Abstract
The two insights behind school choice are that externalities motivate government financing, but not provision, of schools, and that government-run schools will probably, owing to lack of competition, be x-inefficient. Under school choice, students choose among schools that compete for them on a truly level playing field. Governments play a financing, auditing, refereeing, and market-design role. Modern research focuses on evaluating the effects of school choice on the x-efficiency of schools, analysing how programme design affects the supply of schools, and investigating how information and matching mechanisms affect demand.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Abdulkadiroğlu, A., P. Pathak, and A. Roth. 2006a. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency: Redesigning the New York City High School match. Working paper, New York University and Columbia University.
Abdulkadiroğlu, A., P. Pathak, A. Roth, and T, Sönmez. 2006b. Changing the Boston school choice mechanism. Working Paper No. 11965. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Abdulkadiroğlu, A., and T. Sönmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93: 729–747.
Ahlin, Å. 2003. Does school competition matter? Effects of a large-scale school choice reform on student performance. Working paper, Nationalekonomiska institutionen, Uppsala University.
Akabayashi, H. 2006. Average effects of school choice on educational attainment: evidence from Japanese high school attendance zones. Working paper, Keio University.
Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, and M. Kremer. 2006. Long-term consequences of secondary school vouchers: Evidence from administrative records in Colombia. American Economic Review 96: 847–862.
Angrist, J., E. Bettinger, E. Bloom, E. King, and M. Kremer. 2001. Vouchers for private schooling in Colombia: Evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Working Paper No. 8343. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Angrist, J., G. Imbens, and D. Rubin. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–455.
Bettinger, E., and R. Slonim. 2006. Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism. Journal of Public Economics 90: 1625–1648.
Chakrabarti, R. 2006a. Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Chakrabarti, R. 2006b. Impact of voucher design on public school performance: evidence from Florida and Milwaukee voucher programs. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Chakrabarti, R. 2006c. Vouchers, public school response and the role of incentives: evidence from Florida. Working paper, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Epple, D., and R. Romano. 1998. Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group effects. American Economic Review 88: 33–62.
Friedman, M. 1955. The role of government in education. In Economics and the Public Interest, ed. R. Solo. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Friedman, M. 1962. The role of government in education. In Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanushek, E. 2002. Publicly provided education. In Handbook of public economics, ed. A. Auerbach and M. Feldstein. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hastings, J. and R. Van Weelden. 2007. Preferences, information, and parental choice behavior in public school choice. Working Paper No. 12995. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Howell, W., and P. Peterson. 2002. The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Howell, W., P. Wolf, D. Campbell, and P. Peterson. 2002. School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21: 191–218.
Hoxby, C. 2000. Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review 90: 1209–1238.
Hoxby, C. 2004. School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review 10: 9–65.
Hoxby, C. 2006. The supply of charter schools. In Charter schools against the odds, ed. P. Hill. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Hoxby, C., and S. Murarka. 2007a. How New York City’s charter schools affect student achievement: Results of the first year of evaluation. Working Paper No. 13255. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
Hoxby, C., and S. Murarka. 2007b. Methods of assessing the achievement of students in charter schools. In Charter schools: Their growth and outcomes, ed. M. Berends. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoxby, C., and J. Rockoff. 2005. The impact of charter schools on student achievement. Working paper, Harvard University.
Hsieh, C., and M. Urquiola. 2006. The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher program. Journal of Public Economics 90: 1477–1503.
Lips, D., and E. Feinberg. 2006. School choice: 2006 progress report. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Online. Available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg1970.cfm. Accessed 26 June 2007.
Nechyba, T. 2003. What can be (and what has been) learned from general equilibrium simulation models of school finance? National Tax Journal 56: 387–414.
Pathak, P. 2006. Lotteries in student assignment. Working paper, Harvard University.
Peterson, P., and W. Howell. 2004. Voucher research controversy: New looks at the New York City evaluation. Education Next 4: 73–78.
Peterson, P., D. Myers, W. Howell, and D. Mayer. 1999. School choice in New York City. In Earning and learning: How schools matter, ed. P. Peterson and S. Mayer. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Rouse, C. 1998. Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 553–602.
Tiebout, C. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–424.
West, M., P. Peterson, and D. Campbell. 2001. School choice in Dayton, Ohio after two years: An evaluation of the parents advancing choice in education scholarship program. Working Paper No. RWP02-021. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Wolf, P., W. Howell, and P. Peterson. 2000. School choice in Washington, D.C.: An evaluation after one year. Working Paper No. PEPG/00–08. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.
Wolf, P., and D. Hoople. 2006. Looking inside the black box: what school factors explain voucher gains in Washington, DC? Peabody Journal of Education 81: 7–26.
Wolf, P., P. Peterson, and M. West. 2001. Results of a school voucher experiment: The Case of Washington, D.C. after two years. Working Paper No. PEPG/01–05. Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hoxby, C. (2018). School Choice and Competition. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1969
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1969
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95188-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95189-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences