El costo de oportunidad de estudiar

(1)

El costo de oportunidad de estudiar

• Las personas sacrifican ingreso al estar en la escuela (forgone earnings):

–

Es más grande que el costo directo

–

Abandonar la escuela es una decisión

–

Dado que estudiar paga, debe ser que no tienen financiamiento

–

Hay espacio para ganancias en eficiencia (y equidad)

• Para los jóvenes no es fácil pedir prestado:

–

Son menores de edad, sin historial crediticio

–

Contratos difíciles de estructurar y hacer cumplir

–

Fuera de la familia hay grandes asimetrías de información

• Una opción son las transferencias condicionales de efectivo (CCT):

–

“Te doy $X si haces Y, el cual voy a verificar que hagas”

(2)

Tres estudios sobre CCT

Autores

Programa y país

Estructura

Tipo de evaluación

Resultado

Dearden et

al. 2009

Education

Maintenance

Allowance

(EMA), Reino

Unido

Estudiantes de segundo y

tercero de preparatoria, de

familias pobres, 45 o 60

USD por semana

Experimental en un

piloto, con matching

en distintas áreas.

4.5 pp en segundo

año y 6.7 pp en

tercero. Efectos

heterogéneos.

Cameron

2009

Social Safety Net

Scholarships

Program,

Indonesia

Estudiantes de primaria,

secundaria y preparatoria,

familias pobres con alto

riesgo de deserción de

acuerdo con un comité

local, 10, 20 ó 30 USD al

año

Datos de encuestas.

MCO (OLS)

controlando por

selección en variables

observables.

Reducción de la

deserción en

secundaria de 3 pp,

de 10.9 a 7.9%.

Berhman, et

al. 2011

PROGRESA

Oportunidades,

México

Estudiantes de 15 a 21,d e

familias pobras. CCT al

hogar (la madre), junto con

otros beneficios (salud,

nutrición), entre 8 y 55

Aleatorización,

desfasamiento,

DIDM, introducción

desfasada del

programa, usando

.5 a 1 año

adicionales de

escolaridad.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

PROBEMS

• Después de PROGRESA, el gobierno mexicano puso en marcha más CCT

–

Mismo principio, con algunas diferencias de instrumentación

• ¿Cómo evaluarlo?

–

No se hizo aleatorización ex ante como en PROGRESA

–

Retos legales y éticos para hacer un experimento

–

La estructura del programa provee un marco cuasi experimental

• Regresión discontinua (RDD)

• Diferencias en diferencias (DD)

• Los resultados son dramáticos:

–

Impacto muy grande

(10)

Introduction

PROBEMS:

• CCT to high school students in good standing

• It started in 2007 and currently has over 260k beneficiaries

• It does not overlap with other programs

• Means tested:

–

Once enrolled, students fill out a questionnaire

–

Program officials build socioeconomic score

–

Based on availability of funds place cut-off point

• Different amounts of CCT depending on: gender, GPA, grade, type of school

• Good standing is verified once or twice a year

• Discontinuities provide quasi-experimental settings for impact evaluation:

–

Extensive margin: beneficiary v non-beneficiary

(11)

Table 1. PROBEMS Cash Transfers, pesos per month

Grade / GPA in previous academic

year/level

Regular High School Technological High School Male Female Male Female

10th_grade 6.0 to 7.9 500 525 500 525 8.0 to 10.0 625 650 650 700 11th_grade 6.0 to 7.9 525 575 525 575 8.0 to 8.9 650 700 700 750 9.0 to 9.4 850 900 850 900 9.5 to 9.7 900 950 900 950 9.8 to 10.0 950 1000 950 1000 12th_grade 6.0 to 7.9 575 625 575 625 8.0 to 8.9 700 750 750 790 9.0 to 9.4 850 900 850 900 9.5 to 9.7 900 950 900 950 9.8 to 10.0 950 1000 950 1000

Source: PROBEMS. The transfers are given 10 months of the academic year. Grades range between 0 and 10, and 6.0 is the minimum passing grade. Technological high schools grant a high school diploma together with a technical degree.

(12)

CCT

recipient

status

266,000

Cut-off determined ex post

given funds available and

applicants’ characteristics

Institutional Background

(13)

Data

Administrative records from applicants in academic years 2010-11 & 2011-12:

• ~15k beneficiaries right above the cut

• ~15k non-beneficiaries right below the cut

Definition of dropouts:

•

10

th

_{and 11}

th

_{grades: did not enroll the following academic year (September)}

•

12

th

_{grade: did not graduate in the summer}

Technical high schools:

• ~2/3 of applicants

• Administered by the Federal Government

• SEP can provide records for CCT non-recipients

(14)

CCT

recipient

status

266,000

Data

1 30k valid applicants

from technical high

schools around cut-off

(15)

.2 .4 .6 .8 1

Fraction of CCT recipients by percentile of socieconomic score

Data

(16)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1

Dropout rates by CCT recipient status and percentile of socieconomic score

Data

(17)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Dropout rates by CCT recipient status and household income

Data

(18)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1

Dropout rates by CCT recipient status and GPA, 10th grade applicants

Data

(19)

Empirical Strategy

Sharp or fuzzy RDD?

• It makes no difference

Three specifications:

• OLS on full sample (linear model for comparability with IV)

• OLS ommitting fuzzyness

• IV on full sample, IV = 1(HH income per capita ≥ $500)

Intensive margin:

• Difference-in-difference

No evidence of sorting:

(20)

Empirical Strategy

Table 2. Regression of covariates on income and CCT recipient status

HH inc. p.c. 1,000s CCT recipient Constant R-squared Piped water 0.119 *** 0.008 0.924 *** 0.003 Water inside the house 0.151 *** -0.011 0.837 *** 0.005 Bath for the family 0.099 *** -0.008 0.815 *** 0.002 Running water 0.213 *** -0.015 0.777 *** 0.007 Electricity 0.017 * 0.001 0.991 *** 0.000 Blender 0.219 *** 0.025 *** 0.845 *** 0.004 Stove 0.106 *** -0.001 0.950 *** 0.005 Radio 0.171 *** 0.018 0.474 *** 0.001 Sewing machine 0.072 ** 0.010 0.101 *** 0.000 DVD player 0.260 *** 0.004 0.324 *** 0.005 Fan 0.098 ** -0.018 0.446 *** 0.002 AC -0.002 -0.032 *** 0.072 *** 0.005 Antenna 0.054 * -0.005 0.084 *** 0.001 Motorcycle 0.014 0.004 0.014 *** 0.000 Truck/Pickup truck 0.029 0.003 0.066 *** 0.000 Microwave oven 0.145 *** -0.026 ** 0.232 *** 0.006 Refrigerator 0.167 *** 0.001 0.908 *** 0.006 Water heater 0.225 *** -0.027 ** 0.292 *** 0.009 Stereo 0.154 *** 0.001 0.176 *** 0.003 TV set 0.125 *** 0.005 0.936 *** 0.004 Washing machine 0.250 *** -0.021 * 0.372 *** 0.008

(21)

Results

Table 3. Impact of the CCT on the probability of dropping out 10th_grade Explanatory variable Males Females OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample CCT recipient -0.491 *** -0.493 *** -0.486 *** -0.562 *** -0.562 *** -0.569 *** Household income per capita 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 GPA in previous year -0.091 *** -0.089 *** -0.091 *** -0.108 *** -0.108 *** -0.108 *** Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 -0.010 -0.013 -0.009 0.004 0.005 0.002 Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 x CCT -0.022 -0.020 -0.025 0.032 0.029 0.036 R-square 0.408 0.410 0.408 0.421 0.424 0.421 Obs. 8519 8403 8519 10195 10074 10195

* p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.001. Robust standard errors were computed. In the full sample 49.2% of males and 50.9% of females received the CCT.

All specifications include high school fixed effects and controls for household characteristics.

Fuzzy observations are those of students : (1) receiving CCT with a monthly household income per capita of $500 or higher, or (2) not receiving the CCT with a monthly household income per capita lower than $500. They represent 1.35% of male sample and 1.19% of female sample.

(22)

Results

Table 3. Impact of the CCT on the probability of dropping out 11th_grade Explanatory variable Males Females OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample CCT recipient -0.619 *** -0.619 *** -0.636 *** -0.604 *** -0.601 *** -0.592 *** Household income per capita 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 GPA in previous year -0.082 *** -0.079 *** -0.082 *** -0.083 *** -0.084 *** -0.083 *** Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 -0.009 -0.016 -0.013 -0.018 -0.020 -0.014 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.0 -0.021 -0.013 -0.021 -0.017 -0.009 -0.017 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.5 0.001 -0.013 0.001 0.047 0.038 0.047 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.8 -0.057 -0.048 -0.056 -0.048 -0.041 -0.048 Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 x CCT 0.022 0.026 0.031 0.009 0.011 0.002 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.0 x CCT 0.092 * 0.076 0.092 * 0.080 * 0.073 * 0.080 * Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.5 x CCT -0.004 0.009 -0.004 -0.010 -0.001 -0.010 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.8 x CCT 0.103 0.099 0.104 0.057 0.049 0.057 R-square 0.511 0.515 0.511 0.471 0.473 0.471 Obs. 2871 2832 2871 4093 4032 4093

(23)

Results

Table 3. Impact of the CCT on the probability of dropping out 12th_grade Explanatory variable Males Females OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample OLS Full sample OLS no fuzzy obs. IV Full sample CCT recipient -0.896 *** -0.895 *** -0.897 *** -0.876 *** -0.871 *** -0.868 *** Household income per capita 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 GPA in previous year -0.036 * -0.036 * -0.036 * -0.037 ** -0.037 ** -0.037 ** Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 0.044 * 0.043 * 0.044 * 0.037 * 0.038 * 0.039 ** Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.0 0.040 * 0.040 * 0.040 * 0.023 0.023 0.022 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.5 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.043 ** 0.044 ** 0.043 ** Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.8 0.036 0.038 0.036 -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 Dummy for GPA ≥ 8.0 x CCT -0.080 *** -0.081 *** -0.079 *** -0.085 *** -0.087 *** -0.090 *** Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.0 x CCT -0.010 -0.010 -0.010 0.017 0.017 0.017 Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.5 x CCT -0.010 -0.009 -0.010 -0.050 * -0.050 * -0.050 * Dummy for GPA ≥ 9.8 x CCT -0.009 -0.010 -0.009 -0.008 -0.009 -0.008 R-square 0.912 0.911 0.912 0.915 0.914 0.915 Obs. 1877 1851 1877 2752 2702 2752

All specifications include high school fixed effects and controls for household characteristics.

(24)

Discussion of Findings

Effects at extensive margin are large:

• 49/57% in 10

th

_{, 62/59 in 11}

th

_{, 90/87% in 12}

th