[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--高等教育融資的挑戰(zhàn)和學(xué)生貸款計(jì)劃的作用（英文）

1、The challenge of financing higher education and the role of student loans scheme: an analysis of the student loan trust fund (SLTF) in GhanaFrancis AtuaheneReceived: 8 September 2007 / Accepted: 30 September 2007 / Publi

2、shed online: 12 October 2007 ? Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007Abstract Student loans program is one of the most controversial phenomena in financing higher education in Ghana, but its importance as a cost shari

3、ng mechanism is incontestable. This paper describes the challenge of financing higher education in Ghana. It provides a critique of the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) Student Loans Scheme, and analy

4、zes the present Student Loan Trust Fund (SLTF) policy. The paper outlines the new policy framework, critically looks at some implementation problems and provides some practical policy recommendations. The paper questions

5、 the mechanisms put in place to ensure the sustainability of the new policy? It concludes that a more efficient student loans scheme should strike the balance between lenders risk and borrowers aversion.Keywords Higher e

6、ducation challenges ? Student loans scheme ? Higher education finance ? Cost sharingIntroductionHigher education in Africa has witnessed a plethora of challenges such as accessibility, affordability, financial austerity,

7、 faculty recruitment and retention, and the lack of improvement of physical facilities. Whereas these challenges pose a serious threat to effective education systems, two major challenges of increasing the demand for par

8、tici- pation and financial stringency remain a peril to university development. Universities in Ghana, for example, have faced serious constraints including inadequate and dilapidated infrastructural facilities, falling

9、standards, relevance and quality of programs due to ineffective instruction, and the lack of motivation on the part of faculty causing unbridled emigration of qualified teachers. With diminishing financial resources, stu

10、dent loansF. Atuahene (&) Academic Services, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, 248 Olson Hall, Macomb, IL 61455, USA e-mail: F-Atuahene@Wiu.Edu123High Educ (2008) 56:407–421 DOI 10.1007/s10734-007-910

11、1-5objectively analyze the impacts of higher education exclusively from the societal benefit? The benefits of investing in human capital through education is not just the private monetary remuneration and other benefits

12、accruing to the individual per se but also the spillover effect it has on society as a whole, hence the justification for government sub- sidies to education. A country that invests more in its people by providing them w

13、ith quality education creates the avenue for dealing with their social, political, economic scientific and technological challenges. The higher salaries associated with having advanced degree is just a microcosm of the o

14、verall benefits of pursuing higher education. Thus, if education accrues public benefits, then the need for government subsidies to offset the distortionary effect of progressive taxation is paramount (Lommerud 1989). Ev

15、en if investment in higher education does not have a direct impact on society, the magnitude of the indirect impacts through higher earnings cannot be underestimated.‘‘Higher earnings for well-educated individuals raise

16、tax revenues for governments and ease demands on state finances …. In a knowledge economy, tertiary education can help economies keep up or catch up with more technologically advanced soci- eties. Higher education gradua

17、tes are likely to be more aware of and better able to use new technologies. They are also more likely to develop new tools and skills themselves. Their knowledge can also improve the skills and understanding of non- grad

18、uate coworkers, while the greater confidence and know-how inculcated by advanced schooling may generate entrepreneurship, with positive effects on job creation’’ (Bloom et al. 2006, p. 15).Weighing private benefit of edu

19、cation over social benefits is a heuristic approach to satisfy the ideological ideals of neo-liberal market forces. Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2002) study found that in sub-Saharan Africa, social rate of returns to edu

20、cation were 25.4% (primary), 13.1% (secondary) and 10.8% (higher education) as compared to private ben- efits of 26.6% (primary), 17.0% (secondary) and 19% (higher education). While this may be the case in sub-Saharan Af

21、rica, it will be imprudent to place extremely high value over primary and secondary education at the expense of advanced schooling. For instance, economic development trends in Ghana and South Korea exemplify the importa

22、nce of higher education investment. Ghana and Korea had similar GDP in the 1957 (Werlin 1991). Both countries have suffered microeconomic instabilities, whilst South Korea has gone through two wars, Ghana has experienced

23、 political instabilities. However, over forty years the former has made great economic, scientific and technological strides and has emerged as one of the world’s largest economies. Ghana on the other hand remains in the

24、 agro-base economy. Benneh (2002) indicated that South Korea was able to make these triumph because the government invested heavily in quality higher education. Although researches provide evidence about private benefits

25、 to education, there con- tinue to be public interest in investing in higher education. Sanyal (1998) advocated three arguments to support state control and support of higher education in developing countries. First, the

26、 immediate afterglow of independence required the replacement of foreign expatriates with qualified nationals to administer public institutions. Hence, investing in human capital was highly demandable. Second, it is comm

27、only accepted worldwide that investment in higher education leads to social and economic development. The develop- ment of efficient and effective higher education systems occurs in tandem with knowledge creation, social

28、 and economic development (Sanyal 1998). Finally, the government’s control over higher education was necessary for access and equity consideration. Sanyal (1998) further argued that unless the state subsidizes higher edu