Relationship in India between educational Spending and Educational Results

Education in the primary and secondary levels is critical to the growth and development of a country. Educational attainment has been a common theme among development economists, especially those who advocate for endogenous growth. Education above the primary level is seen as a public benefit that relies mostly on government funding. One of the most significant responsibilities of governments is to fund public elementary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, the education sector has to compete with other sectors for limited funding sources.[1] If a nation has a large resource base, allocating resources is not a difficulty, and it can spend enough in each area. A lack of resources creates an economic dilemma of choice that dictates how resources are allocated in an economy. Numerous studies have demonstrated that despite substantial investments in the education system, many nations' outcomes are woefully inadequate. Research has revealed that inefficient transfer of educational funds has a negative impact on student achievement . As a result, it is critical to study the link between education funding and educational results in India's various states.[2] Finance, efficiency, and effectiveness, as well as equality and equitable distribution of benefits are all essential challenges in the supply of public finance for primary education in India. As the government shifts its focus from money to results, these issues have grown more pertinent. Until 1976, education in India was part of the state's purview. After then, it was moved to the matters enumerated with the goal of improving educational achievements and reducing regional disparity. Education results have taken precedence over expenditures in recent decades, resulting in more educational equality between jurisdictions with limited resources. Using evidence-based planning, it is possible to identify disparities in results, gaps in service and process which result in poor outcomes, and financing to meet the true requirements of trailing regions/states in India.[3] A large number of Indian states are classified as "lagging states" because they have not yet achieved the levels of participation or achievements they had hoped for. This is mostly due to a lack of educational resources in these areas. As a consequence, the current research aims to examine the disparities between the expenditures made by Indian states on primary education and the results they achieve in terms of meeting benchmarks. Since independence, there has been a rise in the need for education, and the government is making an effort to provide enough resources to primary and secondary education. The government should spend 6 per cent of national revenue on education, and three per cent of it should be spent on basic education, according to national policies on education. NEP and SAP were implemented by GOI in 1991 and 1992, respectively. Government spending on social services and primary education both have to be reduced as a result of these changes. The government's NCMP, on the other hand, includes primary and elementary education. To ensure the It is hoped that the link between educational spending and educational results in India may be better understood via the work presented here. The aggregate of educational outputs from a country's educational system is known as educational outcomes. Accordingly, enrollment, minimising dropout, retention rate and transition rate are only few of the outputs of an education system. Educational outcomes are the sum of these outputs. Across India, educational achievements must be compared to educational expenditures to get a sense of the system's efficiency.[5]

Table 4.1 shows the state's budgeted spending on primary education from 2000-01 to 2019-20. The planned spending on elementary education in India has increased significantly from Rs. 302.22 crore in 2000-05 and Rs.1541.85 crore in 2015-20, according to the statistics. But even while spending on primary education has increased steadily over the last two decades, just 14 of the 35 states in 2000-05 and 16 of the 35 states and UTs in 2015-20 had set aside more money than the national median. According to states, Uttar Pradesh spent the most money (Rs. 1261.26 billion) in 2001-05, while Daman and Diu spent the least (Rs. 2.25 billion), however in 2015-20, Maharashtra has replaced Uttar Pradesh and Daman and Diu has maintained its position by spending Rs. 12.76 billion. In the last two decades, the Diu & Daman have been discovered to be devoting the lowest amount to basic education.[6] The Coefficient of Variation is a measure of how consistent states are in distributing primary education money across time. In 2001-05, Nagaland had the lowest CV of 13.90, while Lakshadweep had the highest CV of 60.86 percent. The highest percentages recorded in 2015-20 were in Tripura (8.78%) and Lakshadweep (125.96%). It shows that Lakshadweep's expenditures have fluctuated over the last two decades. CV reveals inter-state diversity at the national level across the country. From 2000 to 2005, it dropped from 37.21 percent to 30.25 percent, demonstrating a reduction in state-to-state volatility throughout that time. However, between 2011 and 2015, it rose by a whopping 102.84 percent. Throughout the 2015-20 timeframe, the percentage dropped to 54.92 percent owing to economic fluctuations in the period.[7]

GPI is a critical metric for assessing the degree of parity in student enrollment between males and females. Females-to-boys enrollment (GPI) measures how many girls are enrolled at a certain level of schooling. Close to 1.00 on the GPI reflects equal educational opportunity. In other words, boys and girls have equal access to educational opportunities at the same educational level. EFA's Global Monitoring Report states that a score of between 0.97 and 1.0 is possible.[8-10] Using GPI, governments may track their progress toward ensuring that all children have access to a quality education. This goal is pursued by several groups both worldwide and domestic.

indicator. To calculate drop-out rates, the proportion of students who leave a certain grade, cycle, or level of study prior to graduation is taken into account. Over the last several decades, all states in India have made significant measures to minimise the dropout rate. The dropout rate has been reduced significantly under SSA, which has implemented integrated and effective and ongoing techniques.[11]

In order to figure out what influences a student's performance in school, researchers use multiple regression models. Proxy variables for educational outcomes include student enrolment, dropout rate, and GPI. Overall literacy levels, poverty levels, and the amount of monies used are all factors that influence these results. show the regression findings for schooling outcomes across Indian states. Logarithmic values are taken into account here to eliminate data set volatility and to provide consistent interpretation.[12-13]

shows regression findings. All predicted coefficients in this model have the anticipated signs. The dropout rate is inversely related with literacy and the usage of finances, whereas poverty is favourably associated. A 1% increase in literacy decreases dropout rates by 5.1%, which is statistically significant. However, a 1% increase in money used decreases dropouts by 0.31%, although this is a non-significant coefficient. Poverty is also linked to dropout, which means that for every 1% rise in poverty, there is a 0.533% increase in dropout, which is considerable at 10%. Explanatory factors account for just a third of the variance in dropout rates, according to the R2 value of 0.35.[14]

All of the predicted coefficients were in line with their predicted values. Poverty has a detrimental impact on GPI, but education and financial literacy have favourable effects. Literacy is the only factor that matters, and poverty and inefficient use of resources are of no consequence. Assuming other factors remain constant, an increase in literacy and the use of money of one percent corresponds to a rise in GPI of 0.12 percent and a decrease in GPI of 0.01

Prior to the advent of SSA, there was a substantial disparity in educational spending and educational achievements across states. Regional imbalance was minimised and educationally backward areas, states, and socioeconomic groups were more likely to participate in the commitment to UEE with the establishment of SSA From Rs. 302.22 crore in 2000-05 to Rs.1541.85 crore in 2015-20, the planned spending on elementary education at the national level increased significantly. In 2001-05, Uttar Pradesh invested the most at Rs.1261.26 crore, while Daman and Diu contributed the least at Rs.2.25 crore. While Lakshadweep had the biggest fluctuation (125.96 percent) between 2015 and 2020, Nagaland had the lowest variation (13.90 percent).[16]

1. Abramowitz M. Welfare quandaries and productivity concerns. The American Economic Review 1981; 71(7): 1-17. 2. Afzal M, Farook MS, Ahmed HK et al. Relationship between school education and economic growth in Pakistan: ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration. Pakistan Economic and Social Review 2010; 48(1): 39-60. 3. Aqil M, Aziz SF, Dilshad M et al. Relationship between public education expenditures and economic growth of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2014; 19(3): 153- 55. 4. Aziz B, Khan T, Aziz S. Impact of higher education on economic growth of Pakistan. MPRA Paper No. 22912, GC University Faisalabad, 2008. 5. Breusch TS, Pagan AR. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica 1979; 47(5): 1287-94. 6. Dastidar SG, Mohan S, Chatterji M. The relationship between public education expenditure and economic growth: The case of India. Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE), 2013. 7. Dension EF. Why growth rates differ: Post war experience in nine western countries. Economica 1969; 36(143): 323-25. 8. Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with errorcorrection: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 1987; 55: 251-76. 10. Gangal, Vijay LN, Gupta H. Public expenditure and economic growth-A case study of India. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies 2013; 3(2): 191-96. 11. Gemmell N. Evaluating the impacts of human capital stocks and accumulation on economic Growth: Some new evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Special Issue on Human capital in Economic Development, Feb 1996; 58(1). 12. Government of India (Various Years). Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy. New Delhi: Reserve Bank of India. 13. Government of India (Various Years). Selected Educational Statistics. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. 14. Jorgenson H, Fraumeni M. Investment in Education and U.S. Economic Growth. Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992. 15. Jung HS, Thorbecke E. The impact of public education expenditure on human capital, growth, and poverty in Tanzania and Zambia: A general equilibrium approach. IMF Working Papers, Aug 2001. 16. Nigavekar A. Redefining the role of universities in knowledge economy: Can India transform its education system to serve the new role? ASCI Journal of Management 2010; 39(1).

Research Scholar, Sunrise University, Alwar, Rajasthan