variables can vary considerably depending for instance on how data of specific subgroups are treated. For our purposes, we are able to be totally explicit about the different definitions that are used, and we are able to use only those that are comparable across countries and over time.

# **1.2 General stylized facts emerging from the data**

Our synthetic panel constructed from the household survey database illustrates the average evolution of school enrollment patterns for four different generations over time in LA, spanning a period of 15 years, from USE age entrants around 1995 to entrants around 2010 (Figure 1).<sup>13</sup> Based on available data, some youth are seen during their full schooling trajectory (such as the middle two lines) while some are observed during the first and last segments, respectively. Thus, the novelty of the present analysis is that it uses a dynamic approach by following the same group of individuals over time, rather than observing snapshots of different generations observed only at a particular age, as in other studies.

The first generation included (Cohort 1), was born between 1980 and 1982 and reached primary age around 1985-1987 and average USE age between 1994 and 1996. Cohort 2 is observed at USE age 5 years later between 1999 and 2001, while Cohorts 3 and 4 are observed also at 5 year intervals at USE age during 2004-2006 and 2009-2011, respectively.

The data show that 56 percent of individuals in Cohort 1 were enrolled in school at age 15, while the rate is 83 percent for Cohort 4 born 15 years later. This shows that a higher proportion of youth remain in school at USE entry age in LA during the 2010s as compared to generations entering this age around 1995. In addition, 70 percent of Cohort 4 remains in school at USE exit age 17, considerably higher than the 46 percent for Cohort 1. This reveals a considerable expansion in education coverage for adolescents across the region during these years.

When comparing transitions from LS to USE, however, the panel approach, which offers an additional view on each cohort’s dynamics (equivalent to the slope of each curve), reveals little progress. Here we compare the exit rate from schooling across different ages for each generation. For Cohort 1, 72 percent were still in school at LS entry at 12-13 years of age. However, at the USE exit age of 17 only 46 percent remains. Thus, there is a decline in enrollment of 26 percentage points. For the cohort born 15 years later enrollment rates at age 12 reach 93 percent, but there is again a significant drop — at USE exit age only 70 percent remain in school, which implies a reduction of 23 points, very similar to the decline observed 15 years earlier. The primary difference is that a significantly higher proportion of youth remain in school at age 12 –with an increase of practically 20 percentage points in attendance rates. Therefore, we find little progress in reducing

> 13 Since our household survey data base generates an unbalanced panel of countries and years due to differences in timing of the surveys we compute averages by interpolating values for each country between each two points in time for which there is data. The averages are not population weighted, although a very similar picture emerges when using population weights.

6