Thank you for your attention to my presentation! I upload my slides and the abstract of my presentation.
There are three main points in my presentation.
(1) University subsidies from the Japanese government have decreased in the last 10 years. This is because the 18-year-olds population has decreased and the budget of the social security has increased rapidly due to the aging society.
(2) On the other hand, private funding has increased recently. One reason is that universities need to collaborate with companies because it can strengthen universities’ budget. The other reason is that companies think that using universities’ research result is effective in terms of creating innovation.
(3) The government of Japan has several strategies to increase universities’ income from private companies.
Additionally, I added another data about university’ income structure in the case of University of Tokyo and UC Berkeley (see the last slide). Although both of those are public universities, their income ratios are different from each other. The University of Tokyo depends more on the administrative subsidies. This is one reason why the Ministry of Finance in Japan wants to cut the subsidy more.
Finally, I would appreciate it if you could share the following information. ①What is your countries’ situation about the balance between private and public funding in Higher Education and its trend? and ②What is the effective way to increase the income from private companies?
https://edblogs.columbia.edu/inafu6653-001-2017-1/files/2017/02/HE-Sho-Ito-27ehwev.pdf
——————————————
Thank you for the many comments! I upload original data about university’s income from industries. The graph I used in the presentation is from the “Digest of Japanese Science and Technology Indicators 2016” by National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) in Japan, but the original data is from OECD Research and Development Statistics except for China. The data is slightly different between NISTEP and OECD, which is because NISTEP modified a little based on each country’s situation.
This is the data from OECD. I found Chilean data, so included it. https://edblogs.columbia.edu/inafu6653-001-2017-1/files/2017/02/Gross-domestic-expenditure-on-R-D-by-sector-of-performance-and-source-of-funds-（OECD）-1dlpbft.xml . And here is the website http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=GERD_FUNDS . You can see each country’s data by selecting “Higher education” as a sector of performance. You can see not only the ratio of business enterprise but also the one of non-profit enterprise or funds from abroad.
Also, since China is not a member of OECD, NISTEP used the China Statistical Yearbook. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2014/indexeh.htm. https://edblogs.columbia.edu/inafu6653-001-2017-1/files/2017/02/China-Statistical-Yearbook-2014-29fo4lt.xlsx .
Thank you for your inspring presentation, Sho!
This decrease in public spending is not unique to HE, also happening in K-12 education. The Ministry of Finance always insists that given the rapid decrease in the number of students the government should cut education budget in order not impose further national debt on future generations. How to counterague?
What is your countries’ situation about the balance between private and public funding in Higher Education and its trend?
Chile spend 2.4% of GDP in higher education. Of this 2.4% of wealth invested in higher education, 0.8% comes from public sources and 1.7% from private sources. Therefore, only 30% of the HE budget of Chile comes from public funding, while 70% comes from private funding.
Thank you Sofia for providing the statistics! I am intrigued by how Chile classifies higher education — is it in terms of conventional academia/ academic disciplines or does it include technical skills? Also, is there an upward trend in the Chilean government’s investment in higher education, or has it been fairly consistent? Thank you!
Firstly, I want to share two articles related to Chinese case:
http://gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/files/Country_Profiles/Asia/China.pdf
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEASTASIAPACIFIC/Resources/China-HigherEducationInnovation.pdf
I am not very confident by some statistics they used and will try to check it asap. However, I think both of them presented the same idea that public-private partnership (PPP) is used widely. From my perspective, there are four major financial resources for universities:
1. Government Grant
2. Tuition
3. Private Investment (corporates)
4. Philanthropy (individuals/nonprofits)
A special product development partnership (PDP) has emerged in recent years in China to motivate the private sector to invest in higher education, the integration mechanism of government-industry-university-research cooperation （政产学研合作机制）. Another very important point is that Chinese universities pay more and more attention to the philanthropy. Lots of Chinese universities set their own foundation to raise money worldwide. Philanthropy is different from sponsorship or investment from the private corporates or firms who ask for market and profit. I don’t see this trend in Japan right now.
I pretty much agree.
I have already seen Private investors stepping into Higher Education. Breaking down their strategy, listed companies acquired not-so-famous college through its subsidiaries such as a private equity fund. The details of the deals are usually not disclosed.
Regarding the education PPP, just noticed the data about China here.
By the end of 2016, the number of projects in education has been as high as 552.
http://www.cpppc.org:8082/efmisweb/ppp/projectLibrary/toPPPMapEng.do
Maybe the real number should exceed 552. Universities also receive PPP funding in high-tech and health sector.
Universities have another source of revenue, which in the case of China can be important : commercial/for profit activities (Publishing, Executive education, Capital Venture, Consulting, etc…).
Universities in China (and in many other Asian countries) are allowed to do business and retain the profit as discretionary fund. They have different kind of businesses, but the most noticeable ones are Founder Group, affiliated to Beijing University (a conglomerate in IT, healthcare, resources and real estate) and Tongfang Group, affiliated to Tsinghua University (a major conglomerate in IT, national security, construction, environmental protection etc.).
Yes. Forget this complicated resource. The university has University Run Industrial Management Committee Office (inside name) and Shanghai Fudan Asset Management Co., Ltd (outside name) to manage all these related firms. However, the old mechanism is very easy to cause corruptions and most of them are not successful (besides several very famous firms like Tongfang). So Chinese universities also try to introduce private LPs to co-run these companies. Last year, Fudan reorganized all its related firms because of the central inspection group.