As economic globalization intensifies in today’s world, it is no surprise that education systems across the globe are becoming directly affected. As a result of globalization, there have been many international organizations that emerged who play a significant role in influencing higher education policies in many countries. The more significant organizations that have most influence in higher education are: the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OEDC), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). All these organizations play a great influence on how education is valued as a way to improve both social and economic development. These organizations may claim to help improve education, and economic development; however, they are not all the same. Some organizations carry specific and unique roles and some organizations have a greater influence than others do. The OEDC, UNESCO, and WTO are all respectable organizations with a great influence in policy change; however, when there is money being flashing around, the World Bank will always outshine the others.
With the rapid expansion of globalization and higher education becoming more market driven, countries across the globe are focusing on their human capital and comparing their own stance in the competitive race against the others. All these International organizations have influenced some countries at some point with policy reforms and/or instruments of assessments. The OEDC, UNESCO, WTO, and the World Bank all recognize these “global realities” and can all be seen as promoting “neoliberalism”.
The OEDC stands out from the other international organizations as it views higher education as “both a public and a private good: public because it contributes to the economic development of a community; and private because it serves individual interests within a competitive labour market” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009, p. 451). It is also important to note that unlike the World Bank, the OEDC does not have any “legally binding mandates over it’s members; nor does it have the financial resources at its disposal to encourage policy adaptation” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009, p.439). In other words, the OEDC can only suggest policy reforms and implementations to a certain extent. Countries have no obligations to make any higher education policy reform. This limitation for policy implementation is the same for UNSECO and the WTO. One of the most talked about and most influential achievement from the OEDC is the Programme for International Student Assessment (also known as PISA). PISA is used as a comparative instrument of student success under their international standard. PISA has become a common instrumental tool and standard to compare the educational levels of countries across the globe.
UNSECO also has somewhat of differential stance on internationalized higher education. According to Verger (2010), UNSECO has claimed that the WTO and its General Agreement on Trade Services treaty (GATS), promotes “the trade liberalization of higher education for purposes of economic profit whereas UNSECO promotes a non-profit internalization concerned with full respect for cultural diversity and with the right to education for all” (p.127). As higher education becomes a competitive market internationally, unlike the WTO, UNSECO raises concerns of education access, quality, linguistics, and cultural diversity (Verger, 2010). UNSECO may have its moral campaign to back up its influence; however, it is no match to the beast of the World Bank. According to Edwards et al. (2017), UNSECO is constantly challenged by its peers on its legitimacy within its field of global education policy ideas. “The most prominent example was the World Bank’s creation of the FTI (Fast Track Initiative) in 2002, which attracted the attention and resources of donors, and which arguably outshone UNESCO’s efforts to make progress on EFA (Education For All)” (p. 412). This amplifying the case that Money (the World Bank) has more influence than human morale (UNSECO).
The WTO stands out from the other organizations mostly for its GATS treaty. The GATS treaty is distinctive in the sense that it favors the idea of a neoliberal education with the main focus of “deregulation and the opening up of national markets to trade and competition…” (p. 59). The WTO wishes to remove barriers in the trade system and with the GATS treaty, its reinforces higher education towards commercialization and privatization.
Like all the other international organizations, The World Bank is often accused of being “the satanic tool of “neoliberalism” while others complain that it is plainly ineffective” (Castro, 2009, p. 459). Although the World Bank is not technically a bank, The World Bank primarily provides credit to participating countries; however, the interest for loans in some countries are higher than the others. The bigger and richer countries (such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and the UK) have the lower interest rates compared to the other smaller or poorer countries (Castro, 2009). The loans are intended to promote and stimulate social and economic growth within a country. For example, the loans can be taken out for implementing a program to improve infrastructures in the schools or to hire more teachers that are qualified. The loans may be taken out in the intention to improve the country, but in most cases, as the American saying goes, “the devil is in the detail”. This of course refers to the “fine print” or in this case the banks conditionalities. In my opinion, the reason why the World Bank has the most influence in international higher education policy reform is mainly that some of the loans carry conditionalities to them. This would mean that if a country were to take out a loan, the country must fulfill a certain number of requirements in order to get the loan (Castro, 2009). The conditionalities would then give the World Bank the upper hand in a say for any policy reform implementation, especially to the smaller countries. Smaller countries are more likely to take out loans and tend to take the advice from then banks because of the conditions on them (Castro, 2009).
Overall, all these international organizations are similar in which they all have a great influences in the neoliberal idealized views of an internationalized higher education system. Some may carry more unique influences than the others may; such as OEDC creating the PISA tool for Assessment, The WTO and its GATS treaty, or the UNSECO promoting a moral concern. All of these influences at the end of the day are minor compared to the World Bank’s loan conditionalities. According to Castro (2009), “The World Bank is currently the leading agent on education and development issues. As a result of the loans it grants and the related loan conditions, it has become the most influential external actor in the educational policies of Southern countries” (p. 128). In other words, The World Bank has a better chance of imposing countries to follow their agenda since there is money, terms of agreement, and many risks involved.
References
Castro, M. (2009). Can multilateral banks educate the world?. International handbook of
comparative education. Springer Science & Business Media. 455-477.
Edwards, D. B., Okitsu, T., Da Costa, R., & Kitamura, Y. (2017). Regaining Legitimacy in the
Context of Global Governance? UNESCO, Education for All Coordination and the
Global Monitoring Report. International Review of Education, 63(3), 403-416.
Rizvi, f., & Lingard, B. (2009). The OECD and global shifts in education policy. International
handbook of comparative education. Springer Science & Business Media. 437-453.
Verger, A. (2010). GATS, markets and higher education. WTO/GATS and the global politics of
higher education. Taylor & Francis group. 42-62.
Verger, A. (2010). For or against education liberalization. WTO/GATS and the global politics of
higher education. Taylor & Francis group. 126-148.
No comments:
Post a Comment