Page 1 of 9
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 11
Publication Date: November 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.811.11196. Mbah, R. E. (2021). Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the
Student Debt Literature. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(11). 211-219.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research
by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the Student Debt
Literature
Ruth Endam Mbah
Public Policy Department
Southern University and A & M College, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Department of Business, Bethany College, Lindsborg, KS, USA
ABSTRACT
Current changes in the economic atmosphere have severely impacted the higher
education sector worldwide. Policymakers worldwide are facing the challenge of
adjusting tuition and financial aid programs in response to these changing
economic times. The shift from federal grants to loans has caused student loans to
be a popular means of funding higher education for most low and medium-income
families. A result of this, is the increase in student loan default as most college
students graduate with unmanageable debts, thus, a rising concern for
policymakers. The purpose of this paper is to link four public policy theories (Social
Contract Theory, Utilitarian Theory, Theory of Neoliberalism, and Three-Policy
Stream Theory) to student loan literature. This is to expand the limited database of
public policy theories in student loan debt literature. This theoretical linkage points
out the role of policymakers in (1) ensuring the security of lives and the
preservation of the property of those who voted them into power (Social Contract
Theory); (2) establishing educational policies that ensure the ‘the greatest
happiness of the greatest number’ (Utilitarian Theory); (3) upholding social welfare
or a ‘welfare state’ through fiscal and monetary policies to ensure high employment
rates for graduates, low inflation and the provision of public goods (Theory of
Neoliberalism), and (4) the risk of undermining the growing power of an informal
interest group that is made up of millennials saddled with student loan debt (Three- Policy Stream). These theories reiterate the principal role of policymakers in
enhancing human capital through affordable education.
Keywords: Student Loan Debt; Higher Education; Social Contract Theory; Utilitarian
Theory; Public Policy Theories; Financial Aid
INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPTS OF STUDENT LOAN DEBT
With the current rise of a tight budget, higher education students are required to pay more for
their educational careers (Lochner & Monge-Naranjo, 2016). As far as mid-1970, the shift from
federal grants to loans to finance higher education for low and medium-income families
emerged (Gross et al., 2010; Mbah, Forcha, & Mende, 2020; Mbah, 2021). Thus, student loans
have become a vital option for financing higher education for most students and will probably
remain the principal feature of the college education system for the predictable future (Perna,
Kvaal, & Ruiz, 2017). This is because student loans enable students and parents as well as
taxpayers to lessen the burden of financing the ever-increasing costs of higher education; like
Page 2 of 9
212
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 11, November-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
the costs of hiring teachers, tuition, school supplies, and other related student living costs. A
student loan is, therefore, “any repayment obligation resulting from a scheme designed
especially for students—generally with governmental sponsorship and some element of
governmental subsidization and/or assumption of risk—to defer higher educational expenses
and to incur thereby a repayment obligation, whether this obligation is called a loan or called
by some euphemism, and whether the obligation is to a fixed schedule of payments or is
expressed as some percentage of the borrower’s future earnings” (Johnstone & Marcucci,
2014).
About 70% of American college students accrue loans to finance their college degrees (Despard
et al., 2016; Mbah et al., 2020; Mbah, 2021). However, the continuous rise in student loan
demands, particularly among low-income, high-risk students as they borrow to cover their
higher education expenses, results in a rise in government’s losses to default claims (Greene,
1989; Scott-Clayton, 2018). The U.S. currently has a frightening sum of student loan debt, which
is expected to increase with the continuous rise in tuition. It has become the second-highest
debt faced by households after the mortgage. Student loan debt in the U.S. is $1.5 trillion owed
by 44.2 million borrowers (Kilgour, 2019; Latoya, 2019). Most students graduate with
unmanageable loans (Despard et al., 2016; King & Bannon, 2002; Pinto & Mansfield, 2006).
In the light of borrowers, a manageable debt permits borrowers to preserve a living standard
not dramatically dissimilar from their counterparts with similar educational qualifications and
incomes (Baum & Schwartz, 2006). Nevertheless, most students think these loans were
significantly helpful in the pursuit of their educational career as well as in attending the school
of their choice (Buam & O’Malley, 2003; Sandy & Diane, 1998). Surprisingly, despite the
availability of both private and federal loans to aid students to obtain higher education, some
students are unwilling to borrow (debt aversion) to finance their studies. This would likely hurt
college enrollment, persistence, and degree achievement (Baum, Mcpherson, & Steele, 2008).
In June 2010, outstanding student loan debt for the first time surpassed credit card debt as it
rose to more than $800 billion (Avery & Turner, 2012).
THE GAP IN LITERATURE/CONTRIBUTION TO LITERATURE
Despite the policy implications of the rise in student loan debt and the increased interest of
researchers in this field, there is a gap in public policy theories that relate to student loan debt
literature. Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to link four major public policy theories to
the student loan debt literature to close the existing gap. This paper will serve as a guide to
several scholars, especially research students whose dissertations or theses focus on the policy
aspect of student loan literature by providing theories for their theoretical framework. Also,
this paper will remind policymakers of their role in enhancing human capital development via
affordable education as postulated by well-respected founding fathers of public policy
philosophy.
PUBLIC POLICY THEORIES
The public policy theories give a public policy perspective to student loan debt. These theories
bring out the role of policymakers in shaping higher education and their responsibility in
ensuring its affordability/accessibility.
Page 3 of 9
213
Mbah, R. E. (2021). Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the Student Debt
Literature. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(11). 211-219.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.811.11196
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory is commonly associated with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke
(1632-1704), and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1717-1778) through their famous works; ‘Leviathan’,
‘Two Treatises of Government’ and ‘The Social Contract’ respectively (Ebenstein & Ebenstein,
2000). Ebenstein and Ebenstein (2000, p. 400) argue that Hobbes in his work titled “Leviathan”
stated that the ‘fear of death’ in the State of Nature (chaotic society with no law) pushed
mankind to seek peace, thus, indulge in a social contract. In Hobbes's social contract, the
contract is between ‘subjects and subjects and not subject and sovereign’ because the sovereign
is just a creation of the contract. In Hobbes contract, to preserve their lives and properties, these
subjects out of their freewill surrendered all of their rights and freedom to a sovereign power
whom they had to obey (absolutism) and in return receive protection of their lives and
properties (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 412; Elahi, 2014).
Ebenstein and Ebenstein (2000, p. 430) argue that John Locke’s state of nature was not as
pessimistic as Hobbes’. It was a more peaceful state where the ‘Law of Nature’ ruled and no one
had the right to harm another person’s life, liberty, or property. Yet, this state of nature lacked
clarity, lacked an established law, had no third party that could act as a judge in case of a dispute,
and as such, a need for a social contract. Locke’s social contract was therefore to put in place
structured law and order to replace the uncertainties in the state of nature and eradicate
impartial institutions with the legislative that served as the trustee. The legislators therefore
ought to act in the interest of the people and not their own will because the people are the
supreme power and can remove the legislators if they act contrary to the trust proposed by the
people (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 430). Thus, in Locke’s contract, the people did not
surrender all of their rights to a single individual but only the right to preserve their lives and
properties as well as ensure law and order (Elahi, 2014).
Ebenstein and Ebenstein (2000, p. 498) acknowledge that Jean Jacques Rousseau’s state of
nature was not as pessimistic as Hobbes’ state of nature but neither as optimistic as Locke’s
state of nature. Furthermore, these authors contend that Rousseau’s state of nature was
directed by two sentiments (self-interest and pity) because everyone pursued his/her self- interest until one realized that his/her strength was not strong enough to preserve him/her
against threats from others. Thus, Ebenstein and Ebenstein (2000, p. 498) notice that the role
of the social contract is to ‘combine security, which comes from the collective association, with
liberty, which the individual had before the making of the contract’ where the “Man is born free,
but everywhere he is in chains.” Elahi (2014) argues that in Rousseau’s social contract, the
people do not surrender their entire rights to a sovereign power but ‘each man gives himself to
all’ and thereby surrendering to no one specifically. This is the principle of the General Will,
wherein the people surrender their rights, not to a specific person but the community, and such
social organizations are to ensure rights, liberty, and freedom (Elahi, 2014).
Based on the review of existing literature, it appears that a common element drawn from all
three (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) views of the social contract is the fact that, the
state/legislation/sovereign power ought to set laws and policies that ensure the security of
lives and the preservation of property. In other words, it is my understanding that the
state/legislature sets legislations that are for the common good of all, especially those who
voted them to power. This explains Nova (2019), a CNBC news reporter’s analysis of student
loan repayment as a top policy topic within the 2020 Presidential race. A total of 56% of
Page 4 of 9
214
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 11, November-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Americans within the voting age (18-44years) have an outstanding student loan (Cilluffo,
2019), thus, a deciding factor for those running for elections.
Utilitarian Theory
The principle of Utilitarianism, also known as ‘Philosophical Radicalism’ was founded by
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and is the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ (Ebenstein
& Ebenstein, 2000, p. 594, 596). Bentham realized that there is a conflict between seeking one’s
selfish happiness and the common happiness of the majority and he, therefore, proposed two
solutions to this conflict. First, was the importance of education in shaping individual minds
towards seeing one’s happiness through that of others. Bentham strongly believed in education
and became one of the main founders of the University of London (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000,
p. 596). The second solution to the conflict that existed between individual selfishness and the
greatest happiness of the majority was the creation of an institutional environment. This was
to translate individual selfish impulses into ‘socially useful purposes’ so that it will contradict
their interest to hurt others (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 597). Bentham recognized the role
of the government in ensuring social welfare, public health, and education for ‘subsistence and
defense’ (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 602).
Bernard Sanders, like Bentham, can be considered a utilitarian activist who believes that it is
the responsibility of the government to uphold healthy educational policies that will benefit the
greatest number. In Sanders’ speech during the Democratic National Committee meeting in San
Francisco in August 2019, he had this to say; “If we are to have the best-educated workforce in
the world, we need to rethink what public education is” (Fuchs, 2019). Bernard Sanders intends
to provide free four-year college to all Americans at public schools as well as free 45 million
Americans from their outstanding student loan debt worth a total of $1.6 trillion. He intends to
accomplish this mission by taxing Wall Street speculators to fund his $2.2 trillion college
education program (Nova, 2019). This plan is an attempt to extinguish the racial wealth gap,
even though economists doubt that this will address the inequality challenge (Fuchs, 2019).
Bernard Sanders also proposes that the Pell grant should be expanded for low-income students,
refinancing should be done at a lower interest rate for existing borrowers, and the availability
of work-study should be increased at all higher education institutions (Goldy-Brown, 2019).
More so, ensuring and securing the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ in education
has become a priority among states in America to the extent that two states (New York and
Massachusetts) have sued a student loan servicer (Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency, PHEAA) in court. Massachusetts sued PHEAA in 2017 while New York did so in 2019
for undermining a program that is intended to forgive public servants’ student loan debt
(Raymond, 2017; Cowley, 2019). Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General, filed a
lawsuit in Suffolk County Superior Court against PHEAA for depriving teachers and public
servants of benefits and financial assistance under two federal loan programs (Raymond,
2017). While this case is still going on, a second lawsuit against PHEAA has been filed at the
Manhattan federal court (New York) by Attorney General Letitia James on October 3, 2019.
According to the Attorney General, lapses in the operations of PHEAA have caused several
‘borrowers’ grim outcomes’ as almost 99% of borrowers who applied for loan forgiveness were
denied, according to data from the Education Department (Cowley, 2019).
Page 5 of 9
215
Mbah, R. E. (2021). Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the Student Debt
Literature. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(11). 211-219.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.811.11196
Theory of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism originates from the theory of liberalism which favors free-market (laissez-faire)
with no government intervention. Classical liberalism later on emerged and encouraged
minimal government intervention in terms of law enforcement, armed forces, and other ‘non- excludable goods’ (Thorsen, 2009). Modern liberalism more willingly allows active state
involvement in the economy to regulate trade and provide essential commodities to everyone.
Modern liberalism exposes the inefficiency of laissez-faire economic policies to ensure freedom
and real democracy as earlier preached- and thus, the necessity to have significant state
involvement in the economy (Thorsen, 2009). David Harvey in his book A Brief History of
Neoliberalism defined the concept of neoliberalism as follows:
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that
human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and
skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free
markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional
framework appropriate for such practices. The state has to guarantee, for example, the quality
and integrity of money. It must also set up that military, defense, police, and legal structures
and functions required to secure private property rights and to guarantee, by force if need be,
the proper functioning of markets. Furthermore, if markets do not exist (in areas such as land,
water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution) then they must be
created, by state action if necessary. But beyond these tasks, the state should not venture. State
interventions in markets (once created) must be kept to a bare minimum because, according to
the theory, the state cannot possibly possess enough information to second-guess market
signals (prices) and because powerful interest groups will inevitably distort and bias state
interventions (particularly in democracies) for their benefit (Harvey, 2005, p. 2)
By the late nineteenth century, new liberals suggest that the laissez-faire policies had become
‘regressive, stagnant, and reactionary because they maintained and nourished new inequalities
of wealth that had emerged as the result of exploitation’ (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 899).
There was therefore the need to restrict economic power, and only the government could serve
as the appropriate instrument. Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), a co-recipient (alongside Gunnar
Myrdal) of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974 called the involvement of government in
neoliberalism as the ‘welfare state.’ In the welfare state, it is the responsibility of the
government, especially the national government, to ensure individual welfare through the
provision of social security to the old or welfare payments to younger citizens; to support
education; to provide medical services, public housing, progressive taxation, minimum wage
laws and favorable treatment of labor unions (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 898). According
to Hayek, the welfare state is interventionist in nature, using both fiscal and monetary policies
to ensure high employment, low inflation, and the provision of other public goods. This state
emphasizes the primary role and responsibility of the government, not individuals, in ensuring
social welfare (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000, p. 898).
Just like most critics of liberalism, Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner of economics, blames
laissez-faire for income inequality in America in his book titled The Price of Inequality: How
Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. He accuses the rent-seekers of nurturing
inequality through monopolistic powers and, as such, concentrating wealth at the top (Stiglitz,
2012, p. xv). Such riches at the top are at the expense of those down below (Stiglitz, 2012, p. 8).
In other words, even though there is a rise in the concept of financial inclusion all over the
Page 6 of 9
216
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 11, November-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
world, there still exist persistent inequality (Mbah, 2020). Thus, inequality in America is due to
market distortions, ‘with incentives not at creating new wealth but at taking it from others’
(Stiglitz, 2012, p. 7). He also highlights the fact that politics shape our markets (markets do not
exist in a vacuum) in a manner that favors those at the top (Stiglitz, 2012, p. xv). To Stiglitz,
‘failure in politics and economics are related, and they reinforce each other’ (Stiglitz, 2012, p. l,
38). As such, for the market to be able to function the way it is supposed to, there ought to be
proper government regulations and interventions, and this can only be via a democracy that
seeks the general interest of all and not just a few (Stiglitz, 2012, p. li).
Stiglitz stresses the importance of human capital investment through investment in education
to permit citizens to earn a decent living, which will ensure a healthy economy (Stiglitz, 2012,
p. xxii). However, there exists inequality in the educational system as poor kids with good
academic records are less likely to graduate from college than their rich counterparts with
worse grades. Even if such poor children end up graduating from college, they are still worse
off than the low-achieving rich children (Stiglitz, 2012, p. 24). This explains why Black and
African American students default student loan repayment five times more than their white
counterparts upon graduation (Scott-Clayton, 2018). Stiglitz, therefore, proposes that the
government can redirect the distribution of wealth by taxing inheritances and providing free
education (Stiglitz, 2012, p. 38).
Three-Policy Stream Model Vs Four-Policy Stream Window Model
The three-policy window stream model, popularly known as Kingdon’s Three-stream Policy
Window Model is a public policy theory established by John Kingdon. This model establishes
that for a public challenge to emerge as an important element on the government’s agenda and
a possible solution chosen from various alternatives and pass on as legislation, a policy window
must be opened (Cammisa & Manuel, 2014, p.119; Cammisa, 2018; Mbah 2021). These authors
also propose that this policy window can only open when three streams: Problem, Policy, and
Politics come together and are satisfied then can legislation be passed. The problem stream is
satisfied when a public challenge is identified as affecting the mass. Once a problem has been
established as affecting the mass, it moves into the government’s agenda and policymakers
propose possible solutions (Policy Stream is satisfied). Depending on the political climate, a
policy could be selected from the proposed alternatives, and if successful, legislation could be
passed (Politic Stream). This public policy model was successful with the healthcare reform
during President Barack Obama’s reign that led to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in
2020, commonly called Obamacare (Mende & Mbah, 2020) after it had failed in the 1990s
during President Bill Clinton’s reign; see (Mbah, 2021) for more details.
From the success of Kingdon’s Three-stream Policy Window Model on the Obamacare program,
Mbah (2021) exported the theory to explore the possibility of passing a complete student loan
debt forgiveness legislation based on current discourse. This research suggests that student
loan debt is a public problem as most Americans graduate with unbearable student loan debt,
thus fulfilling the Problem Stream from Kingdon’s Model. This public problem has risen to the
government’s agenda and many policy proposals have been proposed, thus passing the Policy
Stream of Kingdon’s Model. However, there is yet to be an ultimate policy that will pass on as
legislation, in other words, the student loan debt problem is yet to pass the Politics Stream of
Kington’s Model. Base on this fact, Mbah (2021) conducted a focus group interview to examine
Page 7 of 9
217
Mbah, R. E. (2021). Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the Student Debt
Literature. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(11). 211-219.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.811.11196
the possibility of a complete student loan forgiveness legislation based on Bernard Sanders's
proposed legislation. Her finding is as follow
It is evident that student loan debt affects the mass, forming a rapidly growing informal interest
group made up of mostly millennials. Yet, the pressure from this fast-growing informal interest
group is not strong enough to oppose that of other interest groups like Republicans, taxpayers,
financial institutions, and other stakeholders involved in student loans, to necessitate an
immediate passage of legislation on student loans debt forgiveness. This brings to light the
outstanding influence of interest groups in the policy window stream theory. The role of
interest groups in the policymaking process cannot be undermined (Mbah, 2021).
From the above finding, Mbah (2021) suggest a modification to Kingdon’s Three-Stream Policy
Window Model by including an Interest Group Stream after the Policy Stream, leading to a Four- Policy Stream Theory for Student Loan Debt. In other words, this author in her study combined
Kingdon’s Three-Stream Policy Window Model and Interest Group Theory to create a new
theory for Student Loan Debt Scholarship called a Four-Policy Stream Theory. This new theory
concludes that the student loan debt issue has passed the Problem Stream, Policy Stream but is
yet to pass the Interest Group Stream and Politics Stream. However, the study concluded that;
as more students graduate from college, this informal interest group will grow bigger to the
point that policymakers would not be able to contain their demands for student loan
forgiveness. The lack of jobs or fewer paying jobs is causing many graduates to default their
student loan debts, and most are deprived of other life events like marriage, childbearing, or
getting a house. If not handled with care, an era will come when this massive interest group
gets back on policymakers via their voting powers” (Mbah, 2021).
CONCLUSION
All of the above theories serve as a linkage between public policy theories and the student loan
debt literature. They do not only close the gap that exists in public policy theories in the student
loan debt literature but they serve as a reminder to policymakers. The central message of each
theory is the fact that policymakers worldwide have to ensure affordable education to the
citizens who entrusted them with their votes. If this role of policymakers is neglected, a time is
coming in the nearest future when this growing informal interest group of millennials, saddled
with student loan debt will rise to implement their social contract power as suggested by Mbah
(2021). However, this study is limited to four public policy theories. Further research can link
more public policy theories, education theories, finance theories, and economic theories to the
student loan debt literature. This will not only expand the database of theories in student loan
scholarship but it will facilitate the research process for several masters or doctoral students
writing on student loan debt.
References
Avery, C., & Turner, S. (2012). Student Loans: Do college students borrow too much—or not enough? Journal of
Economic Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.1.165
Buam, S., & O’Malley, M. (2003). College on credit: how borrowers perceive their education debt. Journal of
Student Financial Aid, 33. Retrieved from http://publications.nasfaa.org/jsfa
Baum, S., Mcpherson, M., & Steele, P. (2008). What the research tells us the effectiveness of student aid policies:
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation for Education. New York. Retrieved from
Page 8 of 9
218
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 11, November-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandy_Baum/publication/265183135_The_Effectiveness_of_Student_Aid
_Policies/links/54748a5b0cf245eb436de4cd/The-Effectiveness-of-Student-Aid-Policies.pdf
Baum, S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). How much debt is too much? Defining benchmarks for manageable student debt.
New York. Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com
Cilluffo, A. (2019). Five facts about student loans | Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 26, 2019, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/13/facts-about-student-loans/
Cowley, S. (2019, October 03). New York sues student loan servicer for 'abusive' acts. Retrieved July 29, 2020,
from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/business/student-loans-forgiveness-pheaa.html
Despard, M. ., Perantie, D., Taylor, S., Grinstein-Weiss, M., Friedline, T., & Raghavan, R. (2016). Student debt and
hardship: Evidence from a large sample of low- and moderate-income households. Children and Youth Services
Review, 70, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.001
Ebenstein, W., & Ebenstein, A. O. (2000). Great political thinkers : Plato to the present. Harcourt College
Publishers.
Elahi, M. (2014). Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. SSRN Electronic Journal,
(April 2013). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410525
Fuchs, H. (2019, August 24). Sen. Bernie Sanders pushes free college and student debt forgiveness - and finds the
field crowded. Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-bernie-sanders- pushes-free-college-and-student-debt-forgiveness--and-finds-the-field-crowded/2019/08/24/052b91da-c607-
11e9-850e-c0eef81a5224_story.html
Goldy-Brown, S. (2019). The top student loan forgiveness programs. Retrieved February 16, 2019, from
https://www.studentdebtrelief.us/student-loan-forgiveness/
Greene, L. L. (1989). An economic analysis of student loan default. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011001061
Gross, J., Osman, C., Hossler, D., & Hillman, N. (2010). What matters in student loan default: A review of the
research literature. journal of student financial aid, 39. Retrieved from http://publications.nasfaa.org/jsfa
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnstone, D. B., & Marcucci, P. (2014). Student Loans in International Context: A Primer.
Kilgour, J. G. (2019). The 401(k) student loan repayment benefit program. Compensation & Benefits Review,
088636871882224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368718822249
King, T., & Bannon, E. (2002). The burden of borrowing: A report on the rising rates of student loan debt. Retrieved
from http://www.pirg.org/highered
Latoya, I. (2019). 2018 U.S. student loan debt statistics. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from
https://www.thebalance.com/2018-student-loan-debt-statistics-4173224
Lochner, L., & Monge-Naranjo, A. (2016). Student loans and repayment (pp. 397–478).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00008-7
Mbah, R. E. (2020). Financial inclusion: Assessing gender disparity in account ownership in West Africa. Journal
of Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(2), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.7176/jesd/11-2-05
Mbah, R. E., Forcha, D. F., & Mende, C. M. (2020). Assessing the relationship between Pell Grant and Federal
Student Loan at Louisiana four-year public institutions [Abstract]. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(9), 40-
44. doi:10.7176/jep/11-9-04
Mbah, R. E. (2021). A Possibility or Just a Wish? Assessing Current Perceptions on the Potentials of a Full Student
Loan Debt Forgiveness Legislation. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10), 365–392.
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11091
Mende , C. M., & Mbah, R. E. (2020). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the past decade. Historical Research Letter,
51, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.7176/hrl/51-03
Page 9 of 9
219
Mbah, R. E. (2021). Expanding the Theoretical Framework in Student Debt Research by Connecting Public Policy Theories to the Student Debt
Literature. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(11). 211-219.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.811.11196
Nova, A. (2019). What the 2020 candidates are proposing to do about student debt. Retrieved September 26,
2019, from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/21/what-the-2020-candidates-are-proposing-to-do-about- student-debt.html
Pinto, M., & Mansfield, P. (2006). Financially at-risk college students: An exploratory investigation of student loan
debt and prioritization of debt repayment. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 36. Retrieved from
http://publications.nasfaa.org/jsfa
Raymond, N. (2017, August 23). Massachusetts accuses PHEAA of unfair student loan servicing practices.
Retrieved July 28, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-education- lawsuit/massachusetts-accuses-pheaa-of-unfair-student-loan-servicing-practices-idUSKCN1B3255
Sandy, B., & Diane, S. (1998). Life After Debt: Results of the National Student Loan Survey Selected Text From the
Final Report. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 28. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
Retrieved from https://publications.nasfaa.org/jsfa/vol28/iss3/1
Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought: Background and data.
Evidence Speaks Reports, 2.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality : How today’s divided society endangers our future. W.W. Norton.
Thorsen, D. E. (2009). The neoliberal challenge: What is neoliberalism? The neoliberal challenge: What is
neoliberalism? (pp. 1–25). Oslo: Department of Political Science University of Oslo. Retrieved from
http://folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism2.pdf