教育是消费还是投资?对学校竞争的启示
Is Education Consumption or Investment? Implications for School Competition
Annual Review of Economics · 2019 · [{"name": "W. Bentley MacLeod", "affiliation": ["National Bureau of Economic Research", "Columbia University"]}, {"name": "Miguel Urquiola", "affiliation": ["National Bureau of Economic Research", "Columbia University"]}]
中文摘要
米尔顿·弗里德曼认为,赋予家长自由选择学校的权利将改善教育。他的论证简单而令人信服,因为其将消费品市场的结论推广到了教育领域。我们回顾了相关证据,发现这些证据对弗里德曼的预测给出了出人意料的混合结果。一个关键原因在于,家庭似乎往往根据学校的绝对成绩而非增值来选择学校。我们表明,在一个基于弗里德曼研究该问题以来经济学家所强调的三个要素的模型中,这种择校行为可以是理性的。第一,教育是对人力资本的投资。第二,劳动力市场可能存在工资溢价:具有既定技能水平的个体,若与生产率更高的企业匹配,可能获得更高工资。第三,距离既影响学校选择,也影响学校所产生的安置结果。这些因素意味着,仅靠选择机制本身过于粗糙,无法确保教育的有效供给。
Abstract
Milton Friedman argued that giving parents freedom to choose schools would improve education. His argument was simple and compelling because it extended results from markets for consumer goods to education. We review the evidence, which yields surprisingly mixed results on Friedman's prediction. A key reason is that households often seem to choose schools based on their absolute achievement rather than their value added. We show that this can be rational in a model based on three ingredients that economists have highlighted since Friedman worked on the issue. First, education is an investment into human capital. Second, labor markets can feature wage premia: Individuals of a given skill level may receive higher wages if they match to more productive firms. Third, distance influences school choice and the placements that schools produce. These factors imply that choice alone is too crude a mechanism to ensure the effective provision of schooling.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →