foreign students. The country offers non-degree programs as well. (Liu Ruibo, 2005) According to the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, the government authority on all matters pertaining to education and language, higher education in China has played a significant part in economic growth, scientific progress and social development in the country "by bringing up large scale of advancedtalents and experts for the construction of socialist modernization." Since China began to develop a Western-oriented university model at the end of nineteenth century, Chinese higher education has continued to evolve. (Fuzeng, Yu , 2008) Since the late 1980s, the economic development of China has stimulated reforms in higher education that have resulted in remarkable improvements.However, we shall notice that insufficient funding is an issue faced by almost all higher education institutions in China and this phenomenon is magnified after the expansion of colleges and universities. China introduced significant reforms in higher education finance that covered financial decentralization, new funding mechanisms and resource mobilization (World Bank, 1997). Before the reforms in the 1980s, almost all the funding was exclusively from the government, and funds were allocated according to the unitary State budgetary plan. In the plan, historically based adjustments were adopted and unused funds had to be returned to the government. Such a system provided no incentive for efficiency gains and improvements. With financial decentralization, the central government has delegated financial responsibilities to provincial governments and line ministries to increase flexibility. With the new funding mechanisms, the line item budget has been replaced by a block grant, letting institutions decide how to spend the money, and institutes can retain unspent funds. With resource mobilization, institutes have been encouraged to generate their own revenue and to charge tuition fees so as to reduce the overdependenceon Government funds. (Ma Fang, 2005) Other than releasing the fiscal burden from the public funds, another goal of the reform is to encourage institutes to make innovations and develop their own skills to meet the developmental needs of the changing society (World Bank, 1998).1.2 Research SignificanceWith an introduction to the overall underdevelopment of higher education in China compared with the western counterpart, this article briefly examines the main trends of over two decades of development of the governance and financing systems of China's higher education sector. This article analyzes the resource allocation from governments and revenue generation in institutions under the reform policies of administrative decentralization and financing diversification. The new "Great Leap Forward" in higher education in 1999 and beyond, i.e., the radical and, to a certain extent, desperate mass higher education policy and practice of expanding enrollments in order to spur domestic consumption, is critically analyzed. (Liu Zhijun, 2007) By examining the ongoing institutional merging and co-building and the most recent enrollment expansion, the writer points out the economic significance for higher education of overcoming diseconomies of scale and inefficiencies. However, thelong-range outcomes of the seemingly exciting investment in and consumption of mass higher education are difficult to predict. Therefore, based on the importance of higher education and the context of this paper, the author hope this paper will have both theoretical and practical meanings on improving funding issue of higher education institutions in China.2. Introduction of Higher Education Funding in Foreign CountriesOver the past decades, there has seen a significant and consistent worldwide reform agenda for higher education financing policy. Funding mechanisms and models adopted by Asian and Western countries are sometimes different. Higher education has always been an important priority in the public agenda as it is considered an investment with economic return both for individuals and society. Due to rapid growth of student enrolment in the 90 ' s and stringent funding allocated for higher education institutes, the decade of the 90 ' s has seen a significant and consistent worldwide reform agenda for the finance and management of higher education institutes.2.1 Funding Mechanism for Higher Education Institutions in Different CountriesWith the establishment of a knowledge-based economy in the 21st century, all countries try to find suitable strategies and special ways to keep up with the growing competition in the rapidly evolving global economy (Zhang, 2000). The demand of higher education thus keeps growing worldwide and especially in developing countries. Many governments face the problem of maintaining public funding levels for higher education (Harman, 1999). Therefore the problems and issues of funding higher education must be addressed.In the United States:Major changes have been occurring in how the United States finances its higher education system. Most striking has been the sharp drop over the past two decades in the public share of higher education finance and the recent interest in funding based on institutional performance. These major changes have in turn caused big shifts in how higher education institutions behave, leading them to sharply raise their tuitions, aggressively seek private funds, and cut costs by outsourcing services to external providers. (Kevin Dougherty, 2004) While the U.S. higher education system is dominated by public institutions, it also has a very large private sector. If an institution is publicly owned, thegovernment has many mechanisms of control over that institution. For one, it will provide a large portion of that institution ' s fin Clearly, if an institution is private, the government lacks these controls. Private institutions derive much less of their revenue from the government.The income streams mainly include the following: tuition and fees (which includes federal, state, and private student aid received by students); federal, state, and local government appropriations, grants, and contracts (excluding student aid); private gifts, grants, and contracts; endowment income (excluding capital gains and losses) and investment returns (income from assets including dividends, interest earnings, royalties, rent, gains and losses, etc.); sales and services, whether in the form of educational activities, hospitals, sports teams, and other auxiliary enterprises. (KevinDougherty, 2004) Not surprisingly, public institutions receive a much greater share of their funds from government, particularly state government, than do private institutions. Conversely, private institutions receive much more than do public institutions from tuition, private gifts, grants, contracts, and investment return.In the UK:While the U.S. institutions have a diversity of funding options, the governmental grants in the UK are distributed on an equal competitive basis, where old and new, elite private and second-rate state institutions are placed under the equal conditions for obtaining governmental grants. In the UK, in the post-Robbins system, the universities received funds form University Grants Committee (UGC) on a quinquennial grant system. The number of students was important in determining the block grant amount. However, universities made independent decisions on internal distribution of these grants. Funding was determined on the basis of proposed budgets submitted by the institutions to the funding councils, but the funding councils implemented a strong competitive element for allocating this budget. The competition was basis of student demand, price and quality. (Orkodashvili, Mariam, 2007) Student fees were paid by local authorities and maintenance grants were also available, although means-tested for most of the period (Cheung and Egerton, 2007). However, student grants declined in value in 1980s by 20%, and in 1988 funding of the universities was transferred to a new body, the Universities Funding Council, while funding for the polytechnics and colleges was administered by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. In 1992, three new funding councils were set up: the Higher Education Funding Councils for England, Scotland, and Wales. These provided core fundingfor the new university system, but as a proportion of overall funding, central government funding fell from over 70% in the late 1960s to just over 30% in the mid-1990s (Orkodashvili, Mariam, 2007).In Japan:The Japanese higher education sector ischaracterized by its dual structure that includes a limited public sector controlled by national and local governments and a very large market-driven private sector. There are three types of university-level institutions, 87 national universities, controlled by the Ministry of Education; 72 public universities run by local or regional governments and 596 private universities. In addition there are also 525 junior colleges (of which most are private) and 63 technical colleges. One of the characteristics in Japan's system of higher education is its large private higher education sector. However, recent financing reforms have targeted mainly national universities since the largest proportion of government support to higher education goes to these institutions. Recent reforms have been changing the structure and nature of national university finance. These changes were also influenced by a large private sector. Private universities also compete with national universities in order to increase financial resources. Therefore, there is a need to reconsider resource allocation and the distribution of functions among whole universities. Japan'hsigher education, unlike the US and Europe, has been mainly supplied by the private sector. (Zhang, M, 2000) In India:The India higher education sector has expanded at a phenomenal rate in the last century. The European system of higher education was introduced in India by the British in 1857 with the establishment of universities for European education in three cities and withdrawal of support for indigenous education. By 2006, there were 348 universities (composed of general universities; science and technical universities; open universities; agricultural universities; women' s universities; language universities; and medical universities), more than 17,625 colleges, and 10.5 million students, making India ' s system of higher education the third largest in the world interms of enrollment and the largest in terms of number of institutions. The cost of higher education in India is supported by the central and state government sector and by the nongovernmental sector (including student/parents and the rest of the community). The 16 Central universities receive maintenance and development grants from the central government through the University Grants Commission UGC, while other universities and colleges receive maintenance funds from state governments and some development grants from the UGC. Private colleges, instead, are eitherprivately managed and publicly funded (aided colleges) or privately managed and funded(un aided colleges). (Agarwal, 2006).2.2 Comparison of Higher Education Funding in Different CountriesFrom the above analysis, we can find that public financing almost exist in every country for higher education institutions. Public financing plays an important role in the financing of education across the world. There are both efficiency and equity considerations providing a strong justification for public financing of education. With in a huma n capital perspective, educati on is con sidered as an in vestme nt in future productive capacity. Inv estme nt in a project is justified whe never the returns on that project exceed the value of resources tied up in that project, and should be give n priority relative to other investment opportunities when the rates of return exceed the returns on alternative projects. Empirical studies have demonstrated that rates of return to education are positive and substantial compared to alternative investment opportunities. (Orkodashvili, Mariam, 2007)Efficiency and equity considerations can support a strong justification for public investment in education at all levels, including investment in higher education. However, in a developing country context in which fiscal resources are insufficient to provide the full range of basic services needed, the extent of public financing at different levels of education provision will become an important policy variable. Fiscal constraints are binding where a rapid expansion of the higher education sector is needed. It is acknowledged that there are strong arguments for full public financing and provision in primary and secondary education, but suggests that where public finances are limited, a mix of financing in higher education could advance both efficiency and equity considerations. This mix would involve public and private financing. This echoes World Bank proposals for the introduction of user fee and private sector into the higher education finance to facilitate expansion enrolment (World Bank, 1997).3. Funding Issue for Higher Education Institutions in ChinaGenerally speaking, compared with mature market economy countries, China is an emerging market country. It is helpful to better guide the fiscal policy of China's higher education by analysis of the fiscal policy at the stage of emerging market economy. China's higher education should take the principle of cost-sharing, establish multi-channel financing system, give full play to the main stakeholders in China's higher education development and promote fairness and equality of opportunity in higher education. (Qin Wenjie, 2006) But we shall first take a glance of current situation of funding for higher education institutions in China.3.1 Current Situation for Higher Education Institutions Funding in ChinaSustaining China's rapid economic growth in the future will come to depend in large part on the quantity and quality of the human resources it can mobilize. Education policy is fundamental to social and economic development in all countries, and this is especially the case with China at this juncture. Getting education policy right could unlock the enormous potential of its large population and spread the benefits from growth to all groups in society, but getting it wrong could place a stranglehold on development and reinforce existing inequalities in access across urban and rural areas. China faces significant challenges in terms of education provision and financing.Current levels of education spending in China are insufficient to meet the demand arising from rapid economic growth. Consolidated government expenditure in education reached only 2.79% of GDPin 1999, rising marginally to 2.82% in 2005 (Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance and State Statistics Bureau, 2000; MoE, 2006; Heckman, 2002). This is significantly lower than the developing country average at 4.1% of GDP, and lower than the developed country average at 5.3% of GDP in the mid-1990s (World Bank, 1997). Education expenditure is skewed towards higher education. China spent almost a quarter of its education budget on higher education in 1998-999 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2004a), whereas participation rates in higher education remain low. Although China adopted the policy of rapid expansion of enrolment in higher education from 1999, participation rates in higher education were 21% of the relevant population group in 2005 (Zhou, 2006). The further expansion of enrolment has been slowed down in recent years following quality concern arising from resource constraints (Mohrman, 2008). There are large differences in access to education across urban and rural areas. It has been estimated that over 30% of eligible students in rural areas cannot go on to secondary school due to the lack of funding (Lin, 1999). And the proportion of university students from urban households is 84.43%, even though urban workers account for only 19.33% of the labour force. (Zhou, 2006)Unequal of funding for higher education institutions in China also exist. “ 211Project ” and “985 Project ” were initiated the end of 1990s to d-elevveelol p high research and“ worldclass ”universities. The aim of the 211 project (whose name refers to 100 universities in the 21st century) is to build up 100 top level HEIs and key disciplines in the 21st century. The 985 project (whose title refers to the month and year in which it was announced) is aimed at developing 10 to 12 so-called world-class, plus a number of renowned high-level research institutions (Zhou, 2006). Investments from the government in these key universities are much higher than in other higher education institutions.3.2 Problems in Higher Education Institutions in ChinaFinancial arrangements are an important factor in producing existing differentials in accessto higher education. Decentralization in government finances has led to a reduction in the contribution of central government to higher education. For the higher education sector, revenue allocated from central government revenue have declined. The decentralization of education finance has increased inequalities in access across regions, especially as the poor regions have reduced capacity to finance education at all levels. Increases in tuition fees make matters worse. The marketization of higher education since the 1980s, especially after 1992, has led to a one-third rise in higher education tuitionfees across the board. An average tuition fee per year constitutes a large barrier preventing students from low-income households from entering university. Private financing of higher education, proposed by the World Bank, does not appear to provide a sustainable solution. (Lin, 1999) There is considerable urgency in examining the options for financing a further expansion of higher education in China, taking on board equity considerations. Some attention has been paid to issues of financing and there has been some debate around issues of equity in the context of access, but few have connected these two issues satisfactorily. The present study aims to contribute to fill in this gap. It investigates the equity implications of current finance policy of higher education in China, and searches for more equal and efficient alternatives to the current financing mix. (Wang Kai, 2005)In China, the financing mix for higher education is dominated by government subsidies, but additional finance comes from civil society and tuition fees (Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance and State Statistics Bureau, 2000). Government subsidies have declined. At the same time, the share of financing contributed by tuition fee has risen rapidly since 1990, especially after 1997. Contributions from civil society, including funding from enterprises,increased in the first half of the period under examination, but at the end of the period they have returned to their 1990 level. (Lin, 1999) In common with many developing countries, public subsidies to education in China are many times larger for higher education students than for students in primary and secondary education. Current trends imply that attention will need to be paid to the room for increases in public subsidies to higher education, and to the role of private financing, mainly through tuition fees. A significant constraint in raising additional financing lies in the distributional implications emerging from the current financing mix of higher education.4. Measures and SolutionsMany countries have adopted the close-ended and distributive funding methods, that is a fixed amount of funding has been determined for the total public funding for higher education, and the outcomes of the funding formula are used to determine what part of the total public funds available are allocated to particular institutions. In this paper, with acknowledgement of the existing problems in higher education institution funding in China, the following context will deal with measures and solutions to addressthese issues. This paper will put forward four solutions, namely increasing fiscal funding, standardizing higher education cost, improving self-funding capacities of higher educationinstitutions and increasing funding channels.4.1 Increase Fiscal FundingThe rise in tuition fees in higher education will restrict the participation rate, and could worsen inequalities in access. Tuition fees for higher education, in addition to living expenses,constitute a huge burden to students from a rural background and low-income urban households. In China, tuition fees have been increased substantially since 1990. The average tuition fees in many institutes were between 25 and 30% of recurrent costs in 1995 (Zhang, 1997). However, the increase of tuition cannot solve the problem of insufficient funding for higher education institutions in China. Instead, more fiscal funding shall be provided to support higher education institutions in China. Even though we may notice that China is the country whose higher education receives large proportion of fiscal funding, when it compared to expansion of colleges and universities, economic development and market requirement, fiscal funding still seems to be insufficient.Tax is an important part for fiscal revenue. With the fast development of China's economy, tax revenue has increased dramatically. Correspondingly, fiscal funding to higher education has been increased to some extent.But at the same time, we shall notice that China still pays more attention to its primary and secondary education since it adopts nine year compulsory education. Meanwhile, higher education institutions usually require more funding than primary or secondary schools. Plus with the expansion of higher education institutions, therefore, more funding shall be derived from fiscal revenue.At the same time, China can implement fiscal funding mechanism by learning from other countries. For example, Denmark has adopted the Taximeter-model. The fund allocated for teaching is based on a unit-cost principle that accounts for, on average, one third of total revenue an institute will receive. The number of students that pass examinations determines the available budget. Universities do not receive compensation for students who fail or do not take their examinations. The scheme is to encourage institutes to be more productive in producing graduates rather than focusing on increasing student enrollments. (Mohrman, 2008) But if funding mechanism of other countries is to be implemented in China, China's national condition must be considered.4.2 Standardizing Higher Education CostHigher education cost is another way of funding for higher education institutions. Increased higher education tuition cost in some way is an inevitable trend along with the development of。