2.3.2. Emerging Inequalities in the Post-Neoliberal Period

Arguments about the role of social capital in educational uplift can provide insight into neoliberalism's impact on economic wellbeing across generations. Breen and Müller [70] found that Americans and Europeans born before 1950 had upward economic mobility, while those born afterward experienced downward economic mobility across generations. Specifically, the education gains across Western democracies did not improve the financial wellbeing of families, a reality facing most people in the workforce in these nations.

Amartya Sen [71] proposed a theory of human capabilities as educational and cultural support for wellbeing as an alternative to the human capital theory that has driven nations' economic and education planning since the Cold War. He based this idea on a comparison of states in India, where some regions were more resilient than others, a probable artifact of education [72]. Capabilities development was a guiding theory for Irish successes in low-income schools [48]. The capabilities approach merits consideration as governments and communities organize to overcome education gaps left in the aftermath of COVID-19.

#### **3. Education Policies in Globalizing Nations**

Expanding college opportunities beyond mass higher education poses new challenges for developing countries, especially given the growing inequalities within and across nations. The uncertainty recently infused into international trade and education alliances complicates but does not substantially alter available choices of financing strategies. Instead, awareness of shifting cultures within nations, their social structures, and their investments in K-12 and higher education affect the capacity to expand and equalize opportunities.

Historical and current practices of education finance across nations suggest four logical frames—socially progressive, strategic investment, privatized markets, and human capabilities (Table 2). National economic and education development policies usually demonstrate one or more of these frames in uniquely crafted national frameworks.

**Table 2.** Frames guiding in policy on economic and education development: social progress, strategic efficiency, privatized markets, and human capabilities.


A comparison of OECD nations reveals that Canada and Mexico had not followed the US model toward privatization of higher education by the early 2000s, but many other Pacific region nations had chosen this path [73]. Before examining other regions, I review the historical transition in the federated US system and explain how marketization occurred.

While the globalization of universities uses indicators for comparing universities, the transitions in international alliances have illuminated the challenges facing institutions in the post-neoliberal transition. I use these frames to examine policy transitions that have affected economic and educational systems in nations engaged in the global economy: the US, the EU, South Asia, and post-Soviet countries, explicitly considering China within Central Asia.

#### *3.1. Transitions in the US Decentralized Market System*

The US is a federation of 50 state public education systems with independent colleges and proprietary postsecondary institutions. The colonies developed education as faithbased before federal involvement began with land grant colleges during the Civil War. By the 1870s, all states had "free schools" using the cross-sectorial Protestant model, an approach resisted by Catholics [74]. Thus, when states began funding public schools in the late nineteenth century, Catholic schools remained "private" without public funding.

From the late seventeenth through the early twentieth century in the US, public colleges evolved as mostly independent campuses that lobbied state governments for funding. States developed higher education systems in the late 20th century, exemplified by California's master plan in 1960 [75]. Most states used *social progressive* educational and economic development concepts when developing their state systems from the 1950s through the 1970s [76].

The federal government began funding public education systems by making *strategic investments*, with the GI Bill supporting college education for returning veterans after WWII. In response to challenges facing the nation and states after desegregation of schools began, federal initiatives intended to promote equity through supplemental programs for low-income children in K-12 schools and need-based aid for low-income college students were developed. During the height of this strategy in the 1970s, states peaked in race equity in college enrollment and high school graduation rates [39]. The neoliberal shift in federal policy in the 1980s eventually transformed states' regulation of K-12 education and their financing of public higher education, moving many states toward *privatized markets*.

First, the federal government shifted federal K-12 policy from emphasizing supplemental education for high-need students to mandating STEM pre-collegiate programs for all students, based on *A Nation At Risk*. The STEM agenda emphasized raising math and science requirements for all high school students, using tests to track school performance, and markets to promote excellence through school-wide programs and charters. High school graduation rates dropped in most states for a few years after math requirements were raised [38].

Second, the Reagan administration shifted the emphasis from need-based grants to loans. The decline in federal grants corresponded with rising tuition as students amassed excessive debt. Many states responded to cuts in federal need-based aid by letting institutions raise student aid so that they could replace those students lost when the federal government cut need-based grants. These practices could not offset high student debt [38,77].

There is substantial variability in the extent to which states maintained progressive social finance policies for education. In the 1980s, Minnesota adopted a progressive strategic model to emphasize higher tuition and higher need-based grants, optimizing Pell revenue and ensuring more equity in college access [78,79]. Indiana balanced public finance strategies to improve college enrollment in the 1990s, as did North Carolina in the early 2000s [80]. The episodic nature of state financing is an artifact of shifts in the policy in state legislatures and alliances between policymakers and engaged scholars.

A *human capabilities* frame emerged as a response to inequalities created by rising college costs and the decline in federal grants. The State of Indiana combined social support and grant aid in the Twenty-First Century Scholars (TFCS) program, as did the Gates Foundation's scholarships for low-income minorities and funding for school reforms student grants in Washington. The social support provided by these programs positively influenced the formation of social and cultural capital, empowering students to make choices in their interests instead of responding to social or family expectations [38]. TFCS was the model for GEAR UP, a federal program providing social support for students in low-income schools. There were also numerous community-based nonprofit programs providing student support. Targeted programs provided advantages, compared to those communities and schools that did not have them. In the same period, states' education requirements and college finance strategies constrained high school graduation and college enrollment rates.

#### *3.2. From the Marshal Plan to European Community*

A comparison of OECD nations on enrollment percent in higher education and the extent of public student subsidies showed that, by 2005, most European nations resisted privatization [73]. The progressive social frameworks adopted after WWII had maintained most EU countries' commitment to low tuition through funding institutions and providing subsidies to students based on financial need. Resistance to privatization was rooted in strategies set in motion by the process of rebuilding through the Marshall Plan and political values within nations [81]. The Marshall Plan brought the ideals of Roosevelt's New Deal to Europe as the core of the rebuilding strategy after the war.

Scandinavian nations have maintained progressive education finance and social policies—investing in education and social programs with progressive taxation—better than nations in any other subregion globally [41,42]. In the early 2000s, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Belgium were nations with high collegiate access and high support for postsecondary institutions and students [73]. They are part of the EU, but Sweden and Finland are only now seriously considering joining NATO because of the Ukraine War [82].

Greece was among the nations with the highest in college access and highest subsidies for postsecondary students in the 2000s [73], but is facing new challenges. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan influenced reforms in Greece after WWII [83]. However, after financial restructuring to pay off debts, Greek higher education has confronted neoliberal laws and "free-market tricks" [84] (p. 277). These shifts came at a time when Greece had more college demand from Syrian immigrants than other European nations [85].

Not all European nations adhered to progressive social ideals, however. France, Germany, and the UK were nations with lower-than-average access [73]. France faced cultural conflicts with immigrants. Germany underwent a merger of the eastern and western parts after the wall fell. The UK has been a leader in neoliberal globalization, symbolized by Brexit and the withdrawal from the EU. These cases illustrate that national identities, cultures, and educational histories play a substantial role in shaping competitiveness in college access.

Among nations internationally, Ireland stands out as a nation that has used the *human capabilities* approach to expand access, rising to the top of the OECD by 2019 [45,62]. Building on the successful outreach to low-income-serving schools by Trinity College Dublin, e.g., [48], Ireland funded outreach to and social support of students in low-income schools through university partnerships across the nation. Ireland maintained college affordability for low-income students, creating financial access for prepared low-income students. Most EU nations used a combination of grants and low college costs to reinforce a social structure that included academic pathways into the elite class and technical pathways strengthening and sustaining the working middle class.
