Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012
description
Transcript of Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012
![Page 1: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion
Presentation at University of Latvia
3.10.2012
Andy GreenDirector of ESRC-LLAKES Centre
Institute of EducationUniversity of London
![Page 2: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Structure of Presentation
1. Social benefits of education at different levels -Benefits to individuals-Education and social capital-Education and social cohesion
2. Pathways for social effects of learning-Distributional Effects-Socialisation
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
![Page 3: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Individual Level Effects
Studies for various countries demonstrate that more educated people have higher levels of :
• Interpersonal trust and institutional 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).
![Page 4: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Some Findings from Analyses of UK Longitudinal Data
(Feinstein et al., 2003).
Compared with those educated to level 2:
• Graduates 70-80% more likely to report excellent health
• Graduate males 55% less likely to suffer depression
• Graduates males 3.5 times more likely to be a member of a voluntary association (F=2.5x)
• Graduates between 30% and 40% more likely to hold positive attitudes to race and gender equality
• Graduates are 50% more likely to vote
![Page 5: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Education and Social Capital
Education is also found to contribute to the social capital of individuals and groups.
SC 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 and be civically active. Repeated interactions in Groups increased levels of trust and tolerance.
- Individuals thus benefit from enhanced networks - Neighbourhoods benefits from more co-operation and cohesion etc
![Page 6: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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 factors at the national level overwhelm the statistical relation between education and social outcomes.
• Indirect effects and contextual differences: effects at the societal level are indirect - ie they work through other factors which may differ from society to society.
![Page 8: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Contextual Effects on Tolerance
Research for a number of countries shows that more educated people tend to be 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). This is probably because other factors overwhelm education effects at the national level.
The prevailing political climate, for instance, has strong effects on tolerance. Also, Eurobaromter data suggest that levels of tolerance in EU countries vary according to
the actual and perceived proportion of immigrants (Halman, 1994).
In a study of EVS data Jasinska-Kania (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).
![Page 9: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
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).
![Page 10: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Contextual Effects on Education and Crime
In countries such as England and Germany father absence was associated with higher delinquency, whereas in Nordic countries this was not the case.
This is possibly due to different welfare arrangements between countries whereby single parent families receive more support in Nordic states (Junger-Tas, 2000).
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.
![Page 11: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Robert Nie on Political Engagement and Network Centrality
Robert Nie et al. (2006), using OLS regressions over time on US data, find that it is the relative, rather than absolute, level of education that is important in determining levels of political engagement.
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 automatically 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.
![Page 12: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
Campbell (2006) has argued that it is only when people are in directcompetition with one another that social effects are positional. He indeed only finds a positional effect on ‘competitive political activity’.
However, recent research shows positional effects for• voter turnout (Burden, 2009; Tenn,2007),• political sophistication (Highton, 2009) • and democratic citizenship (Persson and Oscarsson, 2010).
![Page 14: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
LLAKES Research on Macro-Social Benefits
In our early research (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006) we found no correlations across countries between levels of adult skills and levels of:
• Trust
• Tolerance
Strong correlations between skills equality and various measures of social cohesion. Since this contradicts the relationships at the individual level, we surmised from that learning effects are typically: • indirect (working through something else and thus highly dependent on context) • Positional• distributional
![Page 15: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Educational Equality and Social Cohesion
Our research suggests that it is not so much the average level of education in a country which matters most for social cohesion, but rather how the skills acquired are spread around.
![Page 17: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Inequality and TrustCountries 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 , causality 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.
![Page 22: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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.
![Page 23: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
-20
24
6S
tand
ardi
zed
valu
es o
f (un
rest
1)
0 .2 .4 .6 .8edgini
![Page 24: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
-6-4
-20
2S
tand
ardi
zed
valu
es o
f (ci
vlib
1)
0 .2 .4 .6 .8edgini
![Page 25: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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.
![Page 26: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The Contextual influence of the Labour Market
Marie Duru-Bellat analyses the relationships between educational inequality (amongst school students), returns to education and social cohesion at the school level.
• Social cohesion is a composite measure based on questions to students in the PISA surveys (relating to trust in the school and its teachers; feeling at home in school, and whether school is useful for them).
• Education equality is based on variance and social gradients in PISA.
• The return to education measure is based on employment rates and incomes of graduates compared to those with less than US education.
She finds no relation between educational equality and the student social cohesion measure. However, there is a negative correlation between returns to education and social cohesion.
![Page 27: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Socialisation Effects
![Page 29: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Citizenship Education and /Civic Competences
An important component of social cohesion is Civic Competence: the knowledge, skills and values that people need to participate effectively in a liberal democratic society.
We examined the links between education system characteristics and the levels and distributions of civic competences across countries using the cross-national Cived data.
Amount of citizenship education unrelated to the acquisition of civic competences.
However, learning through social participation and dialogue, both inside and outside school, shows a strong positive relationship with Citizenship knowledge and skills, and active citizenship dispositions, across a wide range of countries. (Hoskins, Janmaat, and Villalba forthcoming).
![Page 30: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Education Systems and Civic Competences
When 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 forthcoming).
