It is possible that there is not reverse causality in Qatar, as Step 1 in your process is effectively "bring in a lot of skilled people who were educated elsewhere." As such, education is still driving the GDP growth, it is just that it isn't education that happened in Qatar that Qataries got themselves. Qatar isn't a closed system by any stretch, and the average years of education of workers in Qatar probably spiked as all those foreign skilled workers came in.
That said, if you include the source countries' GDP changes over time in the calculation I wouldn't be surprised to find that GDP and years of education suggest that there isn't much effect. Qatar benefitted in getting very specifically usefully educated people; they were probably not importing many grievance studies majors to run their oil fields.
I'm under the impression Stalin's investments in physics education did pay dividends in rocket/nuclear technology. It still wasn't as effective as America's more free market system, but the physics education investments did have real returns.
Until you tell me that, I cannot tell you the Soviet return on education. What did they give up in order to get rocket/nuclear tech?
That fact that the ordinary Soviet citizen would have probably spent their share of the money on something else, like bread, suggests that the actual return was negative.
Well, that's the right reasoning if the private recipient of education captures all or most of the benefit.
If most of the benefit goes to the general public, it can make sense to give people more education than they would privately have chosen to consume.
(The Case Against Education makes the point that in richer, freer countries the private recipient of education captures more than 100% of the benefits, ie the public benefits are negative.)
I feel like the conclusion drawn from the analysis of Qatar can’t be applied to all places at all times. We know long run growth essentially comes down to two things, total factor productivity growth and changes in birth rates. We know that increases in education are associated with decreases in birth rates, which I don’t think does much to explain changes in economic fortune in prior to 1900 since it is more associated with the education of women. I do think if you are discussing societies at a technological frontier, like Britain in 1750, completely nixing education will likely have a negative effect on the ability to innovate long term.
But even if the actual education will be a waste, what will be the long term value to Qatar from the increased degree signaling as well as tuition paid by international students?
As I taught some years at King Saud University - "the highest ranking in the Arab/Muslim world" - build under the highest fixed-price building contract of its time - I can fully agree: Total. Waste.
It may keep the young men busy - but then they are busy with their PS5 anyway.
Yikes! I think we should have a flatter tax rate and no deduction for mortgage interest. Yet, when I had a mortgage, I took the deduction. By your standards, I think that makes me a fraud, right?
But if you thought mortgage was a way to steal form the tax payers AND you started a mortgage company to precisely to do that AND you believed that mortgages shouldn't even exist in the first place (because they were useless) AND you defended it on the basis "mortgage business is good for me but not for the tax payer", then yes, that'd make you a hypocritical fraud.
A fraud is not someone pointing out the fraud. Caplan is paid to do economic research and publish the results honestly. He does (sure, he might be wrong at times - though he is not in this post). The fraudsters are those who know, but pretend otherwise. Glad we both agree, he got the facts right.
Caplan is primarily paid to teach undergraduates, which by his own admission is ineffective and wasteful.
He is no different from someone who sells snake oil and then turns around claims with glee that his product is really a useless gimmick on his blog. Actually worse than a regular snake oil salesman because he again pockets tax payer money to fund his fraudulent business.
Again, he is not "turning around", but saying it clear and upfront. If he resigned, his post would just be taken by s.o. either too blind or dishonest to see the truth and speak it. So, Caplan uses what little he can to convince the students and broader public. So the government stops paying tax dollars on wasteful education - at least reduces it to sth like paying for a K6 education for all and then people pay-out-of-pocket. Maybe even pay for a seminar with Dr. Caplan. Who at that time would be celebrated as the most honest professor ever. :D Again: One is not a fraudster if one believes it. And one is not telling a lie when one is telling the truth. So, back to arguing why K12 for all and subsidised degrees for gender-studies are worth to pay taxes for.
An exact analogue of George Costanza's "it's not a lie if you believe it."
Again you are not addressing the central point:
Caplan is selling and getting paid for "a product" that he doesn't believe in, that he argues is ineffective, that he thinks is a "corruption of tax payer money" and defends it on the basis "it's good for him and not for the tax payer", which is the same defense all thieves use by the way.
It's as if a doctor performed a surgery funded by the state, knowing full well it won't help the patient but defended on the basis that it's good for him and not for the patient or that if he didn't do it, some other doctor would engage in wasteful surgery.
As for "turning around", I'm not sure his syllabi inform his students that his courses are waste of his students' time and money. It's only on his blog and books - thus he should add that disclaimer to all his courses untill then he's a sneaky snake oil seller who boasts of his great fraud in the company of his friends and family but not to his victims' faces.
It is possible that there is not reverse causality in Qatar, as Step 1 in your process is effectively "bring in a lot of skilled people who were educated elsewhere." As such, education is still driving the GDP growth, it is just that it isn't education that happened in Qatar that Qataries got themselves. Qatar isn't a closed system by any stretch, and the average years of education of workers in Qatar probably spiked as all those foreign skilled workers came in.
That said, if you include the source countries' GDP changes over time in the calculation I wouldn't be surprised to find that GDP and years of education suggest that there isn't much effect. Qatar benefitted in getting very specifically usefully educated people; they were probably not importing many grievance studies majors to run their oil fields.
What a great piece.
It is *so* hard to argue against - or even find flaws in - Bryan’s logic on almost every topic that is not fully open borders.
No disagreement on the economics here, but I wouldn't throw mean words about the politicians around so easily:
Voters love spending on education. So spending on education isn't demagoguery, but democracy working as intended.
And even autocrats do better to give the public mostly what they want: it makes staying in power so much easier, even without formal elections.
Democracy is bad though.
I'm under the impression Stalin's investments in physics education did pay dividends in rocket/nuclear technology. It still wasn't as effective as America's more free market system, but the physics education investments did have real returns.
What was the opportunity cost?
Until you tell me that, I cannot tell you the Soviet return on education. What did they give up in order to get rocket/nuclear tech?
That fact that the ordinary Soviet citizen would have probably spent their share of the money on something else, like bread, suggests that the actual return was negative.
Well, that's the right reasoning if the private recipient of education captures all or most of the benefit.
If most of the benefit goes to the general public, it can make sense to give people more education than they would privately have chosen to consume.
(The Case Against Education makes the point that in richer, freer countries the private recipient of education captures more than 100% of the benefits, ie the public benefits are negative.)
Ironically if education worked as claimed then people would all already understand your claims.
I feel like the conclusion drawn from the analysis of Qatar can’t be applied to all places at all times. We know long run growth essentially comes down to two things, total factor productivity growth and changes in birth rates. We know that increases in education are associated with decreases in birth rates, which I don’t think does much to explain changes in economic fortune in prior to 1900 since it is more associated with the education of women. I do think if you are discussing societies at a technological frontier, like Britain in 1750, completely nixing education will likely have a negative effect on the ability to innovate long term.
But even if the actual education will be a waste, what will be the long term value to Qatar from the increased degree signaling as well as tuition paid by international students?
Bryan, we're here. Late unfortunately, but if you could let us in, we'd love to hang out :) doors are locked on the ground floor.
I will be there! Will be eating prior to coming though, so don't plan on me for food. Looking forward to seeing you again Bryan and meeting your son!
As I taught some years at King Saud University - "the highest ranking in the Arab/Muslim world" - build under the highest fixed-price building contract of its time - I can fully agree: Total. Waste.
It may keep the young men busy - but then they are busy with their PS5 anyway.
Myself and 1-3 kids will stop by the Bbq. 5 m old can’t make it; bedtime is key to her and our Sunday happiness.
My children’s plans have changed, and I am therefore a chauffeur tonight. I am very sorry to miss this. All apologies.
Madison native here! I'd love to attend the BBQ along with my husband, Seth.
Great idea, Brian.
I hope you resign immediately from your job in line with your anti-education bias.
You blew the whistle on tenure (no one cared) and now you can GTFO.
Stop being a giant fraud, you hypocrite.
Yikes! I think we should have a flatter tax rate and no deduction for mortgage interest. Yet, when I had a mortgage, I took the deduction. By your standards, I think that makes me a fraud, right?
No.
But if you thought mortgage was a way to steal form the tax payers AND you started a mortgage company to precisely to do that AND you believed that mortgages shouldn't even exist in the first place (because they were useless) AND you defended it on the basis "mortgage business is good for me but not for the tax payer", then yes, that'd make you a hypocritical fraud.
A fraud is not someone pointing out the fraud. Caplan is paid to do economic research and publish the results honestly. He does (sure, he might be wrong at times - though he is not in this post). The fraudsters are those who know, but pretend otherwise. Glad we both agree, he got the facts right.
Caplan is primarily paid to teach undergraduates, which by his own admission is ineffective and wasteful.
He is no different from someone who sells snake oil and then turns around claims with glee that his product is really a useless gimmick on his blog. Actually worse than a regular snake oil salesman because he again pockets tax payer money to fund his fraudulent business.
He should resign.
Again, he is not "turning around", but saying it clear and upfront. If he resigned, his post would just be taken by s.o. either too blind or dishonest to see the truth and speak it. So, Caplan uses what little he can to convince the students and broader public. So the government stops paying tax dollars on wasteful education - at least reduces it to sth like paying for a K6 education for all and then people pay-out-of-pocket. Maybe even pay for a seminar with Dr. Caplan. Who at that time would be celebrated as the most honest professor ever. :D Again: One is not a fraudster if one believes it. And one is not telling a lie when one is telling the truth. So, back to arguing why K12 for all and subsidised degrees for gender-studies are worth to pay taxes for.
<<One is not a fraudster if one believes it.>>
An exact analogue of George Costanza's "it's not a lie if you believe it."
Again you are not addressing the central point:
Caplan is selling and getting paid for "a product" that he doesn't believe in, that he argues is ineffective, that he thinks is a "corruption of tax payer money" and defends it on the basis "it's good for him and not for the tax payer", which is the same defense all thieves use by the way.
It's as if a doctor performed a surgery funded by the state, knowing full well it won't help the patient but defended on the basis that it's good for him and not for the patient or that if he didn't do it, some other doctor would engage in wasteful surgery.
As for "turning around", I'm not sure his syllabi inform his students that his courses are waste of his students' time and money. It's only on his blog and books - thus he should add that disclaimer to all his courses untill then he's a sneaky snake oil seller who boasts of his great fraud in the company of his friends and family but not to his victims' faces.
See for instance his course listed here:
https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/e103/microsyl.htm
I can't find a disclaimer saying that this course as with all of higher education is a waste of time and (tax payer, student) money.
I'll attend the BBQ.
How is this useful for countries that don’t have such valuable natural resources?
Not to equal all money spent "on education" as "useful investment". A million spent wisely can be very useful, ofc.
When all you've got is oil, there is a huge incentive to try and diversify.
"Build an educated middle class capable of genuine economic productivity" is a pretty good goal.
You're right that they might not achieve it. It's hard to do, especially in an authoritarian middle eastern regime.
But what's the alternative? I can think of worse investments. Though your point about how education isn't full proof is warranted.
The best case is that the Gulf States utilize their unique situation to offer smart foreigners a kind of Galt's Gulch.
The worst case is that they become Nauru Island.
Because Arabs are dumb I'd bet on Nauru, but I do hope I'm wrong. They've had a decent streak so far.