This research examines the actualization of socioeconomic equality in two distinct higher education funding frameworks, 1) Finland, a Nordic welfare state supporting free education and 2) New Zealand, an example of a state associated with neoliberal policies favouring increased cost-sharing between the state and the student. Besides ideological reasons, also public austerity can lead to a situation where governments consider the use of tuition fees. Increasing tertiary education cost-sharing from state to student can seem a lucrative alternative, but its implications for equality should be of special concern to policy makers. It can be seen as unfair if ascribed factors or money are obstacles for participation. Albeit there is strong political interest in both Finland and New Zealand to reach a higher education system where participation does not depend on family background, evidence of current inequalities and their relationship to higher education finance schemes is incomplete. This paper addresses this issue and indicates gaps in current knowledge.
A range of prior (national and cross country) research is brought together from the 21st century to illustrate the spectrum of existing socioeconomic inequalities within higher education in access, success and quality. Analysis is guided by a theoretical framework influenced by Boudon (1974) and Bourdieu and Passeron (1977). It is questioned if and how a mass tertiary system can still reproduce educational inequalities and what role is plaid by economic constraints.
Findings show that student bodies are characterized by socioeconomic inequalities both in the Finnish state funded system, and in the deferred tuition fee loan model in New Zealand. Prior research is often limited to issues of access while studies related to success, and quality are less common or investigated separately from student finances, making the overall picture fragmented. Also, inequalities in quality indicate that issues are far more complex than a simple dichotomy of participating or not participating.
Educational reproduction can take place regardless of the zero fee policy and therefore the role of tuition fees should not be overemphasised. Furthermore, one has to take into account financial factors like availability of grants or loans and level of living costs when discussing economic constraints. It is argued that more data and research should be made available to support policy funding decisions. Moreover, focusing all attention on reducing inequalities in access is not sufficient as polarisation between institutions and study programs or inequalities in success should be considered as important as the initial entry.