scholarly journals Welfare Regimes and Education Regimes: Equality of Opportunity and Expenditure in the EU (and US)

2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNE WEST ◽  
RITA NIKOLAI

AbstractEducation is crucially important for later outcomes but has received limited attention in comparative research on welfare states. In light of this, we present an exploratory analysis of education systems across fourteen EU countries and the US. This builds on existing work on educational institutions, educational outcomes and welfare regimes. We focus on institutional features associated with inequality of educational opportunity, including academic selection, tracking and public/private provision; on educational outcomes; and on education expenditure. Our quantitative analysis identifies four clusters of countries: the Nordic, Continental, Mediterranean and English-speaking, which bear similarities to those identified in the welfare states literature. Each ‘education regime’ is associated with particular institutional features, educational outcomes and levels of public expenditure. Our analysis suggests that further comparative research on education, viewed as a key component of the welfare state, is warranted.

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 988-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisha C. Holland ◽  
Ben Ross Schneider

Comparative research on Latin American welfare states recently has focused on the extension of non-contributory benefits to those outside the formal labor market. This extension of benefits constitutes a major break from past exclusionary welfare regimes. Yet there also are substantial areas of continuity, especially in the contributory social-insurance system that absorbs most of welfare budgets. We develop here a framework for studying changes in Latin American welfare states that reconciles these trends. We argue that Latin American governments enjoyed an “easy” stage of welfare expansions in the 2000s, characterized by distinct political coalitions. Bottom-targeted benefits could be layered on top of existing programs and provided to wide segments of the population. But many Latin American governments are nearing the exhaustion of this social-policy model. We explore policy and coalitional challenges that hinder moves to “hard” redistribution with case studies of unemployment insurance in Chile and housing in Colombia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-24
Author(s):  
Zdenko Kodelja

The report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities carried out in the US on a very large sample of public schools by Coleman and his colleagues has had a major impact on education policy and has given rise to a large amount of research and various interpretations. However, as some interpreters have highlighted,even more important than the findings of the survey themselves has been Coleman’s redefinition of equality of opportunity, abandoning the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and replacing it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes. The question is, therefore, whether equality of outcomes really is one of the two types of equality of opportunity. The purpose of the present article is to show that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of “equality of educational opportunity” turns out to be incorrect.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth McAreavey ◽  
David L. Brown

Abstract Scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have grappled with the difficulties of conducting comparative research on rural issues in general, and on rural poverty and inequality in particular. Shortall and Warner have observed that “The UK-US dialog is highly illustrative of how seemingly similar situations turn out to be full of complexity and difference.” That complexity and difference can serve to turn researchers away from comparative collaborations. We begin our paper with an overview of some of the general differences (and similarities) between how rural scholars in the UK and US have examined poverty and inequality in rural areas. Analysis of the two welfare regimes in these countries provides the backdrop for examining specific aspects of deprivation for rural people and communities. Our paper draws on our experience as members of a trans-Atlantic research group to illustrate the type of organisational infrastructure that can support international, interdisciplinary collaboration. We conclude by offering suggestions for future comparative research. Our paper progresses earlier debates in rural studies on the challenges of doing comparative US-UK analysis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-240
Author(s):  
Rob J Gruijters ◽  
Tak Wing Chan ◽  
John Ermisch

Despite an impressive rise in school enrolment rates over the past few decades, there are concerns about growing inequality of educational opportunity in China. In this article, we examine the level and trend of educational mobility in China, and compare them to the situation in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Educational mobility is defined as the association between parents’ and children’s educational attainment. We show that China’s economic boom has been accompanied by a large decline in relative educational mobility chances, as measured by odds ratios. To elaborate, relative rates of educational mobility in China were, by international standards, quite high for those who grew up under state socialism. For the most recent cohorts, however, educational mobility rates have dropped to levels that are comparable to those of European countries, although they are still higher than the US level.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suyoung Kim

AbstractAlthough the voluntary sector is internationally valued as an integral component of the welfare mix, studies on East Asian welfare regimes have primarily focused on state-market-family interactions, paying scant attention to the long-standing and pivotal role of voluntary agencies in their construction. This case study illuminates this less-known aspect of modern welfare history in the context of South Korea, with a particular focus on the activities of voluntary organizations. The study categorizes South Korean voluntary associations into four types and examines their different contributions in shaping South Korea’s welfare regime, by applying Young’s framework on government–voluntary organizations relations. This historical exploration on the South Korean voluntary sector aims to deepen understanding of an East Asian welfare state regime. It further suggests that current welfare mix debates, focusing on the service delivery role of voluntary organizations within Western European welfare states, should be broadened.


2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 921-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brady ◽  
Jason Beckfield ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Previous scholarship is sharply divided over how or if globalization influences welfare states. The effects of globalization may be positive causing expansion, negative triggering crisis and reduction, curvilinear contributing to convergence, or insignificant. We bring new evidence to bear on this debate with an analysis of three welfare state measures and a comprehensive array of economic globalization indicators for 17 affluent democracies from 1975 to 2001. The analysis suggests several conclusions. First, state-of-the-art welfare state models warrant revision in the globalization era. Second, most indicators of economic globalization do not have significant effects, but a few affect the welfare state and improve models of welfare state variation. Third, the few significant globalization effects are in differing directions and often inconsistent with extant theories. Fourth, the globalization effects are far smaller than the effects of domestic political and economic factors. Fifth, the effects of globalization are not systematically different between European and non-European countries, or liberal and non-liberal welfare regimes. Increased globalization and a modest convergence of the welfare state have occurred, but globalization does not clearly cause welfare state expansion, crisis, and reduction or convergence. Ultimately, this study suggests skepticism toward bold claims about globalization's effect on the welfare state.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. Milly

PurposeThis article analyzes recent Japanese efforts to recruit care labor from seven Asian countries to identify the relative contributions to migrants and their respective countries' health systems. Besides considering the factors affecting migration from, and benefits to, sending countries, it asks how differences in the role of public and private actors may matter.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses two stages of analysis. The first uses quantitative and qualitative data for seven countries that send care labor migrants to Japan to identify differences in benefits for individual migrants and health care systems in the sending countries. The second stage examines recent initiatives for funding care worker training in Japan to assess the relative impacts of different public-private cooperative arrangements, especially in terms of Vietnam.FindingsIn addition to general migration policy mechanisms provided by the destination country, bilateral relationships and foreign assistance, along with economic, demographic and health care conditions in the origin countries, contribute to the relative benefits of migration. Among countries supplying care labor to Japan, Vietnam is obtaining the most benefits for its health care system in return.Originality/valueResponding to central concerns surrounding care labor migration, the article compares across countries sending care workers to a single country. The comparison highlights a constellation of factors that contribute the greatest benefits. The article identifies how different types of public and private relationships can influence this process. The study provides observations applicable to other welfare states developing care labor migration relationships.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1665-1665
Author(s):  
Emi Furukawa ◽  
Brent Alsop ◽  
Shizuka Shimabukuro ◽  
Paula Sowerby ◽  
Stephanie Jensen ◽  
...  

Background: Research on altered motivational processes in ADHD has focused on reward. The sensitivity of children with ADHD to punishment has received limited attention. We evaluated the effects of punishment on the behavioral allocation of children with and without ADHD from the United States, New Zealand, and Japan, applying the generalized matching law. Methods: Participants in two studies (Furukawa et al., 2017, 2019) were 210 English-speaking (145 ADHD) and 93 Japanese-speaking (34 ADHD) children. They completed an operant task in which they chose between playing two simultaneously available games. Rewards became available every 10 seconds on average, arranged equally across the two games. Responses on one game were punished four times as often as responses on the other. The asymmetrical punishment schedules should bias responding to the less punished alternative. Results: Compared with controls, children with ADHD from both samples allocated significantly more responses to the less frequently punished game, suggesting greater behavioral sensitivity to punishment. For these children, the bias toward the less punished alternative increased with time on task. Avoiding the more punished game resulted in missed reward opportunities and reduced earnings. English-speaking controls showed some preference for the less punished game. The behavior of Japanese controls was not significantly influenced by the frequency of punishment, despite slowed response times after punished trials and immediate shifts away from the punished game, indicating awareness of punishment. Conclusion: Punishment exerted greater control over the behavior of children with ADHD, regardless of their cultural background. This may be a common characteristic of the disorder. Avoidance of punishment led to poorer task performance. Caution is required in the use of punishment, especially with children with ADHD. The group difference in punishment sensitivity was more pronounced in the Japanese sample; this may create a negative halo effect for children with ADHD in this culture.


Author(s):  
Philip Du Caju ◽  
Erwan Gautier ◽  
Daphne Momferatou ◽  
Melanie E. Ward-Warmedinger

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document