The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-5680.htm

SBR
16,2 Growth of private university
business following “oligopoly” and
“SME” approaches: an impact on
306 the concept of university
Received 13 June 2020
Revised 24 June 2020
and on society
Accepted 27 June 2020
Gazi Mahabubul Alam
Department of Foundations of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies,
University Purta Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Morsheda Parvin
Department of Professional Development and Continuing,
Faculty of Educational Studies, University Purta Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia, and
Samsilah Roslan
Department of Foundations of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies,
University Purta Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – Universally, university is considered as the apex body which is ethically obliged to
present a substantial society. In doing so, universities often innovate dynamic business models and
theories. Ideally, the countries whose universities contribute for better and sustainable business
growth are the advanced one. However, universities themselves should be the business organisation –
an argument is yet to receive attention. Although literature lacks in the area of education business
especially university provision, the sector behaves as business entity after the inception of private
sector. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the paradigm transformation of university sector and its
impact on the society.
Design/methodology/approach – Given the differentiated nature of research questions, multiple
techniques are used to collect the data. However, this research adopts the norms of qualitative methods. Both
secondary and primary data are used. While secondary data are collected by University Grants Commission
(UGC), primary data are collected through interviews.
Findings – Findings show that the development of university sector started following monopoly model.
More than half a century, the same model was continued. Thereafter, duopoly model was introduced which
carried until the inception of private sector. The growth of private sector followed oligopoly model which was
further extended to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These days, society compares university with
“diploma mill”, as production of knowledge and civic society is longer than the part of the core business of
university. Consequently, compromising with research is to be judged as a threat to overall development that
includes business and social development.

The authors are indebted to Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) for providing the logistic
Society and Business Review support. They acknowledge the productive discussions with Dr Md. Abdur Rahman Forhad (Dhaka
Vol. 16 No. 2, 2021
pp. 306-327 University of Engineering and Technology-DUET). They also acknowledge the supports received
© Emerald Publishing Limited from Ms Jesmin Parvin (Additional Director, University Grants Commission, Strategic Planning and
1746-5680
DOI 10.1108/SBR-06-2020-0083 Quality Assurance Division) for her kind support to help us in accruing annual reports.
Originality/value – A few studies have been published in the area of private university. To the best of the Growth of
authors’ knowledge, none covers the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism behaviour of university and its impact on
the concept of university and on the society. Therefore, this project aims to understand the norms of private
university business and its substantial contribution on the social change. university
Keywords Education as commodity, Innovation in education, Market behaviour of university, business
University and society, University and business, Purpose-driven university
Paper type Research paper
307
Introduction
The development of university was made in the Arab World, following a Muslim religious
model in the 859s (Alam, 2019). The history of university in Europe began in 1079; providing
a focus to “Medieval Christian” model (Alam, 2019). While the purpose of both Muslim and
Christian models is principally to produce religious leaders to run the countries, Europe
provided heavier focus on science and medicine (Friedman, 1962). This was the underlying
principle for a greater success of European universities which was led by the University of
Oxford; established in the 1167 (Alam, 2019). Later, the US universities made a distinction
between religious and business leaders. They started producing both types of leaders by
demarcating the role of universities (Frasse et al., 1987). The US university system is
governed by a mechanism which is substantially different from the European model. The
movement towards the transformation of university made by the US system has generated
huge debate which is yet to be settled (Altbach, 1999). Despite un-settled debate, most of the
developing countries started following the US roadmap, without revising their British
colonial structures (Alam, 2019). The university developmental journey saw several
paradigm transformations which are labelled as antecedents, medieval, early modern,
modern, national, intergovernmental and privatisation (Bosetti, 2000).
The term university is derived from a Latin word “universitas”, which generally denotes
“community of teachers and scholars”. Since its incorporation as term, university has become a
symbol of ethics, idealism and nobility. These holistic views never allow to question on the
purpose of university (Levy, 2018). The purpose of university is always seen as pure, although
sometime questions were raised on the role of university. Some critics argued that universities
failed to play the role according to the purpose determined (Alam, 2019; Olaleye et al., 2020).
Introduction of private university sector has further extended this debate. With an advocacy of
World Bank, private university sector in developing countries commenced in the early 1990’s
(Pucciarelli and Kaplan, 2016). Since then the expansion is dramatically rapid. Data compilation
from UNESCO (2019) show that 87% and 74% of universities respectively in Southern Asia
and Sub-Sharan Africa are private. This figure would even be more unless the countries would
transform a number of public higher learning institutes into universities and would establish
several public universities (Alam, 2019). Unfortunately, 67% and 74% of enrolments,
respectively, in Southern Asia and Sub-Sharan Africa are covered by the small number of
public universities (Alam, 2019). The huge growth of private universities has not proportionally
covered the enrolments because of their SME nature of operation (Sayed and Rose, 2002).
The inception of public university in Indian subcontinent is a debated issue as some
argued that Nalanda University was established in 413 and then was destroyed in the year
1204–1205 before its reopening in 2014. Despite this debate, some consider that Aligarh
Muslim University was the first university which was transformed from the Mohammedan
Anglo-Oriental College (established in 1875) in 1919 by the British Rulers (Alam, 2019).
Dhaka University was established in 1921 after its initial proposal was made in 1912 by the
British ruler. The experience of public university sector in Indian Sub-continent bears an
SBR history of one and half century, while private sector was developed in 26 years before only.
16,2 Although the continent welcomed its first official private university in 1992, the
development of private university followed oligopoly path until late 1990s (Alam, 2019).
Since 2000s, the developed private universities in Southern Asia have followed SME model.
For example, in Bangladesh, more than 67% of total enrolment in private universities is
covered by the 17% of elite private universities (Alam, 2019). This means that 83% of
308 universities only provides access to 33% students. Therefore, some private universities in
Bangladesh are running their operation with less than 150 students. Usually, intakes in
public university sector are reasonably higher than private counterpart. However, 13% of
larger public universities covers 51% of total enrolments in public sector. It is therefore
noticed that some lately established public universities have less than 500 intakes.

