Are Private Schools More Efficient Than Public Schools? Evidence from Tanzania
Beginning in the mid-1980s, there has been an explosive growth of private secondary schools in Tanzania. By easing constraints on private operators, the government has clearly found an effective way in the context of tight public budget constraints to cope with the excess demand for this level of schooling. But has the policy also led to efficient operations in terms of student learning? In this paper, we attempt to shed light on this issue by comparing the efficiency of four types of schools that make up the majority of schools in the country: Government and Community schools in the public sector, and Christian and Wazazi schools in the private sector. Using longitudinal data from a 1994 retrospective survey of students in some 150 schools, we estimated separate achievement models for these four school types, with corrections for possible selection bias in school choice, and then used the results to simulate performance gaps across them. The simulations indicate that both types of private schools are less efficient than both types of public schools in the sense that, on average, a student with a given set of personal and family characteristics would do better in either type of public school than in either type of private school, after netting out differences in the endowment of school resources across school types. In the public sector, we found that Community schools are more efficient that Government schools.The finding that private schools are less efficient differs from those reported elsewhere for Tanzania based on data from an earlier period when private schools were relatively rare. It is consistent, however, with the fact that our analysis documents outcomes in a growing market in disequilibrium: many of the weaker performers may indeed exit eventually if they persist in failing to overcome the disadvantages generally associated with being latecomers to the market, including instability in clientele and funding, lack of brand-name recognition and inexperience in school management. To foster the growth of a strong and productive private sector, government interventions to relieve some of these constraints may be appropriate, including for example, the creation of networking opportunities for private school managers to exchange experiences with their public-school counterparts, and the creation of mechanisms for private schools to compete for public funding to support their operations.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 9 (2001)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CEDE20|
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.:
- Richard Arnott & John Rowse, 1982.
"Peer Group Effects and Educational Attainment,"
497, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Hanushek, Eric A, 1986. "The Economics of Schooling: Production and Efficiency in Public Schools," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1141-77, September.
- Trost, Robert P & Lee, Lung-Fei, 1984. "Technical Training and Earnings: A Polychotomous Choice Model with Selectivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 151-56, February.
- Heckman, James J, 1979.
"Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
- Jimenez, Emmanuel & Lockheed, Marlaine E & Paqueo, Vicente, 1991. "The Relative Efficiency of Private and Public Schools in Developing Countries," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 6(2), pages 205-18, July.
- Henderson, Vernon & Mieszkowski, Peter & Sauvageau, Yvon, 1978. "Peer group effects and educational production functions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 97-106, August.
- Glewwe, Paul, 1997. "Estimating the impact of peer group effects on socioeconomic outcomes: Does the distribution of peer group characteristics matter?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 39-43, February.
- Shawna Grosskopf & Kathy J. Hayes & Lori L. Taylor & William L. Weber, 1997. "Budget-Constrained Frontier Measures Of Fiscal Equality And Efficiency In Schooling," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(1), pages 116-124, February.
- Caroline Minter Hoxby, 1994. "Do Private Schools Provide Competition for Public Schools?," NBER Working Papers 4978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jimenez, Emmanuel & Lockheed, Marlaine & Wattanawaha, Nongnuch, 1988. "The Relative Efficiency of Private and Public Schools: The Case of Thailand," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 2(2), pages 139-64, May.
- Jimenez, Emmanuel & Paqueo, Vicente, 1996. "Do local contributions affect the efficiency of public primary schools?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 377-386, October.
- Jimenez, Emmanuel & Lockheed, Marlaine E. & Luna, Eduardo & Paqueo, Vicente, 1989. "School effects and costs for private and public schools in the Dominican Republic," Policy Research Working Paper Series 288, The World Bank.
- Oaxaca, Ronald, 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 693-709, October.
- Lankford, Hamilton & Wyckoff, James, 1992. "Primary and secondary school choice among public and religious alternatives," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 317-337, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:9:y:2001:i:2:p:145-172. 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: (Michael McNulty)
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.