Ask questions first. Almost all countries flaunt "rejuvenating the country through science and education" and "rejuvenating the country through education". Today, almost everyone regards education as a productive investment. Why do you ask such strange and unreasonable questions?
In fact, this problem is not surprising: as early as 1970s, some radical scholars in the West put forward such a problem that the great development of education in the 1950s and 1960s in third world countries did not bring about corresponding great economic development and social equality, and explained it according to the "screening hypothesis" theory, the theory of labor market division and socialization, and the mistakes in national educational decision-making. Its main argument is that education is mainly a tool for screening and stratification; The main function of education is to assign people with different education levels to different labor markets, or to turn people into social tools, which has no direct relationship with the development of productive forces. Therefore, education may not promote economic growth.
However, before the 1980s, it seems that the example that education does not necessarily promote economic growth can only be found in developing countries. As for developed countries, it is generally believed that the rapid expansion and improvement of post-war education is the cornerstone of their economic growth. Japan, in particular, is regarded by experts and scholars all over the world as a model of education promoting economic development, and related works emerge one after another, deeply analyzing the "Japanese economic myth". However, since the 1990s, as the second country in the world to step into the popularization stage of higher education after the United States, Japan's higher education has developed rapidly, but why has its economy experienced zero growth or even negative growth? Does the conclusion that education can promote economic growth not even apply to developed countries like Japan?
Second, two periods and two phenomena are well known. The economic function of education is mainly reflected in the educated. Through education, the cognitive ability, production skills, distribution skills and management skills of the educated have been improved, thus improving productivity and promoting the development of the whole economy. This means that the more educated people and quality, the greater the impetus to the economy. Quality is comparative, usually including two levels of comparison. First, compared with people with the same education level, such as junior high school students and junior high school students, senior high school students and senior high school students, people with high knowledge and skills have higher quality; The second is the comparison of different educational levels, such as the comparison between high school students and junior high school students, the comparison between junior college students and high school students, the comparison between undergraduate students and junior college students, and so on. People usually think that the former is higher than the latter, because the capital content of the former, that is, the stock of human capital condensed on them, is more than the latter. Therefore, educational economists believe that high-level students have higher quality and make greater contributions to economic development. The theory of human capital founded by Schultz and others illustrates this truth. In short, the economic growth rate is positively related to the number and level of education. This conclusion really applies to Japan before the 1980s.
Japan attaches great importance to education. In the early post-war period, we overcame various difficulties and increased investment in education. It took only a few years for primary and junior high school education to spread from 65438 to 0949. Because Japan had popularized nine-year compulsory education before the economic take-off in 1955, the number of its graduates changed slowly and the proportion of its direct participation in economic activities was very small. Therefore, when discussing the economic function of Japanese education, it can be regarded as a fixed number, and the focus of research is on high schools, especially higher education.
Before 1980s, the correlation between Japanese education development and economic growth was quite obvious. Please look at the following data.
From 1955 to 1970, the number of high school students in Japan increased from 2.592 million to 4.232 million, an increase of 63.3%, and the number of college students increased from 60 100 to16.85 million, an increase of180.4%. From 1960 to 1970, the actual annual growth rate of the national economy is as high as 10.9%.
(Note: Because high school students in the late 1950s did not participate in economic activities until the 1960s, which contributed to economic growth, they were advanced to 1955 in statistics. )
From 1970 to 1980, the number of high school students increased from 4.232 million to 4.622 million, an increase of 9.2%, and the number of college students increased from16.85 million to 2.224 million, an increase of 32.0%. During the same period, the annual growth rate of GDP was 4.5%.
From 1980 to 1990, the number of high school students increased from 4.622 million to 5.623 million, an increase of 2 1.6%, and the number of college students increased from 2.223 million to 2.632 million, an increase of 18.4%. In the same period, the real annual growth rate of GDP was 4. 1%. (Note: The above economic growth data are taken from the International Statistical Yearbook, China Statistics Publishing House; The data of students in school are taken from the statistical outline of Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, and Sports, version 1998. )
The above statistics clearly show that from 1950s to 1980s, with the rapid and steady development of national education, Japan's economy always showed a growth momentum, although the growth rate slowed down after 1970s.
