The educational requirements of a capital-intensive, industrially focused growth strategy can be expected to differ in important ways from the requirements of a strategy placing emphasis on employment and agriculture. Although researchers (Alene & Manyoung, 2007; Atreya, 2007b; Wright, 2005; Yang et al., 2005; Bravo-Uerta, 2002) agree that agricultural education and information services can offer a variety of benefits to the agricultural sector, most on the agricultural benefits of education is limited to an examination of data from the urban sector (Tao Yang, 1997). The principle expected benefits derived from an educational process include the possibility of increasing the prospects of quality agricultural enterprises and enhancing financial results (Charatsari & Papadaki-Klavdianou, 2010).
Mellor (1988) argued that most aspects of agricultural growth through educational change are based on increasing the number of rural supporting institutions to benefit small farmers. Owing to the agricultural sector's immense size, the intensity of use of a trained workforce requires large investment in education, at all levels. Moreover, the broader the participation in rural development, the more intensive requirements for a trained workforce are as a case in point, in Thailand, the agriculture workforce that is less than 40 years old has mostly completed only a secondary education. Those who exceed 40 years of age have to a large extent barely finished an elementary-level of education (Bryant & Gray, 2005).
It appears that owners and employees of micro- and small-scale enterprises (MSEs) in developing countries, including Thailand, tend to have relatively low levels of education. One reason is that, despite recent advances, primary education completion rates remain at only 60% in Sub-Saharan Africa, 80% in South Asia, and 90% in the Middle East and North Africa (World Bank, 2009). MSEs tend to have less-educated
52 owners and workers than do larger firms (Orlando & Pollack, 2000; Söderbom & Teal, 2001). Educational disparities across firm size are especially striking at the university level: for example, 21% of microenterprise owners in Chile have Bachelor’s degrees, compared to 42% of small firms and 55% of medium size firm owners (Alvarez & Crespi, 2003). The lower levels of educational attainment among MSE owners and employees is remarkable when contrasted with their counterparts in developed countries, where those with higher education are more likely to be self-employed (Woodruff, 1999). One reason for this contrast is that impoverished people in developing countries tend to start-up and manage survival-oriented MSEs owing to limited alternative employment opportunities.
Low educational and skill levels are also characteristic of some European countries. For example, in Greece, a high proportion of training programs and short courses focusing on farm equipment, supply companies and quality systems in agricultural production are provided by local cooperatives or private agencies. It is argued that the overall picture of occupational training in the agricultural sector remains unsatisfactory in Greece (Alexopoulos, Koutsouris & Tzouramani, 2009).
Over the previous five decades, economists (Schultz, 1964; Huffman, 1985) have emphasized the importance of human capital investment (primarily education) in improving farming efficiency and agricultural productivity; with a large body of empirical literature (Schultz, 1975; Tao Yang, 1997) supporting the positive effects of education in agricultural production. Investment in human capital can enhance farming efficiency and agricultural productivity. Notwithstanding, investment in education and training is not a universal panacea (Rosenzweig, 1995). For education and training investments to yield returns, the scope for productive learning must be complimented with either technical innovations or changes in market and political regimes. In fact, these ideas are in line with Schultz (1964), who over five decades ago pointed out that, when farmers’ means of production are dispossessed because of state ideology, many agricultural skills are lost, mainly because the economic incentives to apply these skills are destroyed. The reviews of Schultz and Rosenzweig are consistent with recent evidence from Eastern Europe when the region moved from a centralized economy to a market-based economy. Reflecting this perspective, Orazem and Vodopivec (1995) observed that educated Slovenians attained high levels of compensation when their country shifted to a market economy between 1987 and 1991.
53 Formal education can benefit farmers, through increased productivity (Gasson, 1998) and allocated efficiency (Mohapatra, 2011). Differences in agricultural productivity across countries are attributable, in part, to differences in educational levels (Ruttan & Hayami, 2011). Nevertheless, agricultural education empowers farmers to express opinions and make sound decisions. Education and training can be an effective instrument for developing agricultural skills where farmers are unable to reach their goals because they lack knowledge and insight (Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996). For program to be effective, research (Charatsari, Papadaki-Klavdianou & Michailidis, 2011; Al-Rimawi, Karablieh & Al-Kadi, 2004; Roberts & Dyer, 2004; Luft & Thomson, 1995) demonstrates that content and educator characteristics, such as knowledge of subject matter, ability to design courses, communication skills, and skills to adapt to the students’ particular needs are essentials.
As Thailand develops, the country faces new challenges in its educational policies. In the 1970s and 1980s, Thailand succeeded in providing all children with access to good quality primary education. However, expansion of education at lower and upper secondary levels, and in post-secondary education proceeded more slowly. As the 1990s approached, Thailand's enrolment ratios at these levels lagged far behind those of competitive neighbours. While 80% of the Thai workforce has completed primary school levels, less than 40% of the population has completed secondary school (World Bank, 2000). The basic education of the population has been an important factor underpinning Thailand’s past development success. Thailand has paid less effort to improve land productivity in agriculture but has promoted industrialization. Correspondingly, educational development has lagged (Kawada & Levine, 2014). Perhaps not surprisingly, Reimers and Klasen (2013) found that farmers who had completed primary education were significantly more productive than those with less education in traditional agriculture, which covers the bulk of the Thai agriculture sector.
In conclusion, education and training provides a number of advantages through increased productivity and allocated efficiencies to the agricultural industry. It can help to enhance financial results. Thailand provides sound quality primary education to all children, but secondary level education appears wanting. Surprisingly, the agriculture workforces in Thailand tends to be relatively poorly of educated, especially MSE employees. In addition, the low levels of education observed in MSEs are noticeable
54 when compared with their counterparts in developed countries. Thus, it is imperative that the Thai government and private institutions support this sector by up-skilling agricultural owners and workers.