Globally, fees and tuition are growing as an important source of income for most universities, with potentially significant influence on the market for students and the behavior of institutions. Thus far, however, there is no single source on the fee rates of comparative research universities, nor information on how these funds are being used by institutions. Furthermore, research on tuition pricing has also focused largely on bachelor’s degree programs, and not on the rapid changes in tuition and fees for professional degrees. This paper offers a brief scan of pricing trends among a sample group of 24 public and private research universities in the US, all with a wide array of graduate and professional programs, and a small sample group of EU universities. We trace a pattern of convergence not only between US public and private institutions, but also find indications that these trends occur among EU universities. We theorize that pricing among major research universities is increasingly influenced by levels of market tolerance, and a convergence in pricing driven in part by the perception that price confers quality and a corresponding level of prestige to consumers. This study focuses on pricing, and hence does not delve into the complex moderating effects of bursaries and student costs such as room and board. The recent implosion in credit markets may seriously shake this emerging pricing model, in large part because it is increasingly dependent on students taking out sizable loans. But it is our sense that the long-term trends in pricing, including some level of convergence, will continue as institutions that are globally competitive look over their shoulder at what their perceived peer (or near peer) institutions are charging for specific degrees and programs. This in turn will influence the entire higher education market.

Quantitative and qualitative analyses are used to assess the existence of village organizations (VOs), their performance, and members’ participation in benefits in Senegal and Burkina Faso. VOs are classified into Market-oriented (MOs) and Community-oriented (COs). Results show that organizations are present in a majority of villages and include a high share of rural households. Diffusion of MOs is limited by isolation and social conservatism. Performance is constrained by low professional management capacity and lack of access to resources. With elaborate administrative rules in place, participation in benefits shows no occurrence of leader or elite capture in MOs.

A number of national studies point to a trend in which highly selective and elite private and public universities are becoming less accessible to lower-income students. At the same time there have been surprisingly few studies of the actual characteristics and academic experiences of low-income students or comparisons of their undergraduate experience with those of more wealthy students. This paper explores the divide between poor and rich students, first comparing a group of selective US institutions and their number and percentage of Pell Grant recipients and then, using institutional data and results from the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES), presenting an analysis of the high percentage of low-income undergraduate students within the University of California system — who they are, their academic performance and quality of their undergraduate experience. Among our conclusions: The University of California has a strikingly higher number of low-income students when compared to a sample group of twenty-four other selective public and private universities and colleges, including the Ivy Leagues and a sub-group of other California institutions such as Stanford and the University of Southern California. Indeed, the UC campuses of Berkeley, Davis, and UCLA each have more Pell Grant students than all of the eight Ivy League institutions combined. However, one out of three Pell Grant recipients at UC have at least one parent with a four-year college degree, calling into question the assumption that “low-income” and “first-generation” are interchangeable groups of students. Low-income students, and in particular Pell Grant recipients, at UC have only slightly lower GPAs than their more wealthy counterparts in both math, science and engineering, and in humanities and social science fields. Contrary to some previous research, we find that low-income students have generally the same academic and social satisfaction levels; and are similar in their sense of belonging within their campus communities. However, there are some intriguing results across UC campuses, with low-income students somewhat less satisfied at those campuses where there are more affluent student bodies and where lower-income students have a smaller presence.

Access to land, and the conditions under which it happens, play a fundamental role in economic development. This is because how the modes of access to land and the rules and conditions of access are set, as policy instruments, has the potential of increasing agricultural output and aggregate income growth, helping reduce poverty and inequality, improving environmental sustainability, and providing the basis for effective governance and securing peace. This potential role is, however, difficult to capture, and there are many cases of failure. History is indeed replete with serious conflicts over access to land and with instances of wasteful uses of the land, both privately and socially. Governments and development agencies have for this reason had to deal with the “land question” as an important item on their agendas (de Janvry et al., 2002). We explain in this note: (1) why access to land, and the conditions under which it is accessed and used, are important for economic development, (2) how different types of property rights can affect access and use, (3) what are different modes of access, and in particular the role of land markets, and (4) what are some of the policy implications to enhance how access to and use of the land can contribute to economic development. We stress in this note that access to land may be a difficult policy question, but that access will only translate into development if the harder question of influencing how it is used is effectively resolved.

In introducing this Special Issue on Social Capital and Health, this article tracks the popularization of the term and sheds light on the controversy surrounding the term and its definitions. It sets out four mechanisms that link social capital with health: making information available to community members, impacting social norms, enhancing the health care services and their accessibility in a community, and offering psychosocial support networks. Approaches to the measurement of social capital include the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) developed by Robert Putnam, and the Petris Social Capital Index (PSCI), which looks at community voluntary organizations using public data available for the entire United States. The article defines community social capital (CSC) as the extent and density of trust, cooperation, and associational links and activity within a given population. Four articles on CSC are introduced in two categories: those that address behaviors -- particularly utilization of health services and use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs; and those that look at links between social capital and physical or mental health. Policy implications include: funding and/or tax subsidies that would support the creation of social capital; laws and regulations; and generation of enthusiasm among communities and leaders to develop social capital. The next steps in the research programme are to continue testing the mechanisms; to look for natural experiments; and to find better public policies to foster social capital.

This paper discusses the gain in efficiency from including deforestation risk as a targeting criterion in payments for environmental services (PES) programs. We contrast two payment schemes that we simulate using data from Mexican common property forests: a flat payment scheme with a cap on allowable hectares per enrollee, similar to the program implemented in many countries, and a  payment that takes deforestation risk and heterogeneity in land productivity into account. We simulate the latter strategy both with and without a budget constraint. Using observed past deforestation, we find that while risk-targeted payments are far more efficient, capped flat payments are more egalitarian. We also consider the characteristics of communities receiving payments from both programs. We find that the risk-weighted scheme results in more payments to poor communities, and that these payments are more efficient than those made to non-poor ejidos. Finally, we show that the risk of deforestation can be predicted quite precisely with indicators that are easily observable and that cannot be manipulated by the community.

75% ofthe world poor are rural people. Half a billion of them are located in countries both vulnerable to rising food prices and with weak capacity to provide socialsafety nets. For them, agriculture must be the main instrument to respond to the food crisis and escape poverty.