2014 | 6(131) | 5–22
Article title

Inequity in a decentralised education system – evidence from Poland

Title variants
Languages of publication
Decentralisation of education is associated with risk of increased spatial inequality in terms of inputs and the quality of service, as with other public services. Most countries attempt to prevent inequality both through establishment of national standards for educational services and the redistribution of financial resources to neutralise the effect of uneven local tax bases. This study investigates the effectiveness of these measures in Poland. Using panel data at a municipal level, it was shown that, despite the various compensatory instruments employed by central government, the local tax base significantly influences local spending on lower secondary schools. Average teaching time and additional services offered to students were compared between the most affluent and the poorest Polish gminas (municipalities). The findings indicated that teaching time did not vary significantly according to prosperity. Also, there was no significant difference in the mean teacher hourly wage. However, more affluent and poorer municipalities differed with respect to individual support and additional services offered to students.
Physical description
  • Educational Research Institute
  • Educational Research Institute
  • Ahlin, A. and Mork, E. (2008). Effects of decentralization on school resources. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 276–284.
  • Björklund, A., Clark, M. A., Edin, P. A., Fredriksson, P. and Krueger, A. B. (2006). The market comes to education in Sweden. An evaluation of Sweden’s surprising school reforms. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Borge, L.-E. and Rattsø, J. (1993). Dynamic responses to changing demand: a model of the reallocation process in small and large municipalities in Norway. Applied Economics, 25(5), 589–598.
  • Borge, L.-E., Brueckner, J. K. and Rattsø, J. (2012). Partial fiscal decentralization and public-sector heterogeneity: theory and evidence from Norway. CESIFO working paper no. 3954 category 1: public finance, October 2012. Retrieved from
  • Brimley, V. and Garfield, R. (2002). Financing education in a climate of change. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Company.
  • Brueckner, J. K. (2009). Partial fiscal decentralization. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 23–32.
  • Canning, M., Moock, P. and Heleniak, T. (1999). Reforming education in the regions of Russia. World Bank Technical Paper No. 487. Retrieved from
  • Card, D. and Payne, A. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 49–82.
  • Faguet, J.-P. (2004). Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs? Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88(3–4), 867–893.
  • Fiske, E. B. (1996). Decentralization of education. politics and consensus. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • Fiszbein, A. (2001). Decentralizing education in transition societies: case studies from Central and Eastern Europe. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • Herbst, M., Herczyński, J. and Levitas, A. (2009). Finansowanie oświaty w Polsce. Diagnoza, dylematy, możliwości [Financing of education in Poland. Diagnosis, dilemmas, opportunities]. Warszawa: Scholar.
  • Herbst, M. (ed.). (2012). Decentralizacja oświaty [Decentralisation of educatuion]. Warszawa: ICM UW.
  • Hoxby, C. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. The Quaterly Journal of Economics, 16(4), 1189–1231.
  • Jakubowski, M. and Topińska I. (2006). Impact of decentralization on public service delivery and equity: education and health sectors in Poland 1998–2003. Warszawa: CASE.
  • Levačić, R. (2007). World Bank study: a stocktaking of per capita financing in education in Poland. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
  • Manwaring, R. and Sheffrin, S. (1997). Litigation, school finance reform, and aggregate educational spending. International Tax and Public Finance, 4(2), 107–127
  • Murray, S. E., Evans, W. N. and Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education–finance reform and the distribution of education resources. The American Economic Review, 88(4), 789–812.
  • Najwyższa Izba Kontroli [NIK] (2008). Wysokość części oświatowej subwencji ogólnej otrzymanej przez jednostki samorządu terytorialnego a wielkość wydatków faktycznie ponoszonych na realizację zadań oświatowych [The size of the general educational subsidies received by the local government units and the size of the expenditure actually incurred for the implementation of educational tasks]. Retrieved from
  • Oates, W. E. (1972). Ficsal federalism. New York, NY: Hartcourt.
  • Roelke, Ch., Green, P. and Zielewski, E. (2004). School finance litigation, the promises of the third wave. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 104–133.
  • Prawda, J. (1993). Educational decentralization in Latin America: lessons learned. International Journal of Educational Development, 13(3), 253–64.
  • Silva, F. and Sonstelie, J.(1995). Did Serrano cause a decline in school spending? National Tax Journal, 48(2), 199–215
  • Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
  • Tsang, M. C. (1996). Financial reform of basic education in China. Economics of Education Review, 15(4), 423–444.
  • Winkler, D., Rounds, T. (1996). Municipal and private sector response to decentralization and school choice. Economics of Education Review, 15(4), 365–376.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.