Fresh look at researches and institutions
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Syed Fattahul Alim
What is the real unemployment figure in this land of about 140 million people? The official statistics used in research, reference and other purposes depend on the data supplied by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Apart from the inherent constraints that this primary data supplying institution of the government faces so far as the sources, quality and composition of those data are concerned, serious question has now been raised about how those data are used to develop various research findings. To be more to the point, the methodologies used to generate various intellectual products do not always reflect the reality they aim to represent. The unemployment figure of the country is an example of such mismatch. The BBS statistics of 2006 says that the total number of unemployed people in the country is 2.1 million. According to the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of BBS, the unemployed is defined as those who do not work for a single hour a day. Following this definition, the unemployment figure in 2002-03 was 2.0 million.
Considering the huge size of the population, common sense says that the data on the unemployed as found by the BBS in 2005-2006 and 2002-2003, are far removed from the truth. That is one reason why some economists are not convinced of this data about unemployment. The economists at the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), who differ with the BBS data on unemployment, have not only questioned the data, they have even brought the definition of unemployment used in the BBS study under scrutiny. As expected, they questioned what is understood by the term unemployed, as well as the methodologies used to find the data thereof.
In fact, an economy that is dominated by the informal sector is not supposed to reveal the real picture of the unemployment situation. In such an economy, the difference between the unemployment and underemployment is often blurred. The underemployed here think that they are also employed, which is not true, if one is to go by the definition of the unemployment in the industrialised economies. Those who are known as underemployed in Bangladesh are in actuality unemployed in the Western sense of the term. In the advanced economies, the governments provide unemployment benefit and allowance to the jobless. So, the unemployed in those economies have the incentive to reveal the fact that they have no job. In sharp contrast to this fact, the jobless here are hardly eager to admit their status as there is no prospect of getting any benefit out of the status of being unemployed.
The distortions of an underdeveloped economy are many. A person who has just the privilege of attending a workplace is looked upon as employed regardless of whether the person concerned gets paid at the end of the day or not. In many public sector or private sector offices, people are found to work without pay for months, or in some cases even for years. Despite the unacceptable condition of work, the people in such positions continue in the job in their workplaces concerned for two reasons. One, they hope that better day may after all return in the future. Two, they want to show to society at large that they are not so wretched as not to have a job. In real sense of the term, however, those hapless people are unemployed. Unfortunately, in the traditional system of counting the unemployed, the aforementioned pseudo-employed remain unaccounted for. In a similar fashion, there are millions of self-employed people in society in various low productive activities. Measured by yardstick of minimum wage, they should be treated as underemployed. But in our special case, they are also given the tag of self-employed people. Particular mention, may be made here of the countless unpaid family labour in the country. Except some intelligent guesstimates, there is no credible figure available on the number of these unpaid family labourers.
The incongruity found in regard of finding the correct number of unemployed in the country is nothing accidental. The same dichotomy can be found in other areas of research, too. It appears, we have a general apathy towards getting the correct data on any areas of endeavour having bearing on our own life.
Many otherwise well-meaning people may not be impressed with the above discussion on the actual number of unemployed or underemployed in the economy. What is the use of being finicky over the precise number of unemployed, or any other subject for that matter, if that is not driven by purely academic interest, they may argue.
True, dry figures on the number of unemployed or underemployed, for example, would not fill the belly of the people under consideration, or change the socio-economic situation in the country. Even then, one cannot deny the importance of correct information in knowing the real situation in any sector of the economy and society. For development or underdevelopment does no more consist in the classical sense of term. With the development of digital technology, information, or knowledge for that matter, has turned out to be vital economic resource that can be converted into money. Therefore, the old argument that hair-splitting analyses on various issues of society and economy have only academic value or interest, if any, does not stand to reason in the present-day world.
The overarching argument of focussing more on activities that create jobs and various kinds of economic products, has led the public in general to ignore the issues that serve only to fulfil some academic interest. As a consequence, things have come to such a pass that various organisations dedicated to pure researches and studies have fallen from their earlier grace. The upshot of this general unkindness towards academic research has led to massive brain drain from the country. The still worse scenario is that, even for correct information on various aspects of our own household affairs, we have to depend on the data provided by the various research bodies of the western countries.
Such a state of affairs does not speak well for the country's researchers and academicians. Because, notwithstanding our economic backwardness, we as a nation was never wanting in talents. But the existing academic and research institutions hardly reflect it. The BBS figure on the size of unemployment is a case in point. Why is this discrepancy?
It is a question of awareness on the importance of information and data as an economic product. The various institutions in the public sector whose job it is to conduct studies on various socio-economic issues often follow the age-old concepts and methodologies to obtain their findings. But it does not mean that, the researchers employed with those organisations are not alive to the latest developments in their respective fields of study or research. The problem here lies with the institution where the individuals work. The institutions need to be made modern and more proactive to the demand of the time. The researchers working there should feel that the talent and energy they are putting in in their work are worthwhile and meaningful. This sense of worth is no less important than the money one gets through one's work.
Once the importance of researches and studies as a source of valuable economic products is recognised by all concerned, the justification for channelling more funds for these organisations will become, of necessity, self-explanatory. It is therefore time the government had a rethinking of the various research institutions of the country and the way they are being run at the moment.
What is the real unemployment figure in this land of about 140 million people? The official statistics used in research, reference and other purposes depend on the data supplied by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Apart from the inherent constraints that this primary data supplying institution of the government faces so far as the sources, quality and composition of those data are concerned, serious question has now been raised about how those data are used to develop various research findings. To be more to the point, the methodologies used to generate various intellectual products do not always reflect the reality they aim to represent. The unemployment figure of the country is an example of such mismatch. The BBS statistics of 2006 says that the total number of unemployed people in the country is 2.1 million. According to the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of BBS, the unemployed is defined as those who do not work for a single hour a day. Following this definition, the unemployment figure in 2002-03 was 2.0 million.
Considering the huge size of the population, common sense says that the data on the unemployed as found by the BBS in 2005-2006 and 2002-2003, are far removed from the truth. That is one reason why some economists are not convinced of this data about unemployment. The economists at the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), who differ with the BBS data on unemployment, have not only questioned the data, they have even brought the definition of unemployment used in the BBS study under scrutiny. As expected, they questioned what is understood by the term unemployed, as well as the methodologies used to find the data thereof.
In fact, an economy that is dominated by the informal sector is not supposed to reveal the real picture of the unemployment situation. In such an economy, the difference between the unemployment and underemployment is often blurred. The underemployed here think that they are also employed, which is not true, if one is to go by the definition of the unemployment in the industrialised economies. Those who are known as underemployed in Bangladesh are in actuality unemployed in the Western sense of the term. In the advanced economies, the governments provide unemployment benefit and allowance to the jobless. So, the unemployed in those economies have the incentive to reveal the fact that they have no job. In sharp contrast to this fact, the jobless here are hardly eager to admit their status as there is no prospect of getting any benefit out of the status of being unemployed.
The distortions of an underdeveloped economy are many. A person who has just the privilege of attending a workplace is looked upon as employed regardless of whether the person concerned gets paid at the end of the day or not. In many public sector or private sector offices, people are found to work without pay for months, or in some cases even for years. Despite the unacceptable condition of work, the people in such positions continue in the job in their workplaces concerned for two reasons. One, they hope that better day may after all return in the future. Two, they want to show to society at large that they are not so wretched as not to have a job. In real sense of the term, however, those hapless people are unemployed. Unfortunately, in the traditional system of counting the unemployed, the aforementioned pseudo-employed remain unaccounted for. In a similar fashion, there are millions of self-employed people in society in various low productive activities. Measured by yardstick of minimum wage, they should be treated as underemployed. But in our special case, they are also given the tag of self-employed people. Particular mention, may be made here of the countless unpaid family labour in the country. Except some intelligent guesstimates, there is no credible figure available on the number of these unpaid family labourers.
The incongruity found in regard of finding the correct number of unemployed in the country is nothing accidental. The same dichotomy can be found in other areas of research, too. It appears, we have a general apathy towards getting the correct data on any areas of endeavour having bearing on our own life.
Many otherwise well-meaning people may not be impressed with the above discussion on the actual number of unemployed or underemployed in the economy. What is the use of being finicky over the precise number of unemployed, or any other subject for that matter, if that is not driven by purely academic interest, they may argue.
True, dry figures on the number of unemployed or underemployed, for example, would not fill the belly of the people under consideration, or change the socio-economic situation in the country. Even then, one cannot deny the importance of correct information in knowing the real situation in any sector of the economy and society. For development or underdevelopment does no more consist in the classical sense of term. With the development of digital technology, information, or knowledge for that matter, has turned out to be vital economic resource that can be converted into money. Therefore, the old argument that hair-splitting analyses on various issues of society and economy have only academic value or interest, if any, does not stand to reason in the present-day world.
The overarching argument of focussing more on activities that create jobs and various kinds of economic products, has led the public in general to ignore the issues that serve only to fulfil some academic interest. As a consequence, things have come to such a pass that various organisations dedicated to pure researches and studies have fallen from their earlier grace. The upshot of this general unkindness towards academic research has led to massive brain drain from the country. The still worse scenario is that, even for correct information on various aspects of our own household affairs, we have to depend on the data provided by the various research bodies of the western countries.
Such a state of affairs does not speak well for the country's researchers and academicians. Because, notwithstanding our economic backwardness, we as a nation was never wanting in talents. But the existing academic and research institutions hardly reflect it. The BBS figure on the size of unemployment is a case in point. Why is this discrepancy?
It is a question of awareness on the importance of information and data as an economic product. The various institutions in the public sector whose job it is to conduct studies on various socio-economic issues often follow the age-old concepts and methodologies to obtain their findings. But it does not mean that, the researchers employed with those organisations are not alive to the latest developments in their respective fields of study or research. The problem here lies with the institution where the individuals work. The institutions need to be made modern and more proactive to the demand of the time. The researchers working there should feel that the talent and energy they are putting in in their work are worthwhile and meaningful. This sense of worth is no less important than the money one gets through one's work.
Once the importance of researches and studies as a source of valuable economic products is recognised by all concerned, the justification for channelling more funds for these organisations will become, of necessity, self-explanatory. It is therefore time the government had a rethinking of the various research institutions of the country and the way they are being run at the moment.