oiip

Schooling the Republic: Education, Path Dependence, and Democratic Resilience in Austria

Schooling the Republic: Education, Path Dependence, and Democratic Resilience in Austria
Commentary by Giulliano Renato Molinero Junior
July 2026

About the author:
Giulliano Renato Molinero Junior, is an Italian-Brazilian doctoral researcher at CEU, Austria, where he researches lobbying practices in the autocratic context, particularly on the environmental agenda. He holds an MA in Politics also from CEU and an M.Sc in European and Global Politics from Tampere University, Finland, as well as a Bachelor`s in International Relations from the Catholic University of Brasilia, Brazil. At oiip he was interning with Johannes Späth in 2025, and he still is continuously participating in research and learning opportunities.

Austria is, by the most widely used metrics, one of the best-educated countries in Europe. Its students consistently perform above OECD averages on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and policymakers routinely cite these results as evidence that the educational system is functioning well. Yet this apparent success conceals a structural blind spot. PISA evaluates literacy, numeracy, and scientific reasoning — competencies that lend themselves to psychometric testing, statistical benchmarking, and international comparison — and uses them as proxies for human capital formation and future economic productivity (Grek, 2009). What it does not measure are the competencies associated with democratic citizenship: political judgment, civic engagement, critical consciousness, and the capacity to recognize and resist the erosion of democratic norms. As Edeji (2024) observes, standardized testing regimes systematically privilege forms of knowledge that are easily quantifiable. The consequence in Austria is concrete: because civic education outcomes are not subject to standardized national exams, teacher accountability mechanisms, or international benchmarking, they remain peripheral in school evaluations, resource allocation, and reform priorities (Schulz et al., 2018). What is not measured is not treated as central; what is not treated as central is not reformed. The challenge for Austrian policymakers is, therefore, that prevailing metrics capture the system’s capacity to produce prepared workers while leaving its democratic functions largely unexamined. This commentary argues that this blind spot is neither accidental nor easily corrected, and that addressing it requires deliberate reforms at the level of pedagogy, access, and supranational governance.

A System Built for the State, Not for Citizens

The genealogy of Austrian public education is, to a significant degree, the genealogy of state formation rather than democratic development. The Habsburg Empire built one of Europe’s earliest and most extensive systems of compulsory schooling, driven not by democratic ambition but by the administrative and military needs of a multi-ethnic state — a logic consistent with the broader pattern identified by Paglayan (2022, p. 1242), who argues that public education was historically implemented by oligarchs and absolutist rulers to manage populations rather than to emancipate them. By the time democracy began in most regions, the majority of children were already receiving education organized around state purposes.

After the empire’s collapse, Austria’s turbulent interwar period produced an educational system whose structures bore the imprint of successive non-democratic regimes (Cockett, 2024). The formal re-establishment of democratic governance in 1945 brought genuine institutional commitments to civic education, most notably the constitutional principle of geistige Landesverteidigung in 1975, which explicitly assigned schools a role in safeguarding democracy (BMBWF, 2026). However, institutional decisions made in the past constrain the options available in the present: once a particular institutional configuration is established, switching to an alternative becomes costly due to accumulated habits, investments, and entrenched rules (Pierson, 2000). Centralized administrative control, hierarchical teacher authority, and selective tracking systems that differentiate students by academic and vocational paths early in secondary education persisted through both postwar democratization and the subsequent neoliberal turn, and continue to characterize Austrian schooling today (Fend, 2008; Helsper, 2014; Terhart, 2011).

The effect was to entrench a model of education oriented toward measurable outputs while further marginalizing the cultivation of democratic competencies. The PISA performance that now serves as political reassurance is, in this sense, a product of this optimization: the system performs well on precisely the metrics it has been designed to meet.

The Conditions for a Democratizing Education

That public education does not automatically democratize is well established. Cantoni et al. (2017) demonstrate that state-directed education can systematically shape attitudes toward regime legitimacy and institutional trust in ways that serve government objectives rather than democratic ones. Bueno de Mesquita et al. (2003) explain public education’s expansion under autocratic regimes through its contribution to economic productivity and regime stability rather than civic development. As Paglayan (2022) notes, the mere existence of public education is insufficient to promote democracy, whether as an intended or unintended consequence, across a broad range of contexts. The relevant question is not whether a country has public education, but under which conditions that education can function as a democratizing force.

Two contingencies emerge as decisive: the pedagogical approach adopted and the equitability of access. Freire (1970, 1998) distinguishes between what he calls “banking education” — in which knowledge reproduces existing hierarchies and legitimizes them — and an emancipatory model centered on dialogue and the co-construction of knowledge, or conscientização: the process by which individuals develop a critical awareness of the social, political, and economic structures that shape their lives. Contemporary research confirms that the distinction carries real democratic consequences: Neundorf et al. (2025) found that even a brief civic education intervention — a three-minute video — produced statistically significant reductions in acceptance of authoritarian rule and increased support for democratic norms across a sample of 40,000 participants from 33 countries. In the German-speaking regions, however, emancipatory principles are often invoked rhetorically while authority remains centralized in curricula design and assessment regimes, producing a persistent gap between stated aims and pedagogical practice (Terhart, 2011).

The second contingency is equitable access. Education’s democratizing effects cannot be assumed to operate uniformly across a stratified system. In Austria, early tracking, vocational streaming, and disparities across regions and school types create patterned differences in educational outcomes that disproportionately advantage already-privileged groups. Individuals whose educational trajectories limit their access to symbolic recognition and upward mobility may experience a weakened sense of belonging to the national political community, which in turn translates into lower levels of civic participation and political efficacy (Scott, 1972). Such disconnection can generate conditions conducive to informal modes of political mediation — regional brokerage, party patronage networks, municipal-level gatekeeping — where political influence operates through personal connections rather than inclusive democratic channels (Bartels, 2016).

Legacies and the Problem of Persistence

The autocratic legacies of Austrian educational history do not operate only through institutional structures. They also operate through socialized dispositions that persist across generations. As Neundorf et al. (2020) explain, norm internalization holds that individuals absorb the dominant political norms to which they are most intensively exposed during formative years; cognitive consistency suggests that once core beliefs about political authority are adopted, individuals tend to resist contradictory information; and contextual reinforcement highlights how multilevel environments — states, schools, families, media, local communities — reproduce prevailing norms long after a formal regime transition. These mechanisms collectively mean that democratic education is not simply a matter of changing what is taught, but of creating sustained and credible democratic experiences that generate dissonance with entrenched authoritarian dispositions over time.

Overcoming path dependence at the institutional level requires deliberate and sustained reforms: gradually decentralizing curricular control, introducing student participation councils, reshaping teacher training toward dialogical pedagogy, and creating dedicated frameworks for civic education. As Neundorf et al. (2020) note, such reforms are mutually reinforcing with the socialization effects they produce — democratically redesigned schools create everyday contexts in which students experience democratic decision-making and critical thinking, developing attitudes that in turn increase the political feasibility of further institutional change. Critical junctures — major curriculum overhauls, electoral shocks, European-level interventions — offer particular opportunities to embed democratic norms more durably within institutions.

The European Framework as Structural Leverage

Austria’s domestic educational legacies do not exist in isolation. They are embedded within the multilevel governance structure of the European Union, which introduces additional normative benchmarks, coordination mechanisms, and external reference frames that the domestic context alone cannot provide (Føllesdal, 2012). EU-level instruments — the Open Method of Coordination, Erasmus+, Jean Monnet actions, and EU-funded civic education initiatives — do not impose uniform curricula, but operate through incentives, benchmarking, and transnational exchange, establishing minimum democratic expectations while preserving curricular sovereignty. This creates three structurally significant advantages for Austria.

First, normative diversification: exposure to supranational democratic norms weakens the monopolistic influence of domestic path dependencies, as Austrian students, educators, and institutions simultaneously encounter national and European democratic expectations, diluting the authoritarian residues embedded in domestic bureaucratic cultures (Checkel, 2005; Neundorf et al., 2020). Second, coordination without coercion: EU initiatives provide political cover for domestic reform by reframing democratic education as a shared European commitment rather than a contested ideological project, thereby lowering the political costs of curricular and pedagogical change. Third, systemic pressure: EU membership generates an ongoing orientation toward civic competence, pluralism, and democratic participation that creates friction with the labor-market instrumentalism dominant in current Austrian educational policy — a friction that reformers can leverage (Applebaum, 2024).

These advantages are, however, conditional. If EU educational initiatives are perceived domestically as technocratic impositions or cultural overreach, their socialization effects are likely to be weak or counterproductive (Checkel, 2005). And if democratic education becomes disconnected from the actual social conflicts citizens face — migration, economic inequality, digital surveillance — it risks fostering cynicism rather than engagement, reinforcing the very disengagement it aims to address. The EU functions, in this sense, less as a direct democratizer of Austrian education than as a structural constraint on autocratization and an amplifier of domestic reform efforts. The practical implication is that Austria should leverage EU frameworks strategically rather than defensively: aligning civic education goals with European democratic benchmarks, expanding participation in transnational educational programs beyond elite academic tracks, and using EU-level evaluations to complement national performance metrics that currently privilege labor-market outcomes over democratic competencies.

Building an educational system that genuinely supports democratic resilience, thus, requires a reorientation along three axes: a pedagogical shift from passive instruction toward conscientização; equitable access to high-quality education across tracking systems and regions; and a deliberate mobilization of EU frameworks to counteract domestic path dependence. None of these changes are technically complex, but politically challenging.

References

• Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., & Shleifer, A. (2013). Teaching practices and social capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 189–210.
• Applebaum, A. (2024). Autocracy, Inc.: The dictators who want to run the world. Doubleday.
• Bartels, L. M. (2016). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. MIT Press.
• Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (BMBWF). (2026). Geistige Landesverteidigung (GLV).
• Cantoni, D., Chen, Y., Yang, D. Y., Yuchtman, N., & Zhang, Y. J. (2017). Curriculum and ideology. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 338–392.
• Chapman, H. S., Hanson, M. C., Dzutsati, V., & DeBell, P. (2024). Under the veil of democracy: What do people mean when they say they support democracy? Perspectives on Politics, 22(1), 97–115.
• Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socialization in Europe: Introduction and framework. International Organization, 59(4), 801–826.
• Cockett, R. (2024). Vienna: How the city of ideas created the modern world. Yale University Press.
• Edeji, O. C. (2024). Neo-liberalism, human capital theory and the right to education: Economic interpretation of the purpose of education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, Article 100734.
• Føllesdal, A. (2012). Cosmopolitan democracy: Neither a category mistake nor a categorical imperative. In D. Archibugi, M. Koenig-Archibugi, & R. Marchetti (Eds.), Global democracy: Normative and empirical perspectives (pp. 96–114). Cambridge University Press.
• Fend, H. (2008). Neue Theorie der Schule: Einführung in das Verstehen von Bildungssystemen. VS Verlag.
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia do oprimido. Paz e Terra.
• Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogia da liberdade: Ética, democracia e cidadania. Paz e Terra.
• Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Free Press.
• Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA 'effect' in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.
• Helsper, W. (2014). Schulkultur und Lehrerprofessionalität. Springer VS.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.
• Neundorf, A., Ezrow, N., Gerschewski, J., Olar, R.-G., & Shorrocks, R. (2017). The legacy of authoritarian regimes on democratic citizenship: A global analysis of authoritarian indoctrination and repression (Working paper). University of Nottingham.
• Neundorf, A., Gerschewski, J., & Olar, R. G. (2020). How do inclusionary and exclusionary autocracies affect ordinary people? Comparative Political Studies, 53(12), 1890–1925.
• Neundorf, A., Finkel, S., Öztürk, A., & Rascón Ramírez, E. (2025). Promoting democracy online: Evidence from a cross-national experiment. OSF Preprints.
• Paglayan, A. S. (2022). Education or indoctrination? The violent origins of public school systems in an era of state-building. American Political Science Review, 116(4), 1242–1257.
• Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
• Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Friedman, T. (2018). Becoming citizens in a changing world: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 international report. Springer.
• Scott, J. C. (1972). Patron-client politics and political change in Southeast Asia. American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91–113.
• Stieger, S., & Jekel, T. (2019). Ideology, education, and financial literacy: Uncovering neoliberal ideology in assessment studies of economics education – The case of Austria. Journal of Social Science Education, 18(2), 4–26.
• Terhart, E. (2011). Lehrerberuf und Professionalität: Gewandeltes Selbstverständnis – neue Herausforderungen. Waxmann.
• Wunsch, N., Jacob, M. S., & Derksen, L. (2025). The demand side of democratic backsliding: How divergent understandings of democracy shape political choice. British Journal of Political Science, 55(39), 1–22.

The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any affiliated institutions.