The Program for Research on Private Higher Education
Dedicated to Building Knowledge about Private Higher Education around the World

Internal Regional Skewing

Regions/ Countries Private % without the largest PHE sector Private % without the two largest PHE sectors Private % with all countries included Private 2010 Total 2010
Global     32.9  56,722,374 172,546,175
Africa (Sub-Saharan)   16.4 16.4 17.8 930,016 5,218,120
Share of global         1.6% 3.0%
  Uganda     54.6  103,327 189,396
  Ethiopia     16.7  96,546 577,594
Arab States   16.4 14.4 17.4  1,423,630 8,201,861
Share of global         2.5% 4.8%
  Egypt     19.9  436,208 2,192,452
  Iraq     39.5  194,608 492,507
Asia   35.9 48.3 42.1  32,267,911 76,568,246
Share of global         56.9% 44.4%
  India     58.3  12,443,748 21,350,427
  China     19.6  4,664,531 23,856,345
Commonwealth (British, Developed)   8.3 11.9 10.1 318,033 3,162,889
Share of global         0.6% 1.8%
  Canada     11.7  190,000 1,620,169
  Australia     7.5  96,334 1,276,488
Europe   14.9 13.4 14.9  5,526,851 37,177,470
Share of global         9.7% 21.5%
  Russian Federation     14.7  1,323,348 8,984,977
  Poland     32.9  705,998 2,148,676
Latin America and the Caribbean   38.6 40.0 48.8  10,638,863 21,789,880
Share of global         18.8% 12.6%
  Brazil     72.7  4,764,498 6,552,707
  Mexico     32.3  918,555

2,847,376


As much as the website and derivative commentary treats regions as units of analysis, the website also notes vulnerabilities of regions as coherent entities http://prophe.org/en/global-data/global-data-files/guide-to-the-prophe-dataset/. Here, as summarized in the above table, we investigate one salient question: How much do a region’s very large countries (the largest and then the two largest) skew a region’s average private share? Clearly, there is much more potential to skew a region’s private average than to skew the global private average. A first, straightforward question is therefore whether and where single countries are predominant in their regions’ private enrollment. A second is whether they have much impact on regional averages; giants whose private share is close to regional private share would largely reinforce regional tendencies whereas giants that differ sharply from regional cousins in private share would have the starkest impact on regional averages. For both questions we calculate for six regions (the US omitted for being a single-nation region) with all data shown in a single table. (Omitting the systems largest in total enrollment, rather than the largest in private enrollment, does not much affect our large country/regional analysis.)

With respect to the first question, single country enrollment predominance is limited. Canada does hold 59.7% of the Developed British Commonwealth’s very small regional private enrollment; more importantly, Brazil is next in regional predominance with 44.8% of Latin America’s private enrollment (30.1% of total enrollment). Probing further we find that even individual regions’ largest two private sectors capture only so much of regional private enrollment. Thus the absence of greater numerical predominance by large countries already limits their potential to skew greatly