教育專業(yè)外文翻譯---高等教育成本分擔中的財政與政治

1、<p>　　The Economics and Politics of Cost Sharing in Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives</p><p>　　D. Bruce.Johnstone</p><p><b>　　I</b></p><p>　　Cost- Sharing

2、in Higher Education</p><p>　　The term cost-sharing, in reference to higher education, begins with an assumption that the costs of higher education in all countries and in all situations can be viewed as eman

3、ating from four principal parties: (1) the government, or taxpayers; (2) parents; (3) students; and/or (4) individual or institutional donors.1</p><p>　　The governement. </p><p>　　Most economist

4、s in market-oriented economies prefer to view the source of public revenue not as “government,” but as people who pay taxes. Taxes can be paid by most citizens directly and visibly, as in taxes upon earnings, property, r

5、etail sales, general consumption, or special goods such as gasoline, cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, in line travel, or imported goods. Or, taxes can be paid indirectly and largely invisibly. Such indirect taxes, largel

6、y invisible to the average citizen, may origin</p><p><b>　　Parents. </b></p><p>　　The second party to cost-sharing is the parents, who may pay some of the costs of higher education t

7、hrough payment of tuition, or bear some of the costs of student living, sometimes by keeping the student at home. Parents can cover these extra costs from their current income, or in part from past savings, or even in pa

8、rt through borrowing--that is, drawing on future earnings. Grandparents or other members of an extended family, or even members of a village or a church, can also be “parents” hen</p><p>　　Students. </p&

9、gt;<p>　　The third party to share the burden of higher educational costs is the student, who can bear some of the costs through term-time or summer vacation earnings, or through loans. The loans, in turn, can be p

10、aid back when the student has graduated and is employed, like any regular loan, in monthly installments, or repaid through deductions that the employer removes from the graduate’s pay (like the withholding of income taxe

11、s, or contributions to an insurance or pension fund) and forwards to the len</p><p>　　Individual or institutional donors. </p><p>　　The last party to cost-sharing is the donor, whose contributio

12、ns may go either toward improving the quality of the university (and thus presumably the educational experience) toward the overall institutional budget, thus reducing the amount that must be passed on to parents and stu

13、dents directly, or toward some students, in the form of grants or scholarships, presumably in substantial measure based on the students’ financial need, or the students’ and/or their parents’ low income. These donors m&l

14、t;/p><p><b>　　II</b></p><p>　　Forms of Cost-Sharing</p><p>　　The term cost-sharing as it has come to be used in higher educational finance, and as used in this paper, refer

15、s to the shift of at least some of the higher educational cost burden from government, or taxpayers, to parents and students. Cost-sharing is most associated with tuition and with fees or “user charges,” especially on go

16、vernmentally- or institutionally-provided room and board. However, a policy shift in the direction of greater cost-sharing can take one or more of seven main forms: </p><p>　　1. The beginning of tuition (whe

17、re higher education was formerly free).</p><p>　　This would be the case in China in 1997, for example, or Britain in 1998, or as most recently announced (in November 2000 to begin in 20002) in Austria. </

18、p><p>　　2. The very sharp rise in tuition (where public sector tuition already exists). </p><p>　　A shift in the direction of greater cost-sharing requires that the rise in tuition be greater than

19、the rise in institutional costs generally in order for the government’s, or taxpayer’s, share to be lessened, and the parent’s and / or student’s shares to rise commensurately. This has been the case recently in the US,

20、where many state governments have failed to maintain their former “shares” of public university expenses and as public university tuitions have been increased very rapidly to “fill </p><p>　　3. The impositio

21、n of “user charges,” or fees to recover the expenses of institutionally provided and formerly heavily subsidized residence and dining halls. </p><p>　　This has been happening in China and in most countries,

22、including African countries where subsidized living costs were said by the World Bank to absorb the bulk of many country’s higher educational budgets. In the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, for

23、example, where higher education remains “free,” the expenses of higher education are exclusively the costs of student living, which are very high in those countries, and which are “shared” neither by the taxpayer nor (at

24、 lea</p><p>　　at were once part of the former Soviet Union</p><p>　　4. The diminution of student grants or scholarships.</p><p>　　This is sometimes accomplished sometimes simply by

25、“freezing” grant or loan levels, or holding them constant in the face of general inflation, which then erodes their real value. This happened to the once very generous grants in Britain (which were later abandoned altoge

