Mother ’ S Schooling and Child Education : a Survey

Conventional wisdom is that: (1) mother’s schooling has widespread positive substantial effects on child education; (2) these effects tend to be much larger than those of father’s schooling; and (3) therefore, ceteris paribus, there is a stronger efficiency case (given education externalities) for subsidies for female than for male schooling. This paper first discusses a general framework for thinking about the impact of mother’s schooling on child education and then surveys what we know on the basis of all 237 estimates that have been located. Examination of available estimates in light of this general framework suggests that knowledge on the impact of women’s schooling on child education generally could be improved with more clarity about what model is estimated, roles of possibly important unobserved variables such as preferences and abilities, distinctions between particular and more-general total effects, and use of broader indicators of both mother’s and child’s education that capture outcomes rather than primarily time-in-school inputs. Taken at their face value the central tendency of current estimates is consistent with the “widespread” and “positive” part of point 1 of the conventional wisdom, but not with the “substantial” part of point 1, nor for the claim that the effects of mother’s schooling tend to be much greater than those of father’s schooling -and therefore not with a efficiency argument for large subsidies for female schooling, nor for larger subsidies for female than for male schooling. Most studies, however, include among right-side variables some that possibly are determined partially by mother’s schooling. On the basis of a priori considerations, a few studies that explore the effects of such procedures, and new estimates that characterize all estimates that have been located, the usual specifications lead to a substantial underestimate of the total effect of mother’s schooling and a smaller upward bias in the estimated relative impact of mother’s versus father’s schooling, with control for income and less so school characteristics biasing the estimated effects towards mother’s schooling and control for number of children and community characteristics biasing the estimates somewhat less towards father’s schooling. In future work within the assumptions of the standard specification it would be desirable to explore how sensitive estimates of the impact on child education of mother’s schooling are to the inclusion of other controls that arguably are determined by women’s schooling. Most existing studies do not control for possible biases in the estimated effects of mother’s schooling due to unobserved (by analysts) abilities and preferences that directly affect child education and that are correlated with mother’s schooling. A few studies suggest that unobserved preference and ability endowments may affect importantly the estimated impact of mother’s schooling on child education, with estimates generally (though not always) biased upwards by the failure to control for these endowments. They also suggest that marriage market considerations may be critical for analyzing the impact of mother’s schooling on child education, and that such considerations at least in some contexts increase the estimated impact of mother’s relative to father’s schooling. But these studies also point to the sensitivity of the results to how such endowments are controlled, including the limitations of partial controls through observed indicators. Therefore it is critical for interpretation that the underlying model be spelled out explicitly and used directly as a guide to the estimation method because estimates using behavioral data are necessarily conditional on particular assumptions about the underlying model and explicit modeling makes it clear on what the interpretation is based. 1Also see Behrman and Stacey (1997), Haveman and Wolfe (1984, 1993, 1994, 1995b), King and Hill (1993), Michael (1982), Schultz (1993b), World Bank (1990, 1991, 1995) and the many references therein. 1 Women’s schooling is widely thought to have important nonmarket effects additional to any effects on market productivity. Scholarly studies and the applied policy literature have stressed that for such reasons female schooling is an important factor in poverty alleviation and economic development strategies in a wide range of economies, as is reflected in the following quotations from diverse scholars and operational organizations: 1 “...once all the benefits are recognized, investment in the education of girls may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world....Increased schooling has similar effects on the incomes of males and females, but educating girls generates much larger social benefits.” Summers (1993, p. v) “As is now well known, educating women has a powerful multiplier effect on the well-being of families and on a society’s general level of human development. As women become literate, fertility rates fall, infant and child health improves, children’s educational level increases and household nutritional and sanitary conditions improve.” UNDP (1996, p. 110). “Many, though certainly not all, studies have demonstrated that maternal education has a bigger impact on child human capital outcomes than that of fathers.” Thomas, Schoeni and Strauss (1996, p. 14) “Such evidence would seem to indicate the importance of the mother in providing a learning environment for her child. It demonstrates a potentially important nonmarket benefit of mother’s education that should be evaluated in assessing the value of subsidies to women’s education.” Heckman and Hotz (1986, p. 532) “...perhaps the most fundamental economic factor [in the determination of children’s education] is the human capital of the parents, typically measured by the number of years of schooling attained. This variable ... is included in virtually every study [reviewed in this survey]; it is statistically significant and quantitatively important, no matter how it is defined. The human capital of the mother is usually more closely related to the attainment of the child than is that of the father.” Haveman and Wolfe (1995a, p. 1855). “An important intergenerational effect of women’s education is improved educational outcomes for children. In many cases, mother’s education has been found to have a larger impact than father’s education on children’s schooling, even though father’s education may also capture a beneficial income effect.” Hill and King (1995, p. 25) “The economic and social returns to education for women are substantial; the latter are on the whole probably greater than those for men. Education raises the productivity and earnings of both men and women....Educated mothers have more educated children....Thus by educating its women, a country can...offer its children a better future. Yet, paradoxically, many countries spend less in educating women than they do in educating men.” Herz, Subbarao, Habib and Raney (1991, p. iii).