CEU eTD Collection HIGHER EDUCATION? LOCAL AND REGIONAL INEQUALITIES OF INEQUALITIES ANDREGIONAL LOCAL HIGHER EDUCATION? In partial fulfilment oftherequirements forthe degree ofMaster ofArts in Political DOES A ZIP CODE AFFECT ONE’S CHANCES OF GETTING INTO OFGETTING CHANCES ONE’S AFFECT A DOES ZIP CODE ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION INCROATIA TO HIGHEREDUCATION ACCESS Supervisor: Liviu Professor Matei Department ofPolitical Science Central EuropeanUniversity Budapest, Hungary Submitted to Ria Bili Science [2012] By ü CEU eTD Collection To view a copyofthis license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 CEU eTD Collection CEU eTD Collection problems are“diagnosed and managed”, field dataprovide opposingevidence. units. Thisresearch shows thatalthoughnormative prescriptions indicate that access vast disparities inbothaccessrates andscholarship availability between different provision onlocaland regional level through statistical methods, Igained insight into information onaccessrates,of socio-economic level development and scholarship be undertaken inorder to alleviate these inequalities. However, after analyzing as thatwell certain policy measures (among others, provision ofscholarships) should both socio-economic statusand theurban/ruralstatus of the place ofresidence, as groups experience access problems andthattheseproblems arecontingent upon conclude that the Croatian government recognizes that certain individualsand financial aidpolicy. Content analysis of relevant official documents enabled me to the most important access-facilitating policy mechanisms inCroatia employed – government onequaland equitable access; and lastly, tothoroughly explore oneof economic development; tomap outtheofficialnormative positionof the Croatian Croatiaand examine if thesedifferences are influenced bythelevelof socio- access tohighereducation among as as regionalwell local, self-government in units The focus of this research is threefold:to see theextent of inequalities regarding ABSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection education, but their socio-economic statushindered themfrom doing so. This thesisis dedicated toall those whowere capable and willing toenter higher (NEPC) where how Ilearnt it lookstotacklethese issues onadaily basis. Development ofEducation equality inhighereducation in thefirst place. As thanks well, to Pallua Last butnotthe least, Iwould liketothank cooked food whileI was stuck frontin ofthecomputer. encouragement aswell asproviding me with creative breaks and amazing home- Finally, Iwould tothank like throughout this yearIspent abroad. Many thanksalsogoto my Mario I wouldalso like tothank withthesis. the his helpfulcomments, valuableguidelines, important suggestions and immense help I would liketo express my deepestgratitude to mymentor, professor unforgettableand worthwhile. Firstly, Iwould like to thank allmy forthetechnical, but essential part - helping memake detailedmaps. forallthe debates and conversations that mademe interested accessin and Thomas family (IDE) and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Marko fellow colleagues and for precious remarks andfriendly support, and forall theunconditional affection, support and friends Network of Educational Policy Centres ii Tomislav , fortheir absolute loveandsupport for making this academic year , Anton , Viktor Institute for the for Institute Liviu Matei , Daniel and , for CEU eTD Collection REFERENCE LIST REFERENCE CONCLUSION HIGHER EDUCATION: THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA and CROATIA IN POLICIES EQUITY AND ONEQUITY FRAMEWORK NORMATIVE THE OF 4. ANALYSIS CHAPTER CHAPTER 5. ACCESS FACILITATING POLICY MECHANISMS INCROATIA MECHANISMS POLICY FACILITATING 5.ACCESS CHAPTER CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION ...... 17 DEVELOPMENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC OF LEVEL THE AND EDUCATION HIGHER TO 3. ACCESS CHAPTER CHAPTER 2.METHODOLOGY 5.2. Scholarship policy evaluation 5.1. Scholarship policy 4.2. Croatian normative framework on equity and equity policies in higher education 4.1. European normative framework on equity and equity policies in higher education 3.2. Findings model The 3.1. 1.3. Policy evaluation 1.2. Socio-economic status and access to education 1.1. Equal access and equitable access to higher education 2.3. Policy evaluation ofscholarship policy as an access-facilitating mechanism 2.2. Normative framework analysis 2.1. Socioeconomic status and access to higher education 5.1.3. Local level 5.1.2. Regional level 5.1.1. National level 4.2.3. Bologna progress reports 4.2.2. Strategic documents 4.2.1. The Constitution and laws regulating higher education 3.2.2. Regional level 3.2.1. Local level ...... 68 ...... 1 ...... 70 ...... 22 ...... 18 ...... 56 ...... 22 ...... 10 ...... 53 ...... 51 ...... 54 ...... 32 ...... 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TABLE ...... 43 ...... 64 ...... 46 ...... 13 ...... 5 iii ...... 7 ...... 12 ...... 5 ...... 50 ...... 42 ...... 37 ...... 14 ...... 41 ...... 38 CEU eTD Collection iue1 . Percentage of local self-governmentFigure unit that provide scholarships 15. Availability of scholarships stratified by legal-administrative status Figure of the 14. Availability of scholarship opportunities Figure on local-self government unit 13. Availability of scholarships on local self-government Figure unit 12. level The amount of scholarships per month and county Figure (in 11. EUR) Theoverall The number of scholarshipsFigure distributionper county in Academic year of categorized 10. Enrolment Indexes on Territorialthe distributionFigure county of 9. level the DI categories on the county map The Figure of 8. distributionCroatia of counties into Development Index Figure 7. categories Enrolment Index (in percentages) stratified by categories Figure of 6. the Local self-government units scoring below and above average Figure range 5. of The distribution of categorized Enrolment Indexes on the level Figure of 4. local Enrolment Index (EI) percentage values by the Figure legal-administrative3. Socio-economically underdeveloped areas (<75% DI) by Figure legal- 2. The distribution of local self-government units into DevelopmentFigure 1. Index Average monthly amount of local scholarships stratified by Table DI 18. categories Number of local self-government unit that provide Table scholarships 17. stratified Percentage of student population covered by Table scholarships per 16.county Availability of scholarships by legal-administrative status of the unit Table Percentage and 15. of student population covered by scholarships Table per 14. Basic county information on scholarships provided in Table A 13. Equity commitments made in the official documentsTable Enrolmentof the BolognaIndex 12. stratified by categories of the Table Development 11. EnrolmentIndex Index (EI) values for Table counties 10. Table 9. Table 8. Table 7. Table 6. Table 5. Table 4. Table 3. Table 2. Table 1. stratified byDevelopment Index categories unit level 2011/2012 Development Index the Enrolment Index self-government units status ofthe unit administrative statusoftheunit categories by Development Index (DI) categories disaggregated inlocalselfgovernment units number ofenrolledstudents process Development Index (DI) valuesfor counties Enrolment Index stratified bycategories ofthe Development Index Enrolment Index values for units below and above average range Enrolment Index (EI) values for localself-government units Number ofunderdeveloped local self government units (<75% DI) Development Index (DI) valuesfor local self-government units Categories of theDevelopment Index Multiple regression model results List ofallvariables included inthemodel LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES OF FIGURES LIST iv cademic year2011/2012 CEU eTD Collection since itwas notthe member oftheEuropean Unionatthe time,which makes itan social inequity. (Koucký etal. 2009).However, thisresearch didnotinclude Croatia 1990s,early unlike intheir Western counterparts where trends indicate adropin evident thatinequityis mostin post-socialist Europeancountries increased inthe the participationof disadvantaged individuals andgroups. The authorssuggest that it had vastly different outcomes compared totherestof worldWestern interms of educationEurope in 1950–2009" byKoucky et. al,post-socialist European countries these groups/areas. According tothe report"Who gets adegree? Access totertiary mechanisms existcertain for groups/areas, what arethemechanisms andwho are questions are how is access organized a in society, do specific access-facilitating specific needs of disadvantaged groupsorindividuals. develop policies ofequitableaccess, thus attemptingto accommodate andmeet the perpetuated themselves higherin education, which impelled some countriesto Despite growing enrolmentmany rates, existing andeconomic social inequalities just status etc.) andunderprivileged socio-economicallyless developed, ruralareas. Roma peopleinEurope, persons with disabilities, peopleof lower socioeconomic certain historically underprivileged groups (racialand ethnic minorities - notably the not fully addressed the problem of inequality inaccessto higher education among from elite tomass higher education are positive developments, these advances have countries. However, although expansion ofaccess, widening participation andashift students enrolled inhigher education institutions inbothdeveloping anddeveloped In thedebate of access and equity in higher education, the most important In thepast few decades there has been adramatic increase thein number of INTRODUCTION 1 CEU eTD Collection throughout Croatiaand canitsadministration beconsidered effective? (scholarships),aid asan access facilitating policy mechanism, accessible equally education inCroatian laws, strategies policy and strategic documents;financial andis the unit's population; is the What normative position onequalaccess to higher rate ofaccessto higher education institutions among thecorresponding agecohort of developmentand regional oflocal self-government unitshaveaninfluence onthe inherent inequalities. of thepolicyanalysis of one mechanismseliminate,at least usedto orthelessen normative stance the Croatian government hasonequalaccess, aswell asdo an represents the core of the issue of inclusive higher education,I willalso examine the the rateofaccessto higher education institutions. Since equality ofopportunities economicdevelopment ofalocalselfgovernment hasanykind unit oninfluence on to highereducation inCroatia. Morespecifically, I'm interested ifthe levelofsocio- theis spatialdimension of inequality, that is, local andregional inequalities inaccess access to highereducation andprovision offinancial aid.Thetopic ofthisresearch higher education (Bajo 2008),Ifocus onayet unexplored area: spatial aspects of al. 2006)and Bajowho researchedthe adequacy ofthe Croatian financing system of Bologna process and individual inequalities in accessto higher education (Puzi 2008), Puzi trends. interesting case for examination tosee demonstratesif it thesame access-inequality structure ofthestudent body the Croatianin higher education system (Matkovi Summarized, theresearch questions are:Does thelevel ofsocio-economic Followingupon the research of Matkovi ü , Dolenec and Doolan who worked upon the social dimension ofthe 2 ü that concentrated upon the social ü et ü CEU eTD Collection counties andthe capitalcity of Zagreb which hastheauthority and legalstatus of On theregional level,Croatia is divided into 21 units of regionalself-government: 20 Background information on Croatia outcomes ofCroatianscholarship policy. equitable accessstated officialin documents (normative framework) with the majority ofscholarship provision tothe local level. Finally, I willcompare goals about scholarshipprovision: how effective achieving in equitable access isleaving the scholarships indifferent partsofthe country andb)thesubsidiarity principle in try toevaluatethescholarship policy place,in focusing on:a)availability of peopleof lower socio-economic status.Using theconcept of policy evaluation, Iwill as well as the only one explicitly stated to be used as an equity measure targeting focus will beonscholarshippolicy as the most “tangible” instrument offinancial aid, employs toensure more equitableaccess to disadvantaged individuals. My main Chapter V I willexamine accessfacilitating mechanisms thattheCroatian state alleviate socio-economic inequalities the in higher educationsystem. Lastly,in and what doestheCroatiangovernment normatively commit todoinorder itself normative framework analysis toseewhat’s Croatia’s stance onequitable access, inferential anddescriptive statisticalmethods. Secondly, inChapter IVIwilldo a the rate ofaccess tohigher education among thepopulation ofthat unit using both impact socio-economic indicators of alocalself-government unit in Croatiahave on and II,this thesis willentail three levels of analysis. In Chapter IIIIwillanalyze the Croatia is administrative-territorially divided on two levels: regional and local. After outlining the theoretical framework andmethodology inChapters I 3 CEU eTD Collection this increase has been visible across thehigher education sector (CBS 2010). increased from 136,129 students in2006/2007 to153,960students in2010/2011 and 2006 and2010, onall levels ofstudy. The totalnumber of Croatianstudents has an increase in totalnumber ofenrolled students over afive year period, between on thenational level.According to Croatian BureauofStatistics datathere hasbeen territorially competent authorities, as well as by government-established trust funds public financial aid(scholarships)alsodistributed is on localand regional levelby student support system, scholarships, food, accommodation and transport. However, The Department for Student Affairs within the MSES dealswith improvements tothe Ministry ofScience, Education and Sports is in charge ofthe student support system. Polytechnics, and 3publicand27privateuniversity collegesofappliedsciences. The there are 7public and3 private universities in Croatia, 13public and 2 private According to the Croatian Agency for Science andHigher Education (AZVO 2010), university and professional studies (Polytechnics and colleges of applied sciences). urban natural, economicsocial and unity(CBS 2009). unit of self-governmentlocal atthesameas amunicipality level whichrepresents an and social entity,and areconnected bycommon of interests inhabitants. A territory comprisinga number ofsettlements that areconsidered anatural, economic respectively. A Borders ofa county are determined byborders ofmarginal municipalities andtowns, government and, asarule; unity itcomprises a number oftownsmunicipalities. and county municipalities on the local level. As defined by theCroatian Bureau ofStatistics, a both acounty and a city.The counties then subdivide into 127cities and429 The Croatian higher education system abinary system is which consistsof isaunitofregional self-government which represents anatural, self- municipality is a unitoflocalis self-government, established forarural 4 town is a CEU eTD Collection economically disadvantaged areas. equity since examinesit theissue ofaccess tohigher education for the socio- generations (DesJardins 2003).Thefocusofmyprimarily researchwill beonvertical backgrounds), the latter refers tothe distribution ofresources to ensure equity across designed to improve access to higher education among students of disadvantaged one. theformerWhile referstounequaltreatment ofunequalgroups (such as policies framework developedby DesJardins divides equity into vertical andintergenerational overarching goalof righting past injustices (Conner 2011).A usefulconceptual access opportunities among historically underrepresented groupswith an (Evolving Diversity 2010). These measures include various mechanisms thatimprove status groupsor strata highereducationin in comparison totheir shares societyin measures designedtoamend disproportionality the representationin of various access inhighereducation hasbeen interpreted many in ways, mainly refersto butit good isnotnecessarily anequal one(McCowan 2007).Theconcept ofequity of 1.1. Equalaccess andequitable access to higher education education, theories thatlinksocio-economic statuswithaccessandpolicy evaluation. theories underpinning my research are equal and equitable access to higher that areused for the particular study" (Torraco 1997). The mainconcepts and "...consists ofconcepts, together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories concepts relevant forthe research. According toTorraco, thetheoretical framework and giveanoverview ofitsstructure, Iproceed totheexplanation oftheoretical The meaning ofequity isclose tothat of fairness, and a fair distributionof any Subsequent to abrief introductionwhich in I explaintopic the my of research CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK THEORETICAL 1. CHAPTER 5 CEU eTD Collection countries, governments started implementing programs public devised andpolicies to inherent toall societies, from 1960's andthestruggle forcivil rights inwestern their initial place in the social system" (Rawls 1971). Since social inequalities are willingness tousethem haveshould thesame prospectsofsuccess,regardless of that "thosewho areatthesame leveloftalent andability, andhave the same student has the equality of opportunities which means, inthewords of John Rawls, political theory. Theprerequisite ofachieving equalaccess thatis everypotential (OECD 2008). The shiftfrom equality toequity partis a ofthe ongoing debate in status, gender, ethnic origin, immigrant status, placeof residence, age, or disability” personal andsocialcircumstances, including offactors such associo-economic effort. They ensure thateducational potential attertiary level isnotthe resultof outcomes oftertiaryeducation arebasedonly onindividuals’ innate ability andstudy education systems asthosethat„ensureaccessto,participation inand 2003). TheOECD thematic review of tertiary education defines equitable higher disadvantaged groups in order to reach equality of opportunities for all (DesJardins treatment, that is, specially designed policies thattarget previously andhistorically all levels; primary, secondary or tertiary) and that they should besubject tounequal not havethe same startingpositions and starting chances accessingin education (on developing certain policies. Ittakes into account thatcertaingroups orindividuals do the need to address existing social andeconomic imbalances thein society when social origin accessible to everyone regardless oftheir race, gender, age, religion, handicap, access implies thateducational resources and opportunities shouldbe equally “equal access” and “equitable access”. AsDesJardins explains, theconcept of equal Additionally, it is important to point out there is asemantic difference between etc. . Equitableaccess, ontheother hand, is aconceptthatrecognizes 6 CEU eTD Collection earlier stages of education(primary andsecondary) continue toexist inhigher someareas significantly ofthe influenced byThe inequalities it. manifested inthe experience, availability ofprivate tuition and aspirationsfor higher education arejust gets enrolled into, the completion of secondary schooling, adaptation to the school These studies give a few examples ofinfluenced areas:theschoolsystem a person individual(Heward Bank 2006, 1993, World Altbach 2009, Ball2010,Lucas2010). accomplishments areheavily influencedby thesocio-economic statusofthe on standardized tests achievements oftheindividual, her cognitive capabilities, motivation, ability to dowell that educationalsuccess is influenced bymanyacademicas prior factorssuch that is entirely free ofunequal educationalopportunities" (Pop 2012). It is well known 1.2. Socio-economic status and access to education policies. Equitable access policies fall underthe category of remediatory affirmative action categories such as race, ethnicity, social origin discrimination order toremedyin previous unfair treatment bymorally arbitrary ruling class of a culture and implementing corrective action to address existing that is recompensating for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the action is remediation - righting past wrongs and emphasizing compensatory function, 2010). According toMoses, oneofthefour commonjustifications foraffirmative into consideration, andhave apurpose to benefit anunderrepresented group (Moses color, religion, gender, sexualorientation, national origin andsocio-economic status policies. Affirmative action refers topublic policies that take factors including race, reduce the levelof inequality, covered by the umbrella term As B ă descu andPop say, "there is no public education system in the world etc. , butmany studies arguethateducational 7 etc. . (Moses 2010, Cohen 2003). affirmative action affirmative CEU eTD Collection education, andadvantages) which give aperson higherstatus society. Childrenin culturalknowledge that confers power andstatus (forms skills, of knowledge, position intheir education andsociety. their circleof peers, and thesocial network of their parentsconsiderably influence the relationships, connections andtheensuing influences. Anindividual’s acquaintances, educationalpath andstatus society.in are theforms ofculturaland social capital andtheir influence onanindividual’s represents a bigger challenge than for their peers with richer parents. More complex equity in education isquite trivial: for children of poorer families the cost of education property etc.) behind a person or their family. Thecorrelation with the problem of simpleto understand is the relative importance of the forms ofcapital involved inthat specific field. The most possessed by actors thein field define their positions and possibilities, depending on capital toexplain the origin ofeducational inequalities. The forms ofcapital plurality of social fields and developed the sociologicalconcept of different forms of Reproduction Education,in Society andCulture (1977), he described society asa the prominent French sociologist as educationalas wellattainment hasbeenstudiedbymany especially scholars, by systems. upon successful participation atearlier stages ofeducation in alleducational importantfor theissue ofaccesstohigher education,highly since itis dependent 2001, McCowan 2007,Altbach 2009, Yang 2010,Lucas 2010). This isvastly students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (Mora 1997,James education, which results in the underrepresentation and unequal participation rates of The relationship between socio-economic status andbothaccess toeducation economic capital Pierre Bourdieu Social capital Cultural capital 8 , referring tothe material, referring wealth(money, stems from social stems of from networks . Togetherwith Passeron in represents the accumulated CEU eTD Collection argues that education istheprimemechanism forperpetuating inequalities society.in levels of education then individuals ofhigher socio-economic status. Hence, Bordieu economic, social andcultural capital and therefore have lesser opportunities on all 2010). Individuals with alower socio-economicaverage statushaveonless attitudes andknowledge neededto succeed in thecurrenteducationalsystem (Lucas because parents provide theirchildren with cultural capital bytransmitting the from stratalower social educated with less parents are inherently disadvantaged schooling path. family's and status peers perceptions on the gain ofeducation would influence the are notdifferentiated upontheprimary effect, itishighly probablethat their own, Furthermore, heasserts that even twoif childrenfrom different social backgrounds reputable education choices or leaving schoolearlier" (Evolving Diversity 2010). decision basedoncosts and utilities, forcing "lessadvantaged children into less secondary effect manifests in the influence family's socioeconomic status has on a achievement,upon reaching age highschool etc"(Evolving Diversity 2010). The status, the poorer the cultural background and hence the lower theschool this stratification are twofold. Hesums upthe primary effect as "the lower the social career decisions which results ineducationalstratification insociety.Theeffects of persons social class heavily influences the rationale underlying educationaland or theirparents about theeducational pathstobeundertaken. Boudonclaims thats the inequality ineducation canbeexplained by therationalchoice of the individuals another perspective, the rational education decisions theory. His theory argues that Similarly toBourdieu, Raymond Boudonapproached the same issuebutfrom 9 CEU eTD Collection positive ornegativefor thetarget population and society as a whole. whether apolicy'seffects were intended orunintended and whether theresults were (Theodoulou andKofina 2004). Through evaluation, possibleit is toascertain attainment,goal program effectiveness, impact, andcosts canbedetermined" describe policy evaluation asa"process by which generaljudgments about quality, being served is made” (Howlett &Ramesh 1995). Similarly, Theodoulou and Kofina fared in action, that is, whenan evaluation of means beingemployed andobjectives stage ofthepolicyprocessatwhichit determined policyis hasactually howapublic Subsystems, (Theodoulou andKofina 2004). In has been implementedit todetermine"is itdoingwhat supposed is it tobedoing" least tothe reduction oftheproblem, is it important toevaluate its effectiveness after et al2007). Since policy-making supposed is tocontribute to problem solving orat decision making, implementation andevaluation, inthat chronological order(Fischer thedivides policy process five stages:into agenda-setting, policy formulation, Wildavsky, Anderson andJenkins. Today,the conventional andmainstream theory was first put forward byLasswell andfurther developed by authors such as 1.3. Policy evaluation The idea thatthe policy process can be divided and decomposed intostages Howlett and Ramesh definethe concept of policy evaluation as ”the Studying Public Policy:Policy CyclesandPolicy 10 CEU eTD Collection post-socialist European countries increased the in early1990s, unlike intheir disadvantaged groups.Koucký it isevident According thatinequity to mostet al. in compared to therestof worldWestern interms oftheparticipationof 1950–2009", post-socialist European countries had vastly different outcomes According toa report "Who gets a degree? Access totertiary education Europein research Croatia,is although Iconduct my analysis on many subnationalunits. withof itspatients being all theembedded unit 1997), (Kohn the single caseofthis thousandhave dataona patients ahospital, thein "case"isstill hospital, asingle Like in Yin's hospital-patient analogy where he noted that although a researcher may access tohighereducation institutions in-depthtry toconfirm andI Iuse. theories study, because my ofanalysis unit asingleis country-Croatia, Istudythe issue of (Tellis 1997).My researchwould fallunderthe categoryofadescriptivesingle-case theory toeither "confirm or challenge[it], ortorepresent aunique orextreme case" obtain information ontheparticular features ofanissueand require anunderlying causal investigationscomplex on phenomena, while measurements areunclear; researching new areas andissues where little theory is available orwhere are sometimes aprelude to considered social research andarefocused on categories: investigation is needed, and uses Yin's typology to divide it into three distinct The author statesthat acasestudy isanideal methodology when aholistic, in-depth make acomprehensive overview that covers all aspects of the case study method. combines thework ofacclaimed authorssuch asRobert K.Yin andRobert Stake to In his articleIn his "Applicationof aCaseStudy Methodology", Tellis Winston exploratory , e CHAPTER 2.METHODOLOGY CHAPTER xplanatory explanatory , and d case are mostlystudies usedforconducting 11 escriptive (Tellis 1997). descriptive case-studies tryto case-studies Exploratory cases CEU eTD Collection LSU's which are either legally classified as towns (urban areas) ormunicipalities (rural areas). b) local-selfgovernment unit (LSU) level:entire territory ofCroatia isdivided intofive hundredand fifty-six a) county (regional) level: thereare 20 counties andthe city of Zagreb which has a county status 1 firstly built adataset with information about socioeconomic indicators of each LSU in and Polytechnics) Croatia.in Inorder examine the connection between thetwo, I attainment. Myfocus is on access to higher education institutions (both Universities socio-economic statuswith access to(alllevels of) education, aswellas educational of Bourdieu, Passeron, and Boudon, who areafew of many authorsthat linked education among thepopulation of that unit, andhere Iuse theoretical underpinnings of alocalself-government unit 2.1. Socioeconomic status and access to higher education used asanequity measure targeting individuals oflower socio-economic status. “tangible” instrument offinancial aid,as well as the onlyoneexplicitly stated tobe disadvantaged individuals, with aclear focus onscholarship policythe as most mechanisms thattheCroatian stateemploys to ensuremore equitable access to Croatia andsubsequently theexamination and policyevaluation ofaccessfacilitating normative documents referencing tothe issues ofequalor equitable access in education among thepopulation ofthe age cohort of that unit; theanalysis of indicators of alocalself-government unit in Croatiaon therate ofaccess to higher same trends(Kouckýetal. 2009). at thetime,which makes itaninterestingcase forexamination to see if itfollows the research did notinclude Croatia since itwas not themember oftheEuropeanUnion Western counterparts where trends indicate a dropinsocialinequity. However, this Croatia is territorially divided on two levels: The firstpartofmy focused ontheimpact thesisis indicators socio-economic This research entails three levels of analysis: the impact of socio-economic 1 higher access to of rate the Croatiahaveon in 12 CEU eTD Collection equitable access to higher education institutions, both on European and national 2.2. Normative framework analysis Croatia. about access facilitating policy mechanisms andtheir accessibility throughout of thelevel localself-government neededtheis for unit secondpartofmy research regional, not individual,disparities inaccess rates, and finally, theanalysis on the student body (MSES 2007,OECD2008), secondly,I'm interested in localand reasons: initially, there isnostatisticaldata available onthe individualSES ofthe research conductedis onthe levelof a self-government local unitforseveral body isrepresentative ofthepopulation ingeneral. Instead oftheindividual level, my of parents' education andparents' occupation, tosee theif composition ofthestudent their individualsocio-economic status(SES), that comprised of is family income, level already enrolled into higher education institutions were compared onthebasis of individual level (Mora 1997,James 2001,McCowan 2007).More precisely, students economic statusandaccess to higher education haspredominantly beendone on thoroughly explained inChapter III.Research ontherelationship between socio- from 15-19 and 20-24, so I decided to go for the second best option and summed up these two categories. institutions. Inthe National census (2001), Croatian Bureau Statistics dividedof agecategories into agecohorts 2 cohort (15-24) indicators ofalocalself-government with unit therate of theenrolment theage in extrapolating to municipality/regional level). The modelcompares socio-economic regression. The unit ofanalysis is alocal self-government unit(witha possibility of studysubnational byconstructing astatisticalmodelthat usesmultiple linear Croatia, fivehundred andfifty-six intotal. Then, Idid alarge Ncross-sectional In higher education research, it's customary to use 18-24 age cohort for the analysis of access to HE The secondpart ofmy researchentails anormative framework about analysis 2 inthatunit,to there testif isapositive relationship. Themodelwillbe 13 CEU eTD Collection groups in these institutions (St John 1989). Moreover, widening participation not a is alleviate participation higher education in institutions forpreviously underrepresented scholarship policy inCroatia. Access-facilitating policy mechanisms havearole to decided tofocus in-depth on only onemechanism: directfinancial aid, that is, focus on issues of social inclusion and equity. is dedicated to the development, advocacy and implementation ofhigher education policies, with a special 3 the Institute fortheDevelopment ofEducation the availableaccess-facilitating policymechanisms several using reportsmade by these stated goals ofequitableaccess among population. its After Iexplored all of shifts to policy mechanisms thattheCroatian government usesin order achieve mechanism 2.3. Policy evaluation of scholarship policy as anaccess-facilitating higher education system? areCroatian official What policies onequitable access? does the state commit itselfto doto in order toalleviate inequalities in access to the and governmental progress reports). Igive answers tothefollowing questions: What higher education sector, strategic andpolicy documents, developmental strategies governmental documents (declarations, communiqués, national laws regulating the etc. Thedocuments Iusedforcontent analysis areofficial intergovernmental and administrative documents, newspaper headlines and articles, historical documents (CSU 2012) where textsare broadly defined as books, book chapters, essays, to determine thepresence of certain words orconcepts within texts orsets of texts" perspective" (Krippendorf 1980). Furthermore, itisdefined as"a research tool used of abodytexts, images andsymbolic matter, not necessary from the author's framework. Accordingto Krippendorf, "content analysis entails asystematic reading level. Iused descriptive content analysis in orderto devise theCroatian normative Institute for the Development of Education isa Croatian non-profit, non-governmental organization that After mapping outanormative stance on (equitable) access, my research 14 3 time-frame,a limitedI to due and CEU eTD Collection telephone surveys. I built adataset with informationabout scholarships inall five self-government unitsandmunicipalities, and when thesewere not available, via scholarshipprovision from public tenderspublished ontheofficialwebsites of local by localself-government unitsandmunicipalities. I obtained information about regional (municipality) and local level, with anexplicit focus on scholarships provided Croatia(Bajo 2008) Idida research about all state-funded scholarships, onnational, equally accessiblethroughout Croatia? aid, asamechanism designed toreduce inequalities inaccess tohighereducation, accessible to all of them. brings This me tothesecondresearch question: Isfinancial inequalities between different localand regionalareas, financial aidshouldbe equally are contingent upon socio-economic status oftheunit. Inorder toalleviate government units andmunicipalities exists; and b)thatthe different rates of access shown thata)inequality ofaccesstohigher education between different local self- served is made” (Howlett &Ramesh 1995). In thefirst part ofthethesis, Ihave action, that is, when anevaluation ofmeans being employed andobjectives being determined processpolicy policyactually atwhichitis fared how has in a public policy process (Hill 2004) andbefore-mentioned authorsdefine itas”thestage ofthe policy evaluation onscholarship policy inCroatia. Evaluationstage afinal ofa is Howlett andRamesh’s framework forpublic policyanalysis, Iwill applythe conceptof permanent residence. Using public policy theory asmy theoretical framework,mainly citizens of Croatia, andnotcontingent upon arbitrary factors such asplace of mechanism designed to reduce inequalities, it should beequally accessible to all persisting inequalities inthesociety asagovernment-induced measure. Asa praiseworthy goal initself, buthasa function ofreducing inherent, existing and Since there areno available aggregated data about direct financial aid in 15 CEU eTD Collection and usedtomake anoverviewoftheCroatian scholarship policy. on bothgraduateand post-graduate levels. The obtained datawas thencompared scholarshipsand insightthe if financialaid exists onlyontheundergraduate level, or aid, amount offinancial aid,the ratio between need-based andmerit-based mechanism throughout Croatia, inthefollowingcategories: availability offinancial research gave me insight into the equality ofdistribution of thisaccess facilitating analyzed the obtained data mainly through descriptive statisticalmethods. This hundred fifty-six local self-government units and twenty-one municipalities, and 16 CEU eTD Collection the Romaminority arestill exceedingly underrepresented in higher education educated parents, individuals from low-income peoplefamilies, withdisabilities and these characteristics still influence opportunities ofaccessfor some individuals. objectionable factors suchas race, gender, orsocio-economic statusinCroatia, groups. Even though there are no formalbarriers for access on the basis ofmorally remainsimportant toanalyzesomewhat ifitis more forcertain difficult individuals or factors, not only bythe sheerexistence of more intertiary places programs, it proportionally represented. Since access to higher education isinfluenced bymany access byitself donot guaranteethat members ofallexisting socialstrata will be available toalarger number ofpeople. However, widened participation andeasier throughout the country which made them geographically and financially more easily universities, but also dueto new Universities and Polytechnics being created partly duetoanexpansionand increase of studentenrolmentexisting in older enrolment constantly is increasing, totalling 153,960 in 2010(CBS 2011). This is 66,113 and 2001/2002in to112,537 (Bajo 2006).Yearly statisticalreports show institutions in Croatia inacademic year1991/1992 amounted to approximately present Croatia.in The number ofstudents enrolled inalltertiary education privileged social groups.This increasing demand education forhigher was also widenedparticipation general, in including some ofpreviously excluded, less subsidisation), subsidisation), expenditure, well-being (includes financial well-being, workload, health) etc. marital/family status, socio-economic background), income (includes employment patterns, state education students in states,EU covering topics such as demographic profile (includes age, gender, 4 The Eurostudent Survey is aEuropean-wide survey about the social, economic and living conditions of higher CHAPTER 3. ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION AND THELEVELOF Eurostudent2011report to the According The expansion ofhigher education from masselite to universities resulted in SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 17 4 Croatia,for individualswith less CEU eTD Collection dataset with information aboutsocioeconomic andsome indicators geographic constructed astatistical modelthat usesmultiple linear regression. built a I first governance unit has a significant impact onenrolment tohigher education I model3.1. The self-government (towns units andmunicipalities) andcounties. issue ofaccess regardingthe local andregional level, myof analysisunit arelocal aremy interests and local regional inequalities inaccess, and Iwanttostudy the regarding access to higher education atthelevelof theindividualor thefamily. Since individualand/or herfamily. This type ofresearch logically toleads inferences 2007). That is, theunit ofanalysis for researchers illustrating thisapproach was the occupation) as a predictive variable of access (Mora 1997, James 2001, McCowan (definedby three factors: family income,of level parents' educationand parents' access tohigher education institutions? socio-economic characteristics ofalocalself-governmentan influence unithave on status oflocal government self and units tryto answermy researchquestion: first Do individual level. Instead, Iwill use the available data relating to the socio-economic ofofficialstatisticaldue tothelack data I cannot conductthis research onthe any kind of influence on access tohigher education. As I mentioned inChapter II, presented in this report, I intend todocument ifindeed the socio-economicstatus has informationgiven bytherespondents were accurate. Following ontheindications using individual leveldata andwithno mechanism that allows toverify the if sampleof approximately four thousand students (out of around 150,000 in Croatia) institutions (Eurostudent 2011). However, the Eurostudent survey was done on a In order totest the if levelof socio-economic developmentself ofalocal Previous research onthetopic usedthesocio-economic status ofanindividual 18 CEU eTD Collection to constructing the index): 2010). It is computed onthe basis of following indicators (values for three years prior socio-economic development oflocal andregional self-government units(MRDEF the Croatia government2010 in as a measurement forassessingthe degree of development indicators population size of different localself-government units. 2010). Byconstructing the variable this way, Iwas toaccount able fordifferences in data from the Croatia Bureauof Statistics (CBS 2001,Students inAcademic Year cohort (15-24) oftheoverall population for each local self government unitusing and Polytechnics, both undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate) from the age the percentage ofpopulation enrolled to higher education institutions (Universities geographic indicators. The predictor (independent) variables – county (regional) level. before-mentioned localself-government units, witha possibility ofextrapolating to a large Ncross-sectionalsubnational study inwhichmy ofanalysis units were and Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management. Then, I did total). Data were obtained from the web pagesoftheCroatian Bureau of Statistics indicators of allself-government local units in Croatia (five hundred and fifty-six in x x x x x The model regresses the dependent variable – the International Standard Classification ofEducation) high school diploma which equivalent is to ISCED level 3ofUNESCO's education rate general population migration trendsbetween last twonational censuses budgetary revenue of local or regional self-government per capita average income per capita unemployment rate (the percentage ofpopulation between age16-65thathave a were attained from the enrolment inde socioeconomic development 19 x is avariableis Iconstructed by extracting Development Ind enrolment index indicators and some ex, introduced by Socio-economic on CEU eTD Collection the Enrolment Index variableto see theif changes thesein socioeconomic predictors regressed direction itgoes and how strong that influence is (Lewis-Beck 1980). In other words, I whether thepredictor variables haveany influence ontheresponse variable, inwhat Index)b Table 1. (rural). Table1. shows thesummary ofallvariables included inthemodel. rural/urban context - if the unit is legally classified as a town (urban) or municipality - theexistence of ahigher education institutionthe in local self-government unitand model orderin notto get skewed results. outlierinfluential (Dugopolje county) thathad a development index of 282 which was not essentialto my recode them to a standardized scale in order notto lose the variance between units. However, I eliminated one 5 Enrolment Index =a+(Capital)b The formulafor the model isthe following: INDEX ENROLMENT INDEX DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY CITY URBAN ~ RURAL CAPITAL The Already coded by the Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management. I decided not to VARIABLE NAME geographic indicators The analysis Iusedisamultiple linear regression becauseIwanted tosee 4 List ofallvariables included inthe model +e Capital, Urban~rural, University City The existence ofa higher education Is thelocalselfgovernment the unit institution(HEI) on theterritory ofa development oflocal and regional classification ofthe unit as a town The percentage ofthe age cohort Measurement ofsocio-economic (15 -24)ofthe LSUpopulation enroled intohigher education ( VARIABLE DESCRIPTION VARIABLE urban local self-government unit are comprised of variables thatmap outphysical access The administrative-The legal self-government units ) ormunicipality ( institutions 1 + (Urban)b capital 20 and 2 +(University City)b rural Development Index ) 0 -municipality (rural),1 0 -doesn'thave aHEI, VARIABLE CODING 1 - does 1 -does have aHEI 0 -notcapital, 1- 1 - 100 (percent)1 - 1 (lowest) -164 - town(urban) (highest) capital 3 variables on +(Development 5 CEU eTD Collection chapter. findings aboutexistence, typesandamounts ofscholarships theseunitsinthelast in andlocal regionalunits will beofgreat importance because I compared themwiththe mostproduce varianceintheenrolment intoaccessdisparities index. Insight among severity, the distribution acrossthe country and the insight into which indicators regarding access to higher education onboth thelocaland theregional level,their Inflation Factor (VIF) test andthere was none. wasand it fairly linear. Inaddition, Ichecked formulticollinearity with theVariance dependent variableand the only non-dichotomous variable-theDevelopment Index, essential tomymodel. Also,Ichecked forthelinearity oftherelationship between the dependent variablewas random and Ieliminated one influential outlier which was not satisfied as well, the scatter around the expected value for the whole range of the fornormality thereally highand really low values; thehomoskedasticity condition was satisfied; the Q-Q plot looked normal except there was aslight deviation from residuals were normally distributed and the mean independency proviso was affect access to higher education. Ichecked for alltheregression assumptions: the This model isdesigned togive me insight intothe existence of inequalities 21 CEU eTD Collection Table 2. Enrolment Index Enrolment Table 2.Theformulawiththe inserted results isthefollowing: interpretable. any ofthe population enrolled toahigher education institution, theintercept isnon- with theDevelopment Index value of zero and we don’t expect any units not to have willhave an Enrolment Index of 3.89.Since there areno localself government units don’t havethe legal status ofacityanddonot hostanyhighereducation institutions self government unitswith theDevelopment Index of 0,which arenotthecapital, R Significance codes 3.2.1. Local level 3.2. Findings significance and itpointsout toa relevant finding. If the local self-government is unit municipality (rural area) or a town (urbanarea) passes the threshold for statistical not goingto interpret it.However, ifthe unithastheadministrative-legalstatus of a URBAN~RURAL DEVELOPMENT - UNIVERSITY squared VARIABLE CAPITAL *Intercept INDEX CITY As Table 2.shows, the The intercept implies makingan inference outside therange of data: thelocal Firstly, Iranthe Multiple regression model results = : 0'***' 0.001 '**' 0.01'*' 0.05'.' COEFFICIENT 3.892 multiple linear regression -2.958 0.452 0.178 4.421 3.892 1.777 *** - 2.958 Capital b1 + variable is not statistically significant, so I am ERROR Adjusted R 0.010 1.453 0.808 0.572 5.321 1.777 STD. 22 b2** + b2** model andthe results areshown in t-STATISTIC SIGNIFICANCE t-STATISTIC - squared 4.421 17.511 -0.556 3.041 4.813 3.104 b3** + b3** 0.178 0.448 1.93e-06 *** < 2e-16*** 0.00247 ** 0.00201 ** b4*** +e b4*** 0.57852 CEU eTD Collection institutions for that population. Moreover, on average, havinga legal status of a of localself-government unitinfluences the rateofaccess tohigher education local self government units.In other words, the level of socio-economic development relationship between theincreaseDevelopment in Index and theEnrolment Index of variance (R noteworthy. Finally, as can be seenthe in Table XX, this model explains 45%of the 18.67% and a standard deviation of6.89, a 1.80 point increase canbe considered points. Since theEnrolment Index ranges from 0.36% to 45.54% meanwith a of that for every 10 points in theDevelopment Index, theEnrolment Index rises for 1.80 164, whicha rather is large range. If changedit is into a10point increase, it implies important tomention thatthescalethe for Development Index has arangefrom 1 to Enrolment index forraises 0.18points. Although seems it arathersmall increase,it is higher education institutions. areas a morein favourableposition compared toruralareas, regarding access to a town (urban) results ina 1.77% increase in theEnrolment Index. Thisputs urban witheverything elseheld constant, the model predicts that a classification ofa unit as classified asatown, theEnrolment Indexincreases by1.77points. This means that increases accessincreases rates. proximity ofahigher education institution to aplace of residence significantly As previous research shows (Mora 1997, Western et. al1998, James 2001),the increases by 4.42 points ifthe unit hostsahigher education institution onitsterritory. The implication oftheseresults thatthereis isamoderately strong positive The Furthermore,every onepointincrease the for in 2 University City University = 0.451). variable expectedly shows thattheEnrolment index 23 Development Index , the CEU eTD Collection Index categories explained inTable 3. 6 categories Figure 1. 2010). Figure 1. ranges for theunderdeveloped, developed and verydeveloped categories (MRDEF the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds. Also, the Ministry set the Index hundred fifty-six (556) local self government units.First, Ianalyzed the to higher education thein localself-government unit. urban area and hosting higher education institutions results ina higher rate of access Alltables andfigures (graphs and maps) inthisthesis were made by me, unless noted otherwise. . As 3.,theDevelopmentshown inTable Index is divided infivecategories by Secondly, I used the obtained data for The The distributionlocal of self-government unitsDevelopment into Index 6 governmentsDevelopmentselfdistribution of local showsin the Index Table 3. IV III V II I 100 -125 75 -100 Categories Developmentof the 50 -75 >125 <50 VERY DEVELOPED UNDERDEVELOPED DEVELOPED 24 descriptive statistical analysis Development of all five CEU eTD Collection than urban areas. average, ruralareas are more oftenclassified associo-economically underdeveloped areas and only 21 (or 8%) are towns, that is, urban areas. This indicates that, on Out ofthese 255 underdeveloped units, 234 (or 92%)are municipalities, that is, rural as socio-economically underdeveloped, which means they had a DI lower that 75%. deviation) (mean ±standard Average range (mean) Average value Highest value Lowest value Table 4. of municipality units. due toacouple ofoutliers thathavedisproportionately high values compared torest higher "highest value" for theDevelopment Index, theaverage valueshows thatitis rural areas.Although it seems sight atthefirst that municipalities have aconsiderably indicates that urban areas are onaverage, more socioeconomically developed than areas) is significantly lower than the same valuesfor towns (urban areas) which score above it. Theaverage value aswell as average rangefor municipalities (rural Additionally, 80out of556units scorebelow the averagerange,while 105units 23.30, which makes theaverage range 56.78 - 103.44%,ascanbeTable seen in 4. Furthermore, asit is shown Figure in 2. andTable 5., 255 units wereclassified The average Development Index (DI) is 80.11% withstandard a deviation of Development Index (DI) values forlocal self-government units 67 0.4 53.32 - 56.78 98.34% - 103.44% 163.71% 80.11% 16.13% All 25 Municipalities 163.71% 75.83% 16.13% 74.34 -114.42% 143.28% 94.38% 54.22% Towns CEU eTD Collection Total =255 Table 5. administrative statusof theunit Figure 2. municipality units. Itismostlysmall dueto a number (andsubsequently ofinhabitants a couple ofoutliers that have disproportionately highvalues compared torest of "highest value" of the Enrolment Index, but the average valueshows that it is dueto 17.35%. Again, atthe first sight seems that municipalities have asignificantly higher variable the average range spans from 11.78 -25.56%. stratifiedWhen bythe enrolment index (EI) 18.67% is with astandarddeviation of6.89, which means that municipality. comparedWhen among local self-government units, theaverage ranges from 0.36% for Šodolovci municipality to 45.54% for the Sv. Petar uŠumi Table 6.and Figure 3.containdata onthe , towns haveanaverage EIof22.8% municipalitieswhile have anaverage of Number of underdeveloped local self government units (<75% DI) Socio-economically underdeveloped areas (<75% DI) by legal- Municipalities 234 26 (92%) Enrolment Index (EI) Index Enrolment 21 Towns (8%) Urban~Rural . This Index . This CEU eTD Collection status of theunit Figure 3. deviation) (mean ±standard Average range (mean) Average value Highest value Lowest value Table 6. considered significant. spans across 10 percentage points, the difference offive percentage points can be for municipalities spans across 14 percentage points, while thesame rangefor towns with adifference of five (5) percentage points. Given thefact that the average range shows that,onaverage,urbanareas havea higher Enrolment Index areas than rural age cohorts) ofthe respective local self-government unit. Furthermore, Figure3. Enrolment Index (EI) valuesforlocal self-government units Enrolment Index (EI) percentage values by the legal-administrative 11.78 -25.56% 18.67% 45.54% 0.36% All 27 10.54 -24.16% Municipalities 17.35% 45.54% 0.36% 17.77 -28.19% 36.24% 11.06% Towns 22.8% CEU eTD Collection categorized associo-economically underdeveloped. other hand,92 units scored 73 (or self-government units Figure 4. units withthe addition ofthe unitsaround the capital, andlow-scoring eastern units. indexes are roughly clustered into high-scoring western andcoastalsouthern local Indexes throughout Croatia and shows thatareas with lowest andhighest enrolment 91% As shown Table in 7.,80 units outof556 score Moreover, Figure 4. illustrates the distribution of categorized Enrolment The The distribution ofcategorized Enrolment Indexeson thelevel oflocal ) ofthoseare categorized associo-economically underdeveloped. On the above the average range, andonly 7(or8%) are 28 below theaverage range,and CEU eTD Collection in easternin areas. areas, as well asaround the capital, while below average scoring unit canbe found Again, above average scoringunits canbefound westernin andcoastalsouthern above average scoring units can be find roughly clustered certainin parts of Croatia. of havinga higher Enrolment Index as well. Figure 5.shows thatbothbelow and Development Index. As modelthe showed, theseunits thenhave ahigher probability developed areas (compared tothe rest of the country) thatscore ratherhigh onthe considerable number ofmunicipalities in Croatia located in socio-economically highly urban andruralunits. The latter can be explained bythefact that there isa units (municipalities), while units that score above the average range are evenly the enrolment indexarepredominantly socio-economically underdeveloped rural range ABOVE average range BELOW average Table 7. What What this data shows thatis the units that score Enrolment Index values for units belowand above average range - 7 out of92 - 7 (8%) are - 73outof80 (91%) socio-economically classified as socio- underdeveloped underdeveloped are classified as 92 units economically 80 units All (17%) 29 classified as socio- - 5 out of51(10%) - 5 of them classified underdeveloped underdeveloped Municipalities economically economically - 73ofthem as socio- 51 units 79 units below the average range of classified as socio- of them classified out of41(5%)- 2 underdeveloped underdeveloped - noneofthem economically economically as socio- 41 units Towns 1 unit CEU eTD Collection the lower theEnrolment Indexand other words,the lower thesocio-economicself-government statusofthelocal unit, average value for the Enrolment Indexincreases significantly with eachcategory. In stratified onDevelopment Index canbecategories (I-V), it observed thatthe rangethe EI of Figure 5. Additionally, Table 8.and 6. Figure show thatEnrolment if Indexdata are Local self-government units scoring below and above average viceversa 30 . CEU eTD Collection Development Index betweenmunicipalities (rural areas) and towns (urban areas). higher the access rate. However, this data provides thepossibility todifferentiate relationship positive:is the higher the level ofsocio-economic development, the access tohigher education institutions among thepopulation ofthatunit. The self-government has unit an influence on theEnrolment Index, thatis, the rate of regression model: onaverage, the levelof socio-economic development ofthe local Figure 6. Table 8 value Increase Average (mean) The descriptive statistical analysis confirms thesame asthemultiple . Enrolment Index stratified bycategories of theDevelopment Index Enrolment Index Enrolment 11.93% I (in percentages) 15.58% + 3.65 II 31 stratified bycategories ofthe 20.87% + 5.29 III 22.90% + 2.03 IV 24.25% + 1.35 V CEU eTD Collection of theDevelopment Index categories onthe county map ofCroatia. categories, asexplained in Table1.,while Figure 8.shows theterritorial distribution be seeninTable9.Figure7.shows thedistribution ofcounties Developmentin Index standard deviation of 44.88, which makes the average range 32.90 - 122.66% ascan socio-economic development. Theaverage Development Index (DI) is77.78%with a assigned a Development Index based onthe categoriesthat indicate the levelof As was thecasewith the local self-government units,regional units were also units, however, Iwas ableto do descriptive statistical analysis withthe available data. number ofcases(21)Icould notrunthe multiple regression model ontheregional 3.2.2. Regional level There areseveral important features that should behighlighted: x x x If the Enrolment Index data are stratified on Development Index categories, it Out of all units that score below the average range of the Enrolment Index, On average, municipalities (rural areas) have a The territory ofCroatia isdivided intotwenty-one counties. Duetothesmall with each category for an average of 3.08%. is shown thatthe average value for theEnrolment Index economically underdeveloped; 99% are municipalities average value oftheEnrolment Index than towns (urbanareas); (rural areas) and 32 91% classifiedare associo- 5 percentage points lower increases gradually CEU eTD Collection Figure 7. The The distribution ofcounties into Development Index categories (mean ±standard deviation) Average range (mean) Average value Highest value Lowest value Table 9.Development Index (DI) values forcounties 33 32.90 -122.66% 77.78% 187.54% 20.51% CEU eTD Collection deviation of 3.93 which means thattheaverage range spansfrom 18.93 -26.79%. among counties, theaverage Enrolment Index (EI) is22.86% with astandard for Vukovarsko-Srijemska countyto 32,54%forZagreb county. comparedWhen into highereducation institutions. Table10 shows thattheIndex ranges from17.25% unit:local thepercentage ofthe agecohort (15 -24)ofthecounty population enrolled Croatia Figure 8. The Enrolment Index for counties has been calculated in the same way asfor Territorial distribution of the DI categories on the county map of 34 CEU eTD Collection Figure 9. counties aroundthe capital in centralCroatia, and low-scoring eastern counties. indexes areroughly clustered intohigh-scoring western, coastal southernand Indexes throughout counties and shows thatareas with lowest andhighest enrolment Moreover, Figure 9. illustrates the distribution of categorized Enrolment The distribution of categorized Enrolment Indexes on the county level Table 10. (mean ±standard deviation) Average range (mean) Average value Highest value Lowest value Enrolment Index (DI)values forcounties 35 18.93 -26.79% 32.54% 17.25% 22.86% CEU eTD Collection would beand the lower thesocio-economic statusofthe county is, thelower theEnrolment Index level and it indicates that even onthe county level can it be noted that, on average, an average of3.01% percategory. The increase is similar to theoneon local However, thedata from Table 11. show that, on average, the Index still increases, for non-linear, there's adecline onthe transition from the thirdtofourth category. self-governmentcategory, asitwasthecasewith local But,the increase units. is observed that theaverage valuefor theEnrolment with almost Index increases each increase of thelevelof socio-economic development. Asexpected, can it be on Development Index categories and see if there was aconstant change with the Table 11 Increase Average (mean) value Although I was unable to run a model, I could stratify theEnrolment Index data . Enrolment Indexstratified by categories of the Development Index viceversa 19.55% I . 23.30% + 3.75 II 36 22.43% - 0.87 III 24.79% + 2.36 IV 28.19% +3.40 V CEU eTD Collection access” and “equitable access”. As DesJardins explains, the concept of equal access nationalreport on the progress of Bologna reforms. body ofnational lawsandvariouspolicystrategies, andcanbestbetraced through somemeasures policy outlined throughout the Processhave been includedthe in action planorastrategy forthesocial dimension, almost allnormative postulates and for thesocial dimension. Although Croatian government did not develop aseparate recommended thateachcountry develops itsown strategy, including anaction plan, workinggroup, which had been set up after the Bergen ministerial meeting, full member 2001. Asa in part oftheProcess, the2005-2007 social dimension vacuum, influenced butarehighly bytheBologna Processsince Croatia became a Bologna Process), because Croatian policies of higher education did not develop a in the European level(mainly the European Higher Education Area as envisaged by the of both European and Croatian policies on equity in higher education. I’ve included equitableaccess. Inorder todothat, Iwilldo an analysis ofthe normative framework problem, trytomap Iwill outwhat doesthe Croatianstate say about equaland of alocalself-government unit.After I’ve “diagnosed” that there is an access relationship that indicating access rates are influenced bythe socioeconomic status socioeconomic indicators foreachunit, theresults shown astatistically significant self-government unit.Mainly, when Icompared the enrolment ratiowith asetof higher education institutions contingent upon socio-economic indicators ofalocal CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS OFTHENORMATIVE FRAMEWORK ONEQUITY AND EQUITY POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE EUROPEAN THE EDUCATION: IN HIGHER POLICIES AND EQUITY Additionally, it is important topoint out there isa difference between “equal In theprevious chapter I’ve shown thatCroatia faces a problem with accessto HIGHER EDUCATION AREA and CROATIA and AREA EDUCATION HIGHER 37 CEU eTD Collection foster social cohesion, reduce inequalities and raise the overall levelof competencies rationale whyEuropean countries insist on social dimension isthebelief thatitwill respective country’s population” (Social dimension and mobility report 2007). The participatingcompleting inand higher education should reflectthe diversity ofthe regarded as the process Withinthe Process, the social dimension ismore precisely definedandshouldbe and studentparticipation higherin education governance. (Bologna Process website) studies; studying and conditions;living guidance andcounselling; financialsupport, higher education envisaged European Higher Education Area aims at Europe thein Social dimension ofthe Bologna Process. The Social dimension ofthe education 4.1. European normative framework on equity and equity policies in higher disadvantaged backgrounds (DesJardins, 2003). designed to improve accesstohigher education among studentsofhistorically treatmentto rightpast hasagoal injustices andconsists of policies specially secondary or tertiary) andthat theyshouldbe subject tounequaltreatment. Unequal positions and starting chances accessingin education (onall levels; primary, takes into account thatcertain groupsor individuals donothave thesame starting address existing social and economic imbalances when developing certain policies. It Equitable access, on theother hand, is aconcept that recognizes the need to everyone regardless oftheirrace,gender, age, religion, handicap, social originetc. implies that educational resourcesand opportunities should beequally accessible to Over the past decade, equity andequity policies havefound their place in in terms in of:access,participation andsuccessfulcompletion of leading to the objective that the “student body entering, 38 equality of opportunities in CEU eTD Collection (2003) Communiqué Berlin process Ta order totransform undertaken politicalcommitments concrete into actions. possible actions and tools thatshould be implemented in participating countries in intuitions, who arethe historically underrepresented groups, but also prescribes framework thatdescribes what isunderstood by equitable access to higher education gender, age orsocio-economic status, developed a into detailed normative of “ensuring equalaccess for everyone” regardless ofarbitrary factors suchasrace, success ofthe European Higher Education Area. started asa What legalistic notion elaborated and more precisely defined as as wellrecognized ascrucial forthe be explored. In thesubsequent communiqués since 2001, it hasbecome better (2001) asan issue raisedbystudents, andwas affirmedministers by assomething to society. Thesocial dimension itselfwas first mentionedthe in Prague Communiqué development andtheircontribution toa sustainable and democratic knowledge societyin andalso maximize thepotential of individuals interms oftheirpersonal ble 12. ble Equity commitments made in the official documents of the Bologna the of documents official the in made commitments Equity related to their social and economic background.” (p.5) studies within anappropriate period oftime without obstacles students,for the sothattheycan successfully complete their “[there is a]needfor appropriate studying and livingconditions basis ofcapacity, byevery appropriate means.” (p.4) “…higher education [should be]equally accessible toall, onthe education.” (p.6) to follow the lifelong learningpaths into andwithin higher citizens,for all in accordance with their aspirations andabilities, “ [there a] needis toimprove opportunities [in higher education] 39 CEU eTD Collection measures topromoteopportunities equal for access were summarized the“Keyin and communiqués, but in thefollow-up documents andreports. Most important policy Process. Policy measures however, were mostly not explicated thein declarations documents andshow that thesocialdimension isrelevant toall action lineswithin the equity issues concerning thesocialdimension made the in officialBologna (2010) Declaration Vienna Budapest- (2009) Communiqué la-Neuve Leuven/Louvain- (2007) Communiqué London (2005) Communiqué Bergen These arethemost important excerpts among thenumber ofreferences to their studies without obstacles related totheir socialand appropriate conditions forstudents so that they cancomplete education equally accessible toall, andstress the need for “We therefore renew our commitmentmaking to qualityhigher particular attention tounderrepresented groups.” (p.2) order toprovide equalopportunities toquality education, paying shall“We […]increase our efforts on the social dimension in opportunitiesall at levels.”(p.2) conditions for studentsto be abletobenefit from the study barriers tostudy, and creating the appropriate economic This involves improving thelearning environment, removingall providing adequate conditions for the completion of their studies. the potential ofstudents from underrepresented groups and by “Access into higher education should bewidened byfostering basis ofequalopportunity.” (p.5) continue our effortsto […] widen participation at all levels onthe related to their social andeconomic background. thereforeWe students being able tocomplete theirstudies without obstacles diversityour of populations. reaffirmWe the importance of completing higher education atall levels should reflectthe aspiration that the student body entering, participating andin cohesion and reducing inequalities. […]We share thesocietal “Higher educationshould play astrong role infosteringsocial be respected and promoted throughouttheEHEA.” (p.2) “The principlesof nondiscrimination andequitable access should to wideningaccess.” (p.4) provide them with guidance and counseling services with aview disadvantaged groups, in financialand economicaspects andto taken bygovernments tohelpstudents, especially from socially economicbackground. Thesocial dimension includes measures 40 CEU eTD Collection done by me. 7 report as issues for the European Higher Education Area – Social Dimension andMobility” two potential meanings. providea contextual background andmake itfairly easy to distinguish between these translated “ on thecontext. Since Croatian lawsare not available in English translation, Ialways means but can “equal” it semantically indicate both “equal” and“equitable” depending “equal” and “equitable” astwowords: separate usestheword it “ important topointout that Croatian language doesnot linguistically differentiate the lines of differentiation of andequal equitable accessI mentioned earlier, it’s developmentalstrategies and nationalreports on Bolognaprocess. However, along Croatian laws regulating thehighereducation sector, strategic and policy documents, normativeframework analysis of all relevant official documents. Myfocusbe on will access tohigher education”? Tobeable toanswer thesequestions, I will doa thein higher education system?” and“What’s Croatia’s official stance on equitable “What doesthestate normatively commititself todoorder in toalleviate inequalities prescribe about equaland equitableaccess, I willtry to answer two simple questions: education 4.2. Croatian normative framework onequity and equity policies in higher kinds ofaction in orderto widen access and participation. education andtargeted incentives forhigher education institutions totake different outreach programs forunderrepresented groups, flexiblepaths learninghigher into Sincethere are noavailable English versions of the documents I analyzed, all the translations in this paper are : anti-discrimination legislation covering higher education, nationally defined jednak pristup In ordertomap outwhat doCroatian official normative documents ” as “ as ” equal access 41 ” 7 but included following sentences which jednak(o) ” which CEU eTD Collection reads that “[higher education] 2004. Under thesection “Basicprinciples ofscience andhigher education”, Article 2 Scientific Activity and Higher Education the most important national document regulating higher education: after 2000. However, the shift to the conception of equitable access can be noticed in equality toequity inEuropean discourse about higher education mostly happened Constitution of the Republic ofCroatia was writtenin1990,and thechanges from notof equal, equitableaccess - however it has to be taken into accountthat the higher education in accordance with their abilities Articlegoverned. Itismentioned undersection three “Economic,cultural socialand rights” in 65:legal document thatentails thefundamental political principleswhich on thestate is “ 4.2.1. The Constitution4.2.1. The and laws regulating higher education members oftheRomaminority (Eurostudent 2011). income families, students from vocational schools, peoplewith disabilities and analyses, highereducation inCroatia isleast accessible toindividuals from lower equalaccess to higher education to certain social groups. According to the available characteristics, the fact is thatthere areanumber of"indirect" barriers that prevent prohibition ofentry tohigher education basedonrace,sex, disability orother regardless ofafairlywell developednormative framework. Althoughthereisnodirect (Eurostudent 2011) show that equity issues on the ground are still problematic, thatregard.in However, my statistical previous analysis and somesurveys other access in thenormative senseandthecrucial strategic documents arequiteexplicit Higher education found its way intothe Croatia hasput in substantial effort to address both equal and equitable vroe a access, has equal Everyoneunder to and conditions, secondary is basedon the openness ofhigher education tothe 42 thatwas enacted 2003in and amended in Croatian Constitution .” This formulation.” This uses the concept as the highest the Act on CEU eTD Collection (“state matura”) will facilitate theinflow ofpotential entrants to higher education enrolled students with insufficient income, while theintroduction of state graduation scholarships will beprovided in collaboration with business and other partners for undertaken ensure be to will equal to measures education access all; higher for measures designedtoensure equalaccess, theplan indicates that “ equalsituation, opportunities reduces educationalwhich all for their fit their and that of expectations programs because financialabilities education, young many institutionseducationand higher enroll into not do people an of programs witness in higher number increase and institutionsof the adults" (3.1.3). As for access to higher education, it is stated that “ opportunities andequal access"(3.1.4) and "Developing educational opportunities for includes two sub-sections important for equitable policies: "Improving educational is the 4.2.2. Strategic documents not mention equal (or equitable) access atall. Research Activity, which regulated theentire higher educationsector up to2003, did one, mainly the 1993 Act on Tertiary Education Institutions and ActonScientific position, birth, disability, sexual orientation andage religion, political orother conviction, national orsocial origin, belongings, social equality all applicants regardless of tongue,motherrace,skincolor, gender, of higher education institutions “ the respectandrecognition ofhumanrights. tradition andharmonization with theEuropeansystem ofhigher education aswell as public, citizens andthe local community, the European humanistic anddemocratic The most important strategic policy document in the sector of higher education National Plan for the Development ofEducation 2005 –2010 must ensure enrolment in awaythat guarantees 43 " Moreover, Article 77prescribes thatall ”. The laws preceding the2003 ”. Regarding policy although we . Theplan certain ”. CEU eTD Collection education the ratio ofenrollment andgraduation aswell overall participationin tertiary statedis that “ identifies key policy issues forfuture monitoring andreview. InSection4:Education it common of the European goals Unionshould be translated into nationalpolicies, and presents major measures policy takenby Croatiathe light ofagreement in that enumerates major challenges in dealing with issuesof poverty and socialexclusion, Health and andtheEuropean Commission.Welfare Thisjoint inclusion memorandum Inclusion in the Republic of Croatia order toequalize opportunities ofaccess. and therefore the government recognizes the need toimplement targetedpolicies in stillit indicates thatthere isnoequality instartingpositions among different regions religion, handicap andsocial origin, not so much theplace ofpermanent residence), targetingcertain groups with equitablepolicies israce,gender, age, ethnicity, group inneedof equitable policies higherin education (most oftenthebasisfor the countrywillinto betaken account. Providing equal opportunities ofaccesstoall levels ofeducation in various partsof accordance with theeconomic andsocial needoftheregional andlocal population. develop educational opportunities, professional development andtrainingin development andemployment, alongside social partnersandlocal authorities, will Sport, in cooperation with theministriesresponsible for economic, regional secondary and tertiary education. Therefore, The Ministry ofScience, Education and “ Furthermore, there’s asubsection named Croatia facesaproblem of large regional differences with regardtoinclusion in Another important policydocument the is ”, while inthe policy measures subsection it isnoted that “ specific developmentalgoals were adopted […] related to increasing jointly issued 2007in byCroatianMinistry of ” Although not aclassic this is example ofa 44 Regional Justice Joint MemorandumJoint Social on which states that since educational CEU eTD Collection issues attheacademic level education institutions and thefacilitation ofknowledge acquisition aboutgender individual selection oftheareas of educationin secondaryschools and higher educators onall levels ofthe educational system; achieving genderbalance in stereotypes from textbooks and curricula; systematic trainingequality ongender for gender sensitivity in theentire educational system on alllevels; elimination ofgender Gender Sensitive Educationstates thatthe “ National Policy for the Promotion of Gender Equality 2006 - 2010 by equity policies: women, people with disabilities and the Romaminority. people:government’s The be undertaken scholarship opportunities (given onboth“merit-based” and “need-based” criteria) will opportunities arelargelyassociated with financial capabilities, measurestoincrease the educational services onall levels throughout the country individuals andgroups,measures will beundertaken toensureequal accessto with disabilities. Inordertoprevent social disintegration andexclusion ofthese ” disabilities. It prescribedis that the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports will with Disabilities 2007 – 2015 anti-discrimination and desegregation, tocombat social marginalization, topromote the “ develop contents and forms ofinvolvement in theworld of education […]forpeople Action Plan for the DecadeofRoma Inclusion 2005 –2015 educational goal for Roma children in Croatia is toensure equal opportunities, There arethree significant documentswith thatdeal groups usually targeted There are two strategic documents addressing educational issues of Roma The National Strategy for the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons ”. National Program for Roma Minority Roma for Program National ”. also includes educational issues ofpeople with 45 national priority is theintroduction of ”. issued 2004 issued in and . Theformer states inSection 3: The CEU eTD Collection origin, property, birth, social status,disability, sexual orientation andage” (National race, colour, gender, language, religious, politicalor other affiliation, ethnic orsocial institutions should “ensurethe equality [of access] forall applicants regardless of as inthe Act onScientific Activity and Higher Education stating that higher education fulfill theadmission requirements. Theremark isaccompanied bythesame phrasing strictly legalistic remark aboutensuring equal access to all citizens, providing they 2003 report there’s no mention onequity, while inthe 2005 report there’s ashort and reforms sofarasamembership requirement, in2003,2005, 2007 and2009. Inthe 4.2.3. Bologna progress reports National Program. complete higher education number ofRoma students (both male and female) who enroll and successfully mainobjective oftheActionPlaninfield of higher education is" Roma populationfour in areas:education, health,employment andhousing. The that NationalProgram and itencourages the resolution ofdifficulties faced by the as special scholarships exclusively for Roma students.The Action Plan complements conditions inwhich theyliveandproviding accommodation instudentdormswell as exams, acknowledging extra points on state graduation for socio-economic education, organizing and financing the preparation for higher education entrance the National Program encouraginginclude Roma studentstoaccess higher secondary andtertiary education”. inclusion ofallRoma children in primary education while encouraging access to socialintegration with respectfor minority rightsand rights to equality, aswell as Croatiahas submitted four national reports on theimplementation ofBologna " through the same policymeasures enlisted in the The policy measuresThe policy higher related to education in 46 increasing the CEU eTD Collection assumed until now students originating fromlower income families may belower than it hadbeen been some studies published which indicate that the level of representation of students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds [because] recently there have explicitly stated that “ concentrated on people with unfavorable social or economic backgrounds. It is access doexist forthesegroups. Furthermore, apartofthechapter isspecifically nationalhigher educationsystem and that obstacles to participative equity interms of government recognizes that some groupsin society are still underrepresented in the “The national strategy onthe social dimension oftheBologna process”. TheCroatian Report addresses equity mostissues extensively, dedicating an entire chapter to professional careers regionsin underspecial statecare etc.The 2009National disadvantaged socialand economic background, those who plan to begin their 8 are of low income, war veterans, citizens of thetown ofVukovar such asRomaminority students, students with disabilities, students whose parents Croatiangovernment towiden access to quality higher education for specific groups paragraph titled “The Social Dimension” enlists policymeasures being taken by the areas andin thegeneralpopulation particularities andtoincrease thenumber of persons with higher education in these to increase theavailability of higher education thatis adaptedtoregional needsand especially thedevelopment of professional studies in smallerurbanareas. The aim is two years is theadoption ofa policy ofpolycentric development of higher education, access inthe 2007 report. Itstatesthat “ Report 2005, p.7).However, there’s anexplicit reference tospatial dimension of Oneof the cities most severly devastated thein Serbo-Croatian military conflict thein 1990's. “. Most importantly, in the final part ofthe report that explicates the there is aneedto introduce stronger support mechanisms for ” (National Report 2007, p.3).Moreover, the 47 the most important development in thelast 8 , students of CEU eTD Collection formulation andimplementationadequate of policy measures. Thestatistical analysis these levels ofmerit, thereal affirmation happens“on theground” with the basis ofmerit andequitable access forthe ones unequally capable ofachieving although thestateexplicitly affirms ofequal values normative access forall onthe status oftheirpopulation due to the unfavorablestate of nationaleconomy. However, local self-government unitsface a problem ofthe decline inthesocio-economic picture of Croatia ischanging rapidly, andmany previously economically developed but itisimportant tokeepaclear distinction between them since theeconomic Croatia face access problems. Thesetwo groupscertainly overlap most of the times, socio-economic status and people from socio-economically underdeveloped areas of surprisingly, theCroatian government explicitly recognizes that both people oflower historically andstructurally disadvantaged group eligible forequity policies. Maybe Romaminority), people of lower socio-economic statusare recognized asa In my itisextremely opinion, important that(alongsidepeople withdisabilities and that certain measures shouldbeundertaken inorder to suppressthese inequalities. higher education) for some historically underrepresented groups, and acknowledges does recognize inherent inequalities accessin toall of levels education (including educationon thenational level,the skies donot look sogrim. TheCroatianstate documents thatnormatively prescribe Croatia’sstance onequ(al)ity higherin higher education institutions. After analyzing most publicly accessible oftherelevant p.46). Republic of Croatia aims toachieve until the end of 2010 (Nationalreport 2009, groups in higher education is listed asone of the fiveconcrete goalswhich the strategy for the future, increasing percentage of students from underrepresented Normatively speaking,Normatively Croatia vigorously advocates equitable access to 48 CEU eTD Collection considered effective. (financialaid) isequally accessible throughout Croatia,and assess itcanif overallbe these questions, I will usepolicy evaluation toexplore ifone specific mechanism the proclaimed goalofequitableaccess to higher education?Besides answering mechanisms inhigher education which the state implements thatdirectly collide with socioeconomic inequalities in thehigher educationsystem? Arethereany Which access facilitating policy mechanisms doesthestate use in order to suppress access tohigher education in orderto makeit forequal all individuals andgroups. the policy measures implemented bytheCroatiangovernment proclaimed tofacilitate economic status of that part of the country. In the following chapters I will examine rates throughout Croatia, and that these differences are contingent upon the socio- from the previouschapter showed thatthere arestill major differences accessin 49 CEU eTD Collection policy. examineonly oneofthe existing measures: financial aidorCroatian scholarship However, due to the limited time frame forthis research, I was able to extensively education (OECD 2008)enumerates these as: access facilitating policy mechanisms inCroatia.Another OECDreport ontertiary base inactual implemented policy measures, Iconducted ananalysis of existing (MSES 2007). Inordertosee if thegovernment's normative prescriptions have a training ofdifferent social groups [with a]goal ofimproving educationalopportunities" programs, projects andfinancial initiatives tostimulatesupport and theeducationand Review of Tertiary Education -Croatia", the Croatian government hasused "various explicitly advocates equitable, not equal, access. According tothe"OECD Thematic policy measures thattarget specific groups indicates that Croatian government individuals and/or groups should be implemented. In other words, prescribing such and groups and acknowledges thatadequate policy measures targeting these normatively both recognizes theproblem of unequalaccess for certain individuals CHAPTER 5. ACCESSFACILITATING POLICY MECHANISMS INCROATIA x x x x x In theprevious chapter Iprovided evidence thattheCroatian government Roma minority andchildren ofwar veterans). Financial aid: Scholarships (merit-based, need-based, specially targeted - Health insurance; Income tax reductions; Financial supportforaccommodation, mealand transportation costs; Tuition feeremissions; 50 CEU eTD Collection government units).Most ofthe tenderswere available online, andfor thosethat regional level (twenty-one counties) and local level(five hundred fifty-six localself- provision ofscholarships intheacademic2011/2012 year onanational level, get information on theprovision ofscholarships, Ianalyzed all public tenders for the about all state-funded scholarships, onnational, regional andlocal level.Inorder to scholarship datafor Croatia provided by the amenable institutions, I did aresearch providers of scholarships inCroatia: auxiliary mechanism to Croatian available students. There are four mainpublic ( the average Croatian monthly netwage for March 2012 amounted to 5,499 HRK is 15,755HRK ( Eurostudent report (Eurostudent 2011),students’ average costofstudy persemester 1976, Jackson 1978, Hansen 1983, St. John 1989). According to the Croatian programs arebeneficial for increasing overall access rates to higher education(Fife system implemented inthe respective country. Many authors agree that financial aid Usually theycover tuition costs, livingcosts orboth, depending onthe financing used tohelp students on all levels ofhigher educationcover the studying expenses. 5.1. Scholarship policy approx. 733EUR x x x x Due tothelackofanational scholarship policyregister oranyaggregated Scholarships andgrants are oneofthe allocation mechanisms designedand State founded trust funds local budgets; Local self-government units scholarshipsfunded from county budgets; The regional self-government units (counties the Ministry ofScience, Education and Sport; The government approx. 2,098EUR ) (CBS 2012), scholarships canbeconsidered amuch needed – scholarships funded from nationalthe budget distributed by –funded through state owned lottery and donations. –locally available scholarships financed from ) which includes bothstudyand Since) whichincludes living costs. 51 ) – regionally available CEU eTD Collection mostly regional in and local disparities, Iwill focus mostly ontheselevels. on thelocalthannational level, on and lastly on regional level. SinceIam interested on thetopic. anotableitself sinceinsight nosimilarcomprehensive researchhasbeen conducted Croatianpicture ofa scholarship policy for theacademic year2011/2012which is in amount oftime (e.g.five,ten years). Nonetheless, the dataIobtained gives aclear longitudinal researchand compare thetrends in scholarship provision overacertain units. Furthermore, duetothe limited time-framewas I notabletomake a enough tomake ameaningful comparison across counties andlocalself-government scholarships provided and amount of the scholarship. However, these categories are only about the following categories: availability (existence) offinancial aid, number of informationthe in following categories: weren't,conducted I phone surveys. the collectedWith dataI built adataset with x x x x x x As canbe seen in Table 13.,data showed thatmost scholarships are provided Due toinconsistent dataacross the examined units,Icould make inferences Repayability ofthescholarship. Amount ofthe scholarship; Ratio betweenmerit-based andneed-based scholarships; postgraduate); Study level on which aid wasprovided (undergraduate, graduate, Number ofscholarships provided; Availability (existence) offinancial aid; 52 CEU eTD Collection provide scholarships toalleligible candidates that applied without disclosing their fullnumber. from 16 local self-government units. Secondly, at least 22 units do not have a definite scholarship number, but 10 2011). 9 overall studentbody. awarded 473scholarships of 1000 HRK ( accredited University orprofessional study program. In2012thesefoundations also available toall students witha Croatian citizenshipthat areenrolled into an the Croatia for Children Foundation. Scholarships provided by these trust funds are Croatia: theNational Foundation forSupporting thePupiland Student Standard and student body. program. Theamount ofthescholarship varies from 500 HRK ( citizenship andisenrolled intoan accredited University or professionalstudy 2011). Thebasic requirement for eligibility was thatthestudent hasaCroatian scholarships tobothUniversity andprofessionalstudy students 2012(MSESin 5.1.1. National level Local Regional National 2011/2012 Table 13. 800 HRK( The calculation is based on the total number ofstudents (148,747) the 2010/2011 in academic year (CBS LEVEL This is not a definite number of scholarships provided. Firstly, I wasunable to get information on scholarships There aretwo government-established trustfundsthatprovide scholarships in The Ministry of Science, Education and Sports (MSES) awarded 2200 Basic information onscholarships provided inacademic year approx. 107EUR and Sports Science, Education The Ministry of Trust funds ) per month and covers approximately 1.48% of the SCHOLARSHIPS 2200 473 NUMBER of 6248+ 529 53 approx. 133EUR 10 2673 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT OF PERCENTAGE 1.48% 0.32% ) that cover 0.32% of the BODY COVERED approx. 4.20% approx. 67EUR 0.36% 1.80% 9 ) to CEU eTD Collection 2011/2012 Figure 10. 11. from 600 HRK( shows thatthenumber ofscholarships varies from 4 to122while theamounts vary provided financial aid only to families that have five or more children. Figure 10 3 didnotprovide any kindof financial aid,whileone(Splitsko -Dalmatinska county) a personhaspermanent residenceontheterritory ofthatcounty. Outof21counties, self-government units. The formal eligibility criterion forthe county scholarship is that 5.1.2. Regional level 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 0 In academic year2011/2012 there were 529scholarships provided by regional The The overall number ofscholarships per county in academic year approx. 80EUR ) to3900HRK( 54 approx. 520HRK ) asshown Figure in CEU eTD Collection (Table 14.). evident that none ofthe counties covereven 1%ofthe respective studentpopulation education institutions with thenumberscholarships of offered inthesame county,itis comparing the number ofstudents in the county population enrolled into higher stillnoticeable even among other units (excluding Zagreb). More importantly, the counties thatprovide scholarships themonthlyarein notsoimmense.regard to With counties. However, thedifferences monthlyin the number andamount ofscholarships between thecapital(Zagreb) andother Figure 11. 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 number of scholarships 0.00 What canWhat beobserved is that,asexpected, there arebigdifferences both in The amount of scholarships per month and county (in EUR) (in county and month per scholarships of amount The Liēko-Senjska Meÿimurska Zadarska Splitsko-dalmatinska Koprivniēko-križevaēka providedper year, Figure 10. shows thatdifferences are Virovitiēko-podravska Primorsko-goranska Požeško-Slavonska Šibensko-kninska

55 Zagrebaēka

amount ofthescholarship Dubrovaēko-neretvanska Brodsko-posavska Sisaēko-moslavaēka Karlovaēka Bjelovarsko-bilogorska Krapinsko-zagorska Istarska Vukovarsko-srijemska

among other Varaždinska Osjeēko-baranjska Grad Zagreb CEU eTD Collection enrolled intohigher education institutions. 11 underdeveloped. scholarship opportunities, 141 or 74% are classified as socio-economically 192orwhile 34%ofthem don't. Outofthese192 units that do notprovide Figure 12.shows, 344or61%oftheunits providescholarships fortheirstudents, level isthataperson haspermanent residence ontheterritory ofthatlocalunit. As informationfor 540of them. Theformaleligibility criterion for scholarships on local 5.1.3. Local level neretvanska Dubrova Zagreba Šibensko-kninska Požeško-Slavonska Primorsko-goranska Viroviti križeva Koprivni Splitsko-dalmatinska Zadarska Me Li Table 14. Calculated as the number of scholarships divided by the number of students from the respective county þ ÿ ko-Senjska imurska Out of556 self-governmentlocal I units, was togetscholarship able COUNTY þ þ þ ko-podravska ka þ þ ka Percentage of student population covered byscholarships per county ko ko - - PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT OF COVERED BODY 0,21% 0,43% 0,12% 0,00% 0,00% 0,47% 0,42% 0,57% 0,09% 0,00% 0,00% 11 56 Zagreb county Istarska Krapinsko-zagorska Brodsko-posavska srijemska Vukovarsko bilogorska Bjelovarsko moslava Sisa Osje Varaždinska Karlova þ þ ko ko-baranjska COUNTY þ - þ ka ka - - PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT COVERED BODY 0,37% 0,47% 0,79% 0,47% 0,66% 0,60% 0,88% 0,86% 0,57% 0,94% CEU eTD Collection population enrolled) ontheEnrolment Index. mostly overlap with areas thatscored lower (lessthat 20% ofthe age cohort of scholarships can beseen.These clusters (inareasof Slavonija andLika)territorially providescholarship opportunities, three clusters of units that do not provide higher on the Development Index and some thatscored higher on Enrolment Index possible to see a clustering trend. expectedlyWhile most ofthe areas that scored units onamap ofCroatia.As itwas with areasofhigh and low enrolment, itis Figure 13. Figure 13.showstheavailability ofscholarships across self-governmentlocal Availability ofscholarships onlocal self-government unit level 57 CEU eTD Collection (Figure 14.). which, onaverage,puts student from urban areas a morein favourableposition (urban areas) than municipalities (rural areas) provide scholarship opportunities administrative statusof the unit, it isevident thatamuch higher percentoftowns unit level Figure If thedataaboutscholarshipavailability are stratified bythelegal- 13. Availability of scholarship opportunities on local 58 - self government self CEU eTD Collection (rural areas) MUNICIPALITES (urban areas) TOWNS and number ofenrolled students Table 15. from thenrural urban areas. academic year2011/2012 andsecondly, there was twice asmuch ofthesestudents students did nothave theoption ofapplying forscholarship a onalocal levelthe in of inequality is shown. Astable 15. shows, the inequality is twofold: firstly, 14319 unit the Figure 14. If thenumber ofenrolledstudents isincluded the stratification,in another kind Availability ofscholarships by legal-administrative status unitof the Availability ofscholarships stratified by legal-administrative status of AVAILABILITY Not available Not available Available Available STATUS 59 OF UNITS NUMBER 183 237 110 14 NUMBER OFENROLLED STUDENTS 108,977 20,396 4,492 9,827 CEU eTD Collection 13 Primorski Dolac, Pu Filip i Jakov; Zadarska County Zadarska County covered bylocalscholarships whileproviding county scholarships aswell. Varaždinska County also havea relatively higher percentage of student body highly competitive since they are few. Moreover, some counties like Istarska or not havetheopportunity toapply foranyscholarship except national oneswhich are However, thisstilldoes notresolve theabove-mentioned problem of 42unitsthatdo number) ofscholarships ontheregionallevel with scholarship onthe local level. 12 2675 enrolled students from 42 localself-government units scholarship non-availability onthecountylevel, itbecomes thatatotalof evident Me county level ranges from 0.05% to13.77%. Thesedata also indicate that Zadarska, shows thatthepercentage ofthestudent body covered by local scholarships on thatin way, we getaninsight into another type ofregional inequality. Table16. disaggregated the into second level units- local units self-government units(municipalities and towns). However, acountycan also be subdivisions onthefirst level arethecounties andonthesecond levelthese arelocal are municipalities (rural areas) andonly3 are towns (urbanareas). of applying for ascholarshipeither onlocal orcounty Out oflevel. these42 units,39 Withthe exception of Zagreb county. Li ē ÿ ko-Senjska County imurskaKoprivni and : Dekanovec, Donji Vidovec, Gornji Mihaljevec, Selnica, Sveti Martin na Muri, Štrigova, Vratišinec; Furthermore, Iftheseinformation arecross-listed with theinformation about As mentioned before, Croatia is divided territorially on two levels: the Splitsko-Dalmatinska County : Galovac, Gra ē iš đ a, Seget, Su : Brinje, Donji Lapac, Karlobag, Lovinac, Peruši ē ac, Jasenice, Kolan, LišaneOstrovi đ þ uraj, Tu ko-Križeva : Brela, Jelsa, Le Jelsa, : Brela, ē epi, , Zagvozd, Zmijavci, Supetar, Vrlika. þ ka County compensate forthe (or lack low 60 đ evica, Lokvi evica, ē ke, Pašman, Pola đ 13 ēŝđ , Udbina, Vrhovine, Gospi . Ifcounties are disaggregated i, Milna, Podbablje, Postira, Prgomet, Postira, Podbablje, Milna, i, 12 notthe have did option ē a, Starigrad, Sukošan,a, Starigrad, Sveti đ ; Me Ĝ imurska CEU eTD Collection institutions fromallunits local intherespective county. 14 developed units aremore toprovide scholarships. likely status of the unit. In other word, thedata shows thatmore socio-economically an indication thattheprovision ofscholarships partly dependsonsocio-economic scholarships riseswitheach Development Index category. Thiscan beinterpreted as data inTable 17.andFigure 15.show, thepercentage of units that provide categories (Ibeing leastand Vmost developed, as explained inTable1., p.31). As according to the level ofsocio-economicdevelopment, into five Development Index neretvanska Dubrova Osje Viroviti Sisa Brodsko-posavska Karlova Zagreba Požeško-Slavonska Šibensko-kninska bilogorska Bjelovarsko disaggregated in local self government units Table 16. Calculated as the number of scholarships divided by the number ofstudents enrolled into higher education þ þ ko-moslava ko-baranjska Another interesting inequality amongunits local canbeseen theyif aredivided COUNTY þ þ þ ko-podravska þ ka ka Percentage of student population covered byscholarships per county ko - - þ ka PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT COVERED BODY 3,02% 4,66% 2,32% 3,67% 5,12% 3,01% 2,40% 2,13% 1,88% 0,05% 14 61 Krapinsko-zagorska Li Zadarska Istarska Varaždinska Me Splitsko-dalmatinska Primorsko-goranska križeva Koprivni srijemska Vukovarsko þ ÿ ko-Senjska imurska COUNTY þ ka þ ko - - PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT COVERED 11,68% 13,77% 12,10% BODY 6,82% 9,85% 8,72% 9,34% 6,05% 5,60% 5,18% CEU eTD Collection stratified by Development Index categories Figure stratified byDevelopment Index (DI) categories Table 17. GORY CATE IV III V II I 15. Percentage of Number of localself-government unitthat providescholarships Provide Provide Provide Provide provide Don't Provide provide Don't provide Don't provide Don't provide Don't STATUS local self SCHOLARSHIPS UNITS THAT UNITS NUMBER of PROVIDE 148 118 10 69 99 27 11 44 25 1 - government unit that provide scholarships 62 SCHOLARSHIP of UNITS THAT PERCENTAGE PROVIDE 86% 45% 96% 14% 23% 77% 71% 55% 29% 4% S SCHOLARSHIPS INCREASE in % of UNITS UNITS THAT of PROVIDE + 16% +10% +32% +9% CEU eTD Collection category. scholarship amount increases for an average of93 HRK ( with thelevel ofsocio-economic developments. As shownin Table 18.,themonthly that providescholarships, theaverage amount monthly ofscholarships increases based on the level of socio-economicdevelopment. Aswiththe percentage of units government However, units. theobtained data pointed outtoanother inequality amounts donotdiffer significantly forcounties disaggregated on local self- amountunits foralllocal is600HRK ( from 100 HRK( With regardtothemonthly amount ofscholarships, localscholarships range Table 18. by Development Index categories CATEGORY IV III V II I approx. 13EUR Average monthly amount oflocal scholarships monthly amount monthly of scholarship 500 HRK 880 HRK 580 HRK 525 HRK 680 HRK Average in HRK ) to3900HRK( 63 approx. 80EUR Average monthly Average scholarship in EUR (approx.) approx. 520EUR amount of 117 EUR 67 EUR 77 EUR 70 EUR 91 EUR ). Theaverage monthly approx. 12.5 EUR ), whilethe average INCREASE in EUR per + 26 EUR + 26 + 14 EUR + 14 category + 7EUR + 3EUR stratified ) per ) CEU eTD Collection 5.2. Scholarship policy evaluation inequalities: In conclusion, theobtained data indicates on severaltypes of more severe orless served is made” (Howlett &Ramesh 1995). Through evaluation, we candetermine in action, that is, whenan evaluation ofmeans being employed andobjectives being of thepolicy process at which is determinedit how a publicpolicy actually has fared the financialaid policy in Croatia. Theauthors define policy evaluation as ”the stage outlined inStudying Public PolicyCycles Policy: andPolicySubsystems, toanalyze framework,mainly Howlett and Ramesh’s framework forpublic policy analysis 2007). Asmentioned before, I willuse public policy theory asmy theoretical regulations, decisions, or actions pertinent to theproblem at hand(Fischer et al an attempt byagovernment toaddress a public by issue instituting laws, Instead, there general is agreement thatpublicpolicy canbebroadly referred toas x x x x x x x Inequality in the Inequality in the Inequality in the Inequality in availability of scholarships on local level Inequality in overall number of scholarships provided on county level Inequality in Inequality in As many scholars agree, there nois universal definition of public policy. upon the level ofsocio-economic development opportunities on countylevel (towns) and rural areas (municipalities) different counties county betweenlevel theZagreb county and othercounties availability of scholarships overall number and amount ofscholarships contingent upon the level ofsocio-economic development average monthly amount oflocal scholarships percentage ofstudent body covered withZagreb county excluded percentage of local units providing scholarship 64 onbothand local regional level between urban areas by local scholarships provided on contingent among CEU eTD Collection different localunits, noramong students from rural andurban areas. accessible among studentsfrom different counties, neither among studentsfrom neither local orcounty scholarship. Briefly, thefinancialwas aid neitherequally totalof 42units inwhich both enrolled andpotential studentsdidnot haveaccess to local and regional scholarship opportunities were cross-referenced, there were a financialaid compared toonly 14% of urban areas. Furthermore, datashowed that if urban andruralunits, itcanbeobserved that 45%orruralareas didnot provide government units didnot provide financial aid. If the localunits were stratified into academicaid in year 2011/2012. Onthelocal level192out556 (35%) local self- residence. On theregional level4outof21counties did (19%) notprovide financial available, but contingent upon an arbitrary criterion such as a place of permanent indicated thatthe overall policyfails onboth levels. Firstly, financial aidisnot equally equality. Equality of financialaid availability and equality of financial aidamount. inequalities in access to higher education, I can evaluate it on the same criterion: 2008) designed to improve educational opportunities anddecrease existing referred toasan access-facilitatingand equity mechanism (MSES 2007,OECD access fordisadvantaged individuals and/or areas. However, sincefinancial aidis study, Iwill notbe able to assess theif provided financialaid actually increases what supposed it is to be doing". Since I wasto notableconduct alongitudinal effectiveness ofthe policy, thatis, compare and outputs goals to seeifit is"doing (performance, process,efficiency… evaluation) Iam toevaluate thegoing (Theodoulou andKofina 2004). Among afew evaluationtypes ofpolicy are positive ornegative forthetarget population andsociety as awhole whether theeffects ofa policy were intended or unintended and whether the results The descriptive statisticalanalysis conducted inthefirst part ofthis chapter 65 CEU eTD Collection with different ofsocio-economiclevels development. indicated bythedata, neitherthe availability, nor theamount isequalacrossunits amountwillon average bealmost twice Category in higher Vthan in Category I. As (underdeveloped area). Secondly, even theif studentobtainedthe scholarship, its option for applying for afinancial aid than a student from Category I from a unitinCategory V(a very developed area) 3.5is times more likely to have an aid followingthe increase of Development Index categories. Onaverage, a student be seen.Firstly, there avast is increase inthe percentage ofunits providing financial development intobelonging Development Index categories, a twofold inequality can the if localself-governments arestratified based onthelevel ofsocio-economic government “increase will scholarshipopportunities” forthese individuals. However, scholarships for enrolled students with insufficient income" andadditionally, the financialmeans measures […] will beundertaken toensure provision of (2007), “...because theeducational opportunities are largely associated with 2010 (2005) and the in Joint Memorandum on SocialInclusion inRepublic ofCroatia get thescholarship, dependingon place oftheir residence. financial