Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion
Presentation at LLAKES Conference on ‘Lifelong Learning, Crisis and Social Change’
Senate House, London, 18th and 19th October 2012
Andy GreenDirector of ESRC-LLAKES Centre
Structure of Presentation
1. Social benefits of education at different levels
- to individuals- to communities (social capital)- to society (social cohesion)
2. Pathways for social effects of learning
3. The problem of educational inequality
4. Regimes of Social Cohesion, the Crisis and Education• What holds different societies together?• Recent trends and vulnerabilities in each regime
Individual Level Effects
Studies for various countries demonstrate that more educated
people tend to show higher levels of :
• Social and political trust• Civic and political engagement • Democratic values • Tolerance
and lower levels of violent crime.
(Nie et al., 1996; Stubager, 2008; Hagendoorn, 1999; Emler and Frazer, 1999;
Putnam, 2000). (Nie et al., 1996; Stubager, 2008; Hagendoorn, 1999; Emler and Frazer,
1999; Putnam, 2000; McMahon, 1999).
Some Findings from Analyses of UK Longitudinal Data
(Feinstein et al., 2003).
Compared with those educated to level 2 graduates are:
• 70-80% more likely to report excellent health
• 55% less likely to suffer depression (males)
• 3.5 times more likely to be a member of a voluntary association (Males: F= 2.5 x)
• 30% and 40% more likely to hold positive attitudes to race and gender equality
• 50% more likely to vote.
Education and Social Capital: Benefits to Communities
Education is also found to contribute to the social capital of groups and
communities where SC is defined as ‘features of social life – networks,
norms and trust – that enable to participants to act together more
effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam, 2006).
Putnam (2000) finds that more educed people are more likely to join
Associations’ make charitable donations and be politically engaged.
Repeated interactions in groups increases levels of trust and tolerance.
- Individuals thus benefit from enhanced networks - Neighbourhoods benefits from more co-operation and cohesion etc
Education and Social Cohesion
Social capital amongst individuals, families and local communities is not
the same thing as social cohesion at the country level.
Intra-group bonding does not always translate into inter-group harmony.
A country can have high levels of social capital in particular communities
but not be at all socially cohesive (eg Northern Ireland would be a good
example : see Schuller, Field et al, 2000).
It follows that:
Individual social benefits through increased learning do not necessarily
translate into societal effects or coincide with increased social cohesion.
LLAKES Research on Macro-Social Benefits
In our early research (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006) we found that
relationships pertaining at the individual level in some countries
disappear in macro-level, cross-country analysis.
• Social capital theorists argue that trust, civic engagement and tolerance go together at the individual level. However, they don’t co-vary across countries.
• Education enhances trust, tolerance and associational activity among individuals (in some countries). However, we found no relation across countries between adult skills and levels of trust, civic engagement and tolerance.
The Paradox of Levels
There are a number of reasons for this.
• The individual level effects are ‘relative’ or ‘positional’ ie one person’s social gain through improved learning outcomes will be another’s loss through relatively diminished skills.
• Other determininng factors at the national level overwhelm the statistical relation between education and social outcomes.
• Contexts: effects at the societal level are often indirect - ie they work through other factors which differ between societies.
LLAKES Research on LLL Social Benefits
• Uses mixed method multi-level approaches to understand relationships at different levels
• Draws on a range of different disciplines to understand the different mediating national contexts (labour market organisation; welfare systems etc)
• Examines both direct and indirect effects
Direct Effects Mediated by Contexts
Education can have direct effects on social
outcomes, it is argued, through raising cognitive
abilities and through socialisation into particular
sets of values and identities.
However, many of the direct effects are highly
influenced by (national) contexts.
Tolerance
Research for a number of countries shows that more educated people are more
tolerant (eg Putnam, 2000). It is argued that education can develop both cognitive
resources and values which protect against racial prejudice (Hagendorn, 1999).
However, there is no clear-cut relationship across countries between levels of education
and tolerance (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006) because other contexts, like the
political climate, vary and mediate the relationships.
Halman’s analysis (1994) of Eurobaromter data suggest that levels of tolerance in EU
countries vary according to the actual and perceived proportion of immigrants.
Jasinska-Kania analysis of EVS data (1999) shows that the impact of education on
racial tolerance is greater in countries with higher levels of immigrants (perhaps
because there are more circumstantially-driven racist attitudes that can be countered by
education).
Contextual Effects on Civic Participation
Various studies (eg Emler and Fraser, 1999) have shown a strong relationship at
the individual level between civic knowledge and civic activity. However, this
relationship does not necessarily hold at a national level.
The IEA Civic Education study of 14-year olds in 28 countries (Torney-Purta et al,
2001) found that levels of civic knowledge were relatively high in Finland, Norway,
Poland, Slovak Republic and Czech Republic. The context of the political changes
occurring in the transition countries no doubt contributed in the case of CEE countries.
Nordic countries scored low in support for different forms of political participation and
the Czech Republic low in support for non-conventional forms of civic engagement.
The Slovak Republic scored in high civic knowledge, but low in support for rights for
women and ethnic minorities (like Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania).
Contextual Effects on Education and Crime
McMahon (1999) used time lagged analysis of data for 78 countries (1956- 1995) and
found that rising rates of secondary education were associated with decreasing levels of
violent crime. Other contextual Factors are also important, however.
Junger-Tas (2000) finds that in countries such as England and Germany father absence
was associated with higher delinquency, but not on Nordic countries.
This is possibly due to different welfare arrangements between countries whereby single parent
families receive more support in Nordic states.
Similarly, whereas there was a relation between large peer groups and delinquency in
some countries, this was not the case in southern Europe where, arguably, these are
more common.
Positional Effects of Education on Political Engagement
Robert Nie et al. (2006), using OLS regression analysis on US time
series data, find that education has some absolute effects on political
engagement but the relative or ‘positional’ effects are stronger.
More educated people have more opportunity to achieve ‘network
centrality’ giving access to politicians, thus giving individuals an
incentive to participate. However, network centrality is a ‘zero-sum’
property - the gains for one individual will entail losses for others.
Thus while average education levels may be getting higher in North
America this does not necessarily lead to higher level of political
engagement.
Learning effects on social capital (joining, volunteering and engagement)
Learning Joining
volunteering civic engagement
Cognitive resources (knowledge, skills etc) Adapted from R. Nie
Status Network centrality
Which Effects are Absolute rather than Positional?
If individual social effects from learning are ‘absolute’ they are likely to aggregate into societal effects. If the are ‘relative’ or ‘positional’ they may not do so.
Recent research shows positional effects for a range of social outcomes.
• voter turnout (Burden, 2009; Tenn, 2007)
• political sophistication (Highton, 2009)
• democratic citizenship (Persson and Oscarsson, 2010).
Indirect Effects
Much of the influence that education has on social
outcomes is indirect – it works through something else.
LLAKES research suggests that often the most
powerful effects on social cohesion are distributional –
they depend on how the distribution of skills affects
the distribution of incomes and social status.
What matters most for social cohesion is less how much
education a country has, but how it is spread around.
Correlations between Adult Skills Distribution and Trust
We measured 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 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 , it probably works both ways.
• 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.
Over Time Analysis
Using time series data on education inequality, income inequality
and social cohesion measures over time (1960-1990) for
industrialised countries.
• Measure of educational inequality: Education Gini based computed from data on highest level of education
• Measure of unrest comprising riots, strikes and demonstrations.
• Measure of civil liberties based on freedom house scale.
-20
24
6S
tand
ardi
zed
valu
es o
f (u
nres
t1)
0 .2 .4 .6 .8edgini
Relationships
• Education inequality highly correlated with unrest but the relationship is non-linear. As education inequality rises ‘unrest‘ first drops slightly and then rises sharply.
• Educational inequality is generally negatively related to civil liberties but the relationship is again non-linear. As education inequalities rise, civil liberties first decline, then rise and then drop sharply.
Education Systems Properties and Civic Competences
Janmaat’s multi-level analysis of Cived data explored the effect of different
system and classroom characteristics on Civic competences.
Compared with comprehensive systems, selective education systems have:
• higher levels of social segregation across classrooms;
• greater disparities in civic knowledge and skills;
• larger peer effects on civic knowledge and skills - meaning that the latter are strongly affected by the social backgrounds and achievement levels of other students in the class.
(Janmaat , 2011).
Classroom Diversity and Values
Students who spend longer in mixed-ability classes are more likely to share basic values in areas such as tolerance and patriotism, regardless of their social own ethnic group (Janmaat & Mons 2011).
Ethnic diversity in the classroom seems to promote tolerance in some countries, but not in all.
In Germany and Sweden, native majority students tend to be more tolerant when in ethnically diverse classrooms.
In England, no such relationship was found. Furthermore, in English classrooms white students were less tolerant the better their minority ethnic peers performed in terms of civic knowledge and skills. This may again be related status and competition anxiety.
Macro Social Benefits Less Likely in Unequal Education Systems
LLL seems to be more successful in promoting social
cohesion in countries with more equal educational
outcomes.
• Nordic and East Asian countries tend to have relatively equal outcomes
• ‘Liberal’ and ‘Social market’ countries tend to have rather unequal outcomes.
Total Variance in Scores By Country Group: PISA 2000, 2009
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
Liberal Social Market Southern Europe Eastern Europe East Asia Nordic0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
44.6 43.85
31.25
40.33
3634.6
Score Point Difference Associeted with a One Point Increase in Student Background (ESCS) - 2009
Liberal Social Market Southern Europe Eastern Europe East Asia Nordic0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage of Variation in Performance between Schools Explained by School ESCS - 2009
Adult Learning Not Mitigating Skills Inequalities in UK
• In Britain the well educated participate 1.6 times as much as the average person and the poorly educated participate only 0.3 times as much.
• In Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United States, the participation rates of both the high and low education groups are closer to the national mean (OECD, 2005 based on LFS data).
• In Britain the unemployed and inactive participate less than the national average.
• In Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden the unemployed have higher participation rates than the employed.
Population aged 25-29 by Highest Qualification Attained
55.0
19.3
50.2
5.7 8.917
65.8
12.2
59.5
44.6
28.0
14.9
37.6 34.8
46.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
UK (1998) Germany (1997) Singapore (1998) Korea (1998) Japan (1997)
Below Level 3Level 3Level 4 and above
Regimes of Social Cohesion
Historical and contemporary evidence suggests
that countries ‘hold together’ in different ways.
• Different historical traditions of thought on social
cohesion in different parts of the world.
• Different institutional arrangements support social cohesion.
Liberal Discourses
Liberal discourses tend to play down:
• The role of the state (in welfare and redistribution)• Equality• Shared values and identities (other than ‘core values’)
Emphasise importance of:
• Active civil society – at local level• Opportunity and individual liberty (‘core values’)• Tolerance
Republican Discourses
Republican discourses emphasise the state rather than civil society.
The state is seen to underpin social cohesion through:
• Providing welfare and social protection• Redistribution• Supervising conflict-mediating social partnership institutions• Promoting shared values and common national identity.
Different currents in republican thought variously stress equality of
opportunity or equality of outcomes as important pre-conditions for
social cohesion, but their role in social cohesion is often largely
symbolic.
Social Democratic Discourse
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
• Equality is seen as pre-condition of social solidarity.
• Common identity is highly valued.
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
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
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
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
Trends
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
Current Vulnerabilities in Each Regime
Each regime of social cohesion is currently vulnerable at
the points most essential to its model.
• 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.
• 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.
UK: The Atrophy of Core Beliefs in Meritocracy
Traditionally people in Britain are relatively tolerant of
inequality. But there is a large and probably growing gap
between people’s high expectations of meritocracy and
what they perceive to be the case.
Like people in Nordic Countries people are much more
likely than in most countries to say that effort
rather than need should determine pay.
But they are much less likely to perceive that
opportunities are in fact equal.
Country Hard work / children to
provide for *(ISSP 2009)
Country Large income dofferences acceptable to reward talents and effort (ESS 2008)
Australia 56.4 Greece 74.7
New Zealand 54.7 Denmark 66.7
Norway 51.6 Great Britain 63.9
Sweden 47.4 Germany 60.1
Great Britain 47.0 Netherlands 57.7
Finland 44.2 Switzerland 56.4
USA 44.2 Belgium 55.8
Japan 39.8 Cyprus 55.2
Iceland 39.2 Israel 54.5Portugal 35.4 Spain 52.9South Korea 30.3 Norway 52.6
Slovenia 28.7 France 51.5
Denmark 28.2 Sweden 49.0
Austria 22.9 Portugal 48.9
Switzerland 21.9 Slovenia 36.6
France 19.9 Finland 27.5
Belgium 19.4Spain 16.2Germany 10.8Israel 5.7
Country Only the rich can afford the cost of attending university (ISSP 2009)
Disagree
Country People have the same chances to enter university, regardless of their gender,
ethnicity or social background (ISSP 2009)
Norway 85.6 Germany 44.3
Denmark 83.9 France 41.6
Finland 80.9 Portugal 38.8
Iceland 73.9 Spain 29.1
New Zealand 66.6 Great Britain 28.6
Spain 66.5 Austria 26.8
Austria 66.4 Australia 25.2
Sweden 64.7 South Korea 23.3
Switzerland 64.6 USA 23.3
USA 61.4 Belgium 22
Belgium 52.4 Denmark 21.2
Australia 51.1 New Zealand 19.2
Cyprus 49.3 Japan 18.9
Great Britain 48.3 Israel 18.7
Germany 47.5 Switzerland 18.2
Japan 47 Iceland 17.6
Portugal 39.9 Finland 17.2
Israel 39.4 Sweden 14.8
South Korea 27.2 Cyprus 13.6
France 25.9 Norway 10.6
Conclusion
Precipitous declines in trust and faith in opportunities and
meritocratic rewards are the biggest threat to social
cohesion in the UK.
Education can play a major role in equalising
opportunities and counteracting the erosion of core beliefs
which hold society together. But at the moment it is not
doing this .
Policy needs to concern itself not only with raising average
levels of skills but equally with how lifelong learning systems
spread skills around.
References
Green, Preston and Janmaat (2006) ‘Education,
Equality and Social Cohesion’, Palgrave.
Green and Janmaat (2011) ‘Regimes of Social
Cohesion: Societies and the Crisis of
Globalisation’, Palgrave.
Llakes.org