Author(s) Amartya K. Sen - Economic Approaches to Education and Manpower Planning

8/18/2019 Author(s) Amartya K. Sen - Economic Approaches to Education and Manpower Planning

1/22

Department of Economics Delhi School of Economics University of Delhi

Economic Approaches to Education and Manpower PlanningAuthor(s): Amartya K. SenSource: Indian Economic Review, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 1 (APRIL 1966), pp. 1-21Published by: Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, University of DelhiStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41969624 .

Accessed: 31/07/2014 05:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi is collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Indian Economic Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 05:27:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=econdsehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41969624?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41969624?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=econdse


2/22

Economic

Approaches

to

Education and

Manpower

Planning*

THE

Theories,

relation

to

between

be sound

theory

empirically,

and statistics

must be

is

based

an

intricate

on

data,

one.

but

heories,

to be sound

empirically,

must be

based

on

data,

but

statistics,

n their

turn,

cannot

be

efficiently

ollected

and

compiled

without

ome

notionof

a

background

heory.

In

a

new

field

like that

of

economics

of education

nd that

of

manpower

planning,

such back-

ground

heories an

prove

to

be the

biggest

stumbling

block. A number

of

approaches

have

cropped

up

in the

field,

nd

statisticalwork

seem

to

be

proceeding

in

a

variety

of

directions.

It

is

not

altogether

lear,

however,whether ll theseapproachesare particularlypromising. Since

the

quality

nd the amount

of the

data

leave a lot

to be

desired,

rejection

or verification

s

not

very

easy.

It

is,

therefore,

ll

the more

necessary

that

the

underlying

ogic

of the

background

theories

should

be

very

carefully

examined,

to

make

sure

what exact

economic

assumptions

they

mply,

nd to

what

extent

hese

are

plausible

relations

o

expect.

In

this

paper

three f

the

more dominant

pproaches

to

the

problem

will

be examined

(i)

The Fixed

RequirementsApproach, e.g.,

that

of

Professors

Tinbergen,

orrea,

and

Bos

;x

(ii)

The

Income Shares

Approach

of

the

Marginalist

School,

e.g.,

that

of

Mr. Denison

2

•This

formedhe

asis

f

lecture

elivered

n June

964

at

the

Asian nstitute

of

Economic

evelopment

nd

Planning

f

the

United

ations.

1.

J.

Tinbergen

ndH.

Correa,

Quantitative

daptation

fEducation

o Accelere-

ted

Growth, yklos,yL'

1962),

;

J.

Tinbergen

nd

H.

C,

Bos,

A

Planning

Model of

Education

equirements

f

Economic

evelopment,

n

O.E

C.D.,

TheResidual

actornd

Economic

rowth

Paris,

964).

2. E.

F.

Denison.The

Sources

f

Economic

rowth

n

the

United

tates

nd he

Alternativesefore s NewYork,1962); enison,MeasuringheContribution

of

Education

and

the

'residual')

to

Economic

Growth ,

.E.C.

D.,

The

Residual

actor

nd

conomicrowth

Paris,

964).

The

pproach

was

pioneered

by

Professorchultznd numberf

Chicago

conomits;

eethe

Supplement

f

the

Journal

f

Political

Economy

Vol.

70,

No.

5,

Part2

(October

962);

see lso

G. S.

Becker,

uman

apital

New

York,

964).


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

i

Á. fc.

SÈÍSf

(iii)

The

Human Resouree

ndex

Approach

of

Professors Harbison

and Myers.8

In the

light

of our assessmentof

these

approaches

some

suggestions

would be

made on what

other

data

to

collect,

nd what

further onsidera-

tions to

bring

into

our

analysis

of

the economics

of

education and

manpower lanning.

The Fixed

Requirements pproach

The first

pproach

consists

ssentially

n

postulating

fixed

relations

between stocks

of educated

manpower

nd unitsof

national

ncome,

or

its ectoral

components.

It assumes

away implicitly

he

possibility

of

substitution

etween educational resources

and

productive

factors of

otherkinds.

Theorization f thiskind s

implicit

n

the often

repeated

casual

statement bout educational

planning,

viz.,

educational

expansion

must

o

up proportionately

o economic

expansion.

Professors

inbergen,

Correa and Bos

have

formulated he

implications

of

this

approach

rigorously

n two

models,

which re

very

worth

tudying.

Both

in the

Tinbergen-Correa aper

(1962),

as well as in the

Tinbergen-Bos paper (1963),

there

are

two

scarce

resources, iz.,

the

total

stockof

people

with

a

secondary

education,

and

those

with a

third-level

ducation,

indicated

respectively y

N2,,

and

N3,,

for

time

period

t.

In

the 1962

paper,

the need

for

N2

is taken to

be

simply

proportional

o the national

ncome.

The

same

for

hat

part

of N3

which

is used

for

producing

national

ncome;

but there

are two other

parts

of

N3

employed

n

teachingpeople

at

the

secondary

nd the

third

evel,

and

these

requirements

re

also takento be

proportional given

teacher-pupil

ratios).

The stock

of

secondary

educated

manpower

and third-level

educated manpower this period depends on the stock astperiod, lus

new

entrants his

period

after

inishing

ducation

last

period,

minus

the

part

of

the ast

period's

tock eliminated

y

death and

retirement.This

drop

out is taken

to

be

a

fixed

proportion

of the last

period's

stock.

These are the

main features f the

1962

paper,

and the rest

consists n

the

working

out

of the

implications

of

all this

and

of

a

few

otherminor

assumptions.

The education

requirements

f alternative

rates of

growth

are

examinedwithin his framework.

In

the

1963

paper, Tinbergen

and

Bos

develop

this model

further,

introducingomechanges,without lteringthe basic approach. Instead

of

assuming

hat all

the students

ventually

oin

the abour

force,

a fixed

3. F. HarbisonndC.A.

Myers,

ducation,anpower

nd conomic

rowth

New

York,

964).




4/22

EDUCATION ND MANPOWERLANNINÖ

3

proportion

f

wastage (e.g.

due

to

failure

o

pass

or

to

continue

study,

due to seeking ducationforpurelycultural reasons withoutwantingto

use

it)

is introduced.

The

possibility

f an

initial

urplus

f

some kind

of

educated stock

s also considered.

Manpower requirements

re

related

to sectoral

omponents

of national

ncome,

nd

not

to

aggregated

ational

income

altogether.

And

instead

of

taking

proportional

elationbetween

educated

manpower

and the

product,

a

not-necessarily-proportional,

but

unique,

elationbetween he two is assumed. This last

relaxation

of

the

assumption

f the

firstmodel has to

be examined

carefully,

We

may

now,

lor

example,postulate

hat

when

output goes up

10

per cent,

the

stockof

secondary

ducated

manpower equirement oes up

by

5

per

cent.

But whilethis

relation

s

not

proportional,

t

is

unique,

n the

sense

that

a 10

per

cent ncrease n

outputrequires

fixed amount of

expansion

of

the

educated

stock,

no matter what else

we

do

in

the

economy.

We

cannot

cut down

the

requirement

f educated

stock

by choosing

other

techniques

f

production

equiring,

ay,

less of this kind of

education.

In

fact,

what

characterises

hesemodels s

this

notionof fixed

equirement

of

educational

tock

for

producing

given

ize

of

national

ncome and its

sectoral omponents.

Any

model

of

this

kind

requires

some

simplification,

nd such

theories

hould not be

taken

to

task for

assuming

he

reality

o

be

a

little

simpler

han t in

fact

s,

in orderto achieve

practicalusability.

What is

worrying,

herefore,

s not the existence of

simplifyingssumptions

s

such,

but those

pecific

nes that

seem

to

put

us on the

wrong

track

altogether.

I have

had

occasion

to

discussthese models

elsewhere,4

nd

here I shall

only very

riefly

tate

what

appears

to me to be the

three

chief

drawbacks

f

this

pproach,

which,

somewhat

unfairly

to Correa

and Bos, I shallcall theTinbergen pproach.

The

major difficulty

ith

the

approach

lies

in its basic

assumption

of the

completefixity

f the

educational

requirements

f

producing

a

given

ize and

composition

of

national

income.

There are

possibilities

of

substitution hich are

completely

overlooked.

We

cannot

say

with

any

degree

of

confidence

hat an extra

$

1

million f national

income in

a

certain ector

equires

n

extrabundle

of,

say,

100

secondary

educated

men the

requirements

f

production

re

not fixed in this

way.

There

are

possibilities

of

substitution

etween different

evels

of skill

and

education, and also betweenhuman resources and physical ones in

choosing

between lternativemethods

f

increasing

national

income from

4.

A

Planning

odel

fEducation

equirements

fEconomic

evelopment

Some

Comments,

n

O.E.C.D.,

The

Residualactor nd conomicrowth.




5/22

4

A.

K.

SEN

any

given

ector.

The

fixity

f educational

reqiiirement

s

not

supported

by any very convincingeconomic argument, r by any thingmore

than

one or

two

fairly

ausal observations.

A second

feature

f

the

Tinbergen pproach

is

its

complete

concent-

ration

on

formal

education

without

any

weight

being placed

on

the

process

of

learning

while

at work.

This

is

probably

derived

from an

analogy

with

physical

apital,

but

unlike

machines

men

do

learn

from

experience.

The

rental

of

machinery

ends

to

decline

uniformly

with

age,

but

precisely

he

opposite

s

trueof

human

beings

for

quite

a

while

after

hey oin

work5.

Just

y

counting

he

number

f

secondary-educated

menwe

may

not

get

much idea of their usefulness to the industries.

This

question

of

learning

s

an

important

ne.

A thirdweakness

of the

Tinbergen pproach

is

its

assumption

that

drop-out

due

to death

and retirement

s a

given

proportion

of the

last

period's

stock

of

educated

manpower.

This

requires

the

assump-

tion

of

the

force

f

mortality

nd

retirement

eing

independent

f

age,

and is

taken

as

a

straightforward

nalogy

with

the

assumption

of the

so-called

radio-active

depreciation

used in

the

context of

physical

capital.6

I doubt

that this

is

a

good assumption

for

physical capital,

but

for

human

beings

this

s

hardly

olerable.

The

chance

of

retiring

or

dying

next

year

s

not

the

same

at the

ages

of

20, 40,

60,

100,

200.

This

last

difficulty

s

easily

remediable.

It

is

the

first that

mainly

limits

he

Fixed

Requirements

Approach

to

educational

planning,

and

the second

difficulty

dds to it.

Altogether

t is

not

at

all

obvious

why

this

approach

should

be taken

as even

a first

step

in the

field,

though

there is

no

doubt

that models

of

this kind

are

sometimes

mplicity

assumed

n

casual

statements

f

political

leaders. We

owe,

I

think,

a

debtofgratitudeo Professor inbergen nd others for formulating he

models

rigorously,

hich

has

allowed

us

to

perceive

ts

limitations

which

are

not

so

obvious

in

the

casually

made

statements.

Their

works

have

cleared

the

ground

forfurthertudies.

II.

The

Income

Share

Approach

This

approach

is based

on

applying

the

marginal productivity

theory

f

distribution

o the

economics

of education.

If

it

is true

that

5. See H. S. Houthakker,Education nd Income/'Review f Economicsnd

Statistics

February

959

G.

S.

Becker,

uman

apital

New ork,

964).

6.

See Paul

A.

Samuelson,

Parable nd

Realism

m

CapitalTheory

The

Surrogate

Production

unction,

7Yre

eview

f

Economictudies

June

962, .

197

N.

Kaldor

ndJ.

A.

Mirrlees,

A NewModel

f

Economic

rowth,

bid

p.

177.




6/22

EDUCATION ND

MANPOWER

LANNING

5

marginal

productivity

etermines

he

prices

of

factors

of

production,

thenwe do not needto measure he marginal productivity irectly, nd

all we

have

to do

is

to

look

at

the size

of

rental

of

the

relevant factors

of

production.

If

a worker earns

$100

more

with

ducation

of

type

x,

when

other

hings

are

given,

then

it

can be

taken,

according

to

this

approach,

that his

marginal

productivity

s

$100

higher

s a result

f

this

education.

This

provides

an

extermly

empting ay

of

by-passing

the

complicated

problems

f

estimating

ducational

productivity,

nd it

is not

surprising

hat

the

method has been

grabbed

with

onsiderable

eagerness.

The

approach

has

been

used

by

T. W.

Schultz,

G. S.

Becker,

T. Mincerand others n a

variety

f studies n the contextof

specific

estimations,7

nd

somewhat

more

heroically

for

calculating

the sources

of

economic

growth

in the United

States

by

Professor

endrick8

nd

Mr.

Denison.9

For a

glimpse

at

how all

this s

done,

we

may

look at

Mr.

Denison's

method.

Mr.

Denison

starts

with

Professor

Houthakker's

figures

on

mean

incomes

arned

n the

United

States

before tax

classified

nto

groups

according

o

age

and

years

of

schooling,

btained

from

the

1950

Census

of Population. From this a set of typical differentialsccordingto

schooling

re

obtained

for

males

of

the

same

age.

But

since differences

in

schooling

are

correlated

partly

with

differences

n

ability,

energy,

motivation,

nd

other

factors

that

will also

influence

productivity

nd

earnings,

Mr.

Denison

assumes

that

three-fifths

f

the

reported

ncome

differential

epresent

differences

n

incomes

fromwork due to

differences

in

education s

distinguished

rom

associated characteristics .10

As

the

next

tep

these

differentialsdue to

educational

change

are

applied

to

distribution f

males

by years

of school

completed

t

various

past

dates,

and therebyherise n average ncome due to increase n the number of

school

years

completed

s

estimated.

Since

therehas also

been a

rise

n

the

number

f

school

days per

year,

some further

djustments

re

needed.

It

is

assumed

that

a

given

percentage

increase

in

the

number

of

days

spent

n

school

per

year

has the same

effect s an

equal precentage

increase n

the

number

f

years spent

n school.

7.

See

particularly,

he

Supplement

n

Investmentn

Human

Beings ,

f The

Journal

f

Political

conomy

October

962,

XX,

No.

5,

Part

.

8. J.W.Kendrick,roductivityrendsn theUnited tatesNational ureau f

Economic

esearch

Princeton,961).

9.

E.F.

Denison,

he ources

f

Economic

rowthn heUnited

tates

nd

he

Alter-

natives

efore

s,

Committeeor

conomic

evelopment

New

York,

1962).

10.

Denison,

.

69,




7/22

6

A.

K.

SEN

All

these calculations

done,

Denison finds

hat

from

1929

to

1957

education raised theaveragequalityoflabour by29.6 per cent, or at an

average

annual

rate

of 0.93

per

cent. 11

The

next

question

s

how

much

effectdid

this

rise

n

the

quality

f the abour

forcehave

on

the

national

output.

Here

Denison

make

some

further se

of

marginalproductivity

theory.

Since the

average

share

of labour in

the

national

income

over

this

period

was 73

per

cent,

t

is

concluded that

the

elesticity

of

output

with

respect

o

labour

is

0.73.12

Thus,

Denison

concludes,

that

the

average

annual rate

of rise

of 0.93

per

cent of the

quality

of

labour

force,

would have

increased

the national

product

by

0.68

percentage

points

per year

being

73

per

centof

0.93).

And thisamountsto saying

that of the

total

growth

of

2.33

per

cent

per

year

n the

United

States,

as much

as

23

per

cent

was due

to

improvement

n education

(since

0.68

is

23

per

cent

of

2.93).

The

figure

s

even

more

mpressive

f

we look

at

product

per

capita,

and

it

turns

out from his

calculation

hatno

less

than

42

per

cent

of

the

growth

ate

n

the

product

per

person

employed

was due to the contribution

f

further

ducation.

This in nut-shell

s

Denison's

approach

in

measuring

the

contri-

butionofeducation o pastgrowth. He goes on to usethe ameapproach

to

measuring

he

ikely

ontribution

f

education

to future

growth.

One

gets

an

estimate

of how

any

scheme

of

educational

mprovement

ill

affect

he

national

productivity,

nd

depending

n our

values

and

goals

we

can

accordingly

elect

n

appropriate

ducational

policy.

One can

make

several

riticisms

f the Denison

approach.

Some of

these

concern his

specific

assumptions,

while

others

re

common

o

the

approach

of

getting

igures

f

productivity

ndirectly

from

the

earning

figures,

nvolving

crucial

use

of

the

marginal

productivity

heory

11.

Denison,

.

73

12.

The

argument

s

wellknown,

ut

an

be

pelled

ut

here.

et

Y=output,

=wage

rate,

=employment,

nd

m=the

hare

f

wages

n

national

utput.

Now,

we

0Y

know rom

he

marginalroductivity

ssumption

hat

w=

-

0L

w.L

8Y/

Y

Therefore,

=

which

s the

definition

f

elasticity

f

output

with

espect

o abour.

Hence

f

73

per

ent

s

the

share

of

wages

n

national

income,1per ent ise nthe abourforcewill

increase

he

national

utput

by

.73

er

ent. It

must,

owever,

e rememberedhathis esult illbe true

only

for

marginally

mall

changes,

nd

application

f

his

or

ig

hanges

an

be

made

only

with the

further

ssumption

f unit

elasticity

f

substitution

between

he

actors

f

production,

.e.,

of

Cobb-Douglas

roduction

unction.




8/22

EDUCATION ND MANPOWER

LANNING

7

postulates.

Here we

may

mention

mainly

the more

general objections,

and formorespecific ifficultiesbout theDenison approach the reader

could

be referredo ProfessorMoses

Abramovitz's

ritical valuation.18

The

fulfilmentf the

marginal

productivity

heory

equires

variety

of

assumptions,

many

of

which have been

widely

discussed

from he

point

view

of

their

ealism. Some of us

continue o

remain

very skeptical

of

the

assumptions

of the

theory,14

ithout

necessarily eing

enamoured

f

the more

widely

discussed

lternative

models,

e.g.,

that

of Mr. Kaldor.15

This

whole area of economics

eems to be in such

a

bad

shape

that

any

big policy

decision

based

on the

extremely

estrictive

ssumptions

f these

theories an be viewedwith onsiderable

uspicion.

In these

applications

of the

marginal productivity

heory,

the

temptation

s

provided

by

the

fact

that

t short-circuitshe

need

.for

an

independent

measurement f

productivity,

which

is

very

difficult,

nd

instead

one can

happily

use

the

income

data,

which

is

very easy

to

obtain.

But

precisely

because

marginal

productivity

s

so

difficult

o

measure,

we

cannot

easily

verify

the

theory

y

actual statistical

bservations,

o

that

the entire

approach

is based on

a

gigantic ssumption

ather than on

empirical

verification.

Indeed in so far as theunderlying ssumptions f the theoryhave been

put

to

test,

e.g.,

the

assumptions

of

perfect competition,

of

perfect

foresight,

f

profitless quilibrium

the results have

been

far from

encouraging,

and

the

continued

popularity

of the

theory

in these

estimates

can

perhaps

largely

be

explained

by

the

simplification

of these

calculations that one

heroic

assumption

like

this

allows

one

to make. I am

not

altogether pposed

to

yielding

to

temptations,

but

the

ease with

which economists ike Denison

make

the

validity

f

marginal productivity heory

almost

a

part

of

a

latter-day

Gospel,

distractsfrom hehighqualityof theirworks nd thepainstaking rouble

which

hey

ake over the other

ssumptions

hey

make.

There

s,

in

fact,

more

difficulty

n

Denison's

approach

than

the

simple assumption

of

marginal

productivityheory. (In

this

respect

we

have

been

a

little nfair n

lumping

ll the uses of

this

theory together.)

Denison also assumes

the

existence

f

economies of

scale,

and

as much as

17

per

cent of

the

growth

of

per capita

income in the United

States

13.

Economic

Growth

n

the

United

tates ,

The

American

conomic eview

September962, ol.LII,No. 4.

14.

Some

f

my

wn

eservationsre

stated

n

mynote,

Neo-Classicalnd Neo-

Keynesian

heories f

Distribution,

conomic

ecord,

arch

963.

15. N.

Kaldor,

Alternative

heoriesf

Distribution ,

eview

f

Economic

tudies,

1955-56.




9/22

g

A.

K. SEN

during

1929-57 s attributed

y

him

to

such economies. This raises some

questions. Firstofall, were these economies internalor external If

internal,

the factors could

not have been

paid according

to

their

respectivemarginal roducts,

ecause

thatwould have

exhaustedmore

than

the

total

output.

On the

other

hand,

if these

economies

were external

thenfactorreward an

equal

private

marginal

product,

but will fall

short

of the

appropriate

ocial

marginal

roduct.

Thus one would

be

misled

by

taking

he additional

earnings

due

to education as indicators

f additional

contribution f

education

to national

as

opposed

to

private)

productivity.

No matter

which

assumption

s

made,

once

increasing

returns

to

scale

is introduced nto the picture, he rationaleof the ncomeapproachto

productivityets

a severe

jolt.

Thus,

the

approach

here

is not

only

open

to the

charge

of

being

unrealistic n

assuming

he

validity

f the

marginal

productivity

heory,

it is

also

open

to the

charge

of

being

internally

nconsistent.

Two other

questions

can be raised here.

All

these works

draw

heavily

on

an article

by

ProfessorRobert

Solow,16

who

seemed

to

have

meant

he

paper

rather

ess

seriously

han

the rest

of the world

has taken

it. And as Solowhas pointed ut in his laterworks,

7

lookingmerely

at

income shares tends to under-estimate the

contribution

f

capital

accumulation to

economic

growth,

ince new

techniques

nd the

fruits

f

progress

f

knowledge

can

be

absorbed

mainly

through

the

vehicle

of

capital

investment.

Thus

the

contribution

f

gross

apital

investment

n

the

determination

f

growth

s much

higher

n Solow's

later

estimates

han

in

thatof

Denison.

A second

point

to note s that

when

learning

by doing

is

intro-

duced,

we

have

a

divergence

etween

private

nd social

product,

which

has beenanalysedbyProfessorArrow,18nd this type of consideration

is also left ut

by

Denison's

approach.

But

even

apart

from

hese

rather

subtle

but

important omplications,

the

basic

approach

of

avoiding

productivity

stimates

y

looking

t income

shares

seems

to

be

dubious,

particularly

hen the existence

f economies

of

large

scale

are

assumed

simultaneously.

We

have concentrated

mainly

n

Denison's

works.

In

16.

Technical

hange

nd the

Aggregate

roduction

unction ,

he

Review

f

Economicnd

tatistics,ugust

957.

17. ««Investment

nd

Technical

rogress ,

n

K.

J.

Arrow,

.

Karlin,

nd P.

Suppes

(eds.),Mathematicalethodsn ocial ciencesStanford,alif., 960 Techni-

cal

Progress,

apital

ormation

ndEconomic

rowth ,

heAmerican

conomic

Review,

roceedings,ay

1962.

18. «'The

conomic

mplications

f

Learning

y

Doing

,

The Review

f

Economic

Studies,

une

962.




10/22

EDUCATION

ND

MANPOWER

LANNING

9

some

respects

he

ess

ambitious

works

of

Schultz, Becker,

Mincer,

and

othershave beenmuchmore convincing. The Income Share Approach

has

contributedmuch

to

the

study

of economics

of

education,

but

its

limitations o not

seem to

be

adequately

mphasized

n some

of the more

publicized

works f this school.

III.

Human Resource ndicators

In

contrast o theheroic

ttempts

f

the

Fixed

Requirement

chool

and

of

the

ncome

share

approach,

the

recent

ttempt

y

Professors

Harbison

and Myersto constructnd use some simple quantitative ndicatorsof

human

resource

development

must

ppear

to

be

a

pedestrian

xcercise.19

But

partly

or

he same

reason,

their

ttempt

s

likely

to mislead

people

less

about

the

state we have reached

in the

complicated

field

of

edu-

cational

planning.

Their

approach

consists

of

compiling

very

valuable

collection of

data

on

educational

and

related

fields,

nd in

trying

o

see

whether

ome

ndices

f

human resource

evelopment

an be formedfrom

these

data,

and

whether

ome use can

be

made

of

these

ndices.

Since

I

shall

claim below

that

n

certain

espects

Harbison

and

Myersmisinterpret

the

significance

f

their

wn

indices,

should

ike

to

make

it

very

clear

straightaway

hat do

regard

heir

ainstaking

work to

be

a

path-breaking

one in

the

field

of

nternational

omparisons.

With a

great

deal of

research

Professors Harbison

and

Myers

have

compiled

nternational ata

on

the

following

even human

resource

indicators .

1.

Number

of

teachers

first

nd

second

levels)

per

10,000

population.

2.

Engineers

nd

scientists

er

10,000

population.

3. Physiciansnd dentists er 10,000population.

4.

Pupils

enrolled t

first-level

primary)

ducation

s

a

precentage

of

the

estimated

opulation ged

5

to

14 inclusive.

5.

The

adjusted

school

enrolment

atiosfor

first

and

second

levels

combined.

6.

Pupils

enrolled

t

second-level

secondary)

ducation

as

a

precentage

of

the

population

estimated

ged

15

to 19

inclusive,

adjusted

for

length

of

schooling.

7. Enrolmentn third-levelhigher ducation as a percentage of the

age

group

20

to

24.

19.

F.

Harbisonnd

C.A.

Myers,

ducation,

anpower

nd

Economic

rowth

New

York,

964).




11/22

10

A. K.

SEN

In

addition

wo

indicators

f

the

orientation

f

higher

education

are used

1. The

percentage

of students enrolled

in

scientific

nd technical

faculties

n a

recent

year.

2. The

percentage

f students

nrolled n faculties n

humanities,

fine

arts and law in the

same

year.

These

latter

wo

indices

ould

be

compiled

for

many

of the

seventy-

five ountries aken

up

in

this

study,

ut

not for all of them. Harbison

and

Myers

have

a

lot

of

interestinghings

to

say

in

detail about the

edu-

cational

policies

of these

countries,

ut

what

perhaps

stand out as

their

chief ontributiono this field s theiruse of what

they

all the

composite

index of levels

of human resource

development.

This

series is

constructed

rom tems

and 7 of the

first

ist,

i.e.,

enrolment atios t

the

second

and

the third level.

The

composite

index

is

simply

the

arithmetical otal

of

(i)

enrolment

at second

level of education as

a

percentage

of the

age-group

15 to

19,

adjusted

for

ength

f

schooling,

and

(ii)

enrolment t

the

third evel

of education as

a

percentage

of

the

age-group

0 to 24

multiplied by

a

weight

of

5.

If we refer o

(i)

as

s,

and (ii) byt, the human resource ndex, s

:

I

=

s+5.t

Then all

countries

in the world are

classified

into

four

groups

( underdeveloped ,

partiallydeveloped ,

semiadvanced ,

nd

advanc-

ed ),

the results f which

re

quoted

n Table I below.

We

also

mention

the

per capita

G.N.P.

of

these ountries.

Table

I

Harbison-and-Myers' anking fCountriesbyComposite ndex

of

Human

Resource

Development

and their

GNP Per

Capita

Composite

ndex

Level I

:

Underdeveloped

Niger

0.3

N.A.

Ethiopia 0.7 55

Nyasaland

1.2

60

Somalia 1.6

50

Afghanistan

1.9

50




12/22

EDUCATION ND MANPOWERLANNING 11

Compositendex

Saudi

Arabia

1.9

170

Tanganyika

2.2 61

ivory

Coast

2.6 N.A.

N.

Rhodesia

2.9

150

Congo

3.6 92

Liberia

4.1

100

Kenya 4.7 87

Nigeria

5.0

78

Haiti

5.3

105

Senegal

5.5

N.A.

Uganda

5.5

64

Sudan

7.5

60

Level

II :

Partially

Developed

Guatemala

10.7 189

Indonesia 10.7 131

Libya

10.8

60

Burma

14.2

57

Dominican

Republic

14.5

239

Bolivia

14.8

99

Tunisia

15.2

173

Iran

17.3

108

China

(Mainland)

19.5

73

Brazil

20.9

293

Colombia 22.6 263

Paraguay

22.7

114

Ghana

23.2

172

Malaya

23.6

356

Lebanon

24.3

362

Ecuador

24.4

189

Pakistan

25.2 70

Jamaica

26.8

316

Turkey

27.2 220

Peru 30.2 179

Iraq

31.2

156

Level III

i

Semiadvanced

Mexico

33.0

262




13/22

Ì2

A

K. SEN

Compositendex GNP Per Capita

(U.S.

dollars)

Thailand

35.1

96

India

35.2

73

Cuba

35.5

431

Spain

39.6

293

South

Africa

40.0

395

Egypt

40.1

142

Portugal

40.8

224

Costa Rica 47.3 357

Venezuela

47.7

648

Taiwan

48.4

161

Greece

48.5

340

Chile

51.2

379

Hungary

53.9

490

South Korea

55.0

144

Italy

56.8

516

Yugoslavia

60.3

265

Poland 66.5 475

Czechoslovakia

68.9

680

Uruguay

69.8

478

Norway

73.8

1,130

Level IV : Advanced

Denmark

77.1

1,057

Sweden 79.2

1

380

Argentina

82.0

490

Israel

84.9

726

WestGermany 85.8 927

Finland

88.7

794

U.S.S.R.

92.9

600

Canada

101.6

1,947

France

107.8

943

Japan

111.4

306

United

Kingdom

121.6

1,189

Belgium

123.6 1,196

Netherlands

133.7

836

Australia

137.7 1,316

New Zealand 147.3 1,310

United

States

261.3

2,577

Source

-

Harbison and

Myers,

Table

5,

pp.

45-48.




14/22

EDUCATION ND MANPOWER

LANNING

13

Harbison

and

Myers

find

that the

composite

ndex

is

highiy

correlated withGNP per capita, thoughof course individual xceptions

are

clearly

visible

in the

table.

The correlation oefficient

urns

out to

be

.888,

which

s

quite

remarkable

or

such

a

large

number f countries.

It

is,

however,

omewhat curious

hat

within

ach level of

human

resource

development,

the correlation coefficientsre

a

great

deal

lower,

viz.

.025

for

Level

I,

.373

for Level

II,

.574 for

Level

III,

and .692 for

Level

IV. The relation is

particularly

weak for

lower

levels,

and

get

stronger

s we

move

to

higher groups.

This indicates

some

cause

for

considerable

aution n

interpreting

he

data,

but it

also

seems to

implythat the relation is a

stronger

ne over

big changes

than overnarrow

variations

within

ach

group,

particularly

he

ow

groups.

Another

nteresting

eature to note is that the

average

value of

the

index rises

much faster han GNP

per

capita

between Levels I and

II,

somewhat

faster

etween Levels II

and

III,

and slower between

Levels

III and IV.

The

average

value of the

composite

index

and

of the GNP

per

capita

are

shown

n Table

II,

below.

Table II

ArithmeticMeans of

Composite

ndex

of Human

Resource

Development

nd of GNP

Per

Capita

(Level-wise)

Composite

ndex

GNP Per

Capita

($)

Level

I

(17 countries)

3

64

Level II

(21

countries)

21

182

Level III

(21

countries)

50

380

Level

IV

(16

countries)

115

1,100

Source

: Harbison

and

Myers,

Table

2,

p.

38.

Harbison

and

Myers nterpret

his

to mean that the

highest

rates

ofhumandevelopmenthould be made bycountriesn Levels I and II. 20

We do not have

the

opportunity

here of

going

into

the

details

of

the

analysis

of

Harbison and

Myers,

but t is

necessary

o have a

quick

20. Harbisonnd

Myers,

.

37.




15/22

14

A. K. SEN

look

at the

meaning

nd

interpretation

f their

composite

index.

An

obviousquestion to ask is why houldwe choose theweight of5 to put

together

hethird-levelnrolment

atio with the second-level

enrolment

ratio

why

not

some other

weight, ay,

3 or

7

or

anything

else

? The

authorsdo not defend their

ystem

of

weighting,

ut we

can think

f

a

number of alternative

ways

of

proceeding

in this

question

of

weight-

selection. Since Harbison

and

Myers

seem

to

regard

this index to be

some

kind

of

a

guide

to human

resource

development

n the

production

side

(an assumption

that

we shall examine

presently),

one

possible

method will

be to

compare

the

productivities

f the two

groups

of

educated

people

at themargin. But the productivity igures o notexist

in

this

form,

and in

any

case one

would

expect

thisratio to

vary

greatly

between

the countries. In

so far as there are

earning

figures,

he

differential

eems to

be

a

great

deal

less

than 5 in most countries.21

We

need not

take the

earning igures

s

good guides

to

productivity

n view

of our earlier

discussion ut it

is

not

easy

to think f some otherbasis

for

ustifying

he

weight

f

5.

In

fact,

the exercise

implies

an economic

problem

f

interpreta-

tion that

may

be somewhat

moredifficulto

get

at

than a

purely

tatistical

problem

f what

weighting

maximizesthe correlation etween the index

and

GNP

per capita.

It

is this last

problem

hat

Dr.

R

Sundrum

has

posed

in

an

unpublished

note,

and it turns out that

a

weight

of 5.9

maximizes the

correlation coefficient

etween

the

combined index

nd

the

GNP

per

capita.22

I would

guess

that considerations

of this kind

probably

did

influence

arbison

and

Myers

n their etermination

f the

weight

of

5,

because the

corresponding

orrelationcoefficient s

quite

close

to the maximum.

In

fact,

he result

s

rather nsensitive

o

changes

in theweight,as the variables involved move moreor less in the same

way,23

and near the maximum

the

sensitivity

ill

naturally

e

relatively

small.

But even

f we take a

purely

tatistical

xplanation

f the determi-

nation

of the

weight,

there is

an

economic

question

involved

in

interpreting

he index tself.

To make

any

use of it we must attribute

21.

Denison's stimates

ndicatehat he atio of

mean

ncome

f

collegegraduates

to

high-school-finishers

n theU.S.A. s around .68 The

ources,

able

8, p.

68),

a

figure

owhere

ear .

22 R. M.Sundrum,Note on Harbison ndMyers' ompositendexof Human

Resource

evelopment ,

imeographed,

sian nstitute

1964).

23.

In fact ll the ndicatorseem

o

move

more r ess n he ame

direction,

hich

Harbison

nd

Myers

ake s demonstration

f he usefulness

f the

composite

index

s a discriminator

p.

37).




16/22

EDUCATION

ND MANPOWERLANNING

15

some clear economic

meaning

o the

ndex.

And

here

find

myself

n

some considerable isagreementwithHarbison and Myers. For them he

index seems

to

stand for some

kind of a

guide

to the stock of

human

resources,

whereas

s far

as I

can see it tells us

nothing

more thanthe

rate

at

which

people

are

making

dditions

to the stock. What

proportion

of

people

today

s

receiving

ducation

of a

given type

need

not bear

any

close

(not

to

mention

roportional)

relation

between the stock

of

people

with this kind

of

education. Yet

this

is

precisely

what the authors

implicitly

ssume in their

interpretation

f the

indices.

To

give

an

instance,

the authors indicate that

for

example,

a

particular country

may

have a low

composite

index and a much

higher

GNP

per capita

because of

richnaturalresources. 24

But the

composite

ndex

s

not

one

of

the stockof educated

manpower,

nd

there

s no

argument

or

treating

it as

such. On the

production

side,

the

composite

index tells us

nothing

whatever bout withGNP

per capita

to

expect.

It

seems

to

me that the best

way

of

explaining

the relationbetween

the

composite

ndex

and the GNP

per capita

that Harbison and

Myers

observe,

is to take it as a

consumption

relationship.

Depending

on

currentprosperity,decisions may be taken by individuals and the

governments

n how much to

spend

on education. We

can

expect

the

flow

f

current ducation will

depend very

much more

on

thiskind

of

GNP

per

capita

consideration,

han

GNP

per capita

itselfwill

depend

on

the flow of

current

education,

n

the

production

side.

However,

this

point

bout

consumption

elations should not be made

too much

of,

as

even

here

the

relationship may

be far

from

rigid

one,

and the

high

correlation etween

the index and

GNP

per

capita,

on which all this

speculation

is

based,

is not free

from,

as we have

mentioned

efore,

a

certain amount of suspicious features. However, we can have some

discussion

on

the

consumption

versus

the

production

aspects,

ven on

the basis of

more

or

less

pure

theory,

and it can be

pointed

out that

if we

expect any

relation

between he

proportions

of

students

schooling

and the GNP

per

capita

on the

production

ide,

t should

be

between

he

proportions

now

and

the ncrease in

production

ome

years

later.

The

relationship

mustbe one of a

stock-flow ind with time

ag,

rather han

of a

flow-flow ind without time

ag.

It

might

be

thought,

however,

that there

may

be

such a close

relation etween ducational tock and the flow of studentstoday, that

one

can

be

taken

roughly

as

an

index of the

other. We have not

got

much data to

confirm r contradict

the

picture,

though theoretically

24. Harbisonnd

Myers, .

41.




17/22

Í6

A.

K.

SEN

there

is no

convincing

reason

why

this should

be

the

case.

Some

international ata on the stock of educatedpeoplerelated o GNP can

be

found in an

unpublished

paper

of

Mr.

L.

J.

Emmerij.25

These

concern countries

nly,

but

it

is

interesting

o

compare

the

ordering

of

the

educational

flow

ratios and the

educational

tockratios for

hese

9

countries. The flow atios

re

all

computed

rom Harbison

and

Myers's

Table

5,

using

columns on

Per

Capita

GNP,

US

Dollars,

Enrolment

Ratios:

2d

Level

Adj. ,

and

Enrolment Ratios:

3d

Level

Unadj.

Harbison nd

Myers's

composite

ndex

is of course

made

out of

these

last two columns. The

number

of

secondary

ducated

men and that of

third-levelducatedmen each perunit ofGNP, i.e., the stockfigures, re

taken

simply

from

Emmerij's

calculations.

Table

III

gives

the

com-

parison

of the

orderings

f

the

secondary

tock

and flow

ratios

and Table

IV

thatof third-level

tock

and

flow atios.

Table

III

Orderings

f

Secondary

Education

Stock

and Flow

Per

Unit

of GNP

Number

f

Ratio

of

Second

Second-level level

Enrolment

Ordering f Ordering

f

Countries Educated Men Ratio

to

GNP

Emmerij's

H-M Flow

Per

Unit

f

Per

Capita

Stock

Ratios

Ratios

GNP

{Emmerij) (H-M)

Venezuela

1.5

4.04

1

3

France 3.3

6.24

2

6

Italy

5

6.74

3/4

7

Canada 5 2.80 3/4 1

Brazil

5.7

4.40

5

4

U.S.A. 6.3

3.70

6

2

Costa

Rica

7.5 8.07

7

8

Colombia

8.2 5.17

8 5

India

10.7

33.15

9

9

25.

I am

very

rateful

o Mr.

Emmerij

o allow

me

to

quote

the

data

in

my

note,

A

Planning

Model

of

Education

equirements

f Economic

evelapment

Some

Comments,

.E.C.D.,

op.

cit.,

able

.

Emmerij's

iguresive

he

data

up to differentumbersf decimal pointsdepending n the variationsin the sources nd the

quality

of the data. We have

multiplied

he

Emmerij

atios

y

100

for

asy

comparability,

ithout

f course

hanging

he

relative

roportions.

he

years

of

reference

or the different

ountries

re

Venezuela

1950),

France

1954;,

taly

1951),

Canada

(1951),

razil

1950),

U.S.A.

1950),

osta

Rica

1950),

olombia

1950),

nd ndia

1955).




18/22

EDUCATION ND MAMPOWER

LANNING

17

In

spite

of some similarities hat the

orderings

are

completely

differentn the two cases should be obvious byglancing t thetable.

Also

the

quantitative

atios

re

significantly

ifferent.

Tablb

IV

Orderings

f

Third-level

ducation

Stock and Flow

Per Unit of GNP

Number

f

Ratio

of

Third-

Third-level levelEnrolment Ordering f Ordering fCountries

Educated Men

Ratio to

GNP

Emmerij's

H-M Flow

Per

Unit

of

Per

Capita

Stock Ratios

Ratios

GNP

{Emme

ij)

(H-M)

Venezuela

0.45

0

66 1 3

France

0.9

1.04

2

6/7

Colombia

1.0 0.68

3

4

Brazil

1.1

0.55

4

2

Canada

1.2

0.48

5

1

U.S.A. 1.4 1.29 6 8

Costa

Rica 2.0

1.04

7

6/7

Italy

2.2 0.85 8 5

India

2.6

3.01 9

9

Here

again

the

orderings

are

very

different

etween stocks

nd

flows,

o

that

any generalizations

bout

contribution f education o GNP

cannot

easily

be

based

on the flow

figures.

Also no

immediate onclusion

can be

drawn bout which ountries

may

need to

make

major

effort

in investment n the developmentof human resources p. 37), on the

basis of the flow

data alone.

The

point

that is

being

considered

erecannot

be

treated s one of

only

academic interest.

For

example,

let us examine

Harbison and

Myers's

method of

constructing

he

index

only

from

econd-level nrol-

ment

ratios,

eaving

out

primary

education. The

rationale for this is

based

on

the

relatively

ower

correlation coefficient etween

primary

enrolmentratio and

GNP

per

capita,

which is

only

.668

for

these

countries. This allows

Harbison and

Myers

to

confirm

hat an

index

based on higherlevels of education correlatesmore significantlyith

measures f

economic

development

han one

based on the lowest

level

of

education. 26 This

may

well

be

the

case,

but this

argument

ertainly

26. Harbison

nd

Myers, .

40,




19/22

18

Ar K. SEN

cannotbe

derived rom he low correlation

with

the

primary

enrolment

ratio. One has to look at someother ndex, uchas theproportion f

first

evel

educated

men in total

population

to

see

whether

primary

education correlates

significantly

ith GNP

per

capita

or

not. Indeed

it

is

possible

to

argue

that n most countries

rimary

ducation

has be-

come

such

an

important

minimal

equirement

of civilized existence

that

they try

to make the

enrolment

atio

as

high

s

possible,

without ndue

consideration

f

national

ncome.

(The

limitations

hat

are

there

arise

mostly

from

non-income

considerations.)

But

this

will affect

he stock

of

primary

educated

persons

only

in

the

rather

long

run,27

and

its

consequences

on the national income, which

may

be more

significant

thanotherkinds

of

education

for a

number

of

countries,

will

be seen

only

in

the

long

run.

Thus

the

ow

correlation etween

primary

nrol-

ment atio and GNP

per

capita

tells us

very

litlle

about

the

importance

of

primary

education as

an indicator

of

human

resource

development.

And

it

is

in fields ike this

hat there s

a

genuine

hance

of

basing

policy

on

wrong

onclusions

drawn

from he

H-M indices and

the

corresponding

correlation

oefficients.

Finally,

in some

of

the

statements

f

Harbison

and

Myersthey

give

the

mpression

s

if

they

have

at

the back

of their mind

a

model

of

educational

planning

almost like that

of

Tinbergen

nd Correa.

Take

their

onclusion,

uoted

a little bit

eailier,

that

it is

clear

that the

highest

rates of

human

resource

development

hould

be made

by

the

countries

n

Levels

I

and

II. 28

This

is

based on

the

simple ground

that

the

composite

index rises

relative

o

GNP

per

capita

a

great

deal

faster

betweenLevel I

and Level

II,

and

between

Level II

and

III,

compared

with

that

between

Levels III

and

IV.

Quite apart

from he fact

that

thesedata giveno indicationwhateverabout the amount of eifortthe

Level IV countries

should

spend

on

this,

ompared

withLevels

I and II

countries,

ven the

comparison

with

Level

III

is not

quite legitimate

unless

one

makes

the

assumption

hat

the

pattern

of

relationship

etween

national

income

and

educational

resources

is

a

unique

one,

so

that

a

movement

rom

evel

I GNP

to Level

II

GNP cannot

take

place

without

accumulating

he amount

of

average

educational

stock

as

in

Level

II

;

27.

It

must

lso

be

noted

hat

ny djustment

f

primary

ducational

low

ffects

the

otal

izeof

he tock ather

ore

lowly

han

djustment

n

second

r

thirdlevelflows.Thisis becausetheexpectationf life fterompletingrimary

education

s

considerably

onger

han hat fter

ompleting

econd r

thirdevel

education.

28.

Harbison

nd

Myers

p.

37.




20/22

EDUCATION ND

MANPOWERLANNING

19

and

similarly

etween I and

III.

Without

ssuming

something pproxi-

matinga unique relation between education and incomesuch recom-

mendations annot be made.

I

must

onfess hat

find

myself ery

much

more in

sympathy

with

the

Harbison-Myers

method of

collecting

and

presenting

information

and

constructing

ndices,

han with he use

they

make of

these

indices.

Particularly

he

problem

of stock

and

flow,

hat of the

consumption

nd

the

production ide,

the

question

of

weighting,

he

non-sequitur

on

the

importance

of

primary

education,

and the

mplicit

ssumption in

some

of the

statements)

f an

approximate nique

relation

between ncome and

education,

hould

worry

s a

great

deal.

Some

General Conclusions

The

main

object

of this

paper

was

to

present, compare

and

critically

valuate the various

approaches

to the

problem

f

education

and

manpower

lanning

hat

are

being widely

used at

the

moment.

It

has

not,

of

course,

been

possible

to cover

all the

approaches

to the

question,particularly

hose works

which re based on skilful

application

of commonsense to the available data, e.g , thatofJohnVaizey.29 But

the

evaluation

of the more formal

approaches

does leave

one with the

impression

that while

a

great

deal has been

achieved,

he

subject

has

perhaps

sufferedmore than a little

from

trying

to arrive

at

quick

conclusions,

ased

on

covering

p

gaps

of information

ith

rather

trong,

and

not

very

easily supportable,

ssumptions.

The Fixed

Requirement

Approach

s

perhaps

the worst ffender

n

this,

though

the heroic uses

of the Income

Share

Approach

also

leave

one

acutelyuneasy.

While

t

is true hat

time,

ide

and

policy

decisions

wait

for

no

one,

I am not

convinced that theneed forenlightenedolicy s bestservedbypatching

up

our

gaps

of

knowledge

by

a

set

of

assumptions

that are

neither

intuitively ery

plausible,

nor are

verified

y

data

(in

some

cases are not

even

verifiable).

Leaving

out

the

quick

conclusions hat

Harbison

and

Myers

draw,

their

approach

of

constructing

elevant

ndices

to

see

whatuse can

be

made

of

them,

must

be

regarded

s

fundamentally very

useful

one.

On

the

basis of our review

of Harbison

and

Myers's

particular

methods,

however,

t

may

be

suggested

hat as

a

guide

to

the

production

ide

of the

picture,their composite index is notquite theright hing o look for,

though

ts value

in

other

respects

s

not to

be

denied.

What

we need

clearly

is

more informationn the

stocks

of educated

people

of

different

29.

John

aizey,

conomics

f

Education

London,

962).




21/22

20

A.

K.

SEN

kinds,

forwhich

the enrolment

atios

are

very

poor

guides.

For

most

countriesthese informationo not exist. But lack of informations not

an

immutable

aw

of

nature,

nd

part

of the

ob

of the

economists

work-

ing

in

this field is

to

point

out

precisely

what kind of

information

he

various

countries hould collect. It will

be

not

only

useful,

but

essential

for

educational

planning,

to

have

information

n the

number f

people

with

given

type

of

education

lassified

y

age,

occupation

and

earnings.

Even

their

rude

numbers

will

be

more

useful

o

correlate

with

GNP

than

enrolment

ratios. With information n

age,

we

can

do one

better,

y

trying

o

bring

n the forces

of

learningby doing beyond the level of

formal

ducation,

which

has

been

so

farmore or

less left

ut of

orthodox

discussions

on

the

economics

of

education.80

Earnings

would

provide

information

n

the

value

of

a

worker

with

given

kind

of

education

to

the

enterprise mploying

him,

but

in

using

these the

difficulties

rising

from he difference

etween

rivate

nd

social

productivities,

rom

mper-

fect

foresight,

rom

the

existence

f

monopolies,

and

from

he

presence

of

conventional

wages

not

determined

by

market

forces,

must

be

kept

in mind.

The data on educational tockwithfurthernformationn age and

occupation

can

be

fairly easily

collected

with

he

periodical

censuses.81

Information

n

earnings

s, however,

ather more difficult

o come

by,

partly

because

the

rates of

taxation

depend

on

this. Here

the

method

of

sample

surveys

an

be

of

very

onsiderable

se,

maintaining

nonymity

of information

o reduce the

risk of

deliberate

misreporting.

Sample

surveys

hould

also

be

useful

at

the

other

end of the

picture,

viz.,

in

finding

out

how

the

enterprise

egards

he

usefulness f

various

kinds

of

skill,

depending

n

formal

education,

on-the-job

training,

and

learning

from xperience.

Finally,

the

effect f

primary

ducation

on

the

peasants*

attitude

to

modern methods

of

production

and

on

various

social

and

economic

problems

n

the

rural

areas will be

extremely mportant

o

study

in the

context

f

underdeveloped

ountries.

This

type

of

consideration

s

usually

30.

On

learning

y

doing,

ee

K.

J.

Arrow,

The

Economic

mplications

n

Learning y Doing,

Review

f

Economic

XXIX

(3),

No. 80

June

962).

On

some

f

he

onsequences

f

this

process

n

skill,

productivity

nd

earnings

of

workers,

ee

A.

K.

Sen,

Education,

earning

y

Doing

and

Productivity ,

mimeographed,sian Instituteor EconomicDevelopmentnd Planning

(1964).

31.

Information

an also

be collectedrom ther

ources.

See

Pitamber

ant

nd

T.

P.

Chaudhry,

ducated

ersons

n

ndiv

Perspective

lanning ivision,

lan-

ning

ommission,

ew

Defti,

959.




22/22

EDUCATION ND

MANPOWER

LANNING

21

left

ut of discussions

ecause

of the

difficulty

n

getting

recise

informa-

tionon this, hough hisgap in ourknowledge s sometimesmade to look

unimportant

n the

basis of some

misleading arguments

on correlation

coefficients,

.g.,

that of

Harbison and

Myers,

whichwe discussed earlier.

Rational discussions on educational

policy

require

hatwe look

closely

into

this side of

the

picture

n the

underdeveloped

ountries.

We

started

by looking

at the

economic

approaches

now

being

used

for

educational and

manpower planning,

and

we have

ended

up by

drawing

up

something

ike a

big

agenda

forfurther

esearch. If this

seems o

imply

certain

cepticism

bout the current tate of this

field f

economics,

hat s

precisely

what s intended.

Delhi School of

Economics

UNIVERSITY

F DELHI

Amartya K.

Sen

Author(s) Amartya K. Sen - Economic Approaches to Education and Manpower Planning

Documents

Transcript of Author(s) Amartya K. Sen - Economic Approaches to Education and Manpower Planning