the challenge of the learning deficit: presentation to copenhagen consensus expert panel
DESCRIPTION
The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel. Lant Pritchett KSG and Center for Global Development May 28 th , 2004. Outline of the presentation. Basics of Cost-Benefit analysis of public sector actions: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Challenge of the Learning Deficit:Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert
Panel
Lant Pritchett
KSG and Center for Global Development
May 28th, 2004
![Page 2: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline of the presentation
Basics of Cost-Benefit analysis of public sector actions:– Plausible positive theory of the counter-factual
—and “nothing” is not plausible– Plausible positive theory of public sector
intervention—and “perfect” is not plausible
Five opportunities in context
![Page 3: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Plausible counter-factual: Sectoral Engineers versus Economists
“Engineers” (doctors, educators)
Economists
Assess the impact of an action on physical outcomes against cost
(cost-effectiveness)—no action is the counter-factual (or more particularly not positive theory of existing outcomes)
Assess the impact of an action on welfare (well-being, utility) against cost (full on CB)—the counter-factual is a positive theory with optimizing agents.
![Page 4: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
There are substantial (but not spectacular) private returns to education
![Page 5: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Is demand for education too low because of
externalites?
• Levels and differences of the Mincer returns completely irrelevant to public policy (directly and indirectly) unless they interact with market failures. (e.g. stocks versus bonds, large cap equity versus small cap equity)
• If there are positive external effects to schooling on output then the aggregate effect (macro) should exceed the sum of the micro-economic effects.
![Page 6: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The naively estimated relationship between growth of schooling capital and growth does
not suggest “externalities”
![Page 7: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Two basic facts that make it hard to find output externalities to schooling in poor
countries
• The problem with most less developed countries is that economic growth has been too low—not “too high”—the growth residual without attributing anything to schooling is very near zero.
• Nearly every country had enormously rapid expansion in schooling capital—and yet widely varying performance in growth.
![Page 8: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Variation in growth of SK (lower case, red) is small (between 1 and 3 ppa) compared to
variation in growth of output per worker
![Page 9: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
…which is not true of “physical capital” (actually, CUDIE)
![Page 10: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The gap in attainment by wealth varies widely around the world
![Page 11: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
It is not sufficient to contrast the imperfect adjustments of unfettered enterprise with the best adjustment economists in their studies can imagine. For we cannot expect that any State authority will attain, or will even wholeheartedly seek, that ideal. Such authorities are liable alike to ignorance, to sectional pressure, and to personal corruption by private interest.
Pigou, 1920
![Page 12: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
“Normative as Positive” Theory of Public Sector Intervention
“Normative as positive” (NAP):– There are market failures/equity rationales for public
sector intervention– Nearly everywhere and always the government
produces schooling.– Therefore (as a positive, causal, explanation) the
government produces schooling because of market failures.
• …with mistakes– Deviations from optimality of government action are
technical “mistakes” based on inadequate information.
![Page 13: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Alternative positive theory of government production of schooling:
Production for ideological control (PIC)
• Skills learning and “socialization” are jointly produced.
• Skills learning is verifiable, socialization is not (and hence “third party” contracting) is impossible.
• Governments of all types (democratic, non-democratic) are concerned about socialization.
![Page 14: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
NAP explains nothing, PIC everything: One
NAP PIC
Why “production” not provision
No. Anything production can do provision can do, better.
Yes. Production is inevitable as provision cannot control socialization.
Why all governments produce
No. If “normative” is positive why do rotten governments produce schooling.
Yes. If there is to be schooling (parental demand) even bad governments will want to produce it.
![Page 15: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
NAP explains nothing, PIC everything: Two
NAP PIC
Why production at all levels (primary, secondary, tertiary)?
No. Allocation across levels cannot be explained.
Yes. Socialization is at least as important for elites as masses.
Why are alternative suppliers to states nearly always religious?
No. (unless religious groups alone incorporate ‘externalities’)
Yes. Joint production of skills and socialization is same motivation—mission schools.
![Page 16: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
NAP explains nothing, PIC everything: Three
NAP PIC
Why is government production systematically inefficient?
No. Unless mistakes or “add-on” politics.
Yes. Control of socialization (and teachers) is concern, not learning.
What explains the pattern of regulation/subsidy of private sector?
No. (unless variation in beliefs about efficiency?)
Yes. Deviation of government desired socialization from supplier.
![Page 17: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
NAP explains nothing, PIC everything: Four
NAP PIC
Why governments would ban fees for schools—even in private schools?
No. (Unless some specific models of sorting)
Yes. Eliminate private providers
What explains the variation in schooling intensity?
No. Yes. Differences in the government benefit from socialization--gap between gov’t and population
![Page 18: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
What is an “opportunity” in the context of a behavioral model?
• Defining and assessing opportunities to address challenges requires a positive model of demand and supply
• Is this “advice” to governments? Why do we think there is a plausible positive model in which they are not already in fact optimizing?
• Is this advice to citizens of how to gain greater control over how their resources are used to educate their children—when governments (and special interests) don’t want them to?
![Page 19: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
No coherent theory of counter-factual
Market failures pervasive
Few intrinsic market failures
NAP Sectoral engineers
Standard view:
NAP with mistakes.
Let markets rip
PIC Let politics rip—the problem is citizen control of gov’t
![Page 20: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The five opportunities
• Physical expansion
• Raise quality
• Raise incomes/demand
• Reduce costs
• “System reform”
![Page 21: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
No coherent theory of counter-factual
Market failures pervasive
Few intrinsic market failures
NAP Physical expansion of the system
Raise quality (increased spending, directed spending, inputs controllable)
Raise quality--inputs endogenous, change incentives
Raise income/returns
PIC Let politics rip—the problem is citizen control of gov’t--accountability
![Page 22: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Experience has led me to focus on improving mechanisms of accountability as the
principal “opportunity” in most countries
![Page 23: The Challenge of the Learning Deficit: Presentation to Copenhagen Consensus Expert Panel](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062803/5681474a550346895db48b6c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Impossible to estimate a single “return” or B/C ratio of an intervention
• Heterogeneity in the returns, private and public.
• Heterogeneity in the degree of “market failure” or “equity”
• Heterogeneity in the location on the production function.
• Heterogeneity in the efficacy with which governments can act.