Education investment is the monetary expression of human and material resources invested in the field of education to cultivate reserve labor and specialized talents and to improve the quality of the existing labor force. Investment in education is a necessary prerequisite for the development of education and the material basis for improving the quality of education.

The amount of national investment in education reflects the scale of national investment in education. The proportion of education investment in fiscal expenditure or gross national product reflects the relationship between education investment and the national economy, and reflects the level of education investment. The amount and proportion of national education investment are restricted by the country’s historical and cultural traditions, politics, economy, population and other factors. So based on China’s national conditions, what are the characteristics of China’s investment in education and what problems does it face?

1. Since the reform and opening up, my country’s education investment has increased significantly, but it still cannot meet the needs of education development

my country is the country with the largest population in the world, and the scale of education It is huge. In 1994, the number of students at all levels and types nationwide reached 277 million (the number of students in ordinary schools was 216.6 million), and the number of teaching staff was more than 13 million. Although a relatively small amount of money is used to support the world's largest education system, the amount of education funding required is also huge.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, until 1978, the proportion of education funds in the national budget to total national fiscal expenditures has been hovering at 4-7%, never exceeding 8%. The proportion of education infrastructure investment within the national budget to the total national infrastructure investment has always been below 20%. Due to the long-term low education funding base and insufficient school funding, the material foundation of education is very weak.

Since the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the Party Central Committee and the State Council have identified the development of education as one of the strategic priorities of national economic construction, and the absolute amount of investment in education has grown at a relatively fast rate. If the impact of prices is not taken into account, the total national financial expenditure on education reached 117.47 billion yuan in 1994 [1], an increase of 1.33 times from 50.39 billion yuan in 1989, with an average annual growth rate of 26.6%. In 1994, the national budgetary education expenditure reached 88.40 billion yuan, an increase of 7.17 times from 10.82 billion yuan in 1980, an increase of 2.22 times from 39.77 billion yuan in 1989, and an average annual growth rate of 24.4%. Budgetary education expenditures accounted for 12.64% of national financial expenditures from 8.92% in 1980 (see Appendix 1).

Appendix 1: Education expenditure as a proportion of gross national product and national fiscal expenditure from 1980 to 1994

Unit: 100 million yuan

(Attached picture { Figure})

Data source: "China Education Comprehensive Statistical Yearbook" (1994) compiled by the State Education Commission P3 Higher Education Press, March 1995. For 1994 data, see "China Education Expenditure Statistics" 1994P2 China Statistics Publisher, September 1995

Although education funding has increased significantly since the Third Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1980, my country's public education funding expenditure is still one of the lowest in the world. According to statistics from UNESCO in 1993, the world's average public education expenditure accounted for 5.1% of the gross national product in 1991, of which the proportion in developed countries was 5.3%, that in developing countries was 4.1%, and that in the least developed countries The proportion in other countries is 3.3%, while that in China is only 2.3% (see Appendix Table 2). If all other non-state financial education expenditures such as education expenditures of factories and mining enterprises, urban and rural education surcharges, social financing, education funds, tuition and miscellaneous fees paid by students are included, it is only about 3%, which is still the lowest level in the world. .

Appendix 2: Public education expenditures from 1980 to 1991

USD (billion) % of gross national product

(Attached picture {Picture})

Data source: UNESCO's "World Education Report" 1993 p94

It should also be pointed out that in recent years, although the per-student funding for education at all levels in our country has been increasing year by year , but due to the excessive increase in price inflation, the actual benefits of the increased limited education expenses and education infrastructure investment have been greatly reduced. The real growth rate of education investment has not increased much, and some have experienced negative growth. For example, from 1990 to 1994, the per-student education expenditures of local colleges and universities in my country were 3101.78, 3429.87, 3874.98, 3894.63, and 4058.19 yuan in each year [2]. From 1991 to 1994, they increased by 10.58 yuan compared with the previous year. %, 12.98%, 4.20%; but the inflation rate (price increase) from 1991 to 1994 was 3.4%, 6.4%, 14.7%, 21.7% respectively [3]; if the price increase index is deducted, from 1993 to 1994 Not only did utility bills not increase, they actually fell.

Insufficient investment in education funds has created a sharp contradiction with the needs of educational development. Prominent manifestations include the shortage of school buildings at all levels and types of schools, the shortage of necessary teaching equipment and books, the shortage of official and business expenses required for school teaching activities, and the arrears of wages for primary and secondary school teachers across the country.

These contradictions become more acute in poor areas.

2. From the perspective of education investment structure, China’s financial education allocation for three-level education is basically similar to international comparisons, but the per-student investment in universities, middle schools and primary schools is very different

According to the United Nations According to statistics from UNESCO in 1993, my country's investment in preschool and primary education accounted for 32.7% of the total daily expenditure in 1990, secondary schools accounted for 34.4%, and higher education accounted for 18.6%. Compared with some developed and developing countries in the world, this figure ranks in the middle. level (see Table 3). However, judging from the distribution ratio of education expenses at all levels within China's budget, the share of higher education funding is higher than UNESCO statistics.

Appendix 3: Percentage of daily expenditures for education at all levels in some countries

(Attached: {Picture})

Selected from UNESCO's "World Education" Report" 1993 p151-154

From the perspective of the internal structure of education, the scale of my country's higher education is far smaller than the scale of secondary and primary education. Judging from the ratio of the per-student cost of primary, secondary and higher education, the ratio of the annual per-student cost of primary school, middle school and university in my country in 1990 was 1:2.28:29.34; in 1993 it was 1:1.73:17.93 (see attached table 4). Part of the reason for the larger change is that the per-student public funding for college students has decreased, and part of the cost has been shared by the students' families. In addition, the growth rate of funding investment in primary and secondary schools is also slightly higher than that in colleges and universities.

Appendix 4: Per-student education expenditures of local schools

Unit: Yuan

Primary schools, ordinary middle schools, vocational middle schools, Normal University, 1990 105.40 240.11 444.44 1344.15 3101.78 1991 114.79 254.63 464.49 1411.63 3429.87 1992 139.35 300.96 526.01 1585.91 3874.98 1993 217.22 375.16 608 .65 1723.05 3894.63

Data source: "China Education Comprehensive Statistical Yearbook" (1994) p3 National Education Commission compiled by Higher Education Education Press 1994

According to statistics from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the ratio of daily expenses per student in my country's third-level schools to per capita GDP in 1990 was 0.05:0.15:1.93 (or 1:3: 38.6), compared with some other countries (see Table 5), it is the most disparate among all countries. Although the per-student expenditure for college students is higher than that for primary and secondary school students, the gap is so large that it far exceeds that of developed countries and other developing countries.

Appendix 5: Ratio of per-student daily expenditure to per-capita GNP in some countries (1990) National preschool, primary school, middle school and university United States 0.13 0.35 0.21 Brazil 0.11 0.13 1.10 India 0.11 0.15 0.83 Japan 0.14 0.16 0.49 South Korea 0.12 0.11 0.06 France 0.19 0.27 0.41 United Kingdom 0.15 0.27 0.42 Italy 0.14 0.23 0.45

Data source: Selected from "World Education Report" 1993 p155-159

Generally speaking, the international education investment structure Changes in the proportion are consistent with changes in education and economic development. In countries with low levels of economic and educational development, the proportion of students receiving primary education in the total number of students in tertiary education is much larger than in the other two stages. At this time, the focus of education investment is primary education. With the development of the economy, when primary education is basically universal, the development of secondary and higher education will shift, and the proportion of education investment will also be adjusted. As the level of per capita GNP continues to increase, the gap in the proportion of investment in tertiary education will narrow, and the gap in per-student funding for tertiary education will also narrow. Wang Shanmai and Sun Yuping of Beijing Normal University once conducted statistical analysis on countries with different per capita GNP and also came to the above conclusion.

3. The economic development in the east and west of China is unbalanced, and there are obvious differences in education funding investment between regions

my country has a vast territory and obvious regional differences. The eastern coastal areas and the central and western regions Economic development was uneven. By 1993, the eastern region accounted for 60.1% of national production, while the western region only accounted for 13.1%. In terms of per capita GDP, the eastern region is 4,580 yuan and the western region is 1,408 yuan. The eastern region is 3.25 times that of the west [4]. There are also huge differences in education funding investment among regions. Looking at the budgeted per-student expenditure on compulsory education, in 1993 Beijing was 628.68 yuan, Shanghai was 704.77 yuan, Tianjin was 401.66 yuan, Guangxi was 181.70 yuan, and Ningxia was 205.65 yuan. yuan, Gansu is 176.17 yuan, and Guizhou is only 129.56 yuan [5]. That is, both the total amount and the average level of investment in compulsory education in developed coastal areas are much higher than those in poor and backward provinces.

The difficulty for China to achieve "two basics" by the end of this century lies in poor rural areas, and the widening gap in investment intensity in compulsory education makes it even more difficult to achieve universal compulsory education in poor areas. In the process of realizing the transition to the socialist market economy, the differences in educational funding investment between regions have significantly expanded in recent years.

4. The source of education funding has changed from a relatively single source to a new multi-channel school running pattern.

Before the Third Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, my country’s education funding sources were relatively single, mainly relying on state investment. More than ten years of reform and development have gradually formed a situation of raising funds through multiple channels to run schools. In 1986, total extrabudgetary education investment accounted for less than 24% of education investment, but by 1994 it had exceeded 40%. From 1989 to 1994, the share of education funding within my country's fiscal budget in total education expenditures decreased year by year, from 66.88% in 1989 to 59.38% in 1994. In 1994, my country's fiscal budget allocations accounted for 59.38% of the total education expenditures. The share of tuition and miscellaneous fees paid by individuals in the total education expenditures increased from 8.22% in 1993 to 9.87%; social donations and fund-raising for running schools accounted for 9.87% of the total education expenditures. 6.55%, enterprise school funding is 5.99%, school-run enterprises, work-study and social service funds account for 4.08% of the total education expenditures; social groups and individual citizens’ school running funds account for 0.72% of the total education expenditures, compared with 1993 It more than doubled from 0.31% in 2017; taxes and fees collected by governments at all levels for education (including urban education surcharges and rural education surcharges) accounted for 8.92% of the total education expenditures, and other education expenditures accounted for 3.96% [ 6〕. The above statistics show that my country has formed a multi-channel funding system with national financial allocation as the main channel, supplemented by taxes, fees, industry, society and foundation. The transition from unified national fiscal appropriation to multi-channel financing of education funds is an objective and inevitable way to solve the shortage of education funding sources in my country at this stage.

5. The reform of the education investment management system has achieved remarkable results in expanding local education decision-making power and diversifying funding, but there is still a clear disconnect between fund allocation and use

The Third Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of my country In the past, the allocation of education funds in our country was divided and distributed by the central finance department, managed by local financial departments, and arranged for use by the education department. Since the reform and opening up, my country's fiscal system has carried out three gradual and in-depth reforms in the early, mid and late 1980s, with the main symbols of "separate meals", "graded contracting" and "big contracting". The education system has roughly corresponded to this. The reform of the education investment system has been promoted, including the implementation of a hierarchical school running, hierarchical management, and hierarchical responsibility system by the central and local governments. Education funds are accordingly raised by governments at all levels, and financial management is hierarchically responsible. At present, the central and provincial governments and local financial institutions jointly bear the responsibility for government investment in basic education, with local governments taking the lead. The central and provincial levels provide subsidies in the form of transfer of special funds. Higher education is managed at the central and provincial, autonomous region and municipal levels. State funding comes from central and local governments. Among them, the funding for universities directly under the State Education Commission and universities under other central ministries and commissions is allocated by the Ministry of Finance to the State Education Commission and other central ministries and commissions, and then allocated to universities by them respectively. Funding for local universities is allocated by provincial finance departments, among which a few universities Allocated by regional or county finance. Higher education funding currently implements the allocation method of "comprehensive quota plus special subsidies" and implements the principle of "use on a lump sum, overspending will not be compensated, and surplus will be retained".

The problems of this education investment management system are mainly manifested in the separation of educational financial rights and administrative rights, the segmentation and departmental division of government education investment, and the macro-control functions of planning, budgeting, allocation, and supervision of the education management department. cannot be fully exercised. The "level-by-level lump sum" and "level-by-level decentralization" of education funds have weakened the macro-control functions of the central and provincial finances on education investment, making it difficult to adjust surpluses and deficiencies between schools and regions, and the differences in education investment levels between regions are increasingly widening.