Search

Copyright of Journal of Educational Studies (1673-1298) is the property of Journal of Educational Studies Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The comparison study of economic development levels and social structures reveals that the development of China’s middle stratum is apparently lagging. Currently, China’s GDP per capita is almost equivalent to that of developed economies like Europe and the USA in the middle and late 1970s, when they became middle-stratum-dominated societies. However, China’s middle stratum is still underdeveloped in scale and proportion. Reasons for this are the Chinese household share of wealth distribution is low and wealth polarization is sharp. The solution to this problem is to build a fair environment for wealth creation, let enterprises and government give away part of their income to residents, and increase residents’ income. In the short run, China should make plans to increase incomes and develop plans aimed at key groups in a bid to increase the Chinese middle stratum in scale and proportion. Education resources must also be equally distributed, and the under-stratum must be helped to move up the social ladder

In Russia, Zemsky Sobor existed from the mid 16th century to the mid 17th century for more than 100 years. Most Russian scholars agreed that Russian Zemsky Sobor was a Russian version of the estate-representative institution, trying to interpret Zemsky Sobor in a Western European model of political system. From our point of view, however, Russian Zemsky Sobor was quite different from feudal estate parliaments in both origin and function. It functioned only in the 16th-17th centuries for a short time and did not develop into a stable estate-representative institution, as it happened in Western Europe. In fact, the Zemsky Sobor institution has only expanded the class basis of the Tsarist regime and served merely as an instrument of the government in this period. When we try to interpret the evolution of Russian political system in the context of western models and concepts, what we could do is to tell what it appears to be, but what we could not do is tell what it is. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ko-Lao-Hui developed with Shan-Tang as organizational archetype in the Qing dynasty. Shan-Tang was a kind of symbolic code name for certain independent Ko-Lao Hui organization. Following the way in the popular story ‘Shui Hu Zhuan’ (The Outlaws of the Marsh), every organization used their particular names of both ‘Shan’ (mountain) and ‘Tang’ (hall). The territory and size of an organization depends on the radius of action as well as organizing capacity of its leaders. Some were limited to certain nook in a county with only dozens of members, while others spread into different counties in different provinces with members as much as tens of thousands. Organization structure of Ko-Lao-Hui was simple at first, but the relationships among inner members as well as outer organizations became very complex in later ages. Based on such complex and enormous organizations, Ko-Lao-Hui formed a huge but incompact relationship network. This structural characteristic had given Ko-Lao-Hui foundation and dynamic for its expansion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]