【正文】
100% when all revenue and cost items are expressed in current dollars. Generally speaking, studies of the rate of return to education done in this way show all levels of education with private rates of return higher than the opportunity cost of capital. This means that spending money on education yields a higher rate of return than most alternative uses of the money. Many of these studies argue that the social rate of return to education is lower than the private rate of return because they assume the benefits are the same but that the costs are lower for individuals because governments subsidize education. Under these assumptions, we get Social rate of return = increase in lifetime earnings/total cost of education Private rate of return = increase in lifetime earnings/private share of total cost Where private sharetotal cost If this is correct, then it means that students (or their parents) should pay more of the costs of education. As long as students can earn a rate of return from education greater than the opportunity cost of capital, then they will still buy education and should pay the full cost. These studies also argue that more money should be spent on primary education than on secondary education and more on secondary education than on higher education because this reflects relative rates of return. It is certainly true that there are many examples of high returns to primary education. A World Bank study, for example, shows the proportion of growth in high performance Asian economies predicted by enrolments in primary education. These numbers are all above 50% and some are above 85%. We also have to remember that education is a cumulative process. You have to have primary education before you can go on to secondary education and you need to plete secondary school before you can go on to tertiary education. So the process must start with primary education. But this still leaves open the question of who pays. To answer this, we have to introduce th