Legends (notations 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, NA) are explained just below the table
|Countries (210 entries)||Private %||Private 2010||Total 2010||Notes|
|Antigua and Barbuda||65.6||768||1,170|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||16.7||17,511||105,137|
|British Virgin Islands||0||0||(2a)||1,214|
|Central African Republic||(2a)||14.2||(2a)||1,583||11,158|
|China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region||16.5||43,570||264,761|
|China, Macao Special Administrative Region||64.3||18,958||29,476|
|Democratic People's Republic of Korea||NA||NA||NA||See Notes|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||(2b)||15.0||(2b)||64,392||(2a)||429,279||See Notes|
|Iran (Islamic Republic of)||44.9||1,702,572||3,790,859|
|Lao People's Democratic Republic||28.2||33,396||118,295|
|Micronesia (Federated States of)||NA||NA||(2a)||1,861|
|Papua New Guinea||NA||NA||(2b)||9,943|
|Republic of Korea||80.7||2,636,972||3,269,509|
|Republic of Moldova||16.2||21,150||130,168|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||NA||NA||NA|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||NA||NA||NA|
|Sao Tome and Principe||(2b)||31.9||(2b)||244||766|
|Saudi Arabia||4.5||33,917||(3)||749,238||See Notes|
|Sierra Leone||0||0||(2a)||10,133||See Notes|
|South Africa||(3)||9.3||(3)||91,064||(3)||984,020||See Notes|
|Sri Lanka||(4)||0||(4)||0||261,647||See Notes|
|Syrian Arab Republic||(3)||6.0||(3)||34,436||573,930||See Notes|
|The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia||21.2||13,085||61,764|
|Tokelau (territory of New Zealand)||NA||NA||NA|
|Trinidad and Tobago||(2b)||10.0||10,648||(2a)||106,039|
|Turks and Caicos Islands||100||5||5|
|United Arab Emirates||(3)||61.5||(3)||62,639||101,906||See Notes|
|United Kingdom||(3)||0||(3)||0||2,479,197||See Notes|
|West Bank and Gaza||87.3||171,669||196,625|
The individual 1-4 legends shown in the table are explained in the website's file "Guide to the PROPHE Dataset", section on Data Substitution Guidelines. On this site, the legends show the type of data substitution made but do not give details on the years and figures used for the substitution; please contact PROPHE if interested in such details. See also individual country notes.
PROPHE calculated private enrollment from the UIS’ data showing total enrollment and private share. PROPHE modified UIS country names to common and usually simpler ones used by the World Bank for Bolivia, Tanzania, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and West Bank and Gaza, and added Kosovo as a country. Countries marked with (*) are considered remaining without PHE.
|1||Afghanistan||Afghanistan. For Afghanistan, UIS provided only 2009 and 2011 data. However the 2009 and 2011 data are too divergent from each other. For 2009 their figures would yield a 20.5% private share (19,511/95,185) whereas for 2011their figures would yield a 1.3% private share (1,298/97,504). We turned to national data (Ministry of Education, in Aturupane, 2013), which provided 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012 data for our estimates.
|2||Algeria *||Algeria.* Algeria remains one of the few most important cases of 0 PHE, the largest case, faithful to French colonial roots. By 2014, however, concrete proposals were submitted to found private universities.|
|3||Barbados||Although we enter the UIS’s 0% private, we know that there is PHE in Barbados. Indeed the Barbados Accreditation Council lists 25 “post-secondary/tertiary education and training providers” but the list fails to include enrollment data. All we can say is that the private share is small, surely under 10% and probably under 5% of the undergraduate level.|
|4||Bhutan *||We put PHE enrollment for Bhutan as 0 because UIS showed 0 PHE enrollment in 2008. Bhutan remains without PHE, though now establishment of PHE is very much discussed.|
|5||Botswana||UIS did not provide PHE data for Botswana until their updates in 2016, offering data from 2008 to 2014. Our current estimates use these newly available data, although we had previously done our estimates using national data for 2008 (in Molutsi, 2009) and 2010 (in Tertiary Education Council, 2012). National data shows the private share as 40.0% for 2010. Estimates using national data showed it as 16.4% for 2005 and 6.7% for 2000, which are close to current estimates using UIS data.|
|6||Canada||UIS shows the public sector at 1,430,169 for 2010. Canada does not gather data on its national PHE even though PHE undeniably exists. Adding PROPHE’s 190,000 estimate to the reported public figure yields our total higher education enrollment of 1,620,169 and thus our PHE share of 11.7%. Our PHE figure is a compilation of estimates for PHE’s three components. For these estimates three leading experts—Scott Davies, Glen Jones, and Hans Schuetze—were consulted through emails as well as their pertinent publications. PROPHE has sometimes compromised among their estimates, and the experts are unanimous that all PHE figures are estimates only. Private universities (what Canadians often consider higher education as opposed to post-secondary) thus enter as 35,000. Easily the largest private enrollment is in career colleges. Our 135,000 estimate is deflated as these data are gathered from only those provinces with the largest enrollment and probably omit many language and similarly specialized institutions but inflated by the inclusion of programs only loosely qualifying as post-secondary and of part-time student (with full-time equivalency data not available). The third category is CEGEP, two-year general and vocational colleges in Quebec. Although often thought of as public, these institutions have private, religious status; they thus appear somewhat akin to “private/government-dependent” (and PROPHE tabulates as private).
|7||China||China. China Data is from the Ministry of Education Website. Private enrollment (http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6200/201201/129597.html). Total enrollment is the sum of total undergraduate enrollment (http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6200/201201/129597.html) and graduate enrollment (http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6200/201201/129601.html). Although previously unavailable, China’s PHE data were recently reported by UIS as 15.5% for 2013 and 13.3% for 2014. Other government data shows a higher private share.|
|8||Cuba *||Cuba remains one of the two most striking global examples of 0 PHE and it remains so quite by design. Algerian higher education, the second case, is substantially larger but it appears on the verge of establishing PHE.|
|9||Democratic Republic of the Congo||PHE was authorized in 1989 though enabling provisions not forthcoming. We use 2002 private share of 15% from World Bank (2005) for 2010 and estimate private enrollment 2010 accordingly.|
|10||Democratic People's Republic of Korea||Although the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) does not appear among the 179 countries showing private and public data and the notion of any PHE appears absurd in such a totalitarian system, various web sources show that the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology apparently has functioned since roughly 2010, founded largely by a wealthy ex-political prisoner with strong Evangelical ties. The institution has international ties, official recognition without financial help, and prominently posts pictures of government leaders.
|11||Djibouti *||Higher education lists show only the University of Djibouti, which is public.|
|12||Egypt||We substitute data calculated by Dr. Manar Sabry from the Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education. Although the UIS reports a plausible 18.9% PHE for 2010, it does not show data for prior years, whereas the ministry shows data over time. For consistency we use the ministry data for 2010 (actually having to substitute 2011), where UIS shows considerably higher enrollment. We include Al-Azhar University as public since that is how the ministry lists it. Similarly, as the ministry does not include the American University of Cairo in its national data we omit it, even though a reasonable case could be made that it is PHE; in any case it had only about 1,000 students in 2000, 5,000 in 2010, so it would not much affect our percentages.|
|13||Eritrea *||Eritrea* broke away from Ethiopia in the early 1990s. According to NOKUT (2013), the SMAP Institute of Training, Education and Consultancy is a small degree-granting college opened in 2005 offers bachelor degrees as well as diplomas. Also functioning is British International Institute but through a branch institute.|
|14||Gabon||We use the Gabon 2003 figures from Mi-Eya (2003). Number of private HEIs is from World Bank (2009).|
|15||Greece *||Greece remains listed as 0 PHE and that continues to be consistent with national legislation. However, as widely written about, there is ample de facto and international PHE in Greece.|
|16||Haiti||We do have data on Haiti but from 1978 and thus choose not to enter it to substitute for NA in all the years of our dataset. The 1978 data (Levy, 1986) are 377 private out of a total of 4,186, for a 9.0% private share.|
|17||India||The India note must comment on two key points. One concerns the sources and estimations of data. The other concerns the inclusion in PHE of a publicly-funded private subsector.
