of a rather ‘kitchen-sink’ nature so that its estimate is not easy to interpret. The effect of
family allowances is in fact significant at 10 percent level, which may indicate that relaxing
parents’ budget constraints in the poorest families may have a positive effect on the average
achievement level of students.
Table 5. The effect of social expenditures on student achievement | ||||||||
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
(7) |
(8) | |
Gov. social expenditures, percent |
-0.488* (0.223) |
-0.670** (0.230) |
-0.997* (0.464) |
-0.899+ (0.457) |
0.505 |
- |
- |
- |
GDP per capita (log) |
- |
0.717* |
0.523 |
1.508+ |
6.500** |
-0.686 |
0.546 |
-0.008 |
(0.315) |
(0.895) |
(0.863) |
(2.355) |
(1.262) |
(0.872) |
(1.000) | ||
Percentage secondary school |
- |
1.225** |
0.548 |
0.433 |
0.572 |
-0.026 |
0.671 |
0.444 |
attained among adults (log) |
(0.275) |
(0.627) |
(0.604) |
(1.167) |
(1.255) |
(0.6216 |
(0.704) | |
Population size (log) |
- |
-0.028 |
4.448+ |
2.865 |
-11.63 |
-2.474 |
3.653 |
4.268 |
(0.61) |
(2.398) |
(2.371) |
(9.178) |
(4.845) |
(2.323) |
(3.132) | ||
Trend |
- |
- |
- |
-0.031 (0.022) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Pension spending (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-2.470* (1.033) |
-0.986** |
- |
Active labor market policy |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.392 (0.298) |
- |
-0.576** |
Unemployment spending (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.317 (0.210) |
- |
- |
Family allowances (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.824+ (0.422) |
- |
- |
Health care spending (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.208 |
- |
- |
Housing spending (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.042 (0.198) |
- |
- |
Other spending (log) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.912 |
- |
- |
Country fixed effects |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Time fixed effects |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Country specific trends |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Observations |
124 |
121 |
121 |
121 |
118 |
80 |
121 |
113 |
No of countries |
29 |
28 |
28 |
28 |
26 |
19 |
28 |
28 |
R2 |
0.038 |
0.339 |
0.861 |
0.835 |
0.932 |
0.825 |
0.868 |
0.863 |
R2 (within) |
- |
- |
0.258 |
0.118 |
0.665 |
0.571 |
0.293 |
0.376 |
Note. Absolute standard errors in parentheses, +, * and ** |
: denote significance at 10, 5 and 1 percent level, |
The different expenditure components are positively correlated, which may contribute to the
heterogeneous and mainly insignificant effects in column (6). Thus, we have run regressions
19
More intriguing information
1. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence2. Developmental Robots - A New Paradigm
3. An Incentive System for Salmonella Control in the Pork Supply Chain
4. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
5. ESTIMATION OF EFFICIENT REGRESSION MODELS FOR APPLIED AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS RESEARCH
6. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH
7. Public infrastructure capital, scale economies and returns to variety
8. Discourse Patterns in First Language Use at Hcme and Second Language Learning at School: an Ethnographic Approach
9. Feature type effects in semantic memory: An event related potentials study
10. The name is absent