Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:18:26.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quelle place pour les incitations dans la gestion du personnel enseignant?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Françoise Larré  and
Jean-Michel Plassard
Get access

Résumé

A l'heure de l'économie du savoir et de la connaissance, l'éducation est devenue un enjeu majeur et l'enseignant a acquis une place centrale dans le processus de production d'éducation. Dans ces conditions, sont recherchés les moyens d'augmenter la performance des enseignants afin d'améliorer les résultats scolaires des élèves. La mise en place de structures incitatives (notamment la rémunération à la performance) est souvent suggérée mais les études démontrant l'efficacité des incitations restent mitigées.

Cet article propose une revue de la littérature théorique et empirique sur la façon dont les incitations affectent le comportement des enseignants. Les arguments pour et contre la mise en incitation des enseignants sont étu-diés. En particulier, nous examinons i) les difficultés à contrôler et à évaluer la performance des enseignants, ii) la question du travail en équipe dans un contexte d'individualisation de la performance et iii) le problème du multitâches lorsque les incitations portent sur seulement quelques tâches.

Summary

Summary

In the era of the economy of knowledge and learning, education has become a major issue and teacher has become a very important variable in the process of producing education. Incentives as performance-pay for teachers are frequently suggested as a way of improving teacher performance and educational outcomes in schools, but the empirical evidence to date on its effectiveness is mixed.

This paper offers a review of both the theoretical and empirical literature on education experiment and reforms that alter the incentives that teachers face. Arguments for and against teacher incentives are studied. In particular, we examine i) the difficulty in monitoring and evaluation teacher performance, ii) the specific issue of team production in a context of rewarding individual teacher performance and iii) the multi-tasks problem when only some of which are measured and incentivized.

Keywords

rémunération à la performanceincitationsenseignantsévaluationindividualisationmultitâchesI21I28J33J45M52performance payteacher incentivesevaluationgroup and individual incentivesmulti-tasksI21I28J33J45M52
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , 2008 , pp. 359 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Adnett, N., et Alt, J.K., (2002). “Market-Based Reforms of Public Schooling Some Unpleasant Dynamics,” Economics of Education Review, 21, 323–330.Google Scholar
Adnett, N., Bougheas, S., et Davies, P. (2002). “Market-Based Reforms of Public Schooling: Some Unpleast Dynamics,” Economics of Education Review, 323–330.Google Scholar
Adnett, N., et Davies, P. (2000). “Competition and Curriculum Diversity in Local Schooling Markets: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Education Policy, 15, 157–167.Google Scholar
Adnett, N.(2003). “Schooling Reforms in England: From Quasi-Markets to Co-Ope-tition?,” Journal of Education Policy, 18, 393–406.Google Scholar
Alchian, A.A., et Demsetz, H., (1972). “Production. Information Costs and Economie Organization,” American Economie Review, 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
Altonji, J. et Elder, T., Taber, C, (2005), “Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools”, Journal of Political Economy, 113(1), 151–84.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A., Burgess, S., Croxson, B., et Gregg, P. (2004). “Evaluating the Impact of Performance-Related Pay for Teachers in England.,” Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, 60 p.Google Scholar
Bacharach, S.B., Lipsky, D., et Shedd, J., (1984). Paying for Better Teaching Merit Pay and Its Alternatives. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Baiman, S., et Demski, J.S., (1980). “Economically Optimal Performance Evaluation and Control Systems,” Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 184–220.Google Scholar
Baker, G. (1989). “Piece Rate Contracts and Performance Measurement Error,” Manuscript Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Baker, G., Gibbons, R., et Murphy, K.J., (1994). “Subjective Performance Measure in Optimal Incentive Contract,” Quaterly Journal of Economics, 109, 1125–1156.Google Scholar
Ballou, D. (2001). “Pay for Performance in Public and Private Schools,” Economics of Education Review, 20, 51–61.Google Scholar
Ballou, D. et Podgursky, M., (2001). “Let the market decide”. Education Next, 1(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B.D., et Whinston, M.D., (1986). “Common Agency,” Econometrica, 54, 923–942.Google Scholar
Besley, T., et Ghatak, M., (2003). “Incentives, Choice and Accountability in the Provision of Public Service,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 235–249.Google Scholar
Bishop, J., Mane, F., Bishop, M., et Moriarty, J. (2001). “The Role of End-Course Exams and Minimum Competency Exams in Standards-Based Reforms,” in Brooking Papers on Education Policy, ed. by Ravitch, D.. Washington DC: The Brooking Institution, 267–345.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. (2001). “Que Faire Des Décrocheurs ?,” Formation Professionnelle, Cedefop, 43–50.Google Scholar
Bolton, P., et Dewatripont, M. (2005). Contract Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bommer, W.H., Johnson, J.L., et Rich, G.A., (1994). “An Extension of Heneman’s Meta-Analysis of Objective and Subjective Measures of Performance.,” Academy of Management Proceedings, 112–116.Google Scholar
Bull, C., (1987). “The Existence of Self-Enforcing Implicit Contracts,” MIT Press, 147.Google Scholar
Burgess, S., et Rato, M. (2003). “The Role of Incentive in the Public Sector : Issues and Evidence,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 285–300.Google Scholar
Burgess, S., McConnel, B., Propper, C., et Wilson, D. (2004), “Sorting and Choice in English Secondary Schools”, Centre for Market and Public Organisation, Working Paper, 04/111.Google Scholar
Campion, M., et Berger, C., (1990). “Conceptual Integration and Empirical Test of Job Design and Compensation Relationships,” Personnel Psychology, 43, 525–553.Google Scholar
Campion, M., et Thayer, P., (1985). “Job Design : Approaches Outcomes and Trade-Offs,” Organizational Dynamics, 14, 67–78.Google Scholar
Carnoy, M., et Loeb, S., (2002). “Does External Accountability Affect Student Outcomes ? A Cross State Analysis,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 205–331.Google Scholar
Che, Y-K., Yoo, S-W (2001). « Optimal Incentives for Teams », American Economic Review, Vol. 91. N°3, June, pp. 525–541.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J., et Ellison, G. (1997). “Risk Taking by Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives.,” Journal of Political Economy, 105, 1167.Google Scholar
Chubb, J.E. et Moe, T.M. (1990). “Politics and America’s Schools,” The Brookings Institution, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Colclough, C. (1996). “Education and the Market: Which Parts of the Neoliberal Solution Are Correct?,” World Development, 24, 589–610.Google Scholar
Coltham, J.B., (1972). “Educational Accountability. An English Experiment and It’s Outcome,” School Review, 81, 321-.Google Scholar
Cooper, S.T., et Cohn, E.,(1997). “Estimation of a Frontier Production Function for the South Carolina Educational Process,” Economics of Education Review Google Scholar
Education and Work, and Efficiency in Education: Essays in Memory of Charles Scott Benson, 16, 313–327.Google Scholar
Costrell, R. (1994). “A Simple Mode of Educational Standards,” American Economic Review, 84, 956–971.Google Scholar
Dee, T.S., et Keys, B.J., (2004). “Does Merit Pay Reward Good Teachers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.,” Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 23, 471–488.Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M., et Jewitt, I. (1999). “The Economics of Career Concerns, Part Ii: Application to Missions and Accountability of Government Agencies.,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 199–217.Google Scholar
Dewatripont, M., Jewitt, I., et Tiróle, J., (1999). “The Economics of Career Concerns, Part I: Comparing Information Structures.,” Review of Economic Studies, 66, 183–198.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (1996). The Making of Economic Policy : A Transaction Cost Politics Perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (1997). “Power of Incentives in Private Versus Public Organizations,” American Economic Review, 87, 378–383.Google Scholar
Dixit, A.— (2002). “Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpre-tative Review,” Journal of Human Resources, 37, 696–727.Google Scholar
Dixit, A., Grossman, G.M., et Gui, F. (2000). “The Dynamics of Political Compromise,” Journal of Political Economy, 108, 531–568.Google Scholar
Eberts, R.W et Stone, J.A., (1987), “Teacher unions and the productivity of public schools”, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, April, 40(3), 354–63.Google Scholar
Ebberts, R., Hollenbeck, K., et Stone, J., (2002). “Teacher Performance Incentives and Student Outcomes,” Journal of Human Resources, 37, 913–927.Google Scholar
Elmore, R.F., (1991). “Teaching, Learning, and Education for the Public Service,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10, 167.Google Scholar
Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P.L., et McCartney, S.J., (1996). Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning, and School Organization. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Epple, D. & Romano, R.E. (1998), “Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects”, American Economic Review, Volume 88, n°l.Google Scholar
Epple, D., Newlon, E., et Romano, R., (2002). “Ability Tracking, School Competition, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits,” Journal of Public Economics, 83, 1–48.Google Scholar
Epple, D., Figlio, D & Romano, R.E. (2004), “Competition between private and public schools: testing stratification and pricing predictions”, Journal of Public Economics, Volume 88, Issues 7–8, July 2004, Pages 1215–1245.Google Scholar
Figlio, D.N., et Kenny, L.W., (2006). “Individual Teacher Incentives and Student Performance,” NBER Working Paper, 12627.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., (1955). “The Role of Governement in Education,” in Economics and the Public Interest, ed. by Solo, R.A.. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Giret, J.-F., et Lemistre, P. (2004). “Déclassement of the Young People: Towards a Change of the Value of Diplomas?,” Brussels Economic Review, 47, 483–503.Google Scholar
Glewwe, P., Ilias, N., et Kremer, M. (2003). “Teacher Incentives,” NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar
Glewwe, P., Kremer, M., Moulin, S., et Zitzewitz, E., (2004). “Retrospective Vs. Prospective Analyses of School Inputs: The Case of Flip Charts in Kenya,” Journal of Development Economics, 74, 251–268.Google Scholar
Green, J., et Stockey, N., (1983). “A Comparison of Tournaments and Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy, 91, 349–364.Google Scholar
Griffin, R., et McMahan, G. (1993). “Job Design : A Contemporary Review of Future,” CEO Publications, Τ 93–12.Google Scholar
Grout, P.A., et Steven, M., (2003). “Financing and Managing Public Services : An Assessment,” CMPO Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
Gurgand, (2005). Economie De L’éducation. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Hannaway, J., (1992). “Higher Order Skills, Job Design and Analysis and Proposal,” American Educational Research Journal, 20-.Google Scholar
Hanuschek, E.A., et Kimko, D.D., (2000). “Schooling, Labor-Force Quality, and the Growth of Nations,” American Economic Review, 90, 1184–1208.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A., et Raymond, M.E., (2001). “The Confusing World of Educational Accountability.,” National Tax Association, 365.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2003). “Improving Educational Quality: How Best to Evaluate Our Schools?,” in Education in the Twenty-First Century: Meeting the Challenges of a Changing World, ed. by Kodrzycki, Y.. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 193–224.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2004). “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Perfor-mance?,” NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E.A. (2005). “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Perfor-mance?,” Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 24, 297–327.Google Scholar
Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S. (2003), “Does public school competition affect teacher quality?”, in Hoxby, C.M. (ed.), The Economics of School Choice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harris, D., et Herrington, C., (2006). “La Régulation Par Les Résultats Con-tribue-T-Elle À L’amélioration Des Écoles,” in Améliorer L’école, ed. by Chapelle, G., and Meuret, D., Paris: PUF, 203–214.Google Scholar
Harris, M., et Holmstrom, B., (1982). “A Theory of Wage Dynamics,” The Review of Economic Studies, 49, 315–333.Google Scholar
Hatry, H., Greiner, J.M., et Ashford, B.C., (1994). Issues and Case Studies in Teacher Incentive Plans. Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Heneman, R.L., (1988). “Performance Assessment: Methods and Applications (Book).” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 41, 480–481.Google Scholar
Holstrom, B., (1982a). “Moral Hazard in Teams,” Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 324–340.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B., (1982b). “Managerial Incentives - a Dynamic Perspective,” in Essays in Honor of Lars Wahlbeck, Helsinki: Swedish School of Economics.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B., et Milgrom, P., (1990). “Regulating Trade among Agents,” Journal of Institutional and Theoritical Economics, 146, 85–105.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. (1991). “Multitask Principal Agent Analysis : Incentives Contracts, Asset Ownership and Job Design” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7, 24–52.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. (1994). “The Firm as an Incentive System.,” American Economic Review, 84, 972.Google Scholar
Hoxby, C.M., (1994). “Do Private Schools Provide Competition for Public Schools,” in Mimeo, Département of Economics. MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Hoxby, C.M., (1996). “Are Efficiency and Equity in School Finance Substitutes or Complements?,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 51–72.Google Scholar
Hoxby, C.M., (2002). “Would School Choice Change the Teaching Profession?,” The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 846.Google Scholar
Hoxby, C.M. (2003). “School Choice and School Productivity (Or, Could School Choice be a Rising Tide that Lifts All Boats?)", in Hoxby, C., ed. "The Economics of School Choice”, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Economics of Education Review, Vol 24, 2, 244–245 Google Scholar
Ilgen, D., et Hollenbek, J., (1990). “The Structure of Work : Job Design and Roles,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. by Diunnette, M., and Hough, L., Palo, Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Itoh, H., (1991). “Incentives to Help in Multi-Agent Situations,” Econometrica, 59, 611.Google Scholar
Jacob, B.A., et Lefgren, L. (2005). “Principals as Agents: Subjective Performance Measurement in Education,” NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar
Jacob, B.A., et Levitt, D., (2002). “Rotten Apples : An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating,” NBER Working Paper.Google Scholar
Jacob, B.A., (2003). “Catching Cheating Teachers: The Results of an Unusual Expe-riment in Implementing Theory,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Ine, NBER Working Papers: 9414.Google Scholar
Jarousse, J.-P., (1999). “Evaluer Les Systèmes Éducatifs : De Quoi Parle-TOn ?,” in Administrer, Gérer, Evaluer Les Systèmes Éducatifs : Une Encyclopédie Pour Aujourd’hui, ed. by Paul, J.-J.. Paris: ESF, 159–184.Google Scholar
Kandel, E., et Lazear, E.P., (1992). “Peer Pressure and Partnerships,” Journal of Political Economy, 100, 801–817.Google Scholar
Kane, T.J., et Staiger, D.O., (2002). “The Promise and Pitfals of Using Imprecise School Accountability Measures,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 91–114.Google Scholar
Karsten, S., (1994). “Policy of Ethnic Segregation in a System of Choice : The Case of Netherland,” Journal of Education Policy, 9, 211–225.Google Scholar
Koretz, D., (2002). “Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educator' Productivity,” Journal of human resources, 37, 752–777.Google Scholar
Kreps, D.M., (1990). “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory,” in Perspective on Positive Political Economy, ed. by Alt, J.K., and Shepsle, K.A., New-York: Cambridge University Press, 90–143.Google Scholar
Kurth, M., (1987), “Teachers’unions and exellence in education: an analysis of the decline un SAT scores”, Journal of Labor Research, 8, 351–87.Google Scholar
Ladd, H.F., (1999). “The Dallas School Accountability and Incentive Program: An Evaluation of Its Impacts on Student Outcomes,” Economics of Education Review, 18, 1–16.Google Scholar
Ladd, H.F., (2002). “School Vouchers: A Critical View,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 3–24.Google Scholar
Laffont, J.-J., et Martimort, D., (2002). The Theory of Incentives. The Principal Agent Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laffont, J.-J., et Tiróle, J., (1991). “Privatization and Incentives” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 84–105, Special I.Google Scholar
Lankford, H., et Wyckoff, J., (1992). “Primary and Secondary School Choice among Public and Religious Alternatives,” Economics of Education Review, 11, 317–337.Google Scholar
Lavy, V., (2003). “Paying for Performance : The Effect of Teachers’ Financial Incentives on Students’ Scholastic Outcomes,” Discussion Paper Series, CEPR, n°3862, 56.Google Scholar
Lawler, E.E., et Hall, D.T., (1970). “Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction and Intrinsinc Motivation,” Journal of Applied psychology, 54, 305–312.Google Scholar
Lazear, E.P., (1986). “Salaries and Piece Rates.,” University of Chicago Press, 405–431.Google Scholar
Lazear, E.P., (1989). “Pay Equality and Industrial Politics,” Journal of Political Eco-nomy, 97, 561–580.Google Scholar
Lazear, E.P. (1998). Personnel Economies for Managers. New York; Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lazear, E.P. (2001). “Educational production”, Quarterly Journal of Economies, 116(3), pp. 777–803.Google Scholar
Lazear, E.P., et Rosen, S. (1981). “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts,” The Journal of Political Economy, 89, 841–864.Google Scholar
Legrand, J. (2003). Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacMillan, R (2004), “Competition, Incentives, and Public School Productivity ”, Journal of Public Economics 88, 1871–92, 2004.Google Scholar
McEwan, P., et Carnoy, M. (2000). “The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Private Schools in Chile’s Voucher System,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 213–239.Google Scholar
Merrifield, J. (1999), “Monopsony power in the market for teachers: why teachers should support market based education reform”, Journal of Labor Research 20, 3, 377–91.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., et Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization and Management. London: Prenctice Hall., traduction française (1997), Economie, Organisation et Management, Bruxelles: PUG/ DeBoeck.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P.R. (1988). “Employment Contracts, Influence Activities, and Efficient Organization Design.,” Journal of Political Economy, 96, 42.Google Scholar
Mookherjee, D. (1984). “Optimal Incentive Schemes with Many Agents.,” Review of Economic Studies, 51, 433–446.Google Scholar
Murname, R.J., et Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the New Basic Skills. New-York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Murnane, R., et Cohen, D.K. (1986). “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem : Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and a Few Survive,” Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1–17.Google Scholar
Nalebuff, B.J., et Stiglitz, J.E. (1983). “Prizes and Incentives: Towards a General Theory of Compensation and Competition.,” Bell Journal of Economics, 14, 21–43.Google Scholar
Neal, D. (2001). “How Vouchers Could Change the Market for Education,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 25–44.Google Scholar
Nechyba, T.J. (1999), “School Finance Induced Migration Patterns: The Impact of Private School Vouchers”., Journal of Public Economics Theory. 1.1., pp. 98–123.Google Scholar
Nechyba, T.J. (2000), “Mobility, Targeting and Private School Vouchers”, American Economic Review 90 (1), 130–46, 2000.Google Scholar
Nechyba, T.J. (2002). “Introducing School Choice into Multi-District Public School System,” in The Economics of School Choice, ed. by Hoxby, C.M.. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Nechyba, T.J. (2003), “Introducing School Choice into Multi-District Public School Systems”, in the Economics of School Choice (Hoxby, C, ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 145–94.Google Scholar
OCDE (2005). Regards Sur L’éducation 2005. Les Indicateurs De L’ocde. Google Scholar
Oyer, P. (1998). “Fiscal Year Ends and Nonlinear Incentive Contracts: The Effect on Business Seasonality.,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 149–185.Google Scholar
Paine, T. (1791). Rights of Man, Being an Answer to Mr. Burke’s Attack on the French Revolution. London: J. S. Jordan.Google Scholar
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T.R., Thompson, L., et Burr, R. (2000). “Collective Efficacy and Aspects of Shared Mental Models as Predictors of Performance over Time in Work Groups.,” Group Processes & Inter-group Relations, 3, 296.Google Scholar
Plassard, J.-M., et Thi Than, N.T. (2006). “Les Vouchers En Éducation : Une Évaluation Du Dispositif Au Plan De L’équité Et De L’éffica-cité,” in Economie Sociale Et Droit, ed. by Boussseau-Dubois, C. and Jean-Didier, B. Nancy: L’Harmattan, 164–177.Google Scholar
Prendergast, C. (1999). “The Provision of Incentives in Firms,” Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 7–63.Google Scholar
Rapp, G.C. (2000). “Agency and Choice in Education : Does School Choice Enhance the Work Effort Teacher ?,” Education Economics, 8, 35–63.Google Scholar
Santiago, P., (2004), “The labour market for teacher”, in International Handbook on the economics of education. Edward Elgar Publishing UK, USA, pp 522–579.Google Scholar
Shleifer, A. (1998), “State versus private ownership”, Journal of Economics perspectives 12, 4 : 133–50.Google Scholar
Steelman, L-C, Powel, B et Carini, RM., (2000), “Do teacher unions hinder educational performance? Lessons learned from state SAT and ACT scores”, Harvard Educational Review, Winter, 70(4).Google Scholar
Turner, A. et Lawrence, P. (1965). The industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, V. (1996). “Educational Quasi-Markets Functioning and Regulation,” CIACCO, Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, V. (1999). “Cost Efficiency and Feasability of Education Policy in the Presence of Local Social Externalities,” Working Papers, Université Catholique de Louvain - I.R.E.S., 9921.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, V. (2002). “Evaluating the Magnitude and the Stakes of Peer Effects Analysis Science and Math Achievement across Oecd,” Applied Economics, 34, 1283–1290.Google Scholar
Vandenberghe, V., et Robin, S. (2004). “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Private Education across Countries: A Comparison of Methods,” Labour Economics European Association of Labour Economists 15th Annual Conference, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, 18–21 September 2003, 11, 487–506.Google Scholar
Vedder, R et Hall, J. (2000), “Private School competition and public school teacher salaries”, Journal of Labor Research 21, 1: 161–8.Google Scholar
Wastlander, S., et Trupp, M. (1995). “Choice Competition and Segregation: An Empirical Analysis of a New Zeland School Market,” Journal of Education Policy, 10, 1–26.Google Scholar
Willms, D.J., et Echols, F. (1992). “Alert and Inert Clients: The Scottish Experience of Parental Choice of Schools,” Economics of Education Review, 11, 339–350.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1989). “Bureacracy”, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Winkler, D.R., et Rounds, T. (1996). “Municipal and Private Sector Response to Decentralization and School Choice,” Economics of Education Review, 15, 365–376.Google Scholar
Wosmann, L. (2000). “Schooling Ressources, Educational Institutions and Student Performance: The International Evidence,” Kiel Working Paper, 983, 87 p.Google Scholar