Education, Inequality and Poverty

Transcription

1 Education, Inequality and Poverty Doç. Dr. Sezgin Polat Public Economics Course Political Science Department Galatasaray University Fall, 2017

2 Outline Education Education and externalities International Comparison Case of Turkey Quality Intergenerational Mobility Higher Education Inequality Income Groups and Types Poverty International Comparison

3 Reference Chapters Inequality and Poverty ([Hindriks and Myles, 2013] chapter 13) Income Distribution and Welfare Programs ([Gruber, 2004] chapter 17)

4 Education and externalities

5 Education has externalities. It has social returns which refer to benefits that are received by other individuals. Social benefits associated with encouraging innovation and scientific advances Knowledge spillovers - more educated individuals raise the productivity and earnings through exchange of ideas, imitation, and learning-by-doing. Intergenerational effects - more educated and healthy generations Health and longevity Lower criminal activity Civic participation e.g voting, social involvement Tax and transfer effects Screening device - signaling

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 International Comparison

13

14

15 Returns to Education - Effect of one year schooling on wages

16

17

18 Wage Ratio - All Workers

19 Wage Ratio - Female Wage Earners

20 Unemployment Rate by Education Level - All

21 Unemployment Rate by Education Level - Female

22 Case of Turkey

23

24

25

26 Educational achievement by birth year

27 Education Quality

28 Pisa Turkiye Raporu http: //pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/pisa2015_ulusalrapor.pdf

29

30

31

32

33

34

35 Intergenerational Mobility

36 Great Gatsby Curve

37

38 Table Intergenerational Educational Mobility and Average Income Positioning Average Positioning and Std. Dev. (Income Deciles) Average probabilities Education level Education level No schooling P. 5 years P. 8 years Secondary Tertiary No schooling P. 5 years P. 8 years Secondary Tertiary Father s Education Less than primary (21.4) (25.8) (25.9) (24.8) (19.3) Secondary (28.3) (19.6) (24.5) (20.6) Tertiary (7.8) (24.3) (26.1) (18.5) Source : Author s calculations based on 2007 Adult Education Survey(AES), include adults aged 25 years or above. (1) Average score or positioning according to deciles of income (100 highest, 1 lowest). (2) Education level conditional on father education. The numbers add to one across the rows for each father education level.

39 Higher Education

40 Figure State and Vakif Universities across years

41 Table University Types and Enrollment Total Enrolled Students (Public) 1,191,757 1,284,591 1,337,791 1,371,017 1,468,194 1,605,313 1,738,649 1,959,580 2,184,530 Distance and Open Universities * 695, , , ,972 1,142,536 1,557,217 1,713,923 1,947,972 2,241,991 Private (Vakif) Universities ** 83,742 99, , , , , , , ,085 Population aged ,110,302 8,056,109 7,995,408 7,907,623 7,823,736 7,779,649 7,753,673 7,679,509 7,691,051 Enrollment Rate (Open Edu. Excl.) * Statistics of Measuring, Selection and Placement Center ** Calculated using Statistics of Higher Education Council. Latest accesed on june 2015, https ://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ Source : TurkStat Regional Statistics

42

43

44 Inequality and Measurement

45 Measuring Income Herbert Simon (1938) (backward-looking definition of income) Personal income may be defined as the algebraic sum of (1) the market value of rights exercised in consumption (2) the change in the value of the store of property rights between the beginning and end of the period in question. Hicks(1939) (income with uncertainty) income is the maximum value which a man can consume during a week and still expect to be as well-as at the end of the week...

46 Measuring Income The first approach to equivalence scales is based on the concept of minimum needs. A bundle of goods and services that is seen as representing the minimum needs for the household is identified. The exact bundle will differ among households of varying size but typically involves only very basic commodities.

47 Measuring Inequality - Gini Index Gini-coefficient of inequality : This is the most commonly used measure of inequality. The coefficient varies between 0, which reflects complete equality and 1, which indicates complete inequality (one person has all the income or consumption, all others have none). Graphically, the Gini coefficient can be easily represented by the area between the Lorenz curve and the line of equality.

48

49

50

51 Hanehalki Butce Anketi

52 Income groups and income components according to income levels

53 Farklı Gelir Türlerinin Yüzdelik Gelir Gruplarındaki Oranı Eşdeğer hanehalkı kullanılabilir gelire göre sıralı yüzde 20 lik gruplar ve gelir türlerine göre yıllık gelirin dağılımı (Dikey %) (Türkiye)

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 Sosyal Yardimlar Kapsayaci mi? Eşdeğer hanehalkı kullanılabilir gelire göre sıralı yüzde 20 lik gruplar ve gelir türlerine göre yıllık gelirin dağılımı (Yatay %) (Türkiye)

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69 Poverty ; analysis and measurement

70 Goreli Yoksulluk Cizgisi(Relative poverty lines) : These are defined in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country ; for example, the poverty line could be set at 50 percent of the country s mean income or consumption. Mutlak Yoksulluk Cizgisi (Absolute poverty lines) : These are anchored in some absolute standard of what households should be able to count on in order to meet their basic needs. For monetary measures, these absolute poverty lines are often based on estimates of the cost of basic food needs (i.e., the cost a nutritional basket considered minimal for the healthy survival of a typical family), to which a provision is added for non-food needs. For developing countries, considering the fact that large shares of the population survive with the bare minimum or less, it is often more relevant to rely on an absolute rather than a relative poverty line. Different methods have been used in the literature to define absolute poverty lines (see Deaton 1997, Ravallion and Bidani 1994, and Ravallion 1994).

71 The food-energy intake method defines the poverty line by finding the consumption expenditures or income level at which a person s typical food energy intake is just sufficient to meet a predetermined food energy requirement. If applied to different regions within the same country, the underlying food consumption pattern of the population group just consuming the necessary nutrient amounts will vary. This method can thus yield differentials in poverty lines in excess of the cost-of-living differential facing the poor. The Cost of Basic Needs method values an explicit bundle of foods typically consumed by the poor at local prices first. To this, a specific allowance for nonfood goods, consistent with spending by the poor, is added. However defined, poverty lines will always have a high arbitrary element ; for example, the calorie threshold underlying both methods might be assumed to vary with age.

72 When estimating monetary measures of poverty, one may have a choice between using income or consumption as the indicator of well-being. Most analysts argue that provided the information on consumption obtained from a household survey is detailed enough, consumption will be a better indicator for poverty measurement than income for the following reasons :

73

74

75

76 TÜİK, bugüne kadar harcamaya dayalı farklı yöntemlerin kullanıldığı yoksulluk hesaplamaları yapmıştır. Bunlardan göreli yoksulluk, bireylerin ortalama refah düzeyinin belli bir oranının altında olması durumu olarak tanımlanmakta olup, bu tanıma göre, toplumun genel düzeyine göre belli bir sınırın altında gelir veya harcamaya sahip olan birey veya hanehalkı göreli anlamda yoksul sayılmaktadır. Refah ölçüsü olarak amaca göre harcama veya gelir düzeyi seçilebilir. Hanehalkı bütçe araştırmasında eşdeğer kişi başına tüketim harcaması medyan değerinin %50 si göreli yoksulluk sınırı olarak tanımlanarak göreli yoksulluk oranı hesaplanmaktadır. TUIK hesaplamalarında harcama yerine eşdeğer fert başına düşen (eşdeğer hanehalkı kullanılabilir) gelirleri kullanılarak, eşdeğer hanehalkı kullanılabilir gelir medyan değerine göre belirlenen çeşitli göreli yoksulluk sınırları (%40, %50, % 60 veya % 70) hesaplanmıştır.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84 International comparison of various inequality measures

85

86

87

88

89

90 Unemployment Rate by Education Levels (Men)

91 Unemployment Rate by Education Levels (Women)

92 References I Gruber, J. (2004). Public finance and public policy. Macmillan. Hindriks, J. and Myles, G. D. (2013). Intermediate public economics. MIT press.