(353 )
Schultz Theodore W., “Reflections on Investment in Man," the Journal of Political Economy, vol. LXX, Oct. 1962.
Schultz Theodore W., “The Rate of Return in Al10cating Investment Resou-“The Journal of Human Resources,
15. 16. 11, nO.3, vol. to .Education, rces, SUlilmer, 196 文
Tausig, Michael K., “An Economic Analysis of Vocational Education in the New Y.Jrk City High Schoo1s," Journal of Human Resources, Supplement,
vol. 3
,
1968.Robert, “Economics of Vocational-Technica1 Education,"
J.
Warmbrod 18.
職業教育成本效益文獻評析
17.
Vocational Education, First Yearbook of the Education,
American Vocationa1 Association Inc., 197t
Weisbrod, Burton A.,“Education and Investment in Human Capital," in Review of the Political Ecnnomy, Spring, 1962.
the C., D. Washington, Association, Concepts in Vocationa1 Contemporary American 19.
Ziderman, Adriar, “Rates of Return on Investment in Education Recent Resu1ts for British," the Journal of Human Resources, vol. V111, no. 1, 1973. 20.
〈中文摘要)
教育與職業教育的經濟效益可將其數量化，以經濟學家常用的戚本放益分 析法都以測量與分析。本文主要目的在接討職業教育成本效益有關之文獻，特 別關心下列四項:(1)解釋職業數育成本效益分析的理論基聽; (2)評介職業數育 成本放益的方法論 ;(3)比較職業教育的世會與個人J&益率;臥及(4)'分析我國有 關戰業數育成本放盆各種研究之結果。 基於上述目的，本文發現近年來，有關教育成本放益分析的文獻數量甚夥 ，這些研究主要集中計算教育的直接成本、間接成本(即機會成本〉和教育的 所得效益，有些研究並提出這種計算的限制。其次，職業教育的成本效益分析 ，多數研究指出鞍業學校畢業生與非職業學校畢業生以其就業所緝相較，前者 內在收益率營高於後者。第三部分綜合我國四種教育與職業教育成本放益分析 之研究結果，亦實現高職較高中的經濟效益為高。這些研究結果，皆可作為進 一步控討我國職業教育成本效益的理論基儷與實際計算方法的借鑑。 一一夫(Carroll, Adger B. and Foren A. Ihnen,“Cost and Returns for Investment in Technical Schooling by a Group of North Carolina High School Graduates" 4.
師大學都
to Education," The Journal of Human Resources,vo1.11, no. 3, Summer, 1967. Corazzini, A. J., “The Decision to Invest in Vocationa1 Education:
第三十四期
An 5.
Analysis of Cost and Benefits," Journal of Human Resources, Supplement, vo1. 3
,
1968.Corazzi剖， A. J.,“When Should Vocational Education Begin?" The Journal 6.
of Resources, Winter, 1967.
Education: introduction," The Journal of Human Re.sources, Supplement, vo1. 3, 1968. Chazalah I. A. and S. Pejorich,“The Economics of Vocational and Technical
Vocational on
Conference Rashi, “Brookings Institute
Fein 7.
8.
A Report of the Three Studies, "Rilliew of Social Economy,
. vo1. 31, no. 2, Oct. 1973.
Hausen Lee W.,“Total and Private Rates of Retum to Investment in School-ing, "in. Damiel C. Rogers and Hirsch S. Ruchlin, Economics and.Education,
Education:
9.
New York: The Free Press, 1971.
Hu Teh-wei, Maw lin Lee and Emst W. Stromsdorfer," Eonomic Retums to Vocational and Comprtrhensive High School Graduates," Journal of Human
10.
Resources
,
vol. 6,
1971.Hu Teh-weiand others, “A Cost Effectiveness Study of Vocationa) Educa-tion," Institution for Research of Human Resources, Pennsylvania, State
11.
The Ui1Ìversity, 1968.
Kao Char1es H. 仁，“Education"and High Level Manpower Uti1ization: Case of Taiwan
,"
presented at the Second Annual Ecori.omics of Education Conference Held in Princeton, N.J., 1975.12.
二五
Chen Chung-tzz;
“
The Educational expenditures in Taiwan," in Lee Chen (ed.), A Collection of Essays on Ta iwan 可 M"anpower(in Chinese), Lien-ChenPub1ishers, 1975. 13.
Schultz, Theodore W.,“Education and Economic Growth，"祖 SocialForces Influencing American Educatìon, Sixtieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961. 14.
(355 )
Policy Issues, New York: McGmw Hi
U
, 1~73.Roger宮， Daniel C. and Hirsch S. Ruchlin, Ecònomics and Education, Princi.
ples and Applications, New York: the Free Press, 1971.
Schultz, Theodore W., Economic Valu.e of Education, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
Schultz, Theodore W., ed., Invesiment in Education, The University of Chi-10 .
.
• al --EA cago Pres.s,
1972. 12.George A11en & 13. _ Sheehan, Johp.,The Economics of Education. London:
Unwin Ltd. 1973:
職業教育成本效益文獻評析
1 ne Planning Unit of the Ministry of Education In the Republic of αlina ， 14.
An Analysis of Rates of Return to Education in Taiwan, 1975.
An Analysis of Costs and Dissertations
Corazzini, Arthur T.,
Ph.
p.
dissertation, Princeton University, 1967. Vocational Education:B.
Beneβts.
Fang, Jeffrey-M. 鼠 ， Investmentin Human αpital in Taiwan; 1952-1965, Ph. D. dissertation
,
University ofWashington,
1969.Juang, Hwai-I, Rates of Rétum to Investment in Education in Taiwan and A Cost-Beneβt Analysis of the Academic High
School, Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia
2.
3.
Their Pòlicy Implications:
Vocational High and the
School
University, 1972.
McNelly, D., A Comparative Benefit-CostStudy of Vocational Technical and Cooperative Education Pragrams in Twelve Secondary Schools in Missouri,
4.
Ph. D. dissertation, 1974.
C. Artic1es
Bailey, Duncan and αlar1es Schotta,“Private and Socíal Rates of Return to Education of Academicians, "The American Economic Review, vo1. 62, March, 1972.
二四
Education?" American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, XCC May, 1960.
Bowman Mary J.,“Coverging èoncern of Edonomists and Educators," in College Undreinvestment in
“
S., Gary Becker2.
Comparative Education Review, vo1. 6, Oct. 1962. 3 ..
in"" 1βe Taiwan" m Expendîtures Educational ‘ιThe Chung-tzz
,
47." Chen01
essays on Taiwan~s Manpower (inα1扭ese)collection
(ed.)
,
Aαlen
師大學報
‘
Lien-Chen Publisher, July, 1975, pp. 231-264.
Ibid., pp. 245-246.
48.
第二十四期
Hwai-I Juang
,
Rates01
Return to Investment in Education in Taiwan andTheir Policy Implication;. A Cost 一 Benefit Analysis
01
the Academic HighSchool and The Vocational School, Dissertaion, in Teacher College, Columbia
University (Ann Arbor, Michigan: A XEROX Co.) 1972. 49. Ibid., Abstract. Ibid., pp. 48-63. 50.
5
1. BffiLIOGRAPHY BooksBecker， G. 鼠 ， Human Capital, Columbia University Press. 1964.
Benson, Char1es 鼠 ， The Economiès
01
Public Education, Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1961,
1968.A.
2.
the Economics of Education, Pengiun
Blaug
,
Mark,
An Introducation toBooks
,
1970.Blaug, Mark, ed., Economics
01
Education 1, Ba1t加lore: 3.Penguin Books
Denison, Edward F., The Sources
01
~conomic Growth in the United Statesand the Alternatives Belòre Us, Supplementary Paper no. 13, New"York:
Committee for Economic Development, 1962. 1968.
4.
5.
Evans, Rupert N., Foundations
01
Vocational Education, Columbus, Ohio;6.
一 一 一
一
Char1es E. Me丘ill Rublishing Co. 1971.
Gannicott, K., Rates
01
Return to Education in Taiwan, Republic of China, CIECD, 1973.7.
O'Donogh肘， Martin, Economic Dimensions in Education, Chicago: A1dine. Atherton, Inc. 1971.
Perlman
,
Richard,
The Economics01
Education: Conceptual Problems and8.
( 357)
Vocational and Comprehensive 血gh School Graduates
,
"Journal of Human Resources, vo1. 6, 1971, pp. 25-50,.Teh-wei Hu and Others
,“
A Cost Effectiveness Study of Vocational Educa-28.tion, "Institution for Re,seàrch of Human Resources, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, 1968, p. 225. Ibid., p. 229.
29.
Ibid., pp. 227-229. 30.
The Case of Taiwan, "Presented at the Second Annual Economics of Education Conference Held in Princeton, N. J., on Oct. 2-4,1975, p. 1.
Charles H. C. Kao
,“
Education and High Level Manpower Uti1ization: 31. 職業數育成本效益文獻評析 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 32. Ibid., p. 2. 33.K. Gannicott, Rates of Return to Education in Taiwan, Republic of αlÏna ， 34. CIECD, July 1973. Ibid., pp. 1-2. 35. Ibid.,c p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. Ibid.,lp.4. 36. 37. 38. Ibid., p. i. 39. Ibid., pp. i-ii. 40.
The Planning Unit of the Ministry of Education in the Republic of China, An Analysis of Rates of Return to Education in Taiwan
,
August,
1975.In Gannicott's original study were 2,939 ma1e and 1,207 fema1e sample
4
1.employees. 42.
In Mr. Gannicott's original study, educational level was divided into five 43.
Primary, Junior High, Senior High, Senior Vocational and University. In Mr. Gannicott's original study these was no such procedure. 44.
Due to the limitation of time and money, Mr. Gannicoot only caculated the
45.
males' the rates of return to education.
The Planning Unit of the Ministry of Education in the Republic of China, An Analysis. of Rates of Return to Educatjon in Taiwan, 1975, Tab1e 10.
凹的， to Education;'The Journal of Human Resources, vo1.11, no. 3,Surmner; 1967
,
pp. 293.師大學報
Edward F. Denison, The Sources of Economic Gmwth in the United States 12.
Paper no. 13 (New York: and the Alternatives Before Us, Supplementary
第二十四期
Committee for Economic development, 1962), pp. 67-79. Ibid., pp. 67-79.
13.
American Eco-Gary S. Becker,“Underinvestment in College Education?"
14.
nomic Review, Papers and Proceedings, XCC May, 1960,.pp. 346-354. W. Lee Hansen,“Total and Private Rates of Retum to Investment inSchoQ-15.
ling,“in Daniel C. Rogers and Hirsch S. Ruchlin, Economics and Eduation,
(New York: The Free Press, 1971), pp. 174-185 ，卸 Mark Blaug, Economics of Education 1, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968) pp. 137-155.
Ibid., pp. 174-185;pp. 137-155.
Burton A. Weisbrod, “Education and Investment in Human Capital," in 16.
Review of the Political Economy, Spring, 1962, pp. 106-123.
Daniel C. Rogers and hirsch S. Ruchlin, Economics and Education, Princíples and Applications, (New York: the Free Press,) 1971, pp. -3-4.
17.
18.
Ibid., pp. 3-4. 19.
Mark B1aug, Economics of Education 1, (Baltimore: Penguin Books,) 1971, p.222.
20.
A. J. Corazzi肘，“The Decision to Invest in Vocational Education: An An
a-21.
Journal of Human Resourc缸，Supplement, vol. lysis of Cost and Benefits,"
3, 1968,pp. 89-91. Ibid., p. 118. 22.
Michael K. Taussig,“An Economic Analysis of Vocational Education in the New Y ork CityH坦h Schools," Journal
0/
Human Resources, Supplement, vol. 3, 1968,pp. 59-82.23.
Ibid., pp. 83-87. 24.
Warmbrod,“Economics of Vocational - Technica1 Educθtion ，" p. 367.
Teh-wei Hu, Maw lin Lee and Emst E. Stromsdorfer, “Economic Retums to Ibid., p. 367.
25. 26. 27.
(359 )
to further analyze the cost-benefit of the vocationa1 educaiton Ìl~ the Republic of China and consequently best effectuate our limited facilities in our educational industry.
Footnotes
Mark Blaug, ed., Economics of Education 1, (Ba1timore: Penguin Books), 1968, p. 11.
Theodore W. Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital," ir. M. B1aug, ed.,
2.
職業數育成本效益文獻評析
Economics of Education 1, p. 14.
J. Robert Warmbrod,“Economics of Vocational - Technical Ecucation, Vocational Education, First Yearbook of the 3.
Concepts in Contemporary
American Vocational Association, (Washington, D. C.: The American Voca-tion Inc.) 1971
,
p. 361.品id. ，p. 363. Mary J. 4.
of Economists and Educators," Çomparaûve Education Review, vo1. 6, Oct. 1962, p. 111.
Rashi f'ein,
''lJ3
rookings InstituteIntroduction," The Journal of Human Resources, Supplement, vo1. 3, 1968, Education: Vocational
on Bownan, “Converging concern
Conference 5.
6.
pp. 1-16.
Char1es S. Benson, The Economics of Public Education, (Boston: Houghton
7.
Mifflin, 1961), pp. 93-94.
, The Economics of Public Education, second edition, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), p. 47.
8.
Terodore W. Schultz,“Reflections on Investment in Man," The Journal of Political Economy, vol. LXX,Oct. 1962, no. 5, Part 2, pp. 1-8.
Theodore W. Schultz,“Education and Economic Growth," in Social Forces Influencing American Education, Sixtieth Yearbook of the National Society 9.
10.
二
O
for the Study of Education
,
Chapter 3,
(Chicago: the University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 46-88.Theodore W. Schultz.
“
The Rate of Return in Allocating Investment Resou-11The statistical necessity for these limitations is take the form. of higher incomes.
obvious, and of most authors who have dealt with the subject have felt obliged to
師大學報
Blaug, Weisbrod anô Bowman, for discuss the items which have been omited.
examp1e, have provided e1egant accounts of some of the unmeasured benefits.
第二十四期
And 1ast in the case of cost-benefit ana1ysis in education, we have recognised that it is a method which can be used inappropriate1y as well as appropriate1y. cost-benefit ana1ysis in education as generally understood is on1y a technique for
The
making decisions within a framework which has. to be decided upon in advance and which invo1ves a wide range of considerations, including politica1 or socia1 factors.
The second section concerns itse1f with the cost-benefit. ana且ysis of the The cost-benefit ana1ysis was justified as a method for ana1yzing vocationa1 education. A1though some of the ear1y studies did not assert tha
:t
vocationa1 education did provide 扭扭crease in earnin郎， they did establish vocationa1 education.The research efforts by the framework and a springboard for further research.
Hu, Lee, and Stromsdorfer were of greater depth and did correct some of the These 1ater researchers did research shortcomings as identified in earlier studies.
establish the income advantages for graduates of vocationa1 high schoo1 over The interna1 rate of return to the vocationa1 graduates were nonvocationa1s.
determined to be 1arger than those of the nonvocationa1 graduates.
In section three, the author reviews four studies re1ated to the cost-benefit The three earlier ana1ysis of the vocationa1 education in the Republic of China.
studies calcu1ated the rates of return of vocationa1 senior high schoo1s 恤 .the
Republic of China, although these studies were dealing with education at all1eve1s
凶 the Republic of China. The fourth one a1so the most important one, in studying
九 the cost-benefit ana1ysis of the vocationa1 educätion in the Republic of China is
It Hwai-I Juang's dissertation in teachers College, Columbia University, 1972. provided the theoretica1 basis and practica1 methods about a 10ngitudina1 empirical study to investigate and compare the return to vocationa1 high schoo1s and those of academic high schoo1s.
(361 )
the costs and the lifetime earnings.
If the costs are the same, the correlation is zero. The hypotheses were tested with the empirical fmdings and correlation ana1yses.5 1
The results of the analysis indicated that the return to investment in high schooleducation in R. O. C. is undoubtely impressive from both the public and The private internal rates range from the lowest 11.6% to the private viewpoints.
the highest 20.仿 for the adjusted rates, and 12.9% to 21.4% for the unadjusted The social rates range from the lowest 25% to the highest 27.4% for the adjusted rates, and from 25.2% to 28.7% for the unadjusted r吱的. The commer-cial high school has the highest return, followed in order by the industrial high school
,
the academic high school,
and the agricultural high school,
without con-sidering the option factor. When this option factor is added,
the academic high rates.職業教育成本效益文獻評析
school becomes the most advantageous
,
followed in order by the commercial high The ranking school, the industria1 high school and the agricu1tural high schoo1.The positions are the same from both the social and the private point of view. return for the agricultural high school may be an underestimate because the
earnings.52
not inc1uded in were
agrlcJ,lltural products for self-consumption
S. Conc1usions
This article surveys the research studies dealing with (1 ):the cost-benefit analysis 扭 educations; (2) the cost-benefit ana1ysis ofthevocational e.ducation ; and (3) the cost-benefit analysis of the vocational education in the Republic of China.
In section one, except introduction, some of literatures related to the cost-Although there is a rapidly growing benefit ana1ysis of education are reviewed.
literature 扭 this respect, only a sma11 amount of them fits in our research. Here we are primarily concerned with studies which are human capital as a factor of production in quantitative ana1ysis of the sources of economic growth, and which 八
might assist to analyze the theoretical and practical aspects of the cost-benefit These studies concentrate on the costs of education, inc1uding 卸lputed earnings of foregone and on those benefits of education which ana1ysis in education.
In studying the rate of retum of the vocational education in R. O. C., 1 think that t'te most important piece of research is Dr. Hwai-I Juang's dissertation in
師大學報
Rates of It has a long name:
Teachers College, Columbia University 1972.49
A Retum to Investment in Education in Taiwan and Their Po1icy Imp1ications:
第二十四期
Cost - Benefit Analysis of the Academic Bigh School and the Vocational High School.
A longitudinal empirical study was conducted to investigate the retum to upper secondary education in R. O. C. The study represents an attempt to apply economic theories and techniques to the field of educational administration with special reference to educational planning. The purpose \':as to test th:! relationship between education and eamings in quantitative terms and to explore further the policy implications of the results. The retums to investment in four types of high academic, comme;cial, industrial~ and agricultural were com-school programs:
pared from both the social and the private viewpoints. A sample of 279 subjects graduated in 1957 was used for the analysis.5 U
The theoretical assumption was that under a competitive labor market price system, if the manpower supply and demand are inequi1ibrium, certeris paribus, the same dollar investment in education wi1l have the same amount of influence A main hypothesis and are different.
ori eamings, even if the types of training
four supplementary subhypotheses were postulated. The main hypothesis was: The vocational high school programs have the same private and social rates of retum as the academic high school program, excIuding the value of the option of going on to higher education.
Thtl four subhypotheses were:
一七
The market is competitive.
fhe manpower supply and demand are in equilibrium. 2.
If the rates of retum are different, there"Ìs a negative correlatiQn between the 3.
rates of retum and the rates of unemployment. If the rates are the same, the
If the schooling costs are different
,
there is a positivecorrelation between correlation is zero.(363) a n
--LH C CI o nL ••• A ••• A KU u nr e ROne of the important findings is rate of retum in vocational education higher than thatof regular senior high school and emphases upon the. demand in voca-tional education in the Republic of China.
There are two other theses attenpting to ca1culate the rates of retum in One is Chen Ch\lng-tzz's thesis in the National Changchi Taiwan's education.
Her formula to c1aculate the rates of retum to educa-University, Taipei, 1972.47
地 YB - YA
tion in the Republic of China is as follows: 4 8
CB Rates of Retum to Education
=
職業教育成本效益文獻評析
Y B = the discounted present value of a graduate of this educationallevel at the lifetime.
Y A
=
the discounted present value of a graduate of the before thateduca-tionallevel at the lifetime.
CB = the marginal social cost in this educationa11evel.
Cben's Rates of Retum to Education in R. O. C. 1972 Table4
the differential discounted rates Educationallevels 12.5% 1075% 7%
。
2.49% 3.28% 6.16% 27.72% Elementary school 2.23% 4.03% 3.06% 5.31% 5.44% 6.37% 26.39% 29.9% Jr. high school Sr. high school Sr. vocational school 31.77% 9.14% 5.44% 4.88% 1.05% 1.265% 1.39% 5.16% Jr. nopnal col1ege 2.76% 3.55% 5.88% 18.5% Jr. college -4 八 1.75% 1.92% 3.71% 12.8% UniversityChen Chung-tzz,“the Educational Expenditures in R. O. C. 1972," in Source:
Lee Chen, A collection of Essays on Taiwart's Manpower, (Taiwan: Lien-Chen publisher,) 1975, pp. 231-264.
Ca1culating the rates of return to education is divided 姐to two kinds, (4)
namely
,
male and female.4 5 師大學報Now listing this rates of return to education in the Republic of China 1974
缸eas fol1ows:4 6
第二十四期
Rates of Return to Education in the Republic of China 1974 Table 3
(percent)
Private Rate of Return Social Rate of Return
Case 1 Case IJ Case 11 Case 1 Level of Education (吋 Males 16.88 lOA6 16.84 10.41 15.31 10.14 15.19 10.18 1. Ele. over Illi.
2. Jr. High over Ele.
3.Sr. High over Jr. High 12.82 12.90 12.98 13.06 13.75 13.63 13.62 13.53 12.39 4. Sr. Vocat. over Jr. 1宜. 13.53 13.40 10.56 ，風
5. 3-Yr Col1egeover Sr. All
15.57 15.45
14.68 14.52
6. Univ. over Sr. Al1 (b) Pema1es 50.00 16.49 50.00 16.45 50.00 16.21 50.00 16.13 1. Ele. over Illi.
2. Jr. High over Ele.
3. Sr. High over Jr. 1宜gh 7.28 7.33 7.38 7.43 .8.70 8.65 9.63 8.64 8.56 4. Sr. Vocat. over Jr. Hi.
9.68 9.40
9.32 5. 3-Yr College over Sr. All
13.45 12.34
12.64 13.51
6. Univ. over Sr. All
五 The Planning Unit of the Ministry of Education, Republic of China, An Analysis Study on Rates of Return to Education in Taiwan 1974, Table Source:
10, August, 1975.
Calculating and adjusting C. P. L in urban areas.
Ca1culating and adjùsting discounted rates of the Central Bank of the Case 1:
(365 )
K. Gannicott did several calculations based on different assumptions but he thought the most meaningful were these:39
Rates of retum to Education in The Republic of 01ina Table 2 Private 50% 12.7% 12.7% Social 27% 12.6% 12% Primary l a n O .'. &t hh 叮泡 4 ogbobVK 凡 .咀 .A.'.AF 且、 hhV f.A.f 且 T 且 OOO .1.1.1 nnn uee 冒 JF 、δu 口、δ u 職業數育成本效益文獻評析 13.2% 13.2% 15.8% 17.7% University
K. Gannicott, Rates of Return to Education in Taiwan, Republic of China, CIECD, July, 1973, P. i.
K. Gannicott indlcated that primary and university levels were the most profitable Source:
There was no evidence for the often heard view that investments in that time.
there was a shortage of senior vocational school graduates.4 0
Three years laær, another survey was made about the rates of retum to education in the Republic of China. This study conduced by the Planning Unit of the Ministy of Education, Republic of Ch恆a， is to repeat the first survey with some improved proceduces and classificatio.ns.
Among all those improvements, we think that the following items are most ímportant: 、•. ', •• EA
rs-、 Enlarging the investigated sample to 5,438 persons (male 3,675 and
female 1,763).42
四 Rec1assifyingthe educational categories to (a) elementary
,
(b) juniorhigh, (c) senior high, (d) senior vocational, (e) three years college, and (f) university (2)
and college.4 3
Readjusting the educational costs, inc1uding C. P. 1. in urban areas and discounted rates of the Central Ba$ of the Republic of China.44
of China's develöpment, has already created some serious problems. Withöut some immediate action, the Republic of China could soon be added t<;> long 1ist of those countnes where the educated labor force simply becomes the educated uneniploy，回 師夫學報
ed.33
When educational planning should be made in. concurrence with educational expansion, it is natural to use the cost-benefit analysis as a tool for educational planning in the Repub1ic of China.
第二十四期
Suffice it to say that rates of retum of educa-tion calculaeduca-tions exist for at least 30 countries, developed and undeveloped, such ca1culations are an indispensable input into the process of rational edu~ational
planning.
The first researcher of rates of retum to education ín the Republic of China is
K. Gannicott, an English economist and the foreign advisor of the P1anning Unit of the Ministry of Education, Republic of China. He compl'eted his report in less than eight months, namely, Rates o[ Return to Education in Taiwan, Republic o[
He summarized his method of ca1culation'as follows: China.34
We started by adapting the new conventional diagram (ageearnings
、‘，/
•••
A
rs--、
profI1es) which traced the inf1uence of extra educatiort on an individua1 eamings over his 1ifetime.3 5
We worked irrto an intema1 rate of retum and solved for i in the expre.
(2) O c-up 二+ B71 “ z 一「 n ssion where3 6
Bt is the salary differential at age t,
Ct is the cost at age t,
n= 1 is the age at beginning the course.
The private rate of retum relates the eamings differential after tax to
(3)
these are tuition fees (minus any the costs bome by thè individual student:
scholarships), books, unifonns and eamings lost whi1è studying.37
The social rate of retum relates the pre-tax differential to the total resource costs of education, that is to say, teachers' salaries other current expendi-ture‘ the va1ue of biulding capital and again earnings foregone by students.3 8
(367 )
Cost effectiveness analysis is also a fonn of range of empirical rates of interest.
systems' analysis where the quantification is not solely in monetary tenns versus cost-benefit analysis where quantification of cost and benefits is in mometary
The Cost - Benefit Analysis of the Vocationa1 Education in the Republic of China
4.
tenn.30For most developing countries, achievement of a high rate of economic growth is considered the major policy objective for which their govemments are striving.
職業教育成本效盆文獻評析
前le Republic of αlina is hoth poor1y endowed with natural resources and densely populated, but it has successfully achieved a high rate of economic As Cherles H. C. Ka03 1 indicateed that growth during the past two decades.
receiving no American economic aid since 1965, the Republic of China has been able to sustain an average annual rate of growth of 9.3 per cent, or a pet capita Even during the recent world-wide recession, the Republic of China has been able to reduce the impact of unfavorable foreign trade upon its domestic economy by initiating its income of 5.4 per cent for the subsel)uent period 1965-74.
highly ambitius
“
Ten Projects."From the above brief description, it is obvious that 甘le Republic of Chins had made great strides in economic development during the last two decades. How did the Republic of China achieve it? Needless tosay, there have been many reasons, of which an easy access to education and a skilled, hard-working but
in-It is indeed the case that the expensive labor force is undoubtedly a crucial one.
only major resource that the Republic of αlina possesses is its 17 million people,
Everybody recognizes the importance of human resources, and
“
manpowe'r utilization" has become a“
household" word since the mid-1960'sor broadly called manpower.
However, a preliminary examination of The Republic of China's the widespread misallocation of a 1975 has shown
manpower utilization in
C. Kao emphasized that in my judgment, education, once an important contributing factor to The Repub1ic well-educated labor force in the economy. 32
under the cqnditions specified in their study, addi-The conclusions were
師大學報
tional funds should be spent on the vocational - technical curricula rather than on the nonvocational - technical. senior high school high school curricula. retum to investment in vocationa1 -technical education was shown to be consi咽
The
derably greater than theretum to investment Jn the altemative curriculum.
第二十四期
Three major difficulties weie listed by the
四lere are three major difficulties when considering investment in education. First
,
it may be difficult to desire an accurate measurementof benefits of costs. Many of the benefits, in particular, are non - economic 凶 nature. Second, both benefits and costs are likely to be more general than those measured by simple economic indices. Last, the emphasis in the study is upon the allocation οfpublicHence
,
the ana1ysis must be performed from the viewpoint of society,
and based upon the concept of social utility or social welfare. Social, govemment and private costs and benefits do not necessari1y coincide with each other ör with monetary or accounting costs and benefits.2 8resources.
reply to questions conceming the economic va1ue of education and In
comparing them with goods produced in the private sector, they replied:
Education, however, is a precondition for the production, distribution and consumption of private goods, and cannot be compared in an efficiency sense Education
,
and private goods are not necessarily market sub-with private goods.Thus
,
adjustments for such things as cxcise taxes which are not paid by stitutes.public school systems,. are not made because it is felt that the comparison of private and social goods is not appropriate. However, within education, economic ana1ysis of the relative effectiveness of different educational programs can be performed.29
First, the interest rate used 泊 前ley theoretically justified discounting by:
discounting represents the opportunity cost of investment funds.Second, future And third, risk reduces the va1ue of income is valued less than present income.
any given stream of future benefits. However, neit
q.
er economic theory or empi-rical research give an answer to the questioil of choice of rate of interest. The fma1 A range of 4 to 10 per cent is the relevant choice is based.. on value judgment.(369 )
O
degree on interdependenèy. They suggested that it was cheaper for society to subsidize emplovers to provide on-the-job training. 前lere was no cònsideration of economies of scale with respect otemployers providring training for workers.
τbe result may be that the societal cost of training may be as much or more than public schools existingvoèational - training programs. Finally
,
both studies failed to answer whether or Ilot vocationaI education was worthehile or desirable in aneconomic efficiency sense. Both vocational education and other educational programs may. be inefficiently operated. Neither investigÆlted the cost and
pro-duction functions of .the educational programs to determine the economies of scale.
A cost effectiveness study which was contemed with the optimum al1ocation of public resources.in education was conducted by Hu and others.2 7 It involved a comparison between vocational-technical education and an altemative curriculum for non - i:ol1~ge attending students. The dependent variables were the average monthly eamings before and after taxes one year and six years after graduation and the per cent of time employed one ye.ar and six years after graduation. The independent vaiables were: (l) city of graduation; (2) type of curriculum.; (3) 、 sex; (4) 1. Q.; (5) race; (6) marital status; and (7) father's education.
Questionnaires were sent to the 1966-1967and the 1959-1960graduates of three major cities. Benefit estimatioP1s were based on the six year post -graduatiσrriabor market on 2,767 observations. Three types of high schools -comprehensive, vocational - technical and vocational academic - were the SOUfce of graduates. Only non - col1ege attending seniors were inc1uded in the study. About two - thirds óf the sample was female. Data were collected in three major cities. For City B, there wasno significant difference by comparing the two types of graduates. City A had an iñtemal rate of retum of 3.9 per cent and City C had 11.3 per cent. Investing in vocational - technical education for City A and City C had 11.3 per cent. Investing in vocational 一 technicaleducation for City A and City C was an economically efficient investment. This sample evidence suggested funds should be shilfted from the comprehensive senior high school curricula toward the vocational - technical high schoo1.
Another case ~tudy was completed by Taussig using cost ~ benefit ana1ysis of vocationa1 education in New York City.23 The data oÏl earnings were obtained
師，大學報
In the analysis, he con-from an annually mailed post card of recent graduates.
The trolled for age, race, experiences, and differences in estimation procedures.
第二十四期
major fmding if the lack of apparent success of vocationa1 training in increasing market productivity of the graduates, despite the .1arge incremetnal cost shown to be devoted to vocationa1 training relative to altemauve high school pro-the
His decision conceming the expensiveness of vocational education was grams.
based on a per capital costs differential of approximately $2
,
200 to produce a The picture for vocational education was further He concluded,“
our review of the graduate in vocationa1 school.negative when relating the cost to benefits.
little that is known suggests that retums have been meager relative to the consi.
derable social investment in the program., "24
However
,
these two studies may have looked beyond a limitation of the cost - benefit application and that is the comp1lrison of different means - vocational一 vocationa1 curriculum as
a
1temative means to some curriculum versus nonend.25
The researchers were aware of these conceptial and methodological problems but since the studies were the first relating to the economicsof vocational educa-tion, the conclusions about the economic value of vocational education apparent1y received wider dissemination than did conclusions about the methodological and comceptual deficiencies of the research.26
Corazzini and Taussig studied cost benefit data immediately following the Reliabi1ity of such benefit data is doubtful because of the students graduation.
uncertain state of affairs following graduation. Wage rates ofvocational graduates
In studying with that of the academic graduates were used instead of eamings.
九 the performance of vocatiortal and academic graduates without controlling for socioeconomic factors which affect eamings and employment, the differences in background of the students or school environment instead of the effects of educa-tional curricula. Also
,
they made the assumptiön that economic variables or quantities are strictly additive, when, in fact, the effects of education have a high(371 )
ary attractions of certain occupations and the consumption benefits of education; the calculations depend on the projection of future trends from cross-(3)
scetion evídence, thus neglecting historical improvements in the quality of educa-tion as well as the effect of the secular growth of educaeduca-tion on prospective earn-ings differen tials;
existing earnings differentials in favour of educated people reflect, not
(4)
differences in theír contributíon to productive capacity, but rather long-established social conventions in an inherently imperfect labor market; bence, rate-of-return studies tell us nothing about the role of education in economic growth;
職業教育成本效益文獻評析
the direct benefits of education are quantitatívely less important than (5)
the indirect spillover benefits and the latter are not adequately reflected in a soeial rate of return which simply relates income differentials before tax to the total
ambiguous policy implications because resource costs of education; and
(6)
educational authoritieshave other goals than that of maximizing the net national have
rates of retum social
product.20
The Cost - BenefitAnalysis of The Vocational Education 3.
One of the first reported studiesof the costs and benefits of vocational education was a case study in Worchester, Massachusettes, by Corazzini.21
attempted to assess the economic benefits ofthe school system's vocational shcools He
Considering only when compared with the community's regular high schoold.
public direct and implicitcosts and private direct costs, educating pupils at the boys' vocational school costs 2.13 times as much as at the regular high school. Initial starting The absolute difference in these costs is $678 per pupil per year.
earnings of the vocational graduates were slightly higher than the initial starting 八
Corazzini stated that alternative pro-earnings of regular high school graduates.
“
The data suggest that cheaper ways need. to be found to keep peoplein school, and to provide them with the ski11s necessary for employment. "22He conc1uded, grams for on-the-job training should be considered.
that an individual wil1 be able to adapt to the effects of technological change
,
師大學報
either by remainÏIig at a job and uti1izing more sophisttcated equipment or ada-Non-market retums result from all the do-it-yourself type of work that a person can perform as a resu1t of his education. pting to an entirely different job.
Fi1ing one.'s own income tax retumsand helping one's chi1dren with their
home-第二十四期
work are but two examples of such non-market activity.18
The preceding benefits are primari1yof a private nature since individuals reap most, if not all, of the economic retums. The. remaining three benefits are prima-rily ßocial because society at large reaps the benefits of the individual's education. As these benefits are extemal to the individual (they are not captured primarily by him), they are .known as extemal benefits or extema1ities.
benefitsstemming from the physical juxtaposition of the beneficiaries and the Residence-related
educated individual consist of sevetal types: those accruable to the current fami1y and the future fami1y of the individual, those reaped by the individual's neighbors, and those accruing to taxpayers at large.
the effects of the educated individual on the overall productivity of this collea-Employment-related‘ benefits refer to
gues, in situations.where production involves cooperative effort. Societal benefits stem from the fact that literacy is a primé requisite for an intelligent citizenry, for a smooth organiza討on of economic activity
,
and for economic growth. Furthér-more,
education reduces the financial burden on society 'by minimizing the need for corrective and welfare services. 1 9In his artic1e of the Rate of Retum on Investment in Education, B1augsumed up the criticisms of cost - benefit analysis app1ied to education in terms of six basic objections, which he then attempts to meetin tum. lksaid that a review of
the 1iterature on' the subject shows. that the various objections that have been advanced against raté-of-retum ca1culations tàll broadly 姐的 sixc1asses:2 0
education
,
eamings,
endowed abi1ity,
individual motivation,
and sociill、•.
F
•• za
r--calss are all intercorrelated and no one has yet succeeded in satisfactorily isolating the pure e叮ect of education on eamings;
it is assumed that people are motivated solely by consideration of the financial gains of additional schoolιattendance ， thus ignoring both the
-'-/ \
(373 )
retum on investment in the private sector of the economy. His careÎul1y,designed study was to determine the rate of retum from the investment in col1ege educa-tion
,
allowing for the general1y higher abi1ity of the col1ege students. The rate of retum on the investment by the student was 10 per cent before taxes. The social co.st of col1ege education reduced the rate of retum before taxes to 9 per cent. 甘le rate of retum from investment in the physical capita1 in unincorporated business was estimated by B~cker to be approximately 8 per cent.
14Hansen studied the socia1 rates of retum as well as the private. rate of retum. Hansen
,
professor of economics at the Universityof Wisconsin-Madison,
confmes hÜJlse1f to. the direct retums.in estimating both the private and. the socia1 rate of retUm to years of schooling in the United States 祖 1949.15He discussed the many statistica1 and conceptua1 prob1ems that arise in making such ca1culations and ，扭i particu1ar, compared rate of retum analysis of educa-tional expenditures with the more conveneduca-tional addieduca-tional - 1ifetime - income or present - value - of -additiona1一 lifetime - income methods. His research concluded that more schoolingpaid higher retums than did less schooling.1 6
In a study of the benefits of public education, Weisbrod, also profèssor of economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
,
listed seven broad benefits attributable to education, They are: (1) direct 品lancial retums, (2)' fmancia1 options, (3) hedging options, '(4) non-market retums, (5) residence-related benefits,
(6) employment-related benefits,
and (7) social benefits. The first four of there refer to the retum to the individual, and the 1ast three are benefits to others.17Direct financial retums stem from the positive corre1atiort that all tesearchers fmd between educationa1 attainment and eamings, Although part of this, fmancial
reward is undoubtedly due to abili旬， ambition, and a host of socioeconomic variables, no researcher has denied the positive role palayed by education. Fina-ncial options refer to the fact that each leve1 of education prior to the highest achievable level provides an individual with the opportunity(theoption) of acqu-iring yet additional education and reaping the extra benefits attached to that edu-cation. Education further provides a hedging optiσn by increasirtg the probability
職業數育的們
Then he obtained income differentials by years of school-various points of time.
ing among workers of the same age
,
using data from the 1950 U.S. Census of師大學報
At this point Denison inìroduced.a key assumption, namely, that 60 per cent (but only 60 per cent) of the observed. differences in income are due to education, and that the remainder
These differentials are shown in Table 1. Population.
第二十四期
are accounted for by differences.jn abi1ity and health, by nepotism, and by a large nutnber öf other factors.1 3
lilcome Differentials of Years of Education Table 1
1949, Average of Selected Age C1asses of MaIes
Mean Income Differentia1
Used to Represent Effect of Education (2)
Mean Income as % of Mean
戶 UW Au a“ ?且 G A山 位) 沾 le 冒 -aJS ﹒、 r 且 RS oe 4 ••• ea 訂 U αJU PU-刊， ι hG
Years of School Completed
70 50 None Elementary School 1 - 4 Years 65 79 88 80 5 - 7 Years 100 100 Years 。 os hE Kum -伊 3
ml
8 109 115 124 140 Years College 1 - 3 Years 4 139 165 181 235 4 Yearsor more 五 Edward F. Denison, The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. Supplementary Paper No. 13,Source:
Committee For EconomicDevelopment, 1962, P. 68.
Becker also conceptualized financial inputs into education as an investment and compared the interest retum on investment in education with the interest
(375 )
is itself the sum of factor incomes
,
of which wages and salaries represent roughly three - quarters of the total. When larger amounts of education in the population produce higher eamings, national income must rise.8 .earlier, Theodre W. Schultz is one ofthe pioneers in quantitative As said
Schultz states that education accounts for measurement of retums to education.
He said that inereases in physical capital, in land, and ih technology do not adequafely explain the economic growth which has been experienced. The invest::1ent in education rising at a rapid rate by itself
,
may account for a substantial part of the職業教育成本放益文獻評析
a significant portion of the increase in the ectmomic welfare of the society.
He the orized thaf many people were investing in themselves as human agents and those investments were having a pervasive influence upon economic ifowth. He statedthat education was the key otherwise unexplainable rise in eamings.
investmeht in human capita1.9
Schultz estimated the rate of retum on an investment in college education was 11 per cent in 1958. The rate ofretum on investment for elementary educa-tion was computed to be 3S per cent and in high school educaeduca-tion 10 per cent. Discounts for differences in
a:
bility,
unemployment and mortality were made,
and 'income foregone by the individual was included as a part of the cost ofeduca-tion
.1
0Schultz concluded in an article in 1967 that the rates of retum are cogent in searching for solutions to investment, capital accumulation, and growth problems, including the problem of an efficient allocation of investment resources to educa. tion.l l
Let us now consider the scheme of analysis used in assessing economic retum to education by one of the major writers in the field, Esward F. Denison of the Brookings Institution.1 2 DenisoI1 fe1t that it is appropriate to distinguish between two main types of educational contributions to economic growth: (1) raising the quality of the labor force and (2) increasing the stock of knowldege.
For various years from 1929 ön, Denison detennined the distribution of male
四
He also gathered figures showing the number of day's attendance represented by a year's schooling at the workers by the number of years of school completed.
First, this kind of mide1. which i8 centra1 to ana1ysis of all problems
invol-吋ngdecisions with regard to the allocation of investments to one use or anoth缸，
is far more fully developed than any other with which economists have approached problems in the economics of education. Second, it is the approach that most clearly illuminates the. zones within which the concems of economists and educa-tors converge, and where better interdisciplinary communication and joint research effort offer the greatestpromise. 5
2. The Cost- Benefit Analysis in Education
師大學報第二十四期
The last decade produced most of the cost :- benefit analysis research studies direct1y related to education and specifica11y to vocational education. Three factors are attributed to the increased research in this area of education. First
,
is the increased interest on problems of the disadvantaged 一 theirearnings, employ-ment,
education,
and the links between these factors. Second is the increase 詛 emphasis on vocationaleducation on the part of the federal government.Third, is the 扭crease 詛 emphàsis on training and retraining as solutions to part of the unemployment problem. ln identifying research related to cost - benefit ana1ysis of education and vocationaleducation,
these factors served as leading indicators.6
Using the tools of e<::onomic analysis to analyze pubijc education in c1ear and systematic fashion, Benson published The Economics of Public Education in 1961.1 ln discussing the individual and societal benefits of the educational process
,
he noted that. cért剖n benefits accrue to the individua1 but that other benefits are avai1able to a1l members of the society; 前le justifications 斟ven for public support of education are: (1) education strengthens the nationa1 defense of a society; (2) it promotes political stabi1ity; (3) it tends to reduca in size that portion of the population which suffers from abject poverty; an<l (4) it promotes the cultural and aesthetic life of the nation.Like in the frrst edition of The Economics 01 Public Education, Benson in the second edition ofhis book emphasized that the investment aspects of educa-tional expenditures. He recalled two things:( t) Earnings and level of education are positively associated. (2) Nationa1 income, the yardstick for measuring growth;
(37
7: )
The cost-benefit analysis of vocational education is one of economic return analyses óf education, while the vocational education is one part of education. A
I favorable relationship exists between an individua1's educational attainment and
his prospects for emplöyment ahd subsequent income. On the average, as the number ofyears of schooling completed increases, so does a person 法 annualincome,
and totál lifetime earnings. Education produces a labor förce that is more skilled, more adaptable to change and more likely to develop imáginative ideas, techniques and products that are critical to expansion, growth, and adaptation to change.3
Identifying, quantifying arid reducing the costs and benefits of the vocational educatic)'fl to monetary terms does provide a method of èva1uation the vocational
職業教育成本效益文獻評析
education.
1:he cost-benefit ana1ysis is an eva1uative technique that related the total value of benefits of the vocationa1 education to the total cost of the vocational The application of cost-benefit to vocational education requires that costs and benefits be quantified in monetary terms. “祖le cost-benefit model is appropriate for assessing .the economic value of vocational education, for benefits education.
as well as costs can be reduced to monetary terms. "4
This study represents and att~mpt to apply cost~benefit approach to the field The purposes of this study is a survey of literature of the voactional education.
with emphases upon:
explain and analyze the theoretical and practica1 aspects of the
cost-、 EF
--... ， a﹒、benefit approach in education,
introduce a methodology for conducting cost-benefit analysis of voca-tional education
,
(2)
ex姐姐e ， compare and analyze the public and private cost-benefit and (3)
rate of return aspeèts of the vocationa1 education, and
compare and analyze the studies of the cost-benefit analysis of the' vocational education in the Republic of China.
(4)
The selectiön of the cost-benefit ana1ysis of the vocational education can be explained by the following words from BowIÍlan:
IN
COST-BENEFIT
EDUCATION:
OF
ANALYSIS
師大學特VOCATIONAL
TO
REFERENCE
SPECIAL
CHINA
WITH
SURVEY
A
第二十四期OF
REPUBLIC
THE
Sing Lee By Chien IntroductionEconomists have long known that people are an important part of the wea1th Yet, the intensive and systematic investigation of the economic feat-of nations.
ures of education by economists is a fairly recent phenomenon. The presidential address of Theodore W. Schu1tz to the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association in December 1960 is said to be the
“
take - off" point for the subject of the Economics of Education.1In describing the reasons why economists have shield away from the explicit analysis of investment in human capital, Schultz has this to say:
A1though economists are seldom,timid in entering on abstract ana1ysis and
are often proud of being impractical, they have not been bold incoming to grips with this form of investment. Whenever they come even close, they proceed ging-erly as if they were stepping into deep water. No doubt there are reasons for being wary. Deep-seated mora1缸ldphilosophícal issue are ever present. Free men 紅B
Íttst and foremost the end to be served by economic endeavor; they are not pro-perty or marketable assets. AIid not least, it has been a1l tbo convenient in margi-nal productivity ana1ysis to treat labor as if it were a unique bundle of innate abi-lities that are wholly free of capital.2
When education is accepted as an investment expenditure, it is recognized as being directly related to the economic growth of a society. Therefore, investment in personal development is as useful an index of progress as an investment in ph-ysial capital.
