Chapter 2. Progress towards the EFA goals - Unesco

0
1
0
CHAPTER 2
2
Education for All Global Monitoring Report
Countries need
to consider the
financing
required to reach
those who have
been left behind
52. The financing gap
estimate for the literacy
target was half the
US$2 billion annual
estimate of the cost of
literacy programmes in
all developing countries –
a much larger group than
the low-income group
used for the other
components of the
estimate (Van Ravens
and Aggio, 2005). It was
also assumed that the
financing gap for early
childhood care and
education was similar
to that for literacy.
53. The study covers
forty-six of the forty-nine
countries classified by
the World Bank as low
income as of April 2009.
The study excludes
Solomon Islands and
Sao Tome and Principe
because their populations
were below 1 million and
the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
because of lack of data.
It includes the Sudan
because southern Sudan
has a separate education
system and can be
considered low income.
Costing the commitment
to Education for All goals
Too often, governments and aid donors have
adopted bold goals at international development
summits but failed to put in place the financing
measures needed to achieve them. How closely
are the Education for All goals aligned with
current financing?
Several studies have addressed this question.
In 2003, the World Bank carried out a detailed
analysis of the financing required to achieve
universal primary education in low-income
countries (Bruns et al., 2003). Basing its estimate
on assumptions about economic growth, revenue
collection, public spending and aid levels, the study
put the annual financing gap at US$3.6 billion
(constant 2000 prices). The first EFA Global
Monitoring Report 2002 adjusted this estimate for
more moderate economic growth, the impact of
HIV and AIDS, and the inclusion of cash-transfer
programmes targeted at girls and poor
households. These adjustments increased the
estimated financing gap for universal primary
education to US$5.6 billion (constant 2000 prices).
The EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007 updated
this estimate to reflect the fact that aid levels
had been lower than expected. Rough estimates
were also made of additional financing for early
childhood care and education, and literacy. 52
These adjustments produced an annual financing
gap estimate in low-income countries of
US$11 billion (constant 2003 prices) – a figure
that has been widely used as a reference point
by the international community.
The costing exercise undertaken for this
Report provides a comprehensive review and
reassessment of the financing gap (EPDC and
UNESCO, 2009). Using the latest available national
data, the study updates the global estimate for
low-income countries. 53 It covers a wider range of
education goals than in the 2003 study, recognizing
that Education for All is about more than universal
primary education. Another significant departure
is the estimation of costs for reaching the most
marginalized. Earlier studies assumed the cost
of extending education to out-of-school children
was the same as the average cost of providing
education to those in school, but this assumption
is flawed. Many children in the most marginalized
groups live in remote areas and suffer chronic
poverty and extreme gender disadvantage.
Reaching these children requires higher levels
of spending, not just on providing schools and
teachers but also on supporting demand for
education.
There are strong grounds for factoring in these
additional costs. Marginalized children have the
same right to education as others and that right
carries with it a claim on financial resources.
Equity in public spending means governments
must assess what it takes to deliver equivalent
opportunities to children in very different
circumstances. The fact that marginalized children
have benefited less than others from past public
spending reinforces their claim to fairer treatment.
Moreover, failure to consider the financing needed
to reach those who have been left behind will
guarantee that many countries miss the
Education for All targets.
Financing gap estimates cannot be considered
in isolation. The same level of financing in two
different countries can produce widely divergent
results. Countries vary not just in their individual
cost structures, but also in efficiency and equity
in public spending on education. Some countries
achieve more for less because they have more
efficient procurement systems, school construction
programmes and textbook supply arrangements.
National differences in teacher remuneration,
the biggest single item in most education budgets,
can have an enormous bearing on relative cost
structures. The level of equity matters because
it influences the degree to which increased public
spending translates into advances for the most
marginalized. For all these reasons, average
costs vary widely by country. The marginal costs
associated with reaching disadvantaged groups
are likely to depend on factors such as the depth
of poverty and structures of inequality.
The limitations of global costing exercises have to
be recognized. Such exercises can help establish
broad orders of magnitude for the financing
required to achieve specified goals. But they
cannot substitute for detailed estimates drawn up
at the national level. Bottom-up estimates provide
much clearer insights into the financing needed to
achieve policy goals. It is a matter of concern that,
almost a decade after the World Education Forum
in Dakar, governments and donors continue to
address this task in such a fragmented and
haphazard fashion – an issue taken up further in
Chapter 4. The estimates for the Education for All
financing gaps presented in this Report are based
on the most recent data available (Box 2.26).
120