Transcript Varieties of capitalism and

Varieties of capitalism and approaches to lifelong learning
Contribution to symposium on Lifelong Learning and Social Justice:
macro, micro and meso perspectives
British Educational Research Association Conference,
London Institute of Education, 6-8 September 2007
Sheila Riddell, Elisabet Weedon, Judith Litjens, Jim Crowther, University of Edinburgh
John Holford, University of Nottingham
Three worlds of welfare capitalism
(Esping-Andersen,1989)
• the ‘liberal’ welfare state - limited social insurance plan
and means tested benefits. Beneficiaries usually lowincome working-class (e.g. United States and United
Kingdom);
• the ‘conservative-corporatist’ regime - aims to retain
existing social hierarchies. Strong emphasis on social
insurance (e.g. Belgium, Austria); and
• the ‘social-democratic’ regime - aims to promote equality
and provide universal benefits. Has a universal
insurance scheme but uses some means-testing in
provision of benefits (e.g. Norway).
Welfare families (Castles)
• English-speaking family (Ireland, UK)
• Nordic family
• Continental Western European group
(France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands)
• Southern European group (Greece,
Portugal, Spain)
Variants on new European socioeconomic
model (Aiginger)
•
•
•
•
•
Scandinavian
Continental
Anglo-Saxon
Mediterranean
Catching-up
Methods of typology development
•
•
•
•
Data gathered on range of indicators e.g.
GDP & % spent on education
Employment rate
Employment protection, poverty risk,
measures to support disadvantaged
• Ed. System characteristics & outcome
• Participation in lll
• Policies on lll
Table 1: Data contributing to typology of lll
Data contributing to typology of lifelong learning
Nor
UK - Sco
UK UK
Eng
118.6
124
GDP (% GDP 198
(7%)
(5.4%)
spent on ed.) (7.6%)
:
74.8
2.6 :
Employ. rate
Employ.
protection
Poverty risk
71.5 :
11 :
Adequate Partial
Support for
disadv groups
Compulsory
ed.
% with upper
sec ed
% in any LLL
% in formal
LLL
% in formal
and nonformal LLL
% in LLL by
work status
% in any
learning by ed
att
Emphasis on
HC
Emphasis on
SC
Emphasis on
PD
Comp
Comp
Comp
95.3
70.6
:
34.7 :
:
3.9 :
:
17.8 :
:
:
:
Low: 15
Med: 30
High: 51
:
:
:
High
High
High
Aus
Slo
Hun
Cze
Est
Lit
Bul
Rus
120.5
128
57 (6%) 33
36 (4.6%) 28 (5.7%) 22 (5.2%) 10
: (3.7%
(5.6% in (5.5%)
(5.9%)
(4.2%)
2002)
67.6 2001)64.3
68.6
66
56.9
64.8
64.4
62.6
55.8
65
1.3 2.5 (B)
18
Partial
Bel - Fla
160
(4.4%)
71.7
1.1
:
:
Partial
Ire
2.2
21 15 (B)
Partial
Partial
13
Partial
2.9
1.7
10
12
Adequate Partial
1.9
2.6
8
:
2.7 :
18
:
15
:
:
14 :
Partial
No info
in NR
Comp
Comp
Comp
Stratified Stratified Comp
Comp
Comp
Comp
Comp
Comp
76.4
85.3
69.8
85.3
83.4
90.9
82.2
86.1
76 70.7
Stratified
(2002)
39.8
48.9 41.9 (B)
89.2 Stratified
11.7
28.7
31.4
27.8
16.1 :
8.4
5.4 4 (B)
3
2.9
1.4
3.7
3
1.2 :
Stratified
27.5
7.4
9.1
12.9
3.9
5.6
5.9
6
1.3 :
Stratified
Em: 23.1 Em: 6.1 Em: 11.4 Em: 12.7
Un: 20.5 Un: 5.5 Un: 12.6 Un: 14.9
In: 13.9 In: 6
In: 5.2
In: 8.1
Stratified
Low: 12 Low: 35 Low: 23 Low: 87
Med: 37 Med: 51 Med: 42 Med: 89
High: 61 High: 66 High: 67 High: 95 Stratified
High
High
High
High
Em: 4.5
Un: 3.2
In: 3.2
Em: 6.6
Un: 2.2
In: 3.7
Em: 7.2
Un: 4.6
In: 4.2
Em: 6.8
Un: 3.8
In: 3.4
:
Low: 4
Low: 10 Low: 10
Med: 11 Med: 26 Med: 25
High: 27 High: 63 High: 52
Low: 6
Med: 21
High: 60
Low: 2
:
Med: 12
High: 45
High
High
High
High
Low
Low/Medi Medium/ Medium/L Low/Medi Low
um
High
ow
um
Medium/ Low
Medium/ Low
Low
Low
Low
High
:
High
Stratified
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium High
Medium High
High
High
Low/Medi Low
um
Medium/ Low
Low
Stratified
Low
Stratified
Data sources (see glossary)
• Eurostat
• Euridyce
• EU communications
• National Reports
Difficulties in typology development
• General problems with welfare state
typologies (welfare states & nation states)
• Basis for inclusion in particular category
• Including new member states
• Consistency and reliability of data
Country similarities & differences: broad
economic & social indicators
• Marked divide in GDP between old & new member
states
• Less variation in % GDP spent on education – but
richest country (Norway) spends highest %)
• Highest employment rates: Norway, Scotland
• UK & Ireland have least regulated labour markets
• Slovenia & Norway have ‘adequate’ measures for
disadvantaged
• Risk of poverty – greatest in Ireland & UK; least in
Norway & Slovenia
Percentage with at least upper secondary education (2003)
120
100
80
%
% with
upper
sec
60
40
20
0
Bel - Fla UK - Sco
Rus
Bul
UK
Est
Hun
Countries
Ire
Aus
Lit
Slo
Cze
Nor
Percentage with at least secondary ed: key
points
• Most systems comprehensive: exceptions
Austria & Flanders
• Countries grouped closely together – but
little variation between old & new member
states
• Flanders - lowest percentage
• Norway – highest percentage
Percentage of the population in formal LLL (2003)
9
8
7
6
%
5
4
% in
formal
LLL
3
2
1
0
Bul
Cze
Hun
Aus
Lit
Est
Countries
Nor
Bel - Fla
Ire
Slo
UK
Percentage in formal lll: key points
• UK - high proportion if formal lll, followed
by Slovenia & Ireland - flexible HE
• Austria - relatively low participation
(behind Estonia & Lithuania) - rigid HE
system
• Lowest participation – Bulgaria (also
poorest country)
LLL participation by educational attainment (2003)
120
100
%
80
Low
Med
High
60
40
20
0
Hun
Bul
Lit
Est
Cze
Nor
Countries
UK
Bel - Fla
Ire
Slo
Aus
Lll by educational attainment: key points
• In all countries, those with higher levels of
educational attainment most likely to be
involved in lll (formal, non-formal, informal)
• Austria appears to have highest
participation, but LFS data for 2003 did not
include informal learning for all countries
Aiginger’s typology applied to lll (1)
• Scandinavian model: Norway - emphasis
on human capital, social capital & personal
development. High investment in lll
combined with regulated labour markets
• Anglo-Saxon model: Ireland, Scotland,
England – High participation in lll, low
labour market regulation, high poverty risk
Lll seen as driver of economy & means of
combating social exclusion
Aiginger’s typology applied to lll (2)
• Continental model: Rigid & stratified education system.
Emphasis on lll as creator of human capital, less on
social capital Tightly regulated labour market, but little
attention to disadvantaged
• Catching-up model: Slovenia has many features in
common with old member states, particularly emphasis
on social inclusion.
• Estonia & Lithuania – some features of Baltic states?
• Hungary & Czech Republic – reflections of continental
model?
• Need for much greater focus on developments in Central
& Eastern European countries.