教育成本分担模式的理论与实证研究
|
摘要
20世纪下半叶知识经济的兴起将教育推向了一个前所未有的发展新高潮。初级教育义务化、中级教育普及化、高级教育大众化成为当今时代教育的显著特征和发展目标。但面对迅速扩张的教育规模,各个国家的公共财政对教育的投资已受到严重限制,而由于生均公共财政投入减少引发了教育质量的普遍下降。在此背景下,并受新自由主义思潮的影响,西方国家于20世纪90年代在教育领域开始强化市场机制和竞争机制的作用,各国政府积极地采用了教育成本分担的政策。实行教育成本分担的做法虽从宏观上解决了教育经费不足问题,大大促进了社会的发展,但日益增长的学费分担教育成本比例的增加与学生自身承担能力弱的矛盾也引发出了许多社会矛盾。
面对矛盾,社会不得不开始思考这些新涌现出来的教育问题：如何扩大教育规模以适应社会对教育的需求?什么样的教育规模水平才是最佳水平?教育成本应不应该分担?学生分担教育成本的比例是多少?教育成本、学费与教育收益存在怎样的关系?教育受益者有哪些?这些教育受益者如何补偿教育成本和反哺教育?现行的学费分担教育成本模式有没有问题?如何找到一种既有效率又公平的教育成本分担模式?这种有效的模式是什么?试图回答这些日常工作中经常遇到且困扰的问题成为了本论文研究的缘起与目的。
本论文运用文献成果与现实调查对比分析结合法、抽象数学建模与直观几何图型显示结合法、静态数学建模和动态数学建模结合法、定性分析与定量分析结合分析法,以教育成本分担模式为研究对象,综合新制度经济学的理论、教育经济学理论、人力资本理论、比较教育学和社会学理论,研究教育成本分担制度模式的历史演变过程、模式类型、内在机理和存在缺陷等问题,最终构建出一套更加科学、更加合理的教育成本分担新模式。
本论文共由六章组成：
第一章介绍了论文的研究背景、研究意义、研究内容、研究方法、技术路线和研究目标等。
第二章综述了目前关于教育成本分担模式的相关理论与研究结果。教育成本分担理论创立于20世纪70年代,它的核心内涵是回答高等教育经费由准及如何支付的问题,即高教成本如何在政府、社会、企业团体、个人等社会各方之间合理分担并最终实现的问题。该理论从20世纪80年代开始得到了广泛应用和创新,产生了许多实践模式：按付费方式划分为灵活多样的美国模式、高额贷款的日本模式和折扣优惠的澳大利亚模式；按教育成本承担主体划分为以政府负担为主的欧洲一元模式和以学生(家庭)负担为主的日本一元模式；以个人和政府为共担体的澳大利亚和加拿大的二元模式：由政府、学生、私人和学校等共同组成承担体的美国多元模式。
第三章首先分析了我国教育成本分担制度历史的演变历程：我国历史上总体经历了五种具有显明特征的模式变迁：原始社会的自发承担模式、奴隶社会的垄断承担模式、封建社会的二元主体独立承担模式、晚清至20世纪80年代初级教育强迫承担模式、20世纪90年代初至现在的高等教育多元主体分担模式；其次探讨了我国教育成本分担制度的生成逻辑：认为实行教育成本分担制度是中国现实社会发展的需要、国际教育成本分担的实施浪潮为我国分担制度提供了实践范式、人力资本理论和教育产业理论的形成为我国分担制度的实施提供了理论依据；第三,讨论了我国教育成本分担制度的价值内涵：实行教育成本分担制度是一种教育主权在民价值体现、是一种优先效率又兼顾公平的社会发展诉求、是办学多元化的教育发展需要。
第四章分析、比较、总结了国际教育成本分担模式的差异性。国际实施教育成本分担政策的路径总体可以归纳为九种类型：从免到收型、双轨学费型、高速上涨型、使用弥补型、奖助缩减型、贷款紧缩型、公立控制型、主客差异型、父母收入比例型；按学费水平可分为三类国家：公立大学收费类、全免类、一国双制类；共有四类付费方式：注册即付型、贷款交纳型、折扣型、收入契约型。
第五章深入地揭示了现行教育成本分担模式的本质和特性,认为现行的分担模式可统称为“即付式”教育成本分担模式。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式是指学生在开学时必须向学校交纳一定数额的学费。学费的职责是承担一定比例的教育成本,它体现了学生对接受教育过程所应承担的费用责任。
这种方式主要表现为三个方面的特性：
缴纳强制性：“即付式”学生分担教育成本模式强调学生是教育的直接受益者,根据谁受益、谁负担的原则,所以学生有义务承担教育成本,如不承担,将会被拒绝参加教育过程或受到其它方式的惩罚。
时间提前性：“即付式”强调学费需要在接受教育前,也就是在开学时缴纳,如果不按时缴纳,需要向学校提出允许滞后缴纳的申请,否则,将给予不注册或缴纳相当数额的滞纳金。
额度主观性：到目前为止,无论是人力资本理论还是教育成本分担理论都没有界定教育收益主体间各自应承担的教育成本分担比例。所以,现在的学生承担学费额度无统一标准和量化依据,而是各个国家根据本国情况或参照它国经验而制定的。“即付式”教育成本分担模式的基本表达式为：
cct=cpfee+cgtax,其中cct是总教育成本,cpfee是受教育者承担的成本,cgtax是国家承担的成本
在“即付式”模型中,学费额度的大小取决于受教育者分担比例的大小,如果对比例没有进行统一规定和限制,那么学校制定的学费政策就会千差万别。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式静态学费弹性系数和动态学费弹性系数分别从长、短期说明了教育质量的重要性。
静态学费弹性系数表达式为εnt=TN'/N,反应了较长时期内学习的需求量变动对于学费变动的反应程度,其数值等于学生学习需求量变动率与学费变动率之比。其特性为：
第一,当教育质量处于竞争状态学生有空间进行课程、专业和学校选择时,学生规模与学费关系遵循一定的规律。在这种情况下,当学校边际教育成本等于边际教育收益时,其教育收益最大,ε就是学校学生数为N时的最高学费边际收益率,ε=1/(εnt)上；
第二,当教育质量处于垄断状态,学生没有太多机会进行高质量的教育选择时,学生规模与学费关系呈现一种极端状况。也就是说,在这种情况下,类似有同等教育质量的课程、专业和学校很少,相互间的替代性几乎没有。在这种情况下,学费弹性系数很小,如果缺乏政府的监管,学校会无限制提高学费,以便最大限度提高学费边际收益率ε；
第三,当教育质量处于无用状态学生不想到该类学校学习时,学生规模与学费关系会呈现另一种极端状况。也就是说,在这种情况下,教育质量很差,学校可有可无,学生宁可做其它事或者不惜成本到其它地方求学也不会在这类学校上学,所以无论学校怎样降低学费都不会吸引学生的注意。在这种情况下,学费弹性很大,而学费边际收益率ε很低。当教育边际成本接近或等于学费时,学费弹性εnt趋丁无穷大,而ε等丁零,也就是当学费弹性系数无穷大时,学校学费边际收益率为零。
动态学费弹性系数反应了在短时期内学习的需求量变动对于学费变动的反应程度。在学校间互认学分制并可以相互交流时,通过对动态学费弹性系数理论分析,说明了教育质量对学校生存与发展的重要性。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式是现在各国通用的成本分担方式,发挥了重要作用,主要优点有四方面：第一、保证了学校正常运转；第二、有效激励了学生学习；第在、有利丁学校办学自治；第四、抑制了无效教育供给。其缺陷主要有在方面：第一、付费主体转嫁化；第二、人力资本物质化；第三,付费额度主观化。
第六章论证了构建“回报式”教育成本分担模式的理论依据,建立了“回报式”教育成本分担模式的数学模型,并进行了比较分析。
“回报式”教育成本分担模式就是指学生在接受教育时,不需要当即向学校缴纳学费,而是在毕业后,个人和单位以教育收益税的方式回馈教育,用以补偿教育成本和反哺教育,起到承担相应教育责任和义务的作用。
这种方式的特点主要表现在四个方面：
全面性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式一方面强调学校教育每个阶段的价值,也就是不论小学、中学还是大学教育,均需要交纳教育收益税；另一方面,根据准直接受益、谁负担的原则,将教育收益税承担主体扩大为学生和学生用人单位,在学生向国家交纳教育收益税的同时,用人单位也需要向国家交纳教育收益税；
累积性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式强调教育收益回报的长期性、动态性,而不是一次性。一个学生由丁受教育而所得收益是终生的、变化的,所以他向国家交纳的教育收益税会因时间、工作状态的变化而变化,直到工作结束；
差异性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式考虑到了在现实社会中教育收益所存在的差异性,不是采取一刀切方式一次性简单地收取费用,而是根据实际收益来征取教育税：
滞后性：“回报式”模式顾名思义是指回报,个人和单位所交的教育收益税主要用于后来接受教育的学生所消费的教育成本,换句话说,那些正在接受教育学生的教育成本是全部由已毕业的学生和用人单位承担的,自己承担教育成本时间滞后丁自己所消费的教育成本时间。
地区、行业、单位性质、公司等因素的差异性在客观上造成了存在教育收益差异的必然性：相同的教育程度,不同的专业,教育收益不一样；相同的教育程度和专业,不同的工作地点,教育收益不一样；相同的教育程度、相同的专业、相同的工作地点教育收益也不一样。教育收益与教育投资密切相关,教育收益存在差异是构建同报式教育成本分担模式的理论基础,教育成本分担应体现收益与投入对等原则和差异原则。
“回报式”教育成本分担模式的理论模型为：
简化模型为：
这种分担模式起到了使分担主体更加全面化、教育机会更加公平化、教育投入良性化、教育需求更加理性化的作用和效果。
论文主要取得了三方面的研究成果：
第一,纵向梳理了我国教育成本分担制度的演变脉络、生成逻辑和价值内涵,认为我国在历史上总体经历了五种具有显明特征的变迁模式；认为现行教育成本分担制度的实行是我国现实社会发展的需要、是国际实践范式影响的结果、是人力资本理论与教育产业理论发展的结果；认为我国实行现行教育成本分担制度是一种教育主权在民价值体现、是一种优先效率又兼顾公平的社会发展诉求、是办学多元化的教育发展需要；
第二,构建了“即付式”教育成本分担模式中边际教育成本、学费、学费弹性系数三者的关系,从理论上解释了教育质量与学习需求之间的静、动态相关关系,解答了学校制定学费政策的内在机理；通过理论与实证分析得到了上大学可以得到高额回报的结论：认为“即付式”教育成本分担模式存在付费主体转嫁化、人力资本物质化、付费额度主观化的缺陷：
第三,论证且得出了即使是相同的教育程度、相同的专业、相同的工作地点,但人们的教育收益也必定存在差异的结论；建立和实证了与教育收益相联系的“回报式”教育成本分担模式,这种分担模式达到了使分担主体更加全面化、教育机会更加公平化、教育投入良性化、教育需求更加理性化的效果。
In the latter half of the20th century, as the rise of the knowledge-based economy, the education had been promoting a new climax of an unprecedented development. In today's era, the primary education obligations, and the secondary education popularization and the higher education popularization have become a significant feature of the education and development goals. But the face of the rapid expansion of the education scale, each country's public finance investment in education has been severely restricted. The average reduction in public financial investment led to a serious decline in the quality of education. Affected by the new liberalism, the Western countries in the field of education in the1990s began to strengthen market and competition mechanisms. As a result, the governments implemented actively the education cost-sharing policy. Although cost-sharing of education had solved some problems of inadequate funding for education, it also led to a number of social contradictions.
In the front of the contradictions, we have to start thinking about these emerging educational issues:how to organize an efficient and modern education system? How to expand education to meet the social demand for education? what scale is the best level of the education? Should the cost of education be shared through tuition fee? What percentage of the cost of education should be shared by students? What is the relation among educational costs, tuition and education benefits? How did beneficiaries of education compensate for education? What are the disadvantages of the current education cost-sharing mode? How to find an efficient and fair tuition education cost-sharing mode? What is it? Trying to answer these achievements is the origin and purpose of this thesis.
This thesis consists of six chapters.
The first chapter introduces the background, significance, methodology, technology roadmap and objectives of the research.
The second Chapter reviews the current research theory and research results on the education cost-sharing mode. Education cost-sharing theory was founded in the1970s. Its core content is to answer who and how to pay for higher education funding, that is higher education cost how to be shared among the government, society, corporate bodies, individuals and other social parties and eventually realized. The theory from the1980s, has been widely used and innovative, and generated a lot of practice mode. The model divided by paid way include Flexible model of the United States, and Japanese high loan model and Australian Discounts model. The model divided by Shared Subject include European mode dominated government burden and Japanese mode dominated students (Family) burden, and binary pattern of sharing body to individuals and governments in Australia and Canada, and Multivariate models shared body is composed by the government, students, private schools, etc.
The third chapter analyzes the evolution of the history of China's education system of cost-sharing. In the ordering of time, our education cost sharing system has evolved through5phases of mode:the spontaneous mode in primitive society, the monopoly system in slave with obvious characteristics society, the independent binary subjects mode in feudal society, the compulsory mode for primary education from late Qing Dynasty to the1980's and the cost sharing mode from early1990's till now. Why are we now to implement the education policy of cost-sharing? The reason is as the follows:the implementation of education cost sharing system meets the demand of China's social development, and the international trend of cost sharing system provides China with model of practice, and the forming of human capital theory and the education industry theory provide theory evidence for us to reform education cost sharing system. What is the value of the implementation of the education cost-sharing policy? That are the system is a symbol that the educational sovereignty belongs to the Chinese people, and appeals to the demand of social development to give efficiency precedence with due consideration to fairness, and it meets the needs of pluralistic schooling.
The fourth chapter compares and summarizes the differences of international education cost sharing models. The international education cost sharing path can be divided into nine types: free-to-charge, dual-track-tuition, rapid-rise-tuition, make-up-using, grant-loan-reduction, public-control, host-guest-difference, parent-income-proportion. Payment methods are divided into four categories:register-instant-payment, loan-payment, discount, income-contract.
The fifth chapter further reveals the nature and characteristics of the current education cost sharing mode. It considers the current models can be collectively referred to as "instant-pay-model"."instant-pay-model" refers to the students at the commencement of the school must pay a certain amount of tuition fees. Tuition's role is to take a percentage of the cost of education. It embodies the students' responsibility for education expenses.
This model mainly has three aspects of features:
Pay-mandatory:"instant-pay-model" emphasizes the students is the direct beneficiaries of education, based on the principle of who benefits, who pays, so students have an obligation to bear the cost of education, if not, will be refused to participate in education process or punishment by other ways.
Payment in advance:"instant-pay-model" emphasizes the tuition must be paid in the beginning. If you don't pay on time, you need to apply for delay to pay, otherwise, will not allow to be registered or pay a fine for delaying payment.
Tuition subjectivity:so far, both in human capital theory and education cost share theory did not define education cost-sharing ratio. So, now the tuition amount of no unified standard and quantitative basis.
"Instant-Pay-Model" expression is: cct=cpfee+cgtax,cct is the total cost of education, cpfee is tuition cgtax is the cost beared by country
Static and dynamic modulus of elasticity, respectively from the long and short term illustrates the importance of quality education. Static elasticity coefficient expression is εnt=TN'/N. Its features are:
Firstly, when the school education quality at a competitive state and when the marginal cost of education is equal to the marginal education benefits, education benefits maximum.
Secondly, when quality education is in a state monopoly, students don't have much chance to select the high quality of education. In this case, the tuition elasticity coefficient is very small, if the lack of government regulation, the school will be unlimited increase tuition fees in order to maximize the marginal yield;
Thirdly, when the quality of education is in a state of useless, tuition elasticity coefficient is very big, and tuition and marginal yield is very low. When education marginal cost is equal to or close to the tuition fees,elastic coefficient tends to infinity, and school tuition marginal rate is zero.
Dynamic tuition elasticity coefficient reflects the learning demand changes in a short period of time for the reaction degree of tuition fees for change.
"Instant-Pay-Model" mainly has four advantages:firstly, ensuring school the normal operation; Secondly, inspiring students to learn effectively; Thirdly, making the school running autonomy; Fourthly, inhibiting invalid education supplies. Its defects mainly have three aspects: The first, pay body passed on; the second, the materialization of human capital; the third, the payment is subjective.
The sixth chapter has established the "return-model", and a comparative analysis was carried out.
Returns" means the student at the time of admission needn't to immediately pay the tuition to the school. But after graduation, individual and unit must compensate the cost of education in the form of education gains tax.
The characteristics of this way is mainly manifested in four aspects:
Comprehensiveness:it not only emphasizes that all the graduates have to pay the education gains tax, but also emphasizes that all the employers need to pay the education gains tax.
Cumulative:it emphasizes that individuals and units need to pay the education gains tax every year, until the end of the work.
Difference:It emphasizes that different individuals and employers need to pay the different education gains.
Hysteresis:the payment time lags behind the consumption time.
Factors such as region, industry, nature of the unit, the company objectively caused the difference of the education income. Although the same education level, different professional can lead to different education benefits. Although the same education level and the same professional, different work places also lead to different education benefits. Although the same education level and the same professional and the same work places, the education benefits is still different.Education income is closely related to education investment.
Education income difference is the theoretical basis of building the "return-model".
Education cost sharing should reflect equality principle and difference principle.
The theoretical model of:the "return-model" is:
The simplified model:is
The main achievements are presented t as follows.
Firstly, this paper discusses the Generation Logic and Intrinsic Value of the cost-sharing system of Chinese education from the historical point of view, the reality point of view, theoretical point of view, international point of view. This article concludes that the implementation of educational cost sharing policy is a correct and effective option.
Secondly, this paper builds the relationship among marginal cost of education, tuition, tuition elasticity coefficient about the "pay-instant-model". It can explain theoretically static and dynamic relationship between the quality of education and learning needs. It also can answer the internal mechanism of the tuition policy made by the schools. It got the conclusion through theoretical and empirical analysis that the higher education can get higher returns than the secondary education. It considers the "pay-instant-model" there are many defects that it makes the students responsibility transfer to the family, and makes the human capital materialized, and makes paying subjective.
Thirdly, this paper come to the conclusion that even if people have the same level of education, the same profession, the same place of work, but people return to education must exist differences. It establishes a return-model of education cost-sharing, which associate with the return to education. This sharing model should makes sharing body more comprehensive, and makes education access more equitable, and makes Investment in education more positive, and makes educational needs more rational.
面对矛盾,社会不得不开始思考这些新涌现出来的教育问题：如何扩大教育规模以适应社会对教育的需求?什么样的教育规模水平才是最佳水平?教育成本应不应该分担?学生分担教育成本的比例是多少?教育成本、学费与教育收益存在怎样的关系?教育受益者有哪些?这些教育受益者如何补偿教育成本和反哺教育?现行的学费分担教育成本模式有没有问题?如何找到一种既有效率又公平的教育成本分担模式?这种有效的模式是什么?试图回答这些日常工作中经常遇到且困扰的问题成为了本论文研究的缘起与目的。
本论文运用文献成果与现实调查对比分析结合法、抽象数学建模与直观几何图型显示结合法、静态数学建模和动态数学建模结合法、定性分析与定量分析结合分析法,以教育成本分担模式为研究对象,综合新制度经济学的理论、教育经济学理论、人力资本理论、比较教育学和社会学理论,研究教育成本分担制度模式的历史演变过程、模式类型、内在机理和存在缺陷等问题,最终构建出一套更加科学、更加合理的教育成本分担新模式。
本论文共由六章组成：
第一章介绍了论文的研究背景、研究意义、研究内容、研究方法、技术路线和研究目标等。
第二章综述了目前关于教育成本分担模式的相关理论与研究结果。教育成本分担理论创立于20世纪70年代,它的核心内涵是回答高等教育经费由准及如何支付的问题,即高教成本如何在政府、社会、企业团体、个人等社会各方之间合理分担并最终实现的问题。该理论从20世纪80年代开始得到了广泛应用和创新,产生了许多实践模式：按付费方式划分为灵活多样的美国模式、高额贷款的日本模式和折扣优惠的澳大利亚模式；按教育成本承担主体划分为以政府负担为主的欧洲一元模式和以学生(家庭)负担为主的日本一元模式；以个人和政府为共担体的澳大利亚和加拿大的二元模式：由政府、学生、私人和学校等共同组成承担体的美国多元模式。
第三章首先分析了我国教育成本分担制度历史的演变历程：我国历史上总体经历了五种具有显明特征的模式变迁：原始社会的自发承担模式、奴隶社会的垄断承担模式、封建社会的二元主体独立承担模式、晚清至20世纪80年代初级教育强迫承担模式、20世纪90年代初至现在的高等教育多元主体分担模式；其次探讨了我国教育成本分担制度的生成逻辑：认为实行教育成本分担制度是中国现实社会发展的需要、国际教育成本分担的实施浪潮为我国分担制度提供了实践范式、人力资本理论和教育产业理论的形成为我国分担制度的实施提供了理论依据；第三,讨论了我国教育成本分担制度的价值内涵：实行教育成本分担制度是一种教育主权在民价值体现、是一种优先效率又兼顾公平的社会发展诉求、是办学多元化的教育发展需要。
第四章分析、比较、总结了国际教育成本分担模式的差异性。国际实施教育成本分担政策的路径总体可以归纳为九种类型：从免到收型、双轨学费型、高速上涨型、使用弥补型、奖助缩减型、贷款紧缩型、公立控制型、主客差异型、父母收入比例型；按学费水平可分为三类国家：公立大学收费类、全免类、一国双制类；共有四类付费方式：注册即付型、贷款交纳型、折扣型、收入契约型。
第五章深入地揭示了现行教育成本分担模式的本质和特性,认为现行的分担模式可统称为“即付式”教育成本分担模式。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式是指学生在开学时必须向学校交纳一定数额的学费。学费的职责是承担一定比例的教育成本,它体现了学生对接受教育过程所应承担的费用责任。
这种方式主要表现为三个方面的特性：
缴纳强制性：“即付式”学生分担教育成本模式强调学生是教育的直接受益者,根据谁受益、谁负担的原则,所以学生有义务承担教育成本,如不承担,将会被拒绝参加教育过程或受到其它方式的惩罚。
时间提前性：“即付式”强调学费需要在接受教育前,也就是在开学时缴纳,如果不按时缴纳,需要向学校提出允许滞后缴纳的申请,否则,将给予不注册或缴纳相当数额的滞纳金。
额度主观性：到目前为止,无论是人力资本理论还是教育成本分担理论都没有界定教育收益主体间各自应承担的教育成本分担比例。所以,现在的学生承担学费额度无统一标准和量化依据,而是各个国家根据本国情况或参照它国经验而制定的。“即付式”教育成本分担模式的基本表达式为：
cct=cpfee+cgtax,其中cct是总教育成本,cpfee是受教育者承担的成本,cgtax是国家承担的成本
在“即付式”模型中,学费额度的大小取决于受教育者分担比例的大小,如果对比例没有进行统一规定和限制,那么学校制定的学费政策就会千差万别。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式静态学费弹性系数和动态学费弹性系数分别从长、短期说明了教育质量的重要性。
静态学费弹性系数表达式为εnt=TN'/N,反应了较长时期内学习的需求量变动对于学费变动的反应程度,其数值等于学生学习需求量变动率与学费变动率之比。其特性为：
第一,当教育质量处于竞争状态学生有空间进行课程、专业和学校选择时,学生规模与学费关系遵循一定的规律。在这种情况下,当学校边际教育成本等于边际教育收益时,其教育收益最大,ε就是学校学生数为N时的最高学费边际收益率,ε=1/(εnt)上；
第二,当教育质量处于垄断状态,学生没有太多机会进行高质量的教育选择时,学生规模与学费关系呈现一种极端状况。也就是说,在这种情况下,类似有同等教育质量的课程、专业和学校很少,相互间的替代性几乎没有。在这种情况下,学费弹性系数很小,如果缺乏政府的监管,学校会无限制提高学费,以便最大限度提高学费边际收益率ε；
