*** The World Bank’s chief economist has an advice for developing countries — reexamine spending priorities (e.g. build one less power plant) and put what is saved into women's education. The returns, he assures, will be so much higher ***
WOULD you rather that your government build a power plant than spend for the education of girls and women?
Considering the urgency of energy needs in many developing countries, the answer could very well be yes.
But Lawrence Summers, chief economist of the World Bank, thinks otherwise.
In a policy research paper, a brief of which was published by the World Bank. Mr Sum mers compares investing on women’s education not only with other social investments but also with investing in economic development projects.
His conclusion Is that promoting female education "could be the one investment with the highest return in the developing world.'
For example, education has a direct impact on earning capability. Mr Summers cites World Bank research which show that each additional year of schooling for both women and men raises their wages by 10 to 20 per cent.
Each year of schooling also pulls down fertility rates by 5 to 10 per cent, he notes. Estimates are that a US$30,000 Investment In educating 1,000 women would prevent 500 births, while a typical family planning programme — spending US$65 to prevent one birth — would accomplish the same for US$33,OOO. Thus on family planning grounds alone, spending for women's education is already justified, says Mr Summers.
Other estimates show that an additional year of schooling for 1,000 women will prevent three maternal deaths This benefit does not include the other benefits brought about by a greater knowledge of health care, which women with some education are more likely to be able to acquire
As for the comparison with Investment in power gene fa
tlon, Mr Summers estimates that developing countries will spend about US$1 trillion on building power plants over the next 10 years. However, because of poor maintenance and poor pricing, many of these plants will have a capacity utilisation of less than 50 per cent.
Overall, as found from a sample of 57 countries, the return on the physical assets of power plants has been estimated at less than 4 per cent over the past three years and less than 6 per cent over the last decade.
These returns, says Mr Summers, "do not come close to those of providing education for females." He thus finds it "hard to believe that building only 19 of every 20 planned power plants and using the savings to finance educational opportunity for girls would not be desirable." The primary reason for in creasing the outlay for women's education Is of course the women themselves, among whom a "general pattern of deprivation" is observed Symptomatic of such deprivation is the fact that “as many as
ing," because of the higher death rates among young girls compared to boys.
Itather than viewing ft as a consequence of poverty or as something that is dictated by culture or religion, underIn vestment in women should be seen as "an economic problem that results from a vicious cycle of distorted Incentives." says Mr Summers.
Education, he stresses, is what will free women from this "cycle of neglect." This, in turn, will "transform society over time.'
“If a larger fraction of girls had gone to school a generation ago, millions of Infant deaths could have been averted and tens of millions of families could have been healthier and happier," goes the reSearch brief.
Mr Summers gives specific suggestions as to how the edu; cation of girts arid worffo^ can, be enhanced, from giving them free books to extending scholarship grants.
Adjustments should also be made to respond to cultural and practical concerns, such as situating schools more accessibly, providing appropriate sanitation facilities and hiring more female teachers. Flexible school hours and the provision of care for younger siblings might also help.
— Depthnews Asia