Conference Program

Over recent decades, studies on educational inequalities have increasingly emphasized the interplay of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. In this context, economic constraint is not reducible to income alone: educational participation entails a total cost that includes indirect and “hidden” expenses (e.g., transport, materials, connectivity) as well as opportunity costs (time diverted from paid work, forgone income, perceived risks associated with educational investment). This perspective helps explain why predominantly redistributive, short-term policies may alleviate material deprivation without durably reshaping educational trajectories that tend to become entrenched and intergenerationally transmitted (Pfeffer 2008; Ciarini and Giancola 2016). In debates on poverty-reduction measures—including unconditional cash transfers and cash transfers with soft conditionality—the question therefore remains central: how can educational investment be made more manageable and sustainable over time when indirect costs and uncertainty persist?

The paper proposes a conceptual framework grounded in asset building, introduced by Michael Sherraden as a policy paradigm oriented toward the intentional accumulation of resources over time and discussed here with specific reference to education (Sherraden 1991; Cramer and Williams Shanks 2014). The core assumption is that participation inequalities require complementing support for immediate consumption with instruments that build stocks of resources that can be activated over time—economic, but also educational, relational, and symbolic—capable of sustaining long-term choices and absorbing shocks that would otherwise disrupt educational pathways (Sherraden 1991; Pfeffer and Waitkus 2021; Nam, Huang and Sherraden 2008; Beverly 2013).

The discussion integrates two strands. First, the institutional theory of saving: accumulation becomes more likely when policies shape access, information, incentives, facilitation (automation and procedural simplicity), expectations, use restrictions, and instrument security (Sherraden, Scanlon et al. 2005; Beverly et al. 2008). Second, asset effects capture economic, psychological, and social benefits that exceed monetary value, influencing self-efficacy, planning, and future orientation (Yadama and Sherraden 1996; Shobe and Page-Adams 2001; Scanlon and Page-Adams 2001). In particular, dedicated and restricted accounts can function as protected “containers”, activating mental accounting and a commitment device, and strengthening a college-bound identity by making educational trajectories more credible (Beverly 2013; Sherraden et al. 2013; Elliott, Chowa and Loke 2011; Oyserman and Destin 2010; Oyserman 2013).

This perspective suggests policy design implications for addressing indirect costs and access barriers: universal-but-progressive schemes combining education-dedicated accounts, initial endowments, automatic enrollment, withdrawal restrictions, and matching contributions, alongside interventions that develop financial skills and planning-oriented practices (Titmuss 1958; Kangas and Palme 2005; Schreiner and Sherraden 2007; Birkenmaier et al. 2016; Sherraden, Huang and Ansong 2017). The paper discusses key trade-offs (regressivity risks, stigma, administrative sustainability) and outlines how asset building can integrate with short-term cash-based measures in a complementary, rather than substitutive, logic (Beverly 2013; Sherraden et al. 2013; Clancy et al. 2016).

Finally, the paper notes that Italy has recently seen the emergence of educational pilots consistent with this paradigm, developed in diverse territorial and institutional settings and, in some cases, accompanied by impact evaluations. These experiences provide a useful ground for linking conceptual frameworks and policy choices in the construction of interventions capable of stabilizing educational trajectories over the long term.