Journal Issue
Share
Article

The Impact of Public Education Expenditure on Human Capital, Growth, and Poverty in Tanzania and Zambia

Author(s):
Erik Thorbecke, and Hong-Sang Jung
Published Date:
August 2001
Share
  • ShareShare
Show Summary Details

I. Introduction

In most poor countries, education is considered a priority to reduce poverty, and several studies have emphasized its importance. Barro (1991), Chu and others (1995), and Tanzi and Chu (1998) argue that public expenditure allocations for education can improve economic growth while promoting equity. Gupta and Verhoeven (2001) and Gupta, Verhoeven, and Tiongson (1999) suggest that both the size and the efficiency of public education expenditure are important in improving socioeconomic performance.

Promoting the education sector normally entails increasing public expenditure on education. A macroeconomic policymaker would question the economic consequences: how much would the supply of different educational skill groups and corresponding wage levels change, and what would be the impact on economic growth, macroeconomic stability, and poverty alleviation? In order to answer these questions, a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model was specified and calibrated for each Tanzania and Zambia. A novel feature of this model is that it specifies the mechanism through which public expenditure on education affects the production of human capital. In particular, education expenditure is viewed as providing additional human capital to those who are in the educational pipeline. As these individuals come out of the pipeline, they contribute to the stock of human capital of their households in the form of improved labor skills. In this context, the pattern of education expenditure influences the distribution of this additional stock among different socioeconomic household groups. This paper presents the simulation results of different education expenditure policies, to gain some insights into these issues.

In the next section, the economic structures of Tanzania and Zambia and the frameworks for their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are reviewed. In the third section, the education-focused CGE model and its calibration are presented and explained. In the fourth section, three alternative counterfactual scenarios are simulated, and their respective impacts on the macroeconomic conditions, the labor market, income distribution, and poverty alleviation are analyzed. The final section offers conclusions.

II. Economic Structure and the PRSPs of Tanzania and Zambia

A. Economic Structure

The model was calibrated on early or mid-90s data (i.e., the Tanzanian 1992 Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) and the Zambian 1995 SAM). We believe that those SAMs reflect relatively well the present structures of the two economies, summarized in Table 1. In general, macroeconomic performance has been better in Tanzania than in Zambia: the GDP growth rate has been higher and the inflation rate has been lower. During the mid-1990s, GDP growth in Zambia was barely equal to its population growth. The better growth performance of Tanzania was partly due to a higher investment ratio in past years. In recent years, however, the trend has been for this ratio to decline in Tanzania, while in Zambia it has increased.

Table 1.Economic Structure of Tanzania and Zambia
TanzaniaZambia
199219951999 1/199219951999 1/
GDP growth (annual change, in percent)1.83.64.72.1-2.52.4
Inflation21.815.87.065.734.926.8
Investment (in percent of GDP)27.019.615.211.915.917.5
Public9.23.43.14.06.67.1
Private17.816.212.17.99.38.8
Domestic savings (in percent of GDP)-2.40.86.2-0.712.2-1.1
Production structure (in percent of GDP)100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Agriculture48.146.244.821.316.224.6
Industry16.514.815.443.731.624.5
Services35.439.039.835.052.250.9
Budget balance (in percent of GDP)-1.7-5.9-3.4-4.2-4.3-3.6
Total revenue14.112.511.333.029.025.6
of which: grants2.72.03.914.79.27.9
Total expenditure and net lending15.918.314.737.233.429.2
Current account balance (in percent of GDP) 2/-26.7-21.1-14.8-16.0-7.0-16.1
Population growth (annual change, in percent)3.12.92.4-7.52.72.2
Sources: Country authorities; and World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000.

Most data for 1999 are preliminary.

Excluding government transfers.

Sources: Country authorities; and World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000.

Most data for 1999 are preliminary.

Excluding government transfers.

Tanzania’s production structure is heavily dependent on agriculture, while its industry relies mostly on processing agricultural products and light consumer goods. On the other hand, Zambia’s structure is dominated by copper and other mining products. Both countries suffer from fiscal and external deficits, with Zambia depending more on grants than Tanzania. Population growth is around 2.5 percent a year in the two countries.

B. PRSPs and Education

Each country was considered eligible by the Bank and the Fund to receive debt relief under the enhanced HIPC initiative in 2000, and each formulated its PRSP or IPRSP. The papers emphasize poverty reduction and the need to sustain macroeconomic stability, as summarized in Table 2. To maintain macroeconomic stability, government expenditure and the current account deficit are to be contained. Regarding education, both countries plan to expand expenditure within a sustainable macroeconomic framework.

Table 2.Macroeconomic Frameworks of the PRSPs and the Education Sectors of Tanzania and Zambia
TanzaniaZambia
200020012002200020012002
Real GDP growth (annual change, in percent)5.25.66.04.05.05.0
Consumer price index (annual change, in percent)5.64.54.019.010.07.0
Budget balance (in percent of GDP)-0.4-1.0-0.4-2.3-1.0-0.2
Total revenue16.116.316.428.028.427.7
of which: grants4.84.54.48.04.94.7
Total expenditure and net lending16.517.316.830.329.427.9
of which: education2.52.62.64.5 1/7.2 1/-
Current account balance (in percent of GDP) 2/-15.9-15.4-14.8-13.6-13.3-12.8
Sources: Tanzania PRSP, Decision Point Document, and Zambia IPRSP.

Total social expenditure.

Excluding government grants.

Sources: Tanzania PRSP, Decision Point Document, and Zambia IPRSP.

Total social expenditure.

Excluding government grants.

Presently, both the school enrollment rates and the quality of schooling are quite low in the two countries. In Tanzania, the gross enrollment rate for primary schools was estimated at 78 percent in 1997. The net enrollment rate, however, was much lower at 57 percent.2 In Zambia, the net enrollment rate in 1995 was higher at 75.2 percent. However, the quality of schooling is questionable: only three percent of fifth-grade students had attained the desired level of mastery of their subjects and only 26 percent had reached the minimum mastery level.3

The two countries emphasize education in their poverty reduction strategies. The Tanzanian government has prepared a Basic Education Master Plan and is preparing a Secondary Education Master Plan, to improve school facilities, textbooks, school management, and the quality of teachers, and to rationalize a number of underutilized and inefficient tertiary education institutions. To support these policy measures, the government intends to adopt a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) emphasizing primary education. In a similar vein, the Zambian government has launched a Basic Education Subsector Investment Program (BESSIP). A major objective of this program is to increase enrollment and improve the overall performance of basic education. To achieve these goals, the government plans to recruit and retain qualified teachers, improve teaching conditions, and correct the imbalance in teaching staff between urban and rural areas.

III. An Education-Focused CGE Model and its Calibration4

A. Model Structure

A neoclassical multisector CGE modeling approach with optimizing agents and flexible prices has been adopted for this study.5 Educated labor supply is determined as a function of education expenditure and other macroeconomic variables. The model has four types of institutions: households, firms, the government, and the rest of the world. Households are again classified into four groups by region and income level (i.e., urban poor, urban nonpoor. rural poor, and rural nonpoor). The model categorizes three production sectors: agriculture, industry (including mining, manufacturing, and construction), and services.

At the beginning of a period, the economy is endowed with a certain level of physical capital and human capital (in the form of stocks of different labor skills). The allocation of capital across production sectors is fixed during the period; labor, however, is mobile across the sectors. Economic agents maximize their objectives: households seek utility through consumption, and firms seek profits through production. Firms optimize factor use according to factor prices, equalizing the value of the marginal product of labor with its wage rate. Production factors distribute their income to households according to each group’s factor (resource) endowment, and households save some of their income and consume the remainder. Agents’ optimizing behavior adjusts to changing product and factor prices, to let the economy achieve a new general equilibrium. The savings determine investment.6 The model captures the interaction of economic activities and the circular flow of incomes within the socioeconomic system. The government collects taxes (income, domestic indirect, and tariffs), purchases goods and services, and provides transfers to household groups or firms. Firms, households, and the government are also involved in transactions with the rest of the world: exporting or importing goods and services, receiving or sending transfers and grants.

Imperfect substitution is depicted with respective CES-type Armington functions between factors (capital and labor), among products of domestic supplies and exports, and between domestic demand and imports. Different labor types are combined in two stages, reflecting two different levels of substitutability. The less-skilled types of labor (the noneducated and the primary-educated) are combined within a Cobb-Douglas-type Armington aggregation (LAi). This aggregate of less-skilled labor is combined again with the skilled (the higher-educated) labor within a CES-type Armington aggregation to yield a composite labor measure, assuming a smaller elasticity of substitution. This aggregation is depicted in Figure l.7 Consumption is specified as a Cobb-Douglas function.

Figure 1.Aggregation of Different Labor Types

Given the labor supply for a period, employment levels are determined by flexible wages through the operation of the labor market, given firms’ profit maximization conditions. Firms employ the optimal amount of labor (LBi), considering their first order condition of profit maximization, which in turn leads to the optimization of each labor type (LILil), given technical constraints and wage rates. The main structure of the model is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2.Structure of the Education-Focused CGE Model

Intertemporally, the model adjusts through changes in the stock of physical capital and the stock of human capital. Physical capital is increased by investment, which is determined by domestic and foreign savings. Human capital is determined by population growth (given exogenously) and the pattern of educational expenditures, a variable partially under the control of the government.

B. Supply of Educated Labor

Educational output—in terms of the supply of different types of labor, which contain different levels of human capital—is determined by the government’s expenditure on education and agents’ schooling efforts, expressed in terms of the agents’ opportunity cost for schooling. Schooling efforts are again determined through a representative agent’s maximization of its lifetime income. A representative agent compares the benefits (i.e., the present value of future income flows obtainable by finishing higher level education) with its opportunity cost (i.e., the income lost by the time spent on schooling). Assuming myopic expectations, schooling is formulated as a function of the wage differences among different educational levels, the economic growth rate, and the interest rate.

Flow structure of educated labor

The labor stock is composed of three educational levels: noneducated, primary-educated, and higher-educated. Flows of new entrants into and retirees from the labor force during a period determine the next period’s stock of the three types of labor.8 In the initial state, the total number of new entrants is assumed to increase by the fixed population growth rate of 2.5 percent. Assuming a 30-year working life, the oldest cohort retires and a new cohort joins the labor force, each canceling out the other and leaving a net (demographic) addition of 2.5 percent.9

The flow structure of the labor force is represented graphically in a simplified form in Figure 3. From the pool of population growth, some proceed to primary school, while others remain as noneducated, and from primary school, some advance to higher education while others directly enter the labor market as primary-educated. Finally, higher-educated workers are produced and supplied. With the total increase of the labor force constrained to a fixed population growth rate, the supply of noneducated labor is determined residually.

Figure 3.Structure of Labor Flow

The linkage is specified as MS3 = ML3, MS2 = ML2 + MS3, MS1 = ML1 + MS2, where MSl is the output flow of education level 1 that includes MLl, the new labor supply of education level 1, and MSl+1 for 1=1, 2, those proceeding onward to the next higher level of education. Alternatively, MS1 =ML1+ ML2 + ML3, MS2 = ML2 + ML3, and MS3 = ML3.

Specification of educated labor supply

In the initial state, the labor supply of each education level is assumed to increase by a fixed population growth rate. However, an increase of public expenditure devoted to education, with corresponding schooling efforts of individuals, increases the flow of educated labor supplied to the labor market.

The supply of educated labor is assumed to be determined by two factors: the level of the government’s education expenditure and individuals’ schooling effort, which is specified as the opportunity cost of schooling. Public expenditure on education provides the capacity for accommodating an expansion of human capital, which needs to be met by a corresponding increase in individuals’ schooling efforts, to realize the desired outcome (i.e., an increase in the number of educated workers). Its functional form is assumed to be exponential in the two determinants. The production function of educated labor of level m is specified as

where MSm is the outflow of education level m for a given period (year). ASm is a scale parameter, EG is the government’s education expenditure, and EP is the individual’s opportunity cost for schooling, which can be specified as the product of the share of schooling time (sl) and the present wage income of the next lower level l(W1).10

The agent’s schooling effort s1 is determined through the agent’s maximization of his/her lifetime income.11 In the present period 0, a representative agent of educated level 1 determines what fraction of his/her time or effort he/she will put into education to ascend to the next higher level m, which in the future will provide higher income. Thus, the agent’s decision can be described as

where Wl0 is the present wage rate of educated level 1, Wmt is the wage rate of the next higher level m in period t that can be achieved by more schooling, ul and um are unemployment rates of level 1 and m respectively, s is the fraction of time devoted to schooling, T is average working years, and rt is the discount rate in period t.

We assume that the agent has the myopic expectations that the rate of increase of the future wage rates Wmt and Wlt will be at its present growth rate g and the discount rate will be constant at its present interest rate r, and that the functional form of Wmt (sl) is Wm0(sls¯l)r(1+g)t, satisfying Wm>0 and Wm<0, where s¯l is the initial level of schooling effort in the economy. Then we obtain the following first-order condition with respect to sl:12

The left-hand side represents the marginal opportunity cost of schooling efforts, and the right-hand side represents the marginal benefit of schooling efforts, that is, the present value of future additional income. The growth rate represents future wage growth, and the interest rate represents the discount rate of future wages. Solving the above equation (3) for s, we obtain13

The agent’s optimization is depicted in Figure 4. An initial endowment is given as point A. The agent can remain at point A with no further schooling or can proceed to a higher education level with schooling, as represented by the earnings possibility frontier, arc ABC. The agent maximizes his/her lifetime income at point B, at which the relative wage increase corresponds to the net discount factor, line DE, provided by the market. At point B, the agent chooses schooling of HI in terms of the present wage.

Figure 4.An Agent’s Optimization of Schooling

If the interest rate r decreases or the growth rate g increases, this reduces the net discount factor and increases the net present value of future income, and thus schooling efforts increase. In Figure 3, the slope of the net discount factor DE becomes flatter, and the tangency point moves left. If the wage rate for the higher level increases, resulting in higher expected future income, schooling efforts also increase. In the figure, the possibility frontier shifts upward, achieving a tangency point located to the left. The higher the wage rate for workers with a higher level of education, the more schooling the agent chooses.

C. Calibration

The model is calibrated to the countries’ most recent SAMs: Wobst’s (2001) Tanzanian 1992 SAM, and Hausner’s (1999) Zambian 1995 SAM. Both SAMs were reaggregated by the authors to conform to the classification scheme adopted in the model (i.e., three production sectors (agriculture, industry, and services), three labor categories (noneducated, primary-educated, and higher-educated), and four socioeconomic (urban poor, urban nonpoor, rural poor, and rural nonpoor) household groups).14 The reaggregated SAMs of Tanzania and Zambia are shown in the Appendix.15

The capital stocks were estimated by discounting the capital incomes with each country’s current interest rate, and a depreciation rate of 10 percent was applied for both countries.

Considering life expectancy in each country, a working life of 30 years was assumed.16 Other parameters, such as elasticities, are adopted from previous relevant CGE studies.17

The labor supply of educated workers is assumed to display constant returns to scale for education expenditure and schooling efforts, with both elasticities assumed to be set at 0.5, with the remaining constants calibrated on the basis of SAM data. The supplies of primary-educated and higher-educated labor types are first determined with these estimated equations, and the supply of noneducated labor is determined residually, assuming that the total work force grows at the population growth rate of 2.5 percent.

Labor income is allocated to each household group based on the prevailing factor (resource) endowment structures in the two countries, as revealed in their respective SAMs. That is, we assume that the flow of new labor types is distributed across household groups in the same way as that of the whole labor stock. Factor endowments of household groups are calibrated from the SAMs, which reveal major differences between the two countries. In Tanzania poor households (both rural and urban) are largely endowed with noneducated labor, while nonpoor households are mainly endowed with educated labor. In contrast, in Zambia, we find that poor households include significant proportions of educated workers and, conversely, that nonpoor households include many noneducated workers. In that sense, Zambia appears to suffer more than Tanzania from “educated unemployment.”

D. Methodological Caveats

The study focuses on the impact on the labor market and macroeconomy of an increase in public education expenditure, assuming the qualitative aspect of education and other expenditures (including health) remains unchanged under different policy experiments. Compared with previous partial-equilibrium research, the study can contribute to the reduction of specification errors generated by closely related but omitted variables. Even more importantly, it can help shed light on the interlinkages among education expenditure and other macroeconomic and distributional variables.

The results should be interpreted in light of the methodological limitations of our approach. First, we assume that increased public education expenditure will result in improved education outcomes; several studies, however, caution that improvements in the quality of spending may also be needed to ensure that higher spending translates into better educational outcomes.18 Second, we assume that the technology and resource endowment shares of different household groups are fixed, without any significant dynamic changes during the time span of the policy experiments (except in our third scenario, where better targeting of education expenditure affects the human capital endowment of the poor alone). This can be justified on the grounds that our simulations involve relatively moderate policy changes, which are unlikely to lead to significant changes in the resource endowment matrix.

IV. Policy Experiments

In our policy experiments, we presume two policy options: (1) an increase in real education spending of 15 percent; (2) an increase in real education spending of 30 percent.19 The results of these two policy options are, in turn, compared with those of the base run that has no increase in real education expenditures. In the base run, even without any education expenditure expansion in real terms, the economy accumulates both physical capital and human capital (through an increase in the labor stock), and we assume that each type of labor grows at the population growth rate of 2.5 percent. Once there is an increase in real education expenditure, the supply of educated labor grows by more than 2.5 percent.20 For simplicity, we assume that all other exogenous variables remain constant in real or dollar terms, including total government expenditure and foreign financing.21 That is, we assume that the economies maintain sound macroeconomic frameworks, as envisioned in their PRSPs.

We assume that the adjustments required to reach a new equilibrium take place within one period, even though in reality education output is produced over a long gestation period. The enrollment ratios in the two countries are quite low, implying that an increase in human capital can be achieved rapidly (e.g., through the reenrollment of students who had previously dropped out). Also, it is not unrealistic to assume that the stock of human capital would increase not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively, following a rise in public expenditures on education. Although our model, as such, cannot capture these qualitative effects, positive results can be achieved in the short run, and further contribute to the creation of human capital.

It should be noted that the present model assumes that the labor markets for the three types of labor are segmented, although firms choose an optimal mix of labor types, depending on relative wages. The model assumes that higher-educated workers do not enter the market for primary-educated or noneducated workers, and that primary-educated workers do not enter the market for noneducated workers. In the real world, it is not unusual that unemployed educated workers, after searching unsuccessfully for a job in the formal sector, decide to enter the market for less-skilled labor in the informal sector. This process could lead to some crowding out of less-educated workers and a corresponding decline in their wage rates, as well as a rise in the wage rate of the more educated labor categories. We do not believe that the magnitude of the above “downscaling” would be large enough to alter significantly the results we obtain with segmented markets. Finally, it should be noted that the impact of educational expenditure affects only the annual flow, which constitutes about 3.3 percent of the labor stock, assuming a 30-year working life.

Three different counterfactual scenarios are simulated within the model. In the first scenario, we examine the results under the extreme assumption that the total labor supply would rise at the population growth rate of 2.5 percent. This assumption would be reasonable whenever effective demand for labor were constrained in the short run. However, in general, it might be more realistic to assume that additional unskilled (noneducated) labor—presently unemployed—would reenter the labor force if their wage rate were to increase. Thus, in the second scenario, we assume that previously unemployed noneducated workers would flow into the market as they observed a rise in the wage rate of noneducated workers, and this flow would stop when the wage rate for this type of labor returned to its normally expected level, which is equal to the level in the base run (the case with no real education expenditure increase). In the final scenario, we assume, furthermore, that the increase in real education expenditure would be perfectly targeted to poor household groups, implying that any additional educated labor supply over and above the population growth rate (2.5 percent) would originate exclusively from poor groups. In this case, the endowment of human capital of the poor groups would increase relative to that of the nonpoor household groups.

A. Scenario 1—Fixed Total Labor Supply

The growth of total labor supply is assumed to be fixed at the population growth rate of 2.5 percent. Under this assumption, as the supply of educated labor rises by more than the natural growth rate as a result of larger education expenditure, the supply of noneducated labor, which is determined residually, grows by less.

Labor market

The growth rate of the educated labor supply, which was initially 2.5 percent, now ranges between 2.9–3.3 percent, increasing by 0.4 percentage point for each 15 percent rise in real education expenditure (Table 3). The labor supply of the noneducated workers must grow at a lower rate than 2.5 percent, since it is determined residually. Regarding wage levels, the relative improvement of the noneducated wage level (compared to the other labor types) is significant in both countries, while the rate of growth of the wage rate of educated workers is falling. As primary- and higher-educated workers are supplied more abundantly, the noneducated become relatively more scarce and see their wages go up.

Table 3.Labor Supply and Wage Levels (Scenario 1)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
Labor supply (increase rate, %)2.52.52.52.52.52.5
- Noneducated2.50.4-1.52.50.6-1.2
- Primary-educated2.52.93.32.52.93.3
- Higher-educated2.52.93.32.52.93.3
Wage rates (increase rate, real, %)4.64.64.7-2.3-2.4-2.5
- Noneducated3.96.28.5-1.50.52.4
- Primary-educated4.74.44.2-1.1-1.5-1.8
- Higher-educated4.64.03.3-4.2-4.9-5.6

Under this scenario the growth rate of the average wage of the whole economy in Tanzania improves following an expansion in education expenditure, while that of Zambia worsens. The lower elasticity of demand for skilled labor in Zambia, relative to unskilled labor, contributes to the reduction of average wages as education levels increase. The likely reason for this is related to the lower physical capital accumulation in Zambia compared to Tanzania. The rise in the number of skilled workers is not matched with a sufficient increase in physical capital, limiting thereby the labor productivity and thus the wage rate in the model.22

Macroeconomic consequences

The GDP growth rate is improved in both countries by around 0.1 percentage point for each 15 percent increase in education expenditure (Table 4). The savings and investment ratios remain almost constant. The interest rate remains constant or decreases slightly.23 However, as previously noted, the savings and investment ratios of Zambia are much lower than in Tanzania in the baseline scenario: 29.3 percent in Tanzania and 14.5 percent in Zambia.24

Table 4.Growth, Interest, Exchange Rates (Scenario 1)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
GDP growth (real, increase rate, %)4.44.54.52.22.22.3
Investment (in percent of GDP)29.930.030.015.815.815.8
Interest rate (%)28.928.928.831.231.131.0
Real exchange rate (increase rate, %)-4.3-4.2-4.14.34.54.6

The exchange rate increases (depreciates) in both countries. A greater exchange rate depreciation is required to achieve a greater amount of exports that can balance the external sector in the model, since the increased domestic absorption induces a greater amount of imports.

Income distribution

In both countries the relative increase in capital income is greater than that of the wage rate consequent to an expansion in public expenditure on education (Table 5). As the supply of educated labor increases and capital becomes relatively more scarce, capital income grows faster than labor income. This trend is more prominent in Zambia, where savings and capital accumulation are relatively low, making capital more scarce and valued.25 However, this fact does not appear to affect in any significant way the simulated changes in household incomes.26 One reason is that land is included as part of the capital stock. Some poor groups, especially rural poor, own land and receive rental (mainly imputed) income. In both countries, education spending raises the income of the rural poor, but only by a small amount. One interesting result of the experiment is that higher education spending under this scenario could reduce the income growth of the urban poor in Zambia. This owes to the heavy reliance of this group on income from educated labor. Thus, an increase in education spending—by increasing the supply of educated labor—actually leaves the urban poor group worse off. The rural poor, meanwhile, benefit from higher education spending and the concomitant increase in wages of the unskilled.

Table 5.Income Distribution (Scenario 1)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
Wage income (real, increase rate, %)8.48.48.5-0.2-0.3-0.3
Capital income (real, increase rate, %)1.41.51.63.73.94.0
Household income (real, increase rate, %) 1/5.55.55.61.31.41.4
- Urban poor4.24.34.40.70.60.6
- Urban nonpoor8.68.58.42.12.22.2
- Rural poor4.34.54.61.31.41.4
- Rural nonpoor6.46.56.62.02.12.2

Household income includes not only labor and capital income bur also includes government and foreign transfers.

Household income includes not only labor and capital income bur also includes government and foreign transfers.

B. Scenario 2—Excess Supply of Unskilled (Noneducated)

In this case we assume that previously unemployed noneducated workers flow back into the labor market as they observe the wage rate of their labor type go up, and this flow of new entrants stops when their wage rate returns to the level in the base run (no education expenditure increase).

Labor market

Under this assumption of a very elastic labor supply of unskilled workers, the labor supply of educated workers rises at the same rate as in the first scenario; however, the labor supply of noneducated workers rises more than that in the first scenario (Table 6). The supply of noneducated workers is estimated to grow at 2.7–2.8 percent in Tanzania, and 2.3–2.4 percent in Zambia, leading to a growth of the total labor supply ranging between 2.8 and 3.2 percent.

Table 6.Labor Supply and Wage Levels (Scenario 2)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
Labor supply (increase rate, in percent)2.52.93.22.52.83.1
- Noneducated2.52.72.82.52.42.3
- Primary-educated2.52.93.32.52.93.3
- Higher-educated2.52.93.32.52.93.3
Wage rates (increase rate, real, in percent)4.54.34.1-3.0-3.4-3.9
- Noneducated3.93.93.9-1.5-3.5-1.5
- Primary-educated4.74.44.1-1.1-1.6-2.1
- Higher-educated4.64.34.1-4.2-4.8-5.4

The supply response of unskilled (noneducated) workers in both countries has a moderating effect on their wage rates. Compared with the results under the Scenario 1, as education expenditures increase, the wage rates of primary-educated workers worsen to a greater degree than those of higher-educated workers in both countries. This can be explained by their different degrees of labor substitutability with the unskilled (higher for primary-educated, lower for higher-educated).27 It should be noted that, in comparing the two countries, the wage rates of educated workers worsen to a greater degree in Zambia. This can be explained by the fact that the production structures are very different in the two countries. Zambia possesses a relatively larger share of industry and services, which rely more on educated labor, while Tanzania has a relatively larger share of agriculture, which depends more on unskilled workers.

Macroeconomic consequences

The GDP growth rate improves by 0.1–0.3 percentage point with each 15 percent increase in education expenditure in both countries (Table 7). Compared with the results of the previous scenario, savings and investment ratios are almost similar, while the real exchange rate shows less appreciation in Tanzania and more depreciation in Zambia. The economies both grow at a higher rate with increased domestic absorption.

Table 7.Growth, Interest, Exchange Rates (Scenario 2)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
GDP growth (real, increase rate, in percent)4.44.64.92.22.32.5
Investment (in percent of GDP)29.930.030.015.815.815.8
Interest rate (in percent)28.928.928.931.231.231.2
Real exchange rate (increase rate, in percent)-4.3-4.2-4.04.34.75.0

Income distribution

As the economies grow faster, household incomes also grow faster in both countries (Table 8). All household groups benefit from the higher income growth in both countries, as the increase in labor supply (employment) more than compensates for the declining growth of wage rates. However, the poor benefit more than the nonpoor from the expansion in education expenditure in Tanzania, with the opposite result in Zambia. As previously mentioned, the endowment of human capital of poor households in Zambia differs from that of Tanzania, including a larger proportion of educated individuals within those poor households.

Table 8.Income Distribution (Scenario 2)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
Wage income (real, increase rate, in percent)8.48.58.6-0.2-0.4-0.5
Capital income (real, increase rate, in percent)1.41.82.23.74.14.5
Household income (real, increase rate, in percent) 1/5.55.75.91.31.41.5
- Urban poor4.24.54.70.70.70.7
- Urban nonpoor8.68.78.82.12.42.6
- Rural poor4.34.64.81.31.41.4
- Rural nonpoor6.46.56.72.02.22.4

Household income includes not only labor and capital income but also includes government and foreign transfers.

Household income includes not only labor and capital income but also includes government and foreign transfers.

C. Scenario 3—Targeted Education Expenditure

Under this scenario, we assume that education expenditure is perfectly targeted to poor household groups. The increase in educated labor supply in excess of the initial 2.5 percent growth is assumed to originate exclusively from urban poor or rural poor household groups. This increased supply of educated labor is then incorporated in the factor endowment matrix of those household groups.

Labor market and macroeconomic consequences

Under this setting, the labor supply is the same as in scenario 2, and wage levels remain almost unchanged (Table 9). As for the macroeconomic consequences, the poor household groups receive more income, and spend more on food products, benefiting the agricultural sector. Hence, that sector is observed to grow marginally faster than in the prior cases. The economic growth and macro variables remain almost constant under this scenario compared with scenario 2.

Table 9.Income Distribution (Scenario 3)
TanzaniaZambia
Base15%30%Base15%30%
Wage income (real, increase rate, in percent)8.48.58.7-0.2-0.4-0.5
Capital income (real, increase rate, in percent)1.41.82.23.74.14.5
Household income (real, increase rate, in percent) 1/5.55.75.91.31.41.5
- Urban poor4.24.75.20.70.70.8
- Urban nonpoor8.68.38.02.12.32.4
- Rural poor4.34.75.01.31.41.5
- Rural nonpoor6.46.36.22.02.12.1

Household income includes not only labor and capital income but also includes government and foreign transfers.

Household income includes not only labor and capital income but also includes government and foreign transfers.

Income distribution

Poor household groups’ incomes improve significantly in both countries under this scenario, while nonpoor groups’ incomes increase relatively less, resulting in a more equal income distribution. However, the impact is smaller in Zambia than in Tanzania: both poor and nonpoor households benefit relatively equally, with a smaller impact on income distribution.

The main reason for this result is the dispersion of educated workers among nonpoor and poor household groups in Zambia, while in Tanzania, educated workers are more concentrated within nonpoor household groups.28 That is, the educated poor are more common in Zambia, implying that the effective demand for educated labor (job opportunities) is quite limited.

V. Summary and Policy Implications

Our results suggest that an increase in public expenditure on education can contribute to economic growth and poverty alleviation. In this context, it should be noted that all simulation experiments presumed sound macroeconomic policies, as total government expenditure and capital inflows were kept constant in real or dollar terms. The policy experiment results also imply that the poverty and growth effects of education expenditure will differ across countries. This suggests that poverty reduction strategies should be closely tailored to each country’s technology and factor endowment structures; similar policies in different countries may, in practice, lead to different outcomes. Nevertheless, an important implication of the experimental results is that, to maximize their beneficial impact, increases in education expenditure should be supported by appropriate policy measures, as explained below:

Significant poverty alleviation can be achieved most effectively through better targeting of educational expenditure to poor households. Under most scenarios, higher public expenditure on education provides higher economic growth and higher incomes for the poor. However, without better targeting, the impact on poverty reduction remains marginal, as a comparison of the results of the three simulation scenarios reveals. To achieve better targeting, the government could, for example build more schools in and attract more teachers to rural areas.

The government should implement policies that enhance the demand for labor through an appropriate pattern of economic growth. In Zambia, many educated workers are poor, in large part because of low growth in the past and few job opportunities. Because of this mismatch between skilled labor supply and demand, the expansion of the education system has had a limited effect in alleviating poverty.

To enhance the value of educated labor, the mix of education output should conform better to the economy’s prevailing production structure and effective demand for labor. The educational system should produce the type of human capital—in terms of different labor skills—that correspond to the pattern of labor demand.

Employment increases are essential for poverty reduction. The results indicate that the growth and poverty consequences of education expenditure are more favorable under conditions of excess labor supply, which in turn are associated with higher employment growth (and lower wage growth) than the in scenario with rising wages. This implies that poverty reduction can be facilitated by labor market flexibility and a reduction in barriers to employment growth.

The results also suggest that future research could fruitfully examine the link among other determinants of labor supply, employment, and income distribution. In particular, it would be useful to examine the linkage between health expenditure and labor supply, especially in light of the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in both Tanzania and Zambia.

Sufficient investment is necessary to improve labor productivity. When baseline scenarios are compared across countries, one striking result is the effect of investment on the rate of growth of wages and capital incomes. When investment rates were low, as in Zambia, wage increases were limited, and the relative value of capital and capital income increased relatively more, worsening income distribution. This result should be interpreted with caution, however, given the sensitivity of the results to assumptions regarding the rate of growth of the capital stock, the difficulty in estimating an initial capital stock, and the fact that current investment-to-GDP ratios differ somewhat from those incorporated in the Zambian SAM. Nevertheless, the results imply that poverty reduction strategies should ensure that efforts to strengthen human capital are complemented by sufficient levels of public and private investment.

APPENDIX I

Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs)

1. Tanzania: 1992 SAM
AgricultureIndustryServiceCommodity-

Agriculture
Commodity-

Industry
Commodity-

Service
Non-

educated
Primary-

educated
Higher-

educated
Capital

income
Urban

poor
Urban

non-

poor
Rural

poor
Rural

non-

poor
CompanyGovt.

recurrent
Govt.

investment
Indirect

tax
TariffCapitalWorldTotal
Agriculture0.0000.0000.0000.8440.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0420.886
Industry0.0000.0000.0000.0001.0570.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0511.107
Service0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.0250.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0731.098
Commodity-Agriculture0.0860.1800.1190.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0670.0820.2990.0170.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0040.0000.854
Commodity-Industry0.0760.2800.1590.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0810.1480.3550.0280.0000.0000.0530.0000.0000.4040.0001.584
Commodity-Service0.1570.3230.2300.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0170.0310.0510.0100.0000.2790.0000.0000.0000.0110.0001.108
Noneducated0.0520.0210.0330.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.106
Primary-educated0.3960.0490.0830.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.528
Higher-educated0.0450.0630.1360.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.244
Capital income0.0690.1780.3320.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.578
Urban poor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0080.0670.0280.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0780.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0230.203
Urban nonpoor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0110.1340.1810.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0040.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.331
Rural poor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0790.2930.0300.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.2240.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0990.726
Rural nonpoor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0080.0340.0050.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0100.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0030.061
Company0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.5780.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0280.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.606
Government recurrent0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0010.0030.0110.0020.0650.0000.0000.0710.0230.0180.1730.366
Government investment0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0350.0000.0000.0000.0000.0180.053
Indirect tax0.0000.0150.0060.0020.0420.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.071
Tarrif0.0000.0000.0000.0010.0230.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.023
Capital0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0360.0340.0000.0040.1950.0000.0000.0000.0000.0040.1580.441
World0.0000.0000.0000.0080.4620.0830.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0340.0000.0000.0300.0240.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.641
Total0.8861.1071.0980.8541.5841.1080.1060.5280.2440.5780.2030.3310.7260.0610.6060.3660.0530.0710.0230.4410.64111.61
2. Zambia: 1995 SAM
AgricultureIndustryServiceCommodity-

Agriculture
Commodity-

Industry
Commodity-

Service
Non-

educated
Primary-

educated
Higher-

educated
Capital

income
Urban

poor
Urban

non-

poor
Rural

poor
Rural

non-

poor
CompanyGovernment

recurrent
Direct

tax
Indirect

tax
TariffWorldCapitalTotal
Agriculture0.0000.0000.0001.0400.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0300.0001.07
Industry0.0000.0000.0000.0002.3810.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.9990.0003.38
Service0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.2780.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0540.0003.33
Commodity-Agriculture0.0390.3900.0040.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.1300.0360.4390.0660.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.10
Commodity-Industry0.2270.9470.6070.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.4200.2010.5200.0710.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.4783.47
Commodity-Service0.1990.9981.6220.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0880.0650.14800180.0000.4640.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.60
Noneducated0.0470.0390.0840.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.17
Primary-educated0.3580.0940.2120.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.66
Higher-educated0.0400.1200.3490.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.50
Capital income0.1550.7060.4350.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.29
Urban poor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0220.1650.2280.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.1940.0620.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.67
Urban nonpoor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0020.0240.1080.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.3170.0130.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.46
Rural poor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.1360.4370.1530.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.3600.0290.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.11
Rural nonpoor0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0100.0380.0190.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0860.0030.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.15
Company0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.2960.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.29
Goverment recurrent0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.1900.1940.1650.0000.2950.84
Direct tax0.0000.0000.0000.00000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.1340.0000.0000.0560.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.19
Indirect tax0.0050.0860.0180.0010.0510.0340.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.19
Tariff0.0000.0000.0000.0040.1260.0340.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.16
World0.0000.0000.000o.05y0.9130.2570.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0180.0000.0000.2350.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.48
Capital0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0330.0100.0090.0020.0480.27.30.0000.0000.0000.3990.0000.7.7
Total1.0703.3803.3321.1043.4713.6020.1710.6640.5091.2960.6710.4641.1160.1561.2960.8450.1900.1940.1651.4810.77325.9
APPENDIX II

List of Equations and Notations

Equations

Prices

Products

Labor markets

Incomes

Expenditures

Savings and investment

Market equilibrium

Intertemporal adjustments

Notations

Parameters

Ai

Production shift parameter

ACi

Composite good supply shift parameter

ATi

CET shift parameter

dhl

Depreciation rate of human capital

dpi

Depreciation rate of physical capital

fgh

Share of government transfer to household group h

fgn

Share of government transfer to company

fkh

Share of capital income to household group h

fwh

Share of capital income to rest of world (row)

flhl

Share of labor income of level 1 to household group h

gci

Share of government consumption in total expenditure

gii

Share of government investment in total expenditure

kpij

Coefficient transforming investments from origin j to destination i

lfil

Share of a level of labor 1 in sector i

Sh

Marginal propensity to save

tei

Tax (= -subsidy) rate on export

thh

Tax rate on household income of group h

tii

Tax rate of indirect tax on domestic goods

tmi

Tax rate on imports including tariff

tn

Tax rate on company income

ui

Unemployment rate of level 1

vji

Input-output coefficient

wdil

Wage difference between industries

αih

Share of the consumption on good i

λi

Factor share parameter

λci

Composite good supply share parameter

λli

Labor share parameter

λti

Output (CET) share parameter

ρi

Substitutability parameter in production

ρci

Substitutability parameter in total demand

ρli

Substitutability parameter in labor

ρti

Substitutability parameter in output

ωi

Share of value added of product i

Variables

Ci

Consumption demand

Di

Domestic sales of domestic output

Ei

Exports

EAP

Economically active population

ER

Exchange rate

EG

Total expenditure on education

g

Growth rate

GC

Total government consumption

GDPVA

Nominal GDP in market price

GE

Total government expenditure

GI

Total government investment

GI

Total governmnet consumption

GR

Government revenue

INVi

Investment by destination

IV

Aggregate investment

IVDi

Investment by origin

Ki¯

Capital stock of sector i

KINCi

Capital income

LAi

Composite of unskilled labor

LBi

Composite labor

LlLil

Labor demand of sector i for level 1

LSl

Labor supply

Mi

Imports

MLl

New incomers of level 1 to labor market

MSm

Total supply of education level m

Pi

Price of composite good

PDi

Domestic sales price

PEi

Domestic price of exports

PIND

Price index (GDP deflator)

PKi

Price of capital good for investment in sector i

PMi

Domestic price of imports

PVAi

Value-added price

PWE¯i

World price of exports

PWE¯i

World price of imports

PXi

Output price

Qi

Composite goods supply

RGDP

Real GDP

SF

Savings in the external sector

SG

Government saving

SHh

Savings of household group h

SN

Savings of company

TET

Revenue of export tax (or subsidy)

THT

Tax revenue on household income

TIT

Indirect tax revenue

TMT

Tax on imports including tariff

TNT

Tax revenue on company income

TRWh

Foreign transfer to household group h

TS

Total savings

Wl

Wage rate of level 1

WAi

Wage for the composite unskilled labor (LAi)

WBi

Wage for the composite labor (LBi)

Xi

Domestic output

Di

Output

Yh

Total income of household group h

YDh

Disposable income of household group h

YDN

Total disposable company income

YLl

Total labor income of level 1

YN

Total gross company income

APPENDIX III

Applied Parameters for CGE Model

1. Elasticities of Substitution (Tanzania and Zambia)
AgricultureIndustryServices
ρi (substitutability between capital and labor)0.30.50.8
ρci (substitutability between domestic sales and imports)1.20.80.6
ρti (substitutability between domestic sales and exports)-1.2-0.8-0.6
ρli (substitutability between unskilled and higher-educated)0.50.50.5
Source: Authors’ assumptions. Similar figures can be found in Devarajan, Go, and Li (1999) and Dorosh and Sahn (2000).
Source: Authors’ assumptions. Similar figures can be found in Devarajan, Go, and Li (1999) and Dorosh and Sahn (2000).
2. Wage Differentials
TanzaniaZambia
NoneducatedPrimary-educatedHigher-educatedNoneducatedPrimary-educatedHigher-educated
Agriculture0.7550.9440.9840.4980.6910.610
Industry0.9750.8610.7361.4951.9701.124
Services2.1411.6141.2051.6942.1491.037

Each figure represents the ratio of the wage rate for a specific education level in each sector to the average for that education level. The figures cannot be compared across education levels.

Sources: Authors’ estimates based on Tanzanian 1992 SAM, Zambian 1995 SAM, and World Bank (1994, 1996, 1999).

Each figure represents the ratio of the wage rate for a specific education level in each sector to the average for that education level. The figures cannot be compared across education levels.

Sources: Authors’ estimates based on Tanzanian 1992 SAM, Zambian 1995 SAM, and World Bank (1994, 1996, 1999).
3. Endowment Coefficients of Human Capital (Initial Values)
TanzaniaZambia
NoneducatedPrimary-

educated
Higher-educatedNoneducatedPrimary-

educated
Higher-educated
Urban poor0.0740.1270.1130.0130.0360.212
Urban nonpoor0.1020.2540.7410.1300.2480.449
Rural poor0.7480.5540.1250.0600.0570.037
Rural nonpoor0.0760.0650.0210.7970.6590.302
Total1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
Sources: Tanzanian 1992 SAM and Zambian 1995 SAM.
Sources: Tanzanian 1992 SAM and Zambian 1995 SAM.
4. Consumption Shares

Tanzania

Urban poorUrban nonpoorRural poorRural nonpoor
Agriculture0.4060.3160.4240.302
Industry0.4930.5660.5040.511
Services0.1010.1180.0730.188
Total1.0001.0001.0001.000
Source: Tanzanian 1992 SAM.
Source: Tanzanian 1992 SAM.
Zambia
Urban poorUrban nonpoorRural poorRural nonpoor
Agriculture0.2040.1180.3970.428
Industry0.6580.6650.4690.458
Services0.1370.2170.1340.113
Total1.0001.0001.0001.000
Source: Zambian 1995 SAM.
Source: Zambian 1995 SAM.
References

    BehrmanJere R. and NancyBirdsall1983The Quality of Schooling: Quantity Alone is MisleadingThe American Economic ReviewVol. 73 (December) pp. 92846.

    BarroRobert J.1991Economic Growth in a Cross Section of CountriesQuarterly Journal of EconomicsVol. 106 (May) pp. 40743.

    ChuKe-young and others 1995Unproductive Public Expenditures: A Pragmatic Approach to Policy AnalysisIMF Pamphlet Series No. 48 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    DaviesJames B. and FranceSt-Hilaire1987Reforming Capital Income Taxation in Canada: Efficiency and Distributional Effects of Alternative Options (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada for the Economic Council of Canada).

    DevarajanShantayananDelfin S.Go and HongyiLi1999Quantifying the Fiscal Effects of Trade Reform: A General Equilibrium Model Estimated for 60 CountriesWorld Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2162 (Washington: World Bank).

    DevarajanShantayanan and others 1998Simple General Equilibrium Modeling” in Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis–A. Handbooked. by Joseph F.François and Kenneth A.Reinert(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    DoroshPaul A.1994. “Structural Adjustment, Growth, and Poverty in Madagascar: A CGE AnalysisCornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program Monograph 17 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program).

    DoroshPaul A. and David E.Sahn2000A General Equilibrium Analysis of the Effect of Macroeconomic Adjustment on Poverty in Africa.” Journal of Policy ModelingVol. 22 (June) pp. 753776.

    FargeixAndre and ElisabethSadoulet1994A Financial Computable General Equilibrium Model for the Analysis of Stabilization Programs” in Applied General Equilibrium and Economic Development: Present Achievements and Future Trendsed. by JeanMercenier and T.N.Srinivasan(Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press).

    GuptaSanjeev and MarijnVerhoeven2001The Efficiency of Government Expenditure: Experiences from AfricaJournal of Policy ModelingVol. 23No. 4.

    GuptaSanjeevMarijnVerhoeven and ErwinTiongson1999Does Higher Government Spending Buy Better Results in Education and Health Care?IMF Working Paper 99/21 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    HanushekEric A.1996Measuring Investment in EducationThe Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol. 10 (Autumn) pp. 930.

    HausnerUlrich1999A 1995 Social Accounting Matrix for ZambiaIFPRI Discussion Paper No. 49 (Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute).

    International Development Association and International Monetary Fund2000Tanzania: Decision Point Document Under the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) InitiativeIMF Document EBS/00/54 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).

    RobinsonSherman and others 1999From Stylized to Applied Models: Building Multisector CGE Models for Policy AnalysisNorth American Journal of Economics and FinanceVol. 10 (January) pp. 538.

    Tanzania2000Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Available via the Internet: http://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/2000/tza/02/index.htm

    TanziVito and Ke-youngChueds.1998Income Distribution and High-Quality Growth (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

    ThorbeckeErik and the Center for World Food Studies1992Adjustment and Equity in Indonesia (Paris: Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).

    ThorbeckeErik and Hong-SangJung1996A Multiplier Decomposition Method to Analyze Poverty AlleviationJournal of Development EconomicsVol. 48 (March) pp. 279300.

    WobstPeter20011992 Social Accounting Matrix for Tanzania,” Appendix D in “Structural Adjustment and Intersectoral Shifts in Tanzania: A Computable General Equilibrium AnalysisIFPRI Research Report No.l17 (Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute). World Bank, 1994, “Zambia: Poverty Assessment,” World Bank Report No. 12985-ZA (Washington).

    World Bank1994Zambia: Poverty AssessmentWorld Bank Report No. 12985-ZA (Washington).

    World Bank1996Tanzania: The Challenge of Reforms: Growth. Incomes and WelfareWorld Bank Report No. 14982-TA (Washington).

    World Bank1999Tanzania: Social Sector ReviewWorld Bank Country Study No. 19809 (Washington).

    World Bank2000World Development Indicators 2000 (Washington: World Bank).

    Zambia2000Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (IPRSP). Available via the Internet: http://www.imf.org/external/country/ZMB/index.htm

Hong-Sang Jung is a technical assistance advisor in the Fiscal Affairs Department; Erik Thorbecke is a professor at Cornell University. This paper is a revised version of a paper presented at the IMF Workshop on Macroeconomic Policies and Poverty Reduction (Washington, DC, April 2001) and the Joint World Bank/IMF Workshop on Micro-Macro Linkages (Washington, DC, July 2001). The authors gratefully acknowledge useful comments by Francois Bourguignon, Sherman Robinson, Ke-young Chu, Sanjeev Gupta, Benedict Clements, Alfred Kammer, Shahabuddin Hossain, Luiz de Mello, and Gabriela Inchauste, and helpful advice from Shantayanan Devarajan, Delfin S. Go, and Dominique van der Mensbrugghc.

Tanzania PRSP. An electronic version is available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/2000/tza/02/index.htm.

Zambia IPRSP. An electronic version is available at http://www.imf.org/external/country/ZMB/index.htm.

For detailed equations of the model, see Appendix II.

The basic structure of the model follows Robinson and others (1999).

Savings are determined by income, and investment by the interest rate (in the savings equation in the model we assume that savings are insensitive to changes in the interest rate, consistent with observed trends in the two economies). External sector equilibrium is achieved through a flexible exchange rate. The interest rate and exchange rate are endogenously determined within the model. Money supply and demand are not included in the model, and only relative prices are determined.

This aggregation scheme enables the model to depict productivity growth under the scenario that the economy be endowed with more education. An educated or skilled worker is provided with a higher share parameter in the Cobb-Douglas or CES function, due to its higher initial wage level in the calibration (thus contributing more to the composite labor). Hence, an increase in the supply of educated labor leads to a higher value for composite labor and results in higher production, compared with a similar increase in the supply of noneducated workers.

Each level of educated labor includes not only graduates but also dropouts.

Under the assumption of 2.5 percent population growth and a 30-year working life, the oldest cohort and the new cohort are calculated as 2.3 and 4.8 percent of the stock (of the three types of labor) respectively.

The specification reflects the income effects of education. As wage income increases, the supply of educated workers increases.

A representative agent wants to maximize lifetime utility from consumption. Assuming that he/she cannot hold liabilities at the time of death and can access credit markets efficiently, maximizing utility is equivalent to maximizing his/her lifetime income.

If an agent undertakes more schooling effort than the initial level, he/she can achieve a higher wage level. We assume r > g. Otherwise, the agent will choose s=1, which is clearly unsustainable. Also, for a large T, the term (1+g1+r)T diminishes to 0.

Flexible wages clear the labor market, while unemployment rates are fixed in the model.

The Zambian SAM classifies labor by education level; however, the Tanzanian SAM classifies labor by employment status (e.g., professional, white collar, blue collar). Thus, in the case of the Tanzanian SAM, we estimated the cells for the labor groups by education level, applying the same labor structure as in Zambia.

In Zambia, copper mining is important. Mining is included in industry. The Tanzanian SAM and Zambian SAM do not include income transfers between household groups. They do. however, include transfers to and from the rest of the world.

Labor stocks are estimated with household survey results as provided in World Bank country documents. Life expectancies at birth and at age 15 are projected at 44.1 and 38.0 years in Tanzania and 40.2 and 37.5 years in Zambia, respectively, for 2000–05 (World Bank, World Development Indicators 2000).

As in the studies by Devarajan, Go, and Li (1999), Dorosh and Sahn (2000), and Dorosh (1994), we assumed elasticities of substitution for production factors in the range of 0.3–0.8, while those for consumption (with imports) and transformation (with exports) ranged between 0.6–1.2.

Based on data from nineteen HIPC countries, education expenditure will increase on average from 3.9 percent of GDP in 1999/2000 to 4.8 percent of GDP in 2000/01, which is an almost 20 percent increase. This appears consistent with the range of a 15 to 30 percent increase adopted in our policy experiments.

We assume that public education expenditure amounts to 4 percent of GDP in both countries in the base run.

That is, we suppose only a reallocation of government resources to education from other sectors, maintaining a total government expenditure constant in real terms. We also assume that government spending on public investment remains constant: thus, an increase in education spending does not crowd out growth-enhancing public investment projects.

Due to low savings ratios, the capital stock is estimated to increase by only 2.2 percent in Zambia, while that in Tanzania increases by 13.7 percent in the base run.

The equations specify both savings and investment as depending on the interest rate. However, considering the trends in the countries, the elasticity of savings to the interest rate is assumed to be 0, specifying savings only as a function of income. The elasticity of investment to the interest rate is assumed to be 1.0.

In the present experiments, Tanzania (1992) represents a high-investing economy and Zambia (1995) represents a low-investing economy. The model was calibrated on the SAMs of Tanzania 1992 and Zambia 1995. However, the PRSPs of the two countries plan investment ratios of 17 percent in Tanzania and 20.7 percent in Zambia for 2002.

In this context, it should be noted that the baseline results for the growth in household and wage income were sensitive to assumptions regarding the growth rate of the capital stock. Under the assumption that the capital stock increased by 5 percent in real terms in Zambia, for example, real wages were estimated to rise by 0.9 percent, and household incomes by 3.0 percent.

The classifications of household categories used in the SAMs of Tanzania and Zambia do not correspond exactly to the classification adopted in our model. Based on locational, occupational, and income characteristics the following conversion was adopted:

Urban PoorUrban NonpoorRural PoorRural Nonpoor
TanzaniaUrban fannersUrban nonfarmersRural farmersRural nonfarmers
ZambiaMetropolitan low

income
Metropolitan high

income
Nonmetropolitan

rural
Nonmetropolitan

urban
These different definitions of poor vs. nonpoor household categories might matter if the intent were to make poverty comparisons between these two countries in the base year. However, our objective is to explore the impact of alternative counterfactual (policy) scenarios on the change in income distribution and the magnitude of poverty in the two countries.

Wage rates of educated workers are affected by two elements: higher economic growth results in higher wage rates, and a larger supply of unskilled workers and their lower wage rate cause greater substitution of educated workers. Primary-educated workers, who are more substitutable with the unskilled, are more affected by the latter, while higher-educated workers, who are less substitutable with the unskilled, are more affected by the former.

To test how significant the factor endowments are, we experimented in the Zambian case with the Tanzanian endowment matrix of factors to household groups. The income distribution result was similar to that of Tanzania, assuring us that the pattern of factor endowments has an important impact on the distribution results.

Other Resources Citing This Publication