@ Ales, Thank you, those were the words of HE the French president in his intervention in the Forum Yesterday. I do not agree with you as far as implicating religion in this issue. Reminding you that in the Golden period if Islam science and education either in Baghdad or in Andalusia were the best in the world. Have a nice day.
Hello Najib
The idea has an inherent logic, but I fear, economical growth is influenced by many aspects. There is nothing like unlimited growth..and there are natural reasons why we cannot expand unlimited.
If we look on a global situation today, we might see, that a minority of immoral Oligarchs claim mayor parts of the economical benefit (and the situation can grow worse, if we do not change) , the distribution is not equal for all men.
Our global ebitda production is 70 Trillion $, the global debits are 200 Trillion $...and the calculate amount of global capital is 700 Trillion $.
There is not much growth effect anyway that we can obtain in the ebitda-production to change anything of this situation.
We might have an absolute increase in global education and knowledge, perhaps a slight increase in global health and wealth. but we still have arround 30.000 humans every day that we loose as a direct or indirect result of global hunger. We can calculate today a date, where the global resources grew to low, to produce enough calories at all to feed the planet.
So perhaps all our educational success will not help us in 25 or 30 years when we reach this point. The sad thing is, that we already have enough financial power to immediately stop hunger, war, environmental pollution, many diseaes and analphabetism
Yes, I agree with the statement of the French president. In addition, proper education provides many other critical benefits, such as security enhancement. IMHO, ignorance (i.e lack or absence of education) related share in the misery of the human history is highly significant.
Although I largely agree with Ales concerning the economic disastrous effects of religion on economics, this does not necessarily affect them all, although I fear he is correct about the Islamic Golden Age which ended when rulers decided the Qur'an was right in everything and questioning its authority was heretical. Islamic states take a particular and peculiar approach to women that often effectively eliminates the potential of half their population, for example.
I agree that investment in education is necessary and important for economic growth.
I disagree that only natural sciences matter. The USSR was under-investing in social sciences (now it is over-investing) and could not model its social and economic problems (like no orientation on consumers in production).
But I think that only education is not sufficient for growth. A country can be educated, but have no natural resources or capital (they are also important growth components). An interesting paradox: people in Cuba are very educated, but live poor. Is it only the result of sanctions from the USA to Castro's regime? Or there is something else wrong in country's economy?
Cuba's poverty was surely largely down to USA sanctions, but of course, no matter how educated Cuba's population was, education improves an economy through interaction with other economic groups and situations. Small countries with often limited resources and populations build wealth through entanglement with other economies either through tourism, creative arts, entrepreneurism and inventions.
In the past, Cuba brought attention by producing outstanding sports men and women, but what wealth that encouraged came through European communist states-which no longer exist.
Yes ! Education, in terms of a practical learning that pays, is one of the economic pathways to growth. I hope that Mr. Macron can put his words into practice, because the French factor will be decisive for the future of the EU.
In the modern economy, broken down into resource and service, education is crucial. Intellectual competition between states, accentuated by migration or movement of work, is the future. Surely, the knowledge economy is more and more the economy of the future.
If you don’t invest in education, there will be no (economic ) growth. Do you agree?
Yes agreed & especially true in the context of poor families / societies because education is the only instrument to get out from the vicious circle of "the poor becomes poorer, the rich becomes richer". For those families / societies who are rich also emphasize on education for their children because through education, mind and thought can be renewed to different dimensions for positive contribution to society & economic growth.
We all know education is not everything to a person but is substantially important. We also hear the saying "Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime". The fish is resembled to the economic value / growth. Teaching a man how to fish is the education.
Not that there will be no economic growth but it will be lesser than we would have had, had we invested in all levels of education, particularly those that produce sjkilled labo capable of deploying modern technology into productive use.
If you don’t invest in education, there will be no (economic ) growth. Do you agree?
I do agree. Economic growth comes as a result of investments, innovations, increasing productivity, new technologies, new natural resources. In a competitive world all these today require good education. Investing in education may put all these factors of production into action. Of course the education should be well balanced and should be one which supports the above factors not just any education.
But notice the structure of the sentence. If you do not invest in education there will be no economic growth. I agree because of the above reasons. But I would continue further that if you do invest in education primarily it far from sure that there will be significant economic growth. Education should be combined with other policy measures.
Education may be among the most important elements of economic growth; however, a wide array of other factors are important as well (e.g., economic resources, technology, productivity, a government's policies, geopolitics...). Although it might be unusual, it probably is possible to have dramatic improvements in some or many of these other factors to offset the hypothetical case of no (public) investment in education.
I agree that investing in education is mandatory for economic growth but if there are no jobs available in the market and if the jobs which are available not aligned with education then gains from this investment will be lower and even negative in most of the cases for females....
Education may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic growth. Education is necessary for innovation, one of the main drivers of economic growth in more developed and developing societies. However, an educated society with a socio-political environment not conducive for individuals and businesses to flourish, [in theory] will not experience economic growth but will induce “brain drainage”, reducing the education rate in the country while improving or maintaining the educational rate of the “brain drainage” recipient countries, which are typically developed economies.
Paradoxically, some poor (LDC) economies which have experienced high levels of “brain drainage”, have and currently are experiencing [moderate] economic growth despite the low level of education and high poverty rates, which in many cases is attributed to FDI that create jobs for the uneducated low skill urban masses and to remittances. The issue in this case is the sustainability of this path to economic growth. Go and figure...
In the article:
Education and Economic Growth
Author/s: Eric A. Hanushek, Ludger WoessmannPublished Date: 2010
It`s mentioned the important role of education to promote economic growth: " Education has long been viewed as an important determinant of economic well-being. The theoretical growth literature emphasizes at least three mechanisms through which education may affect economic growth. First, education can increase the human capital inherent in the labor force, which increases labor productivity and thus transitional growth toward a higher equilibrium level of output (as in augmented neoclassical growth theories, cf. Mankiw et al. (1992)). Second, education can increase the innovative capacity of the economy, and the new knowledge on new technologies, products, and processes promotes growth (as in theories of endogenous growth, cf., e.g., Lucas (1988), Romer (1990), Aghion and Howitt (1998)). Third, education can facilitate the diffusion and transmission of knowledge needed to understand and process new information and to successfully implement new technologies devised by others, which again promotes economic growth (cf., e.g., Nelson and Phelps, 1966; Benhabib and Spiegel, 1994).
Very constructive answers listed some of you above [Ales, Yuri, Porfirion, Stanley etc.].
I guess we could discuss this question for days. I would simply say that those states that neglect education and do not sufficently invest in science, are about to suffer big time in the future. This is nothing new, but as someone mentioned above, we miraculously forget to learn from our misdoings.
It might all be very nicely summed up in one sentence: Education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change [our] world.
The particular problem with education and academic excellence is in the countries [some or most of Balkan states] where partocracy, corruption and nepotism are high on agenda of those in power. Thereby, aggrevating even worse the real situation and strongly predominate the ridicolous state investments in science and academia as such. In such an unfortunate habitate, science [and economy] survives only on the base of passion and volunteerism.
To conclude, we can not only observe investment in education and economic growth as a simple equation, we must observe wider socio-cultural context of the variables we do observe.
Just like anything else, there's an optimal level of education for individuals and for society. More is costly, less is costly.
Empirical work unfortunately cannot find this position because education is way too heterogeneous for it to be measured by years of attainment. We're left to guess and emote about it rather than get to the right answer.
Robert Solow developed the neo-classical theory of economic growth and Solow won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1987. Growth comes from adding more capital and labour inputs and also from ideas and new technology., that´s why important is very important to get people with more education.
Investment in scientific education is vital for a continuous development of a society by being on the frontiers of creativity, production of new things and growth. Those who do not invest in higher scientific education remain users of established knowledge or purchasers of new products that time brings from those who are at the frontiers of creativity. The difference is that those who are at the frontiers of research, discovery and creativity are the pilots of society, direction seters of development.
Dear Dr. Karaki,
If you don’t invest in education, there will be no (economic ) growth. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree with these words. However, there is something important to be mentioned: The quality of the investment. There are countries (mine included - unfortunatelly) making mistakes and spending lots of money in education without constructing REAL BETTER HUMAN CAPITAL.
I think the answer of prof. John C. Anyanwu was very precise.
All the best.
Prof. Hess
Yes, big point of investing in education is how systematic it is to satisfy future developments?
Unfortunately, we do not see much of a system proactive thinking in this important area. In my country of origin most of the "investments" [which is a low promile points of GDP] - is as much populist as it can get.
In his paper title Education and Economic Growth , Robert Barro Say that
"Governments typically have strong direct involvement in the financing and provision of schooling at various levels. Hence, public policies in these areas have major effects on a country’s accumulation of human capital"
According to E A Hanushek , Education say that The theoretical growth literature emphasizes at least three mechanisms through which education may affect economic growth. First, education can increase the human capital inherent in the labor force, which increases labor productivity and thus transitional growth toward a higher equilibrium level of output (as in augmented neoclassical growth theories, cf. Mankiw et al. (1992)). Second, education can increase the innovative capacity of the economy, and the new knowledge on new technologies, products, and processes promotes growth (as in theories of endogenous growth, cf., e.g., Lucas (1988), Romer (1990), Aghion and Howitt (1998)). Third, education can facilitate the diffusion and transmission of knowledge needed to understand and process new information and to successfully implement new technologies devised by others, which again promotes economic growth (cf., e.g., Nelson and Phelps, 1966; Benhabib and Spiegel, 1994).
Economic growth is caused by an increase in productivity of the population. Education to some level is required to maintain the systems that allow the existing productivity, and education beyond that level is required to expand those systems to allow more productivity. But that is by no means the only way to achieve it.
Increasing community size and density will increase GNP - the cities with the highest quality of life are all about 400,000 population, so maybe there are limits.
Economic growth can come from selling of ecological capital (rather than ecological interest) - this is very short term and leads to poverty (although most of us are doing this).
GNP can be increased by changing the scale of management. Small businesses produce more GNP/ca than big businesses employing the same number of people.
The quote, apparently, is 'If you don’t invest in education, there will be no (economic ) growth'. Maybe the truth is more nuanced, "If you don't increase your investment in education to keep up with population change, then your economic growth will not keep up with population change, without changing community size and density, rate of consumption of ecological capital, or scale of management."
Education directly affects economic growth is essential to improve human capital. An economy’s production capacity depends on different factors. These include physical capital, technology and the number of workers, as well as their quality. An increase in workers’ educational level improves their human capital, increasing the productivity of these workers and the economy’s output.
There is an equation to measure relationship between a worker`s education and its productivity it was developed by Jacob Mincer in 1974 (Mincer Equation). The Mincer equation provides estimates of the average monetary returns of one additional year of education. This information is important for policymakers who must decide on education spending, prioritization of schooling levels, and education financing programs such as student loans.
Yes, I do agree with the statement made by the French president.
Just to buttress on the prior significant contributions;
In my opinion, investment in education is quite essential and important for economic growth but I see energy as the major driver of any economy. This is because energy has a vital impact on all facets of the socioeconomic activities in many nations in the world today.
It is important to consider that education is an indicator of the development of a country,
Some of important determinants of economic growth are: physical capital, human capital, public investment, openness to trade, and population growth. In the case of human capital, it is assumed that having a higher level of education is better to drive economic growth.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science
- International History and Politics
- Globalization