The author argues that opportunities to upgrade the skills of the working population in India should be increased to enable people to adapt to a knowledge- and technology-intensive economy. The lack of such opportunities has been adversely affecting economic growth and well-being. Investments in high-quality and relevant educational programmes at all levels should be increased, with an emphasis on self-sustaining means of funding which are possible in the liberalized fiscal and financial regimes. To the extent that higher education activities are economic in nature and reward the beneficiaries, the costs of services should accordingly be recovered. The implementation of self-financing measures would, however, require the creation of a conducive policy environment through consensus building among the stakeholders to improve the responsiveness of educational systems to the manpower requirements of the emerging Indian economy, and thus to make it efficient and competitive and able to exploit new opportunities to its advantage.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
India attained Independence in 1947, and from 15 August1997 a year-long Golden Jubilee celebration has been underway, and this naturally includes an assessment of achievements and failures.
2.
In July1991 structural adjustment programmes (SAP) were initiated to overcome the unprecedented fiscal crisis caused by high budgetary deficits, 8.5% of GNP, and reduction in foreign exchange reserves. SAP were deemed essential to improve the credit worthiness of the country and to stimulate economic growth.
3.
For specific reform measures taken by sectors, see Economic Survey pp. 1996–97, Government of India.
4.
See AnsahM.M., Fiscal Policy for University Development, Concept Publishing Co, New Delhi, 1994, for a detailed discussion.
5.
In spite of a high economic growth rate, over 6% in the last five years, the real wage growth of unskilled farm labour has declined, thereby adversely affecting the poor and their ability to participate in the growth process (Economic Times, 25 February 1997). It may also be argued that the current demand recession from which industry has been suffering for the last eighteen months is due partly to the low purchasing power of the poor, which, in turn, may be ascribed to lack of adequate employment and earning opportunities for unskilled and untrained people in the emerging farm and industrial sectors, which are modernizing.
6.
Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, 1996, p 7.
7.
This is clear from the fact that a large number (pp. 50–80) of people eligible for technical and professional education have to be denied education in HEIs due to the limited availability of places and the inadequate infrastructure.
8.
See AnsariM.M., Cost Effectiveness of Higher Education, Concept Publishing Co, New Delhi, 1997.
9.
Challenge of Education, Government of India, 1986, para 3.14.
10.
For more details see Economic Survey pp. 1996–97, Government of India.
11.
It is important to note that the economic reforms have not succeeded in attracting substantial foreign direct investment (FDI), as only 20% of the total approved FDI (about 2 billion US dollars) has actually been achieved and that has been mainly in the consumer goods industry. More importantly, knowledge and technology transfer associated with FDI from the developed world are too small to make a significant impact on overall productivity. See Op cit, Ref 5.
12.
Research and Development in Industry — an Overview, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, 1996.
13.
Based on the study of a cross-section of HEIs, the results indicated that there was no systematic relationship between the unit costs of higher education and students' performance as judged from the score of marks. See Op cit, Ref 8, Chapter IV.
14.
This is borne out by various tracer studies completed in the past by the IITs.
15.
Economic Reforms: Two Years After and the Task Ahead, Government of India,1994, para 53, p 26.
16.
This part of the discussion is largely based on AnsariM.M., Resource Mobilisation by the Universities, Spellbound, Rohtak, 1997.
17.
With a view to minimizing the commercialization of education and corruption in the charging of per capita fees, under the direction of the Supreme Court of India the state governments have evolved and implemented a dual-fee structure based on full and partial costs depending on academic merit as determined by common entrance tests; the bottom 50% of students in the merit list pay the full cost of education, which are nearly three times more than the fees for the top 50% students in the list. The institutions in the public sector have, however, not designed a discriminatory fee structure as has been adopted by the private institutions. But there is a strong case for rationalizing the fee structure in line with private institutions, since the clientele group of students is almost identical.
18.
On the pattern of IITs, which heavily rely on internal education, it should be dispensed with as almost every organization conducts admission/employment tests. See Ansari, Op cit, Ref 4.
19.
See M.M. Ansari and SharmaT.C., ‘Industry and universities in India — is the collaborative effort succeeding?’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 5, No 4, 1991.
20.
DouglasA, and Adrain, Financing Universities in Developing Countries, The World Bank, 1992, p 109.
