Evaluation of Family Involvement in Early Childhood Programs During the 2000s

1. Accueil
2. Revues
3. Revue d'économie politique
4. Numéro 2010/5 (Vol. 120)
5. Parental Interest in Schoolhouse :...

• Parental Interest in Schoolhouse : A Literature Review
• Suivre cet auteur Francesco Avvisati, Suivre cet auteur Bruno Besbas, Suivre cet auteur Nina Guyon
• Dans Revue d'économie politique 2010/5 (Vol. 120), pages 759 à 778

• Article
• Résumé
• Plan
• Bibliographie
• Auteurs
• Cité par
• Sur un sujet proche
• file_download Télécharger
• Commodity
  • Article
  • Résumé
  • Plan
  • Bibliographie
  • Auteurs
  • Cité par
  • Sur un sujet proche
  • file_download Télécharger

Introduction

1 "What makes a perfect parent?" asks chapter five of best-selling book "Freakonomics" (Levitt & Dubner [2005, p. 147-176]). Parenting, as an art and science, has a number of bonny characteristics to an economist like Steve Levitt, who sees economics as a subject field "with excellent tools for gaining answers but a serious shortage of interesting questions". People spend huge amounts of time and money seeking for advice on parenting, as reflected past the blooming media industry devoted to the discipline. Today, "parenting theories" are gaining influence into shaping childhood and education policies. Withal, much of what is believed in this field rests on experts' opinions, and there is few solid testify on the benefits of parental investments.

2 Disappointingly, Levitt'due south answer to how much parents thing for a child'south success is – to quote Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner [2005, p. 175]):

three "It isn't then much a matter of what y'all do as a parent; it's who you lot are."

4 The reason is that much of what parents do can be traced dorsum to who they are: parental attitudes are strongly shaped by their own background and environment. And in standard regression analysis, once background characteristics are factored in, a lot of the correlation of parental behavior with the kid'southward outcomes disappears.

5 If Levitt'southward answer was correct, then parental involvement in school would exist a waste of parental time. All the same in many countries, the general climate in the educational activity community has pushed schools to reform, giving a more of import part to parents [1]. Plans to foster parental involvement have been already scaled upward to the national level, and include in some respects the "No Child Left Behind" Human activity (2001) for the US, and the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper (2003) for the Uk. But fifty-fifty before federal or national funding became available, there has been a huge evolution of local initiatives to raise the dialogue between parents, local communities, and schools. What is more, researchers have taken an active role in organizing this effort in the United states of america, where a National Network of Partnership Schools based at the John Hopkins University has been established since 1996 [two].

6 In this article we review what nosotros know about levels, determinants and effects of parental involvement in school, and what we could learn from the current wave of reforms.

7 Parental interest, from an economist'south perspective, can be defined every bit direct attempt, provided past the parent, in guild to increase educational outcomes of their children. This definition implicitly refers to an education production function, and makes parental interest i of its arguments. The broad perspective adopted here mirrors the definition of family involvement past the Harvard Family Research Project, one of the leading research groups into family unit involvement outside economic science: their definition includes all activities past parents that are intentionally "linked to learning" (Bouffard & Weiss [2008]). This review is concerned with parental interest in school, defined as the efforts delivered past parents while their kid is in school age. Traditionally, yet, sociologists and practitioners in education have defined family unit involvement from the school'due south perspective.

8 At that place are other attempts at defining parental involvement in school. Traditional definitions are limited to school-related activities, and sociologists have made the distinction betwixt abode-based activities (e.thou. helping children with homework, discussing their children's experiences at school) and school-based activities (e.chiliad., advice with the school and participation in school-based activities) (Sui-Chu & Willms [1996]; Deslandes & Bertrand [2004]; Walker et al. [2005]; Dark-green et al. [2007]).

9 The motivation of better educational outcomes for the child is common to well-nigh attempts at defining parental interest past didactics scholars. Parental involvement is therefore instrumental to achievement, which in this view is what parents care nearly. As a consequence, the furnishings of parental involvement are generally measured on children. Some stakeholders, however, run across parental involvement equally benefiting also, or mostly, parents themselves; national or local parental interest programmes past schools are primarily, in this view, a way to increase "client satisfaction" [3].

ten The role of economics in such a field - which is originally a field mostly studied by sociologists and psychologists - is thus mainly to answer the post-obit questions: what is the causal bear on of the level of interest, for each kind of spontaneous parental involvement that exists, on children? And what are the causal impacts of the parental involvement programmes that accept been implemented past governments and researchers on children? Therefore, this review begins with a comprehensive survey of the economic literature on the levels, the effects and the determinants of (broadly defined) parental involvement. [iv]

eleven Afterward this brusk review of the economic literature, we choose (mainly) non-economical literature on parental interest in instruction, to lay the foundations, in the three last capacity, for a deeper economic understanding of its importance. This review is far from being exhaustive concerning the non-economic literature and selects just the main studies answering iii objectives.

12 The first objective is to review psychological theories on the motives for involvement, and the mechanisms that could justify a positive issue of parental interest. The second objective is to await for empirical bear witness on the determinants of spontaneous levels of parental involvement. The sociological literature in particular enriches our understanding of interest choices past pointing to costs and barriers to interest that are across parents' control. Finally, the final objective is to review what is known today about the impact of parental involvement, and studies on parental involvement programmes – complementing studies on spontaneous levels of parental interest – are the but non-economic studies allowing to measure out a causal touch. They consequently tin give a partial answer to the 2nd question, but high quality program evaluation studies are actually rare [five].

13 A major shortcoming of much of the existing empirical literature on the impacts of parental involvement is indeed its failure to account for the fact that parents do not randomly select their level of interest and are not randomly selected to participate in parental interest programmes, then that whatsoever relationship between family involvement and children's outcomes need not be causal. In the conclusion, we argue that economists could contribute to the contend, by eliciting sound causal relationships.

1. The economic literature on family unit interest in education

xiv Economists of education are primarily concerned with resource devoted to instruction and their returns. Parental time is a quantitatively of import input into the the education production function; however, nosotros know very little on the causal link betwixt levels of involvement and children's success.

xv Time utilise surveys, which permit us to compare countries, social classes, and to elicit trends, certificate the fact that fifty-fifty after the pre-school years, parents in the industrialized countries continue to spend substantial amounts of time in childcare activities (Guryan et al. [2008]). Ii French surveys [6] specifically focus on educational involvement of families. They bear witness that time spent past parents doing homework assignments with children increased, betwixt 1991 and 2002, by half an hour; in the early on 2000s this item form of involvement absorbs about 19 hours on average per month for unproblematic school children, 14 hours of parental time for middle school children and 6 hours for high-school children. Moreover, the number of parents declaring positive hours spent doing homework with their children also increased in this time-bridge (Gouyon [2004]).

16 Given the importance of parental interest both in everyday life and within the policy contend on educational activity, the relative silence of economists on this topic – no chapter, for instance, is devoted to information technology in the Handbook of the Economics of Teaching (Hanushek & Welch [2006]) – is surprising at first sight.

17 Nosotros believe that the scarcity of research into returns to family unit involvement can be explained past 2 limitating factors: the availability of data that mensurate inputs and outputs simultaneously, and the identification hypotheses imposed on data to credibly judge returns, that further reduce the number of suitable data sets.

18 To explain this latter indicate, consider the two approaches used in the economic literature to measure returns to inputs into education (Todd & Wolpin [2003]).

19 The get-go uses observational data – with a clear preference for nationally representative surveys – to estimate structurally the parameters of an education production function. The usual simplifying assumption is that the product function is approximately linear in the inputs and in the unobserved endowments (Todd & Wolpin [2007]). The estimation of returns is still challenging considering (i) some inputs are missing in datasets and (two) observed inputs are endogenous with respect to unobserved endowments. This is particularly true for involvement measures, which can always be criticized for being badly measured or endogenous with respect to some unobserved variable. Identification of returns relies, in these studies, on assumptions under which the unobservable inputs and endowments can be ignored; typically, the variation over time in inputs is considered to be more exogenous than the level of inputs at a given bespeak in fourth dimension, and regularity conditions are imposed on the effects of (unobserved) past investments with respect to nowadays outcomes: nether these hypotheses, a fixe-effect estimation is performed. Equally can exist seen, the identification argument restricts datasets that economists can rely upon to rich longitudinal data-sets.

twenty The 2d approach focuses on a reduced form parameter combining the direct (ceteris paribus) effect of an input and its indirect effect (through modification in the levels of other, normally unobserved, inputs). Identification of this combined effect relies on experimental data, or on instrumental variable estimation in the context of "natural experiments" – which might refer to specific contexts from which it is difficult to describe general conclusions. This arroyo exploits exogenous shocks which affect the level of an input of the education product function; while situations that touch on levels of interest are probably non uncommon, the exogenous nature of the daze is generally more than questionable and the chances that an unexpected shock gets captured in survey data are limited.

21 Whatsoever the arroyo, there is a clear shortage of data which measure both the components of parental involvement that stakeholders seem to consider important and the outputs economists worry about. This limits the possibilities of estimating the effect of parental involvement within structural estimation of an education production part, and of instrumental variables estimation of its "local average treatment effect".

22 Withal, a few studies are relatively close to this; on the structural side, they are mostly based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979 – Children Sample (a sample of children born to women in the NLSY 1979 cohort). Todd & Wolpin [2007], focusing on exam scores, notice very significant returns to nowadays and lagged investments in "home inputs"; their finding is peculiarly important because they exercise not find significant returns to "school inputs". The domicile inputs measure, however, while related to parental involvement every bit nosotros defined it, is a larger aggregate of information on the overall quality of the home environment – including the emotional and exact responsiveness of the mother, maternal acceptance of and interest with the kid, arrangement of the environment, presence of materials for learning, and multifariousness of stimulation [seven]. Cunha & Heckman [2008] extend the assay to account for the stardom betwixt cerebral and non-cognitive skills, and construct their own aggregate of parental inputs from NLSY-CS information (a proxy for both direct and mediated investments into the child'south education). They conclude that parental inputs are relatively more effective in raising non-cerebral skills than cognitive skills, and that critical stages for the development of non-cerebral skills occur until tardily into childhood, in dissimilarity to critical stages for cognitive skill development which are located in early childhood. Narrower definitions of parental inputs from NLSY-CS data, that are closer to a proxy for involvement, are used in Aizer [2004] and Welsch & Zimmer [2008]. Aizer [2004] focuses on the impact of developed supervision after school on behavioral outcomes for children anile 10 to 14: using family fixed effects to control for unobserved family characteristics, thus exploiting the within family unit variation and assuming this variation is driven by exogenous factors, she finds that adult supervision is associated with a subtract in risky or antisocial behavior. The impact of adult supervision on cognitive achievement, using these data, is examined in Welsch & Zimmer [2008]: they use a child fixed furnishings interpretation, thus exploiting within-child time variation in supervision, and discover no significant impact on test scores. In both studies supervision is an indicator equal to 1 if the child is in the presence of an adult after schoolhouse.

23 On the other side, causal inference based on natural experiments, which mirror idea experiments involving counterfactual situations, is very limited in this field. It seems indeed difficult to imagine an exogenous instrument that has an bear on only on how parents care for their children; randomized experiments would exist blamed as unethical, if they tried to dictate to parents how they should deport. A few specific situations, whose generalizability and link with parental involvement tin can be questioned (even more than so with parental interest in schoolhouse), shed even so some light on the role of parental care for children's outcomes: prominent examples include studies of adoption (see, eastward.g. Sacerdote [2002]), divorce (see, e.g. Piketty [2003]), or on the number of children using twin births as an instrument (run into, e.g. Black et al. [2005]).

24 Outside the economics of education, economical scholars have started to become interested in the determinants of parental interest in education. In a recent working paper, Patacchini & Zenou [2007] written report the decision of parents to become involved equally an intergenerational cultural transmission machinery. Parents decide their involvement endeavor in order to maximize their donating utility, which includes the child's discounted probability of succeeding. Parents tin increase success probabilities through their own effort; success as well depends on the quality of the neighborhood and the parents' social class. Using UK data from the National Child Development Written report (NCDS) [8], the authors find support for the cultural complementarity hypothesis: the better the quality of the neighborhood, the more than parents invest in their child's pedagogy. While they discover that the correlation is largely driven past positive sorting, they claim that part of it are pure peer effects: neighborhood quality increases the productivity of ain investment, as documented by the fact that the correlation is still pregnant on the sub-sample of families which did never modify neighborhood between 3 years earlier the child was built-in and the moment their involvement is measured.

