Educational enrolment at any time will depend upon supply and demand factors. In a
competitive markets framework, education is an investment in human capital and the
extent of this investment will depend only upon its relative rate of return. When credit
markets are imperfect, or when parents value education of their children as a
consumption or a status good (e.g. Banerjee 2004) then parental wealth also affects
the level of education demanded. A role for religion, gender and ethnicity in further
determining the demand for education may be argued to arise from differences in
tastes, opportunity costs (wages) or perceived returns along these dimensions.
Empirically, the demand for education can be modelled like the demand for any other
good, as a function of total resources (parental wealth), relative prices (rates of
return), demographics and taste-shifters. Supply-variables like access to school are
included in the model to allow for disequilibria: not everyone who demands education
can have it; see Ham (1986) for similar reasoning for the inclusion of the regional
unemployment rate in models of labour demand. The estimated equations are similar to those in numerous previous studies of educational enrolment and progression (e.g.
Behrman and Knowles 1999).
Our approach to developing projections to 2015 is as follows. We estimate equations
for selected educational indicators for each of the years, 1992/3 and 1998/9, for all
children and also separately for boys and girls. We analyse changes in schooling
outcomes between 1992/3 and 1998/9, decomposing them into changes in
characteristics (regressors, X) and changes in model parameters (β’s). We then
assume that the contribution of the evolution of variables over time is the same
between 1998/9 and 2015, as between 1992/3 and 1998/9.
Educational enrolment at any time will depend upon supply and demand factors. In a
competitive markets framework, education is an investment in human capital and the
extent of this investment will depend only upon its relative rate of return. When credit
markets are imperfect, or when parents value education of their children as a
consumption or a status good (e.g. Banerjee 2004) then parental wealth also affects
the level of education demanded. A role for religion, gender and ethnicity in further
determining the demand for education may be argued to arise from differences in
tastes, opportunity costs (wages) or perceived returns along these dimensions.
Empirically, the demand for education can be modelled like the demand for any other
good, as a function of total resources (parental wealth), relative prices (rates of
return), demographics and taste-shifters. Supply-variables like access to school are
included in the model to allow for disequilibria: not everyone who demands education
can have it; see Ham (1986) for similar reasoning for the inclusion of the regional
unemployment rate in models of labour demand. The estimated equations are similar to those in numerous previous studies of educational enrolment and progression (e.g.
Behrman and Knowles 1999).
Our approach to developing projections to 2015 is as follows. We estimate equations
for selected educational indicators for each of the years, 1992/3 and 1998/9, for all
children and also separately for boys and girls. We analyse changes in schooling
outcomes between 1992/3 and 1998/9, decomposing them into changes in
characteristics (regressors, X) and changes in model parameters (β’s). We then
assume that the contribution of the evolution of variables over time is the same
between 1998/9 and 2015, as between 1992/3 and 1998/9.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
