INTRODUCTION:

Schultz in his human capital theory, proposed the idea of treating education as an investment in human beings and made a strong case for it being an important source of economic growth.¹

Education is a crucial way to invest in human capital, particularly in higher education. It makes it possible for people to think critically and learn on their own. Higher education produces knowledge workers as well as educated workers in the current context of societies transitioning to knowledge economies. The advancement of a country's social, economic, and scientific sectors is significantly influenced by its higher education system. It increases productivity and earnings and gives people the skills they need for gainful employment.²

The number of students pursuing degrees and diplomas in higher education has increased significantly in recent years, marking a significant growth in the field.

To understand this phenomenon, we need to examine the benefits that accrue from higher education. The benefits of higher education are extensive and impact economic, social and personal spheres of human existence.

According to a report by the World Bank, every additional year of education for the average worker increases the country's GDP by 0.37%³. This is because higher education increases the productivity of workers and enables them to innovate, which drives economic growth⁴. The economic payoffs can be seen even at the individual level. Higher education is often associated with higher earnings potential and better job opportunities. Studies have shown that individuals with a bachelor's degree earn on average 66% more than those with only a high school diploma⁵.

If we consider India, higher education has been recognized as a key driver of economic growth. According to a report by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), higher education has the potential to contribute significantly to the Indian economy, with an estimated contribution of 4-5% to the country's GDP⁶. Moreover, the report highlights the potential of the higher education sector to generate employment and attract foreign investment.

Let us consider the social benefits of higher education. According to research, higher educated people are more likely to vote, participate in volunteer work and civic activities, and conduct other civic activities⁷.

This is evident in the context of India as well. According to a study by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), higher education is associated with greater political participation and engagement in civil society organizations⁸. The study highlights the need to improve the quality of education to ensure that it promotes civic engagement and social responsibility among students.

Women’s empowerment has been a much-discussed issue in India. Higher education has also been recognized as a key factor in promoting women's empowerment in India. In fact, according to a study by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), higher education has a positive impact on women's decision-making power, economic status, and social mobility⁹. The study highlights the need to expand access to higher education for women, particularly those from marginalized communities, to promote their empowerment.

Higher education can also have a profound impact on an individual's personal development. Studies have shown that higher education is associated with increased self-esteem, greater self-awareness, and improved critical thinking and problem-solving skills¹⁰. Additionally, higher education can lead to greater cultural awareness and an expanded worldview, as individuals are exposed to diverse perspectives and experiences.

While it is an established fact that education leads to growth in human capital and that higher education confers definite economic, social and personal benefits, the issue of measuring the efficacy of higher education remains pertinent as ever.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

The significant problem of assessing the efficacy of higher education has lead to various studies on efficiency in higher education. Efficiency in higher education is a critical issue that affects not only individual students but also the institutions that they attend and the socio-economic fabric that their lives impinge upon.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The study attempts to look at the following aspects of higher education:

a) To understand the concept of efficiency as applicable to higher education

b) To observe how efficiency in higher education has been measured

c) To compare efficiency with effectiveness in higher education.

d) To see how effectiveness in higher education has been measured.

e) To surmise what directions the future research in higher education can take.

THE CONCEPT OF EFFICIENCY:

Efficiency in higher education is a complex concept influenced by a range of variables. Simmons and Alexander define efficiency in higher education partly by the net benefits accrued to individuals with more education, such as lifetime earnings, labor productivity, or personal satisfaction¹¹.

Using a process-oriented methodology, Cowan defined efficiency in higher education as measuring elements of educational processes as opposed to global values that describe departments or courses¹².

A comparative efficiency analysis of corporate universities by Parshakov & Shakina, defined efficiency in higher education in relative terms as having better performance compared to other companies¹³.

Welch did a comprehensive review and came to the conclusion that efficiency movements in education often consist of arguments about economics or economism, reducing individual worth and education's worth to economic terms¹⁴.

Bhasin, while using the production function concept for higher education, highlighted the staff-student ratio as an important, though imperfect, indicator of teaching productivity and efficiency. A decline in this ratio (meaning more staff per student) may indicate decreased productivity but potentially better quality¹⁵

Joumady et al. used the data envelopment analysis method to state that efficiency in higher education is measured by the capacity to provide competencies to graduates and match competencies provided during education to competencies required in the job¹⁶.

Bevc et al. explored the relations between funding, equity, and efficiency of higher education and ended up defining efficiency in higher education as the ability to provide value for money, considering the funding system as the basic issue¹⁷.

Kosor did a conceptual analysis and this led to efficiency in higher education being defined using the Pareto criteria, which are complex and may impair policy recommendations¹⁸.

Johnes takes a cost-based approach to define efficiency in higher education as the variation in costs across providers due to differences in efficiency, offering clues about good practice and potential improvements¹⁹. The efficiency concept was expanded by Li-Min to include economical efficiency and social efficiency in the view of social philosophy²⁰.

Klumpp outlined a sector-specific framework for efficiency analysis and management in which efficiency in higher education is defined as a simple relation of inputs toward outputs²¹.

These studies suggest that efficiency in higher education is defined through various lenses including individual benefits like earnings and satisfaction, process measurements, performance comparisons, economic value, competency alignment with job markets, value for money, Pareto criteria, cost variations, and a balance of economical and social efficiency.

Metrics for efficiency in higher education:

Efficiency in higher education is measured in various ways. According to Gralka, there is a high correlation of efficiency values between the estimations using the number of publications and the amount of research grants in higher education institutions²². Even Zhou concluded that research output is a significant factor in institutional rankings and reputation²³.

Joumady opined that efficiency in higher education institutions is measured by their capacity to provide competencies to graduates and match these competencies to job requirements using a non-parametric approach (Data Envelopment Analysis)¹⁶.

On the other hand, Johnes found that the key output variables used to measure efficiency in higher education institutions are the quantity and quality of undergraduate degrees, the quantity of postgraduate degrees, and research²⁴. A recent study by Ferro, highlighted the importance of including students, research funding and quality variables in measuring the efficiency of institutes of higher education²⁵. D’Elia established that degrees completed are the most frequently used output variable to measure efficiency in higher education institutions²⁶.

While examining some top liberal arts colleges, Eckles found that six-year graduation rate and cost per undergraduate are key output variables used to measure efficiency in higher education institutions²⁷.

Kumar measured the efficiency in higher education institutions by the number of students placed, entrepreneurs, median CTC of placed students, total number of students passed, research publications, and international exchange participation²⁸.

A meta-analysis by Mikusova identified the key output variables to measure efficiency in higher education as the number of students, graduates and academic staff²⁹.

Changjun looked at efficiency in terms of recruitment of college graduates and measured it by employment status, initial monthly salary and job satisfaction³⁰.

A student-related measure like student satisfaction has been used as a measure of efficiency in education by Mainardes et al., Johnes, De Witte and Hudrlikova^31-33.

Pingle et al. suggested satisfaction of all stakeholders as being the key to educational efficiency and this can only be achieved if a Total Quality Management approach is used³⁴.

These studies suggest that efficiency in higher education institutions is measured using a variety of output variables including graduation rates, cost per student, number and quality of degrees, research output, graduate competencies, job placement, employment outcomes and student satisfaction

Efficiency or Effectiveness: A comparative review:

While realizing that efficiency in higher education is important, we must not lose sight of the fact that effectiveness of higher education is also equally important and must be thoroughly examined.

According to Arhipova et al., efficiency is the relation of outputs to inputs, while effectiveness is the relation of outcomes to outputs and inputs, in higher education study programs³⁵.

According to Ryabchenko et al., efficiency is a qualitative indicator that shows how much resource was used to achieve a specific goal, whereas effectiveness is the degree to which university activities conform to the outcome secured by the goal³⁶.

Levchenko hypothesized that efficiency and effectiveness in higher education differ, with efficiency focusing on scientific activities and effectiveness focusing on student-centrism and education³⁷.

According to Hanson, institutional effectiveness necessitates controlling for students' initial background characteristics while connecting the achievement of student outcomes to their involvement in particular programmatic efforts³⁸.

Cowan discovered that effectiveness and efficiency in higher education differ in their measurement and focus on components of educational processes rather than global values descriptive of courses or departments¹².

To conclude we can say that these studies suggest that in higher education, efficiency relates to the optimal use of resources and inputs to produce outputs, while effectiveness is concerned with achieving desired outcomes and goals, often focusing on student-centered results.

Metrics for effectiveness in higher education:

Goldschmid is of the view that a multiple indicator approach, including student ratings, peer reviews, and direct measurements of student learning, is the most defensible method for evaluating teaching effectiveness in higher education³⁹.

According to Martini et al, employability, personal fulfilment, and professional empowerment are the three dimensions that make up the multidimensional concept of effectiveness in higher education, and there are various time periods for measuring each of these outcomes⁴⁰.

d’ Apollonia et al. stated that student ratings of instruction measure general instructional skill, which includes delivering instruction, facilitating interactions, and evaluating student learning⁴¹.

Horn realized that effectiveness scores derived from regression residuals for community colleges have acceptable to good reliability and are positively associated with students' perceptions of a supportive campus environment⁴².

Tinto asserts that graduation rates are a crucial sign of a student's success in higher education. A number of variables, including the educational background of the student, institutional support, and academic preparation, can affect graduation rates⁴³.

Kowar argues that employability is a key measure of effectiveness, especially in technical education. Employability is determined largely by the quality of inputs given by the teachers. The effectiveness of teachers can be greatly enhanced if Management by Objectives is followed⁴⁴. Sarin, in a similar vein, asserts that effectiveness in higher education is determined, to a great extent, by the employability skills imparted⁴⁵.

The effectiveness of higher education institutions can also be measured by the degree to which they make their students ready for their careers. One study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that employers place a high value on skills such as critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving, which are developed through a liberal arts education⁴⁶.

Thus, we can see that effectiveness in higher education can be measured best by various indicators like employability, satisfaction and graduation rates and these can be influenced by incidental factors in the environment.

Higher Education: The hidden elements:

There have been researchers who have indicated that there may be factors extraneous to the education system which impact the efficiency variables and influence the effectiveness of higher education. Worthington, for instance, is of the opinion that that educational efficiency is influenced by non-discretionary variables such as political, environmental, technological variables⁴⁷.

Government policies are determined by political factors. Government regulations have a significant impact on how higher education is shaped. They define the regulatory framework and funding mechanisms that impact access, quality, and diversity of higher education. Government policies have the power to help or impede the advancement of higher education. In many cases, the policies framed by the government favor marketization, which leads to the commodification of education, particularly in developing countries⁴⁸.

Government funding is a significant factor that affects the accessibility and quality of higher education. In countries where higher education is heavily subsidized, there is a higher enrolment rate, and students have access to quality education. However, in countries with limited government funding, the quality of higher education is compromised, and enrolment rates are low⁴⁹. Funding cuts have also led to reduced staff and resources, impacting the quality of education, particularly in developing countries⁵⁰.

Gurupanch talks about the role of government in promoting research which is integrated with the living realities of people in society as this has a significant bearing on the well-being of nations and global society⁵¹.

The efficacy and strength of any educational system is determined by its teachers. Antil lays emphasis on the professional development of teachers as this will have a significant positive effect on students’ performance and learning⁵². Khan outlines how various innovations in the teaching process can make higher education more effective⁵³. Ravaliya concluded that the government can contribute by ringing in policy reforms in higher education which will facilitate continuous and lifelong learning for teachers⁵⁴. Juneja & Shikha also found that teachers’ expertise is the most influential factor in student satisfaction⁵⁵.

