Bachelor thesis

(1)

Bachelor thesis

Student;

Patricia Hoeksma

S2912341

Supervisor; M Abolhassani

(2)

Globalization and education opportunities;

The distribution between the sexes in developing countries

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Researchers have been showing an increasing interest in globalization as a concept in the past decades, using it in different contexts with varying definitions. Reoccurring aspects in all of the definitions are the technological, economic, cultural, and political changes. However, few agree on the combination of these changes and whether this concept truly exists for everybody (Schirato & Webb, 2003). This ambiguity divides the globalization movement into two blocs; the globalists and skeptics. Globalists accept globalization as a real and significant development with evident structural changes in the past few centuries. Skeptics, however, consider globalization a mere continuation of trends, which were already developed during the European colonial expansion. For skeptics, globalization thus is principally ideological, present more in the discourse than in reality (Held & McGrew, 2000).

Following the reasoning of globalists, a subsequent concern is if the effects of globalization are positive or negative. Korten (1997) associates globalization and the friendly fascist society, specifying that corporations and governments will have to work together in a more globalized world. These alliances will be dominated by the corporations, consequently lowering the impact of the welfare state (Korten, 1997). In addition, Lindahl (2006) claims that economic inequality in the world is increasing with intensifying globalization. However, economic inequality does not always have the same impact on education as experienced in the rest of society. Waldman (2003) researched this phenomenon and concludes that lower-income economies do not necessarily experience lower private spending on education. For example, in Paraguay, India, and Jamaica, a little below 3% of the GDP is spent on primary and secondary education through private funds, while in Sweden, Finland, and Norway, there has been virtually no private spending (World Bank, 2004). This shows that the impact of globalization on economies does not necessarily influence education in the same way.

(4)

As one of the few to focus on primary education, Easterlin (1981) does not focus on the globalization effect on education but analyzes the relationship between primary education and economic growth. Easterlin (1981) concludes, similarly to Wannachai (2019), that primary education is positively related to economic growth. Examining Easterlin (1981) and Wannachai (2019), both researches focus specifically on the economic implications in globalization and mainly its economic effects. This focus corresponds with the definition of globalization by Badinger (2009); “the trade and financial openness of a country”, referring to only economic globalization while leaving out the technological, political, and cultural aspects. In line with Easterlin (1981), Wannachai (2019), and Badinger (2009), this research will analyze the relationship between globalization and education. Unlike many studies on this subject, which are performed on secondary and tertiary education, this study will focus on primary education. Through analyzing the impact of economic globalization on primary education, the base of the impact is investigated and future gaps can be explained by the source. By going to the beginning of education inequality, policymakers can start building from the bottom and gradually increase education opportunities into secondary and tertiary education.

The importance of starting from the source of gender inequality is also recognized by the United Nations. The millennium goal of the UN to ensure that by 2015 primary education in developing countries should be available to all for both boys and girls alike, solicits a positive start in children’s lives and build up from there (United Nations, 2015). Although not 100% accomplished, the UN claims that in 2015, 91% of children in developing regions were enrolled in primary education (United Nations, 2015). These numbers include both boys and girls, but do not specify the exact numbers of the sexes and is thus no measure for the difference in education opportunities between the two genders. However, it is essential to recognize the gender inequality in these numbers as research shows that gender inequality leads to higher costs and limits a country’s ability to compete internationally (World Bank, 2012). Although accepting this link, Brine (1999) finds that gender equality can only be achieved if this is linked to productivity. Linking this with the circular relationship between the knowledge-based economy, economic growth, and globalization, it is thus also important to see the relationship between globalization and the distribution of educational opportunities between the two genders.

(5)

globalization not merely on education or gender inequality, but studies both aspects. With this study, the goal is to go to the first signs of gender inequality in education and this way gaining new insights and opening a gate to future policies. As most of the existing literature is about the effect of globalization on secondary and tertiary education, I will focus on the relationship between economic globalization and primary education. This way, building a basis for future research on the relationship between different aspects of globalization and the parity between boys and girls in primary education opportunities. With the results of this study, not only possibilities for future research open up, but policymakers can also potentially start working on gender equality in education from the bottom down.

By measuring globalization as FDI inflows, Trade Openness, or the KOF economic globalization index, I find that economic globalization on a world level is positively related to the primary school enrollment gender parity index. However, Asia and Latin America & the Caribbean do not show such a significant relationship. In the next section I will present a general overview of current literature and knowledge on this subject leading to the hypothesis. This will be followed by section 3, explaining the method used to analyze the research question, and finally, the results are presented and discussed in section 4. Section 5 will conclude this paper with a summary of the findings, recommendations for future research, and the limitations of this study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

(6)

An explanation to these opposing views can be found in the empirical research of Elborgh-Woytek et al. (2013), which finds a u-shaped relationship between the women’s labor force participation and per capita income. They argue that women are required to work more at lower levels of income due to the absence of social protection programs. More social security and a higher household income suggest that women can focus on the household and their children, resulting in fewer women participating in the workforce (Elborh-Woytek et al., 2013). Several researches find that in economically advanced countries women attain better education, have a lower fertility rate, and enjoy increased access to certain labor-saving household techniques. As a result, female employment in advanced countries is higher (Duflo, 2012; Tsani, Leaonidas, Costas, Ioannis & Pantelis, 2012). The research of Duflo (2012) and Tsani et al. (2012) show a combination of economic influences and education, where women have greater opportunities to attain schooling in advanced economies. However, Dorius and Firebaugh (2010) find that gender inequality is decreasing in advanced economies and additionally, gender inequality has been decreasing globally in both developing and developed countries.

In a cross-national study, Meyer (2003) finds that the effect of economic globalization on women’s empowerment can be positive, due to a larger export economy and a high concentration of commodities imposing a lower level of occupational gender segregation. However, there are also researchers opposing the positive effects of globalization, claiming that globalization is generally associated with the reduction of nation-state power and intervention in the economy, the decline of politics and the exacerbation of employer/employee divide, which together leads to a negative impact on women’s empowerment (Blackmore, 2000). Similarly, Brenner (2004) finds that globalization impacts the rescaling of contemporary politics, and Rhodes (1997) finds the effects of globalization on the move from governments to governance. Klasen (2002) finds that gender inequality in education and the workforce negatively impacts long-term economic growth in developing countries, being accountable for almost 1 percentage point difference in long-run growth between Kenya and high-performing Asian countries.

(7)

focusing on China which is adjusting to Western societies in almost all areas of society, including education. The reason for this learning can be found in the explanation of isomorphism and its two types; competitive and institutional (Meyer, 1979; Fennel, 1980). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define isomorphism as “the constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions”. Meyer (1979) and Fennell (1980) developed a ground for the two different types of isomorphism which is later extended by Greenwood and Hinings (1996). Greenwood and Hinings (1996) explain that competitive isomorphism assumes that organizations are becoming isomorphic with their context in order to gain legitimacy and increase their probability of survival and conformity with the surrounding institutions. On the other hand, institutional isomorphism occurs as a result of organizations not only competing for resources and customers but also for political power and institutional legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983). Opposing the isomorphism approach is Kaur (2010), who believes this adjustment does not extend to health and education, meaning that gender inequality in these areas remains to exist.

Torpey-Saboe (2019) shows in his research on the effect of trade openness on education inequality that this is dependent on the type of economy. Economies with a focus on land and capital experience a positive relationship between globalization and education inequality, whereas in labor-abundant economies globalization causes education inequality to decrease (Torpey-Saboe, 2019). Torpey-Saboe (2019) also finds that this inequality is mainly present in gender inequality, reasoned with the uneven effect of factor abundance on boys and girls. As a result of free trade, developing economies are moving towards labor-abundant economies, increasingly employing female employees and motivating parents to educate their daughters (Torpey-Saboe, 2019). In line with this reasoning, I hypothesize that higher economic globalization will lead to a lower difference in education opportunities between the two sexes.

(8)

METHODOLOGY & DATA Sample selection & data description

The data used in this study is obtained from the World Bank and the KOF Swiss Economic Institute. The dataset consists of 62 developing countries over the period 2008 to 2017. The selection of these countries is based on the country classification by the United Nations (2019), which classifies countries as developed, transitioning, or developing economies. The 62 countries are spread across the three regions; Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, as depicted in table 1. The period is chosen based on the most recent available data as a way to analyze the current impact of globalization on developing countries. This results in a strongly balanced panel dataset of 620 country-year observations.

In this study, the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable is estimated through a fixed effects regression. A fixed-effects regression allows me to control for time-invariant unobserved individual characteristics, which could be correlated with the observed independent variables. The analysis will first be performed on the world level, to then confirm the different results for the three separate regions with a fixed-effects analysis. Before performing the fixed effects analysis, the independent and control variables are checked for heteroscedasticity through a scatterplot of residuals and multicollinearity with a Pearson correlation estimate. The results of these were displaying no correlation between any of the independent or control variables.

Table 1; Selection of countries

Asia Latin America & Caribbean Africa

Afghanistan Bahamas Morocco

Bhutan Belize Tunisia

Cambodia Costa Rica Cameroon

India Dominican Republic Chad

Indonesia El Salvador Burundi

Iran Guatemala Madagascar

Israel Honduras Rwanda

Jordan Mexico Uganda

Kuwait Panama Tanzania

Lao PDR Argentina Lesotho

Mongolia Bolivia Malawi

Nepal Chile Mauritius

Pakistan Colombia Mozambique

Qatar Ecuador South Africa

Saudi Arabia Peru Zambia

Sri Lanka Uruguay Benin

Timor Leste Algeria Burkina Faso

(9)

Vietnam Cote d’Ivoire The Gambia Ghana Mali Niger Senegal Togo Variables

To measure the difference in opportunities between boys and girls in primary education, I use the gross primary enrollment gender parity index (GPI) as a dependent variable. The gross primary enrollment gender parity index measures the ratio of female to male enrolled in primary schooling for public and private schools, showing the parity between boys and girls in primary enrollment rates. A value below 1 indicates a lower number of enrollments by girls, while a value above 1 indicates a higher enrollment rate of girls over boys. As to make the effects of the independent variables clearly visible in the tables, GPI is multiplied by 1000.

To test the influence of economic globalization (EconomicGlobalization) on the distribution of education opportunities between boys and girls, I will use three different measures of economic globalization. First, I will use trade as the percentage of GDP (TradeOpenness), measured by dividing the sum of imports and exports by the GDP, to determine the economy's openness. Next to this, I will use the FDI inflow (FDIinflow), measured as the net inflows in the reporting economy from foreign investors divided by GDP, to also define the openness to investments from outsiders into the economy. Although contradicting literature exists on the impact and sourcing of FDI in developing countries, most agree it to be a possible measure of how open the country is to foreign companies and consequently how globalized a country is considered to be (Brainard & Riker, 1997; Borensztein, De Gregorio & Lee, 1998; Beugelsdijk, Smeets & Zwinkels, 2008). Lastly, the KOF economic globalization index (KOFeconomic) will be used. The KOF economic globalization index measures the level of economic globalization through trade globalization as well as financial globalization. These three proxies are in line with Badinger's (2009) definition of globalization, measured as trade and financial openness (TradeOpenness and FDIinflow), coming together to a more extended measure in the KOF economic globalization index.

(10)

personal income on women's autonomy and empowerment. However, there is an overall consensus on the economic realm playing a role in this (Chung, Ibrahim, Karlsson, Benach, Espelt & Multaner, 2013; Slusser, 2009). Hence I will include the GDP per capita growth (GDP) as a variable to control for this.

Another critical variable influencing the education opportunities of girls is the representation of females in politics. Although findings on this still differ, most research suggests that a higher number of females active in a nation's politics leads to higher female empowerment. Higher female representation generally means women now have a voice to change policies and empower women through their political function (Alves & Steiner, 2017). However, there are researches opposing this, claiming the majority of females in parliament are often housewives of the higher economic class with little education (Halder, 2004). As a result, real empowerment is often ignored and the focus is put on increasing respect for wives and mothers (Halder, 2004). To control for this possible relation, the female representation in national politics will be measured by the share of female representation in national parliaments (Parliament).

Lastly, the possibilities ICT offers to women is considered, measured as individuals with access to the internet (Internet). Not only does this give women the opportunity to educate themselves through online courses, but it also plays a vital role in connecting groups from different countries, learning from each other and consequently increasing the women empowerment movement (Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Melhem, Morell & Tandon, 2009).

In addition to the aforementioned independent, dependent, and control variables, two dummies are added to ensure the pure effect of economic globalization. Both a time (𝜏) and region

dummy (𝜂_𝑡) are included to measure the real influence of economic globalization and incorporate

differences across geographical regions. To test the effects of economic globalization on the distribution of primary education opportunities between the sexes, the following regression model is constructed;

𝐺𝑃𝐼_𝑖,𝑡 = 𝛽₀+ 𝛽₁𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛_𝑖,𝑡+ 𝛽₂𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑡_𝑖,𝑡+ 𝛽₃𝐺𝐷𝑃_𝑖,𝑡 + 𝛽₄𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡_𝑖,𝑡 + 𝜏 + 𝜂_𝑡+ 𝜀_𝑖,𝑡

(11)

to not only see the relationship between the independent and dependent variables in the world but also in the 3 subregions. By examining if I find a positive 𝛽₁ the hypothesis for a positive relationship between economic globalization and the distribution of primary education opportunities between the sexes is tested.

Table 2 gives an overview of the variables used and their short definition. In this table the three different proxies for economic globalization are listed next to economic globalization.

Table 2; Variables description

Table 3 shows the summary statistics of the variables used in the regression analysis. For every variable in the first line, the summary statistics of the world are shown, followed by the specific summary statistics of the different regions used in this research. This enables a full overview of the different values across the regions, allowing quick identification of interesting differences early in the research process. The countries in my sample on average have relatively low gender inequality in primary education with a mean primary education enrollment GPI of 967.44 and only small differences between the three areas of maximum 14.5. FDI inflow as part of GDP has a mere average of 4.09, with again little variation between the three global areas of at most 1.14. Trade Openness has a mean of 73.98 with slightly larger differences between Asia and Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean of roughly 12. Developing countries have a KOF economic globalization value of on average 51.59, with Africa lagging behind showing an average KOF economic globalization index of only 47.17.

GPI School enrollment, primary (gross), gender parity index (GPI) EconomicGlobalization FDI inflow (% of GDP)

KOF economic globalization index Trade Openness

GDP GDP per capita growth (annual %)

(12)

Table 3; Summary statistics

Min Max Mean Median S.D Kurtosis N

GPIα _636.42 _1161.04 _967.44 _979.17 _72.26 _4.04 ₆₂₀

Asia 636.42 1161.04 972.60 983.68 85.08 5.15 190 Africa 704.47 1158.02 958.28 968.41 80.13 .559 270 Latin America &

Caribbean

863.53 1018.91 976.78 978.83 24.46 4.38 160

FDIinflow -37.15 43.91 4.09 2.82 5.10 22.11 620

Asia -37.15 43.91 3.33 1.50 6.13 23.02 190

Africa -4.85 39.46 4.47 3.02 5.32 14.34 270

Latin America & Carribean

-.61 12.75 4.34 3.75 2.86 .213 160

TradeOpenness -.58 200.38 73.98 65.91 31.80 .67 620

Asia 25.31 200.38 82.13 81.72 36.81 -.12 190

Africa -.58 161.89 70.16 64.80 28.06 .65 270

22.49 166.70 70.76 64.73 29.69 .94 160

KOFeconomic 26.60 85.20 51.59 51.00 12.97 -.51 620

Asia 26.60 80.20 53.18 53.20 15.11 -1.17 190

Africa 28.70 85.20 47.17 46.55 10.89 2.10 270

31.40 78.60 57.17 58.89 10.71 -.06 160

Parliament .00 63.80 20.29 18.65 12.19 .61 620

Asia .00 38.50 15.98 15.85 10.32 -.97 190

Africa 5.20 63.80 22.09 18.45 12.92 .79 270

0.00 53.10 22.39 19.90 11.71 -.25 160

Internet .51 100.00 27.20 21.74 22.37 -.19 620

Asia .51 100.00 31.00 22.33 25.24 -.33 190

Africa .70 64.19 16.00 10.00 15.99 .46 270

8.30 85.00 41.59 39.93 17.88 -.46 160

GDP -27.23 18.52 2.11 2.21 3.65 8.84 620

Asia -27.23 18.52 2.57 3.38 5.05 6.99 190

Africa -10.86 11.32 1.89 1.94 2.80 2.96 270

-6.85 9.40 1.94 1.97 2.82 1.10 160

(13)

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Table 4 shows the results from the fixed effects test on the proposed hypothesis. Column (1) reports the regression outcomes of the applied model with Trade Openness as a proxy for globalization. Column (2) shows the regression outcomes of the applied model with KOF economic globalization index as a proxy. Column (3) presents the regression outcomes for the applied model with FDI as the proxy for globalization. The results show that economic globalization, measured as the KOF economic globalization index or Trade Openness, increases the equality of primary education opportunities between boys and girls. An increase of 1% in trade openness results in a 0.023% higher primary enrollment rate GPI and an increase of 1 point on the KOF economic globalization index leads to 0.009% higher primary enrollment GPI. These results support the hypothesis that more globalized countries experience more equal education opportunities between boys and girls and is in line with most researches performed on the relation between globalization and gender inequality (Torpey-Saboe, 2019; Meyer, 2003).

(14)

Table 4;

Globalization and education opportunities in the world

Notes: Column (1) in this table shows the fixed effects regression result for Trade Openness as a measure of economic globalization. Column (2) shows the fixed effects regression results for KOF economic globalization index as a proxy of economic globalization, column (3) shows the fixed effects regression results for FDI inflow as an indicator for economic globalization. All specifications include country and year dummies. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. *** p<0.01.

Next, to test how these relationships relate to different parts of the world, three regions are defined, Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Table 5 shows the regression results for Africa, where column (1) depicts globalization measured as Trade Openness, column (2) KOF economic index, and column (3) FDI inflow as part of GDP. Globalization measured as Trade Openness or KOF economic index positively impacts the distribution of education opportunities between boys and girls in Africa. Globalization measured as FDI inflow again shows no significant relationship with primary enrolment GPI in Africa. This is in line with the results of the analysis of the developing countries across the world and supports the hypothesis that globalization positively impacts the distribution of primary education opportunities in developing countries.

Table 6 shows the results of the fixed effects regression on developing countries in the region Asia. Column (1) presents globalization measured as Trade Openness, column (2) as KOF economic

(15)

index, column (3) as FDI inflow as part of GDP. These results show no significant relationship between globalization and the distribution of primary education opportunities between the two sexes, opposing the aforementioned results and rejecting the hypothesis.

Table 7 shows the results of the fixed effects regression on developing countries in the region Latin America and the Caribbean. Similar to Asia, these results show no significant relationship between globalization and the distribution of primary education opportunities between the two sexes. This is opposing the majority of literature stating economic globalization influences education opportunities and gender inequality across the world. The result for female representation and its effect on primary education enrollment GPI are interesting to note. The results portray a negative relationship between the female representation in national parliaments and primary education opportunities distribution, opposing most literature. A reason for this could be the type of representation of females in national parliaments. If similar to Bangladesh, the majority of women in national parliaments are low educated higher class housewives, the effect on girls in education will not be positive (Halder, 2004). In fact, this often results in female empowerment in the sense that more respect is gained as wives and mothers (Halder, 2004), leaving education to be of less importance for girls, possibly even increasing inequality.

(16)

Table 5;

Globalization and education opportunities in Africa

(17)

Table 6;

Globalization and education opportunities in Asia

(18)

Table 7;

Globalization and education opportunities in Latin America & Caribbean

Notes: Column (1) in this table shows the fixed effects regression result for Trade Openness as a measure of economic globalization. Column (2) shows the fixed effects regression results for KOF economic globalization index as a proxy of economic globalization, column (3) shows the fixed effects regression results for FDI inflow as an indicator for economic globalization. All specifications include country and year dummies. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. *p<0.10 ** p<0.05 ***p<0.01.

(19)

CONCLUSION

The results of this study give a critical view on the previous research performed on the relationship between gender inequality in education and globalization. My findings suggest a significant positive relationship between economic globalization and the gender gap in primary education opportunities in developing countries. This holds when measuring economic globalization as trade openness or using the KOF economic globalization index. However, in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, such a relationship is not found in this study. When using FDI inflow as a proxy for economic globalization, no significant relationship is found in either of the regions or the world. Future research is necessary to study the differences between the three regions and its relation between economic globalization and the distribution of primary education opportunities between the two sexes.

In addition to the explanatory variables, I also found the number of females in national parliaments in Latin America and the Caribbean to be negatively correlated with primary education enrollment GPI. Opposing most of the current existing literature on this relationship, future research is necessary to find the exact cause of this negative relationship in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2008 and 2017.

(20)

disadvantage of attaining primary education when the country exists of primarily girls. Future research should take into account the difference in demographics and weight the GPI against this.

REFERENCES

1. Alves, E. E., & Steiner, A. Q. 2017. Globalization, technology and female empowerment, breaking rights or connecting opportunities? Social Indicators Research, 133: 859-877. 2. An, S. 2000. Globalization of Education in China. International Journal of Educational

Reform, 9(2): 128-133.

3. Badinger, H. 2009. Globalization, the output-inflation tradeoff and inflation. European

Economic Review, 53: 888-907.

4. Beneria, L., Berik, G., & Floro, M. 2015. Gender, development and globalization: economics

as if all people mattered. New York: Routledge.

5. Beugelsdijk, S., Smeets, R., & Zwinkels, R. 2008. The impact of horizontal and vertical FDI on host’s country economic growth. International Business Review, 17: 452-472.

6. Bhagwati, J. 2004. In defense of globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.

7. Blackmore, J. 2000. ‘Restructuring relations’ between the state, family, work and education in globalizing economies. Australian Educational Researcher, 27(3): 17-35.

8. Boli, J., & Thomas, G. G. 1997. World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review, 62(2): 171-190.

9. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J. W. 1998. How does foreign investment affect growth? Journal of International Economics, 45(1): 115-135.

10. Brainard, S. L., & Riker, D. A. 1997. Are U.S. multinationals exporting U.S jobs? Working paper no. 5958, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge MA.

11. Braunstein, E., & Heintz, J. 2008. Gender bias and central bank policy: employment and inflation reduction. International Review of Applied Economics, 22(2): 173-186.

12. Brenner, N. 2004. New state spaces: urban governance and the rescaling of statehood, Oxford: Oxford university press.

13. Brine, J., & Brine, D. 1999. Under educating Women: Globalization inequality. Work

Employment & Society, 14(4): 797-818.

(21)

15. Chung, H., NG, E., Ibrahim, S., Karlsson, B., Benach, J., Espelt, A., & Multaner, C. 2013. Welfare state regimes, gender, and depression: a multilevel analysis of middle and high income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public health, 10(4): 1324-1341.

16. Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160. 17. Dorius, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. 2010. Trends in Global Gender Inequality. Social Forces, 88(5):

1941-1968.

18. Duflo, E. 2012. Women Empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic

Literature, 50(4): 1051-1079.

19. Easterlin, R. A. 1981. Why isn’t the whole world developed? The journal of Economic

History, 41: 1-19.

20. Elborgh-Woytek, M. K., Newiak, M., Kochhar, S., Fabrizio, S., Kpodar, K., Wingender, P., Clements, B., & Schwartz, G. 2013. Women, work, and the economy: Macroeconomic gains

from gender equity. International Monetary Fund.

21. Fennell, M. L. 1980. The effects of environmental characteristics on the structure of hospital clusters. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 484-510.

22. Fontana, M., Joekes, S.P., & Masika, R. 1998. Global trade expansion and liberalisation:

gender issues and impacts. Brighton: Bridge (development-gender).

23. Gozgor, G., & Kablamaci, B. 2015. What happened to urbanization in the globalization era? An empirical examination for poor emerging countries. The Annals of Regional Science, 55: 533-553.

24. Gray, M.M., Kittilson, M.C., & Sandholtz, W. 2006. Women and globalization: a study of 180 countries, 1975–2000, International Organization, 60: 293–333.

25. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21: 1022-1054.

26. Halder N. 2004. Female representation in Parliament: A case study from Bangladesh. New

Zealand Journal of Asian Studies, 6(1): 27-63.

27. Held, D., & McGrew, A. 2000. The Global Transformations Introduction to the Globalization

(22)

28. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. 2003. Rising tide: gender equality and cultural change around the

world, Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

29. Jayasuriya, R., & Wodon, Q. 2003. Explaining country efficiency in improving health and education indicators: the role of urbanization. World development report 2003.

30. Kaur, R. 2010. International structure and women empowerment. Asia Pacific Journal of

Rural Development, 20(2): 103–122.

31. Keck, M.E., & Sikkink, K. 1998 Transnational advocacy networks in the movement society. In Meyer, D.S. & Tarrow S. (Eds.) The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new

century. p217-240. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

32. Klasen, S. 2002. Low schooling for Girls, Slower Growth for All? Cross-Country Evidence on the Effect of Gender Inequality in Education on Economic Development. The World Bank

Economic Review, 16(3): 345-373.

33. Komatsu, T. 2013. Why do policy leaders adopt global education reforms? A political analysis of SBM reform adoption in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina. Education Policy Analysis

Archives, 21(62): 1-16.

34. Korten, D. 1997. The UN Inc: The United Nations and the corporate agenda. Earth Island

Journal, 12(4): 38-39.

35. Lindahl, R. 2006. The Right to Education in a Globalized World. Journal of Studies in

International Education. 10(1): 5-26.

36. Melhelm, S. Morell, C., & Tandon, N. 2009. Information and communication technologies

for women’s socio-economic empowerment. World Bank

37. Meyer, J.W. 1979. The impact of the Centralization of Educational Funding and Control on

State and Local Organization Governance. Stanford: Institute for Research on Educational

Finance & Governance.

38. Meyer, L.B. 2003. Economic globalization and women’s status in the labor market: A cross-national investigation of occupational sex segregation and inequality. The Sociological

Quarterly, 44(3): 351-383.

39. Moghadam, V. 1999. Gender and globalization: female labour and women’s mobilization.

Journal of World Systems Research, 5: 367-388.

40. Rai, S. M. 2004. Gender and the political economy of development; from nationalism to

(23)

41. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997. Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity

and accountability, Philidelphia: Open University.

42. Richards, D., L., & Gelleny, R. 2007. Women’s status and economic globalization.

International Studies Quarterly, 51(4): 855-876.

43. Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. 2015. Towards a ‚critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(1): 149-170.

44. Schirato, T., & Webb, J. 2003. The idea of globalization. Understanding globalization, London: SAGE publications.

45. Slusser, S.R. 2009. Gender empowerment and gender inequality, the global economy and the

state: exploring the relationship between economic dependency, the political order, and women’s status. Thesis: University of Akron.

46. Torpey-Saboe, N. 2019. Education Inequality Around the World. Measuring Education

Inequality in Developing Countries. Denver: Palgrave Macmillan.

47. Tsani, S., Leonidas, P., Costas, F., Ioannis, C., & Pantelis, C. 2014. Female Labor Force Participation and Economic Development. Economic and Social Development of the

Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries. 303-318.

48. United Nations, 2015. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. 49. United Nations, 2019. World Economic Situation and Prospects

50. Waldman, A. 2003, November 15. India’s poor bet precious sums on private schools. New York: The New York times.

51. Wannachai, S. 2019. Education Related to Economic Growth and Employment. Oakville: Society Publishing.

52. Wichterich, C. 2009. Trade – A driving force for jobs and women’s empowerment? Focus on

China and India. Berlin: Friedrich-Elbert-Stiftung.

53. World bank. 2004. World bank education statistics database.