Research problem, aims and questions

A certain proportion of secondary graduates would study higher education. Access of
university education for secondary graduates should be selective (Altbach, 1999). The growth
of universities following SME model destroyed the selectiveness of university access (Alam,
2009). To survive, some non-elite universities especially private counterpart is providing access
to the students who are factually inept to enrol in the university (Alam, 2019). There are also
extreme cases whereby universities are just selling certificates without delivering any teaching
or course-works. Some argued that a substantial regulatory mechanism would support to
control this kind of unforeseen situation (Del Rey and Estevan, 2019). Regulatory mechanism is
often either absent or dysfunctional in the event of market-driven approach. The concepts of
oligopoly and SME are market-driven approach (King et al., 1997). Within these concepts, a
handful number of leading organisations control sector, while the others become the followers
to support the business of the leaders (Pleatsikas and Teece, 2001). The oligopoly-ism and
SME-ism often hinder the greatest innovation and the most dynamic invention (Shubik, 1959).
The concepts of oligopoly-ism and SME-ism works well in micro enterprises where bigger
innovations and their revisions are merely needed. This postulate holds a generic connotation.
The expansion of universities following oligopoly and SME should respond towards this
generic connotation without an exception (Alam, 2019).
The core function of the university is to engage in research within the wider area by
involving in the inter, entire and multi-disciplinary approaches (Marginson, 2004). The
innovation and invention are the keys of university business. Therefore, universities didn’t
welcome oligopoly and SME approaches by themselves, while their partners (i.e. secondary and
primary schools) may incorporate those concepts, as researches are not their core business. No
literatures are found supporting the expansion of university sector following oligopoly and
SME models. It is also evident that research is yet to be conducted to examine whether the
expansion of university lately follows oligopoly and SME models and its impact. This research
indents to analyse the expansion of university sector and its link to the concepts of oligopoly
and SME. The objectives are to explore the paradigm transformation of university expansion;
to analyse the development of private provision of university and its link to oligopoly-ism and
SME-ism; and to chalk-out the impact of oligopoly-ism and SME-ism on higher education. The
following research questions are outlined to delve into the heart of the matter which will be
answered using Bangladesh as a case:

RQ1. What is the trend of expansion of university sector?

RQ2. Why has the trend moved towards oligopoly-ism and SME-ism?
RQ3. What is the impact of such movement?
Literature review Growth of
The history of development of university and paradigm transformation private
Universities globally bear a longer history and heritage (Newman, 1952). Although the
genesis of universities in every region holds a generic pattern, the US system started a
university
drastic paradigm transformation from the 1960’s (Alam, 2019). The following writing would business
cover the history of university development before analysing the paradigm transformation.

History of the development of university

309
Seeing the success of today’s US universities, some would assume that USA might bear the
longest history and heritage of university. Factually, the first university in the USA known
as Harvard was established in 1636. Harvard university was established almost 800 years
after the inception of university (Alam, 2019). “Al-Azhar University” founded in 970 is
considered as the first university in the world as claimed made by Altbach, 1999. Alam
(2019) further claimed that founded in 859, the “University of Al Quaraouiyine” (also known
as University of Karueein) in Morocco is to be the oldest university. Fatima al-Fihri and Shia
Fatimid Caliphate were respectively the founders for the University of Karueein and “Al-
Azhar University”. Given the nature of founders, these two universities often labelled as
private entity (Alam, 2019). In fact, they are public universities and their operation was
guided by the Islamic philosophy. Founded in 1088, University of Bologna is the first
European University located in Italy (Oketch, 2009). Since the inception in European, the
growth of university is faster than its Arabic counterpart. Both European and Arabic
Universities primally catered religious leaders to run the country and they are respectively
known as “Antecedents” and “Medieval” universities (Altbach, 1999). University of Oxford
and University of Cambridge both located in the England also provided its focus to
medicine, science and technology in addition to their core focus of producing religious
leaders. In the era of British colonialisation, the globalisation of university was started. This
includes USA, Canada, Australia, Indian sub-continent and Africa. Until 1960s, the globe
saw a steady growth of university sector (King and Bellew, 1993).

Paradigm transformation of university development

Newman (1952) saw that the “sole” purpose of university is to produce “elite leaders” to run
the country. The universities which were established to cater “elite leaders” were labelled as
“Man as Man delivery” (Etzkowitza, et al., 2000). Owning the concept of “Man as Man
delivery” [1], Europe and Arab started the operation of universities. British universities
conducted a significant number of researches in the area of science, agriculture, medicine
and technology, but they did not produce graduates (Marginson, 2019). While the British
universities conducted researches, polytechnics were responsible to produce professionals in
the area of science, agriculture, medicine and technology. This had become a global model
(Olaleye et al., 2020).
In the 1960s, the US system is the first one to realise the importance of land-grant
university (Alam, 2019). In respond to the needs, Agricultural and Mechanical College of
Texas founded in 1871 was transformed into a university as new branding “Texas A&M
University” (Altbach, 1999). During 1950s, the US system further responded towards
machine-grant university by transforming the MIT into university status. The MIT was
founded in 1865 as polytechnic. This concept was labelled as “early modern university”
concept. Throop University founded in 1891 was rebranded as Caltech few years before the
NASA was established in 1958. The US system realised that land and resources prevailing
within the surface are rather limited. Therefore, using spaces, Ethernet, Internet and Air are
important. Keeping this view, science and technology grants universities were marched
SBR (Alam, 2020 in press). This also labelled as modern universities. Since the inception of
16,2 modern universities, the growth is very rapid. Given the US geography, decentralisation of
universities was badly needed. Moreover, the dramatic success of US universities attracts
significant amount of foreign funds and international students. In addition to this, to patch
with the industrial development, US started immigration packages (Baye, 2010). This has
suddenly increased their population. To meet the ongoing differentiated and specialised
310 demands, the USA established universities and transformed the institutes into universities
through both public and private provisions (Levin, 1968). Without metalising the
underpinning concept of this transformation, many countries have transformed their
institutes into universities. This simple transformation would not support rather would
develop an endanger.
Many consider that the expansion of US universities followed oligopoly expansion. This
is neither practically nor theoretically right (Alam, 2019). The purpose of the oligopoly
expansion is to allow market competition in fixing the price and quality of service and
product (Stilwell, 2003). The expansion of US university system responded towards
differentiated and specified demands. Market did not determine the price and quality of
education rather the education system provided a new product by being innovative (Alam,
2019). Innovation is the key of university which was not compromised through the
expansion of higher education (Tooley and Dixon, 2006; Haski-Leventhal, 2020). The
expansion did not fix the price (tuition) via market competition, rather ensured decent
campus life and facilities, library, laboratories, intake capacity and university philosophy
(Svensson and Wood, 2007). If the expansion would have followed an oligopoly path, these
facilities were squeezed to reduce the cost. Since, this was not caused through the expansion
of universities in the USA, labelling the oligopoly expansion is not topical.

The concept of monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly and small and medium enterprises
Some argued that the monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly and SME are the concepts of production
economics, others claimed them as part of managerial economics, and the others see them as
part of behavioural economics (Fellner, 1960). Lately, claims are made that these concepts
fall under business management and marketing (Stackelberg, 2010).
First, monopoly is known as the single entity of a producer or service provider in the
market. To innovate a new product or service, the monopoly entity functions better (Tirole,
1988). Almost no examples of greatest innovation can be found which are not a product of
monopoly entity (Sweezy, 1939). Optimisation is one of the most important concept of
production economics. A purer optimisation ensures efficient productivity which reduces
production cost. Bulk production may also supplement to ensure the best optimisation (Von
Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944). It is therefore monopoly entity is seen as the market-
innovator (Witte, 1996). Despite this positivity, monopoly has become a symbol of panic for
customers. This panic atmosphere has not linked with the concept of production economics.
The irrational behaviour of monopoly entity (i.e. corruption, degradation of ethics and
mentality of making high profit) often develop an anarchy (Alam, 2019).
To exterminate the anarchy of monopoly-ism, the concept of duopoly is introduced. The
purpose of adopting duopoly concept is to ensure a market competition so that a fair
atmosphere prevails (Baumol, 1982). Many argued that the inception of duopoly is a result of
unfair practice since the later entity known as duopoly use the base innovation created by
the earlier known as monopoly (Pleatsikas and Teece, 2001). After a certain time of
competition, both earlier and later entities collectively monopolise the market. In event of
dysfunctional of duopoly, the concept of oligopoly is encouraged (Baye, 2010). The basic
principle of introducing oligopoly is to ensure the free-market competition. It was
anticipated that a rigid market competition would ensure a fair atmosphere (Fellner, 1960). Growth of
Oligopoly entities also use the base innovation created by the monopoliser (Shubik, 1959). private
This may support lowering the price; but unfortunately, the syndicalism does not often
allow the consumers to take the advantages of oligopoly concept (Fellner, 1960).
university
Oligopoly entities reduce the production cost in exchange of no-investment in researches business
and innovation. Oligopoly entities do not have a great deal of concerns for quality control
and ethical value of the product (Tirole, 1988). Quality assurance mechanism does not
function well since producers often reluctant to produce quality product rather they like to 311
produce a product according to the willingness of buyers to pay (Baumol, 1982). Hence, an
interview quotation cited in Alam (2019, p 10) is noted – “if you provide 10 dollars, I will give
a product of 10 dollars. I can give you the same product in 10 cents but not the same quality”.
Oligopoly doesn’t work for quality-driven price but act on price-driven quality. Compromise
of education quality is not acceptable at any cost.
SME is new latest phenomena which is suggested by World Bank. Capital constraints
often hinder the development of bigger industry. Involvement of huge capital is a big risk,
and this does not motivate younger entrepreneurship (King and Bellew, 1993). To develop
entrepreneurship and woman empowerment, the concept of SME is encouraged. Abdalla
and Faria (2019) argued that most of the cases SME increases the production cost.
Consequently, SMEs are forced to be collapsed if they are to compete with industry. In the
name of self-employment and woman empowerment, SMEs often increase the production
cost which ultimately hinders the business development (King and Bellew, 1993). It is
therefore suggested to operate heavier industries that open the job-market. The women and
youths are to be provided adequate skills training and education so that they are absorbed
by the heavier industries. This will ensure sustainable development (Friedman, 1962).
According to production economics, monopoly supports to value the concept
optimisation which ultimately ensures a lesser unit cost (Pleatsikas, and Teece, 2001). This
lesser unit cost could be an economic gain if the behavioural economics does not force to
behave otherwise. Upon the achieve of optimisation, duopoly could theoretically ensure a
decent market-behaviour (Pucciarelli, and Kaplan, 2016). Human science and market-
behaviour are interrelated. Human science and human mentality change very frequently.
Therefore, no concept would offer a permanent solution to a problem related to human
science (Stackelberg, 2010). Oligopoly and SME will never be able to offer support the
innovation that requires both cash and human capital (Thian et al., 2016). Consequently,
only a certain type of organisations can be operated via oligopoly and SME provisions.
Concepts of economics, market and management are not postulate. They are influenced by
time, culture, tradition and contexts. Education especially higher education offered by
university is guided by the philosophy (King et al., 1997). Philosophy has a long heritage to
guide university. Operation of universities bears a history of more than 1100 years. What the
sudden changes that have been occurred in this contemporary developing world to force the
university to run by the market-driven approach instead of philosophy.

Expansion of private university: oligopoly-ism and SME-ism

University is the apex body not only within the education sector but also in the society
(Altbach, 1999). It is a place of exchanging scholarship, excellence of knowledge, culture,
heritage and innovation. The community that belongs to the university should have a full
sense of civic, human rights, dignity and responsibilities (Alam, 2009). It is the community
that made the university to be proud and distinct. University produces a unique product,
namely, knowledge and skills. With the proper usage of knowledge and skills, country
progresses towards economic and social development (Marginson, 2019). Production of
SBR knowledge and skills is not a manual task where human capital is seen as an important
16,2 component for the production cycle (Alam, 2019).
The operation of university started through public provision. University is well-regarded
because of its intellectual community and a campus that offer a unique atmosphere to
exercise knowledge (Svensson and Wood, 2007). Ensuring an optimum usage of existing
university, new universities were established to respond the needs of decentralisation,
312 differentiated and specified skills requirements (Sayed and Rose, 2002). The expansion of
universities never compromised with the philosophy of university. Therefore, the discussion
on market-driven concept such as monopoly, duopoly, oligopoly and SME did not receive
any attention earlier (Olaleye et al., 2020). Public sector mainly monopolised the university
sector. In the early 1990s, World Trade Organisation (WTO) simply forced the developing
nations to open the door for private sector to operate university (Sayed and Rose, 2002).
Three major arguments are made by WTO to justify the rationale.
First, WTO considered that knowledge and skills are the consumable commodity.
Considering education as commodity, the WTO advocated that public monopoly system has
failed to respond the needs of labour market (Alam, 2019; Sayed and Rose, 2002). The
graduates that public sector produces are not fit for the labour market. Therefore, many
financially able students are willing to leave public system if an alternative can be offered
(Thian, et al., 2016). An open market approach was thus suggested by arguing that this
would not only ensure competition between public and private provisions but would also
confirm a constant racing amongst the universities. Unfortunately, graduate unemployment
rate in developing nations has been increased dramatically after the introduction of private
university. Private university graduates share the highest proportion of unemployment rate
(British Council, 2014). Despite an open market competition, the elite public university sector
is the number one preference for students and parents (Alam, 2009). Financially able
students and parents are also reluctant to consider private sector. Hence, the first judgment
of WTO has already been falsified.
Second, private investment in higher education would allow the developing nations to
concentrate more on primary and secondary provisions (Sayed and Rose, 2002). This would
increase the quality of primary and secondary graduates. Recent studies confirm that
quality of primary and secondary education has dented rapidly in developing nations
(Alam, 2020 in press). The reason for such dent is identified that universities conduct
researches to support the education offered in primary and secondary education. In absence
of funds, all universities become teaching universities leaving the core job namely research.
Alam, 2019 argued that “stopping research, investing money in primary and secondary
provision is wrong decision. This seems an endeavour to save the branches of trees by cutting
the root” (p. 8). These days, the World Bank started funding the developing nations to
strengthen their university especially public provision.
Third, WTO and governments of developing nation advocated to establish small-sized
private universities which would be very responsive to the needs (Marginson, 2004). It was
believed that small-sized university would be able to connect the students and labour
market sharply to bridge the gap (Sayed and Rose, 2002). Surprisingly, it is evident that
many small-sized private universities are operating without having a proper management
(Alam, 2019). For example, a few universities have a single individual who is the owner of
the university and at the same time hold the position of VC and Treasurer. This small-sized
universities are just selling certificate to survive. Following the same recommendation,
governments of developing nation started establishing small-sized public universities.
Because of the public funds, small-sized public university have full-fledged management
which develop a higher cost to produce one unit of graduates (Olaleye et al., 2020). Moreover,
department, institute, faculty and university have their own connotation. Naming a Growth of
department as university cannot fulfil the purpose or philosophy of the university. private
The existing literature has provided some understandings on the impact of current
practice within the university sector. These works were conducted in the area of higher
university
education with different focus. The focus of current work is to investigate the impact of business
introducing oligopoly-ism and SME-ism in university with the reference to Bangladesh.
Most of the developing countries especially colonised counterpart share similar experiences;
thus, this work would offer lessons to the others. 313

Research design
Primarily, a qualitative method was used; we adopted a number of tools to value a concept
of triangulation. We used an individualistic approach to selecting tools, given the nature of
the research questions (Table 1). Data collected by the Bangladesh Bureau of Educational
Information and Statistics (BANBIES) and University Grants Commission (UGC) were
largely used. While two research questions are answered mainly through the secondary data
of BANBIES and UGC, the others need more in-depth information which was to be collected
through interviews and a document review (Table 1).
We conducted semi-structured interviews with personnel from the Ministry of Education
(MOE), University Grants Commission, students, staff and management from both public
and private institutes. A comprehensive documentary review was undertaken for the
materials from the MOE, UGC, institutions and the Ministry. Facilities for lectures were also
observed. The study focussed on the above data. In addition, 20 years were spent on
research and working experience with higher education in Bangladesh which gave me an
insight to reflect my arguments. Before detailing on data and analysis, let us note another
kind of data which were collected to supplement this research.

Data archive
Both BANBIES and UGC are public institutes. BANBIES is the central educational
database. The directorates that work for different provisions and types [2] collect annual
data. BANBIES aggregates this data and publishes a standard report. The UGC does the
same for higher education. While the Archives of BANBIES cover Primary to Tertiary, UCG
[3] is the supreme body of higher education. Criticisms may be made of the collection process
and analysis as well as presentation. However, they are the approved sources for education
data and information in Bangladesh. By law, both the public and private agencies are
obliged to consider their data if any policy and legislative frameworks in education are to

Research question Primary tool(s) Auxiliary tool(s) Method

What is the trend of Secondary data of UGC, Interviews with different Qualitative
expansion of university document review from stakeholders
sector? Universities
Why has the trend moved Secondary data of UGC, Interviews with different Qualitative
towards oligopoly-ism document review from stakeholders
and SME-ism? Universities
Table 1.
What is the impact of Insights of the findings of Interviews with different Qualitative
such movement? the research questions stakeholders especially Tools for data
outlined, attribution of the with the policymakers collection for
findings, analysis of both at macro and micro individual research
existing literature levels question
SBR be implemented. As this paper aims to complement the ongoing policy dialogue, we use the
16,2 data from BANBIES and UGC as a primary focus. Due to unavailability of some nation-wide
data at BANBIES and UGC, we used representative data collected through personal
communication to address some important issues.

Data collection, analysis and confidentiality and limitation

314 The document review from various important agencies also provided us with an excellent
opportunity to preview the overall scenario and prepare the semi-structured interviews for
an in-depth understanding. The objectivity of the study was achieved with a triangulation of
samples. As suggested by Bell (2010), we conducted trial interviews with the colleagues – a
step which guided us to realise the need for asking further questions based on respondents’
answers in the final interviews. Therefore, the final interviews with the respondents were
semi-structured. Interviews were segmented into four phases. While the first phase included
students, the final phases covered key legislators. This sequence guided us ask the relevant
questions on a phase-to-phase basis. As legislators are the key designers of strategies, they
were interviewed last to discuss the relevant issues from the other phases. A second session
of interviews was conducted with a few respondents to cross-check.
A briefing on the purpose, focus, and confidentiality of the research was made before the
final interviews. Each interview lasted 35 to 45 min, in contrast to legislators’ interviews
which lasted around an hour. We asked several indirect questions, and the respondents’
answers led us to ask further questions. We asked if they could tell us more which was not
prompted but was relevant to the research. This question prompted the respondents to
disclose additional useful information. The exact sequence of the interview questions was
altered on an ad hoc basis to maintain a friendly discussion. Our discussion ended with a
healthy rapport by thanking all the participants for their constructive, positive and critical
feedback with an assurance of information security and confidentiality. We sought their
permission to record the interviews, and most of them agreed, leading us to record,
transcribe and listen to the consenting participants’ interviews for our analysis.
As researchers from educational management, we have taken care with all our cultural
baggage and ability to be entirely objective in our data collection by being aware of possible
positional power issues that might arise from power differences. This project is qualitative
and faces the limitation that findings are limited to the institutions of higher education in
Bangladesh which cannot be generalised. They can, however, be a pathway for other
developing nations for further research. The following section reports the compiled findings
from the discussions and discourse based on the collected data.

Findings and discussions

This section will explain the paradigm transformation of university growth in Bangladesh
in several parts. First, it will describe the quantitative growth; secondly the qualitative
growth will be explored by explaining the regional distribution, growths of students,
academics and their distribution. Finally, the impact of this growth will be examined. Before
narrowing our reports, let us consider a generic scenario of development of private
university sector.

History of growth of university: oligopoly-ism and SME-ism

This write-up is a description of Figures 1, 2 and 3. Public university sector acted as a
sectorial monopoly until 1992. Owning the concept of Man as Man delivery, the business of
university started in 1921 by the inception of Dhaka University (DU) during the British
colonial regime. The DU monopolised as single entity of university until 1953 when the
 Growth of
private
university
business

315

Figure 1.
Expansion of
university

Figure 2.
Regional distribution
of private university

Figure 3.
Regional distribution
of public university
SBR University of Rajshahi was established. Theoretically, this might be identified as a “duopoly
16,2 chapter” of the university business. Ideally, University of Rajshahi responded towards
decentralisation concept; therefore, the concept of duopoly was not a fundamental
underpinning. In the 1960, three more universities joined in the sector and some may
theoretically see this decade as oligopoly-ism of university. In 1960s, US university
paradigm transformation was copied globally. Owning the concept of land grants university
316 and machine grants delivery, the first agriculture and engineering universities were
established respectively in 1961 and in 1962 by transforming two institutes. The USA
provided technical supports for this transformation. One man as man delivery university
was established in Chittagong in 1966 for valuing the concept of decentralisation. In 1992,
the operation of Bangladesh Open University (BOU) and National University was started.
The function of National University is to act as a controlling agency of the affiliated collages
located around the country. The BOU looks after its affiliates located around the country
which attend the school-levers. Inclusion of these two in the bucket of university is merely a
theoretical concept that values the concepts of Open University, UK and London University,
England. Until 1992, the expansion of public university which was considered as monopoly-
ism; was expanded following a response towards the concepts of decentralisation and
differentiated needs (Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, this expansion occurred until 1992 cannot
be labelled as duopoly let alone the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism.
To remove the monopoly-ism of public sector, private university sector was introduced
in 1992. Since then the growth is very rapid (Alam, 2019). The operation of private
university in developing countries is a response towards an US politics to popularise its
higher education and to create a larger market. Bangladesh is no exception of it. After the
introduction of private university via international politics, the sector has become the part of
local politics as identified by Alam (2019). Every political change within the government has
impacted the growth of private universities which developed a dramatic growth by
increasing the numbers (Figure 1). The political parties are in competition “in the number
game” to satisfy their adherents and to provide them a business opportunity. First private
university started its journey with 89 students and after the end of third year, the total
enrolment was nearly 15,000 in the three departments. Therefore, many businesses saw
private university as a good scope of business which is why they pushed their political
parties to support them in establishing private university. This is the main reason for
oligopoly-ism and SME-ism of private university sector. It is therefore no surprise to see that
currently, the average enrolment of private sector is less than 2,500 [4], while the average
enrolment of two third universities is less than 1,000. In an extreme case, it was found that
the total enrolment of a university is less than 200 and this university is running since past
five years with similar number of students or less. This is a very common to many
universities. Hence, questions are: can these universities be titled as university; how do these
universities generate revenue to operate; can these universities be able to maintain the
education quality with this small amount of revenue? The following sections intent to
explore them further. However, a simple connotation is that they are operating as diploma
store [5] locating themselves in the capital Dhaka (Figure 3).
Currently, this oligopoly-ism and SME-ism are not confined to the private universities
anymore. Public university sector does not want to keep them behind in the race. From the
early to late 1990’s, no public universities were newly established, or institutes were
transformed into universities. Specialised institutes started transforming into universities
from 1998 which rigorously continued until 2006. The rapid growth of public universities
without transforming institutes into universities started from 2007 which is ongoing. This
expansion has opened the oligopoly and SMEs operation in public university sector as well.
For example, a public university established in 2018 is operating with 209 students in two Growth of
programs. To justify the reasons of establishing public universities following oligopoly-ism private
and SMEism, the concept of decentralisation and specified needs for science and technology-
based university are used as “political marvel” (Figure 3). This has changed the concept of
university
university and its philosophy that were originally retained. business

New dynamics in defining university 317

Literature review showed that universities were earlier segmented into antecedents,
medieval, early modern, modern and intergovernmental. The paradigm transformation of
the concept of university provided four important dynamics. They are Man as Man delivery,
Land Grants, Machine grants and Technology grants deliveries. This is a globally accepted
concept and QS universities ranking values this concept in formulating the scores and their
weightage. None of the universities in Bangladesh has been able to secure a position in the
QS university ranking league. However, the QS university provided three categories based
on the enrolment rate of private universities in Bangladesh. They are “top-ten”, “middle-ten”
and “bottom-ten”. These cover 30 universities of 107. In this paper, they are respectively
labelled as Larger, Medium and Smallest, while the rest (77 universities) is labelled as
smaller (Figure 4). Such category for public university is also applicable. Three categories
are identified namely large, medium and small (Figure 5). The universities established until
early 1990s are categorised as large, while others established from late 1990’s to 2010 are
medium and the rest are small (Figure 5). These categories are base for next section which is
one of the central focuses.

Student enrolment as a witness for oligopoly-ism and SME-ism market

Currently, the total university student population is 638,000 enrolled in 162 universities
(Figure 6). The national average enrolment is less than 4,000; while the average in public and
private provisions is respectively 5,200 and 3,300. The average is continuously declining.
For example, the national average enrolment in 2014 was 4,700, and public and private
provisions were 6,250 and nearly 4,000, respectively. It is anticipated that the average would
further lower down if the universities continue expanding because currently the student

Figure 4.
Distribution of
private universities
by size
SBR
16,2

318

Figure 5.
Distribution of public
universities by size

Figure 6.
Student trends in
universities (in
thousand)

market is stagnated. The “birth control” policy has stagnated the average school age
population which is continued to be declined. Therefore, the market of student population is
not increasing. Under this situation, many universities have enrolled the students who are
ideally not competent to undertake university education. These universities are in survival
crisis; consequently, they provide access to higher education to someone without judging the
academic credibility and quality. Moreover, to support the survival of universities, the
quality control in secondary and primary provisions are relaxed to generate a bigger market
for university. Unfortunately, all these efforts seem to fail to increase the average enrolment
because the growth rate of universities is racing overly fast.
The decreasing trend of average enrolment doesn’t represent the extreme situation. To
have in-depth understanding to the problem, more segregated and aggregated analysis is
needed. The major portion of enrolment in private provision is shared by large and medium
sized private universities (Figure 7). These 20 universities of 107 share 78% enrolment
which is almost stagnant. A slim down trend can be noticed. This means that this slim trend
 Growth of
private
university
business

319

Figure 7.
Student composition
in different types of
private university

Figure 8.
Student composition
in different types of
public university

has contributed increasing the enrolment for smaller and smallest sized universities. The
enrolment in the smallest sized (10 universities) is also declining (Figure 7) which testifies
that there is an increase for smaller sized group. However, this does not improve the average
enrolment rate for smaller sized university because the number of universities belong to this
group is not limited to 10. The number of universities that belongs to the smaller sized group
is constantly increasing.
Likewise, private counterpart, large sized public universities are covering the major
portion of the intakes. Universities labelled as large sized are a few in number, while
medium and small sized universities are respectively bigger and the biggest in numbers
(Figure 5). Despite being a few in numbers, large sized universities cover the highest portion
of enrolment. The growth of large and medium sized universities is stagnated; but the large
sized group still contributes for the total growth of national enrolment (Figure 8). Because of
the enrolment performance of large sized universities, the average enrolment in public
provision is higher than the private counterpart. It is therefore the enrolment in public
prevision these days confirm that not only private counterpart but also public one witnesses
SBR an oligopoly and SME market behaviour. The market behaviour of the universities is further
16,2 analysed below using the data of academics engaged in university.

Academic employment as a witness for oligopoly-ism and SME-ism market

Literature review suggested that longer operation of monopoly and duopoly would usually
create a bigger market. A certain proportion of this extended market might remain
320 unattended. One of the potential reasons of becoming unattended is that the economic status
and social prestige of the group unattended are different from the market captured by
monopoly and duopoly operators. It is assumed that if the market leaders attend this group,
they might experience a risk of losing the elite groups. Consequently, market leaders do not
directly capture this extended market. They therefore allow a monopoly and SME market
approaches to capture the remaining market so that they remain to be the leaders. Under
such circumstance, both oligopoly and SMEs groups act as the ‘puppet’ of market leaders by
employing a small number of employees who are technically less competent and qualified.
This helps to reduce the unit cost. Market leaders also take some advantages from their
followers who are known as oligopoly and SME operators.
According to Figure 9, large sized private universities employed 61% academics in 2001,
and this is down to 39% in 2017. The percentage of academic sharing is steadily decreasing
for large sized university. This means that there would be an increase for medium, smaller
and the smallest sized university. The share of smallest sized group has not increased. The
share of medium and smaller sized has increased respectively to 28% and 31% in 2017 from
16% and 20% in 2001. Practically, the share of smaller sized university has not increased
because the number of smaller sized university has expanded rapidly over the time, while
the number of universities for other groups (large, medium and smallest) remain the same.
Likewise, private counterpart, large sized public universities which are less in
number shared the highest portion of academics (Figure 10). A slight decline for large
and medium sized university is noticed in 2001, the percentage was 81 and 20%,
respectively, while was 73 and 16%, respectively, were in 2017 (Figure 10). This does
not mean that the total number of academics become lesser in 2017 compared to 2001.
Since 2010, the small sized universities started operation and their number keeps
growing. The employment of these universities started taking the share in total;
therefore, although the total numbers of academics have increased in large and medium
sized universities, their percentage sharing seems to be declined. Basing on the same

Figure 9.
Academic
composition in
different type of
private university
 Growth of
private
university
business

321

Figure 10.
Academic
composition in
different type of
public university

principle, sharing of percentage of large sized university experiences little also ups and
downs but in early 1990s large sized universities shared 100% before the introduction
of medium sized universities.

Impact of oligopoly-ism and SME-ism on university concept

This section will explore the major impacts caused by the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism on
university concept. Three major areas known to be the heart of university concept are
programmes, management and campus. We will explore how an oligopoly-ism and SME-
ism has impacted these three areas without detailing the micro units.

Programmes
Private universities offer bachelor programme in 19 areas and master in 5 areas.
Approximately 98% of private universities offer Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA).
Most of the universities also offer bachelor’s in Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) and
bachelor’s in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE). Only 20% of private universities
offers Economics and English. This means BBA, CSE and EEE are the major programmes
offered by the private universities (Table 2). MBA is the major programme for masters. Only
a few universities offer one or two master’s programmes in addition to MBA. By law, private
universities are not allowed to offer MPhil/PhD. Hence, one academic observed:
Private universities offer MBA program especially in the evening and weekend. After the
introduction of MBA, this become the only program needed. The market al.so forced the public
universities to offer MBA in the evening and weekend. I am not sure where we are heading—
either market determines education or education mislead the market
Unlike private universities, public universities have moderately a wider variety in their
offerings. However, none of the universities in Bangladesh completely captures four areas
exclusively (Man as Man delivery, Land Grants, Machine Grants and Science and
Technology grants). Dhaka University (the premier and pioneer) covers relatively more
programmes compared to the others. However, DU does not offer engineering, medical
science and agricultural programmes. A true university should cover all areas to ensure an
inter and multi-disciplinary research culture. Without having an inter and multi-disciplinary
research culture, high impact researches cannot be generated. An academic observes:
SBR (%) of total universities that
16,2 Sl. no. Programs offer the respective program

01 BBA 98
02 BS in Computer Science and Engineering (CSE) 86
03 BS in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) 84
04 Bachelor of Laws (LLB Hons) 30
322 05 BA in English 22
06 BS in Economics 20
07 BA in Journalism and Media Studies 10
08 BA in Tourism and Hospitality Management 7
09 BS in Microbiology 7
10 BS in Biochemistry and Biotechnology 7
11 BPharm Professional 7
12 BS in Environmental Science and Management 7
13 Bachelor of Architecture 8
14 BS in Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) 8
15 BS in Mathematics 7
16 BS in Physics 6
17 BSS in Anthropology 5
18 BSS in Sociology 5
19 BSS in Global Studies and Governance 4
Table 2.
20 BS in Nursing 3
Undergraduate
programs offered Note: This table shows that percentage of total private universities that offer each of the above programs
private universities Source: Compiled from the universities’ websites

In absence of research, we have failed to design important programs needed for the local contexts.
This forced us to depend on the programs and courses designed in the West. Without fulfilling
the local needs, the courses from West would not support our development. Our education has
become a commodity. Graduates produced following the commodification in education has
become a market for west without being innovative

Campus life
None of the private universities is able to provide a true campus life for their students. Only
7% of private universities have established their own campuses. However, most of the
campuses are in the residential area. Location of universities in the residential area destroys
the sustainable residential life (Alam et al., 2020, in press). While only 7% universities have
owned campuses, the others are in the rented premises. In total, 78% of private universities
are in a “rented flat” of residential buildings or hiring a commercial space. A total of 15%
has hired a complete building (two to six stored building). This generate a question: are
these universities providing education? A VC of a private university who is also an “owner”
of the university informed:
We have almost 2000 intakes. However, we are working with adult learners who don’t need to sit
in the classroom. It is therefore, this flat is enough to function the secretarial activities and to
provide the support services
This quotation explains the outcome of oligopoly-ism and SME-ism of university sector. One
academic claimed that the student population of private universities are from the “elite
background”. They are used to with the modernisation and urbanisation. Therefore, a
cosmopolitan life is more accepted than a campus life. All students and most of the Growth of
academics interviewed rejected this view as one academic observes: private
Most of the students studying in private universities attempted to enrol in the public system. university
Rigid competition in the public system forced them to select private university”. I can feel very business
well that most of the students miss a campus life
Hence, the realisation of a student:
323
Birds living in the birdcage have been coped-up by force not by choice. But after certain period,
the birds enjoy it without complaining. This is probably because the birds have lost their usual
habit and adoptability power to the real life. Some may see this as the modernisation of birds. But
I humbly disagree as I consider this as ‘inhuman colonial approach’. Being the students of private
universities, we are now in the birdcage. I predict a day the real birds would only be in zoo as we
grow and rule the society
Campus life is not a big issue for public universities because most of the public universities
have established campuses from the public funds. However, a few universities lately
established are functioning from the hired residential buildings.

University management
University management is considered as the most important component to ensure a
substantial education system which creates an atmosphere of academic excellence and
produces knowledge. The management coordinates amongst different stakeholders
especially students, academics and support staff. In an oligopoly-ism and SME-ism, most of
the organisations except the leading one lack the formal management and governance. The
positions of VC, Pro-VCs, Treasure and Registrar combinedly create the team which is the
management [6] of a university. 2.75% of private universities has a full-fledged
management. They are the market leaders. In total, 39% who are known to be the semi-
market leaders. These semi-market leaders have three positions occupied and commonly
Pro-VC or VC holds both responsibilities at the same time. Most of the private universities
do not follow a proper management structure. Hence, an academic noted:
Size of the most of private universities is too small to accommodate a full-fledged management.
Their financial structure doesn’t allow to employee the management. Under such circumstance,
they operate without the management and academics
A BoT member informed us:
Private university is new phenomena therefore for the positions of management, we need to hire
academics from public system. The business of public and private universities is entirely different
that requires specialized skills. Most of the academics from public counterpart lac these skills.
Only a few have the skills who are busy in shifting from one to the other. Under such
circumstance, most of the private universities are reluctant to employ the management. Whether
the university has hired management or not, the university administration has to be run by the
BoT and their reliable associates
Because of the government exchequer, all the public universities enjoy a full-fledged
management. However, a question can be raised; is allocating huge amount of fund for small
universities feasible as the beneficiaries are very small in number.
Oligopoly-ism and SME-ism has impacted the university concept greatly. The size of
student and academic population, campus and management have changed; challenging the
concept of university that bears a longer history. A well-heritage centre of excellence
engaged in innovation with adequate number of academics, students and well-equipped
SBR campus is labelled as university. On the other hand, an entity seems an outlet can be
16,2 identified as university these days. Products of both provisions [7] would be labelled as
university’s graduates. This would add more pressure for the society to identify the quality
of the graduates. The collapse of universities due to market approach would add further
problem. In the event of collapsing, no organisation would be able to validate the graduates
produced by the collapsed universities; given the autonomous nature of management that
324 universities traditionally enjoy. The respect towards university would dent if the sector does
not values the true concept of the university.
“Purpose-driven university” concept is an emerging theme advocated by Haski-
Leventhal (2020). The aim of this concept is to bridge the gap between market-driven
concept and “orthodox pattern” of university operation (Alam, 2020, in press). Many public
universities around globe do not value the market-demand because of their “orthodox
outlook”. It is therefore a “market-driven” approach was suggested in the early 1990’s
especially by the World Bank. To value the market-driven approach, private provision was
welcomed. The practice of “market-driven” approach confirmed that the universities are
often derailed from their fundamental purpose to meet the demand of “diploma disease”.
Without shaping the market needs for “social well-being”, these universities spoil the
“market sensitivity” by misusing the concept. In event of failure of “market-driven” concept,
the “purpose-driven university” concept is suggested as a remedy by Haski-Leventhal
(2020). The “purpose-driven university” is a “mosaic concept” of management and
marketing theories which encourages the university to respond the market needs without
misjudging the goal of university (Alam, 2020, in press). The “purpose-driven” concept
primally suggests that universities should closely work with different stakeholders (such as
society, industry and alumni) for designing course and curricula, delivering the programmes
and for assessing the students’ performance. This concept further suggests that in
partnership with the society, universities should instil an “adaptative capacity” that helps
the graduates to think “out of the box” and to be supportive for the crisis of the society.
Hence, the “purpose-driven university” should ideally impact significantly in the 21st
century without sacrificing the elitist view of the university.

Conclusion
The inception of university sector in Bangladesh was commenced following “monopoly”
concept which continued several decades. Owing the respect towards the concept of
decentralisation and specialised needs, the expansion was made. This expansion did not
affect the concept of the university as the management, campus and the size of academics
and students were to be considered as moderate for an innovative institute. To ensure rigid
market competition and burden from the public system, private university sector was
welcomed. Initially, a few private universities were established and they contested with each
other. This competition was prevailed until the early 2000’s which provided some better-
quality universities. After the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism, there is no more competition both
within the sectorial and in institutional levels.
The government was reluctant to expand public university. Ideally, no public
universities were established in the 1990s. The government started oligopoly-ism and SME-
ism from the 2000s. Currently, the number of public universities is 55. The number is
expected to be increased. Total university population is around 630,000 (both public and
private). Alam (2019) explained that Bangladesh is one of the countries which covered
higher number of secondary graduates into university provision. It is therefore many inept
secondary graduates are these days enrolling into university programmes. Alam (2019)
further calculated that the total number of student population would not exceed 300,000 if
competent secondary graduates are to be selected for university provision. However, even if Growth of
we consider 630,000 as a total market, the distribution amongst 55 public universities would private
result an average of 11,400. This size of enrolment can be considered as decent.
Unfortunately, sharing of this total by 162 provides an average of 3,800. This has increased
university
the unit cost of university education. If government would have established universities in a business
planned way, the education quality would uphold without increasing the unit cost. Within
the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism, leading private universities are making huge profit by
325
ensuring “ostensible” standard service. The followers don’t also sacrifice the profits. They
continue making profit at the cost of lowering service quality. The oligopoly-ism and SME-
ism market concept is not an option for university as it deals with the innovation. A planned
expansion model backed-up by the substantial governance and regulatory control is the
most appropriate approach.

Notes
1. Also known as Antecedents’ and “Medieval”.
2. General, Madrasha, TVET.
3. By law if higher education data of UCG and BANBIES contradict, UGC would stand.
4. This number even would be lesser if some universities did not have a larger enrolment.
5. These cannot be even labelled as diploma mill. Diploma mill is a popular term used in the USA to
denote some small colleges that produce certificates for adults without providing necessary
education and campus life.
6. Typically, in a British model.
7. Public and private.

References
Abdalla, M.M. and Faria, A. (2019), “Local development versus neoliberal globalization project:
reflecting on market-oriented cities”, Revista de Administração Pública, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 84-100.
Alam, G.M. (2009), “Can governance and regulatory control ensure private higher education as business
or public goods in Bangladesh?”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 12,
pp. 890-906.
Alam, G.M. (2019), “Quality assurance for private universities in Bangladesh: a quest for specialised
institutional governance, management and regulatory mechanism”, International Journal of
Comparative Education and Development, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Alam, G.M. (2020 in press), “Clustering education policy in secondary provision: impact on higher
education and job market”, International Journal of Educational Reforms.
Alam, G.M., Al-Amin, A.Q., Forhad, A.R. and Mubarak, M.S. (2020-in press), “Does the private
university sector exploit sustainable residential life in the name of supporting the fourth
industrial revolution?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120200.
Altbach, P.G. (1999), “Private higher education: themes and variation in comparative perspective”,
Prospects, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 311-323.
Baumol, W.J. (1982), “Contestable markets: an uprising in the theory of industry structure”, American
Economic Review, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Baye, M. (2010), Managerial Economics and Business Strategy, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
SBR Bell, J. (2010), Doing Your Research Project, Open University Press, England.
16,2 Bosetti, L. (2000), “Alberta charter schools: paradox and promises”, Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 179-190.
British Council. (2014), South Asia and Higher: Education Revolution and Realities in the New Economic
Order, British Council, London.
Del Rey, E. and Estevan, F. (2019), “Assessing higher education policy in Brazil: a mixed oligopoly
326 approach”, The BE Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 322-345.
Etzkowitza, H., A., Websterb, A. and Gebhardt, C. (2000), “The future of the university and the
university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”, Research Policy,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-330.
Fellner, W.J. (1960), Competition among the Few: Oligopoly and Similar Market Structures, Augustus M.
Kelley Publishers, New York, NY.
Frasse, J.H., Bakker, B., Dronkers, J. and Schijf, H. (1987), “The impact of educational reform: empirical
evidence from two Dutch generations”, Comparative Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 261-277.
Friedman, M. (1962), “The role of government in education”, in Friedman M. (Ed.), Capitalism and
Freedom, (Chap. VI), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Haski-Leventhal, D. (2020), The Purpose-Driven University: Transforming Lives and Creating Impact
through Academic Social Responsibility, Emerald Publishing Limited.
King, E.M. and Bellew, R. (1993), “Educating women: lessons from experience”, in King E.M. and Hill
M.A. (Eds) Women’s Education in Developing Countries: barriers, Benefits and Policy, Baltimore,
MD, Johns Hopkins University Press.
King, E., Rawlings, L., Gutierrez, M., Pardo, C. and Torres, C. (1997), “Columbia’s targeted education
voucher program: features, coverage, and participation”, Development Economics Research
Group, The World Bank, Working Paper Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms,
Paper no. 3
Levin, H.M. (1968), “The failure of the public schools and free market remedy”, The Urban Review,
Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 33-37.
Levy, D.C. (2018), “Global private higher education: an empirical profile of its size and geographical
shape”, Higher Education, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 701-715.
Marginson, S. (2004), “Competition and markets in higher education: a ‘glonacal’ analysis”, Policy
Futures in Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 175-244.
Marginson, S. (2019), “Limitation of human capital theory”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 287-301.
Newman, J.H. (1952), The Idea of University Defined and Illustrated, Oxford University Press, London.
Oketch, M.O. (2009), “The growth of private university in Kenya: the promise and challenge”, Peabody
Journal of Education, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 18-40.
Olaleye, S., Ukpadi, D. and Mogaji, E. (2020), “Public vs private universities in Nigeria: market
dynamics perspective”, in Mogaji, E., Maringe, F. and Hinson, R. (Eds) Understanding the Higher
Education Market in Africa. Routledge Studies in Marketing, Oxfordshire, Routledge.
Pleatsikas, C. and Teece, D. (2001), “The analysis of market definition and market power in the context
of rapid innovation”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 665-693.
Pucciarelli, F. and Kaplan, A. (2016), “Competition and strategy in higher education: managing
complexity and uncertainty”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 311-320.
Sayed, Y. and Rose, P. (2002), The Growth of the Private Higher Education Sector in South Africa:
Governance and Regulation Challenges, Centre for International Education, University of Sussex,
Brighton.
Shubik, M. (1959), Strategy and Market Structure: Competition, Oligopoly, and the Theory of Games,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Stackelberg, H. (2010), Market Structure and Equilibrium, Springer, Heidelberg. Growth of
Stilwell, F. (2003), “Higher education, commercial criteria and economic incentives”, Journal of Higher private
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 51-61.
university
Svensson, G. and Wood, G. (2007), “Are university students really customers? When illusion may lead
to delusion for all!”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-28. business
Sweezy, P. (1939), “Demand under conditions of oligopoly”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 568-573.
327
Thian, L.B., Alam, G.M. and Idris, A.R. (2016), “Balancing managerial and academic values: mid-level
academic management at a private university in Malaysia”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 308-322.
Tirole, J. (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT press.
Tooley, J. and Dixon, P. (2006), “De facto ‘privatisation of education and the poor: implications of a
study from Sub-Saharan Africa and India”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education , Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-462.
UNESCO (2019), Education for All and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All, UNESO, Paris.
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Witte, J.F. (1996), “Who benefits from the milwaukee choice program?”, in Fuller B. and Elmore R. and
Orfield G. (Eds) Who Chooses? Who Looses? Culture, Institutions and the Unequal Effects of
School Choice, Teachers’ College Press, New York, NY.

Further reading
Quddus, M. and Rashid, S. (2003), “The worldwide movement in private universities: revolutionary
growth in post-secondary higher education the American”, Journal of Economics and Sociology,
Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 487-516.

Corresponding author
Gazi Mahabubul Alam can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]