Engineering education & national development: a policy question

It is widely acknowledged that a disproportionate share of engineering graduates from Bangladesh eventually move abroad. Many pursue graduate studies in prestigious universities across countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. After completing their studies, a large number of them secure well-paid jobs and settle permanently in those countries, with only a small fraction returning home. Unlike low-skilled expatriate workers, they also contribute relatively little to remittance inflows, as their income is typically retained and invested in their host economies.

This situation raises an important policy question: why should Bangladesh continue to invest heavily in producing engineering graduates who may ultimately benefit other economies? Some observers argue that diploma graduates from polytechnic institutes often demonstrate stronger practical capabilities in installing, operating, and repairing imported machinery. In many cases, vocational training or apprenticeship may even be sufficient for tasks such as maintenance, repair, or reverse engineering.

Consequently, some policy circles-echoed in both social and print media-suggest that Bangladesh should prioritise polytechnic education and technical training rather than expanding theory based engineering programmes. However, such a perspective risks oversimplifying the issue. Understanding the deeper relationship between engineering education, technological capability, innovation, and long-term nation-building is essential before drawing conclusions about the country's future education and technology strategy.

ENGINEERING DENSITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: CORRELATION OR CAUSATION: To gain deeper insight into the debate on engineering education, it is important to examine the mechanics of wealth creation, long-run economic growth, and the role of engineering. Historical evidence shows that differences in engineering density during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1870-1914) are strongly associated with higher GDP per capita today. Research indicates that national disparities in engineering density around 1880-1900 explain roughly a quarter of the income divergence among countries in the Americas.

Engineering talent at the turn of the twentieth century also played a catalytic role in enabling structural transformation. By supporting the adaptation and development of new technologies, engineers helped accelerate productivity growth and wealth creation. Over time, these dynamics contributed to the rise of knowledge-driven economies in countries that are now considered advanced.

However, this historical correlation raises a crucial question: does a higher density of engineering graduates naturally guarantee long-term economic growth? The answer may not be straightforward, suggesting that institutions, innovation systems, and industrial policy also play decisive roles.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND ITS PURPOSE: A HISTORICAL REFLECTION: Engineering education began in France in 1747 and soon spread across Europe and North America. Its primary objective was to equip technology-minded tinkerers, craftsmen, and innovators with scientific knowledge so they could refine designs, improve efficiency, and scale up their inventions. By combining practical ingenuity with scientific theory, engineering graduates helped transform many pre-industrial innovations into large-scale industries. This synergy between science and craftsmanship laid the foundation for successive industrial revolutions and the long-run economic growth experienced by today's advanced economies.

The story unfolded differently in South Asia. Engineering education in India began in 1847 and later expanded to Bangladesh in 1948. However, its purpose was largely shaped by colonial priorities. Rather than nurturing innovators capable of scaling up technologies, the system primarily trained engineers to supervise projects designed by British engineers and to operate and maintain technologies imported from Europe.

Unfortunately, the legacy of that orientation appears to persist even today. In many cases, engineering education is still implicitly expected to support the adoption, operation, and maintenance of foreign technologies rather than drive local technological creation. This historical reality raises a critical question about how national thinking should evolve to leverage engineering education through genuine innovation and industrial transformation.

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND THE QUESTION OF NATIONAL STRATEGY: Although the original purpose of engineering education differed greatly between Europe-North America and Southeast Asia, Bangladesh largely adopted the curriculum and academic standards of advanced countries from the very beginning. As a result, engineering programmes in Bangladesh often mirror those of developed economies. This alignment allows graduates to compete successfully for admission to reputable universities abroad, where many pursue higher studies and eventually build their careers.

However, a deeper mismatch remains. Bangladesh's industrial strategy has largely centred on importing technologies rather than creating and scaling innovations for winning global competition. Consequently, much of what engineering students learn-focused on design, innovation, and advanced technological development-finds limited application or irrelevance in the domestic economy.

Given this gap, it becomes rational for many engineering graduates to leave the country in search of opportunities that better match their training and aspirations. The growing outflow of engineering talent, therefore, raises an important question: is this situation the failure of engineering education itself, or does it reflect deeper shortcomings in national technology strategy and development policy?

ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND BANGLADESH'S PATH TO KNOWLEDGE-DRIVEN GROWTH: Should Bangladesh reduce its focus on engineering education, or instead upgrade its industrial strategy and policy to pursue economic growth through invention and innovation? In reality, Bangladesh has little room for such a choice. The country's long-standing model of technology imports combined with labour-based value addition is increasingly reaching its limits. Profitability in many sectors has declined to non-profitable state, and the financial system is experiencing a growing burden of non-performing loans, reaching as high as 35 per cent of total disbursement. As technology import-based investments slow down, even graduates of polytechnic institutions-once expected to play a strong role in operating and maintaining imported machinery-are facing job scarcity.

Under these circumstances, Bangladesh must pursue a different development trajectory. The country's only sustainable option is to leverage engineering education to transition towards an economy where wealth is generated from knowledge, ideas, and technological advancement.

However, such a transformation demands significant reform. Engineering education must be upgraded to focus more explicitly on the mechanics of wealth creation arising from technological possibilities, innovation, and industrial scaling. Equally important, the broader national education system should incorporate fundamental concepts about how technology, innovation, and knowledge translate into economic value and long-term growth.

Moving forward, Bangladesh must aim to participate in the global race of invention and innovation that continually shifts the epicenters of industrial activity. Achieving this goal requires stronger attention to theories of wealth creation-an area still largely absent from the current education system. Ultimately, upgrading education, national strategy, and industrial policy together is essential for creating wealth from knowledge and ideas. 

Rokonuzzaman, Ph.D is academic and researcher on technology, innovation and policy. Zaman.rokon.bd@gmail.com