Gender differentials in the cost of primary education: a study of Pakistan.
Ismail, Zafar H.
The paper examines the differences in the cost of primary education
by gender and by province. It shows that the growth in enrolment
outstrips the growth in the relevant population cohort, except in Sindh,
and that this is faster in the case of girls than boys: that the school
construction programme for girls in Sindh, unlike other provinces,
outstrips the growth in female teacher employment. This is also seen in
the boys' school in Pakistan. Cost of providing education are a
function of the availability of teachers and schools, opportunity cost
of employment, urbanisation and female literacy. The growth in both
recurring and capital outlays and in output costs per student are higher
for girls and boys except in Balochistan.
Using a pooled time series and analysis the paper concludes that
there is an optimal level for the availability of schools per 1000
population [6.02 and 5.67 respectively for girls and boys in the Punjab
and 3.88 for boys in NWFP and Balochistan] and for the number of
teachers per 1000 students [7.69 for girls and 3.36 for boys]. It
suggests the policy prescription to reallocate resources to employing
more teachers for boys for greater cost effectiveness.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Government of Pakistan prepared the second Perspective Plan in
1987-88 for the fifteen years ending in 2002-2003. The Plan recognised
that the long-term objectives could be achieved only if the human
capital stock in Pakistan was improved. The Plan, therefore, developed a
strategy for improving the education, skills, nutrition and health of
the people. These objectives have become the cornerstone of the donor supported Social Action Programme (SAP). However, there is general
recognition of the resources constraint within which these objectives
are to achieved. The low priority that has been attached traditionally
to allocations to the social sectors, particularly directed for the
female part of the population, has led to increasing the shortfalls in
allocation with respect to need. SAP envisages the expansion of primary
infrastructure, particularly for female education, through an
accelerated school construction programme using cost effective
approaches to delivery including need-based criteria for school location
and changes in the pattern of allocation of funds among sector inputs.
It is in this context that this paper examines the issue of cost
effectiveness of the primary education sector in Pakistan and attempts
to establish implications for a possible future strategy. Section 2
presents the historical profile of the sector from 1977 to 1991. Section
3 sets out the theoretical framework for analysis. Sections 4 and 5
first estimate the costs and then identify the determinants of spatial
and inter-temporal variation in these costs. Section 6 summarises the
key conclusions.
2. TRENDS IN PRIMARY EDUCATION
Estimates of enrolment published by the Central Bureau of Education
(CBE) of the Government of Pakistan indicate that it is increasing at a
faster pace than the growth in population of the relevant age cohort
(5-9 years) for each of the Provinces, except for Sindh, gender
notwithstanding (see Table 1). As may be seen, the differential in the
two growth rates is higher for girls than it is for boys. In the largest
province, Punjab, primary enrolment by girls has increased at more than
two and a half times the growth rate in the relevant population cohort
between 1973 and 1991. In the same period the enrolment of boys has
increased by slightly less than twice the growth in the cohort
population.
Table 2 gives the corresponding growth rates in the number of
schools and teachers. This differential in growth rates between
enrolments and education inputs indicates that the average number of
students per teacher has been increasing with the passage of time for
both boys and girls generally, except in NWFP for both and in Sindh for
the girls. However, the number of boys per teacher has seen a worsening of the situation more than for girls. Also the average school size,
measured as students per school, has been increasing for the boys school
in each province. In the case of the girls school this is seen only in
the case of schools in Punjab and Balochistan.
A higher growth rate in the number of schools than in the number of
teachers tends to imply that the quality of education is declining with
the passage of time. This may be the direct result of the decline in the
number of teachers available per school. This would tend to suggest that
the teacher:student ratios have worsened. Moreover, this also indicates
that the share of capital costs in the provision of education at the
primary stage will be increasing over the period. This phenomenon is
observed in the case of Punjab and Sindh. Gender differential growth
rates indicate that this trend in the decline of the quality of
education is observed in the case of female primary education in Sindh
and male primary education in Punjab.
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Different approaches can be adopted for deriving the cost function
for primary education of provincial governments. One approach is to view
the provincial governments as engaging in a cost minimisation behaviour,
given knowledge of the production function of enrolments with respect to
inputs like schools, teachers, etc. In this view unit costs are the
minimum average costs for achieving a target enrolment ratio. However,
this approach assumes rational behaviour with full knowledge of the
production function, and no resource constraints such that targets can
be fully met. These assumptions are generally not satisfied in practice.
A more realistic view of how provincial governments behave is that
they generally operate in an overall resource constrained framework,
both for recurring and development expenditures, and that given the
overall quantum of resources available in the recurring budget and the
ADP, funds are allocated to primary education on the basis of
inter-sectoral priorities. According to this view then the actual choice
of level of inputs need not correspond to the cost minimising
combination. As such some inputs are likely to be overused while others
remain at sub-optimal levels. For example, if development allocations
for primary education are high, especially in recent years following the
launching of SAP, then too many schools may be built relative to
teachers whose numbers may be constrained by lack of revenues to finance
recurring expenditures.
We set up the theoretical framework which is consistent with the
latter view. Accordingly if the development and recurring allocations
for primary education are [bar.[I.sub.t]] and [bar.[E.sub.t]]
respectively in year t than the incremental number of schools,
[DELTA][S.sub.t], is given by
===== append qc=====
[bar.[DELTA][S.sub.t]] = [C.sub.t] * [[bar.[I.sub.t]] ... ... ...
... ... (1)
where [C.sub.t] is the unit capital cost (at constant prices) per
school.
The total number of schools, [S.sub.t], in year is
[bar.[S.sub.t]] = [bar.[S.sub.t-1]] + [bar.[DELTA][S.sub.t]] ...
... ... ... ... (2)
The capital stock embodied in these schools is evaluated at
historic cost and represented by [K.sub.t] in year t. We have that
[K.sub.t] = [K.sub.t] ([bar.[S.sub.t]]) ... ... ... ... ...(3)
The number of teachers, [T.sub.t], is given by
[T.sub.t] = [bar.[E.sub.t]]/[W.sub.t] ... ... ... ... ... (4)
where [W.sub.t] is the average wage rate (at constant prices) of
teachers. This wage rate includes overhead costs and costs of inputs
(books, etc.) which are complementary to teaching.
The total cost of primary education to provincial governments is
given by where [[upsilon].sub.t] is the rental price of capital and
includes a depreciation component and a component for the opportunity
cost of capital.
[C.sub.t] = [W.sub.t] [bar.[T.sub.t]] + [[upsilon].sub.t],
[bar.[K.sub.t]]([S.sub.t]) ... ... ... ... (5)
The production function of primary education is represented as
[E.sub.t] = [f.sub.t] ([bar.[T.sub.t]], [bar.[S.sub.t]], [Z.sub.t])
... ... ... ... (6)
where [E.sub.t] = enrolments and [Z.sub.t] a vector of variables on
the demand side determining the rate of utilisation of education
facilities.
Therefore, we have that the average cost, A[c.sub.t], in year t per
enrolment as
A[C.sub.t] = [C.sub.t]/[E.sub.t] = [W.sub.t][bar.[T.sub.t]] +
[[upsilon].sub.t][K.sub.t]([bar.[s.sub.t]])/[f.sub.t] ([bar.[T.sub.t]],
[bar.[S.sub.t]], [Z.sub.t]) ... ... ... (7)
Differentiation of the average cost function yields
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] = 1/[f.sup.2.sub.t]
[[f.sub.t] [[upsilon].sub.t]
[delta][K.sub.t]([bar.S])/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] - [C.sub.t]
[delta][f.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]]] >/< 0 ... ... (8)
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]] = 1/[f.sup.2.sub.t]
[[f.sub.t][W.sub.t] - [C.sub.t] [delta][f.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]]
>/< 0 ... ... ... (9)
If provincial governments engaged in cost minimisation behaviour
then both derivatives would be zero at the optimal levels of [S.sub.t]
and [T.sub.t]. But since these magnitudes are given exogenously at
[bar.[S.sub.t]] and [bar.[T.sub.t]] respectively it is likely that both
derivatives diverge from zero. Different possibilities can be identified
as follows:
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] < 0, [delta]A
[C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]] < 0 ... ... ... ... (i)
This implies that both inputs are being underused from the view
point of cost minimisation. This case highlights the likelihood of under
expenditure generally on primary education.
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] > 0, [delta]A
[C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]] > 0 ... ... ... ... (ii)
In this case, both inputs are being overused.
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] < 0, [delta]A
[C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]] > 0 ... ... ... ... (iii)
In this case, there exists a case for reallocation of funds from
teacher s salaries to building more schools if cost effectiveness of the
sector is to be enhanced.
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[S.sub.t]] > 0, [delta]A
[C.sub.t]/[delta][bar.[T.sub.t]] < 0 ... ... ... ... (iv)
Here, there is a case for more teachers and fewer schools.
Therefore, our approach enables determination of the future
expansion path of inputs into primary education which maximises cost
effectiveness of expenditures.
We also have from Equation (7) that
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][W.sub.t] = [bar.[T.sub.t]]/[f.sub.t]
> 0 ... ... ... ... ... (10)
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][[upsilon].sub.t] = [K.sub.t]/[F.sub.t]
> 0 ... ... ... ... ... (11)
[delta]A [C.sub.t]/[delta][Z.sub.t] = - [C.sub.t]/[f.sup.2.sub.t] *
[delta][f.sub.t]/[delta][Z.sub.t] < 0 ... ... ... ... (12)
Therefore, determinants of average cost are given by
A [C.sub.t] = A [C.sub.t] [[bar.[S.sub.t]], [bar.[T.sub.t]],
[W.sub.t], [[upsilon].sub.t], [Z.sub.t] ... ... ... (13)
4. ESTIMATION OF COSTS
Information on public sector costs of providing education are
contained in the annual budget documents of the provincial governments.
(1) A more meaningful analysis is by gender of school (boys/girls) and
by location (urban/rural). Unfortunately, disaggregation of the data in
this manner is not available. Information on the numbers of schools
constructed for boys and girls separately is contained in the Federal
and Provincial Annual Development Plans and the profile of completions
is available from the statistics published by the CBE. In addition, the
number of male and female teachers employed is also available in the CBE
data base. The annual "Demand for Grants: Recurring
Expenditure" provides the budgeted costs for the ensuing year, the
revised costs for the current year and actuals of the preceding year for
the province as a whole aggregated for both the categories of schools
and teachers. Costs have been allocated by gender on the basis of
teachers (establishment charges) and schools (other costs).
Information on the development expenditure is provided in the
Annual Development Plan in considerable detail and is summarised in the
"Demand for Grants: Development Expenditure". As the
construction of schools is spread over a number of years, the data on
development outlay would need to be lagged. Moreover, given
inter-provincial differences in construction speeds, this lag should
ideally reflect this. Unfortunately, data for this is not available,
thus a constant two-year lag for each of the Provinces has been used.
The sum of these represent the effective annual outlay of resources
on primary education. The cost of providing primary education to a
particular student is the aggregate expenditure incurred over the five
years he/she spends in school. Further, as these costs are incurred at
different periods of time one needs to convert these into real terms. In
arriving at the costs of providing education to students the enrolment
at the end of the fifth year has been equated to be the output from the
schooling system. The PIHS from 1990-91 also shows the rate of attrition within the first four years of schooling to be exponential in character.
Our data which is intertemporal also indicate this at the macro level.
The recurring expenditure series of each of the four provinces has
been converted to real terms (at constant prices of 1990-91) by
inflating the nominal values by the implicit deflator for the Public
Administration and Defence sector of the economy. Development
expenditures largely represent the construction of schools. Therefore,
the nominal expenditures have been adjusted to real terms using the
implicit deflator for the Construction sector. The trend growth rate in
these implicit deflators indicates that the former has been rising by
8.1 percent annually and the latter by 8.8 percent annually. This would
imply that the construction of more schools in preference to the
provision of more factor inputs may be less cost efficient.
In real terms N.W.F.P. has been increasing its recurring
expenditure much more rapidly than the other Provinces, and much more so
in the case of female primary schools. Sindh, however, outstrips the
others in its annual increase in development expenditure, particularly
for girls' schools. Inter-provincial differences in growth rates
may be seen in Table 3. These clearly highlight the priority in the mix
of expenditure for each of the provinces.
An important conclusion by comparison of the growth rates in Tables
2 and 3 respectively is the fast increase in expenditure relative to the
growth in physical inputs. This indicates that the unit cost, [C.sub.t],
of constructing a school has been rising in real terms while the real
recurring cost per teacher has also demonstrated some increase. The
growth rate in these magnitudes is given in Table 4.
The output of the primary stage of education is the number of
students completing the fifty year. As information on completions,
successful or otherwise, is not available, the output at this stage has
been equated to the enrolment in class 5. To estimate the recurring
costs spent on a student produced by the system we have aggregated the
cost per enrolment over the five year span.
The value of the base stock of schools in 1973 has been derived by
first estimating the average per school cost in real terms and then
applying this to the base quantum. This however, underestimates the
value of the base stock as it does not include the value of those
primary level classrooms available in the higher category of schools
(middle and high). Information for the marginal capital cost of such
classes is not available. To this base year estimate each year's
addition to the capital stock is added. This is then converted into an
annualised stream by aggregating the opportunity cost of the stock of
schools each year and the current year's depreciation. The
opportunity cost has been assumed to be 12.5 percent (the long term
return on government bonds) of the value of the stock. The life-span of
a primary school has been assumed to be 40 years. These have then been
translated to the per student cost.
These province-wise estimates on a per student basis of primary
education are presented in Table 5, and Table 6 summarises the growth
rates in enrolment and output costs.
It is also of some interest to note the inter-provincial and
inter-gender variation in costs. In the Punjab and NWFP which started
with output costs for both boys and girls at about the same level, the
output costs of girls have outstripped that for boys by 1990-91. Sindh
started with higher output costs for girls and this differential has
only increased with time. Balochistan, however, has seen no change in
the relative costs. Costs in the NWFP and Balochistan are higher because
of the high component of capital costs due largely to higher costs of
construction.
5. DETERMINANTS OF COSTS
The general specification of the average cost function (with
respect to enrolment) of primary education for provincial governments is
given by Equation (14). For econometric estimation we scale the number
of schools by the school going age population in age group of five to
nine years. The latter variable reflects potential demand. Similarly,
the number of teachers is scaled by the number of schools, to yield the
input mix. Also, since the impact on unit cost of [bar.S] and [bar.T] is
ambiguous, these variables enter in a polynomial form in the cost
function.
The resulting equation to be estimated is as follows:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (14)
where
[bar.[A.sub.t]] = school going age population in year t,
[Y.sub.t] = real per capita income,
[U.sub.t] = extent of urbanisation, and
[I.sub.t] = relative price index for wages to construction cost.
[Y.sub.t] is included to capture the real wage effect (inclusive of labour into school construction) and a possible demand effect. [U.sub.t]
is a demand related variable. [I.sub.t] derives the cost implications of
a divergence between inflation in wages and construction costs.
The magnitudes of [[beta].sub.2] to [[beta].sub.6], are of special
significance. These will help in identifying the presence of economies
or diseconomies in the use of inputs.
Equation (14) is estimated separately for genders on a pooled time
series data for the four provinces for the period, 1972-73 to 1990-91.
The results are given in Table 7. The cubic term with respect to the
availability of schools skews the results substantially by reducing the
importance of the availability of teachers. In fact its inclusion leads
to a result where the impact of a teacher become insignificant. As this
is counter intuitive, the term has been dropped. Intercept and slope
dummies for the provinces have been used wherever significant. The
intercept term was insignificant and was, therefore, neglected in the
subsequent analysis. Only the provincial dummy for Balochistan was
significant. The results inclusive of all provincial dummies is shown as
a footnote so that the reader may be able to draw conclusions
independently of the author. The estimated equation demonstrates that
there are some significant inter-regional differences in these
coefficients, with Punjab and Sindh falling into one group and NWFP and
Balochistan into another group. (2)
For all provinces the equation indicates that the average cost
falls initially and then rises subsequently with increase in
([bar.[S.sub.t]] / [[??].sub.t]), the ratio of schools to school-going
age population. Therefore, there exists for each province and within
provinces for each gender an optimal ([bar.S]/[??]) which minimises unit
costs. Any expansion in schools beyond this level raises the unit cost.
With regard to teachers per school, we observe a rise in costs initially
and then a fall with increase in ([bar.T]/[bar.S]) upto a level beyond
which costs rise once again.
The estimated optimal cost minimising magnitudes of inputs by
gender for each province are given in Table 8. The optimal number of
schools per 1000 school-going age population in Punjab and Sindh is 6.02
for girls and 5.67 for boys. Sindh was close to this level by 1990-91,
and Punjab had substantially more than the optimal for boys. For NWFP
and Balochistan the corresponding optimal magnitude is 3.88 for boys. In
the context of girls, the optimal level of 0.27 schools per 000
population appears to be unrealistic. This may possibly be due to the
very low level of enrolment which exists in both NWFP and Balochistan.
The result, therefore, needs to be considered with caution. However, it
would appear that given the very low levels of enrolment, the optimal
for these two provinces cannot be readily determined for the girls'
schools. Therefore, in at least two provinces of the country, Punjab and
Sindh, the priority in allocation of resources has to shift from school
building for the boys. This activity can perhaps only be justified on
regional equity considerations in areas which are backward and have low
levels of coverage.
Table 8 also indicates there is underprovision generally of
teachers for both boys and girls. It appears that their role in raising
quality and demand for primary education has not been fully recognised.
Actually inputs of teachers per school are above cost minimising levels
only in the context of girls in the Punjab. Overall we have the
conclusion that the composition of expenditure budgets (with the
possible exception of Balochistan and, perhaps, also NWFP) has to be
dramatically altered. The recurring allocations for employing more
teachers need to be raised and simultaneously development allocations
scaled down in the case of boys. The same strategy is recommended for
the Social Action Programme. However, expansion in number of primary
school teachers raises issues of adequate training facilities,
remuneration levels and decentralisation of management down to community
level to increase accountability of teaching inputs. In addition, the
availability of female teachers for the rural areas poses some problems
which need to be tackled within a social development/awareness
framework.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has examined the degree of cost effectiveness of the
primary education sector of Pakistan. Annual enrolment and output costs
have been estimated by gender for each province for the period, 1972-73
to 1990-91. These have shown a rising trend generally because of the
increase in real recurring costs per teacher, in costs of school
construction and because of the divergence in the physical level of use
of education inputs, schools and teachers, from the cost minimising
levels. In particular, the number of teachers and of schools is
substantially below optimal levels in the context of girls. There also
appears to be an over supply of schools for boys. In this instance some
improvement is needed in the number of teachers per school to attain
optimal levels. This indicates that cost effectiveness of provision of
primary education can be significantly enhanced if the allocation of
funds is shifted towards recurring expenditures for employment of more
teachers away from development allocations for construction of new
schools in the context of boys' education at the primary level.
Author's Note: I wish to acknowledge the help provided by Dr
Hafiz A. Pasha, Dr Aynul Hasan, Dr Aisha Ghaus, A. Rauf Khan, and Rao
Asif Iqbal. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the author.
REFERENCES
Coombs, Philip H., and Jacques Hallak (1972) Managing Educational
Costs. London: Oxford University Press.
Coombs, Philip H., and Jacques Hallak (1987) Cost Analysis in
Education: A Tool for Policy and Planning. Washington, D. C.: The World
Bank.
Ismail, Zafar H., Hafiz A. Pasha and Rauf A. Khan (1994) Cost
Effectiveness of Primary Education: A Case Study of Pakistan. The
Pakistan Development Review 33:4.
Jimenez, Emmanuel, and Jee-Peng Tan (1985) Educational Development
in Pakistan: The Role of User Charges and Private Education. Washington,
D. C.: The World Bank.
Khan, Shahrukh R., Naushin Mahmood and Fazal Hussain (1985) An
Appraisal of School Level Enrolment and Facilities in Pakistan:
1970-71-1982-83. (Mimeograph.)
Khan, Shahrukh R., Naushin Mahmood and Rehana Siddiqui (1985)
Strategy, Subsidies and User Charges in Pakistan's Public Sector
Education: 1970-71--1982-83. (Mimeograph.)
Levin, H. M. (1983) Cost Effectiveness: A Primer. California: Sage
Publications; Beverley Hills.
Mingat, Alain, and Jee-Peng Tan (1988) Analytical Tools for Sector
Work in Education. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
Pakistan, Government of (1988) 7th Five-Year Plan 1988-93 and
Perspective Plan 1988-2003. 1: Islamabad: Planning Commission.
Psacharopoulos, George, and Maureen Woodhall (1985) Education for
Development: An Analysis of Investment Choices. Washington, D. C.: The
World Bank.
World Bank (1988) Pakistan: Education Sector Strategy Review.
Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
World Bank (1993) Aide Memoire: Social Action Programme Project
Mission: September. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
(1) Indicates the share of provincial governments in provision
(2)
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
FSPOP -5633.686 2753.216 -2.046220 0.0462
FSPOP2 3225.714 733.675 4.396656 0.0001
FSADPS -2824.831 499.148 -5.659300 0.0000
FTCHS 2544.277 2777.290 0.916101 0.3642
FTCHS2 -416.9571 935.0591 -0.445915 0.6577
FTCHS3 18.80473 69.86479 0.269159 0.7890
PCINC 0.547088 0.372830 1.467393 0.1488
URBAN 698.7680 239.8615 2.913214 0.0054
IND -3994.553 1855.635 -2.152661 0.0364
BAL 2347.518 2819.734 0.832532 0.4092
SIND -19237.87 8264.563 -2.327754 0.0242
NWF -4106.616 3103.411 -1.323259 0.1920
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
MSPOP -6913.986 1824.217 -3.790111 0.0004
MSPOP2 755.0930 210.1301 3.593455 0.0008
MSADPS -183.7410 72.13917 -2.547035 0.0141
MTCHS 11170.93 6502.811 1.717862 0.0923
MTCHS2 -1919.994 2478.339 -0.774710 0.4423
MTCHS3 53.68137 307.8388 0.174381 0.8623
PCINC 0.103565 0.121893 0.849637 0.3997
URBAN 408.6920 60.18213 6.790920 0.0000
IND -2411.989 732.2949 -3.293741 0.0019
BAL 11060.06 1901.702 5.815872 0.0000
SIND -7318.895 868.6464 -8.425631 0.0000
NWF 4326.896 1929.039 2.243032 0.0295
Zafar H. Ismail is Senior Principal Specialist at the Social Policy
and Development Centre, Karachi.
Table 1
Growth Rates in Enrolment and School Going Age
Population, 1972-73 to 1990-91
(Percent)
Pakistan Punjab Sindh N.W.F.P. Balochistan
Cohort Population 2.98 2.15 3.42 3.46 7.22
Girls 3.05 2.16 3.79 3.30 7.16
Boys 2.92 2.14 3.16 3.60 7.28
Total Enrolment 4.23 4.53 2.61 4.34 9.52
Girls 4.95 5.42 3.04 4.41 8.24
Boys 3.90 4.01 2.44 4.33 9.80
Table 2
Growth Rates in Inputs to Primary Education
1972-73 to 1990-91
(Percent)
Pakistan Punjab Sindh N.W.F.P. Balochistan
Schools 4.16 3.97 4.73 3.91 4.19
Teachers 3.87 3.49 2.92 6.71 8.45
Girls' Schools 5.92 3.97 11.19 6.97 2.25
Girls' Teachers 4.76 4.39 4.84 7.38 5.91
Boys' Schools 3.19 3.96 1.44 2.35 4.57
Boys' Teachers 3.39 2.92 1.99 6.47 8.88
Table 3
Real Growth in Expenditures on Primary Education
(1972-73 to 1990-91)
(Percent)
Pakistan Punjab Sindh N.W.F.P. Balochistan
Recurring 4.96 4.03 5.76 8.61 2.00
Girls 5.48 4.07 6.59 9.12 1.10
Boys 4.46 3.98 4.59 7.86 2.71
Development 2.95 2.35 5.08 3.41 1.97
Girls 4.18 2.52 8.29 5.21 1.70
Boys 172 2.20 1.10 1.23 2.18
Table 4
Growth in Costs of Primary Education Inputs
1972-73 to 1990-91
(1990-91 = 100)
(Percent)
Recurring Cost Construction
per Teacher Cost per School
Pakistan 5.21 2.08
Punjab 5.21 2.01
Sindh 5.07 5.13
NWFP 5.60 2.50
Balochistan 3.46 2.22
Table 5
Enrolment and Output Costs Per Student in Primary Education.
(At 1990-91 Prices)
Punjab
Enrolment Costs Output Costs
Year Girls Boys Girls Boys
1973 782 810
1974 815 850
1975 858 852
1976 857 853
1977 833 842 4,145 4,208
1978 910 916 4,274 4,314
1979 883 906 4,342 4,370
1980 908 920 4,391 4,438
1981 929 942 4,464 4,527
1982 928 946 4,558 4,631
1983 1,038 1,052 4,686 4,766
1984 1,094 1,172 4,896 5,032
1985 1,108 1,130 5,097 5,241
1986 1,293 1,293 5,461 5,592
1987 1,339 1,330 5,872 5,976
1988 1,363 1,346 6,197 6,270
1989 1,359 1,341 6,462 6,440
1990 1,299 1,243 6,653 6,553
1991 1,348 1,309 6,707 6,569
NWFP
1973 1,927 1,838
1974 1,988 1,924
1975 1,884 1,923
1976 1,935 1,911
1977 1,905 1,898 9,638 9,495
1978 2,004 1,962 9,715 9,618
1979 1,992 2,002 9,719 9,696
1980 2,079 2,096 9,913 9,869
1981 2,307 2,157 10,286 10,115
1982 2,591 2,231 10,972 10,448
1983 3,249 2,384 12,217 10,871
1984 3,456 2,427 13,682 11,296
1985 3,851 2,493 15,454 11,693
1986 3,903 2,620 17,050 12,155
1987 4,373 2,780 18,832 12,703
1988 4,325 2,945 19,907 13,264
1989 4,518 2,909 20,970 13,746
1990 4,767 2,883 21,887 14,136
1991 4,700 2,803 22,684 14,319
Sindh
Enrolment Costs Output Costs
Year Girls Boys Girls Boys
1973 690 795
1974 751 856
1975 925 788
1976 928 799
1977 874 730 4,169 3,967
1978 991 830 4,470 4,003
1979 948 790 4,667 3,937
1980 1,006 821 4,748 3,970
1981 1,030 843 4,849 4,014
1982 1,068 850 5,043 4,134
1983 1,217 943 5,269 4,247
1984 1,192 929 5,513 4,386
1985 1,320 1,014 5,826 4,579
1986 1,766 1,274 6,562 5,010
1987 2,127 1,391 7,622 5,551
1988 2,266 1,442 8,671 6,050
1989 2,416 1,228 9,894 6,349
1990 2,484 1,210 11,059 6,545
1991 2,387 1,092 11,680 6,362
Balochistan
1973 1,952 2,530
1974 1,836 2,446
1975 2,069 2,430
1976 1,950 2,501
1977 1,941 2,371 9,748 12,278
1978 2,050 2,393 9,846 12,141
1979 2,105 2,494 10,114 12,190
1980 2,278 2,520 10,323 12,280
1981 2,265 2,650 10,638 12,428
1982 2,355 2,852 11,052 12,909
1983 2,254 3,036 11,257 13,552
1984 2,171 3,143 11,323 14,201
1985 2,190 3,128 11,235 14,809
1986 2,632 3,299 11,603 15,458
1987 2,482 3,560 11,729 16,166
1988 2,692 3,570 12,167 16,700
1989 2,392 3,403 12,388 16,959
1990 2,382 3,297 12,580 17,128
1991 2,259 3,172 12,208 17,001
Table 6
Real Growth in Enrolment and Output Costs of Primary Education
1972-73 to 1990-91
(At 1990-91 Prices)
(Percent)
Pakistan Punjab Sindh
Annual Cost per Student 3.76 3.31 5.52
Girls 4.24 3.43 7.20
Boys 3.43 3.19 3.21
Output Cost 4.31 3.73 6.06
Girls 5.21 3.81 7.43
Boys 3.36 3.66 4.20
N.W.F.P. Balochistan
Annual Cost per Student 4.83 1.99
Girls 6.34 1.51
Boys 2.92 2.37
Output Cost 5.50 2.50
Girls 7.30 1.82
Boys 3.28 3.02
Table 7
Results Of Regressions
Average Cost per Enrolment is the Dependent Variable
Girls
Variable *** Coefficient t-ratio
([[bar.S].sub.t], / [[??].sub.t]) -1231.099 -1.035 **
[([[bar.S].sub.t], /
[[??].sub.t]).sup.2] 2293.720 7.368 *
[([[bar.S].sub.t], /
[[??].sub.t]).sup.2] . DPS -2191.407 -11.951 *
([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]) 5742.642 5.079 *
[([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]).sup.2] -1407.147 -3.476 *
[([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]).sup.3] 89.609 2.634 *
[U.sub.t] -21518.984 -1.932 **
[Y.sub.t] 0.603 1.571 **
[I.sub.t] -6209.950 -4.317 *
DUMBAL 5857.647 7.889 *
[R.sup.2] 0.956
F 121.325
Degrees of Freedom 49
Boys
Variable *** Coefficient t-ratio
([[bar.S].sub.t], / [[??].sub.t]) -5430.697 -5.638 *
[([[bar.S].sub.t], /
[[??].sub.t]).sup.2] 700.412 8.163 *
[([[bar.S].sub.t], /
[[??].sub.t]).sup.2] . DPS -221.149 -14.168
([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]) 25887.877 7.853 *
[([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]).sup.2] -7784.920 -5.063 *
[([[bar.T].sub.t], /
[[bar.S].sub.t]).sup.3] 780.281 3.465 *
[U.sub.t] -8172.684 -3.826 *
[Y.sub.t] 0.369 2.036 **
[I.sub.t] -6049.055 -6.750 *
DUMBAL 4605.334 19.003 *
[R.sup.2] 0.987
F 429.087
Degrees of Freedom 49
DUMBAL = 1 for Balochistan; zero otherwise.
DPS = 1 for Punjab and Sindh; zero otherwise.
* Significant at 1 percent level.
** Significant at 5 percent level.
*** Significant at 10 percent level.
Table 8
Actual (1990-91) And Optimal * Number of Schools per 1000 School-going
Age Population and Teachers per School by Province
Actual Optimal Difference
Girls (1) (2) (2-1)
S/A
Punjab 1.43 6.02 4.59
Sindh 1.58 6.02 4.44
NWFP 2.73 0.27 -2.46
Balochistan 0.69 0.27 -0.42
US
Punjab 8.21 7.69 -0.52
Sindh 6.65 7.69 1.04
NWFP 2.72 7.69 4.97
Balochistan 2.32 7.69 5.37
Boys
S/A
Punjab 6.95 5.67 -1.28
Sindh 5.86 5.67 -0.19
NWFP 5.03 3.88 -1.15
Balochistan 4.22 3.88 -0.34
T/S
Punjab 2.56 3.36 0.80
Sindh 2.66 3.36 0.70
NWFP 3.14 3.36 0.22
Balochistan 2.66 3.36 0.70