Government support and equality in higher education: the experience of China and Kyrgyzstan

As a key force to promote national socioeconomic development, social mobility, and equity, higher education occupies an important position in the development strategies of countries around the world. Higher education is not only a system for training qualified professionals, but also a mechanism for reducing social inequality, fostering innovation, and ensuring long-term economic growth. In this sense, access to higher education becomes a fundamental condition for both personal advancement and collective progress.

In order to guarantee equal opportunities, many governments have introduced diverse social policies aimed at widening participation, supporting disadvantaged groups, and addressing systemic inequalities. These policies may take the form of financial assistance, preferential enrollment rules, or affirmative action programs, each reflecting the socio-political and economic priorities of the state. In China and Kyrgyzstan, despite differences in historical trajectories and levels of economic development, both governments have recognized the need to use higher education as a tool for promoting social justice and equity. Their policy instruments include interest skewing, preference setting, and positive discrimination, which not only impact the higher education systems of the two countries, but also shape broader patterns of social equity and mobility [1].

A comparative study of China and Kyrgyzstan is especially relevant for several reasons. First, both countries belong to the broader Asian context, yet they represent contrasting models of de- velopment: China, with its large-scale state-driven modernization and robust financial investments, and Kyrgyzstan, with its post-Soviet legacy, limited resources, and ongoing institutional reforms. Second, both countries face common challenges, such as regional disparities, the inclusion of ethnic minorities, and the need to balance quality with access. Third, in an era of globalization, the analysis of their experiences provides valuable insights into how different governance models approach the same problem -ensuring educational equity through targeted policies [3].

The aim of this study is to reveal the similarities and differences in the social policies of higher education in China and Kyrgyzstan, to identify the effectiveness of policy instruments, and to formulate practical recommendations for policy improvement. An in-depth understanding of these dynamics will not only allow both countries to learn from each other’s experiences, but also contribute to the development of more scientifically grounded and effective strategies for ensuring equity in higher education. Furthermore, the research provides the international academic community with a clearer picture of how states with different political systems and economic capacities address the universal challenge of educational inequality.

To achieve this aim, the study draws upon a wide range of sources, including academic papers, research reports, and monographs obtained from databases such as CNKI, Web of Science, and Scopus. The literature review enabled a systematic identification of the current research status, as well as gaps that remain insufficiently explored. In addition, policy documents issued by the Chinese and Kyrgyz governments were analyzed, covering areas such as student funding schemes, enrollment preferences for disadvantaged groups, and measures to promote balanced regional development in education. The analysis focused on the objectives, content, and implementation mechanisms of these policies, allowing for a deeper comparative perspective [4].

Quantitative data, including higher education enrollment rates, graduation rates, and student financial support statistics, were collected from official government websites, national education statistical yearbooks, and international organizations (such as UNESCO and the World Bank). Using descriptive statistical analysis and compar- ative methods, patterns and divergences in policy outcomes were examined, thus providing robust empirical support for the study’s conclusions.

The novelty of this research lies in its comprehensive comparative approach, combining theoretical analysis, policy review, and statistical evidence to understand the social policies of higher education in China and Kyrgyzstan. Its significance is twofold:

• 1.    Theoretical contribution – it enriches the academic discourse on educational equity by situating the experiences of two distinct national contexts within a comparative framework.

• 2.    Practical contribution – it provides policymakers with insights into effective strategies for designing and implementing higher education social policies, highlighting transferable practices and context-specific limitations.

In sum, this study addresses the critical question of how governments can use higher education policies to reduce inequality and promote social mobility, offering both academic insights and policy-relevant recommendations.

Results.

Government interest initiative.

China: The Chinese government has built a comprehensive and multi-level system of financial support for students, including national scholarships, grants, subsidized student loans, and targeted aid. National scholarships reward academic excellence and inspire students to strive for high achievement. Grants and stipends are distributed based on both merit and financial need, while preferential loans with low interest rates and long repayment terms help students from low-income families overcome barriers to higher education. The scale and institutionalization of this system demonstrate the strategic role education plays in China’s long-term socioeconomic planning.

Kyrgyzstan: In Kyrgyzstan, financial support mechanisms exist but are limited in scope due to scarce resources. Scholarships are generally allocated to students in priority fields (pedagogy, medicine, engineering, IT), chosen to meet pressing labor market demands. This selective approach addresses workforce shortages but does not provide a universal framework for financial aid. Consequently, while targeted beneficiaries receive substantial support, many students remain outside the system, and education’s role as a driver of social mobility is constrained.

Policy preference and positive discrimination.

China: China applies affirmative action measures to reduce inequality and expand access. Students from ethnic minority backgrounds, rural areas, and low-income households benefit from preferential admission policies. Notably, the Gaokao bonus point system increases the admission chances of minority students, while enrollment quotas and targeted programs ensure representation of underprivileged groups in elite universities. These measures mitigate systemic disadvantages, promote regional balance, and reinforce national social cohesion.

Kyrgyzstan: Kyrgyzstan has also introduced policies aimed at vulnerable groups, such as students from rural or mountainous regions and ethnic minorities. However, implementation is inconsistent due to weak administrative capacity, unbalanced regional development, and periodic socio-political instability. The absence of effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms further diminishes policy outcomes, resulting in uneven and often fragmented impact.

Both China and Kyrgyzstan acknowledge the strategic role of government intervention in ensuring educational equity and addressing social disparities. However, the comparative analysis reveals significant differences in scope, coherence, and effectiveness of policy implementation [2].

China’s system is characterized by its comprehensiveness, institutionalization, and multilevel coverage. It simultaneously addresses financial barriers, regional imbalances, and social inequalities, thereby achieving measurable progress in both access and quality of higher education. Moreover, the existence of well-developed supervision and evaluation mechanisms strengthens the implementation of policies, ensuring their sustainability.

Kyrgyzstan’s approach remains fragmented and narrowly focused, with policies often concentrated on specific priority areas rather than forming an integrated system. Weak administrative capacity, low efficiency of enforcement mechanisms, and insufficient financial investment significantly constrain the country’s ability to achieve declared policy objectives. Consequently, despite a recognition of the importance of equity in education, the practical results are modest compared to China [5].

In general, the results of the comparative study suggest that China has achieved notable success in promoting educational equity and improving quality through a robust and systemic policy framework. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan continues to face multiple challenges, including resource shortages, weak governance mechanisms, and regional disparities, which prevent its policies from delivering the intended outcomes. Nevertheless, Kyrgyzstan’s emphasis on priority sectors highlights a potential strength: the ability to align educational policy directly with labor market needs, which could serve as a foundation for more comprehensive reforms in the future.

Conclusion.

This study has provided a comparative analysis of the social policies of higher education in China and Kyrgyzstan, focusing on government interest initiatives, policy preferences, and positive discrimination. The findings demonstrate that although both countries aim at achieving similar overarching objectives - such as promoting equity, expanding access to higher education, and reducing social inequalities—their approaches differ considerably in terms of policy design, institutional mechanisms, and the effectiveness of implementation [6].

In the case of China, the policies are characterized by strong state regulation, large-scale financial investments, and systematic integration into broader national development strategies. These measures have allowed China to make significant progress in reducing regional disparities, expanding opportunities for rural and disadvantaged populations, and ensuring the alignment of education with long-term socio-economic goals. At the same time, challenges remain in terms of balancing quality with quantity, and in addressing the pressures caused by rapid modernization and competition.

In contrast, Kyrgyzstan’s social policies in higher education are shaped by limited financial resources, post-Soviet institutional legacies, and ongoing efforts to harmonize education with international standards. Despite these constraints, Kyrgyzstan has developed flexible mechanisms that reflect democratic values, openness, and responsiveness to the needs of different social groups. However, problems such as insufficient funding, uneven regional development, and limited policy enforcement reduce the overall effectiveness of the measures taken.

The comparative perspective suggests that Kyrgyzstan can benefit from China’s experience in establishing sustainable funding systems, enhancing policy implementation capacity, and linking higher education strategies with national socio-economic programs. At the same time, China can draw lessons from Kyrgyzstan’s emphasis on inclusiveness and adaptability, which may help mitigate some unintended consequences of highly centralized policy approaches [7].

From a broader standpoint, the study highlights the importance of context-sensitive policymaking, where socio-economic, cultural, and historical conditions must be considered in designing and implementing higher education social policies. It also underlines the fact that educational equity is not an abstract ideal but a practi- cal necessity that directly affects national development, social stability, and international competitiveness.

Future research should move beyond macrolevel comparisons and conduct in-depth case studies of specific policy instruments, such as student financial aid systems, regional development programs, or enrollment preferences for disadvantaged groups. Longitudinal studies that trace the long-term social, cultural, and economic impacts of these policies would also provide valuable insights. Such efforts will not only contribute to theoretical development in the field of educational policy studies but also offer practical recommendations for policymakers seeking to optimize higher education social policies in diverse national contexts.