澳大利亞教育成本上升的分析外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文2965字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　An Analysis of the Rising Cost of Education in Au

2、stralia</p><p><b>　　(extract)</b></p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Human capital, or a better educated labour force, is a major determinant of economic grow

3、th and productivity. However, recent trends in the cost of education in Australia may cause growth and productivity to suffer. For example, during the period 1982-2003 inflation rose on average by 4.4 per cent per annum,

4、 whereas the cost of education grew overall on average by 7.8 per cent. This has made education a relatively expensive item among Australian households. This paper compares and contrasts the </p><p>　　1. Int

5、roduction</p><p>　　There is a consensus among economists that human capital plays a substantial role in achieving higher economic growth and increased labour productivity. New growth theories identify the ch

6、annels through which economic growth occurs and how reform processes can stimulate the rate of investment in physical capital, human capital, technological know-how and knowledge capital. Together these factors exert a s

7、ustained and positive effect on the long-run growth of the economy (Rebelo,1991).For instanc</p><p>　　A better educated workforce will almost certainly have higher income in the future and so we do not take

8、issue in this paper with the increasing role of the private funding of educational expenses. It is clearly self-evident that the indefinite provision of “free” education by the various tiers of government, through collec

9、ting taxes from the society as a whole, is neither equitable nor sustainable into the future. However, given the higher income levels for graduates and the positive externalit</p><p>　　Of course, at the outs

10、et, it should be noted that purchasing power parity studies indicate services are often more expensive in rich countries than in poor countries(see, inter alia, Dowrick, 2001,and OECD,2001)and so one might expect a labou

11、r intensive service like education to be increasing in relative price as the country grows. More broadly, Baumol(1997)also argues that the rising cost of labour-intensive industries, such as the arts, health care, and ed

12、ucation, is inevitable. Price rises in</p><p>　　Furthermore, the rising rate of public-sector inflation can be explained by “the low productivity of labour-intensive government activities compared with the r

13、elatively capital- intensive private sector”(Fordham,2003,p.574).More specifically Gundlach and W? βmann (2001)examined changes in the productivity of schooling for six East Asian countries, supporting the view that the

14、price of schooling rose by more than the price of other labour-intensive services in 1980 to 1994.The rising price of sch</p><p>　　Therefore, it is important to note that it is quite normal that services suc

15、h as education probably can be expected to become more expensive for an advanced country such as Australia. However, it nonetheless remains a useful exercise to investigate to what extent the cost of education has been i

16、ncreasing and what may be the possible causes of this rise.</p><p>　　The basic objectives of this paper are therefore to:(i)substantiate the extent to which the cost of education has been rising in Australia

17、 and internationally; and(ii)determine the major factors contributing to such important phenomena which undoubtedly will have implications for the long-run prosperity of Australia’s economy. It is not our intention to de

18、lve into alternative policy approaches which attempt to deal with the issue of the most appropriate way to fund the education system. For a de</p><p>　　2.The Cost of Education in Australia, the UK and the US

19、</p><p>　　Figure 1 shows that the annualised rate of increase in the cost of education,as measured by ln(P)t- ln(P)t-4,in Australia, the UK and the US has almost always been substantially higher than the rat

20、e of inflation. Moreover, according to Figures 2 and 3,the gap between the CPI(1996=100)and the education sub-group index has been widening continuously with the passage of time, particularly in the UK and the US. From F

21、igure 4 it can be inferred that, to some extent, this growing gap may be attributed</p><p>　　In a similar way, Figure 5 shows that an increasing proportion of primary and particularly secondary pupils study

22、at private schools. In 1986 about 30 per cent of secondary pupils were attending private schools, whereas in 2003 this figure reached about 35 per cent. Total enrolments at both primary and secondary private schools rose

23、 by 1.7 per cent per annum over the 15 years from 1986 to 2001,compared with a more modest increase of 0.18 per cent annually for government schools.</p><p>　　In Figure 6 we present the geometric annualized

24、average growth rate of all groups in the CPI and the education sub-group for Australia, the UK and the US during the period 1993-2003. There are two reasons for selecting this particular sample period. First, consistent

25、data were only available for all three countries over this period, and second, in the beginning of this sample period and following many other OECD countries, inflation targeting became the primary goal of Australian mon

26、etary policy</p><p>　　A cursory look at Figure 6 also reveals that the annual growth rate of the cost of education in Australia is relatively lower than that in the UK and the US. To some extent the differen

27、ce between the growth rate of the cost of education and inflation in Australia and the other two countries will be narrowed if we consider the instantaneous growth rates in lieu of the compound rates.</p><p>

