Bangladesh among its neighbours - Education
Going home for the summer after hanging around “international development” students of myriad nationalities throughout the academic year was always a falling-back-to-earth sort of experience. Whereas these students - rarely Bangladeshi - were generally cautiously optimistic and well-informed about Bangladesh’s socio-economic progress since 1971, our fellow countrymen were not. This became doubly true when it came to comparisons with the rest of South Asia.
Back home, one is likely to encounter disbelief more often than not if one mentions that we are doing better than India and/or Pakistan (the rest of South Asia somehow never matters). Yet, in some very important dimensions of development, we are actually ahead. Rehan’s excellent post on UV last week brought back memories of making this very point with people back home, only to be met with disbelief. Yet, if I had said, “Bangladesh is a poor country”, everyone would have nodded with that blanket, almost meaningless statement without hesitation…
Hard though it may be to believe, Bangladesh is actually doing better than our bigger neighbours on several fronts.
Education
Rehan’s post mentions gender parity at the primary level. What it does not mention is that Bangladesh is also ahead in terms of female:male ratios at the secondary level. Indeed, between 2001-03, women outnumbered men by 9~11% in secondary schools. The latest figures for India and Pakistan are 80 (females to every 100 males) and 74 respectively. In other words, nowhere near close.
The picture at the tertiary level is starkly different. Pakistan leads with 87, India follows with 66 and Bangladesh finishes last with 53. While it may be argued that the Pakistani figure simply shows the inequality within that country, it is true that too often Bangladeshi women are discouraged from pursuing higher education. “Secondary is enough for a woman” should not be allowed to become the new slogan against a woman’s right to education.
Why are these figures important? Firstly, because decreasing inequality between men and women are of themselves good. Secondly, they indicate that half of our population can no longer be constantly excluded from the workforce based on gender stereotypes, leading to greater productivity and specialisation. Thirdly, educated women make better choices for their children in terms of health and education than uneducated ones, regardless of the father’s education. In terms of these three things, we are in a better position for the future than our neighbours (all else being equal).
In all this, the role of the government has to be stressed. In 1991, the GoB spent 10% of its total expenditure on education (India - 12%, Pakistan - 7%). By 1999 however, it had increased that to 15% of total expenditure, and this figure has remained more or less constant since then. By contrast, India’s spending has been constant, and Pakistan has increased only sluggishly under Musharraf. While no direct correlation can be drawn, it is safe to say that, if a government spends wisely, results are forthcoming despite corruption and system loss.
(Stats courtesy of the World Bank. More sectors to follow.)
May 24th, 2007 at 8:34 am
This is indeed a great perspective. The rise of women making more economic decisions for the family coupled with these stats now make sense.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
the fact that more BD women study up to secondary level (HSC?) than counterparts in IND and PAK is great news. i’d like to see how that correlates to birth rates and female infanticide. i wonder if increased education among women is linked to them having a smaller families, and to less deaths of girl babies. or if their education is only a small first step in having the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.
-shahpar
May 24th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I always thought that our achievements were really spectacular in the area of population control. Bangladesh now has at least 15 million fewer people than Pakistan (As you know in 1971 we had 5 million more). Just think how much additional economic and social pressures the additional 15 million would have imposed on our already inadequate infrastructure.
I remember reading an article few years back where the former US Ambassador had done some comparisons (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-6-2004_pg7_36). Here’s an excerpt:
“Nonetheless, Bangladesh had outstripped Pakistan in a number of important areas, including the key area of population growth. At the time of Bangladesh’s split from Pakistan in 1971, the fertility rate of the two countries was virtually identical at seven live births per woman. The fertility rate in Pakistan as recently as 2000 remained a high 4.7 births per woman, whereas in Bangladesh it had fallen to 3.1 births per woman. This one statistical difference between the two nations, he pointed out, goes far in explaining why in other key measures as well, such as primary school attendance and participation in the work force, Bangladeshi women are far ahead of their Pakistani counterparts.”
May 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I think the main reason behind more enrolement of girls than boys is the ‘chhatri upo britti’ introduced by BNP govt in the early 90’s. This is one of the major steps taken by BNP govt, although BNP itself hardly mentions about it.
There are many people who thinks the last 15 years had been the worst years for our country. I actually think that the last 15 years was not too bad, especially 1991-2001 was the best decade for Bangladesh. 2001-2006 went out of control, but we should give proper credits to the good deeds of the political govts.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
It has been years since I have been to village in Bangladesh unfortunately so my first hand visual experience of current village life and progress is limited to television natoks. I hope that will change once and for all very soon for me. I was just talking to a person who comes from a remote village in Bangladesh over an episode of Meena cartoon where it portrays Meena being discouraged from going to school and her brother Raju is supported by all members of the family to go to school instead. She politely smiled and told me that those days are gone. In fact, many more female go to school these days now than ever before considering the male female ratio.
Instead of always focusing on negatives (which we have enough of), we should also look at positives (no matter how small and scattered they are) and discuss them to find reasons and rationale to generate similar ideas to apply them into other problem areas.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Mahmud, it has actually fallen even more than 3.1% in the last decade.
FZ, absolutely! I didn’t have time to elaborate, but that is why I said “spend WISELY” in the post. Take the food for education program. Subsidising schools would have meant spending the same money, but ensured smaller attendance. It all matters HOW you spend government money. Different options must be weighed, research must be done, options explored. As much as we deride think tanks like CPD as “Bishesh Oggos” and “know-it-alls”, this is the sort of thing they can act as watchdogs for through research and support.
shahpar, your comments got me thinking and thinking hard. There’s a lot to say about it, so I decided to do a small follow-up on my own blog. You can read it here: http://dhakashohor.blogspot.com/2007/05/follow-up-to-dp-post-on-education.html I’ve disabled comments, so that all comments are made here.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:17 am
AsifY,
Very interesting post. Some thoughts.
1. Education expenditure by itself does not generate educational outcome. If we spend a lot of money building schools without spending any money on producing teachers, then that’s not going to increase literacy rates or school retention rates. So how the money is spent definitely matters, big time.
2. Increases in literacy/retention rates by themselves do not lead to economic prosperity. If we produce a lot of graduates who end up in inefficient government bureaucracy then that’s not going to be conducive to economic growth. So the demand for educated people matters just as much as increasing the supply of educated people. This is the lesson the development literature has learnt from the global experiences of past 25 years.
3. In theory, a family’s fertility decisions depend on, among other things, the best alternative use of the mother’s time. So, other things being equal, fertility rate drops with female education (which gives women more opportunities). The interesting thing in Bangladesh is that fertility started dropping before a pick up in female education. My guess is that public awareness campaigns by successive governments have a lot to do with this.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Anthony,
1) Couldn’t agree more.
2) Perhaps you could elaborate on your blog sometime. Highly interested in more.
3) See the follow-up on my blog. Exactly what I said.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Okay, will write something on education and growth some time.
On the fertility decision and women’s choices, this is an issue in the developed world as well. A bunch of recent studies show that the countries where women work more are also the countries with higher fertility rate. One reason is because two income families can better support children.
Back to what happened in Bangladesh in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequence of event is this:
- first infant mortality fell and life expectancy rose;
- this led to lesser number of kids because each child had a greater probability of reaching adulthood, ie birth rates fell;
- as parents had less children, and as incomes rose, they could afford to send kids to school;
- returns to primary and secondary education were similar for males and females, especially with the female education subsidised (FZ’s comment above - one of the 1st Khaleda govt’s best achievement, curiously ignored by their own partymen);
- but returns to tertiary education are still much higher for men, hence the persistent difference between male-female gap in tertiary education.
The last difference is most starkly visible if you compare the middle management in both private and public sector firms in Mumbai-Delhi with Dhaka. Our firms are much, much more male dominated.
Will this change in our generation?
May 25th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Anthony (#9):
Thank You for that very insightful analysis.
I don’t have the data, so it is merely a conjecture. There was a big push from the late 70s onwards through the NGOs to increase the contraceptive prevalence rates. I remember seeing amazing statistics at the village levels where the rates were taken from single digits to more than 60% and above in matter of months. Surely, the fall in birth rates had something to do with the drops in infant mortality rates, but one would also think that birth-control related awareness, education, and availability of contraceptives would have also played a powerful role. In other words, perhaps the relationships between these factors were not linear, but in some sense simultaneous, and complex?
At any rate, that doesn’t fundamentally alter the observed sequence you have so eloquently and convincingly described, for which, many thanks once again.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Mahmud,
Yes NGOs definitely played a major role in providing contraceptives. And the public awareness campaign by the government is a major success story. But had the infant mortality not fallen, these probably wouldn’t have mattered much. In many African countries where infant mortality remains high, fertility hasn’t fallen despite the ready availability of contraceptives.
In Bangladesh, NGOs and the garments sector played another major role, they generated employment for literate girls. A poor family would only spend on education if the education can be used to improve the living standard.
May 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hello AsifY!
sorry about the late comments, i havent had DP time! some thoughts on your blog entry:
you said: “I don’t think female infanticide has been a problem in Bangladesh post-independence since the female mortality rate has fallen faster than the male mortality rate during that time. ”
female infanticide refers to the killing of unwanted girl babies and sometimes includes the abortion of female foetuses. female infanticide is part of the female mortality rate(which refers to # of deaths per thousand). high female infanticide can lead to more males than females in society, and can be socially and economically disruptive. i dont agree with you that just because the female mortality rates have dropped, the rates of female infanticide has also dropped. female infanticide figures for india are quite alarming, and i was curious to know how BD fares in comparison.
you said: “I’m afraid to say that I believe it is the second dynamic we have observed over the ’90s in Bangladesh. The birth rate fell first, in the 80s, leading to smaller families. So parents figured, “Well why not send the girls to school as well?” Thus the parity in secondary education, attained around 2000-2001. This is also borne out by the fact that the female:male ratio in tertiary education has been the slowest to rise. Parents simply do not have enough resources yet.”
so what you are saying is that the family planning drive that started in the 1980’s led to birth rates falling and that fit in well with increased schooling opportunities for girls in the 1990s, leading to smaller families –>more schooled girls. thanks for explaining!!
cheers,
shahpar
May 27th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Another possible significant factor for low tertiary education rate is the less foreign aid for post-secondary education. NGOs and BD governments had a easier sell for aid money to prevent illiteracy than to provide higher education beyond secondary level.
This is also evident by the state of our public universities in BD.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:04 am
shahpar,
I’d love nothing more than to get hold of the female infanticide figures. Do you know any source? Lacking those, I relied on the female mortality figures.
Selective abortion is indeed a problem, but my impression was that very few people have access to ultra-sound technology which is required for such abortions. I might be mistaken.
Anthony,
Isn’t/shouldn’t there be a generation time lag between falling infant mortality and smaller families? That’s why I find the contraceptive argument so much more persuasive.
Similarly, isn’t there a shorter time lag between returns to education and enrollment rates? But I’m highly impressed by your looking at the demand side of things. True, very few women in the corporate world. But then, does Pakistan with its tertiary rates so high have a lot of women working high-skill jobs? That is why I was stressing the role of new norms over utility functions. What do you think?
May 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I’m not so happy with bangladesh development statistics and the development industry(in large chunks).
Perhaps its because i dont beleive them. for education i’d use (publications, academic influence, scientists per 1000, research funding, domestic oppression).
The problem with worldbank speak is that its self reinforcing, theres always one metric that has gone up! Also if our total spending on education is ‘high’ even if our GDP is lowest and our military institutions pretty much impotent is it really anything to write home about?
Sometimes we get a comparatively less regressive gini coefficient, other times someone says we are on course to acheive MDGs. One day the a dude wins a prize and the development wallahs are sated ‘Targets reached’.
On the higher education front i have to say that the others are doing a lot better than us. You can see it in the volume of scholars produced and the contributions they make and the support they get from their governments. Its important not to forget the history to it though, which is no releif at all.
Also the aid pump and govt policy have been primary education biased for a long time. I do hope that there are benefits to this and that they get around to sorting out the other levels eventually.
On the gender justice side, I was speaking to a don in the field and he said that the gap is bigger now than when Begum Rokeya wrote her stuff 100 years ago. The gap has taken different forms.
On another note, how much of the acheivement in bangladesh its of its own making… without donor input enebling such a level of NGO activity what would the WB report read like? Many decent people working for the ruture would be out of a work if their organisations couldnt access funds.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:04 am
AsifY,
There should definitely be a lag between falling infant mortality and reduced fertility -families need to be sure that babies would survive before deciding that to have less. But this doesn’t have to be a generation: you don’t have to see that all 7 of your siblings survived to decide 2 is enough for you. You can ‘rationally expect’ it if you see vaccinations and clinics around you, or if you see food availability rising, or if you see better distribution of relief etc. And yes, NGOs and government effort made an enormous difference in these respects. My point is not that government and NGOs didn’t matter, my point is that it was more than just handing out contraceptives.
On higher tertiary rates in Pakistan, is it that they have higher rates or that they have higher male-female ratio? I don’t have the data on hand, but my understanding is that if you look at graduate/engineer/doctor per 1,000, Bangladesh doesn’t compare too badly, especially considering that Bangladesh started from a much lower base. Or am I totally wrong?
Also, Pakistan has a much more unequal society than Bangladesh.