day 26 - cost-benefit analysis

Here is a small breakdown of costs for women’s education (Camfed.org):

$25 – One year of primary school education

$25 – Pair of shoes so a child can walk to school

$40 – Cost of a uniform to attend school

$300 – One year of secondary school education

Multiply this by the United Nations estimate of 35 million girls worldwide that are not in school, and the total costs seem far more than we could even hope to afford.

But despite the expense, we must look at the cost of not offering an education. Consider: According to the Government Accountability Office, the United States spends $3.3 billion on HIV/AIDS relief aid in foreign countries. , and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/) has spent $22.6 billion in relief to date. This is an impressive sum, and relief organizations should be lauded for their commitment to eradicating these diseases in developing nations. But unless relief truly targets the roots of the problem, aid may be simply a temporary relief, used to put out metaphorical fires instead of preventing them.

As discussed yesterday, an educated woman is three times less likely to acquire HIV/AIDS in her lifetime, and is more likely to recognize the positive impact of health services, such as vaccinations, for her family. Therefore, an educated woman will be less likely to need emergency aid – such as HIV antiviral medicine or malaria antibiotics – because her education will already have awakened her to the positive impact of prevention. If funds were spent educating women at the first step – that of grassroots levels – relief funds might not be required in such large amounts to respond, ex post facto, to these problems.

A frequent government budget question is: Can we really afford to educate women?

My question is: Can we really afford not to?

Janna