National voucher plans in Chile and Sweden: Did privatization reforms make for better education?

"Politically, vouchers are appealing because they promise increased consumer / investor choice, and economically, proponents claim increased competition among private and public schools drives down the costs without reducing quality". The author analyses and compares Chilean and Swedish vo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Comparative education review 1998-08, Vol.42 (3), p.309-337
Main Author: Carnoy, Martin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bildungsgutschein
Children
Chile
Comparative education
Comparative studies
Cost and financing
Cost Effectiveness
Cost-Benefit-Analysis
Decentralization
Decentralization of schools
Education reform
Education vouchers
Educational accountability
Educational Change
Educational equalization
Educational policy
Educational Quality
Educational reform
Educational research
Educational sciences
Educational Vouchers
Effizienz
Elementary Secondary Education
Foreign Countries
Internationaler Vergleich
Outcomes of Education
Parents
Planning and economics of education
Politics and education
Politics of Education
Private education
Private Schools
Privatisierung
Privatization
Privatschule
Public Schools
Qualität
School Choice
Schulwahl
Schweden
Students
Sweden
Test scores
Tuition
Vouchers
Wettbewerb
Öffentliche Schule
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:"Politically, vouchers are appealing because they promise increased consumer / investor choice, and economically, proponents claim increased competition among private and public schools drives down the costs without reducing quality". The author analyses and compares Chilean and Swedish voucher plans and examines whether the following five arguments in favour of vouchers have turned out to be realistic in the implementation of voucher plans in the two countries: "The first is that school choice increases the total welfare of families who send their children to school. The second is that social costs, from increasing choice through privatizing public education, are limited. The third is that privately managed education is inherently more effective and cost- effective in producing learning. The fourth is that public schools competing for pupils with private and other public schools will become more effective. And the fifth is that a privatized and competitive education system is more likely to improve social mobility for the children of low- income families." Finall, it is asked which lessons can be drawn (if any) from the two countries' experiences. (DIPF/Bi.)
ISSN:0010-4086
1545-701X
DOI:10.1086/447510