Introduction

The Education-Governance Nexus

Education and governance are mutually reinforcing pillars of societal development. Research consistently shows that countries with more educated populations exhibit higher quality governance – including stronger democratic institutions, lower corruption, and more effective public services.1 Every measure of governance quality correlates positively with educational attainment and investment, even when controlling for economic development.2 As countries become more educated, corruption tends to decline in both democracies and autocracies alike.3

The theoretical mechanism is straightforward: education equips citizens with the critical thinking skills and knowledge to demand accountability, participate meaningfully in politics, and uphold institutional integrity. Well-educated citizens can better recognize and challenge abuses of power, with survey data indicating that educated individuals are significantly more likely to report official misconduct and corruption.4 Education also socializes people into civic norms and institutional attachment, fostering higher expectations of honest government and lower tolerance for corruption.5 6 This creates a virtuous cycle where an informed citizenry demands better governance, thereby enhancing democratic resilience against erosion and malfeasance.

G7 as a Comparative Case Study

The G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) offer an ideal context to explore the education-governance relationship. Despite their shared status as high-income democracies with relatively stable political systems, these nations exhibit meaningful variations in both educational outcomes and governance indicators. These variations allow us to examine more nuanced differences while controlling for broader development factors.

For example, Italy historically scores lower on control of corruption than its G7 peers, while also trailing in tertiary educational attainment. As of the mid-2010s, only about one-quarter of Italian young adults (25–34) had completed tertiary education, compared to nearly 60% in Canada.7 8 These disparities make the G7 a valuable “natural laboratory” to investigate whether stronger education systems coincide with better governance even among highly developed nations.

Prior studies on the education-governance relationship often focus on developing countries or global aggregates.9 10 The G7 context allows us to test whether the same dynamics apply in mature democracies with high human development. Despite their prosperity, G7 states still face governance challenges – from public discontent over government effectiveness to periodic corruption scandals – and educational policy debates regarding funding, access, and skills gaps.

Research Significance and Policy Implications

This research has both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, it tests whether relationships observed globally, such as education fostering civic virtues, accountability, and institutional quality, hold true in affluent democracies. Comparative education scholars have long emphasized the importance of examining systems in context, urging researchers to “compare, compare, compare” across cultural and institutional boundaries to understand how educational structures shape civic and governance outcomes.11 For example, the role of tertiary institutions in cultivating civic-minded elites and reinforcing democratic norms has evolved over generations, particularly in American higher education, which has historically balanced mass access with elite formation.12

Practically, the research offers insights for high-income countries on how investing in human capital might yield governance dividends, and how strong governance, in turn, supports robust educational systems. By analyzing two decades of data (2002–2022) on education investments and outcomes alongside governance quality indicators, we can identify patterns with policy relevance. If certain education measures, such as tertiary attainment or youth employment, strongly correlate with governance metrics like control of corruption or rule of law, this highlights potential leverage points for policymakers.

For instance, coordinated economies with well-developed vocational training systems, such as those in parts of Europe, often show stronger employment integration and social cohesion than more liberal models.13 These structural differences suggest that education’s impact on governance may vary by political economy, as seen in France’s centralized educational institutions and their role in elite state recruitment.14 Strengthening educational attainment in underperforming regions might serve as part of a broader strategy to enhance civic engagement and reduce corruption, but only if such efforts are aligned with institutional contexts and governance norms. On the other hand, countries that perform well in education but struggle with governance, or vice versa, raise important questions about the cultural and institutional factors mediating this relationship.

The findings have broader implications beyond the G7, since these nations often serve as models and setters of international norms. Understanding how education and governance interact in these contexts can inform global development agendas, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals where Quality Education (SDG 4) and Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16) are prioritized as synergistic objectives. Ultimately, this research aims to guide evidence-based strategies that use education to strengthen democratic governance, helping advanced societies deliver accountability, prosperity, and opportunity for their citizens.

Methods Strategy

Data Sources

This study utilizes two primary data sources: the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) for governance metrics, and the OECD’s Education Database for education-related metrics. The WGI dataset provides annual measures of governance quality for over 200 countries, based on aggregate perceptions from experts and survey respondents.15 We obtained WGI scores for each G7 country covering the period 2002–2022 for our analysis. For education indicators, we gathered data from the OECD Data Explorer (and related Education at a Glance reports) for key metrics in each G7 country from 2002 to 2022.

The data was compiled and analyzed using R Studio, enabling reproducible statistical analysis and visualization. Key packages utilized include tidyverse, ggplot2, reshape2, and plotly for creating interactive visualizations. To maintain data consistency, we focused on years where complete data was available across indicators, though some analyses required adjusted timeframes to ensure comparable coverage.

Governance Indicators

From the WGI dataset, we selected all six dimensions of governance as reported by the World Bank16:

  • Control of Corruption (CC) – capturing perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand corruption, as well as how effectively a country’s institutions prevent and punish corruption.17
  • Government Effectiveness (GE) – measuring the quality of public services, the capacity of the civil service and its independence from political pressures, and the quality of policy formulation and implementation.18
  • Regulatory Quality (RQ) – reflecting the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development.19
  • Rule of Law (RL) – indicating the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, including the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.20
  • Voice and Accountability (VA) – capturing perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media.21
  • Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (PV) – assessing the perceptions of the likelihood of political instability or politically-motivated violence (including terrorism).22

Each of these WGI indicators is reported on a standardized scale roughly ranging from -2.5 (weak governance) to +2.5 (strong governance), with 0 being the global average.23 This scale is based on a standard normal distribution of scores, so most countries fall within that range. In the G7, scores tend to be on the positive side (indicating generally good governance), but with meaningful variation.

Education Indicators

Our analysis focused on three core education indicators chosen to represent both investment in education and educational outcomes in G7 countries:

  • Public Expenditure on Education (% of GDP): Measures the share of national output devoted to public education spending, covering all levels from primary to tertiary education.24 We examined both overall educational expenditure and spending at specific educational levels using the OECD’s categorization system.

  • Tertiary Educational Attainment (Age 25–34): The percentage of young adults who have completed tertiary education. We focused on this age group as it reflects recent educational trends and current policy impacts.25 Our analysis included gender breakdowns to explore differential attainment patterns between men and women.

  • Youth NEET Rate (Not in Employment, Education, or Training): Represents the share of young people disengaged from both work and education. We analyzed NEET rates for 15-29 year-olds overall, with additional breakdowns for 15-19 and 20-24 age groups and gender distinctions. Higher NEET rates signal education-to-employment gaps and broader governance and economic challenges.26

Analytical Approach

Our analysis proceeded in three main steps:

  1. Descriptive Analysis: We created comprehensive visualizations of each indicator over time to identify trends and patterns. These included line graphs for education expenditure, educational attainment, and NEET rates, as well as for governance indicators across all G7 nations. Interactive visualizations were developed using plotly to enable detailed exploration of the data.

  2. Correlation Analysis: Using R, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients between education indicators and governance metrics to identify relationships. We constructed a correlation matrix heatmap to visualize the strength and direction of these relationships, with particular focus on how educational outcomes correlate with governance quality.

  3. Relationship Exploration: We developed scatterplots with fitted trend lines to examine specific relationships of interest, including tertiary education attainment versus government effectiveness, tertiary education versus voice and accountability, education expenditure versus political stability, and NEET rates versus rule of law. These visualizations incorporate both overall trends and country-specific patterns.

Throughout our analysis, we maintained consistent color schemes for each country (Canada: red, France: dark goldenrod, Germany: green, Italy: teal, Japan: blue, United Kingdom: purple, United States: pink) to facilitate cross-visualization comparisons and enhance interpretability.

Data Limitations and Ethical Considerations

The World Bank’s WGI indicator present several methodological limitations that warrant cautious interpretation. As aggregated perception-based measures, WGI scores incorporate subjective assessments from diverse sources, including experts, businesses, and citizens, potentially introducing cultural and contextual biases.27 28 These indicators include standard errors that average ±0.24 points for G7 nations, meaning small year-to-year fluctuations (less than 0.2 points) might represent statistical noise rather than meaningful governance changes. Additionally, composite indices may mask divergent trends in underlying components, as Apaza (2009) demonstrates that perception-based corruption measures sometimes diverge from objective measures of institutional quality.29 For the OECD education data, we encountered systematic missingness patterns, particularly in early years (2002-2005) for education expenditure indicators and varying definitional frameworks across countries. Most notably, Germany’s tertiary attainment statistics reflect its distinctive dual education system, which classifies certain vocational qualifications differently than other G7 nations, potentially understating comparable attainment levels. NEET rate calculations similarly vary, with Japan focusing on unmarried youth in its national statistics (though OECD data attempts standardization), and Italy including some marginally-attached workers that other countries might exclude.30

Our approach to ethical visualization followed Cairo’s (2016) principles of truthfulness, functionality, beauty, insightfulness, and enlightenment.31 We implemented consistent y-axis scales within indicator categories to avoid visual distortion, while using perceptually uniform color palettes that accommodate color vision deficiencies. To counter potential interpretive biases, we explicitly labeled trend lines as correlational rather than causal and avoided using charged nationalist imagery (such as flags or national colors) that might evoke emotional rather than analytical responses. Interactive elements were incorporated following Heer and Shneiderman’s (2012) framework for interactive dynamics, allowing users to examine specific data points within context rather than relying solely on our interpretations.32 Importantly, we maintained awareness of the “ecological fallacy” by clarifying that country-level correlations cannot be assumed to apply at individual levels. Throughout the project, we followed principles of open science by using publicly available datasets, documenting our methodological decisions, and providing reproducible code in R to enable verification and extension of our analysis.

Visualizations and Analysis

Tracking Education Metrics in the G7

G7 Education Investment Patterns (2005-2020)

As we observed from this graph, the public education expenditure across G7 countries reveals several notable trends between 2005 and 2020. For the most part, spending as a percentage of GDP remained relatively stable, with total investment across all levels of education—primary through tertiary—typically ranging between 4% and 5%. This stability suggests that education has remained a policy priority, even in the face of economic challenges and shifting fiscal pressures.

Among the G7, the United Kingdom shows the most volatility in spending patterns. Investment in primary to post-secondary non-tertiary education rose sharply from 3.2% in 2009 to a peak of 4.2% by 2012, before dropping steeply to 3.4% by 2018. These fluctuations reflect major policy changes under successive UK governments during that period.33

Japan consistently reports the lowest education spending across all categories, rarely exceeding 3.5% of GDP. This trend reflects deeper demographic challenges, including an aging population and declining birth rates, which have influenced long-term planning and investment priorities in education.34

The 2008 global financial crisis had varied effects across G7 nations. While France managed to maintain steady education spending, Italy saw a gradual decline in the years that followed, with total investment falling from 3.9% in 2008 to 3.3% by 2016. These cuts aligned with broader austerity measures introduced during that period.35

Canada stands out in the tertiary education category, consistently allocating a higher share of GDP—around 1.5%—to postsecondary institutions. This reflects a national policy orientation that emphasizes higher education as both an economic driver and a public good.36

In the final years of the dataset (2018–2020), several countries, including Germany and Italy, began to show modest increases in education spending. These gains may signal a renewed recognition of education’s central role in driving economic growth, improving social mobility, and addressing skills gaps in a changing global economy.

Education Attainment Across G7 Nations (2002-2022)

Alongside investment trends, educational attainment among young adults (ages 25–34) offers another important lens for understanding how G7 countries prioritize and structure their education systems. The differences across countries are especially pronounced in this area. Canada consistently leads in tertiary education attainment, reaching approximately 62.7% by 2022, substantially ahead of its G7 peers. This exceptional performance likely stems from Canada’s robust public funding model and widespread accessibility to post-secondary institutions.

Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States form a second tier with tertiary attainment rates between 50-56% as of 2022. Japan’s trajectory is particularly noteworthy, showing consistent improvement from approximately 39% in 2002 to 56.1% by 2022, reflecting effective policy interventions to expand higher education access despite demographic challenges.37 The United Kingdom has maintained relatively stable growth in tertiary attainment throughout the period, while the United States has shown modest but steady improvement.

Continental European G7 members display markedly different patterns. France has made substantial progress, increasing from around 31% in 2002 to 41.6% by 2022, gradually closing the gap with the second tier. In contrast, Germany (32.5%) and Italy (20.3%) consistently trail behind other G7 nations in tertiary attainment. Germany’s lower rates should be understood in the context of its dual education system, which emphasizes high-quality vocational training as an alternative to university education.38 This is evident in the “Upper secondary” category, where Germany maintains the highest rates among G7 countries, exceeding 50% throughout the period.

Gender disparities are particularly evident, with women outpacing men in tertiary attainment across all G7 countries. This gap is most pronounced in the United Kingdom, where the difference between female and male tertiary attainment reached nearly 10 percentage points by 2022. Conversely, the “Below upper secondary” category shows steady decline across all G7 countries, with Italy showing the most progress but still maintaining the highest proportion of young adults without upper secondary qualifications.

These patterns reflect fundamental differences in how education systems are structured and valued across G7 nations. While North American and Anglo-Saxon countries have prioritized expansion of university education, continental European nations like Germany have maintained stronger emphasis on vocational pathways. Italy’s consistently lower attainment rates across categories suggest deeper structural challenges in both educational access and completion.39 These differences may have significant implications for workforce development, innovation capacities, and economic competitiveness as these countries navigate increasingly knowledge-based economies.

Youth NEET Rates Across G7 Countries (2002-2022)

The Youth NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) rates further reveal significant disparities among G7 nations and demonstrate clear responsiveness to economic conditions and policy environments. Italy consistently shows the highest proportion of disengaged youth, with NEET rates for 20-24 year-olds reaching peaks above 30% during 2013-2014 and still remaining at 26.4% as of 2022—approximately three times higher than Germany’s 8.9%. This persistent Italian challenge reflects structural labor market rigidities and education-to-work transition difficulties that have proven resistant to policy interventions.40

The 2008 financial crisis had a visible impact across all G7 countries, with NEET rates increasing noticeably in its aftermath, particularly evident in the 20-24 year-old category. Recovery patterns, however, varied substantially. Germany demonstrated remarkable resilience, with NEET rates actually declining during the post-crisis period from 2010-2013, reflecting the effectiveness of its dual education system and active labor market policies.41 Japan similarly maintained relatively low and stable NEET rates throughout economic turbulence. In contrast, Italy saw its already high NEET rates surge even further post-crisis, peaking around 2014 before beginning a gradual—though incomplete—recovery.

Gender differences in NEET rates present another important dimension. In most G7 countries, young women consistently show higher NEET rates than their male counterparts, with this gap particularly pronounced in Italy and Japan. This gender disparity suggests persistent barriers to female labor market participation and potentially different social expectations regarding education and employment pathways. The United Kingdom shows a notable convergence in male and female NEET rates over the observed period, suggesting some success in addressing gender-specific barriers.

The variation in NEET rates may reflect differences in national education systems, labor market structures, and social policies. Countries with lower NEET rates like Germany and Japan have developed strong vocational education pathways and school-to-work transition mechanisms. Germany’s dual education system, which combines classroom learning with workplace apprenticeships, appears particularly effective at integrating youth into economic activity.42 Meanwhile, countries with persistently higher NEET rates may need to address fundamental structural issues in how their education systems prepare young people for employment.

Contrary to expectations, the COVID-19 pandemic shows varied impacts on NEET rates. While the United States experienced a notable increase (+1.9 percentage points for 20-24 year-olds from 2019 to 2022), several European countries actually recorded decreases, with France showing the largest improvement (-2.8 percentage points). This unexpected pattern likely reflects different policy responses to the pandemic, including job retention schemes, expanded social safety nets, and targeted youth employment initiatives implemented across various G7 nations.43 These different outcomes highlight how policy interventions can significantly influence youth engagement even during major economic disruptions.

Divergent Governance Trajectories Across the G7

While educational outcomes across the G7 tend to follow relatively stable and predictable trends, the governance landscape tells a more uneven story. An analysis of the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) from 1996 to 2023 reveals greater variability in institutional performance, with some countries showing concerning downward shifts. These divergences suggest that, unlike education, governance quality remains more vulnerable to political, social, and institutional pressures over time.

Widespread Institutional Erosion with Notable Exceptions

The data above demonstrates a troubling pattern of governance deterioration across most G7 nations, with Japan emerging as the remarkable exception. As the graph illustrates, Japan has steadily strengthened its governance framework across nearly all dimensions, particularly in Regulatory Quality (+0.65 points, +88.1%) and Government Effectiveness (+0.49 points, +46.9%). This improvement likely stems from Japan’s deliberate structural reforms implemented since the early 2000s, including significant corporate governance overhauls and reduced administrative burdens.

In stark contrast, the United States exhibits the most severe multi-dimensional decline among G7 members. The near-collapse in Political Stability scores (declining -0.63 points or -96.3%) represents the most dramatic deterioration observed in any governance indicator across the dataset. This precarious decline coincides with substantial erosion in Control of Corruption (-0.57 points) and Voice and Accountability (-0.46 points), suggesting fundamental challenges to America’s institutional framework. These trends align with scholarly observations regarding increasing political polarization and institutional strain.44

The United Kingdom similarly demonstrates concerning governance deterioration, with Government Effectiveness declining by 0.52 points (-29.0%) and noticeable weakening across all other indicators. This pattern may reflect the compounding stresses of post-2008 austerity measures and Brexit-related institutional pressures.45

Persistent Governance Gaps and National Variations

Italy maintains consistently lower absolute governance scores compared to other G7 members across multiple indicators, while also showing some of the steepest declines, particularly in Rule of Law (-0.54 points, -65.9%). These persistent governance challenges align with documented structural impediments to institutional reform in Italy.48

Germany, France, and Canada present more nuanced pictures, with moderate declines in certain indicators offset by stability or modest improvements in others. However, the consistent deterioration in Political Stability across these nations remains concerning.

Implications for Economic Development and Policy Priorities

These governance trends have profound implications for economic development trajectories. Unlike educational indicators, which show more gradual shifts, governance metrics exhibit more volatile patterns that may reflect immediate political and economic pressures. The correlation between Japan’s governance improvements and its economic revitalization efforts suggests potential causal relationships worthy of further investigation.

The widespread deterioration in Political Stability and Government Effectiveness may portend challenges for policy implementation capacity and investment environments across G7 nations. As Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) argue, institutional quality fundamentally shapes economic development trajectories, suggesting these governance trends may have lasting economic implications beyond immediate policy domains.49

Moreover, the divergent performance between Japan and other G7 nations offers potential policy insights. Japan’s successful governance reforms, occurring despite demographic and economic challenges, demonstrate that institutional improvement remains possible even in mature democracies facing complex pressures.

Distribution of Governance Indicators Across G7 Countries

Looking at the governance indicators boxplot for G7 countries, several notable patterns emerge in how these advanced economies perform across different dimensions of governance.

In Control of Corruption, there’s a clear three-tier hierarchy with Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom consistently maintaining the highest scores (around 1.8-2.0). These countries have established robust anti-corruption frameworks that have remained stable over the 1996-2022 period. France, Japan, and the United States form a middle tier (scores around 1.4-1.7), while Italy stands as a significant outlier with substantially lower performance (median around 0.4), reflecting its persistent challenges with corruption despite its advanced economy status.

Government Effectiveness shows a similar pattern, with most G7 nations clustered at the high end of the scale, demonstrating strong institutional capacity. Italy again appears as an outlier with notably lower scores, suggesting fundamental challenges in public administration efficiency and service delivery compared to its G7 peers.

Political Stability reveals the widest distribution among indicators, with all countries showing greater score variability. Canada demonstrates the highest and most consistent political stability, while the United States and France show lower median scores with wider distributions, indicating greater political volatility over the time period. The increased presence of outlier points (particularly for Germany) suggests specific years of political disruption within otherwise stable systems.

Regulatory Quality and Rule of Law follow similar patterns to Government Effectiveness, with most G7 nations demonstrating strong performance but Italy consistently lagging. The compressed ranges for most countries in these categories suggest these are areas where G7 nations have established relatively consistent standards despite different governance approaches.

Voice and Accountability shows the most even distribution across countries, with all G7 nations scoring well but with smaller differences between them, reflecting their shared democratic foundations despite variations in political systems.

Collectively, these patterns reveal how even among the world’s most advanced economies, significant governance differences persist, with some countries maintaining consistently high standards across all dimensions while others struggle with specific aspects of governance despite their overall economic development.

Education-Governance Correlations (2002-2022)

Correlation Matrix Heatmap

At the heart of this analysis lies the relationship between education and governance outcomes across G7 countries. Using a correlation matrix covering the period from 2002 to 2022, the findings above reveal clear and often powerful connections between educational indicators and key dimensions of institutional quality. Among all aspects examined in this study, these correlations offer the most direct insight into how human capital development and governance performance may be linked within advanced democracies.

Of all the education metrics analyzed, NEET rates demonstrate the strongest correlations of all educational indicators, showing powerful negative relationships with nearly all governance measures. The correlation between NEET rates and control of corruption is particularly striking (-0.87), with similarly strong negative correlations observed with rule of law (-0.84) and government effectiveness (-0.82). This robust pattern indicates that countries with higher youth disengagement from education and employment consistently demonstrate weaker governance outcomes across multiple dimensions.50

Tertiary education attainment shows moderate to strong positive correlations with governance indicators, most notably with government effectiveness (0.64) and rule of law (0.63). These relationships suggest that countries with higher proportions of tertiary-educated populations tend to maintain more effective governance structures and stronger legal systems. The relatively strong correlation with control of corruption (0.57) further indicates that higher educational attainment may contribute to creating social environments that are less tolerant of corruption.51

Education expenditure as a percentage of GDP shows consistently positive but more moderate correlations with most governance indicators, particularly with voice and accountability (0.51) and rule of law (0.45). This suggests that while investment in education does correlate with better governance outcomes, the relationship is not as strong as that between governance and educational outcomes like NEET rates and tertiary attainment. Interestingly, education expenditure shows a slight negative correlation with political stability (-0.20), which may reflect how countries facing political challenges sometimes increase educational spending as part of reform efforts.52

The contrasting strength of these relationships—particularly the strong negative correlations tied to NEET rates and the moderate-to-strong positive correlations linked to tertiary attainment—underscores a key insight: educational outcomes appear to function as both indicators and possible drivers of governance quality. Countries with lower youth disengagement and higher educational attainment tend to exhibit more effective, accountable, and legally consistent governance. This suggests that investment in education is not only a matter of economic growth or social equity, but also a crucial foundation for institutional strength and democratic resilience in advanced economies.

To explore these dynamics further, the following section examines several of the most notable correlations in greater depth. Particular attention is given to both the strongest relationships—such as those involving NEET rates—and the more unexpected or counterintuitive patterns that emerge. These detailed case-by-case analyses help uncover the underlying mechanisms that may explain how education and governance interact across different national contexts within the G7.

Tertiary Education vs Government Effectiveness

The relationship between tertiary education attainment and government effectiveness reveals a compelling pattern across G7 nations from 2002-2022, with an overall correlation of 0.64 that confirms education’s role as a potential driver of governance quality. This moderate-to-strong positive correlation suggests that countries with higher proportions of tertiary-educated populations typically maintain more effective governance structures, potentially through enhanced human capital, institutional capacity, and civic engagement. Examining country-specific data reveals distinct clusters, with Canada demonstrating both the highest tertiary attainment (52.4% average) and government effectiveness scores (1.76 average), while Italy consistently lags in both dimensions (15.8% average attainment and 0.46 average effectiveness score).

Paradoxically, despite the strong overall correlation, time series analysis reveals an unexpected negative relationship within most individual countries. Six of the seven G7 nations experienced declines in government effectiveness despite significant increases in tertiary attainment over the 20-year period. Canada (-0.29), France (-0.37), Germany (-0.37), United Kingdom (-0.54), and United States (-0.36) all show substantial declines in effectiveness scores while simultaneously increasing their tertiary education rates by 9-24 percentage points. This contradiction is further confirmed by strongly negative within-country correlations for Canada (-0.89), France (-0.90), UK (-0.87), and US (-0.83), suggesting that higher education expansion has coincided with institutional challenges rather than enhancements within each nation. Only Japan shows a positive country-specific correlation (0.63) and effectiveness improvement (+0.60) alongside its 19.5 percentage point increase in tertiary attainment.

These conflicting between-country and within-country patterns suggest a nuanced relationship where cross-sectional advantages of educational attainment exist alongside longitudinal challenges in governance improvement. The findings indicate that while higher education may create potential for better governance through enhanced human capital, realizing this potential depends on complex institutional, political, and social factors that may be deteriorating in advanced economies despite educational progress. This paradox raises critical questions about the changing quality and relevance of tertiary education, the emerging governance challenges facing developed democracies, and whether educational expansion alone is sufficient to enhance government effectiveness without concurrent institutional reforms and adaptation to evolving economic and social conditions.

Tertiary Education vs Voice Accountability

In stark contrast to the government effectiveness findings, the data reveals a surprisingly weak correlation (r = 0.15) between tertiary education attainment and voice and accountability across G7 nations from 2002-2022. This finding challenges conventional wisdom that higher educational attainment would strengthen democratic participation, press freedom, and civil liberties—key components of voice and accountability. The scatter plot visually confirms this weak relationship, with data points showing high dispersion around the trend line and distinct country clusters that follow their own patterns, largely independent of education levels.

The country-specific patterns reveal even more striking contradictions that deepen our understanding of this governance paradox. While Canada maintains high scores in both government effectiveness and voice accountability alongside high tertiary attainment, Japan presents a fascinating case with similarly high tertiary rates (46.5% average) and government effectiveness (1.49 average) but substantially lower voice and accountability scores (1.02 average). This pattern suggests that enhanced human capital from education may translate into administrative effectiveness without necessarily strengthening democratic accountability. Most concerning are the strongly negative within-country correlations for the United States (r = -0.92), France (r = -0.64), and the United Kingdom (r = -0.53), indicating that as tertiary attainment increased within these nations, democratic governance indicators actually declined.

These conflicting findings between government effectiveness and voice accountability present a more complex picture of education’s relationship to governance than previously understood. The data suggests a potential bifurcation where educational expansion may enhance administrative capacity and effectiveness while simultaneously failing to strengthen—or possibly even coinciding with the weakening of—democratic institutions. This paradox raises critical questions about whether advanced economies are experiencing a decoupling of administrative effectiveness from democratic accountability, with education potentially contributing to the former while being insufficient to counter broader challenges to the latter. As we consider implications for policy, this nuanced relationship demands attention to the content and quality of education rather than mere attainment rates, particularly regarding how educational systems foster civic engagement, critical thinking, and democratic values necessary for maintaining healthy accountability mechanisms in developed democracies.

Education Expenditure vs Political Stability

Moving from educational attainment to financial investment in education systems, our analysis takes an unexpected turn. The data reveals a modest negative correlation (r = -0.20) between education expenditure as a percentage of GDP and political stability across G7 nations from 2002-2022. This finding contradicts common belief that would expect greater educational investment to enhance political stability through improved human capital, reduced inequality, and stronger social cohesion. The visualization confirms this counterintuitive pattern, with the downward trend line indicating that countries spending proportionally more on education tend to experience slightly lower political stability scores.

This puzzling relationship becomes more nuanced when examining country-specific patterns. Canada stands out with both high education expenditure (4.60% of GDP average) and exceptional political stability (1.07 average), while Japan achieves similar stability (1.01 average) despite the lowest education spending among G7 nations (2.96% average). Most revealing are the divergent within-country correlations: Japan (-0.67) and Canada (-0.17) show negative relationships where increased education spending coincided with declining stability, while France (0.63), UK (0.37), and Italy (0.30) demonstrate positive relationships where educational investment appears to support greater stability. The yearly averages across all G7 nations show a concerning overall decline in political stability from 0.60 in 2005 to 0.55 in 2020, despite fluctuations in educational expenditure.

These findings complement our earlier analysis of educational attainment’s relationship with governance indicators and reveal a more complex picture of education’s role in social and political outcomes. Like the disconnect between tertiary attainment and voice accountability, the negative correlation between education spending and political stability challenges simplistic assumptions about education’s universal benefits for governance. The global decline in political stability across G7 nations during this period suggests broader forces undermining stability that education investment alone cannot counteract. This pattern parallels our previous finding where increasing tertiary attainment coincided with declining voice and accountability metrics in several nations, pointing to a potential disconnect between educational inputs (both attainment and expenditure) and governance outcomes in advanced economies facing complex 21st century challenges. As policymakers consider education’s role in strengthening governance, these findings suggest the need for more targeted approaches that address specific institutional, social, and political factors rather than assuming that increased educational investment or attainment alone will yield improved governance outcomes.

NEET Rate vs Rule of Law

After exploring several dimensions of the education-governance relationship, our analysis now turns to what may be the most compelling connection in our dataset: the relationship between youth NEET rates (those Not in Employment, Education, or Training) and rule of law. The data reveals a remarkably strong negative correlation (r = -0.84) between these variables across G7 nations from 2002-2022, substantially higher than any other education-governance relationship we’ve examined. This powerful inverse relationship indicates that countries with lower youth disengagement from education and employment consistently demonstrate stronger legal frameworks, better contract enforcement, property rights protection, and more effective justice systems.

The country-specific patterns provide further insight into this critical relationship. Italy stands out with both the highest average NEET rate (23.3%) and the lowest rule of law score (0.40) among G7 nations, while Germany demonstrates the opposite pattern with the lowest average NEET rate (10.9%) and among the highest rule of law scores (1.65). The visualization clearly illustrates these distinct clusters, with Italy occupying the upper right quadrant (high NEET, low rule of law) and most other G7 nations clustered in the lower left (low NEET, high rule of law). Interestingly, the within-country correlations reveal divergent patterns: Japan (-0.94) and Italy (-0.48) show strong negative relationships where decreasing NEET rates correspond with improving rule of law, while the UK (0.75) and France (0.33) counterintuitively demonstrate positive correlations, suggesting more complex domestic dynamics.

This strong relationship between NEET rates and rule of law completes our education-governance analysis by highlighting the critical importance of youth engagement in education and employment for governance outcomes. Unlike tertiary attainment or education expenditure, which showed weaker or inconsistent relationships with governance measures, NEET rates emerge as powerful predictors of governance quality across multiple dimensions. This finding suggests that reducing youth disengagement may be more impactful for governance outcomes than increasing tertiary attainment or educational spending alone. The NEET-governance relationship represents an alarming governance gap between Italy and other G7 nations, with Italy’s consistently high NEET rates (ranging from 19.2% to 27.7%) corresponding with persistently weak rule of law scores. This analysis underscores that effectively integrating young people into education and employment pathways may be among the most important educational priorities for strengthening governance foundations in advanced economies—a consideration particularly relevant for nations like Italy facing both high youth disengagement and governance challenges.

Implications and Conclusions

Key Findings

Our analysis of education and governance in G7 countries from 2002-2022 reveals several important patterns:

  1. NEET Rates and Governance Quality: Youth disengagement (NEET rates) demonstrates the strongest correlations with governance indicators, particularly with control of corruption (-0.87), rule of law (-0.84), and government effectiveness (-0.82). This suggests that effective youth integration into education and employment may be more critical for governance outcomes than previously recognized.

  2. Tertiary Education’s Complex Relationship: While tertiary education attainment shows moderate to strong positive correlations with governance indicators across countries (particularly with government effectiveness at 0.64), we observe a paradoxical pattern where individual countries experienced governance declines despite increasing attainment rates.

  3. Governance Deterioration Despite Educational Progress: Six of seven G7 nations experienced declines in government effectiveness despite significant increases in tertiary attainment, with only Japan showing improvements in both dimensions.

  4. Educational Investment and Political Stability: Contrary to conventional wisdom, education expenditure as a percentage of GDP shows a modest negative correlation (-0.20) with political stability, suggesting that increased spending alone does not enhance political stability in advanced economies.

  5. Democratic Accountability Challenges: The weak correlation (0.15) between tertiary education and voice and accountability reveals a potential decoupling of administrative effectiveness from democratic governance, with several countries showing declining accountability despite rising education levels.

Policy Implications

These findings suggest several policy directions for leveraging education to enhance governance quality:

  1. Youth Engagement Priority: Reducing NEET rates should be prioritized, particularly in countries like Italy where high youth disengagement strongly correlates with governance challenges across multiple dimensions.

  2. Educational Quality and Relevance: The paradoxical relationship between educational attainment and governance suggests that quality and relevance of education may matter more than quantity. Policy reforms should focus on educational content that fosters civic engagement, critical thinking, and institutional attachment.

  3. Institutional Reinforcement: Japan’s exceptional pattern of simultaneous improvements in educational outcomes and governance indicators highlights the importance of complementary institutional reforms alongside educational advancement.

  4. Beyond Educational Investment: The weak or negative correlations between education expenditure and certain governance indicators suggest that how resources are deployed matters more than absolute spending levels. Targeted approaches addressing specific governance challenges may be more effective than general increases in education funding.

  5. Addressing Democratic Erosion: The declining voice and accountability scores across several G7 nations despite educational progress warrants specific attention to how educational systems can better foster democratic resilience and civic participation.

Future Research Directions

While our analysis identifies important correlations between education and governance in the G7 context, several research directions would enhance understanding:

  1. Causal Mechanisms: Further investigation into why increased educational attainment coincides with governance deterioration within countries while maintaining positive between-country correlations would clarify the complex dynamics at play.

  2. Educational Quality Assessment: Research distinguishing between quantitative expansion and qualitative improvement of education systems could explain the apparent disconnect between educational progress and governance outcomes.

  3. Comparative NEET Analysis: Given the strong correlations between NEET rates and governance indicators, deeper analysis of successful approaches to reducing youth disengagement across different national contexts would yield valuable policy insights.

  4. Bifurcated Governance Outcomes: Investigation into the apparent decoupling of administrative effectiveness from democratic accountability in several G7 nations would help identify specific educational interventions to strengthen democratic governance.

  5. Longitudinal Case Studies: In-depth analysis of Japan’s exceptional pattern—where educational improvements coincided with governance enhancement—could provide valuable lessons for other advanced democracies facing institutional challenges.

In conclusion, our analysis reveals a more nuanced relationship between education and governance than previously assumed. Rather than a simple positive correlation, we observe complex patterns where educational progress does not automatically translate to governance improvements. The most compelling finding remains the strong relationship between youth disengagement and governance challenges, suggesting that successfully integrating young people into education and employment pathways may be the most effective educational strategy for strengthening institutional foundations in advanced economies. These insights call for targeted, multidimensional approaches that address specific governance challenges rather than assuming that expanded educational attainment or investment alone will yield improved governance outcomes.

References

  1. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. “Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators, 1996–2008.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4978, 2009. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/311991468152712880/governance-matters-viii-aggregate-and-individual-governance-indicators-1996-2008.↩︎

  2. Mauro, Paolo. “Corruption and Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, no. 3 (1995): 681–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696.↩︎

  3. Seligson, Mitchell A. “The Impact of Corruption on Regime Legitimacy: A Comparative Study of Four Latin American Countries.” The Journal of Politics 64, no. 2 (2002): 408–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.00132.↩︎

  4. Rose, Richard, and William Mishler. “Experience versus Perceptions: How Citizens Evaluate Economic Performance.” Elections and Democracy (2001): 67–92.↩︎

  5. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny. “Trust in Large Organizations.” American Economic Review 87, no. 2 (1997): 333–338.↩︎

  6. Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, 1994.↩︎

  7. OECD. “Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators.” OECD Publishing, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.↩︎

  8. OECD Data. “Population with Tertiary Education.” https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm.↩︎

  9. World Bank. “The Role of Education in Modernizing Governance.” https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6046.↩︎

  10. Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. “Education and Economic Growth.” In International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed., 2010.↩︎

  11. Cummings, William K. “The Institutions of Education: Compare, Compare, Compare!” Comparative Education Review 43, no. 4 (1999): 413-437.↩︎

  12. Geiger, Roger L. “The Ten Generations of American Higher Education.” In American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 4th ed., edited by Michael N. Bastedo, Philip G. Altbach, and Patricia J. Gumport, 3-34. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.↩︎

  13. Bosch, Gerhard, and Jean Charest. “Vocational Training and the Labour Market in Liberal and Coordinated Economies.” Industrial Relations Journal 39, no. 5 (2008): 428-447.↩︎

  14. Elgie, Robert, and Andrew Knapp. French Politics: Debates and Controversies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2015.↩︎

  15. World Bank. “Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI).” https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/↩︎

  16. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430, 2010. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130↩︎

  17. World Bank. “Control of Corruption.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/cc.pdf↩︎

  18. World Bank. “Government Effectiveness.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/ge.pdf↩︎

  19. World Bank. “Regulatory Quality.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/rq.pdf↩︎

  20. World Bank. “Rule of Law.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/rl.pdf↩︎

  21. World Bank. “Voice and Accountability.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/va.pdf↩︎

  22. World Bank. “Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism.” https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/govindicators/doc/pv.pdf↩︎

  23. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430, 2010. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130↩︎

  24. OECD. “Public Spending on Education.” https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm↩︎

  25. OECD Data. “Population with Tertiary Education.” https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm.↩︎

  26. OECD. “Youth Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET).” https://data.oecd.org/youthinac/youth-not-in-employment-education-or-training-neet.htm↩︎

  27. Oman, C. and C. Arndt. “Governance Indicators for Development.” OECD Development Centre Policy Insights, No. 33, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1787/244762742121.↩︎

  28. Thomas, G. “Research Methodology, Methods and Design.” In Researching the Police in the 21st Century, edited by Gravelle, J., Rogers, C. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137357489_4.↩︎

  29. Apaza, Carmen R. “Measuring Governance and Corruption through the Worldwide Governance Indicators: Critiques, Responses, and Ongoing Scholarly Discussion.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42, no. 1 (2009): 139–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090106.↩︎

  30. Eurofound, Ledermaier, S. and Mascherini, M. Exploring the diversity of NEETs. Publications Office, 2016. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2806/62307.↩︎

  31. Cairo, Alberto. The Truthful Art: Data, Charts, and Maps for Communication. 1st ed. New Riders Publishing, USA, 2016.↩︎

  32. Heer, Jeffrey and Ben Shneiderman. “Interactive dynamics for visual analysis.” Communications of the ACM 55, no. 4 (April 2012): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133821.↩︎

  33. Whitty, G., and E. Wisby. “Education in England – a testbed for network governance?” Oxford Review of Education 42, no. 3 (2016): 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1184873.↩︎

  34. Takayama, K., and B. Lingard. “Datafication of schooling in Japan: an epistemic critique through the ‘problem of Japanese education.’” Journal of Education Policy 34, no. 4 (2018): 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1518542.↩︎

  35. Agasisti, T., F. Avvisati, F. Borgonovi, et al. “What School Factors are Associated with the Success of Socio-Economically Disadvantaged Students? An Empirical Investigation Using PISA Data.” Social Indicators Research 157 (2021): 749–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02668-w.↩︎

  36. Usher, Alex. “Funding for Results in Higher Education.” C.D. Howe Institute e-brief 295 (September 17, 2019). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3457526 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3457526.↩︎

  37. Hsu, Minchung and Tomoaki Yamada. “Population aging, health care and fiscal policy reform: The challenges for Japan.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (2019): 547-577. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjoe.12280/full.↩︎

  38. Powell, J. J. W., and H. Solga. “Why are higher education participation rates in Germany so low? Institutional barriers to higher education expansion.” Journal of Education and Work 24, no. 1–2 (2010): 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2010.534445.↩︎

  39. Di Pietro, G. “The academic impact of natural disasters: evidence from L’Aquila earthquake.” Education Economics 26, no. 1 (2017): 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1394984.↩︎

  40. Ahrendt, Daphne, Massimiliano Mascherini, Tadas Leoncikas, and Eszter Sandor. “Living, working and COVID-19: First findings – April 2020.” 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2020/living-working-and-covid-19.↩︎

  41. Cahuc, Pierre, Stéphane Carcillo, and Andreea Minea. “The Difficult School-to-Work Transition of High School Dropouts: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Journal of Human Resources 56, no. 1 (January 2021): 159-183. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.56.1.0617-8894R2.↩︎

  42. Eichhorst, Werner, Núria Rodríguez-Planas, Ricarda Schmidl, and Klaus F. Zimmermann. “A Road Map to Vocational Education and Training in Industrialized Countries.” ILR Review 68, no. 2 (March 2015): 314-337.↩︎

  43. International Labour Organization. “World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2022.” ILO, Geneva, 2022. https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/trends2022/lang--en/index.htm.↩︎

  44. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown, New York, 2018. https://newuniversityinexileconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Levitskyl-Ziblatt-How-Democracies-Die-2018-1.pdf.↩︎

  45. Armstrong, Kenneth. “The Power of Routine and the Disruptive Politics of Brexit.” In EU External Relations and the Power of Law. Liber Amicorum in Honour of Marise Cremona, edited by Kenneth A. Armstrong, Joanne Scott and Anne Thies. Hart Publishing, 2024. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 23/2024. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4867921 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4867921.↩︎

  46. Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press, 2019.↩︎

  47. Carnoy, Martin. “Educational Policies in the Face of Globalization: Whither the Nation State?” International Social Science Journal 65, no. 217–218 (2016): 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12181.↩︎

  48. McCann, Philip. How Have Place-Based Policies Evolved to Date and What Are They For Now? Background paper for the OECD-EC High-Level Expert Workshop Series on “Place-Based Policies for the Future,” Workshop 1, April 14, 2023. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/place-based-policies-for-the-future.htm.↩︎

  49. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Random House, 2012. http://www.tinyurl.com/27cosoab.↩︎

  50. Ahrendt, Daphne, Massimiliano Mascherini, Tadas Leoncikas, and Eszter Sandor. “Living, working and COVID-19: First findings – April 2020.” 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/2020/living-working-and-covid-19.↩︎

  51. Glaeser, E.L., G.A.M. Ponzetto, and A. Shleifer. “Why does democracy need education?” Journal of Economic Growth 12 (2007): 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-007-9015-1.↩︎

  52. Mayer-Foulkes, D. “Challenge of Market Power under Globalization.” Review of Development Economics 19 (2015): 244-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12140.↩︎