Table 20 presents regressions that allow for a different<sup>impactof differentlevelsof</sup> education. In this table, returns to different completed education<sup>levelsandvocationaltraining</sup> were used in place of schooling. Returns were calculated<sup>foreachyearof the corresponding</sup> education level. Other economic variables were kept<sup>unchanged.</sup> Investment in education at primary and lower secondary<sup>levelswere profitableinboth</sup> surveys. However, returns to primary education declined<sup>slightly from15%in1993to14%in</sup> 1998. Similarly, returns to lower secondary education declined<sup>from3%in1993to 2 %in1998.</sup> In contrast, upper secondary and university education only<sup>turnedouttobestatistically</sup> significant in 1998. While one more year attending an upper<sup>secondary schooldid not make any</sup> statistically difference in one's earning in 1993, it<sup>couldbringas muchas4 percentmore to the</sup> earning for each additional year spent in an upper secondary<sup>schoolin1998.Similarly,returns to</sup> one more year in university / college could bring 24 percent<sup>increaseinearningin1998.Itis</sup> interesting that after taking into account differences in education<sup>attainmentlevel,attending</sup> vocational training did not make any statistically differences<sup>in earningin privatesectorin both</sup> years (Table 20). In this extended model, experience, gender,<sup>numberof hoursworkedand</sup> region seemed to have similar impact on earning as in basic earning<sup>model.</sup>

# 5. **Conclusions**

Over 5 year period 1993-98, school enrolment in Vietnam<sup>increased dramaticallyat all</sup> levels, especially at higher education levels. These improvements<sup>occurred forallexpenditure</sup> groups and regions. Changes in the allocation of public<sup>spendingoneducationinthe1990s</sup> increasingly favored lower levels of education . As a result, the<sup>shareof public spendingon</sup> education going to the poor increased from 16.5% in 1993<sup>to18.1%in1998.This chapter</sup> documents major changes and conditions in the education<sup>sectorinVietnam,using dataon</sup> public expenditure on education and the Vietnam Living<sup>StandardSurvey.Itfinds fourmajor</sup> conclusions.

Firstly, the improvement in enrolment rates was not<sup>equalacrossthe different</sup> expenditure groups. At the primary level, there was a huge<sup>increasein enrolmentfor the bottom</sup> quintile, but more still needs to be done to achieve universal<sup>primaryeducationin Vietnam.For</sup> the population as a whole, 9% of primary school age children<sup>werestill notenrolledin primary</sup> school in 1998, and 18 % of the poorest children in this age<sup>range werenot enrolledin primary</sup> school. These enrollment gaps between rich and poor are even<sup>widerforhigherlevelsof</sup> education. Over the five year period between 1993 and<sup>1998,childrenfrompoorestquintile</sup> experienced an increase in enrolment in upper secondary<sup>schools from1 %to5%as compared</sup> to an increase from 21 % to 64 % for the richest quintile.<sup>Atthe post secondarylevel,thegaps</sup> were even larger as almost no poor children went to schools<sup>at this level bothin1993and1998,</sup> compared to an increase in enrolment from 9 % to 29<sup>%forchildrenfromtherichestquintile</sup> between 1993 and 1998.

Improvements in enrolment rates also varied considerably<sup>acrossregions,withwider</sup> disparities at higher levels of education. At primary level,<sup>theMekong Delta,the Central</sup> Highlands, and Northern Uplands experienced largest<sup>improvementinenrolmentoverfiveyear</sup> period as they started at much lower levels, except<sup>theNorthernUplands.Theregionwhich</sup> 25