Economies of scope in distance education: The case of Chinese research universities

Abstract

<span>With the rapid development of information technologies, distance education has become “another form of product differentiation in the output mix produced by the multi-product university or college” (Cohn & Cooper, 2004, p. 607). This article aims at analyzing the economies of scope of distance education (as an educational output) in Chinese research universities. The empirical results show that a) product-specific economies of scope do exist in distance education programs offered by Chinese research universities; b) there are economies of scale in distance education; and c) there are weak cost complementarities between distance education and research output, meaning that distance education and academic research can promote each other to reduce the costs in Chinese research universities.</span><br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input id="jsProxy" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" type="hidden" />

Scale and scope economies of distance education in Australian universities

“…In contrast, the coefficient for 24 is also positive though insignificant, implying that an increase in distance education and research together will not lead to any cost reduction. This contradicts the result in Li and Chen (2012), who find cost complementarity between distance education and research in Chinese research universities. To explain this, we should consider the Australian context, such that teaching-focused universities provide most of the degrees available through distance education.…”

“…average cost, marginal cost and the extent of scale and scope economies, as well as the potential efficiency gains from operating at an efficient scale. To date, there are analyses of economies of scale and scope in higher education for Australia (Lloyd, Morgan and Williams 1993;Worthington and Higgs 2011), China (Cheng and Wu 2008;Hou, Li and Min 2009;Li and Chen, 2012), Germany (Johnes and Schwarzenberger 2011), Japan (Hashimoto and Cohn 1997;Nemoto and Furumatsu 2014), Taiwan (Fu, Huang and Yang 2011), the UK (Johnes, Johnes and Thanassoulis 2008;Johnes and Johnes 2009), and the US (Sav 2011;Agasisti and Johnes 2015). However, most of these studies focus on the estimation of scale and scope economies in conventional (face-to-face) instruction, somewhat neglecting product differentiation in the form of distance education (Cohn and Cooper 2004).…”

“…Providing distance education also requires more information technology and qualified faculty to support teaching and research activities. These will in turn reduce the costs of producing on-campus teaching and research (Li and Chen 2012). Therefore, providing distance education could assist dual-mode institutions to achieve scope economies by better spreading the costs of expensive infrastructure and the employees needed for internet delivery over all students across different modes of attendance.…”

A Comparative Analysis of Student Performance in an Online vs. Face-to-Face Environmental Science Course From 2009 to 2016

“…A number of studies support the economic benefits of online vs. F2F learning, despite differences in social constructs and educational support provided by governments. In a study by Li and Chen (2012) higher education institutions benefit the most from two of four outputs-research outputs and distance education-with teaching via distance education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels more profitable than F2F teaching at higher education institutions in China. Zhang and Worthington (2017) reported an increasing cost benefit for the use of distance education over F2F instruction as seen at 37 Australian public universities over 9 years from 2003 to 2012.…”

Cost economies in the provision of higher education for international students: Australian evidence

“…In fact, estimating the scale and scope economies of higher education has been a primary focus of the literature (e.g. Cohn et al (1989); Johnes and Johnes (2009); Johnes and Schwarzenberger (2011); Li and Chen (2012); Agasisti and Johnes (2015)).…”