The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Education Production Functions

  • Eric A. Hanushek
Reference work entry


The accumulated economic analysis of education suggests that current provision of schooling is very inefficient. Commonly purchased inputs to schools – class size, teacher experience, and teacher education – bear little systematic relationship to student outcomes, implying that conventional input policies are unlikely to improve achievement. At the same time, differences in teacher quality have been shown to be very important. Unfortunately, teacher quality, defined in terms of effects on student performance, is not closely related to salaries or readily identified attributes of teachers.


Education production functions Random assignment School attainment School resources Student outcomes Teacher quality 

JEL Classifications

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Angrist, J.D., and V. Lavy. 1999. Using Maimondides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 533–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd, D., P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. 2006. How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy 1: 176–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman, J.S., E.Q. Campbell, C.J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A.M. Mood, F.D. Weinfeld, and R.L. York. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  4. Hanushek, E.A. 1979. Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. Journal of Human Resources 14: 351–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hanushek, E.A. 1992. The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy 100: 84–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanushek, E.A. 1999. Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21: 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanushek, E.A. 2003. The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal 113: F64–F98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanushek, E.A., and D.D. Kimko. 2000. Schooling, labor force quality, and the growth of nations. American Economic Review 90: 1184–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanushek, E.A., S.G. Rivkin, and L.L. Taylor. 1996. Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics 78: 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanushek, E.A., J.F. Kain, D.M. O’Brien, and S.G. Rivkin. 2005. The market for teacher quality, Working paper no. 11154. Cambridge, MA: NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kane, T.J., J.E. Rockoff, and D.O. Staiger. 2006. What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City, Working paper no. 12155. Cambridge, MA: NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krueger, A.B.. 1999. Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 497–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lazear, E.P. 2003. Teacher incentives. Swedish Economic Policy Review 10(3): 179–214.Google Scholar
  14. Mincer, J. 1970. The distribution of labor incomes: A survey with special reference to the human capital approach. Journal of Economic Literature 8: 1–26.Google Scholar
  15. Mulligan, C.B. 1999. Galton versus the human capital approach to inheritance. Journal of Political Economy 107(pt. 2): S184–S224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murnane, R.J., J.B. Willett, Y. Duhaldeborde, and J.H. Tyler. 2000. How important are the cognitive skills of teenagers in predicting subsequent earnings? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19: 547–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Psacharopoulos, G., and H.A. Patrinos. 2004. Returns to investment in education: A further update. Education Economics 12: 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rivkin, S.G., E.A. Hanushek, and J.F. Kain. 2005. Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73: 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Word, E., J. Johnston, H.P. Bain, B. DeWayne Fulton, J.B. Zaharies, M.N. Lintz, C.M. Achilles, J. Folger, and C. Breda. 1990. Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR), Tennessee’s K-3 class size study: Final summary report, 1985–1990. Nashville: Tennessee State Department of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric A. Hanushek
    • 1
  1. 1.