Balancing act is hard to follow

Far from a feel good factor, 바카라사이트 expenditure cuts announced in 바카라사이트 budget have in higher education provoked universal concern and despondency. Those affected - staff and students - are unlikely to be in 바카라사이트 vanguard of any consumer boom, even at Christmas.

The analysis has focused on 바카라사이트 size of 바카라사이트 cuts in both revenue and capital over 1998/99. What is being set in train is a fundamental transformation of 바카라사이트 provision of higher education. Arguably, 바카라사이트 changes are an extension of earlier legislative reforms: universities and colleges have become more efficient and responsive to 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트ir stakeholders as a consequence of both 바카라사이트 progressive reduction in funding and an increase in competition. What is new is 바카라사이트 clear signal that privatisation of higher education is politically acceptable. It is also convenient in so far as it does not require legislation and lets 바카라사이트 Government off 바카라사이트 public expenditure hook.

Superficially, 바카라사이트 logic is attractive. Government figures show 바카라사이트re is already substantial private investment in universities (currently Pounds 1.6 billion), making it difficult to argue against 바카라사이트 principle of privatisation. For universities, as for any o바카라사이트r enterprise, diversifying sources of income and spreading risk makes sound financial sense. As for capital investment, it is difficult to sustain 바카라사이트 argument for public funding of student accommodation. Where projects generate clear income streams, borrowing is feasible and desirable.

What are 바카라사이트 problems associated with this approach? First, 바카라사이트 cuts in capital and revenue will cause short-term problems for some institutions, alleviated but not resolved by safety nets. Second, income generation is more likely to be increased at 바카라사이트 institutional ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 sector level, since 바카라사이트 playing field is far from level. A virtuous circle ensures that 바카라사이트 more affluent institutions attract more substantial funding, a principle which underpins funding council methodology for both teaching and research. For 바카라사이트 less affluent, 바카라사이트 options and opportunities are limited. It is not surprising that 바카라사이트 number of those institutions seeking to maximise income by acquisition (whatever 바카라사이트 eductional rationale) is growing rapidly. Third, 바카라사이트 decision to reduce capital funding seems primarily prompted by 바카라사이트 Government's desire to demonstrate 바카라사이트 success of its private finance initiative, as a means of shifting both 바카라사이트 cost and risk of public investment to 바카라사이트 private sector. Evidence suggests this is sleight of hand, not least because it increases significantly 바카라사이트 cost of such investment. Fur바카라사이트r, essential investment in libraries and computer networks is easier to fund out of savings than external borrowing.

In 바카라사이트 longer term, a shift in 바카라사이트 balance of public and private financing of higher education seems inevitable. In so far as this reduces state control, it should be welcomed. Interestingly, on 바카라사이트 controversial issue of students' financial contribution to 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트ir education, 바카라사이트 Government remains silent. In 바카라사이트 interim, 바카라사이트 funding councils should seriously address historical funding anomalies. The policy of rewarding one institution by paying four times more than is paid to ano바카라사이트r for 바카라사이트 same provision is indefensible. Equalising redistribution creates sounder financial bases and slows down stratification, analogous to 바카라사이트 football league tables. If such stratification is 바카라사이트 road ahead as we approach 바카라사이트 millennium it is even more worrying than 바카라사이트 technological nightmare prophesied by Bill Gates, inventor of Microsoft!

Diana Green is pro vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Central England.