not),<sup>36</sup> tobacco (assuming a 50 percent rate corresponding to molassed tobacco), and gasoline (assuming the highest quality is consumed).<sup>37</sup>

# **In-kind transfers**

Receipt of in-kind benefits is based on directly identified utilization of the public education or public health care systems. The HIECS 2015 records how many household members are enrolled in the public education system (and at what levels) and whether any household members recently visited a public health care facility. The monetized value of the in-kind transfer is based on the “government cost” approach. For example, total education expenditures are divided by the total number of users (students) to get a uniform per-user cost of producing and delivering the service. This per-user cost then is defined as the value of the transfer received. This cost represents what the utilizing household would have to pay to acquire the service at the government’s cost.

We used disaggregated administrative data (by facility type) to guide our estimation of the government cost of a health care or education service acquired. For health, we used budgetary data to allocate specific expenditures to hospital and clinical care providers. For example, the public expenditures transferred to public hospitals for personnel and medical goods (including medicines) is not equivalent overall or on a per-facility basis to public expenditures for the same items for public clinic-based health care.<sup>38</sup> Offbudget, special fund expenditures for these services are known to be substantial.

Note that for both public health and education services, the estimate of the value of the benefit we allocate is limited by the information available. For example, we do not have complete information on the government’s cost of a secondary school student-year or a primary/preparatory school student-year. We assumed the former was twice as expensive (for the government) as the latter two.<sup>39</sup> With that assumption, and with the overall shares of publicly enrolled primary/preparatory and secondary students as taken from CAPMAS (2017), the actual government cost can be calibrated. That is, we let actual numbers of publicly enrolled students (by level) and our assumption that a public secondary school student costs the government twice as much as a primary school student determine the imputed government cost for a student at both the primary and secondary levels.

36 For households’ consumption of tea and sugar not distributed by ration cards, we apply the lowest GST rate: _gomhoria_ tea and unsubsidized crystallized sugar.

> 37 The gasoline is labeled “super” in the law. Furthermore, we use a weighted excise tax rate where 1/3 of the weight is based on the rate for imported products and 2/3 for the local products. This, using as guidance the energy balance table by the International Energy Agency, noting that Egypt’s net imports of oil products account for 32.6 percent of the country’s total consumption in 2015 (including industry own use during the refinery process and use for electricity production).

38 Anecdotally, the Ministry of Health’s budget is perhaps only 50 percent of total public expenditure on the delivery of health care services. Therefore, we are allocating a total, as well as a per‐patient cost and a per‐patient benefit, that is too low. Our baseline values assume the missing special funds are allocated to services and regions in exactly the same proportions as the on‐budget expenditures.

39 We recognize the arbitrariness of this assumption. Other CEQ exercises have shown that the ratio of the cost of a secondary level student to a primary level one can fall in the range of 1.5 and 10.

26