Analysis of Higher Education Indicators Coherency in Central and Eastern Europe

Open access

Abstract

Background: Higher education has the main role in generating innovative activity in knowledge-based economies. Therefore, the efficiency of the higher education sector reflects the alignment of the higher education policy with government expenditure. However, countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE region) have been struggling with national budget optimisation, which can cause fiscal stress and thus affect the efficiency of higher education.

Objectives: The main objective is to examine mutual interaction of higher education indicators, through formulating financial models that connect performance and financial indicators.

Methods/Approach: A total of 4 higher education indicators were analysed and observed in the time period of 10 years in selected CEE countries. The statistical analysis was based on panel data models.

Results: The main result of the paper is the analysis of coherency of selected higher education indicators in selected CEE countries in order to establish functional links between government expenditure and efficiency through formulating financial models.

Conclusions: Formulated financial models can predict the behaviour of selected performance indicators, depending on financial indicators. Therefore, the obtained models can contribute to the efficient allocation of funds and comprehensive macro-level decision making assessments in higher education policy reforms.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Andrejević Panić A. (2015) “Analysis of compliance of higher education with the labour market with the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy” Structural changes in Serbia editor-in-chief Ivan Stošić Institute of Economic Sciences Belgrade pp. 416-430.

  • 2. Andrejević Panić A. (2016) “The impact of financial management on the development of non-profit organizations: case study of higher education institutions in Central-Eastern Europe” doctoral dissertation University Educons Sremska Kamenica.

  • 3. Bas J. Van der Ploeg F. (2005) “Guide to reform of higher education: a European perspective” Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 5327 London UK.

  • 4. Carstensen K. Toubal F. (2004) “Foreign direct investment in Central and Eastern European countries: a dynamic panel analysis” Journal of Comparative Economics Elsevier Netherlands Vol. 32 No. 1 pp. 3-22.

  • 5. Dobbins M. Knill C. (2009) “Higher Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence toward a Common Model?” Governance Vol. 22 No. 3 pp. 397-430.

  • 6. Enders J. (2004) “Higher education internationalisation and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory” Higher Education Vol. 47 No. 3 pp. 361-382.

  • 7. European Commission (2012) Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socioeconomic outcomes Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions EU available at: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/rethinking-education-investing-skills-better-socio-economic-outcomes-com2012-669_en (16 June 2018).

  • 8. Ferlie E. Musselin C. Andresani G. (2008) “The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective” Higher Education Vol. 56 No. 3 pp. 325-348.

  • 9. Jongbloed B. W. A. (2003) “Institutional funding and institutional change” in File J. Goedegebuure L. (Eds.) Real-time systems: Reflections on higher education in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovenia Center for Higher Education Policy Studies Brno pp. 115-146.

  • 10. Kennedy P. (2008) A Guide to Econometrics 6th ed. Wiley-Blackwell NY USA.

  • 11. Maassen P. Stensaker B. (2011) “The knowledge triangle European higher education policy logics and policy implications” Higher Education Vol. 61 No. 6 pp. 757–769.

  • 12. Park H. M. (2011) Practical Guides To Panel Data Modeling: A Step by Step Analysis Using Stata PhD International University of Japan Japan.

  • 13. Paulsen M. B. Smart J. C. (2001) The Finance of Higher Education: Theory Research Policy and Practice Algora Publishing USA.

  • 14. Psacharopoulos G. Patrinos H. A. (2004) “Returns to investment in education: a further update” Education Economics Vol. 12 No. 2 pp. 111-134.

  • 15. Santiago R. Carvalho T. Amaral A. Meek V. L. (2006) “Changing patterns in the middle management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal” Higher Education Vol. 52 No. 2 pp. 215–250.

  • 16. Shriberg M. (2002) “Institutional assessment tools for sustainability in higher education: strengths weaknesses and implications for practice and theory” Higher Education Policy Vol. 15 No. 2 pp. 153-167.

  • 17. StatSoft Inc. (2016) STATISTICA - data analysis software system v.13. licence for University of Novi Sad available at: www.statsoft.com (16 June 2018).

  • 18. StataCorp. (2017) Stata - Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station TX: StataCorp LLC free trial.

  • 19. Stiglitz J. (2003) Economics of Public Sector 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill NY USA.

  • 20. UIS (2015a) A Roadmap to Better Data on Education Financing Summary of UIS study on: How to leverage current initiatives: National Education Accounts Public Expenditure Reviews BOOST Education Country Status Reports and the UIS-UOE Data Collection UNESCO Montreal Quebec.

  • 21. UIS (2015b) Thematic Indicators to Monitor the Education 2030 Agenda Technical Advisory Group Proposal Education 2030 UNESCO Montreal Quebec.

  • 22. Van de Walle S. Hammerschmid G. (2011) “The Impact of the New Public Management: Challenges for Coordination and Cohesion in European Public Sectors” Halduskultuur Vol. 12 No. 2 pp. 190-209.

  • 23. Vossensteyn H. (2004) “Fiscal stress: Worldwide trends in higher education finance” Journal of Student Financial Aid Vol. 34 No. 1 pp. 39-55.

  • 24. Vukasović M. Babin M. Ivošević V Lažetić P. Miklavič K. (2009) Financing Higher Education in South East Europe: Albania Montenegro Croatia Slovenia Serbia Center for higher education policy Belgrade.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.165
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.388

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 44 44 26
PDF Downloads 27 27 14