education, democratization, and globalization

7/28/2019 Education, Democratization, And Globalization

1/18

Comparative and International Education Society

Education, Democratization, and Globalization: A Challenge for Comparative EducationAuthor(s): Noel F. Mc GinnSource: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, Special Issue on Democratization (Nov.,1996), pp. 341-357Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and InternationalEducation SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1189270

Accessed: 25/02/2009 13:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Comparative and International Education Society and The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1189270?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1189270?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18

Guest Editorial Essay and Presidential AddressEducation, Democratization,and Globalization:A Challenge for ComparativeEducation

NOEL F. MC GINN

Today, the U.S. government and many international lending agenciesarepromotingwhatAdamPrzeworskihascalled"thegreatest deologicallyinspiredexperimentsinceJosefStalin nitiatedthe forcedindustrializationof the Soviet Union."' Old friends and former enemies alike are told toswallowpainful economic prescriptionswith the confidentprognosisthatthese will bring modernizationand democracy."Shocktherapy"for dis-turbed economies is justified by the promise of politicaland economicsanity.Policies are dressed in scantevidence,evidencewoven from cross-national studies that ignore the diversityof class, gender, ethnicity, andthe changes of time.A key partof the "greatestexperiment" s the export of a "civiceduca-tion" preaching that democracyis the free market plus capitalismandthat democracy'sgrowth is to be measured by the increase of privatewealth. The Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, or example, has-with thepromise of off-shore funding-invited Westerneducators to help planfor teaching the skills of the market economy.2The U.S.-based Centerfor International Private Enterprise receives public funds through theAmerican Chamber of Commerce to provide skill training for businessassociations, nformationfor economicjournalists,andentrepreneurshiptrainingfor militaryofficers.The programs nsist on "accuracy,ntegrity,commitment to the basicprinciplesof a marketeconomy, and clear-eyed

EDITOR'S OTE. -To commemorate the Review's fortieth year of publication, we are closingvolume 40 with a special issue. This is a departure from our normal practice, which is to open eachvolume with a special edition. In view of this change, we will open volume 41 (February 1997) witha regular issue, and we will issue no special editions during 1997. For the current special issue, weinvited Noel F. McGinn to serve as guest editor and acknowledge with gratitude the support furnishedby the Harvard University Institute for International Development.E. H. E.

In the processof preparing hisarticle,I receivedexcellentadvicefrom ErwinEpstein,StevenKlees, Nasir Jalil, Mary McGinn, Mary Lou McGinn, Thomas Welsh, and James Williams. Theirfriendship is much appreciated.1Adam Przeworski, "The Neoliberal Fallacy,"Journal of Democracy3, no. 3 (1992): 45.2 See Jan L. Tucker, "Global Lessons from Siberia," Social Education 57, no. 3 (March 1993):101-3.ComparativeEducationReview, vol. 40, no. 4.? 1996 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.0010-4086/96/4004-0001 $01 .00Comparative Education Review 341


3/18

MC GINNcost-benefit calculation."3The United States spent $35 million on votereducationin SouthAfrica before the generalelectionsthere, leadingJesseJackson to note that this was about $35 million more than Uncle Samhad spent educating Americansabout how to vote.4This is bitterly ironic, as the country promoting this civic educationhas low and declining levels of political participation,a rate of prisonconstructionthat leads the world, a worsening income distributionwithslow or no growthin real wages,and a citizenrywitha deepening distrustnot just of the federal government but of all forms of collective action.The United States, like Britain, has become a country facing an age ofdiminished expectations.5

Some of America'sfriendshave noted this contradictionbetween theUnited States at home anditsefforts to exportdemocracy.CzechpresidentVaclavHavel, for example, writes that "democracyn its present Westernform arouses skepticism and mistrust in many parts of the world....Democracyis seen less and less as an open system that is best able torespond to people's basic needs-that is, as a set of possibilities thatcontinually must be sought, redefined and brought into being. Instead,democracy s seen as something given, finished and complete as is, some-thing that can be exported like cars or televisionsets, something that themore enlightened purchase and the less enlightened do not."6Educators face a special challenge and opportunity to address andredress these problems.The challenge is to reject false nationalismandthrough comparativescience to help satisfya worldwidehunger for a realdemocratization.The opportunityis to do research hatcelebratesculturaldiversityand fosters social and politicalintegrationof peoples. Educatorsshould rejectthe homogenizationthat followsfrom a centrallycontrolledworldmarket.They should denounce the betrayalof democracy ontainedin the privatizationof politics.Fourmajorissues call for attention from those who practicecompara-tiveeducation.These are the decline of democraticpracticeandparticipa-tion in the industrializedworld, our own confusion as to why educationdoes not help resolve this problem,the impactof economic globalizationon education and on democratization,and the urgency for comparativeresearch on cultural diversityrather than individualdifferentiation andon social integrationratherthan politicaland economic homogenization.

3 See John D. Sullivan, "Democratization and Business Interests," Journal of Democracy5, no. 4(1994): 146-60.4 William Dalbec, "South Africa: A Voter Education Success Story," Campaignsand Elections:TheMagazinefor PoliticalProfessionals15, no. 7 (1994): 27, 55, quote on 27.5 Paul R. Krugman, The Age of DiminishedExpectations:U.S. EconomicPolicy in the 1990s (Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994).6 Vaclav Havel, "Democracy's Forgotten Dimension,"Journal ofDemocracy , no. 2 (1995): 4-10,quote on 7.342 November1996


4/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION, ND GLOBALIZATIONThe Declining Practice of Democracy

Voter turnout for U.S. elections is among the lowest of the industrial-ized countries and has been declining for the past 30 years.7 In the 1994congressional election (which gave control of both houses of the nationallegislature to the Republican Party) only 38 percent of the electoratevoted. Participation in municipal and school board elections-the hall-mark of American local democracy-is most often less than 20 percentof the electorate.Groups of all persuasions are now bemoaning the decline of "civicsociety," considered essential for a democratic system.8 America's politicalRight is so concerned that the Heritage Foundation now calls its policy

review journal the Journal of AmericanCitizenship.According to conserva-tive Democrats, the United States should get closer to religious organiza-tions to rediscover community and to rebuild the civic society. MotherJones, a left-leaning magazine, urges tracing the nation's roots back to theAmerican Revolution in order to reinvigorate the progressive movement.9This "civic society" under discussion comprises all those organizationsto which citizens can belong that make decisions and carry out actions thataffect their lives. Such organizations include small business associations,veterans' clubs, women's groups, labor unions, ethnic societies, religiousgroups, bird-watching societies, and even bowling leagues. These organi-zations and the coalitions they form can counter the power of large corpo-rations and the government. It is this balance of power that makes itpossible for democratic practice to survive and thrive.The civic society, sometimes called the civic community, has fourmajor characteristics.10? he first is civicengagement,or active participationin the discussion and resolution of public issues, which is much moreimportant than voting per se. Associations act as schools or democracynwhich people learn how to argue without fighting. This is true in thoseassociations that promote the second principal trait,politicalequality.Herethe same rules are applied to all members, who are linked "by horizontalrelationships of reciprocity and cooperation, not by vertical relationshipsof authority and dependency."11These members therefore possess thethird major characteristic of civic society, the attitudes and practices ofmutual respect, of tolerance for disagreement, of willingness to disagree

7This phenomenon is reported in Ruy Teixeira, The VanishingAmericanVoter(Washington,D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1992).8 Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady, Voiceand Equality:Civic Volunta-rismin AmericanPolitics(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).9These events are reported in David S. Broder, "The Decline of Civic Life," Boston Globe(January 3, 1996).10Robert D. Putnam, Making DemocracyWork:Civic Traditions n ModernItaly (Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1993)." Ibid., p. 88.ComparativeEducationReview 343


5/18

MCGINNwithout having to silence other views. Tolerance, a minimal condition, isa difficult concept. What is really called for is a willingness to allow oppo-nents to continue to express their wrong beliefs. To do this requiresshared or mutual trust, a confidence that the other will allow us to continueto express our beliefs even if they are not shared. This trust, in turn,depends on a belief in some common destiny, a solidarity in which we seethe existence of others as important for some shared objective.12All thisis exercised and learned through the final key trait, activeparticipation nassociations of all kinds that permit learning how to disagree withoutmutual destruction and how to cooperate with solidarity in "social struc-tures of cooperation." 13Bowling AloneParticipation in assocations of all kinds has dropped notably in theUnited States and in other early industrialized democracies. The BoyScouts, the Red Cross, women's groups, labor unions, the Lions, theMoose, the Elks, the NAACP, parent-teacher organizations, and the Au-dubon Society, are all examples of groups in decline. More and more ofus are "bowling alone," and as a consequence there are fewer occasionsin which serious publicissues are debated.'4 If the flow of dialogue is takenas the measure of a community, then the mainstream appears to be dryingup.15 At the same time, public attitudes toward others' behavior havebecome less tolerant.16This withdrawal from public discussion, while serious, in itself is notmortal. What is life threatening for democracy, however, is the sharpdecline of trust in democratic institutions and the consequent generalretreat from the practiceof democracy. This retreat is widespread in theindustrialized countries.Some kinds of associations have suffered more than others. Member-ship in labor unions, for example, has declined in almost all industrialized

12Single-minded pursuit of individual goals as some proponents of economic rationalism appearto propose ends up destroying the circumstances that permit individuals to enhance their personalpositions. Ibid., p. 89.13Ibid.14Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,"Journal ofDemocracy6, no. 1 (1995): 65-78.15 Some caution is in order in applying these findings to the entire body politic of the UnitedStates. The kinds of organizations included in the surveys on membership, including labor unions,are all "mainstream" associations. New forms of civic community, e.g., among immigrants or thedisaffected, are likely to be underreported. This point is made in Stanley Aronowitz and Henry A.Giroux, PostmodernEducation:Politics,Cultureand Social Criticism Minneapolis: University of Minne-sota Press, 1991).16 The decline of trust in public institutions in the United States is reported in a series of articlesin the WashingtonPost (Richard Morin and Dan Balz, "Americans Losing Trust in Each Other andInstitutions," WashingtonPost [January 28, 1996]). Loss of trust in public institutions is not, appar-ently, limited to the United States but occurring in all industrialized nations except Canada. SeeLoek Halman, "Is There a Moral Decline? A Cross-National Inquiry into Morality in ContemporarySociety," International Social ScienceJournal 47, no. 3 (1995): 419-39.344 November 1996


6/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION, ND GLOBALIZATIONnations. In part, this is a product of the flight of industrialcapital toless-democraticcountries where worker organizationsare repressed bygovernments. In part, it is the resultof antiunioncampaignsby corpora-tions and conservativepoliticalparties.17The decline of labororganizations s a seriousproblemfor democracybecausethey aretypically afterreligiousorganizations) he mostcommonopportunity people have for political participation.The strength andmilitancyof these organizationsare more powerfullycorrelatedwith thelevel of democracy(based on politicalrights and civil liberties)than arescores on the Human Development Index or measuresof education.18Causesof the Decline in Participation

Several factorshave contributed to the decline in popular participa-tion. First, nondemocraticorganizationshave proliferated,while directparticipationassociationshave lost membership.The number of specialinterest groups, political action committees, and lobbies has expandedgeometrically.More and more individualsare limitingtheir participationto passive membership and financial support, or "checkbookparticipa-tion."19This increases the relativepower of the wealthyfew and leads toa privatizationof politics.Second, governmentsof developingcountries have been encouragedbyinternationalagenciesto turn over certainfunctions to nongovernmen-tal organizations(NGOs). While this has a democraticsound to it, mostNGOs in developing countries are founded and controlled by elites andthus contribute little to popular participation.20Third, the use of nonelected "expert"advisors, both national andinternational,in the formulation of nationalpolicieshas become increas-ingly common worldwide.These "experts"are often wrong, however,astheir policies are devised in ignoranceof the ambitions and problemsofthe majorityof the populace. More important, their leverage in publicpolicy formulationcomes at the expense of citizen participation.21 heyare often an antidemocratic orce.Fourth, the latest wave of economic modernizationand globalizationhas widened the gap between rich and poor, powerful andweak.Studies

17For example, see Martin Jay Levitt and Terry Conrow, Confessionsof a Union Buster (NewYork: Crown, 1993).18The methodology for estimating level of democracy is found in Raymond D. Gastile, Freedomin the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties(New York: Greenwood, 1987). The importance ofworker organizations for democratization is described in Ali R. Abootalebi, "Democratization inDeveloping Countries: 1980-1989," Journal of DevelopingAreas 29, no. 4 (1995): 507-30.19Verba et al. (n. 8 above). Putnam refers to these as "mailing list" organizations (Robert D.Putnam, "The Strange Disappearance of Civic America,"AmericanProspect24 [Winter 1996]: 34-48).20John Clark, "The State, Popular Participation, and the Voluntary Sector," WorldDevelopment23, no. 4 (1995): 593-601.21Brian Crisp, "Limitations to Democracy in Developing Capitalist Societies: The Case of Vene-zuela," WorldDevelopment22, no. 10 (1994): 1491-509.Comparative Education Review 345


7/18

MC GINNshow that theforms of democracy-such as elections-are unable to over-come great inequalities in wealth and power, and these disparities blockparticipation in public affairs.22Why Education Has Not Resolved or Prevented This Problem

The evidence I have presented poses a special problem for educators.We are wont to believe that education contributes to democracy. However,the decline in the civic community and democratic practice is reportedamong the world's best-educated countries even as levels of educationhave risen sharply.Should we believe that even more education will increase participa-tion? Here we should distinguish between the participation of individualsand rates of participation in a society. Research examining the impact ofeducation on individual behavior has been extensive. For example, levelsof education are significant (although not powerful) predictors of individ-ual voter registration and voting.23 Participants in student protests of the1960s were more likely to be high achievers in high school and to comefrom well-educated families.24The number of years of schooling of indi-vidual Mexican-Americans and African-Americans is associated with theirparticipation in elections.25 People who go to college are much more likelyto both vote in elections and participate in civic associations than thosewho do not attend college.26 There is no doubt that education contributesto individual differentiation.When education is used to differentiate between people, however,overall expansion of education will not necessarily increase overall levels

22For a perspective from Brazil, see Malak Poppovic and Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, "How toConsolidate Democracy? A Human Rights Approach," InternationalSocial ScienceJournal 47, no. 1(1995): 75-89.23See David Kaplan and Richard L. Venezky, Literacyand VotingBehavior: A StatisticalAnalysisBasedon the 1985 YoungAdultLiteracySurvey(Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy, 1995);Robert A. Jackson, "Clarifying the Relationship between Education and Turnout," AmericanPoliticsQuarterly23, no. 3 (1995): 279-300.24 Darren E. Sherkat and T. Jean Blocker, "The Political Development of Sixties' Activists:Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender and Socialization of Protest Participation," Social Forces72, no. 3 (March 1994): 821-42.23 Christopher G. Ellison and Bruce London, "The Social and Political Participation of BlackAmericans: Compensatory and Ethnic Community Perspectives Revisited," Social Forces 70, no. 3(March 1992): 681 - 701; Terrence G. Wiley, "Literacy, Biliteracy and Education Achievement amongthe Mexican-Origin Population in the United States,"Journal of theNational Associationor BilingualEducation 14, nos. 1-3 (1990): 109-27.

26 William E. Knox, Paul Lindsay, and Mary N. Kolb, Does CollegeMake a Difference?Long-TermChangesin Activities and Attitudes(Greenwood, Conn.: Greenwood, 1993). Similar results have beenreported for Italy, in a study on political participation at the level of regional government. Thoseindividuals with more years of schooling both participate more and have more confidence in theirability to influence the course of events. More-educated persons are more likely to have coherentopinions on issues, to express these opinions, and to attempt to influence public decisions in accordwith their opinions and are more willing to defend the right of others to disagree with them. SeePutnam, Making DemocracyWork n. 10 above).346 November 1996


8/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION,ND GLOBALIZATIONof participation. As a consequence, greater educational levels in theUnited States and Britain have not contributed to further democratiza-tion.27 The same holds for Italy, where there is no relationship betweenparticipation at the community or regional level and aggregate educa-tional attainment, taken at various points in time.28 Community-levelvariations in educational attainment and gross enrollment ratios do notaccount for variations in the level of participation in the civic community.29How might this failure of formal education to expand democracy insome cases be explained? There are at least four alternative explanations,three of which blame the schools while the fourth identifies antidemocraticforces that compete with schools. The first explains changes in the impactof education in terms of changes in who is being educated. The secondlooks at how much time is spent on civic education. The third examineschanges in the quality of civic education. And the fourth argues thatalternative institutions of learning have proliferated and that these institu-tions see democratization as a barrier to economic growth.The first hypothesis, which explains changes in the impact of educa-tion in terms of changes in who is being educated, is suggested by the workof Gerald W. Bracey. He answered critics of American public education byshowing that while overall average test scores have indeed declined overa 20-year period, the scores of each subpopulation have increased.30 Evenchildren from poor families and certain minority groups-who tradition-ally have scored lower on achievement tests-are doing better. However,because proportionately more poor and minority children are in publicschools now than before, the overall average score has declined. In otherwords, Bracey pointed out, it is the success of public education in in-cluding those groups previously excluded that has provoked criticisms.Is it possible that the decline in political participationis a result of changesin the overall population of the United States? The population now has a

27Clive Harber, "Anti-racism and Political Education for Democracy in Britain," in In Educa-tionfor DemocraticCitizenship:A Challengefor Multi-ethnic Societies, ed. R. S. Sigel and M. Hoskin(Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1991), pp. 25-43. The disjunction between level of education andlevel of democratic practice in the United States dates at least from the 1970s (Byron Massialas,"Education and Political Development," ComparativeEducation Review 21, nos. 2-3 [June-Oc-tober 1977]: 274-95).28 Putnam, Making DemocracyWork.29 It is important to keep in mind the distinction between participation in the civic communityand participation in the forms of electoral democracy. Even when denied the right to vote, someminority groups in the United States maintained their civic community. The elimination of discrimi-nation in education increased voting rates among these groups but had no positive effect on thevitality of their civic community. Nonwhite voter turnout increased sharply after the Voting RightsAct of 1965 and as a consequence of increased expenditures on education for minorities. See JohnE. Filer, Lawrence E. Kenny, and Rebecca M. Morton, "Voting Laws, Educational Policies, andMinority Turnout," Journal of Law and Economics34, no. 2 (1991): 371-93.30See Gerald W. Bracey, "The Third Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education,"Phi Delta Kappan 75, no. 2 (October 1993): 104-12, 114-18, and "The Fourth Bracey Report onthe Condition of Public Education," Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 2 (October 1994): 115-27.Comparative Education Review 347


9/18

MC GINN

proportionately arger share of ethnic groups that have traditionallyhadlower levels of civicparticipation.31f this explanationwere correct,thenraising he education evels of LatinosandAfrican-Americansmorerapidlythan they increasetheir share of the total population)might increasetheaverage level of politicalparticipationand rejuvenatedemocracy n theUnited States. The evidence is against this hypothesis,however. RobertPutnam'sdata suggest that declines in participationhave occurred in allgroups.32The second hypothesis focuses on changes in time spent on civiceducation,a topicthatclearlyhasbeen relegatedto secondary mportancein U.S. curricula.At one time our schoolswere concerned with buildinga nation of democraticcommunities-John Dewey'sgreatdream.Duringthe past 20 years, however, schools have increased their attention toindividualizing moral education, reducing the time spent on civiceducation.33The shifthas been accompaniedbyan increasedemphasison competi-tion among students,a trendthat raisespressuresfor individualachieve-ment while reducing social solidarity.In another irony, what some con-sider our "best" chools produce bright students who withdrawfrom thelarger society to live and work in elite communities.34The formula maybe, "Schoolingincreases individualismto the detriment of community;ergo, increasingeducation increasessocialdisintegration."35This negative result from schooling is especially likely when threeconditionsarepresent.First,schoolingisused to assignpeople to different

31 We are lacking a careful distinction between civic participation in the larger society and civicparticipation in the community of the minority group. The first is often constrained by discriminationby majority groups.3 Putnam, "Strange Disappearance" (n. 19 above).33See The Revival of ValuesEducation n Asiaand the West,ed. William K. Cummings, S. Gopina-than, and Yasumasa Tomoda (Oxford: Pergamon, 1988).34Schools attempt to teach working-class children to comply with rules over which they havelittle control, but middle- and upper-class children are taught how to organize the social system totheir benefit (Jean Anyon, "Social Class and School Knowledge," Curriculum nquiry11, no. 1 [1981]:3-39). Robert Reich argues that elite public and private schools teach children to put their personalinterests ahead of the community, essentially to "secede" from the community (Robert Reich, TheWorkof Nations [New York: Vintage, 1991]).35A study of 116 countries between 1960 and 1985 distinguishes two statistically independentmeasures of social disintegration. The first measure includes counts of coups, revolutions, constitu-tional changes, and reductions of political and civil rights. The variables refer to antidemocraticactions taken against or by the government. The level of primary education had a modest negativecorrelation with country scores on this measure. That is, coups and violations of civil rights areslightly less frequent in countries with higher levels of primary education than in those with lowerlevels. A second, independent measure of disintegration counted assassinations, riots, and strikes.Riots and strikes are not necessarily directed against a government, but they do reflect the absenceof less aggressive mechanisms for conflict resolution. Countries with these characteristics were morelikely to have higher levels of secondary education. That is, violent forms of protest are more commonin countries with higher levels of secondary education (and blocked means for peaceful protest). SeeRobert Klitgaard and Johannes Fedderke, "Social Integration and Disintegration: An ExploratoryAnalysis of Cross-Country Data," WorldDevelopment23, no. 3 (1995): 357-69.

