- Email: [email protected]
Effects of education philanthropy on well-being of low-income and gifted students in China
Journal Pre-proofs Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China Bin Tu, Chien-Chung Huang, Jennifer Sorensen PII: DOI: Reference:
S0190-7409(19)31039-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104659 CYSR 104659
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
19 September 2019 25 November 2019 26 November 2019
Please cite this article as: B. Tu, C-C. Huang, J. Sorensen, Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China, Children and Youth Services Review (2019), doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104659
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Title Page Manuscript Title: Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China Authors: Bin Tu Guangdong Research Center for NPOs, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 2 North Baiyun Avenue, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510000 Email: [email protected]
Chien-Chung Huang (Corresponding author) Rutgers University, School of Social Work, Huamin Research Center Address: 390 George St, Room 503. New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Email: [email protected] Jennifer Sorensen Rutgers University, School of Social Work, Huamin Research Center Address: 390 George St, Room 503. New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Email: [email protected]
Word count: 5012
Funding: This study was not funded by any grant or foundation. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
1
Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China
Abstract In China, increasing income inequality has created excessive obstacles to the social mobility of low-income children. Private wealth may play a positive role in ameliorating inequality by way of investing in education philanthropy. Using an alumni survey from a high school in Guangdong, China, this paper utilizes human capital theory to examine the effects of education philanthropy on human capital accumulation and well-being for low-income and gifted students. The findings indicate that a well-designed education philanthropy program significantly increases well-being via human capital accumulation for these children and demonstrates potential to also reduce intergenerational inequality.
Keywords: Education; Philanthropy; Human Capital; Income; Health
2
Introduction Charitable giving in education represents a significant portion of donations across the globe. In 2017, educational donations in the United States totaled $58.9 billion, ranking second to $127.3 billion in religious donations (Giving USA, 2018). On the 2017 Hurun list of donations, education was the top focus of the philanthropic efforts in China accounting for 44% of charitable giving, followed by public rights (20%), poverty (17%), and culture (6%) (Hurun, 2019). While the public sector can promote intergenerational equality through tax levies, public policies, and the direct provision of services, private philanthropy can provide direct service provision or indirect support for service agencies and NGOs to distribute public goods that promote equal access to economic opportunity and social mobility (Acs, 2013; Stiglitz, 2015). Studies have found that education philanthropy is beneficial in addressing social inequities rooted in education disparities and one of the most powerful tools to promote intergenerational equality across the world (Barchi, Deng, Huang, Isles, & Vikse, 2016; Hess & Henig, 2015). The education philanthropy approach is increasingly important given the continued growth of the global income inequality (Fontenot, Semega, & Kollar, 2017; Saez & Zucman, 2016; Shi, Sato, & Sicular, 2013; Xie & Zhou, 2014). Income inequality creates abundant opportunities for the wealthy and restrictive barriers for the poor, which results in the unequal distribution of education, healthcare, and social services (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015; Stiglitz， 2012). The benefits of economic growth are disproportionately contained to a small, wealthy portion of the population, leading to inequality in social positions and social mobility (Breen & Johnson，2005; Piketty，2014; Stiglitz，2015). Disparities in healthcare, social services, and social mobility are often the result of complex systemic inequality and cannot be resolved with 3
ease. However, the strong correlation between school outcomes and human capital makes education the ideal starting point to begin addressing such inequities (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015). Gifted children from low-income families are less likely to reach their potential due to limited family and community resources. Education philanthropy that provides high-quality resources to such students could reduce the opportunity gap and improve human capital in the long term. By receiving high-quality and affordable education, gifted children of impoverished families have higher chances to obtain career success and reach high well-being compared to their peers. This can promote a sustainable pattern of intergenerational mobility, which is particularly important for countries with high income inequality and restricted educational resources (Barchi et al., 2016; Hess & Henig, 2015). Existing literature has yet to explore the effectiveness of education philanthropy using quantitative analysis. The present study therefore examines the ability of education philanthropy to improve the human capital accumulation and well-being of low-income gifted children. Literature Review Existing research on education philanthropy lacks objective and quantitative evaluations of funded initiatives and programs, especially in the long term. One of the biggest obstacles to this is a lack of standardization and fidelity in the funding, implementation, and evaluation of such initiatives. Srivastava and Oh (2010) found that most published studies on private education philanthropy focus on large foundations while smaller foundation programs are chronically under-researched. In fact, most available research is sponsored by the funding foundation of the program and is not always subject to peer-reviewed standards. According to Zhou (2015), regulations for private and public donors may directly impact the nature of these 4
programs. For example, public foundations in China are required to spend 70% of their annual income at a minimum while private foundations are only required to spend 8%; the quickest and easiest way for foundations to meet this requirement is through investing in infrastructure. Such policies may provide context as to why these programs lack fidelity or sustainability from country to country; future studies on education philanthropy may benefit from analyzing local financial policies or incentives that may impact the nature of such programs. In addition, comparative studies are difficult because private foundations do not release systematically comparable data and do not operate using consistent language and defined concepts across programs. This exacerbates the research gap of this topic, which hopefully the current study can ameliorate. Due to the incomplete nature of this body of literature, the present study consulted research on the impact of individual philanthropists, social costs of increasing global inequality, human capital theory, and charitable giving within education to comprehensively assess the potential of education philanthropy. Barchi et al. (2016) analyzed past and present case studies of individual philanthropists in the United States and China, including Andrew Carnegie and Jian Zhang. Utilizing the CIPP (context, input, process, product) model of program evaluation, the authors concluded that education philanthropy holds great potential for reducing gaps in income and opportunity. Breen and Johnson (2005) conducted a literature review on social mobility and education gaps through a lens of parent socioeconomic context. The authors were unable to identify why the relationship between these factors are different in various regions of the world such as the United States and China, largely due to a lack of comparable primary data sources. This has 5
undoubtedly hindered our understanding of global inequality in mobility and education. By offering quantitative data from China, the present study will hopefully serve as a precedent for future comparative and global inquiry. Dabla-Norris et al (2015) review the causes and effects of global income inequality and its long-term social costs. High inequality deprives lower-income individuals of human capital accumulation and often leads to under-investment in education and labor skills training. Even though education spending remains a large portion of charitable donations, university cost, especially in the United States, have increased at a higher rate than national income and giving. Thus, outcomes in education and human capital accumulation remain lower for low-income students. Saez and Zucman (2016) assessed wealth inequality in the United States since 1913 and identified that wealth inequality is on the rise in the United States and that the wealth inequality is likely the product of rising income and disparities in savings. Similarly, Zie and Zhou (2014) sought to measure and analyze the source of income inequality in contemporary China. They found that income inequality has grown especially high in recent years, and this gap is in large part due to the disparities in opportunities for mobility between regions of China – namely, urban and rural. These studies demonstrate the systemic significance of social inequality, and highlights barriers to social mobility and human capital accumulation across countries. Development of Education Philanthropy Education philanthropy has a long history. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to amass private fortunes. The nations’ wealthiest such as John D. Rockefeller in the United States and Zhang Jian in China believed 6
that education was a necessity for social prosperity; however, their governments did not invest enough to promote educational opportunities among citizens. These individuals took the initiative to utilize their own fortunes for this cause, thus beginning a long history of privately funded education philanthropy in these countries (Barchi et al., 2016). Education philanthropy continues to be a key area for major foundations around the world in the present. For example, the world's largest foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, funds programs that promote quality education for students by improving universities readiness for K-12 students and increasing the university graduation rate of lowincome youth. Srivastava and Oh (2010) admit that private foundations have potential in this realm of public service: they can assist civil society in capacity building, they can withstand political and financial crises, they tend to have more sustainable and long-term programming than traditional donors, and they can utilize the apparatus of popular media through high-profile personalities such as Bill Gates. Even though education philanthropy as a whole remains unstandardized and highly dependent on cultural and economic factors, it clearly has potential to alleviate intergenerational poverty for low-income students in efficient and innovative ways. Education Philanthropy, Human Capital Accumulation, and Well-being This study uses Theodore W. Schultz’s human capital theory as a theoretical basis. Proposed in 1960, this theory states that the ability to perform labor (thereby producing economic value) rests on human capital – that is, the combination of habits, knowledge, and social and personality attributes. Like other factors in production, human capital is formed through investment. Schultz studied the economic boom of Germany and Japan after World War II and argued that the main reason for their recovery was their powerful human capital. 7
After studying the education investment in the United States from 1929 to 1957, Schultz concluded that education investment is a type of human capital investment with a particularly high return when compared to other types of investment. The average rate of return on education investment was 17%; income growth from education investment accounts for 70% of labor income growth and 33% of national income growth. According to Schultz, the improvement of public education is the root of increasing personal income and reducing inequality. Investment in human capital - especially education - can improve production and personal incomes, and consequently reduce social inequality (Schultz, 1971). In the 1980s, Robert E. Lucas, Jr. wrote that human capital formed through formal school education is the core and most important component of human capital. School education can reflect the scale effect of human capital accumulation (Lucas, 1988). With respect to low-income students, especially poor and gifted children, education philanthropy may substantially increase human capital accumulation by providing high-quality and affordable education. The high human capital accumulation is expected to increase income and other dimensions of well-being of the students in the long run. Therefore, we hypothesize that high-quality and affordable education for poor and gifted students would increase their human capital accumulation and consequently their well-being. The present study tests this hypothesis based on a case study of the G High School, an education philanthropy project of the Y Foundation in China. The G High School In 2002, Y Foundation founded G High School, the first private and free boarding high school in China. Located in B Town of Guangdong Province, the foundation was founded on 8
the values of education philanthropy and has conducted several projects that aim to help gifted and low-income students. The chairman of the Y Foundation believes that it is a great loss if gifted children are unable to receive quality education and reach their potential simply because of the financial circumstances that they were born into. The foundation has invested more than 260 million yuan to establish and operate G High School. The school recruits poor and gifted students across the country, enrolling about 150-200 students each year. Since 2002, the school has admitted around 2,500 students. The students in the G School must have an excellent academic record and come from a low-income family. Excellent academic record means that the students have scored exceptionally on their high school entrance examination, meeting the standard of key countylevel or prefecture-level high schools. A family is considered low-income if they earn less than their local poverty line, around 2,300 yuan annually. Students that meet these two conditions are eligible to apply to the G school. The G school then conducts both written exam and oral interviews to guide admission decisions. One of the key features of this education philanthropy program is that it provides highquality education for free, alleviating financial burdens for both students and their families. In addition to free tuition, the school covers all living expenses, including clothing and transportation back home twice per year. Students also receive a cash stipend every month (40 yuan for boys and 60 yuan for girls). For severely impoverished students, the school provides economic support to their families. The second feature of the program is its continuity of support beyond high school. Students of the G School receive financial support to study in college and beyond until students complete 9
their academic pursuits. This includes tuition, living expenses, and transportation. In addition to student support, the program allocates a high budget to maintain its facilities and to recruit high-quality teachers. The school occupies 99,000 square meters, 60% of which is comprised of greenery. The school contains wide-ranging facilities, including libraries, reading rooms, a counseling office, computer centers, music rooms, and art classrooms. Sports facilities include fields and various courts for basketball, volleyball, and badminton. The comprehensive facility aims to cultivate inclusive skills for students and increase their human capital accumulations. Nationwide, G School has one of the highest standards for instructors. The school offers competitive salary to teachers with high credentials, and the average salary of the teachers is about twice that of local teachers. The school also recruits adjunct teachers for various vocational classes and invites experts to visit as guest lecturers. Between 2002 and 2018, the school annually allocated about 2 million yuan in the purchase and maintenance of the equipment. Students also participate in volunteer service twice a month. Since 2004, the school's operating expenses have increased year by year, from the initial 3 million yuan to 57 million yuan in 2018. The per capita operating expenses have continued to increase since 2004, from 32 thousand yuan in 2002 to 320 thousand yuan in 2018. In short, the G School provides a unique and innovative education philanthropy program, and, if success, it might provide implications to other education philanthropy programs. Methodology Data came from an alumni survey of the G High School. We invited alumni to fill out an online questionnaire in February 2019. 719 alumni completed these questionnaires for a response rate of about 35%. Within the sample, 380 alumni were in the midst of pursuing 10
college or higher degrees, and 339 of them had completed their education and were working. The dependent variable is the well-being of the alumni. Well-being is defined as the extent of a satisfactory condition of existence characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity. We measure well-being in three dimensions: income, education, and health. We asked the alumni to compare their income, education, and health status to those of their hometown peers who had similar test scores in high school entrance examination. The scale ranged from 0 to 10 (0 = much worse than peers, 5 = the same, and 10 = much better than peers). We subtracted the score by 5 and converted the scale range from -5 to 5. For alumni who were working, monthly salary was added as an additional dependent variable. The main independent variable is human capital accumulation. Human capital refers to the combination of habits, knowledge, and social and personality attributes. We use three indicators to measure the extent of human capital accumulation: educational attainment, number of skills learned from high school, and number of volunteering performed within the last year. The educational attainment represents the highest educational attainment the student had received. Number of skills learned from high school calculates the skills the students learned during his/her time at the G high school, including musical instrument, singing, art, computer, internet, second language, social skills, and other skills. The other independent variables included age, gender, occupation, residency of origin, and year of high school graduation. We used OLS regressions to examine the effects of human capital accumulation on the well-being of the students while controlling for the other independent variables. Results Table 1 presents the descriptive results of the sample. The mean age of the sample was 24, 11
and 62% of them were male. About 71% of the sample had college degrees, and about onefourth (24.5%) held a master’s level or higher degree. Alumni reported a multitude of skills that they attained from the high school. On average, each alumnus learned 2.8 skills. The sample reported participating in an average of 3.1 volunteering last year, with a standard deviation of 3.5. For alumni who were working, most of them (37%) worked in private companies, followed by state-owned companies (20%), and government (17%). Table 2 shows the t-test for the dependent variables. Compared to similar peers in their hometown, the sample had significant higher income (about 1 unit higher), education (about 2 units higher), and health status (about 1 unit higher). Their overall well-being was about 4 units higher than the peers in their hometowns. For working alumni, their average monthly salary was 11,321 Chinese yuan (S.E. = 7,955). Table 3 displays the OLS regression estimates of income, education, and health status for the whole sample as compared to their peers in their hometown. Indicators of human capital accumulation, including years of education, number of skills learned, and number of volunteering, were all significantly associated with overall well-being. Each additional year of education was associated with an increase of 0.2 units in well-being. Learning an additional skill was associated with 0.4-unit increase in well-being. Finally, participating in one volunteering was associated with an increase of 0.2 units in well-being.
With respect to
individual well-being as measured by income, education, and health, the numbers of skills learned and volunteering were consistently and positively associated with each outcome, while years of education was positively associated with educational well-being. Table 4 displays the OLS regression estimates of monthly salary. There are two models 12
presented due to the different measurements for education. Model 1 measures educational attainment by years of education, while Model 2 measures the attainment by category, whether or not receiving master’s level or higher degrees. The estimates in Model 1 indicate that age, gender, years of education, and occupation were all significantly associated with monthly salary. Every additional year of education was associated with a 1,025 yuan increase in monthly salary. Males earned 1,782 yuan more than females, and each year increase in age was associated with a monthly salary that was 766 yuan higher. Compared to government employees, workers in private companies earned 4,649 yuan more in monthly salary. The respective monthly salaries for foreign companies and state-owned companies were 5,036 yuan and 3,247 yuan. Model 2 shows that alumni who had master’s or higher degrees earned monthly salaries that were 3,864 yuan higher than those of alumni that did not have master’s or higherlevel degrees. The results for other independent variables are similar to those represented in Model 1. Discussion and Conclusion Existing research on education philanthropy reflects concerns about the nature and intent of private foundations involved in school programs. Srivastava and Oh (2010) caution that international private philanthropy in education could be interpreted as a new manifestation of colonialism, as some aid programs seek to reinforce and maintain the current global structure of power and privilege. Zeichner and Pena-Sandoval (2015) similarly state that the increasing role of private educational philanthropy in the United States may distort the purpose of public schooling from civic and political values to economic aspects. However, the G-School education philanthropy, established by the Y Foundation in China, uniquely emphasizes the 13
values of ethics, volunteerism, and philanthropy. Ethics education prioritizes building strong character through a series of activities, including community service opportunities in a summer service-learning program. Students actively engage in charitable activities during the weekends and summers. The G School’s strong civic beliefs do not completely neutralize the valid concerns of researchers, but they do indicate that private foundations are capable of successfully implementing school programs without reinforcing the geopolitical or financial status quo. Srivasta and Oh (2010) also express concern that the transfer of education development from public responsibility to private entities may lead to less accountability and transparency, as evidenced by the limited research on specific private foundations. Specifically, their concerns include lack of replicability and fidelity across models, poor accountability and transparency, inadequate evaluation processes, unclear organizational structures within the organization, imbalance of power in decision-making, and spatial fragmentation between headquarters and field operations.
However, the Y Foundation was cooperative and
collaborative with all partners involved in the implementation and research of the program. Hopefully, the Y Foundation’s transparency and accountability can serve as a model for other private foundations to engage in transparent research. Regardless of the aforementioned criticism, it is clear that educational policies are key to alleviating inequality and even crisis in the long term.
Zhou (2015) contends that a lack of
funding for rural education in China depletes human capital and social mobility, which may give way to social unrest in the future. Dabla-Norris et al. (2015) argue that these programs can all help in leveling the playing field of the contemporary low-income or gifted student body 14
through improving the quality of local education, alleviating financial barriers to additional education, supporting apprenticeship training initiatives, and adapting to technological change. The findings of this study show that a well-designed education philanthropy, that emphasizes on nurturing comprehensive knowledge, skills, and social and personality attributes in high school, and continuous financial support in college and beyond, is likely to increase human capital accumulation and consequently well-being for low-income gifted students in the long run. Compared to similar peers in their hometowns, the students in the GSchool had significantly higher income, education, and health status. The education philanthropy is cost effectiveness. The average cost per student was around 100 thousand RMB in early stage of the program and increased to around 300 thousand RMB in 2017-18 due to increased financial support for education beyond high school. The average monthly salaries for college and master graduates in the sample were 9,987 and 14,825 RMB in 2019, respectively. Based on Chinese General Social Survey, the relative salaries at the national level were 2,640 and 4,894 RMB for college and master and above graduates, respectively. Assuming 25 working years, the wage differences equal to 2.2 million RMB for college graduates ([99872640]*12*25) and 3 million RMB for master and above graduate ([14825-4894]*12*25). The differences are even larger if considering wage increase over time. The above changes in human capital accumulation for poor and gifted children could effectively narrow intergenerational inequality and promote intergenerational mobility. The results of this study support human capital theory and suggest that the education investment for gifted and low-income students is a great human capital investment with a high return. Human capital is formed through investment, however, there are litter resource 15
available for low-income families to invest in their children. Thus, the education philanthropy exemplified by the G high school in China provides an alternative approach to invest in the gifted children in the low-income families that has a potential to not only improve well-being for these children but also the whole society as a whole due to increased human capital and productivity (Schultz, 1971; Lucas, 1988). Although our findings yielded strong results and a promising approach of education philanthropy for gifted children in low-income families, there were a few limitations that can inform future research. First, the response rate of the sample was about 35% of all alumni. Thus, generalizability of the findings from this study need to be tested in a representative sample in the future. Second, all information was self-reported by the alumni and therefore subject to intended and unintended reporting errors. Future study can consider triangulation of data collection, such as collected data from other sources including teachers, employers, and friends, to valid the data. Third, while our cross-sectional design has validated the improved human capital outcomes for the gifted children compared to their similar peers, future studies can use longitudinal data to establish causality and further examine possible mediation effects. Finally, future studies may consider how to monetarize the benefits of increased education and health beyond wage to further gauge the effectiveness of the program.
16
References Acs, Z. J. (2013). Why Philanthropy Matters: How the Wealthy Give, and What It Means for Our Economic Well-Being Hardcover. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Barchi, F., Deng, G., Huang, C-C., Isles, C., & Vikse, J. (2016). Private Wealth, Philanthropy, and Social Development: Case Studies from the United States and China. China Nonprofit Review, 8(2), 215-248 Breen R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 223-243. China Charity Information Centre. 2015. 2014 Annual Report on Chinese Philanthropic donation. China Philanthropy Times. (2008). The philanthropic structure with 100-billion donation. Retrieved from http://www.gongyishibao.com/zhuan/csdh/special/news1.html. Dabla-Norris, E., Kochhar, K., Suphaphiphat, N., Ricka, R., &Tsounta, E. (2015). Cause and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund. Fontenot, K., Semega, J., & Kollar, M. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-263, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2018 Giving USA, (2018). Giving USA 2018 – Annual Report on Philanthropy for the year 2017. Chicago, IL: Giving USA foundation. Hess, F. M., & Henig, J. R. (2015). The New Education Philanthropy: Politics, Policy, and 17
Reform. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press. Huamin Charity Foundation. (2019). The Summary Report of College Student Employment Assistance Program. Huamin Charity Foundation, Beijing, China. (In Chinese) Hurun Report. (2019). 2017 Hurun Report of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.hurun.net/CN/Article/Details?num=8715BF84DA69 Lucas, R. E. (1988) On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22: 3-42. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (2): 519– 578. Schultz, T.W. (1971). Investment in Human Capital: The Role of Education and of Research. New York: Free Press. Shi, L., Sato, H., & Sicular, T. (2013), Rising Inequality in China: Challenges to a Harmonious Society, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Srivastava, P., & Oh, S. (2010). Private foundations, philanthropy, and partnership in education and development: Mapping the terrain. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 460-471. Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York: Norton. ----------. (2015). The Great Divide. New York: Norton. Xie, Y. & Zhou, X. (2014). Income inequality in today’s China. Proceedings of the National 18
Academy of Sciences, 111(19): 6928-2933. Watkins, W.H. (2001). The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America, 1865-1954. New York: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K., & Pena-Sandoval, C. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the US: The role of the new schools venture fund. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-44. Zeng, G.L. (2011). Different Paths, Same Results: The Philanthropic Career of Zhang Jian and Xiong Xiling. Science・Economics・Society. 29(3). Zhou, H. (2015). Corporate philanthropy in contemporary China: A case of rural compulsory education promotion. Voluntas, 26, 1143-1163.
19
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample
All Sample, n=719 Mean (S.D.)
Non-students, n=339 Mean (S.D.)
24.3 (4.0) 62.3
27.4 (3.2) 61.9
4.3 71.2 24.5
0.6 71.1 28.3
8.1 2.2 2.1 52.9 9.3 17.4 2.4 1.4 0.8 3.4
17.1 4.7 4.4 0 19.8 36.9 5.0 2.9 1.8 7.4
30.0 9.5 15.7 50.6 37.6 50.2 70.8 11.5 2.8 (1.4) 3.1 (3.5)
16.8 4.7 10.0 54.0 36.9 53.4 63.1 12.4 2.5 (1.3) 2.4 (2.9)
5.2 18.9 21.6 31.3 11.8 8.3 2.9
5.9 15.6 19.5 28.6 13.9 11.8 4.7
Age Boy [%] Education [%] High School College Master’s degree and above Occupation [%] Government employee Teacher Doctor or lawyer Student State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Skills acquired in high school [%] Instrument Singing Art Computer Language Internet Social skill Others Number of skills Number of Volunteering Location of Middle School [%] Central North Central East Central Central South Northeast Southwest Northwest Year of Graduation [%] 20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
3.3 6.1 8.2 3.9 1.8 5.9 3.4 7.0 11.5 10.3 11.1 7.2 6.5 13.8
21
7.1 12.4 17.4 8.0 3.8 12.1 6.2 8.0 12.4 8.6 2.1 0.3 1.2 0.6
Table 2 Well-being of Alumni Variables (N=719)
Mean (S.D.)
T-test, diff=0
Comparison to similar kids in Hometown Total Income Education Health Monthly wage (RMB) [n=339] High School [n=2] College [n=241] Master and above [n=96]
3.5 (3.8) 0.9 (1.7) 1.8 (1.7) 0.9 (1.5) 11321 (7955) 4000 (3181) 9987 (6986] 14825 (9149)
25.3 *** 13.6 *** 28.3 *** 16.4 ***
22
Table 3 OLS Regression Estimates of Well-being Compare to Similar Kids in Hometown Variables Age Boy Years of Education Teacher Doctor or lawyer Student State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Number of skills Number of volunteering Constant Origins Fixed Effect Adjusted R-Square
Total Well-being B S.E. P -0.04 0.06 0.38 0.29 0.32 0.10 ** -1.86 1.03 -0.85 1.08 0.00 0.64 0.33 0.66 0.36 0.58 0.71 1.01 1.04 1.26 -2.77 1.60 -0.21 0.89 0.43 0.10 *** 0.18 0.04 *** -2.52 2.09 Yes
Income B S.E. P -0.03 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.05 -0.71 0.48 -0.30 0.50 -0.62 0.30 * 0.27 0.31 0.41 0.27 0.71 0.47 0.36 0.58 -1.50 0.74 * 0.08 0.41 0.16 0.05 *** 0.07 0.02 *** -0.15 0.97 Yes
Education B S.E. P 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.05 *** -0.43 0.46 0.16 0.48 0.76 0.28 ** 0.17 0.29 0.06 0.26 -0.20 0.45 0.70 0.56 -0.76 0.71 0.10 0.39 0.09 0.04 * 0.06 0.02 ** -2.82 0.92 ** Yes
Health B S.E. P -0.04 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.04 0.04 -0.72 0.41 -0.71 0.42 -0.15 0.25 -0.11 0.26 -0.10 0.23 0.21 0.40 -0.02 0.50 -0.50 0.63 -0.39 0.35 0.18 0.04 *** 0.05 0.02 ** 0.45 0.82 Yes
0.058
0.061
0.067
0.052
N=719
23
Table 4: OLS Estimates of Monthly Salary Variables Age Boy Years of Education Master’s degree and above Teacher Doctor or lawyer State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Number of skills Number of volunteering Constant Origins Fixed Effect
Month Wage B S.E. P 766.1 133.7 *** 1781.1 862.1 * 1025.1 330.1 ** ----516.5 2043.4 -449.9 2177.8 3247.6 1313.4 * 4619.3 1159.2 *** 5036.2 2016.9 * 3702.8 2502.3 -1948.6 3286.1 775.5 1770.1 144.9 313.7 32.9 148.8 -31795.9 2449.2 *** Yes
Adjusted R-Square
0.188
N=339
24
Month Wage B S.E. P 755.1 130.8 *** 1741.9 850.3 * ----3864.9 893.1 *** 722.7 2016.9 614.7 2081.9 3189.8 1295.3 * 4795.5 1144.7 *** 5373.5 1992.8 ** 4044.1 2470.9 -1192.9 3249.9 807.5 1745.9 184.4 309.7 8.2 146.2 -15573.6 4346.5 *** Yes 0.210
Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China Highlights
Gifted and poor children are hard to reach their potential
Education philanthropy can raise human capital for poor and gifted children
Education philanthropy increases well-being via raising human capital accumulation
25
S0190-7409(19)31039-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104659 CYSR 104659
To appear in:
Children and Youth Services Review
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
19 September 2019 25 November 2019 26 November 2019
Please cite this article as: B. Tu, C-C. Huang, J. Sorensen, Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China, Children and Youth Services Review (2019), doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104659
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Title Page Manuscript Title: Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China Authors: Bin Tu Guangdong Research Center for NPOs, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 2 North Baiyun Avenue, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510000 Email: [email protected]
Chien-Chung Huang (Corresponding author) Rutgers University, School of Social Work, Huamin Research Center Address: 390 George St, Room 503. New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Email: [email protected] Jennifer Sorensen Rutgers University, School of Social Work, Huamin Research Center Address: 390 George St, Room 503. New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Email: [email protected]
Word count: 5012
Funding: This study was not funded by any grant or foundation. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
1
Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China
Abstract In China, increasing income inequality has created excessive obstacles to the social mobility of low-income children. Private wealth may play a positive role in ameliorating inequality by way of investing in education philanthropy. Using an alumni survey from a high school in Guangdong, China, this paper utilizes human capital theory to examine the effects of education philanthropy on human capital accumulation and well-being for low-income and gifted students. The findings indicate that a well-designed education philanthropy program significantly increases well-being via human capital accumulation for these children and demonstrates potential to also reduce intergenerational inequality.
Keywords: Education; Philanthropy; Human Capital; Income; Health
2
Introduction Charitable giving in education represents a significant portion of donations across the globe. In 2017, educational donations in the United States totaled $58.9 billion, ranking second to $127.3 billion in religious donations (Giving USA, 2018). On the 2017 Hurun list of donations, education was the top focus of the philanthropic efforts in China accounting for 44% of charitable giving, followed by public rights (20%), poverty (17%), and culture (6%) (Hurun, 2019). While the public sector can promote intergenerational equality through tax levies, public policies, and the direct provision of services, private philanthropy can provide direct service provision or indirect support for service agencies and NGOs to distribute public goods that promote equal access to economic opportunity and social mobility (Acs, 2013; Stiglitz, 2015). Studies have found that education philanthropy is beneficial in addressing social inequities rooted in education disparities and one of the most powerful tools to promote intergenerational equality across the world (Barchi, Deng, Huang, Isles, & Vikse, 2016; Hess & Henig, 2015). The education philanthropy approach is increasingly important given the continued growth of the global income inequality (Fontenot, Semega, & Kollar, 2017; Saez & Zucman, 2016; Shi, Sato, & Sicular, 2013; Xie & Zhou, 2014). Income inequality creates abundant opportunities for the wealthy and restrictive barriers for the poor, which results in the unequal distribution of education, healthcare, and social services (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015; Stiglitz， 2012). The benefits of economic growth are disproportionately contained to a small, wealthy portion of the population, leading to inequality in social positions and social mobility (Breen & Johnson，2005; Piketty，2014; Stiglitz，2015). Disparities in healthcare, social services, and social mobility are often the result of complex systemic inequality and cannot be resolved with 3
ease. However, the strong correlation between school outcomes and human capital makes education the ideal starting point to begin addressing such inequities (Dabla-Norris et al., 2015). Gifted children from low-income families are less likely to reach their potential due to limited family and community resources. Education philanthropy that provides high-quality resources to such students could reduce the opportunity gap and improve human capital in the long term. By receiving high-quality and affordable education, gifted children of impoverished families have higher chances to obtain career success and reach high well-being compared to their peers. This can promote a sustainable pattern of intergenerational mobility, which is particularly important for countries with high income inequality and restricted educational resources (Barchi et al., 2016; Hess & Henig, 2015). Existing literature has yet to explore the effectiveness of education philanthropy using quantitative analysis. The present study therefore examines the ability of education philanthropy to improve the human capital accumulation and well-being of low-income gifted children. Literature Review Existing research on education philanthropy lacks objective and quantitative evaluations of funded initiatives and programs, especially in the long term. One of the biggest obstacles to this is a lack of standardization and fidelity in the funding, implementation, and evaluation of such initiatives. Srivastava and Oh (2010) found that most published studies on private education philanthropy focus on large foundations while smaller foundation programs are chronically under-researched. In fact, most available research is sponsored by the funding foundation of the program and is not always subject to peer-reviewed standards. According to Zhou (2015), regulations for private and public donors may directly impact the nature of these 4
programs. For example, public foundations in China are required to spend 70% of their annual income at a minimum while private foundations are only required to spend 8%; the quickest and easiest way for foundations to meet this requirement is through investing in infrastructure. Such policies may provide context as to why these programs lack fidelity or sustainability from country to country; future studies on education philanthropy may benefit from analyzing local financial policies or incentives that may impact the nature of such programs. In addition, comparative studies are difficult because private foundations do not release systematically comparable data and do not operate using consistent language and defined concepts across programs. This exacerbates the research gap of this topic, which hopefully the current study can ameliorate. Due to the incomplete nature of this body of literature, the present study consulted research on the impact of individual philanthropists, social costs of increasing global inequality, human capital theory, and charitable giving within education to comprehensively assess the potential of education philanthropy. Barchi et al. (2016) analyzed past and present case studies of individual philanthropists in the United States and China, including Andrew Carnegie and Jian Zhang. Utilizing the CIPP (context, input, process, product) model of program evaluation, the authors concluded that education philanthropy holds great potential for reducing gaps in income and opportunity. Breen and Johnson (2005) conducted a literature review on social mobility and education gaps through a lens of parent socioeconomic context. The authors were unable to identify why the relationship between these factors are different in various regions of the world such as the United States and China, largely due to a lack of comparable primary data sources. This has 5
undoubtedly hindered our understanding of global inequality in mobility and education. By offering quantitative data from China, the present study will hopefully serve as a precedent for future comparative and global inquiry. Dabla-Norris et al (2015) review the causes and effects of global income inequality and its long-term social costs. High inequality deprives lower-income individuals of human capital accumulation and often leads to under-investment in education and labor skills training. Even though education spending remains a large portion of charitable donations, university cost, especially in the United States, have increased at a higher rate than national income and giving. Thus, outcomes in education and human capital accumulation remain lower for low-income students. Saez and Zucman (2016) assessed wealth inequality in the United States since 1913 and identified that wealth inequality is on the rise in the United States and that the wealth inequality is likely the product of rising income and disparities in savings. Similarly, Zie and Zhou (2014) sought to measure and analyze the source of income inequality in contemporary China. They found that income inequality has grown especially high in recent years, and this gap is in large part due to the disparities in opportunities for mobility between regions of China – namely, urban and rural. These studies demonstrate the systemic significance of social inequality, and highlights barriers to social mobility and human capital accumulation across countries. Development of Education Philanthropy Education philanthropy has a long history. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution provided opportunities for entrepreneurs to amass private fortunes. The nations’ wealthiest such as John D. Rockefeller in the United States and Zhang Jian in China believed 6
that education was a necessity for social prosperity; however, their governments did not invest enough to promote educational opportunities among citizens. These individuals took the initiative to utilize their own fortunes for this cause, thus beginning a long history of privately funded education philanthropy in these countries (Barchi et al., 2016). Education philanthropy continues to be a key area for major foundations around the world in the present. For example, the world's largest foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, funds programs that promote quality education for students by improving universities readiness for K-12 students and increasing the university graduation rate of lowincome youth. Srivastava and Oh (2010) admit that private foundations have potential in this realm of public service: they can assist civil society in capacity building, they can withstand political and financial crises, they tend to have more sustainable and long-term programming than traditional donors, and they can utilize the apparatus of popular media through high-profile personalities such as Bill Gates. Even though education philanthropy as a whole remains unstandardized and highly dependent on cultural and economic factors, it clearly has potential to alleviate intergenerational poverty for low-income students in efficient and innovative ways. Education Philanthropy, Human Capital Accumulation, and Well-being This study uses Theodore W. Schultz’s human capital theory as a theoretical basis. Proposed in 1960, this theory states that the ability to perform labor (thereby producing economic value) rests on human capital – that is, the combination of habits, knowledge, and social and personality attributes. Like other factors in production, human capital is formed through investment. Schultz studied the economic boom of Germany and Japan after World War II and argued that the main reason for their recovery was their powerful human capital. 7
After studying the education investment in the United States from 1929 to 1957, Schultz concluded that education investment is a type of human capital investment with a particularly high return when compared to other types of investment. The average rate of return on education investment was 17%; income growth from education investment accounts for 70% of labor income growth and 33% of national income growth. According to Schultz, the improvement of public education is the root of increasing personal income and reducing inequality. Investment in human capital - especially education - can improve production and personal incomes, and consequently reduce social inequality (Schultz, 1971). In the 1980s, Robert E. Lucas, Jr. wrote that human capital formed through formal school education is the core and most important component of human capital. School education can reflect the scale effect of human capital accumulation (Lucas, 1988). With respect to low-income students, especially poor and gifted children, education philanthropy may substantially increase human capital accumulation by providing high-quality and affordable education. The high human capital accumulation is expected to increase income and other dimensions of well-being of the students in the long run. Therefore, we hypothesize that high-quality and affordable education for poor and gifted students would increase their human capital accumulation and consequently their well-being. The present study tests this hypothesis based on a case study of the G High School, an education philanthropy project of the Y Foundation in China. The G High School In 2002, Y Foundation founded G High School, the first private and free boarding high school in China. Located in B Town of Guangdong Province, the foundation was founded on 8
the values of education philanthropy and has conducted several projects that aim to help gifted and low-income students. The chairman of the Y Foundation believes that it is a great loss if gifted children are unable to receive quality education and reach their potential simply because of the financial circumstances that they were born into. The foundation has invested more than 260 million yuan to establish and operate G High School. The school recruits poor and gifted students across the country, enrolling about 150-200 students each year. Since 2002, the school has admitted around 2,500 students. The students in the G School must have an excellent academic record and come from a low-income family. Excellent academic record means that the students have scored exceptionally on their high school entrance examination, meeting the standard of key countylevel or prefecture-level high schools. A family is considered low-income if they earn less than their local poverty line, around 2,300 yuan annually. Students that meet these two conditions are eligible to apply to the G school. The G school then conducts both written exam and oral interviews to guide admission decisions. One of the key features of this education philanthropy program is that it provides highquality education for free, alleviating financial burdens for both students and their families. In addition to free tuition, the school covers all living expenses, including clothing and transportation back home twice per year. Students also receive a cash stipend every month (40 yuan for boys and 60 yuan for girls). For severely impoverished students, the school provides economic support to their families. The second feature of the program is its continuity of support beyond high school. Students of the G School receive financial support to study in college and beyond until students complete 9
their academic pursuits. This includes tuition, living expenses, and transportation. In addition to student support, the program allocates a high budget to maintain its facilities and to recruit high-quality teachers. The school occupies 99,000 square meters, 60% of which is comprised of greenery. The school contains wide-ranging facilities, including libraries, reading rooms, a counseling office, computer centers, music rooms, and art classrooms. Sports facilities include fields and various courts for basketball, volleyball, and badminton. The comprehensive facility aims to cultivate inclusive skills for students and increase their human capital accumulations. Nationwide, G School has one of the highest standards for instructors. The school offers competitive salary to teachers with high credentials, and the average salary of the teachers is about twice that of local teachers. The school also recruits adjunct teachers for various vocational classes and invites experts to visit as guest lecturers. Between 2002 and 2018, the school annually allocated about 2 million yuan in the purchase and maintenance of the equipment. Students also participate in volunteer service twice a month. Since 2004, the school's operating expenses have increased year by year, from the initial 3 million yuan to 57 million yuan in 2018. The per capita operating expenses have continued to increase since 2004, from 32 thousand yuan in 2002 to 320 thousand yuan in 2018. In short, the G School provides a unique and innovative education philanthropy program, and, if success, it might provide implications to other education philanthropy programs. Methodology Data came from an alumni survey of the G High School. We invited alumni to fill out an online questionnaire in February 2019. 719 alumni completed these questionnaires for a response rate of about 35%. Within the sample, 380 alumni were in the midst of pursuing 10
college or higher degrees, and 339 of them had completed their education and were working. The dependent variable is the well-being of the alumni. Well-being is defined as the extent of a satisfactory condition of existence characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity. We measure well-being in three dimensions: income, education, and health. We asked the alumni to compare their income, education, and health status to those of their hometown peers who had similar test scores in high school entrance examination. The scale ranged from 0 to 10 (0 = much worse than peers, 5 = the same, and 10 = much better than peers). We subtracted the score by 5 and converted the scale range from -5 to 5. For alumni who were working, monthly salary was added as an additional dependent variable. The main independent variable is human capital accumulation. Human capital refers to the combination of habits, knowledge, and social and personality attributes. We use three indicators to measure the extent of human capital accumulation: educational attainment, number of skills learned from high school, and number of volunteering performed within the last year. The educational attainment represents the highest educational attainment the student had received. Number of skills learned from high school calculates the skills the students learned during his/her time at the G high school, including musical instrument, singing, art, computer, internet, second language, social skills, and other skills. The other independent variables included age, gender, occupation, residency of origin, and year of high school graduation. We used OLS regressions to examine the effects of human capital accumulation on the well-being of the students while controlling for the other independent variables. Results Table 1 presents the descriptive results of the sample. The mean age of the sample was 24, 11
and 62% of them were male. About 71% of the sample had college degrees, and about onefourth (24.5%) held a master’s level or higher degree. Alumni reported a multitude of skills that they attained from the high school. On average, each alumnus learned 2.8 skills. The sample reported participating in an average of 3.1 volunteering last year, with a standard deviation of 3.5. For alumni who were working, most of them (37%) worked in private companies, followed by state-owned companies (20%), and government (17%). Table 2 shows the t-test for the dependent variables. Compared to similar peers in their hometown, the sample had significant higher income (about 1 unit higher), education (about 2 units higher), and health status (about 1 unit higher). Their overall well-being was about 4 units higher than the peers in their hometowns. For working alumni, their average monthly salary was 11,321 Chinese yuan (S.E. = 7,955). Table 3 displays the OLS regression estimates of income, education, and health status for the whole sample as compared to their peers in their hometown. Indicators of human capital accumulation, including years of education, number of skills learned, and number of volunteering, were all significantly associated with overall well-being. Each additional year of education was associated with an increase of 0.2 units in well-being. Learning an additional skill was associated with 0.4-unit increase in well-being. Finally, participating in one volunteering was associated with an increase of 0.2 units in well-being.
