Educational reform to discover pandemic renormalization

The age-old philosophy of education has always proceeded along self-con- ceited outlook of elitism and a socio-economic development context of economic growth and acquisition of wealth and property rights. The prominent impression of such a pursuit of educational programs has always been devoid of any programmatic and policy-centered incentive for understanding the greater issues and problems of the global society and its economic reasoning and structure with the science-economy-society moral inclusiveness. As an example, it has been pronounced that educational programs feed into models of cash-flows, economic growth, efficiency, self-centered property rights, and human resource development. The misunderstood idea of such achievements is garlanded on education as having its trickle-down effects on economy, finance, science, and society. These elitist consequences have altogether decried the great moral inclusiveness issues that a holistic model of education and educational reform ought to cultivate human and environmental wellbeing.

A serious actionable criticism leading to educational reformation for attaining the wellbeing objective criterion could not be realized. Thereby, the objective of a participatory worldview - contrary to the self-centered goals of hitman resource development, human capital investment, acquisitive future of output, income, growth, self-interest, and the ignorance of restructuring economy and society towards seriously realizing poverty alleviation and the like - could not be realized.

These forgotten despairing points of the nature, study, and policy directions of human capital theory' (Becker, 1994; Schultz, 1971)4 have caused this field of scientific economic study to be entrenched in neoclassical economic reasoning of competing for scarce resources and upholding the belief on marginal rate of substitution between economic and socio-moral sides of educational reformation in their opposite sides. Consequently, Banerjee and Duflo (op. cit.) point out regarding the continuing global pandemic of povertythat the neoclassical aspect of educational and human resource deepening practice in favour of the trickle-down claim of human capital theory and marginalization of the moral focus of education in science- economy-society interrelationship at large continue to prevail. Banerjee and Duflo write:

What does it matter whether regulations conserve human resources if there is barrier to then entry by the poor?

Human resource development by public policy does not reach the benefits for the very' poor. All forms of human resources apply here: education of the type used in human capital investment; water resources, land as resource, technology as resource; health as resource.

The indicator of increase in consumption per capita seen as being congenial for economic growth does mean much for the very poor. The menu of the very' poor is not highlighted in consumption.

In regard to the poor effectiveness of elitist education on the children of the poor the authors write:

Poor Economics is ultimately about what the lives and choices of the poor tell us about how to fight global poverty. It helps us to understand, for example, why microfinance is useful without being the miracle some hoped it would be; why the poor often end up with health care that does them more harm than good; why children of the poor can go to school year after year and not leam anything; why the poor don’t want health insurance; and it reveals why so many magic bullets of yesterday have ended up as today’s failed ideas.

Economics and business programs are now faced up against the need for tremendous conceptual and applied changes. These changes are necessary to liberate the scientific, economic, and social fields from their neoclassical outlook and social Darwinism. Instead then it is necessaiy during the pandemic times to formalize the model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness. This is a pressing educational and global policy directive of the time. That is educational policies in the neoclassical mold have failed, even as the existing curriculums have fallen decrepit in addressing human issues of wellbeing and the issues of moral sustainability of the common good. Such human objective goals are apart from what they are presently. That is a utilitarian self-interested maximizing calculus of pain and pleasure, welfare, and social choices of philosophizing the notion of human capital revolution without the moral focus (Gintis & Bowles, 1975).5

Now with alarming pandemic of many types, continuing economic uncertainty, global poverty, inequality, and deprivation of opportunities, the words of Banerjee and Duflo shore on the human landscape:

Globally, more than 700 million people live in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, which defines poverty as living on less than SI.90 per day. One in three children is malnourished, according to figures provided by the Nobel Foundation, and most children leave school without basic skills in reading, writing, and math.

The neoclassical origin of disempowermentprevails at all levels. Its global ravages start from the entire rung of educational programs, educational policies, and the labor market and economic and business fronts. Educational programs and philosophy as they exist today in a disempowered world- system has been entrenched in the economic and social order as an accepted culture and norm. This state of the neoclassical elitist mind must change into an educational reformation of science-economy-society model of moral inclusiveness. Thereby, the educational programs must reform along with their curriculum design; modes of teaching and delivery with eclectic focus; and innovative and substantive conceptual and applied methods. Such affective changes ought to frame the policy directives and global institutional emphasis in tune with the changes in accordance with the labor market and economic and business possibilities. The pandemic of poverty along with those enigmas that cause poverty, as the case of present COVID-19 episode and the elitist world-system, must be engaged in the echelons of educational rendering with the force of human ecological goodness (Hawley, op. cit.).

The higher echelons of educational programs for socio-economic development, such as the UNDP, OECD, World Bank, UNESCO, and leading consortiums of universities around the world must all take upon them the educational transformation task seriously. Consequently, there is to be a profound analytical model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness to engage the underlying multidisciplinary holism of the ensuing conceptual and applied educational outlook along with the coterminous science- economy-society moral inclusiveness.

All this does not mean reducing the scientific rigor of the educational good. The educational transformation must be objectively oriented for wellbeing and equality of opportunities and capabilities for all. This totality of mankind must comprise those in the ignored ‘basti’ (slums) and its interactive learning and participatory human part comprising the conscious part of the thoughtful. The two human parts will leam and teach mutually the multidisciplinary perspective of education and skills by the moral episteme, philosophy, and conscious practice. The resulting model of science-economy-society moral inclusiveness will abide by the moral will and policy-theoretic enforcement in respect of global wellbeing and the common good.

Figure 6.1 explains the opposing nature of the two kinds of changes - between the neoclassical and the wellbeing model of unity of knowledge in moral inclusiveness. Also explained here is the internal properties of these distinct models in the context of methodological individualism and its inability to formalize the model of multidisciplinary ensemble in the neoclassical case. In the case of the wellbeing model of multidisciplinary complementarity by the episteme of unity of knowledge the issue of moral inclusiveness is answered, practiced, and abides in sustainability.

In reference to Figure 6.1, in neoclassical socio-economics the abiding property of methodological individualism implies ryjx,’} = ф. That is {x,’} are statistically independent. Thereby, the functional transformation holds by Likewise, ч[{№’)} <~ {f,(x,(0)}] = и,{ф,} = ф.

This also implies {S[{fi’(xr)}^{fj(Xj(0)}] = ф. This result implies linearity of disjoint relationship between two types of functions, {^’(х^Ы^СхДб)}.

In the 0-knowledge-induced formalism of science-econorny-society moral inclusiveness, the form of {fj(Xj(0))}is non-linear and complex in the wellbeing objective criterion with endogenous inter-variable circular causation equations and the quantitative evaluative form of the wellbeing function. Thereby, nmtesratl0“ {x/6)} ф ф; ит,егас'ю“пт,е-яа,ю“ {^(х,(6)}^ ф # EjfjfXjfS)) as linear functions that would imply methodological individualism between the linearly independent variables and their systems. Lastly, (d/d0)[um,acIlonJrimtegratIOI1J{fJ(xJ(0)}] > 0. The specific case of f/x^©) is the

Contrasting knowledge-induced parametric model and the neoclassical economic approach in the structure of pandemic treatment and renormalization

Figure 6.1 Contrasting knowledge-induced parametric model and the neoclassical economic approach in the structure of pandemic treatment and renormalization

system-specific wellbeing function. The specifics are generalized in pandemic episodes such as of COVID-19, poverty, business and economic uncertainty, global unemployment, and the like in the grand scale.

Differentiating socio-economic growth and endogenous ethical development between neoclassical and knowledge-induced models of pandemic episodes

It is well known and has been stated in this work that neoclassical economic growth by its ceteris paribus method of calculating the optimum goals ignores the ethical factors as being endowed by endogenous functional effects. Economic growth models limit their studies to relations between output and its rate of change in relation to the variable factors of capital and labor, savings and investment, technology, population change, and capital depreciation rate (Solow, 1980).6 In the closest endogenous form of growth model (Romer, 1986)7 together with Solow’s neoclassical growth model the pandemic episode of poverty, famine, and deprivation consequences that neoclassicism attributes to population growth remain unexplained.

According to Solow’s economic growth model of constant resource to scale the per capita real growth model is written as у = K/L. Contrarily, in the 0-induced endogenous growth model the formalism is different from Romer’s growth model. With the 0-induction the increasing returns to scale, denoted by n, per capita real production function is given by y“(0) = f(K(0)/L(0)) =f(k(0)). The increasing returns to scale implies the positive q-effect of endogenous resource increase on f(k(0)). Thereby the presence of marginal productivity of k(0) is annulled. This is contrary to the neoclassical marginal productivity principle of у = f(k) in Solow’s economic growth model. In this case the pandemic episodes negatively affect output as the case would be because of the marginal rate of substitution between pandemic incidence and economic activity.

Only the disabling effects of such factors on human wellbeing and the environment are studied exogenously outside science-economy-society moral attention. The emergent studies in these fields thereby remain disjoint understanding of science-economy-society models without the study of moral inclusiveness. No methodology and analytical method exist in socio- scientific methodology to integrate the diverse systemic elements hi a comprehensive holistic model of moral inclusiveness. The ultimate structure of interactively integrated and evolutionary learning models of pandemic treatment and normalization take the generalized form of the wellbeing objective criterion that is evaluated (statistically estimated and simulated) across interactive, integrative, and evolutionary (HE) learning processes. The resulting inter-variable circular causation relations and the quantitative wellbeing function in the endogenously interrelated knowledge-induced variables altogether form the multi-systemic IIE-model of moral inclusiveness for the study of pandemic treatment and normalization.

The structure of the previously mentioned type of IIE-model is explained by the underlying analytics of expression (6.1). This model is one of a large family of pandemic normalization models that can be formalized. The two- directional arrows imply endogenous inter-variable circular causal relations between ciitical variables that must complement together in normalizing generalized forms of pandemic episodes. The ultimate objective criterion of wellbeing is symbolized next by the circular IIE-leaming processes towards treatment and cure, as viruses leam to normalize by impact of learnt treatments.

In Figure 6.2, separate categories of variables, such as {moral ensemble}, {imponderables}, {socio-economic variables}, and {medical variables} can be evaluated by their own wellbeing functions in respect of their structural equations of circular causation relations and modes of collecting data between secondary sources (published) and primary sources (questionnaire survey). Such a method of wellbeing evaluation by compounding of the system-wise wellbeing functions was mentioned in an earlier chapter.

Endogenous interrelations between critical wellbeing variables in normalizing pandemic episodes

Figure 6.2 Endogenous interrelations between critical wellbeing variables in normalizing pandemic episodes

Here we argue against other analytical results of neoclassical economic theory and application that contradict the possibility of using these results for attaining normalization of pandemic conditions. Of especial cases are COVID-19 and the incidence of poverty as global socio-economic pandemic episodes. Here is the better of Solow’s neoclassical growth model that may be examined under endogenous growth theory, yet without the endogenous ethical effect in the details of economy-society modelling of pandemic treatment, normalization, and cure. We enquire further whether greater details of the pandemic episode can be modelled for deeper deconstruction of pandemic causes of such episodes.

Neoclassical economic growth model and endogenous economic growth model cannot explain the causes of poverty on economic growth

Let the endogenous growth (Y) model (Romer, 1986)8 be defined by

Despite the interrelations between these variables, as for instance between moral ensemble variables and economic variables, no transmigration effect is recognized between the moral value of organized charity towards stemming the incidence of poverty by way of reforming the economic self-interest. For instance Friedman (1992)9 believed that the only ethical function of the market order is profit-maximization. According to Friedman, “The doctrine of ‘social responsibility’, that corporations should care about the community and not just profit, is highly subversive to the capitalist system and can only lead towards totalitarianism” (in Friedman, M. Capitalism & Freedom op cit. wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom).

Likewise, while there is endogenous relationship between medical science and econorny/technology, there does not exist any endogenous relationship between imponderable variables and medical science variables. Thereby, by the continuity of inter-causal relations there does not exist endogenous relations between imponderable variables, medical science variables, and economic variables. Establishing such continuity between the various multidisciplinary domains would necessitate inter-cultural understanding, adequate funding for participatory' practices between modem medicine and alternative medicine, and increasing coherence in scientific terminologies of various practices to be adopted commonly.

Important imponderable values that enable the afflicted ones to remain peacefully strong manifest the divine power of prayer, coexisting environment, civic neighbourhood, community, cleanliness, and ethical attitudes. These values are assumed in neoclassical economic theory and in existing socio-scientific theories not to have any productive consequences in science, economy, technology, and modernity. The result is the missing empowerment of self-reliance in values. Within such imponderable values and by means of them the total meaning of socio-economic development can be conveyed to the alleviation of pandemic poverty and its depriving causes and effects.

The South Commission (p. 13)10 defines the full meaning of development as follows: “To sum up: development is a process of self-reliant growth, achieved through participation of the people acting in their own interests as they see them, and under their own control.” In accordance with this holistic and evolutionary learning nature of socio-economic development by endogeneity between all the variables shown in Figure 6.2, the expression (6.2) must hold. Yet it is not possible in either the neoclassical economic school or the endogenous growth theory’s inability to establish sustainability by continuity of the circular causation shown in Figure 6.2.

The growth rate gy as,

is undefined in the absence of definitions of growth rates of хг and x4 and of the marginal productivities (MP) of these variables. Thereby, if we take x2 to represent the vector of several poverty alleviation variables, and this vector being undefined, none of the causes of the poverty pandemic is identifiable in the growth model. No quantitative policy implication on pandemic poverty alleviation can therefore be derived.

If now COVED-19 is a source of deepening poverty in the afflicted developing world, then depressive economic growth rate cannot be justifiably attributed to the adversely affected MP measures of the poor as it is responsible on the MPx2, MPjj, gx2 and gx3 and their measured components. Therefore, economic growth rate gy as measured by x2 and x3 in expression (6.2) is inappropriately defined by this expression.

The data in the next tables in fact show that the structure of the economy ought to change to agri-based industries in the short run. The global real economic growth rate turndown is found not to be adversely affected by real value-added of the agii-based sector. Whereas the increase in the population of the poor by additional poor joining this group is causing the adverse economic growth. The inference to be gathered from this trend is that the international economic order requires restructuring the economy

Table 6.1 СОЛ'ID-19 global economic recession in 2020 (April 2020 IFPRI Global Reference Scenario)

Percentage Change from Base Year Values





Export ofgoods (value in constant dollars)

Agrifood Real Value Added

Agrifood exports (value in constant dollars)







Developed countries






Developing countries






Africa South of Sahara






South Asia






South-East Asia






Latin America






Source Laborde, D. Martin, W., & Yos, R, (16 April 2020). “Poverty and food insecurity could grow dramatically as COYID-19 spreads" Research Post.

Impact of CO'ID-19 global economic crisis on extreme poverty

Figure 6.3 Impact of CO'ID-19 global economic crisis on extreme poverty

Source: Laborde, D. Martin, W., & Vos, R, (16 April 2020). “Poverty and food insecurity could grow dramatically as COVID-19 spreads.” Research Post.

into rural transformation. As it stands the slowdown in economic growth is shown to be caused by the adversity of the industrial sector that is heaving on global poverty. The responsibility on economic structural change rests on the industrial sector for the onslaught of COVID-19 on poverty.

The inner causes of the pandemic of poverty, whose one cause is COVED-19 in most recent times, remain unexplained in the neoclassical and endogenous growth theory kinds of the economic growth models. The valuables like X[ and x4 cannot thereby be explained by their inner components of the causes of economic growth as in its usual formulation that contradict the inappropriately explained role of economic growth relating to the wellbeing of the poor.

The ‘incapability’ of the poor

A theory' of ‘incapability’ of the global poor as a case of pandemic episode and that which is critically related with COVID-19 in the reign of social inequality and development disarray can be framed in relation to the foregoing facts of economic growth. The COVID-19 cause of unemployment in Bangladesh garments factories is one example of a shameful case of young women unemployment. They comprise over a million, a 25% unemployment rate, caused by international brand fashioners abandoning to renew contracts with Bangladeshi garments companies and these stopping to pay wages of garment factory workers. The fact of this social predicament of mammoth unemployment here points to the fact that it is the industrial sector at home and the principal contracting mega-corpora- tions abroad that bear the responsibility of high unemployment even of low-wage earners without reprieve. The relatively better facts regarding agri-based economic activity globally points out the option of the wiser alternative to remain active in the Bangladeshi abundant agricultural sector. The disabling break of the agri-based industry from the industrial sector, particularly garments, has weighed heavily upon Bangladesh during COVID-19 in regard to the garments sector. And this is just one of the many pandemic ravages on Bangladesh in particular and the industrial sector globally in general.

Such industrial calamities are of yet another form of pandemic episode on the poor. They are causing, and the development in Bangladesh is being further disabled, by abject poverty, unemployment, hunger, and misery caused by continuous natural calamities. Structural economic change with diverse sectoral complementarities in economic activities is essential to mitigate Bangladesh dismay of economy-society disempowerment. These kinds of calamities in Bangladesh as an example of a country that has abandoned her agri-based activities for greater emphasis on industrial development are no less than viral mutations of Bangladesh economy in widespread socio-economic adversities. Such an industrial episode has effects that pervade, as is the case in the wake of coronavirus episode and it’s like?

Professor Amartya Sen11 (1999, 1986) has formulated his capability, commodities, functioning, and wellbeing interrelated theory centered on his focus upon human development, poverty alleviation, and balanced development paradigm. Likewise, our ‘incapability theory’ of pandemic episode of socio-economic development states that in Sen's sequencing of wellbeing, the absence of any of the loops of the ‘capability’ chain will dismember the entire development consequences taken up in the minutest details. There is no automatic recovery of the broken chain except to point out by evaluation of the wellbeing function criterion where in the chain the disruption takes place and its depth and cause occur so that reconstruction can take place. This latter correction of the incapability case is done by simulation of the circular causation equations in quantifying the wellbeing function.

Figure 6.2 when adapted to Sen and Nussbaum’s12 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011)13 entire theory of capability and wellbeing would yield the following socio-economic development outlook:

W(z) may exist as defined in respect of utilitarian concept, welfare economics, and social choice theory (Harsanyi, 1955).14 The neoclassical property of marginal substitution can exist also within } and{z2}. W(z)[0] does not exist but can be corrected by simulation under the paradigm of HE and by unity of knowledge explained by{0}, subject to inter-variable circular causation relations. Contrarily, in neoclassical economic theory there does not exist endogenous circular causation relation like, zh = f^fzy); z2k = fii(z2s);

xu = f„(xv); with (i, j) = 1(11, 12----lnl), 4 (41, 42,. . ., 4n4), i ^j. (k,s) =

2 (21, 22,.. ., 2n2), 3 (31, 32,. . ., 3n3), k# s. (u,v) = 1(11,. ., lnl), 2(21, 22,. ., 2n2), 3(31, 32,..., 3n3), 4(41, 42,..., 4n4), u # v.

In conclusion to this section, our ‘theory of incapability’ is explained by the feature of discontinuity between the imponderable and mechanistic variables of the wellbeing function in respect of Sen’s development categories of capability, functioning, coxmnodities, and the resulting wellbeing. The distinctive feature noted beyond Sen’s wellbeing categories is the especial definition that the wellbeing objective criterion acquires in reference to its ontology of unity of knowledge and that reflects its complete holistic working in the wellbeing function. This objective criterion is quantitatively evaluated along with its inter-variable circular causation relations. The meaning of evaluation here is that of estimation of the entire system of the wellbeing objective criterion and its endogenous inter-variable system of circular causation. Estimation of the coefficients of the predictor endogenous variables is next simulated to change the estimated coefficients and predictor variables in desired ways possible by policy choices and conscious institutional discourse within the science-economy-society model of moral inclusiveness.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >