Human Capital and Innovations in Education
Does public investment in educational innovations makes sense? Is there a tangible return on investment in innovations, either public or private? We know for certain that investments in expanding the existing modes of education do pay off (Becker 2009). But does it make sense to invest in innovation? This chapter will consider available evidence on impact of educational innovation, primarily at K-12 level. It will also demonstrate the need to conceptualize the impact of innovation. Work conducted within the next generation of educational reform should look very different from what we have done so far.
It is for the first time when the phenomenon of the political class is being investigated in the Russian political science literature. In this edition, the political class is viewed as a community of persons professionally involved in the sphere of politics. Political elites, administrative and political bureaucracy, deputy corps, party functionaries, analyst center staff, expert community, political consultants, political journalists are regarded as important segments of the political class. The study of political participation of corporate business is also paid attention to. An important advantage is the combination of theoretical, methodological and applied aspects of the research, as well as a comparative perspective: the features of the formation of a political class in Ukraine and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe are considered.
The chapter describes characteristics of Russian innovators acting within and without formal education system in comparison with Russian population as a whole. The study gives an indication of values (according to Schwartz’s theory) and motivational (PSED questionnaire) structure inherent to innovators as well as socio-demographic information such as education and occupation. The main values that underlie innovators’ activity and distinguish them from average Russian person are Universalism, Benevolence, Self-Direction and Stimulation. On the contrary such values as Conformity and Power are less important for innovators. Concerning motivation to innovation four types of motives that trigger innovative project launching were identified: social, status, financial and innovative. Social and innovative motivations serve as universal drivers of nowadays innovators in education. While financial and social motivations could play a distinguishing role for different groups of innovators. The main inference is that innovators from both sides of education, guided by the needs of others; even if they represent business oriented project, they always have a social mission. In conclusion the discussion on how the emergence of visible flow of grassroots innovation will change the education system.
The article is devoted to the analysis of the relationship between individual’s power status and economic status, his/her belonging to a professional group and educational level. The study describes a method of construction of a scale to measure the power status of the working population in modern Russia and provides the results of its implementation. The study reveals that the power status of most of Russians has zero value; and despite the fact that in modern Russian society representatives of the first occupational group according to the ISCO08 classification (leaders) have the highest scores on the power status scale, representatives of other occupational groups also possess this status. Besides, the power status determines individual’s economic position, and this relationship is dependent on individual’s professional skills and can be different across different occupational groups. The empirical basis of the study is the data of the 24th of the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS-HSE) conducted in late 2015.
The purpose of this paper is to focus on one of the major emerging Asian economies – India – to examine the role of human capital in asset prices.
The present paper is aimed at considering the evolution of human capital theory. Drawing on the wide range of classical and recent studies, the author shows the link between changes in economies of industrially developed countries and the development of the human capital theory revealed in the expanded list of indicators measuring human capital. The author proposes a periodization of the human capital theory suggesting 5 phases: (1) the pre-industrial phase (up to the seventeenth century); (2) the phase of mass education (the nineteenth through the rst half of the twentieth century); (3) the late industrial period (1960s–1970s, the period when the core of the human capital theory was established); (4) the post-industrial period I (1980s–2000s); and (5) the post-industrial stage II or contemporary period (2000s–2010s). The study reassesses narrow interpretations, which still widely exist among applied economists. Based on the findings of the human development studies, the author argues for a broader list of indicators of human capital, and, specifically, considers human capital through the lens of national development; moreover, this coincides with the core of the given theory. It is shown that the traditional interpretation of human capital, known as years of schooling and training, does not represent the current situation in the economy, and can be extremely harmful to society if it is adopted as the basis of public policy oriented to the formation and growth of society. The present study can be useful to both economists and sociologists focusing on the indicators of human capital and its contribution to the socioeconomic development of a modern society.
The book is devoted to the results received within implementation of the international EURECA program and generalizes experience of maintenance of system innovations in education through the international cooperation and partnership of higher education institution-business-power.