ExCID seminar with Julian Garritzmann

Universität Konstanz
Julian L. Garritzmann
Oslo, ExCiD Seminar, March 3, 2015
The Political Economy
of Higher Education
Financea
A Comparative Analysis of the Politics of
Tuition Fees and Subsidies

Motivation / Puzzle
- $ 670 / Term
= $ 6700
+ $ 0
>> - $ 6700
Pol Econ of Higher Edu Finance (Garritzmann)2 3.3.2015
- $ 6000 / Year
= $ 30000
+ $ 1500
+ $ 1000
>> - $17500
- $ 8000 / Year
= $ 40000
+ $ 8000 Loan / Year
= $ 40000
>> - $ 40000
- $ 0 / Year
+ $ 650 / Month
(max. 55)
= $ 35750
>> + $ 35750

Research Questions
1) How do the tuition-subsidy systems differ across the advanced
democracies?
(How) Have they changed over time?
- “Four Worlds of Student Finance“
- identical starting point  radical change  stability
1) How can we explain the emergence of the Four Worlds?
- “Time-sensitive partisan theory“
2) Why don’t the regimes change anymore?
- Positive Feedback-Effects (Individual- & Elite-Level)

Relevance
Theoretical relevance:
- No explanation yet
- Higher education research dominated by educational scientists and
economists, often disregarding political factors
- Political economy of skill formation literature (Busemeyer 2009 u.a.; Thelen 2004;
Iversen 2005) focuses on VET
Societal relevance:
- Enormously important for students, their families, and tax payers in general
- Immense distributional effects
- E.g., on wages  socio-economic inequality
- (Preferences towards) redistribution
- Studying behavior  social mobility
- Varieties of Capitalism
- Macro-economis consequences
- ...

- Existing literature does not provide answers (ecclectic unsystematic descriptions of
single cases are predominant)
- New dataset from several sources:
- 33 countries
- 70+ characteristics
- 1995 – 2010
- Bivariate example
1) How do the tuition-subsidy systems
differ across the advanced
democracies?

- 33 countries
- 1995 – 2010
- Bivariate example
- More systematically: Multivariate  Cluster-analyses
1) How do the tuition-subsidy systems
differ across the advanced democracies?

1) Welche unterschiedlichen Konstellationen
finden wir in den OECD-Ländern?
- 33 countries
- 1995 – 2010
- Bivariate example
- More systematically: Multivariate  Cluster-analyses
 „Four Worlds of Student Finance“
- Historical sources (worse data situation): After WWII identical regimes in all
OECD-countries:
 low tuition, no subsidies, (low enrollment)

2) How can we explain the emergence of
the Four Worlds?
Why have the systems developed from the identical starting point
after WWII to the Four Worlds of Student Finance?
1945 2015 (1980s)
TuitionFees
TuitionFees
Subsidy generosity Subsidy generosity

the Four Worlds?
Why have the systems developed from the identical starting point
after WWII to the Four Worlds of Student Finance?
Cursory literature review:
- Literature dominated by
- Economists (functionalistic arguments) (Johnstone 1989 u.a.;
Ehrenberg 2000; Vedder 2004; Archibald/Feldman 2011; ...)
- Education scientists (cultural arguments) (Chevallier/Eicher 2002; Barr
2004; Jongbloed 2004; Kaiser et al. 2002; ...)
- Fundamental problems:
- Variation of the Four Worlds unexplained
- Variation over time unexplained
- Actor-blind, functionalistic (blackbox)

the Four Worlds?
My Argument:
vs. Economists & Educational scientists:
Politics matters! Especially governing parties!
Starting point:
Partisan hypothesis (Hibbs 1977): Ideology & Voter preferences
„Leftwing“ = pro socio-economic upward mobility and progressive change;
equality of opportunities > quality of HEIs
 pro subsidies (McPhersen/Schapiro 2006)
 contra tuition fees
„Rightwing“ = Status Quo > change;
Quality of HEIs > equal chances for access
 contra subsidies
 in principal also contra tuition...
 ...aber pro tuition as soon as they fear that the quality might decrease
(especially due to rising enrollment levels)
 Can only explain 2 of the Four Worlds!

the Four Worlds?
My Argument:
Extend partisan hypothesis: time dimension!
- Sequence & duration in office
>>> Four paths:
1. Leftwing predominance  no tuition, high subsidies
2. Rightwing predominance  high tuition, low subsidies
3. Rightwing after longer leftwing government  high tuition, high subsidies
4. Rightwing after short leftwing government  low tuition, low subsidies
 “Time-sensitive partisan theory“

Universität KonstanzPol Econ of Higher Edu Finance (Garritzmann)12 3.3.2015
the Four Worlds?
a
Mein Argument:

the Four Worlds?
Methodology:
Multi-Method Design
- Qualitative analyses
- Historical comparative case studies (4 countries, „diverse cases“ [Gerring 2007;;
Seawright/Gerring 2008], 7 decades, „Systematic Process Analysis“ [Hall 2006, 2008])
- Quantitative analyses
- Meso: party positions (expert surveys & party manifesto analysis in UK)
- Macro: expenditure data (OECD-countries, 1995-2010, [TS]CS)
- Individual: attitudes (ISSP-data, multilevel models)
Advantages of the MMD
- Circumvents partly miserable data situation
- Analyses of effects und mechanisms
- Various levels of analyses  test many implications of the model

the Four Worlds?
Finland
- always tuition free
- 1944-48: first subsidies (SDP-gov.)
- High reparation payments prohibit further extension
- 1969: publicly guaranteed, subsidized loans (SDP-gov.)
- 1972: combination of loans and grants (opintotuki) (SDP-gov.)
- 1977: Housing allowances & generous subsidy (leftwing majority)
- 1980s: further extensions (SDP-gov.)
- 1992: pure grant system (SDP-plan, rightwing minority government)
Leftwing predominance  Low tuition, high subsidies
Japan
- Predominant fiscal-conservative LDP (“one party state”)
- LDP = pro elitist vs. „massification“; vs. public spending  no subsidies
- Highly elitist HE-system, severe restriction of access
- 1960s: “economic miracle“ increasing demand  „laissez-faire“ policy...
- ... “outsources” expansion into private HEIs  no public support  massive tuition
Rightwing predominance  High tuition, low subsidies
Empirical results (qualitative)

the Four Worlds?
Germany
- 1957: CDU/CSU  Honnefer Model: loans for “gifted students”
“Die Aufwendungen für das Honnefer Modell sind etwas geringer als die Aufwendungen für die Eiersubvention”
- 1971: SPD/FDP  BAFöG  enormously generous subsidies
- 1970s: economic situation prevents further extension
- Kohl (1982-98) retrenches BAföG drastically
- 2005+: Attempts to install tuition fees (by rightwing gov.) defeated by public opinion (FB-effects)
Shortly leftwing, then rightwing  Low tuition, low subsidies
“U.S.”
- prewar: identical to other OECD-countries
- 1944-1980: “The Democrats’ Age of Grants and Enrollment Expansion“
- 1944: G.I. Bill, Roosevelt
- 1965: HEA, LBJ
- 1972: Pell Grants (1980:  80% grants)
- 1981-2015: “The Republican-led creeping shift from grants to loans & tax-deductions“
(1989:  31% grants)
Long leftwing, then rightwing  High tuition, high subsidies
Empirical results (qualitative)

Universität KonstanzPol Econ of Higher Edu Finance (Garritzmann)16 3.3.2015
the Four Worlds?
Empirische Ergebnisse
(qualitativ)
a
Mein Argument:

the Four Worlds?
Empirical results (quantitative, meso)
Do parties’ positions differ as assumed?
Bulk of existing literature: simply assumes party positions; empirically
unclear (cf. Busemeyer, Franzmann, Garritzmann 2013)
Here: Empirical investigation
Data: Rohrschneider / Whitefield (2012): 114 parties, 15 EU-countries
Operationalization:
“Should the state make higher education available free to all who
have the appropriate qualifications […] or should higher education be
paid for […] by individuals […] or something in between?” (1-7)

the Four Worlds?
Problems of data availability!
Cross-sectional regressions
- DV = current regime characteristics (tuition & subsidies)
- IVs = parties’ historical cabinet seat-shares (e.g., 1945-1975)
 Result: Partisan composition of gov has strong effect!
 Result: historical government composition more explanatory power!
TSCS
- Data = OECD.Stat, expenditure data, 1995-2010, 21 countries
- DVs = regime characteristics
- Unit of analyses: Country-years or government terms (Garritzmann/Seng under review)
- DiD; ECM
 Result: no party-effects anymore for current phase!
Empirical results (quantitative, macro)

Observation (“Puzzle“):
- Identical starting point (1945)
- Radical change along four paths to Four Worlds 1945 – ca. 1990
- Stability in Four Worlds since 1990s

Observation (“Puzzle“):
- Identical starting point (1945)
- Radical change along four paths to Four Worlds 1945 – ca. 1990
- Stability in Four Worlds since 1990s
How can we explain this stability? (Garritzmann 2015, JESP)
- Positive feedback-effects (Pierson 1993, 2000; Kumlin/Stadelmann-Steffen 2014; …; …; …)
- Why FB?
- Micro: Students pay tuition  others should also pay!“
- Micro: Students receive subsidies  „others should also receive!“
- Mechanism: RC or sociological
- Macro: the more tuition/subsidies established the more costly to abolish
- Why “suddenly“ FB?
- Size of the affected group grows (exponentially)! (Trow 1972; Windolf 1997)

Methodology:
- ISSP-RoG-Data (3 waves: 20 years, 19 countries)
- Multilevel models (ordered logit)
- DV: “do you think it should be or should not be the government’s responsibility
to give financial help to university students from low-income families?”
Main results:
- Individual-level:
- Attitudes vary by party affiliation
- ... controlled for material self-interest...
- ... Controlled for redistribution- and general spending preferences.
- Macro-level:
- positive FB-effects: the more generous the subsidy systems (amounts and
type) the more support in public opinion (levels and changes)  policy
change costly for political parties  stability

Conclusions (I)
3 Research Questions
- Variation across OECD-countries?  “Four Worlds of Student Finance“
- How can we explain the emergence of the Four Worlds from the identical
postwar starting point?
- Why don’t the regimes change anymore (path dependency)?
Argument
1. Politics matter!
2. Partisan theory...
3. ...has to expanded by a time-dimension!
4.  four development paths  Four Worlds
5. positive Feedback-Effects explain stability
Empirical analyses
- Multi-Method-Design
- Several analyses on various analytical levels

Conclusions (II)
Main results
- Descriptively: Four Worlds of Student Finance
- Macro-level:
- Large-n (quantitative) and small-n (qualitative) analyses of the effects and
mechanisms provide strong support for my “time-sensitive partisan theory”
- Meso-level:
- Leftwing and rightwing parties do have different positions…
- ... but adapt these to the status quo path, due to positive FB-effects
- Individual-level:
- Leftwing and rightwing voters differ in their attitudes
- Positive Feedback-effects reinforce the existing regimes...
- ...and contribute to path dependencies by making policy-change costly

Contributions to the literature
... To the „Skill-Literature“:
- Adding to economists and education scientists: politics matter!
- Focus on higher education (vs. political science literature focus on VET)
- Highly relevant but unexplained phenomenon  politico-economic explanation
- Party positions on HE  Literature: contradicting results; here: attempt to
reconcile
... To the Comparative Political Economy Literature:
- Importance of HE as an extremely relevant and interesting policy-field (very strong (re-
)distributional effects  strong party competition; complex distributive dynamics...)
... To Policy-research and political science in general:
- Theoretically: Expansion of the omnipresent partisan theory by a time-dimension
- ... Potentially transferable to other policy-fields
- Combination of RC and HI
- Explanation of Policy- and institutional stability and change
- Relates very well to other research and discourse (“liberalization”, “marketization”, “institutional
change”, varieties of capitalism, …)

Many thanks for
the invitation
and your attention!
Julian L. Garritzmann
Tel.: +49 (0) 75 31/88 – 2493
julian.garritzmann@uni-konstanz.de

ExCID seminar with Julian Garritzmann

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to ExCID seminar with Julian Garritzmann

Similar to ExCID seminar with Julian Garritzmann (20)

More from ExCID

More from ExCID (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (18)

ExCID seminar with Julian Garritzmann