Convalescing From Decades Of Economic Refuse

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

While convalescing from decades of economic refuse and trying to change to an incipient liberated market economy, public universities in Zambia are currently confronted with rapidly increasing enrolment, poor infrastructure, and inadequate government financing (SARUA, 2012; MOE, 2010; World Bank, 2010). The imbalance between high demand for and inadequate supply of advanced education has led to a decrease in the quality of education and an urgent need to expand non-state sources of funding (SARUA, 2012; World Bank, 2010). The government has attempted to respond to this austerity by putting different policies to improve the outlook of public universities based on decentralization and democratic principles of efficiency, equity, accountability and cost effectiveness (Ministry of Education, MOE, 1996). Through education policy crafted in 1996, financing of public universities in Zambia is premised on cost sharing, revenue diversification and student loan system (MOE, 1996). Using Johnstone’s (1986) ‘Diversified Funding Model’ (DFM) in the conceptual framework, this empirical mixed design study uses views of students, lecturers, university administrators and ministry of education officials to propose ways of re-engineering the current policy of financing public universities in Zambia to make it effective and sustainable. In trying to appraise the financing policy, the thesis juxtaposes quantitative and qualitative designs to understand the research problem better, by embedding, merging and integrating the two strands of findings (Cresswell & Clark, 2011; Cresswell, 2012). According to Johnstone (a noted international authority on financial systems in higher education) funding possibilities can be framed into five potential sources: the state, entrepreneurial activities, parents, students, and donors. Any reduction in one source must result in an increase somewhere else otherwise higher education financing might be unsustainable and less effective (Johnstone, 1986; Johnstone & Shroff-Mehta, 2000)

Different policies have been crafted and implemented in different countries for financing higher education to reduce or get rid of financial austerity. But over time, higher education world over is still experiencing huge number of challenges and in some cases even becoming larger especially in Sub-Saharan Africa where Zambia is found. Theoretical explanation about different financing options have multiplied, indicating a failure of praxis—an inability to successfully apply research to resolve policy issues of financing especially higher education. It is important to understand what, exactly, is going on in the financing policy of public universities in Zambia and to determine the status of the current policy in terms of viability, sustainability and effectiveness. This helps in order to evaluate paradigms and plan for change. I examine theoretical explanations and current higher education financing policy which has been in existence for about two decades since the 1990s. A major goal of the research is to propose ways of re-engineering (ground and refocus) the policy of financing public universities in Zambia so that they become effective and sustainable.

Since 1964, when Zambia became independent from British colonial rule, education became a major public agenda item for the development of human capital (Coburn, 1993). With one major public university founded in the years after independence and later three more, funding generally remained the responsibility of the central government to use education as a tool for socio-economic development. As Hoffman (1996) indicated, "in the intermediate afterglow of newly found independence, many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa looked at higher education as one of the essential elements of economic and political revitalisation, and in some instances, as the cornerstone of a new society." Education, since independence, is seen as a means for increasing the manpower capabilities of the nation. After the formation of the first public university in 1966, Zambia followed "a full government support model" to administer this institution. In this model, the government prepared and provided learning facilities, including lecture halls, libraries, lodging, recreation facilities, staff salaries and development. Given the lack of capacity, most personnel were sent oversees to train and prepare as academics to take over from a largely expatriate faculty (Coburn, 1993; Kelly, 1991).

In this model, students were also totally supported; they had the opportunity to reside in the university hostel and foodstuffs were fully provided. In addition, students were paid allowances for other requirements (Coburn, 1993). Students were enjoying what one would describe as a "five star accommodation". The Zambian economy was (and still is) heavily dependent on the copper mining industry, the revenues of which also sustained public higher education. With the decline of the economy beginning in the late 1970s, compounded by population growth and growing "massification", public resources or tax payers could no longer sustain the status quo of public universities (World Bank, 1994; 1995). These factors took a great toll on the institutions and universities faced multifaceted challenges (Gillies, 2010). As a way of improving the fortunes of public universities, the government formulated a new policy document in 1996 called educating our future. This national policy document was conceived on the basis of democratic principles of efficiency, equity, accountability and cost effectiveness (MOE, 1996). To this effect therefore, the education system which was highly centralized was now liberalized and decentralized in accordance with democratic principles of local government (MOE, 1996). The financing policy of higher education was also realigned to reflect this reality. The policy is premised on cost-sharing, revenue diversification and introducing student loans as noted:

Higher education funding policies is an issue which has been debated and continues being debated by scholars, policy makers and politicians in different countries (Johnstone, 2009, Barr, 2005). Mostly, this debate has been mainly due to inadequate resources dedicated to higher education and in some cases declining fortunes (UNESCO, 2009). Researchers have long recognized the need of devoting and mobilizing sufficient resources and also implementation of appropriate policies in funding universities (World Bank, 2010). Formulating and implementing the right and appropriate policies to finance universities is increasingly becoming a nightmare for most countries of the world (World Bank 2010). The picture is even more complex and complicated for developing countries in Africa and Zambia in particular (UNESCO, 2009).

Most countries of the world keep making policy adjustments in financing university education because of the ever increasing costs, enrollment and also many challenges. This is especially inevitable for countries in Africa where universities have complicated problems such as poor quality staff, overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient resources and autonomy, and rapid increasing enrollment among others (Ilon, 2003, World Bank, 1994; 2001; 2010). Clearly, universities are being underfunded, raising doubts about quality; "student support is inadequate; the proportion of students from underprivileged backgrounds is undesirably small; and the financing of universities in many countries is regressive, since the funds comes from general taxes but the major beneficiaries usually are from comfortable backgrounds" (Barr, 2005 p.1).

In making the similar case Johnstone (2009) argues that financing of universities all over the world has seen striking changes in the last decades of the 20th and the first decade of the 21st centuries. Central to his argument, are the changes which include the financing as responses to a worldwide occurrence of universities costs tending to rise at rates considerably in excess of the corresponding rates of increase of available capital, in particular those revenues that are reliant on taxation (Johnstone, 2009). Clearly, the end result in most of the world has been a shortage of revenue to put up both the increasing costs of training and research as well as the increasing revenue needs of rising enrollments Ibid (2009).

Policies of financing higher education in China have gone through different phases. The onset of marketization, devolution and privatization since the 1980 and early 1990s, have led to reforms in higher education, which have in turn reinforced the position of private financing. The status of universities in China has constantly been changing. For instance, in 1956 all higher education institutions including universities were publicly financed (Zha, 2001). In December 1982, the renewed bill of China encouraged stakeholders’ mainly economic organizations, governmental enterprise, social groups to start various form of instructive activities (Zha, 2001). Yuan (2003) acknowledges that in 1993, and for the first time, a nationwide policy was set intended to offer ‘lively encouragement, burly support, suitable guidelines and sound management’ for non-state sectors to run public universities and higher education in general. As a result, In 1995, the new Education act established this policy change (State Education Commission, 1995, cited in Zha, 2001). The number of private legal education system has been growing at exponential levels since then.

Currently the policy of higher education in China in premised on cost sharing, revenue diversification and student loan scheme. Suffice though to mention that the government is still a big player especially when it comes to project ‘985’ and ‘211’ project universities. Hays (2012, p.1) elucidates, "In the 1990s, the Chinese government began pouring a lot of money into Chinese universities in an effort to bring them up to world class status and create enough openings for a boom in university age students. Schools were merged, new facilities and dormitories were built. Currently, land is still being cleared to make way for new school facilities". China now has more than 1,900 institutions of higher learning, nearly double the number in 2000 which shows a great expansion. Close to 19 million students are enrolled, a six fold jump in just 10 years. The number of faculty especially professors has more than quadrupled (Hays, 2012).

The need for crafting policies for financing higher education which are in tandem with this rising demand of especially university education is not an option (Shen and Ziderman, 2007). This swell among other things could be attributed to globalization and integration in the contemporary economy as well as increasing understanding of private return to tertiary education, student enrolment has exponentially soured as of 2000, especially in developing nations (UNESCO, 2009). A UNESCO report showed an increase of higher education student numbers internationally of 51.7 million for the period 2000 (100.8 million) to 2007 (152.5 million) (UNESCO, 2009). Enrolment numbers for higher education had "skyrocketed over the past 37 years, growing five-fold from 28.6 million in 1970 to 152.5 million in 2007. This translates into an average yearly increase of 4.6%, with the average number of tertiary students doubling-up every 15 years (UNESCO, 2009 p 10)". The highest growth rate in higher education enrolment was recorded in sub-Saharan Africa where student numbers increased by 10% annually between 2000 and 2005 (De Villiers & Nieuwoudt, 2010). In contrast to other regions however, the total number of sub-Saharan entrants still remains small.

The policy of who should finance higher education has been debated especially in the face of student enrolment numbers in higher education which has been increasing over the past five decades (De Villiers & Nieuwoudt, 2010). In discussing changing trends of financing higher education in the globe and South Africa, De Villiers and Nieuwoudt (2010), observes that re-allocation of public funding (that has been decreasing) towards supporting students as an alternative of higher education institutions directly, put more financial accountability on the other three private sources (i.e. students, parents and donors) that manifested in the altering nature of higher education distribution mechanisms. They further observe that the global cost-sharing tendency has necessitated the support of especially students from underprivileged backgrounds, at present mainly through the ‘Income Contingent Loan’ systems (De Villiers & Nieuwoudt, 2010). They also make a case for South Africa which is no exception to this trend as is manifest from its current public financing scheme through the NFF where government provides support to students all the way through the NSFAS.

In discussing policies of financing public universities in SADC region Kotecha (2008) is advocating for vigorous financial planning and control; making the best use of the inadequate resources at universities disposal; innovative new ways of raising resources; methods of spreading the financial burden over time and among different constituencies. He argues that new models of funding for public/private universities are absolutely vital to SADC institutions, if they are to survive and to flourish (Kotecha, 2008). In the case of Kenya, Kiamba (2003) examined new phenomenon of liberalized policies of financing of public universities with special reference to the experience of the University of Nairobi. He conceptualized and looked at the implementation of the category of a full fee paying or fully self-supporting student, in which he concluded that while income diversification had cautioned the University of Nairobi, government support was still necessary to sustain universities (Kiamba, 2003).

A World Bank (2010) study shows clearly that most African countries still follow traditional policies of financing higher education, where budgetary allocations had mainly remained historical. Some countries, however, have adopted more inventive budgetary practices and are beginning to move away from traditionally based budgets (World Bank, 2010). Formulas can be based on cost per student have also become common, as in Kenya and Rwanda. Then, other countries, such as Nigeria and Ghana, use normative unit costs derived from prescribed student-teacher ratios by discipline and the suggested cost of goods and services for a teaching unit by discipline (World Bank, 2010). For investment, some countries, such as South Africa, implement funding contracts connected to teaching and research outputs specified in government-approved plans (World Bank, 2010). Various governments, such as Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, and South Africa, supplement the core budgets of universities with competitive funds to stimulate qualitative improvements, research, and partnerships (World Bank, 2010). In line with earlier argument by the World Bank and Kiamba, Sinyal & Martin (2005:3) discuss six factors that influence policy of financing higher education. They opined that:

In trying to understand the impact of financing policy reforms across Europe, two CHEPS-led consortia were commissioned to undertake parallel studies on higher education governance and funding reforms across Europe and their relation to system performance (CHEPS, 2008). The study concluded that "on dimensions other than educational attainment and research output the links between funding, governance and performance may exist only in specific contexts. What works in one country may not work in another" (CHEPS, 2008. p.136). The study also showed many attractive country-specific examples of a positive interaction between funding reforms and performance, but more detailed research on a less aggregate level was suggested to draw solid conclusions on what matters most in funding (CHEPS, 2008).

Policies of financing higher education in the OECD are still tailored towards tax funding. In most of these countries, by 2003 public expenditure on higher education was still accounting for more than 70% (Helal, 2011). It appears the financing policies are still tailored to free higher education. Suffice also to mention here that most of the countries in this category are highly developed and industrialized and so can manage the luxury of free public spending on higher education. But the US, with most prestigious higher education institutions relies heavily on private expenditure (Helal, 2011). Figure 1.1 shows public and private expenditure on higher education as a percentage of total expenditure on higher education in the OECD countries in 2003. The current trends are showing that these countries are now introducing more cost sharing measures.

