Unemployment, schooling and training in developing countries. M. D. Leonor Croom Helm, 1985, 276 pp.
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230060209 |
| Published date | 01 April 1986 |
| Date | 01 April 1986 |
204
Book
Reviews
UNEMPLOYMENT, SCHOOLING AND TRAINING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
M.
D.
Leonor
Croom Helm, 1985,
276
pp.
This ILO-WEP study consists of four separate reports which examine the ways in which four
poor countries have attempted to prevent,
or
reduce, ‘educated unemployment’ among
school-leavers, including university undergraduates. The countries in which this problem has
been examined are Tanzania, Egypt, the Philippines and Indonesia-four countries far
separated, of differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds, with differing spheres of past and
present influence.
The reports each contain a considerable amount of statistical information, differing in
presentation and content with, unfortunately, the only common factor being that there is
nothing post-1980. This could lead one
to
believe that however much educational employment
there has been, very little of it has been employed in the production of up-to-date and
comprehensive information on what has happened in the past, what is happening in the
present and what is
most
likely
to
happen in the future.
The study has been edited by
M.
D. Leonor, who took part in the studies in Tanzania,
Egypt and the Philippines, and who, in addition, has provided a comprehensive summary
of
the reports, highlighting some of the lessons and issues. It is this summary which does
so
much to make the report of absorbing interest and worthy of
a
far wider readership than it
will probably receive. Hopefully, Labour Departments, Chambers of Commerce and large
employers, will receive, read and digest the study.
Briefly, the four countries showed ‘a curious similarity of approach and remedies to the
same problem’ and ‘it is interesting
to
enquire why the approach taken
. .
.
does not secm
to
work’. Much effort has been made
to
tailor the educational output
to
an assumed work
situation, and this has resulted in
a
reduction in concentration on general education and
a
diversification into vocational training, both education and training apparently suffering in
the process.
In this context the term ‘training’ can itself give rise to considerable confusion, and this is
acknowledged in the publication which states that in its technical sense it is ‘systematic
practice in the performance of a skill’ whereas in the political nuance
.
.
.
‘it is called training
only if it takes place outside schools.’
In practice, however, where vocational training forms part of school curricula it falls under
the Ministry
of
Education
(or
whatever government terminology may be used) and thus is
directly under political control, such control presumably being exercised after advice from the
Ministry of Education,
a
somewhat pleasant self-perpetuating form of empire-building
ensuring that the greatest single
employment
of educated school-leavers, especially at
secondary and tertiary levels, is within the educational system itself. The increasing number of
students at all levels in all countries is proof of this, and primary education may therefore be
aimed primarily at producing secondary and tertiary levels for absorption within the
educational system (both academic and vocational); the drop-outs,
or
lesser qualified, going
to
the general labour market, there
to
fight
for employment in areas
which
are
most unlikely
in developing countries
to
have expanded at as fast
a
growth rate as ‘education’.
In this respect the section of the study dealing with ‘wage differentials’ might have been
dealt with at greater depth.
It has been the practice in many developing countries for school-leavers
to
be assured of
employment within government, at specific entry salary levels (reference is made
to
Tanzania
and Egypt) and, in many countries, ‘government’ includes the whole of the public sector,
including ‘parastatals’ and universities. Many
of
these entry levels apply to
a
wide variety of
occupations, and almost invariably relate to school-leaving qualifications, hence the
widespread use
of
the term ‘graduate’ which is noted in the study, and which may be an
attempt semantically
to
raise hypothetical levels. There is therefore an inbuilt incentive
to
perpetuate education and training
to
the highest possible ‘entry’ level before actual
employment raises its head. In government this can lead to pricing-out of the market.
ILO, in
a
Foreword by
P.
J.
Richards, emphasizes the ‘necessary improvements in primary
education which
all
agree are essential’. This study shows that, in the
four
countries
concerned, this basic view has been lost sight of in the rush
to
achieve more and more at
higher and wider levels of education and training.
To continue reading
Request your trial