A Further Note on Migration Patterns and Local Government Policy toward Public EducationAuthor(s): Anthony OstroskySource: Public Choice, Vol. 34, No. 3/4 (1979), pp. 505-507Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30023129 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Choice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:57:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A further note on migration patterns and local government policy toward public education

ANTHONY OSTROSKY*

In a previous issue of this Journal, Professor Cebula (1977, p. 113) has argued that:

. . differential local government commitments to public education may exercise a significant effect on household locational decisions ...

Professor Cebula (1977, p. 114) then proceeds to argue that:

... not only is local government policy toward public education likely to be a possible influence on migration, but the public educational policy itself may be influenced by migration.

While Cebula's analysis is entirely reasonable and is executed in a very com- petent fashion, there are three basic modifications to his model which, if introduced, should act to increase the model's forecasting accuracy and usefulness. First, the dependent variable should be re-specified in two respects. On the one hand, the migration flow ideally should refer to a narrower group than just the 'non-elderly'. We suggest restricting the migrant flow to persons under age 55. This should more accurately reflect the actions of migrants who actually have school-age children. On the other hand, following DaVanzo (1978), the dependent variable (migration) should be scaled by the appropriate population group, in Cebula's case the 1965 total non-elderly population, in our case the total 1965 population under age 55. Second, Cebula's analysis deals with the growth in education spend- ing, and not the level thereof. Since earlier studies, e.g., Pack (1973), have found the level of educational spending rather than its growth rate to be a migration determinant, it would seem reasonable to stress levels rather than growth rates here as well. Third, if migration is then regressed against the level of education spending, it follows that the level of such spending must (in the two-equation system) in turn be regressed against other 'stock' variables, i.e., other levels of variables rather than changes (growth) therein.

* Professor of Economics, Illinois State University.

Public Choice 34 (1979) 505 -507. All rights reserved. Copyright c 1979 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers by, The Hague/Boston/London.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:57:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

506 Notes

The purpose of this Note is to empirically examine Cebula's bi-directional hypothesis within a model having the above modifications. It is hoped that the results may be even more useful than Cebula's.

II To investigate this two-pronged hypothesis, we postulate the following migration model:

Ii = Ii (Ei, Y,, Ui, Ci, Ti) (1)

where

Ii = volume of gross in-migration of persons under age 55 to area i, 1965-1970, expressed as a percentage of the 1965 population in area i under age 55

Ei = public education spending per full-time student in area i, 1967

Yi = per capita income in area i, 1965

Ui = 1965 average unemployment rate in area i Ci = number of days per year (on the average) when the temper-

ature falls to 320 Fahrenheit or below in area i

Ti = per capita property tax level in area i, 1967

The model for investigating educational spending determinants in metro- politan areas is given by:

E = Ei (Ii, Yi, F) (2)

where

Eii,i , = as above Fi = federal education funding per full-time student in

area i, 1965

The results from estimating system (1)-(2) by two stage, least squares are given by:

Ii = + 6.09168 + 0.65235Ei + 0.00219 Yi - 0.32515 Ui - (2.11) (1.96) (0.99)

0.87259Ci - 0.14868 Ti (3) (2.17) (1.74)

DF = 30, F = 15.02

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:57:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Notes 507

and

Ei -4.56113 + 0.38414Ii + 0.62503 Y1 + 0.29405 F (4) (2.18) (2.09) (1.93)

DF = 31, F = 17.13

where terms in parentheses are t-values. The results in (3) and (4) indicate that Ii and Ei are in fact highly inter-

dependent, i.e., that with respect to migration and the level of local govern- ment spending on public education (per full-time student), causality appears to run both ways. This lends further empirical support to the two-pronged hypothesis formulated by Professor Cebula.

III This Note has re-examined Cebula's two-pronged hypothesis and, after making certain structural changes in the model, has found further empirical support for his hypothesis. On the other hand, it is expected here that the present results are perhaps a bit more accurate and hence are of somewhat greater usefulness for forecasting purposes than Cebula's analysis.

References

Cebula, R.J. 'An Analysis of Migration Patterns and Local Government Policy Toward Public Education in the United States.'Public Choice (Winter), 1977.

DaVanzo, J. 'New, Repeat, and Return Migration: Comment.' Southern Economic Journal, January, 1978.

Pack, J. 'Determinants of Migration to Central Cities.' Journal of Regional Science, August, 1973.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:57:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions