reallocation, the share of primary education in the recurrent sector budget varies between 33 percent and 69 percent. These examples illustrate the inherent weaknesses of the approach. The fact is that there are few operationally meaningful comparative standards, at least at such an aggregate level of analysis.

3.27 In the second approach, the analysis is in principle more refined, and its outcome potentially more credible, since it focuses directly on the beneficiaries of government spending. Even then, however, most reports remain essentially concerned with expenditures per student at the different educational levels, rather than focusing on actual unit outlays for basic educational necessities, and on the extent to which minimum requirements are being satisfiedY Again. comparing PER assessments across countries provides a striking picture of the lack of credible comparative standards in the sector (see table 111.3). According to the PERs for which unit expenditure data are available on a more or less comparable basis (16), the ratio of unit expenditures in higher education to unit expenditures in primary education ranges between 6 (Philippines) and 208 (Tanzania)Y For most countries represented in this range, PERs conclude that spending on primary education is insufficient; yet public expenditures per primary student for these countries ranges from a low US$14 (Zambia) to as much as US$142 (C6te d'Ivoire). Clearly, comparison of expenditures per graduate, rather than per student, would be more meaningful.

3.28 A more fundamental problem with calculations of unit expenditures per student or graduate is that recurrent government spending on education is almost exclusively wages and salaries for teaching and nonteaching personnel. Teachers� incomes are inherently noncomparable across countries, and even within a country's civil service wage structure, because of the large variation in educational requirements, opportunities to earn outside income, teaching load, teaching hours, and so on. More useful tools for crosscountry comparisons would be the ratio of costs per graduate to GNP per capita, nonsalary expenditures per graduate (or even per student) on materials and supplies, or the ratio of nonsalary to salary expenditures per unit of output (graduate or student). Indeed, the Bank has recently recommended increasing nonsalary recurrent expenditures by US$5 per student in low-income countries and US$4 per student in lower-middle-income countries. Research has shown that investment in quality-enhancing inputs boosts student learning and can reduce dropout and repeater rates, thereby yielding significant cost savings.�-1 �-"Satisfaction of minimum educational input requirements is actually being assessed, or touched upon. in many reports with respect to primary education. but very seldom for the higher levels. The assessment thus does not play an integral role in the analysis of intrasectoral allocation issues.

�'Most reports refer to 'unit costs," which may or may not cover private costs, capital costs, or both. In fact, in most cases, unit costs appear to be limited to government recurrent expenditure (often budgeted rather than actual).

6-1 Marlaine E. Lockeheed and Adriaan M. Verspoor, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries, The World Bank. 1990, p� 122-3 (draft).

29