Table 15 shows public spending per capita by level of education and<sup>acrossregionin</sup> Vietnam for both 1993 and 1998. Per capita public spending for education<sup>increased more than</sup> three-fold between 1992-93 and 1997-98. Improvement in public<sup>spendingforeducationwas</sup> highest in the Northern Uplands and the Central Highlands over the<sup>fiveyear period.These two</sup> regions received highest per capita public spending in primary<sup>education, comparedtoother</sup> regions. This may be an explanation for their good performance<sup>intermsof primaryschool</sup> enrolment in 1998. The Red River Delta and the Mekong Delta<sup>had highestpercapitapublic</sup> education spending as they spent much more on post-secondary education.

Table 16 shows benefit incidence by region in 1993 and 1998. Overall,<sup>publicspending</sup> for education in Vietnam was more equal in 1998 compared to that<sup>in1993.For theregions that</sup> were disadvantaged in 1993 in terms of benefiting from public<sup>educationspending,</sup> they benefited more in 1998, and vice versa for the regions which got<sup>more in1993.Although</sup> inequalities still exist, Northern Uplands, North Central Coast, Central<sup>Highlands,andMekong</sup> Delta benefited more from public spending on education relative<sup>totheirshareof population.</sup> And in contrast, Red River Delta, Central Coast, and Southeast<sup>benefitedlessfrompublic</sup> spending on education compared to 1993, although two richest<sup>regions-RedRiverDeltaand</sup> Southeast - still received more compared to their share in total population<sup>(Table16).The major</sup> explanation is that on the one hand, the change in the allocation of<sup>publiceducation spending</sup> relatively more toward primary and lower secondary education (as<sup>opposed to uppersecondary</sup> and post-secondary education). On the other hand, these two richest<sup>regionshadfewerchildren</sup> went to schools at lower levels of schooling, such as primary<sup>and lowersecondaryeducation.</sup> Table 16: Incidence of public spending for education<sup>by region,1993and1998</sup> (as % of public spending for each education level)

|_1993_|Northern<br>Uplands|RedRiver<br>Delta|North<br>Central|Central<br>Coast|Central<br>Highlands|South<br>East|Mekong<br>Delta|Vietnam|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Prinary|16.6|20.9|13.5|10.8|3.6|12.7|21.9|100|
|Lowersecondary|11.2|25.7|11.3|16.3|1.8|14.2|19.5|100|
|Uppersecondary|12.1|27.0|9.2|20.6|0.7|17.0|13.5|100|
|Allschools|13|27|12|13|2|16|17|100|
|_Memo:%of_pop.<br>_1998_|15.6|21.6|12.8|11.9|3.2|12.6|22.4|100|
|Primary|22.2|17.2|16.1|9.7|4.6|9.5|20.6|100|
|Lowersecondary|19.4|23.2|15.8|9.3|3.2|12.4|16.7|100|
|Uppersecondary|14.8|26.9|14.9|11.9|1.7|15.9|14.0|100|
|Allschools|18|22|14|10|3|14|18|100|
|_Memo: %_ofpop.|17.9|19.6|13.8|10.7|3.7|12.7|21.5|100|

_Source:_ Author's estimates based on 1992-93 and 1997-98 VLSS The above standard benefit incidence analysis assumes that all regions<sup>have thesame</sup> share of school-age children in the population. However, as can be seen<sup>from Table17,Northern</sup> Uplands and North Central Coast had higher proportion of primary<sup>school-age</sup> children in population than others. These are those children should be<sup>abletoattendschool,notall</sup> population. Therefore, it is better to compare public spending per school-age<sup>childthan per head</sup> of population. If this is used, then allocation of primary public<sup>spendingislesspro-poorthan</sup> before. Relative benefits for Northern Uplands and North<sup>CentralCoast</sup> lower than those benefits if one look at per head of population. In contrast, the<sup>richest regionin Vietnam,</sup> 19