Education key development partner

Simon Marcus Gower, Jakarta

For years, decades if not indeed centuries, people have debated the relationship between the provision of education and the economic prosperity of a nation. Some have suggested that the relationship is tenuous at best, whilst others have expounded that any such relationship largely exists in the realms of mythology and so, by definition, there is no such positive relationship.

It has been claimed that the provision of education does not necessarily automatically set-up the prospect of economic growth and well-being. This is probably a quite reasonable conclusion to come to. Providing people with an education cannot really be claimed to be a panacea to all of a nation's economic needs or wants. But surely it is reasonable to suggest that the prospects for, and chances of achieving, economic successes are enhanced by a least a little education.

Some commentators have attempted to disparage claims that nations' planning and policies for the development of education have been principal players in economic development in recent history. Citing examples from around the world, they have claimed that it was not so much the nations' centralized governmental desire to develop education as the desire of parents to have their children in "the best schools" to give them a "head-start".

This seems a rather self-defeating argument. Whilst on the one hand it sets aside any notion that a nation has actually successfully planned for the education of its citizenry, on the other hand it promotes the idea that parents will seek to have their children get a "good education" as they recognize the benefits, not least of which would be economic, that their children may gain.

This does effectively make the case for a relationship between education and economic prosperity. Parents naturally enough are exercising their parental care and regard for their children and so wish for them to gain an education that will hopefully provide for them greater opportunities in their lives generally, probably in their careers specifically and ultimately in their economic prospects, prosperity and well-being.

The purpose of a government is surely not merely to act as a controlling and overseeing agent. The purpose of a true and responsible government is to nurture and enhance the prospects of the nation which it governs and so, inevitably, for the people of that nation. To suppose that a government ought not or cannot be a provider of education and educational growth is to simultaneously be rather subversive and defeatist.

It has been claimed that educational growth is essentially driven by parents that have sufficient income and willpower to "urchase" good education, which after-all does cost money, for their children. This, again, would seem to be too disparaging in its extent of reductionism and, in certain contexts, it could be seen as insulting and dismissive of genuine efforts to achieve workable and successful systems of education.

A government has a duty of care to all of the people of the nation that it governs, and it may be added holds responsibility to people of other nations too. But perhaps a government has the greatest of duties of care when it comes to the people of a nation that are most in need, the least well off and the poor; of whom it could be said "they cannot afford education."

It is to these people that a centralized government plan for education is most important. If education is simply left to market forces and is dependent on the parents' abilities to pay, then inevitably in a country such as Indonesia the vast majority will be left out. Market forces are an inescapable feature of life in the twenty-first century but they have always impinged upon what can be done for those most in need. Governments, though, need to be, (if not indeed have to be) predicated on greater, more altruistic notions of providing for those most in need.

If government, and in turn education, is entirely dependent on market forces and is at the beck-and-call of interest groups and holds vested interests in the outcomes for a select few then the positive results for the nation as a whole are significantly limited. At the domestic level every family recognizes the need for education for their children and this same recognition should hold-sway with governments.

It cannot possibly be claimed that education is the answer to all problems. Economic growth is not predetermined by the education standards that are achieved but there must surely be an appreciation that the provision of education does effectively lay the foundations for better prospects. By nurturing and supporting education it is possible to create a fertile seed-bed from which the blossoms and blooms of economic prosperity may more easily spring.

It is also worth considering the antithesis of this situation. If we claim that education does not bring economic prosperity, then can we claim that there is simply no need for education to assist in economic development? Can we suggest that economic prosperity will occur without education and even in spite of or despite it?

This seems unlikely. Education has a critical function of empowering people and one of the ways in which it may empower people is towards economic prosperity. The empowerment of people is not only based around monetary considerations. It has been said that real poverty is not being without money but is rather being in a condition without hope.

People that are suffering from need will not really benefit from money being thrown at them without any real plan to help them realize a better future and a more sustainable and self- reliant existence. Charity tends to address the effect but does not always really get to the root cause of the need. This is where education can and does play an important part because it can assist in eradicating the causes and creating new ground that is fertile for development -- including economic development.

Those that would disparage the relationship between education and economic prosperity ought to also, perhaps, consider the fact that developed nations consistently contribute large amounts of money to the improvement of education in developing countries.

Indonesia is one such country that is recipient of such significant contributions. Some cynics might suggest that these contributions are part of a scenario of "the rich being able to give to charity" and so in some way "assuaging their consciences for being rich" but this is a cynical and negative analysis.

Funds donated to developing countries for education are carefully targeting the kind of empowerment that will sideline dependency and allow for economic self-determination. Education may not be a panacea but it is certainly a logical partner to economic growth.

The writer is Principal of Raffles International Christian School, Jakarta.