Curriculum is another critical socio-political factor that influences higher education. The curriculum shapes the skills and knowledge that students acquire during their studies. Political ideologies and beliefs often shape the curriculum, and governments can use the curriculum to promote national identity, values, and political ideologies⁵⁶. The curriculum can also promote social justice and equity by integrating diverse perspectives and experiences.

Governance structures in higher education can influence policies, funding, and curriculum. In many countries, governance structures are centralized, giving governments significant control over higher education institutions⁵⁷. However, as Marginson found, decentralization can lead to more autonomy and diversity of institutions, which can foster innovation and competition⁵⁸. Bok found that governance structures can also impact academic freedom, with some governments limiting academic freedom to control dissenting voices⁵⁹.

According to De Neve & Kawachi, political instability has a negative impact on higher education by disrupting academic activities and reducing government funding. In countries with political instability, universities are often closed, and students and staff are forced to flee⁶⁰. This leads to a brain drain, which affects the quality of higher education and the overall socio-economic development of the country.

Altbach has found that institutional autonomy is a socio-political factor that affects the quality of higher education⁴⁹. The same has been echoed by Lal in the context of India, which, incidentally has the largest higher education system. In countries where universities have greater autonomy, they are more likely to produce quality research and provide quality education. However, in countries where universities are heavily regulated by the government, academic freedom and quality may be compromised⁶¹.

Thus, we see that socio-political factors impinge upon higher education and determine the extent and type of outcomes that are achieved. Higher education’s effectiveness result from efficiency factors as well as government policies and governance structures.

Suggestions for future research:

Despite this existing knowledge, there is still a significant gap in our understanding of the specific factor inputs that contribute to efficiency in higher education. To understand efficiency in higher education, it is imperative that we understand how higher education can be made more effective. The effectiveness of higher education, at present, is looked at, mostly from the perspective of the ones who are responsible for creation, maintenance and operations of the education system, namely, the educators. To get a true measure of effectiveness in our higher education system, the perspective of the intended beneficiaries, that is, the educated, must also be considered. Much research is required in this area.

It is well established that education is a public good and is responsible for the economic, social and moral growth of societies. With such far-reaching ramifications, it becomes obvious that higher education should taken into account the interests of all stakeholders to, first, effectively frame its objectives and then to efficiently attain those objectives. Existing research is yet to delve into the desires, interests and goals of the ones sponsoring higher education, namely, the parents of the students receiving such education.

Lastly, the realm of education is affected by forces in the environment within which institutions of higher education have their being and play out their intended destinies. Government human resource policies give guidelines and directions especially to higher education and this will have implications on efficiency and will determine the extent to which the educational objectives are met. The impact of this non-discretionary variable is yet to be ascertained fully as is evident when the extant literature in this domain is perused.

Addressing this knowledge gap is essential for improving the efficacy of higher education institutions and ensuring that students receive the best possible education.

REFERENCES:

1. Schultz TW. Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review. 1961 Mar 1; 51(1):1-7.

2. Duraisamy P. Changes in returns to education in India, 1983–94: By gender, age-cohort and location. Economics of Education Review. 2002 Dec 1; 21(6):609-22.

3. Psacharopoulos G, Patrinos HA. Returns to investment in education: a decennial review of the global literature. Education Economics. 2018 Sep 3; 26(5):445-58.

4. OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.

5. Carnevale AP, Jayasundera T, Gulish A. Good jobs are back. Retrieved from Washington, DC: https://cew. georgetown. edu/wp-content/uploads/Good-Jobs_Full_Final. pdf. 2015.

6. FICCI. FICCI Report on Higher Education. New Delhi: Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry; 2020.

7. Buchmann C, DiPrete TA. The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociological Review. 2006 Aug; 71(4):515-41.

8. Kumar S, editor. Youth in India: Aspirations, attitudes, anxieties. Taylor & Francis; 2019 Mar 26.

9. National Council of Applied Economic Research. Annual Report 2018–19. New Delhi: National Council of Applied Economic Research; 2019. 122 p. Available from: www.ncaer.org.

10. Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley. 10475 Crosspoint Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46256; 2005 Feb.

11. Simmons J, Alexander L. The determinants of school achievement in developing countries: A review of the research. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1978 Jan 1; 26(2):341-57.

12. Cowan J. Effectiveness and efficiency in higher education. Higher Education. 1985 Jun; 14(3):235-9.

13. Parshakov P, Shakina EA. With or without CU: A comparative study of efficiency of European and Russian corporate universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2018 Jan 8; 19(1):96-111.

14. Welch AR. The cult of efficiency in education: Comparative reflections on the reality and the rhetoric. Comparative Education. 1998 Jun 1; 34(2):157-75.

15. Sneha Bhasin. Input Output in Education. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(1): 91-96.

16. Joumady O, Ris C. Performance in European higher education: A non‐parametric production frontier approach. Education Economics. 2005 Jun 1; 13(2):189-205.

17. Bevc M, Uršič S. Relations between funding, equity, and efficiency of higher education. Education Economics. 2008 Sep 1; 16(3):229-44.

18. Kosor MM. Efficiency measurement in higher education: Concepts, methods and perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013 Dec 10; 106:1031-8.

19. Johnes G. Evaluating the efficiency of public services. IZA World of Labor. 2015.

20. Li-min Y. On the efficiency of higher education. Univ Educ Sci. 2006.

21. Klumpp M. Efficiency in higher education: Requirements, theory, methods and decision areas. In Theory and Method in Higher Education Research 2015 Sep 29 (pp. 93-118). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

22. Gralka S, Wohlrabe K, Bornmann L. How to measure research efficiency in higher education? Research grants vs. publication output. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2019 May 4; 41(3):322-41.

23. Zhou P, Leydesdorff L. Research collaboration in higher education: a bibliometric analysis. PLoS One. 2019 Oct; 14(10):e0223057. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223057.

24. Johnes J. Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review. 2006 Jun 1; 25(3):273-88.

25. Ferro G, D'Elia V. Higher education efficiency frontier analysis: a review of variables to consider. 2020; 13:140-53

26. D'Elia VV, Ferro G. Empirical efficiency measurement in higher education: An overview. Serie Documentos de Trabajo, Nro. 2019 Dec 1; 708.

27. Eckles JE. Evaluating the efficiency of top liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education. 2010 May; 51(3):266-93.

28. Kumar A, Thakur RR. Objectivity in performance ranking of higher education institutions using dynamic data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2019 Jun 10; 68(4):774-96.

29. Mikušová P. The efficiency of public higher education institutions: a meta-analysis. Ekonomický Časopis. 2020; 68(09):963-77.

30. Changjun Y. An empirical study on efficiency of recruitment of college graduates. J High Educ. 2008.

31. Mainardes E, Alves H, Raposo M. Using expectations and satisfaction to measure the frontiers of efficiency in public universities. Tertiary Education and Management. 2014 Dec; 20:339-53.

32. Johnes G. Efficiency in English higher education institutions revisited: A network approach. Economics Bulletin. 2013; 33(4):2698-706.

33. De Witte K, Hudrlikova L. What about excellence in teaching? A benevolent ranking of universities. Scientometrics. 2013 Jul; 96(1):337-64.

34. Pingle Shubhangi G., Lahiri Moon Moon, Jain Nanda S.. Applying ‘Total Quality Management’ Concept in Academics in context to higher educational system in rural region Case Study of Shirpur Taluka, Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. Asian J. Management. 2012; 3(3): 134-138.

35. Arhipova I, Paura L, Eiduks J, Vitols G. Comparative analysis of higher education study programs’ quality, efficiency and effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, 2017 Jun 26 (pp. 55-63). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València.

36. Ryabchenko V. Developing the Personal Potential of Academic Staff and Higher Education Applicants as an Integrated Criterion for the Performance and Effectiveness of University Management. International Scientific Journal of Universities and Leadership. 2019 Oct 21(7): 65-88.

37. Levchenko S. Efficiency and effectiveness in a context of a higher education institutions: classification and problems of definition. International Humanitarian University Herald. Economics and Management. 2021.

38. Hanson GR, Swann DM. Using multiple program impact analysis to document institutional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education. 1993 Feb 1; 34(1):71-94.

39. Goldschmid ML. The evaluation and improvement of teaching in higher education. Higher education. 1978 May; 7(2):221-45.

40. Martini MC, Fabbris L. Beyond employment rate: A multidimensional indicator of higher education effectiveness. Social Indicators Research. 2017 Jan; 1(30):351-70.

41. d'Apollonia S, Abrami PC. Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist. 1997 Nov; 52(11):1198.

42. Horn AS, Horner OG, Lee G. Measuring the effectiveness of two-year colleges: a comparison of raw and value- added performance indicators. Studies in Higher Education. 2019 Jan 2; 44(1):151-69.

43. Tinto V. From theory to action: exploring the institutional change required for improving student success. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. 2017; 32:1-39.

44. Manoj Kumar Kowar. Enhancing Teachers’ Efficiency in Technical Education through MBO. Asian J. Management. 2011; 2(2): 57-62.

45. Charu Sarin. Analyzing Skill Gap between Higher Education and Employability. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(3): 941-948. doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00154.2

46. McFarland J, Hussar B, Wang X, Zhang J, Wang K, Rathbun A, Barmer A, Cataldi EF, Mann FB. The Condition of Education 2018. NCES 2018-144. National Center for Education Statistics. 2018 May.

47. Worthington AC. An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics. 2001 Dec 1; 9(3): 245-68.

48. Biraimah K. Marketization of higher education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Research. 2020; 8(1):23-34.

49. Altbach PG. The complex roles of government in higher education. In: Altbach PG, editor. The international encyclopedia of higher education systems and institutions. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2016. p. 1-10.

50. Carnoy M, Rabling B. The political economy of higher education finance: the politics of tuition fees and subsidies in OECD countries, 1945-2015. Teachers College Record. 2012; 114(8): 1-31.

51. Kuber Singh Gurupanch. Recent trends, Challenges and Issues in Social Science. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(3): 163-7. doi: 10.52711/2454-2687.2023.00026

52. Neetu Antil. Professional Development of Teachers in Higher Education. Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2017; 8(3): 311-315. doi: 10.5958/2230-7311.2017.00021.6

53. Shaheen Fatima Khan. Higher Education: Innovation and Practices. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2024; 15(2): 161-166. doi: 10.52711/2321-5828.2024.00024

54. Rameshkumar K. Ravaliya. Higher Education in India: Sociological Overviews. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(2): 127-0. doi: 10.52711/2454-2679.2023.00019

55. Poonam Juneja, Prajwalit Shikha. Role of Infrastructure in Improving Students’ Outcomes. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(3): 918-924. doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00151.7

56. Chapman D. Social justice and the university curriculum: a case study of a social justice-focused curriculum initiative. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2017; 39(5): 525-39.

57. Mok KH, Han X, Jiang J, Zhang X. International and transnational education for whose interests? A study on the career development of Chinese students. Higher Education Quarterly. 2018 Jul; 72(3): 208-23.

58. Marginson S. The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy. 2013 May 1; 28(3):353-70.

59. Bok D. Higher education in America. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2015.

60. De Neve JE, Kawachi I. Political instability and human capital accumulation. World Dev. 2017; 94: 156-67. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.005.

61. Rattan Lal. Higher Education in India: Emerging Issues and Challenges. Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(2): 672-676. doi: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00110.4.

Received on 13.05.2025 Revised on 30.06.2025

Accepted on 07.08.2025 Published on 07.11.2025

Available online from November 17, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(4):272-278.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00040

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