The Education Myth

May 31, 2015 Ricardo Hausmann

In an era characterized by political polarization and policy paralysis, one area of agreement is the idea that the key to inclusive economic growth is, as Tony Blair put in his 2001 reelection campaign, “education, education, education.” Unfortunately, it is an idea that simply does not hold water.

TIRANA – In an era characterized by political polarization and policy paralysis, we should celebrate broad agreement on economic strategy wherever we find it. One such area of agreement is the idea that the key to inclusive growth is, as then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair put in his 2001 reelection campaign, “education, education, education.” If we broaden access to schools and improve their quality, economic growth will be both substantial and equitable.

As the Italians would say: magari fosse vero. If only it were true. Enthusiasm for education is perfectly understandable. We want the best education possible for our children, because we want them to have a full range of options in life, to be able to appreciate its many marvels and participate in its challenges. We also know that better educated people tend to earn more.

Education’s importance is incontrovertible – teaching is my day job, so I certainly hope it is of some value. But whether it constitutes a strategy for economic growth is another matter. What most people mean by better education is more schooling; and, by higher-quality education, they mean the effective acquisition of skills (as revealed, say, by the test scores in the OECD’s standardized PISA exam). But does that really drive economic growth?

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 57 in all 57 Comments on this article

Jorge Flores Kelly Oct 14, 2020

Once you have the optimal physical investment then education can improve productivity and growth. In countries like Mexico, gross fixed capital investment has been poor when compared to China and others. Hence, productivity gains due to technological change and, eventually, education have not made the difference.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bruno Cornelio May 12, 2016

Seems to me that the author wants to sell an idea he probably would not buy for himself. More education have implication in branch of aspects to should result in economic growth. It leads to better discernment of the information provided by others. To make leave one example, I was told by friend of mine who is a psychiatrist that her patients with better education tends to take better care of themselves and respond to doctors appointment more easily. The same relation could easily be inferred about the relationship between education and environment, or the way people leads with there financial responsibilities. He makes an important point when he denounces that the massification of education and reduction to skills acquisition is unlikely to result in economic growth. But, his arguments does not progress in way that one can see envision an alternative that transforms this form of educate our children. Rather he proposes a step back, trying to sell an idea he would not buy for himself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Utpatti Ecom May 3, 2016

Every one talking about the education system so what about the education system of India in Ancient time but some one has spoiled
www.utpattiecom.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lewis Perelman Dec 27, 2015

I made the same point c. 30 years ago in a report for the Western Governors Association: http://j.mp/LJP-HCI
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Howard Johnson Dec 27, 2015

Let's look at the pragmatic relationship between knowledge, types of knowledge and productivity. I believe education is being used as a construct to represent knowledge, but we need to get down into the pragmatics of epistemology.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wali Zahid Jul 24, 2015

Profound, Ricardo
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
siraj presswala Jun 16, 2015

I think putting India's education system (the one i have experienced) in context could shed some light on why there seems to be gap between education and economic growth. India by far has one of the highest number of graduates, post-graduates and engineers (in absolute terms) but the country still has relatively narrowly diversified economy [in terms of diversity of business models] and few industries where value add is very high. The reason, in my opinion, is other inputs such as quality of: law and order, public institutions, property rights, availability of risk capital, and amount of R&D investment in public and pvt sector all have a bearing in generating new volume of business set ups which can have a potential to create competitive advantage in a globally integrated market place. As a result the true potential of a large number of 'educated' masses is never realized and 99% of them work beneath the dead weight of a inefficient, corrupt and out-to-date system. political polarization and vote bank politics is another major hindrance. In my view, investments in 'greasing the system' are also equally important to enable the large mass of educated [but not necessarily enterprising and creative] population increase their productivity and well as making the fruits of economic growth more widely available.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Jun 15, 2015

Someone said that in 20 years, 50% of all jobs will not exist. Even if that is only partly true the implications are that education will fall short of what may be needed for economic growth.
Education should return more to basics, a general survey of many fields, and not aim to be a trade school equivalent.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Jun 12, 2015

Very interesting article. But I would claim that without any proper education the potential of R&D and engineering would be much lower and therefore future growth as well. The problem is that most well educated people land in the service sector and not R&D or engineering. That means that their talent is wasted, since the service sector is consuming / redistributing wealth and not producing it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrés Osorio Jun 9, 2015

Although I tend to be one who stands for the "education, education, education" idea, I'm aware that education itself cannot be the "one and only" engine for future growth and progress. Professor Hausmann seems to point towards that direction in this paragraph.
However, although he points out that the lack of education is not what is preventing certain countries from becoming richer, he fails to propose a compelling explanation as to why this is the case.

