РИЗИКИ ОСВІТНЬОЇ НЕРІВНОСТІ У ДОБУ КРЕАТИВНОСТІ ЯК НАЦІОНАЛЬНА ЗАГРОЗА: ТЕОРЕТИЧНІ РОЗВІДКИ
| Main Author: | І.О. Радіонова |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article Journal |
| Terbitan: |
, 2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://zenodo.org/record/46947 |
Daftar Isi:
- The article analyses American experts’ theoretical explorations of the risks of educational inequality as a national threat in the era of creativity, using E. Moretti’s theory as an example. In the 1980s, education level began to turn into the most influential driver in the life of the American society – and human capital, for the first time in history, appeared as crucial in the global race to the top. The US researchers take a pragmatic approach to the analysis of new competitive environment, focusing on internal and external conditions for the US’ preservation of its leadership in innovation. It is emphasised that the US, on one hand, devotes a lot of attention to developing the education system and improving its citizens’ education levels and, on the other hand, ‘tempts’ the most talented and educated professionals from all over the world. At the same time, the US academics avoid mythologizing education and citizens’ education levels as a panacea for all negative phenomena in society. Instead, they focus on the ambivalent trends in social development driven by growth in the importance of education and citizens’ education levels. E. Moretti thinks it appropriate to use the term ‘the Great Divergence’ to define the new divisions in the US. For although the American cities are no longer segregated by race, they are increasingly segregated by their inhabitants’ education levels. Moreover, this divergence in the economic indicators is accompanied by the socio-cultural divergences in family life, political preferences, life expectancy, and other indicators. ‘The Great Divergence’, according to E. Moretti, had already created three “USAs”. The first pole is the innovation hubs – the cites where the highly-educated workers and the developed innovation sector concentrate. The second one is the cities dominated by the traditional industries. The latter inevitably decline, losing jobs and residents. In between the two poles are the cities which can follow either scenario. E. Moretti warns that the country which is experiencing such growth in regional inequality can be balkanised, both culturally and politically. Special attention is devoted to E. Moretti’s remarks regarding the popularity of recovery from large and small economic crises through small enterprise job creation. According to E. Moretti, such workplaces are created in proportion to the productivity and number of jobs in the traded sector. The innovation sectors will never provide be the majority of workplaces. On the contrary, it will always remain in the local services sphere: providing amenities and producing goods that are consumed locally. With this in mind, it is important to not substitute the source of employment growth. For it is the innovation sector that creates the unprecedented multiplier effect for the new workplaces, that E. Moretti values at 1:5; i.e. a single job in the innovation sector creates five more for the local economy sector. It is stated that with innovation-driven economic growth, the leaders significantly outperform their competitors also through the spillover effects of the innovation into other sectors, which leads to a general increase in a country’s productivity and competitiveness. E. Moretti thinks that it is appropriate also to turn to the human capital externalities concept of then modern economic theory. Mathematical models prove that the exchange of knowledge and skills in formal and informal interactions generates knowledge spillovers. It is those spillovers that are the engine of the economic growth of cities and whole nations. The spillovers largely explain the long-term differences between rich and poor nations. Through interactions, people learn from each other. Therefore it is in the interactions with the more educated and creative counterparts that a person increases their own education level and creativity. It is not an accident that even in the era of almost limitless communications opportunities it is the face-to-face communication that, paradoxically, is one of the defining drivers of human creativity. E. Moretti notes that mingling with educated, intelligent people increases our education levels and makes us more intelligent and creative. Sit is through clustering that innovators reinforce one another’s creativity and become more successful. It is emphasised that the total profit from investments in education for is higher for the society as a whole than for an individual. This approach explains the additional effects both of multiplication and of loss of human capital by a city or a country. E. Moretti recognises that the ability of an individual to innovate is something akin to talent – very difficult to predict and cultivate. Almost the only measure which innovativeness can be connected to is a high education level. It is for this reason that the US is constantly improving its education system. However, at the same time, the US devotes significant attention to recruiting the best professionals from all over the world. And it is also true that the higher the education and qualification level of an employee, the more interest she attracts on the global job market. E. Moretti states that the US tries to ‘seduce’ the best professionals. He emphasises that nowadays it is more common for an immigrant to have a PhD or a Masters degree than for a USborn individual. The importance of E. Moretti’s theories for understanding the risks of educational inequality as a threat to a nation is emphasised. The national modernisation goal, which is a condition of viability for the Ukrainian society, requires not only the clarity on the set of tasks which would lead to its accomplishment, but also the understanding of risks which it would trigger. One of these tasks is the increase in human capital for Ukraine’s innovation development, while at the same time averting the risk of radical divergence between Ukrainian cities through increase in the country’s educational disparities, and preventing the most educated professionals’ exit from the country. It is emphasised that the critical selfactualisation of Ukraine in the global context under the conditions of innovation economy requires clarification of its growth strategies.