literacy for life; EFA global monitoring report, 2006 - Institut de ...

0
2
0
6
110 / CHAPTER 4
Education for All Global Monitoring Report
Table 4.2: Bilateral aid commitments to basic education, 1999—2003
(amount and share of basic education in total ODA)
France
Japan
Germany
United States
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Canada
Spain
Norway
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Sweden
Denmark
Italy
Ireland 4
Portugal
Switzerland
New Zealand
Finland
Luxembourg 5
Greece 5
Total DAC Countries
Amount
(annual average, constant 2002 US$ millions)
Education
(total)
Basic
education 2
Total
ODA
Education
as % of
total aid 1
Share
(%)
Basic education
as % of total
education 2
Education
aid
Relative priority 3
assigned to
Basic
education
aid
996.6 123.5 4 473.0 24.3 15.4 2.5 0.5
851.4 63.1 11 636.1 7.9 12.7 0.8 0.4
673.9 66.0 4 024.8 19.0 10.3 2.0 0.4
298.2 194.0 12 708.0 2.8 67.4 0.3 2.4
212.6 140.3 2 930.4 8.1 78.4 0.8 2.8
207.9 98.1 3 057.3 7.3 88.6 0.8 3.1
166.7 50.0 1 421.4 12.8 41.2 1.3 1.5
133.5 18.5 1 069.2 13.6 21.7 1.4 0.8
103.1 48.1 1 156.0 10.0 56.1 1.0 2.0
94.8 27.7 742.6 14.9 31.4 1.5 1.1
73.8 1.9 423.2 18.3 2.7 1.9 0.1
73.1 5.4 695.9 11.5 9.0 1.2 0.3
58.6 20.3 1 190.0 5.6 59.6 0.6 2.1
43.0 17.3 848.5 5.6 66.6 0.6 2.4
40.5 0.2 865.5 5.1 1.4 0.5 0.1
38.4 … 217.3 18.7 – 1.9 –
34.1 3.1 236.2 16.5 11.5 1.7 0.4
31.0 10.1 741.6 5.8 43.1 0.6 1.5
288.0 2.2 94.6 35.7 7.8 3.7 0.3
26.3 3.2 279.2 11.3 39.6 1.2 1.4
19.3 5.3 90.7 21.9 47.0 2.3 1.7
18.6 13.2 112.6 17.8 44.0 1.8 1.6
4 224.8 911.5 49 014.1 9.7 28.3 1.0 1.0
Notes: Countries are sorted in descending order by the amount of aid to education.
1. The share of education in total ODA less sector unallocable aid, i.e. multi-sector and general programme assistance that is not shown in this table.
These data are different from the share of education shown in Figure 4.3, which are based on total ODA with no differentiation for sector unallocable aid.
2. Aid to basic education in this table is the amount reported directly under this category. It does not include commitments to basic education that may have been
reported under ‘education, level unspecified’. Accordingly, the share of basic education as a proportion of total education aid omits ‘education, level unspecified’.
See the Aid Annex Table 1.1 for the total amount of ‘education, level unspecified’ for each bilateral donor.
3. Relative priority is the ratio between the proportion of total aid assigned to education or basic education by each agency and the mean for all agencies.
The indicator is calculated as follows:
Relative priority assigned to education aid =
∑ 22
EA i=1 i
EA i TAi
∑ 22
TA i=1 i
The average for all donors is therefore 1. A score above 1 indicates that the donor gives education a higher priority than the average for all donors;
a score below 1 indicates that it gives education a lower priority than the average for all donors.
4. Sub-sector breakdown is not available for Ireland.
5. Data coverage is limited for Luxembourg and Greece; therefore the figures shown here are not comparable with other donors.
(Luxembourg: 1999 and 2000 figures are used for education and basic education. Greece: 2000 and 2003 figures are used for the average for basic education.)
Source: Computed from DAC online database (OECD-DAC 2005c, Table 5).
where:
i = a DAC country
EA = Education aid
TA = Total aid
10. These patterns,
based on five-year
averages, broadly
confirm the analysis
in the 2005 EFA Global
Monitoring Report,
which was based on
two-year averages
(see UNESCO, 2004a,
p.191–2).
11. Given the limited
coverage, the data for
Luxembourg should
be interpreted with
caution.
and New Zealand give education relatively high
priority, but within this basic education has a low
priority. Canada, Finland and Australia accord
relatively high priority to both. 10 A major shift
by France, Germany and Japan towards basic
education would have a significant effect on
overall resource levels, a move that is underway
for France (Box 4.4). If the United States, the
United Kingdom, Germany and Japan were also
to increase their aid to education to over 0.04%
of Gross National Income (GNI), already met by
Luxembourg, France, New Zealand, Norway,
the Netherlands and Ireland (Figure 4.9), the
effect would be dramatic. 11
The analysis thus far suggests that in
international commitments the priorities
accorded to education in general, and to basic
education in particular, are not reflected in the
actual level of bilateral aid. However, there are
several reasons to suggest that the data cited
above may be a significant underestimate for
those donor countries that channel a relatively