348 November1996


10/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION, ND GLOBALIZATIONlevels of employment and, therefore, differentiatedaccess to income andpower. Second, the overallvolume of employmentis increasingless rap-idly than the population.Third, the organizationof productionis chang-ing so that proportionatelyfewer highly educated workersare required.These conditionsappearto describemanyindustrialized ountries,whichare characterizedbyrisingunemploymentlevelsdespiteeconomicgrowthand an abundanceof capital36 nd an increasinggap in earnings basedon education levels.37The third explanationexamineschanges in the quality f civiceduca-tion. Examination-drivenassessment measures citizenship in terms ofcognitiveknowledge,and the fever of globalcompetitivenesshas exacer-batedemphasison cognitive earning.This focus reduces timeforlearningdemocraticbehaviors,despite clear evidence-that adult participation spredictedby participationas a student- notbytestscores.38 choolsspenda lot of time teachingaboutdemocracy, eavingless time for doingdemoc-racy. Especiallyabsent is practice in how to legitimately challenge theclaims,assumptions,and promisesof authority.39 tudents have little op-portunity or encouragement to get involved in "adult"matters, almostnever in the larger communityand seldom in their schools.Finally,while schools have never had a monopoly on the educationof children, much less adults, the message of the schools is enhancedby that of other institutionsin societies that are integrated sociallyandpolitically.The fourth explanationfor decliningparticipationarguesthatother institutions now preach an antidemocraticmessage and that thedeclineof politicalparticipationsa resultof learning romthese institutions.The Impacts of Globali7ation

Most of the antidemocraticnstitutions can be associatedwith the setof phenomena called globalization,which weakens the effectiveness ofinstitutions for democraticgovernment in at least three ways. First, therise of transnationalcorporationsand banks-and a parallel growth ofsupranational organizations-reduces the sovereigntyof even the most

36Jeremy Rifkin, "The End of Work?"New Statesman nd Society8, no. 356 (June 9, 1995): 18-23.37Richard Murnane and Frank Levy, "Why Today's High-School-Educated Males Earn Lessthan Their Fathers Did: The Problem and an Assessment of Responses," Harvard EducationalReview63, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 1-19.38Verba et al. (n. 8 above). See also Judith V. Torney, A. N. Oppenheim, and Russell F.Farnen, Civic Education in Ten Countries:An Empirical Study(New York: Wiley, 1975), who arguedthat democratic values are not so much the result of school lessons as of the general political cultureand the atmosphere of the school. Their data showed that emphasis on the learning of facts in civiceducation produces students who are less democratic.39Edward G. Rozycki, "Education for Democracy: Is This More than Rhetoric?" EducationalHorizons73, no. 2 (Winter 1995): 57-59; Hilton Smith, "It's Education for, Not about, Democracy,"EducationalHorizons73, no. 2 (Winter 1995): 62-69.Comparative Education Review 349


11/18

MCGINN

powerful nation-states.40 International agreements such as the BrettonWoods Agreement (which created the International Monetary Fund in1947), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, which cre-ated the World Trade Organization), and the North American Free TradeAgreement (NAFTA) legitimate nondemocratic decision-making bodies.The members of these supranational organizations are neither elected bymajorities from the countries they represent nor accountable to electedofficials in those countries.The champions of free trade insist on decentralization and deregula-tion, while agreements on international trade are highly regulated andcentralized. Once governments' hands are tied, they can then deny thelegitimate requests of their citizens in the name of such agreements. Thisgoes to the heart of the decline of confidence in democratic institutions.Democracy requires that government and people are able to honor theirreciprocal commitments. Surrender of sovereignty breaks the bond oftrust.Globalization also affects the consensus about the proper tasks ofeducation. Except in colonies, schools are a product of communities-insome countries, local; in other countries, national. These communitiesorganized education to reproduce values and institutions considered cen-tral to identity and progress, and schools developed more or less organi-cally as a result, shaped by internal processes. The limitations or achieve-ments of the school mirrored the limitations or achievements of thecommunity. Schools taught democracy in democratic societies, authoritari-anism in authoritarian societies. Globalization, however, brings winds ofchange to buffet communities. Information and images from other cul-tures-delivered by an uncontrolled global media-threaten cherishedbeliefs. Capitalists demand that workers be trained to accept technologiesof production designed for other economies. New arrivals demand thateducation match the cultural expectations of their homeland. Structuralreadjustment breaks down relationships of reciprocity among socialclasses, with each pushing harder to meet its special requirements. Thosewho can withdraw into private schools, thereby weakening the organicconnection of schools with the community and their ability to reinforceshared values.Once a country buys into a global economy, a broad set of decisionsis removed from national debate. Countries reform their education sys-

40See John Calvert with Larry Kuehn, Pandora'sBox: CorporatePower,Free Tradeand CanadianEducation (Toronto: Our Schools/Our Selves Education Foundation, 1993); Noel F. McGinn, "TheImpact of Supranational Organizations on Public Education," InternationalJournal of EducationalDevelopment14, no. 3 (July 1994): 289-98; J. Reiffers, TransnationalCorporationsand EndogenousDevelopmentParis: Unesco, 1982); Joel Samoff, "The Reconstruction of Schooling in Africa,"Compara-tive EducationReview 37, no. 2 (May 1993): 181-222.350 November1996


