SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

IMPACT OF REFORMS ON TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS

REFORMLARIN YÜKSEKÖĞRETİM SİSTEMLERİNİN TOPLAM FAKTÖR VERİMLİLİĞİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Emine AYRANCI
Mehmet Cahit GÜRAN
Tarkan ÇAVUŞOĞLU
Pages
121–143
Publication Date
2022-03-23
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Countries reforming their higher education system that recorded an increase in total factor productivity change indices, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Czech Republic do not reform the higher education system, concluded that the decline in total factor productivity change index value has been reached.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the total factor productivity change index of 20 OECD member countries, which implemented and did not implement financial, structural, administrative and quality-based reform in their higher education system between 1998-2012, was analyzed using the Malmquist-Luenberger productivity change index method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the total factor productivity change index of 20 OECD member countries, which implemented and did not implement financial, structural, administrative and quality-based reform in their higher education system between 1998-2012, was analyzed using the Malmquist-Luenberger productivity change index method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Countries reforming their higher education system that recorded an increase in total factor productivity change indices, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Czech Republic do not reform the higher education system, concluded that the decline in total factor productivity change index value has been reached.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Malmquist-Luenberger Toplam Faktör Verimlilik Değişim Endeksi · Yükseköğretim · Reform

Abstract

In this study, the total factor productivity change index of 20 OECD member countries, which implemented and did not implement financial, structural, administrative and quality-based reform in their higher education system between 1998-2012, was analyzed using the Malmquist-Luenberger productivity change index method. Countries reforming their higher education system that recorded an increase in total factor productivity change indices, Poland, Turkey, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Czech Republic do not reform the higher education system, concluded that the decline in total factor productivity change index value has been reached.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, 20 OECD üye ülkesinin 1998-2012 yılları arasında yükseköğretim sisteminde finansal, yapısal, yönetsel ve kalite temelli reform gerçekleştiren ve gerçekleştirmeyen ülkelerin toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerleri ve bileşenlerinin seyri Malmquist-Luenberger TFV değişim endeks yöntemi aracılığı ile analiz edilmiştir. Reform gerçekleştiren ülkelerin toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerlerinde artış kaydettikleri, reform gerçekleştirmeyen Polonya, Türkiye, Hollanda, İrlanda ve Çek Cumhuriyeti’nin ise toplam faktör verimlilik değişim endeks değerlerinde düşüş tecrübe ettikleri sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYRANCI, E., GÜRAN, M. C., ÇAVUŞOĞLU, T. (2022). IMPACT OF REFORMS ON TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 121–143. https://ajindex.com/articles/390835

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Agasisti, T. (2011). Performances and Spending Efficiency in Higher Education: A European Comparison Through Non-Parametric Approaches. Education Economics, 19 (2), 199–224.
  2. Al-Bagoury, S. (2013). Using DEA to Evaluate Efficiency of African Higher Education. Educational Research, 4 (11), 742-747.
  3. Aubyn, M. S., Pina, A., Garcia, F. ve Pais, J. (2009). Study on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Public Spending on Tertiary Education. Brussels: European Commission Economic Papers. Barr, N. (2009). Financing Higher Education: Lessons from Economic Theory and Reform in England. Higher Education in Europe, 34 (2), 201-209.
  4. Becker, R. F. (2009).
  5. States, Markets and Higher Education Reform: The Netherlands and England. J. Zajda, & V. Rust (Ed.), Globalisation, Policy and Comparative Reseach (157-170). The Netherlands: Springer. Burgess, C., Gibson, L., Klaphake, J. ve Selzer, M. (2010). The ‘Global 30’ Project and Japanese Higher Education Reform: an Example of a ‘Closing in’ or an ‘Opening up’? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8 (4), 461-475.
  6. Bursalıoğlu, S. A. (2012). Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği Ülkelerinde Yükseköğretim Kamu Harcamalarının Karşılaştırmalı Etkinlik Analizi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi: Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Bursalıoğlu, S. A. ve Selim, S. (2015). Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimde Etkinliği Belirleyen Faktörler. Bilig, 74, 45-70.
  7. Canton, E. (2002). Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right. The Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Chambers, R. G., Fare, R. ve Grosskopf, S. (1996). Productivity Growth in APEC Countries. Pacific Economic Review, 1 (3), 181-190.
  8. Chung, Y. H., Fare, R. ve Grosskopf, S. (1997). Productivity and Undesirable Outputs: A Directional Distance Function Approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 51 (3), 229–240. de Boer, H., Enders, J. ve Schimank, U. (2007). On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. D. Jansen (Ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations (137-152). The Netherlands: Springer. Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the Market to Rule: The Case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57 (2), 136-157. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M. ve Zhang, Z. (1994).
  9. Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries. The American Economic Review, 84 (1), 66-83.
  10. Goedegebuure, L., Santiago, P., Fitznor, L., Stens