【正文】 mirror the prevailing Australian rate of inflation. 6? In much of Latin America, as well as much of East Asia, costsharing and revenue diversification generally have taken the form of increasing reliance on a tuition and feedependent private higher education sector (where the public universities continue to feature either no, or very low, tuition). This leads to the anomaly of students from upper and uppermiddle ine families, frequently benefiting from vastly superior (and often private) secondary education, and thus able to pass the rigorous public university entrance examinations, attending “free,” while “ordinary” students, and students from middle and lowermiddle ine and rural families are either excluded altogether, or are forced to pay for tuitiondependent and frequently inferior higher education. This questionable equity continues to put pressure on government to find a way to shift some of the higher education cost burden on to families and students in the public sector. ? Russia, where higher education by law must be without cost to the student, in the early years of the 21st century is securing up to 50 percent of all university revenue from tuition through the dual track tuition, described above. This was also a “l(fā)egal loophole” used by the Chinese prior to 1997, but who dropped the dual track tuition fee in favor of a unitary tuition policy out of a concern for the awkwardness and the potential for abuse in a system that made such a momentous distinction between students all of who were deemed able to enter and plete a higher education. ? India, where tuitionsupported private higher education is growing and where the several official missions have reported and remended the inauguration of some limited costsharing, still cannot (as of 2020) openly embrace even the concept, much less the actual implementation of an official policy of tuition fees. ? China, also still officially a Socialist country, in which higher education was once assumed to be just another part of the vast public sector, like health care or retirement pensions, the costs of which were supposed to be born by the government, charges tuition to nearly all students in the neighborhood of 35005000 Yuan (US$400600). New forms of student loans and meanstested grants in 2020 are only being developed, as reported by Shen and Li (2020).What these and countless other illustrations show is that governments throughout the world are embracing—however tentatively and frequently with euphemisms and political “spin, some version of cost sharing in the form of tuition, user fees, and official encouragement of a tuitiondependent private higher education sector. 高等教育成本分擔中的財政與政治 約翰斯通 一、高等教育成本分擔 高等教育成本分擔這個術語源于這樣一個假設，即高等教育的成本可以看成來自四大塊： 1) 政府、納稅人； 2) 家長； 3) 學生； 4) 個人或機構(gòu)捐助者。如果價格由政府控制，像過去多數(shù)社會主義國家那樣，或者如果企業(yè)不能以漲價的形式將稅賦轉(zhuǎn)嫁給消費者，那么，稅收就只能由雇工以低工資的形式負擔。 3 ．學生 他們通過勤工助學或暑期打工的形式，或通過借款來負擔部分成本。 4 ．個人和機構(gòu)捐助者 他們可能是捐贈給大學，然后一般由大學根據(jù)學生的經(jīng)濟狀況，給家庭收入低的學 生發(fā)獎學金。當大學向來自窮困家庭但有才華的學生提供特別的經(jīng)過經(jīng)濟狀況調(diào)查后的助學金時，大學本身似乎也是捐助人，但這種情況下，真正的捐助人更有可能是富裕學生的家長，他們可能比要求他們分擔的教學成本要多，但他們或許會認為大學設立一些必需的獎學金是提高大學的質(zhì)量和聲譽所必不可少的 —— 因而這也是大學的合法性支出。如中國 1997 年開始收費，英國 1998 年開始收費，以及奧地利最近 (2020 年 11 月 )宣布要收費就是這種類型。 3．負擔“使用費”或雜 費以補償由學院提供以前由學院補貼良多的膳宿費。 4．減少學生助學金或獎學金。這可以通過減少對學生貸款的補貼的形式來實現(xiàn) (這點類似于毋須償還的助學金的貶值 )，也可以通過提高利率或利率不變但縮短還款期限來實現(xiàn)，還可以通過減少貸款數(shù)額 (其中一部分還款是因為各種原因要減免掉 )來實現(xiàn)。 三、成本分擔全球增長的案例 ?在美國，高教成本一直很高而且增長很快，而家長和學生以繳納學費的形式所分擔的成本增長更快，因為由政府或納稅人近年所分擔的比例在下降。 ?在英國、荷蘭 及最近的奧地利開始征收學費，而這些地方高等教育是“免費”的 —— 也就是說由普通納稅人、公民及消費者付費。換句話說，澳大利亞的學生要按實際條款償還所借款項。 ?在俄羅斯，法律規(guī)定高等教育是免收學費的，但現(xiàn)在俄 羅斯卻有 20%多的高教經(jīng)費是來自學費。 ?在印度，由學費支持的私立高等教育在不斷增長，有幾個正規(guī)的委員會提出報告并建議實行有限的成本 分擔，但政府似乎不敢公開接納這種觀念，更不用 說真正實施收費政策。 上述例子表明，全球各國政府都在接受成本分擔的理念開始征收學費、使用費，并鼓勵發(fā)展依靠學費運行的 私立高等教育。他們認為，全球私立高等教育的蓬勃發(fā)展清楚地表明，家長和學生都認識到了高等教育存在著巨大的個人收益，因而也應該讓他們分擔一些成本。顯然 ，在高等教育領域就像在其它領域一樣，存在著過分的“消費者敏感”，在那里消費者 (學生或家長 )可能很難判斷他們所要購買的東西的價值，而且也很容易為廣告所誤導，或者被“消費欺詐”所蒙騙。還有一種依據(jù)是，在學生和家長不付或少付學費或膳宿費的國家 (前蘇聯(lián)、中國、大多數(shù)非洲國家及其余多數(shù)所謂“共產(chǎn)主義社會”國家以前多年都是如此 )