第三,当教育质量处于无用状态学生不想到该类学校学习时,学生规模与学费关系会呈现另一种极端状况。也就是说,在这种情况下,教育质量很差,学校可有可无,学生宁可做其它事或者不惜成本到其它地方求学也不会在这类学校上学,所以无论学校怎样降低学费都不会吸引学生的注意。在这种情况下,学费弹性很大,而学费边际收益率ε很低。当教育边际成本接近或等于学费时,学费弹性εnt趋丁无穷大,而ε等丁零,也就是当学费弹性系数无穷大时,学校学费边际收益率为零。
动态学费弹性系数反应了在短时期内学习的需求量变动对于学费变动的反应程度。在学校间互认学分制并可以相互交流时,通过对动态学费弹性系数理论分析,说明了教育质量对学校生存与发展的重要性。
“即付式”教育成本分担模式是现在各国通用的成本分担方式,发挥了重要作用,主要优点有四方面：第一、保证了学校正常运转；第二、有效激励了学生学习；第在、有利丁学校办学自治；第四、抑制了无效教育供给。其缺陷主要有在方面：第一、付费主体转嫁化；第二、人力资本物质化；第三,付费额度主观化。
第六章论证了构建“回报式”教育成本分担模式的理论依据,建立了“回报式”教育成本分担模式的数学模型,并进行了比较分析。
“回报式”教育成本分担模式就是指学生在接受教育时,不需要当即向学校缴纳学费,而是在毕业后,个人和单位以教育收益税的方式回馈教育,用以补偿教育成本和反哺教育,起到承担相应教育责任和义务的作用。
这种方式的特点主要表现在四个方面：
全面性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式一方面强调学校教育每个阶段的价值,也就是不论小学、中学还是大学教育,均需要交纳教育收益税；另一方面,根据准直接受益、谁负担的原则,将教育收益税承担主体扩大为学生和学生用人单位,在学生向国家交纳教育收益税的同时,用人单位也需要向国家交纳教育收益税；
累积性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式强调教育收益回报的长期性、动态性,而不是一次性。一个学生由丁受教育而所得收益是终生的、变化的,所以他向国家交纳的教育收益税会因时间、工作状态的变化而变化,直到工作结束；
差异性：“回报式”教育成本分担模式考虑到了在现实社会中教育收益所存在的差异性,不是采取一刀切方式一次性简单地收取费用,而是根据实际收益来征取教育税：
滞后性：“回报式”模式顾名思义是指回报,个人和单位所交的教育收益税主要用于后来接受教育的学生所消费的教育成本,换句话说,那些正在接受教育学生的教育成本是全部由已毕业的学生和用人单位承担的,自己承担教育成本时间滞后丁自己所消费的教育成本时间。
地区、行业、单位性质、公司等因素的差异性在客观上造成了存在教育收益差异的必然性：相同的教育程度,不同的专业,教育收益不一样；相同的教育程度和专业,不同的工作地点,教育收益不一样；相同的教育程度、相同的专业、相同的工作地点教育收益也不一样。教育收益与教育投资密切相关,教育收益存在差异是构建同报式教育成本分担模式的理论基础,教育成本分担应体现收益与投入对等原则和差异原则。
“回报式”教育成本分担模式的理论模型为：
简化模型为：
这种分担模式起到了使分担主体更加全面化、教育机会更加公平化、教育投入良性化、教育需求更加理性化的作用和效果。
论文主要取得了三方面的研究成果：
第一,纵向梳理了我国教育成本分担制度的演变脉络、生成逻辑和价值内涵,认为我国在历史上总体经历了五种具有显明特征的变迁模式；认为现行教育成本分担制度的实行是我国现实社会发展的需要、是国际实践范式影响的结果、是人力资本理论与教育产业理论发展的结果；认为我国实行现行教育成本分担制度是一种教育主权在民价值体现、是一种优先效率又兼顾公平的社会发展诉求、是办学多元化的教育发展需要；
第二,构建了“即付式”教育成本分担模式中边际教育成本、学费、学费弹性系数三者的关系,从理论上解释了教育质量与学习需求之间的静、动态相关关系,解答了学校制定学费政策的内在机理；通过理论与实证分析得到了上大学可以得到高额回报的结论：认为“即付式”教育成本分担模式存在付费主体转嫁化、人力资本物质化、付费额度主观化的缺陷：
第三,论证且得出了即使是相同的教育程度、相同的专业、相同的工作地点,但人们的教育收益也必定存在差异的结论；建立和实证了与教育收益相联系的“回报式”教育成本分担模式,这种分担模式达到了使分担主体更加全面化、教育机会更加公平化、教育投入良性化、教育需求更加理性化的效果。
In the latter half of the20th century, as the rise of the knowledge-based economy, the education had been promoting a new climax of an unprecedented development. In today's era, the primary education obligations, and the secondary education popularization and the higher education popularization have become a significant feature of the education and development goals. But the face of the rapid expansion of the education scale, each country's public finance investment in education has been severely restricted. The average reduction in public financial investment led to a serious decline in the quality of education. Affected by the new liberalism, the Western countries in the field of education in the1990s began to strengthen market and competition mechanisms. As a result, the governments implemented actively the education cost-sharing policy. Although cost-sharing of education had solved some problems of inadequate funding for education, it also led to a number of social contradictions.
In the front of the contradictions, we have to start thinking about these emerging educational issues:how to organize an efficient and modern education system? How to expand education to meet the social demand for education? what scale is the best level of the education? Should the cost of education be shared through tuition fee? What percentage of the cost of education should be shared by students? What is the relation among educational costs, tuition and education benefits? How did beneficiaries of education compensate for education? What are the disadvantages of the current education cost-sharing mode? How to find an efficient and fair tuition education cost-sharing mode? What is it? Trying to answer these achievements is the origin and purpose of this thesis.
This thesis consists of six chapters.
The first chapter introduces the background, significance, methodology, technology roadmap and objectives of the research.
The second Chapter reviews the current research theory and research results on the education cost-sharing mode. Education cost-sharing theory was founded in the1970s. Its core content is to answer who and how to pay for higher education funding, that is higher education cost how to be shared among the government, society, corporate bodies, individuals and other social parties and eventually realized. The theory from the1980s, has been widely used and innovative, and generated a lot of practice mode. The model divided by paid way include Flexible model of the United States, and Japanese high loan model and Australian Discounts model. The model divided by Shared Subject include European mode dominated government burden and Japanese mode dominated students (Family) burden, and binary pattern of sharing body to individuals and governments in Australia and Canada, and Multivariate models shared body is composed by the government, students, private schools, etc.
The third chapter analyzes the evolution of the history of China's education system of cost-sharing. In the ordering of time, our education cost sharing system has evolved through5phases of mode:the spontaneous mode in primitive society, the monopoly system in slave with obvious characteristics society, the independent binary subjects mode in feudal society, the compulsory mode for primary education from late Qing Dynasty to the1980's and the cost sharing mode from early1990's till now. Why are we now to implement the education policy of cost-sharing? The reason is as the follows:the implementation of education cost sharing system meets the demand of China's social development, and the international trend of cost sharing system provides China with model of practice, and the forming of human capital theory and the education industry theory provide theory evidence for us to reform education cost sharing system. What is the value of the implementation of the education cost-sharing policy? That are the system is a symbol that the educational sovereignty belongs to the Chinese people, and appeals to the demand of social development to give efficiency precedence with due consideration to fairness, and it meets the needs of pluralistic schooling.
The fourth chapter compares and summarizes the differences of international education cost sharing models. The international education cost sharing path can be divided into nine types: free-to-charge, dual-track-tuition, rapid-rise-tuition, make-up-using, grant-loan-reduction, public-control, host-guest-difference, parent-income-proportion. Payment methods are divided into four categories:register-instant-payment, loan-payment, discount, income-contract.
The fifth chapter further reveals the nature and characteristics of the current education cost sharing mode. It considers the current models can be collectively referred to as "instant-pay-model"."instant-pay-model" refers to the students at the commencement of the school must pay a certain amount of tuition fees. Tuition's role is to take a percentage of the cost of education. It embodies the students' responsibility for education expenses.
This model mainly has three aspects of features:
Pay-mandatory:"instant-pay-model" emphasizes the students is the direct beneficiaries of education, based on the principle of who benefits, who pays, so students have an obligation to bear the cost of education, if not, will be refused to participate in education process or punishment by other ways.
Payment in advance:"instant-pay-model" emphasizes the tuition must be paid in the beginning. If you don't pay on time, you need to apply for delay to pay, otherwise, will not allow to be registered or pay a fine for delaying payment.
Tuition subjectivity:so far, both in human capital theory and education cost share theory did not define education cost-sharing ratio. So, now the tuition amount of no unified standard and quantitative basis.
"Instant-Pay-Model" expression is: cct=cpfee+cgtax,cct is the total cost of education, cpfee is tuition cgtax is the cost beared by country
Static and dynamic modulus of elasticity, respectively from the long and short term illustrates the importance of quality education. Static elasticity coefficient expression is εnt=TN'/N. Its features are:
Firstly, when the school education quality at a competitive state and when the marginal cost of education is equal to the marginal education benefits, education benefits maximum.
Secondly, when quality education is in a state monopoly, students don't have much chance to select the high quality of education. In this case, the tuition elasticity coefficient is very small, if the lack of government regulation, the school will be unlimited increase tuition fees in order to maximize the marginal yield;
Thirdly, when the quality of education is in a state of useless, tuition elasticity coefficient is very big, and tuition and marginal yield is very low. When education marginal cost is equal to or close to the tuition fees,elastic coefficient tends to infinity, and school tuition marginal rate is zero.
Dynamic tuition elasticity coefficient reflects the learning demand changes in a short period of time for the reaction degree of tuition fees for change.
"Instant-Pay-Model" mainly has four advantages:firstly, ensuring school the normal operation; Secondly, inspiring students to learn effectively; Thirdly, making the school running autonomy; Fourthly, inhibiting invalid education supplies. Its defects mainly have three aspects: The first, pay body passed on; the second, the materialization of human capital; the third, the payment is subjective.
The sixth chapter has established the "return-model", and a comparative analysis was carried out.
Returns" means the student at the time of admission needn't to immediately pay the tuition to the school. But after graduation, individual and unit must compensate the cost of education in the form of education gains tax.
The characteristics of this way is mainly manifested in four aspects:
Comprehensiveness:it not only emphasizes that all the graduates have to pay the education gains tax, but also emphasizes that all the employers need to pay the education gains tax.
Cumulative:it emphasizes that individuals and units need to pay the education gains tax every year, until the end of the work.
Difference:It emphasizes that different individuals and employers need to pay the different education gains.
Hysteresis:the payment time lags behind the consumption time.
Factors such as region, industry, nature of the unit, the company objectively caused the difference of the education income. Although the same education level, different professional can lead to different education benefits. Although the same education level and the same professional, different work places also lead to different education benefits. Although the same education level and the same professional and the same work places, the education benefits is still different.Education income is closely related to education investment.
Education income difference is the theoretical basis of building the "return-model".
Education cost sharing should reflect equality principle and difference principle.
The theoretical model of:the "return-model" is:
The simplified model:is
The main achievements are presented t as follows.
Firstly, this paper discusses the Generation Logic and Intrinsic Value of the cost-sharing system of Chinese education from the historical point of view, the reality point of view, theoretical point of view, international point of view. This article concludes that the implementation of educational cost sharing policy is a correct and effective option.
Secondly, this paper builds the relationship among marginal cost of education, tuition, tuition elasticity coefficient about the "pay-instant-model". It can explain theoretically static and dynamic relationship between the quality of education and learning needs. It also can answer the internal mechanism of the tuition policy made by the schools. It got the conclusion through theoretical and empirical analysis that the higher education can get higher returns than the secondary education. It considers the "pay-instant-model" there are many defects that it makes the students responsibility transfer to the family, and makes the human capital materialized, and makes paying subjective.
Thirdly, this paper come to the conclusion that even if people have the same level of education, the same profession, the same place of work, but people return to education must exist differences. It establishes a return-model of education cost-sharing, which associate with the return to education. This sharing model should makes sharing body more comprehensive, and makes education access more equitable, and makes Investment in education more positive, and makes educational needs more rational.
引文
[1]哈维.谁来为高等教育付费——高等教育成本补偿的国际 比较教育发展研究2002.3
[2]秦福利.高等教育成本分担模式的国际经验借鉴与启示,江苏高教2010.1
[3]张晓于.高等教育成本分担与补偿模式,生产力研究,2006
[4]卢晓东.确定成本约束下学费、财政经费的市场化互补模型——向成本补偿本义的回归,北京大学教育评,2004.10
[5]李淑霞.我国普通高等学校教育成本补偿模式研究,黑龙江高教研究,2005.4
[6]徐崇勇、周振武.稳定当前办办高等教育成本个人介担比例的若干建议,高教探索,2000
[7]李永生.个人该分担多少高等教育成本,中国高等教育,2000
[8]冯涛.我国大学学费定价的实证分析及政策建议,中国物价,2008
[9]刘琳.高等教育成本分担应该加强属地化,中国农业研究,2009.6
[10]Christian Buss, Jeffrey Parker, Jon Rivenburg. Cost, quality and enrollment demand at liberal arts colleges Economics of Education Review, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 57-65
[11]Mark C. Berger, Thomas Kosta. Financial resources, regulation, and enrollment in US public higher education Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 2, April 2002, Pages 101-110
[12]Richard E. Mueller, Duane Rockerbie.Public schooling, college subsidies and growth Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2005, Pages 487-507 William Blankenau
[13]Richard E. Mueller.Determining demand for university education in Ontario by type of student Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, Issue 4, August 2005, Pages 469-483
[14]曾满超.发展中国家的个人教育成本与社会教育成本,教育与经济,1986年
[15]王玉昆.教育成本问题初探,教育与经济,1991
[16]楚红丽.浅析教育成本及其构成,社会科学研究,2002.1
[17]刘鸿明、吴润.教育成本的界定及分类,理论导刊,2006
[18]王寰安 黎敏.论教育成本的决定,[教育评论,2007.6
[19]徐晓辉,韩丽萍.我国高等学校教育成本核算现状、形成机制及对策研究,辽宁教育研究,2006.12
[20]王善迈.论高等教育的学费,北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000.6
[21]魏海苓.试论高等教育成本分担与社会公平,煤炭高等教育,2003
[22]钟宇平、陆根书.高等教育成本回收对公平的影响,北京大学教育评论,2003
[23]刘风.高等教育成本分担与教育公平,商业时代,2006
[24]王恒 我国高等教育成本分担过程中的三大局限与教育公平,理工高教研究,2006.2
[25]刘春 刘俊民 鲁美娟,从高等教育成本的特殊性辨析教育不能产业化,江西教育科研 2006.12
[26]余春萍,张明毫.高等教育成本补偿与公平问题的研究,辽宁教育研究,2007.4
[27]杜屏,李宝元.中国高等教育的成本分担与机会均等,北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007
[28]Holzner, Andrey Launov. Search equilibrium and social and private returns to education European Economic Review, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 May 2009 Christian
[29]flavio.conha, jamesj.heckman Salvador nararr o.separating uncertainty from heterogeneity in life cycle earning working paper 11024 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11024]
[30]王明进,岳吕君.个人教育投资风险的计量分析,北京大学教育评论,2007.4
[31]Andreas Ammermueller,Anja kuckellenz,Thomas zwic.Aggregate unemployment decrease individual returns to education k pages 217-226 volume,issue2(April,2009)
[32]Becker, G.,1964. Human Capital:A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
[33]Abowd, J.,1984. An Econometric Model of the U.S. Market for Higher Education. Garland Publishers, New York, NY.
[34]FREDERICK BALDERSTON. Tuition and financial aid in higher education:The case of California Economics of Education Review Vol.16, No.3, pp.337-343,1997
[35]Emanuele Baldacci, Benedict Clements, Sanjeev Gupta, Qiang Cui. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries Original Research Article World Development, Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1317-1341
[36]Claude Montmarquette, Kathy Cannings, Sophie Mahseredjian. How do young people choose college majors? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 6, December 2002, Pages 543-556
[37]Peter Arcidiacono. Ability sorting and the returns to college major Original Research Article Journal of Econometrics, Volume 121, Issues 1-2, July-August 2004, Pages 343-375 [38] Eric Eide, Geetha Waehrer.The role of the option value of college attendance in college major choice Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 17, Issue 1, February 1998, Pages 73-82
[39]Daniel S. Hamermesh, Stephen G Donald. The effect of college curriculum on earnings:An affinity identifier for non-ignorable non-response bias Original Research Article Journal of Econometrics, Volume 144, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 479-491
[40]Russell W. Rumberger, Scott L. Thomas.The economic returns to college major, quality and performance:A multilevel analysis of recent graduates Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 12, Issue 1, March 1993, Pages 1-19
[41][44][47]孙培青.中国教育史,华东师范大学出版社,2009
[42]周尸佼.尸子,华东师大出版社会,2009
[43]邓俊青.淮南子·修务训,上海古籍出版社,2009
[45]陈梦雷.古今图书集成,齐鲁书社,2006
[46]李学勤.礼记明堂位,台中出版社,2001
[48]许富宏.吕氏春秋,上海古籍出版社,2009
[49]程吕明.论语,山西古籍出版社会,2000
[50]熊贤君.中国近代义务教育研究,华中师范大学出版社,2006
[51]http://www.china.com.cn/economic/txt/2009-08/06/content_18290958.htm
[52]Beryl Nelson.The State of Charter Schools 2000:4th-Year Report[R]. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education,2000,10-11
[53]黑泽惟昭,姜英敏.日本教育现状与改革方向疏见,比较教育研究,2001,(10)：12-17
[54]周满生.当代国际高等教育面临的挑战及发展趋势,世界教育信息,1994,(3)：10-13
[55]Gareth Williams. The market route to mass higher education:British experience 1979-1996Higher Education Policy, Volume 10, Issues 3-4, September-December 1997, Pages 275-289
[56]田恩舜.澳大利亚高等教育投资体制改革综述,比较教育研究,2002,(12)：28-32
[57]杨健燕.加拿大高等教育的发展对我国高等教育的启示,河南纺织高等专科学校学报,2005,(4)：42-45
[58]Smith, A,1976.The Wealth of Nations.University of Chicago Press,Chicago,IL.
[59]西奥多.舒尔茨.论人力资本投资,北京经济学院出版社,1990
[60]魏立萍.人力资本与经济增长关系研究[D],厦门大学,博士论文,2001
[61]郭莉.美国高等教育成本补偿研究,河北大学,教育学硕士学位论文,2004
[62]孙国红.个人高等教育人力资本投资风险与规避,淮海工学院学报(社会科学版),2005,(4)：92-94
[63]黄正.现代教育产业观的形成和发展,教育与经济,1995,(3)：12-15
[64]李建立.产业化——我国教育体制改革的方向[J].中国人力资源开发,1997,(7)：7-9
[65]http://blog.tianya.cn/blogger/post_show.asp
[66]舒平.教育是拉动市场的新兴产业[N],重庆日报,1999-10-11.
[67]钟宇平.高等教育成本回收对公平的影响,北京大学教育评论,2003,(2)：52-64
[68]柴效武.教育成本分担理论评析,教学研究,2004,(2)：117-119
[69]陆根书等.高等教育成本回收的理论与实证分析,北京师范大学出版社,2002,(11)：3
[70]余春萍.高等教育成本补偿与公平问题的研究,辽宁教育研究,2007,(4)：25-27
[71]Christian Holzner, Andrey Launov. Search equilibrium and social and private returns to education European Economic Revi ew, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 May 2009
[72]D.Bruce Johnstone.The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: comparative perspectives Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 23, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 403-410
[73]Malte Hiibner.The welfare effects of discriminating between in-state and out-of-state students Original Research Article Regional Science and Urban Economics, Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January 2012, Pages 364-374
[74]周满生.当代国际高等教育而临的挑战及发展趋势,世界教育信息,1994(3)
[75]http://www.edu.cn/about_ping_lun_1071/2010081/tA20100811_506933.shtml
[76]Christine Neill. Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[77]U.S. Departmentof Education, NationalCen terfor Education Statistics(Digest of Education Statistics 2005)
[76]R.G Ehrenberg. The Economics of Tuition and Fees in Higher Education International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition),2010, Pages 229-234
[78]从“社会福利”到“面向市场”：英国高等教育学费政策的变迁李作章现代教育科学2011/09
[79]Malcolm Dean. LONDON UK tuition fee debate returns Original Research Article The Lancet, Volume 347, Issue 8998,10 February 1996, Page 387
[80]Gareth Williams. The market route to mass higher education:British experience 1979-1996Higher Education Policy, Volume 10, Issues 3-4, September-December 1997, Pages 275-289
[81]http://edu.sina.com.cn/bbc/abroad/refandlnfo/2009-03-11/30.shtml
[82]J. Blythe, D. Patel, A. Gulati, J.J. Scott, R.A. Anand, P.A. Brennan.The potential impact of the 2010 tuition fee policy on double qualification:a junior trainee perspective British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Volume 49, Supplement 1, June 2011, Pages S36-S37
[83]http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=The+Impact+of+Tuition+Fees+and+Support+on+Univ ersity+Participation+in+the+UK&hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=Rp nmT46BBo2uiQfz3qlZ&ved=0CAcQgQMwAA The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK
[84]胡延新.俄罗斯高等教育最新发展趋势,湖北教育学院学报2007第24卷第12期
[85]Nadja Dwenger, Johanna Storck, Katharina Wrohlich.Do tuition fees affect the mobility of university applicants? Evidence from a natural experiment Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 31, Issue 1, February 2012, Pages 155-167
[86]Malte Hubner.Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a'natural experiment' in Germany Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 29 June 2012
[87]汉斯·舒尔茨,李素敏.加拿大高等教育的量变、质变及其特征卷高等教育研究2005(12)[88]http://www.china.com.cn/education/txt/2007-10/20/content_9093347.htm
[89]杨健燕.加拿大高等教育的发展对我国高等教育的启示,河南纺织高等专科学校学报2005年第17卷第4期
[90]Luisa Cerdeira, Tomas Patrocinio.Promoting the accessibility and affordability in Portuguese higher education Original Research Article Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 12,2011, Pages 185-199 [91] Hideo Akabayashi, Hiroko Araki. Do education vouchers prevent dropout at private high schools? Evidence from Japanese policy changes Original Research Article Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 183-198
[92]R.G Ehrenberg.The Economics of Tuition and Fees in Higher Education International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition),2010, Pages 229-234
[93]Christine Neill. Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[94]Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3
[95]Martin Gonzalez Rozada, Alicia Menendez.Public university in Argentina:subsidizing the rich? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 341-351
[96]Gary Fethke.Strategic determination of higher education subsidies and tuitions Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, Issue 5, October 2005, Pages 601-609
[97]Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe.A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3
[98]A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3 Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe
[99]A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3 Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe
[100]Robert Dur, Amihai Glazer.Subsidizing Enjoyable Education Original Research Article Labour Economics, Volume 15, Issue 5, October 2008, Pages 1023-1039
[101]Christine Neill.Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[102]Malte Hubner.Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a'natural experiment'in Germany Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 29 June 2012
[103]Hideo Akabayashi, Hiroko Araki.Do education vouchers prevent dropout at private high schools? Evidence from Japanese policy changes Original Research Article Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 183-198
[104]Asayo Ohba.The abolition of secondary school fees in Kenya:Responses by the poor Original Research Article International Journal of Educational Development, Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 402-408
[105]The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=The+Impact+of+Tuition+Fees+and+Support+on+U niversity+Participation+in+the+UK&hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X& ei=RpnmT46BBo2uiQfz3q 1 Z&ved=0CAcQgQMwAA
[106]Arnaud Chevalier.Subject choice and earnings of UK graduates Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 30, Issue 6, December 2011, Pages 1187-1201
[107]Annette Alstadsaeter, Ann-Sofie Kolm, Birthe Larsen. Money or joy:The choice of educational type Original Research Article European Journal of Political Economy, Volume 24, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 107-122
[108]Martin Gonzalez Rozada, Alicia Menendez.Public university in Argentina:subsidizing the rich? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 341-351
[109]David W. Chapman, Sarah Mushlin. Do girls' scholarship programs work? Evidence from two countries Original Research Article International Journal of Educational Development, Volume 28, Issue 4, July 2008, Pages 460-472
[110]DeForest McDuff.Quality, tuition, and applications to in-state public colleges Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 26, Issue 4, August 2007, Pages 433-449
[111]http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E5%8A%9B%E8%B5%84%E6%9C%AC
[112]Mortensen, D.T.,2003:Wage Dispersion:Why Are Similar Workers Paid Differently? Cambridge.Massachusetts.
[113]Burdett,Kenneth,and Dale T.Mortensen,1998:Wage Differentials, Employer Size,and unemployment. International Economic Review 39(2):257-73.
[114]Manning, A.,2003:Monopsony in Motion. Princeton University Press.
[115]中国南方人才市场、广州人力资源管理学会、广州市人才研究院：南方人才2009年度广东地区薪酬调查报告,广东省出版集团、广东经济出版社,2009.10
[116]杨世忠,许江波,张丹.作业成本法在高校教育成本核算中的应用研究——基于某高校成本核算的实例分析,会计研究,2012/04
[117]http://edu.163.com/13/0207/09/8N3OKCMC00293OM3_all.hrml
[2]秦福利.高等教育成本分担模式的国际经验借鉴与启示,江苏高教2010.1
[3]张晓于.高等教育成本分担与补偿模式,生产力研究,2006
[4]卢晓东.确定成本约束下学费、财政经费的市场化互补模型——向成本补偿本义的回归,北京大学教育评,2004.10
[5]李淑霞.我国普通高等学校教育成本补偿模式研究,黑龙江高教研究,2005.4
[6]徐崇勇、周振武.稳定当前办办高等教育成本个人介担比例的若干建议,高教探索,2000
[7]李永生.个人该分担多少高等教育成本,中国高等教育,2000
[8]冯涛.我国大学学费定价的实证分析及政策建议,中国物价,2008
[9]刘琳.高等教育成本分担应该加强属地化,中国农业研究,2009.6
[10]Christian Buss, Jeffrey Parker, Jon Rivenburg. Cost, quality and enrollment demand at liberal arts colleges Economics of Education Review, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 57-65
[11]Mark C. Berger, Thomas Kosta. Financial resources, regulation, and enrollment in US public higher education Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 2, April 2002, Pages 101-110
[12]Richard E. Mueller, Duane Rockerbie.Public schooling, college subsidies and growth Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2005, Pages 487-507 William Blankenau
[13]Richard E. Mueller.Determining demand for university education in Ontario by type of student Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, Issue 4, August 2005, Pages 469-483
[14]曾满超.发展中国家的个人教育成本与社会教育成本,教育与经济,1986年
[15]王玉昆.教育成本问题初探,教育与经济,1991
[16]楚红丽.浅析教育成本及其构成,社会科学研究,2002.1
[17]刘鸿明、吴润.教育成本的界定及分类,理论导刊,2006
[18]王寰安 黎敏.论教育成本的决定,[教育评论,2007.6
[19]徐晓辉,韩丽萍.我国高等学校教育成本核算现状、形成机制及对策研究,辽宁教育研究,2006.12
[20]王善迈.论高等教育的学费,北京师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000.6
[21]魏海苓.试论高等教育成本分担与社会公平,煤炭高等教育,2003
[22]钟宇平、陆根书.高等教育成本回收对公平的影响,北京大学教育评论,2003
[23]刘风.高等教育成本分担与教育公平,商业时代,2006
[24]王恒 我国高等教育成本分担过程中的三大局限与教育公平,理工高教研究,2006.2
[25]刘春 刘俊民 鲁美娟,从高等教育成本的特殊性辨析教育不能产业化,江西教育科研 2006.12
[26]余春萍,张明毫.高等教育成本补偿与公平问题的研究,辽宁教育研究,2007.4
[27]杜屏,李宝元.中国高等教育的成本分担与机会均等,北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2007
[28]Holzner, Andrey Launov. Search equilibrium and social and private returns to education European Economic Review, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 May 2009 Christian
[29]flavio.conha, jamesj.heckman Salvador nararr o.separating uncertainty from heterogeneity in life cycle earning working paper 11024 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11024]
[30]王明进,岳吕君.个人教育投资风险的计量分析,北京大学教育评论,2007.4
[31]Andreas Ammermueller,Anja kuckellenz,Thomas zwic.Aggregate unemployment decrease individual returns to education k pages 217-226 volume,issue2(April,2009)
[32]Becker, G.,1964. Human Capital:A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
[33]Abowd, J.,1984. An Econometric Model of the U.S. Market for Higher Education. Garland Publishers, New York, NY.
[34]FREDERICK BALDERSTON. Tuition and financial aid in higher education:The case of California Economics of Education Review Vol.16, No.3, pp.337-343,1997
[35]Emanuele Baldacci, Benedict Clements, Sanjeev Gupta, Qiang Cui. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries Original Research Article World Development, Volume 36, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1317-1341
[36]Claude Montmarquette, Kathy Cannings, Sophie Mahseredjian. How do young people choose college majors? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 6, December 2002, Pages 543-556
[37]Peter Arcidiacono. Ability sorting and the returns to college major Original Research Article Journal of Econometrics, Volume 121, Issues 1-2, July-August 2004, Pages 343-375 [38] Eric Eide, Geetha Waehrer.The role of the option value of college attendance in college major choice Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 17, Issue 1, February 1998, Pages 73-82
[39]Daniel S. Hamermesh, Stephen G Donald. The effect of college curriculum on earnings:An affinity identifier for non-ignorable non-response bias Original Research Article Journal of Econometrics, Volume 144, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 479-491
[40]Russell W. Rumberger, Scott L. Thomas.The economic returns to college major, quality and performance:A multilevel analysis of recent graduates Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 12, Issue 1, March 1993, Pages 1-19
[41][44][47]孙培青.中国教育史,华东师范大学出版社,2009
[42]周尸佼.尸子,华东师大出版社会,2009
[43]邓俊青.淮南子·修务训,上海古籍出版社,2009
[45]陈梦雷.古今图书集成,齐鲁书社,2006
[46]李学勤.礼记明堂位,台中出版社,2001
[48]许富宏.吕氏春秋,上海古籍出版社,2009
[49]程吕明.论语,山西古籍出版社会,2000
[50]熊贤君.中国近代义务教育研究,华中师范大学出版社,2006
[51]http://www.china.com.cn/economic/txt/2009-08/06/content_18290958.htm
[52]Beryl Nelson.The State of Charter Schools 2000:4th-Year Report[R]. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education,2000,10-11
[53]黑泽惟昭,姜英敏.日本教育现状与改革方向疏见,比较教育研究,2001,(10)：12-17
[54]周满生.当代国际高等教育面临的挑战及发展趋势,世界教育信息,1994,(3)：10-13
[55]Gareth Williams. The market route to mass higher education:British experience 1979-1996Higher Education Policy, Volume 10, Issues 3-4, September-December 1997, Pages 275-289
[56]田恩舜.澳大利亚高等教育投资体制改革综述,比较教育研究,2002,(12)：28-32
[57]杨健燕.加拿大高等教育的发展对我国高等教育的启示,河南纺织高等专科学校学报,2005,(4)：42-45
[58]Smith, A,1976.The Wealth of Nations.University of Chicago Press,Chicago,IL.
[59]西奥多.舒尔茨.论人力资本投资,北京经济学院出版社,1990
[60]魏立萍.人力资本与经济增长关系研究[D],厦门大学,博士论文,2001
[61]郭莉.美国高等教育成本补偿研究,河北大学,教育学硕士学位论文,2004
[62]孙国红.个人高等教育人力资本投资风险与规避,淮海工学院学报(社会科学版),2005,(4)：92-94
[63]黄正.现代教育产业观的形成和发展,教育与经济,1995,(3)：12-15
[64]李建立.产业化——我国教育体制改革的方向[J].中国人力资源开发,1997,(7)：7-9
[65]http://blog.tianya.cn/blogger/post_show.asp
[66]舒平.教育是拉动市场的新兴产业[N],重庆日报,1999-10-11.
[67]钟宇平.高等教育成本回收对公平的影响,北京大学教育评论,2003,(2)：52-64
[68]柴效武.教育成本分担理论评析,教学研究,2004,(2)：117-119
[69]陆根书等.高等教育成本回收的理论与实证分析,北京师范大学出版社,2002,(11)：3
[70]余春萍.高等教育成本补偿与公平问题的研究,辽宁教育研究,2007,(4)：25-27
[71]Christian Holzner, Andrey Launov. Search equilibrium and social and private returns to education European Economic Revi ew, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 May 2009
[72]D.Bruce Johnstone.The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: comparative perspectives Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 23, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 403-410
[73]Malte Hiibner.The welfare effects of discriminating between in-state and out-of-state students Original Research Article Regional Science and Urban Economics, Volume 42, Issues 1-2, January 2012, Pages 364-374
[74]周满生.当代国际高等教育而临的挑战及发展趋势,世界教育信息,1994(3)
[75]http://www.edu.cn/about_ping_lun_1071/2010081/tA20100811_506933.shtml
[76]Christine Neill. Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[77]U.S. Departmentof Education, NationalCen terfor Education Statistics(Digest of Education Statistics 2005)
[76]R.G Ehrenberg. The Economics of Tuition and Fees in Higher Education International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition),2010, Pages 229-234
[78]从“社会福利”到“面向市场”：英国高等教育学费政策的变迁李作章现代教育科学2011/09
[79]Malcolm Dean. LONDON UK tuition fee debate returns Original Research Article The Lancet, Volume 347, Issue 8998,10 February 1996, Page 387
[80]Gareth Williams. The market route to mass higher education:British experience 1979-1996Higher Education Policy, Volume 10, Issues 3-4, September-December 1997, Pages 275-289
[81]http://edu.sina.com.cn/bbc/abroad/refandlnfo/2009-03-11/30.shtml
[82]J. Blythe, D. Patel, A. Gulati, J.J. Scott, R.A. Anand, P.A. Brennan.The potential impact of the 2010 tuition fee policy on double qualification:a junior trainee perspective British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Volume 49, Supplement 1, June 2011, Pages S36-S37
[83]http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=The+Impact+of+Tuition+Fees+and+Support+on+Univ ersity+Participation+in+the+UK&hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=Rp nmT46BBo2uiQfz3qlZ&ved=0CAcQgQMwAA The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK
[84]胡延新.俄罗斯高等教育最新发展趋势,湖北教育学院学报2007第24卷第12期
[85]Nadja Dwenger, Johanna Storck, Katharina Wrohlich.Do tuition fees affect the mobility of university applicants? Evidence from a natural experiment Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 31, Issue 1, February 2012, Pages 155-167
[86]Malte Hubner.Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a'natural experiment' in Germany Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 29 June 2012
[87]汉斯·舒尔茨,李素敏.加拿大高等教育的量变、质变及其特征卷高等教育研究2005(12)[88]http://www.china.com.cn/education/txt/2007-10/20/content_9093347.htm
[89]杨健燕.加拿大高等教育的发展对我国高等教育的启示,河南纺织高等专科学校学报2005年第17卷第4期
[90]Luisa Cerdeira, Tomas Patrocinio.Promoting the accessibility and affordability in Portuguese higher education Original Research Article Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 12,2011, Pages 185-199 [91] Hideo Akabayashi, Hiroko Araki. Do education vouchers prevent dropout at private high schools? Evidence from Japanese policy changes Original Research Article Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 183-198
[92]R.G Ehrenberg.The Economics of Tuition and Fees in Higher Education International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition),2010, Pages 229-234
[93]Christine Neill. Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[94]Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3
[95]Martin Gonzalez Rozada, Alicia Menendez.Public university in Argentina:subsidizing the rich? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 341-351
[96]Gary Fethke.Strategic determination of higher education subsidies and tuitions Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, Issue 5, October 2005, Pages 601-609
[97]Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe.A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3
[98]A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3 Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe
[99]A unique solution to solve the pending medical school tuition crisis Original Research Article American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 203, Issue 1, July 2010, Pages 19.e1-19.e3 Louis Weinstein, Honor Wolfe
[100]Robert Dur, Amihai Glazer.Subsidizing Enjoyable Education Original Research Article Labour Economics, Volume 15, Issue 5, October 2008, Pages 1023-1039
[101]Christine Neill.Tuition fees and the demand for university places Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 28, Issue 5, October 2009, Pages 561-570
[102]Malte Hubner.Do tuition fees affect enrollment behavior? Evidence from a'natural experiment'in Germany Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 29 June 2012
[103]Hideo Akabayashi, Hiroko Araki.Do education vouchers prevent dropout at private high schools? Evidence from Japanese policy changes Original Research Article Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Volume 25, Issue 3, September 2011, Pages 183-198
[104]Asayo Ohba.The abolition of secondary school fees in Kenya:Responses by the poor Original Research Article International Journal of Educational Development, Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 402-408
[105]The Impact of Tuition Fees and Support on University Participation in the UK http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?q=The+Impact+of+Tuition+Fees+and+Support+on+U niversity+Participation+in+the+UK&hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X& ei=RpnmT46BBo2uiQfz3q 1 Z&ved=0CAcQgQMwAA
[106]Arnaud Chevalier.Subject choice and earnings of UK graduates Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 30, Issue 6, December 2011, Pages 1187-1201
[107]Annette Alstadsaeter, Ann-Sofie Kolm, Birthe Larsen. Money or joy:The choice of educational type Original Research Article European Journal of Political Economy, Volume 24, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 107-122
[108]Martin Gonzalez Rozada, Alicia Menendez.Public university in Argentina:subsidizing the rich? Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 341-351
[109]David W. Chapman, Sarah Mushlin. Do girls' scholarship programs work? Evidence from two countries Original Research Article International Journal of Educational Development, Volume 28, Issue 4, July 2008, Pages 460-472
[110]DeForest McDuff.Quality, tuition, and applications to in-state public colleges Original Research Article Economics of Education Review, Volume 26, Issue 4, August 2007, Pages 433-449
[111]http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E5%8A%9B%E8%B5%84%E6%9C%AC
[112]Mortensen, D.T.,2003:Wage Dispersion:Why Are Similar Workers Paid Differently? Cambridge.Massachusetts.
[113]Burdett,Kenneth,and Dale T.Mortensen,1998:Wage Differentials, Employer Size,and unemployment. International Economic Review 39(2):257-73.
[114]Manning, A.,2003:Monopsony in Motion. Princeton University Press.
[115]中国南方人才市场、广州人力资源管理学会、广州市人才研究院：南方人才2009年度广东地区薪酬调查报告,广东省出版集团、广东经济出版社,2009.10
[116]杨世忠,许江波,张丹.作业成本法在高校教育成本核算中的应用研究——基于某高校成本核算的实例分析,会计研究,2012/04
[117]http://edu.163.com/13/0207/09/8N3OKCMC00293OM3_all.hrml