Abstract
Education reduces the intergenerational transfer of poverty and boosts growth according to the Social Investment (SI) approach. However, educational systems differ both in their capacity to promote equality and produce the skills needed for today's knowledge economies. Despite extensive scholarship on how education policies vary in their social and economic effects, SI research has only begun to incorporate or otherwise problematize this heterogeneity. Social Investment research needs to go beyond calling for ‘more’ education to systematically address the variegated social and economic effects of education policies. Further theorizing is needed to explore how different education policies stand to realize the aims of SI and draw out contingencies. With attention to differences among social groups, such analyses would illuminate tensions and trade-offs between the social and economic ambitions of SI as well as between various SI goals, on the one hand, and other societal objectives and values, on the other hand.
Education reduces the intergenerational transfer of poverty and boosts growth according to the Social Investment (SI) approach (Morel et al., 2011). However, educational systems differ in their capacity to promote equality and produce the skills needed in today's knowledge economies. Despite extensive scholarship on how education policies vary in their social and economic effects, SI research has only begun to incorporate or otherwise problematize this heterogeneity. Further theorizing is needed to explore how different education policies stand to realize the aims of SI and draw out possible trade-offs and tensions.
The quantitative SI literature tends to assess the aggregate effects of education. Education policies are operationalized using government outlays, often measured as a percentage of GDP. Any increase in resources or participation is interpreted as a shift towards SI. Analyses of the effects of spending on outcomes, such as employment, often uphold the logic that skill investments boost the economy and well-being. Yet aside from a study examining whether education prior to labour market entry complements later training for different population subgroups (Plavgo, 2023), SI research is lacking on the way different education policies structure social and economic outcomes for particular groups.
Qualitative research on SI, in turn, looks more closely at particular policy reforms, though overwhelmingly within Early Childhood Education and Care. This focus is important, given the relevance of early skill acquisition for later learning. Related studies have focused explicitly on issues of access by examining Matthew Effects and thus the barriers faced by lower-income groups (Cantillon and Van Lancker, 2013) as well as the role of affordability and quality (De la Porte et al., 2023; West et al., 2020). Yet SI studies on other levels of education are lacking, even on topics where considerable research exists (e.g., differentiated and tracked education systems). Another stream of qualitative SI research distinguishes policies by their function and distributive profile (Garritzmann et al., 2022), though it does not systematically address whether some education policies address SI aims better than others, despite some hints in this direction (e.g., Busemeyer and Garritzmann, 2022).
Social Investment research needs to go beyond calling for ‘more’ education to systematically address the variegated social and economic effects of education policies. With attention to differences among social groups, such analyses would illuminate tensions and trade-offs between the social and economic ambitions of SI as well as between various SI goals, on the one hand, and other societal objectives and values, on the other hand. Following Goertz (2008), further conceptualization would require using theory to delineate the effects of particular education policies and then placing these policies and their effects in relation to each other. Unpacking how education policies tend to operate would draw our attention to the role of different levels of education, fields of study, types of skills, and issues related to funding and provision.
Two examples illuminate the issues that further conceptualization could address. First, recent reforms to boost daycare participation raise the often overlooked issue of whether the SI state should coerce investment (Hansen, 2019, 178–179). Since 2023, Swedish municipalities are obliged to provide information about daycare to families of unenrolled 3-year olds, whereas the Danish ‘Ghetto Plan’ imposes sanctions for non-participation of children with poor Danish skills in areas with high immigration. The coercive Danish plan could lead to stigmatization and discrimination, social ills that need to be considered alongside SI aims of skill acquisition. Yet the more voluntarist Swedish information campaign may not suffice to boost enrolment.
Second, the SI approach also emphasizes lifelong learning, an aim that requires smooth progression, or mobility between levels or types of education. Yet enabling progression and thus labour mobility conflicts with the aim of providing high-quality vocational skills (Busemeyer, 2009). As a case in point, a large Swedish upper-secondary-school reform, Gy2011, removed automatic eligibility to higher education for vocational students on the grounds that gaining deeper vocational skills is more important than acquiring the general skills needed in higher education. Automatic eligibility was then reinstated in 2023. The SI approach is currently silent on how to address conflicting goals, such as those between progression and occupational preparedness.
Although often pitched as a win–win, the SI approach involves tensions and trade-offs, both internal to the goals of the approach itself and in relation to broader societal objectives and values. Further conceptualization of education promises to develop our understanding of these issues.
