Status and Condition of Corporatization Strategies of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in Region III in the Philippines

Arneil G. Gabriel, Jocelyn B. Cruz


The right to free access to quality education of citizens extends to tertiary level education. This Constitutional provision creates increasing demands for State Universities and Colleges (SUC’s) which in turn exerts pressure on the budgetary capacity of the government to finance such education. To strike the balance between equity of access and quality of education, SUCs employed corporatization strategies to generate income and finance its operations. The study looks into the strategies employed by SUCs in Region III in the Philippines and analyzes matters related to the practice of corporatization principles. By using descriptive correlation design, the study showed that respondent SUCs in Region III are: a) diverse in many aspects of their operations, b) vary in the modes of generating income, descriptively measured from “sometimes” to “often” except the collection of tuition fees which has been rated as “very often” applied as corporatization strategy, c) have variety in income utilization ranging from 46 percent to 51 percent; d) stakeholders are found “very satisfied” in the manner SUCs in Region III used their income, e) are rated with varying interpretations in terms of corporatization strategies and performance of their fourfold functions, e) have marked differences in terms of income utilization except in corporatization activities which marked as “not significant”. Finally, it was found that employees’ satisfaction and the performance of the four fold functions of instruction, research, extension and production are significantly correlated. It is recommended that stakeholders’ engagement in planning and organizing programs and projects of SUCs in Region III be enhanced.

Full Text:



Alvaran, A. (2002). Resource Generation of Selected State Universities and Colleges: An assessment

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Buchbinder, H. (1990). Social knowledge and market knowledge: universities in the information age. Gannett Center Journal, 5, 17-29.

Duka, C. (2005). Review for the Licensure Examination for Teachers, Manila Review Institute, Inc. Manila, Philippines

Fronda, J., Gabriel, A., & Loria, S. (2018). The Philippines at the Crossroads to Economic Globalization. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 128-151.

Gabriel, A. G., & Claudio, E. G. (2016) Study Manual on Politics, Governance and Government with Philippine Constitution, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology Printing Press, Cabanatuan City, Philippines.

Ginsberg, B. (2011). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. New York: Oxford U P, 2011.

Malate, R. (2009). Impact of Corporatization on Higher Education

Mills, N. (2002). The Corporatization of Higher Education

Padua, R.N. (2003). International higher education quality assurance practices: Situating the Philippine system.

Steck, H. (2003). Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585(Jan.2003), 66-83.

Villabroza, J. M. P. (2002). Rationalization of public higher institutions: towards greater Efficiency


Copyright (c) 2018 Arneil G. Gabriel, Jocelyn B Cruz

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Journal of Public Administration and Governance  ISSN 2161-7104


Copyright © Macrothink Institute

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.