PERFORMANSE NOVOG MODELA

INVESTIRANJA U VISOKO
OBRAZOVANJE U SRBIJI

Jzsef Kabk1, Imre Lendk2, Karolina Lendk Kabk3

Abstract: In this paper we test the characteristics of the new investment in higher
education in Serbia, especially from the aspect of increasing the competitiveness of
higher education. The performance of the new model is methodologically evaluated by
the European Competitiveness Index higher education is compared to the same index
in the European Union. The subject of investigation is the analysis of the performance
of the new model of investing in higher education, and the goal to its application, to
identify changes in the competitiveness of higher education in Serbia, in relation to
that country. The results indicate that the new model of investment in higher education
in Serbia, increasing the competitiveness of higher education in general.

Keywords: higher education, investment model, competitiveness

JEL Classification: I22, H52,C5

1. Introduction
According to the definition of investing involves a clear expectation of future benefits,
so it is reasonable that higher education is seen as a public investment in terms of
society as a gobal or particular government of a state. In contrast to this is the
understanding of higher education as a public cost that involves lessening the share of
1
Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development, Bulevar Mihajla Pupina 16,
Novi Sad, Serbia
Jozef.Kabok@vojvodina.gov.rs (corresponding author)

2
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Trg Dositeja Obradovia 6, Novi
Sad, Serbia
lendak@uns.ac.rs

3
University of Novi Sad, Association of Centres for Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary
Studies and Research, Trg Dositeja Obradovia 5, Novi Sad, Serbia
Karolina.Kabok@gmail.com
public investment in higher education and the increased expectation of private
(individual) investors and donors in terms of settling the costs of higher education
(Eicher, Chevalier, 2002).
Serbia's accession to the Bologna Declaration (The Bologna Declaration of 19 June
1999, 1999) required the reform and the process of change in higher education with a
view to Serbia, a part of the European Higher Education Area. Joining the European
higher education requires better economic status and greater competitiveness of
higher education. In Serbia, the economic situation of higher education to a large
extent determined by means of the state budget that are allocated funds to invest in
higher education. Faced with the constant decrease or stagnation of growth funds that
are invested by the government, higher education institutions have been forced to look
to other sources of investment. There is no doubt that the high quality of higher
education can not only provide funds from the state budget. At the same time budget
funds, which are increasingly scarce, to invest in higher education according to other
rules, standards and criteria in relation to the existing. A new model of investment and
new standards and criteria of investment would improve the economic status of higher
education institutions, as well as the competitiveness of higher education in general.
The subject of investigation is the analysis of the performance of the new models of
investment (Kabok, Gjakova, Andjeli, 2011) in higher education, and within that, and
determine the effects of the implementation of the new model with the increasing
competitiveness of higher education. A new model of investing is based on investment
in higher education study programs with elements of Lump Sum and includes three
formulas. In contrast, the current model of investment (Kabok, 2010) is based on a
formula by which funds are allocated to higher education for budget items. Since the
allocation of resources to higher education for a number of possible sources, the new
investments to be analyzed in the paper, refers to the investment of public funds by
the State, as owner of the establishment.
The aim of the research was to econometric analysis of selected indicators of higher
education demonstrate that the application of the new model provides a better
economic status and greater competitiveness of higher education in Serbia, in the
countries of the European Union Competitiveness new model is tested by the
European Competitiveness Index indicators of higher education.
The study is of interest not only for the scientific and professional community, but also
for the general public, given that the study analyzes the performance of the new
models of investment in higher education in Serbia. Similarly, the index of
competitiveness of higher education as a parameter for testing the new model, shows
the position and rank of Serbia in the field of higher education in the countries of the
European Union. Therefore the investigation significantly, both for policy makers and
development strategy of higher education in Serbia and in the European Union.
Methodological work consists of the introduction and four chapters. After the
introductory part of the second section lists the relevant attitudes in the medical and
scientific literature amount regarding this issue. The third section shows the
methodology of research that involves the use of modeling methods and standard
mathematical and statistical methods, while the fourth chapter summarizes the results
of the research. The research results show the performance of the new models of
investment through the European Competitiveness Index of higher education in the
country in relation to Evroske Union. At the end of the work, the conclusions in the
form of proposals and recommendations to policy makers and strategies for higher
education.
2. Literature Review
Models of investment in higher education, in science and literature (Canton, et al
2001, Jongbloed, 2006, Ball, 2002, Zietz and Joshi, 2005 Vukasovi et al, 2009),
commonly classified on the basis of determining the recipient's funds for higher
education and on this basis there are:

- The investment model based on offer, the type of investment in which the
funds are allocated for instructional activities directly to the institution of higher
education under certain conditions and criteria. This model of investment is
used in most European countries;
- The investment model based on demand, the type of investment in which the
funds are awarded directly to students (all or a specific part of students,
selected on the basis of predetermined and transparent criteria) in the form of
vouchers. Students are free to opt for an institution of higher education in
which to enter and the selected institutions receive vouchers from students,
cashing them after their enrollment.

Model of investment in higher education based on the bid shall be applied in most
European countries. In relation to this issue, it should be noted that most of the
models of investment in higher education is essential mixed when it comes to the
allocation mechanisms because, when institutions receive funding directly from the
state budget, students and their families can receive a "hidden" assets (Canton et al
2001). On the other hand, the voucher system gives students a choice of institutions
(Jongbloed, 2006). This puts students in a position very similar to "buyer" position
(although he / she buys a higher their money, but with money or vouchers provided by
the government, which is collected through taxes) and includes significant
"potritavanje" higher education. However, the study programs of higher education
have identical cost price, both in terms of actual costs incurred (such as medicine or
engineering sciences are more expensive than political or economic science), and in
the value and prestige of individual institutions of higher education. The voucher
system would have to be very sensitive to such differences, in order to avoid these
problems (Vukasovi et al, 2009). Also, not all degree programs are equally popular
among the students, which can lead to excessive demand for a very low interest for
other applications. All this may eventually lead to the disappearance of some
unpopular programs of study, even if they were necessary in society.

The division of investment models is also possible according to the criteria and
mechanisms that are used to determine the amount of funds invested in higher
education (Jongbloed, Vossensteyn 2001 Canton, et al 2001, Vukasovi et al, 2009):
- Investment model based on the formula is undoubtedly the most objective
mechanism that is applied in Serbia. The formula is based on a number of
parameters that are related to the number of students enrolled, the number of
 teaching and non-teaching staff (input criteria), the number of students who
graduated from undergraduate studies or success that students achieve
during their studies, the number of graduates who continue their higher
education (master's or doctoral level), the duration of the study, the number of
graduates and dropouts (output criteria). It can be combined according to the
criteria of inputs and outputs, the number of different programs of study, type
of instruction, and the available infrastructure or equipment;
- Investment model based on the contract is based on determining the amount
of investment in higher education on the basis of the contract, signed by the
institution and the founders (the government).;
- The model of negotiation on the level of investment by the founder (the
government) includes a relationship that is more like a partnership, between
institutions of higher education and founders or intermediary bodies such as
national councils for higher education, councils for investing in specific areas
and disciplines of study (especially when it comes to research).;
- Investment model based on performance is in essence a model based on a
specific formula, but in addition to the parameters for the number of students,
teaching purposes and existing infrastructure, it includes the results of the
institution. In this model, it is particularly important to select and define the
criteria used in determining the amount of funds to invest in higher education,
criteria which reflect the performance of institutions such as citations, patents,
PhD theses, international cooperation, etc.

Regarding the discussion about the criteria and mechanisms for investment in higher
education, particularly important to emphasize that it is not a simple choice between
input and output criteria, and the importance they are given (Canton et al, 2001: 86).
Unilateral choice, that is, criteria based on input or output elements will not produce
the expected results in the application of the model of investment. It is pointed out that
the criterion based on the inputs are not effective in terms of providing desired (or
expected) Results of the process of higher education, because if, for example, the
amount of public funds is determined based on the number of students enrolled in the
first year of study, the institution will seek to enroll as many students as possible. To
some extent, this can be justified by the idea of "economies of scale" (economies of
scale), but it can be easily converted to "overpopulation" establish student and
therefore leads to a reduction in the quality of learning. On the other hand, using just
the output elements can mean lower costs of higher education, and reduction of test
criteria and the deterioration of educational quality (Vuksanovi et all, 2009).

From the standpoint of source funds to invest in higher education models are divided
into (Eicher, Chevaillier, 2002 Barr, 2004, Del Rey, 2010 Racionero Jacobs Ploeg
2005):
- Models of public investments, which include investments in institutions of higher
education solely from public sources (budget);
- Models of private (individual) investment, when higher education institutions
generate their income solely from private investment (students, private donations,
businesses);
- Mixed models, which include investment in higher education institutions from the
public, as well as from private sources.

Some authors (Jacobs, Ploeg, 2005) consider a model of increased investment

budget only way to enable the positioning of higher education in the educational
market. In the area of investment in higher education are introduced budget subsidies,
whose annual amount determined by the formula komleksne. Spending above the
subsidy for autonomous institutions, provided that comply with legal standards.

On the other hand, the well-known theorists of investment in higher education Jean -
Claude Eicher and Thierry Chevaillier (2002) argue that the mixed model of
investment in higher education is better than a fully public or fully private investment,
and the investment in higher education and society has a private and public benefit.
Private benefits are more energy, better health, increased political efficacy and a
better understanding of culture, science and technology, and public uses in the
advancement of knowledge as a resource for society. Considering the sources of
investment in higher education is considered Nicholas Barr (2004) to the prosperity
and development of higher education does not contribute to the model of investing
that relies solely on public (tax) revenues. Model of investment in higher education to
analyze Elena Del Rey and Maria Racionero (2010) involves investment in higher
education from two sources: public, through tax subsidies where the costs of higher
education paid for from general taxation and private, where each student has to pay
the cost of education (tuition) through loans. I mentioned the authors argue for a
mixed model of investment in higher education, from public and private sources, not
declaring that the optimal proportion of investment.

Swing of the IT revolution in the world, the rapid development of various forms of
communication, especially the Internet, the driving force of social development are
more economic parameters for the increasing role of knowledge, innovation,
entrepreneurship, introduction of new technologies and the like. Such efforts tend to
form "knowledge society", which requires a growing share of highly educated
population (Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Ion Zgreaban, 2013
Katic, 2012) and brings the ability to run high-quality, well-paying jobs. The European
Union and other European countries see such a trend and its a great chance to
maintain its leadership position in an increasingly competitive world (Cosic et al,
2009). It is therefore, increase the competitiveness of higher education, the choice of
an adequate model of investment, one of the central issues of social and economic
development and prosperity in the world and Europe (Kabok et al, 2013). Theodore
Berhe (2006) notes that the European Union becomes the most competitive and
dynamic economy in the world, because the universities in the countries of the
European Union in nature internationally oriented.
The conclusions of the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education in the Europe Region
(UNESCO, 2009) suggests that academic competitiveness, including competitiveness
of higher education, should be evaluated on the basis of clear and transparent
academic criteria. This competition should be achieved by the use of it with all
institutions, regions and countries that contribute to a global society based on
education. The competitiveness of the university is not measured only in terms of the
success of their own projects, or in relation to other universities in the country or
region, but globally in relation to the most competitive universities aforementioned
findings suggest that the competitiveness of higher education may help establish
common references to the qualifications framework national and international level.
Academic Competitiveness can also be improved if the national programs of
investment in higher education is open to foreign participants, as well as the
intensification of transnational programs of investment in higher education.

In contrast to the above studies are listed as a comparative research in the field, this
study deals with the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the new models of
investment and its impact on the competitiveness of higher education in Serbia, in
relation to the competitiveness of 26 countries of the European Union.

3. Research Methodology
The methods of analysis and synthesis, statistical and mathematical methods for
calculating the European Competitiveness Index Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
based on the ranking of countries by individual analyzed indicators of higher
education. The research, due to the availability of official statistics, conducted in 2010.
year.

To establish baseline data in higher education in Serbia used the existing model of
investment. The model is based on input criteria to determine the amount of funds that
invest in higher education institutions, and the formula is set up as follows (Kabok,
2010):

St O t

U gs FB ns PKS ns C r D FBnno PKS nno C r D O s
Pub
, (1)

with the following explanations:

Ugs: Annual total assets for investment in higher education;
FBns: The number of teachers and staff financed;
PKSns: The average coefficient of the complexity of the teaching staff;
Cr: The basic salary for employees in higher education, which is determined by the
Government of the Republic of Serbia;
FBnno: The number of non-teaching staff financed;
PKSnno: The average coefficient of the complexity of the non-teaching staff;
D: Additions to salaries;
St: Permanent (material) costs / expenses of institutions;
Pub: The percentage share of budget revenues in the total revenue of the institution;
Os: Insurance expenses;
Ot: Other expenses.

Unlike the current model, the new model of investment in higher education is applied
in this study, based on input - output criteria in determining funds investing in higher
education degree programs. The new model is composed of three formulas.

The first model of the new formula applies to investment budget in higher education
and is set as follows (Kabok, Gjakova, Andjeli, 2011):

B
U tr Ts B s D s K f 0,25 Ts B s D s K f s Tg To ,
Us (2)

With the following explanations:

Utr: expenditures for the achievement of the program of study from budgetary funds;
Ts: Trokovi studentu studijskog programa kao planska kategorija utvrivala bi se i
propisivala od strane nadlenih ministarstava;
Bs: The number of state-financed students of the program of study;
Ds: The number of graduates of the program of study;
Kf: The correction factor, which balances the economic status of institutions and
eliminates the deficiency of the higher education market; it would be prescribed by the
Government of the Republic of Serbia in the form of a normative act, as follows: for
the social sciences and humanities in the amount of 1.5, the natural sciences and
mathematics 2.5, technical and technological sciences 3, for medical science in the
amount of 3.5, and for the arts in the amount of 5;
Us: The total number of students (both state-financed and self-financing) of the
program of study;
Tg: Heating expenses;
To: Insurance expenses.

The second formula of the new models of investment relates to the determination of
the number of students study programs in higher education by calculating the limits of
profitability of great physical range of services - the number of students. Limits of
economic activities is the point where equal average costs per unit of service (per
student) with the price of higher education. This formula is a new model of investment
is set as follows:

Ft
Ge , (3)
C o Pt

with the following explanations:

Ge: The boundary of operational efficiency of higher education, expressed as the
number of students;
Ft: The fixed costs of higher education;
Co: The price of higher education per student;
Pt: The proportional costs of higher education per student.

The third formula is a new model of investment in higher education related to the
implementation of the new model and its effect on increasing the employability of
graduates of study programs. The formula is a modified formula Tinbergenovog (1962)
model of planning in higher education and is set as follows:

L p x g x S , (4)

uz sledea potrebna objanjenja:

L: Poveanje zaposlenosti;
g: Proporcija (odnos) ukupnog broja studenata i studenata koji zavravaju visoko
obrazovanje;
p: Stopa uea visokoobrazovanih u ukupnom broju zaposlenih;
S: Ukupan broj studenata.

The formulas of the new model (2-4) in the interdependence and connectivity make
the new model of investment in higher education in Serbia.

To test the new model was analyzed its competitiveness through indicators of the
European Competitiveness Index higher education. The analysis was performed for
Serbia and 26 EU countries (except Luxembourg, who, because of the inadequacy of
the data could not be included in the relevant research) to the data in 2010. . The test
results were used as a basis for the implementation of new models of investment in
Serbia in order to provide a larger volume of investment resources and their efficient
and effective use in higher education.
For the analysis of the competitiveness of the new model uses three indicators of
higher education:
- Budget per student in EUR (P1);
- The number of students per 1,000 population (P2);
- 1 - number of students to 100 employees (P3).
The study used a modified indicator: 100 - number of students per 100 employees in
order to avoid the effect of preference for a country with high unemployment.
The key objective of the methodological design was to put European competitiveness
index higher education Serbia and the European Union. After a series of experiments
showed that the more appropriate for this purpose, a methodology Izushi-Huggins
(Huggins and Izushi, 2002), which was developed in the framework of the study
"European Competitiveness Index of Serbia" (Cosic et al, 2009).
 At the beginning of the experiment, in order to obtain comparable data were
performed convert all variables to obtain the average for all 100 equivalent:

Xij
Sij 100 (5)
Xj

gde su:
i : Redni broj zemlje;
j : Redni broj pokazatelja;
s jj : Standardizovana vrednost j-tog pokazatelja i-te zemlje;
x ij : Vrednost j-tog pokazatelja i-te zemlje;

x j : Prosena vrednost j-tog pokazatelja.

Converted over the set of variables subjected to factor analysis. The actual orientation
of the factors in the factor space is arbitrary, so it is justified to make the rotation factor
values to obtain a structure suited for practical interpretation.
In a further application of the aforementioned methodology uses a standard computer
engineering varimax rotation. Based on the rotated factors obtained dimensions that
indicate the links of factors with the original parameters. Also, ensure and composite
sub-indicators, fixed (for the i-th country and the k-th factor) and get the points that
belong to different countries, according to individual factors.
The formation of the European Competitiveness Index was performed using Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA), which is a special application of linear programming
method, where the maximization is performed weighted sum fixed factor scores for
individual countries with peak weights:
p ik fik .... p iq f iq z i max (6)

where q is the total number of factors, k = 1, ..., q

the limitations:
p ik fik .... p iq f iq z ii 1, i (7)

p ik o, k

The procedure gives the values of weights that yields maximized weighted sum of
factor scores "Zii" on that land, and for the same set of weights is calculated and the
weighted sum of the factors for all other countries. In this way, each country gets "n"
factor weighted summation of which is calculated as the geometric mean of the
indicator, the index of competitiveness of a given country.
To standardize the obtained indicator of the competitiveness index, performed their
multiplication converted geometric mean deviation indicator (square root of the
variance), and the:

n
x ij x j
(8)
j i1
n
and added to 100
The results represent the average index of 100, with the reflection of real differences
between the countries analyzed.
In the study, first, using the procedure described on the basis of baseline data on
indicators P1, P2 and P3, European Competitiveness Index calculated higher
education Serbia and 26 EU countries in 2010. _ flow data, for the given indicator, for
Serbia regarding the application of existing models of investment in higher education
in 2010. _. After that, for baseline data on these indicators, which refer to Serbia
applied ex post, in the same conditions, a new model of investment in higher
education in order to test its performance and examining its impact on changes in the
competitiveness of higher education.

4. The Research Results

4.1 Evropski indeks konkurentnost visokog obrazovanja zemalja Evropske

unije i Srbije

Using the described methodology, based on the initial parameters, calculated by the
European Competitiveness Index higher education (Table 1) in 26 countries of the
European Union and Serbia in 2010. year and their ranking.

Tabela 1
Evropski indeks konkurentnosti visokog obrazovanja i rang zemalja
Evropske unije i Srbije za 2010. Godinu
 No Country Budetska Broj (1-Broj Ideksni
sredstava po studenata na studenata na poeni
studentu u 1000 100
EUR stanovnika zaposlenih)
x100
2010 P1 P2 P3
1 Netherlands 13.701,80 37,32 92,61 118,37
2 Sweden 15.774,90 45,24 90,7 117,52
3 Denmark 13.657,20 42,39 91,37 117,05
4 Austria 12.432,70 36,80 92,48 115,68
5 Cyprus 10.154,90 38,60 91,95 113,51
6 Germany 12.095,60 29,81 93,7 113,04
7 United Kingdom 12.428,70 38,94 91,65 112,55
8 Slovenia 6.531,40 55,89 88,16 111,05
9 Portugal 7.409,70 35,06 92,51 110,52
10 Finland 12.133,40 55,44 87,88 110,31
11 Czech Republic 6.574,20 39,67 91,47 109,74
12 Belgium 11.931,40 39,23 90,53 103,04
13 Malta 9.738,30 25,10 93,67 102,77
14 Ireland 11.154,40 40,87 90,1 102,03
15 Slovakia 5.160,80 43,32 89,86 101,91
16 France 11.273,80 33,58 91,54 100,97
17 Romania 2.409,40 51,17 88,11 100,02
18 Estonia 4.513,20 51,04 88,02 99,92
19 Spain 10.508,00 39,16 90,24 99,82
20 Bulgaria 4.830,20 36,25 91,02 98,63
21 Latvia 5.020,60 55,77 86,67 97,17
22 Poland 4.722,30 56,33 86,53 96,81
23 Italy 7.429,10 33,34 91,2 95,91
24 Hungary 5.171,60 39,71 89,48 91,87
25 Lithuania 4.890,90 63,29 84,32 90,41
26 Greece 5.818,20 56,4 85,47 88,20
27 Serbia 1.201,90 31,10 87,37 55,52
Source: Eurostat (2010), Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2011), and author's own
calculations.

Based on these data it is concluded that the greatest competition of higher education
among the 26 European Union countries have the most favorable input parameters in
the field of education viokog: Netherlands on the 1st place with 118.37 index points,
followed by Sweden and Denmark are ranked 2nd and 3rd place with 117.52 and
117.05 points. Significant competitiveness of higher education have three highly
developed industrial countries: Austria, ranked 4th place in Germany 6 place and the
UK ranked 7th place. Particularly noteworthy is the high ranking of competitiveness of
Cyprus, on the 5th was due to the positive impact of two indicators of competitiveness
of higher education: the amount of the investment budget and the number of students
compared to 1,000 inhabitants.
The lowest ranking of competitiveness of higher education and the lowest numerical
value of the competitiveness among the analyzed countries of the European Union
has Greece on the 26th place with 88.20 points. Low competitiveness of higher
education for the analyzed indicators of competitiveness with Lithuania on 24 place
and Hungary, on the 25th place with 90.41 and 91.87 index points respectively.
Surprisingly low ranking of competitiveness of higher education of Italy, which is on the
23 place, primarily because of the low values of indicators of competitiveness of
students per 1,000 inhabitants, and the unfavorable impact of the aforementioned
parameters on the competitiveness of higher education.
Republic of Serbia, for the competitiveness of higher education, analyzed the existing
model of investment in higher education, which is based on input criteria in
determining the amount of funds invested, IN 2010. years, the last 27 place with 55.52
points. Low competitiveness of higher education condition unfavorable indicators of
higher education, particularly low investment budget per student. These data indicate
the need for the higher education system Serbian implement a new model of
investment to improve competitiveness indicators and thus contribute to the
competitiveness of Serbian higher education increased in the countries of the
European Union.

4.2 The European Competitiveness Index of the European Higher Education

Union and Serbia after the implementation of the new investment models

Implementation of the new investment models, provide data on the European

Competitiveness Index and ranked Serbian higher education compared to 26
countries in the European Union in 2010, according to the methodology described
above. The data are shown in Table 2 below.

Tabela 2
Evropski indeks konkurentnosti visokog obrazovanja i rang zemalja Evropske
unije i Srbije za 2010. godinu nakon primene novog modela investiranja

No Country Budetska Broj studenata (1-Broj Ideksni

sredstava po na 1000 studenata na poeni
studentu u EUR stanovnika 100
zaposlenih)
x100
2010 godina P1 P2 P3
1 Netherlands 13.701,80 37,32 92,61 119,16
2 Sweden 15.774,90 45,24 90,7 118,18
3 Denmark 13.657,20 42,39 91,37 117,71
4 Austria 12.432,70 36,80 92,48 116,31
 5 Cyprus 10.154,90 38,60 91,95 113,98
6 Germany 12.095,60 29,81 93,7 113,57
7 United Kingdom 12.428,70 38,94 91,65 112,96
8 Slovenia 6.531,40 55,89 88,16 111,22
9 Portugal 7.409,70 35,06 92,51 110,84
10 Finland 12.133,40 55,44 87,88 110,43
11 Czech Republic 6.574,20 39,67 91,47 109,98
12 Belgium 11.931,40 39,23 90,53 102,85
13 Malta 9.738,30 25,10 93,67 102,70
14 Ireland 11.154,40 40,87 90,1 101,77
15 Slovakia 5.160,80 43,32 89,86 101,62
16 France 11.273,80 33,58 91,54 100,70
17 Romania 2.409,40 51,17 88,11 99,54
18 Estonia 4.513,20 51,04 88,02 99,44
19 Spain 10.508,00 39,16 90,24 99,43
20 Bulgaria 4.830,20 36,25 91,02 98,2
21 Latvia 5.020,60 55,77 86,67 96,47
22 Poland 4.722,30 56,33 86,53 96,08
23 Italy 7.429,10 33,34 91,2 95,34
24 Hungary 5.171,60 39,71 89,48 90,99
25 Lithuania 4.890,90 63,29 84,32 89,21
26 Greece 5.818,20 56,40 85,47 86,93
27 Serbia 1.387,80 34,28 87,36 58,72
Source: Eurostat (2010), Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2011), and
author's own calculations.

The data in Table 2 indicate that the application of a new model of investment, an
increase in the analyzed indicators of higher education in Serbia: the budget per
student increased by 15.47%, the number of students per 1,000 population to 10.22%,
while the number of students 100 employees by 0.08%. The European
Competitiveness Index Serbian higher education increased from 55.52 to 58.72
points. Serbia's ranking compared to the 26 countries of the European Union has not
improved, because Serbia and after implementation of the new investment models
remains a top 27 place. To Serbian moved from last place in the competitiveness of
higher education in comparison with EU countries, require more investment in higher
education. Low value of the budgetary resources per student is the factor that causes
low competitiveness of Serbian calculated by this methodology. Therefore, in Serbia
must create a strategy of increased budget allocations per student in higher education
for the future that includes the implementation of a new investment models.

Application of a new model of investment in higher education in Serbia, as noted

above, would increase investment to 15.47% per year per student, which can improve
the working conditions in higher education in terms of space, material and personnel
requirements of teaching. Competitiveness of higher education is improved by
increasing the volume of investment earmarked for new infrastructure of higher
education, as well as additional investments in scientific and technical personnel
training.

Increased competitiveness of higher education contributes to increasing the number

and mobility of students. More information and the necessary data on study programs
and their quality allows a greater competitive study programs, and thus the higher
education in general.
Setting standards in the ranking of academic programs at the reference list of higher
education would help to attract more students, which would allow not only gain more
revenue in higher education, but also increase its competitiveness. Higher-ranked
degree programs attract many students, the opportunity to acquire a better knowledge
levels, as well as their options for evaluation of the knowledge acquired in the labor
market. Ranking study programs allow Serbia the status of the company with a high
quality education which allows, among other things, the influx of foreign students and
teaching staff.

5. Conclusion
This paper presents a new model of investment in higher education in Serbia, which is
based on a combination of input-output criteria in determining the amount of assets
that are invested in the study programs of higher education, as well as three
interrelated formulas. The new model increases the budget investment in higher
education, improves the profitability of the limits expressed in the number of students
and increase the employability of graduates. The above qualitative features of the
model of investment contribute to increasing the competitiveness of higher education
in relation to other European Union countries, as evidenced by the results of research.
Testing of the new investment models have been based on selected indicators of
higher education with the use of Data Envelopment Analysis of the available data.
Application of the above method calculated the competitiveness of higher education in
comparison to the competitiveness of higher education of the European Union.

The paper in a clear manner indicates the value and importance of the European
Competitiveness Index higher education in Serbia. The main objective of the
presentation and analysis of the aforementioned index was to consider the possibility
of increasing the competitiveness of higher education in the future, especially when
Serbia becomes part of the great European family - the EU. A new model of
investment to be analyzed and tested in operation, although not increasing the
competitiveness ranking of Serbia towards the European Union, a move to a better
economic situation of higher education in order to provide higher quality services in
Serbia. Application of the new model would, in the future with increased budget
allocations, bringing Serbia Competitiveness of Higher Education European Union.
Research results indicate the strategy makers of higher education in Serbia, the need
to undertake measures and activities under their responsibility, with a view to
implementing the new investment models to improve the competitiveness of higher
education in the future. Improving the competitiveness of higher education provides a
new model of investment in higher education in Serbia, which is presented in this
paper and tested on data from the Higher Education

The limitation of this study relates to the fact that, due to the lack and inadequacy of
data, the paper was not possible to show the competitiveness of higher education of
the European Union as a whole and to compare it with the competitiveness of higher
education in Serbia.

Planning of higher education, but also the structure of the study programs in higher
education in Serbia should be directed to the requirements of the labor market and
competence that is requested. For this purpose must be planned new skills in order to
adequately anticipate the requirements of the labor market, increased opportunities for
higher and lifelong education in order to improve the professionalism of highly skilled
labor and thereby increase opportunities for faster and easier employment. Further
research on investment models will provide an answer to the question whether one of
the important determinants of competitiveness focus of higher education study
programs of higher education to labor market needs.

6. References

Ball, S. J., 2002. Classification and Judgment: social class and the cognitive
structures of choice in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
21(1), pp. 51-72.
Barr, N., 2004. Higher education funding. Oxford review of economic policy, Oxford
University Press, 20(2) , pp. 264 -283.
Berchem, T., 2006. The University as an Agora Based on Cultural and Academic
Values. Higher Education in Europe, 31(4), pp. 395 -396.
Canton, E., et al 2001. Higher education reform: Getting the incentives right. Sdu
Utgevers, Den Haag
osi, I., et al 2009. The Competitiveness index of Serbia. Study for Provincial
Secretariat for Science and Technological Development of AP Vojvodina. University of
Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad.
Del Rey, E. and Racionero, M., 2010. Financing schemes for higher education,
European Journal of Political Economy, 26(1), pp. 104 -113.
Eicher, J. and Chevailler, T., 2002. Rethinking the Financing of Post-Compulsory
Education. Higher Education in Europe, 27(1-2), pp. 69 - 99.
Eurostat, 2009. Employment statistic.[online] Available at:
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/d
ata/database>[Accessed 30 August 2012].
Eurostat, 2009.Population statistics. [online] Available at:
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database>
[Accessed 30 August 2012].
Eurostat, 2009.Tertiary education statistic. [online] Available at:
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tertiary_education_st
atistics>[Accessed 30 August 2012].

Huggins, R. and Izushi, H., 2002. World Knowledge Competitiveness Index 2002:
Benchmarking the Globes High-Performing Regions. Robert Huggins Associates.
Cardiff. Available at < http://www.cforic.org> [Accessed on October 2012].
Ion Zgreaban, I., 2013. Education in Romania-How Much Is It Worth, Romanian
Journal of Economic Forecasting, 16(1), pp 149-163.
Jacobs, B. and Ploeg, F., 2005. Guide to reform of higher education: A European
perspective. Discussion paper series No. 5327, Industrial organization and public
policy, Centre for Policy Research, London
Jongbloed, B., 2006. Strengthening Consumer Choice in Higher Education, Higher
Education Dynamics,14, pp. 19-50.
Jongbloed, B. and Vossensteyn, H., 2001. Keeping up Performances: an
international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2) pp. 127-145.
Kabk, J. 2010. Investment Models for Higher Education, Annals of the Faculty of
Economics in Subotica, 46(24) pp. 155-168.
Kabk, J., Djakovi, V. and Andjeli, G., 2011. Investment Model Aimed at Raising
Competitiveness of Higher Education, Proceedings XV International Scientific
Conference on Industrial Systems, September 14 - 16 2011. Novi Sad, Serbia, pp. 446
450.
Kabk, J., Kis, T., Csllg, M. and Lendak, I., 2013. Data Envelopment Analysis of
Higher Education Competitiveness Indices in Europe. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica
10(3), pp. 185-201.

Kati, A., osi, I., Aneli, G. and Raleti, S., 2012. Reviw of Competitivness Indices
that Use Knowledge as a Criterion, Acta Polytechica Hungarica, 9(5) pp. 25-44.

Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions, 2000.

Available at: <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm#1>[Accessed 30
August 2011].
Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2011. Statistical Almanac of Serbia,
Belgrade.
The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers
of Educatin. Available at: < http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-
Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF> [Accessed 24 July 2011].
Tinbergen, J. and Correa, H., 1962. Quantitative adaptation of education to accelerate
growth. Seminar on the programming of Economic Development,Y 30 December,
1962 - 17 january, 1963, UNESCO document, Catalog Number: 157619, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
UNESCO, 2009. Access, Values, Quality and Competitiveness. UNESCO Forum on
Higher Education in the Europe Region, May 21 24 2009. Bucharest, Romania.
Zeitz, J. and Joshi, P., 2005. Academic choice behaviour of high school students:
economic rationale and empirical evidence. Economics of Education Review, 24(3)
pp. 297-30.
Vukasovi, M. et al, 2009. Financing Higher Education in South-Eastern Europe:
Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia. Centre for Education Policy,
Belgrade.