index of service production in education · of an index of service production in education the...

India’s Human Capital in Gen-Y and Gen-Z: Constructs of an Index of Service Production in Education

Research Report 47, October 2016

Binod Khadria, Narender Thakur and Reem Ashraf

India’s Human Capital in Gen-Y and Gen -Z: Constructs of an Index of Service Production in Education

Research Report 47, October 2016

Authors: Binod Khadria1, Narender Thakur2 & Reem Ashraf3

ISBN: 978 0 7340 5314 5

Youth Research CentreMelbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of Melbourne VIC 3010http://education.unimelb.edu.au/yrcPhone: (03) 8344 9633 Fax: (03) 8344 9632Twitter: @YRCunimelb

All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Youth Research Centre.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Youth Research Centre, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, or the University of Melbourne.

At the Youth Research Centre we acknowledge the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this nation. We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands on which our centre is located and where we conduct our research and teaching. We pay our respects to ancestors and Elders, past, present and future.

Author contact: Binod KhadriaEmail: [email protected]

Suggested citation: Khadria, B., Thakur, N. and Ashraf, R. (2016). India’s Human Capital in Gen-Y and Gen-Z: Constructs of an Index of Service Production in Education, Melbourne, VIC: University of Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Youth Research Centre.

1 Professor of Economics and Education, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.2 Assistant Professor of Economics, B. R. Ambedkar College, University of Delhi.3 Doctoral Candidate, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Acknowledgments

I would like to put on record my sincere gratitude for the support I received from various people in completing this Research Report:

Johanna Wyn, Director of Youth Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, for hosting me as the Melbourne Asian Century Visiting Fellow for three weeks each in 2014 and 2015, and facilitating various academic activities including seminars, and interactions with her graduate students and well as faculty colleagues. Hernan Cuervo for many a conversation on research issues and for keeping track of the progress of this. Fazal Rizvi for initiating my interface with the Youth Research Centre and connecting me with interesting people and ideas. Pookong Kee, Director of Asia Institute, Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne for hosting a joint seminar with Youth Research Centre for me in 2014 to share some of my research.

All members of the Sub-committee on Index of Service Production for Education Sector, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India who provided comments and suggestions during the deliberations that took place from time to time.

My co-authors of this Research Report, Narender Thakur, Assistant Professor at Bhim Rao Ambedkar College of the University of Delhi, and Reem Ashraf, Doctoral Candidate at Jawaharlal Nehru University for providing valuable research assistance and continuous brainstorming. Last but not the least, Anne Farrelly for meticulously editing and typesetting the report on behalf of the Youth Research Centre.

For any remaining errors and omissions, the responsibility remains with me alone.

Binod Khadria

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% o

f GDP

Figure 1.1: Share of Service Sector's Production in Total GDP in India,select Countries and Redions: 1995-2015

India

China

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

Canada

High income countries

World

OECD members

Least developed countries byUN classification

Acknowledgments 3

1. Education in the Services Sector in India 71.1 Public Spending on Education in India in a Comparative Perspective 71.2 GDP in Education or Education in GDP? 8

2. A Comparative Perspective of Generation-Y and Generation-Z in India 8

3. Estimation of Production in Educational Services: Practices across Countries 11

4. Methodology of Constructing the ISP-Education for India 124.1. Laspeyres Method for ISP-Education 124.2. ISP-GER and ISP-TSR 134.3. Analysis of Quantitative Expansion through ISP-GER 134.4: Analysis of Qualitative Decline through ISP-TSR 15

5. Challenges for the Youth Entering the Knowledge Economy: Gen-Y and Gen-Z 16

Endnotes 26

Appendices 29

5India’s Human Capital in Gen-Y and -Z: Constructs of an Index of Service Production in Education

THE CONTEXT

India’s Economic Survey 2014-15, in its chapter on Services Sector, began with the following assertion: “India’s dynamic services sector has grown rapidly in the last decade with almost 72.4 percent of the growth in India’s GDP in 2014-15 coming from this sector. Unlike other developing economies, the Indian growth story has been led by services-sector growth which is now in double digits” (GOI, 2015). The share of services sector contribution in India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has in fact been increasing ever since the implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP), 1991. It was 46.3 per cent in 1995; eventually rising to 55.6 per cent in 2014 (Figure 1.1 presents this in a comparative perspective with Australia and a few other countries). Along with such increasing contributions of services sector in the GDP as well as in its rate of growth, the share of services in India’s external trade has also increased from 4.6 per cent in 1995 to 14.4 per cent in 2014 (Figure 1.2 presents this in a similar comparative perspective with Australia and a few other countries and regions).1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% o

f GDP

Figure 1.1: Share of Service Sector's Production in Total GDP in India,select Countries and Redions: 1995-2015

India

China

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

Canada


World

OECD members


Source: Authors, using World Development Indicators 2016 of the World Bank from http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.

6 India’s Human Capital in Gen-Y and -Z: Constructs of an Index of Service Production in Education

There are various services which comprise the Indian services sector, viz., hotels and restaurants, transport and communication, financial and insurance services, real estate and construction, public administration and defense, and “other services”. One of the services covered under “other services” is education, which despite there being growing discourse on “human capital” across the world has so far received very little focused attention both in the national agenda of development in India and at the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) multilateral negotiations. Khadria (1992) classified the services into three types, each having one of the three distinguishable goods-characteristics: The first type of services having intermediate-goods characteristics in production, like banking, finance, insurance, telecommunications and so forth, and the third type of services having predominantly consumer-goods characteristics such as beauty care, music, sports, tourism and other recreational activities. In between is the second category with dual characteristics of both investment and consumption; this includes services such as education and health. Majumdar (1983) explained investment in education as a joint-product, which is produced through consumption and investment processes in the education system.² However, under GATS, the WTO negotiations have focused more on the consumption aspects of education services and underplayed the investment aspects. In fact, investment in education, especially higher education, had been defined in the founding literature on economics of education as human capital (Schultz, 1961; Becker, 1962; Ben-Porath, 1968), which established a positive relationship between education and the country’s productivity, economic growth and development to the extent that Bowman later termed it “the human investment revolution in economic thought” (Bowman, 1966). Recently, the UN too has focused upon the role of

Source: Authors, using World Development Indicators 2016 of the World Bank from http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.019

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

15

% o

f GD

P

Figure 1.2:Trade in Services Share of GDP in India, select Countries and Regions: 1995-2015

India

China

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

Canada


World

OECD members


equitable quality education at all levels under goal no. 4 among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, 2016-2030) in both developing and developed countries.

Recently, the Government of India had decided to compile an Index of Service Production (ISP) in education services when such an exercise was ongoing for various other services in India.3 This report has drawn upon that exercise of constructing the Index of Service Production in Education (ISP-Education) conducted by us.

The first section of this report presents the conceptualisation of education as a service in terms of its relation with public spending and the GDP. The second section elaborates upon the classification of different generations of youth and their current magnitude in higher education in select countries. The third section revisits the practices of estimating the volume of production in the education sector and computation of a corresponding Index of Service Production in education in select countries and regions. The fourth section explains the methodology of estimating the ISP-Education in India and the analysis of the results of ISP-Education at the All-India level.The fifth section is on the constraints in the construction of the Index and its implications for the youth in India. Some final remarks are provided in concluding the report.

1. Education in the Services Sector in India

It is well-recognised that the educational services form a vital sector of services, providing the backbone to modern day growth and development of the knowledge economy across countries.

1.1 Public Spending on Education in India in a Comparative Perspective

Table 1.1 presents public spending on education as a percentage share of GDP in select countries/region and India. The table also shows that the percentage share of public funding on education in India has been lower than that for the world averages since 2003.

Table 1.1: Public spending on education (% of GDP) in select Countries/Region and India, 1998-2011Year India High- income

OECDSub-Saharan Africa (developing economies only)

United States World Low & middle income countries

1998 3.5 4.9 NA 4.8 NA NA1999 4.3 4.9 3.7 4.8 4.2 3.92000 4.3 5.0 3.6 NA 4.0 3.72003 3.6 5.4 3.5 5.6 4.3 3.82004 3.3 5.4 3.8 5.3 4.3 3.82005 3.1 5.3 4.1 5.1 4.3 4.02006 3.1 5.3 3.9 5.4 4.5 3.92009 3.2 5.5 NA 5.2 5.1 4.62010 3.3 5.6 4.3 5.4 4.9 4.32011 3.4 5.4 NA NA NA NA

Source of data: World Bank, 2015.Note: 3.4 percent, also for 2012 for India. NA denotes Not Available

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

% o

f GD

P

Figure 1.2:Trade in Services Share of GDP in India, select Countries and Regions: 1995-2015

India

China

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

Canada


World

OECD members



In 2003, it was 3.6 percent in India and 4.3 percent for the world as whole, changing to 3.3 percent and 4.9 percent respectively in 2010. The share in the developing economies of sub-Saharan Africa was 4.3 percent in 2010, showing that the public spending on education in India was lower than that in the sub-Saharan developing economies.

1.2 GDP in Education or Education in GDP?

The public discourse in India has for long been focused around a target of public expenditure on education equivalent to 6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This celebrated benchmark was recommended by the National Commission for Education (Kothari Commission) in 1966 and adopted in the National Education Policy 1968 setting an achievement target of twenty years. Apart from the fact that this target of 6 percent of GDP to be devoted by the government to education has remained elusive to this day, there has not been even a single attempt to look at the relationship between education and GDP in any different or innovative way. Isn’t it high time that we start assessing the contribution of education to GDP rather than the other way round only?4 It is in this context that we have attempted to put together the constructs of an index number for service production through education embodied in the present generation of youth within the population of the country.

2. A Comparative Perspective of Generation-Y and Generation-Z in India

Box 1.1 presents the classification of generations of population by periods of birth, which are classified into five categories - Baby-boomers (1940-1960), Generation-X (1960-1980), Generation-Y (1980-2000), Generation-Z (2000-2010) and Generation-Alpha (2010-to date). Our focus in this study is limited to analyzing Generation-Y and -Z only.

Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y Millennials

Generation Z Generation Alpha

1940-1960 Born 1960-1980 Born 1980-2000 Born 2000-2010 Born 2010 onwards

Born during the post WWII

Born between the early 1960s and the early 1980s

Born between about 1980 and 2000

Born after 2000 Born after 2010

Courtesy: Kavita Bugalya, a doctoral candidate at JNU.

Box 1.1: Share of Higher-education Cohort Youths (aged 20-24 of Gen-Y and Gen-Z) in Total Populations: 2013-15, 2020 and 2025.

Generation Y comprises those in the age group 20-24 in 2015. Those young people entering the age-group 20-24 in 2020 belong to a combination of Gen-Y and –Z, while those entering age group 20-24 in 2025 belong to Gen-Z. Accordingly, those entering this age-group 20-24 in 2015, 2020 and 2025 as different generations are analysed below for their changing numbers and shares in the total population.


Table 1.2 presents the shares of the 20-24 age-group in the respective total populations of India, US, China, Australia and the world as a whole. The data provided are for three consecutive years, viz., 2013, 2014 and 2015, and for two quinquennial years, viz., 2020 and 2025.

Table 1.2: Share of Higher-education Cohort Youths (aged 20-24 of Gen-Y and Gen-Z) in Total Populations: 2013-15, 2020 and 2025.Generation/ Year India (%) World (%) United

States (%)China (%) Australia

(%)2013 9 9 7 9 72014 9 8 7 8 7Gen-Y/2015 9 8 7 8 7Gen-Y & Gen-Z/2020 9 8 6 6 7Gen-Z/2025 8 7 6 5 6

Source: Authors’ compilation using data from OECD (2015).

Table 1.3 presents the population size for the age-group 20-24 years. In India, the total population in the age-group 20-24 years is estimated to be 116 million in 2015; 118 million in 2020, and 120 million in 2025. As compared to 2015, there would be thus an expected increase of 2 million Indian youth of higher education cohorts in 2020 and that of 4 million in 2025. The share of age-group 20-24 in India has been projected to remain constant at 9 percent in 2020 as compared to the same 9 percent in 2015. But it is projected to decline marginally by 1 percentage-point to 8 percent in 2025 from 9 percent in both 2015 and 2020. This implies that even if the youth population of Gen-Y in India increases in numbers in 2020 as compared to that in 2015, its proportion in the population would remain unchanged. In the case of Gen-Z, the number of youth population is expected to increase in 2025, but its share would decline marginally.

Table 1.3: Size of Higher-education Cohort Youths (aged 20-24 of Gen-Y and Gen-Z) in Total Populations: 2013-15, 2020 and 2025 (million).Generation/ Year India World United States China Australia

2013 114.6 612.4 22.8 121.8 16.42014 115.1 606.6 22.6 114.5 16.5Gen-Y/2015 115.6 601.4 22.6 107.8 16.5Gen-Y & Gen-Z/2020 117.8 584.7 21.7 82.1 17.0Gen-Z/2025 120.2 596.2 21.7 77.4 17.4

Source: Authors’ compilation using data from OECD (2015).


In China, the share of the youth in the age-group 20-24 in the total population is projected to decline significantly by 2 percentage-points from 8 percent in 2015, to 6 percent in 2020 and further by 1 percentage-point, to 5 percent in 2025. The number of the Chinese youth is estimated to decline very significantly from 108 million in 2015, to 82 million in 2020, and subsequently to 77 million in 2025, which means that the Chinese youth population would decline by 31 million over the decade. Thus, in comparison to 2015, both the number and share of Gen-Y and -Z population in China are expected to decline by 2020. Moreover, the population of Gen-Z in China is also projected to decline further in absolute number as well as in its share in the total population by 2025.

The share of 20-24 age-group youth in total population of Australia is projected to remain constant at 7 percent in 2020 as compared to 2015, but expected to decline to 6 percent by in 2025. However, Australia is projected to experience an increase in their numbers from 16.5 million in 2015 to 17.0 million in 2020, and 17.4 million by 2025, possibly because of inward mobility of youth in larger numbers from abroad. For the US, this share is estimated to decline from 7 percent in 2015 to 6 percent in 2020, and remain constant at 6 percent in 2025; the number is also projected to decline from 22.6 million in 2015 to 21.7 million in 2020 and then stabilize by 2025. For the world as a whole too, this share is projected to remain constant at 8 percent in 2020 as in 2015, but is expected to decline to 7 percent by 2025. In terms of number, this youth population is projected to decline from 601 million in 2015 to 585 million by 2020, but later on increase to 596 million by 2025.

Thus, it may be concluded that the expansions of Gen-Y and Gen-Z in Indian youth population in the decade from 2015 to 2025 would surpass those of the selected comparison countries. This would result in there being a greater supply of Gen Y and Z Indian youth for the world market relative to other countries that are expecting lowering shares and numbers in their own youth population. In 2015, there would be a comparative advantage for India with the highest share as well as number of youth in the total population, as compared to the shares and numbers of youth population in major destination countries, like the US and Australia, and as compared to the other major source country, China, also. These trends of shares and numbers would continue for the Indian youth population in 2020 and 2025. In the last few years, Indian and Chinese students and workers have been migrating in large numbers to developed countries, like the US, UK and Australia, and there has been competition for foreign students among these major destination countries. While Indian youth of Gen-Y and Gen-Z are likely to experience higher demand in the global labour market, this will be crucially mediated by the quality of the human capital that they acquire in higher educational institutions within India as well as in the destination countries.

As seen in the discussion on GDP and the two-way relationship it has with education, the contribution of youth on account of demographic dividend would critically depend on the public spending on education. The share of GDP in education would in fact be replenished in the form of pay back from the youth to the GDP, or in the form of Gross National Product (GNP), depending upon whether the youth are resident in India or abroad as part of the ever expanding Indian diaspora.5 Here, it is significant to note the shift in the expectations of the youth for the government to finance their education at least to the promised extent, of 6 percent of GDP, even if that would now cover only part of the students’ education costs! These youth, belonging to Gen-Y and Gen-Z, would not depend on the eternally awaited allocation of GDP for education. They would move beyond the prospective dependency on the Indian government, but would still make contributions back to the Indian GDP, or if not GDP then GNP. It is a matter of note that their contribution to the GDP or GNP is not talked about at all in policy circles or the academia, nor is there any discussion of estimating these contributions.6


3. Estimation of Production in Educational Services: Practices across Countries

The OECD (2007) emphasized the significance of an index number for measuring the change in service production over time as its member countries experienced increasing shares of services in their economies. The Index for Service Production (ISP) has been defined as follows: “An ISP measures changes over time in the volume of output of the services sector. More precisely, it is defined as the ratio of the volume of output produced by the services industries in a given time period, to the volume produced by the same industries in a specified base period. The products included are all those that contribute to the gross output of the services industries;…products may either be goods or services” (Chavoix-Mannatoand Hong, 2000).

The educational services in different countries are stratified into homogeneous groups where International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, programme orientations, and the quality of services are taken into account. However, in practice, possibilities for detailed stratification are very limited because of a lack of comparable data base (OECD, 2007).7 The OECD has elaborated on the quantity and quality of educational services. For temporal comparisons, the basic quantity indicator for education has been identified as the number of “pupil-hours”, i.e. the number of hours that pupils spend being taught. Alternatively, the number of pupils or students enrolled is also used for the estimation of quantity. Many OECD countries are using the number of pupils in education for estimating the volume of production in educational services (OECD, 2010). For estimating the volume of educational services, these countries have used cost of education services as weights. The countries, which have used these two variables, viz., the number of pupils as quantity indicators, and the cost of education as weights are Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and United Kingdom. Among the OECD countries, as of 2010, South Korea was in the process of exploring the adoption of the ISP-Education. Canada and Japan are the only major countries that were still not involved with the ISP-Education.

One advantage of the number of pupils being used is that comparative data for quality adjustment too is based on number of pupils rather than on pupil-hours. However, the OECD (2010) has emphasized that the quality of education is a highly sensitive issue and its measurement is fraught with conceptual and practical difficulties. While some countries use the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores of secondary schools for estimating the quality of education, the Indian government has flagged the subjectivity of quality of education in PISA methodology for estimating the quality of education in 2012. When India secured the last but one rank among all 57 countries in 2012, the Indian government withdrew from the subsequent PISA assessments in 2015, citing the shortcomings in methodology. Earlier, the Eurostat Handbook 2002 had suggested the use of teacher-student ratio for assessing quality of education. We too have used this teacher-student ratio along with per capita expenditure in education in our estimation of the ISP-Education.


4. Methodology of Constructing the ISP-Education for India

We have estimated two types of ISP-Education: (i) ISP-Education with gross enrolment ratio (GER), and (ii) ISP-Education with teacher-student ratio (TSR). While the first index has used GER and the second, TSR, both have used the weights of per capita expenditure (PCE) or the cost of value addition per student. These are calculated on the basis of data on enrolment, number of teachers, and the age-group population, while assigning PCE, public and private, as the weights. The production in the education services is estimated by taking enrolment of students at three levels of education, elementary, secondary and higher.

To undertake this construction we have chosen to use data for 2007-08 to 2010-11. This choice is due to the uniformity across various states and union-territories of India for these two periods only. The sources of data comprise online statistics from Ministry of Human Resource Development as well as the National Sample Survey (NSS) 64th round on Education (2007-08). The classification of variables and the details of public expenditure used for estimating ISP are given in the Appendix boxes 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and1.6 respectively. It is important to note the fact that in education the changes in the so called “production” to be estimated would have to be at the interval of one year, since the enrollments are mostly done annually. This is unlike the other services where the production can be taken as stock at shorter intervals, e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, half-yearly and so on.

4.1. Laspeyres Method for ISP-Education

We have used the Laspeyres method for the estimating ISP-Education, as follows:


The two types of ISP-Education, i.e., ISP-GER and ISP-TSR, can be used as surrogates of each other, each with some advantages. The main advantage of ISP-GER is the use of the relevant age-group population as the deflator, used as the denominator in the calculation of the GER. In India, these deflators are the size of population in the age-groups of 6-13 years for elementary education, 14-17 years for secondary education, and 18-24 years for higher education. The advantage in the case of ISP-TSR is that the number of teachers is divided by the number of enrolled students, to derive the deflated number of teachers and calculate the teacher-student ratio.

As mentioned earlier, the per capita expenditure on the relevant levels of education has been used as the weight ( in both types of ISP-Education. The per capita expenditure for each level of education is estimated by dividing the aggregate private and public expenditure by the number of students enrolled. The base year used for the estimation of both types of ISP-Education is 2007-08, as the data for private expenditure on different levels of education are available for this year only.

4.2. ISP-GER and ISP-TSR

Our estimation of the ISP-GER and ISP-TSR has three broad variables, namely, enrolment of students, number of teachers, and the per capita expenditure on education. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is well known as the ratio of the number of enrolled students to the population in the relevant age-groups for each level of education. Teacher-Student Ratio (TSR) is the reciprocal of the better known indicator, the Student-Teacher Ratio, which is a ratio between the numbers of students enrolled and the number of teachers. These two indices are measures of change in the volume of production of educational services in the target (‘current’) year as compared to the base year. Whereas the first index is an indicator of quantitative change in the production of education in India, the second is that of qualitative change, both in the target years as compared to the base year.

4.3. Analysis of Quantitative Expansion through ISP-GER

Table 1.4 presents the ISP-GER values for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 for all levels as well as each level of education to gauge the absolute impact of changing enrollment of students. The comprehensive ISP-GER values are: 91 for 2008-09, 96 for 2009-10 and 114 for 2010-11. The change in the quantity of education services has thus been significantly positive in 2010-11, compared to the previous two years, which in fact registered a contraction, signifying negative growth.

The increase in ISP-GER for 2010-11 can be attributed mainly to two causes. The first cause is the significant increase in GER in higher education relative to the more or less stagnant GER in both secondary and elementary education, over the years. For example, the GER in higher education increased from 13 percent in 2007-08 to 19 percent in 2010-11, whereas the GER in secondary education increased from 46 percent in 2007-08, to only 50 percent in 2010-11, and the GER in elementary education increased from 104 percent in 2007-08, to only 108 percent in 2010-11.

Table 1.4: Summary Results of ISP-GER and ISP-TSR values, All-India: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 (Target Years). (Base Year 2007-08)

Variables 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11ISP-GER All-India All Levels of Education

100.00 91.26 95.72 113.63

Standard Deviation in ISP-GER across All States

NA 14.39 21.77 34.99

ISP-TSR All-India All Levels of Education

100.00 121.20 109.90 88.50

Standard Deviation in ISP-TSR across All States

NA 64.86 75.82 68.82

GER in Elementary Education

103.70 102.50 105.50 107.60

GER in Secondary Education

45.81 47.06 49.29 49.60

GER in Higher Education

13.05 13.70 14.99 19.4

TSR in Elementary Education

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

TSR in Secondary Education

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

TSR in Higher Education

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02

PCE in Elementary Education (Rs. Per annum)

6153

Not Applicable (NA)

PCE in Secondary Education (Rs. Per annum)

11602

PCE in Higher Education (Rs. Per annum)

26234

PCE Total (Rs. Per annum)

43989

Note: PCE stands for Per Capita Expenditure.


The government has been emphasising the raising of GER in higher education in accordance with the target levels of 25 percent by 2017, and 30 percent by 2022, set during the 11th Five Year Plan, 2007-11 (GOI, 2008). This was in continuation of the government’s focus on building a knowledge economy in the light of the expected “demographic dividend” arising from the larger size of the youth population in India as compared to almost all other countries of the world (GOI, 2000).

Having estimated the financial requirements through the Tapas Majumdar Committee (MHRD, 1999), the Government of India eventually made elementary education a fundamental right in 2009 (Right to Education Act, 2009), thus paving the way for a rights-based approach to free and compulsory elementary education. This led to a rise in the GER in elementary education, as almost all states of India rushed towards achieving the target of universal enrolment in elementary education. In fact, in the subsequent period of 12th Five Year plan (2012-17), the government also brought into focus the target of universalizing secondary education as one of the plan objectives, although issues and concerns of dropout and quality of education have continued to remain the mainstay at all levels (GOI, 2013a). Putting the two together, the government has aimed at achieving near-universal enrolment of over 90 percent GER in lower secondary education (classes 9-10),and a moderately high GER of 65 percent in the higher secondary level (classes 11-12) by 2017.

The second cause of the hike in ISP-GER is the bigger weight of expenditure in higher education, especially private expenditure, in the base year 2007-08. The per student expenditure for all-levels that year was Rs. 44,000 – with the highest figure of Rs. 26,000 in higher education, and lower figures of Rs.12,000 in secondary and Rs. 6,000 in elementary education(Table A-1.5). Table A-1.5 also presents the shares of per student total expenditures in 2007-08 in higher, secondary and elementary education as 60 percent, 26 percent and 14 percent respectively and their state-wise break-up. Further, Table A-1.6 provides the percentage shares of private expenditures in the total per student expenditure in the three levels of education in 2007-08 as 69 percent, 38 percent and 57 percent respectively.

The break-up of the components of expenditure (public and private) helps us rethink the implications on the quantum of human capital produced and how this would shape the lives and quality of youth available for the labour market, both within India and abroad. This trend becomes more revealing when the promised target of 6 percent of GDP as public spending on education, to be achieved by as far back as 1986, not only remains elusive till now but has fallen even below the Sub-Saharan African average of 3.5 percent after 2003 (See Section 1.1 and Table 1.1).

4.4: Analysis of Qualitative Decline through ISP-TSR

We have estimated the change in quality of education with the help of an index of service production, ISP-TSR, constructed through teacher-student ratio and per capita expenditure. Here too, the per student expenditure is used as the weight. The purpose of taking the teacher-student ratio in place of gross enrolment ratio is to gauge the relative impact of increased enrolment of students on quality of teaching at all levels of education in India, especially in higher education. The variable, teacher-student ratio (TSR) provides an estimate of the quality of education because ultimately what matters most in educational production function is the teaching capability of the system, the necessary condition of capability being the number of teachers.8 There are of course other factor inputs like


physical infrastructure and financial resources that affect the process of teaching and learning. What is, therefore, crucial along with increase in student enrolments is the proportional increase in the number of teachers, so as to maintain a balanced teacher-student ratio over time.

Table 1.4 referred to earlier also shows the ISP-TSR for all levels of education in 2010-11 as compared to the earlier years. The value of ISP-TSR first increased from 100 in 2007-08 to 121 in 2008-09 and then declined to 110 in 2009-10 and further went below 100, to 89, in 2010-11. The reason for the significant increase in ISP-TSR for only one year may be explained by the fact that there was not much of an increase in the denominator of TSR, i.e., the number of students enrolled in higher education from 2007-08 to 2008-09 reflected in the GER of higher education in 2008-09 (13.7percent) as compared to 2007-08 (13.1percent). The main cause of the decline in ISP-TSR in 2010-11 is the 6 percentage-points increase in GER in higher education, from 13.1 percent in 2007-08 to 19.4 percent in 2010-11, while the number of teachers did not increase in tandem in higher education. In other words, the TSR in higher education which experienced a decline from 0.04 percent in 2007-08 to 0.02 percent in 2010-11 brought the ISP-TSR down. Thus, the quality of higher education became the main casualty because of the adverse TSR, which remained sub-optimal for All-India in the face of a quantitative expansion of GER.

5. Challenges for the Youth Entering the Knowledge Economy: Gen-Y and Gen-Z

In the challenges to the formation of human capital in India for building a knowledge economy, there is a central question about the challenge of the qualitative value addition in the youth population through production of education. In the light of the present values of ISP that signal expansion amidst this challenge of youth-quality, there are contestations that go beyond the expansion measures at various levels of education.

There is a vivid regional pattern that the states of India and Union Territories have followed in terms of their values of the ISP-Education (both ISP-GER and ISP-TSR) and this will have implications on the youth entering Gen-Y and Gen-Z, e.g. on their inter-state mobility. There is an evidence of increased variability in both the ISP indices. The values of the standard deviation (SD) in ISP-TSR are higher than the values of SD in ISP-GER (2008-09 and 2010-11) (see Table 1.4). This suggests the alarming quality variations across states surpassing the quantity variations. Three bigger states of India, namely, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, in contrast to the smaller states, show both quantitative and qualitative improvements in ISP. Among the other bigger states, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have fared rather poorly, even if showing some improvements (Figure 3 and 4).9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Man

ipur

Nag

alan

d

Goa

Odi

sha

Karn

atak

a

Tam

il N

adu

Raja

stha

n

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Biha

r

Chha

ttis

garh

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Assa

m

Har

yana

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Pudu

cher

ry

Guj

arat

ALL-

INDI

A

Chan

diga

rh

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Kera

la

Punj

ab

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Del

hi

Utt

arak

hand

Trip

ura

Mah

aras

htra

Dam

an &

Diu

Jhar

khan

d

Meg

hala

ya

Wes

t Ben

gal

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Sikk

im

Miz

oram

D&

N H

avel

i

A&N

Isla

nds

Laks

hadw

eep

196

163

147

140

140

139

138

136

135

127

125

124

123

120

119

114

114

113

111

110

110

105

104

101

98

96

95

93

91

90

86

83

81

80

70

63

ISP-

GER

States/UTs

Figure 3: Values of ISP-GER at All-level of Education: 2010-11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Karn

atak

a

Dam

an &

Diu

Chan

diga

rh

Tam

il N

adu

Pudu

cher

ry

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Hary

ana

Jhar

khan

d

Kera

la

Wes

t Ben

gal

Nag

alan

d

D&N

Hav

eli

Mah

aras

htra

Biha

r

All-I

ndia

A&N

Isla

nds

ALL-

INDI

A

Delh

i

Utta

rakh

and

Wes

t Ben

gal

Utta

r Pra

desh

Guja

rat

Goa

Laks

hadw

eep

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Trip

ura

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Man

ipur

Chha

ttisg

arh

Odi

sha

Mizo

ram

Punj

ab

Assa

m

Meg

hala

ya

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Sikk

im

Raja

stha

n

302

277

271

223

212

156

127

127

126

124

109

103

100

100

96

92

89

88

85

82

79

79

77

72

70

69

67

65

65

63

62

59

57

56

52

50

43

38

ISP-

TSR

States/UTs

Figure 4: Values of ISP-TSR at All-level of Education 2010-11


The youth in Gen-Y, i.e. those born between 1980 and 2000 (see Box 1.1 and Tables 1.2 and 1.3) are facing vulnerabilities and uncertainties in the labour market. These are those who have been in higher education and/or senior secondary education, or are out of the education system in 2015.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Man

ipur

Nag

alan

d

Raja

stha

n

Arun

acha

l P

Goa

Karn

atak

a

Tam

il N

adu

Punj

ab

Odi

sha

Guj

arat

Andh

ra P

rdes

h

Assa

m

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Kera

la

Har

yana

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Chha

ttis

garh

Trip

ura

Del

hi

Utt

arak

hand

All-I

ndia

Pudu

cher

ry

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Biha

r

Dam

an &

Diu

Wes

t Ben

gal

Meg

hala

ya

Sikk

im

Mah

aras

htra

Miz

oram

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Laks

hadw

eep

D&

N H

avel

i

A&N

Isla

nds

Chan

diga

rh

Jhar

khan

d

317

285

225

214

207

197

194

185

178

171

170

168

167

165

163

158

157

157

151

150

149

138

133

125

119

114

112

111

110

109

108

100

81

73

70

70

ISP-

GER

States/UTs

Figure 5: ISP-GER in Higher Education across States and at All-India in 2010-11


The present challenges as per studies on youth, education and skilling in light of the demographic bulge have also highlighted the issues of non-participation, drop-outs and low education attainment as serious impediments to the progress of youth (Okada, 2012; Mehdi and Chaudhry, 2015). These deficiencies in the production of education have resulted in larger number of youth getting absorbed in informal labour markets (with higher vulnerabilities)¹0 in contrast to fewer highly-educated and skilled workers getting absorbed in organized formal knowledge economy (with lower vulnerabilities). The educational attainments of the vulnerable sections of the youth in Gen-Y arise from a scenario that is reflected in ISP-Education (ISP-GER and ISP-TSR) in Figures 5 and 6 respectively.

In India, the deficiencies reflected in Figures 5 and 6 have their roots also in the next lower level of education, which is the secondary schooling across states, that affects Gen-Y. These are caused by non-participation, drop-out and low qualitative attainment in the secondary school system as reflected in both the ISP indices across states depicted in the Figures 7 and 8, respectively.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Dam

an &

Diu

Karn

atak

a

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Tam

il N

adu

A&N

Isla

nds

Pudu

cher

ry

Goa

ALL-

INDI

A

Chha

ttis

garh

Utt

arak

hand

Har

yana

Nag

alan

d

Miz

oram

Chan

diga

rh

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Mah

aras

htra

Sikk

im

Laks

hadw

eep

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

D&

N H

avel

i

Man

ipur

Assa

m

Kera

la

Guj

arat

Jhar

khan

d

Trip

ura

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Biha

r

Del

hi

Odi

sha

Punj

ab

Meg

hala

ya

Raja

stha

n

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

280

275

275

177

169

157

122

103

99

82

80

78

74

73

68

67

67

67

60

60

60 5

554

51

50

40

40

39

32

29

28

27

26

23

23

16

ISP-

TSR

States/UTs

Figure 6: ISP-TSR in Higher Education across States and at All-India level in 2010-11

0

50

100

150

200

250

Biha

r

Man

ipur

Chan

diga

rh

Odi

sha

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Chha

ttis

garh

Goa

Karn

atak

a

Tam

il N

adu

Har

yana

Jhar

khan

d

Nag

alan

d

All-I

ndia

Pudu

cher

ry

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Assa

m

Raja

stha

n

Mah

aras

htra

Del

hi

Guj

arat

Meg

hala

ya

Kera

la

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Punj

ab

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Miz

oram

Utt

arak

hand

Wes

t Ben

gal

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Sikk

im

Laks

hadw

eep

Trip

ura

Anda

m &

Nic

obar

Isla

nds

Dad

ra &

Nag

ar H

avel

i

Dam

an &

Diu

200

176

153

144

140

130

123

122

121

117

111

110

109

96

92

91

88

85

81

76

71

71

67

65

63

61

57

51

49

48

44

33

33

24

20

10

ISP-

GER

States/UTs

Figure 7: ISP-GER in Secondary Education across States and at All-India level in 2010-11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Kar

nata

ka

Dam

an &

Diu

Pudu

cher

ry

Chan

diga

rh

Ker

ala

D&

N H

avel

i

Utt

arak

hand

Har

yana

Laks

hadw

eep

ALL

-IN

DIA

Trip

ura

Mah

aras

htra

And

hra

Prad

esh

Chha

ttis

garh

Goa

Bih

ar

Miz

oram

Aru

nach

al P

rade

sh

Guj

arat

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Man

ipur

Tam

il N

adu

Odi

sha

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Raj

asth

an

Punj

ab

Wes

t B

enga

l

Ass

am

Sikk

im

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Nag

alan

d

Jhar

khan

d

Meg

hala

ya

Del

hi

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

And

ama

&N

agar

Isla

nds

587

450

303

181

181

154

142

115

111

101

100

97

80

74

73

65

63

57 5

755

55

49

48

48

35

33

33

29

28

28

28

27

27

26

25

21

ISP-

TSR

States/UTs

Figure 8:ISP-TSR in Secondary Education across States and All-India level in 2010-11


Just like the deficiencies in the higher education level are connected with those in the secondary school system, the deficiencies in the latter are in turn also partly rooted in the preceding lower level of education, i.e. elementary schooling, which affects Gen-Z, reflected in the Figures 9 and 10.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Dam

an &

Diu

Dad

ra &

Nag

ar H

avel

i

Pudu

cher

ry

Assa

m

Anda

ma

&N

icob

ar Is

land

s

Chan

diga

rh

Goa

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Trip

ura

Raja

stha

n

Meg

hala

ya

Chha

ttis

garh

Tam

il N

adu

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Utt

arak

hand

Karn

atak

a

Kera

la

Guj

arat

Jhar

khan

d

Odi

sha

All-I

ndia

Mah

aras

htra

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Sikk

im

Man

ipur

Har

yana

Nag

alan

d

Miz

oram

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Del

hi

Jam

mu

& K

ahm

ir

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Punj

ab

Biha

r

Laks

hadw

eep

156

139

126

116

116

114

111

109

107

106

106

103

102

101

101

99

99

99

98

98

98

97

96

96

95

94

94

90

88

86

85

83

82

80

77

68

ISP-

GER

States/UTs

Figure 9: ISP-GER in Elementary Education across States and All-India level in 2010-11


It is imperative to have a deeper understanding of the reasons why the Gen-Y and Gen-Z youth of India are faced with the vulnerabilities of the labour market in knowledge economies because of the above cited deficiencies at various levels of education in India. Perhaps acknowledging and recognising the fact that none of these generations are homogenous groups would provide important insights into this. They are heterogeneous on various socio-economic and regional diversities, cutting across gender, caste, tribe, religion and so on. Some of these diversities can be incorporated in ISP-Education if the relevant data on variables like GER, TSR, and PCE are available by these categories. For example, some data are available on GER by caste, tribe and gender as presented in Figure 11. This graph shows curious variations across categories which need to be explored and analysed seriously by constructing separate indices for each of the heterogeneous categories.

This would help us gauge the extent of the uneven distribution of labour market vulnerabilities faced by different categories of youth in India. The precondition for undertaking such an exploration would be the availability of relevant data on the required variables.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Chan

diga

rh

Tam

il N

adu

Jhar

khan

d

Wes

t Ben

gal

Nag

alan

d

Del

hi

Biha

r

Utt

ar P

rade

sh

Har

yana

Pudu

cher

ry

Mad

hya

Prad

esh

Kera

la

Mah

aras

htra

Guj

arat

Andh

ra P

rade

sh

Jam

mu

& K

ashm

ir

Punj

ab

Odi

sha

Meg

hala

ya

Dam

an &

Diu

Dad

ra &

Nag

ar H

avel

i

Anda

ma

& N

icob

ar Is

land

s

Assa

m

Man

ipur

Arun

acha

l Pra

desh

Trip

ura

ALL-

INDI

A

Raja

stha

n

Laks

hadw

eep

Karn

atak

a

Miz

oram Goa

Sikk

im

Utt

arak

hand

Him

acha

l Pra

desh

Chha

ttis

garh

558

442

313

272

222

208

202

191

186

175

166

145

136

130

114

114

110

109

105

100

95

86

84

84

80

67

61

57

47

43

40

37

35

31

26

17

ISP-

TSR

States/UTs

Figure 10: ISP-TSR in Elementary Education across States and All-India in2010-11


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Elementary – All

Elementary- SC

Elementary- ST

Secondary -All

Secondary -SC

Secondary -ST

Higher - All Higher - SC Higher - ST

104

117

119

48

52

37

18

12

10

105

117

121

56

57

45

21

15

13

104

117

120

52

55

42

19

14

11G

ROSS

EN

ROLM

ENT

RATI

O (%

)

LEVELS OF EDUCATION FOR ALL POPULATION, SCHEDULED CASTE (SC) AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (ST) POPULATION

Figure 11:Gross Enrolment Ratios (GER) for Boys and Girls by Level of Education and Sched uled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and All Population.

Boys

Girls

Total


CONCLUDING REMARKS

In a globalised world, along with other services, educational services in India have also been expanding. In comparison to the other countries and the world as a whole, India has a comparative advantage of youth population at present as well as projected until the middle of the twenty-first century. In 2025, India would have the highest number and share of youth population of Gen-Z, defined as those born in the decade 2000-10, in its total population. From the perspective of service-led growth that characterizes the present day Indian economy, the magnitude of the services produced in education has so far remained un-estimated. The ISP indices provide estimates of the national and state-wise snapshots of change in the volume and quality of the services produced in education - comprehensively for all levels of education as well as for disaggregated levels, viz. elementary, secondary and higher education education across specified time. The implication of the change in composition of educational expenditure - public vs. private - for quality of education poses further challenges of equity and efficiency that would characterize the role of the youth in leading the much acclaimed bandwagon of India’s demographic dividend to its destination.

It is also important to point out that Gen-Y and Gen-Z have certain proportions of students who are potentially excluded and, therefore, fall under the category of “out-of-education” or “out of school”. This happens along with the parallel exclusion on account of low quality of education at the disposal of students. What this results in are labour market exclusions in the forms of vulnerable and uncertain jobs that young people accept either voluntarily or involuntarily because of their inadequate skills. This high-potential and yet excluded population would re-size the quantum of the expected demographic dividend, thus shortchanging the comparative advantage that India aspires to have over other countries in a globalizing world..

In India, in the 21st century, there is a clear thrust of the Central and State Governments to invest more public resources as well as to encourage more private investment in the production of education services. As India has a higher proportion of youth population of Gen-Y and Gen-Z worldwide, the country is trying to tap this demographic potential in producing quality graduates at different levels of education for supplying to the national and the international labour markets. On the one hand, the number of students has increased over time, which is reflected in the higher values of ISP-GER - a quantity index. Concurrently, the values of the ISP-TSR - a quality index, have declined. The lesson to be drawn is that there ought to be a complementarity between the larger number of students coming out of the education system and their quality in terms of standards acceptable to the economy, society and industry, thereby satisfying both internal and external efficiency norms of the educational production function. Only then would the sustainability of the demographic dividend for building a knowledge economy in the 21st century be assured.


It needs to be mentioned, however, that the exercise has more of methodological value than applied value for immediate policy making because the data used were dated. Moreover, the ideal Index of Service Production in Education would be the one based on educational completion rather than educational enrolment of students. Until appropriate and adequate data are available, the enrolment data serves only as the second-best choice, although even here up-to-date data would be more insightful for policy applications. Having been conscious of these two limitations, conditions, similar exercises may still be emulated in other countries, one by one, so as to derive a global picture of human capital formation through formal education. For India, it would be useful to adapt the methodological experiments carried out in Australia, and thereby consolidate the due claim of the education sector in the national agenda of human capital formation and global partnership on skill development and youth empowerment in the two countries. Going one step further, they could be fine-tuned with the post-2015 global agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while realizing the ACOLA (2015) recommendations on Australia’s so-called “smart engagement” with Asia.


Endnotes

1. According to the Economic Survey 2015-16, the services export from India constitutes 7.5 per cent of the GDP, making India the 8th largest services exporter in the world (GOI, 2016). The focus of the present Indian government has been on the policy initiatives to boost services export. Recently, this was showcased in the Global Exhibition on Services (GES), organized by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 20-30 April, 2016. In this exhibition, education also appeared as one of the focused areas of importance in the services sector.

2. Majumdar (1983) questioned the by-then established analogy of educational institutions to firms in production of goods and services and students as the output prevalent in economics of education, which he found deceptive and grossly inadequate. He criticized the assumption of homogeneity of goods and services of the mainline economics applied in the economics of education, presenting and highlighting different heterogeneities that are normally prevalent in the education sector. He further argued that many concepts of mainline economics were forcefully transported into economics of education even when the analogies travelled rather poorly.

3. Following the long standing practices of constructing the Index of Industrial Production (IIP), the Government of India had decided, in July 2004, to construct an Index of Service Production (ISP). The task of compiling various ISPs in the services sector was given to the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI). To deliberate upon and finalize all the aspects of methodology and data collection and provide the requisite technical guidance, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was constituted. The sectors that the TAC took up initially for developing suitable methodologies and compile the test indices were Air Transport, Rail Transport, Postal services, Banking, Insurance, Post and Telecommunication (GOI, 2011b).Subsequently, health and education sectors were also incorporated and, in December 2013, a Sub-committee on Index of Service Production for Education Sector was formed with experts from the field of education under the chairmanship of Professor Binod Khadria. The authors of this report are are grateful to the members of the

Sub-committee as well as the officials of the Ministry for making available some of the relevant data.

4. No attempt has been made to date to address this inverse perspective of education contributing GDP in the discourses in India, although there has been some discussion on the inter-linkages between universities and industiries for economic growth in various countries including India. See for example, Nabeshima (2007).

5. Whereas GDP is the value of all final goods and services produced within the territory of a country in a given year, the GNP is the value of all final goods and services produced by the nationals/citizens of any given country irrespective of their location, whether inside or outside the territory of the country.

6. Remittances would, at best, be a poor proxy of these contributions of the Indian youth from abroad to the Indian economy because they would still not be very accurate estimates in the construction of the GNP. In the context of the GATS negotiations particularly, we perhaps need to move beyond inward and outward remittances, and explore the new frontiers of estimating the contribution of the expatriate youth to the host country’s GDP. The ISP-Education would serve as the first step towards formalizing such a move.

7. The compilation of the ISP in the manual of OECD (2007) has classified education services in Division 80, which covers public as well as private education at any level of educational services. Another classification of education is provided by WTO (1998), which has been detailed in Appendix Box 1.1 & 1.2.

8. The capability, for being effective would, however, require the “sufficient condition” of teacher quality, which is not within the scope of this paper.

9. It is interesting to see that the other bigger but underdeveloped states, such as, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Assam have their ISP-GER ranks not too low at 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th positions. However, their ISP-TSR ranks are both low and diverse with Rajasthan at 35th rank, Bihar at 14th rank, Chhattisgarh at 27th, Uttar Pradesh at 18th rank, and Assam at 31st rank.

10. See Cuervo et al (2013), for the nature of these vulnerabilities in the context of the Australian youth.


REFERENCES

ACOLA (2015). Smart Engagement with Asia: Leveraging Language, Research and Culture, Report of the Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne.

Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 70, No.2, pp. 9-49.

Ben-Porath, Y. (1967). The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle of Earnings. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 352-65.

Bowman, M. J. (1966). The Human Investment Revolution in Economic Thought. Sociology of Education, Vol. 39 , pp. 111-37.

Cuervo, H., J. Crofts and J. Wyn (2013). Generational Insights into New Labour Market Landscapes for Youth, Research Report 41, Youth Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, December.

Chavoix-Mannato, M. and Hong, E.P. (2000). Index of Industrial Production: Summary of Practices in OECD Countries, presented at the Workshop on Key Economic Indicators, 22-25 May, 2000.

Government of India (2000). Ambani, M., & Birla, K. A Report on a Policy Framework for Reforms in Education, A Special Group on Policy for Private Investment in Education, Health and Rural Development. New Delhi: Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and Industry, GOI.

Government of India (2008). Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan, Social Sector, Volume - II, 2007-2012. New Delhi: The Planning Commission, GOI.

Government of India (2010). Education in India: 2007-08, Participation and Expenditure, NSS 64th Round, (July 2007 – June 2008), National Sample Survey Office, National Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, GOI, May.

Government of India (2011a). Statistics of Higher & Technical Education 2009-10,Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2011b). A Note on Index of Service Production, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Central Statistics Office, November, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2012a). Statistics of School Education 2010-11, Bureau of Planning, Monitoring & Statistics, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2012b). All India Survey on Higher Education 2010-11, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2013a). Planning Commission, Twelfth Five Year Plan, Social Sectors, Volume III, 2012-2017. New Delhi: The Planning Commission, GOI.

Government of India (2013b). Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2009-10 to 2011-12,Planning & Monitoring Unit, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2013c). All India Survey on Higher Education 2011-12, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.


Government of India (2014a). All India Survey on Higher Education 2012-13, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2014b). Statistics of School Education 2011-12, Bureau of Planning, Monitoring & Statistics, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2014c). Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education 2010-11 to 2012-13,Planning & Monitoring Unit, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2015). Economic Survey 2014-15, Ministry of Finance, GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India (2016). Economic Survey 2015-16. GOI, New Delhi.

Government of India ,Ministry of Commerce and Industry, (2016). Global Exhibition on Services. Accessed on April 24 April 2016, 2016, from www.gesdelhi.in: http://www.gesdelhi.in/education.html , GOI.

India Youth Development Index 2010. (2011). Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Youth Development: Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu.

Kothari Commission, (1970). Report of Education Commission, 1964-66. Reprinted by National Council of Educational Research and Training: New Delhi.

Khadria, B. (1992). GATT Multilateralism, Cross Retaliation and India’s Comparative Advantage in Manpower Services. MDI Management Journal, Volume 5, no. 2, pp. 121-26.

Majumdar, T. (1983). Investment in Education and Social Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mehdi, A., & Chaudhry, D. (2015). Human Capital

Potential of India’s Future Workforce Working Paper 308, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations: New Delhi.

MHRD (1968). National Policy on Education-1968. Department of Education. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/NPE-1968.pdf

MHRD, Department of Education (1998). National Policy on Education 1986 as modified in 1992. Government of India,Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI.

MHRD (1999). Expert Group Report on Financial Requirements for Making Elelmentary Education a Fundemental Right (Chairman Tapas Majumdar). New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development, GOI.

Nabeshima, S. Y. (2007). How Universities Promote Economic Growth. Washington DC: World Bank.

OECD (2007) Compilation Manual for an Index of Service Production (ISP), Paris.

Okada, A. (2012). Skills Development for Youth in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, Vol. 12 , No. 2, pp. 169-193.

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review, Vol.51, pp. 1-17.

World Bank. (2011). Poverty and Social Exclusion in India. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.

The World Bank (2016). World Development Indicators 2015. Washington DC: The World Bank.

WTO (1998). Background Note by the Secretariat on Education Services. World Trade Organisation: Geneva.


APPENDICESBox 1.1: Five Sub-Divisions of Education by OECD

Class Description Explanation Preferred variable Alternate Variable

Other

Primary Education Includes pre-primary education and primary education at the first level), special education for handicapped students at this level, and the provisions of the literacy programmes or handicapped adults (excludes child day care activities)

Gross turnover deflated by appropriate quality adjusted price indices: levels of education adjusted by CPI. Volume indicator: Pupil hours by level of education

Number of pupil level of education

Employment

8021 General Secondary Education

Includes general school education in the first stage of secondary level corresponding more or less to the period of compulsory school attendance, general school education in the second stage of level, giving in-principle access to higher education, and special education of handicapped students at this level


Number of pupils up to schooleaving age, pass school leaving age and handicapped pupil

Employment

8022 Technical And Vocational Secondary Education

Includes technical and vocational education below the level of higher education and special education for handicapped students at this level


Number of pupil in technical education, vocational education handicapped pupil in technical and vocational education

Employment

8030 Higher Education Includes first, second and third stages of higher education, i.e., post-secondary education either leading to a university degree (or equivalent) or not, and special education for handicapped students at this level

Gross turnover deflated by appropriate quality- adjusted price indices: levels of education adjusted by CPI. Volume indicator: student hours by level of education

Number of students in university degree courses: Medical and science arts and courses not leading to a degree

Employment

8090 Other Education Includes adult education such as day and evening classes, driving and flying schools art and cooking schools, general and vocational subjects and other education i.e., not definable by level.(excludes activities of dance schools and instructions in sport and games)

Gross turnover deflated by appropriate quality adjusted price indices: types of classes adjusted by CPI. Volume indicator: student hours by types of classes

Number of students in day and evening classes, driving license, business training courses, art courses and cookery courses etc.

Employment


Box 1.2: Classification of Educational Services by WTO

Sectoral Classification List

Relevant CPC No. Definition/coverage in provisional CPC

A. Primary education services

921 Preschool education services: Pre-primary school education services. Such education services are usually provided by nursery schools, kindergartens, or special sections attached to primary schools, and aim primarily to intoduce very young children to anticipated school-type environment. Exclusion: Child day-care services are classified in subclass 93321.Other primary education services: Other primary school education services at the first level. Such education services are intended to give the students a basic education in diverse subjects, and are characterized by a relatively low specialization level. Exclusion: Services related to the provision of literacy programmes for adults are classified in subclass 92400 (Adult education services n.e.c.).

B. Secondary education services

922 General secondary education services: General school education services at the second level, first stage. Such education services consist of education that continues the basic programmes taught at the primary education level, but usually on a more subject-oriented pattern and with some beginning specialization.Technical and vocational secondary education services: Technical and vocational education services below the university level. Such education services consist of programmes emphasizing subject-matter specialization d instruction in both theoretical and practical skills. They usually apply to specific professions.Technical and vocational secondary school-type education services for handicapped students: Technical and vocational secondary school-type education services specially designed to meet the possibilities and needs of handicapped students below the university level.

C. Higher education services

923 Post-secondary, technical and vocational education services: Post-secondary, sub-degree technical and vocational education services. Such education services consist of a great variety of subject-matter programmes. They emphasize teaching of practical skills, but also involve substantial theoretical background instruction.Other higher education services: Education services leading to a university degree or equivalent. Such education services are provided by universities or specialized professional schools. The programmes not only emphasize theoretical instruction, but also research training aiming to prepare students for participation in original work.

D. Adult education 924 Adult education services n.e.c: Education services for adults who are not in the regular school and university stem. Such education services may be provided in day or evening classes by schools or by special institutions for adult education. Included are education services through radio or television broadcasting or by correspondence. The programmes may cover both general and vocational subjects. Services related to literacy programmes for adults are also included. Exclusion: Higher education services provided within the regular education system are classified in subclass 92310 (Post-secondary technical and vocational education services) or 92390 (Other higher education services).

E. Other education services

929 Other education services: Education services at the first and second levels in specific subject matters not elsewhere classified, and all other education services that are not definable by level. Exclusions: Education services primarily concerned with recreational matters are classified in class 9641 (Sporting services). Education services provided by governess or tutors employed by private households are classified in subclass 98000 (Private households with employed persons).


Box 1.3: Categories of Educational Enrolment Enrolment, by Source of DataS.No. Categories of

Educational Enrolment

Sub-categories of variables

Source of Data

1. Elementary Education Enrolment in Regular ClassesI-VIII

School Education Statistics (SES), Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)

Adult Education for few years

MHRD

2. Secondary Education Enrolment in Regular ClassesIX-XII

SES, MHRD

Enrolment in Open Schools and Industrial Technical and Art and Craft Institutes.

SES, MHRD

3. Higher Education General and Professional Certificate, Diploma, Undergraduate, Postgraduate and PhD Courses in Polytechniques, Colleges, Institutes and Universities

Higher and Technical Education Statistics (HTE), MHRD

Box 1.4: Categories of Educational Expenditure Expenditure, by Source of DataS.No. Categories of Expenditure

in Different levels of Education

Sub-categories of variables Source of Data

1. Private and Public Expenditure in Elementary Education

Budget Expenditure in Elementary Education and Adult Education

Analysis of Budget Expenditure, MHRD

Private Expenditure in Primary and Middle Classes

National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)

2. Private and Public Expenditure in Secondary Education

Budget Expenditure in Secondary Education


Private Expenditure in Secondary Education

National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)

3. Private and Public Expenditure in Higher Education

Budget Expenditure in University and Higher Education and Technical Education


Private Expenditure in General Education Above Higher Secondary Education, and Professional Education

National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO)


Box 1.5: Categories of Teachers, by Source of DataS.No. Categories of

Teachers in Different Levels of Education

Sub-categories of variables

Source of Data Gaps

1. Number of Teachers in Elementary Education

Number of Teachers in Classes I - VIII

SES, MHRD Available for 2007-08 to 2010-2011

2. Number of Teachers in Secondary Education

Number of Teachers in Classes IX-XII

SES, MHRD Available for 2007-08 to 2010-2011

3. Number of Teachers in Higher Education

Number of Teachers in the Higher Educational Institutions

HTES, MHRD Available for 2007-08 to 2010-2011

Box 1.6: Categories by Age-Groups in Different Levels of Education, by Source of DataS.No. Categories of Age-Groups in Different

levels of EducationSources of Data

1. 6-14 Years Age-group in Elementary Education

SES, MHRD

2. 14-18 Years Age-group in Secondary Education

SES, MHRD

3. 18-24 Years Age-group in Higher Education

SES and HTES, MHRD

Table A-1.5: Per Capita Expenditure in Elementary, Secondary and Higher Education in States/Union Territories and All-India, 2007-08 (in Rupees)

States/Union Territories

Per capita in elementary education

Per capita in secondary education

Per capita in higher education

Total Per capita

% Elementary education 2007-08

% Secondary education 2007-08

% Higher education 2007-08

A&N Islands 16703 25048 27569 69320 24 36 40

Andhra Pradesh

6122 9236 23532 38890 16 24 61

Arunachal Pradesh

10534 14889 16783 42206 25 35 40

Assam 5351 14900 26899 47150 11 32 57

Bihar 3910 8351 31666 43926 9 19 72

Chandigarh 18102 26991 60349 105442 17 26 57

Chhattisgarh 4335 6834 21322 32491 13 21 66

D&N Haveli 6069 9984 27024 43077 14 23 63

Daman & Diu 9228 15846 35174 60247 15 26 58

Delhi 13144 21869 29059 64072 21 34 45

Goa 8669 32253 68947 109869 8 29 63

Gujarat 6611 13555 19276 39443 17 34 49

Haryana 11227 14719 34679 60625 19 24 57

Himachal Pradesh

14020 15645 22960 52625 27 30 44

Jammu & Kashmir

8225 19549 27092 54865 15 36 49

Jharkhand 4716 9257 23190 37163 13 25 62

Karnataka 7396 11481 29759 48636 15 24 61

Kerala 10353 15014 32227 57593 18 26 56

Lakshadweep 3400 60350 172080 235830 1 26 73

Madhya Pradesh

3634 5966 19048 28648 13 21 66

Maharashtra 7965 15097 25072 48134 17 31 52

Manipur 11146 15086 37722 63954 17 24 59

Meghalaya 6356 16368 19731 42455 15 39 46

Mizoram 12230 19774 24694 56698 22 35 44

Nagaland 16786 23628 27480 67894 25 35 40

Odisha 4889 8919 30575 44382 11 20 69

Puducherry 10466 14909 35899 61274 17 24 59

Punjab 10185 27147 34682 72014 14 38 48

Rajasthan 6342 12073 22144 40559 16 30 55

Sikkim 13985 51984 31321 97290 14 53 32

Tamil Nadu 7171 11572 29516 48259 15 24 61

Tripura 6853 22696 24401 53951 13 42 45

Uttar Pradesh 2945 4129 17362 24436 12 17 71

Uttarakhand 46150 56666 67126 169942 27 33 39

West Bengal 5749 17215 25687 48652 12 35 53

All-India 6153 11602 26234 43989 14 26 60


Table A-1.6: Percentage Shares of Private Per Capita Expenditure in Total Per Capita Expenditure at Elementary, Secondary and Higher Education in States/Union Territories and All-India, 2007-08

States/Union Territories % of Private per capita expenditure in Elementary Education

% of Private per capita expenditure in Secondary Education

% of Private per capita expenditure in Higher Education

A&N Islands 34.50 22.00 24.99

Andhra Pradesh 60.26 45.41 65.27

Arunachal Pradesh 32.87 19.25 39.20

Assam 46.48 26.62 37.35

Bihar 46.52 42.80 69.42

Chandigarh 71.53 70.43 80.69

Chhattisgarh 36.03 31.90 63.42

D&N Haveli 37.91 36.34 40.40

Daman & Diu 60.02 35.45 10.29

Delhi 78.74 40.88 81.09

Goa 45.40 14.64 63.76

Gujarat 53.18 40.51 58.94

Haryana 68.76 47.43 61.39

Himachal Pradesh 41.69 34.66 59.45

Jammu & Kashmir 67.65 31.68 72.51

Jharkhand 48.37 39.48 60.35

Karnataka 41.47 32.40 67.29

Kerala 56.04 28.64 45.86

Lakshadweep 35.71 1.77 4.46

Madhya Pradesh 61.72 57.58 68.60

Maharashtra 51.43 27.54 76.04

Manipur 66.14 40.91 47.99

Meghalaya 60.20 25.71 46.98

Mizoram 41.55 20.57 31.33

Nagaland 60.29 34.98 45.62

Odisha 47.05 39.93 55.27

Puducherry 54.96 26.40 39.58

Punjab 83.67 26.64 73.01

Rajasthan 60.50 38.07 74.60

Sikkim 29.79 8.15 71.36

Tamil Nadu 58.73 31.24 69.34

Tripura 55.57 26.06 68.26

Uttar Pradesh 93.27 83.63 95.16

Uttarakhand 10.19 8.37 31.20

West Bengal 65.95 36.50 65.09

All-India 56.90 37.50 69.06

Find out more about the YRC at http://education.unimelb.edu.au/yrc

Youth Research CentreMelbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of Melbourne VIC 3010http://education.unimelb.edu.au/yrc

@YRCunimelb

index of service production in education · of an index of service production in education the...

Documents