The purpose of this article is to develop a research-based conceptualization of a state’s higher education market in the United States. The aim is to synthesize existing notions of the higher education market into a coherent starting point and to organize discussion of the market around subjects related to supply, consumption, and management. The conceptualization provides a state-level view of the higher education market appealing to state policy makers. The article draws on another study linking state policy to postsecondary performance. Results incorporate existing literature germane to the higher education market, within and outside of the higher education discipline.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Alliance for International Higher Education and Policy Studies. (AIHEPS). (2002). Retrieved from New York University Web site: http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/index.html
2.
Armajani, B. (1994). A model for the reinvented higher education system: State policy and college learning. Paper commissioned by the Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO.
3.
Berdahl, R. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
4.
Bracco, K., Richardson, R., Callan, P., & Finney, J. (1999). Policy environments and system design: Understanding state structures. Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 23-44.
5.
Brandenberger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
6.
Burke, J., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: Signals from stockholders. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432-453.
7.
Clark, B. (1993). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Glenny, L. (1959). Autonomy of public colleges: The challenge of coordination. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Gormley, W., & Weimer, D. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Gould, J., & Kolb, W. (Eds.). (1964). A dictionary of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.
11.
Heller, D. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment. Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 65-89.
12.
Heller, D. (Ed.). (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Johnstone, B. (1992). Tuition fees. In B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), Encyclopedia of higher education (Vol. 2, pp. 1501-1509). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
14.
Marcus, L. (1999). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. Review of Higher Education, 20(4), 399-418.
15.
Martinez, M. (2002, January). New Mexico case report. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/research.html
16.
Martinez, M., & Nodine, T. (1997). Michigan: Fiscal stability and constitutional authority. In P. Callan & J. Finney (Eds.), Public and private financing of higher education (pp. 137-168). Phoenix, AZ: ACE/Oryx Press.
17.
Millet, J. (1984). Conflict in higher education: State government coordination versus institutional independence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Mingle, J. R. (2000, September). Higher education’s future in the “corporatized” economy. Paper commissioned by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Washington, DC.
19.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (NCPPHE). (2000). Measuring up 2000: The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA: Author.
20.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (NCPPHE). (2002). Losing ground: A national status report on the affordability of American higher education. San Jose, CA: Author.
21.
Neave, G., & Van Vught, F. (1994). Government and higher education in developing nations: A conceptual framework. In G. Neave, & F. van Vught (Eds.), Government and higher education in developing nations. Exeter, UK: IAU Press/Pergamon.
22.
Newman, F., & Couturier, L. (2001). The new competitive arena: Market forces invade the academy. Change, 33(5), 11-17.
23.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organizational theory: Problems and prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
25.
Prisco, A., Hurley, A. D., Carton, T. C., & Richardson, R. C. (2002, March). Federal policies and higher education in the United States. New York University, AIHEPS. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/research.html
26.
Psacharopoulis, G. (1992). Rate of return studies. In B. Clark & G. Neave (Eds.), Encyclopedia of higher education (Vol. 2, pp. 999-1003). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
27.
Pusser, B., & Doane, D. (2001). Public purpose and private enterprise: The contemporary organization of postsecondary education. Change, 33(5), 18-22.
28.
Richardson, R. C. (2002, January). New Jersey case report. New York University, AIHEPS. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/research.html
29.
Richardson, R. C., Bracco, K., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1998). Higher education governance: Balancing institutional and market influences. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
30.
Richardson, R. C., & Kent, R. (2001, December). Policy research in the U.S. and Mexico: Design of the study. New York University, AIHEPS. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/research.html
31.
Richardson, R. C., & Martinez, M. (2002, July). New Jersey and New Mexico: Explaining differences in performance. New York University, AIHEPS. Retrieved from http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/research.html
32.
Richardson, R., Reeves-Bracco, K., Callan, P., & Finney, J. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
33.
Roherty, B. (1997, November). The price of passive resistance in financing higher education. In P. Callan & J. Finney (Eds.), Public and private financing of higher education (pp. 3-29). Phoenix, AZ: ACE/Oryx Press.
34.
Rothschild, M., & White, L. (1995, June). The analytics of pricing in higher education and other services in which customers are inputs. Journal of Economic Literature, 573-586.
35.
Ruppert, S. S. (1995). Roots and realities of state-level performance indicator systems. New Directions for Higher Education, 91, 11-23.
36.
Ruppert, S. (1997). Leading the way: The views of state legislators and governors’ policy advisors on strengthening public university governance and trusteeship. Washington, DC: Report Commissioned by the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities.
37.
Thurow, L. (1999). Building wealth: The new rules for individuals, companies, and nations in a knowledge-based economy. New York: HarperCollins.
38.
Williams, G. (1995). The “marketization” of higher education: Reforms and potential reforms in higher education finance. In D. D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 170-193). Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier.
39.
Winston, G. (2001). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. In J. L. Yeager, G. M. Nelson, E. A. Potter, J. Weidman, & T. Zullo (Eds.), ASHE reader: Finance in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 25-42). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
40.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury, CA: Sage.
41.
Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Higher education as a competitive enterprise: When markets matter. In J. Volkwein (Ed.), New directions for institutional research (No. 111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
