Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conditional convergence of nonresident tuition rates at public research universities: a panel data analysis

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study examines how nonresident tuition among public research universities has converged toward a national average over the 1987–2006 time period in the USA. Using dynamic fixed-effect panel modeling estimated via GMM (and instrumental variables fixed-effect model to account for endogeneity), we inquire (1) how do competitive market forces and state higher education governance structures influence nonresident tuition rates at public universities and (2) to what extent is conditional convergence of nonresident tuition rates at public universities occurring. We find that over the past 20 years, there has been a rapid convergence in nonresident tuition at public research universities to a national average, shaped by external market forces such as the demand for education and price competition among neighboring states, tuition for residents, the distribution of higher education appropriations internal to states, and the state higher education governance structures. Nonresident tuition has increased at a faster pace in states with low nonresident tuition as compared to states with high nonresident tuition. Our results have implications for higher education policy guidance as they reveal how a tendency toward “privatization” in certain aspects and segments of public higher education has been constrained in states in which higher education is more regulated via consolidated governing boards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The real values are adjusted in 2010 dollars, the standard in the literature using the IPEDS data set we have drawn some variables from for this study.

  2. https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/previous/index.html

References

  • Abbey, C., Armour-Garb, A. (2010). Nonresident tuition and fees at SUNY: Rates, policies and consequences. www.rockinst.org

  • Alemu, Z. G., & Biacuana, G. R. (2006). Measuring market integration in Mozambican maize markets: A threshold vector error correction approach, No 25657, 2006 annual meeting, August 12–18. Queensland, Australia, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

  • Andersen, T. G., & Sorensen, B. E. (1996). GMM estimation of a stochastic volatility model: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 14, 328–352.

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.

  • Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2009). Trends in Higher Education. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center.

  • Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: ACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowsher, C. G. (2002). On testing overidentifying restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Economics Letters, 77(2), 211–220.

  • Çoban, S., & Topcu, M. (2013). The nexus between financial development and energy consumption in the EU: A dynamic panel data analysis. Energy Economics, 38, 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • College Board. (2009). Trends in higher education series.

  • Curs, B., & Singell, L. D, Jr. (2002). An analysis of the application and enrollment processes for in-state and out-of-state students at a large public university. Economics of Education Review, 21(2), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, P. K., & Verboven, F. (2005). Market integration and convergence to the Law of One Price: Evidence from the European car market. Journal of International Economics, 65(1), 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, K. V. (1994). The public choice of nonresident college tuition levels. Public Choice, 78(3–4), 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen, J. A., & White, M. J. (2004). In-state versus out-of-state students: The divergence of interest between public universities and state governments. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1793–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, 3(2), 148–161.

  • Heller, D. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. NBER working paper 15446.

  • Jackson, J., & Weathersby, G. B. (1975). Individual demand for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 46, 623–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivisto, J. A. (2005). The government-higher education Institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivisto, J. A. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the Government-University relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klarner, C. E. (2003). Measurement of partisan balance of state government. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3(Fall), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. E., & Kivisto, J. A. (2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: Principal-agent theory and its potential applications to the study of higher education governance. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 141–179). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L’Hegaret, G., Siliverstovs, B., & von Hirschhausen, C. (2004). International market integration for natural gas? A cointegration analysis of prices in Europe, North America and Japan, working papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

  • Lowry, R. C. (2001). The effects of state political interests and campus outputs on public university revenues. Economics of Education Review, 20(2), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631–652. doi:10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631.

  • McGuinness, A. C. (1997). State postsecondary education structures handbook. Denver: Education Commission of the States.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, R., & Morgan, J. N. (1984). The determinants of interstate student migration: A place to-place analysis. Economics of Education Review, 3(4), 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009a). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. (2005). State postsecondary education policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.

  • McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. G., & Doyle, W. (2009b). Privileging public research universities: An empirical analysis of the distribution of state appropriations across research and non-research universities. Journal of Education Finance, 34(4), 372–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moodley, D., Kerr, W. A., & Gordon, D. V. (2000). Has the Canada-US trade agreement fostered price integration? Review of World Economics, 136, 334–354.

  • Morgan, J. N. (1983). Tuition policy and the interstate migration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(2), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49, 1417–1426.

  • Noorbakhsh, A., & Culp, D. (2000). The demand for higher education: Pennsylvania’s nonresident tuition experience. Economics of Education Review, 21(3), 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostheimer, R. H. (1953). Student charges and financing higher education. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R. J., Miljkovic, D., & Ipe, V. (2001). Market integration in US gasoline markets. Applied Economics, 33(10), 1335–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck, R., & Rubinfeld, D. (2000). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

  • Raghbendra, J., Bhanu, K. V., & Anurag, S. (2005). Market integration in wholesale rice markets in India, ASARC working papers, Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.

  • Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. StataCorp LP. Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2013). Practitioners’ corner: A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1) (2009), 0305–9049.

  • Tandberg, D. A. (2006). State-level higher education interest group alliances. Higher Education in Review, 3, 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandberg, D. A. (2010). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Campenhout, B. (2005), Modelling trends in food market integration: Method and an application to tanzanian maize markets, No 24718, 2005 international congress, August 23–27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windmeijer, F. (2004). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2007). Nonresident enrollment demand in public higher education: An analysis at national, state and institutional levels. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland, Benjamin Building 3209, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Marvin A. Titus

  2. Department of Economics, University of San Diego School of Business, Olin Hall 336, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA, 92110, USA

    Adriana Vamosiu

  3. Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology- Delhi, Okhla Phase 3, Delhi, 110020, India

    Anubha Gupta

Authors
  1. Marvin A. Titus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adriana Vamosiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anubha Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriana Vamosiu.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 We further justify our use of the DFEP model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Titus, M.A., Vamosiu, A. & Gupta, A. Conditional convergence of nonresident tuition rates at public research universities: a panel data analysis. High Educ 70, 923–940 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9883-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9883-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation