Human Capital Development Projection until 2100: Could a Competency Model Help?

Let us look at an interesting study of human capital development among 180 countries from 1970 until 2100. Wages and education are assessed based on wages and educational attainment to determine weighted human capital development. The researchers were looking to assess productive capacity and human capital heterogeneity into a single metric. In figure 2 we see the U.S. and China leveling off. Cross Country Weighted Human Capital

It does concern me that there is a slowing human capital curve for the U.S. as seen through skills development. This study looks at a certain metrics used to assess weighted human capital and while not conclusive should raise our interest in understanding national competitiveness. In science we have to narrowly define the variables so we have something measure. In general life, there may be many differnet factors and unknown factors. The study does highlight the need for the U.S. to be robust in its human capital development.

This means in some respects education will need to become more accessible and the quality of education should rise to serve the modern industry market. Thus, we have to think of new ways to compete in the higher education fields and that requires a certain amount of reenvisioning. Accessibility, cost, quality, diversity, outputs all have a factor in increasing the amount of people who can use their skills for long-term personal and industry skill development (i.e. industry competency model).

I have been talking about human capital development mixed with technology as the next leg of U.S. development. However, there are some steps that need to be taken along the way. This is why I develop a competency model that maps learned skills, encourages deeper learning and the assessment of such learning to ensure they are being taught before students head out in the market. If we can create students ready to compete with skills needed by indutstries and employers as well as develop the whole person for maximum societal contribution and a full life then we have done well. Where we are not doing well then we need improvement.

Let me also add that developing new models is not always easy because there are all types of different roadblocks based not so much in potential benefit but on the pipeline of development itself. This is why I have made the argument in other posts that improving innovative piple lines nationally can encourage greater economic growth (i.e. industry cluster model). Put in some new technology and diverse human capital and you likely have a good start (i.e. national development model. Need-Economic Development, Industry-University Research, Prosocial Problem Solving, Equity-Employee )

"Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else." 

Leanoardo da Vinci 😆

Marois, G., Cuaresma, J.C., Zellmann, J. et al. A dataset of human capital-weighted population estimates for 185 countries from 1970 to 2100. Sci Data 11, 612 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03466-y