“In a couple of recent posts (here and here), Paul Krugman claims that it is just wrong to think that increasing income inequality is largely about education, because much of the income gains have accrued to the very top of the income distribution–the much discussed 1 percent. Instead, he says, increasing inequality is about the growing influence of oligarchs.”

That is from an engaging blog post by Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University.

And this:

“But it may be better to think of the return to education as stochastic. Education not only increases the average income a person will earn, but it also changes the entire distribution of possible life outcomes. It does not guarantee that a person will end up in the top 1 percent, but it increases the likelihood. I have not seen any data on this, but I am willing to bet that the top 1 percent are more educated than the average American; while their education did not ensure their economic success, it played a role.”

I’m with Mankiw on this one, especially, that “education not only increases the average income a person will earn, but it also changes the entire distribution of possible life outcomes.” I agree. Education in my mind is a lot about increasing opportunity. The only caveat I would add is that the economic value of education is a variable determined by many external factors. A extra year or two of education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, is worth an enormous amount in a developing country.

I could go on and on about the value of promoting primary and secondary education, but I’ll stop here. Refer to the World Bank Education For All page for more reading.