View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Complex Matter: Charitable Organisation or Corporate Institution? A Reflection on Charity and Its Applicability in an Era of Market-Driven Higher Education in Australia

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Complex Matter: Charitable Organisation or Corporate Institution? A Reflection on Charity and Its Applicability in an Era of Market-Driven Higher Education in Australia
Language: English
Authors: Burston, Mary A.
Source: Critical Studies in Education. 2020 61(1):115-132.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Higher Education, Public Colleges, Nonprofit Organizations, Ethics, Moral Values, Altruism, Social Justice, Empathy, College Role, Legislation, Educational Policy, Educational Finance, Donors, Student Financial Aid, Scholarships, Student Characteristics, Institutional Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, Students with Disabilities
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2017.1333520
ISSN: 1750-8487
Abstract: Universities represent institutions of learning, research and knowledge but are also "not-for-profit" charitable organisations delegated the charitable purpose of advancing education and public benefit. Charity law differentiates the obligations, values and philosophies of "not-for-profit" and for profit organisations. Policy and economic imperatives to reform universities in Australia should raise questions about potential compromises to charity values, social justice objectives and public benefit. The disjuncture between the values of charity and profitability draws attention to issues of public benefit in a market-oriented higher education economy and obligations delegated by charity laws. More research is needed into the investment of charity capital and obligations of public benefit delegated to Australian public universities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1243961
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFaKVt6m6KE2wWfzI8dknMuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIe9FaKlolAKDJvB8QIBEICBmz0g-HhCFv3EqherH_Q-sbZGhnPZdN8U86goKamhD_YQnLiSBLrevGgBC574hHGxBa-xSYIJ70_-TgLWA2lT3ya7XWGqFOLZxYiqI3fr3Le_Ex3VnSL-P3bBazaXWPrbyUPbSNqzSCzRzUTNsp81Ev8xuj9y4RJu6dk3-vo3mSTtR9nb7rGHHNMErXmfvQlpe1BDdXHroU1dRDRt
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0141769584;[30nj]01mar.20;2020Feb19.01:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0141769584-1">A complex matter: charitable organisation or corporate institution? A reflection on charity and its applicability in an era of market-driven higher education in Australia </title> <p>Universities represent institutions of learning, research and knowledge but are also not-for-profit charitable organisations delegated the charitable purpose of advancing education and public benefit. Charity law differentiates the obligations, values and philosophies of not-for-profit and for profit organisations. Policy and economic imperatives to reform universities in Australia should raise questions about potential compromises to charity values, social justice objectives and public benefit. The disjuncture between the values of charity and profitability draws attention to issues of public benefit in a market-oriented higher education economy and obligations delegated by charity laws. More research is needed into the investment of charity capital and obligations of public benefit delegated to Australian public universities.</p> <p>Keywords: Australian public universities; charitable purpose; charity and education; charity laws; public benefit</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Having charitable status is integral to the operational viability of Australian universities because of concessions to enact a public benefit agenda as a constituency as <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations. The ideological turn towards a deregulated higher education economy brings into focus rarely debated charitable obligations placed on public universities. Value systems attributed to charity, philanthropy and profitability situate the problem of whether Australian universities can fulfil charitable obligations as <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations while simultaneously deploying <emph>for profit</emph> objectives.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Charity obligations cannot be ignored when analysing the role and purpose of Australian public universities nor remain invisible in economic and institutional reconfigurations of contemporary university structures. Without investigating charitable obligations delegated to Australian public universities, a gap in current knowledge exists regarding the intersections between charity, education and public benefit. Constituent issues of public benefit, charity, education and charitable responsibilities investigated in this paper indicate that more research into this critical field is necessary given the shifting terrains of public management discourse, consumption rationalisation of higher education and implications for public benefit.</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-3">Contemporary contexts of higher education</hd> <p>Universities intersect public/social/economic and political dimensions as stakeholders in the production of human capital, knowledge and education of societies and citizens. The manner in which global and Australian universities have adopted marketisation and profitability objectives is critically relevant as research suggests that institutional cultures and values are under threat in the current neoliberal political economy (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]; King, Marginson, & Naidoo, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). Transforming universities into entrepreneurial actors and as educational businesses detrimentally impact public benefit, democracy and citizens' rights. Concerns about commodification practices are raised when referring to the diminishment of public benefit, affordability and access to education and the value ethics of universities and effects of neoliberal reconstitution of public education (Berman & Paradeise, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]; Katz, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]; Loughland & Sriprakash, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref6">57</reflink>]; Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref7">67</reflink>]; Talbot, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref8">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Australia's university sector has principally adopted corporatist–managerial approaches to maximise marketisation opportunities to ensure institutional profitability (Garrett-Jones & Turpin, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref9">32</reflink>]). With an estimated operating revenue of $26.3 billion including $8.7 billion in investments and $40.8 billion in property, the wealth performance of Australian universities is comparable to, or higher than, some private shareholder <emph>for profit</emph> businesses suggesting that neoliberal economic strategies have produced the efficiencies of market logic (Universities Australia, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref10">83</reflink>]). Reduced public investment in education (all sectors) and preference for a market-driven higher education economy had witnessed the emergence of private and powerful corporate 'edubusinesses' that stand to gain from 'national ... [and] ... international privatizing activities' (Hill & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>], p. 2). Connell recognised that access to education was a critical mediator in the higher education economy (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]). Access is relational and conditional to the price point that permits consumers to enter economic markets (Hemsley-Brown & Lowrie, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]; Naidoo & Wu, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref14">64</reflink>]; Wu & Naidoo, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref15">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>The market hypothesis assumes a perfect system of choices, decisions and self-rationalised autonomy in response to market factors. Moreover, consumers are conceptualised as processes to be managed (Styhre, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref16">78</reflink>]). Now entrenched in a culture of market accountability and performance metrics, contemporary universities transact market agency as entrepreneurial knowledge producers seeking to maximise income, market share and institutional profitability. Meta-narratives of economics and market rationality presume ultra-system performance to pre-fixed economic activities as well as institutional relations and practices related to governance roles and responsibilities (Burston, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>]; John, Fanghanel & Ainey, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Responsiveness is market-based accountability and responsibility is a public-sector-based accountability.... Responsiveness is not necessarily the best form of accountability for a public good that serves the public (or common) good. What seems to be occurring is a blurring of public sector responsibility and market-driven responsiveness. (Kimber & Ehrich, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref19">51</reflink>], p. 88)</p> <p>In articulating the implications of neoliberal market rationality in public policy and practice, Furlong provides a succinct explanation:</p> <p>What has been different about the contemporary interpretation of human capital theory in an age of neoliberalism is that it has emphasised private rather than public investment. Expansion of higher education is seen as essential for the modern economy but with the cost falling increasingly on families and individual students. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref20">29</reflink>], p. 114)</p> <p>Etzkowitz's 'triple helix' model and subsequent adaptations augment the rationale of innovation and systems efficiency through entrepreneurial capital and agency (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]). The 'triple helix' configuration illustrated by Reich-Graefe ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref22">71</reflink>]) effectively summarises the projected decommission of public governance values. Conceptualised as interrelated hierarchies or 'realms', the idealisation is to create 'a special purpose triple helix intermediation entity, i.e. a helixerator company' or a self-regulated economic/corporate superstructure advancing the efficiency logic and interests of entrepreneurial capital (p. 35). The governance space is economic. Public universities would merge into '...a single university – industry-government helix ... [that would enable it to] ... simultaneously blunt, blur and if successful, converge public-private hybridisation realms' (p. 36). The exponential collapse of boundaries between public institutional sectors would reduce regulatory interference from the state. <emph>Not-for-profit</emph> sectors would come under the governance processes of corporatised networked systems, thereby subjecting them to the same terms of governance and value systems of market efficiency and profitability.</p> <p>The value system underpinning the Australian 'public' university intersects a unique ethos of egalitarianism and educational democracy (Forsyth, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]; Macintyre, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref24">58</reflink>]; Marginson, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref25">60</reflink>]). This ethos:</p> <p>[Was] founded on the principle of a 'social contract' with the 'people' ... enacted by the state they were also publicly funded ... much was made of social class and religious faith not being a barrier to admission.... Such state benevolence helped shape a new tradition of collective public responsibility of these 'educated citizens', a sense of public duty to return in kind some of what they had been given as students of a public university. (Horne & Sherington, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref26">45</reflink>], pp. 225, 226)</p> <p>An under-researched economy relates to the critical syndication between public benefit, education and charitable obligations delegated to Australian <emph>not-for-profit</emph> public universities. The situated problem is that</p> <p>[<emph>not-for-</emph>profit] ... charitable organizations find themselves in a double bind ... [where] ... free market [ideology] ... expects them to be entrepreneurial and bottom line oriented ... they must be lean and efficient ... [and] ... retool to become more like successful commercial enterprises ... [in] ... continuing to move towards a results-oriented, quasi-commercial, social engineer's conception of charity while our law has continued to encourage, and often insist on, a compassionate brand of 'vulgar' charity. (Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref27">50</reflink>], pp. 1, 3)</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-4">A critical syndication – charity and public benefit</hd> <p>A complex confluence of parts relates to meanings of charity, obligations of <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisations, charitable status and purpose, education, social and public benefit constituents of <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable status. This is not a legal interpretation of charity laws but refers to legal research for clarification of constructs. As a norm, charity invokes ideals and values associated with altruism, philanthropy and volunteerism. Charity can describe a selfless, voluntary act implicit with an action to relieve distress and suffering. Charity can represent an expression of ethical, moral and religious principles by which individuals act out of conscience, virtue, moral obligation to do good for others. Charity consists of intrinsic (emotional, affective, religious) and material elements such as donations, gifts and property. At the regulatory level, recent amendments to Australian charity laws follow international jurisdictions in updating the contemporary applicability of historically conceptualised charity laws. In legal discourse, charity laws represent one branch of the state's regulatory framework for monitoring transactions permissible under charity legislation (Harding, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]; Harding, O'Connell, & Stewart, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]). While charity invokes moral and virtuous ideals, 'it is an imperfect obligation, a <emph>supererogatory</emph> action that individuals can legitimately opt out of without suffering any significant opprobrium. Acts of charity are, by their very nature, legitimately avoidable' (Lamb & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref30">53</reflink>], p. 230). To be charitable may characterise an ideal virtue as Locke observed but charity recipients do not have superior property or moral rights because of their status of need. Individuals have full property rights and are not compelled to be charitable although obligated to act empathically towards others (Forde, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]; Singer, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref32">74</reflink>]). Charity intersects histories of Western democracy, philosophical, moral and ethical discourse, social norms and legal governance.</p> <p>An ethics of care (<emph>charity)</emph> has persisted as confirmation of values, customs, moral codes and principles (Slote, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref33">76</reflink>]). In the normative or vulgar sense, <emph>charity</emph> and <emph>being charitable</emph> represent ethical or moral actions and behaviour distinctive from individual self-interest. If humanity exercised full beneficence, justice and equality, there would be no practical reason for regulating social conduct or charity (Singer, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref34">74</reflink>]). Ethical and moral codes of conduct constrain abuses of trust and excesses of self-interest (Singer, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref35">74</reflink>]). To an extent, Singer concurs with Locke in that human behaviour and actions are constituently imperfect states. In the social justice view, access to public goods/services is a collective public benefit whereas the self-interested are 'not very ambitious about people's benevolence' (Dagan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>], p. 203). Livnat contended that 'benevolence is ... a much less sophisticated concept than justice.... It is simply about response of one person to the suffering of another, whatever the source of such suffering might be and whoever the other person is' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref37">54</reflink>], p. 507). Benevolence has no <emph>supererogatory</emph> legal duty or obligation. It can supplement laws but not 'at the expense of justice and a society' (Livnat, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref38">54</reflink>], p. 514). The jurisdictional sense of charitable obligation prioritises observance to regulated codes of conduct but conceptualises</p> <p>...law carriers as selfless, namely, as the voice of public-regarding reasons or considered judgments about the common good, as opposed to preferences that reflect their self-interest or the interests of the subgroup to which they belong. (Dagan, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>], p. 195)</p> <p>While not specifying that being charitable exhibits ethical behaviour, jurisprudential authority <emph>is</emph> invested in <emph>charity</emph> as a public virtue, but, since charity is an imperfect duty of care and obligation, it may not necessarily 'map onto the form of the duties' (Goodin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>], p. 3). In contrast, '[P]erfect duties of justice ... are morally obligatory. Morally you are required to discharge them on every occasion on which they arise' (Goodin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref41">33</reflink>], p. 2). A legal obligation suggests a coercive obligation to a perfect duty in contrast to voluntary charity. The legal genesis of perfect obligation to justice (charity law) emanates from the <emph>Elizabethan Statute</emph> 1601 which cemented the critical syndication between charity, public benefit, education <emph>and</emph> the government's role in achieving these objectives (O'Halloran, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref42">66</reflink>]). Charity may represent morally and ethically good acts but in legal definitions, charitable duty must be legally discharged:</p> <p>The Preamble laid down government's expectations as to the contribution that should be made by charity to furthering the public benefit ... categories and expectations identified ... were subsequently classified in Pemsel2 and extended by the judiciary, with a considerable degree of uniformity across all common law nations. Those principles have come to constitute the contemporary social agenda of charity, and mark out the very heart of the nonprofit sector. (O'Halloran, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref43">66</reflink>])</p> <p>Charity value principles intersect equity and social justice ideals in secular democracies. Altruism, empathy, sense of obligation and connection build bonds between communities and aspirations for a more equitable society '<emph>as well as</emph> mutually aligning with empathy based economies that service the states' agenda' (O'Halloran, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref44">65</reflink>], p. 6). Loch ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref45">55</reflink>]) wrote that charity was central to the constitution of civic citizenship as a mediator of socially reciprocated values. Charity augmented civic responsibilities and an ethos of care and empathy to build bonds of social and political membership. Further, charity provided a rich empirical field for investigating 'the nature of charitable exchange, responsibilities and roles' (pp. 143–158).</p> <p>Registration as a charity confirms the special status of an organisation dedicated to furthering the public benefit. The specific status of charitable organisations confers the stamp of public virtue ethics, thereby distinguishing <emph>not-for profit</emph> charitable values (O'Halloran, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref46">65</reflink>]). American charity laws emphasise the public sense of charitable obligation as</p> <p>The purposes of a charitable organisation must fit within the category of legally recognized purposes that are broadly defined as 'of public benefit' ... the benefit must extend to an indefinite class of beneficiaries, not specific individuals.... Charities are public in the sense that their activities are devoted to benefiting the public at large. There can be no such thing as a private charity in law. (Freemont-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>], p. 4)</p> <p>How public benefit is conceptualised in contemporary Australian charity law is a methodological problem as criteria are unclear (Dal Pont, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]). The quandary is that</p> <p>It is not possible, at least in the present state of the authorities, to state with any confidence how the line is drawn ... or to say that it is drawn in the same way as between different types of charitable trust. (Harpur, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>], pp. 2–3)</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-5">Co-constituent histories: the complications of charity, advancing education and public benefi...</hd> <p> <emph>Not-for-profit</emph> public universities in Australia are delegated the charitable purpose of advancing education and public benefit under heads of charity specified in Australia charity laws (Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commissions (ACNC), [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]). Public benefit is a legislated obligation placed on charitable organisations according to the 'head' of charity performed (Harding, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>], ACNC, 2013). Charitable organisations must not compromise public policy, government and public benefit but can decide on activities to be undertaken in order to achieve their charitable purpose. Charitable compliance is determined in case law. Public benefit compliance is set at a minimal standard in the revised act and delegated as a public responsibility to monitor charitable compliance in relation to how</p> <p>A registered entity goes about managing its affairs, the use of public monies, volunteer time and donations provided to it ... [in terms of] ... how the entity goes about demonstrating that it is operating transparently and for a proper purpose. (Subdivision 45.1, ACNC, 2013)</p> <p>In nineteenth-century Australia, private education businesses, charitable institutions and philanthropic individuals acted as quasi-state agents to advance education in the absence of public programmes (Hamlett, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref52">34</reflink>]; Slack, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref53">75</reflink>]). Not all charitable institutions were benevolent in exhibiting a charitable ethos of care and empathy (Mitchell, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref54">62</reflink>]). Charity values conformed to race, class and social stereotypes and the order of social, economic, gendered and educational activities considered appropriate for charity classes (Heinrich, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>While nineteenth-century ideology eulogised charity, benevolence and philanthropy as a public duty, new research is emerging in re-examinations of forms of enterprise capital generated out of philanthropic and charitable investments in educational, social and welfare services. Critically, charitable duty, public benefit and private capital facilitated the emergence of the modern 'charity economy' whereby private investors could mobilise legal structures to maximise profitability that charitable donations did not provide (Baskerville, Servalli, Maltby, & Rutterford, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>], p. 276).</p> <p>Rationalised in nineteenth-century moral, religious, philanthropic, economic and nation-state discourses, philanthropic capitalism served private interests while promoting the values of charity as an ideal virtue and citizen duty to serve state's interests (Benioff, Southwick, & Newman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>]). Although charity and profitability values were, and are, considered antithetical, philanthropic capital enabled the advancement of education in colonial Australia through fee-paying private education businesses and schools until the implication of 'public' funded education from the late 1800s onwards (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]). Colonial philanthropy replicated imperialised forms of philanthropy handed down in Anglo-Protestant and European mercantile/economic traditions and practices (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]; Swain, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref60">79</reflink>]). Philanthropic investment was relatively restricted to local conditions and service needs of Australian society where upper and middle class Anglo-Protestant benefactors predominated politically, socially, economic and culturally. Private schools, women's and children's hospitals, charity agencies, educational and other social services emerged from philanthropic foundations (Carbone, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). Australia's philanthropic economy did not develop to the wealth levels of American, English and European industrialists and entrepreneurs; however, a common feature of nineteenth-century philanthropic/charity was that business success and acumen enabled philanthropists to strategically invest in an alternative economy of charitable enterprises (Rana, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref62">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Charity and business values appeared to be compatible when fulfilling charitable duty and states' needs. Economic entrepreneurship enabled individuals to accumulate great wealth and facilitated a moral/ethical economy whereby moral/ethical capitalism could be mutually exchanged as philanthropic/charity and social capital (Rana, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref63">69</reflink>]). Incorporating charitable purpose and philanthropy with capitalist market economies challenges moral/ethical perspectives of virtuous actions. Forms of nineteenth-century philanthropy realised by celebrity entrepreneurs like Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller are prominent exemplars of how 'good' capital was used for social purposes.</p> <p>How <emph>for-profit</emph> capital merged with <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable philanthropic values requires an understanding of the interrelated phenomena of state interests, public benefit, the economy and the production of social/public goods and services. An examination of philanthropic investments in nineteenth-century England illustrated that pure altruism was not the main motivation of charitable philanthropy. Opportunities to invest in social enterprises enabled significant capital returns to private investors by specific financial instruments and government subsidies (Baskerville et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]). The commoditised poor were perceived to represent convertible capital assets since 'they had to be not only morally but also economically suitable for support' (p. 277). Andreoni ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>]) showed that altruism was not necessarily a virtuous characteristic of philanthropy. The 'warm glow' of philanthropy was strategised to maximise <emph>private</emph> investment returns in the public goods economy. Philanthropic donations contributed to building society as well as positioning philanthropists as moral exemplars and not as rampant capitalist profiteers. The charity/philanthropy economy converged moral/ethics/religious principles alongside virtue ethics of corporate citizenship that enabled the protection of <emph>private</emph> for-profit interests under the rubric of the common good.</p> <p>The American philanthropic tradition exemplified corporate social responsibility (CSR). An attribute of America's colonial legacy was that it maintained the ethos of the Elizabethan precedent as an obligatory charitable duty. This existed until the 1850s. Although a British colony, Australia did not fully adopt the Elizabethan statute (Carbone, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>], p. 82). Australian philanthropy was a more private form undertaken by individuals, churches and societies until states funded public goods and services. The private/public aspects of Australian philanthropy are contained in the genesis of ideological and political dispositions since colonisation, Federation, First and Second World Wars whereby a public ethos of egalitarianism emerged in relation to the provision of public good (Maddison, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]). The relativeness newness of privatisation and deregulation has challenged the public goods justification 'on the grounds that the citizens of a government benefit from that production' (Holcombe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref68">44</reflink>], p. 20).