首页> 外文期刊>Cliometrica >Good for girls or bad for boys? Schooling, social inequality and intrahousehold allocation in early twentieth century Finland
【24h】

Good for girls or bad for boys? Schooling, social inequality and intrahousehold allocation in early twentieth century Finland

机译:对女孩有利还是对男孩不利?二十世纪初芬兰的学校教育,社会不平等和家庭内部分配

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Apart from the commonly emphasized historical or cultural explanations, was there an economics behind the early, extensive schooling of girls in Europe's Nordic periphery? This article analyses factors behind the emerging female majority in secondary schooling in early twentieth century Finland through resource allocation within households. We argue that a significant part of the female educational advantage can be explained with a classic unitary Beckerian schooling investment model. We apply an Engel specification widely used in development economics to a household budget dataset from the 1920s to estimate the effect of the age and gender of children on schooling investment across social groups. We find a pro-girl bias among households of low socio-economic status, explained primarily by the sizable penalty to boys caused by opportunity costs and expected returns. Worker boys could generate significant income from an early age, making their education initially expensive for cash-constrained families. Contrary to previous claims, the dropout rates of boys were also higher than those of girls. Together with a propensity to leave home earlier, this lowered the expected net returns to schooling. Meanwhile, the expansion of modern services created attractive job opportunities for secondary educated girls. We find no evidence of intrahousehold bargaining. The findings resemble certain cases in development economics and the economic history of advanced countries including the USA. Rather than matching with patterns of anti-girl discrimination in many developing countries, our results highlight the prehistory of the currently emerging pattern of female educational advantage-and male disadvantage-in OECD countries.
机译:除了通常强调的历史或文化解释之外,欧洲北欧边缘的早期,广泛的女孩上学背后是否存在经济学?本文通过家庭内部资源分配,分析了二十世纪初芬兰中等教育中新兴女性多数的背后因素。我们认为,女性的教育优势的重要部分可以用经典的统一贝克尔学校教育投资模型来解释。我们将广泛用于发展经济学的恩格尔规范应用于1920年代的家庭预算数据集,以估计儿童的年龄和性别对社会群体中学校教育投资的影响。我们发现社会经济地位低下的家庭中存在有利于女孩的偏见,这主要是由于机会成本和预期回报对男孩造成的巨大惩罚。工人男孩从小就可以赚取可观的收入,这使得他们的教育最初对于现金拮据的家庭来说是昂贵的。与先前的说法相反,男孩的辍学率也高于女孩。再加上倾向于提前离家的趋势,这降低了预期的入学净回报。同时,现代服务业的扩展为中等教育的女孩创造了诱人的就业机会。我们没有发现家庭内部讨价还价的证据。该发现与发展经济学和包括美国在内的发达国家的经济历史中的某些情况相似。我们的结果没有与许多发展中国家的反女孩歧视模式相提并论,而是强调了经合组织国家目前新兴的女性教育优势和男性劣势模式的历史。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号