However, after 1990s, the positive correlation between education development and economic growth no longer exists. Since the 1990s, Japan has popularized high school education, and the proportion of its graduates entering various colleges and universities has greatly increased, which has now exceeded 50%. Therefore, when examining the contribution of education to economic growth, it can also be regarded as a fixed number, and it is no longer listed separately, but only higher education.
From 1990 to 1997, the number of Japanese college students increased from 2.632 million to 3 103 million, an increase of 17.9%, with an average annual growth rate of 4.34%, far exceeding the 3.03% in the 1980s. However, since 1990s, the real annual growth rate of Japan's GDP has been almost zero, while 1, 997 and 1, 998 have experienced negative growth for two consecutive years, with annual growth rates of -0.7% and -2.6% respectively.
The "positive" and "negative" relationship between Japanese education development and economic growth in different periods is also clear with charts. Suppose that the contribution of three high school graduates to economic growth is equivalent to one college student, that is, three high school graduates are converted into one college student. Therefore, we simplify the relationship between Japan's education development and economic growth to the relationship between the equivalent growth of all college students and economic growth. It can be shown as follows:
Attached drawings (drawings)
Although it seems a little simplistic to express the relationship between education and economy in this way, it basically reflected the essential relationship and its general trend before the 1990s, but after the 1990s, this positive correlation disappeared.
Third, thinking about the "abnormal phenomenon" in Japan.
Japanese scholars and scholars from other countries, including China, had in-depth research and incisive analysis on why Japanese education, especially higher education, could become the driving force of economic growth before 1980s. People believe in this. The question now is, why did Japan's education (which has been reformed better since the mid-1980s) accelerate its economic growth in the past, but it didn't seem to do so in the past decade?
The author believes that the most fundamental reason is that the times have changed. Apart from quantity, other more essential things of education have not changed much, that is, education has not adapted to the changes of the times and made corresponding changes, resulting in the failure to effectively play the economic function of education. The so-called times have changed, mainly refers to the developed countries represented by the United States gradually stepping into the information society from the industrialized society after the 1980s, that is, the knowledge economy society or the knowledge economy era. The influence of this change is comprehensive, huge and far-reaching. It not only affects people's thoughts and concepts, but also affects people's life and production methods, and then affects the whole education field.
As an American futurist Alvin toffler? Toffler and John? Chisbitt and others pointed out that in industrialized society, the characteristics of production mode are scale, batch, standardization and stability. Accordingly, the society only needs a few "elites" to invent and create, while the vast majority of people only need to study hard, master skills and operate skillfully under the supervision of the supervisor, and the production and business activities can be carried out smoothly. Therefore, the personal characteristics of dissatisfied or critical social and enterprise managers are creativity and independence. The personal characteristics of praise and advocacy are "persistence, loyalty, consistency, consistency with the unit, punctuality, safety, delayed satisfaction and tact". [1] In industrialized society, developed countries, especially Japan, set up education and cultivate talents and skilled labor according to these requirements of society and enterprises.
The characteristics of industrialized production in Japan are extremely distinct. Since the war, heavy industries such as steel, chemicals, automobiles, transportation and home appliances have been the pillars of the national economy. This mode of production is praised by the skilled, hard-working and faithful executive instructions described by Bowles and others. After the war, Japan invested heavily in education and reformed the educational system, structure, curriculum, teaching content and methods, basically according to the needs of monopoly capital or this mode of production, thus cultivating all kinds of talents and skilled labor with the above characteristics. In other words, this kind of education was compatible and coordinated with the mode of production at that time, so the function of education to promote social and economic development was vividly reflected and became a model praised by people.
However, in the late 1980s, after Japan followed the United States into the era of knowledge economy, the situation changed greatly. Different from the industrialized economy, the knowledge economy is not based on the large-scale use of natural resources, but on the full development of human intelligence and creative knowledge and skills. Accordingly, great changes have taken place in the mode of production. The characteristics of production activities are not large-scale but small-scale, not large-scale but small-batch, not stable but changeable, not standardized but diversified, and the production organization unit is not a workshop but a team. [2] The new mode of production requires that people engaged in production and management must be different from those in the industrialized period, not satisfied with obedience and operation, but must have pioneering spirit and pioneering ability, adaptability, and the ability to communicate and cooperate with others. In short, in the era of knowledge economy, it is not just a few "elites" who have the spirit and ability to innovate, but most ordinary people engaged in social and economic activities. Accordingly, education can only play a role in promoting social and economic development by changing traditional concepts, theories and models, creating new education and cultivating new talents to meet the characteristics and needs of the new era. However, the powerful traditional forces, the short-sightedness and mistakes of the government, and the inherent defects and deficiencies in education have made the progress of education reform in Japan slow and unable to keep up with the pace of economic development, resulting in the dislocation between education and economy and damaging economic development.
Japan is a nation that is good at learning from foreign countries. In ancient times, learning from China promoted the development of feudalism; In modern times, we learned from the west, engaged in the Meiji Restoration, "cultivated industries" and "rich and powerful soldiers"; After the war, he learned from America and became an "economic giant". In a word, Japan has achieved great success in learning foreign countries. However, things are always divided into two parts, and if they are not handled well, they may go to the opposite side. In fact, it is. The success of learning from foreign countries has made Japan gradually fall into some blindness, and learning has gradually become "imitation". As Japanese scholar Yong Gong Jing said, "Learning is imitation, which has become Japanese culture after Meiji, and spread to all citizens through education" [3]. If learning and "imitation" of foreign countries have positive significance in ancient and modern times, at home and abroad, and even before the 1980s, then in the era of knowledge economy, "imitation" and learning in a general sense are far from enough, or even undesirable. This is because, in the new era, the production and application of new knowledge is much faster than before, and new ideas, discoveries, inventions and creations emerge one after another with each passing day. In today's global economic integration and fierce international competition, it is inevitable to fall behind others. Moreover, pioneering countries, starting from their own interests, strictly block core ideas and technologies. In this situation, economic activities are based on "imitating" other people's inventions and technologies, rather than their own pioneering and innovation, which will inevitably despise and belittle the innovation of teachers and students and encourage and support the cultivation of personality characteristics such as ruthlessness, consistency, loyalty, reliability and safety. Such school education is difficult to cultivate millions of talents with pioneering spirit and ability, and it is bound to fail in the fierce international competition. Therefore, if Japan tasted the sweetness from imitation before the 1980s, it will definitely suffer after entering the information age.
A large number of facts have proved that once a custom or tradition develops into an important part of a country's national culture, it will form a huge inertia and it is difficult to change. Because imitation has become a part of Japanese culture, although the Japanese government and education circles have vigorously advocated educational reform in recent years, the progress is still limited due to the shackles of "imitation".
After the war, the Japanese government played an active role in increasing investment in education, diversifying the sources of educational funds and forms of running schools, and promoting educational reform and development. However. Some mistakes made by the Japanese government have also greatly damaged the development of basic research and science and technology in the country, thus causing a serious lack of stamina for economic development.
One of the mistakes is that the government's investment in scientific research is seriously insufficient. For a long time, the government has pushed the important task of scientific research to private enterprises, and its funds only account for about 20% of the total scientific research funds, far lower than the government funds of the United States, Germany, France and other countries of about 40%. The research funds of Japanese enterprises are mainly used for technology development rather than basic research, which makes the whole basic research funds seriously insufficient and affects its development. For example, in 1997, the index of Japanese scientific papers was only 8 1, which was not only far lower than 376 in Israel and 144 in the United States, but also lower than the world average index 19%. [4] The low ability and level of basic research has seriously restricted the development of high technology in Japan.
The second mistake is that the government has invested too little in the research of universities for nationalities, which is the core of higher education, resulting in good talent training and poor scientific research. It is no wonder that large Japanese companies generally believe that national universities are providers of human resources for research centers within companies and enterprises, rather than places where scientific research is completed.
The third mistake is that Japan's written and unwritten laws have long prevented public universities and private companies from conducting joint research. It was not until 1983 that state universities and private companies were allowed to carry out different forms of joint research. It was not until 1989 that Japan abolished a law prohibiting state-owned and public universities from participating in venture capital of private companies; Since then, these universities can openly accept scientific research donations from the private sector. [5] Because Japanese companies' scientific research investment in national universities is blocked, many large Japanese companies invest in American universities in order to obtain advanced scientific research results. For example, in the late 1980s, the Business School and the Law School of the University of Michigan received $3 million and $6.5438+$200,000 from Mitsui Life Insurance Company of Japan, respectively. Berkeley, California received $6 million in research funding from Japanese companies within five years; Japanese companies have contributed 3.5% of MIT's total investment. According to statistics, in the 1980s, Japanese companies' investment in American universities increased by an average of 25% every year, so that by 1989, Japanese companies' investment in American universities had exceeded their investment in domestic universities. [6] Although Japanese companies have made a lot of returns on their investment in American universities, they have further strengthened the scientific research strength of the United States and weakened their own research foundation, which is not conducive to Japan's competitive position in the long run. In a word, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Why did these major mistakes occur? One of the important reasons is that Japan is too superstitious about "takenism", believing that Japan can build a nest in international competition without investing a lot of money in basic research and relying on science and technology from the United States and other countries? 嗯嗯 u 嗯 嗯 嗯? It was effective before 1990s, but it became a dead end after entering the knowledge economy. This kind of mistake is not only a reflection of the Japanese government's shortsightedness, but also a reflection of Japanese traditional imitation culture.
A certain model or characteristic formed in the development of Japanese higher education has not adapted to the needs of the economic era, and its negative impact has become increasingly prominent, hindering the development of national science and technology and social economy. Mainly as follows:
First, the structure of higher education is seriously unbalanced, the liberal arts are too large and the science is too weak. Please see the table below.
Attached Table: Discipline Structure of Higher Education in Several Countries (Percentage of Students in School)
1957 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1990
English 55.3 53.8 60.5 65.0 48.7 49.9 48.8
Richard16.517.215.214.7 24.421.617.7.
Guo Gong 28.128.9 24.120.2 26.8 28.6 33.5
French franc 48.65438
Richard 33.127.41.721.7
Guogong18.718.521.4 25.0 20.6
West 42.142.9 44.9 42.8 48.8 47.8
Richard16.917.0 22.120.915.3.
Degong 40.9 40.0 34.4 36.2 36.5 36.8
Japanese 58.6 65.3 66.3 65.4 65.2 65.6
Richard 8.3 7.6 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.3
This work is 33.126.9 25.8 26.7 26.7 27.438+0.
USA 54.2 55.2 56.0 54.3 53.3 56.9
Richard 27.3 27.3 26.0 24.419.517.3
Lord protector16.017.518.013.719.0 25.9
Previous 23.2 23.3 22.8 3 1.8
Su Li15.515.014.668.2
Liangong 6 1.3 6 1.6 62.4 68.2
Note: Figures before 1975 refer to the subject structure of undergraduate courses.
Source: According to UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1965, 1970, 1978? 1979, 1985, 1993).
Obviously, compared with other developed countries, Japanese liberal arts are too bloated, while science is too weak, and the proportion of science students is only half or even lower than that of other countries. There is an obvious shortage of senior scientific researchers. For example, 199 1, only 600 people in Japan have obtained a doctorate in science, which is a fraction of the 9,700 people in the United States. Only 7,000 people have obtained industrial doctorates, which is only 1.4 million in the United States 1/20. [7] How can such a weak basic scientific research team compete with the United States, Britain and other countries in terms of strength and achievements?
There are two reasons for the serious imbalance of discipline structure. First, the government and society are eager for quick success and instant benefit, and are unwilling to invest in fields such as science and basic research with high cost, long cycle, slow effect and high risk. Instead, they want to take shortcuts to emulate and bring innovative achievements from other countries. Second, Japan implements the diversification policy of higher education, encouraging and supporting the development of private higher liberal arts education, whose expenditure is much lower than that of science and engineering, which leads to its excessive expansion and serious imbalance in the structure of arts and sciences.
Second, academic research is basically closed and fragmented, which is not conducive to cultivating interdisciplinary creative talents. Since the post-war period, it is undoubtedly desirable for Japan to learn from the United States, increase the teaching of basic courses for freshmen and sophomores, and strive to lay a richer foundation for students. However, after the senior year, students are given closed guidance by different tutors, and there is a lack of contact between tutors and students of different tutors, and there is a lack of academic exchanges and contacts. Therefore, from tutors to students, their professional knowledge is mostly narrow, lacking the interdisciplinary knowledge creation ability needed in the era of knowledge economy.
The negative influence of traditional culture, the mistakes in decision-making and the inherent defects of higher education are one of the concentrated reflections that Japan can only train many engineers and technicians, but not thinkers and theorists. According to statistics, as an economic power and a country with higher education popularization rate second only to the United States, only four people in Japan have won the Nobel Prize so far, two of whom were trained before the war. In sharp contrast, the United States, Britain and Germany won 175, 66 and 6 1 respectively. Japan's basic R&D potential is poor, how to meet the needs of the knowledge economy era without falling behind?
Fourth, some enlightenment.
It will give us a lot of enlightenment to explore the reasons why Japanese education has not played its due role since the 1980s. I think there are mainly the following aspects.
1. Material production has developed to a certain level and stage, which requires certain education to adapt to and serve it. The initial stage of industrialization, the period of vigorous industrialization and the post-industrialization period, that is, the period of knowledge economy, require different talents and education. This difference is not only manifested in quantity, quality and hierarchical structure, but also in educational guiding ideology, training mode, purpose and goal. In other words, education can effectively play its role in promoting scientific and technological and economic development only if it is adapted and coordinated with the relevant social and economic development stages. Otherwise, education will not only fail to play its due role, but will waste a lot of manpower, material resources and financial resources. Therefore, it is unscientific to assert that education can promote the development of science and technology and social economy.
2. In order to make education adapt to and coordinate social and economic development, we must seize the opportunity to carry out educational reform. This kind of reform must adapt to the stage of social and economic development. What is suitable for the industrialization period may not necessarily meet the needs of the knowledge economy era. Of course, the universal talent characteristics required by knowledge economy are not completely applicable to the early and middle stages of industrialization. This requires the education department to formulate and implement the education reform plan according to the corresponding stages of science, technology and production development.
3. Educational decision-making departments must have a deep understanding and understanding of the development stages and characteristics of science and technology and production methods when formulating educational reform plans; In a big country with an extremely uneven level of development, we must also deeply understand the situation and needs of different regions and departments. On this basis, it is possible to work out a feasible educational reform plan. Reform should be forward-looking and moderately advanced, because the inertia force in the field of education is large and the reform cycle is long. It was not until the late 1980s that Japan began to pay attention to and reform the unreasonable laws and regulations that hindered the basic research in universities, but it was too late, and the results were not obvious and the lessons were profound.
4. The reasons for the "failure" of Japanese higher education are complicated and diverse. The most fundamental thing is that the social and economic environment in this period hindered its normal play. After 1980s, Japan gradually entered the era of knowledge economy. However, the Japanese government and business circles lack a clear understanding of this and have not formulated the specific strategy needed by this economy. Instead, it hyped up real estate, engaged in "bubble economy" and stuck to outdated financial systems and policies, thus making part of Japan's economy go against the requirements of the times and get into trouble. In this context, education is obviously powerless. This fully proves that a good political, economic and social environment is the premise and foundation for the economic function of education.
5. The government's intervention and adjustment in education should be timely and reasonable. The government's intervention and macro-control in education and economy must be timely, practical and reasonable, otherwise there will be endless troubles. Before 1980s, the Japanese government's intervention in its economy and education was basically successful, which promoted their coordinated development. However, after the 1980s, some outdated laws and policies of the government were not adjusted in time, and even some outdated measures were introduced, which was not conducive to the development of education and economy.
In a word, the author concludes that education can promote social and economic development, but this role is conditional, not unconditional; The government and educational circles should strive to create these conditions and promote the coordinated development of education and economy.
Responsible Editor Qijia Reference
[1] Samuel? Bowles, Herbert? Kintis. Socialization function of education. See: Western School of Educational Economics. Trans. Xue Boying and others. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 1990.334 [2] toffler. The third wave. China Social Sciences Press. [3] Yongjing Xiong Xiong. Japanese universities? The role of universities in industrial society. Education Science Press, 1982.53[4] Feng Zhaokui. Japan's challenges in the 20th century. World economy, 1998, (10)
[5] Henry? Ezkowitz Universities and global knowledge economy. Jiangxi Education Press,19985438+07 ~ 219 [6] Zhao Chonghua. The new trend of international school-enterprise cooperation. Trends in foreign education, 195438+0, (5): 43 [7]