private sources. On the other hand, Gallagher (1990) argues that when national economic growth slows, the private sector, communities, and individuals also have fewer resources, and that user fees may reduce the demand for education if people cannot afford to pay. Public subsidies to private education decline in declining budgets, further hampering nongovernment provision of education.

3.17 Breaking down enrollment rates by gender, region, or income level indicates the equity impacts of adjustment measures. The most widely-cited equity indicator is the female (versus male or total) primary enrollment rate. Adjustment appears not to have influenced equity: female enrollment rates continued to approach male enrollment rates during the adjustment period (annex 1). Although the literature emphasizes that adjustment disproportionately affected the poor, comparisons between rural and urban areas (box II1.6) or household income levels are scarce.

E. What evidence is missing?

3.18 Data for education during adjustment are scarce and inconclusive. Although public education financing and gross enrollment rates declined in intensely adjusting countries, the overall impacts of these trends on the sector, and particularly on quality and equity, cannot be determined because of data and methodology' aitations. Sources focus on macro (public financing levels) and micro (per student expenditures) effects of adjustment policies on the supply of education. At the macro level, the supply of education in most countries is determined by the level of public funding. But sector financing data often describe only central government spending, and neglect local government or private resources. The impacts of changes in education resources on quality and equity are not obvious. They depend on the level of inefficiency in the system (a major focus of sector reform efforts), and on intrasectoral allocations to recurrent versus capital budgets, by function, and by level of education. Sources rarely break down sector financing figures according to these categories.

3.19 General conclusions about macro (income distribution) or micro (household earnings, costs and expectations) effects on the demand for education are unsubstantiated statements. Sources seldom include indicators for factors (other than public education expenditures) that influence the demand for education, for example income distribution, real and opportunity costs of education, and potential returns from education. They also provide little information regarding indirect impacts of adjustment measures on children's learning ability through changes in health and nutrition. Much of the relevant information must be obtained through household surveys.

3.20 Although education quality and equity data are extensive in particular country studies (boxes 111.4-111.6), for most countries the evidence is scarce and not linked e;-plicitly to adjustment measures. Internal efficiency indicators (repeater rates, dropout rates, and test scores) provide information on changes in education quality, but are not used extensively in the adjustment literature. In addition, few sources examine equity indicators to address the impacts of adjustment measures by region, income level, and gender.

31