Varieties of capitalism and approaches to lifelong learning Contribution to symposium on Lifelong...
-
Upload
melvin-bridges -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Varieties of capitalism and approaches to lifelong learning Contribution to symposium on Lifelong...
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 EdinburghJohn 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 low-income 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
Nor UK - Sco UK - Eng
UK Ire Bel - Fla Aus Slo Hun Cze Est Lit Bul Rus
GDP (% GDP spent on ed.)
198 (7.6%)
118.6 (7%) :
124 (5.4%)
160 (4.4%)
120.5 (5.6% in 2001)
128 (5.5%)
57 (6%) 33 (5.9%)
36 (4.6%) 28 (5.7%) 22 (5.2%) 10 (4.2%)
: (3.7% 2002)
Employ. rate 74.8 71.5 : 71.7 67.6 64.3 68.6 66 56.9 64.8 64.4 62.6 55.8 65
Employ. protection
2.6 :
:
1.1 1.3 2.5 (B) 2.2 2.9 1.7 1.9 2.6 2.7 : :
Poverty risk 11 : : 18 21 15 (B) 13 10 12 8 18 15 14 :
Support for disadv groups
Adequate Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Adequate Partial : : : Partial No info in NR
Compulsory ed. Comp Comp Comp Comp Comp Stratified Stratified Comp Comp Comp Comp Comp Comp
Comp
% with upper sec ed
95.3 70.6:
76.4 85.3 69.8 85.3Stratified
83.4 90.9 82.2 86.1 76 70.7 (2002)
% in any LLL 34.7 : : 39.8 48.9 41.9 (B) 89.2 Stratified 11.7 28.7 31.4 27.8 16.1 :
% in formal LLL
3.9 ::
8.4 5.4 4 (B) 3Stratified
2.9 1.4 3.7 3 1.2 :
% in formal and non-formal LLL
17.8 :
:
27.5 7.4 9.1 12.9
Stratified
3.9 5.6 5.9 6 1.3 :
% in LLL by work status
: :
:
Em: 23.1 Un: 20.5 In: 13.9
Em: 6.1 Un: 5.5 In: 6
Em: 11.4 Un: 12.6 In: 5.2
Em: 12.7 Un: 14.9 In: 8.1 Stratified
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
: :
% in any learning by ed att
Low: 15 Med: 30 High: 51
: : Low: 12 Med: 37 High: 61
Low: 35 Med: 51 High: 66
Low: 23 Med: 42 High: 67
Low: 87 Med: 89 High: 95 Stratified
Low: 4 Med: 11 High: 27
Low: 10 Med: 26 High: 63
Low: 10 Med: 25 High: 52
Low: 6 Med: 21 High: 60
Low: 2 Med: 12 High: 45
:
Emphasis on HC
High High High High High High HighStratified
High High High High High High
Emphasis on SC
High Medium Medium High High Low/Medium
LowStratified
Low Low/Medium
Medium/High
Medium/Low
Low/Medium
Low
Emphasis on PD
High Medium Medium High High Medium/ Low
Low Stratified
Low Medium/Low
Low Medium/ Low
Low Low
Data contributing to typology of lifelong learning
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)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bel - Fla UK - Sco Rus Bul UK Est Hun Ire Aus Lit Slo Cze Nor
Countries
%
% withuppersec
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)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Bul Cze Hun Aus Lit Est Nor Bel - Fla Ire Slo UK
Countries
%
% informalLLL
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)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Hun Bul Lit Est Cze Nor UK Bel - Fla Ire Slo Aus
Countries
%
Low
Med
High
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.