Atanu Dey On India's Development

The Indian Education System — Part 2

Education matters immensely when it comes to the health of an economy. There is a positive correlation between years of schooling and the GDP per capita. Let’s look at the numbers that are indicative of the generalization. In 2001, “school-life expectancy” and the ppp GDP per capita for Ethiopia were (4.3 years, and $675); for Indonesia (10, and $2,844), for China (12.4, and $4,065), for South Korea (14.6, and $17,048), Japan (14.3, and $25,559), and the US (15.2, and $32,764).

Moreover, there is a correlation between growth and educational attainment. Consider one measure of the educational level of an economy, the literacy rate of adults (defined as those above the age of 15 years). In 1970, adult literacy rate in China was 54 percent, compared to India’s 34 percent. The ppp GDP per capita income of India in 1970 was $1,034, nearly double that of China’s $571. Yet, twenty years later, China surpassed India’s annual per capita income: India $1,587, China $1,617. The adult literacy rates in 1990: China 78 percent, India 49 percent. By 2001, China had 86 percent adult literacy rate and a ppp GDP per capita of $4,065, and India languished at 58 percent and $2,319.

There are many reasons for modern China’s meteoritic rise from its humble beginnings. But one of the most important factors must be their youth literacy rate, which is defined for the population between 15 and 24 years of age. In 1970, China’s youth literacy rate was a whopping 83 percent, compared to India’s 46 percent. It is more than a little depressing to note that more than half of India’s youth were illiterate, leave alone educated, as late as 1970. By 2000, India was just at 73 percent, not even at the level at which China was 30 years before. Now China has achieved nearly universal youth literacy. The lesson is unavoidable: compared to China, India’s prospects are dim if education has anything to do with economic prosperity and potential.

It is important to note the sequence of development. Literacy preceded economic growth for China, as it does for every successful development story. Note that China was more literate than India in 1970 even though it was poorer than India. Thus poverty does not automatically condemn a population to illiteracy. It is a matter of choice: like individuals, countries can also choose to invest in education.

I deliberately chose China as a counterpoint to India in this narrative. I can tell the same story of how Singapore transformed itself from a mosquito infested swamp to a developed economy within a single generation. But then the usual objection is that Singapore is a tiny city-state and a behemoth like India cannot transform itself. It is a just-so argument, supposed to be compelling enough that no reason has to be advanced why the Singapore’s tiny size in the context of development is relevant.

But another just-so argument is introduced when India and China are compared. It says that China cannot be compared to India because India is a democracy. Again, no reason is provided why democracy prevents policy makers from choosing to invest in education. However, one can argue that India’s political structure has something – naturally – to do with India’s dismal failure in educating its population. I describe India as a “pseudo-democracy,” something that has the superficial trappings of democracy but just below the surface it is anything but.

Democracy, if it means anything at all, is more than mere head-counting. It has something to do with informed choice of the population at large, which in turn depends on the population’s ability to understand the issues, which finally rests on the ability to read, write, and carefully consider the alternatives that confront them. As it happened, when India achieved political freedom from the British, the population was told that their emancipator knew best and all they had to do was vote for them, and the government so constituted would magically take care of their every wish. How that transformed India from being the darling candidate for becoming a developed economy in the 1950s to actually being a laggard in economic development we shall briefly note the next time.

[Previous post in this series: Part 1.]

Next post: Part 3.

  • Abhijat Mitra

    Agree but have a comment on the last point…the problem with India is that somehow the political class has had a ‘implied consensues’ that mass education and literacy will decimate their interests…if ppl are educated and can take informed judgements, their power to manipulate the masses will erode. So not to enhance the education system is pehaps a concious (and highly pernicious) intent.

  • Biswajit

    Just trying to be contrary. Correlation does not imply causation.

    Why do you thing an educated populace causes an improved economy? It might just be that the leaders of China are enlightened while ours are not. Are you suggesting that a better educated population increases the probability that the change agents of a country are enlightened?

    Also, you haven’t defined what an education means. Is it the ability to read and write a 1000 characters (as in China) or approximately 50 characters (in Indian languages) or 26 characters? Or do you add arithmetic to the mix? Algebra? History? Archeology and anthropology? Music? Dance? Theatre? Geography? Economics? Biology? Physics? Chemistry? Civics and Law? Basic engineering? Computers and computing? etc. At what point would you consider a populace educated?

    Are you planning to address such questions in the future parts of your series? I do enjoy your writing immensely and I’m waiting eagerly for the rest of the series.

  • http://kumarsbol.blogspot.com/ Kumar

    The noted historian Bipin Chandra shared this nugget or food fopr thought once: In the 1930′s, India was probably one of the most illiterate populations, and Germany had arguably the world’s most literate and industrially, economically and scientifically advanced population.And yet, Indians chose Gandhi as their leader, and the Germans went for Hitler.Is there some thing to make us think here?

  • Pingback: Atanu Dey on India’s Development » The Indian Education System — Part 4

  • Michael

    @ Kumar:

    Yes. There is something for us to think here. That some Indians are still too egoistic/ignorant to accept our sad state of affairs. No offense meant.

    -Mike

  • http://www.deeshaa.org Atanu Dey

    [Following comment posted on behalf of Venkat Nambirajan who was unable to post because of some technical glitch.]

    While I completely agree that Education/Literacy is a must for a country to develop overall, I am also equally baffled by the fact that, many start-ups (including some successful ones) or companies (in the US esp) were/are started by school drop-outs or people who were not interested in studying at all! What motivates them to go forward and start a successful company if they hated education, something that we cherish as a must for a developed economy?

    I don’t mean to say, schools are not necessary, but is there an alternative for our HUGE ILLITERATE population to be more informed without having to get educated or visiting school?!

    Plz if possible address these concerns in your following articles!

  • Pingback: Atanu Dey on India’s Development » The Indian Education System — Part 3

  • Pingback: Atanu Dey on India’s Development » The Indian Education System — Part 5

  • Avnish

    @ Kumar

    1. Indians never *chose* Gandhi as their leader. Any kind of a leader in India would have the kinds of mass followings the way Gandhi did. While he was certainly revered, there is no evidence Indians would’ve chosen him as their leader (and thank God we didn’t). There were several others who didn’t exactly see eye-to-eye with Gandhi and I highly doubt he would’ve won a popular election.

    As for Hitler, claiming that the people of Germany ‘elected’ him is dubious at best. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/map-faq6.htm

    2. Is your example of an illiterate/ignorant country electing a non-violent leader versus an literate/educated country electing a psychopath supposed to be an argument against development/education?

    I fail to see the factual accuracy, contextual relevance, or the logic behind your statement.