Testing Means-Tested Aid
In: Journal of labor economics: JOLE, Band 41, Heft 3, S. 687-727
ISSN: 1537-5307
18 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of labor economics: JOLE, Band 41, Heft 3, S. 687-727
ISSN: 1537-5307
SSRN
In: Economics of education review, Band 82, S. 102091
ISSN: 0272-7757
In: CESifo Working Paper No. 8221
SSRN
Working paper
In: DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No. 1753
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of human capital: JHC, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 482-519
ISSN: 1932-8664
In: Economics of education review, Band 43, S. 66-78
ISSN: 0272-7757
In: CESifo Working Paper Series No. 5057
SSRN
Working paper
Understanding how higher education (HE) finance policy can affect HE decisions is important for understanding how governments can promote human capital accumulation. Yet there is a severe lack of evidence on the effectiveness of student aid in encouraging HE participation outside of the US, and none at all for the UK. This paper exploits a reform that took place in the UK in 2004, when maintenance grants were introduced for students from low income families, having been abolished since 1999. This reform occurred in isolation of any other policy changes, and did not affect students from relatively better off families, making them a potential control group. We use a difference-in-difference framework to estimate the effect of the reform on HE undergraduate participation. We find a positive impact of maintenance grants, with a £1000 increase in grants leading to a 3.95 percentage point increase in participation.
BASE
Background: Political devolution occurred in the UK in 1998-99, following many years in which some degree of policy administration had been devolved to the four nations. Since devolution, all four countries of the UK have pursued increasingly divergent education policies. This is true in England in particular, where diversity, choice and competition have become a key focus of education policy. This political divergence between the four nations gives us the opportunity to appraise differences and similarities in educational policies and outcomes in the four UK nations. Purpose: This article is a comparative review of the education reforms of the constituent countries of the UK, with particular focus on value for money. The main aims of the article are to (1) outline the key differences in the educational systems in terms of school type, choice and competition, educational resources and pedagogy; (2) describe how the countries compare in terms of educational attainment during compulsory schooling years; (3) examine inequalities in educational attainment, such as by gender and socio-economic status, and how the different countries compare on these measures; and (4) examine existing evidence on the effectiveness and value for money of different education policies and programmes in the different countries. Sources of evidence: We use a variety of sources of evidence to achieve these aims. We undertake a literature review of the existing evidence on the effectiveness and value for money of different programmes and policies that have taken place across the UK. We also collate and undertake an analysis of data on educational outcomes from published statistics sourced from the national statistics offices of each country. It is easier to be confident about comparisons based on international data sets because in this case all students will have taken exactly the same test, so we also compile and analyse survey data from international surveys of educational attainment such as PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS. Main argument: We argue that while the systems of the four countries of the UK are becoming increasingly divergent, there are still many similarities. This is borne out in the evidence on educational outcomes, which show many similarities between the four countries. Because of these similarities, the positive impacts of many of the policies and programmes adopted in England may have relevance for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Conclusions: We find evidence that increasing school resources improves results, and also that more targeted spending benefits able pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. We also find positive results of several programmes. Evaluating the education policies of the four nations in terms of value for money - and therefore whether they have scope to be adopted - represents a bigger challenge. Whilst the value for money of certain policies - such as the literacy hour - can be reasonably well measured, for many other policies, value for money is hard to pin down accurately. However, this forms an important direction for future research.
BASE
Understanding how policy can affect university participation is important for understanding how governments can promote human capital accumulation. In this paper, we estimate the separate impacts of tuition fees and maintenance grants on the decision to enter university in the UK. We use Labour Force Survey data covering 1992-2007, a period of important variation in higher education finance, which saw the introduction of up-front tuition fees and the abolition of maintenance grants in 1998, followed some eight years later by a shift to higher deferred fees and the reinstatement of maintenance grants. We create a pseudo-panel of university participation of cohorts defined by sex, region of residence and family background, and estimate a number of different specifications on these aggregated data. Our findings show that tuition fees have had a significant negative effect on participation, with a £1,000 increase in fees resulting in a decrease in participation of 3.9 percentage points, which equates to an elasticity of -0.14. Non-repayable support in the form of maintenance grants has had a positive effect on participation, with a £1,000 increase in grants resulting in a 2.6 percentage point increase in participation, which equates to an elasticity of 0.18. These findings are comparable to, but of a slightly lower magnitude than, those in the related US literature.
BASE
In: IZA Discussion Paper No. 8596
SSRN
In: Economics of education review, Band 71, S. 7-22
ISSN: 0272-7757
In: Journal of labor economics: JOLE, Band 40, Heft 4, S. 807-850
ISSN: 1537-5307
In: CESifo Working Paper No. 9261
SSRN