台灣私立大學教育品質與學費之關係－特徵價格模型之應用

The Application of a Hedonic Model to a Quality-adjusted Price Index for Private Universities of Taiwan

10.7070/PR.200706.0139

楊菲帆(Fei-Fan Yang)；黃瓊玉(Chiung-Yu Huang)

品質調整之價格指數 ； 特徵價格法 ； 學雜費 ； quality-adjusted price index ； hedonic price approach ； tuition

政策研究學報

7期（2007 / 06 / 01）

139 - 173

繁體中文

自1999年起實施「彈性調整學雜費方案」後，政府給予學校更大之自主空間，讓各校依其辦學理念收取所需經費，並且希望學生能獲得相對應之教育品質，使學雜費回歸市場機制。本研究即以差異性產品為觀點之特徵價格法(hedonic price approach)將影響學雜費的教育品質或各項特徵因素拆離為教師具博士學位比、單位專任教師發表期刊論文數、單位專任教師學術研究計劃補助款、生師比、每生圖書資源、每生儀器設備經費、學校類別、學校之區位等方面進行探討。其後建立1999年至2004年台灣私立大學之學雜費經調整品質後之價格指數(quality-adjustedprice index)，觀察學雜費經過品質調整後之趨勢。 實證結果發現每生圖書資源在各校之改善下，學生可以更低廉的花費享受更多的圖書資源，另外，1999年至2004年學雜費之特徵價格指數幾乎為100±0.1之間，顯示在實施學雜費彈性調整方案後，各校並沒有如各界所顧慮之皆將學雜費調整至上限，而學雜費彈性方案中所訂定之上下界之限制對於校方進行決策時並無太大作用，各校仍會顧慮學生之需求面及自身之成本面而訂定適當的學雜費。

In 1999, the Ministry of Education implemented the ”Flexible Adjustment of Tuition and Fees” plan to allow universities to set tuition according to actual operating costs and resources offered to students. Although the tuition and fees paid by students have been increasing steadily, the quality of higher education has also been improved constantly over the past few years. To investigate the relationship between tuition and fees of private universities and the educational quality, this study adopts the hedonic price approach by estimating a hedonic function of higher education. The estimated results are then employed to construct a quality-adjusted price index of private universities of Taiwan. Specifically, the educational quality is assessed according to six dimensions including the ratio of the full-time faculty member with Ph. D, average volume of published papers by a full-time faculty member, average research grants of a full-time faculty member, student/faculty ratio, library resources per student, and expenses of apparatus per student. The results show that library resources can be obtained by students more cheaply. In addition, the quality-adjusted price index of higher education for private universities ranges from 99.9 to 100.2 during the period of 1999-2004, which suggests that the tuition and fees are determined by universities according to their actual operating costs and resources available to students.

1. Asabere, P. K.,Harvey, B.(1985).Factors influencing the value of urban land: evidence from Halifax-dartmouth, Canada.American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association Journal,13(4),361-377.
2. Becker, G. S.(1965).A Theory of the Allocation of Time.Economic Journal,75,493-517.
3. Box, G. E. P.,Cox, D. R.(1964).An Analysis of Transformation.Journal of the Royal Statical Socity. series B. 25,26,211-246.
4. Cassel, E.,Mendelsohn, R.(1985).The Choice of Functional Forms for Hedonic Price Equations: Comment.Journal of Urban Economics,18,135-142.
5. Court, A. T.(1939).The Dynamics of Automobile Demand.
6. Giannias, D. A.(1998).A Quality of Life Based Ranking of Canadian Cities.Urban Studies,35,2241-2251.
7. Griliches, Z.(1961).The Price Statistics of the Federal Government.New York:Columbia University Press for NBER.
8. Hamilton, S. W.,Schwann(1995).Do High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Affect Property Value?.Land Economic,71,436-444.
9. Houthakker, H. S.(1952).Compensated Changes in Quantities and Quantities Consumed.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,58,504-510.
10. Lancaster, K.(1966).A New Approach to Consumer Theory: The Economics of Product Differentiation.Journal of Political Economy,74,132-157.
11. Muth, R. F.(1966).Household Production and Consumer Demand Function.Econometrica,34,699-708.
12. Nimon, W.,Beghin, J.(1999).Are Eco-Lables Valuable ? Evidence From the Apparel Industry.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,81,801-811.
13. Pakes, A.(2003).A Reconsideration of Hedonic Price Indices With An Application to PC`s.American Economic Review,93(5),1578-1596.
14. Pakes, A.(2005).Hedonics and the Consumer Price Index.forth-coming Les Annales d`Economie et de Statistique.
15. Rosen, S.(1974).Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation In Pure Competition.Journal of Political Economy,82,34-55.
16. Shi, H.,Price, D. W.(1998).Impacts of Sociodemographic Variables on the Implicit Values of Breakfast Cereal Characteristics.Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics,23(1),126-139.
17. Waugh, F. V.(1928).Quality Factors Influencing Vegetable Prices.Journal of Farm Economics,10,185-196.
18. 王明源(2003)。我國大學校院學雜費政策之探析。教育資料與研究，54，62-85。
19. 王保進(2004)。國家層級大學教育指標系統建構之研究。初等教育學刊，18，25-50。
20. 湯堯(2002)。論述高等教育經營策略分析：以內部品保系統與外部標竿系統之建立爲例。教育研究資訊，10(5)，1-27。
21. 楊朝祥(2003)。大學學費調漲的成因與對策。國家政策論壇，92，174-181。

1. 卓政寬(2016)。社會新鮮人特徵工資之研究：以台灣觀光產業為例。長榮大學經營管理研究所學位論文。2016。1-106。