Can Econometric Variables Capture Human Development????
My illustrating vignette: "Today, I conducted an interview with a woman in Bukibira. She was extremely poor, and had been left by her husband. She really didn't have much information to offer us in our interview because she was just so disconnected from, well, anything to do with making money. She couldn't afford to save, let alone take out a loan. After the interview my research partner Jeffrey stayed with her for several hours as he talked to her about starting a Matoke garden on her land. He wanted to help her start a garden, and he said he was willing to invest to get it started. I got to thinking, that's the kind of woman who so easily slips through the cracks. Fancy programs designed by economists in Geneva won't reach that person. She's just, disconnected from the community. She's elderly. She's a widow. She's just not considered....important, if it even makes sense to talk about a person like that. Well, once you've been on the ground, and seen her, you can't but WANT to help. There's value in that. There's honor in helping one person, even if the program doesn't drive economic growth for a country. It might be on a small level, and it might not be important, but that's the point.....HELPING PEOPLE IS IMPORTANT. It's impossible not to feel that way after spending time on the local level. I just don't see how large-scale programs, oriented towards economic growth can work in the interests of the truly marginalized, because it's hard to collect information about people like that because they are so disconnected. I'm realizing how truly deep you have to go to understand the stories of the marginalized."
Economic Data
I'd like to hone in a bit more closely on the critique that the data sets used by Economists struggle to adequately describe human development. Participatory programs like SILC or UPFORD aim to improve livelihoods through a holistic model of human development, helping people to reduce seasonal incomes, increase their food security, and ultimately to widen the array of choices available to villagers. In my opinion, the data used by economists for their studies struggle to describe this holistic human development in a rich way; there is simply no one or two measures of human development that are easy to collect in surveys that can capture this complexity. If economists aren't even considering data that looks deeply at local issues, how can they ever effectively inform Participatory programs?
As an example of this, I've selected an article entitled “Paths to Success: The Relationship Between Human Development and Economic Growth.” This article is especially pertinent because it recognizes that modern economic growth theories, entitled “new growth theories,” consider human development an endogenous determinant of economic growth. This paper however assumes that human development is the end goal of “development,” with economic growth taking a secondary role as something that is necessary to “purchase” human development. Using advanced econometric analysis, the paper essentially examines the two-way relationship between economic growth and human development, and the authors reach some interesting conclusions (14).
Upon Closer Inspection???
So, these are some really informative conclusions, right? This is an example of economists giving human development the center stage. This paper proposes that human development and economic growth aren't in a zero-sum contest but are mutally-reinforcing (14). Countries interested in producing economic growth should focus their efforts strongly on human development. This sounds exciting!!
But, the devil is in the details here. Notice how I haven't mentioned how these economists define “human development,” an incredibly vague term. A look at the econometric methods used reveals that the measure of human development is quantified by just two simple strands of data, life expectancy and secondary school enrollment. The authors justify this by saying that these measures are highly correlated with other known measures of human development. The problem I see, and most anthropologists would point out, is that this econometric approach over-simplifies a complex topic like human development. Using secondary school enrollment and life expectancy to quantify human development excludes relevant details. To describe human development, variables like quality of schools, what is being taught, teacher quality, attendance rates, and school resources are surely important. Life expectancy rates exclude finer information such as whether life expectancy is higher for men or women, for mothers with large or small families, or for wage laborers vs. farmers. It's just......overall life expectancy for a town. When so much local detail is missing from the data economists draw from, how can the models accurately deal with complex issues like human development.
Although this paper draws some policy-relevant conclusions, it is another reminder that economists are good at saying important things on a large, aggregate scale, but there is an amazing world of complexity that the discipline, because of a reliance on mathematical rigor and data sets, cannot get at. I don't mean to bash economists, because I am one. But it's important to recognize the role anthropologists can play in getting down to those nitty-gritty, local level details.
Economic Data
I'd like to hone in a bit more closely on the critique that the data sets used by Economists struggle to adequately describe human development. Participatory programs like SILC or UPFORD aim to improve livelihoods through a holistic model of human development, helping people to reduce seasonal incomes, increase their food security, and ultimately to widen the array of choices available to villagers. In my opinion, the data used by economists for their studies struggle to describe this holistic human development in a rich way; there is simply no one or two measures of human development that are easy to collect in surveys that can capture this complexity. If economists aren't even considering data that looks deeply at local issues, how can they ever effectively inform Participatory programs?
As an example of this, I've selected an article entitled “Paths to Success: The Relationship Between Human Development and Economic Growth.” This article is especially pertinent because it recognizes that modern economic growth theories, entitled “new growth theories,” consider human development an endogenous determinant of economic growth. This paper however assumes that human development is the end goal of “development,” with economic growth taking a secondary role as something that is necessary to “purchase” human development. Using advanced econometric analysis, the paper essentially examines the two-way relationship between economic growth and human development, and the authors reach some interesting conclusions (14).
- There is “clear” evidence of a strong relationship between early human development levels and the growth trajectory of a country (trend in economic growth). This implies that higher human development levels can accelerate economic growth. Countries examined differ in the strength of the link between human development and economic growth
- Examining the relationship from the other side, there is on average a strong causal relationship between economic growth and human development (economic growth is a determinant of human development). Countries with less income equality or higher social expenditures on health or education exhibit a stronger relationship between economic growth and human development
- Analysis indicates that high human development levels and economic growth are mutually reinforcing
- Further analysis suggests that sustained economic growth cannot be achieved without simultaneous increases in human development
- Developing countries with high current economic growth, but low levels of human development, should be expected not to maintain this economic growth into the future.
Upon Closer Inspection???
So, these are some really informative conclusions, right? This is an example of economists giving human development the center stage. This paper proposes that human development and economic growth aren't in a zero-sum contest but are mutally-reinforcing (14). Countries interested in producing economic growth should focus their efforts strongly on human development. This sounds exciting!!
But, the devil is in the details here. Notice how I haven't mentioned how these economists define “human development,” an incredibly vague term. A look at the econometric methods used reveals that the measure of human development is quantified by just two simple strands of data, life expectancy and secondary school enrollment. The authors justify this by saying that these measures are highly correlated with other known measures of human development. The problem I see, and most anthropologists would point out, is that this econometric approach over-simplifies a complex topic like human development. Using secondary school enrollment and life expectancy to quantify human development excludes relevant details. To describe human development, variables like quality of schools, what is being taught, teacher quality, attendance rates, and school resources are surely important. Life expectancy rates exclude finer information such as whether life expectancy is higher for men or women, for mothers with large or small families, or for wage laborers vs. farmers. It's just......overall life expectancy for a town. When so much local detail is missing from the data economists draw from, how can the models accurately deal with complex issues like human development.
Although this paper draws some policy-relevant conclusions, it is another reminder that economists are good at saying important things on a large, aggregate scale, but there is an amazing world of complexity that the discipline, because of a reliance on mathematical rigor and data sets, cannot get at. I don't mean to bash economists, because I am one. But it's important to recognize the role anthropologists can play in getting down to those nitty-gritty, local level details.
Just because math is beautiful, it doesn't mean that anthropologists cannot also make policy-relevant recommendations by looking at local forces, by living amongst real people.