Skip to main content

The Cost of Producing Higher Education: An Exploration of Theory, Evidence, and Institutional Policy

Part of the Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research book series (HATR,volume 31)

Abstract

Researchers face multiple challenges when studying the cost of producing higher education, which has led many to avoid the topic altogether. As a result, higher education scholarship provides little guidance to institutional leaders aiming to reduce costs in response to financial difficulties. To encourage greater research in this area, we review prominent cost theories, examine empirical research into costs, and explore specific policies that alter costs within colleges and universities. Our theoretical overview focuses on the cost disease, the revenue theory of costs, positional arms races, and the principal-agent problem to explain cost increases within higher education. Our discussion of empirical research is organized around Brinkman’s (Higher education cost functions. In: Hoenack SA, Collins EL (eds) The economics of American universities: management, operations, and fiscal environment. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 107–128, 1990) five major determinants of costs: size, scope, level of instruction, discipline, and revenues. When examining institutional policies, we discuss instructional activities and non-instructional activities separately. For instructional costs, we focus our attention on how faculty composition and instructional technology alter costs in higher education. The discussion of non-instructional costs examines how costs can be decreased through reducing scope, increasing economies of scale, eliminating the cost disease, and altering incentives. We conclude the chapter by describing several promising areas for future research.

Keywords

  • Costs
  • Higher education
  • Cost disease
  • Revenue theory of costs
  • Positional arms races
  • Principal-agent problem
  • Determinants of costs
  • Economies of scale
  • Economies of scope
  • Multi-product cost functions
  • Stochastic frontier analysis
  • Data envelopment analysis
  • Instructional costs
  • Contingent faculty
  • Instructional technology
  • Online education
  • Administrative costs

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_7
  • Chapter length: 44 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-26829-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 7.1
Fig. 7.2
Fig. 7.3
Fig. 7.4
Fig. 7.5
Fig. 7.6

References

  • Agasisti, T., & Belfield, C. (2014). Efficiency in the community college sector: Stochastic frontier analysis (CCRC Working Paper No. 69). New York, NY: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti, T., Dal Bianco, A., Landoni, P., Sala, A., & Salerno, M. (2011). Evaluating the efficiency of research in academic departments: An empirical analysis in an Italian region. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–289.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti, T., & Johnes, G. (2015). Efficiency, costs, rankings and heterogeneity: The case of US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 60–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti, T., & Pohl, C. (2012). Comparing German and Italian public universities: Convergence or divergence in the higher education landscape? Managerial and Decision Economics, 33(2), 71–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2008). Graduation rates and accountability: Regressions versus production frontiers. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 80–100.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2011). Why does college cost so much? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auguste, B. G., Cota, A., Jayaram, K., & Laboissiere, M. C. (2010). Winning by degrees: The strategies of highly productive higher-education institutions. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/winning-by-degrees/

  • Baldwin, R., & Chronister, J. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnshaw, J., & Dunietz, S. (2015). Busting the myths: The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2014–15. Academe, 101(2), 4–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W., & Bowen, W. (1966). Performing arts—The economic dilemma: A study of problems common to theater, opera, music, and dance. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., Panzar, J. C., Willig, R. D., Bailey, E. E., Fischer, D., & Fischer, D. (1982). Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belfield, C., Crosta, P., & Jenkins, D. (2014). Can community colleges afford to improve completion? Measuring the cost and efficiency consequences of reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 327–345.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, E., & Long, T. L. (2005). Help or hinder? Adjunct professors and student outcomes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (2004). The end of shared governance: Looking ahead or looking back. New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 5–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2014). Efficiency and economies of scale and scope in European universities. A directional distance approach (No. 2014–08). Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Universita’degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. (1980). The cost of higher education: How much do colleges and universities spend per student and how much should they spend? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, W. (2013). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, W., Chingos, M., Lack, K., & Nygren, T. (2012). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from randomized trials. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breneman, D. (1994). Liberal arts colleges: Thriving, surviving, or endangered? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breneman, D. (2001). An essay on college costs. In Study of college costs and prices, 1988–89 to 1997–98 (Commissioned Papers, Vol. 2, pp. 13–20). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkman, P. T. (1990). Higher education cost functions. In S. A. Hoenack & E. L. Collins (Eds.), The economics of American universities: management, operations, and fiscal environment (pp. 107–128). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkman, P., & Leslie, L. (1986). Economies of scale in higher education: Sixty years of research. The Review of Higher Education, 10(1), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callie, T., & Cheslock, J. (2008). The hiring and compensation practices of business school deans. The Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 25–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, K. (2015). The end of college: Creating the future of learning and the university of everywhere. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J. (2015). The financial crisis. In T. Ream & J. Braxton (Eds.), Cracked, not shattered: Ernest L. Boyer’s hope for today’s universities (pp. 1–22). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208–229.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cheslock, J., & Knight, D. (2015). Diverging revenues, cascading expenditures, and ensuing subsidies: The unbalanced and growing strain of intercollegiate athletics on universities and their students. Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 417–447.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E., Rhine, S., & Santos, M. (1989). Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms: Economies of scale and scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 284–290.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T., & Tabarrok, A. (2014). The industrial organization of online education. American Economic Review, 104(5), 519–522.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Daghbashyan, Z. (2011). The economic efficiency of Swedish higher education institutions (No. 245). Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. K. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, H., McMahon, W. W., & Volkwein, J. F. (1991). The cost structure of American research universities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 424–431.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Denneen, J., & Dretler, T. (2012). The financially sustainable university.Retrieved from: http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_The_financially_sustainable_university.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers, D., & Kirshstein, R. (2014). Labor intensive or labor expensive? Changing staffing and compensation patterns in higher education. Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers, D., & Hurlburt, S. (2014). Trends in college spending: 2001–2011. Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from www.deltacostproject.org

  • Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(April), 147–160.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: Economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review, 14(2), 119–144.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. (2000). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, 40(4), 647–659.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R., & Zhang, L. (2004). The changing nature of faculty employment (Cornell Higher Education Research Institute Working Paper No. 44). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fain, P. (2014, May 6). Competency and affordability. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/06/college-america-hits-10000-mark-new-competency-based-bachelors-degrees#ixzz30vhhtZ2q

  • Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. G. (2013). Are tenure track professors better teachers? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. (2004). Challenging the myth: A review of the links among college athletic success, student quality, and donations. Paper commissioned by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gappa, J., & Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L., & Heller, D. E. (2011). Financial trends in higher education: The United States. Peking University Education Review, 1(33), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, R., Chingos, M., Mulhern, C., & Spies, R. (2014). Interactive online learning on campus: Testing MOOCs and other platforms in hybrid formats in the university system of Maryland. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. (2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 3–29.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2009). The (un)productivity of American higher education: From “cost disease” to cost-effectiveness. La Follette School Working Paper No. 2010–023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovey, H. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Report Number 99–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, G., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2011). Differences in cost structure and the evaluation of efficiency: The case of German universities. Education Economics, 19(5), 487–499.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273–288.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes, J. (2014). Efficiency and mergers in English higher education 1996/97 to 2008/9: Parametric and non‐parametric estimation of the multi‐input multi‐output distance function. The Manchester School, 82(4), 465–487.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T., Orszag, P., & Gunter, D. (2003). State fiscal constraints and higher education spending: The role of Medicaid and the business cycle. Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Discussion Paper Number 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Henderson, R. (2005). Inertia and incentives: Bridging organizational economics and organizational theory. Organization Science, 16(5), 509–521.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2015). Adapting by design. Delphi project on the changing faculty and student success. Retrieved from http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DELPHI-PROJECT_ADAPTING-BY-DESIGN.pdf

  • Kiley, K. (2013, January 17). Nowhere to turn. Inside Higher Ed. January 17. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/17/moodys-report-calls-question-all-traditional-university-revenue-sources

  • Kirshstein, R., & Kadamus, J. (2012). Climbing walls and climbing tuition. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolowich, S. (2014, September 30). What you need to know about companies that run online programs for colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/What-You-Need-to-Know-About/149075/

  • Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (1999). Economies of scale and scope in higher education: A case of comprehensive universities. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 269–277.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Koshal, R. K., Koshal, M., & Gupta, A. (2001). Multi-product total cost function for higher education: A case of bible colleges. Economics of Education Review, 20(3), 297–303.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kulshreshtha, P., & Nayak, T. K. (2015). Efficiency of higher technical educational institutions in India. Archives of Business Research, 3(1), 94–122.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (2004). Do costs differ between for-profit and not-for-profit producers of higher education? Research in Higher Education, 45(4), 429–441.

    CrossRef  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. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXI, pp. 141–180). New York: Agathon Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., Oaxaca, R., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Revenue flux and university behavior. In D. Priest, W. Becker, D. Hossler, & E. S. John (Eds.), Incentive-based budgeting systems in public universities (pp. 55–91). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within US research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 614–639.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., & Rhoades, G. (1995). Rising administrative costs: On seeking explanations. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 187–212.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. R., & Dundar, H. (1999). Costs and productivity in higher education: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 39–102). Springer: New York.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mamun, S. A. K. (2012). Stochastic estimation of cost frontier: Evidence from Bangladesh. Education Economics, 20(2), 211–227.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mankiw, G. (2014). Principles of economics (7th ed.). New York: Southwestern College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2011). The college cost disease: Higher cost and lower quality. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 1–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. A. (2006). Cost-efficiencies of online learning. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 32(1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middaugh, M. F. (2001). Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards and Benchmarks for Colleges and Universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B. (2010). The course of innovation: Using technology to transform higher education. Education Sector.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Monks, J. (2007). The relative earnings of contingent faculty in higher education. Journal of Labor Research, 28, 487–501.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. (2008). Economies of scale and scope in e-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 331–343.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). Improving measurement of productivity in higher education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemoto, J., & Furumatsu, N. (2014). Scale and scope economies of Japanese private universities revisited with an input distance function approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41(2), 213–226.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Olivares, M., & Wetzel, H. (2011). Competing in the higher education market: Empirical evidence for economies of scale and scope in German higher education institutions. CESifo Economic Studies, 60(4), 653–680.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Higher Education Research Program. (1990). The lattice and the ratchet. Policy Perspectives, 2(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, D., Becker, W., Hossler, D., & St. John, E. (2002). Incentive-based budgeting systems in public universities. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ream, T., & Braxton, J. (2015). Ernest L. Boyer: Hope for today’s universities. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redd, K. (2000). Discounting towards disaster: Tuition discounting, college finances, and employment of low-income undergraduates. New Agenda Series, 32(2). Indianapolis, IN: USA Group Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, R. (2013, November 21). Shared services backlash. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/21/u-michigan-tries-save-money-staff-costs-meets-faculty-opposition

  • Robst, J. (2001). Cost efficiency in public higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 730–750.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63(2), 134–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2004). Higher education costs and scale and scope economies. Applied Economics, 36(6), 607–614.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2012a). Managing operating efficiencies of publicly owned universities: American university stochastic frontier estimates using panel data. Advances in Management and Applied Economics, 2(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2012b). Cost inefficiencies and rankings of Ivy Universities: Stochastic panel estimates. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(3), 3.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2012c). For-profit college entry and cost efficiency: Stochastic frontier estimates vs two-year public and non-profit colleges. International Business Research, 5(3), 26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sav, G. T. (2012d). Minority serving college and university cost efficiencies. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 54.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • State Budget Crisis Task Force. (2012). Report of the state budget crisis task force. New York: State Budget Crisis Task Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis, E., Kortelainen, M., Johnes, G., & Johnes, J. (2011). Costs and efficiency of higher education institutions in England: A DEA analysis&star. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(7), 1282–1297.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Toutkoushian, R. K. (2001). Trends in revenues and expenditures for public and private higher education. The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice, 11, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. (2009). Intermediate microeconomics: A modern approach (8th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, D. L. (2009). Making education research more policy-analytic. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 93–100). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchies, and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., & Liu, X. (2010). Faculty employment at 4-year colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 543–552.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zoghbi, A. C., Rocha, F., & Mattos, E. (2013). Education production efficiency: Evidence from Brazilian universities. Economic Modelling, 31, 94–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John J. Cheslock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cheslock, J.J., Ortagus, J.C., Umbricht, M.R., Wymore, J. (2016). The Cost of Producing Higher Education: An Exploration of Theory, Evidence, and Institutional Policy. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26828-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26829-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)