Abstract
This commentary undertakes a restricted analysis of the Reimer paper by focusing upon possible relations between education and the economy and the problem of equality of opportunity in the developing areas. It suggests that his interpretation of current trends is hardly adequate. Existing data would indicate that formal schooling can make a substantial contribution to development and the economic benefits that accrue to it are not monopolized by elites. Moreover, although education contributes to the maintenance of existing systems of stratification, it also frequently facilitates a good deal of mobility; Reimer's prediction of increasing class differentiation and status crystallization is by no means evident on the basis of existing materials. Finally, the assumptions underlying Reimer's conception of social change are essentially utopian in nature and the author has not really examined the strategic and tactical implications of his rhetoric.
Résumé
Cette critique fait une analyse limitée de l'article de Reimer en se restreignant aux relations possibles entre l'éducation et l'économie et au problème de la répartition égale des chances dans les endroits en voie de développement. On suggère que son interprétation des tendances courantes n'est point adéquate. Les données actuelles indiquent que l'éducation formelle peut contribuer considérablement au développement, et les bénéfices économiques qui lui reviennent ne sont pas le monopole des élites. En plus, bien que léducation contribue au prolongement des systèmes existants de stratification, elle facilite souvent la mobilité; la prédiction de Reimer d'une différentiation croissante de classe et d'une crystallisation de position sociale n'est pas basée sur les matériaux existants. Enfin, les suppositions qui forment la base de la conception de Reimer concernant le changement social sont essentiellement utopiques. Reimer n'a pas vraiment examiné les implications stratégiques et tactiques de sa rhétorique.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blau, P. M. & Duncan, O. D.,The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley, 1967.
Blaug, M., Layard, P. R. G., & Woodhall, M.The causes of graduate unemployment in India. London: Penguin, 1969.
Foster, P. Secondary schooling and social mobility in a West African nation.Sociology of Education, 1963,37, 150–171.
Foster, P. The vocational school fallacy in development planning. In C. A. Anderson & M. T. Bowman (Eds.),Education and economic development. Chicago: Aldine, 1965. Pp. 142–166.
Foster, P. Secondary education: Objectives and differentiation. InEducational problems in developing countries. Groningen: Walters-Noordhoff, 1969. Pp. 71–96.
Foster, P. Problems of the educational development in Africa south of the Sahara. InAfrica south of the Sahara. London: Europa Publications, 1971, in press.
Havighurst, R. J., & Gouveia, A. J.Brazilian secondary education and socio-economic development. New York: Praeger, 1969.
Peil, M. Ghanaian university students: The broadening base.British Journal of Sociology, 1965,16, 19–28.
Popper, K.The open society and its enemies. (4th ed., rev.) New York: Harper & Row, 1963. 2 vols.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Foster, P. Education, economy, and equality. Interchange 2, 51–61 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02140865
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02140865