By Jenny Chesters

Traditionally, education policy has focused on the benefits of education for the whole society and its integral role in socialising generations of young people in preparation for the contributions that they were expected to make to society during their life course. More recently, education policy appears to be focused on the role of education in developing human capital and improving the international competitiveness of economies [Link URL: Harvey, 2010].  

Since the 1980s, neoliberal thinking has dominated economic policies and led to the marketisation of public services such as education and health. The distribution of resources within education systems is a political choice made by governments. In some countries inequity appears to be a deliberate strategy designed to provide additional resources to the socially advantaged at the expense of the socially disadvantaged [link URL Connell 2012]. In other countries, although governments have implemented policies designed to address educational inequalities, little progress has been made. By outsourcing the provision of educational services to the market, governments consciously devolve themselves of the responsibility for the life outcomes of the next generation.

The adoption of neoliberal economic policies led to the creation of the ‘education market’ encouraging parents to pay for opportunities designed to ensure that their children were able to maintain their position in the social hierarchy. In some countries, the marketisation of education was overt with governments directing funding to establish and support private education providers. In other countries, governments maintained their financial commitment to public education however, growth in private tutoring operating alongside government funded education ensured that wealthy parents had opportunities to seek advantages for their children. PISA results indicate that between 2006 and 2015, declining levels of average performance across all tests have mirrored increasing levels of inequality related to SES [link URL: OECD 2017]. In other words, segregation according to socioeconomic status is negatively associated with mean academic achievement [Link URL: Merry et al. 2020].

Prior to the adoption of neoliberal economic policies, education was regarded as a public good, one that benefitted society as well as the individual. However, in recent decades, the focus has shifted to viewing education as a private good requiring personal financial investment and providing personal financial returns. This shift in values is of particular importance given the strong links between education credentials and employment and the implications of employment status on other sphere of life. The fundamental principle governing markets, i.e. supply and demand suggests that the trend towards increasing levels of education will result in young people studying longer just to attain the same standard of living as their less well-educated parents. As an increasing proportion of the population acquire university-level qualifications, competition for highly skilled jobs increases and a growing proportion of graduates will experience unemployment or underemployment, in terms of being over-qualified for the jobs that they could access [link URL: Chesters, 2023]. Entry level jobs that once required the completion of secondary school, now require bachelor degrees; and entry into many professions now requires a post-graduate degree. These trends are apparent across both emerging economies in the Global South and post-industrial economies in the Global North.

In this book, Neoliberalism, Inequality and Education: Inequity by Design, we examine how inequity is built into education systems. Contributors to this book examine education systems in eight countries, five in the Global North: Australia, Finland, France, Ireland and Singapore; and three in the Global South: Bangladesh, Egypt, Mongolia. Each chapter presents a case study of one country providing an overview of how education systems have changed, or not, over the past four decades.

In Finland, France and Singapore, the impact of neoliberalism on education systems was not as dramatic as in Australia, Ireland, Egypt and Mongolia. The privatisation of higher education in Mongolia is an extreme example of how neoliberal thinking undermines social equity. The dramatic expansion of private schooling in Australia exemplifies how the redirection of government funding exacerbates inequality in access to educational opportunities. The resistance to the marketisation of education in France demonstrates that populations do not have to accept policy changes designed to undermine the status quo in a negative manner.

In Neoliberalism, Inequality and Education: Inequity by Design we draw on theories of social justice [link URLs: Fraser 2007; Keddie 2012], to support our argument that although inequality in educational achievement and attainment cannot be eliminated, inequity in the distribution of educational resources and opportunities can, and should, be. As the OECD [link URL: OECD 2012] notes, educational equity provides economic benefits to national economies and thus, the global economy. Providing the necessary economic conditions for equitable outcomes is fundamental for economic prosperity and social cohesion [link URL: OECD 2012]. Our examination of how inequity is built into education systems contributes to debates about the role of education in the twenty-first century.

Neoliberalism, Inequality and Education, Inequity by Design edited by Jenny Chesters is available to read as a Hardback and eBook. Learn more

Read a Sample Chapter.

Bibliography: Link URL’s

Chesters 2026 Neoliberalism, Inequality and Education: Inequity by Design. Edward Elgar ISBN: 978 1 0353 6371 1

Chesters, J. (2023), ‘Transitions between education and employment in the twenty-first century: A view from the Asia-Pacific’, in W.O. Lee, P. Brown, A.L Goodwin, and A. Green (Eds.) International Handbook on Education Development in Asia-Pacific, pp. 805-820, Springer.  https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-16-2327-1_66-1

Connell, R. (2012), ‘Just education’, Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 681-683. http://doi/10.1080/02680939.2012.710022

Fraser, N. (2007) ‘Feminist Politics in the Age of Recognition: A Two-Dimensional Approach to Gender Justice’, Studies in Social Justice, 1(1), 23-35  http://DOI:10.26522/ssj.v1i1.979

Harvey, D. (2010), The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism. London: Profile Books

Keddie. A. (2012), ‘Schooling and social justice through the lenses of Nancy Fraser’, Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 263-279. https://research.ebsco.com/c/h7z26u/viewer/pdf/d2pi6oh7ib

Merry J.J., Condron, D.J. and Torres, N. (2020), ‘A comparative analysis of early childhood socioeconomic status and educational achievement 15 years later’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(6), 389-411 https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715220983402

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2012), Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2017), Trends Shaping Education 2017 Spotlight 8: Mind the Gap: Inequity in education, OECD: Paris https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2017/02/mind-the-gap_f230530f/5775ac71-en.pdf