Social Justice & Globalization: Reconsidering Public Finance in College Access
John, Edward P. St., Harvard International Review
Many nations have expanded college enrollment in fields that will yield more workers for science and technology (S&T) jobs. Two mechanisms have been widely used in pursuit of this goal: 1) using higher tuition coupled with increased borrowing to finance expansion, and 2) redefining college and workforce readiness to include some post-secondary education in S&T fields. Both approaches are prone to promote inequality in opportunities for social mobility and can undermine the goals of social uplift and economic development.
As a means of bringing social justice into better balance with economic development, governments should reconsider how fairness in college access and social uplift relate to strategies used for higher education expansion. In his State of the Union addresses, President Obama has promoted a neoliberal reform rationale that argues for universal access to higher education as a necessity. Given the pervasiveness of this line of reasoning for expanding access, we need to reconsider how various financing mechanisms can help nations either achieve or undermine this aim. This article provides a framework for examining how public finance schemes improve fairness in access to basic education programs that provide readiness for the S&T workforce and to universities that provide entry to the middle class.
Globalization and the Expansion of College Access
After World War II, most nations expanded higher education as a means of developing national economies, a value promoted by the Marshall Plan in Europe, the Colombo Plan in the Far East, and comprehensive education planning in Communist nations. In Western democracies, an implied social contract carried forward the value of fairness in educational opportunity as a part of the public good. After the Cold War, the neoliberal rationales of global economic development influenced many nations to treat higher education as a private good, justifying the use of high tuition and high loans to expand access. These recent developments necessitate reconsideration of the financial mechanisms used for efficiency in relation to fairness.
Inequality and the Efficiency Rationale
Most nations have responded to neoliberal arguments for educating more S&T workers as a means of improving economic competitiveness. Among nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the switch to low-cost strategies for promoting access (e.g. high tuition and high loans) occurred faster in nations in the Pacific region than in Western Europe (Table 1). I summarize developments below for some OECD nations (italics on Table 1) along with several developing nations from recent case studies in books I have co-edited.
Table 1. Analysis of Public Finance Mechanisms Research-Based Analysis of Public Finance Mechanisms (bulleted items) Relative to High or Low Impact on Fairness in Access, Social Uplift and Taxpayer Fairness Criterion/Impact Fairness in Social Uplift Taxpayer Fairness Access Strategies with - High - No or low - Low tuition with Low Impact tuition need-based high need-based - Access grants grants limited to - Over-reliance S&T fields on loans Strategies with - Low or no - High - Income-contingent High Impact tuition need-based loan repayment - High grants - Coordinated funding - Merit-aware funding for (government admissions - High tuition support plus students and with high tuition institutions need-based grants revenue) Source: Author, 2013
Three OECD nations--South Korea, Australia, and the United States--were examined as national cases in the Pacific region. …