The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education

36 THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION
involved in the PPP. Our analysis is limited
to those evaluation studies that address selfselection
through one of six strategies—
randomization, regression discontinuity
analysis, instrumental variables, Heckman
correction models, difference in difference
estimators, and propensity score matching
(see appendix B for detailed description of
these evaluation methods).
Besides the manner in which endogeneity
is addressed, our analysis also takes into
account the type of PPP contract used. To
this end, this chapter evaluates nine studies
of vouchers, three studies of subsidies, four
studies of private management contracts,
and one study of private finance initiatives.
Because we discussed the details of these
programs in chapter 2, this chapter focuses
only on the results of the studies.
Vouchers
There are numerous studies of the education
effects of vouchers, especially in the
United States (Gill et al. 2007) but also in
other parts of the world (Barrera-Osorio
and Patrinos 2009). Table 3.3 briefly summarizes
these studies.
Colombia’s Programa de Ampliación
de Cobertura de la Educación Secundaria
was a voucher program launched in large
cities in 1991 by the national government.
Its main objective was to increase access to
secondary education for low-income families,
and it assisted 125,000 such students. It
targeted neighborhoods classified as falling
into the two lowest socioeconomic strata
and children who attended public primary
schools, offering the families of these children
a voucher worth approximately $190
to use at the school of their choice. Families
could supplement the value of the voucher
if their chosen school charged more than its
value, but not all private schools accepted
the vouchers. The majority of cities and
towns allocated vouchers through a lottery
when demand exceeded supply, which
enabled Angrist et al. (2002); Angrist, Bettinger,
and Kremer (2006); and Bettinger,
Kremer, and Delivered Saavedra by (2008) The World to evaluate Bank e-library the to:
unknown
program using randomization IP : 192.86.100.35 techniques.
Angrist et al. (2002) Mon, 30 Mar and 2009 Angrist, 12:16:23 Bettinger,
and Kremer (2006) found that
Colombia’s voucher program had positive
effects on several outcomes over both
the short and long term. Recipients of the
vouchers attended private schools 15 percent
more than nonrecipients did. Beneficiaries
had 0.1 more years of education than
nonrecipients did as well as lower repetition
rates. They were also more likely than nonrecipients
to complete the eighth grade, and
they scored 0.2 standard deviations higher
on standardized tests than nonrecipients
did—a significant finding. The evaluations
did not identify any short-term effects on
enrollment.
In a complementary paper, Bettinger,
Kremer, and Saavedra (2008) present evidence
in opposition to the hypothesis that
vouchers succeed only through peer effects.
Moreover, they show that private vocational
institutions teach more relevant skills than
public voucher establishments do, which
confirms the theory that flexibility in
school management is a key to better education
outcomes.
The evidence on vouchers in Chile is
mixed and controversial. Chile’s experience
dates from the 1980s, and any control group
is likely to be subject to competition effects
and thus would contaminate the effects of
the voucher system (Bellei 2005). Disentangling
these effects is difficult, especially
because of the lack of randomized assignment
and limited baseline information
(Hoxby 2003). Presumably, this is the reason
why different studies have yielded such
different results.
Examples of early studies of the voucher
system in Chile include Rodriguez (1988),
Aedo and Larranaga (1994), and Aedo
(1997). In general, these studies compared
the outcomes of beneficiaries with those
of nonbeneficiaries and are thus prone to
bias in their estimates. A second generation
of studies used better data and more
sophisticated estimation methods (Bravo,
Contreras, and Santhueza 1999; Carnoy
and McEwan 2000; Mizala and Romaguera
2000; Vegas 2002). Nevertheless, these studies
were still prone to selection bias. Our
review of the empirical literature includes
the most recent studies of the program’s
effects on education outcomes, including
(c) The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank