Table 7: Baseline projections of the economic value of three education reform scenarios Scenario I: Increase avg. Scenario II: Scenario III: performance by ¼ std. dev. Bring each country to Finish level of 546 points on PISA__Bring all to minimum of 400 points on PISA_____________ ,r , c r∙ z,∙,,∙ Valueofreform in%of L.-r.growth Note: Increase Valueofreform in%of L.-r.growth Note: Share of students Value ofreform (billion S) β,. ,r,nτ, . ° , , . r,τc. β,. ,r,nτ, . ° , , , 1 .... (billion S) CurrentGDP increase (p.p.) m PISA score (billion S) CurrentGDP increase (p.p.) below minimum skills ______________________________Ш____________________(2]____________(3)___________(4)_____________(5]______________(6)____________Q___________(8)________________(9) Austria 969 1,545 460% 0.72 38.4 1,308 390% 0.62 13.9% Belgium 1,208 1,586 379% 0.60 32.2 1,816 434% 0.68 15.3% Canada 4,051 2,728 194% 0.32 17.2 3,075 219% 0.36 8.1% CzechRepubhc 830 1,177 409% 0.64 34.5 1,054 366% 0.58 13.1% Denmark 608 1,231 584% 0.88 47.5 908 430% 0.67 15.2% Finland 594 0 0% 0.00 0.0 255 124% 0.21 4.7% France 6,557 11,349 499% 0.77 41.3 9,844 433% 0.68 15.3% Germany 8,822 17,245 564% 0.86 46.0 15,166 496% 0.77 17.3% Greece 1,047 4,253 1172% 1.59 85.2 2,943 811% 1.17 26.5% Hungary 603 1,323 633% 0.95 51.0 972 465% 0.72 16.3% Iceland 36 66 530% 0.81 43.6 46 371% 0.59 13.3% Ireland 585 995 490% 0.76 40.6 664 327% 0.52 11.8% Italy 5,526 19,353 1010% 1.41 75.6 13,503 705% 1.04 23.5% Japan 13,280 2,871 62% 0.11 5.7 10,382 226% 0.37 8.3% Korea, Rep. 4,120 756 53% 0.09 4.8 2,544 178% 0.30 6.7% Luxembourg 126 421 963% 1.36 72.7 289 662% 0.99 22.3% Mexico 4,753 39,363 2389% 2.68 143.9 29,557 1794% 2.19 49.5% Netherlands 2,032 1,344 191% 0.31 16.9 1,779 253% 0.41 9.3% NewZealand 361 275 220% 0.36 19.4 385 308% 0.49 11.2% Norway 844 1,975 675% 1.00 53.9 1,391 476% 0.74 16.6% Poland 2,119 5,320 724% 1.07 57.2 3,766 513% 0.79 17.8% Portugal 742 2,860 1112% 1.52 81.7 1,878 730% 1.07 24.2% SlovakRepubhc 343 787 661% 0.99 52.9 549 461% 0.72 16.2% Spain 4,496 12,332 791% 1.15 61.7 8,237 529% 0.81 18.3% Sweden 1,080 1,761 470% 0.73 39.2 1,406 375% 0.59 13.4% Switzerland 1,003 1,159 333% 0.53 28.6 1,263 363% 0.58 13.0% Turkey 3,043 19,450 1844% 2.24 120.1 15,089 1430% 1.85 41.8% UnitedKingdom 6,862 7,892 332% 0.53 28.5 7,669 322% 0.52 11.7% United States_______________43,835________________111,923________737%_________1,08___________58.1____________86,167_________567%_________0,86______________19.4%________ OECD___________________123,108______________275,429_______645%________0,93__________49.8__________226,333_______530%________0,80_____________18.0%_______ Notes Discounted value of future increases in GDP until 2090, expressed in billion $ (PPP) and as percentage of current GDP “Long-run growth increase” refers to increase in annual growth rate (in percentage points) once the whole labor force has |
Table 8: Projection results with “neoclassical” model specification Scenario I: Scenario II: Scenario III: „ . ɪɪ „ . ɪɪ τ j, ŋ . , ɪ ɪ τ-∙ ∙ 1 τx ∙ „ ɪ ∙ ∙ Scenano II, Scenano II, Increase avg. Pertomiance Bnng each country to Finish BnngaUtomimmum m. , m∙ , λ,,λ , ,zΛ , 1 T cεt,- ■ ; t,toλ ..77 ∙ . τ>τc. л Time horizon 2050 Time hoπzon 2150 by ¼ std. dev. level of 546 points on PISA of 400 pomts on PISA BUhonS % GDP BiUionS % GDP BiUionS % GDP BUhonS % GDP BiUionS % GDP ________________________________(ɪ) (2)_______________(3) (4)_______________(5) (6)_______________P) (8)_______________(9) (ɪθ) Austria 712 212% 1,120 334% 1,471 438% 186 55% 2,511 748% Belgium 926 221% 1,207 288% 2,334 557% 200 48% 2,711 647% Canada 3,282 234% 2,227 159% 5,209 371% 368 26% 4,984 355% CzechRepubhc 781 271% 1,095 381% 1,631 567% 169 59% 2,570 893% Denmark 435 206% 859 407% 869 412% 143 68% 1,932 916% Finland 560 272% 0 0% 651 316% 0 0% 0 0% France 5,026 221% 8,552 376% 11,090 488% 1,397 61% 19,389 853% Germany 6,521 213% 12,466 408% 15,347 502% 2,049 67% 28,191 922% Greece 671 185% 2,548 702% 1,459 402% 417 115% 5,837 1609% Hungary 618 296% 1,322 632% 1,302 623% 193 93% 3,213 1538% Iceland 25 204% 46 367% 46 371% 8 61% 102 819% Heland 386 190% 645 318% 643 317% 111 55% 1,417 698% Italy 3,725 194% 12,330 644% 8,102 423% 2,011 105% 28,244 1474% Japan 12,584 273% 2,772 60% 24,595 534% 442 10% 6,329 137% Korea, Rep. 4,489 314% 839 59% 7,094 497% 128 9% 1,969 138% Luxembourg 46 105% 144 330% 93 214% 29 66% 291 665% Mexico 3,451 209% 24,773 1504% 7,160 435% 3,583 217% 62,461 3791% Netherlands 1,623 230% 1,082 154% 2,979 423% 180 26% 2,413 342% NewZealand 360 288% 276 221% 790 632% 42 34% 646 516% Norway 435 149% 985 337% 855 292% 181 62% 2,088 714% Poland 2,192 298% 5,322 725% 4,651 633% 770 105% 13,051 1777% Portugal 579 225% 2,099 816% 1,209 470% 323 126% 4,989 1940% SlovakRepubhc 337 283% 749 630% 682 573% 111 93% 1,809 1519% Spain 3,142 202% 8,281 531% 6,275 403% 1,359 87% 18,825 1208% Sweden 784 209% 1,259 336% 1,542 412% 210 56% 2,818 753% Switzerland 722 208% 831 239% 1,598 460% 141 41% 1,837 528% Turkey 2,699 256% 15,474 1467% 6,363 603% 2,162 205% 39,523 3747% UnitedKingdom 5,504 231% 6,308 265% 10,918 459% 1,032 43% 14,243 599% United States_____________25,344________167%_________62,386________411%_________56,407________371%__________10,962________72%__________135,962_______895% OECD_________________90,031_______211%________179,655______421%________187,191______439%_________29,183_______68%_________414,050_______970% Notes'. Discomted value of future increases in GDP until 2090, expressed in bUhon S (PPP) and as percentage of current GDP. See text for reform parameters. Source: Authors’ |
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. A novel selective 11b-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 inhibitor prevents human adipogenesis
3. The effect of globalisation on industrial districts in Italy: evidence from the footwear sector
4. Unilateral Actions the Case of International Environmental Problems
5. Comparison of Optimal Control Solutions in a Labor Market Model
6. The name is absent
7. Education Research Gender, Education and Development - A Partially Annotated and Selective Bibliography
8. EU enlargement and environmental policy
9. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
10. The name is absent