State Support of Higher Education: Data, Measures, Findings, and Directions for Future Research

  • David A. Tandberg
  • Casey Griffith
Part of the Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research book series (HATR, volume 28)


The ultimate goal of this chapter is to provide future researchers interested in predicting and explaining state support of higher education with the tools they need to advance the field’s understanding of this important topic. In so doing, this chapter analyzes the various data sources and measures of state funding of higher education; reviews and synthesizes relevant theories which, when properly utilized, will help scholars understand the factors impacting state funding of higher education; reviews the relevant research; discusses several specific factors that ought to be consider when explaining state support of higher education; and reviews recent data and methodological advancements in this area of scholarship. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible future directions for research in the area of state support of higher education.


High Education Public High Education State Appropriation Integrate Postsecondary Education Data System State High Education 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank William M. Zumeta, Shouping Hu, and Michael B. Paulsen for their helpful suggestions and edits which greatly improved this chapter. The authors would also like to thank Andy Carlson from SHEEO, Brian Sigritz from NASBO, Allison Bell from NCES and formerly with SHEEO, Colleen Lenihan from NCES, and Jane Wellman formerly with the Delta Cost Project who all provided excellent suggestions and corrections to the first two sections of this chapter. Finally, we would like to thank Luciana Dar for her willingness to share her exceptional work with us. Of course, all errors are the responsibility of the authors alone.


  1. Alt, J. E., & Lowry, R. C. (1994). Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: Evidence from the states. The American Political Science Review, 88(4), 811–828.Google Scholar
  2. Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 618–643.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, M. E., Rom, M. C., & Taylor, M. (2004). State competition in higher education: A race to the top or a race to the bottom? Economics of Governance, 5(1), 53–75.Google Scholar
  4. Barrilleaux, C., & Berkman, M. (2003). Do Governors matter? Budgeting rules and the politics of state policy making. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 409–417.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34.Google Scholar
  7. Blackwell, E. A., & Cistone, P. J. (1999). Power and influence in higher education: The case of Florida. Higher Education Policy, 12, 111–122.Google Scholar
  8. Borcherding, T., & Deacon, R. (1972). The demand for the services of non-federal governments. American Economic Review, 62, 891–901.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, J. M., Niemi, R. G., & Powell, L. W. (2000). Incumbency and the probability of reelection in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics, 62, 671–700.Google Scholar
  10. Cheslock, J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 208+.Google Scholar
  11. Clotfelter, C. T. (1976). Public spending for higher education: An empirical test of two hypotheses. Public Finance, 31(2), 177–195.Google Scholar
  12. Coriat, B., & Dosi, G. (1998). Learning how to govern and learning how to solve problems: On the coevolution of competences, conflict and organizational routines. In A. Chandler, P. Hagstrom, & O. Solwell (Eds.), The dynamic firm (pp. 103–133). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cornwell, C., Mustard, D. B., & Sridhar, D. J. (2006). The enrollment effects of merit-based financial aid. Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 761–786.Google Scholar
  14. Coughlin, C. C., & Erekson, O. H. (1986). Determinants of state aid and voluntary support of higher education. Economics of Education Review, 5(2), 179–190.Google Scholar
  15. Dar, L., & Franke, R. (2010). Revisiting the political economy of government support for higher education: Evidence from a new unifying measure for the American states. Presented at the Annual Consortium for Higher Education Researchers, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  16. Dar, L., & Spence, M. J. (2011). Partisanship, political polarization, and state budget outcomes: The case of higher education. SSRN eLibrary, Retrieved from
  17. Dar, L. (2012). The political dynamics of higher education policy. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(6), 769–794.Google Scholar
  18. deGive, M. L., & Olswang, S. (1999). Coalition building to create a branch campus system. The Review of Higher Education, 22(3), 287–313.Google Scholar
  19. Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2007). The role of higher education in state budgets. In D. E. Heller & K. M. Shaw (Eds.), State postsecondary education research. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance wheel over time. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 343–368.Google Scholar
  21. Dowding, K., & King, D. (1995). Preferences, institutions and rational choice. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  22. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  23. Doyle, W. R. (2007). The political economy of redistribution through higher education subsidies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXII, pp. 335–409). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Doyle, W. R., McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2010). Why states adopted prepaid tuition and college savings programs: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 659–686.Google Scholar
  25. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and a review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74.Google Scholar
  26. Fernandez, R., & Rogerson, R. (1995). On the political economy of education subsidies. Review of Economic Studies, 62(2), 249–262.Google Scholar
  27. Ferrin, S. E. (2003). Characteristics of in-house lobbyist in American colleges and universities. Higher Education Policy, 16(1), 87–108.Google Scholar
  28. Ferrin, S. E. (2005). Tasks and strategies of in-house lobbyists in American colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
  29. Fiorina, M. (1994). Divided government in the American States: A byproduct of legislative professionalism? American Political Science Review, 88, 304–316.Google Scholar
  30. Frost, S. H., Hearn, J. C., & Marine, G. M. (1997). State policy and the public research university: A case study of manifest and latent tensions. Journal of Higher Education, 68(4), 363–397.Google Scholar
  31. Garand, J. C., & Hendrick, R. M. (1991). Expenditure tradeoffs in the American States: A longitudinal test, 1948–1984. Western Political Quarterly, 44(4), 915–940.Google Scholar
  32. Geddes, B. (1994). Politician’s dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Geddes, B. (1996). Initiation of new democratic institutions in Eastern Europe and Latin America. In A. Lijphart & C. H. Waisman (Eds.), Institutional design in new democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (1998). The origins of state-level differences in the public provision of higher education: 1890–1940. American Economic Review, 88(2), 303–308.Google Scholar
  35. Grafstein, R. (1992). Institutional realism: Social and political constraints on rational actors. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Grapevine System. (2011). An annual compilation of data on state tax appropriations for the general operation of higher education. Normal, IL: Center for the Study of Education Policy Illinois State University.
  37. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2001). The expression of density dependence in state communities of organized interests. American Politics Research, 29(4), 374–391.Google Scholar
  39. Hearn, J. C., & Griswold, C. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161–190.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 851–871.Google Scholar
  42. Hoenack, S., & Pierro, D. (1990, January). An econometric model of a public university’s income and enrollments. The Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 14, 403–423.Google Scholar
  43. Holcombe, R. G. (1989). Economic models and methodology. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  44. Hossler, D., Lund, J. P., Ramin, J., Westfall, S., & Irish, S. (1997). State funding for higher education: The Sisyphean Task. Journal of Higher Education, 68(2), 160–190.Google Scholar
  45. Humphreys, B. R. (2000). Do business cycles affect state appropriations to higher education? Southern Economic Journal, 67(2), 398–413.Google Scholar
  46. Jacoby, W. G., & Schneider, S. K. (2001). Variability in state policy priorities: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 544–568.Google Scholar
  47. Kane, T. J., & Orszag, P. R. (2003). Funding restrictions at public universities: Effects and policy implications (Brookings Institution Working Paper).Google Scholar
  48. Kane, T. J., Orszag, P. R., Apostolov, E., Inman, R. P., & Reschovsky, A. (2005). Higher education appropriations and public universities: Role of Medicaid and the business cycle [with comments]. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 6, 99–146.Google Scholar
  49. Kane, T. J., Orszag, P. R., & Gunter, D. L. (2003). State fiscal constraints and higher education spending: The role of Medicaid and the business cycle (Discussion Paper No. 11). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Kiel, L. D., & Elliott, E. (1992). Budgets as dynamic systems: Change, variation, time, and budgetary heuristics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(2), 139–156.Google Scholar
  51. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  52. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  53. Kiser, L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179–221). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Kivisto, J. (2005). The government-higher education institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  55. Kivisto, J. A. (2007). Agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Tampere, Finland: Higher Education Group/Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Knott, J., & Payne, A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
  57. Koshal, R. K., & Koshal, M. (2000). State appropriation and higher education tuition: What is the relationship? Education Economics, 8(1), 81–89.Google Scholar
  58. Lane, J. E. (2003). State government oversight of public higher education: Police patrols and fire alarms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  59. Lane, J. E. (2005). State oversight of higher education: A theoretical review of agency problems with complex principals. Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  60. Lane, J. E. (2007). The spider web of oversight: An analysis of external oversight of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 615–644.Google Scholar
  61. Lane, J. E., & Kivisto, J. A. (2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: Principal-agent theory and its potential application to the study of higher education governance. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 141–179). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  62. Layzell, D. T., & Lyddon, J. W. (1990). Budgeting for higher education at the state level: Enigma, paradox, and ritual (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 4, 1990, ERIC). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  63. Leslie, L. L., & Ramey, G. (1986). State appropriations and enrollments: Does enrollment growth still pay? Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  64. Lindeen, J. W., & Willis, G. L. (1975). Political, socioeconomic and demographic patterns of support for public higher education. The Western Political Quarterly, 28(3), 528–541.Google Scholar
  65. Longanecker, D. (2006). A tale of two pities. Change, 38(1), 14.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism, organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.Google Scholar
  68. McGuinness, A. C. (2003). Models of postsecondary education and governance in the States. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  69. McLendon, M. K. (2003). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165–191.Google Scholar
  70. McLendon, M. K., Deaton, R., & Hearn, J. C. (2007). The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis. Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 645–675.Google Scholar
  71. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  72. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.Google Scholar
  73. McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.Google Scholar
  74. McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. G., & Doyle, W. (2009). “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
  75. McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. G., & Flores, S. M. (2011). Legislative agenda setting for in-state resident tuition policies: Immigration, representation, and educational access. American Journal of Education, 117(4), 563–602.Google Scholar
  76. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.Google Scholar
  77. Moe, T. M. (1987). An assessment of the positive theory of “congressional dominance”. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 475–520.Google Scholar
  78. Morgan, D., Kickham, K., & LaPlant, J. (2001). State support for higher education: A political economy approach. The Policy Studies Journal, 29(3), 359–371.Google Scholar
  79. Mortenson, T. G. (2005). State tax fund appropriations for higher education FY1961 to FY2005. Oskaloosa, IA: Postsecondary Education Opportunity.
  80. Ness, E. (2010). The politics of determining merit aid eligibility criteria: An analysis of the policy process. Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 33–60.Google Scholar
  81. Ness, E., Tandberg, D. A., & McLendon, M. (2008, April). Interest groups and state policy for higher education: Toward new conceptual understandings and future research directions. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  82. Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80–97.Google Scholar
  83. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Nownes, A. J. (2006). Total lobbying: What lobbyists want (and how they try to get it). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Nownes, A. J., Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (2008). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States (9th ed., pp. 98–126). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  86. Okunade, A. A. (2004). What factors influence state appropriations for public higher education in the United States? Journal of Education Finance, 30(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
  87. Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco: ICS. 111 pp.Google Scholar
  88. Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35–71). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  89. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  90. Ostrom, V. (1991). The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing society. San Francisco: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  91. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  92. Payne, A. A. (2003). The effects of congressional appropriation committee membership on the distribution of federal research funding to universities. Economic Inquiry, 41(2), 325–345.Google Scholar
  93. Payne, A. A., & Roberts, J. (2004). Government oversight of organizations engaged in multiple activities: Does centralized governance encourage quantity or quality? Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University.Google Scholar
  94. Peterson, R. G. (1976). Environmental and political determinants of state higher education appropriations policies. Journal of Higher Education, 47(5), 523–542.Google Scholar
  95. Rabovsky, T. M. (2012). Accountability in Higher Education: Exploring Impacts on State Budgets and Institutional Spending Patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.Google Scholar
  96. Richardson, R., Shulock, N., & Teranishi, R. (2005). Public policy and higher education performance in the state of California. New York: Alliance for International Higher Education Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  97. Rizzo, M. J. (2004). State preferences for higher education spending: A panel data analysis, 1977–2001. In Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s conference on education and economic development. Google Scholar
  98. Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63(2), 134–139.Google Scholar
  99. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.Google Scholar
  100. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  101. Sabloff, P. L. (1997). Another reason why state legislatures will continue to restrict public university autonomy. The Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 141–162.Google Scholar
  102. Shakespeare, C. (2008). Uncovering information’s role in the state higher education policy-making process. Educational Policy, 22(6), 875–899.Google Scholar
  103. Sharkansky, I. (1968). Agency requests, gubernatorial support, and budget success in state legislatures. American Political Science review, 62, 1220–1231.Google Scholar
  104. Shepsle, K. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 27–59.Google Scholar
  105. Shepsle, K. A. (1989). Studying institutions: Some lessons from the rational choice approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2), 131–147.Google Scholar
  106. Squire, P. (2000). Uncontested seats in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(1), 131–146.Google Scholar
  107. Squire, P., & Hamm, K. (2005). 101 chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  108. State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). (2011). State higher education finance. Boulder, CO: Author.Google Scholar
  109. Strathman, J. G. (1994). Migration, benefit spillovers and state support of higher education. Urban Studies, 31(6), 913–920.Google Scholar
  110. Tandberg, D. A. (2006). State-level higher education interest group alliances. Higher Education Review, 3, 25–49.Google Scholar
  111. Tandberg, D. A. (2008). The politics of state higher education funding. Higher Education Review, 5, 1–36.Google Scholar
  112. Tandberg, D. A. (2010a). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 15(5), 416–450.Google Scholar
  113. Tandberg, D. A. (2010b). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735–778.Google Scholar
  114. Tandberg, D. A. (2010c, November). The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  115. Tandberg, D. A., & Ness, E. C. (2011). State capital expenditures for higher education: ‘Where the real politics happens’. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 394–423.Google Scholar
  116. Tankersley-Bankhead, E. A. (2009). Student lobbyistsbehavior and its perceived influence on state-level public higher education legislation: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MI.Google Scholar
  117. Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (1999). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States: A comparative analysis (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  118. Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (2004). Interest groups in the States. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 100–128). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  119. Thompson, J. A., & Felts, A. A. (1992). Politicians and professionals: The influence of state agency heads in budgetary success. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 153–168.Google Scholar
  120. Toma, E. F., Berhane, I., & Curl, C. (2006). Political action committees at the state level: Contributions to education. Public Choice, 126, 465–484.Google Scholar
  121. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Hollis, P. (1998). Using panel data to examine legislative demand for higher education. Education Economics, 6(2), 141–157.Google Scholar
  122. Trostel, P. A., & Ronca, J. M. (2009). A simple unifying measure of state support for postsecondary education. Research in Higher Education, 50(3), 215–247.Google Scholar
  123. Truman, D. (1951). The governmental process.Knopf: New York.Google Scholar
  124. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
  125. Volkwein, J. F. (1989). Changes in quality among public universities. Journal of Higher Education, 60(2), 136–151.Google Scholar
  126. Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2006). Examining differences in state support for higher education: A comparative study of state appropriations for research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 935–965.Google Scholar
  127. Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2008). Determinants of state appropriations for higher education from 1985–2005: An organizational theory analysis. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for the Advanced of Postsecondary Education.Google Scholar
  128. Zhang, L. (2010). The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXV, pp. 307–349). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  129. Zumeta, W. (1992). State policies and private higher education: Policies, correlates, and linkages. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 363–417.Google Scholar
  130. Zumeta, W. (1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank: A framework for design of state higher education policies for an era of increasing demand. Journal of Higher Education, 67(4), 367–425.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Higher Education, Educational Leadership and Policy StudiesFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations