Humankind & Resource Distribution—XVII: Education, knowledge and technological empowerment

A society may distribute land, capital and political authority more equitably and still leave most of its people dependent upon others for the knowledge necessary to use them. The preceding instalment examined the importance of participation in decisions affecting collective resources. Participation acquires substance when people possess the intellectual and technological capabilities to understand alternatives, question authority and organise their own productive activities. Education is therefore not simply another item of welfare expenditure. It is an essential means of distributing economic power.

Knowledge possesses a characteristic that distinguishes it from many material resources. When a person transfers a piece of land, ownership changes hands. When a teacher communicates a mathematical principle, both teacher and student can retain it. Its application by thousands of people need not diminish its usefulness to others. Indeed, further applications may generate discoveries that enrich the original body of knowledge. This possibility gives the circulation of ideas a distinctive place in the economics of distribution.

Paul Romer’s theory of endogenous technological change provides a formal economic foundation for this distinction. Technological ideas can be used simultaneously by different producers, although access to them can be restricted. His analysis places deliberate investment in research and the accumulation of human capital within the explanation of economic growth.[1] The implication is not that knowledge is costless, but that its creation and diffusion can produce benefits extending beyond the original investment.

A scientific discovery requires researchers, laboratories, equipment and time. A digital textbook can be reproduced at relatively low cost, but writing it, translating it and enabling children to understand it require resources. Computing infrastructure consumes energy and capital. The non-rival character of an idea does not eliminate scarcity in the means of acquiring or applying it. An equitable knowledge economy must address both the production of knowledge and the conditions of its effective use.

The distinction between schooling and learning is particularly important. A certificate may establish that a student attended an institution without demonstrating the ability to reason, calculate, communicate or solve problems. Public expenditure measured through the number of buildings constructed or devices distributed may conceal profound deficiencies in educational outcomes. The relevant question is what capabilities people acquire and whether those capabilities can be exercised in their economic and social lives.

Pakistan illustrates the magnitude of this challenge. UNICEF estimates that 25.1 million children aged five to sixteen are outside school, representing approximately 35 per cent of that age group.[2] A World Bank–UNESCO learning poverty brief published in April 2024, using pre-pandemic evidence, estimated that 80 per cent of children of late primary age could not read proficiently after adjustment for those outside school.[3] These measures refer to different populations and should not be added together. Both reveal barriers to acquiring foundational skills.

The economic consequences extend far beyond the individuals immediately affected. A child denied literacy may later struggle to understand a contract, compare borrowing costs, obtain technical training or participate in public deliberation. 

An enterprise operating in a community with limited skills faces constraints on expansion. A country that fails to develop the abilities of its population may become dependent on imported expertise even where its natural resources and labour could support more sophisticated production.

Such deprivation is not remedied merely by introducing computers into classrooms. UNESCO’s 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report finds that the educational effects of technology depend on context and that the evidence of effectiveness is uneven.[4] 

Devices cannot substitute for competent teachers, reliable electricity, appropriate language instruction and a learning environment conducive to inquiry. Technology should be assessed against educational objectives rather than educational policy being subordinated to the sale of technology.

The distribution of knowledge also raises the question of intellectual property. Temporary exclusive rights can encourage costly research by allowing innovators to recover investment. Excessive restrictions, however, can obstruct subsequent innovation, raise prices and prevent the diffusion of useful discoveries. 

The economic challenge is to balance incentives for creation with opportunities for application. Publicly funded research, open educational resources, appropriate licensing and collaboration between universities and enterprises offer different ways of addressing that tension.

Artificial intelligence makes these questions more urgent. A small manufacturer may use digital tools to improve designs, a farmer may obtain information about crop disease, and a student may receive explanations previously available only through expensive private tuition. These possibilities are conditional upon reliable information, affordable access, linguistic accessibility and the ability to detect errors. An inaccurate automated recommendation can impose substantial losses upon someone unable to verify it.

The distribution of gains from automation is equally significant. The International Labour Organization’s 2025 assessment estimates that one-quarter of workers globally are in occupations with some exposure to generative artificial intelligence. It considers changes in the composition of jobs more likely than wholesale replacement in most exposed occupations.[5] 

Exposure is not a forecast of unemployment. Whether technological change improves wages, reduces working hours or increases insecurity depends partly upon ownership, bargaining arrangements, training opportunities and the organisation of work.

A machine that enables ten workers to produce what previously required twenty creates the possibility of greater output or more leisure. It does not determine how the resulting benefit will be distributed. If productivity gains accrue exclusively to owners while displaced workers lose income and access to retraining, technological progress can coexist with growing insecurity. If enterprises share gains through higher remuneration, reduced working time or investment in new skills, the same innovation may widen economic opportunity. These are institutional outcomes, not properties inherent in the machine.

Pakistan’s educational and technological strategy must consequently be connected to its productive structure. Foundational literacy, vocational training, scientific research and apprenticeships should complement one another. 

Universities need links with agriculture, industry and public services without surrendering intellectual independence. Small enterprises and cooperatives require access to technical assistance, affordable connectivity and finance. Women and disadvantaged communities must be able to acquire and exercise skills without barriers arising from mobility, household responsibilities or discrimination. Local institutions have a role in identifying these barriers. 

A district may need safe transport for girls rather than another school building; a farming community may benefit from agricultural extension rather than generic computer training. National standards and equitable financing remain necessary, but local participation can reveal which complementary investments make education effective. This connects the distribution of knowledge directly with the decentralisation of decision-making examined in the preceding instalment.

The proposition that equitable access to knowledge increases productive capacity must be subjected to empirical testing. Research should compare learning outcomes, employment, earnings, enterprise productivity and innovation across communities receiving different combinations of educational and technological support. 

It must account for initial income, infrastructure and selection effects, distinguish access from actual use, and measure the distribution of gains as well as aggregate output. If wider access fails to improve capabilities under specified conditions, the explanation must be investigated rather than the proposition insulated from criticism.

The ultimate purpose of education cannot be reduced to producing workers for existing markets. It also enables people to question inherited arrangements, discover new possibilities and participate in shaping institutions. An economy that cultivates such abilities enlarges the resources available for future production while expanding human freedom. Knowledge becomes shared wealth when its circulation enables people not merely to consume the achievements of others but to contribute discoveries and innovations of their own.

The next instalment will examine the relationship between technological progress, employment and the distribution of the gains from productivity.

Notes

1. Paul M. Romer, “Endogenous Technological Change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), Part 2 (1990), pp. S71–S102.
2. UNICEF Pakistan, Education, country programme overview and out-of-school children estimates.
3. World Bank and UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Pakistan Learning Poverty Brief, April 2024, version 2.
4. UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education—A Tool on Whose Terms?, Paris, 2023, summary.
5. International Labour Organization, Generative AI and Jobs: A Refined Global Index of Occupational Exposure, Working Paper 140, 20 May 2025.

[To be continued]

Dr. Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), holds an LLD in tax laws. He was full-time journalist from 1979 to 1984 with Viewpoint and Dawn. He also served Civil Services of Pakistan from 1984 to 1996.