Skip Navigation

CESifo Economic Studies 2008 54(2):204-228; doi:10.1093/cesifo/ifn016
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelchtermans, S.
Right arrow Articles by Verboven, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Regulation of Program Supply in Higher Education: Lessons from a Funding System Reform in Flanders

Stijn Kelchtermans* and Frank Verboven{dagger}

*Catholic University of Leuven and Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (Ehsal/HUB), e-mail: Stijn.Kelchtermans{at}hubrussel.be.
{dagger}Catholic University of Leuven and C.E.P.R. (London), e-mail: Frank.Verboven{at}econ.kuleuven.be.

It has become well documented that the performance gap between European and US universities is at least partly due to lower spending on higher education in Europe. Rather than raising the public budget or promoting private contributions, many governments have attempted to make public spending more efficient in various ways. This article reports the results from a proposed funding system reform in Flanders (Belgium), which aimed to save costs by reducing the diversity and duplication of study programs. We draw the following lessons. While reducing program diversity may save on fixed costs, this is typically insufficient to compensate for consumer surplus losses due to low student mobility. Furthermore, decentralized financial incentives mechanisms may be ineffective since they may often promote program cuts when this is undesirable, and vice versa. These findings illustrate the difficulties with regulatory reforms that mainly aim to reduce costs. Hence, the question how to raise total spending on higher education (whether through public or private means) cannot be avoided. (JEL codes: I20; I23; C25)

Key Words: Higher education • program diversity • student mobility • policy reform.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.