Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Input Output in Education


Affiliations
1 Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


One type of analogy that has been brought into economics of education is the production function analogy. The production function claims that there exists a technical relationship between different combinations of input and output thus produced. There is some merit in viewing an institution of higher education in the context of traditional theory of the firm, whereby the university is hypothesized to maximize net social product to a set of production relations. This paper seeks to ask whether it is safe to use this economic analogy in the context of higher education, drawing parallels between universities and firms, students and customers, and so on. The discussion here seeks to identify the key economic features of higher education that make it different from for-profit industries. The task here is to make economic sense of an unusual industry. The first section explains and outlines the concept of input output used in case of firms as well as in educational institutions. The second section talks about the identification of outputs and a discussion at length of the three different outputs and the problems encountered in their valuation. It further discusses about the identification and valuation of inputs thereby leading to a deliberation on education production function which is viewed as a function of input and output. The next section brings forth the difference in productivity and efficiency in education. Hence, the arguments based from the literature are thus put forward.

Keywords

Input, Output, Production Function, Higher Education, Efficiency.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Abdus Salam .Human Resource Development in Higher Education in Assam. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 4(4): October-December, 2013, 492-500.

  • Akerlof, George A. and Janet L. Yellen. (May1988): Fairness and Unemployment, American Economic Review7 (8): 44-49, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Attiyeh, Richard. , Bear, Donald V.T. and Archibald G.C.(1974) in Keith G. Lumsden (ed.), Efficiency in Universities: The La Paz Papers, Amsterdam, London: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

  • Becker, Gary (1964): Human capital: A theoretical analysis with special reference to education, New York: Columbia University Press, in Chattopadhyay, S. (2012): Education and Economics disciplinary evolution and policy discourse, Oxford University Press.

  • Blaug, M. (ed.) (1969): Economics of education: selected readings Vol. 2, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books Ltd.

  • Bowen, William G. and David Breneman. (1993): Student Aid: Price Discount or Educational In-vestment? Brookings Review,Winter, 11: 28, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Bowen, William G. and Derek Bok. (1998): The Shape of the River: Long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions, Princeton: Princeton University Press, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2012): Education and Economics disciplinary evolution and policy discourse, Oxford University Press.

  • Clotfelter, Charles T. (1996): Buying the Best: Cost Escalation in Elite Higher Education, Princeton: Princeton University Press, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Duffy, Elizabeth A. and Idana Goldberg (1998): Crafting a Class: College Admissions and Financial Aid, 1995-1994, Princeton: Princeton University Press, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Hanushek, E.A. (1972): Education and Race: an analysis of the education production process, Health-Lexington, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in Hanushek, E.A.: Educational Production Functions, in Psacharopoulos, G. (ed.) (1987): Economics of Education: Research and Studies, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

  • Hanushek, E.A. (1979): Conceptual and Empirical Issues in the Estimation of Education Production Functions, J. Hum. Resource, 14: 351-88, in Hanushek, E.A.: Educational Production Functions, in Psacharopoulos, G. (ed.) (1987): Economics of Education: Research and Studies, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

  • Hanushek, E.A.: Educational Production Functions, in Psacharopoulos, G. (ed.) (1987): Economics of Education: Research and Studies, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

  • Harris, D.N. (2010): Education Production Function: Concepts, in Brewer, D J and Patrick J McEwan (eds.) (2010), Economics of Education, UK and USA: Elsevier.

  • Khushal Suryawnshi. Disability and Access to Higher Education. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 3(1): Jan- March, 2012, 38-40

  • Klitgaard, Robert E. (1985): ChoosingElites, New York: Basic Books, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Litten, Larry H. (1991): Ivy Bound: Observations, and Reflections on How Students Choose Colleges, College Board, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Lumsden, K.G. (1974): Efficiency In Universities: The La Paz Papers, Amsterdam, London: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

  • Majumdar, Tapas (1983): Investment in education and Social Choice, Cambridge University Press.

  • Manoj Kumar Kowar. Enhancing Teachers’ Efficiency in Technical Education through MBO. Asian J. Management 2(2): April-June, 2011 page 57-62.

  • Marginson, Simon (2009): The Limits of Market reform in Higher Education, paper presented at Tohoku University, 29 January in Chattopadhyay, S. (2012): Education and Economics disciplinary evolution and policy discourse, Oxford University Press.

  • Massy, William F. (2004): Markets in Higher Education: Do they Promote Internal Efficiency?, in Pedro Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill and Alberto Amaral (eds.), Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality?, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, in Chattopadhyay, S. (2012): Education and Economics disciplinary evolution and policy discourse, Oxford University Press.

  • Neetu Antil. Professional Development of Teachers in Higher Education. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 8(3): July- September, 2017, 311-315.

  • Pingle Shubhangi G., Lahiri Moon Moon, Jain Nanda S. Applying ‘Total Quality Management’ Concept in Academics in context to higher educational system in rural region Case Study of Shirpur Taluka, Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. Asian J. Management 3(3): July-Sept., 2012 page 134-138.

  • Rama Rao Bonagani. Quality of Political Science Discipline’s Higher Education in India. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 8(2): April- June, 2017, 193-196.

  • Rosovsky, Henry. (1990): The University: An Owner's Manual. New York: W .W. Norton & Company, in Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Winston, C. Gordon (Winter 1999): Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1): 13-36.

  • Woodhall, M. and Blaug, M. (1965): Productivity trends in British university education, 3(4)-483-498, in Majumdar, Tapas (1983): Investment in education and Social Choice, Cambridge University Press.


Abstract Views: 256

PDF Views: 0




  • Input Output in Education

Abstract Views: 256  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Sneha Bhasin
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Abstract


One type of analogy that has been brought into economics of education is the production function analogy. The production function claims that there exists a technical relationship between different combinations of input and output thus produced. There is some merit in viewing an institution of higher education in the context of traditional theory of the firm, whereby the university is hypothesized to maximize net social product to a set of production relations. This paper seeks to ask whether it is safe to use this economic analogy in the context of higher education, drawing parallels between universities and firms, students and customers, and so on. The discussion here seeks to identify the key economic features of higher education that make it different from for-profit industries. The task here is to make economic sense of an unusual industry. The first section explains and outlines the concept of input output used in case of firms as well as in educational institutions. The second section talks about the identification of outputs and a discussion at length of the three different outputs and the problems encountered in their valuation. It further discusses about the identification and valuation of inputs thereby leading to a deliberation on education production function which is viewed as a function of input and output. The next section brings forth the difference in productivity and efficiency in education. Hence, the arguments based from the literature are thus put forward.

Keywords


Input, Output, Production Function, Higher Education, Efficiency.

References