My aunt recently spoke to a sari salesman/weaver of the famous Kanchipuram silk saris about his trade. Some background: Tamil Nadu is one of the fastest growing states in India both in terms of economic and human development. Improvements in the latter - which include better population health and nutrition, lower fertility and increased (reduced) school enrollment (dropout) rates - really gained velocity about 20-25 years back.
The sari salesman pointed out that these developments may have had adverse impacts on his trade. Sari weaving skills are passed down from generation to generation. However, for the youngest generation, the opportunity cost for investing in sari weaving skills has become very high: jobs in the service and growing manufacturing sector are growing in number and offer better lifetime returns to human capital investments. Because such jobs require schooling, the incidence of child labor in the state has declined as well, since returns to education, real or perceived, have increased. Because much of the Kanchipuram silk industry relies on child labor, this is bad for the trade.
It's an interesting story about how traditional arts and skills are fundamentally affected by economic development. The sari salesman seemed to think that, within a few years, Kanchipuram saris would cease to exist. I'm not so sure how this will play out, but here are a few thoughts:
-I wonder if sari manufacturers are offering higher wages to draw in labor. Similarly, I wonder if these costs are being passed on to consumers.
-How do we value the loss of traditional values and arts in the context of economic development? If people begin to value these goods less through the market and as a result of development, is there anything to worry about? Should these aspects be included in computing an overall development GDP in the same way various parties suggest we include improvements in life expectancy or happiness?
No comments:
Post a Comment