Education policy and national income distribution: New evidence from recent cross -country data

In the mid 19th century, Horace Mann insisted that a broad provision of public schooling should take precedence over the liberal education of an elite group. In that regard, his generation constructed a state sponsored common schooling enterprise to educate the masses. More than 100 years later, the institution of public schooling fails to maintain an image fully representative of the ideals of equity and inclusion. Critical theory in educational thought associates the dominant practice of functional schooling with maintenance of the status quo, an unequal distribution of financial, political, and social resources. This study examined the empirical basis for the association of public schooling with the status quo using the most recent and comparable cross-country income inequality data. Multiple regression analysis evaluated the possible relationship between national income inequality change over the period 1985-2005 and variables representative of national measures of education supply in the prior decade. The estimated model of income inequality development attempted to quantify the relationship between education supply factors and subsequent income inequality developments by controlling for economic, demographic, and exogenous factors. The sample included all nations with comparable income inequality data over the measurement period, N = 56. Does public school supply affect national income distribution? The estimated model suggested that an increase in the average years of schooling among the population age 15 years or older, measured over the period 1975-1985, provided a mechanism that resulted in a more equal distribution of income over the period 1985-2005 among low and lower-middle income nations. The model also suggested that income inequality increased less or decreased more in smaller economies and when the percentage of the population age < 15 years grew more slowly over the period 1985-2000. In contrast, this study identified no significant relationship between school supply changes measured over prior periods and income inequality development over the period 1985-2005 among upper-middle and high income nations.

Political strategy, leadership, and policy entrepreneurship in Japanese defense policy and politics: A comparison of three prime ministerships

Since the end of the Cold War, Japan's defense policy and politics has gone through significant changes. Throughout the post cold war period, US-Japan alliance managers, politicians with differing visions and preferences, scholars, think tanks, and the actions of foreign governments have all played significant roles in influencing these changes. Along with these actors, the Japanese prime minister has played an important, if sometimes subtle, role in the realm of defense policy and politics. Japanese prime ministers, though significantly weaker than many heads of state, nevertheless play an important role in policy by empowering different actors (bureaucratic actors, independent commissions, or civil actors), through personal diplomacy, through agenda-setting, and through symbolic acts of state. The power of the prime minister to influence policy processes, however, has frequently varied by prime minister. My dissertation investigates how different political strategies and entrepreneurial insights by the prime minister have influenced defense policy and politics since the end of the Cold War. In addition, it seeks to explain how the quality of political strategy and entrepreneurial insight employed by different prime ministers was important in the success of different approaches to defense. My dissertation employs a comparative case study approach to examine how different prime ministerial strategies have mattered in the realm of Japanese defense policy and politics. Three prime ministers have been chosen: Prime Minister Hashimoto Ryutaro (1996-1998); Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro (2001-2006); and Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio (2009-2010). These prime ministers have been chosen to provide maximum contrast on issues of policy preference, cabinet management, choice of partners, and overall strategy. As my dissertation finds, the quality of political strategy has been an important aspect of Japan's defense transformation. Successful strategies have frequently used the knowledge and accumulated personal networks of bureaucrats, supplemented bureaucratic initiatives with top-down personal diplomacy, and used a revitalized US-Japan strategic relationship as a political resource for a stronger prime ministership. Though alternative approaches, such as those that have looked to displace the influence of bureaucrats and the US in defense policy, have been less successful, this dissertation also finds theoretical evidence that alternatives may exist.

Political Strategy, Leadership, and Policy Entrepreneurship in Japanese Defense Policy and Politics: A Comparison of Three Prime Ministerships

Since the end of the Cold War, Japan’s defense policy and politics has gone through significant changes. Throughout the post cold war period, US-Japan alliance managers, politicians with differing visions and preferences, scholars, think tanks, and the actions of foreign governments have all played significant roles in influencing these changes. Along with these actors, the Japanese prime minister has played an important, if sometimes subtle, role in the realm of defense policy and politics. Japanese prime ministers, though significantly weaker than many heads of state, nevertheless play an important role in policy by empowering different actors (bureaucratic actors, independent commissions, or civil actors), through personal diplomacy, through agenda-setting, and through symbolic acts of state. The power of the prime minister to influence policy processes, however, has frequently varied by prime minister. My dissertation investigates how different political strategies and entrepreneurial insights by the prime minister have influenced defense policy and politics since the end of the Cold War. In addition, it seeks to explain how the quality of political strategy and entrepreneurial insight employed by different prime ministers was important in the success of different approaches to defense. My dissertation employs a comparative case study approach to examine how different prime ministerial strategies have mattered in the realm of Japanese defense policy and politics. Three prime ministers have been chosen: Prime Minister Hashimoto Ryutaro (1996-1998); Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro (2001-2006); and Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio (2009-2010). These prime ministers have been chosen to provide maximum contrast on issues of policy preference, cabinet management, choice of partners, and overall strategy. As my dissertation finds, the quality of political strategy has been an important aspect of Japan’s defense transformation. Successful strategies have frequently used the knowledge and accumulated personal networks of bureaucrats, supplemented bureaucratic initiatives with top-down personal diplomacy, and used a revitalized US-Japan strategic relationship as a political resource for a stronger prime ministership. Though alternative approaches, such as those that have looked to displace the influence of bureaucrats and the US in defense policy, have been less successful, this dissertation also finds theoretical evidence that alternatives may exist.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.

Private higher education policy in Ohio, 1980--2006: A case study demonstrating the usefulness of Zumeta's public policy posture model

This study describes the case of private higher education in Ohio between 1980 and 2006 using Zumeta's (1996) model of state policy and private higher education. More specifically, this study used case study methodology and multiple sources to demonstrate the usefulness of Zumeta's model and illustrate its limitations. Ohio served as the subject state and data for 67 private, 4-year, degree-granting, Higher Learning Commission-accredited institutions were collected. Data sources for this study included the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Data System as well as database information and documents from various state agencies in Ohio, including the Ohio Board of Regents. ^ The findings of this study indicated that the general state context for higher education in Ohio during the study time period was shaped by deteriorating economic factors, stagnating population growth coupled with a rapidly aging society, fluctuating state income and increasing expenditures in areas such as corrections, transportation and social services. However, private higher education experienced consistent enrollment growth, an increase in the number of institutions, widening involvement in state-wide planning for higher education, and greater fiscal support from the state in a variety of forms such as the Ohio Choice Grant. This study also demonstrated that private higher education in Ohio benefited because of its inclusion in state-wide planning and the state's decision to grant state aid directly to students. ^ Taken together, this study supported Zumeta's (1996) classification of Ohio as having a hybrid market-competitive/central-planning policy posture toward private higher education. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that Zumeta's model is a useful tool for both policy makers and researchers for understanding a state's relationship to its private higher education sector. However, this study also demonstrated that Zumeta's model is less useful when applied over an extended time period. Additionally, this study identifies a further limitation of Zumeta's model resulting from his failure to define "state mandate" and the "level of state mandates" that allows for inconsistent analysis of this component. ^