Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.3.5. What may perhaps seem surprising at first sight is the negative influence of “professional occupation” on spending on education. The results in Table x5 show that households headed by professionals, as opposed to farmers and non-professionals tend to spend less on education. However, the size of the influence is not statistically significant, and if we bear in mind that the influences of income, educational attainment of household head, and other factors are already taken into account, the result simply shows that the positive relationship that we might expect is already taken care of through income, the education of the household head, and other variables, so that being a “professional” in and of itself, does not influence expenditure on education. Table 12: Factors affecting the size of household monthly expenditure on education: regression results 1994 1996 Independent Variables Regression Coefficient t-statistic Regression Coefficient t-statistic Number of household members 132.974 34.238** 167.876 49.364** Educational attainment of household 22.353 11.277** 33.981 23.917** head Household income 0.008595 20.371** 0.005362 18.863** Northeastern region -495.120 -21.057** -580.375 -28.980** Urban residence 81.735 5.606** 74.179 5.964** Farming occupation -93.831 -5.532** -34.338 -2.101* Southern region -393.807 -15.546** -467.954 -21.117** Northern region -405.335 -16.793** -447.002 -21.232** Central region -378.933 -15.872** -445.262 -21.235** Male household head -62.342 -3.935** -94.033 -7.074** Non-farm, non-professional - - 38.789 2.689** occupation Professional occupation -12.732 -0.386 - - Unemployed -80.093 -4.131** - - Constant 91.724 2.943 46.028 1.698 R-squared 0.111 0.171 Adjusted R-squared 0.110 0.170 Source: Estimated from unpublished Socio-Economic Survey household data. * Statistically significant at the 95% level. ** Statistically significant at the 99% level. 4.3.6. Another unfamiliar result to some, might be the result that, given the same level of income, education, and other characteristics, male household heads tend to spend less on household education than females. This confirms the results from numerous studies on nutrition, child health, and child education in developing countries that have found the child quality is greatly affected by the presence of the mother as the decision-maker present in the household. The negative effect on education expenditures of the male household head is consistent here in both years under analysis, other things being equal. 4.3.7. With respect to the proportion of income spent on education, again Table 13 shows that higher income households spend a smaller proportion of their income on education. In addition, given the same characteristics, farmers tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on education than do other occupation groups. 174
4.3.8. As would be expected, unemployment exerts a consistent negative effect on spending on education. In terms of the current crisis with rising unemployment as well as underemployment, it is important not to introduce short-run crisis measures that run counter to the long-range efficiency and equity goals. Table 13 The “burden” of education: factors affecting the proportion of income spent on education: regression results 1994 1996 Regression Regression Independent Variables Coefficient t-statistic Coefficient t-statistic Number of household members 1.242 34.424** 1.230 36.665** Educational attainment of household 0.147 8.226** 0.226 14.015** head Household income -0.000054 -14.118** -0.000050 17.767** Northeastern region -1.817 -8.328** -1.514 -7.422** Urban residence - - 0.433 3.530** Farming occupation 0.584 4.296** - - Southern region -0.484 -2.057** -0.529 -2.416** Northern region -0.857 -3.828** -0.844 -4.058** Central region -0.975 -4.415** -1.182 -5.710** Male household head -0.797 -5.546** -0.848 -6.460** Non-farm, non-professional - - -1.140 -7.937** occupation Professional occupation -1.401 -4.574** -3.378 -11.619** Unemployed - - -0.557 -3.268** Constant 1.370 5.296 1.446 6.558 R-squared 0.052 0.064 Adjusted R-squared 0.052 0.064 Source: Estimated from unpublished Socio-Economic Survey household data. * Statistically significant at the 95% level. ** Statistically significant at the 99% level. 5. Policy Implications 5.1 Even though private household expenditures form a fairly large portion (about 34 per cent) of the country’s outlay on education, this portion is less than the private contribution to health expenditures in Thailand (about 55 per cent). In addition the direct cost of many kinds of public education in Thailand is almost entirely borne by the government. Fees charged, as a percentage of costs, range from 2 to 22 per cent for secondary schools, from 4 to 37 per cent in vocational education, from 30 to 42 per cent in teacher training, and from 7-14 per cent in public closed universities (Khoman 1996). Consequently, all calculations of the rate of return on investment in education invariably show private rates of return exceeding social rates at all levels. Tuition fees at the tertiary level on average amount to only 3.5 per cent of the annual family income of university students (NEC 1991). More recent information shows an even more pronounced pattern. The situation is slowly being eased by gradual de-control of private school fees, and allowing “self-financing” programs to be initiated in government institutions. Administrative reform however is slow in coming. Crises can provide the opportunity for reform, but at the same time obstacles may be compounded. 5.2 Nevertheless, subsidies and financing need to be rationalized. For long-term efficiency, it is important to keep in mind that pricing is intimately linked to how services 175
Page 1 and 2:
- Volume II/3 - Educational Finance
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents A. Executive Summ
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Tables Table 1 Adjustments
Page 7 and 8:
Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figur
Page 9 and 10:
Final Report, Volume II/3 Anthony.
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
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:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
mission and operations. The term
Page 125 and 126:
The information requirements for fi
Page 127 and 128:
Table 1: Continued Dept. Flow of Re
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1: Continued Dept. Flow of Re
Page 131 and 132: Description and assessment of compu
Page 133 and 134: Table 3: Existing computer systems
Page 135 and 136: Table 3: Continued Current existing
Page 137 and 138: Description of flows of financial i
Page 139 and 140: (teachers, facilities, etc) if data
Page 141 and 142: Table 4: Continued. Content of curr
Page 143 and 144: Table 5: Assessment of information
Page 145 and 146: An assessment of information system
Page 147 and 148: general administration, these syste
Page 149 and 150: Recommendation for IS Most involved
Page 151 and 152: 6. The nation wide implementation.
Page 153 and 154: References Office of the permanent
Page 155 and 156: Office of private education commiss
Page 157 and 158: Interviews 10 September 1998, 9:00-
Page 159 and 160: Appendix 2 Projections of Costs of
Page 161 and 162: Projected Cost Increases for Expand
Page 163 and 164: Identification of Schools for Sampl
Page 165 and 166: 8. Please place an X in a box below
Page 167 and 168: enrollment as a whole growing at an
Page 169 and 170: Figure 1: Thailand’s Development
Page 171 and 172: Table 5: Crude transition rates of
Page 173 and 174: and level of education, 1993 and 19
Page 175 and 176: 2.31 Questionable quality of educat
Page 177 and 178: income inequality between agricultu
Page 179 and 180: 4.1.4. The percentages calculated f
Page 181: Table 11: Public and Private sector
Page 185 and 186: 5.7 The dilemma is to balance the s
Page 187 and 188: Table 14: Unemployment and Underemp
Page 189 and 190: there any activities that would be
Page 191 and 192: References Chalongphob Sussangkarn
Page 193 and 194: Appendix 6 BMA Voucher Policy A. Lo
Page 195 and 196: Appendix 7 Finance Allocation Metho
Page 197 and 198: Appendix 8 Program Structure of the
Page 199 and 200: Not all possible flows are show, si
Page 201 and 202: Appendix 11 Results of Regression A
show all

Educational Finance in Thailand - UNESCO Bangkok

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

Delete template?

Save as template?