Exploring educational trends and challenges in the MENA region amidst a global crisis: An empirical analysis of the pandemic's impact on SDG4

Zaidan, Esmat; Ehsan, Muhammad Mubashir Article Exploring educational trends and challenges in the MENA region amidst a global crisis: An empirical analysis of the pandemic's impact on SDG4 Research in Globalization Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Zaidan, Esmat; Ehsan, Muhammad Mubashir (2024) : Exploring educational trends and challenges in the MENA region amidst a global crisis: An empirical analysis of the pandemic's impact on SDG4, Research in Globalization, ISSN 2590-051X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 8, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100225 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/331153 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 Available online 17 May 2024 2590-051X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Exploring educational trends and challenges in the MENA region amidst a global crisis: An empirical analysis of the pandemic’s impact on SDG4 Esmat Zaidan a , * , Muhammad Mubashir Ehsan b a College of Public Policy, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar b Master of Social Policy and Program Evaluation, College of Public Policy, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Adaptability COVID-19 Pandemic External shocks Government expenditure Income inequality MENA region Quality of education ABSTRACT The paper presents a cross-country analysis of seven countries in the MENA region and explores the effects of COVID-19 on educational policymaking. The paper uses a quasi-thematic literature review to highlight the emerging themes related to the quality of education during the pandemic. The paper investigates the educational trends in seven MENA region countries and provides descriptive analysis to understand if there were changes from 2016 to 2020. In order to investigate these trends, the study uses the conceptualization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4) “Quality of education.” The analysis is based on the data from the World Bank Development indicators. The paper’s evidence identifies a difference in the level of government expenditure on education within the MENA region. Pre and during COVID-19 provides crucial insights such as all countries increased their government expenditure on education except Egypt and Bahrain. The paper further addresses the contributing factors to the educational gaps in the region, such as digital exclusion, inequality (income and gender), and the government’s budget constraints during the pandemic. This study presents recommendations to bridge these identified gaps in the post-pandemic era. 1. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak had a multi-sectorial impact and influenced government policy prioritization. The pandemic influenced social and economic factors both within countries and globally. Regarding global responses, the crises may derail targets such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The preexisting macro and micro-level inequalities were exposed, further exacerbating the conditions of low-income countries and individuals with lower incomes (UN DESA, 2022). Moreover, countries already facing financial constraints and responding to the immediate COVID-19 related expenses could not rationalize funds to ensure the SDG targets. Given the current circumstances, it is essential to consider and understand the impact of COVID-19 on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The literature in the context of the SDGs illustrates that specific goals have become more pressing, such as Chapman and Tsuji (2020), who argue that Reduced Inequality (SDG 10), Climate Action (SDG 13), and Partnerships (SDG 17) are essential for a successful transition towards sustainability. However, some studies are critical of the SDGs in the post-pandemic era, such as Heggen, Sandset, and Engebretsen (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the education system globally, with lockdowns and school closures posing a significant threat to the educational goals set by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Shulla et al., 2021). The pandemic has led to a deepening of the global learning crisis, with millions of children worldwide unable to access in-person education and many students potentially not returning to learning institutions (Magomedov et al., 2020). The impact of the pandemic on the delivery and achievement of learning outcomes has been severe, with significant challenges faced in transitioning to digital platforms for remote learning (Vinichenko, 2021). One of the most significant impacts of the pandemic on education has been the widespread closures of schools and universities (Kufi, 2020). As countries scrambled to contain the spread of the virus, governments worldwide ordered lockdowns and educational institution closures, with some countries closing schools for months at a time (Kufi, 2020); this has had a significant impact on children’s access to education, with millions of students around the world unable to attend school in person. According to UNESCO, an estimated 147 million children could not access in-person education during the pandemic, and an additional 24 million students from primary to university level may not return to learning * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Zaidan). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research in Globalization journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-in-globalization https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100225 Received 3 February 2024; Received in revised form 9 May 2024; Accepted 12 May 2024 Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 2 institutions; this represents a significant setback for SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all (UNSD, 2022). The closure of schools has also significantly impacted the delivery of education and the achievement of learning outcomes (Vinichenko, 2021). With students unable to attend school in person, many countries have turned to remote learning as a solution. However, this transition has not been without its challenges. Remote learning requires access to technology and the Internet, which many students in low-income countries do not have (Meinck et al., 2022). In addition, remote learning requires a significant level of self-motivation and discipline, which many students may not have (Kufi, 2020); this has led to significant disparities in the delivery and achievement of learning outcomes, with students from low-income households and rural areas particularly affected to ensure inclusive, equitable, and high-quality education for all, including in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This goal encompasses providing access to education regardless of gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, fostering inclusive learning environments, enhancing the quality and relevance of education, promoting lifelong learning opportunities, and nurturing global citizenship education. However, the MENA region faces unique challenges in achieving these objectives, such as disparities in access to education between urban and rural areas, gender inequalities in educational attainment, and the impact of conflicts and displacement on the education system. For instance, in the case of the MENA region, 37 million children were not able to reach remote learning opportunities. (UNESCO et al., 2021). The study focuses on the MENA region and explores how different countries’ educational experiences during the pandemic. Traditionally, studies in the MENA region have focused on the quality of education from the perspective of regulation and governance aspects. A study by Heyneman (1997) identified that concern in the MENA region is not related to financial resources but to the inefficiencies on the implementation side. However, over the decades, the educational landscape. The recent trends from the last decade illustrate issues regarding higher rates of unemployment amongst the youth in comparison to the global trends. A study by Farzanegan and Gholipour (2021) provided analysis to explore variation amongst the MENA countries through the lens of the quality of education’s impact on employability amongst the youth. This explorative study focuses on SDG4 to understand educational indicators and policy trends and patterns based on the available quantitative data; this allows the study to delve into the region’s performance regarding global targets. Firstly, the study conceptualizes the quality of education through the lens of academic literature and the definition of the development of the concept by international organizations. Secondly, the paper highlights the methodology used in the paper and the description of the data sources. Thirdly, the paper provides a literature review based on identified themes from the preliminary research. Fourthly, the paper provides a descriptive analysis based on the available data and a comparative analysis of SDG 4 and education-specific indicators. Lastly, the paper provides a section on policy recommendations and a conclusion. 1.1. Research objective In the background of the context of the pandemic, the aim of educational policies has focused on the provision of learning in the setting of COVID-19 lockdown and social distancing restrictions. The policymakers have explored remote learning options, including online and offline mediums. The paper explores the educational trends in the MENA region during the pandemic. The rationale for selecting the MENA region was to explore how the inequality of resources amongst the countries in the same region impacted the educational experience during the pandemic. To understand this evidence, the indicators from SDG 4, “Quality of Education,” inform evidence across these countries. This paper is a valuable addition to the literature as it explores the trends and changes in the SDG 4 indicators before and during the initial phases of the pandemic. Hence, the study uses data from the pandemic data from 2021. 1.2. Conceptualization of quality in education The earliest conceptualization of the quality of education was authored by C.E Beeby, who developed a model to understand the quality of education based on three levels: classroom quality, ensuring the love for the country (patriotism), and based the judgment of broader social criteria (Beeby, 1966). The subsequent most prominent conceptualization in literature was by Hawes and Stephens (1990); the approach was based on the humanist stance of development and education. The authors pointed out three key efficiency aspects in achieving the set goals: relevance-based needs and conditions of humans and the environment, and lastly, working towards excellence and human betterment (Hawes & Stephens, 1990). In 1996, the Delors report was launched and was influential in developing the Dakar Framework for Action, which included concepts related to life skills. The understanding of life skills in the framework was broader than the earlier definitions, encompassing factors related to basic knowledge, vocational skills, and practical skills. This sets the tone for understanding the potential of children to be economic contributors when they join the labor market. The two more recent understandings of the quality of education include the elements of critical thinking, diversity, and innovation, along with the definition of quality of education (UNESCO, 2022). The most inclusive representation of the concept of the quality of education is embedded in SDG 4, which states, “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (U.N., 2020) (See Appendix A of SDG 4 Target). However, this conceptualization in the background of a pandemic is complex to measure and track, considering the level of disruptions and learning losses during the pandemic. In the background of this conceptualization, the study uses framing of the indicators related to SDG 4 as the main area of exploration. The study identifies relevant variables developed within the SDG 4 context and illustrates a descriptive analysis. 2. Methodology Two methods were used in the paper to develop the study. Firstly, a quasi-thematic literature review is conducted to understand embedded themes related to the quality of education and emerging literature on the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of education. Secondly, the paper presents and illustrates a descriptive using the quality of education variables to investigate the trends in the MENA region from 2016 to 2020. The evidence provides insights regarding three key influential factors (technology, inequality (income and gender), and budget constraints) related to access to quality education during the pandemic. 2.1. Literature review The primary reason for using a thematic literature review in the study is to explore different interactions between the quality of education and other economic and policy variables. As the study is establishing a timeline within the last few decades, it is crucial to explore development in the subject matter areas. Secondly, investigation on the impact of COVID-19 is still new in the emerging literature, so this study explores academic publications focusing on education quality and policy response from the literature. However, grey literature is also utilized to set the background for conceptualizing education. The paper uses four thematic areas: Income inequality and quality of education, the conceptualization of quality of education, quality of education and policy instruments, and the impact of quality of education during the pandemic. These thematic areas were highlighted in the preliminary research conducted using keywords such as quality of E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 3 education, COVID-19, and education quality; the initial research included exploring literature from Google Scholar. Table 1 highlights the keywords used for the overall research. The process of the literature included the following: (i) defining the search words that would be used in the literature, (ii) selection of the library of sources, where the most prominent literature is available, (iii) extraction of data from the studies that are relevant to the overarching research question (iv) reporting the key relevant findings to answer the research question. This was not an extensive literature review or a systematic review; the literature addressed in the study reflects the build-up towards the policy discussion regarding the quality of education. Limitations: As this literature review was not comprehensive, some components, such as generating the keywords, did not follow systematic protocols such as PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome). The keywords used to develop thematic literature were based on preliminary research. 2.2. Empirical analysis The paper provides a descriptive analysis to illustrate the trend of educational variables from 2016 to 2021. The analysis aims to investigate the changes in trends before and during the pandemic on the selected educational variables. In order to explore this trend, secondary data was used, i.e., the research uses a combination of three data sources: the World Bank development indicators, the SDGs data, and the World Inequality database. To provide a comprehensive analysis, the study has sourced economic variables such as government expenditure on education as a percentage of total government expenditure and government expenditure as a percentage of GDP from the World Bank Development Indicators (WDI). The research also draws data on out-ofschool children and the completion of primary SDG data, specifically focusing on 4.1 and 4.2. Lastly, the income inequality data is taken from the World Inequality Database. The research has been conducted over a time frame of 2016–2020. Table 2 illustrates the variables and their description. In this study, the conceptualization of the quality of education focuses on the variable tracking from the SDG 4 relevant variable. There is an acknowledgment that the quality of education is measured through different indicators to understand the level of intelligence of the students through PISA, TIMMS, or any standardized testing. However, this paper focuses on the variables related to the level of access to education, and the primary level students can complete that level of education. The purpose of the study is not to see the impact of education on economic productivity; rather, the focus is to explore if inequality and government expenditure correlate to the quality of education variables conceptualized in this study. The study uses seven countries from the MENA region. The rationale for selecting these countries was based on consistent data availability across the included variable in the study. Table 3 illustrates the selected countries in the study. Countries for three sub-regions have been included to keep the balance and capture sufficient evidence. Countries such as the UAE, Iran, and Kuwait were not included due to a lack of consistency in terms of the data. In addition, the analysis considered the data for the period between 2016 and 2020; again, this was limited due to the lack of consistent data for years from 2020 onwards. For instance, there is data available for the government expenditure on education and Table 1 Keywords for research. Sr# Keywords 1 Quality of education 2 Covid-19 and quality of education 3 Inequality and education 4 Education in pandemic Table 2 Summary indicators with descriptions used in the study. Indicator Name Description Database Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age group) The primary completion rate, or gross intake ratio to the last grade of primary education, is the number of new entrants (enrollments minus repeaters) in the last grade of primary education, regardless of age, divided by the population at the entrance age for the last grade of primary education. SDG Database (World Bank) Children out of school (% of primary school age) Children out of school are the percentage of primary-schoolage children who are not enrolled in primary or secondary school. Children in the official primary age group in preprimary education should be considered out of school. SDG Database (World Bank) Children out of school, female (% of female primary school age) Children out of school are the percentage of primary-schoolage children who are not enrolled in primary or secondary school. Children in the official primary age group in preprimary education should be considered out of school. SDG Database (World Bank) Children out of school, male (% of male primary school age) Children out of school are the percentage of primary-schoolage children who are not enrolled in primary or secondary school. Children in the official primary age group in preprimary education should be considered out of school. SDG Database (World Bank) Primary completion rate, female (% of relevant age group) The primary completion rate, or gross intake ratio to the last grade of primary education, is the number of new entrants (enrollments minus repeaters) in the last grade of primary education, regardless of age, divided by the population at the entrance age for the last grade of primary education. SDG Database (World Bank) Primary completion rate, male (% of relevant age group) The primary completion rate, or gross intake ratio to the last grade of primary education, is the number of new entrants (enrollments minus repeaters) in the last grade of primary education, regardless of age, divided by the population at the entrance age for the last grade of primary education. Data limitations preclude adjusting for students who drop out during the final year of primary education. SDG Database (World Bank) Government expenditure on education, total (% of government expenditure) General government expenditure on education (current, capital, and transfers) is a percentage of total general government expenditure on all sectors (including health, education, social services, etc.). It includes expenditure funded by transfers from international sources to government. General government usually refers to World Development Indicators (world bank) (continued on next page) E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 4 years of compulsory years. However, there is inconsistency in the data regarding completion rates and school children across the countries within the region. This is the key rationale for selecting the timeline from 2016 to 2020. 3. Literature review A significant body of economic literature explores education’s empirical and theoretical effects using years of schooling and economic variables. Various papers have employed a range of models and regressions. The literature first examines the relationship between income inequality and education. Secondly, it delves into the relationship between the quality of education and government expenditure. Additionally, the paper highlights some studies conducted on SDG 4 and identifies research gaps, particularly about the selected region. 3.1. Income inequality and education Income inequality and educational attainment are closely related, with the relationship going both ways (Alesina & Perotti, 1996). On the one hand, higher inequality may increase investors’ confidence to invest in education, as they see it as a way to gain higher returns. On the other hand, it may constrain the mobility of resources from the low-income strata of the economy, making it more difficult for individuals from lower-income backgrounds to access educational opportunities. Research has shown that income inequality positively correlates with educational attainment (Alesina & Perotti, 1996). Perotti (1993) conducted a study of 67 countries and found evidence that societies with a more equitable wealth distribution have higher investment levels in education. Factors related to income distribution are crucial in understanding the relationship between education and economic variables, as it is a complex issue closely linked to intergenerational wealth (Durlauf, 1996; Checchi, 2006)). Galor and Zeira (1993) also theorized that individuals with incredible inherited wealth are more likely to invest in human capital. Furthermore, as income inequality increases, so does the population’s educational attainment; this is likely because individuals from higher-income backgrounds have greater access to educational resources and opportunities, leading to higher educational attainment. One potential reason for this positive relationship is that higher income inequality may increase investors’ confidence to invest in education. As income inequality increases, the returns to education also increase, as a college degree or advanced degree becomes more valuable in the job market (Alesina & Perotti, 1996); this may lead to more investment in education, both by individuals and the government, resulting in higher levels of educational attainment (Rodríguez-Pose & Tselios, 2009). However, income inequality can also constrain the mobility of resources from the low-income strata of the economy, making it more difficult for individuals from lower-income backgrounds to access educational opportunities. As income inequality increases, the gap in resources and opportunities between highand low-income individuals also increases (Magomedov et al., 2020), making it harder for those from lower-income backgrounds to afford a college education or other forms of post-secondary training. Furthermore, research suggests that the relationship between income inequality and educational attainment is one-sided and interactional (Goldrick-Rab, 2016); this means that the relationship between the two variables depends on income inequality and the policies and systems in place to support educational attainment. For example, targeted financial aid programs and other policies to increase access to education can help mitigate income inequality’s adverse effects on educational attainment Goldrick-Rab, 2016. In summary, the relationship between income inequality and educational attainment is complex, with positive and negative effects. Income inequality can increase investors’ confidence in investing in education and constrain the mobility of resources from the low-income strata of the economy. However, the relationship between the two is not just one-sided but also interactional and depends on policies and systems in place to support educational attainment. The poverty index is a commonly used measure to understand the economic well-being of a community or population (Dotter & Klasen, 2017). It is calculated by taking the number of individuals living below the poverty line, as determined by the government and expressing it as a percentage of the total population. This index can also be used to understand a community’s educational attainment (Dotter & Klasen, 2017). Research has consistently shown a correlation between poverty and lower educational attainment (Kena et al., 2016). A National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study found that children from low-income families are less likely to graduate from high school and attend college (NCES, 2016). Similarly, a study by Levy and associates (2016) found that children living in poverty are three times more likely to drop out of high school than their non-poor peers (Casey Foundation, 2016). One reason for this correlation is that poverty can limit access to resources necessary for academic success. Children living in poverty are more likely to attend underfunded schools with fewer resources, such as advanced classes and extracurricular activities (Kena et al., 2016). Additionally, poverty can lead to instability in a child’s home life, including frequent moves and lack of access to necessities, which can negatively impact their educational performance (Casey Foundation, 2016). It is also important to note that educational attainment and poverty are not only correlated but also cyclical: low educational attainment can lead to poverty, and poverty can lead to low educational attainment. Table 2 (continued) Indicator Name Description Database local, regional, and central governments. Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP) General government expenditure on education (current, capital, and transfers) is expressed as a percentage of GDP. It includes expenditure funded by transfers from international sources to government. General government usually refers to local, regional and central governments. World Development Indicators (world bank) GINI Coefficient Pre-tax national income of the total population. The measurement of the coefficient is between 0 and 1. Closer to zero indicates a lower level of inequality, and closer to 1 represents a higher level of inequality World Inequality Database Note: The descriptions are extracted from long definitions mentioned in World Bank databases. Table 3 Area of Study S.R. # Subregion Country 1 Arabian Peninsula Bahrain Qatar Saudi Arabia 2 North Africa Egypt, Arab Rep Morocco 3 Middle East Jordan West Bank and Gaza Source: U.N.,2020 E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 5 Children who do not graduate from high school are more likely to live in poverty as adults (Kena et al., 2016). Therefore, addressing poverty and increasing educational attainment in a community or population can positively impact breaking the cycle of poverty. In summary, the poverty index can be used to understand the economic well-being of a community or population, and research has consistently shown a correlation between poverty and lower educational attainment. Addressing poverty and increasing educational attainment in a community or population can positively impact breaking the cycle of poverty. Another study that provides evidence regarding the impact of income inequality on education is by Checchi (2003), which provides a negative relationship between income equality and secondary education; this means that higher income inequality reduces access to education for low-income strata. This study emphasizes that the correlation between education and economic variables is particularly robust for women’s access to education across all levels. Furthermore, recent research has begun to delve into various dimensions of education, such as expanding education. A working paper by Coady and Dizioli (2017) delves into the relationship between income inequality and the expansion of education. The study results reveal a positive correlation between income inequality and average years of schooling, which is consistent with the idea of constant or increasing returns to additional years of schooling. 3.2. Covid-19 and quality of education In the existing literature in the pandemic context, education quality has been studied through a different lens. In the emerging literature on this subject area, the studies have mainly focused on alternative learning environments during the pandemic. Most studies have reflected on the teaching and learning experiences of the stakeholders involved in this learning environment. Few studies have explicitly worked on SDG 4 ′ s conceptualization as a basis for understanding the quality of education. A study conducted in South Africa investigates the limitations to attaining SDG 4, highlighting the need to improve human resource providing education. (Nakidien et al., 2021). Safitri and associates (2021) present an Indonesian case study that shows that the pandemic has influenced both social and economic pillars of SDGs and discusses fiscal measures and issues related to implementing the fiscal stimulus. Wang and Huang (2021) explored the impact of COVID-19 on SDGs. One of the relevant findings of their paper is that developing countries have paid more attention to the economic factors related to stability due to COVID-19; however, the governments of the developed economies have focused on education stability. These results allow a further investigation into government priorities during the pandemic, especially in low-income countries. Moreover, income inequality has an impact on education during the pandemic. In addition to general studies on the relationship between income inequality and education, country-specific studies investigate specific issues related to access to education more deeply. For example, FauraMartínez et al. (2022) examined the impact of inclusive education and the use of technology on access to education. This study is particularly relevant to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which highlights the potential challenges and opportunities for inclusive education in the context of technology and support resources and aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The study found that while technology can increase inclusivity in education, it can also have an exclusionary effect on students who do not have access to high-quality internet. These findings are essential to consider when discussing the challenges faced by vulnerable and low-income populations in different countries, and they also highlight the need to examine the impact of resource inequality on education outcomes. Another crucial area when discussing the quality of education in the SDG 4 context is the delivery of education, specifically the staff, i.e., the teachers’ experience delivering lessons during COVID-19. The pandemic has hurt the quality of education, with many teachers lacking the ability and capacity to deliver digital lessons effectively; this has led to a decline in the quality of education and highlighted existing inequalities in the education system. According to Vinichenko (2021), the shift to remote learning has highlighted the need for digital literacy and access to technology for both students and teachers. Many teachers have lacked the ability and capacity to deliver digital lessons, leading to a decline in the quality of education. The pandemic has also exposed existing inequalities in the education system, with disadvantaged students facing more significant challenges in accessing remote learning. Governments and educational institutions must provide support and resources to teachers to improve their digital skills and ability to deliver online lessons effectively. Besides, efforts must address the digital divide and ensure all students can access the technology they need to participate in remote learning. A qualitative study in Algeria found that teachers lacked the competencies and resources to deliver digital lessons effectively. The research also uncovered that staff faced internet connectivity and access challenges (Hadjeris, 2022). Similarly, studies in Indonesia have revealed a mixed impact of online teaching, with teachers reporting positive experiences but students facing similar challenges, as outlined by Faura-Martinez et al. (2022) in their study. Numerous studies have focused on e-learning to address issues related to the quality of education and student satisfaction. (El-Sayad et al., 2021; Yahiaoui et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022). A recurring theme in these studies is the challenges related to implementation, connectivity access, and content delivery. Despite the efforts made by educational institutions during the pandemic, it has exposed several structural issues; this highlights the need for a more dynamic model of pedagogy, such as the blended model approach, which provides a combination of in-class and online experiences for students. In a specific context, limited studies have explored SDG 4 specifically. However, some studies have conducted an analysis using the Sustainability Development Index. For instance, a study by (Dhaoui, 2019), illustrates an analysis stating the presence of inequality among all the components of the social indicators across countres in the region. Moreover, a few studies have focused on the governance and policy aspects, highlighting the progress of the SDG Agenda 2030 (Ben Hassein & El Bilali, 2022). In addition, some country-specific studies, such as Al-Thani et al. (2021), present Qatar’s case through the lens of education, highlighting teachers’ development perspective. Other studies in Qatar highlights the government’s commitment to integrating the SDGs and identifies country-specific characteristics (Sever & Tok, 2023; Zaidan, et al., 2023; 2024). These studies provide context and understanding of various country-related nuances for education for sustainable development. A paper in the context of Egypt analyzes SDGs focusing on Greater Cario; the findings demonstrated significant advancements made in the outlying municipalities of Greater Cario, especially in infrastructure and education metrics. However, there has been a decline in economic and environmental indicators, notably following the civic revolution of 2011 (Salem et al., 2020). Furthermore, there is literature regarding challenges in the MENA region related to the quality of education. Joachim Schnitzler and Heise (2021) illustrate the challenges faced by the education sector in Jordan and Oman. The key highlighted factors mentioned in the study are related to cognitive skills and teaching methods. In the case of Oman, for Jordan, there are complex factors related to the influx of refugees from Syria that have put a strain on the financial and human capital resources. Based on the limited literature exploring the indicators at the country level, this paper aims to provide a descriptive analysis related to SDG 4, exploring country experiences before and during the pandemic. Due to the limited nature of work illustrated in the region, especially a comparative analysis based on the SDG 4 indicators, this study is a valuable addition to the literature on SDGs in the MENA region. E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 6 3.3. Educational policy instruments The focus on universal education has been discussed in international policy spheres for the last few decades. From the 1960s to 1970s, the U. S. and the European countries had constantly focused on developing legislation to ensure primary education; the intuition behind it was to have universal education at that level. Low-income countries now focus on these policies to ensure a student’s transition from primary to secondary education. It is important to understand that Western countries’ challenges differ from what the Global South may face. Some studies have explored how there are higher chances of young individuals joining the informal labor market in countries with weak labor regulations. It is essential to understand the cultural factors that may play a crucial role in the behavior of individuals in the global south. Another critical area is understanding the government’s prioritization towards achieving education-related targets and goals. The prioritization can be viewed as the level of educational reforms introduced by the government. Moreover, a measure to gauge this could be the level of government expenditure on education. Fig. 1 illustrates the different government expenditures on education by income level. The information presented in Fig. 1 offers a glimpse into how countries at various income levels allocate their funds toward education. A straightforward analysis of the figure suggests that higher-income countries tend to spend more on education. It is crucial to note that before the pandemic, low-income countries were spending a higher percentage of education compared to 2020 when there was a slight decrease from 3.2 % to 3 %. On the other hand, middle-income and highincome countries saw the opposite trend, with increased government expenditure on education. These trends demonstrate that the COVID-19 crisis has led countries to make different educational spending decisions based on resource constraints, priorities, and the ability to increase government expenditure. The literature has widely discussed the relationship between public expenditure on education and economic growth. Studies (Ziberi et al., 2020; Carpentier, 2006). A positive correlation was found between North Macedonia and the USA. Investment in education is positively associated with economic growth. Public expenditure on education can increase the quality and quantity of human capital, boosting productivity and economic growth (Carpentier, 2006). Studies, such as the one by Mohamad and associates (2021), have found that education is vital for developing countries, as it can help to reduce poverty and promote income equality. In MENA regions, literature has focused on public expenditure and educational attainment. A study Iqbal and Kiendrebeogo (2015) illustrate an analysis of four decades from 1970 to 2010; the findings show that the region had the highest public spending on education amongst developing countries but had little contribution towards the quality of education. Furthermore, a more recent study has explored government spending patterns in the MENA region. The paper talks about the steady nature of government expenditure on education from the 1970s to the 2000s, but it declined after that. (Kheyfets & Audah, 2019). Moreover, another study highlights the significant efficiency of public expenditure and the role of public power in the MENA region. (Mtiraoui & Lassoued, 2019). 4. Descriptive analysis This section illustrates a descriptive visualization of 7 countries from the MENA region, as shown in Table 3. Two countries are selected from North Africa and the Middle East, and three are selected from the Arabian Peninsula. A total of 5 variables are used in the study, but gendered data is used for a few variables. Table 4 summarizes the statistics of the used variables in this study. Fig. 1. Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP). Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) Table 4 Descriptive statistics. Variable Observation Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Government expenditure on education, total (% of government expenditure) 29 13.70 4.432 8 25 Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP) 29 4.42 1.957 2 9 Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age group) 32 94.35 8.695 71 105 Children out of school (% of primary school age) 29 5.12 7.137 0 23 Compulsory education, duration (years) 35 9.71 1.045 9 12 GINI Coefficient 35 0.6214 0.03474 0.57 0.66 E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 7 Based on the table, the percent mean government expenditure on education is 13.70 of the total percentage of government expenditure. Moreover, the mean primary completion rate is 94.35 %, with a standard deviation of 8.69. In addition, the mean percentage of children out of school is 5.12. Lastly, the Gini coefficient illustrates the least variation, 0.0347, with a mean value of 0.62. Table 5 shows further investigation to understand the difference between the sub-regions in the MENA. The table illustrates the Anova test and its significance. Firstly, the mean percentage of government expenditure on education in the Middle East is higher than that of the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. However, the difference is not significant. Secondly, the primary completion rate is higher in the Arabian Peninsula than in the Middle East and North Africa; the difference is significant. Moreover, the mean percentage of children out of school is higher in the Middle East and other subregions. Similarly, the Gini Coefficient is higher in the case of the Arabian Peninsula, with significance. 4.1. Pre and post pandemic descriptive analysis Percentage of out of schools at primary level The overall mean percentage of students who went out of primary school was 4.71. The percentage of out-of-school children at the primary level varied between 0.21 % to 23.13 %. On average, the Percentage of out-of-school children across countries at this level was between 0.61 % to 20.15 %. The Percentage of students who were out of school at the primary level varied within a range of 3.07 % to 7.69 %. Fig. 2 illustrates this trend across countries. The figure illustrates that Saudi Arabia has the highest percentage of children out of school and the lowest Percentage of students out of school in the case of Qatar in 2016 and 2017; however, Egypt has the lowest Percentage in 2018 and 2019. As reported in the literature, COVID-19 has impacted the education sector negatively due to lockdowns and social distancing protocols. Alternative forms of learning, such as e-learning, were introduced during this time, but these had limitations regarding accessibility and availability. While secondary and tertiary education level learners and teachers could adapt to these technologies, it was difficult for primary and young learners to establish an inclusive and conducive learning environment. Fig. 3 compares preand post-COVID-19 estimates for outof-school children. The figure shows the highest increase in the percentage of children out of school in Jordan, from 1.85 (2016–2019 on average) to 5.18 percent in 2020. A similar trend with a smaller magnitude was observed in the West Bank and Gaza. Qatar had an increase of 0.39 % of students out of school during the pandemic, while Bahrain and Morocco’s latest statistics are yet to be published. It is essential to understand that some countries in the region do not have updated data. It is essential to highlight that educational institutes transitioned to home-based learning during the pandemic. In the MENA region, most of the countries adopted strategies to ensure continued home-based learning during the pandemic; however, the countries there were at least nine countries that had a lower level of internet penetration (UNICEF, 2020; ITU Statistics, 2021). Percentage of female students at schools at primary level The overall mean percentage of females out of primary schools is 6.44. This percentage of female students out of primary school levels varied between 0.34 and 23.6. The average female Percentage out of school across the countries was between 1.50 and 20.75 percent. The Percentage of female students out of school at the primary level varied “within” 5.02 to 9.32. Fig. 4 illustrates a similar trend across countries. This figure displays a similar trend for Saudi Arabia. It is important to note that this variable’s data was unavailable for certain countries during the selected periods. However, the overall trend demonstrates the same pattern as the total percentage of children out of primary school illustrated in Fig. 2. Some studies have pointed toward the gender inequality impact of COVID-19 on working women. The primary schools and pre-schools were the most affected by the sudden closure of schools, as both increased the household burden on women and childcare responsibilities (Yildirim & Eslen-Ziya, 2020). Working women who transitioned to working from home increased their caregiver duties during the pandemic. (Wang & Inoue, 2020). However, there is limited literature on COVID-19 and out-of-school primary school girls. This study provides evidence from three countries from the MENA region and compares the before and during the COVID-19 periods. Fig. 5 illustrates the comparison. Similar to the trend for the overall out-of-school, Jordan, West Bank, and Gaza illustrate an increase in the percentage of students out of primary school. Percentage of government expenditure on education The average percentage of government expenditure on education across the countries in the sample was 4.38 %. This expenditure varied between 2.09 % to 8.51 %. On average, the expenditure on education by the government across the countries in the sample was between 2.14 % and 7.601 %. Additionally, each country had variation “within” ranging from 3.58 % to 5.29 %. Fig. 6 illustrates the changes in government expenditure on education across the countries in the sample. There has been a decline in government expenditure in Saudi Arabia from 8.5 % to 6.8 % over the four years. Similar trends are observed for most of the countries in the sample. However, countries like the West Bank, Gaza, and Morocco have seen increased government expenditure on education. Covid-19, an unprecedented pandemic, constrained resource allocation and mobilization. According to World Bank Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA), using data from 2010 to 2021 for 152 countries, provided findings that “just over half show less than a 5 % deviation in budget execution, a third deviate within a range of 5–10 %, and the remaining one-fifth show deviations beyond 10 %.” (Gurazada et al., 2022). In the case of the MENA region, the data from the 12 countries illustrated that only three countries show more than 10 % deviations in budget execution. Fig. 7 represents the number of countries in the MENA region according to the budget deviation category. In this context, analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on government expenditure on education enables us to understand changes from the pre-pandemic period to the time during the pandemic. The data from the MENA region, as illustrated in Fig. 8 shows an increase in education expenditure by the government of Morocco, from 5.47 % to 6.75 %. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar also experienced an increase in Table 5 ANOVA test results. Variable Mean Arabian Peninsula & Iran Mean Middle East Mean North Africa ANOVA Fstatistic Sig Government expenditure on education, total (% of government expenditure) 13.32 13.77 13.41 0.019 0.981 Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP) 4.54 3.92 4.72 0.366 0.697 Primary completion rate, total (% of relevant age group) 97.98 87.11 97.58 6.992 0.003 Children out of school (% of primary school age) 2.01 11.80 1.14 12.007 0.000 Compulsory education, duration (years) 9 10 10.50 10.413 0.000 GINI Coefficient 0.658 0.599 0.587 175.529 0.000 E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan Research in Globalization 8 (2024) 100225 8 Fig. 2. Percentage of children out of primary schools (2016–2019). Fig. 3. Comparison of the percentage of students out of school at the primary level. E. Zaidan and M.M. Ehsan