CASH TRANSFERS AND EDUCATION 85
(2005, 479) found that receipt of the CSG in 2002 was associated with an increase of 8.1 percentage points in enrollment among six-year-olds and an increase of 1.8 points for seven-year-olds. Because CSG households were poorer than the average, these enrollment increases are particularly mean- ingful. Although it is not possible to know why the CSG had this impact for six-year-olds, the authors suggest that it could have been by improving their health and nutrition and thus their school readiness. More evidence from South Africa comes from Samson et al. (2004), who
used national-level data from the 2000 Income and Expenditure Survey and the September 2000 Labour Force Survey, building a model of income and other variables with which to evaluate the impact of the CSG and the OAP on children’s school attendance. The attendance rate in the full sample averages 94 percent. The model establishes that household receipt of an OAP is associ- ated with a 20–25 percent reduction in the school nonattendance gap, and receipt of a CSG associated with a 25 percent reduction in the nonattendance gap (receipt of a Disability Grant has no impact). Significantly, the OAP results are strongly affected by the gender of the recipient: receipt by a female is associated with about a one-third reduction in the nonattendance gap, but receipt by a male has no significant impact. The most significant of other socioeconomic variables positively affecting attendance is the number of years of education of the household head; one year of education is equivalent to twice the impact of the OAP. This suggests that cash grants can have very long-term impacts. If they succeed in increasing schooling now, the results will be even better for the next generation. Household income is also signifi- cantly and positively correlated with attendance, but interestingly cash grant income has a greater impact than non–grant income. Samson et al. (2004, 62–63) hypothesize that grant recipients have different spending patterns, prioritizing school attendance more than non–grant recipients. Poverty has a significant negative impact on attendance. Attendance is also more likely in female-headed households and where there are resident elderly members (controlling for pension receipt). These results hold across provinces and the rural–urban divide. Some similar results are found in national-level October Household Survey
data, also analyzed by Samson et al. (2004), with respect to the importance of the poverty level and education of the household head. Controlling for demographic, geographic, and other variables and using several models with different specifications, pension receipt has significant positive effects on school attendance in poor households. Disaggregating gender differences for households in the poorest quartile (measured by expenditure), receipt of an OAP increases the likelihood of boys’ full-time school attendance by 3 per- cent and girls’ attendance by 7 percent. A R500 increase in the OAP given to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237