How do Revenue Variations Affect Expenditures Within U.S. Research Universities?

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 614-639

  Leslie, Larry L ^a   Slaughter, Sheila ^a   Taylor, Barrett J ^a   Zhang, Liang ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Expenditures; Finance; Policy; Research universities; Revenues

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864316916     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-011-9248-x     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Alexander, F. K. (2001). The silent crisis: The relative capacity of public universities to compete for faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 24(2), 113-129.
2. American Association of Universities. (2010a). 2010 AAU facts and figures. Washington, DC: American Association of Universities.
3. American Association of Universities. (2010b). AAU membership policy. Washington, DC: American Association of Universities.
4. American Association of Universities. (2010c). AAU adds Georgia Tech as a member. Washington, DC: American Association of Universities.
5. Associated Press. (2010). Students on edge over rising tuition. Retrieved 28 July 2011 from http://www. cbsnews. com/stories/2010/02/02/national/main6164634. shtml.
6. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Health care, education, and the cost disease: A looming crisis for public choice. Public Choice, 77, 17-28.
7. Baumol, W. J., & Bowen, W. G. (1966). Performing arts the economic dilemma: A study of problems common to theater, opera, music, and dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
8. Bowen, H. R. (1980). The cost of higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
10. Branscomb, L. M. (1997). From technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology, 13(3), 41-48.
11. Branscomb, L. M., Florida, R., Hart, D., Keller, J., & Boville, D. (1997). Working paper, Steering Committee on the Project on Technology Policy Assessment, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
12. Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U. S. higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
13. Britt, R. (2010). Universities report $55 billion in science and engineering R& D spending for FY 2009. NSF 10-329. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. http://nsf. gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10329/?org=NSF. Accessed 9 Dec 2011.
14. Brooks, H. (1996). Evolution of U. S. science policy. In B. L. R. Smith & C. Barfield (Eds.), Technology, R& D, and the economy (pp. 15-48). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
15. Bruno, I. (2009). The 'indefinite discipline' of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva, 47, 261-280.
16. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. (1993). Science, technology, and government for a changing world. New York: Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government.
17. Cennsky, A. (2011). Rising college costs price out middle class. Retrieved 28 July 2011 from http://money. cnn. com/2011/06/13/news/economy/college_tuition_middle_class/index. htm.
18. Cheslock, J. J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208-229.
19. Clark, K. (2009). The surprising causes of those college tuition hikes. US News & World Report. Retrieved 28 July 2011 from http://www. usnews. com/education/articles/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-those-college-tuition-hikes.
20. Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W., & Santos, M. C. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms: Economies of scale and scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(2), 284-290.
21. College Board. (2010). Trends in student aid 2010. Mount Vernon, IL: The College Board Publications.
22. Council on Competitiveness. (1996). Endless frontier, limited resources: U. S. R& D policy for competitiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
23. Dasagupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
24. Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2007). The impact of sector on school organizations: Institutional and market logics. Sociology of Education, 80(1), 66-91.
25. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
26. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2002). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Ehrenberg, R. G., Rizzo, M. J., & Jakubson, G. H. (2007). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? In P. Stephan & R. G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Science and the university (pp. 19-35). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
29. Feldman, D. H., & Archibald, R. B. (2010). Why does college cost so much?. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246-268.
31. Gates, G. S. (1997). Isomorphism, homogeneity, and rationalism in university retrenchment. The Review of Higher Education, 20(3), 253-275.
32. Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33. Geiger, R. L., & Sa, C. M. (2008). Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13, 267-285.
35. Greenberg, D. (2001). Science, money and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Hare, P., & Wyatt, G. (2011). Economics of academic research and its implications for higher education. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 8(12), 48-66.
37. Harter, J. F. R., Wade, J. A., & Watkins, T. G. (2005). An examination of costs at four-year public colleges and universities between 1989 and 1998. The Review of Higher Education, 28(3), 369-391.
38. Hasbrouck, N. S. (1997). Implications of the changing funding base of public universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(4), 1217.
39. Hearn, J. C., & Lacy, T. A. (2009). Governmental policy and the organization of postsecondary education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 942-957). New York: Routledge.
40. Heller, D. E. (2001). Trends in the affordability of public colleges and universities: The contradiction of increasing prices and increasing enrollment. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy (pp. 11-38). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
41. Heller, D. E. (2006). The changing nature of public support for higher education in the United States. In P. N. Teixeira, D. B. Johnstone, M. J. Rosa, & H. Vossensteyn (Eds.), Cost sharing and accessibility in higher education: A fairer deal? (pp. 133-158). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
42. Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398-422.
43. Jaffe, A. S. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 55-70.
44. Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (2009). Higher education institutions' costs and efficiency: Taking the decomposition a further step. Economics of Education Review, 28, 107-113.
45. Johnstone, D. B. (1998). Patterns of finance: Revolution, evolution, or more of the same? The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 245-255.
46. Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403-410.
47. Just, R. E., & Huffman, W. E. (2009). The economics of universities in a new age of funding options. Research Policy, 38, 1102-1116.
48. Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review, 61(5), 812-836.
49. Lacy, T. A. (2010). Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms: An empirical analysis. In R. Ahrweiler (Ed.), Innovation in complex social systems (pp. 175-186). New York: Routledge.
50. Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. (1988). The economic value of higher education. New York: American Council on Education/MacMillian Series on Higher Education.
51. Leslie, L. L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: Seeking explanations. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187-212.
52. Leslie, L. L., Rhoades, G., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1999). Effects of changing revenue patterns on public research universities. University of Houston Law Center, the Institute for Higher Education Law & Governance, IHELG Monograph 99-10.
53. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65.
54. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773-776.
55. McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
56. McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1998). The student aid game: Meeting need and rewarding talent in American higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Mathew effect in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
58. Mirowski, P. M., & Sent, E. M. (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Morphew, C. C. (2002). "A rose by any other name": Which colleges became universities. The Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 207-223.
60. Morphew, C. C., & Baker, B. D. (2004). The cost of prestige. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 365-384.
61. Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 491.
62. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1993). Science, technology, and the federal government: National goals for a new era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
63. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. (1995). Allocating federal funds for science and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
64. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Research-current year total. Retrieved 9 Sep 2011 from http://nces. ed. gov/ipeds/datacenter/SelectVariables. aspx?stepId=1.
65. National Science Foundation. (2010). Science and engineering indicators, 2010. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
66. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306.
67. Nelson, L. A. (2011). Naughty and nice on college price. Retrieved 28 July 2011 from http://www. insidehighered. com/news/2011/06/30/education_department_releases_lists_on_college_prices.
68. Nelson, L. A., & Lederman, D. (2011). Out of the club. Retrieved 28 July 2011 from http://www. insidehighered. com/news/2011/05/02/university_of_nebraska_and_syracuse_to_lose_places_in_aau_research_university_group.
69. Orszag, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments: Science and technology priorities for the FY 2011 budget (M-09-27). Washington, DC: The White House.
70. Paulsen, M. B., & Smart, J. C. (2001). Economic perspectives on rising college tuition. New York: Agathon.
71. Pestre, D. (2009). Understanding the forms of government in today's democratic societies: An introduction. Minerva, 47(3), 243-260.
72. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
73. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2011). If and when money matters: The relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement and students' learning outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 81-106.
74. Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). Educational expenditures and student engagement: When does money matter? Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 847-872.
75. Powers, J. B. (2004). R& D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-23.
76. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77. Rizzo, M. J., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2004). Resident and nonresident tuition and enrollment at flagship state universities. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 303-349). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78. Roper, C., & Hirth, M. A. (2005). A history of change in the third mission of higher education: The evolution of one-way service to interactive engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 10(3), 3-21.
79. Rusch, E. A., & Wilbur, C. (2007). Shaping institutional environments: The process of becoming legitimate. Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 301-318.
80. Ryan, J. F. (2004). The relationship between institutional expenditures and degree attainment at baccalaureate colleges. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 97-114.
81. Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 235-249.
82. Santos, J. L. (2007). Resource allocation in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 125-144.
83. Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism "old" and "new". Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270-277.
84. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
85. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(3), 303-339.
86. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
87. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2005). From endless frontier to basic science for use: Social contracts between science and society. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(4), 1-37.
88. Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., Riggs, R. O., & Thompson, M. D. (2002). Influences of institutional expenditure patterns on the development of students' leadership competencies. Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 115-132.
89. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
90. Suresh, S. (2011, July 28). Talking points on the National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps to strengthen the impact of scientific discoveries. Washington, DC. NDF. gov.
91. Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
92. Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 1-16.
93. Titus, M. A. (2009). The production of bachelor's degrees and financial aspects of state higher education policy: A dynamic analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 439-468.
94. Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 1-13.
95. Toutkoushian, R. K. (2001). Trends in revenues and expenditures for public and private higher education. In M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 11-38). New York: Agathon.
96. Vedder, R. (2004). Going broke by degree: Why college costs so much. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
97. Volk, C. S., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2001). Models of institutional resource allocation: Mission, market, and gender. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(4), 387-413.
98. Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). The nonprofit mission and its financing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 165-174.
99. Winston, G. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13-36.
100. Winston, G. (2004). Differentiation among U. S. colleges and universities. Review of Industrial Organization, 24(4), 331-354.
101. Winston, G. C., & Yen, I. (1995). Costs, prices, subsidies and aid in U. S. higher education. Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education Discussion, Paper 32.
102. Winston, G. C., & Zimmerman, D. J. (2004). Peer effects in higher education. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 395-421). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
103. Yamaner, M. (2009). Federal funds for research and development: Fiscal years 2007-2009. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
104. Zhang, L. (2009). Does state funding affect graduation rates at public four-year colleges and universities? Educational Policy, 23(5), 714-731.
105. Zhang, L., & Ehrenberg, R. G. (2010). Faculty employment and R& D expenditures at research universities. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 329-337.
106. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2007). Star scientists, innovation, and regional and national immigration. Social Science Research Network, Working Paper #13547. Cambridge, MA: Social Science Research Network.