Фінансові відносини у сфері вищої освіти, основані на осібній та взаємній відповідальності суб’єктів

Abstract

Визначено інструментарій реалізації бюджетної політики держави за допомогою типізації фінансових відносин суб’єктів сфери вищої освіти. Солідарно-субсидіарний тип фінансових відносин визначає роль держави і як регулятора, і як замовника освітніх послуг. Як регулятор держава орієнтує поведінку споживачів на потреби ринку праці, а діяльність ЗВО − на фінансову автономію. Як замовник держава відповідає за фінансування ВО у вигляді держзамовлення. Солідарно-субсидіарний тип відносин держзамовника із постачальниками і споживачами освітніх послуг за допомогою інструментів, що дають змогу одночасно уникнути беззбитковості освітньої діяльності за спеціальністю і задовольнити потреби регіонального ринку праці, реалізує бюджетну політику держави у сфері вищої освіти, спрямовану на культивування індивідуальної та взаємної відповідальності суб’єктів.

Some implementatation tools of the state’s budget policy due to the typification of financial relations in higher education are determined in the article. The acceptability of the type of relations of the higher education institutions (paternalism, solidarity, subsidiarity) regarding the effectiveness of the state‘s financial policy is clarified. The economic responsibility of the state and higher education insrtitutions as a basic condition of subsidiary relations is revealed.Quantitative parameters of subsidiary relations of the state as a customer of educational services and higher education institution as a service provider are determined. Financial relations in the field of higher education are characterized by antagonism between the paternalism of the state and the principle of market relations. Partnership relations are based on the principles according to which market subjects are partners in achieving their goals. The hierarchy of higher education makes partnership relations impossible due to the subordination of the goals of the institutions. Solidarity as a type of relationship implies mutual responsibility and mutual assistance based on the unity of interests of the institutions. The solidarity of the state and higher education institutions is manifested in two aspects. The first one is the relationship concerning granting permission by the state to an institution for educational activities. The second aspect consists in the relationship concerning purchasing the educational services of the institution by the state. The aspects of solidarity are a reflection of the regulatory and commercial powers of the state. The mutual responsibility of the institutions of the different levels creates a subsidiary type of relationship. The establishment of subsidiary relations means the introduction of economic feasibility of providing educational services. The object of subsidiarity between the state and institutions is the minimum break-even point of demand for educational services (in the specialty of a certain level of education and form of education). A necessary condition for determining the amount is to establish the value of costs for an academic year per student who receives the service. In case of impossibility to form the minimum amount of demand the enrolment to a specialty is canceled. According to market principles, the amount of demand for specialties is of interest to HEI in the case when the tuition fee covers the cost of providing the service. Thus, the range of educational services of the institution may change annually. Solidarity-subsidiary relations regulate the obligations of the state and higher education institutions as to financing the forecasted demand for educational services. Relations among higher education institutions are the methodological basis of public funding. Solidarity-subsidiary type of relations means a combination of individual and collective responsibilities. The state simultaneously acts as a regulator and customer of educational services. The role of the regulator is to focus consumers of educational services on the needs of the labor market, and higher education institutions – on financial autonomy. The role of the customer is to share the responsibility for financing higher education with higher education institutions, which should involve other sources of funding for educational services. A conceptual approach is linked to the determination by higher education institutions of the minimum possible break-even point of the amount of services that they undertake to sell to the state as a regulator. The state as a customer undertakes to share responsibility with institutions through the purchase of part of the services subject to the sale of a minimum amount. The conceptual approach allows achieving the unity of regulatory and commercial components in the activities of the state in the field of higher education.