Globalization and the Changing Nature of the OECD's Educational Work Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard
Introduction Among the intergovernmental organizations af fecting educational policy development, the OECD In recent years, intergovernmental organizations plays a pre-cminent and distinctive role, especially in (IG05) have become highly intluential in shaping the developing countries, but increasingly in the rest educational policy at the national level. They have of the world as well. More and more, the OEeD has played a prominent role in charting the policy developed alliances with other intergovernmental agendas of nation-states; in turn national govern organizations such as UNESCO, EU, and the World ments have looKed to (GUs to construct their Bank not only to explore the contours of policy
H strategit , for developing, legitimating, and imple options in education, but also actively to promote its menting programs of educational reform. Develop policy preferencl's. The case of the OECD is inter ing countries have of course always been subject to esting because it neither has the legal instruments at the dictates of IG05, such as the World Bank and hand nor linancial means at its disposal actively to other lending bodies, through mechanisms of promote policymaking at the nationalleve!; yet over accountability attached to loam and aid, such as the the past decade its influence over its member coun structural adjustment schenws. But more recently, tries and others has increased markedly. Through governments of developed countries too have cedl'd its Indicators in Education project, through the some of their autonomy in puhlic policy devl'lop Programme for International Student Assessment nwnt to IG05. For example, the Bologna l'rocess, (PISA), and through its thematic policy reviews, its supported by the European Union (EU), has com educational agenda has become an important refer pelled national policymakers to restructure their ence point for assessment of policy initiatives and systems of higher education to ensure a fairer and programme effectiveness at the nationalleve!, while more efficient system of credit transfer, enabling also contributing to the constitution of a global students to become 1110re mobile across national policy space in education (Lingard, Rawolle, and systems, something which is considered highly Taylor 200S). desirable for t he global economy. As Martens In this chapter we explore some of the reasons for et al. (2004) have pointed out, 1(;Os have become the increasing international influence of the OECD increasingly important in national policymaking in in education; and suggest that a part of the education by developing new governance mechan explanation lies in the way the OECD has utilized isms involving policy and program coordination, the ideology of globalization, speaking consistently opinion formation, and the development of other of 'the imperatives of globalization' and of the need imtruments of both legal reqUirements and finan to reformulate educational purposes and govern cial support. ance in line with the requirements of the global 248 economy. From its veTY beginning, the OEeD has 2000: 1). [n formal terms, the OEeD describes itself had to negotiate a central tension at the heart of its as: ... 'a club of Iikc'-l1linded countries. It is rich, in educational policy work between the economic and that OEeD countries produce two thirds of the cultural ends of education, hetween the promotion world\ goods and services, but it is not an exclusive of social equity on the one hand and social effici club. Essentially, membership is limited only by a ency on the other. We will argue that over the pa~t country's commitment to a market economy and a decade or so, the OEeD agenda in education has pluralistic democracy' (OEeD 1997). increasingly hecome tilted towards social effiCiency, Established in 1961 out of the Organization for as it has promoted a particular ideological view of European Economic Cooperation (OEEe) funded educational aims linked to the requirements of a under the Marshall Plan for the economic recon glohal knowledge economy and a range of ideas struction of Europe, the OECD has remained about educational governance derived from the new essentially a US-backed initiative, with the United theories of puhlic management, which increasingly States still contrihuting 2:) per cent of the Organi promote corporatized and privatized administration zation's budget. This is not to say the relationship of education, outcome measures, and knowledge as hetween the US amI the OEeD's European members commodity. has always been an easy one. Indeed, the European countries have always sought to 'tone down' the dominant US versions of market liberalism, with The OECD their own distinctive social democratic agendas. The US interventiom in key appOintments and As an intergovernmental organization affecting the in the formulation of work plans have also heen seeming convergence of education policy thinking resisted from time to time. For example, in relation around the world (see Rizvi 200S), the OECI) to education, it was largely at the insistence of the occupies an important place. Its educational policy US and against considerable internal opposition work is widely used by national governments to that the controversial project on educational indi guide their reform agendas. Its statistical compila cators was initiated in the mid-19HOs (Henry et al. tions provide a reference point for benchmarking 2000: eh. 4). Perhaps, then, Haas's description and for promoting policy debates. Governments (1990: 159) of the founding of thl' OECD as 'a rather look to the OECO to define policy options; and are incoherent compromise between the United States increasingly prepared to fall in line hehind its and the European members' retains salience, as does recommendations. This has not always been the his ohservation that mmt international organiza case. The OECD has traditionally viewed itself as a tions have their own superpower 'capable of playing unique forum, which enables the governments of a Iwgemot1ic role if it chose to do so' (p. :)7). the industrialized economies to examine and for It should he noted however that the OEeD's mulate their own distinctive policies in both eco capacity to contain its members is limited, hecause nomic and social spheres. However, its outreach unlike many other international agencies, Ihe and impact are now greater than this, through its OEeD has no prescriptive mandate over its member work with 'non-member economics' and its con countries. Rather, it operates through a process of tribution to glohal policy discourse in education. Its 'consensus bui Iding' it nti t hrollgh 'peer pressure'. It Directorate for Education, for example, has a Unit is proud of its 'traditions of transparl'ncy: of pro for Co-operation with Non-member Economies viding explanatiom and ju;tif1catiol1s for poliCY, (NME), the terminology used hy the OEeD to refer and of engaging in critical self-appraisal' (OECD to non-memher countries. I 1998: 102). As Martens et al. (2004: [S) point out, The OECD has variously and simultaneously been the OECD does not have any legally hinding man described as: a think-tank, a geographic entity, an date over its members; nor dol'S it have the financial organizational structure, a policymaking forum, a resources at its disposal to encourage policy adop network of policymakers, researchers, and con tion. It thus seeks to exert intluence through pro sultants, and a sphere of influence (Henry et al. ces,es of 'mutual examination hy governments, 249 multilateral surveillance and peer pressure to con an increasingly important role in this field. Society's form or reform'. Structurally, this is done through most important investment is in the education of an elaborate system of directorates, committees, its people.' He noted in particular how the inter and boards, at the apex of which i\ a Council nationally comparable statistics and indicators comprising representatives from each member underpin much of the work of the OECD, and that country, normally at ambassadorial or ministerial the ultimate outputs of its policy recommendations leveb. In this way, the OECD asserts its agenda in are designed to increase both the quality and equity rather informal ways though the processes of of education systems. He went on to list equity in opinion formation ami coordination, in a manner access and outcomes, quality, choice, public and that is dynamic and constantly shifting. private financing, and individual and social returns Over the past decade or so, however, its proud to investment in learning as major areas of concern record as a debating forum has seemingly been for the OECD. In presenting the OECD's educa undermined by the triumph of neo-liheral precepts tional work in such terms, he appeared to commit of economic activity. As we have already noted, the Organization to a neo-Iiberal instrumentalist within the OECD there has always been a tension conception of education, viewed as a major factor hetween support for US-style market capitalism in contributing to human capital formation and with a minimal welfare state and the stronger Eur economic growth. opean social-market model framed by social-demo Of course, this "hould hardly be surprising, since cratic ideology. The OECD encouraged debates the OECD is after all an organization concerned between Keynesian thinking and views critical of its primarily with economic policy; and in so far as it as,umptions. In more recent years, however, this has an interest in education, this must dearly be debate, once conducted in philosophical terms, linked to its overall econornic objectives. This is in seems to have vanished, replaced by a more tech line with the OECD's original charter in which there nocratic discourse concerning the ways nco-liberal was no independent structural location for educa policies of free trade and competition are best pro tion within the Organization, though there was moted. Ideological debates have thus heen replaced always an 'inferred role' (Papadopoulos 1994: 11), with technical questions of how to promote trade deriving from early human capital formulations and monitor neo-Iilwral reforms in the entire range of links between economic productivity and edu of the OECD's policy concerns from indu~trial cational investment, then somewhat narrowly relations Jnt! infrastructure to immigration and conceived in terms of boosting scientific and tech educatioll. It thus JPpear~ to be the case that, while nological personnel capacity and, by extension, of some ideological tensiom remain, tile framework of improved and expanded science and mathematics much of the OEeD's policy work has shjfted education in schools. Hence, initially education decidedly towards the US neo-liberal model. related activities were carried out under the rubric of the Office for Scientific and Technical Personnel, which in turn grew out of the former OEEC's pivotal The OEeD's Educational Work work in mapping the technological gap between Europe and North America, against the broader Nowhere j<, the shift i11 the recent OEeD's policy backdrop of geopolitical issues relating to the Cold orientation more evident than in the growing War (Papadopoulos 1994). importance it now attaches to education. Such is its It was not until 1968 that the Centre for Research emphasis on the knowledge economy in the new and Innovation (CERI) was established within the century that, in 2002, the OEeD establishc'd a sep OECD, partly as a result of a growing recognition arate Directorate for Education, something it had within the Organization of the 'qualitative' a'ipects resisted tor most of its history (Papadopoulos 1994). of economic growth 'as an instrument for creating In establbhing the Directorate, the secretary-general better conditions of life' and, along with that, of a of the OECD stressed that 'education is a priority for more comprehensive view of education'., multiple OEeD Member countries and the OECD is playing purposes. By 1970, then, the Organization had 250 come to the realization that 'the full range of ideological positions. According to Papadopoulos objectives of education had to be taken into (1994) to view the OEeD as a homogeneous unit account if the educational activities of the Organ with a narrow, static agenda was to fail to capture ization were to make their rightful contrihution its educational reach, the contl'stations within its to economic policy' (papadopoulos 1994: (4). variom forums ami the ideological layers that According to Papadopoulos (p. 122), this marked underpin its charter aimed at both economic and the triumph of a more comprehensive, less econo social development. mistic, view of education policy within the OECD, However, this is not to deny the existence of enabling the Organization to attach equal, if not dl'ep ideological tensions within the Organization. more, importance to education's social ami cultural Any analysis of till' ([e'hatl's unti I the l11id-1990s purposes. both within the OECD's committees and its sec This was clearly evident in the educational work retariat rev('als an ideological cleavage bctvlieen the OECD pursued, organized under four pro social-democratic and neo-Iiberal policy stances. grammes: two of them emerging from the Education The ideological divide still tellds to be referred to Committee and the CERI Governing Board, with the within OECD parlance as 'European' versus 'Anglo other two being the more specialist programmes of Saxon', though tllese descriptors hardly convey Educational Buildings (PER) and Institutional Man (nor were tlley really meant to convey) the var agement in Higher Education (lMHE). An illustrative iegations within these two camps. While much of list of the projt'cts sponsored by the OECD during the internal politics remains cloistered, given the the 1970s and 19ROs suggests a much more than Organization's e~sentially consensual dl'cision simple relationship between education and eco making and extel1uatl'd report-writing processes, nomic development. Included in this list are reports this analysis also shows-from till' Organization's and analyses of: school pedagogy and curriculum; publications, its programmes of work, ami their the use of school buildings; educational disadvant historical account'i-how the discourses of sodal age and advantage; multicultural education; girls and economic concerns hav(' been f('articulated and education; linguistic diversity; alternative edu over time. cation; school improvement and effectiveness; early Papadopoulos (1994) traces til(' ideological ten childhood education; links hetween school and sions between social efficiency and equity in the work; school-community relatiOns; youth employ DEeD's educational work from its foundation. ment; youth at risk; people with disabilities; teacher Until the late 19ROs and early 19905, 11(' demon education; educational and performance indicators; strates the dominance of the social justice agendas the economics of education; educational policy; until the economic transitions which occurred educational technology; educational planning; edu following tile OI'EC oil crisis of tl1(' mid-J970s. By cational management; mass higher education; the 1980s, while the tensions remained, education vocational education and training; recurrent educa was now conceived as a central l'Iel11l'nt of eco tion and lifelong learning; adult literacy. nomic policy. Sinn' that time with greater policy Two further points should be made ahout these awareness granted to globa lization and the know programmes. First, they were largely supportive of ledge economy, we' would argue that the social national agendas, brought to the OEeD by the efficiency perspective has begun to dominate the memher countries. They pointed to an organizational educational work of the OrC)). This is manifest in politics characterized essentially by consensual pro support for a human capital account of education, cesses of decision-making in which nation-states new forms of educational governallcl' and it retained a great deal of power in defining the ways global space of comparativl' l'liucational perform they wished to use the resources of the OECD. The ance. Equity remains on the agenda, but has been OECD responded to national priorities and did not rearticulated away from a strong definition of social wish its own perspective imposed upon them. Sec justice towards social capital ami social inclusion ond, these programmes indicated the OECD to be a concerns. Concern~ about social class correlations broad ideological church respectful of the diversity of witll educational performance art' less evident in 251 this r('articulated equity agenda, with more emphasis witnessed before-in a way that is enabling indivi given to special needs education, gender and ethIli duals, corporations and nation-states to reach city. In what follow~, we attempt to show this ideo round the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper logical ascendancy of a particular view of education than ever before' (Friedman 1999: 7). In this way, linked to a neo-lilwral conception of globalization globalization is widely associated with technolo and the educational requirements of the global eco gical revolutions in transport, communication, and nomy and of the knowledge ecollomy. data processing. These developments, it is argued, have transformed the nature of economic activity, changing the modes of production and consump Imperatives of Globalization: the tion. The global economy is now characterized
individuals to more intense market forces (e.g. of all national regulations restricting companies and their Bourdieu 1998, 2003). Such a perspective is based investments). (Bourdieu 2003: 84) on a politics of meaning that seeks to accommodate The OEeD, while it no doubts views itself as people to a certain taken-for-grantedness about the presenting a very complex characterization of glo ways the global economy operates and the manner balization, nonetheless provides a predominantly in which culture, crises, resources, and power for neo-liberal reading. Other social policies are then mations are filtered through its universal logic. It structured so as to complement this neo-liberal thus 'ontologizes' the global market mentality, cre account of globalization. In what follows, we will ating global subjects who view policy options attempt to demonstrate this structuration by through the conceptual prism within which it is examining the ways in which it now addresses the located. From this perspective, the term 'globaliza purposes of education within and for the knowledge tion' designates certain power relations, practices economy, the OEeD's pl'rspl'ctive on educational and technologies, playing a 'hegemonic role in governance and its changing discourse in relation to organizing and decoding the meaning of the world' the internationalization of l'ducation. (Schirato and Webb 2003: 1). The OEeD's perspective on globalization is a synthesis of these three perspectives. Its descrip Knowledge Economy and Changing tions of global processes are informed by its Purposes of Education assumed normative commitment to its ideological forms, articulated in terms of the nco-liberal logic Since the 1990s, the OECD has changed the balance of markets. lts ideological commitment to neo of focus within its educational poliCies. IncreaSingly liberalism is, in turn, based on its description of education has come to be seen as central to human what it often refers to as 'the imperatives of globa capital formation for the health of national eco lization'. And it promotes forms of social sub nomies in the face of international competition and jectivities that encourage people to view the world globa I pressures. Furthermore, the economy for as an interconnected space in which informational which individuals were being educated is now networks playa crucial role in sustaining market characterized as a knowledge economy with know activity. In this way, the OEeD combines its ledge being the central, indeed intrinsic component empirical assertion about globalization with its of economic production and activity, reflecting prescriptive judgements; objective dimensions of developments in economic theory. Not only is globalization are elided with a subjective orienta human capital, including dispositions of indivi tion towards the new conditions it describes. duals, important economically, but so too are Bourdieu (2003) writes about this slide from the knowledge and innovation at the workplace. The descriptive usage of globalization to a normative or OEeD has been centrally important in articulating performative one. The performative usage con and spreading policy talk about the knowledge stitutes globalization as simply neo-liberal eco economy and the role of education, innovation, nomics encompassing the globe and in so doing and research in relation to it. Indeed, its document, elides the politics of the creation of a global eco Tile Know/edse Rased l:col1olllY (1996) has been nomy, including the role of IGOs such as the OECD highly intluential in promoting the concept and in its constitution. As Bourdieu argues, the creation its associated policy developments. Within this of a global economy framed by neo-liberalism is a knowledge economy frame, the economic goals of political project. He elaborates: education are thus given priority over its social and Economic globalization is not a mechanical effect of the laws cultural purposes and some emphasis is given to the of technology or the economy but the product of a policy need for different organizational arrangements implemented by a set of agents and institutions, and the in education. Additionally, the meaning that the result of the application of rules deliberately created for spe OEeD now attaches to the idea of lifelong learning cific ends, namely trade liberalization (that is, the elimination is located within its broader discourse of knowledge
L 253 economy, which it now shares with other IGOs such Nations: The Role o(Human and Social Capital (2001). as U;\iESCO and EU. The ubiquitous idea of knowledge economy, inter Lifdong Education for all became a major term of preted in neo-liberaI terms, has thus become the reference for UNESCO in 1994; and it was not until in defining concept with which the OEeD has sug 1996 that the OIL!) adopted 'Making Lifelong gested the need for educational reform, providing Learning a Reality for All' as a theme of its mandate a framework within which it has rearticulated the for 1997-2001. However, during the mid-1990s there social and cultural purposes of education. were different emphases attached to the concept of This much is evident from a look at the OECD lifelong learning between the humanistic, social website, where the current mission of its Directorate democratic opportunity construction of lifelong of Education is described thus: 'To assist members learning and the individualistic, neo-liberal self and partners in achieving high quality lifelong capitalizing individual collStruction (Rose 1999) learning for ali, contributing to personal develop within the work of these two organizations. Increas ment, sustainable economic growth and social however, the nco-liberal construction of the cohesion'. The Directorate currently has six strategic purposes of lifelong learning has taken precedence. objectives which frame its program of work for 2005 This work has witne,se(i a refocusing of the goals of 6. These are: promoting lifelong learning and education on preparing people for the world of work improving its linkages with other socio-economic and a life of self-capitalization, as indicated in two poliCies; evaluating and improving outcomes of very intluential OECI) reports, Tile Knowledgc Based education; promoting quality teaching; rethinking Eco/loll1Y (OFCI) 19961') and Liti:long Learning ti)r tertia ry education in a global economy; building All (DECD 1996b). In these documents, education social cohesion through education; and building new is considered necessary to develop dispositions futures for education. amongst all citizens towards ongoing learning alf05S This list is clearly based on an instrumental view the life cycle. What is required now are l1exible, of education, as serving the needs of the global mobile lifdong learners who have cosmopolitan knowledge economy. Not only is its emphasis on dispositions and are able to deal effectively with cul lifelong learning, but also its focus on equity and tural diversity, endemic change, and innovation. This social cohesion is based on this economic instru emphasis has weakened the focus on social justice mentalism. This can be seen from the view of Barry and social-democratic purpose, of education, thus McGaw (OECD 2005: 7), the Director of Education, complementing the neo-Iiberal underpinnings of the who suggests that 'Building only human capital is OEClYs broad approach to economic policy. insufficient', but rather, 'Social capital-networks This emphasis is reiterated in the most recent together with shared norms, values and under approved program of work of CERI for 2005-6, standings that facilitate co-operation within or which ,it, within the overarching theme of Lifelong among groups-iS also essential to the development Learning and includes four sub-themes of Innova and maintenance of cohesive societies.' Here, the tion and Knowledge Management, Human and focus on human capital is clearly evident, but is Social Capital, a Futures Foell" and Learning and complemented by a rearticulation of social justice Teaching. A look at a listing of recent CERI pub (or equity concerns) as social capital. The OECD's lications shows the way, even within this relatively definition of social capital is available in its pub autonomous arm of OECD's educational work, lication, Thc Well-Being ofNations (2001 b), positing concerns of knowledge economy have become a functionalist account of social inclusion as formal prominent. Recent CERI publications include: access to education. Contrast this with a tougher illllovation in the Kllowledge 1:'col1om},: Implications for deflllition as utilized, for example, by Bourdieu i:ducation and Learning (2004a), MC!ClslIring Knowledge (1986), which demands more than simply equality Managell1cnt in the Bu.,int'Ss Scctor: First Steps (2004b), of access to educational opportunity, and suggests Knowlcdge Managell1ent: New Challenges ti)f Educa the need to address the issue of how schools repro tional Research (20(Ba), Schooling ti)r TOfflorrow duce inequalities, particularly in relation to social Netv'!(}rks unllnovation (2003h), and TIJe Well-Being of class of origin. 254
That the social efficiency and economic framing of and violence, but sodal class issues are nowhere to education has usurped the goals of educational he has been rearticulated narrowly as equity and has rearticulated it in the OEeD's recent concerned largely with issues of access to institu work can be further demonstrated by looking in tions and as social cohesion, an idea which in ibelf more detail at the Organization's recent educational is highly ambiguous ami may in fact be viewed as a programs and its six key strategic objectives. Its residualization of a stronger social justice approacll Strategic Objective 1, 'Promoting lifelong learning evident in the earliest work of the OECD (Papado and improving its linkages with other socio pololl5 1994). Strategic Objective 6, 'Building new economic policies' is informed by the premise that futures for education' deals, ill/er alia, with know 'The contribution of education to economic devel ledge management, which is in turn framed by opment features in much of the work of the OECD a~ knowledge economy discollfse. Thus it h argued a whole.' Not surprisingly, therefore, its project on, that 'In advanced 21st century societies, the man for instance 'Improving early childhood education agement of knowledge b as fundamental as the and childcare' is linked to lifelong learning and management of more fundamental educational labour market policies, while 'Developing and resources (personnel, finance and facilities), hut measuring aduIt competencies' b designed to knowledge management in education tends not to 'strengthen the linkages between learning, enterprise be well developed.' Absent from this discourse are training and the labour market'. Its 'Enhancing the bStles concerning the ethics and politics of know economic impact of human capitat' project is con ledge production and dissemination, and how cerned to 'improve understanding of the role of various strategies of knowledge management could human capital amI intellectual a~sets in economic be used to reproduce global ine411aliti('~. performance'. In seeking to understand the social outcomes of learning, the project on 'Investigating the social outcomes of learning' is also interested in linkages to other social and economic policies. OECD's Perspective on Educational If we move to consider Objective 2, Governance 'Evaluating and improving outcomes of education', we again see clearly the emphasis on economic and With its growing emphasis on a more instrumental social efficiency. Thus it is stated: 'The prosperity of approach to education purposes, linked to the countries now derives to a large extent from their requirements of the knowledge economy, the OEC]) human capital and individuals need to advance their has also been pursuing a vigorous agenda about the knowledge and competencies throughout their lives need to rethink state structures ami forms of educa in order to succeed in a rapidly changing world'. tional governance. It has viewed the reform of edu Strategic Objective 4 on 'Rethinking tertiary educa cational governance as celltral to a nation's capacity tion in a global economy' speaks of the need for an to ensure accelerated economic productivity ami appropriate balance of public and private sources of growth. It has been at the forefront of it wave of funding and also about the need for indicators public sector reform that has seen the structures regarding the individual and social returns from and practices of all public sector departments tertiary education. Returns to the individual are seen transformed under the rubric of 'corporate manage as 'labour market earnings', eschewing the broader rialism' or 'new puhlic management'. This trans liberal educational purposes of tertiary education. formation has heen based upon the take-up of Strategic Objective 5, 'Building social cohesion private sector management practices in the puhlic through education' speaks of improving eqUity and sector. The emphasis has changed from the old bur opportunities, but here the primary focus is on eaucratic stress on correct procedures to an emphasis students with special needs, an emphasis on ethnic upon outcomes achieved at the lowest possible costs. and cultural diversity of the student population as a The twin goals of greater efficiency-dOing things result of the tlows associated with globalization. All at the lowest cost-and greater effectiveness of this is worthwhile, as is the focus on bullying achieving the goals set-have underpinned the new 255 structures that are les~ hierarchical and much tlatter, its own right. [t highlights the relevance of these with greater management prerogative for policy governance principles for all its member countries, steering. The old pyramidal structure has thus been regardless of their local histories and traditions, and replaced by a tlatter coat-hanger-Iike arrangement. for the entire public sector, including education. In Relations between the policy-producing strategic the process of implementation, educational systems centre of the organization and the practice peri thus lose their "ui gcneris character. As a con phery have abo [)een reset. The strategic centre sequence, the organizational structures and basic establishes the strategiC plan and desired policy practices look similar now in educational, health, outcomes, while the policy-practising periphery is welfare, and other public-sector bureaucracies. This responsible in whatever ways for achieving these outcome has also been achieved through, and goals. As such, any new autonomy at the periphery expressed in some cases by, the appointment of is in relation to means rather than policy ends, generic managers to the various public sector which are S('t more tightly hy tlw centre as part of a bureaucracies and through contract employment new regime of outcomes accountability. linked to achievement of targets and goals. [n a This new regime of governance is perhaps sense, this new arrangement is post-bureaucratic most evident in a highly intluential OEeD report, and is the result of the attempt to pull state struc (;ovcmallcl' ill Transition; Public Managcment Rctbrms tures and practices into line with the perceived ill OfT!) Coulltrics (OEeD 1995), which exemplifies needs of global capital. the typical OECI) genre of disinterested academic What we have seen in educational systems across description attached to exhortations to change, all the OECD countries, as a result of this public combining descriptive with normative elements in sector restructuring, is a centralization of policy its discourse. It notes, in a not too muted criticbm setting and devolution of responsibility to achieve of old-style state hureaucracies, that 'highly cen the goals set at the centre. The OECD has been thus tralized, rule-bound, ami intlexible organizations been a strong advocate of the idea of devolution. that emphaSise process rather than results impede However, its commitment to devolution does not good performance' and that tht, efficiency of the rest on assumptions of social democracy, but on a public sector 'has a significant impact on total e(o set of corporate management principles. Its per nom ic efficiency' (p. 7). It articulates a new dis spective on devolution has been framed not only by course on educational governance that the OECD corporate managerialism, but also by market ideo has vigorously promoted over the past decade. This logies. In describing the recent wave of worldwide discourse is constituted by slIch concepts as stra school-based management reforms, Whitty, Power, tegiC planning, cost-efticiency, human resource and Halpin (1998: 3) have argued that 'central to allocation, competition and choice, optimizing these initiatives are moves to dismantle centralized information technology, performance manage educational bureaucracies and to create in their ment, and accountability. It provides the basis for place devolved systems of education entailing an approach to public administration that redefines nificant degrees of institutional autonomy'. These the relationship between the state and its institu changes have also been 'linked to enhanced par tions and individuals and civil society. It implores ental choice' designed to introduce a market ele public institutiom to restructure the way in which ment into the provision of educational services. A they make decisions and to re-imagine the manner similar logic for the reform of higher education in which they fund programmes, relate to their systems has been articulated by the OEeD's pro clients, and manage their resources. gram on the Institutiona[ Management of Higher It is important to note that, in promoting this Education (IMHE). view of governance, the OECD does not use a lan Indeed, the ideology of privatization, the notion guage of exploration of policy options to which it is that services are best delivered by the private committed, but acts instead as a strong advocate for sector within a competitive market, has become these reforms; 110t as a facilitator of political debates something of a mantra within the OEeD. It has among member countries, but as a political actor in come to symbolize a new way of looking at public 256 institutions and the role of the state in managing Given this ideological shift towards a culture the affairs of its citizens. Under this broad philo of performativity, it is not surprising that a large sophical orientation, many possible activities are proportion of the OEeD's educational work now construed as eligible for privatization, ranging from pivots around its lmlicators in Education project. selling state-owned enterprises to contracting out Developed in highly controversial circumstances public services to private contractors, be they indi (see Henry et al. 200m, its annual puhlication viduals or corporations. According to Bray (1996), Education at (/ Glance: O/;CO Indiwtors is dis privatization of education takes at least three forms: seminated widely not only across the OECl) coun transferring ownership of public institutions, shift tries, hut elsewhere as well, and sets the agenda for ing sectoral balance without redesignating existing its deliberations. These data are collected in con institutions, and increasing government funding junction with the European Commission and and support for private institutions. Bray might U"IESCO, under tht' title, 'World Indicators Project'. have added to this list contracting out functions The categories around which the project collects and services. At various times and contexts, the comparative data reveill much about its educational OEeD has advocated each of these forms. It is priorities, as being linked to the imperatives of important to note, however, that the debate within performativity ami social efficiency. Its focus on the OEeD forums now is not whether to privatize, issues of transition from school to work, student but which of its many forms might best produce the participation and progressions, and labour-market greatest amount of efficiency and effectiveness. The outcomes of education derive their significance discourse is no longer normative, but technical-no from the OEeD's instrumental view of education longer about the capacity of the private sector to linked to the needs of the global knowledge eco deliver public goods in a fair and eqUitable fashion, nomy. The OEeD argues that international COJll but about social efficiency with which educational parison is designed to assist in the processes of markets operate. policy formation in member countries ami to con This concern for social efficiency is encapsulated in tribute to the public accountability of education Lyotard's concept of iperformativity' (1984). Over systems; to provide a better understanding of 'the the past two decades, the OEeD has been at the internal processes that determine the relationship forefront of promoting a new culture of performa between educational expenditures and educational tivity, which is linked to proof of policy outcomes as outcomes j<, particularly important' (CERI 1995: 7). an important element of the steering-at-a-distance However, this is a somewhat understated view of mechanism (Kickert 1991) of the restructured state. the purposes and significance of the OECn's work This culture of performativity pervades restructured on indicators; that this work not only proVides rel educational systems through the imposition of a evant comparative information to member coun raft of performance indicators to hold accountable tries, but also helps shape their policy agendas and those who are responsible for service delivery. It priorities. There is a broader politics of change represents a triumph of instrumental reason, which associated with the Indicators project, based as it is prioritizes the operational and measurable over sub on a particular view ahout the policv directions and stantive moral claims about truth and justice. As approaches needed to reform education. In this Yeatman (1994:110) puts it, such i[pJerformativity is way, the project plays a normative and legitirnation a systems-orientation: instead of the state appearing role in the promotion of what could be called a as the enlightened and paternal command of global ideology of educational management and shared community, the state is equated with the change linked to broader public sector reform across requirements of a sy~tem for ongoing integrity and member countries. It also serves to illustrate reet'nt visibility'. Performativity simplifies the tasks of shifts in the OECD's role as a policv instrument and governments and effectively works as a 'principle forum, that is, as it cataly~t facil itating policy of selective closure in respect of the information development in member countries ami assisting overload and social complexity' (Yeatman 1994: processes of policy dissemination, adaptation, and 11 Tl confron ling the contemporary state. borrowing-to that of an international mediator of 257 knowledge and global policy actor. Along with shifts in the OECD's work in relation to the PlSA, the Indicators work as a significant 'magis internationalization of higher education. The trature of inHuence' ahove the nation (Lawn and Organization's work on this stretches back to Lingard 20(2), enhancing the policy efft'cts of the mid-1980s, and was linked to study abroad the OECI). programs of the European Union. It involved an And in 50 far as its work on educational indica exploration of rationales for student mobility. In an tors now encapsulates countries beyond its mem intluential report, published in the early 19905, two ber countries, and is conducted in association with consultants to the GEe)), Jane Knight and Hans de otlwr IGOs such as the European Commission and Wit defined internationalization of education a~ a Ul'\ESCO, this work is part of a project of global complex Sl't of processes designed to integrate an rationalization, setting up a st't of standardized international dimension into most aspects of the educational measurements with which to assess work of universities. They argued that a compre the competitivt' advantage of nations within hensive understanding of internationalization the global economy in tt'rms of the quality of their must involve a commitment to the devl'lopment of human capital. The 0[(:)) was involved in new skills, attitudes, and knowledge in students, November 1999 in the creation of the PARlS21 faculty, and staff. Accordingly, they note: 'Inter Con,ortium, consisting of the UN, OEC)), World nationalisation of higher education is the process of Bank, 1M!', and EC. lb purpose is to 'boost statist integrating an international/intercultural dimen ical capabilities especially in poor countries'. One sion into the teaching, research and service of the can speculatl' on the effects of this policy-as institution' (Knight and de Wit 1995). numlwrs approach in contributing to a global In a more focused way, Knight and Dc Wit (1995) policy space of comparison. Viewed in these terms, argued that the rationales for internationalization the Indicators in Education project cannot simply fall into two broad overlapping rationales: be repre~ented as a collection of comparative data 1. Economic and political rationales, such as economic 011 the relative performance of membn countries, growth and investment in the future economy; to be but is clearly part of a broader ideological agl'nda competitive with the international labour market; to foster designed to make their educational systems morl' diplomacy through educational cooperation; financial responsive to what tl1l' Organization regards as the incentives (e.g. contract education, recruitment of foreign human capital needs of the global economy. The students and international education advisory services can Programme for International St udent Assessment generate income); and the national demand for higher (PISA) also works in this way. PISA now encom education is so great that nations stimulate study abroad; passes almost as many lion-member as ml'mber 2. Cultural and educational rationales, which may either be to countril's and constitutes an l'mergent global pol export national, cultural and moral values, or to increase icy space ill education, which encourages policy intercultural knowledge, skills and research; to expand the convergence and which sees the DECD as a social learning and development of the individual; to pro powerful policy actor in the constitution of this vide an international dimension to research and teaching; to strengthen the core structures and activities of higher space. It accounts for about 30 per cent of the learning institutions through international cooperation; Directorate for Education's budget. The emphasis and to improve the quality of education and research. on international comparative outcome measures sllch as PISA is complementary to the new forms of Whatl'ver their validity, these rationales 5Uggl'St gO\TrnanCe in education. the OEeD, ill its earlier mode of analysis of inter nationalization, to be committed to an exploration of the diversity of approaches relevant to the Internationalization: From Student purposes of education. There is a refusal to embrace Mobility to Educational Trade a reductionist view of education, giving equal weight to economic and cultural nmcerns. This I'he broad elements or this shifting neo-liberal view was reinforced in the 19905 by a number ideological agenda are also evident in the recent of other OECD documents examining the idea 258 of internationalization, which suggested that the interface between the public and private edu internationalization was important to the develop cation sectors and the national and regional edu ment of universities partly because of labour cation authorities; and has also offered policy market stipulations, but also because of social and recommendations for increasing equity of access. cultural developments in general, which were The interest hy the OECD countries in privatelv heading towards multicultural and cosmopOlitan funded higher education in China is harely masked. sensitivities. That this work on China is informed largely I>y the Through the 19905, there were attempts within OEeD's economic in tefl'st in clearly revealed in the the OECD to define the complex idea of the inter fact the Organization has showll little interest in nationalization of curricula, with the recognition developmental issues of higher education in Africa that commercial and economic issues had to be and South America. reconciled with issues of cultural diversity and The Ore\)\ interest in issues of cross-border tracie interpersonal dimensions of global relations. There in higher education is further revealed in its support was on the one hand a realization that the changes for the General Agreement on Trade in Services associated with technological innovation and the (GATS) currently being negotiated bv the World globalization of the economy, together with the Trade Organization (WTO), the principles of which, post-rordist vision of Hatter organizational struc the OEC)) argues, are consistent with its own tures and flexible work, demanded a different set of advocacy for 'Coded Liberalization of Capital cognitive and communication skills, multi-skilling Movements ami Current Invisible Operations', and lifelong learning, and attitudes of teamwork issued in 199.'). In its policy brief on the Imemll and tolerance towards other cultures. Hadical re lic)f1oliZillioll of HiSl/cl" LdllClllioli (2004/J), the OEeD thinking of curriculum and pedagogy was thus presents four main policy rationales for cross-horder deemed to be necessary. education: mutual understanding, skilled migra Yet, towards the end of the 1990s, these curric tion, revenue generation, and capacity building. It ulum conversations within the OECD became argues however that tllese rationales are not mutu increasingly marginal, replaced by a different set of ally exclusive ami have a strong economic drive. It considerations regarding the internationalization of recognizes that cross-border trade ill education runs higher education, marked more hy concerns about the risk of undermining puhlic educatioll and the coordination and regulation of international quality, but suggests that such fears can be over trade in education than by the issues of cross-cultural come by a vigorous regime of transnational regula understanding and global imagination. The OEClYs tion and coordination. However it insists upon the August 2004 policy illustrates its shifting concerns in veracity of the GATS mandate for the development this area. The OECD's original interest in interna of 'any necessary disciplines to ensure that measures tionalization was informed by issues to do with the relating to qualification requiremcnts and proce educational benefits of student mohility. Mobility dures, technical licensing requirements do not is no longer examined in educational terms, but constitute unnecessary barriers to trade'. in commercial terms, concerned \·"ith the ways to The other rationale for cross-border education generate additional revenue from international highlighted by the OECD relates to skilled migra education for universities in member countries from tion. Over the past decade, the OI':C]) has paid a non-member countries such as China and India. great deal of attention to the issues of skilled The OECD has thus looked closely at the devel migrant~ needed within its l11l'lllber cOllntries to opments in higher education in China, as a way of retain competitiveness within the global economy, exploring how greater cooperation can be forged It has viewed international education as a major between the OECD members and the world's source of recruitment. ('ven if this means 'brain fastest-growing economy. Its work on expanding drain' from the developing countries. The Organ access to higher education in China in 1999-2001 ization seems to regard as perfectly understandable and on fmancing higher education and quality in the aim by the developed countries to recruit China in 2004 has highlighted the need to improve talented students from the developing countries 259
'to work in the host country\ knowledge economy, and organizational arrangement~ and practices or render ib higher educatioll and research sectors across the glohe. In all of this, the OEeD has more competitive' (OECD 2004iJ: 4). Indeed, it become more of a policy actor than it once was. advocates an ei\\ing of the relevant visa or immig Since its inception, ongOing tensions between ration restrictiolls on the one hand and providing social efficiency and equity goals of education have specific services to help international students stay existed in the OECD's educational work. In his abroad on the other. Its report on SciCI/CC and /('c/1 historical overview of the GEeD's educational work 110/0g,1' La/mllr Markels (2001) argues that highly during the 19705 and 19805, Papadopoulos (1994) skilled persons are driven by different push-and-pull provided an account of these tensions. Some factors. 'In addition to illlmigration legislation, years la tel', Henry et al. (2000) demomtrated these otiler factors, such as taxation, studying abroad, tensions in the late 19905, between quality and qualitv of work, openness in communication, bll'> equality, between the econolllic, social, and cultural iness expansion overseas, labour market supply and purposes of education, and in an emergent stress on demand signals, etc. play an important role in the social cohesion set against the n'cognition of the choice of highly skilled migrants to rl'locate over· growing inequality associated with neo-liberal glo seas.' Largelv technical in its discourse, ah~ent from balization. In this chapter we have argued that, the report is any discussion of moral considerations more recently, tile discourse of knowledge eco pertaining to the global inequalities created by such nomy, in the context of a particular construction poliCies of skilled migration via internationalization of gobalization, has pushed the balance between of higher education. equity and social effiCiency firmly toward, the latter and focLised on the production of the self capitalizing, tlexible, neo-liberal subject. In the Conclusion process, there has been a rearticulation of equity, through th(' lise of the concepts of social capital and The educational work of the OEC[) has always bcen social coheSion, rather than stronger social-demo linked to ti1t' hroad economic purposes of the cratic concerns about social justice in provision and Organization. In respect of its policy framework, outcomes in education. Through ib statistical there has been a tension between tbe nco-liheral and assessment work in education Indicators, and the social democratic. We have argucd that at Education at a Glance, P[SA) and more generally the current moment in the context of globalization (e.g. PARIS2l), the OECD is also promoting a policy cOl1sidered ill particular ways ill the work of the agenda for reforming educational governance, OECI), and givcn the global hegemony of the USA, based on neo-liberal precepts of marketization and the neo-liberal perspectivc now dominates. lndecd, privatization on the one hand and strong systems of we have suggested that the OEen has i1l'en an accountability on the other. The OECD has thus important institution and actor in the constitution contributed to the creation of a global policy space of a global economy framed by nco-liberalism. in education. lIere it now works as a 'magistrature Policies, we know, oftcn discursivelv create the of intluence'. contexts to which thev are purportedly a rcsponse In this chapter we have argued that the GECD (Tavlor et al. I ()97). The OECn, while working with has been a dynamic institution, simultaneously competing deflnitions of globalization, has largely expressing, responding to, and promoting particu constituted globalization in a performativc way as lar policy ideas in education. In its current phase it neo-liberal idcology applied to thc whole globe. insists that 'The development of modern knowledge The impact of the work of the OECD is also now economies has increased the importance of educa much wider than in its memiJer countries. Along tion policy.' In creating a separate Directorate for with other international organizations, it has Education within the DECD in 2002, it has both created particular economic 'policy talk' about a underlined the importance of education and also knowledge economy, \vhirh has contributed to made education a function of economic policy policy convergence in respect of economic policy in the knowledge economy. It is interesting to 260 speculate therefore whether this new arrangement equity aspects of educational policy, particularly simply reinforces the neo-liheral economic hege in a context where the neo-liberal uptake of globa mony, especially through its cross-sectoral work, or lization seems to have exacerhated inequalities allows some more space for a re-emphasis upon the within and hetween nations.
NOTES
This chapter is based partly on an Australian Research Council supported research puhlished as M. Henry, B. Lingard, r. Rizvi, and S. Taylor (2000), Tile OEef), (;/o/J£I/iz£ltio/l alld Educatioll Policy (Oxford: Pergamon). The arguments presented here are hased on extension of this work over 2000-4 by the authors, who gratefully acknowledge the significant contributions of Miriam Henry and Sandra Taylor. I. Chile, Estonia, Israel, the Russian Federation, and Slovenia participate in the Education Committee as observers, Chile and Israel also participate on the (;overning Board of the Centre for Education Research and Innovation (CERI), while for "ISA 28 non member countries arc involved along with the 30 memher countries.
Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne
Author/s: Rizvi, FA; Lingard, B
Title: Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD's educational work
Date: 2006
Citation: Rizvi, F. A. & Lingard, B. (2006). Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD's educational work. Lingard, B (Ed.). Lauder, H (Ed.). Brown, P (Ed.). Dillabough, J (Ed.). Halsey, A (Ed.). Education Globalization and Social Change, (1), pp.247-260. Oxford University Press.
Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/31469
File Description: Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD's educational work