Assessing the Effects of Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers on Education Financing and Outcomes | 47
4. The effects described here relate to how transfers affect reported public education spending and do not take account of whether they displace private spending or other forms of public spending. In some cases, these displacement effects can be substantial. 5. Administrative costs include administration and management of schools and systems, teacher training, recreational activities, electricity, heating, transportation, library management, and the maintenance of facilities. 6. The per student intergovernmental fiscal transfers analyzed in this section are similar in their effects to per student transfers to schools. Evaluations have shown that providing transfers directly to schools has been successful in increasing access to education and attainment (McEwan 2015; Snilstveit et al. 2015). 7. See, for example, Shi (2016). Studies have shown that the impact of the reforms was different in different regions as well as for different levels of education. Ding, Lu, and Ye (2020) concluded that the new transfers did not lead to any significant increases in spending on education because they substituted for other “off-budget” spending, including tuition fees. This may also help to explain their positive impact on outcomes; the burden of funding shifted from households to governments, which removed the cost constraints on households associated with school attendance. 8. The guiding principles focus on the education sector but are drawn from the broader literature on fiscal transfers (see, for example, Bahl (2000); Boadway and Shah (2007); and Smoke and Kim (2003)) as well as findings from the case studies and associated author workshops. 9. See, for example, the Brazil (chapter 8) and China (chapter 10) case studies. 10. In Ukraine, for example, the responsibility for funding schools’ recurrent costs was held by a level of government different from the one that held decision-making authority to open or close schools. As a result, when demographic changes meant that fewer school places were needed, the number of schools was not adjusted downward. Although this disconnect has since been addressed, it led to an increase in the number of schools with low levels of enrollment, which, from a financing viewpoint, was inefficient (Herczynski 2017).
REFERENCES Al-Samarrai, Samer, Pedro Cerdan-Infantes, and Jonathan David Lehe. 2019. “Mobilizing Resources for Education and Improving Spending Effectiveness: Establishing Realistic Benchmarks Based on Past Trends.” Policy Research Working Paper 8773, World Bank, Washington, DC. Al-Samarrai, Samer, Tazeen Fasih, Amer Hasan, and Daim Syukriyah. 2015. “Assessing the Role of the School Operational Grant Program (BOS) in Improving Education Outcomes in Indonesia.” Report AUS4133, World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge .worldbank.org/handle/10986/22102. Alamir, M.A., M.T. Geiger, R. Bladon, N.M. Yehia, H. El-Tayeb Alyn, A.M. Ali, M. Yanez Pagans, J. Claussen, O.H. Fjeldstad, and S.A.I. Mustafa. 2014. Sudan State-Level Public Expenditure Review: Meeting the Challenges of Poverty Reduction and Basic Service Delivery. Background papers, vol. 2. World Bank, Washington, DC. Alonso, J.D., and A. Sanchez, eds. 2011. Reforming Education Finance in Transition Countries: Six Case Studies in Per Capita Financing Systems: Washington, DC: World Bank. Arvate, Paulo Roberto, Enlinson Mattos, and Fabiana Rocha. 2015. Intergovernmental Transfers and Public Spending in Brazilian Municipalities. FGV EESP: Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil). Bahl, Roy. 2000. “Intergovernmental Transfers in Developing and Transition Countries: Principles and Practice.” World Bank, Washington, DC. Bird, Richard M., and Michael Smart. 2002. “Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: International Lessons for Developing Countries.” World Development 30 (6): 899–912. Boadway, R., and A. Shah, eds. 2007. Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: Principles and Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank. Boex, Jameson, and Jorge Martinez-Vazquez. 2007. “Designing Intergovernmental Equalization Transfers with Imperfect Data: Concepts, Practices, and Lessons.” In Fiscal Equalization, edited by Jorge Martinez-Vazquez and Bob Searle, 291–343. New York: Springer.
