Green 2003 Education 87

8/13/2019 Green 2003 Education 87

1/32

Education, Globalisation and the Role of Comparative Research

Draft Article for London Review of Education

Andy Green

Andy Green is professor of comparative education at the Institute of Education, London, and co-

director of the DFES Research entre on the !ider "enefits of Learnin#$ %is &oo's include(

Education, Globalisation and the Nation State )*++ and High Skills: Globalization,

Competitiveness and Skills Formation ).//* )with 0$ "rown and %$ Lauder $

Abstract. Comparative education has traditionally meant the study o national education

systems! "ut ho# ar is this approach valid today$ %oesn&t the 'decline& o the nation state

make national systems obsolete$ (sn&t the very idea o a 'system& anachronistic in a #orld o

market triumphalism and global disorganization$ )he purpose o this article is to e*plore

ho# globalisation is changing education and the implication o this or comparative study!

+hy study education systems and #hy study national education systems in particular$ +hat

else should comparativists study, and ho#$ +hat de ines the ield o comparative education$

)hese uestions are approached irst historically and secondly methodologically!

Introduction

omparative education has traditionally meant the study of national education systems$ 1he

field first developed in the early nineteenth century in parallel with the rise of national

education, and it too' the national system as its main o&2ect of en3uiry )4oah and Epstein,

*+5+ $ 1he twentieth century comparativists who consolidated it as an academic su&2ect,

*


2/32

includin# 6ichael Sadler, Isaac 7andel and 4icholas %ans, continued to focus on the

classification and e8planation of characteristics of different national systems$ "ut how far is

this approach valid today9 Doesn:t the ;decline: of the nation state ma'e national systems

o&solete9 And isn:t the very idea of a ;system: anachronistic in a world of mar'et

triumphalism and #lo&al disor#aniilla#e9 )=arvis, ./// $

1hese are tou#h 3uestions for comparative educationalists &ecause the concept of the national

education system forms the 'eystone of the whole mental architecture of comparative

education$ It may &e hard to thin' comparative without it$ 4evertheless, the 3uestion has &een

ri#htly posed and needs answerin#$ 1he purpose of my lecture is to e8plore how #lo&alisation

is chan#in# education and the implication of this for comparative study$ !hy study education

systems and why study national education systems in particular9 !hat else should

comparativists study, and how9 !hat defines the field of comparative education9 I approach

these 3uestions first historically and secondly methodolo#ically$

The Parallel Rise of Comparative Education and National Education ystems.

!ritin# a&out education in forei#n countries has a lon# history, #oin# &ac' in fact to

Anti3uity$ ?enephon descri&ed the trainin# of 0ersian youth for iti


3/32

education in other European countries and even in Asia, 2ust as Asian writers commented on

their e8periences in Europe For the most part these were unsystematic travellers: tales, what

4oah and Ec'stein refer to as a superior 'ind of 2ournalism )4oah and Ec'stein, *+5+ $

1his tradition continued in the nineteenth century with the reports on forei#n education &y

Europeans such as >ictor ousin, =ames 7ay-Shuttleworth and 6atthew Arnold, and &y

American educationalists such as %orace 6ann, rville 1aylor and =ohn Griscom$ In a sense

these were still traveller:s tales &ut they had ta'en on a new form$ 1hey were somewhat more

systematic at description and classification, althou#h often still hi#hly su&2ective@ they also

now played a si#nificant political role, in the sense of &ein# used for policy purposes$ Reports

on forei#n education systems were used as an early and wea' form of ;evidence-&ased policy

ma'in#:( they sou#ht forei#n e8amples of policies and practises to &orrow, and empirical data

on the effects of forei#n policies and practises as evidential support for policies advocated at

home$ 1hey were also conscious of the fact that they were studyin# a new educational

phenomenon B the national education system $ 6arc-Antoine =ullien, often considered the

founder of comparative education, set out in his *C* te8t, ; Es uisse et -ues .r/liminaries

d&un 0uvrage sur 1&Education Compar/ , to provide some systematic comparative

classification of education systems, &ased on rudimentary 3uestionnaire surveys$

omparative education, in its nascent form as a ;discipline: or, as some prefer, a ;su&-

disciplinary field of application: )usually of comparative social science , &e#an with the

notions of national systems &ecause they were the emer#ent contemporary reality B the

important thin#s to understand$ 1he national education systems which arose in northern

Europe and the northern SA from the late ei#hteenth century were sui generis @ radically

different from the precedin# artisanal and clerical forms of learnin#$ As 6ar#aret Archer


4/32


5/32

wor'ers and loyal military recruits@ created and cele&rated national lan#ua#es and literatures@

populari


6/32

educational traveller, noted, li'e =ullien &efore him, that comparison across re#ions within

states mi#ht &e fruitful, particularly where there were interestin# sets of variations as &etween

cantons in Swit


7/32

in his wor's of national minorities or intra-state cultural differences$ Althou#h he notes ;that

there is considera&le dan#er in employin# such a #enerali


8/32

&odies also focused on the description and classification of national systems$ Apparently, the

more internationalised education research &ecame, the more it focused on comparin# national

systems$

So what happened in the remainin# decades of the last century to cause us to as' whether

education systems may now &e in decline and cross-national analysis o&solete9 1he &rief

answer is #lo&alisation$

Globalisation and Education

So how has #lo&alisation impacted on education9 1he answer must &e fundamentally, &ut not

in the ways that are often ar#ued$

Glo&alisation itself has not yet su&stantially eroded national control over education$ It is true

that supra-national &odies have increasin# influence in some areas$ 1he E D and !orld

"an' have some impact, particularly on wea'er countries, throu#h their relentless #lo&al

mar'etin# of favoured educational policies, often &ac'ed &y su&stantial financial clout$

!ithin Europe, the ommission is undou&tedly 'een to e8tend its sphere of influence, not

least in its attempt to support the creation of a European 7nowled#e Economy throu#h

Lifelon# Learnin#$ %owever, education still remains officially a matter of national

competence, which few 6em&er States are willin# to cede$ 1he fact that the ommission is

o&li#ed to advance its a#enda throu#h voluntary rather than re#ulatory means, throu#h the so-

called ; pen 6ethod of oordination:, only underlines the point$

C


9/32

Governments still see' to mana#e their national systems - indeed, in some ways, more

actively than &efore with ever proliferatin# tar#ets and audits$ 1hey 'now that education

remains one area where they still have some control$ As Ro&ert Reich )*++* has pointed out,

despite the wanin# of the national economy and despite the internationali


10/32

%owever, in certain 'ey respects, #lo&alisation does alter the prospects for traditional national

education systems$

6ost important, is the impact of #lo&alisation on the demand for s'ills and 3ualifications$

!ith increased #lo&al economic competition, advanced economies can no lon#er compete

with low wa#e economies in cost-competitive manufacturin# and retain their livin# standards

- hence the rush towards the hi#h value-added sectors which constitute the so-called

'nowled#e economy )"rown, Green and Lauder, .//* $ 1here has &een much hype a&out the

miraculous new virtual or wei#htless economy$ 1he new economy sectors never provided

that many 2o&s - the software industry in the S, for instance, still employs less than a 3uarter

of the num&er employed &y General 6otors - and there was never a prospect of it shiftin#

everyone into hi#hly s'illed, hi#hly paid wor'$ 4ow, with the &urstin# of the I1 &u&&le,

harles Lead&eater:s prescription )*+++ for Livin# on 1hin Air seems rather foolish$

%owever, it is still the case that, on &alance, wor' is &ecomin# more s'ills intensive, and

there is increasin# pressure on individuals to #ain hi#her 3ualifications or ris' mar#inali


11/32

3ualifications and diminished national state capacity to deliver them B create an international

mar'et for education increasin#ly attractive to private sector investors$

%i#her education is to date the most internationalised and commercialised of the educational

sectors$ As international demand for them rises, so university research and teachin# &ecome

internationally traded commodities offerin# potentially rich returns to those institutions which

compete &est in the #lo&al mar'et$ Facilitated &y new educational technolo#ies, and

supported &y supra-national &odies such as the European ommission, international hi#her

education teachin# and research have #rown e8ponentially and loo' set to continue to do so$

In most countries, up until now, this has involved mainly welcome additional revenues for

pu&lic sector institutions, &ut the potential for private sector involvement is clear( even in

*+++ the E D estimated the value of trade in hi#her education services at / &n$

1he S private sector has already cashed in on this in a &i# way$ 4ot only are many of the

leadin# universities private &usinesses, &ut there has &een a hu#e #rowth in the

commercialisation and corporate &randin# of university life, so that most American campuses

are festooned with adverti


12/32

School education is neither so internationalised nor so open to #lo&al commercial e8ploitation

as hi#her education for o&vious reasons$ 1he ma2ority of children will not cross &orders to #o

to school and internationalised virtual schoolin# is not an option where child mindin# and

sociali


13/32

increasin# involvement of private companies li'e 4ord An#lia in mainstream delivery

activities such as curriculum development, school inspection and school improvement$

"ritain has &een more active in the privatisation of services than most countries$

4evertheless, as Fit< and "eers conclude in their recent study, ;the privatisation of pu&lic

education has so far moved at #lacial speed: )Fit< and "eers, .//. $ %owever, one should

underestimate the commercial potential and political temptation that may push in this

direction$ !hile the European nion maintains the Sta&ility 0act:s punitive stance towards

pu&lic spendin#, European #overnments will &e tempted to find in#enious ways to plu#

pu&lic service #aps with private investment, as the 7 #overnment does with the 0FI which

conveniently ta'es pu&lic investment off &alance sheet$ E3ually, at a time of dwindlin#

capital investment opportunities, potentially lucrative mar'ets in services are increasin#ly

attractive to investors and corporate pressure for the openin# up of these mar'ets persists$

International a#encies are respondin#$ !hile the terms of !1 :s General A#reement on

1rade in Services )GA1S still remain somewhat am&i#uous in relation pu&licly provided

services, there can &e no dou&t that ma2or interests lie &ehind the move to e8tend the

international mar'et in education provision$

Increasin# privatisation of education is li'ely, as Geoff !hitty and others )!hitty, .//.@

!hitty, %alpin and 0ower, *++C have ar#ued, to increase ine3ualities in educational

outcomes$ 6ar'ets, and even 3uasi-mar'ets, tend to wor' li'e that$ 1his is not the place to

de&ate the evidential &asis for this ar#ument, &ut at least one point needs to &e stressed here in

relation to 7 educational politics$ "ritain has a widely ac'nowled#ed history of class

division and ine3uality in education$ 1he results of the recent E D 0ISA study, confirm

those of previous IEA and IALS studies, that relative to a ran#e of comparator countries, we

*


14/32

have e8ceptionally wide distri&utions of educational outcomes$ Indeed the international test

evidence from 0ISA for * year olds shows us amon#st the most une3ual countries in the

sample of E D countries, where typically countries with narrower distri&ution have hi#her

avera#e scores ) E D, .//*@ Green, .// forthcomin# $

1his level of ine3uality may &e detrimental to the economy, producin# a hi#hly polarised

la&our mar'et, which ar#ua&ly in turn encoura#es a hi#h s'illsMlow s'ills dualism in

competition strate#ies, and lower overall productivity than in many competitor countries

)"rown, Green and Lauder, .//*@ rouch, Fine#old and Sa'o, *+++ $ 1here is also #rowin#

evidence that it is detrimental to social cohesion$

Recent wor' conducted &y =ohn 0reston, Ricardo Sa&ato and myself for the !ider "enefits of

Learnin# entre certainly points in this direction$ sin# IALS data on adult literacy scores

across countries to estimate s'ills distri&utions, and standard Gini coefficients on income

ine3uality, we have confirmed the findin#s of 4ic'ell and Layard )*++C , usin# different

methods, that there is a stron# correlation &etween s'ills distri&utions and income ine3uality

across countries$ 1a'in# this a step further, we have developed a com&ined factor for national

level social cohesion )usin# !>S data on a##re#ate levels of trust and other measures of

civic cooperation , and find, a#ain, a stron# correlation cross-nationally &etween s'ills

distri&ution and social cohesion$ As Fi#ure ne shows, e8cludin# 4orway and Germany,

there is a stron# and si#nificant correlation of -/$ 5 &etween social cohesion and education

ine3uality varia&les )see Green, 0reston and Sa&ates ).// $

6ore educationally e3ual countries tend also to &e more cohesive on these measures$ learly

these correlations say nothin# a&out the direction of causality, and we would 2ud#e that this

*


15/32

runs &oth ways and involves a ran#e of different factors$ 4evertheless the results are hi#hly

su##estive B sufficiently so in fact to prompt E D and !orld "an' researchers to underta'e

similar analyses$ "y applyin# our methods to 0ISA data they achieve similar results and,

perhaps surprisin#ly, draw similar conclusions( in terms of national policy( improvin# s'ills

distri&ution matters as much as raisin# avera#e levels )Duthilleul and Rit


16/32


17/32

"ec', a nationally &ased sociolo#y is &ecomin# o&solete $ 1he messa#e is clear( social

science should a&andon the methodolo#ical nationalism of its intellectual past rather as

6ar8 claimed to caste off his erstwhile philosophical conscience in a&andonin# %e#el$

1he new mission should &e to analyse world society and transnational space$

1his is a tall order for comparative education$ Li'e social science in #eneral, and indeed

pro&a&ly more so, comparative education as a field has its ori#ins in national thin'in#$ From

=ullien, Levasseur and Sadler, throu#h to 7andel, %ans, 6allinson and 7in#, comparative

education has ta'en the national system as its main o&2ect of en3uiry and national

character as its main e8planandum$ 1his e8clusively national way of thin'in# is now surely

outdated$ E8plainin# educational structures and outcomes in terms of national character and

culture was always a somewhat essentialist e8ercise, in dan#er of reifyin# national culture as

some irreduci&le and homo#enous property$ 4ow, with #rowin# social diversity, the

#localisation of culture and the creation of transnational cultural spaces, this approach will

surely not do$ omparativists should cease ta'in# national states as the only - or even main -

units for comparison$

1here is certainly a case for more studies of education and learnin# across su&-national

re#ions and communities - li'e the so-called

home international

studies in the 7

conducted &y David Raffe and collea#ues )Raffe, *+++ or 7aren Evans: multi-layered

comparisons of youth learnin# and transitions in matched cities in Germany and the 7

)Evans and %ein


18/32


19/32

distri&uted communities and virtual communities , are all - in theory at least - amena&le to

comparative educational research$

1his evident potential for comparison at different non-national levels does not mean,

however, that "ec' is correct to ar#ue that cross-national study is o&solete$ School systems,

unli'e some hi#her education systems, are still very national institutions$ 1heir structures and

processes are shaped primarily &y national le#islation and the national institutional and

cultural conte8ts in which they operate$ 1o understand the structural )ie institutional and

cultural factors that determine their forms and outcomes may often re3uire that we compare

across countries - especially where there is too little system variation within countries to

allow within-country comparison )4oah and Ec'stein, *+5+ $

4ations are still the preferred units for comparative social science for #ood reasons$ 6any of

the data are still collected at national level$ 6any of the operative societal varia&les are

measured as national level a##re#ates &ecause they pro8y for structures and institutions -

la&our mar'ets, industry structures, political systems, cultural traits - which are still

essentially national$ ountries do still vary re#ularly and su&stantially on a whole ran#e of

demo#raphic, economic and cultural indicators$ As Ronald In#lehart tersely concludes from

his e8haustive study of data for . countries in the !orld >alues Survey )*++/

1he

peoples of different societies are characteri


20/32

1he country level, therefore, remains important for comparative analysis - &ut it is only one of

a num&er of levels at which comparison can &e effectively used$ 1he 3uestion of units of

comparison should not in any case &e decided a priori , &ut rather accordin# to research

criteria$ As 4eil Smelser has ar#ued, the main criteria for choosin# the unit of comparison

should &e that it is( * appropriate to the theoretical pro&lem@ . causally related to the

phenomenon &ein# studied@ that there are data availa&le at this level )Smelser, *+ 5 $ 1his

allows for comparison at various different levels, includin# multiple levels$ 1he difficulty is

to ma'e sure that where the level of o&servation differs from the level of e8planation that

false e8trapolations are not made from the evidence at one level to 2ustify e8planations at a

different level B thus fallin# into the trap which economists call the ;ecolo#ical fallacy:

)Smelser, *+ 5 $

1he main methodolo#ical challen#e for comparative educationalists is not, in any case, a&out

levels of analysis@ it is a&out the nature of comparative analysis per se and whether to do it at

all$ 0eter =arvis: 3uestion ( !hy should we underta'e comparative analysis at all in this

Glo&al >illa#e9 )=arvis, ./// may &e not so hard to answer, however$ * Glo&a&li


21/32

to &e a meanin#ful societal unit, &ut even "ec' would not ar#ue that society has ceased to

e8ist, or that world society is irreduci&le$

1he harder 3uestion to answer is what is comparative analysis9 It can &e ar#ued that all social

science is essentially comparative$ Dur'heim famously wrote that comparative sociolo#y is

not a particular &ranch of sociolo#y, it is sociolo#y itself, in so far as it ceases to &e purely

descriptive and aspires to account for the facts )Smelser, *+ 5, p$. $ "ut for Dur'heim

accountin# for the facts meant understandin# the pattern of relationships &etween

collectivities - or what he terms social facts - since this is what distin#uishes sociolo#y

from other disciplines such as psycholo#y$ 1he study, statistical or otherwise, of variations in

individual traits and &ehaviours is therefore, ri#htly in my view, not #enerally considered to

&e comparative study, althou#h it may share certain o&2ectives with it, as Smelser ar#ues

)*+ 5 $ 1he difference, as harles Ra#in lucidly ar#ues, is meta-theoretical( comparativists

&elieve that societies are ;real: phenomena@ methodolo#ical individualists &elieve they are

simply statistical a&stractions )Ra#in, *+C* $

ollectivities, or societies, are, as Dur'heim conceded, made up of individuals and their

actions@ &ut they represent more than the sum of those$ 1he patterns of variation &etween

collective or societal properties and &ehaviours, and the determinin# relationships &etween

them, cannot &e e8plained &y the mere a##re#ation of individual characteristics and actions$

1his re3uires analysis of the effects of structures and characteristics which are inte#ral to the

collectivity or society itself, and which have meanin# only at that level$ 6any societal

characteristics cannot &e considered, for instance, in individual level statistical analysis, either

&ecause they only show up as constants and cannot therefore &e used to e8plain variation, or

&ecause they are meanin#less at that level$ Distri&utional properties, for instance, such as

.*


22/32

income or s'ills spread - have no meanin# at the level of the individual )Green, 0reston and

Sa&ates, .// $ omparative research is thus a&out analysin# the pattern of relationship

&etween characteristics of societal or collective entities, whether they &e at national or other

levels$

1here are, of course, many ways of usin# comparative methods to understand relationships of

cause and effect$ =ohn Stuart 6ill famously wrote a&out the 6ethod of A#reement, the

6ethod of Difference, and the Indirect 6ethod, which is a com&ination of the two )6ill,

*+ / $ All methods of comparison in social science, whether 3uantitative or 3ualitative, are,

in a sense, variations on this theme, althou#h it is rarely possi&le to meet 6ill s ideal

re3uirements that all possi&ly operative varia&les are considered, &ecause we cannot 'now in

advance what they all are$ omparison wor's &y the manipulation of varia&les, holdin#

certain varia&les constant, so as to test the independent effects of other o&served varia&les on

outcomes )Smelser, *+ 5 $

Nuantitative comparison does this statistically, esta&lishin# pro&a&ilistic relationships

&etween independent and dependent varia&les, and has the advanta#e that it can

simultaneously test correlations amon#st a lar#e num&er of varia&les$ %owever, 3uantitative

analysis faces ma2or limitations in cross-societal comparison$ 1here are often insufficient data

for many of the societal units that mi#ht &e studied, thus reducin# the num&er of possi&le

cases in the sample to a point where there are more varia&les than there are cases$ 1his ma'es

statistical analysis unrelia&le$ Statisticians may respond &y widenin# the sample to a very

disparate ran#e of countries or units, to achieve sufficient cases, &ut this introduces new

pro&lems a&out comparin# societies that are essentially incompara&le e8cept at meanin#less

..


23/32

levels of a&straction$ Statistical comparison across societal units can &e very powerful when it

pays respect to the comple8ity of societal phenomena, &ut it is not always possi&le$

If comparative analysis is defined as comparin# across societal entities, as ar#ued here, then

harles Ra#in is pro&a&ly ri#ht to ar#ue that the characteristic method is that of 3ualitative

comparison, or what he calls the ;comparative lo#ical method: )Ra#in, *+C* $ 1his method

does not wor' with samples or populations &ut with all relevant instances of the phenomenon

in 3uestion, or with a set of these cases which the researcher decides are relevant, and which

will set the limits of #enerali


24/32

Lo#ical omparative analysis can &e conducted in a num&er of different ways and for

different purposes$ In their very illuminatin# article on comparative historical sociolo#y, for

instance, 1heda S'ocpol and 6ar#aret Somers distin#uish &etween three primary types of

comparative ;lo#ics-in-use: )S'ocpol and Somers, *+C/ $ 1he first type, descri&ed as ;parallel

demonstration of theory: and e8emplified &y 0erry Anderson:s 1ineages o the 3bsolutist

State )*+ , involves usin# comparison to illustrate the application of previously derived

theories in different historical cases$ 1he process of applyin# the theory to #iven cases may

enrich and refine the theory, and may demonstrate the e8planatory power of the theory, &ut

comparison is not used here either to #enerate or validate the hypotheses$ In the second type

of ;contrast-oriented: comparison:, e8emplified &y Reinhard "endi8:s Nation4"uilding and

Citizenship )*+ , what matters most is that the historical inte#rity of each case is respected$

omparison is used to demonstrate the variety and particularity of historical conditions, thus

throwin# into relief the essential characteristics of each uni3ue case$ 1heori


25/32

period is not lost$ %istorians and historical sociolo#ists will often disa#ree a&out the point at

which such theori


26/32

relatin# o&serva&le facts &ut in relatin# relationships or even patterns of relationship to each

other: )Schriewer and %olmes, *+CC $ In order to warrant claims to comparative method,

comparative education must #o &eyond classification and parallel description of cases$ 1his

may optimally &e done throu#h macro analysis of causal relationships, &ut it may also involve

;contrastive: and ;parallel: methods, where these are at least see'in# to confront theoretical

propositions with empirical o&servation$

1he pro&lem with contemporary comparative education research is that much - or even most -

of it is not actually comparative in any of the a&ove senses$ 1his is well illustrated &y An#ela

Little s recent survey of articles pu&lished in Comparative Education &etween *+ and

*+CC which shows that over / per cent have &een sin#le country studies$ Some of these may

&e what Leach and 0reston call comparisons in a sin#le nation &ut Little concludes that

only a small percenta#e Oof articlesP have adopted an e8plicitly comparative approach

)Little, .///$ 0$.C $ 0ro&a&ly the vast ma2ority of pu&lished studies in comparative

education #enerally are either non-comparative analyses of sin#le countries or parallel

descriptions of education practises and policies across a #roup of countries )which would fall

into %op'ins: and !allerstein s cate#ory of multi-national studies( *+ / 5! !hatever the

merits of these types of study, and they may &e #reat, neither necessarily uses comparative

methods to analyse or test hypotheses a&out cause and effect relationships, or even to

confront theory and evidence comparatively to produce what !e&er called ;understandin#:$

!e may &elieve, as I do, that it is not helpful to police disciplinary frontiers or to draw sharp

lines around field of study$ "ut any field or discipline needs some core and distin#uishin#

methodolo#ical criteria$ In comparative education, and indeed any field of comparative

.5


27/32

research, these must include the use of comparison to further e8planation or to test claims

a&out cause and effect relationships$ In the a&sence of natural e8periments in social science,

the comparative method is the ne8t &est thin# to scientific ;proof: and comparative education

as a field would lose much credi&ility as a ri#orous academic pursuit if it did not use this

systematically$

omparative education needs to compare, and to do this systematically, if it is avoid the

accusation that it too often de#enerates into a catalo#ue of traveller s tales, policy advocacy

and opportunistic rationali


28/32

omparative analysis remains the most powerful tool for )causal e8planation of societal

aspects of the educational process$ Glo&alisation does not reduce its usefulness, althou#h in

creatin# educational spaces which &elon# e8clusively to neither nations nor systems, it ma'es

us loo' to &roadenin# our units of analysis$ 1he ma2or challen#es posed for comparative

education today, as ever &efore, are essentially twofold$ Firstly, it is to ma'e the field

#enuinely comparative$ Secondly, it is to &rin# it &ac' from its relative isolation into the

mainstream of comparative social scienceMhistorical sociolo#y where it ri#htly &elon#s$ 1he

enormous richness of the current social science de&ate around #lo&alisation should at least

help to ma'e the second challen#e attractive$

Andy GreenSchool of Lifelon# Education and International DevelopmentInstitute of Education./ "edford !ayLondon ! *% ALandy$#reenQioe$ac$u' References

AL"ER1, 6$ )*++ Capitalism against Capitalism , London, !hurr 0u&lishers$

ALE?A4DER, R$ ).//* "order crossin#( towards a comparative peda#o#y, Comparative Education, ) , pp$ / - . $

A4DERS 4, 0$ )*+ 1ineages o the 3bsolutist State , London, >erso$

AR %ER, 6$ )*+5+ )he Social 0rigins o Educational Systems , London, Sa#e$

AS%1 4, D$ DA>IES, "$ FELS1EAD, A$ and GREE4, F$ )*+++ +ork Skills in "ritain ,!arwic' niversity, S7 0E$

AS%1 4, D$ and GREE4, F$ )*++5 Education, )raining and the Global Economy ,Aldershot, Edward El#ar$

AS%1 4, D$, GREE4, F$ =A6ES, D$ and S 4G, =$ )*+++ Education and )raining or %evelopment: )he .olitical Economy o Skills Formation in East 3sian Ne#ly (ndustrialized Economies , London, Routled#e$

.C
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


29/32


30/32


31/32

6 RE "arrin#ton =nr )*+55 Social 0rigins o %ictatorship and %emocracy: 1ord and .easant in the 6aking o the 6odern +orld , "oston, "eacon 0ress$

4I 7ELL, S$ and LA ARD, R$ )*++C (nstitutions and Economic .er ormance , Discussion0aper, London, LSE$

4 A%, %$ and E 7S1EI4, 6$ )*+5+ )o#ards a Science o Comparative Education ,London 6acmillan$

'EC( ).//* no#ledge and Skills or 1i e: First 2esults rom .(S3 ;


32/32

Green 2003 Education 87

Documents

Transcript of Green 2003 Education 87