The cost of higher education (HE) continues to grow at an unsustainable rate in many country contexts, including in East Asia. With recent and projected HE growth in this region, HE administrators are increasingly faced with how best to provide cost-effective delivery while at the same time addressing how to meet workforce demands of increased quality, accountability, and international standards of excellence. In this article, we examine good and best practices of HE finance models in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. A primary objective of this article is to highlight a select number of exemplary models of HE financing that can reduce or at least help level off this unsustainable trend. We conclude with recommendations to assist policy makers, government planners, and HE administrators in their attempts to meet the financial challenges of today and in the future.
[Copyright of International Journal of Educational Development is the property of Pergamon Press.]

為應對香港社會多元化且高質量的教育需求,香港政府於1991年設計並實施了"直接資助學校計劃"。"直資學校"在享受政府發放的經常性津貼的同時被允許收取學費,並享受較大的辦學自由權,用以向學生提供額外的支持服務。研究發現,這一政策在提升香港學校系統教育質量與效率的同時,可能導致社會階層差距擴大等教育不公平問題。政府未來採用教育財政手段、政府政策制度及政府輔助型服務等干預方式對現有的"直接資助學校計劃"進行改進和完善,在提升香港地區基礎教育的質量與效率的同時,確保教育公平。

It is common in times of restraint for governments to look for areas to reduce expenditure and balance budgets. Policymaking in most Western countries over the past two decades has been strongly influenced by expenditure reduction strategies as a means of rendering the public sector more efficient as well as reducing its size. In addition, “small” government has become a mantra in contexts where free market economics has been adopted as the guiding economic ideology. Such an approach to policymaking views expenditure as a cost, a balanced budget as evidence of prudent financial management, and the reduced size of government as a public good. It has not been uncommon in many countries for educational expenditure to be reduced in recent times or for private sources of funding to replace previously public funded education. This paper will argue that recent developments in theories of economic growth suggest that such a strategy is likely to be counterproductive. What is more, the identification of the role education can play in economic policy is not inconsistent with broader social policy objectives. To achieve both sets of objectives, education needs to be seen as an investment rather than a cost. It not only adds value to human capital, as suggested in traditional human capital theory, but it also contributes directly to economic growth by producing new knowledge and innovation that fuels technological change. Without such change, “new economies” will neither develop nor grow. The conditions under which education can contribute to economic growth in the “new economy” will also be explored in this paper since education needs to be accompanied by appropriate external conditions. There is no a consensus concerning these conditions among economists, but from an educational perspective, teachers, the school curriculum and the structure of the education system itself are important areas to consider. Each of these will be reviewed in light of the potential role they can play