Abstract:
|
The study of public expenditure on education typically revolves and is
designed around theories that try to explain why public expenditure keeps on
increasing. The basis of these theories is to test and predict the various factors that
affect the growth of public expenditure, predominantly for the purpose of providing
public policy recommendations that will not only improve service delivery but also
that is expected to improve the welfare of the poor household income groups and
regions as well. This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect
the data from Kenya in order to research the factors that cause the growth of public
expenditure on education, and to examine the education provision trends and effects
of income distribution on the education sector. Standard multiple linear regression
analysis (SMLR) and benefit incidence analysis (BIA) methods were used to analyze
the growth of public expenditure and to assess the income distributive effects on
public expenditure on education respectively. Four models were tested using SMLR,
representing the education sector, and the primary, secondary, and university level.
The results obtained revealed different outcomes than what was expected from
the theories and models formulated. Some of the factors tested were positively
significant and therefore supported the expected theory predictions and others did not,
as explained in Chapter 5. The study found that in the general education sector, five
factors tested were positively significant: real GDP per capita, lagged expenditure, an
increase in total public expenditure, budget deficit, and secondary teachers’ employment. This means that a number of factors tested in Model-1 were by a good
margin of significant meaning and positively caused the growth of public expenditure
on the education sector. On the other hand, the study used household survey data for
2005, 2008 and 2014, and the data were used to evaluate the effects of the free
primary and free day secondary education policies that were introduced in 2003 and
2008 respectively. The main aim was to determine whether these policies are pro-poor
or not.
In general, there is an attempt by the government of Kenya to enhance the
position of poor households across all provinces. This is clear whereby the
government has not only increased the income distribution to everyone but also other
benefits, such as an increase in enrolments at all levels of education sector clear. The
results of this study show that poor households have benefited from the government’s
two basic education policies. The poorest income quintiles have a large share of
enrolment in primary whereas the richest income quintiles had higher enrolments at
both secondary and university levels. This implies that the distribution of public
expenditure on education favors the poor at the primary level and vice versa at both
secondary and university levels, as revealed in Chapter 6.
Finally, there is little to smile about the government public policy on the
education sector. It seems that the government lacks sustainable funding mechanisms
and proper policy implementation frameworks in order to provide not only quality
education but also to reduce the inequality in the country. The result of this study
indicates that public expenditure policy is pro-poor at the primary education level
while secondary and university education levels are pro-rich. This implies that
primary education in Kenya is progressive while secondary and university education
is regressive or pro-rich in nature. This study recommends that in order to promote
equitable resource allocation, better policies and more budget allocation to the
education sector are essential. This can only be achieved through investing more in
basic education infrastructure, conducting frequent checks on the effectiveness of all
education levels, and importantly in formulating sustainable education public policies.
This study provides a guideline on how to understand the impact of these factors and
also offers solutions on how to alleviate these effects in trying to utilize the limited
financial resources efficiently and effectively through supporting education policies.
|
