Volume 30, Issue 2 (summer 2025)
JEPR 2025, 30(2): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hatami Garousi J, Azizi N, Shirbagi N. (2025). Political behaviors in Iran's higher education budgeting (reflection on dimensions, bases, consequences and solutions). JEPR. 30(2),
URL: http://eprj.ir/article-1-2332-en.html
URL: http://eprj.ir/article-1-2332-en.html
1- . PhD Student in Higher Education Development Planning, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran , jafargarousi.1364@gmail.com
2- . Professor, Department of Educatinal Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kurdistan
3- Professor, Department of Educatinal Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kurdistan.
2- . Professor, Department of Educatinal Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kurdistan
3- Professor, Department of Educatinal Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, University of Kurdistan.
Abstract: (85 Views)
The purpose of the research is to identify dimensions, bases, consequences and solutions to reduce political behavior in Iran's higher education budgeting. The research is of the qualitative research type and its strategy is the foundational data theory. The research community is all the experts who had educational and research records in the field of study and10of them were selected through purposeful and theoretical sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, and then the text of the interviews was coded and analyzed based on content analysis. Data analysis in the political behavior section led to the emergence of five categories: behavioral; structural; Individual, group, organizational and nature results. In the section related to the emergence of new platforms, ten categories: characteristics of higher education; the atmosphere of the country; characteristics of Iranian universities; people; priorities; interests; legal weakness; The budgeting approach led to the limitation of financial resources and parties. Also; In the consequences section, twelve categories: positive effect; Bargaining and political work; expert and technical logic; Disillusionment of elites and scientists; sense of injustice; unfair distribution of equipment, resources and facilities; promoting a certain type of higher education; efficiency and effectiveness; political tendencies and attitudes; healthy competition; Personal benefits and higher education were obtained. The findings showed that the interviewees had a comprehensive understanding of the political behavior in the country's higher education budgeting and did not suffer from the one-sidedness found in previous researches. In the end, suggestions to reduce the incidence of political behavior in Iran's higher education budgeting have been presented.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
health, education, welfare economics
Received: Dec 10 2024 | Accepted: Sep 13 2025 | ePublished: Jan 07 2026
Received: Dec 10 2024 | Accepted: Sep 13 2025 | ePublished: Jan 07 2026
References
1. Altbach, P. G. (2009). One-third of the globe: The future of higher education in China and India. Journal of Prospects, 39(1), 11-31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11125-009-9106-1 [DOI:10.1007/s11125-009-9106-1]
2. Boix, C. (1997). Political parties and the supply side of the economy: the provision of physical capital in advanced economies. American Journal of Political Science, 814-845. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111676 [DOI:10.2307/2111676]
3. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 3-30). Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24232591
4. Brown, P. S. (2024). Political Ideology as Determinative of Higher Education Funding: Exploring the Distinctions Between Community College and University Funding Under Differing Political Regimes (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).
5. Ezzamel, M. (1994). Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting system in its organizational context. Organization studies, 15(2), 213-240. DOI:10.1177/017084069401500203 [DOI:10.1177/017084069401500203]
6. Gornitzka, Å. (1999). Governmental policies and organizational change in higher education. Journal of Higher education, 38(1), 5-31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329810691 [DOI:10.1023/A:1003703214848]
7. Hyslop-Margison, E.J., & Leonard, H.A. (2012). Post neo-liberalism and the humanities: What the repressive state apparatus means for universities. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 42(2), 1-12. [DOI:10.47678/cjhe.v42i2.183579]
8. Jalali Aliabadi, F., Mashayekhi, B., & Gal, G. (2019). Budget preparers' perceptions and performance-based budgeting implementation: The case of Iranian public universities and research institutes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 31(1), 137-156. [DOI:10.1108/JPBAFM-04-2018-0037]
9. Jarzabkowski, P. (2002). Centralised or decentralised? The strategic implications of resource allocation models. Journal of Higher Education Quarterly, 56(1), 5-32. DOI:10.1111/1468-2273.00200 [DOI:10.1111/1468-2273.00200]
10. Jongbloed, B. (2007). Creating public-private dynamics in higher education funding. A discussion of three options. Public-private dynamics in higher education: Expectations, developments and outcomes, 113-138. [DOI:10.14361/9783839407523-005]
11. Kivistö, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 339-350. [DOI:10.1080/13600800802383018]
12. Lepori, B., Usher, J., & Montauti, M. (2013). Budgetary allocation and organizational characteristics of higher education institutions: a review of existing studies and a framework for future research. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 59-78. [DOI:10.1080/12294659.2024.2377874]
13. Rodden, K. A. (2017). At the intersection of politics and higher education: policy, power, and governing boards in Oklahoma (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).
14. Sangiumvibool, P., & Chonglerttham. (2016). Performance-based budgeting for continuing and lifelong education services: The Thai higher education perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(1), 1-17. [DOI:10.1080/1360080X.2016.1211977]
15. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16. Tandberg, D. (2008). The Politics of State Higher Education Funding. Journal of Higher Education in Review, 5, 1-36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232250969
17. Tandberg, D. (2010). Politics, interest groups, and state funding of public higher education. [DOI:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5]
18. Journal Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416-450. [DOI:10.1007/s11162-010-9164-5]
19. Tonn, J. C. (1978). Political behavior in higher education budgeting. Journal of Higher Education, 49(6), 575-587. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0309586X84900189 [DOI:10.1080/00221546.1978.11780412]
| Rights and permissions | |
.jpg) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