</p> <p>Philanthropic capital represented a 'third' economy supplementing national and political discourses where private capital was deployed for providing public goods and services. Having regard to contemporary Australian charity laws, public benefit is a presumed objective of advancing education whether provided by public systems or private education businesses. Australian universities are not philanthropic charities but public institutions, and while charities are not 'public' institutions, both sectors are proscribed by 'publicness'. Given ambiguous conceptualisations, issues of public benefit are analysed in the following section.</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-6">Analysis and discussion of public benefit</hd> <p>Public benefit is a complex construct in theories of citizenship, the economy, public/private interest and benefit. There are no uniformly applied tests of public benefit in Australian charity laws except for general prescriptions of a sufficient section of the Australian public resident in its national territories (not global or international public). In examining the 'sufficiency' assumption, evidence is elicited from public data on domestic revenue and liabilities of public universities, student demographics, student HELP fee debt, and university social justice schemes and participant types.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>] Descriptive tables are categorised under respective headings.</p> <p>Statistical estimates and actual numbers vary according to methods of collection and interpretation of policies and application. The price access point for an Australian undergraduate degree is relative and dependent on a university's determination of unit value, discipline area, degree type, location, ranking and status. It can range from $11,000 (AU) to $28,000 or $33,000 (Study Australia, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref70">77</reflink>]). The Australian government subsidises Commonwealth Supported Places (CSP) but not all courses and degrees. The market efficiency hypothesis is strongly evident in the value discourse of Australia's higher education economy (Universities Australia, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref71">85</reflink>]). The international student market was valued at $19.7 billion in 2014–2015 and estimated to rise exponentially as a skilled labour market facilitating trade and investment (Deloitte Access Economics, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>]). In contrast, CSP represent a credit or a debt economy depending on monetary perspective. Student debt is estimated to rise to '$70.4 billion in 2017–18, impacting 26 per cent of citizens aged 18–54 years' (Highfield& Warren, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>], p. 202).</p> <p>Citing the American experience, student debt does not necessarily compromise public benefit or graduates because states would not be able to enact economic, labour and social agendas by disinvesting in higher education (Baum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>]). The 'crisis' relates to the lack of clarity in American public policy and universities' promotional marketing of aspirations rather than guidance on appropriate course programmes. Baum acknowledges the significance of equity issues in relation to resource-rich middle and upper class students with capacities to withstand financial liabilities and greater detrimental impact of student debt for students from non-traditional, ethnic, economic and cultural backgrounds.</p> <p>The Australian public has a highly vested interest in determining whether high-cost concessional relief achieves public benefit outcomes (Harpur, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref75">39</reflink>]). A substantive public benefit issue relates to the inverse proportion of student debt relative to the wealth performance of Australian universities (Tables 1 and 2). Australian universities absolved themselves of blame indicating policy failures of fee-paying vocational education and advocated themselves as fiscally responsible institutions ensuring that public funding was spent appropriately on education, facilities and research (Universities Australia, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref76">87</reflink>]). Concerns were raised about the conduct of Australian universities in a Senate Committee Report to the Australian Parliament ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref77">72</reflink>]). Lack of financial accountability and transparency was noted and recommendations made to introduce a public accountability test to ensure that universities did not divert public funding to private business interests (not forthcoming to date). The report iterated that Australian universities must adhere to the values of public institutions and fulfil the prima facie objective of providing public benefit through education and research. Accountability to public benefit obligations of <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisation remains problematic in Australian charity laws, since</p> <p>[I]t is not possible ... in the present state of the authorities, to state with any confidence how the line is drawn between the two ... [or] ... in the same way as between different types of charitable trusts. (Harpur, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref78">39</reflink>], pp. 2–3)</p> <p>Table 1. Domestic revenue and liabilities of Australian public universities.<sups>a</sups></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Number</td><td><italic>Year</italic></td><td><italic>Revenue</italic></td><td><italic>Liabilities</italic></td><td><italic>Operational result</italic></td><td><italic>Government funding</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>37</td><td>2014</td><td>$27.8 billion</td><td>$25.9 billion</td><td>$1.9 billion</td><td>$15.4 billion</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <sups>a</sups>Non-university higher education providers (NUHEPs) and private universities excluded.</p> <p>Table 2. Student loan debt $billion.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td><italic>Amount</italic></td><td><italic>Number of students enrolled (million)</italic></td><td><italic>Number of students repaid (million)</italic></td><td><italic>Number of students unpaid (million)</italic></td><td><italic>Estimated repayment time (years)</italic></td><td><italic>Future estimates</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><sup>^</sup>1989–2010</td><td>$27.9 billion</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.4% or 56%</td><td>7.9</td><td>Cumulative</td></tr><tr><td><sup>^</sup>2012</td><td /><td>935,685 University</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.7</td><td /><td>Cumulative</td></tr><tr><td><sup>#</sup>2014/2015</td><td><sup>#</sup>$25.2 billion</td><td><sup>#</sup>1.3</td><td>Not established</td><td>1.5</td><td>8.7</td><td>Doubtful debt estimate – $13 billion</td></tr><tr><td><sup>#</sup>2016</td><td><sup>#</sup>$60 billion</td><td><sup>#</sup>1249,544</td><td>Not established</td><td>9 plus</td><td>20% plus unpaid</td></tr><tr><td><sup>#</sup>2017 onwards</td><td><sup>#</sup>$70 plus billion</td><td><sup>#</sup>1.4</td><td /><td>25−40%</td><td /><td>Estimated debt of $19 billion</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <sups>^</sups>Referring primarily to university students. <sups>#</sups>Total sector debt (universities/vocational education) – effects of policy change, statistical variations and estimates.</p> <p>The tables indicate the effects of major policy changes from a public benefit/academic referenced to an economic-referenced characterisation of the Australian 'public' university (Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]). Whereas the 'gift' of a university education was perceived as a reciprocal public benefit prior to pre-deregulation in the 1980s, the 'gift' and choice of studies are now delegitimised in funding rationale as 'public' goods and by extension, a public benefit. Receiving the 'gift' of an academic degree actualises a financial liability bondage as access is predetermined by the 'owners' of academic capital whereby the 'financialized drive to commodify education ultimately resolves itself into a commodification of oneself. Existential student debt provides a crucial step in this unfortunate alchemy' (Blacker, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>], p. 124). It generates a new meaning of debtor in discourses of selfhood and citizenship status with implications for public benefit and public good. Commoditisation processes in Australian, English and American higher education sectors witness a 'politics of strategical advantage' apportioned under the rubric of public good (McGuigan, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref81">61</reflink>]). In England, undergraduate arts, humanities and social sciences degrees were to be defunded by governments and treated as 'private' academic interests, whereas economically productive technological sciences were legitimised as capital assets for stimulating consumption in the knowledge economy (McGuigan, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]). A similar rationale in Australian funding policy allocates lower levels of funding to non-science degrees relative to economically valued science, technology, engineering and mathematics.</p> <p>These effects have implications as marketised codes of 'privateness' that legitimise the production of 'public' goods according to the consumption rationale of economic utility and selective rationing of academic capital to worthy/unworthy subgroups within the student public. Yet, a majority response (54%) in one Australian survey accepted that the university's role was to prepare students for future work rather than involvement in social justice issues or egalitarian projects (8%) (Universities Australia, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref83">84</reflink>]). Survey findings support Andreoni's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>]) thesis that empathy/philanthropy is economically correlated. High/lower correlations are indicative of community sentiment and attitude towards others less fortunate than them.</p> <p>If public benefit represents a democratic entitlement to share collective interests/benefits/resources, it balances disproportionality of access, interests, share and the distribution of public goods and services. Australian charity legislation stipulates; 'if there are any "disqualifying purposes", the entity cannot be a charity' (Synge, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref85">80</reflink>], p. 232). Selecting to exclude may contravene intentions and obligations of public benefit as a case in England demonstrated (Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref86">24</reflink>]). Revised charity law obligations require the reporting of <emph>how</emph> charitable <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisations achieve public benefit outcomes. Private-fee paying selective schools cannot rely on exclusion rationale as this may contravene charitable obligations, equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation. Attention now given to the reporting of public benefit outcomes indicates a change in attitude towards charitable <emph>not-for-profit</emph> trusts and organisations. As Morgan and Fletcher ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>]) observed:</p> <p>[T]he high concern around public benefit and charitable status ... implies a recognition that charitable status is not automatic. This suggests a sense of accountability to the inherent legitimacy of that status ... those in the 'high concern' category recognised that the public benefit requirement implied a requirement to account for what they were doing in order to justify the privileges of charitable status and ... were prepared to invest time and effort in PBR. (p. 24)</p> <p>While the reasoning of Australian and English charity laws principally relates to charitable obligations, new regulatory powers enacted under the <emph>Charities Protection and Social Investment</emph> (2016) Bill, England and Wales may have implications for universities in relation to 'mixed-motive' investments, breaches of trust and negligence of duty. Strengthened regulations and reporting now closely examine financial activities and transactions as these must be exclusive to the charitable purpose and <emph>not</emph> the wealth/profitability status of universities or schools with the registered status of <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisations (Hoskin & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref88">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref89">47</reflink>]). More stringent oversight of public benefit outcomes under the <emph>Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill</emph> (2016, UK) has brought attention to how <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisations invest in activities delegated to charitable purpose and performance of charitable obligation. They are now required to justify expenditure as well as indicating how classes of beneficiary and broader society benefit as a result. Legal determinations of charity represent an arm of codification to ensure compliance with states' laws and policies. Under English charity law requirements, charitable organisations are now instructed on how they should adhere to public benefit outcomes. The expectation is that the actions of charitable organisations will demonstrate legal compliance but more than that, the new regulations seek to change attitudinal beliefs and prioritise public benefit and not organisational self-interest.</p> <p>Universities are critical mediators of social, economic, political and cultural agency in relation to the production of academic capital that advances education, society and public benefit outcomes. In examining the distribution of academic capital in this context, equity is a class of conditions to identify eligibility of entry into higher education programmes and not a category of charitable obligation. Equity funding allocation is relational to policy conditions and universities' capacities to meet equity objectives (Universities Australia, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref90">86</reflink>]). Annual equity funding under the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program for 2017/2019 is frozen at $143 million since $152 million was redirected to 'Budget repair and other priorities' (Department of Education and Training (AUS), [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]). Public information on the availability and funding of equity scholarships (Table 3) indicates variability of provision between universities and amount funded in comparison to domestic revenue of $27.8 billion (Table 1), student demographics (Table 4) and student loan debt (Table 2), equity expenditure is $500,000 annually. The hypothetical allocation of 10 equity scholarships per university was generous as not all publicly funded universities offer equity scholarships although they receive public funding to do so. The exception was a university located in a low socio-economic area. It offered 350 equity scholarships. Group of eight universities nominated in international rankings as exemplary research universities with high international student enrolments and greater percentage of domestic students in the middle-to-high socio-economic status were less generous with offerings of 1 or 5 or 0.</p> <p>Table 3. University equity scholarships.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Number of universities</td><td><italic>Number of equity scholarships</italic></td><td><italic>Funding amount</italic></td><td><italic>Average duration (years)</italic></td><td><italic>Estimated yearly cost to universities</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>37<sup>#</sup></td><td>Average 10 per institution<sup>#</sup></td><td>Average $1000</td><td>1–2</td><td>$370,000</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>350</td><td>Average $1000</td><td>1–2</td><td>$350,000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <sups>#</sups>Excluding private providers and other offerings not titled equity scholarships.</p> <p>Table 4. Student demographics (domestic).<sups>#</sups></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td><italic>Estimated enrolments</italic></td><td><italic>Middle/High Socio Economic Status (SES) (%)</italic></td><td><italic>Disadvantaged students (%)</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2013</td><td>1200,000</td><td>83.71</td><td>16.9</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>1249,544</td><td>83.40</td><td>16.6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <sups>#</sups>Statistical information is variable as a total figure.</p> <p>Table 5 averaged equity enrolments across university sectors between 2008 and 2015. Marginal increases overall confirmed Gale and Parker's findings ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]) that Australian universities are not proactive in advancing educational democracy. Since 1982, Bok has pursued the problem of educational inequality as a contradiction of democratic ideals and ethical practices in identifying the lack of leadership by the American university sector to advance public benefit (Bok, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref93">13</reflink>]). Inequity of access extends beyond institutional walls in reproducing class advantage/disadvantage across political, economic, social and cultural life (Bowen, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref94">14</reflink>]; Jones & Turpin, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref95">32</reflink>]; Rauscher & Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref96">70</reflink>]; Triventi, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref97">82</reflink>]). Advancing educational democracy remains at the margins of Australia's higher education economy.</p> <p>Table 5. University equity enrolments.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td><italic>Disability</italic></td><td><italic>Low socio-economic</italic></td><td><italic>Remote/Regional</italic></td><td><italic>National average across university sectors</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2008</td><td>24,311</td><td>90,467</td><td>110,124</td><td>6078</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>47,256</td><td>135,859</td><td>159,949</td><td>9272</td></tr><tr><td>2008/2015 (increase)</td><td>22,945</td><td>25,735</td><td>49,825</td><td>2662</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0141769584-7">New public management theories and not-for-profit organisations</hd> <p>The critical 'third' economy of charitable obligation is an exchange mechanism for monitoring public benefit activities delegated to <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations (Harding, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref98">35</reflink>]). While charity and profit values are held to be antithetical, philanthropic capitalism converged with virtue ethics of charity and public benefit as forms of 'good' capitalism and private profitability to serve states' agendas. Third-way propositions in contemporary public policies propose participatory collaboration between stakeholders, governments and markets through divestment of public services and the public goods economy. From dystopian perspectives, the capitalised commoditisation of public goods and services economy destabilises the <emph>habitus</emph> of democracy by the incorporation of marketised processes and value systems. Thus, situated as an axiological conundrum between publicness, privateness and public good, a critical delineation of sovereignty exists over the efficiency values of markets in relation to collective citizenship discourses of public benefit and the production of public goods and services.</p> <p>Samuelson's ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref99">73</reflink>]) classic thesis on the economy of public benefit prioritised the public goods and services economy and exemplified how public governance preserved public benefit (Holcombe, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]). Ideations of publicness are predominant in legitimising the state's role as an economic actor <emph>and</emph> provider of public goods (Choudhury, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref101">19</reflink>]). Public good is theoretically maintained by the regulation of market capital (private interests) proportionate to public benefit interests (egalitarian equity) and ideals of democratic citizenship and participation. The new schema of public governance proposes collaboration between markets, governments and stakeholders by merging the synergies and efficiencies of market capital with public sector institutions and activities (Pestoff, Brandsen, & Verschuere, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref102">68</reflink>]). <emph>Not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations are co-opted into the rationalities of efficiency, productivity and outputs achieved by markets. Renewed interest in the 'third' economy has gained traction in new theories of public governance and formulae of production determining the allocation, distribution and consumption of public benefit goods. The idea that public institutions can negotiate the transactional spaces of economic and public benefit interests represents a critical ethical dilemma for <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisation in the sense of whether '[T]he so-called nonprofit sector ... is a major category ... [or] ... whether the concept of civil society has any interest ... for ... nonprofit management ... in a world of enterprise' (Lohmann, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref103">56</reflink>], pp. 438–440).</p> <p>New public management theories replicate the philanthropic rhetoric of benevolence and public good values of philanthropic capitalism. The dilemma to resolve is whether the values and ideals attributed to <emph>not-for-profit</emph> organisations can coexist with corporatised values of profitability, since (a) publicly funded universities in Australia straddle <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charity status, publicness and a globally competitive higher education economy where profitability is strategic to survival; (b) Australian universities are not philanthropic charities but are critical constituents of publicness as <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations; and (c) public benefit is territorially defined, is specific to local conditions and needs and has no definitive formula in Australian charity law (Harding, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref104">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ball and Junemann ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>]) proposed new possibilities for regenerating social and philanthropic capital through a reconstituted 'public' and reconfiguration of corporate philanthropy and social responsibility (CSR). The meaning of 'public' in this sense invests public good as a value system for creating socially just outcomes by drawing together philanthropic interests and various stakeholders involved in the 'business' of education. The matter is whether 'good' capitalism can be mobilised to achieve public good by a reconfiguration of value systems, policies and processes. The case refers to English contexts and conditions and perhaps reflects changing attitudes towards public benefit. One problem relates to how to transform legally instituted forms of charity that determine whether charitable organisations are to be treated as philanthropic or non-philanthropic charities for the purposes of regulating <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable status. The second problem is determining whether a 'new' economy of philanthropic capitalism will prioritise public benefit and not the preservation of private capital through the apparatus of concessional benefits and public subsidies.</p> <p>Charitable organisations are neither public service nor public institutions but are advocates and monitors of 'publicness'. Australian universities are not philanthropic charities but transact in-between spaces of public good, public governance and public/social/equity values of democratisation. Philanthropy is associated with ethical values and socially just objectives that act to counterbalance excesses in society that perhaps may regenerate a new public ethics.</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>The purpose of this paper was to open up debate about the relative invisibility of the <emph>not-for-profit</emph> status of Australian public universities since there is little research into the constitution of this critical 'third' economy in economic and institutional reconfigurations of contemporary university structures. Charity laws represent a critical institutional space that is central to an examination of the syndication between charity and education. These apparently discrete fields intersect and impose obligations on <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations to perform to proscribed tenets of charity values. Charity obligations impose a public virtue ethics in relation to how public institutions serve the public interest. Universities are not philanthropic charities in the normative sense. While not philanthropic charities, they nevertheless must perform the morally perfect legal duty of justice. Value systems attributed to <emph>not-for-profit</emph> charitable organisations are constitutively antithetical to <emph>for-profit</emph> objectives; yet, the economy of charity and philanthropy co-opted morality principles with profitability motives to produce 'public' good. Equity of access and participation in higher education represents common good objectives but those common good values do not appear to be shared by the Australian public. Evidence elicited from tabled data on disproportionate student debt, marginal performance in the social justice agenda, delegitimising the economic and public benefit value of unconsumable non-science degrees in funding rationale, <emph>and</emph> the critical distinction that exclusion is contradictory to charity ethics and values, suggest that meta-narratives of market rationality preside over the public institutional role of Australian universities. It is critical that rationalities of efficiency and productivity and consumer choice rhetoric do not obscure obligations to the Australian public according to the governance values of Australian charity legislation.</p> <hd id="AN0141769584-9">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <ref id="AN0141769584-10"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Italicising <emph>not-for-profit</emph> is for emphasis to distinguish these discrete constructs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Excludes Indigenous equity scholarships.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0141769584-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100 (401), 464 – 477. doi: 10.2307/2234133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC). (2016). Examples of charitable purposes. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from <ulink href="http://www.acnc.gov.au">www.acnc.gov.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Australian charities and not-for-profits commission regulation 2013, SLI No, 124. (2013). Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation.. Retrieved June 6, 2017, from https://<ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.au">www.legislation.gov.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref91" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Department of Education and Training. (2017). Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP). Retrieved March 29, 2017, from https://<ulink href="http://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-participation-and-partnerships-programme-heppp">www.education.gov.au/higher-education-participation-and-partnerships-programme-heppp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and neoliberal imaginery. Hoboken, NJ : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref105" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S., & Junemann, C. (2011). Education policy and philanthropy—The changing landscape of English educational governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 34 (10), 646 – 661. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2011.583773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref56" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baskerville, R., Servalli, S., Maltby, J., & Rutterford, J. (2016). Investing in charities in the nineteenth century: The financialization of philanthropy. Accounting History, 21 (2–3), 263 – 280. doi: 10.1177/1032373216638105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref74" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baum, S. (2016). Student debt: Rhetoric and realities of higher education financing. New York : Palgrave Macmillan US.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref57" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Benioff, M., Southwick, K., & Newman, P. (2004). Compassionate capitalism. How corporations can make doing good an integral part of doing well. Pompton Plains : Career Press, Incorporated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berman, E., & Paradeise, C. (2016). The University under pressure. Bradford, West Yorkshire : Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blacker, D. (2013). Falling rate of learning and the neoliberal endgame. Ropley : John Hunt Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university. Harvard : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bok, D. (2001). Universities and the decline of civic responsibility. Journal of College and Character, 2 (9), 3. doi: 10.2202/1940-1639.1301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowen, W. G. (2013). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burston, M. A. (2014). Properties of knowledge matter: A re-examination of the glitz of entrepreneurialism as a change paradigm for higher education. In T. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Advancing education in turbulent times (pp. 187 – 203). Hershey, PA : IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, C. (2014). Public and private in Australian schooling. Dictionary of Educational History in Australia and New Zealand (DEHANZ). Retrieved April 11, 2017, from <ulink href="http://dehanz.net.au">http://dehanz.net.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carbone, R. F. (1989). The concept of philanthropy in Australia: A case study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 16 (20), 77 – 88. doi: 10.1007/BF03219443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charities Protection and Social Investment Bill (2016). UK. Retrieved 6 June, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk">www.legislation.gov.uk</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choudhury, M. A. (2000). A social contractarian theory of markets: Neoclassicism, rawls, gauthier and the alternative. International Journal of Social Economics, 27 (3), 194 – 212. doi: 10.1108/03068290010384268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (2), 99 – 112. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2013.776990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dagan, H. (2010). Between rationality and benevolence: The happy ambivalence of law and legal theory. Alabama Law Review, 62, 191 – 205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dal Pont, G. E. (2013). Charities. In Halsbury's laws of Australia. Section 75. Retrieved April 16, 2017 from <ulink href="http://www.lexixnexis.com.au">www.lexixnexis.com.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deliotte Access Economics. (2015). The value of international education to Australia. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/research-papers/Documents/ValueInternationalEd.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, A. (2012). Using the wrong policy tools: Education, charity, and public benefit. Journal of Law and Society, 39 (4), 491 – 514. doi: 10.1111/jols.2012.39.issue-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz, H. (2015). Rendezvous of the 'third kind': triple helix origins and future possibilities. Industry and Higher Education, 29 (4), 243 - 247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forde, S. (2009). The Charitable John locke. The Review of Politics, 71 (3), 428 – 458. doi: 10.1017/S0034670509990040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forsyth, H. (2014). History of the modern Australian University. Sydney, NSW : University of New South Wales Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freemont-Smith, M. R. (2004). Governing nonprofit organizations: Federal and state law and regulation. Massachusetts : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furlong, J. (2013). Education – An anatomy of the discipline rescuing the university project? London & New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2015). Calculating student aspiration: Bourdieu, spatiality and the politics of recognition. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45 (1), 81 – 96. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2014.988685</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher, M. (2000, September). The emergence of entrepreneurial Public Universities in Australia. Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD Paris, Canberra : ACT. Australian Government. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from <ulink href="http://mwa.itb.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-emergence-of-entrepreneurial-public-universities-in-australia.pdf">http://mwa.itb.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-emergence-of-entrepreneurial-public-universities-in-australia.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrett-Jones, S., & Turpin, T. (2012). Globalisation and the changing functions of Australian Universities. Science, Technology and Society, 17 (2), 233 – 274. doi: 10.1177/097172181101700203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodin, R. E. (2016). Duties of Charity, Duties of Justice. Political Studies, 1 – 16. doi: 10.1177/0032321716647402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlett, J. (2014). At home in the institution material life in asylums, lodging houses and schools in Victorian and Edwardian England. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, M. (2009). Distinguishing government from charity in Australian law. Sydney Law Review, 31 (4), 559 – 578.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, M. (2014). Charity law and the Liberal State. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, M. (2015). An antipodean view of political purposes and charity law. Law Quarterly Review, 131, 181 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, M., O'Connell, A., & Stewart, M. (2014). Not-for-profit law: Theoretical and comparative perspectives. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harpur, P. (2003). Charity law's public benefit test: Is legislative reform in the public interest? Queensland University of Technology Law Journal, 3 (2), 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinrich, E. (2013). Ragged schools in Sydney. Sydney Journal, 4 (1), 49 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemsley-Brown, J., & Lowrie, A. (2010). Higher education marketing. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 53-59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Highfield, R., & Warren, N. (2015). Does the Australian Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) undermine personal income tax integrity? Ejournal of Tax Research, 13 (1), 202 – 261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, D., & Kumar, R. (2012). Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences (Routledge Studies in Education and Neoliberalism). Florence : Taylor and Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holcombe, R. G. (1997). A theory of the theory of public good. Review of Austrian Economics, 10 (1), 1 – 22. doi: 10.1007/BF02538141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horne, J., & Sherington, G. (2010). Extending the educational franchise: The social contract of Australia's public universities, 1850–1890. Paedagogica Historica, 46 (1–2), 207 – 227. doi: 10.1080/00309230903528637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoskin, J., & Thomas, C. (2015). Use of charity tax reliefs could leave universities open to avoidance accusations. Out-Law.com Legal News and guidance from Pinsent Masons. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from <ulink href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoskin, J., & Thomas, C. (2016). UK charity law reform: Implications for universities. Out-Law.com Legal News and guidance from Pinsent Masons. Retrieved September 21, 2016, from <ulink href="http://www.out-law.com">www.out-law.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John, P., Fanghanel, J, & Ainley, P. (2016). Dimensions of Marketisation in Higher Education. Abingdon, Oxford: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz, L. (2015). Against the corrosive language of Corpspeak in the contemporary university. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (3), 554 – 567. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.973377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, T. (2005). Rediscovering vulgar charity: A historical analysis of America's tangled nonprofit law. Fordham Law Review, 73 (6), 2437 – 2499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimber, M., & Ehrich, F. (2015). Are Australia's universities in deficit? A tale of generic managers, audit culture and casualization. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37 (1), 83 – 97. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2014.991535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (Eds.). (2013). The globalization of higher education. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar Publishing (Elgar Research Collection).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamb, R., & Thompson, B. (2009). The meaning of charity in locke's political thought. European Journal of Political Theory, 8 (2), 229 – 252. doi: 10.1177/1474885108100854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Livnat, Y. (2003). Benevolence and justice. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 37 (4), 507 – 515. doi: 10.1023/B:INQU.0000019054.47424.a1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loch, C. S. (1905). The ethics of charity. Charity Organisation Review, 18 (105), 143 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohmann, R. (2007). Charity, philanthropy, public service or enterprise: What are the big questions of nonprofit management today? Public Administration Review, 73 (3), 437 – 444. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00727.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loughland, T., & Sriprakash, A. (2014). Bernstein revisited: The recontextualisation of equity in contemporary Australian school education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37 (2), 230 – 247. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2014.916604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macintyre, S. (2009). The same under different skies: The university in the United States and Australia. Journal of Australian Studies, 33 (3), 353 – 369. doi: 10.1080/14443050903079722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddison, S. D. R. (2009). An introduction to Australian public policy. Melbourne : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGuigan, J. (2015). Neoliberal culture. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, J. (2011). In good faith: Governing Indigenous Australia through god, charity and empire, 1825-1855. Canberra, ACT : Australian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, G., & Fletcher, N. (2013). Mandatory public benefit reporting as a basis for charity accountability: Findings from England and Wales. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24 (3), 805 – 830. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9372-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naidoo, V., & Wu, T. (2014). Innovations in marketing of higher education: Foreign market entry mode of not-for-profit universities. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 29 (6), 546 – 558. doi: 10.1108/JBIM-07-2013-0153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Halloran, K. (2016). Human rights and charity law: International perspectives. London & New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Halloran, K. (2012). Charity and the nonprofit sector. In K. O'Halloran Ed., The profits of charity. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2015, DOI:10.1093/acprof: osobl/9780199767717.001.0001. doi 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199767717.003.0003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, S. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance?: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London & New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds). (2013). New public governance, the third sector, and co-production (Vol. 7). London & New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rana, S. (2013). Philanthropic innovation and creative capitalism: A historical and comparative perspective on social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility. Alabama Law Review, 64 (5), 1121 – 1174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rauscher, E., & Elliott, W., III. (2014). The effect of wealth inequality on higher education outcomes: A critical review. Sociology Mind, 4 (4), 282 – 297. doi: 10.4236/sm.2014.44029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich-Graefe, R. (2016). Intermediation in intermediation: Triple helix innovation and intermediary legal organisation. Triple Helix, 3 (1), 1 – 45. doi: 10.1186/s40604-016-0041-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee. (1999). Canberra: Australian Government online. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from <ulink href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/25245/20020603-0000/www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/EET%5fCTTE/public%20uni/report/contents.htm">http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/25245/20020603-0000/www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/EET%5fCTTE/public%20uni/report/contents.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuelson, P.A. (1954). The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 387–389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton : Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slack, P. (1990). The English poor law, 1531-1782. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slote, M. A. (2007). The ethics of care and empathy. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Study Australia. (2017). Retrieved April 8, 2017, from <ulink href="http://studyassist.gov.au">http://studyassist.gov.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Styhre, A. (Ed.). (2014). Management and neoliberalism. London : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swain, S. (1996). Women and philanthropy in colonial and post-colonial Australia. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7 (4), 428 – 443. doi: 10.1007/BF02354163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Synge, M. (2015). 'New' public benefit requirement: Making sense of charity law? London : Bloomsbury Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance organizational and service improvement in the public domain. Oxford : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Triventi, M. (2013). The role of higher education stratification in the reproduction of social inequality in the labor market. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 32 (1), 45 – 63. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2013.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. (2012). Submission to the development of an international education strategy for australia. Retrieved 29 March, 2017, from <ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. (2013). Public Perceptions of Australia's Universities. Retrieved April 12, 2017 from, https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/Public-Perceptions-of-Australia-s-Universities#.WPrhcvl97cs">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/Public-Perceptions-of-Australia-s-Universities#.WPrhcvl97cs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. (2015). The importance of universities to Australia's prosperity. Retrieved April 12, 2017 from, https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/The-Importance-of-universities-to-Australia-s-prosperity#.WPrh9vl97cs">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/news/commissioned-studies/The-Importance-of-universities-to-Australia-s-prosperity#.WPrh9vl97cs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. (2016). Submission to the Review of HEPP. Retrieved April 12, 2017 from, https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/submissions-and-reports/Submission-to-the-Review-of-HEPPP/Submission-to-the-Review-of-HEPPP#.WPrgLPmGPcs">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/submissions-and-reports/Submission-to-the-Review-of-HEPPP/Submission-to-the-Review-of-HEPPP#.WPrgLPmGPcs</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. (2017). Submission 2017-18 pre-budget submission. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/submissions-and-reports/2017-18-Pre-budget-submission/2017-18-Pre-budget-submission">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/submissions-and-reports/2017-18-Pre-budget-submission/2017-18-Pre-budget-submission</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, T., & Naidoo, V. (Eds.). (2016). International marketing of higher education. New York : Palgrave Macmillan US.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mary A. Burston</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Mary A. Burston is an adjunct lecturer in the School of Education, College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce at La Trobe University, Melbourne. Her experiences as a university lecturer include undergraduate and postgraduate education in humanities, social sciences and teacher education and supervision of doctorate and masters research students. Publications include book chapters in Springer, IGI Global, and Sense and articles in the Journal of Further and Higher Education; International research in geographical and environmental education; The International Journal of Management Education. Her research focuses on inequality and inequity in education systems and factors that reproduce outcomes of disadvantage in education and society.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref103"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1243961
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Complex Matter: Charitable Organisation or Corporate Institution? A Reflection on Charity and Its Applicability in an Era of Market-Driven Higher Education in Australia
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burston%2C+Mary+A%2E%22">Burston, Mary A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Critical+Studies+in+Education%22"><i>Critical Studies in Education</i></searchLink>. 2020 61(1):115-132.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonprofit+Organizations%22">Nonprofit Organizations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Altruism%22">Altruism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Justice%22">Social Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Role%22">College Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Legislation%22">Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Donors%22">Donors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Financial+Aid%22">Student Financial Aid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarships%22">Scholarships</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17508487.2017.1333520
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1750-8487
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Universities represent institutions of learning, research and knowledge but are also "not-for-profit" charitable organisations delegated the charitable purpose of advancing education and public benefit. Charity law differentiates the obligations, values and philosophies of "not-for-profit" and for profit organisations. Policy and economic imperatives to reform universities in Australia should raise questions about potential compromises to charity values, social justice objectives and public benefit. The disjuncture between the values of charity and profitability draws attention to issues of public benefit in a market-oriented higher education economy and obligations delegated by charity laws. More research is needed into the investment of charity capital and obligations of public benefit delegated to Australian public universities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1243961
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1243961
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17508487.2017.1333520
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 115
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nonprofit Organizations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Altruism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Donors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Financial Aid
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarships
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Complex Matter: Charitable Organisation or Corporate Institution? A Reflection on Charity and Its Applicability in an Era of Market-Driven Higher Education in Australia
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burston, Mary A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1750-8487
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Critical Studies in Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1