teenage daughters whose primary activity is attending school. This suggests that raising
attendance rates can be achieved by lowering child morbidity. In some countries, (e.g.
Pakistan) gender gaps in enrolments, and achievement, seem most closely related to the
nature of the public provision of schooling which provides more difficult access for
girls (Alderman, Behrman, Ross and Sabot (1991).
Rates of return for females are at least as high as those for males, especially when
controls are applied related to female participation in the labour force and participation
in waged labour. In a number of studies it appears that rates of return for females are
higher than for males at particular levels. Thus in Thailand (Schultz 1991) suggests a
rate of return to secondary schooling of 25% compared to 13% for males. Gender gaps
in paid employment may also contribute to reductions in the perceived benefits of
schooling for girls despite the fact that rates of return for the education of girls may
actually be higher for those who get access to the labour market. To the extent that this
is true reductions in the gaps in both participation and wage rates should encourage
more female schooling for longer. Schultz (1991) argues that increased schooling for
women is warranted because it is generally associated with relatively high private rates
of return, and relatively high social rates of return with significant externalities which
include decreased child mortality and unwanted fertility, and more equitable social
policy. The latter is the case because it increases the productivity of a marginalised
group that is relatively poor, improves the inter-generational distribution of health and
educational opportunities for children, and because it slows the population growth rate.
Thus even if basic rates of return are comparable between boys and girls, the effects of
these externalities will be to increase adjusted rates of return for females.
Behrman (1991:126) notes an element of caution that enters into Shultz's advocacy of
the justification of special public subsidies to female education, but does not contest the
basic thrust of the analysis offered. The analysis Behrman offers argues that there is a
leap between recognising that there are externalities of the kind Schultz draws attention
to and accepting the need for public subsidies. It is argued that it may be that this would
be a second best solution - if the problem is contagious illness more effective
immunisation may be a better strategy, if there are negative externalities to population
growth over grazing, deforestation appropriate pricing of such resources may be more
effective. This seems to over look what may be strong interaction effects - effective
immunisation programmes depend on the understanding and cooperation of mothers,
family size is not simply determined by costs in the present and in the future.
Despite many technical reservations Behrman still concludes that allocation patterns for
female education probably do justify a shift in resources (Behrman 1991:129). The
analysis offered further notes that though it is sometimes claimed that the gender gap in
schooling is less important than it appears because girls receive equivalent but informal
educational inputs in the home and/or from other community based or religious
organisations This is difficult to demonstrate and there seem several contra-indicators.