Free Primary Education in Kenya: An Impact Evaluation Using Propensity Score Methods

  • Milu Muyanga
  • John Olwande
  • Esther Mueni
  • Stella Wambugu

Abstract

This chapter attempts to evaluate the impact of the free primary education programme in Kenya, which is based on the premise that government intervention can lead to enhanced access to education especially by children from poor parental backgrounds. Primary education system in Kenya has been characterized by high wastage in form of low enrolment, high drop-out rates, grade repetition as well as poor transition from primary to secondary schools. This scenario was attributed to high cost of primary education. To reverse these poor trends in educational achievements, the government initiated free primary education programme in January 2003. This chapter therefore analyzes the impact of the FPE programme using panel data. Results indicate primary school enrolment rate has improved especially for children hailing from higher income categories; an indication that factors that prevent children from poor backgrounds from attending primary school go beyond the inability to pay school fees. Grade progression in primary schools has slightly dwindled. The results also indicate that there still exist constraints hindering children from poorer households from transiting to secondary school. The free primary education programme was found to be progressive, with the relatively poorer households drawing more benefits from the subsidy.

Keywords

Primary education Programme evaluation Propensity score Benefit incidence analysis Kenya 

JEL Classifications

I20 I21 I22 

References

  1. Aaron, H., and M.C. McGuire. 1970. Public goods and income distribution. Econometrica 38(6):907–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., and G.W. Imbens. 2006. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agodini, R., and M. Dynarski. 2001. Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematical Policy Research Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Avenstrup, R., X. Liang, and S. Nellemann. 2004. Reducing poverty, sustaining growth. What works, what doesn’t, and why? Case study of Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi and Uganda: Universal primary education and poverty reduction. A global learning process and conference, Shanghai, May 25.27, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson, A., R. Dorsett, and S. Purdon. 2002. The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. Policy Studies Institute and National Centre for Social Research. Working Paper No. 4, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  6. Bedi, A., P. Kimalu, D.K. Manda, and N. Nafula. 2002. The decline in primary school enrolment in Kenya. Kenya Institute of Public Policy and Analysis (KIPPRA) Discussion Paper No. 14, Nairobi: KIPPRA.Google Scholar
  7. Boccanfuso, D. 2005. Quasi-experimental methods: Propensity score matching (PSM). Presentation during the Workshop on the Assessment of the Poverty Impact of Public Programs.Google Scholar
  8. Castro-Leal, F., J. Dayton, and L. Demery. 1997. Public social spending in Africa: Do the poor benefit? Washington, DC (mimeo): Poverty and Social Policy Department, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Center for Public Policy Priorities. 1999. Measuring up: The state of Texas education. February 26, 1999 No. 74 (http://www.cppp.org/products/policypages).
  10. Cross, T.G., and G.F. Lewis. 1998. Early manifestations of the impact of poverty on education: The expectant parents’ hopes and fears. Centre for Child Development Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, University of Adelaide, November 29-December 3, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. D’Agostino, R.B. 1998. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine 17:2265–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehijia, R., and S. Wahba. 1999. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of American Statistical Association 94(448): 1053–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehijia, R., and S. Wahba. 2002. Propensity score matching for non-experimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(1):151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demery, L. 2000. Benefit incidence: A practitioner’s guide. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  15. Demery, L. 1997. Benefit incidence analysis. Poverty reduction and economic management network, poverty anchor. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  16. Esquivel, G., and H. Alejandra. 2006. Remittances and poverty in Mexico: A propensity score matching approach. A paper written under the auspices of Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).Google Scholar
  17. Friedlander, D., and P.K. Robins. 1995. Evaluating program evaluations: New evidence on commonly used nonexperimental methods. The American Economic Review 85(4):923–937.Google Scholar
  18. Glewwe, P., and H. Jacoby. 1994. Student achievement and schooling choice in low-income countries: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Human Resources 29(3):842–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, and P. Todd. 1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64(4):605–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura, J. Smith, and P. Todd. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66(5):1017–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holyfield, L. 2002. Moving up and out: Poverty, education, and the single parent family. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jalan, J., and E. Glinskaya. 2005. Improving primary school education in India: An impact assessment of DPEP I. Washington, DC: World Bank (Mimeo).Google Scholar
  23. Jalan, J., and M. Ravallion. 2000. Estimating the benefit incidence of an antipoverty program by propensity score matching. Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0873, Econometric Society.Google Scholar
  24. Kimalu, P., N. Nafula, D. Kulundu, A. Bedi, G. Mwabu, and M.S. Kimenyi. 2001. Education Indicators in Kenya. Kenya Institute of Public Policy and Analysis (KIPPRA) Working Paper Series WP/04/2001, Nairobi: KIPPRA.Google Scholar
  25. LaLonde, R. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76(4):604–620.Google Scholar
  26. Leuven, E., and B. Sianesi. 2003. PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
  27. Lee, W.-S. 2006. Evaluating the effects of a mandatory government program using matched groups within a similar geographic location. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, the University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  28. Manasan, R.G., J.S. Cuenca, and E.C. Villanueva. 2007. Benefit incidence of public spending on education in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2007–09.Google Scholar
  29. Michalopoulos, C., H.S. Bloom, and C.J. Hill. 2004. Can propensity-score methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs? The Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1):156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore, K. 2004. Chronic, life-course and intergenerational poverty, and South-East Asian youth. 15 November 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, J., M. Pradhan, L.B. Rawlings, G. Ridder, R. Coa, and J.L. Evia. 2002. An impact evaluation of education, health, and water supply investments by the Bolivian Social Investment Fund. The World Bank Economic Review 16:241–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papke, L.E., and J. Wooldridge. 1996. Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11:619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raymond, M., and E. Sadoulet. 2003. Educational grants closing the gap in schooling attainment between poor and non-poor. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series 986.Google Scholar
  34. Republic of Kenya. 1965. The Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  35. Republic of Kenya. 1988. Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  36. Republic of Kenya. 1991. Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  37. Republic of Kenya. 2001. Poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) for the period 2001–2004. Prepared by the People and Government of Kenya, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  38. Republic of Kenya. 2004. Economic recovery strategy for wealth and employment creation. Published by Ministry of Planning and National Development, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  39. Republic of Kenya. 2003a. Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  40. Republic of Kenya. 2003b. Public Expenditure Review, Published by Ministry of Planning and National Development, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  41. Republic of Kenya. 2006. Education sector report. Unpublished Report by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  42. Republic of Kenya. 2007. Economic survey. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Government Printer, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenbaum, P., and D. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubin, D. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66:688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt, D. 2006. The impact of free primary education on enrolment in Kenya. A monograph in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at Stanford University, School of Education.Google Scholar
  46. Selden, T., and M. Wasylenko. 1992. Benefit incidence analysis in developing countries. Policy Research Working Paper 1015. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, J., and M.-T. Jorge Omar. 2004. Compensatory education for disadvantaged Mexican students: An impact evaluation using propensity score matching (June 2, 2004). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3334. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=610378.
  48. Smith, J., and P. Todd. 2005. Does matching overcome Lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125:305–353, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trevino, M.J., and J. Shapiro. 2004. Compensatory education for disadvantaged Mexican students: An impact evaluation using propensity score matching. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3334.Google Scholar
  50. UNESCO. 1990. World conference on education for all: Meeting basic learning needs. Report on the Jomtien Conference, 5–9 March 1990. Available at http://www.unesco.org/education/ pdf/JOMTIE_E.PDF.
  51. UNESCO. 2005. Challenges of implementing free primary education in Kenya: Assessment report. UNESCO, Nairobi Office.Google Scholar
  52. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2009. Education indicators technical guidelines. http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/EducGeneral/Indicator_Technical_guidelines_EN.pdf
  53. van de Walle, D. 2003. Behavioral incidence analysis of public spending and social programmes. In The impact of economic policies on poverty and income distribution: evaluation techniques and tools, eds. F. Bourguignon and L.P. da Silva. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. van de Walle, D., and K. Nead. 1995. Public spending and the poor. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Vos, R., A. Bedi, P.K. Kimalu, D.K. Manda, N.N. Nafula, and M.S. Kimenyi. 2004. Achieving universal primary education: Can Kenya afford it? Working Papers 2004-47, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  56. Voth, H.-J., S. Horell, and J. Humphries. 2000. Destined for deprivation? Intergenerational poverty traps in eighteenth-century Britain. Centre for History and Economics 00-03.Google Scholar
  57. Wambugu, A. 2002. Family background, education and earnings in Kenya. Working Papers in Economics 76, Göteborg University, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  58. Wooldridge, J.M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Zhao, Z. 2004. Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1):91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) Research Network 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milu Muyanga
    • 1
  • John Olwande
    • 1
  • Esther Mueni
    • 2
  • Stella Wambugu
    • 3
  1. 1.Tegemeo InstituteEgerton UniversityKenya
  2. 2.University of NairobiNairobiKenya
  3. 3.Tegemeo InstituteEgerton UniversitynjoroKenya

Personalised recommendations