Inequality Of Opportunity In Asia And The Pacific: Education

11m ago
1.14 MB
37 Pages
Last View : 5m ago
Last Download : 7m ago
Upload by : Carlos Cepeda

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY PAPERS#2018-01Inequality of Opportunityin Asia and the PacificEducation

The shaded areas of the map indicate ESCAP members and associate members.The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) serves as the United Nations’regional hub promoting cooperation among countries to achieve inclusive and sustainabledevelopment. The largest regional intergovernmental platform with 53 Member States and 9associate members, ESCAP has emerged as a strong regional think-tank offering countries soundanalytical products that shed insight into the evolving economic, social and environmentaldynamics of the region. The Commission’s strategic focus is to deliver on the 2030 Agenda forSustainable Development, which it does by reinforcing and deepening regional cooperation andintegration to advance connectivity, financial cooperation and market integration. ESCAP’s researchand analysis coupled with its policy advisory services, capacity building and technical assistance togovernments aims to support countries’ sustainable and inclusive development ambitions.Copyright United Nations, 2018All rights reservedPrinted in ThailandST/ESCAP/2817DisclaimerThe views expressed in this policy paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views and policies of the United Nations. The policy paper has been issued without formalediting. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this policy paper for educational or othernon-commercial purposes are authorized without prior written permission from the copyrightholder, provided that the source is fully acknowledged. For further information on this policy paper,please contact:Social Development DivisionEconomic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificUnited Nations BuildingRajadamnern Nok AvenueBangkok 10200, ThailandEmail: escap-sdd@un.orgWebsite:

Inequality of Opportunityin Asia and the PacificEducation

AcknowledgementsThis paper was prepared under the leadership of Patrik Andersson, Chief, Sustainable SocioeconomicTransformation Section, Social Development Division, and the overall guidance of Nagesh Kumar,Director of the Social Development Division. The drafting team was led by Ermina Sokou and consistedof Nina Loncar and Predrag Savić. The statistical and econometric analysis was done by Yichun Wang.Valuable comments were provided by discussants and participants of the Strategic Dialogue onPoverty and Inequality, that took place on 5–6 October 2017 in Bangkok, in particular Mihika Chaterjee,Carlos Gradin, Giorgi Kalakashvili, Marco Mira d’Ercole, Selim Raihan and Elan Satriawan. Useful inputswere also provided by Chad Anderson, Thérèse Björk, Arun Frey, Stephanie Choo, Imogen Howells,Orlando Miguel Zambrano Roman and Le Hai Yen Tran.Special thanks also are due to Satoko Yano, Chief of Education at the UNESCO New Delhi Cluster Office,who reviewed the paper and provided valuable comments.The editing was done by Daniel Swaisgood and the graphic design by Daniel Feary.The research for this policy paper and the rest of the series on Inequality of Opportunity in Asia and thePacific is prepared under an interregional project entitled Promoting Equality: Strengthening the capacityof select developing countries to design and implement equality-oriented public policies and programmes.2

Table of contentsAcknowledgements2List of figures3List of tables4Country abbreviations4About the Inequality of Opportunity papers51. Introduction62. Why does inequality in education matter?73. A new approach to identifying the furthest behind104. Who are the furthest behind?125. Understanding overall inequality in educational attainment186. Does ethnicity matter for determining the furthest behind?227. Recommendations for closing the gaps26Annex: Methodology for identifying gaps in access to opportunities27References34List of figuresFigure 1: GDP per capita and mean years of education in Asia-Pacific, 20137Figure 2: Classification tree highlighting differences in secondaryeducational attainment in Mongolia, 2013 (ages 20–35)11Figure 3: Classification tree highlighting differences in higher educationalattainment in the Philippines, 2013 (ages 25–35)11Figure 4: Gaps in secondary education attainment for individuals aged 20 to 35 years of age, latest year 12Figure 5: Secondary education average attainment and attainment gaps, latest year12Figure 6: Gaps in higher education attainment for individuals 25 to 35 years of age, latest year13Figure 7: Higher education average attainment and attainment gaps, latest year13Figure 8: Distance of the worst-off group from the average in secondary education attainment forindividuals 20 to 35 years of age, earliest and 2010s17Figure 9: Distance of the worst-off group from the average in higher education attainment forindividuals 25 to 35 years of age over time, earliest and 2010s17Figure 10: Inequality in secondary education attainment and its decomposition, latest year20Figure 11: Inequality in higher education attainment and its decomposition, latest year20Figure 12: The role of ethnicity, religion and language in shaping inequality in education, latest year243

