Planning and Applying Indicators of Resource Allocation in Universities of Medical Sciences: Application of "Principal – Agent Theory" in a Qualitative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v3i3-4.217Keywords:
Indicator, Resource allocation, Principal-Agent Theory, University.Abstract
Introduction: Regarding the importance of health economics in education, it is a bear necessity to justify and organize the process of resource allocation in health allied faculties in all medical universities. Applying the "Principal–Agent Theory", researchers sought to determine indicators for resource allocation in faculties in a university of medical sciences, based on principles of scientific management and economics.
Methods: In this qualitative study, using expert panel discussion and Delphi technique, researchers investigated many recourse allocation methods in universities all over the world and did their best to establish localized indicators for resource allocation in the university.
Results: Based on the findings of this study, resource allocation in a selected medical university was not in accordance with their performance, number of faculty members, number of students and the types (undergraduate & postgraduate) and costs of their programs. In this study, indicators for resource allocation were, mostly, based on last year costs of faculties and authorities' bargaining abilities in each faculty, but not based on their performance.
Conclusion: This research showed that bargaining and verbal justifications were replaced by documentation and improved performance in order to receive proper resources in the process of resource allocation. Moreover, this research showed that the best indicator to proportionate the financial resources among faculties in a university is to multiply the number of student by program cost weight in under and postgraduate curriculums. In this study, localized programs cost weights in the selected university were identified.
References
Zhang M. Differential or flat? A comparative study of tuition policies in the world. A Consultant Report to The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, University Grants Committee of Hong Kong. 2000. Available from:URL: http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ ugc/publication/other/2001/cons_rep.htm.
Liefner I. Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education 2003;46(4):469-489.
Tilak JBG, Varghese NV. Financing higher education in India. Higher Education 1991;21(1):83-101.
Zhang M, editor. Conceptions and choices: A comparative study on student financial support policies. Beijing: People’s Education press;1997.[Chinese].
Selvaratnam V. Innovations in higher education: Singapore at the competitive edge. Washington DC:The World Bank;1994.
CDEST. Finance:Selected higher education statistics. Commonwealth department of education science & training. Commonwealth of Australia;2002.
NCES. National center for education statistics: Finance FY97 survey, integrated postsecondary education data system. U.S. Department of Education;1997.
Wirjomartono SH, Suryadi A, Indriyanto B, Purwadi A, Cahyana A, Chamidi S. Study of trends, issues and policies in education: Indonesia case study. Office of Educational and Cultural Research and Development, Indonesia. Country Sector Study prepared for ADB;1997.
DETYA. Selected higher education finance statistics. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs;1999.
World Bank. China higher education reform. Washington DC: The World Bank;1997.
DETYA. Higher education report for the 2000 to 2002 triennium. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs; 2000.
HEFCE. Funding higher education in England: How the HEFCE allocates its funds. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England;2002.
Albrecht D, Ziderman A. Funding mechanisms for higher education: Financing for stability, efficiency and responsiveness. Washington DC: World Bank;1992.
Jongbloed B, Koelman J. Vouchers for higher education? A Survey of the Literature Commissioned by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies; 2000. Report No. C0BJ308.
Kaiser F, Vossensteyn H, Koelman J. Public funding of higher education- A comparative study of funding mechanisms in ten countries. Report prepared for the Duch Ministery of Education, Culture and Sciences on funding mechanism in higher education in a number of European countries, New Zealand and Tennessee; 2001.
Stinson CS. A historical review and financial analysis of higher education funding in Tennessee [dissertation]. East Tennessee state Univ: Washington;2003.
Langfitt TW. The cost of higher education: lessons to learn from the health care industry. Change1990;22(6):8-15.
Funding for student success. Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education 2004. Available from: http://www.hecb.wa.gov/documents/1FundingforStudentSuccess
.pdf.
Ohio board of regents [homepage on the Internet]. Higher education funding study council. [cited 2009 Jun 21]. Available from: http://www.regents.state.oh.us/hefsc/index.html.
Layzell DT. Linking performance to funding outcomes for public institutions of higher education: The US experience. European Journal of Education 1998;33(1):103-111.
Van Vught FA. Combining planning and the market: An analysis of the Government strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands. Higher Education Policy 1997;10(3&4):211-224.
Williams G. The market route to mass higher education: British experience 1979-1996. Higher Education Policy 1997;10(3&4):275-289.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
