The Accessibility and Affordability of Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Debate on Low-Cost and Private Higher Education Institutions

There is a growing debate about the potential of Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) to achieve the “Education for All” (EFA) objectives that have been widely publicized in international policy documents. However, unanswered questions remain about the capability and probability of PHEIs to provide quality affordable education to disadvantaged groups, the poor, and financially unstable individuals and provide support without undermining equity (especially between girls and boys). While there is a growing number of market-oriented (normally for-profit and some not-for-profit) PHEIs that are dependent on student fees for some or all of their costs, their scale and coverage remain largely unreliably documented, and many go unrecognized by governments even though some isolated surveys suggest that they are expanding in Africa. This exponential growth is variably attributed to excess and/or differentiated demands which raise ongoing questions about equity, quality, affordability, and cost-effectiveness. This chapter attempts to provide an insight into emerging approaches such as the political economy of the market of PHEIs specifically its link to power and accountability between users, i.e., how government and private education providers can produce better outcomes for the poor and underprivileged. This systematic review synthesizes the best available evidence on the questions raised about the capability and probability of Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) providing quality affordable education to disadvantaged groups, the poor, and financially unstable individuals by navigating through often inconclusive and sometimes contradictory research findings. A critical review of the findings of previous studies on the role and impact of Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs) found most of the evidence provided was weak and unsupported due to a highly polarized debate that was based mostly on unsubstantiated assumptions.