12/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION,ND GLOBALIZATIONtems in response to decisions made in nonaccountable,nontransparent,and nondemocraticcorporate headquartersand international agencies.The adjustmentof education to these so-calledmarket forces is not new,but in the past those forces were shaped by national economic policies,making them at least partiallysubjectto the will of the nation.Finally,globalizationbroadensthe source and the content of learning.All societies depend on multiple sources of learning for both childrenand adults. Schools are only one means of acquiringknowledge, despitethe privilegedposition given them in research. Children and adults alsolearn in families, in marketplaces, n work settings, in churches, and inunion halls. These various sources were normally located in the samecommunityand governed by the same values,and their political integra-tion made possible the civic associationsdiscussed earlier.Today, however, such community-basedsources of learning have di-minishedin importance,to be replacedby sources outside the community.For example, in many countrieschildrennow spend more time watchingtelevision than they do in school, in athletic activities,or even playingwith friends.41These external sourcesof learning are highly centralizedand encourage passive consumption, often in isolation. Both childrenand adults-while watching more-participate less, have less accurateinformationabout historyand currentaffairs,and have less social trust.42The message here is notjust about televisionbut also about the alter-native sources of learning that comparativeresearch has ignored. It isquite possible that the school has no direct responsibility or the declinein democracy.Instead, it is most likely that schools have been replacedas primary sources of learning-at least of democraticbehaviors-bynondemocratic nstitutionsbased outside the community.The Antidemocratic Stance of Economic Modernization

A major source of antipathy to democraticparticipationis currentproposals for economic "modernization."43articipatorydemocracy isonce againdevalued becauseof fears that it limitseconomicdevelopment.41Patricia Greenfield, Mind and Media: TheEffectsof Television,VideoGamesand ComputersCam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984). In 1996 the average student is estimated to spend40 hours per week watching television. See Putnam, "Strange Disappearance."42These insights were originally provided by Guillermo Orozco. See also Jay G. Blumler, Televi-sion and the Public Interest (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1992); Putnam, "Strange Disappearance."None of these findings are based on experimental studies, so it is possible that they reflect a selectionbias rather than the impact of television.43This section focuses on democratic control of economic policies, but there are those whoargue directly against democratic control of public schooling. These arguments are summarized inDavid Plank and William Boyd, "Education Reform and the International Flight from Democracy,"The FORUM for AdvancedBasic Education and Literacy3, no. 4 (1994): 2-3. On other periods inhistory in which "democracy" was a pejorative, see Pierre Rosanvallon, "The History of the Word'Democracy' in France,"Journal of Democracy , no. 4 (1995): 140-54.

Comparative Education Review 351


13/18

MC GINN

For example, the apparent economic miracles of authoritarian govern-ments in southeast Asia have encouraged some leaders to argue thatexcessive freedom-too muchdemocracy-is the reason the expansion ofwealth in Africa and Latin America has lagged.44 Democracy is suitablefor a political system, one policy analyst offers, only "when it brings withit the rule of law and formation of human capital."45Politics, the processused to inform democratic choices, has been compared unfavorably withthe market, the process used to insure economic rationality.46The most sophisticated apologists for economic reform as the road todemocracy suggest that the path follows a parabolic curve. In the initialstages, the rapid destruction of existing institutions increases social disor-der. The transition to a new economic order, they argue, thus requires afirm governmental hand and limitations on democratic practices and civilrights such as protests, strikes, and the formation of political opposi-tion-even a suspension of constitutional guarantees of political rightsin some cases.47But, the enthusiasts claim, once law and order are estab-lished, democratic institutions will flourish in the favorable conditions ofa healthy market economy.There is, however, no convincing empirical support for an argumentthat "progress"requires the suspension or postponement of democratiza-tion. Even as compiled by proponents of economic "modernization," his-tory shows that democracy sometimes impedes growth and sometimeshelps it.48The present enthusiasm for economic reform is only the latestresurgence of the belief that capitalism can cure political ills, despite

44 The prime minister of Malaysia explains restrictions on democracy in his high-growth countryby suggesting that democracy is the end, not the means: "Should we enforce democracy on peoplewho may not be able to handle it and destroy stability?"(quoted in Jose Maria Mavall, "The Mythof the Authoritarian Advantage," Journal of Democracy5, no. 4 [1994]: 17-31, quote on 18).45Juan Luis Londofio, Poverty,Inequality,Social Policyand DemocracyWashington, D.C.: WorldBank, Technical Department, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, 1995), p. 37.46John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, Politics,Markets,and America'sSchools(Washington, D.C.:Brookings Institution, 1990); F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation,and Liberty London: Routledge & KeganPaul, 1982).47 Barbara Geddes, "Challenging the Conventional Wisdom,"JournalofDemocracy , no. 4 (1994):104-18; Joan M. Nelson, "Linkages between Politics and Economics," Journal of Democracy , no. 4(1994): 49-58. Referring to Latin America, Geddes says, "one of the reasons that democratic [sic]governments have been able to carry out successful reforms is that the urban working class . .. hasusually not proved capable of impeding adjustment, protecting itself from having to shoulder signifi-cant costs, or punishing the initiators of adjustment at the polls" (p. 110). The apologetics of one ofthe chief presiding physicians in the administration of "shocktherapy" to countries in Eastern Europe(and earlier to Bolivia) is found in Jeffrey Sachs, Poland'sJump to the MarketEconomy(Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1993). Sachs is not opposed to democracy, but concern for the maintenance orconstruction of democratic institutions does not loom large in his prescription. All will follow, heargues, from faithful adherence to the treatment. For criticism of this perspective, see John Weiner,"The Sachs' Plan in Poland," Nation (June 25, 1990); Benjamin R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld(NewYork: Times Books, 1995).48 See Robert Barro, "Democracy and Growth," National Bureau for Economic Research WorkingPaper (1994); Larry Sirowy and Alex Inkeles, "The Effects of Democracy on Economic Growth andInequality: A Review," Studiesin Comparative nternationalDevelopment25, no. 1 (1990): 126-57.352 November 1996


14/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION, ND GLOBALIZATIONresearch n the 1970sthatclearlydemonstrated hateconomic moderniza-tion had little or nothing to do with how politicalpower was shared in acountry. Politics-not economics-determines conditions of equity andjustice.49I note wryly that one expert claims that the evidence now isleaning toward the position that democracy s not a hindrance to eco-nomic growth.50A secondperspective,also held by proponentsof capitalisteconomics,emphasizes the other side of the equation:economic growth is essentialfor, and thereforemust precede,democratization.Proponentsof thisviewrely on cross-nationalstudies using nationalaggregatedata to claimthateducation and escape from poverty are essential conditions for democ-racy.51Democracyis threatened, such authors say, by the greedy richwho exploit the uneducatedpoor. Because free-marketeconomicgrowthexpands the educated middle class, who champion order and stability,democraticprocessesare thus strengthened.The empiricalevidence to support these assertionsis summarized nthis form: "Mostwealthy [and educated] countries are democratic,andmost democratic countries-India is the most dramaticexception-arewealthy."52 videnceto support the claims madefor marketcapitalismasthe wellspringof democracys of the orderthat all of the world's ndustrial-izeddemocraciesare "capitalist."Otherapologistsnote that cross-nationalratings of national "freedom"-defined as the existence of politicalandhuman rights-are positivelyassociatedwith classificationas a capitalisteconomy. Consequently, it is too risky to start with democraticreform.The best strategy is to first promote economic liberalization,which willproduce the economic growth that establishes the conditionsfor democ-racy.Claimsfor the democratizingpowerof structuraladjustmentarebasedon cross-sectional tudiesthat use crudetechniquesto evaluate the overalllevel of "democracy"n a country. Variations in political participationbased on gender,race, or ethnicityare often ignored. Withthe exceptionof voting, these studies do not examine which groups actuallycan anddo exercise formalrights.53As a result,the "democratic"abel is sometimes

49See Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, EconomicGrowthand SocialEquityin DevelopingCountries(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1973).50Jagdish Bhagwati, "The New Thinking on Development," Journal of Democracy6, no. 4(1995): 50-64.51The classic work in this field is Seymour M. Lipset, Political Man (New York: Doubleday,1963). His work and conclusions have been replicated in Edward N. Muller, "Democracy, EconomicDevelopment and Income Inequality," AmericanSociologicalReview53, no. 1 (February 1988): 50-68.52Samuel P. Huntington, "Democracy's Third Wave," Journal of Democracy2, no. 2 (1991):12-34, quote on 30.53The methodology is described in Freedom n the World:TheAnnual Survey of PoliticalRightsandCivil Liberties,1994-1995, ed. Adrian Karatnycky (New York: Freedom House, 1995).



15/18

MC GINN

given to countries with legal forms of democracy but low levels of partici-pation and denied to other nations with high but nonformal participation.Different results are produced in studies that define "democracy"onthe basis of the level and distribution of actual participation in publicaffairs. An examination of political participation in 147 countries 1980-88 shows healthy democracies among some of the world's poorest coun-tries and argues that it is not possible "to establish any lower limit of GNP[gross national product] per capita that could be required as a necessarycondition for democratization."54Studies using a comparative historical method that closely followsseveral countries over a relatively long period conclude that no determinis-tic relationship exists between economic development and democratiza-tion. The high road of history is littered with once-democratic countriesthat collapsed into authoritarianism despite high levels of economic activ-ity.55These studies argue that the link between capitalism and democracyis often a function of special conditions that existed when those countrieswere founded and that may not exist today in other nations.A recent historical analysis by Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne HuberStephens, andJohn D. Stephens compares processes in advanced capitalistcountries with those in Latin America and the Caribbean. Democratizationis defined in terms of inclusionary processes and of the institutionalizationof opposition to government. The authors conclude that democratizationdepends on the ways in which interests based on class and gender areconstructed, with these constructions varying according to conditionsunique to each country. The middle class has not always been the guaran-tor of democracy, and on some occasions democratization has resultedprimarily because of actions taken by the less-educated working class.56For every high-growth country that appears to be moving towardgreater democracy, there is another that is not moving at all. Althoughsome of the newly industrialized countries appear to be democratizing(e.g., South Korea), others (e.g., Singapore) appear to be consolidating lowlevels of democracy. Economic growth and democratization take differentpaths and move at differing rates across countries and according to regionand period of history. Rapid economic growth during the 1960s in somecountries induced rapid social changes that broke down traditional institu-tions, which increased political instability and was followed by authoritar-

54Tatu Vanhanen, The Processof Democratization:A ComparativeStudy of 147 States(New York:Crane, Russak, 1990), p. 198.55See, e.g., Barrington Moore, The Social Originsof Dictatorship nd DemocracyBoston: Beacon,1966); Guillermo O'Donnell, Modernizationand BureaucraticAuthoritarianism: tudies n SouthAmericanPolitics (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies, 1979).56See Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Huber Stephens, andJohn D. Stephens, CapitalistDevelop-mentand Democracy Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).354 November1996


16/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION, ND GLOBALIZATIONian regimes.57Unfortunatelyfor some, there is no end to history.58 ower-ful empires rise and fall, prosperous nations lose their wealth, anddemocraciescan become tyrannical.59A Different Focus for Comparative Fducation

What does this mean for us as educators? I believe there are threemajor imperatives,the firstbeing to abandona relianceon national com-parisons. Because modern comparativeeducation was conceived in theera of passionatenationalismthat followed WorldWarI, it is not surpris-ing that so much of our work has privilegednationaleducation systemsas units of analysis.60The tradition of "our schools versus theirs," asEdmund King might put it,61continues with efforts to improve statisticsand tests to show who is ahead in the globalacademicrace.These effortsare misguided, as so many of the leading figures of the Comparativeand International Education Society-Arnold Anderson, Philip Foster,Harold Noah, BarbaraYates, and Gary Theisen, among others-haveinsisted in their criticismsof nationalcomparisons.62Today more than ever, an exclusive focus on national differencesblinds us to the sources and benefits of internaldiversity.We risk losinga unique chance to use our science to contributeto a worldwidemovementtoward democratization.People worldwideare demandinga voice in thedecisions that affect their lives. They want democracy n their relation-ships, in their families,in their communities,in their placesof work,andin their governments. We hear their cries as a chorus, because each hasa unique history. They contribute different values and different skills,

57 E. Huntington, The Third Wave (Norman: Oklahoma University Press, 1991).58 See Francis Fukuyama, The End of Historyand the LastMan (New York: Free Press, 1992).59See Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the GreatPowers:EconomicChangeand Military Conflictfrom 1500 to 2000 (New York: Vintage, 1987).60"National rivalries are to be decried, but in one field alone can it be claimed without contradic-tion that competition is wholesome and that is in education.... If it is true that rivalries are due tomisunderstanding, the study of national educational systems furnishes one of the most all-embracingapproaches to the comprehension of national aims and ideals" (I. L. Kandel, Educational Yearbook fthe InternationalInstituteof TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity New York: Macmillan, 1925], 1:ix).61 Edmund J. King, OtherSchoolsand Ours,5th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979).62For example, Arnold Anderson, in "Comparative Education over a Quarter Century: Maturityand Challenges," ComparativeEducation Review 21, nos. 2-3 (1977): 405-16, noted that there isgreater variation in "national systems" of education than between them. Max Eckstein, in "The

Comparative Mind," ComparativeEducation Review 27, no. 3 (October 1983): 311-22, argued thatthe metaphor of "national system" obscures important internal differences. Philip Foster, in "Educa-tion and Social Differentiation in Less Developed Countries," ComparativeEducation Review 21,nos. 2-3 (1977): 211-29, commented on the differential allocation and content of education togroups within countries. Barbara A. Yates, in "Comparative Education and the Third World: TheNineteenth Century," ComparativeEducationReview 28, no. 4 (November 1984): 533-49, discussedvariations within colonial transplants. Gary L. Theisen, Paul P. W. Achola, and Francis Musa Boakari,in "The Underachievement of Cross-National Studies of Achievement," ComparativeEducationReview27, no. 1 (February 1983): 46-68, decried the underachievement of cross-national studies.Comparative Education Review 355


17/18

MC GINNand some voices carry farther than others. Their diversity produces arich harmony.Second, our work should seek to increase democratic participationamong all peoples. Diversity is not only attractive, but also, more im-portant, provides the means to offset the wasting power of entropy. Hu-man, as well as physical, systems lose energy over time and can onlysurvive and thrive by increasing organizational complexity, that is, byincreasing both internal diversity and integration.63 Systems die whentheir membership becomes too homogeneous to respond to a changingenvironment. Democratization-understood as the participation of allpeople in framing and making decisions that affect them-is essential tosocial and political integration, because it makes possible concerted actionwithout erasing fundamental differences. Research in comparative educa-tion can contribute to democratization by celebrating communities of in-terest at local, national, and global levels.Although the antidemocratic forces I have described are strong, wedo not have to retreat into deterministic fatalism. The same flows thatare so disruptive of national institutions of social and political integrationalso increase our international contacts, permitting integration at a higherlevel. The same economic forces that reduce the role of labor in theproduction of basic necessities permit us to design economies and strate-gies for worker organizations to achieve equity and justice. The sameprocesses that reduce the effectiveness of schools as agents of socializationalso make possible new kinds of education for the formation of interna-tional communities.

Finally, our work should be designed to increase, rather than diminish,the role of publicpolitics in social and economic life. Research on educationand democratization clearly demonstrates that democratic engagement inadult life is the result of having participated as a youth. Cognitive knowl-edge and attitudes do not predict later participation, but student participa-tion in adult political activities does. In other words, direct participationin political affairs is the best school for democracy.If schools increase such participation by young people, they also willincrease overall levels of political activity in society. That is, the best wayto increase democratic political participation is to politicize the societiesin which we live.64In addition to training in the skills of democracy-com-munication, deliberative process, negotiation, and coalition formation-democratization requires increased awareness of unmet objectives and the

63Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, OrderOutof Chaos:Man'sNew Dialogue withNature (NewYork: Bantam, 1984).64See Luis Albala-Bertrand, "The Need to Reinforce Citizenship Education Worldwide: A Con-ceptual Framework for Research," EducationalInnovationand Information82 (May 1995): 2-9; Verbaet al. (n. 8 above).356 November 1996


18/18

EDUCATION,DEMOCRATIZATION,ND GLOBALIZATIONobstacles to their realization. Each group has different objectives,andwhile democratization equiresattentionto those differences, it also seeksintegration into a shared process of problem solving.Our research,therefore, shouldnot be restricted o the use of nationalaggregates to compare complex countries. Instead, we should elaboratethe education and democraticbehavior of both international and localcommunities. It is important to rememberthat the term "nation"origi-nallyreferred to a people with a commonlanguageandculture.Accordingto that definition, there are about 5,000 nations in the world, althoughthere are fewer than 200 nation-states. Differences of race and gendershould be honored rather than ignored. We should abandon researchthat, even within countries, treats education or schooling as commonacrossgroups, varyingonly in quantity.We cannot design effective pro-grams for integration unless we recognizethe enormous wealth that re-sides in the diversityof the human species.The great experiment for CIES is to learn how to use all kinds ofeducation to build a society that honors all people and where all worktogether in the pursuit of the good of all.


education, democratization, and globalization

Documents