The introduction of free education in South Africa is considered a positive move, despite concerns about its potential impact on the economy. The call for free higher education has increased since 2015 and led to the establishment of the Fees Must Fall campaign. In 2018, former President Jacob Zuma announced that all first-year students would receive free higher education. However, critics argue that the drawbacks of offering free tertiary education outweigh the benefits, making it an impractical and unsustainable decision in both the short and long run.
The main focus of this essay is to examine the negative effects of implementing free tertiary education on the South African economy, financing issues for higher education, and the impact on educational quality when fees are reduced.
In South Africa, a developing country, funding higher education has been a major concern. In 1996, the National Student Financial Aid (NSFAS) was introduced to assist students from disadvantaged groups (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). However, difficulties have arisen in recent years regarding funding for NSFAS due to the government’s increased debts resulting from providing free higher education. Consequently, the government has been unable to meet its debt obligations to the World Bank (Wangenge-Ouma and Cloete, 2008). It is clear that the government is already facing challenges with NSFAS and cannot sustain its current program.
The main issue at hand is how the implementation of free higher education will impact the South African economy (Ayuk and Koma, 2019). The expansion of student enrollment in higher education became unsustainable after 2005. The government’s allocation of funds to NSFAS started decreasing, resulting in the realization that “more is not better”. Inadequate funding led to the introduction of a policy called enrolment caps, which aimed to limit the number of students enrolling in South African higher institutions. This highlights the insufficient government financing towards higher education. The increased funding for free higher education has also put immense strain on the official infrastructure (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012).
The main objective of providing free higher education in South Africa is to reduce inequality. However, instead of achieving this aim, it seems that it will actually widen the gap between the rich and the poor. According to Fourie (2015), offering free higher education will primarily benefit the wealthy minority and contribute to their increasing wealth as they can save their own resources. International research indicates that economists specializing in higher education widely agree that government subsidies are regressive, meaning they disproportionately favor the rich (Cloete, 2015). Furthermore, Fourie (2015) argues that a universal decrease in university fees mainly benefits the wealthy while impeding progress. This demonstrates that the system intended to address inequality is ineffective at resolving such issues because free higher education results in negative equity by transferring resources from poorer groups to wealthier ones. Despite aiming to assist disadvantaged groups, unfortunately, free higher education ends up benefiting affluent groups (Wangenge-Ouma and Cloete, 2008).
Providing free higher education ultimately holds little value for the recipient as it will result in cuts to lecturer salaries. This, in turn, may lead to the loss of qualified lecturers who may seek opportunities at international institutions (Fourie, 2015). Consequently, the quality of higher education in South Africa will decrease and hinder economic progress by producing inadequately skilled graduates. Additionally, reduced tuition fees and lack of incentive will contribute to a decline in educational standards. Despite empirical evidence suggesting that free higher education can foster economic growth and development in South Africa (Ayuk and Koma, 2019), it can also serve as a means to address historical imbalances and offer equal opportunities to underprivileged groups (Wangege-Ouma, 2012).
The enrollment of students from poorer groups in tertiary education can help decrease the high level of inequality in the country. This reduction in inequality is accompanied by positive factors. Additionally, increasing taxation could provide funds for tertiary education, as taxation is the government’s sole source of income. More taxes would mean more income for the government to support higher education. These factors suggest that implementing these measures would benefit the South African economy and its development (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). However, overall, free higher education implementation in South Africa is not significant enough. Instead, South Africa could introduce a redistributive policy that charges individuals based on their disposable income to make higher education affordable for disadvantaged groups without making it less affordable for wealthy individuals.
The country is expected to face several challenges with the implementation of free higher education. Before introducing it, it is crucial to address inequality through other means as it may not be sustainable in the long term. This brings up the question of whether access to free higher education should be open to everyone or limited to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Reference List
- Ayuk, P.T. and Koma, S.B. (2019). Funding, access and quality conundrum in South African higher education. African Journal of Public Affairs, 1(), pp.176-195.
- Cloete, N. (2016). For sustainable funding and fees the undergraduate system in South Africa must be restricted. South African Journal of Science, 112(3)1-5. Fourie, J. (2015).
-
A blanket university fee reduction benefits the wealthy and slows change. Centre of higher education. Cape town. Wangenge-Ouma, G. (2012). Tuition fees and the challenge of making higher education a popular commodity in South Africa. Higher Education, 646), pp.831-
844. - Wangenge-Ouma, G. and Cloete, N. (2008). Financing higher education in South Africa: Public funding. non-govemment revenue and tuition fees. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(4), pp.906-919.
