Educational Differentials in the Netherlands: Testing Rational Action Theory

Ariana Need, Uulkje De Jong

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    52 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In this paper, we test how well Rational Action Theory, as developed to explain educational differentials, applies in the Dutch situation. The question we address is the extent to which the mechanisms assumed to be at work can explain class and gender differentials in participation in higher education. After explaining the Dutch educational system and outlining Rational Action Theory, we formulate four hypotheses that we test using data from a panel survey among high school pupils first interviewed in 1991. Evaluating the theory, we conclude that the mechanisms assumed to be at work can indeed explain class differentials in participation in higher education. Moreover, we find support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of relative risk aversion is the most crucial factor in the model. We could not convincingly show that the theory explains gender differentials.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)71-98
    Number of pages28
    JournalRationality and Society
    Volume13
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2001

    Fingerprint

    action theory
    Netherlands
    participation
    gender
    educational system
    pupil
    education
    school

    Keywords

    • educational differentials
    • higher education
    • rational action theory

    Cite this

    @article{beef64cf6ed54409869c807456cb3703,
    title = "Educational Differentials in the Netherlands: Testing Rational Action Theory",
    abstract = "In this paper, we test how well Rational Action Theory, as developed to explain educational differentials, applies in the Dutch situation. The question we address is the extent to which the mechanisms assumed to be at work can explain class and gender differentials in participation in higher education. After explaining the Dutch educational system and outlining Rational Action Theory, we formulate four hypotheses that we test using data from a panel survey among high school pupils first interviewed in 1991. Evaluating the theory, we conclude that the mechanisms assumed to be at work can indeed explain class differentials in participation in higher education. Moreover, we find support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of relative risk aversion is the most crucial factor in the model. We could not convincingly show that the theory explains gender differentials.",
    keywords = "educational differentials, higher education, rational action theory",
    author = "Ariana Need and {De Jong}, Uulkje",
    year = "2001",
    month = "2",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1177/104346301013001003",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    pages = "71--98",
    journal = "Rationality and Society",
    issn = "1043-4631",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications",
    number = "1",

    }

    Educational Differentials in the Netherlands : Testing Rational Action Theory. / Need, Ariana; De Jong, Uulkje.

    In: Rationality and Society, Vol. 13, No. 1, 01.02.2001, p. 71-98.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Educational Differentials in the Netherlands

    T2 - Testing Rational Action Theory

    AU - Need, Ariana

    AU - De Jong, Uulkje

    PY - 2001/2/1

    Y1 - 2001/2/1

    N2 - In this paper, we test how well Rational Action Theory, as developed to explain educational differentials, applies in the Dutch situation. The question we address is the extent to which the mechanisms assumed to be at work can explain class and gender differentials in participation in higher education. After explaining the Dutch educational system and outlining Rational Action Theory, we formulate four hypotheses that we test using data from a panel survey among high school pupils first interviewed in 1991. Evaluating the theory, we conclude that the mechanisms assumed to be at work can indeed explain class differentials in participation in higher education. Moreover, we find support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of relative risk aversion is the most crucial factor in the model. We could not convincingly show that the theory explains gender differentials.

    AB - In this paper, we test how well Rational Action Theory, as developed to explain educational differentials, applies in the Dutch situation. The question we address is the extent to which the mechanisms assumed to be at work can explain class and gender differentials in participation in higher education. After explaining the Dutch educational system and outlining Rational Action Theory, we formulate four hypotheses that we test using data from a panel survey among high school pupils first interviewed in 1991. Evaluating the theory, we conclude that the mechanisms assumed to be at work can indeed explain class differentials in participation in higher education. Moreover, we find support for the hypothesis that the mechanism of relative risk aversion is the most crucial factor in the model. We could not convincingly show that the theory explains gender differentials.

    KW - educational differentials

    KW - higher education

    KW - rational action theory

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84993661050&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1177/104346301013001003

    DO - 10.1177/104346301013001003

    M3 - Article

    VL - 13

    SP - 71

    EP - 98

    JO - Rationality and Society

    JF - Rationality and Society

    SN - 1043-4631

    IS - 1

    ER -