Download Schooling, learning and the promise of education and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Science education in PDF only on Docsity!
38 | World Development Report 2018
Education is a basic human right, and it is central to
unlocking human capabilities. It also has tremendous
instrumental value. Education raises human capital,
productivity, incomes, employability, and economic
growth. But its benefits go far beyond these mon-
etary gains: education also makes people healthier
and gives them more control over their lives. And it
generates trust, boosts social capital, and creates insti-
tutions that promote inclusion and shared prosperity.
Education as freedom
Since 1948, education has been recognized as a basic
human right, highlighting its role as a safeguard for
human dignity and a foundation of freedom, justice,
and peace. 1 In the language of Amartya Sen’s capabil-
ity approach, education increases both an individual’s
assets and his or her ability to transform them into
well-being—or what has been called the individual’s
“beings and doings” and “capabilities.”^2 Education can
have corresponding salutary effects on communities
and societies.
Education expands freedom through many
channels, both raising aspirations and increasing
the potential to reach them. These benefits are both
monetary and nonmonetary for individuals, families,
communities, and society as a whole (table 1.1).
Most people—whether policy makers or parents—
already recognize the great value of education.^3
Families around the world make great sacrifices to
keep their children in good schools, and political and
opinion leaders consistently rank education among
their top development priorities. For that reason, this
chapter does not try to review all the evidence on the
benefits of education. But before launching into the
main theme of this Report—the learning crisis and
what to do about it—it is worth surveying briefly
the many ways in which education can contribute
to progress, highlighting that these benefits often
depend on learning, not just schooling. 4
Education improves
individual freedoms
Education improves economic opportunities
Education is a powerful tool for raising incomes.
Education makes workers more productive by giving
Schooling, learning, and
the promise of education
“ No one has yet realized the wealth of sympathy, the kindness and generosity
hidden in the soul of a child. The effort of every true education should be to unlock that treasure.”
EMMA GOLDMAN
“ In the long run, the best way to reduce inequalities with respect to labor as well as
to increase the average productivity of the labor force and the overall growth of the economy is surely to invest in education.”
THOMAS PIKETTY, CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 39
less educated workers to lose their jobs, and if they do
they are more likely to find another job. Educated work-
ers are more attached to the firms they work for. They
are also more effective at acquiring and processing
job search information.^8 Research in Finland and the
United States finds that more schooling makes it eas-
ier for unemployed people to find reemployment.^9 In
less developed economies with large informal sectors
and underemployment, education is associated with
greater access to full-time jobs in the formal sector.^10
Education leads to longer lives and
enables better life choices
Education promotes longer, healthier lives. Around
the world, there are strong links among education,
them the skills that allow them to increase their out-
put.^5 Each additional year of schooling typically raises
an individual’s earnings by 8–10 percent, with larger
increases for women (figure 1.1). 6 This is not just
because higher-ability or better-connected people
(who would earn more regardless of their schooling)
receive more education, as proposed by the signaling
model of education. “Natural experiments” from a
wide variety of countries—such as Honduras, Indo-
nesia, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the
United States—prove that schooling does drive the
increased earnings (box 1.1). 7
In well-functioning labor markets, education
reduces the likelihood of unemployment. In these
economies, high school graduates are less likely than
Table 1.1 Examples of education’s benefits
Individual/family Community/society Monetary Higher probability of employment Greater productivity Higher earnings Reduced poverty
Higher productivity More rapid economic growth Poverty reduction Long-run development
Nonmonetary Better health Improved education and health of children/family Greater resilience and adaptability More engaged citizenship Better choices Greater life satisfaction
Increased social mobility Better-functioning institutions/service delivery Higher levels of civic engagement Greater social cohesion Reduced negative externalities
Source: WDR 2018 team.
Figure 1.1 More schooling is systematically associated with higher wages
Median percentage increase in wages associated with each additional year of schooling, by country group and gender
Source: WDR 2018 team, using data from Montenegro and Patrinos (2017). Data at http://bit.do/WDR2018-Fig_1-1.
Note: Figure is based on the latest available data, 1992–2012. Regions do not include high-income countries.
0
4
8
12
16
Percent
Female Male
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America and the Caribbean
East Asia and Pacific
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia Europe and Central Asia
High-income countries
World
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 41
mortality.^28 Improvements in women’s education have
been linked to better health outcomes for their children
in many countries, including Brazil, Nepal, Pakistan,
and Senegal.^29 Parental schooling robustly predicts
higher educational attainment for children, even after
controlling for other factors. And children’s ability
to benefit from education is shaped by their parents’
education. In the United States, each additional year
of a mother’s schooling increases her children’s math
test scores by 0.1 standard deviation and significantly
reduces behavioral problems.^30 In Pakistan, mothers
who have one more year of schooling have children
who spend an additional hour a day studying at home.^31
Education’s benefits are especially apparent in
changing environments. Individuals with stronger
skills can take better advantage of new technologies and
adapt to changing work. Indeed, experts on technolog-
ical change have long argued that the more volatile the
state of technology, the more productive education is.^32
Returns to primary schooling in India increased during
the Green Revolution, with the more educated farmers
adopting and diffusing new technologies.^33 More gen-
erally, globalization and advances in technology are
putting a premium on education and skills—both cog-
nitive and socioemotional (see spotlight 5). New skills
facilitate the adoption of technologies and promote
innovation,^34 with general skills enabling individu-
als to adapt to the economic changes that occur over
their lifetimes.^35 When the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) increased labor productivity in
Mexico, the benefits were concentrated among more-
skilled workers in the richer northern states.^36 In gen-
eral, returns to education are higher in economically
free countries with institutions that allow individuals
to adjust to shocks and market forces.^37
Education benefits all of
society
Education builds human capital, which translates
into economic growth. If improvements are faster
among the disadvantaged, the additional growth will
reduce poverty, reduce inequality, and promote social
mobility. Through its effect on civic agency—mean-
ing high levels of political engagement, trust, and
tolerance—education can create the building blocks
for more inclusive institutions.^38 Greater civic agency
can create a political constituency for inclusive insti-
tutions, strengthening the social contract between
the state and its citizens. A more engaged citizenry
can also provide political support for the reforms
needed to realize the promise of education.
independent effect as well: the effects on crime
and fertility, for example, are not contingent only
on income. Schooling reduces most types of crime
committed by adults,^17 as well as crime during late
adolescence.^18 Among 16- and 17-year-olds in the
United Kingdom, school dropouts are three times
more likely to commit crimes than those who have
stayed in school, and this gap remains well into their
early 20s. In Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the
United States, completing high school makes youth
less likely to commit crimes, and education is linked
with lower crime rates elsewhere—such as in Mexico,
where high school dropouts were more caught up in
the violence of the war on drugs. 19
As for fertility, education reduces teen pregnancy
and increases the control that women have over the
size of their families. Schooling reduces teenage
pregnancy indirectly by increasing girls’ aspirations,
empowerment, and agency. In Turkey, primary
school completion induced by a change in compul-
sory schooling laws—allowing research to isolate
the causal effects—reduced teenage fertility by 0.
children per woman. 20 School subsidies reduced teen
pregnancy (and in some cases school dropout) in Bra-
zil, Colombia, Kenya, Malawi, and Peru. 21 More gener-
ally, women with more schooling have lower fertility
rates. In Brazil, increased schooling among young
women explains 40–80 percent of the decline in
the fertility rate that began in the late 1960s. 22 When
school coverage expanded in Nigeria, each additional
year of female schooling reduced fertility by at least
0.26 births per woman.^23 One reason may be that edu-
cated women earn more, making it costlier for them
to leave the labor market. 24 Education also increases
women’s use of contraception, increases their role in
family decisions on fertility, and makes them more
aware of the trade-offs in having children. 25
The benefits of education are long-lasting
Education can eliminate poverty in families. The
incomes of parents and their children are highly
correlated: income inequality persists, and poverty
is transmitted from one generation to the next.^26 But
improving education gives poor children a boost: in the
United States, the children of households that moved
to a (one standard deviation) better neighborhood
had incomes as adults that were more than 10 percent
higher, in part because the move improved learning.^27
Better-educated mothers raise healthier and more
educated children. Women’s education is linked to
many health benefits for their children, from higher
immunization rates to better nutrition to lower
42 | World Development Report 2018
for all children early on, followed by expansion of
high-quality secondary and tertiary opportunities.^46
These cases reinforce the idea that strong founda-
tional skills drive growth early in development, but
also that as countries approach the global technologi-
cal frontier, they need to invest more in higher educa-
tion and in research and development. 47
As education coverage expands, poor people typ-
ically benefit the most at the margin, and so income
inequality should fall.^48 A review of more than 60
studies reveals that greater education coverage is
associated with substantial reductions in the income
gap between households across the income distribu-
tion. Specifically, going from a primary enrollment
rate of 50 to 100 percent is associated with an 8 per-
centage point increase in the share of income going
to households in the poorest decile.^49
Education creates the building blocks for
inclusive institutions
Education strengthens the political development of
nations by promoting the civic engagement of their
populations.^50 People with more education consistently
participate more in political activities than those with
less education: education increases awareness and
understanding of political issues, fosters the socializa-
tion needed for effective political activity, and increases
civic skills.^51 Evidence from a variety of settings shows
that this relationship is causal.^52 In the United States,
getting more education—for example, as a result of pre-
school programs, high school scholarships, or smaller
class sizes—leads people to vote more often (table 1.2).^53
Using changes in compulsory school laws to identify
the causal impact of education confirms these findings
for the United Kingdom and the United States, while
using access to community college or changes in child
labor laws does so for the United States.^54 In Benin,
receiving more education made people more politically
active over their lifetimes. In Nigeria, too, educational
Education promotes economic growth
At the national level, education underpins growth.
Human capital can boost growth in two ways: first,
by improving the capacity to absorb and adapt new
technology, which will affect short- to medium-term
growth, and, second, by catalyzing the technological
advances that drive sustained long-term growth. 39
Widespread basic education may provide a bigger
boost for countries far from the global technological
frontier—a group that includes most low- and middle-
income countries. 40 These countries do not need to
push that frontier out through innovation, but they
do need widespread basic education to absorb and
adapt the technologies that are already available glob-
ally. In countries close to the technological frontier,
mainly high-income countries, higher levels of educa-
tion can boost growth through innovation. 41 Although
data limitations make empirical analysis of this rela-
tionship challenging, many influential studies have
concluded that higher levels of education do drive
more rapid growth. 42 Growth accounting analyses
also suggest that education can explain a significant
share of growth—a share that may be even larger if
unskilled workers are more productive when there
are more skilled workers in an economy. 43
But this statistical evidence is not the only—or
even the most compelling—evidence on the impact of
education on growth. Countries that have sustained
rapid growth over decades have typically shown a
strong public commitment to expanding education,
as well as infrastructure and health.^44 Although the
relationship flows the other way as well—in that
rapid growth allows greater investment in all three
sectors—research on the East Asian miracle coun-
tries in particular flags education and human capital
as factors in their rapid growth.^45 Countries such as
the Republic of Korea reaped the benefits of their
“progressive universalism” approach to education,
in which they ensured high-quality basic education
Table 1.2 More schooling leads to more voting Percent
Graduated from high school Voted Program Control Treatment Control Treatment Perry Preschool experiment 44 65 13 18 “I Have a Dream” scholarships 62 79 32 42 STAR Experiment 85 90 42 47
Source: Sondheimer and Green (2010).
Note: The Perry Preschool experiment was an intensive effort to enroll children from low-income families in preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The “I Have a Dream” scholarships were high school scholarships targeted to fifth-grade students who qualified (because of their family’s poverty status) for free or reduced-price lunch in Lafayette, Colorado. The STAR Experiment assigned some students in kindergarten through grade 3 in Tennessee to smaller class sizes. The measure of voting differs across the studies, but corresponds to a time between 2000 and 2004 when the participants would have already graduated from high school.
44 | World Development Report 2018
the economy and society (box 1.2). Another problem is
that if an education system is managed poorly, it can
promote social “bads” instead of social “goods.” First,
education can deepen cleavages between favored
and disadvantaged groups. Young people from poor,
rural, and otherwise disadvantaged households not
only complete less schooling, but also learn much
Learning and the promise of
education
Education can be a powerful tool for individual and
societal empowerment, but its benefits are not auto-
matic. It is not just that education cannot do it alone,
in that much also has to go right in other sectors of
Box 1.2 Education can’t do it alone
Economics, politics, and society shape the returns to educa-
tion. Education systems do not function in a vacuum; they
are part of broader economic, political, and social institu-
tions. For example, does a society uphold property rights?
If not, entrepreneurs are unlikely to invest in risky new ven-
tures, which cuts into job creation and reduces education’s
returns in the labor market. Are there regulations to pre-
vent fraud? If not, those with education might find it more
profitable to engage in socially unproductive but financially
remunerative activities. Are women restricted from working
outside the home? If so, the economic returns from educa-
tion will be unavailable to them. These are all examples of
how formal or informal institutions influence education’s
returns. In general, reliable institutions that implement the
rule of law, reduce corruption, and protect property rights
are associated with higher returns to human capital. a
Here are several examples of how problems elsewhere
in the economy or society reduce education’s returns:
Low demand for educated labor reduces the return to
skills. Education’s returns depend on the interplay between
demand and supply forces in the labor market. If the
demand for educated labor is low relative to supply, then
the returns to education will be low or declining. b^ In urban
China, the returns to education rose from 4 percent a year
of schooling in 1988 to 10 percent in 2001, with most of the
increase attributable to institutional reforms that increased
the demand for skilled labor. c^ More generally, shifts from
planned to market economies have increased the returns
to human capital. d^ When the investment climate is poor, e
both investment and demand for labor by private firms are
lower, reducing the returns to education. f
Countries can incentivize the wrong things. Many edu-
cated youth in parts of the developing world queue for
jobs in already large public sectors. In several countries,
political candidates compete in terms of their ability to
offer patronage or public employment to their supporters. g
In several North African countries, for example, it was not
uncommon in the past for governments to guarantee public
employment opportunities for all university graduates, and
the public sector remains the employer of a large share
of wage earners. h^ In such situations, individual returns to
education might be high (for those who land public sector
jobs), but the impact of education on growth will be low
because improved cognitive skills are not used in ways that
will increase productivity the most. i
Discriminatory norms distort the benefits of education.
Prevailing norms on ethnic or gender discrimination can
strongly mediate the returns to education for these groups. In
many societies, social norms severely restrict women’s access
to economic opportunities. j^ Two studies found that nearly 90
percent of women in northern India (from the state of Uttar
Pradesh) and Nigeria (of Hausa ethnicity) felt they needed
their husband’s permission to work. But norms vary substan-
tially: in the Ethiopian capital, this share was only 28 percent.k
Such norms do not always operate through open dis-
crimination. Labor market segregation along occupational
and social lines is often covert. Occupational gender seg-
regation is a strong feature of many labor markets across
the world. l^ In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries, women dominate the ser-
vice sector, whereas men are overrepresented in industry. m
In addition to horizontal segregation, women also face a
“glass ceiling” or “vertical segregation” because they do not
advance in their careers as fast or as far as men. In OECD
countries, just a third of managers were women in 2013, with
small variations across countries. n^ Labor market segregation
may also exist along socioeconomic lines.o^ In the 1960s and
1970s, during a period of rapid economic growth in Chile,
education was significant in determining occupational
attainment for the middle class. For the upper class and the
very poor, education was less important, and intergenera-
tional status inheritance was much more likely. p^ In Jamaica,
a country with a rigid class structure, the massive expansion
of educational opportunities at the secondary level did little
to increase the permeability of social structure.q
The very people who are constrained by social norms
may become complicit in perpetuating them. A study of stu-
dents newly admitted to an elite master’s in business admin-
istration (MBA) program in the United States found that
single women reported lower desired compensation when
they believed their classmates would see their responses.
No such differences were observed for men or for women
(Box continues next page)
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 45
less while in school (see part II of this Report). In such
cases, education does little to enhance social mobility.
Second, leaders sometimes abuse education systems
for political ends and in ways that reinforce autocracy
or the social exclusion of certain groups.
Finally, schooling is not the same as learning. Edu-
cation is an imprecise word, and so it must be clearly
defined. Schooling is the time a student spends in
classrooms, whereas learning is the outcome—what
the student takes away from schooling. This distinc-
tion is crucial: around the world, many students learn
little (figure 1.4). To be sure, many students learn
something, even in settings facing huge challenges.
And students enjoy some benefits from education
regardless of whether they are learning. When schools
serve as oases of security in violent areas, or when
participation in schooling keeps adolescent girls from
becoming pregnant, these are real societal benefits.
When graduates can use their degrees to open doors
to employment, that opportunity changes their lives,
even when the degree represents less learning than
it should.
Intuitively, many of education’s benefits depend on
the skills that students develop in school. As workers,
Box 1.2 Education can’t do it alone (continued)
Source: WDR 2018 team. a. World Bank (2011). b. Pritchett (2001). c. Zhang and others (2005). d. Nee and Matthews (1996). e. World Bank (2012). f. Almeida and Carneiro (2005); Besley and Burgess (2004); Botero and others (2004); Djankov and others (2002); Haltiwanger, Scarpetta, and Schweiger (2008); Klapper, Laeven, and Rajan (2004); Micco and Pagés (2007); Petrin and Sivadasan (2006). g. Cammett (2009); Kao (2012); Lust-Okar (2009); Sakai, Jabar, and Dawod (2001). h. Bteddini (2016); Egypt Census, 2006, Egypt Data Portal, Central Agency for Public Mobilizations and Statistics, Cairo, http://egypt.opendatafor africa.org/EGSNS2006/egypt-census-2006; Ghafar (2016). i. Pritchett (2001). j. Chiswick (1988); Goldin and Polachek (1987); McNabb and Psacha- ropoulos (1981); World Bank (2011).
k. World Bank (2011). l. Hegewisch and Hartmann (2014). m. OECD Employment Statistics Database, http://stats.oecd.org. n. OECD Family Database, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database .htm. o. First described by Blau and Duncan (1967). p. Farrell and Schiefelbein (1985). q. Strudwick and Foster (1991). r. Bursztyn, Fujiwara, and Pallais (2017). s. Jha and Kelleher (2006). t. Granovetter (1995). u. Beaman and Magruder (2012). v. Filmer and Fox (2014). w. Assaad (1997); Barsoum (2004); Brixi, Lust, and Woolcock (2015). x. Munshi (2003).
who were not single, suggesting that single women were
reluctant to signal personality traits, such as ambition, that
they perceived to be undesirable in the marriage market. r
Social norms can operate in much the same way to inhibit
male access to opportunities. Case studies in Australia and
Jamaica suggest that underachievement among boys is
linked to notions of education being a “feminized” realm
that clashes with expectations of “masculine” behavior. s
When getting a job depends on informal institutions,
education is less useful. t^ In Kolkata (formerly Calcutta), India,
45 percent of employees reported that they helped a
friend or relative get a job with their current employer. u
Nearly 60 percent of enterprises surveyed in 14 countries
in Sub-Saharan Africa report that their most recent position
was filled through contacts with “family/friends.” v^ This
finding applies as well to places where labor markets are
segmented by kinship and socioeconomic class.w^ Informal
networks can also be particularly important for certain
subpopulations—for example, among Mexican migrants in
the United States. x
Source: Kaffenberger and Pritchett (2017). Data at http://bit.do/WDR2018-Fig_1-4. Note: Literacy is defined as being able to read a three-sentence passage either “fluently without help” or “well but with a little help.”
Figure 1.4 Learning varies widely across countries; in 6 of the 10 countries assessed, only half or fewer of primary completers can read
Literacy rates at successive education levels, selected countries
No formal education
Some primary
Completed primary
Some secondary
Completed secondary
Some or completed tertiary
0
25
50
75
100
Percent
Highest level of educational attainment
Bangladesh Kenya
Indonesia Ghana India Nigeria Pakistan
Rwanda Tanzania Uganda
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 47
such as “Parents love their children” or “Farming is
hard work.” Yet even these highly imperfect mea-
sures of skills have considerable predictive and
explanatory power. If better measures of skills were
available, skills would likely explain even more of the
impacts of education—and the role remaining for the
simple schooling measure (which typically retains
predictive power in these analyses) would be further
diminished.
Finally, learning promotes social mobility. The
research cited earlier on intergenerational social
mobility in the United States also investigated which
educational mechanisms were responsible. One can-
didate is school quality based on inputs, such as school
spending and class size, and these measures did have
some predictive power. But learning outcomes turn
out to be especially important: the test scores of the
community in which a child lives (adjusted for the
income of that community) are among the strongest
predictors of social mobility later in life.^77
The literature on the benefits of learning is still
growing, with much more research needed. But both
common sense and the emerging research literature
make it clear that if investigators care about the ben-
efits of education, they should focus on whether stu-
dents are learning—not just on how well schools are
equipped or even how long students stay in school.
Part II of this Report takes up this issue.
had acquired more schooling but not more literacy—
which was common in these countries—financial
behaviors did not change. Socioemotional skills
matter as well: various measures have been shown
to significantly predict earnings over and above the
effects of schooling and cognitive skills.^74
Learning matters for health, too. Numerous stud-
ies have documented the benefits of girls’ schooling
on outcomes such as lower fertility or better child sur-
vival, but these studies do not typically distinguish
between learning and schooling. There are excep-
tions, however. In Morocco, research showed that
maternal education improved child health through
its effects on the ability of mothers to acquire health
knowledge.^75 Globally, data from 48 developing coun-
tries show that learning is responsible for much of
these gains. Each additional year of female primary
schooling is associated with roughly six fewer deaths
per 1,000 live births, but the effect is about two-thirds
larger in the countries where schooling delivers the
most learning (compared with the least).^76
Even limited measures of skills explain a lot. The
measures used in the studies just noted are often
narrow, capturing only simple numeracy or reading
proficiency. Sometimes, the measures are coarse. For
example, the 48-country study of the relationship
between schooling and health uses as its measure of
literacy whether a woman can read a single sentence
Figure 1.6 Increasing learning would yield major economic benefits
Simulated additional GDP between 2015 and 2090 attributable to increased learning (relative to current GDP), by scenario, selected countries
Source: OECD (2010). Data at http://bit.do/WDR2018-Fig_1-6.
Note: PISA = Programme for International Student Assessment.
0
500
1,
1,
2,
2,
Percent of current GDP
Bring all test takers to a minimum of 400 points on PISA Bring each country average to the Finnish average of 546 points on PISA
MexicoTurkeyGreecePortugal
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
United States
PolandNorway
Slovak Republic
OECD
HungaryDenmarkGermanyIceland FranceIrelandSwedenAustria Switzerland
Belgium
Czech RepublicUnited Kingdom
Australia New Zealand
Canada Netherlands
Japan Korea, Rep.
Finland
48 | World Development Report 2018
Box 1.3 Comparing attainment across countries and economies—
learning-adjusted years of schooling
A given number of years in school leads to much more
learning in some economies than in others. Because they
do not account for these differences, standard compari-
sons of schooling attainment may be misleading. But how
should they be adjusted to make meaningful comparisons?
One approach is to draw on measures of student learning
that are standardized across different economies to adjust
for quality. International assessments such as the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
or the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) provide such measures. If one is willing to assume
that the average learning trajectory across economies is
linear—starting at no learning when learners enter school
and growing at a constant rate to grade 8—then the ratio
of scores across two economies would reflect the relative
learning per year in one economy versus the other. For
example, if economy A has twice the score of economy B in
grade 8, then, on average, a year of schooling in economy A
may be considered twice as effective.
Two important facts support the credibility of this
analysis: first, the TIMSS score ratios across economies for
grade 4 are similar to those for grade 8; and second, PISA
scores tend to increase linearly across the grades in which
that test is administered.
What might such an adjustment reveal? An illustration
using TIMSS math scores from 2015 confirms that years of
schooling are indeed very different from learning-adjusted
years, and this difference varies a lot across economies.
Whereas people ages 25–29 in Hong Kong SAR, China, and
the United States have similar average years of schooling
(14 and 13.5, respectively), the number of learning-adjusted
schooling years in the United States is almost two years less
(figure B1.3.1). And whereas young Singaporeans have only
30 percent more schooling than young Jordanians by the
standard measure, the learning-adjusted measure shows
Singapore outpaces Jordan by 109 percent in effective
schooling years.
Source: WDR 2018 team, using data from Barro and Lee (2013) and TIMSS 2015 (Mullis and others 2016). Data at http://bit.do/WDR2018-Fig_B1-3-1.
Note: Years of schooling in Singapore are the same as learning-adjusted years because Singapore, which scored highest on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) mathematics assessment in 2015, serves as the basis for comparison in this illustration. For the purposes of this illustration, data for years of education in the United Kingdom are adjusted using the TIMSS score for England. Note that for all countries and economies, the size of the adjustment will reflect the scale of the metric used to make it.
Figure B1.3.1 There can be a large gap between learning-adjusted and
unadjusted years of schooling
Years of actual and learning-adjusted schooling among young people, ages 25–29, illustrated using TIMSS data
3
0
Korea, Rep. Singapore
Hong Kong SAR, China
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
IsraelJapan Malta HungaryIreland Malaysia Slovenia
Italy Australia Sweden
Russian Federation
Chile Lithuania Kazakhstan New Zealand
Jordan South Africa Botswana Norway Thailand Egypt, Arab Rep.Iran, Islamic Rep.
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain Kuwait Qatar Turkey Morocco
6
9
12
15
Number of years
Actual years Learning-adjusted years
50 | World Development Report 2018
Baird, Sarah Jane, Ephraim Chirwa, Craig McIntosh, and Berk Özler. 2010. “The Short-Term Impacts of a Schooling Conditional Cash Transfer Program on the Sexual Behavior of Young Women.” Health Economics 19 (S1): 55–68. Barro, Robert J. 2001. “Human Capital and Growth.” American Economic Review 91 (2): 12–17. ————. 2013. “Education and Economic Growth.” Annals of Economics and Finance 14 (2): 301–28. Barro, Robert J., and Jong Wha Lee. 2013. “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010.” Journal of Development Economics 104: 184–98. Barsoum, Ghada F. 2004. “The Employment Crisis of Female Graduates in Egypt: An Ethnographic Account.” Cairo Papers 25 (3). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Beaman, Lori, and Jeremy Magruder. 2012. “Who Gets the Job Referral? Evidence from a Social Networks Experi- ment.” American Economic Review 102 (7): 3574–93. Becker, Gary. 1964. Human Capital. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press. Becker, Sashca O., Francesco Cinnirella, and Ludger Woess- mann. 2013. “Does Women’s Education Affect Fertility? Evidence from Pre-demographic Transition Prussia.” European Review of Economic History 17 (1): 24–44. Bedi, A. S., and N. Gaston. 1999. “Using Variation in School- ing Availability to Estimate Educational Returns for Honduras.” Economics of Education Review 18 (1): 107–16. Belfield, Clive R., Milagros Nores, Steve Barnett, and Law- rence Schweinhart. 2006. “The High/Scope Perry Pre- school Program Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Data from the Age-40 Followup.” Journal of Human Resources 41 (1): 162–90. Besley, Timothy J., and Robin S. L. Burgess. 2004. “Can Labour Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evi- dence from India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 91–134. Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley. Blimpo, Moussa P., David K. Evans, and Nathalie Lahire.
- “Parental Human Capital and Effective School Management.” Policy Research Working Paper 7238, World Bank, Washington, DC. Borgonovi, Francesca, and Tracey Burns. 2015. “The Educa- tional Roots of Trust.” OECD Education Working Paper 119, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment, Paris. Bosworth, Barry P., and Susan M. Collins. 2003. “The Empir- ics of Growth: An Update.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 113–79. Botero, Juan Carlos, Simeon Djankov, Rafael La Porta, Flor- encio Lopez de Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 2004. “The Regulation of Labor.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (4): 1339–82. Botero, Juan Carlos, Alejandro Ponce, and Andrei Shleifer.
- “Education, Complaints, and Accountability.” Jour- nal of Law and Economics 56 (4): 959–96. Brixi, Hana, Ellen Lust, and Michael Woolcock. 2015. Trust, Voice, and Incentives: Learning from Local Success Stories in
- For OECD countries, see Heckman, Stixrud, and Urzua (2006); Heineck and Anger (2010); Mueller and Plug (2006). For countries outside of OECD, see Díaz, Arias, and Tudela (2012); Valerio and others (2016).
- Glewwe (1999).
- Oye, Pritchett, and Sandefur (2016).
- Chetty and others (2014).
References
Abdullah, Abdul, Hristos Doucouliagos, and Elizabeth Man- ning. 2015. “Does Education Reduce Income Inequality? A Meta-Regression Analysis.” Journal of Economic Surveys 29 (2): 301–16. Acemoglu, Daron, Philippe Aghion, and Fabrizio Zilibotti.
- “Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth.” Journal of the European Economic Association 4 (1): 37–74. Acemoglu, Daron, and Alexander Wolitzky. 2011. “The Eco- nomics of Labor Coercion.” Econometrica 79 (2): 555–600. Aghion, Philippe. 2009. “Growth and Education.” Working Paper 56, Commission on Growth and Development, World Bank, Washington, DC. Aghion, Philippe, Leah Boustan, Caroline Hoxby, and Jerome Vandenbussche. 2009. “The Causal Impact of Education on Economic Growth: Evidence from U.S.” Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Aghion, Philippe, and Peter Howitt. 2006. “Joseph Schum- peter Lecture Appropriate Growth Policy: A Unifying Framework.” Journal of the European Economic Association 4 (2–3): 269–314. Algan, Yann, Pierre Cahuc, and Andrei Shleifer. 2013. “Teach- ing Practices and Social Capital.” American Economic Jour- nal: Applied Economics 5 (3): 189–210. Almeida, Rita, and Pedro Manuel Carneiro. 2005. “Enforce- ment of Regulation, Informal Labor, and Firm Perfor- mance.” IZA Discussion Paper 1759, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany. Anderson, D. Mark. 2014. “In School and Out of Trouble? The Minimum Dropout Age and Juvenile Crime.” Review of Economics and Statistics 96 (2): 318–31. Andrabi, Tahir, Jishnu Das, and Asim Ijaz Khwaja. 2012. “What Did You Do All Day? Maternal Education and Child Out- comes.” Journal of Human Resources 47 (4): 873–912. Angrist, J. D., and A. B. Krueger. 1992. “Estimating the Payoff to Schooling Using the Vietnam-Era Draft Lottery.” NBER Working Paper w4067, National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research, Cambridge, MA. Assaad, Ragui. 1997. “Kinship Ties, Social Networks, and Seg- mented Labor Markets: Evidence from the Construction Sector in Egypt.” Journal of Development Economics 52 (1): 1–30. Azevedo, João Pedro, Marta Favara, Sarah E. Haddock, Luis F. López-Calva, Miriam Müller, and Elizaveta Perova. 2012. Teenage Pregnancy and Opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean: On Teenage Fertility Decisions, Poverty, and Eco- nomic Achievement. Report 83167 v2 rev. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 51
Commission on Growth and Development. 2008. The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Develop- ment. Washington, DC: World Bank. Cullen, Julie Berry, Brian A. Jacob, and Steven Levitt. 2006. “The Effect of School Choice on Participants: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries.” Econometrica 74 (5): 1191–1230. Cutler, David M., and Adriana Lleras-Muney. 2007. “Educa- tion and Health.” Policy Brief 9, National Poverty Center, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Cutler, David M., Adriana Lleras-Muney, and Tom Vogl.
- “Socioeconomic Status and Health: Dimensions and Mechanisms.” NBER Working Paper 14333, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Dahl, Robert A. 1998. On Democracy. Yale Nota Bene Series. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Davies, Lynn. 2004. Education and Conflict: Complexity and Chaos. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Dee, Thomas S. 2004. “Are There Civic Returns to Educa- tion?” Journal of Public Economics 88 (9–10): 1697–1720. de Hoyos, Rafael E., Ricardo Estrada, and María José Vargas.
- “Predicting Well-Being through Test Scores.” World Bank, Washington, DC. de Hoyos, Rafael E., Carlos Gutiérrez Fierros, and J. Vicente Vargas M. 2016. “Idle Youth in Mexico: Trapped between the War on Drugs and Economic Crisis.” Policy Research Working Paper 7558, World Bank, Washington, DC. de la Brière, Bénédicte, Deon Filmer, Dena Ringold, Dominic Rohner, Karelle Samuda, and Anastasiya Denisova. 2017. From Mines and Wells to Well-Built Minds: Turning Sub- Saharan Africa’s Natural Resource Wealth into Human Capital. Directions in Development: Human Develop- ment Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. de Walque, Damien. 2007a. “Does Education Affect Smoking Behaviors? Evidence Using the Vietnam Draft as an Instrument for College Education.” Journal of Health Economics 26 (5): 877–95. ————. 2007b. “How Does the Impact of an HIV/AIDS Infor- mation Campaign Vary with Educational Attainment? Evidence from Rural Uganda.” Journal of Development Economics 84 (2): 686–714. Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan. Díaz, Juan José, Omar Arias, and David Vera Tudela. 2012. “Does Perseverance Pay as Much as Being Smart? The Returns to Cognitive and Non-cognitive Skills in Urban Peru.” Working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC. Djankov, Simeon, Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de- Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 2002. “The Regulation of Entry.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (1): 1–37. Duflo, Esther. 2000. “Schooling and Labor Market Conse- quences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment.” NBER Working Paper wp7860, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Duflo, Esther, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. 2014. “Education, HIV, and Early Fertility: Experimental
Service Delivery in the Middle East and North Africa. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. Bteddini, Lida. 2016. “Middle East and North Africa: Public Employment and Governance in MENA.” Report ACS18501, World Bank, Washington, DC. Bursztyn, Leonardo, Thomas Fujiwara, and Amanda Pallais.
- “ ‘Acting Wife’: Marriage Market Incentives and Labor Market Investments.” NBER Working Paper 23043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Cammett, Melani. 2009. “Democracy, Lebanese-Style.” MER: Middle East Report Online (August 18). http://www.merip .org/mero/mero081809. Campante, Filipe R., and Davin Chor. 2012. “Schooling, Polit- ical Participation, and the Economy.” Review of Economics and Statistics 94 (4): 841–59. Campbell, David E. 2006. “What Is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement?” In Measuring the Effects of Education on Health and Civic Engagement: Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium , 25–126. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Card, D. 1993. “Using Geographic Variation in College Proximity to Estimate the Return to Schooling.” NBER Working Paper wp4438, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Carneiro, Pedro, Costas Meghir, and Matthias Parey. 2013. “Maternal Education, Home Environments, and the Development of Children and Adolescents.” Journal of the European Economic Association 11 (S1): 123–60. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Economic Review 106 (4): 855–902. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emman- uel Saez. 2014. “Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (4): 1553–1623. Chiswick, Barry R. 1988. “Differences in Education and Earnings across Racial and Ethnic Groups: Tastes, Dis- crimination, and Investments in Child Quality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 103 (3): 571–97. Chong, Alberto, and Mark Gradstein. 2015. “On Education and Democratic Preferences.” Economics and Politics 27 (3): 362–88. Chong, Alberto, Rafael La Porta, Florencia Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer. 2014. “Letter Grading Government Efficiency.” Journal of the European Economic Association 12 (2): 277–99. Chzhen, Yekaterina. 2013. “Education and Democratisation: Tolerance of Diversity, Political Engagement, and Under- standing of Democracy.” Background paper, Report 2014/ ED/EFA/MRT/PI/03, United Nations Educational, Scien- tific, and Cultural Organization, Paris. Cohen, Daniel, and Marcelo Soto. 2007. “Growth and Human Capital: Good Data, Good Results.” Journal of Economic Growth 12 (1): 51–76. Collier, Paul, Anke Hoeffler, and Dominic Rohner. 2009. “Beyond Greed and Grievance: Feasibility and Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers 61 (1): 1–27.
Schooling, learning, and the promise of education | 53
McNabb, Robert, and George Psacharopoulos. 1981. “Racial Earnings Differentials in the UK.” Oxford Economic Papers 33 (3): 413–25. Micco, Alejandro, and Carmen Pagés. 2007. “The Economic Effects of Employment Protection: Evidence from Inter- national Industry-Level Data.” Working Paper 592, Research Department, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Milligan, Kevin, Enrico Moretti, and Philip Oreopolous.
- “Does Education Improve Citizenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (9): 1667–95. Mincer, Jacob. 1991. “Education and Unemployment.” NBER Working Paper 3838, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Moll, Peter G. 1998. “Primary Schooling, Cognitive Skills, and Wages in South Africa.” Economica 65 (258): 263–84. Montenegro, Claudio E., and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2017. “Comparable Estimates of Returns to Schooling around the World.” Policy Research Working Paper 7020, World Bank, Washington, DC. Montez, Jennifer Karas, Robert A. Hummer, and Mark D. Hayward. 2012. “Educational Attainment and Adult Mortality in the United States: A Systematic Analysis of Functional Form.” Demography 49 (1): 315–36. Mueller, Gerrit, and Erik Plug. 2006. “Estimating the Effect of Personality on Male and Female Earnings.” ILR Review 60 (1): 3–22. Mullis, I. V. S., M. O. Martin, P. Foy, and M. Hooper. 2016. “TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics.” TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu /timss2015/international-results/. Munshi, Kaivan. 2003. “Networks in the Modern Economy: Mexican Migrants in the US Labor Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2): 549–99. Nee, Victor, and Rebecca Matthews. 1996. “Market Transi- tion and Societal Transformation in Reforming State Socialism.” Annual Review of Sociology 22 (August): 401–35. Nelson, Richard R., and Edmund S. Phelps. 1966. “Investment in Humans, Technological Diffusion, and Economic Growth.” American Economic Review 56 (1/2): 69–75. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- opment). 2010. “The High Cost of Low Educational Per- formance: The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA Outcomes.” Programme for International Student Assessment, OECD, Paris. Oreopoulos, Philip. 2007. “Do Dropouts Drop Out Too Soon? Wealth, Health, and Happiness from Compulsory Schooling.” Journal of Public Economics 91 (11): 2213–29. Osili, Una Okonkwo, and Bridget Terry Long. 2008. “Does Female Schooling Reduce Fertility? Evidence from Nigeria.” Journal of Development Economics 87 (1): 57–75. Oye, Mari, Lant Pritchett, and Justin Sandefur. 2016. “Girls’ Schooling Is Good, Girls’ Schooling with Learning Is Better.” Education Commission, Center for Global Devel- opment, Washington, DC. Petrin, Amil, and Jagadeesh Sivadasan. 2006. “Job Security Does Affect Economic Efficiency: Theory, a New Statis- tic, and Evidence from Chile.” NBER Working Paper
International Data.” NBER Working Paper 10380, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Krueger, Alan B., and Mikael Lindahl. 2001. “Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?” Journal of Economic Litera- ture 39 (4): 1101–36. Lam, David, Guilherme Sedlacek, and Suzanne Duryea.
- “Increases in Women’s Education and Fertility Decline in Brazil.” Anais do VIII Encontro Nacional de Estu- dos Populacionais , Vol. 1, 89–118. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Associação Brasileira de Estudos Populacionais. Lanjouw, Peter F., and Martin Ravallion. 1999. “Benefit Incidence, Public Spending Reforms, and the Timing of Program Capture.” World Bank Economic Review 15 (2): 257–73. Larreguy, Horacio A., and John Marshall. 2017. “The Effect of Education on Civic and Political Engagement in Non-consolidated Democracies: Evidence from Nigeria.” Review of Economics and Statistics. http://www.mitpress journals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00633. Lavy, Victor, and Alexander Zablotsky. 2011. “Mother’s Schooling and Fertility under Low Female Labor Force Participation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” NBER Working Paper 16856, National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research, Cambridge, MA. Layard, Richard, and George Psacharopoulos. 1974. “The Screening Hypothesis and the Returns to Education.” Journal of Political Economy 82 (5): 985–98. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legiti- macy.” American Political Science Review 53 (01): 69–105. ————. 1960. Political Man: The Social Basis of Modern Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Lochner, Lance. 2004. “Education, Work, and Crime: A Human Capital Approach.” International Economic Review 45 (3): 811–43. Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. 2004. “The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports.” American Economic Review 94 (1): 155–89. Lust-Okar, Ellen. 2009. “Legislative Elections in Hegemonic Authoritarian Regimes: Competitive Clientelism and Resistance to Democratization.” Democratization by Elec- tions: A New Mode of Transition , edited by Staffan I. Lind- berg, 226–45. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Machin, Stephen, Olivier Marie, and Sunčica Vujić. 2011. “The Crime Reducing Effect of Education.” Economic Jour- nal 121 (552): 463–84. Mackenbach, Johan P. 2006. “Health Inequalities: Europe in Profile.” Department of Health, London. Madsen, Jakob B. 2014. “Human Capital and the World Tech- nology Frontier.” Review of Economics and Statistics 96 (4): 676–92. Maluccio, J. 1998. “Endogeneity of Schooling in the Wage Function: Evidence from the Rural Philippines.” Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 54, International Food Policy Research Institute, Wash- ington, DC. Mankiw, N. Gregory, David Romer, and David N. Weil. 1992. “A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 407–37.
54 | World Development Report 2018
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cul- tural Organization). 2016. Global Education Monitoring Report 2016, Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustain- able Futures for All. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco .org/images/0024/002457/245752e.pdf. United Nations. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Document A/RES/3/217 A, New York. Valerio, Alexandria, María Laura Sánchez Puerta, Namrata Raman Tognatta, and Sebastián Monroy-Taborda. 2016. “Are There Skills Payoffs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? Empirical Evidence Using Step Data.” Policy Research Working Paper 7879, World Bank, Washington, DC. Vogl, Tom S. 2012. “Education and Health in Developing Economies.” Working Paper 1453, Research Program in Development Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Prince- ton, NJ. Wantchekon, Leonard, Marko Klasnja, and Natalija Novta.
- “Education and Human Capital Externalities: Evi- dence from Colonial Benin.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 130 (2): 703–57. Welch, Finis. 1970. “Education in Production.” Journal of Political Economy 78 (1): 35–59. World Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. Policy Research Report Series. Washington, DC: World Bank; New York: Oxford University Press. ————. 2011. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. ————. 2012. World Development Report 2013: Jobs. Washington, DC: World Bank. ————. 2017. World Development Indicators (database). World Bank, Washington, DC. http://data.worldbank.org /data-catalog/world-development-indicators. World Values Survey Association. 2015. World Values Survey Wave 6 2010-2014 Official Aggregate V.20150418. King’s College, Old Aberdeen, U.K. http://www.worldvalues survey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp. Younger, Stephen D. 2003. “Benefits on the Margin: Obser- vations on Marginal Benefit Incidence.” World Bank Economic Review 17 (1): 89–106. Zhang, Junsen, Yaohui Zhao, Albert Park, and Xiaoqing Song.
- “Economic Returns to Schooling in Urban China, 1988 to 2001.” Journal of Comparative Economics 33 (4): 730–52.
12757, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cam- bridge, MA. Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes. New York: Viking. Pritchett, Lant. 2001. “Where Has All the Education Gone?” World Bank Economic Review 15 (3): 367–91. Riddell, Craig W., and Xueda Song. 2011. “The Impact of Education on Unemployment Incidence and Re- Employment Success: Evidence from the US Labour Market.” Labour Economics 18 (4): 453–63. Romer, Paul Michael. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98 (5): 71–102. Sakai, Keiko, Faleh Abdul Jabar, and Hosham Dawod. 2001. “Tribalism and the State: Remarks on the Army, Cabinets, and the National Assembly, 1980–1990.” In Tribes and Power: Nationalism and Ethnicity in the Middle East , edited by Faleh Abdul Jabar and Hosham Dawod, 136–64. London: Saqi Books. Schultz, Theodore W. 1975. “The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria.” Journal of Economic Literature 13 (3): 827–46. Sen, Amartya. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland. ————. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press. ————. 2004. “Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continu- ing the Conversation.” Feminist Economics 10 (3): 77–80. Solon, Gary. 1999. “Intergenerational Mobility in the Labor Market.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3A, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, 1761–800. Hand- books in Economics Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Solow, Robert M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 65–94. Sondheimer, Rachel Milstein, and Donald P. Green. 2010. “Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 174–89. Strudwick, Jeremy, and Philip Foster. 1991. “Origins and Des- tinations in Jamaica.” International Journal of Educational Development 11 (2): 149–59. Thomas, Duncan, John Strauss, and Maria-Helena Hen- riques. 1990. “Child Survival, Height for Age, and House- hold Characteristics in Brazil.” Journal of Development Economics 33 (2): 197–234.
