My central defense-argument in respect to less developed countries as the writer's focus:
1. Shiozawa in consensus with Kurz and Salvadori had radically uphold that Harro-Domar and Slow Models of technological progress are merely theoretical, lacking any practical relevance, especially to less developed countries yet support it with no empirical evidence. He further argued that the neoclassical perspective concept of technology seeks to hide the real process, which change of technology is concerned. Ridiculing the concept on the grounds that it emphasize more in the investing of educational system in less developed countries to achieve technological progress, which is assumed to be a misdirected preposition and purely theoretical manipulative. I therefore suggest that, such a preposition uphold by Shiozawa et.al could not represent correctly the exact picture of the factorial challenges of the less developed countries in growth theory especially in the concept of technological progress. With experience in a less developed countries at a higher degree, will concur but not completely with the neoclassical argument of technological progress focusing in the educational system as the most effective solution but “Education Investment” in my perspective require a properly concept definition better than the current neoclassical definition in respect to address less developed countries for technological progress or transformation.
2. Shiozawa further assert that, the assumption of “technological progress” in respect to Lucas focus as in the ‘human capital’ and Romer as in ‘Knowledge development’ is fatal faulty for developing countries. I will once again concur with Lucas and Romer contrarily to your proposed view per experience, but require ‘human capital’ and ‘knowledge development’ as a concept to be structurally defined in the perspective of less developed countries better than as currently defined by Lucas and Romer with my reason that if education is largely defined by college degrees awarding in the context of less developed countries, especially in Africa, it will largely be misleading because the operating functioning of knowledge manufacturing in Universities of less developed countries comparable to developed countries has a very wide disparities of performance
3. If the Income per head increases, the consumption composition changes and the industrial structure must change consequently as posit by Shiozawa, is questionable in my perspective unless proven otherwise with empirical evidence. To establish a direct proportional relation of income, consumption and industrial- structural-change, need a proof to abduct it from theoretical abstract.
Clearly, you have published in this area and are a subject matter expert. I have done neither . . . . so please consider my thoughts with that caveat in mind.
Growth is always a subjective term. For individuals it refers to the quality of their lives, the opportunities available for their children, and the resources available to them on a daily basis. Growth has little value if lives are not improved!
In many parts of the world, the value of their quality of life equates to having clean water, adequate food and clothing, and basic education for children. The context of growth must be equated with the needs of people and the quality of their individual lives..
For example, micro-loan programs have been demonstrated to be a valuable means by which individual families can "boot-strap" and increase their individual family incomes. For much of the world, basic services like dependable electricity and adequate sanitation do not exist. Even in "healthy" economies, many people go to bed hungry and do not have adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
Rather than taking a purely macro-level viewpoint about growth for an economy, there is tremendous value in identifying the living conditions of the world in which your economy exists. Taking a micro-level view is worth considering -- especially if your goal is to make a difference in individual lives.
In the USA, for example, one of those micro-level issues is that 47% of high school students in the fifty largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas drop out of high school before graduation -- and 20% of the remainder receive a fifth-grade education or lower when they do graduate. That statistic is a quality of life statistic with profound micro-level implications for millions of young people in the USA. . . and macro-level implications for the taxpayers who will need to be responsible to pay the health care, welfare, and other costs associated with meeting the needs of that huge group of unprepared individuals in a knowledge-, wisdom-, and information-based economy.
So . . . perhaps there is value in translating abstract theory into real world priorities of families who live within your country . . . and building from there.
CC
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Higher Education
- Universities