Analysis of China Technical Education Fund Investment between Governments on Two Levels from Perspective of Dividend Distribution of State-owned Capital Gains
Xiao-Ling Zheng 1, 2  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Minjiang University, CHINA
2
Renming University, CHINA
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Xiao-Ling Zheng   

School of Economics and Management, The research Center of Haixi Fiscal and Financial Development, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350108; Address to No.200, Xi yuan-gong Rd. Shangjie Town, Minhou County., Fuzhou City 350108, Fujian Province, China. Tel: +86-13599062993.
Publish date: 2017-06-27
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(7):4319–4331
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The development of China's technical education has been severely constrained by the shortage of education funds. China's technical education funding are too small. The main source of education comes from fiscal revenue. A large proportion of State-owned enterprises profit income as a major source of fiscal revenue are still retained in the enterprises. We should turn over a portion of State-owned enterprises profit for technical education funding in order to alleviate insufficient technical education funds. The central government should decentralize powers to ensure the activity of local government, thus achieving the optimal coordination of benefits between the two, so as to increase the local government technical education funding. We should further refine the responsibility of all levels of government, improve the management mechanism of technical education funds. And then we should implement a comprehensive, multi-level technical education funding management mechanism.
 
REFERENCES (20)
1.
Arcalean, C., & Schiopu, I. (2016). Inequality, opting-out and public education funding. Social Choice and Welfare, 46(4), 811-837, DOI: 10.1007/s00355-015-0937-9.
 
2.
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., &D'Angelo, C. A. (2011). The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems. Scientometrics, 87(3), 641-654, DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0355-4.
 
3.
Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Redy, V. (2014). Performance Funding for Higher Education: Forms, Origins, Impacts, and Futures. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 163-184, DOI: 10.1177/0002716214541042.
 
4.
Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. .P. K. (2014). Performance Funding in Higher Education: Do Financial Incentives Impact College Completions. Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826-857,.
 
5.
Gunn, A., & Mintrom, M. (2016). Higher Education Policy Change in Europe: Academic Research Funding and the Impact Agenda. European Education, 48(4), 241-257, DOI: 10.1080/10564934.2016.1237703.
 
6.
Jiao, J.-G. (2005).Relation between the Central Government and Local Government in the State-owned Assets Management System - Historical Evaluation, Practical Operation and Future Choice, Research on Financial and Economic Problems, 3, 71-76.
 
7.
Liao, T.-T. (2010). “Level-by-level Ownership” of State-owned Assets: Theoretical Logic and Path Innovation, Journal of Fujian Normal University, 3, 23- 28.
 
8.
Li, Y.-N. (2014). Chinese Path and Mixed Ownership Economy, Chinese Market, 23, 3-11.
 
9.
Ma, J.(1995).Reform of Fiscal Relation between the Central Government and the Local Government, Modern China Studies, 02,25-28.
 
10.
Nisar, M. A. (2015). Higher education governance and performance based funding as an ecology of games. Higher Education, 69(2), 289-302, DOI: 10.1007/s10734-014-9775-4.
 
11.
Renzulli, L. A. (2016). The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations. Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews, 45(5), 596-597, DOI: 10.1177/0094306116664524n.
 
12.
Rodriguez, G.M. (2013). Power and Agency in Education: Exploring the Pedagogical Dimensions of Funds of Knowledge.Review of Research in Education, 37, 87-120, DOI: 10.3102/0091732X12462686.
 
13.
Soares, J. (2003). Self-interest and public funding of education. Journal of Publice Economics, 87(3), 703-727, DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00183-9.
 
14.
Tandberg, D.A. (2010). Politics, Interest Groups and State Funding of Public Higher Education.Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416-450, DOI: 10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5.
 
15.
White, L. A., Friendly, M. (2012). Public Funding, Private Delivery: States, Markets, and Early Childhood Education and Care in Liberal Welfare States - A Comparison of Australia, the UK, Quebec, and New Zealand. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 14(4), 292-310, DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2012.699789.
 
16.
Wu, W.-f., Wu, C.-f., & Rui, O. M. (2012). Ownership and the Value of Political Connections: Evidence from China. European Financial Management, 18(4), 695-729.
 
17.
Xie, L.-J. (2014).Mixed Ownership Economy: System Platform with Triple Meanings. People's Tribune Research Front, 6: 49-55.
 
18.
Xin, G-S. (2014). Several Key Issues to Be Noted for Mixed Ownership Reform of State-owned Enterprises, Shanghai Lawyer, 8: 46-47.
 
19.
Zhu, Q-H., Liu, J-J., & Jai, K-h. (2016). Corporate social responsibility practices and performance improvement among Chinese national state-owned enterprises. International Journal of production economics, 171, 417-426, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.005.
 
20.
Zhang, Q-L., Ning, K., & Barnes, R. (2016). A Systematic Literature Review of Funding for Higher Education Institutions in Developed Countries. Frontiers of Education in China, 11(4), 519-542, DOI: 10.3868/s110-005-016-0040-8.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215