Search

This article examines the emergence of the public university in Kenya as a key provider of private higher education, characterised mainly by the phenomenon of the "private public university student." It probes the broader socio-economic reforms circumscribing the privatisation of Kenya's public universities and the local and global forces responsible for these reforms. From the enrolment patterns of Kenya's public universities, where state-subsidised students are becoming a diminishing minority and where a range of exclusive programmes for private students (mainly taught in the evenings) are a growing trend, it may be argued that a new kind of private university is emerging; namely, private universities owned by public universities.

The paper has a twofold structure and focus. The first part is an examination of the funding challenges facing African universities resulting mainly from public finance difficulties, and the second part is a case study of how some Kenyan and South African public universities have attempted to mitigate resource dependence difficulties through multiple exchange relationships. The study identifies economic and policy contexts, and institutional capacity, both scientific and management capacity, as key determinants of the success of public universities' attempts at economic self-determination. The study concludes that although revenue diversification presents an opportunity for universities to mitigate resource dependence difficulties, a combination of factors, especially small domestic markets and capacity related challenges, constrain possibilities for meaningful revenue diversification for many African universities.

This study addresses the implications of higher education marketisation for quality in Kenya. It focuses on full fee-paying programmes, the de facto market source of revenue for Kenya's public universities. The study argues that Kenya's public universities were precipitately subjected to diminished public capitation, and so was their plunging into marketisation. These institutions started enrolling full fee-paying students at a time when they were strained in terms of institutional capacity. There were not enough physical facilities, and most of those available were suffering decay following many years of neglect. They did not have enough teaching staff, a problem, which the marketisation agenda has made worse. The desire to claim a bigger share in the student market has seen the introduction of many new courses in advance of capacity to offer them. The study concludes that by seeking economic self-determination through full fee-paying programmes, in advance of a well-developed institutional capacity, the subsequent pressure seems to have made the quality situation worse.

This paper identifies, examines and discusses higher education funding policy shifts that have taken place in Kenya. The paper argues that even though Kenya's higher education funding policy shifts, from free higher education to cost-sharing, and privatisation and commercialisation, are (to a greater extent) products of the country's encounter with globalisation, local social, political and economic dynamics have been of equally significant influence. Thus, the country's higher education funding policies have been products of a convergence of both the dynamics of globalisation and local contextual imperatives. Furthermore, the point is made that the shift from free higher education to cost-sharing, and privatisation and commercialisation, was symptomatic of a global transition from a development paradigm that was predominantly based on Keynesianism to a neo-liberal paradigm that privileges mean expenditure on social services (such as higher education) and the market logic.

This paper identifies, examines and discusses higher education funding policy shifts that have taken place in Kenya. The paper argues that even though Kenya's higher education funding policy shifts, from free higher education to cost-sharing, and privatisation and commercialisation, are (to a greater extent) products of the country's encounter with globalisation, local social, political and economic dynamics have been of equally significant influence. Thus, the country's higher education funding policies have been products of a convergence of both the dynamics of globalisation and local contextual imperatives. Furthermore, the point is made that the shift from free higher education to cost-sharing, and privatisation and commercialisation, was symptomatic of a global transition from a development paradigm that was predominantly based on Keynesianism to a neo-liberal paradigm that privileges mean expenditure on social services (such as higher education) and the market logic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]