African countries have maintained their public investment in higher education over the last 15 years, allocating about 0.78 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) and around 20 percent of its current public expenditure on education to this sector (World Bank, 2010). However, during this period, the total number of students pursuing higher education tripled, climbing from 2.7 million in 1991 to 9.3 million in 2006, while public resources allocated to current expenditure in that sector only doubled (an annual average rate of 6 percent) (World Bank, 2010).

Global trends show that public spending on education increased quite substantially throughout the latter half of the previous century (De Villiers & Nieuwoudt, 2010). This meant that policies on public expenditure on higher education have kept on being attuned to meet the prevailing situation. Available data shows that by 1986 on average 11.6% of total government spending, equal to 5.4% of GDP, and was channeled to education in OECD countries (de Villiers, 1996). Then, in 1998 the corresponding figures were 12.9% and 4.6% respectively (OECD, 2004). In 2006 OECD nations used up an average 5.7% of GDP on education (OECD, 2009). These high levels of spending on education can be linked to the advancement of the human capital model, formulated in the 1960s (De Villiers & Nieuwoudt, 2010). Human capital is a very important variable in explaining economic growth (Woodhall, 2007). Zambia’s investment in education, especially tertiary education was tailored to developing the human capital required for its socio economic development since independence (Lungwangwa, 2001).

Universities or higher education in general throughout the world are undergoing a change that reflects the global embrace of neo-liberal economic policies, particularly the stress on free markets and the democratic principles of the Post Washington agreement of world political economy (McNerney, 2009). Arguably, since the downfall of the Soviet Union there has been no real option to the capitalistic model based on free trade and open markets, even though the recent financial crisis has led to more introspection about this lenient approach (McNerney, 2009). The unyielding demands from this prevailing "free market" model has special and particular effects that influence policy decisions in higher education financing. Moreover education has both social and private returns.

Education planners are increasingly developing financing policies based on the real and perceived benefits which come with social and private returns. There are several studies that have been conducted worldwide to calculate the rates of return of investment in education and also examining the nature policies of financing different sectors-primary, secondary and tertiary. Psacharoupoulos and Patrinos (2004) give a good summary of the results of studies done in 98 countries over the period 1960-1999 that have been conducted on a comparable basis. Some of the result outcome are summarized and shown in Table 1.1.

Clearly, Table 1.1 shows that, the private rate of return is higher than the social rate of return for all areas and all levels of education. On average for the world the private rate of return for primary education is 7.7 percentage points higher than the social rate of return and the matching figure for secondary schooling is 3.9 percentage points. On average the private rate of return for higher education is no less than 8.2 percentage point’s superior to the social rate of return. The rates of return in developing countries are relatively normally higher for all levels of education than the rates in industrialized countries. When one looks at the sub-Saharan Africa region (which Zambia forms part of) it is clear that these rates of return are the highest of all regions in the world for all levels of education. Especially the private rate of return on higher education is very high. This is a clear motivation to continuously invest in education for both governments and individuals in the region.

One major result of the abovementioned (neo-liberal) has been the ever increasing search by universities for funding from more and varied sources to meet the increasing costs caused by cutthroat challenges from other higher education institutions and the increasing demands and expectations of students and faculty (Clark, 2004; Geiger, 2004). Another effect of the market-based approach has led to the reduction in government financial support with a preponderant shift to user fees and other sources of funding, as central governments surrender administrative and financial power to the institutions (World Bank, 2000, 2004). So that Institutions operate more lest like corporation. McNerney (2009) opines "this shift in costs to other non-government sources, along with concurrent levels of increased institutional autonomy, has also led higher education to seek greater links to job markets and to listen to user demands for appropriate curriculums to prepare them for financially rewarding careers (p.3)". Clearly, outcomes are interrelated and mark a significant change in the goals of higher education from the traditionally cultural to the pragmatic and immediately useful (McNerney, 2009). More and more, the shift now has many institutions checking the marketplace and listening to faculty and student demands so that academic departments provide consistently relevant skills and knowledge. Higher education in Zambia is no exception to this changing global model; stakeholders have always called for reforms in higher education sector so that it becomes responsive to market demands. The debate has always been there though the syndrome of having free higher education has been used by some stakeholders as a way of achieving access especially for the underprivileged.

While Zambia reverted to democracy since in 1991, its political economy is still attempting to move away from a rigid centrally planned regime to a flexible market-based economic system despite many political and educational reforms (World Bank, 2001; Gillies, 2010). The challenges are enormous; especially in a humanistic culture where people always want receive free services and goods from government (suffice to mention here that a lot has changed though in this regard) (Gillies, 2010). In the liberalized democratic economy, the government through policy allowed private players in the education system to complement government effort (MOE, 1996). The government also through policy indicated that the provision and funding of public universities was going to be through Cost sharing (Government, students and universities), revenue diversification and through student loan system (MOE, 1996). This study provides timely information about the views of the most important actors and their attitudes concerning the current policy of financing public universities in Zambia to attain sustainability.

This study employs the Diversified Funding Model (DFM) to investigate the different aspects of policy under consideration. Throughout the largest part of the world there are many changes in financial structures in traditional higher education system arrangements (Ball, 1990; Johnstone, 1986; 2004; 2009). A major conceptual alteration is the movement from a highly centralized, financially state supported structure to a decentralized, mixed funding model, a change, according to many education researchers, that brings higher education institutions into alignment with the global free-market economic systems, where higher education institutions must race for students, faculty and resources (Task Force on Higher Education, 2000; World Bank, 1994; 1995; 2004; 2010). Underlying this change to "free markets" is a complex grouping of economic ideas categorized as the neo-liberal economic theory (McNerney, 2009). The neo-liberal economic theory has been in detail discussed in Chapter two of this study.

Today, in both the developed and developing countries, this belief in an autonomous, competitive higher education system that relies on a mixed source of funding pervades the recommendations from policy advice institutions especially from World Bank studies of 1986, 1994, 1995 and 2002, together with recommendations of higher education committees (2004) and findings of Task force for higher education and society (2000). Their findings influence higher education associations’ world over. The mixed (diversified) funding model provides the conceptual framework for this study of re-engineering the financing policy to make public universities in Zambia sustainable

Clearly, as indicated in introduction, the depiction of the mixed (diversified) model identifies five funding sources: the government, donors, entrepreneurship, parents and students (Johnstone, 1986). According to Johnstone, any reduction in one source must result in an increase somewhere else. For instance, the reduction in one source might compel the reduction of enrolments or quality at the institutions. This mix of contributors in most cases depends on many factors, as stated by Eicher and Chevaillier (2002) that "the choice of the precise mix depends more on the practical and social constraints of a given society and on the political process than on the rational views of researchers and evaluators" (p. 75).

Johnstone (1986) used five general categories to describe what he calls the zero-sum financing possibilities. In a expansive sense these labels are meant for instance: the government might be either national, state or local taxing establishment; parents include genetic or extended families and spouses; students refer to any user of tertiary education services in or out of the university; donors include private persons, countries, global agencies, aid organizations –essentially any funds received with minimal reciprocal expectations; and, lastly entrepreneurship covers the broad range of money-making relationships between the institution and the private sector, including the sale or lease of property such as consultancy services, patents, amenities and other reciprocally beneficial financial opportunities-some form of revenue diversification. These latter arrangements differ from donor gifts since they involve contractual quid-pro-quo terms and conditions (Johnstone, 1986).

Several world-wide trends are evident on this mix funding models. In the fore, state support has proportionally decreased while institutions have a superior reliance on tuition fees and student loan to finance the expansion of higher education (Woodhall, 2006, 2007). This is followed by, more institutions are increasing becoming more reliant entrepreneurial activities; and a different aspect is where, more institutions are making efforts to cultivate larger and greater numbers of donors (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000). The mixed funding approach is increasing incrementally as institutions become more autonomous from state funding (Woodhall, 2007).

A primary lesson from global experience in modern decades with resource mobilization and financing of higher education is the significance of not having policies relying on a single source of funding – especially government (Albatch, 2007; 2008; Barr, 2005; 2009; Johnstone, 1986; 2003; 2006; 2009). The growing multiplicity of funding sources has been an important and efficient response by many governments and institutions to the mismatch between demand and resources (World Bank, 2001; 2010). It seems clear that most countries should rely on a mix of funding models to attain the objectives they seek for their higher education systems (Shen, 2003). Student loans and cost sharing often is the best device to help uphold better access and equity, but they should not be wholly relied on for achieving this important objective (Shen and Zinderman, 2008). A good policy also needs to be well-matched with economic theory (Barr, 2005; 2009). Graduates ought to contribute to the price tag of their degree (Barr, 2009). Well designed and premeditated loan have a core characteristic (Income Contingent Repayment, ICR, x %) (Barr, 2009). Some academics have argued that fees and loans harm access, this might not be accurate because tax payers’ funds put quality at jeopardy, and moreover there is a limit to how much tax payer funds can uphold a mass system (Barr, 2009). Actually, well designed and planned loan enhances access since the underprivileged student can access them especially in means tested systems.

In the dual track, governments decide on the numbers of students it would like to support and pay full tuition (using merit system) and any other student seeking admission is expected to pay for the full cost of education (Cheboi, 2008). In unit cost, this model assumes that governments will let institutions of higher learning be independent in decision making and operate like business while still mindful that education is a quasi public good. All services provided by the institutions are provided for at a charge and are borne by the consumer. Market place practices in which break even points are the norm, marketing of institutional products such as research results and consultancies take centre stage in the operations of the institutions (Ishegomo, 2006). For Zambia, to have sustainable and effective universities, efficiency and equity concerns should be taken on board. Financial reforms need a lot of consultation and deeper reflection. There is urgent need to replace student grants and scholarship with well thought out student loans (Equity concerns should be addressed). Public university should also engage in revenue diversification activities to boast their finance. Reforms in the models of financing higher education should take cognizance of the enlargement and preservation of the next generation academics as well.

Financing policy: In the world of Economics, ‘financial policy’ is defined as "Criteria describing a corporation's choices concerning its debt or equity mix, currencies of denomination, maturity structure, method of financing investment projects, and hedging decisions with a goal of maximizing the worth of the firm to some set of stockholders" (Harvey, 2011 p.1). In education though, financing policy is a written law written in an educational policy document giving guidelines on financial issues regarding different aspects (Tomlinson, 2004). Policies or policy is typically described as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational result(s). Policies are generally adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an organization where as procedures or protocols would be developed and adopted by senior executive officers (Tomlinson, 2004). A Policy can be considered as a "Statement of Intent" or a "Commitment". For that reason at least, we can be held accountable for our "Policy" (Tomlinson, 2004). Higher education policy refers to how higher education institutions like universities are organized, funded and operated in a society. In Zambia, the policy on financing public universities under higher education crafted in 1996, in the document called ‘educating our future’ is anchored on cost sharing, revenue diversification and student loans.

Re-Engineering: The concept of re-engineering is relatively a novel term to be used in ‘education’. It is a rented term from natural science. DataArt (2012) defines Engineering as the "discipline, art, skill and occupation of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes" (P.1). The concepts of ‘engineering’ and ‘re-engineering’ has been functional in social sciences especially when changing or amending systems which seem to be less efficient and successful. So most re-engineering in education is about making systems efficient and effective (Allen & Fifield, 1999). In this particular research, re-engineering of financing policy to make the public universities more sustainable, implies a systematic investigation into the current policy/model of financing public universities, identifying its limitations, flaws, gaps and then propose a more financially sustainable policy/model which will make public universities in a country like Zambia sustainable and effective (M’hammed and Wu ,2008). Let us just briefly examine in a few selected and isolated cases on how re-engineering has been used. Reengineering implies changes of various types and depth to a system, from a slight renovation to a total overhaul (DataArt, 2012).

The main objective of re-engineering is to enhance, both the effectiveness and the efficiency of various educational actions (Ijaiya, 2004). Stimulus for re-engineering is the combination of four continuing transitions in society.  This might include: Changing educational requirements; Requirements for alternative learning opportunities;   Extensive availability of digital technology; the potential of enhancing human performance. M’hammed and Wu (2008) in their paper ‘education re-engineering’ proposed a conceptual and operational framework for process reengineering (PR) in higher education (HE) institutions. The concept of re-engineering is closely associated with Business process reengineering. Clearly, Business process reengineering (BPR) is the analysis and design of workflows and processes inside and between organizations (Davenport & Short, 1990).

Public University: The concept of public University has something to do with public provision and public funding (Grove, 2011). For instance, In China, nearly all universities and research institutions are public. Most often than not, are usually run by the provincial governments. Some public universities are national which are directly administered by the central government, with its Headquarters in Beijing (CSC, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2011). Currently, all important and significant centers for higher education in the country are publicly administered meaning government central command has control especially funding and regulations. The degree or level of government control vary considerably from country to country where by some universities enjoy academic freedom (Grove, 2011).

The public universities in Zambia as already alluded derive most of their income from an annual government grant, student fees, and income generating undertakings (UNZA, 2007). In Zambia there are 5 public Universities and 6 private ones (Annual Education Bulletin, 2010). The term "public" indicates that the university's funding comes partly from state taxpayers. This is generally not the case for private universities, as they mobilize private resources (Grove, 2011). In the US, a public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or sub national government, as opposed to private universities Berkeley (Wikipedia.org-public University, 2011). A state university may or may not be considered a public university, depending on regions. Most public institutions are state universities founded and operated by state governments.

Sustainability and Effectiveness: In this study sustainability and effectiveness is a comprehensive approach with the purpose of combining different tools that can provide instant as well as mid- and long-term solutions to ensure financial, infrastructure, smooth operation and thus preserve the quality of public higher education systems (Khosa, 2003). For sustainability and effectiveness to be attained, a number of measures should be taken into account: measures that might include, introducing a true cost sharing and more cost-efficient modes of delivery, streamlining social costs, improving governance and management practices, and providing incentives for private sector progress (World Bank, 2010). The solutions for the sustainable financing of higher schooling systems therefore exist "provided a deliberate medium-term approach for restructuring of the subsector is developed and backed by sustained political will and adequate and sustainable resources" (World Bank, 2010 p.6). Adoption of performance based budget allocations in place of historically determined allocations.

Sustainability also requires special attention to equity, and a funding system which further reduces the inequalities in allocations of inadequate resources and valuable places (Court, 1999). To make the higher education system more viable and sustainable, proper management of scholarship and financial aid need to be put in place. Scholarships and other forms of student financial aid need to be better targeted and streamlined to better meet the goals of equity and efficiency. One other way universities can be sustainable in Zambia, Africa and World at large is through financial diversification (Johnstone, 2006; World Bank, 2010). The diversification of financing requires that higher education institutions be able to generate their own income and investments.

1.4 Research Design

This study on re-engineering policy of financing public universities in Zambia uses a mixed methods design (Creswell & Clark, 2011). This is simply a procedure for collecting, analyzing and "a mixture" both quantitative and qualitative data at some stage of the research process within a single study, to comprehend a research problem deeply and more completely (Creswell, 2012). The rationale for mixing the two in this study is because neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are sufficient by themselves to capture and explain the trends and especially details of the situation, such as a complex issue of policy of financing public universities. Mixed methods research is also an excellent design especially when we are seeking to build on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2012). When competently used in combination, quantitative and qualitative methods complement each other and allow for more complete analysis and understanding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This is an advanced method procedure, since the researcher has to fully understand both quantitative and qualitative research.

More specifically the study uses the ‘convergent parallel design’, which is a mixed method of design. This design simultaneously collects both quantitative and qualitative data, merge the data, and use the result to understand the problem (Cresswell, 2012). The rationale for this design is that one data collection form offset the weakness of the other form. In this design the researcher gathers both quantitative and qualitative data, analyzes both data sets separately, compares the results from both data sets separately (see Figure 4.1), compares the results from both data sets and make an interpretation as to whether the result support each other or contradict (Cresswell, 2012). This direct comparison of the two data sets by the researcher provides a "convergence" of data sources (Cresswell, 2012). Details of this design are captured in Chapter 4, the methodology section of this study.

Research Permission and Ethical Considerations were crucial undertaking in the research design. Developments in social science research in recent years have placed prominence on moral issues where researchers have a duty to respect and protect those involved or affected by their studies. They explain that moral and ethical concerns in educational research are often intricate, subtle and can sometimes place the researcher in a moral predicament that may be irresolvable (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). They explain that ethical issues may arise from any of the following: the context of the study, the measures to be adopted, methods of data collection, the nature of participants, type of data collected and that which is to be done with the data (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). In order to collect the needed data from the purposively and conveniently sampled participants, I sought permission through writing before going in the field to collect data. I was first authorized by the Huazhong University of Science and Technology through the supervisor to embark on data collection (Prof Hong Shen). All regulations and guidelines for conducting research specified by the Institutional Research Review Board (IRRB) were followed. I also received approval after submitting my objectives to Huazhong University of Science and Technology Institutional Research Review Board (Guidelines for Review of Research Involving Human Subjects).

To conduct the study, the researcher sought and obtained permission from the Permanent Secretary and the registrars of the public universities which were chosen for this study. That was in agreement with Kombo & Tromp (2006) who emphasize the fact that a researcher requires a research permit before embarking on study. The heads of institutions granted permission and assured me that I would be assisted with information provided I acknowledged their contributions.

The research of this magnitude requires following certain regulation and ethics. The ethical dimension in a study that uses human subjects is very critical. Human subjects involved in the study demand respect and dignity in terms of values and beliefs and all other things or acts that may be considered unethical to them and research in general. Following Denzin and Lincoln’s (1998) four principles discussed in their "contextualized-consequential model, ethical practices in study may include "mutual respect, non-coercion and non manipulation, the support of democratic values and institutions, and the belief that every research act implies moral and ethical decisions that are contextual" (p. 21).Therefore, this study sought to both categories of respondents. Informed consent from interviewees was cardinal and also to the respondents who filled in the survey. There were clear instructions on each instrument explaining the purpose of research and also seeking consent.

To further address the ethical concerns I used a consent form detailing how interviews would be treated. How confidentiality and anonymity of the research findings were treated and handled. The participants who were interviewed were clearly told that the tapes would be destroyed on completion of the study. On the surveys, participant remained anonymous and did not need to indicate their names. In other words, there was effective communication on issues like the purpose and scope of the study, the types of questions which were likely to be asked, the use to which the results were to be used, the methodology of confirming anonymity, and the confidentiality of the resulting final report. Both categories of participants were given time to ask questions about the research

The Role of the Researcher of the researcher was crucial in the design. My involvement with data collection in the two phases of this study was different. In the quantitative phase, I administered the survey and collected the data using the standardized procedures, including the convenience sampling, naturally existing respondents, and reliability and validity checks of the instrument. The data analysis was performed using rigorous statistical analysis techniques and the results were interpreted based on the established values for the statistical significance of the functions.

In the qualitative phase I assumed a more participatory role due to the nature of the topic at hand and also the type of audience. Most of the participant held high profile university and government positions. I took time to engage the participants and also tried to get all the data useful for the research. As a student in economics of education and did some courses in higher education finance, economics of education, economics and higher education management and so was well vest with issues of my research. I was also familiar with the university environment and since I work at one of the public university (conduct a Qualitative research "in one’s own backyard"), the possibility of bias is really there but the researcher tried to be as objective as possible. Since this is a mixed study, quantitative approach helped in removing some biases. There was extensive verification procedure, including triangulation of data sources, participant checking and a thick description of different scenarios to establish accuracy of the findings and to control some of the "backyard" research issues (Creswell, 1998; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Furthermore, a careful audit was be done by the academic advisor and dissertation supervisory committee on all research procedures and data analysis in the study.