The array of challenges that higher education faces today is virtually unparalleled with when compared to any other point in Albanian history. The litany of changes is familiar to those dealing with higher edu- cation, including: financial pressure, changing uni- versity role, growth in technology, public scrutiny, competing values, changing demographics and the globalization. There is little doubt that the modern university is far different to that of the early 90s and the work of academics has changed considerably over this time driven by the efficiency and accountability agenda. In taking stock of the changes, it needs to be recognized that often the cry for efficiency and ac- countability has been used as a mechanism for con- trol, cost reductions and to drive particular policy agendas. In broad terms, management practices in the tertiary education sector have shifted from a collegial to a corporate or commercial paradigm.
Whilst higher education is seen as a major driver of a nations’ economic and social well-being, the growth in higher education participation puts enormous strains on the public purse (Scott, Peter, 1998). This has led to higher education institutions (HEIs) diversifying their income sources. High-quality provision of high- er education ensures that HEIs can provide students with the best possible training. There is an argument that the introduction of market virtues into the higher education system will increase HEIs’ responsiveness to the needs of students and the labour market into which they should transition following graduation. As well, the equity notion (i) argues that those who benefit directly from higher education should also contribute to its costs… (ii) focusses on current barri- ers to higher education participation and asks whether additional costs at entry to higher education will in- crease these barriers, making higher education par- ticipation even more unfair than before. These two perspectives do not have to be contradictions, since the additional money raised through private revenues can be used to support under-represented groups.
Over the past decades researchers working on the question of public and private goods have turned sig- nificant attention to the nature of production in higher education. (Ehrenberd 2001). Much of this literature has been generated after the changes in the broader political economy that have challenged higher educa- tion institutions and policy makers to justify the exist- ing understandings of the provision, finance and out- comings in higher education (Slahghter and Leslie, 1997). In the policy arena the majority of the public debate over public and private goods in the contem- porary higher education has revolved over the issue of whether the public benefits pf higher education in- stitutions justify the public investments in those ben- efits (Pusser 2006).
Meantime, literature recognizes the fact that higher education is a key factor in a nation‘s effort to de- velop a highly skilled workforce for competing in the global economy (Kooij Y., 2015). There are important private and public benefits to participating in higher education. Higher salaries, better employment op- portunities, increased savings, and upward mobility are some of the private economic benefits obtained by taking part in tertiary education. A tertiary edu- cation graduate also obtains non-economic benefits including, a better quality of life, improved health, and greater opportunities for the future. Given the extensive social and private benefits that result from tertiary education, access and inclusion are essential for achieving social justice and ensuring the realiza- tion of the full potential of all young people. First, in the interest of fairness, every individual must be given an equal chance to partake in tertiary educa- tion and its benefits irrespective of income and other social characteristics including gender, ethnicity, and language. Second, there is a strong efficiency argu- ment in favour of equity promotion. A talented but low-income student who is denied entry into tertiary education represents a loss of human capital for soci- ety. The lack of opportunities for access and success in tertiary education will lead to under- or un-devel- oped human resources.
In the individual perspective, there are both non- monetary and monetary barriers to entry into higher education (World Bank, 2009). Academic ability, information access, motivation, inflexibility of uni- versity admission processes, and family environment and others forms of cultural capital are some of the non-monetary reasons that have been recognized as important factors in explaining poor participation of low-income individuals in tertiary education. There are different monetary barriers to higher education, i.e. the cost-benefit barrier and the cash-constraint or liquidity barrier. The cost-benefit barrier occurs when an individual decides that the costs of attending university (including tuition and living expenses as well as opportunity costs of not working during the duration of the course) outweigh the returns to their education. Liquidity barriers refer to a student‘s in- ability to gather the necessary resources to pursue tertiary education after having decided that the benefits do outweigh the costs. These monetary barriers are contributing to rising inequity in tertiary education participation
The context generally considered to be of benefit to the individual, even where it does not demonstrably increase overall lifetime earnings, and that access to higher education is not unbiased, in that young people from families of higher socioeconomic status whose parents have higher education degrees are more likely to take higher education than those of lower socio- economic status with little or no education traditions in the family. Granted, this argument raises the ques- tion of individual versus group rights, but it should at least serve to illustrate the fact that higher educa- tion free of charge to the individual is not an issue to be phrased in black and white. The point is also illustrated by the opposite possibility: students pay- ing the full cost of their education. Apart from the fact that the full cost of some study programs would be prohibitive and could cut society off from certain kinds of much-needed competence, this model is also untenable on reasons of principle. While the benefits of higher education may be most immediately felt by those who graduate from it, all members of society benefit to some extent from a high general level of competence in that society.