Presentation on theme: "Education, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at NIE, Singapore 4. 11.10 Andy Green Professor of Comparative Social Science Director of ESRC-LLAKES."— Presentation transcript:
Education, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at NIE, Singapore 4. 11.10 Andy Green Professor of Comparative Social Science Director of ESRC-LLAKES Centre Institute of Education University of London
LLAKES Centre Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies Funder: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Director: Andy Green Deputy Director: Lorna Unwin Administrator: Richard Arnold
Partners and Core Staff IOE National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Bristol Southampton Professor Andy Green Professor Roger Dale (Bristol) Dr Germ Janmaat (IOE) Dr Christine Han (IOE) Dr Moses Oketch (IOE) Professor Lorna Unwin (IOE) Dr David Guile (IOE) Professor Alison Fuller (Southampton) Professor Susan Robertson (Bristol) Geoff Mason (NIESR) Professor Karen Evans (IOE) Professor Ingrid Schoon (IOE) Dr Martin Weale (NIESR)
Rationale LLAKES investigates the role of education and skills in promoting economic competitiveness and social cohesion and in mediating the interactions between these two domains. Key areas of research include: the social and cultural foundations of learning, knowledge production and transfer, and innovation, within the context of a changing economy the effects of knowledge and skills distribution on income equality, social cohesion and competitiveness.
Methodologies The Centre is committed to inter-disciplinary, mixed methods comparative modes of research at different levels of analysis The research is organised into three strands: Strand 1: National and international level: utilising both cross sectional and time series aggregate data. Where data allow multi-level approaches are be adopted. Strand 2: focuses on the meso level i.e. communities, sectors, quarters and institutions using a mixture of research approaches. Strand 3: focuses on the individual level using longitudinal data.
Education and State Formation National education systems have generally developed vehicle of state formation. The primary emphasis in 19 th C, Europe and Japan was on socialisation. Spreading dominant national languages Promoting national/state identity Inculcating the dominant ideologies Forming citizens Explaining the ways of the state to the people and the duties of the people to the state. In 20 C skills formation tended to take precedence over citizen formation in the West, although not necessarily elsewhere.
Social Reproduction The NES broadened access to schooling, first through universalising elementary education and then through extending access to the subsequent phases. But schooling has also reproduced class structures, transferring education advantages and disadvantages between generations. Typically, during the 20 th C., as each phase of education became democratised, so the elites retained their advantages through domination of the next phase of education (now post-graduate study). Schools have legitimated this reproduction of inequality through their ostensibly meritocratic modes of operation.
Cross-Country Differences However, National education systems vary substantially in how they distribute educational achievements. More egalitarian education systems tend to contribute to more equal distributions of adult incomes and also promote more social cohesion.
Structure of Presentation The first part of the presentation examines the extent and causes of cross-country variations in education equality. The second part examines the impact of educational inequality on various aspects of social cohesion The third part assesses the different forms (regimes) of social cohesion found in different regions and country groups, their current vulnerabilities, and the implications of this for education.
Variations across Systems in Inequality of Educational Outcomes (PISA 2006). This analysis groups countries by types of education systems (based on common and distinguishing education system characteristics): -‘Anglo’- English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, USA) -‘Germanic ‘– German-speaking countries and countries proximate to them which have selective secondary systems (including Austria, Belgium, Germany Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland); -Southern Europe (Greece, Italy Portugal) -Nordics Countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland). -East Asia (Japan and South Korea only) For simplicity I take the averages for all countries in a groups
Explanation of Variation 2: School System Effects Anglo – school choice and diversity Germanic – selective admissions Nordic – all-through comprehensive systems
Part Two: Learning Effects on Social Cohesion 1.Individual – level effects 1.Aggregate societal effects
Social Capital Theory Social Capital theorists, like Robert Putnam, find that in a range of contemporary countries, more educated people are more likely to : Join associations Engage politically Trust in other people and Institutions Tolerate other social groups Give to charity.
Societal Effects These relationships are not mirrored at the level of whole societies (because other contextual factors enter into equation). More educated societies are not more trusting on average More educated societies not necessarily more tolerant. However, how education and skills are DISTRIBUTED has a major impact on social cohesion.
