Go to the ID21 home page

Insights
id21 logo ID21 Home
id21 logo Insights
id21 logo Issue #29
Empty desks, empty futures The curse of classroom gender gaps
The culture trap: Reasons why girls drop out in Ghana
-
Getting gender onto the policy agenda
Caribbean enigma: boys achieving badly
Girls, schools and limits to change
-
Does poverty cause gender inequality in schooling?
Gender gap in India's schools
Sites for Sore Eyes
- - -

March 1999 Insights Issue #29

Back to Insights #29

Gender gap in India's schools

Is the labour market a factor?

Like any investment, investments in the education of girls and boys can be judged in terms of relative rates of return. By this yardstick, economic incentives to acquire schooling in India are lower for girls than for boys. But must this statistic weaken the case for promoting education for girls? A University of Oxford study probed these issues. The research findings suggest that campaigns to boost perceptions of the value of women's education and policy changes to curb job and wage discrimination against women in the labour market could help counter this imbalance.

People do not pursue education for its intrinsic worth alone but also for its potential to boost the earning and job prospects of individuals. If the labour market discriminates by rewarding women's education less well than men's education, the expected economic rate of return from educating girls will be lower than that from educating boys. Under such circumstances, even otherwise liberal-minded parents are likely to support education for daughters less than for sons.

Do these results imply that in India there is a weaker efficiency case for promoting education for girls? Not so, considering these estimates measure only private returns to education. Education of girls brings well-known social benefits such as reduced infant mortality and lower birth-rate. Though not quantified these dividends are thought to be substantial. Even so, the decision to enrol and retain a child in school is still essentially a parental decision in countries where primary education is not yet compulsory. In other words, the respective social benefits of schooling for girls vs. boys are not taken into account by parents when making decisions about the education of sons and daughters, whereas private returns are.

Would parents provide equal amounts of education to girls and boys if the expected private rate of return to girls' schooling was equal to or greater than that expected from boys' schooling? Societal norms such as early marriage and the dowry system would still militate against girls' education in South Asia. Moreover, in this and many other developing regions, where social security and state pensions are not generally provided, a male child will still give support to parents in their old age. But any benefits of educating females will be reaped by their in-laws. Such asymmetry in economic incentives for parents is probably a key barrier to equal treatment of sons and daughters, and it would be so even if returns from education for girls vis-à-vis boys were evenly matched. In terms of lessons for policymakers, these observations suggest there may be call for:

  • public awareness campaigns to highlight the value of women's education. The message should be designed to shift conservative parental attitudes towards girls' schooling, on the grounds that many of the dividends of girls' education are non-economic benefits that accrue to the educated girl as well as to society at large, such as lower infant mortality rates
  • steps by government to introduce legislation that bolsters economic incentives for educating girls, by reducing job and wage discrimination against women in the labour market. The signs are that if economic incentives for acquiring education are strong enough, cultural hurdles can be overcome.
HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY PROVIDES A METHOD for estimating economic return to investments in education. Critics argue that it can be unreliable as it ignores differences in family background and in the quality of education individuals receive. It also overlooks bias introduced when earnings are logged only for a selective subset of individuals rather than for all. This type of bias is more likely to affect women’s earnings function than men’s in countries where only a fraction of women (but most men) are in paid employment. When both sources of bias are corrected for, results show that women’s rate of return to education is significantly lower than men’s in India, suggesting that girls face significantly weaker economic incentives to acquire schooling than boys. This gender asymmetry must form a key part of any explanation of gender gaps in schools.

Contributor(s): Geeta Gandhi Kingdon

Further information:
Geeta Gandhi Kingdon
Institute of Economics and Statistics
University of Oxford
Manor Road
Oxford
OX1 3UL
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1865 271065
Fax: +44 (0)1865 281447
Email: geeta.kingdon@economics.ox.ac.uk
Institute of Economics and Statistics

FREE Information Delivery services from ID21:
Get updates by email: ID21 news
ID21 is enabled by the UK Government Department for International Development(www.dfid.gov.uk) and hosted by the Institute of Development Studies (www.ids.ac.uk/ids), at the University of Sussex, UK. Charitable Company No. 877338. ID21 is a oneworld.net (www.oneworld.org) partner and a mediachannel affiliate (www.mediachannel.org).

Top of the page

Views expressed in INSIGHTS are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and
institution(s) are acknowledged.

Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.