Is Illiteracy the Cause of Poverty?

It is often argued that illiteracy is the biggest problem in South Asia and also that illiteracy is the reason for poverty. What is the evidence for such assertions?

Let us start with a couple of concrete examples:

Over the past fifteen years, the proportion of the population living under extreme poverty in Pakistan has risen from 13 to 33 percent but illiteracy has declined during this period. Therefore, the explanation for the increase in poverty in Pakistan cannot be attributed to illiteracy.

India has a considerably higher literacy rate than Pakistan but the incidence of poverty in India was comparable to that in Pakistan for many years.  The recent trend in poverty reduction in India cannot be attributed to a sudden increase in literacy. 

This is not to argue that illiteracy does not matter. Clearly a literate work force can be much more productive than an illiterate one everything else remaining the same. And literacy can contribute positively to the quality of life of an individual for which reason it is considered a basic human right. But the fact remains that there is not sufficient evidence to establish that illiteracy is the most basic reason for poverty. 

Similarly, there is also no obvious link between poverty and the lack of democracy and human rights.  The most dramatic reductions in poverty have been in East Asian countries under non-democratic governments much criticized for their human rights records. By comparison, poverty reduction in democratic India has been much slower. Once again, this is not an argument for authoritarian governance; there are many other unrelated benefits of democracy. The point is that there seems no direct link between the lack of democracy and the incidence of poverty.

A closer look at the evidence might suggest that the causes of poverty have less to do with literacy or democracy and much more to do with economic and political policies.

The evidence of the impact of economic policies on poverty reduction is quite impressive. East Asia is a well documented example where the number of people living on less than one dollar a day has fallen almost two-thirds, from 720 million in 1975 to 210 million in 2002 almost entirely because of the rapidity of economic growth. India has also begun moving in the right direction after key economic reforms have relaxed the stifling grip of the ‘license Raj.’

On the other side are countries like Pakistan where ruling groups allocate the bulk of national resources to defense, foreign policy adventures, fomenting domestic strife to manipulate political power or in stifling business to protect vested interests. It is not surprising that foreign and domestic investors are reluctant to invest in such countries. Without investment, there is little job growth; and without job growth little prospect of reduction in poverty.

The political and economic choices of such ruling groups are not directly influenced or constrained by the illiteracy of their populations. Policies, good or bad, are all decided by people who are quite literate. What we need to explain is why some literate ruling groups make consistently bad political and economic decisions. One such decision is not investing in raising the literacy levels of their populations. Why did Sri Lanka and China invest in raising their literacy levels to over 90 percent while Pakistan and Bangladesh remain at around 40 percent? Why is the rural education program in India so weak compared to its urban program?

What we really need to explain is the persistence of illiteracy in some countries or parts of some countries. And this has to do with the interests, choices and decisions of the literate sections of these countries.  

When analysts begin to explain the political economy of continued impoverishment, when people understand the real causes of their poverty, and when political parties mobilize them on the basis of this understanding, perhaps then there will be hope for change in countries that have shortchanged their citizens by keeping them poor and illiterate.

Back to Main Page

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

8 Responses to “Is Illiteracy the Cause of Poverty?”

  1. Josephine Says:

    Actually, illiteracy is caused by poverty, too. So, both of them is connect

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Josephine, This question has been addressed in a parallel post Is Poverty the Cause of Illiteracy?

      The argument is as follows: If we make the acquisition of literacy a responsibility of individual households then it could be argued that poor households would not be able to pay for it. But no society has become literate in this fashion. Making societies literate is a social objective that is a responsibility of the state. All societies that took this responsibility seruiously, even those that were poor, were able to achieve literacy. The recent examples are Sri Lanka, Kerala, China, etc.

      Therefore the conclusion is that countries cannot use poverty as an explanation or excuse for the perpetuation of illiteracy.

  2. Vinod Says:

    SA, here’s something for you if you haven’t already seen it

    http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html

  3. akif ramzan Says:

    Illiteracy first needs to be defined to understand this argument.Literacy is not only about reading and writing;rather all sorts of arts and crafts can also be included in the sphere of literacy.A guy might not be able to write an application to someone,but he can have some kind of technical knowledge and education to get himself sustenance(ISHFAQ AHMAD,ZAVIA 1).
    So poverty is never a hinderance to illiteracy.Vice versa might be a more effective case.

  4. Mohammad Ali Says:

    Forgive me, but my definition of Illiteracy is something different as I believe, “illiteracy is lack of self consciousness.” Even if a society like ours gets literate by going schools, colleges and universities (commonly the benchmark of literacy), our society will remain backward. It is ‘self consciousness’ which defines higher goals, not only for one self, but collectively for nations and society and ultimately the World.

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Mohammad Ali/Akif Ramzan: We would not be able to progress if every reader came up with his/her own definition of literacy. In this case, it would be better to stay with the basic definition (as used by the UN in its global measurements, i.e., the ability to read and write) and deal with the other aspects separately. Clearly, a person who is illiterate can be very skilled, intelligent or rich. Similarly, an illiterate person can be self conscious or not. We don’t need to conflate these attributes.

      I am quite aware that there are extended concepts of literacy (e.g., one often hears of computer literacy) but in this case we would lose sight of the main argument if we get caught up with definitional variations – they are not needed here.

      The post is a response to a common argument that the main problem in Pakistan is not enough education; the inability to read and write is the most extreme case of lack of formal education. The point being made in the post is that the key decisions pertaining to development are being made by people with formal educational qualifications (e.g., Z A Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Shaukat Aziz, etc) not by those without. In what way are those without formal education a barrier to development? And, if they are, why don’t those with qualifications and in power, invest more in quality education?

      These emerge as the key questions and they are not simple to answer.

  5. KTShamim Says:

    Illiteracy plays major role. But we must engineer literacy to include moral values. Justice, sharing, kindness, must be part of our curricula and taught at schools. Cheaters must be dealt with strictly at the school level … only then can we hope for future leaders of higher moral standing.

    • SouthAsian Says:

      KT Shamim: I am not convinced that moral values, justice, sharing and kindness are dependent on literacy or have to be taught at school. Which of the leaders in South Asia do you believe had the highest moral standing? Which leader was the most effective?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 154 other followers

%d bloggers like this: