Tables & Charts
  • This review compares the quality of education in Israel to the quality of education in advanced countries, using various international indices, and examines the connection between these indices and long-term economic growth.
  • Various quality of education indices in Israel—particularly expenditure per student, class size in primary education, and achievements in international science and mathematics tests—show that Israel’s rating is lower than other advanced countries.
  • Research literature shows that such indices explain long-term economic growth rates.  International tests such as the PISA test indicate that the quality of education in Israel lags behind the OECD median, and the extent of the lag deleted 0.4 to 0.6 percentage points from the long-term annual growth rate, and about one-fifth to one-quarter from the overall long-term productivity level.
  • An examination of the quality of universities in Israel by way of international rankings shows that Israel is in the center of the distribution of advanced countries, but the rate of high school graduates with a matriculation certificate enabling them to pursue a higher education is apparently halting the improvement of higher education.  If this rate increases from 48 percent to 58 percent due to material improvement in the quality of education, it could increase long-term per capita GDP by between 2.0 percent and 3.5 percent.
There are many factors affecting the expected growth rate for Israel in the coming decades, and it is important to try to understand them for a number of reasons.  First, the level of per capita GDP reflects the well-being of citizens in the economy (or is at least correlated with it), and identifying the factors that determine the long-term growth rate will help policy makers in adopting measures that will accelerate it and increase well-being in the economy.  Second, in order to plan long-term fiscal policy, the potential growth of the economy must be taken into account, since the paths of the main fiscal quantities (tax revenues and public expenditure) depend on the future path of GDP (Geva, 2013).  Finally, in order to formulate short-term policy as well, such as monetary policy, it is important to estimate the long-term growth rate.  This estimation serves as a reference point in analyzing actual growth rates, which helps determine the economy’s place in the business cycle.

The professional literature is of the opinion that one of the factors affecting long-term growth is the stock of human capital in the economy.  A common and practical way to measure this combines the average number of years of schooling in the population with estimates of the return on schooling—the extent to which the number of years of schooling affects human capital and income.  Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992), and thereafter Hall and Jones (1999), showed that adding human capital (in terms of the number of years of schooling) helps to explain income gaps between countries, and essentially bridges Solow’s basic neo-classical growth model with empirical data.[1]
Figure 1 shows the average number of years of schooling in Israel and its development compared to other advanced countries.  The data on all countries comes from Johansson et al. (2012), a study that mainly uses census information (without effectiveness adjustments). The data on Israel are from two sources, and therefore appear in two columns: one presenting the findings obtained by Johansson et al. (2012), and the other presenting the findings obtained by direct calculations based on Labor Force Surveys.[2]  It can be seen that in 2010, Israel was above the center of the distribution—in 16th place according to the first column, and in 10th place according to the second.[3]  It can also be seen that Israel maintained its relative ranking since 1970.

An analysis conducted by the Bank of Israel[4] found that the increase in the quantity of education contributed about 40 percent of the growth in per capital GDP in Israel since the mid-1970s.  Moreover, the contribution of the quantity of education to growth declined in the past decade, and is expected to continue declining in at least the next few decades, mainly because the ability to increase the average number of years of schooling has drawn close to exhaustion.  This phenomenon is also common in other advanced countries. Gordon (2014) estimates that in the US, this exhaustion will reduce education’s contribution to growth by about 0.2 percentage points relative to previous decades.
Even though it is common to view the average number of years of schooling as an indicator of the stock of human capital, it is clear that there are other factors that also affect it.  Some of them are not related to education (such as the health of workers), and some are connected to it but are not reflected in the average number of years of schooling—i.e. in the quantity of education.  These are particularly true for the various layers of quality of education, since the economic return on education is also affected by its quality.
There are two main approaches to measuring the quality of education.  The first is based on the inputs invested in the education system (total expenditure per student, average class size, etc.).  The main problem with this approach has to do with the fact that increasing inputs does not ensure high quality.  The second approach measures quality by the output of the educational system, for instance scores on standardized international tests on subjects such as mathematics and science.  The main problem with this approach has to do with the fact that the tests are not standardized over time.  In other words, it is hard to compare results obtained in different years, and it is therefore difficult to assess whether and how the quality of education has changed over time.  However, empirical studies have shown that notwithstanding the problems, these indices do explain the gaps that exist between countries in growth rates or in the level of income.  Some of the growth researchers even claim that it is only the quality of education, and not its quantity, that have an effect on long-term growth.
Islam et al. (2014) assessed growth regressions on about 60 countries from 1970 to 2010, and showed that when the level of human capital (number of years of schooling) is adjusted for quality, it has a positive and very significant ability to explain the average growth rate of overall productivity and the rate of convergence to the technological frontier.  These researchers adjusted human capital by quality both through output indices and through input indices.  In terms of output, the researchers used the First Principal Component method[5] to weight five indicators: the extent to which it is not necessary to repeat primary and secondary education, results on international tests conducted in primary and secondary schools in mathematics, science and literacy, and the number of universities ranked among the 500 best in the Shanghai ranking relative to the number of employed persons.  In terms of inputs, the researchers weighted two indices: the number of pupils per teacher in primary and secondary education, and public expenditure on education per pupil relative to per capita GDP.  The authors also showed that if the quantity of human capital is not adjusted for quality (meaning if only the average number of years of schooling is used), it has a less significant ability to explain growth.
Hanushek and Woessmann (2012) tested how the quality of education affects growth, and measures quality according to the output method.  For that purpose, they compiled a quality of education index for each country and based it on the results of 12 international tests in mathematics and science conducted among students aged 9–15 between 1964 and 2003. (Not all countries conducted all the tests.)  The researchers normalized the scores in all tests to the PISA scale (average of 500 and standard deviation of 100), and the quality of education index for each country was obtained from its average scores (divided by 100).  Growth regressions on 50 countries (advanced and developing) raised a significant and stable connection between the quality of education index and the growth rate between 1960 and 2000: An increase of one standard deviation in the index (100 points on the PISA scale) contributes about 2 percentage points to the long-term annual growth rate.  Moreover, when the number of years of schooling was added to the quality of education variable, without the interaction between them, the number of years of schooling variable was not significant.[6]  It should be noted that even though the researchers apparently found that there is no connection between growth and the quantity of education, there is a positive connection between the number of years of schooling and the quality of education index that they used.
Bouis, Duval and Murtin (2011) used a panel of about 40 countries (most of them advanced) and conducted regressions of their long-term growth between 1970 and 2005.  They found that Hanushek and Weossmann (2012)’s quality of education index has a significant effect on the overall productivity level in the long term.  In particular, an increase of one point in the quality of education index (meaning an improvement of 100 points on the PISA scale in the results of the international tests) raises the long-term level of productivity by 90 percent, and this result reconciles with the elasticity found by Hanushek and Woessmann.[7],[8]  However, these researchers also found, contrary to Hanushek and Woessmann, that when the quality of education is included in the regression, the coefficient of the quantity of education (the average number of years of schooling) declined, but remained significant.  (The macroeconomic return on a year of schooling declines from 10 percent in the regressions that do not control for quality to 5 percent in regressions that do control for it.)
The quality of education is therefore important for the long-term performance of the economy. Therefore, we present below Israel’s place in a number of common indices for this factor. We observe both indices that focus on inputs invested in education (expenditure on education, class size, and so forth) and indices that focus on outputs of the education system (tests and international university rankings).  We do not pretend to estimate the contribution of each of these factors to growth in Israel or to forecast its future contribution.  We want to try to indicate the areas in which there are gaps between Israel and the other advanced countries, the closure of which can contribute to future growth in Israel and to improving its placement in quality of life indices.
The quality of education by input
Figure 2 presents data on national expenditure on education, relative to GDP, in 2011.  The figure shows that the expenditure rate in Israel, 7.3 percent, is among the highest in the OECD. In addition, between 2011 and 2014, public expenditure on education increased significantly—by 18 percent, the equivalent of 0.5 percent of GDP.  Expenditure on education is weighted highly because the Israeli population includes a high percentage of children, and they naturally require inputs in the education system.


However, the picture changes if we look at expenditure per student.  Figure 3 describes the connection that exists in OECD countries between per capita GDP and expenditure per student of the educational institutes, according to the educational level (primary, secondary, higher).  The figure shows a number of findings:
1.    The volume of expenditure per student in Israel, at all educational levels, is lower than the volume in most OECD countries and lower than the OECD average.  In other words, even though expenditure as a share of GDP is high, it is not sufficient to reach the average expenditure per student in the advanced countries.  It should be noted that some of the gap has apparently been closed after the government increased public expenditures starting in 2011.
2.    There is a clear positive correlation between income in the economy and expenditure per student at all levels of education.  It is important to emphasize that the correlation could reflect bi-directional causality: expenditure on education per student contributes to the level of per capita GDP, but wealthy countries also tend to spend more on education (both since education is a normal product, meaning its consumption grows as income grows, and because its relative cost increases with the level of income since it is a nontradable product—the Balassa-Samuelson effect).
3.    Israel is on the regression line in primary and higher education, but is much lower than it in secondary education.  In other words, taking into account per capita GDP, Israel spends little on a student in secondary school.  It is possible that some of this gap has been closed after the government significantly increased public expenditure on secondary education as part of the “Oz Le’tmura” (“Courage to Change”) program starting in 2011.
It can be argued that the last finding is the result of the fact that vocational education is characterized by high expenditure per student and its volume in Israel is low compared to the volume in other OECD countries.  However, it seems that this is not the case.  While Israel is ranked low in terms of the rate of students in vocational education at the secondary school level (22nd among OECD countries), the rate in Israel (39 percent) is not all that low compared to the OECD average (44 percent).  Moreover, in a multi-variable regression in which both per capita GDP and the rate of students in vocational education serve as explanatory variables of the expenditure per student in secondary schools, the rate of students in vocational education is not significant, meaning that it does not explain the gap between Israel’s ranking and the regression line.

The two aforementioned indices concentrated on monetary expenditure on education.  It is interesting to examine how monetary expenditure is reflected.  Figure 4 shows the average size of classes and the number of students per teacher in primary schools in advanced countries.  It can be seen that the classes in Israel are among the largest in the OECD.  In contrast, Israel does not lag in terms of the number of students per teaching staff.  These findings are in line with the assessment that while the classes in Israel are large, they are allocated larger teaching staffs.  It is our intention to examine this assessment in a future study.
The quality of education by output of the education system
The most common way to examine the quality of education according to the output of the education system is based on the results of international tests.  Figure 5 presents two such indices.  The columns present an index calculated by Hanushek and Woessmann (2012), and show that Israel’s ranking is low relative to the OECD countries (seventh from last), and that its score is 4.7 while the score of the median country, New Zealand, is 5.0.  The use of the elasticities calculated by Hanushek and Woessmann (2012) and Bouis, Duval and Murtin (2011) shows that Israel’s lag behind New Zealand deletes 0.6 percentage points from the long-term annual growth rate and about 27 percent from the level of long-term overall productivity.  (As stated above, when calculating the elasticity obtained only among the advanced countries, the effect is about two-thirds of the estimate that appears here.)  The picture is even worse when Israel’s place is examined according to updated PISA test scores in mathematics and science (the results for 2012, shown by the diamonds in Figure 5)[9]:  Israel falls another two places.  It should be added that it is reasonable to assume that Israel’s score in the PISA test is upward biased because the ultra-Orthodox schools are rarely tested, and we can assume that the scores they would have received in mathematics and science are lower than the average in the rest of the population.[10]  It can therefore be said that the international tests conducted in the middle and secondary schools show that Israel lags in the quality of education, and it is possible that this lag is growing worse.

These results raise the question of to what extent government policy on increasing inputs or on regulation in the field of education (for instance a change in the incentives structure) can improve the system’s results if at all.  The empirical literature does not offer a uniform response.  In a basic survey article, Hanushek (2006) shows that the data do not indicate a correlation between monetary resources invested in educational institutions, particularly in lowering class sizes, and test results.  However, his assessment is that a good incentives system in educational institutions may actually improve students’ achievements.  In contrast to Hanushek (2006), articles published more recently found correlations between inputs invested in the system and achievements.  Dolton and Marcenaro-Gutierrez (2011) analyzed a panel of advanced countries and found that higher teacher salaries, and in some cases higher teacher to student ratios as well, lead to improved student achievements.  In terms of studies based on a microeconomic analysis at the individual level, Holmlund et al. (2010) showed that in England, expenditure per student has a positive effect on student achievements.  Fredriksson (2013) studied the education system in Sweden and found that class size at the primary level is expected to have a negative effect on student achievements at the secondary level and on their wages in the 24–42 age range.  In terms of education expenditure’s effect on the future productivity of the students, Jackson et al. (2015) studied the education system in the US, and their estimation showed that an increase of 10 percent in expenditure per student (over 12 years of schooling) is expected to increase his wages by 7.25 percent.  The increase in expenditure is reflected in an improvement in the ratio between the number of students and the number of teachers, and in an increase in teachers’ salary.

We can also examine the relative quality of the higher education system in Israel.  While there are no standardized international tests for graduates of the higher education system, it is possible to use international rankings published by various entities.  One of the rankings is published by the Times Higher Education, which ranks the 400 leading universities in the world according to a score that weights 13 indicators in the field of instruction (30 percent), research (30 percent), quotes (30 percent), income from industry (2.5 percent) and international outlook (7.5 percent).[11],[12]  Figure 6 shows the number of universities in each country that appear in the top 200 in the rankings (diamonds) and the weighted total of their scores (columns).  We weighted the total by the number of students studying at each university, and normalized it by the total population aged 20–39.  The formula for the calculation of this index is:

In other words, in addition to the number of universities that appear among the top 200 in the ranking, our index also takes into account their place in the rankings (by score), the number of students studying in each university (an indicator of the university’s specific weight in higher education in that country), and the absolute size of the population in the age range that includes most university students (20–39).  It can be seen that the US and the UK have the highest number of universities ranked among the top 200.  However, taking into account the size of the economies (according to the 20–39 age range) and the fact that the leading universities are relatively small (in terms of the number of students), the rankings of the US and the UK fall.  The weighted index is similar in nature to the one that Islam et al. (2014) found that explains long-term growth.
In terms of Israel, in the most recent ranking (2014/15) only Tel Aviv University appears in the list of the top 200 (at the end), due to a high score in the area of research.  We note that in some of the rankings for previous years, the Hebrew University was also included among the top 200, due to high scores in the areas of quotes and international aspects.  However, according to the latest ranking, it is below the 200 threshold.  Taking into account the other parameters of the total weighted scores, this result places Israel 15th among the advanced countries—the middle of the distribution (in the lower portion of the range of Israel’s placement in terms of the average number of years of schooling, since this range fluctuates between 10 and 16; see Figure 1).[13]  Israel’s place is stable since the ranking for 2011/12.  (As stated, in some years, the Hebrew University was also included in the top 200.)  In the first ranking that was conducted, for the 2010/11 school year, no Israeli university was included in the top 200.
It is worth noting that a number of alternatives to the index were examined, mainly the use of alternative rankings, the use of universities ranked in the top 100 or the top 400 (instead of the top 200), and normalization of the results by the total students in the economy or total employed people instead of the population aged 20–39.  We can say that there is a positive high correlation between the rankings that are generated by most of the various possibilities.
In summation, various quality of education indices in primary and secondary education—mainly expenditure per student (particularly in secondary education), class size in primary education and the results of international tests in science and mathematics—show that Israel’s ranking is lower than other advanced countries.  This finding should be taken seriously because empirical studies show that there is a close connection between these indices and long-term economic growth.  It is important to emphasize that Israel allocates a relatively large portion of GDP to education (fifth place among the advanced countries), but the high number of children makes it possible to spend a smaller amount per student than what is spent in other advanced countries.
In terms of higher education, an examination of the quality of the university system in Israel through international rankings shows that Israel is in the center of the distribution of advanced countries.  The scope of higher education increased in recent years, and a marked portion of the growth took place as part of the college system, a system that absorbed about 60 percent of Bachelor’s students in 2012/13.  However, Zussman et al. (2007) found that at the individual level, the return on a degree obtained in the colleges is, on average, about 16 percentage points lower than the return on a degree obtained in the universities.  (The finding was obtained while controlling for the characteristics of the individual, particularly the abilities measured by the psycho-technical tests conducting during military enlistment.)  This development may explain why there is relatively low exploitation of the human capital existing in the economy:  The percentage of positions requiring higher education in Israel is lower than the average in the advanced countries, particularly in the domestic market oriented industries.[14]
In this context, it is worth mentioning the finding that at the end of the previous decade, the gap between the rate of high school graduates with a matriculation certificate that enabled them to pursue academic studies[15] and the rate of students beginning academic studies[16] was closed.  Our discussion therefore shows that if the quality of primary and secondary education does not change—if it does not prepare many more candidates at a higher quality for the higher education system—the quantity of education will continue to grow only if the individuals pursuing academic studies choose to extend their studies, or if a non-academic educational system is established for the graduating population.  In contrast, a material change in the quality of primary and secondary education will increase the percentage of those passing the university acceptance threshold, and will make it possible to increase the average number of years of schooling by increasing the percentage of those with higher education from universities. 
If the rate of high school graduates with matriculation certificates that enable them to pursue academic studies increases from 48 percent to 58 percent, it could increase the level of long-term per capita GDP by 2.0 to 3.5 percent. Since the rate of graduates with a matriculation certificate that enables them to pursue academic studies was 39 percent in 1996, and has consistently increased since then to 48 percent in 2012, it seems that increasing this rate by 10 percentage points is an ambitious but reasonable goal. 
There are a number of assumptions underlying the assessment of the effect of increasing the rate of graduates on growth, the most important being: (1) The additional graduates who pass the acceptance threshold for academic studies actually engage fully in about 3 years of academic studies; (2) The average return on 3 years of higher education is 30 percent[17]; and (3) The gap between the return on university studies and the return on college studies is 16 percentage points (Zussman et al., 2007).  There is uncertainty regarding the extent to which additional schooling is directed to universities or colleges, and there is therefore also uncertainty regarding the return obtained from additional higher education.  The simulation range reflects this uncertainty.
Alternatively, if the investment in the education system improves the quality of education at a rate similar to 10 additional points on PISA tests, it could increase long-term per capita GDP by 6–9 percent. (This result is obtained from the elasticities presented above.)
In Hebrew:
Geva, A. (2013), “Demographic Changes and Their Implications for Public Expenditure Between 2013 and 2059”, Bank of Israel Survey, 87, pp. 7–30.
Zussman, N., A. Forman, T. Kaplan, and D. Romanov (2007), “Differences in the Quality of Education Between Universities and Colleges: An Examination of the Exchange in the Labor Market”, Shmuel Ne’eman Institute.
Zussman, N. and A. Friedman (2009), “Labor Quality in Israel”, Bank of Israel Survey, 82, pp. 7–77.
In English:
Barro, R. and J.W. Lee (2013), "A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010". Journal of Development Economics 104, pp. 184-198.
Bils, M. and P. Klenow (2000), "Does Schooling Cause Growth?". The American Economic Review 90(5), 1160-1183.
Bouis, R., R. Duval and F. Murtin (2011), The Policy and Institutional Drivers of Economic Growth Across OECD and non-OECD Economies. OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 283.
Dolton, P. and O. Marcenaro-Gutierrez (2011), "If You Pay Peanuts do You Get Monkeys? A Cross Country Comparison of Teacher Pay and Pupil Performance", Economic Policy 26, Issue 65, pp. 5-55.
Fredriksson, P., B. Ockert and H. Oosterbeek (2013), "Long Term Effects of Class Size", The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1), pp. 249-285.
Gordon, R. (2014), The Demise of U.S. Economic Growth: Restatement, Rebuttal, and Reflections. Department of Economics, Northwestern University, Manuscript.
Hall, R. and C. Jones (1999), "Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker Than Others ", The quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1), pp. 83-116.
Hanushek, E. (2006), "School Resources", in Hanushek, E. and F. Welch (Eds.) Handbook of the Economics of Education 2006 (2), Chapter 14.
Hanushek, E. A. and L. Woessmann (2012), "Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth? Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes, and Causation", Journal of Economic Growth 17, pp. 267-321.
Holmlund, H., S. McNally and M. Viarengo (2010), "Does Money Matter for Schools?", Economics of Education Review 29, pp. 1154-1164.
Islam, R., J. Ang and J. Madsen (2014), "Quality-Adjusted Human Capital and Productivity Growth". Economic Inquiry 52 (2), pp. 757-777.
Jackson, K., R. Johnson and C. Persico (2015), The Effects of school Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms. NBER Working Paper No. 20847.
Johansson, A., Y. Guillemette, F. Murtin, D. Turner, G. Nicoletti, C. de la Maisonneuve, P. Bagnoli, G. Bousquet and F. Spinelli (2012), Long-Term Growth Scenarios. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1000.
Klenow, P. and A. Rodriguez-Clare (1997), "The Neoclassical Revival in Growth Economics: Has it Gone Too Far?" in Bernanke, B. and J. Rotemberg (Eds.). NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1997, Volume 12. MIT Press.
Mankiw, G., D. Romer and D. Weil (1992), "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth ", The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107(2), pp. 407-437.

[1] Other researchers believe that education can explain only a small part of the difference in income between countries, and that the correlation between education and income growth reflects a reverse causality (from expected growth to education) or other omitted variables.  See Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare (1997) and Bils and Klenow (2000).
[2] Details appear in “The Development of Education in Israel and its contribution to long-term growth”, Recent Economic Developments, number 136, April—September 2013.
[3] According to another international education database, Israel is in 9th place among the advanced countries.  See Barro and Lee (2013).
[4] See “The Development of Education in Israel and its contribution to long-term growth”, Recent Economic Developments, number 136, April—September 2013.
[5] First Principal Component is a statistical method that derives the linear combination of indicators that explains most of the common variance between them.  It provides one series that characterizes the development of all the indicators.
[6] Hanushek and Woessman conducted a number of econometric tests in order to rule out the possibility that the connection between the quality of education and growth is the result of reverse causality or of an omitted variable.  First, they estimated regressions that examined whether there was accelerated growth of per capita GDP in countries that improved the quality of education of their residents.  Second, they examined whether there is a connection at the individual level between the wages of individuals who immigrated to the US and studied in their home countries and the quality of education index in the home country.  These two approaches supported the assessment that the quality of education (according to scores on international tests) has a positive ability to explain the long-term growth rate.
[7] The elasticities in the two articles are similar in small numbers.  According to Hanushek and Woessmann (2012), an increase of 10 points in the PISA score leads to an increase of 0.2 percentage points in the annual growth rate.  The effect on cumulative growth reaches (1+0.002)40 -1=8.3 percent over 40 years (the duration of Hanushek and Woessmann’s sample).  According to Bouis, Duval and Murtin (2011), the same improvement in the index is expected to lead to an increase of 9.0 percent in the level of the overall productivity path.
[8] Regressions that control for the level of income in the economy show that in a comparison among advanced countries only, the elasticity is smaller—56 percent—but is still statistically significant.
[9] PISA tests are conducted among 15-year-olds.
[10] We note that we do not have information on the extent of selection in other countries—meaning what population groups, if any, are not tested.
[11] The international outlook—the volume of research collaboration with other universities and the ratio between the number of students and faculty members from abroad and the other students and faculty members.
[12] There are two other common rankings: the Shanghai ranking and the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranking.  Relative to them, the Times Higher Education ranking provides greater weight to quality of education and less weight to the faculty’s academic achievements.
[13] According to the simple indicator of the number of universities that appear in the top 200, Israel is in 15th place, together with 8 other countries that have one university in the top 200.  Consideration of the other parameters—population size, university size and their international ranking—does not materially change Israel’s placement.
[14] See Box 2.1 in the Bank of Israel Annual Report for 2013.
[15] Central Bureau of Statistics data indicate that as of 2012, 48 percent of high school graduates “met the university acceptance threshold”—a complete matriculation certificate including passing grades in mathematics at the 3-unit level, English at the 4-unit level, and one major subject in addition to English.
[16] See Box 5.1 of the Bank of Israel Annual Report for 2012: “The Effect of Education on the Labor Force Participation Rate in Israel”.
[17] This assumption is based on the study by Zussman and Friedman (2009), and is also consistent with the return environment on a year of schooling that is obtained in studies from Israel and abroad—about 10 percent.  A survey of findings on the return on schooling appears in “The Development of Education in Israel and its contribution to long-term growth”, Recent Economic Developments, number 136, April—September 2013.