Arbeitspapier
How do people trade off resources between quick and slow learners?
How society invests in human capital is important for economic growth and social welfare. The paper reports from the first experiment designed to elicit people's preferences for how to prioritize educational resources, where 2,000 Americans trade off educational resources between quick and slow learners. I find that they give strong priority to slow learners and assign two thirds of the educational resources to this group. Both cost efficiency and the motivation of the learners causally affect the resource allocation. The findings provide important insights for the present policy debate on how to distribute educational resources in society.
- Sprache
-
Englisch
- Erschienen in
-
Series: Discussion Papers of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods ; No. 2021/4
- Klassifikation
-
Wirtschaft
Design of Experiments: Laboratory, Individual
Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
Distribution: General
Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
Education and Inequality
Education: Government Policy
- Thema
-
Human capital investment
preferences
inequality
experiment
education
- Ereignis
-
Geistige Schöpfung
- (wer)
-
Falch, Ranveig
- Ereignis
-
Veröffentlichung
- (wer)
-
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
- (wo)
-
Bonn
- (wann)
-
2021
- Handle
- Letzte Aktualisierung
-
10.03.2025, 11:43 MEZ
Datenpartner
Dieses Objekt wird bereitgestellt von:
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Objekttyp
- Arbeitspapier
Beteiligte
- Falch, Ranveig
- Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
Entstanden
- 2021
Ähnliche Objekte (12)
Trade in mineral resources
Evolving Phillips trade-off
Proximity-Concentration Trade-Off
The Interplay of Cognitive Load, Learners’ Resources and Self-regulation
LexCH: a quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese Learners
Quantile risk-return trade-off
Growth-and-risk trade-off
Is the quantity-quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Is the quantity quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Sustainability and international trade in resources
The Trade and Resources of Tibet.
Sustainability and international trade in resources
Trade in mineral resources
Evolving Phillips trade-off
Proximity-Concentration Trade-Off
The Interplay of Cognitive Load, Learners’ Resources and Self-regulation
LexCH: a quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese Learners
Quantile risk-return trade-off
Growth-and-risk trade-off
Is the quantity-quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Is the quantity quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Sustainability and international trade in resources
The Trade and Resources of Tibet.
Sustainability and international trade in resources
Trade in mineral resources
Evolving Phillips trade-off
Proximity-Concentration Trade-Off
The Interplay of Cognitive Load, Learners’ Resources and Self-regulation
LexCH: a quick and reliable receptive vocabulary size test for Chinese Learners
Quantile risk-return trade-off
Growth-and-risk trade-off
Is the quantity-quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Is the quantity quality trade-off a trade-off for all, none, or some?
Sustainability and international trade in resources
The Trade and Resources of Tibet.