Business leaders often argue that the widening education gap — the disparity between what young people learn and the skills that the job market demands — is a leading contributor to high unemployment and slow growth in many countries. For their part, governments seem convinced that the best way to close the gap is to increase the number of students pursuing degrees in the so-called “STEM” subjects — science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Are they right?
The short answer is no.
Indeed, the two main arguments underpinning claims that inadequate education is to blame for poor economic performance are weak, at best.
The first argument is that the lack of appropriately skilled workers is preventing companies from investing in more advanced equipment, but that is not how economic development usually works. Instead, firms begin to invest and either workers respond to the possibility of higher wages by acquiring — at their own cost — the required skills, or firms provide their current and future employees with the relevant training.
The second argument is that it is increasingly difficult for the US and other advanced nations to match the gains that developing countries have achieved by investing heavily in upgraded equipment, targeted higher education and skills training, but, again, this contradicts traditional trade dynamics, in which one nation’s success does not imply hardship for another.
In theory, of course, a simultaneous shift in several countries toward STEM-focused secondary and higher education — with large concomitant productivity gains — could diminish the competitiveness of an economy that made no such effort, but this scenario is highly unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future.
In fact, the proliferation of highly specialized universities in Europe has failed to buttress economic growth or employment, and the conversion of comprehensive universities into specialized institutes for science and technology in the Soviet Union and communist China did nothing to avert economic disaster in those economies.
China’s top universities now offer two-year programs that emulate the structure of US liberal arts colleges.
However, the case for STEM education is even more fundamentally flawed, because it treats an economy as an equation. According to this logic, job creation is a matter of slotting humans into identifiable opportunities and economic growth is a matter of increasing the stock of human or physical capital, while exploiting scientific advances. This is a dark view of modern economies and a depressing blueprint for the future.
To lay the foundation for a future based on ideas and invention, businesses and governments should consider how new products and methods emerged in some of history’s most innovative economies — the UK and the US as early as 1820, and Germany and France later in the 19th century. In these economies, innovation was powered not by global scientific progress, but by the population’s dynamism — their desire, capacity and latitude to create — and willingness to allow the financial sector to steer them away from unpromising pursuits.
The fact that innovative ideas have arisen largely from the dynamism of people belies the conclusion that all economies require widespread STEM-focused education. Though a larger STEM base can benefit some economies, most advanced nations already have sufficient capacity in these fields to apply foreign technologies and engineer their own.
What economies need instead is a boost in dynamism. The problem is that the historically most innovative economies have lost much of their former dynamism, despite retaining an edge in social media and some high-technology sectors, and others — for example, Spain and the Netherlands — were never particularly dynamic. Meanwhile, the emerging economies that are supposed to be filling the gap — notably China — are still falling short of the levels of innovation required to offset the declining benefits of technology transfer.
In other words, economies today lack the spirit of innovation. Labor markets do not need only more technical expertise, they require an increasing number of soft skills, like the ability to think imaginatively, develop creative solutions to complex challenges, and adapt to changing circumstances and new constraints.
That is what young people need from education. Specifically, students must be exposed to — and learn to appreciate — the modern values associated with individualism, which emerged toward the end of the Renaissance and continued to gain traction through the early 20th century. Just as these values fueled dynamism in the past, they can reinvigorate economies today.
A necessary first step is to restore the humanities in high school and university curricula. Exposure to literature, philosophy and history will inspire young people to seek a life of richness — one that includes making creative, innovative contributions to society. Indeed, studying the “canon” will do more than provide young people with a set of narrow skills, it will shape their perceptions, ambitions and capabilities in new and invigorating ways. In my book Mass Flourishing, I cite some key figures who articulate and inspire modern values.
The humanities describe the ascent of the modern world. Nations worldwide can use the humanities to develop or revive the economies that drove this ascent, while helping individuals to lead more productive and fulfilling lives.
Edmund Phelps, a Nobel laureate in economics, is director of Columbia University’s Center on Capitalism and Society and dean of the Newhuadu Business School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China