تامین مالی وام های دانشجویی در تایلند: پشتوانه گردشی یا تعهد بی انتها؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|14805||2002||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9990 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Economics of Education Review, Volume 21, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 367–380
A student loans scheme (SLS) came into effect recently in Thailand, covering both upper secondary and tertiary level schooling. The central objective of the scheme is social — to increase access of poor students and to prevent student dropout. The loans scheme is highly subsidized owing to the extremely favorable repayment conditions, which in turn calls into question the longer-term financial viability of the scheme. The average repayment ratio on loans is only about 20%, while an overall loan recovery, taking into account repayment default and administration costs, is 10% or less. It is recommended that the loans scheme for the upper secondary schooling be converted to a grants scheme; alternative reforms are suggested to raise the average repayment and recovery ratios on loans for tertiary level students, closer in line with international experience.
A student loans scheme (SLS) has been established recently in Thailand, starting its operation in the academic year 1996/1997. As in the other countries where student loans schemes have been established, the Thai scheme covers tertiary education (comprising public and private universities, Rajabhat teacher training colleges and technical institutes); unusually, the Thai scheme also covers the upper secondary schooling. Throughout the world, student loans schemes almost exclusively relate to tertiary education; though there are a few notable exceptions.1 Yet while loans schemes for upper secondary schooling are unusual, it is at this level of non-compulsory schooling that enrollment rates fall off drastically and the risk of dropout increases. Poor students are particularly at risk, because of the high opportunity costs of studying rather than working. For this reason, government subsidy of the private costs of upper secondary education, particularly for the poor, is seen as an important element of social policy in Thailand. A central question posed in this paper is whether subsidized loans targeted at the poor (rather than grants) constitute the best instrument for achieving the desired outcome. Repayment conditions in the Thai SLS are extremely generous, implying an extensive loan subsidy. The introduction of soft terms of repayment may have resulted from the conception of the loan scheme as one that has essentially social objectives, with considerably less weight given to the financial aspects of the scheme. The open issue, however, is the resulting size of the loan subsidy; an overlarge subsidy brings into question the financial viability, and hence the long-term sustainability, of the scheme as a whole. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to this issue in Thailand. Yet the sums involved are very large; annual budgetary allocations for student loans now exceed 20 billion Baht (a sum equivalent to some 10% of the national education budget). The plan of the paper is as follows. 2, 3, 8 and 6 are contextual and comparative; Section 2 provides comparative data on the financial viability of loans schemes in other countries while Section 3 presents alternative objectives and policies for student loans schemes, based on international experience of student loans and contrasts this with the Thai scheme. Section 4 examines the size, growth and coverage of the scheme, in terms of financial commitments and number of borrowers. Section 5, focusing on the individual borrower's loan account, poses the question: how much of a loan does a typical student repay to the fund? Section 6 examines the financial viability of the scheme. It estimates the proportion of the loans budget that is likely to be recovered by the loans fund after taking account of the probability of repayment default and administration costs. Building on these findings, Sections 7 and 8 suggest reform measures that might be adopted for student loans at the upper secondary and tertiary levels, respectively