Resource dependence theory analysis of higher education institutions in Uzbekistan
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-ShareAlike» («Атрибуция — На тех же условиях») 4.0 Всемирная
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Аннотация
In this paper, resource dependence theory (RDT) is used to guide an empirical
analysis of the higher education system in Uzbekistan. Regression analysis is applied to a
panel dataset consisting of 62 Uzbek higher education institutions, covering the period 2000–
2013, to examine the determinants of the expenditure decisions made by institutions. The key
hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between the share of revenue from tuition fees
and the share of expenditure spent on teaching. The analysis attempts to control for unobserved
heterogeneity through the inclusion of fixed effects. Instrumental variables estimation is used
to address the potential endogeneity of the relationship between these two variables. The main
finding is that there is a positive and statistically significant relationship between the share of
revenue from tuition fees and the share of expenditure spent on teaching, even after other
factors are held constant, which is consistent with a core premise of RDT.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Литература
Albrecht, D., & Ziderman, A. (1995). Financing universities in developing countries. Washington DC: The
Falmer Press.
Baltagi, B. H. (2014). The Oxford handbook of panel data. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barr, N. (2009). Financing higher education: Lessons from economic theory and reform in England. Higher
Education in Europe, 34(2), 201–209.
Barr, N. (2010). Paying for higher education: What policies, in what order? London School of Economics.
Bowden, R. J., & Turkington, D. A. (2008). Instrumental variables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canning, M., Godfrey, M., & Holzer-Zelazewska, D. (2007). Higher education financing in the new EU member
states. World Bank working paper no. 112.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint, absorption: A
close look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.
Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2013). Exchange rates archives. Available from: http://cbu.
uz/eng/section/rates.
Coupet, J. (2013). Historically black colleges and universities and resource dependence: A Chow test of
production functions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 355–369.
Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Chapter 2 Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In Claudia Bird
Schoonhoven, Frank Dobbin (ed.) Stanford's Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970–2000 (Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, Volume 28) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 21–42.
Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan №341. (1997). On state educational standards.
Fowles, J. (2013). Funding and focus: Resource dependence in public higher education. Research in Higher
Education, 55(3), 272–287.
Freel, M. S. (2000). Barriers to product innovation in small manufacturing firms. International Small Business
Journal, 18(2), 60–80.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.
Hillman, A., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 941–952.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of
Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative
perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403–410.