The Explorer Islamabad: Journal of Social Sciences ISSN: 2411-0132(E), 2411-5487(P) Vol-1, Issue (10):360-371 www.theexplorerpak.org
THE EFFECT OF INCOME ON EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES: THE CASE OF PAKISTAN Samina Nazli Research Economist, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad Corresponding Author: Samina Nazli PIDE, University, Islamabad samina58@hotmail.com
Abstract: The paper examines the relationship between income and education expenditure in Pakistan. Low income acts as a m a j o r hindrance for parents from spending on their children’s education. Naturally they would prefer them to work and earn an income instead of spending on them. Thus, the overall educational attainment level in Pakistan is low as compared to other countries in the region. This paper suggests a possible way out by raising economic growth rates so that employment and income increases, encouraging parents to send their children to school.
Income, Education expenditure If you want to make a plan for one year, cultivate rice. If you want to make a plan for 10 years, plant a tree and if you want to make a plan for 100 years, establish a school. (Attributed to Aristotle) “If people want us to go to school instead of work, they must give us the money to do so and make schools better. Then we would stop stitching. Who wants to injure their fingers?” (An out of school working girl in Pakistan) INTRODUCTION The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 26 states explicitly that ‘everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory’11. More recently in the 18 th Amendment (Article 25-A) passed by the Parliament mentions that the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by law. In the educational pyramid, elementary education is the foundation on which secondary and tertiary education rests. It is also a well-known fact that investment in education promotes the process of economic development. The education literature also reveals that the private and social rates of return at the primary or elementary level are relatively greater than at the secondary and tertiary levels (Hamdani 1977; Haque 1
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217A(iii) of 10 December 1948 (UN)
1977; Shabbir 1991; Psacharopoulos 1981; Anyanwu 1996; Anyanwu 1998; Patrinos and Psacharapoulos 2002; Psacharapoulos 1985; Psacharapoulos 1994). Pakistan’s lack of achievement in the education sector is notable. Each succeeding census has seen the number of illiterates increasing. In 1951, 18.64 million people were illiterate; in 1961, the number of illiterates had risen to 22.08 million; in 1972 there were 33.59 million illiterates. In the 1981 Population Census the number had increased to 42.69 million and in the last census carried out in 1998 the illiterate proportion had crossed 50 million people (SPARC 2006). If one looks at the Gender Parity Index (GPI) Pakistan ranks among the lowest in the world – a GPI of 0.73. In the South Asian region, India and Nepal have almost attained gender parity (.96 and .92 respectively). The other countries in the region, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka had already achieved gender parity by 1998 (SPARC 2006). With respect to public expenditure on education, the situation is equally bad. Public expenditure on education in 1996-97 was 2.62% of
360
GDP, 2.34% in 1997-98; 1.7% in 1999-2000; 1.6% in percent for Pakistan in 1991 increased by only 4 percent 2000-01; 1.9% in 2001-02; 1.7% in 2002-03; a to 69 percent in 1998-99 (Table 1) (SPARC 2006). A slight increase to 2.1% in 2003-04; and 2.2% in similar picture is reflected in the case of the Punjab, the 2004-05 followed by a marginal decline to 2.1% in most populous province of the country – the gross 2005-06 (SPARC 2006). Currently, there are more enrolment ratio barely increasing from 73 percent in than one million children who are not attending 1995-96 to 76 percent in 1998-99. Sindh has seen a primary schools (SPARC 2006). substantial declined in this ratio: from 70 percent to 56 Overall, the performance of the education sector in the percent. The primary gross enrolment ratio for the 1990s has been weak, particularly between 1996 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) remained constant. 1999. The primary gross enrolment ratio which was 65 Table. 1: Primary Gross Enrolment Rate (%) Area Period 1991 Pakistan Punjab Sindh NWFP Balochistan
65 -
1995-96 71 73 70 66 63
Source: SPARC (2006). The theme of this paper elaborates on the relationship between income and expenditure on education. Low income levels constrain parents from sending their children to school. As a consequence, the level of educational attainment is low compared with other countries in the South Asian region and those at similar levels of development. A number of research studies based on surveys carried out from time to time have been published that deal with the determinants of school enrolment in Pakistan. These surveys vary in scope and methodology as well as data coverage. However, some common results can be inferred from the analysis carried out by the authors. These studies are (Chishti and Lodhi 1988; Hamid 1993; Sathar and Lloyd 1994; Burney and Irfan 1991; Burney and Irfan 1995; and Bainbridge, et al. 2005; Balley and Lockner 2007; Blanden and Gregg 2004; Brown and Park 2002; Deolalikar 1997). These studies reveal that household income and education of the head of the household has an important role to play in determining if children attend primary school or not. Other important determinants include travel time, the cost of textbooks and gender; boys are more likely to be sent to school than girls. Parental indifference towards educating their children, an educational system that is uninspiring and does not encourage the development of original ideas and the poor quality of instruction all serve as deterrents. Further, supply-side determinants such as the physical
1996-97 70 73 64 69 58
1998-99 69 76 56 67 58
condition of schools can also be a hindrance to school going children. For example, a recent survey carried out by the Education Research Network Organization revealed the shabby state of the schools in the Mianwali district of the Punjab. 1686 schools for both boys and girls were covered in the survey. The survey showed that, out of the total, 600 schools were housed in rental buildings; 133 schools for boys and 156 schools for girls were functioning in dwellings made of mud and 143 schools were in need of immediate repairs. Another 20 school buildings could collapse at any moment. There was no provision for drinking water in 920 schools. 815 schools had no electricity. Toilet facilities were not available in 955 schools. 1339 schools lacked recreation facilities while no provision existed for first aid facilities in 1461 schools and 724 schools had no boundary wall. In the Dadu district of Sindh, it was discovered that influential people were using primary school buildings for cattle pens and guest houses. Furthermore, in a survey carried out by the National Commission on Human Development, out of the total 2500 primary boys and girls schools; 400 are ghost schools, some 74,000 children are without schools to go to and the teachers employed are not attending school but paying bribes to officials to receive their monthly pay. In another report carried by Dawn, a leading English language newspaper of the country, of 112 primary schools in Murree Town, in the province of the
361
Punjab a single teacher taught all subjects in all five classes, which makes the standard and quality of education a moot point. Other drawbacks included the lack of boundary walls and washrooms as well as the bad state of disrepair of school buildings. Despite these supply-side determinants, we feel that income is the major reason which is responsible for the low levels of enrolment at the primary level, as a survey of the literature reveals that one of the principal factors that affect the private demand for education is income. In a survey of a 1000 families carried out in India, 90 percent of the parents responded that they wanted their children to attend school if it was affordable for them (Ul Haq and Haq 1998). In a survey carried out in the sports goods industry of Pakistan, it was found that over 72 percent of children could not attend school as it was beyond the economic means of their parents. So, instead of going to school they worked as child labour in the sports goods industry (Marcus and Husselbee 1997). Children of well-off workers in India had a very high attendance at school (Ul Haq and Haq 1998). The level of income determines not only who can afford schooling at the primary level but also who can continue on to secondary as well as higher schooling. The lower the income the more difficult it is for poor families to cover the educational expenses of their children, for example tuition fees. But this is not the only barrier. ‘Free education’ may not in actuality be free as it can have a cost. These costs include earnings foregone and expenditure on clothes, transportation, books, materials, possibly, even the cost of meals. To further complicate the picture, poorer households tend to have larger families with more children of school-going age. Research undertaken by Meerman (1979) for Malaysia revealed that income plays a significant role in influencing the effective demand for education at all levels of the educational system. This study further reveals the interesting fact that the poorer families in Malaysia spent 18% of their yearly income on such items as clothes, travel, books, etc on their children. Those in the higher income group spent less than 6% of their total yearly income on items such as clothes etc on their children. Furthermore, those families that had been classified “poorest” had 2.75 children in contrast to the rich or top income group families who had only 1.25 children per family. Similar results were found for Nepal (Jemison and Lockheed 1987) and for India
(Joshi and Rao 1964). Children from low income families in developing countries including Pakistan find it difficult to go to school. For Pakistan they say that in the first part of the 1990s 86% of children from rich households were in school as compared with 37% of children from families who had low incomes (Hillman and Jenkner 2004).The reasons why children do not attend school are two-fold: the first relates to incentives that encourage children to work and secondly constraints that force children to work (Betcherman, et al. 2005). Simply put, incentives can be considered to be the prime cause of children working when the economic benefits of such work are deemed to be greater than the benefits to be had from attending school. So, if education proves to be expensive then the rational economic decision of poor parents is not to send their children to school. Also, children do other non-paid work at home by helping to harvest crops in rural areas. If sent to school, the opportunity costs to households would be high. The second reason dealing with why children are compelled to work rather than go to school relates to low incomes of families. A convincing negative relationship exists between the economic activity of children and per capita national incomes. The higher the national income, the higher is the per capita income (Dehejia and Gatti 2002; Gunnerson, et al. 2005; Edmonds and Pavenik 2005). Section II of the paper discusses the various government policies on education. Section III examines the data and methodology followed in the paper. Section IV discusses the results of the analysis and Section V presents the concluding comments and suggests some implications for policy. II. Government Policies on Education Pakistan in its 68 years of independence has formulated a number of reports/policies dealing with education. These are presented in Table 2 (Bengali 1999) below:
362
Table. 2: Educational Reports and Policies 1947-2010 S.No. Policy Statement Years 1, All Pakistan Education Conference 1947 2. Education Conference 1951 3. National Commission on Education Educational 1959 4. Policy with Nationalization National Educational 1972 5. Policy 1979 6. Education Policy 1992 7. Education 1988-2010 Source: (Bengali 1999). Policy These reports/policies have a common theme running education and the actual expenditures incurred in the through them. One of these is that the educational various five year plans. Table 3 (Government of system of the country should reflect the ideological Pakistan, Economic Survey, Finance Division, underpinnings that made Pakistan an independent Economic Advisors Wing (1994-95) p.106) presents country. An issue that is highlighted focuses on the the allocations and expenditure on education in the development of the individual, the assumption being country. The First (1955-1960) and Second (1960that the greater and more widespread the level of 1965) Five Year Plans laid down the objective of education the higher would be the rate of economic universalizing primary education by 1975. The Third progress. The importance of primary and vocational Plan (1965-7) extended this target beyond 1980. The education is also stressed along with the provision Eighth Five Year Plan (1993-98) further shifted the of quality education at all levels in these policies. In target date for achieving universal primary education particular, the Education Policy of 1998-2010 of the to the year 2002. Needless to say this target has Government of Pakistan (GOP) sets some specific not been achieved. Table 3 also shows education targets for raising the gross enrolment ratio at the expenditure as a percentage of total plan primary level to 105% by 2010 (Pakistan 1998). expenditure and as a percentage of GNP. In all the Furthermore, a Compulsory Primary Act is to be plan periods (except for the Eighth Plan) the actual introduced in a step by step manner. The provision of expenditure on education varied between 4% and the act with respect to primary education are 8% of the actual plan allocations (Column 4 of Table expected to be enforced as well. Other aspects of the 3). Only in the Eighth Plan period did actual policy envision a fuller utilization of the existing expenditure on education reach 14% of the allocation physical infrastructure to operate on a double-shift made for the purpose. With regard to expenditure of basis Pakistan 1998). In addition, it is also planned to education as a percentage of GNP it varied between a impose the delivery of primary education by revising low of 0.88% to 2.33%, an amount witch is much less and upgrading the syllabus, raising the quality of the with other countries that have low human primary school teachers, and bringing about a development as categorized by the UNDP, in its qualitative change in the examination system (Pakistan Human Development Report, 2001: for example 1998). The National Education Policy of 2009 Nepal, 3.0%, Togo 4.5%, Bhutan 4.1%, Yemen, 7.0%, highlighted two major areas to be tackled achieving Mauritania, 5.1%, Gambia 4.9%, Malawi, 5.4%, universal and free primary education by 2015 and Ethiopia, 4%, Burkina Faso, 3.6% and Burundi, 4.0% secondly, all children of both sexes to be enrolled in (UNDP 2001). In a follow up report dealing with South school (Pakistan 2009). and West Asia (UNDP 2009; UNESCO 2010), India’s Although these policies reflect commitment to public expenditure on education in 3.3%, Iran 5.6%, promoting education and literacy within the country, Sri Lanka 5.4%, Maldives 8.3%, Nepal 3.8%, Pakistan the actual experience has been far from satisfactory. 2.8%, Bangladesh spends only 2.4%. This can be seen from the allocations, given for
363
Table.3: Expenditure on Education Five Year Plan Total Plan Expenditure (000 Rs) 1st Plan (1955-60) 2nd Plan (1960-65) 3rd Plan (1965-70) 4th Plan (1970-75) 5th Plan (1978-83) 6th Plan (1983-88) 7th Plan (1988-93) 8th Plan (1993-95)
4,363 10,606 13,204 70,500 226,000 250,000 350,000 483,320
Expenditure on Education (000 Rs) 296 527 677 3,665 10,383 19,810 22,680 69,031
Education Expenditure as % of Total Plan Expenditure 6.78 4.97 5.13 5.20 4.60 7.94 6.48 12.28
Education Expenditure as % of GNP 0.88 1.65 1.38 1.53 1.50 2.10 2.16 2.33
Source: Government of Pakistan, Economic Survey, Finance Division, Economic Advisors Wing (199495) III. DATA AND METHODOLOGY RESULTS The data used in this study is from the Pakistan Social Empirical Evidence from Pakistan and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) of The descriptive statistics presented in Table 4 show 2013-14. The survey provides information about that the household annual income is Rs. 106685.67 households; basic education, health, water supply with 137866.01 as the standard deviation whereas and sanitation, and population welfare. In this paper total annual expenditure on education is Rs. we have focused only on the education component of 75151.37 with 15819.10 as standard deviation. In the survey. A total number of 17,989 households Pakistan, on average, people spend around 4.83 were covered in a sample survey involving a two percent of their income on education from their stage stratified sample design. The sample design own resources. Taking a look at the urban/rural covers households at the national and provincial breakdown the household annual income for the levels as well as giving a breakdown by urban and urban areas is Rs. 147716.59 with 185017.14 as the rural areas. The main objective of this paper is to standard deviation where total annual expenditure find out the relationship between income and on education is Rs. 21519.42 with 25629.78 as expenditure on education at the national and standard deviation. It means that, on average, people provincial levels as well as by urban- rural spend 6.06% of their income on education. In the breakdown. The standard Ordinary Least Squares rural area, the total annual income is Rs. 102,034.77 (OLS) estimation techniques have been used. Two with 93799.48 as the standard deviation where total variables, that is, household annual educational expenditure on education is Rs. 4238.62 with expenditure (HAEE) is the dependent variable, 9958.94 as standard deviation. In the rural area, on annual income of the household (HAI) as the average people spend 3.26% of their income on independent variable. Income here is defined as the education while the government is spending amount of money or its equivalent received during a around about 2 percent of GNP on education period of time in exchange for labor or services from (Pakistan 2007-08). sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial Province-wise a similar picture emerges. In the investments. Further, education in Pakistan is Punjab, the major province in population terms, divided into five stages or levels: primary level people spend 5.39 % of their income on education. At (grades one through five), middle level (grades six the urban level, the expenditure is 6.60% on through eight), higher level grades (nine and ten) education. For the rural area the overall figure is leading to the higher secondary school certificate 3.85% of income that is spent on education. In and university programmes leading to graduate and Sindh the figure is 6.38%. For urban areas it is advanced degrees. 6.90% and for rural 5.90% respectively. In the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the amount spent on education overall is 4.21% with 5.82% spent in the
364
urban area and 1.70 % in the rural area. Balochistan, backward has not been included in our analysis the fourth and the largest province and the most because the data collected there is not reliable. Table 4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Pakistan, by Province and by Urban Rural Breakdown Household annual income (HAI) and Household annual expenditure on education (HAEE) Standard Mean Deviation Min Max N Pakistan HAI HAEE Urban HAI HAEE
106685.67 5151.37
137866.01 15819.10
200 .00
4500000 496000.00
14680 14680
147716.59 8956.66
185017.14 22465.30
1000 .00
4500000 496000.00
5928 5928
78894.16 2573.94
82370.98 7841.25
200 .00
2684600 199800.00
8752 8752
108381.09 5843.20
148340.91 17607.43
480 .00
3014000 496000.00
6263 6263
153304.16 10108.71
195745.01 25068.62
1000 .00
3014000 496000.00
2620 2620
76072.98 2775.50
88236.73 7657.03
480 .00
2684600 199800.00
3643 3643
100404.59 6404.67
132745.50 17271.21
300 .00
4200000 411000.00
2702 2702
136302.28
187311.04
3000
4200000
957
HAEE
9412.0 4
23113.16
.00
411000.00
957
Rural HAI HAEE
80717.44 4755.36
83446.69 12706.53
300 .00
966000 193460.00
1745 1745
KPK HAI HAEE
109431.79 4610.22
142602.71 14889.54
200 .00
4500000 288000.00
3718 3718
Urban HAI HAEE
152016.27 8845.98
192231.07 21468,59
4000 .00
4500000 288000.00
1634 1634
Rural HAI HAEE
76042.61 1289.09
69137.75 3028.12
200 .00
1298600 44500.00
2084 2084
Rural HAI HAEE Punjab HAI HAEE Urban HAI HAEE Rural HAI TAEE Sindh HAI HAEE Urban HAI
365
Estimated from Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM 2007-08) by the author. V.2 Analysis of Regression Results Table 5 is based on the author’s calculation from the Pakistan Social and Living Measurements Survey (PSLM) 2013-14 and presents the regression results of our analysis at the national level as well as for the four provinces. These results strongly support our hypothesis. The coefficient for Total
Pakistan is highly significant showing that a strong relationship exists between income and education expenditure. If the income of the person increases by Rupee 1, then he will spend 42 paisas on education. A similar situation can be observed from the results of the four provinces. All the coefficients are highly significant showing that additional increases in income will be spent on education.
Table. 5: Regression Results (OLS Estimation) Pakistan, by Province and by Urban Rural Breakdown t- values are given in parentheses. Table 6 is taken from the World Bank Sind Economic Report as mentioned in The News, Tuesday November 10, 2009. It shows the percentage change in the level of education by area in the inter-censal period 1981-1998. The province that fared the worst at the primary level of education was Sindh – a percentage change in negative figures. For the rural areas of this province the figure was barely positive. The reasons for this poor performance include increased poverty and unemployment. This is largely blamed on the unequal distribution of land where the wealthy own 150 percent more land than all the other combined. Falling growth rates have also added to the problem of unemployment, as well as declines in income which in turn affect the decisions of families whether to send their children to school or not.
Variable s PAKISTAN HAI URBAN HAI RURAL HAI PHNJAB HAI URBAN HAI RURAL HAI SINDH HAI URBAN HAI
Coefficient
R2
0.438 (52.42)
0.20
0.441 (36.06)
0.20
0.264 (25.50)
0.09
0.441 (38.46)
0.21
0.451 (25.60)
0.22
0.259 (16.20)
0.09
0.350 (19.52)
0.15
0.333 (11.00)
0.14
366
RURAL HAI KPK HAI URBAN HAI
0.353 (15.77)
0.15
0.455 (30.89)
0.23
0.442 (19.90)
0.22
RURAL HAI
0.252 0.11 (11.90) The overall performance has also not been very Pakhtunkhwa performs the best with percentage encouraging, the change being barely positive at changes of 4.73 overall and 3.82 percent and 4.81 0.41 percent at the primary level. The Khyber percent for urban and rural areas respectively. Table.6: Percentage Change from 1981-1998 in the Level of Education by Area Area Primary Middle Matric Inter BA/BSc MA/MSc Pakistan 2.56 3.8 2.96 1.47 1.03 0.36 Punjab 0.41 4.91 3.02 1.29 0.91 0.39 Sindh KPK -1.13 3.55 2.98 2.01 2.14 0.75 4.73 3.04 3.16 1.31 0.77 0.37 URBAN Pakistan Punjab Sindh KPK RURAL Pakistan Punjab Sindh KPK
5.39 1.45 3.44 3.82
3.53 3.97 3.36 1.39
2.69 2.44 2.44 -0.43
2.06 1.95 2.23 0.68
1.78 1.53 2.08 0.75
0.82 0.62 1.6 0.46
3.21 4.07 0.13 4.81
3.32 3.81 2.63 3,07
2.51 2.41 2.44 3.02
0.92 0.78 1.30 1.06
0.40 0.35 0.68 0.52
0.19 0.14 0.37 0.24
Source: World Bank Sindh Economic Report, 2009. This is supported by a report in the Daily Times, dated Wednesday April 19,2007, in which it is mentioned that poverty is responsible for parents sending their children into the labour force at young ages. These children can be seen working in automobile workshops, collecting garbage or at traffic intersections either begging or providing a basic service such as cleaning windshields of cars, especially at road intersections and at traffic lights.
367
Table.7: Area Wise Average Monthly Income and Expenditure on Education Pakistan Total Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–17000 17001–20000 20001–24000 Per Capita Expenditure 40.12 78.19 125.15 on Education in Rs. Urban Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–17000 17001–22000 22001–26000 Per Capita Expenditure 53.30 98.07 156.88 on Education in Rs. Rural Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–16000 16001–20000 20001–23000 Per Capita Expenditure 37.50 71.54 109.76 on Education in Rs. Punjab Total Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–16000 16001–20000 20001–25000 Per Capita Expenditure 48.23 93.82 133.53 on Education in Rs. Urban Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–17000 17001–21000 21001–27000 Per Capita Expenditure 65.96 112.31 163.57 on Education in Rs. Rural Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–16000 16001–20000 20001–24000 Per Capita Expenditure 44.82 87.56 121.32 on Education in Rs. KPK Total Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–21000 21001–23000 23001–25000 Per Capita Expenditure 51.00 84.95 129.73 on Education in Rs. Urban Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–18000 18001–23000 23001–27000 Per Capita Expenditure 49.18 92.23 155.90 on Education in Rs. Rural Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–22000 22001–23000 23001–25000 Per Capita Expenditure 37.14 63.04 93.96 on Education in Rs. Sindh Total Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–15000 15001–19000 19001–22000 Per Capita Expenditure 26.81 56.09 110.61 on Education in Rs. Urban Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–17000 17001–20000 20001–24000 Per Capita Expenditure 36.42 80.20 152.36 on Education in Rs.
24001–29000
29001–58000
212.97
650.05
26001–29000
29001–58000
243.66
756.44
23001–29000
29001–46000
190.59
499.95
25001–30000
30001–59000
229.42
659.59
27001–30000
30001–68000
277.90
798.97
24001–30000
30001–50000
201.20
499.33
25001–31000
31001–47000
227.49
679.98
27001–34000
34001–68000
219.65
781.51
25001–30000
30001–38000
165.82
365.66
22001–26000
26001–39000
172.13
472.17
24001–27000
27001–39000
198.48
506.36 368
Rural 18001–21000
Income Quintiles in Rs. 0–14000 14001–18000 21001–24000 24001–36000 Per Capita Expenditure 24.48 43.61 64.17 107.47 244.81 on Education in Rs. Source: PSLM 2013-14. Table 7 presents the monthly income (by quintile) registered a decline by one percent from 56% in and expenditure on education, for Pakistan and 2004-05 to 55% in 2005-06. In the Khyber three provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the literacy rate went up by one Pakhtunkhwa. Both urban and rural areas are covered. percent point to 46% in 2005-06 as against 45% in Balochistan does not figure in the analysis as the data 2004-05. for that province is inaccurate and unreliable. This It is to be noted however even if the government table reinforces our argument that households who provides totally free education (no admission fees, are in the lowest income quintiles spend less on tuition fees, free transport) even then parents would education as compared with those in the higher not be ready to send their children to school. This is income quintiles. This holds true for the country as a because the opportunity cost in terms of lost income whole, for the three provinces and by urban rural of sending the child to work is greater than if the breakdown. This supports our argument that if child went to school. To tackle this problem it is incomes were higher then school attendance would necessary that the government promote those also be higher, as the opportunity cost of not economic programmes that increase the income of going to school would fall. Children would not be the people so that education becomes more pushed to work by their parents as their incomes affordable. Parents would then be encouraged to would be sufficient to meet the costs of educating send their children to school rather than to work in their children. different occupations. This is all the more important CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS as many thousands of children in Pakistan from the The conventional wisdom among social science lower income classes are forced to leave school to researchers is that education is a public good which is augment their family income by undertaking of great benefit to society (Levin 1987). Concomitant unskilled and semi-skilled work. Although many are with this wisdom is that society has an underlying not paid cash they receive free food and tea. Further, commitment in pursuing and implementing policies by working on construction sites or in other technical that are in favour of free, yet compulsory, primary vocations these children do learn enough to beq able education. Yet, in economics there is no such thing to earn a livelihood later on in life. as free lunches (or in other words, free goods). REFERENCES Providing free primary education does incur costs Anyanwu, John C. to society both open (direct) and hidden to primary 1996 Empirical Evidence on the school goers (Tan 1985). The question is how are Relationship between Human Capital and the these costs to be distributed to reflect efficiency and income of Nigerian Women. Journal of equity. Governments claim that they are willing to Economic Management 3(1): 45–67. subsidize primary education by increasing the allocations to the basic and elementary education Anyanwu, John C. sector as one way of serving the poor better 1998 Human Capital and Nigerian Men’s (Colelough and Lewin 1993). Income. Pakistan Economic & Social Review However, increased government spending on 36(1): 73–94. education in recent years has failed to deliver the desired effect of increased enrolment rates at the primary level. The ‘Parha Likha Punjab’ (Read, Write, Bainbridge, Jay, Marcia K. Meyers, Sakiko Tanaka, and Punjab) project carried out in the country’s largest Jane Waldfogel 2005 province has shown a niggardly increase of 1% in the Who Gets an Early Education? Family literacy rate in 2005-06 despite the expenditure of Income and the Enrollment of 3- to 5-yearvast sums of money on it. The literacy rate Olds from 1968 to 2000. Social Science increased from 55% in 2004-05 to 56% age point in Quarterly 86(3):724-745. 2005-06. The literacy rate in Sindh actually 369
Belley, Philippe, and Lance Lochner 2007 The Changing Role of Family Income and Ability in Determining Educational Achievement. NBER Working Paper. Betcherman, G., Fanes J., Luinstra A., and Prouty R. 2005 Child Labour, Education and Children’s Rights. In Philip Alston and Mary Robinson (eds.) Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement. Oxford University Press. Blanden, Jo, and Paul Gregg 2004 Family Income and Educational Attainment: A Review of Approaches and Evidence for Britain. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 20(2): 245–263. Brown, Philip H., and Albert Park 2002 Education and Poverty in Rural China. Economics of Education Review 21(6): 523– 541. Burney, Nadeem A., and Mohammad Irfan 1995 Determinants of Child-school Enrolment: Evidence from Ldcs using Choice Theoretic Approach. Int. J. of Soc. Eco. (22) 1: 24–40. Burney, Nadeem A., and Mohammad Irfan 1991 Personal Characteristics, Supply of School and Child School Enrolment in Pakistan. The Pak. Dev. Rev. (30) 1: 21-62. Chishti, Saleem, a n d A k h t a r Lodhi 1998 Simultaneous Determination of Choice to Attend School and the Demand for School Education: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Pak. J. of App. Eco. (7) 2: 101–108. Colclough, Christopher, and Keith M. Lewin 1993 Educating all the Children: Strategies for Primary Schooling in the South. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dehejia, Rajeev, and Roberta Gatti 2002 The Role of Income Variability and Access to Credit Across Countries. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Deolalikar, Anil B. 1997 The Determinants of Primary School Enrolment and Household Expenditure in Kenya: Do They Vary by Income?. Seattle Population Research Center. Edmonds, Eric V., and Nina Pavcnik 2005 Child Labour in the Global Economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives (18): 199–220. Gunnarsson, Victoria, Peter F. Orazem and Guilherme Sedlacek 2005 Changing Patterns of Child Labour around the World Scene: The Roles of Income Growth, Parental Literacy and Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Hamdani, Khalil A. 1977 Education and the Income Differential: An Estimation for Rawalpindi city. The Pakistan Development Review (16) 2: 144–164. Hamid, Shahnaz 1993 A Microanalysis of Demand-side Determinants of Schooling in Urban Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review (32) 4: 713–723. Ul Haq, Mahbub. and K. Haq 1998 Human Development in South Asia. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Haque, Nadeem ul 1977 An Economic Analysis of Personal Earnings in Rawalpindi city. The Pakistan Development Review (16) 4: 353–382. Hillman, Arye L., and Eva Jenkner 2004 Educating Children in Poor Countries. Economic Issues No. 33. IMF, Washington, D. C. Marcus, R., and D. Husselbee 1997 Stitching Footballs: Voices of the Children in Sialkot, Pakistan. Islamabad: Save the Children Fund. Jamison, T., and Marlaine E. Lockheed 1987 Participation in Schooling: 370
Determinants and Learning Outcomes in Nepal. Economic Development and Cultural Change 35(2): 279–306. Joshi, P. C. and M. R. Rao 1964 Social and Economic Factors in Literacy and Education in Rural India. Economic Weekly 16(1): 4. Levin, Henry M. 1987 Education as a Public and Private Good. Journal of Political Analysis and Management (6) 4: 628–41. Meerman, Jacob 1979 Public Expenditure in Malaysia: Who Benefits and Why? New York: Oxford University Press. Pakistan, Government (2007-08) Pakistan Economic Survey. Islamabad: Finance Division: Economic Adviser’s Wing. Pakistan, Government 1998 Education Policy, 1998–2010. Islamabad: Ministry of Education. Pakistan, Government 2009 Education Policy, 2009. Islamabad: Ministry of Education. Psacharapoulos, George 1985 Returns to Education: A Further International Update and Implications. Journal of Human Resources 20(4): 583-604.
Washington: World Bank. Sathar, Zeba A., and Cynthia B. Lloyd 1994 Who gets Primary Schooling in Pakistan. Inequalities among and within Families. The Pakistan Development Review (33) 2: 103–134. Shabbir, Tayyeb 1991 Sheepskin effects in the Returns to Education in a Developing Country. The Pakistan Development Review (30) 1: 1–9. SPARC 2006 Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child Newsletter 48. Tan, Jee-Peng 1985 The Private direct Cost of Secondary Schooling in Tanzania. Int. J. of Edu. and Dev. (5) 1: 1–10. UNDP 2001 Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. UNDP 2009 Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. UNESCO 2010 EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO. © 2015“The Explorer Islamabad” Journal of Social Sciences-Pakistan
Psacharapoulos, George 1994 Returns to Investment in Education: A Global Update. World Development 22(9): 1325-1343. Psacharopoulos, George 1981 Returns to Education: An Updated International Comparison. Comparative Education 17 (3): 321-341. Patrinos, Harry A., and George Psacharopoulos 2002 Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. World Bank Policy Research
371