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. Spectral calibration of exponential Lévy Models [1]2. El Mercosur y la integración económica global
3. New Evidence on the Puzzles. Results from Agnostic Identification on Monetary Policy and Exchange Rates.
4. Transfer from primary school to secondary school
5. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
6. Towards a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa
7. Flatliners: Ideology and Rational Learning in the Diffusion of the Flat Tax
8. The name is absent
9. Backpropagation Artificial Neural Network To Detect Hyperthermic Seizures In Rats
10. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors