IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb597/189.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does market-oriented education systems improve performance or increase inequality: A configurational comparative method for understanding (un)intended educational outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Wise, Ramsey

Abstract

Since the introduction of PISA in 2000, school choice has been featured as a mechanism by which students gain equal educational opportunities and schools are pressured to improve their performance. In opposition, critics have argued that geographic and socioeconomic disparities may cause choice to unintentionally contribute to further educational inequalities, while performance gains are only marginal. To further explore the market rationale behind these claims, this study develops a conceptual framework that theoretically identifies complementary school-level characteristics of market-oriented education systems. These include choice, autonomy and accountability. Both educational outcomes - educational performance and inequality - are then analyzed with regard to these characteristics of market-oriented education systems using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). This configurational comparative approach further allows for the analysis of complex causality in order to understand how features of market orientation (i.e. choice, autonomy and accountability) also interact with a country's socio-structural context. Therefore, market orientation is modeled along with two well known contributing factors of the outcomes explored, namely social stratification and the institutional stratification of educational systems. Data is derived from the 2009 PISA study and aggregated for 21 OECD countries. The results demonstrate that a strong trade-off between performance and inequality is demonstrated in most countries sampled here. Although many of these countries indeed have market-oriented education systems, few cases contradict this association - the primary difference being the socio-structural context. Theoretically and empirically relevant configurations are identified to explain cross-national variation of educational outcomes; however, these solutions are highly sensitive and possibly subject to model ambiguities.

Suggested Citation

  • Wise, Ramsey, 2015. "Does market-oriented education systems improve performance or increase inequality: A configurational comparative method for understanding (un)intended educational outcomes," TranState Working Papers 189, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/112724/1/829076948.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braga, Michela & Checchi, Daniele & Meschi, Elena, 2011. "Institutional Reforms and Educational Attainment in Europe: A Long Run Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 6190, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Svend-Erik Skaaning, 2011. "Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-set and Fuzzy-set QCA Results," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(2), pages 391-408, May.
    3. Ariga, Kenn & Brunello, Giorgio, 2007. "Does Secondary School Tracking Affect Performance? Evidence from IALS," IZA Discussion Papers 2643, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Falch, Torberg & Fischer, Justina A.V., 2012. "Public sector decentralization and school performance: International evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 276-279.
    5. Ludger Woessmann & Elke Luedemann & Gabriela Schuetz & Martin R. West, 2009. "School Accountability, Autonomy and Choice Around the World," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13540.
    6. Hanushek, Eric A. & Link, Susanne & Woessmann, Ludger, 2013. "Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 212-232.
    7. Sebastian Galiani & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2002. "Evaluating the Impact of School Decentralization on Educational Quality," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 275-314, January.
    8. Hug, Simon, 2013. "Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 252-265, April.
    9. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, September.
    10. Giorgio Brunello & Daniele Checchi, 2007. "Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence [‘Educational opportunities and the role of institutions’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(52), pages 782-861.
    11. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    12. Michela Braga & Daniele Checchi & Elena Meschi, 2011. "GINI DP 22: Institutional Reforms and Educational Attainment in Europe," GINI Discussion Papers 22, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    13. Adnett, Nick & Bougheas, Spiros & Davies, Peter, 2002. "Market-based reforms of public schooling: some unpleasant dynamics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 323-330, August.
    14. Sietske Waslander & Cissy Pater & Maartje van der Weide, 2010. "Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education," OECD Education Working Papers 52, OECD Publishing.
    15. Thijs Bol & Herman Werfhorst, 2013. "GINI DP 81: The Measurement of Tracking, Vocational Orientation, and Standardization of Educational Systems: a Comparative Approach," GINI Discussion Papers 81, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    16. Julian Le Grand, 2007. "Introduction to The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition," Introductory Chapters, in: The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services through Choice and Competition, Princeton University Press.
    17. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ludger Woessmann, 2016. "The Importance of School Systems: Evidence from International Differences in Student Achievement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 3-32, Summer.
    2. Ludger Woessmann, 2009. "International Evidence on School Tracking: A Review," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 7(01), pages 26-34, April.
    3. Leonardo Letelier S & Hector Ormeño C, 2018. "Education and fiscal decentralization. The case of municipal education in Chile," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1499-1521, December.
    4. repec:ces:ifodic:v:7:y:2009:i:1:p:14567020 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Josep-Oriol Escardíbul & Nehal Helmy, 2015. "Decentralisation and school autonomy impact on the quality of education: the case of two MENA countries," Working Papers 2015/33, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    6. Jeong, Dong Wook & Lee, Ho Jun & Cho, Sung Kyung, 2017. "Education decentralization, school resources, and student outcomes in Korea," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 12-27.
    7. Lisa Grazzini, 2016. "The Importance of the Quality of Education: Some Determinants and its Effects on Earning Returns and Economic Growth," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 43-82.
    8. José Manuel Cordero & Daniel Santín & Rosa Simancas, 2017. "Assessing European primary school performance through a conditional nonparametric model," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(4), pages 364-376, April.
    9. Wagemann, Claudius & Buche, Jonas & Siewert, Markus B., 2016. "QCA and business research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2531-2540.
    10. Wößmann Ludger, 2011. "Aktuelle Herausforderungen der deutschen Bildungspolitik: Ordnungspolitischer Rahmen und konkrete Handlungsfelder / Current Challenges for German Education Policy: Institutional Framework and Concrete," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 145-176, January.
    11. Jeroen Lavrijsen & Ides Nicaise, 2016. "Ascription, Achievement, and Perceived Equity of Educational Regimes: An Empirical Investigation," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Gabriel Octavian NEGREA & Dan-Maniu DUSE, 2014. "Investigating Autonomy, Accountability And Educational Management Priorities In Romanian High Schools; Preliminary Results," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(1), pages 35-50, November.
    13. Piopiunik, Marc & Schwerdt, Guido & Woessmann, Ludger, 2013. "Central school exit exams and labor-market outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 93-108.
    14. Sönke Hendrik Matthewes, 2020. "Better together? Heterogeneous effects of tracking on student achievement," CEP Discussion Papers dp1706.pdf, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Krause-Pilatus, Annabelle & Schüller, Simone, 2014. "Evidence and Persistence of Education Inequality in an Early-Tracking System: The German Case," IZA Discussion Papers 8545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Gonçalves, Helena Martins & Lourenço, Tiago Ferreira & Silva, Graça Miranda, 2016. "Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1484-1491.
    17. Gruber, Lloyd & Kosack, Stephen, 2014. "The tertiary tilt: education and inequality in the developing world," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 54202, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Égert, Balázs & Botev, Jarmila & Turner, David, 2020. "The contribution of human capital and its policies to per capita income in Europe and the OECD," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    19. Torben M. Andersen & Giuseppe Bertola & John Driffill & Harold James & Hans-Werner Sinn & Jan-Egbert Sturm & Branko Uroševic, 2016. "Chapter 3: Tuning Secondary Education," EEAG Report on the European Economy, CESifo, vol. 0, pages 70-84, February.
    20. Ralph Hippe & Luisa De Sousa Lobo Borges de Araujo & Patricia Dinis Mota da Costa, 2016. "Equity in Education in Europe," JRC Research Reports JRC104595, Joint Research Centre.
    21. Delgado García, Juan Bautista & De Quevedo Puente, Esther, 2016. "The complex link of city reputation and city performance. Results for fsQCA analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2830-2839.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zesbrde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.