Varieties of capitalism and approaches to lifelong learning

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 Edinburgh John 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 lowincome 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

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 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 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 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.