Education and Development in East Asia

Document Sample
Education and Development in East Asia Powered By Docstoc
					The Role of the State in Education and
            Development :
       The Case of East Asia

     Presentation to National Authority of
Assessment Conference on ‘Quality and Equity
           in Education Systems’
            Rabat, 20th April 2010

                       Andy Green
            Professor of Comparative Social Science
Director of Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge
                Economies and Societies (LLAKES)
                      Institute of Education
                      University of London
Globalisation and Development

Globalisation has changed the terms of
development. It has transformed:

   the nature of world markets and what it takes to
    be competitive in them

   the nature of the national state and the relations
    between states and other levels of governance

   the possible paths of development
       Globalisation is Changing the
        Dynamics of Development
    In terms of the factors promoting economic
    development globalisation increases the
    importance of :

•   international trade (and thus the need for export-
    oriented economies)

•   knowledge, skills and technology transfer for
    development in the global ‘knowledge economy’

•   MNCs and FDI in knowledge and technology

•   education and skills (as argued in endogenous
    growth theory)
           The Conditions for ‘Late
           Development’ (Amsden)
    ‘Late industrialising countries’ countries can develop more
    rapidly in a global era due to:

•   the global disaggregation of production and services
    industries – the global division of labour

•   Increased possibilities for knowledge and technology
    transfer from:

    - increased investment flows

    - increasing codification of knowledge and skills

    - advances in ICT

    Countries which develop rapidly have the skills for
    successful knowledge transfer.
        The Role of the State in

The role of the state in development is becoming
better understood partly as a result of:

    more complex understandings of the
    globalisation process

   A more historically informed approach to
    development issues
     The Crisis and Development

   The current world economic crisis is also reinforcing the
    need to reconsider dominant model of development.

   The crisis suggests that the neo-liberal model of finance-
    driven, debt-based capitalism in developed countries has
    run its course.

   The crisis of neo-liberalism, combined with the growing
    power on China and India on the world stage, suggests that
    the neo-liberal model of development – encapsulated in the
    ‘Washington Consensus’ may also be re-thought.
        Neo-Liberal Development
    The Washington Consensus model, prescribed by the
    international agencies, and backed by the most developed
    economies, has emphasised:

   Minimal government intervention including through
    Industrial Policy

   Free-trade (no tariffs, subsidies and free capital flows)

   Structural adjustment policies to reduce state spending

    The policies are based on neo-liberal policies for economic
    development which go back to Adam Smith.
             The Myths of Liberal
             Development Theory
   However, these policies are based upon myths about how the now
    rich countries actually developed and there is little evidence that
    they work well now.

   Historically, most successful developing countries, including the
    recent cases in East Asia, have used substantial state intervention
    (in industrial, trade and education policy) to assist development.

   As Ha-Joon Chang, the Cambridge development economist, has
    argued, successful developing economies often have more to
    learn from Frederick List than Adam Smith. Liberal free trade
    policies have generally advantaged the already powerful
    economies. Advocacy of ‘free trade’ policies to poorer countries is
    often a case of rich countries tending to ‘kick away the ladder’ on
    which they ascended.
                   List on the State
   List criticised Smith for ignoring the historical evidence of how the
    rich countries had developed through harnessing the power of the
    state. He advocated using the power of the state to develop
    manufactures and to gain a foothold in world trade through the
    nurturing and protection of infant industries and the use of
    mercantilist strategic trading policies.

    ‘Power is more important than wealth...because national power is
    a dynamic force by which new productive forces are opened out,
    and because the forces of production are the trees on which
    wealth grows, and because the tree which bears the fruit is of
    greater value than the fruit itself.
     ...industry and thrift, innovation and enterprise, on the part of
    individuals, have not yet accomplished ought of importance where
    they are not sustained by municipal liberty, by suitable public
    institutions and laws, by state administration and foreign policy,
    but above all by the unity and power of the nation’ (p. 132.)
     Late Development Theorists
    Late development theorists, from Alexander
    Gerschenkron to Alice Amsden, have built on
    List’s insights. They argued that nations that
    industrialised after Britain had to do it differently
    since technology was more advanced, and more
    easily transferred, and since industries were on a
    larger scale.

   Industrialisation could happen more quickly
   Required more state intervention
   Relied heavily on skills and skills transfer
Developmental State Theorists
Developmental state theorists, such as Manual Castells and
Chalmers Johnson, have applied a similar analysis to the
way in which Japan and the Asian Dragons have used neo-
mercantilist strategic trading and industrial policy to
develop their economies.

Their analysis not only shows the important role of the
state in economic development but also the importance of
developing state capacity through education and policies for
national cohesion. All ideas familiar to List

In practise the successfully globalising East Asian states
have followed List rather than Adam Smith and it has
The Poor Track Record for Neo-
       Liberal Growth
 As Ha-Joon Chang has shown in ‘Kicking Away the Ladder’ :

 During 1960-1980 (when world trade regimes allowed
 developing countries to nurture their industries and
 external trade through import substitution policies and
 strategic trading) developing countries grew at an average
 rate of 3% pa.

 Since 1980, with Washington Consensus policies, only 13 of
 88 developing countries saw average growth rates in 1980-
 2000 period at more than 0.1% over the previous period.

 And many of those which grew fastest ignored liberal
 policies of the Washington consensus
         The Role of Education
    Education can play major role in promoting
    successful engagement with the global economy
    by six key processes:

•   Providing skills which attract inward investment
•   Assisting in knowledge and technology transfer
•   Upgrading the economy
•   Reducing inequality
•   Promoting social cohesion
•   Strengthening state capacity
    East Asian Growth 1965 - 1990
    23 economies in East Asia grew faster than all other
    regions at 5.3% pa, mostly due to rapid growth of 8 high
    performing Asian economies (HPAEs) : Japan, the four
    tigers (S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong) and
    the East Asian NICS: Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

    Average % growth pa:

•   HPAEs:                                        5.3
•   East Asia minus HPAEs:                        2.3
•   OECD:                                         2.3
•   Latin America:                                1.9
•   Sub-Saharan Africa:                           0.1
    (World Bank : East Asian Miracle, 1996))

    Growth rate of Japan and tigers during 25 years from 1960
    was over 8% pa on average (Wade, 1990). Growth rate of
    S. Korea 1962-1979 averaged 18.4% (Amsden, 1992)
Growth, Distribution and Well Being

•   Between 1960 and 1998 real income pc in Japan and tigers
    increased x 4

•   Life Expectancy in HPAEs grew from 56 years in 1960 to 71
    in 1990

•   Proportions living in absolute poverty declined between
    1960 and 1990 from 58% to 17% in Indonesia and from
    37% to 5% in Malaysia (compared with 54% to 43% in

•   HPEAs also achieved low and often declining levels of
    income inequality, particularly in Japan and Taiwan but
    also, until the 1980s, in S. Korea and Singapore.
Role of Education in East Asia

General view : education played major
role in East Asian Miracle

WB from growth accounting estimates:

‘far and away the major difference in
predicted growth rates between HPAEs
and sub-Saharan Africa derives from
variations in primary school enrolment
rates.’ (EAM p. 54)
          Human Capital Account
    Skills contributed significantly to productivity growth and
    technology transfer.

    Educational development was successful because it largely
    followed the market and was informed ‘sound’ policies:

•   HPAEs had high initial levels of literacy (although so did Sri Lanka
    and Philippines in 1960s)

•   Investment focused initially on universalising primary education
    which had highest rate of return

•   Secondary and higher education were developed sequentially
    when growth and higher rates of return to higher levels
    encouraged private investment

•   Growth, private investment and declining birth rates (earlier and
    sharper than in other developing countries) allowed increased in
    per capita spending and higher enrols in education without
    excessive public cost.
    Developmental Skills Formation

    Developmental skills formation theory (Ashton and Green)
    does not disagree with many of the human capital
    assertions. However, it claims they miss:

•   the importance of secondary, technical and higher
    education expansion in later stages of development

•   the role played by the state in generating demand for skills

•   the role played by the state in coordinating skills supply
    and Demand.
      Commonalities of East Asian
    East Asian education and training systems differ
    in some significant ways:

•   Japan, Taiwan and Korea are highly egalitarian
    (non-selective neighbourhood comprehensive
    schools; mixed ability classes; equal resource
    distribution between schools) – Singapore and
    Hong Kong are comparatively elitist

•   Japan and Korea have extensive company based
    training in large firms. Singapore relies much
    more heavily on Gov’t funded workforce

•   However, they have a number of features in
    common (Cumings)
      Commonalities of East Asian

•   Highly centralised administration
    (although this is beginning to change now)
•   Major stress on dissemination of basic
•   Bias towards Maths and Engineering (20%
    get maths A level in Singapore and 40%
    of graduates are engineers)
•   Major stress on Moral and Civic education
    (made possible by centralised control)
      Importance of Socialisation
    Arguably the most important contribution of education to
    economic development in Japan and Tigers has been
    through effective youth socialisation

•   Encouraging disciplined attitudes to hard work

•   Generating ‘national spirit’ of struggle and sacrifice in early
    years of development

•   Creating ability to work in teams (more notable in Japan
    and Korea than Singapore perhaps)

•   Development of state capacity.

Shared By: