WhatisaJustEducationalSystem?

AresponsetothereporttotheEuropeanCommission
Lquitdessystmesducatifseuropens.Unensembledindicateurs
(Expertmeeting,Lige,5June2004)
PhilippeVanParijs
UniversitcatholiquedeLouvain
ChaireHooverdthiqueconomiqueetsociale

1.Preamble:Whyindicatorsmatter
Theworkexemplifiedbythisreportisofparamountimportanceforthefateofsocial
justiceinEurope.
Ifwellconducted,itwillgreatlystrengthen,inthefieldofeducationpolicy,aprocess
analogoustothesocalledOpenMethodofCoordination(OMC)asitalreadyoperatestoa
greaterextentintheareasofemploymentandsocialpolicy.Nolessthanthesetwodomains,
educationpolicyis,forreasonstobespelledoutbelow,ofmomentousimportanceforthe
achievementofsocialjustice.ItisalsooneinwhichtheEuropeanUniondoesnothavedirect
legislativepowers.Nonetheless,bymeansoftheOMCtheformulationofsharedobjectives,
thedesigningofindicatorsthatoperationalisetheextenttowhichtheyareachieved,the
commitmentbythememberstatesgovernmentstoprovidereliabledata,andthedefinitionof
benchmarksandtheidentificationofbestpracticesinthelightoftheseindicators,the
EuropeanUnioncanplayapowerfulroleinawaythatisconsistentwiththeautonomyofthe
memberstatesandthediversityofthepoliciestheymaywishtoadopt,indeedinawaythat
protectsthisautonomyandthisdiversityagainstdownwardunificationunderthecompetitive
pressureofmountingglobalisationandthecompletionofthesingleEuropeanmarket.
TheimpactoftheOMCistwofold.Firstly,itconstitutesaninstrumentformaking
differencesintheperformanceofnationalpoliciesvisibletoallinanareaofparticular
importancefortheachievementofsocialjustice.Ittherebyputsnationalgovernmentsunder
pressuretomustergreatereffortintoimprovingtheirperformance.Secondly,itprovidesan
instrumentforthedetectionofthegoodandbadeffectsofnationalpolicies,andhenceformutual
learningfromeachotherssuccessesandfailures,therebyhelpingthosegovernmentswhichwish
todobettertodosoeffectively.Butforthistwofoldimpacttowork,itiscrucialtodevise
intelligentindicatorsthatcaptureadequatelyacountrysperformanceasregardsmeaningful
objectivesinthiscaseafaireducationalsystem.Choosingthewrongindicatorswouldcreate
perverseincentives,andhencebeworsethandoingnothing.Hencetheenormousimportanceof
theworkincorporatedinthisreport.

2.Pointofdeparture:Adefensibleconceptionofsocialjustice
Whatisafairorjusteducationalsystem?Withoutasatisfactoryanswertothisquestion,
thesearchforindicatorslacksguidance.Onepossibleanswer,suggestedbyasmallportionofthe
report,isthatajusteducationalsystemisonethatisregardedasjustbytheirputative
beneficiaries.Tryingtoelicitthepupilsfeelingsabouthowtheyaretreatedbytheirschoolsmay
servesomeusefulpurposes,forexamplethatofcheckingwhetherawidespreadfeelingof
injusticeiscorrelatedwithunrulybehaviourorwithlowereducationalachievementand,ifso,
whetherthefeelingofinjusticeisthecauseortheeffect.Butasawayoffindingasuitablepoint
ofdepartureforassessingthefairnessofaneducationalsystem,itisfundamentallyflawed.If
pupilsareaskedtojudgeactualsituations,theirfeelingsabouthowjustthesystemiswillbe
systematicallybiasedbyignoranceabouthowitworksandwhateffectsitgenerates.Ifinstead
theyareaskedtospellout,abstractingfromanyparticularsituation,theirconceptionofajust
educationalsystem,theaveragingoftheirimprovisedanswerscanhardlyprovideabetterpoint
ofdeparturethanwhatwecanourselvescomeupwith,onduereflection,afterhavingscrutinised
theimplicationsofalternativeproposals,whethergleanedfromtheliteratureorconcoctedfrom
scratch.
Whendoingso,Iconjecturethatweshallquicklyshelve,asdoesthereport,both
utilitarianandlibertarianapproaches.Forautilitarian,therecannotbeanormativelyrelevant
notionofafaireducationalsystem,asopposedtoanefficientone,i.e.onethathelpsasociety
achievethehighestpossiblelevelofaggregatewelfare.Andsuchanefficientsystemmaywellbe
onethat,forexample,systematicallyfiltersoutthosewithbothapoorcapacityandaweakdesire
tobecomeeducatedbyvirtueoftheirpoorsocialbackground.Foralibertarian,ontheother
hand,thereisnonormativelyrelevantnotionofafaireducationalsystemapartfromwhetherit
respectsdulydefinedpropertyrights.Forexample,iftheownersofalllocalschoolsdenyaccess
toethnicminoritiesbecausetheyexpectthemtobetroublemakers,orifnoonebotherstoprovide
anyschoolingtothechildrenoftheindigent,noinjusticewhateverneedstobeinvolved.
Implicationsofthissortcansafelyberegardedasdisqualifyingbothutilitarianismand
libertarianismassuitablepointsofdeparture.
Whatisthenleft?Essentiallyaconceptionofjusticeasequality,oratleastequalisation,
ofopportunities.Thoseattractedbyotherprimafacieplausibleoptions,suchassomeformof
outcomeegalitarianismorsomeformofprincipleofproportionalitytomeritortoeffort,will
converge,onduereflection,tosomeversionofopportunityegalitarianism.AtleastsoIwould
argue,withouthavingthespacetodosointhepresentcontext.
3.Threeinterpretationsofjusticeasequalityofopportunities.
Itis,however,veryimportant,todistinguishthreefamiliesofconceptionsofsocialjustice
asequalityofopportunities.Allthreeagreethatpeoplesachievements,theoutcomestheyreach,
canlegitimatelyturnoutquiteunequalasaresultofbeingaffectedbytheirchoicestheefforts
theydecidetomakeandtheriskstheywillinglytakebutthattheyshouldbegivenequal
opportunitiestoreachtheseoutcomes,atleastinsofarasdoingsoisnotcounterproductive.

WhatIshalltheformalinterpretationofjusticeasequalityofopportunitiesrequirethat
onlypeoplescurrentabilities,theircompetence,shouldaffecttheiropportunities.Itamountsto
indictingdiscriminationinaccesstoeducation,employment,etc.,asexemplifiedbythe
restrictionofsomesubjectstomalestudents,orbydifferentialhiringaccordingtorace.Butfew
peopleinterestedinthefairnessofeducationalsystems,ifany,willfindconceptionsofthisfirst
kindadequate,onceawareoftheextenttowhichchildrenscompetencesareaffectedbytheir
socialbackground,evenintheabsenceofanyformaldiscrimination.
WhatIshallcalltherestrictedinterpretationofjusticeasequalityofopportunities
requiresthatonlypeoplesnaturaltalentsshouldaffecttheiropportunities.Thismakesthe
restrictedinterpretationfarmoredemandingthantheformalone,aspeoplescurrentabilitiescan
themselvesbeaffectedbymanyfactorsbesidestheirnaturaltalents,suchastheirrace,gender,
nationalityorsocialbackground.Restrictedconceptionsrequiretheimpactofallthesefactorsto
beneutralised.Commoninterpretationsofameritocraticapproachtoeducationalfairness,as
wellaswidespreadunderstandingsofeducationalinjusticeasreproduction,inBourdieu&
Passerons(1970)sense,belongtothissecondfamily.
Finally,whatIshallcallthecomprehensiveinterpretationofjusticeasequalityof
opportunitiesrequirestheimpactofalldeterminantsofopportunitytobeneutralised.
Opportunitiesmustbeequaltoall,irrespectivenotonlyoftheirrce,gender,socialbackground,
etc.butalsooftheirinnatetalents.Theis,afterall,nothinglessarbitrary,morallyspeaking,
aboutpeoplebeingricherthanothersthankstothesetalentsthanthankstotheirsocialorigins.
Needlesstosay,thetradeoffbetweentheequalisationofopportunitiesandeconomic
efficiencyisveryunequaldependingonwhichconceptionisadopted.Intheformal
interpretation,equalisingopportunitiesisquitelikelytoincreaseefficiency.Intherestricted
interpretation,itmayhaveacostintermsofefficiency,buthardlyalargeone.Inthe
comprehensiveconception,ontheotherhand,itisboundtohaveaprohibitively,indeedabsurdly
highcost.Theoriesofjusticethatadoptthecomprehensiveinterpretationofequalityof
opportunitieswillthereforetendeithertosettleforequalityatsomebasiclevel,asinAmartya
Sens(1985,1992)equalityofbasiccapabilities,ortoreplacestrictequalitybyasustainable
maximin,i.e.alastingmaximizationoftheopportunitiesopentothosewithleastopportunities,
asinmyownconceptionofjusticeasrealfreedomforall(VanParijs1995).
4.JohnRawlsstwoprinciplesfortheequalisationofopportunities
Onthisbackground,the(nonexclusive)privilegegiveninthereporttoonespecific
conceptionofsocialjustice,namelyJohnRawlss,appearsfullyjustified.Thisisnotonly
becauseofthepivotalroleplayedbyJohnRawlss(1971,2001)theoryofjusticeinany
contemporarydiscussionofsocialjustice,owingtotherigorousandoriginalwayinwhichhis
principlesarticulatefreedomandequality,efficiencyandresponsibility.Thisisalso,more
specifically,becausehisprincipleoffairequalityofopportunity(PFEO)equalopportunityfor
giventalentsisnothingbutastandardformulationoftherestrictedinterpretationcharacterised
above,whilehisdifferenceprinciple(DP)canbeinterpretedasasensiblewayofcapturing
whateverthereisinthecomprehensiveinterpretationofequalityofopportunitiesthatisnot
alreadycapturedbytherestrictedone.Thelatterpointdeservesabriefexplanation,especiallyas
3

thedifferenceprincipleisoftenwronglyinterpretedasaprincipleofmaximinoutcome
maximisationoftheoutcomefortheworstoff,withtheoutcomeformulatedintermsofan
indexofsocialandeconomicadvantagesorevensometimesintermsofwelfare.
Rawlsconceivesofasocietyasasystemofunequalsocialpositions,inthesensethat
theirincumbentscanexpectonaverage,overtheirlifetimes,unequallevelsofsocialand
economicadvantages,asmeasuredbyanindexthatintegrateswealthandincome,thepowersand
prerogativesattachedtothosepositions,andwhatRawlscallsthesocialbasesofselfrespect.The
PFEOdemandsthatthesepositionsshouldbeequallyopentoall,forgivenlevelsoftalent,
whereastheDPrequiresthattotheworstofthesepositionsshouldbeassociatedashighan
expectedlevelofsocialandeconomicadvantagesasissustainable.Thisstipulationisnotabout
theoutcomesactuallyachievedbythevariousindividualmembersofasociety,because
outcomeswillvary,amongincumbentsofthesamesocialposition,depending,forexample,on
howmuchovertimeworktheyperform,onhowmuchtheyspendonexpensiveholidays,on
whethertheymanagetoavoidcostlydivorcesbybehavingdecentlywiththeirpartners,onhow
goodabargaintheymakewhenbuyingorsellingtheirhouses,onhowwelltheylookaftertheir
familieshealth,andoncountlessotherfactors.Hence,thesubjectoftheDPisratherthe
opportunitiesoftheworstoff,theoptionsthatwillbeaccessibleovertheirlifetimetotheleast
fortunatethoseleastwellservedbytheir(innate)talents,bytheirfamilybackground(tothe
extentnotneutralisedbythePFEO)andbysheerlucktowhomonlytheworstsocialpositions
areaccessible.
TheDPdoesnotdemandafullequalisationoftheexpectationsassociatedtoallsocial
positions.Formoretalentedpeopletendtoneedincentivestoattractthemtothepositionsin
whichtheywillputtheirtalentstothesociallymostusefuluse,andtodeveloptheirtalentsin
suchawaythattheycanoccupythesepositionscompetently.Andanefficientdevelopmentand
allocationoftheavailabletalentsisessentialiftheamountofsocialandeconomicadvantagesto
besharedamongall,includingtheincumbentsoftheworstoffpositions,isnottoshrinkunduly.
Unequalopportunitiesinthissense,i.e.unequallifetimeexpectationsofincome,wealthand
otheradvantagesdependinginparticularonhowtalentedonehappenstobe,canconsequentlybe
justifiedonthebasisoftheDP,butonlytotheextentthattheyhelpboostthelifetime
expectationsassociatedwiththepositionsaccessibletotheleastfortunate,inparticulartheleast
talented.Inthislight,theDPfitseasilyintowhathasbeenlabelledabovethecomprehensive
interpretationofequalityofopportunities,withstrictequalityweakened,outofefficiency
concerns,intoasustainablemaximin.(SeeVanParijs2002foradetaileddiscussionoftheDP.)
Thusclarified,RawlssPFEOandhisDPprovide,asweshallseeshortly,ausefulwayof
organisingmostoftheindicesofeducationalfairnessusedinthereport.Thoserelevanttothe
assessmentofthedegreetowhichthePFEOissatisfiedwillmakesensetoanyonecommittedto
eithertherestrictedorthecomprehensiveinterpretationofjusticeasequalityofopportunities.
ThoserelevanttotheassessmentofthedegreetowhichtheDPissatisfiedwillmakesenseonly
tothosecommittedtoacomprehensiveinterpretation.

5.MeasuringtheachievementofFairEqualityofOpportunity
Asafirstapproximation,theextenttowhichthePFEOisviolatedcanbemeasuredbythe
strengthofthecorrelationbetweensuchvariablesasrace,gender,nationality,residence,parental
income,parentalstatusorparentaleducationontheonehand,andontheotherhandaccesstoand
successatthevariouslevelsofschoolingorlevelsofcompetenceachieved.Measuringsuch
correlationsisundoubtedlyrelevant,butitisimportanttobeawarethattheabsenceofany
significantcorrelationbetweenthesevariablesisneithernecessarynorsufficientforthefull
satisfactionofthePFEO.
Theabsenceofanysignificantcorrelationisnotanecessaryconditionfortwodistinct
reasons.Firstly,asignificantcorrelationmayreflectdifferencesinpreferencesbetweendifferent
categories,ratherthandifferencesinpossibilities.Andwhatmatters,forthesakeofthePFEOis
theequaldistributionofpossibilitiesirrespectiveofgender,ethnicgroup,socialclass,etc.,not
theequaldistributionofprobabilities.Thelatterarealsoaffectedbypreferences,whichwehave
noreasontopresumetobeidenticalinallcategories.Thisqualificationisimportant,butitneeds
tobehandledwithcare,bothbecausemodestpreferencesmaybetheprotractedeffectofmodest
possibilitiesandbecausedifferencesintheparentspreferencescannotjustifyinequalitiesinthe
childrenspossibilities.
Secondly,onecannotruleoutapriorithatasignificantcorrelationbetweeneducational
achievementandsocialoriginmayreflectdifferencesininnatetalents.Forexample,Herrnstein
andMurray(1994)havenotoriouslyarguedthat,byfosteringhomogamyintermsofintellectual
capacity,femaleaccesstoalllevelsofeducation,hasunintentionallygeneratedapolarizationof
theU.S.genepoolintermsofinnateIQ.Theirempiricalclaimshavebeenchallengedandmay
bewrong.Butnolawoflogicornaturerulesoutthattheymaybetrue.Forthesakeofthe
argument,supposethattheyaretrue.Inaknowledgebasedeconomy,onecanthensafelyexpect
asignificantcorrelationbetweenthegeneticcomponentofintellectualcapacitiesandsocialclass.
Andifthisisactuallythecase,equalityofopportunitiesforgiventalentsisconsistentwiththe
indefinitepersistenceofasignificantcorrelationbetweensocialoriginandeducational
achievement,indeedwithagrowingcorrelationasgenderbasedinequalityofopportunitykeeps
beingeroded.
Ontheotherhand,theabsenceofacorrelationbetweeneducationalachievementand
socialorigin(andotherunchosencharacteristicsexcepttalents)isnotsufficientforthe
satisfactionofthePFEO,aswhatmatterswithrespecttothelatterisnottheenjoymentof
educationalopportunitiesassuch,buttheinfluenceofthisenjoymentonaccesstobotheconomic
andsocialbenefitsthroughoutpeopleslives(thereportrightlydoesnotconsideronlyeconomic
opportunities:seeesp.A.1.2).Iftheneutralisationoftheimpactofsocialbackgroundon
educationalachievementweresystematicallyaccompaniedbyaneutralisationoftheimpactof
educationalachievementonprofessionalsuccess,forexample,preciouslittlemayhavebeen
gainedforthesakeofsocialjusticeasequalityofopportunities.Butifthereisacorrelation
betweeneducationalachievementandeconomicandsocialsuccessinlifewhichisnotreducible
totheimpactonbothofacommoncausalfactor,thenareductionofthecorrelationbetweennon
talentfactorsandeducationalachievementdoesgenerateabettersatisfactionofthePFEO,even
ifthecorrelationbetweenschoolingandeconomicandsocialsuccesshadnothingtodowith

whatisbeinglearnedatschoolandwasentirelyduetotheimpactofthenetworkitenablesoneto
acquireoreventotheselectioneffect.
Inthislight,threesetsofindicatorsfeaturinginthereportareobviouslyrelevanttothe
assessmentoftheextenttowhichthePFEOissatisfied.Firstly,itisrelevanttoasktowhatextent
variouseducationalsystemsspecificallydevoteresourcestoimprovingtheeducational
achievementsofchildrenwithalessfavourablebackground:areclasssizessmaller,teachers
morenumerous,etc.forpoorerchildren,forchildrenwithimmigrantparents,etc.?(Seecolumns
(5)and(6)inB.1.2.)
However,focusingresourcesinthiswaymayproveineffective.Farmoreimportantis
therefore,secondly,thesetofindicatorsthatrevealstheextenttowhichrace,gender,social
background,etc.actuallycorrelatewithaccesstoandsuccessatthevariouslevelsofeducation.
(Seetheintergroupdifferencesintables23ofC.1.1andC.3.1).
Thirdlyandfinally,onehastocheckthattheneutralisationoftheimpactofthese
variablesoneducationalachievementisnotoffsetbyafallinthereturntoeducational
achievement,whetheronaverageorspecificallyfortheleastadvantaged.(SeeA.1.1,A.1.2and
D.1.1.)
6.MeasuringthesatisfactionoftheDifferencePrinciple:centralindicators
ItwasobviousenoughthatthePFEOhadtogiveakeyroletotheeducationalsystem.
OnlyalittlemorereflectionisneededtorealizethattheDPtoocanonlyberealisedifthe
educationalsystemfunctionsadequately.Butthecriteriafordecidingwhetheritdoesarequite
different,andhencealsothesetofindicatorsthatbecomesrelevant.
RememberthatwhattheDPrequiresisthatthesocialinstitutionsshouldbesodesigned
sothattheexpectationsassociatedtotheworstsocialpositionsshouldbeasgoodaspossible.In
ordertoachievethis,cashbenefitscertainlyhavearoletoplay,inaformthatmustmakesurenot
totrapbeneficiariesinasituationofexclusionfromeconomicandsocialparticipationbearin
mindthattherelevantexpectationsarenotonlyaboutincomeandwealth,butalsoaboutpowers
andprerogativesandaboutthesocialbasesofselfrespect.Rawlsinsists,however,thatthe
marketregimethatisjustifiedbyhisDPisnotwelfarestatecapitalismamarketsystemwith
residualpaymentstothosewhosemarketincomeisnotsufficientforsubsistence.Itisratherwhat
hecallsapropertyowningdemocracy,i.e.amarketsysteminwhichcapitalandinparticular
humancapitalissowidelyspreadthatsocialassistanceisonlyrequiredinexceptionalcases.
Fromthisperspective,aneducationalsystemthatequipsallcitizenswithalltheyneednotonlyto
findadecentlypaidjob,butalsotogetalongintheotheraspectsoftheirlives,suchaschoosing
adoctor,rentingaflatorselectinganinternetprovider,isofparamountimportance.
Forthisreason,thesetofindicatorsthatismostrelevanttoassesstheextenttowhichthe
DPisrealizedisnottheoneexplicitlyconnectedwiththelatterinthereporthowmuchwill
thebesteducateddoforthepoor(seeD2.1),towhichIshallreturnshortly.Itratherneedsto
beconcernedwithcharacterisingwhataneducationalsystemachievesforitspupilpopulation
takenasawhole.Whatmatters,however,isneithertheaveragelevelofcompetenceachieved,
northeinequalityinthecompetenceachieved(asmeasuredbythestandarddeviation,the
6

varianceorwhatever:seeC.1.1),butratherhowwelleducatedtheworsteducatedofthesystem
managetobe.
Itisthereforerelevant,firstly,toassesstheresourcesdeployedforthesakeofimproving
theachievementoftheweakerpupils(seecolumn(7)ofB.1.3).Buthereagain,themeansare
lessimportantthantheoutcomes.Hence,itisevenmorerelevanttodevelopindicesanalogousto
povertyindices,butwithanindexoftheminimumlevelofcompetencerequiredforfunctioning
reasonablywellinoureconomiesandsocietiesintheplaceoftheminimumlevelofincome
requiredforsubsistingreasonablywell.Thismaytaketheformofaheadcountofthe
incompetent(howmuchshortarewefromuniversalminimumcompetenceintermsof
percentageofthetotalpopulation)orofagap(howmuchshortareweofuniversalcompetence
intermsoftheamountofcompetencetobeprovidedtothelessthanminimallycompetent).(See
C.1.2.).Alternatively,insteadofusingsomeanalogueofapovertylinetodesigntheindicators,I
suggestthatitwouldmakealotofsensetousethesamedatainordertocalculate,foreach
country,howhighanaveragelevelofcompetenceitseducationalsystemmanagestoprovideto
its10,5or1%leastcompetentpupilsorperhaps,ifthatturnsouttobemoreinformative,how
largethemeanandvarianceofthecompetenceofthecountrys5%leastcompetentis.
Whetherforthislastcoupleofsuggestionsorfortheanaloguesofpovertymeasures,the
questionunavoidablyarises(aspointedoutinthereportonpp.10102)whetherthelevelsof
competencethatmakesenseinainternationalcomparisonsshouldbeassessedrelativetothe
countrysmeanormedianorratherusingacountryindependentstandard.ItisclearthatRawlss
DP,asacriterionofmaximinexpectations(ratherthanofmaximallyequalexpectations),should
notbeinterpretedincountryrelativebutinabsoluteterms.However,oneshouldnotrushtoinfer
thatthisalsoholdsforaRawlsianassessmentofmaximineducationalachievement.For
educationmatters,asfarastheDPisconcerned,mainlybyvirtueofwhatitgivesaccessto,and
partofthisaccessinparticularaccesstoajobisstronglydependentontheeducational
achievementofotherresidentsofthesamecountry.Thesameabsolutelevelofeducationmay
thereforeprovideaguaranteeofajobinonecountry,whilebeingasurerecipeforlongterm
unemploymentinanother.Ontheotherhand,somecapacitieslearnedatschoolareaboutequally
usefulwhereveronelives,andastheEuropeanmarketbecomesmoreintegrated,employment
relatededucationalrequirementstendtoconverge.Allthingsconsidered,therefore,takingthe
weakest15%ofallcountriesasthebenchmarkforcalculatingheadcountsandgaps,andhence
usingthesameabsolutelevelofminimalcompetenceinallcountries,shouldmakemoresense
thantakingtheweakest15%withineachcountry.Andforthesamereason,comparingthe
averagelevelsoftheweakest5%orwhateverineachcountry,asIsuggestedabove,shouldbe
doneusingthesameabsolutestandard.
7.MeasuringthesatisfactionoftheDifferencePrinciple:additionalindicators
Theseindicatorsabouthowgoodaneducationalsystemmanagestobefortheworst
achieversareundoubtedlyrelevantforassessinghowwellacountryisdoingasfarastheDPis
concerned.Butitwouldbewrongtostopthere.Foritisanotheressentialfunctionofthe
educationalsystem,nolesscentrally,thoughmoreindirectly,relevanttotheDP,thatitboosts
societysproductivecapacityandhencealsoitscapacitytodurablyboosttheexpectationsofthe

worstoff.Forthisreason,somemeasureofeacheducationalsystemsoverallefficiencyin
producingproductivecompetence,aswellasofitsoverallcost,shouldalsobepartofthepicture.
Forincreasingthecompetenceoftheleastcompetentmightconceivablycomeatacosteitherin
termsoftheaveragelevelofcompetenceachievedbythepupilpopulationasawholeorinterms
oftheresourcesdevotedtotherelevantlevelsofeducation.Forexample,thesuggestion(p.124),
inconnectionwithFinland,thatthereisnotradeoffbetweenefficiencyandequityshouldbe
checkedbearingthecostdimensioninmind.Theremaybenotradeoff,oronlyaverymildone,
butitisimportanttofindout,aslessoverallcompetencemeansasmallerproductivepotential
whileahigherresourcebillmeansasmallerbudgetforotherpublicexpenditures,andthereis
thereforeinbothcasesasmallerpotentialforboostinginwaysotherthanthrougheducationthe
expectationsoftheworstoff,andhencethesatisfactionoftheDP.
Further,thereisofcoursenoguaranteethattheproductivitygeneratedbyacompetent
labourforceisbeingusedtoboosttheexpectationsoftheworstoff.Estimatesofthefiscalreturn
ofeducation(brieflyalludedtoinfn6p.171ofthereport,butdismissedinpartbecauseofalack
ofcomparablefigures),thoughnotdecisive,arerelevantinthisperspective.Anegativefiscal
returnofpostobligatoryeducation,forexample,wouldjustifyastrongsuspicionthatthe
educationalsystemisnotfair.Itmust,however,beobservedthattheverynotionofaggregate
fiscalreturnisprettytricky,asoneneedstotrytoimaginecounterfactuallyhowmuchthere
wouldbeforthestatetocashinifitdidnotfundpostobligatoryeducationhowmanypeople
wouldstillundertakepostobligatoryeducation,forhowlongandinwhatfield,howmany
graduateswouldmoveinfromabroad,etc.,whichisnotthesumofwhateachindividual
wouldhavebeentaxedhadhehadnopostobligatoryeducation,asitcanbeassessedfrom
currentincomedifferentials(cfA.1.1).
Evenifitcouldbeuncontroversiallymeasured,thefiscalreturnwouldstillnotprovidean
appropriateindicatorofhowwelltheglobalefficiencyoftheeducationalsystemisusedto
furtherthesatisfactionoftheDP,astheexpenditurefinancedbythisreturnmayhavenothingto
dowithboostingtheexpectationsoftheworstoff.Anadditionalrelevantindicatoristheextent
towhichpovertyhasshrunkasaresultoftransfers(seeD.2.1.andp.171).Hereagain,thereare
variouspitfalls.First,povertymayshrinkverylittlebecausetherewasverylittleofitinthefirst
place(pretransferpovertyratesshouldbementionednexttothepovertyreductionratesinorder
torevealthis),owingpreciselytoaneducationalsystemthatisgoodatboostingthecompetence
oftheleastcompetent.Butthisdifficultycanbehandledbyviewingitasacomplementandnota
substitutefortheindexesofworstachievementdiscussedabove.Secondly,mostpoverty
reductionindicesofthissortoperateonadatabaseconsistingoftimesliceincomedistributions
(ratherthanlifetime)andthereforetreataspovertyalleviationpartoftheeffectofanearnings
relatedpensionsystemthatsimplyshiftsaportionofgoodwagesfromtheactivetotheinactive
periodofanaffluentpersonslife.Thirdly,thistypeofmeasurefailstocapturethecrucial
differencebetweenontheonehandahighlytargetedassistanceorunemploymentinsurance
systemthatreducesincomepovertyatthecostofcreatingsteepunemploymenttraps,andhence
durablyimpairingthebeneficiariesaccesstojobsandtheassociatedpowers,prerogativesand
selfrespect,andontheotherhandvariantsofamoreactivesocialstatewhichperformbetterin
termsofdimensionsofpeoplesopportunitiesthandonotreducetopurchasingpowerandareno
lessrelevanttotheDP.

Despiteallthesedifficulties,itisessentialtosomehowsupplementanassessmentofthe
directimpactoftheeducationalsystemonthecompetencesoftheworstoffwithanassessment
oftheimpactoftheveryunequalcompetencesitproducesonasocialproductthatispartyused
toboosttheoptionsoftheworstoff,whetherthroughinstitutionaltransfersincashorinkindor
indeeddirectlythroughgeneralprosperityandtheassociatedjobcreation.TheDPwillbebetter
approximatedbyasystemthattrainspeoplemoreunequallyifitboostsmoretheexpectationsof
theleastcompetentinthisindirectway.Inequalitiesinthedistributionofcompetencesandthe
associatedexpectationscouldbejustifiedalongtheselines.
Theapproachsuggestedbythislastsetofindicatorsbringsusclosertotheexplicit
connectionmadeinthereportbetweentheDPandtheattitudesandbehaviourofthehighly
educated(D.2.1andpp.12938).Letmefirstremarkthatthewayinwhichtheconnectionis
phrasedissometimesmisleading.True,theDPcanbeinterpretedasstatingthatunequal
expectationscanbejustifiediftheycontributetoimprovingtheexpectationsoftheworstoff,and
hence,arguably,thatunequallevelsofeducationcansimilarlybejustifiediftheyworkforthe
benefitoftheworstoff.But,contrarytowhatthereportsuggests(esp.pp.127and130),saying
thatinequalitiesineducationworkforthebenefitoftheworstoffisnotequivalenttostatingthat
themoreeducatedworkforthebenefitoftheworstoff,whichisalltheD.2.1indicatorscapture
andeventhat,onlyinthebestcases,assomeofthemarenotevenaboutwhatthehighly
educateddoforthelessadvantaged,butabouthowtheyfeeltowardsthem.Sincetheindicators
proposeddonotenableustoassesswhetherthebettereducatedtendtodothesethingsmorethan
thelesseducated(anindicatorofthedifferentialisexplicitlydiscarded),themeasuredimpactof
theeducationsystemisonlythroughequippingsomepeopletodothishelpingmoreeffectively
thanwouldbethecaseiftheywerelesseducated,notthroughmakingthemoreeducatedmore
altruisticallydisposedthanthelesseducated.
Now,themagnitudeofthisimpactontheworstoffneednotbenegligible:marvellous
institutionsliketheUKsCitizensAdviceBureausorliteracyclassesforimmigrantwomenin
manyEuropeancities,whichrelylargelyonthevoluntaryworkofcomparativelyeducated
retirees,housewivesorstudentscanplausiblybeconjecturedtomakequiteadifferencetothe
expectationsassociatedwiththeworstsocialposition,typicallybyprovidingcrucialinformation,
adviceorunderstandingatcriticaljuncturesinthelivesofcomparativelydisadvantagedpeople.
Nonetheless,thiseffectofspreadingeducationmakingnongovernmentalinformalassistance
moreeffectiveisboundtobedwarfed,underwellfunctioninginstitutions,bytheeffectithas
onadomesticproductalargeportionofwhichistaxedtoprovide,throughformalchannels,
healthcare,socialsecurityandindeedafairlyhighlevelofeducationtoall.Seninspired
indicatorsofeducationalweakness,ratesoffiscalreturntoeducationandratesofpoverty
reductioninducedbythetaxandtransfersystemsarethereforeatleastasRawlsianasare,
accordingtothereport(seep.138aboutSweden),ratesofvoluntaryhelpofthepoortotherich.
OncetheseclarificationsaremadeandtherangeofRawlsianindicatorsconsiderably
broadened,Finlandwillprobablystillemergeashavingthefairesteducationalsystemintermsof
thePFEO,andBelgiumthemostunfair:asuitablyweightedaverageofcolumns(3),(4)and(5)
inTable1ofp.100wouldpresumablyestablishthat.HowcountriesfareintermsoftheDPis
lesseasilydetermined.Finlandisagainatthetop,whileItalyatthebottomintermsof
incompetenceratesandgaps(seeibid,columns(6)and(7)).Butthereisnoindicatorofthe

generalefficiencyoftheeducationalsystemorofitsfiscalreturn(exceptforfourcountriesinfn
6p.171),andonlyfragmentarydata(seeD.2.1)abouthowmuchpovertyisreducedbythetax
andtransfersystem(withDenmarkatthetopandGreeceatthebottom)andaboutthe
involvementofthemoreeducatedinsolidarityassociations(withtheNetherlandsatthetopand
Germanyatthebottom).Consequently,thereislittlebasisforguessingwhichcountrys
educationalsystemisfairestaccordingtotheDP,inthesenseofdoingmostoveralltoimprove
theexpectationsassociatedwiththecountrysworstpositions.
8.Indicatorsforinstruments
Ishallclosebyemphasizingthatindicatorsarenotonlyusefulinallowingustoassess
howfairorunfairthevariouseducationalsystemsare,butalsoinenablingustoconjecturewhy
theyareasfairorunfairastheyarerevealedtobe.Inthisrespectthedataonsegregation,as
estimatedbydissimilarityindicesareparticularlystriking(seeB.2.3onp.63andthecomments
onp.123).Oneinstructive,thoughincidental,featureofthesedataisthattheyillustratethe
sensitivityoftheindicatortolevelsofaggregationandhencetotheregionaldimension:Belgium
isthemostsegregatedcountryintermsoflevelsofcompetencewhenitistakenasawhole,but
itsmeasuredlevelofsegregationdropssignificantlyifonetakesastherelevantindexthe
weightedaverageofthesegregationlevelinitstwoeducationalsystems(Flemishand
francophone)consideredseparately.
Morecentral,however,isthefollowingsuggestion.Theconsiderablevariationinthe
extentofthevariousdimensionsofsegregationprovidesusefulhintsastowhatcouldenable
countriestoimproveatalowcostboththefairnessandtheefficiencyoftheireducational
systems.Thislineismadeparticularpromisingwhenthedataonsegregationarecoupledwith
thedataontheinfluenceofpeerquality(seeesp.thegraphonp.119andthecommentson
p.117):inGermany,Austriaandmostothercountries,whetheryourchildrenwilldowellat
schoolisfarbetterpredictablefromtheaveragesocialstatusoftheparentsoftheirclassmates
thanfromyourown.Thisshouldgoalongwaytowardsexplaining,forexample,whyBelgium,
whichlooksparticularlygenerousintermsofresourcesfocusedontheweakest(seethedataon
classsizeinB.1.2,p.57),isdoingsobadlyintermsofneutralisingtheimpactofsocial
backgroundorimprovingthecompetenceoftheweakest.Forexample,thepotentialforcross
pupiltutoring,whoseeffectivenesswasforcefullyemphasizedinhercommentbyCarolFitz
Gibbon,ispresumablygreatlyreducedinmorehomogeneousclasses.Moreover,assuggested
elsewhereinthereport(p.78),socialmixityshouldalsobeagoodforthesakeoffostering
informalsolidaritybetweenthebetteroffandtheworseoff.Moreimportantlyperhaps,itshould
beamajorfactorinsecuringstableandwidespreadpoliticalsupportforgenerous
institutionalisedsolidarity.
Finally,itisimportanttorealisethat,morethaneverundercontemporaryconditions,a
countryschoolingsystemisonlypartofitseducationalsystem.Childrenspendlesstimeinside
classroomsthaninfrontoftelevisionandcomputerscreens.Thisenablesthemtolearn,very
unequally,allsortsofknowledgeandskillswhichmayturnouttobefarmoreimportantthan
muchofwhattheylearnatschool.CompetenceinEnglishasasecondlanguage,forexample,is
nodoubtamajorinfluenceonchildrensfutureopportunitiesthroughoutcontinentalEurope.But

10

crossnationalvariationinbothitsaveragelevelanditsspread(asrevealedinEurobarometer54,
2001)arguablyowesfarmoretowhetherEnglishlanguageTVprogrammesaredubbedor
subtitledonthechannelstheywatch,thantoanyfeatureoftheireducationalsystems.Similarly,
variationintheaveragelevelandinequalityincomputerliteracycanplausiblybeconjecturedto
havefarlesstodowiththenumberofhoursallocatedtocomputercoursesatschoolthanwiththe
wayinwhichmunicipallibraries,thespreadofinternetcafes,thetaxsystemorwhateverelse
havehelpedspreadaccesstocomputersandtheinternettochildrenofallsocialbackgrounds.
Bothatthelevelofassessingtherealisationoftheobjectivesbynotrestrictingthe
competenceteststonarrowlyschoolishskillsandatthelevelofdetectingthekeyinstruments
forachievingthembybroadeningthesightbeyondtheclassroom,itisimportantthatthe
indicatorsshouldnotshrinkafaireducationalsystemtoafairschoolsystem.Thisismyfinal
suggestiontotheauthorsofareportwhichIfoundextremelyinstructive,extremelystimulating
and,forthereasonsspelledoutatthebeginning,extremelyimportantfortheprospectsofajust
Europe.

References
Bourdieu,Pierre&Passeron,JeanClaude.1970.LaReproduction.Paris:Minuit.
Herrnstein,Richard&Murray,Charles.TheBellCurve.IntelligenceandClassStructurein
AmericanLife.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.
Rawls,John.1971.ATheoryofJustice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rawls,John.2001.JusticeasFairness.ARestatement.Cambridge(Mass):HarvardUniversity
Press.
Sen,Amartya.1985.CommoditiesandCapabilities.Amsterdam:NorthHolland.
Sen,Amartya.1992.InequalityReexamined.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
VanParijs,Philippe.1995.RealFreedomforAll.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
VanParijs,Philippe.2003.DifferencePrinciples,inTheCambridgeCompaniontoJohnRawls
(SamuelFreemaned.),NewYork&Cambridge:C.U.P.,200240.

11