I think that the underlying discussion should involve institutions. Consider for a moment the World Bank's CPIA public sector management and institutions cluster average. According to World Bank, this indicator includes property rights and ruled-based governance, quality of budgetary and financial management, efficiency of revenue mobilization, quality of public administration, and transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector (1=low, 6=high). This indicator seems to synthesize rather well the overall performance of the institutions of a country.

As it can be seen in the data (available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IQ.CPA.PUBS.XQ) Armenia has consistently registered an indicator of 3.7 during the period 2010-2013. Analogously, Sri Lanka has registered a similar performance, with an average indicator of 3.4 for the same period. This places both these countries slightly above the average for lower middle income countries. Although we cannot establish any direct causal relationship, it seems reasonable enough to argue that weak institutions are undermining any growth potential in these countries.

A possible argument could be that the benefits of educations fail to materialize because they lack the complement of strong, effective and efficient institutions (which, for example, would reflect upon the quality of education).
- Amir Yagi Jun 12, 2015
  
  Absolutely correct,
  But I would also add that, this way we'll still be in the symptom alleviation zone, were we're trying to be efficient in using the dwindling yields of an impotent economy;
  But why is it impotent in the first place? It's the lack of: demand (think wages), international compatibility (think innovation, marketing), and maybe other real economy factors;
  Now here education may help, but not in a sense that more folks should graduate solely for the noble purpose of helping corporations!! which by the way the worst environment for innovation, in contrast with small business.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Amir Yagi Jun 8, 2015

The idea of schooling ourselves to death for the sake of growth, is like silicon valley's pseudo inventor/investers drinking schmilk protein shakes instead of meals to save time! Improved schooling for the sake of better knowledge is great, but An ever speeding productivity and harder life for peanut wages is of bad quality and it's a bad deal period. And please as an aside, next time we talk about growth lets specify what are the things that we're trying to grow here, and do we really need to?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/technology/in-busy-silicon-valley-protein-powder-is-in-demand.html?referrer=
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Burgess Jun 7, 2015

I ended my formal education more than 50 years ago, but did not stop learning. And thank goodness! The world has changed in so many ways and rather few educated people have been taught that this change impacts everything. Education is vital for this generation of young people, but in order for them to have a great future all sorts of other things have to be done as well. With current thinking in the leadership class, young people are getting pumped into an economic setting where a high percentage are unemployed or underemployed. This is crazy. We have all the money in the world to develop a new 'app' that makes money wasting time and doing little else, but we cannot fund the multitude of important things that need to be done to make the world a better place now, not to mention a world that has a better chance of surviving in the future. This sort of investment will make more jobs possible ... but everything gets to be problematic when there is hyper profit inflation on top of near zero interest rates and a deflating labor economy. There is systemic dysfunction. Better education is a good idea ... but in combination with way better decision making in almost every aspect of the socio-enviro-economic system that is just not working very well any more.
Peter Burgess ... truevaluemetrics.org
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dr.econ.C.M. Johns Jun 7, 2015

I like the idea of this research, but would not concede that certain types or levels of education would yield intuitive confirmations. Simply measuring years of education may be too rough a tool to find positive correlations (leading to possible confirmations) between a nation's level of education and economic growth.
I wonder if this research had only recorded years of STEM disciplines if the results would have been different.
Years of education also do not measure a countries ability to write well, English language skills, numbers of economists or MBAs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Jun 7, 2015

The issue is not simply education, it is education for what purpose, given the wide range of activities that the term covers. Singapore and Taiwan are extraordinarily successful as a result of their investment in education but both have aimed at ensuring that their economies are thoughtfully placed through educational investment to exploit comparative advantages in the international context. Germany, Finland and Sweden seem to have done the same. The United States has spent an inordinate amount of money on education since the 1960s but has that spending translated into remaining the model of educational accomplishment that it represented at the beginning of the 1960s? George W. Bush and Barack Obama are both products of graduate/professional education at Harvard? What does that tell us about the quality of education at Harvard?
The purpose of higher education should be about developing the capacity to see beyond simplistic formulations of complex problems.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marisa Swanson Jun 3, 2015

This article feels...very pointless to me. As the argument in the opinion is fairly obvious. Maybe I'm misinformed but I've never made the assumption that someone arguing for "education" in a broad sense was simply arguing for "more" or saying it's the only thing countries need to get ahead. I don't believe most educated people having that debate would make that assumption either.

By and large the "education" argument is about a starting point, not a means in and of itself. And I think, in general, people are talking about quality of education, rather than simply arguing for increased quantity.

I've often said off-handedly "Go to college." as an incredibly general Band-Aid for individual or nuclear-family economic problems. But if pressed I would certainly explain there is more to it than that.

Anyway, as we all know, an argument based on false assumption is sort of moot.

And, yes, of course the current middle-aged generation is out to pasture when it comes to growth strategy. You are (generally) too old to increase productivity to the point of making a growth impact, which is why policy tends to focus on the young and education arguments focus on the young and labor debates focus on the young. This is another point that is just not really worth arguing for. Sorry.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kevin Finch Jun 3, 2015

The article indirectly makes the point that some societies (and peoples) seem to be more intrinscially 'efficient' than others. This is an uncomfortable fact for most social scientists and they quite naturally look for fixes. And education is the most natural, and common sense, fix.

But everyone in their heart of hearts knows that this is probably not the answer, even if they don't admit to it in polite company. Of course there are profound cultural differences amongst peoples and - going even further into the realm of the taboo - it is highly improbable that all peoples have the same intellectual endowment. These cultural and genetic differences are why some socities are able to translate new knowledge into economic progress much more efficiently than others - these are the things that are 'in the water'.

What the policy implications of such a recognition are I leave to others, but putting an ill founded faith in the benefits of something that demonstrably doesn't work (more education) is wrong headed. Abandoning the ineffective is at least a bit of progress while we wait on more effective positive policy prescriptions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dana Charbonneau Jun 3, 2015

The problem we see is that too many job applicants think they know enough already. Schools fail to prepare them for a lifetime (or at least a career time) of continuous learning, growth and change. Finding people who want to learn and grow, who enjoy it, is difficult. Schools need to make that interesting, not just for four years, but as a mindset.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Harrington Jun 2, 2015

True, education is no panacea for growth and sustainability. But one wonders why education is always the default proposal for what ails us? I would guess it is because our economic growth models are severely constrained when trying to explain and proscribe long-term economic sustainability and stability. With these equilibrium models, growth is a function of initial endowments and trend lines. The only endowments for human labor are skills and education, thus we must spread these endowments.

Agreed, but the graduating class at Harvard is likely to experience the full range of success and failure and pass that on to subsequent generations, creating gaps in inequalities and opportunities. Education will never be sufficient alone to generate long-term vibrant, balanced growth because our problems are not just with initial endowments but with the distributions of outcomes. Our models fail us there.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joseph Burke Jun 2, 2015

If your goal is to grow an economy, a community or a country would need more than just education. Education is a foundation, but it also requires political will to create an environment that is conducive to the growth of a middle class: Keynesian economics (such as helping the poor with welfare so they can think about such things as an education and making education affordable foe everyone, not just the elite), progressively taxing the wealthy and easing the tax burden on the poor, and creating the conditions for a middle class to thrive are all essential to building an economy. In many of the countries listed in the article that had high education but little in the way of a middle class shows that more than education is essential to growing an economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kat LaFever Jun 2, 2015

Shame on you and your particular interpretation of the statistical data. Data is like swimwear, critical in what it reveals and conceals. Worker productivity is not the issue at all. In fact, dozens of trustworthy, reputable studies indicate that worker productivity has never been so astronomically high. The issue is that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are not paying equitable wages or taxes. We have a version of capitalism an economic system in place that is guided by a theory that does not work equitably or democratically. Capitalism can work but after more than thirty years, the trickle-down version of it clearly does not. Moreover, the needlessly complicated (international) tax laws allow the wealthiest individuals, criminals, and corporations to stash trillions of dollars in off-shore accounts. The system is broken. All bets are stacked in favor of perpetuating wealth in the hands of relatively few people (the infamous "One Percent"). Profits soar to previously unrecorded heights. The stockholders and a handful of CEOs reap unprecedented benefits as the middle class in much of the developed world has eroded to unsustainable levels. I'm confident I'm not telling you anything new, and I'm completely ashamed that you, as a member of the professoriate, wrote such a ridiculous and damaging article.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carlos Junges Jun 2, 2015

I would like to know where do the data come from... how is it that China started with less education than Tunisia and the others cited countries and also, in which way have they made less progress than them by 2010? thanks
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hans Suter Jun 2, 2015

Education should enable to think critically and independently. Unfortunately education is mainly about knowledge transmission. And what's even more unfortunate education omits largely know how transmission. I believe Mr. Hausmann has written about this extensively.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bahaa Hs Jun 2, 2015

Excellent article & thoughtful. I can now understand why a government focusing its budget on tax collection and penalizing firms is most likely to end up depressing the economy. In other words, investing in firms & their own education programs is the way towards increasing productivity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Jun 2, 2015

Growth in income makes a clear case for education to move from basic or primary to higher levels, it is not the other way around that higher education would make incomes grow. Economic history of nations is replete with such examples.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Davis Larkin Jun 2, 2015

I think this article partially draws the wrong conclusions from the right analysis. Both towards the beginning and the end, Professor Hausmann appears to address education in developed nations. However, his analysis - and well-reasoned analysis at that - addresses education in developing nations. I appreciate the points he makes about China in comparison to other developing nations, indicating that education must take a back seat to enhancing the strength of industries reliant on low-skilled, low-wage labor in developing nations. However, economic growth in Britain is very different from growth in China, and drawing a comparison to Tony Blair's policies is unfair. I would argue that what sets apart service-dominated economies, like those present in much of the West, is in large part education. Moreover, I would also argue that growth for service-based economies will likely rely heavily on the combination of strong education, beneficial regulatory frameworks, and good infrastructure; neglecting education in this combination will see a new sort of "brain drain", as potential workers seek education abroad and companies seek highly-skilled labor abroad, as well.
Furthermore, while Hausmann says that "employers demand something that the education system cannot - and is not expected - to provide", he puts 'cannot' where 'often does not' would be better suited. In Germany, institutions of vocational education are many, and closely tied to industrial firms. Highly-skilled manufacturing thrives in Germany because of the access of companies to workers educated before they walk on the job. Moreover, entry-level education is crucial; a company may want experienced programmers, but if no one was able to learn the basics of programming in the first place, there would be no experienced programmers. Just because education often does not do the entire job that employers are looking for - giving workers all the skills they need - this does not address either the potential of education to do so nor the importance of workers gaining part of the necessary skill set.
Lastly, I find it odd to criticize education as failing to help older generations when Hausmann provides no alternative; moreover, he does not explain why it must be exclusive. I understand that Hausmann is attacking education as a miracle pill for economic growth, but - hypothetically speaking - if there were no way for a government policy to raise productivity or open new sectors to older generations without education, the point is moot.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jun 1, 2015

I like the out of the box thinking. I think we can further apply the same out of the box thinking and also throw away the belief in "productivity" as well. To be sure, productivity is important, just like education is important. But power relationships trump both education and productivity.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adam Brown Jun 1, 2015

Apples and oranges, in so many ways. Why does the author take 'growth' as a measure of success, and not quality of life? Growth, productivity - the favoured measures of success of those blindly pushing economic liberalisation - can be achieved by deregulation of labour markets & the banking sector, privatisation of public assets, the lowering of consumer standards and expectations - all of these things contribute to 'growth,' taken as the sole measure of success. It's a rip off.
I work in adult education (and education's not my 'day job', mate, it's my vocation) - and in my opinion the penultimate paragraph of this article is utterly incoherent. In the UK the continuing (adult) education sector just took a 25% funding hit, in order to promote so called 'growth.' Where are all these adults, who could have been retraining on new technologies, software, business practices, going to go? On the welfare roll, that's where. This article presents an grim future which fails even on its own terms. The sad truth is that what the author is preaching is actually coming to pass. Wasted potential all round, propped up by half truths and flawed logic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Jun 1, 2015

I think the article shows how much we are completely lost, existing in the wrong "coordinate system".
We think life can be based on productivity, growth, in general on economic measures.

But if we look at the natural system we evolved from and are still parts of life in nature is not based on productivity or constant quantitative growth.
Life is based on overall balance, homeostasis, the positive, mutually complementing interactions of all the elements, the overall calculations based solely on the well-being, optimal development of the whole collective above any personal, individual calculations.

Our artificial human system keeps crashing, evolving through explosive "jumps" when the actual state becomes intolerable.
And today we are heading for a global disaster as we are running out of the fake, virtual "solutions", stubbornly trying to resuscitate our unnatural human bubble.

Education is extremely important.
But not in order to improve productivity or growth, to fuel our cancer-like life-form.
Education is important to help us learn how humans, and global human society in general can re-adapt to the natural laws and principles crucial for sustaining life.
- Peter Jalkotzy Jun 7, 2015
  
  Zsolt, thank you. I also have much in common with your thoinking. So much so that I have adopted the quote "Let Nature be your Teacher" William Wordsworth, who died on the day of my birthday in 1850. Neat coincidence, I think. I have a note of caution though. Reference to the balance and stability of nature is a challenging argument to put forward because there are many a circumstance where this does not hold true in time or space. My contribution to this debate is that I believe nature uses redundancy, resiliency, and replacement while the human built system uses leverage and risk based management. In my view these are quite the opposite, and our capacity to grow beyond our current state (i.e., to a more balanced state) will require an adoption of a more nature based approach. I wish to advance our capacity to reconnect human nature with physical nature.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jose araujo Jun 2, 2015
  
  I don't think we are lost in our coordinates system, well not in this case.
  
  Education is a sign of civilization and equality,paramount to the "liberté, égalité, fraternité" mooto we base our society upon.
  
  Now, Hausmann comes from the corporate statism side (fascism in its hard side of cristian democracy on the more moderate), the side of rulling elites, and this case education works has the social funil, so for sure Hausmann couldn't be pro education, hence the arguments he uses.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jun 2, 2015
  
  Once again, this commenter says what I want to say in a much more eloquent way. Another great post, Zsolt.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jun 1, 2015

I think Mr Hausman is onto something quite fundamental here. Before education can have any effect rule of law must first apply. This is why education is ineffective in Africa, because even if you are educated you are disenfranchised by various forms of brute force power and there is nothing you can do to stop it as rule of law does not apply. Another thing is a properly functioning property rights - Zimbabweans were amongst the best educated people in Africa and plunged into severe poverty because the government simply confiscated any asset of significance, including all foreign exchange.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alessandro Daliana Jun 1, 2015

Traditionally, education was the province of the rich. This makes sense since they had the time to dedicate to study while most everyone else was toiling in the fields. But then the Industrial revolution came about and the flow of labor went from the fields to the cities with such speed that the government stepped in to require mandatory education as a way of stemming the flood. Here too, the rich benefited from cheap labor and became richer. At least initially, this was the case. With all these increasingly educated people came discoveries that challenged the wealthy and their position of privilege. This is the time when education became the myth to enrichment.

The very best and brightest tried their hands at entrepreneurship while the more conservative strata went to work for the elite. In either case, getting an education became synonymous with wealth creation. A myth that continues even today in the face of quite a different reality.

Economic development comes from assets and their exploitation. Education helps to both create new asset as well as better exploit old ones, if and only if the legal system - political and economic system - favors it. Producing highly educated people without providing them with a space to develop is a waste of resources as they will immigrate elsewhere.

The US, like many Anglo-saxon Protestant countries, excels at creating new assets which in turn foster new opportunities for employment until such a time as returns diminish below the cost of capital. Subsequently, bankruptcy laws come into action adjusting the asset value and allowing for the continuation of that assets exploitation. Not all countries have laws favoring such an evolution over time. Consequently, education cannot be the condition for economic development.

By way of a quick example, I will tell you the tale of a recent client of mine. This client operates in India and came to me with a cash flow problem. A quick review of the company's balance confirmed a working capital problem which could be easily resolved by factoring accounts receivables. I made this recommendation only to be faced by a blank stare from the CEO. What is factoring?, he asked. In most of the world factoring has been common place for decades so I was confused myself. However, a brief online search revealed factoring was only allowed in India since December 2013. This explained why the CEO had no idea what I was suggesting. But, more importantly, the legal framework that recognized the ownership of accounts receivable, their transferability, ... all the property rights attributed to other assets, like land and machinery, did not exist before December 2013. Now, although this legislation is new, it does create the opportunity for a whole new class of businesses to arise within India that did not exist beforehand. Likewise, a whole bunch of derivative businesses can now be effected - insurance, IT,... - all of which create jobs for educated employees and economic development for the country.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Eric Hanushek Jun 1, 2015

This is unfortunately a very confusing and misleading commentary. Early on it states that perhaps skills and quality of education are important, but then it quickly moves into just discussing school attainment – as if the educational content of a year of schooling in Peru was equivalent to that in Japan. Measures of cognitive skills from international math and science tests explain 75 percent of country differences in long run growth rates, while school attainment explains none once measured skills are taken into account. (Hanushek and Woessmann, The Knowledge Capital of Nations, MIT Press) Moreover, the China example simply confuses the growth that can be had in the short run from relaxing the bad economic institutions China had developed with the long run picture. China, as it is realizing, will also depend on the skills of its population in the future.
The implications of part of the commentary are correct: Simply providing access to bad schools does little. This is especially true in comparison to the economic benefits of improved school quality. Ludger Woessmann and I provide estimates of what history suggests for alternative policies in Universal Basic Skills, OECD Press. It would be a serious mistake to conclude that education was unimportant. It would also be wrong to conclude that countries cannot improve the quality of its schools, something that has in fact been seen across a range of countries.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rozeta Assatiani Jun 1, 2015

A very insightful article. Firstly, an educated person has to be employed on the job, which corresponds to his skills. We know that this is not often the case in the developing countries. Secondly, in order to make an educated person productive, the working place, the environment should be supportive to it, which, on its own, is a result of many, other than education system, internal and external factors. Therefore no wonder that the correlation is week.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
J.-C. Alvarez Jun 1, 2015

In order to be productive, educated people require a certain infrastructure that is tricky to setup and tricky to maintain. After all, most Eastern-European socialist states had an excellent educational system.
- Petey Bee Jun 1, 2015
  
  @JC Alvarez. ...And many of the East's best immigrated to the US and easily ate the less educated Americans' lunch. :) :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Jun 1, 2015

There is a correlation/causation between education and well being, to deny it is simply absurd.
- Jose araujo Jun 2, 2015
  
  Well ,nobody stated education is the only factor for growth, and the way I read the article is in the sense that Hausmann is trying to prove there is no correlation between them.
  
  I would understand the argument of causation, i.e. developed countries invest more in education,but even that is challenged by him.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public Jun 1, 2015
  
  I don't think he is denying it, he is just saying it not the only thing that matters.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jun 1, 2015

Good article. You can only improve an organization a bit by improving the quality of its individual units, but, eventually, you have to look at the quality (and quantity) of their interactions. Education contributes a bit there, but all the elements that give structure to life, like law and order, habits and morals, as well as the surrounding environment, count as much or more than any doses of education.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gladys Benegas Jun 1, 2015

Schooling vs training? An old debate once again.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dimas Camacho May 31, 2015

Es cierto... la conclusión del asunto es que las generaciones actuales deben tener una educación básica de calidad, a su vez toda esa fuerza laboral se orienta los diferente estratos ellos evita que importar mano de obra de otros mercados... sin duda estos razonamientos tiene implicaciones positivas en términos de productividad ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier May 31, 2015

Every culture has it's mythos. The Fed as an institution is sublimely well schooled in a certain orthodox economic discourse which not coincidentally corresponds to the principles and interests of American capitalism. Wouldn't it be fair to say that such academic doctrines as the Fed imposes can account for the bulk of nominal economic growth in recent years? (That and a galactic empire of debt.) So could it be that an artificially financialized capitalism can proceed to promote such growth around the world, so long as no one makes a rude noise that contradicts all that Fed-style erudition?
- Luca Grande Jun 2, 2015
  
  A'men
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/YWWrRe0

Cookies and Privacy

The Education Myth

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The Education Myth

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification