Zafar Sareshwala: From Critic to Modi Fan

 

Reality of Indian Students Going Abroad

 

How to be Less Wrong More Often: Is Critical Thinking Dead?

 

A Level Economics: Why do the Elites in Fast Growing Countries encourage their Children to migrate away to other countries?

 ChatGPT

A scenario where a fast-growing country's prosperous elite encourages their children to migrate to other poorly performing countries can be driven by various factors, each with its own set of motivations and consequences. While the specifics would depend on the context, here are some potential reasons for this phenomenon:

1. Education Opportunities: The fast-growing country might lack high-quality education systems or prestigious institutions that are available in more established nations. The elite could be sending their children abroad to access better education and academic prospects. For instance, countries like India and China have witnessed this trend, with affluent families sending their children to study in universities in the United States and Europe.

2. 
   

3. Economic Diversification: The prosperous elite might recognize that their country's economy is overly reliant on a particular industry or sector, making it vulnerable to economic shocks. By encouraging their children to migrate to countries with more diversified economies, they are aiming to provide them with opportunities in industries that might not be well-developed in their home country.

4. 
   

5. Social Mobility and Exposure: Moving to a different country can provide these children with exposure to different cultures, ideas, and networks. This exposure can broaden their horizons and potentially lead to more opportunities and innovative thinking. The elite may believe that such experiences could equip their children to contribute more effectively to their home country upon returning.

6. 
   

7. Wealth Preservation and Security: Political instability, legal uncertainties, or concerns about potential future upheavals in the fast-growing country might motivate the elite to send their children abroad. By establishing a presence in other countries, they can safeguard their family's assets and provide a secure fallback option if circumstances at home deteriorate.

8. 
   

9. Dissatisfaction with Domestic Systems: Despite the country's rapid growth, there might be deep-seated issues such as corruption, lack of basic infrastructure, or inadequate healthcare services. The elite may perceive these problems as fundamental and prefer to ensure their children's future by placing them in countries with more robust systems.

10. 
    

11. Global Connections and Networking: Migrating to other countries can help the elite's children build international networks and establish connections that could be beneficial for business and personal growth. These networks could later be leveraged to foster partnerships, investments, and collaborations that benefit the fast-growing country.

12. 
    

13. Political Considerations: In some cases, the elite might have close ties with the governments of poorly performing countries. This could lead to investment opportunities, special privileges, or favorable business conditions for their children, which might not be readily available in their home country.

For instance, consider a scenario where the elite of Country A, experiencing remarkable economic growth but lacking advanced education systems, encourage their children to study in Country B, which boasts top-tier universities and educational resources. The children might later establish connections, acquire skills, and develop a global perspective that could potentially be applied to benefit Country A's development.

In summary, the decision by a fast-growing country's prosperous elite to encourage their children to migrate to other poorly performing countries can be driven by a combination of factors such as education, economic diversification, exposure, wealth preservation, dissatisfaction with domestic systems, global networking, and political considerations. The ultimate goal is often to secure a better future for their children while potentially creating avenues for positive impact on their home country's development in the long run.

---

Let's delve into real-world examples to illustrate each point more vividly:

1. Quality of Life Disparities: In India, despite its rapid economic growth and burgeoning tech industry, there is a stark contrast between the living conditions of the urban elite and the majority of the population. Many affluent families from India send their children to study or settle abroad, often citing concerns about air pollution, lack of reliable healthcare, and an underdeveloped public infrastructure. They believe that countries like Canada or Australia offer a healthier and more secure environment for their families.

2. 
   

3. Education Opportunities: Consider the case of South Korea, a country known for its high-pressure education system. Even though South Korea has a strong economy and technological advancements, many Korean parents send their children to countries like the United States for higher education. They view the American education system as more conducive to nurturing creativity, critical thinking, and a broader skill set beyond rote memorization.

4. 
   

5. Business Expansion and Global Networks: Chinese entrepreneurs and business magnates often encourage their children to study in the United Kingdom or the United States. By doing so, they aim to facilitate international connections that can be leveraged for business expansion. These students become part of global networks, gaining exposure to diverse markets and potential partnerships that might not be as readily available within China's domestic business environment.

6. 
   

7. Political Stability: Wealthy families in countries like Venezuela face ongoing political and economic instability. Amid hyperinflation and political uncertainty, many of these families have sent their children abroad to countries like Spain or the United States. They fear that sudden policy changes or government interventions could jeopardize their wealth and stability, prompting them to seek safer havens.

8. 
   

9. Tax and Regulatory Environment: Russian oligarchs have been known to invest heavily in Western countries, including the United Kingdom. While Russia has seen economic growth driven by its vast natural resources, some of its affluent citizens invest abroad to take advantage of more favorable tax regimes and business-friendly regulations in the West.

10. 
    

11. Opportunities for Social Mobility: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, like the United Arab Emirates, have experienced substantial economic growth due to oil reserves. However, in these countries, social mobility can be limited by factors such as a reliance on expatriate labor and a heavily regulated job market. As a result, some wealthy families send their children to Western countries for education and career opportunities that offer greater mobility and personal growth.

12. 
    

13. Environmental Concerns: In parts of Southeast Asia, rapid economic development has often come at the cost of environmental degradation. Wealthy families in countries like Indonesia might send their children to countries with stronger environmental regulations, like Sweden or Norway, to ensure they grow up in a cleaner, more sustainable environment.

14. 
    

15. Cultural and Lifestyle Preferences: In countries like Saudi Arabia, despite its economic advancements, some wealthy families encourage their children to study or invest in Western countries due to a desire for more liberal lifestyles and access to cultural amenities that might not be as readily available at home.

These real-world examples emphasize how the decision for prosperous elites to encourage their children to migrate to other countries is shaped by a complex interplay of economic, social, political, and personal factors. It underscores the intricacies of globalization, mobility, and the pursuit of improved opportunities and lifestyles.

Half Marks for Indian Education

 From The Economist

When Narendra modi, India’s prime minister, visited the White House last week, he did so as the leader of one of the world’s fastest-growing big economies. India is expanding at an annual rate of 6% and its gdp ranks fifth in the global pecking order. Its tech industry is flourishing and green firms are laying solar panels like carpets. Many multinationals are drawn there: this week Goldman Sachs held a board meeting in India. 

As the rich world and China grow older, India’s huge youth bulge—some 500m of its people are under 20—should be an additional propellant. Yet as we report, although India’s brainy elite hoovers up qualifications, education for most Indians is still a bust. Unskilled, jobless youngsters risk bringing India’s economic development to a premature stop.

India has made some strides in improving the provision of services to poor people. Government digital schemes have simplified access to banking and the distribution of welfare payments. Regarding education, there has been a splurge on infrastructure. A decade ago only a third of government schools had handwashing facilities and only about half had electricity; now around 90% have both. Since 2014 India has opened nearly 400 universities. Enrolment in higher education has risen by a fifth.

Yet improving school buildings and expanding places only gets you so far. India is still doing a terrible job of making sure that the youngsters who throng its classrooms pick up essential skills. Before the pandemic less than half of India’s ten-year-olds could read a simple story, even though most of them had spent years sitting obediently behind school desks (the share in America was 96%). School closures that lasted more than two years have since made this worse.

There are lots of explanations. Jam-packed curriculums afford too little time for basic lessons in maths and literacy. Children who fail to grasp these never learn much else. Teachers are poorly trained and badly supervised: one big survey of rural schools found a quarter of staff were absent. Officials sometimes hand teachers unrelated duties, from administering elections to policing social-distancing rules during the pandemic.

Such problems have led many families to send their children to private schools instead. These educate about 50% of all India’s children. They are impressively frugal, but do not often produce better results. Recently, there have been hopes that the country’s technology industry might revolutionise education. Yet relying on it alone is risky. In recent weeks India’s biggest ed-tech firm, Byju’s, which says it educates over 150m people worldwide and was once worth $22bn, has seen its valuation slashed because of financial troubles.

All this makes fixing government schools even more urgent. India should spend more on education. Last year the outlays were just 2.9% of gdp, low by international standards. But it also needs to reform how the system works by taking inspiration from models elsewhere in developing Asia.

As we report, in international tests pupils in Vietnam have been trouncing youngsters from much richer countries for a decade. Vietnam’s children spend less time in lessons than Indian ones, even when you count homework and other cramming. They also put up with larger classes. The difference is that Vietnam’s teachers are better prepared, more experienced and more likely to be held accountable if their pupils flunk.

With the right leadership, India could follow. It should start by collecting better information about how much pupils are actually learning. That would require politicians to stop disputing data that do not show their policies in a good light. And the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party should also stop trying to strip textbooks of ideas such as evolution, or of history that irks Hindu nativists. That is a poisonous distraction from the real problems. India is busy constructing roads, tech campuses, airports and factories. It needs to build up its human capital, too.

Why are Vietnam’s schools so good? Government Intervention or Free Markets

 

It understands the value of education and manages its teachers well from The Economist

 

Ho chi minh, the founding father of Vietnam, was clear about the route to development. “For the sake of ten years’ benefit, we must plant trees. For the sake of a hundred years’ benefit, we must cultivate the people,” was a bromide he liked to trot out. Yet despite years of rapid economic growth, the country’s gdp per person is still only $3,760, lower than in its regional peers, Malaysia and Thailand, and barely enough to make the average Vietnamese feel well-nurtured. Still, Ho Chi Minh was alluding to a Chinese proverb extolling the benefits of education, and on that front Vietnam’s people can have few complaints.

Their children go through one of the best schooling systems in the world, a status reflected in outstanding performances in international assessments of reading, maths and science. The latest data from the World Bank show that, on aggregate learning scores, Vietnamese students outperform not only their counterparts in Malaysia and Thailand but also those in Britain and Canada, countries more than six times richer. Even in Vietnam itself, student scores do not exhibit the scale of inequality so common elsewhere between the genders and different regions.

A child’s propensity to learn is the result of several factors—many of which begin at home with parents and the environment they grow up in. But that is not enough to explain Vietnam’s stellar performance. Its distinctive secret lies in the classroom: its children learn more at school, especially in the early years.

In a study in 2020, Abhijeet Singh of the Stockholm School of Economics gauged the greater productivity of Vietnam’s schools by examining data from identical tests taken by students in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam. He showed that between the ages of five and eight Vietnamese children race ahead. One more year of education in Vietnam increases the probability that a child can solve a simple multiplication problem by 21 percentage points; in India the uplift is six points.

Vietnamese schools, unlike those in other poor countries, have improved over time. A study published in 2022 by researchers at the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank based in Washington, dc, found that in 56 of 87 developing countries the quality of education had deteriorated since the 1960s (see chart). Vietnam is one of a small minority of countries where schools have consistently bucked this trend.

The biggest reason is the calibre of its teachers. Not that they are necessarily better qualified; they are simply more effective at teaching. One study comparing Indian with Vietnamese students attributes much of the difference in scores in mathematical tests to a gulf in teaching quality.

Vietnam’s teachers do their job well because they are well-managed. They receive frequent training and are given the freedom to make classes more engaging. To tackle regional inequality, those posted to remote areas are paid more. Most important, teacher assessment is based on the performance of their students. Those whose pupils do well are rewarded through presitigious “teacher excellence” titles.

Besides such carrots, a big stick is the threat of running foul of the ruling Communist Party. The party apparatus is obsessed with education. This percolates down to school level, where many head teachers are party members.

The obsession has other useful effects. Provinces are required to spend 20% of their budgets on education, which has helped regional equity. That the party pays such close and relentless attention also ensures that policies are adjusted to update curriculums and teaching standards. Society at large shares the fixation. Vietnam’s families are committed to education because of its ingrained Confucianism, suggests Ngo Quang Vinh, a social-sector officer at the Asian Development Bank. He says that even poorer parents fork out for extra private tutoring. In cities, many seek schools where teachers have won “excellence in teaching” titles.

All this has reaped rich rewards. As schools have improved, so has Vietnam’s economy. But growth is testing the education system, suggests Phung Duc Tung, the director of the Mekong Development Research Institute, a think-tank in the capital, Hanoi. Firms increasingly want workers with more sophisticated skills, such as team-management, that Vietnamese students are not trained for. Growth has also pulled in migrants to cities, overburdening urban schools. More and more teachers are forsaking education for higher-paying jobs in the private sector. To ensure Vietnam remains best-in- class, the government will have to tackle these trends. As Ho Chi Minh liked to remind people, cultivation requires constant attention. ■