Educating out of Poverty? A Synthesis Report on Ghana, India ... - DfID

Chapter 2: Linking Education, Skills and Context
The authors use the term ‘modernising environment’ to refer to a transformative context where
there were:
new crop varieties, innovative planting methods, erosion control, and the availability <strong>of</strong>
capital inputs such as insecticides, fertilizers, and tractors or machines. Some other indicators
<strong>of</strong> [a modern] environment were market-orientated production and exposure to extension
services (Lockheed et al, 1980a: 129; cf. 1980b: 55-56).
Lockheed et al concluded that with<strong>out</strong> the conditions <strong>of</strong> a modernising or modern environment,
it was difficult for educational effects to occur (Lockheed, personal communication, June 18 th
2004), and indeed “the mean percentage increase [in productivity] may even be negative”
(Lockheed et al, 1980a: 131; 1980b: 57). In other words, if education is to make a difference to
agricultural productivity, certain other things needed to be in place. It is important to note here
that some <strong>of</strong> these contextual factors such as extension services are directly dependent on the
post-primary educated manpower available.
Lockheed et al (1980a: 120; 1980b: 46) originally “calculated the percentage increase in <strong>out</strong>put
for 1 additional year <strong>of</strong> education”. However, they were interested in the percentage increase or
decrease in production that resulted from four years <strong>of</strong> schooling, as this was the ‘<strong>of</strong>ten-stated
minimum’ for the basic-education cycle at the time (Lockheed et al, 1980a: 129; 1980b: 47). 14
As a result their estimate “<strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> 4 years is… simply four times the effect <strong>of</strong> 1 year as
computed” (ibid.). Thus Lockheed et al assumed a linear effect for the education function: that
every additional year <strong>of</strong> schooling had the same effect on productivity, year after year.
If the above finding is used with<strong>out</strong> a reference to the crucial importance <strong>of</strong> the economic
context or environment, there is a danger <strong>of</strong> misleading the reader. The Lockheed et al research
points to the fact that education (or literacy) on its own may not be sufficient to result in
positive developmental <strong>out</strong>comes. This is a very simple message, but it is exactly the opposite <strong>of</strong>
what many agencies derived from it. There has also been a tendency to overemphasise the
importance <strong>of</strong> the four-year period, when this was just a convenient unit chosen in order to
conform to contemporary ideas ab<strong>out</strong> basic education. The quotes below show how the findings
have been oversimplified, and in some cases misinterpreted.
According to the World Bank, primary education is the single largest contributor to growth
in developing countries. A farmer with four years’ schooling is much more productive than
one who has no education (ILO, 2002: 4).
Many studies have shown that schooling improves productivity in rural and urban
self-employment. Early evidence suggested that four years schooling was a critical period.
More recent work has suggested that additional years continue to make a difference
(UNESCO, 2002: 34). 15
14 Four years <strong>of</strong> education was in fact not the length <strong>of</strong> most countries’ basic cycles <strong>of</strong> education – but in the Bank at this
time there was a view that 4 years <strong>of</strong> education might be the minimum necessary to secure the retention <strong>of</strong> literacy (see
King, 1991).
15 The UNESCO publication cites the Lockheed et al. (1980) study directly (see UNESCO, 2002: 34, fn 18).
DFID 21