what drives cross-regional differences in returns to higher education? aleksey oshchepkov (higher...
TRANSCRIPT
What Drives Cross-Regional Differences in Returns to Higher Education?
Aleksey Oshchepkov(Higher School of Economics, Moscow)
ERSA Congress, Barcelona, 30 August 2011
Motivation - I• Estimation of the rate of returns to education is a topic of
hundreds of studies around the world. Most of them produce a single country-level estimate of the rate completely ignoring spatial issues (Psacharopulos&Patrinos, 2004).
• There is, however, a relatively small but growing body of literature which shows that returns to education vary significantly across regions within countries (e.g., USA: Hanushek (1981), Beeson (1991), Black et al. (2009); Great Britain: O'Leary-Sloane (2008); Spain: Casado-Lillo (2005); Portugal: Vieira et al. (2006); Sweden: Backman-Bjerke (2009); Cheque Republic: Jurajda (2004); Brazil: Behrman-Birdsall (1984)). These findings raise many questions.
Motivation –II • The standard country-level is a simplification
• Regions with a relatively high rate of return may well exist in “low-return” countries, and vice versa. Estimating the rate of return to education at the regional level seems to be an important extension of the standard approach, since high returns in the country as a whole does not guarantee that investing in education is beneficial in all its regions.
• Implicit assumptions of the HC theory are not valid?– The theory implicitly assumes that the national labour market is unified and homogenous,
and all individuals without any restrictions may offer their labour on this market.
• Should government\firms\people increase investments in education in “high-return” regions?
– Relatively high returns to education are generally regarded as a sign of underinvestment in education. They have served as the basis for recommendations to increase investments in education and enrollment which are common in the case of developing countries; it is expected that these measures will raise incomes and reduce inequality. Is it correct to transfer these recommendations to certain regions exhibiting high rates of returns to education?
• What drives cross regional differences in returns to education?– Could potentially help to shed some light on cross-country discrepancies
Motivation –III The number of studies estimating rates of returns to education at
the regional level is small, and the number of studies addressing these issues is even more limited.
In this paper, we 1) present new empirical evidence on significant cross-regional differences in
returns to education within one country, Russia. We are first who provides region-specific estimates of the return to higher education for Russian regions.
2) document very large differences. The returns (using basic Mincerian specification) to higher education are in the range from 32% to 140% (compared to the secondary education) against 65% for the country on average.
3) try to reveal factors associated with the rates of return to education in the regional level. For this, we regress the estimated rates of returns on a set of regional characteristics
DataThe main reason for the limited number of studies is a lack of appropriate regionally
representative micro-data. In Russia:• LFS does not contain info on wages or incomes• RLMS data, widely used to estimate returns to education, are not regionally
representative
We use a unique set of matched employer-employee data from the Occupational Wages Survey (OWS) of 2005 and 2007.
• The OWS covers enterprises, which have more than 15 employees and are obliged to submit statistical forms to the Russian Statistical Agency (Rosstat).
• Almost all branches of the economy are covered (except state administration, agriculture with fishery, and financial sector)
• The sample represents about 80% of employment in covered industries• The size of the sample is about 700 000 each year• The average number of observations in regional subsamples is about
9500 with the minimum of about 1500. • Specific regional based design: regional subsamples formed separately
for each region
Stage 1: estimation of the returns to educationFor each region: 1) Basic equation:
Ln (W)= α + β*Education + γ1*exp ++ γ2*exp2 + γ3*gender + γ4*ln (hours) + ε1
Education is the highest educational level achieved. We distinguish 6 levels: 1-higher and postgraduate education, 2-undergraduate, 3-vocational, 4-basic vocational, 5-complete general secondary and 6- basic general and below.
2) Extended equation:Ln (W)= α + β*Education + γ1*exp + γ2*exp2 + γ3*gender + +γ4*ln (hours)
+ γ5*industry + γ6*ownership+ε2Industry at the 1-st level of NACE; ownership – public/private.
Returns to higher education (with respect to complete secondary):(Halvorsen, Palmquist, 1980)
+Correction: (Kennedy, 1981)
%100*)1(%100*%100*)1(S
H
S
S
W
W
W
WWe H
)1()(
2
1
Vare
Stage 1: Interpreting regional returns to education
• The β-coefficient can be regarded as an estimate of the return to investments under several assumptions:– costs of receiving education are equal to the potential income which could get
an individual if instead of training he went to work (Chiswick, 1997)– assumptions on system of the taxation of labor income, uncertainty at the time
of making investment decision about the size of future incomes, etc. are needed (Heckman et al., 2003).
• All those conditions needed to interpret β as the rate of returns should hold true in each region
• There is yet a more principal difficulty due to interregional migration– The β-coefficient is an estimate for the rate of returns to education in a region if
and only if all individuals are employed in the regions where they received education.
We do not interpret the estimates of β, in terms of the return to investments in education. We treat them as conditional relative wage of workers with higher education (compared to the wage of workers with secondary education). But in order not to abandon the generally accepted terminology, we continue to "return to education" minding, however, that such use is conditional.
Fig. 1. Point estimates of s with 95% confidence intervals (basic specification, OWS 2007)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Респ
убли
ка Т
ыва
Саха
линс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка А
лтай
Оре
нбур
гска
я об
ласт
ьАл
тайс
кий
край
Респ
убли
ка К
оми
Камч
атск
ая о
блас
тьАс
трах
анск
ая о
блас
тьЧи
тинс
кая
обла
сть
Омс
кая
обла
сть
Хаба
ровс
кий
край
Ар
ханг
ельс
кая
обла
сть
К.-Б
алка
рска
я ре
спуб
лика
Ново
сиби
рска
я об
ласт
ь Ку
рган
ская
обл
асть
Липе
цкая
обл
асть
Свер
длов
ская
обл
асть
Уд
мурт
ская
Рес
публ
ика
Мур
манс
кая
обла
сть
Киро
вска
я об
ласт
ьПе
рмск
ая о
блас
тьИр
кутс
кая
обла
сть
К.-Ч
ерке
сска
я ре
спуб
лика
Респ
убли
ка К
алмы
кия
Евре
йска
я АО
Респ
убли
ка Д
агес
тан
Респ
убли
ка С
аха
(Яку
тия)
Респ
убли
ка С
евер
ная
Респ
убли
ка Б
ашко
ртос
тан
Прим
орск
ий кр
айТю
менс
кая
обла
сть
Чуко
тски
й АО
Воло
годс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка Б
урят
ияЧу
ваш
ская
Рес
публ
ика
Став
ропо
льск
ий кр
айПс
ковс
кая
обла
сть
Волг
огра
дска
я об
ласт
ьМ
агад
анск
ая о
блас
ть Росс
ияСа
рато
вска
я об
ласт
ьВл
адим
ирск
ая о
блас
тьРо
ссия
(с р
ег.д
амми
)Ре
спуб
лика
Мар
ий Э
лКе
меро
вска
я об
ласт
ьКр
асно
дарс
кий
край
Ниже
горо
дска
я об
ласт
ь Ре
спуб
лика
Хак
асия
Тамб
овск
ая о
блас
тьКа
лини
нгра
дска
я об
ласт
ьНо
вгор
одск
ая о
блас
тьРе
спуб
лика
Кар
елия
Томс
кая
обла
сть
Воро
нежс
кая
обла
сть
Рост
овск
ая о
блас
тьБр
янск
ая о
блас
тьТу
льск
ая о
блас
тьУл
ьяно
вска
я об
ласт
ьЛе
нинг
радс
кая
обла
сть
Мос
ковс
кая
обла
сть
Курс
кая
обла
сть
Амур
ская
обл
асть
Респ
убли
ка Т
атар
стан
Орл
овск
ая о
блас
тьСм
олен
ская
обл
асть
г. М
оскв
аКр
асно
ярск
ий кр
айЯр
осла
вска
я об
ласт
ьЧе
ляби
нска
я об
ласт
ьБе
лгор
одск
ая о
блас
тьИв
анов
ская
обл
асть
Пенз
енск
ая о
блас
тьКа
лужс
кая
обла
сть
Твер
ская
обл
асть
г. Са
нкт-
Пете
рбур
гКо
стро
мска
я об
ласт
ьРе
спуб
лика
Ады
гея
Ряза
нска
я об
ласт
ьРе
спуб
лика
Инг
ушет
ияСа
марс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка М
ордо
вия
Fig.2. Rates of returns adjusted for absence of some industries (% of average earnings of workers with secondary education).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Респ
убли
ка Т
ыва
Саха
линс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка А
лтай
Оре
нбур
гска
я об
ласт
ьАл
тайс
кий
край
Респ
убли
ка К
оми
Камч
атск
ая о
блас
тьАс
трах
анск
ая о
блас
тьЧи
тинс
кая
обла
сть
Омс
кая
обла
сть
Хаба
ровс
кий
край
Ар
ханг
ельс
кая
обла
сть
К.-Б
алка
рска
я ре
спуб
лика
Ново
сиби
рска
я об
ласт
ь Ку
рган
ская
обл
асть
Липе
цкая
обл
асть
Свер
длов
ская
обл
асть
Уд
мурт
ская
Рес
публ
ика
Мур
манс
кая
обла
сть
Киро
вска
я об
ласт
ьПе
рмск
ая о
блас
тьИр
кутс
кая
обла
сть
К.-Ч
ерке
сска
я ре
спуб
лика
Респ
убли
ка К
алмы
кия
Евре
йска
я АО
Респ
убли
ка Д
агес
тан
Респ
убли
ка С
аха
(Яку
тия)
Респ
убли
ка С
евер
ная
Респ
убли
ка Б
ашко
ртос
тан
Прим
орск
ий кр
айТю
менс
кая
обла
сть
Чуко
тски
й АО
Воло
годс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка Б
урят
ияЧу
ваш
ская
Рес
публ
ика
Став
ропо
льск
ий кр
айПс
ковс
кая
обла
сть
Волг
огра
дска
я об
ласт
ьМ
агад
анск
ая о
блас
тьСа
рато
вска
я об
ласт
ьВл
адим
ирск
ая о
блас
тьРе
спуб
лика
Мар
ий Э
лКе
меро
вска
я об
ласт
ьКр
асно
дарс
кий
край
Ниже
горо
дска
я об
ласт
ь Ре
спуб
лика
Хак
асия
Тамб
овск
ая о
блас
тьКа
лини
нгра
дска
я об
ласт
ьНо
вгор
одск
ая о
блас
тьРе
спуб
лика
Кар
елия
Томс
кая
обла
сть
Воро
нежс
кая
обла
сть
Рост
овск
ая о
блас
тьБр
янск
ая о
блас
тьТу
льск
ая о
блас
тьУл
ьяно
вска
я об
ласт
ьЛе
нинг
радс
кая
обла
сть
Мос
ковс
кая
обла
сть
Курс
кая
обла
сть
Амур
ская
обл
асть
Респ
убли
ка Т
атар
стан
Орл
овск
ая о
блас
тьСм
олен
ская
обл
асть
г. М
оскв
аКр
асно
ярск
ий кр
айЯр
осла
вска
я об
ласт
ьЧе
ляби
нска
я об
ласт
ьБе
лгор
одск
ая о
блас
тьИв
анов
ская
обл
асть
Пенз
енск
ая о
блас
тьКа
лужс
кая
обла
сть
Твер
ская
обл
асть
г. Са
нкт-
Пете
рбур
гКо
стро
мска
я об
ласт
ьРе
спуб
лика
Ады
гея
Ряза
нска
я об
ласт
ьРе
спуб
лика
Инг
ушет
ияСа
марс
кая
обла
сть
Респ
убли
ка М
ордо
вия
Скорректированные отдачи
Only in three regions (including Moscow) the absolute value of the bias is more than 5% of the initial rate.
Overview of estimation results β-coefficients Basic equation (1) Extented equation (2)
Mean 0.526 0.647
Standard deviation 0.106 0.088
Coefficient of variance 0.201 0.136
Maximum 0.877 0.916
Minimum 0.281 0.480
Difference Max - Min 0.595 0.436
•The estimates increase markedly after controlling industries and the type of ownership•Many workers with higher education work in public sector (health, education), where wages are low
•Transition from the basic to the extended wage equation reduces inter-regional variation in the rate of returns to higher education, but it is still very high
•A substantial part of this variation is caused either by differences between regions in the wage structure or by differences in the distribution of workers in different jobs, or by both these factors
• A strong correlation between regional estimates of returns obtained from the basic and extended wage equations (more than 0.9). In other words, the ranking of regions by the rate of return to higher education is virtually independent of the specification we use
Читинская обл.
Еврейская АО
г.Москва
Московская обл.
Калужская обл.
г.Санкт-Петербург
Самарская обл.
Россия
респ.Адыгея
Сахалинская обл. Алтайский край
респ.Алтай респ.Тыва
респ. Коми
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Отдача на ВО (2005)
Отд
ача
на В
О (2
007)
Fig.4. Regional rates of returns to higher education in 2005 and 2007
61.64 to 81.56
81.56 to 90.55
90.55 to 102.84
102.84 to 149.95
M os c ow (71 .4% )
S .P eter s bu rg (65 .6 % )
Fig.3. Mapping the returns to higher education in Russia
Stage 2: What drives cross-regional differences in returns to education?
There are only a limited number of studies attempting to explain cross-regional differences in returns to education. We have managed to find only two published articles where these differences are modeled explicitly (Beeson (1991); Black et al., (2009), both are for USA). Both of them view the differences as a result of asymmetric influence of compensating mechanism to workers with different level of education. We use this approach as a starting point of our analysis.
We regress estimated returns on a set of regional characteristics:
βj = β0 + φb*RCj + ξj
Asymmetric compensating mechanism
• “Standard” compensating mechanism in the regional labour markets: workers receive wage compensations for living in regions or cities with relatively less favorable characteristics (e.g., Roback (1982,1988), Dumond et al., (1994))
• However different (groups of) workers may receive different compensations for living in the same conditions, suggesting the existence of differences in relative wages. Due to:– different preferences– different willingness to pay for favorable regional
characteristics (income effect)– different propensities to move
What regional characteristics (RC) matter?
Previous studies [Bignebat (2004), Berger et al., (2008), Oshchepkov (2009)] suggest:
• Price level• Flat price (for 1 sq.m)• Crime rate • Air pollutions• Medical staff (per 10 000 citizens) • Average temperature in January • Life expectancy • Unemployment rate• Net migration• …
Stage 2: alternative explanations?
• How is the return connected with the stock? Connection with the proportion of workers with higher education
Negative relation: diminishing marginal return (Middendorf (2008) for EU countries).
Positive relation: Black et al (2009) for MSA across USA. Russia: HC externalities in the city level (Muravyev (2008))
• Level of economic developmentCross-country comparisons of rates of returns (Psacharopulos & Patrinos (2004) :
more developed have lower returns, but relation may be non-linear.
• Employment in public sectorPositive relation expected, which is suggested by our descriptive analysis and by
the fact that in Russia returns to education in public sector are higher than in private sector.
Dependent variable: return to higher education (ln β)
2005 20072005
+20072005
+20072005
+2007
Life expectancy (ln) -0,842** -1,334*** -1,044*** -0,989*** -1,011***
Unemployment rate (ln) 0,010** 0,129*** 0,114***
Unemployment rate, HE (ln) -0,014 -0,017
Unemployment rate, SE (ln) 0,138*** 0,147***
Change in unemployment rate among HE (control for regional shocks)
-0,002
Change in unemployment rate among SE (control for regional shocks)
-0,077
Dummy for 2007 0,031 0,021 0,021
Constant 2,891** 4,923*** 3,699*** 3,403*** 3,477***
R sq. adjusted 0,207 0,393 0,298 0,333 0,343
N 79 79 158 158 158
Note: OLS with Huber-White standard errors.
Correlations between regional returns and regional characteristics
Dependent variable: return to higher education (ln β)
OLSMedian
regressionJacknife RE
Life expectancy (ln) -1,066*** -0,478** -0,989*** -0,806***
Unemployment rate, HE (ln) -0,005 -0,018 -0,014 0,010
Unemployment rate, SE (ln) 0,133*** 0,170*** 0,138*** 0,107***
Dummy for 2007 0,026 -0,008 0,021 0,014
Constant 3,724*** 1.21 3,403*** 2,684**
R-sq., pseudo R-sq or X-sq 0,293 0,192 0,333 48,75
N 154 158 158 158
Note: pool 2005+2007 years
Robustness check
Dependent variable: return to higher education (ln β)
2005+2007
2005+2007
2005+2007
2005+2007
Life expectancy (ln) -0,914*** -0,985*** -0,822*** -0,679***
Unemployment rate, HE (ln) -0,019 -0,012 -0,019 -0,018
Unemployment rate, SE (ln) 0,139*** 0,138*** 0,111*** 0,110***
Dummy for 2007 0,022 0,02 -0,001 -0,005
“STOCK” of HE workers (ln) -0,035 -0,047
GRP per cap (ln) 0,005 0,019
Proportion of employed in public sector (ln) 0,107* 0,124**
Constant 3,094*** 3,324*** 2,439** 1,573
R squared adjusted 0,340 0,334 0,348 0,360
N 158 158 158 158
Note: OLS with Huber-White standard errors.
Correlations with other regional characteristics
Summary-I• This paper belongs to a relatively small number
of studies showing that rates of returns to education may vary greatly across regions within a country.
• We first provide region-specific estimates of the return to higher education for regions-subjects of the Russian Federation.
• The results indicate that the returns to higher education extremely vary across Russian regions.
Summary-II• The standard country-level approach to estimate the returns to
education is an oversimplification. – The Russian case clearly shows that it may hide behind a huge regional
variation. In some Russian regions the rates of return to higher education are comparable with the rates of return existing developing countries, while in other regions the rates correspond to those existing in developed countries.
• Assessing the rate of returns to education at the regional level seems to be an important extension of the standard country-level procedure. – It is difficult to expect that the single country-level estimate of the rate of
return to education will be linked (as required by theory) with the decision to invest in obtaining or continuing education, as this decision is made taking into account conditions at the regional or local level.
Summary-III
Our robust findings: the return to higher education is higher in regions – which are less attractive for living– with higher unemployment rate– with higher proportion of employment in the public
sector.
Relatively high returns to higher education in some regions should not be interpreted as a signal for investment, these are rather a signal of “bad” regional performance (surprisingly?)