Modern Economy, 2012, 3, 675-685 Published Online September 2012 (
An Analysis of Income Inequality and Education
Inequality in Bahrain
Hisham H. Abdelbaki
Department of Economics, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
Received July 5, 2012; revised August 1, 2012; accepted August 10, 2012
This research investigates the income inequality and education inequality that still capture the interest of economists,
socialists and politicians for its clear impact on all fields in the national economy. The main findings of the research are:
first there is a positive associatio n between the level of educatio n of the head of the family and family income. Second,
income inequality leads to education inequality between income-classes, which leads to widen the in come gap between
future generations. The third is inequality in education attainment in Bahrain had been declined during the period 1980-2006.
Finally, the result stated that the main sources of education inequality in Bahrain are disparities in education costs,
availability of private schools in different governorates, and in spending on education. The paper recommends that the
policy-makers in Bahrain should pay more attention to distribution of private schools among governorates and educa-
tion cost among these sch ools to improve the education inequality and income inequality situatio n in Bahrain.
Keywords: Income Inequality; Education; Education Inequality; Bahrain
1. Introduction
Education and education inequality are the most important
factors affecting income inequality. Obtaining a better e du-
cation—particularly in developing countries—means a
higher level of income. At the same time, education ex-
penses may well be beyond the reach of people with low
income levels, thus poverty means obtaining less effi-
ci en t edu ca tion, or even not obtaining any education at all,
which minimizes the chance of obtaining a job with ade-
quate salar y, and lead to a wider income gap between the
rich and poor sectors of the community, therefore, educa-
tion and income distribution are issues closely related to
each other [1].
In the literature on human capital theory, Tanzi [2]
stated that human capital is the most vital element, not
only to push the wheels of growth and development, but
also to boost the wheels of justice and equality in society.
Thus, the human resource development holds great impor-
tance in terms that human is the goal, means and executer
of the economic development process. Human resource
development comes through increasing the skills and
educational abilities, the leve l and quality of the available
health and training services and this is referred to as “in-
vestment in human capi tal”. In most countries, the level of
education is one of the most important determinants of
the wage level. Therefore, education is an important fac-
tor in determining the degree of equitable distribution of
income in any society. For example, 50% of the income
inequality in Brazil is interpreted through the disparity in
educational level [3].
The interpretation of the human capital model was at-
tributed to Adam Smith in his book (Wealth of Nations)
in 1667 and recently to Schultz and Becker in his book
“Human Capital” in 1964. The human capital model is the
extension of the new-classic model det e rmini ng wages and
employment supply on the long run, and the idea revo lve s
around the threshold product of the work factor. In this
model, assuming that education and training will in crease
worker’s productivity and hence wages, each individual
takes a decision to determine the quantity and quality of
education and training needed by him. There is no doubt
that this decision is also beset by cost like direct cost thro-
ugh spending on education and training, as well as the i n d i -
rect cost in the form income lost during time of training
and education of labor. Then individuals choose to learn
and train if the expected return after the process of edu-
cation and training is higher or at least equal to the cost
borne by the individual to choose alternative education
and training.
Even with different analysis on the effect of education
on the earned income, the relationship between education
and income inequality is ambiguous. A number of studies
have proved the existence of a positive relationship be-
tween education and training on the one hand1, and the abil-
1See the survey by Psacharopoulos and Wood d h a l l , 1985, pp. 264-270.
opyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
ity to earn income on the other hand [4-9]. In contrast, many
studies find that education an d education inequality have
no statistically significant effects on income inequality
[10,11]. On the other side, some literature focused on the
effects of types of education, private and public, on in-
come inequality, for instance, Sylwester [12] argued
whether or not education expenditure reduce income ine-
quality. He used a cross-sectional data to measure the as-
sociation between the change in income inequality level
and public expenditure for edu cation. His main finding is
that devoting more resources to public education reduces
income inequality. Glomn and Ravikumar [13] reported
that income inequality d eclines under a private education
system. However, it unambiguously decline under a pub -
lic education system. The same results are stated by Sa in t-
Paul and Verdier [14], Eskstein and Zilcha [15] and Zhang
[16] where public education can lower the level of inco me
inequality over time. On contrast, Jimenez [17] stated th at
many public education expend itures do not benef it the p o o r
at all, hence, have no positive effect on income inequality.
The main objectives of this study are to investigate in-
come inequality and education inequality in Bahrain using
household exp enditure and income surv eys and analyze t he
causality relationship between education inequality and
income inequality over time.
The next section is devoted to analyze the sources of
income distribution while section three discusses causal-
ity relationship between education inequality and income
inequality. Education ineq uality and income inequality in
Bahrain is analyzed in section four. Section five focuses
on analysis of causes of education inequality in Bahrain.
Finally, section six presents the concluding remarks.
2. Sources of Income Inequality
There are many causes for the income gap. The most im-
portant of these causes are education and training. As me n-
tioned before, education is an important factor in deter-
mining the level of wage and thus contributes greatly to
the distribution of initial income in society. Also, health
and health care is an important determinant of the tar-
geted and achieved degree of growth and development in
a country. Economists confirm the existence of a close rel a-
tionship between nutrition and the worker’s ability to
make the effort required of him, this relationship is called
“the efficiency—wage function”, it confirms that malnu-
trition leads to low productivity. In general we can say
that in light of the targeted production technology, im-
proving the level of health will lead to improved labor
productivity according to the level of productivity/work-
er, and from here comes the impact of the health level on
income distribution, where the rich and urban residents
generally have access to better health care services than
the poor and the countryside residents.
It is no secret that work is the primary source of inc o m e
for the vast majority of individuals in all economies, and
therefore employment and unemployment represent a sig-
nificant cause of poor distribution of income. To analyze
that, it is important to iden tify the working-age and labor
force within the community, and the rate of participation
in the labor force and unemployment types and rate.
Labor organizations play a clear role in reducing the
income gap in the community through a package of be ne-
fits provided to workers, labor organizations are formed
of workers working in one industry or group of industries,
which means that there are different forms and levels of
those organizations. The organizational form of labor re gu -
lations also differ according to the country, industry and
possibly other factors. However, there are important units
in those organizations which assume specific roles to de-
fend the interests of workers, like the collective bargain-
ing unit which takes th e role of n egotiating with employ-
ers to gain appropriate working cond itions like wages, w o r -
king hours and conditions of work and any other related
issues. The world famous economist Alfred Marshall (8th
edition, New York: Macmillan, 1920) studied the impact
of labor organizations on the level of wages and employ-
ment of workers and concluded what is now known as
the “Marshall rules”, Marshall decides that the impact of
labor organizations on the wages and employment of wo rk -
ers depends on the flexibility of demand for labor. The
first rule decides that whenever the labor demand curve
is inflexible, the role of labor organizations in the pro-
duction process increases. The second rule indicates that
whenever the demand curve on the produced item or ser-
vice is inflexible, the demand curve for labor under the
umbrella of labor organizations is inflexible. The third rule
states that whenever the demand for workers under the
umbrella of labor organizations is not flexible, the share
of labor organization s from wages to the total production
costs would decline. Finally the fourth rule states that wh e-
never the demand curve for labor under the umbrella of
labor organizations is flexible, the curve for supply of alte-
rnative factors of production is inflexible. Although labor
organizations lead to an increased number of the unem-
ployed, they contribute to reduce the pay gap between wo r -
kers under the umbrella of these organizations—usually
low-skilled labor—and workers who are not covered by
the umbrella of these organizations—usually highly skilled
workers [18-22]. In general, we can say that labor organ i-
zations contribute positively in reducing the income gap
between the labor forces within the national economy.
There is no doubt that the positive role of these different
organizations depends on their effectiveness on one hand
and the environment through which they operate like do-
mestic legislation, type and structure of labor markets and
the extent of participation of workers in unions and other
organizations on the other hand.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
After years of work, saving represents an important
factor in the stability of income level in the future. The
model of life cycle that has been developed by Modigli an i
and Brumberg [23] indicates that families save to distrib-
ute consumption over the years of their lives. As the wo rk
period may extend up to the age of retirement, while per-
haps the individual lives beyond that age, then they save
on their working-age so as not to have to cut th eir spend-
ing after that age due to low income because of retire-
ment. In the simplified image of the model, we assume
that the level of income will be stable during the work-
ing-age, and with the assumption of a constant average
savings also during those years w ithout interest (zero i nt er -
est rate), the net wealth generated will grow constantly
and the wealth to age relationship curve takes the shape
of an inverted “V”. However, Ando and Modigliani [24]
amended the assumption of zero interest, and assumed
positive rate of interest that does not change with time, as
a result the net wealth curve takes the shape of an inv e r te d
“U” [25].
Also another important factor affecting the degree of
equitable distribution of income is the extent of racial
discrimination in society between classes or categories,
or perhaps certain sectors. Racial discrimination takes one
of two forms: first, skills, competencies, expertise and
capacity are all equal but discrimination is based on gen-
der, for example, the discrimination between women and
men merely because of sex difference. The second is dis-
crimination in pay or benefits for employees in the same
areas simply because they belong to different groups. In
addition to the discrimination in wages and benefits, oth er
forms of discrimination include: 1) Preference of employ-
ment to individuals belonging to certain groups, which
spreads unemployment among other groups; 2) Differ-
ence in the rates of labor force participation among dif-
ferent groups; 3) Discrimination may also take the form
of housing segregation, in the sense that individuals be-
longing to certain groups live in specific areas, and the
best example of this type of racial discrimination is on
the African Americans in the United States, where spe-
cific areas are allocated for them to stay. The question
that comes to mind now is: What is the relationship of
that with the justice of income distribution? Answer is
that these areas lack the edu cation and quality health care,
hence affecting the skills, competencies and the ability of
residents, and also affecting their ability to o btain a qual-
ity job, and finally, the incom e earned from that job [26,27].
There are many theories trying to show the impact of
racial discrimination on individuals and society, includ-
ing the theory of the tendency for discrimination, statis-
tical discrimination theory and the Marx theory of dis-
crimination and the model of the discriminatory mark an d
finally the model of overcrowding. Becker [28] has pro-
vided the theory of the tendency for discrimination. It is
based on the assumption that the employer tends to dis-
tinguish between workers. The theory of statistical discri-
mination was developed through contributions of Phelps
[29], Arrow [30-32] and also Aigner and Cain [33]. The
theory is based on two basic assumptions: 1) That the
employer cannot determine the threshold productivity of
the worker to be hired; and 2) That the employer has a
vision or a general idea on the relative productivity of
groups of workers, it is presumed that workers from a
certain group have higher threshold productivity than w ork-
ers belonging for another specific group. In contrast to
the previous theory, the employer wants to maximize prof-
its, as well as basing the analysis on internal objective.
The third form of the Marxism theory is derived, where
the hypothesis is based on the statute of Marx ’s view that
there are two conflicting classes in capitalist society: em-
ployers and labors. And the division of GDP between t h e s e
two classes leads to class struggle. This struggle takes its
economic nature through strikes and collective bargain-
ing, and its political nature through the formation of la-
bor parties in many Western European countries and lob-
bies in the United States of America. The aim of the cap i-
talist class is to constantly prevent the labor class from
forming political parties or economic forces to defend them.
One way to do that is the so-called Divide and Conquer
Strategy, where the capitalists always try to create divi-
sions among the labor class, but this strategy did not wo rk
and was not fruitful due to the increasing awareness of
the labor class to their interests and increasing trade un-
ions and labor political parties. Reich [34-38] explained
that racial discrimination between these two classes has
evolved to discrimination within the same class, Within
the working class there became discrimination between
women and men, as well as discrimination on the basis of
race or descent, such as racial discrimination against b la ck
Americans according to their origin, and certain labor c las -
ses started to consider minorities as a threat to their jobs.
Thus labor classes became divided among them, and con-
sider each other as an enemy. Perhaps this model is more
applicable to th e current situation in th e United States an d
explains the evolution of racial discrimination over time,
from just discrimination between two different classes:
businessmen and labors to racial discrimination within
the working class itself. The fourth model for the inter-
pretation of Racial Discrimination—the discriminatory
mark—was introduced by Loury [39,40]. The theory de-
cides that it is normal to distinguish individuals accord-
ing to their physical appearance and attributes related to
it, in order to deal with the social environment character-
ized by uncertainty. Based on that, discrimination is ma de
between different classes within the same society and there-
fore treatment varies depending on the class. The fifth
model explains racial discrimination according to sex. Thi s
model was presented for the first time by Bergmann [41]
and newly developed by Stevenson [42], Blau & Hendricks
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
[43] and also Blau [44]. The model assumes the existen ce
of separate jobs for women other than those for men, and
since the business demand for women is less than the
work force volume and the employmen t opportunities for
men are much greater, the prevailing wages of women is
lower compared to men. There is no doubt that racial dis-
crimination in all its forms leads to many economic, so-
cial and political problems. The severity of these problems
increases as racial discrimination increases, leading to
increased class and racial hatred, poverty, slums and in-
creased number of outlaws, and crimes of all kinds lead-
ing to several negative effects on national economy on
the one hand and on the distribution of income on the o t he r
hand. The starting point for the analysis of discrimination
is to measure discrimination and define its images in the
community. The use of regression models is the preferred
method for measuring discrimination, and the model used
in this regard has been developed by Blinder [45] and
Oaxaca [46], and is also known as the Blinder-Oaxaca
decomposition. It is a valuab le tool for the an alysis of the
wage gap, where the differences in wages are classified
into differences between the two groups according to tow
added factors: The first is due to the differences in char-
acteristics between the two groups and the other is due to
differences in returns (coefficients) between these char-
the level of wage or income, this difference will lead to
income gaps between poor families, regions and countries
on one hand and their rich counterparts on the other hand.
Also taking into account the difference in the quality of
education availab le for poor families, areas and countries
from that available to rich families, areas and countries,
the education gap involves yet another dimension which
is the quality of education obtained. The level of educa-
tion and training has another dimension which cannot be
ignored that is the difference in education and training
among the mentioned groups will lead to widening the
income gap with the passage of time, as the influence
comes through affecting the demand and supply of edu-
cation. On the demand side, the poor parties particularly
those in rural areas are characterized by low quantity and
quality demand on education as compared to rich Parties
particularly in the cities. On the supp ly side, we find that
most governments tend to provide educational services
required by the rich and the urban residents, hence the
educational benefits reaching the poor and residents of
rural areas are less than those reaching the rich and urban
areas. Taki ng into acc ount t hat t he level of education clearly
influences the opportunity of getting a job, as well as wa ges
and the level of income, the income of city residents and
the rich will increase at a rate greater than the rate of
increase of incomes of the poor and residents of rural
areas which will increase the income gap between the
two groups. Here we will get into a vicious circle where
a better quality and quantity education would lead to
higher income and a higher income again leads to better
education and so on, so the rich get richer and the
poor get more poorer, widening the gap between them
with the passage of time on one hand, and forms a vi-
cious circle between education and income distribution
on the other hand, as shown in Figure 1.
3. Causality Relationship between Education
Inequality and Income Inequality
In view of the costs of education and training, poor fami-
lies, areas and countries cannot afford such costs mean-
ing that the amount of education and training received by
their children will be lower than that obtained by rich fa mi -
lies, areas and, countries to their children. Since educa-
tion, as mentioned earlier, is an important determinant of
Source: designed by the author.
Figure 1. Causality relationship be tween income inequality and education inequality.
As a result to that, education and its distribution within
the national economy is an important process that receive d
and still draws the interest of economists, socialists and
politicians for its clear impact on the living standards for
individuals and for the whole society in both current and
future ge nerations.
4. Education Inequality and Income
Inequality in Bahrain
The distribution of income in the Kingdom of Bahrain
between Bahraini families through the analysis of the dis-
parity in wages, income inequality, and disparities in ac-
cess to education is discussed as follows.
4.1. Education in Bahrain
The education indicators in the Kingdom of Bahrain show
an increase the rate of literacy between adults from 84%
in the period 1985-1994 to 88.8% in the period 19 9 5-2 0 0 7 ,
the percentage of overall enrollment in public and higher
education in 2007 accounted for 90.4 %, this rate exceeds
the global average of 67.5% and places Bahrain in rank
one on the Gulf and Arab levels. The percentage of fe-
male enrolled in education reached 95.3% more than for
male, which amounted to 85.8% for the same period.
According to a report by the United Nations, the total
education guide reached 89.3%, which exceeds the Arab
average of 72.6%, the Gulf average at 83.4%, and the
global average of 75.3%. The Kingdom of Bahrain came
first among Arab countries in the proportion of primary
school enrollment rate of over 98% according to the Gl o bal
Monitoring Report on Education for all of 2010 issued by
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization [47]. It is worth mentioning that the new
statistics released by the Ministry of Education in Bah-
rain indicate that the proportion of primary school enroll-
ment reaches nearly 100%, since the legal provision for
compulsory education in the Education Act of 2005, has
enabled the Ministry to fo llow up and reform all cases of
leakage or denial of the study caused by parents, result-
ing in an annual reduction in the dropout rate of primary
education. The proportion of students to teachers in pri-
mary schools has risen from a teacher for every 20 stu-
dents in 1990 to 18 students per teacher in 2000. As for
expenditure on education, the percentage has fallen from
12.8% to 12% between 1991 and 1999, and then to 9.4%
in 2007, but the absolute value of th e spending on educa-
tion has increased. Spending on public education as a per -
centage of GDP had declined from 3% in 2000 to 2.4%
in 2008 [47]. Bahrain came within the high-performance
countries in achieving the goals of education for all in
2010. Bahrain has achieved almost hundred per cent ( 0 . 9 7 2 )
in gender equality in education, with a dropout rate of
education in Bahrain, less than half percent (0.04%) in
2007, and the proportion of illiteracy among adults for
the same year was 2.46.
4.2. Education Level and Work Force
Figure 2 indicates the need to have a level of education
for the chance to work, where the ratio of those enrolled
in the labor force increases with high level of education
up to secondary school, and then begins to decline due to
the high level of remuneration paid to higher levels of
education on the one hand and, the low number of hold-
ers of such levels from the total labor force in Bahrain.
4.3. Correlation between Education Status and
Wage Level
There is no doubt in the existence of a close relationship
between educational level and the level of remuneration,
where the level of remuneration increases as the educa-
tional level of workers increase. Figure 3 states the link
between level of education and average wage in Bahrain
in 2006, where the average wage raises with increase in
education level.
4.4. Educational Level and Income Inequality
over Time
Table 1 reflects three dimensions of the relationship be-
tween education and inco me inequality; first it shows the
change in the number of households in a certain income-
class and the level of education over time i.e. dynamic r e l a -
tionship between income distribution and education, for
instance, number of illiterate/read only households from
72 in year 1983/1984 to 69 in year 1994/1995 then to 12 in
year 2005/2006. The second, it represents the change of
number of households in a certain year and education
status according to change in income-class i.e. static rela-
tionship between income distribution and education, for
instance, for intermediate education level, number of
households increases from 27 to 94 to 96 from the first
three income classes then decreases to reach 5 house-
holds in the income class of 24,000 and above.
Source: establishment wages structure & distribution survey, 2006 [ 48].
Fig u re 2. Di str i bu t io n o f w o r k fo rc e by e duc a ti o na l l ev el , 2006.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Source: establishment wages structure & distribution survey, 2006.
Figure 3. Average wage level during month March, 2006 by nationality and education level (Bahraini Dinar).
Table 1. Distribution of HH by annual HH income and educational status (1983/1984-2005/2006).
only Read & Write Primary Intermediate Secondary Above Secondary
B. Sc./B. A. &
of annual
income 1983/
1984 1994/
1995 2005/
2006 1983/
1984 1994/
1995 2005/
2006 1983/
1984 1994/
1984 1994/
1995 2005/
2006 1983/
less than
2400 72 69 12 8 22 6 7 138 2 273 1 39120 4 2 1 8 2
2400– 122 176 50 49 102 24 31 97 3820 944116130483 47 8 1 464
4800– 83 134 30 43 88 28 24 104532696793114310912 51 11 3 10112
7200– 60 69 57 28 53 30 12 30462349671893 1077 33 14 3 7624
9600– 25 59 42 28 29 24 15 25344 26471761773 31 20 3 6716
12,000– 19 51
36 17 17 30 8 20 462 17 369 39 835 21 22 7 69 34
15000– 9 12 29 10 20 20 3 10182 10323 23438 23 17 2 4133
18000– 6 17 26 10 12 18 4 9 215 6 265 35 662 11 33 6 60 47
24,000+ 8 12 26 11 21 15 5 5 243 5 221030555 24 31 8 104118
Total 404 599 308 204 364 195 109 3132888733035311059360045 245 158 34 572290
Source: Central Inform atics Organization, Household e xpenditure and income surve ys 1983/1984, 1994/1995, and 2005/2006, Bahrain [49].
The third dimension is changes in the number of h ouse-
holds in a specific year and certain household income c la ss
with the change in th e level of education; for instan ce, fo r
the income-class ranged from 15,000 to 18,000 in year
2005/2006, the number of households decreased from 29
to 20 then to 18 households in education levels illiterate/
read only, read and write, and primary respectively then
increased to 32 and 43 households for education status
intermediate and secondary respectively.
5. Causes of Education Inequality in Bahrain
In spite of a decrease in the education inequality coeffi-
cient during 1980-2006 period from 63.1 to 60.8, to 48.5,
to 44.3, and to 39.1 in the years 1980, 1983, 1994/1995,
2000, and finally 2005/2006 respectively as shown Fig-
ure 4, but the education inequality value is still high.
Source: Thomas, Wang, and Fan (2001) for years 1980 and 2000, the author
for other years.
Figure 4. Gini education in Bahrain (1980-2005/2006).
As shown before, the demand for education affects
the level of per capita income and can be then a reason
of income inequality. The difference in the demand for
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
education in both quality and quantity may be due to the
disparity in tuition fees on the one hand and disp arities in
the availability of schools with high Geographical effi-
ciency on the other. The author argues that the main fac-
tors affect education inequality in Bahrain is the difference
in effectiveness between diff erent education al institutio ns
in the Kingdom and the income inequality among gover-
norates. There are a lot of educational institutions that of-
fer special curriculums like the America, English, Indian
and Pakistani schools, as well as higher education institu-
tions, which leads to varying efficiency of graduates and
therefore their ability to engage in the labor market. Also,
we should not overlook the great disparity in the study costs
between those institutio ns and the impact on income dis-
tribution at the present time and in the future. In the fol-
lowing section, causes of ed ucation inequality in Bah rain
will be analyzed.
5.1. Difference in Income Level among
As discussed above, the income level is an important fac-
tor of demand and supply of education. The government
provides high quality/quantity education in rich areas/
rich families. At the same time, high-income level areas/
families are able to demand high quality and quantity edu-
cation. The two effects, demand for and supply of educa-
tion, support education inequality. Table 2 reflects the
distribution of income between the governorates of the
Kingdom. The table shows that 18% of the families of
the North ern governor ate have an av erage annu al income
between 7200 and 9600 dinars. It reports that 11%, 9%,
9%, 6% and 5% of the families of the Muharraq, Central,
Southern, Northern and the Capital governorates get the
highest level of the average annual income.
5.2. Difference in Costs of Study
The difference in the cost of education is one of the char-
acteristics of education in Bahrain, in view of the remark
able diversity in the quality of educational institutions,
where the majority use a curriculum designed by them,
mostly a mixture between the curriculums of the Ministry
of Education in Bahrain and other curriculums presented
by them to characterize the school from others. Table 3
shows the disparity in tuition and registration in some
private schools operating in Bahrain. Private schools in
Bahrain are divided into foreign private schools, and na-
tional private schools. The cost of study and registration
in the first type is more than the seco nd. The study in the
first type is in one foreign language and not in Arabic,
while educational language in national private schools is
a mixture of a foreign language—usually English—and
Arabic language. Children of rich families usually study
in the first type, while children of middle families attend
the second type, as for poor and low-income families; the y
send their children to government schools, where study
and registration is free.
5.3. Difference in the Availability of Private
Schools among Governorates
This disparity may be in terms of quantity, quality or bot h
quantity and quality. Figure 5 states that the regions that
suffer from the low level of family income are those re-
gions that suffer from a lack of the number of private
schools. The number of families in the southern prov ince
whose average annual income comes between 12,000 and
18,000 is 10 families from a total of 95 families or 10.5%
in 2005/2006, Muharraq Governorate ranked second in
terms of lower number of households. The number of p ri-
vate schools in these two Governorates is two schools in
the southern Governorate and seven schools in the Mu-
harraq Governorate. In contrast, the number of private
schools in Central and Capital Governorates is 25 and 21
schools respectively in the same year, the number of fa mi-
lies in both Provinces whose average annual income is
between 12,000 and 18,000 is 99 and 104 respectively,
representing 14.4% and 13.4% from the total sample.
Table 2. Average of Bahrain households annual income by governorate (2005/2006).
Annual income classes Capital Muharraq Northern Middle Southern Total
Less than 2400 11 7 14 11 2 45
2400– 38 29 72 64 10 213
4800– 45 49 126 78 24 322
7200– 40 56 141 99 9 345
9600– 26 45 104 73 12 260
12,000– 35 39 104 99 10 287
15,000– 24 31 73 54 10 192
18,000– 19 49 68 94 7 237
24,000– 13 26 39 43 2 123
30,000+ 15 34 36 74 9 168
Total 266 365 777 689 95 2192
% of total 12.14 16.65 35.45 31.43 4.33 100.00
Source: Central Inform atics Organization, household e xpenditure and income survey 2005/06, Bahrain.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Table 3. Tuition and registration fees at selected private schools in Bahrain 2009/2010.
No. School name Curriculum Annual tuition fees Education language Registration fees
First: Foreign Private Schools
1 Al Mahd British
K.G. (BD 450)
Grades 1 - 6 (BD 650)
Grades 7 - 9 (BD 850)
Grades 10 - 11 (BD 1050)
English 25
2 Saint Christopher British
K.G. (BD 2333)
Pre- school (BD 2886)
Grades 1 - 2 (BD 2886)
Grades 3 - 6 (BD 3276)
Grades 7 - 8 (BD 4104)
Grades 9 - 11 (BD 5148)
Grades 12 - 13 (BD 6261)
English 50
3 Delmon British
K.G. (BD 870)
Perception (BD 8 70)
Grades 1 - 2 (BD 900)
Grades 3 - 6 (BD 1050)
English 100
4 French French
K.G. French and Bahr aini students (BD 1402) others (BD 1694)
Grades 1 - 5 French & Bahraini (BD 1733) others (BD 2058)
Grades 6 - 12 French & Ba h r a i n i (BD 2659) others (BD 3215) French 250
5 British British
K.G. (BD 2055)
Pre-school (BD 2613)
Grades 1 - 2 (BD 2613)
Grades 3 - 5 (BD 2973)
Grades 6 - 8 (BD 3720)
Grades 9 (BD 3891)
Grades 10 - 11 (BD 4071)
Grades 12 - 13 (BD 5316)
English 100
6 International
Bahrain American
K.G. (BD 5366)
Grades 1 - 6 (BD 5366)
Grades 7 - 8 (BD 5646)
Grades 9 - 12 (BD 5931)
English 455
7 International IMI American
K.G. (BD 1056)
Grades 1 - 6 (BD 1089)
Grade 7 (BD 1452)
Grade 8 (BD 1551)
Grade 9 (BD 1683)
Grades 10 - 12 (BD 2362.5)
English 150
Secondly: National Private Schools
1 Ibn Khaldoun American + IB
K.G. (BD 2025)
Grades 1 - 5 (BD 2450)
Grades 6 - 8 (BD 2800)
Grades 9 - 10 (BD 3175)
Grades 11 - 12 (BD 3550)
English & Arabic 100
2 Bayan American + IB
K.G. 1 (BD 1980)
K.G. 2 (BD 2340)
Grades 1 - 5 (BD 2540)
Grades 6 - 9 (BD 2840)
Grades 10 - 12 (BD 3180)
English & Arabic 200
3 Naseem American + IB
K.G. 1 (BD 1820)
K.G. 2 (BD 1920)
Grades 1 - 5 (BD 2150)
Grades 6 (BD 2400)
Grades 7 - 8 (BD 2410)
Grades 9 - 10 (BD 2630)
Grades 11 - 12 (BD 2680)
English & Arabic 200
Compiled by the author from private education department, ministry of education, B ahrain.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
5.4. Difference in Spending on Education cious cycle in the relationship between level of income
and education, which consequently leads to widening the
income gap between future generations. The difference in
the educational institutions available in Bahrain causes
disparity in the sk ills of graduates, leading to a difference
in the career opportunities available, and then wages levels.
Inequality in education attainment in Bahrain had been
declining during the period 1980-2006, this results sup-
port the theoretical and empirical literature on education
and income inequality nexus. For instance, Thomas, Wang
and Fan [50] measured Gini education for population age
over fifteen, using two different methods for 85 countries
from 1960 to 1990. They found that educatio n inequality
for most countries in their sample declined during the
period. The important sources of education inequality in
Bahrain are disparities in education costs, availability of
private schools in different governorates, and in spending
on e d u c ation . One issu e for imp rov ing in come i nequ ali ty in
Bahrain is to improve education inequality. So, the pol-
icy-makers in Bahrain should pay more attention to dis-
tribution of private schools among governorates and edu-
cation cost among these schools.
The level of education affects the awareness of impor-
tance of education and its ability to improve the family
income-class. Table 4 represents that the spending on ed u-
cation divers from one level of education to another on
one hand and from one governorat e t o anot her on the other
hand. Capital governorate is spending more on Prepri-
mary and primary education and tertiary-university and
higher education. However, Central and Muharraq gov-
ernorates are spending more on secondary education.
6. Conclusion
No doubt that education and education inequality are im-
portant and influential factors on income distribution,
through their impact on the level of remuneration and the
career opportunities available. Based on the analysis of
data from household expenditures and income surveys
shows a positive correlation between the level of educa-
tion of the family head and family income. Poor families
and poor areas suffer from low chances to obtain high
quality education, and then less chance of getting a job
with an appropriate salary which leads to low income and
a lesser chance for a quality education leading to a vi- REFERENCES
[1] H. H. Abdelbaki, “The Impact of Macroeconomic Poli-
cies on Income Distribution: An Empirical Study of
Egypt,” PhD Thesis, Development and Project Planning
Centre, Bradford University, Bradford, 2001.
[2] V. Tanzi, “Fundamental Determinants of Inequality and
the Role of Government,” IMF Working Paper, WP/98/
178, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, 1998.
[3] B. Clements, “Income Distribution and Social Expendi-
ture in Brazil,” IMF Working Paper, WP/97/120, Interna-
tional Monetary Fund, Washington DC, 1997.
Source: household expenditure and income survey 2005/06. [4] G. S. Becker and B. R. Chiswick, “Education and the
Distribution of Earnings,” American Economic Review,
Vol. 56, No. 1-2, 1966, pp. 358-369.
Figure 5. Distribution of private schools by governorate
2009/2010. [5] M. Adelman and C. Morris, “Economic Growth and So-
cial Equity in Developing Countries,” Stanford University
Press, Stanford, 1973.
Table 4. Average annual per capita expenditure on educa-
tion by governorate and the education level of the head of
HH. [6] H. B. Chenery and M. Syrquin, “Patterns of Development:
1950-1970,” Oxford University Press for the World Bank,
London, 1975.
Education status of
the head of HH Capital Muharraq Northern CentralSouthern
Pre-primary and
primary education 47.4 17.3 22.6 25.9 21.6
Secondary education 6.7 7.7 2.8 7.8 4.8
education 18.1 23.5 7.5 3.0 7.9
and higher education 52.9 23.6 21.9 39.3 15.1
Education not
definable by level 3.9 6.4 2.9 19.4 8.9
[7] A. Marin and G. Psacharopoulos, “Schooling and Income
Distribution,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.
58, No. 3, 1976, pp. 332-338. doi:10.2307/1924955
[8] B. R. Chiswick, “Earnings Inequality and Economic De-
velopment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 85,
No. 1, 1971, pp. 21-39. doi:10.2307/1881838
[9] C. R. Winegarden, “Schooling and Income Distribution:
Evidence from International Data,” Economica, Vol. 46,
No. 181, 1979, pp. 83-87.
[10] R. Ram, “Population Increase, Economic Growth, Educa-
tional Inequality & Income Distribution: Some Recent
Evidence,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 14,
No. 3, 1984, pp. 419-428.
[11] R. Ram, “Can Educational Expenditures Reduce Income
Inequality in Less-Developed Countries?” Economics of
Education Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1989, pp. 185-189.
[12] K. Sylwester, “Can Education Expenditures Reduce In-
come Inequality?” Economics of Education Review, Vol.
21, No. 1, 2002, pp. 43-52.
[13] G. Glomn and B. Ravikumar, “Public versus Private In-
vestment in Human Capital: Endogenous Growth and In-
come Inequality,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100,
No. 4, 1992, pp. 818-834.
[14] G. Saint- Paul and T. Verdier, “Education, Democracy , and
Growth, Centre for Economic Policy Research,” Discus-
sion Paper No. 613, London, 1992.
[15] Z. Eckstein and I. Zilcha, “The Effect of Compulsory
Schooling on Growth, Income Distribution and Welfare,”
Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 54, No. 3, 1994, pp.
339-359. doi:10.1016/0047-2727(94)90040-X
[16] I. Zhang, “Optimal Investments in Education and En-
dogenous Growth,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
Vol. 98, No. 3, 1996, pp. 387-404.
[17] E. Jimenez, “The Public Subsidization of Education and
Health in Developing Countries: A Review of Equity and
Efficiency,” Research Observer, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1986, pp.
111-129. doi:10.1093/wbro/1.1.111
[18] H. G. Lewis, “Unionism and Relative Wages in the
United States,” University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
[19] R. D. Plotnick, “Trends in Male Earnings Inequality,”
Southern Economic Journal, Vol . 48, No. 3, 1982 , pp. 724-
732. doi:10.2307/1058663
[20] R. Freeman and J. L. Medoff, “What Do Unions Do?”
Basic Books, New York, 1984.
[21] M. Curme and L. M. Khan, “Unions and Nonunion Wage
Dispersion,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 69,
No. 4, 1987, pp. 600-607. doi:10.2307/1935954
[22] M. Gittleman and B. Pierce, “New Estimates of Union
Wage Effect s in the US,” Economics Letters, Vol. 95, No.
2, 2007, pp. 198-202. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.10.003
[23] F. Modigliani and R. Brumberg, “Utility Analysis and the
Consumption Function: An Interpretation of Cross-Sec-
tion Data,” In: K. Kurihara, Ed., Post-Keynesian Eco-
nomics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1954.
[24] A. Ando and F. Modigliani, “The Lifecycle Hypothesis of
Saving: Aggregate Implications a nd Tests,” Americ an Eco-
nomic Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, 1963, pp. 55-84.
[25] E. Wolff, “Poverty and Income Distribution,” Wiley-
Blackwell, Hoboken, 2009.
[26] G. Orfield, “The Growth of Segregation in American
School,” National School Boards Association, Alexandria,
[27] G. Orfield and C. Lee, “Racial Transformation and the
Changing Nature of Segregation,” The Civil Rights Pro-
ject of Harvard University, Cambridge, 2006.
[28] G. S. Becker, “The Economics of Discrimination,” 2nd
Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971.
[29] E. S. Phelps, “The Statistical Theory of Racing and Sex-
ism,” American Economic Review, Vol. 62, 1972, pp.
[30] K. J. Arrow, “Models of Job Discrimination,” In: A. H.
Pascal, E d ., Racial Discrimination in Economic Life, D.C.
Heath, Lexington, 1972, pp. 83-102.
[31] K. J. Arrow, “Some Mathematical Models of Race in The
Labor Market,” In: A. H. Pascal, Ed., Racial Discrimina-
tion in Economic Life, D.C. Heath, Lexington, 1972, pp.
[32] K. J. Arrow, “The Theory of Discrimination,” In: O.
Ashenfelter and A. Rees, Eds., Discrimination in Labor
Markets, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973.
[33] D. Aigner and G. G. Cain, “Statistical Theories of Dis-
crimination in Labor Markets,” Industrial Labor Rela-
tions Review, Vol. 30, 1977, pp. 175-187.
[34] M. Reich, “The Economics of Racism,” In: D. M. Gordon,
Ed., Problems in Political Economy, 2nd Edition, D.C.
Heath, Lexington, 1977.
[35] M. Reich, “Who Benefit from Racism? The Distribution
among Whites of Gains and Losses from Racial Inequal-
ity,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 13, 1978.
[36] M. Reich, “Changes in the Distribution of Benefits from
Racing in The 1960s,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol.
16, No. 2, 1981, pp. 314-321. doi:10.2307/145516
[37] M. Reich, “Racial Inequality,” Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1981.
[38] M. Reich, “Postwar Income Differences: Trends and
Theories,” In: G. Mangrum and P. Philips, Eds., Three
Worlds of Labor Economics, M.E. Sharpe, White Plains,
[39] G. C. Loury, “Discrimination in the Post—Civil Rights
Era: Beyond Market Interactions,” Journal of Economics
Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1998, pp. 117-126.
[40] G. C. Loury, “The Anatomy of Racial Inequality,” Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
[41] B. P. Bergmann, “Occupational Segregation, Wages and
Profits When Employers Discriminate by Race or Sex,”
Eastern Economic Journal, April-July 1974, pp. 103-110.
[42] M. H. Stevenson, “Relative Wages and Sex Segregation
by Occ upatio n,” In : C. B. Lloy d, Ed. , Sex, Discrimination,
and the Division of Labor, Columbia University Press,
New York, 1975.
[43] F. D. Blau and W. E. Hendricks, “Occupational Segrega-
tion by Sex: Trends and Prospects,” Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1979, pp. 1979-210.
[44] F. D. Blau, “Discrimination against Women: Theory and
Evidence,” In: W. Darity Jr., Ed., Labor Economics: Mo-
dern View, Kluwer-Hijhoff, Boston, 1984, pp. 53-89.
[45] A. Blinder, “Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and
Structural Estimates,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol.
7, No. 4, 1973, pp. 436-455. doi:10.2307/144855
[46] R. Oaxaca, “Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. ME
Labor Market,” International Economic Review, Vol. 14,
No. 3, 1973, pp. 693-709. doi:10.2307/2525981
[47] UNISCO, “General Regional Overview: Arab Countries
—Path to Equality,” The Global Report about Education
for All, 2010.
[48] Report for Establishment Survey of Wages Structure &
Distribution Survey, Central Informatics Organisation,
General Directorate of Statistics, Bahrain, 2006.
[49] Household Expenditure and Income Surveys 1983/84,
1995/96 and 2005/06, Central Informatics Organisation,
General Directorate of Statistics, Bahrain.
[50] V. Thomas, Y. Wang and X. Fan, “Measuring Education
Inequality: Gini Coefficient of Education, World Bank
Research Paper No. 2525,” The World Bank, Washington
DC, 2001.