DOCUMENT-RESUME ED 071.152 EA 004 650 AUTHOR Schultz
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT-RESUME ED 071.152 EA 004 650 AUTHOR Schultz, Theodore W. TITLE Education and Productivity. INSTITUTION National Commission on Productivity, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Jun 71 NOTE 14p.; Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock No. 4000-0277, S.25) EDRS PRICE CIF -S0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Cost Effectiveness; *Education; *Educational Economics; Educational Finance; Human Capital; *Investment; *Productivity; Publications; *Resource Allocations IDENTIFIERS *Economic Growth; Efficiency; Equity; Private Benefits; Social Benefits ABSTRACT In this paper, the author looks at the contribution of education to economic growth and examines the desirabilityof public vs private financing of education from the standpointof economic efficiency and equity. The authorsees expenditures on education as an investment in human capital, the contributionto output of such an investment depending on the amount of the investment and the realized rate of return. Hecompares the rates of return for differing levels of education to the rates of ret'Irnon nonhuman capital in the private domestic economy. In addition, the author discusses the financing of education in light of the social and private benefits that accrue from education. _Thepaper concludes with a few specific comments about the benefits and financing of higher education. (DN) NATIONAL COMMISSION Walter B. Wriston, Chairman. ON PRODUCTIVITY First National City Bank IW. Abel. President. United Steelworkers of America Joseph A Beim°, President. Membership Communications Workers of America Frank Fitzsimmons. President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Lane Kirkland. SecretaryTreasurer, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Chairman John H. Lyons. President. Peter G. Peterson. International Association of Bridge. Secretary of Commerce Structural and Crnamental Iron Workers Members George Meany. George P. Shultz. President. Director. Office of Management and Budget American Federation of Labor and Congress of IntInstrial Organizations Beverly Briley. Mayor of Nashville Floyd E. Smith. President. John B. Connally. International Association of Machinists Secretary of the Treasury and Aerospace %Yorkers James D. Hodgson, Leonard Woodcock. Secretary of Labor President. International Union. Virginia Knauer. United Automobile, Aerospace and Special Assistant to the President Agricultural Implement Workers of America for Consumer Affairs Wham T. Coleman. Jr.. Arch A. Moore. Dilworth. Paxson. Kalish. Governor of West Virginia Levy & Coleman Herbert Stein. John T. Dunlop. Chairman. Professor of Political Economy Council of Economic Advisers and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Stephen D. Bechtel. Jr.. Harvard University President. Bechtel Corporation Hosard W. Johnson. Chairman, Corporatioi, of Berkeley Burrell. the Massachusetts Institute of Technology President, National Business League Kuhfuss. President. Edward William Carter. American Farm Bureau President. Bra- dwayHale Stores, Inc. Edward H. Levi. President, Archie K. Davis. University of Chicago President. Chamber of Commerce of U.S. Areal Miller Dean, Graduate School of Business, R. Heath Larry, Stanford University Vice Chairman of the Board. United States Steel Corporation John Scott. Master of the National Grange James M. Roche. Member of the Board. W. Allen Wallis. General Motors Corporation Chancellor, University of Rochester M. Peter Venema. Chairman of the Board, Leon Greenberg. National Association of Manufacturers Staff Director a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. I (N., EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION LC"` THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO. S"'"4 DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG. r"* INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN. IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY N's REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU C.) CATION POSITION OR POLICY. EDUCATION AND PRODUCTIVITY Prepared for the National Commission on Productivity By: Theodore W. Schultz Professor of Economics The University of Chicago June 1971 Preface The National Commission on Productivity was established by President Richard Nixon in June 1970 to develop recommendations for programs and policies to improve the productivity of the U.S. economy. The Commission is composed of top-level representatives of business, labor, government, and the public. In order to aid the members in their consideration of various topics, staff papers will be prepared by government or private industry experts in different subject matter fields. These papers serve as background material for the members but do not necessarily represent their views. This paper was prepared by Theodore W. Schultz, Professor of Economics, the University of Chicago. Professor Schultz presents an economic perspective for interpreting studies dealing with the return on investment in schooling and higher education and on the allocation of resources in education and research. iii . Contents PART A.EDUCATION AND GROWTH i 1. The Evidence I 2. The Interpretations 3 3. Conclusions 3 PART B. RESOURCE ALLOCATION 4 1. Economic Efficiency Considerations 5 2. Equity Considerations 7 3. Concluding Comment 7 APPENDIXES A. References on Education and Growth 9 B. References on Resource Allocation 10 iv Part A. EDUCATION AND GROWTH The services of laborunskilled. skilled, including sion of economics is the development associated with all technical and professional workersaccount for the allocation of "time" by Becker (1965 Oan out- about four-fifths of the output of the U.S.economy and growth of the-role that earnings foregone plays in the the rest comes mainly from the productive services of formation of human capital and in a widearray of physical capital, i.e., (tom structures. equipment and nomnarket activities. land. The acquired skills of labor account inturn for The core of fiat available evidencecan be sum- most of the services of xtbor. The contribution of marized by presenting the rate of return estimates. It "brute labor- to production is small and it is diminish- is these rates of return that reveal what schooling and ing. Thus, a head count of laborers that failsto reckon higher education are contributing per dollar of invest- the value of skills is a very imperfectmeasure because ment to growth. In general, they show that the rate of it does not take account of the difference in the skills of return to higher education it ow additional earnings is laborers. Moreover, these skills have become increas- approximately in line with the rate ofreturn in the ingly important in explaining the growing abundance economy taken in its entirety even though the personal of the goods and-services. satisfactions that. accrue to students from their educa- My approach to the role ofeducAation in growth tion over their life time are not taken intoaccount. tests on the following propositions: (1) Increases in High school ranks higher by thistest and elementary output come predominantly -front the growth in real schooling is at the top as the following estimates show. factor inputs and only to a minor extent from "total The rate of return to investment in elementary factor productivity'. (2) The growth in theproduc- schooling appears to be upwards of 100percent. The tive services per laborer is mainly a'consequenceof first estimates. Schultz (1961, A). which is admittedly additional skills. (31 Lei eases in the general levelof a rough approximation. place it at about 35 percent. skills are attained slowly and, as a rule, graduall' over Hanoch's (1965, 1967) privaterates of return derived tune; they are in this sense long run developments from a one in thousand sample of the 1960census and not to be had either quickly or suddenly. (41 The are in the neighborhood of 100 percent. Theycon- acquisition of skills that account for the additional firm the estimates of Hansen (1963). (Thememay he quality of labor over timeconic in large part from some upward bias here because of changes in the schooling and education and associated activities. (51 no-schooling reference class.) The acquisition of these skills is inessence an invest- Becker's (1964) estimates for high schoolgraduates ment in human capital and its contributionto output restricted to white males, after personalincome taxes. depends upon the ammitt of the investmentand upon show that the private rate of the realized rate of return. return rose from 16 percent in 1939 to 28 percent in 1958 and that it has risen slightly since then. But unlike the 1. The Evidence upward trend in the rate of return to high schoolgraduates. collCge The extension of economics in analyzinghuman graduate %vete earning over thesame period in the capital is of two basic parts. The"capital'. part rests neighborhood of 15 percenton their private investment on the proposition that certain types of expenditures in their college education. (Earningsforf.g,one are in- create productive stocks embodied inman that provide cluded as part of the- teal cost of this inkcstment ) services for future periods. (Schultz.1961 A and B.) In estimating the rate ofreturn on the private cost These services consist both of personalsatisfactions that of graduate work borne by students.much depends on accrue directly to the person and of productive services how one treats the stipends thatare 'awarded to grad- that enhance his earnings. The other part of this exten- uate students. Treating them as earnings, for which 1 a very plausible case can be made, the private rate The private rates of return to schooling and higher of return to