Review: "Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment" - Esther Duflo
In 1973 Indonesia under the INPRES (Indonesia Presidential Instructions) program, 61,000 primary schools were constructed - on average of two schools per 1000 children aged 5 to 14. What interested me in this article were two things:
1. While traditionally effects of education on GDP are biased by Ommitted Variables such as family and education, the OLS (Ordinary Least Squares Regression) and SLS (sum of Least Squares) results in this regression matched, showing no bias. Thus, estimates of returns to education in developing countries are not necessarily biased upwards as a result of ommitted family and community background variables
2. The number of schools constructed in a district was inversely proportional to the enrollment rate in schools, to encourage higher enrollment. Therefore, the "average educational attainment and wages in regions that received fewer schools are higher than in regions that received more schools." Traditionally it is considered that underpriviliged and racial minority area schools do not meet standardized testing and education enrollment standards. Hence it is believed that there should not be any investment therein because the returns would be low over the coming years because of negligible use of the initial investment. This article however shows that just the opposite is true -more schools should be built in low-enrollment areas for an overall increase in education. This is more equitable and thus would give higher returns to education because education would be diversified than being concentrated in one area or a locality.
The results of the research done by Duflo show that on average, the program lead to increase of .25 to .40 yrs of education and increased by 12% that an affected child would complete primary school. The program also lead to an increase of 3 to 5.4 % in wages.
Furthermore, this article shows that large scale government intervention focussing on quantity of schools was as important as raising quality of education since this program raised not only education levels but also wages. Therefore fears that large scale improvement in quantity might deteriorate quality of education are unfounded.
Though this article was generally about an increase in education enrollment and not the intake type of these Indonesian schools, more schools created on the concept similar to Sikhya would work doublefold - increase education and increase it amongst the poorest of the poor. Governments such as those of developing countries like India should thus focus on education for the slums on a massive scale. Free education not only for more engineers, doctors and lawyers but for overall developed personalities of a developed India.
(I found an exemplary school (Sikhya - "learning" in Hindi) in my hometown today which schools more than 800 slum kids, providing them vocational training, hygenic living, reading, writing, and on top of it, exceptional school education, all for free. So as I read this article by Duflo, Sikhya came to my mind as a practical example of improvement in education and its returns in developing economies.)
In 1973 Indonesia under the INPRES (Indonesia Presidential Instructions) program, 61,000 primary schools were constructed - on average of two schools per 1000 children aged 5 to 14. What interested me in this article were two things:
1. While traditionally effects of education on GDP are biased by Ommitted Variables such as family and education, the OLS (Ordinary Least Squares Regression) and SLS (sum of Least Squares) results in this regression matched, showing no bias. Thus, estimates of returns to education in developing countries are not necessarily biased upwards as a result of ommitted family and community background variables
2. The number of schools constructed in a district was inversely proportional to the enrollment rate in schools, to encourage higher enrollment. Therefore, the "average educational attainment and wages in regions that received fewer schools are higher than in regions that received more schools." Traditionally it is considered that underpriviliged and racial minority area schools do not meet standardized testing and education enrollment standards. Hence it is believed that there should not be any investment therein because the returns would be low over the coming years because of negligible use of the initial investment. This article however shows that just the opposite is true -more schools should be built in low-enrollment areas for an overall increase in education. This is more equitable and thus would give higher returns to education because education would be diversified than being concentrated in one area or a locality.
The results of the research done by Duflo show that on average, the program lead to increase of .25 to .40 yrs of education and increased by 12% that an affected child would complete primary school. The program also lead to an increase of 3 to 5.4 % in wages.
Furthermore, this article shows that large scale government intervention focussing on quantity of schools was as important as raising quality of education since this program raised not only education levels but also wages. Therefore fears that large scale improvement in quantity might deteriorate quality of education are unfounded.
Though this article was generally about an increase in education enrollment and not the intake type of these Indonesian schools, more schools created on the concept similar to Sikhya would work doublefold - increase education and increase it amongst the poorest of the poor. Governments such as those of developing countries like India should thus focus on education for the slums on a massive scale. Free education not only for more engineers, doctors and lawyers but for overall developed personalities of a developed India.
(I found an exemplary school (Sikhya - "learning" in Hindi) in my hometown today which schools more than 800 slum kids, providing them vocational training, hygenic living, reading, writing, and on top of it, exceptional school education, all for free. So as I read this article by Duflo, Sikhya came to my mind as a practical example of improvement in education and its returns in developing economies.)
No comments:
Post a Comment