Sankhya B

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Estimating the Welfare Gains from Public Schools in Rural India

  • Debopam BhattacharyaEmail author
  • Anders Kjelsrud
  • Rohini Somanathan


We adapt recently developed econometric techniques to estimate the distribution of welfare gains from public schools in rural India. Individuals have preferences over school quality and income spent on other goods. In a situation where both private and pubic schools are available, we define the cash-equivalent value of the public school as the hypothetical income sacrifice that would equate an individual’s utility to his/her utility when only the private school was available. We apply this procedure to data on income, enrollment and school quality from the Indian Human Development Survey of 2012 and estimate the distribution of implicit transfers across states and income deciles. We find these transfers are progressive. Poor households receive more on average because they have higher fertility and because their children are more likely to attend state schools. We also find however that transfers are particularly small for some of the poorest states in central and eastern India because of their low public school quality. Our methods can be generalized to measure the distribution of benefits from other types of public goods and government services.

Keywords and phrases

Targeting Public programs Binary choice Cash equivalent 

AMS (2000) subject classification

Primary 91B42 Secondary 91B82 



  1. Bhattacharya, D. (2018). Empirical welfare analysis for discrete choice: Some general results. Quantitative Economics9, 2, 571–615.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Desai, S., Dubey, A., Joshi, B., Sen, M., Shariff, A. and Vanneman, R. (2015). India Human Development Survey (IHDS) - II. University of Maryland and national council of applied economic research, New Delhi [producers], Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
  3. Government of India (2013). Press note on poverty estimates, 2011-12.Google Scholar
  4. Kingdon, G. (2017). The private schooling phenomenon in India: A review.Google Scholar
  5. Kingdon, G. and Teal, F. (2010). Teacher unions, teacher pay and student performance in india: A pupil fixed effects approach. Journal of Development Economics91, 2, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kjelsrud, A. and Somanathan, R. (2017a). Incorporating public good availability into the measurement of poverty.Google Scholar
  7. Kjelsrud, A. and Somanathan, R. (2017b). Poverty targeting through public goods, Banerjee, A., Bardhan, P., Somanathan, R. and Srinivasan, T. (eds.),.Google Scholar
  8. Kremer, M., Chaudhury, N., Rogers, F. H., Muralidharan, K. and Hammer, J. (2005). Teacher absence in india: A snapshot. Journal of the European Economic Association3, 2-3, 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Van de Walle, D., Nead, K. et al. (1995). Public spending and the poor: Theory and evidence. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Statistical Institute 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debopam Bhattacharya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anders Kjelsrud
    • 2
  • Rohini Somanathan
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.University of Oslo and Statistics NorwayOsloNorway
  3. 3.Delhi School of EconomicsDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations