Distribution of Education among Income Groups: An Empirical Analysis Author(s): Ajit K. Dasgupta and Jandhyala B. G.

Tilak Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 33 (Aug. 13, 1983), pp. 1442-1447 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4372408 . Accessed: 15/08/2011 06:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Distribution
In

of

Education
Grooups

among

come

An Empirical Analysis
Ajit K Dasgupta Jandhyal B G Tilak Based on a socio-econom.ic survey of the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh in India, the hypothesis that the distribution of education is equitable is v;erified in this paper. The study concludes that the distribution of elemiientalryeducation, in its stock form as well as in its current flowv pattern, is clearly equitable, seconidary education is fairly equitable and higher education is a monotonically increasing function of incomes. The same is more or less true with respect to the distributioni of public expenditure on education. The Atudy also. highllights rulral-urban differe ices.
observed rate of growth of output during the first half of the 20th century could not be explained by increases in the amounts of factors of production as conventionally measured. On the contrary they appeared to suggest that technical progress, i e, shifts in the production function over time had been a much more importont source of economic growth. Such shifts were attributed to various factors among which improvements in human 'education is not for them". capital brought about by the spread of education and hence of advanced skills Ornati (1966: 66) among the labour force figured proTHIS is an empirical study of the minently.2 That investment in educapattern of distribution by incame tion had a major role to play in the groups of education at the elementary, economic growth of less developed levels in India. secondary and higher countries soon became part of the We wish in particular to use data coconiventional wisdom of developmelit lected by one of the authors througb economics. Subsequently it wvas claima socio-econiomic survey of West ed that while contributing to a higher Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh rate of growth of income, education in 1977-78 to test the hypothesis that would t0so bring about an improvethe, distribution of education is egaliin its distribution, for the higher tarian in nature. The paper consists ment quality of labour input resulting from of four sections. We stiart with a brief survey of the literature. education would raise labour productivity and wages. More generally. it An account of the data wvhich is given was felt that equality in educational forms the basis of this study in section two. Section three presents opportunities for children would evenour main results. Some concluding tually lead to greater equality among observations are made in the final sec- adults. More recently. there has been a tion. swing away from the optimism implicit in the human capital approach. The results of empirical research conducted Though the role of education in in the developed countries have eneconomic development received con- couraged the view that education siderable attention in classical Political may in fact have little effect either on Economy,' it was revived as a popular productivity or on income distribution theme of discussion only very recen:.ly, (for example, Jencks et al, 1972). namely in the 1960s. The context of Instead, education has been regarded this revival was the explanation of the by some merely as a screening device. long-run rate of economic growth in a convenient but expensive means of the United States. The results of labelling people which makes no direct aggregate production function studies contribution to increased productivity (notably Solow, 1957), had made it as such (Berg, 1970; Arrow, 1973). A clear that the magnitude of the less extreme view is that schooling
1442

Where middle and upper class parents think in terms of a college education for their offsprings, lower class parents' asniration.s usually stop at a high school diploma, at the very best. Poor parents, with little! education, are more likely to believe in luck than in educa ion and to be contemptuous of "book learnin'z" .. Indeed, among low income families, both the low educational attainments of the head of household and the quality of family life create a social environment that leads the poor to believe that

confers economic benefits not by improving cognitive ability as such but by inculcating certain habits such as punctuality and discipline that are valued by employers and by society at large (Bowles and Gintis, 1976).3 Yet others, notably those belonging to the Marxist school, maintain that the effects of education on inequality themselves depend on the mode of production within which the educational system operates: in a class society education may be a device for perpetuating economic inequality between clusses and income groups (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1970; Carnoy, 1971, 1977; Bowles, 1980). As far as the role of education specifically in the developing countries is concerned, the human capital view still generally prevails however. Indeed it has been claimed that such a view has much greater relevance in -underdeveloped countries which are characterised by a marked shortage of labour skills (Ahluwalia, 1974-b). Accordingly, public expenditure on education in such countries is widely regarded as an inportant instrument for the reduction of inequality.4 As regards the precise ways in which education could help to reduce inequiality in developing countries, tVie empirical evidence has been fcirthcoming. However, the complexity of the mechanisms involved is nowi much more wvidely recognised thani in the early literature on human capital. These include not only greater opportunities for skill formation but also speedier ahd more widespread adoption of new technology especially in agriculture, a reduction in the -igidity of caste-barriers, an increase in social and occupational mobility, a reduction in fertility and improvements in health and child care among the poor (ef, Fields, 1980-a).

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

TABLE 1: MEAN EDUCArIONAL RAES PE1i HOUSEHOLD BY

August 13, 1983 LEvEL AmN Qunmr,urs Urban

Ph 'Pe

All
Pe 1 A. HH Y Quintiles Ps 2 Ph 3 Pe 4

Rural
Ps 5 6 7

Ps 8

Ph

Lowest-20 percent 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4ih quintile Top 20 percen(t
B. HHP Y Quinttiles

1.92 1.75 2.00 1.88 1. .22 2.27 1.90 1.38 1.20 0.91 1.87

0.90 1.88 1.74 1.67 1.57 1.27 1.81 1.35 1.28 0.77 1.38

0.32 0.54 1.19 1.44 2.17 0.37 0.70 1.19 1.43 1.55 0.73

1.85 2.31 1.38 2.00 1.25 2.34 1.79 1.25 1.26 0.36 1.86

0.74 1.58 1.74 1.78 1.17 1.05 1.60 1.66 1.00 -0.91 1.26

0.24 0.29 0.74 0.96 1.92 0.22 0.56 0.53 1.17 1.55 0.52

1.85 2.15 1.85 1.75 1.43 2.31 1.62 1.81 1.20 0.85 1.88

1.21 1.57 1.97 1.85 1.50 1.54 1.75 1.39 1.45 0.54 1.49

0.42 0.94 1.52 1.40 2.43 0.52 1.09 1.36 1.60 1.54 0.94

Lowest 20 per cent 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4(h quintile Top 20percent Mean

Empirical evidence on the effects (Fields, 1957)] suggest that taking inof education on the distribution of to account both the distribution of income in the developing countries enrolment at various levels across rests mainly on cross-country studies. different income groups and the Ahluwalia's analysis (1974-a) shows methods by which such education is that education is positively related to financed, the clistribution of primary poor but equality in terms of income shares of education favours the the lowest and middle groups; pri- secondary and higher education tend mary school enrolment is found to be to benefit the middle and higher inmore significant in explaining the, come groups relatively more. Similarshare of the lowest 40 per cent and the ly, in Malaysia, primary education has secondary school enrolment in ex- been found to be highly egalitarian, plaining that of the middle 40 per secondary education to be, on balance, cent. Another cross-country study egalitarian and post-secondary educaof 32 countries (Winegarden, 1979) tion to be clearly pro-rich (Datta and concludes that higher averge levels of Meerman, 1980). J schooling exert an equalising effect problem Little research on this on income distribution. In yet another based on Indian data has yet been major study Mincer (1974) finds that done. Maitra et al (1972) carried out just over half of the inequality in a detailed investigation into the distriearnings can be explained in terms of bution of public services including the inequality in educational attain- health and education in West Bengal ments of workers (including on-the- anid reached the conclusion that the job training and experience as well as distribution of primary students over schooling). From a sample of 30 fractile income groups was nearly countries including 10 advanced and egalitarian, that of secondary educa20 less developed countries, Harbison tion favoured the higher income (1977) examined the differential im- groups and that the distribution of pact of formal and non-formal types education as a whole was highly inof education on income distribution egalitarian. and found that both had a significant influence but that formal schooling had a stronger effect. There is, thus, ample evidence to show that personal The Dat characteristics, the most powerful of This study is based on a survey of them being education and age, explain a large proportion of the variance in educational characteristics and earnings in West Godavari District of earnings.5 Anidhra Pradesh conducted by Tilak As regards the actual distribution (see Tilak, 1980). The survey was of educational facilities as between conducted in two phases, the first in personis belonging to different income the summer of 1977 and the second, groups some evidence is available at a supplementary survey, in 1978. The the national level. Studies based on sample included one town; and a such evidence from a number of -illage from each of the eight talukas countries [for example, Columbia of the District. In selecting the vil(Jallade 1974 and Selowsky, 1979); lages an attempt was made to ensure Chile (Foxley et al 1977) and Kenya that the village was representative of

the taluka in respect of educational development. In each selected village and in the town two per cent of the households were selected randomlyA6 Basic socio-economic informttiOn was collected from a total of 415 house-' holds, 381 in the primary phase and 34 in the suplementary phase, by completing a pretested and revised questionnaire' for each household. This was done through interviews with the head of the household. If he was unavailable for some reason, the seniormost member of the household who could be found was interviewed. The survey covered 207 rural and 208 urban households. The district survyed was representatives of Andhra Pradesh in terms of educational development. 34 per cent of the population in the district was literate according to the 1971 census, while the corresponding percentage for the state as a whole was 38 per cent. Although in terms of economic development the district is relatively advanced, the distribution of income in the district is not very different from that of the state as a whole". (NCAER 1962; Sastry 1978).

m
The Results
some Esgentially this study, like others cited above (e g., Datta and Meeraman 1980), analyses the distribution of education at various levels across quintile income groups in the population. We have used two different criteria fox deriving quintile income groups, viz, (i) household income (HHY) ann (ii) household per capita income (HHPY). It is wellknown that these may not necessarily yield identical results.7 Our main results are presented in Tables 1-3 and are briefly discussed below.

A11gust13 1983
TA-BiE

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 2

IMEkN ENROLmtENT HRAES PER IOU'SEHOLID BY LEVEL AND QUIILES

All

Rural
Eh

Urban

Ee
1 A.
IIl Y Quintiles

Es
2

Ee
4

Es
5

Eh
6

Ee
7

Es 8

Eh
9

Bot(om 20 per cent

2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile Top 20 per cent

0.94
1.13 1.12 1.00 0.52 1.26 1.04 0.64 0.53 0.32 0.99
RATES

0.29
0.66 0.75 0.47 0.57 0.49 0.61 0.41 0.33 0.32 0.48

0.14
0.10 0.38 0.47 0.35 0.11 0.30 0.41 0.20 0.23 0.21

0.88
1.60 0.79 1.26 0.75 1.391.10 0.88 0.57 1.08

0.19
0.54 0.53 0.56 0.17 0.34 0.58 0.38 0.17 0.18 0.37

0.12
0.08 0.12 0.33 0.58 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.44 0.27 0.17

0.93
0.92 0.91 0.90 0.79 1.13 0.79 0.87 0.55 0.31 0.91 MEAN

0.41
0.81 0.76 0.65 0.57 0.66 0.75 0.32 0.55 0.15 0.59
RATES

0.16
0.21 0.67 0.15 0.36 0.20 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.26

B. HHPY Quintiles
Bot--om 20 percent 2nd quintile 3rd quin(ile 4th quintile Top 20 percent Mean
MEAN EDUCATIONAL

Table 1. gives the average number of educated people per household for each income group arranged by quintiles, and at each level of education, Ifor rural and urban areas separately as well as for both together. The quintiles were computed according to household income and alternatively according to household per capita income. Three educational levels are distinguished; (i) elementary, (8 years of schooling); (ii) secondary (10-12 years of schooling); and (iii) higher (first degree and above). The mean educational rates for these levels are
denoted, by Pe Ps, and Ph respec-

tively. Column 1 gives the mean educational rates for elementary education according to the HHY and HHPY classifications. It is se-en that the mean educational rates by HHY classification for the first four quintiles are fairly close together, while the top quintile has a distinctly lower rate. Column 2 of the same Table gives the figure for secondary education. The lowest 20 per cent have a mean educational rate of 0.90 which is much lower than that of the top quintile and also lower than the overall rate for all income groups together. But apart from the lowest quintile, the distribution appears to be, on balance, fairly equitable with the educational rate declining from the second quintile cnwards. For higher education, figures for which are given in column 3. the picture is quite differenit; the meaii educational rate increases monotonically with household income. When we look at the mean educational r1ates by household per capita inicome, the general pattern remains broadly similar. For -rural and urban 1444

households together, Pe now shows a clearly equitable pattern. The pattern as between certain quintiles, specially in rural areas, is changed. At the secondary level, the mean educational rate in rural areas increased marginally from 1.74 (third quintile) to 1.78 (fourth quintile) when household income was used; but with household per capita income. there is remarkable decline in these the educational rate between two quintiles from 1.66 to 1.00. Simiincreased from 0.29 larly Ph (second quintile) to 0.74 (third quintile) in the rural areas in the former case, while there is now a marginal decrease from 0.56 to 0.53. On the whole it appears that both in rural and urban areas, elementary educais progressively distributed; tion secondary education favours middle income groups and higher education remains largely the privilege of higher income groups. It is also clear that the distribution for the household per capita income classification produces a more orgalitarian distribution, which is indeed to be expected. While the general pattern of the distribution of education across income quintiles is similar whether we consider urban or rural households there are significant -rural-urban differiences for given quintiles. The difference is the least in respect of elementary education. Thus for the take lowest quintile, whether we household income or household per capita inicome as our basis of classification. the ,rural educational rate is higher than the urban. At the secondary level, the urban households seems to be better educated though there are minor exceptions to this. At the education. urban higher level of households enjoy a marked advantage.

ENROLMENT

So far we have been concerned with the distribution of the currenit stock of educated people as between differenit income-groups, and the mean educational rate provided an appropriate measure. For certain purposes, however, for example in assessing what the future distribution of human capital is likely to be and even more important, in deciding onhowfitr the current pattern of the distribution of public expenditure on education cun be said to be equitable, the mean enrolment rate, i e, the average number of pupils per household enrolled in . each level of education, (vz, is a more releEe, Es, and Eh) corresponding vant magnitude. The figures for each income-quintile are given in Talle 2. Accordinig to the figures for quintiles by household income, enrolment in elementary schools in rural areas shows no clear or systematic pattern; the enrolment rates seem to fluctuate as we go from one quintile group to the other. However, by combining quintile groups, we find that the lowest 40 per cent have a mean enrolment rate of. 2.48, and the top 40 per cent of 2.01; which suggests that the be enrolment may not pattern of markedly inequitable. This conclusioni is supported, much more strongly, by the enrolment figures for household per capita income quintiles which show a clear pattern, with the enrolment rates at the elementary level of education decreasing for higher income-groups. As regards the enrolment in elementary education in urban areas, the household income classification shows the first four quintiles to be roughly at the same level, with the top quintile showing a lower -rate.

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEE-LY

TABLE 3: DISTBIBUTION OF Pu3BLIC EXPENDrrBE
ON

August 13 1983
EDUJCA-ION BY HPY

Elenen(ary All Lowest 2(0 percccit 211dquintile 3rdquintile 4(h qtiint ile Top20 percellt MWan -al Rur Lo,west 20 per ccnt 2nd quintiilc 3rd quiniiie 4th qUint;ile Top 20 pcr cent Mean1 Ui baii rcent Lowes( 2(0pcr 21d quinii le
3rdqUilntile

Secondary 135.47 168.65 113.35 91.24 88.47w 132.70 88.25 150.54 98.63 44. 12 46.72 96.03 192. 61 218.88 93.39 160.51 43.78 172.19

Higher 78.74 214.76 293.50 143.17 164.65 150.33 40.62 55.40 48.01 162.50 99.71 62.78 153.48 276.26 199.52 230.22 237.89 199.52

Zi 364.05 507.09 482.96 297.44 291.17 400.77 291.10 334.32 249.34 273.14 146.43 284.86 490.11 595.83 403-79 460.83 321.18 487.69

K -36.73 106.33 82.19 -103.33 -109.60

-

149.84 123.68 76.11 63.03 38.05 117.73 162.23 128.38 102 .70 66.52 126.05 144 . 02( 100.69 110.88 70.10 39.51 115.98

the secondafy level, and Rs. 7i5.85 for the higher level. The corresponding figures for rural areas are respectively Rs 116.71, Rs 259.55 anid Rs 369.31, and for urbain areas respectively Rs 127.45, Rs 291.84 anld
ils 767.39.8

6.24 49.46 -35-52 -11 .72 -138.43

-

The average share of each household in the public expenditure on education, by quintiles, say Zi (i= 1,....51 quintiles), cani therefore: be expressed as follows: Zi
=

(E Cj
1.... 3 (i e elementary, secondary and higher educational levels
respectively)

4 h quint;le Top2'0 per cenit Mean1

The results based oii household per ca.pitai income on the other hand show roughly the same type of situatioii as in rural areas, although the rate at which enrolment rates decre;ise with income is now not quite as pronounced. Enirolment in secondary schiools in rural areas is low for the bottom quinitile (especially according to the hlousehold income results); and more suirprisingly, also for the top quintile (whichever classification, household income or household per capita income. is used). It is the middle group (say the second and third quintiles) wlho have higher rates of enrolment. For urban areas no systematic pattern atppears to emerge; and in some respects the two classifications give conitrary results; for example the top quifftile by household income has a fairly high enrolment rate, that by
per capita household income has the lowest rate among all five quintiles.

As regards higher educationi. column (9) clearly shows tnat the bottom quinitile in urban areas has a very low rate of enrolment, which- is not unexpected. This is so whether we take household income or household per capita income as the basis of classificationi. On the other hzand, as regards other quinitiles the results based on household per capita income. are, again, more 'sensible'. They suggest that apart from the bottom quintile others are more or less on par. According to the household income figures, enirolmenit rates among the hiigher quintiles are somewhat erratic, with tOe fourth quintile actually showing a.', enrolment lower than the

Where E represents the mean enrornment rate of the ith quintile and jth educational level, and C represents the direct public expenditure per pupil for the jth level of education. The direction anid bottom qutintile. ILn rural areas, the magnitude of the variation of Zi as i picture that emerges is that the bot- increases gives us an indication of how tom three quiiitiles have approximate- equitable the distribution of public exly equal enrolment in higher educa- penditure on education is. tion, while the top two quintiles have The values of Z i for different much higher rates. quintiles, are given in Table 3, the We shall consider next rural-urbani quintiles, being the tcomputed on differences in the mean enrolment basis of household per capitia income. rate at various, levels of education. At We also give the corresponding the elementary level, if we use '-the values of K; [Ki = Zi Z, household income classification, obwhere Z is the tnean of the Zi 'a served differences in entrolment rates 5)]. If there is egalitttrian as between rural and urban house- (i = 1,.. holds fail to reveal any consistent distribution, then Z i as well as Ki pattern; but figures based on the per Would be decreasing functfon of income capita household inicome show rural quintiles. Tabl'e 3 shows a systemiiaticpattern households as having higher enrolmrent throughout. In respect of ein- from the second quintiles onwtrds. rolment rates in secondary schools, Over this range Zi (and hence K ) the comparison by and large favours is a decreasing funciion of income urban areas, and the same is true of quintiles, showing a 'progressive' 6ishigher education, except for the top tribution of public expenditure or 40 per cent, for which the mean rum]l e(lucation. This is also shown by the enrolment rate is considerably higher. negative values of Ki for the top three quintiles when rural and urban The DISTBIMU1ONOF PUBLIC EXPENDrrUpE areas are seiparaltely analysed. share of the lowest 20 per cent is not ON EDUCATION only slightly higher than the mean, It was pointed out earlier that an but also substantially higher than the important reason for comrputing mean enirolment rates was to use them for shares of the fourth and fifth quinstudying the pattern of distribution of tiles. Further the share of the bottom 40 per cent is nearly 50 per ceiit public expenditure on education. higher than the share of the top 40 For this purpose we follow a simple per cent. However the second quinmethod which is outlined below. tile is the major beneficiary of pubWe have already computed the lic expenditure on education. mean enrolment rates for each level of education by quintiHes. It is also IV estimated, from secondary sources that' the direct public expenditure on An attempt has been) made in e(iucation per pupil in the state of this paper to examine the distribution Aodhra Pradesh as a whole works of educational facilities by income out to be, on average, Rg 113.92 for groups using the primary data collectthe elementary level, Rs 276.47 for ed through a sample survey o)f the
108.00 -83.90 -26.86 -166.51

2.42)

1445

,August 13 1983

ECONOMIC AND POLICAL ally felt as the generations each other.9 succeed

WEEXLY

West Godavari District of Andhra differPradesh. We have used two household ent income criteria: (i) income and (ii) household per capitaincome. While we presented most of cui results acco/ding to both criteria, we strongly feel that from the public policy point of view it is the latter criterion that is more meanintgful, as it takes care of the size of the faiimily,an imnportantdeterminant of standards of living. Onl this criterioni we find that the distribution of elementary, education, in its stock form as well as in its current flow pattefn, is clearly equitable, secondary education is lfairly equitable and higher educttion is a monotonically increasWhile the ing function of incomes. pattern is more o0t less same in rural and urban areas, there exist strikinig rural-urban disparities at every quintile and in every level of educationi, ie, the educational and einrolment rates are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Further, there seems ielatively less unequal distribution of educational facilities in urban areas compared to rural areas. Public finanlcing of education seems onl the whole to be egalitarian. However when each level of education is examinied separaltely, it appears that only the public expenditure on elenientary education has a strong and positive redistributive effect, the largest share in the public expenditure quinbeing received by the lowest tiles. Public financing of higher education on the other hand is to a- large extent clearly pro-rich, especially in rural areas. Among the more obvious limitatiojis of this study is its narrow regional base, the sample being drawn from a single district of Andhra Pradesh. However, there is some evidence that the pattern we found may not be untypical of other regions in India as well. More important, it deals with only one aspect of educational inequality. Other dimensions, such as differences in the quality of education imparted by different schools an)d from inequalities of opportunity arising from distance of the school from thet pupil's home, or from discriminationi on the basis of caste or sex could not be studied here. Lastly, our discussion assumes 'tlhat education is important -for achieving e(quality in general. Justification for this assumption was provided in Sec'ion J of this paper. However, it may take a long time for such a strategy to succeed for the effects of education on equality may only be gradu1446

Notes

I See for example Smith (1776). 2 An early and careful statemetit is that by Solow (1959) who 'points out that "the notion of -ime shifts in the function is a confession of ignorance rather than a claim to knowledge; they ought to be analysed further into such components as improvements in the skill and quality of the labour force, returns to investment in research and education. improvement in technique within the industries, and changes in the industrial composition of input anid output etc." 3 This as well as some other aslPects of the role of education in economic development which have figured in recent discussion were untcipated by Adam Smith, e g: "The more they are instructed, the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the imost dreadful disorders. An instructed and intelligent people besides are always more decent and orderlv than an ignorant and stuipid one." [Smith, 1776 (BookV, Chapter II)]. 4 For example, Lewis (1976: 35) asserts that in the develop)ing countries the distribuition of skills ha.s widened rather than narrowed "mainly because public education opens the doors of opnortnitv": see also Watanabe (1975) and Tinbergen (1975). 5 See Fields (1980-b) who docimented evidence from 14 studies oni about as many countries. 6 Such a sample design may not be inappropriate in our context. Mahalonobis (1952) observed that when the frame consistc of only a list of units and nothing else, whatsoever, is known about the field the problem of sample design reduces to the simple case of selecting for investiation a suitable number of elementarv uinits in a random manner qo that valid inferences mav be drawn 'from the sample by appropriate methods. It is only when some information. previous which mav be onlv anoroxim-te in nature, is available about the field thAt the nroblem of sample (lesign becomes imnportant. 7 When public recurrent costs vere included, the use of household income in the Datta & Meerman stuidy leads to the conclusion that the edu3cational .svstcn is inegalitarian. On the other hand when hou-ehold per capita income is uised -'s a bNse of classificotioni. the collillion is reversed. See also Vistria (1980: 36-37) for some 5imilar results in a different context. 8 Direct expenditure. which. to a large extent, can be' regarded as recurrent expenditure. includes

expenditures on (a) salaries of the teaching and now-teaching stafl', (b) equipment and! other appliances; and (c) 'other' items. The figures for the whole of the state relate *to 1975-76. 'T'aking rural-urban expeinditure proportions as in 1970-71, the latest years for which rural-urbatnbreak up is available on expenditure on education, the public, expenditure on education in rural and urbani areas are worked out for 1975-76 each level of educationi (Source: "Education in India," 1970-71 and 1975-76). 9 Moreover as Meade (1975-77) points out, the eletnent of good or bed luck will continue aind "will retrunin extreme"y important in re-introducing inequities" unless the strategy and particularly educational programme is carefully planned.

References
Alluwvalia, M S (1974-a): "Income InequaAity: Some Dimensions of the P'roblem", in H B Chenery et al: .3-37(1974-b): "The Scope for Policy Intelvention" in H B Chenery et al: 73-90. Arrow, K J (1973): "'Higher Education as a Filter", Journal of Public Econornics, 2/3 (July): 193-216. Berg, I (1970): "Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery", (New York, Praeger). Bourdieu, P and J C Passeron (1970): "Reproduction in Education Society and Culture", (London, Sage 1977), translated by R Nice. Bowles, S (1980): "Education, Class Conflict and Uneven Development", inl J Sitinons, ed, "The Education Dilemma", Pergamon) (London,
205-31.

Bowles, S and H Gintis (1976): "Schooling in Capitalist America", (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Carnoy, M, (1971): "Class Analysis t.nd Investment in Human Resources: A Dynamic Model", Review of Racal Political Economy, 3 (Fall winter): 56-81. -(1977): "Education and Economic Development: The First Generation", in M Nash, ed, "Essays on Economic Development and GulturmlChange in Honour of Bert F Hoselitz", (Chicago, University of Chicago Press): 428-48. Chen y, H B et al (1974): "Redistribution with Growth", World Bank/ Lonidon, Oxford). Datta, G and J Meerman (1980): "lIousehold Income or Household Income Per Capita in Welfare Comparisons", World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 378 (Washington DC). Fields, G S (1975): "Higher Education and Income Distribution in a Less Developed Country", Oxford Econo1)ic Papers 27/2 (July) 245-59. -(1980-a): "Education and Income

Distribution in Developing Countries: A Review of Literature", in T King, ed, "Education and Income", Bank Staff Working Paper (WVorld

AND A*OL&L E00NOMICG

WEY
Survey of Andhrt Pradesh" (New Delhi, NCAER). OECD (1975): "Education, Inequality and Life Chances", (Neris). Ornati, 0 (1966): "Poverty Amid Affluence", (New York, 20th Century Fund). Sastrv, S A R (1978): "Inequality, Welfare and Ranldng: A Study of Andhra Pradesh", Arthaviinana, 20/4 (Dec): 353-67. Selowsky, M (1979): "Who Benefits from Government Expenditure?", (World Bank/New York, Oxford). Smith, Adam (1776): "The Weialth of Nations", (New York, Modem Library, 1937). Solow, R M (1957): "Techncal Change land Aggregate Production Function", Review of Economics and Statistics, .39/3 (August): 312-20. Solow, R M (1959): "Investment and Technical Progress" in K J Arrow, S Karlin and P Suppes (ed) "Matheinatic&l Methods in tche Social Sciences", (Stanford University Press). Tilak, Jandhyala B G (1980): "Inequality in Returns to Education", (University of Delhi, Delhi: Ph D Thesis) Unpublished. Tinbergen, J (1975): "Education, Inequality and Life Chances: A Report on the Netherlands", in. OECD, 1975: 404-26. Visaria, P (1980): "Poverty tnd Living Standards in Asia", LSMS Worldng Paper No 2,(Washington DC, Wor;d Bank). Watanabe, T (1975): "Jome Inequality and Economic Development: A Case Study, Japtn", in OECD, 1975: 134-59. Winegarden, C R (1979): "Schooling and Income Distribution: Evidence from International Date", Economica, 46/181 (Feb): 83-87.

1983

No 40M, Washington DC): 231-315. (1980-b): "Poverty, Inequality and Development", (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Foxley, A etal (1977): "Quienes Se Benefician do los Castos Puiblicos", Estudios, CIEPLAN 10; [referred by Fields, (1980-u)]. tiarbison, F H (1977): "The Education-Income Connection", in Frank, C R and R C Webb, eds, "Income Distribution and Growth in the Less Developed Countries", (Washington DC, Brookings): 127-158. Jallade, J P (1974): "Public Expenditures on Education and Income Distribution in Colombia", (World Bank/ Baltimore, John Hopkins). Jencks, C et al (1972): "Inequality", (New York, Biasic). Lewis, W A (1976): "Development and Distribution" in A Caincross and M Puri, eds, "Employment, Income Distribution and Development Strategy: Problems of the Developing Countries", (London, Macmillan) 26-42. Mahalanobis, P C (1952): "Some Aspects of the Design of Sample Surveys", Sankhya, 12/1-2 (Dec): 1-17. Maitra, T etal (1974: "An Enquiry on the Distributon of Public Education and' Health 'Services in West Bengal", in T N Srinivasan and P K Bardhan, eds, "Poverty and' Income Distribution in- India', (Calcutta, Statistical Publishing Society): 499-53. Meade, J E (1975): "The Inltelligent Radical's Guide to Economic Policy: ne Mixed Economy", (London, George Allen and Unwin). Mincer, J (1974): "Schooling, Experience and Earnings", (New York, NBER). NCAER (1962): "Techno-Economic

jail conditions, the GDR organisations have got involved in issues dealing with the rights of the submerged marginal and marginalised masses of the country, the scheduled tribes and castes, the poor in the unorganised sectors, the winorities and the people of the North-East and women. In the process, the focus of the movement has shifted to understanding the nature of state repression both overt and covert on these groups. The questions asked are: How does the state restrict the political and cultural expression of the people, consciously or unconsciously perpetuate their genocide and put restraints on the growth of any counter-consciousness and movements questioning the state's policy? All this and more has been said in the literature produced by CDR organistttions. They would not have lasted without this "literacy". This literature has now got wider appeal as a result of th. growth of 'investigative journalism', which now h become part of mainstreum jounalism. In spite of Tendulkar's analysis in his play "Kamla", it his played, we feel, a positive and supportive role.
The point thehi is how: does one

DISCUSSION

Civil Rights Literacy

Sujata Pattl Achyut Yagnik
A G NOORANI's article on "Civl Rights Literacy" (EPW, July 23) deflects the reader from gaining knowledge of the movement, does gross disservice to the movement and certainly in no way provides the reader a path towards literacy. Since 1977, the civil and democratic rights (CDR) movement has spread all over the country and has institutionalised
itself. Various local levej organisations th!t had sprung up during the early seventies, continued and gained a natlonalstrength by 1977, while level organisation was formed in 1976 and then again in late 1980. In 1977, the Committee for the Piotection of Democratic Rights, Bombay, (CPDR)

started publishing Raksha; the PUCL, Delhi, started the PUCL BuiUetin in 1981. Both were English periodicals while the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights Calcutta (APDR) initiated a Bengali weekly. In addition to these journals, each of the regional CDR organisations Dublished pamphlets on various issues they had to. confront over time. In the pre-1977 period the issues were mainly prisoners' release, rights of the prisoners in jail, death in police custody and torture. In the post-1977 period, the issues have shifted. In addition to the suppression of the civil rights of the people and the rights of political prisoners as well as nature of

view this literacy, Through the cold textbookish abstractiond that-- Noorani assumes or with critical emptthy outlining the issues and problems -that this literatu-re contains and' understanding the complexity and gravity of the issues that this literature deals with? Our position is different from Noorani's. We feel that Noorani has not consulted the larger literature in. this area. C-ertainly, this literature has not been published in dust-jacketed books and advertised in glossy journals by the -top publishers of the country. It comes out in pamphlets and is privately distributed, a large number of them being sold in conventiohs and meetings. The nature of production reflects the state of the CDR movement. And to answer Noorani's question 'is there a comprehensive guidebook or civil liberties for a layman?, we would say, yes, there is. The book is "Know Yours Rights". It was published in 1977 by CPDR. It has gone through 10 English editions (each edition was of 1,000 copies each, thus 10,000 copies have been distributed). It has been translated into Marathi and Gujarati (the latter has both paperback and hard-back editions) and has been adapted into Hindi and Punjabi. ,The is.sue5_ taken up by the CDR . indicate *e .Journls pan,phlets .new strides the mov-ement has taken to cop with the struggles of the opp-

1447