Market Model of Financing Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Examples from Kenya

Abstract

This paper examines some of the rationales for financial diversification and partial privatization of state universities in Kenya and the different manifestations of market-driven approaches to university education. It highlights the financial diversification activities at Kenya's state universities and raises key questions: Will the market model through financial diversification be able to creatively address the challenges of increased demand for higher education while ensuring that quality is maintained in Kenya's higher education 2 years form? Or will the market model lead to increased enrollment, providing quantity-driven education full of credentials but little academic value in terms of quality? Will students graduate with degrees without learning? Or will students graduate with both? How does the market model define students -are they clients, customers, or students? Higher Education Policy (2003) 16, 313-332.

Higher education marketisation and its discontents: the case of quality in Kenya

“…One university was chosen to afford a more detailed analysis of the study's concerns. Although one may hesitate to generalise the study's findings on all the public universities in Kenya, substantial literature on the subject (Caroll 2006;Mamdani 2007;Obong 2004;Musisi and Muwanga 2003;Ngome 2003;Oketch 2003) seems to point to a universality of this study's findings.…”

“…The literature contains a number of issues that have been raised regarding these programmes. These include access, equity, control and utilisation of generated funds, the general administration of the programmes and quality (Caroll 2006;Mamdani 2007;Altbach 2002;Sawyerr 2002;Musisi and Muwanga 2003;Obong 2004;Oketch 2003;Wangenge-Ouma 2006). Of these issues, quality concerns are arguably the most frequently raised, and perhaps, the most critical.…”

“…Marketisation, which, from a funding perspective, refers to strategies and processes for generating revenue from private sources (Slaughter and Leslie 1997;Slaughter and Rhoades 2004;Nafukho 2004;Oketch 2003), has oftentimes been fronted as the solution to the plummeting resource supply to public universities from governmental sources. Proponents of higher education marketisation have consistently argued that large-scale public funding of higher education is no longer tenable and is regressive; that generous public funding of higher education undermines equitable access, efficiency and even quality (Barr 2004;Johnstone 1998Johnstone , 2001World Bank 1994).…”

Revenue generation strategies in Sub-Saharan African universities

“…Public universities that are deprived of critical resources will seek new resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In other words, shortfalls in government funding have increasingly encouraged universities to engage in a variety of revenue generation activities for acquiring vital resources (Shattock, 2003;Clark, 1998;Massy, 2009;Ouma, 2007;Hinchliffe, 1985;Nafukho, 2004Nafukho, , 1996Oketch, 2003;Altbach & Teferra, 2004;TFHES, 2000;World Bank, 1994Cameron, 1983;EUA, 2011). Financial stringency and financial opportunities have been the main drivers of entrepreneurial activity in the case study institutions (Williams, 2009).…”

Utilization of Higher Education Budget: Study on Public Universities in Bangladesh

“…Khan (2009) identified that high rate of unemployment, poverty; inequality and vulnerability are due to poor stock of human capital in most of the developing countries. Oketch (2003) (2009) identified that education is the key sector to which public expenditure should be directed to foster economic growth in the long-run.…”