Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Indian Economy: Reforms and Development pp 289–313Cite as

A Neoliberal Approach to Policy Making in Indian Higher Education During the Post-liberalization Era

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 377 Accesses

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

Abstract

It looks at the series of higher education reforms which have been mooted and implemented since the beginning of the liberalization phase in India. It unravels the rationality behind the reform measures and traces its evolution over the last two and half decades. It then questions whether the rationale of promoting market in higher education, changing governance of public institutions and the increased role of the private sector based on the concept of efficiency are tenable or not in the context of higher education in a developing country like India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Revenue augmentation measures included encouraging tax compliance, hike in user charges to mobilize more non-tax revenue and disinvestment of public assets.

  2. 2.

    SAP and the stabilization package together constitute the Washington Consensus as both the institutions are located at the Washington D.C. Neoliberalism as an ideology, arguably, informs Washington Consensus.

  3. 3.

    Higher Education Funding Agency was set up in 2016, in order to finance infrastructure and research in universities through loans. The principal portion of the loan would be repaid through internal receipts, generated through fee receipts, research earnings, etc.

  4. 4.

    By excludability in consumption of higher education is meant that the consumption of higher education, in terms of vacancy/admission, by one individual diminishes the possibility of admission/availability of that very vacancy for the other individual. Rivalry in benefits arises from the fact that the benefits of higher education, in terms of higher future income stream, is enjoyed only by the individual who invests in education, and not others.

  5. 5.

    This is as per the definition of merit good given by Musgrave and Musgrave (1989) which argues that the preferences suffer from myopia and information asymmetry and hence the government should intervene instead of banking on people’s choices.

  6. 6.

    Gross Enrolment Ratio refers to the total enrolment in higher education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage to the eligible official population (18–23 years) in a given school year.

  7. 7.

    Higher education can be considered to be a quasi-public good which is assumed to have both the ‘privateness’ and ‘publicness’. It is a public good because the externalities are generated but at the same time it is exclusive.

  8. 8.

    Negotiated mode of funding involves allocation on the basis of previous year and providing incremental funds on the broadly laid formula.

  9. 9.

    Though faced with criticism, higher education was later admitted to be a merit good but of lower merit compared to school education.

  10. 10.

    Retrieved from Reference Note, Lok Sabha Secretariat (2014), No.21/RN/Ref./2014.

  11. 11.

    Central Universities and State Universities combined.

  12. 12.

    Annual Reports, UGC, various years.

  13. 13.

    http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/8023719_Guidelines-for-CBCS.pdf.

  14. 14.

    It involves importing of ideas, techniques and practices from the private sector in order to make the public sector more business-like.

  15. 15.

    It entails opening up of public education services to private sector participation on a for-profit basis and using the private sector to design, manage or deliver aspects of public education.

References

  • Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S., & Youdell, D. (2007). Hidden privatisation in public education. Education International. University of London: Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, R. (1990). Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2009). The market in higher education: Concern for equity and quality. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(29), 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2012). Education and economics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2016). New modes of financing higher education: Cost recovery, private financing and education loans. In N. V. Varghese & G. Malik (Eds.), India Higher Education Report 2015 (pp. 333–351). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, D. N., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2014). Academic performance indicators. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(50), 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duraisamy, P., & Duraisamy, M. (2015). On the privatization, economic burden of expenditure on households, and role of student loan in financing higher education in India. Paper presented at an international seminar on Innovative Methods of Financing of Higher Education During February 23–25, 2015 at NUEPA. New Delhi (Draft).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glennerster, H. (1991). Quasi-market for education? The Economic Journal, 101(408), 1268–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GoI. UGC. Various years. Annual reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • GOI. (1993). UGC Funding of the institutions of higher education. Report of Justice Punnayya Committee 1992–93. New Delhi: University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (1997, May). Government subsidies in India. Discussion Paper. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance. Department of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2000, April). Report on a policy framework for reforms in education. New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2005). Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) committee on Autonomy of Higher Education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2008). Eleventh five year plan (2007–12). Social sector (Vol. 2). Planning Commission of India. New Delhi: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2009a). National knowledge commission: Report to the nation 2006–09. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2009b). Report of the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education. Delhi: UGC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2010, September 18). UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in higher education. Delhi: The Gazette of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2012a). Analysis of budgeted expenditure on education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2012b). Committee on report of participation in higher education. Report of NR Narayana Murthy Committee. New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2013a). Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan. Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2013b). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–17). Social Sectors. Vol. 3. Planning Commission of India. New Delhi: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2013c, January). UGC regulations for mandatory accreditation. Delhi: The Gazette of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2014). All India survey of higher education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2017). UGC (Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities) Regulations 2017. New Delhi: University Grants Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India. (2018). UGC [Categorization of Universities (only) for Grant of Graded Autonomy] Regulations, 2018. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, J., & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled waters? Higher Education, 49, 529–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • https://mygov.in/new-education-policy-group.html.

  • http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/8023719_Guidelines-for-CBCS.pdf.

  • Jongbloed, B. (2004). Regulation and competition in higher education. In Pedro Texeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill, & Alberto Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality?. London/Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kai, J. (2009). A critical analysis of accountability in higher education. Chinese Education and Society, 42(2), 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, D., & Mehta, P. B. (2017). Introduction. In D. Kapur & P. B. Mehta (Eds.), Navigating the labyrinth: Perspectives on India’s higher education (pp. 1–37). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, K. P. (2017). Financing of higher education in India: The way forward. In K. Devesh & P. B. Mehta (Eds.), Navigating the labyrinth: Perspectives on India’s Higher Education. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lok Sabha Secretariat. (2014). Budget for education sector in India. Reference Note. No. 21/RN/ReF./2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2016). Higher Education and the common good. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, K. P. 1972. Accountability in higher education. Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, R. A., & Musgrave, P. (1989). Public finance in theory and practice (5th ed.). New Delhi: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psacharopoulos, G. (1986). Financing education in developing countries: An exploration of policy options. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, Paul A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, V. (2010, September–December). UPA’s agenda of Academic ‘Reforms’ facilitating trade in Higher Education. Social Scientist, 38(9–12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2004, January). Public subsidies in education in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(4), 343–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2005). Higher education in Trishanku: Hanging between state and market. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(37), 4029–4037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2010). Policy crisis in higher education: Reform or deform? Social Scientist, 38(9–12), 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2012, March 31). Higher education policy in India in transition. Economic and Political Weekly, 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2014, October 4). Private higher education in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(40), 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2016). A Decade of ups and downs in public expenditure on higher education in India. In N. V. Varghese & Garima Malik (Eds.), India Higher Education Report 2015. New York and Oxon: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Association, 13(1), 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

Reports

  • All India Survey of Higher Education (various years), Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Statistics at a glance (2016), Ministry of Human Resource Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAAC Annual Reports, various years.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    Saumen Chattopadhyay

  2. Visiting Faculty, Shiv Nadar University, Noida, India

    Aishna Sharma

Authors
  1. Saumen Chattopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aishna Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saumen Chattopadhyay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics College of Vocational Studies, University of Delhi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Pradip Kumar Biswas

  2. Department of Economics, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

    Panchanan Das

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 13.5.

Table 13.5 Framework for looking at the implication of reforms/efficiency on Equity, Excellence and Expansion
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chattopadhyay, S., Sharma, A. (2019). A Neoliberal Approach to Policy Making in Indian Higher Education During the Post-liberalization Era. In: Biswas, P., Das, P. (eds) Indian Economy: Reforms and Development. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8269-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation