Sustainable Public Financing with Equity in Higher Education: Comparative Policy Insights from Norway, Canada, Chile, and Türkiye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how higher education financing regimes influence equity and completion outcomes across diverse governance contexts in Canada, Chile, Norway, and Türkiye between 2015 and 2025. Employing a qualitative comparative policy analysis supported by OECD, UNESCO, and World Bank indicators, the study integrates quantitative trends with case-based interpretation to explain how financing designs mediate progress toward SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The findings show that publicly funded systems sustain broader inclusion and completion, while privatized or mixed regimes reproduce stratification unless offset by redistributive reforms. Even high-investment systems face persistent sustainability challenges. By linking cost-sharing structures to redistributive, procedural, and participatory dimensions of justice, the study proposes a multidimensional framework for assessing sustainable equity in higher education. The results offer policy insights for post-2030 frameworks that align equitable funding design, transparent governance, and inclusive monitoring with fiscal sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".