IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Gender and Public Spending on Education in Pakistan: A Case Study of Disaggregated Benefit Incidence

  • Muhammad Sabir

    (Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC).)

It is generally believed that education is one of the basic rights of every human being, irrespective of sex, age, creed, religion, etc. Moreover, the target of universal primary education cannot be achieved without female access to educational opportunities, which contains several external benefits. In addition, access to educational opportunities assumes prime importance for empowerment of women. However, inequalities in access to education between males and females can be found in many countries across the world including Pakistan. According to conventional wisdom, a combination of cultural, social, and economic factors are responsible for placing young girls and women at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis access to school and the prospect of completing their education. This disadvantage can be altered through public policies including gender sensitive public spending on education. The above assertion about the role of public policy is based on the theory of public finance1, which demonstrates that public expenditure on education can affect the population in a number of ways, which has significant gender dimensions. For example, government spending on primary education is likely to generate more income for women than spending on universities, for the simple reason that there are relatively more women primary school teachers than women university lecturers. Moreover, these expenditures provide subsidized educational services, which is a form of “in kind transfers”. These “in-kind transfers” improve the current well-being of the recipients, and enhance their longer-run income-earning potential. They can be considered as both current and capital transfers to the recipients, and therefore can be termed as the “benefit incidence” of public spending. The main concern of this paper is to assess the gender dimension of the benefitincidence”. The tudy has two basic objectives. First and foremost, it aims to investigate which income group actually benefits from the government’s subsidized.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Pakistan Institute of Development Economics in its journal The Pakistan Development Review.

Volume (Year): 41 (2002)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 477-493

in new window

Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:41:y:2002:i:4:p:477-493
Contact details of provider: Postal: P.O.Box 1091, Islamabad-44000
Phone: (92)(51)9248051
Fax: (92)(51)9248065
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Crouch, Luis A., 1996. "Public education equity and efficiency in South Africa: Lessons for other countries," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 125-137, April.
  2. Shahnaz Hamid & Rehana Siddiqui, 2001. "Gender Differences in Demand for Schooling," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 40(4), pages 1077-1092.
  3. van de Walle, Dominique, 1996. "Assessing the welfare impacts of public spending," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1670, The World Bank.
  4. van de Walle, Dominique, 1994. "The Distribution of Subsidies through Public Health Services in Indonesia, 1978-87," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 8(2), pages 279-309, May.
  5. Castro-Leal, Florencia & Dayton, Julia & Demery, Lionel & Mehra, Kalpana, 1999. "Public Social Spending in Africa: Do the Poor Benefit?," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 14(1), pages 49-72, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:41:y:2002:i:4:p:477-493. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Khurram Iqbal)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.