28、;　　Table 1 presents the compound and average instantaneous annualised inflation rates and the compounding annualised growth rates in the cost of education for these three countries during the same sample period(1993-2003

29、).No matter which growth rate formula is used, in all three economies, the average growth rate of the cost of education is well above the overall inflation rate. For example, in the UK and Australia, the compound(geometr

30、ic)average inflation rates were 1.7 and 2.5 per cent in the per</p><p>　　Table 1 shows that the cost of education has risen between 5 and 5.5 per cent in Australia, the UK and the US over the 1993-2003 perio

31、ds. The difference between the compound and instantaneous growth rates relates to the fact that the latter allows for the middle observations or changeability of a series to impact on the computed average growth rate, wh

32、ereas in the former (i.e. the compound growth rate)the middle observations do not play any significant role in determining the outcome. As display</p><p>　　3. Concluding Remarks</p><p>　　The pre

33、sent paper employs descriptive statistics and parametric analysis to examine the rising cost of education in Australia. In common with experiences in comparable OECD economies, the cost of household education expenditure

34、 has been rising faster than the overall rate of inflation and paradoxically for the most part as fast as or faster than leading economic 'sins' (Alcohol and Tobacco).Such trends are likely to continue in the fut

35、ure, and perhaps even accelerate, with the increasing proport</p><p>　　At first impression, such developments appear to pose potentially adverse impacts on human capital investment in Australia and, in turn,

36、 on economic growth and labour productivity. However ,it should be remembered that the cost drivers of education in Australia are, in some part, reflective of households' choices concerning education. These include t

37、he choice between private and public primary and secondary education in the present and, in the future, careful household choices concerning tertiar</p><p>　　出處：Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 11/02; I

38、SSN 1328-4991; ISBN 0 7340 1535 6 P1-P3,P9-P17</p><p><b>　　譯文二：</b></p><p>　　澳大利亞教育成本上升的分析</p><p><b>　?。ü?jié)選）</b></p><p>　　摘要：人力資本或受過良好教育的勞動(dòng)力是經(jīng)濟(jì)增

39、長和推動(dòng)生產(chǎn)力的重要因素。然而，近來澳大利亞教育成本的趨勢對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和生產(chǎn)力提高產(chǎn)生了影響。例如，在1982-2003年期間每年的平均通貨膨脹率上升4.4%，而整體的教育成本平均上升7.8%。這使得教育成了澳大利亞各個(gè)家庭的負(fù)擔(dān)。本文對(duì)澳大利亞教育成本與其他在最新季度的CPI中反映的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的成本進(jìn)行了比較。最后對(duì)引起教育成本上升的主要因素進(jìn)行研究。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)，除其他外，非公立小學(xué)和中學(xué)就讀的學(xué)生人數(shù)的增加和高等教育貢獻(xiàn)引進(jìn)計(jì)劃（HEC

40、S）是教育成本上升的主要原因，它能夠解釋澳大利亞教育成本98%的變化。</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家有一個(gè)共識(shí)，即人力資本在實(shí)現(xiàn)更高的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和提高勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率方面發(fā)揮重大作用。新增長理論明確了經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的渠道以及如何對(duì)過程進(jìn)行改革從而刺激物質(zhì)資本、人力資本、技術(shù)訣竅和知識(shí)資本的投資率。這些因素共同對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的長期持續(xù)增長發(fā)揮了積極的

41、作用。例如，Barro(1991)和Barro and Lee(1994)在他們的研究工作中重申了人力資本作為經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和生產(chǎn)力發(fā)展主要因素的重要性。最近，Valadkhani(2003)發(fā)現(xiàn)，除其他外，以加快各類人力資源投資的長期政策也可以提高勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率。將澳大利亞作為一個(gè)整體，高產(chǎn)出直接轉(zhuǎn)化為更高的人均收入得益于高效的醫(yī)療、教育和公共福利。最近，Chou(2003,p397)發(fā)現(xiàn)澳大利亞1960年到2000年期間42%的增長歸因于教育

42、程度的上升。因此，通過在某個(gè)時(shí)期監(jiān)測成本和教育負(fù)擔(dān)十分重要。然而，相對(duì)于大多數(shù)的商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格，澳大利亞的教育成本一直在以驚人的速度增加。此外，從美國和英國類似的趨勢看來，澳大利亞這個(gè)不是很發(fā)達(dá)的國家似乎也在經(jīng)歷著類似的現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　一個(gè)受過良好教育的勞動(dòng)力似乎可以肯定他在未來會(huì)得到更高的勞動(dòng)報(bào)酬，因此我們不會(huì)在文章中討論在教育經(jīng)費(fèi)中私人資金所起到的越來越大的作用。顯然，政府提供的各種所謂的免費(fèi)教育

43、來自整個(gè)社會(huì)的稅收收入，這既不公平也不利于未來的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。然而，由于收入水平較高的畢業(yè)生和與教育程度較高的勞動(dòng)力相應(yīng)的公共保障，成本刻意以最佳方式在納稅人和學(xué)生之間進(jìn)行劃分。在高等教育方面，重要的一點(diǎn)是能夠產(chǎn)生顯著社會(huì)效益的在讀學(xué)生應(yīng)該可以像政府貸款一樣免息以及取得收入，當(dāng)然這可能與相對(duì)較低的市場收入有關(guān)。但是，如果他們的研究領(lǐng)域是高度市場化的（如法律、醫(yī)學(xué)），他們可能很少有機(jī)會(huì)獲得這種貸款(King,2001,p.192)。然而，學(xué)

44、校和大學(xué)的經(jīng)費(fèi)仍然是澳大利亞最熱議的問題之一。有趣的是，要注意，40個(gè)高等教育機(jī)構(gòu)在2002年總營業(yè)收入為116億美元，其中16%通過HECS籌集以及41%（1997年是54%）由英聯(lián)邦政府贈(zèng)款資助(Department of Education, Science and Training,DEST,2002,p.3)。同樣，1997年，聯(lián)邦和洲政府資助的份額：1、占了公立學(xué)校收入的95%</p><p>　　當(dāng)

45、然首先應(yīng)該指出的是，在相同購買力下，富裕國家的服務(wù)比貧困國家更昂貴，因此可以預(yù)期像教育這樣勞動(dòng)密集型的服務(wù)，它的相對(duì)價(jià)格應(yīng)該隨著國家經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長而增長。更廣泛地說，鮑莫爾（1997）也認(rèn)為，勞動(dòng)力密集的行業(yè)，如藝術(shù)、醫(yī)療保健、教育，成本上升是不可避免的。服務(wù)行業(yè)價(jià)格上漲預(yù)期會(huì)高于整體經(jīng)濟(jì)通脹率的平均水平。</p><p>　　此外，公共部門的通貨膨脹率的上升可以解釋為“勞動(dòng)密集型政府活動(dòng)比資本相對(duì)密集的私營企業(yè)的產(chǎn)

46、出效率低” (Fordham,2003,p.574)。Gundlach 和 Wǒβmann通過研究東亞六國教育生產(chǎn)力的變化，得出這樣一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)：1980年到1994年間教育價(jià)格的上升不僅僅是勞動(dòng)密集型服務(wù)的價(jià)格引起的。教育價(jià)格的上漲可以歸結(jié)為學(xué)校生產(chǎn)力的下降。根據(jù)Gundlach 和 Wǒβmann的研究，東亞國家教育生產(chǎn)力的下降是因?yàn)閹熒壤娘@著下降。</p><p>　　因此可以看到，教育服務(wù)在如澳大利亞這樣

47、發(fā)達(dá)國家變得更加昂貴是很正常的。但是，我們?nèi)匀恍枰芯渴裁礃拥慕逃杀緯?huì)增加以及什么樣的原因?qū)е铝怂脑黾印?lt;/p><p>　　因此，本文的基本目標(biāo)是：1、從某種意義上證明在澳大利亞和其他國家什么樣的教育成本在增加；2、找到產(chǎn)生這些現(xiàn)象的原因，因?yàn)樗鼰o疑會(huì)對(duì)澳大利亞經(jīng)濟(jì)的長期繁榮產(chǎn)生重要影響。我們不打算研究如何為那些以最佳方式解決教育系統(tǒng)資金問題的政策辦法遭到替代方法，并且有關(guān)各級(jí)教育經(jīng)費(fèi)可以參照Barr(19

48、98),Borthwick(1999), Quiggin(1999),King (2001),Chapman(2001)an和 Burke 和 Long(2002)或其他學(xué)者的文獻(xiàn)。</p><p>　　2、澳大利亞、英國、美國的教育成本</p><p>　　圖1顯示的是由相關(guān)指標(biāo)測定的每年的教育成本增長率，澳大利亞、美國、英國的教育成本都明顯高于他們的通脹率。此外，根據(jù)圖2 圖3，消費(fèi)價(jià)

49、格指數(shù)之間的差距和教育循環(huán)指數(shù)隨著時(shí)間的推移一直在不斷擴(kuò)大，特別是美國和英國。從圖4可以推斷，差距的擴(kuò)大從某種程度上可以歸結(jié)為政府和個(gè)人的教育花費(fèi)占GDP的比重與公共資金之間的差異。正如從圖4中可以看出，在1992-2001年期間，政府開支的平均份額在國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的平均比例約為4.8%的時(shí)候，總費(fèi)用占GDP的比重（包括個(gè)人和政府）為5.8%，這表明關(guān)于個(gè)人的教育支出比例有所增加。</p><p>　　同樣，在圖5

50、中可以看出，尤其是小學(xué)和中學(xué)的學(xué)生在私立學(xué)校就讀的比例越來越大。1986年，大約有30%的中學(xué)生進(jìn)入私立學(xué)校，而到了2003年，這個(gè)數(shù)字達(dá)到35%。在過去的1986年到2003年的15年間，小學(xué)和中學(xué)的私立學(xué)校招生總?cè)藬?shù)上升了1.7%，而公立學(xué)校則以0.18%緩慢增長。</p><p>　　圖6顯示的是各國在1993年到2003年每年的消費(fèi)價(jià)格指數(shù)和教育循環(huán)指數(shù)的增長率。選擇這個(gè)特殊周期的原因有兩點(diǎn)：首先這些數(shù)據(jù)

51、只適用于在此期間的這三個(gè)國家；第二，這段時(shí)間之初，澳大利亞以及其他經(jīng)合組織國家都將通貨膨脹指標(biāo)作為貨幣政策的首要目標(biāo)。在這方面，澳大利亞儲(chǔ)備銀行要求必須在經(jīng)濟(jì)周期過程中保持每年2%-3%的整體通貨膨脹率，但沒有類似的承諾，以抑制任何消費(fèi)物價(jià)指數(shù)中各因素的增長率。這張圖表也進(jìn)一步證實(shí)，這三個(gè)國家在上述通脹時(shí)期的教育成本迅速增長。</p><p>　　從圖6中大致可看出，澳大利亞每年教育費(fèi)用的增長率相對(duì)低于美國和英國

52、。一定程度上，如果我們考慮復(fù)利代替瞬時(shí)增長率，澳大利亞及其他兩個(gè)國家的教育成本增長率和通貨膨脹率之間的差距可以縮小。</p><p>　　表1列出了同一樣本區(qū)間（1993-2003）三個(gè)國家的復(fù)合年平均通貨膨脹率和以復(fù)利計(jì)算的教育成本的增長率。但是無論使用哪個(gè)增長率計(jì)算公式，教育成本的平均增長率仍然遠(yuǎn)高于整體通脹率。例如，在英國和澳大利亞，復(fù)合（幾何）平均通貨膨脹率在1993-2003年期間分別為1.7%和2.5

53、%，而教育成本在這兩個(gè)國家相應(yīng)上升5.7%和4.7%。使用平均瞬時(shí)增長率相應(yīng)的數(shù)字分別為5%和5.5%。</p><p>　　表1顯示，澳大利亞、英國和美國在1993年到2003年之間教育成本增長了5%-5.5%.實(shí)際上，幾何增長率與瞬時(shí)增長率的差異在于后者所允許的中間意見和一系列可變性影響了它，而前者的中間意見對(duì)結(jié)果不能產(chǎn)生影響。正如表1所示，澳大利亞教育成本增長率（0.0209）各個(gè)季度的波動(dòng)性大于英國（0.

54、0160）和美國（0.0094）。因此可以得出，平均瞬時(shí)增長率更能反映教育成本的變化。</p><p><b>　　3、結(jié)束語</b></p><p>　　本文采用描述性統(tǒng)計(jì)和參數(shù)分析，研究澳大利亞教育費(fèi)用的上漲問題。從經(jīng)合組織經(jīng)濟(jì)體比較的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來看，家庭教育成本的支出已經(jīng)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于通貨膨脹率和總是以最快速度促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的“罪行”（煙酒）。這種趨勢有可能在未來繼續(xù)，甚至?xí)?/p>

55、隨著私立學(xué)校的學(xué)生人數(shù)的上升以及高等教育改革中費(fèi)用自由化和全額支付限額的政策而越來越明顯。</p><p>　　由此而產(chǎn)生的第一個(gè)擔(dān)憂是，這樣的發(fā)展可能會(huì)對(duì)澳大利亞人力資本投資產(chǎn)生潛在的不利影響，然后再依次影響經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率。然而，應(yīng)該記住，驅(qū)動(dòng)澳大利亞教育成本上升在某些程度上是因?yàn)楦鱾€(gè)家庭對(duì)教育的重視。其中包括對(duì)公立和私立學(xué)校的選擇以及未來，家庭對(duì)于課程、事業(yè)單位、收費(fèi)結(jié)構(gòu)的慎重選擇。目前在澳大利亞大學(xué)學(xué)