See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337890204

What makes Estonia and Singapore so good?

Article  in  Globalisation Societies and Education · December 2019

DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420

CITATIONS READS

0 77

1 author:

Björn Boman
Stockholm University
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Educational Achievement among East Asian school systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Björn Boman on 10 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Globalisation, Societies and Education

ISSN: 1476-7724 (Print) 1476-7732 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgse20

What makes Estonia and Singapore so good?

Björn Boman

To cite this article: Björn Boman (2019): What makes Estonia and Singapore so good?,
Globalisation, Societies and Education, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420

Published online: 11 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgse20
GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1701420

What makes Estonia and Singapore so good?

Björn Boman
Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Considering high performance in PISA, a case study of Estonia and Received 25 July 2019
Singapore is required. Estonia’s economy is not up to par with Accepted 3 December 2019
Singapore. On the other hand, Estonia is more democratic than
KEYWORDS
Singapore. The national IQ levels are higher in Singapore (102) than in Estonia; Singapore; PISA;
Estonia (99.4) but may explain a large portion of the attainment level in high-skilled migration
both countries. Singapore does also have more highly educated and
better paid teachers, as well as a highly skilled foreign workforce. Annual
educational quantity is very similar. Therefore, the high scores in Estonia
relative to the OECD average and many wealthier western nations
remain as somewhat of a minor mystery.

Introduction
In the educational research orbit, two-country comparisons with emphasis upon achievement have
emerged as in important subfield (e.g., Rindermann, Hoang, and Baumeister 2013; Ning et al. 2015)
and, indeed, constitute important complements to single-country studies and larger sets of country
analysis typical of econometric research. Two strengths of two-country comparisons are that such
initiatives tend to have almost the same depth as single-country studies but also the intriguing aspect
of comparability. Comparisons can be made between nations at both low-performing, middling, or
high achievement levels, sometimes cutting across these rather floating boundaries. Such analyses
might be based on both empirical case studies where researchers collect new data, and/or national
macro-social data retrieved from for instance the OECD reports and other sources.
The current article adds to the literature of high performers, specifically Estonia and Singapore,
both in the light of the high performance in PISA 2015 (OECD 2018b) and recent research in the
economics of education literature (Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold 2019). Factors associated
with high performance levels in cross-national assessments studies, such as national IQ, teacher sal-
aries and cognitive skill levels, educational quantity, national culture, and respect for teachers (see
Rindermann and Ceci 2009; Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson 2009; Rindermann, Becker, and
Coyle 2016; Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold 2019) will be analysed from a comparative van-
tage point. Moreover, it seeks to examine how these two countries – which share some features, such
as a small population and landmass, a compressed modernisation, and ethnic heterogeneity, while
simultaneously being geographically and culturally different – have responded to globalisation,
and what signifies its migration and integration policy in relation to educational attainment.
To address the issues raised above, the current article examines and critically discusses in a com-
parative context: national cultural characteristics and responses to globalisation; national IQ scores
in relation to PISA scores; ethnic heterogeneity, migration and integration policies; political leader-
ship and democracy; quality of education as indicated by average annual teacher salaries, cognitive

CONTACT Björn Boman bjorn.boman@edu.su.se Department of Education, Stockholm University, Frescativägen 54,
Stockholm, Sweden
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. BOMAN

skill levels, and respect for teachers; quantity of education (annual number of instruction time
measured by the number of school days and length of school days). It proceeds with a literature
review, a theory section, followed by a method and data section, an overview of the two countries’
cultural characteristics and globalisation as related to educational attainment, results from the com-
parison of the main variables and related sub-variables, and ends with a conclusion and discussion.

Related literature
While Estonia and Singapore’s strong performance in PISA has not escaped the public or educational
researchers, little research has in fact been conducted on Estonia, although the OECD country
reports (OECD 2018b, 2019) provide some clues in relation to which extent educational achievement
facilitates economic growth in Estonia.
Deng and Gopinathan (2016) emphasise a ‘hybrid pedagogy’ present in Singapore, which
implies a blend of traditional and constructivist elements, which they believe to be particularly
appropriate for performance in assessments such as PIRLS and PISA. Soh (2014) examined school
management in Finland and Singapore and found that Finnish school leaders use a more detached
managerial style, while their Singaporean counterparts prefer a more professional hands-on
approach, likely a consequence of the specific cultural milieus that principals operate within.
Cheung (2017; see also OECD 2011) has underscored that Singapore and other East Asian high
performers in PISA have higher mathematical resilience relative to the West. Some researchers
have linked the high performance in Singapore to high IQ and competent leadership (Rindermann,
Sailer, and Thompson 2009). Lynn and Becker (2019) have presented a new composite national IQ
score for Singapore.
Non-cognitive skills, such as perseverance and reliability, are some of the major factors associated
with educational achievement (Heckman and Kautz 2014). Similar traits like grit and conscientious-
ness may have a larger explanatory magnitude than IQ scores according to some researchers (e.g.,
Duckworth and Seligman 2005; Borghans et al. 2008), although such traits are hard to measure in
a cross-national context due to reference bias (Rindermann and Ceci 2009; Heckman and Kautz
2014). Among the big five personality traits, conscientiousness correlates the most with academic
performance (Conard 2006; MacCann, Duckworth, and Roberts 2009). Some researchers stress
the combination of IQ and conscientiousness (Lynn 1996; Rindermann 2018).
The large effect size of teachers in relation to educational achievement has been reported in a
seminal work of Hattie (2012). One specific facet of instruction competence, and partly also cultural
characteristics, is the attentiveness of students (Rindermann and Ceci 2009). OECD (2014, 65)
measures disciplinary climate in PISA 2000 and 2009. The table, which compares PISA 2000 and
PISA 2009, does not include Estonia while Singapore has performed slightly higher than the
OECD average in this regard. Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold (2019) have underlined the sig-
nificance of teachers’ competence level, ‘In a follow-on report, Auguste, Kihn, and Miller (2010) note
that the school systems in Singapore, Finland, and Korea ‘recruit 100% of their teacher corps from
the top third of the academic cohort,’ which stands in stark contrast to the U.S. where ‘23% of new
teachers come from the top third.’ (5) Further, they conclude, ‘All empirical strategies consistently
indicate a robust positive relationship between teacher cognitive skills and student performance. In
the OLS estimation with the full set of controls, we find that a one standard deviation (SD) increase
in teacher cognitive skills is associated with 0.10–0.15 SD higher student performance.’ They also
found that Finland’s pool of teachers has the highest cognitive skill level in OECD.
Overall, several studies report negative social and economic effects of increased immigration and
ethnic heterogeneity (Alesina, Baqir, and Easterly 1999; Alesina et al. 2003; Salter 2004; Vanhanen
2004; Putnam 2007). Part of the reason is that ethnic heterogeneity is related to increased heterogen-
eity in social preferences (Alesina, Baqir, and Easterly 1999) and ethnic fractionalisation (Alesina
et al. 2003). However, ethnic fractionalisation or polarisation is mainly a severe problem in some
Sub-Saharan African and Caribbean countries (Alesina et al. 2003). While Salter (2004) stresses
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 3

that increased ethnic diversity negatively affects economic growth, Masters and McMillan (2004)
suggest that wealthy countries are better equipped to deal with high immigration rates and increased
ethnic heterogeneity. Thus, ethnic conflicts do seldom emerge in rich nations.
The political leadership in Singapore has been discussed by a plethora of scholars (e.g., Chua 1997;
Tan 2008; Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson 2009; Tan 2012; Morgenbesser 2017). Rindermann,
Sailer, and Thompson (2009), who examined the nexus between cognitive ability, innovation,
democracy and political leadership, stress:
One remark on Singapore: Its long-term Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has in our data set only as highest
degree “university degree”, no doctorate or an additional scientific degree. But he has studied at London School
of Economics and in Cambridge and finished his studies with exceptional “Double Starred First Class Hon-
ours”. Our assessment procedure seems to underestimate his cognitive ability level. Furthermore, Singapore
has reached the highest rank in the smart fraction ability (IQ 127) in our list and the second highest rank in
average ability (IQ 105), but “only” the 14th rank in the lower non-smart fraction ability ranking (IQ 79).
In patents (1991-2007) Singapore has the first place. And, that is especially remarkable, Singapore has reached
the first place in government effectiveness. Singapore seems to have the best government in the world. Lee Kuan
Yew’s ability – indicated by his success – seems to be underestimated again by the solely use of formal edu-
cation. Of course, Singapore was and still is no standard-bearer of liberty and democracy and Lee Kuan
Yew has attracted criticism because of this. But, he stands apart from other leaders in terms of his exceptional
success for Singapore in growth, modernization, technology and since several years also in science (up to now
only STEM including biotechnology).

However, as Tan (2012) notes, the pragmatist-technocratic regime of Singapore tends to dismiss
qualitative information. In that respect, it would certainly cherish studies like this but may find it
harder to refute substantial evidence from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Annual Reports,
which consistently have showed that Singapore is indeed a ‘flawed democracy’ or ‘hybrid regime’
(i.e., constituting both authoritarian and democratic features). Moreover, Easterly (2014) is skeptical
about that individual leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew have had much of an impact upon economic
development in the country. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit reports (2010, 2014, 2018) show
that Estonia is categorised as a flawed democracy, although currently near the 8.0 score which is
required to be categorised as a ‘full democracy’.
Ultimately, there is a growing body of research on Singapore’s education system and high per-
formance in international assessments, as well as on cultural, economic and political characteristics
but more precise analytical discussion on significant factors related to educational attainment is
required. A comparison with an ever more underreported high-performing country, Estonia,
seems appropriate in that regard.

Theoretical framework
Many of the explanatory variables are similar to the input/output model in the economics of edu-
cation literature (e.g., Hanushek 2003; Perelman and Santin 2011; see also Ning et al. 2015) but
with national IQ (e.g., Lynn and Vanhanen 2012; Rindermann 2018) as an addition. Moreover,
the analysis in this article is more qualitative or mixed. Educational attainment, i.e., the PISA scores
in 2015, is understood as the dependent variable whereas other factors are understood as indepen-
dent or associated (democracy, GDP per capita) variables. For example, raising teachers’ and stu-
dents’ cognitive skills, non-cognitive abilities (i.e., effort), and educational quality may be
regarded as input factors which lead to either positive, null or, less likely, detrimental output. In
this comparative study, each variable is compared with another country’s corresponding level and
may regarded as relative advantages/disadvantages. For example, a higher average teacher cognitive
skill level is considered an advantage. IQ as an independent variable is associated with the high edu-
cational attainment in PISA (Rindermann 2018; Lynn and Vanhanen 2012). Due to very high inter-
correlations these two variables may also be understood as representations of a similar underlying
cognitive construct (Rindermann 2007; Lynn and Vanhanen 2012; Rindermann 2018; Lynn and
Becker 2019).
4 B. BOMAN

However, regarding culture, modernisation and globalisation, I use a more interpretive approach.
One may regard the educational system as an extension of the current national culture in each
country. However, this does only provide an indirect understanding of any given culture. Therefore,
in line with (Ratner 2012; 2017), I understand culture as complex systems that must consider both
distinctive macro cultural concepts and broader macro variables such as political preferences and
economic development. For instance, in China the concept Guanxi explains why Chinese students
act egocentrically and expect future returns from seemingly altruistic behaviour despite being trained
by moral educators in school to act altruistically (Ratner 2017; see also Xu 2014). In this regard, cul-
ture as a hegemonic practice facilitated by a political-economic framework (Laclau and Mouffe 2001;
Tan 2012) is especially emphasised but particular concepts will be highlighted as well. This section
primarily functions as a macro-contextual backdrop for the consecutive analysis on educational
attainment.

Method and data

This is a comparative study which aims to present and discuss the most reliable and relevant data on
ethnic heterogeneity, migration and integration policies; political leadership and democracy; GDP
per capita and growth trends, the relationship between national IQ and PISA scores; quantity of edu-
cation (annual number of instruction time measured by the number of school days and duration of
school days); quality of education (teacher salaries, teacher cognitive skill levels, and respect for tea-
chers). Some relevant sub-variables linked to educational quality, such as class size, students’ well-
being and suicide rates, and attentiveness are omitted because as a non-OECD country the OECD
reports do not include Singapore (e.g., OECD 2018b).
A substantial part of the data is nevertheless collected from various OECD reports, while comp-
lementary data are retrieved from other nation-specific sources and previous research. All major
variables and sub-variables that have been highlighted are critically discussed in relation to the lit-
erature review. The 2015 PISA scores (OECD 2018a) are largely used as indicators of educational
achievement throughout the entire comparative analysis. For the same reason I have presented
data on 15-year-olds whenever that has been possible, which leads to a higher degree of validity.
The other variables serve as underlying factors associated with PISA scores rather than to imply
causation.
National IQ scores are retrieved from Lynn and Becker (2019) in regard to Singapore, and Pull-
man, Allik, and Lynn (2004) in relation to Estonia. Correlations between national IQ and
PISA scores are measured in larger country samples (e.g., Lynn and Vanhanen 2012). However,
in case studies it is more appropriate to use a 100/500 scale by dividing the IQ score with the
PISA score (see Rindermann 2007). An average PISA score of 500 is expected if the IQ is 100.
This provides a form of intercorrelation which is used in the current study.
A way to measure conscientiousness in a cross-national context is to use proxy indicators like
educational quantity and ‘respect for teachers’ or attentiveness (Heckman and Kautz 2014). This
is because industriousness, a facet of conscientiousness (see MacCann, Duckworth, and Roberts
2009), is directly linked to effort and is cross-culturally comparable and measurable as for instance
the annual number of hours spent on schoolwork (regular school hours, cram schools, and home-
work). Educational quantity data is retrieved from NCEE (2018).
Data on average teacher salaries have been collected from OECD (2018b) and Payscale Singapore,
while data on students’ respect for teachers have been obtained from OECD (2016, 91). Hanushek,
Piopiunik, and Wiederhold (2019) include teacher salary statistics for both countries in their econo-
metric analysis but the above-mentioned data is more recent. The third sub-variable of educational
quality, teachers’ cognitive skill levels, are retrieved from Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold
(2019). GDP per capita has been collected from IMF (2018). The Economist Intelligence Unit’s
democracy index has been used to present each country’s level of democracy in 2018 but reports
from 2010 and 2014 are also discussed.
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 5

Cultural characteristics and globalisation as related to educational attainment

Estonia is a post-communist state with approximately 1.3 million inhabitants. Historically, its Russian-
speaking minority increased in shares and numbers throughout the twentieth century, from 8% in
1939 to 35% in 1989. Not surprisingly, a complex bilingual and politico-linguistic situation has emerged
after the fall of the Soviet Union, although Estonian has become the country’s official language.
However, the broader ideal is that Estonia is multicultural although with Estonian culture and language
as its official backbone. Proficiency in the Estonian language is required to be granted a citizenship, why
many non-natives are citizens of Russia or other Russian-speaking countries (Siiner 2006).
Overall, three major tendencies can be identified in regard to Estonia’s cultural characteristics.
First, a gradual loss of Marxist-Leninism after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in parallel with
the implementation of free enterprise economic policies. The only significant Soviet residue is the
earlier socialist imperium’s willingness to cherish each country’s national-cultural identity and to
some degree Estonia’s current such builds upon Soviet socialist conceptions. Secondly, a strong
but not hostile form of ethno-lingual national identity largely centred on the Estonian language,
which throughout earlier phases of history had a low status compared to ‘cultural languages’ such
as German and French. The third major feature is a willingness to be a part of the West (Rausing
2004; Siiner 2006).
Moreover, Estonia’s national culture and identity has been associated with terms such as order,
quiet, stubbornness, and individualism (Rausing 2004, 35). Furthermore, the quiet stubbornness
is similar to Finnish sisu (Brueggeman 2008; Sahlgren 2015; Duckworth 2017). Despite similarities
one should be hesitant to impose foreign cultural concepts, since Finland and the Finnish people do
not occupy much space in Rausing’s (2004) in-depth ethnographic study of the Estonian culture and
identity. Nevertheless, the predominantly positive elements ascribed to Estonians’ self-identity may
have been transmitted to millennials who performed well in PISA.
Singapore has experienced three phases of educational development: the survival stage (1959–
1978), the efficiency stage (1979–1996), and 1997 onwards the ‘Thinking Schools Learning Nations’
vision (Tan 2008; Ab Kadir 2019). The first phase was characterised by deep social issues like full-
scale or latent ethnic conflicts, linguistic diversity, and the residues of the British colonial rule.
While occasionally lacking an element of critical self-reflection, Singapore’s long-lasting national lea-
der Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015) has addressed many of these issues in an extensive monograph (2000).
He underscores that many of the obstacles were gradually turned into national strengths, such as the
co-existence of English as a common work language with other languages (majorly Mandarin, Malay
and Hindi), British law, and heavy educational and technological investment (Lee 2000). This process
is associated with the ideological pragmatism of the hegemonic PAP (People’s Action Party) (Tan
2012). Currently, the Thinking Schools Learning Nations Vision promotes increased diversity of edu-
cational choice and innovation, linked with the goal to create more passionate and active students. The
implementation of this direction has been characterised by more local autonomy but simultaneously it
is connected to centralised control mechanisms which are solidified to ensure quality (Tan 2008).
Broadly speaking, Singapore’s response to globalisation has been signified by neoliberal strategies
through which the interplay between state control and global flows of capital plays a key role in
relation to economic growth (Tan 2012). However, such economics-centered analyses tend to ignore
the cultural peculiarities. Neoliberal ideology is associated with westernisation and Americanisation
(Harvey 2007), but Singapore is characterised by a cultural hybridity of both significant British,
American, Sino-Confucian, Malay and Hindu elements (Kawasaki 2004; Chua 2012). While the Brit-
ish system, in conjunction with multiculturalism, globalism and ideological pragmatism, has served
as a backdrop for the modern development it has comprised a plethora of other components. For
instance, the fortification of the Chinese demographic hegemony has been assisted by a reinvigora-
tion of Mandarin (Lee 2000; Tan 2012). Moreover, some western ideals such as individualism and
equality have been discarded, while Asian diligence has been cherished and Confucian anti-mer-
chant sentiments deemed antithetical to instrumental economic goals (Tan 2012, 80).
6 B. BOMAN

Results
Ethnic heterogeneity, migration and integration policy
The degree of ethnic heterogeneity in Estonia is 31.3% based on data from 2011. Estonians make up
68.7% of the population, while Russians constitute 24.8% of the minority fraction (World Factbook
Estonia). Estonians with Swedish ancestry have drastically declined since the independence in 1992
(Rausing 2004). Auers and Kasekamp (2013) have identified a recent rise of radical right-wing popu-
lism in Estonia and the country’s immigration policy is, indeed, not as liberal as that of neither neigh-
bouring Sweden nor Singapore. Moreover, such parties are highly critical of the bureaucracy and
liberal immigration policies in many EU countries, which in turn has led to a call for more closed
borders. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest that this has had an impact upon high-skilled
immigration influx, in part because some degree of aversion is mostly directed towards Russians
(Auers and Kasekamp 2013; Rausing 2004). Median and average salary levels are better proxy indi-
cators for the relative attractiveness (i.e., a pull factor) of to migrate to a particular country.
Based on data form 2018, Singapore’s degree of ethnic heterogeneity is 25.7%, with Chinese as the
majority group (74.3%), and Malays (13%) and Indians (9%) as the two largest minority groups (World
Factbook Singapore). However, this ethnic map is an oversimplification since each major ethnic group
consists of sub-ethnicities, often related to a particular vernacular language. For instance, within
the largest Chinese group, Huaren, the most common languages are or at least used to be Hokkien,
Teochew, and Cantonese, while amongst Indians, Tamil, Hindi and Bengali are the most common
languages (Chua 2012, 67). Moreover, many Singaporean citizens and permanent residents do not con-
sider newly arrived people from Mainland China to be Singaporean (Yeoh and Lam 2016).
Yeoh and Lam (2016) and Yang, Yang, and Zhang (2017) provide overviews of the migration and
integration policies and demographic composition of Singapore, currently with roughly 60% citizens of
5.61 million inhabitants. The shares of foreign people who inhabit the city–state tend to broadly cor-
respond with the demographic makeup of the citizens, although there are more Malays (46%) than Chi-
nese (18%) and the opposite pattern is the case with regard to citizenship. They also stress that between
1990 and 2015, Singapore’s total population increased with 82%; the share of citizens declined from
86% in 1990 to 60% in 2015. Despite the growing influx of foreigners, migration flows into Singapore
are regulated by the Work Pass System which allows un-skilled, semi-skilled and high-skilled workers
from around the world to enter the country. In addition, there is a so-called Entrepass for entrepreneurs
who aim to start a business or firm in the country. High earners are allowed more liberties, such as to
bring in one family member (Yang, Yang, and Zhang 2017). Moreover, the Personalised Employment
Pass is another recent subcategory within the larger migration-integration framework in Singapore that
serves foreign high earners who reside in the country (Yeoh and Lam 2016).
These elitist notions partly reflect Lee Kuan Yew and perhaps his son and successor Lee Hsien
Loong’s penchant for cognitive ability studies which demonstrate correlational relationships between
socioeconomic status, fertility and IQ (Lee 2000, 135–144; Rindermann, Sailer, and Thompson
2009). Moreover, it echoes a flexible immigration strategy which lightens the fiscal burden, infra-
structure pressure, and potentially adverse impact upon Singaporean workers during recessions,
when foreign labour consequently must leave the country (Yang, Yang, and Zhang 2017). Despite
measures to tackle low fertility rates, a downward trend has been identified between 1990–2015.
This provides incentives for the government to promote further immigration from Mainland
China and elsewhere. Such measures are also used to sustain the demographic status quo in regard
to the ethnic makeup (Yang, Yang, and Zhang 2017), which Lee and his successors believe is impor-
tant to secure interethnic harmony. Local resentment against a large influx of immigrants has been
tackled by a policy of increased regulation of foreign migrants and an official discourse which pro-
motes a set of Singaporean core values (Yang, Yang, and Zhang 2017).
Despite the concerns raised by Singaporean citizens and its semi-authoritarian government, and
recent instances of anti-Chinese sentiments (Yeoh and Lam 2016), it is unhesitatingly the case that
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 7

the country is much higher ranked on the Global Competitiveness scale (2018), second only after the
US, while Estonia is placed on a middling level as number 32. The attractiveness of the country is
indicated by the highly skilled foreign workforce.

Political leadership and democracy

Singapore is signified by a partly contradictory relationship, because it is not a beacon of democracy,
yet its political leadership has been ranked as the world’s highest by some measures (Rindermann,
Sailer, and Thompson 2009). The Economist Intelligence Unit data of 2018 indicates that democracy
has been on a slow but steady rise throughout the last years. If democracy is understood as an intrin-
sic if not extrinsic goal, this trend captures some positive features such as an increase of freedom and
liberties. As of 2018, Estonia is just slightly below the full democracy benchmark (7.97, 8.0 is the
threshold value) while Singapore has reached the value 6.38, significantly lower in the flawed democ-
racy category. While functioning of government (7.86) and civil liberties (7.35) in Singapore are
rather high, ‘electoral process and pluralism’ is conspicuously low (4.33). This is a sharp contrast
in relation to Estonia where ‘electoral process and pluralism’ is highly ranked (9.58). If one regards
politics as a mere adaptive instrument to facilitate economic growth and consolidate a particular
party’s hegemony (for a critical discussion, see Barr 2006; Tan 2012), then Singapore is working
quite well despite its obvious democratic flaws relative to western and Northeast Asian democracies.
However, if one considers democracy as an intrinsic goal which partly transcends economic devel-
opment, then Estonia is indeed a better manifestation of modernity. Table 1.
Barr (2015) argues that the Lee Hsien Loong administration has gradually lost some of its grip as
the hegemonic force in national politics. One indicator of this is the loss of electoral representation in
the 2011 elections where it only reached 60.1%, which is the lowest share of support from voters
since the foundation in 1963. According to Barr (2015), the Singaporean elite is no longer ‘control-
ling the narrative’. Further, despite rampant elitist aspirations and discourse they have made a series
of mistakes and miscalculations regarding infrastructure (housing and transportation in particular)
around 2011–2013. However, Barr’s critique may partly be read as a request for a better and more
efficient elitist technocracy, not a different form of governance. Moreover, his article does not con-
sider hard data on PISA, GDP per capita growth rates, and democracy index. For instance, Singapore
scored 5.89, indicative of a hybrid regime in 2010, but was categorised as a ‘flawed democracy’
already in 2014 with the value 6.03 (The Economist 2010, 2014).
Indeed, there is always a lag in the data and academic publication; it might be the case that even
PISA performance and GDP per capita will deteriorate in the coming reports. However, while hous-
ing and transportation issues affect the ordinary lives of the inhabitants in any country, they may
merely have a minor effect on educational attainment, at least as they mark only a slight decline
in infrastructural standards.

GDP per Capita in relation to educational achievement

Table 2 shows that the GDP per capita is substantially higher in Singapore (65 630 USD) relative to
Estonia (23 510 USD). There are a set of historical reasons for this. While Singapore’s historical
growth rate was relatively compressed, majorly from the 1970s to the early 2000s (Easterly 2014),
Estonia has started from a low base as Soviet socialism collapsed in the early 1990s. However,
since the independence in 1992 the economy has grew tenfold, albeit with massive fluctuations

Table 1. PISA 2015 scores.

PISA science PISA reading PISA math Reference: OECD (2018a)
Estonia 534 519 520
Singapore 556 535 564
8 B. BOMAN

during the economic crisis around 2008/2009 and period of recovery in 2010. Between 2012–2015
the average annual growth rate has been approximately 3.5%. However, the growth rate is expected
to slow down in the coming years due to a relaxation of internal and external demand (Estonia
country study, 105–106; World Factbook Estonia). The growth forecast for 2019 is 3%. The corre-
sponding figure for Singapore is 2.3% (IMF 2018). This may demonstrate that good PISA results may
be somewhat trumped by growth forecasts. However, they may constitute proxy indicators for the
make-up of the future workforce. Despite the impressive assessment aptitude, Estonia faces a partial
mismatch of its current workforce (OECD 2019). As noted, Singapore is somewhat dependent upon
high-skilled foreign workers, whereas fewer such individuals will be attracted to the middling salary
levels which signify Estonia at this point. In that regard, Singapore faces a better situation.

The nexus between national IQ and PISA scores

As emphasised above, national IQ is largely predictive for PISA performance. According to Pullman,
Allik, and Lynn (2004), Estonia has a national IQ of 99.4. This correlates well with the average PISA
scores of pupils and students tested at age 7–19 (n = 4,874) on the WISC-R IQ test. With a PISA
average score of 524.333 the intercorrelation is .88. Table 3.
When excluding the PISA scores in the composed value, Singapore’s national IQ is 102 (Lynn and
Becker 2019, 139–140). With an average PISA score of 551.66 (OECD 2018a) it performs somewhat
higher than expected on their national IQ score (.88). Thus, since the IQ/PISA intercorrelation is not
‘perfect’ there might some other variables which explain the ‘residual’.

Quantity of education
The NCEE report (2018) shows that the school year in Singapore is 18 days longer, roughly translat-
ing into 42.5 annul school weeks compared to 39 in Estonia. The average school day in elementary
school lasts six hours in Estonia and five-and-a-half hours in Singapore. This implicates that the
annual hours of instruction time are 1050 in Estonia and 1060 in Singapore, which shows a statisti-
cally insignificant difference. The annual number of hours spent on homework is unknown and
therefore not included.
A large study of Danish students conducted by Andersen, Humlum, and Nandrup (2016; see also
Parinduri 2014) indicates that added instruction time leads to small but statistically significant
increases of scholastic aptitude of SD 0.15, although the findings may be sensitive to context-depen-
dent national and local differences. Given that Estonia’s compulsory school year is slightly shorter and
Singapore’s slightly longer than Denmark’s school year, which was close to the OECD average at that
time (Andersen, Humlum, and Nandrup 2016; see also OECD 2018a), it seems to indicate that Singa-
pore has found a balance and may even benefit from a somewhat shorter school day and that Estonia
can increase its instruction time to the level of Denmark and gain some additional returns from a fairly
cheap economic investment. Table 4.

Table 2. GDP per capita.

GDP per capita Reference: IMF (2018)
Estonia: 23,510 USD
Singapore: 65, 630 USD

Table 3. Educational quantity.

Annual number of school days Reference: NCEE (2018)
Estonia 175
Singapore 193
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 9

Table 4. Teacher salaries.

Average annual teacher salary Reference
Estonia 23,847 USD OECD (2018a)
Singapore 60 000 USD Payscale (2019)

Table 5. Teacher cognitive skill levels.

Teachers average cognitive skill levels Reference: Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold 2019
Estonia numeracy: 285; literacy: 294
Singapore numeracy: 303; literacy: 300

Quality of education
The average annual salary in Estonia for teachers between 25–64 years of age is 23 584 USD (OECD
2018b, 375), whereas the largely corresponding figure for Singapore is 60 000 USD. It is significantly
higher at the top of the scale for experienced teachers in Singapore, around 87 000 USD (Payscale
Singapore). This provides incentives for Singaporeans to become teachers and to attract high-skilled
individuals; however, it must be seen in the light of the average wages in the entire country which are
roughly 5-10% higher (Payscale Singapore). Therefore, the average teacher cognitive skill level con-
stitutes a better indicator in this comparative context.
The average teacher cognitive skill in the OECD, based on PIACC scores are 259 points in numer-
acy and 268 points in literacy. PIACC measures each skill according to a 500-point scale. The result
for Estonia’s teacher pool is 285 for numeracy and 294 for literacy, whereas their Singaporean
counterparts have 303 in numeracy and 300 in literacy (Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold
2019), see also Table 5. This does in fact place Estonia at a moderately high level in the OECD
while Singapore is one of the top performers after Finland. However, the data is from 2011/2012
and thus older relative to salaries in OECD (2018b). Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold
(2019) conclude that if other countries would raise their teachers’ average cognitive skills to the
same level as Finland, the PISA scores would significantly increase. They stress:
In the OLS estimation with the full set of controls, we find that a one standard deviation (SD) increase in teacher
cognitive skills is associated with 0.10-0.15 SD higher student performance. To put these estimates into perspec-
tive, they imply that roughly one quarter of gaps in mean student performance across our 31 countries would be
closed if each of these countries were to raise the median cognitive skills of teachers to the level of Finnish tea-
chers (the most skilled teachers by the PIAAC measures).

Given that Estonia and Singapore outperform Finland in PISA 2015 (OECD 2018a), these results are
less pertinent for them but should not be overlooked. There is still a Singaporean advantage of 44
points in PISA mathematics relative to Estonia (see also Toh, Kaur, and Tay 2019).
OECD (2016) reports that only 6% of Singaporean students lack respect for their teacher whereas
the OECD average is 20% and Estonia has 17% in that regard. Whether this reflects a strong edu-
cational culture in Singapore, or the general national culture is hard to discern. Nevertheless, it pro-
vides another advantage for Singapore relative to Estonia and many other countries.

Conclusion and discussion

The interpretive analysis of national cultural characteristics and political leadership provides signifi-
cant cues related to Estonia and Singapore’s high educational performance. Estonia’s political lea-
ders, inclusive of the national leader and filmmaker Lennart Meri who served as the country’s
second president from 1992–2001, have been much less salient and conspicuous than those of Sin-
gapore (Lee Kuan Yew in particular), partly because Estonia is more democratic, while Singapore has
based its leadership on a pragmatist-elitist technocracy the 1960s onwards. In Estonia’s case the
national culture is associated with quiet and thrift traits, at least until recently, combined with
10 B. BOMAN

free enterprise and westernised modernity not very different from that of neighbouring Sweden. In
Singapore, a blend of British, American, and Sino-Confucian features is salient, in concert with a
strong emphasis upon educational attainment and economic growth. Estonia’s economic growth
started much later, after the independence in 1992, and the country is not up to par with Singapore,
one of wealthiest countries in the world with regard to GDP per capita and salary rates. However,
Singapore is only slightly better in PISA (2015), although the differences in mathematics are substan-
tial in favour of Singapore. The results seem to be, in part, associated with higher salaries and tea-
chers’ cognitive skill levels. This demonstrates a link between teacher competence and the facilitation
of high quality of tertiary education.
The combination of Singapore’s relatively high national IQ (102), high-skilled foreign labour, and
an economy which facilitates the pull of such ‘talent’ has proven to be successful over time, although
with some recent challenges. In the case of Estonia its high PISA scores may also improve the country’s
image as an indicator of national branding, why it might be relatively crucial to sustain or improve the
educational performance in order to create a positive feedback relationship. However, such potential
bi-directional causal relationships are rather speculative and might have small effect sizes in the light of
macro processes at the national, regional and global level. How much can Estonia really affect its cur-
rent situation, whether in regard to economic growth and/or educational achievement?
Nonetheless, Estonia can be proud of its high performance despite its relatively peripheral pos-
ition within the OECD and the EU. Apart from the national IQ (99.4), which however is close to
the British mean of 100 (Lynn and Vanhanen 2012), Estonia’s high performance relative to the
OECD average (493.66 in PISA 2015) and wealthier Western countries, remains somewhat of a
minor mystery. The reason is certainly not high educational quantity or respect for teachers; perhaps
not high teacher salaries or cognitive skills, either. Sub-variables related to educational quality may
thus be further researched. For instance, the teacher cognitive skill levels might not (always) properly
reflect instructional competencies. For instance, Sweden’s teacher pool consists of highly skilled tea-
chers based on their average academic credibility (Hanushek, Piopiunik, and Wiederhold 2019) but
are often selected within a virtually non-competitive national environment (SVT 2018). Moreover,
the resilience among Estonian students might be higher than the OECD average (OECD 2011).
The educational research community has to a large part transcended PISA policy suggestions as a
binary situation in which policy makers either accept such recommendations or reject the entire sys-
tem as an extension of a ‘neoliberal agenda’ of imposed accountability (for a critical discussion, see
for example Hursh 2007; Rezai-Rashiti, Segeren, and Martino 2017) or nudging. Some studies
suggest that it has not even affected national educational policy discourses to a substantial degree
(Rautalin, Alasuutari, and Vento 2019). However, with large student samples and big data made
available it has indeed made comparisons more comprehensive and valid (Hanushek, Piopiunik,
and Wiederhold 2019). Be that as it may, this study indicates that at least up until 2015 Estonia
and Singapore are two high performers that serve as decent role models for at least smaller nations
within the OECD and its partner countries.

Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges two reviewers for their important comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Ab Kadir, M. Akshir. 2019. “Singapore’s Educational Policy Through the Prism of Student Voice: Recasting Students as
Co-Agents of Educational Change and ‘Disrupting’ the Status Quo?” Journal of Education Policy 34 (4): 547–576.
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 11

Alesina, Alberto, Reza Baqir, and William Easterly. 1999. “Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions.” Quarterly Journal of
Economics 114 (4): 1243–1284.
Alesina, Alberto, Arnald Devleeschauwer, William Easterly, Sergio Kurlat, and Romain Wacziarg. 2003.
“Fractionalization.” Journal of Economic Growth 8 (2): 155–194.
Andersen, Simon Calmar, Maria Knoth Humlum, and Anne Brink Nandrup. 2016. “Increasing Instruction Time in
School Does Increase Learning.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (27): 7481–7484.
Auers, Daunis, and Andres Kasekamp. 2013. “Comparing Radical-Right Populism in Estonia and Latvia.” In Right-
wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse, edited by Ruth Wodak, Majid Khosravinik, and Brigitte Mral,
235–248. London: Bloomsbury.
Auguste, Byron, Paul Kihn, and Matt Miller. 2010. Closing the Teacher Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining Top-Third
Graduates in Teaching. An International and Market Research-Based Perspective. McKinsey & Company.
Barr, Michael. 2006. “Beyond Technocracy: The Culture of Elite Governance in Lee Hsien Loong’s Singapore.” Asian
Studies Review 30 (1): 1–18.
Barr, Michael. 2015. “Ordinary Singapore: The Decline of Singapore Exceptionalism.” Journal of Contemporary Asia
46 (1): 1–17.
Borghans, Lex, Bart H.H. Golsteyn, James Heckman, and John Eric Humphries. 2008. “Identification Problems in
Personality Psychology.” Personality and Individual Differences 51 (3): 315–320.
Brueggeman, Martha. 2008. “An Outsider’s View of Literacy in Finland: Assumptions, Lessons Learned, and Sisu.”
Literacy Research and Instruction 47 (1): 1–8.
Cheung, Kwok-cheung. 2017. “The Effects of Resilience in Learning Variables on Mathematical Literacy Performance:
A Study of Learning Characteristics of the Academic Resilient and Advantaged Low Achievers in Shanghai,
Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.” Educational Psychology 37 (6): 965–982.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1997. Communitarian Politics in Asia. London: Routledge.
Chua, Beng Huat. 2012. Structure, Audience and Soft Power in East Asian Pop Culture. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press. 67–88.
Conard, Maureen. 2006. “Aptitude is not Enough: How Personality and Behavior Predict Academic Performance.”
Journal of Research in Personality 40 (3): 339–346.
Deng, Zongyi, and S. Gopinathan. 2016. “PISA and High-Performing Education Systems: Explaining Singapore’s
Education System.” Comparative Education 52 (4): 449–472.
Duckworth, Angela. 2017. Grit. Why Passion and Resilience are the Secrets of Success. London: Vermillion.
Duckworth, Angela, and Martin Seligman. 2005. “Self-Discipline Outdoes IQ in Predicting Academic Performance of
Adolescents.” Psychological Science 16 (1): 939–944.
Easterly, William. 2014. The Tyranny of Experts. New York: Basic Books.
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index. 2010. https://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_
web.pdf.
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index. 2014. https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?
campaignid=Democracy0115.
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index. 2018. https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index.
Global Competitiveness Report. 2018. http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2018/competitiveness-
rankings/?doing_wp_cron=1563283156.4654760360717773437500.
Hanushek, Eric. 2003. “The Failure of Input-Based Schooling Policies.” Economic Journal 113 (1): F64–F98.
Hanushek, Eric, Marc Piopiunik, and Simon Wiederhold. 2019. “The Value of Smarter Techers: International Evidence
on Teacher Cognitive Skills and Student Performance.” Journal of Human Resources 54 (4): 857–899.
Harvey, David. 2007. “Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 610 (1): 21–44.
Hattie, John. 2012. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. London: Routledge.
Heckman, James, and Tim Kautz. 2014. “Fostering and Measuring Skills: Interventions That Improve Character and
Cognition.” In The Myth of Achievement Tests: The GED and the Role of Character in American Life, edited by James
Heckman, John Humphries, and Tim Kautz, 341–430. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hursh, David. 2007. “Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education.” American Educational
Research Journal 44 (3): 493–518.
IMF. 2018. GDP per capita. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/USA/DEU.
Kawasaki, Kenichi. 2004. “Cultural Hegemony of Singapore among ASEAN Countries: Globalization and Cultural
Policy.” Journal of Japanese Sociology 13 (1): 22–35.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics.
London: Verso.
Lee, Kuan Yew. 2000. From Third World to First. Singapore and the Asian Economic Boom. New York: Harper
Business.
Lynn, Richard. 1996. Dysgenics. Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. London: Prager.
Lynn, Richard, and David Becker. 2019. Intelligence of Nations. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.
12 B. BOMAN

Lynn, Richard, and Tatu Vanhanen. 2012. Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences. Ulster: Ulster
Institute for Social Research.
MacCann, Carolyn, Angela Lee Duckworth, and Richard D. Roberts. 2009. “Empirical Identification of the Major
Facets of Conscientiousness.” Learning and Individual Differences 19 (4): 451–458.
Masters, William A., and Margaret S. McMillan. 2004. “Ethnolinguistic Diversity, Government, and Growth.” In
Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, edited by Frank Salter, 123–147. London: Frank Cass.
Morgenbesser, Lee. 2017. “The Autocratic Mandate: Elections, Legitimacy and Regime Stability in Singapore.” Pacific
Review 30 (2): 205–231.
NCEE. 2018. “How Much Time Do Students Spend in School in Top-performing School Systems and the U.S.?” http://
ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SchoolYearStatv5.pdf.
Ning, Bo, Jan Van Damme, Sarah Gielen, Gudrun Vanlaar, and Wim Van den Noortgate. 2015. “What Makes
Difference in Reading Achievement? Comparisons Between Finland and Shanghai.” Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research 60 (5): 515–537.
OECD. 2011. How Do Some Students Overcome Their Socio-economic Background? https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
docserver/5k9h362p77tf-en.pdf?expires=1573654578&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=
7AE491BC14FB24DB5B08F2326E75A617.
OECD. 2014. Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education. Lessons from PISA for Korea. https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264190672-en.pdf?expires=1554230978&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=
A21A553CFF310C6DB7AE00684CA1F8A5.
OECD. 2016. PISA 2015 Results: Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
docserver/9789264267510-en.pdf?expires=1563262477&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=
4E0F4F8709475E4FDC72A6E1245B869F.
OECD. 2018a. PISA 2015 Results in Focus. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf.
OECD. 2018b. Education at a Glance. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2018_eag-2018-
en#page1.
OECD. 2019. Country Report Estonia. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-
country-report-estonia_en.pdf.
Parinduri, Rasyad A. 2014. “Do Children Spend Too Much Time in Schools? Evidence From a Longer School Year in
Indonesia.” Economics of Education Review 41: 89–104.
Payscale Singapore. https://www.payscale.com/research/SG/Job=Secondary_School_Teacher/Salary/54f34f25/
Singapore.
Perelman, Sergio, and Daniel Santin. 2011. “Measuring Educational Efficiency at Student Level with Parametric
Stochastic Distance Functions: An Application to Spanish PISA Results.” Education Economics 19 (1): 29–49.
Pullman, Helle, Jüri Allik, and Richard Lynn. 2004. “The Growth of IQ among Estonian Schoolchildren From Ages 7-
19.” Journal of Biosocial Science 36 (6): 735–740.
Putnam, Robert. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century.” Scandinavian
Political Studies 30 (2): 137–174.
Ratner, Carl. 2012. Macro Cultural Psychology. A Political Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ratner, Carl. 2017. “The Discrepancy Between Macro Culture and Individual, Lived Psychology: An Ethnographic
Example of Chinese Moral Behavior.” Culture & Psychology 23 (3): 356–371.
Rausing, Sigrid. 2004. History, Memory, And Identity in Post-Soviet Estonia. Oxford Studies in Social and Cultural
Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rautalin, Marjaana, Pertti Alasuutari, and Eeto Vento. 2019. “Globalisation of Education Policies: Does PISA Have an
Affect?” Journal of Education Policy 34 (4): 500–522.
Rezai-Rashiti, G., A. Segeren, and W. Martino. 2017. “The New Articulation of Equity Education in Neoliberal Times:
The Changing Conception of Social Justice.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 15 (2): 160–174.
Rindermann, Heiner. 2007. “The g-factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of
Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations.” European Journal of Personality 21 (5): 667–706.
Rindermann, Heiner. 2018. Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rindermann, Heiner, David Becker, and Thomas Coyle. 2016. “Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of
International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests.” Frontiers in Psychology 7.
Rindermann, Heiner, and Stephen Ceci. 2009. “Education Policy and Country Outcomes in International Cognitive
Competence Studies.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 4 (6): 551–568.
Rindermann, Heiner, Quyen Sen Ngoc Hoang, and Antonia E.E. Baumeister. 2013. “Cognitive Ability, Parenting and
Instruction in Vietnam and Germany.” Intelligence 41 (5): 366–377.
Rindermann, Heiner, Michael Sailer, and James Thompson. 2009. “The Impact of Smart Fractions, Cognitive Ability of
Politicians and Average Competence of Peoples on Social Development.” Talent Development and Excellence 1 (1):
3–25.
Sahlgren, Gabriel Heller. 2015. Real Finnish Lessons. The True Story of an Education Superpower. London: Centre for
Policy Studies.
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIETIES AND EDUCATION 13

Salter, Frank. 2004. “Ethnic Diversity, Foreign Aid, Economic Growth, Population Policy, Welfare, Inequality,
Conflict, and the Costs of Globalism: A Perspective on W. Mater’s and M. McMillan’s Findings.” In Welfare,
Ethnicity and Altruism, edited by Frank Salter, 148–171. London: Frank Cass.
Siiner, Maarja. 2006. “Planning Language Practice: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Language Policy in Post-Communist
Estonia.” Language Policy 5 (2): 161–186.
Soh, Kaycheng. 2014. “Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009: Similarities and Differences in Achievements in School
Management.” Compare 44 (3): 455–471.
SVT. 2018. “0,05 på högskoleprovet – tillräckligt för att bli antagen till lärarutbildning”. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/
inrikes/0-05-poang-pa-hogskoleprovet-tillrackligt-for-att-bli-larare.
Tan, Charlene. 2008. “Globalisation, the Singapore State, and Educational Reforms: Towards Performativity.”
Education, Knowledge & Economy 2 (2): 111–120.
Tan, Kenneth Paul. 2012. “The Ideology of Pragmatism: Neo-Liberal Globalisation and Political Authoritarianism in
Singapore.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 42 (1): 67–92.
Toh, Tin Lam, Berinderjeet Kaur, and Guan Eng Tay, eds. 2019. Mathematics Education in Singapore. Singapore:
Springer Nature Singapore.
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2004. “An Exploratory Comparative Study of the Relationship Between Ethnic Heterogeneity and
Welfare Spending.” In Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, edited by Frank Salter, 88–118. London: Frank Cass.
World Factbook Estonia. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/en.html.
World Factbook Singapore. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html.
Xu, Jing. 2014. “Becoming a Moral Child Amidst China’s Moral Crisis: Preschool Discourse and Practices of Sharing in
Shanghai.” Ethos (berkeley, Calif ) 42 (2): 222–242.
Yang, Hui, Peidong Yang, and Shaohua Zhang. 2017. “Immigration, Population and Foreign Workforce in Singapore:
An Overview of Trends, Policies, and Issues”. HSSE Online (6). https://www.hsseonline.edu.sg/sites/default/files/
uploaded/journal_articles/2-peidong.pdf.
Yeoh, Brenda, and Theodora Lam. 2016. “Immigration and its (Dis)Contents: The Challenging of Highly Skilled
Migration in Globalizing Singapore.” American Behavioral Scientist 60 (5-6): 637–658.

View publication stats