for education and health, Lower and Upper Egypt spend less than the national average per capita, but Frontier Governorates spend at least twice the national average.<sup>51</sup> It is notable that although the Upper Egypt region had 50 percent of the population in FY09, it received only 18.2 percent of the health expenditure, 19.5 percent of water expenditure, and 29.4 percent of education expenditure. This was in contrast to its more proportionate share for the electricity sector (48.4 percent).

**Table 9: Shares of Regions in Government Investment in Selected Sectors, 2009 (percent)**

||||**_Population_**|**_Poverty_**|**_Total public_**<br>**_investment_**|**_Total government_**<br>**_investment_**|**_Electricity_**|**_Water_**|**_Educational_**<br>**_Services_**|**_Health Services_**|**_Information_**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Metropolitans|||17|4.6|33.6|30|6.|4<br>16.9|30.4|32.|1<br>0.7|
|Lower Egypt|||31.1|16.2|30.3|30.6|2|0<br>53.9|35.6|32.|4<br>7.4|
|Upper Egypt|||50.3|78.5|25.6|32|29.|7<br>20.9|30.2|30.|9<br>91.1|
|Border|||1.5|0.7|10.4|7.4|43.|9<br>8.4|3.9|4.|6<br>0.7|
|Share in totalpublic|inves|tment|||||10.|1<br>12.9|6.7|2.|7<br>0.5|
|Source: Poverty and<br>2008/09, and investm<br>Furthermore, Table<br>student-to-teacher r<br>in Frontier governo<br>Egypt. This was<br>significantly in Lo<br>**Table 10. Inputs to t**|popula<br>ent dat<br>10 sh<br>atio in<br>rates,<br>associ<br>wer Eg<br>**he edu**|tion share<br>a from th<br>ows that<br>the pri<br>while it<br>ated wit<br>ypt.<br>**cation se**<br>**_Pupils/tea_**|s from<br>e MOE<br>the all<br>mary c<br>increas<br>h an<br>**ctor b**<br>**_cher rati_**|the Hou<br>D.<br>ocation<br>ycle in<br>ed the r<br>increas<br>**y region,**<br>**_o_**|sehold I<br>of teac<br>Metrop<br>atio in<br>e in cl<br>**2000 an**|ncome,<br>hers by<br>olitan g<br>Upper<br>ass de<br>**d 2008**|Expend<br>region<br>overn<br>Egypt<br>nsity<br>|iture and<br>over the<br>orates an<br>and to a l<br>across a<br>**_Class D_**|Consum<br>decad<br>d (mor<br>esser e<br>ll regi<br>**_ensity_**|ption<br>e decr<br>e sign<br>xtent<br>ons, b|Survey of<br>eased the<br>ificantly)<br>in Lower<br>ut more|
||**_Primar_**|**_y_**||**_Preparato_**|**_ry_**||**_Primar_**|**_y_**|**_P_**|**_reparat_**|**_ory_**|
|**_2000_**|**_2008_**|**_%Change_**|**_2000_**|**_2008_**<br>**_%_**|**_Change_**|**_2000_**|**_2008_**<br>|**_%Change_**|**_2000_**|**_2008_**|**_%Change_**|
|Metropolitans<br>21.0|18.2|-13.3|18.0|7.4|-58.9|42.0|47.1|12.1|44.0|38.0|-13.6|
|Lower Egypt<br>21.0|21.2|1.0|23.0|15.6|-32.2|39.0|51.4|31.8|43.0|38.4|-10.7|
|Upper Egypt<br>26.0|28.0|7.7|26.0|17.8|-31.5|42.0|43.5|3.6|44.0|41.8|-5.0|
|Frontiers<br>12.0|6.7|-44.2|12.0|4.9|-59.2|25.0|26.0|4.0|29.0|25.3|-12.8|
|All Egypt<br>22.0|22.0|0.0|22.0|13.4|-39.1|40.0|42.5|6.3|43.0|39.3|-8.6|

_Source:_ World Bank (2010).

In summary, the trends in allocation of resources across sectors and regions are insufficient to provide a satisfactory explanation of the evolution of HOIs during the decade. This should not be surprising if we anticipate that, in addition to the obvious impact of resources available by sector and region, there must be significant variability in the efficacy of public expenditures (across sectors and regions) that influence access and inequality of access at the national and regional

> 51 See Martinez-Vasquez and Timoneef  (2011, p. 404).

28