Effects of Government’s Regulations on Private Education Expenditures in Korea

Seolah Kim

Master’s Graduate of Seoul National University, +82-10-8670-7154 seolah90@gmail.com

JEL Classification: C01, C23, I24

Abstract

The private education market has been expanding in Korea. Hence, various measures at the government level are implemented, such as regulating private educational institutes and strengthening school curricula at all levels. This paper analyzes whether direct regulation on the business hours of private educational institutes is effective in reducing the country’s overall private education expenditure. Using the youth panel data of the Korea Employment Information Service from 2007 to 2010, the paper focuses on the regulation of private educational institutes and analyzes the regulation effect on private education expenditures of Korean high school students using Tobit model. Furthermore, the stochastic dominance test is conducted by taking the nonparametric approach of Linton et al. (2010). Regulation effects in both approaches vary among the regulated regions.

Keywords:

Private education expenditure, Regulation effect, Tobit estimation, Stochastic dominance, Bootstrap

Acknowledgments

I really appreciate helpful comments and suggestions of Professor Yoon-Jae Whang of Seoul National University

References

Ai, C, and Norton E. C. “Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models.” Economics Letters 80 (No. 1 2003): 123-29. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6]
Barrett, G, and Donald, S. “Consistent Tests for Stochastic Dominance.” Econometrica 71 (No. 1 2003): 71-104. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00390]
Bray, T. M., and Lykins, C. R. “Shadow Education: Private Supplementary Tutoring and its Implications for Policy Makers in Asia.” CERC Monograph Series in Comparative and International Education and Development, Asian Development Bank (No. 9 2012).
Choi, J. S. “Private Tutoring and Educational Inequality: Evidence from a Dynamic Model of Academic Achievement in Korea.” Population Association of America Annual Meeting, New Orleans: USA, 2012.
Kang, C. Does Money Matter? The Effect of Private Educational Expenditures on Academic Performance. National University of Singapore, Department of Economics Working Paper No. 704, 2007.
Kim, D. I. “Growth in College Education and Wage Differentials in Korea.” Seoul Journal of Economics 18 (No. 2 2005): 87-124.
Kim, J-H. “The Effectiveness of Regulation for Cram Schools on Demand for Private Tutoring.” The Journal of Educational Administration 27 (No. 4 2009): 465-87.
Kim, J.-H., and Chang, J. “Do Governmental Regulations for Cram Schools Decrease the Number of Hours Students Spend on Private Tutoring?” KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 7 (No. 1 2010): 3-21.
Kim, S., and Lee, J. H. “Private Tutoring and Demand for Education in South Korea.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 58 (No. 2 2010): 259-96. [https://doi.org/10.1086/648186]
Kim, S. N. “Diagnosis and Policy on the Reduction Policy of Private Tutoring Cost.” Korean Educational Development Institute, 2011.
Lee, J. “An Empirical Analysis on the Pattern of Private Tutoring Expenditure and the Effect on its Reduction Policy - Using Tobit Model & Heckman Selection Model-.” Journal of Korean Education 36 (No. 2 2009): 189-221.
Linton, O, Song, K, and Whang, W-J. “An Improved Bootstrap Test of Stochastic Dominance.” Journal of Econometrics 154 (No. 2 2010): 186-202 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.08.002]
Tansel, A, and Bircan, F. 2006. “Private Tutoring Expenditures in Turkey.” Economics of Education Review 25 (No. 3): 303-13. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.02.003]
Statistics Korea. The Survey of Private Education Expenditures. Seoul: Statistics Korea, 2014.