Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Asian Development Bank InstituteThe Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI's working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. ADBI encourages readers to post their comments on the main page for each working paper (given in the citation below). Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.Asian Development Bank Institute Kasumigaseki Building 8F 3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-6008, Japan AbstractPrivate higher education institutions (PrHEIs) are utilized to complement public provision due to financial constraints faced in public provision. However, increasing private provision has raised interesting questions as to who gets educated in these PrHEIs. Is increasing private supply enlarging the circle of opportunity to reach those who might otherwise have been unable to enter university or college? In other words, has the explosion in private supply translated into greater inclusion or increased exclusion? This paper explores the access and equity issues in Malaysia's private higher education system. Malaysia is an interesting case study due to the significant presence of PrHEIs in the country and their contribution toward student enrolment. The findings show that the Malaysian government has provided considerable financial support for the development of PrHEIs, through the provision of incentives, subsidized loans, and scholarships. Quality assurance efforts further enhance the development of private provision, as student loans and scholarships are only provided for students on accredited programs. Therefore, PrHEIs have widened access and equity, with the help of government support. Despite this, Malaysia's model of providing access and equity through private provision may be unsustainable, due to the poor repayment record of student loans and the economic need to reduce the fiscal deficit of the government.

Malaysia's higher education sector has a substantial number and diverse types of public and private providers, which have contributed toward improving access. Over time, with improved access, there are increasing policy efforts directed toward improving the quality of higher education to meet the desired human capital needed for advancing economic development. This paper assesses three key areas that have been undertaken to improve the quality of higher education, their measurements, achievements, outstanding challenges, and ensuing implications on future policy directions. The key performance indicators used for monitoring quality improvements show that some targets have been achieved. A review of the approach used to measure performance and a consolidation of the sector are needed for further quality improvement.

The Malaysian economy has undergone substantial industrial transformation, shifting from primary commodity production to manufacturing in slightly more than 5 decades since achieving independence. However, efforts to deepen manufacturing development have not succeeded in nurturing a critical mass of domestic entrepreneurs with indigenous innovative capacities as industrialization continues to be dependent on imported technology and capital. Instead, the manufacturing sector is facing premature deindustrialization. In view of these developments, this study aims to assess the extent of industrial deepening in a country through the development of linkages, as well as the key factors that have contributed to this. This has important policy lessons for other developing countries that are following similar export-oriented, foreign direct investment-led strategies for their industrial development. The main findings of this study indicate that while trade and investment policies have contributed to the development of the manufacturing sector, they have also fostered closer integration with the rest of the world rather than within the domestic economy. The electrical and electronics subsector has relatively weaker backward linkages than other subsectors in the economy. Deepening internal integration requires complementary labor, human capital, and technology policies that can facilitate the development of linkages in the manufacturing sector.

No abstract

No abstract