Effects of school reform on education and labor market performance: Evidence from Chile's universal voucher system
学校改革对教育与劳动力市场表现的影响：智利普遍教育券制度的证据AI 解读 ↓
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明
本页整理公开书目信息，不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成，未完成全文核验，可能有误；具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本，未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要；缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录，不合计多个记录；关联记录可能包含正式发表版本，不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零，引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配，同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列，再参考通用方法与发表日期。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要明确估计就学与工作动态选择模型，并以改革暴露差异识别影响和模拟反事实政策结果。
反馈分类问题
正在核对关联版本…
代码、数据与补充材料
正在核对对应版本的资源…
关注这篇论文的作者
学校改革对教育与劳动力市场表现的影响：智利普遍教育券制度的证据
- 研究问题
- 智利全国教育券与学校分权改革如何改变就学、工作和收入结果，不同家庭背景的人是否获得相似的教育收益？
- 方法与思路
- 作者用两期调查面板估计就学与工作的动态决策模型，利用相近年龄个体的改革暴露差异识别影响并开展模拟。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称模型模拟显示高中毕业率提高3.6个百分点、至少两年大学教育完成率提高2.6个百分点，并小幅降低收入不平等。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对暴露差异的可比性、教育券与分权改革的区分、动态模型设定，以及反事实模拟和终身效用结果的敏感性。
- 阅读边界
- 所报效果来自估计模型的模拟；摘要未完整说明识别假设、标准误及同期改革的处理，不能直接视为无条件政策效应。
原文摘要
This paper studies the effects of school reform in Chile, which adopted a nationwide school voucher program along with school decentralization reforms in 1981. Since then, Chile has had a relatively unregulated, competitive market in primary and secondary education. It therefore provides a unique setting in which to study how these reforms affected school attainment and labor market outcomes. This paper develops and estimates a dynamic model of school attendance and work decisions using panel data from the 2002 and 2004 waves of the Encuesta de Protección Social survey. Some individuals in the sample completed their schooling before the voucher reforms were introduced, while others had the option of using the vouchers over part or all of their schooling careers. The impacts of the voucher reform are identified from differences in the schooling and work choices made and earnings returns received by similar aged individuals who were differentially exposed to the voucher system. Simulations based on the estimated model show that the voucher reform significantly increased the demand for private subsidized schools and decreased the demand for both public and nonsubsidized private schools. It increased high school (grades 9-12) graduation rates by 3.6 percentage points and the percentage completing at least two years of college by 2.6 percentage points. Individuals from poor and non-poor backgrounds on average experienced similar schooling attainment gains. The reform also increased lifetime utility and modestly reduced earnings inequality.