ComparativeEducation Volume36 No. 32000 pp. 279 –296

DevelopmentStudies and ComparativeEducation:contex t, content,comparisonand contributors ANGELALITTLE

ABSTRACT Thisarticle reviews ComparativeEducation over the past 20 years, explores the parallel literature of development studies, and identiŽes future directions and challenges for comparative education. UsingParkyn (1977) as abenchmark, ananalysis ofarticles published between 1977 and 1998 suggests that onlya small proportion appear tomeet his criteria for comparative education. Parkyn’s purpose for comparative education, toincrease ourunderstanding of the relationship between education and the development of humansociety, is shared bydevelopment studies. Educational writingswithin development studies have explored the meaningsof development and underdevelopment and have raised importantquestions about the unitof analysis for comparative education. Several reasons are advanced toexplain the separate development of these literatures. The contemporary challenge of globalisationpresents fresh opportunities and challenges for both literatures. Ashared commitmentto understanding the role of education inthe globalisationprocess and the reasoned response toit could formthe heart of ashared effort inthe future. Globalisationalso highlights the need for more effective dialoguebetween comparative educators indifferent corners of the globe.

Introduction The purposeof thisarticle is three-fold: to providea briefreview of the journal over the past 20yearsin terms of criteriait hasset for itself; to identify concepts whichhave emerged from Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 development studies over the past20 yearswhich can contribute to and enhance comparative education; and to conclude with suggestions about the future development of the Želd of comparativeeducation.

Review ofthe Journal The benchmarkfor thisreview is Parkyn’ s (1977) contribution to the SpecialNumber, entitled ‘Comparative Education Researchand Development Education’ (Grant, 1977). Parkynre ects on an issue whichexercised anumber of academics inthe 1970s,the similaritiesand differences between comparativeeducation and development education, and the potential contribution ofthe former to the latter. For Parkyn,the purposeof comparative education was: …to increase our understanding of the relationshipbetween education and the

Correspondenceto: AngelaLittle, Educational and International Development, Institute of Education,University of London,20 BedfordWay, London WC1H 0AL, UK.E-mail:[email protected]

ISSN0305-0068 print;ISSN 1360-0486 online/00/030279-18 Ó 2000 Taylor& FrancisLtd 280 A. Little

development of human society bytakinginto account factors that cannot adequately beobserved and understood within the limitsof anyparticular society, culture, or system, but that transcend particularsocieties and haveto bestudied bycompara- tive methods appliedto societies, cultures and systems … (p. 89) Parkynuses the term ‘development’to refer to allsocieties that areundergoing change. He does not conŽne the use ofthe term ‘development’to ‘developing’countries. The purposeof development education [1],bycontrast, was: …education aimed at the modernisation of…technological activitiesin order to providebetter for theirmaterial and cultural needs, and at the adaptation of their politicalmachinery and other societal institutions insuch awayas to makepossible the most effective use ofthismodernisation inthe satisfyingof those needs. (p. 89) Despite the association inthe minds ofmanyof the term ‘development education’with ‘less developed’countries, Parkynwas at painsto point out that the fundamental distinction between comparativeeducation and development education was not one of geography.The distinction was one of purpose.The purposeof comparativeeducation was understanding and analysis,the purposeof development education was action and change. Comparative education could and should beundertaken inthe countries of the North and the South. Whereverit ispractised, development education should rest on afoundation of comparative education. Whereverin the world it was undertaken, the purposeof comparison was to explorethe inuence of system-level factors on the interaction of within-system variables.This deŽ nition of intellectual purposein turn led toParkyn’s critiqueof comparativeeducation inthe 1970s. The inadequacyof many studies purportingto becomparative, and super- Žciallyappearing to becomparative, is, in the lastanalysis, to befound inthe fact that those whichconcentrated on within system variablesor culturalcontexts have often lackedinfor- mation on across-system variables,while those whichhave dealt with across-system variableshave often failedto show theirdifferent interaction with within-system variablesin different countries. (Parkyn,1977, p.90 ) So how hasthe Želd, asrepresented bystudies publishedby Comparative Education , fared over the pasttwo decades? Does the journal include agood representation of so-called ‘developing countries’, insupport of Parkyn’s proposition that geographyis not adeŽning characteristicof comparativeeducation (context)? Does the journal include agood represen- Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 tation ofarticlesaddressing the fundamental question of comparativeeducation, the relation- shipbetween education and the development of human society (content)? Does the journal demonstrate an understanding of the intellectual purposeof comparison (comparison)? The reviewclassiŽ es the titles of articlespublished by Comparative Education between 1977 and 1998 (Volumes 13–34).Atotal of 472 articleswere classiŽed bycountry context (Table I), content (Table II) and comparison (Table III) bythe author and DrFelicity Rawlings,working independently. Whileacknowledging that atitle isonly anindicator ofan article’s content, aclassiŽcation basedon afullreading of all472 articlesfell beyond the scope of the present review.

Context TableI indicates the countries mentioned inthe titles of articles.The authors of some 68% (320/472) of articlesmade explicitreference to one or more countries inthe titles of their articles.Seventy-six countries were mentioned, just over one-third (34%) of the 224 coun- trieslisted inUNESCO’s Statistical Yearbook 1998 .Afew countries havefeatured inthe titles Development Studies 281

of alargenumber of articles,for examplethe UK (43), China (31), Japan (28), Germany (21), the USA (20), France (20) and Australia (16).Some 34 countries warrant mention in the title of only one articlein 20 years. The number of countries that haveat least one title publishedwas compared with the total number of countries inthe same region, aslisted inUNESCO’ s Statistical Yearbook 1998.InAfrica,some 17countries appearedin the title of atleast one article,compared with some 56 countries inthe Africaregion, or 30%.Asia, South Americaand Oceania achieved similarpercentages. The countries of Europe achievedthe highestrepresentation of 56%, whilethose of North Americawere under-represented, at 16%.The apparentunder-repre- sentation of titles from North Americamay be accounted for bythe propensityof authors on North Americaneducation to contribute to our important sister journal, Comparative Edu- cation Review ,basedin North America.The similarlevels of representation of countries inthe other four continental blocs—Africa (30%),South America (36%), Asia (35%) and Oceania (30%)—isa signiŽcant achievement for a journal establishedin London and run from the UK,and publishing (currently) only inEnglish. Acomparison of the number of articleswhose titles refer to one or more countries, by continent, presents adifferent picture. The total number of countries referred to intitles is 362. Just over halfof thistotal refers to countries inEurope or North America (Europe 40.1%;North America10.5% ).Afurther 29.6%refer to Asia.Articles focusing oncountries inAfrica, South Americaand Oceania account for 11.3%,1.9% and 6.6%respectively. If one excludes Australiaand New Zealand from the Oceania bloc,the percentage fallsto 1.6%. AclassiŽcation by‘ developed’and ‘developing’country, using the 1998 UNESCO classiŽcation, presents aneven sharperpicture. UNESCO’s Statistical Yearbook 1998 classiŽ es 53 (24%) countries as‘ developed’and the remaining171 (76%) as‘ developing’. Some 224 (62%) ofour articlesrefer to ‘developed’countries, and 138 (38%) to‘developing countries’. To the extent that alargenumber of developed and developing countries attract the attention ofauthors, Parkyn’s proposition that geographyis not the essential characteristicof comparativeeducation appearsto beborne out. Atthe same time, itisclearthat over the past decades comparativeeducators haveattended disproportionately oneducational issues inthe countries of Europe, North Americaand, to adegree, Asia.

Content

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 TableII presents the content of articles,as indicated bytitle, using the classiŽcation of journal aimspublished in 1978. The relationshipbetween education and the development of human society, education and development for short, appearsto liebehind 44 of the articles,or 13%of the articles classiŽed bythe 1978 scheme. Titles hereinclude, for example,Blinco on ‘Persistence and Education: aformula for Japan’s economic success’ (Blinco, 1993 ) and Morrison ‘Asia’s Four Little Tigers:a comparison of the role of education intheir development’ (Morris, 1996).These titles appearto address one aspect of Parkyn’s deŽnition of comparative education purpose,the relationshipbetween education and the development of human society. Whether,simultaneously, they account for ‘factors that cannot adequately beob- served and understood within the limitsof anyparticular society’ (Parkyn,1977, p.89 ) requiresa more careful readingof the text than hasbeen possiblein this brief review. Afurther 17.6%of articlesaddress educational reform, including the internalproblems of reform and the inuence of societal development on the reform of education. The latter maybe viewed asthe inverseof the category noted above,the relationshipbetween education and the development of human society. Titles hereinclude Gu Mingyuan (1984) on ‘The 282 A. Little

TABLE I.Articlesby country context noted in titleand region 1977 – 1998

Africa Asia Botswana 1 No.countries published 5 17 Bangladesh1 No.countries published 5 19 BurkinaFaso 1 Cambodia 1 Comoros 1 No. titles 5 41 China 31 No. titles 5 107 Ghana 1 Hong Kong 9 Kenya 4 No.countries in Africa 5 56 India 7 No.countries in Asia 5 52 Mali 1 Indonesia 2 Nigeria 9 %countriesin Africa Iran 1 %countriesin Asia SierraLeone 1 publishedby CE 5 30% Israel 5 publishedby CE 5 35% Somalia 1 Japan 28 SouthAfrica 7 Macau 1 Tanzania 4 Malaysia 3 Togo 1 Nepal 1 Tunisia 1 Pakistan 2 Uganda 1 Philippines2 Zaire 1 SaudiArabia 2 Zambia 3 Singapore 4 Zimbabwe 3 Sri Lanka 3 Taiwan 1 Thailand 3

NorthAmerica Europe Canada 9 No.countries 5 6 Austria 2 No.countries 5 22 Greenland 1 Belgium 1 Grenada 1 No. titles 5 38 Bulgaria 1 No. titles 5 145 Mexico 5 UnitedKingdom 43 Nicaragua 2 No.countries in North Cyprus 1 No.countries in Europe 5 43 UnitedStates 20 America 5 37 Denmark 2 Eire 1 %countriesin North Finland 2 %countriesin Europe Americapublished by CE 5 16% France20 publishedby CE 5 56% Germany 21 Greece 2 Hungary 5 Italy 4 Malta 1 Netherlands5 Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 Norway 6 Poland 2 Spain 9 Sweden 7 Switzerland1 USSR 8 Yugoslavia1

South America Oceania Argentina 1 No.countries 5 6 Australia16 No.countries 5 6 Brazil 2 CookIslands 1 Chile 1 No. titles 5 7 NewZealand 2 No. titles 5 24 Colombia 1 PapuaNew Guinea 3 Ecuador 1 No.countries in South SolomonIslands 1 No.countries in Oceania 5 20 Venezuela 1 America 5 14 Vanuatu 1 %countriesin South %countriesin Oceania Americapublished by CE 5 36% publishedby CE 5 30% Development Studies 283

TABLE II.Contentthemes 1978, bythe numberand percentage of articles,1977 – 98

(The aimsof the journalare to ) presentup-to-date information and signiŽ cant trends throughout the world,interpreted byscholars in comparative education and related disciplines, but expressed in a straightforwardway forthe generalreader aswell as for professional teachers, researchers, administrators and students … The …Boardrecognise important changesof commitmentand partnership in comparative studies of education – with particularreference to developments incognate disciplines and to problems of decision-making or implementation. These considerationsbring closer interactionswith studiesof government,management, sociology – andindeed technology –both generallyand onparticular pointsof decision.A comparativeperspective is nowintegral to any study affecting public policy, and the educational ingredientin all such studiesis nowmore formative than it ever has been … the Boardinvites contributions … dealing with internationalor analyticallycomparative aspects of the followingthemes.

No articles %

Educationalreform and problems of implementation 58 17.6 Educationand socio-economic or politicaldevelopment 44 13.3 Relationshipsbetween education and a workinglife 24 7.3 Post-compulsoryand ‘ youngadult’ education 24 7.3 Part-time,recurrent, or alternatingeducation/ training 6 1.8 Newstructures/ operationalpatterns in highereducation 26 7.9 The ‘management’of educationalsystems andof the learningprocess 25 7.6 Teacherpreparation and reorientation 35 10.6 Questionsof accessto educationand of its diffusion 13 3.9 Curricularcontent, and the learner’s experience 20 6.1 Innovationin educational and community interaction 4 1.2 SigniŽcant aspects of comparativeresearch 35 10.6 Implicationsof international co-operation/ experimentation 16 4.8

TOTAL 330 100%

Other: exams/selection6, colonialschools/ education9, girlsand women 11, diversity/culturalpluralism 12, pedagogic andphilosophical theory 11, minorities11, internationalorganisations 8, languagepolicies 5

Development and Reform of HigherEducation inChina’ , La Belle& Ward (1990) on ‘Education Reform When Nations Undergo RadicalPolitical and Social Transform- ation’, and Mitter (1992) on ‘Educational Ad justments and Perspectivesin a United Germany’.

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 Around 10%of articlesmay be classiŽ ed under the heading‘ signiŽcant aspects of comparativeresearch’ . Thishas been interpreted to include discussions of (i) comparative method; (ii) comparativetheory; and/or (iii) comparisons drawn across aset of individual country papers.More than 100 articlescould not easilybe classiŽ ed under the 1978 headings.Of these, 12 addressed culturaldiversity and pluralism,11 pedagogic and philo- sophicaltheory, 11 the education of minorities and 5language policy.

Comparison TableIII presents the geographicscope of comparisons made. Itdistinguishestitles that refer to singlecountries, two or more countries, regionalgroups, the ‘world’, and those from which such reference isabsent. ThisclassiŽ cation does not enableus to judge whether studies have identiŽed the interaction between system-level and within system levelfactors, Parkyn’s intellectual purposeof comparison. However, the verylarge number of studies, some 248 (58%),that focus on singlecountries, would suggest that Parkyn’s criterion hasnot been met inmore than halfthe cases. Asmallernumber, some 72 (15%),explicitlymake comparisons 284 A. Little

TABLE III.Articlesby nature of comparisons,1977 – 1998

Geographicscope of comparison.No. %

Single country 248 53 North 120 North (Soviet) 25 South 103

AcrossspeciŽ ed countries 72 15 Across 2countries 62 North-North 42 North-South 8 South-South 12 Across 3countries 4 All North 2 All South Southand North 2 Across 4countries 3 All North 3 All South Southand North Across 5countries 3 All North 3 All South Southand North

Regional 56 11 ‘Developing’countries 13 ‘Industrialised’countries 1 Europe 17 LatinAmerica 3 Englishspeaking world 1 OECD 1 Nordic 1 Asiantigers 1 PaciŽ c 9 Africa 4 SouthernAfrica 1 SouthEast Asia 1

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 British ColonialDependencies 1 Gulf states 1 Europeand North America 1

Global/ World 16 3 NotspeciŽ ed 84 18

Total 472 100

across two, and lessoften, three, four or Žvecountries. Afurther 11%indicate intheir titles that the study draws on/makesreference to countries within aparticularregion (e.g. ‘developing’countries, ‘Europe’, the PaciŽc, Africa ).Averysmall number, some 3%,focus on globalisingor internationalising trends, or on agencies (e.g. the World Bank ) which have aglobalremit. Some 18%of titles omit reference to country focus. Among those whichfocus explicitlyon asinglecountry, some 145 (58%) focus on ‘developed’countries and 103 (42%) on developing. Of the titles that indicate comparison across one or more countries, the ma jority involvestwo-country comparisons. Of these, 42 (68%) arecomparisons between two developed countries, 12 (19%) arecomparisons be Development Studies 285

tween two developing countries, and the remainingeight (13%) makecomparisons between developed and developing countries. The fairlysizeable percentage of articlesthat omit a reference to country (18%),areof manytypes. They include articlesof the kindincluded in thisSpecial Number, reviewing generally the state of the Želd and/or raisingtheoretical or methodological questions. Orthey mayfocus on aparticularcountry, but do not consider thisfocus to besufŽ ciently important to mention inthe title. Among those that draw explicitcomparisons across countries, the ma jority do so across developed countries. The ma jority of studies drawing comparisons across two countries, and allthose across three and four, focus on developed countries. Those that draw com- parisonsacross Žve countries include four developed countries and Singapore. The studies whose titles makea regionalor globalreference aredifŽ cult to classifyfurther without detailed analysisof the content of the articles. It would appearthen that only asmallpercentage of articlespublished by Comparative Education since 1977 haveadopted an explicitlycomparative approach. The ma jority of articlesfocus on singlecountries. Authors arecontributing to abody of educational knowl- edge drawn from diverseeducational settings. Thisis not to implythat the studies lacka comparative‘ dimension’. Manyauthors locate theirstudies inrelation to the more general comparativeeducation literature,and indeed areencouraged to do so bythe journal. However, the primaryfocus of the study isa singlecountry context.

Context, Contentand Comparison The aboveanalysis indicates that the articlespublished in Comparative Education cover a verybroad range of context, content and comparison. Parkyn’s criteriaare met byonly asmallproportion of articles.Geography is clearly not the deŽning characteristicof comparativeeducation, althoughthe representation of articleson countries inthe ‘South’is not yet ashigh as it should be.The breadthof content areascovered goes wellbeyond Parkyn’s prescription.And the ‘comparative’approach adopted byauthors variesconsider- ably. Breadthhas the considerable advantage of bringingtogether readerswith different and sharedfoci. Severalof the SpecialNumbers of Comparative Education takea singlecountry astheir theme. Withinthis shared focus, authors address the speciŽc issues of curriculum, Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 teachers, management and employment. Other SpecialNumbers focus on asingletopic, for example,post-compulsory education (Williams,1994 ).Authors address thisissue from a range of countries. Both of these approachesare valid, and encourage atwo-stage approach to comparativeeducation knowledge. In the Žrst stage, country or topic specialistspre- sented contextualised knowledge. In the second stage, comparativespecialists synthesised and located context. The guest editor of the SpecialNumber usually executes thissecond stage. Inprinciple, if not alwaysin practice, the guest editor can identify the interaction between system and within system factors, thus meeting Parkyn’s deŽnition of ‘compara- tive’purpose. Indeed, Parkyn’s criterion of comparativepurpose may be best handled through thistwo-stage approach.Well-contextualise dknowledge about education isa necessary, and complex, Žrst step inthe process of comparison. Muchcomparison neglects context and renders itself superŽcial and meaningless. However, breadthof context, content and comparison hasthe disadvantage of dilution and aloss of focus for aŽeld of study. In view of the number of articlesthat can be publishedeach year, and the invitation for contributions from severaldisciplines, the potential for aloss of overallfocus for the Želd of study increases greatly. 286 A. Little

Development Studies Iturn now to the Želd of development studies and explorethe impactit hashad on comparativeeducation. Development studies emerged inthe 1950s and 1960s, inthe wake of the processes of reconstruction and de-colonisation after World WarII. Keyquestions for development studies include: Whatdoes ismean to saythat asociety isdeveloping or developed? Whatis the role of societal processes and institutions (such aseducation ) in the process of development? Whatare the socialand economic conditions that facilitate or impede the development ofsociety? Thus,the fundamental questions ofdevelopment studies with respect to education and those of comparativeeducation, following Parkyn’s deŽnition, converge.

Modernisation Theories of economic and socialmodernisation became central frameworks for the analysis of economic growth and societal development, and became inuential alsoin determining national economic and socialpolicy and policyimplementation, ascountries asserted their economic and politicalindependence. Education was acentral pillarof post-colonial social policyas countries sought to ‘modernise’and to replaceexpatriate highly skilled labour. Theories of development indeveloping countries, formulated largelyby socialscientists from the developed countries (althoughoften working indeveloping countries ),emerged alongside policiesfor development. From the outset economic goalsformed the essential characterof the ‘development pro ject’. Education playedan important partin development theory. The theory of ‘modernis- ation’presented an optimistic model for development of those societies that were not yet modern and industrialised.Modernisation theory attracted the attention of researchersfrom severalsocial science disciplines.Economists focused attention on the applicationof technol- ogy to produce growth ineconomic production perunit ofinput. Sociologists focused onthe process of socialdifferentiation that characterisesocieties whichuse technology to promote economic growth. Demographersfocused on patterns of settlement that accompany urbani- sation, the impactof modernisation on population size, growth and density. Political scientists focused on nation-building, on the basesfor power and how power isshared, how nation-states achievelegitimacy and the extent and depth of national identity.

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 Researchon the relationshipbetween education and the modernisation of society was alsopitched at the levelof the individual.For example,McClelland (1961) focused on the valuesheld by the ma jority of peoplein a society and the implicationsof these for economic and technological growth. The valueattached to and the motivation for achievement, were central to McClelland’s explanation of modernising societies. WhereMax Weber (1930) had focused attention on the role of ideasand religionin setting the conditions for the riseof capitalism,McClelland focused on earlysocialisation and childrearing practices. Inkeles & Smith (1974) drew from both sets of ideas.They accepted the logic of modern valuesleading to modern behaviour,modern society, and economic development. In contrast to McClel- land,however, they stressed the role of modern institutions such asthe formal school and the factory inthe formation of modern valuesand attitudes.

HumanCapital Education was alsoa central partof theories of development that focused on the economic imperativesand conditions for development. In one of the most inuential writings on the Development Studies 287

role ofeducation indevelopment inthe 20th century, Theodore W.Schultz explored the idea of education asaform of capitaland introduced the notion of education asa form of human capital (Schultz, 1961 ).The propositions of ‘human capital’theory were that the skillsand knowledge whichpeople acquire are a form of capital.This capital was aproduct of deliberateinvestment and hadgrown inWestern societies atarate faster than ‘conventional’ (non-human) capital.Its growth hasbeen the most distinctive feature ofthe economic system of the mid-20th century. Humancapital theory formed an important partof the development studies discourse about the relationshipof education to the development of countries inthe South from the mid-1960s. It emerged much later,from the late 1970s, aspart of the discourse about education inthe countries of the North. The role of education inmodernisation was the sub ject of severalwell-known collec- tions. For example,the collection on ‘Education and Economic Development’, edited by Anderson &Bowman (1965),drew together historians,economists, sociologists, educators and geographers.It explored the role of education ineconomic development inRussia, India, America,Ghana, Chile, England and Japan.Another, edited inthe same yearby Coleman, entitled ‘Education and PoliticalDevelopment’ (1965),focused on the politicaldimension of modernisation. Drawingon cases from the ‘developing areas’ (former French Africa,Indone- sia,Nigeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Brazil ) and from countries where educational development hasbeen ‘polity-directed’ (Soviet Union, Japan,the Philippines ),the book addresses the questions: Whatpart can and does education playin the process of modernisation? Whatis the real (sic) relationshipbetween politicalpolicy and the educational process?

Dependency Bythe late 1960s and early1970s the conceptual frameworks of both modernisation and human capitaltheory were coming to bechallengedby aset ofideaswhich came to form the school of ‘dependency’. Marxistideas on exploitation of the proletariatby the bourgeoisie, and Lenin’s writings on imperialism,were developed byAndre Gunder Frank (e.g.1967) and Galtung (e.g.1971).Dependency theory addressed the extent to whichpoor countries were dependent on richcountries and the mechanisms through whicheconomic dependency was maintained. The dependency perspectivefocused on under-development ratherthan development, viewingit asa necessary outcome of systematic exploitation and manipulation of peripheral Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 economies bycentral economies (Frank,1967; Cardoso, 1972; Dos Santos, 1973 ). Poor countries areconditioned bytheir economic relationshipswith richeconomies to occupy a subordinate and dependent role that inhibitsdevelopment byexpropriating investible sur- plus.Indigenous e´lites,Ž rmlywedded to the international capitalistsystem and rewarded handsomely byit, have no interest ingiving up these rewards.Dependency theory accords overridingimportance to the historicalconditions that providea context for development and to the international system of ‘globalexploitation’ managed bydeveloped capitalistcountries. Wallerstein (1974) presented anearlyformulation of aglobalisedeconomic system structured byworld capitalism.The ‘dependency’perspective encouraged economists, political economists and sociologists to abandon the national economy, nation-state and national society astheircentral unit of analysisand to focus instead on the nature ofrelations between economies, states and societies. Dependency was conceived asa culturalphenomenon also.The structure ofdependent economic relations was asserted to create a‘culturalalienation’ in which values, norms, technology, concepts and artforms were inspiredexternally rather than internally (Carnoy, 1974).Formalschooling independent economies playeda keyrole inthe furtherance of a 288 A. Little

cultural and economic dependency of peripheralupon central economies. Carnoy’s thesis focused largelyon schooling inthe ‘ThirdWorld’ Western formal education came to most countries aspart of imperialistdomination. It was consistent with the goalsof imperialism:the economic and politicalcontrol of the people inone country bythe dominant classin the other. The imperialpowers attempted, through schooling, to trainthe colonised for the roles that suited the coloniser (Carnoy, 1974, p.3 ). The dependency school altered the discourse on education and development ina number of ways.It drew attention not only to the post-colonial or neo-colonial relations between countries whichpersisted long after so-called politicalindependence, but it also focused attention on the analysisof the constraints on development, on stasisand decline in economy and society. It focused on the role of education for domination ratherthan for development. It provided answers to the question: How does education impede the process of development? It focused on the ‘negatives’of development. These included increasing disparitiesof income between socialgroups and countries, the continuing and increasingrole of multi-national economic interests, the formation and co-option oftransnational e´litesocial groups,the divergence of valuesof different socialgroups, the creation and maintenance of underclass countries and groups.Education playeda role inthis through many socialand cultural processes. These included the legitimation of e´litesocial and economic status, through qualiŽcation systems, through curriculum and learningmaterials developed through international publishingpro jects, and through cross-national and inter-national professional networks (e.g. Mazrui,1975; Altbach& Kelly,1978; Watson, 1984; Lewin &Little, 1984; McClean, 1984 ). For those inthe North, the dependency perspectivewas aschallenging as it was uncomfortable. Whileit bore an intellectual relationshipwith emerging analysesof the role of education inthe development of the UScapitalisteconomy (e.g. Bowles &Gintis, 1976 ), it resonated most with those intellectual interests that layin the colonised countries of the South or inthe internally-colonisedcommunities resident incountries inthe North. Asaset of ideasit bore closer linkswith the broaderschool of economic dependency than it did with the discourse of comparativeeducation dominant atthat time. Itwas substantiallyin uenced bywriters who appealedto notions of socialequity in the perspectivesthey took on the processes ofeducation and development. Thus,Carnoy acknowledges hisparticular intellec- tual debt to Raskinand Memmi,who wrote on colonialismand to Illichwho promoted de-schooling inthe developing countries and inthe impoverishedareas of developed coun- Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 tries.

ComparativeEducation and Development StudiesCompared Whereasthe dependency perspectiveemerged asan intellectual response to modernisation theory and the questions it posed about the role of education indevelopment (deŽ ned as modernisation ),debates incomparativeeducation inthe late 1960s and 1970s concerned the methodology of comparativeeducation. Questions included: Whatis the purposeof compari- son? Whattypes of question and evidence providea legitimate basisfor comparison? What isthe appropriatefocus for comparisons, asbetween systems and classrooms? Whatis the relativerole of theory and practicein the generation of researchquestions? How isthe comparativeeducation method different from that of comparativesociology, comparative politics,comparative religion and philosophy,economic and socialhistory, cross-cultural psychology? Whilemuch of thisdebate was conducted with considerable vigourand intellectual sophistication, it hadthe unintended effect of distracting attention awayfrom the content Development Studies 289

questions that could usefully beaddressed byusing the method (s) ofcomparativeeducation. Method isvaluable to the extent that its applicationprovides new insightsinto aproblem. Whatnew insightcould the comparativeeducation method offer whichcomparative soci- ology, comparativesocial history, comparative politics or comparativesocial psychology could/did not? The methodological debates of the 1970s passedmany peopleby and hadlittle lasting impact,with ahandful of exceptions. Whilea number of articlesin Comparative Education adopted an explicitlycomparative approach, few justiŽed or explainedtheir comparative approachin relation to those set out inthe earlierdebates. Interchange with comparative educators from manycountries suggests that these debates havehad little impacton the understanding oruse ofthe so-called Comparative Education researchmethod. Asimilarview was reached recently and independently byRust et al., (1999) who reviewed almost 2000 articlesappearing in Comparative Education (1964/95), Comparative EducationReview (1957/ 95) and the InternationalJournal of Educational Development (1981/95). The fundamental question of comparativeeducation, according to Parkyn (1977), is the relationshipbetween education and ‘development’. Thisquestion was fundamental alsoto those who wrote about modernisation and dependency. However, questions of method and country context distinguished the two literatures.Those who engaged most activelyin the modernisation and dependency debates largelyignored the methodological debates incom- parativeeducation. Those who engaged most activelyin the comparativemethodological debates, drew theirknowledge of educational context largely,although not exclusively,from the education systems ofthe North. Even those who designed the earlyIEA studies and drew inspirationfrom Noah& Eckstein’s (1969) approachto comparativeeducation addressed education mainlyin the ‘developed countries’. In the Žrst round of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) studies of 21 countries, only four, Chile,India, Iran and Thailandwere, at that time, classiŽed as‘ developing countries’. The drivingquestion and problembehind the massiveIEA researchendeavour must beseen inthe context of the Cold Warand the racefor supremacyin space. ‘Development’in this sense meant progressand world supremacy.It did not mean what it means for manyof the ‘developing’countries— catch up,staying in the game, and basic survival.In short, the literaturesaddressing the fundamental question of the relationship between education and the development ofhuman society havenot been asintegrated asthey mighthave been. Two reasons for thisless than optimalintegration, suggested above,were Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 the pre-occupation of comparativeeducation, through much of the 1970s and 1980s,with debates about method, and the tendency for contributors to the Želd to focus theirintellec- tual efforts on particulargroups of countries. Threefurther reasons for the parallelrather than integrated development of the literatures of comparativeeducation and development studies include differences in (i) the scope of analysis; (ii) the practiceof development; and (iii) the emphasison economic and cultural goalsof society and development.

Scope of Analysis The dependency approachsuggested that national systems of education did not necessarily providethe most appropriatepoint of comparison for comparativestudies. The scope of analysisneeded to include contemporary and historicalrelations (of domination and depen- dency) between countries. Thiswas especiallyso inthe case of the former colonies. In principlethen comparisons between countries needed to include theircontemporary and historicalrelations of inuence with other countries. Althoughthe callfor an historical approachin comparative education isfamiliar, it did not resonate with those who, at that 290 A. Little

time, were stressing comparisons of acontemporary nature. Nor did it resonate with those who sought comparisons across nations. The national system, economy and society remained for most comparativeeducationists the focus or unit of analysis.The notion of anational system of education sitting within anational economy and national society provided aclear focus for researchthat was within grasp.The implicationof dependency theory—to include an analysisof education within international economic and politicalrelations— was largely ignored bythose whose knowledge of educational contexts drew largelyfrom ‘developed’ countries whose education systems, with some notable exceptions (e.g. see Phillipsin this issue),hadbeen largelyimmune from external inuence.

Practice The emergence of the education and development ‘business’contributed further to the paralleldevelopment of literature.Much of the earlywork on modernisation and its economic parallel,human capitaltheory, was used bydevelopment agencies and international banksto justify Žnancialinvestments ineducation indeveloping countries. Schultz’s (1961) work was especiallyin uential inthe 1960s and 1970s among those who allocated money to develop- ment programmesand those who promoted the growth of formal education world-wide. SigniŽcantly, many of these actors and agencies were external to the emerging states of the countries to be‘ assisted’or ‘aided’. The production of an educated labourforce was perceivedby both economists and development plannersas ameans to the end of the growth of the national economy, and hence, development. Not only did these ideasand writings bringthe concepts and theories of economics to the centre stage of thinkingabout the relationshipbetween education and development, but they did so inawaywhich smoothed (and sometimes ignored ) the intellectual transition from analysisto advocacy, from description to prescription,from singlecases to universaltrends. Thus,many wrote of the relationshipbetween education and development and ignored the multiplicityof possiblerelationships conditioned byvariations in economic, cultural,social and politicalcontexts and histories.These writings were oriented towards policyrecommen- dations for the present and the future. In other words the writings were guided asmuch by the need to generate advocacies for education, asby the need to generate an understanding of whyand how education was related to development inspeciŽ c settings. The pro ject of development, buttressed byŽ nancialresources and controlled byagencies external to the

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 ‘developing’countries, encouraged adeŽnition of development aseconomic growth and a discussion of the role of education inachieving that end. It encouraged aconcern with immediate policiesand practicesand atendency to seekpolicy recommendations of a‘one size Žts all’nature.

Economic and CulturalGoals of/for Development The relativeemphasis on economic and cultural deŽnitions and explanations of development alsodistinguished the literatures.Human capital theory promoted the ideaof education asa form of economic capitalin the quest for development, deŽned aseconomic growth. It rendered subordinate supplementaryand alternativeideas about the goalsof learningand education—education asempowerment, education ascitizenship,education asenculturation, education asliberation. The emphasison economic development was accompanied bythe notion that culture was separatefrom economy and impeded economic development. Culture was often invoked asan explanation of pastfailure rather than success, of present problemsrather than achievements and of likelyfuture difŽculties ratherthan possibilities.Culture was treated Development Studies 291

frequently asa Žxed and enduring endowment responsiblefor continuities and inhibiting change. Thisview was atodds with much that hadbeen written on education and change in the ‘developed’countries of the North, where culturalanalysis was more prominent.

The WayForward Aspects of the context of education and development inthe so-called developed and developing countries havechanged inways which would havebeen unrecognisable to those who contributed to and read the 1977 SpecialNumber of Comparative Education (Grant, 1977).These changes inturn present uswith afreshopportunity to reconstruct comparative education inways that integrate ratherthan separateknowledge about education and development among the richestand the poorest socialgroups and countries. Already,there aresignals that many ofthe old divisionsapparent in the literatures could bebreaking down. In developed countries the discourse on education, modernisation and economic competitiveness chimesuncannily with the discourse onhuman capitaltheory and modernisation indeveloping countries two or three decades ago. The ‘business’of develop- ment isarguably also in uencing the discussion of education and development inthe North asthe work of universitiesbecomes more commercialised and more drivenby the needs of short-term policiesand practices.The interest in‘ lessons from abroad’on the partof education policy-makersin developed countries increased markedlyin the 1990s asthe East AsianTiger economies of the 1990s, themselves developing countries of the 1960s and 1970s,demonstrated enviablerates of economic growth [2].Thereis a growing awareness that many of the jobs whicheducated young peoplein ‘ developed’countries havedone inthe pastwill, in the future, betaken over byeducated young peoplein ‘ developing’countries. The marginalisationof largenumbers of future generations—’social exclusion’ — isagrowing problemon the doorstep. Poverty isnot conŽned to ‘developing’countries.

Globalisation

Underlying these signsis an economic and technological process we term ‘globalisation’. As Giddens notes: The term maynot beaparticularlyattractive or elegant one. But absolutelyno-one Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 who wants to understand our prospects and possibilitiesat century’s end can ignore it (Giddens, 1999a,p. 1 ) Writers in Comparative Education arealready addressing it and many comparativeeducation conferences haveadopted it recently asa central theme (e.g. Comparative Education Web Pagewww.carfax.co.uk/ ced-ad.htm, Watson, 1996; Cowen, 1996; Little, 2000a ).The litera- ture attracts ‘sceptics’and ‘radicals’. The sceptics dispute the whole thing… Whateverits beneŽts, its trialsand tribula- tions, the globaleconomy isn’t especiallydifferent from that whichexisted at previousperiods. The world carrieson much the same asit hasdone for many years … (the radicals,by contrast argue ) …that not only isglobalisation very real, but that its consequences can befelt everywhere.The globalmarketplace, they say, ismuch more developed than even two or three decades ago, and isindifferent to national borders. (Giddens, 1999, p.1 ) For the radicals,the manifestations of so-called globalisationare economic, politicalor cultural.The economic include stateless Žnancialmarkets, a massiveexpansion of world 292 A. Little

capitaland Žnance ows, arisingproportion of globaltrade and investment indeveloping countries accounted for bytransnational companies; the domination of international tech- nology ows bytransnational corporations (Wood, 1994; Stewart, 1996 ).The political manifestations of globalisationinclude adecline instate sovereignty (Ohmae, 1990); the reduced control of national governments over money supplyand regulation of exchange rates;an increasein the power of global,sometimes stateless, organisations over national organ- isations; adeŽnition of localissues in relation to the globalas well as the local;and an increasein the abilityof national and localissues to beplayed out on aworld-stage. Inthe culturalarena the manifestations include aconvergence of lifestyleand consumer aspirations among the better off, and the widespread distribution of images,information and values (Waters,1995 ).The educational manifestations include the phenomenal growth inthe ows of educational goods and services,in the revolution inmodes of deliveryof educational services, and inthe deŽnition of policygoals and curriculafor education indeveloped and developing countries. The manifestations of globalisationare not the same asits underlying causes. For some (e.g. Wood, 1994 ) a major reduction of obstacles to international economic transactions constitutes the essential deŽnition of globalisation.Hitherto, these obstacles haveincluded transport and transaction costs, trade barriers,Ž nancialregulation, and speed of communi- cation. Theirreduction, afunction of both economic policyand technological advance, has led to a major increase inthe volume of international Žnancialtransactions. Atthe same time, the technological advances that haveincreased the speed of communication havefacilitated connections not only between Žnancialmarkets world-wide, but alsobetween peopleworld- wide. Thisis why the manifestations of globalisationare not simplyeconomic; they arealso political,social and cultural.They are personal as wellas impersonal;they are‘ inhere’ as well as‘ out there’ (Giddens 1999, p.12 ). However, among those who acknowledge the phenomenon and consequences of global- isation, arethe ‘optimists’and the ‘pessimists’. The optimists, likethe development mod- ernisersbefore them, concentrate on the positiveconsequences. The ‘pessimists’, likethe dependency theorists and the Marxistsbefore them, concentrate on the negative.

Development Studies For Grindle &Hilderbrand (1999) the heartof the mission of development studies hastwo Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 aspects. Firstly, an understandingof the impact of globalisation ,and secondly, aresponse tothis understandingin ways that advance the positive and ameliorate the negative consequences of globalisation .Some of the current and pro jected ‘positives’and ‘negatives’of globalisation between and withindeveloped and developing countries arepresented inTable IV. The extension of these themes toeducation isinviting. The following questions, among others, emerge. How willdifferent of forms of education, especiallythose supported bynew information technologies, attain legitimacyand contribute to the improvement of living standards? How willeducation contribute to aheightened awareness of the need to provide economic, politicaland socialopportunities for women and marginalisedminorities? How willeducation contribute to democratic decision-making at national and locallevels? How willeducation contribute to the functioning of international movements to improve institutions of governance, to counter corruption inpublic life and to adopt environmentally sound practices? How willdifferential access to education provisionand qualitycontribute to the further marginalisationof young people? How willsanctions for countries that failto adapteconomic policiesaffect educational provision,especially for the poorest? How will different forms of education serveto legitimate and reproduce socialand economic Development Studies 293

TABLE IV.Positiveand negative consequences of globalisation

Consequences judged aspositive

Improvedliving standards of largenumbers of the world’s peoplethrough increased numbers of jobs andincomes

Spreadof ideasabout ways to improveaccess to education,health and information

Heightenedawareness of the needto provide economic, political and social opportunities for women and minorities

Spreadof democraticdecision-making at nationaland local levels

Internationalmovements to improve institutions of governance, to counter corruption in public life and to adopt environmentallysound practices

Consequences judged asnegative

The furthermarginalisation of those who donot,currently, have access to or beneŽt froman increased owofgoods, services,capital and information (especiallythe world’s current (1999) estimateof 1.3 billionpeople )

Sanctionsfor countries that ignore or avoid adapting economic policies and regulatory regimes to new international standards,with the consequentdistress for their citizens

GreaterŽ nancialvulnerability because of increasinginterdependence and spread of Ž nancial ows

Increasedexploitation of poorworkers and of childrenand women

Increasedthreats of environmental damage, disease, cross-border con ict, migration,political instability and crime

Morecon ict between those who beneŽt fromglobalisation and those who donot

Heighteningof ethnic, religiousand cultural differences

Source: Adaptedfrom Grindle & Hilderbrand (1999).

stratiŽcation? Whatwill be the balancebetween local,national, international and global forces for educational decision-making? But to these should alsobe added anumber of questions that emerge from conditions only weaklyconnected with globalisation,or from contexts where its particulareffects are strongest. In many situations localand national inuences willcontinue to bethe most powerful indetermining educational curriculum, control, resources, provisionand outcomes. Thisrequires sensitivity to and understanding of localand national contexts, and reinforces the earlierpoint about the need for comparativeeducation to begrounded inan understand- ingof particularcontexts. Such understanding willalso generate issues common to regions Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 and sub-regions. For example,at arecent Sub-Saharan Conference on Education for All, educators and researchersidentiŽ ed anumber of prioritiesfor researchand action common to the Africaregion and sub-region. These included the contribution of education to the alleviationof poverty,the impactof the HIV/AIDSpandemic on education and ofeducation on its slow down, the provisionof education inthe context of emergency and post-conict, and the contribution of education to the reduction of gender inequityand cultures of peace (JohannesburgDeclaration, 1999 ). Development studies captures the twin ob jectives of understanding and action, of analysisand advocacy, of policyanalysis and policyprescription. It embracesthe divide between ‘thinkers’and ‘do-ers’. It placeson those who reect, analyse,theorise about and study aresponsibilityto act, to advocate, and to prescribe.Simultaneously itplaceson those who act, do, advocate, and prescribea responsibilityto thinkabout and question theirown actions and the advicethey giveto others, especially insituations where power relations are unequal,withina broadscheme of global,national and localin uence. Understanding and action areboth important and valuable.Each requires overlapping but separateskills. While eachbeneŽ ts from the other, neither can bereduced to the other (Little, 2000b ). 294 A. Little

The understanding of the role of education inthe globalisationprocess within the framework presented inTableIV and the reasoned response to itcould form the heartof the both the development studies and comparativeeducation effort over the next few decades in both the developed and the developing countries.

The Challenges Marginalisation,communication and access to information arekey themes inthe globalisa- tion discourse. Aseditors of Comparative Education we frequently discuss how to encourage contributors and contributions from alargernumber and wider range of ‘developing coun- tries’. Ifwe areto encourage abetter understanding of the relationshipbetween education and ‘development’, both interms of national and international development, then we need to Žnd more effective means of promoting dialogue between comparativeeducators in different corners of the globe. At the beginning of thisarticle I provided areviewof context, content and type of comparison employed in Comparative Education articlespublished between 1977 and 1998. Areviewof the authors’‘ address for correspondence’provides an indication of the communi- cation and information challengeahead. It alsoprovides the Žnaltheme of the subtitle of this article.While ‘ address for correspondence’is a perfect proxyfor neither nationality nor country of residence or domicile, it does indicate authors’current location innon-virtual space.Some 609 authors contributed to 472 publishedarticles. While the total number of countries mentioned explicitlyin the title ofarticleswas 76,the number ofcountries inwhich contributors were basedwas 50.Some 85%of the contributors were basedin developed countries. Only15% were basedin developing countries. Inother words, the country baseof authors ismore concentrated than the countries they study, and the under-representationof authors basedin developing countries iseven more markedthan the under-representation of articlesbased on them. Those ofuswho wishto inhabita trulyglobal and comparativeŽ eld ofstudy whichcan, inturn, makeits own modest contribution to the cause of human progress,must create virtualand non-virtual spaceto encourage the participationof and exchange between educators from amuch greater diversityof educational culture than hitherto. We must be sensitive to the diversityof educational and other contexts world-wide, achieveconsensus on the fundamental questions of comparativeeducation, and embracein our comparisons local,

Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 national, regional,international and globalspheres of inuence. Thisis our collective challenge.

Acknowledgements Iamgrateful for assistance and comments on an earlierdraft of thispaper from JaneEvans, FelicityRawlings, Chris Williams and members of the EditorialBoard of Comparative Education.

NOTES

[1] Itshould be notedthat Parkyn’ s useof the term‘ developmenteducation’ re ected common usage in the USA atthat time. InEngland the term‘ developmenteducation’ usually referred to the curriculaof teaching courses, largelyat school level, which aimedto increase school-children’ s knowledgeand understanding of the problems ofpoverty in the countriesof the South. Inthe 1970s the equivalentof Parkyn’ s usagein England might have beenthe practice (asdistinct from the study ) ofeducation in developing countries. [2] The waningof interestin the wakeof the endof the centurycrisis in those sameeconomies illustrated the perils ofcherry-picking and the importanceof serious comparative analysis. Development Studies 295

REFERENCES

ALTBACH, P.G. & KELLY, C.P. (Eds) (1978) Education and Colonialism (London,Longman ). ANDERSON, C.A. & BOWMAN, M.J. (Eds) (1965) Education and Economic Development (Chicago,Aldine Publishing Company). BLINCO, P.M.A. (1993) Persistanceand education: a formulafor Japan’ s economicsuccess, Comparative Education , 29(2), pp. 171– 183. BOWLES, S. & GINTIS, H. (1976) Schoolingin Capitalist America (NewYork, Basic Books ). CARDOSO, F. (1972) Dependencyand development in Latin America, New LeftReview , 74. CARNOY, M. (1974) Education as CulturalImperialism (London,Longman ). COLEMAN, J.S. (Ed.) (1965) Education and PoliticalDevelopment (Princeton,New Jersey, PrincetonUniversity Press ). COWEN, R. (Ed.) (1996) Comparativeeducation and post-modernity, Comparative Education ,SpecialNumber (18), 32(2). DOS SANTOS, T. (1973) The crisisof development theory and the problemof dependence in Latin America, in: H.BERNSTEIN Underdevelopment and Development: the ThirdWorld today , pp. 57–80 (Harmondsworth,Penguin ). FRANK, A.G. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment inLatin America (NewYork, New York Monthly Review Press ). GALTUNG, J. (1971) Astructuraltheory of imperialism, Journalof Peace Research , 8(2), pp. 81–117. GIDDENS, A. (1999) Runaway World (Cambridge,Polity ). GRANT, N. (Ed.) (1977) Comparativeeducation— its presentstate and future prospects, Comparative Education , SpecialNumber, 13 (2). GRINDLE, M.S. & HILDERBRAND, M.E. (1999) The Development Studies Sector inthe United Kingdom:challenges forthe new millennium ,Report tothe Departmentfor International Development, UK. INKELES, A. & SMITH, D. (1974) BecomingModern (London,Heinemann ). JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION OF EDUCATIONFORALL (1999) Draftdocument tabled for discussion at the Sub-Saha- ranAfrica Conference on Education for All, 6 –10 December, (Johannesburg,EFA RegionalTechnical Advisory Group). LA BELLE, T.J. & WARD, C.R. (1990) Educationreform when nationsundergo radical political and social transform- ation, Comparative Education , 26(1), pp. 95–106. LEWIN, K.M. & LITTLE, A.W. (1984) Examinationreform and educational change in Sri Lanka, 1972 – 1982: modernisationor dependent underdevelopmen t, in:K.W ATSON Dependence and Interdependence inEducation: international perspectives , pp. 47–94 (Beckenham,Croom Helm ). LITTLE, A.W. (Ed.) (2000a) Globalisation,qualiŽ cations and livelihoods, Assessment inEducation ,SpecialIssue (forthcoming,7 (3)). LITTLE, A.W. (2000b) Post-Jomtienmodels of educational development: anlaysis vs advocacy, in: L-E. M ALMBERG, S-E. HANSEN & K. HEINO (Eds) Basic Education forAll: a globalconcern forquality (Vasa,Abo Akademi University). MAZRUI, A. (1975) The Africanuniversity as amulti-nationalcorporation: problems of penetration and dependency, Harvard Educational Review , 45, pp.199–210 MCCLEAN, M. (1984) Educationaldependency: two lines of enquiry, in: K.W ATSON Dependence and Interdependence inEducation: international perspectives , pp. 21–29 (Beckenham,Croom Helm ). Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010 MCCLELLAND, D. (1961) The Achieving Society (NewYork, The FreePress ). MINGYUAN, G. (1984) The developmentand reform of higher education in China, Comparative Education , 20(1), pp. 141– 148. MITTER, W. (1992) Educationalad justmentsand perspectives in a unitedGermany, Comparative Education , 28(1), pp. 45– 52. MORRIS, P. (1996) Asia’s FourLittle Tigers: acomparisonof the roleof educationin theirdevelopment, Comparative Education, 32(1), pp. 95– 109. NOAH, H. & ECKSTEIN, M. (1969) Towarda Science ofComparative Education (NewYork, Macmillan ). OHMAE, K. (1990) The BorderlessWorld: power and strategy inthe globalmarketplace (London,Harper Collins ). PARKYN, G.W. (1977) Comparativeeducation research and development education, Comparative Education , 13(2), pp. 87– 94. RUST, V., SOUMARE, A., PESCADOR, O. & SHIBUYA, M. (1999) Researchstrategies in comparative education, Comparative Education Review , 43(1), pp. 86–109. SCHULTZ, T.W. (1961) Investmentin human capital, American Economic Review , 51, pp. 1–17. STEWART, F. (1995) Globalisationand education. Keynote address ,UKFIETConference onGlobalisationand Learning , NewCollege, Oxford. STEWART, F. (1996) Globalisationand education, International Journalof Educational Development , 16(4), pp. 327– 334. UNESCO (1998) Statistical Yearbook 1998 (Paris,UNESCO ). 296 A. Little

WALLERSTEIN, I. (1974) The ModernWorld System: capitalist agriculture and the originsof the European worldeconomy in the sixteenth century (London,Academic Press ). WATERS, M. (1995) Globalisation (London,Routledge ). WATSON, K. (1984) Dependence and Interdependence inEducation: international perspectives (Beckenham,Croom Helm ). WATSON, K. (Ed.) (1996) Globalisationand Learning,Special Issue ofInternational Journalof Educational Development , 16(4). WEBER, M. (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spiritof Capitalism (London,Allen & Unwin ). WILLIAMS, V. (Ed.) (1994) EdmundKing’ s contributionto post-compulsory education: an international review and appreciation, Comparative Education ,SpecialNumber (16), 30(1). WOOD, A. (1994) North-SouthTrade, Employabilityand Inequality:changing fortunesin a skill-driven world (Oxford, ClarendonPaperbacks ). Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 11:00 8 March 2010