The impact of culture on people's lives. The influence of culture on behavior

The influence of the modern economy in the field of education.

At this stage of Russia's development, the role that education plays can be determined by the country's transition to a democratic and right-wing state. The vocation of education lies in the fact that it is called upon to form a new quality of the economy and society, while the reliance is now on human capital.

There is an unequivocal opinion that Russian system education has every chance to compete with the education systems that exist in other developed countries.

To do this, do the following:

Community support;

Active and effective state educational policy;

Comprehensive improvement of education.

For this, processes and mechanisms for their fruitful use should be created.

In itself, education is the most important sphere in which the formation of personality is carried out. The functioning of the education system ensures our interests, helps with preparation for independent living And professional activity. The education system includes a huge number of institutions that deal with preschool education, educational institutions, and vocational schools. They include various forms training, courses, cultural-educational and out-of-school institutions.

Changes are taking place in the education system, there are a number of factors that influence the formation. Can be distinguished:

Political and economic processes associated with the transformation of the country. These processes have changed the requirements that relate to the labor market, which directly affected those who study in the education system. And if earlier higher educational meetings were academically autonomous, then modern conditions are characterized by the fact that in them the education system can no longer be internally closed and focused on itself.

State social politics, it seeks, takes into account the interests of individual citizens, and even ethnic groups and strata;

Historical experience and national characteristics, so in various countries ah separate education is practiced or initial education covers six classes, in other countries - five or four classes;

General trends world development: accelerating the pace of development of society, which makes it necessary to increase the level of readiness of citizens;

- transition to information society, a significant expansion of the scale of intercultural interaction, in connection with which the factors of sociability and tolerance are of particular importance;

- requires the formation of modern thinking in younger generation with the emergence and growth global problems;

– the dynamic development of the economy, the growth of competition, the reduction of low-skilled labor, deep structural changes in the field of employment, which determine the constant need to increase professional qualifications and retraining of workers;

Pedagogical factors, the need to provide more early education children and improve their preparation for schooling, which plays a significant role in the creation of various types of schools and other educational institutions.

Since the economy is dependent on economic cycles, prices for certain goods, political events, such as revolutions and wars.

One of the main tasks of education, both in Russia and around the world, is to provide the economy with specialists in various industries. But there is a problem that the education system, if it is closely related to certain government programs and normative acts, is not capable of sharply restructuring following the restructuring that takes place in economic development.

So in Russia for a long time there has been a shortage of personnel in certain sectors of the economy. This also applies to those areas of work that, due to social dogmas, are considered to be “not prestigious”. At the same time, this also applies in terms of filling vacancies in the top management. This is a clear indicator that the education system in Russia is out of touch with the real needs of the country's economy, because the state has more control over compliance with standards, without taking into account the objective needs of the economy.

Enterprises themselves are interested in high-quality personnel, therefore, employees are often sent for advanced training at their own expense, usually this is done by progressive companies that strive for stable development and expansion of their activities. Therefore, in those matters that relate to the training of specialists who plan to work in the field of a market economy, the role of the state should be reduced as much as possible. The only thing that still needs to be paid attention to is that the state should control the release of specialists who do not have the necessary skills and knowledge that set state standards.

One of the directions that seems promising to me is when an educational institution will directly contact employers. In order to find out what specialties are required and what skills candidates should have. In turn, this educational institution will be able to build educational program in such a way as to give the knowledge and skills that are needed for employment.

It is also important to pay attention to such a question that, despite the fact that the influence of the economy on education is decisive, educational institutions should not perform exclusively assembly line work, because cultural and spiritual development, as well as awareness in other areas, are necessary for a person. who lives in the modern world.

There should be a symbiosis between the economy and education. To do this, effective communication must be established between management largest enterprises and educational institutions. This can be done by organizing regular conferences, both at the federal level and at the regional levels. In this process, the state should play a key organizational role. It should not be a "supervisor" of the education system and business, but an organizer of effective communications between these areas, since, of course, it is an interested subject in this process.

Thus, in conclusion, the following conclusion can be drawn.

Education is influenced by a wide range of factors, of which the economic one is certainly one of the main ones.

Education must meet the needs of the economy.

The relationship and interaction of education and the economy is a natural and mutually beneficial process. The state should contribute as much as possible to the emergence and maintenance of this process.

Modern scientific and technological progress has led to significant changes in the material and technical conditions of production and life, but another no less important result has been a radical change that has occurred in the structure, content and nature of the stock of knowledge, skills, experience of the workforce. The complication of production, the expansion of the flow of scientific and technical information mastered in the process of mass production of products, led to a change in the importance of education for the development of production. As long as manufacturing supplied labor needs with unskilled workers, education had little to do with the economy.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, the system for training a small number of skilled workers, technicians, and engineers was, for the most part, not socially organized. Workers were trained directly in production, and science was mainly carried out by individual scientists, and it did not have a strong influence on the development of production. In terms of its content, education mainly performed social functions and had a general cultural character. The situation changed when further development production became necessary mass use of highly skilled workers. Education has become as necessary a condition for the production process as the tools themselves.

The role of the scientific and technological process in the economy has increased, which led to a change in the attitude of Western economists to the issues of labor force reproduction. The attention of scientists was focused on the problem of forming a qualitatively new workforce. The widespread automation of production and the commissioning of difficult-to-manage mechanisms required a reconsideration of the attitude to the “basic material”, as a result of which the concept of “human resources” appeared, which expressed a completely different essence, quality of labor and labor relations.

The well-known Chicago economist T. Schultz laid the foundation for large-scale studies of the role of man in the modern economy. T. Schultz's report was based on discussions on the works of E. Denison, in which, on the basis of extensive statistical material, it was proved that technical innovations and the expansion of the use of labor and production equipment provide only half of the gross national product that the United States received in the 20th century. (Table No. 1)

Tab. No. 1 Contribution of economic growth factors to GDP growth

Under these conditions, it was necessary to find other factors of economic growth that would be similar in efficiency. Otherwise, the postulate of the neoclassical theory of the balance of the transformation of all economic factors would be in doubt.

Some scientists named improvements in the organization of production as such factors, others - the intensity of labor, scientific and technological achievements, the effectiveness of economic policy. T. Schultz singled out education as a factor of economic growth.

E. Denison's data showed that for European countries and the United States, the share of education in the growth of the national product is 12 - 29%. Even A. Smith in his famous work “A Study on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” raised the problem of the quality of the labor force and pointed out that a person who has studied any profession requiring art and dexterity with the expenditure of great labor and time can be compared with an expensive car.

A huge contribution to the theory of human capital was made by G. Becker. He believed that investing in human capital, in addition to spending on education, should include spending on maintaining health, looking for a job, having and raising children, as well as all investments that contribute to the growth of human productivity. G. Becker individualized learning and other factors of human capital growth, and also brought them into line with the theory of rational expectations.

Human capital is a stock of health, knowledge, skills, abilities, motivations, which contributes to the growth of a person's labor productivity and affects the growth of his income (earnings). All types of costs that are expedient and determine the future monetary income of a person are considered as “investments in human capital”. Benefits are higher incomes expected in the future, getting a prestigious job, increasing social status, etc. Costs are the monetary value of the costs incurred for education, training, and the opportunity cost of these investments.

In the macroeconomic sense, human capital is the main factor in economic growth. Investments in it give an economic and social effect that is long-term. The investment period of human capital is much longer than that of physical capital. Only in education can he reach 12 to 18 years.

There is a certain pattern: the income of an employee grows with an increase in his level of education and age, but up to a specific limit - usually it is 55 - 60 years (retirement). After passing this limit, the income of an employee, regardless of his educational level, tends to drop sharply.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of investments in human capital, one can use the indicator of the internal rate of return of education. This rate shows the specific rate of return expected in the implementation of this investment project. When choosing a project, its internal rate of return is compared with the current rate of interest. If the value of the first is greater than or equal to the second, then the project of investing in education is considered profitable.

Rate of return indicators can be used to analyze long-term trends in the labor market. The lack of supply of labor force of a certain profession and qualification in conditions of free competition in the labor market causes an increase in the relative level of wages of this category of workers. This entails an increase in the return on investment for their training. An increase in the rate of return on investment in education entails an increase in the number of students in this specialty and their entry into the labor market. over time, supply rises and the shortage of labor at a given skill level in the labor market is eliminated. With equilibrium supply and demand in the labor market, the ratio of the costs of training the labor force with the level of its payment becomes optimal, and the internal rates of return are aligned. Thus, we can conclude that education is the leading branch of human capital production, the foundation for the future well-being of the whole society and a person in particular. Obtaining the full effect from the realization of the potential of the educational factor is a key issue for the country's economic growth.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Pavlova Natalia Anatolyevna Modeling the impact of education on economic growth: Cand. ... cand. economy Sciences: 08.00.13 Moscow, 2001 160 p. RSL OD, 61:02-8/706-1

Introduction

1. Economic research in the field of modeling the relationship between education and economic growth 11

1.1. Investments in the education of an economic agent 11

1.2 Economy-wide investment in education 14

1.3 Accounting for education in production functions 16

1.3.1 Education and total factor productivity 16

1.3.2 Educational choice and economic growth 23

1.3.3 Relationship between education level and other factors of economic growth 27

1.3.3.1 Education, economic openness and economic growth 27

1.3.3.2 Education, institutional infrastructure and economic growth 35

1.3.3.3 Other factors, education and economic growth 39

1.4 Education and convergence 41

1.4.1 Research on convergence and human capital 41

1.5 Various ways assessment of the level of education in economic models 43

1.5.1 Education as a sum of costs to society 43

1.5.2 Education and improvement of the quality of work 44

1.5.2.1 Schools enrollment ratios and literacy rates 47

1.5.2.2 Average years of schooling 48

2. Modeling the relationship between education, economic growth and other factors 59

2.1 Model of the influence of education on the total productivity of factors 60

2.2 Empirical assessment of the impact of education on economic growth as a factor contributing to the adoption of innovations 65

2.3 Total factor productivity, education as a driver of innovation and consideration of other factors 78

2.3.1 Level of education and economic openness 78

2.3.2 Level of education and foreign direct investment 80

2.3.3 Level of education and political situation 82

2.3.4 Assessing the impact of education on economic growth as a factor contributing to innovation within the country, 83

2.4 The influence of various economic factors on the level of education 90

2.5 Assessing the impact on the level of education of various indicators of economic development ... 96

3. Assessing the Possibilities of Implementing Economic Policy 113

3.1 Scheme of economic development depending on growth rates and level of education 114

3.2 Differentiation of countries depending on the level of development of education and economy and possible recommendations for further implementation of policies to improve the level of education 118

3.3 Influence of the chosen economic policy on economic growth rates 120

3.4 Main findings 134

4. Conclusion 145

Bibliography

Introduction to work

" The question of the main factors of economic growth is relevant for the world economy, because despite the fact that many countries have managed to achieve good level well-being, income differentiation between countries remains very high, and the gap between developed and developing countries continues to widen.

The development of technology leads to the strengthening of the role of human capital, since only thanks to the availability of a skilled workforce for the country it becomes possible to quickly introduce all the innovations that allow the economy to function effectively in modern conditions. And we are talking not only about technological changes, but also about various innovations in the field of management and general production culture.

It is quite obvious that the quality of human capital is determined mainly by the level of education in the economic system. Therefore, when analyzing the main growth factors using economic and mathematical models, this indicator must be taken into account. In addition, ongoing statistical studies prove that the contribution to economic growth of the total productivity of factors, which reflects the level of scientific and technological progress, and, therefore, also depends on education, is increasing.

Finding ways to reduce cross-country income differentiation in order to overcome poverty in the least developed countries is one of the main tasks of modern economic science. In order to answer the question of which areas of economic policy, the purpose of which is to increase per capita income, should be a priority, it is necessary to assess the importance for economic growth of various factors, one of which is the level of education. Such an analysis will make it possible to answer the question of whether, in the formation of economic policy,

I Governments in developing countries and countries with economies in transition should pay much attention to the level of education, or should direct resources to other areas.

Therefore, at present, scientific research aimed at studying the interaction of education with other factors in terms of economic growth and determining the optimal government policy in the field of education is relevant.

The main goal of the dissertation is to model the interaction between the level of education and the level of per capita income for a number of countries, including Russia, and to formulate the basic principles of economic policy aimed at developing education within the country. In accordance with the set goal, the following tasks were solved in the work:

Construction of an economic and mathematical model of the impact of education on economic growth as a component of the total productivity of factors;

Construction of an economic and mathematical model of the impact of education on economic growth in conjunction with other factors;

Verification of relationships formulated in models based on empirical data using econometric methods; assessing the impact of different levels of education on the economic growth of countries with different income levels and identifying priority areas for investment in education for different countries;

Checking the impact of education on economic growth in conjunction with others economic indicators based on empirical data;

Assessing the impact of various economic factors on the level of education and determining the time lag of the impact of income on the level of education for countries with different levels of economic development;

Analysis of the differentiation of countries in the world economy depending on the level of education and economic growth rates using cluster analysis methods.

Formulation of the basic principles of education policy for states with different levels of prosperity.

The object of the study is the process of economic growth and the level of education in various countries of the world community. The subject of the study is the influence of the level of education on the rate of economic growth and the level of income per capita, together with other factors, as well as the impact of various indicators on the level of education.

In the course of the work, the literature devoted to the theory of economic growth and the impact of human capital on economic growth was widely used. The literature used includes seminal works on economic growth from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as contemporary research on this topic and the latest UNESCO reports, dedicated to the problem education.

Theoretical studies are based on a modified model of endogenous growth by Nelson and Phelps. Econometric methods were used to assess the interaction of various economic indicators in the model.

The information from the Perm World Data database was used as statistical information in the empirical studies conducted in the work; information on the level of education and political stability was taken from the database of Barro and Lee. Some estimates of the level of education for the period 1985 - 2000 are taken from various UNESCO reports, as well as EBRD statistics.

The practical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that the mechanism of the influence of education on the rate of economic growth is described in detail and the need for the state to pursue a policy aimed at the development of education during economic reforms, the purpose of which is the level of income of the population, is proved.

The first chapter discusses the economic models proposed by scientists since the early 60s, in which education was considered as one of the causes of economic growth. This chapter describes the main approaches to assessing the contribution of education to economic growth, given different values ​​of other economic indicators, and to assessing the level of education in economic models.

The second chapter formulates the main principles of the approach to the analysis of the influence of the level of education on the growth of the total productivity of factors. At the same time, the model includes two variables reflecting the level of education:

First, as a factor contributing to borrowing the experience of other countries;

Secondly, as a factor contributing to the creation of their own innovations.

In addition, the paper proposes models that reflect the interaction of education and such factors as the degree of openness of the economy, the volume of foreign direct investment, the level of political and civil freedom and the level of political stability in the process of economic development, taking into account the different mechanism of influence of different levels of education on the economic height.

The second chapter also discusses the results of recent empirical studies conducted by economists from different countries and proving the influence of economic growth and other factors on the level of education in the country. We then present our empirical findings on the contribution of different levels of education, taking into account the impact of the degree of economic openness, political stability, the volume of foreign direct investment, and the degree of political and civil freedom. On the other hand, an assessment was made of the dependence of the level of education for countries with different values ​​of national income per capita on such indicators as political stability, civil and political freedom, and the level of national income per capita.

The third chapter proposes a scheme that characterizes the mechanism of interaction between education and other factors in the process of economic development. Further, possible options for the development of the economy are described and the main principles of state policy are formulated, which a country at a particular stage of development should adhere to.

All countries are divided into four groups depending on the level of national income per capita and the level of education. Based on the results of empirical analysis for each group, the main principles of economic policy are formulated. In particular, an attempt was made to explain the interaction between the level of education and the economic growth of the Russian economy.

The purpose of this work is to show that the level of education is one of the most important factors of economic growth. Therefore, investment in education should become one of the priorities of the economic policy of both developed and developing countries. Without improved levels of education, low-income countries will never achieve prosperity comparable to that of developed countries, and developed countries will not be able to maintain the level of technological development in the country at the level necessary to maintain economic growth. At the same time, investment in education should be accompanied by the implementation of an economic policy aimed at creating conditions under which investment in education becomes profitable for individual economic agents and the return on human capital for the country as a whole increases.

Accounting for the Education Factor in Production Functions

Research in this area is still ongoing. A whole series of studies have been conducted to assess the return on education in twins (Ashenfelter, Krueger, 1994, Ashenfelter, Orbey, Kroeger, 1995). It is assumed that the twins are endowed with almost the same abilities and have the same conditions in the family for their development. Therefore, the scores obtained for the return to education of twins reflect the role of education, not abilities. An unexpected result of these studies was that the estimate of the return to education was not overestimated, as one would expect, but quite the contrary, underestimated. Grilliches suggested that some factors affect individuals' decisions about education that economists have not yet been able to account for.

The work of Nelson and Phelps (1966) had a great influence on all subsequent research in the field of education and economic growth. They conclude that education helps economic agents to better perceive information, and thus achieve better economic results. In other words, an economic system with a higher level of education will be able to adapt more quickly to changes in technology, and thus achieve higher economic growth rates. The main difference between the conclusions of Nelson and Phelps from all previous ones is that they consider education not as

3 Grilicb.es, 1996 Obre nova and economics, a separate factor included in the production function along with production capital and labor resources, but as a factor that determines the amount of total productivity (total factor productivity). They offered two models. Since these models are widely used in modern empirical research, I will dwell on them in more detail.

The first model is simpler. Let there be some production function Q(t) in the economy: Q(t)=F(K(t),A(t),L(t)) (1.6)

Where A(t) corresponds to the total factor productivity. Nelson and Phelps interpret this indicator as the real level of technological development in the economy.

Let T(t) be the theoretically possible level of technology that would take place if all scientific achievements were implemented immediately after this or that discovery was made. Technology level changes at rate X. T(t)=T0eA X 0 (1.7)

It is assumed that the level of education contributes to the fact that new inventions made somewhere are more quickly accepted by this country. That is, the difference between the theoretical and real level of technological development is reduced: A(t)=T(t-W(H)) W4h) 0 (1.8) A(t)=T0eMl-W(H (1.9)

H is a variable that characterizes the level of education in a country. W(h) is a decreasing function of h. That is, the higher the level of education in the country, the smaller the time lag between the theoretical and true level of technology development, that is, the faster the introduction of new inventions. It is easy to see that the level of technology is an increasing function of the level of education in the country, and the return on education is the greater, the greater the value of X, that is, the higher the rate of development of new technologies in the country.

The second model is somewhat more complex. It assumes that the pace of technological development in a country depends both on the level of education and on the difference between theoretical level development of technology and its true value: on the level of education, with c(0)=0, and c(H) 0. The function c(H) characterizes the endogenous level of scientific and technical progress. From the solution of the differential equation, Nelson and Phelps obtained the following relation for the equilibrium state: (1.11) T(t)-A\t) I A\t) c(H) Where A (r) is the level of technology development (total productivity of factors), which is determined from formula (1.12): . s (N) m A \u003d 7C Lt "e (1L2

From the obtained results, we can conclude that the gap between the true and theoretical level of technology development is the smaller, the higher the level of education development in the country. Moreover, the return on increasing the level of education is the greater, the faster technologies develop in the country (the more X), therefore, the higher the dynamics of the development of new technologies, the higher the level of education should be. At the same time, it is the level of education that determines the rate of economic growth in the short run, while in the long run it grows at a rate of X.

Since 1991, the year following the publication of Penn Data (Summers and Heston, 1991), a new trend has emerged in the field of research on the relationship between education and economic growth. This trend was initiated by the publication of an article by Mankew, Romer, and Weil (Mankew, Romer, Weil, 1992). Representatives of this direction included human capital in the production functions of various countries (mainly as the average duration of education) in order to assess the level of significance of education for individual countries.

Education, institutional infrastructure and economic growth

The GNP and labor force figures were obtained from the IMF World Economic Outlook and the capital stock figures from the DEC Analytical DataBase.

In the above equations, indicators of total productivity, capital, imported stock scientific knowledge and labor are the growth rates of the corresponding indicators for the period under study. Average values ​​of variables for the period were taken as indicators of the level of education and the degree of openness of the economy.

The calculations were made for a sample of 77 countries for four five-year time periods during 1971-1990.

It should be noted that for this sample there were practically no differences in the total productivity of production factors (changes in the value of this indicator over the specified period for most countries are within 10%). Total factor productivity growth exceeded 50% for only ten countries in the sample (for example, for Malta and Mauritius, total factor productivity more than doubled). Also, for about a dozen countries from this sample, there was a sharp drop in total factor productivity (almost 25%).

A sharp increase in imported high-tech capital over the specified period should be noted in the countries of the South East Asia, which imported goods mainly from Japan and Australia, for which an increase in high-tech capital stocks was noted in this period.

The share of machinery and equipment imported from industrialized countries in GNP for most of the countries under consideration does not exceed 5%. The only exception is 13 countries, the value of this indicator for which exceeds jopa-ioanae and yak 10%. With the exception of Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan are small, low-income economies.

The results of evaluating the coefficients of these equations showed that, indeed, the significance for the growth of total productivity of the factors of imports of high-tech products from industrialized countries, as well as new stocks of knowledge and technologies associated with these goods, takes place only when the influence of the level of education on the value of these indicators is taken into account. . Thus, estimates of the coefficients of equation (1.20) turned out to be negative and insignificant in almost all cases.

However, the coefficients in equation (1.21) reflecting the impact of the degree of openness of the economy, taking into account the stock of high-tech capital in industrial countries with which the developing country maintains „ SM trade relations ai , and the stocks of high-tech capital in industrial countries with which the developing country maintains trade relations SE , taking into account the level of education in the country ai , turned out to be positive and significant.

It should be noted that the coefficients for these variables turned out to be significant if the variables reflecting the time trend (T) were included in the equations. Koh and Helpman explain this phenomenon by the presence of a strong time trend for the variable reflecting the stocks of highly scientific capital in industrial countries (S).

Ultimately, all coefficients in the following equation turned out to be significant: Log Flt=a,+ a,EE,+ a,SMMitlogSit + altTTt+ejt (1.22) the higher the level of education in the country, and the greater the openness of the economy, subject to the presence of trade relations with developed countries that have large reserves of highly scientific capital. The elasticity of the growth rate of total factor productivity with respect to the level of knowledge imported from industrialized countries turned out to be 11% for the countries of East Asia, while on average this figure is only 6% for the sample. This can be explained by the fact that the countries of East Asia have a higher share of machinery and equipment from industrialized countries in the gross national product than the rest of the countries represented in the sample.

Also, the authors used an alternative assessment to determine the level of knowledge in countries with which a developing country has trade relations. If all the results described above are given for estimating the variable S as a stock of knowledge-intensive capital, taken with weights corresponding to the share of a given developing country in the export of the corresponding industrial country, then we will now talk about estimating this indicator as the total value of knowledge-intensive capital of 22 industrialized countries. It should be noted that when using this estimate, the results were similar to those obtained earlier, although the previous estimate is more consistent with the meaningful assumptions of the model described above.

The results presented were based on the premise that the knowledge and technology accumulated in developing countries is negligible and does not play a role in assessing the growth rate of total factor productivity. However, this assumption is not true for all developing countries from the study sample. For this reason, the calculations were carried out for the same group of countries, with the exception of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela, that is, those countries those who conduct their own scientific research and for whom the assumption of a zero value of the variable reflecting their own stocks of accumulated knowledge is least true.

The results obtained for the new sample generally corresponded to those obtained at the previous stage, with the only difference that now the values ​​of the coefficients for the level of education and the level of knowledge in industrial countries with which this country maintains industrial relations, and the degree of openness of the economy, were greater , suggesting that these variables are more significant for less developed developing countries.

Aggregate factor productivity, education as a driver of innovation and consideration of other factors

The previous chapter discussed how education affects economic growth through its interaction with various economic indicators. The main result of all studies was the proof of the fact that education affects economic growth not only directly through the total productivity of factors, but also through the interaction with other macroeconomic parameters, which, in turn, directly affect economic growth.

It should be noted that all of the above studies had one major drawback: they did not take into account that different types of education interact differently with macroeconomic indicators. Since the model described by formulas 2.3-2.5 makes it possible to analyze the influence of the formation of various stages on the main macroeconomic variables, the mechanism of economic growth will be considered further within the framework of this model.

Below it is planned to conduct a study of the mechanism of the influence of the level of education on economic growth through interaction with the following indicators: The degree of openness of the economy; institutional infrastructure; Direct foreign investment.

The level of education and the degree of openness of the economy

Empirical research, discussed in the previous chapter, showed that the level of education has an impact on economic growth due to education. that in an open economy, an educated workforce contributes to the use of acquired skills in the production process, increasing the productivity of the economy and further economic growth, if a country imports machinery and equipment from a more developed industrial country.

Within the framework of our model, it can be assumed that the degree of openness of the economy has different possibilities of influencing the country's economic growth. At the same time, human capital with different levels of education can act as engines of economic growth.

Thus, one can agree with the assumption formulated by Coe and Helpman that the higher the level of education of the population, the better those human resources that work with new technologies will be able to improve their skills, and the more effective their activities will be for the economy as a whole. That is, we are talking about a positive relationship between the level of openness of the economy and the rate of economic growth.

It is possible to put forward a hypothesis about the positive impact on economic growth of the degree of openness of the economy through interaction with labor resources with the highest level of education. That is, with that human capital, which in our model is expressed through the variable R/,.

The positive relationship between these two values ​​can be explained as follows: the use in the production process of machines and equipment created using high technology in industrialized countries, creates favorable conditions for less developed countries to carry out their own scientific research, since opportunities are now being created for research in the field of improving existing technologies. Also, in the event that a country has sufficient scientific potential, it gets the opportunity to quickly adapt new technologies, which will lead to an increase in the total productivity of factors.

At the same time, the degree of openness of the economy affects the total productivity of factors not only through interaction with human capital, but also directly, due to the increase in trade turnover with the rest of the world, the creation of new jobs, the improvement of the investment climate, the creation of competition in the domestic market, that is, due to all those education and economical reasons why the presence of free trade is considered one of the leading factors of development in economic theory.

At the same time, the degree of openness of the economy contributes not only to technological growth, but also to an increase in labor productivity through mastering the culture of production management and organization of the production process in more developed countries, and creating their own innovations in this area that correspond to the national characteristics of this economy.

Taking into account all the above, we can modify our model as follows: Yi = Ai(HIi,HCi ,Mi)KLf (2.25) max Л (0 dA.. jL=g(HIi,Mi)+c(HCi) + f (Mi) i=l -n (2.26) A, (0 At the same time, gf (D/,) 0. Mj is a variable that reflects the degree of openness of the economy. f(Mj) is a function that reflects the mechanism of the direct impact of the degree of openness of the economy on the rate growth of total factor productivity The inclusion of the degree of openness of the economy as an explanatory variable in the function (R/rL/,.) reflects the fact that foreign trade opportunities have a positive impact on the country's ability to innovate.

It can be assumed, that highest value the mechanism of interaction between education and the level of openness of the economy has for the most developed of the developing countries, the level of national income of which allows sufficiently high investments in education and science, which leads to the formation of scientific potential that makes it possible to implement innovations based on foreign technologies.

Differentiation of countries depending on the level of development of education and economy and possible recommendations for further implementation of policies to improve the level of education

As expected, only a small number of countries have chosen the third path of development (the total number of countries in the second and fourth groups was only 19% of the entire sample), because at a certain point in time the level of education or the level of gross national income per capita reaches such a value that increases income and higher levels of education. Following a “one-way development path” is rather an intermediate stage on the way to the transition to the first or second group (that is, the transition to a high level of well-being with a high level of education, or to a low level of well-being and a low level of education). Fact low level education at a high level of well-being most likely indicates the low importance of education in the economic system. For the reason that the state does not give education of great importance, the share of spending on education in GNP is small, so economic growth does not lead to

Education and a corresponding improvement in the level of education, which in the future may lead to the fact that the country will be on the “wrong path”. Spain, which ended up in the fourth group, did have a slower rate of economic growth between 1990-1998 compared to 1980-199056.

Singapore demonstrated rather high growth rates in the 1990s, which, however, slowed down somewhat in 1998 due to the financial crisis that affected the markets of East Asian countries.

The continued economic growth in Singapore can be attributed to the fact that the country is on the right path of development, as the increase in per capita income has led to an increase in the level of education, which will also contribute to economic growth in the future. Unfortunately, data on the average number of years of schooling, which most objectively reflect the level of education in the country, do not exist for the period of the 1990s, but the statistics provided by UNESCO7 suggest that the level of education in Singapore has increased. So, by the beginning of the 90s, the indices of the share of the population studying in primary schools, for Singapore were at the level of 100%. That is, the primary education system was practically brought to the level of developed countries. Indicators characterizing training in high school also increased throughout the period. In Singapore, the net secondary school enrollment index in 1996 rose to 74% from 68% in 1990. It should be noted that the value of the secondary school enrollment index for Singapore is almost at the level of developed countries.

If a country's high level of education does not lead to an increase in income, then this indicates a lack of other resources in the economy that determine economic development and growth rates. So, even with a high level of education in the absence of investment, there will be no increase in per capita income. And, most likely, in such a situation, the decline in national income in the future will lead to a decrease in the level of education. One of the reasons for this phenomenon may be the leakage of qualified personnel to more developed economic systems, where they can receive a return corresponding to their level of education. It should also be taken into account that the impact of education on economic growth, as well as the impact of economic growth on education, has a significant time lag, so the improvement (or worsening) of the state of the economy will take place only in the long run.

The second group, that is, the group characterized by a high level of education and a low level of income, includes 13 countries, including Russia.

It should be noted that, as we expected, most of the countries in this group showed an increase in economic growth rates in subsequent periods58, which allows us to conclude that there is a possibility of their early transition to the first group - a group of countries following the “right path”. development".

Thus, Argentina, which in the period 1980-1990 experienced an average annual decline in gross national product of 0.7% in 1990-1998, had an average economic growth rate of about 5.6% per year. The growth rate in South Korea was about 9.4% from 1980-1990 and 6.1% from 1990-1998. Despite some slowdown in growth, South Korea continues to be one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Taiwan is also one of the fastest growing economies.

The Philippines had a lower growth rate than the rest of the countries in this group. So, in the period from 1980-1990, the average annual growth rate in this country was 1%, but in 1990-1998 it increased to 3.3%. It should be noted that the Philippine government is aware of the importance of education for the country and is pursuing an active policy aimed at raising the level of education. So, back in 1950-1960, the primary education reform was carried out in the country, aimed at raising the existing educational system to the level of developed European countries. In particular, measures were taken to ensure that all citizens of the country have primary education: the state was Wold Bank "A World Free of Poverty", 2000 Education and economic growth sent significant funds to this area and primary education was made compulsory in the country.

For Panama, one can also note an increase in economic growth rates from 0.5% in 1980-1990 to 4.4% in 1990-1998.

Of particular note is the Russian economy, the average level of education of the population of which is at the level of the most developed countries, but the level of per capita income is quite low. Moreover, at present this indicator is at an even lower level than in 1985, for which the breakdown of countries into classes was carried out.

First, in Russia, all the factors that should ensure an increase in aggregate productivity, economic growth and an increase in the well-being of the population are almost completely absent. Lack of political stability, lack of legal guarantees for enterprises and individual economic agents - all these factors reduce the return on education in the economy. In addition, at present, many people with a high level of education tend to leave the country and apply their knowledge in other countries. economic systems. As noted above, a high level of income differentiation and weak development of credit institutions will contribute in the future to a decline in the level of education in the country and a slowdown in economic growth.

One of theoretical foundations concept of human development is the theory of human capital. Within the framework of the theory of human capital, education or health is an object of investment with the aim, on the one hand, of increasing labor productivity to increase the production of goods and services and, on the other hand, increasing the income received by the employee. For supporters of the concept of human development, the main thing in economic development is the person himself. It recognizes the central role of human capital in the growth of labor productivity, but defines as the most important goal the creation of such an economic and social environment that would ensure the development and use of the opportunities of each person. Increasing human potential can lead to increased income and productivity in the economy. But the latter have value only if they really affect the well-being of all people, contribute to progress in various fields human life.

As is known, economic growth creates an opportunity for the development of human potential, and in particular for raising the educational level of the population of a particular country. At the same time, education in itself is an important factor in economic growth and the formation of national wealth. So, for example, Edward Denison showed that the increase in the period of training of the average worker in 1929-1982. explains at least one fourth of the increase in per capita income in the United States (Denison, 1985).

Economists have long believed that the main component of a country's wealth is physical capital - "accumulated material values." But according to an estimate made by the World Bank for 192 countries, physical capital accounts for only 16% of total wealth on average. More important is human capital, which includes education and accounts for approximately 64% of total wealth. About 20% of wealth is in natural capital (World Bank, 1995a). The predominance of human potential is especially noticeable in high-income countries. In some countries, such as Germany, Japan and Switzerland, it accounts for 80% of total capital. Today, there is no doubt that a healthy population with a higher level of education makes the economy more productive.

Traditional neoclassical growth theory argued that economic growth is the result of the accumulation of physical capital, an increase in the labor force, and technological progress that increases the productivity of capital and labor. However, the neoclassical model views technological progress as an exogenous factor; she doesn't explain it. New growth theories (Lucas, 1988: 3^2; Romer, 1987: 16-201; Romer, 1990: 71-102) argue that productivity increases due to internal factors that are associated with human behavior, with human capital. These factors are the driving force behind the increase in capital. According to other theories, modern economic growth is determined mainly by the volume and content of research and development (R&D). However, the latter ultimately also depend on the development of human capital.

Growth models that focus on human capital show how education makes it possible to make better use of “positive exogenous factors” within the production process. Educated people use capital more efficiently, so differences in educational attainment explain to some extent existing income disparities between rich and poor countries or between regions of a country.

Understanding the economic importance of education makes it possible to take into account important aspects of the relationship between growth and physical capital. In the past, growth theories have been based on the assumption that the marginal productivity of capital decreases as capital accumulates per worker. This approach makes it easy to explain the absence of long periods of economic growth. However, in a number of countries where there is a rapid accumulation of capital - Japan, the United States, the countries of Western Europe - economic growth has been observed over the past, more than a century period.

Growth models in which human capital plays a decisive role explain this phenomenon by the fact that an increase in the level of education not only compensates for the decrease in the marginal productivity of capital, but also increases it. Those theories of economic growth that emphasize R&D emphasize that the expansion of scientific and technical knowledge increases the productivity of labor and other factors of production. The underlying premise of these models is that long-term growth rates are largely driven by investment in R&D. This undoubtedly leads to the successful development of firms making such investments. Ultimately, however, human capital plays a role in this growth as well. important role. The systematic use of knowledge in production is based precisely on achievements in the field of education. The condition for its implementation is the availability of both scientific workers with developed skills necessary for conducting relevant research, and highly qualified workers and engineers who apply modern knowledge in practice. At the same time, economic progress emphasizes the increased value of education in schools, higher and secondary educational institutions, and in the workplace.

But a high educational level of the population does not automatically guarantee high rates of economic growth. Many countries of the world, regions of individual countries, other things being equal, lag behind in their development from countries and regions with similar or even lower indicators of the state of the education system. This situation is due to a number of reasons.

Firstly, this is due to the inefficient use of available human capital. An example of the latter is the employment of people with higher education or high qualifications in jobs where this knowledge and qualifications are not required.

Secondly, irrational investment in education and human capital leads to this. Thus, it is possible to increase the number of places in universities, to continue and expand the training of specialists in old programs and textbooks without taking into account the changing needs of the labor market. The effectiveness of the use of new equipment in a modernized laboratory will approach zero if teachers and researchers have not received appropriate retraining.

Third, the quality of education may be low; knowledge and skills acquired during training may not meet market requirements. This means that investment in human capital has not been sufficiently effective, resulting in lower returns for society and its individual members.

Fourth, an incorrectly chosen strategy for the country's development can also lead to a slowdown in economic growth with a relatively highly educated population.

Thus, education occupies a special place in relation to the human factor and to social efficiency. This is an investment branch of spiritual production, a source of unique, qualitatively new experience, which is fundamentally impossible to acquire in other areas of activity (Martsinkevich, Soboleva, 1996).

By analogy with physical capital, estimates of the contribution of education to the increase in national income can be obtained by multiplying the growth of the educational fund by the rate of return of “human investment”. In this case, education acts as an independent factor, as a special type of capital, as a result of which the traditional neoclassical growth model (the Cobb-Douglas function can be considered the simplest version) takes the form:

Y = BK a L b H c ;

where Y is the volume of production, B is a function parameter, L, K and H are the volumes of labor, physical and human capital, a, b, c are the output elasticity coefficients for these production factors.

However, in order to determine the contribution of education to economic growth, it is not necessary to calculate the amount of accumulated human capital. Education can be considered not as a separate source of growth, but as a qualitative characteristic of the labor factor:

Y=AK a (LE) b = Ak a L b E b ,

where Y is the volume of production, A is a parameter of the function, L and K are the volumes of labor and capital, E is the labor force quality index obtained by weighing the number of educational categories by their relative wages(in the base period), a and b are the elasticity coefficients of output with respect to capital and labor.

If there are only two types of labor force N 1 and N 2 in the first period, N 1 and N 2 in the second, with salary- w 1 and w 2 (in the base period), then the labor quality index E will be determined by the formula:

T. Schultz (Schultz, 1971) turned to the first of these two methods, and E. Denis (Denison, 1974) followed the second path. The research results were very close. T. Schultz's estimates of what part of the increase in the national income of the United States is accounted for by education ranged from 16.6 to 33.3% (from 1929 to 1956). E. Denison's estimate (for 1929-1957) lay within the same limits - 24%. Reassessment of the value of economic growth at the turn of the 70s. did not bypass the factor of education. E. Denison reduced his initial estimates of this indicator from 24.0 to 13.2% "(period 1929-1957) and from 15.0 to 12.4% (period 1950-1965). According to the refined methodology, developed by P. Chinlow, the contribution of education to the economic growth of the United States is even more modest - 9% (for the period 1947-1974).If before the beginning of the 60s the contribution of labor to the development of production was made mainly due to qualitative improvements in this factor, then then the leading role shifted to an increase in the volume of its costs (increase in the number of man-hours worked.) In the period 1971-1974 only 4% of its total contribution to economic growth accounted for the share of qualitative changes in labor (whereas in 1947-1959 - 75%).

T. Schulz extends his methodological approach to identifying the effectiveness of education at the micro level (i.e., at the level of the impact of education on an individual’s income) to the macro level, analyzing the degree of impact of education on GDP growth and national income at the level of the economy as a whole. The main idea of ​​his research is the premise that education as a kind of human capital is an autonomous, i.e. independent of human labor, source of economic effect. According to T. Schultz, the growth rate of national income consists of the following values:

G v = k-K + G L S L (*),

where G v - growth rate of national income;

k - coefficient of capital intensity;

G? - marginal productivity of capital;

G L - labor force growth rates;

S L is the share of labor in the national income.

If, in turn, the value k differentiate into investments in material and human capital, then the equation (*) can be represented as follows:

where: I m - investment in material capital;

I n - investment in human capital;

v - national income;

r m - the norm of the efficiency of real capital;

r n - norm of human capital efficiency.

In this equation, the direct contribution of education to economic growth is equal to the share of national income invested in education in a given year (I n /v) multiplied by the rate of social efficiency of investment in this type of human capital (r n). T. Schulz disaggregates the total value of the impact of education on economic growth into the contributions of each level of education to the increase in national income, i.e.

where r p , r s , r h are the norms of the efficiency of capital investments in primary, secondary and higher education, respectively.

E. Denison considers education not as an independent factor of production, but reveals the economic significance of education through the identification of its impact on the quality of the labor force. Thus, the contribution of education to economic growth is analyzed by E. Denison primarily in connection with the improvement of the quality of human labor. He believes that education increases labor efficiency due to the following circumstances: workers with a higher educational and qualification level perform their work better and better than less educated ones; higher education contributes to the activation of the personality of the worker, his initiative and enterprise, the development of new methods of work; a more educated labor force is better oriented in information about the labor market, chooses the optimal type of employment; industrialization and automation are changing the occupational structure in such a way that an increasing proportion of those employed in it require a higher level of general education.

Based on his main premise, E. Denis built a production function of the form:

V = ѓ(L p, L s, L h, K),

where L p , L s , L h, are the labor force, respectively, with primary, secondary and higher education.

In this production function, the “residual” factor is predominantly integrated with the qualitative growth of the labor force. It follows that the growth rate of national income is made up of the following quantities:

G v = k-K E G i S i,

where i - all available levels of education of the labor force.

Thus, the contribution of education to the growth of national income is equal to the value:

G p S p + G s S s + G h S h

To obtain an estimate of the value of the contribution of higher education to economic growth using the Denisov method, it is necessary to multiply the increase in the labor force with university training by the difference (in the base year) between the earnings of people with higher and secondary education, i.e., by the “net income” from higher education . According to the methodology of T. Schultz, it is necessary to multiply the growth of human capital of the corresponding category by the rate of its return. The first of these quantities is nothing but the product of the increase in the number of specialists who graduate from college times the cost of education in it. The rate of return can be approximated as a fraction, the denominator of which is the cost of college education, and the numerator is the difference between the earnings of people with higher and secondary education.

Although the indicator of the contribution of education to economic growth and internal rates of return differ in their intended purpose, however, they proceed from one general assumption that the increase in labor productivity due to an increase in the level of education finds expression in an increase in the incomes of the corresponding categories of workers.

The proposition that the economic importance of education and qualifications can be assessed on the basis of differences in the quality of the labor force, which are adequately reflected in the different levels of wages of the respective categories of workers, is quite logical. A higher quality work force not only requires more training, but also brings more returns in the process of its more efficient use in production, and therefore, its owners should be better paid.