Submitted by Looking Glass
The following is an abbreviated introduction to a study done many moons ago. The study identified and examined some of the major consequences of education and economic development in the Caribbean and the implication for employment in the region. The focus is on Barbados.
The moral origins of western economic institutions, the Protestant Ethic, suggest that the relationship between education and economic development is a question of both formal education and the type of education. Today education is seen as a causal and necessary pre-requisite for economic growth. Indeed the education for development thesis has become so pervasive it is often presented as, or taken to be a panacea for development.
In upholding the goodness of education economists have been quick to point out the positive aspects of expenditures on education and training. Emphasis is given to the causal effects of individuals and groups. In addition some writers argue that poor countries in the process of economic development invest too little on education relative to what they invest in purely economic activities.
While economists emphasize the quantitative aspects other social scientists focus mainly on the qualitative aspects. In addition to being a necessity for economic growth, education is presented as a crucial factor in the formation of required values, an explanation for success and or failure, a decisive factor in social mobility, the creation of new elites, a conditioning factor of democracy and its subsistence as a viable system. Thus stated, it is almost inevitable that education should become omnipresent and an unquestionable element in the rhetoric of development: a panacea for developing countries.
However, at the societal level, the quality of goodness attributed to education rests on certain assumptions about structure, patterns of wealth distribution and economic capability. These assumptions neglect that fact conflict obtains where education is perceived from the individual rather than the societal perspective. The two perspectives are not the same or identical. Where the intention is one of national development as opposed to purely economic growth then education must be rationalised accordingly. If the aspirations and occupational expectations of those with education are at variance with the manpower needs and occupational opportunities of the country then conflict is likely to obtain.
The dichotomy of the world into developed and developing states raises the possibility that theories, methods and intellectual positions need not be identical, or for that matter characteristically similar. Yet explicitly or implicitly, the notion of a given path to development prevails. Stage models, for example, suggest the path to development to be unilinear, that the means and goals are both given and universal. However, it does not follow that the means (resources, conditions and historical circumstance) that facilitated the development are similar or the same for all countries or are available in developing countries. The notion of sameness in the development process is at an ethnocentric and misplaced one. History cannot be replicated.
If we conceptualise the development of the developing countries in the context of the “First world,” then development becomes predicated on transference rather than transformation. If on the other hand development is conceptualized in terms of their “backwardness” then it can be understood in the context of an interrelationship between two “worlds,” and subordinated to the power of those who control the world market and means of production.
This phenomenon appears to be a characteristic of many countries in the region, and is exacerbated by the dynamics of demography and resource limitations. It is a situation seldom recognized by politicians and planners both of whom neglect the importance of structure and external influence. Consequently, education leaves certain social problems unsolved, introduces new problems, and may well become a problem in itself
The aspirations of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations are but an updated translation of the ideals of western developed nations. The development ideally espoused is people oriented and has as its goal a distributive rather than a developmental revolution. Education is accorded many functions: alleviation of poverty, enhancement of economic growth, facilitation of mass mobility, socio-political stability—- and create the “new Caribbean man.” Thus education becomes political and must resocialize and also resocialize its citizens. But despite programmes of education and “industrialization” high rates of educated underemployment and unemployment exist. Mobility appears restricted to some movement within the middle and between the lower and middle classes.
The islands are in many ways dissimilar. Barbados one of the smallest the smallest (166 square miles) and a population of about 260,000 has about the third largest population density in the world. The agro-merchant and tourism dependant economy has a meagre manufacturing and export base and is terribly short of natural resources. There is no capital goods sector to even facilitate the productive capacity of the domestic market. Sugar, the major export is dependant on preferential treatment. Tourism, sugar and the service industry present limited opportunities for educated labour.
The value system stresses not success per se but education as the key to success. Its secondary school system is reputed to be one of the best in the world, and education from primary to tertiary level is free. However, in an era of global economic buoyance the country is faced with rising deficits, debt, high rates of underemployment/ unemployment and the export of manpower. As it stands the university will likely be turning out more graduates than the economy can effectively absorb.
To grow is to “increase naturally in size by the addition of material through assimilation or accretion.” To develop is to “expand or realize the potential of…to bring naturally to a fuller, greater or better state.” When something grows it gets bigger; when it develops it gets better. The resources at our disposal are not finite. We are not competitive. Pending changes in world trade etc, recessions and or downturns in the world and the North American economy on which the region depends will limit our sustainable growth and development. In this context economic growth and development are unlikely to equalize earning opportunity for the educated as well as raise the average level of economic welfare.
Conclusion: the dominant/subordinate nature of interchange and polarization of education and job opportunities reflect the influence of the socio-economic structure and that of education in the region, and are rendered onerous and inadequate by the incidence of demography. Education needs to be rationalised to the socio-economic capability of the country. Until radical changes occur internally and in the pattern of external relations
the notion of education as an indispensable factor for generalised mobility and economic development will likely remain an elusive dream. The supply of graduates will continue to exceed demand.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.