The Third Pillar

by Raghuram Rajan

  Local government misbehavior and corruption can also be more easily identified through community action, though it is important that citizen monitoring does not turn into vigilantism. For example, the body cameras on police officers help assess their behavior in difficult situations, protecting good officers who take reasonable actions while outing officers who do not. The ubiquitous cell-phone camera is also a way for people to record and report official misbehavior, with actions from intemperate words to rank brutality recorded for posterity, and broadcast widely on the internet. This helps redress the balance of power between the people and their public officials.

  In India, the I Paid A Bribe website encourages people to report situations where they had to pay a bribe, situations where they refused to pay a bribe, as well as recognize honest officers who did not ask for bribes (in some government offices, meeting someone who does not ask for a bribe is surprising enough to be commented upon).9 The website started by community activist Swati Ramanathan also produces reports on areas and communities that are most prone to corruption, and has a network of retired senior government officials who help publicize and rectify the problems the website has uncovered from its analysis of citizen reports.

  The broader point is that the ICT revolution allows for more effective decentralization of state functions because the community can become more informed and engaged with local governance. Federal agencies should also monitor the use of funds, and have the ability to intervene when they detect gross malfeasance. This should be done with a light touch so that it does not effectively recentralize policy. Preemption laws, of the kind that states currently use to prevent specific communities from undertaking activities they disfavor, should be used lightly and primarily to enforce inclusion.10 Effective decentralization is critical for empowering communities within the broader framework of civic nationalism.

  IMPROVING THE BUILDING OF WORKER CAPABILITIES

  The ICT revolution has altered the capabilities people need. Equally important, it also allows for different ways to meet these needs. We need to embrace technology as we prepare our students to face the challenges posed by technological change. In this section I will refrain from entering old and unresolved debates on how education needs to be reformed—debates such as school funding, teacher evaluations and salaries, teacher tenure, teacher unions, charter schools, and so on. I will also take the student body as given.

  Instead, I will focus on how the relationship between the community and the state can be altered to improve capability building. The ICT revolution does not require everyone to get PhDs but it does require everyone to have a solid basic education, which prepares them for lifelong learning. New technologies allow a different mode of teaching, which permits teachers to tailor learning individually to each student. This will make it easier for teachers to teach classes with students from varied backgrounds and preparation, to ensure each student learns what is required and gets the basic education. These technologies can help reduce the incentive for residential sorting. They also allow federal, state, and district authorities to monitor class performance remotely, and thus feel more confident that funds are used well. Consequently, responsibility for course content can be delegated to the teachers in well-performing schools, thus allowing parents to engage with teachers once more. This will make the school a stronger focal point for community engagement. The state can also play a supportive role in improving both the certification process and the availability of information about educational and career opportunities. It can also make it easier for students to finance their learning.

  START WITH THE BASICS

  It is easy to get overwhelmed by the prospects of technological change. Many jobs will indeed be automated, but which ones will they be? Experts believe there will continue to be a role for human empathy, flexibility, and creativity and that human combined with machine will probably beat human or machine alone.11 The average human therefore requires the skills to be able to complement the machine. Computers can read out loud, take dictation, spell-check, and do any mathematical calculation we ask them to perform, but we are still needed for them to communicate, stringing words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into an informative or persuasive message. Similarly, humans are needed to break down a problem into specific steps that our computers can perform. All this requires the human to have basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Yet, even in developed countries, basic skills are not taught well to all students in schools today, so too many have no capacity to complement machines.

  The ICT revolution does require some to learn far more so that they have the additional skills to come up with breakthrough new ideas, processes, and programs that the rest of us will use. There will be a premium to higher education. All too often, though, we are looking for higher education for everyone—a recipe for failure. Instead, in this environment, schools should prepare students with a solid understanding of the basics so that they have the flexibility to move between industries and jobs as the machines and environment change.

  TEACH DIFFERENTLY

  In the traditional model of teaching, the teacher holds forth in the classroom, and students listen with varying degrees of attention. Since not all are at the same level, teachers are in a quandary. Should they teach to the smartest kid, the laggards, or the child in the middle? Any of these choices loses some kids, either to boredom or incomprehension, and reduces the learning experience for all. As we have seen, this is one reason we see residential sorting.

  New tools like digital learning platforms—essentially a package of recorded lectures, reading materials, videos, question banks and assignments, and assessment programs to measure and keep track of student progress, all available online—allow the teacher to flip the classroom and homework in order to enhance learning across all students. The key resource in class is the teacher, and the key constraint is student time and attention. Rather than sitting passively in class, listening to the teacher lecture, the student could do that at home, perhaps even listening to nationwide star teachers assigned by the curriculum. By preparing for class at home (or in study hours at school if the students’ home environment is too disturbing), students can replay digital content as many times as they need to absorb difficult sections—new face-tracking technologies can also indicate to the teacher whether videos have been watched. Each student can learn at their own pace. The platform can assess their understanding regularly, and offer supplementary material either to challenge them or to remedy deficiencies. Individualized adaptive teaching is thus easy with well-designed platforms, sparing the teacher the quandary of whom to teach to.

  Class time is freed for the teacher to motivate students with interesting projects, help students as they go over assignment problems individually or in groups, and go over any issues the students find particularly difficult. Students will learn in class from one another and the teacher, and in the process fill in the gaps in their understanding. Since the teacher works closely with the students, she gets to know who is falling behind, if she does not already from automated assessments.

  The teacher’s role changes from lecturer to coach and designer, who combines the triad of human, machine, and process to create a better experience for her students. For the less-than-capable teacher, the school system could offer ready-made lesson plans and the associated resources such as lectures by star teachers so that course design is easy—communities could easily share what works with one another. As the teacher gains confidence, experience, and knowledge, she may become a star teacher in her own right. In contrast, the already capable teacher can pick and choose from the system, uploading her own lectures and problems when she thinks they offer more immediate and relatable content for the students, and using the system’s content when adequate. Parental engagement is also much more feasible as the teacher takes up design.

  JUDICIOUS DECENTRALIZATION

  It is easy now to see how the state or district board
would decentralize to the schools and the teachers. The central authorities could, together with the various communities, set out broad minimum objectives of education at each level and for each subject, leaving the specifics of how those objectives will be achieved to the schools themselves. It could also offer schools and teachers pedagogic tools that they could use, including the learning platform. Teachers and schools would pick and choose their curricula, based on the confidence they have in their own ability to make judicious choices. For those who don’t believe they have the ability, the central authorities would provide a default curriculum. Decentralization allows teachers and schools to figure out the approach that works best for their students and community, while engaging parents in the process. Finally, schools can feed regular automated assessments of student performance to administrators to assure them that their funding is being used well.

  None of this is “techno hype.” Versions of this kind of learning model are used in very poor school districts across the world, including by Pratham, an organization working with slum children in India. An important virtue is the model is largely scalable (except for local customization), so most of the costs can be incurred centrally.

  The promise of new technologies should not obscure other very real problems that hold back schooling systems everywhere such as student preparedness and motivation. As discussed earlier in the book, nurture during early childhood plays a very important part in a child’s subsequent health and development. Many countries do little to support the child at this stage of its development, expecting families to do so. Many poor or broken families are unable to provide the young child the environment it needs. Once again, the community is in a better position to identify needy young children, and provide them the necessary support at that early stage, so that far costlier and less-effective remedial interventions are unnecessary later. In these and other aspects of education, such as student motivation and discipline, student delinquency, and student safety, community effort is critical.

  INFORMING EMPLOYERS AND STUDENTS

  As students develop solid foundations in the basics, and as platforms develop reliable student assessments, the excess search for credentials we discussed earlier will wane. If employers know that the high school graduate indeed knows what a high school graduate is supposed to know, and this is verified by a reliable certificate, they have no need to ask for extra credentials. The state could play an important role by ensuring uniformity in assessments by learning platforms.

  Some students will want to go on to higher studies. In many poor communities, students have no one to turn to for advice on what they should learn, and where and how they should apply. Too many students end up in the wrong courses and with too much debt. Coalitions between local governments, unions, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations can help fund college and career counseling. Technology can also reduce costs—employment-oriented platforms can deal with routine counseling cases, while professional career counselors can handle the difficult ones. The state can also help students and their counselors choose by mandating that educational institutions post data on graduation and placement rates so as to weed out low-quality credential shops.

  PAYING FOR LEARNING

  How much of skill acquisition and education ought to be state-subsidized? It is tempting to argue that free public education should be available to all until the highest degrees, as it is in France or in India. The United States has limited free public education through high school, though a number of US states are pushing to make community college free. It seems reasonable to set the bar for free education at a level at which most of the population can take advantage of it—in the United States, that may well be the community college today. Setting the bar higher could exacerbate credential inflation, overcrowding colleges even while diverting students into pathways that do not contribute to learning or jobs.

  Any student or worker who wants to learn more should be able to map their specific needs, equipped with both information and counseling. A mix of grants and loans should be available to fund this. Innovative student loan plans across the world now tie repayment to a modest fraction of the student’s subsequent earnings as verified by the tax authorities (thus charging high earners more and low earners less). They allow loan forgiveness after a number of years, especially if the recipient takes lower-paying community or public-sector jobs. Some allow borrowers who are servicing their loans to borrow more for additional training over their lifetimes. Some companies allow employees to build up credits toward a paid sabbatical or for outside courses. So do some governments; as part of its Skills Future program, Singapore gives every citizen above the age of twenty-five an annual S$500 credit that can be used to pay for training courses provided by any of list of approved providers. The intent is to get citizens into the habit of lifelong learning.

  We need to be creative about such programs, making it easier for all to learn when warranted by the job market or intrinsically desired by the individual for personal interest or development, but not cross the line into forcing everyone to continue reenlisting in unnecessary higher education. We should not overvalue the credentials produced by education, and should not prioritize work with the mind over work with the hands or with people. After all, who knows where technological progress will take us?

  DRAWING THE COMMUNITY INTO THE SAFETY NET

  Let us turn finally to the safety net. In order to function without constant fear of destitution, there should be a basic level of unconditional federal economic support for those faced with unemployment or old age. It should be enough to manage a “Spartan” living as suggested by the Beveridge Report (discussed in Chapter 4). Over and above this basic level, individuals should pay for social insurance programs (such as social security in the United States) or private insurance (such as employer-supported pension plans).

  Health care should be universal and funded by tax revenues (even if privately provided) on the grounds that no civilized democratic society should allow its members to be unable to participate fully in life simply because they cannot afford care. Democracy means each person counts, and they cannot count if they are debilitated by illness. Of course, income-linked copayments should be asked of all so as to prevent overuse and there should be limits on reimbursements for costly experimental therapies. Nevertheless, nearly everyone will get all the care they need to be functioning members of society.

  Before we end this chapter, we need to discuss three issues. First, to what extent should some of the support beyond the Beveridge level of care, for those who have not saved money or paid for insurance, be decided and administered by the community? Second, should we prepare for increasing technological unemployment with schemes like a universal basic income? Third, how do we pay for the entitlements that have already been committed to, as well as the outstanding government debt, even before we embark on creating new entitlements?

  COMMUNITY-DETERMINED ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

  The basic level of economic support in case of unemployment, disability, or old age should have no conditions attached. Neither should social or private insurance that has been paid for through past premiums. Some people will not have anything more than that basic level of support. The country may want to add a little more, especially if the basic level of support is far below community standards of living.

  Could the community not be more closely engaged in determining the conditions under which the additional support will be given? For instance, the able-bodied unemployed could work on community-identified projects that will ease their way back into employment. The able indigent elderly could help staff community libraries or conduct local tours, for instance. As nations age, the elderly will need more care. All too often, love and affection from the caregiver are as important as the actual care, especially as many more of the childless grow old and outlive their partners. Perhaps the community could play a role here—could the elderly who are only moderately incapacitated be allowed to nomin
ate a caregiver, who will be paid a modest sum by the community authorities, to tend to the elderly person’s few needs, but also more generally to visit periodically and keep an eye on them? The sum need not be so large that professional caregivers are put out of work or that the elderly are swamped with unwanted attention as everyone cozies up to them begging to be chosen. It should also not be so small that it is a mere token and does not help the community rally. Money cannot, and should not, buy love, but it can help reward those who keep up the spirit of the community and spread love around. Many of these may be the formerly unemployed and unemployable in the community.

  For single or poor parents with children, community support may not involve any conditions other than the presumption that it is spent in the interests of the family. Indeed, once locals know who the overburdened families are, they may pitch in to help with child care.

  Some might see the conditions the community imposes for additional support as demeaning, intrusive, and paternalistic. There is certainly the possibility of abuse. Yet it is helpless dependence that is most demeaning for individuals. Aid administered by a faceless central bureaucracy is both anonymous and distant, which community support will not be. Some recipients might prefer anonymity, but it also leads to apathy. Community awareness can result in well-meaning community engagement, as in Elberfeld described in Chapter 4, and attempts to eliminate the conditions that brought about the need for aid. Federal regulations governing community-imposed conditionality coupled with the possibility of appeal to courts could provide some safeguards against excessively paternalistic or intrusive conditions. Properly structured, though, the design of such additional support could draw the community together, even while ensuring the recipient remains a contributing member to the community.