Although the affirmative action policy was introduced nationally, only 16 out of 33 states have formally implemented the policy according to the Ministry of Education (MoE).14 Figure 1 shows the total enrolment under the policy as a percentage of the population of primary-school-going children (aged 5–9) in the largest 20 states of India. [...] Exposure to the policy reduces school fees if the difference in the fees of the younger cohort in private schools is significantly lower in round 71. [...] The DID estimates rest on the assumption that in the absence of the policy, the fees for the two age groups would have changed in the same manner. [...] In fact, in districts within states, the implementation and administering of the policy falls under the jurisdiction of the District Education Officer.20 Many children in the treatment group are less exposed to the policy if, for instance, they live in regions where only a few places were offered under the policy in private schools. [...] District-level variation in enrolment under the policy may arise from differences in administration, availability of private schools, or the proportion of disadvantaged children in the district The district-level variation can strengthen the identification as exposure to the policy varies based on the district in which a disadvantaged child resides.
- Pages
- 49
- Published in
- India
Table of Contents
- Introduction 3
- Institutional details: The affirmative action policy 6
- Data 9
- National Sample Survey 9
- District Information System for Education 10
- Identification strategy 12
- Defining exposure to the policy 12
- Descriptive evidence 13
- Effect of exposure on fees 16
- Basic DID model 17
- Results 18
- Effect of district-variation in exposure on fees 20
- DID model with regional variation 21
- Results 22
- Mechanisms 24
- Entry of new schools 25
- `Low-fee' new schools 28
- Robustness Checks 31
- Placebo group 31
- Placebo states 32
- All disadvantaged children 36
- Conclusion 39
- Appendix 41
- Figures 41
- Tables 43
