COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN MALAYSIAN EDUCATION

Husaina Banu Kenayathulla

Indiana University

Abstract

An accurate, in-depth cost benefit analysis has important implications for developing
a realistic, fact-based and truly equitable educational policy of long-range benefits
to the nation as a whole. Due to limited resources, governments in many countries
are forced to make difficult decisions about which levels of education-primary,
secondary, or higher should be the recipients of scarce investment funds. To allocate
these resources across levels of education, one could compare the costs and benefits
of each of the three alternatives. The investment that yields the highest net benefits
would produce relatively greater benefits for a given cost. Malaysia, like other
countries in Southeast Asia, faces similar challenges in ensuring the allocation of
appropriate funding for efficient and equitable educational services. This paper
provides the conceptual framework for cost-benefit analysis on investment in
primary, secondary and higher education in Malaysia. Distributional impact on
different stakeholders has been analyzed by employing Kaldor-Hicks Tableau with
the national accounting domain. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted using
different discounting rates. This study also included the social benefits and costs in
the conceptual framework to provide a comprehensive cost benefit analysis in
Malaysian education system.

Keywords: Educational policy, limited resources, investment funds, cost-benefit

analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Education issues remain an important priority in developing countries. Because

resources are limited and ensuring adequate allocation is a struggle for many countries, the
delivery of educational services has become a challenge. Malaysia, like other countries in
Southeast Asia, faces similar challenges in ensuring the allocation of appropriate funding for
efficient and equitable educational services in order to promote access to quality education
for all social groups [1, 2].
The continued growth in the level of educational spending is noteworthy in both the
fiscal effort on education and national effort on education. Education in Malaysia has always
been a priority of the government’s development policy and annually, it represents the
biggest chunk of the national budget. It is also considered a pillar of national development
and a prime factor in promoting the country’s prosperity [2]. The government has devoted a
substantial amount of its resources to the sphere of education. For example, the last two
decades (between 1980 and 2001), have seen an increase of 37% and 33% in the fiscal effort
and national effort, respectively [14]. This demonstrates great interest and reveals a need for
additional research to study and elucidate multi-faceted factors affecting educational policy.
The government’s commitment towards education is contained not only in the Federal
Constitution; it is also included in the Education Act of 1996 through the provision of free

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 1

education to every school-age child in the country for a period of eleven years for all its
citizens [25].
An accurate, in-depth cost benefit analysis has important implications for developing
a realistic, fact-based and truly equitable educational policy of long-range benefits to the
nation as a whole. Not only does it disclose cost implications of educational policies, it also
assesses relative cost-efficiency of alternative educational policies and interventions [21].
More importantly, cost benefit analysis suggests one way to inform the educational
administrators and decision makers of the need to improve policymaking and evaluation in
education. The purpose of this paper is to provide a scheme for the costs and benefits analysis
of educational investments in Malaysia. We are interested in assessing whether it is more
beneficial to invest in primary education, secondary education or tertiary education.
In this context, the analysis of Malaysian education will follow the conceptual
framework of standard cost-benefit analysis using Kaldor-Hicks Tableau to describe potential
benefits, costs and transfers that will incur in each investment decisions. Section 2 and 3,
following the introduction part, explains the Human capital theory and the background of
Malaysian education system. Section 4 and 5 describe the basic scheme, accounting domain,
and the baseline. Section 6 and 7 analyze the potential benefit, costs and transfers from the
national accounting domain. Section 8 and 9 emphasize on the distributional impact on each
stakeholder, and section 10 discusses sensitivity analysis and the final section provides
conclusions.

HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY

There has been a prevailing argument that education greatly contributes to the
economic growth of nations globally. The belief in the positive relationship between
education and economic growth has been largely backed up by ‘human capital theory’ [4,
23]. According to the human capital approach, education is an investment in a person’s future
income potential, whereby variations in labor income are due, in part, to differences in labor
quality as a result of the amount of human capital acquired by the workers [7]. The theory’s
thesis is that education fosters economic growth by equipping people with skills, knowledge,
and attitudes, thereby increasing the productivity of the work force of a nation. In a
competitive labor market, more productive individuals are paid a higher wage. Schultz
contended that the investment in human capital accounts for the rise in the real earnings of a
worker [20]. Additionally, Psacharopoulus confirmed that average wages are higher for more
highly educated workers [16]. In Malaysia, there is a strong correlation between schooling
and earnings growth performance, which suggests that high levels of upper secondary and
tertiary educational attainment are vital for human capital and could be translated into
earnings and steady growth for the national economy as a whole [27]. A recent study shows
that in 1978 returns to investment in education at the secondary school level and at the
tertiary level are 32.6% and 34.5%, respectively [19]. Other studies also show that education
plays an important role in explaining the earnings differentials in Malaysia [6, 11, and 13).
Generally, more education means higher productivity and better earnings and, thus
improved socioeconomic status. To embark on an investment decision, one has to weigh

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 2

benefits and costs at all levels. For the government, it is also important to consider both costs
and benefits of their educational investment over an extended period of time.

BACKGROUND OF MALAYSIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

The national education system encompasses all levels of education namely, primary,
secondary, and tertiary levels. Formal education in Malaysia is primarily based on the 6-3-2-
2-4 setup: six years of primary school, three years of lower secondary school, two years of
upper secondary school, two years post secondary school, and four years of university
education.
All type of schools must adhere to the national curriculum, as well as to the prescribed
school calendar. In terms of national examinations, pupils are evaluated at four levels; the
Lower Secondary Assessment (Penilaian Menengah Rendah), which is at the end of the three
years of lower secondary level; the Malaysian Certificate of Education (Sijil Pelajaran
Malaysia), which is at the end of two years of upper secondary level; and the Malaysia
Higher School Certificate (Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia), which is at the end of two years
of post-secondary level [14].

BASIC SCHEMATIC USED FOR ESTIMATING BENEFITS AND COSTS IN

EDUCATION

In order to estimate the cost and benefit of investing in different levels of education,
we need to have data on the prevailing unit costs and age-earnings profiles of graduates at
different levels of education. In this analysis, we will look into three level of education that is
primary (6 years), secondary and post secondary (7 years) and university (4 years). If we are
interested in the cost benefit analysis of university education, for example, the profiles would
refer to earnings for university and high school graduates. Figure Al shows a stylized picture
of the different costs and benefits involved. Between ages 20 and 24, university graduates
spend four years in higher education institutions, incurring the costs of a university education
(shaded area below the horizontal axis between ages 20 and 24), and forgoing the income
they would have earned as a secondary school graduate (shaded area above the horizontal
axis between ages 20 and 24). In addition to private costs, there are also costs to the
government if university is subsidized. After graduating at age 24, university graduates begin
to earn more than high school counterparts, and as the figure suggests, continue to do so until
age 58 when both groups retire. The sum increment in earnings, represented by the shaded
area between ages 24 and 58, is the net benefits of a university education [9].

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 3

 Figure 1: Stylized Age-Earnings Profile for University Graduates
Earnings University graduates
B1
Secondary school leavers

Primary school leavers

C1

Age
C2 13 20
20 24
20 C2 58

Time (years)

Direct costs
B1- Earnings of university graduates-earnings of secondary school leavers
C1- Forgone income that could have been earned as secondary school graduates
C2- Direct cost of university education

Figure 2: Stylized Age-Earnings Profile for Secondary School Graduates

Earnings
University graduates

Secondary school graduates

B2
Primary school leavers

C3

Age
C4 13 13 20 24 58
20

Time (years)

Direct costs
B2- Earnings of secondary graduates-earnings of primary school leavers
C3- Forgone income that could have been earned as primary school graduates
C4- Direct cost of secondary education

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 4

 The standard formula used in cost-benefit analysis but can be modified to the specific
problem:

NPV for university education

Es and Eu, refer to the earnings of secondary and university graduates respectively,
Cu refers to the annual unit cost of university education, and i refers to the discount rate. The
index t refers to the time periods, beginning at t = 1 at age 24 and ending at t = 34 at age 58.
The first term on the right-hand side is the sum of the present value incremental earnings
from a university education, while the second term represents the sum of the present value of
costs.

NPV for secondary and post secondary education

Ep and Es, refer to the earnings of primary and secondary respectively, Cs refers to
the annual unit cost of secondary education, and i refers to the discount rate. The index t
refers to the time periods, beginning at t = 1 at age 20 and ending at t = 38 at age 58. The first
term on the right-hand side is the sum of the present value incremental earnings from a
secondary and post secondary education, while the second term represents the sum of the
present value of costs.

NPV for primary education

Ep and En, refer to the earnings of primary school graduates and without primary
school respectively, Cp refers to the annual unit cost of primary education, and i refers to the
discount rate. The index t refers to the time periods, beginning at t = 1 at age 7 (depending on
when the child starts working or helps in agricultural work) and ending at t = 51 at age 58.
The first term on the right-hand side is the sum of the present value incremental earnings
from a primary education, while the second term represents the sum of the present value of
costs.

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 5

COST BENEFIT FRAMEWORK

Accounting Domain
Analyzing costs and benefit of education should start with defining accounting
domain. We should consider various aspects in order to conclude which accounting domain
to adopt. In Malaysia, education is mainly managed and controlled by federal government.
The administration of education is highly centralized. Administrative responsibilities are
divided into four distinct hierarchical levels: federal (Ministry of Education, Malaysia), state
(the State Education Departments), district (the District Education Offices), and school levels.
At the federal level, the Ministry of Education prescribes the curricula, syllabi, and the
examination systems for all schools, government, and private. Locally, the State Education
Departments and the District Education Offices monitor the implementation of educational
programs. They provide feedback on a regular basis to assist the Ministry in the overall
planning. The District Education Offices also serve as a link between schools and the State
Education Departments.
In this analysis, we define our accounting domain as a national level. This is because
Federal Government is the main financier for primary and secondary education in Malaysia.
Currently, Malaysian government is subsidizing tuition fees for all the children in primary
and secondary schools. Furthermore, after completing their education, the students will
transfer part of their earnings in the form of income tax to Federal government. In the case of
higher education, the federal government also subsidizing tuition fees at public higher
educations. In addition, Malaysian government also provides loan to the students to pursue
their higher education. In return, the students have to pay back the loan together with 1
percent interest to federal government when they start working. As federal government plays
an important role in Malaysian education, it is more appropriate to define the accounting
domain at the national level.

Baseline
Next, we should determine the baseline of the education in Malaysia. The baseline is
investing in primary education. It is important to note that in Malaysia, the six years of
primary education is the compulsory education. Thus, the baseline is primary education. In
another words, this means that every household in Malaysia must send their children to
school at the age of seven.

KALDOR-HICKS TABLEAU

K-H tableau is very helpful as it demonstrates clearly the distributional impact on each
stakeholder. Table 1, 2 and 3 shows the benefits, transfers, and costs for investing in primary,
secondary and higher education with national accounting domain perspective.

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 6

BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Earnings
The most obvious benefit of investment in additional years of education is increase in
the productivity. Unlike earnings in public sector jobs, earnings in private sector jobs are
especially relevant because they more closely reflect the economic value of labor. The
private benefit of investing in additional years of education is the gain in earnings after
completing the additional years of education. The gain in earnings is shadow priced to equal
to productivity. We expect investments in education to increase people's productivity over
their entire lifetime. Thus, it is useful to compute the present value of the increase, assessed at
the time of graduation for each cohort of project beneficiaries. First of all, we need to
estimate the relevant age-earnings profiles to obtain the increment in earnings at each age,
and then we need to discount the stream of incremental earnings to the time of graduation
using an appropriate discount rate.
Earnings at primary level refers to new wage after completing primary education
minus wage which otherwise would have been earned without primary schooling. On the
other hand, earnings at secondary education refers to new wage after completing secondary
education minus wage which otherwise would have been earned with primary schooling. In
regards to higher education, earnings refer to new wage after completing higher education
minus wage which otherwise would have been earned with secondary education. The benefits
of education occur over time in the future, so the incremental earnings are discounted to
present values.
It is also important to note that when evaluating a project from the point of view of
society, we are interested in all the benefits; therefore, we look at before-tax earnings and the
value of fringe benefits in the wage package (e.g., value of health insurance and retirement
benefits). But when we look at the benefits from the beneficiaries' point of view; thus we
look at after-tax earnings and the value of fringe benefits. Any difference between the two
values arising from taxes accrues to the government as a fiscal benefit [24].
In many developing countries, labor force surveys offer an easy source for cross-
sectional data used to produce the age-earnings profiles. Such data assumes that the age-
specific gaps in earnings between people with different educational qualifications remain
stable through time. This means in 40 years time, the earning difference between a university
graduate and a secondary graduate will be the same as the difference in earnings today. The
assumption would underestimate the net benefits if the earnings differentials widen through
time [24].

Social Benefits
Social benefits refer to non-monetary or external effects of education to society as a
whole. There has been evidence that more schooling is associated with reduced criminal
activity, lower fertility, labor market search efficiency, concern for child’s health and social
cohesion and others [26]. Haveman and Wolfe argue that parental education has significant
effect on children. Their study show that ensuring the current parents have a high school
education, reduces by 50 percent the probability that their children will drop out of school
and their daughters will end up as unmarried teenage mothers; it also reduces by 26 percent
Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 7
the probability that their children being economically inactive in the future [24]. Given the
scant empirical evidence on the external effects of education, social benefits estimates are
usually based on directly observable monetary benefits of education. Most of the social
benefits associated with education have not been quantified. Thus, given the current state of
knowledge in the field, it may prove difficult to incorporate these benefits in project
evaluation. However, Summers illustrates how social benefits possible to be calculated in a
practical way. He estimates the value of the reduction in child and maternal mortality and in
fertility associated with investment in an extra year of schooling for girls by finding out how
much it would cost society to accomplish the same results through other means. Summers
concludes that the benefit of giving 1,000 Pakistani girls an extra year of education amounts
to $88,500 and that the present value of the benefits amounts to $42,000, compared to a cost
of $30,000 in education [24]. (Table 4).

Cost Analysis
In this paper, the ingredients approach will be employed to estimate costs in
educational investments. Ingredients are resources that are needed for each intervention. The
ingredients approach, which is a disaggregated approach, is based on individual inputs or
resources used in the production of an educational program. This approach was developed to
provide a systematic way for evaluators to estimate the costs of social interventions. Further
this approach also requires the costs of all inputs and services associated with a particular
intervention be identified so as to determine total costs and examine how the cost burden is
distributed among different agents [12].
It is worth noting that in Malaysia, government educational spending finances almost
all institutional costs of primary and secondary schools. However, at the higher education,
most of the public universities are corporatized. Thus, financing of higher education is done
by the universities. Basically, educational costs can be divided into two groups: institutional
costs and private resources devoted to education [23]. Institutional costs include recurrent
costs and capital costs. The details are as follows:
1. Recurrent costs (i.e. costs of inputs an annual basis) consist of the following costs:
a. School/University personnel (e.g. salaries, employment benefits, and supplementary
benefits paid to teachers/lecturers, school/ university administrators, and other school/
university staff); and
b. Non-personnel items (e.g. costs of instructional materials, teaching aids and
school/university supplies, minor and regular repair and maintenance, utilities and
student welfare).
2. Capital costs (i.e. cost of inputs, which last more than one year) include costs for
buildings, equipment, and land. If the land or inputs are donated, an imputed market value
should be used to assess their costs, if they have an alternative use.). The imputed costs of
land per unit area vary remarkably among different states and zones in Malaysia. It also
depends on the location of the land whether it is in urban, semi-urban, or rural. With
regards to equipment and furniture and fittings, the raw data on costs will be estimated
using Consumer Price Index. Annualized costs will be determined based on the norms set
by the Department of Statistics Malaysia, this category are expected to last at least five
years and the discounting rate is set for accounting purposes at 7 percent [8].
Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 8
 Private resources become a significant resource in the financing of the primary
schooling in many parts of the world as data shows private costs may account for one-quarter
to one-third of the total cost of primary schooling [22]. In Malaysia, educational financing at
primary, secondary and higher education also depend to a momentous degree on private
sources. Thus, private resources should be included in the costs of education. Private
Resources for education can be divided into three categories:
1. Direct private costs entail household educational expenditures related to a child’s
schooling, including tuition spending and supplementary study guides, uniforms, writing
supplies, school bags, transportation, and boarding).
2. Household contributions refer to donations in cash and/or in kind from parents or Parents
Teachers Associations to a school.
3. Indirect private costs refer to the economic value of the forgone opportunities of
schooling, such as forgone earnings associated with time spent at school. It is important to
note that it is illegal for children under 14 years old to work in Malaysia. However, there
are some exceptions. For instance, a child may be engaged in employment involving light
work suitable to his capacity in any undertaking carried on by his family [10]. This means
the children have opportunity costs for attending primary education and this is the income
which could have been earned if they work on the family farm for example. With the
assumption that children aged 11 and 12 help in the agricultural labor, two or three years
of forgone earnings while in the primary schooling have been used in the empirical
literature [17]. Thus, the value of forgone work should be included as the costs of primary
education. In the case of secondary and post secondary education, the child can legally
work after 14 years old that is when they are in Form 2 (8th grade). This means the
children have opportunity costs for attending secondary and post secondary education and
the value of forgone work should be included as the costs of secondary and post secondary
education. In addition, there are also opportunity costs for attending higher education and
this is the income which could have been earned if they work after completing the
secondary education.

TRANSFERS
The defining characteristic of financial transfers is their zero-sum effect under the
standard Kaldor-Hicks aggregation criterion. This is because as the financial exchange
between two individuals, the financial loss to one individual always equals the financial gain
to the other.
1. Transfers at Primary/Secondary Education
a. Income tax. Income tax is a financial transfer because this payment is transferred from
the workers (students who work after completing the primary/secondary education) to
federal government. This is a financial loss to the worker and gain to the Federal
Government. The net is zero in the conventional accounting framework.
b. Fees. Fees are financial transfers from students to federal government. In this process,
the students will pay the fees to the schools which then the amount in the federal
government's account.

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 9

 c. Reimbursement. In Malaysian context, the school fees are subsidized by the
government. This is a transfer from government to students. Thus, Federal government
is incurring the costs whereas the students are receiving them.
2. Transfers at Higher Education
a. Income tax. Income tax is a financial transfer because this payment is transferred from
the workers (students who work after completing the higher education) to federal
government. This is a financial loss to the worker and gain to the Federal Government.
The net is zero in the conventional accounting framework.
b. Fees. Fees are financial transfers from students to universities. Students will pay the
fees to the university. However, it is important to note that the tuition fees at the public
universities are low. This is because the fees are being subsidized by the government.
Therefore, it is important to include this subsidy as transfers. This subsidy is a transfer
from federal government directly to universities.
c. Loan. Malaysian Government through National Student Loan Agency provides loan to
all students who are academically qualified with the aim that no students should be
denied access to higher education for lack of financial resources. This loan is a transfer
from federal government to students to help them pay the fees.
d. Loan payment. When the students start working after completing the higher education,
they have to pay back the loan with 1 percent interest. They are given options to pay
back in installment basis. This is a transfer from students to federal government after
they start working. As the values are in present values, the amount shown will be
purely the amount of loan (interests not accounted).

MULTIPLE PROJECT COMPARISON

Stakeholders Primary Secondary Higher Education

Students/Parents B1-T1-C4-C5-C6 B3-T2-C10-C11-C12 B5-T3-S3-C16-C17

University --- --- S3+S4-C13-C14-C15
Government T1-C1-C2-C3 T2-C7-C8-C9 T3-S4
Public B2 B4 B6
B1+B2-C1-C2-C3-C4- B3+B4-C7-C8-C9- B5+B6-C13-C14-
Net Benefit
C5-C6 C10-C11-C12 C15-C16—C17

Status quo (SQ) = primary education

P1 refers to secondary education
P2 refers to higher education
SQ=Bo-Co=NBo
P1=B1-C1=NB1
P2=B2-C2=NB2

A rational investor –in this case a student or his/her family will undertake investment-
such as additional level of schooling-if the net present value is positive. First of all, we need
to compare the net benefit of investing in secondary education (NB1) with the net benefit of

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 10

status quo (NBo). If NB1>NBo, then we can invest in the secondary education. Second, we
have to compare the net benefit of investing in higher education with the net benefit of status
quo. If the NB2>NBo, then it is worth to invest in higher education. Third, we need to
compare the net benefit of investing in higher education to net benefit of investing in
secondary education. If NB2>NB1, then it is worth to invest in higher education.

DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACT ON DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

1. Students/Parents
From the perspective of the students or parents, the investment in additional years of
education will benefit them if the net impact of investing in higher education is more than the
net impact in investing in primary education and secondary education. In this analysis, the net
impact on students or parents when they invest in primary education is B1-T1-C4-C5-C6
(Table 1), secondary B3-T2-C10-C11-C12 (Table 2) and higher education B5-T3-S3-C16-
C17 (Table 3). They will prefer to invest in additional years of education if the investment
results in positive net impact on them. In the case, when all the three investments result in
positive net impact on them, they will choose the investment which yields the most.
2. Government
From the perspective of the federal government, the investment in additional years of
education will benefit them if the net impact of investing in higher education is more than the
net impact in investing in primary education and secondary education. In this analysis, the net
impact on government when they invest in primary education is T1-C1-C2-C3 (Table 1),
secondary T2-C7-C8-C9 (Table 2) and higher education T3-S4 (Table 3). They will prefer to
invest in additional years of education if the investment results in positive net impact on
them. In the case, when all the three investments result in positive net impact on them, they
will choose the investment which yields the most. If there is no financial constraint, they
might consider investing in more than one option.
3.Public
From the perspective of the public, the investment in additional years of education
will benefit them if the net impact of investing in higher education is more than the net
impact in investing in primary education and secondary education. In this analysis, the net
impact on the public when they invest in primary education is B2 (Table 1), secondary B4
(Table 2) and higher education B6 (Table 3). They will prefer to invest in additional years of
education if the investment results in positive net impact on them. In the case, when all the
three investments result in positive net impact on them, they will choose the investment
which yields the most. If there is no financial constraint, they might consider investing in
more than one option.
4.University
From the perspective of the university, the investment in higher education will benefit
them if the net benefit of the investment, S3+S4-C13-C14-C15 is positive.

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 11

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A simple and powerful technique for dealing with uncertainty is known as sensitivity
analysis.
1. Acounting rates
Although there is widespread agreement on the need to discount the future costs, there
is less agreement on the specific discount rate that should be used in the analysis. Part of the
controversy stems from the fact that there are a number of conceptual approaches to
determining the discounting rates. In one approach, the discount rate is reflected by the
returns to consumer saving options (eg. the interest rate on treasury bills). Another approach
suggests that the discount rates should reflect the average returns to investment that are made
by the entrepreneurs in the private sector. This refers to the amount that could have earned if
the resources are used for profitable endeavors instead of investment in education [12]. In
practice, analysts have utilized a variety of discount rates, ranging from 0% to 11% [3].The
ambiguity is perhaps due to different standards that are often set by government offices. The
U.S. Offices of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General
Accounting Office have all set different states for the discount rates that should be used in
project evaluations [5]. It is also important to take into consideration that poor households
have higher discounting rates compared to others.
2. Various costing and estimation technique
Sensitivity analyses can also be conducted using various costing and estimation
technique. In this case, costs will be estimated under a range of assumptions in order to assess
whether the conclusion drawn from the analysis are appreciably altered. The simplest method
is to ascertain a range of plausible values-high, medium, and low-for each parameter of the
analysis that is characterized by uncertainty [12].

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides the conceptual framework for cost-benefit analysis of investment
in primary, secondary and higher education in Malaysia. The accounting domain is set at the
national level as Malaysian government plays an important role in financing the education.
Distributional impact on different stakeholders has been analyzed by employing K-H
tableaus. Sensitivity analysis will have to be conducted using different discounting rates.
Most of the previous studies tend to focus on the private rate of return to education. However,
in this paper, the conceptual framework for cost benefit analysis has included both the social
benefit and social costs of education. The social benefit is the monetized value of the gains to
others in society, such as the positive effects of having educated people interact with each
other, greater social cohesion, and so on. The social cost is the monetized value of the cost to
others in society, such as the fiscal cost if the education is subsidized, including the
deadweight cost of mobilizing public resources. Most of the social benefits associated with
education have not been quantified. Thus, given the current state of knowledge in the field, it
may prove difficult to incorporate these benefits in project evaluation. However, recent
literature pointed out those social benefits can be measured in a practical way. Therefore, it is

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 12

essential to include the social benefits and social costs to get the comprehensive picture of
cost and benefit analysis in Malaysian education.
Table 1: Cost Benefit analysis for Primary education in Malaysia

K-H Tableau Students/Parents Government Public Net Social

Benefits
Earnings B1 B1
Social Benefits B2 B2
Transfer
Income tax (T1) T1 0
Subsidy(fees) (S1) S1 0
Reimbursement S1 (S1) 0
Costs
Institutional costs
Recurrent cost
School personnel (C1) (C1)
Non personnel items (C2) (C2)
Capital costs (C3) (C3)
Private resources
Direct Private costs
Non-tuition spending (C4) ` (C4)
Household
(C5) (C5)
contribution
Indirect Private
(C6) (C6)
costs/OC
B1+B2-C1-C2-C3-C4-
Net B1-T1-C4-C5-C6 T1-C1-C2-C3 B2
C5-C6

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 13

Table 2: Cost Benefit analysis for Secondary education in Malaysia

K-H Tableau Students/Parents Government Public Net Social

Benefits
Earnings B3 B3
Social Benefits B4 B4

Transfer
Income tax (T2) T2 0
Subsidy(fees) (S2) S2 0
Reimbursement S2 (S2) 0

Costs
Institutional costs
Recurrent cost
School personnel (C7) (C7)
Non personnel items (C8) (C8)
Capital costs (C9) (C9)

Private resources
Direct Private costs
Non-tuition spending (C10) ` (C10)
Household
(C11) (C11)
contribution
Indirect Private
(C12) (C12)
costs/OC

B3-T2-C10-C11- T2-C7-C8- B3+B4-C7-C8-C9-

Net B4
C12 C9 C10-C11-C12

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 14

Table 3: Cost Benefit analysis for Higher Education in Malaysia

Students/
K-H Tableau University Government Public Net Social
Parents
Benefits
Earnings B5 B5
Social Benefits B6 B6

Transfer
Income tax (T3) T3 0
Fees (S3) S3+S4 (S4) 0
Loan S3 (S3) 0
Loan payment (S3) S3 0

Costs
Institutional
costs
Recurrent cost
Personnel (C13) (C13)
Non personnel
(C14) (C14)
items
Capital costs (C15) (C15)

Private
resources
Direct Private
costs
Non-tuition
(C16) ` (C16)
spending
Indirect Private
(C17) (C17)
costs/OC

S3+S4- B5+B6-C13-
B5-T3-S3-
Net C13-C14- T3-S4 B6 C14-C15-
C16-C17
C15 C16—C17

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 15

Table 4: Educating Girls in Pakistan: Estimating the Social Benefits of an Extra Year of
Schooling for 1,000 Girls

Benefits Number Value ($)

Child deaths averted 60 48, 000

Births averted 495 32,000
Maternal deaths averted 3 7,500

Total Present values of Benefits($)

(assuming a discount rate of 5 % and a delay of 15 years before the 42,600
benefits materialize)

Total costs of one year of schooling for 1,000 girls 30, 000
Source: Summers 1992.

Assumptions:
* Child mortality rate = 121 deaths per 1,000 live births.
* Maternal mortality rate = 600 deaths per 100,000 live births.
* Total fertility rate = 6.6 live births per woman.
* A one-year increase in female education reduces the child mortality rate by 7.5% and the
total fertility rate by 7.5%.
* The cost of alternative means to avert a child death is $800, to avert a birth is $65, and to
avert a maternal death is $2,

REFERENCES

Abd Karim, S. (1992). Pendidikan Awam dan Swasta Menjelang Wawasan 2020. Paper
presented at the Seminar Nasional ke-2 Pengurusan Pendidikan: Kearah Pengurusan
Pendidikan Berkualiti Abad 21, Institut Aminudin Baki, Genting Highlands, Pahang
Darul Makmur.

Bajunid, I. A. (2002). Legal and Administrative Framework. Paper presented at the Malaysia
as a center of education excellence: the way forward, Holiday Villa Subang, Subang
Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

Barnett, W.S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Aeg-27 benefit-cost analysis of the High/ Scope
Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scoper Press.

Becker, G.S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special
Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Boardman, Anthony; Vining, Aidan, Waters, W. G. (1993). Costs and Benefits through
Bureaucratic Lenses: Example of a Highway. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 532- 555. Available online at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3325305

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 16

Chung, T.P. (2000). The Returns to Education and Training: Evidence from the Malaysian
Family Live Surveys.

Cohn, E., & Geske, T.G. (1990). The Economics of Education. Oxford, England; New York:
Pengamon Press.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2000). Report on Household Expenditure Survey

Malaysia 1998/1999 (No. ISSN1394-3952. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics,
Malaysia.

Jimenez, Emmanuel & Patrinos, Harry Anthony. (2008). Can Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide
Education Policy in Developing Countries? The World Bank.

Laws of Malaysia. Act 350. Children and Young Persons (Employment). Act 1966. The
Commissioner of Law Revision, Malaysia. Under Authority of Laws Acr 1968 in
Collaboration with Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad. Availabe online at:
http://jtksm.mohr.gov.my/images/stories/akta%20jtk/akta%20kanak2%20(bi).pdf

Lee, Kiong Hock. (1980). Education, Earnings, and Occupational Status in Malaysia, 1978.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. London: The London School of
Economics and Political Science.

Levin, Henry M. & McEwan, Patrick J. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Method and
Applications. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Inc. California.

Mazumdar, Dipak. (1981). The Urban Labor Market and Income Distribution: A Study of
Malaysia. Oxford University Press: The World Bank.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2001). Education in Malaysia: A Journey to Excellence,

Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2002). Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010: Perancangan

Bersepadu Penjana Kecemerlangan Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education.

Psacharopoulus, G. & Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for Development: An Analysis of

Investment Choices. London: Oxford University Press.

Psacharopoulus, G. (1995). The Profitability of Investment in Education: Concepts and

Methods. Human Capital Development and Operations Policy Working Papers Number
63, World Bnak , Washington DC.

Psacharopoulus, G. (1996). Economics of Education: A Research Agenda. Economics of

Education Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp339-344.

Psacharopoulus, G. & Patrinos, Harry Anthony. (2002). Return to Investment in Education:

A Further Update. World Bank Policy Research Working paper 2881.

Schultz, T.W. (1963) The Economics Value of Education. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 17

Tsang, Mun C. (1988). Cost Analysis for Educational Policymaking: A Review of Cost
Studies inEducation in Developing Countries. Review of Educational Research, 58(2):
pp181-230.

Tsang, Mun C. (1994). Cost Analysis of Educational Inclusion of Marginalized Populations.

UNESCO: International Institute for Planning. Paris.

Tsang, Mun C. (2002). Comparing the Costs of Public and Privates Schools in Developing
Countries. Cost- Effectiveness and Educational Policy: American Education Finance
Association 2002 year book. Edited by Levin, H.M. and Msean, P.

The World Bank. (1996). Handbook on Economic Analysis of Investment Operations:

Assessment of Education Projects. World Bank: Operation Policy Department.

UNESCO. (2000). World Education Report 2000. The Right to Education Towards
Education for all throughout life; UNESCO.

Wolfe, Barbara L. & Haveman, Robert H. (2002). Social and Nonmarket Benefits From
Education in an Advanced Economy. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 47th Economic
Conference.

World Education Indicators Programme (WEI). (2002). Financing Education Investments and
Returns Analysis of the World Education Indicators. UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

o000o

Jurnal Internasional | Manajemen Pendidikan 18