SOUTH AFRICA: POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN FORMAL DISCUSSION PAPEPR SERIES 19330 February 1999 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Florencia Castro-Leal WORLD BANK COUNTRY DEPARTMENT I AFRICA REGION SOUTH AFRICA: POVERTY AND INEQUALITY IN FORMAL DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES * Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Florencia Castro-Leal, February 1999 * The Impact of Public Health Spending on Poverty and Inequality in South Africa Florencia Castro-Leal, February 1999 * Review of Public Expenditures: Efficiency and Poverty Focus Gurushri Swamy and Richard Ketley, February 1999 * Safety Nets and Income Transfers in South Africa Harold Alderman, February 1999 * Poverty Issues for Zero Rating Value-Added Tax (VAT) in South Africa Harold Alderman and Carlo del Ninno, February 1999 * Violence and Poverty in South Africa: Their Impact on Household Relations and Social Capital Caroline Moser, February 1999 * Women Workers in South Africa: Participation, Pay and Prejudice in the Formal Labor Market Carolyn Winter, February 1999 FOREWORD This paper is one of a series of informal discussion papers on poverty and inequality issues in South Africa, which were produced as contributions to the Poverty and Inequality Report (PIR). The PIR was commissioned by the Deputy President's Office of the Government of the Republic of South Africa (and was published in 1998 by Praxis Publishing, South Africa). As these papers were written at different times over the years 1996-1998, the analysis in each paper covers different periods; however, for ease of reference, they are now being disseminated in one series. A complementary report, which gathers the views of the poor themselves, was written by a team of South Africans and also published by Praxis Publishing. "The Experience and Perceptions of Poverty in South Africa" (1998) gives voice to the poor, who describe what poverty is to them, how they get trapped in it, and how they might escape from it. This study was initiated and funded by the World Bank (through a Dutch Trust Fund) and by the Overseas Development Administration of the U.K. Government. The papers in this series were written under the direction of Ann Duncan (Task Manager) and under the overall guidance of Pamela Cox (Country Director) and Ruth Kagia (Sector Manager). The series was edited by Barbara Koeppel, and the final presentation was managed and executed by Lori Geurts. Country Department I The World Bank February 1999 Copyright 1999 The World Bank 1818 "H' Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20433, U.S.A. This is an informal study by World Bank staff publishedfor discussion purposes. It is not an official World Bank document. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper was written by Florencia Castro-Leal, Economist, PRMPO. The author gratefully acknowledges the support received from Ann Duncan in producing this paper. The author also wishes to thank Stephan Klasen, Janet Leno, Gurushri Swamy and Carolyn Winter for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Yisgedullish Amde and Kalpana Mehra provided excellent computational analysis of household survey data. Many thanks to Precy Lizarondo for providing quick and efficient word processing assistance. The views expressed in this study are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank, members of its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. ABSTRACT From 1987 to 1994, South Africa's public education resources increased from 5.8% to 7.3% of GDP. The annual growth rate of education spending in real terms showed an absolute per capita expansion. This paper explores the distribution of these resources across socioeconomic and demographic groups, using Benefit Incidence Analysis, which measures how well public services have been targeted. The analysis revealed spending disparities across income groups, regions and races: the shares of public education resources benefiting the poor and ultra-poor are substantially lower than their shares of school-age population. Inequality in the distribution widens by educational level from primary to tertiary for all population groups. The analysis of household direct expenses suggests that if the costs of uniforms, transport and meals were reduced for poor primary and secondary school-age children, and scholarships were expanded for tertiary education in order to exempt the poor from school fees, enrollment among the poor could rise. These programs could be accompanied by cost recovery mechanisms that do not discriminate against the poor, and would free up public education funds to finance the additional expenses. Regionally, important gains could be achieved in allocating public education resources to the poor and the ultra-poor if the Eastem Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province were targeted. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS DBSA Development Bank of Southem Africa DET Department of Education and Training GDP Gross Domestic Product H-Africans Africans living in the former Homelands NH-Africans Africans not living in the former Homelands SALDRU Southern Africa Labour & Development Research Unit SGT Self-Governing Territories TBVC Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda, Ciskei CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Rand/US$ 1990 2.6 1991 2.7 1992 3.1 1993 3.4 1994 3.5 1995 3.6 1996 4.7 1997 4.9 1998 5.9 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ I I. INTRODUCTIONR. II. SOCIOECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS ...................2....................2 Ill. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ................... ..........................................3 IV. PUBLIC SPENDING ON EDUCATION ............................................................ 10 V. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION SPENDING ............ ............. 14 VI. HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON EDUCATION ...................................... ............. 21 VII. CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISONS ............................................................. 23 VIII. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................. 26 REFERENCES ............................................................ 28 APPENDIX A ............................................................ 29 Poverty andInequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa EXECUTIVE SUMMARY South Africa's public education spending has increased substantially in recent years. The expansion outpaced population growth in the early 1990s and the allocation of state expenditures to public education grew by more than the rate of growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, the education system still exhibits strong disparities across income groups, regions and races. Indeed, the shares of public education resources benefiting the ultra-poor and the poor are substantially lower than their shares of school-age population (see Table A). In 1993, poor households received 40% of public education spending for 60% of the school-age population, while the share for the richest was 23%, who accounted for only 8% of school-age children. Ultra-poor households received 21%, while accounting for 34% of the school-age population. Table A Incidence of Public Education Spending by Household Group, 1993 Percentage Share Educational level Education spending benefiting: (School-age population) Ultra-poor Poor Richest (poorest (poorest (richest 20%) 20%) 400%) % share of education spending 27 48 19 benefiting Primary school children (% of population in age group 6 to 12 (36) (62) (8) years) % share of education spending 18 36 25 benefiting Secondary school children (% of population in age group 13 to 17 (35) (61) (9) years) % share of education spending 11 24 32 benefiting Tertiary school children (% of population in age group 18 to 22 (29) (54) (9) years) % share of all education spending 21 40 23 benefiting all ages (% of population in age group 6 to 22 (34) (60) (8) years) I_I Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) i Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa The unequal distribution of public spending widens from the primary to tertiary levels, across different income groups and races: Per capita spending is lowest for Africans at every educational level (see Figure A). However, not all African students are poor or ultra-poor. Thus, public education resources must be targeted to the Eastern Cape and Northern Provinces, which have by far the highest poverty rates and hold more than half the former homelands population. Figure A Annual Education Spending Per Capita, by Level of Schooling and Race, 1993 1000 900T g 800 | |Primary 700 Ft 600 | *Secondary It,500 3 0Tertiary 22400 | |AllEducation s.300 +AEuao 200 0 . Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) Based on findings from a household survey, school expenses are the most important reason that keep parents from sending children to school. Most families have to spend a significant amount for school fees, uniforms, transport, meals and books and stationary: Poor families pay more than 40% of per capita non-food household expenditures per child in primary school compared to only 6% for non-poor families. Education costs increase to half of per capita non-food household expenditures per child in secondary school, in contrast to 10% for the non-poor. By the time students reach the tertiary level, the costs are prohibitive: Each poor student needs more than two-and-a- half times the per capita amount spent on non-food items compared to less than one-third for non-poor students. Thus, if the costs of uniforms, transport and meals for poor primary and secondary school-age children were reduced and scholarships were provided for tertiary education (which would exempt the poor from fees), enrollments among the poor would likely rise. These programs could be accompanied by cost recovery mechanisms that do not discriminate against the poor--and would thereby free up public education funds to finance the additional expense. ii Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa I. INTRODUCTION From 19871 to 1994, South Africa's spending on public education increased significantly, from 5.8% to 7.3% of GDP. Indeed, the annual growth rate in real terms was more than 5%, against 2% for the population aged 6-18.2 In other words, real per capita public funding of education expanded in absolute terms. This paper explores the distribution of the education resources across socioeconomic and demographic groups. Two main factors influence inequities in the distribution of public education resources: (a) the allocation of public resources to individuals in different socioeconomic groups, regions, races and by gender as a result of their consumption of public services; and (b) the allocation of government spending within the education sector. The distribution can be examined by allocating per unit public subsidies according to individual utilization rates of public services. The methodology, Benefit Incidence Analysis,3 measures how well public services are targeted, for example, to the poor, geographic regions and girls. Detailed information on spending was available from a comprehensive review of education expenditures published by the Development Information Group of the Development Bank of South Africa and the World Bank (DBSA, 1993). Data on individual patterns of access and use of public services were obtained from the South Africa Living Standards Survey, coordinated by the University of Cape Town's Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU, 1993) and funded by the governments of Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, with technical assistance from the World Bank. DBSA and SALDRU data were used to calculate per capita education subsidies for different socioeconomic groups, races, regions and by gender. Section II explains the disaggregation by demographic groups used throughout this paper. Section III looks at the education indicators. Section IV explores public education spending and the allocation of resources within the sector. Section V analyzes the distribution patterns of public education spending across socio-economic groups and gender. Section VI presents information on household education expenditures, and Section VII draws some cross-country comparisons. Section VIII presents the policy implications based on this study. 1 Buckland, Peter and Jolm Fielden (1994). Public Expenditure on Education in South Africa, 1987/88 to 1991/92, p. 6 2 Ibid., p. 8 3 See Van de Walle and Nead (1994), Meennan (1979), and Selowsky (1979). 1 Poverty andlnequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa II. SOCIOECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS When targeting public education resources, it is critical to address the concentration of the poor in certain geographical areas, since a poverty profile found that nearly 70% live in the former homelands.4 This disparity in income justified studying the population in the former homelands separately from the rest of the country. In these areas, Africans constitute almost 100% of the population (see Appendix Table A. 1), account for 66% of the African population (see Appendix Table A.2), 63% of households in the poorest quintile, and 55% in the second poorest quintile (see Figure 1).5 Figure 1 Racial Composition within Quintiles 100 DAfricaW/ er- 80 Homeland *JWhite .4 60 40Ulda 20 03 Coloured 0 M Africaz/Non- ex- Homeland Source: SALDRU (1993) Regional income disparities suggest any analysis of education spending must focus on three new provinces: the Eastern Cape, Northern Province and KwaZulu Natal, where more than 75% of residents from the former homelands (H-Africans) live (see Table 1). 4 "Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa", RDP (1995), p. 12 5 The poverty assessment found that about 40% of South African households are poor. Households are ranked by per adult equivalent expenditures, the poorest 20% constitutes the bottom quintile, and so on for the next quintile, up to the top quintile which contains the richest 20% of all households. Since households in bottom quintiles are larger than households in higher quintiles, the total population found in poverty is larger than the number of poor households. 2 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table 1 Percentage of Former Homelands Population by New Province New province Share % N.Cape 0.00 Free State 2.34 North West 11.07 Mpumalanga 10.13 W.Cape 0.00 N.Province 22.88 E.Cape 23.42 Gauteng 0.00 KwaZulu Natal 30.15 Total 100.00 Source: SALDRU (1993) With DBSA data, per student subsidies were calculated separately for all races and for H-Africans and Africans outside the former homelands (NH-Africans). The SALDRU household survey contained information on household residence by new province and its racial composition. III. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Many older, poor children attend primary school Net and gross enrollment rates for primary school were similar across income quintiles and races (see Tables 2 and 3).6 Overall, the net enrollment rate was about 90% and the gross rate was 106%. Thus, nine out of every 10 children from 6-12 were enrolled in primary school, and the spread between the net and gross enrollment rates indicated that many older children were in primary schools.7 The spread is four times larger for the poorest than for the richest income quintile: The poorest quintile had a primary net enrollment rate of 85% compared with a 112% gross enrollment rate while the rates for the richest quintile were 90% and 97%, respectively. The main problem for older children attending primary school is that they often must help support the 6 The net enrollment rate is defined as the total number of school age children currently enrolled in each educational level as a percentage of the total school age population at each level. The gross enrollment rate is defined as the total number of enrollments in each educational level, of any age, as a percentage of the total school age population at each level. 7 The 87% net enrollment rate for the 6-12 age group is lower than the 92% current attendance rate reported in Table 4. This is because there are sample observations of children who are 12 years of age and report having completed primary school. 3 Poverty andlInequtality in the Distribution ofPuiblic Education Spending in South Africa household and can only attend sporadically; this reduces their motivation to complete that level of education and proceed to the next. Enrollment disparities are wi(le in secondlary schools and widest at tertiary institutions Although H-Africans and NH-Africans have the lowest net enrollment rates in secondary schools, disparities across races are widest at the tertiary level: Enrollment rates for Africans and Coloreds are less than 10% compared with Indians and Whites, whose rates are four times as high. Net enrollment rates in secondary schools and tertiary education are 60% and 11%, respectively, while gross enrollment rates are 97% and 14%.8 Disparities in enrollment rates across income quintiles and races are wide at the secondary level but widest at the tertiary level (see Tables 2 and 3). The poorest quintile has about half the net enrollment rate of the richest quintile at the secondary level, and only 10% at the tertiary level. The spread between net and gross enrollment rates in secondary education for the poorest quintile is twice as large as for the richest quintile, indicating that poor children are often older than the norm:9 Because they complete primary school at an older age, they are also older (than the average) in secondary schools, which decreases their prospects of reaching the tertiary level. This, in turn, affects their earning capacity. Girls and boys are equally likely to attend primary school; girls are more likely to attend secondary school Gender differences are not substantial in primary school (see Appendix Tables A.3 and A.4). However, males at this level have slightly higher gross enrollment rates than females, reflecting a higher proportion of over-aged males than over-aged females. Disparities between girls and boys are wider at the secondary level, where more girls are enrolled: 63% overall net enrollment (for girls) compared with 56% (for boys). This pattern occurs in every income quintile. Tertiary education is the only level at which girls have lower enrollment rates than boys, but this occurs only among the rich. 8 Enrollment rates at the secondary level are calculated for 13-17 year olds and for 18-22 year olds at the tertiary level. 9 The largest spread betwveen the net and gross enrollment rates occurs at the third quintile. This may be related to a lower drop-out rate a_nd a higher probability of staying in school even if repetition occurs. 4 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribuion of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table 2 Net Enrollment Rates, by Quintile, Race and Level of schooling, 1993 Races Hh quintile African/ African/ Colored Indian White All Non-Ex- Ex- Homeland Homeland Primary education Poorest 84 85 88 ** ** 85 II 86 87 94 ** ** 87 III 88 88 87 ** ** 88 IV 89 88 91 93 90 89 Richest 89 ** ** 91 90 90 Total 86 86 90 92 90 87 Secondary education Poorest 37 49 49 ** ** 46 la 60 56 59 ** ** 57 InI 63 67 74 ** ** 67 IV 73 73 79 89 80 78 Richest 77 ** ** 93 84 83 Total 54 56 70 89 82 60 [Tertiary education Poorest 5 4 4 ** ** 4 II 5 5 2 ** ** 5 III 7 10 3 ** ** 8 IV 24 23 19 ** ** 20 Richest ** ** ** 41 38 38 Total 10 7 9 36 32 11 ** Sample <= 30 observations Source: SALDRU (1993) 5 Poverty andInequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Afiica Table 3 Gross Enrollment Rates, by Quintile, Race and Level of Education _____ ~~~~~~~~~~~(%) Races Hh quintile African/ African/ Colored Indian White All Non-Ex- Ex- Homeland Homeland Primary education Poorest 117 110 101 ** ** 112 II 107 107 113 ** ** 108 III 103 105 97 ** ** 103 IV 97 96 98 98 98 97 Richest 108 ** ** 91 98 97 Total 108 108 101 96 98 106 Secondary education Poorest 69 85 63 ** ** 81 II 104 100 68 ** ** 98 III 111 112 96 ** ** 110 IV 109 107 103 99 101 108 Richest 105 ** ** 103 98 101 Total 96 98 88 99 98 97 Tertiary education Poorest 5 5 4 ** ** 5 II 6 8 4 ** ** 7 III 9 13 5 ** ** 11 IV 27 30 21 ** ** 24 Richest ** ** ** 52 48 48 Total 11 10 12 44 40 14 ** Sample <= 30 observations Source: SALDRU (1993) High school expenses are the key factor explaining non-enrollment The main reason why poor children are not in primary and secondary school (more than one in five)is that expenses are too high (see Table 4).10,11 In addition, 20% of secondary school-age children who were not in school said they could not cope with school work, while 16% said they had become pregnant. 12 10 For a large proportion of primary school-age children, almost 60%, the reason for being out-of-school needs to be further explored. These children are all grouped into the "other" category as their response for being out-of-school. II Household education expenditures are disaggregated in Section _. 12 Explored by gender in Table 7. 6 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table 4 Reasons for Being Out-of-School by Age Group (as % of non-enrolled in age group) ________ Age groups .. Reason forbeing out-of- 6 to 12 13 to 17 18to22 All school (%) year olds year olds year _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o ld s_ _ _ _ _ School expenses too high 21 23 15 17 Need to work - 10 19 15 Illness/disabled 6 9 4 5 Pregnancies - 16 15 - No school locally 4 4 1 2 Could not cope with school 8 20 12 12 work School boycott - 2 1 1 Social unrest/violence 3 1 1 Completed education - 3 24 16 Required for work at 1 4 3 3 home/farm Other 59 7 5 15 Total non-enrolled 100 100 100 100 Non-enrolled as percentage of population group 8 10 53 20 Source: SALDRU Survey (1993) Those from 18-22 who were not in school said that high costs were an important reason, but even more (20%) said they could not attend because they needed to work. In addition, the non-enrolled population as a share of the age group is considerably higher for this age group: Over half are not enrolled in any type of school. These responses highlight the need to promote early enrollment and lower repetition rates, as the likelihood of being out-of-school increases drastically for the population over 18. Primary school-age Africans find expenses too high andfew local schools available Among primary school-age Africans not attending school, the two main reasons were that school expenses were too high (for over 20%) and there was no local school available (nearly 40% of H-Africans). These explanations account for more than 60% of H-African and 30% of NH-African school-age children currently not enrolled. Gender differentials were not substantial. 7 Poverty and Inequiality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Table 5 Reasons for Non-Enrollment for 6-12 Year-Olds by Race (as % of non-enrolled) Races Reason for being out-of- African/ African/ Colored Indian White All school (%) Non-Ex- Ex- Homeland Homeland School expenses too 17 26 4 21 high Need to work - - - - - Illness/disabled 6 8 3 6 Became pregnant - 1 - - - No school locally 10 38 6 1 4 Could not cope with 6 9 - - - 8 school work School boycott - 1 - - 0 Social unrest/violence 1 1 - - - 0 Completed education - - - - - - Required for work at 1 1 - - - 1 home/farm Other 58 53 94 - 96 59 Total non-enrolled 100 100 100 - 100 100 Non-enrolled as percent of population group 8 9 6 0 5 8 Source: SALDRU (1993) More than one in 10 secondary school-age Africans and Coloreds are not enrolled A much larger proportion of secondary school-age Africans and Coloreds were out of school compared with other races--more than 10%, compared with only 4% of Indians and 2% of Whites. Reasons vary more across races for this age group than with the primary school-age group. Africans found school expenses too high and 20% of H- Africans said they could not cope with school work, which could be related to the fact that 10% reported illness or disability. Almost 20% of NH-Africans needed to work, while nearly 33% of Coloreds reported they either needed to work or could not cope with school work (see Table 6) 8 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Table 6 Non-Enrollment among 13-17 Year-Olds by Race (as % of non-enrolled) Races Reason for being out-of- African/ African/ Colored Indian White All school (%) Non-Ex- Ex- Homeland Homeland School expenses too high 20 28 3 - - 23 Need to work 18 4 27 33 - 10 Illness/disabled 4 11 9 - - 9 Becarne pregnant 16 18 9 - 16 No school locally 8 2 3 - 24 4 Could not cope with school 16 21 27 17 - 20 lwork School boycott 3 1 - - 2 Social unrest/violence 1 3 3 17 - 3 Completed education 2 2 - 33 76 3 Required for work at 2 5 9 - - 4 home/farm Other 11 5 9 - - 7 Total non-enrol led 100 100 100 100 100 100 Non-enrolled as percentage of population group 13 11 10 4 2 10 Source: SALDRU (1993) One in three secondary school-age girls is not enrolled because ofpregnancy Moreover, one third of girls aged 13-17 were not enrolled in secondary school due to pregnancy: A joint analysis by gender and race revealed that Africans have higher teenage pregnancy rates than other racial groups. Among out-of-school males in the same age group, a third could not cope with school work. These findings are similar to other countries (see Table 7). 9 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Table 7 Reasons for Non-Enrollment for Children Aged 6-12 and 13-17, by Gender (as % of non-enrolled) 6 to 12 year olds 13 to 17 year olds Reason for being out-of- Female Male All Female Male All school (%) School expenses too high 20 21 21 23 24 23 Need to work - - - 8 12 10 Illness/disabled 5 8 6 9 8 9 Became pregnant 1 - 0 30 - 16 Noschool locally 4 5 4 4 4 4 Could not cope with school 7 8 8 11 31 20 work School boycott - 1 0 1 2 2 Social unrest/violence 1 0 2 4 3 Completed education - 2 5 3 Required for work at 1 1 1 4 4 4 home/farm Other 63 57 59 8 6 7 Total non-enrolled 100 100 100 100 100 100 Non-enrolled as percentage of population group 7 9 8 1 1 10 10 Source: SALDRU (1993) IV. PUBLIC SPENDING ON EDUCATION Increases in spending for public education outpaced population growth in the early 1990s Public spending for education grew steadily in the early 1990s. The increase in real terms was more than twice as large as the population growth rate, 5.2% compared with 2.2%, respectively.'3 In addition, the allocation of state expenditures to public education increased by more than public education spending as a share of GDP (see Table 8). 13 Buckland, Peter and John Fielden (1994). Op. cit., p. 8 10 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table 8 Public Financing of Education Public Spending Public Spending Fiscal Year On education as On education as % of total state % GDP expenditures 1987/88 22.9 5.8 1988/89 21.9 5.5 1989/90 22.0 5.7 1990/91 22.3 6.3 1991/92 23.9 6.5 1992/93 23.8 7.3 1993/94 24.4 7.3 Source: Buckland and Fielden (1994) Spending increased for primary schools and lecreasedfor technical schools Primary and secondary schools received more than 75% of public education resources, while technical colleges, teacher's education and technikons together obtained less than 7%. Universities obtained a considerable proportion compared with other tertiary-level programs--about 10%. Further, from 1987-1992, the share of public resources for primary education increased while the shares for technical education and universities decreased:14 The primary education share rose from 38% to about 43%, secondary education spending remained constant at about 30%, university spending decreased from 13% to 10%, and technical education spending dropped from 2% to 1.5% (see Figure 2). 14 Ibid 11 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Figure 2 Share of Public Education Spending by Educational Level, 1991/1992 Pre-Primary Pnrmary 43% AdmW=intrtion6%7 3 Adult!Voc 0.3 % _ University I 0% Technikon 2.4% Teachers 2.9% Technical 1.5X Private/Special 3% Secondary 31 % Source: Buckland and Fielden (1994) Disparities are substantial in public spending per student Disparities in public spending per student by department (under apartheid, separate departments were created to administer the schools for the different races) were substantial, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. These indicated quality differentials in education by region since the population in the former homelands received the lowest spending per student and three of the new provinces, the Eastern Cape, Northern Province and KwaZulu Natal, contain over 75% of the former homelands population (see Table 9). Per student spending for the House of Assembly (the institution that administered education for White pupils under apartheid) was R3,099 in primary and R4,675 in secondary. For the same educational levels, per student spending for the House of Delegates (historically for Indians under apartheid) was R2,565 and R3,353 and for the House of Representatives (historically for Coloreds under apartheid) was R2,308 and R2,735, respectively. Public resources per student allocated to the African Departments of Education were considerably lower than for any of the Houses. Per student spending for the Department of Education and Training (DET-historically for NH-Africans) was R1,012 at the primary level and R1,014 at the secondary level. The SGT and TBVC Departments of Education (historically for H-Africans under apartheid) had the lowest per student spending for primary and secondary, R660 and R790, respectively. 12 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Table 9 Annual Public Recurrent Spending on Education, 1993 by Level, Department, Race and Student Department and race Primary Secondary Tertiary* DET 1,679.3 972.1 801.8 SGT & TBVC 2,954.3 1,972.8 369.2 House of Assembly 1,773.4 1,819.7 1,305.8 House of Representatives 1,304.3 796.5 244.8 House of Delegates 370.6 402.5 176.2 Total 1 8,081.9 5,963.5 2,897.7 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE (1 )BSA) Africans/non-ex-homeland 1,696,522 646,542 144,716 Africans/ex-homeland 4,175,150 1,559,577 67,107 Whites (HoA) 537,712 369,889 234,114 Coloreds (HoR) 630,200 230,442 35,411 Indians (HoD) 149,285 95,894 30,847 Total 7,188,869 2,902,344 512,195 ENROLLMENTS BY RACE ALDRU) Africans/non-ex-homeland 1,659,454 958,539 117,638 Africans/ex-homeland 4,473,855 2,497,889 195,166 Whites 572,171 389,236 143,882 Coloreds 565,019 291,243 36,186 Indians 144,476 120,037 21,244 Total 7,414,975 4,256,944 514,116 SPENDING PER STUDENT (I _ _SA) Africans/non-ex-homeland 990 1,503 5,540 Africans/ex-homeland 708 1,265 5,502 Whites 3,298 4,920 5,578 Coloreds 2,070 3,456 6,912 Indians 2,482 4,197 5,712 Average 1,124 2,055 5,657 SPENDING PER STUDENT (' ,ALDRU) Africans/non-ex-homeland 1,012 1,014 6,816 Africans/ex-homeland 660 790 1,892 Whlites 3,099 4,675 9,075 Coloreds 2,308 2,735 6,764 Indians 2,565 3,353 8,293 Average 1,090 1,401 5,636 * Public spending and enrollments at the tertiary level are calculated by Source: DBSA (1993), SALDRU (1993) 13 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa V. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION SPENDING The poor received a smaller share of public spending at every educational level than their share of the population, but funding is still larger than the part contributed by households. This pattern is seen as weakly pro-poor because the distribution of public spending at every educational level lies between absolute equality and the Lorenz distribution of total household expenditures: The distribution of resources by educational level is shown in Figure 10 across income quintiles together with the Lorenz distribution of total household expenditures.15 The diagonal line (or 450 line) is also known as the line of absolute equality since it goes through those points where the cumulative share of the population equals the cumulative share of public education spending. This study used the Benefit Incidence Analysis methodology to analyze the distribution of public spending across different socioeconomic and demographic groups. Its main benefit is that it can measure how well public services are targeted to certain groups in the population, such as the poor, regions, girls and women. The targeting of funds across socioeconomic and demographic groups was analyzed with information on the pattern of government recurrent spending per student obtained from DBSA (1993) and the pattern of enrollment rates obtained from SALDRU (1993): The spending and enrollment rates were determined by existing disparities. The incidence analysis used per-student spending, calculated on SALDRU enrollments for primary and secondary education, and per-student spending calculated on DBSA enrollments for tertiary education (see Figure 3).16 15 hI this section, quintiles are created by ranking individuals on the basis of per adult equivalent expenditures, from poorest to richest and then aggregating them into five groups with 20% of individuals in each quintile. This way of creating population quintiles, by ranking individuals instead of households, is commonly used in most countries where incidence analysis of public spending is available and therefore can be used for cross-country comparisons. 16 Per student spending in Table 9 by educational levels and race uses public recurrent education expenditures and school enrollments from two different sources: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993). Recurrent expenditures and school enrollments reported by DBSA (1993) are for the 1991/92 school year. School enrollments obtained from SALDRU (1993) are an update for the 1993/94 school year. Household surveys like SALDRU are considered a reliable method for estimating primary and secondary enrolhnents since students usually live with their parents. However, household surveys could underestimate terdary- level enrollments because it is common for students to live in single-headed households or boarding facilities. 14 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Figure 3 Annual Spending per Student by Educational Level and Race, 1993 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) The incidence of public spending was the result of (a) public policy decisions about the allocation of public expenditures to and within each sector; and (b) private decisions, i.e., household behavior. The allocation of funds to different socioeconomic and demographic groups was determined by a combination of supply and demand factors: Supply factors included government allocations to and within the sector for each type of public service, and demand factors included household behavior regarding utilization rates of public services by socioeconomic groups. Thus, the incidence analysis integrates two sources of information: unitary subsidies by type of service (i.e., the per student annual subsidy for the education sector), and information on individual utilization rates of public services (i.e., total enrollments by educational level) disaggregated by socioeconomic group, region and gender. In this way, funding for education was distributed across socioeconomic groups subject to their enrollment rates and the annual public subsidy per student by educational level. Public education spending is not pro-poor If public education funds were equally distributed across the population, every household quintile would receive a percentage share equal to its share of the population. However, as mentioned above, based on the study findings, public education spending has not been pro-poor because the share of resources for the poor and ultra-poor has been substantially smaller than their share of the population:17 While the poor constitute 53% 17 Quintiles are created by ranking households, on the basis of per adult equivalent expenditures, from poorest to richest and then aggregating them into five groups with 20% of households in each quintile. The 15 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribufion ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa of the population, they received only 40% of education resources; the ultra-poor, who represent 29% of the population (subsumed within the 53%), received just 20%. Conversely, the richest household quintile received almost twice its share of the population, 23.4% of public resources for 12.5% of the population (see Figure 4). This pattern across household quintiles is based on supply and demand effects: (a) public education spending per student is low for poor and ultra-poor students;18 and, (b) the poor and ultra-poor have very low enrollments at the secondary and tertiary levels. 19 Public education spending was less inequitable than the Lorenz distribution of total household expenditures (see Figure 10). The share of all public education funding for the poorest quintile was 14% compared with only a three percentage share of total household expenditures. By contrast, the richest quintile received a 35% share of all public education spending but concentrated 64% of total household expenditures. Funding for primary education for the poorest quintile was 19%, compared with 28% for the richest; at the secondary level, it was 11% and 39%, respectively. At the tertiary level,. the distribution was almost as inequitable as that of total household expenditures: The poorest quintile received only a 6% share of public tertiary-level education resources compared with 47% for the richest quintile. poverty profile defined as "poor" the poorest 40% of households and as "ultra-poor" the poorest 20% ("Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa", RDP, 1995). The poor constitute 53% of the population living in the poorest 40% of households and the ultra-poor consitute 29% of the population living in the poorest 20% of households. A larger concentration of the population among poorer household quintiles occurs because poorer households tend to have larger families than richer ones (see Appendix Figure A. 1). 18 This is because the distribution of the population by race within household quintiles shows that a large majority of the poor and ultra-poor are Africans, mainly inhabitants of the former homelands (see Appendix Figure A.2). H-Africans get the smallest per student public education spending at every level of education and NH-Africans get the second smallest amount at the primary and secondary educational levels (see Table 9). 19 See Tables 6 and 7. 16 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Figure 4 Spending by Household Quintile and Race i~~~~~~~~~ o1 Wh18ite Source: DBSA (193 sandg I 1ia993) atth riar chollve: lhoght23.4evels 80a thoeirsareidth spopolaFion 540) 10 0 Coloured 201 0 M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AfricaW Non- Primary-L lex- Homsenand I Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) The poor and the ultra-poor received the highest allocation of education funding at the primary school level: Although they received less than their share in the population, they obtained almost half the funds spent for this level. The spending share within quintiles by race indicated that African students constituted the large majority of primary enrollments amnong the poor and ultra-poor, but still received less than their share of the population (see Figure 5). Figure 5 Primary-Level Education Funding by Household Quintile and Race 30 U9 j0 - OAfricanlex- ~~20 E189 Spendinzg600oman UPopulation M In dian 10 - 00 Coloured II ~~~~~~~~20 0 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~African/ Non- 0 4 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ex- Homelantd Source: DB SA (1 993) and SALDRU (1 993) With regard to secondary schools, less than 40% of spending was allocated to the poor, although, as mentioned above, they represented 53% of the population. The ultra- poor received less than 66% of the spending as compared with their share of the 17 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa population. By contrast, the richest quintile received 25% for their 12.5% of the population. The spending share within quintiles by race indicates that Africans were the large majority of secondary enrollments among the poor and ultra-poor, but received less than their share of the population (see Figure 6). Figure 6 Secondary-Level Education Funding by Household Quintile and Race 10 .10 El Africani ex- 0 o .s: ex- fHomeland 30 25.3 Nit 21.4 * 60 a Spending Th40 I- rndian s Population 2 10 IiColoured 0 African!Non- - j ex- Homeland Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) With respect to tertiary education, although the poor accounted for more than half the population, they received less than 25% of public spending. The ultra-poor received about 33%, when compared with their share of the population, while the richest quintile received 32.2%, for their 12.5% share. This, as mentioned above, is mainly due to significantly low tertiary-level enrollments among the poor and ultra-poor.20 The spending share within quintiles by race indicated that African students made up most of the tertiary enrollments amnong the poor and ultra-poor, but they received less than their share in the population (see Figure 7). 20 Ibid. 18 Poverty andInequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Figure 7 Tertiary-Level Education Funding by Household Quintile and Race 32.2 i100 *3Afiicanlex- 30 27.8 Homeland a20 *Spending .~60 3. *Populafion * Indian ~~~~ 0.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~4 ~10 ' 0 20 l[ Coloured O . _ % O % AfricanlNon- tz ex- Homeland Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) Race-specific subsidies reveal severe inequities in the system Severe inequities persist in the distribution of public education resources across income groups, regions and races. The major reason is the substantial difference in public spending per student by race:21 Per capita public spending is lowest for Africans at every educational level, due to both supply and demand effects. African departments of education have the smallest allocation of public spending per student and Africans have the lowest enrollments at every educational level (see Figure 9). From all public education spending aggregated for all levels (primary, secondary and tertiary) in per capita terms, H-Africans received R3 11, NH-Africans R328, Coloreds R765, Indians R899 and Whites R95 1(see Appendix Table A.5). Differences in spending per student explained the disparities at the primary and secondary levels, while enrollments were the main source at the tertiary level. H-Africans in primary schools received RI 53 a year, the smallest spending in per capita terms. NH-Africans received R167, while Coloreds received R424, Indians R372, and Whites R3 84. Coloreds received the greatest chunk per capita because of demographics (they have large families), and enrollment patterns (they have high enrollments at the primary level). The incidence analysis by income groups suggests that 21 See Table 9 and Figure 3. 19 Poverty andInequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa race-specific subsidies have a significant impact on the distribution of funding across population groups. Although the ultra-poor constituted 33% of all enrollments, they received only 20% of public education spending. By contrast, the richest income quintile accounted for less than 10% of all enrollments but received almost 25% of all public education funds. This was determined through race-specific subsidies, compiled by DBSA. Unfortunately, progress in the distribution of education resources will be increasingly difficult to assess where race-disaggregated information is no longer being collected (see Figure 8). If average, instead of race-specific, subsidies had been used in the incidence analysis of public education spending in 1993, funds would have appeared to be equally distributed with every income quintile receiving almost its share of enrollments (see Figure 8). Figure 8 Public Education Enrollments and Spending by Household Quintile, 1993 35 34 30 _ average subsidies 26 2 race-specific subsidies 24 2 25 I 23 21 ~~~~~~~~~~20 *S20 18 19 19 1 7 15 15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~13 15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~12 10 0 Poorest IT III IV Richest Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) Public education spending per capita is lowestfor Africans The poverty focus of public investments in human capital can be improved if education incentives, along with a larger share of resources, are targeted to increase secondary and tertiary enrollments of H-Africans. However, because not all H-African students are poor or ultra-poor, it is essential to identify the geographic areas within the former homelands that are the most impoverished to improve the targeting. In this context, the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province could be targeted, 20 Poverty and Inequality in the Distihbution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa since the study found these three provinces have by far the highest poverty rates, and concentrate more than half of H-Africans. Figure 9 Annual Education Spending Per Capita, by Level of Schooling and Race 1000 900 800 to 50 M Secondary 400 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tertiary t 300- *AI Education 2,00 l00 Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) Targeting the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province can improve the povertyfocus ofpublic education spending Targeting public education spending to the poor and ultra-poor will require actions on both the supply of and demand for education. The poverty focus of public investments in human capital can be substantially improved if (a) incentives are targeted to increase secondary and tertiary enrollments of H-Africans and (b) a larger share of public resources is allocated to them. Important gains could be made by targeting the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province. VI. HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON EDUCATION lThepoor cannot afford the direct costs of education The direct costs of sending children to school are a key factor that discourages attendance. Most families spend a significant proportion of their resources to send children to school: Direct expenses include school fees, uniforms, transport, meals, books and paper and other items such as boarding fees, contributions to school buildings, extra amounts for teachers and extramural activities. Of the total spent on public education, households contributed 20% of the cost per each child in both primary and secondary schools, and close to 40% at the tertiary level: Families spent R267 per primary student annually compared with RI, 149 allocated from 21 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa public funds, R484 per secondary student compared with R2,055 from the state, and R3,3 18 compared with R,657 at the tertiary level. Public spending per student at every level was larger than the direct costs incurred by poor families sending their children to school; for students at the primary level, it was two and a half times the amount spent by poor families on per capita non-food items (see Table 10). The state contribution to education was almost three times per secondary student and about eight times per tertiary student the amount spent by poor households on non-food items per child. Thus, although the government contribution to education was larger than the families' share, on average, households contributed a significant proportion of the total education cost for each child in school. Reduced education costs could increase enrollments among the poor Uniforms, transport and meals were the most important expenses for poor families sending children to primary or secondary school--nearly 75% of household education expenses; by comparison, non-poor households spent only 15%. At the tertiary level, school fees were the largest household expense for both the poor and the non-poor, on average 56% and 69%, respectively. And, based on the household survey, school fees discouraged tertiary-level enrollment among the poor: Each poor student enrolled at this level needed more than two and a half times the per capita amount spent on non-food items compared with less than one-third for the non- poor. The analysis of enrollment rates by income quintile revealed that the poorest three quintiles had significantly lower tertiary-level enrollment compared with the richest two quintiles (see Table 10). Poor families had a total direct cost of more than 40% of per capita non-food household expenses per child sent to primary school compared to only 6% for non-poor families. Direct costs increased to half of per capita non-food household expenses for children in secondary school, compared to 10% for the non-poor (see Table 10). One way to reduce the direct costs of tertiary education would be to increase the number of scholarships that would exempt students from paying school fees. Also, cost recovery mechanisms that do not discriminate against the poor could be introduced to free up public education funds to finance the additional expense. 22 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa Table 10 Household Expenses on Education by Educational Level, 1993 Total and Per Student Household expenses on education Educational Share of School Uniforms, Books & Misc. Total Total as a Public level and enrollments fees transport stationary * share of spending enrollment & meals per capita per stadent group non-food as a share Hh of per expenses capita non- food Hh expenses PRIMARY _ All primary 100% 35% 47% 6% 12% 100% 12% 52% enrollments Poor primary 60% 17% 73% 5% 5% 100% 41% 246% enrollments Non-poor 40% 40% 39% 6% 14% 100% 6% 23% primary enrollments SECONDARY _ __ I Al secondary 100% 31% 47% 7% 14% 100% 15% 62% enrollments Poor secondary 52% 14% 71% 5% 10% 100% 50% 297% enrollments I Non-poor 48% 36% 40% 8% 16% 100%|10% 38% secondary enrollments TERTIARY l l l_____ Allteriary 100% 67% 12% 9% 111% 100% 29% 49% enrollments Poor tertiary 25% 56% 32% 12% 0% 100% 258% 798% enrollments I I Non-poor 75% 69% 10% 9% 12% 100% 29% 44% tertiary enrollments Vi. CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISONS The poor in South Africa receive a smaller share of public education spending at every educational level than their share of the population but the shares of spending are larger than their total household expenditure share. This pattern is characterized as 23 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Education Spending in South AJrica weakly pro-poor because the distributions of public education spending at every educational level lie in between absolute equality and the Lorenz distribution of total household expenditures. The distributions of education resources by educational level are shown in Figure 10 across income quintiles together with the Lorenz distribution of total household expenditures.22 The diagonal line (or 450 line) is also known as the line of absolute equality since it goes through those points where the cumulative share of the population equals the cumulative share of public education spending. Figure 10 Distribution of Public Education Spending and Lorenz Distribution, 1993 100v 80 Primery ,. 60- AullAuction - i 20 Household l! , S , ,> ~~~~~eapenitres O i ~~~~~~Tertiary 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cumulative share ofpopulition Source: DBSA (1993) and SALDRU (1993) Public education spending in South Africa is less inequitable than the Lorenz distribution or distribution of total household expenditures. The share of all public education resources going to the poorest quintile is 14 percent compared with only a three percentage share of total household expenditures. By contrast, the richest quintile receives a 35 percentage share of all public education spending but concentrates 64 percent of total household expenditures. Public primary education spending going to the poorest quintile is 19 percent compared with 28 percent for the richest quintile. At the secondary level, the poorest 22 In this section, quintiles are created by rankdng individuals on the basis of per adult equivalent expenditures, from poorest to richest and then aggregating them into five groups with 20 percent of individuals in each quintile. This way of creating population quintiles, by ranldng individuals instead of households, is commonly used in most countries where incidence analysis of public spending is available and therefore can be used for cross-country comparisons. 24 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribufion ofPublic Education Spending in South Africa quintile receives an 11 percent and the richest quintile a 39 percent of public education resources. The distribution of public spending in tertiary education is almost as inequitable as the distribution of total household expenditures. The poorest quintile receives only a six percentage share of public tertiary-level education resources compared with a 47 percent share going to the richest quintile. South Africa has one of the worst distributions ofpublic education spending In South Africa, public education spending is weakly pro-poor when compared to countries like Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, which are strongly pro-poor. The cross- country comparison is particularly significant with Chile because the Lorenz distribution, or distribution of household expenditures, is as inequitable as in South Africa. However, Chile has launched educational reforms to progressively distribute public funds (see Table 1 1). Except for Madagascar, South Africa has about the most inequitable distribution of public education spending among other African countries. Also, significant disparities exist across races for public education spending which are wide at the secondary level and widest at the tertiary level. Table 11 Incidence of Public Education Spending on the Poorest and Richest Quintiles, Selected Countries, Percentage Share Education spending benefiting: Country Year the poorest 20% of the the richest 20% of th l__________ population (%) population (%) AFRICA Cote d'Ivoire 1993 14 35 Ghana 1992 16 21 Kenya 1993/94 17 21 Madagascar 1993 8 41 Malawi 1994/5 16 25 South Africa 1993 14 35 Tanzania 1993 13 23 LATIN AMERICA Chile 1986 25 17 lColombia 1992 23 14 Mexico 1992 14 27 Uruguay 1989 33 15 Sources: Dayton (1995b); Bernier, Chao, and Demery (1994); Castro-Leal (1995); Demery and Verghis (1994); World Bank (1995). Note: If public education spending were equally distributed across population quintiles, then the poorest and richest income quintiles (every number in the table above) would receive a 20 percentage share of spending. 25 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution ofPublic Educafion Spending in South Africa VII. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Reduce inequities by geographically targeting spending to the poor Inequality in the distribution of resources widens by educational level from primary to tertiary across different income groups and races; and, public education spending per capita is lowest for Africans at every educational level. The poverty focus of public investments in human capital can be substantially improved if education incentives are targeted to increase secondary and tertiary enrollments of ex-Homeland- African students and if a larger share of public education resources is allocated to them. However, because not all African students are poor or ultra poor, policies to target resources to the poor need more precise means of identifying them. Since the poverty profile found that nearly 70% of the poor live in the former homelands, gains in allocating education resources to the poor and ultra-poor could be achieved by targeting the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Northern Province, which have the highest poverty rates by far (which is linked to poverty in the former homelands). In addition, these Provinces contain more than half the former homelands population. Reduce education expenses on uniforms, transport and meals for poor primary and secondary students Targeting public education spending towards the poor and ultra-poor will require actions on both the demand and supply side. The direct costs of sending children to school are a critical factor determining the demand for education. Most families spend a significant amount for school fees, uniforms, transport, meals, books and paper to send their children to school; for poor families, this amounts to more than 40% of per capita non-food expenditures, compared with only 6% for non-poor families. Moreover, education costs rise to half of such expenditures per child in secondary school, compared with 10% for the non-poor. As mentioned earlier, poor families spend close to 75% of their household education budget on uniforms, transport and meals for children in primary and secondary schools in contrast to only a 15% spent by non-poor households. This suggests that if the costs of these items for poor primary and secondary school-age children were lowered, enrollments could increase. Create a higher education scholarship program and develop a credit market Public resources dedicated to tertiary education largely favor non-poor students. About one-third of these funds benefit the richest income quintile, which contains only 9% of the 18-22 year olds. Thus, public tertiary education is prohibitive for the poor: 26 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Each poor student at this level needs more than two-and-a-half times the per capita amount spent on non-food items to pay for school expenses compared with less than one- third for non-poor students. This suggests that exempting poor students from paying school fees could increase their enrollment at this level. To reduce the direct costs of tertiary education for the poor, the number of scholarships could be increased. Also, cost recovery mechanisms that do not discriminate against the poor could be simultaneously introduced to free up public education funds to finance the additional expense: One option to free public education funds and simultaneously increase cost recovery is to develop tertiary education credit markets. Such programs have been designed in other countries and it appears they do best when student loans are channeled through commercial credit institutions to ensure loan recovery, increase credibility and maintain cost-effectiveness. 27 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa REFERENCES Buckland, Peter and John Fielden. 1994. Public Expenditure on Education in South Africa, 1987/88 to 1991/2. Center for Education Policy Development, Johannesburg and The World Bank, Washington, DC. Castro-Leal, Florencia, Julia Dayton, Lionel Demery and Kalpana Mehra. 1998. Public Social Spending in Africa: Do the Poor Benefit? The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (mimeo). Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). 1993. Public Expenditure on Education in South Africa, 1987/8 to 1991/2. Volume 1: Financial Information and Volume 2: Contextual Information. Development Information Group of DBSA and the World Bank. South Africa. Meerman, Jacob. 1979. Public Expenditure in Malaysia: Who Benefits and Why? OUP for the World Bank, Oxford. Ministry in the Office of the President: Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa. South Africa, 1995. Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU), University of Cape Town. 1993. South Africa Living Standards and Development Survey. South Africa. Selowsky, Marcelo. 1979. Who Benefits from Government Expenditure? A Case Study of Colombia. A World Bank Research Publication, Washington, D.C. Van de Walle, Dominique and Kimberly Nead. 1994. Public Spending and the Poor: Theory and Evidence. PRDPE. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 28 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa APPENDIX A Table A.1 Racial composition of former homelands Race l_ _ African 99.95 Colored 0.01 Indian 0.02 White 0.02 Total 100.00 Source: SALDRU (1993) Table A.2 Africans by area of residence Race __ _ H-Africans 65.68 NH-Africans 34.32 Total 100.00 Source: SALDRU (1993) 29 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table A.3 Net enrollment rates, by quintile, gender and level of schooling, 1993 Gender | Hh Female Male All r________ Primary education Poorest 87 84 85 II 87 87 87 III 88 88 88 IV 87 91 89 Richest 91 89 90 Total 87 87 87 Secondary education Poorest 51 40 46 II 61 52 57 III 68 67 67 IV 81 76 78 Richest 87 79 83 Total 63 56 60 Tertiary education Poorest 5 3 4 II 6 4 5 III 10 6 8 IV 19 21 20 Richest 32 44 38 Total 11 10 11 Sources: SALDRU (1993) 30 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table A.4 Gross enrollment rates, by quintile, gender and level of schooling, 1993 Gender Hh Female Male All Primary education Poorest 109 114 112 II 105 111 108 III 101 105 103 IV 95 100 97 Richest 96 99 97 Total 104 108 106 Secondary education Poorest 81 81 81 II 104 92 98 EJ 117 102 110 IV 115 100 108 Richest 104 97 101 Total 100 93 97 Tertiary education Poorest 6 4 5 II 8 6 7 III 12 8 1 1 IV 23 25 24 Richest 40 57 48 Total 14 13 14 Source: SALDRU (1993) 31 Poverty and Inequality in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Figure A.1 Population distribution by household quintiles 30.0 29.0 1!~~~~2. Houlsehold share 20.0 It| 0.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i- Source: SALDRU (1993) Figure A.2 Distribution of the population by race within household quintiles 1 V Homeland 60 S (1993 40 MIndian 20 O Colmodee 0 EAfticaWNorn-gx- ii ~~~~~~ ~Homeland Source: SALDRU (1993) 32 Poverty and Inequaity in the Distribution of Public Education Spending in South Africa Table A.5 Annual education spending, by level of schooling and race, 1993 (Rand per capita) Education spending by race Educational H-African NH- Colored Indian White All Primary 153 167 424 372 384 213 Secondary 102 97 259 404 394 157 Tertiary 56 65 81 122 174 76 All education 311 328 765 899 951 446 Source: DBSA (1993), SALDRU (1993) 33