List of tablesTable 1: The impact of various circumstances on secondary education attainmentfor individuals 20 to 35 years of age15Table 2: The impact of various circumstances on higher education attainmentfor individuals 25 to 35 years of age16Table 3: Attainment rate of secondary education for different groups with individuals between20 and 35 years of age, all available years22Table 4: Attainment rate of higher education for different groups with individuals between25 and 35 years of age, all available years23Table A1: List of countries and survey years27Table A2: Indicators selected31Table A3: Logit model results: Secondary education32Table A4: Logit model results: Higher education33Country baijanBangladeshBrunei DarussalamBhutanCambodiaChinaFijiFrench PolynesiaGeorgiaGuamHong Kong SAR, ChinaIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofJapanKazakhstanKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s RepublicKorea, Republic ofKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicMacao SAR, ChinaMaldivesMalaysiaMarshall OTRTVVUUZVN4Micronesia, Federated States ofMongoliaMyanmarNauruNepalNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNorthern Mariana IslandsPakistanPalauPapua New GuineaPhilippinesRussian FederationSamoaSingaporeSolomon IslandsSri aTurkeyTuvaluVanuatuUzbekistanViet Nam

About the Inequality of Opportunity papersThe ESCAP Inequality of Opportunity papers placemen and women at the heart of sustainableand inclusive development. The papers do soby identifying eight areas where inequalityjeopardizes a person’s prospects, namely:education; women’s access to health care;children’s nutrition; decent employment; basicwater and sanitation; access to clean energy;financial inclusion; and political participation. Eachof these opportunities are covered by specificcommitments outlined in the 2030 Agenda forSustainable Development and addressed in aseparate thematic paper covering 21 countriesthroughout Asia and the Pacific.iThe present papers build on the work of manyscholars and the findings from Time for Equality. Itapplies a novel approach to analysing householdsurveys with the aim of identifying the groupsof individuals with the lowest access to theabove-referenced opportunities. These groups aredefined by common circumstances over whichthe individual has no direct control.In addition to identifying the furthest behind,the Inequality of Opportunity papers also explorethe gaps between in-country groups in accessingthe key opportunities, as well as the extent towhich these have narrowed or widened overtime. These inequalities are then analysed toidentify the impact and importance each keycircumstance plays.ESCAP first discussed inequality of opportunity inits 2015 report Time for Equality and establishedthe distinction between inequality of outcomeand inequality of opportunity. While the formerdepicts the consequences of unequally distributedincome and wealth, the latter is concerned withaccess to key dimensions necessary for fulfillingone’s potential.iUltimately, these findings are of direct use forgenerating discussion on transformations neededto reach the “furthest behind first” as pledged inthe 2030 Agenda.All policy papers follow the same methodology, except for decent employment and political participation, where the available datasets did notinclude adequate questions.5

1. IntroductionEquitable opportunities for education are afundamental human right. Article 28 of theConvention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights andArticles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights each enshrinethis right.This commitment is further cemented in the 2030Agenda for Sustainable Development and reflectedin Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4; a goalencompassing inclusive, equitable and life-long,quality learning opportunities, and calling forequitable and inclusive quality education.Equity in education is at the core of theSDG4-Education 2030 Agenda. Targets 4.1, 4.3 and4.5 address the issue of inequality, particularlyrelating to gender gaps and marginalizedgroups, including persons with disabilities,indigenous peoples and vulnerable children. Equalopportunities for education are therefore key inensuring that no man, woman or child is left behind.In that context, primary school net enrolment ratesare above 90 per cent in almost every countryaround the Asia-Pacific region, with some notableexceptions in the Pacific, South and South-WestAsia.i This impressive achievement indicates thatnearly every child enters primary school in most ofthe countries in the region, despite the remainingchallenges countries still face in bringing all childrento school.Gross enrolment rates for secondary educationhowever, vary widely among countries and can beas low as 45 per cent in Cambodia and Pakistan,for example.1 Moreover, both higher educationenrolment rates and educational attainment ratesfluctuate even more, with some in-country groupshaving far higher rates than others. This policy paperwill explore inequality in secondary and highereducational attainment, rather than enrolment, forthree reasons.First, although school enrolment constitutes access,high dropout rates mean that enrolment does notnecessarily indicate whether adults took advantageof their educational opportunities. Subsequently,examining enrolment rates of present-day childrenin excluded groups would not reveal whether theywill have the opportunity to complete their schoolcareers. Second, completion is a better proxy forassessing the quality of education. In other words,if completing education is expected to generatebetter employment opportunities or improve theirwell-being, then completion rates will be higher.Third, data on completion (or attainment) is easierto access.Covering 21 countries, this research targetspopulation groups between 20 and 35 years ofage for secondary education and between 25 and35 years of age for higher education.ii The analysisfocuses on these age groups because they aretransitioning to the workplace.The analysis of the data reveals clear patterns ofexclusion across countries in Asia and the Pacificthat are closely linked to household circumstances.Young men and women and their family membersmake school decisions alongside a web of social,economic and cultural factors. To the extentpossible, these factors are revealed in this policypaper and provide a foundation for policymakerstowards understanding inequalities in educationalattainment.The aim of this policy paper is: i) to outline why itis important to reduce inequality in educationalattainment; ii) to introduce a new way of analysingsurvey data by identifying the shared circumstancesof those “furthest behind”; and iii) to analyseobserved inequality by the relative contribution ofeach circumstance.iUNESCO-UIS (2015) calculates that there were 17.3 million out-of-school children of primary school age in 2013, the majority of them in South andWest Asia.iiPlease see table A2 in the Annex for more information on the categorization6

2. Why does inequality in education matter?Inequality in education matters because moreeducation often results in a better job withhigher incomes and a chance to break patternsof poverty and vulnerability. Education alsoleads to improvements in both human andenvironmental health and well-being. Unequitableeducation therefore, not only jeopardizes thepotential of the most disadvantaged, but alsocompromises any prospective benefits that wouldhave accrued for society.2.1More education often leads to betterjobs and higher incomesEducation stimulates income growth, increasesproductivity and provides better opportunitiesfor decent work. For the individual, educationnot only shapes future outcomes from the earlieststages of life, but directly impacts the earningpotential and hence, the rest of a person’s future.This is why quality education should be madeavailable to all, irrespective of their circumstances.Despite making substantial progress in primaryeducation, gaps remain throughout the region.For instance, in many countries quality secondaryand higher education are only accessible forselect groups.Collectively, fewer years and lower educationalquality also affect the productivity of an economyand its growth potential. Without sustainedhuman capital accumulation, including lifelonglearning opportunities, labour market productivitysuffers and economic growth is hampered.Large gaps are also still found among countries.While gross enrolment rates for higher educationin the Republic of Korea reached close to 97per cent in 2014, Bangladesh and Afghanistan onlyhad rates of 13.2 per cent and 3.7 per cent in 2012and 2011, respectively.2 These stark disparitiesrepeat themselves within countries as well,creating societies with unequal opportunities.Generally, higher incomes and standards of livingare correlated with higher educational attainment.This is also the case for Asia-Pacific countries(Figure 1). On average, the higher educationenrolment rate in high-income Asia-Pacificcountries is 75 per cent, while average enrolmentrates are below 20 per cent for the LeastDeveloped Countries (LDCs).3FIGURE 1GDP per capita and mean years of education in Asia-Pacific, 201316Correlation coefficient r 0.5014MEAN YEARS OF EDUCATION (YEARS)PWGE12TJ10KGUZKI8AZLK AMWSFJVUPHTOFMMNTMIRCNTHID64NPAF2KHBDTL PKVNSBINLAPGRUKRKZMYAUNZJPHKSGBNTRMVBT05005 000GDP PER CAPITA (US )Source: ESCAP calculations based on World Bank (2013) and UNDP HDR (2013).750 000

2. Why does inequality in education matter?2.22.3Human and environmental healthimprove with educationEducation drives gender equalityAchieving gender equality requires addressingthe gaps in educational attainment betweenwomen and men. Traditional gender roles oftentrap women in bearing the brunt of householdwork and caretaker tasks, thereby forcing girls todrop out of school. School attendance for manygirls is also made more difficult after pubertybecause of inadequate water and sanitationfacilities.“The multidimensionalnature of inequalities makesaccessing education a centralcomponent of humandevelopment and dignity”“Educating women and girls carriesEducation is a prerequisite for accessing criticalknowledge on health and nutrition. Ongoingresearch finds that inequality in accessing keyopportunities, such as adequate child nutrition,access to water and sanitation, clean fuelsand electricity, associates with lower overalleducational attainment in the household. Themultidimensional nature of inequalities thusmakes accessing education a central componentof human development and dignity.important health ramificationsfor children and contributes tostrengthening gender equality byreducing unwanted or unplannedpregnancies”Educating women and girls also carries importanthealth ramifications for children and contributesto strengthening gender equality by reducingunwanted or unplanned pregnancies. 6Moreover, education plays an instrumental rolein advancing environmental sustainability bymaking people aware of environmental risks,hazards and mitigation techniques. For example,research demonstrates that people with higherlevels of schooling are better at identifying variousenvironmental issues in 70 out of 119 countries.4While achieving gender equality and empoweringall women (SDG 5) is complex, educationalattainment plays a vital role in improving women’slives and health outcomes, as well as increasingtheir options for income generation and politicalparticipation.Furthermore, research from the 2010 InternationalSocial Survey Programme (ISSP) exhibits thateach step on the educational ladder increasesthe chance that people will express concern forthe environment. This is true even after takinginto account factors such as wealth, individualcharacteristics and political affiliation.5 Inequalityin accessing education therefore creates a dividein environmental awareness and behaviour.At the same time, people with lower educationtend to be more vulnerable to environmentaldegradation. Not only is their work unsafeor more harmful, but they often reside inthe most environmentally degraded andimpoverished areas.8

2. Why does inequality in education matter?2.4Education fosters stronger societalcohesion and political institutions“Having a large, uneducated segmentof the population undermines politicalparticipation and trust and therebyEducation not only creates shared values andcommon social identities, it balances socialdynamics by generating opportunities forchildren with different starting circumstances. Incontrast, when disadvantaged population groupsreceive lower quality education, social cohesion isjeopardized.weakens political institutions”Additionally, to the extent that educationalasymmetries are reflected within societal structures,they can lead to social unrest and polarization.Having a large, uneducated segment of thepopulation undermines political participation andtrust and thereby weakens political institutions.7“ intergenerational poverty stemsContacting a public representative to requestinformation or express an opinion is a form ofdirect participation. Across 102 countries, adultswith higher education were 60 per cent morelikely to request information from the governmentthan those with a primary education or below.8 Indeveloping countries, this figure is even higher at80 per cent.from the inability to use educationas a stepping stone for socialmobility”Persistent cycles of poverty are then recreated andaggravated, trapping individuals and householdsin their present socioeconomic situations. Overtime, intergenerational poverty stems from theinability to use education as a stepping stonefor social mobility. Such traps subsequentlycompromise the achievement of SDG 1 on “Endingpoverty” and SDG 10 on “Reducing inequality”.Another study of 104 countries found that evenafter controlling for country-specific effects, amore equal distribution of education was themain determinant for the transition to democracy.9Consequently, promoting education as an inclusivelearning tool is vital to achieving the “peace, justiceand strong institutions” recognized by SDG 16.9

3. A new approach to identifyingthe furthest behindA new methodological approach to ascertainthe gaps in educational attainment is needed tomeet the 2030 Agenda. This policy paper analyseshousehold level data from the Demographicand Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple IndicatorCluster Surveys (MICS) for 21 countries in Asiaand the Pacific to identify those most likely notto complete secondary or higher education. Theanalysis covers all five ESCAP sub-regions, as wellas three country-income groupings.iiiFor Mongolia, the first level of partition(split) is wealth (Figure 2) with individuals inbottom 40 per cent households completingsecondary education at a rate of only 38per cent, as compared with those in top 60per cent households completing at a rate of 88per cent. The second split comes from residenceamong the bottom 40 per cent individuals, andfrom sex among the top 60 per cent. The third splitcomes from sex and is only applicable to thoseresiding in rural areas.Using the classification tree approach, analgorithm splits the value of the targetindicators into groups, based on predeterminedcircumstances, namely: wealth; place ofresidence; and sex. These indicators are thenused in determining differences in educationopportunities, as measured by attainment ofsecondary and higher education. The age groupspresented in this analysis include women and menbetween 20 and 35 years of age for secondaryeducation, and between 25 and 35 years of age forhigher education.ivIn green, the tree shows that the most advantagedgroup, women in the top 60 per cent households,hold an attainment rate of 93 per cent, while inred, the most disadvantaged group, men in ruralareas from bottom 40 per cent households, holdan attainment rate of only 21 per cent.Notably, in the group with the highest attainment,residence in an urban or rural area does not matterbecause it was not identified as a significantfactor. The group with the highest attainmentrate (green box) makes up around 30 per cent ofall individuals in this age group in Mongolia, whilethe lowest (red box) group makes up 13 per centof all individuals between 20 and 35 years of age.In each iteration, the classification tree ascertainssignificantly different groups with commoncircumstances and identifies those most and leastadvantaged in terms of attainment rates. Section6 describes the additional impact of belonging toa minority or culturally marginalized group andrepeats the analysis using religion or ethnicity asa shared circumstance for the few countries wheredata is available.In the Philippines, the first partition (split) ofgroups in terms of completion of higher educationis again wealth, with 52 per cent of all individualsin top 60 per cent households completing highereducation, as compared with those in bottom40 per cent households completing at only12 per cent (Figure 3).To illustrate how different individual circumstancesproduce a disadvantage (or advantage) incompleting secondary or higher education, theanalysis uses two examples from Mongolia andthe Philippines.iiiThe five ESCAP sub-regions are East and North-East Asia, North and Central Asia, Pacific, South and South-West Asia, and South-East Asia. Thethree income groups covered are low income, lower-middle income, upper-middle income. High income countries are not included in analysis.ivOlder age groups (35- 49 years old) are not considered in this analysis although similar results have been produced and are available uponrequest for the purpose of comparison.10

3. A new approach to identifying the furthest behindThe second separator is sex for both groups. Forthe top 60 per cent group, men have lower highercompletion rate (50 per cent) when comparedwith women (55 per cent). Overall, the group withthe highest completion rate represents 33 per centof the population. The red box depicts how amongmen residing in bottom 40 per cent households,rural or urban, only 1 in 10 completes highereducation. This group represents 19 per cent of alladults in the 25–35 age cohort in the Philippines.FIGURE 2AVERAGEATTAINMENTClassification tree highlighting differences in secondaryeducational attainment in Mongolia, 2013 (ages 20–35)Average attainment: 69%SEXRESIDENCE/SEXWEALTHSize: 100%BOTTOM 40TOP 60Attainment: 38%Attainment: 88%Size: 39%Size: 61%RURALURBANMALEFEMALEAttainment: 29%Attainment: 58%Attainment: 83%Attainment: 93%Size: 25%Size: 14%Size: 29%Size: 32%MALEFEMALEAttainment: 21%Attainment: 37%Size: 13%Size: 12%FIGURE 3AVERAGEATTAINMENTClassification tree highlighting differences in higher educationalattainment in the Philippines, 2013 (ages 25–35)Average attainment: 38%SEXWEALTHSize: 100%BOTTOM 40TOP 60Attainment: 12%Attainment: 52%Size: 35%Size: 65%MALEFEMALEMALEFEMALEAttainment: 10%Attainment: 14%Attainment: 50%Attainment: 55%Size: 19%Size: 16%Size: 32%Size: 33%11

