Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Efficiency of public expenditure on

education: comparing Croatia with other
NMS

Ahec Šonje, Amina and Deskar-Škrbić, Milan and Šonje,

Velimir

University college Effectus, ErsteSteiermarkische bank,

Arhivanalitika Ltd

2 January 2018

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/85152/
MPRA Paper No. 85152, posted 13 Mar 2018 11:40 UTC
EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION: COMPARING
CROATIA WITH OTHER NMS
Amina Ahec Šonje, Milan Deskar-Skrbić, Velimir Šonje

Abstract
Modern economies are becoming more knowledge-intensive and service-oriented, which
makes human capital more important than ever for mid-term and long-term growth.
Therefore, education, the main channel of governments’ influence on human capital
formation, became important research subject in the field of economic growth. This paper
examines efficiency of public expenditure on secondary and tertiary education in the New
Member States (NMS) in EU; only efficient government spending can generate adequate
returns in terms of contribution to economic growth. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is
applied to assess relative technical efficiency of public expenditure on secondary and tertiary
education in NMS, with a particular focus on Croatia. Input variables are public expenditure
on education per student and as % of total education expenditure, while output variables for
secondary education are PISA results and for tertiary education share of unemployed with a
tertiary education and Shanghai ranking of leading national universities. The results show
high inefficiency of public spending on education in Croatia.
Keywords: education, technical efficiency, public expenditure on education, Data
Envelopment Analysis, New Member States EU

1 INTRODUCTION
Growing literature on efficiency of education systems identified educational attainment as a
key factor of employment and earnings [1]. Findings were in line with economic theory and
research of determinants of economic growth. This line of research pointed at education as
an important source of human capital formation and economic growth. Growth is related to
technological progress which requires more skilled and qualified labor. Investment in
education also delivers other benefits for society such as higher life expectancy for better
educated citizens and greater participation in social and civic life [2]. Also, public
expenditure on education is one of the most sizeable functional government expenditures so
it has substantial impact on allocation of resources.
Developed societies need more educated people to contribute to further technological
advancement. On the other hand, sizeable fiscal deficits and public debts call for higher fiscal
responsibility and increased efficiency of public expenditures. The policy attitudes regarding
this trade-off are different across the EU member states.
According to Eurostat public expenditure on education in EU-28 in 2015 amounted to 4.9
percentage of GDP on average, of which secondary and tertiary education accounted for 1.9
and 0.7 percentages respectively. In 2007-2015 period, government expenditure on
education as a ratio to GDP remained relatively stable at around 5.1 percent. However, the
amount of public money devoted to education differs across member states. The highest
amounts of overall public expenditure on education were reported by Iceland (7.5 percent of
GDP) and the lowest by Romania (3.1 percent of GDP). Croatia is close to EU average with
4.7 percent of GDP. Notwithstanding such differences, the question remains: how efficient is
use of these resources?
Research on educational performance is organized in two parallel streams of economic
literature. One is related to literature on endogenous economic growth. Growth theory
suggests that education is a key to sustained economic growth (e.g. [3]; [4]; [5]; etc.).
Empirical studies often provide mixed results on the influence of human capital formation on
growth (e.g. [6]; [7]). Afonso and St. Aubyn [8] found that education contributes to growth
positively, but it is not always statistically significant. However, most of cross–country
growths regressions tend to find a significant positive correlation between quantity of
schooling (measured by the average numbers of years of education) and economic growth
(e.g. [9]; [10]; [11]).
Some researchers argue that education quality is more important than quantity. Barro ([12];
[13]) and Hanushek and Kimko [14] showed that PISA international score for science, math
and reading matter more than years of schooling for economic growth. In his recent work,
Trabelsi [15] examined the existence of a quality education threshold effect on the
relationship between public expenditure on education and economic growth. His results
imply that public expenditures promote growth only after quality of education exceeds a
certain threshold.
Another stream of literature is focused on direct measurement of educational efficiency. The
‘efficiency literature’ examines the transformation of various inputs (e.g. student-related,
family-related, community-related inputs or institutional variables such as public
expenditures) into outputs (e.g. number of graduates, students’ test scores, attendance rate,
enrollment, employability). Provision of public education is considered efficient if it makes
the best possible use of available inputs. The toolbox to assess the efficiency in education
can be classified into two groups: non-parametric methods based on mathematical
optimization (such as Data Envelopment Analysis, Free Disposal Hull, Order-m frontiers,
meta-frontier, etc.) and parametric approaches such as the Stochastic Frontier Analysis SFA
[16]. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in its various forms is popular among researchers
because it can be used as input or output-oriented model and can operate with multi-input
and multi-output variables [17].
Research of efficiency in education focuses either on different teaching levels (primary, high-
school or university-tertiary level) or county/district level. A smaller group of research
focuses on the national level and cross-country analysis [18]. It is surprising that cross-
country studies are so rare because they can provide useful information on efficiency
benchmarks which are particularly important since education competes with other areas of
public expenditure in the budgetary resources allocation process.
Lack of international comparative studies on ‘spending efficiency’ on education prompted us
to contribute to the literature by analyzing public education services in NMS of EU. The
group of new EU member states includes Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (Cyprus and Malta are
not included due to lack of data). What follows is a brief overview of the relevant literature
that supports this research.
Studies of efficiency of government spending on education in a cross-country perspective
(e.g. [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [33]) mainly
used DEA method to assess educational performance in a sample of European and/or OECD
countries. Availability of internationally standardized data (PISA) allowed for analysis of
quality of the secondary education. Research of higher educational systems in the EU and
OECD countries is still largely missing due to lack of comparable data.
Clements [19] applied a frontier technique called Free Disposable Hull (FDH) on OECD data.
He analyzed relative performance of EU countries in terms of expenditures per student and
student-teacher ratio as proxies for financial and human resources employed on the input
side and attainment in international standardized tests TIMSS (Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study) as outputs. Results indicated that observed countries could
achieve educational output with 25% fewer resources on average. Afonso and St. Aubyn [21]
measured educational performance in 25 OECD countries 2000-2002 by comparing country’s
average PISA test results as output, and student-teacher ratio and time spent at school as
inputs. This research showed that countries should improve their educational performance
by 11.6 percent using the same resources. Improvements were found to be closely related to
country’s level of development as measured by GDP per capita and educational attainment
of adult population. Gimenez et al. [23] used similar non-parametric DEA model to assess
efficiency scores of educational systems for 31 countries, by applying various measures of
students’ socioeconomic background on the input side and TIMSS 1999 test scores as
output. Authors found that the most efficient educational systems can be found in post-
communist countries. A large number of developed countries could increase students’
performance by using fewer resources than those actually allocated to education.
Aristovnik [27] examined technical efficiency of education systems in 37 EU and OECD
countries including Croatia 1999-2007. Author used DEA approach separately for primary,
secondary and tertiary education. Expenditures per pupil/student in % of GDP per capita in
three educational sub-systems were used as inputs. Outputs/outcomes’ variables were PISA
2006 average scores, enrolment and completion rates. For output measures of tertiary
education author used % of labor force with tertiary education and tertiary unemployment
rate. Results revealed high inefficiency of Croatian education system. Similar findings were
found by Aristovnik and Obadić [28] who focused on technical efficiency of secondary
education in 31 countries of EU and OECD 1999.-2007. In four models that they employed
when results are combined, Croatia is ranked in the fourth quartile.
Agasisti [29] measured spending efficiency on education in the group of 20 European
countries. He extended analysis to two subsequent periods using PISA test scores in 2006
and 2009 as outputs, and expenditure per student and student-teacher ratio as input
variables. The results showed that groups of efficient and inefficient countries remained
quite similar in 2006 and 2009. Switzerland and Finland appear as benchmark for efficient
group, while Greece and Portugal hold the position at the bottom. Also, the same
educational performance could be achieved by 10% savings of resources. In the second
stage, the efficiency scores are regressed against socio-economic variables such as
unemployment rate and GDP per capita as well as against structural features of educational
system such as internet usage (as a proxy for technical literacy) and teachers’ salaries. Unlike
GDP p.c. structural variables have a positive impact on educational performance.
Gavurova et.al [33] applied output-oriented DEA model in the cross-country perspective to
assess the efficiency of public expenditure on secondary education in selected European
countries in 2015 using PISA test scores in math, reading and science as outputs and public
expenditure on the secondary education as % of GDP in 2014 as inputs. The results showed
relatively high educational performance in selected countries. In terms of usage of public
resources on the secondary education the highest efficiency scores among NMS were
observed in Estonia and Slovakia along with Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and
Switzerland. However, most of NMS countries were found in a group of inefficient countries
with efficiency scores under the average. Three of NMS countries, Poland, Slovenia and
Croatia, have efficiency scores higher than average but were not included in the efficient
group of countries. Gavurova et. al. [33] conclusions on Croatian educational system differ
somewhat from earlier studies of Aristovnik [27] and Aristovnik and Obadić [28] which calls
for further research presented in this paper.
The next section contains an overview of methodology and data with brief descriptive
analysis. In the third section the results are presented and compared with previous ones,
showing high degree of inefficiency in line with Aristovnik [27] and Aristovnik and Obadić
[28]. Fourth section contains policy discussion and presents conclusions.

2 METHODOLOGY AND DATA

This section describes Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and provides an overview of input
and output data.

2.1 Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

DEA is a deterministic, non-parametric, linear programming technique that provides a
piecewise frontier by enveloping the observed data points, and yields a convex production
possibilities set. It was popularized by Charnes et al. [34] and developed to measure relative
efficiency of decision making units (DMU). Although this method was mostly used in
microeconomic research on firm efficiency, later research expanded its application to
various macroeconomic topics including efficiency of public expenditure (see literature
review).
DEA score reflects the distance between the respective data point, in this paper a country,
and the best practice point which lies at the frontier. The countries (data points) on the
frontier are given score of 1 while those inside the frontier are given a score between 0 and
1. DEA provides a measure of relative efficiency, meaning that it indicates that a country is
the more efficient relative to the other countries in the sample. It does not provide absolute,
theoretically founded efficiency criteria.
Input-oriented DEA with variable returns to scale (VRS) is used in this research. For detailed
discussion on the differences between input and output approach and variable and constant
returns to scale see Coelli [35]. For the public sector, it is reasonable to assume that it is
easier to control the inputs rather than the outputs which are also hardly measurable. VRS
assumption is applied to eliminate the scale effect, in case some countries are not operating
at optimal scale.
Following Adam et al. [36], our model supposes M inputs and S outputs for N countries. Each
country uses a vector of nonnegative inputs to produce a vector of nonnegative outputs. The
efficiency scores are obtained by solving the optimization problem of the following form for
a given country where the inputs are minimized while the outputs remain at their current
levels:
 𝜃 ∗ = 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝜃 (1)

subject to
∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗 𝑋𝑗𝑖 ≤ 𝜃𝑥𝑖0
𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑚; (2)
∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗 𝑦𝑟𝑗 ≥ 𝑌𝑟0𝑟 = 1,2, … , 𝑠; (3)
∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗
=1 (4)
𝜆𝑗 ≥ 0 j = 1,2, . . . , n; (5)

where country N0 represents one of the N countries under evaluation, xi0 and yi0 stand for
the i-th input and r-th output of the country N0. Symbol θ is a scalar which represents the
efficiency score of the county N0. It measures the distance between each country and the
efficiency frontier, which is the linear combination of best performing countries. If θ equals 1
it means that it is not possible to proportionally reduce the input quantities for the selected
country, indicating that it is on the efficiency frontier. If θ is lower than 1, it indicates an
inefficient country inside the frontier. Vector λ represents weights in a linear combination of
positions of efficient countries which projects inefficient country N0 from its real position
below the efficient frontier (we can mark this position as A) to the “artificial” position on the
frontier (we can mark this position as A’). Difference between position A and position A’ is θ.
The restriction ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜆𝑗 = 1 imposes a convexity assumption, indicating variable returns to
scale. The problem has to be solved for each of the N countries in order to obtain the
efficiency coefficients.

2.2 Data
Research is based on publicly available secondary data obtained from the web sites of
international institutions. Data on PISA results were obtained from OECD database. Data on
expenditure on secondary education were obtained from UNESCO database on education
and data on expenditure for tertiary education are from the World Bank database on
education.
2.2.1 Secondary education
Input is expenditure on secondary education as a percentage of government expenditure on
education. PISA results (averages for three dimensions) are output variables. Input variables
are constructed in a way that they represent the average of expenditures four years before,
and a year of PISA test (due to the lack of data, expenditures for PISA test 2015 are averaged
for the period 2010-2013 or 2014, depending on the availability; also, it is important to point
out that UNESCO dataset does not contain data for Croatia for every year - data is available
for 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013).
For example, for PISA results in 2009 we use average data on expenditures from 2005-2009.
Quality of education cannot improve within a one-year period as it takes time for positive
effects of increased spending (e.g. higher wages for teachers, digitalization etc.) to
materialize.
Fig.1 (a) - (c) shows the “efficient frontier” by connecting the (efficient) countries on “edges”
of the sample. Those countries are in DEA analysis called “benchmarks” and it is clear that
Lithuania, Estonia and Poland lie at the efficiency frontier or very close to it in all three PISA
years.
These figures suggest that most countries are not using their inputs efficiently. Most of them
are positioned relatively far from the efficiency frontier. From 2009 to 2015 positions of the
countries below the efficient frontier became more condensed and most of the countries
drifted away from the frontier which is in line with the well-known finding that average PISA
scores did not improve recently. Probity of these observations will be analytically tested in
the next section of the paper.

Figure 1. Expenditure on secondary education vs PISA results

2.2.2 Tertiary education

Input in the analysis of the efficiency of expenditures on tertiary education is expenditure on
tertiary education per pupil in percentage of GDP per capita. Output is the share of
unemployed with tertiary education in the total number of unemployed. Inputs and outputs
are based on 2005-2013 averages.
It is impossible to distinguish between labor market characteristics and quality of
educational output when tertiary unemployment is used as a measure of output. Therefore
results’ robustness check is provided by using the World University Ranking list as an
alternative output measure. As unemployment is “undesirable output” (see Adam et al. [36])
output data had to be adjusted by subtracting the shares from 10 in order to calculate
“inverted tertiary unemployment rate” with higher figures indicating lower shares of tertiary
unemployment in total employment. Fig. 2 shows that most NMS are relatively close to the
efficient frontier except Croatia.

Figure 2. Expenditure on tertiary education vs inverted tertiary unemployment rate

3 RESULTS
Tables below contain efficiency scores, data on real inputs, optimal inputs, i.e. level of inputs
which countries could use to keep the outputs at the same level, and a column with possible
reduction of inputs which can be seen as a measure of “resource wastefulness”.

3.1 Secondary education

Results for efficiency of expenditure on secondary education in relation with PISA results in
2009, 2012 and 2015 are presented in Tab.1.
Table 1. DEA results for expenditure on secondary education

Efficiency Real Optimal Possible Efficiency Real Optimal Possible

2009 2012
score input input reduction score input input reduction
Estonia 1 23.1 23.1 0 Estonia 1 22.5 22.5 0
Lithuania 1 14.7 14.7 0 Lithuania 1 14.4 14.4 0
Poland 0.95 19.9 19 0.9 Poland 1 18.9 18.9 0
Hungary 0.87 20.4 17.8 2.6 Slovenia 0.78 21.7 16.9 4.8
Slovenia 0.87 23.4 20.4 3 Romania 0.77 18.8 14.4 4.4
Slovakia 0.76 25.8 19.5 6.3 Latvia 0.71 22.1 15.8 6.3
Czechia 0.73 25.3 18.5 6.8 Czechia 0.71 23.6 16.7 6.9
Romania 0.73 20.2 14.7 5.5 Croatia 0.69 21 14.4 6.6
Croatia 0.69 21.4 14.7 6.7 Hungary 0.67 21.4 14.4 7
Latvia 0.67 23.8 15.9 7.9 Bulgaria 0.65 22.3 14.4 7.9
Bulgaria 0.6 24.4 14.7 9.7 Slovakia 0.61 24.3 14.7 9.6
 Efficiency Real Optimal Possible
2015
score input input reduction
Estonia 1 18.9 18.9 0
Lithuania 1 13.3 13.3 0
Poland 0.96 17.6 16.8 0.8
Slovenia 0.84 20.9 17.6 3.3
Latvia 0.7 19.8 13.9 5.9
Romania 0.7 19.2 13.3 5.9
Czechia 0.67 22.7 15.2 7.5
Bulgaria 0.63 21.3 13.3 8
Croatia 0.62 21.4 13.3 8.1
Slovakia 0.6 22.3 13.3 9
Hungary 0.57 23.4 13.3 10.1

Source: authors
Two Baltic countries were on the efficient frontier in 2009 - Estonia and Lithuania, while
Poland was near the efficient frontier. Croatia ranked among bottom three countries, with
the efficiency score of 0.62. In 2012 Estonia and Lithuania kept their position at the efficient
frontier and Poland joined efficient group. Croatian position changed to the fourth place
from the bottom of the scale as more countries recorded weaker scores. Finally, in 2015
Poland drifted away from the efficient frontier, which made only Estonia and Lithuania
benchmark countries. Croatia worsened its position, moving back to the group of three
weakest performers. Croatia could reduce share of expenditures on secondary education by
6.6-8.1 percentage points, while keeping its PISA results unhanged. Results for Croatia are
mostly in line with conclusion of Aristovnik [27] and Aristovnik and Obadić [28].

3.2 Tertiary education

Efficiency scores presented in Tab.2 are based on the relationship between expenditures on
tertiary education per pupil in percentage of GDP per capita and “inverted tertiary
unemployment rate”.

Table 2. DEA results for expenditure on tertiary education

Efficiency Real Optimal Possible
score input input reduction
Czechia 1 25.4 25.4 0
Latvia 1 16.5 16.5 0
Lithuania 1 16.8 16.8 0
Romania 0.95 22.1 20.9 1.2
Bulgaria 0.92 18.8 17.3 1.5
Hungary 0.87 24.6 21.3 3.3
Poland 0.85 19.7 16.7 3
Slovakia 0.84 19.8 16.7 3.1
Slovenia 0.8 20.7 16.6 4.1
Estonia 0.77 22.3 17.3 5
Croatia 0.65 25.6 16.5 9.1
Source: authors
Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania represent benchmarks. Most countries are close to the
frontier as their scores move in 0.8-0.95 region, indicating similarity of tertiary education
systems. Estonia and Croatia are found to be exceptions. Croatia is the weakest performer in
the sample with efficiency score of modest 0.65, which translates into the possible reduction
of inputs of high 9.1 percentage points of GDP per capita. This result closely resembles
findings of Obadić and Aristovnik [37] who found that Croatia could significantly reduce its
average expenditures on higher education per student by around 10 percentage points.
3.2.1 Tertiary education - robustness check
Although share of unemployed with tertiary education in total unemployment can give some
insights in the quality of education, this indicator is also strongly dependent on the structural
characteristics and dynamics in the labor market.
Thus, in this subsection we provide a robustness check by replacing this output with new
one - best ranked universities from observed countries in the World University Ranking list.
Countries with best rankings of universities are attached value of 6 and worst ranked of 1.
The results of this robustness test are presented in Tab. 3.
Table 3. DEA results for expenditure on tertiary education – robustness test
Efficiency Real Optimal Possible
score input input reduction
Czechia 1 25.4 25.4 0
Latvia 1 16.5 16.5 0
Lithuania 1 16.8 16.8 0
Poland 1 19.7 19.7 0
Estonia 0.95 20.7 19.7 1
Bulgaria 0.88 18.8 16.5 2.3
Slovakia 0.84 19.9 16.8 3.1
Slovenia 0.75 22.3 16.8 5.5
Romania 0.75 22 16.5 5.5
Hungary 0.74 24.6 18.3 6.3
Croatia 0.71 25.6 18.3 7.3
Source: authors
The results have not changed notably compared to Tab. 2. In Tab. 3 Czech Republic, Latvia
and Lithuania are still on the efficient frontier, which now also includes Poland. Croatia is
again the worst performer. Results indicate that Croatia could decrease input by 7.3
percentage points to keep the ranking of its university unchanged (vs 9.1 in previous model)
which indicates robust findings.

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Input-oriented DEA approach used in this research showed that Croatian educational system
is a laggard among NMS. Problem is especially pronounced in tertiary education. The result
is robust and in line with the most of previous empirical tests. In general, the finding is that
there is a room for substantial reduction of inputs, up to 10%, and the results suggest that
such savings of public funds might be attainable without significant deteriorations of
educational outputs.
This is controversial, of course. The final discussion presents two arguments for interpreting
the conclusion with a grain of salt and one argument which speaks strongly in its favor.
Presentation of these arguments sets the stage for further research.
Firstly, measuring output in secondary education by average PISA scores of three dimensions
involves significant error when there are large variations in results across dimensions.
Indeed, this is the case in Croatia. According to PISA scores 2015, Croatian results for reading
(close to OECD average and improved since 2006) are better than for math and science (not
close to OECD average and stable and declining since 2006). Ideally, research should be
conducted on mezzo level with inputs allocated to three dimensions in order to obtain
credible results that might provide more specific guidance to policy makers. In general,
mezzo and micro research in this field is highly recommended in order to raise credibility,
attention and usefulness for policy makers and practitioners. Research on primary education
should be included as well.
Secondly, DEA’s strict separation of inputs from outputs in a complex system such as
education is artificial. There are links between inputs and outputs within individual
education systems, and most of these links are probably not reflected in the data used in the
type of research presented here. It is precisely the nature of these missing links which limits
the relevance of conclusions of the type “it is possible to reduce input by x% without
affecting output”. DEA in general provides very useful detection of problems and
performance, but it is weak in providing the basis for normative and prescriptive policy
recommendations. One way to (partly) overcome this problem is to be more confident about
what is actually measured. For example, finding the stable relationship between educational
outcomes and economic growth would indirectly imply finding the relationships between
inputs and growth in a more complete model; and the more complete the model, the more
confident one may be that manipulating inputs won’t affect growth negatively. This is
especially important because time lags in materialization of policy effects (of effects both on
output-performance and on input-output relationships) limit our knowledge of cause and
effect in managing government functions.
Thirdly, and this is the argument in favor of policy relevance of findings presented in this
paper, allocative inefficiency of use of public resources is always a cause of concern. It
should be of special concern at times of fiscal strain. Croatia has the highest public debt and
the interest payments to GDP ratio among NMS. It is the only one in this group of countries
with output still below 2008 level. Prolonged recession (that lasted until late 2014) was
coupled with fiscal deficits and accumulation of public debt which will remain very high for
years to come. In a situation like this, usual trade-offs and conflicts about tight fiscal
resources escalate. This is a situation which substantially differs from the more comfortable
fiscal situations, when policy makers can exploit luxury of demanding highly reliable
analytical results on efficiency of allocation of public resources before undertaking any
decisions. In tight fiscal situations, any indication on inefficiency can be useful as it may help
avoid linear budget cuts. Linear budget cuts hit useful public expenditures invested in
efficient programs and worsen overall public sector performance. While policies based on
DEA and similar analytical findings should be based on comparison of results across
functional areas of the government, even macro findings at level presented in this paper are
superior to alternative political allocation mechanisms, such as relative political strength of
individual ministers and their public relations abilities.
This paper represents the first part of our broader analysis. In future research we will
combine these results of technical efficiency of public expenditures on education with
growth regressions in order to estimate both narrower productivity of educational systems
and their impact on economic growth.

REFERENCES
[1] A. De la Fuente, “Human Capital in a global and knowledge-based economy, part II:
assessment at the EU country level,” Barcelona GSE Working Paper, no. 98, 2003.
[2] L. Woessmann, “Efficiency and equity of European education and training policies,”
International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 199-230, 2008.
[3] A. B. Krueger and M. Lindahl, “Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?” Journal of
Economic Literature, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1101-1136, 2001.
[4] A. De la Fuente and A. Ciccone, Human capital in a global and knowledge based
economy – final report. Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment and Social
Affairs, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.antoniociccone.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2007/07/humancapitalpolicy.pdf
[5] B. Sianesi, and J. Van Reenen, “The Returns to Education: Macroeconomics,” Journal of
Economic Surveys, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.157-200, 2003.
[6] J. Benhabib and M. Spiegel, “The Role of Human Capital in Economic Development:
Evidence from Aggregate Cross-Country Data,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 34,
no. 2, pp. 143-173, 1994.
[7] L. Pritchett, “Where Has All the Education Gone?” World Bank Economic Review, vol.
15, no. 3, pp. 367-391, 2001.
[8] A. Afonso and M. St. Aubyn, “Public and private inputs in aggregate production and
growth: a cross-country efficiency approach,” Working Paper Series 1154, European
Central Bank, 2010.
[9] R. J. Barro and J. W. Lee, “International comparisons of educational attainment,”
Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 363-394, 1993.
[10] R. J. Barro and J. W. Lee, “International Data on Educational Attainment: Updates and
Implications,” Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 541-563, 2001.
[11] R. Veugelers and F. van der Ploeg, “Towards Evidence-based Reform of European
Universities,” CESifo Economic Studies, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 99–120, 2008.
[12] R. J. Barro, “Human capital: growth, history, and policy - A session to honor Stanley
Engerman: Human Capital and Growth,” American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 2, pp.
12-17, 2001.
[13] R. J. Barro, “Education and Economic Growth,” Annals of Economics and Finance, vol.
14, no. 2, pp. 277–304, 2013.
[14] E. A. Hanushek and D. D. Kimko, "Schooling, Labor-Force Quality, and the Growth of
Nations," American Economic Review, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1184-1208, 2000.
[15] S. Trabelsi, “Public education expenditure and economic growth: the educational
quality threshold effect,” Région et Développement, vol. 45, pp. 99-112, 2017.
[16] J. Johnes, “Operational Research in education,” European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 243, no. 3, pp. 683-696, 2015.
[17] J. S. Liu, L. Y. Y. Lu, W. M. Lu and B. J. Y. Lin, “A survey of DEA applications,” Omega,
vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 893-902, 2013.
[18] K. De Witte and L. López-Torres, “Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a
way forward,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 339-363,
2017.
[19] B. Clements, “How efficient is education spending in Europe?” European Review of
Economics and Finance, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3-26, 2002.
[20] S. Gupta, M. Verhoeven and E. R. Tiongson, “The effectiveness of government
spending on education and health care in developing and transition economies,”
European Journal of Political Economy, vol.18, no. 4, pp. 717-737, 2002.
[21] A. Afonso, and M. St. Aubyn, “Cross-country efficiency of secondary education
provision: A semi-parametric analysis with non-discretionary inputs,” Economic
Modelling, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 476-491, 2006.
[22] A. Estache, M. Gonzalez and L. Trujillo, “Government expenditures on education,
health and infrastructure: a naïve look at levels, outcomes and efficiency,” World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 4219, May 2007.
[23] V. Gimenez, D. Prior and C. Thieme, “Technical efficiency, managerial efficiency and
objective setting in the educational system: an international comparison,” Journal of
the Operational Research Society, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 996-1007, 2007.
[24] D. Sutherland, R. Price, I. Joumard and C. Nicq, “Performance indicators for public
spending efficiency in primary and secondary education,” OECD Economics
Department Working Papers, no. 546, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2007
[25] M. St. Aubyn, A. Pina, F. Garcia and J. Pais, “Study on the efficiency and effectiveness
of public spending on tertiary education,” Economic Papers 390, Brussels: European
Commission, November 2009. Accessed January 4, 2018. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2765/30348
[26] B. Eugene, “The efficiency frontier as a method for gauging the performance of
education at the national level,” National Bank of Belgium Working Paper, no. 138,
2010.
[27] A. Aristovnik, “Relative Efficiency of Education Expenditures in Eastern Europe: A Non-
parametric Approach, Journal of Knowledge Management,” Economics and
Information Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1-12, 2013.
[28] A. Aristovnik and A. Obadić, “Measuring relative efficiency of secondary education in
selected EU and OECD countries: The case of Slovenia and Croatia,” Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 419-433, 2014.
[29] T. Agasisti, “The efficiency of public spending on education: An empirical comparison
of EU countries,” European Journal of Education, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 543-557, 2014.
[30] P. Bogetoft, E. Heinesen and T. Tranaes, “The efficiency of educational production: A
comparison of the Nordic countries with other OECD countries,” Economic Modelling,
vol. 50, no. C, pp. 310-321, 2015.
[31] P. A. Dufrechou, “The efficiency of public education spending in Latin America: A
comparison to high-income countries,” International Journal of Educational
Development, vol. 49, no. C, pp. 188-203, 2016.
[32] R. Dutu, and P. Sicari, "Public Spending Efficiency in the OECD: Benchmarking Health
Care, Education and General Administration," OECD Economics Department Working
Papers, no. 1278, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2016.
[33] B. Gavurova, K. Kocisova, L. Belas, and V. Krajcik, “Relative efficiency of government
expenditure on secondary education,” Journal of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 329-343, 2017.
[34] A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, "Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units," European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 429-444,1978.
[35] T. J. Coelli, "A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer)
Program," CEPA Working Papers No. 8/96, Department of Econometrics, University of
New England, Armidale, Australia, 1996.
[36] A. Adam, M. Delis, and P. Kammas, "Public sector efficiency: leveling the playing field
between OECD countries," Public Choice, vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 163-183, 2011.
[37] A. Obadić and A. Aristovnik, “Relative Efficiency of Higher Education in Croatia and
Slovenia: an International Comparison,” Amfiteatru Economic, vol. 13, no. 30, pp. 362-
376, 2011.