Agenda for Action - Education
P V
Indiresan
11 June 2004
Change of government is an opportunity to discard outdated ideas and policies and bring in fresh ones. The UPA government has that window of opportunity but only for a few months. Sooner than one realises, the honeymoon will be over; anti-bodies will develop and innovations will become harder and harder to introduce.
The new government is banking on better education, agricultural growth and a new industrial policy to rectify matters. Education is a tool and not a product. It can amplify a person''s capability to work but cannot create work to any significant extent. Its influence on income and other disparities is ambiguous: At times, it increases disparities and at times, it reduces them.
As in the case of education, too much is expected of agriculture. According to the 55th Round of the National Sample Survey, in 1999-2000, there were around 45 million agricultural labour households with an average annual consumption expenditure of about Rs22,000, less than Rs5000 per capita, and barely 30 per cent of the national average. Five years hence in 2009, per capita incomes would have gone up at least 60 per cent above the 1999 figure. Then, wages of agricultural labour should increase at least five times to come on par with the rest of the population.
There is no way that agricultural incomes can rise that high. It appears that agricultural labour is destined to wallow at the bottom of the economic pyramid. However, there is one way out: reduce the number of agricultural labourers by five. Most other rural labour and small farmers too are almost as poor as agricultural labour. They too should quit agriculture. Then, over the next five years, we will have to quadruple employment in industry and services, at the least double such employment or work for a 20 per cent growth rate of employment in industry and services.
In manufacturing industry, as we move from hand tools to power tools to machine tools to computer driven numerical control machines to robotics, productivity, reliability, quality and competitiveness increases. Employment per unit of product decreases in the same proportion. Hence, in a globally competitive economy, industry cannot contribute significantly to the growth of employment.
In contrast, in services, the larger the numbers employed, the better will be the quality of services: taxis offer better service than buses; restaurants with waiter service are better than fast-food restaurants; smaller classrooms are better than large ones. Thus, in direct contrast with industry, the quality of services increases as the numbers employed in providing a given service increase. Hence, the real hope for new jobs is in services, not in industry.
