教育如何促进贫困者的婚姻发展?
|
摘要
研究以中国综合社会调查(CGSS) 2013年数据中1 073个出生于农村贫困家庭的"70后"为个案,分四个维度对受教育年限与贫困者婚姻发展的关系展开讨论。结果表明,在控制政治、经济、文化等无关变量的情况下,教育对贫困者的初婚年龄、配偶受教育年限、配偶职业层次、生育规模均有不同程度影响。这突破了以贫困者职业发展为基本目标的传统教育扶贫模式,为新时代教育扶贫战略的深入推进提供了启示。研究据此建议:加快普及免费高中教育,发挥教育对贫困者婚育节奏的调控作用;加快提升中小学教育质量,发挥教育对贫困者身心健康的早期导向作用;加快发展职业技术教育,发挥教育对贫困者婚育观念的渗透作用。
Based on the data of 1 073 people born in the 1970 s in rural poor families in the 2013 Chinese General Social Survey( CGSS),the study explored the relationship between marriage and education background of the economically disadvantaged individual in four dimensions. The results show that in controlling political,economic,cultural and other unrelated variables,education has different degrees of influence on the age of first marriage,the years of education of spouses,the level of spouse's occupation,and the number of children in the marriage.This finding challenges the traditional model of poverty alleviation through education, which focuses primarily on the vocational training of the poor,and provides insights for furthering strategic poverty alleviation through education in the new era. The study proposes to accelerate the popularization of free high school education,so as to allow education to play a moderating part in regulating the marriage and childbearing of the poor.Efforts should also be made to improve the quality of primary and secondary education,so as to give play to the early guiding role of education on the physical and mental health of the poor. Moreover, vocational and technical training should be provided to maximize the impact of education on the perception of marriage and childbearing of the poor.
Based on the data of 1 073 people born in the 1970 s in rural poor families in the 2013 Chinese General Social Survey( CGSS),the study explored the relationship between marriage and education background of the economically disadvantaged individual in four dimensions. The results show that in controlling political,economic,cultural and other unrelated variables,education has different degrees of influence on the age of first marriage,the years of education of spouses,the level of spouse's occupation,and the number of children in the marriage.This finding challenges the traditional model of poverty alleviation through education, which focuses primarily on the vocational training of the poor,and provides insights for furthering strategic poverty alleviation through education in the new era. The study proposes to accelerate the popularization of free high school education,so as to allow education to play a moderating part in regulating the marriage and childbearing of the poor.Efforts should also be made to improve the quality of primary and secondary education,so as to give play to the early guiding role of education on the physical and mental health of the poor. Moreover, vocational and technical training should be provided to maximize the impact of education on the perception of marriage and childbearing of the poor.
引文
[1]吴晓蓉,范小梅.教育回报的反贫困作用模型与实现机制[J].教育研究,2018,(9):82-90.
[2]范小梅,吴晓蓉.教育如何促进贫困者的职业发展?[J].教育与经济,2018,(1):48-56.
[3]Lfgren L,Mc Intyre F.The relationship between women’s education and marriage outcomes[J].Journal of Labor Economics,2006,24(4):787-830.
[4]谭仁杰.市场经济与婚姻发展趋势[J].经济评论,1995,(1):82-87.
[5]金斗燮.韩国跨国婚姻发展趋势———配偶差异、婚姻稳定度及生育率研究[J].贵州大学学报(社会科学版),2013,(5):1-8.
[6]Brunner E D,Wayland S.education and marriage[J].The Journal of Educational Sociology,1958,32(1):28-36.
[7]李若建.机遇与成本:大都市青年女性的就业、教育、婚姻状况变迁研究[J].南方人口,2010,(2):25-31.
[8]Elder G H.Appearance and education in marriage mobility[J].American Sociological Review,1969,34(4):519-533.
[9]陈建伟.教育的婚姻回报:“学得好”与“嫁得好”[J].上海财经大学学报,2015,(12):22-34.
[10]梁同贵.我国城镇第一代独生子女的受教育程度对婚姻的影响———基于苏州市吴中区与上海市闵行区的调查分析[D].上海:华东师范大学,2011.
[11] Arokiasamy P,McNay K,Cassen R H. Female education and fertility decline:recent developments in the relationships[J].Economic and Political Weekly,2004,39(41):4503-4507.
[12]Downey D B.When bigger is not better:family size,parental resources,and chilidren’s educational performance[J].American Sociological Review,1995,60(5):746-761.
[13]李春玲.“80后”的教育经历与机会不平等———兼评《无声的革命》[J].中国社会科学,2014,(4):66-77.
[14]李春玲.教育不平等的年代变化趋势(1940—2010)———对城乡教育机会不平等的再考察[J].社会学研究,2014,(2):65-89.
[15]南方,李振刚.“90后”农民工童年经历与社会资本积累的研究[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(1):87-94.
[16]江游,张新岭,孙友然.“90后”农民工职业困境成因及解决路径研究[J].农业经济,2016,(1):51-53.
[17]李建新,骆为祥.生育意愿的代际差异分析———以江苏省为例[J].中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(9):21-30.
[18]胡鞍钢,王洪川.中国人类发展奇迹(1950—2030)[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2017,(2):1-10.
(1)2016年、2017年、2018年,西南大学教育学部吴晓蓉教授课题组先后前往贵州、四川、云南等省深度贫困县展开教育扶贫调研,本文访谈资料亦来源于调研。
(1)此处通过“家庭规模”间接揭示了“经济收入”变量,因为在20世纪,样本组原生家庭的经济收入普遍比较有限,同时家庭规模(尤其是子女规模)往往又较大,所以“家庭规模”变量比“家庭经济收入”更能揭示家庭经济状况。
[2]范小梅,吴晓蓉.教育如何促进贫困者的职业发展?[J].教育与经济,2018,(1):48-56.
[3]Lfgren L,Mc Intyre F.The relationship between women’s education and marriage outcomes[J].Journal of Labor Economics,2006,24(4):787-830.
[4]谭仁杰.市场经济与婚姻发展趋势[J].经济评论,1995,(1):82-87.
[5]金斗燮.韩国跨国婚姻发展趋势———配偶差异、婚姻稳定度及生育率研究[J].贵州大学学报(社会科学版),2013,(5):1-8.
[6]Brunner E D,Wayland S.education and marriage[J].The Journal of Educational Sociology,1958,32(1):28-36.
[7]李若建.机遇与成本:大都市青年女性的就业、教育、婚姻状况变迁研究[J].南方人口,2010,(2):25-31.
[8]Elder G H.Appearance and education in marriage mobility[J].American Sociological Review,1969,34(4):519-533.
[9]陈建伟.教育的婚姻回报:“学得好”与“嫁得好”[J].上海财经大学学报,2015,(12):22-34.
[10]梁同贵.我国城镇第一代独生子女的受教育程度对婚姻的影响———基于苏州市吴中区与上海市闵行区的调查分析[D].上海:华东师范大学,2011.
[11] Arokiasamy P,McNay K,Cassen R H. Female education and fertility decline:recent developments in the relationships[J].Economic and Political Weekly,2004,39(41):4503-4507.
[12]Downey D B.When bigger is not better:family size,parental resources,and chilidren’s educational performance[J].American Sociological Review,1995,60(5):746-761.
[13]李春玲.“80后”的教育经历与机会不平等———兼评《无声的革命》[J].中国社会科学,2014,(4):66-77.
[14]李春玲.教育不平等的年代变化趋势(1940—2010)———对城乡教育机会不平等的再考察[J].社会学研究,2014,(2):65-89.
[15]南方,李振刚.“90后”农民工童年经历与社会资本积累的研究[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2016,(1):87-94.
[16]江游,张新岭,孙友然.“90后”农民工职业困境成因及解决路径研究[J].农业经济,2016,(1):51-53.
[17]李建新,骆为祥.生育意愿的代际差异分析———以江苏省为例[J].中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2009,(9):21-30.
[18]胡鞍钢,王洪川.中国人类发展奇迹(1950—2030)[J].清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2017,(2):1-10.
(1)2016年、2017年、2018年,西南大学教育学部吴晓蓉教授课题组先后前往贵州、四川、云南等省深度贫困县展开教育扶贫调研,本文访谈资料亦来源于调研。
(1)此处通过“家庭规模”间接揭示了“经济收入”变量,因为在20世纪,样本组原生家庭的经济收入普遍比较有限,同时家庭规模(尤其是子女规模)往往又较大,所以“家庭规模”变量比“家庭经济收入”更能揭示家庭经济状况。