![Page 31: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Classroom Diversity and ValuesStudents 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.
![Page 32: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Relationship between System Organisation and Collective Values
Qualitative research (Morris) has shown that in countries in East Asia, with highly centralised education systems, the curriculum (and particularly moral and civic education) has powerful effects on student values.
In recent research (Janmaat, Han and Morris) we have tested the relationships between system centralisation and socialisation across a range of countries using data on system characteristics from existing datasets (INCA) and data we collected ourselves from panels of experts.
We find that more centralised education systems tend to be associated with a stronger propensity towards ‘collective values’.
![Page 33: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Composite Indicators
Measures derived from questions to panel of experts regarding characteristics of national education systems.
Composite indicator for Centralisation:• Civics and Moral Ed compulsory with specified hours• State control of Curriculum• State approval of textbooks
Collective Values Composite• Substantive rather than procedural values• Low emphasis on Moral autonomy/critical thinking• Focus on collective rather than individual• Focus on ethnic rather than civic identity
![Page 34: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Macro Social Benefits Less Likely in Unequal Education Systems
Outcomes of learning are much more unequal in some countries than others.
• Nordic and East Asian countries ted to have relatively equal outcomes
• ‘Liberal’ and ‘Social market countries tend to have rather unequal outcomes.
LLL more successful in promoting social cohesion in the first group
![Page 36: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Total Variance in Scores By Country Group: PISA 2000, 2009
![Page 37: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Between School Variance by Country Group, 2009, 2009
![Page 38: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Part Three: Regimes of Social Cohesion
Historical and contemporary evidence suggests that countries ‘hold together’ in different ways.
The different traditions of thought in political philosophy and sociology on social cohesion and social solidarity suggest different models of social cohesion in different parts of the world.
![Page 40: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Liberal Regime
• Emphasis on an active civil society, particularly at the local level. A vibrant civil society is believed to incubate trust spontaneously through repeated social interactions between individuals and groups.
• The role of the central state is played down, including its institutional roles for providing welfare and social protection and for promoting equality through re-distribution.
• The core values which help to bind society in the liberal regime are tolerance, meritocracy and opportunity.
• A wider set of shared values and a common identity are thought to be incompatible with individual freedom and cultural diversity.
![Page 41: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Republican Regime• The republican discourse emphasises the state rather than civil society.
• The state promotes social cohesion through its institutions for welfare, social protection and re-distribution.
• It also plays a role in disseminating (through public education) a common (national) identity and a broad set of shared values which emphasise belonging to, and active participation in, a political community at the national rather than local level.
• The state also plays a supervisory role in relation to key institutions in civil society which are seen to intermediate conflicts, such as professional and employer institutions.
![Page 42: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Social Democratic Regime
• 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
• Social partnership is a key concept in both contemporary traditions pointing to importance of conflict intermediation through representative civil society organisations.
![Page 43: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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
![Page 44: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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
![Page 45: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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
![Page 46: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Liberal Social Democratic Social Market East Asian
Mean: -.70 Mean: 2.07 Mean: -.59 Mean: .09Minimum: -7.25 Minimum: -3.43 Minimum: -10.97 Minimum: -9.34Maximum: 16.44 Maximum: 13.80 Maximum: 5.50 Maximum: 11.85
Included components Included components Included components Included components
Inequality + Inequality -Diversity + Diversity - Diversity + Diversity -Welfare state - Welfare state + Welfare state + Welfare state -State involvement - State involvement+ Empl protection + Empl protection +Wage regulation -(Union coverage)
Wage regulation + (Union coverage)
Wage regulation + (Union coverage)
Crime – (homicide)
Wage regulation –(Centralized bargain)
Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain)
Wage regulation + (Centralized bargain)
Empl protection - Crime – (homicide)Crime + (homicide)
Gender equality + Gender equality - Gender equality -Active part + Active part + Active part - Active part -Passive part - Passive part + Passive part - Passive part -Value diversity + Value diversity - Value diversity - Value diversity -Merit + Merit - Merit + Merit +Freedom + Freedom + Freedom - Social hierarchy +Ethnic tolerance + (neighbours measure)
Ethnic tolerance -(neighbours measure)
Ethnic tolerance – (neighbours measure)
![Page 47: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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.
![Page 48: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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
![Page 49: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Trends
![Page 52: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Trends in Social Trust
1981 1990 2000 200520
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
LiberalSocial MarketSouthern EuropeanEast Asian
![Page 53: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Trends in Political Trust
1981 1990 2000 200520
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Social DemocraticSouthern EuropeanSocial MarketLiberal
![Page 54: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Current Vulnerabilities in Each Regime
Each regime of social cohesion is currently vulnerable at the points most essential to its model.
• 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.
• 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.
![Page 55: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Conclusion
Precipitous declines in levels of social and political trust in many countries are one of the most graphic indications of the widespread weakening of social cohesion.
Education can have a major role to play in counteracting this.
However, it is not how much education a country has that makes the difference, but how it is shared around.
![Page 56: Lifelong Learning, Equality and Social Cohesion Presentation at University of Latvia 3.10.2012](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164d2550346895dd70095/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
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