Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OECD. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Institute for Advanced Behavioural Studies
The Institute for Advanced Behavioural Studies' new website has just been launched.
The mission of the institute is to act as a facilitator on behavioural research, bringing together partners such as Gallup, the OECD or the RAND Corporation.
IFABS organises events on behavioural issues and also publishes a working paper series.
Also check out the research news feed, which compiles new behavioural research from several online sources.
Friday, October 07, 2011
The OECD and Well-being
The OECD is organising a conference in Paris on 12 October 2011 on "Two Years after the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report":
Some interesting OECD related links:
Better Life Initiative: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/
Measuring Progress: www.oecd.org/measuringprogress
wikiprogress: http://www.wikiprogress.org/
The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report is very much a must-read on the topic: http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
OECD Report: Education at a glance- or in a fog?
The Irish Times today covered the publication of the latest OECD Education at a Glance and some of the domestic response to it. Like most OECD publications, this series provides lots of useful statistics and information generally to a fairly high standard.
I haven't read the actual report but two things struck me from the coverage. In the first article it says " The report shows that on average across OECD countries, a man with third-level qualifications will generate $119,000 (€93.386) more in income taxes and social contributions over his working life than someone with just an upper secondary level of education. It says that even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make third-level education a good long-term investment."
Assuming they are being quoted correctly, this is a bad mistake by the OECD. If you want to do a Cost-Benefit analysis of investment in education then you need to measure the extra output generated which is proxied by the extra income and not the additional tax revenue generated. The latter is a transfer from one group to another so its irrelevant. In a country with high marginal income taxes the extra tax yield from additional education is higher but obviously this doesn't mean that education is a "better investment" in such countries. Unfortunately this fallacy is quite common though I am surprised to see it apparently emanating from the OECD. The OECD argument would only make sense if the purpose of public policy was to minimize net public outlays on education. In which case, one should simply close the sector down or privatise it.
The second point that struck me is the concentration in the commentary on education expenditure & Ireland's low ranking by this criterion (as a share of GDP). This data is openly referred to as "league tables" and various people in the education sector as well as opposition politicans, quoted in the second article, are content to moan about it.
Now when league tables are discussed in an education context it usually refers to comparisons of schools based on exam results. Cue educationalists and teachers unions saying "Oh no crude league tables, don't take into account blah blah... so we can't have that". Far better to keep parents in the dark about one of the most important decisions they will ever make: its for their own benefit. But such tables would at least refer to outputs and could, with a little work, be made into a Value Added measure. However these OECD numbers just released are measures of one input as a share of another variable that take nothing into account. What does it mean that Ireland spends less on education, as a % of GDP, than say Belgium? Absolutely nothing. So it seems to me that it is completely inconsistent, not to say self-serving, to decry one set of crude comparisons but endorse another totally meaningless set.
I haven't read the actual report but two things struck me from the coverage. In the first article it says " The report shows that on average across OECD countries, a man with third-level qualifications will generate $119,000 (€93.386) more in income taxes and social contributions over his working life than someone with just an upper secondary level of education. It says that even after taking account of the cost to the public exchequer of financing degree courses, higher tax revenues and social contributions from people with university degrees make third-level education a good long-term investment."
Assuming they are being quoted correctly, this is a bad mistake by the OECD. If you want to do a Cost-Benefit analysis of investment in education then you need to measure the extra output generated which is proxied by the extra income and not the additional tax revenue generated. The latter is a transfer from one group to another so its irrelevant. In a country with high marginal income taxes the extra tax yield from additional education is higher but obviously this doesn't mean that education is a "better investment" in such countries. Unfortunately this fallacy is quite common though I am surprised to see it apparently emanating from the OECD. The OECD argument would only make sense if the purpose of public policy was to minimize net public outlays on education. In which case, one should simply close the sector down or privatise it.
The second point that struck me is the concentration in the commentary on education expenditure & Ireland's low ranking by this criterion (as a share of GDP). This data is openly referred to as "league tables" and various people in the education sector as well as opposition politicans, quoted in the second article, are content to moan about it.
Now when league tables are discussed in an education context it usually refers to comparisons of schools based on exam results. Cue educationalists and teachers unions saying "Oh no crude league tables, don't take into account blah blah... so we can't have that". Far better to keep parents in the dark about one of the most important decisions they will ever make: its for their own benefit. But such tables would at least refer to outputs and could, with a little work, be made into a Value Added measure. However these OECD numbers just released are measures of one input as a share of another variable that take nothing into account. What does it mean that Ireland spends less on education, as a % of GDP, than say Belgium? Absolutely nothing. So it seems to me that it is completely inconsistent, not to say self-serving, to decry one set of crude comparisons but endorse another totally meaningless set.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Family Affair: Intergenerational Social Mobility
Another interesting OECD report examines social mobility. Some of the conclusions:
Across European OECD countries, there is a substantial wage premium associated with growing up in a better-educated family, and a corresponding penalty with growing up in a less-educated family. The premium and penalty are particularly large in southern European countries, as well as in the United Kingdom. The penalty is also high in Luxembourg and Ireland. In these countries the wage premium is more than 20%, while the penalty is some 16% or more (relative to wages earned by individuals raised in a family with average education).
Education policies play a key role in explaining observed differences in intergenerational social mobility across countries. For example, higher enrolment in early childhood education is associated with a lower influence of parental background on students’ achievement in secondary education. By contrast, school practices that group students into different curricula at early ages come with less social mobility in educational achievement. Moreover, increasing the social mix within schools appears to boost performance of disadvantaged students without any apparent negative effects on overall performance.
Redistributive and income support policies seem to be associated with greater intergenerational social mobility.
Across European OECD countries, there is a substantial wage premium associated with growing up in a better-educated family, and a corresponding penalty with growing up in a less-educated family. The premium and penalty are particularly large in southern European countries, as well as in the United Kingdom. The penalty is also high in Luxembourg and Ireland. In these countries the wage premium is more than 20%, while the penalty is some 16% or more (relative to wages earned by individuals raised in a family with average education).
Education policies play a key role in explaining observed differences in intergenerational social mobility across countries. For example, higher enrolment in early childhood education is associated with a lower influence of parental background on students’ achievement in secondary education. By contrast, school practices that group students into different curricula at early ages come with less social mobility in educational achievement. Moreover, increasing the social mix within schools appears to boost performance of disadvantaged students without any apparent negative effects on overall performance.
Redistributive and income support policies seem to be associated with greater intergenerational social mobility.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
The High Cost of Low Educational Performance
A new OECD report examines the relationship between education and economic growth.
While governments frequently commit to improving the quality of education, it often slips down the policy agenda. Because investing in education only pays off in the future, it is possible to underestimate the value and the importance of improvements.
This report uses recent economic modelling to relate cognitive skills – as measured by PISA and other international instruments – to economic growth, demonstrating that relatively small improvements to labour force skills can largely impact the future well-being of a nation.
The report also shows that it is the quality of learning outcomes, not the length of schooling, which makes the difference. A modest goal of all OECD countries boosting their average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years would increase OECD gross domestic product by USD 115 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. More aggressive goals could result in gains in the order of USD 260 trillion.
While governments frequently commit to improving the quality of education, it often slips down the policy agenda. Because investing in education only pays off in the future, it is possible to underestimate the value and the importance of improvements.
This report uses recent economic modelling to relate cognitive skills – as measured by PISA and other international instruments – to economic growth, demonstrating that relatively small improvements to labour force skills can largely impact the future well-being of a nation.
The report also shows that it is the quality of learning outcomes, not the length of schooling, which makes the difference. A modest goal of all OECD countries boosting their average PISA scores by 25 points over the next 20 years would increase OECD gross domestic product by USD 115 trillion over the lifetime of the generation born in 2010. More aggressive goals could result in gains in the order of USD 260 trillion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)