The presentation draws on a recently published book, using a new theoretical framework Comparative Analytics of Dynamics in Education Politics (CADEP) considering complexity, contingency and trans-nationality in late-modern societies. While the aim is a deep analysis of the Finnish education politics, a more international contribution is done via the ideas regarding comparative education theory. The contribution to the symposium is in understanding how a political system produces equality. Comparative education self-reflective debates relate on the questions of theoretical robustness, how to focus more on processes rather than end products, and with the problem of complexity of the phenomenon under scrutiny, and intellectual nationalism (see e.g., Cowen, 2009 ; Schriewer, 2006; Mulford, 2002; Goldstein, 2004; Werner & Zimmermann, 2006 ; Dale, 2009). Our thesis is that in order to progress beyond the state of the art we have to focus on dynamics with a view to grasping the complex, fluid and mobile nature of the subject. In our work, we analyse the regularities or principles in interactions among actors, institutions and discursive formations, i.e. dynamics in education politics. Drawing on a conceptual history project initiated by Palonen (2006), we articulate a three-dimensional framework for analysing contingency: an attempt to incorporate the historico-structural, discursive and action-related dimensions. The analysis uses material from different research projects from 1998 until 2016, together with extensive body of other research, all which are subjected to the theoretical frame to create a coherent narrative explaining the Finnish case. We conclude that four constitutive discursive dynamics essentially define, steer and guide relational dynamics in four fields of basic-education politics in Finland: 1) “Buffering and embedded egalitarianism in policymaking” refers to a contradiction between something and something else that challenges it and in a way comes from the outside (i.e. “equitarism”). 2) “Redistributive but punctuated trust in governance” is trust that is not stable or constant but rather dependent on many factors that are not straightforward or rational. 3) “Diverging but civic parenthood in educational family strategies” implies naivety, ineffectuality and immaturity: a trustful mind that reflects the closeness of the agrarian culture: you had better want what you can get. 4) “Consolidating but paternalistic progressivism in classroom culture” is highly paradoxical to demand subservience as a prerequisite for care. In many cases, dynamics are a result of contingencies in history, and is currently sustained by political action on different levels or that is constantly subjected to transnational flows.

Cowen, R. (2009). Editorial introduction. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education (pp. 961–964). Dordrecht: Springer. Dale, R. (2009). Studying globalisation and Europeanisation in education: Lisbon, the open method coordination and beyond. In R. Dale & S. Robertson (Eds.), Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education (pp. 121–140). Oxford: Symposium Books. Goldstein, H. (2004). Education for all: The globalization of learning targets. Comparative Education, 40 (1), 7–15. Kettunen, P. (2011). The transnational construction of national challenges: The ambiguous Nordic model of welfare and competitiveness. In K. Petersen & P. Kettunen (Eds.), Beyond Welfare State Models: Transnational Historical Perspectives on Social Policy (pp. 16–40). Cheltenham: Elgar. Mulford, B. (2002). Sorting the wheat from the chaff: Knowledge and skills for life: First results from OECD’s PISA 2000. European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 211–221 . Palonen, K. (2006). The Struggle with Time: A Conceptual History of ’Politics’ as an Activity. Hamburg: Verlag Münster. Schriewer, J. (2006). Comparative social science: Characteristic problems and changing problem solutions. Comparative Education, 42 (3), 299–336. Werner, M. & Zimmermann, B. (2006). Beyond comparison: “Histoire Croisée” and the challenge of reflexivity. History and Theory, 45 (1), 30–50.