Efrn 61603

Economics and Finance Review Vol. 1(6) pp.
31 – 46, August, 2011 ISSN: 2047 - 0401

Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/efr
FORECASTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN USING STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES
Dr. Moh'd Mahmoud Ajlouni

Associate Professor of Finance, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
Visiting Associate Professor, Arab Open University, Amman, Jordan
Email: ajlouni4@yahoo.co.uk
ABSTRACT
The tendency towards higher education largely influences the balance of the supply and demand of the higher
education industry in Jordan. Building upon several numerical assumptions, this paper estimates the demand
for and supply of higher education in Jordan for the next decade 2011-2020 employing growth, actual and
quality ratio of students per staff models. The results show that, according to the actual ration model, current
higher education providers in Jordan will be able to enroll more students and with least shortage levels over the
next decade. While according to quality ration model the capacity of current higher education providers will not
be able to enroll the growing demand levels. In between is the growth model; however, its results are more alike
the actual ration model, but with larger variations either in the shortage period or in the surplus one.
Keywords: Higher Education, Supply, Demand, Forecasting, Jordan
1. INTRODUCTION
Higher education institutions play a vital role in the development of social and economical life of nations.
Universities are the major higher education providers. They have three main functions: (1) Participation in the
development, promotion and dissemination of knowledge, by means of teaching. (2) Supporting and promoting
the scientific research, by providing incentives for academic research. (3) Serving the local community, by
developing human resources via means of training and consultation services.
It can be argued that the main challenges that face higher education in Jordan are attributed to four factors.
These are (1) massive demand for higher education, (2) large expansion in public providers of higher education
with little attention to quality, (3) inability of the government support to keep up with these massive demand and
large expansion, (4) the need for reducing widening disparity.
This paper is addressing the first two challenges that face higher education in Jordan, mentioned above, by
estimating the demand for and supply of higher education for the next ten years (2011-2020). It is structured as
follows: Section II provides a theoretical background to the study and, in process, reviews relevant literature.
Section III presents the empirical part of the paper in three sub-sections: (1) Estimating the demand, (2)
forecasting the supply, and (3) reporting the imbalance of the supply and demand in higher education in Jordan.
Finally, section IV concludes the study and discusses the models and the results.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Higher education in Jordan might be thought of as a modern, promising and giant industry, in which the inputs
are students, lecturers and teaching materials; and the outputs are graduated students and drop-out students. If
this is the case, then it is necessary to study the demand for outputs and the supply of factors. However, the
supply of student inputs corresponds to the demand for places by potential students. Higher education
institutions do not sell in any direct way their output of graduate students in the market for education labor, nor
are they thought of as selling their places to input students. Thus, profit maximization hypothesis is less
appropriate to the education industry than other services industries (Radner and Miller, 1970).
In the classical economic theory, higher education institutions belong to not-for-profit organizations, and
generally classified in the not-for-profit literature as commercial not-for-profit enterprises (See, for instance,
Mensah and Chiang, 1996). Weisbord (1991) explained the existence of such organizations as services providers
31
Economics and Finance Review Vol. 1(6) pp. 31 – 46, August, 2011 ISSN: 2047 - 0401
to individuals with associated social benefits. While the direct beneficiaries do not pay for the full cost of the
service, the public subsidizes these organizations to allow them to continue their services at less than incurred
costs. Easley and O'Hara (1983) provided an alternative explanation for the existence of not-for-profit
organizations. That is the contract failure argument, whereby the direct beneficiaries are assumed to be unable to
directly observe the quality of services to be delivered. Thus, fiduciary relationships are entered into instead to
mitigate potential agency problems. Mensah and Werner (2003) concluded that the economic theory postulates
that an implicit social contract exists between society and these organizations under which the former subsidizes
the operations of the later in return for continued provision of services at lower than cost prices. Moretti (2004)
provided evidence on what economists have speculated for a century that the social return to education exceeds
the monetary return.
However, as higher education enrollments escalating in many countries with public support generally unable to
keep up, the higher education is seeing a historic swing from public to private providing and financing. This
shift has become evident, at least, in three ways: First, more students and their parents are paying their own
money as universities imposing tuition. That is so because they know the positive relationship between
educational accomplishment and income. A relation has been recognized for many years (see, for example,
Hanushek and Kimko, (2000); and for a literature review, see Card (1999)). Second, public universities are
looking for private money in new ways, other than the traditional support. Third, spread of private for-profit
higher education institutions all over the World. This dramatic swift has violated the classical economic theory,
and made it possible for the emergent of the neo-liberal economic theory. Here, higher education is a service,
like many commercially sold services, provides outputs that depend partially on customers, i.e. students, as
inputs. Rothschild and White (1995) offered a model that addresses the issues of competitive pricing and
allocative efficiency for this type of services. They argued that prices, i.e. tuition, that charge customers, i.e.
students, for services, i.e. higher education degree, they get on net (output minus input) from the organization,
i.e. university degree, are competitive and support efficient allocation. However, they agreed that few examples
of such prices exist in the real world.
That swing has been pushed by rapidly growing enrollments, which has been caused, in part, by expansion of
public schools, resulting in growing number of students graduating from secondary schools. Hence, the total
enrollment in higher education worldwide jumped from 68.6 million in 1990 to 110.7 million in 2001. The
numbers are almost doubled in the developing countries, from 29.3 to 58.3 million, while that in developed
countries increased at a lower base from 30.8 to 40.3 million and that of the in transition countries were from 8.5
to 12.2 million (Sanyal and Martin, 2006). The average enrollment rate in the Arab World has more than
quartiles from 4.3% in 1970 to 19% in 2000 (Zaytoun, 2005). Other factors include the growth of a global
knowledge economy that increasingly requires employees with university education. Education plays a central
role in modern labor markets (Card, 1999) and as the globe moves towards knowledgeable-based economies, the
value of human capital will continue to grow. Public as well as private employers are attempting to increase the
number of higher education graduates in order to participate in the rapidly evolving, skill-intensive new
economy (Goetz and Rupasingha, 2003).
Nevertheless, higher education in most countries is suffering from increasing austerity, marked in such problems
as overcrowding, capacity restrictions, deteriorating the number of students per academic staff ration,
weakening physical assets and elevated tuition fees and student debts, fidgety student bodies and increasingly
depressed faculty staff (Johnstone, 2006).
The objectives of expanding and maintaining equitable access to higher education are inevitably linked to
forecasting of supply and demand in higher education. However, the push to extend coverage and spread the
benefits of higher education brings considerable financial demand, which is not in the scope of this paper.
3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
This section empirically examines the two factors attributed to the financial challenges that face higher
education in Jordan. It will estimate the Jordanians demand for higher education and forecast the capacity of
32
current higher education institutions, i.e. the supply side. An interacting system of growth elements for matching
the supply and demand for students from higher education in Jordan will be outlined. The impact of supply and
demand imbalances in each kind of universities, i.e. public and private, will be explored with respect to both
actual and quality ratio of students per staff.
3.1 The Demand for Higher Education

It has been argued (See, for example, Schofer and Meyer, 2005) that expansion of higher education is greater
where secondary enrollments are high. Thus, it might be hypothesizing that the expansion of higher education is
demand-driven. In other words, the expansion of higher education in Jordan is a function of growth in secondary
enrollments in Jordan. Duchesne and Nonneman (1998), for instance, employed the demand-driven to examine
the determinants of higher education enrollment growth in Belgian.
The purpose of this section is to estimate the demand for higher education services in Jordan during the period
(2011-2020). However, the most recent data used in this regard is that of 2007. The reason for which is to
compare the forecasted figure with the actual one, particularly in the period 2008-2009 whereby some actual
data might be available. So that it might be possible to assess the accuracy of the methodology and the
forecasted figures.
Jordanian society is a very young one, with 37.32% of its (5.723) million populations are less than 15 years old
and with the largest age group is the 10-14 age. This situation is called "youth bulge", which refers to the
increasing share of young population relative to other age groups (El-Araby, 2009, p.13). Such phenomenon is
common in most developing countries. It has a consequence such that it will add up more on the demand side of
higher education services.
Almost one-third of the population is enrolled to educational institutions. Education is free for all primary and
secondary schooling, and it is compulsory for all children through the age of 15 years old. The primary
education continues to be the number one educational policy priority, although the return on primary education
has been proven to be lower than that on higher levels of schooling (Psacharopoulos, 1994). It has been reported
that Jordan has achieved 95% enrollment of its school age children. In 2007, there were (1.3) million students in
the basic education and about (188) thousands in secondary education. In addition, the Jordanians grow annually
at a 2.2% rate. Table (1) exhibits some key indicators of Jordanian population and number of students at
different levels during the period 1998-2009.
[Table (1) is about here]
Table (1) shows that the number of students in basic education enlarged from (1.1351) million students in 1998
to (1.311) million in 2007, indicating an average annual growth of 1.6% during the period. While that of
secondary education increased from (165.5) thousand students in 1999 to (184.5) thousand in 2007, representing
an average annual growth of 1.4% during the period. Thus, the total number of students at all levels of education
increased from about (1.3006) million students in 1999 to (1.4991) in 2007. This indicates an average annual
growth rate of 1.6% in the number of students.
Moreover, table (2) reports cumulative statistics of the number of students attended and those passed the
General Secondary Class Exam (GSCE) during the period 1998/1999 – 2007/2008. It can be seen from the table
that the number of students attended GSCE has increased from (98) thousands in 1998/1999, representing 59%
of all students in the secondary education, to about (130) thousands in 2007/2008, representing 69.1% of
students in the secondary education. Interestingly, the number of students attended GSCE in 2004/2005 was
(223) thousands more than (121%) all students in the secondary education (184) thousands. The reason for this
excess number was due to the fact that about one-third of those students had failed in GSCE in the previous
year, and they attended the exam this particular year once again. Those students were not included in the
number of students in the secondary education in 2004/2005. In fact, the percentage of students attended and
33
passed the GSCE was fluctuated significantly from as high as 50.3% in 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 to as low as
28.1% in 2004/2005. Other figures in the table are self-explanatory.
3.1.1 Demand-Driven Growth Model:

Literature of enrollment demand typically assumes that higher education institutions accept all eligible
applicants. However, if enrollments are limited by institutional constraints on the supply of places, different
approach to estimating student demand behavior is needed. In this paper we develop a model that explains the
determination of enrollments in Jordan. The results are much better than those obtained from a conventional
model of enrollment demand estimated using ordinary least squares.
This sub-section will estimate the least demand size of higher education in Jordan during the period 2011-2020,
using the growth rate approach.
Taking into consideration the stability of annual growth rate of the number of students in the secondary
education, the population growth rate and re-attending the GSCE by those who failed in the previous year, it is
assumed that 3% is a reasonable rate to be applied for the next period of (2008-2020). In addition, the number of
students in the GSCE is estimated based on the average percentage number of students attended GSCE relative
to all students in the secondary education during the period 1998/1999 – 2007/2008, i.e. 75.3%. Finally, the
ratio of students passed the GSCE of all students enrolled the GSCE used is 60% to calculate the expected
number of students passed the GSCE. Panel (A) in table (3) reports the estimations for the period 2008/2009 –
2020/2021. It shows that the expected number of students would pass the GSCE in 2010/2011 would be
(92,800) students increased to (124,700) students in 2020/2021.
Furthermore, in order to estimate the Jordanians demand for higher education for the next ten years, the
following assumptions will be adopted in estimating the student directions after passing the GSCE:
(1) 70% of all students pass GSCE would seek admission to Jordanian universities. This ratio is computed from
previous data as: the average percentage of the number of first-year students enrolled to Bachelor programs
(table 4 below) divided by number of students (distribution approach) passed GSCE (table 2 above) during
1998/1999 - 2008/2009.
In fact, the current enrolment ratio in Jordan is more than that of many high-income countries, such as
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain and UK
(UNESCO, 2005).
(2) 15% of all students pass GSCE would be enrolled to Jordanian intermediate community colleges. Mrayan et
al. (2010) find that this ratio is about 11%. However, due to the more restricted regulation on the admission
to Jordanian universities, higher costs for student, and the availability of bridging higher diploma in the
universities, it is expected that this ration would increase than that of the historical one.
(3) 7.5% of all students pass GSCE would join the workforce immediately.
(4) 7.5% of all students pass GSCE would seek university admission abroad.
The last two assumptions are residuals of the estimation and are less important to the context of this study.
Panel (B) of table (3) presents the student directions after passing the GSCE for the period 2008/2009 –
2020/2021. It reveals that the forecasted number of students admitted in the Jordanian universities during the
academic year 2008/2009 is (61,200), which is close to the actual one (52,000) students reported in the MOHE
Statistics (2010). This means that more than (9,200) Jordanian students could not be admitted in the Jordanian
universities.
34
Most of Jordanian universities admit Arab and foreign students each year. Most of which are in the Bachelor
programs. In fact, the number of Arab and foreigner enrolled has had doubled in the last ten years. There was
(12,328) Arab and foreigner in 1999/2000 (DOS, Annual Report 2000), jumped to (21,054) students in
2005/2006 (DOS, Annual Report 2006), then increased to (24,857) students enrolled in 2008/2009 (DOS,
Annual Report 2009). In fact, Arab and foreign students represent an average of 11% of the total number of
students enrolled to the Jordanian universities.
However, this study would ignore the number of Arab and foreign students in estimating the additional funds
needed by Jordanian universities. Such ignorance has two justifications. Firstly, Arab and foreign students' fees
and tuitions are not supported by public universities. They pay, in US dollars, much more than what their
Jordanian counterparts pay, in Jordanian Dinars. Their fees, in fact, cover not only their costs but also provide
extra funds for the universities. Secondly, Arab and foreign students are not part of the social aspects of the
issue of equal access to higher education.
Accordingly, the least demand size of higher education in Jordan would be (66,900) students in 2011, (68,900)
in 2012, (71,000) in 2013, (73,100) in 2014, (75,300) in 2015, (77,600) in 2016, (79,900) in 2017, (82,300) in
2018, (84,800) in 2019 and (87,300) in 2020. These figures represent the local demand.
3.2 The Supply of Higher Education in Jordan

This section aims at estimating the supply of higher education services in Jordan during the period (2011-2020).
It will measure the current capacity of higher education institutional providers, as well as the trend of their
provisions.
Currently, there are 26 universities in Jordan. Of which (10) universities are public, (14) are private, and (2)
universities for postgraduate studies only. Table (4) exhibits key statistics of Jordanian universities and number
of students admitted and enrolled to Bachelor programmes during the period 1998/1999 – 2008/2009.
It can be seen from the table that the total number of students in the Bachelor programmes has more than
doubled, from (96,949) students in 1998/1999 to (219,277) students in 2008/2009, with an average annual
growth rate of 8.6%. Approximately 73% of those students was enrolled in public universities, grown at an
average annual growth rate of 10.1%, while those in private universities grown by 5.4%. Although the number
of public universities (10) is lower than the private ones (14), the former are well-established, larger, and
providing more variety of academic programmes. Similarly the number of academic staff has doubled as well,
from (4,345) staff in 1998/1999 to (7,427) staff in 2008/2009, with two-third of those staff was in public
universities.
Likewise, the total number of first-year students has doubled, from (26,962) students in 1998/1999 to (51,131)
students in 2008/2009, with an average annual growth rate of 6.4%. Also, 75% of those students were enrolled
to public universities, grown at an average annual growth rate of 7.5%, while those in private universities grown
by 4.5%.
However, the total number of academic staff has grown at a lower rate than the number of admitted students,
particularly in public universities, which grown at 5.7% annually, while that of the private universities at 5.3%.
This has negatively affected the ratio of number of students per academic staff, especially in public universities
from 22 students per staff in 1998/1999 to 32 in 2008/2009, with a lesser influence in the private universities,
from 23 to 24. Of course, the reason for this variation between public and private universities is due to the
regulations of the MOHE, which applied only on private universities, particularly the number of students
admitted each year. However, the quality of academic staff, measured by number of internationally published
research, in the public universities is much better than those in the private universities. In addition, most public
universities are very selective, i.e. rigorous criteria, in appointing academic staff.
35
3.2.1 Supply-Driven Growth Model:

This sub-section will forecast the capability size of higher education providers in Jordan during the period 2011-
2020, using the growth rate approach.
Historical data of higher education in Jordan has grown at different rates during the period 1998/1999 –
2008/2009. For instance, the number of academic staff has grown at an average annual rate of 5.5%, while the
number of first-year students grown at 6.4%, and the number of students in the Bachelor programs at 8.6%.
Expectedly, these numbers in public universities have grown at higher rates than in private universities.
Employing these rates, the growth model forecasts the capabilities of the current higher education providers for
the next ten years. Table (5) reports the forecasted the number of academic staff, students in Bachelor programs,
first-year students, the ratio of all students per academic staff, and the ratio of students admitted per academic
staff for the period 2009/2010 – 2020/2021. It shows that current higher education providers would be able to
enroll (112,400) students in 2020, (90,400) in the public universities and (22,000) in the private ones. In
addition, it is expected that the total number of students in Bachelor programs would be (617,900) students, with
78% in the public universities and 22% in the private ones. Also, the expected number of staff would be
(14,300), with 67% in the in the public universities and 33% in the private ones. However, such grown numbers
in the academic staff would not be enough and would increase the ratio of students per academic staff in public
universities to 52 students, while it would be stable in the private ones at 24 students per academic staff. All
these forecasted numbers are based on the assumption that the public universities capabilities grow at a 7.5%
and the private at 4.5% annually during the period 2009/2010 – 2020/2021.
However, if the MOHE has to keep, at least, the current ration of number of students per staff, then the current
higher education providers would be able to enroll (104,800) students in 2020, (77,200) in the public
universities and (27,600) in the private ones. In addition, it is expected that the total number of students in
Bachelor programs would be (394,300) students, with 71% in the public universities and 29% in the private
ones. Provided that academic staff in public (private) universities grows at 5.7% (5.3%) annually, so that the
ration of number of students per staff in public (private) universities stays still at 29 (24). Panel (A) of table (6)
exhibits the forecasted the number of students in Bachelor programs as will as the first-year students according
to actual average ration of number of students per academic staff Model for the period 2009/2010 – 2020/2021.
Panel (B) of table (6) computes the difference between the supply capabilities of higher education providers
according to the actual average ration model (panel A, table 6) and the growth model (table 5), in terms of the
number of all students in Bachelor programs and in the first-year. It can be seen that the grown number of
academic staff in private universities is capable to enroll more first-year students than the grown number of
students themselves for the period 2011-2020. However, the case for public universities is vice versa. The
grown numbers of students are more than the grown number of academic staff during the next ten years. The
reasons for this case might be explained by three factors: (1) large demand for Jordanian public universities staff
from the Arab Gulf universities, due to their internationally accepted qualifications. Batikhi (2009) states that
17% of Jordanian academic staff have immigrated in 2008, (2) low salaries in the public universities, compared
with the private and abroad, and (3) sometimes, incompetent university management (Saleem, 2009).
Still, table (6) is computed upon actual average ratios of students per staff, which were 29 in public and 24 in
private universities. However, taking into account a quality ration of 25 students per staff in all universities in
Jordan, as a quality ration, the picture will be different, particularly in the public universities. Panel (A) of table
(7) shows the forecasted the number of students in Bachelor programs as will as the first-year students according
to quality ration of number of students per academic staff Model for the period 2009/2010 – 2020/2021. Thus,
the current higher education providers would be able to enroll (85,500) students by 2020, of which (57,900) in
36
the public universities and (27,600) in the private ones. It can be seen that the capability of public universities to
enroll new students according to this model is less than that of growth or average ratio models. However, the
private universities are more capable, and can receive more students than that of growth or average ratio models.
In addition, it is expected that the total number of students in Bachelor programs would be (356,200) students,
with 68% in the public universities and 32% in the private ones.
Panel (B) of table (7) calculates the difference between the supply capabilities of higher education providers
according to the quality ration model (panel A, table 7) and the growth model (table 5), in terms of the number
of all students in Bachelor programs and in the first-year. The results provide similar conclusion as of that of
average ration model.
However, due to the social and political pressure and limited resources of the government, it is not expected that
MOHE would be able to adopt the quality ration. In addition, there has recently a great deal of concern that, far
from the projected scarcity, the shortage in supply of PhD holders is now as severe as ever. Accordingly, it is
possible to estimate the maximum supply level of current higher education providers in Jordan according to
table (6) above. Withhold that academic staff in public (private) universities grows at 5.7% (5.3%) annually, so
that the ration of number of students per staff in public (private) universities stays still at 29 (24). Thus, current
Jordanian universities would be able to enroll (64,100) students in 2011, (67,700) in 2012, (71,500) in 2013,
(75,500) in 2014, (79,800) in 2015, (84,300) in 2016, (89,000) in 2017, (94,000) in 2018, (99,200) in 2019,
(104,800) in 2020.
4. IMBALANCE OF THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

Having forecasted the supply of and demand in higher education, it is now possible to estimate the surplus
(shortage) in the capacity of current higher education providers in Jordan for the next decade. Table (8)
summarizes the statistics of different models of supply levels, the demand and the surplus (shortage) in the
capability of current higher education providers in Jordan for the period 2009/2010 to 2020/2021.
Table (8) reveals that the actual ration model provides the most optimistic results as the capacity of current
higher education providers in Jordan would have been able to enroll more students and have least shortage
levels. In fact, it would have shortages in the first two years (2011/2012 – 2012/2013) only, and surplus in the
next eight years (2013/2014 – 2020-2021). While quality ration model offers the most pessimistic results as the
capacity would have been not able to absorb the growing demand levels.
In fact, it would have shortages, however decreasing, over the estimated years (2011/2012 – 2020-2021). In
between these results is the growth model. However, its results are more alike the actual ration model, but with
larger variations either in the shortage period or in the surplus one. Figure (1) shows these results.
In fact, for old and large public universities, it is not possible to grow, even vertically, at 5.7% annually during
the next ten years. Some of them have reached its full capacity of available fixed assets utilization, such as
Jordan University; while others suffer from heavy debts such as Motah University; and shortages of funding,
such as Yarmouk University.
Meanwhile, most of the private universities are still young and have not reached their capacity limit. Thus, it is
feasible to allow them to grow at a much higher rate than 5.3% annually, given that MOHE keeps an eye on the
qualifications of their academic staff as well as the quality of the ration of number of students per staff. Indeed,
37
the presence of private universities in Jordan, along with the public ones, provides a win-win approach for
public-private partnership.
Nevertheless, there are two issues not addressed in the analysis might help to improve the model used in this
paper. The first has to do with the use of post-graduate students teaching assistants in research and doctoral
colleges. This would compensate the shortage in full-time PhD holders. The second has to do with the changing
nature of students, particularly the growth in the numbers of non-traditional students, older students and part-
timers (Shapiro, 2001).
In addition, there are many assumptions built into each component of the model. On the demand side, it is
assumed that the percentage of high school graduates who go on to universities is 70%, and this percentage will
remain constant for the next ten years. Yet, there are many factors that might force this ratio to drop over the
next decade. Such factors include the labor market for graduates. As the unemployment rate among this group
increases, more high school graduates would seek employment rather than seek admission to universities.
Another factor is the economic conditions which might affect the ability of parents to pay for tuition. Also, the
trend towards increasing tuition fees along with increasing inflation would make more parents unable to pay the
tuition.
On the supply side, the model presumed that the number of staff would grow at about 5.5% annually during the
next decade. Though, immigration, leakage to business industry, retirements and replacement, would require
this ratio to higher to maintain both actual and quality ratio results. On the other, the current policy towards
granting scholarships for applicants to pursue their PhD studies abroad, as there is a few PhD programs in the
Jordanian universities, along with the scarcity of PhD holders supply, make it very difficult to achieve the target
growth ratio.
Compared with traditional higher education, open learning system can provide educational opportunities for
more people and with fewer costs. Therefore, they offer a new solution to the imbalance between supply and
demand of higher education. The main problem that lies in the relation between demand and supply of Jordanian
higher education is the contradiction between the growing expansion of the demand for higher education and the
shortage of educational resources. Open universities contribute in lessening the imbalance between demand and
supply of higher education by relieving the pressure of the individual's demand for higher education on
traditional universities; taking full advantage of various educational resources to provide more higher
educational opportunities; improving the utilization ratio of resources in light of the insufficiency of investment
on higher education; the openness and prompt transmission of information making it possible to train talents in
accordance with the need of the market (Tang Bin & Ruan Yihua).
5. CONCLUSION
This paper has estimated the student-staff and other input-output relations at the university level for cross-
section of higher education institutions.
While demographic and economic trends have increased the demand for higher education, they have not
guaranteed an increase in the supply. The results show that, according to the actual ration model, current higher
education providers in Jordan will be able to enroll more students and with least shortage levels. While
according to quality ration model the capacity of current higher education providers will not be able to enroll the
growing demand levels. In between these results is the growth model. However, its results are more alike the
actual ration model, but with larger variations either in the shortage period or in the surplus one.
Although it is still precipitate to tax how well our projections will hold up over the next ten years, two years out
is a reasonable point to taking our findings for three reasons. First, there is an ability to reflect on actual data as
time passes-by. Second, it is feasible to using cross-sectional projection for cross-program forecasting. Third, it
provides a measurable tool for policy making.
38
Nevertheless, there are two issues not addressed in the analysis might help to improve the model used in this
paper. The first has to do with the use of post-graduate students teaching assistants in research and doctoral
colleges. This would compensate the shortage in full-time PhD holders. The second has to do with the changing
nature of students, particularly the growth in the numbers of non-traditional students, older students and part-
timers (Shapiro, 2001).
In addition, there are many assumptions built into each component of the model. On the demand side, it is
assumed that the percentage of high school graduates who go on to universities is 70%, and this percentage will
remain constant for the next ten years. Yet, there are many factors that might force this ratio to drop over the
next decade. Such factors include the labor market for graduates. As the unemployment rate among this group
increases, more high school graduates would seek employment rather than seek admission to universities.
Another factor is the economic conditions which might affect the ability of parents to pay for tuition. Also, the
trend towards increasing tuition fees along with increasing inflation would make more parents unable to pay the
tuition.
On the supply side, the model presumed that the number of staff would grow at about 5.5% annually during the
next decade. Though, immigration, leakage to business industry, retirements and replacement, would require
this ratio to higher to maintain both actual and quality ratio results. On the other, the current policy towards
granting scholarships for applicants to pursue their PhD studies abroad, as there is a few PhD programs in the
Jordanian universities, along with the scarcity of PhD holders supply, make it very difficult to achieve the target
growth ratio.
Compared with traditional higher education, open learning system can provide educational opportunities for
more people and with fewer costs. Therefore, they offer a new solution to the imbalance between supply and
demand of higher education. The main problem that lies in the relation between demand and supply of Jordanian
higher education is the contradiction between the growing expansion of the demand for higher education and the
shortage of educational resources. Open universities contribute in lessening the imbalance between demand and
supply of higher education by relieving the pressure of the individual's demand for higher education on
traditional universities; taking full advantage of various educational resources to provide more higher
educational opportunities; improving the utilization ratio of resources in light of the insufficiency of investment
on higher education; the openness and prompt transmission of information making it possible to train talents in
accordance with the need of the market (Tang Bin & Ruan Yihua).
REFERENCES
Batikhi, Anwar (2009), Higher Education in Jordan: Entering the Bottle Nick, Scientific Research, Issue 1, Oct.-
Dec., pp. 40-45 (a paper in Arabic language).
Card, David (1999), The Casual Effect of Education on Earnings, in Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D. (Editors),
Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3, Chapter 30, Elsevier Science, pp. 1801-1863.
Duchesne, I. and Nonneman, W. (1998), The Demand for Higher Education in Belgium, Economics of
Education Review, Vol. 17, Issue, 2, April, pp. 211-218.
Easley, D. and O'Hara, M. (1983), The Economic Role of the Nonprofit Firm, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol.
14, Autumn, pp. 532-538.
El-Araby, Ashraf (2009), Access and Equity in Higher Education: A Comparative Assessment of Financial
Policies in Six Arab Countries, Economic Research Forum, Egypt.
Goetz, Stephan J. and Rupasingha, Anil (2003), The Returns on Higher Education: Estimates for the 48
Contiguous States, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4, Nov., pp. 337-351.
Hahn, Ryan (2007), The Global State of Higher Education and the Rise of Private Finance, Institute for Higher
Education Policy, Washington, USA.
Hanushek, E. A. and Kimko, D. D. (2000), Schooling, Labor-Force Quality and the Growth of Nations,
American Economic Review, Vol. 90, pp. 1184-1208.
Johnstone, D. Bruce (2006), Financing Higher Education: Cost-Sharing in International Perspective, Global
Perspectives on Higher Education, Vol. 3, March, Boston College Center for International Education,
Rotterdam, Netherlands.
39
Kanaan, Taher H. (2009), Higher Education in Jordan: Access and Equity in its Financing, Jordan Center for
Policy Research and Dialogue, March, Amman, Jordan.
Mensah, Yaw M. and Chiang, C. C. (1996), The Informativeness of Operating Statements for Commercial
Nonprofit Enterprises, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 15, Autumn, pp. 219-246.
Mensah, Yaw M. and Werner, Robert (2003), Cost Efficiency and Financial Flexibility in Institutions of Higher
Education, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 22, pp. 293-323.
Moretti, Enrico (2004), Estimating the Social Return to Higher Education: Evidence from Longitudinal and
Repeated Cross-Sectional Data, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 121, pp. 175-212.
Mrayan, Nader; Jaradat, Taher and Salamat, Mamdouh (2010), Community Colleges in Jordan: Reality and
Challenges, Al-Manar Project and the National Center for Human Resources Development, Amman, Jordan
(a working paper in Arabic language).
Psacharopoulos, George (1994), Returns to Investment in Education: A Global Update, World Development,
Vol. 22, No. 9, pp. 1325-1343.
Radner, R. and Miller, L. S. (1970), Demand and Supply in U.S. Higher Education: A Progress Report, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, May, pp. 326-334.
Rothschild, Michael and White, Lawrence J. (1995), The Analytics of the Higher Education and Other Services
in Which the Customers are Inputs, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 573-586.
Saleem, Maher (2009), An Overview of Higher Education in Jordan, Scientific Research, Issue 1, Oct.-Dec., pp.
59-68 (a working paper in Arabic language).
Sanyal, Bikas C. and Martin, Michaela (2006), Financing Higher Education: International Perspectives, Higher
Education in the World, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 3-19.
Schofer, Evan and Meyer, John W. (2005), The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth
Century, American Sociological Review, Vol. 70, No. 6, December, pp. 898-920.
Shapiro, Douglas T. (2001), Modeling Supply and Demand for Arts and Sciences Faculty, Journal of Higher
Education, Sept. 13p.; downloaded in 23/2/2011 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb172/is_5_72/ai_n28855617.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2002), Financing Education: Investments and Returns, Analysis of the World
Education Indicators, UNESCO Institute for Statistics and OECD.
Weisbord, B. A. (1991), The Health Care Quadrilemma: An Essay on Technological Change, Insurance, Quality
of Care and Cost Containment, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 525-552.
Zaytoun, Mohaya (2005), Education in the Arab World in the Era of Globalization and Market-Based Culture,
Center for Arab Union Studies, Beirut, Lebanon.
Data From:
Department of Statistics (DOS) (2009), Annual Report 2009, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2008), Jordan in Figures 2007, Issue 10, May, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2006), Annual Report 2006, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2004), Jordan in Figures 2003, Issue 6, May, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2002), Jordan in Figures 2001, Issue 4, June, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2000), Annual Report 2000, Amman, Jordan.
DOS (2000), Jordan in Figures 1999, Issue 2, June, Amman, Jordan.
Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) (2010), Ministry of Higher Education Statistics, Amman, Jordan.
Available online at (www.mohe.gov.jo) in 2/2/2010.
40
Table 1: Key indicators of Jordanian Population and Number of Students at Different Levels During the period
1998-2009
INDICATOR 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Population
4.623 4.738 4.857 4.978 5.098 5.230 5.350 5.473 5.600 5.723 5.850 5.980
(Million)
Population Less Than 15 Years (%) N/A 39.6% 39.6% 39.6% N/A 37.8% 37.1% 37.3% 37.3% 37.3% 37.3% 36.5%
Population Age of 15-64 (%) N/A 57.7% 57.7% 57.7% N/A 58.7% 59.1% 59.5% 59.4% 59.4% 59.4% 57.2%
Population Vital Growth Rate (%) N/A 3.0% 3.0% 2.8% N/A 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%
Students in Basic Education N/A N/A
1.135 1.159 1.173 1.191 1.222 1.256 1.268 1.294 1.294 1.311
(million)
Annual Percentage Changes (%) 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% 2.7% 2.8% 0.9% 2.0% 0.0% 1.3%
Students in Secondary Education N/A N/A
165.5 170.3 173.8 179.3 179.8 183.4 184.1 183.9 184.5 188.0
(thousand)
Annual Percentage Changes (%) 2.9% 2.1% 3.2% 0.3% 2.0% 0.4% -0.1% 0.3% 1.9%
Sources:
DOS (2002), Jordan in Figures 2001, Issue 4, June 2002.
DOS (2004), Jordan in Figures 2003, Issue 6, May 2004.
DOS (2008), Jordan in Figures 2007, Issue 10, May 2008.
DOS (2009), Jordan in Figures 2008, Issue 11, Sept. 2009.
DOS (2004), Statistical Yearbook 2004.
Table 2: No. of Students Attended and Passed the General Secondary Class Exam (GSCE) During 1998/1999 -
2007/2008
1998/ 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004/ 2005 / 2006 / 2007 /
Academic Year
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Students in Secondary
Education (thousand)* 165,500 170,300 173,800 179,300 179,800 183,400 184,100 183,900 184,500 188,000
% Change in Students in
Secondary Education 2.9% 2.1% 3.2% 0.3% 2.0% 0.4% -0.1% 0.3% 1.9%
No. of Students Attended
the General Secondary
Class Exam (GSCE)** 97,711 104,773 103,495 117,371 134,758 160,897 222,685 140,326 144,642 129,822
% Change in No. of
Students Attended GSCE 7.2% -1.2% 13.4% 14.8% 19.4% 38.4% -12.8% 3.1% -10.2%
Percentage of SGC Students
to All Secondary Schooling
Students 59.0% 61.5% 59.5% 65.5% 74.9% 87.7% 121.0% 76.3% 78.4% 69.1%
No. of Students Passed the
General Secondary Class
Exam (GSCE)** 49,143 52,652 45,187 46,117 50,856 56,714 62,489 65,712 66,844 65,059
Percentage of Students
Passed the GSCE 50.3% 50.3% 43.7% 39.3% 37.7% 35.2% 28.1% 46.8% 46.2% 50.1%
Sources (*) See Table (1)
(**) MOE, Educational Statistical Report for the Academic Year 2007/2008, p.47
41
Table 3: Estimating the Jordanian Demand for Higher Education by Estimating the Number of Students
Attended and Passed GSCE According to the Distribution Approach For the period 2008/2009 -
2020/2021
42
Table 4: Key Statistics of Jordanian Universities and Number of Students at Different Levels During the period
1998/1999 – 2008/2009
Total No. of Academic Staff at Total No. of Students in
Total No. of Universities Universities During 1998/1999 - Bachelor Programs During
Number During 1998/1999 - 2008/2009 2008/2009 1998/1999 - 2008/2009
Academic PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL
Year
1998/1999 9 12 21 2,846 1,499 4,345 61,751 35,198 96,949
1999/2000 10 12 22 3,033 1,569 4,602 71,171 34,642 105,813
2000/2001 10 12 22 3,157 1,498 4,655 81,985 36,672 118,657
2001/2002 10 12 22 3,239 1,619 4,858 93,979 41,108 135,087
2002/ 2003 8 12 20 3,523 1,879 5,402 105,174 44,865 150,039
2003/ 2004 8 12 20 3,815 1,881 5,696 118,686 47,912 166,598
2004/ 2005 8 12 20 3,958 1,984 5,942 127,821 50,798 178,619
2005/ 2006 10 12 22 4,355 2,187 6,542 138,941 53,101 192,042
2006/2007 10 13 23 4,506 2,202 6,708 145,554 56,643 202,197
2007/2008 10 13 23 4,772 2,369 7,141 150,817 57,163 207,980
2008/ 2009 10 14 24 4,951 2,476 7,427 160,090 59,187 219,277
No. of First-Year Students % Change in the No. of First- Ratio of No. of Students per
Number & Enrolled to Bachelor Year Students Enrolled to One Academic Staff at
Percentage Programs During 1998/1999 - Bachelor Programs During Universities During 1998/1999 -
2008/2009 1998/1999 - 2008/2009 2008/2009
Academic PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL PUBLIC PRIVATE ALL PUBLIC PRIVATE ALL
Year
1998/1999 18,851 8,111 26,962 22 23 22
1999/2000 22,324 7,581 29,905 18.4% -6.5% 10.9% 23 22 23
2000/2001 26,338 11,317 37,655 18.0% 49.3% 25.9% 26 24 25
2001/2002 27,145 11,758 38,903 3.1% 3.9% 3.3% 29 25 28
2002/ 2003 30,495 9,729 40,224 12.3% -17.3% 3.4% 30 24 28
2003/ 2004 35,312 10,396 45,708 15.8% 6.9% 13.6% 31 25 29
2004/ 2005 35,188 11,373 46,561 -0.4% 9.4% 1.9% 32 26 30
2005/ 2006 39,323 12,030 51,353 11.8% 5.8% 10.3% 32 24 29
2006/2007 40,431 12,097 52,528 2.8% 0.6% 2.3% 32 26 30
2007/2008 38,712 10,257 48,969 -4.3% -15.2% -6.8% 32 24 29
2008/ 2009 38,131 13,000 51,131 -3.0% 8.1% -0.4% 32 24 30
Sources: DOS: Various Statistical Yearbooks; MOHE Annual Reports, downloaded from www.mohe.gov.jo in 22
Feb. 2010; and Al-Manar Project and the Center for Human Resources Development, downloaded from
www.almanar.jo in 22 Feb. 2010;
Note: Two Universities are excluded from the number of universities as well as their students statistics because both
are for postgraduate studies.
43
Table 5: Forecasting the Current Higher Education Providers Capabilities According to Growth Approach For
the period 2008/2009 - 2020/2021
Table 6: Forecasting the Current Higher Education Providers Capabilities According to Actual Average Ration
of Number-of-Students-per-Academic-Staff Model For the period 2008/2009 - 2020/2021
44
Table 7: Forecasting the Current Higher Education Providers Capabilities According to Quality Ration of
Number-of-Students-per-Academic-Staff Model For the period 2008/2009 - 2020/2021
Table 8: Estimated Surplus (Shortage) Levels in the Number of Students Seeking Higher Education in Jordan
According to Different Supply Models and the Demand Growth Model For the Period 2009/2010 –
2020/2021.
45
120,000
The Supply of & Demand for Higher Education in Jordan for 2010-2020
100,000
80,000
No. of Students
60,000
Supply Level By Growth Model (1)
Supply Level By Actual Ration Model (2)

40,000
Supply Level By Quality Ration Model (3)
Demand Level By Growth Model (4)

20,000
Academic Year
0
2009/ 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2013/ 2014/ 2015/ 2016/ 2017/ 2018/ 2019/ 2020/
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure 1: The Surplus (Shortage) Levels in the Number of Students Seeking Higher Education in Jordan According
to Different Supply Models and the Demand Growth Model For the Period 2009/2010 – 2020/2021.
46

Efrn 61603

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efrn 61603

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economics and Finance Review Vol. 1(6) pp.

31 – 46, August, 2011 ISSN: 2047 - 0401

FORECASTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN USING STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES

Dr. Moh'd Mahmoud Ajlouni

Keywords: Higher Education, Supply, Demand, Forecasting, Jordan

3.1 The Demand for Higher Education

[Table (1) is about here]

[Table (2) is about here]

3.1.1 Demand-Driven Growth Model:

[Table (3) is about here]

3.2 The Supply of Higher Education in Jordan

[Table (4) is about here]

3.2.1 Supply-Driven Growth Model:

[Table (5) is about here]

[Table (6) is about here]

[Table (7) is about here]

4. IMBALANCE OF THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN JORDAN

[Table (8) is about here]

[Table (9) is about here]

Supply Level By Actual Ration Model (2)

Demand Level By Growth Model (4)

You might also like