The evaluation of the effectiveness of using education as a solution to reduce income inequality within Singapore

In Goldin’s (2009) lecture, he mentions several problems that will arise due to globalisation, one of which is that “globalisation is not inclusive” and many people are left out of the benefits of globalisation, resulting in income inequality. Income inequality is the difference in wealth between households. A large income gap indicates that there will be a large group of people who are living in poverty. This is undesirable as it would cause an unstable society. Statistics have shown that people in developed countries have more capability and knowledge to reap more benefits from globalisation than those in less developed countries. This is supported by Ogunsola (2005) who acknowledged that “the more developed countries reap the lion share of the benefits while the less developed bypass the benefits” of globalisation. However, income inequality can also exist within countries. This can be seen in the case of Singapore. Although Singapore is ranked one as one of the top countries for the highest GDP per capita, it has a significantly high gini coefficient of 0.463 as of 2013, indicating that large income inequality exists within Singapore.

To address the problem on large income inequality, the education of citizens is adopted by Singapore government as one of the strategies to reduce this problem. Education is also a globally recognised tool that can benefit and allow people to escape the poverty trap. For example UNESCO (2014) which recognises education as a solution to alleviate poverty came up with a mission called “Education for All” to promote education.

I feel that education is an effective tool that can help to reduce income inequality between households in Singapore in the long run. The importance of education to reduce income inequality can be seen easily by comparing the difference in the income level between different people with different education levels. Davie (2012) mentioned in her article in the Straits Times that starting salaries of diploma holders are estimated to be around $2000 while those of degree holders $3000. It can be said that people without these qualifications will not be able to reach salaries of those stated then. Qualification represents knowledge and capability in this society and individuals who are highly educated will be highly sought for by the knowledge based economy. This shows that as long as the poor are educated and have the required knowledge, they will be able to have the opportunity to leave the poverty trap and reduce the income inequality within Singapore.

In addition, Ji (2012) did an analysis on the education policies of countries including Japan and Korea which place a strong emphasis on equity in terms of opportunities for education. She mentioned that education policies focusing on ensuring availability of equal education for all might be a particularly useful way for countries to increase earning mobility between generations and reduce income inequality over time. Singapore, similar to Japan and Korea, also focuses on equity in education in terms of providing opportunities for all the individuals in Singapore. For example, all Singaporean are required to have compulsory primary education. To ensure that no families are denied of this opportunity, education for Singaporean students is subsidised for the needy families and every student is given a sum of money in their Edusave account annually. In addition, many different educational paths are available for the children after their primary school education to encourage the less academically inclined students to further their studies. For example, there are Normal Academic and Normal Technical streams to encourage the students that did not do well to continue with their studies after primary school. The Singapore’s education policy is directed in such a way that the newer generations have equal opportunities to obtain at least primary school education and the individuals are encouraged to study beyond the compulsory primary school education, this will create a future workforce that has a higher level of education. It is believed that having highly educated workforce, the income inequality in Singapore will be reduced gradually.

The limitation of using education as a tool is that it requires a long time for the effects to be observed. Income inequality can be reduced when the education level of the entire workforce increase as a whole. However this is a very long process. This can be supported by the statistics from the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore (2013) which revealed through a span of 10 years from 2003 to 2013, the percentage of workforce that attained tertiary education only increase by about 15%, suggesting that it requires a long time for Singapore to obtain a higher percentage of tertiary educated worker.

Currently, a phenomenon observed in the Singapore’s society is that as the Singapore’s workforce gets more opportunity for education, the income gap increases. Statistics from the Ministry of Manpower of Singapore (2013) revealed that 49.9% of the workforce obtained tertiary education in 2013 as compared to 34.6% in 2003. However, within this same period, the Singapore Department of Statistics (2013) indicated that the gini coefficient increases from 0.457 to 0.463. As the new generation of young individuals with higher qualification enters the work force and obtain relatively higher salary than the lesser educated, it can be expected that the income inequality is going to further increase. However, it is believed that income inequality is likely to be reduced if all the individuals in Singapore become more educated as a whole. However, this can only be achieved after many generations, which required a long time.

Another limitation lies within the education system in Singapore. Due to the limited vacancies for tertiary education, competition will always be present in Singapore’s education system, undoubtedly, individuals will continue being ranked according to their academic ability. This poses a difficulty for Singapore to obtain a workforce with majority of the individuals obtaining equal level of education and as a result difficult to achieve low level of income inequality. However, this may not be the case if the Ministry of Education in Singapore can provide more paths and opportunities for the less academically inclined group of people who may have talent in other aspects. By allowing them to pursue their area of interest, they will be able to unleash their potential and may do as well as their peers who are better at studies. With this idea in place, everyone can be given the opportunity to be successful, thus reducing the income inequality within Singapore.

Sir Francis Bacon once said “Knowledge is power”. Education and knowledge are now one of the crucial keys to success and wealth in the Singapore society. I believe that education will be an effective tool to reduce income inequality in the long run when majority of the people have attained higher qualifications.

References

Davie, S. (2013, May 18). Is a degree really all-important?. The Straits Time. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/degree-really-all-important-20130518

Department of Statistic Singapore. (2013). Key Household Income Trends, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/household_income_and_expenditure/pp-s20.pdf.

Goldin, I. (2009, July). Navigating our global future [Video file].  Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ian_goldin_navigating_our_global_future.html

Ji, E. C. (2012, April 25). How can education help tackle rising income inequality?. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.sg/2012/04/how-can-education-help-tackle-rising.html?m=1.

Ministry of Manpower Singapore. (2012). Singapore Workforce, 2012. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://www.mom.gov.sg/Publications/mrsd_singapore_workforce_2012.pdf

Ministry of Manpower Singapore. (2013). Labour Force in Singapore, 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://stats.mom.gov.sg/iMAS_PdfLibrary/mrsd_2013LabourForce.pdf#page=21

Ogunsola, L. A. (2005). Information and Communication Technologies and the Effects of Globalization: Twenty-First Century "Digital Slavery" for Developing Countries--Myth or Reality?.  Retrieved from March 25, 2014, from Obafemi Awolowo University, http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v06n01/ogunsola_l01.htm

UNESCO. (2014). Education for the 21^st Century. Retrieved March 25, 2014 from http://en.unesco.org/themes/education-21st-century.

Reader Response (edited version)

In "Globalisation of Culture through the Media", Kraidy (2002) discusses the controversies on the effects of mass media on globalisation of culture. One group of international communication theorist believe that cultural imperialism, a phenomenon whereby Westerners propagate their culture through media, has had massive effects on global culture. However, another perspective is that global culture can be affected by all parties with power to control the media. This perspective is called "hybridisation", whereby cultures and traditions from various countries interact and reconstruct. Kraidy also questions if the media is the cause for the rising homogeneity of culture or if it only acts as a catalyst to boost such globalisation. He is supportive of the idea that the existing culture hybridity is intensified by mass media.

I agree that parties with power will be able to control what media releases to the audience. In Paddy Ashdown’s talk on “The global power shift”, he mentions massive effects on the world by “globalisation of power”. This effect can be easily seen via an analysis of the K-pop market, using Girls Generation as an example. They are supported by a strong Korean record company (SM Entertainment) that operates internationally and is able to control the media easily. This allows the artists and their work to gain fame globally. With this, I agree with Kraidy’s view that the concept of cultural imperialism is no longer applicable to the world because the world’s culture is not only shaped Westerners but by Asians as well.

I also agree with Kraidy that transnational media intensify the culturale hybrids that already exist. It is undoubted that the concept of idolisation existed way before transnational media was established. However, only when transnational media started rising, did it bring about the sudden rise of the popular culture. In “Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture”, Ho (2012) mentions that it is the spread of Korea’s entertainment media to Japan that caused a surge in the Korean Wave, even to the extent that Japanese middle age house wives, who have the social perceived role of being “supporting wife” and “devoted mother”, leave their homes and spend a lot of money just to follow their Korean idol. It is because the Internet media propagates this popular culture so fast across the globe that it actually intensifies the effects of popular culture to people of other countries other than the place of its origin.

However, I do not agree with Kraidy’s view that there is no homogeneity in the culture. The reason being I feel that Kraidy has overgeneralised culture. According to ICACP report (2012), culture includes all the changes which man adds to nature, implying the existence of different categories of culture. Perhaps it might be impossible for countries to have a uniform culture, but I believe it is possible for many people in some countries to share certain cultural component. Just like how idolisation is not an effect that is seen only in Japan but a worldwide phenomenon, supporting my belief that homogeneity does exist if we look at specific type of culture.

References

ICSCP. 2012. Many Voices, One World: Towards a New More Just and More Efficient World of Information and Communication Order. London, New York and Paris: UNESCO.

Kraidy, M. (2002). Globalisation of Culture through the Media. University of Pennsylvania.

Patrick W. & Jason G. (2012). Idols and Celebrity in Japanese Media Culture. University of Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from: masterofants.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/idols-book.pdf

How effective is education as a solution to reduce income inequality within Singapore?

Goldin mentions several problems that will arise due to globalisation. One of which is that “globalisation is not inclusive” and many people are left out from the benefits of globalisation, resulting in income inequality. Income inequality is the difference in wealth within households. It is undesirable for a society as it causes poverty. Statistics have shown that developed countries have more capability and knowledge to reap more benefits from globalisation than the less developed countries. This is supported by Ogunsola (2005) who acknowledges that “the more developed countries taking the lion share of the benefits while the less developed bypass the benefits”. However, income inequality can also exist within countries. This can be seen in the case of Singapore. Although Singapore is ranked one of the top for the highest GDP per capita and has a very high GDP of USD274.7 billion in 2012, it has a very low gini coefficient of 0.463 in 2013, indicating that large income inequality exists within Singapore.

Education is one of the strategies that Singapore government has adopted to tackle income inequality. Education is also a globally recognised tool that can benefit people and allow people to leave the poverty trap. For example UNESCO which promotes “Education for All” also recognise education as a solution to alleviate poverty.

I feel that education is an effective tool that can help to reduce income inequality within Singapore in the long run. The importance of education on income can be seen easily by comparing the difference in the income level between different people with different education level. Statistics reveal that starting salaries of diploma holders are about $2000 while degree holders around $3000. Qualification represents knowledge and capability in this society. In the knowledge based economy today, it demands more for knowledgeable workers with higher qualifications and these workers are well paid too. Hence education have the ability to enable the poor to be out of the poverty trap and reduce the income inequality.

In addition, Ji (2012) did an analysis on the education of countries including Japan, Korea which places a strong focus on equity in opportunities. She mentions that education policies focusing on equity in education might be a particularly useful way for countries to increase earning mobility between generations and reduce income inequality over time. Singapore which is similar to Japan and Korea also focus on equity in education. For example, all Singaporean children are required to have compulsory primary education. To ensure that no families are denied of this opportunity, education for Singaporean students are subsidised for the needy families and every student is given a sum of money in their Edusave account annually. Having similar strategies as these countries, it is believed that the income inequality will be reduced gradually as the population progresses to a higher level of education as a whole.

The limitation of employing education as a tool is that it requires a long time for the effect to be observed. In Singapore society today, people with lower education levels hold a significant percentage as compared to those with higher education levels. As the new generation of young individuals with higher qualification enters the work force, we will observe further increase in the income inequality. This phenomenon is currently observed in the workforce today where the Gini coefficient dropped from 0.478 in 2012 to 0.463 in 2013. Income inequality is only likely to be reduced if individuals in Singapore become more educated, however, this can only be achieved after many generations.

Another limitation lies within the education system in Singapore. As competition will always be present in Singapore’s education system, undoubtedly, individuals will continue being ranked. Individuals who do well are often provided with a lot of opportunities and the less academically inclined however, are often left with limited choices. This group of people are stereotyped by the society as a weaker group of people and will proceed to take up manual jobs when they graduate. However, this may not be the case if they are given more opportunities to pursuit areas which they are interested in. The government, specifically Ministry of Education in Singapore, can cater more paths and opportunities for this group of people to allow them to pursuit their area of interest so as to unleash their potential, rather than limit their potential. With this, everyone can be given the opportunity to be successful and so, reducing the income inequality within Singapore.

Sir Francis Bacon once said “Knowledge is power”. Education and knowledge is now one of the crucial key to success and wealth in the Singapore society. I believe that education will be an effective tool to reduce income inequality in the long run when majority of the people has attained higher qualifications.

Referencing

Almas Heshmati. (2003). The Relationship Between Income Inequality and Globalisation.

Government of Singapore. Department of Statistic Singapore. (2013). Key Household Income Trends, 2013. Retreived from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/household_income_and_expenditure/pp-s20.pdf.

Goldin, I. (2009, July). Navigating our global future [Video file].  Retrieved from 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ian_goldin_navigating_our_global_future.html

Ji EunChung. (2012, April 25). Re: How can education help tackle rising income inequality?. Retrieved from http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.sg/2012/04/how-can-education-help-tackle-rising.html?m=1.

Sandra Davie. (2013). Is a degree really all-important?. The Straits Time. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/degree-really-all-important-20130518

L. A. Ogunsola. (2005). Information and Communication Technologies and the Effects of Globalization: Twenty-First Century "Digital Slavery" for Developing Countries--Myth or Reality?  Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v06n01/ogunsola_l01.htm

UNESCO. (2014). Education for the 21^st Century. Retrieved from http://en.unesco.org/themes/education-21st-century.

UUPaul R. Masson. (2001). Globalisation Facts and Figures. Retrieved from IMF Research Paper Data Base.

The essay process (first draft)

How effective is education as a solution to alleviate the income inequality between countries?

Globalisation is the process of whereby different parts of the world gets integrated. International Monetary Fund (IMF) recognises the four aspects of globalisation which includes trade and transaction, capital and investment movements, migrations and movement of people and spread of knowledge. In Goldin’s talk he mentions that “globalisation is not inclusive” and many people are left out from the benefits of globalisation. This is especially so for the countries that are less developed. In his talk he acknowledges that the area on technological development, medicine, genetic modification is flourishing. Indeed these are brought about and speed up by globalisation where ideas can be exchanged within geographical boundaries easily. However, this market is often monopolised by the rich companies in the developed countries that have more resources invested in the research of these area and have the ability to constrict a barrier to entry to these markets. The weaker countries have no knowledge and money for these developments which leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle and can only do lowly skilled and paid jobs, resulting in the effect where the rich will richer and the poor get poorer. Education is globally recognised as a way to eradicate the income disparity between countries and even within a country. United Nation Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) also acknowledge that education is a tool to eradicate poverty. I feel that education is a effective tool in the long term basis.

Singapore is a good example to show that education is an effective tool for the growth and development of a country. Singapore the government identified that education and literacy is a key for success, in 2003, a compulsory education is introduced to prepare the children for the knowledge based economy. Singapore has progress thus far from a small fishing village to one of the globally recognised developed nation in the world. This shows the effectiveness of education to a nation. In addition there is also a general trend that people with a higher level of education can get a higher salary than the people low level of education. The average starting salary of a diploma holder in Singapore is about $2000 and a degree holder is $3000. This shows the importance of education to get a higher pay which provides the poor with opportunity to leave poverty.

In contrast, India being a less developed country have many citizens are still trapped within the poverty cycle although it is starting developing rapidly recently. These citizens are mostly uneducated. True enough, under the influence of globalisation, the Indians seemed to benefit as more of them got a job. However, due to the lack of education and knowledge they are often exploited to do manual and lowly paid jobs for the richer countries. For example, Singapore employed a lot of Indians as construction workers where they faces high risks and are lowly paid. Also, with the scholarship system, developed countries uses attractive scholarships to bonds the talents from the less developed countries to their countries, leaving behind the weaker in the less developed countries. These illustrates the importance of education. With education, the less developed people be more knowledge which will give them more options and opportunities to choose their job and not being exploited.

However, there are also limitation to education. Education is a long term process. Singapore took about 50 years to progress to what we have today. For education to be an effective tool, good educational policies and strategies are required. According to the United Nation Report, 125 million school children are still unable to read a sentence after 4 years of education. This indicated that having education is not sufficient, the policy and the teaching strategies are crucial determinant for the effectiveness of education.

Sir Francis Bacon once said “Knowledge is power”. True enough, education and knowledge is one of the crucial key to success and wealth in the society now. Hence I believe that education is an effective tool to eradicate poverty.

Referencing

UNESCO. (2014). Education for the 21^st Century. Retrieved from http://en.unesco.org/themes/education-21st-century