With respect to
individual well-being as measured by income, education, and health, the numbers of skills learned and volunteering were consistently and positively associated with each outcome, while years of education was positively associated with educational well-being. Table 4 displays the OLS regression estimates of monthly salary. There are two models 12
presented due to the different measurements for education. Model 1 measures educational attainment by years of education, while Model 2 measures the attainment by category, whether or not receiving master’s level or higher degrees. The estimates in Model 1 indicate that age, gender, years of education, and occupation were all significantly associated with monthly salary. Every additional year of education was associated with a 1,025 yuan increase in monthly salary. Males earned 1,782 yuan more than females, and each year increase in age was associated with a monthly salary that was 766 yuan higher. Compared to government employees, workers in private companies earned 4,649 yuan more in monthly salary. The respective monthly salaries for foreign companies and state-owned companies were 5,036 yuan and 3,247 yuan. Model 2 shows that alumni who had master’s or higher degrees earned monthly salaries that were 3,864 yuan higher than those of alumni that did not have master’s or higherlevel degrees. The results for other independent variables are similar to those represented in Model 1. Discussion and Conclusion Existing research on education philanthropy reflects concerns about the nature and intent of private foundations involved in school programs. Srivastava and Oh (2010) caution that international private philanthropy in education could be interpreted as a new manifestation of colonialism, as some aid programs seek to reinforce and maintain the current global structure of power and privilege. Zeichner and Pena-Sandoval (2015) similarly state that the increasing role of private educational philanthropy in the United States may distort the purpose of public schooling from civic and political values to economic aspects. However, the G-School education philanthropy, established by the Y Foundation in China, uniquely emphasizes the 13
values of ethics, volunteerism, and philanthropy. Ethics education prioritizes building strong character through a series of activities, including community service opportunities in a summer service-learning program. Students actively engage in charitable activities during the weekends and summers. The G School’s strong civic beliefs do not completely neutralize the valid concerns of researchers, but they do indicate that private foundations are capable of successfully implementing school programs without reinforcing the geopolitical or financial status quo. Srivasta and Oh (2010) also express concern that the transfer of education development from public responsibility to private entities may lead to less accountability and transparency, as evidenced by the limited research on specific private foundations. Specifically, their concerns include lack of replicability and fidelity across models, poor accountability and transparency, inadequate evaluation processes, unclear organizational structures within the organization, imbalance of power in decision-making, and spatial fragmentation between headquarters and field operations.
However, the Y Foundation was cooperative and
collaborative with all partners involved in the implementation and research of the program. Hopefully, the Y Foundation’s transparency and accountability can serve as a model for other private foundations to engage in transparent research. Regardless of the aforementioned criticism, it is clear that educational policies are key to alleviating inequality and even crisis in the long term.
Zhou (2015) contends that a lack of
funding for rural education in China depletes human capital and social mobility, which may give way to social unrest in the future. Dabla-Norris et al. (2015) argue that these programs can all help in leveling the playing field of the contemporary low-income or gifted student body 14
through improving the quality of local education, alleviating financial barriers to additional education, supporting apprenticeship training initiatives, and adapting to technological change. The findings of this study show that a well-designed education philanthropy, that emphasizes on nurturing comprehensive knowledge, skills, and social and personality attributes in high school, and continuous financial support in college and beyond, is likely to increase human capital accumulation and consequently well-being for low-income gifted students in the long run. Compared to similar peers in their hometowns, the students in the GSchool had significantly higher income, education, and health status. The education philanthropy is cost effectiveness. The average cost per student was around 100 thousand RMB in early stage of the program and increased to around 300 thousand RMB in 2017-18 due to increased financial support for education beyond high school. The average monthly salaries for college and master graduates in the sample were 9,987 and 14,825 RMB in 2019, respectively. Based on Chinese General Social Survey, the relative salaries at the national level were 2,640 and 4,894 RMB for college and master and above graduates, respectively. Assuming 25 working years, the wage differences equal to 2.2 million RMB for college graduates ([99872640]*12*25) and 3 million RMB for master and above graduate ([14825-4894]*12*25). The differences are even larger if considering wage increase over time. The above changes in human capital accumulation for poor and gifted children could effectively narrow intergenerational inequality and promote intergenerational mobility. The results of this study support human capital theory and suggest that the education investment for gifted and low-income students is a great human capital investment with a high return. Human capital is formed through investment, however, there are litter resource 15
available for low-income families to invest in their children. Thus, the education philanthropy exemplified by the G high school in China provides an alternative approach to invest in the gifted children in the low-income families that has a potential to not only improve well-being for these children but also the whole society as a whole due to increased human capital and productivity (Schultz, 1971; Lucas, 1988). Although our findings yielded strong results and a promising approach of education philanthropy for gifted children in low-income families, there were a few limitations that can inform future research. First, the response rate of the sample was about 35% of all alumni. Thus, generalizability of the findings from this study need to be tested in a representative sample in the future. Second, all information was self-reported by the alumni and therefore subject to intended and unintended reporting errors. Future study can consider triangulation of data collection, such as collected data from other sources including teachers, employers, and friends, to valid the data. Third, while our cross-sectional design has validated the improved human capital outcomes for the gifted children compared to their similar peers, future studies can use longitudinal data to establish causality and further examine possible mediation effects. Finally, future studies may consider how to monetarize the benefits of increased education and health beyond wage to further gauge the effectiveness of the program.
16
References Acs, Z. J. (2013). Why Philanthropy Matters: How the Wealthy Give, and What It Means for Our Economic Well-Being Hardcover. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Barchi, F., Deng, G., Huang, C-C., Isles, C., & Vikse, J. (2016). Private Wealth, Philanthropy, and Social Development: Case Studies from the United States and China. China Nonprofit Review, 8(2), 215-248 Breen R., & Jonsson, J. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 223-243. China Charity Information Centre. 2015. 2014 Annual Report on Chinese Philanthropic donation. China Philanthropy Times. (2008). The philanthropic structure with 100-billion donation. Retrieved from http://www.gongyishibao.com/zhuan/csdh/special/news1.html. Dabla-Norris, E., Kochhar, K., Suphaphiphat, N., Ricka, R., &Tsounta, E. (2015). Cause and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund. Fontenot, K., Semega, J., & Kollar, M. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-263, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2017, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2018 Giving USA, (2018). Giving USA 2018 – Annual Report on Philanthropy for the year 2017. Chicago, IL: Giving USA foundation. Hess, F. M., & Henig, J. R. (2015). The New Education Philanthropy: Politics, Policy, and 17
Reform. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press. Huamin Charity Foundation. (2019). The Summary Report of College Student Employment Assistance Program. Huamin Charity Foundation, Beijing, China. (In Chinese) Hurun Report. (2019). 2017 Hurun Report of Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.hurun.net/CN/Article/Details?num=8715BF84DA69 Lucas, R. E. (1988) On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22: 3-42. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2016). Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131 (2): 519– 578. Schultz, T.W. (1971). Investment in Human Capital: The Role of Education and of Research. New York: Free Press. Shi, L., Sato, H., & Sicular, T. (2013), Rising Inequality in China: Challenges to a Harmonious Society, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Srivastava, P., & Oh, S. (2010). Private foundations, philanthropy, and partnership in education and development: Mapping the terrain. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 460-471. Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York: Norton. ----------. (2015). The Great Divide. New York: Norton. Xie, Y. & Zhou, X. (2014). Income inequality in today’s China. Proceedings of the National 18
Academy of Sciences, 111(19): 6928-2933. Watkins, W.H. (2001). The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America, 1865-1954. New York: Teachers College Press. Zeichner, K., & Pena-Sandoval, C. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the US: The role of the new schools venture fund. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-44. Zeng, G.L. (2011). Different Paths, Same Results: The Philanthropic Career of Zhang Jian and Xiong Xiling. Science・Economics・Society. 29(3). Zhou, H. (2015). Corporate philanthropy in contemporary China: A case of rural compulsory education promotion. Voluntas, 26, 1143-1163.
19
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the Sample
All Sample, n=719 Mean (S.D.)
Non-students, n=339 Mean (S.D.)
24.3 (4.0) 62.3
27.4 (3.2) 61.9
4.3 71.2 24.5
0.6 71.1 28.3
8.1 2.2 2.1 52.9 9.3 17.4 2.4 1.4 0.8 3.4
17.1 4.7 4.4 0 19.8 36.9 5.0 2.9 1.8 7.4
30.0 9.5 15.7 50.6 37.6 50.2 70.8 11.5 2.8 (1.4) 3.1 (3.5)
16.8 4.7 10.0 54.0 36.9 53.4 63.1 12.4 2.5 (1.3) 2.4 (2.9)
5.2 18.9 21.6 31.3 11.8 8.3 2.9
5.9 15.6 19.5 28.6 13.9 11.8 4.7
Age Boy [%] Education [%] High School College Master’s degree and above Occupation [%] Government employee Teacher Doctor or lawyer Student State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Skills acquired in high school [%] Instrument Singing Art Computer Language Internet Social skill Others Number of skills Number of Volunteering Location of Middle School [%] Central North Central East Central Central South Northeast Southwest Northwest Year of Graduation [%] 20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
3.3 6.1 8.2 3.9 1.8 5.9 3.4 7.0 11.5 10.3 11.1 7.2 6.5 13.8
21
7.1 12.4 17.4 8.0 3.8 12.1 6.2 8.0 12.4 8.6 2.1 0.3 1.2 0.6
Table 2 Well-being of Alumni Variables (N=719)
Mean (S.D.)
T-test, diff=0
Comparison to similar kids in Hometown Total Income Education Health Monthly wage (RMB) [n=339] High School [n=2] College [n=241] Master and above [n=96]
3.5 (3.8) 0.9 (1.7) 1.8 (1.7) 0.9 (1.5) 11321 (7955) 4000 (3181) 9987 (6986] 14825 (9149)
25.3 *** 13.6 *** 28.3 *** 16.4 ***
22
Table 3 OLS Regression Estimates of Well-being Compare to Similar Kids in Hometown Variables Age Boy Years of Education Teacher Doctor or lawyer Student State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Number of skills Number of volunteering Constant Origins Fixed Effect Adjusted R-Square
Total Well-being B S.E. P -0.04 0.06 0.38 0.29 0.32 0.10 ** -1.86 1.03 -0.85 1.08 0.00 0.64 0.33 0.66 0.36 0.58 0.71 1.01 1.04 1.26 -2.77 1.60 -0.21 0.89 0.43 0.10 *** 0.18 0.04 *** -2.52 2.09 Yes
Income B S.E. P -0.03 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.05 -0.71 0.48 -0.30 0.50 -0.62 0.30 * 0.27 0.31 0.41 0.27 0.71 0.47 0.36 0.58 -1.50 0.74 * 0.08 0.41 0.16 0.05 *** 0.07 0.02 *** -0.15 0.97 Yes
Education B S.E. P 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.05 *** -0.43 0.46 0.16 0.48 0.76 0.28 ** 0.17 0.29 0.06 0.26 -0.20 0.45 0.70 0.56 -0.76 0.71 0.10 0.39 0.09 0.04 * 0.06 0.02 ** -2.82 0.92 ** Yes
Health B S.E. P -0.04 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.04 0.04 -0.72 0.41 -0.71 0.42 -0.15 0.25 -0.11 0.26 -0.10 0.23 0.21 0.40 -0.02 0.50 -0.50 0.63 -0.39 0.35 0.18 0.04 *** 0.05 0.02 ** 0.45 0.82 Yes
0.058
0.061
0.067
0.052
N=719
23
Table 4: OLS Estimates of Monthly Salary Variables Age Boy Years of Education Master’s degree and above Teacher Doctor or lawyer State-owned Company Private Company Foreign Company Self-employee Nonprofits Other jobs Number of skills Number of volunteering Constant Origins Fixed Effect
Month Wage B S.E. P 766.1 133.7 *** 1781.1 862.1 * 1025.1 330.1 ** ----516.5 2043.4 -449.9 2177.8 3247.6 1313.4 * 4619.3 1159.2 *** 5036.2 2016.9 * 3702.8 2502.3 -1948.6 3286.1 775.5 1770.1 144.9 313.7 32.9 148.8 -31795.9 2449.2 *** Yes
Adjusted R-Square
0.188
N=339
24
Month Wage B S.E. P 755.1 130.8 *** 1741.9 850.3 * ----3864.9 893.1 *** 722.7 2016.9 614.7 2081.9 3189.8 1295.3 * 4795.5 1144.7 *** 5373.5 1992.8 ** 4044.1 2470.9 -1192.9 3249.9 807.5 1745.9 184.4 309.7 8.2 146.2 -15573.6 4346.5 *** Yes 0.210
Effects of Education Philanthropy on Well-being of Low-Income and Gifted Students in China Highlights
Gifted and poor children are hard to reach their potential
Education philanthropy can raise human capital for poor and gifted children
Education philanthropy increases well-being via raising human capital accumulation
25