By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The book Poor Economics (Penguin publication) by Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo (winners of 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics) is extremely insightful and backed by extensive data on how to understand poorness and the possible ways to mitigate it. Its narration on poverty and poorness is primarily based on 18 developing countries data-set mainly from Africa and Asia with India included. The writings, analyses, findings and arguments of the book resonate closely with Meghalaya. This is because much of the narrations about schools, higher education, skills, being productive as a human, health impacts on account of poor nutrition, being stunted, diarrhoea, malaria, etc makes it easily relatable with the current scenario of Meghalaya. In the observed opinion of this writer, Poor Economics is best suited as a knowledge base for understanding Meghalaya’s poorness and thereby may give a sense of direction in its development policy and planning.
Education is a necessity to break the chains of poorness and move out of the poverty trap. It is observed globally that if one is poorly educated then the chance of declining into poverty is more. It is important to make a distinction between literacy and education as the latter’s connotation implies ‘the ability and capability to engage in gainful employment’. For example, a literate person may or may not be able to land employment but an educated person on some trait (say graphics, special effects, food production, tailoring, etc) will be able to sustain and come up in life. This exemplifies the value of education – it is not just a degree, rather, an enabler for livelihood. Meghalaya’s education scenario needs to gradually shift focus towards making students capable of trying out new things. Simply asking questions as if a kilogram of potatoes cost Rs. 100 what would be the cost for 250 grams has less value. It has to shift towards what can be made from a kilogram of potatoes and when sold how much would be the revenue and if it be profitable? Poor education results in incapable citizens and this ultimately reflects on the status of Meghalaya in the national picture. The NEP, 2020 aims to address some of these nagging developmental bottlenecks but the policy is a non-starter. The state government has been showing inability to implement the policy. One of the reasons for this is the lack of a special fund specifically meant for the implementation of NEP. Time to act on it!
It is useless for a person to be educated but not be healthy and vice versa. This is because he/she will be less valuable to society. This is precisely the reason why human resource development focuses upon both education and health equally. Banerjee and Duflo make a case for poor health due to lack of food and the necessary calories per day to get the body going and be productive. Living below the poverty line directly implies that the people eat lesser and poorer quality food which in turn adversely impacts their health. This in turn makes one unable to have the required energy to work and earn a living for self and the household. This makes the family incapable of moving out of poorness. This phenomenon is described as a food poverty trap. Further, eating less would mean that the children and family would be more vulnerable to ailments, thereby making the whole situation one vicious cycle. The demands of education require for the body and mind to be adequately nourished and healthy. In the absence of health, how is a student supposed to be capable and climb up the ladder? For example, people living below the poverty line have the same aspirations for their children as any middle- income family would. When poor health wreaks havoc on learning capability, all dreams are shattered and then comes the claim that the rural students cannot compete with the urban ones. In general, this is still true (even if the recent class X and XII results have shown some exceptions).
The Meghalaya numbers on education and health leave a lot to be desired. According to CEIC data the gross enrolment ratio for tertiary education (higher education at colleges, universities, etc) in 2020 was 25.8% (a decline from 26.1% in 2019). The average from 2010 to 2020 stood at 20.8%. India’s gross enrolment ratio for higher education in 2020 was already around 27%. These figures only show the lack of penetration of education in Meghalaya. There are many factors for this. At the forefront are poorness and the unfavourable impact of covid-19 pandemic. The figures also tell us that with a sizable chunk of the population outside the ambit of education, the future does not look good. It is also to be noted that the majority of these are children from poor families. This means that they will continue to be victims of the vicious cycle of poorness and most likely even their children. Further, the 2021 National Health Systems Resource Centre Report on Meghalaya shows that 45% of children below the age of 5 years suffer from anaemia. Around 36% of the children in Garo hills are stunted and the figure is a whopping 59% for the Khasi hills. The proportion of communicable and nutritional diseases contributes to 36% of total disease burden. Further, lower respiratory tract infection, malaria, diarrhoea, etc are the leading causes of deaths. These numbers are a blot on the prospect of human resource development in Meghalaya.
The Meghalaya numbers are significant as Banerjee and Duflo make a compelling argument with regards to education and health. Their basic premise is that education is a must to break the chains of poorness and health is critical to grow into productive and resourceful adults. In the absence of schooling and skilling an entire future would be wasted and lost. If children are more prone to say diarrhoea, malaria and anaemia when young, their physical and psychological development is dented. This is basically a simple presentation and understanding of development. If education and health are not addressed appropriately then such people will never be able to break the chains of poverty and would forever be doomed into poverty. More concerning is the established fact that the poorness would continue into generations. This can be summed up as a ‘poorness of generations’. Today, Meghalaya is talking a lot in terms of collective development efforts at the rural levels, entrepreneurship and building of capacities. Although that is fine, the real problem lies in education and health, particularly of children. Then only will the next generation be really productive and contribute towards a better Meghalaya.
In conclusion, to quote Banerjee and Duflo (page 65), ‘the good news is that if something like this is what is going on (proper interventions in education and health), we may only need one push, one generation that gets to grow up and work in a healthy environment, to set the trap loose’. So, are we interested in investing in a generation?
(The writer teaches at NEHU; Email – [email protected])