The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

School Choice and Competition

  • Caroline Hoxby
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1969

Abstract

The two insights behind school choice are that externalities motivate government financing, but not provision, of schools, and that government-run schools will probably, owing to lack of competition, be x-inefficient. Under school choice, students choose among schools that compete for them on a truly level playing field. Governments play a financing, auditing, refereeing, and market-design role. Modern research focuses on evaluating the effects of school choice on the x-efficiency of schools, analysing how programme design affects the supply of schools, and investigating how information and matching mechanisms affect demand.

Keywords

Charter schools Deferred-acceptance mechanism Educational externalities Friedman, M Magnet schools School choice School competition School vouchers Strategy- proof mechanisms Tiebout choice Top trading cycles Tuition tax credits Vouchers X-efficiency 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Abdulkadiroğlu, A., P. Pathak, and A. Roth. 2006a. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency: Redesigning the New York City High School match. Working paper, New York University and Columbia University.Google Scholar
  2. Abdulkadiroğlu, A., P. Pathak, A. Roth, and T, Sönmez. 2006b. Changing the Boston school choice mechanism. Working Paper No. 11965. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  3. Abdulkadiroğlu, A., and T. Sönmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93: 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahlin, Å. 2003. Does school competition matter? Effects of a large-scale school choice reform on student performance. Working paper, Nationalekonomiska institutionen, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  5. Akabayashi, H. 2006. Average effects of school choice on educational attainment: evidence from Japanese high school attendance zones. Working paper, Keio University.Google Scholar
  6. Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, and M. Kremer. 2006. Long-term consequences of secondary school vouchers: Evidence from administrative records in Colombia. American Economic Review 96: 847–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, E. Bloom, E. King, and M. Kremer. 2001. Vouchers for private schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Working Paper No. 8343. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  8. Angrist, J., G. Imbens, and D. Rubin. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettinger, E., and R. Slonim. 2006. Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism. Journal of Public Economics 90: 1625–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarti, R. 2006a. Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  11. Chakrabarti, R. 2006b. Impact of voucher design on public school performance: evidence from Florida and Milwaukee voucher programs. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chakrabarti, R. 2006c. Vouchers, public school response and the role of incentives: evidence from Florida. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  13. Epple, D., and R. Romano. 1998. Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group effects. American Economic Review 88: 33–62.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. 1955. The role of government in education. In Economics and the Public Interest, ed. R. Solo. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, M. 1962. The role of government in education. In Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hanushek, E. 2002. Publicly provided education. In Handbook of public economics, ed. A. Auerbach and M. Feldstein. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  17. Hastings, J. and R. Van Weelden. 2007. Preferences, information, and parental choice behavior in public school choice. Working Paper No. 12995. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  18. Howell, W., and P. Peterson. 2002. The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  19. Howell, W., P. Wolf, D. Campbell, and P. Peterson. 2002. School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoxby, C. 2000. Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review 90: 1209–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoxby, C. 2004. School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review 10: 9–65.Google Scholar
  22. Hoxby, C. 2006. The supply of charter schools. In Charter schools against the odds, ed. P. Hill. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hoxby, C., and S. Murarka. 2007a. How New York City’s charter schools affect student achievement: Results of the first year of evaluation. Working Paper No. 13255. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  24. Hoxby, C., and S. Murarka. 2007b. Methods of assessing the achievement of students in charter schools. In Charter schools: Their growth and outcomes, ed. M. Berends. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Hoxby, C., and J. Rockoff. 2005. The impact of charter schools on student achievement. Working paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  26. Hsieh, C., and M. Urquiola. 2006. The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher program. Journal of Public Economics 90: 1477–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lips, D., and E. Feinberg. 2006. School choice: 2006 progress report. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Online. Available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg1970.cfm. Accessed 26 June 2007.
  28. Nechyba, T. 2003. What can be (and what has been) learned from general equilibrium simulation models of school finance? National Tax Journal 56: 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pathak, P. 2006. Lotteries in student assignment. Working paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. Peterson, P., and W. Howell. 2004. Voucher research controversy: New looks at the New York City evaluation. Education Next 4: 73–78.Google Scholar
  31. Peterson, P., D. Myers, W. Howell, and D. Mayer. 1999. School choice in New York City. In Earning and learning: How schools matter, ed. P. Peterson and S. Mayer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  32. Rouse, C. 1998. Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 553–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tiebout, C. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. West, M., P. Peterson, and D. Campbell. 2001. School choice in Dayton, Ohio after two years: An evaluation of the parents advancing choice in education scholarship program. Working Paper No. RWP02-021. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.Google Scholar
  35. Wolf, P., W. Howell, and P. Peterson. 2000. School choice in Washington, D.C.: An evaluation after one year. Working Paper No. PEPG/00–08. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  36. Wolf, P., and D. Hoople. 2006. Looking inside the black box: what school factors explain voucher gains in Washington, DC? Peabody Journal of Education 81: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolf, P., P. Peterson, and M. West. 2001. Results of a school voucher experiment: The Case of Washington, D.C. after two years. Working Paper No. PEPG/01–05. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Hoxby
    • 1
  1. 1.