current issues in comparative education

Volume 12(1) / Fall 2009 • ISSN 1523-1615 • http://www.tc.edu/cice

Cosmopolitanism, EduCation and ComparativE EduCation

GUEST EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

3 Cosmopolitanism, Education and Comparative Education AndriaWisler

ARTICLES

6 Rethinking ‘Cosmopolitanism’ as an Analytic for the Comparative Study of Globalization and Education

NoahW.Sobe

14 The Ethics and Ontology of Cosmopolitanism: Education for a Shared Humanity DaleSnauwaert

23 Lonely Business or Mutual Concern: The Role of Comparative Education in the Cosmopolitan Citizenship Debates

AnatoliRapoport

33 Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education: Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970-2008 PatriciaBromley

45 Study Abroad and Development of Global Citizen Identity and Cosmopolitan Ideals in Undergraduates

KarenHendershotandJillSperandio

56 Educating the World: Teachers and their Work as Defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

HelenHarperandJudithDunkerly

66 World-systems Analysis in Comparative Education: An Alternative to Cosmopolitanism TomG.GriffithsandLisaKnezevic

76 Smashing Cosmopolitanism: The Neo-liberal Destruction of Cosmopolitan Education in East-Central Europe

RobertJ.ImreandZsuzsaMillei

ESSAY

86 The Evolution of a Cosmopolitan Identity: Transforming Culture ShannanSpisak

92 About the Contributors

Current Issues inComparative Education

2CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation

CURRENT ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATIONVolume12,Issue1(2009)

EDITORIAL BOARD

Managing Editor MatthewHayden

Guest Executive EditorAndriaWisler VisitingAssistantProfessor,GeorgetownUniversity,ProgramofJusticeandPeace

Executive Editors CambriaRussell,AndrewShiotani

Senior Editors KathleenKeenan,RuaridhMacLeod,AntoniaMandry,CambriaRussell,MichaelSchapira

Editors SarahFlatto,MichelleReddy,BrianaRonan,GretchenWietmarschen

Associate Editors HollyBrewster,RichardCheng,HenanCheng,CaraFurman,AnneGaspers, RyanHathaway,GhazalaMehmood,JasonMellen,ElizabethMorphis,CarinaOmoeva, AmritpalSandhu,MuntasirSattar

Copy Editor SarahFlatto,MatthewHayden,RuaridhMacLeod,MichaelSchapira

Style Editors RuaridhMacLeod,GhazalaMehmood,ElizabethMorphis,AmritpalSandhu

Web Editor AndrewShiotani

Associate Web Editors RuaridhMacLeod,MuntasirSattar

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARDMichaelApple,MarkBray,MichaelCross,IngridGogolin,SuzanneGrantLewis,NoelMcGinn,GaryNatriello,HaroldNoah,GitaSteiner-Khamsi,FrancesVavrus

COPYRIGHTUnlessotherwisenoted,copyrightsforthetextswhichcompriseallissuesofCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation(CICE)areheldbythejournal.ThecompilationasawholeisCopyright©byCurrentIssuesin Comparative Education, all rights reserved. Items published byCICEmay be freely shared amongindividuals,buttheymaynotberepublishedinanymediumwithoutexpresswrittenconsentfromtheauthor(s)andadvancenotificationoftheCICEeditorialboard.

CICEholdsexclusiverightsinrespecttoelectronicpublicationanddissemination.Thejournalmaynotbepostedorinanywaymirroredontheworld-wideweboranyotherpartoftheInternetexceptattheofficialpublication site atTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.CICE reserves the right to amendorchangethiscopyrightpolicy.Forthemostcurrentversionofthiscopyrightpolicy,pleasesee:http://www.tc.edu/cice/Main/guidelines.html.Questionsaboutthejournal’scopyrightpolicyshouldbedirectedtotheEditorialBoard.

DISCLAIMERTheopinionsandideasexpressedintheCICEaresolelythoseheldbytheauthorsandarenotnecessarilysharedbytheeditorsoftheJournal.TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity(CU)asapublishermakesnowarrantyofanykind,eitherexpressedorimplied,forinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE,whichareprovidedonan“asis”basis.TeachersCollege,CUdoesnotassumeandherebydisclaimanyliabilitytoanypartyforanylossordamageresultingfromtheuseofinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE.

Volume 12(1) / Fall 2009 • ISSN 1523-1615 • http://www.tc.edu/cice

Cosmopolitanism, EduCation and ComparativE EduCation

GUEST EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

3 Cosmopolitanism, Education and Comparative Education AndriaWisler

ARTICLES

6 Rethinking ‘Cosmopolitanism’ as an Analytic for the Comparative Study of Globalization and Education

NoahW.Sobe

14 The Ethics and Ontology of Cosmopolitanism: Education for a Shared Humanity DaleSnauwaert

23 Lonely Business or Mutual Concern: The Role of Comparative Education in the Cosmopolitan Citizenship Debates

AnatoliRapoport

33 Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education: Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970-2008 PatriciaBromley

45 Study Abroad and Development of Global Citizen Identity and Cosmopolitan Ideals in Undergraduates

KarenHendershotandJillSperandio

56 Educating the World: Teachers and their Work as Defined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

HelenHarperandJudithDunkerly

66 World-systems Analysis in Comparative Education: An Alternative to Cosmopolitanism TomG.GriffithsandLisaKnezevic

76 Smashing Cosmopolitanism: The Neo-liberal Destruction of Cosmopolitan Education in East-Central Europe

RobertJ.ImreandZsuzsaMillei

ESSAY

86 The Evolution of a Cosmopolitan Identity: Transforming Culture ShannanSpisak

92 About the Contributors

Current Issues inComparative Education


CURRENT ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATIONVolume12,Issue1(2009)

EDITORIAL BOARD

Managing Editor MatthewHayden

Guest Executive EditorAndriaWisler VisitingAssistantProfessor,GeorgetownUniversity,ProgramofJusticeandPeace

Executive Editors CambriaRussell,AndrewShiotani

Senior Editors KathleenKeenan,RuaridhMacLeod,AntoniaMandry,CambriaRussell,MichaelSchapira

Editors SarahFlatto,MichelleReddy,BrianaRonan,GretchenWietmarschen

Associate Editors HollyBrewster,RichardCheng,HenanCheng,CaraFurman,AnneGaspers, RyanHathaway,GhazalaMehmood,JasonMellen,ElizabethMorphis,CarinaOmoeva, AmritpalSandhu,MuntasirSattar

Copy Editor SarahFlatto,MatthewHayden,RuaridhMacLeod,MichaelSchapira

Style Editors RuaridhMacLeod,GhazalaMehmood,ElizabethMorphis,AmritpalSandhu

Web Editor AndrewShiotani

Associate Web Editors RuaridhMacLeod,MuntasirSattar

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARDMichaelApple,MarkBray,MichaelCross,IngridGogolin,SuzanneGrantLewis,NoelMcGinn,GaryNatriello,HaroldNoah,GitaSteiner-Khamsi,FrancesVavrus

COPYRIGHTUnlessotherwisenoted,copyrightsforthetextswhichcompriseallissuesofCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation(CICE)areheldbythejournal.ThecompilationasawholeisCopyright©byCurrentIssuesin Comparative Education, all rights reserved. Items published byCICEmay be freely shared amongindividuals,buttheymaynotberepublishedinanymediumwithoutexpresswrittenconsentfromtheauthor(s)andadvancenotificationoftheCICEeditorialboard.

CICEholdsexclusiverightsinrespecttoelectronicpublicationanddissemination.Thejournalmaynotbepostedorinanywaymirroredontheworld-wideweboranyotherpartoftheInternetexceptattheofficialpublication site atTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.CICE reserves the right to amendorchangethiscopyrightpolicy.Forthemostcurrentversionofthiscopyrightpolicy,pleasesee:http://www.tc.edu/cice/Main/guidelines.html.Questionsaboutthejournal’scopyrightpolicyshouldbedirectedtotheEditorialBoard.

DISCLAIMERTheopinionsandideasexpressedintheCICEaresolelythoseheldbytheauthorsandarenotnecessarilysharedbytheeditorsoftheJournal.TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity(CU)asapublishermakesnowarrantyofanykind,eitherexpressedorimplied,forinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE,whichareprovidedonan“asis”basis.TeachersCollege,CUdoesnotassumeandherebydisclaimanyliabilitytoanypartyforanylossordamageresultingfromtheuseofinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE.

©2009CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,ALLRIGHTSRESERVEDCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,Vol.12(1):33-44.

Cosmopolitanism in Civic Education:Exploring Cross-National Trends, 1970-2008

Patricia BromleyStanfordUniversity

Thisstudyexamineshowfareducationsystemsworldwidehaveprogressedfromdepictingsocietyas rooted inahomogenous,boundednation-state towards cosmopolitan emphasesona commonhumanityandsocialdiversity.Theresearchusesauniquelongitudinalandcross-nationalprimarysource of data – high school civics, history, and social studies textbooks published since 1970.Textbooksarecentraltosocializingparticularidentitiesbecausetheydefinelegitimateknowledgeand desirable social attributes, and also communicate privileged concepts of national or globalcitizenship.Inthisway,theycanexacerbatenationalandsub-nationalethnicandculturalconflicts,orhelptosupportthedevelopmentofcosmopolitanidentities.Ifindabroadincreaseincosmopolitanemphasesofuniversalismanddiversityinciviceducationcurriculainmuchoftheworld.However,evenwithincosmopolitantheoriestherearedivergentviewsonthepotentialimplicationsofamoreuniversalanddiversenotionofcitizenshipforsociety.

InthewakeofWorldWarII,internationalattentionturnedtothedetrimentalroleofeducationsystems,andespeciallytextbooks,inpromotinghyper-nationalism.Socialsciencecurriculaatthetimeemphasizedculturallyhomogenouscitizensofunitarynationalstates,oftendemonizingandstereotypingthe‘other’.EarlyworkbytheUnitedNationsandmanybilateralcommissionsaimed to reformschool curriculawith thegoalof eradicatingbias fromsociety.Such reformsreflected a broader and fundamental change innotions of citizenship – from focusing on theconstruction of a unitary national identity to embracing cosmopolitan ideals of protectinguniversalhumanrightsandthediversityofspecialgroupssuchaswomenorminorities.

Textbooksarecentral toefforts tosocializeparticularviewsofcitizenshipbecausetheydefinelegitimateknowledgeanddesirablesocialattributes,andalsocommunicatepreferredconceptsofidentity.Inthisway,theycanexacerbatenationalandsub-nationalethnicandculturalconflicts,or help to support thedevelopment of cosmopolitan identities. This study examineshow fareducationsystemsworldwidehaveprogressedfromdepictingsocietyasrootedinahomogenous,boundednation-statetowardscosmopolitanemphasesondiversityandhumanequalityusingauniquelongitudinalandcross-nationalprimarysourceofdata–highschoolcivics,history,andsocialstudiestextbookspublishedsince1970.Ifindabroadincreaseincosmopolitanemphasesinciviceducationcurriculainmuchoftheworld.InthefollowingsectionsIoutlinetheexistingresearch that frames this study,describemydata andmethods,presentfindings, anddiscussdifferingcosmopolitaninterpretationsoftheresultsthatleadtodivergentimplicationsforsociety.Oneviewarguescosmopolitanismis fundamentallybeneficial,andtheultimate fulfillmentofcosmopolitanbenefitswillbebestrealizedthroughthecreationofaworldstate.Acontrastingcosmopolitanperspectivearguesitistheabsenceofaworldstatethatenablesglobalsocialandculturalintegrationtoflourish,andregardscosmopolitantrendsascreatingopportunitiesforevilaswellasgood.

BackgroundInrecentyearsmanyhavenotedaresurgenceofattentiontocosmopolitanism,oftenattributingthisrisetotheconfluenceofglobalization,decolonization,migrationandmulticulturalism(See,for example, the thoroughdiscussion inChapter 1 ofVertovec&Cohen, 2002). These global


P.Bromley

trendsmaybeparticularlyamplifiedinthewakeofWorldWarII,followingthede-legitimizationofnationalism(Kaplan,2006)andanincreasedemphasisoninternationalcooperationthrough,for example, the creation of the United Nations system. The construction of an increasinglyintegratedworldhasweakenedanoldernotionofnation-statesasinsularpolitieswithaculturallyhomogenouscitizenryby shifting the locusofauthorityaboveandbelow the state, aprocesssometimes called“glocalization” (Robertson, 1992). Supra-nationally, thesepressures cultivatea common, cosmopolitan frame of reference among individuals as agentic equals possessinginherenthumanrights.Sub-nationally,theyfostertheidentitiesandequalityofdiversegroupsinsociety.Despitewidespreadrecognitionofthesetrends,muchsocialscienceresearchexhibitsamethodologicalnationalismthatprecludesresearchersfromexaminingtheeffectsoftheseglobalphenomena(Beck&Sznaider,2006).Incontrast,acosmopolitanlensenablestheexplorationofchangesincitizenshipeducationworldwide.

Onone level all cosmopolitan approaches are similar in that they encourage thevisionof aninterconnectedsocietyandculturethatisunboundedbythepoliticalterritoryofthenation-state,leading to analyses that consider influences and changes that go beyond national borders.Acentralcomponentofcosmopolitanismisuniversalism,traditionallyrepresentedbythenotionofworldcitizenship.Indeed,theword‘cosmopolitan’itselfcomesfromtheclassicalGreek‘kosmoupolitês’meaning a ‘citizen of theworld’. The ideals of world citizenship remained a centraltenetof cosmopolitanism through theEnlightenment,mostnotably in theworkof ImmanuelKant.Contemporarycosmopolitanthinkinghasexpandednotionsofuniversalismfromworldcitizenshiptoincludethemodernconceptionofhumanrights,aninherentlyuniversalnotion.Pogge(2008),forexample,outlinesacontemporaryviewofcosmopolitanmorality“formulatedintermsofhumanrights”(p.176,emphasisinoriginal),meaningthatit“centersonthefundamentalneedsandinterestsofindividualhumanbeings,andofallhumanbeings”(p.184,emphasisinoriginal).Similarly,Levy&Sznaider (2004)describe“the recentproliferationofhumanrightsideasasanewformofcosmopolitanism”(p.143).Inthesamevein,Beetham(1999)outlinesaproposalofhumanrightsasamodelforcosmopolitandemocracy.

Inadditionto incorporatingthe ideasofhumanrights,manycontemporary interpretationsofcosmopolitanism explicitly emphasize the potentially homogenizing force of universalism asemerginghand-in-handwiththecelebrationofdiversity.Inotherwords,cosmopolitanism“meansnotareplicationofuniformitybutanorganizationofdiversity,anincreasinginterconnectednessofvariedlocalcultures”(Hannerz,1996,p.102).Thus,beingacosmopolitaninvolveswillingnessto tolerate, celebrate, engage openly with, and even seek out diverse social and culturalexperiences(Levy&Sznaider,2004;Hollinger,1995;Delanty,2006a,2006b;Pollocketal,2000).Appiah(1997)extendsthisincorporationofdiversitytoincludeattachmenttothenation-statethrougha‘cosmopolitanpatriotism’or‘rootedcosmopolitanism’.Othersacceptdiversityfromsocialorculturalsourceslikegenderorethnicity,butconceptualizecosmopolitanismlargelyasanalternativetothepoliticalidentitiesassociatedwithnationalpatriotism(Nussbaum,1994).

Althoughemergingtogether,thedualtrendsofuniversalismanddiversitycancomeintoconflict.Cosmopolitan theories share the challenge of addressing whether universalism is benign,beneficial,oraformofhegemony,andhowtobalanceuniversalprincipleswiththeempowermentofdiversegroupsinsociety(SeeBreckenridgeetal.,2002foranin-depthdiscussion).Acommonclashoccurswhentheinterestsofcorporatesocialgroups,suchasindigenousgroupsbutalsoincluding nation-states, place obligations on members that possibly contradict the universalprinciplesofhumanrightsorlimitindividualfreedoms.Manyscholarsaddressthistensionbycelebratingaspecificformofdiversity,onerootedinindividualchoice,tolerance,andvoluntary

CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation35

CosmopolitanisminCivicEducation

participationinsocialgroups.Cosmopolitanspromotediversityinthesenseofacceptinggroupmembershipasanindividualchoiceandsourceofidentity,butinsist individualrightsshouldnotbesubordinatetotheinterestsofanyparticularsocialgroup(Appiah,1997;Kymlicka,1995).InthewordsofHartman&Gerteis(2005)cosmopolitanism“defendsdiversityonlyinsofarasitallowsandexpandsindividualrightsandfreedoms”(p.228).

Insum,contemporarycosmopolitanismincludestwomainemphases,universalism,intheformofglobalcitizenshipandhumanrights,anddiversity,intheformofcelebratingheterogeneoussocialgroupsandpromotingequalrightsfordivergentgroups.Amountingbodyofevidencesuggeststhat conceptually andpractically, notions of the nation-state as a territorially boundedpolitygoverningahomogenouscitizenrywithacommonculturearegivingwaytothiscosmopolitanmodel.Forexample,Sassen(2006)arguesthatnotionsofauthorityandrights,onceconstructedasterritoriallyboundedtothenation-state,areincreasinglydenationalized.Similarly,Fligstein(2008) focuses on the emergence of a transnational identity in the European sphere. LookingbeyondEurope,muchrecentscholarshipshowsthatuniversalhumanrightsareontheriseasacorecomponentofcontemporaryworldculture (Keck&Sikkink,1998;Ramirezetal.,2006;Elliott,2007).Otherworldcultural studiesshowtheempowermentofdiversegroupssuchasindigenouspeoples(Cole,2005),women(Wotipka&Ramirez,2008),andchildren(Boyleetal.,2007)overtime.

These de-nationalized, cosmopolitan trends are also reflected in civic education.Meyer et al(forthcoming)findadramaticincreaseinhumanrightsemphasesinciviceducationacrossmanycountries over time. Using cross-sectional data from 28mainly European countries,Mintrop(2003)showsthatthereisanewfacetociviceducationthatemphasizessocialmovements,rightsdiscourse,andcriticalthinking.Similarly,Levinson(2004)tracestheriseofanewformofciviceducation inMexico designed to democratically empower students through student-centeredpedagogy.InCostaRicaandArgentina,Suárez(2008)describestheriseofglobalhumanrightsasacentralfeatureofnationalciviceducation.

Whileimportantintheirownright,themajorityofthesestudiesarelimitedeitherbytheirfocusonparticularcountriesorregions,ortheyconsideronlyasingletimepoint.Thosethathaveglobalscopeexamineareasoutsideeducationoronlypartiallyconsidertherangeoftopicsassociatedwithcosmopolitanism.Forinstance,Meyeretal.(forthcoming)looksonlyathumanrights,ratherthanexaminingworldcitizenship,humanrights,anddiversity.Thus,thequestionremainsastohowfartheshifttowardsacosmopolitanworldviewplaysoutincitizenshipeducationaroundtheworld,particularlygiven thatmass schooling is stillmostlyunder the controlofnationalgovernments.

Data, Measures & MethodItrackedtheriseofemphasesonuniversalismanddiversityin465history,civicsandsocialstudiestextbooksfrom69countriesaroundtheworldpublishedsince1970.ThemajorityofbookscomefromtheGeorgEckertInstituteforInternationalTextbookResearchinBraunschweig,Germany.TheInstitutecollectssocialsciencetextbooksfromcountriesaroundtheworldandhasalibrarywithover60,000socialscienceschoolbookspublishedsinceWorldWarII.ItwasfoundedaftertheSecondWorldWarwiththeexplicitaimofreformingsocialsciencecurriculaandtextbookstomovethemawayfromthenationalismthoughttohavegeneratedthecrisesandtragediesofthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.TextbookswereoriginallygatheredandusedaspartofaprojecttoexaminehumanrightseducationledbyJohnMeyerandFranciscoRamirez(Meyeretal.,forthcoming).


P.Bromley

Each book was coded on parameters designed to measure the cosmopolitan emphases ofuniversalismanddiversity(codingprotocolavailablefromauthor).Toreduceerror,eachconceptisconstructedusingtwomeasures,andthemeasuresthemselvesareconstructedasindicesofmultipleitemsfromthecodingscheme,withtheexceptionofasinglequestiononwhetherglobalcitizenship is mentioned. Universal emphases are measured by a dichotomous indicator forwhetherthebookmentionsinternationalcitizenshipandafactorindexassessingtheamountofdiscussionofhumanrightsinthebook.Thefouritemsinthehumanrightsindexaresubstantiallyinter-correlatedandloadheavilyontooneunderlyingfactor.Theitemsare:(a)Theamountofexplicitdiscussionofhumanrights(zerotofivescale,zerobeingnodiscussionandfivebeingoverhalfthebook)(b)Thenumberof internationalhumanrightsdocumentsmentioned(e.g.,UnitedNationsCharter,Conventionon theRightsof theChild) (c)Reference toanynationalhumanrightsdocumentsornationalgovernmentalbodies(e.g.,theDeclarationoftheRightsofManoranOmbudsman’sOfficeforHumanRights)(d)Discussionofanymajorhumanrightsdisaster (e.g., theHolocaust), conceived in human rights terms rather than simply as a greathistoricaltragedy.

Diversityemphasesaremeasured,first,usinganindexoftheamountofthebookdedicatedtoheterogeneoussocialgroupsandinterests.Thespecificgroupsandinterestsincludedare:women,theelderly,racialandethnicminorities,indigenouspeoples,immigrantsorrefugees,disabledorspecialneeds,homosexuals,thepoor(orpoverty),health,education,languageorculture.Eachgrouporinterestismeasuredonascalefromzero-to-five(zerobeingnodiscussionandfivebeingoverhalfthebook)andsummedtocreateanindexthatrangesfromzerotothirty-seven.Second,diversityismeasuredusinganindexrangingfromzerotoelevenofwhetherthesesamegroupsandinterestsarementionedasbearingrights,which indicatesanemphasisontheequalityofdivergentgroupsandinterestswithinsociety.

In thecourseofdeveloping thecodingschemeandanalyzing the textbooks, everyeffortwasmadetoreduceerror,includingthechallengesoftranslation,bycheckinginter-raterreliability,searchingout fullybilingual translators (mostoftennative speakersof the textbook languagepursuingahighereducationdegreeinEnglish),sittingwithtranslatorsastheycodedtextbookstoanswerquestions,andreviewingeachcodingsheettocheckforinconsistencies.Mostimportantly,thequestionsarefactualinnature,notrelyingonthejudgmentorcontentknowledgeofcodersandtranslators.

Thereareseverallimitationstothisdata.It isnotfeasibletoobtainarepresentativesampleoftextbooksfromeachcountryovertime,andit is impossibletoknowtheextenttowhicheachbookisusedintheclassroomorassesshowstudentsarebeinginfluenced.Thesedrawbackslimitthetransferabilityofmyresultsandhindermyabilitytoconsidertheextenttowhichcurriculaisaspecificmechanismthroughwhichnationalidentityisconstructed.However,thedifficultyofobtainingrelevantlongitudinal,cross-nationaldatacontributestothedearthofresearchthatextendsbeyondnation-stateboundaries.

The method used to analyze data is descriptive. I analyze whether the mean scores on themeasuresofuniversalismanddiversitydescribedabovechangesignificantlyovertimearoundtheworld.Totrackchangeovertimethebooksaredividedintotwoperiods,1970-1994and1995-2008.Thissplitreflectsbothsubstantivereasons(tocapturechangesinEasternEuropefromthe1990s) andhas amethodological rationale (the sample isdivided roughly evenlyat this timepoint).Lookingattrendsinfiveortenyearincrementsresultsinsimilarfindingstothosereported



here.Meansarepresentedforthewholesampleandsub-samplesrepresentingsixworldregions,WesternEuropeandNorthAmerica (plusAustraliaandNewZealand),EasternEurope,Sub-SaharanAfrica,theMiddleEastandNorthAfrica,Asia,andLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Thesamplesizewithineachregionandtimeperiodinfluencesthesignificanceofthemeanstest,andfurthermethodologicalchecks indicatedthatcreatingmoredetailedregionalbreakdowns(suchassplittingAsiaintoEastAsiaandSouthAsia)weakenedtheanalyses.However,checkingmorenuancedcountrygroupingswasvaluabletoensurethatgenerallycountrieswithinaregionfollowsimilartrends.AnotableoutlieristhecaseofIsrael,wherebooksexhibitedhigherlevelsofuniversalismanddiversitythanothercountriesoftheMiddleEast.GiventheuniquepositionofIsraelintheMiddleEast,itisincludedintheworldwidetrendsbutexcludedfromregionalanalyses.

Findings & DiscussionThe results of a descriptive analysis are clear. There is a longitudinal trend towards greateremphasisonuniversalismanddiversityacrossabroadrangeofcountries.Table1reports thefindingsformeasuresofuniversalemphasesintextbooks.PanelAshowsasignificantworldwideincreaseindiscussionsofhumanrightsinciviceducation.Lookingatregionaltrends,allpartsoftheworldexcepttheMiddleEastandNorthAfricashowanincreaseinhumanrights,andtheriseissignificantinallregionsexceptAsia.ItispossibletextbooksintheMiddleEastandNorthAfricaarefollowingadifferentpaththantherestoftheworld,howeveritisalsoimportanttonotethatresultsfromthisregionaretheleastreliableduetothedifficultyofobtainingbooks.TherearefarfewerbooksfromtheMiddleEastandNorthAfricainthisanalysisthanfromotherworldregions.

PanelBofTable1showstheproportionofbooksthatmentionglobalcitizenshipormembershipinaworldcommunity.Again,thereisageneraltrendtowardsdiscussingglobalcitizenshipincurriculaaroundtheworld,includingcountriesoftheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica.Here,theonlyexceptionisinEasternEurope.Discussionswithcoderssuggestthattheearliermentionsof ‘globalcitizenship’ inEasternEuropereferredspecificallytoaninternationalcommunistorsocialistcommunity,whichwasimaginedasbecomingthedominantglobalframework.Further,some scholars observe the persistence of traditional civic education in newly independentstates,especiallyinEasternEurope,andattributeanemphasisoncreatingnationalvaluestotheinstrumentalneedsofnation-buildingandadesireforeconomicgrowth(Rokkan,1975;Green,1990;Kolstoe,2000).Inthepost-1995period,thenewlyformedEasternEuropeancountriesmaybede-emphasizingnotionsofglobalcommunityrelativetootherworldregionsinordertofocusonnation-building.

Table2presentsevidenceofincreasingcurricularemphasesondiversity.PanelAindicatestheamountofdiscussionofparticulargroupsandPanelBnotestheproportionofbooksmentioningtherightsofthesegroups.Theamountatextdedicatedtodiscussingdiversegroupshasgenerallyincreasedsince1970,mostnotablyinLatinAmericaandalsosignificantlyinEasternEuropeandintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica.InSub-SaharanAfricaandinWesternEuropeandNorthAmerica theamountofdiversitydiscussionwasalreadymarkedlyhigher than therestof theworldwhenthisstudybeganin1970.Theearlyattentiontodiversityinthesetwoverydifferentworldregionscouldbeattributedtoanumberofinfluences.IntheWest,perhapsthedemocraticprocessinliberalsocietiesorperhapsacultureofindividualismleadstogreaterrepresentationofdiversesocialgroupsandinterestsineducationsystems.Insub-SaharanAfrica,itisplausiblethatthelegaciesofcolonialismshapedthecurriculaofformercoloniestolookliketheirWesterncolonizers. Further, the actual level of ethno-linguistic diversity in society,


P.Bromley

1970-1994 1995-2008a

(n=252) (n=213)A. Mean Score on Human Rights Index (0 - 4.74)

Worldwide 0.77 1.36 ***WesternEurope&NorthAmerica 0.99 1.42 *EasternEurope 0.48 1.42 ***Sub-SaharanAfrica 0.70 1.43 *MiddleEast&NorthAfrica 0.66 0.49LatinAmerica&Caribbean 0.47 2.58 ***Asia 0.63 0.88

B. Proportion of Books Mentioning Intl. Citizenship (0-1)Worldwide 0.15 0.27 ***WesternEurope&NorthAmerica 0.09 0.27 **EasternEurope 0.19 0.18Sub-SaharanAfrica 0.20 0.42 †MiddleEast&NorthAfrica 0.00 0.29 †LatinAmerica&Caribbean 0.32 0.61 *Asia 0.12 0.20

***p<.001,**p<.01,*p<.05,†p<.1,one-tailedtestsaSignificanceindicatest-testcomparingdifferencebetweenperiods1and2.bThenumbersofbooksforeachregionandtimeperiodare:WesternEuropeandNorthAmerica(103and56),EasternEurope(62and59),Sub-SaharanAfrica(27and12),MiddleEastandNorthAfrica(7and7),LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(23and22)andAsia(25and57).

Table 1. Indicators of Universalism in Textbooks Worldwide Over Time

high inmany sub-SaharanAfrican countries,may contribute to a greater emphasis on socialdiversityintexts.InAfricaandtheWest,diversitydiscussionsincreasedonlyslightlybetween1970and2008,suggestingapossibleceilingeffect.Unfortunately,itisbeyondthescopeofthispapertoempiricallytestsuchspeculations,butadditionalanalysesalongtheselinesarecurrentlyunderwaybytheauthor. Panel B similarly showsmost regions (theWest, sub-SaharanAfrica, LatinAmerica and theCaribbean,andtheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica)increasinglyemphasizeequalityamongdiversesocialgroupsandinterestsbydepictingthemasrights-bearing,andtheincreaseisstatisticallysignificantinallregionsexcepttheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica.Unexpectedly,EasternEuropeandAsiashowadecline inrights languagesince1970.Asbefore,EasternEuropeancountriesmaybelowerbecausetheyareparticularlyconcernedwithbuildingaunitarynationalidentityinthepost-1995periodduetotheirnewness.Asiancountriestendingeneraltodepictsocietyasmorehomogenous,althoughrecentstudiessuggestatrendtogroupempowerment,forexampletheincreasingrecognitionofwomenandchildren’srightsinJapan(Chan-Tiberghien,2004).Ingeneral,thefindingsthatillustrateanincreaseindiversityarenotasstrongasforuniversalism:Fewerregionsshowastatisticalincreaseindiversityandsignificancelevelsareweaker.Skrentny(2002)argues thatall sortsofminorityrightsclaims increasinglybecomere-conceptualizedashumanrightsclaims.Thisre-framingoftherightsofdiversegroupsashumanrightsmay



1970-1994 1995-2008a

(n=252) (n=213)A. Mean Score on Amount of Diversity (0 - 37)

Worldwide 8.91 9.62WesternEurope&NorthAmerica 12.53 13.80EasternEurope 5.66 6.83 †Sub-SaharanAfrica 10.93 11.08MiddleEast&NorthAfrica 1.57 5.57 †LatinAmerica&Caribbean 3.91 15.73 ***Asia 5.97 6.21

B. Mean Score on Number of Rights (0 - 11)Worldwide 1.39 1.88 *WesternEurope&NorthAmerica 1.89 3.09 *EasternEurope 1.35 1.32Sub-SaharanAfrica 0.67 1.17 †MiddleEast&NorthAfrica 0.57 0.71LatinAmerica&Caribbean 0.17 3.95 ***Asia 1.58 0.77

***p<.001,**p<.01,*p<.05,†p<.1,one-tailedtestsaSignificanceindicatest-testcomparingdifferencebetweenperiods1and2.bThenumbersofbooksforeachregionandtimeperiodare:WesternEuropeandNorthAmerica(103and56),EasternEurope(62and59),Sub-SaharanAfrica(27and12),MiddleEastandNorthAfrica(7and7),LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(23and22)andAsia(25and57).

Table 2. Indicators of Diversity in Textbooks Worldwide Over Time

contributetotheobservedrelativelygreaterincreaseinhumanrightsemphasesthandiversityrightsincurricula.

Overall the findings suggest a worldwide trend towards cosmopolitan emphases in civiceducation textbooks,with slightlygreateremphasesonuniversalism thandiversity.The formof cosmopolitanismmayvary, for exampleemphasizinghumanrights inEasternEuropeandinternationalcitizenshipintheMiddleEast,buteveryregionoftheworldincreasedsignificantlyonatleastonemeasureofcosmopolitanism,exceptAsia.ButevenAsiashowsarawincreaseonthreeofthefourmeasures.Further,casestudiesofindividualcountrieswithinAsiasuggestthataqualitativechangetowardsamodelofcosmopolitancitizenshipisunderwayinwaysthatarenotcapturedinthisstudy(See,forexample,Law(2004)forTaiwanandHongKong,Moon(2009)forSouthKorea,andChan-Tiberghien(2004)forJapan).Althoughtheindicatorsusedhereenablecross-national and longitudinal comparisonof textbooks to a fargreater extent thanpreviousstudies, thesemacro-levelmeasurescertainlyfail tocapturemanymorenuancedchangesandmeaningsthatcanbegleanedfromlookingatindividualcases.Incontrasttocasestudies,theaimherewastoshowashifttowardscosmopolitanemphasesinciviceducationcurriculaworldwide.Thenextchallengeistoconsiderwhattheoriesofcosmopolitanismproposeastheimplicationsofsuchchanges.


P.Bromley

Althoughcosmopolitantheoriestendtoshareafocusonincreasinguniversalismanddiversityworldwide, scholars diverge dramatically in their analysis of the mechanisms that createglobal interconnectedness, and the implications of the emergence of a global society. Mostcosmopolitanismsoperatesunderastrongnormativeframework,arguingthattheconstructionofaworldcommunity,andevenaworldstate,isthemostmoralandjustgovernanceoutcome.BeckandSznaiderargue“Whatcosmopolitanismiscannotultimatelybeseparatedfromwhatcosmopolitanismshouldbe.”(2006,p.4).Historically,thecosmopolitanismofancientphilosophersandmoremodernpoliticalphilosopherslikeImmanuelKantwasfocusedonautopianfuture,concernedwithcreatingworldcitizenshipandaworld republic.Recently,normativepoliticalphilosophers, notablyDavidHeld, have revived the notion of cosmopolitanism to championthe values of human rights anddemocracy as general principles of transnational governanceto copewith negative effects of economic globalization (Held, 1995; 2004). This line ofworkarguesthattheemergenceofaworldsociety,worldcultureandevenaworldgovernmentisapositivedevelopmentforall.Thus,theemergenceofcosmopolitanismincitizenshipeducationisinterpretedasleadingtowardsamorejustandequitableworld,andpotentiallyasteptowardscreatingaformalsystemofglobalgovernance.

Acontrastinglineofcosmopolitanresearch,oftencalledworldpolitytheory(referringspecificallyto theneo-institutional studiesof JohnMeyer,FranciscoRamirezandcolleagues), tends tobeagnosticaboutthemoralityofaglobalculture,citingprosandconsofthetrendstheyobserve.Intheclassicpaperoutliningaworldculturalapproach,Meyeretal(1997)statethatduetotheemergenceofaworldsociety“greatergoodbecomespossibleandlikelybutsotoodoesgreaterevil,asgoodandevilbecomemorederivativeofworldcultureandthereforeofgreaterscalethaninearliertimes”(p.173).Further,worldpolitytheoryassertsthataglobalsocietyexistsbecauseof the lackofaworldgovernmentandarguesthat thenation-state isdefinedandlegitimatedas the primary actor on theworld stage. From this perspective, the rise of universalism anddiversity indicatesadecline incharismaof thenation-stateand increasing interconnectednessworldwide,butdonotportendthedemiseofthestate.Thefirstlineofworkinterpretsanincreaseintransnationalismasasteptowardsmoreformalglobalgovernance.Totheextentthatworldsocietytheorytakesanormativestance,itiscriticalofnotionsofaworldgovernment.Meyeretal(1997)arguethat“apowerfullyorganizedandauthoritativeworldwideactorwouldobviouslylower the dynamism ofworld society” (p. 169). Thus,world polity scholars do not interpretincreasingemphasesonuniversalismanddiversityintextbooksasanaturalstepontheroadtoasingleworldgovernmentorhomogenousworldsociety,nordotheyviewthecreationofaformalsystemofglobalgovernanceastheultimategoalofcosmopolitanism.

Linesofcosmopolitanismalsodifferintheirunderstandingofthemechanismsdrivinganincreasein universalism anddiversity. For some, the trends of cosmopolitanism arise unintentionally,insomecasesduetothepressuresofglobalization(Heldetal,1999)orasabyproductof theactivitiesofexperts,professionals,andnation-statesenactingglobally-acceptedscriptsforrationalbehavior (Meyeret al., 1997).Theworldpolityperspectiveargues countriesadopta rangeofpractices,suchassigninginternationalhumanrightstreaties,becauseitistheexpected,rationalandlegitimatethingforcountriestodo,notnecessarilybecausetheybelieveinthetreatyorintendtoenforceit.Thisoftenleadstoextensivedecouplingbetweenformalpoliciesandon-the-groundrealities.Insomecasesasymbolicpolicyadoptioncaninfluencepracticeinawaythatconformsto the cosmopolitan idealsofglobalgovernance,but this isunrelated to the initial reason forratifyingatreaty(SeetheexampleofimprovementsinhumanrightspracticesinHafner-Burtonand Tsutsui 2005). The emphasis on rational actorhood and decouping among world polityscholarsalsoexplainswhytheydonotassumetheempiricalobservationofincreasingemphases



onuniversalismanddiversitywill have inherentbenefits for individualsworldwide.Nation-statesmaynot intendtoenact the idealsput forth incurricula,andglobal interconnectednessmaydeepenasymmetriesinformsofeconomic,political,socialandculturalpower.

Alternatively,othersargue theglobalizationandworldpolitymechanisms laidoutabovearea deformed version of cosmopolitanism (Beck & Sznaider, 2006). In this view, cosmopolitantrends must emerge from a struggle by individuals to promote and implement the idealsof cosmopolitanism itself, not as a byproduct of economic globalization or of countries andindividualsenactingscriptsofrationalactorhood.Papastephanou(2002)differentiatesbetweenglobalizationandtheintentionalcreationofcosmopolitantrendsbyclaiming“thefirstsignifiesanempiricalphenomenonwhereastheseconddenotesanideal”(p.75).Inthecaseofschooling,Gunesh (2004)argues that“‘cosmopolitaneducation’–orperhaps it shouldbe ‘education forcosmopolitanism’–wouldbebasedonaclearconceptualizationof theoutcomes, in termsof‘cosmopolitanism’or‘thecosmopolitanindividual’,ratherthanonaneducationalcontext,suchasaparticular typeof school,oronapurposearising fromparticularviewsof the ‘needs’ofcontemporaryglobalsociety”(p.268-269).Inotherwords,forthisgroupofcosmopolitans,theobserved trends towards universalism and diversity are meaningless unless they stem fromintentional individual action in pursuit of cosmopolitan ideals. Thus, from this perspectiveobservingtheempiricaltrendshasnobearingoncosmopolitanismandonlyanassessmentofthemechanismsofchangecanprovideinsight.Intimethisparticulardividebetweenthevariantsofcosmopolitanthinkingmaylessen.Beck&Sznaider(2006)arguefora‘neo-cosmopolitanism’or‘cosmopolitanrealism’thatembracesworldchangesthatsupporttheirgoalseveniftheyoccurasside-effectsofglobalization.Theysuggestadopting“thefarthercosmopolitanritualsandsymbolsspread,themorechancetherewillbeofsomedayachievingacosmopolitanpoliticalorder”(p.8).

ConclusionThis research has shown an increase in universalism and diversity emphases in high schoolcitizenship education curriculaworldwide in the period since 1970. Empirically, this extendsstudiesofcosmopolitanismineducationtoagreaterrangeofcountriesandoveralongertimeperiodthanpreviousresearch.Theoretically,itillustratesthatcosmopolitanperspectivesvaryintheirinterpretationoftheprocessesdrivingsuchtrendsandtheimplicationsforsociety.Someinterprettheriseofuniversalismanddiversityasasteptowardsanidealworldgovernedbyasingleglobalpolity.Othersarguethatthesetrendsindicateashiftintheconceptionofcitizenshipworldwide,butthatnation-stateswillandshouldremainthemostlegitimateglobalactors.Further,whilesomedepict theconstructionofacosmopolitanworldasutopian,othersavoidtakinganormativestanceon theemergenceofaglobalpolity.Despite thesedifferences, cosmopolitanstudiesofallpersuasionsgreatlyaddtoourunderstandingofsocialandeducationalissuesbyemphasizingthatcountriesarenotindependentunitsofanalysisandbyrecognizingformsofidentityandattachmentbeyondthenation-state.

AcknowledgmentsWorkonthispaperwasfundedbyagrantfromtheSpencerFoundation(200600003)toJohnMeyerandFranciscoRamirez,andbenefitedfromtheirgenerousfeedbackoninitialdrafts.ItreceivedadditionalsupportfromaStanfordSchoolofEducationDissertationImprovementGrant.Finally,thestudywaspossibleonlybecauseoftheimpressivetextbookcollectionoftheGeorgeEckertInstitute, in Braunschweig, and the extraordinarily helpful assistance of Brigitte Depner andherstaff,andthemanyindividualcolleagueswhohelpedcollecttextbooks, includingGarnettRussell, SukYingWong, RennieMoon,David Suárez,MarineChitashvili, Pepka Boyadjieva,


P.Bromley

ShushanikMakaryan,MarikaKorotkova,GiliDrori,SandraStaklis,MarinaAndina,LukeTerra,NiiAddy,CarrieOelberger,JaimeQuevedo,DijanaTiplic,MartinBenvenidas,KaisaSnellman,ElinaMakinen,MagdalenaGross,andElizabethBuckner.

ReferencesAppiah, K. A. (1997). The multicultural misunderstanding. New York Review of Books, 44(15), 30–36.

Beck,U.,&Sznaider,N.(2006).Unpackingcosmopolitanismforthesocialsciences:Aresearchagenda.TheBritishJournalofSociology,57(1),1-23.

Beetham,D.(1999).Democracyandhumanrights.Malden,MA:PolityPress.

Boyle,E.H.,Smith,T.,&Guenther,K. (2007).The riseof the childasan individual inglobalsociety.InVenkatesh,S.A.,&RonaldK.R.(Eds.),Youth,globalizationandthelaw(pp.255-283).Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Breckenridge,C.,Pollock,S.,Bhabha,H.K.&Chakrabarty,D.(2002).Cosmopolitanism.NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Chan-Tiberghien, J. (2004).Gender and human rights politics in Japan:Global norms and domesticnetworks.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Cole,W.(2005).Sovereigntyrelinquished?Explainingcommitmenttotheinternationalhumanrightscovenants,1966-1999,AmericanSociologicalReview,70,472-495.

Delanty,G.(2006a).Thecosmopolitanimagination:Criticalcosmopolitanismandsocialtheory. BritishJournalofSociology,57(1),25-47.

Delanty, G. (2006b). Cosmopolitan Citizenship. In Blau, J. & Smity, I.K (Eds.), Public sociologies reader (pp. 37-50). Maryland: Rowmand and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Elliott, M. (2007). Human rights and the triumph of the individual in world culture. Cultural Sociology, 1(3), 343-363.

Fligstein,N.(2008).Euroclash:TheEU,Europeanidentity,andthefutureofEurope.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Green,A.(1990).Educationandstateformation:TheriseofeducationsystemsinEngland,FranceandtheUSA.London:Macmillan.

Gunesch, K. (2004). Education for cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism as a personal culturalidentitymodelforandwithininternationaleducation.JournalofResearchinInternationalEducation,3,251-275

Hafner-Burton,E.&Tsutsui,K. (2005).“Humanrights inaglobalizingworld:Theparadoxofemptypromises.AmericanJournalofSociology,110(5),1373-1411.

Hannerz,U.(1990).Cosmopolitansandlocalsinworldculture.InM.Featherstone(Ed.),Global



culture:Nationalism,globalisationandmodernity(pp.237–51).London:Sage.

Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Hartmann, D. & Gerteis, J. (2005). Dealing with diversity: Mapping multiculturalism in sociological terms. Sociological Theory, 23(2), 218-240.

Held,D. (1995).Democracyandtheglobalorder:Fromthemodernstate tocosmopolitangovernance.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Held, D. (2004). Global covenant: The social democratic alternative to the Washington consensus. USA: Polity Press.

Held, D., McGrew, A. G, Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,economicsandculture,Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Kaplan, S. (2006). The pedagogical state: Education and the politics of national culture in post-1980 Turkey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Keck, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kolstoe, P. (2000). Political construction sites: Nation-building in Russia and the Post-Soviet states. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kymlicka,W. (1995).Multicultural citizenship:A liberal theory ofminority rights.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Law,W.W.(2004).GlobalizationandcitizenshipeducationinHongKongandTaiwan.ComparativeEducationReview,48(3),253-273

Levinson, B. (2004). Hopes and challenges for the new civic education inMexico: Toward ademocraticcitizenwithoutadjectives.InternationalJournalofEducationalDevelopment,24:269–282.

Levy, D. & Sznaider, N. (2004). The institutionalization of cosmopolitan morality: The Holocaust and human rights. Journal of Human Rights, 3(2): 143-157.

Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G., & Ramirez, F. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 144-81.

Meyer,J.W.,Bromley,P.,&Ramirez,F.Forthcoming.HumanRightsinSocialScienceTextbooks:Cross-NationalAnalyses,1975-2006.SociologyofEducation.

Moon, R. (2009). Teaching world citizenship: The cross-national adoption of human rights in formal schooling. School of Education, Stanford University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Mintrop, H. (2003). The old and new face of civic education: Expert, teacher and student views. European Educational Research Journal, 2(3), 446-454.


P.Bromley

Nussbaum, M. (1994). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. Boston Review, XIX, 5.

Papastephanou,M.(2002).Arrowsnotyetfired:Cultivatingcosmopolitanismthrougheducation.JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,36(1),69–86.

Pogge,T.(2008).Worldpovertyandhumanrights:Cosmopolitanresponsibilitiesandreforms.Malden,MA:PolityPress.

Pollock, S., Bhabha, H. K, Breckenridge, C. A., & Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Cosmopolitanisms. Public Culture, 12(3), 577–589.

Ramirez, F., Suárez, D., & Meyer, J. W. (2006). The worldwide rise of human rights education, 1950-2005. In Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. (Eds.), The changing contents of primary and secondary education: Comparative studies of the school curriculum (pp. 25-52). Hong Kong: CERC.

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.

Rokkan, S. (1975). Dimensions of state formation and nation-building: A possible paradigm for research variations within Europe. In Tilly, C. (Ed), The formation of national states (pp. 570-598). NJ: Princeton University Press.

Skrentny, J.D. (2002). The minority rights revolution. Boston: Belknap Press.

Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Suárez, D. (2008). Rewriting citizenship? Civic education in Costa Rica and Argentina. Comparative Education, 44(4), 485-503.

Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. eds. (2002). Conceiving cosmopolitanism: Theory, context and practice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Wotipka,C.,&Ramirez,F. (2008).Worldsocietyandhumanrights:Aneventhistoryanalysisoftheconventionontheeliminationofallformsofdiscriminationagainstwomen.InGarrett,G,Simmons,B.,andDobbin,F.(Eds.),Theglobaldiffusionofmarketsanddemocracy(pp.303-343).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity.

Copyright©2009CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducationTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity

AllRightsReserved.

current issues in comparative education

Documents