Intrahousehold Allocation of Education Expenditure: The Case of Sri Lanka

Abstract

This article uses conventional Engel curve demand analysis, as well as a double hurdle model, to explore whether there are intrahousehold differentials in the allocation of education expenditure between boys and girls in rural Sri Lanka. Contrary to the case in most developing countries, in Sri Lanka, there was a significant bias favoring girls for 1990-91 and 1995-96 for age group categories 8-9, 14-16, and 17-19, and in 2000 for age group categories 14-16 and 17-19. Significant differences in enrollment favoring girls aged 17-19 explain part of the girl bias observed in 1990-91 and 2000-2001, but most of the bias is driven by positive expenditure given enrollment. The biases favoring girls are observed at critical stages of the schooling career in the run-up to key national exams. The 8-9 age group captures the run-up to the year 5 scholarship exams that are used to gain entry to the better-performing secondary schools. The 14-16 and 17-19 age groups capture those who read for important national-level qualifications that are vital for the job market. This article also looks at various possible explanations for the bias. (c) 2010 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved..

Migrants’ International Transfers and Educational Expenditure: Empirical Evidence from Albania

“…This result is consistent with existing empirical findings, which highlight the critical role of parental education on children's schooling (Aslam and Kingdon, 2008;Himaz, 2008;Kingdon, 2005;Sathar and Lloyd, 1994). In Song et al (2006) A second issue to investigate is why transfers do not influence education spending.…”

Are Girls the Fairer Sex in India? Revisiting Intra-Household Allocation of Education Expenditure

“…8 Note that our sample consists households who have child in age group [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. For all households, the share of education expenditure in household expenditure is 2.7 percent in rural areas, 4.9 percent in urban areas, and 3.4 percent in all India.…”

Good for girls or bad for boys? Schooling, social inequality and intrahousehold allocation in early twentieth century Finland

“…Empirically, intrahousehold resource allocation reflecting the derived demand for education by sex is analysed with the Working-Leser specification widely applied in development economics (Deaton 2000;Burgess and Zhuang 2000;Himaz 2010). It operates through modelling linear Engel curves for the consumption of goods and adding household demographics on the age, sex and number of household members to identify gendered differences in allocation patterns.…”

“…Economic returns to schooling also often appear higher for girls than boys, especially with initially low female levels of education (Schultz 2002, pp. 208-211;Duraisamy 2001;Himaz 2010;Gormly and Swinnerton 2004). For policy makers, schooling girls holds the promise of higher quality and quantity labour supply to drive future growth (Lagarde 2013).…”

“…Goldin and Katz 2008, pp. 229-230;Himaz 2010). Paradoxically, such outcomes can be seen as a function of an initial handicap on the labour market, as the low-skill alternatives have been worse for girls, or higher human capital is required for women to be employed at all.…”