Interesting replacing “thing X” with “basic education” reads as follows
My four-fold “smell test” for what is important to development
I have a four-fold criteria for whether something is potentially an important determinant of development, or more narrowly, just economic growth, and I am happy if “basic education” that I am proposing is “good for development” can satisfy all four (and then can move on from these simple facts about potential importance to tease out complicated questions of proximal, distal, and reverse causality).
One, countries differ in their level of development by an order of magnitude. Countries that are developed should have more of basic education than countries that aren’t. If Denmark and Canada don’t have more of basic education than Mali or Nepal I am kind of suspicious.
Two, since now developed countries are almost an order of magnitude more developed than they were in 1870 I am happy if there is more of basic education in developed countries now than 140 years ago. If Germany and Japan don’t have more of basic education (or at least the same amount) than they did in 1870 I am kind of suspicious.
Three, since over the period since 1950 some countries have seen their development improve incredibly rapidly and others have seen almost no progress I am happy if basic education is more prevalent in rapid development successes than in development failures. If Korea and Taiwan don’t have more of basic education than Haiti and Nigeria then I am kind of suspicious.
Four, since countries change in their pace of development (and this is particularly true of economic growth, less so of human development indicators) dramatically over time, I am happy if there is more of basic education in a country in periods when development progress is rapid than in periods when development progress is slow. If China doesn’t have more of basic education after 1978 than before 1978 (as growth accelerated by 3.3 ppa) or if Cote d’Ivoire doesn’t have less of basic education after 1978 than before 1978 (as growth decelerated by 3.7 ppa) then I am kind of suspicious.
Basic education easily passes the first 3 tests. The final one also passes, with a time delay of 20 years (which is roughly the time it takes a kid to go through school and start working.)
human development indicators
good to see Lant Pritchett give a nod to human development indicators (and indirectly to the human development index)
accumulation of human capital, technological change, capability in the product space, or “institutions” (or, more deeply, what is cause and what is consequence amongst these elements themselves).
Good to see that room is left for human capital to be a cause and not merely a consequence, as most in EA seem to think
But nearly all contenders in debates about economic growth or development
Good to see subtle acknowledgement that “economic growth” and “development” can be different.
As a starting point EA should think from a human development standpoint, and not silently drop education from the definition of development.
Interesting replacing “thing X” with “basic education” reads as follows
Basic education easily passes the first 3 tests. The final one also passes, with a time delay of 20 years (which is roughly the time it takes a kid to go through school and start working.)
good to see Lant Pritchett give a nod to human development indicators (and indirectly to the human development index)
Good to see that room is left for human capital to be a cause and not merely a consequence, as most in EA seem to think
Good to see subtle acknowledgement that “economic growth” and “development” can be different.
As a starting point EA should think from a human development standpoint, and not silently drop education from the definition of development.