SELM2_wk3_Millot

“Are countries investing sufficiently at the tertiary education level?”

Benoît Millot Marseille, 24/01/11 2/1/2011

1

Outline I. II. III. IV. V. VI. 2/1/2011

Introduction Approach Investing in tertiary education Spending and access Spending and quality Conclusion 2

I.

Introduction

“Are countries investing

sufficiently

at the tertiary education level�

2/1/2011

?

3

II. Approach (1) Two directions: (1) Spending and Quantities/Access/Coverage

(2) Spending and Quality 2/1/2011

4

Is the supply of birds sufficient for the cat?

Is the supply of birds sufficient for the cat’s appetite

Approach (2) • Looks like a “Simple” question • •

Use simple methodology: regressions (over-simplistic?)

Robust results

• But correlation is not causality

2/1/2011

6

Slippery road

2/1/2011

7

III. Investment in Tertiary Ed Measure: Public Exp on Ter Ed per student, as a % of GDP p.c.

Historical perspective: (from 1999 to 2007)

2/1/2011

8

Public total edu. expenditure per student (% of GDP p.c.), tertiary 350 300 250 Average

200

Mini/Max

150

100 50 0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2/1/2011

9

Investment in Tertiary Ed and Economic level (1) Do countries tend to spend more public monies on Tertiary education as they get richer

?

NO (Almost the other way around)

2/1/2011

10

2/1/2011

Norway

United States

Denmark

Macao SAR, China

Netherlands

Australia

Italy

Korea, Rep.

Malta

Estonia

Mexico

Chile

18.000 16.000 14.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0.000 Lebanon

Tunisia

Bulgaria

Iran, Islamic Rep.

Paraguay

Guyana

Moldova

Kyrgyz Republic

Tajikistan

Investment in Tertiary Ed and Economic level (2) Public Exp per student as % of GDP p.c.

Tunisia

Lebanon GDP p.c. (log)

11

Investment in Tertiary Ed and Economic level (3) Story of two tails Public Exp per student as % of GDP p.c YR1999

Min

1 2 3 4 5

MAX

55 56 57 58 59

2/1/2011

Korea, Rep. Lebanon Japan Argentina Azerbaijan Swaziland Burundi Lesotho Mozambique Malawi

YR2007 8

1

14 15 18 19

2 3 4 5

Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Korea, Rep. Philippines Liechtenstein

351 1051 1387 1412 2613

64 65 66 67 68

Madagascar Togo Burkina Faso Niger Ethiopia

8 8 9 10 10 137 155 307 553 643

12

MENA Countries: Public Exp per student as % of GDP p.c 100

Iran, Islamic Rep. Morocco

90 80

70 60 50

Tunisia

40 30 20

Sample Ave

10 0 YR2002

2/1/2011

YR2003

YR2004

YR2005

YR2006

13

IV. Spending & Access

Measure : Straightforward: Gross Enrollment Rate in Tertiary Education: GER (Ter)

2/1/2011

14

Access: Main features (1) • The obvious (almost trivial): • GER (Ter) strongly related to economic level (GDP p.c.) observed in 2007 • Strong and stable positive correlation over the years (2000 to 2008) GDP p.c. ∆ = + 45% GER (Ter) ∆ = + 57% 2/1/2011

15

Access: Main features(2) GER (Ter) & Log GDP p.c (2007 & 2007).

120.0

Korea 100.0

Finland Ukraine

80.0

Russia

60.0

Lebanon 40.0

Saudi Arabia

20.0

Congo Burundi

0.0 0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

-20.0

2/1/2011

16

Remark Correlation goes both ways: wealth ďƒ¨ more access more participation ďƒ¨ more growth

2/1/2011

17

Spending & Access (1) Less intuitive: A stable, moderately strong,

negative correlation: ďƒ¨ Higher level investments are linked to lower levels of coverage

2/1/2011

18

2/1/2011

Finland

Denmark

Norway

Sweden

Spain

Hungary

Estonia

Israel

Romania

France

Kazakhstan

Bulgaria

Croatia

Moldova

180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Malta

Liechtenstein

Paraguay

Tajikistan

Azerbaijan

Cameroon

Madagascar

Spending & Access (2) GER (Ter)

Tunisia Lebanon

Public Exp per student as % of GDP p.c

19

Spending & Access (3) Is there any lag time effect

?

(investment takes some years to concretize) ?

NO: correlation does not change when lag is introduced 2/1/2011

20

Spending & Access (4) Alternative measure of spending: relative share of total public education expenditure on Tertiary Education Is it a better predictor of performances in terms of access ?

Response: next slide 2/1/2011

21

Spending & Access (5) Share of tertiary education in total education expenditure and GER (Ter) 120

Cuba 100

Finland

Greece 80

60

Lebanon

Ecuador

40

Tunisia

Malaysia

20

Burundi 0 0

2/1/2011

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

22

Spending & Access (6) Alternative perspective on investment: Is private provision linked to wider coverage?

Response: next slide 2/1/2011

23

20.0

0.0

2/1/2011

Denmark Australia Morocco Czech Republic New Zealand Madagascar Iceland Bulgaria Spain Hungary France Switzerland Lao PDR Poland Mexico Portugal Macao SAR,‌ Jordan Georgia West Bank‌ Colombia El Salvador Japan Israel Bermuda

Spending & Access (7): Private Provision

120.0

100.0

80.0 Private enrollment share (%), tertiary

60.0

40.0 WB-G

School enrollment, tertiary (% gross)

Morocco

24

Spending & Access (8) Summary • As countries get richer, access to Ter Ed increases, but public investment in Ter Ed tends to decrease • Participation in Ter Ed decreases as Public Investment rises, but mildly increase when the Ter Ed share of ed expenditures increases • Access is insensitive to the density of private penetration 2/1/2011

25

V. Spending & Quality Measure: Very tricky: no common metric for international comparisons; no good, universally accepted proxy

ďƒ¨

Solution: use major leagues ARWU and THES

2/1/2011

26

Quality: Measure (1) From: # of top 500 universities in a given country

To: Tertiary Population = ½ Number of youths (15-24) per university in the top 500 in a given country (or potential clientele of the top universities) 2/1/2011

27

Quality: Measure (2a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2/1/2011

ARWU Finland Sweden New Zealand Switzerland Austria Norway Israel Netherlands Denmark Australia Belgium Canada Ireland United Kingdom Slovenia Germany Italy United States Singapore France Spain Japan Greece Portugal Hungary

54685 55893 62292 68140 72041 78231 80240 83213 83805 85715 90235 97765 99849 105728 115185 120367 132060 146549 163901 173534 230390 252743 296370 298249 310488

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THES Ireland 37443 Finland 46873 New Zealand 51910 Switzerland 59622 Australia 60715 Denmark 67044 Hong Kong SAR, China 73851 Sweden 76853 Norway 78231 United Kingdom 78778 Netherlands 83213 Belgium 90235 Austria 100857 Germany 111770 Canada 112430 Greece 118548 Israel 140420 Singapore 163901 France 181797 Italy 193687 Portugal 198833 United States 208968 Spain 230390 Japan 252743 South Korea 254602

28

Quality: Measure (2b) 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

2/1/2011

ARWU South Korea Czech Chile Saudi Arabia Poland South Africa Brazil China Argentina Russia Turkey Iran Mexico India

330983 628931 737664.75 1237368.5 1330153.8 1631978.2 2811416.2 3233238.5 3414160.5 5049081.8 6825539.5 8374274.5 9938534 58764202

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

THES Uruguay 257980 Hungary 310488 Czech Republic 314466 United Arab Emirates 341773 Lebanon 372556 Malaysia 519938 Chile 737665 Saudi Arabia 824912 Thailand 1208413.3 Poland 1330153.8 Turkey 1365107.9 Kazakhstan 1457104.5 South Africa 1631978.2 Argentina 1707080.3 Russian Federation 2019632.7 Philippines 3048134.7 Mexico 4969267 Indonesia 5273054.9 Brazil 5622832.3 Egypt, Arab Rep. 7712652.5 Iran, Islamic Rep. 8374274.5 China 10948700 India 14691050 Pakistan 19436096

29

Quality: Measure (2c)

2/1/2011

30

Quality: main feature 9.000 8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000

8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000

2/1/2011

Ter Pop/ Top 500 U (log) GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$) (log)

Ter Pop/Top 500 U log

GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$) log

31

Spending and Quality (1): Summary ARWU

THES

Publ Exp per st. as % of GDP p.c. (2001) & Ter Pop /Top 500 U (log)

-0.11

-0.16

Publ Exp per st. as % of GDP p.c. (2007) & Ter Pop /Top 500 U (log)

-0.1

-0.30

-0.36

-0.44

0.12

0.21

Share of Ter in total Ed Expenditures (2007) & . (2001) & Ter Pop /Top 500 U (log) Private enrollment share (2007) Pop/Top 500 U (log) 2/1/2011

& Ter

32

Spending and Quality (2) Summary • While quality of Ter Ed is and positively linked with economic level of countries, it is only moderately increasing with rising levels of public investment • Quality of Ter Ed is negatively –albeit slightly -influenced by the presence of the private sector 2/1/2011

33

VI. Conclusion (1)

2/1/2011

34

VI. Conclusion (2): No extraordinary claims Just paradoxes and inconclusiveness

• • • •

Paradox #1: As countries get richer, both quantity and quality of Ter Ed increase, but at the same time, public investment in Ter Ed tends to decrease Paradox #2: Higher levels of public spending have a (strong) negative impact on access but a (weak) positive impact on quality of Ter Ed Observation #1: The share Ter Ed in total Education Expenditures has a (slight) positive impact on both access and quality Observation #2: Neither quality nor quantity of Ter Ed is affected by the penetration of the private sector

2/1/2011

35

Conclusion (3): • Back to the initial question: “Are countries investing sufficiently at the tertiary education level?”: • The answer is that it is not possible to say “yes” or “no” • The real questions are: what exactly is invested ? and Is the investment efficient and equitable ?

2/1/2011

36

Conclusion (4): Lessons Acknowledgment: Simplistic statistical treatment Still, results robust enough to suggest: – Money is not everything – Multiple factors are at play – Governance as important – No single development path – No benchmark – Country context most important 2/1/2011

37

Last word No reason to give up No fatality There is a multiplicity of models Each country has its own path

2/1/2011

38

Thank YOU (still pondering?)

Credits 1st cat: Qatar 2nd cat: France

2/1/2011

39