Competition and access inequality in private higher education in Mexico
Abstract
The text investigates the fulfillment of the market theory assumption that states that the structuring of competition can contribute to ensuring equity of access. The research is based within the context of private higher education in Mexico. Using comparative analysis as a methodological framework, three case studies of the deviant type are contrasted, namely the cases of Chiapas, Guanajuato, and Nuevo León. These cases provide empirical evidence on the behavioral responses of private universities that contradict the premises of the market theory regarding the functioning of competition. According to the findings, the assumption of interest is not satisfied in the local systems studied, meanwhile, the contextual factors, especially the institutional framework, were conducive to the emergence of a competitive dynamic of socioeconomic segmentation that promoted the subordination of access to higher education to household income level.
Downloads
References
AAKER, D.A. (1998): Strategic Market Management, New York, Wiley Adams.
ABOITES, H. (2009): “Derecho a la educación y libre comercio: las múltiples caras de una confrontación”, en P. Gentili et al. (comp.), Políticas de privatización, espacio público y educación en América Latina. Rosario: Homo Sapiens Ediciones, pp. 67-82.
ACOSTA, A. (2000): Estado, políticas y universidades en un periodo de transición, México, FCE.
ACOSTA, A. (2005): La educación superior privada en México, UNESCO/IESALC. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140425
ÁLVAREZ, G. (2011): “El fin de la bonanza. La educación superior privada en México en la primera década del siglo XXI”, Reencuentro, (60), pp. 10-29.
BABBIE, E. (2010): The practice of Social Research, Belmont, Wadsworth.
BAGLEY, C. (2006): “School choice and competition: a public-market in education revisited”, Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), pp. 347-362.
BAGLEY, C., WOODS, P. y GLATTER, R. (1996): “Barriers to school responsiveness in the education quasi-market”, School Organisation, 16(1), pp. 45-58.
BALL, S.J. (1998): “Big Policies/Small World: An Introduction to International Perspectives in Education Policy”, Comparative Education, 34(2), pp. 119-130.
BALL, S.J. (2008): “The legacy of ERA: Privatization and the policy ratchet”, Educational Management Administration Leadership, 36(2), pp. 185-199.
BALL, S.J. y MAROY, C. (2009): “School’s logic of action as mediation and compromise between internal dynamics and external constraints and pressures”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(1), pp. 99-112.
BARTOLUCCI, J. (2000): Desigualdad social, educación superior y sociología en México, Ciudad de México, CESU-UNAM; Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
BELFIELD, C.R. y LEVIN, H.M. (2002): Education privatization: Causes, consequences and planning implications, París, Unesco, International Institute for Educational Planning.
BIZBERG, I. (2015): “Tipos de capitalismo en América Latina”, en I. Bizberg (coord.), Variedades de capitalismo en América Latina: los casos de México, Brasil, Argentina y Chile. México, D.F.: El Colegio de México-CEI, pp. 41-94.
BOESKENS, L. (2016): “Regulating Publicly Funded Private Schools: A Literature Review on Equity and Effectiveness”, OECD Education Working Papers. no 147. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/regulating-publicly-funded-private-schools_5jln6jcg80r4-en
BONAL, X. y DOMENECH, E. (2004): “Globalización, neoliberalismo y educación. Entrevista a Xavier Bonal”, Astrolabio, (1), pp. 1-2.
BOURDIEU, P. (2000): “A Sociologist in the World”, Revue d’etudes palestiniennes, 74(22), pp. 3-13.
BOURDIEU, P. y PASSERON, J.C. (1977): Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London, Sage Publications.
BUENDÍA, A. (2016): “Configuración del mercado de la educación superior privada en México: un acercamiento a su complejidad”, RAES. Revista Argentina de Educación Superior, 8(13), pp. 32-59.
BUTLER, E. (2012): Public Choice-A Primer, London, The Institute of Economic Affairs.
CAÏS, J. (2002): Metodología del análisis comparativo, Madrid, CIS. Cuadernos Metodológicos; 21.
CHUBB, J. y TERRY, M. (1990): Politics, markets & America’s schools, Washington, The Brookings Institution.
COLLER, X. (2000): Estudio de casos, Madrid, CIS. Cuadernos Metodológicos; 30.
DE LEONARDO, P. (1983): La educación superior privada en México. Bosquejo Histórico, México, UAGRO; UAZ.
DIARIO OFICIAL DE LA FEDERACIÓN - DOF (1998): Acuerdo número 243 por el que se establecen las bases generales de autorización o reconocimiento de validez oficial de estudios. México, Secretaría de Gobernación. Recuperado de http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4880052&fecha=27/05/1998
DOYLE, P. (2002): Marketing Management and Strategy, London, Pearson Education.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION (2012): Changes in regulation modes and social production of inequalities in educational systems. A European comparison. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7c5718b8-d1f8-44cb-ab3f-2712b451f33b/language-en
EUROPEAN GROUP OF RESEARCH ON EQUITY OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS (2005): Equity in European Educational Systems. A set of indicators, European Commission. http://www.aspe.ulg.ac.be/equite/fichier/pdf/2005PDF_ENGLISH.pdf
ESTRADA, N.G., DE LA PAZ, M. y GIL, M. (2007): “De “¿cuál te pinta mejor?” a “¿para cuál te alcanza?”: Desigualdad e inequidad social en el acceso a la educación superior en México”, Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 9 (1), pp. 1-49.
FISKE, E.B. y Ladd, H. (2000): When schools compete; a cautionary tale, Washington, Brookings Institution Press.
FRIEDMAN, S. y LAURISON, D. (2019): The Class Ceiling: Why it pays to be privileged, Bristol, Policy Press.
GILLIGAN, C. y WILSON, R. (2003): Strategic Marketing Planning, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
GLATTER, R., WOODS, P. y BAGLEY, C. (1997): “Diversity, Differentiation and Hierarchy: School Choice and Parental Preferences”, en R. Glatter, P. Woods y C. Bagley (eds.), Choice and Diversity in Schooling: Perspectives and Prospects. London: Routledge, pp. 7-28.
GORARD, S. y TAYLOR, C. (2004): Combining methods in educational and social research, Berkshire, Open University Press.
HEMSLEY-BROWN, J. y OPLATKA, I. (2015): “University choice: what do we know, what don’t we know and what do we still need to find out?”, International Journal of Educational Management, 29(3), pp. 254-274.
IBARRA, E. (1993): La universidad ante el espejo de la excelencia. Enjuegos organizacionales, México, UAM-Iztapalapa.
LADD, H.F. (2002): Market-Based Reforms in Urban Education, Washington, Economic Policy Institute.
LAUEN, D.L. (2007): “Contextual Explanations of School Choice”, Sociology of Education, 80(3), pp. 179-209.
LAUDER, H., WATSON, S., WASLANDER, S. y STRATHDEE, M. (1999): Trading in futures: Why markets in education don’t work, Buckingham, Open University Press.
LEVACIC, R. (2004): “Competition and the Performance of English Secondary Schools: Further Evidence”, Education Economics, 12(2), pp. 177-193.
LEVIN, H.M. (1991): “The economics of educational choice”, Economics of Education Review, 10(2), pp. 137-158.
LEVY, D. (1996): La Educación superior y el Estado en Latinoamérica. Desafíos privados al predominio público, México, CESU; Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
LUBIENSKI, C. (2003): “Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools”, American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), pp. 395-443.
LUBIENSKI, C. (2006): “School diversification in second-best education markets: International evidence and conflicting theories of change”, Educational Policy, 20(2), pp. 323-344.
LUBIENSKI, C. (2007): “Marketing schools consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information”, Education and Urban Society, 40(1), pp. 118-141
MARINGE, F. y GIBBS, P. (2009): Marketing Higher Education, Theory and Practice, Buckingham, Open University Press.
MÁRQUEZ, A. (1998): “El costo privado de la educación superior. Comparación de los gastos realizados por alumnos de una universidad privada con los de una universidad pública”, Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 28(1), pp. 11-78.
MELGAR, M. (1998): “Las reformas al artículo tercero constitucional”, en Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (ed.), Ochenta años de vida constitucional en México. México: UNAM-IIJ, pp. 457-476. http://ru.juridicas.unam.mx/xmlui/handle/123456789/9101
MOKATE, K.M. (2001): “Eficacia, eficiencia, equidad y sostenibilidad: ¿Qué queremos decir?”, Documento de trabajo BID. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/Eficacia-eficiencia-equidad-y-sostenibilidad-%C2%BFQu%C3%A9-queremos-decir.pdf
PASSERON, J.C. (2022): “¿Qué queda hoy de Los herederos y La reproducción (1964-1971)? Preguntas, métodos, conceptos y recepción de una sociología de la educación”, Revista Española de Sociología (RES), 31(3), pp. 1-27.
PETERSON, P.E. (1990): “Monopoly and Competition in American Education”, en W.H. Clune y J.F. Witte (eds.), Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 1: The Theory of Choice and Control in Education. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 47-78.
RAGIN, C. (1987): The Comparative Method, Berkeley, University of California Press.
RAMA, C. (2012): “El negocio universitario “for profit” en América Latina”, Revista de la Educación Superior, 41(164), pp. 59-95.
RODRÍGUEZ, R. (2003): “La educación superior en el mercado. Configuraciones emergentes nuevos proveedores”, en M. Mollis (comp.), Las universidades en América Latina: ¿reformadas o alteradas? La cosmética del poder financiero. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, pp. 87-107.
SILVA, M. (2014): “Equidad en la Educación Superior Mexicana: el reto persiste”, Universidades, 59, 23-35.
SUÁREZ, M.H. (2013): Educación Superior Pública y Privada en México. Desigualdades institucionales y opiniones de los estudiantes, México, UNAM. Cuadernos del SES; 4.
TAYLOR, C. (2001): “Hierarchies and ‘local’ markets: the geography of the ‘lived’ market place in secondary education provision”, Journal of Education Policy, 16(3), pp. 197-214.
TAYLOR, C. (2009): “Choice, competition, and segregation in a United Kingdom urban education market”, American Journal of Education, 115(4), pp. 549-568.
VALENZUELA, J.P., BELLEI, C. y RÍOS, D.L. (2014): “Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system. The case of Chile”, Journal of education Policy, 29(2), pp. 217-241.
VERGER, A., BONAL, X. y ZANCAJO, A. (2016): “Recontextualización de políticas y (cuasi)mercados educativos: Un análisis de las dinámicas de demanda y oferta escolar en Chile”, Archivos analíticos de políticas educativas, 24(27), pp. 1-27.
VILLA, L. (2013): “Modernización de la Educación Superior, alternancia política y desigualdad en México”, Revista de Educación Superior, 42(168), pp. 81-103.
WASLANDER, S., CISSY, P. y VAN DER WEIDE, M. (2010): “Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education”, OECD Education Working Papers. no 52. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5km4pskmkr27-en.pdf?expires=1596734386&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=AB682D1B74C4947D2CE4F095FA0CC3F0
WEST, A. (2006): “School choice, equity and social justice: the case for more control”, British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), pp. 15-33.
WHITTY, G. y POWER, S. (2002): “THE SCHOOL, THE STATE AND THE MARKET: The research evidence updated”, Currículo sem Fronteiras, 2(1), pp. 1-23.
WOESSMANN, L. (2006): “Public-private partnerships and schooling outcomes across countries”, CESIFO Working Paper 1.662. https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp1662.pdf
Copyright (c) 2022 Areas. International Social Science Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
The published works by this Journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publication Service of the University of Murcia (the Editor) owns the copyright of its publications. It promotes and allows its use under the indicated licence in Section 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2011
2. Papers are digitally published under the licence Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (legal text). They can be copied, used, disseminated, transferred and publically presented if: i) the author is quoted, as well as the original source of publication (Journal, editorial and URL); ii) they are not used for commercial purposes; iii) the licence of use is mentioned.
3. Auto-file Conditions. It is allowed and authors are encouraged to digitally disseminate their pre-print versions (versions prior to review) and/or post-print (reviewed version accepted for its publication) since it promotes its early diffusion and the corresponding increase of quotes and scope within the academic community. RoMEO Colour: green.
