| OCR Text |
Show 193 As share of household per a urban and rural rural areas are (3.6 percent to the poor compared expenditure the progressive. Primary the poor compared to 1.4 to the primary capita expenditure, educational to 0.7 to the rich) because education subsidies Variations in the percentage share among Amhara regional poor for primary education, state education subsidies spends far less going and regions urban areas, the percentage is lower for the regions city to poor are (16.4 percent to capital consumption city/towns reasonably of Dire in both greater than the rich. of household are progressive areas share of per a (as percentage while the other and urban rich) as are subsidies both in are on the rural same level. In income) on significant. not the Dawa, while it is almost evenly distributed for other cities/towns. Given the needs of the poor and the benefits of education of (particularly primary schooling), consumption expenditure can be used as a cut off are point, not the total subsidies and their share there is enough. Although it is obvious that should have shown that the poor receive a higher no targeting limited level of as a number that specific resources subsidy than they fraction to the poor are currently getting. 5.4. Summary In terms of the distribution of education find that there is mild subsidy areas is also receives targeting by regions progressive more in the subsidy as a sense regions. More across socio-economic groups, I both in rural and urban that the poorest quintile areas. Education in both urban and rural share of household income. However, variation in per unit subsidies at different levels of the poor among spending schooling explains importantly, differential outcomes in targeting differences in the rate of enrollment among |
