Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion

Presentation for Belgian EU Presidency Conference on ‘Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage’

Gent, 28.9.10

Andy GreenDirector of ESRC-LLAKES Centre

Institute of Education

University of London

Education and State Formation

National Education systems developed in 19th C. Europe as a

vehicle of state formation:

• 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

However, schools socialised children into future adult roles in

class/gender specific ways.

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 existing class structures, transferring education advantages and disadvantages between generations.

• Typically, during the 20th 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 provides international data using different measures of educational inequality.

• This analysis groups countries by types of education systems (based on common and distinguishing education system characteristics):

- ‘Anglo’- English-speaking countries;

- ‘Germanic ‘– German-speaking countries and countries proximate to them which have selective secondary systems (including Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg);

- Southern Europe

- Nordics Countries;

- East Asia (Japan and South Korea only)

• For simplicity I take the averages for all countries in a groups

Average Variation in Science by Country Group in PISA 2006

124.55113.55

106.8599.8 94.8 94.575

50

70

90

110

130

US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Nordic S. Europe

17.9815.9

13.87 13.4

9.67.75

0

5

10

15

20

Germanic US, UK S. Europe Anglo Nordic E. Asia

Percentage of Within Country Variance in Science Scores Explained by PISA ESCS Index by Average for Country Group

48.5 46.2 44.83

35.5 34.631.75

0

10

20

30

40

50

US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Nordic S.Europe

Score Point Difference Associated with One Unit on ESCS - Social Gradient

0

50

100

150

US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Nordic S. Europe

Between School and Within School Variation

Betweeen Schools Within Schools

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

US, UK Anglo Germanic E. Asia Nordic S. Europe

Typical Range of Average Socio-Economic Status of Schools by Average for Country Group

Explanations of Cross-Country Variation

1. Factors External to the School System

• Income distribution

• Welfare systems

Income Inequality

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Nordic CoreEurope

SouthernEurope

Anglo-Saxon

Region

Gin

i

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

2. 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 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

POR

US

D

NW

UKB

CAN

PO

SZAU

IRLFIN

NLSW

DEN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Education Inequality

Gen

eral

Tru

st

NW

B

UK

CAN

IRL

NL

AUFIN

POSZ

POR

SWDEN

USA

D

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

Inco

me

ineq

ualit

y

Test score ratio

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.

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.

• T he 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 equality East Asian (-)

Social market (-)

Social democratic (+)

Liberal (+)

Percentage disagreeing that in times of scarcity men have more right to a job than women

Component Tradition/regime Indicator(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

Liberal Social Democratic Social Market East Asian

Mean: -.70 Mean: 2.07 Mean: -.59 Mean: .09Minimum: -7.25 Minimum: -3.43 Minimum: -10.97 Minimum: -9.34Maximum: 16.44 Maximum: 13.80 Maximum: 5.50 Maximum: 11.85

Included components Included components Included components Included components

Inequality + Inequality -Diversity + Diversity - Diversity + Diversity -Welfare state - Welfare state + Welfare state + Welfare state -State involvement - State involvement+ Empl protection + Empl protection +Wage regulation -(Union coverage)

Wage regulation + (Union coverage)

Wage regulation + (Union coverage)

Crime – (homicide)

Wage regulation –(Centralized bargain)

Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain)

Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain)

Empl protection - Crime – (homicide)Crime + (homicide)

Gender equality + Gender equality - Gender equality -Active part + Active part + Active part - Active part -Passive part - Passive part + Passive part - Passive part -Value diversity + Value diversity - Value diversity - Value diversity -Merit + Merit - Merit + Merit +Freedom + Freedom + Freedom - Social hierarchy +Ethnic tolerance + (neighbours measure)

Ethnic tolerance -(neighbours measure)

Ethnic tolerance – (neighbours measure)

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.

Liberal Social Democratic Social Market East Asian

Country Score Country Score Country Score Country Score

16.81 SWE 15.90 AU 5.59 KOR 11.66

CAN 9.24 DEN 10.76 POR 3.12 JAP 9.10GB 4.43 NL 8.15 GER 3.05 CZE 3.37IRE -.14 FIN 7.42 FRA 2.27 POL 2.65GER -.74 B 3.11 ITA 1.82 ITA 2.34NL -1.93 AU .81 B .83 SP 2.02AU -2.05 GER .28 SWE .45 POR 1.97DEN -2.13 IRE .19 FIN -.37 SLV 1.21SP -2.27 SP -.42 NL -.59 GER -.12ITA -2.49 GB -.80 SP -1.74 AU -.52POR -2.86 FRA -1.10 DEN -2.84 IRE -.89FRA -3.96 CAN -2.62 IRE -3.14 FRA -1.35FIN -4.48 ITA -2.92 GB -5.54 FIN -2.00SWE -5.49 -3.26 CAN -6.76 GB -2.03B -6.08 POR -5.39 -11.33 NL -2.49

B -3.40DEN -3.69CAN -4.23SWE -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.

Trends in Social Trust

1981 1990 2000 200520

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Liberal

Social Market

Southern European

East Asian

Trends in Political Trust

1981 1990 2000 200520

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Social Democratic

Southern European

Social Market

Liberal

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