using condoms, etc.). Higher rates of education for women in developing
countries are associated with lower rates of infant mortality. Meanwhile, human
capital facilitates the adoption of superior technologies from developed
countries. One cause for optimism in the development field has always been that
poor countries should,
in theory, be able to narrow the gap with richer nations by
borrowing their innovations. Once a technology is invented, it can be shared
with poor countries at virtually no cost. The people of Ghana need not invent the
personal computer in order to benefit from its existence; they do need to know
how to use it.
Now for more bad news. In Chapter 6, I described an economy in which
skilled workers generate economic growth by creating
new jobs or doing old
jobs better. Skills are what matter—for individuals and for the economy as a
whole. That is still true, but there is a glitch when we get to the developing
world: Skilled workers usually need other skilled workers in order to succeed.
Someone who is trained as a heart surgeon can succeed only if there are well-
equipped hospitals, trained nurses, firms that sell drugs and medical supplies,
and a population with sufficient resources to pay for heart surgery. Poor
countries can become
caught in a human capital trap; if there are few skilled
workers, then there is less incentive for others to invest in acquiring skills. Those
who do become skilled find that their talents are more valuable in a region or
country with a higher proportion of skilled workers, creating the familiar “brain
drain.” As World Bank economist William Easterly has written, the result can be
a vicious cycle: “If a nation starts out skilled, it gets more skilled. If it starts out
unskilled, it stays unskilled.”
13
As
a side note, this phenomenon is relevant in rural America, too. Not long
ago, I wrote a story for
The Economist that we referred to internally as “The
Incredible Shrinking Iowa.”
14
As the working title would suggest, parts of Iowa,
and other large swathes of the rural Midwest, are losing
population relative to
the rest of the country. Remarkably, forty-four of Iowa’s ninety-nine counties
had fewer people in 2000 than they had in 1900. Part of that depopulation stems
from rising farm productivity; Iowa’s farmers have literally grown themselves
out of jobs. But something else is going on, too. Economists have found that
individuals with similar skills and experience can
earn significantly higher
wages in urban areas than they can elsewhere. Why? One plausible explanation
is that specialized skills are more valuable in metropolitan areas where there is a
density of other workers with complementary skills. (Think Silicon Valley or a
cardiac surgery center in Manhattan.) Rural America has a mild case of
something that deeply afflicts the developing world. Unlike technology or
infrastructure or pharmaceuticals, we cannot export huge quantities of human
capital to poor countries. We cannot airlift ten thousand
university degrees to a
small African nation. Yet as long as individuals in poor countries face limited
opportunities, they will have a diminished incentive to invest in human capital.
How does a country break out of the trap? Remember that question when we
come to the importance of trade.
Dostları ilə paylaş: