摘要
关于我国教育个人收益的实证证据支持教育属于准公共产品的论断,政府对教育具有财政投资责任。公共产品理论并不能论证一定要通过政府举办公立学校来实施教育。类似"教育券"的方式可将资助与办学分开。政府对教育的财政责任是由教育的产品属性决定的,并不因组织实施教育机构的体制不同而不同。营利性机构与非营利性学校在体制方面各有利弊。历史上营利性教育总是以弥补传统教育供给与社会需求之间出现的真空的角色出现。国外营利性高等教育近二十年来获得较快的发展,但目前与非营利性高校在服务对象和教育内容方面重合不多。我国民办教育发展中存在营利动机和营利可能性,但现行的非营利政策使这种可能性被夸大。允许营利性学校和营利性教育正在成为政策的改革方向。
Empirical evidence shows the Quasi-public attributes of education in China, which justi- fies public subsidies as well as user charges. Theory of public goods does not necessarily lead to public provision of education. Subsidy and provision can be separated by mechanisms such as education vouch- ers. The necessity of public education subsidy lies in the nature of education products instead of the provider＇s status. For-profit and non-profit sectors have their advantages and disadvantages in education provision respectively. For-profit institutions were the first to step in when there is social demand for education unsatisfied by their traditional non-profit counterparts. The past several decades saw rapid expansion of proprietary education in many countries, while the services and clients of the two sectors are more complementary than overlapped. There exists for-profit motivations and possibility of profit- making in Chinese Minban Education, but the current non-profit restriction is exaggerating the profit- ability. For-profit !orovision of education is uainin~ leuitimacv in the fntl^re Dc^liev refc^rm in C.hln~
出处
《清华大学教育研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第1期109-116,共8页
Tsinghua Journal of Education
关键词
教育收益率
公共产品
营利性学校
教育产业化
rate of return to education
public goods
for-profit education
privatization of educa
