Journal of Applied Economic Research
ISSN 2712-7435
Manifestations of Competition and Quasi-Competition of Russian Universities in the Struggle to Attract Applicants
Daniil G. Sandler
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Abstract
Globalization and the development of the knowledge economy increase competition in the higher education market. Improving the competitiveness of higher education in the world market in the second decade of the 21st century has officially become a project to be implemented by the state. In this regard, it is extremely important to study the competition among and competitiveness of universities. The purpose of this study is to substantiate the existence of quasi-competition among Russian universities and assess its impact on improving the efficiency of Russian higher education. The research hypothesis is that despite the inequality in the system of higher education, there is quasi-competition, not only within the groups of leading universities at the federal level and among regional universities, but also against everyone, and this competition increases the efficiency of the system as a whole. Particular attention is paid to such specific feature of university competition as competition for public funding, competition in a regulated market with high concentration and even monopoly. As a practical case for studying the competition of universities, the fight for applicants is considered as a vivid manifestation of competition. The information base of the study is the results of annual surveys of applicants of Ural Federal University. The main method of research is the economic and mathematical analysis of the results of surveys of graduates. It is concluded that the quasi-competition model best describes the established higher education markets. The Russian system of higher education operates under the dominance of state funding and quasi-market competition. An important aspect of the study is to identify the relationship between competition in the field of higher education and university funding. Competition between universities increases financial inequality in the higher education system. At the same time, in a number of areas, especially in terms of preparing bachelors, regional universities can compete with leading universities. The influence of competition on the higher education system contributes to the increase in the efficiency of universities through their struggle for a limited set of resources. An interesting practical finding of the study, which can be useful when planning admission campaigns, is that price competition for undergraduate applicants is inferior to competition for the quality of education in the campaign to attract students to master's programs.
Keywords
competition; competitiveness; leading universities; regional universities; efficiency; quasi-competition.
JEL classification
I23References
1. Abramova, M.O., Akoev, M.A., Anisimov, N.Iu. et al. (2020). Rossiiskoe vysshee obrazovanie: uroki pandemii i mery po razvitiiu sistemy [Russian Higher Education: Lessons of the pandemic and measures for system improvement]. Tomsk, Tomsk State University. (In Russ.).
2. Agarkov, G.A., Sandler, D.G., Sushchenko, A.D. (2020). Uspeshnost vypusknikov i uroven oplaty truda prepodavatelei kak faktory konkurentosposobnosti universitetov Uralskogo regiona [Graduate Success and Faculty Salary Level as factors of universities' competitiveness]. Ekaterinburg, Urals University. (In Russ.).
3. Agasisti, T., Catalano, G. (2006). Governance Models of University Systems – Towards Quasi-Markets? Tendencies and Perspectives: A European Comparison. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 261–278. DOI: 10.1080/13600800600980056.
4. Catalano, G., Silvestri, P. (1999). Regolamentazione e competizione nel sistemauniversitarioitaliano: Effetti e problemi del nuovo sistema di finanziamento. In: Regolamentazione dei Servizi Pubblici. Edited by D. Fabbri, G. Fiorentini. Roma, Carrocci Editore, 143–185.
5. Quasi-Markets and Social Policy (1993). Edited by W. Bartlett, J. Le Grand. London, Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-22873-7_9.
6. Glennerster, H. (1991). Quasi-Markets for Education? The Economic Journal, Vol. 101, Issue 408, 1268–1276. DOI: 10.2307/2234442.
7. Dill, D.D. (1997). Higher Education Markets and Public Policy. Higher Education Policy, Vol. 10, Issue 3/4, 167–185. DOI: 10.1016/S0952-8733(97)81763-1.
8. Kaiser, F., van der Meer, P., Beverwijk, J.M.R., Klemperer, A.M., Steunenberg, B., van Wageningen, A.C. (1999). Market Type Mechanisms in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Their Occurrence and Discussions on the Issue in Five Higher Education Systems. Netherlands, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), No. 319, 113 p.
9. Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality (2004). Edited by P. Teixiera, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, A. Amaral. Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: 1007/1-4020-2835-0.
10. Breneman, D.W., Mingle, J.R. (1981). Strategies for the 1980s. In Challenges of' Retrenchment. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
11. Leshukov, O.V., Frumin, I.D. (2017). Flagmanskie universitety: ot sovetskogo opyta k poisku novoi modeli (Flagship universities: From Soviet experience to searching for new model). Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz (University Management: Practice and Analysis), Vol. 21, No. 4, 22–29. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.04.046. (In Russ.).
12. Stukalova, I.B. (2019). Konkurentosposobnost rossiiskikh universitetov i akademicheskie reitingi (Competitiveness of Russian Universities and Academic Rankings). Sovremennoe obrazovanie [Modern Education], No. 2, 1–7. DOI: 10.25136/2409-8736.2019.2.29724. (In Russ.).
13. Saginova, O.V. (2017). Pokazateli konkurentosposobnosti vuzov [University competitiveness indicators]. ETAP: ekonomicheskaia teoriia, analiz, praktika (ETAP: Economic Theory, Analysis), No. 4, 116–125. (In Russ.).
14. Brankovic, J., Ringel, L., Werron, T. (2018). How rankings produce competition: The case of global university rankings. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, Vol. 47, Issue 4, 270–288. DOI: 10.1515/zfsoz-2018-0118.
15. Abakumova, N.N. (2014). Effektivnyi kontrakt v vysshem obrazovanii: «Za» i «Protiv» (Effective contract in higher education: Pros and cons). Vestnik NGUEU, No. 3, 162–172. (In Russ.).
16. Pashchenko, N.I. (1999). Konkurentosposobnost vuzov i strategii ikh deiatelnosti v usloviiakh regionalnoi konkurentsii [Competitiveness of universities and their action strategies amid regional competition]. Candidate of economic sciences thesis. Ufa. (In Russ.).
17. Fatkhutdinov, R.A. (2006). Upravlenie konkurentosposobnostyu vuza [Managing the competitive ability of a university]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], No. 9, 37–38. (In Russ.).
18. Agasisti, T. (2009). Market forces and competition in university systems: theoretical reflection and empirical evidence from Italy. International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 23, Issue 4, 463–483. DOI: 10.1080/02692170902954783.
19. Belfield, C. (2003). Economic Principles for Education: Theory and Evidence. Chapter 7. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publisher, 144–162. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00061-9.
20. Belfield, C., Levin, H. (2001). The Effects of Competition on Educational Outcomes: A Review of U.S. Evidence. Occasional Paper No. 35. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. DOI: 10.3102/00346543072002279.
21. Afonso, A., St. Aubyn, M. (2005). Non-parametric Approaches to Education and Health Efficiency in OECD Countries. Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 227–246. DOI: 10.1080/15140326.2005.12040626.
22. Kniazev, Iu. (2017). O metodologicheskom dualizme v obshchestvennykh naukakh [Methodological dualism in social sciences]. Ekonomist [Economist], No. 1, 63–70. (In Russ.).
23. Brandenburger, A., Nalebuff, B.J. (2011). Co-Opetition. Crown.
24. Tolokina, E.L. (2013). Sotrudnichestvo i konkurentsiia: kto kogo? [Cooperation and competition: which one prevails?]. Teoreticheskaia ekonomika (Theoretical Economy), No. 6 (18), 36–41. (In Russ.).
25. Prikhodko, R.V. (2009). Setevaia nauchno-proizvodstvennaia kooperatsiia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii i promyshlennykh predpriiatii (Scientific-production network cooperation of higher educational institutions and industrial enterprises). Ekonomika i ekologicheskii menedzhment (Economics and Environmental Management), No. 2, 34–43. (In Russ.).
26. Dimitrova, G., Dimitrova, T. (2017). Competitiveness of the universities: measurement capabilities. Trakia Journal of Sciences, Vol. 15, Suppl. 1, 311–316.
27. Bonchukova, D.A. Starobinskaya, N.M. (2013). Strategicheskii marketing i konkurentosposobnost vuza [Strategic marketing and the competitive ability of a university]. Marketing MBA. Marketingovoe upravlenie predpriiatiem [MBA Marketing. Marketing Management of a Company], No. 4 (2), 38–56. (In Russ.).
28. Mokhnachev, S.A. (2008). Upravlenie konkurentosposobnostyu vuza na rynke obrazovatelnykh uslug (Management competitiveness of higher educational institution in the market educational services). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Tomsk State University Journal of Economics), No. 307, 116–121. (In Russ.).
29. Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York, Simon and Schuster.
30. De Groof, J., Neave, G., Sve`c, J. (1998). Democracy and Governance in Higher Education. Dordrecht, Kluwer Law International, 202 p.
31. Gary-Bobo, R., Trannoy, A. (1998). L’Economie Politique Simplifié du ‘Mammouth’: Efficacité Sociale et Concurrence entre Universités. Working Paper THEMA, Vol. 13, No. 3. Université Cergy-Pontoise, 85–126.
32. Kendall, J., Knapp, M., Forder, J. (2006). Social care and the nonprofit sector in the western developed world. In: The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Yandbook. 2nd edition. Edited by W. Powell, R. Steinberg. New Haven, Yale University Press, 415–431.
33. Horta, H.Y., Huisman, J., Heitor, M. (2008). Does Competitive Research Funding Encourage Diversity in Higher Education? Science and Public Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 3, 146–158. DOI: 10.3152/030234208X299044.
34. Fedyukin, I., Frumin, I. (2010). Rossiiskie vuzy-flagmany [Russian flagship universities]. Pro et Contra, Vol. 14, No. 3, 19–31. (In Russ.).
35. Meek, V.L. (2000). Diversity and marketisation of higher education: incompatible concepts? Higher Education Policy, Vol. 13, 23–39. DOI: 10.1016/S0952-8733(99)00030-8.
36. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education. Higher Education, Vol. 52, Issue 1, 1–39. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-7649-x.
37. Psacharopoulos, G. (1996). Public Spending on Higher Education in Developing Countries: Too Much Rather Than Too Little. Economics of Education Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 421–422. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7757(96)00024-6.
About Authors
Daniil Gennadyievich Sandler
Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Leading Researcher, Department of International Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ekaterinburg, Russia (620002, Ekaterinburg, Mira street, 19); ORCID 0000-0002-5641-6596; e-mail: d.g.sandler@urfu.ru.
For citation
Sandler D.G. Manifestations of Competition and Quasi-Competition of Russian Universities in the Struggle to Attract Applicants. Journal of Applied Economic Research, 2022, Vol. 21, No. 1, 130-151. DOI: 10.15826/vestnik.2022.21.1.006.
Article info
Received January 10, 2022; Revised February 20, 2022; Accepted March 5, 2022.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2022.21.1.006
Download full text article:
~790 KB, *.pdf
(Uploaded
05.04.2022)
Created / Updated: 2 September 2015 / 20 September 2021
© Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»
Remarks?
select the text and press:
Ctrl + Enter
Portal design: Artsofte
Contact us
Rector's Office
Rector, Dr. Victor Koksharov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-45-03, e-mail: rector@urfu.ru
Vice-Rector for International Relations, Dr. Maxim Khomyakov
Tel. +7 (343) 375-46-27, e-mail: Maksim.Khomyakov@urfu.ru