22

Chapter 3

Variations on Equity and Access in Higher Education in Asia

John N. Hawkins

Introduction

Higher education in Asia has been undergoing dramatic changes in the past decade.

What were once a few state dominated, elitist institutions, often modeled on previous

colonial or neo-colonial powers, focused on reproducing a civil service, bureaucratic

class, are now being transformed into more privatized, comprehensive institutions

reinforced by a substantial expansion of higher education institutions (HEIs of all types;

in short, a movement toward massification of higher education throughout the region. As

the perceived value of obtaining higher education has taken hold of the public

consciousness in Asia the demand on both the private and public sectors to provide it has

correspondingly increased. On the surface, this would seem to be a simple formula: as

nations in the region become more wealthy, they respond to this demand by supporting

more colleges and universities, which in turn admit more and more differentiated

students, and the demand for access and equity is met (although also in a differentiated

way). The reality, however, has not been so simple.

In this chapter I explore some conceptual characteristics of access and equity in

the context of increasing demand for HE and limited capacity. Some regional sketches of

this issue will be presented from East and Southeast Asia to provide some limited

23

examples particularly of the finance and cost-sharing question. Finally, a more detailed

exposition of HE access in the largest nation in the region, China, will be discussed.

Some Background

As I have noted elsewhere (Hawkins 2007) the post WWII decades were overly

optimistic about the power of education to transform the social equity and access

landscape. Educational policy makers in Asia thought that in much the same way as

Europe and Japan rebuilt after the war and expanded their educational systems, the same

could be done in Asia if enough resources were available. Increased access to education

automatically meant a reduction in inequalities. Human capital theory put education even

more at the forefront in this optimistic vision.

However, as early as 1968 scholars such as Coombs (Farrell 2007) were arguing

that the results were much less than anticipated. The Western Europe/Japan model was

not working as smoothly as expected; no matter how much education was expanding, the

gap between the rich and the poor was widening. By the 1970s as Farrell (2007) notes, a

certain amount of cynicism was setting in which carried into the 1980s as educational

reform and expansion revealed itself to be much more complicated and riskier than many

thought. The earlier view did not sufficiently account for the variety of internal and

external structural contradictions found in many nations (colonial legacies, neo-

colonialism, cultural imperialism, corruption, internal colonialism, etc.) and the one-size-

fits all, simple correlation between HE expansion and increased access gave way to a

much more nuanced and complicated picture.

24

Educational policy makers became aware of the more complex nature of the

relationship between educational expansion, access and equity, and the ultimate goal of

providing more equality for those who would attend HE (Lee 2002). There was, of

course, the issue of equity of access; that is, who gets into the expanded HE system. It is

difficult to find a case in Asia where there is not a diversified population, certainly by

social class, gender, but also by ethnicity, language, religion, caste, and so on. Decisions

or lack of decisions must be made to account for these differences and actions taken or

not taken to facilitate access to HE.

But even if “affirmative” action is taken to ease admittance to the tertiary sector

there is the issue of making the grade. Once in, how does one survive? Is this important

at all to educational policy makers? Are programs in place to assist “under-represented”

populations to compete with those who more traditionally attend higher education? Once

in how do you stay in is the question. This may or may not be of concern to educational

policy makers. This is not unrelated to the issue of output. Will those populations now

admitted learn the same things at the same level as the more traditional populations? And

once they graduate do they have the same life and work experiences as the dominant

groups? These are all difficult questions and often ignored in the typical “access to

higher education” discussion.

The issue gets further complicated when we look deeper into the variations in the

relationship between access and equity. Family income is the most obvious variable

when looking at these relationships. Income distribution among those admitted to HE is

strongly related to such measures as “capability poverty” (Sen 1999) where such basics

as nourishment, health, and education factor into the capacity of certain populations to

25

compete equitably with others on the road to HE admissions. Here is where

decentralization can become a disincentive for equity and access and a case can be made

for state intervention to level the playing field.

There is also great regional diversity in the Asia region as well as within countries

which factors into the access and equity equation. Regional disparities of certain

population groups may hinge on structural, political, or ethnic issues as certain groups

occupy “marginal lands” and find their opportunities for entrance to HE are also

marginalized. There are numerous policy issues here and many approaches to addressing

these issues have been tried: enhancing relevance and improving quality of rural schools,

utilizing vocational and technical education to address the alignment question, and

improving efficiencies so that there is more equitable distribution of resources between

and across regions. Whatever the approach, the regional disparity issue often looms large

and in cases such as China, has influenced national policy at the highest levels as

reference is consistently made to the “problem of the west”, in this case, western rural

China.

Once regional diversity is accounted for and one digs a little deeper, the issue of

socio-cultural diversity crops up. Here the familiar categories of differentiation such as

ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, gender, and other distinguishing characteristics become

central to policy making and influence HE access and equity strategies. A wide range of

responses to this form of diversity can be found from outright discrimination to various

forms of affirmative action. Often, the relationship between regional marginality and

socio-cultural marginality is strong.

26

Finally, structural responses and mechanisms round out the policy-making

dilemma. The glue that holds many of these equity issues in place are the administrative

structures of HE that manage budgets, teaching staff, and implement policies that have

direct effect on the equity and access issues outlined above. In addition, tracking

mechanisms are often in place to guide some secondary school leavers towards the world

of work and others to HEIs. The public-private debate enters in as Neoliberalism is

increasingly adopted as policy in the region and responses such as preparatory schools

(juku in Japan, buxiban in Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore; hakwon in Korea

and so on) provide a shadow educational system, available to all but at a price. Much

more can be said about the complexity of access and equity in the Asian region. The

factors discussed briefly above however provide a general idea of how a variety of

barriers exist to those seeking admission to various levels of HE.

Regional Issues

Central to the problem of access and equity, is of course, the question of cost. How does

one afford HE, who pays, how much, what mechanisms are available for financing this

much sought after resource? Here too there is great variation across the region, but also

some confluence. The literature on this topic is large. A recently compiled annotated

bibliography yielded over 400 citations (Johnstone 2007).1 Yet the financing of HE in

Asia is a moving target. Nations that once heavily subsidized HE for those fortunate

enough to be offered a space, now have complicated financing formulas which for the

27

student can often translate into a hefty personal cost. Others continue to offer substantial

state support. But the forces of Neoliberalism, that part of it which believes the greatest

equity will come from allowing the market to express itself in HE finance, have arrived in

Asia’s ministries of education. This is usually expressed as some form of “cost sharing”

and has been hotly debated. What seems clear, is that as the demand for higher education

has increased region-wide, it has done so in a climate of financial austerity (or perhaps, a

shift in financing priorities) so that government allocations for HE have not kept pace

with enrollments. This is reflected not just in student cost factors but also in the support

allocated for the entire infrastructure for HE, the physical plant, student-faculty ratios

(which have increased in many cases), declining faculty moral (what Altbach has called

the “decline of the guru”; Altbach 2003), and a rising level of student unrest.

But for the most part, it is the student and his/her family that bear the financial

and psychological brunt of this shift in HE finance resulting in a debt burden that did not

exist just ten years ago. A brief look at how this plays out in some nations in the region

is illustrative of the variations that exist. For example, in Singapore, a city-state with just

two universities and four polytechnics, tuition and fees are moderate with little variation.

The cost for international students is also only moderately higher, roughly 10 percent

more than for Singapore students. Student living expenses are also reasonable when

compared with national income levels and considering that about half of all HE students

live at home, lodging costs are moderate. Dormitories are available for those who do not

live at home as are hostels and other moderate lodgings. Food and other expenses are

well within national income levels. Finally, the costs of HE is heavily subsidized by the

Singapore government through tuition grants and the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme allows

28

students to pay for about 75-80 percent of their tuition costs (Singapore 2008). With

respect to the financial cost factor, then, HE access in Singapore is generally high and

available.

A quite different model exists in the Philippines, another island nation, with about

1,600 HEIs including about 370 public institutions and over 1,300 private HEIs. The

state sector is funded by the national government and the private sector from various

capital investments, contributions, fees, grants, loans, subsidies, and a variety of other

income sources. While the private institutions have a fair amount of autonomy the

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) nevertheless monitors them closely. The

demand for HE has always been high in the Philippines and expanding the private sector

has been a major mechanism for providing increased access. Private higher education is

estimated to enroll about three-quarters of all higher educations students as close to 90

percent of all HEIs are private, a higher proportion than any other nation in the region.

The country, however, has one of the lowest overall budget allocations among the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The share for higher education was

increased during the 1990s but decreased again in the context of the Asian economic

crisis. The principal feature that emerges, however, is the heavy reliance on the private

sector for HE access. And it is here that the cost factor becomes important as many of

these institutions are proprietary and it is estimated that tuition, fees, and other costs for

private HE are roughly half the average income for Filipino families (Philippines 2008).

CHED does offer through the Private Education Student Financial Assistance Program

(PESFA) a variety of grants and loans, which cover a portion of the costs associated with

attending those institutions. In the public sector, however, several financial assistance

29

schemes operate including the Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program (STFAP)

whereby an income-scaled system is used to charge higher fees for students from

wealthier families and lower to no fees charged for low-income families. Those at the

lowest end of the scale are also eligible for living allowances. Much of this is changing,

however, as deregulation has been taking place and equity concerns are rising (Torralba,

Dumol, and Manzon 2007).

Korea represents another case of high demand for HE and a broad expansion of

capacity in recent years. A point often made by Korean educators, however, is that

“quality control has not been able to keep pace with quantitative growth” (Korea 2007).

Although decentralization has been taking place, under the Education Law the state

continues to maintain strong supervisory powers when it comes to student admissions,

teaching staff quality, curriculum, and degree requirements and financing. Korea is also

a good example of cost sharing of HE between family, students, and government. A

heavily privatized HE system has meant that Korean families are accustomed to the

notion of tuition and relatively high cost of HE. Payment of such costs goes with the idea

that upward mobility is highly correlated with access to HE. Indeed, the role of the

market in Korea has been paramount and private financing has been the norm. This has

inevitably influenced access across social class as parents and students have had to bear

the brunt of financing HE. Indeed, the cost factors for HE reach back to the primary-

secondary levels where private tutoring adds to the overall costs associated with gaining

admission to the best universities and colleges. New initiatives are underway to focus on

the correct mix of merit-based and need based loan structures to ease the finance issue for

lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups (Kim and Lee 2004). Nevertheless, cost

30

factors play a disproportionate role in Korean HE and as Choi argues, “. . . there has been

criticism that educational reform is dogmatic and regressive along the lines of Neoliberal

ideology . . . critics say the government is shifting a greater proportion of educational

expenditure to overburdened consumers . . . amplifying inequality in educational quality

and opportunity according to affordability” (Choi 2007, 339).

Japan is another example of a HE system that is largely privatized and even more

so now that the public sector has entered a period of “corporatization.” With roughly 150

public HE institutions compared to almost 600 private institutions it has been the private

sector that has responded to the demand for greater access to HE in Japan. Close to 80

percent of the relevant age cohort have gained access to HE in Japan making it one of the

most inclusive systems in the world. Yet Japan’s share of the GDP devoted to HE is

among the lowest within the Organization for Economic and Co-operation Development

(OECD) nations. This also reflects the disproportionate role of the private sector as a

provider of tertiary education. The market has always been a powerful factor in the

financing of access to HE and with the advent of corporatization tuition fees have risen in

the public sector as well. Despite the heavily privatized and marketized nature of HE in

Japan, a variety of financial assistance schemes is available many through subsidies

offered by the Promotion and Mutual Aid Corporation for Private Schools in Japan.

Long-term, low interest rate loans help ease the financial burden among students of all

social classes and also help to improve the quality of the private sector. These subsidies,

however, have been decreasing since the 1980s and along with current demographic

trends have been contributing to the financial difficulties of many private institutions. As

is the case elsewhere, student loans play a large role in assisting students from lower SES

31

groups in gaining access to HE. The Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) has

since 2004 offered two types of student loans, one with a zero rate of interest but limited

in terms of academic selectivity and uses and another that is more flexible in use and

application but carries a prime rate interest. Both loans have a large degree of flexibility

with respect to terms of application and payback (Japan 2007).

The case of Indonesia is especially complex due to the geographic and

demographic context of HE access. Consisting of 17,000 islands and about 3,000 ethnic

groups the nation also has one of the lowest expenditures on education as a percentage of

GDP among low-income countries. These factors have led to a variety of inequities to

access to HE by region and income level. Rural areas enroll roughly half the number of

those in urban areas. And among low-income populations, enrolment in HE is about 20

percent that of high-income populations. However, unlike some other cases we have

discussed, public sector support for HE is high, funding between 80-90 percent of public

university budgets (Indonesia 2007). Private universities function much like foundations

and are basically tuition driven. Government support for HE comes out of two budgets,

the development budget (DIP), and the routine budget (DIK). Even with strong

governmental support public HE has an entrepreneurial component as most universities

generate discretionary funds from a variety of activities (including special fees charged

beyond tuition, special international projects, textbook publications, contract research

projects, selling of services, offering special customized courses, and so on). HE in

Indonesia is also going through a decentralization phase consistent with Neoliberalism.

Since 1999 a HE autonomy policy has been in place that allows HEIs to collect and set

tuition fees. They must also, however, structure such fees so that they are aligned with

32

student financial assistance schemes and they must coordinate with government officials

so that disadvantaged groups can cover their tuition costs (this is often done through

student loan procedures and a voucher program).

HE in Vietnam has begun to expand more recently and by 2001 consisted of about

171 institutions, 23 of which are considered “non-public”. It is decentralized in the sense

that some HEIs are under the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), some are

non-public, other ministries manage some and some are provincially controlled. In other

matters it remains centralized especially with respect to academic concerns. Enrollments

are growing rapidly as demand increases. Since the mid-1980s expansion has been

allowed in connection with tuition paying students, a move away from the previous

centrally planned quota system which was heavily subsidized. By the year 2000 the

number of tuition-paying students was four times that of those supported by government

scholarships. The decentralization policies and market-oriented programs have been a

factor in increased HE access of students from rural and low-income students. Roughly

30 percent of students from rural backgrounds attend four year programs although it must

be remembered that 75 percent of the population lives in rural areas (Vietnam 2007). The

two groups that continue to lag behind in access to HE are ethnic minorities (who usually

live in marginal areas) and rural girls. With the rise of the “non-public” sector the

influence of income on access to HE has increased and can be clearly seen in statistics

comparing enrollments in Vietnam’s different economic zones.

Because tuition fees in the public sector are generally low (15-30 percent of cost)

students’ flock to those programs that offer the greatest payoff in terms of employment,

thus resulting in over-enrollment in some programs and under-enrollment in others. The

33

HEIs for their part often avoid investing in programs with high infrastructure costs

inasmuch as tuition is fixed at a low rate. The result is often a lack of alignment between

graduates and the job market (Vietnam 2007). The newly arising non-public sector, at

least in theory, charges fees and tuitions to cover all of their costs and is widely thought

to be more efficient and effective than the public sector. However, because there is

generally a lack of accreditation measures, there is no evidence if this is in fact the case.

Cost factors for students and their parents have been increasing and are becoming more

of a burden than in pre-expansion days. Dormitory rooms (subsidized) are crowded and

off-campus housing, food, and other expenses have been going up. Numerous

scholarship programs are available, in the form of tuition waivers, subsidies for housing,

food, and learning materials, merit based awards for high achievement, and so on. Even

so, such support at the most only covers about one-third to one-half of living expenses.

Special scholarships are available for disadvantaged students (ethnic minorities, students

from marginal land areas, war invalids, orphans, etc.). Since 1994 a student loan

program has been implemented limited in scope to a small number of universities in the

Hanoi area. Interest rates are subsidized and the awards are made after one year of study

with high achievement. A family member or sponsor guarantees loans. Thus, Vietnam

provides a diversified approach to funding access to HE in the context of the transition to

a socialist-market economy.

Taiwan is another example of a setting where higher education has expanded

enormously in the past several decades; from one university and three independent

colleges in 1949 to 168 HEIs in 2004 (Taiwan 2007). Over a million students are

enrolled in these institutions. The enrollment rate for the entire tertiary sector is about 46

34

percent. Much of this growth can be attributed to the expansion of the private sector.

About 21 percent of government income is expended on education. A variety of

autonomy and decentralization policies has been implemented in recent years including

the replacement of the national examination system with a multiple channel admissions

process. HEIs both public and private have the power now to set their own fees and

tuitions while at the same time engaging in entrepreneurial activities to raise additional

funds. A mixture of parental and government support accounts for most of the costs of

HE in Taiwan. Need-based support is available from the government through the

Education Opportunity Grant Program for children of unemployed workers. Government

grant programs are also available for special cases of low-income families, children of

military, students excelling in mathematics and sciences, and students from areas

suffering natural disasters (earthquakes, etc.). It is only in the past several years that

additional programs in the form of grants to support students have been implemented by

the MOE generally based on family income. Finally, there are student loan programs for

students from middle and low-income families. In 2003 roughly half of all higher

education students were eligible for such support. Parents are generally co-signers of

such loans and interest rates are around three percent. The expansion of HEIs, the high

level of enrollments, and the financial support available have greatly increased access to

HE during the past decade in Taiwan (Taiwan 2007).

The case of China represents perhaps the largest scale massification of higher

education in the region which carried with it large-scale issues of access and equity. In a

multi-methods study of 10 HEIs in 2003, W. James Jacob (2006) found that many

students are limited in terms of access and equal educational opportunities based on SES,

35

geographic disparities associated with the rural-urban divide, and ethnic and language

backgrounds. Zheng Ruoling (2006) supports these conclusions and adds that educational

quality inevitably suffers when massification reforms are implemented at the rate of

recent Chinese higher education expansion. And the expansion has not let up as the

Chinese government continues to invest heavily in tertiary education as the proportion of

senior secondary school graduates attending some form of higher education rose to 75

percent by 2006 (Waldman 2008).

The results of a survey study on equity issues in higher education (Li 2006) help

illustrate the dimensions of higher education equity issues. The survey was conducted in

2004. Survey research was carried out at ten national and eight local HEIs and focused on

students (n = 15,294, with an 85.0 percent response rate). The institutions were stratified

by geographic region, such that 15 institutions were from the eastern region, one from the

middle region, and two from the western part of China. Schools were also stratified by

type. The results in general showed a mixed picture of access and equity. From 2000 to

2003, the percentage of students from the top three income quintiles declined from 20.90

percent to 17.36 percent, 26.34 percent to 20.57 percent, and 22.60 percent to 20.57

percent respectively. The student percentage from the low and lower-middle quintiles

showed obvious increases. Findings also indicate that the student proportion from urban

areas, especially large and middle-sized cities, steadily decreased from 2000 to 2003. The

proportion of students from counties also showed modest decrease during the same

period. Meanwhile, the proportions of students from counties, towns, and villages

showed increases during the same period. In 2003, the student percentage from large and

middle-sized cities was below 40 percent while that from counties, towns and villages

36

exceeded 60 percent. The analysis also shows a large disparity exists between income

levels and geographic location: higher incomes in the east and lower incomes in the west.

However, the student percentages from low-income families were higher than those from

high-income groups at middle and western region institutions. Cost of living and

operational costs are notably higher in the eastern and central regions than they are in the

western region.

The access and equity issue in China has been further complicated by the

implementation of two major funding projects. In order to improve the overall quality of

Chinese HEIs, construct national leading universities, and create world-class universities,

national and local governments of China implemented two key projects: Project 211

(1995) and Project 985 (1998) channeling billions of renminbi (RMB) towards the

nation’s top universities. The purpose of these two projects was to help China’s top

universities transition into world-class institutions. This meant that Projects 211 and 985

HEIs would have greater public financial support and better facilities than other

universities. Projects 211 and 985 helped enroll a larger percent of high-income students

than other HEIs. While universities that qualified as 211 and 985 HEIs received special

governmental financial support in an effort to improve higher education quality, this

emphasis on improved quality has not necessarily made these same HEIs more equitable.

The study above as well as additional current sample research conducted on the

issue of access and equity in higher education shows that opportunities for those sectors

of the population in the lower SES groups have improved but remain worse than those in

the upper groups. This study (Li 2006), conducted in 2004, showed that student

enrollment rates for higher education grew modestly for those students from rural areas

37

and lower income families. Another study achieved similar findings (Shi 2005). Shi also

found that from 1997 to 2001the number of higher education applicants from urban areas

grew at a more rapid rate than those from rural regions. After 2001 the situation has

changed somewhat as applicants from urban and rural areas have shown about the same

rate of increase. More and more students from rural areas are entering the academic track

to pursue a higher education. Zhou Ji, the Chinese Minister of Education identified

educational inequality as an important and growing problem. He argued in 2005

(Hawkins, Jacob, and Li 2008, 223) that “educational equity is an important problem; the

educational administrative departments must determine how to plan and coordinate the

delicate relationship between the quick educational fix on the one hand and overall

educational equity on the other.”

In order to address these issues of equity and access education laws have served

as the foundation of educational policy (Li and Min 2006). The Chinese Education Law

grants all Chinese the right to receive a basic education, regardless of ethnic background,

gender, religious belief, or occupation. It states, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of

China shall have the right and obligation to receive education. All citizens, regardless of

ethnic group, race, sex, occupation, property status, or religious belief, shall enjoy equally

opportunity for education according to law” (Article 9) (Li and Min 2006, 12). The China

Higher Education Law goes further and states that citizens, if qualified, also have the

right to higher education. In cases where students are unable to afford higher education or

an advanced degree (due to low SES or perhaps because of linguistic differences—Han

Chinese as a second language) the government provides financial and other assistance.

National minority regions generally are given preferential assistance over other regions

38

under a provision, which states: “The state assists and supports national minority regions

in the development of higher education and training of senior human resources for

minorities in the light of the characteristics and requirements of minorities (Article 8) . . .

. Citizens have the right to higher education according to law. The state adopts measures

to assist students of minority nationalities and students with financial difficulties to

receive higher education. . . . Institutions of higher learning must admit disabled students

who meet the admission standards set by the state and must not refuse to admit them for

their disabilities” (Article 9) (Li and Min 2006, 13).

The education laws obviously show the state’s “affirmative action” attitude to

education equity and equality. We can conclude from the laws that students who reside in

national minority regions are encouraged to attend and complete higher education

degrees, and in turn are expected to help meet the huge demand for skilled and

specialized human resources in the western regions of the country. And in article 54 of

the Chinese Higher Education Law, it states that students in institutions of higher

learning shall pay tuition fees in accordance with state provisions, but if they are from

low SES groups they may apply for financial assistance. In some cases, tuition and fees

can be reduced or waived altogether.

These legal provisions provide the basis by which China is seeking to address the

broad SES and other discrepancies that exist especially between rural and urban

education. In particular, several policy reforms have been initiated to focus on the issue

of financial assistance specifically with respect to higher education: the Announcement

on Higher Education Tuition Costs, the Government Subsidized Student Loan Scheme,

and the State Fellowship and Scholarship Program. The first reform focused on providing

39

direct financial assistance for those below the poverty line. HEIs are authorized to take

out 10 percent of tuition revenue for financially assisting students from low-income

families in need.

The government loan program provides loans to qualified students from low-

income families. And the third financial aid program focuses on providing scholarships

and fellowships to qualified students based on financial needs. It was established in 2005

and allocates over one billion RMB annually. Funds are distributed for living expenses.

Preference is given to HEIs and students in the western provinces as well as institutions

with a predominance of students majoring in farming, forestry, water conservation,

teacher education, geology, minerals, petroleum, and navigation.

Since 2005, the MOE has established the Sunshine Project, which makes public

information regarding enrollment policies, procedures, and results. Both government and

media provide the publicizing of this information (Li and Min 2006).

Of particular interest is a policy designed to link coastal institutions with their

counterparts in the interior. Since 2001, the MOE has established the Counterpart Aiding

Project between leading universities and HEIs in western regions. Four years later the

project was extended and focused on developing HEIs in Xizang and Xinjiang Provinces.

This project links all four-year HEIs in Xizang and Xinjiang provinces with elite

universities in the east and coastal regions. This higher education partnership project

provides funding and incentives for exchange opportunities for students and faculty

members, that would otherwise not be possible.

Institution building has also received attention. The Action Plan for Invigorating

Education from 2003 to 2007 focused on the development of HE educational institutions,

40

finance, human resource management, leadership skills, and the promotion of talent in

the western region. Continual support is also given to operate at least one high-level

university in each province, autonomous region, and municipality directly under the

central government of the western region. Exchange and cooperation programs are also

established between participating HEIs in the western region and prestigious institutions

throughout China.

Many of these reforms were legitimized in the 10th Five-Year Plan for National

Education Undertaking, which placed a heavy, simultaneous emphasis on educational

development. Policies and expenses were established and prioritized toward educational

development in the western region. Support should be primarily given to the development

of basic education and secondary vocational education. Two-year higher vocational

education was also made a priority especially if graduates would develop the necessary

skills and, following graduation, fill much-needed occupations in the western region.

Government funding efforts to support each province (autonomous region and

municipality directly under the central government) were established to run a number of

secondary vocational schools and a higher-level university. Funding was also made

available to construct normal universities in the western region. The meeting of the

Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing in 2004 has

reinforced these policies and other new initiatives. It is likely that efforts to focus

attention on the western regions and improving higher educational access and equality

will continue to be a priority of the Chinese government.

Conclusion

41

The picture that emerges in Asia with respect to access, equity, and higher education is

understandably still coming into focus. On a scale from low-cost/state subsidized cost-

sharing for higher education to high personal cost/privatized funding, nations in the

region can be seen to be spread out with Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam on the low-

cost end, and Korea and Philippines on the high personal cost end with Taiwan, Japan,

and China clustered in the middle. Throughout the region in varying degrees all nations

are experiencing growing tuition fees in both public and private institutions as well as a

rising cost of living environment. An increase in private HE as well as the privatization

of public HE can also be seen as a regional trend. Yet, policy-makers are not unaware of

the need to provide support and engage in some form of affirmative action to increase

access for students in outlying marginal regions, ethnic minorities, and other historically

excluded groups. Some of these policies have yet to be fully realized while in other

locations it is clear the governments are making serious efforts to address this volatile

issue or risk increased social instability.

As costs rise, numerous other issues will come to the fore and are worthy of more

study. HEIs will engage in greater development efforts, societies will rethink

philanthropic traditions, the role of alumni will be redefined as potential financial

partners of HEIs, linkages with the private sector will increase as a means of student

support, and more transparency will be required of parents and students in order to

quality for financial assistance. It remains to be seen if all of this will significantly alter

the increasing gap between those who have and those who do not, and whether the future

will reveal HE systems that are open to a wide-range of SES groups or open only to the

affluent.

42

Notes

1. D. Bruce Johnstone is Director of the International Comparative Higher

Education Finance and Accessibility Project at the State University of New York,

Buffalo from which much of the country data in this paper are derived.

References

Altbach, P.G. 2003. The Decline of the Guru. New York: MacMillan Press.

Choi, S. 2007. “Schooling in South Korea.” In Going to School in East Asia, ed. G. A.

Postiglione and J. TanWestport. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Farrell, J. P. 2007. “Equality of education: a half century of comparative evidence seen

from the new millennium.” In Comparative Education: the Dialectic of the

Global and Local, 3rd edition. ed. R. F. Arnove and C. A. Torres. New York:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Hawkins, J. N. 2007. “The intractable dominant educational paradigm.” In Changing

Education: Leadership, Innovation, and Development in a Globalizing Asia

Pacific, ed. P.D. Hershock, M. Mason, and J.N. Hawkins. Hong Kong: Springer

Press.

Hawkins, J. N., W. James Jacob, and Wenli Li. 2008. “Higher Education in

China: Access, Equity, and Equality.” In Inequality in Education: Comparative

43

and International Perspectives, ed. D. B. Holsinger and W. J. Jacob. Dordrecht.

The Netherlands: Springer.

Indonesia. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Jacob, J. 2006. “Social justice in Chinese Higher Education: Issues of equity and access.”

International Review of Education 52 (1): 149-169.

Japan. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Johnstone, B. 2007. Annotated Bibliography: International Comparative Higher

Education Finance and Accessibility Project. New York: State University of

New York, Buffalo.

Kim, S. and J. H. Lee. 2004. “Changing facets of Korean higher education: market

competition and the role of the state.” Paper presented at Korean Development

Institute and the World Bank, 2004.

Korea. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Lee, W. O. 2002. “Equity and Access to Education: Themes, Tensions and Policies.”

Education in Developing Asia 4. Hong Kong: CERC.

Li, W. L. 2006. “The role of higher education financing policy for providing equal

enrollment opportunity and resource distribution.” Peking University Education

Review 4 (1): 33-46.

Li, W. L. and W. Min. 2006. “Access to higher education China.” IAU Horizons 12 (2):

12-13.

44

Philippines. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Shi, F. 2005. “The higher education access opportunity gap between urban and rural

areas is narrowing.” People’s Daily, February 16, p. 11.

Singapore. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Taiwan. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Torralba, A., P. Dumol, and M. Manzon. 2007. “Schooling in the Philippines.” In Going

to School in East Asia, ed. G. A. Postiglione and J. Tan. Westport Connecticut:

Greenwood Press.

Vietnam. 2007. ICHEFAP. Available online at:

http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/IntHigherEdFinance/publications.html

Waldman, C. 2008. China’s Educational Performance: Implications for Global

Competitiveness, Social Stability, and Long-Term Development. Virginia:

Manufacturer’s Alliance/MAPI.

Zhang, R. L. 2006. “Chinese college entrance examinations (CCEE): Problems and

reforms.” Paper presented at Teacher’s College, Columbia University, October

24.