aid,some studentswere twice, thrice oreven thirteen timesmore likely to opportunities rangedfrom 0,05% to13,77%. Evenamong thelocal unitsthatprovide differences in thepercentage ofthestudent bodycovered byscholarship unit, Ireported itoncounty level. Ifcounties were disaggregated in local units, the comparisonalmost is impossible toreport onthe level ofalocal self-government inequalities the numberin ofscholarships perenrolled student. Since this As designated in the NationalPlan for the Development ofEducation 2005 - Moreover, in the units where financial aid was available, there were 66 CEU eTD Collection 2005). However, the outcome offinancial aid policywas exactly theopposite. levels ofeducation invariousparts ofthecountry" shouldbe provided (National Plan Plan forEducation specifically indicates that “equal opportunities ofaccessto all enrolment ratesthensocio-economically less developedrural areas.The National socio-economically well-developed urban areas which alreadyhave higher permanent residence. Moreover, theodds are favorin of(prospective)students from and that these chances are contingent upon acompletely arbitrary factor as place of prospective student from some areashave a bigger chance of obtaining financial aid how this situation islabelled ordefined,the outcome is that students ofit and puts economically more prosperous units in advantageous position. Regardless of and amount willmost likelybe influenced bythe economic situation intheunit, which to what extent andinwhat amount. However, thedecision about provision, number allowing local authorities todecide whether they want toprovide financial aid atall, interpreted as the nationalgovernment following thesubsidiarity principleand provision ofscholarships was in larger extent left tothe local level. Itmay be are provided onlocal levelthan onthenational level. This indicates that the Finally, ascanbeseen from the data,atleast threetimesmore scholarships 67 CEU eTD Collection equal inequalities. However, although thegovernment explicitly affirms normative values of detailed policy strategies ofequitable access designed toaddress andalleviate these individuals were recognized, but the government devised quite extensive and background. Notonly that unequalaccess opportunities for certain groups or with disabilities, theRomaminority and people ofdisadvantaged social andeconomic singled out as underrepresented in the existing student body: most notably persons education institutions existamong thepopulation. Severalsocietal categories were the Croatian government acknowledges thatinequalities in accessto higher units thatwere classified asruraland/or socio-economically underdeveloped. among theselow-scoring units: onaverage, lowest accessratescanbefound among spatial and socio-economic.obtained The data gavean insight inthestratification the averagebelow range. The inequality inaccess manifestedis ontwo levels: to pinpointexactly which localunits have "access problems", thatis,access rates providedstatistical evidence that the relationship exists, descriptive statistics enabled of socio-economicdevelopment increases. multipleWhile linear regressionmodel relationship positive whichis indicates thatthe accessratewill behigher asthe level among theagecohort (15-24) ofthe respective unit's population. Asexpected, the government unitdoes have an influence on the rate of access tohigher education in Croatia. More specifically, the levelofsocio-economic developmentself ofalocal education institutionscontingent upon socio-economicstatus is"the problem at hand" research question that,is as shown Chapter in III, unequal access to higher accessfor all on the basis of merit and The examination of all therelevant official normative documents showed that The first conclusion of this master thesis which is alsothe answer tothe first CONCLUSION 68 equitable accessfor those unequally CEU eTD Collection formulation and implementation ofadequate policy measures. capable ofcompeting onthemerit criteria, theactual affirmation happenswith the Croatiathe in academic2011/2012. year opportunities forallstudents, Imust conclude goalthat this hasnotbeen achieved in envisionaged goalof financial aid asa policy mechanism was toimprove access as acomparably higher amount of scholarship. Inconclusion, although the development indicated the higher probability of financial aidbeing available, aswell on local andregional level. Moreover, thehigher levelof socioeconomic Chapter V shows, financial aid was unequally accessible throughout Croatia, both inequality: the one based on the place of permanent residence. As data from designed tominimize onekind of inequality ended upcreatinganother kind of at directed reducing access inequalities. Conversely, the policy mechanism effectiveness offinancialaid policy oneof as several accessfacilitating mechanisms The third research question was addressing exactly that issue: the 69 CEU eTD Collection http://www.iro.hr/userdocs/File/pno2008/ppt/7_IJF_Bajo.pdf (accessed May 7 Support Subsidies). Institut zaRazvoj Obrazovanja. Hrvatskoj (Adequacy ofthe Higher Education FinancingSystem and Student BAJO, A. 2008.Adekvatnost sustava financiranjafinancijske i potporestudentima u http://www.azvo.hr/hr/statistike (accesedApril 22nd2012) AGENCY FORSCIENCE AND 2010. HIGHER EDUCATION. Revolution. ALTBACH, P.2009. Etal. Trends in GlobalHigher Education: Tracking anAcademic ______. 2012.Prvi rezultati. http://www.dzs.hr/ (accessedMay 7 May 15th2012) academic http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/publication/2012/SI-1445.pdf year). (accessed ______. 2010. Studentiu Akademskoj Godini 2010./2011. (Students, 2010/2011 looking inthe Place.Wrong BALL,New S.2010. class inequalities ineducation: Education PolicyMayBe Why http://www.vlada.hr/nacionalniprogramromi/Clanak_NPR/(accessed April 21st,2012) http://www.umrh.hr/Nacionalni%20program%20za%20Rome.pdf CROATIAN GOVERNMENT. 2004.National Program for RomaMinority. http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/ljetopis/2009/PDF/00-sadrzaj.pdf (accessed May 7 CROATIAN BUREAU OFSTATISTICS. 2009. StatisticalYearbook. Journal of theRecent Trends Higherin Education Policy Research. CONNER, T.&RABOVSKY, M. 2011.Accountability,Affordability, Access:A Review http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/ (accessedApril 22 COLORADO STATEUNIVERSITY. Guide: Content 2012.Writing Analysis Debate. Oxford University Press,New York. COHEN, C& J.P. STERBA. 2003.Affirmative Action andRacialPreference: A dimensionandmobilityreport.pdf (accessed April27th 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/WGR2007/Social Higher Education Area–Social Dimension and Mobility. BOLOGNA PROCESS GROUP. 2007.KeyWORKING forissues theEuropean m (accessed April 27th2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/actionlines/socialdimension.ht BOLOGNA PROCESS 2012.Dimension. Social WEBSITE. Higher Education in Europe. TheEQUNET Consortium. BOHONNEK, A2010.Evolvinget al. diversity - AnOverview of Equitable Access to 30 No.3/4,155-166 . Vol.39, No.1 UNESCO, Paris. UNESCO, International Journal ofSociology andSocial Policy REFERENCE LIST 70 The Policy Studies th 2012) nd 2012) th th 2012) . Vol. 2012) CEU eTD Collection http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2006/2527.htm (accessed April 1st, 2012) ______. 2006. National Policy for the Promotion ofGender Equality 2006 – 2010. http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2003/1742.htm (accessed April 1st,2012) ______. 2003, 2004. TheAct on Scientific Activity andHigher Education. novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/264877.html(accessed April 1st,2012) ______. 1993.Act on Scientific Research Activity. http://narodne- http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/264876.html(accessed April 1st,2012) CROATIAN PARLIAMENT. 1993.ActonTertiary Education Institutions. http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?sec=3370 (accessed May 10 ______. 2011.Public Tender forNational Scholarships. 2009/National_Report_Croatia_2009.pdf (accessed April 27th2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/links/National-reports- ______. 2009.NationalReport onBologna reforms. Report for Croatia. Ministry ofScience, Education andSports. Zagreb. ______. 2007. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. Country Background 2007/National_Report_Croatia2007.pdf (accessed April27th 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/links/National-reports- ______. 2007.NationalReport onBologna reforms. 2005/National_Report_Croatia_05.pdf (accessed April 27th2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/links/National-reports- ______. 2005.NationalReport onBologna reforms. berlin2003.de/pdf/Croatia.pdf (accessed April 27th2012) ______. 2003. NationalReport onBologna Reforms. http://www.bologna- http://public.mzos.hr/lgs.axd?t=16&id=14193 (accessed April 1st, 2012) NationalPlan for the Development ofEducation2005 – 2010. CROATIAN MINISTRY OFSCIENCE,ANDSPORT EDUCATION (MSES).2005. novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2010_07_89_2508.html(accessed April 27th2012) prema stupnju razvijenosti (NN89/10). http://narodne- 2010. Odluka orazvrstavanju jedinica lokalnepodru i CROATIAN MINISTRY OF REGIONALDEVELOPMENT ANDEUFUNDS(MRDEF). (accessed April 1st,2012) http://www.mzss.hr/hr/content/download/1687/14673/file/JIM_hrv_032007.doc SocialInclusion the in Republic ofCroatia. CROATIAN MINISTRY OFHEALTH AND 2007.Joint WELFARE. Memorandum on (accessed April 21st,2012) withDisabilities 2007– 2015. http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2007/1962.htm ______. 2007.NationalStrategy for theEqualization of Opportunities for Persons http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?art=9684&sec=3156 (accessed April 21st, 2012) ______. 2005. Action Plan fortheDecade ofRoma Inclusion2005 – 2015. 71 þ ne (regionalne) samouprave th 2012) CEU eTD Collection Higher Education Analysis ofSome Effects ofGeographical Location andSocioeconomic Status. JAMES, R.2001.Participation Disadvantage in Australian Higher Education: An Education JACKSON, G.1978.Financial Aid andStudent Enrollment. subsystems. Oxford UniversityPress HOWLETT, M.&RAMESH, M.Studying publicpolicy:policy 1995. cycles andpolicy HILL, M. 2004.ThePublic Policy Process. Longman Publishing. policies inHigherEducation. HEWARD, C.&TAYLOR, P.1993. Effective and Ineffective EqualOpportunity Academy ofPolitical Science HANSEN, L.1983.Impact of StudentFinancial Aidon Access. and Methods. CRC Press FISCHER,et al.(Eds).2007.Handbook F.of Public PolicyAnalysis: Theory,Politics, Opportunity. Student Grant and ScholarshipPrograms inPromotingEqual Educational FIFE, J&LESLIE, L.1976.The CollegeStudent GrantStudy: The Effectiveness of Education, Zagreb NationalEUROSTUDENT ReportforCroatia. Institute for theDevelopment of FARNELL, T.etal. 2011. Social andEconomic ConditionsofStudent Life Croatia:in Budapest-Vienna_Declaration.pdf (accessed27th April 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/2010_conference/documents/ ______. 2010. Budapest-Vienna Declaration. 2012) n_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf (accessed April 27th http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Leuve ______. 2009. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. mmunique18May2007.pdf (accessed April 27th 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/London_Co ______. 2007. London Communiqué. gen_Communique1.pdf (accessed April27th 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/050520_Ber ______. 2005.Bergen Communiqué. munique1.pdf (accessedApril27th 2012) http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/Berlin_Com EHEA (European Higher Education Area).2003. Berlin Communiqué. Practice XVII: 172–219 Study ofHigher Education Policy. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and DesJARDINS, S. 2003.Understanding and UsingEfficiency and Equity Criteria inthe . Vol.49,No. 6,548-574 Research in Higher Education . Vol.42,No.4, 455-472 , Vol. 35, No.2,, Vol.35, The Crisis Higherin Education, 84-96 Critical Social Policy Social Critical 72 , Vol.4,No.317-333 . Vol.37,75-94 The Journal ofHigher Proceedings ofthe CEU eTD Collection TELLIS, 1997.IntroductionW. to a case study. Research In Higher Education education: An analysis ofprogress with specialconsideration ofminority enrolment. St. John,E. &Noell, J.1989.The effects ofstudent financialaid on access to higher RAWLS, J.A. 1971. A Theory ofJustice. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Vol.44, 243-261 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html April (accessed 15th2012) the Labor Market. MATKOVI 1st, 2012) Obrazovanja. http://iro.hr/userdocs/File/pno2008/ppt/8_Matkovic.pdf (accessed May Croatian Higher Education System: EducationOnly for the Elite?) Institutza Razvoj Obrazovanja: Obrazovanje Samo (Social Structure zaElitu? ofStudents the in MATKOVI Review ofResearchin Education LUCAS, S. 2010.Namingand Classifying: Theory, Evidence andEquity inEducation. Series: QuantitativeApplications intheSocial Sciences LEWIS-BECK, M. 1980.Applied regression: An Introduction. Sage University Papers 2nd edition. Sage KRIPPENDORFF, K.2004.Content Analysis: An Introduction toIts Methodology. 1950 -2009.Education Policy Centre, Charles University KOUCKÝ2010. etal. GetsaDegree? AccessWho toTertiary Education inEurope Center for Studying Health System Change KOHN, L.1997.Methods in CaseStudy Analysis. Technical Publication No.2. The Chances of Getting Higher Education: SomeCroatian Experiences. Access toHigher Education Brazil.in T.McCOWAN, 2007.Expansion Equity:Without An Analysisof CurrentPolicy on PUZI Society Foundations. New York POP, D.(Ed.) 2012. Education Policy and EqualEducation Opportunities. Open OECD. 2008.Reviews ofTertiaryEducation: Croatia. OECD Publications. Paris Princeton University Press NUSSBAUM,M. 2010.NotForProfit: DemocracyWhy NeedstheHumanities. Goastellec ed.),Sense Publishers, Rotterdam Action Understandingin Inequalities in, through andbyHigher Education (Gaële MOSES, M. 2010.Understanding Instrumentaland Moral Justifications for Affirmative No.3, 233-249 MORA,EquitySpanish J.-G.1997. in Higher Education. û , S.etal. 2006.SocialDimension of the BolognaProcess and (Un)Equality of û û , T. et al. 2006. Structural, T.etal. Changes in Tertiary Education andImpacts on , T.2008.Društvena Struktura Studenata u Hrvatskom Sustavu Visokog Privredna kretanja i ekonomska politika . Vol.30,No.6, 563-581 , Vol.34,No.1 Higher Education 73 The Qualitative Report . Vol.53,No.5, 579-598. Higher Education . Vol.16,No.108, 26-65 Sociologija Sela . Vol.3.,No.2., . Vol.33, . CEU eTD Collection Educational ResearchFor Policy AndPractice. Vol.9, No. 3,193-209 YANG, X.2010.Access toHigher Education for RuralPoor Students China. in Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press BANK. WORLD 2006. BankDevelopmentWorld report2006. Equity and Holton (Eds.), Human resourcedevelopment researchhandbook. San Francisco TORRACO, R.J.1997. Theory-building research methods. InR.A. Swanson &E. F. http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2001/0705.htm (accessed April 1st,2012) REPUBLIC OF THE THE CONSTITUTION 2001. OFCROATIA. American Public Policy Making.Thomson THEODOULOU, S.AND KOFINA, C.2004. The Art oftheGame: Understanding 74