1.Introduction
1.1 Understanding Relative Income in Economic Decision Making
Relative income, as opposed to absolute income, refers to an individual or household’s economic position in comparison to others within their society or social reference group. James Duesenberry formulated the Relative Income Hypothesis (1949), which emphasized that individuals derive utility not only from their income but also from how that income compares to the income of others. In the school- and education-related context, this means that the decision regarding school type (public vs. private), tutoring, and other learning resources is dependent not only on the economic circumstances of the household but also on social norms and competitive pressures.
Relative income shapes educational expenditures in both up and downward directions. Frank (2007) argues that families are often pushed to spend on visible status goods by perceived social comparisons, with education being one of the most important ones. In a study by the Pew Research Center (2020), 62% of parents from urban areas in India reported “keeping up with peers” as a major consideration while spending on private tuitions and elite educational systems.This shows the non-linearity of educational investments: families will make a priority not due to their expectations of educational attainment, but because their sense of relative deprivation.
1.2 Link between Income and Educational Choices
Statistical evidence from across the world and from Indian studies points toward strong concurrence between the income level of the household and the access to education. A significant proportion of high-income families can afford private schooling, extra tutoring, digital resources, and extracurriculars, all of which combine to enhance educational attainment.
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), the net attendance ratio for secondary education in India in the richest quintile is 71 percent, while in the poorest quintile, it is only 41 percent. According to UNESCO (2022), drop-out rates before completion of primary education are four times higher for children from bottom 20% income households than for those from the top 20%.
Moreover, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2023 further indicates that the higher-income households consistently perform better than their peers in foundational numeracy and literacy, suggesting that income determines not only access but quality and outcomes too.
1.3 Income Tax Policies as a Determinant of Educational Investment
Income tax policy is one of the most important tools through which wealth can be redistributed in an economy. The way such tax policies are structured at a given time can either alleviate or exacerbate economic inequality. For instance, progressive taxation whereby wealthier earners pay higher taxes in proportion to their income is almost invariably associated with greater redistribution and greater public services, education among them. Regressive taxation, or systems with very few tax brackets and fewer redistributive mechanisms, on the contrary, tend to increase inequality and limit the potential for public investment.
Countries with more progressive taxes and more public education expenditure, such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway, are also among the best-performing and highly unequal societies in the world, according to the OECD (2023).
The tax-to-GDP ratio of India, which hovers around 11.4% (2022-23), is far below that of the OECD average of 34%. Public expenditure on education is still much lower than the world average at 2.9%, notwithstanding the Kothari recommendation of at least 3% of GDP. Such low fiscal space means relatively poorer access to investment in quality schooling particularly in resource-poor rural and peri-urban areas.
Further, amendments in income tax laws, such as increased deductions for education loans under Section 80E or the introduction of the new tax regime in 2020, have introduced differential effects on households and have sometimes acted as incentives while at other times tended to act as deterrence on private educational investment.
2.Objectives
The link between tax policies and education has increasingly gained currency among economists, policy-makers, and social scientists. This study seeks to assess how changes in the system of taxation, especially income taxation, affect household decisions about children’s education. The objectives are designed to look into direct economic effects and indirect socio-psychological effects concerning income inequality triggered by taxation.
- To analyze the impact of income tax reforms on household income and child education outcomes. Income tax legislation directly affects households’ disposable income. Governments utilize progressive tax structures, tax rebates, deductions for education, and conditional cash transfers to increase or decrease private investment in education. Regressive tax structures, on the other hand, put a heavier burden on poorer households, making them less able to invest in education. The focus of the goal is to look into how historical changes in income taxation policies have resulted in measurable differences in educational enrollment ratios, quality of education, and dropout rates across different segments of income.
- To analyze the role of income disparity in shaping aspiration for and access to quality schooling beyond absolute income, relative income- how well off a household is vis-a-vis all others within its reference group- can also influence attitudes regarding education. Children from poorer families might have lowered expectation and low motivation or feel stressed by trenchant socio-economic contrasts within school settings. Conversely, families feeling such pressure to “keep up” might invest heavily into education at the expense of basic necessities. This goal examines how such disparities, often exacerbated by uneven tax burdens and limited redistribution, shape aspirations and ultimately cascade down into education pathways.
-
- Theoretical Framework
2.1 Human Capital Theory
First conceived by Theodore Schultz in the year 1961 and later amplified by Gary Becker in the year 1964, the Human Capital Theory describes education as a form of investment, just like physical capital, which gives back dividends in the form of increased productivity, better employment alternatives, and much more enhanced overall economic growth; according to the theory, households and individuals behave rationally in cozying up or letting go from investing their resources into education according to analysis of costs (tuition materials, opportunity cost of time) vis—vis expected returns-future income, job security, among others.
According to this framework, household income becomes a significant determinant of the ability to invest in learning. Higher disposable income, whether received from wages, tax relief, or a combination of both, lowers the bar to accessing good-quality education, but a fall in income usually through increased taxation or economic shocks would deter investment.
According to Psacharopoulos & Patrinos (2018), the average global private return to one additional year of schooling is something around 10%, with higher returns on tertiary education in low- and middle-income countries such as India.
Sample analysis by Azam (2016) using Indian Human Development Survey data notes that a 10% increase in household per capita income increases the chances of children aged 6-14 enrolling in school by 3.2%.
Now this theoretical framework also starts explaining, by the alteration of disposable income, how the change in income tax can also directly influence decisions such as: whether to send a child to a public or private school, whether to employ private tutors, or whether to assist a young person through higher education.
Thus, progressive taxation which protects lower income households would, from a human capital perspective, most likely favor investments in education being distributed in a more egalitarian fashion while regressive taxation could keep saving poor groups from even lower educational attainment.
2.2 Relative Deprivation Theory
Relative Deprivation Theory, which emerges primarily from sociology and psychology, takes the argument a step further by stating how income affects perceptions, aspirations, and behavior choices-perhaps in contradiction to the absolute income and economic rationality of Human Capital Theory.
Originally propounded by Runciman (1966) and subsequently developed in social comparison research (Festinger, 1954), the theory holds that individuals do not measure their well-being in absolute terms, but relative to those around them. Not because they lack essential resources, but because they perceive others in the community as more fortunate-in terms of schools, better quality tutors, technologically more advanced, or safer school environments.
If built into the educational system, this fact may produce behavioral outcomes such as: a)Aspiration Pressure: Families might financially overstretch themselves to bring themselves into line with the education levels that they see others have achieved (e.g. a child might have to move to a private school where the pressure is high because it is even economically stretchable).
b)Disengagement: In highly segregated neighborhoods, families might actually give up hope for upward mobility and reduce their educational efforts altogether. Social Comparison in Schools:Children from relatively lower-income households may feel alienated in mixed-income educational environments, affecting their academic performance and psychological well-being.
Luttmer (2005) shows that even controlling for their own income, people report lower satisfaction with their neighbors if they earn much more than they do. This has implications for how families make decisions around investments in education compared to their peers.
Schindler & Reimers (2021) found that adolescents from low-income backgrounds display lower educational aspirations even when controlling for academic performance in environments characterized by high income inequality.
Relative Deprivation Theory explains why tax policies resulting in reduced inequality have a relatively high emphasis on the improvement of educational equity: by increasing material resources available for learning, but also by increasing social cohesion readiness and inspiring people to aspire higher.
3. Mechanisms of Income Tax Impact on Child Education in India
Income tax policies play a critical role in shaping educational outcomes in India. From determining a family’s ability to finance education to influencing government spending on public schools, taxation affects multiple dimensions of child development.
3.1 Household Disposable Income and Education Spending
The most immediate and visible effect of income tax policy is on household disposable income—the amount left after taxes. This income is crucial for educational spending, especially in urban areas where private schooling dominates.
1.Tax Deductions and Allowances- Under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act, parents can claim deductions up to ₹1.5 lakh per year for tuition fees paid to schools, colleges, or universities in India. However, this amount includes other investments like PF, LIC, ELSS, etc., reducing the effective benefit for education alone. Moreover, the Children’s Education Allowance, as per Section 10(14), provides a minimal exemption of ₹100/month per child for up to two children—a sum widely regarded as outdated and inadequate.
2. Private Education Pressure- While government schools are funded by tax revenues, stagnating investments in quality have led to a surge in private school enrollments. According to the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2022, private school enrollment had been rising for a decade until 2018 at 30.9%, however it has come down to 25.2% in 2022. This is due to a sudden 19% drop in private school enrollment and 11% increase in rural government schools (Annual Status of Education Report(Rural), 2023). There is an increasing rural urban divide with regards to private school enrollment. 76.7% of children in rural areas are enrolled in government schools and only 16.6% study in private unaided schools (Banerjee, 2024). While in urban areas private school enrollment stands at 43.8% and 36.5% in public schools. This gap can be due to income disparities and the presumption of quality education in private schools. With consistent rise in per capita income of households, parental choices lean strongly towards private institutions indicating a positive relationship between per capita income and private education.
3.Parental Employment, Time Investment, and Education-“Parental time investment is seen as a crucial driver of children’s future economic and social success. Children of highly educated parents are observed to receive on an average 300 more hours of parental time than children of parents with low education.” (Kalil et al., 2023). A study on parental education and family aspect of school enrollment in rural India highlights that the family environment significantly influences child education outcomes. Children living with both parents show higher school enrolment, lower dropout rates, and better academic performance, likely due to better care and support. Parental literacy strongly impacts outcomes—children of literate or highly literate parents are more likely to be enrolled, stay in school, and perform well. Economic status also plays a vital role; children from wealthier families and those with parents in secondary or tertiary sectors fare better than those from poorer households or with parents in primary sectors. Larger family size and single-parent households contribute to higher dropout rates (Dutta, 2014).
4.Intergenerational Effects and Educational Mobility- Intergenerational education mobility refers to the changes in educational attainment across generations. In India, it reflects persistent inequalities shaped by caste, income, gender, and regional disparities in access. In this context upward mobility implies that children are achieving a higher level of education than their parents, while downward mobility signifies children graduating at a lower level than their parents.” In rural areas, average income and education are strong predictors of upward mobility while in urban areas, average education, size and low segregation are the prominent indicators”(Asher et al., 2018). Studies highlight significant intergenerational persistence in educational attainment in India, indicating limited mobility. When neighborhood fixed effects are considered, geographic location plays a critical role, underscoring the influence of regional factors in shaping educational outcomes. Their findings reveal that mobility is not uniform—sons at the top end of the educational distribution are more likely to surpass their fathers’ education levels, showing greater upward mobility. This aligns with the “Great Gatsby Curve,” which suggests that higher inequality is associated with lower intergenerational mobility. However, the study also finds that economic growth and public investment in education enhance mobility (Kishan & Rajverma, 2024).
3.2 Tax regulation and government’s role in educational investment
In the Union Budget 2023–24, the government earmarked around ₹1.28 lakh crore for the education sector, focusing on improving infrastructure, integrating artificial intelligence, and increasing capacities in IITs and medical colleges.(UNION EDUCATION MINISTER LAUDS HISTORIC BUDGET 2025-26, n.d.) Furthermore, the government has introduced production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes to boost sectors like electronics manufacturing, indirectly benefiting educational institutions by fostering industry-academia collaborations and enhancing research opportunities.
In India, the classification of education as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, grants educational institutions tax-exempt status, provided they operate as non-profit entities. This exemption aims to promote educational endeavors by reducing financial burdens on such institutions. Educational institutions recognized as charitable trusts benefit from income tax exemptions on their earnings, provided these are utilized solely for educational purposes. Donations received by such institutions are also tax-free if used appropriately. However, to maintain this status, institutions must ensure compliance with the stipulations outlined in the Income Tax Act, including the reinvestment of surplus funds into educational activities.
Despite tax exemptions, many educational institutions charge substantial fees, raising concerns about the affordability of education. Critics argue that some institutions exploit their charitable status to accumulate income without commensurate reductions in tuition fees, potentially limiting access for lower-income families. This scenario suggests that tax benefits intended to lower educational costs may not always translate into increased affordability for students.
While tax exemptions for educational institutions and legislative measures like the RTE Act are designed to make education more affordable and accessible, disparities remain. Ensuring that tax benefits lead to reduced educational costs and effectively implementing policies to support low-income groups are essential for achieving equitable educational opportunities in India.
4. Literature Review
This section reviews empirical studies that explore the relationship between income tax policies, income shocks, and income disparities on child education outcomes. It covers research from different economic contexts such as the United States, India, South Africa, and Singapore to examine how changes in household income—whether through tax benefits or economic instability—affect educational aspirations, enrollment, and long-term academic achievement.
4.1 Empirical Findings from Tax Policy Shifts
In the United States, tax policies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are designed to increase disposable income among low- and middle-income households, and studies show these policies have had measurable effects on children’s educational performance. Dahl and Lochner (2012) reported that a $1,000 increase in post-tax income from the EITC led to a 2–4% improvement in children’s test scores, suggesting that families direct financial gains toward academic-related expenses. Complementing this, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2011) found that EITC refunds significantly increased the likelihood of college enrollment, indicating the long-term educational value of tax credits. Similarly, Manoli and Turner (2018) discovered a decline in high school dropout rates by 4–5 percentage points when post-tax income rose due to such credits, highlighting a direct link between income support and educational continuity.
In the Indian context, where direct tax credits play a more limited role, education funding is largely channeled through government schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and PM Poshan (the midday meal program). However, certain income tax provisions still impact private education spending. Section 80C allows deductions on tuition fees, primarily benefiting middle-income families, while Section 80E provides relief on interest paid for education loans, encouraging higher education participation. Saraf (2018) observed that these provisions led to increased private school enrollment, primarily among urban, high-income families. In contrast, Azam and Bhatt (2020) found that such benefits had little impact on rural, low-income households, largely due to their exclusion from the formal income tax system. Yet, government-funded school investments have shown some promise. For instance, Sowmya, Rao, and Kumar (2019) examined public education initiatives in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and concluded that while access to primary education improved, many families continued to favor private schools, citing concerns over the quality of public education.
4.2 Income Shocks, Tax Rebates, and Their Effects on Education Spending
Unpredictable income streams have been shown to substantially disrupt household investment decisions regarding education.Negative income shocks—such as unexpected unemployment or medical emergencies—often compel households to reduce educational expenditures. Krueger and Perri (2006) found that in the U.S., families experiencing such financial disruptions significantly curtailed spending on private education and extracurricular activities, which in turn adversely affected children’s educational outcomes. Jensen (2010) observed a similar pattern in South Africa, where financial instability among low-income households often resulted in school dropouts, particularly when children were required to contribute to the household income. In India, Sowmya et al. (2019) confirmed these findings, noting that income instability among rural households, particularly among first-generation learners and girls, led to higher dropout rates.
Mutually, positive income boosts through tax rebates or one-time transfers have been linked to increased spending on educational resources. In the U.S., Romich and Weisner (2000) found that tax rebates led families to allocate more funds toward school supplies, uniforms, and tutoring services. Similarly, Agarwal, Liu, and Souleles (2007) examined the effects of a one-time tax refund in Singapore and found that families were more inclined to allocate the rebate toward private education and extracurricular activities. However, the effects are not universally positive. Saraf (2018), analyzing Indian data, argued that among low-income families, tax-related benefits were often directed toward essential needs rather than educational investments, thus limiting the developmental impact of such fiscal policies.
4.3 Key Gaps in Research
While existing literature establishes a connection between tax policies, income stability, and education, several research gaps remain. First, there is limited data on how indirect taxes, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST), impact educational access for rural and informal-sector households who do not typically pay income tax. This leaves a blind spot in understanding how broader fiscal measures affect education in low-income settings. Second, most studies emphasize short-term educational improvements following tax benefits, but few have investigated the intergenerational impacts—how sustained financial support might influence long-term educational attainment and social mobility. Finally, there is a lack of gender-disaggregated research exploring whether tax-funded subsidies such as midday meals, scholarships, or tuition deductions affect boys and girls differently. While some studies hint at girls being disproportionately affected by income shocks, the gender-specific outcomes of income-enhancing tax policies remain largely unexplored.
- POLICY IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Progressive VS Regressive taxation on the access to education
Tax structures have a big impact on who gets educational opportunities:
1.Progressive Taxation: Progressive tax systems make people who earn more pay higher tax rates. This can bring in more money for the government, which can then spend it on education helping kids from poorer families go to school. Studies show that when taxes are more progressive poorer households end up better off making it easier for their children to get higher education.
2.Regressive Taxation: On the flip side regressive tax systems put a bigger burden on people who don’t earn as much. This can make educational gaps worse by cutting down on public money for schools and making them rely more on local funds, which might not be enough in areas that are struggling.
Take the United States as an example. Schools there depend a lot on local property taxes for funding. This has created big differences between rich and poor school districts keeping disadvantaged areas stuck in a cycle of poverty.
5.2 Adjusting Taxes to Boost Education Access
Governments can change tax rules to create fair educational chances:
1.Stepping Up Tax Progression: Putting in place or raising progressive tax rates can bring in more public money for education. This plan aims to shrink income gaps and help poor communities get better schooling. Research shows that the right mix of progressive taxes and education aid can protect against wage risks while reducing distortions in school choices.
2.Changing How We Fund Schools: Moving from local to state or national funding can fix problems caused by local-only funding. By cutting the link between school money and local property taxes and using state-level funding that focuses on fairness, states can help close the gap between rich and poor areas. This way it ensures that schools get more resources.
5.3 Tax-Funded Education Subsidies and Cash Transfers
Education-related subsidies funded through taxation and cash transfer programs potentially improve educational outcomes.
1.Conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs): Conditional cash transfer programs, which provide cash to low-income families conditioned upon their child engaging with educational activities, such as attendance at school, have been documented in Mexico, as the link between cash and participation in schooling has increased enrolment and decreased dropout rates, making a case for cash providing leverage to encourage their participation in educational opportunities.
2.Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs (UCTs): In Malawi, UCTs have been associated with improved enrolment and retention rates; again, this improvement is due to the reduction of financial strain that limits family investment in children’s educational opportunity.
3.Child care subsidies: Substantial taxpayer-funded child care subsidies have been linked to improved educational outcomes in Norway’s junior high school. The conclusion that we can draw here is that child care subsidy is worthwhile, and the financial relief associated with child care is allowing families to free up time and cash for their child’s educational opportunity.
5.4 Recommendations
1.Introduce Progressive Taxation: Use tax arrangements that impose a heavier burden on higher-income individuals to cover expenses related to initiatives in education so that the right to education is more equitable.
2.Establish Effective Cash Transfer Programs: Create both conditional cash transfer and unconditional cash transfer programs designed to meet the population’s specific needs and mitigate barriers to education.
3.Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation of Programs: Continuously evaluate the impact of tax-funded subsidy systems and cash transfers on education outcomes to help with policy design adjustments and resource allocations.
By strategically adjusting tax policies and implementing well-designed subsidies and cash transfers, governments can play a pivotal role in enhancing educational access and outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged populations.
Conclusion:
This paper provides invaluable insights into the complex relation between income tax policies and access to education, where tax policy has a significant impact on equal access to education, demonstrating that monetary systems are not just economic instruments but also powerful social forces. Progressive taxation, where higher earnings pay more, has been linked to increased investment in public education, reduced inequality, and improved access to excellent education for disadvantaged populations. Regressive or poorly constructed tax systems, such as those in India with a low tax-to-GDP ratio, can impede public school funding and increase the socioeconomic difference in educational outcomes. Income tax policies affect child education via household income, parental involvement, and public investment. Although there are tax benefits, their limited scope and uneven implementation prevent equitable access, suggesting the need for reforms to better align taxation with educational outcomes.
Relative income and social comparison can lead to families overinvesting to meet educational requirements, or underinvesting due to pressure, especially in segregated or unequal situations. Balanced tax policies can alleviate constraints and promote sensible, needs-based educational choices. A balanced approach that combines progressivity, limited targeted deductions, education-linked transfers, and centralized school funding is not only strategic in terms of laying the groundwork for future investments in inclusive education practices, but it also creates a sustainable growth path for the economy as a whole. Future research should examine the long-term and intergenerational implications of tax reforms on education. This includes indirect taxation (GST) on rural and informal households, as well as gender-disaggregated impacts of tax-funded subsidies. A thorough understanding of taxation is essential for creating equitable policies that promote education and social mobility across groups.
References
Annual Status of Education Report(Rural). (2023, January). Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2022. Annual Status of Education Report(Rural). https://asercentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/aserreport2022-1.pdf
Banerjee, D. (2024, November 7). Urban-Rural Disparity in India’s Primary Education Enrollment: What Makes Urban Parents Turn to Private Schools Despite National Preference for Public Schools? Times of India. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/urban-rural-disparity-in-indias-primary-education-enrollment-what-makes-urban-parents-turn-to-private-schools-despite-national-preference-for-public-schools/articleshow/114951903.cms
Dutta, S. (2014). PARENTAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY ASPECT OF SCHOOL ENROLMENT IN RURAL INDIA. Journal of Rural Development, 33. https://nirdprojms.in/index.php/jrd/article/download/93317/69142
Kalil, A., Mayer, S., Delgado, W., & Gennetian, L. A. (2023). EDUCATION GRADIENTS IN PARENTAL TIME INVESTMENT AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING. NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH.
Kishan, P.K.V., & Rajverma, A. (2024, September 26). Intergenerational education mobility in India: nonlinearity and the Great Gatsby Curve. Frontiers. Retrieved April 6, 2025, from https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1295550/full
Kably, L. (2013, May 11). “Donations tax-free if schools use funds for education.” The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/donations-tax-free-if-schools-use-funds-for-education/articleshow/20009562.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Agashe, A. (2011). Time to tax so-called ‘charitable’ educational institutions. Moneylife NEWS & VIEWS. https://www.moneylife.in/article/time-to-tax-socalled-charitable-educational-institutions/31451.html
Kably, L. (2013, May 11). “Donations tax-free if schools use funds for education.” The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/donations-tax-free-if-schools-use-funds-for-education/articleshow/20009562.cms
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. University of Chicago Press.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England. University of California Press.
National Statistical Office. (2019). Household Social Consumption on Education in India, NSS 75th Round (July 2017 – June 2018). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
https://mospi.gov.in/documents/213904/301563//Report_585_75th_Education_final_150519_0.pdfUNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2023). Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP).
http://data.uis.unesco.orgOECD. (2023). Revenue Statistics 2023. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-2522770x.htmIndia Human Development Survey-II (IHDS-II). (2011–12). Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
https://ihds.umd.edu/Tilak, J. B. G. (2007). The Kothari Commission and Financing of Education. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(11), 905–912.
Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions. Princeton University Press.
Gubello, M., & Strecker, N. M. (2024). A theory of perverse redistribution in higher education and income tax progressivity in Europe. In Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), asbl, LIS Working Paper Series [Report]. https://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/889.pdf
On the Optimal Provision of Social Insurance: Progressive Taxation versus Education Subsidies in General Equilibrium. (2015). In NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES (No. 21538). NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21538/w21538.pdf
Weakly progressive: disproportionate higher education attendance and the structure of income taxes. (2022). In UCD CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES. https://www.ucd.ie/economics/t4media/WP22_26.pdf
Black, S., Devereux, P., Løken, K., & Salvanes, K. (2012). Care or cash? The effect of child care subsidies on student performance.https://doi.org/10.3386/w18086
Team Members
Poorti
Harshita Kapoor
Kanan Kapoor
Athreya Talavane
