abstract:

A substantial body of literature has examined factors related to levels of public funding of higher education and to changes in public funding of higher education over the last few decades. Volatility in funding for higher education has not been examined in as much detail. Given the positive externalities associated with increasing the college educated population, volatile funding for higher education has the potential to hurt long-term economic and sociocultural development. In this study we seek to (1) propose different measures of volatility in state funding for higher education and (2) to establish which institution-and state-level factors are associated with higher levels of volatility in higher education funding. Our theoretical framework, derived from earlier work in this area, focuses on four broad areas that can drive volatility in funding: economic forces, political changes, governance arrangements, and institutional factors. In our preferred models, we find that, for unit-specific trends, two-year institutions experience substantially higher levels of volatility than four-year institutions, unemployment rates are associated with higher volatility, and higher tuition is associated with lower levels of volatility. When considering variation from the state-specific trend, governance arrangements may play some role in "buffering" institutions from volatility in spending, particularly if the governor appoints the State Higher Education Executive Officer.

摘要：

大量文献研究了与高等教育公共资金水平和过去几十年高等教育公共资金变化相关的因素。高等教育资金的波动性还没有得到足够详细的研究。考虑到与增加受过大学教育的人口相关的正外部性，高等教育资金的波动有可能损害长期的经济和社会文化发展。在本研究中，我们试图 (1) 提出不同的衡量州高等教育资金波动的措施，以及 (2) 确定哪些机构和州层面的因素与高等教育资金的较高波动性相关。我们的理论框架源自该领域的早期工作，重点关注可能导致资金波动的四个广泛领域：经济力量、政治变化、治理安排和制度因素。在我们的首选模型中，我们发现，对于特定单元的趋势，两年制院校的波动性水平明显高于四年制院校，失业率与较高的波动性相关，而较高的学费与较低的波动性相关。在考虑与州特定趋势的差异时，治理安排可能会在“缓冲”机构支出波动方面发挥一定作用，尤其是在州长任命州高等教育执行官的情况下。两年制院校比四年制院校经历的波动程度要高得多，失业率与较高的波动性有关，而较高的学费与较低的波动性有关。在考虑与州特定趋势的差异时，治理安排可能会在“缓冲”机构支出波动方面发挥一定作用，尤其是在州长任命州高等教育执行官的情况下。两年制院校比四年制院校经历的波动程度要高得多，失业率与较高的波动性有关，而较高的学费与较低的波动性有关。在考虑与州特定趋势的差异时，治理安排可能会在“缓冲”机构支出波动方面发挥一定作用，尤其是在州长任命州高等教育执行官的情况下。