Does merit-based aid "Crowd Out" need-based aid?

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 397-415

  Doyle, William R ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic models; Financial aid; Merit aid; Panel data; Policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954142712     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-010-9166-3     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson, T., & Hsiao, C. (1982). Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47-82.
2. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277-297.
3. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044-1074.
4. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Beadie, N. (1999). From student markets to credential markets: The creation of the Regents examination system in New York State, 1864-1890. History of Education Quarterly, 39(1), 1-30.
6. Berdahl, R. O. (1978). In D. W. Breneman & C. E. Finn (Eds.), Public policy and private higher education (pp. 323-352). Washington, DC: Brookings.
7. Berry, W. D., Ringquist, E. J., Fording, R. C., & Hanson, R. L. (1998). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960-93. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 327-348.
8. Binder, M., & Ganderton, P. T. (2002). Musical chairs in higher education: Incentive effects of a merit-based state scholarship program. Department of Economics Working Papers, University of New Mexico.
9. Blaydon, C. (1978). In D. Breneman & C. J. Finn (Eds.), Public policy and private higher education (pp. 353-388). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
10. Bond, S. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 2002(1), 141-162.
11. Cornwell, C., Mustard, D. B., & Sridhar, D. J. (2006). The enrollment effects of merit-based financial aid: Evidence from Georgia's hope program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(4), 761-786.
12. Creech, J. D., & Davis, J. S. (1999). Merit-based versus need-based aid: The continual issues for policymakers. In J. King (Ed.), Financing a college education: How it works, how it's changing. Phoenix: ACE/Oryx.
13. Doyle, W. R. (2006). Policy adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259-285.
14. Doyle, W. R. (2008). Access, equity and excellence: The competing goals of state student financial aid. In Theeffectivenessofstudentaidpolicies: Whattheresearchtellsus (pp. 159-188). New York: College Board.
15. Dynarski, S. M. (2000). Hope for whom? Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college attendance. National Tax Journal, 53(3), 629-663.
16. Dynarski, S. M. (2002). The consequences of merit aid. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers (9400).
17. Dynarski, S. M. (2003). The new merit aid. Cambridge: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government.
18. Dynarski, S. M., & Scott-Clayton, J. E. (2006). The cost of complexity in federal student aid: Lessons from optimal tax theory and behavioral economics. National Tax Journal, 59(2), 319-356.
19. Ellwood, D., & Kane, T. J. (2000). Who is getting a college education? Family background and growing gaps in enrollment. In S. Danziger & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
20. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21. Griswold, C. P., & Marine, G. M. (1996). Political influences on state policy: Higher-tuition, higher-aid, and the real world. Review of Higher Education, 19(4), 361-389.
22. Hauptman, A. M. (2001). Reforming the ways states finance higher education. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and higher education policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23. Hearn, J. C., & Longanecker, D. (1985). Enrollment effects of alternative postsecondary pricing policies. Journal of Higher Education, 56(5), 485-508.
24. Heller, D. E. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624-659.
25. Heller, D. E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 65-89.
26. Heller, D. E. (2002). The policy shift in state financial aid programs. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVII, pp. 221-262). New York: Agathon.
27. Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (2002). Who should we help? the negative social consequences of merit scholarships (Tech. Report). Harvard University Civil Rights Project.
28. Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (2004). State merit scholarship programs and racial inequality (Tech. Report). Harvard University Civil Rights Project.
29. Hoenack, S. (1982). Pricing and efficiency in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 53(4), 403-418.
30. Jack, H. L. (2006). Investingineducationalopportunity: StrengtheningTennessee'scommitmenttolow-incomestudentsandfamilies (Tech. Report). Nashville: Tennesse Independent Colleges and Universities Association.
31. Klingman, D., & Lammers, W. W. (1984). The "general policy liberalism" factor in American state politics. American Journal of Political Science, 28(3), 598-610.
32. Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. T. (1987). Student price response in higher education: The student demand studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181-204.
33. Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Adminsitration Review, 19, 79-88.
34. McDonough, P. M., Calderon, S. M., & Purdy, W. C. (2007). Stategrantaidanditseffectsonstudents'collegechoices (Tech. Report). Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education.
35. Mortenson, T. G. (1997). Georgia's HOPE scholarship program: Good intentions, strong funding, bad design. Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 56, 1-3.
36. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Losingground: Anationalstatusreportontheaffordabilityofhighereducation (Tech. Report). NCPPHE.
37. Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990's. Albany: State University of New York Press.
38. Selingo, J. (2001). Questioning the merit of merit scholarships. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(19), 20-22.
39. Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (2007). Tennesseeeducationlotteryscholarshipprogramannualreport (Tech. Report). Nashville: THEC.
40. Turner, C. S. V., Jones, L. M., & Hearn, J. C. (2004). Georgia's P-16 reforms and the promise of a seamless system. In M. W. Kirst & A. Venezia (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2003). Nationalincomeandproductaccounts (No. 3/5/2003). Bureau of Economic Analysis.
42. US Department of Education. (2001). Digestofeducationstatistics, 2000 (Tech. Report). National Center for Education Statistics.