IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/9090.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools

Author

Listed:
  • Austan Goolsbee
  • Jonathan Guryan

Abstract

In an effort to alleviate the perceived growth of a digital divide, the U.S. government enacted a major subsidy for Internet and communications investment in schools starting in 1998. The program subsidized spending by 20-90 percent, depending on school characteristics. Using new data on school technology usage in every school in California from 1996 to 2000 as well as application data from the E-Rate program, this paper shows that the subsidy did succeed in significantly increasing Internet investment. The implied first-dollar price elasticity of demand for Internet investment is between -0.9 and -2.2 and the greatest sensitivity shows up among urban schools and schools with large black and Hispanic student populations. Rural and predominantly white and Asian schools show much less sensitivity. Overall, by the final year of the sample, there were about 66 percent more Internet classrooms than there would have been without the subsidy. Using a variety of test score results, however, it is clear that the success of the E-Rate program, at least so far, has been restricted to the increase in access. The increase in Internet connections has had no measurable impact on any measure of student achievement.

Suggested Citation

  • Austan Goolsbee & Jonathan Guryan, 2002. "The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools," NBER Working Papers 9090, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:9090
    Note: PE ED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9090.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-959, July.
    2. Jerry Hausman, 1998. "Taxation by Telecommunications Regulation," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 12, pages 29-48, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Joshua Angrist & Victor Lavy, 2002. "New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 735-765, October.
    4. Eriksson, Ross C & Kaserman, David L & Mayo, John W, 1998. "Targeted and Untargeted Subsidy Schemes: Evidence from Postdivestiture Efforts to Promote Universal Telephone Service," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 477-502, October.
    5. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    6. Wolak, Frank A., 1996. "Can universal service survive in a competitive telecommunications environment? Evidence from the United States consumer expenditure survey," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 163-203, September.
    7. Jerry Hausman, 1998. "Taxation by Telecommunications Regulation," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53052, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ward, Michael R., 2007. "Rural Telecommunications Subsidies Do Not Help," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 37(1), pages 1-3.
    2. Berg, Sanford V. & Jiang, Liangliang & Lin, Chen, 2011. "Incentives for cost shifting and misreporting: US rural universal service subsidies, 1991–2002," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 287-295.
    3. James J. Heckman, 2008. "Econometric Causality," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 76(1), pages 1-27, April.
    4. Luc Arrondel & André Masson, 1989. "Déterminants individuels de la composition du patrimoine : France 1980," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 40(3), pages 441-502.
    5. Noble, Stephanie M. & Lee, Kang Bok & Zaretzki, Russell & Autry, Chad, 2017. "Coupon clipping by impoverished consumers: Linking demographics, basket size, and coupon redemption rates," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 553-571.
    6. Hessami, Zohal & Resnjanskij, Sven, 2019. "Complex ballot propositions, individual voting behavior, and status quo bias," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 82-101.
    7. Moritzen, Mark Raun & Schandlbauer, Alexander, 2020. "The impact of competition and time-to-finance on corporate cash holdings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. Ibáñez, Ana María & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Verwimp, Philip, 2013. "Abandoning Coffee under the Threat of Violence and the Presence of Illicit Crops. Evidence from Colombia," Documentos CEDE Series 161356, Universidad de Los Andes, Economics Department.
    9. Pete Tashman & Jorge Rivera, 2016. "Ecological uncertainty, adaptation, and mitigation in the U.S. ski resort industry: Managing resource dependence and institutional pressures," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1507-1525, July.
    10. Tanna, Sailesh & Luo, Yun & De Vita, Glauco, 2017. "What is the net effect of financial liberalization on bank productivity? A decomposition analysis of bank total factor productivity growth," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 67-78.
    11. James J. Heckman & V. Joseph Hotz & Marcelo Dabos, 1987. "Do We Need Experimental Data To Evaluate the Impact of Manpower Training On Earnings?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 11(4), pages 395-427, August.
    12. DeVaro, Jed & Maxwell, Nan & Morita, Hodaka, 2016. "Compensation and Intrinsic Motivation in Nonprofit and For-Profit Organizations," CEI Working Paper Series 2015-10, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    13. Austan Goolsbee, 2000. "Taxes, High-Income Executives, and the Perils of Revenue Estimation in the New Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 271-275, May.
    14. Daniel Polsky & Anirban Basu, 2012. "Selection Bias in Observational Data," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 46, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Christina Boll & Andreas Lagemann, 2018. "Does Culture Trump Money? Employment and Childcare Use of Migrant and Non-Migrant Mothers of Pre-School Children in Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1015, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Massimiliano Bratti & Alfonso Miranda, 2010. "Endogenous Treatment Effects for Count Data Models with Sample Selection or Endogenous Participation," DoQSS Working Papers 10-05, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, revised 10 Dec 2010.
    17. Ribar, David C., 2004. "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage? A Review of Quantitative Methodologies," IZA Discussion Papers 998, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Jochmans, Koen, 2015. "Multiplicative-error models with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 184(2), pages 315-327.
    19. Shuxi Zeng & Fan Li & Peng Ding, 2020. "Is being an only child harmful to psychological health?: evidence from an instrumental variable analysis of China's one‐child policy," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1615-1635, October.
    20. Rodriguez, Divina Gracia P. & Nga, Nguyen Thi Duong, 2012. "Impacts of Site-Specific Nutrient Management in Irrigated Rice Farms in the Red River Delta, Northern Vietnam," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126759, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    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:9090. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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: (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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.