Introduction
Various theories have been developed with focus on their link to global poverty, education and development. These include modernization, human capital, liberation, dependency, democratization, globalization, diversity and postcolonial theories, among others. The theories present numerous links between education and development in developing countries.
For instance, human capital brought about specialization, which in turn led to increased human capacity. Case studies presented from Latin American education systems convey links of education theories to critical development theories. Moreover, 20th century has seen tremendous improvement in education system.
This includes primary, secondary and post-secondary education. However, despite this, poverty is paramount in these areas. This paper will compare and contrast links between education and development in two of the theories discussed in modules two and three. In addition, it will endeavor to establish the differences in major theories of development (Altbach, 1985, pp. 469-484).
Education and development
Education has been of great significance in developing countries in the 20th century. This is not to say that there was no education before the coming of colonialists. Instead, education systems took a new twist since their arrival. Education systems changed from informal to formal systems that included use of classrooms, books, practical, research and technology, among others.
These changes improved quality of education, its effectiveness as well as efficiency. However, the system has not achieved its full objectives, which included eradication of poverty and accelerated development. Moreover, these countries experienced increased institutional difficulties namely, educational frameworks, financing, human capacity, dependency, modernization and neocolonialism, among others.
These theories have therefore drawn criticism as well as consistencies with objectives of education. Theories examined in this module presents education as complex in its relation to development. To this effect, it is important to note that education does not achieve development.
Instead, education is a process of development. In essence, each theory defines one or more aspect of education, which is slightly different or related to the other. Consequently, the second MDG (Millennium Development Goal) was to realize worldwide primary education. This is mainly because education is seen to help in eradication of poverty and diseases in addition to giving voice to society (Arniove, 1980, pp. 48-62).
Development is defined in various perspectives. For instance, modernization theory relates it to compliance with standardized educational systems and social culture as well as industrialization. This is different in dependency and liberal theory, which relates it to cultural and social diversity that allows for indigenous methods.
Ultimately, development is defined with regards to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), poverty levels, infrastructure, human capacity, state policies, among others.
Education is therefore considered as a process of development as it enhances capacity development (human capacity), environmental conservation and awareness of health hazards, among others. In order to facilitate development, effective policies have to be employed by governments on educational system framework and infrastructure.
Education is therefore of great significance to development of a country. Consequently, effective educational frameworks and policies should be in place in order to realize MDG in developing countries across the world (Freire, 1993, pp. 52-67).
Links between education and development in dependency theory
As seen in module two, dependency theory attributes underdevelopment to influence and impact of colonization on developing countries. Impact of western models of education have been analyzed in this respect for a long time. In fact, emphasis has been put on their effects on models found in developing worlds.
Over the years, developed countries have influenced and transformed education policies and frameworks in developing countries. In fact, most developing countries conform to western educational systems. What transpires from such changes are challenges that involve financial input, which is inadequate in developing countries. Education is therefore manipulated through neocolonialism and dependency.
This forces developing countries to conform to patterns, power and models of developed countries. In essence, dependency emphasizes on transactions and relationships between developing and developed countries.
The result of which is dependency on developed countries in almost every aspect of development in developing worlds. Moreover, elements and pointers to development are also same as those of developed worlds (Carnoy, 2000, pp. 43-62).
Development involves both social and economic factors, which interrelate to education. Most developing countries cannot afford to fund educational systems acquired from developed countries. They are therefore forced to depend on donations, aid as well as loans from developed worlds, which in effect increases their national debt and effectively leaves them dependent on donors.
Education systems in developing countries are therefore forced to conform to those in developed worlds. Informal education, which was formerly practiced in developing worlds, is therefore discouraged even through it has significance in education systems.
In essence, dependency theory argues that education systems introduced to developing countries increases their debt levels, effectively leading to underdevelopment and thus neocolonialism as they depend completely on donors (Tikly, 2004, pp. 173-198).
Links between education and development in critical development theory
Critical development theory conveys the fact that development theories are mostly Eurocentric, that is, derived from western patterns and systems of development. It therefore argues that since these theories are based on developed patterns, they cannot address or even explain poverty situations in developing countries effectively.
In fact, according to theorists like Tikly, these development theories are ways of new imperialism and neocolonialism. Developing countries are still heavily influenced by education systems and patterns from developed countries. Tikly goes further to question the possibility of developing countries ever coming up with their own educational systems that are not dependent on western politics and culture.
He believes that availability of alternative forms of education points to the need for recognition of all knowledge produced as valid (McGinn, 1996, pp. 341-357). This issue has been contentious since developed countries rarely recognize ideas conceived from developing countries.
In essence, even though several forms of education have been introduced, the poor, rural as well as indigenous populations are still isolated with regards to education systems. Consequently, full realization of development in developing cannot be achieved when education systems isolate these groups of people. This is mainly because they form the largest percentage of people in developing countries.
Education systems require evaluation of new forms of frameworks that would include the poor, indigenous as well as rural populations in order to realize MDGs in developing countries (Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 2004, pp. 111-134).
Similarity between the theories
The two theories concur that full potential of development cannot be achieved without education. In other words, education is essential to development in developing countries. The case studies seen in Latin American education systems show that these theories are relevant. This is mainly because developing countries in Latin America are influenced by educational policies in developed countries.
In effect, the poor, rural and indigenous populations are isolated in education, which results in underdevelopment since they form majority of populations in those countries.
Consequently, the two theories are open to new forms of education that will include the poor, rural and indigenous populations in these areas. In essence, new systems of education should be conceived from developing countries to cover all aspects of development for these groups of people (Becker, 1993, pp. 15-26).
Contrast between the theories
As much as the two theories concur on several issues such as introduction of new forms of education, which are conceived based on situations of developing countries, among others, they differ in other aspects. For instance, dependency theories emphasize the fact that education systems have brought about underdevelopment due to its influence on developing countries.
On the other hand, critical development theory acknowledges these systems as processes of development but emphasizes exploration of other forms of educations that would include the poor, rural and indigenous people.
Moreover, dependency theory emphasizes the fact that educational systems borrowed from developed world leads to overdependence on aid from donors and increased debt, which affect economy of the country. This is quite different to critical development theory, which observe it in form of education frameworks that isolates major groups of people in the society (Colclough, 1993, pp. 47-57).
Differences in major theories of development
Several theories of development have been brought forward and tested in developing countries. These include new imperialism, democratization and globalization, among others. Some of the major differences observed in these theories of devilment include their areas of focus.
For instance, globalization has brought about standardization of culture due to influence from developed cultures. On the other hand, democratization has continued to dwindle in industrialized countries. This is quite argumentative because developed worlds profess democratization, even though they do not practice it with regards to developing countries.
Neocolonialism is therefore seen to encroach on developing worlds in every aspect of their development as they increasingly depend on developed countries. The outcome is continued poverty and isolation of the poor, rural and indigenous people in developing worlds. This differs from their acknowledgement of the need to eradicate poverty and diseases through education and development theories (Rival, 1996, pp. 153-167).
Conclusion
Educational and development theories studies above focus mainly on frameworks of developed countries. Results from case studies conducted in Latin American developing countries show that their system of education have improved literacy levels tremendously.
However, this has not eradicated poverty as was projected. Instead, new theories are emerging that would help include the isolated groups of people in development.
These include the poor, rural and indigenous population. Eurocentric development methods are seen to be ineffective in addressing problems in developing countries. It is therefore quite important that new forms of education systems and development theories are introduced based on situations in developing countries (Torres, 2003, pp. 256-284).
Reference List
Altbach, P.G., 1985. Servitude of the mind? Education, Dependency and Neocolonialism. In: P.G. Altbach, R.F. Arnove, G.P. Kelly (eds). Comparative Education. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., pp. 469-484.
Arniove, R., 1980. Comparative education and world systems analysis. Comparative Education Review 24(1), pp. 48-62.
Becker, G.S., 1993. Human Capital Revisited. In: G.S. Becker. Human Capital: A theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 15-26.
Carnoy, M., 2000. Globalization and educational reform. In: N. Stromquist and K. Monkman. Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation across Cultures. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 43-62.
Colclough, C., 1993. Primary schooling in developing countries: the unfinished business. In: T. Allsop and C. Brock (eds). Key issues in Educational Development: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education 3(2). Oxford: Triangle, pp. 47-57.
Freire, P., 1993. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company. Revised Edition, Ch. 2, pp. 52-67.
McGinn, N.F., 1996. Education, Democratization, and Globalization: A Challenge for Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review 40(4), pp. 341-357.
Psacharopoulos, G. and Patrinos, H.A., 2004. Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update. Education Economics 12(2), pp. 111-134.
Rival, L., 1996. Formal Schooling and the Production of Citizens in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In: BG. Levinson, D. Holland (eds).The Cultural Production of the Educated Person. Albany: State University of New York press, pp. 153-167.
Tikly, L., 2004. Education and the New imperialism. Comparative Education 40(2), pp. 173-198.
Torres, C.A., 2003. Education, power and the state: successes and failures of Latin American education in the twentieth century. In: C. Torres and A. Antikainen (eds). The international Handbook on the Sociology of Education: An international Assessment of New Research and Theory. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 256-284.