IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21835.html

Incentive Design in Education: An Empirical Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hugh Macartney
  • Robert McMillan
  • Uros Petronijevic

Abstract

While incentive schemes to elicit greater effort in organizations are widespread, the incentive strength-effort mapping is difficult to ascertain in practice, hindering incentive design. We propose a new semi-parametric method for uncovering this relationship in an education context, using exogenous incentive variation and rich administrative data. The estimated effort response forms the basis of a counterfactual approach tracing the effects of various accountability systems on the full distribution of scores. We show higher average performance comes with greater score dispersion for a given accountability scheme, and that incentive designs not yet enacted can improve performance further, relevant to education reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugh Macartney & Robert McMillan & Uros Petronijevic, 2015. "Incentive Design in Education: An Empirical Analysis," NBER Working Papers 21835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21835
    Note: CH ED LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21835.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burgess, Simon & Propper, Carol & Wilson, Deborah & Slater, Helen, 2005. "Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools," CEPR Discussion Papers 5248, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2005. "Social Preferences and the Response to Incentives: Evidence from Personnel Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(3), pages 917-962.
    3. David J. Deming & Sarah Cohodes & Jennifer Jennings & Christopher Jencks, 2016. "School Accountability, Postsecondary Attainment, and Earnings," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(5), pages 848-862, December.
    4. Adam Copeland & Cyril Monnet, 2009. "The Welfare Effects of Incentive Schemes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 93-113.
    5. Esther Duflo & Pascaline Dupas & Michael Kremer, 2011. "Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1739-1774, August.
    6. Raj Chetty & John N. Friedman & Jonah E. Rockoff, 2014. "Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating Bias in Teacher Value-Added Estimates," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2593-2632, September.
    7. Randall Reback & Julie Berry Cullen, 2006. "Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system," Working Papers 0601, Barnard College, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hugh Macartney & Robert McMillan & Uros Petronijevic, 2018. "Teacher Performance and Accountability Incentives," Working Papers tecipa-610, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    2. Yeşilırmak, Muharrem, 2019. "Bonus pay for teachers, spatial sorting, and student achievement," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 129-158.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hugh Macartney & Robert McMillan & Uros Petronijevic, 2021. "A Quantitative Framework for Analyzing the Distributional Effects of Incentive Schemes," NBER Working Papers 28816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Omar Al‐Ubaydli & Steffen Andersen & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2015. "Carrots That Look Like Sticks: Toward an Understanding of Multitasking Incentive Schemes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 538-561, January.
    3. Brian Gill, 2022. "What Should The Future Of Educational Accountability Look Like?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1232-1239, September.
    4. Dennis Epple & Richard E. Romano & Miguel Urquiola, 2017. "School Vouchers: A Survey of the Economics Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(2), pages 441-492, June.
    5. Esteban M. Aucejo & Patrick Coate & Jane Cooley Fruehwirth & Sean Kelly & Zachary Mozenter, 2018. "Teacher effectiveness and classroom composition," CEP Discussion Papers dp1574, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. Stephen Gibbons & Shqiponja Telhaj, 2016. "Peer Effects: Evidence from Secondary School Transition in England," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(4), pages 548-575, August.
    7. Johnston, Jamie & Ksoll, Christopher, 2022. "Effectiveness of interactive satellite-transmitted instruction: Experimental evidence from Ghanaian primary schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. David J. Deming & Sarah Cohodes & Jennifer Jennings & Christopher Jencks, 2016. "School Accountability, Postsecondary Attainment, and Earnings," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(5), pages 848-862, December.
    9. Samuel Berlinski & Norbert Schady, 2015. "Daycare Services: It’s All about Quality," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Samuel Berlinski & Norbert Schady (ed.), The Early Years, chapter 4, pages 91-119, Palgrave Macmillan.
    10. Silva, Olmo, 2009. "Some Remarks on the Effectiveness of Primary Education Interventions," IZA Policy Papers 5, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Heather Antecol & Ozkan Eren & Serkan Ozbeklik, 2016. "Peer Effects in Disadvantaged Primary Schools: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(1), pages 95-132.
    12. M. Caridad Araujo & Pedro Carneiro & Yyannú Cruz-Aguayo & Norbert Schady, 2016. "Teacher Quality and Learning Outcomes in Kindergarten," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(3), pages 1415-1453.
    13. Esteban M. Aucejo & Teresa Romano & Eric S. Taylor, 2019. "Does evaluation distort teacher effort and decisions? Quasi-experimental evidence from a policy of retesting students," CEP Discussion Papers dp1612, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Bau, Natalie, 2019. "Estimating an Equilibrium Model of Horizontal Competition in Education," CEPR Discussion Papers 13924, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Santiago Pereda Fernández, 2016. "A new method for the correction of test scores manipulation," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1047, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    16. Mookerjee, Sulagna & Slichter, David, 2023. "Test scores, schools, and the geography of economic opportunity," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    17. Stephen L. Ross, 2009. "Social Interactions within Cities: Neighborhood Environments and Peer Relationships," Working papers 2009-31, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    18. Larissa Zierow, 2017. "Economic Perspectives on the Implications of Public Child Care and Schooling for Educational Outcomes in Childhood and Adult Life," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 76, October.
    19. Dimant, Eugen, 2019. "Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-88.
    20. Yang, Liu & Zhang, Lei, 2024. "Online teaching, gender differences and education outcomes: Evidence from Chinese urban high schools during the COVID-19," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 534-553.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21835. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.