Distribution of Education among Income Groups: An Empirical Analysis Author(s): Ajit K. Dasgupta and Jandhyala B. G.

Tilak Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 33 (Aug. 13, 1983), pp. 1442-1447 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4372408 . Accessed: 15/08/2011 06:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

1957).Distribution In of Education Grooups among come An Empirical Analysis Ajit K Dasgupta Jandhyal B G Tilak Based on a socio-econom. These include not only greater opportunities for skill formation but also speedier ahd more widespread adoption of new technology especially in agriculture. for the higher tarian in nature.3 Yet others. The context of Instead. The same is more or less true with respect to the distributioni of public expenditure on education. the hypothesis that the distribution of education is equitable is v. notably those belonging to the Marxist school. Indeed it has been claimed that such a view has much greater relevance in -underdeveloped countries which are characterised by a marked shortage of labour skills (Ahluwalia. the human capital view still generally prevails however. As far as the role of education specifically in the developing countries is concerned. lower class parents' asniration. 1974-b).s usually stop at a high school diploma. had made it as such (Berg. Arrow. On the contrary they appeared to suggest that technical progress. Such shifts were attributed to various factors among which improvements in human 'education is not for them". The study concludes that the distribution of elemiientalryeducation. Accordingly. both the low educational attainments of the head of household and the quality of family life create a social environment that leads the poor to believe that confers economic benefits not by improving cognitive ability as such but by inculcating certain habits such as punctuality and discipline that are valued by employers and by society at large (Bowles and Gintis. Jencks et al.2 That investment in educapattern of distribution by incame tion had a major role to play in the groups of education at the elementary. The paper consists ment quality of labour input resulting from of four sections. Carnoy. 1973). there has been a tion. a reduction in the -igidity of caste-barriers. A clear that the magnitude of the less extreme view is that schooling 1442 Where middle and upper class parents think in terms of a college education for their offsprings. is clearly equitable.. the complexity of the mechanisms involved is nowi much more wvidely recognised thani in the early literature on human capital. The Atudy also. Bowles. i e.ic survey of the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh in India. However. Fields. namely in the 1960s. are more likely to believe in luck than in educa ion and to be contemptuous of "book learnin'z" . economic growth of less developed levels in India. swing away from the optimism implicit in the human capital approach. observed rate of growth of output during the first half of the 20th century could not be explained by increases in the amounts of factors of production as conventionally measured. 1971. maintain that the effects of education on inequality themselves depend on the mode of production within which the educational system operates: in a class society education may be a device for perpetuating economic inequality between clusses and income groups (Bourdieu and Passeron. 1980). shifts in the production function over time had been a much more importont source of economic growth. distribution of education is egaliin its distribution. 1970. long-run rate of economic growth in a convenient but expensive means of the United States. public expenditure on education in such countries is widely regarded as an inportant instrument for the reduction of inequality.' it was revived as a popular productivity or on income distribution theme of discussion only very recen:. Subsequently it wvas claima socio-econiomic survey of West ed that while contributing to a higher Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh rate of growth of income. education in 1977-78 to test the hypothesis that would t0so bring about an improvethe. Indeed. highllights rulral-urban differe ices. among low income families. 1977. it An account of the data wvhich is given was felt that equality in educational forms the basis of this study in section two. a reduction in fertility and improvements in health and child care among the poor (ef. education would raise labour productivity and wages. The results of labelling people which makes no direct aggregate production function studies contribution to increased productivity (notably Solow.4 As regards the precise ways in which education could help to reduce inequiality in developing countries. at the very best. seconidary education is fairly equitable and higher education is a monotonically increasing function of incomes.ly. an increase in social and occupational mobility. .adults. 1980-a). More recently. 1970. in its stock form as well as in its current flowv pattern.couraged the view that education siderable attention in classical Political may in fact have little effect either on Economy. 1972). education has been regarded this revival was the explanation of the by some merely as a screening device. We stiart with a brief survey of the literature. More generally. capital brought about by the spread of education and hence of advanced skills Ornati (1966: 66) among the labour force figured proTHIS is an empirical study of the minently. with little! education. Poor parents. secondary and higher countries soon became part of the We wish in particular to use data coconiventional wisdom of developmelit lected by one of the authors througb economics. Some concluding tually lead to greater equality among observations are made in the final sec. The results of empirical research conducted Though the role of education in in the developed countries have eneconomic development received con.erified in this paper. tVie empirical evidence has been fcirthcoming. 1976). (for example. Section three presents opportunities for children would evenour main results.

that of secondary educa20 less developed countries.57 1.60 1.17 1. primary education has secondary school enrolment in ex.17 1. cent.90 1.38 0.36 1.05 1.43 0.81 1.85 2.73 1.49 0.20 0. In yet another based on Indian data has yet been major study Mincer (1974) finds that done. In selecting the vil(Jallade 1974 and Selowsky.39 1.29 0.20 0.54 1.43 1. Although in terms of economic development the district is relatively advanced.96 1. J schooling exert an equalising effect problem Little research on this on income distribution. 1980). like others cited above (e g.53 1.78 1. Studies based on sample included one town.19 1.92 1. 381 in the primary phase and 34 in the suplementary phase.75 1.44 2.52 1.36 1. viz.anid reached the conclusion that the job training and experience as well as distribution of primary students over schooling). The district survyed was representatives of Andhra Pradesh in terms of educational development. Another cross-country study egalitarian and post-secondary educaof 32 countries (Winegarden.groups and that the distribution of pact of formal and non-formal types education as a whole was highly inof education on income distribution egalitarian.45 0. come groups relatively more. (i) household income (HHY) ann (ii) household per capita income (HHPY). In each selected village and in the town two per cent of the households were selected randomlyA6 Basic socio-economic informttiOn was collected from a total of 415 house-' holds.34 1.24 0.74 1.secondary and higher education tend mary school enrolment is found to be to benefit the middle and higher inmore significant in explaining the.75 2. We have used two different criteria fox deriving quintile income groups.55 0. . HHP Y Quinttiles 1.90 1.35 1.74 1.22 0.7 Our main results are presented in Tables 1-3 and are briefly discussed below.60 1.94 Lowest 20 per cent 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4(h quintile Top 20percent Mean Empirical evidence on the effects (Fields.38 1. 1980). the distribution of income in the district is not very different from that of the state as a whole".43 2.88 1. 1957)] suggest that taking inof education on the distribution of to account both the distribution of income in the developing countries enrolment at various levels across rests mainly on cross-country studies.56 0. .25 1.ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY TABLE 1: MEAN EDUCArIONAL RAES PE1i HOUSEHOLD BY August 13.22 2.85 1. m The Results some Esgentially this study.31 1.92 0. The survey covered 207 rural and 208 urban households. 34 per cent of the population in the district was literate according to the 1971 census.health and education in West Bengal ments of workers (including on-the.94 1.been found to be highly egalitarian.. groups some evidence is available at a supplementary survey. The the national level.57 1. It is wellknown that these may not necessarily yield identical results.52 1.81 1. plaining that of the middle 40 per secondary education to be. Harbison tion favoured the higher income (1977) examined the differential im.42 0. The survey was of educational facilities as between conducted in two phases.88 1. Datta and Meeraman 1980).27 1.5 Anidhra Pradesh conducted by Tilak As regards the actual distribution (see Tilak.28 0.67 1.74 1.52 1.38 2. in Malaysia.85 1.87 0.62 1. There is. 1983 LEvEL AmN Qunmr.54 0. by completing a pretested and revised questionnaire' for each household.79 1.91 1. on balance.77 1. Sastry 1978).58 1. Similarshare of the lowest 40 per cent and the ly.26 0.74 0. and a such evidence from a number of -illage from each of the eight talukas countries [for example.75 1.19 1.85 1.21 1. the most powerful of This study is based on a survey of them being education and age.91 1.37 0. explain a large proportion of the variance in educational characteristics and earnings in West Godavari District of earnings.86 0.70 1. Columbia of the District.88 1. This was done through interviews with the head of the household. analyses the distribution of education at various levels across quintile income groups in the population.25 2.85 2. and found that both had a significant influence but that formal schooling had a stronger effect. thus.97 1.17 0.54 1. in 1978. (NCAER 1962.55 0.00 1. 1979). 1979) tion to be clearly pro-rich (Datta and concludes that higher averge levels of Meerman. From a sample of 30 fractile income groups was nearly countries including 10 advanced and egalitarian.40 2. If he was unavailable for some reason.31 1.66 1.00 -0.54 1. while the corresponding percentage for the state as a whole was 38 per cent.15 1. the seniormost member of the household who could be found was interviewed. lages an attempt was made to ensure Chile (Foxley et al 1977) and Kenya that the village was representative of the taluka in respect of educational development.50 1.26 0.urs Urban Ph 'Pe All Pe 1 A. pri. the first in personis belonging to different income the summer of 1977 and the second. ample evidence to show that personal The Dat characteristics.00 1.32 0.27 1. different income groups and the Ahluwalia's analysis (1974-a) shows methods by which such education is that education is positively related to financed. HH Y Quintiles Ps 2 Ph 3 Pe 4 Rural Ps 5 6 7 Ps 8 Ph 9 Lowest-20 percent 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4ih quintile Top 20 percen(t B. Maitra et al (1972) carried out just over half of the inequality in a detailed investigation into the distriearnings can be explained in terms of bution of public services including the inequality in educational attain.09 1. the clistribution of primary poor but equality in terms of income shares of education favours the the lowest and middle groups.

For certain purposes. is changed.66 to 1. .00 0. and (iii) higher (first degree and above).13 0.14 0.33 0.65 0. the distribution appears to be. But apart from the lowest quintile. i e.15 0.10 0. the picture is quite differenit.57 0. On the whole it appears that both in rural and urban areas. Es.99 RATES 0. Column 2 of the same Table gives the figure for secondary education. the household income classification shows the first four quintiles to be roughly at the same level.91 0.15 0. we find that the lowest 40 per cent have a mean enrolment rate of.00. by the enrolment figures for household per capita income quintiles which show a clear pattern.18 0.21 0. on balance. Column 1 gives the mean educational rates for elementary education according to the HHY and HHPY classifications.61 0.56 to 0. This conclusioni is supported. each level of education. At the secondary level. When we look at the mean educational r1ates by household per capita inicome. The difference is the least in respect of elementary education.26 1. gives the average number of educated people per household for each income group arranged by quintiles.60 0.75 0.93 0.52 1. It is se-en that the mean educational rates by HHY classification for the first four quintiles are fairly close together.74 (third quintile) to 1.26 B. fairly equitable with the educational rate declining from the second quintile cnwards. (ii) secondary (10-12 years of schooling). however.92 0.94 1. the enrolment rates seem to fluctuate as we go from one quintile group to the other.11 0.54 0.55 0. the average number of pupils per household enrolled in .74 (third quintile) in the rural areas in the former case.79 0. the mean enrolment rate.88 0. but with household per capita income.59 RATES 0.58 0.41 0.08 0.90 0.48 0.15 0.47 0.66 0.56 0.75 1. with the top quintile showing a lower -rate.44 0. However. Pe now shows a clearly equitable pattern. At the education. The pattern as between certain quintiles. the urban households seems to be better educated though there are minor exceptions to this. (8 years of schooling).29 0. figures for which are given in column 3.48. which is indeed to be expected.75 0. Accordinig to the figures for quintiles by household income.53. Ifor rural and urban areas separately as well as for both together.391. It is also clear that the distribution for the household per capita income classification produces a more orgalitarian distribution.04 0. the .32 0.A11gust13 1983 TA-BiE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 2 IMEkN ENROLmtENT HRAES PER IOU'SEHOLID BY LEVEL AND QUIILES All Rural Eh Urban Ee 1 A.66 0.88 1. and at each level of education. The lowest 20 per cent have a mean educational rate of 0.78 (fourth quintile) when household income was used. Thus for the take lowest quintile. urban higher level of households enjoy a marked advantage.32 0. whether we household income or household per capita inicome as our basis of classification. For higher education.21 0.53 0.57 1.38 0. For -rural and urban 1444 households together.38 0. and the top 40 per cent of 2. specially in rural areas.34 0.17 0.32 0.12 0. (i) elementary. there is remarkable decline in these the educational rate between two quintiles from 1. elementary educais progressively distributed.31 0.12 0.29 larly Ph (second quintile) to 0. 2. enrolment in elementary schools in rural areas shows no clear or systematic pattern.41 0. and the mean educational rate provided an appropriate measure.17 0. by combining quintile groups.36 0.11 0. As regards the enrolment in elementary education in urban areas.41 0.01. ENROLMENT So far we have been concerned with the distribution of the currenit stock of educated people as between differenit income-groups. while the top quintile has a distinctly lower rate.91 MEAN 0.55 0. The quintiles were computed according to household income and alternatively according to household per capita income.13 0.64 0.23 0.30 0.17 0. for example in assessing what the future distribution of human capital is likely to be and even more important.33 0. tion secondary education favours middle income groups and higher education remains largely the privilege of higher income groups. the meaii educational rate increases monotonically with household income.90 which is much lower than that of the top quintile and also lower than the overall rate for all income groups together.08 0. Simiincreased from 0.81 0. the general pattern remains broadly similar. At the secondary level. with the enrolment rates at the elementary level of education decreasing for higher income-groups. is a more releEe. the mean educational rate in rural areas increased marginally from 1. (vz.35 0.20 0.20 0.76 0.79 1.31 0.10 0. much more strongly. while there is now a marginal decrease from 0. and Eh) corresponding vant magnitude. IIl Y Quintiles Es 2 Ee 4 Es 5 Eh 6 Ee 7 3 Es 8 Eh 9 Bot(om 20 per cent 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile Top 20 per cent 0.16 0. which suggests that the be enrolment may not pattern of markedly inequitable.26 0. The mean educational rates for these levels are denoted. Three educational levels are distinguished.13 1.47 0.53 0.57 0. While the general pattern of the distribution of education across income quintiles is similar whether we consider urban or rural households there are significant -rural-urban differiences for given quintiles. HHPY Quintiles Bot--om 20 percent 2nd quintile 3rd quin(ile 4th quintile Top 20 percent Mean MEAN EDUCATIONAL Table 1.27 0.19 0. by Pe Ps.26 0.79 1.49 0.58 0. The figures for each income-quintile are given in Talle 2. in deciding onhowfitr the current pattern of the distribution of public expenditure on education cun be said to be equitable.37 0.87 0.rural educational rate is higher than the urban.36 0.67 0.12 1.30 0. and Ph respec- tively.

03 192.70 88.51 115.17 400.52 230. 7i5. except for the top tribution of public expenditure or 40 per cent.89 199.88 70.76 293.26 199.84 anld ils 767. negative values of Ki for the top three quintiles when rural and urban The DISTBIMU1ONOF PUBLIC EXPENDrrUpE areas are seiparaltely analysed. showing a 'progressive' 6ishigher education. again. that by per capita household income has the lowest rate among all five quintiles.'. It is also IV estimated.32 249. In respect of ein. by quintiles.86 -166.43 - The average share of each household in the public expenditure on education.03 38.90 -26.40 48. cani therefore: be expressed as follows: Zi = (E Cj 1. Rs 259. levels of education.71.74 214.19 Higher 78.09 482. obwhere Z is the tnean of the Zi 'a served differences in entrolment rates 5)].17 164. are..39. are given in Table 3.ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEE-LY TABLE 3: DISTBIBUTION OF Pu3BLIC EXPENDrrBE ON August 13 1983 EDUJCA-ION BY HPY Elenen(ary All Lowest 2(0 percccit 211dquintile 3rdquintile 4(h qtiint ile Top20 percellt MWan -al Rur Lo.. The corresponding figures for rural areas are respectively Rs 116. mean enrolment rates for each level of education by quintiHes.52 126. rolment rates in secondary schools.88 93.50 99.84 123.05 507. if we use '-the values of K. household income classification. being the tcomputed on differences in the mean enrolment basis of household per capitia income. although the rate at which enrolment rates decre. tion.18 487.77 291. from secondary sources that' the direct public expenditure on An attempt has been) made in e(iucation per pupil in the state of this paper to examine the distribution Aodhra Pradesh as a whole works of educational facilities by income out to be. tile is the major beneficiary of pubWe have already computed the lic expenditure on education.le Top2'0 per cenit Mean1 The results based oii household per ca.72 -138. on average. more 'sensible'. and the same is true of quintiles.85 for the higher level.penditure on education is.71 62.. ILn rural areas. is used). say Zi (i= 1.42) 1445 .33 82. but figures based on the per Would be decreasing functfon of income capita household inicome show rural quintiles.83 403-79 460.ile Top 20 pcr cent Mean1 Ui baii rcent Lowes( 2(0pcr 21d quinii le 3rdqUilntile Secondary 135. also for the top quintile (whichever classification. share of the lowest 20 per cent is not ON EDUCATION only slightly higher than the mean.10 334. and more suirprisingly.. 12 46.01 162.69 K -36.68 76.78 172.(i = 1. secondary and higher educational levels respectively) 4 h quint..43 284.65 113.96 297. If there is egalitttrian as between rural and urban house.45.83 321.24 49. for example the top quifftile by household income has a fairly high enrolment rate. According to the household income figures.ise with income is now not quite as pronounced. At We also give the corresponding the elementary level. It was pointed out earlier that an but also substantially higher than the important reason for comrputing mean enirolment rates was to use them for shares of the fourth and fifth quinstudying the pattern of distribution of tiles.31.38 102 . and C represents the direct public expenditure per pupil for the jth level of education. the We shall consider next rural-urbani quintiles. rate at various. On the other hzand. household income or household per capita income. They suggest that apart from the bottom quintile others are more or less on par.equitable the distribution of public exly equal enrolment in higher educa.69 110. Further the share of the bottom 40 per cent is nearly 50 per ceiit public expenditure on education. holds fail to reveal any consistent distribution.92 for groups using the primary data collectthe elementary level. It is the middle group (say the second and third quintiles) wlho have higher rates of enrolment. Enirolment in secondary schiools in rural areas is low for the bottom quinitile (especially according to the hlousehold income results).8 6.10 39.62 55.11 63. 02( 100.65 150.00 -83. Tabl'e 3 shows a systemiiaticpattern households as having higher enrolmrent throughout. with tOe fourth quintile actually showing a. while the top two quintiles have The values of Z i for different much higher rates.22 237.47 for ed through a sample survey o)f the 108.24 88.72 96.48 276.39 160.. higher than the share of the top 40 For this purpose we follow a simple per cent.33 -109. Rs 276. For urban areas no systematic pattern atppears to emerge.19 -103. 3 (i e elementary.47w 132. as regards other quinitiles the results based on household per capita income. The direction anid bottom qutintile. Rg 113.60 - 149.23 128.98 the secondafy level.51 43.50 143.west 20 per ccnt 2nd quintiilc 3rd quiniiie 4th qUint.52 Zi 364.increases gives us an indication of how tom three quiiitiles have approximate.44 291. enirolmenit rates among the hiigher quintiles are somewhat erratic.73 106.51 quintiles). As regards higher educationi.51 2.11 595.63 44..54 98.78 153. [Ki = Zi Z. the magnitude of the variation of Zi as i picture that emerges is that the bot. This is also shown by the enrolment rate is considerably higher.47 168. quintiles. Over this range Zi (and hence K ) the comparison by and large favours is a decreasing funciion of income urban areas.73 162. 61 218. However the second quinmethod which is outlined below.is not unexpected.35 91. for which the mean rum]l e(lucation.05 144 ..05 117.from the second quintiles onwtrds. then Z i as well as Ki pattern.34 273.25 150.46 -35-52 -11 .33 40.70 66. enrolment lower than the Where E represents the mean enrornment rate of the ith quintile and jth educational level. column (9) clearly shows tnat the bottom quinitile in urban areas has a very low rate of enrolment.86 490. This is so whether we take household income or household per capita income as the basis of classificationi. and for urbain areas respectively Rs 127.14 146. Rs 291. and Rs.pitai income on the other hand show roughly the same type of situatioii as in rural areas. and in some respects the two classifications give conitrary results.55 anid Rs 369. which..

Datta. 2 An early and careful statemetit is that by Solow (1959) who 'points out that "the notion of -ime shifts in the function is a confession of ignorance rather than a claim to knowledge. which. Review of Racal Political Economy. Bowles. it appears that only the public expenditure on elenientary education has a strong and positive redistributive effect. M S (1974-a): "Income InequaAity: Some Dimensions of the P'roblem". the educational and einrolment rates are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. and changes in the industrial composition of input anid output etc. However. Oxford). Among the more obvious limitatiojis of this study is its narrow regional base. the collillion is reversed. they ought to be analysed further into such components as improvements in the skill and quality of the labour force. However when each level of education is examinied separaltely. H B et al (1974): "Redistribution with Growth". to a large extent. it may take a long time for such a strategy to succeed for the effects of education on equality may only be gradu1446 Notes I See for example Smith (1776). frequently occasion the imost dreadful disorders. as it takes care of the size of the faiimily. Carnoy. Journal of Public Econornics.August 13 1983 ECONOMIC AND POLICAL ally felt as the generations each other. our discussion assumes 'tlhat education is important -for achieving e(quality in general. or from discriminationi on the basis of caste or sex could not be studied here. ed.an imnportantdeterminant of standards of living. secondary education is lfairly equitable and higher educttion is a monotonically increasWhile the ing function of incomes. e g: "The more they are instructed. Bank Staff Working Paper (WVorld . See also Vistria (1980: 36-37) for some 5imilar results in a different context. inl J Sitinons. the sample being drawn from a single district of Andhra Pradesh. Berg. S and H Gintis (1976): "Schooling in Capitalist America". "The Education Dilemma". 3 (Fall winter): 56-81. such as differences in the quality of education imparted by different schools an)d from inequalities of opportunity arising from distance of the school from thet pupil's home. includes expenditures on (a) salaries of the teaching and now-teaching stafl'. Other dimensions. K J (1973): "'Higher Education as a Filter". Further. the latest years for which rural-urbatnbreak up is available on expenditure on education. S (1980): "Education.. expenditure on education in rural and urbani areas are worked out for 1975-76 each level of educationi (Source: "Education in India. can be' regarded as recurrent expenditure. ed. (Chicago. the largest share in the public expenditure quinbeing received by the lowest tiles. Lewis (1976: 35) asserts that in the develop)ing countries the distribuition of skills ha. improvement in technique within the industries. there seems ielatively less unequal distribution of educational facilities in urban areas compared to rural areas. Fields. education. Oxford Econo1)ic Papers 27/2 (July) 245-59. G S (1975): "Higher Education and Income Distribution in a Less Developed Country". 4 For example. Class Conflict and Uneven Development". there exist strikinig rural-urban disparities at every quintile and in every level of educationi.large extent clearly pro-rich. the eletnent of good or bed luck will continue aind "will retrunin extreme"y important in re-introducing inequities" unless the strategy and particularly educational programme is carefully planned. translated by R Nice. Mahalonobis (1952) observed that when the frame consistc of only a list of units and nothing else. An instructed and intelligent people besides are always more decent and orderlv than an ignorant and stuipid one. is clearly equitable. Chapter II)]. 'T'aking rural-urban expeinditure proportions as in 1970-71. 205-31. 8 Direct expenditure. (New York. University of Chicago Press): 428-48. 5 See Fields (1980-b) who docimented evidence from 14 studies oni about as many countries. 7 When public recurrent costs vere included. ed. which among ignorant nations. especially in rural areas. is known about the field the problem of sample design reduces to the simple case of selecting for investiation a suitable number of elementarv uinits in a random manner qo that valid inferences mav be drawn 'from the sample by appropriate methods. previous which mav be onlv anoroxim-te in nature." 3 This as well as some other aslPects of the role of education in economic development which have figured in recent discussion were untcipated by Adam Smith. It is only when some information. there is some evidence that the pattern we found may not be untypical of other regions in India as well. the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition. References Alluwvalia. it deals with only one aspect of educational inequality.3-37(1974-b): "The Scope for Policy Intelvention" in H B Chenery et al: 73-90. (b) equipment and! other appliances. Lastly. is available about the field thAt the nroblem of sample (lesign becomes imnportant. M. Arrow. and (c) 'other' items. Bowles. Chen y. Routledge and Kegan Paul). World Bank/ Lonidon. whatsoever. However. Bourdieu. (London.svstcn is inegalitarian. 1776 (BookV.s widened rather than narrowed "mainly because public education opens the doors of opnortnitv": see also Watanabe (1975) and Tinbergen (1975). G and J Meerman (1980): "lIousehold Income or Household Income Per Capita in Welfare Comparisons". 6 Such a sample design may not be inappropriate in our context.nd Investment in Human Resources: A Dynamic Model". 2/3 (July): 193-216. -(1980-a): "Education and Income Distribution in Developing Countries: A Review of Literature". Onl this criterioni we find that the distribution of elementary. "Essays on Economic Development and GulturmlChange in Honour of Bert F Hoselitz". More important. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. in T King. (1971): "Class Analysis t. Pergamon) (London. Sage 1977)." [Smith. Praeger). While we presented most of cui results acco/ding to both criteria. in its stock form as well as in its current flow pattefn. The figures for the whole of the state relate *to 1975-76. -(1977): "Education and Economic Development: The First Generation". we strongly feel that from the public policy point of view it is the latter criterion that is more meanintgful. We have used two household ent income criteria: (i) income and (ii) household per capitaincome. Public financing of higher education on the other hand is to a. 9 Moreover as Meade (1975-77) points out. "Education and Income". in H B Chenery et al: . ie." 1970-71 and 1975-76). Public finanlcing of education seems onl the whole to be egalitarian. On the other hand when hou-ehold per capita income is uised -'s a bNse of classificotioni. the use of household income in the Datta & Meerman stuidy leads to the conclusion that the edu3cational . pattern is more o0t less same in rural and urban areas. in M Nash. returns to investment in research and education.9 succeed WEEXLY West Godavari District of Andhra differPradesh. P and J C Passeron (1970): "Reproduction in Education Society and Culture". I (1970): "Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery". the public. (London. Justification for this assumption was provided in Sec'ion J of this paper. 378 (Washington DC).

S A R (1978): "Inequality. tiarbison. C R and R C Webb. does gross disservice to the movement and certainly in no way provides the reader a path towards literacy.000 copies each. 12/1-2 (Dec): 1-17. this area. (Washington DC. W A (1976): "Development and Distribution" in A Caincross and M Puri. rights of the prisoners in jail.d Bank). This literature has now got wider appeal as a result of th. Washington DC): 231-315. It has gone through 10 English editions (each edition was of 1. It comes out in pamphlets and is privately distributed.The is. Oxford). 20th Century Fund). In 1977. In spite of Tendulkar's analysis in his play "Kamla". we would say. J E (1975): "The Inltelligent Radical's Guide to Economic Policy: ne Mixed Economy". (New York. Since 1977. M (1979): "Who Benefits from Government Expenditure?". Japtn". Foxley. while level organisation was formed in 1976 and then again in late 1980. the poor in the unorganised sectors. Selowsky. (1980-u)]. Income Distribution and Development Strategy: Problems of the Developing Countries". (Stanford University Press). it his played.AND A*OL&L E00NOMICG WEY Survey of Andhrt Pradesh" (New Delhi. LSMS Worldng Paper No 2. . eds. Inequality and Life Chances: A Report on the Netherlands". "Employment. consciously or unconsciously perpetuate their genocide and put restraints on the growth of any counter-consciousness and movements questioning the state's policy? All this and more has been said in the literature produced by CDR organistttions. Sastrv. S Karlin and P Suppes (ed) "Matheinatic&l Methods in tche Social Sciences". In addition to these journals. We feel that Noorani has not consulted the larger literature in. 1937). C R (1979): "Schooling and Income Distribution: Evidence from International Date".India'. NBER). the scheduled tribes and castes. It has been translated into Marathi and Gujarati (the latter has both paperback and hard-back editions) and has been adapted into Hindi and Punjabi. (Neris). yes. In the post-1977 period. They would not have lasted without this "literacy". Arthaviinana. 20/4 (Dec): 353-67. Jencks. CIEPLAN 10. (New York. this literature has not been published in dust-jacketed books and advertised in glossy journals by the -top publishers of the country.new strides the mov-ement has taken to cop with the struggles of the opp- 1447 . Meade. thus 10. Economica. the focus of the movement has shifted to understanding the nature of state repression both overt and covert on these groups. death in police custody and torture. the PUCL. Adam (1776): "The Weialth of Nations". (World Bank/ Baltimore. Solow.000 copies have been distributed). Visaria. confront over time. Jallade. Brookings): 127-158. P C (1952): "Some Aspects of the Design of Sample Surveys". 1975: 134-59. (Cambridge. Maitra. Statistical Publishing Society): 499-53.(Washington DC. Both were English periodicals while the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights Calcutta (APDR) initiated a Bengali weekly. (1980-b): "Poverty. July 23) deflects the reader from gaining knowledge of the movement. eds. growth of 'investigative journalism'.Noorani assumes or with critical emptthy outlining the issues and problems -that this literatu-re contains and' understanding the complexity and gravity of the issues that this literature deals with? Our position is different from Noorani's. Solow. [referred by Fields. Experience and Earnings". In the process. Various local levej organisations th!t had sprung up during the early seventies. J P (1974): "Public Expenditures on Education and Income Distribution in Colombia". Inequality and Life Chances". the winorities and the people of the North-East and women. 46/181 (Feb): 83-87. Mincer. Lewis. Inequality and Development". in Frank. T (1975): "Jome Inequality and Economic Development: A Case Study. Jandhyala B G (1980): "Inequality in Returns to Education". (Calcutta. P (1980): "Poverty tnd Living Standards in Asia". which now h become part of mainstreum jounalism. Tilak. started the PUCL BuiUetin in 1981. George Allen and Unwin). Winegarden. F H (1977): "The Education-Income Connection". C et al (1972): "Inequality". J (1974): "Schooling. The point thehi is how: does one DISCUSSION Civil Rights Literacy Sujata Pattl Achyut Yagnik A G NOORANI's article on "Civl Rights Literacy" (EPW. Macmillan) 26-42. J (1975): "Education. (CPDR) started publishing Raksha. "Income Distribution and Growth in the Less Developed Countries". Delhi: Ph D Thesis) Unpublished. (London. the Committee for the Piotection of Democratic Rights.sue5_ taken up by the CDR . the issues have shifted. Estudios. Welfare and Ranldng: A Study of Andhra Pradesh". Sankhya. there is. we feel. in. NCAER (1962): "Techno-Economic jail conditions. Smith. Biasic). In addition to the suppression of the civil rights of the people and the rights of political prisoners as well as nature of view this literacy. (World Bank/New York. (New York. Ornati. A 1 1983 No 40M. Review of Economics and Statistics. John Hopkins).39/3 (August): 312-20. Wor. eds. The nature of production reflects the state of the CDR movement. in T N Srinivasan and P K Bardhan. R M (1957): "Techncal Change land Aggregate Production Function". Mahalanobis. the GDR organisations have got involved in issues dealing with the rights of the submerged marginal and marginalised masses of the country. the civil and democratic rights (CDR) movement has spread all over the country and has institutionalised itself. "Poverty and' Income Distribution in. OECD (1975): "Education. Delhi. It was published in 1977 by CPDR. In the pre-1977 period the issues were mainly prisoners' release. 0 (1966): "Poverty Amid Affluence". a large number of them being sold in conventiohs and meetings. NCAER). Tinbergen. And to answer Noorani's question 'is there a comprehensive guidebook or civil liberties for a layman?.phlets . a positive and supportive role. The book is "Know Yours Rights". Modem Library. 1975: 404-26. (New York. Bombay. A etal (1977): "Quienes Se Benefician do los Castos Puiblicos". (London.Journls pan. continued and gained a natlonalstrength by 1977. R M (1959): "Investment and Technical Progress" in K J Arrow. The questions asked are: How does the state restrict the political and cultural expression of the people. in OECD. each of the regional CDR organisations Dublished pamphlets on various issues they had to. OECD. T etal (1974: "An Enquiry on the Distributon of Public Education and' Health 'Services in West Bengal". . (University of Delhi. indicate *e . Through the cold textbookish abstractiond that-. Cambridge University Press). Watanabe. C-ertainly.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful