IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v27yi1p115-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Federal Student-Aid Fungibility in Two Competing Versions of Federalism

Author

Listed:
  • Jon H. Oberg

Abstract

This study employs twenty-three years of federal, state, and institutional student-aid data to investigate the effects of federal grants to students on the behavior of higher education institutions. Unlike previous studies, this research differentiates between federal-aid programs according to whether a federal program follows “redivision federalism” or “cooperative federalism” concepts. Pell grants, exemplifying the former, appear highly fungible and inversely related to institutional grants to students, while campus-based federal programs, exemplifying “cooperative federalism, ” appear less fungible and positively associated with institutional grants. The results also suggest that grants to students are more important to higher education opportunity than indicated by some previous research. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jon H. Oberg, 0. "Testing Federal Student-Aid Fungibility in Two Competing Versions of Federalism," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 115-134.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:27:y::i:1:p:115-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:27:y::i:1:p:115-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.