Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALSEstimating the cost of achieving Education for AllEstimating the financing gap —and measures to close itThe cost of achieving the internationally agreedEducation for All goals has to be assessed againstthe financing available. National budgets are theprimary source of education financing. As theExpanded Commentary on the Dakar Frameworkfor Action recognized, developing countries willhave to do far more to make resources availableby ‘increasing the share of national income andbudgets allocated to education and, within that,to basic education’ (para. 46). Over and abovethese broad commitments, action is needed tostrengthen the efficiency and equity of educationspending, and to curb the diversion of resourcesassociated with corruption.Most of the countries covered in the costinganalysis have the capacity to increase domesticspending on basic education. Increasedgovernment revenue, stronger budget commitmentand redistribution within the education budget allhave a role to play. But even with a strongerdomestic effort, many countries will be unable tofinance all the investment required. The analysisfor this Report estimates the Education for Allfinancing gap as the difference between the totalinvestment requirement indicated by the costingexercise and the domestic financing capacity ofgovernments making a ‘best effort’ to channelresources to education.National governments can raise a substantialshare of the additional resources neededAlongside national income, the domestic resourceenvelope available for public financing of theEducation for All goals is ultimately determinedby three factors. The first is the share of nationalincome collected as government revenue. Thatshare rises on average with the level of per capitaincome, albeit with large variations by country thatreflect policies on taxation, the level of naturalresource exports and other national characteristics.The second factor is the proportion of revenuedirected into the overall education budget. The thirdis the share of the education budget allocated tobasic education. The proportion of national incomedirected towards basic education provides asummary overview of the level of public basiceducation financing.Figure 2.47 presents the country-by-countrypicture. It shows the gap between current levelsof spending on basic education and the levelsFigure 2.47: Current national spending falls short of the levels needed to achievebasic education goalsCurrent and required spending on basic education as a share of GDPNorthern SudanPapua New GuineaYemenKyrgyzstanTajikistanMauritaniaLao PDRMyanmarSouthern SudanPakistanCambodiaKenyaNepalGhanaBangladeshHaitiCôte d’IvoireSenegalLow income country averageBeninNigeriaZambiaGuineaTogoMadagascarU. R. TanzaniaRwandaAfghanistanGambiaSierra LeoneMaliNigerMozambiqueUgandaChadEritreaBurkina FasoEthiopiaC. A. R.ZimbabweLiberiaSomaliaGuinea-BissauD. R. CongoMalawiBurundi0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Basic education spending as % of GDPrequired to achieve the goals set in this Report’scosting exercise. On average, the forty-six countriesneed to increase public spending on basiceducation by 2.5% of GDP to meet Education for Allgoals. 63 However, there are very large variationsaround this average.To what extent can low-income countriesincrease spending on basic education fromtheir own resources? Any attempt to addressthat question is highly sensitive to assumptions2007 estimated spendingon basic educationEstimated additionalspending required forbasic education in 2015Notes: Spending in 2007 is an estimate of domestic spending on education and excludes grants.Northern and southern Sudan are included separately in the costing study because of their separateeducation systems (see Box 2.27). Excludes Uzbekistan and Viet Nam which are projected not to requireadditional spending on basic education.Source: EPDC and UNESCO (2009).63. This is an averagefigure weighted by the sizeof low-income countriesin terms of their GDP.127