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.