4. Who are the furthest behind?Ample evidence demonstrates that many peoplein Asia and the Pacific are still being left behind.This reality contrasts starkly with the principle ofuniversalism permeating the 2030 Agenda. Realizingthat they are being left behind, marginalizedpeople get discouraged and disillusioned with thepromise of progress, which reduces trust in nationaleconomic systems and political institutions.4.1How large are the gaps?The tree analysis described in Section 3 allows forcomparison of gaps across countries. This analysiswas used for 21 countries and the results aresummarized in Figures 4 and 6. The upper lines ofeach bar represent the attainment rate of the mostadvantaged group (those with highest attainmentrates) for each country. The lower lines representthe attainment rate of the most disadvantagedgroup (those with lowest attainment rates). Themiddle line is the average attainment rates by whichcountries are sorted.vPolicymakers therefore need to identify who is beingleft behind and make those groups, households andindividuals the focus of their efforts. Only then canprosperity be shared and future socioeconomicstability protected.FIGURE 4Gaps in secondary education attainment for individuals aged 20 to 35 yearsof age, latest yearATTAINMENT RATE (% )10080604020Average attainment rateGroup attainment rate o PDRBangladeshIndiaTimor-LestePakistanVanuatuViet PhilippinesKyrgyzstanArmeniaKazakhstan0Group attainment rate (highest)Source: ESCAP calculations based on latest DHS and MICS surveys.FIGURE 5Secondary education average attainment and attainment gaps, latest year80MNATTAINMENT GAP(PERCENTAGE POINTS)706050KH 405060KG70AVERAGE ATTAINMENT (%)Source: ESCAP calculations based on latest DHS and MICS surveys.vR² 0.48944The actual composition of the most advantaged or disadvantaged groups is discussed later in this Section.1280KZ90100

4. Who are the furthest behind?With respect to secondary education for men andwomen between 20 and 35 years of age, Armeniaand Kazakhstan fare the best with 94 and 91per cent average attainment rates (Figure 4) andno substantial gaps between population groups.that relationship. When average attainment is low,the gaps are around 25 to 35 percentage points.When average attainment increases, gaps increaseand can be as high as 70 percentage points. Ascountries edge towards universal attainment thegaps fall.By contrast, Cambodia (15 per cent) and theMaldives (13 per cent) have the lowest observedattainment levels of secondary education.In Mongolia, Vanuatu and the Philippines,average attainment is around the middle of thedistribution, but gaps between the best-off andworst-off groups exceed 50 percentage points.Notably, Turkmenistan’s gap in completingsecondary education is relatively lower comparedwith several countries with similarly averageattainment (e.g., Tajikistan and Thailand). Infact, one in two of the most disadvantagedgroup in Turkmenistan completed secondaryeducation, a higher rate than the equivalentgroups in Mongolia and the Philippines; bothcountries with higher average attainment overall(see Table 1 for the composition of the mostdisadvantaged groups).The relationship between average attainmentrates of secondary education and gap can befurther illustrated by using a binomial equation(Figure 5). The inverted U-shape curve depictsFIGURE 6Gaps in higher education attainment for individuals 25 to 35 years of age, latest year806040Average attainment rateGroup attainment rate (lowest)VanuatuAfghanistanCambodiaTimor-LesteLao kistanTurkmenistanTajikistanViet 20MongoliaATTAINMENT RATE (% )100Group attainment rate (highest)Source: ESCAP calculations based on latest DHS and MICS surveys.FIGURE 7ATTAINMENT GAP (PERCENTAGE POINTS)Higher education average attainment and attainment gaps, latest year80R² 0.72301MN706050THPHTJ VN40PK INKHBDTLLA MM ID TMMVVUBTAF302010001020AM30KZKG4050AVERAGE ATTAINMENT (%)Source: ESCAP calculations based on latest DHS and MICS surveys.1360708090100

4. Who are the furthest behind?In terms of higher education for men and women,average attainment rates are expectedly loweras compared with secondary education (Figure6). On average, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia showedthe highest attainment rates with 47 per cent and44 per cent of the population between 25 and 35years of age attaining higher education.Tables 1 and 2 list the circumstances of groups(column 1) with lowest attainment rates (column2), the size of the population represented (column3) and the gap between the groups with thehighest and lowest attainment (column 4).viThe combination of being poor, a woman andliving in a rural area forms the most commonbarrier to secondary education (Table 1). Forall 21 countries analysed, wealth is a commondetermining circumstance, as those with thelowest secondary education attainment ratesbelong to households from the poorest 40 per centof the population. Rural residence is also associatedwith lower secondary education attainment ratesin 11 out of 21 countries.Afghanistan, Cambodia and Vanuatu showed thelowest attainment rates, with average attainmentrates for higher education around 6 per cent.At the same time, Mongolia is experiencing thehighest gaps between the least and the mostdisadvantaged groups, followed by the Philippinesand Thailand.Again, the relationship between averageattainment rate of

Figure 3: Classification tree highlighting differences in higher educational attainment in the Philippines, 2013 (ages 25-35) 11 Figure 4: Gaps in secondary education attainment for individuals aged 20 to 35 years of age, latest year 12 Figure 5: Secondary education average attainment and attainment gaps, latest year 12

Related Documents:

Income inequality has two components: (a) ‘market’ inequality and (b) govern-ment redistribution via taxes and transfers. In principle, the two can be combined in any of a variety of ways: low market inequality with high redistribution, low market inequality with low redistribution, high market inequality

Measuring economic inequality Summary Economics 448: Lecture 12 Measures of Inequality October 11, 2012 Lecture 12. Outline Introduction What is economic inequality? Measuring economic inequality . Inequality is the fundamental disparity that permits one individual certain

applies this framework to analyse inequality in North and Central Asia with respect to inequality of outcomes and opportunities which are defined in the publication.1 Inequality of outcomes, or economic inequality, is disparities in material dimensions of human wellbeing among individuals. It is usually measured by monetary values such as

of its income inequality (Lu and Chen, 2005). Innovation not only plays a role in the economic development of developing countries, but can also impact income inequality. While there is ample literature studying income inequality in China, there is less concern about the impact of the innovation level on income inequality.

Inequality, Employment and Public Policy S.Mahendra Dev Abstract This paper examines dimensions of inequality including labour market inequalities and discusses public policies needed for reduction in inequalities. It discusses both inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunities. In terms of income, India is the second highest

increases and if it decreases in income inequality. If income distribution is Pareto, the rate of redistribution increases monotonically in income inequality if ˇ 0:78 and it has an internal maximum if . Moreover, the maximum occurs at a lower level of inequality, so that the rate of redistribution de

DfID – Inequality in Middle Income Countries: South Africa Case 2 Section 2. An overview of inequality, poverty and growth in SA This section examines the state of inequality and poverty in SA today, describes how inequality has changed over the de

growth will be discussed. Concepts on both regional income inequality and local economic growth will follow. 2.1 Theories on Income Inequality: Does Harm Growth Stiglitz (2012) argues inequality slows economic growth. According to Stiglitz, inequality weakens aggregate demand f