{"id":717,"date":"2017-06-30T18:09:21","date_gmt":"2017-06-30T16:09:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cpp.home.amu.edu.pl\/?p=717"},"modified":"2017-07-01T09:10:54","modified_gmt":"2017-07-01T07:10:54","slug":"professor-kwiek-higher-education","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/","title":{"rendered":"Professor Kwiek in „Higher Education”: „De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach” just published"},"content":{"rendered":"

Professor Marek Kwiek has just published a paper \u201cDe-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach<\/em>\u201d in Higher Education\u00a0<\/em>(

Abstract<\/h2>\n

This paper seeks to conceptualize the processes of de-privatization in higher education. Trends of de-privatization (and contraction in enrolments) are highly interesting because they go against global trends of privatization (and educational expansion). De-privatization means a decreasing role for the private component in the changing public\u2013private dynamics. The paper studies its two dimensions (funding and provision) and distinguishes between seven potential empirical organizational\/geographical levels of analysis. Empirically, the paper draws from data from Central Europe. The traditional dichotomous pairing of the public and the private is shown to still be useful in specific empirical contexts, despite it becoming blurred globally. Major approaches to privatization in higher education over the last two decades are rethought and redirected toward de-privatization. An empirically informed notion of de-privatization is being developed and its usefulness is briefly tested.<\/p>\n

Download<\/a> (Open Access).\u00a0<\/p>\n

More: http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10734-016-0047-3<\/a><\/p>\n

Selected ideas include the following:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Surprisingly, in some parts of post-communist Europe (referred to here as \u201cthe region\u201d), global assumptions about the ever-growing demand for higher education and the constant growth in enrolments\u2014combined with assumptions about the increasing pressure to privatize higher education mostly for financial reasons (Priest et al.\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>: 7; Johnstone\u00a02000<\/a><\/span>: 1; Sanyal and Johnstone\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>: 160; Thornton\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>: 12-13)\u2014seem not to hold. On the contrary, new public\u2013private dynamics at work in such countries as Poland, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria tend to suggest opposite processes (Curaj et al.\u00a02015<\/a><\/span>; OECD\u00a02015<\/a><\/span>): Privatization is not taken for granted any more, and college-age cohorts are declining for demographic reasons, as is the overall demand for higher education. There are more vacancies than candidates, in both public and private sectors. Consequently, the pressure to privatize the public sector and to expand the private sector is as low as never before in the post-1989 period.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thus, higher education in parts of post-communist Europe is moving against two major global trends of private sector growth and cost-sharing (defined as the worldwide trend of educational costs being shifted \u201cfrom a dominant reliance on governments to an increasing reliance on parents and students,\u201d Sanyal and Johnstone\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>: 160). The two trends are globally the weakest in Continental Europe (see Heller and Callender\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>) which is \u201cone of the last hold-outs of free higher education\u201d (Marcucci\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 19), and even weaker in the region. While privatization in an American context means \u201cthe substitution of tuition fee income for state support\u201d and \u201cthe move toward more reliance on private funding for \u2018public\u2019 higher education\u201d (Zusman\u00a01999<\/a><\/span>: 119), de-privatization as explored in this paper would mean exactly the opposite: the substitution of state support for tuition fee income and the move toward more reliance on public funding for public higher education (combined with private sector decline). These regional countertrends demand greater conceptual and empirical attention.<\/p>\n

\n

De-privatization processes\u2014in terms of funding\u2014refer to proportionally decreasing private funding in higher education, or its decreasing privateness, over time, and privatization processes refer to proportionally increasing private funding, or its increasing privateness, over time. A proportional approach to de-privatization (i.e., percentages of public and private finance) makes it easier to identify the direction of ongoing changes at various levels of analysis. In post-communist Europe, which empirically informs this paper, the dynamics have clearly been changing toward more publicness and less privateness in the last decade.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Privatization as a social science concept is used in broad and narrow senses. Theoretical and empirical research on privatization in a broad sense, developed mostly within political economy, political sciences and economics, has been historically focused on two parts of the world: the USA (as well as the United Kingdom, see Le Grande and Robinson\u00a01984<\/a><\/span>; Walker\u00a01984<\/a><\/span>; Starr\u00a01989<\/a><\/span>; Feigenbaum et al.\u00a01998<\/a><\/span>) and European transition post-communist countries (see Spulber\u00a01997<\/a><\/span>; Nelson et al.\u00a01997<\/a><\/span>). Conceptualizations of privatization in higher education though, that is privatization in a narrow sense, refer mostly to the USA (Johnstone\u00a02000<\/a><\/span>; Priest and St John\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>; Morphew and Eckel\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>; Fryar\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>), with a limited number of publications on other parts of the globe (such as Poland, Australia, China, and selected other Asian and African countries, see Marginson\u00a01997b<\/a><\/span>; Kwiek\u00a02016a<\/a><\/span>; Painter and Mok\u00a02008<\/a><\/span>; Mok\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>; and Wang\u00a02014<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n

Narrowly defined, privatization means denationalization and refers to the transfer to private ownership of public assets; including sales of public land, infrastructure and enterprises (see Starr\u00a01989<\/a><\/span>; Spulber\u00a01997<\/a><\/span>; Belfield and Levin\u00a02002<\/a><\/span>). Privatization has different meanings at three levels: an \u201cidea,\u201d \u201ctheory and rhetoric,\u201d and \u201cpolitical practice\u201d (Starr\u00a01989<\/a><\/span>: 15); at the level of political practice, privatization is a fundamental \u201creordering of claims in society\u201d and in its extreme forms\u2014known from post-communist transition economies in the 1990s\u2014an instrument of \u201cclass politics\u201d (Starr\u00a01989<\/a><\/span>: 42\u201343). The links between privatization in its broad and narrow senses are close (Whitty and Power\u00a02000<\/a><\/span>; Kaplan\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>; Priest and St John\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>). The frontiers between public and private sectors are \u201cnot always easy to define or clear-cut\u201d (Spulber\u00a01997<\/a><\/span>: 101). The terms \u201cpublic\u201d and \u201cprivate\u201d are politically crucial: They sum up a \u201cwhole structure of rules and expectations about the proper conduct and limits of the state\u201d (Starr\u00a01989<\/a><\/span>: 42).<\/p>\n

There is a lack of conceptual clarity in theorizing about privatization in higher education (Fryar\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>: 521), and the precise definition of the term remains \u201celusive\u201d (Ikenberry\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 2). Consequently, privatization means \u201cmany things\u201d (Altbach et al.\u00a02010<\/a><\/span>: 73) and it is a \u201cnuanced phenomenon\u201d (Eckel and Morphew\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 183). It has \u201cneither an unequivocal definition nor absolute or delimited characteristics\u201d (G\u00f3mez and Ordorika\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>: 219). Most common among discussions of privatization are its definition as the decline in state support for higher education (Teixeira\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>). The privatization theme has been extensively treated in the last two decades. For instance, privatization of public universities can be viewed as the decentralization of governmental control (Eckel and Morphew\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 190\u2013191); shifts in public opinion about the value of higher education, as studied through a median voter model (Toutkoushian\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 74\u201375); decreases in public funding and increases in entrepreneurial activities within institutions (Ikenberry\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 5), and increased reliance on market mechanisms to govern higher education (McLendon and Mokher\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 25\u201326) or increases in competition for students and resources (Kaplan\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>: 128)\u2014as Fryar (2012<\/a><\/span>: 523) shows taking the single volume on \u201cprivatizing the public university\u201d in an American context as an example (see Morphew and Eckel\u00a02009<\/a><\/span>). The de-privatization theme seems to have been heavily under-researched: It has been mentioned in passing only in several isolated instances (e.g., Painter and Mok\u00a02008<\/a><\/span>; Mok\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n

\n

Despite accounts in which the public and the private are increasingly viewed as \u201cblurred\u201d (both American, see Geiger\u00a02007<\/a><\/span>; Altbach et al.\u00a02010<\/a><\/span>; Sanyal and Johnstone\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>; and European, see Enders and Jongbloed\u00a02007<\/a><\/span>), in the region, a still sharp divide between public and private institutions, publicly supported and privately supported students, public sector students and private sector students, as well as between public and private sources of funding\u2014is analytically useful. Despite the fact that in other parts of the world these tools may no longer be useful. The core of the post-1989 transformations from the public\u2013private perspective was the emergence of the privates and the appearance of fee-paying students in the public sector.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I am using in this paper the two contrasted dimensions of the private (privateness) and the public (publicness) in higher education, following Levy in his studies on the private sector. He assumes that \u201cthe private\u2013public distinction matters\u201d (Levy\u00a01986<\/a><\/span>: 293) and that it is \u201cstrong\u201d (Levy\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 3). In practical terms,<\/p>\n
\n

we count private and public by their juridical designation, which generally overlaps ownership: if an institution is legally public we count it (and its enrolment) as public, regardless of its degree of \u201cprivateness\u201d in finance or administration (Levy\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 3).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Privatization and de-privatization are much more clear-cut in the region where there are clear public\/private distinctions in ownership and resourcing: privates receive almost exclusively private funding (although their students are entitled to receive state-subsidized loans), and publics receive predominantly public funding (and are entitled to charge fees in most cases to \u201cpart-time\u201d or \u201csecond-track\u201d or \u201cout of quota\u201d students). In financing, public sectors in the region are still \u201ctruly public\u201d and private sectors are \u201ctruly private\u201d (as Levy referred to his Latin American cases,\u00a01986<\/a><\/span>: 293). Therefore, while \u201cjust dividing higher education into a \u2018public sector\u2019 and a \u2018private sector\u2019 is too simple\u201d (Calhoun\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>: 3), in the region, it is much simpler due to short history of cost-sharing and clear-cut characteristics of the private sector. Globally, though, there are such ongoing nuanced processes as a decline in \u201cprivateness in private institutions\u201d and the rising \u201cprivateness in public institutions\u201d (Levy\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 16)\u2014which mean, in terms of funding, more public (direct or indirect) subsidies in the former and more income from fees in the latter.<\/p>\n

A set of traditionally distinctive concepts of \u201cpublic\u201d and \u201cprivate\u201d still works well in the region: It enables a simplified conceptual apparatus to operationalize and measure de-privatization. In this part of Europe, as in Levy\u2019s (2008<\/a><\/span>: 46) general observation, \u201cfor the most part, the public sector remains quite public whereas private institutions are privately financed and have governance and accountability profiles consistent with their funding and purpose.\u201d While privatization was a powerful conceptual tool to comprehend systemic changes in the 1990s\u00a0(see Kwiek\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>), de-privatization may be a useful tool to comprehend recent and future changes. At the same time\u2014changing the terrain from public and private resources and ownership to public and private outcomes and benefits from higher education\u2014the public sector in the region is increasingly being reconceptualized as producing private outcomes, and the private sector increasingly attempts to reconceptualize itself as producing public outcomes. Of the two parallel processes, the former is much more advanced. In terms of outcomes, as Marginson (2007<\/a><\/span>: 323) argues, national higher education systems produce \u201ca mix of public and private goods\u201d which is \u201chighly variable and policy sensitive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Higher education research and policy literature over the last few decades has been focused on the growing worldwide demand: on ever increasing student numbers\u2014and how to finance expanding systems (Johnstone and Marcucci\u00a02010<\/a><\/span>; Altbach et al.\u00a02010<\/a><\/span>). Growth and expansion were\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0words (Heller and Callender\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>; Marcucci\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>)\u2014decline and contraction were not. A common global assumption has been \u201cthe massive quantitative expansion\u201d and \u201cthe huge increases in projected enrolments,\u201d both calling for \u201cmassive and continuing increases in revenues\u201d (Sanyal and Johnstone\u00a02011<\/a><\/span>: 159). Coping with \u201cmore students and less money\u201d (Thornton\u00a02012<\/a><\/span>: 13) has been a global phenomenon. In the demographic context of formidable expansion\u2014combined with political contexts of \u201cpermanent austerity\u201d in public sector services and ideological contexts of New Public Management\u2014privatization was\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0word. Privatization was thus viewed as a policy mechanism to meet the goal of increasing access in expanding systems (Priest and St John\u00a02006<\/a><\/span>: 248).<\/p>\n

Privatization has become a necessity because of \u201cbudgetary problems created by massification with simultaneous reductions in public investment\u201d (Altbach et al.\u00a02010<\/a><\/span>: 82). However, while across the non-European Western world and the developing world there has been a dramatic increase in the number of students combined with the limitations of the public purse, the region seems unaffected by these global trends and\u2014consequently\u2014by Thornton\u2019s \u201cprivatizing imperatives\u201d (2012<\/a><\/span>) prevalent in public universities across the Anglophone world\u00a0(for cross-national quantitative studies of the academic profession in 11 European systems, see Kwiek\u00a02015c<\/a><\/span>,\u00a02016c<\/a><\/span>, on the internationalization of research and on European research elites, respectively).<\/p>\n

\n

The critical issue is\u00a0demographics<\/em>. The privatization-demographics and de-privatization-demographics links are key: privatization seems to be on the rise in expanding systems (that is, almost everywhere globally in the 2010s) with increasing demographics; but it might be in reverse in contracting systems with heavily declining demographics (that is, in Central and Eastern Europe). The vast majority of higher education research and policy literature refers to expansion and related rising financial commitments; however, there are also systematically contracting systems, with negative growth and, consequently,\u00a0decreasing<\/em>\u00a0commitments: namely the region in question, the fastest aging societies in Europe.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Private higher education gets hit hard by slowing demand, and the greatest vulnerability is in the demand-absorbing subsector (Levy\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 6) that dominates the sector in the region. Also, the rationales for cost-sharing are different for contracting systems than for\u2014as traditionally developed to fit\u2014expanding systems. The states in the region are able to increase per student funding without increasing total funding\u2014as the number of students systematically decreases. Levy draws a useful distinction between a \u201craw\u201d decline private higher education in absolute numbers and a \u201cproportional\u201d decline\u2014including where \u201cthe decline is fundamentally a function of large-scale fresh public growth\u201d (Levy\u00a02013<\/a><\/span>: 14). The region represents both types of decline. Following Belfield and Levin\u2019s (2002<\/a><\/span>: 29) argument that the first factor to explain privatization in education is as simple as \u201cmany parents want it,\u201d I argue that de-privatization occurs because many parents\/students no longer \u201cwant it\u201d (as much as they did one or two decades ago).<\/p>\n

In the region, two forms of privatization occurred: the growing demand in the expansion period was to be met by both\u00a0internal<\/em>\u00a0privatization of the public sector and\u00a0external<\/em>\u00a0privatization through new private providers\u00a0(see Kwiek 2010 for the distinction). Analogously, internal de-privatization is linked to ever-growing public funding in the public sector and an ever-growing share of publicly funded (tuition-free) students in this sector. Behind external de-privatization\u2014or the gradual private sector decline in the region\u2014there are four interrelated driving forces: (1) declining demographics: the age cohorts for the standard age of studying have been declining for a decade, and are expected to do so in the future; (2) the demand-absorbing character of the private sector: it was the first to appear, the largest to emerge, and it is currently having the hardest time to survive; (3) the rigidity of emergent hierarchies of prestige: principal private goods provided by higher education are \u201cpositional goods\u201d (Marginson\u00a01997a<\/a><\/span>: 38\u201346; Marginson\u00a02007<\/a><\/span>: 198\u2013201) and demand-absorbing private institutions in the region allocate on average the lowest value status goods; and (4) the tuition-free character of the competing public sector: the fully fee-based private sector competes with basically tuition-free public sector. The combination of the four above driving forces endangers the very existence of private sectors in the region, making external de-privatization a globally interesting phenomenon.<\/p>\n

The organization of higher education can be represented in terms of the two-dimensional relationship between the sources of funding and provision (see Fig.\u00a01<\/a><\/span>\u00a0below). The public provision of higher education (or enrolments) is shown in Cells 1\/2, and private provision in Cells 3\/4; public funding is shown in Cells 1\/3, and private funding is shown in Cells 2\/4. Privately provided higher education competes with that which is publicly provided wherever both occur in the system.<\/p>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/div>
\n
Fig.\u00a01.\u00a0<\/span>Modes of higher education provision and funding revised from Whitty and Power (2000<\/a><\/span>)<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

There are four theoretically pure cases: public provision and public funding (Cell 1), public provision and private funding (Cell 2), private provision and public funding (Cell 3), and private provision and private funding (Cell 4). A pure model of publicly funded and publicly provided higher education is located in Cell 1; and a pure model of privately funded and privately provided higher education is located in Cell 4. Privatization in higher education is, as Whitty and Power (2000<\/a><\/span>: 94) describe it in terms of welfare services in general, \u201ca multi-faceted set of processes rather than a straightforward movement out of Cell 1 into Cell 4.\u201d Similarly, de-privatization is not a straightforward movement out of Cell 4 into Cell 1. Each national system can be located within the four cells over time. Additionally, movements within cells (i.e., quantitative differences) and among cells (i.e., qualitative differences) over time can be shown. Thus de-privatization along the\u00a0funding<\/em>\u00a0dimension is either a quantitative change within Cell 2 toward public, or a qualitative change from Cell 2 to Cell 1 (in the public sector). De-privatization along the\u00a0provision<\/em>\u00a0dimension is either a quantitative change within Cell 3 toward public, or a qualitative change from Cell 3 to Cell 1 (assuming that \u201cpublic\u201d means \u201cwith the majority of public-sector students\u201d and \u201cprivate\u201d means \u201cwith the majority of private-sector students\u201d). By definition, a \u201cpure\u201d Cell 1 cannot be de-privatized (and a \u201cpure\u201d Cell 4 cannot be privatized).<\/p>\n

For empirical purposes, both funding and provision dimensions can be better calibrated to capture the changing realities at any level over time using deciles (or percentiles). An empirical study of de-privatization makes sense if it is viewed as a process, or a difference in the location in the model between two times in the public\/private dimension of funding and\/or enrolments at one or more levels. For instance, a shift from a 40\u00a0% privately funded institution to a 20\u00a0% privately funded institution denotes de-privatization at an institutional level, as does a shift from 40\u00a0% private enrolments to 20\u00a0% private enrolments in an institution.<\/p>\n

\n

A two-dimensional relationship can be further developed to be used for multilevel analyses at different organizational\/geographical levels. I suggest the following:\u00a0Level 1<\/em>\u00a0Individual faculty\/department; \u00a0\u00a0Level 2<\/em>\u00a0Individual university;\u00a0Level 3<\/em>\u00a0National state\/province;\u00a0Level 4a<\/em>\u00a0Higher education sectors: public sector;\u00a0Level 4b<\/em>\u00a0Higher education sectors: private sector;\u00a0Level 5<\/em>\u00a0National system (country);\u00a0Level 6<\/em>\u00a0Continent\/political region; and\u00a0Level 7<\/em>\u00a0Global.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Consequently, the two dimensions (provision and funding) can be analyzed at seven organizational\/geographical levels. There are complicated multi-faceted interrelations between the dimensions of funding and provision at different levels. The direction of changes over time at a lower level can be different from the aggregated direction of changes at a higher level. For instance, the aggregated direction of changes at Level 2 (individual university) over time can differ from changes in its various components at Level 1 (individual faculty\/department). While the university as a whole can be privatizing, selected faculties\/departments may be de-privatizing, or the other way round, as we show in fifth section. In a similar vein, while at an aggregated Level 5 (national system\/country), higher education can be de-privatizing, there may be selected public institutions which are actually privatizing, along funding, provision, or both dimensions. At each level, trends can be accompanied by countertrends\u00a0(see Kwiek\u00a02016a<\/a><\/span>for a detailed study of Poland as a global countertrend).<\/p>\n

The two extremes at a systemic level\u2014(fully) public and (fully) private higher education\u2014seem not to exist in pure forms in the OECD area or globally (among OECD member states only Greece is reported to have neither \u201cgovernment-dependent private\u201d nor \u201cindependent private\u201d institutions, OECD\u00a02014<\/a><\/span>: 413). De-privatization at any level means movement on the continuum in the direction of the (fully) public (and privatization, by analogy, means movement in the other direction).<\/p>\n

\n

From the perspective of funding, internal privatization and internal de-privatization occur in public sector institutions (with ever more or ever less, nominally and\/or proportionally, private funding over time), and external privatization and external de-privatization occur in private sector institutions (with ever more or ever fewer private sector institutions and private sector funding from fees in the system over time). External de-privatization is not possible in systems in which the private sector (as defined by the OECD term: \u201cindependent private\u201d) does not exist (e.g., in Belgium, Finland, Greece, the United Kingdom, Hungary and Sweden in Europe, and Canada outside Europe, OECD\u00a02014<\/a><\/span>: 413). And from the perspective of provision, internal privatization and internal de-privatization refer to public sector institutions, and external privatization and external de-privatization refer to private sector institutions. Consequently, external de-privatization is not possible in systems in which the private sector does not exist.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this paper, several aims have been achieved: a new conceptual tool of de-privatization was developed for use in higher education research and policy, and it was briefly shown how to operationalize and measure it. Three previously separate strands of research (on privatization, private higher education, and cost-sharing) have been synthesized and explored as forming the global privatization agenda. The traditional dichotomous pairing of the public and the private has been shown to still be useful in specific empirical contexts, despite it becoming blurred globally. Major approaches to privatization in higher education over the last two decades have been rethought and redirected toward de-privatization.<\/p>\n

The global processes of privatization and expansion in higher education have not been found to fit the ongoing demography-induced processes in post-communist systems in Central Europe very well. Instead of the conceptual pairing of expansion and privatization\u2014the region has been found to be better served by the pairing of contraction and de-privatization. An empirically informed notion of de-privatization has been developed and its usefulness has been briefly tested in explaining the ongoing and expected shifts in higher education in the region.<\/p>\n

\n

The processes of de-privatization have been defined as the decreasing role of the private component in the changing public\u2013private dynamics. But they can also be defined as the increasing role of the public component in it (and then termed re-publicization). De-privatization and re-publicization in higher education, being the two sides of the same coin, may serve to be used in different contexts. In the case of the region, de-privatization better serves the analytical purposes of understanding the impact of demography-driven contraction, if only for the historical reason that privatization used to be the key concept to understand expansion in the post-1989 period.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Download<\/a> (Open Access).\u00a0<\/p>\n

More: http:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10734-016-0047-3<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Professor Marek Kwiek has just published a paper \u201cDe-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\u201d in Higher Education\u00a0(August 2017,\u00a0Volume 74,\u00a0Issue\u00a02,\u00a0pp 259\u2013281). Abstract This paper seeks to conceptualize the processes of de-privatization in higher education. Trends of de-privatization (and contraction in enrolments) are highly interesting because they go against global trends of privatization (and educational expansion). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":720,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nProfessor Kwiek in "Higher Education": "De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach" just published<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"pl_PL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Professor Kwiek in "Higher Education": "De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach" just published\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Professor Marek Kwiek has just published a paper \u201cDe-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\u201d in Higher Education\u00a0(August 2017,\u00a0Volume 74,\u00a0Issue\u00a02,\u00a0pp 259\u2013281). Abstract This paper seeks to conceptualize the processes of de-privatization in higher education. Trends of de-privatization (and contraction in enrolments) are highly interesting because they go against global trends of privatization (and educational expansion). […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Center for Public Policy Studies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/higher-education.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"321\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"cpps_admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Napisane przez\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"cpps_admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Szacowany czas czytania\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minuty\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"cpps_admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/c5a1f08457488ba50531ecdc6173a567\"},\"headline\":\"Professor Kwiek in „Higher Education”: „De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach” just published\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\"},\"wordCount\":6915,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Paper\"],\"inLanguage\":\"pl-PL\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\",\"name\":\"Professor Kwiek in \\\"Higher Education\\\": \\\"De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\\\" just published\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"pl-PL\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Strona g\u0142\u00f3wna\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Professor Kwiek in “Higher Education”: “De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach” just published\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/\",\"name\":\"Center for Public Policy Studies\",\"description\":\"Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna\u0144, Poland\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"pl-PL\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Center for Public Policy Studies\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"pl-PL\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpp.web.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/CPPS.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/cpp.web.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/CPPS.png\",\"width\":362,\"height\":96,\"caption\":\"Center for Public Policy Studies\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/c5a1f08457488ba50531ecdc6173a567\",\"name\":\"cpps_admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"pl-PL\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e941d85d5b011204d81635e589efcdc3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e941d85d5b011204d81635e589efcdc3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"cpps_admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/author\/cpps_admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Professor Kwiek in \"Higher Education\": \"De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\" just published","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/","og_locale":"pl_PL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Professor Kwiek in \"Higher Education\": \"De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\" just published","og_description":"Professor Marek Kwiek has just published a paper \u201cDe-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\u201d in Higher Education\u00a0(August 2017,\u00a0Volume 74,\u00a0Issue\u00a02,\u00a0pp 259\u2013281). Abstract This paper seeks to conceptualize the processes of de-privatization in higher education. Trends of de-privatization (and contraction in enrolments) are highly interesting because they go against global trends of privatization (and educational expansion). […]","og_url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/","og_site_name":"Center for Public Policy Studies","article_published_time":"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":400,"height":321,"url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/higher-education.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"cpps_admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Napisane przez":"cpps_admin","Szacowany czas czytania":"34 minuty"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/"},"author":{"name":"cpps_admin","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/c5a1f08457488ba50531ecdc6173a567"},"headline":"Professor Kwiek in „Higher Education”: „De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach” just published","datePublished":"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/"},"wordCount":6915,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Paper"],"inLanguage":"pl-PL","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/","url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/","name":"Professor Kwiek in \"Higher Education\": \"De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach\" just published","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-06-30T16:09:21+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-01T07:10:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"pl-PL","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/professor-kwiek-higher-education\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Strona g\u0142\u00f3wna","item":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Professor Kwiek in “Higher Education”: “De-privatization in higher education: a conceptual approach” just published"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#website","url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/","name":"Center for Public Policy Studies","description":"Adam Mickiewicz University, Pozna\u0144, Poland","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"pl-PL"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#organization","name":"Center for Public Policy Studies","url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"pl-PL","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/cpp.web.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/CPPS.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/cpp.web.amu.edu.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/CPPS.png","width":362,"height":96,"caption":"Center for Public Policy Studies"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/c5a1f08457488ba50531ecdc6173a567","name":"cpps_admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"pl-PL","@id":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e941d85d5b011204d81635e589efcdc3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e941d85d5b011204d81635e589efcdc3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"cpps_admin"},"url":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/author\/cpps_admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/717"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/717\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cpp.amu.edu.pl\/pl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}