IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Paradox of Educational Fairness in China

Listed author(s):
  • Wanhua Peng

    (Shihezi University
    Graduate School, Peking University)

  • Xiaobin Peng

    (Office of Informatization, Peking University)

  • Kaiping Peng

    (Department of Psychology, University of California
    Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University)

Neoclassical economics is founded on a narrow notion of the rational human being, with self-interest and material well-being as the basis of judgment and decision making. This stands in stark contrast to long held views, in philosophy and psychology, that maintain that human reason is motivated in part by emotions and, in particular, by social comparison. The social psychologist Festinger found that much judgment and decision making are the results of social comparison which may or may not reflect the actual reality of individuals. We tested Festinger¡¯s notion in Chinese cultural contexts by investigating public discussions of educational fairness. We found that while educational spending has been increasing steadily, sentiments about educational fairness have been deteriorating. Time series analysis shows that these phenomena were not due to price inflation, availability of opinion outlets, or regional difference, but to the psychological process of social comparison. The implications of such a paradox are discussed.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by Society for AEF in its journal Annals of Economics and Finance.

Volume (Year): 10 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
Pages: 199-213

in new window

Handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2009:v:10:i:1:p:199-213
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2009:v:10:i:1:p:199-213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Qiang Gao)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.