26、ther), and has happened to the value of the maintenance grants in Russia and most of the rest of the former Soviet republics, and in Eastern and Central Europe.</p><p>　　5. This can be accomplished through a

27、 diminution of the subsidies on student loans (similar to the diminution in the value of non-repayable grants), and might be accomplished through an increase in interest rates, or a reduction in the length of time that i

28、nterest is not charged, or through a reduction in the numbers of loans for which the repayments, for any number of reasons, are forgiven. Or the effective cost recovery might be accomplished through a tightening of colle

29、ctions, or a reduction </p><p>　　6. The limitation of capacity in the low or tuition free public sector together with the official encouragement (and frequently a public subsidization) of atuition dependent

30、private higher education sector. </p><p>　　A number of countries—notably Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries in Latin America and East Asia--have avoided much governmental e

31、xpenditure on higher education by keeping a limited public sector—usually elite and selective—and shifting much of the costs of expanded participation to parents and students through encouraging private (often profit-mak

32、ing) higher educational institutions.</p><p><b>　　III</b></p><p>　　Examples of Cost-Sharing and its Worldwide Growth</p><p>　　As seen above, cost-sharing takes on many d

33、ifferent forms. But in whatever form or forms, cost-sharing is generally increasing throughout the world at the start of the 21st</p><p><b>　　century </b></p><p>　　? The US, where th

34、e costs of higher education--high and rapidly rising over time to begin with--have been rising even faster in that share borne by parents and students in the form of tuition fees as the share borne by governments, or tax

35、payers, has been diminishing. Public sector tuitions and fees as reported by the College Board (2003) and as analyzed for their appropriateness by Johnstone (2001) vary widely—mainly by state and type of institution rath

36、er than by degree program--but range for u</p><p>　　? The UK in 1997 became the first European country to impose more than a nominal tuition fee—although it is still low by US public college and university s

37、tandards. The tuition fee in England and Wales is more than $1500 and can be covered by need based grants and loans, to be repaid as a portion of their earnings, or “income contingently.” The Government, in the form of a

38、 white paper that is “on the table” in the year 2003, is proposing to replace this “up front” tuition fee with a tuition fee </p><p>　　? Australia, inaugurated the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)

39、 in 1989, officially described as a “… fair and equitable way of ensuring that students contribute to the cost of their higher education.” The tuition in 2001 was about $2600</p><p>　　(US) for undergraduate

40、arts and sciences, but could be borrowed and repaid as an income contingent loan at a rate of interest—like that proposed for the UK—that would mirror the prevailing Australian rate of inflation.</p><p>　　6?

41、 In much of Latin America, as well as much of East Asia, cost-sharing and revenue diversification generally have taken the form of increasing reliance on a tuition and fee-dependent private higher education sector (where

42、 the public universities continue to feature either no, or very low, tuition). This leads to the anomaly of students from upper and upper-middle income families, frequently benefiting from vastly superior (and often priv

43、ate) secondary education, and thus able to pass the rigoro</p><p>　　? Russia, where higher education by law must be without cost to the student, in the early years of the 21st century is securing up to 50 pe

44、rcent of all university revenue from tuition through the dual track tuition, described above. This was also a “l(fā)egal loophole” used by the Chinese prior to 1997, but who dropped the dual track tuition fee in favor of a u

45、nitary tuition policy out of a concern for the awkwardness and the potential for abuse in a system that made such a momentous distinction bet</p><p>　　? India, where tuition-supported private higher educatio

46、n is growing and where the several official commissions have reported and recommended the inauguration of some limited cost-sharing, still cannot (as of 2003) openly embrace even the concept, much less the actual impleme

47、ntation of an official policy of tuition fees.</p><p>　　? China, also still officially a Socialist country, in which higher education was once assumed to be just another part of the vast public sector, like

48、health care or retirement pensions, the costs of which were supposed to be born by the government, charges tuition to nearly all students in the neighborhood of 3500-5000 Yuan (US$400-600).</p><p>　　New form

49、s of student loans and means-tested grants in 2003 are only being developed, as reported by Shen and Li (2003).What these and countless other illustrations show is that governments throughout the world are embracing—howe

50、ver tentatively and frequently with euphemisms and political “spin, --some version of cost sharing in the form of tuition, user fees, and official encouragement of a tuition-dependent private higher education sector.<

51、/p><p>　　高等教育成本分擔中的財政與政治</p><p><b>　　約翰斯通</b></p><p>　　一、高等教育成本分擔</p><p>　　高等教育成本分擔這個術語源于這樣一個假設，即高等教育的成本可以看成來自四大塊：1) 政府、納稅人；</p><p>　　2) 家長；3) 學生；

52、4) 個人或機構(gòu)捐助者。下面詳細闡明各部分所承擔的成本。</p><p>　　1 ．政府 許多市場經(jīng)濟國家的經(jīng)濟學家更傾向于認為公共資金來源于納稅人而不是“政府”。稅收可以由公民直接地或顯性地交納，如收入稅、財產(chǎn)稅、零售稅以及對汽油、煙卷、酒類、航空旅游、進口物品等征收的消費稅；稅收亦可通過間接或隱蔽的形式交納，這類間接稅對普通百姓來說是看不見的，如營業(yè)稅和企業(yè)所得稅，就是以更高價格的形式由消費者最終承擔。如果價

53、格由政府控制，像過去多數(shù)社會主義國家那樣，或者如果企業(yè)不能以漲價的形式將稅賦轉(zhuǎn)嫁給消費者，那么，稅收就只能由雇工以低工資的形式負擔。最后，政府還可以不通過稅收的形式而通過印制鈔票的形式來剝奪公民的購買力，即通過財政赤字、通貨膨脹導致公民的工資和資產(chǎn)的實際價值的消損而將購買力轉(zhuǎn)移給政府。</p><p>　　2. 學生家長 他們以付學費，或承擔學生的部分生活費或有時讓學生住在家里等形式分擔高等教育成本，家長從他們的

54、現(xiàn)期收入中負擔這些成本，或部分來自儲蓄存款，甚至部分還是借來的(這實際上是來自于未來的收入)。祖父母或大家庭中的其它成員， 如果他們資助學生的話，甚至是鄰里或教友也都可以歸為“家長”之列。</p><p>　　3 ．學生 他們通過勤工助學或暑期打工的形式，或通過借款來負擔部分成本。學生貸款可以在學生畢業(yè)后</p><p>　　或受雇后，或者按月分期償還，或者由雇主從該畢業(yè)生的工資收入中扣除

55、一部分轉(zhuǎn)還給貸款人。學生貸款還可以按收入比例償還的形式或通過其它類似的形式，如畢業(yè)生收入附加稅來還清本息(假定貸款人是政府的話)。在所有情況下，無論是傳統(tǒng)的分期償還制還是按收入比例償還制，對學生來說，最重要的不是貸款的形式，而是借貸后還款的總數(shù)、利率以及年限。</p><p>　　4 ．個人和機構(gòu)捐助者 他們可能是捐贈給大學，然后一般由大學根據(jù)學生的經(jīng)濟狀況，給家庭收入低的學</p><p&g

56、t;　　生發(fā)獎學金。這些捐助者或許早已去世，但他們捐給大學的大量的捐款卻作為捐贈基金的形式(這在美國是很普遍的)保留下來了，只用基金的增值部分來作獎學金或彌補大學的運行費之不足。這些捐助實際上能永久存續(xù)。捐助人也許是個人或基金會，他們現(xiàn)期捐款以降低高教成本，否則這些成本就要由其他人來分擔。當大學向來自窮困家庭但有才華的學生提供特別的經(jīng)過經(jīng)濟狀況調(diào)查后的助學金時，大學本身似乎也是捐助人，但這種情況下，真正的捐助人更有可能是富裕學生的家長，

57、他們可能比要求他們分擔的教學成本要多，但他們或許會認為大學設立一些必需的獎學金是提高大學的質(zhì)量和聲譽所必不可少的——因而這也是大學的合法性支出。</p><p><b>　　二、成本分擔的形式</b></p><p>　　成本分擔主要與學雜費及由政府或?qū)W校提供的住宿的“使用費”相聯(lián)系。然而更大力度的成本分擔的政策性轉(zhuǎn)移可能會以下列六種形式中的一兩種進行。</p&

58、gt;<p>　　1．開始繳交學費(這些國家過去高等教育是免費的)。如中國1997 年開始收費，英國1998 年開始收費，以及奧地利最近(2000 年11 月)宣布要收費就是這種類型。</p><p>　　2．學費快速上漲(這些國家公立高校過去已收學費)。成本分擔的轉(zhuǎn)移意味著學費的增長要快于高校成本的增長，以使政府或納稅人分擔的份額減少而家長和學生分擔的比例要相應增加。最近美國就屬這種情況，許多州政

59、府沒有維持以前公立高校支出中所占的份額(我們要記住美國舉辦公立高校是州政府的責任而不是聯(lián)邦政府的責任)，而公立高校的學費卻增長迅猛以彌補州政府投資減少后留下的經(jīng)費空缺。</p><p>　　3．負擔“使用費”或雜費以補償由學院提供以前由學院補貼良多的膳宿費。中國及多數(shù)國家(包括一些非洲國家)就是如此。世界銀行說，過去這些國家資助膳宿費占去許多國家高教預算的一大塊。例如在瑞典、挪威、芬蘭、丹麥等北歐國家，目前的高等

60、教育仍然是“免費”的，高教收費的只是學生的住宿費，而住宿費在這些國家是很高的，但這些費用既不是由納稅人負擔也不是由家長負擔(至少名義上是這樣)，而是完全由學生本人靠學生貸款來負擔，而學生貸款又是由納稅人在某種程度上以還款補貼的形式間接分擔的。</p><p>　　4．減少學生助學金或獎學金。有時僅僅是通過“凍結(jié)”助學金或貸款水平來實現(xiàn)的，或通過在嚴重通貨膨脹時助學金保持不變而實際上在貶值的方式來完成，英國就有過慷

61、慨的助學金，后來也徹底放棄了。俄羅斯及其它大多數(shù)前蘇聯(lián)獨立出來的國家、東歐中歐國家，雖然維持了助學金水平，但也貶值了。</p><p>　　5．增加學生貸款的有效回收。這可以通過減少對學生貸款的補貼的形式來實現(xiàn)(這點類似于毋須償還的助學金的貶值)，也可以通過提高利率或利率不變但縮短還款期限來實現(xiàn)，還可以通過減少貸款數(shù)額(其中一部分還款是因為各種原因要減免掉)來實現(xiàn)。有效的成本回收還可以通過加緊貸款回收，減少拖欠以

62、及不論是否提前還款而實際利率不變等形式來實現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　6．政府鼓勵并經(jīng)常補助靠學費來維持的私立高等教育。許多國家——尤其是日本、韓國、菲律賓、印度尼、西亞、巴西及其它拉丁美洲及東亞國家——通過舉辦數(shù)量有限的公立高校(通常這些高校都是精英型的、選擇性的)來避免政府對高等教育的過多投資，并且通過鼓勵舉辦私立高等教育機構(gòu)(一般都是贏利性的)將擴大的高等教育參與的成本轉(zhuǎn)嫁給家長和學生。</p>

63、<p>　　三、成本分擔全球增長的案例</p><p>　　?在美國，高教成本一直很高而且增長很快，而家長和學生以繳納學費的形式所分擔的成本增長更快，因為由政府或納稅人近年所分擔的比例在下降。公立高校的學雜費差異很大，但對本科生收費一般低至2000 美元，高至4000-5000 美元。學生年人均總開支上社區(qū)學院且住在家里低至5000 美元，而上名牌私立高校加住宿可高至35000 美元。但是在美國聯(lián)邦政

64、府、各州政府及高校本身有各種各樣的建立在經(jīng)濟狀況調(diào)查基礎上的助學金及有一定補貼的學生貸款，這樣所有的學生都至少能上得起公立大學或?qū)W院，而才華突出的學生則無論家庭收入如何都能保證上得起最貴的大學，因為有各種各樣的學生貸款及勤工助學的機會。</p><p>　　?在英國、荷蘭 及最近的奧地利開始征收學費，而這些地方高等教育是“免費”的——也就是說由普通納稅人、公民及消費者付費。英國的學費大約為1500 美元。<

65、/p><p>　　?在澳大利亞“高等教育貢獻方案”開始于1989 年，這個方案被官方描述為“?讓學生分擔高教成本的公平、合理的方案?！比ツ晁囆g及理科類的學費為2600 美元，但可以反映澳大利亞通貨膨脹率的利率，然后按收入比例還款的方式還清貸款。換句話說，澳大利亞的學生要按實際條款償還所借款項。</p><p>　　?在拉丁美洲及亞洲大多數(shù)國家，“成本分擔”及籌資多元化則更多地依賴以借學費來運行

66、的私立高等教育，而公立高等教育則仍然不收學費或收很低的學費。這會導致中高收入家庭學生的錄取率更高，因為他們在高中階段就占優(yōu)勢，更容易通過競爭激烈的公立大學入學考試而享受“免費”的高等教育，而普通學生及中低收入家庭學生及農(nóng)家子弟則要么被排斥在大學之外，要么被迫付學費去上更低層次的私立高校。這種“公平”受到人們的質(zhì)疑，政府也感到有壓力要去尋求一種讓上公立高校的學生及家長分擔一些高教成本的辦法。</p><p>　　?

67、在俄羅斯，法律規(guī)定高等教育是免收學費的，但現(xiàn)在俄羅斯卻有20%多的高教經(jīng)費是來自學費。這種顯然是不正常情況的答案就在于：對有資格享受免費高等教育的“學生”作了嚴格的限定，因而無權享受免費高等教育的學生人數(shù)就大增。這就是中國人所熟悉的“法律上的漏洞”。中國過去也曾實行過“學費雙軌制”，1997年則開始實行了統(tǒng)一的學費政策，因為考慮到雙軌制弊端及被濫用的可能性，這種制度下學生同樣上大學并完成學業(yè)，但在收費上卻有天壤之別。</p>

68、<p>　　?在印度，由學費支持的私立高等教育在不斷增長，有幾個正規(guī)的委員會提出報告并建議實行有限的成本</p><p>　　分擔，但政府似乎不敢公開接納這種觀念，更不用說真正實施收費政策。</p><p>　　?在中國，過去高等教育像醫(yī)療及退休金一樣被認為是一項公益事業(yè)，高等教育的經(jīng)費自然被認為要由政</p><p>　　府負擔?，F(xiàn)在中國的學費大約是

69、3500-5000 元人民幣(也就是400-600 美元，有的地方可能更高一些)。學費已開始成為一種學生上學的經(jīng)濟障礙，因為學生貸款和貧困助學金制度還不夠完善。</p><p>　　上述例子表明，全球各國政府都在接受成本分擔的理念開始征收學費、使用費，并鼓勵發(fā)展依靠學費運行的</p><p><b>　　私立高等教育。</b></p><p>

70、　　四、成本分擔的理論依據(jù)</p><p>　　贊成成本分擔的理論依據(jù)有以下幾種。一種依據(jù)是，將一部分成本轉(zhuǎn)移給付得起學費的家長，并在經(jīng)濟狀況調(diào)查基礎上對付不起學費的人以資助，這朝公平邁進了一大步。這是主張市場導向的新古典或新自由經(jīng)濟學家的經(jīng)典論據(jù)。他們認為，全球私立高等教育的蓬勃發(fā)展清楚地表明，家長和學生都認識到了高等教育存在著巨大的個人收益，因而也應該讓他們分擔一些成本。如果考慮以下四種因素時，這種論點特別有

71、說服力，即：(1) 高等教育仍然由少部分人分享；(2) 那些“少部分人”主要來自中上家庭；(3) 政府用以資助所謂“免費”高等教育的稅收大部分來自按比例或累退稅率征收的銷售稅收入及企業(yè)所得稅，或來自于印制鈔票，而這又通過通貨膨脹使貨幣的購買力下降而讓中低收入家庭承擔；(4) 根據(jù)經(jīng)濟狀況而給予的助學金和很便利的貸學金總是有限的。相反，在高等教育入學率很高、又與父母的經(jīng)濟收入和社會地位不相關聯(lián)而且稅收又實施累進稅率的國家，也就是說稅收更多

72、地靠有錢人的國家，或者既有建立在經(jīng)濟狀況調(diào)查基礎上的助學金及學生貸款普遍有效的國家，所謂的成本分擔中的公平問題就不那么突出。</p><p>　　另外一種依據(jù)是，成本分擔仍然符合新自由經(jīng)濟傾向，因而能得到這樣一個假設的支持：成本分擔更有效率，更關心市場，至少在既有競爭又有由消費者承擔成本的國家是如此。顯然，在高等教育領域就像在其它領域一樣，存在著過分的“消費者敏感”，在那里消費者(學生或家長)可能很難判斷他們所要

73、購買的東西的價值，而且也很容易為廣告所誤導，或者被“消費欺詐”所蒙騙。但是傳統(tǒng)古典大學在全球日益被看作是一成不變的自我服務的象牙塔，尤其在政府讓其壟斷高水平的高等教育的國家和在缺少刺激讓其更能滿足學生和家長的需要或滿足更大的經(jīng)濟社會需求的國家更是如此。大學和學院無論公立還是私立，都必須為生源而競爭，并為無效和不關心社會需求而承擔后果。這樣，高校就更有可能提供優(yōu)質(zhì)的教育，更能滿足學生的需求，而不是僅僅為政府利益和教師的便利而開辦。還有一種