Jo Ritzen

Higher education and economic innovation, a comparison of European countries

This paper compares higher education policies across thirty two European countries, using the contribution to economic innovation as a benchmark for the comparison. We suggest that an increase in university autonomy and public funding, that we qualify as ‘empowerment’, positively affects the research and education performance of universities, and more importantly the innovation potential of countries. We subsequently formulate policy related recommendations for Europe.

Euroskepticism, Income Inequality and Financial Expectations

Abstract Before the Great Recession, the rising income inequality within the “old” European Union has been suggested as an important driver of the increase in Euroskepticism. We revisit this finding for the 27 EU member states from 2006 to 2011, introducing individual negative financial expectations as a further driving factor. We also distinguish between Western and Eastern European countries. In the period of Eastern EU enlargement after 2005, Euroskepticism increased by one third while income inequality on average remained stable. Negative financial expectations are positively related to Euroskepticism in the West and non-significantly negatively related in the East. This suggests that Westerners interpret European integration as a threat, while Easterners view it as a chance. In addition, income inequality lost its role in “old” Europe. An increase of one Gini point decreases the probability of Euroskepticism by half a percentage point in the West, while it has no impact in the East.

Determinants of international university rankings scores

This article analyses the relationship between a university’s score in international university rankings, its expenditure per student and other factors such as university mission, size and productive inefficiency. We develop an economic model of rankings and universities and estimate this model with data on universities classified in the top 200 by the Times Higher Education Supplement ranking of 2007. We find that the elasticity of a university’s ranking score for the expenditure per student is between 4% and 9%, and that there are no clear signs of inefficiency in production among the top 200 universities. University mission and size are also significant predictors of ranking score. These results are especially interesting given the relevance attributed to rankings by government officials, university directors and students.

The European Union, education governance and international education surveys

The European Union – comprising 28 member states with individual sovereignty in the formation and implementation of education policy – has developed research and communication strategies to facilitate the exchange of best practices, gathering and dissemination of education statistics and, perhaps most importantly, advice and support for national policy reform. Additionally, shared programs have been implemented across the union, which have led to the formation of one of the largest transnational policy networks in the world. This paper examines the influence of international education surveys administered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, outlining the key characteristics of the surveys and the most salient findings. We discuss the contribution of emerging European Union governance for the quality of education while also looking at the challenges ahead. These challenges include developing assessments to include value added, revising assessments to include broader skills and providing assessment feedback to teachers within an EU context in which national and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development assessments become complementary, rather than overlapping, survey measures.

Forward to a Second Chance for Europe

European citizens will be worse off if the EU crumbles. It will first impact economic growth, then collective security. Before this comes to pass, Europe should get a second chance to fix the fault lines beneath the EU’s foundations. But what are these fault lines that are causing it to crumble?

A Sustainable Euro Area with Exit Options

Most studies on the future of the Euro point to serious risks in the coming years—risks to its very survival. The roadmap of the Five EU Presidents presented in 2015 comes up with little to reduce the risks to the Eurozone, such as new economic shocks and Brexit-type developments. The EU presidents rely too much on high international economic growth to smooth convergence in labour productivity between EU member states. Indeed, the more likely low-growth scenario shows a serious risk of the Eurozone falling apart in a chaotic way.

A Sustainable Immigration Policy for the EU

A sustainable EU Immigration Policy aims to contribute to a vibrant European society through more effectively and selectively managed immigration from outside the EU, more attention to integration of immigrants, more rooting out of discrimination, more asylum centres close to areas of conflict, and more attention to education and training in areas where refugees have settled.

A Vibrant European Model

We sketch a visionary strategy for Europe in which full employment is quickly regained, where income inequality is reduced and the economies are more sustainable. We name this scenario “vibrant.” It is contrasted with what would happen if present policies continue within the European Union (EU) and its member states. In the vibrant scenario, full employment is regained by more policy attention toward innovation and its underlying research and development (R&D), accompanied by more labor mobility within and between EU countries, in combination with a selective immigration policy based on labor market shortages. The road to full employment is embedded in a landscape with less income inequality and more “greening” of EU member states’ economies. More trade can be compatible with this scenario. We translate the vibrant scenario into policy proposals distinguishing between the role for the EU and that of the member states.

Halting Support for the EU

The stark reality is that the EU, in its present form, is unlikely to survive the next 10–25 years. The EU of today, which provides for long-term peace and prosperity, faces an existential threat linked to recent voting in elections and referendums. Euroscepticism appears to have almost doubled in the period 2006–2016, from roughly 12% to 30% of the population (although Eurobarometer’s measure of Euroscepticism, at around 16%, has been more or less constant since 2011). These are EU citizens who do not believe that the EU has been good for them or their country. Many among them are likely to be the “losers of globalisation”. They are people who are uncertain of the future, for themselves or their children. A statistical analysis of Eurosceptic data highlights future uncertainty as a likely source of resistance to the EU. Euroscepticism has become visible in referendums on Europe; most notably with Brexit. There is therefore a need to realign the direct democracy of referendums with the indirect democracy of parliamentary representation; that is, if the EU is to serve its purpose as a “machine” for peace, security and welfare. The bottom line is that without further action Euroscepticism as a major “centrifugal” force is likely to increase in the years ahead, potentially giving rise to more exits or a complete and chaotic end to the EU.

European Identity and the Learning Union

Europe and the European Union are close in values, in culture and in attitudes. Yet the EU has made little attempt to jointly reinforce the emotional attachment to Europe. Member States stress their differences in national identity through education and language. When the EU made the borderlines between European countries less visible, the language boundary remained, standing in the way of easy communication between citizens of different EU countries. We advance the “Learning Union” as a necessary complement to the EU. The Learning Union has three components: contributing to a sense of European belonging, the “communication EU” as well as the “competency EU”. Belonging should be reinforced by aiming the content of education at underlining the common heritage, history and the common future. In communication every EU citizen should learn in school to be competent in one common European language (English is the likely candidate), next to one’s own language. Competency is essential for competitiveness. Competency is bred by learning in settings decided by pedagogics, not by (the whims of) well-meaning politicians. The Learning Union is at “arm’s length” distance from Governments with autonomy and funding designed to incentivize learning goals as well as equality of opportunity.