Abstract
The aspiration to achieve universal access to quality education for all is often accompanied by the challenge of efficiency. Commonly, public good provision (e.g., education) is perceived as less efficient than private markets (Samuelson PA, Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389, 1954).
The literature on the relationship between locational choice and efficiency reveals a positive relationship, using the ratio of achievement and per student public expenditures as indicators of educational efficiency (e.g., Hoxby CM, Am Econ Rev 90:1209–1238, 2000; Muralidharan K, Sundararaman V, Q J Econ 130:1011–1066, 2015). Not looking at household expenditure on private tutoring from an efficiency measure ment might lead to biased results and a misleading understanding on the relationship between choice and efficiency.
This work examines the relationships between the degree of location-based choice and the efficiency of education markets (Hoxby CM, J Econ Perspect 10:51–72, 1996; Rothstein J, Am Econ Rev 97:2026–2037, 2007; Tiebout CM, J Polit Econ 64:416–424, 1956). Furthermore, this work develops an innovative indicator for measuring efficiency, using the ratio between achievement and the overall educational expenditures (i.e., household and public expenditure on education).
Data sets from the Israeli longitudinal nation-wide survey are analyzed. Using Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) regression models (Chen X, Hong H, Tarozzi A, Semiparametric efficiency in GMM models of nonclassical measurement errors, missing data and treatment effects. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, New Haven, 2008. Retrieved from http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d16/d1644.pdf; Hansen L, Econometrica 50:1029–1054, 1982) and the Simpson’s bio-diversity index as an instrumental variable (IV) (Simpson EH, Nature 163:688, 1949; White MJ, Popul Index 46:198–221, 1986), the impact of choice on efficiency is analyzed. Using a new indicator for efficiency, the findings reveal a lower impact of choice on efficiency (compared with traditional efficiency indicators). Our findings might assist policy-makers in other countries who aspire to increase educational efficiency , and understand why choice might not be the way to do so.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 2SLS, the number of endogenous variables must equal the number of instruments, i.e. the model is exactly identified, while in GMM, this restriction is non-binding.
- 2.
Bear in mind that the data on the expenditure on private tutoring was collected from interviews with parents and not from private tutors. Therefore, there is no reason to believe the data sets are biased.
References
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., & Pathak, P. A. (2014). The elite illusion: Achievement effects at Boston and New York exam schools. Econometrica, 82, 137–196. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA10266
Abrams, S. E. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Afonso, A., & Aubyn, M. S. (2006). Cross-country efficiency of secondary education provision: A semi-parametric analysis with non-discretionary inputs. Economic Modelling, 23, 476–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.02.003
Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Hoxby, C. (2004). Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 348–396. https://doi.org/10.1086/381474
Barseghyan, L., & Coate, S. (2016). Property taxation, zoning, and efficiency in a dynamic Tiebout model. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150050
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2002a). The effects of competition on educational outcomes: A review of US evidence. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ncspe.tc.columbia.edu/working-papers/OP35V2.pdf
Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2002b). The effects of competition between schools on educational outcomes: A review for the United States. Review of Educational Research, 72, 279–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002279
BenDavid-Hadar, I. (2018). Funding education: Developing a method of allocation for improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 32, 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2016-0161
Betts, J. R., & Loveless, T. (2005). Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Borland, M. V., & Howsen, R. M. (1992). Student academic achievement and the degree of market concentration in education. Economics of Education Review, 11, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(92)90019-Y
Briggs, D. C., Weeks, J. P., & Wiley, E. (2008, April). Vertical scaling in value-added models for student learning. Paper presented at the National Conference on Value-Added Modeling, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/education/sites/default/files/attached-files/BWW_VSVAM_Wisconsin_040708.pdf
Buchanan, J. M., & Goetz, C. J. (1972). Efficiency limits of fiscal mobility: An assessment of the Tiebout model. Journal of Public Economics, 1, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(72)90018-7
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station, TX: Stata.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Harashuyot haMekomiyot beIsrael 2014 [Local authorities in Israel 2014]. Jerusalem, Israel. Author. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/publications16/local_authorities14_1642/excel/p_libud.xls
Chen, X., Hong, H., & Tarozzi, A. (2008). Semiparametric efficiency in GMM models of nonclassical measurement errors, missing data and treatment effects. New Haven, CT: Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University. Retrieved from http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d16/d1644.pdf
Cordero-Ferrera, J. M., Pedraja-Chaparro, F., & Salinas-Jiménez, J. (2008). Measuring efficiency in education: An analysis of different approaches for incorporating non-discretionary inputs. Applied Economics, 40, 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600771346
Cornali, F. (2012). Effectiveness and efficiency of educational measures: Evaluation practices, indicators and rhetoric. Sociology Mind, 2, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.4236/sm.2012.23034
Cullen, J. B., Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. (2006). The effect of school choice on participants: Evidence from randomized lotteries. Econometrica, 74, 1191–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00702.x
Dadon-Golan, Z. (2016). Medidat ee-haShivyon baHinukh beMedinat Israel [Measuring education inequality in Israel – New indicators]. Doctoral dissertation, School of Education, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 158–187.
Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.28
Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123–144). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Garcia-Diaz, R., del Castillo, E., & Cabral, R. (2016). School competition and efficiency in elementary schools in Mexico. International Journal of Educational Development, 46, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.09.015
Hansen, L. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912775
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100, 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.267
Hanushek, E. A. (2002). Publicly provided education. In A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of public economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2045–2141). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Hanushek, E. A., Sarpça, S., & Yilmaz, K. (2011). Private schools and residential choices: Accessibility, mobility, and welfare. The BE Journal of Economic: Analysis & Policy, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2746
Hanushek, E. A., & Yilmaz, K. (2011). Urban education: Location and opportunity in the United States. In N. Brooks, K. Donaghy, & G.-J. Knaap (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of urban economics and planning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hillman, A. L. (2009). Public finance and public policy: Responsibilities and limitations of government (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hollands, F. M., Kieffer, M. J., Shand, R., Pan, Y., Cheng, H., & Levin, H. M. (2016). Cost-effectiveness analysis of early reading programs: A demonstration with recommendations for future research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1055639
Howell, W. G., & Peterson, P. E. (2002). The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Howell, W. G., Wolf, P. J., Campbell, D. E., & Peterson, P. E. (2002). School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 191–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10023
Hoxby, C. M. (1996). Are efficiency and equity in school finance substitutes or complements? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.10.4.51
Hoxby, C. M. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, 90, 1209–1238. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.5.1209
Hoxby, C. M. (2007). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? Reply. American Economic Review, 97, 2038–2055. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.2038
Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025001095
Levin, H. M., & Belfield, C. (2015). Guiding the development and use of cost-effectiveness analysis in education. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.915604
Lockheed, M. E. (1988, April). The measurement of educational efficiency and effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lockheed, M. E., & Hanushek, E. (1994). Concepts of educational efficiency and effectiveness (HROWP 24). Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/727651468739517517/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Budget transparency. Retrieved from http://ic.education.gov.il/QvAJAXZfc/opendoc_pc.htm?document=shkifut.qvw&host=qvsprod2&sheet=SH02
Montes, O., & Rubalcaba, L. (2014). School choice, equity and efficiency: International evidence from PISA-2012. In A. G. Aracil & I. N. Gómez (Eds.), Investigaciones de economía de la educación (pp. 585–614). Madrid, Spain: Asociación de Economía de la Educación. Retrieved from http://repec.economicsofeducation.com/2014valencia/valencia2014.pdf
Muralidharan, K., & Sundararaman, V. (2015). The aggregate effect of school choice: Evidence from a two-stage experiment in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130, 1011–1066. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv013
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2008). OECD factbook 2008: Economic, environmental and social statistics. Paris: Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2008-en.
Rolle, R. A. (2016). Reconceptualizing educational productivity for New South Wales public schools: An empirical application of modified quadriform analytics. Educational Considerations, 43(2), 7–24.
Rothstein, J. (2007). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? Comment. The American Economic Review, 97, 2026–2037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.5.2026
Rouse, C. E., & Barrow, L. (2009). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence and remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.143354
Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.
Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.
White, M. J. (1986). Segregation and diversity measures in population distribution. Population Index, 46, 198–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/3644339
Wöbmann, L., Lüdemann, E., Schütz, G., & West, M. R. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/246402531617
Acknowledgments
We thank our dedicated research assistant, Meytal Antebi, who wrote the JavaScript code, and assisted in analyzing and interpreting the data of the model in this manuscript as well as for useful discussions and ideas essential for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zahavi, M., BenDavid-Hadar, I., Klein, J. (2018). Choice and Efficiency in Education: New Perspective on the Tiebout Model. In: BenDavid-Hadar, I. (eds) Education Finance, Equality, and Equity. Education, Equity, Economy, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90388-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90388-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90387-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90388-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)