Correlations between Adult Skills Distribution and Trust We measure skills inequality using IALS cross- country data on adult numerical skills, using the ‘test score ratio method’ Trust in other people is based on World Values Survey Data
Inequality and Trust Countries with more equal skills distributions tend to have higher levels of trust. This probably works partly through the effects of skills distribution on income distribution, but the correlation exists independently of income distribution. If the relationship is causal, causality probably works both ways. Possible Explanations. Greater inequality of skills and incomes produces stress through creating high-stakes competition which reduces the capacity to trust in others Inequalities in levels of education and skill increases CULTURAL DISTANCE between individuals and groups and makes trusting more difficult.
Current Research Analysis of relationships over time Using PIAAC data in future Cross-national qualitative project on perceptions of inequality and their effects of student attitudes
Part Three: Regimes of Social Cohesion Historical and contemporary evidence suggests that countries ‘hold together’ in different ways. The different traditions of thought in political philosophy and sociology on social cohesion and social solidarity suggest different models of social cohesion in different parts of the world.
Liberal Regime Emphasis on an active civil society, particularly at the local level. A vibrant civil society is believed to incubate trust spontaneously through repeated social interactions between individuals and groups. The role of the central state is played down, including its institutional roles for providing welfare and social protection and for promoting equality through re-distribution. The core values which help to bind society in the liberal regime are tolerance, meritocracy and opportunity. A wider set of shared values and a common identity are thought to be incompatible with individual freedom and cultural diversity.
Republican Regime The republican discourse emphasises the state rather than civil society. The state promotes social cohesion through its institutions for welfare, social protection and re-distribution. It also plays a role in disseminating (through public education) a common (national) identity and a broad set of shared values which emphasise belonging to, and active participation in, a political community at the national rather than local level. The state also plays a supervisory role in relation to key institutions in civil society which are seen to intermediate conflicts, such as professional and employer institutions.
Social Democratic Regime The social democratic discourse follows the republican discourse in most of its essentials, except that here the stress on equality is more profound. Like republican theory social democratic theory emphasises both the role of the state and that of autonomous but state- sanctioned national civil society organisations Social partnership is a key concept in both contemporary traditions pointing to importance of conflict intermediation through representative civil society organisations.
Recent Research Our recent research in LLAKES uses a wide range of measures to test whether these different regimes can be identified in contemporary societies. The data: Data on social attitudes from international surveys (such as WVS and ISSP) International administrative data
Measures based on survey data Social trust Social democratic (+) Social Market (-) East Asian (+) Percentage saying most people can be trusted Value diversity Social market (-) East Asian (-) Liberal (+) Composite indicator representing the dispersion of opinions Active civic participation Liberal (+) East Asian (-) Number of different voluntary organizations worked for Passive participation in nationwide organizations Social market (+) Social democratic (+) East Asian (-) Number of different organizations belonging to Freedom vs equality Liberal (+); Social market (-); Social democratic (-) Freedom or equality more important; percentage preferring freedom Merit vs equality Liberal (+); Social market (+); Social democratic (-) Pay according to performance Ethnocultural versus civic identities Romantic conservative (+); East Asian (+); Liberal (-) Strength of cultural relative to political conceptions of national identity Ethnic tolerance Liberal (+); Romantic conservative (-); East Asian (-) Xenophobia index; average (inverse indicator) Percentage not mentioning minding foreigners as neighbours Social hierarchy East Asian (+); Social market (+) Percentage saying one should always love and respect one’s parents Gender equalityEast Asian (-) Social market (-) Social democratic (+) Liberal (+) Percentage disagreeing that in times of scarcity men have more right to a job than women
ComponentTradition/regimeIndicator(s) Indicators based on administrative data Inequality Social Democratic (-) Liberal (+) Gini coefficient on household income Wage regulation Social Democratic (+) Social Market (+) Liberal (-) Union coverage Centralization of wage bargaining Employment protection Liberal (-) Social market (+) Employment protection legislation 1998 State involvement Liberal (-); Social democratic (+); Social market (+); Public employment as percentage of total employment 2000 Welfare state Liberal (-); Social democratic (+) Public social expenditure as percentage of GDP 2000 Ethno-racial diversity Liberal (+) East-Asian (-) Proportion of the population born abroad 2000 Crime / disorder Liberal (+) East Asian (-) Social Market (-) Homicide rate Violent crime 2000
Results The statistical analysis uses : Correlations and scatter plots Cluster analysis Factor Analysis Composite indicators and indexes. Different regimes of social cohesion can be readily identified. On all the tests countries and their social cohesion characteristics cluster very much as the theory would suggest.
LiberalSocial DemocraticSocial MarketEast Asian Minimum: -7.25Minimum: -3.43Minimum: -10.97Minimum: -9.34 Maximum: 16.44Maximum: 13.80Maximum: 5.50Maximum: 11.85 Included components Inequality +Inequality - Diversity +Diversity -Diversity +Diversity - Welfare state -Welfare state + Welfare state - State involvement -State involvement+Empl protection + Wage regulation -(Union coverage) Wage regulation + (Union coverage) Crime – (homicide) Wage regulation – (Centralized bargain) Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain) Empl protection -Crime – (homicide) Crime + (homicide) Gender equality +Gender equality - Active part + Active part - Passive part -Passive part +Passive part - Value diversity +Value diversity - Merit +Merit -Merit + Freedom + Freedom -Social hierarchy + Ethnic tolerance + (neighbours measure) Ethnic tolerance - (neighbours measure) Ethnic tolerance – (neighbours measure)
Composite Indicators for Each Regime Type The best way to do this, in our view, is to first standardize the indicators and then create an index that combines an addition of the standardized indicators on which the corresponding regime or tradition is thought to show relatively high values with a subtraction of the standardized indicators on which that regime or tradition is deemed to have low values. As low values on standardized variables appear as negative scores (remember that standardized variables have a mean of zero), subtracting these scores produces positive values. Consequently, a country with high values on the first-named indicators and low values on the last-named would automatically get a high value on the index. We can illustrate this with the following example. Say we create a liberalism index using standardized versions of four indicators and there is a country with a value of.85 on inequality (i.e. higher than average), -.50 on state involvement (i.e. lower than average), -.90 on social expenditure and.20 on active civic participation. Then the country would have liberalism index score of.85 +.20 – (-.50) – (-.90) = 2.45.
LiberalSocial DemocraticSocial MarketEast Asian CountryScoreCountryScoreCountryScoreCountryScore USA16.81SWE15.90AU5.59KOR11.66 CAN9.24DEN10.76POR3.12JAP9.10 GB4.43NL8.15GER3.05CZE3.37 IRE-.14FIN7.42FRA2.27POL2.65 GER-.74B3.11ITA1.82ITA2.34 NL-1.93AU.81B.83SP2.02 AU-2.05GER.28SWE.45POR1.97 DEN-2.13IRE.19FIN-.37SLV1.21 SP-2.27SP-.42NL-.59GER-.12 ITA-2.49GB-.80SP-1.74AU-.52 POR-2.86FRA-1.10DEN-2.84IRE-.89 FRA-3.96CAN-2.62IRE-3.14FRA-1.35 FIN-4.48ITA-2.92GB-5.54FIN-2.00 SWE-5.49 -3.26CAN-6.76GB-2.03 B-6.08POR-5.39 -11.33NL-2.49 B-3.40 DEN-3.69 CAN-4.23 SWE-7.24 -8.13 Rank order of countries on the four indexes
Current Vulnerabilities in Each Regime Each regime of social cohesion is currently vulnerable at the points most essential to its model. The Liberal Regime relies on opportunity and the belief in meritocratic rewards to hold the together. This is challenged by rising inequality and declining social mobility (in UK and the US) particularly. The Republican Regime has traditionally relied on widely shared common values. This is increasingly challenged by cultural diversity. The Social Democratic Regime relies heavily on its universalist welfare state. This is challenged by globalisation and immigration.
Conclusion Precipitous declines in levels of social and political trust in many countries are one of the most graphic indications of the widespread weakening of social cohesion. Education can have a major role to play in counteracting this. However, it is not how much education a country has that makes the difference, but how it is shared around.
References Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES) http://www.llakes.org/ Andy Green and Germ Janmaat (forthcoming, 2011): Regimes of Social Cohesion: Societies and the Crisis of Globalisation