Higher Education 17:699-711 (1988)

9 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands

Public and private sectors in higher education:

A comparison of international patterns 1

ROGER L. GEIGER
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

Abstract. This paper seeks to extend understanding of the varying nature and varying forms of
private higher education. Three basic structural divisions between private and public sectors of
higher education are compared: mass private and restricted public sectors; parallel public and
private sectors; and, comprehensivepublic and peripheral private sectors. The private sectors are
then contrasted in terms of such functional characteristics as state authority, financial constraints
and dominant orientation toward either academic goals, the student marketplace or external
patrons. The highlydiverse American private sector is viewed in this context. A consideration of
mass private sectors then suggests that parameters of public policy are set by structurally derived
characteristics of higher education systems.

Mixed systems of higher education can be analysed on three different levels:

1) how national systems of higher education are differentiated between public
and private sectors; 2 ) h o w these different patterns give rise to different
consequences or characteristics; or, 3 ) h o w these characteristics relate to
possible alternatives for public policies for the development of higher edu-
cation. The first of these levels is focused on structure and function, the second
on operating characteristics, and the third on change over time. The principal
aim of this paper is to examine relationships between the first and second levels
in different types of systems. In the first section three basic structural types
of higher education systems are described. The middle section seeks to estab-
lish that certain behavioral characteristics are inherently associated with each
of these types and why this is the case. Explaining the existence of private
sectors in these mixed systems tends to illuminate the most salient differences
between structural types, and that is the approach that will be followed here.
Finally, partly for illustrative purposes, some observations are offered on the
policy issues facing mass private sectors today.

1. Structural Types of Higher Education Systems

The dichotomy between publicly and privately controlled institutions is com-

monly employed for purposes o f record keeping, general discourse, and
occasionally scholarly analysis. As conventionally applied to higher education
700

systems, however, this simple dichotomy obscures a profoundly important

aspect of the subject: while public sectors can be regarded, directly or indirect-
ly, as creatures of the state, the state also to a considerable extent molds the
conditions of existence for privately controlled institutions. The state is thus
a powerful factor on both sides of the divide. To some'extent this has always
been the case, but in the last half of the twentieth century the modern state
has played an undoubted role in structuring, regulating, and ultimately helping
to finance private sectors. In some countries, notably Canada and Sweden, the
expansion of state authority over higher education has virtually extinguished
private institutions. But in most nations private colleges and universities have
endured, and in some cases (e.g. Belgium, Japan, Brazil) even enlarged their
share of total enrollments. The development of public sectors can to a
considerable extent be analysed in terms of responses, mediated through the
political process, to perceived social demands. Private sectors, however, are
the result of more diverse factors; and their persistence testifies to the fulfill-
ment of vital educational functions.
There are three basic structural patterns of public-private differentiation
(Geiger, 1986):

1. Mass private and restricted public sectors. This pattern is exemplified best
by Japan, but also found in the Philippines, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia,
and to some extent Indonesia (RIHE, 1985). These systems are inherently
hierarchical, with the state sponsoring, among others, high-cost, academically
elite universities. The private sector too is hierarchical, with the highest status
usually accorded to old and established institutions. Much of the private
sector, however, is left with the task of accommodating the considerable excess
social demand for higher education. During the course of the last generation,
when the demand for higher education escalated greatly, these elements of
mass private sectors have expanded to accommodate these students. This has
produced a majority of higher education enrollments in private institu-
tions.

2. Parallel public and private sectors. This pattern results from the need to
guarantee a significant degree of cultural pluralism within a nonhierarchical
system. The existence of national degrees requires that each university provide
education of equivalent value. But in order to achieve meaningful equality,
and to satisfy different cultural groups, private institutions have to possess
resources comparable to public ones. Under welfare-state conditions, such as
exist in Belgium and the Netherlands, this has ultimately meant full state
funding for private universities. Geographically and culturally far removed,
Chile and Hong Kong have evolved along quite similar lines.