Bridging the Learning Gap in the Marketfor Higher Education: E‐learning and Public Subsidies
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims at analyzing the adoption patterns which apply on the market for higher education when two types of learning organizations – namely, traditional learning and e‐ learning organizations – provide educational programs. We focus on the impact of public subsidies to e‐learning providers in order to evaluate the conditions under which the learning gap is bridged. A welfare analysis is introduced to estimate the relevance of such ‘pro e‐learning’ public policies. Our first results show that public subsidies enable the e‐learning organization to provide quality‐based and pricing strategies that tend to be similar to those of the brick’n mortar organization. Besides, we find that such short‐term policies positively impact on the global level of quality which is provided by both providers. Nevertheless, our welfare analysis underlines contrasted results about the relevance of such short‐term public policies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, authors shall transfer the copyright to the publisher. If the submitted manuscript is not accepted for printing by the journal, the authors shall retain all their rights. The following rights on the manuscript are transferred to the publisher, including any supplementary materials and any parts, extracts or elements of the manuscript:
- the right to reproduce and distribute the manuscript in printed form, including print-on-demand;
- the right to print prepublications, reprints and special editions of the manuscript;
- the right to translate the manuscript into other languages;
- the right to reproduce the manuscript using photomechanical or similar means including, but not limited to photocopy, and the right to distribute these copies;
- the right to reproduce and distribute the manuscript electronically or optically using and all data carriers or storage media, and especially in machine readable/digitalized form on data carriers such as hard drive, CD-ROM, DVD, Blu-ray Disc (BD), Mini Disc, data tapes, and the right to reproduce and distribute the article via these data carriers;
- the right to store the manuscript in databases, including online databases, as well as the right to transmit the manuscript in all technical systems and modes;
- the right to make the manuscript available to the public or to closed user groups on individual demand, for use on monitors or other readers (including e-books), and in printable form for the user, either via the Internet, online service, or via internal or external networks.
References
Bates, T (2005), Technology, E‐learning and Distance Education. New York, Routledge.
Becker, W.E. & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching methods in U.S. undergraduate economics courses. Journal of Economic Education, 32 (3), 269‐279.
Belfield, C., & Levin, H.M. (2002). The effects of competition on educational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 72 (2), 279‐341.
Brasington, D.M. (2003). The supply of public school quality. Economics of Education Review, 22 (4), 367‐377.
Cukusic, M., Alfirevic, N., Granic, A. & Garaca, Z. (2010). E‐learning process management and the elearning performance: Results of a European empirical study. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 554‐
565.
Dee, T.S. (1998). Competition and the quality of public schools. Economics of Education Review, 17 (4), 419‐427.
Epple, D. & Romano, R.E. (1998). Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer group effects. American Economic Review, 88 (1), 33‐62.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Hoxby, C.M. (1994). Do private schools provide competition from public schools? NBER working paper no. 4978, Cambridge, MA.
Hoxby, C.M. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, 90 (5), 1209‐1238.
Hoyt, W.H. & Lee, K. (1998). Educational vouchers, welfare effects, and voting. Journal of Public Economics, 69 (2), 211‐228.
Jaag, C., (2006). School competition. MPRA working paper no. 339, Munich, Germany.
Jepsen, C. (2002). The role of aggregation in estimating the effects of private school competition on student achievement. Journal of Urban Economics, 52 (3), 477‐500.
McMillan, R. (2004). Competition, incentives, and public school productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 88 (9‐10), 1871‐1892.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73 (2), 417‐458.
Schneider, A. (2010). Redistributive taxation vs. education subsidies: Fotsreing equality and social
mobility in an intergenerational model. Economics of Education Review, 29 (4), 597‐605.
Sosin, K., Blecha, B.J., Agawal, R., Bartlett, R.L. & Daniel, J.I. (2004). Efficiency in the use of technology
in economic education: Some preliminary results. American Economic Review, 94 (2), 253‐258.
West, E.G. (1997). Education vouchers in principle and practice: A survey. World Bank Research
Observer, 12 (1), 83‐103.
Yamauchi, F. (2011). School quality, clustering and government subsidy in post‐apartheid South Africa. Economics of Education Review, 30 (1), 146‐156.