gender inequality in education in china: a meta...
Post on 11-May-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA: A META-REGRESSIONANALYSIS
JUNXIA ZENG, XIAOPENG PANG, LINXIU ZHANG, ALEXIS MEDINA and SCOTT ROZELLE
Although there is evidence that there was gender inequality in China’s educationsystem in the 1980s, the literature in China has mixed evidence on improvements ingender inequality in educational attainment over the past three decades. Some suggestgender inequality is still severe; others report progress. We seek to understand theprogress China has made (if any) in reducing gender inequality in education sincethe 1980s. To meet this goal, we use a meta-analysis approach which provides anew quantitative review of a relatively large volume of empirical literature on gendereducational differentials. This article analyzes differences across both time and space,and also across different grade levels and ethnicities. Our results indicate that genderinequality in educational attainment still exists, but it has been narrowing over time.Moreover, it varies by area (rural versus urban) and grade level. There is nearlyno significant gender inequality in the case of girls in urban areas or in the case ofthe 9 years of compulsory education (primary school and junior high school). Girls,however, still face inequality in rural areas (although inequality is falling over time)and when they reach high school or beyond. (JEL I24)
I. INTRODUCTION
The 2012 World Development Report (WorldBank 2012) focuses on gender and develop-ment and states explicitly that gender equal-ity is a core development objective in its ownright. According to the Report, gender equal-ity enhances the productivity of the currentgeneration and improves development outcomesfor the next. One of the main mechanisms of
Zeng: School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Devel-opment, Renmin University of China, No. 59, Zhong-guancun Boulevard, Haidian, Beijing 100872, China.Phone 86-13811473256, Fax 86-10-62511064, E-mailzengjunxia@ruc.edu.cn
Pang: School of Agricultural Economics and Rural Devel-opment, Renmin University of China, No. 59, Zhong-guancun Boulevard, Haidian, Beijing 100872, China.Phone 86-10-13371790098, Fax 86-10-62511064,E-mail pangxp@ruc.edu.cn
Zhang: Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Institute forGeographical Sciences and Natural Resource Research,Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.Phone 86-10-64889440, Fax 86-10-64889440, E-maillxzhang.ccap@igsnrr.ac.cn
Medina: Freeman Spogli Institute, Stanford University,Stanford, CA 94305. Phone +1 (650) 724-6402, Fax+1(650) 723-6530, E-mail amedina5@stanford.edu
Rozelle: Freeman Spogli Institute, Stanford University,Stanford, CA 94305. Phone +1 (650) 724-6402, Fax+1(650) 723-6530, E-mail rozelle@stanford.edu; Schoolof Agricultural Economics and Rural Development,Renmin University of China, No. 59, ZhongguancunBoulevard, Haidian, Beijing 100872, China.
development that arises from gender equalityis the improvement in education that moveshand in hand with gender equality. Girls whoreceive more education have more opportunitiesto improve their own vocational opportunities,living conditions, and social status; they alsocontribute more to economic growth (Glewweand Kremer 2006). There are also particularexternalities from female education in terms ofreduced population growth, better child health,and household investments in children, moregenerally (Song and Appleton 2006).
Despite the adverse role that gender inequal-ity can have on development, many develop-ing countries exhibit gender inequality in manydimensions, including education. Almost half ofthe world’s elementary school-aged girls, whoare not in school, live in Sub-Saharan Africa;around a quarter live in South Asia (World Bank2011). In India, the second most populous coun-try in the world, of all the elementary school-aged children who should be in school but arenot, the majority are girls (56%—UNESCO2005). The elementary school drop-out rate of
ABBREVIATIONS
GER: Gross Enrollment RateMDG: Millennium Development Goal
474Contemporary Economic Policy (ISSN 1465-7287)Vol. 32, No. 2, April 2014, 474–491Online Early publication February 25, 2013
doi:10.1111/coep.12006© 2013 Western Economic Association International
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 475
girls is twice as high as that of boys in Equato-rial Guinea and Grenada. The secondary schooldrop-out rate of girls in many developing coun-tries is also high (UNESCO 2011).
One of the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) related to education is the eliminationof gender disparity at the primary and secondaryschool levels before 2015. However, despitethe often unsubstantiated reports of progressover the past years (at least unsubstantiated byindependent sources), many countries are stillfar from reaching this goal. Scores of countriesreport that they will not make the goal offull enrollment of girls into school (UNESCO2008). In 2005, only 59 of 181 countries (aboutone-third) with data available had achievedgender parity (i.e., GPIs ranging from 0.97 to1.03) in their gross enrollment rates (GER) forboth primary and secondary education. Mostwere developed countries and most had alreadyachieved parity by 1999. The pace of reducinggender disparity has been much slower both at aglobal level and in those regions with the widestdisparities in 1991 (the Arab States, East Asiaand the Pacific, South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—UNESCO 2008).
Despite the considerable body of evidence,the finding of research on gender inequality ineducation in the case of China is still mixedin 2000s. Some researchers say that there arestill significant disparities in access to educa-tion between males and females (Cao and Lei2008; Davis et al. 2007; Hannum, Wang, andAdams 2008; Hong 2010). For example, using a0.95 per thousand micro sample from the 2000China population census, Hannum, Wang, andAdams found that fewer girls were enrolled incompulsory education in 2000. In contrast, otherstudies find that gender inequality in educationhas improved (Liu 2004; Wang 2010; Wu andZhang 2010). For example, using China 1990population census data, Liu found that there wasno significant gender gap in the transition to col-lege in urban areas in 1990. In short, there stillremains great variability among the estimatesof gender inequality in education in China and,according to some, it is still severe.
The goal of this article is to understand theprogress China has made (if any) in reduc-ing gender inequality in education since the1980s. To meet this goal, we have three spe-cific objectives. First, we set out to collect allthe empirical papers that have examined genderinequality in education since the 1980s, focusingspecifically on gender inequality in schooling
attainment. The findings of this literature willbe systematically categorized and turned intoa database which will form the basis of ourstudy and will help us identify the channelsthrough which the gender inequality is occur-ring. In this way, our article can be considered asa meta-analysis. Second, we tabulate the resultsof the studies and document the nature of genderinequality in educational attainment since thereform era (around 1980 to the present). Third,we decompose the overall findings and trackhow gender inequality in education changes overtime, across regions, by grade level and betweenHan and minority children.
Why is China an interesting case study?While the gender inequality in education prob-lem today is almost surely less severe—especially in parts of the country—than else-where in the world, we believe that a study ofChina across the past three decades is certainlyof interest. Most poignantly, China’s economyhas grown extremely fast, rising by more than10 times between 1980 and 2010 in terms ofGDP per capita (NBSC 2011). However, thegrowth has been unequal between rural andurban (NBSC 2011). There also have beenchanges on the supply side of education and therate of change has changed at different paces indifferent levels of schooling (i.e., college, highschool, etc.). Because of this, China more thanany place in the world over the past 30 yearsmight be considered as a laboratory to followthe changes such rapid but differential rates ofchange may have had on gender inequality.
While the goal of our research is ambitious,there is a limitation. We tried to identify allpapers with a set of key words (see SectionIII). We believe that we have done a thoroughand convincing job using this set of papers todemonstrate how gender inequality (a) changesover time; (b) differs between rural and urbanareas; (c) differs by the level of education; and(d) varies between Han and minority popula-tions. However, there is still no guarantee thatour findings and conclusions would not changeif the search criteria were changed.
The remainder of the article is organized asfollows. In Section II, we introduce several ofthe salient features of the education system inChina which may affect the nature of genderinequality (e.g., female schooling in urban andrural areas might be expected to differ). If thereis reason to believe that gender inequality woulddiffer in different dimensions of the educationalsystem (e.g., over time; between urban and rural;
476 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
by level of schooling; between Han and minorityareas), it means that our empirical analysisshould seek to understand how gender inequalitydiffers by these different aspects. In Section III,we discuss our approach to the meta-analysisand describe the meta-data that are employed inthis article. In Sections IV and V, we presentthe results of the meta-analysis and conclude.
II. THE NATURE OF EDUCATION IN CHINA ANDEXPECTED SHIFTS IN GENDER INEQUALITIES
The rapid expansion of the economy overthe last three decades will likely have affectedgender inequality since economic changes affectboth the education system (the supply of school-ing) as well as the returns to education andthe ability of parents to send their children—including their daughters—to school (the de-mand for schooling). There are major shiftsin many dimensions. China’s GDP per capitahas grown by nearly 10% per year sincethe late 1970s (NBSC 2010). During thistime, fiscal revenues have also risen con-sistently—especially since the early 1990s.According to Wong and Bird (2008) and NBSC(2011), after rising gradually in absolute realterms between 1980 and the mid-1990s, totalgovernment revenues as a share of GDP morethan doubled between 1995 and 2010. Atthe same time, the economy has been trans-formed from one that was based on the plan-ning (in the 1970s) to one that is now mostlymarket-oriented (Brandt and Rawski 2008).Most employment decisions are now made byindividuals (firm owners and managers) that arehiring and firing in order to make their busi-ness units more profitable and efficient. Indeed,compared to the 1970s, today China is muchwealthier, better able to invest in social services,and its economy is (and firms in the economyare) driven in no small part by market signals.
All these shifts have affected the ability ofthe state to invest in education and increasethe supply of schooling. The capacity to sup-ply educational services at all levels has risen(Hannum et al. 2008). For example, the numberof elementary schools increased monotonicallybetween 1980 and 2000. It was not until after2000 that the number of schools fell, but thefall was mainly due to a large school mergerprogram that built large centralized schoolswith better facilities and more qualified teach-ers (including boarding facilities for studentsthat lived too far from school—Liu et al. 2010).
During this same period, the number of availableslots in secondary school rose—gradually dur-ing the 1980s and accelerating in the 2000s asthe state began to open more vocational edu-cation and training schools (NBSC 2010). Thegreatest expansion—but, the latest in terms oftiming—came in tertiary schooling. Between1998 and 2009, the number of students in col-lege increased by more than six times (NBSC2010). The opportunity to go to school hasclearly increased between the 1980s and 2000s.
Many of the same factors—economic growthand the rise of a market economy (that demandedworkers with greater levels of human capi-tal) as well as the rise in the opportunitiesto go to school (i.e., more slots in schools atall levels)—also has been changing the cal-culus for parents and students. Studies of thereturns to education have shown that betweenthe 1980s and 2000s the returns to rural educa-tion have risen substantially (e.g., deBrauw andRozelle 2008; Zhang, Huang, and Rozelle 2002).Returns to education nearly tripled between1988 and 2003 in urban areas (Zhang andZhao 2007). Other studies have shown signif-icant returns to climbing high within the educa-tion system and attending college. For example,Fleisher et al. (2004) find the return to collegeeducation, in terms of the percentage return peryear of college, increased sharply from 11.85%in 1995 to 23.2% in 2002. The rise in thesupply of schooling opportunities and increaseddemand by families almost certainly increasedthe demand—among other things—for educa-tion for girls both by the parents of girls andby the girls themselves. Hannum et al. (2008)suggest that their research supports the conclu-sion that in order to support the sustainableincreasing demands of skilled labor for eco-nomic growth, educational systems were restruc-tured, and education was expanded by China’sgovernment, a move that provided more accessto educational opportunities for all, includinggirls. From these analyses, for those that arelooking to understand gender inequality in edu-cation, it is important to look at the changes ingender inequality over time.
Other institutional peculiarities, beyondgrowth over time, may also be important inexplaining changes in gender inequality ineducation. One of the most notable struc-tural divides in the population of China isthe urban–rural divide (Naughton 1994). Thehukou system, initiated in the 1950s and 1960s,assigned individuals into one of two groups—
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 477
urban or rural. Over time, the system created onewith sharp differences in almost every aspectof life—health, housing, employment, socialsecurity, and many other elements. Because ofthis, in part, there are also sharp differences inincome (NBSC 2010). Between the 1980s and2010, the urban to rural income ratio has fluc-tuated from somewhat greater than 2 to some-what greater than 3. There also have been sharpdifferences between urban and rural areas inthe implementation of China’s family planningpolicies (Yang 2007). Since the late 1970s andearly 1980s urban city officials have almost uni-versally implemented a one-child policy. Ruralfamilies have had more leeway and typicallyare allowed more than one child (except in thecoastal areas).
Over and above the natural biases that giverural households lower demand for education,the systematic differences between urban andrural economies stemming from the hukou sys-tem should almost certainly be expected tochange the supply and demand for schooling.In this way, the rural–urban divide most likelyis an important factor to consider in understand-ing China’s gender inequality in education. Inurban areas, higher incomes and better welfareservices—and perhaps higher returns to educa-tion—have been thought to reduce the genderbias against girls. Rural educational attainmentis positively related to income per capita, andgirls are more likely to drop out due to financialproblems of the family in rural areas (Knightand Li 1996; Brown and Park 2002). More-over, just under 50% of families in urban areashave no choice but to embrace the educationof their daughter, since she is their only child.Higher levels of wealth and greater access totax revenues in China’s industry-biased tax sys-tem (Wong 1991) also mean that there are sharpdifferences in educational opportunities. Urbanspending on elementary and secondary educa-tion was 1.4 times to 2.6 times relatively greateron a per capita basis compared to rural spendingon education in 2000 (NBSC 2001). All thesefactors make it almost certain that there are dif-ferences in gender inequality between rural andurban populations and, as such, urban and ruraldifferences need to be considered in any decom-position analysis.
However, the weakening of the hukou systemsince the late 1980s (Cai, Park, and Zhao 2008),the rise of off-farm employment (Zhang, Huang,and Rozelle 2002), and falling fertility in ruralareas (as well as a strengthening of family
planning and successful implementation of theone-child policy in many rural areas—Yang2007) mean that the differences between ruraland urban gender inequality in education maybe changing.
Other factors may also create structuralsources of gender inequality in education. Forexample, there are striking differences in therules covering school attendance and the costof attending school across different levels ofschooling. Since the early 1980s, grades 1–6have been compulsory; since the mid-1990sgrades 7–9 have been so (NBSC 1997). Sincethe early 2000s tuition for grades 1–9 wereeliminated, and there are now subsidies forthe poor to attend school (Hannum, Wang, andAdams 2008). In contrast, attendance in uppersecondary schools (grades 10–12) is not manda-tory and the tuition for rural public high schoolsin China is higher than that of almost all otherdeveloping countries in the world (Liu et al.2009).1 College enrollment slots, despite recentexpansion, are still restricted (Li 2010). Tuitionfees and other costs of sending a child to col-lege can be 20 or more times higher than percapita income of a family in poverty (Liu et al.2011). However, the emergence of scholarships(and educational loans) for the poor may haveoffset the rise of tuition and lowered cost as abarrier to going to college (Wang et al. 2011).While over time, the relative costs, the avail-ability of slots in schools, and the nature of therules governing compulsory education have dif-fered, the differences among the different levelsof schooling almost certainly mean that an anal-ysis seeking to decompose the gender inequalityof education must consider this as an importantfactor.
Finally, ethnicity may also play a role in thedetermination of the gender inequality of edu-cation. Minority groups accounted for 8.5% ofChina’s population in 2011. As most of themreside in sparsely populated, relatively poor, andrural interior regions, minorities almost certainlymake up more than their population share ofthose that are under achieving in China’s educa-tion system. There are differences in the socioe-conomic status and employment structure ofHan and non-Han populations. For example, the
1. Although the cost of going to high school in rural andurban areas is nearly the same, given differences in incomesbetween rural and urban residents, the cost in terms share ofper capita income (i.e., what percent of per capita incomeis needed to pay for high school) for going to high schoolvaries greatly between rural and urban.
478 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
average household income of the rural non-Hanpopulation was only 64.1% of that of the Hanpopulation in 1995; only 14.75% non-Han pop-ulation had non-agricultural jobs compared with24.97% Han population (Gustafsson and Li2003). In addition, there are certainly also well-known cultural biases (that may be reinforcedby the same factors that determine the incomeand social gaps between Han and non-Han).The wide use of the Han language in the cur-riculum and the unified examination based onthe Han language (which the minority childrenare relatively less familiar with) are examplesof such cultural biases (Hong 2010). Many ofthese factors may make it so there are differ-ences in the education of Han and non-Hansocieties—especially in the case of girls.
III. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
Meta-analysts employ statistics to describeand explain previously reported statistical anal-yses that examine the same phenomenon. There-fore, in simplest terms, a meta-analysis is astatistical analysis of the survey findings of alarge number of empirical studies. In meta-analysis, papers investigating one particulartopic are collected and each reported empiricalstudy becomes one or more observations. Meta-analyses allow the evaluation of the effect ofdifferent data characteristics and methodologieson the results reported (Stanley 2001).
While a meta-analysis has the same over-all goal as a detailed literature review, thereare inherent differences. When conducting a tra-ditional narrative literature review, it is diffi-cult to provide a full quantitative assessmentof the literature. The author has full controlover his/her essay and interpretation. In most lit-erature review-based reviews many papers arediscarded or not addressed due to an under-standable need to distill ideas and focus effort.Meta-analyses, on the other hand, are supposedto eliminate the discretion of narrative reports.Authors collect papers in a standardized way,a step that is purposively done to eliminatethe author’s personal bias. As a result, meta-analyses are considered by some as a morerigorous alternative to narrative discussions ofresearch or literature reviews (Phillips 1994).
Because of the almost natural inclination byauthors to use their discretion, it is perhaps notsurprising that the current literature in China thatseeks to summarize and draw conclusions aboutgender inequality in education is conflicted.
Some authors have come to the conclusionthat there is considerable gender inequality ineducation in China (Cao and Lei 2008; Daviset al. 2007; Hannum, Wang, and Adams 2008;Hong 2010). Others state strongly that there islittle gender inequality in education in China(Liu 2004; Wang 2010; Wu and Zhang 2010).For this reason, it seems that a careful, objectivemeta-analysis on the topic may be a welcomecontribution to the literature.
However, a meta-analysis would be an inef-ficient way to study this question if reliable,comprehensive, disaggregated nationwide dataexisted. In other words, if national statisticaldatabases had data available by period, region(e.g., urban and rural), grade level (e.g., ele-mentary school to college), and ethnicity forboth males and females, there would be no needfor a meta-analysis. Unfortunately, China doesnot have and/or does not make such data avail-able to the research community. While nationallevel educational statistics are released everyseveral years, these statistics are highly aggre-gated. Moreover, there is reason to be suspiciousof the quality of data collected by the nationalstatistical system.2
For many of the same reasons, it is eitherimpossible and/or perhaps undesirable to rely onthe national education database. To our knowl-edge, there is no systemic database on atten-dance or on schooling attainment that exists forall levels of schooling, by gender and by ruraland urban. National assessment and standardizeddata in China are almost never made available toindependent research teams. The statistics thatare published are often incomplete and do notallow for systematic decomposition and analy-sis. In addition, there are hints in the literaturethat national statistics on education, includingthose that are used to report certain educationalattainment figures, may be subject to qualityproblems. For example, using micro-data thatthey believe to be high quality, Mo et al. (2011)and Zhao and Glewwe (2010) find the dropoutrates of junior high school students are nearlythree times higher than the officially reportedrates.
2. For example, Rawski (2001), for one, speculates thatthere are even problems with the data that are used bythe China National Bureau of Statistics to calculate GDP.Such discrepancy can lead to arguments about the nature ofconclusions made on the basis of such data. Ma, Huang,and Rozelle (2004) and Crook (1993) show that similarproblems occur in the case of many of the most fundamentalagricultural statistical series.
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 479
In order to add a new dimension to the empir-ical gender inequality in education literature,we therefore utilize a meta-analysis approach inthe rest of this article. For all of its strengths,it should be remembered that the relationshipexpressed by a meta-data analysis is an asso-ciation across studies. The relationship betweenthe independent and outcome variable may notreflect a causal relationship. The associationfound in a study between the variables couldbe due to an omitted variable bias. There alsomay be heterogeneity across the studies, whichmeans we are only reporting the average results.The reader needs to keep these considerations inmind when interpreting the results.
A. Meta-Data
In the execution of our meta-analysis, weused an easily accessible but universal researchdatabase as a way to make the construction ofthe database as transparent as possible. Specifi-cally, in September 2011, we searched the Webof Science for any new listing with the phrase(education or enrollment or academic achieve-ment or academic attainment) and (China), withor without the additional search term (gender ordifference or inequality or girl ). Relevant arti-cles from their reference lists were also reviewed(Table A2).
Each study included in this meta-analysis metthe following criteria:
1. The study must have presented an empiri-cal estimate of the gender difference or sufficientinformation to calculate it; that is, a study shouldcontain enough statistical information so thattest statistics, such as those resulting from a ttest, ANOVA, and so on, were either providedin the study or could be determined from themeans and measures of variance listed in thestudy.
2. The study must have been concernedabout the educational attainment (or achieve-ment in the case of the analysis in the sectionbelow) of any level of schooling from grade1 through college (or other tertiary educationalinstitution). We did not include pre-school orkindergarten.
3. The study needed to be set in China andcould have been a published or unpublishedstudy.
Our Web of Science search led to 813 ref-erences. Papers that were both concerned withgender and contained empirical analyses were
examined for whether they used any regressionanalysis or had enough statistical informationto calculate gender differences. A total of 55articles met these requirements.3 This does notmean, however, that we have only 55 observa-tions. Some authors studied gender inequalityover different time periods, areas, or grade levelsin a single paper. In our meta-analysis, we treatthese estimates as independent estimates.4 Eachindependent observation is coded separately. Weidentified a total of 167 different study or sub-study observations on gender inequality in edu-cation.
According to the results of our search oneducational attainment (and gender inequality),we counted studies that focused on a numberof different elements of educational attainment.For example, we included studies that exam-ined enrollment rates, drop-out rates, graduationrates, transition rates, and years of schooling.Although these concepts are all somewhat dif-ferent, all of them can be converted into anexpression that measures educational attainment.
Following the discussion in the previoussection, we were able to code our data in a waythat will allow us to decompose (through regres-sion analysis—see next subsection for a com-plete discussion) into several key dimensions.In each study, we know the time period beinganalyzed: the 1980s, the 1990s, or the 2000s.Therefore, in the case of each observation, wecreate a matrix of dummy variables called Time.We also know if the data were from a rural pop-ulation (in which case a variable Rural is codedas 1) or urban (Urban) population or one thatincluded both rural and urban (henceforth, callednationwide). The dummy variables for rural,urban, and nationwide are collectively calledArea. We also code the data by the grade levelthat was being analyzed (elementary school ;lower secondary ; upper secondary ; and tertiary,which as a group forms a matrix that is calledGrade level ). Finally, studies could be catego-rized by the ethnicity of the cohort being studied,either Han or minority (non-Han). These finaltwo variables are formed into a matrix calledEthnicity.
Table 1 summarizes the data employed inthis meta-analysis over Time, Area, Grade
3. Nine percent of studies are in Chinese.4. Because we might worry that a single study could
have undue influence, in the results section below we seekto control for this and eliminate any bias that would resultfrom our decision to use multiple findings from a singlestudy.
480 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics about the Data for the
Meta-Analysis Study of Gender Inequality inEducational Attainment
Numberof Studies Percentage
Time 1980s 42 251990s 73 442000s 52 31
Area Rural 53 32Urban 33 20Nationwide 81 48
Grade level Elementary 33 20Lower secondary 61 36Upper secondary 45 27Tertiary 28 17
Ethnicity Han 151 90Minority 16 10Total 167 100
level, and Ethnicity. Within the Time matrix,approximately 25% of studies use data from the1980s, 44% use data from the 1990s, and 31%present data from the 2000s. Within the Areamatrix, more studies use data from rural areas(32%) than from urban areas rural (20% urban);most studies (48%) use data for the whole coun-try. Within the Grade level matrix, just over halfof the studies (around 56%) focus on the years ofcompulsory education (20% on primary school;36% on middle school). Twenty seven percentfocus on high school. Only 17% focus on tertiaryeducation. Within the Ethnicity matrix, about90% of the studies use data on Han students.In contrast, only 10% focus on minorities.
B. Meta-Regression Approach
For the purposes of the current study, thedependent variable of interest, y, is a dummyvariable that refers to whether the study foundgender inequality against girls in terms of enroll-ment or educational attainment. If y = 1, thestudy found that girls suffered a statisticallysignificant disadvantage in terms of educationalattainment. A statistical cutoff at the 10% levelis employed here. If girls were not statisticallydisadvantaged relative to boys, the variable wasequal to 0. Three percent of the studies foundthat boys have significantly lower educationalattainment than girls. In those cases, we stillcoded the dependent variable as 0.
In order to estimate the trend and patternof gender inequality in educational attainment,we also want to control for the variables that
might influence the estimated inequality againstgirls when we run the meta-regression model.Following the discussion above, we include foursets of independent variables, Time, Area, Gradelevel, and Ethnicity.
Given these definitions, the following simpli-fied “marginal model” is specified:
y = a0 + a1 × Time + a2 × Area + a3(1)
× Grade level + a4 × Ethnicity + e
where y is a dummy variable equal to 1,if there is gender inequality against girls. InEquation (1), Time is a matrix that includesthree dummy variables (1980s, 1990s, and2000s) and is included to examine how gen-der inequality in educational attainment changesover time. The matrix Area includes three vari-ables (rural, urban, and nationwide) and isincluded to examine whether there is a differ-ence in gender inequality between rural andurban areas. Grade level is a matrix that includesfour variables (elementary schools, lower sec-ondary schools, upper secondary schools, andtertiary schools). Ethnicity is a dummy variableequal to 1 when the study population is non-Han. It is included to examine whether thereis a difference in gender inequality betweenHan and Minority groups. The other terms inEquation (1) are defined as: e is an error termand a0, a1, a2, a3 and a4 are parameters to beestimated.
Estimation Approach. Because of the condi-tional nature of the dependent variable, we esti-mate Equation (1) using a simplified “marginalProbit” estimation. In our estimation, we reportmarginal coefficients of our independent vari-able. Because of this, the coefficients can beinterpreted as the probability that the genderinequality of educational attainment increased ordecreased.
IV. RESULTS
As shown in Table 2, without regard to dis-aggregation, the percentage of papers findingsignificant gender inequality against girls from1980 to the 2000s and across all schools andgrade levels is 66%. This means that in 66%of the studies, girls were found to be at a dis-advantage in educational attainment comparedwith boys. Three percent of the studies foundthat boys have significantly lower educationalattainment than girls. If one only considers thismost aggregated of statistics, gender inequality
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 481
TABLE 2Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment
(in the Aggregate) in China, 1980s, 1990s, and2000s
Numberof Studies
Percentage (Column1, Rows 1 or 2
Divided by Row 3).
Girls do not sufferfrom genderinequalitya
56 34
Girls suffer fromgender inequality
111 66
Total 167 100
aIn category we combine the counts of studies that findno gender differences and gender inequality against boys.It should be noted that only 3% studies found evidence ingender inequality against boys.
in educational attainment in China in the ReformEra (around 1980 to the present) appears toremain an issue.
A more nuanced analysis, however, is pre-sented in Table 3, decomposing the results byTime, Space, Grade level, and Ethnicity. Thelow p value on the time indicator (.02) sug-gests that the level of gender inequality thata study finds against girls differs significantlyacross time. Specifically, the instances of findinggender inequality against girls in the literaturereduces dramatically from 81% in the 1980s to67% in the 1990s and finally to only 54% in the2000s.
Findings of gender inequality against girlsseem to differ significantly across space aswell. This can be seen most clearly in the databy examining the low p value (.00) for thearea indicator. There are nearly twice as manypapers finding gender inequality in rural areascompared to those finding it in urban areas,suggesting a wide urban–rural gap in genderinequality. In 7 out of 10 studies conducted inrural areas, the analysis shows that girls haveinferior access to education relative to their malecounterparts; in the urban areas, this is only truefor 36% of the studies.
Findings of gender inequality against girlsacross different grade levels seem to follow adifferent trend from that of time and space.The relatively high p value (.82) indicates nosignificant difference across grade levels (whentaken as a group). The consistent findings ofgender inequality against girls—between 62%and 71% across all levels of schooling—suggestthat girls suffer high levels of gender inequalityin educational attainment throughout the entireeducational system.
Finally, looking at the case of gender inequal-ity among minority students, we find that ahigher percentage of studies find gender inequal-ity among minority children (75%) than amongHan children (66%); however, the differencebetween these numbers is not statistically signif-icant. Because the percentages are fairly closeand because the number of studies lookingspecifically at gender inequality in educational
TABLE 3Gender Inequality (against Girls) in Educational Attainment by Time, Area, Grade Level, and
Ethnicity in China in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s
Percentage ofStudies Finding
Gender InequalityStandardDeviation
Numberof Studies p Valuea
Time 1980s 81 0.40 42 .021990s 67 0.47 732000s 54 0.50 52
Area Rural 68 0.47 53 .00Urban 36 0.49 33
Grade level Elementary 67 0.48 33 .82Lower secondary 62 0.49 61Upper secondary 71 0.46 45Tertiary 68 0.48 28
Ethnicity Han 66 0.48 151 .45Minority 75 0.45 16Total 66 0.47 167
aThe p values in this column can be used to test for the differences among the subcategories in each group (Time, Area,Grade level, and Ethnicity).
482 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
attainment among minority populations is small,it is unclear from the descriptive statistics ifthere is any real difference in the frequencyof reported gender inequality between Han andminorities. In other words, because the samplesize limited the power of our analysis, it is notpossible to be confident about the results fornon-Han girls.
A. Econometric Considerations
As mentioned, multiple studies are availablefor each paper. In order to eliminate the potentialbias from our use of multiple findings withina single paper, we employ one way to controlfor the undue influence a single paper mighthave. Table 4, column 1 presents the results ofthe simplified marginal probit regression withoutcontrolling for multiple use of a single paper. Incolumns 2–5, we adopt a weighting scheme: allstudies from a single paper are weighted withthe inverse of the number of studies containedin that paper. When doing so, the coefficient ofEthnicity becomes significant in the weightedmarginal probit regression shown in column2, indicating that the probability that a paperfinds a statistically significant gender disparityin educational attainment for minority femalestudents is higher than the probability of findingit for Han female students when we control forstudies coming from a single paper.
B. Gender Inequality across Time
Simultaneously looking at gender inequal-ity and our other variables using Equation (1),we find the results are mostly consistent withthe descriptive findings. The coefficients on thedifferent time periods are all negative and sig-nificantly distinguishable from zero (Table 4,column 1, rows 1 and 2), indicating that theprobability that a study finds statistically sig-nificant gender inequality in educational attain-ment against girls is declining significantly overtime. Compared with the 1980s, the probabilitythat a study finds gender inequality against girlsdecreased significantly by 27% in the 1990s.What is more, the coefficient on the 2000s is40.47, larger than that on the 1990s (26.72),indicating that the probability that a paperfinds statistically significant gender inequality islower in the 2000s relative to the 1990s.5 It is
5. In another robustness check, we also added a squaredyear term in addition to a linear year term (results not shownfor sake of brevity). If significant, it would suggest that the
important to remember, however, that althoughfindings of gender inequality have been trend-ing downwards over time, overall, a majorityof studies continue to find significant genderinequality in educational attainment in the 21stcentury (Table 3).6
C. Gender Inequality across Regions and Timeand Regions
Statistically significant gender inequality hasbeen found in both urban and rural areas. How-ever, urban and rural China are so differentthat each requires its own careful analysis. Thesignificant negative coefficient on urban areas(Table 4, column 1) shows that the probabilitythat a study finds a statistically significant gen-der disparity in educational attainment is 41%lower in urban areas than that in rural areas.This is consistent with our descriptive analysis(Table 3).
Column 4 in Table 4 shows estimates forinteractions between time and region. The sig-nificant positive coefficients on the interactionvariables suggest that the probability that a studyfinds gender inequality against girls in ruralareas decreased more over time than did theprobability of finding gender inequality againstgirls in urban areas. Nevertheless, despite theprogress that has been made since the economicreform of the late 1970s, the probability ofa study finding gender inequality against ruralgirls in the 1990s is still significantly higher thanthe probability of a study finding gender inequal-ity against urban girls (p value is .00). By the2000s, however, the difference in these proba-bilities has shrunk even further (p value is .10),suggesting that the difference in gender inequal-ity between rural and urban areas is narrowingover time.
D. Gender Inequality across Grade Levels andEthnicity
The results of the multivariate analysis ofdifferences in gender inequality across grade
rate of change of gender inequality in education was notlinear. We tried this and found that in all specifications thecoefficients on the squared year variable were insignificant.This implies one of two things: (a) the rate of changewas more or less linear or (b) we do not have enoughobservations to pick up differential rates of change.
6. In short, the meta-regression analysis demonstrates aclear declining trend of gender inequality against girls ineducation. And we do not know exactly why (is it due torising demand for the education of girls or rising supply ofschools).
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 483
TABLE 4Marginal Probit Regression Analysis of Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment
(Using Decades as Variables)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Dependent Variable: Gender Inequality against Girls (1 = Yes, 0 = Neutral or against Boys)(1) Time (ref. = 1980s)
1990s −26.72∗∗∗(3.17)
−10.99(0.81)
−171.32∗∗∗(8.54)
−13.31(0.93)
−37.22∗∗(2.24)
2000s −40.47∗∗∗(4.42)
−32.13∗∗∗(2.56)
−183.71∗∗∗(11.36)
−32.81∗∗(2.50)
−210.79∗∗∗(10.86)
(2) Area (ref. = rural areas)Urban −41.09∗∗∗
(4.53)−35.13∗∗∗
(2.77)−192.61∗∗∗
(11.33)−36.93∗∗∗
(3.02)−30.07∗∗
(2.58)Nationwide 7.04
(0.96)2.8
(0.28)−149.23∗∗∗
(6.46)5.1
(0.49)6.55
(0.66)(3) Grade level (ref. = elementary)
Lower secondary 12.1(1.32)
8.18(0.68)
11.35(0.88)
8.53(0.69)
−23.88(1.15)
Upper secondary 27.68∗∗∗(2.70)
24.47∗(1.87)
30.49∗∗(2.27)
24.40∗(1.83)
−11.79(0.52)
Tertiary 32.42∗∗∗(2.91)
42.60∗∗∗(3.34)
46.58∗∗∗(3.68)
45.04∗∗∗(3.50)
157.87∗∗∗(9.12)
(4) Ethnicity (ref. = Han) 6.68(0.56)
27.29∗∗(2.19)
23.62∗(1.67)
143.96∗∗∗(7.39)
23.69∗(1.67)
(5) Interaction Time × Area1990s × urban 158.66∗∗∗
(5.53)1990s × nationwide 165.47∗∗∗
(5.92)2000s × urban 165.81∗∗∗
(6.44)2000s × nationwide 147.69∗∗∗
(5.68)(6) Interaction Time × Ethnicity
1990s × non-Han −124.44∗∗∗(4.34)
2000s × non-Han −122.88∗∗∗(4.54)
(7) Interaction Time × Grade1990s × lower secondary 42.92∗
(1.68)1990s × upper secondary 35.32
(1.29)1990s × tertiary −119.63∗∗∗
(4.92)2000s × lower secondary 191.43∗∗∗
(6.42)2000s × upper secondary 215.35∗∗∗
(7.03)2000s × Tertiary 38.58∗
(1.74)Observations 167 167 167 167 167
Notes: Robust t-statistics are in parentheses. In column 2, we use the inverse of number of the studies from a singlepaper as the weight. In columns 3–5, we do the interaction for the variables of Time and Area, Ethnicity, and Grade usingthe weighted marginal probit model. ref., reference.
∗Significant at 10%; ∗∗significant at 5%; ∗∗∗significant at 1%.
levels differ from the results of the descrip-tive analysis. Once Time, Area, and Ethnicityare taken into account, Grade level is shown to
be significantly correlated with findings of gen-der inequality against girls (Table 4, column 1,rows 5–7). More specifically, while there is no
484 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
significant difference between studies of ele-mentary school and studies of lower secondaryschool in the probability of finding genderinequality (Table 4, column 1, row 5), however,there is a significantly higher probability thatstudies of high school find gender inequality.China appears to have made noticeable progressachieving gender equality in elementary andlower secondary education, particularly in termsof enlarging and equalizing access (Wang 2010).The higher enrollment rate and fewer find-ings of gender inequality in elementary andlower secondary education may reflect the lowor non-existent fees for compulsory school-ing and the lower opportunity cost of keepingyoung children out of the workforce, as farminghas become less important over the course ofChina’s development during the 1980s, 1990s,and 2000s (Song and Appleton 2006).
Once students ascend beyond compulsoryeducation, however, the probability that a studyfinds gender inequality against girls is positiveand statistically significant (Table 4, columns 1,rows 6–7). Papers looking at gender inequal-ity at the high school level found that girlsare 27.68% more likely to suffer from genderinequality in access to school, relative to girlsof primary school age. The situation becomeseven worse when girls enter tertiary schools,where the probability that a study finds a statisti-cally significant gender disparity in educationalattainment increases by 32.42% when girls entertertiary school. Beyond the compulsory educa-tion system, therefore, our evidence suggeststhat gender inequality is still a significant prob-lem.
The regression results in Table 4 (column1) show no detectable difference across ethnicgroups in the probability that a study findsgender inequality. However, this may be dueto the limited number of studies that considerthe gender gap among minorities. Indeed, whenwe use the weighted marginal probit regression(column 2), the coefficient of Ethnicity becomespositive and significant, indicating that studiesof minority girls are 27.29% more likely to findevidence of gender disparities than are studiesof Han girls.
Although it makes some of the interpre-tation of the results less intuitive, using theactual year instead of a decade dummy retainsmore of the information in our meta-analysis.This alternative way of coding the data is pre-sented in Table A1. The only difference betweenTables A1 and 4 is that we use a variable called
“year.” This variable is coded as the year inwhich the study’s data are collected. Whenwe replace the decade dummies with “year,”the nature of our findings does not change.The coefficient of the “year” variable is neg-ative and statistically significant in the mostbasic version of the equation, implying thatover time, gender inequality in China has beenfalling.7
V. CONCLUSION
In this article, we review the existing liter-ature on the gender inequality in education inChina. We investigated 55 articles covering 167studies from the 1980s to present day. Meta-regression analysis allows us to review and com-pare these studies in a concise and systematicway and offers more convincing evidence forthe change in gender inequality against girls.
What have we learned about gender inequal-ity in educational attainment from the meta-regression analysis? Inequality against girls stillexists in China today. However, our analysissuggests the existence of a downward trendover time. Girls’ access to education improvednoticeably with China’s economic developmentduring the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, whichwas concomitant with a series of govern-ment policies which addressed issues that likelyaffected education inequality. Gender inequal-ity in educational attainment varies betweenurban and rural areas. In urban areas, genderinequality reduced dramatically and has nowall but disappeared; indeed, urban girls seemto have advantages in educational opportuni-ties. By contrast, the educational penalty forliving in a rural area is substantially greaterfor girls than boys, and somewhat greater forminorities than for Han. There is nearly nogender inequality against girls within the com-pulsory education system, even in poor areas.Beyond the compulsory level, however, genderis still linked to educational attainment. Girlsare still significantly less likely to matriculate tosenior high school than are boys, and they areless represented in higher education. In short,females from rural areas—especially minoritiesand all rural girls attending high school andabove—face the greatest obstacles to enrollmentin schools.
7. When we replace the decade dummies with year, andinteract year with the key variables of interest, the nature ofour findings does not change fundamentally.
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 485
APPENDIX
TABLE A1Marginal Probit Regression Analysis of Gender Inequality in Educational Attainment
(Using Years as Variables)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Dependent Variable: Gender Inequality against Girls (1 = Yes, 0 = Neutral or against Boys)
(1) Time (years) −2.33∗∗∗(5.67)
−2.56∗∗∗(4.35)
−2.82∗∗∗(3.19)
−2.57∗∗∗(4.09)
−5.65∗∗∗(3.63)
(2) Area (ref. = rural areas)
Urban −42.49∗∗∗(4.88)
−40.52∗∗∗(3.50)
−49.02∗∗(1.96)
−40.56∗∗∗(3.45)
−33.95∗∗∗(3.00)
Nationwide 4.84(0.67)
3.81(0.38)
−0.60(0.02)
3.76(0.37)
6.62(0.70)
(3) Grade level (ref. = elementary)
Lower secondary 10.39(1.19)
8.47(0.77)
9.06(0.82)
8.4(0.76)
−38.68(1.26)
Upper secondary 24.73∗∗(2.49)
23.97∗∗(1.98)
24.55∗∗(1.97)
23.89∗∗(1.97)
−39.99(1.40)
Tertiary 37.75∗∗∗(3.37)
51.85∗∗∗(4.13)
51.60∗∗∗(4.21)
51.81∗∗∗(4.12)
27.1(0.96)
(4) Ethnicity (ref. = Han) 5.68(0.47)
22.80∗(1.84)
22.73∗(1.81)
21.61(0.71)
23.88∗(1.82)
(5) Interaction Time × Area
Time × urban 0.61(0.41)
Time × nationwide 0.27(0.18)
(6) Interaction Time × Ethnicity
Time × non-Han 0.07(0.05)
(7) Interaction Time × Grade
Time × lower secondary 3.71∗(1.75)
Time × upper secondary 4.83∗∗(2.45)
Time × tertiary 2.34(1.26)
Observations 167 167 167 167 167
Notes: Robust t-statistics are in parentheses. In column 2, we use the inverse of number of the studies from a singlepaper as the weight. In columns 3–5, we do the interaction for the variables of Time and Area, Ethnicity, and Grade usingthe weighted marginal probit model. ref., reference.
∗Significant at 10%; ∗∗significant at 5%; ∗∗∗significant at 1%.
486 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
TA
BL
EA
2L
ist
ofPa
pers
Use
din
the
Met
a-A
naly
sis
No.
Pap
erN
ame
Aut
hor
Sour
ce
1A
Stud
yof
Edu
catio
nal
Dis
pari
tyin
Urb
anC
hina
(194
9–
2003
)(i
nC
hine
se)
Dah
aiH
aoSo
cial
Scie
nce
inC
hina
,6,
2007
2A
cces
sto
Hig
her
Edu
catio
n:Ta
rget
edR
ecru
itmen
tR
efor
mun
der
Eco
nom
icD
evel
opm
ent
Plan
sin
the
Peop
le’s
Rep
ublic
ofC
hina
Vilm
aSe
eber
gH
ighe
rE
duca
tion
,25
(2),
1993
,16
9–
88
3A
dole
scen
tT
rans
ition
sto
Adu
lthoo
din
Ref
orm
-era
Chi
naE
mily
Han
num
and
Jiho
ngL
iuN
atio
nal
Res
earc
hC
ounc
il.T
heC
hang
ing
Tran
siti
ons
toA
dult
hood
inD
evel
opin
gC
ount
ries
:Se
lect
edSt
udie
s,ed
ited
byC
ynth
iaL
loyd
,Je
reB
ehrm
an,
Nel
lySt
rom
quis
t,an
dB
arne
yC
ohen
.W
ashi
ngto
nD
C:
The
Nat
iona
lA
cade
mie
sPr
ess,
2005
4B
asic
Edu
catio
nin
Chi
na’s
Rur
alA
reas
:A
Leg
alO
blig
atio
nor
anIn
divi
dual
Cho
ice?
Feng
shu
Liu
Inte
rnat
iona
lJo
urna
lof
Edu
cati
onal
Dev
elop
men
t,24
,20
09,
5–
21
5C
hang
esin
Edu
catio
nal
Ineq
ualit
yin
Chi
na,
1990
–20
05:
Evi
denc
efr
omth
ePo
pula
tion
Cen
sus
Dat
aX
iaog
ang
Wu
and
Zhu
oni
Zha
ngG
loba
liza
tion
,Cha
ngin
gD
emog
raph
ics,
and
Edu
cati
onal
Cha
llen
ges
inE
ast
Asi
aR
esea
rch
inSo
ciol
ogy
ofE
duca
tion
,17
,20
10,
123
–52
6C
hild
ren’
sSo
cial
Wel
fare
inC
hina
,19
89–
1997
:A
cces
sto
Hea
lthIn
sura
nce
and
Edu
catio
nJe
nnif
erA
dam
san
dE
mily
Han
num
The
Chi
naQ
uart
erly
,18
1,20
05,
100
–21
7C
ultu
ral
Cap
ital,
the
Stat
e,an
dE
duca
tiona
lIn
equa
lity
inC
hina
,19
49–
1996
Yux
iao
Wu
Soci
olog
ical
Per
spec
tive
s,51
(1),
2008
,20
1–
27
8D
eter
min
ants
ofSc
hool
Enr
ollm
ent
and
Com
plet
ion
of10
to18
Yea
rO
lds
inC
hina
Rac
hel
Con
nelly
and
Zhe
nzhe
nZ
heng
Eco
nom
ics
ofE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,22
,20
03,
379
–88
9E
cono
mic
Tra
nsiti
on,
Scho
olE
xpan
sion
and
Edu
catio
nal
Ineq
ualit
yin
Chi
na,
1990
–20
00X
iaog
ang
Wu
Res
earc
hin
Soci
alSt
rati
ficat
ion
and
Mob
ilit
y,28
,20
10,
91–
108
10E
duca
tion
and
Ear
ning
sin
the
Peop
le’s
Rep
ublic
ofC
hina
Dea
nJa
mis
onan
dJa
cque
sV
anD
erG
aag
Eco
nom
ics
ofE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,6(
2),
1987
,16
1–
66
11E
duca
tion
and
Pove
rty
inR
ural
Chi
naPh
ilip
Bro
wn
and
Alb
ert
Park
Eco
nom
ics
ofE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,21
,20
02,
523
–41
12E
duca
tion
and
the
Pove
rty
Tra
pin
Rur
alC
hina
John
Kni
ght,
Li
Shi,
and
Den
gQ
uhen
gR
esea
rch
Con
sort
ium
onE
duca
tiona
lO
utco
mes
and
Pove
rty,
RE
CO
UP
Wor
king
Pape
r,N
o.11
,20
0713
Edu
catio
nin
the
Ref
orm
Era
Em
ilyH
annu
m,
Jere
Beh
rman
,M
eiya
nW
ang,
and
Jiho
ngL
iu
InC
hina
’sG
reat
Eco
nom
icTr
ansf
orm
atio
n,ed
ited
byL
oren
Bra
ndt
and
Tho
mas
Raw
ski,
Cam
brid
geU
nive
rsity
Pres
s,20
07
14E
duca
tion,
Gen
der
and
Isla
min
Chi
na:
The
Plac
eof
Rel
igio
usE
duca
tion
inC
halle
ngin
gan
dSu
stai
ning
“Und
ispu
ted
Tra
ditio
ns”
amon
gC
hine
seM
uslim
Wom
en
Mar
iaJa
scho
k,H
auM
ing,
and
Vic
kyC
han
Inte
rnat
iona
lJo
urna
lof
Edu
cati
onal
Dev
elop
men
t,29
,20
09,
487
–94
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 487
TA
BL
EA
2C
ontin
ued
No.
Pap
erN
ame
Aut
hor
Sour
ce
15E
duca
tiona
lA
cces
sfo
rC
hina
’sPo
st-C
ultu
ral
Rev
olut
ion
Gen
erat
ion
Enr
ollm
ent
Patte
rns
in19
90R
ache
lC
onne
llyan
dZ
henz
hen
Zhe
ngIn
Edu
cati
onan
dR
efor
min
Chi
na,
edite
dby
Em
ilyH
annu
man
dA
lber
tPa
rk.
Lon
don:
Rou
tledg
e,20
0716
Edu
catio
nal
Atta
inm
ent
and
Rur
al-U
rban
Div
ide
inC
hina
John
Kni
ght
and
Li
Shi
Oxf
ord
Bul
leti
nof
Eco
nom
ics
and
Stat
isti
cs,
58(1
),19
9617
Edu
catio
nal
Stra
tifica
tion
byE
thni
city
inC
hina
:E
nrol
lmen
tan
dA
ttain
men
tin
the
Ear
lyR
efor
mY
ears
Em
ilyH
annu
mD
emog
raph
y,39
(1),
2002
,95
–11
7
18E
duca
tiona
lSt
ratifi
catio
nin
Urb
anC
hina
:19
49–
1994
Xue
guan
gZ
hou,
Phyl
lisM
oen,
and
Nan
cyT
uma
Soci
olog
yof
Edu
cati
on,
71(3
),19
98,
199
–22
2
19E
nrol
lmen
tan
dG
radu
atio
nPa
ttern
sas
Chi
na’s
Ref
orm
sD
eepe
n,19
90–
2000
Xue
guan
gZ
hou,
Phyl
lisM
oen,
and
Nan
cyB
rand
onT
uma
InE
duca
tion
and
Ref
orm
inC
hina
,ed
ited
byE
mily
Han
num
and
Alb
ert
Park
.L
ondo
n:R
outle
dge,
2007
20E
thni
cG
roup
san
dE
duca
tiona
lIn
equa
litie
s:A
nE
mpi
rica
lSt
udy
ofth
eE
duca
tiona
lA
ttain
men
tof
the
Eth
nic
Min
oriti
esin
Wes
tern
Chi
na(i
nC
hine
se)
Rac
hel
Con
nelly
and
Zhe
nzhe
nZ
heng
Soci
ety,
2,20
10
21E
thni
cSt
ratifi
catio
nin
Nor
thw
est
Chi
na:
Occ
upat
iona
lD
iffe
renc
esbe
twee
nH
anC
hine
sean
dN
atio
nal
Min
oriti
esin
Xin
jiang
,19
82–
1990
Em
ilyH
annu
man
dY
uX
ieD
emog
raph
y,35
(3),
1998
,32
3–
33
22E
xam
inat
ions
and
Edu
catio
nal
Opp
ortu
nity
inC
hina
:M
obili
tyan
dB
ottle
neck
sfo
rth
eR
ural
Poor
Em
ilyH
annu
m,
Xue
hui
An,
Hua
Yu,
and
Seba
stia
nC
hern
gO
xfor
dR
evie
wof
Edu
cati
on,
37(2
),20
11,
267
–30
5
23E
xpan
sion
ofH
ighe
rE
duca
tion
and
Ineq
ualit
yin
Opp
ortu
nity
ofE
duca
tion:
ASt
udy
onE
ffec
tof
“Kuo
zhao
”Po
licy
onE
qual
izat
ion
ofE
duca
tiona
lA
ttain
men
t(i
nC
hine
se)
Chu
nlin
Li
Soci
olog
ical
Stud
ies,
3,20
10
24E
xpan
sion
ofH
ighe
rE
duca
tion
inC
hina
and
Ineq
ualit
yin
Ent
ranc
eO
ppor
tuni
ties:
1978
-200
3(i
nC
hine
se)
Jing
min
gL
iuSo
ciet
y,3,
2006
,15
8–
79
25Fa
mily
Bac
kgro
und,
Fina
ncia
lC
onst
rain
tsan
dH
ighe
rE
duca
tion
Atte
ndan
cein
Chi
naW
enli
Li
Eco
nom
ics
ofE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,26
(6),
2007
,72
4–
34
26Fa
mily
Bac
kgro
und,
Gen
der
and
Edu
catio
nal
Atta
inm
ent
inU
rban
Chi
naM
ontg
omer
yB
road
edan
dC
hong
shun
Liu
The
Chi
naQ
uart
erly
,14
5,19
96,
53–
86
27Fa
mily
Sour
ces
ofE
duca
tiona
lG
ende
rIn
equa
lity
inR
ural
Chi
na:
AC
ritic
alA
sses
smen
tE
mily
Han
num
a,Pe
ggy
Kon
g,an
dY
upin
gZ
hang
Inte
rnat
iona
lJo
urna
lof
Edu
cati
onal
Dev
elop
men
t,29
,20
09,
474
–86
28G
ende
rIn
equa
lity
and
Hig
her
Edu
catio
nJe
rry
Jaco
bsA
nnua
lR
evie
wof
Soci
olog
y,22
,19
96,
153
–85
488 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
TA
BL
EA
2C
ontin
ued
No.
Pap
erN
ame
Aut
hor
Sour
ce
29G
ende
rIn
equa
lity
inU
rban
Chi
na:
Edu
catio
nan
dE
mpl
oym
ent
John
Bau
er,
Wan
gFe
ng,
Nan
cyR
iley,
and
Xia
ohua
Zha
oM
oder
nC
hina
,18
,19
92,
333
30G
ende
red
Path
way
sto
Rur
alSc
hool
ing:
The
Inte
rpla
yof
Wea
lthan
dL
ocal
Inst
itutio
nsD
ebor
ahD
avis
,Pi
erre
Lan
dry,
Yus
heng
Peng
,an
dJi
nX
iao
The
Chi
naQ
uart
erly
,89
,20
07,
60–
82
31G
irls
’E
duca
tion
inG
ansu
,C
hina
Huh
uaC
aoan
dFe
nglia
nL
eiSe
ptem
ber
6th,
post
edat
http
://w
ww
.chi
naea
m.u
otta
wa.
ca/ic
as5/
book
/22.
32G
irls
inG
ansu
,C
hina
:E
xpec
tatio
nsan
dA
spir
atio
nsfo
rSe
cond
ary
Scho
olin
gE
mily
Han
num
and
Jenn
ifer
Ada
ms
Gan
suSu
rvey
ofC
hild
ren
and
Fam
ilies
Pape
rs,
Uni
vers
ityof
Penn
sylv
ania
,20
0833
Gir
ls’
Acc
ess
toE
duca
tion
inC
hina
:A
ctor
s,C
ultu
res
and
the
Win
dmill
ofD
evel
opm
ent
Man
agem
ent
Xia
ojun
Wan
gC
onso
rtiu
mfo
rR
esea
rch
onE
duca
tiona
lA
cces
s,T
rans
ition
san
dE
quity
,C
reat
ePa
thw
ays
toA
cces
sR
esea
rch
Mon
ogra
ph,
No.
39,
2010
34H
ouse
hold
Dec
isio
nsan
dG
ende
rIn
equa
lity
inE
duca
tion
inR
ural
Chi
naD
anke
Li
and
Mun
Tsan
gC
hina
:A
nIn
tern
atio
nal
Jour
nal,
1(2)
,20
03,
224
–48
35In
equa
lity
inC
hine
seE
duca
tion
Xue
Lan
Ron
gan
dT
ianj
ian
Shi
Jour
nal
ofC
onte
mpo
rary
Chi
na,
10(2
6)20
01,
107
–24
36In
stitu
tion
and
Ineq
ualit
y:T
heH
ukou
Syst
emin
Chi
naZ
hiqi
ang
Liu
Jour
nal
ofC
ompa
rati
veE
cono
mic
s,33
,20
05,
133
–57
37In
tern
atio
nal
Mig
ratio
nan
dE
duca
tion
ofL
eft-
Beh
ind
Chi
ldre
nin
Fujia
n,C
hina
Hid
eki
Mor
ooka
and
Zai
Lia
ngA
sian
and
Pac
ific
Mig
rati
onJo
urna
l,18
(3),
2009
,34
5–
70
38M
arke
tT
rans
ition
,E
duca
tiona
lD
ispa
ritie
s,an
dFa
mily
Stra
tegi
esin
Rur
alC
hina
:N
ewE
vide
nce
onG
ende
rSt
ratifi
catio
nan
dD
evel
opm
ent
Em
ilyH
annu
mD
emog
raph
y,42
(2),
2005
,27
5–
99
39M
igra
ntO
ppor
tuni
tyan
dth
eE
duca
tiona
lA
ttain
men
tof
You
thin
Rur
alC
hina
Ala
nde
Bra
uwan
dJo
hnG
iles
IZA
Dis
cuss
ion
Pape
r,N
o.23
26,
2006
,po
sted
atht
tps:
//ww
w.m
su.e
du/∼
gile
sj/a
djg1
final
June
5_20
08.p
df40
Pare
ntal
Inve
stm
ent
inC
hild
ren’
sH
uman
Cap
ital
inU
rban
Chi
naL
inda
Yue
hA
ppli
edE
cono
mic
s,38
,20
06,
2089
–11
141
Phys
ical
Wel
l-B
eing
and
Scho
olE
nrol
lmen
t:A
Com
pari
son
ofA
dopt
edan
dB
iolo
gica
lC
hild
ren
inO
ne-C
hild
Fam
ilies
inC
hina
Jiho
ngL
iua,
Gra
ceW
ysha
k,an
dU
llaL
arse
nSo
cial
Scie
nce
and
Med
icin
e,59
,20
04,
609
–23
42Po
litic
alC
hang
ean
dth
eU
rban
-Rur
alG
apin
Bas
icE
duca
tion
inC
hina
,19
49–
1990
Em
ilyH
annu
mC
ompa
rati
veE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,43
(2),
1999
,19
3–
211
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 489
TA
BL
EA
2C
ontin
ued
No.
Pap
erN
ame
Aut
hor
Sour
ce
43Po
vert
yan
dB
asic
Edu
catio
nin
Rur
alC
hina
:V
illag
es,
Hou
seho
lds,
and
Gir
ls’
and
Boy
s’E
nrol
lmen
tE
mily
Han
num
Com
para
tive
Edu
cati
onR
evie
w,
47(2
),20
03
44R
esea
rch
into
Gir
ls’
Edu
catio
nin
Four
Wes
tern
Prov
ince
sof
Chi
naW
eiZ
hou,
Tie
dao
Zha
ng,
Wen
puL
iu,
Yuq
inM
a,an
dJi
ayun
Peng
Chi
nese
Edu
cati
onan
dSo
ciet
y,33
(5),
2001
,4
–28
45So
nPr
efer
ence
and
Edu
catio
nal
Opp
ortu
nitie
sof
Chi
ldre
nin
Chi
na—
“IW
ish
You
Wer
ea
Boy
!”W
endy
Wan
gG
ende
rIs
sues
,22
(2),
2005
,3
–30
46T
heE
duca
tiona
lC
onse
quen
ces
ofM
igra
tion
for
Chi
ldre
nin
Chi
naZ
aiL
iang
and
Yiu
Por
Che
nSo
cial
Scie
nce
Res
earc
h,36
,20
07,
28–
4747
The
Eff
ect
ofPa
rent
alL
abor
Mig
ratio
non
Chi
ldre
n’s
Edu
catio
nal
Prog
ress
inR
ural
Chi
naC
had
Mey
erho
efer
and
C.
J.C
hen
Rev
iew
ofE
cono
mic
sof
the
Hou
seho
ld,
9(3)
,20
11,
379
–96
48T
heE
ffec
tof
Sibs
hip
Size
onE
duca
tiona
lA
ttain
men
tin
Chi
na:
Peri
odV
aria
tions
Yao
Lu
and
Don
ald
Tre
iman
Am
eric
anSo
ciol
ogic
alR
evie
w,
73(5
),20
08,
813
–34
49T
heE
ffec
tsof
the
Gen
der
ofC
hild
ren
onE
xpen
ditu
rePa
ttern
sin
Rur
alC
hina
:A
Sem
iPa
ram
etri
cA
naly
sis
Xia
odon
gG
ong,
Art
hur
Van
Soes
t,an
dPi
ngZ
hang
Jour
nal
ofA
ppli
edE
cono
met
ric,
20,
2005
,50
9–
27
50T
heIn
equa
lity
ofO
ppor
tuni
tyan
dIt
sC
hang
ing
inth
eB
asic
Edu
catio
nin
Chi
na(i
nC
hine
se)
Liu
Jing
min
gSo
cial
Scie
nce
inC
hina
,20
08,
5
51T
heO
ne-C
hild
Polic
yan
dSc
hool
Atte
ndan
cein
Chi
naJu
hua
Yan
gC
ompa
rati
veE
duca
tion
Rev
iew
,51
(4),
2007
,47
1–
9552
Urb
an-R
ural
Dis
pari
ties
inA
cces
sto
Prim
ary
and
Seco
ndar
yE
duca
tion
unde
rM
arke
tR
efor
ms
Em
ilyH
annu
m,
Mei
yan
Wan
g,an
dJe
nnif
erA
dam
sO
neC
ount
ry,T
wo
Soci
etie
s?R
ural
-Urb
anIn
equa
lity
inC
onte
mpo
rary
Chi
na,
edite
dby
Mar
tinK
ing
Why
te,
Har
vard
Uni
vers
ityPr
ess,
2008
53W
hat
Det
erm
ines
Bas
icSc
hool
Atta
inm
ent
inD
evel
opin
gC
ount
ries
?E
vide
nce
from
Rur
alC
hina
Men
gZ
hao
and
Paul
Gle
ww
eE
cono
mic
sof
Edu
cati
onR
evie
w,
29,
2010
,45
1–
60
54W
hoG
ets
Mor
eFi
nanc
ial
Aid
inC
hina
?A
Mul
tilev
elA
naly
sis
PoY
ang
Inte
rnat
iona
lJo
urna
lof
Edu
cati
onal
Dev
elop
men
t,30
,20
10,
560
–69
55W
hyD
oG
irls
inR
ural
Chi
naH
ave
Low
erSc
hool
Enr
ollm
ent?
Lin
aSo
ngan
dSi
mon
App
leto
nW
orld
Dev
elop
men
t,34
(9),
2006
,16
39–
53
490 CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY
REFERENCES
Brandt, L., and T. Rawski. “China’s Great Economic Trans-formation,” in China’s Great Economic Transforma-tion, edited by L. Brandt and T. Rawski. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Brown, P., and A. Park. “Education and Poverty in RuralChina.” Economics of Education Review, 21, 2002,523–41.
Cai, F., A. Park, and Y. Zhao. “The Chinese Labor Marketin the Reform Era,” in China’s Great Economic Trans-formation, edited by L. Brandt and T. Rawski. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 167–214.
Cao, H., and F. Lei. “Girls Education in Gansu.” September6, 2008. Accessed September 10, 2011. http://www.chinaeam.uottawa.ca/icas5/book/22.pdf.
Crook, F. W. “Underreporting of China’s Cultivated LandArea: Implications for World Agricultural Trade,” inChina: Situation and Outlook Series: USDA Inter-national Agricultural Trade Reports, edited by U.S.Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Ser-vice, 1993.
Davis, D., P. Landry, Y. Peng, and J. Xiao. “GenderedPathways to Rural Schooling: The Interplay of Wealthand Local Institutions.” The China Quarterly, 189,2007, 60–82.
deBrauw, A., and S. Rozelle. “Reconciling the Returns toEducation in Off-Farm Wage Employment in RuralChina.” Review of Development Economics, 12(1),2008, 57–71.
Fleisher, B. M., H. Li, S. Li, and X. Wang. “Sorting, Selec-tion, and Transformation of the Return to CollegeEducation in China.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 1446,2004.
Glewwe, P., and M. Kremer. “Schools, Teachers and Educa-tion Outcomes in Developing Countries,” in Handbookof the Economics of Education, edited by E. Hanushek,S. Machin, and L. Woessmann. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 2006.
Gustafsson, B., and S. Li. “The Ethnic Minority–MajorityIncome Gap in Rural China during Transition.” Eco-nomic Development and Cultural Change, 51(4), 2003,805–22.
Hannum, E., J. Behrman, M. Wang, and J. Liu. “Educationin the Reform Era,” in China’s Great Economic Trans-formation, edited by L. Brandt and T. Rawski. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008,215–49.
Hannum, E., M. Wang, and J. Adams. “Urban–Rural Dis-parities in Access to Primary and Secondary Educationunder Market Reforms. One Country, Two Societies?”in Rural–Urban Inequality in Contemporary China,edited by M.K. Whyte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 2008.
Hong, Y. “Ethnic Groups and Educational Inequalities: AnEmpirical Study of the Educational Attainment of theEthnic Minorities in Western China.” Social ChineseJournal of Sociology, 30(2), 2010, 45–73.
Knight, J., and S. Li. “Educational Attainment and theRural–Urban Divide in China.” Oxford Bulletin ofEconomics and Statistics, 58(1), 1996, 83–117.
Li, C. “Expansion of Higher Education and Inequality inOpportunity of Education: A Study on the Effectof “Kuozhao” Policy on Equalization of EducationalAttainment.” Sociological Studies, 3, 2010, 82–113.
Liu, C., L. Zhang, R. Luo, S. Rozelle, B. Sharbono, and Y.Shi. “Development Challenges, Tuition Barriers andHigh School Education in China.” Center for ChineseAgricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Science,Working Paper 2009-01-23, 2009.
Liu, C., L. Zhang, R. Luo, S. Rozelle, and P. Loyalka. “TheEffect of Primary School Mergers on Academic Perfor-mance of Students in Rural China.” International Jour-nal of Educational Development, 30, 2010, 570–85.
Liu, C., L. Zhang, R. Luo, X. Wang, S. Rozelle, B. Shar-bono, J. Adams, Y. Shi, A. Yue, H. Li, and T. Glauben.“Early Commitment on Financial Aid and CollegeDecision Making of Poor Students: Evidence from aRandomized Evaluation in Rural China.” Economicsof Education Review, 2, 2011, 1–13.
Liu, F. “Basic Education in China’s Rural Areas: ALegal Obligation or an Individual Choice?” Interna-tional Journal of Educational Development, 24, 2004,5–21.
Ma, H., J. Huang, and S. Rozelle. “Reassessing China’sLivestock Statistics—An Analysis of Discrepanciesand the Creation of New Data Series.” EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 52(2), 2004,445–73.
Mo, D., H. Yi, L. Zhang, R. Luo, S. Rozelle, and C. Brin-ton. “Transfer Paths and Academic Performance: ThePrimary School Merger Program in China.” LICOSDiscussion Paper Series. Discussion Paper 283, 2011.
National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). China Sta-tistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 1997.
. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China StatisticsPress, 2001.
. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China StatisticsPress, 2010.
. China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China StatisticsPress, 2011.
Naughton, B. Growing Out of the Plan: China’s EconomicReform, 1978–1993. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1994.
Phillips, J. “Farmer Education and Farmer Efficiency: aMeta-analysis.” Economic Development and CulturalChange, 43, 1994, 149–65.
Rawski, T. G. “What Is Happening to China’s GDP Statis-tics?” China Economic Review, 12(4), 2001, 347–54.
Song, L., and S. Appleton. “Why Do Girls in Rural ChinaHave Lower School Enrollment?” World Development,34(9), 2006, 1639–53.
Stanley, T. D. “Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quan-titative Literature Review.” Journal of Economic Per-spectives, 15(3), 2001, 131–50.
UNESCO. “Children Out of School: Measuring Exclu-sion from Primary Education.” UNESCO Institute forStatistics, 2005.
. “Education for All by 2015. Will We Makeit?” EFA Global Monitoring Report, United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,2008.
. “Comparing Education Statistics across the World:Focus on Secondary Education.” Global EducationDigest, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2011.
Wang, X. G. “Girls’ Access to Education in China: Actors,Cultures and the Windmill of Development Man-agement.” Consortium for Research on EducationalAccess, Transitions and Equity, Create Pathways toAccess Research Monograph, No. 39, 2010.
Wang, X., C. Liu, L. Zhang, R. Luo, T. Glauben, Y. Shi,S. Rozelle, and B. Sharbono. “What Is Keeping thePoor Out of College? Enrollment Rates, EducationalBarriers and College Matriculation in China.” ChinaAgricultural Economic Review, 3(2), 2011, 131–49.
Wong, C. P. “Central–Local Relations in an Era of FiscalDecline: The Paradox of Fiscal Decentralization inPost-Mao China.” The China Quarterly, 128, 1991,691–715.
ZENG ET AL.: GENDER INEQUALITY IN EDUCATION IN CHINA 491
Wong, C. P., and R. M. Bird. “China’s Fiscal System: AWork in Progress,” in China’s Great Economic Trans-formation, edited by L. Brandt and T. Rawski. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 429–66.
World Bank. “The World Bank Education Statistics Newslet-ter.” August, 2011, V(1).
. “World Development Report 2012: Gender andDevelopment.” Washington DC: World Bank, 2012.
Wu, X., and Z. Zhang. “Changes in Educational Inequal-ity in China, 1990–2005: Evidence from the Popula-tion Census Data,” in Globalization, Changing Demo-graphics, and Educational Challenges in East AsiaResearch in Sociology of Education, Vol. 17, edited byE. Hannum, H. Park, and Y. G. Butler. Bingley, UK:Emerald Group Publishing, 2010, 123–52.
Yang, J. “The One-Child Policy and School Attendance inChina.” Comparative Education Review, 51(4), 2007,471–95.
Zhang, J., and Y. Zhao. “Rising Schooling Returns in UrbanChina,” in Education and Reform in China, editedby E. Hannum and A. Park. London; New York:Routledge, 2007.
Zhang, L., J. Huang, and S. Rozelle. “Employment, Emerg-ing Labor Markets, and the Role of Education inRural China.” China Economic Review, 13, 2002,313–28.
Zhao, M., and P. Glewwe. “What Determines Basic SchoolAttainment in Developing Countries? Evidence fromRural China.” Economics of Education Review, 29,2010, 451–60.
top related