Institutional Monopoly of the Higher Education System: National and Regional Level
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2022-4-12Keywords:
institutional monopoly, higher education, universities, higher education system, concentration index, Lerner index, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, k-concentration, rental behaviourAbstract
In the context of competition for resources, the higher education is characterised by the monopolisation of the system. The present study addresses the question of the applicability of the term monopolisation to the education system as a socially significant sector. The concept of institutional monopoly is understood as the establishment of control not by a specific university or a group of universities, but by their founder acting in the interests of the state. The article reveals specific features of institutional monopoly. Using the proposed methodological tools, the study examines resource allocation and the manifestation of elements of institutional monopoly in the higher education system. The calculations were conducted for universities subordinate to the Ministry of Education and Science and the Government of the Russian Federation. Thus, two principles of financing the higher education system of the Russian Federation can be distinguished: equalising principle (investing in the public good in order to preserve regional universities and reduce the outflow of youth) and differentiating principle (increasing the qualitative and positional characteristics of the best performing universities). In some areas, the system has signs of oligopoly. For example, 4 universities occupy 43 % of the market in terms of the concentration of talented students, and the calculated Lind index showed that only 3 universities are the main market players. However, with regard to financial resources, the higher education system of the Russian Federation can be described as low-concentrated. Thus, elements of institutional monopoly are present in the Russian higher education system. Simultaneously, there are two types of universities receiving resources: (1) leaders capable of creating and maintaining productive organisations (rent contributes to the formation of positional characteristics of universities); (2) less competitive universities playing an important role in preserving regional human capital by reducing the outflow of youth due to educational migration (rent is an investment in education as a public good).
References
Agasisti, T. (2011). Performances and spending efficiency in Higher Education: a European comparison through non-parametric approaches. Education Economics, 19, 199-224. DOI: 10.1080/09645290903094174
Birdsall, N. (1996). Public Spending on Higher Education in Developing Countries: Too Much or Too Little? Economics of Education Review, 15(4), 407-419. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7757(96)00028-3.
Clark, B. R. (1977). Academic power in Italy: bureaucracy and oligarchy in a national university system. Chicago; London: University of Chicago press, 215.
Clark, B. R. (2019). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective [Sistema vysshego obrazovaniya: akademicheskaya organizatsiya v kross-natsionalnoy perspektive]. Trans. from English. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 360. (In Russ.)
Danilenko, L. (2013). The phenomenon of rent-seeking behavior in institutional aspect. Mir Rossii [Universe of Russia], 22(3), 35-59. (In Russ.)
Dementyev, V. V. (2003). Ekonomika kak sistema vlasti [Economy as a system of power]. Ukraine, Donetsk: Chestnut, 403. (In Russ.)
Fridman, A. & Verbetskaia, M. (2020). Government regulation of the market for higher education. The Journal of the New Economic Association, 45(1), 12-43. DOI: 10.31737/2221-2264-2020-45-1-1.
Geiger, R. L. (2018). Knowledge and money. Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace [Znaniya i dengi. Issledovatelskie universitety i paradoks rynka]. Trans. from English. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 408. (In Russ.)
Gordon, W. & Yen I. (1995). Costs, Prices, Subsidies, and Aid in US Higher Education. Discussion Paper Number 32. Williamstown: Williams College, 47.
Gwin, C. (2001). A guide for industry study and the analysis of firms and competitive strategy. Boston: Babson College, 40.
Hirschman, A. O. (1964). The Paternity of an Index. The American Economic Review, 54(5), 761.
Horta, H. Y., Huisman, J. & Heitor, M. (2008). Does Competitive Research Funding Encourage Diversity in Higher Education? Science and Public Policy, 35(3), 146-158. DOI: 10.3152/030234208X299044.
Kotsofana, T. V. & Stazhkova, P. S. (2011). Comparative analysis of concentration indicators application: case of Russian banking sector. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ekonomika [St. Petersburg University Journal of Economic Studies], 4, 30-40. (In Russ.)
Leshukov, O., Platonova, D. & Semyonov, D. (2015). Does Competition Matter? The Efficiency of Regional Higher Education Systems and Competition: Case of Russia. M: National Research University Higher School of Economics. No. WP BRP 29/EDU/2015, 18.
Linda, R. (1976). Methodology of concentration analysis applied to the study of Industries and Markets. ECC Commission, Bruxelles-Luxembourg, 160.
Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1-39. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x.
Marginson, S. (2017). The Public Good Created by Higher Education Institutions in Russia. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies Moscow], 3, 8-36. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-3-8-36.
Naldi, M. & Flamini, M. (2014). Correlation and Concordance between the CR4 Index and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. SSRN Electronic Journal 2502764, 16. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2502764.
North, D., Wallis, J., Webb, S. & Weingast, B. (2012). In the Shadow of Violence: Lessons for Limited Access Societies. Trans. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 3, 4-31. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2012-3-4-31 (In Russ.)
Ohkawa, M. (1978). Government-Type and Market-Type Higher Education: A Comparative Survey of Financing Higher Education in the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States and Japan. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 19(1/2), 16-32.
Aslund, A. (1996). The Rent-oriented Behavior in the Russian Economy in Transition. Trans. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 8, 99-108 (In Russ.)
Lerner, P. (1934). The concept of monopoly and the measurement of monopoly. Review of Economic Studies, 1, 157–175.
Pelagidis, T. & Mitsopoulos, M. S. (2006). State Monopoly in Higher Education as a Rent Seeking Industry in Greece. Journal of Educational Planning and Administration, XX(3), 299-312.
Rassokha, R. R. (2013). Institutsionalnyy monopolizm: osobennosti funktsionirovaniya i instrumenty regulirovaniya v rossiyskoy ekonomike [Institutional monopolism: features of functioning and regulatory instruments in the Russian economy]. Saratov: SGSEU, 188. (In Russ.)
Rossi, F. (2009). Increased competition and diversity in higher education: An empirical analysis of the Italian university system. Higher Education Policy, 22, 389-413. DOI: 10.1057/hep.2008.33.
Samsonov, R. (2007). Institutional Monopolism: The Essence and Regulation Specifics. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 1, 140-143. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2007-1-140-143. (In Russ.)
Stukalova, I. B. & Zhiltsova, S. V. (2014). Basic approaches to assessing the competitiveness of Russian education. Nauchnye trudy Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta, 7, 405-411. (In Russ.)
Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: the awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13-36.
Yonezawa, A. & Kaiser, F. (2003). System-Level and Strategic Indicators for Monitoring Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Studies on Higher Education Series. UNESCO: Bucharest, 226.
Zadornova, A. (2005). Comments on Gordon Winston’s article “Subsidies, market power and the educational environment: features of the economy and higher education”. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies Moscow], 1, 118-122. (In Russ.)
Zak, T. V. (2011). State monopoly in higher education and its influence on welfare. Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta [Vestnik of Astrakhan State Technical University. Series: Economics], 3, 153-158. (In Russ.)
Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization: how governments and markets have combined to (re)shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process. Higher Education, 58, 41-58. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-008-9180-y.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Анастасия Судакова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
