https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gross-enrollment-ratio-in...
Your claim also included a question about why these countries are still poor. Brazil is not competing with the France of the 1970s.
I made no such claim. I said that education was a consequence of economic growth, not vice versa. That is all. If you do a regression of changes in education over time versus changes in economic growth there is no trend. Changes in education do not cause changes in economic growth.
That Brazil is not competing with 1970s France is irrelevant to my claim. Education is a consequence rather than a cause of growth.
> Large parts of Africa and almost all of Latin America are more highly educated now than 1970s Europe and poorer than it.
Brazil's economic growth has been between 5% and 10% since the 1970s. That's pretty respectable. So how can you claim which is the causation?
> I said that education was a consequence of economic growth, not vice versa.
> The most obvious example of economic growth not being associated with education is post Deng Xiaoping China. The huge majority had primary school education at best and the economy just kept growing and growing.
From your own source, China also has a greater proportion of the populace in third level education than France did in 1970. In fact, the chart for China looks very similar to Brazil. And with both countries "the economy just kept growing and growing."
> If you do a regression of changes in education over time versus changes in economic growth there is no trend.
Source? Where can we find that analysis?
> That Brazil is not competing with 1970s France is irrelevant to my claim. Education is a consequence rather than a cause of growth.
You don't have to look at relative education levels to understand if a competitive advantage in education leads to growth? It would be naive to claim any change in education will result in economic growth. So hopefully what we are talking about here is changes in education that lead to one country being ahead in education in some qualitative measures. At which point you would be able to understand whether or not being ahead of another country in education results in growth.
Yes, China got rich so it started spending money on education. That’s my point. An educated populace is a consequence of a rich one, not a cause.
> Does Schooling Cause Growth or the Other Way Around?
> Barro (1991) and others find that growth and schooling are highly correlated across countries, with each additional year of 1960 enrollment associated with about .6% per year faster growth in per capita GDP from 1960 to 1990. In a model with finite-lived individuals who choose schooling, schooling can influence growth, but also faster technology-driven growth can induce more schooling by raising the effective rate of return on investment in schooling. We consider a variety of evidence to determine the strength of these channels, with two main findings. First, faster-growing countries have at most modestly flatter cross-sectional experience-earnings profiles, consistent with a minority role for the channel from schooling to growth. Second, we calibrate the model using evidence from the labor literature and employ UNESCO attainment data to construct schooling going back well before 1960.
> We find the channel from schooling to growth to be too weak to generate even half of Barro's coefficient under a range of plausible parameter values. The reverse channel from expected growth to schooling, in contrast, is capable of explaining the empirical relationship. We conclude that the evidence favors a dominant role for the reverse channel from growth to schooling.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5194368_Does_School...
