4 ms·

[Disclosure- my best friend immigrated to Singapore after his PhD in Europe] Natural factors play a role, but only so much. IMHO, you are rationalizing. There

by guylhem 14y ago

[Disclosure- my best friend immigrated to Singapore after his PhD in Europe] Natural factors play a role, but only so much. IMHO, you are rationalizing. There are many places in the world that are strategically located and resource rich, but they didn't grow as much as Singapore did. In Asia, if I was a villain, I would put my lair in Timor (if I wanted an island) or New Guinea (if I wanted land) - just between India, Australia, Japan, etc. Water and coal are abundant in many places. Argentina has great fertile plains and a lower population. Coal was first mined in China, and in the UK which also had IIRC more coal and water than Germany. Hell, following your explanation about the new world, Portugal and Ireland are even more at the extreme of Europe- they should have discovered America! They didn't (I know the story about Vinland, the vikings an so on - but they didn't do as much as Spain did) It we are talking about geographic distance, southern Morocco or Senegal would have been at an advantage - but they didn't do it. It's too easy to rewrite history. Education and investment are clearly driving growth. Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Besides India (who will certainly be the next big thing after the US - not China IMHO), I'd put my chips on countries like Estonia, Kenya, Uruguay.

slurgfest 14y ago
If you go to an underdeveloped country and see people working really hard, that's not a rationalization. It's a counterexample to the implied thesis that economic development is a matter of hard work.
- im3w1l 14y ago
  Are they working this hard all over the country? For how long have they done that? Are they working hard not smart?
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Historically that is not true. Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have (slightly) slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Paper: http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+education+gone.pdf http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+edu... Blog post with key graph: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha....
- guylhem 14y ago
  Thanks a lot for the link, it is a very interesting study (reading that ATM), however they only consider the increase in year of education - or, as written in the comments on the blog "There is proof that more people received more years of schooling, but there is no proof that more people became more educated" It could be another Leontief-like paradox, ie discarding the education efficiency. I would be curious to know if such results hold when only STEM education is included (no humanities), and if there appear difference between pre-university and university education (I would expect raising the population literacy to have less effects - ie starting from a lower education might require more investment in education) once corrected by emigration (brain drain- remittances will help, but we're looking at something else)
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    There are all sorts of possibilities. My only point is that the link between education and economic growth is far from clear.
    - guylhem 14y ago
      Indeed, and I should have been more careful with my affirmations. But at least I now have learn something interesting - it has been disproved that only increasing education length had any effect of growth.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Education policy has long been a research topic for me, and it is the topic that drew me here to Hacker News. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 The quoted statement is where equating "spending taxpayer money on schools" to "investing in education" leads to some odd policy conclusions. A friend of mine (a man in my generation, a policy analyst for the United States federal government) showed me that blog post the day it was posted (I think he is a regular reader of that blog) and asked me to comment about it. If the factual question is, is spending-as-such strongly correlated with results from a country's school system? we already know from multiple lines of evidence that the answer is no. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf But what is remarkable about Singapore is that even when it didn't have the economic development yet to spend much on schools it was already spending wisely and otherwise getting good results for all aspects of its national investment, financial and nonfinancial, in education. http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf I'm even more familiar with the situation in Taiwan than I am with the situation in Singapore, and EFFECTIVE spending and management (not lavish spending, and not school-favoring management) of the public education system there has to share part of the credit for the transformation of Taiwan in my lifetime from a wretchedly poor country to a prosperous country on track to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world in my old age. http://www.globalpost.com/globalpost-blogs/southeast-asia/singapore-richest-country http://www.globalpost.com/globalpost-blogs/southeast-asia/si... I have seen the textbooks from both countries (especially from Taiwan). They are less expensive to produce, and thus less of a cost burden on the school system, than the textbooks used in the United States. But the textbooks are of much higher quality, especially in mathematics. In two generations, we have seen those countries transform into countries such that many foreign observers assume that people are "naturally" smart in those countries. I know enough people from enough strata of society and a broad enough age range from each country to know that today's appearance that east Asia and southeast Asia are full of smart people is because of smart policies that helped the two most recent generations in the top-performing countries gain exceptionally good educations at reasonable cost. Yes, some countries could spend less on their schools and do better than they do now, if only they would spend more wisely.
ramgorur 14y ago
yes indeed, India is the country of the future, and the fact here is - "It always will be".
- guylhem 14y ago
  Nope - that quote is reserved for Brasil :-)
rkwz 14y ago
>Besides India (who will certainly be the next big thing after the US .. Curious, Can you expand on this?
- guylhem 14y ago
  Big country, with a large and growing population, a democracy (ie no transition liability unlike china), strongly investing in STEM education, previously a world leader before the british invasion, without too many concern about equality (ie no self restraints) It only needs a manufacturing sector to be the next #1. Considering how manufacturing is spreading in SE asia (Thailand and HDD for ex) it might happen soon.

by guylhem 14y ago

slurgfest 14y ago

If you go to an underdeveloped country and see people working really hard, that's not a rationalization. It's a counterexample to the implied thesis that economic development is a matter of hard work.

im3w1l 14y ago
Are they working this hard all over the country? For how long have they done that? Are they working hard not smart?

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Show me a country that is betting big on education and pushing for investment (preferably local, from savings), even if it has not much politically stability it is a country with a bright future. Historically that is not true. Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have (slightly) slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Paper: http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+education+gone.pdf http://econ399.atwiki.com/file/open/21/Where+has+all+the+edu... Blog post with key graph: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/10/did_nations_tha....

guylhem 14y ago
Thanks a lot for the link, it is a very interesting study (reading that ATM), however they only consider the increase in year of education - or, as written in the comments on the blog "There is proof that more people received more years of schooling, but there is no proof that more people became more educated" It could be another Leontief-like paradox, ie discarding the education efficiency. I would be curious to know if such results hold when only STEM education is included (no humanities), and if there appear difference between pre-university and university education (I would expect raising the population literacy to have less effects - ie starting from a lower education might require more investment in education) once corrected by emigration (brain drain- remittances will help, but we're looking at something else)
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  There are all sorts of possibilities. My only point is that the link between education and economic growth is far from clear.
  - guylhem 14y ago
    Indeed, and I should have been more careful with my affirmations. But at least I now have learn something interesting - it has been disproved that only increasing education length had any effect of growth.
tokenadult 14y ago
Countries which increased their investment in education tended to have slower economic growth, at least in the period 1960-2000. Education policy has long been a research topic for me, and it is the topic that drew me here to Hacker News. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4728123 The quoted statement is where equating "spending taxpayer money on schools" to "investing in education" leads to some odd policy conclusions. A friend of mine (a man in my generation, a policy analyst for the United States federal government) showed me that blog post the day it was posted (I think he is a regular reader of that blog) and asked me to comment about it. If the factual question is, is spending-as-such strongly correlated with results from a country's school system? we already know from multiple lines of evidence that the answer is no. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf But what is remarkable about Singapore is that even when it didn't have the economic development yet to spend much on schools it was already spending wisely and otherwise getting good results for all aspects of its national investment, financial and nonfinancial, in education. http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf I'm even more familiar with the situation in Taiwan than I am with the situation in Singapore, and EFFECTIVE spending and management (not lavish spending, and not school-favoring management) of the public education system there has to share part of the credit for the transformation of Taiwan in my lifetime from a wretchedly poor country to a prosperous country on track to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world in my old age. http://www.globalpost.com/globalpost-blogs/southeast-asia/singapore-richest-country http://www.globalpost.com/globalpost-blogs/southeast-asia/si... I have seen the textbooks from both countries (especially from Taiwan). They are less expensive to produce, and thus less of a cost burden on the school system, than the textbooks used in the United States. But the textbooks are of much higher quality, especially in mathematics. In two generations, we have seen those countries transform into countries such that many foreign observers assume that people are "naturally" smart in those countries. I know enough people from enough strata of society and a broad enough age range from each country to know that today's appearance that east Asia and southeast Asia are full of smart people is because of smart policies that helped the two most recent generations in the top-performing countries gain exceptionally good educations at reasonable cost. Yes, some countries could spend less on their schools and do better than they do now, if only they would spend more wisely.

ramgorur 14y ago

yes indeed, India is the country of the future, and the fact here is - "It always will be".

guylhem 14y ago
Nope - that quote is reserved for Brasil :-)

rkwz 14y ago

>Besides India (who will certainly be the next big thing after the US .. Curious, Can you expand on this?

guylhem 14y ago
Big country, with a large and growing population, a democracy (ie no transition liability unlike china), strongly investing in STEM education, previously a world leader before the british invasion, without too many concern about equality (ie no self restraints) It only needs a manufacturing sector to be the next #1. Considering how manufacturing is spreading in SE asia (Thailand and HDD for ex) it might happen soon.