Articles by Jandhyala B G Tilak

Student loan programmes, as the answer to the problem of lack of public funds for higher education, are based on a questionable philosophy and unrealistic assumptions and are being launched in many developing countries with exaggerated expectations.

Investment Gaps in Primary Education Jandhyala B G Tilak WHILE making an estimate of investment gaps in primary education in India, Ramachandran et al (1997) have commented on my study [Tilak and Kar 1994] that estimated requirement of resources for education by levels of education, including specifically elementary education (classes I-VIII/age-group 6-14), and by major states in India up to 2000 AD.1 Applying the unit costs of education (for a select few major items) provided by the government of West Bengal (GOWB) to all states in India and using National Sample Survey Organisation's (NSSO) data on enrolments and non-enrolments, Ramachandran et al (1997) estimated investment gaps in primary education in 1995. They seem to argue that this is the best method and that the method l had adopted has serious flaws. Their main criticism of my study refers to (a) my use of official enrolment figures instead of actual attendance rates by age- group, (b) use of 'expenditure per student' instead of 'costs of education', and (c) specification of the cost function. They also argue that ours was not a 'normative' method. I find these comments irrelevant and misleading, as I discuss them in Section 1. Research in this area is not abundant.2 Hence at the very outset I welcome the attempt by Ramachandran et al. But Ramachandran et at's approach and analysis have serious pitfalls, which are described in Section 2.

Based on data generated by the National Sample Survey Organisation on household expenditures on education this paper shows that households spend large sums of money on acquiring primary education. More specifically, it has been found that students pay tuition fee, examination fee and other fees even in government primary schools. The financial and material incentives provided by the government are found to be available only to a small fraction of students. There are large scale interstate and inter-group (by gender and by region rural and urban) variations with respect to several aspects relating to public provision of incentives and also to the levels of household expenditure on education.

The February 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court raises some important issues relating to capitation fee colleges in India, besides practically allowing charging of high fees of the order of more than Rs 1 lakh per student per year FOLLOWING the 'historic'' judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on Mohini Jain versus the state of Karnataka and others (July 30, 1992),1 several important issues have emerged onto surface, that we have intentionally and unintentionally avoided all these years regarding private higher educational institutions in India, particularly the capitation fee colleges. Subsequently several petitions and review petitions have also come to the high courts and the Supreme Court, some of which are still pending, and the government

Budgetary Reforms and Subsidies in Higher Education Jandhyala B G Tilak WHILE Govinda Rao (1992) examines several social and economic services regarding the current state of public subsidies and recovery, with a view to identifying the major problem areas and outlining the needed policy changes, I wish to comment on only one particular area, an area in which my comparative disadvantage is less, viz, public subsidies in education, particularly higher education. I attempt to show here that (i) Rao's estimate on recovery rate in higher education is far from correct, (ii) Rao's plea for economic pricing of sectors like education is not based on sound principles of public finance, (iii) Rao's suggestion regarding the desirable level of recovery rate is neither desirable nor feasible in the broad socioeconomic framework, and (iv) there are probably more efficient cost recovery strategy alternatives than the one suggested by Rao. However, from this single case of education, which is only one of the several areas Rao has covered in his paper, I do not question his whole analysis in general. That is left for those who are more familiar with the various sectoral and general aspects of public finances and budgetary subsidies.