Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 67-78 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 17 May 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2024 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2023 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.
Funding
Policy and funding support were two instruments used by the central government to build Chinese world-class universities. However, a growing trend involved local governments taking responsibility for funding support. Given marketisation and privatisation, private HEIs, private–public HEIs, joint-venture HEIs and public HEIs exist in China, with the latter (i.e., public HEIs) taking the most significant share of the country's higher education system. However, a growing trend in differentiation can be observed among public HEIs owing to government policy intervention and university ranking. HEIs included in government strategic plans, such as the 211 and the 985 Projects, received more financial and administrational support than their counterparts. The average funding received by the HEIs of the 211 and 985 Projects was significantly higher than that of HEIs not included in the list, thereby creating a wealth gap and role differentiation among Chinese public HEIs. During the initial 3-year period of the 985 Project, a total of US$234 million was allocated to the nine listed HEIs, in which more than half of the funding was provided by the central government (Ma,). Approximately US$6 billion was allocated during the second phase, 54% of which was provided by local governments, whereas the proportion from the central government declined to 46% (Wang & Zhang,). Thus, economic inequality among different regions further influenced educational development in various areas. Universities in developed areas benefitted from the generous support offered by local governments and thus could invest in hardware development and talent attraction. However, HEIs in less developed areas suffered from budget deficiencies and brain drain, as faculty members move to developed areas with high salaries and better welfare services. In the north-western province of Gansu, 999 senior researchers and professors resigned from their posts from 1998 to 2002 to work for HEIs in other parts of the country; however, the province could only attract 30 senior researchers to fill vacancies during the same period (MoE,). In extreme cases, universities in less developed areas lost dozens of faculty members within a year and thus struggled to find instructors.
Keywords
- China
- University rankings
- governance
- higher education
- world-class universities
