scholarly journals Journal of the History of Economic Thought Preprints - Economic Analysis of Education in Post-War America: New insights from Theodore Schultz and John Kenneth Galbraith

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
alexandre CHIRAT ◽  
Le Chapelain Charlotte

Human capital theory has suffered much criticism. The filter theory of education (Arrow 1973), the theory of education as a “signal” (Spence 1973) and the theory of “screening” (Stiglitz 1975), for instance, have seriously challenged it from within mainstream economics, and heavy criticism has also come from other paradigms, with Bailly (2016) recently documenting the critique from the radical school. Within this set of ideas that flourished in the post-WWII period and challenged human capital theory, John Kenneth Galbraith’s analysis of the dynamics of the education process is often neglected. In his original institutionalist and firm-based approach to the evolution of education, Galbraith placed great emphasis on the issue of the requirements of the planning system when he tackled the issue of human capital investment. More surprisingly – since he is unanimously recognized as the “founding father” of the “human capital revolution” – Theodore Schultz himself developed a substantial critique of human capital theory that shares some ground with Galbraith’s. The aim of this contribution is to provide new insights into the history of post-WWII ideas in the field of economics of education by reviewing Schultz’s and Galbraith’s respective analyses of education and highlighting their proximities. Both authors raise doubts regarding the idea that the aggregation of individual choices must be regarded as the relevant generative mechanism of the dynamic of education and the basis of the allocation of education resources. Consequently, both question the equivocal concept of student sovereignty.

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-78
Author(s):  
Alexandre Chirat ◽  
Charlotte Le Chapelain

Human capital theory has suffered much criticism. The filter theory of education (Arrow 1973), the theory of education as a “signal” (Spence 1973), and the theory of “screening” (Stiglitz 1975), for instance, have seriously challenged it from within mainstream economics, and heavy criticism has also come from other paradigms, with Franck Bailly (2016) recently documenting the critique from the radical school. Within this set of ideas that flourished in the post-WW II period and challenged human capital theory, John Kenneth Galbraith’s analysis of the dynamics of the education process is often neglected. In his original institutionalist and firm-based approach to the evolution of education, Galbraith placed great emphasis on the issue of the requirements of the planning system when he tackled the issue of human capital investment. More surprisingly—since he is unanimously recognized as the “founding father” of the “human capital revolution”—Theodore Schultz himself developed a substantial critique of human capital theory that shares some ground with Galbraith’s. The aim of this contribution is to provide new insights into the history of post-WW II ideas in the field of economics of education by reviewing Schultz’s and Galbraith’s respective analyses of education and highlighting their proximities. Both authors raise doubts regarding the idea that the aggregation of individual choices must be regarded as the relevant generative mechanism of the dynamic of education and the basis of the allocation of education resources. Consequently, both question the equivocal concept of student sovereignty.


2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franck Bailly

The economics of education gradually became institutionalized in the period following the Second World War. Human capital theory was the central pillar in this process. Nevertheless, it did not go unchallenged. The first challenges came from within the mainstream itself, but economists affiliated to other paradigms also called human capital theory into question. This applied in particular to the work of the radical economists. The aim of this article is to document this critical episode in the history of ideas in the economics of education. To that end, the nature of the radical economists’ critique is examined and it is shown how it connects to human capital theory.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Gillies

State Education as High-Yield Investment: Human Capital Theory in European Policy DiscourseHuman Capital Theory has been an increasingly important phenomenon in economic thought over the last 50 years. The central role it affords to education has become even more marked in recent years as the concept of the ‘knowledge economy’ has become a global concern. In this paper, the prevalence of Human Capital Theory within European educational policy discourse is explored. The paper examines a selection of policy documents from a number of disparate European national contexts and considers the extent to which the ideas of Human Capital Theory can be seen to be influential. In the second part of the paper, the implications of Human Capital Theory for education are considered, with a particular focus on the possible ramifications at a time of economic austerity. In problematizing Human Capital Theory, the paper argues that it risks offering a diminished view of the person, a diminished view of education, but that with its sole focus on economic goals leaves room for educationists and others to argue for the educational, social, and moral values it ignores, and for the conception of the good life and good society it fails to mention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Babacar NDIAYE

It has been acknowledged for a long time that labour factor quality plays a significant role in the process of economic growth. The human capital theory that gained prominence notably with the works of Schultz (1961) and Becker (1964) underline that the knowledge gained by people is crucial to society, for education is an investment and a tool for improving productivity. The objective of this paper is to propose, in the neoclassical vision, a critical analysis of the developments and controversies surrounding human capital investment


Author(s):  
Tristram Hooley

This chapter analyses the relationship between career development, education, and human capital theory. It argues that education lies at the heart of our understanding of how individuals develop their careers and how purposeful career development interventions can support them in this endeavour. Career development services are most evident and accessible in the education system. This relationship is not accidental but is rooted in both the historical development of the field and in the importance of human capital theory to the ideology of both education and career development. The chapter finishes by critiquing the dependence of policymakers and advocates for the field on human capital theory and by considering alternative relationships that could be built between education and career development.


Author(s):  
Stefan Schmid ◽  
Sebastian Baldermann

AbstractIn this paper, we study the effect a CEO’s international work experience has on his or her compensation. By combining human capital theory with a resource dependence and a resource-based perspective, we argue that international work experience translates into higher pay. We also suggest that international work experience comprises several dimensions that affect CEO compensation: duration, timing and breadth of stays abroad. With data from Europe’s largest stock market firms, we provide evidence that the longer the international work experiences and the more numerous they are, the higher a CEO’s compensation. While, based on our theoretical arguments, we expect to find that later international work experiences pay off for CEOs, our empirical analysis shows that earlier international work experiences are particularly valuable in terms of compensation. In addition, our data support the argument that maturity allows a CEO to take advantage of the skills, knowledge and competencies obtained via international experience—and to receive a higher payoff. With our study, we improve the understanding of how different facets of a CEO’s background shape executive remuneration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document