Monday, February 2, 2009 at 11:30AM | in World Development Aiming higher
Cumbria, EnglandThe talk by Augusto Lopez-Claros (see below) at St Antony's College last Thursday was very successful, with a solid turnout of 50-60 students and guests. Most of the talk was spent making the case for macro-economic stability as a precondition for development.
In a slight departure, however, Dr Lopez-Claros remarked (in response to a question) that the best long-term policy decision a government could make is to invest in education. Not just primary education, but universities. A developing country with most of its population educated to grade 5 isn't going to have great human resources for public administration in 20 years, but one that spends on getting 15-20% through university has real prospects for producing a solid middle class and an effective government.
I was thinking about the role of higher education in development when I came across a historical look at Argentina's economy by Carl Solberg. To put this in context, Argentina was the 6th richest country in the world before World War I (far wealthier than Canada at the time):
In 1935 there were only 6,032 students in Argentine technical and vocational schools. By means of comparison, Canada, whose population was one million less than Argentina, enrolled 86,000 students in its vocational schools by 1925.
Basically, Canada used higher education as a vehicle for social mobility to create a strong middle class. Argentina, on the other hand, coasted on what it had. It failed to lift up the lower classes with education, and when the economy collapsed around 1930, the military overthrew the liberal democratic government with mass support. When the economy recovered, labour conditions were poor and unions were weak.
I'm drawing a very simple correlation, but today Canada is 3rd on the Human Development Index and 14th in terms of per capita GDP. Argentina is 46th and 66th, respectively. That's pretty astonishing considering that at the beginning of the century, both economies were driven by primary commodity exports to Britain. Underinvestment in higher education may have some cruel long-run effects.
Monday, February 2, 2009 at 11:30AM | in World Development 
Reader Comments (4)
Very interesting comment by Augusto about the importance of government investment in higher education. When I was an undergrad in the 2nd half of the 1960s about 10% of sschool leavers went to university. Local authority grants covered tuition fees and maintenance grants (means tested) helped with board and lodging.
Without wishing to sound elitist, I wonder if the British government has been wise to try to raise the percentage of school leavers attending university to 50% - especially that students now leave university with huge amounts of debt.
A final comment: surely investment university-level education isn't much use without invesment in primary and secondary education?
Thanks for your thoughts, Barney.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to raise the number of students going on to higher education after high school. In fact, employment in the modern economy increasingly demands higher education. I suppose there are two issues, though: 1) Options other than university should also be expanded and not degraded (eg. vocational training) and 2) Trying to raise enrollment without providing adequate resources means that universities are increasingly trying to do more with less, and making students pay up in the process.
You raise an interesting final point. Augusto was speaking to a characteristic of development policy, which has often been driven by 'basic needs' or 'rights-based' approaches. They set minimum standards and foreign aid is targeted to achieve these standards. But in the process, resources get diverted from critical areas that are not 'basic' but no less essential -- like universities. There is a similar problem in the field of health care. Lots of resources in HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, maternal health, etc, but not much in surgery.
Hey Geoff, it's always good to know people are pushing for macro-economic stability and for education expenditures. Both are obviously strong contributors to development. Not to be nationalistic or anything, but I don't believe there was any point Argentina was wealthier per capita than Canada. It's true (and tragic in the case of Argentina) that they were close for a while (which is still more than enough to make your point about the order of magnitude difference in # of students).
Love the blogging, keep it up.
Thanks Munir.
Interesting point about Argentina v. Canada. I just assumed that Canada lagged behind Argentina at the beginning of the century... I mean, what were we exporting? Deer antlers?