Even as late as 2010 and slightly beyond, UIS provides no PHE data for India. Our main alternative source is the partnership of India’s Higher Education Planning Commission, FICCI, and Ernst & Young, publications and personal communications with Ernst and Young’s Amitabh Jinghan and Keshav Kanoria as the Commission’s Pawal Agarwal. Because the only years with data are 2001, 2007, and 2012, we estimate our 2000, 2005, and 2010 figures based on the available years. A new data source is the All India Survey but it provides only 2007 and 2012 and does not differ radically from the partnership data: 55.3% compared to 58.9% for 2012, though with lower absolute figures. Additionally, all these figures exclude distance education, which accounts for 4.1 million enrollments 2012, of which only about 6% are PHE. If we add in distance education for the same year, PHE’s overall share falls from 58.9 to 50.6%.
Regarding PHE inclusiveness, observers sometimes refer to higher education as either self-financed or government-funded. But the latter includes still legally private colleges, generally affiliated to universities, and operating on public funding. In their early years such colleges were generally self-financed but in the 1960s, system expansion was increasingly fueled by public funds with accompanying government control. This very much fits our government-dependent category, most often seen in Europe. It is also consistent with PROPHE’s general policy of counting as private anything defined nationally as legally private.
|18||Iraq||UIS unfortunately shows no data for 2000-2010, though it does for 1999. Furthermore, it puts 0 PHE for 2013 but this is at odds with much evidence of active PHE. Multiple international and domestic web sources show roughly two dozen private institutions, many recognized by the Ministry of Higher Education. For example, 29 "private universities" are listed for 2012 (The Connection, 2012) and this and other lists often leave to the side private universities in Kurdistan. None of these sources gives enrollment figures, however. We therefore keep the private share (39.5%) the UIS showed in its only prior data year, 1999, while using the UIS's 2013 total enrollment (538,125) along with the UIS 1999 total enrollment to estimate total enrollment for our in between years. Of course figures given for countries suffering huge turmoil must be regarded very cautiously.|
|19||Israel||Israeli data and interpretation come via PROPHE’s Dr. Gury Zilkha. Excluded are part-time students at the Open University (over 35,000 by 2010). Two problems plague the data shown by UIS (2000: 218,563/255,891 =85.4% private; 2005: 262,786/ 310,937 = 84.5%; 2010 307,213/360,378 = 85.2%). The main one is that it counts Israel’s universities as private government-dependent. Although they are incorporated as nonprofit, they are public in the same sense we report for the UK and in parallel to U.S. state universities. Additionally, UIS includes (roughly 60,000) non-academic post-secondary enrollments that should not be considered higher education.|
|20||Kosovo||UIS provides no data on Kosovo, as a divided UN does not officially recognize it, though many countries do. We use raw enrollment data (provided by A. Papadimitriou) from the NORGLOBAL project. But these come from institutional responses at only two universities and we are unclear about how many higher education institutions should be included. The round numbers also raise red flags. However, the NORGLOBAL share (41.2%) approximates that in Zgaga et al.’s (2013) study on the West Balkans, which reports its sources as national statistics offices. Zgaga does not give raw enrollment but its national shares match or are within 2% of the UIS shares on 5 other West Balkan countries, differing by more only on Montenegro.|
|21||Luxembourg *||Luxembourg remains listed as 0, though it is not clear whether some enrollment should be government-dependent private. In any case, the country’s total higher education enrollment is in our very small category, under 10,000.|
|22||Mauritania||Although UIS still shows 0 PHE in Mauritania in 2013, several private higher education institutions have been created recently (Sawahel, 2015).|
|23||Montenegro||Though PROPHE lacked PHE data for Montenegro in its 2010 dataset and calculations (and the UIS lacked such data at least through 2016), Papadimitriou, Levy, Stensaker, & Kanazir (2017) show 20.2% (4,283/ 21,199) for 2010.|
|24||Myanmar *||Myanmar remains without PHE, though now its establishment is very much discussed.|
|25||Netherlands||For the Netherlands, UIS totals for each year are unproblematic but private shares are very problematic and would be so no matter which option we choose. The UIS provides the private share for only 2012, 13.4%, without explaining the sudden inclusion or the basis for the 13.4% figure. We use that percentage along with the UIS total to calculate the private enrollment for 2010. OECD provides the figures for 2000, showing a 69.0% private share, which appears consistent with scholarship on the country, highlighting similarities to the Belgian case (Geiger 1986). We then estimate the 2005 private share simply (too simply) by taking the mid-point between the 2000 and 2010 private shares, and again we use the UIS total enrollment. Of course the decade did not see the private share decline drastically and steadily in the sense of intersectoral enrollment shifts. The apparent decline comes instead from volatile treatment of whether the bulk (or even entirety) of the institutions are private or public. European datasets do not indicate why their majority private enrollment in 2000 changed in 2003 (OECD and 2004 EUROSTAT) to 100% private or why this flipped to 100% public in 2008 (OECD and 2010 EUROSTAT). The European organizations in question normally follow the breakdown provided by the country, according to the organization’s written criteria. But the domestic perspective is complex and ambiguous. Dutch law might appear to consider all institutions private, according to expert Gerrit de Jager (personal communication, October 17, 2012), but he ultimately concludes that whether now to categorize Dutch higher education as private or public is “a matter of taste.” Clearer is that if the institutions are private, they were at least historically government-dependent. Karl Dittrich (2009) of the Dutch accreditation agency reports around 10% as the current private independent figure; this includes the 70 “registered universities” (essentially professional schools), privately funded, while excluding theological ones and universities of applied sciences. This percentage approximates our UIS-based estimate for 2010. Perhaps our 2010 figure represents “independent private” while our 2000 figure represents “government-dependent private.”|
|26||Nigeria||Nigerian data—for universities only—from the National Universities Commission’s Taiwo Adeola (email 10/30/12) and the University of Ibadan’s Segun Olugbenga (emails of September/October 2013).|
Pakistan data are from Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission. These figures include distance education but not colleges, madrassahs, or self-study students. We use HEC rather than UIS data partly because the UIS data on colleges likely includes 11th and 12th grade enrollment and mostly because the UIS shows private increases and private shares implausibly high according to expert opinion, including that of Sohail Naqvi, ex-director of HEC. UIS shows a private leap from 2005 to 2008, 8.0 to 32.9% (no data shown for 2006-2007). UIS’ gross exaggeration of the private share runs from 2008-2012 but from 2013 resumes showing a reasonable figure.
It is unfortunate that HEC data omits colleges but the omission probably does not greatly affect the HEC private share. College and university shares were roughly equal in number in the last year (2006) for which we can see them separately in World Bank’s summary of the country’s higher education (World Bank, no date shown); that breakdown showed the private share of colleges at only 8.9% (consistent with expert opinion that college enrollment remains decisively public), so the inclusion of colleges in 2010 would not move us far from our 15.0% private figure. (What would significantly change our private percentage (from our 14.5 to 25.5%) would be exclusion of distance education, all public-- despite now getting less than one-tenth of its income from government.
|28||Peru||Peru’s total higher education data are from UIS. But PROPHE takes the private share (60.5%) 473,795/782,970) from the latest national data (Censo Nacional Universitario, 2010) and then calculates a 2010 private number accordingly.|
|29||Saudi Arabia||For Saudi Arabia, the UIS provides private data (as 0) for 2000 but not for 2005; for 2010 it shows 34,944/903,567, 3.9%. Though we could derive 2005 from the UIS’ own 2003 figures, the 2003 shows PHE at an unlikely all-time high in enrollment (35,440) and share 6.7% (versus its UIS 0.0% 2000 and 3.9% 2010). The ministry’s annual figures show a much more steady increase in private enrollment and share. (Our data include only undergraduate figures; the graduate figures would constitute only a few percent of the total and are erratic.)|
|30||Sierra Leone||Some reports indicate as many as 24 private higher education institutions operating by 2011 vs 0 in 2004. An authorizing act was issued in 2005 but no institution was yet registered with the Tertiary Education Commission. There is also word of one private “university” and with an estimate of 3,758 or 15% of enrollment.|
|31||South Africa||PHE data for South Africa 2010 provided by Dr. Shaheeda Essack of the Department of Higher Education and Training and UIS public figures.|
|32||Sri Lanka||UIS puts 0 PHE for 2010, with an enrollment figure for the public sector. For previous years, it gave NA across the board. By 2013 UIS shows figures for each sector, with a 6.5% private share. Thus, Sri Lanka recently left the zero PHE group but should be counted on our 2010 list of systems with zero PHE.|
|33||Syrian Arab Republic||UIS provides only total enrollment data. We use the private share of 6% for 2010 from Saïd (2013), based on which we estimate the 2010 private enrollment.|
|34||Tajikistan||Tajikistan. UIS shows that Tajikistan has recently established PHE, though we maintain the UIS’ zero for 2010. PHE is very limited, tottering on a political-legal edge (Hasanova, 2010).|
|35||Turkmenistan *||UIS shows no higher education data, and though we read of the private International Turkman-Turkish University, Tursunkulova (2005) says there is no PHE. In any case the one private institution was shut down in 2016. (http://catoday.org/centrasia/28461-v-ashhabade-zakryli-mezhdunarodnyy-turkmeno-tureckiy-universitet.html). PROPHE’s dataset maintains the UIS zero.|
|36||Uganda||For Uganda, in accord with our data substituting guidelines, we interpolate UIS data in surrounding years (2009 and 2011 for 2010, and 1999, 2004, and 2008 for 2005 and 2000) but we have two concerns. First, the UIS 2004 public HE enrollment figure (79,443) seems possibly too high compared to later years (64,510 in 2008, 74,187 in 2009, and 74,729 in 2011). If so, then the PHE share (10.1%) for 2005 would be too low. Separate data for 2004 (Mabizela, 2007) likewise indicate (12,400/64,052 for 15.0% private) that the UIS public sum is too high, its private share too low, as may a chapter in Varghese (2006) though there are issues about how non-university figures in there. The second concern is that the UIS’ private share jumps so drastically, from 10.1% in 2004 to 40.1% in 2009 and 74.2% in 2011. But the World Bank’s Peter Darvas advises that their estimates are similarly high and country expert Prof. Vincent Ssembatya of Makerere University thinks the soaring private share may be credible, his email on January 23, 2014 pointing to the recency of the sector and the great attention it starting attracting in the mid-2000s.|
|37||United Arab Emirates||Not until 2016 did UIS show private data (68.6% for 2013 and 67.3% for 2014). In terms of total enrollment, UIS shows higher figures than the National Bureau of Statistics (132,709 for 2013 and 143,060 for 2014 compared to 118,560 and 128,279 respectively). The discrepancy might have been because the national data exclude foreign student enrollment (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, 2008). While we use the UIS data for total enrollment, we estimate the private share based on the national data for 2007 and 2013.|
|38||United Kingdom||For the UK, UIS shows no private-public breakdown and, worse, counts the total enrollment as private. It is one thing to count the UIS’ private, government-dependent enrollment as private in countries like Belgium, where the reality of PHE has long been recognized. But both popular discourse and scholarly treatments of the UK have routinely counted virtually all higher education enrolment as public, often noting the exception of one small private university, the University of Buckingham (Geiger, 1986). Neave (1985) declares it erroneous to call UK higher education private. Only in 2011 did the UK officially open higher education to additional private providers, including, for-profit, and even university ones, making a dual-sector system undeniable. (See especially Fielden & Middlehurst (2017) with special attention to England but also Fielden & Middlehurst (2011) more generally on the UK.) To count UK enrolment as 100% private (which the UIS does at least through 2015) because its public universities have charters, governing boards, ample private finance, or other such autonomy-related characteristics would require that we take U.S., Developed British Commonwealth, Israeli, and probably a few other countries’ public university enrolment as private.|
|39||Uzbekistan *||Tursunkulova in Altbach and Levy (2005) says there is de facto as opposed to legally recognized PHE. Westminster International University in Tashkent is a cross-border institution. But as of 2012 there was still no domestic PHE, though 1997 legislation permits it (World Bank, 2014).|
Aturupane, H. (2013). Higher Education in Afghanistan : An Emerging Mountainscape (Working Paper No. 80915). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/08/18197239/
Censo Nacional Universitario. (2010). Asamblea Nacional de Rectores. Direccion Nacional de Censos y Encuestas. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica de Peru.
Dittrich, K. (2009, May 8). New Players in a New Game. Presentation at the Conference on Business as Unusual Private Higher Education in Europe by Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation, Vienna, Austria.
Geiger, R. L. (1986). Private sectors in higher education: Structure, function and change in eight countries. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hasanova, M. (2010, March 30). A court hearing over the fate of Tajikistan’s only private university begins in Dushanbe’s economic court. Asia-Plus. Retrieved from http://www.news.tj/en/news/court-hearing-over-fate-tajikistan-s-only-private-university-begins-dushanbe-s-economic-court
Levy, D. C. (1986). Higher education and the state in Latin America: Private challenges to public dominance. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Mabizela, M. (2007). Private surge amid public dominance in higher education: The African perspective. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 5(2 & 3), 15–38.
Middlehurst, R., & Fielden, J. (2011). Private providers in UK higher education: Some policy options. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.
Fielden, J., & Middlehurst, R. (2017). Alternative providers of higher education: issues for policymakers (No. 90). Oxford: HEPI. Retrieved from http://www.hepi.ac.uk/2017/01/05/nearly-three-quarters-alternative-providers-will-remain-unregulated-higher-education-research-bill-becomes-law/
Mi-Eya, Vincent M. (2003). Gabon. In Teferra, Damtew and Altbach, Philip. G. (eds). African Higher Education; an International Reference Handbook. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. (2008). Selected data on federal and non-federal tertiary Molutsi, P. (2009). Tertiary education reforms in Botswana. Commonwealth Education Partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.cedol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/136-138-2009.pdf
Molutsi, P. (2009). Tertiary education reforms in Botswana. Commonwealth Education Partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.cedol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/136-138-2009.pdf
Neave, G. R. (1985). Elite and Mass Higher Education in Britain: A Regressive Model? Comparative Education Review, 29(9), 237–361
Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education - NOKUT (2013) Report on Recognition of higher education in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Oslo: NOKUT. Retrieved from http://www.nokut.no/Documents/NOKUT/Artikkelbibliotek/Kunnskapsbasen/Rapporter/UA/2013/Gulliksen_Anne-Kari_Audensen_Erik_Report_on_recognition_of_higher_education_in_Eritrea_and_Ethiopia_2013-1.pdf
Papadimitriou, A., Levy, D. C., Stensaker, B., & Kanazir, S. (2017). Public regulatory arrangements for private higher education in the Western Balkans. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 800–819
Saïd, W. R. (2013, October). Syria and Higher Education. Keynote speech presented at the Jusoor Conference: Syria’s Current Realities: Education, Employment and Civil Society, London. Retrieved from http://www.saidfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Syria%20and%20HE%20speech%20Final%20for%20Jusoor.pdf
Sawahel, W. (2015, July 3). Mauritania: High university spending but poor results – Report. University World News, (374). Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150702143937547
Tertiary Education Council. (2012). Annual Report 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://tec.org.bw/tec-documents.php?page=2&sorton=&sortby=&mode=#
The Connection. (2012). Private Universities and Colleges in Iraq. Retrieved from https://theconnection.ece.org/NewsItem/720
Tursunkulova, B. (2005). Private Higher Education in Central Asia. In P. G. Altbach & D. C. Levy (Eds.), Private higher education: A global revolution (pp. 89–92). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Varghese, N. V, ed. 2006. Growth and Expansion of Private Higher Education in Africa. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.
World Bank. (2005). Education in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Priorities and Options for Regeneration. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/978-0-8213-6121-4
World Bank. (2009). Accelerating Catch-up: Tertiary education for growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C. The World Bank.
World Bank. (2014). Uzbekistan: Modernizing Tertiary Education (Report No. 88606–UZ). Washington, D.C.: Word Bank Human Development Sector Unit, Central Asia Country Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/eca/central-asia/Uzbekistan-Higher-Education-Report-2014-en.pdf
World Bank. (No date shown). Pakistan Summary of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1121703274255/1439264-1193249163062/Pakistan_countrySummary.pdf.
Zgaga, P., Klemencic, M., Komljenovic, J., Miklavic, K., Repac, I., & Jakacic, V. (2013). Higher Education in the Western Balkans, Reforms, Developments, Trends. Key Findings from Field Research. Ljubljana: Pedagoska Fakulteta v Ljubljani. Retrieved from http://www.herdata.org/public/hewb.pdf