Chapter 2. Progress towards the EFA goals - Unesco

More documents

Recommendations

Info

0 0 1 CHAPTER 2 2 Education for All Global Monitoring Report Many countries can mobilize additional resources for basic education about economic growth, revenue collection and public spending patterns. For this analysis, a ‘best effort’ benchmark was established to assess national financing capacity. Factoring in projected economic growth, 64 a significant source of extra revenue, it is possible to estimate the additional resources that can be generated by 2015 if the countries covered (a) increase the average share of government revenue in GDP to at least 17%; (b) raise the share of revenue going to education to at least 20%; and (c) ensure that about 70% of the education budget is devoted to pre-primary, primary and lower secondary. 65 Where countries are already exceeding these thresholds, it is assumed that current values are maintained up to 2015. Applying these thresholds points to the scope for a far stronger level of national effort. If every country covered in the study reached each threshold, it would expand the financial resource envelope for basic education on average by about 0.9 percentage points of GDP by 2015. Put differently, it would provide slightly more Figure 2.48: Many countries can mobilize additional domestic resources for basic education Current and additional resources countries devote to basic education as a share of GDP 4.5 than a third of the additional resources required to achieve the basic education goals by 2015. Increasing scope for additional domestic resource mobilization The aggregate picture inevitably obscures significant differences between countries (Figure 2.48). Some, such as Benin and Mozambique, are close to the ‘best effort’ thresholds in all target areas. By contrast, Chad combines high levels of revenue-raising with low levels of financial commitment to education. Nigeria raises 34% of national income in government revenue, but has one of the lowest levels of commitment to primary education among the forty-six countries covered. Pakistan performs poorly on all three counts: government revenue represents a small share of national income, the share of revenue spent on basic education is among the lowest for any of these low-income countries and the share spent on primary education is the very lowest in the group. The country has the potential to more than triple the share of GDP currently allocated to basic education, suggesting that successive governments have failed to address the education 4.0 3.5 Additional resources mobilized in 2015 if thresholds met 2007 estimated resources for basic education Basic education spending as % of GDP 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 64. Resource projections use the latest IMF economic growth forecasts (IMF, 2009f). 65. Targets for the exact share of the budget devoted to Education for All depend on the length of primary and lower secondary cycles. See EPDC and UNESCO (2009) for details. Economic growth projections are taken from the April 2009 IMF forecast (IMF, 2009f). 0.0 North Sudan South Sudan Guinea Mali Kenya Benin Mozambique Senegal Burundi Zambia Papua New Guinea Malawi Somalia Lao PDR Rwanda Côte d’Ivoire Madagascar U. R. Tanzania Tajikistan Haiti Nepal Liberia Yemen Viet Nam Low income country average Sierra Leone Mauritania Uganda Ghana Togo Guinea-Bissau Kyrgyzstan C. A. R. Nigeria Burkina Faso Ethiopia D. R. Congo Zimbabwe Cambodia Chad Myanmar Bangladesh Gambia Afghanistan Pakistan Eritrea Note: Excludes countries where the thresholds are already exceeded. Source: EPDC and UNESCO (2009). 128
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Estimating the cost of achieving Education for All financing challenge with sufficient urgency. In the cases of Chad and Nigeria, the problem is less one of revenue mobilization than the low priority attached to education in general and basic education in particular. It should be emphasized that the ‘best effort’ thresholds used are an imperfect guide to public policy. Revenue-raising capacity partly depends on export structures. Countries with large mineral assets may be better placed than others to increase revenue collection. For countries emerging from conflict, such as Nepal and Sierra Leone, increasing the share of national income collected in revenue may be a slow process involving the restoration of credible public institutions and confidence in government. The estimates here should therefore be treated as an evaluation of what is possible under reasonable conditions, not as a full assessment of what each country can achieve in practice. With the data available, it is difficult to generate precise Education for All financing estimates for countries such as Afghanistan, Liberia and Sierra Leone, but there are strong grounds for recognizing, as most aid donors have done, the urgent need for a large up-front increase in education finance, given the limited capacity of these countries’ governments to raise that finance. Donors need to increase aid to close the remaining gap Successive issues of the EFA Global Monitoring Report have drawn the attention of the donor community to the gap between aid levels and the level of financing required to meet the Dakar targets. The revised global cost estimate suggests the gap is far larger than previously assumed. Any prospect of accelerated progress towards the 2015 targets hinges critically on a scaled-up donor effort. The bottom-line message to emerge from the costing exercise is that two-thirds of the additional resources required will have to be provided through aid. The residual aid component of the Education for All financing requirement can be extrapolated from the costing exercise. Figure 2.49 summarizes the financing gap that remains once prospects for additional domestic resources have been exhausted. Table 2.11 provides an approximate breakdown of this financing deficit by education Figure 2.49: Financing gaps are large and unlikely to be eliminated by current donor pledges Breakdown of annual resource needs to achieve basic education goals 40 Constant 2007 US$ billions 35 30 25 20 15 Average annual resources needed to finance EFA (2008-2015) US$36 billion Financing gap US$16 billion US$4 billion US$3 billion Additional resources from domestic prioritization Additional domestic resources from economic growth Financing gap Current aid to basic education (2006-2007) US$3 billion Additional aid to basic education if Gleneagles US$2 billion Remaining commitments met shortfall US$11 billion The financing gap for basic education is around US$16 billion annually 10 5 Current estimated resources US$12 billion 0 Notes: Breakdown of annual resource needs does not add up to the total due to rounding. The percentage increase in aid between 2005 and 2010 associated with the Gleneagles targets (see Chapter 4) are usual to project 2005 basic education commitments to 2010 for each country covered. Sources: EPDC and UNESCO (2009); OECD-DAC (2009d). 129
Page 1 and 2:
0 Education for All Global Monitori
Page 3 and 4:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Intr
Page 5 and 6:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Earl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Univ
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Yout
Page 67 and 68: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS The
Page 81 and 82: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Esti
Page 89: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Esti
Page 93: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Esti
show all

Chapter 2. Progress towards the EFA goals - Unesco

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?