Abstract
All Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have experienced an unprecedented expansion in higher education during the second half of the twentieth century. This was only possible because higher education became part of national welfare policies. OECD countries differ, however, with respect to the significance of education, and more specifically, higher-education policies within their overall framework of welfare policies. We employ the concept of the ‘welfare regime’ and a ‘trade-off’ hypothesis to understand the different national approaches to higher-education participation, funding, tuition, and student financial aid. Through a comparative analysis of data from international databases, we examine how different countries accomplish the goal of enhancing participation as part of their welfare policies. Overall, our hypotheses are confirmed in that we demonstrate that there is a convincing relationship between higher-education policies and given welfare regimes. We conclude that when adopting policy strategies from other contexts, careful consideration of the underlying societal structures and traditions is required.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Other authors have demonstrated that systematic differences among welfare regimes exist at the secondary level. Allmendinger and Leibfried (2003) have identified ‘four worlds of competence production’ on the basis of Programme for International Student Assessment data (PISA), three of which align with Esping-Andersen's welfare typology. Social democratic regimes combine high levels with low variation of these competences. Liberal regimes have both high levels and high variation of competences. Conservative regimes combine low levels with high variation of competences. The ‘three worlds of human capital production’ described by Iversen and Stephens (2008) match the three regimes that we employ in this article. However, Iversen and Stephens focus on skill formation primarily at the secondary level.
We use the terms higher education and tertiary education interchangeably.
The concept of social estates refers to the broad divisions of society throughout the history of Europe. Originally the concept distinguished nobility, clergy, and commons. In contemporary society it refers to the almost impermeable social divisions between upper, middle, and lower classes in some countries (Cox, 1945), which Allmendinger and Leibfried (2003) describe as adherence to a ‘traditional feudal notion of class’ (p. 63).
Tertiary-type A credentials are earned at institutions defined as ‘largely theory-based and are designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry into advanced research programmes and professions with high skill requirements’ (OECD, 2006b). Tertiary-type B credentials are earned at institutions that are ‘typically shorter than those of tertiary-type A and focus on practical, technical or occupational skills for direct entry in the labour market’ (p. 15).
The proportion of the age group enrolled in general or vocational education is a proportion of total enrolments in upper secondary education. These two figures do not necessarily add up to 100% because in some countries students are enrolled in ‘pre-vocational’ programs.
Japan was excluded from the analysis because the traditions of Asian countries deserve an analysis in their own right. As rapid social and economic changes in Ireland may distort the analysis, we have not included it.
See footnote 3.
One pattern (Japan) is not relevant in our context.
Owing to the nature of the data, it was necessary to use a ranking procedure. We follow the tenets of Greenacre (2007) to form the ranks. Because of the small sample size and the categorical nature of the variables, it is not possible to conduct either factor or cluster analyses.
A Numerus Clausus approach specifies restrictions to admissions in those countries where certification earned at the secondary level entitle individuals to tertiary entry.
We consider only state supported loans, not other types of loans such as private loans with banks.
Italy, at 39%, is an outlier among the conservative countries.
Goodin et al. (1999) locate the Netherlands in the social democratic regime category, which indicates that this country is not easy to label.
References
Allmendinger, J. and Leibfried, S. (2003) ‘Education and the welfare sate: The four worlds of competence production’, Journal of European Social Policy 13 (1): 63–81.
Ansell, B.W. (2008) ‘University challenges: Explaining institutional change in higher education’, World Politics 60 (2): 189–230.
Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002) ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European Social Policy 12 (2): 137–158.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielsen, F. and Stephens, J.D. (2003) ‘Distribution and redistribution in postindustrial economies’, World Politics 55 (2): 193–228.
Castles, F.G. (1989) ‘Explaining public education expenditure in OECD countries’, European Journal of Political Research 17 (4): 431–448.
Castles, F.G. (1993) Families of Nations, Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Cox, O.C. (1945) ‘Estates, social classes, and political classes’, American Sociological Review 10 (4): 464–469.
Economic Council of Canada. (1992) A Lot to Learn: Education and Training in Canada, Ottawa, ON: Economic Council of Canada.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2009) The Incomplete Revolution. Adapting to Women's New Roles, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Goldin, C. and Katz, L. (2008) The Race between Education and Technology, Cambridge, MA: The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.
Goodin, R.E., Headey, B., Muffels, R. and Dirven, H.-J. (1999) The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Greenacre, M. (1990) SimCA User's Manual, Pretoria: The Author.
Greenacre, M. (2007) Correspondence Analysis in Practice, Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hega, G.M. and Hokenmaier, K.G. (2002) ‘The welfare state and education: A comparison of social and educational policy in advanced industrial countries’, German Policy Studies 2 (1): 1–28.
Heidenheimer, A.J. (1981) ‘Education and Social Security Entitlements in Europe and America’, in P. Flora and A.J. Heidenheimer (eds.) The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America, London: Transaction Books, Inc 265–304.
Hicks, A. and Kenworthy, L. (2003) ‘Varieties of welfare capitalism’, Socio-Economic Review 1: 27–61.
Hokenmaier, K.G. (1998) ‘Social security vs educational opportunity in advanced industrial societies: Is there a trade-off?’ American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 709–711.
Iversen, T. and Stephens, J.D. (2008) ‘Partisan politics, the welfare state, and three worlds of human capital state formation’, Comparative Political Studies 41 (4/5): 600–637.
Johnstone, D.B. (2006) Financing Higher Education: Cost-Sharing in International Perspective, Boston, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education.
Lehmann, W. (2005) ‘‘I’m still scrubbing the floors’: Experiencing youth apprenticeships in Canada and Germany’, Work, Employment, and Society 19 (1): 107–129.
Martins, J., Boarini, R., Strauss, H, de la Maisoneuve, C. and Saadi, C. (2007) The Policy Determinants of Investment in Tertiary Education OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 576. Paris: OECD.
Mills, M. and Blossfeld, H.-P. (2003) ‘Globalization, uncertainty, and changes in early life courses’, Zeitschrift für Erziehungwissenschaft 6 (2): 188–218.
OECD. (2005) Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2005, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2006a) Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2006, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2006b) Education Policy Analysis. Focus on Higher Education 2005–2006, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2007) Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2007, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2008a) Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators 2008, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2008b) Revenue Statistics 1965–2007, Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2008c) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, Paris: OECD.
Orr, D. (2008) Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe, Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Pechar, H. and Andres, L. (2010) ‘Education and skill formation in secondary and tertiary education: A comparison of welfare and production regimes’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Higher Educational Research Conference, Oslo, Norway, June 10–12.
Starke, P. (2006) ‘The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review’, Social Policy and Administration 40 (1): 104–120.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2008) Measuring Up 2008. The National Report Card on Higher Education, San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Turner, R. (1960) ‘Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system’, American Sociological Review 25 (6): 855–867.
Usher, A. (2005) Global Debt Patterns: An International Comparison of Student Loan Burdens and Repayment Conditions, Toronto, ON: Educational Policy Institute.
Vossensteyn, H. (2004) Student Financial Support: An Inventory in 24 Countries, The Netherlands: CHEPS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pechar, H., Andres, L. Higher-Education Policies and Welfare Regimes: International Comparative Perspectives. High Educ Policy 24, 25–52 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2010.24
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2010.24