25 A straightforward extension to the altruistic utility function in Patacchini & Zenou [2007] would be to add "identity" to the parents' utility (Akerlof & Kranton [2002]). Identity, or self-image, is defined as a office of the lucifer between the ethics for the chosen social category and the parents' actual behavior and characteristics. With these preferences, parents investing effort to get involved in their child's education derive utility both through the effect of their investment on the child'south success, and through the influence of this investment on their own self-image.

two. Why do parents get involved in their children'southward education?

26 Nosotros brainstorm our review of non-economic literature by presenting theories of why parents of school-aged children get involved in their child's education. What are the relevant process variables according to research in psychology, sociology, and education, that motivate the decision by parents to go involved, and why does this involvement positively influence educational outcomes?

27 Co-ordinate to the psychological model proposed by Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler [1995], three (dynamic) constructs primarily influence parents' interest decisions:

28

1. The parents' understanding of their role in the child's life: what they believe that parents are supposed to practise in relation to their children'southward education and educational progress. Parents become involved in schools if they hold the conventionalities that they should be involved.
2. The parents' sense of efficacy for helping their child succeed in school: practice parents believe that their interest tin can exert a positive influence on children's educational outcomes?
3. The full general invitations, demands, and opportunities for parental involvement by both the child and the child's schoolhouse: do parents perceive that the child and the schoolhouse want them to be involved?

29 Scholars in this field have constructed scales, rooted in psychologic role and efficacy theories and assessed for reliability, that allow scholars to rank parents with respect to their function construction and their sense of efficacy; didactics scholars, following Epstein [1986] and Epstein et al. [1994], take established scales for measuring parents' perception of invitations to involvement and for assessing their level of interest. A recent instance of these scales, with references to previous work, can be found in Walker et al. [2005].

30 Using these measures, the importance of the three mentioned constructs in influencing the decision to become involved has been explored through multivariate analysis of questionnaire data. Although results vary depending on the specific context examined, a general finding is that all constructs appear to brand significant contributions to explaining involvement (Reed et al. [2000]); however, further results of these empirical studies have led to an of import distinction of mechanisms guiding involvement at dwelling house and at schoolhouse (Deslandes & Bertrand [2004]). Specifically, for abode-based interest, efficacy seems to play a pre-eminent function, while for schoolhouse-based involvement, invitations from teachers and children provide the biggest contribution in explaining levels of interest (Deslandes & Bertrand [2004]; Light-green et al. [2007]).

31 If parental involvement is instrumental to children'south outcomes, a psychological theory of parental involvement must also accost the reason why parental involvement can positively influence the kid'southward accomplishment.

32 The model by Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler [1995, 1997] allows for iii primary mechanisms through which parents, by increasing their interest in education, can conduct an influence on children's educational outcomes: modeling, reinforcement, and direct pedagogy. Modeling theory predicts that children will emulate their parents' behavior; by devoting interest and time to activities related to schooling, parents thus raise the possibilities that children exercise well in schoolhouse. Reinforcement indicates the mechanism by which parent give their children interest, attending, praise and rewards related to behaviors that lead to schoolhouse success. If these psychological incentives do not interfere with the child's intrinsic motivation and are valued by the child, they increase the effort exerted past the child to carry in ways important to schoolhouse success. Finally, parents can influence their children'southward educational outcomes by direct teaching.

33 Educational outcomes which are influenced by parental involvement through the cited mechanisms include both cognitive skills (peculiarly through direct education, but also through modeling and reinforcement) and not-cognitive skills, amid which the most significant – according to Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler [1995] – is the child's sense of efficacy for doing well at school. The theory predicts that children whose parents are involved in their teaching will be more probable to develop a strong, positive sense of efficacy for successfully achieving in school-related tasks than will children whose parents are not involved.

three. The Determinants of Spontaneous Levels of Parental Interest

34 Virtually of the existing empirical literature on parental involvement focuses on spontaneous levels of involvement. Contempo inquiry in this area adopts advanced statistical techniques to draw the scope and scale of involvement: determinants, workout factors, and levels. The bulk of studies focuses on parental covariates of interest; research however also suggests that parents adjust their involvement to the context, and there exists a small literature on how parental interest in school is related to the child's age and gender.

35 The empirical literature on spontaneous levels of parental involvement consistently documents the following three stylized facts: (1) parental involvement is increasing in the parents' socio-economic status; (2) type of parental involvement changes over time as the child ages, and time spent on direct interest activities decreases; (iii) parental involvement takes slightly different forms for sons and daughters.

36 While economists tend to focus on need factors – the shape of parents' preferences – sociologists pay more than attending to institutional determinants, costs and barriers that lie outside of parental control.

3.1. Parents' characteristics and level of involvement

37 Scholars in educational activity concur on the strong link between parents' background and children' attainment. How this relation originates is subject to much more controversy. Economic literature partly failed to explore and explain the transmission mechanisms of human capital past parents. In dissimilarity, folklore of educational activity has focused on the process and accurately describes the association between parents' groundwork and levels of parental involvement (Lareau [1987]; Sui-Chu & Willms [1996]).

38 Socio-economical status, as measured by occupation/wages or parental level of education, is positively associated with parental involvement. Welsch & Zimmer [2008] and Guryan et al. [2008], among others, certificate that parents with college education and higher wage allocate more than fourth dimension to direct child care despite their opportunity cost being larger. In recent years, in the U.s.a., working-women with a college degree spend about lxx % more than time caring for their children than working-women with less than a high-school caste; fathers with a college degree spend more than than double the time for kid care than high-school dropout fathers [9] (Guryan et al. [2008]).

39 Every bit explanations for their results, Guryan et al. [2008] accelerate the post-obit possibilities: child intendance is a luxury expert (higher educated parents have a stronger preference for cared-for children); higher-educated parents have a lower elasticity of substitution betwixt ain and market-based child intendance; or returns to investing in the children are higher for college educated parents. Yet, higher returns do not trigger necessarily college investment, as substitution furnishings could interact to lower the time spent while still producing the same level of man upper-case letter; part of the explanation must lie in different preferences.

xl The sociological literature, which focuses on the interplay of schools and families, provides a richer explanation for the socio-economic slope that combines "demand" and "supply" factors. Lareau [1987] resumes the three theories in sociology that explain varying levels of school involvement by socio-economical status. The "culture of poverty" theory suggests that working-form families do non value pedagogy as highly equally middle and upper-course families. This explanation is close to the above-cited preference-based explanations. Next, a 2nd theory makes the schools responsible for the lower involvement of working-class families: according to this "institutional" theory, schools are more welcoming to middle-grade families and subtly discriminate against working-class families. Finally, a tertiary perspective stems from Bourdieu'southward work on cultural capital, and argues that schools are largely middle-class institutions with middle-class values; their requests for parental involvement are laden with the social and cultural experiences of intellectual and economical elites, and are therefore well accepted by children and parents from the upper and center form. For instance, communications from the school adopt linguistic structure and syntax that appear welcoming to middle-form parents only is perceived with apprehension by working-class parents. Crozier [1997], through a sociological field piece of work in a British school, illustrates the sort of frictions that can be met past working course parent in their relation with administration and teachers. The cultural capital letter theory emphasizes the roles of both schools and parents, through the form structures embedded in habitation and school life.

41 Finally, Deslandes & Bertrand [2004] evidence how the psychological constructs which motivate involvement are empirically related to socio-economic status. In particular, the parents' completed years of schooling are associated with their sense of efficacy for helping their child succeed in school.

42 An interesting evolution of the empirical literature on socio-economic status investigates the existence of peer-effects in levels of parental involvement. Sui-Chu & Willms [1996] apply the Us National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) to examine patterns of variation in parental involvement beyond socio-economical status, both betwixt and within schools. They bear witness that nearly of the variation in parental involvement occurs within schools; the authors also show that the mean socio-economic status of a school displays a positive clan with parental involvement levels in add-on to the private socio-economic status, providing evidence for peer-effects or for positive sorting. This finding mirrors in some respects the result past Patacchini & Zenou [2007] for the United kingdom.

43 A second spin-off of this research asks whether returns to parental involvement differ by socio-economic status. To appointment, however, there is only correlational evidence on this signal. Several authors have shown, using NELS data, that the correlation of involvement with academic achievement, truancy or dropout beliefs is stronger for families with high socio-economic condition [McNeal, 2001], for whites, and more generally for the traditionally advantaged sections of American society (McNeal [1999]; Desimone [1999]). None of these studies does business relationship for the endogeneity of parental involvement decisions.

3.2. Parental interest and child characteristics

44 Parental involvement practices also vary with the kid characteristics.

45 Muller [1998] shows, using data from the United states of america National Education Longitudinal Study, that parents are involved slightly differently in their sons' and daughters' school life, in means which are consistent with the general literature on gendered pedagogy. Parents are more nurturing and restrictive toward their daughters just may discipline their sons more. Using French information, Duru-Bellat & Jarousse [1996] evidence significant differences for parents' expectation about the educational career of their sons and daughters, which might well influence their involvement.

46 Psychologists have also shown that family interest in school changes over time, equally children mature, in response to their changing needs and to their new educational environments (see Bouffard & Weiss [2008], and the references cited therein). Family interest practices that provide direct instruction and support are more prevalent in the uncomplicated school years; Gouyon [2004] shows, for France, that homework practice declines steadily with age. At the same time, less instrumental forms of interest (monitoring school performance and progress, discussing plans for college pedagogy, and maintaining high expectations) become more than mutual in adolescence (Catsambis & Garland [1997]).

47 These patterns can be interpreted, in terms of the psychological process variables, every bit reflecting different understandings of parental roles for daughters and sons, also as for children of different age; the age pattern is also likely to be rooted in declining levels of invitations from children and teachers and a general decline in the sense of efficacy when children enter adolescence.

4. Parental involvement programmes

4.i. An overview

48 As we have already emphasized, parents' interest is an agile expanse of social innovation.

49 The recent widespread development of initiatives by schools to involve parents is rooted in the belief that what parents think and practise is pregnant to educational outcomes: as Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler [1997, p. 8] write, "while schools cannot realistically hope to alter a student's family status, schools may hope to influence selected parental process variables in the direction of increased parental involvement".

fifty Existing programmes can be classified along a multifariousness of dimensions and differ in many ways from each other. An influential nomenclature distinguishes programmes according to the type of involvement that schools effort to foster. Joyce L. Epstein distinguishes six types of interest (Epstein [1986]; Epstein & Dauber [1991]):

51 Type I Interest in basic obligations at dwelling house (the provision of school supplies, general support and supervision at domicile).

52 Type Ii Schoolhouse to home and home to school communications.

53 Blazon Iii Assist at the school (volunteering).

54 Type 4 Assistance in learning activities at home.

55 Blazon Five Involvement in school determination-making, governance and advocacy.

56 Type VI Collaboration and exchange with community organizations.

57 Parental involvement programmes typically address more than i blazon of interest; an additional component to many existing schoolhouse-based parenting programmes is parent academic education (e.g. language preparation for non-native speakers), in an attempt to increase their skills.

58 In their review of 41 The states parent involvement programmes, Mattingly et al. [2002] note that most programmes are multidimensional and include on average three to four components (defined as above). A majority of programmes include components to increase parental involvement in home learning (75 %), to improve parenting skills (61 %), or to amend parent/ school communications (54 %).

59 More than recently Desforges & Abouchaar [2003] have suggested that attempts to promote parental interest in school tin can be classified into 3 categories: offset, programmes which focus on the immediate connectivity betwixt schools and parents; next, programmes which bandage parental involvement more broadly in the context of family unit and community instruction programmes; thirdly, parent training programmes aimed at promoting parental psychosocial health and/or relationship skills which are known to be foundational to parental involvement. This classification distinguishes programmes with a more than narrow focus on promoting children'due south levels of achievement from programmes that accept broader objectives.

4.2. Evaluations of parental involvement programmes

threescore The perception that parental involvement has a positive effect on students' academic success has become almost common sense, and has influenced the evolution of parental involvement programmes. Attempts to increase parent interest are a regular feature of national, state, and local pedagogy policies in the Us and the UK.

61 Research on interventions to promote parental involvement has, however, by and large failed to evangelize convincing measures of their impact; in the summary of their review, Desforges & Abouchaar [2003, p. 5] noted that "evaluations of interventions are and so technically weak that information technology is impossible on the basis of publicly available evidence to describe the scale of the affect on pupils' achievement".

62 In a like vein, a review of evaluations of US programmes past Mattingly et al. [2002] concludes:

63 "The exponential development of parent involvement programs, many funded by federal and land grants, is both promising and troublesome [...] the effectiveness of various programme designs and components remains unknown (p. 553). The majority of studies we assessed had weak evaluation designs (p. 568). A bulk of the measured outcomes did not show a significant improvement in studies that used the most stringent criteria [...] suggesting that the purported effectiveness of many parent involvement programs is an artifact of weak evaluation methods" (p. 571).

64 Indeed, inquiry into parental involvement has devoted much effort to capture contextual issues – determinants, barriers, conditioning factors – while intervention studies, that would help understand what programmes are near effective, are rare or of low quality.

65 Any statement on the bear on of family involvement programmes rests on some class of comparison: impact is divers as the change delivered by the programme, and its measure supposes the comparison of the observed end-point with some measure of what would accept happened in the absence of the programme – a counter-factual state of affairs. In randomized command trials, the design of the intervention delivers a credible measure of this counterfactual because before intervention, test and control groups are – by construction, given the properties of random consignment – two representative samples of the population targeted by the programme.

66 To our best knowledge, only two evaluations of schoolhouse-based parental involvement programmes – programmes targeted at parents, whose main mensurate of impact is on children [x] – have used random consignment rules [11].

67 The get-go school-based parenting plan to have been submitted to impact assessment using rules that randomly assign subjects to test and control groups is the SPOKES programme (Supporting Parents on Kids' Instruction in School) (Scott et al. [2006]). This is an intervention which combines an developed literacy programme, focused on reading readiness, with parenting back up (the "Incredible Years" videotape programme) delivered to families in a disadvantaged area in South London, with virtually eligible families from ethnic minority groups. Parents were recruited at the primary school of their children. The evaluation constitute significant changes in parenting attitudes (increased parental sensitivity, more child-centered parenting, increased use of calm subject in response to unwanted beliefs, reduction in criticism); the trial was also associated with an increment in the child'due south attending on task, while no pregnant change could exist measured in antisocial behavior nor in kid reading ability.

68 Balli et al. [1998] deport and analyse a very small-scale-scale experiment – 1 involving three classes, that assigns them randomly to ii treatments and ane control – where the two possible treatments consist in different levels of invitations to parents for involving with their childs' mathematics homework. Due to the small-scale number of randomization units (3), this written report qualifies for a airplane pilot study more for a full-calibration experiment, and whatsoever inference must exist regarded cautiously. The authors observe that prompting parents to get involved is an constructive way of increasing their level of involvement; they do not, however, detect differences in the performance of students from the three classes.

69 A somewhat more systematic effort at evaluating rigourously parental involvement programmes exists in the context of early on childhood interventions. The U. S. Even Start programme (see, eastward.g. Ricciuti et al. [2004]) for instance includes an experimental sample. This is an ongoing family literacy plan targeted at low-income families (run into U. South. Department of Education, 2008, p. 152): nether this scheme, families are provided with interactive parent-child literacy activities, parenting education, as well equally more than general adult education and early on childhood pedagogy. The evaluation sample consists of 463 families (309 test and 154 command); no written report on this evaluation sample finds meaning improvements associated with the programme, although the design has adequate statistical power (ability to discover effects of a certain magnitude, given the sample size) merely if the programme was expected to evangelize big effects.

70 When randomization is not included in the intervention pattern, evaluation rests on assumptions that make some non-randomly chosen command group (for quasi-experimental studies) or the by (for pre-postal service studies) representative of the state of affairs of the programme beneficiaries in the absence of the programme (the counterfactual).

71 Among quasi-experimental studies, the near rigorous construct the control group by matching on observable characteristics. Sheldon [2007] evaluates the impact on student attendance of the "National Network of Partnership Schools" programme in 69 participating school, by ex-post constructing a comparison grouping of 69 non-participating schools with similar demographic characteristics, and finds a positive difference in favor of participating schools.

72 Other matched control groups evaluations of parental involvement programmes are reviewed in Mattingly et al. [2002]; these fail by and large to provide testify of the effectiveness of the programme with respect to educatee outcomes.

73 Near studies notwithstanding claim to identify an touch on of parental involvement from pure cross-sectional correlations between outcomes and inputs. This is equivalent to saying that whatever surveyed grouping that did non experience the plan is a valid control group. The nigh sophisticated among these studies use longitudinal information to ascertain outcomes in terms of change, but practice not take first differences for inputs (Sheldon & Epstein [2002, 2005]) [12]. This may amend precision in the estimated coefficients, if outcomes are serially correlated, simply does not modify identification hypotheses with respect to elementary cross-sectional correlation. The vast majority of "evaluations" are, in fact, correlational; the typical method is a regression which includes controls for misreckoning factors (when available), in which the dependent variable is a mensurate of parental involvement or of pupil achievement, and the independent variable of interest is a calibration of the schools' endeavour to improve parental involvement (see, e.chiliad. Sanders et al. [1999]).

74 Finally, a number of studies more than modestly limits itself to qualitative statements about impact (see, e.g. Harris & Goodall [2007]). The interested reader may be referred to Mattingly et al. [2002], a meta-analysis of 41 evaluations of parental involvement programmes at US schools, and Desforges & Abouchaar [2003] for the Britain.

75 To summarize the sparse evidence on the causal impact of parental involvement programmes, a mutual and undisputed finding is that levels of involvement tin can be raised. However, as Desforges & Abouchaar [2003, p. 70] write, "the jury is out on whether this makes a difference to educatee achievement". Bachelor evidence suggests that furnishings are more of import on non-cognitive abilities (patience, self-command, ...) than on pure cognitive abilities.

Determination

76 The policy argue on parental involvement in schools is largely a contend without economists. In concluding this review, we would like to highlight the contribution that empirical and theoretical economists could make to the positive understanding of parental involvement levels and normative recommendations for policy.

77 Over the concluding decades, economists have developed a comparative advantage with respect to other social sciences in the identification and estimation of safe causal relationships; application of the economists' strategies to parental interest are, even so, rare. In the context of structural estimation, as we take seen, this is probable related to the scarcity of appropriate data; it seems difficult to get beyond NLSY-CS data, which have been already exploited.

78 To guide policy decisions, however, there is great demand for evaluation of actual parental involvement programmes and for evidence on the office of programme components in encouraging different types of involvement. We also still lack a coherent picture of the impact of different types of involvement on various categories of educational outcomes; nothing is known on how these impacts vary with parents and child characteristics. Randomized experiments should get much more common in this field. The local level of implementation inside existing bureaucratic structures facilitates both the incorporation of a randomized blueprint into the program and the data collection for its evaluation: schools take a long tradition at experimenting and already collect a whole range of measures of educational outputs within administrative routines.

79 The results of these exercises should and so be cast within the Cunha & Heckman [2007, 2008] framework: on the positive side, what do they tell united states about critical stages in child development? On the normative side, what is the optimal timing of investments in parental involvement?

80 The impact of parental interest programmes tin bandage some calorie-free more than generally on returns to spontaneous levels of involvement (and interestingly on the potential heterogeneity of this return with respect to the level of success of the child) and allow to bear cost-do good analysis.

81 An economic analysis on the event of parental involvement should then exist supplemented with an assay on its origins. Many of the cited psychological and sociological motives for parents' decision on the level of involvement tin be understood as related to some element of parents' utility (be it an donating business organisation with the child'south success or an investment into the parent's social "identity") or to the direct and indirect costs of involvement – some of which seem to be manipulable by schools. How can dissimilar levels of parental involvement by unlike groups be explained then as resulting from unequal returns to investment (in child'due south success or identity) or diff costs? What are the patterns of complementarity and substitutions with other arguments of the utility role, well-nigh notably the peer'south investment and school inputs?

References

Notes

• [*]

  Paris School of Economic science, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris. Corresponding writer. Tel: +33 1 43 13 63 fourteen. Email: francesco.avvisati@ens.fr.

• [**]

  Toulouse School of Economic science, 21 allée de Brienne, 31000 Toulouse. Tel: +33 5 82 75 61 75. E-mail: bruno.besbas@sip.univ-tlse1.fr.

• [***]

  Paris School of Economics, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris. Tel: +33 i 71 19 40 75. Email: nina.guyon@polytechnique.org.

• [1]

  Indeed, Levitt's argument assumes that parental attitudes cannot be changed enough to have an impact because they are also sharply linked to their background; only one could argue that it is a matter of how hard they endeavor or how hard they are encouraged to change information technology. For instance, one can retrieve about policies aiming at reshaping low social background parents' attitudes to bring it closer to the high social background parents' attitudes.

• [ii]

  See http://www.csos.jhu.edu/P2000/index.htm (retrieved in November 2009).

• [3]

  See the interview with Miami superintendent Rudy Crew [Bouffard, 2008].

• [4]

  The start procedures used to locate economic studies on parental involvement in school involved a computer search of the Google Scholar, Jstor and Repec databases, using the keywords "parental involvement + teaching" and "parental involvement + program" – a choice that induced a selection of English language references. From this selection of articles, we just selected manufactures published in peer reviewed journals and aiming at measuring the render to parental involvement on children'south success. We and so classified them co-ordinate to the method they used. Finally, we added to this selection 2 manufactures presenting descriptive statistics on the level of parental involvement for France and the U. S.

• [v]

  To select these non-economic studies, we firstly identified several literature reviews written in english language – a pick explaining the few French references – on parental involvement in non-economical fields, also as reports from the U. S. Department of Education and from the U. K. Departments for Pedagogy and Skills and for Children, Schools and Families. From this indicate, we and then selected the most oft cited theoretical models, and finally experimental and quasi-experimental studies of parental involvement programmes presented in the final chapter.

• [half dozen]

  "Enquête efforts d'éducation des familles 1991-1992", INSEE [1994]; "Enquête éducation et famille 2002-2003", part of the "Enquête permanente sur les conditions de vie des ménages", INSEE [2003].

• [7]

  Starting from 1996, the NLSY-CS has collected more than detailed information on parental involvement. More details can be found under http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy79ch.htm (retrieved in October 2009).

• [8]

  The UK NCDS is a rich information ready which includes, notwithstanding, simply proxies for parental interest; the authors' measure out of attempt, for instance, is the frequency of reading to the child when the child is of age seven.

• [ix]

  These figures are regression coefficient in which the authors control for parents' age, number of children, marital status, and historic period of youngest child. They correspond to virtually 6.four hours more than spent by graduated mothers in child care per week, and 4.8 hours more spent by graduated fathers.

• [ten]

  For instance, Toney et al. [2003] report a randomized experiment providing parent training for homework interest, merely their upshot measure is the parent perceptions of homework problems. They do not have whatever objective measure of children outcomes.

• [11]

  Nosotros exclude from the count unpublished studies, some of which are reviewed by Patall et al. [2008]. We also exclude school based interventions with a preventive health focus (obesity, cardiovascular health, smoking), which might include – amongst other things – parental involvement components. Epidemiologists have a better tradition of assessing their impact using randomized experiments. A recent review of these programmes tin can be found in Steyn et al. [2009].

• [12]

  A similar approach is used by (Hallam et al. [2004]) to appraise the change induced on parenting behavior past voluntary or compulsory omnipresence of parenting classes for parents whose child's omnipresence or behavior at school has given crusade for business organisation.

Parents are actively involved in their children's education at all ages, and school-based parental involvement programmes are in fashion in developed countries. Yet so far, economists take devoted little attention to determinants, levels and effects of parental involvement. This review is concerned with parental involvement for school-aged children. Nosotros comprehensively survey the economic literature on the topic, and selectively review theoretical and empirical studies outside economics.
Studies on the spontaneous involvement of parents tin answer questions on why parents become involved. On the other mitt, recent local and national reforms can improve our agreement of the extent to which children's success is influenced past what parents do. We utilise this distinction to organize the literature and underline the open questions in each field.

• Parental Involvement
• Schools

Français

La participation des parents à l'école : une revue de la littérature

Les parents participent activement à fifty'éducation de leurs enfants à tous les âges, et dans les pays développés les écoles encouragent de plus en plus leur participation à la vie scolaire. À ce jour, les économistes ont toutefois porté peu d'attention aux déterminants, aux niveaux et aux conséquences de 50'implication parentale dans 50'éducation. Cette revue de littérature se concentre sur fifty'implication parentale dans fifty'éducation d'enfants en âge scolaire. Nous passons en revue l'ensemble de la littérature économique sur le sujet, et examinons de manière sélective les études théoriques et empiriques provenant d'autres disciplines.
Les études portant sur l'implication spontanée des parents peuvent répondre à la question de pourquoi les parents south'impliquent. D'autre role, les réformes récentes au niveau local et national peuvent améliorer notre compréhension de fifty'influence de ce que les parents font sur la réussite de leurs enfants. Nous utilisons cette distinction pour organiser la littérature et souligner les questions ouvertes dans chaque domaine.

• Participation parentale
• Écoles

1. Introduction
2. 1. The economic literature on family involvement in education
3. two. Why do parents go involved in their children's education?
4. 3. The Determinants of Spontaneous Levels of Parental Interest
5. 1. three.1. Parents' characteristics and level of involvement
   2. 3.2. Parental involvement and child characteristics
6. four. Parental involvement programmes
7. 1. 4.1. An overview
   2. 4.2. Evaluations of parental interest programmes
8. Decision
9. References

• En ligne AIZER, ANNA [2004], Home solitary: supervision afterward school and child behavior. Periodical of Public Economic science, 88, 1835-1848.
• AKERLOF, GEORGE A., & KRANTON, RACHEL Eastward. [2002], Identity and Schooling: Some Lessons for the Economics of Education. Journal of Economic Literature, Twoscore, 1167-1201.
• En ligne BALLI, SANDRA J., DEMO, DAVID H., & WEDMAN, JOHN F. [1998], Family unit Involvement with Children's Homework: an Intervention in the Centre Grades. Family unit Relations, 47 (two), 149-157.
• En ligne Blackness, SANDRA Eastward., DEVEREUX, PAUL J., & SALVANES, KJELL Thou. [2005], The More the Merrier? The Effect of Family Size and Birth Order on Children's Instruction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (2), 669-700.
• BOUFFARD, SUZANNE [2008], A conversation with Rudy Coiffure. The Evaluation Substitution, Xiv (i & 2), 20-21. Retrieved online from world wide web.hfrp.org.
• BOUFFARD, SUZANNE, & WEISS, HEATHER [2008], Thinking Big: A New Framework for Family Involvement Policy, Do, and Research. The Evaluation Exchange, 14 (1 & 2), 2–v. Retrieved online from world wide web.hfrp.org.
• CATSAMBIS, SOPHIA, & GARLAND, JANET Eastward. [1997], Parental Involvement in Students' Education During Middle Schoolhouse and High School. Eye for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR), Study n. xviii.
• En ligne CROZIER, GILL [1997], Empowering the Powerful: A Word of the Interrelation of Government Policies and Consumerism with Social Course Factors and the Impact of This upon Parent Interventions in Their Children'southward Schooling. British Periodical of Sociology of Instruction, 18 (two), 187-200.
• En ligne CUNHA, FLAVIO, & HECKMAN, JAMES J. [2007], The Applied science of Skill Germination. The American Economical Review, 97 (2), 31-47.
• CUNHA, FLAVIO, & HECKMAN, JAMES J. [2008], Formulating, Identifying and Estimating the Engineering of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. The Journal of Man Ressources, XLIII (iv), 739-782.
• DESFORGES, CHARLES, & ABOUCHAAR, ALBERTO [2003], The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Educatee Achievements and Adjustment: a Literature Review. Section for Educational activity and Skills, Enquiry Study No. 433.
• En ligne DESIMONE, LAURA [1999], Linking Parent Involvement with Student Achievement: Do Race and Income Matter? The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 93 (1), 11-thirty.
• En ligne DESLANDES, ROLLANDE, & BERTRAND, RICHARD [2004], Motivation des parents à participer au suivi scolaire de leur enfant. Revue des sciences de l'éducation, xxx (two), 411-433.
• En ligne DURU-BELLAT, MARIE, & JAROUSSE, JEAN-PIERRE [1996], Le masculin et le féminin dans les modèles éducatifs des parents. Economie et Statistique, 293, 77-91.
• En ligne EPSTEIN, JOYCE L. [1986], Parents' Reactions to Teacher Practices of Parent Involvement. The Uncomplicated School Periodical, 86 (3), 277-294.
• En ligne EPSTEIN, JOYCE L., & DAUBER, SUSAN L. [1991], School Programs and Instructor Practices of Parent Involvement in Inner-City Elementary and Middle Schools. The Elementary School Periodical, 91 (3), 289-305.
• EPSTEIN, JOYCE Fifty., SALINAS, K. C., & HORSEY, C. Southward. [1994], Reliabilities and summaries of scales: schoolhouse and family partnership surveys of teachers and parents in the elementary middle grades. Baltimore, Medico: Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children'due south Learning and Center for Resarch on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.
• GOUYON, MARIE [2004], L'adjutant aux devoirs apportée par les parents. INSEE première n. 996.
• En ligne Green, C. L., WALKER, J. K. T., HOOVER-DEMPSEY, K. V., & SANDLER H. [2007], Parents' motivations for involvement in children's education: An empirical examination of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Periodical of Educational Psychology, 99, 532-544.
• En ligne GURYAN, JONATHAN, HURST, ERIK, & KEARNEY, MELISSA [2008], Parental Education and Parental Time with Children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22 (3), 23-46.
• HALLAM, SUSAN, ROGERS, LYNNE, & SHAW, JACQUELENE [2004], Improving Children's Behaviour and Attendance through the Use of Parenting Programmes: An Examination of Adept Practice. Department for Pedagogy and Skills, Enquiry Written report No. 585.
• HANUSHEK, ERIC, & WELCH, FINIS (eds). [2006], Handbook of the Economics of Education. Vol. 1,2. Northward-Holland.
• HARRIS, ALMA, & GOODALL, JANET [2007], Engaging Parents in Raising Accomplishment: Do Parents Know They Matter. Department for Children, Schools and Families, Inquiry Written report DCSF-RW004.
• HOOVER-DEMPSEY, KATHLEEN 5., & SANDLER, HOWARD Chiliad. [1995], Parental Involvement in Children's Education: Why Does it Make a Difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310-331.
• En ligne HOOVER-DEMPSEY, KATHLEEN V., & SANDLER, HOWARD G. [1997], Why Exercise Parents Become Involved in Their Children'due south Pedagogy? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.
• En ligne LAREAU, ANNETTE [1987], Social Class Differences in Family unit-Schoolhouse Relationships: The Importance of Cultural Uppercase. Folklore of Instruction, 60 (2), 73-85.
• LEVITT, STEVEN D., & DUBNER, STEVEN J. [2005], Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. 1st edn. HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
• En ligne MATTINGLY, DOREEN J., PRISLIN, RADMILA, McKENZIE, THOMAS L., RODRIGUEZ, JAMES L., & KAYZAR, BRENDA [2002], Evaluating Evaluations: The Case of Parent Involvement Programs. Review of Educational Enquiry, 72 (4), 549-576.
• En ligne MCNEAL, RALPH B. [1999], Parental Involvement every bit Social Capital letter: Differential Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out. Social Forces, 78, 117-144.
• En ligne McNEAL, RALPH B. [2001], Differential furnishings of parental involvement on cerebral and behavioral outcomes by socio-economic status. Journal of Socio-Economic science, 30, 171-179.
• En ligne MULLER, CHANDRA [1998], Gender Differences in Parental Interest and Adolescents' Mathematics Achievement. Sociology of Instruction, 71, 336-356.
• PATACCHINI, ELEONORA, & ZENOU, YVES [2007], Intergenerational Pedagogy Transmission: Neighborhood Quality and/or Parents' Involvement? IZA DP No. 2608.
• En ligne PATALL, E. A., COOPER, H., & ROBINSON, J. C. [2008], Parent Involvement in Homework: A Enquiry Synthesis. Review of Educational Inquiry, 78, No. 4, 1039-1101.
• PIKETTY, THOMAS [2003], The impact of divorce on schoolhouse performance: show from France, 1968-2002. CEPR word newspaper 41-46.
• REED, RICHARD P., JONES, KATHLEEN P., WALKER, JOAN K., & HOOVER-DEMPSEY, KATHLEEN V. [2000], Parents' Motivation for Involvement in Children'due south Instruction: Testing a Theoretical Model. Paper presented at the Almanac Briefing of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, Apr 24-28, 2000).
• RICCIUTI, ANNE East., St. PIERRE, ROBERT G., LEE, WANG, PARSAD, AMANDA, & RIMDZIUS, TRACY [2004], Third National Fifty-fifty Start Evaluation: Follow-Upwardly Findings From the Experimental Design Study. U. Due south. Departement of Educational activity, Constitute of Education Sciences, National Eye for Pedagogy Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington D. C.
• En ligne SACERDOTE, BRUCE [2002], The Nature and Nurture of Economic Outcomes. The American Economic Review, 92 (2), 344-348.
• SANDERS, MAVIS G., EPSTEIN, JOYCE 50., & CONNORS-TADROS, LORI [1999], Family Partnerships with Loftier Schools: The Parents' Perspective. Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR), Report due north. 32.
• SCOTT, STEPHEN, O'CONNOR, THOMAS, & FUTH, ANNABEL [2006], What makes parenting programmes work in disadvantaged areas? Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• En ligne SHELDON, STEVEN B. [2007], Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Didactics, 100 (5), 267-275.
• En ligne SHELDON, STEVEN B., & EPSTEIN, JOYCE L. [2002], Present and Accounted for: Improving Educatee Omnipresence through Family and Community Involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (v), 308-318.
• En ligne SHELDON, STEVEN B., & EPSTEIN, JOYCE L. [2005], Involvement Counts: Family and Community Partnerships and Mathematics Achievement. The Periodical of Education Inquiry, 98 (4), 196-206.
• En ligne STEYN, N. P., LAMBERT, E. V., PARKER, W., MCHIZA, Z., & VILLIERS, A. De [2009], A review of school nutrition interventions globally as an testify base of operations for the development of the HealthKick programme in the Western Greatcoat, Due south Africa. Southward African Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 22 (3), 145-152. Retrieved in October 2009 from http://www.sajcn.com/index.php/SAJCN/ article/viewPDFInterstitial/ 331/404.
• En ligne SUI-CHU, ESTHER HO, & WILLMS, J. DOUGLAS [1996], Effects of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Class Achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
• En ligne TODD, PETRA E., & WOLPIN, KENNETH E. [2007], The Production of Cerebral Achievement in Children: Home, Schoolhouse, and Racial Exam Score Gaps. Journal of Man Capital, one (1), 91-136.
• En ligne TODD, PETRA Eastward., & WOLPIN, KENNETH I. [2003], On the Specification and Interpretation of the Product Function for Cognitive Accomplishment. The Economic Journal, 113, F3-F32.
• En ligne TONEY, L. P., KELLEY, Yard., & LANCLOS, Northward. F. [2003], Self-and parental monitoring of homework in adolescents: Comparative furnishings on parents' perceptions of homework behavior bug. Child and Family Beliefs Therapy, 25, 35-51.
• U. South. Section of Education, Office of Communications and Outreach. [2008], Guide to U. S. Department of Education Programs. Washington, D. C.
• En ligne WALKER, J. K. T., WILKINS, A. S., DALLAIRE, J. P., SANDLER, H. Thou., & HOOVER-DEMPSEY, G. V. [2005], Parental involvement: Model revision through calibration evolution. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 85-104.
• WELSCH, DAVID M., & ZIMMER, DAVID Chiliad. [2008], Subsequently-School Supervision and Children'south Cognitive Achievement. The B. E. Journal of Economical Analysis & Policy, eight, fine art. 49.

Francesco Avvisati[*]

• [*]

  Paris School of Economic science, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris. Corresponding author. Tel: +33 ane 43 13 63 14. Electronic mail: francesco.avvisati@ens.fr.

Bruno Besbas[**]

• [**]

  Toulouse Schoolhouse of Economics, 21 allée de Brienne, 31000 Toulouse. Tel: +33 5 82 75 61 75. Electronic mail: bruno.besbas@sip.univ-tlse1.fr.

Nina Guyon[***]

• [***]

  Paris Schoolhouse of Economic science, 48 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014 Paris. Tel: +33 i 71 19 twoscore 75. E-mail: nina.guyon@polytechnique.org.

Cette publication est la plus récente de 50'auteur sur Cairn.info.

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Dalloz © Dalloz. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Il est interdit, sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, de reproduire (notamment par photocopie) partiellement ou totalement le présent article, de le stocker dans une banque de données ou de le communiquer au public sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit.

Chargement en cours.
Veuillez patienter...

guajardoanchoughboad1982.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie-politique-2010-5-page-759.htm

Share this post