美國公立大學校長之總體薪酬在近7年間成長幅度之快，引起許多爭議。大學校長的職位與其工作內容與企業執行長有多相似之處，但又具其特殊性。身為大學行政事務之最高級執行者，負責學校整體財政與營運的穩定。身為大學之學術事務的最高領導者，校長維護學校優良名譽傳統。研究期間因美國經濟成長遲緩、大學學費不斷調漲、大學生的貸款問題，與許多企業界執行長的財務弊案，直接或間接造成校長的高漲薪酬成為眾矢之的。
    本研究提出可能會影響、與薪資密切關聯的變數，旨在探討影響公立大學校長薪酬漲跌最為相關的變數。其變數涵蓋了個人因素、機構性質因素與總體經濟概念的三種層級的九種變數。研究期間為2004年至2008年。研究方法為追蹤資料分析的回歸統計法，基於代理理論，經調整後設計出四種回歸模型。
    實證模型證實，機構性質的變數在統計與經濟規模上都呈現最顯著的結果。大學的財政收入來源，即學費與捐贈基金，實證的顯著結果與假設模型相符。個人因素的性別變項，實證結果顯示性別在統計上呈現其顯著性但是在經濟規模上卻無明顯影響。在總體經濟規模概念的變數中，州的赤字占州整體GSP的比例，與實質人均GSP的比例對大學校長總薪酬呈現顯著影響。整合本研究所有實證結果，公立大學本身的機構規模決定校長的薪酬。機構性質相似，但規模較大的大學有穩定的學費與捐贈基金的收入來源，財政穩定的大學有能力給予高薪聘用或保留適任校長人才。

The rapid growth of the compensation for the presidents of US public universities and colleges has drawn significant public attention to this fact. A university president is in many ways equivalent to an executive; one who is responsible to operate the university in a financially sound manner. On the other hand, as the leader of his school, he or she is charged with maintaining the institution’s reputation. Recently, the rise of tuition, student loans, several cases of financial scandals of corporate executives, and the stagnated U.S. economy -- during the period of this study -- are also reasons making the issue of public schools’ presidential compensation controversial. Many Americans have started to doubt the fairness of presidents’ huge compensation packages. 
    The purpose of this thesis is to explore the determinants of presidential compensation within US public universities and colleges by relating statistically a number of specific variables that are thought to be closely related to the fluctuation in presidential pay. The data mainly came from surveys undertaken by the Chronicle of Higher Education. Our study employs compensation data during the period 2004 to 2008. We apply a panel data regression model to analyze the variables. Our study collects a total nine variables and further categorizes those into three levels, which are the state economic level, the institutional level, and the individual level. 
    Our empirical models demonstrate that the institutional level variables are strongly and (statistically) significantly related to presidential compensation. The financial resources of the university, as represented by enrollment and endowment, lead theoretically to higher presidential compensation. This is clearly born out in the data. At the individual level, male presidents appear to have a slight advantage over female presidents after controlling for other effects. From a macroeconomic point of view, the variables of deficit per GSP and real GSP per worker are seen to be strongly correlated to presidential compensation. In summary, the scale of the university determines its financial stability, with more tuition from the enrollment and the revenue from endowment. The university with a relatively stable financial environment is able to pay higher salary to the president.

Contents
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………..i
Chinese Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………ii
English Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………….iii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………..….………… iv
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………v 

I.  Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………1

1.1  An Overview for the Research…………………………………………………………………1
1.2  Motivation and Goals of the Research……………………………………………………...16
1.3  Methodology, Descriptive Statistics and Restrictions ………………………………..18
1.4  A Basic Summary of Results from the Thesis…………………………………………...21

II.  Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………..23

2.1  Literature Review and Relation to Research Topic …………………………………..23
2.2  Table of Literature Review in Chronological Order ……..……………………………27

III.  Theoretical Model ……………………………………………………………………………33

3.1  Introduction to Model and Assumptions …………………………………………………33
3.2  Comparative Statics of the Model ……………………………………………………………38
3.3  A Numerical Example of the Model ……………………………………………………...…43

IV.  Empirical Model and Analysis ……………………………………………………..…45

4.1  A General Empirical Model and Its Relation to Theoretical Section ……………45
4.2  Data Sources, Summary Statistics, and Transformations……………………….…..48
4.3  Estimation Results and Diagnostics ………………………………………………………...53
4.4  Summary of Empirical Results ………………………………………………….………..…..62

V.  Conclusion and Recommendations …………………………………………………67

VI.  References ……...………………………………………………………………………….….….71

6.1  Tables and References……………………………………………………………………………71

Appendix ………………………………………………………………………........................……….…79
Appendix 1 …………………………………………………………………………………........................79
Appendix 2 ……………………………………………………………………………........................……81
Appendix 3 ………………………………………………………………………………........................…82
Appendix 4 ……………………………………………………………………………........................……83
Appendix 5 ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…84
List of Tables

Table 2-1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………27
Table 4-1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………74
Table 4-2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………75
Table 4-3 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………75
Table 4-4A ……………………………………………………………………………………………….……76
Table 4-4B ………………………………………………………………………………………………….…77
List of Figures

Figure 1 …………………………………………………..........................................……………………....79
Figure 2 …………………………………………………………………………..........................................81
Figure 3 ………………………………………………………………………..........................................…82
Figure 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..……83
Figure 5 …………………………………………………………………………………………..……………84

Bartlett, Robin L., Sorokina, Olga (2005). Determinants of Presidential Pay at National Liberal Arts Institutions, Review of Higher Education, Vol. 29(1), 53-68. 

Basinger, Julianne, Henderson, Sarah H. (2004, Nov. 19). It's Lucrative at the Top . The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51(13), 3-5. 

Desrochers, Donna M., Lenihan, Colleen M., Wellman Jane V. (2010). Trends in College Spending 1998-2008: Where does the Money from? Where does it go? What does it Buy? The Delta Cost Project.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Cheslock, John J., Epifantseva, Julia (2001). Paying our Presidents: What do Trustees Values? Review of Higher Education, Vol. 25(1), 15-37. 

Fain, Paul ( 2005, Nov. 18). The Federal Lend Focuses on College Chief’s Pay, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 52(13), 1-3.

Fain, Paul (2005, Nov. 18,). Public-University Presidents Apt to Feel Underpaid, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 52(13), 4-6. 

Fain, Paul (2008, Nov. 21). “Executive Compensation”, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN129052222.PDF. 

Gomez-Mejia, Luis R., Balkin, David B. (1992). Determinants of Faculty Pay: An Agency Theory Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35(5), 921-955. 

Grassley, H. Charles (2005, Nov. 8). As Economy Sours, Presidential Pay Draws Increased Scrutiny. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 55(13) p3. 


Monks, James (2007). Public versus Private University Presidents Pay Levels and Structure, Economic of Education Review, Vol. 26, 338-348. 

Moser, Kate (2008, Nov. 21). California's Community Colleges Struggle to Recruit and Retain Presidents, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol.55 (13), 7-8.

Murphy, Kevin J. (1985). Corporate Performance and Managerial Remuneration: An Empirical Analysis, Journals of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 7, 11-42. 

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, Ross, Jerry (1988). The Compensation of College and University Presidents, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 29(1), 79-91. 

Smith, Lauran (2007, Oct. 15). Many Public Colleges Have Raised Tuition Despite Increases in State Support, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 54(22). 

Stripling, Jack, Fuller, Andrea (2011, April 8). Presidents Defend Their Pay as Public Colleges Slash Budgets. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 57 (31), 1-20.

Tang, Thomas Li-Ping, Tang, David Shin-Hsiung, Tang, Cindy Shin-Yi (2000). Factors Related to University Presidents’ Pay: An Examination of Private Colleges and Universities, Higher Education, Vol. 3(4), 393-415. 

Trachtenberg, Stephen Joel, Roy, Ananya (Feb. 12, 2010). How Much Should Presidents Make, Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 56(22), 8-9.

Working paper 

Bebchuk , Lucian Arye, Fried, Jesse M. (2003, July). Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem, NBER Working paper No. 9813. 

Chen, Carl R., Huang, Ying Sophie (2008). Are College Presidents Paid Like Corporate CEOs or Bureaucrats? Implication from the Analysis of College Presidential Compensation, International Review of Economics and Finance, 
Seminar paper. Available from http://www.finance.nsysu.edu.tw/SFM/17thSFM/program/FullPaper/139-2081705280.pdf

Monk, James (2009). Job Stability among U.S. University Presidents, working paper of Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Retrieved from http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/upload/cheri_wp123.pdf

Rajiv D. Banker ,Jose M. Plehn-Doujowich and Chunwei Xian (2009). The Compensation of University Presidents: A Principal-Agent Theory and Empirical Evidence, AAA 2010 Management Accounting Section (MAS) Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1444849

Website

National Association of College and University Business Officers.  http://www.nacubo.org/

National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/ 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/ 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/