Is Market Driven Educational Model (Encouraging Privatisation in Higher Education) Good For India's Future?

Is Market Driven Educational Model (Encouraging Privatisation in Higher Education)
Good for India’s Future?
This Sample Work has been completed by ‗Tutors India‘

Copyright © Tutors India. All rights reserved.
www.tutorsindia.com
© 2017-2018 All Rights Reserved, No part of this document should be modified/used without prior consent
Tutors India™ - Your trusted mentor since 2001
www.tutorindia.com I UK # +44-1143520021, Info@tutorsindia.com
1
Abstract
This paper examines the need for encouraging market driven higher education higher education model in
India. In this context, the present study is focussed on privatisation in the Indian higher education wing, the
regulations of the government and the intricate issues underlying within the same. Hence, the present study
analysed the perceptions of educational pioneers in India and their views towards privatisation of higher
education in India.
Methods- The present study is a qualitative research conducted with former vice chancellors, former Higher
Education Minister, State of Karnataka and the administrators of private and public higher education
institutions.
Findings- The findings of the study revealed that a majority of respondents claimed privatisation to bring better
prospects as the country‘s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) needs to be improved. Majority of participants
belonging to public higher education institutions stated the significance of privatisation in the educational
sector.
Conclusions and Implications- Privatisation in Indian higher education should be encouraged; however, there
is a need to connect Indian universities with industries to mitigate job crisis which is prevalent with increased
human capital.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Table ............................................................................................................................... 6
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8
1.0 Background................................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 15
1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 15
1.4 Scope of the study.................................................................................................................... 15
1.5 Chapter scheme ........................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 17
2.0 Encouraging privatisation in Indian Higher education ....................................................... 17
2.1 Defining the terms ................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Relationship between Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation ............................. 22
2.3 Privatisation in the educational sector .................................................................................. 23
2.4 Privatisation of higher education in Global context ............................................................ 26
2.5 Privatisation in the Indian educational sector ...................................................................... 29
3
2.6 Indian government policies on privatisation of Higher education .................................... 36
2.7 Issues in Privatisation of higher education in India ............................................................ 41
2.8 Need for Privatisation in higher education ........................................................................... 42
2.9 Political economy of higher education in India ................................................................... 44
2.10 Previous studies ..................................................................................................................... 47
2.11 Research Gap ......................................................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 50
3.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 50
3.1 Research design ....................................................................................................................... 51
3.2 Research philosophy ............................................................................................................... 52
3.3 Research Approach .................................................................................................................. 52
3.4 Target population and sample size ........................................................................................ 53
3.4.1 Sampling technique ................................................................................................. 55
3.5 Data collection ......................................................................................................................... 55
3.5.1 Data collection methods .......................................................................................... 55
3.5.2 Interviews in educational research .......................................................................... 55
3.5.3 Procedures for preparing for the interviews ............................................................ 56
4
3.5.4 Validity and reliability in interviews ....................................................................... 57
3.6 Analysis of the interview ........................................................................................................ 58
3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 59
4.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 59
4.1 Participants ............................................................................................................................... 59
4.2 Role of privatisation in higher education development in India ....................................... 63
4.3 Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions .................. 66
4.4 Views of Indian Government on privatisation ..................................................................... 69
4.5 Encouraging privatisation in India ........................................................................................ 71
4.6 Private Universities and high standards of higher education in India .............................. 74
4.7 Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility ............................................ 77
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 80
5.0 Role of privatisation towards satiating the ever-growing need for higher education in India 80
5.1 Effects of privatisation in Indian higher education ............................................................. 85
5.2 Governmental regulations and privatisation ........................................................................ 86
5.3 Governmental regulations and privatisation ........................................................................ 88
5
5.4 Implications .............................................................................................................................. 89
5.5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 91
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 93
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 113
List of Table
Table 1: Semi-structured interviews conducted with vice-chancellors and XXX of private institutions 54
List of Figures
Figure 1: World higher education enrolment rate .................................................................... 10

Figure 2: Private Enrollment and Institutional Share in Higher Education in Selected Asian Economies, 2002–
2009.......................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 3: Total number of Private aided, unaided and government higher education institutions in India (State-
wise) ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4: Total number of Private aided, private unaided and government higher education institutions in India
(total) ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 5: Procedure to establish a private university ............................................................... 39
6
Figure 6: Participants in the study ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 7: Word cloud of Role of privatisation in higher education development in India ...... 64
Figure 8: Word cloud of Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions 67
Figure 9: Word cloud of Views of Indian Government on privatisation ................................. 70
Figure 10: Word Cloud of Encouraging privatisation in India ................................................ 72
Figure 11: Word Cloud of Private Universities and high standards of higher education in India 75
Figure 12: Word Cloud of Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility ....... 78
Figure 13: Estimated 18-23 year old population in India- 2030 .............................................. 81
7
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background
The purpose of higher education in all developed and developing economies is very simple- to deliver
professional education which equips students the knowledge of practicality to succeed in their life. Success in
this context relates to achieving a considerable role at work, at communities and so on. To satiate the ever
increasing need for education and knowledge empowerment, educational institutions all around the world
evolve continuously. In a global context, higher education is under constant pressure with the following
requirements- to meet the expectations of education, increase student enrolment, increase workforce needs of
the nation which in turn affects economic development positively (Educause, 2010). To meet the needs of
higher education, developed and developing countries have begun embracing the concept of ‗Privatisation‘.
Privatisation is defined as the initiation of private ownership with the authoritative power and management
power resting within the control of private individuals. The control in privatisation is in terms of administration
of money and decision making. In education, privatisation is considered as the expansion of private control over
public good ‗education‘ (Jonaki & Prasenjit, 2016).
Though it is claimed that privatisation has its role in higher education all over the world, factors such as
globalisation and liberalisation have combined effects on higher education (Vlk, 2006). Over the past decades,
private higher education in the world has witnessed remarkable progress with more than 30 per cent of private
enrolment globally. By the year 2012, the number of student enrolment in higher education institutions reached
196 million whereas the same in the year 2000 was just below 100 million (Kassim et al., 2015). Private
8
education has been in existence in many countries for years and is the traditional mode of higher education in
many Asian countries such as Korea, Japan and Philippines. Many private higher education institutions in the
world are basically ‗on quasi for-profit‘ or ‗for-profit institutions‘. Countries such as Japan, Indonesia and the
Republic of Korea witness 70% private enrolment and almost half the student population in nations such as
Brazil, Mexico, and Chile are educated under private higher education institutions (UNESCO, 2014). The
impact of private sector could also be envisioned in the eastern European as well as the African countries.
Developing economies such as India and China are no longer an exception and embrace private sector higher
education. Researchers argue that privatisation in the higher education sector is the cause of neo-liberal policies,
the limited funding of National Governments for higher education, the increasing costs and the economic
requirements of nations which include increasing technologically and practically empowered workforce (Rena,
2010).
9
Figure 1: World higher education enrolment rate
Higher education student enrolment rate

250
200
150
Number of students (in
100 millions)
50
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Source: Adopted from UNESCO (2016)
The expansion of higher education in India is in a rapid pace and the increase in progress of higher
education institutions in India discerns the growing knowledge requirements of student population in the
country. Private sector plays a predominant role in delivering knowledge to the youth population in the country.
A dire need for professional education always exists in the country and the participation of private sector is
deemed to be more important. Privatisation in the Indian higher education sector has emerged in several types
and forms over the years (Tilak & Varghese, 1983a). Privatisation takes place in the following forms-
10
introduction of self-financing courses in public higher education institutions, transformation of a public higher
education institution in to private institutions, and private institutions with and without recognition. Institutions
which operate for the purpose of profit are termed commercial private higher education institutions. Private
individuals play ownership role in setting up private universities, deemed universities and foreign collaboration
universities (Jonaki & Prasenjit, 2016). The economic reforms which were implemented in the year 1991, led
the nation to adopt several changes. Open markets and liberal environments led to the emergence of private
higher education institutions in the nation. In the year 1995, legislations were introduced for setting up private
universities in India but the act is yet to be implemented. Lack of proper legislations for private universities
eased state governments of the nation to set up private universities. According to the University Grants
Commission (UGC), by the end of 2015, there were 43 central universities, 312 state universities, 115 deemed
universities and 183 private universities in the country (Dhanuraj & Kumar, 2015).
The increase number of enrolment in private sector higher education institutions and the number of
private institutions in India increasing every year positively define the success of privatisation in the higher
education sector. Education in this regard is considered to be a tool to establish individual status in the
community; hence the need for higher education is increasing in India. With better quality of higher education
delivered through privatisation, developing countries are positively regulated to benefit from knowledge based
economic developments (World Bank, 2000).
Several challenges necessitated the need for privatisation in the higher education sector of India. Firstly,
the population of students (age group: 15-35 years) in the nation in the year 2010 was around 350 million and
Altbach and Jayaram (2010) predicted that the numbers will peak at 485 million in 2030. The previous
11
researchers argue that the Government will tremble to meet the needs of higher education only with public
sector institutions and meeting quality education needs for such huge numbers is a complicated task. Secondly,
there occurs an unequal balance in the number of urban and rural higher education enrolment in the country.
Ernst and Young (2009) report states that the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in urban regions of the country is
around 24 per cent whereas the same in the rural counterparts is 7.5 per cent. Thirdly, the quality of education
delivered by public institutions is so poor which is attributed to reasons such as lack of infrastructure, out-dated
curriculum, less research innovations and practical empowerment. Lack of skilled workforce emerging from
public institutions demotivates organisations to employ such candidates. However, only a few public higher
education institutions such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs)
satisfy the needs of corporate organisations by delivering quality manpower resources (Sudarshan &
Subramanian, 2012). Indian government (both state and central) suffer from serious monetary allocations to
fund higher education which could be balanced through private sector. The enrolment of students in higher
education institutions in India has grown phenomenally wherein the number of enrolment is 25.9 million in
2011-12 and the same in the year 1970-71 was 2 million (Ernst & Young, 2012).
In the same context, Patel (2012) elucidates the advantages of privatisation in Indian higher education.
The previous researcher claims five advantages of privatisation in Indian higher education which are as follows:
1. Resource allocation- The resources allocated by the state and central government to public higher
education institutions does not facilitate the proper management of these institutions. On the
contrary, private owners may fund considerable amount to maintain private institutions.
12
2. Sensitivity- Private sector institutions adopt changes flexibly whereas the same is not possible in
public sector institutions.
3. Quality- Better quality of education is provided in private sector institutions rather than public sector
institutions.
4. Accessibility- With more number of educational institutions, private sector serves to cater the
educational needs of all citizens in India.
5. Reduced burden- Governments may concentrate allocating resources to other sectors (Patel, 2012).
Though it is claimed that privatisation has its role in higher education all over the world, factors such as
globalisation and liberalisation have combined effects on higher education (Vlk, 2006). Globalisation has
impacts on the higher education system of India. The reforms of education in India, especially with the liberal
motives of the Government to allow private participation in the higher education sector underline the perception
of the government to enhance the utilisation of information technology resources thereby emphasising the
economic productivity of the country through quality workforce. Indian higher education is lacking autonomy,
funds and suffers from the burden of affiliation. On the contrary, globalisation will bring development in
education through technology, communication and knowledge. Due to privatisation, the quality of education
delivered becomes industry oriented and the increase in globally acknowledged higher education institutions
transforms India into a knowledge hub (Naik, 2015).
Though privatisation in Indian higher education is a boon, many researchers claim that the advent of
private sector in education sector tends to be hazardous as the equity to educational access is affected. A study
by Chougle (2014) on understanding the perceptions of college teachers towards privatisation in Indian higher
13
education revealed several weaknesses. The perceptions were ranked wherein the cost of private higher
education acquired the first rank. With the increased cost for higher education services by private sector, the
economically weaker sections may suffer. Other factors in the raking include fear of unethical practices or no
ethics, commercialisation of education and lack of social commitment (Chougle, 2014).
There are contradictory ideas regarding the feasibility of private sector participation in the Indian higher
education sector. Though different researchers claim the devastating role of privatisation in the sector, the
economy of the country necessitates such participation. The ideologies on equity and accessibility are
questioned since privatisation has both positive and negative effects on the factors. While private sector
institutions aid in meeting the ever-growing demand for higher education in a highly student populous nation,
the cost of acquiring private higher education is not within the reach of poor economic class who form a
predominant part of the population in the country. However, the Government lacks allocation of funds to public
institutions to create opportunities for youngsters to pursue higher education as feeble resources are allocated
for higher education purposes of the country. These inferences act as the premise to the present study which is
based on the analysis of private participation in Indian higher education sector. Privatisation poses both
advantages and disadvantages; however analysing the same leads to a clear understanding of the impacts of
privatisation in the higher education sector. Hence, the present study analyses whether the market driven
approach of Indian higher education is advantageous for the future of the nation.
14
1.2 Research Objectives
1. To determine the effects of privatisation in Indian higher education

2. To examine the role of privatisation towards satiating the ever-growing need for higher education in
India
3. To analyse and interpret the perceptions of educational pioneers towards the market driven higher
education market.
1.3 Research Questions
1) What are the effects of privatisation in Indian higher education?

2) Does privatisation in Indian higher education satiate the ever-growing needs of student population in the
country?
3) How do educational pioneers in India view privatisation of higher education?
1.4 Scope of the study
The scope of the present study is bound within the limits of examining the effects of privatisation and
market driven model in Indian higher education. Hence, the present study focuses on the regulations regarding
privatisation in different states of the country wherein the laws are varying for each state in the nation.
15
1.5 Chapter scheme
The first chapter covers the introduction of the study wherein the background of the study, the research
objectives and the scope are elucidated.
The second chapter is the literature review in which the knowledge which is previously discussed
relevant to the present topic of the research will be identified and analysed. The chapter further elucidates the
findings of various researchers who devised researches similar to the context of the present study.
The third chapter covers the research methodology. The different methods of data collection, and the
analysis techniques used will be elucidated following which the type of research methodology used in the
present study will be explained
The fourth chapter will cover the results. Different techniques are used to analyse the variables of the
study. The results of the study will be analysed, examined and summarised.
The final chapter will be discussions and conclusions. The findings of the study will be discussed
elaborately and the conclusions will be stated. Additionally, future studies in the same context will be
recommended.
16
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Encouraging privatisation in Indian Higher education
The present chapter of the dissertation is dedicated to understanding the different literatures on the
subject of privatisation of higher education and India since its independence in 1945. Ever since India attained
the status as a ‗republic nation‘, education in the country is based on the principles of empowering the citizens
of the nation and the responsibility of the state is to create an environment which enables all its citizens to be
empowered. In this regard, the Government of India adopts strategies to maintain the growing population and
increasing rate of youth through the creation of capacities. Over the years of development in the Indian
educational sector, the Government is enlarging its capacities by investing more on enhancing the existing
institutions. During the year 1950-51, there were around 28 universities and 578 colleges in the entire country
while the scenario of today is widened. India is now the hub for a number of educational institutions, especially
institutions satiating higher education needs. In 2014, there were a total of 36,812 colleges (20,390 colleges
private institutions and 6,768 public colleges) in the country which transforms India as the knowledge spot for
more than 20 million students enrolled in these institutions (Shankar, 2016). However over the last two decades,
the need for skilled labour and practical expertise is increasing wherein companies demand for expertise,
education and skilled manpower. In order to meet the growing needs for manpower in an ever-evolving
economy, privatisation aids with complementing the public educational institutions. Over the past decades, the
factor called ‗capacity creation‘ is steered with the aid of private institutions. The emergence of higher
education in India began in the mid-1980s which is to subsidise the investment reduction of the Government
and the states towards education. The share of the private unaided institutes is 43 per cent in 2001 and the
17
percentage of students is 33 per cent. However, the percentage rose and in the year 2006, the percentage share
of private institutions was 64 and the percentage of students rose up to 52 per cent (Sudarshan & Subramanian,
2012).
Privatisation has always been a hot topic of debate and the country has been witnessing resistance.
Though in the beginning when privatisation is a part of the economic liberalisation scheme, the nation was
dormant; however, much resistance arose when the intricacies in privatisation were found (Kapur & Ramamurti,
2002). However, previous researchers also argue the benefits of privatisation of Higher education in India
wherein previous studies and reports claim privatisation in other developed and developed countries to be a
great success. Feith (2012) projected the market for international higher education and claims that the demand
for higher education will surpass China. The previous researcher argues that market driven policies can only
meet the increasing demands of higher education in India. Hence, the present section intends to analyse the
present status of privatization in a broad context envisioning the role of privatisation all over the world and its
impact in the educational system. Further narrowing the topic towards the impact of privatisation in educational
system of India, previous literatures pertaining to the context of the present study will be reviewed and
analysed.
2.1 Defining the terms
Privatisation
Privatisation is the fundamental part of the public reforms and is the core theme towards enhancing the
efforts of the private sector. For most countries in the world, privatisation is the key to development in all
18
aspects; however, the objectives of the countries differ based on the capabilities and the need for privatisation in
these companies. Though the privatisation objectives of each country differ based on the needs and capability,
depending on the development and the social goals of the country, the following factors are considered and the
private sector should operate to serve the cause: improve efficiency, improve customer/ consumer choice,
increased competition, mitigation of public debts and budget deficits, and extending the share ownership in the
private sector. However, all these factors on the whole should aid with enhancing the productivity and
efficiency of a nation, thereby acting as the growth engine of a nation‘s economy (Ddumba-Ssentamu &
Mugume, 2001).
Furthermore, Privatisation is also defined as the process of increasing the productivity and efficiency of
the private sector thereby fostering the development of the private sector (Naya, 1990). However, in simple
economic terms, privatisation is the transfer of the activities of the state to the private sector which occurs in
partial or whole, or by the sales of assets which is followed by liquidation (Ddumba-Ssentamu & Mugume,
2001). In terms of higher education in India, privatisation is the only feasible way to increase the Gross
enrolment ratio (GER) of students in higher education wherein a minimum of 30 per cent GER could be
achieved with the establishment of additional 800 universities and 40000 private colleges within 2020 (Gupta &
Gupt, 2012). Hence, privatisation especially in higher education in Indian is seen to provide better
accountability and quality of educational experience for the students therefore these institutions are more sought
after for admission by students than government run institutions
19
Liberalisation and privatisation
Liberalisation is defined as the transformation of market structures which is facilitated by the responses
of companies and new entrants into open/ free market. In a liberal economy, the shares of the market transform
are liable to change rapidly, and the competitive scenarios between small and large scale firms determine the
growth of this market, whether the concentration will be more or less (Kambhampati & Kattuman, 2003). Over
three decades, developed and developing economies have been witnessing privatisation of public sector
services. The recommendations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are towards the
privatisation of public owned enterprises which is a suggestion to increase revenue, enhance the health of public
finance, increase the productivity and efficiency, thereby reducing the intervention of government (Megginson
& Netter, 2001). Among the different aims of privatisation of public enterprises and services (Villalonga, 2000;
Sheshinski, 2003), the predominant goal of privatisation is to increase the efficiency and productivity of the
economy (Kilicaslan et al., 2008).
Globalisation
The process of Globalisation is still in stages of integrating the nations all across the globe and is related
with the concepts of privatisation. Following several changes in the pace of technological developments,
economic liberalisation, and the importance of international laws, national economies are evolving continuously
and globalisation has delivered these countries into a state of competition which is very different before
liberalisation in developed and developing economies. The term ‗Globalisation‘ is not a sudden trend in the
global market. It is the sustainment of developmental activities in the economies of different nations and is still
20
in its developmental stages. Liberalisation of economic activities in a country differs from one another with
economic agents which are connected on marginal basis and are resistive towards failure in the neighbourhood
nations. Immediately after the post-World war-II period, the rapid growth in the developments of foreign trade
is embraced by developed nation in the 1950s and 1960s; however, Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in
developing economies paved way for globalisation. Over the past two decades, trade and economic
liberalisation improved the economies in the world, thereby integrating the world into a highly integrated
system. Following are the three predominant features of globalisation steering the integration of global
economies.
i) Product internationalisation with changes in the production structure

ii) International trade expansion
iii) Expansion of international capital flows (Mrak, 2000).
The Article 25 of the Companies Registration Act defines the establishment of educational institutions in
India which can only be set up by trusts and charitable organisations. However, the act lacks clarity about
foreign universities setting up in India. The government of India is adopting liberalisation policies to allow
foreign investors establishing private educational institutions in the nation (Amandeep, 2016). Similar to the
studies by Kilicaslan et al., (2008) and Megginson & Netter, (2001), the government of India attempts to
liberalise its policies on foreign investment and privatisation in order to improve the economy.
21
2.2 Relationship between Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation
There is specifically a relationship existing between the three factors: Liberalisation, Privatisation and
Globalisation (LPG). Boubakri et al. (2011) argues that there exists a relationship between liberalisation and
globalisation, and privatisation. The researcher argues that privatisation has profound effects on globalisation as
increasing the participation of private sector in foreign investments thereby promoting capital inflow,
technology and management skills of the company. Since globalisation turns the market environment more
competitive, the GDP growth is also enhanced. In the same context, Goyal (2006) investigated the role of
globalisation on developing countries with special reference to India. Over the years, the integration of societies
and economies has been a debatable topic. Developing economies like China and India witnessed tremendous
growth after adopting the model of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation and the rate of poverty in
these nations declined steadily (LPG). However, globalisation has been controversial since a number of
oppositions internationally were generated based on inequality and degradation of environment. This
necessitated the study of impacts of globalisation in developing nations from the perspectives of FDI. After the
foreign exchange crunch which dragged the economy to loan defaults, India opened up its market in the early
1990s. As a response to the economic liberalisation, a number of foreign investment companies established their
businesses in the nation. The policy changes invoked a more open market economy. Goyal (2006) further
argues that the Government of India should analyse the best opportunities within the globalisation and
privatisation schemes since the target of the world is towards developing countries such as India and China. The
US and the countries of Europe are defined economies, hence economic experts argue that India and China may
overtake the US and European countries thereby becoming a major economic power in the forthcoming decade
22
(Goyal, 2006). The technological revolution which is coupled with the processes of liberalization, privatization
and globalization (LPG) has transformed knowledge as the key basis for nations to compete in the global
environment. The emergence of the knowledge based society has further accomplished several economic
benefits of developed and developing countries for which researchers claim the reason to be the LPG model.
Education and globalisation are mutually dependent terms. Globalisation is the process of imparting efficiency
and competitiveness and in the educational sector, it means transforming knowledge into an ‗accessible to all‘
resource (Rani, 2010) . Ray (2015) states that with the new policy reforms associated with the liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation schemes, the science and technology wing of India has witness rapid growth,
enabling increased enrolment in higher education thereby increasing the knowledge base for IT and skilled
labour force.
According to Gautam et al. (2015), the LPG model has influenced almost all the sectors in India and the
higher education wing is no longer an exception. The Government of India claims privatisation as the most
feasible mode to satiate the growing need for higher education in India. This will be reflected in the following
sections wherein the role of privatisation in educational sector both in developed and developing countries are
elucidated following which the context of LPG in Indian higher education is expatiated.
2.3 Privatisation in the educational sector
In broad terms, privatisation in the educational sector is referred to as the policies which promote
liberalisation and deregulation thereby establishing a market in education or creation of a competitive
23
environment between private and public education providers (Lubienski, 2006). Different countries identify
privatisation to increase the efficiency of the educational system in two ways.
i. Delivering education to the inaccessible communities

ii. Improving the quality of education thereby nurturing competition
Though the governing bodies of countries view education as a public good to the population,
privatisation of the education sector enables the equilibrium between the education provider and the choice of
the consumer. In a private institution, the type of product offered and the fee for these products are fixed by the
private education providers. In a privatised educational setup, the consumers of the education as good (parents
and students) will possess the option to decide the type of education and the charge that they wish to spend.
Instead of standardising education through free state education, private owners feel the need to satisfy the
educational needs of the consumers. Additionally, the profit motives are set by these private education
providers. An implication of privatisation is that there will be a remarkable growth in the generation of quality
assurance and national assessment systems which seek to enhance the information quality thereby creating
better choices for consumers (Benveniste, 2002).
Privatisation in the educational sector is unfolded in three ways. The three ways are:
i. Outsourcing state specific activities and operations to private education providers.

ii. The introduction of self-regulatory and market-based regulations which forms the deregulation of the
education sector
24
iii. Provisions for educational institutions which are either funded by the state with the regulations of the
public or independently.
All the aforementioned approaches could be considered either simultaneously or balancing each other or
may even on one of the three modes. Some approaches are independent; however some complement each other.
For instance, the emergence of more private educational institutions and at the same time these institutions
offering more choices for enrolment in these institutions. In developed countries, privatisation of education
sector is encouraged for the growth of education in these countries. These countries offer vouchers to encourage
student enrolment in private institutions, and tax credits to parents (Belfield & Levin, 2002). However, this is
not feasible as in the case of developing countries wherein there will be no possibility for the Government to
fund and encourage private education which limits the philanthropic scope of privatisation in developing
countries (Pedró et al., 2015).
The Global education 20/20 report (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009) claims the role of private sector
in education. In this regard, 211 respondents were surveyed wherein 123 respondents belonged to the private
sector companies and 88 from educational sector. The survey was conducted by Economist Intelligence Unit in
February 2009 which discerned the role played by the private sector and analysed whether the same regulates
positively or negatively the traditional education. The survey covered questions regarding the importance of
privatisation in the educational sector wherein 70 per cent of the respondents revealed such privatisation to be
important. However, the role of the private sector varies from country to country. The survey further revealed
the success of voucher-system wherein the system increases the performance of the schools (The Economist,
2007). In Sweden, higher education for students belonging to the EU nations and Switzerland is provided free
25
of cost which is facilitated by tax revenue (Swedish Institute, 2013). In Portugal, the United States and Japan,
private institutions are funded by the state and mostly serve as not-for profit organisations. In Japan, around 77
per cent enrolled in private institutions delivering higher education (Varghese, 2012). However, not all
countries allow the privatisation of educational sector, and not all corporations aspire to do so. The report
further reveals the emergence of private corporations taking care of the education sector all around the world.
Based on the results of the survey, it is deemed that privatisation in the education sector is important since the
idea of the respondents is privatisation brings better education (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009).
2.4 Privatisation of higher education in Global context
A shining example of a well-established system of higher education that is both qualitative, diversified
and available to all sections of society is the one prevailing in the U.S. The private sector is a major contributor
to the system at various levels. But the private sector's role is generally limited management and philanthropy.
Though there is great diversity among universities and colleges, the fees of students constitute lesser than 50%
of the total capital budget and operating costs. Donations, royalties, research grants, licensing, and auxiliary
services account for the remaining (Sunder, 2010).
Many nations (for instance, the United States) have a chequered past of development of the private
sector. In most of the other nations (for instance, Latin American nations), the private sector came on the scene
more than five decades ago but significant growth was achieved during the very end of the 20th century. In
various regions of the world (for instance, African and post-communist European nations), the private education
sector is relatively new. Proprietary institutions, for-profit and non-profit organisations comprise the private
26
sector. Institutions that are proprietary —characterised by profit-seeking behaviour and driven by the market
driven, with centralized and business like management systems, in addition to a weak academic culture—can be
defined as the pure form of privatization (Holzhacker et al., 2009). In the United States there have been many
private, not for profit higher education institutions for many years like Stanford University, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology etc. On the other hand, the University of Phoenix in the U.S. is private and for profit.
There are many private providers in the UK higher education which function on a not for profit basis (Shankar,
2016).
The share of higher education in the entire world accounts to 31 per cent with the highest share of 35 per
cent of students enrolled in the private higher education institutions of Asia and the pacific. About 50 per cent
of the institutions in most of the regions of Asia and the pacific belong to the private sector. When compared
with the number of enrolment in the public institutions, the growth of enrolments in the private education sector
is phenomenal. Countries all across Asia enacted regulations and policies to manage private higher education
institutions; however the issues based on quality of education, the equitability towards education access and the
affordability of students towards paying for private institutions are challenging for developing countries (Asian
Development Bank, 2012).
Three stages of private sector emergence into the educational sector are elucidated by Geiger (1986).
The three stages are peripheral private, parallel public and private education sectors and the extensive private
higher education sector. In the peripheral private stage, a country‘s public higher education sector will dominate
and the role of private higher education institutions will be peripheral. Developing countries normally adopt the
peripheral private model where the countries are deeply rooted in socialistic principles. Developing countries
27
such as Viet Nam and the Central Asian republics fall into this category. Secondly, the parallel public and
private higher education sectors are a reflection of higher education institutions operating in parallel. The
examples of countries adopting such system are Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, and Thailand (Chealy, 2006).
Thirdly, the extensive private higher education sector is the combination of more number of private educational
institutions and the high degree of enrolment in private higher education institutions. The Republic of Korea
and Japan are the leading countries with high share of private higher education enrolment in the East Asia (more
than 77 per cent of enrolment shares and 90 per cent of institutional shares), following which Indonesia and
Philippines with 70.9 per cent and 60.9 per cent shares in private higher education enrolment and 97.3% and
72.2% shares in private institutional number respectively (Asian Development Bank, 2012).
Figure 2: Private Enrollment and Institutional Share in Higher Education in Selected Asian Economies,
2002–2009
120
100
80
Percentage
60
40
20
0.0
0.0
28 enrollment
Private percentage of total higher education
Private percentage of total Higher education institutions
Source: Adopted from Asian Development Bank (2012)
From Figure 1, it is evident that the number of private educational institutions and the share of private
higher education enrolment in India are somewhat not in line with the developments of other countries. Though
India is the second populous country, the number of enrolments is lower than the other Asian nations such as
China, Phillipines and Korea. However, the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for higher education (in general to
both public and private sector institutions) has doubled over the decade wherein the GER is 9 per cent in the
year 2002-03 and the same is 24 per cent in 2013-14. Shankar (2016) relates such enrolment to be associated
with the emergence of private higher education institutions which remarkably increased the higher education
enrolment rate of students.
2.5 Privatisation in the Indian educational sector
Despite the fact that many nations including the United States view private sector as philanthropic, the
same cannot be stated in the context of India. In sharp contrast to the definition, genuine not-for-profit colleges
or educational institutions in India obtain nearly 100% of their total income from fees collected from students,
since income from other avenues is less. Whereas in educational institutions/colleges that are set up as for-
profit; either by overt admission or discreet actions; the total fees collected from students is enough to cater to
all the overheads and also generate a return on investment. Since very little benefits are available for innovation,
research, and doctoral education, the financial model comes in the way of improving the quality of education
that has been provided by institutions comprising a major part of the increase in admissions (Sunder, 2010).
29
In terms of number of students, the Indian ranking in higher education system is number three, behind
China and the United States. However, the advantage in India is that English has primacy as the main language
for higher education and research. Comparatively 11 per cent of India youth complete higher education against
20 per cent in China. The important governing body with overall regulatory control of universities is the
University Grants Commission (India), which ensures compliance of standards, acts as an advisor to the
government, and liaises between the centre and states. Higher learning in India is accomplished through
Universities and constituent colleges. As on 2011, around 227 Universities are available in India that is
recognised by the Government which includes 11 Open universities, 109 deemed Universities, 20 Central
varsities and 87 state universities. A majority of the varsities in India have colleges affiliated to them where
undergraduate courses are conducted (Singh, 2009).
30
Figure 3: Total number of Private aided, unaided and government higher education institutions in India
(State-wise)
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Telangana
Sikkim
Punjab
Odisha
Mizoram
Manipur
Madhya Pradesh
Karnataka
Jammu and Kashmir
Haryana
Goa
Daman & Diu
Chhatisgarh
Bihar
Arunachal Pradesh
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
total government
total private private aided
31
Source: Adopted from Ministry of Human Resource Development (2015)
Elementary and secondary education is imparted in schools in India, while the third level i.e. higher
education is provided in colleges and universities. The education sector has two types of providers - private and
public. Private institutions are classified into two types - aided (partly bankrolled by the government) or unaided
(self-funded). Public institutions are setup, bankrolled and entirely managed by the concerned department of the
government. Whenever the government's efforts to impart education in a manner so as to be accessible to all,
falls short of the planned target, the private sector steps in to fill the gaps. The generally accepted norms is that
motivation for the private sector is profit, however, when the private sector is involved in education, profit
should not be the driving force. Experts opine that particular private sector players in the education sector lower
the standards of education as they do not adhere to the laid down norms, and preclude certain categories of
students due to the inexorbitant fee structure. But, the contrary view held by few experts is that private sector
involvement is a necessity to improve quality with added investment, to encourage competition in higher
education (Shankar, 2016).
32
Figure 4: Total number of Private aided, private unaided and government higher education institutions
in India (total)
Indian Higher education colleges
Private Un-Aided
Private aided
Government
Source: Adopted from Ministry of Human Resource Development (2015)
Despite the progress made in education after decades of independence, higher education in India
requires to perform better in the crucial areas of Access, Equity and Quality. Sudarshan & Subramanian, (2012)
are of the view that imparting qualitative, higher education that matches global standards at a reasonable cost is
one of the most important issues before the nation. They further state that if India does not take appropriate
steps on a war footing, then the situation would turn grim wherein a large number of youngsters would be
looking for higher education and the system will be unable to accommodate all of them. People in the age group
33
of 15-35 years estimated in the year 2010 to be more than 350 million, is projected to peak at around 485
million in 2030 (Altbach & Jayaram, 2010). To complicate matters further, the higher education Gross
Enrolment Rations (GERs) shows disparity among states, urban areas, rural areas, gender and communities. As
per statistics of Ernst and Young (2009), urban areas have a GER of 23.8 per cent whereas in rural areas it is a
dismal 7.5 per cent. Delhi has a GER of 31.9 per cent while Assam is at the bottom rung with 8.3 per cent. The
rich–poor and the rural–urban gap witnessed in India has serious detrimental effects. The best way to narrow the
gap would have been to utilise education to bridge the divide. But, as can be witnessed from the statistics, the
disparities are pronounced when it comes to uniform access to education to all, which only ends up highlighting
the divisions seen in society. The main reasons for the sorry state of affairs is an outdated curriculum, undue
emphasis on theory, diluted focus on research and social sciences, indifferent attitude towards innovation, low
morale and lack of motivation among teachers and researchers and the lack of a proper monitoring and
regulatory mechanism. Therefore, when the National Association of Software and Service Companies, (2005)
tabled the facts that only 25 per cent technical and 10 per cent non-technical graduates were of employable
standards, it was not far from the truth. One more fact in support of this report was the practice in most
companies that recruited fresh graduates, trained them to bridge the gap between the requirements of the
industry and the actual output passing out of educational institutions. This was done at heavy cost to the
industry, pointing to the disconnect between education industry standards.
It is not feasible for the government to cater to all the higher educational requirements of India. This
could be because the allocated public expenditure on higher education as a percentage of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) is a mere 0.6 per cent (Ernst & Young, 2009a); this is quite lower than what developed nations
like the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and China allocate on a per-student basis. In order to
34
fulfil the demanding needs of a dynamic economy, private entities have established institutions to supplement
public educational institutions that are beset with problems of meeting capacity. Professional or higher
educational courses like engineering and Master of Business Administration (MBA) has attracted a lot of
privatisation efforts, constituting a majority of the total courses on offer. The courses and institutes of private
sector in pharmacy and engineering are a staggering 90 percent of the total institutes and courses. The data is
ample proof that private enterprise in education is now a vital part of the education scenario which cannot be
reversed. Critics who hold the view that education is a social necessity best handled solely by the Government
will be unable to offer a solution to the challenges faced by higher education, in the context of the scale and
complex nature, which cannot be handled by the government alone with the resources at disposal(Sudarshan &
Subramanian, 2012).
Reformist policies of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (ins short - LPG) ushered in
sweeping changes resulting in the emergence of India as a powerhouse of educated manpower with more than
thirty thousand institutions imparting education to around twenty million enrolled students (Gautam et al.,
2015). Since then, the government has attempted investments to increase capacity and to improve the existing
infrastructure. The time has come to credit the private sector with the supporting and at times leading role
played in the phenomenal success in higher education in India, since a vast majority of students are presently
undergoing courses in private institutions.
With the Government of India, UGC and AICTE welcoming private enterprise in the education domain,
high and sustained growth can be predicted. The government needs to encourage privatization of higher
education by concentrating on the qualitative aspect of colleges. Visible changes are observed in higher
35
education in India, and the perception of private sector participation has changed from one of suspicion to an
accepted and appreciated facet. The Program of Action, 1992 and the National Policy of Education (NPE), 1986
are policies that control higher education in its present form. The National Policy of higher education in India
was framed on the basis of the Radhakrishnan Commission Report (1948‐1949) and the Kothari Commission
Report (1964‐1966) (Partima & Singh, 2014).
2.6 Indian government policies on privatisation of Higher education
The augmentation of higher education has been viewed sceptically and the rationale has been
questioned, viewed in the context of related academic and social costs. However, the government is refusing to
budge from its earlier assurance, considered as the fulfilment of nationalist ideals and as an intrinsic part of its
fundamental responsibility as a welfare state. View prudently, government recognition of the people's desire for
higher education means that restricting access would be detrimental. This is also influenced to a large extent by
the desire to have enrolments comparable to that in North America and Europe. This desire is lent support by
the repeated reports of World Bank that highlight the benefits of higher education. It also conforms to the
government view that by enhancing profile of its populace, the disillusionment in society as a result of
underemployment and unemployment can be contained. But, in the face of public demand and the pressures of
politics seeking the accomplishment of standardisation of primary school education (which should have been
achieved before the end of the Second Five Year Plan, in the year 1961), the government has concluded that
continuation of subsidisation of higher education which has been the practice for last 5 decades is no longer
tenable. Simultaneously, one segment of the population can afford prohibitive costs of higher education
facilities offered by a few private institutions and by foreign universities. Hence, the government is regarding
36
privatization. But, it is apprehensive on two counts. The first and foremost is that there would be disparity
among those can afford to pay more and those who would not be able to afford. The second is that
commercialisation of higher education could progress to a level where it transforms itself into one that is
entirely market driven.
Hence, the government intends to extend the system that is in practice in many states for the last ten
years. A vast number of institutions of higher education have been established and managed by private entities.
A sizeable proportion of such institutes are run with funds from the government, classified as ―aided‖ and these
funds take care of maintenance and operational costs. Irrespective of their status as aided or unaided, private
institutions without exception charge fees identical in structure and amount. Additionally, in all matters
pertaining to administration and academics, all institutes are regulated by the rules of the government and
university. In accordance with the system followed in a few states, as mentioned earlier, a chosen few and new
private unaided institutions are permitted to fix a fee structure that is substantially higher than others. But, the
fee structure can be fixed only after approval by the appropriate authority in government. The chosen
institutions are granted leeway in certain matters pertaining to administration. However, overall, they are
administered in similar manner as other institutions. It is inappropriate that India is contemplating acceptance of
this type of privatization; where flexibility, space, and academic liberty for the progress of knowledge, quality
and relevance are not encouraged, but stifled (P. G. Altbach & P. M. Petersoneds. , 1999).
Privatisation of higher education in India takes several forms (Tilak & Varghese, 1983b):
i. Government introduces self-financing courses within the public institutions
37
ii. Public government institutions converted into private institutions
iii. Government allows self-financing private institutions with and without recognition/ allowing
commercial education institutions
The feasible form for private players in the field of education is to engage in the establishment of private
universities, deemed universities and academic institutions (Jonaki & Prasenjit, 2016).
Establishment of private universities
A university should be a trust or society. It should not be an entity for profit or it should not be run by a
trust for profit. There are two ways to establish a private university. It can either be set up by an Act of
Parliament (central university) or by an Act of a state legislature (state university). Till today no private
university has been set up by an Act of Parliament. In the other method a university is being declared a deemed
university. There are currently 229 privately managed universities in India. Different states may have different
land norms and other procedure for setting up a private university. The analysis of such laws in the states such
as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat shows that these requirements are more or less similar across states
(Shankar, 2016).
38
Figure 5: Procedure to establish a private university
• Project report/proposal with five years expected cash flow Statement, Letter of Intent and Initial sum of money
submitted to the Government.
• Proposal Contains: Objectives of the University, types of Programmes of study, deed of the Institution (Which is
Project report or a Trust/Society/Non-Profit entity under Section 25 of the Companies Act, or is being run by one), fee Structure,
Proposal admissions format Composition details of board of Governors, Availability of academic research and Training
facilities, building plan and land deed, etc.
• Once the Proposal is Approved, the State Government Tables the Bill of the Establishment of the Private
University, for Passage by the State Legislature.
Setting up the
University
• The university shall maintain standards as prescribed by the relevant regulator (UGC, Except in the case of
technical, professional courses: AICTE or other councils).
• It shall get accredited by a body such as the National Assessment and Accreditation Council, within a Stipulated
Regulation Period of Time.
Source: Adopted from (Shankar, 2016)
39
Regulations
The UGC reserves the powers regarding the recognition, functioning and de-recognition of deemed
universities. It also has the powers to distribute grants to other universities for their maintenance and
development and regulating fees charged by the universities. If colleges or universities fail to comply with UGC
standards their grants may be withdrawn or their affiliation may be terminated. Such disciplinary actions will be
taken of a college or university does not comply with fee other regulations (University Grants Commission,
2002). Private universities which offer technical courses like engineering, town planning, management and
which receive funds from AICTE should adhere to its academic standards and regulations (MHRD, 2016).
In order to give recommendations on building a knowledge base in India the National Knowledge
Commission (NKC) was set up in 2005. The reforms required in the education sector were also considered
while setting it up. Educational institutions for profit were not encouraged by NKC. 3 In 2008 the Yashpal
committee was set up in order to recommend changes in the higher education sector. The important suggestion
of the committee was that higher education should not get fascinated by the motive of profit. 4 Both NKC and
Yashpal committee recommended private investment in higher education to extend educational opportunities. It
is further discussed in detail with regard to the issue of access under fee structures.
Private providers always have a profit motive associated with them. The Supreme Court of India, lately,
interpreted that the nature of educational institutions to be charitable and not for profit. Hence, by providing
education supernormal or illegal profits cannot be made. If surplus revenue is generated it should be used for
expansion of the institution and for education development.
40
2.7 Issues in Privatisation of higher education in India
The major developments in the higher education wing of Indian education sector started in the early
1990s with the laws enacted to enable open/ free market. Tilak (1999) states that there is a need for higher
education to be privatised and the public funding for such education should be reduced. The Government of
India in the year 1997 distinguished the two categories of education in India- elementary education as ‗merit-
good‘ (Musgrave, 1959) and ‗higher education‘ as non-merit good. However, the Ministry of Finance classified
higher education as a ‗merit II good‘ and which needs no subsidisation as the same level as the ‗merit good‘.
In India, privatisation of higher education had always been controversial. In the year 1992, the Supreme
Court which is the highest judicial court in the country banned ‗Capitation fee colleges‘ stating that charging fee
is unfair. However, the court reversed the judgement in the year 1993 stating that these colleges could be named
self-financing colleges. This led to the emergence of private self-financing capitation fee colleges all across the
country and the proliferation led to more number of private institutions established in the nation. It is evident in
the states of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka that the number of private colleges (engineering and management)
outnumbers the public educational institutions. In recent years, the number of private educational institutions
and the enrolment of students in these institutions have increased wherein the share of private enrolment in
2000-01 is 32.89 per cent and the share rose up to 58.5 per cent in 2011-12 (Jahan & Selvarani, 2015). During
the 11th plan, India witnessed a predominant growth in the number of private institutions wherein the number of
private state universities is 98, 17 private deemed universities and 3581 private diploma institutions and 7818
private colleges. Even the number of private arts and science colleges has increased in the recent years (Jahan &
Selvarani, 2015). However, such enormous proliferation rate in the number of private institutes poses serious
41
doubts on the quality of education rendered by these institutes (Kaul, 2006). Aleem et al. (2016) claims that
commercialisation and privatisation in higher education will pose serious threats to the development of human
resources in two ways- expensive cost of education leading to unequal deliverance of education, and
determination of education priorities. While privatisation in education sector have been allowed in countries
like China and Singapore with flourishing higher education stats, the same should be feasible even in the Indian
context which is the premise of the present study.
2.8 Need for Privatisation in higher education
There are several requirements, which could be mapped with the privatisation of higher education in
India. Less than 1 per cent of the nation‘s GDP is funded by the central government of India for education. The
capacity building strategies of the government could not satiate the needs of higher education in the nation. By
the year 2013, the number of students enrolled for higher education is 14.6 million and the FICCI-E&Y report
FICCI (2011) states that in order to achieve 30 per cent GER in the forthcoming decade, the country would
require building a capacity of 25 million seats. However, predicting the extra capacity building cost, by 2020,
an additional 10 lakh crores (in Indian rupees) will be required for the government with a funding requirement
of Rs. 4 lakhs per seat. In the current Indian context, such allocation of resources for higher education would be
infeasible. Hence, private sectors play a vital role in bridging the gap between the requirement and the budget.
The positive contribution of private sector players towards higher education is evident from the success of
economies like Japan, the US and Malaysia. The GER of the US increased from 71 per cent in 1999 to 83 per
cent in 2008 whereas in Japan, the rate increased from 45 per cent to 58 per cent. In Malaysia, the rate increased
from 28 per cent to 32 per cent (Tiwari et al., 2013).
42
In India, Liberalisation, Globalisation and Privatisation play significant role in improving the quality of
India corporates. The economic reformation allows foreign players into the nation, thereby creating a
competitive environment between the foreign private players and the indigenous players. The low cost of living
and India being the large English speaking base next to the US enable the country to act as the higher education
hub in the Asian continent (Tiwari et al., 2013).
While researchers argued several needs for privatisation in the education sector, Jonaki and Prasenjit
(2016) combines all the need factors which are as follows:
i. Increasing the efficiency of the public sector by enabling competition
ii. With the rapid growth in the population, the country‘s ever-growing needs for education could be
satiated with the aid of private sector institutions.
iii. While Government funds were considerably allocated to the higher education wing, private sector
institutions may reduce the financial burden on the government.
iv. Reducing the decentralisation of educational institutions
v. Improved quality of education and training which aids in nurturing youth of the nation thereby
sufficing the local, national and global manpower needs.
43
vi. need for skilled and expertise man-power is increasing day by day. Since the country adopts the LPG
model (Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation), the global needs for manpower should also be
met
vii. Facilitation of technological developments and economic developments in India.
With the new economic policies (LPG policies) that emerged in the early 1990s (Tilak, 2009),
privatisation has been given predominant importance. However, privatisation has affected the poor communities
in India drastically since there is an inequity in the deliverance of education across all the levels of the society
and the openness and diversity of the knowledge providers are questioned which includes the quality and price
of the product (education and knowledge) (Jonaki & Prasenjit, 2016).
2.9 Political economy of higher education in India
The tightly controlled structure of the Indian higher education sector was analysed by Kapur and Mehtaa
(2007). The paper has a two-fold key argument. The first argument is that higher education in India is de facto
privatized on a large scale.2 This privatization did not happen because of the changing preferences of the key
factors like the state, the judiciary or the propertied classes in India. Instead, this privatization took place from a
breakdown of the state system. Consequently, ideological and institutional underpinnings are very weak in this
form of privatization. Much of the private initiative remains within the bounds of the discretionary actions of
the state instead of being a part of a comprehensive program of education reform. As a result, the education
system is stuck between over-regulation by the state and a discretionary privatization which is not able to
mobilize private capital in useful ways. Any policy intervention will have to change this political economy
44
equilibrium if it has to succeed. Irrespective of the fact whether an institution is public or private, there are
vicious circles of interest which hamper reform.
Since some of the most renowned modern universities in India are established by some of the dedicated
individuals with private financial help, the private initiative in higher education is not a new concept in India.
This sort of public private partnership was unique in India (Levi, 1994, p313). In the initial stage the concept of
private institution was meant to be arbitrary. It was also a comparative category to express various classes of
educational institutions. In the domain of philanthropy such an arbitrary term gained image from its inception
without much complexity and became a normative language (Cotton, 1999, p566-567). The fact that the public
supported private institutions made the understanding of philanthropy easy. The policy of grand-in-aid system
was made operational during British rule with the instructions of East India Company to encourage private
institutions. Three types of private institutions- nationalist, sectarians and caste communities. They were
functioning with the support of individual philanthropist and local notables before independence. Private sector
continued to be a major domain in shaping higher education system in the post-independence India with the
constitutional provision. Such strong support from the history led to the substantial growth of private higher
education institutions which constitute three-fourth of the total education institutions. Private institutions are of
two types- aided and unaided. Aided institutions are privately managed and publicly funded, whereas unaided
institutions are both privately managed and funded colleges. In the initial stages of independence the role of
private initiative in higher learning education has been very crucial. Many of the private educational institutions
were reported to be non-viable and mediocre. The poor quality of delivery in their services and inadequate
enrolment rates of students largely caused such an outcome (Garg, 1977; Kulandaiswamy, 2005). The private
aided educational institutions were to strictly abide by the statue of the concerned universities. Since they
45
regularly received aid financial aid from the state, private aided institutions did not have a significant role in
sharing the cost of education (Tilak, 1992). Though the state has authority over affiliation, pattern of aiding and
regulation of education it failed to keep the constitutional promises of social justice. The managements executed
and enjoyed their local/estate power with knowledge governing power and the dominant culture was silently
reproduced in the educational institutions.
Consequently these managements continued to remain as sectarian and partisan organization of their
own locality, community and organs of political parties. Besides this, these institutions were instrumental in
local politics to circulate among the party cadres and supporters. Due to their affiliation with local political
power structures, these managements received under patronage and partisan prestige. The political elites, at the
same time, make governing rules of the system flexible. Combining local politics with governing power on
education institutions was, in a way, beneficial to both parties through nepotism, benefaction and influence. A
much more relaxed UGC rule made the process worse (Kumar, 2004; Rudolph, 1972). Most of the private
agencies had drawn from the elite sections of society. The state of education continued to be governed by
education itself. In the backdrop of mixed economy in India system of education caused the growth of
capitalism. Besides this, there were 20 fake universities in India which were illegally operating in the country.
The highest number of fake universities was found in Uttar Pradesh (9) and Delhi (5) stood second (University
Grants Commission, 2006). The logic behind the emergence of these universities is clear in the sense that there
was a demand for the creation of new institutions. The fact that they expanded private players in the education
sector was not considered much. This trend, probably, made the middle class indispensable in the private
education sector since only the middleclass can afford to buy education by paying a huge fee (Kapur & Mehta,
2007, p.35). In the post-reform period the outgrowth of self-financing institutions saw a paradigmatic shift in
46
the higher education sector in India. By this trend the attention is drawn towards the complexities of pedagogic
practices and its wide range of social consequence. The discourses on the privatization of higher education
mainly among the developing nations suggest that their commercial interest nearly tries to reduce education to a
sheer commodity. In such a context the state of education in India must be critically examined taking in to
consideration the political economy in general and education policy adjustments in particular (Babu, 2011).
2.10 Previous studies
Singh (2015) studied the effects of privatisation in the Indian higher education sector and the issues and
challenges associated with privatisation are investigated. India is one among the largest countries in terms of
population, geographical extent and the educational system. The country‘s educational system has grown
rapidly over the year after its independence. The number of educational institutions in India is also growing
every year. People in India could be generally classified into two categories: the ‗haves‘ and the ‗have-nots‘.
Singh (2015) argues that with a majority of people in India living below the poverty line, privatisation of
educational system is not a viable option. However, private players can establish their role in the country with
the country‘s regulations serious about the welfare of its people and the equity in education reaching all levels
of the people living in the nation. The increasing size of the demand and the growth in population clearly
necessitates the need for new private institutions which may provide quality education.
In the same context, Chougle (2014) analysed the perceptions of college faculty members towards
privatisation of higher education in India. The emergence of privatisation was initiated in the year 1991 with the
new policy enactment on Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG). Over the last two decades, the
47
policy changes have reflected both positively and negatively on the welfare of people in the country. On a
positive note, the targeted change of increasing the number of higher education enrolment in India is achieved
with the support of the government. The country witnesses increased number of private unsupported courses
and the Government of India had been supporting privatisation. However, privatisation is severely affecting the
weaker section of the society wherein the affordable population can pay for education and the ‗have-nots‘
struggling to pursue higher education. This increases the gap between the literate and the illiterate thereby
increasing the gap between the rich, middle class and the poor. In the previous study, teachers were survey to
understand their perceptions towards privatisation in Indian higher education sector. The findings of the study
revealed that the teachers believe in improved quality of education delivered by private sector institutions;
however, their concern towards the economically backward students further revealed some part of the
respondents stating their negative intent towards privatisation. The previous study revealed that with
privatisation, the educational status of the country will be incremented to global standards. The study
recommended that with privatisation, the government should also look for additional measures to support the
economically backward communities without which inequity in education will increase (Chougle, 2014).
Kumar (2014) investigated the role of privatisation of higher education in India with special emphasis
laid upon the Meerut, a city in Uttar Pradesh, India. The reality, as stated in the previous study is that public
resources are used for the expansion of private sector organisations in India. In India, the laws revolving around
the privatisation of higher education sector have aided private owners in increasing their wealth. Additionally,
privatisation has aggravated the conditions of student belonging to poor communities. The study revealed the
problems faced by poor students in Meerut and western UP wherein corruption and bribery are found to be
associated with privatisation in the higher education sector of India. Furthermore, the study resembles the global
48
context of education being converted as a commodity of sales with private players taking control of education
which is the right for all the citizens in the country.
Partima and Singh (2014) studied the impacts and importance of higher education privatisation in India.
After independence, the goal of the nation is to educate all the citizens of the nation. In this regard, the country
aspires to capacity building and creation in colleges which significantly affects the educational status of the
country. However, the funds allocated by the central government of India is less than 1 per cent of the nation‘s
GDP, hence meeting such goals becomes impossible for public institutions. Private sector bridges the gap in the
allocation of funds and requirements. The study predicts the future of India towards increase in the number of
private educational universities all across India. The previous paper concludes with the statement that
privatisation of higher education in India should take into account the maintenance of quality and academic
standards in these institutions.
2.11 Research Gap
A number of studies conducted previously on the role and impacts of privatisation in Higher education sector of
India discerned generally the various aspects and the need for privatisation in the higher education sector. While
other developing economies such as China, Philippines and Malaysia are evolving in a rapid pace, India lags
behind in the overall number of private sector universities and the number of enrolment for higher education in
these universities. This intrigued the researcher to conduct a study on privatisation in the education sector and to
analyse the perspectives of various public and private education pioneers about privatization and its
effectiveness in the future of India.
49
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
The research methodology was defined by Leedy (1997:5) as it is the systematic process of gathering
and analysing of data due to higher the understanding of research phenomenon. As per the above definition of
Leedey, the present chapter gives an elaborate description of procedures, which were adopted in this study due
to accumulating the information needed to attain the objectives of the study. Hence this chapter was categorized
into different sections. The first section describes the research design examining the advantage of using a
particular method, the qualitative approach as a means of permitting the respondents to provide many precious
answers and valuable insight to the research questions. Next section describes the research philosophy and
research approach. The target population and study sample size were identified in section 4. Later, the section
covers the sampling technique which is suitable for selecting the target population of the study. The sixth
section includes the data collection procedure in particular to the method which is applied to data collection in
this study. This section mainly describes the reasons for executing semi-structured interviews in this research
rather than using any other methods. Further, this section covers the procedures which involved for preparing
the interviews. Section seven describe the issues of validity and reliability were considered in the account in
overall research method. Further section eight dealt with the analysis of the interview and finally ended with a
summary of the chapter.
50
3.1 Research design
This research design is an essential step in any research to get an idea of data collection as well as
limitations of the study such as time constraints and resources. According to (Easterby-Smith et al., 1994, 84),
research design is about the structuring the research activity includes the data collection in ways which are most
likely to obtain the research objectives. In order to achieve the research objective, a suitable method should be
selected for gathering the required data. Survey on research methods (Creswell, 1994; Bell, 1996; Punch, 2005)
classifies the research into two main methods, qualitative and quantitative as it comes under the primary type of
data collection. Merriam (2009) explained qualitative research as an approach in which several people are
involved along with their perceptions of research that were assigned distinct meaning on the basis of the
experience of individuals and covers non-numerical data (Saunders et al., 2009). Creswell (2011) expressed
quantitative research as any data procedure or collection for data analysis that employs numerical data. As the
present research aims to explore a novel phenomenon via answering open-ended questions, a qualitative
methodology is a suitable method (Saunders et al., 2012, p.163) to obtain the study objective. Whenever a
social phenomenon is to be examined, a qualitative research methodology could be used which aims to
understand the implications in the society and the manner the social world operates (Hancock et al., 2009) .
Since the present study is based on the implications of higher education in India, a qualitative approach is
suitable.
51
3.2 Research philosophy
The research philosophy in general helps to gather and examine the adopted primary data. Still, selecting
the right philosophy is essential as it guides the investigator to move into the exact direction of research. In
addition, the philosophy also gives the idea of how the world is perceived and in which way the problem is to be
identified (Saunders et al., 2012, pp. 126-129). There are two kinds of research philosophy used in research of
social science considering the social reality such as positivism and interpretivist (Perry, 1995). The positivism
views the social world as an external to individuals and interpretivist views the objectives of thought as words
independent of external factors (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 22). The first approach is based on the beliefs of
universal laws and neglects the subjective interpretations. This method involved quantitative approach as a
result of the test theories and also try to find a casual relation between control and predictor (Holloway &
Wheeler, 2002, p. 5). Therefore, the present study adopted interpretivist method, which is suitable philosophy
for qualitative research as the knowledge is personally experienced
3.3 Research Approach
The relationship between research and theory can be approached in a distinct way which was explained
by Saunders et al. (2012, p.144). There are two kinds of research method used in research- deductive and
inductive approach. In the deductive approach, a hypothesis is created by past studies and tested by using
survey method and it is called as a top-down approach (Saunders et al., 2009; Gabriel, 2013). The inductive
approach is involved in generating theory on the basis of observations and results obtained via data collection
which is called as a bottom-up approach (Bryman & Bell, 2011, 4). According to Bryman and Bell (2011,
52
p.13), an inductive approach was applied in qualitative research and a deductive approach for quantitative
research. In this case, the present study attempts to explore privatisation in the higher education sector and also
analyse the perspectives of various public and private higher education pioneers about privatization and its
effectiveness in the future of India. Hence inductive approach is more appropriate to this research.
3.4 Target population and sample size
Selecting the target population is an essential part of the research (Gay & Airasian, 2003). A study
population is a group to whom the researcher plans to apply her or his research results i.e. the target population
of the study whose members are the people to be researched. In this study, the target group consists of top
management personnel of private higher education institutions in India in order to acquire the study objective.
Hence vice-chancellors,deans and administrators of private and public higher education institutions were
selected. Further, the sample size of this study was chosen as 19. Vice-chancellors serve as the leaders of
higher education institutions and as per the norm, he/she should be a good academician and an eminent
administrator (Rao & Singh, 2016) . Deans serve as the next higher authority in the University hierarchy and are
appointed by the Vice Chancellor (Ipu, 2016) . Furthermore, the former education minister of the State of
Karnataka is also interviewed The below table represents the number of vice-chancellors and deans of private
institutions involved in this research.
53
Table 1: Semi-structured interviews conducted with vice-chancellors and XXX of private institutions
Region Role Public/

Private
Karnataka Former Higher Education Minister, Government of Karnataka
Karnataka Former vice-chancellor of Karnataka State Open University Public
Karnataka Treasurer of FVCK & Former Vice Chancellor of Karnataka Veterinary, Animal Public
and Fisheries University, Bidar.
Delhi Former Vice Chancellor, IGNOU, New Delhi Public
Mangalore Former Vice-Chancellor, Mangalore University Public
Bangalore Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Agricultural Sciences Public
Bangalore Vice Chancellor of CMR University Private
Bangalore Former Vice-Chancellor of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Public
Nashik. Former Vice Chancellor of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Public
Bangalore Vice President of FVCK & Former Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University Public
Mysore Vice President of FVCK & Former Vice Chancellor of KSOU Public
Karnataka Executive Director, Karnataka State Higher Education Council, Government of Public
Karnataka
Bangalore Regional Director, IGNOU Public
Bangalore Trustee of BMS & Former Additional Chief Secretary of Government of Karnataka Public
Bangalore Principal St. Aloysius College Private
Mysore Administrator, Teresian College Private
Karnataka Former Scientist, IISc & CEO and Managing Director of Karnataka Hybrid Micro Devices Private
Ltd.
Ropar Director Indian Institute of Technology, Public
Karnataka Former Dean Academic of Karnataka State Open University and Academic Advisor Public,
GEMS B School private
54
3.4.1 Sampling technique
The sampling technique is taken on the basis of strategy, access, and representativeness (Bryman, 2012).
As per Patton (2002), sampling technique relies on four questions which include what an investigator needs to
examine, why she or he needs to examine, what kind of sources he or she wants to research and how the results
would be utilised (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Based on the above queries, purposive sampling technique is used
in the present study. This type of sampling would enable the researcher to cross check whether they meet the
criteria for eligibility on the basis of objectives (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 228).
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Data collection methods
There are two kinds of data collection which include primary and secondary data (Creswell, 1998). In
this research, interview method is used as primary data collection method. The following section reveals the
interviews in educational research and their procedures.
3.5.2 Interviews in educational research
As per the statement of McKernan (1996), interviews are one of the most efficient methods for
collecting the data because it is carried out through face to face and requires direct verbal association between
respondent and researcher. The interviewing technique is easy to follow as discussion flows in an informal,
conversational style from one to another topic. According to Kumar (1999), the interview is a popular
technique for gathering data from participants. Likewise, Wragg (1994) states that interviewing has been
55
classified into three types such as semi-structured, structured interviews and unstructured interviews. The
structured interview has predefined questions; unstructured does not have predefined structure and semi-
structured interview comprise of flexible questions (Yin, 2009; Myers & Newman, 2007; Creswell, 2014
Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). In the present study the semi-structure interview method is used. This technique is
used to explore the unique experience of vice-chancellors and education minister. The questions are designed in
the semi-structured interview in such a manner to support extending the interview with further questions on the
basis of conversation made at the time of interview and the interest level of respondents.
3.5.3 Procedures for preparing for the interviews
As the interviews are conducted efficiently and smoothly, the procedures were executed in two main
stages, firstly interview question preparation and selection and secondly the preparation for conducting
interviews.
Selecting interview questions
The interview questions are chosen on the basis of collected past studies with respect to the privatisation
of higher education. This was decided to design interview questions on the organisation of the interview and
shape of the data collection. Once questions are designed, approval from the supervisor is obtained from more
discussions and advice. After confirmation from a supervisor, an interview guide is developed which consists
of a list of topics covered relying on the context of literature.
56
Conducting of the interviews
The final step is to conduct the interviews, after preparation of interview questions; the semi-structured
interview was done through a face-to-face interview via prior appointment.
3.5.4 Validity and reliability in interviews
A successful research relies on valid methods, and the two chief features researchers typically look for
are validity and reliability. In order to validate the trustworthiness and credibility of the interview guide as well
as the complete research, the study followed the criteria of evaluation as described by Lincoln and Denzin
(2005). It helps to check the credibility, dependability, transferability and confirmability of semi-structured
interview guide (Lincoln and Denzin 2005). The following steps are taken to make sure the above criteria.
Firstly, the interview guide was prepared on the basis of past researches previously conducted (Labuschagne &
Brent, 2006; Taylor, 2008; Anon, 2006; Gareis et al., 2009; Turner, 2010; Silvius & Schipper, 2009; Silvius et
al., 2010). Secondly, those studies were cross-checked with supervisors. Thirdly, to increase the validity of the
research, the pilot study may be conducted among 1-2 respondents (Quinlan, 2011). In order to examine the
accuracy of the data obtained, member checking was done with participants, where the interview themes are
summarised and further requests whether they agreed with summarizing statements.
57
3.6 Analysis of the interview
One of the crucial components of any research is data analysis. For the main reason is that the chief goal
of data analysis is as per Merriam (1998) is to end with reasonable generalisations and conclusions on the
basis of the predominance of data, data analysis in interviews needs to be clear on the first steps of
collected data. Hence after data collection, recording and notes have been transcribed on the same day
and further analysed whether the data is up-to-date (Merriam, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The
present study made thematic data analysis where the future steps were conducted. Firstly, data is
transcribed by 3.7 Summary
The present chapter has discussed the adopted methodology and the field work procedures. Further, this
chapter explains the reason for executing a qualitative approach to gather and analyse the research data. A semi-
structured interview was conducted to achieve an in-depth understanding of the participant‘s views on private
higher education in India. The interview was conducted over a period of months in India with respect to
gaining cooperation and rich and elaborated data from respondents. The collected data are represented and
discussed in upcoming chapters four and five.
58
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
4.0 Introduction
The present study is a research based on the analysis of the perceptions of educational pioneers in India
towards privatisation in the Indian higher education sector. After careful analysis of previous literature works
which were discussed in the Literature review section (Chapter 2). Previous literature brought both advantages
and disadvantages of privatisation in the Indian higher education sector; however, certain prospects of
privatisation in foreign higher education intrigued the researcher and became the premise for the present study.
As aforementioned, the present study imparts the collection of primary data from educational leaders and
pioneers in India who are former vice-chancellors and administrators (Deans, Principals and administrators) of
private and public higher education institutions in India. Face-to-face interviews are conducted and questions
were put forth to obtain their perceptions regarding privatisation of higher education in India. Primary data was
also collected from former higher education minister, State of Karnataka, India. All the collected data are
analysed in the following section.
4.1 Participants
17 participants were interviewed in the study. The study acquired the perceptions of 1 former Higher
education Minister of Karnataka, India, 8 former vice-chancellors, 7 administrators (Directors, Deans,
Principals) of higher education institutions, and 1 former scientist. The participants were denoted as follows:
PAR_1: Participant 1 (Higher education minister)
59
PAR_2: Participant 2 (Vice chancellor- Public institution)
PAR_6: Participant 6 (Vice chancellor- Private institution)
PAR_10: Participant 10 (Administrator- Public institution)
PAR_13: Participant 13 (Administrator- Private Institution)
PAR_14: Participant 14 (Administrator- Private Institution)
60
PAR_16: Participant 16 (Administrator- Public and Private)
PAR_17: Participant 17 (Former Scientist- Private Sector)
In the study, 8 vice chancellors of Indian higher education institutions were interviewed and among
them, 7 vice chancellors (PAR_2, PAR_3, PAR_4, PAR_5, PAR_7, PAR_8, and PAR_9) served public higher
education institutions whereas 1 served for private higher education organisation (PAR_6). Similarly, among
the 7 administrators of higher education institutions, 4 belonged to public sector governmental institutions
(PAR_10, PAR_11, PAR_12, and PAR_15), 2 of the 7 administrators belonged to private higher education
institutions (PAR_13 and PAR_14), and 1 participant (PAR_16) belonged to both private and public institutions
as the participant is former dean of a public higher education institution and at present serves as an advisor to a
private management based higher education institution. Former higher education minister was also interviewed
and the responses of the same are denoted by ‗PAR_1‘. One former scientist (PAR_17) was also interviewed.
It is to be noted that the number of participants belonging to public higher education institutions is
higher than private institutions. This is the strategy to acquire the perceptions of public players so as to define
the role and importance of privatisation of higher education in India. To maintain neutrality, the views of former
higher education minister, a former scientist and an administrator who served both public and private
institutions were obtained and analysed.
61
Figure 6: Participants in the study
Public higher education participants Private higher education participants

Neutral participants
Source: Author (2016)
The face-to-face interviews were conducted and questions were put forth in the following themes for
which the responses of the participants were acquired and analysed. Following are the themes-
1. Role of privatisation in higher education development in India

2. Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions
62
3. Views of Indian Government on privatisation
4. Encouraging privatisation in India
5. Private Universities and high standards of higher education in India
6. Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility
There had been a lot of responses which were contradictory to one another. Following is the results of
textual data analysis of responses.
4.2 Role of privatisation in higher education development in India
Majority of participants stated the role of privatisation in Indian higher education is crucial towards
increasing the economic status of the country. 5 Participants claimed that the increase in the number of private
universities all over the country has discerned the importance of private participation in the Indian higher
education sector. 4 of the 17 participants revealed that privatisation in the Indian higher education aids improve
the economic status of the country as the economy of a nation is integrated with the generation of human
capital. 2 participants responded that there is a limited access to higher education in India which led private
sector educational institutions to create new opportunities for students within the age limit of 18-23 to get
benefitted. 2 participants stated the need for excellence in the higher education sector as India, which is a
country possessing vast human capital should be properly empowered. However, other respondents had views
regarding higher enrolment rate, coexistence of public private mix and the legacy of private players. One
respondent claimed the need for coexistence of both private and public as both may benefit each other. One
respondent stated that privatisation has vast benefits, one such being the increase in the number of higher
63
education enrolment in the country. One respondent stated that the increase in the number of private players in
Indian higher education is ultimately related to the legacy that they had built in the education sector in various
countries, which led them to begin institutions in India. However, only one respondent had contradictory ideas
about the role of privatisation in higher education in India since the credibility is doubted.
Figure 7: Word cloud of Role of privatisation in higher education development in India
“…The role of Private sector in Indian higher education is increased significantly over the last decade.
With the majority of students currently enrolled in these private institutions. the role will only increase
64
considering the substantial investment required in this sector…[PAR_1]… 370 private universities in different
part of states. You can understand the importance of state private universities in the higher education scenario
of education… [PAR_2] … should have some peaks of excellence and private universities can play very
important role… [PAR_3] … the younger people specially of age 18-25 would very much like to have higher
education but we know the access is limited because of number of institutions and also quality of education that
is available both are important and this gap needs to be filled… [PAR_4] … 5 It is not just the role of
private institutions in higher education but private and public should co-exist… [PAR_5]… private universities
in Karnataka meet the socio-economic obligation as well as contempt to gross enrollment ratio… [PAR_6] …
There are no long term goals for the Government to improve public institutions. Ultimately this leads to giving
more importance to private higher education institutions … [PAR_7] … 98% private participation in higher
education is limited to engineering, medical, management and education… [PAR_8] … 9 Private higher
education institutions increase the number of higher education enrolment in the country… [PAR_9] …To
increase the Gross enrolment ratio of the nation towards higher education, there should be atleast 1500
universities in India. Only with the increase in the number of private players a 50 per cent GER could be
achieved… [PAR_10] … there is a lot of freedom for private universities which brings them academic
excellence… [PAR_11] … Private universities don‟t have a legacy as such but the founders of the university
who have started it have a certain reputation, track record, so while choosing the university students see, how
sound is the reputation and legacy… [PAR_12] … The role of private higher education institutions is crucial in
uplifting the economic status of the country… [PAR_13] … Privatisation in Indian Higher education is an
important factor that satisfies the nation‟s human capital needs… [PAR_14]… I doubt the credibility of private
higher education institutions in India over the years… [PAR_15]… I believe the role of private universities is
65
very significant and they are going to be with us… [PAR_16]… the number of employed person in the country,
especially higher education graduates have increased. This is the success of privatisation in Indian higher
education… [PAR_17] ”
4.3 Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions
The major stakeholders involved in higher education are students, parents and teachers. When the
participants were questioned about the perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing the university, a majority
of 5 participants revealed quality of education to be the foremost when students and parents choose a university.
Apart from being a private or public university, stakeholders look for quality of education provided the
opportunities for employment are also checked. An equal number of 5 participants claimed that stakeholders
look for the various features of the university such as infrastructure, hostel facilities and safety. Participants
discern the fact that stakeholders view universities as sellers of education and hence, they require what they
actually pay for. However, 2 of the participants had a much generalised view denoting the increased enrolment
of students in private higher education institutions which is evident from the number of private higher education
institutions. However, some participants had other viewpoints. One respondent stated that within the age group
of 18-23, students are more inclined towards joining private sector higher education institutions. One
respondent claimed the increase in the enrolment of students in private higher education institutions which offer
courses such as agricultural and veterinary sciences. One respondent states that parents look for international
level institutions for their children to get exposed to global culture and hence foreign private universities are
sought. One respondent elucidated that certain private institutions nurture entrepreneurial capabilities in
66
students, hence they are inclined to join in private universities. However, only one respondent stated the legacy
of universities which attracts students.
Figure 8: Word cloud of Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions
“between 18 to 23 yrs of age group total enrolment in higher education regard less of age express as a
percentage to the eligible official population of 18-23. Students are inclined towards enrolling in private sector
universities for higher education… [PAR_1]… Students choose private sector higher education universities
even for courses such as agricultural science and veterinary courses. This is a good start…[PAR_2] … Students
67
and parents choose higher education in private institutions since the quality of education in private institutions
is better… [PAR_3]… poverty and unemployment to be the national crisis which students think to gain a job is
to study in a qualified higher education institutions. Private universities specialise their ways to fulfil the needs
of the stakeholders… [PAR_4] … perceptions of students and parents to enrol in private higher education as
the number of private institutions is increasing and the enrolment rate is also increasing… [PAR_5] … to
integrate the industry perception, interest in knowledge, emerge in knowledge, emerge in technology into the
curriculum and the part of the credit goes so that they become not just qualified people, they become more
relevant to the industry and more skillful to the industry… [PAR_6] … Students, parents and teachers look for
more prospective features in educational institutions. Factors such as infrastructure, hostel facilities and safety
are considered… [PAR_7] … In MBA, 41% employability, only 41%. In B.A, arts stream, it is 19%. In B.Com,
it is 26%. In B.Sc. It is 41%. In MCA, Computer application, it is 43%. ITI, you will be surprised to know the
figures… All these numbers posit the increase in the number of students, their perceptions towards private
higher education as most institutions in these sectors are privatised… [PAR_8]… Stakeholders such as students
look for job opportunities after their graduation. They opt for universities which cater such
requirement…[PAR_9]… private universities are playing a significant role in fulfilling the franchise for the
demand of the quality education and at least 60% of the students are going to colleges in India and private
institutions… [PAR_10]… Students look for colleges with basic amenities and infrastructure. Then education…
[PAR_11] … also choosing the university from the supplies side, who are the faculty. Hence, choosing the right
university becomes very important… [PAR_12]… Students have different perceptions. Some state their family
legacy that poses them to join a university, others claim the infrastructure to attract them make an admission…
[PAR_13]… Quality of teachers or quality of the academic programs and infrastructure, campus safety,
68
especially for women, cost and location was the criteria… [PAR_14]… Excellent infrastructure in teaching,
learning environment, creating research, administration, and also the emphasis for student life… [PAR_15]…
Very few private universities come up to the level of international level, which is targeted by stake holders,
students and parents all put together… [PAR_16] …Private universities nowadays nurture entrepreneurial
capabilities. For example, innovation centers, incubation centers, makers‟ space are left for students to learn…
[PAR_17]”
4.4 Views of Indian Government on privatisation
3 of the 17 participants stated the view of Indian government over privatisation of higher education as an
act to increase the Gross enrolment ratio (GER). An equal number of 3 other participants claimed the liberalised
rules of the government which makes way for the emergence of private higher education institutions in India. 3
participants discerned that there is a lack of proper regulations to monitor private higher education institutions
in India. However, 3 other respondents specified that the Government is supporting privatisation of higher
education in India which will integrate human capital with jobs thereby improving the economic status of the
country. 2 of the participants had a viewpoint that in terms of education in India, the government looks for three
aspects- access, equity and quality. To achieve these factors in Indian higher education, the government
supports privatisation. However, 3 respondents did not respond to the question.
69
Figure 9: Word cloud of Views of Indian Government on privatisation
“…The government views privatisation of higher education as a move to support three fundamental
challenges that is access, equity and quality… [PAR_1] … all private universities all over the country should
get recognised by University Grant Commission. If it is not, probably they will not only put penalties for any
activities of the private universities, and they also publicise in the whole country that these courses run by suss
and such private university is not recognised… [PAR_2] … The views of government towards privatisation are
mostly liberal without any sort of control and UGC regulation is not accepted and implemented at all…
70
[PAR_3] … The government sees privatisation in higher education sector as a tool to increase the Gross
enrolment ratio of higher education… [PAR_4]… The regulations of the Government are not implemented
properly. This shows lack of interest of governmental bodies to manage private higher education sector in
India… [PAR_5]... There are complex state and central government policies on privatisation of higher
education… [PAR_6] … Government looks at factors such as equity and access to higher education by
students. Hence, the views of Government are open to privatisation… [PAR_7] … Government views the
opportunity to create an integrated economy with the human capital and jobs… [PAR_9] … The Government of
India is on a vision to increase the number of universities to achieve a GER of 50 per cent… [PAR_10]…
Government has liberal regulations towards privatisation… [PAR_11] … Government views privatisation as a
strategy to increase GER … [PAR_12]… The government is open to private universities with less regulation to
control. This is an act to increase the GER of the nation… [PAR_13] … Government of India is ready to start at
the higher rate at the later stage, which is to me looks all very, saturated now in terms of refunding, in terms of
resources in terms of man-power... [PAR_15] … Government see privatisation as a means to increase the
employability status of higher education graduates… [PAR_17]”
4.5 Encouraging privatisation in India
A majority of 6 respondents stated privatisation to be encouraged in India wherein they claim

privatisation to be good for the nation. Similarly, 5 participants stated privatisation to be necessary in Indian
higher education as it brings more prospects. However, 4 out of 17 respondents argue that privatisation may not
be successful in all cases and depends on the institution. One respondent stated privatisation to be encouraged
71
for Indian higher education provided the educational services delivered by these institutions should be
philanthropic. However, one respondent stated privatisation to be hazardous to Indian higher education.
Figure 10: Word Cloud of Encouraging privatisation in India
“… Privatisation of higher education in India increases the higher education enrolment rate in India.
Hence it is a good motive… [PAR_1]… Not in all cases… [PAR_2] … With the increasing number of student
enrolment, it is necessary for private institutions to emerge in the country. However, I would suggest that there
should be some sort of collaboration between UGC and the state council and the education department of the
72
state to oversee private participation in Higher education... [PAR_3] … I would state privatisation to be a good
option only if such institutions are philanthropic … [PAR_4]… 5. I would state if national quality of
excellence, social justice, inclusion and regional and social disparity could be achieved, then privatisation in
Indian higher education is a benefit… [PAR_5] … the perception of students towards education is whether they
gain relevant knowledge for what they pay as a fee. In this regard, I claim private universities penetrate the
knowledge into the students so that they become more relevant to the industry sector… [PAR_6] … profit
making would be the motto and the charitable educational institutions that is always temptation of
commercialization and profit making. Privatisation may prove hazardous at times… [PAR_7]… If we analyse
certain reports of the government, it is revealed that private institutions produce industry centric manpower,
human capital, and the 50% of them are not employable. Then how will privatisation be good… [PAR_8]… the
rate of unemployment is high. This intrigues the role of privatisation as the nation is still suffering from
unemployment… [PAR_9] … Quality of education is a primary concern. In Karnataka, a joint programme is
conducted to exchange students and teachers within the public and private universities. This led new things to
be learnt… [PAR_10] … Privatisation is a good concept if in case the professional degree is job-oriented…
[PAR_11] … Obviously when there is a need to increase the GER, then we should go with the strategies to
increase private higher education institutions as the funding for higher education by Government is very low...
[PAR_12] … There is a need to revamp our education system on one hand and exposing the teachers to timely
changes in knowledge levels of their respective disciplines. This is how stakeholders perceive higher education
offered by private universities… [PAR_14] … There is a question on how to satisfy the increasing demands and
needs and aspiration of people of the country, especially the talented young people has got this opportunity to
study in various schools, internet and various other resources available, aware of the higher education benefits.
73
So now with this background, it‟s very clear that days to come that private universities are going to play the
role… [PAR_15] … Some private institutions have played important bringing quality inputs concentrating on
the rural areas that will bring this paradigm shift… [PAR_16] … Yes, it brings out more potential workforce…
[PAR_17]”
4.6 Private Universities and high standards of higher education in India
Among the 17 participants interviewed, 12 participants stated that high standards of higher education are
met in private universities. The responses specified the fact that with increased funding, private universities are
emerging as standard institutions of higher education. However, one participant claimed that higher standards
would be met if flexibility, diversity of force skill based, competency based curriculum, innovative programs,
processes and procedures, courses and then creation of new knowledge by research are all satisfied. Two
participants stated ‗cannot say‘ as there are issues in higher education privatisation. On the contrary, two
participants stated the higher standards are not met by private higher education institutions.
74
Figure 11: Word Cloud of Private Universities and high standards of higher education in India
“… The existence of private universities not only improves the quality of education but also provides the
social responsibility. The success of self-financing private universities can be attributed there will be a healthy
competitions among the several players, innovations in the curriculum which will benefit student community…
[PAR_1]… I cannot clearly state the significance of privatisation of Higher education in India with so many
issues revolving around the regulations for private institution approval… [PAR_2] … I think in terms of private
universities, the great hope is, that freedom that these institutions have, enables to run any number of good
75
programmes and course which are futuristic. Hence, the higher standards of higher education are met…
[PAR_3]… Private universities definitely bring higher standards in the delivery of education; however
recruitment training should also be provided… [PAR_4]… I think the standards have not been met since the
enrolment rate of students in some private higher education institutions is relatively low. This creates an
imbalance... [PAR_5]… Yes … [PAR_6] … Privatisation may provide higher standards in Indian higher
education if academic flexibility, diversity of force skill based, competency based curriculum, innovative
programs, processes and procedures, courses and then creation of new knowledge by research and then
collaboration of international and national repute, of course quality student enhancement, transparency and
accountability and social accountability are all addressed… [PAR_7] … There is a new standard being
adopted by private universities which is known as flipped classroom. In this learning mode, faculties guide
students on how to proceed their career with the selected professional degree. Very little focus is on classroom
environment and students look for practical knowledge. In this regard, I view privatisation to bring benefits in
higher education… [PAR_8]… May be. Funding for higher education is large as these institutions collect fee
and are private players. Hence, the quality of education delivered would be good… [PAR_9] … I view
internationalisation as a part of privatisation of higher education in India… [PAR_10] … Most private
universities embrace technological concepts in all activities. These act as high standards for students to learn
more effectively… [PAR_11] … Though private universities burden students with fee, the collected funds are
used for the development of the institutions‟ infrastructure… [PAR_12] … 2 kinds of education are possible.
One is for employment, while the other one is for social transformation… [PAR_13] … Private universities in
this global era are transformed in term of curriculum, in quality and standards… [PAR_14]… Excellence in
Private Universities that is not so good especially the standards are so slanting perhaps in my opinion it is
76
different… [PAR_15] … Universities are even established in rural areas which aid students belonging to that
region to be empowered. Additionally, the standards of higher education and the access to the same are
increased… [PAR_16] … Private funding are vast, hence the standards of education are maintained …
[PAR_17]”
4.7 Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility
Among the 17 participants interviewed, 9 participants responded that there is discrimination in the
higher education service offered to students. Respondents claimed that equity in delivering higher education to
all classes in the society is affected by fee based structure hence privatisation in their views does not maintain
equity and accessibility. However, 5 of the respondents claimed privatisation increased equity and accessibility
of higher education services in the country. 3 of the respondents stated that discrimination is generated by
private higher education not because of equity issues but issues related to unemployment due to increased
number of graduates.
77
Figure 12: Word Cloud of Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility
“…No. The only issue with privatisation is the increase in the number of unemployed graduates…
[PAR_1]… Discrimination may occur since students trained in some private institutions with poor quality of
education are affected… [PAR_2] … Discrimination may occur since students belonging to poor families
suffer.. [PAR_3]… Privatisation indeed generates discrimination. The present kind of a strength what is
reported on Government agencies, 70% of graduates are unemployable they state except the special fields like
medicine, the need for quality workforce is increasing... [PAR_4] … I clearly view the lack of social inclusion
in higher education sector… [PAR_5] … In the state of Karnataka, 40 % of seats in the professional courses
78
are surrendered to the government which is an act to prevent discrimination... [PAR_6] … I do not perceive
more good traits about privatisation in Indian higher education. Moreover, private educational institutions are
mostly commercialised… [PAR_7]… To me privatisation has not created discrimination in the equity of higher
education but inequity in employment… [PAR_8]… Skill development is something I think that is lacking in
both private and public sector higher education institutions. This creates employment inequality… [PAR_9]… I
could not completely oppose privatisation as it has merits too. However, I fear the factors of inaccessibility and
inequity in higher education… [PAR_10]… Social inclusiveness is lacking in private higher education
institutions. I would suggest revision of fee structure to create social equity… [PAR_11]… no stable financial
model for private higher education institutions in India. These are generally diverse among different states.
Hence equity could not be maintained… [PAR_12]… it is good for the nation, however there are doubts about
the quality of education delivered… [PAR_13] … I find discrimination in the employability status of students
studying in different universities. It is the quality of education delivered no matter private or public
universities… [PAR_14]… private universities must have a central role, a philanthropic role for commercial
purpose. Since such a role is lacking, there will be no basis for equity… [PAR_15] … Private institutions are
extending to rural parts of the nation. The gap is getting bridged nowadays with new private institutions…
[PAR_16] … I don‟t find discrimination. Access to higher education is increased; standards are maintained…
[PAR_17]”
79
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The world today is evolving rapidly and the higher education wing globally is witnessing remarkable
rate of change. Six factors attribute to the spread of privatisation in the higher education wing and are as
follows-i) technological advancements, ii) demographical changes, iii) increased public examination, iv)
information based economy, v) increase in knowledge based organisations, and vi) decline in public trust in
government (Levine, 2001). All these factors necessarily provoke the need for private participation in higher
education. In the present study, responses of educational pioneers of India were acquired and are analysed based
on the objectives of the present study. In this context, questions were framed and put forth to the participants to
analyse their perceptions regarding market driven educational model.
5.0 Role of privatisation towards satiating the ever-growing need for higher education in
India
Since the independence of India in the year 1947, there had been drastic changes in the education sector.
The responsibilities of the nation and its governing bodies were built to educate all its citizens, which led the
educational authorities over the decades to create capacities for educational enrolment. New capacities were
created and existing educational institutions were enhanced. This led the nation to transform its higher
education structure from 28 universities and 578 colleges in the year 1950–51 to 500 universities and more than
25,000 colleges in the nation by the end of 2012. More than 20 million students enrolled in higher education
institutions in the country (Sudarshan & Subramanian, 2012).
80
The aforementioned facts discern the role of private participation in Indian higher education. Over the
years, the number of higher education universities and colleges has increased with the purview of satisfying the
educational needs of the increasing student numbers in the country. Forecasted statistical data reveals the
population of 18-23 year old will increase to 142 million by 2030 which will comprise 10 per cent of the total
population of the India at that time (Ficcci, 2013). Hence meeting the higher educational needs of the country is
impossible without private participation in India as public funding to education is restricted especially for
higher education (Sudarshan & Subramanian, 2012).
Figure 13: Estimated 18-23 year old population in India- 2030
18-23 year old population

144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
81
Source: Adopted from Ficcci (2013)
Participants of the study were selected based on their experience in the higher education sector over the
years in India. Majority of the participants belong to the public and government higher education institutions in
India so as to analyse the perceptions in an unbiased manner. When the role of privatisation in Indian higher
education sector was questioned, a majority of respondents stated the significant role of private universities in
India. There is an increase in the number of higher education institutions in India with more number of private
universities in the nation. Some participants claimed the success of privatisation in Indian higher education
which is evident with the increase number of student enrolment in higher education institutions in the nation.
Ernst & Young, (2009a) report asserts that Indian government will suffer to cater the higher educational
requirements of the country as the public expenditure allocated on higher education as a percentage of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is 0.6 per cent. This is a very low percentage when compared with other nations such
as China, United Kingdom and the United States. To fulfil the demands of the nation, private players have
established a number of educational institutions to support the growing higher education requirements of India
(Ernst & Young, 2009a).
The views of certain participants regarding the role of higher education privatisation in India were
toward increasing the economic status of the nation. Human capital is an important asset of a nation which is
associated with the nation‘s economic growth and development. A country‘s competitive advantage over other
nations is defined by human capital. In this regard, certain aspects such as investment in science, education, and
technology, and labour market competitiveness should be improved (Matovac et al., 2010). In this regard, the
perceptions of participants are towards increasing the economic status of the nation with increased enrolment in
82
higher education. According to the participants, the role of privatisation is towards economic integration. Some
participants clarified the limitations of access to higher education as the funds allocated by the government for
higher education were less. In order to create opportunities for all students within the age limits of 18-23,
participants reported the need for private higher educational institutions in the nation. The Gross enrolment ratio
of higher education was also emphasised which is steered only if more higher education institutions are
established. In this regard, Singh (2009) argues that India requires more than 1500 universities to compete in the
global market. However, there were some other reasons stated by the respondents which revealed the causes for
the growth of higher education institutions in India. Participants stated the need for improving the GER of the
nation which led government to open private participation in the higher education sector of the nation (Kumar
& Ambrish, 2015). Legacy of the private players also play a key role for the growth of private higher education
universities in the nation. Some foreign universities which are recognised globally set up educational
institutions in India. Students are inclined to these institutions as these players are known in the field of higher
education. However, only one respondent overall doubted the credibility of higher education in India.
The study necessitated the need to analyse the perceptions of stakeholders in choosing universities. In
the context of higher education, the stakeholders involved are students, parents and teachers. Participants were
questioned on how students select higher education institutions. Quality of education is stated as the
predominant need for students as majority of participants stated the same. Students and parents look for private
education institutions as the quality of education delivered by private sector institutions is better (Shaguri,
2013). However, participants, mostly administrators of private universities claim that stakeholders look for
specialisation in degree as traditional generalised degree courses are not chosen nowadays. In a study by Otieno
and Ndayambaje (2015) which is based on students‘ enrolments in undergraduate degree programmes by
83
platform in Public Universities in Kenya, the researcher revealed the existence of positive relationship between
course specialisation and enrolment. Since education is commoditised, students require exploitation of the
commodity so that they get what they actually paid for. All these inferences specify the need to deliver quality
of education in higher education institutions. Some respondents stated that the perceptions of students are
towards joining private higher education institutions as they think the quality of education delivered is better.
This led students to enrol in courses such as veterinary and agricultural science in private universities though
these courses are offered at a relatively low fee in public higher education universities.
However, some respondents stated the views of stakeholders to be focussing on the features of the
educational institutions. Certain factors such as infrastructure of the institution, hostel facilities and safety are
considered while enrolling in a higher education institution. The increase in the number of educational
institutions in the nation by default specifies the stakeholders‘ inclination towards private universities.
However, internationalisation could not be neglected in this context as parents look for recognised institutions
to enrol their children. Such perceptions of stakeholders increase the number of private foreign higher education
universities in India. However, there is also a viewpoint which lets students to enrol in institutions that nurture
the entrepreneurial capabilities of students. Many private universities deliver entrepreneurial training classes
which aid students bringing out their entrepreneurial capabilities thereby beginning own businesses once their
professional courses are completed.
84
5.1 Effects of privatisation in Indian higher education
The high standards of privatisation in Indian higher education were questioned which revealed
supporting responses for privatisation. Majority of respondents discerned the fact that high standards of higher
education are met in private universities. With the increase in the number of players in higher education sector,
healthy competitions arise within these institutions. In this manner, universities may improve and enhance the
quality of education delivered thereby continual improvement in the higher education sector will be delivered.
Another important aspect of privatisation in higher education is the freedom of operations in the higher
education institutions. When educational institutions are bound to the Government, then uniformity of certain
aspects such as syllabus and curriculum should be maintained. The autonomy of private higher education
institutions enables private players to design their own state of the art syllabus and curriculum which enables
students to perceive latest advancements. New technologies are adopted by private universities and practical
knowledge is imparted for the benefits of the students (Pandey, 2014).
In India, private universities collect fee from students. Though it is deemed that delivering education for
money could turn hazardous, the collected fees are used for the development of the institution‘s infrastructure.
Hence, the quality of education delivered should also be better. India demands competent workforce hence the
quality and standards of private higher education are important to cater the needs of the nation. However,
several issues revolve around the prospects of privatisation in Indian higher education sector. There are different
state and central regulations and the regulations vary from state to state. In such a case, the standards of private
higher education are questioned (British Council, 2014). One participant discerned the reason for the lack of
standards in private higher education institutions as the enrolment rate of some colleges is relatively low.
85
Privatisation brings the concept of internationalisation in higher education. More technological concepts are
adopted by private universities thereby meeting high standards of higher education.
The effects of privatisation on educational discrimination were also questioned. The responses of the
participants revealed the existence of discrimination in the higher education sector for which some participants
claimed privatisation to be the major cause. Private higher education institutions offer courses for fee which is
not accessible to students belonging to economically backward classes in the society. This affects the equity and
accessibility of education delivered. Respondents fear the factors of social inequity and the lack of inclusiveness
in the private higher education institutions which creates a human resource imbalance. However, some of the
participants claimed privatisation to have increased equity and accessibility of higher education services in the
country as private universities are also set up in rural regions of the nation to satisfy the higher education needs
of students. However, respondents argue that apart from equity in the deliverance of higher education, an
intricate issue lurks within increased private higher education institutions, which is ‗unemployment‘.
Respondents state that discrimination is generated by private higher education not because of equity issues but
issues related to unemployment due to increased number of graduates.
5.2 Governmental regulations and privatisation
The high standards of privatisation in Indian higher education were questioned which revealed
supporting responses for privatisation. Majority of respondents discerned the fact that high standards of higher
education are met in private universities. With the increase in the number of players in higher education sector,
healthy competitions arise within these institutions. In this manner, universities may improve and enhance the
86
quality of education delivered thereby continual improvement in the higher education sector will be delivered.
Another important aspect of privatisation in higher education is the freedom of operations in the higher
education institutions. When educational institutions are bound to the Government, then uniformity of certain
aspects such as syllabus and curriculum should be maintained. The autonomy of private higher education
institutions enables private players to design their own state of the art syllabus and curriculum which enables
students to perceive latest advancements. New technologies are adopted by private universities and practical
knowledge is imparted for the benefits of the students (Pandey, 2004).
In India, private universities collect fee from students. Though it is deemed that delivering education for
money could turn hazardous, the collected fees are used for the development of the institution‘s infrastructure.
Hence, the quality of education delivered should also be better. India demands competent workforce hence the
quality and standards of private higher education are important to cater the needs of the nation. However,
several issues revolve around the prospects of privatisation in Indian higher education sector. There are different
state and central regulations and the regulations vary from state to state. In such a case, the standards of private
higher education are questioned (British Council, 2014). One participant discerned the reason for the lack of
standards in private higher education institutions as the enrolment rate of some colleges is relatively low.
Privatisation brings the concept of internationalisation in higher education. More technological concepts are
adopted by private universities thereby meeting high standards of higher education.
The effects of privatisation on educational discrimination were also questioned. The responses of the
participants revealed the existence of discrimination in the higher education sector for which some participants
claimed privatisation to be the major cause. Private higher education institutions offer courses for fee which is
87
not accessible to students belonging to economically backward classes in the society. This affects the equity and
accessibility of education delivered. Respondents fear the factors of social inequity and the lack of inclusiveness
in the private higher education institutions which creates a human resource imbalance. However, some of the
participants claimed privatisation to have increased equity and accessibility of higher education services in the
country as private universities are also set up in rural regions of the nation to satisfy the higher education needs
of students. However, respondents argue that apart from equity in the deliverance of higher education, an
intricate issue lurks within increased private higher education institutions, which is ‗unemployment‘.
Respondents state that discrimination is generated by private higher education not because of equity issues but
issues related to unemployment due to increased number of graduates.
5.3 Governmental regulations and privatisation
One important view of government towards privatisation of Indian higher education is to increase the
Gross enrolment ratio (GER). The rules of the government are so liberalised that setting up private universities
in India had been facilitated. The impact of liberalisation and globalisation has improved higher education
sector in India in a relatively fast pace. Government views privatisation of higher education as an act to create
opportunities for young students in India so that education is delivered to all the classes of the society
(Amandeep, 2016). Some of the participants claimed that the government is supporting privatisation of Indian
higher education so as to integrate human capital with jobs thereby improving the economic status of the
country. In India, three aspects of education are viewed by the government. They are equity, access and quality
(Goel, 2013). In order to achieve all the three factors in Indian higher education, the government should support
privatisation.
88
However, need for encouraging privatisation was questioned for which participants had contradictory
viewpoints. Some of the respondents claim privatisation to be necessary since it brings more prospects in the
higher education sector. The perceptions of some participants relate privatisation to be not successful in all
cases and the success to be solely depending on the institution. Additionally, inferences were provided revealing
the need for philanthropic private higher education in India thereby provoking the hazards in fee based higher
education.
5.4 Implications
The study had mixed responses when it comes to encouraging privatisation in Indian higher education.
However, the significance of privatisation in Indian higher education could not be neglected. Majority of
participants in the present study belonged to public sector institutions and very few participants belonged to
private universities and higher educational institutions. The main factor that participants claim to be driving
privatisation in the Indian higher education sector is the rate of enrolment in higher education. The total number
of student enrolment in Private and Government Colleges of India till 2015 is found to be around 22 million
wherein the number of enrolments in private educational institutions is found to be 14 million (Ministry of
Human Resource Development, 2015). The fact reveals the increased number of total student enrolment in
private higher education universities in India. The GER of Indian higher education was found to be 19.4 per
cent in the year 2010-11 and the enrolment rate of different states vary. Comparing the GER of India with other
countries, it is revealed that the country is lagging behind developed and developing economies such as China
(23 per cent), Brazil (34 per cent), UK (57 per cent) and the US (83 per cent) (Nandi, 2014). India Brand Equity
Foundation (IBEF, 2015) reveals a requirement of approximately 200 billion USD to achieve the target of 30
89
per cent GER by the year 2020. In this regard, the Government of India has allowed 100 per cent foreign direct
investment in the country for the education sector. The GER in Indian higher education is 23.6 calculated for
the age group of 18-23 years. In this regard, it is evident that with the growth of number of private universities,
the targeted 30 per cent GER could be achieved. Hence, there is a pressing need to increase the number of
private universities with the growing student population (18-23 year old) projected to reach 142 million by 2030
(Ficcci, 2013).
Secondly, the quality of education and the types of services offered by institutions are concerned and
hence the perceptions of students and parents were analysed. In the present study, it is revealed that
stakeholders look for quality of education and the features of the educational institution. Since education itself
is commoditised, stakeholders view the quality and features of the product. In this regard, students are inclined
towards private higher education institutions since according to them, the quality of education and service is
better. Parents are also inclined to private higher educational institutions which are internationalised. From the
perceptions of the government, it is deemed that the open market scenario in the Indian higher education wing
will create competitive atmosphere in the nation wherein the native Indian private players and public higher
education institutions will improve the quality of education thereby benefitting all the stakeholders involved in
higher education. Internationalisation in this context will improve the key indicators such as curriculum,
administration, research, faculty salary and so on (Tiwari et al., 2013).
Thirdly, Indian higher education is witnessing regulation based complexities. The government of India
lacks clarity in monitoring private higher education institutions in the country with different regulations existing
with the central government and the regulations differing across various states. In some cases, judgements are
90
imposed which even aggravate the conditions of private universities in India. This poses challenges for higher
education universities to achieve the targeted GER (Joshi & Ahir, 2013). Participants of the interview stated that
the laws of the government are liberalised to set up and manage private universities in India; however the
confusion that lies within the implementation of regulations for private higher education institutions will always
be a threat.
5.5 Conclusions
The market driven educational model of Indian higher education has better prospects. The country has
witnessed successful privatisation in the educational sector and the higher education wing is no longer an
exception. It is discerned from the study that by conducting interviews with educational pioneers, it is deemed
that participants are inclined towards the good prospects of privatisation in the higher education sector;
however, some fear the complications that arise out of the fee based model of education.
Private education in the beginning emerged as a concept of delivering education for charity and
philanthropy. Privatisation in the education sector is also to aid the government spread education. Educational
institutions are set up by private owners and are maintained based on the regulations of the government though
funding is acquired from private parties. During the emergence of privatisation in education sector, education is
served as a public good. Till date, many educational institutions in Europe and North America provide
philanthropy based educational services. In many developed nations, their government supports private sector
players for the educational services they offer. In India, privatisation of higher education is doubted for its fee-
91
based and profit motive structure. Hence, the equity and access to higher education becomes the topic of hot
debate.
Though the number of higher education institutions has increased over the years, participants belonging
to public sector institutions fear the equity to higher education. One participant belonging to private higher
education institution stated the fact that private participation and increased international/ foreign private higher
education institutions in India is serving the economically stable classes and the poor communities are devoid of
such services. In the state of Karnataka, specific percentage of seats is shared with the government which is a
good motive to create access and equity. The present study recommends all the states of India to implement
such seat sharing facilities in order to improve equity.
Overall, the perceptions of the participants both private and public sector administrators and vice-
chancellors encourage privatisation in Indian higher education sector without which the targeted GER could not
be achieved. However, the present study recommends the need to close the gap between higher education
institutions and industries so that Indian manpower is utilised to the core.
92
REFERENCES
Aleem, M.A., Kumar, K.S. & Prasad, M.H. (2016). Promoting Excellece in Higher Education-Issues and
Challenges. International Journal of Academic Research. 3 (2(1)). pp. 105–110.
P. G. Altbach & P. M. Peterson (eds.) (1999). Higher Education in the 21 st Century: Global Challenge and
National Response. Boston ,United States: Institute of International Education and Boston College Center
for International Higher Education.
Altbach, P. & Jayaram, N. (2010). Can India garner the demographic dividend? The Hindu. [Online]. 1
December. Available from: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/can-india-garner-the-demographic-
dividend/article924112.ece.
Amandeep, K.K.B. (2016). Impact of Liberalization and Globalization on Higher Education. International
Journal of Emerging Research in Management &Technology. [Online]. 5 (1). pp. 51–5. Available from:
http://www.ermt.net/docs/papers/Volume_5/1_January2016/V5N1-107.pdf.
Anon (2006). APM supports sustainability outlook. [Online]. 2006. Association for Project Management.
Available from: http://www.apm.org.uk/page.asp?categoryID=4. [Accessed: 28 August 2014].
Asian Development Bank (2012). Private Higher Education Across Asia Expanding Access, Searching for
Quality. [Online]. Philippines. Available from:
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29869/private-higher-education-across-asia.pdf.
93
Babu, S. (2011). Privatization of Higher Education in India: Challenges of Social Equality. [Online]. Available
from:
https://www.academia.edu/427014/PRIVATISATION_OF_HIGHER_EDUCATION_IN_INDA_CHALL
ENGES_OF_SOCIAL_EQUALITY.
Belfield, C.R. & Levin, H.M. (2002). Education privatization: causes, consequences and planning implications.
Fundamentals of Educational Planning. [Online]. Paris. Available from:
http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/Fund74.pdf.
Bell, S. (1996). Learning with information Systems: Learning Cycles in Information Systems Development. New
York: Routledge.
Benveniste, L. (2002). The Political Structuration of Assessment: Negotiating State Power and Legitimacy.
Comparative Education Review. 46 (1). pp. 89–118.
Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.-C., Debab, N. & Valéry, P. (2011). Privatization and Globalization: an Empirical
Analysis. Cahier de recherche/Working Paper. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Cahiers_2011/CIRPEE11-30.pdf.
British Council (2014). Understanding India: The future of higher education and opportunities for international
cooperation. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/understanding_india_report.pdf.
94
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd Ed. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Chealy, C. (2006). Cambodia. In: Higher Education in South-East Asia. [Online]. Bangkok: UNESCO, pp. 13–
33. Available from: http://www.rihed.seameo.org/wp-
content/uploads/other_reports/Higher_Education_in_Southeast_Asia_2006.pdf.
Chougle, S. (2014). Privatization of Higher Education in India: College Teachers Perception. National Monthly
Refereed Journal of Research In Arts & Education. 3 (2). pp. 15–25.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. 4th Ed. London: Routledge.
Colaizzi, P.F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: R. Vaile & M. King (eds.).
Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 48–71.
Cotton, J.S. (1999). Private Educational Institutions in India. In: B. Sandhdher (ed.). Encyclopaedia of
Education System in India. New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
95
Creswell, J.W. (2011). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd Ed.
[Online]. South Asia: SAGE Publications India Private Limited. Available from:
http://www.amazon.in/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-
Approaches/dp/8132107489?tag=googinhydr18418-21.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Ddumba-Ssentamu, J. & Mugume, A. (2001). The Privatisation Process and its Impact on Society. [Online].
Uganda. Available from: http://www.saprin.org/uganda/research/uga_privitazation.pdf.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dhanuraj, D. & Kumar, R. V. (2015). Understanding the Status of Higher Education in India: Challenges and
Scepticism towards Serious Investments in the Sector. [Online]. Available from: http://www.cppr.in/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Higher-Education.pdf.
Easterby-Smith, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business student. 6th Ed. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (1994). Management Research: An Introduction. London: Sage
Publications.
96
Economist Intelligence Unit (2009). Global education 20/20: What role for the private sector? [Online].
Available from: https://www.eiuperspectives.economist.com/sites/default/files/Cisco_Education_2020.pdf.
Educause (2010). The Future of Higher Education: Beyond the Campus. [Online]. Available from:
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB9008.pdf.
Ernst & Young (2012). Higher Education in India: Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) and beyond. [Online].
Kolkata. Available from: https://learnos.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/ey-
ficc_higher_education_report_nov12.pdf.
Ernst & Young (2009a). Making the Indian higher education system future ready. Paper presented at ‗FICCI
Higher Education Summit. [Online]. Kolkata. Available from:
http://www.edgex.in/resources/ficci_eyreport2009.pdf.
Ernst & Young (2009b). Making the Indian higher: Education system future ready FICCI Higher Education
Summit 2009. [Online]. Available from: http://www.edgex.in/resources/ficci_eyreport2009.pdf.
Feith, D. (2012). India‟s Higher Education Sector In The Twenty-First Century – A Growing Market, And The
Need For Greater International Engagement. [Online]. Available from:
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mai/files/2012/07/davidfeith.pdf.
97
Ficcci (2013). Higher Education in India: Vision 2030. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Higher-education-in-India-Vision-2030/$FILE/EY-Higher-
education-in-India-Vision-2030.pdf.
FICCI (2011). Private sector participation in Indian higher education. [Online]. India. Available from:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Private_sector_participation_in_Indian_higher_education/$FI
LE/Private_sector_participation_in_Indian_higher_education.pdf.
Gabriel, D. (2013). Inductive and Deductive approaches to research. [Online]. 2013. Available from:
http://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/. [Accessed: 16
July 2015].
Gareis, R., Heumann, M. & Martinuzzi, A. (2009). Relating sustainable development and project management.
Berlin: IRNOP IX.
Garg, B.R. (1977). Educational crisis in India. Ambala Kantt: The Associated Publish.
Gautam, R., Parihar, A.S. & Khare, S. (2015). Analysis of Globalization/Privatization of Higher Education In
India. International Journal of Science Technology and Mangement. [Online]. 4 (1). pp. 726–733.
Available from: http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1443549037_986D.pdf.
Gay, R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research. New York: Longman.
98
Geiger, R.L. (1986). Private Sectors in Higher Education: Structure, Function, and Change in Eight Countries.
Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Goel, V. (2013). Access, equity and quality in private higher education. [Online]. 2013. Commonwealth
Education Partnerships. Available from: http://www.cedol.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2-Access-
equity-and-quality-in-private.pdf. [Accessed: 20 August 2016].
Goyal, K.A. (2006). Impact of globalization on developing countries (with special reference to India).
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics. 5 (1). pp. 166–171.
Gupta, D. & Gupt, N. (2012). Higher Education in India: Structure, Statistics and Challenges. Journal of
Education and Practice. [Online]. 3 (2). pp. 17–24. Available from:
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/viewFile/1146/1067.
Hancock, B., Ockleford, E. & Windridge, K. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. [Online].
Available from: https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/5_Introduction-to-qualitative-
research-2009.pdf.
Holloway, I. & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. 2nd editio. London: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Holzhacker, D., Chornoivan, O., Yazilitas, D. & Dayan-Ochir, K. (2009). Privatization in Higher Education:
Cross-Country Analysis of Trends, Policies, Problems, and Solutions. [Online]. Washington, DC.
Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508091.pdf.
99
IBEF (2015). Education and Training. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ibef.org/download/Education-and-
Training-August-2015.pdf.
Ipu (2016). Responsibilities and Authorities of the Deans of the University Schools of Studies. [Online]. 2016.
Ipu. Available from: http://www.ipu.ac.in/norms/Ordinance/o34.pdf. [Accessed: 10 August 2016].
Jahan, K.K. & Selvarani, D.C. (2015). Higher Education in India: Issues and Challenges. In: International
Conference on Humanities, Literature and Management (ICHLM‟15) Jan. 9-10, 2015 Dubai (UAE).
[Online]. 9 January 2015, International Centre of Economics, Humanities and Management, pp. 81–86.
Available from: http://icehm.org/siteadmin/upload/8262ED0115098.pdf.
Jonaki, B. & Prasenjit, P. (2016). Higher Education in India: Recent Issues and Trends. Research Journal of
Educational Sciences. [Online]. 4 (1). pp. 10–16. Available from:
http://www.isca.in/EDU_SCI/Archive/v4/i1/2.ISCA-RJEduS-2015-037.pdf.
Joshi, K.M. & Ahir, K.V. (2013). Indian Higher Education: Some Reflections. Intellectual Economics. 7 (1). pp.
42–53.
Kambhampati, U.S. & Kattuman, P.A. (2003). Growth responses to competitive shocks: Market structure
dynamics under liberalisation. Working Paper. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.india.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/downloads/research_kattuman.pdf.
100
Kapur, D. & Mehta, P.B. (2007). Mortgaging the Future. India International Centre Quarterly. [Online]. 34
(3/4). pp. 154–166. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006336?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Kapur, D. & Mehtaa, P.B. (2007). Mortgaging the Future? Indian Higher Education. [Online]. New Delhi.
Available from: https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/sites/casi.sas.upenn.edu/files/bio/uploads/Mortgaging the
Future.pdf.
Kapur, D. & Ramamurti, R. (2002). Privatization in India: The Imperatives and Consequences of Gradualism.
Working Paper. [Online]. Stanford, CA. Available from:
http://policydialogue.org/files/publications/Privitization_in_India_Kapur.pdf.
Kassim, H.-S., Dass, A. & Best, T. (2015). Higher Education and Statistical Review: Issues and Trends in
Higher Education, 2013. [Online]. Available from: http://www.uwi.edu/sf-docs/default-source/uopd---
general/hesr2013--issues-and-trends-in-higher-education-march2015-for-univer-council.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Kaul, S. (2006). Higher Education In India: Seizing The Opportunity. Working Paper. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP_179.pdf.
Kilicaslan, Y., Pond, R. & Tasiran, A.C. (2008). Productivity: The impact of Privatisation and Liberalisation in
Public Services. [Online]. London. Available from: http://regulation.upf.edu/utrecht-08-
papers/ykilicaslan.pdf.
101
Kulandaiswamy, V.C. (2005). Reconstruction of higher education in India. The Hindu. [Online]. 18 May.
Available from: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/05/18/stories/2005051801591000.htm.
Kumar, A. & Ambrish (2015). Higher Education: Growth, Challenges And Opportunities. International Journal
of Arts Humanities and Management Studies. [Online]. 1 (2). pp. 19–32. Available from:
http://oaji.net/articles/2015/1741-1426151433.pdf.
Kumar, K. (2004). Aiming Higher Case for Private Capital in Education. Times of India. [Online]. 11 March.
Available from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/LEADER-ARTICLEBRAiming-Higher-
Case-for-Private-Capital-in-Education/articleshow/554735.cms.
Kumar, R. (1999). Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications.
Kumar, S. (2014). Privatisation of Higher Education in India: Hopes and Despairs. Social Change. [Online]. 44
(3). pp. 451–458. Available from: http://sch.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0049085714536805.
Labuschagne, C. & Brent, A.. (2006). Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle
management in the process industry. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 11 (1). pp. 3–15.
Leedy, P.D. (1997). Practical research: planning and design. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
102
Levi, C.D. (1994). Problems of Privatisation. In: J. Salmi & A. M.Verspoor (eds.). Revitalizing Higher
Education. Pergamon: Publishers of the IAUPress.
Levine, A. (2001). Privatization in Higher Education. [Online]. Available from:

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/HIGHEREDPRIVATIZATION.pdf.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Denzin, N.K. (2005). The eighth and ninth moments—qualitative research in/and the fractured
future. In: N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, pp. 1115–1126.
Lubienski, C. (2006). School Diversification in Second-Best Education Markets: International Evidence and
Conflicting Theories of Change. Educational Policy. [Online]. 20 (2). pp. 323–344. Available from:
http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0895904805284049.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Matovac, V.A., Bilas, V. & Franc, S. (2010). Understanding the Importance of Human Capital and Labor
Market Competitiveness in the Eu Candidate Countries and Selected Eu Members. Ekonomska misao i
praksa : časopis Sveučilišta u Dubrovniku. [Online]. 19 (2). pp. 359–382. Available from:
https://www.econbiz.de/Record/understanding-the-importance-human-capital-and-labor-market-
competitiveness-the-candidate-countries-and-selected-members-andrijevi%C4%87-matovac-
vesna/10008823260.
103
McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum Action Research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective
practitioner. London: Kogan.
Megginson, W.L. & Netter, J.M. (2001). From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization.
Journal of Economic Literature. 39 (2). pp. 321–389.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in educations. San Fransisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: a guide to deisgn and implemenation. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
MHRD (2016). All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). [Online]. 2016. Department of Higher
Education. Available from: http://mhrd.gov.in/technical-education-9. [Accessed: 2 August 2016].
Ministry of Human Resource Development (2015). All India Survey Higher Education. [Online]. Available
from: http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/viewDocument.action?documentId=199.
Mrak, M. (2000). Globalization: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities for Countries in Transition. [Online].
Vienna. Available from: http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/import/userfiles/puffk/mrak.pdf.
Musgrave, R.A. (1959). The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw Hill.
Myers, M.D. & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information
& Organization. 17 (1). pp. 2–26.
104
Naik, P.K. (2015). Globalization and its Impact on Higher Education in India. International Journal of
Humanities and Management Sciences. [Online]. 3 (6). pp. 414–417. Available from:
http://www.isaet.org/images/extraimages/UH0116002.pdf.
Nandi, R. (2014). India‘s Position in the Global Community: With Respect to Higher Education Scenario.
International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration. 4 (1). pp. 37–48.
National Association of Software and Service Companies (2005). Extending India‟s Leadershiop of the Global
IT and BPo Industries. New Delhi.
Naya, S. (1990). Private Sector Development and Enterprise Reforms in Growing Asian Economies. San
Francisco: ICS Press.
Otieno, M.A. & Ndayambaje, I. (2015). Gender and area of specialization vis-à-vis students‘ enrolments in
undergraduate degree programmes by platform in Public Universities in Kenya. Rwandan Journal of
Education. 3 (1). pp. 4–17.
Pandey, I.M. (2014). Governance of Higher Education Institutions. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.vikalpa.com/pdf/articles/2004/2004_apr_jun_79_84.pdf.
Pandey, I.M. (2004). Governance of Higher Education Institutions. Vikalpa. 29 (2). pp. 79–84.
105
Partima & Singh, J. (2014). The relevent Impact and Importance of Privatization of Higher Education in Indian
Society. Global International Research Thoughts. [Online]. pp. 1–6. Available from:
http://darpanonline.org/web-photo/3_61.pdf.
Patel, S.A. (2012). Privatization of Education and Its Impact on Right To Education. International Educational
E-Journal. 1 (2). pp. 41–47.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedró, F., Leroux, G. & Watanabe, M. (2015). The Privatization of Education in Developing Countries.
Evidence and Policy Implications. [Online]. France. Available from:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002438/243824e.pdf.
Perry, C. (1995). A Structured Approach to PhD Theses: Notes for Candidates and Their Supervisors. [Online].
1995. Available from: http://www.fkm.utm.my/~shari/download/phd guide.pdf. [Accessed: 30 September
2015].
Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2nd Ed. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Quinlan, C. (2011). Business Research Methods. Hampshire: Cengage Learning.
106
Rani, G. (2010). Changing Landscape of Higher Education in India: The Case of Engineering Education in
Tamil Nadu.
Rao, S. & Singh, M.K. (2016). Appointment of Vice-Chancellors: Rules, Procedures and Intentions. [Online].
2016. Aserf. Available from: http://www.aserf.org.in/presentations/vcpaper.pdf. [Accessed: 10 August
2016].
Ray, A.S. (2015). The Enigma of the „Indian Model‟ of Development. Discussion Paper. [Online]. India.
Available from: http://www.jnu.ac.in/sis/citd/DiscussionPapers/DP01_2015.pdf.
Rena, R. (2010). Emerging Trends of Higher Education in Developing Countries. Annals. 47 (2). pp. 301–315.
Rossman, G.B. & Rallis, S.F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Rudolph, I.L. (1972). Education and Politics in India,Studies in Organization, Society and Polity. S. H.
Rudolph & L. I. Rudolph (eds.). Madras: Oxford University Press.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow, United
Kingdom: FT Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
107
Shaguri, O.R. (2013). Higher Education in India Access, Equity, Quality. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.ean-edu.org/assets/highereducationindiashaguri.pdf.
Shankar, A. (2016). Role of Private Sector in Higher Education. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/general/1453203086_Role of Private Sector in Higher
Education.pdf.
Sheshinski, E. (2003). Privatization and Its Benefits: Theory and Evidence. CESifo Economic Studies. [Online].
49 (3). pp. 429–459. Available from: http://cesifo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/cesifo/49.3.429.
Silvius, A.J.G., Brink, J. van der & Köhler, A. (2010). The impact of sustainability on Project Management. In:
Asia Pacific Research Conference on Project Management (APRPM). 2010, Melbourne.
Silvius, A.J.G. & Schipper, R. (2009). A Maturity Model for Integrating Sustainability in Projects and Project
Management.
Singh, J.D. (2009). Higher Education in India – Issues, Challenges and Suggestions. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.gvctesangaria.org/websiteimg/publications/jdarticle.pdf.
Singh, P. (2015). Privatization of higher education in India- issues, challenges and sugestions. International
Journal of Development Resarch. 5 (12). pp. 6261–6265.
108
Sudarshan, A. & Subramanian, S. (2012). Private Sector‘s Role in Indian Higher Education. In: Idfc Foundation
(ed.). India Infrastructure Report 2012: Private Sector in Education. [Online]. India: Routledge, pp. 178–
184. Available from: http://www.idfc.com/pdf/report/2012/Chapter_16.pdf.
Sunder, S. (2010). Higher Education Reforms in India. Yale SOM Working Paper. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.aiiserver.com/glf/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HigherEducationReformsin-India-shyam-
suner.pdf.
Swedish Institute (2013). Higher Education and Research: Getting Smarter In Sweden. [Online]. Available
from: https://studyinsweden.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Higher-education-and-research-in-sweden.pdf.
Taylor, J. (2008). Organizational Influences, Public Service Motivation and Work Outcomes. International
Public Management Journal. 11 (1). pp. 67–88.
The Economist (2007). Free to choose, and learn. The Economist. [Online]. 3 May. Available from:
http://www.economist.com/node/9119786.
Tilak, B.J. (1992). Capitation fee colleges. Journal of Higher Education. [Online]. 30 (51). pp. 1–6. Available
from: http://www.academia.edu/15338027/Capitation_fee_colleges.
Tilak, J.B.. & Varghese, N.. (1983a). Resources for Education in India. New Delhi: NIEPA.
Tilak, J.B.G. (1999). Higher Education Reform in India. Journal of Higher Education. 22 (1). pp. 1–21.
109
Tilak, J.B.G. (2009). Private sector in higher education: A few stylized facts. Social Change. 39 (1). pp. 1–28.
Tilak, J.B.G. & Varghese, N. V. (1983b). Resources for Education in India. NIEPA Occasional Paper 2. New
Delhi.
Tiwari, R., Anjum, B. & Khurana, A. (2013). Role of Private Sector in Higher Education. International
Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 1 (2). pp. 75–83.
Turner, J.. (2010). Responsibilities for Sustainable Development in Project and Program Management, IPMA.
In: Expert Seminar Survival and Sustainability as Challenges for Projects. 2010, Zurich.
UNESCO (2016). Education : Enrolment by level of education. [Online]. 2016. Available from:
http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=128. [Accessed: 10 August 2016].
UNESCO (2014). Higher Education in Asia: Expanding Out, Expanding Up. [Online]. Canada. Available from:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Library/Documents/higher-education-asia-graduate-university-research-2014-
en.pdf.
University Grants Commission (2006). Annual Report 2005-2006. [Online]. New Delhi. Available from:
http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/pub/annualreport/annualreport_0506.pdf.
110
University Grants Commission (2002). The University Grants Commission Act, 1956: and Rules & Regulations
Under the Act. [Online]. New Delhi. Available from:
http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/ugc_act.pdf.
Varghese, N. V. (2012). India Infrastructure Report 2012: Private Sector in Education. In: Infrastructure
Development Finance Company (ed.). Private Higher Education The Global Surge and Indian Concerns.
New Dehi: Routledge.
Villalonga, B. (2000). Privatization and efficiency: differentiating ownership effects from political,
organizational, and dynamic effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. [Online]. 42 (1). pp.
43–74. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167268100000743.
Vlk, A. (2006). Higher Education and Gats: Regulatory consequences and stakeholders‟ Responses. [Online].
University of Twente. Available from: https://www.utwente.nl/bms/cheps/phdportal/CHEPS Alumni and
Their Theses/2006vlkdissertation.pdf.
Walsh, M. (2003). Teaching Qualitative Analysis Using QSR NVivo1. The Qualitative Repor. [Online]. 8 (2).
pp. 251–256. Available from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-2/walsh.pdf.
World Bank (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.
111
Wragg, E. (1994). Conducting and analysing interviews. In: N. Bennett, R. Glatter, & R. Levacic (eds.).
Improving Educational Management through Research and Consultancy. London: The Open University,
pp. 267–282.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
112
Appendix
Questions/ ParticipantParticipant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10 Participant 11 Participant 12 Participant 13 Participant 14 Participant 15 Participant 16 Participant 17
1. In your view what is 1. As per the latest 1. There are as many as 370 1. Higher 1. It is the government whose 1. It is not just the role of 1. The private universities in 1. There are no long 1. I would like to share with you 1. Private higher 1. To increase the 1. I would state that 1. Private universities 1. The role of private 1. Privatisation in 1. I doubt the 1. I believe the role 1. I would state that
the role of private published data of human private universities in different education should centre in the state is not in a private institutions in higher Karnataka are the only state term goals for the that, the private sector education institutions Gross enrolment ratio of there is a lot of freedom don‘t have a legacy as higher education Indian Higher education credibility of private of private universities the number of
universities in the resource research part of states. You can have some peaks of position to cater the means of education but private and wherein we at private universities Government to improve contribution, into this stream of increase the number of the nation towards higher for private universities such but the founders of institutions is crucial in is an important factor that higher education is very significant and employed person in
development of higher development India has understand the importance of excellence and higher education, the younger public should co-exist & they in Karnataka meet the socio- public institutions. engineering, you will be surprised higher education education, there should which brings them the university who have uplifting the economic satisfies the nation‘s institutions in India over they are going to be the country,
education? 754 Universities, State state private universities in the private universities population , the younger people have both of them, they have economic obligation as well as Ultimately this leads to to know that, among all the private enrolment in the country. be atleast 1500 academic excellence. started it have a certain status of the country; human capital needs. the years. with us. especially higher
Government Universities higher education scenario of can play very specially of age 18-25 would very their own advantages they contempt to gross enrollment giving more importance to sector participation, in the higher universities in India. Only reputation, track record, however, the role is education graduates
are 372, Private education. important role. much like to have higher education have their own ratio. I feel privatisation is crucial private higher education education sector, 66% share is of with the increase in the so while choosing the limited to a specific class. have increased. This
Universites are 245 but we know the access is limited disadvantages. in higher education. institutions. the engineering stream, 24% share number of private players university students see, is the success of
Deemed Universties are because of number of institutions is of the medical stream, 4% a 50 per cent GER could how sound is the privatisation in Indian
137. The role of Private and also quality of education that is management, 4% education. So, if be achieved. reputation and legacy that higher education.
sector in Indian higher available both are important and you put together, you will come to they are going to be part
education is increased this gap needs to be filled you know, that almost 98% private of.
significantly over the last know through philanthropic participation in higher education is
decade. With the majority enterprises and private enterprises limited to engineering, medical,
of students currently that means private enterprises have management and education.
enrolled in these private to become philanthropic. Therefore, whatever problem we are
2. What are the stake institutions.
2. the role will
In the higher 2. Students choose private 2. Students and 2. Education has already been 2. The sector of higher 2. Students and the parents 2. Students, parents facing
2. Inof employability,
MBA, is the
41% employability, 2. Stakeholders such as 2. The private 2. Students look for 2. The primary 2. Students have 2. Quality of teachers 2. Excellent 2. Very few private 2. Private
holders (students , education sector in India sector higher education parents choose commoditized, and this commodity education is expanding. question educational institutions, and teachers look for only 41%. In B.A, arts stream, it is students look for job universities are playing a colleges with basic stakeholders are the different perceptions. or quality of the academic infrastructure in teaching, universities come up universities nowadays
parents, employers) this is calculated between universities even for courses higher education in needs to be well exploited, so that Private institutions and ―What is the value I derive from more prospective features19%. In B.Com, it is 26%. In B.Sc. It opportunities after their significant role in fulfilling amenities and students themselves Some state their family programs and learning environment, to the level of nurture
perception of 18 to 23 yrs of age group such as agricultural science and private institutions we provide people who are private public partnerships the money I paid for this in educational is 41%. In MCA, Computer graduation. They opt for the franchise for the infrastructure. Then followed by their parents, legacy that poses them to infrastructure, campus creating research, international level, entrepreneurial
choosing total enrollment in higher veterinary courses. This is a since the quality of innovative, we provide people who are also increasing. All these program?‖. The point here I‘m institutions. Factors such
application, it is 43%. ITI, you will universities which cater demand of the quality education. However, their as they have seen it as a join a university, others safety, especially for administration, and also which is tagetted by capabilities. For
universities? education regard less of good start. education in private can think in different directions, we statements attribute to the making is, try to integrate the as infrastructure, hostelbe surprised to know the figures. It such requirement. education and at least perceptions may vary joint perception on their claim the infrastructure to women, cost and location the emphasis for student stake holders, example, innovation
age express as a institutions is better.
provide people who think for the perceptions of students and industry perception, interest in facilities and safety areis only 46%. Most of us feel that 60% of the students are when students belong to part and then there is also attract them make an were the criteria used by life students parents , etc centers, incubation
percentage to the eligible However, private good of the society. We provide parents to enrol in private knowledge, emerge in knowledge, considered to the core. people who do the trades and all, going to colleges in India poor communities. They choosing the university admission. stakeholders that is the all put together. centers, makers‘ space
official population of 18- sector institutions people who can bring India‘s higher education as the emerge in technology into the Some private institutionsthey get the job, but no. That‘s and private institutions may not be able to join from the supplies side, primary stakeholders, the are left for students to
23. Students are inclined need improvement stature up, lift the living stands up, number of private curriculum and the part of the provide quality features what the reality is. Even in but there is a big disparity private universities which who are the faculty. students, the parents, to learn. Students even
towards enrolling in such as who can also think in terms of how institutions is increasing and credit goes so that they become which stakeholders Polytechnic, it is just 11%, means, in the quality. cost them high fee. Hence, choosing the right choose the institution. look for universities
private sector universities specialisation withindo we reduce the poverty in the the enrolment rate is also not just qualified people, they require. 89% students coming out of university becomes very delivering such
for higher education. a degree which is country, we do we produce more increasing. become more relevant to the polytechnic, they are not important. opportunities.
lacking in many employment at different levels. In industry and more skillful to the employable. This is a very serious
private universities such a case, we envision poverty industry because ultimately in the issue we have to look at. And in
and colleges. and unemployment to be the current emergence of the industry pharma, it is 54%. The best in the
national crisis which students think the services sector are, it is the country, the stream, which you can
to gain a job is to study in a sharp dealing of what knowledge have a highest percentage of
3. How has the 3. The government 3. According to 2003, all 3. The views of qualified
3. The higher education
government sees 3. The regulations of the you
3. have acquired
Fortunately and what you
or unfortunately in 3. employability,
Government looks at 3. - that is only pharma. 3. Government views 3. The Government of 3. Government has 3. Government views 3. The government is 3. No idea 3. Government of India 3. – 3. Government see
government viewed views privatisation of private universities all over the government towards privatisation in higher education Government are not the Indian system, in universities factors such as equity the opportunity to create India is on a vision to liberal regulations privatisation as a strategy open to private is ready to start at the privatisation as a
privatisation of higher higher education as a country should get recognised privatisation are sector as a tool to increase the implemented properly. This there is more of administration and access to higher an integrated economy increase the number of towards privatisation; to increase GER. universities with less higher rate at the later means to increase the
education? move to support three by University Grant mostly liberal Gross enrolment ratio of higher shows lack of interest of and less of governance. There are education by students. with the human capital universities to achieve a however, in the future, regulation to control. This stage, which is to me employability status
fundamental challenges Commission. If it is not, without any sort of education. But these institutions governmental bodies to complex state and central Hence, the views of and jobs. GER of 50 per cent. when new regulations are is an act to increase the looks all very, saturated of higher education
that is access, equity and probably they will not only put control and UGC should be given adequate freedom manage private higher government policies on Government are open to Further, the state of imposed on the private GER of the nation. now in terms of refunding, graduates.
quality. I believe that our penalties for any activities of regulation is not to manage themselves such as the education sector in India. privatisation of higher education. privatisation. Karnataka is playing key institutions, it should not in terms of resources in
country cannot ignore the private universities, and accepted and syllabus. role in bringing public and affect their freedom to terms of man-power. In
private educational they also publicise in the whole implemented at all. private universities education. this manner, the
institutions as they are country that these courses run This poses problems together. government adopts
currently attracting a large by suss and such private such as inadequate privatisation in the higher
number of students at university is not recognised. In quality of education education sector.
least initially efforts this manner, the Government is served to students.
should be made to imposing rules to manage
encourage the senior private higher education
4. Is encouraging private
4. institutionsofalso to universities.
Privatisation 4. Not in all cases. One issue 4. With the 4. I would state privatisation to 4. I would state if national 4. Private sector participation is 4. Privatisation is 4. I don‘t necessarily think that 4. In India, there is no 4. Quality of education 4. Privatisation is a 4. Obviously when 4. Universities cannot 4. There is a need to 4. There is a question 4. Some private 4. Yes, it brings out
privatisation of higher higher education in India is one of the state private increasing number of be a good option only if such quality of excellence, social deemed important. As previously nothing but plain with increased private players in bridge between industries is a primary concern. In good concept if in case there is a need to increase be for employment, they revamp our education on how to satisfy the institutions have more potential
education good for increases the higher university started agriculture student enrolment, it institutions are philanthropic. justice, inclusion and mentioned, the perception of commercialisation. profit higher education, the nation‘s and universities. Very few Karnataka, a joint the professional degree is the GER, then we should are for life. That is why system on one hand and increasing demands and played important workforce.
India? education enrolment rate programs last year. In this is necessary for regional and social disparity students towards education is making would be the economic prospects will grow. If we private institutions try to programme is conducted job-oriented. go with the strategies to the primary role of exposing the teachers to needs and aspiration of bringing quality
in India. Hence it is a agriculture program, as we all private institutions could be achieved, then whether they gain relevant motto and the charitable analyse certain reports of the bridge the gap. However, to exchange students and increase private higher universities is to increase timely changes in people of the country, inputs concentrating
good motive. know it was not given to private to emerge in the privatisation in Indian higher knowledge for what they pay as a educational institutions government, it is revealed that the rate of unemployment teachers within the public education instiutions as the knowledge, build up knowledge levels of their especially the talented on the rural areas that
people earlier. It was all run by country. However, I education is a benefit. fee. In this regard, I claim private that is always temptation private institutions produce is high. This intrigues the and private universities. the funding for higher the attitude and skill is respective disciplines. young people has got this will bring this
Government universities. Now, would suggest that universities penetrate the of commercialization and industry centric manpower, human role of privatisation as the This led new things to be education by Government also a part of it. But I This is how stakeholders opportunity to study in paradigm shift.
the last year or the present year there should be some knowledge into the students so profit making. capital, and the 50% of them are not nation is still suffering learnt. However, I do not is very low. think you must consider perceive higher education various schools, internet
the private organisations can sort of collaboration that they become more relevant to Privatisation may prove employable. Then how will from unemployment. see only the contribution all these things important; offered by private and various other
take up agriculture courses, between UGC and the industry sector. hazardous at times. privatisation be good. of the private sector as generating knowledge, universities. resources available, aware
veterinary courses and similar the state council and both private and public skill development as well of the higher education
to that. One of the private the education sector are concerned. as the large social benefits. So now with this
university in the state, has department of the concern that must be a background, it‘s very
started agriculture programs state to oversee part. clear that days to come
taking 100s of students and private participation that private universities
running the program. Now, the in Higher education. are going to play the role.
students were already admitted
in the government agricultural
colleges, they have started
saying that particular university
which started agriculture
program no water, necessary
infrastructure, faculty and other
5. Can private 5. Institutions like Birla 5. I cannot clearly state the 5. I think in terms 5. Private universities definitely 5. There is no real quality 5. Yes 5. Privatisation may 5. There is a new standard being 5. May be. Funding for 5. We view 5. Most private 5. Though private 5. I think 2 kinds of 5. The mounting 5. Excellence in Private 5. Universities are 5. Private funding
universities bring Institute of Technology significance of privatisation of of private bring higher standards in the education fed to students provide higher standards adopted by private universities higher education is large internationalisation as a universities embrace universities burden education are possible. demands of higher Universities that is not so even established in are vast, hence the
higher standards in and Science, Pilani have Higher education in India with universities, the delivery of education; however enrolled in higher education in Indian higher education which is known as flipped as these institutions part of privatisation of technological concepts in students with fee, the
One is for employment, education require good especially the rural areas which aid standards of
the delivery of been maintaining the so many issues revolving great hope is, that recruitment training should also be sector (both private and if academic flexibility, classroom. In this learning mode, collect fee and are private higher education in India, all activities. These act as collected funds are used
while the other one is for competent human standards are so slanting students belonging to education are
education? standards in engineering around the regulations for freedom that these provided. public). I think the standards diversity of force skill faculties guide students on how to players. Hence, the especially in the state of high standards for for the development of
social transformation. I resource. Private perhaps in my opinion it that region to be maintained.
on par with IITs the private institution approval. institutions have, have not been met since the based, competency based proceed their career with the quality of education Karnataka. students to learn more the institutions‘ think corporate universities in this global is different. Excellence is empowered.
current opinion of public enables to run any enrolment rate of students in curriculum, innovative selected professional degree. Very delivered would be good. effectively. infrastructure. universities and private era are transformed in not used these days Additionally, the
private universities and number of good some private higher programs, processes and little focus is on classroom universities have been term of curriculum, in talking about the standards of higher
institutions may be programmes and education institutions is procedures, courses and environment and students look for busy. Looking at quality and standards. institutions especially education and the
justified to some extent. course which are relatively low. This creates then creation of new practical knowledge. In this regard, everything as rightly said, regarding credibility. access to the same are
The existence of private futuristic. Hence, the an imbalance. knowledge by research I view privatisation to bring in terms of corporate increased.
universities not only higher standards of and then collaboration of benefits in higher education. context, personal attitude
improves the quality of higher education are international and national development, skill
education but also met. repute, of course quality development, but if they
provides the social student enhancement, forget about the larger
responsibility. The transparency and context of intervention to
success of self financing accountability and social the society to a social
private universities can be accountability are all transformation, that
6. Will privatisation of 6. No. The only issue 6. Discrimination may occur 6. With increase in 6. Privatisation indeed generates 6. I clearly view the lack of 6. In the state of Karnataka, 40 6. I do not perceive 6. To me privatisation has not 6. Skill development is 6. I could not 6. Social inclusiveness 6. There is no stable 6. Private institutions 6. In some way or 6. The private 6. Private 6. I don‘t find
higher education with privatisation is the since students trained in some the number of private discrimination. The present kind of social inclusion in higher % of seats in the professional more good traits about created discrimination in the equity something I think that is completely oppose is lacking in private higher financial model for private nowadays are towards another, students are universities must have a institutions are discrimination .
create discrimination increase in the number of private institutions with poor institutions, there is a strength what is reported on education sector. My views courses are surrendered to the privatisation in Indian of higher education but inequity in lacking in both private privatisation as it has education institutions. I higher education increasing the enrolled in higher central role, a extending to rural Access to higher
in the distribution of unemployed graduates quality of education are a need to maintain Government agencies, 70% of are towards the public government which is an act to higher education. employment. and public sector higher merits too. However, I fear would suggest revision of institutions in India. employability of the education either in public philanthropic role for parts of the nation. education is
higher education? and postgraduate who affected. quality. graduates are unemployable they private mix which can only prevent discrimination. I suppose Moreover, private education institutions. the factors of fee structure to create These are generally nation- it is good for the or private institutions. commercial purpose. The gap is getting increased, standards
acquire new skills and Discrimination may state except the special fields like close the gap. this should be implemented in all educational institutions This creates employment inaccessibility and social equity. diverse among different nation, however there are However, I find Since such a role is bridged nowadays are maintained and so
innovate their quality of occur since students medicine, the need for quality the states of the country. are mostly inequality. inequity in higher states. Hence equity doubts about the quality discrimination in the lacking, there will be no with new private on.
higher education that belonging to poor workforce is increasing. With commercialised. I don‘t education. could not be maintained. of education delivered. employability status of basis for equity. institutions.
becomes extremely families suffer. In increased number of graduates see the good prospects of students studying in
important. such cases, emerging every year, there is a private higher education different universities. It is
scholarships and discrimination in the job enrolment in India. the quality of education
113

Is Market Driven Educational Model (Encouraging Privatisation in Higher Education) Good For India's Future?

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Is Market Driven Educational Model (Encouraging Privatisation in Higher Education) Good For India's Future?

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Is Market Driven Educational Model (Encouraging Privatisation in Higher Education)

Good for India’s Future?

This Sample Work has been completed by ‗Tutors India‘

List of Table ............................................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8

1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................................ 15

1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 15

1.4 Scope of the study.................................................................................................................... 15

1.5 Chapter scheme ........................................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 17

2.0 Encouraging privatisation in Indian Higher education ....................................................... 17

2.1 Defining the terms ................................................................................................................... 18

2.2 Relationship between Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation ............................. 22

2.3 Privatisation in the educational sector .................................................................................. 23

2.4 Privatisation of higher education in Global context ............................................................ 26

2.5 Privatisation in the Indian educational sector ...................................................................... 29

2.7 Issues in Privatisation of higher education in India ............................................................ 41

2.8 Need for Privatisation in higher education ........................................................................... 42

2.9 Political economy of higher education in India ................................................................... 44

2.10 Previous studies ..................................................................................................................... 47

2.11 Research Gap ......................................................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 50

3.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 50

3.1 Research design ....................................................................................................................... 51

3.2 Research philosophy ............................................................................................................... 52

3.3 Research Approach .................................................................................................................. 52

3.4 Target population and sample size ........................................................................................ 53

3.4.1 Sampling technique ................................................................................................. 55

3.5 Data collection ......................................................................................................................... 55

3.5.1 Data collection methods .......................................................................................... 55

3.5.2 Interviews in educational research .......................................................................... 55

3.5.3 Procedures for preparing for the interviews ............................................................ 56

3.6 Analysis of the interview ........................................................................................................ 58

3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 59

4.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 59

4.1 Participants ............................................................................................................................... 59

4.2 Role of privatisation in higher education development in India ....................................... 63

4.3 Perceptions of stakeholders towards choosing higher education institutions .................. 66

4.4 Views of Indian Government on privatisation ..................................................................... 69

4.5 Encouraging privatisation in India ........................................................................................ 71

4.7 Role of privatisation in maintaining equity and accessibility ............................................ 77

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 80

5.1 Effects of privatisation in Indian higher education ............................................................. 85

5.2 Governmental regulations and privatisation ........................................................................ 86

5.3 Governmental regulations and privatisation ........................................................................ 88

5.5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 91

Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 113

Figure 1: World higher education enrolment rate .................................................................... 10

Higher education student enrolment rate

Source: Adopted from UNESCO (2016)

1. To determine the effects of privatisation in Indian higher education

1.3 Research Questions

1) What are the effects of privatisation in Indian higher education?

1.4 Scope of the study

2.0 Encouraging privatisation in Indian Higher education

2.1 Defining the terms

i) Product internationalisation with changes in the production structure

2.3 Privatisation in the educational sector

i. Delivering education to the inaccessible communities

i. Outsourcing state specific activities and operations to private education providers.

2.4 Privatisation of higher education in Global context