Upload
manoa-hawaii
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
1 OPEN FILE2
3 Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development4 and education governance: A framework of perspectives5 and practices
6 D. Brent Edwards Jr.1 • Steven J. Klees2
78 � UNESCO IBE 2015
9 Abstract While participation has for decades been a buzzword in development, the term
10 has been imbued with greatly different meanings depending on the perspective of the actor
11 in question. We attempt to clarify these meanings by presenting a tripartite framework.
12 This framework delineates the tenets and strategies of three overarching and comple-
13 mentary perspectives: those perspectives labelled ‘‘neoliberal,’’ ‘‘liberal,’’ and ‘‘progres-
14 sive’’. The framework pertains to participation in development generally and to the realm
15 of educational governance specifically, which has long been at the forefront of the theory
16 and practice of participation.
17 Keywords Participation � Development � Decentralization � Governance � Education �18 Neoliberal � Liberal � Progressive
19
20
21 Participation, in one form or another, has for many decades been a buzzword in devel-
22 opment (Cornwall 2006; Leal 2007). Indeed, nearly twenty years ago, Dudley (1993) noted
23 the following: ‘‘Participation used to be the rallying cry of the radicals; its presence is now
24 effectively obligatory in all policy documents and project proposals from the international
25 donors and implementing agencies’’ (p. 7). Despite its commonplace nature, however, the
26 meanings attributed to it are often inconsistent. In the decades since Dudley’s (1993)
A1 The present article includes a revised and expanded theoretical discussion of the three perspectives origi-A2 nally presented in Edwards and Klees (2012).
A3 & D. Brent Edwards Jr.A4 [email protected]
A5 Steven J. KleesA6 [email protected]
A7 1 Drexel University, 3001 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
A8 2 University of Maryland, 3112 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA
123
ProspectsDOI 10.1007/s11125-015-9367-9
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
27 observation, the popularity of participation as a central concept in development has only
28 increased, and one can now found this concept in such fields as economics, education,
29 organizational studies, philosophy, political science, public policy, and sociology, among
30 others. What further complicates discussion of participation is that it may pertain to a
31 number of different actors and levels, ranging from the individual to institutions and from
32 the local to the global, and this is to say nothing of the variety of actual policies and
33 strategies that various proponents recommend and implement in practice to engender
34 participation. One thing, however, is certain: ‘‘[T]here is something very seductive about
35 the idea that people ought to be directly involved in the decisions that affect their lives’’
36 (Roberts 2004, p. 341). While the concept of participation captivates, the variety of defi-
37 nitions and usages in theory and practice frustrates.
38 In this article, we respond to the need for greater clarity around the notion of partici-
39 pation in development and education governance. We do this not by engaging in a com-
40 prehensive review of all related literature but rather by presenting a framework that
41 delineates three overarching and complementary perspectives on this concept. While this
42 paper relates the concept of participation to development generally, throughout we extend
43 our discussion and analysis to the realm of educational governance, an area that has long
44 been at the forefront of the theory and practice of participation, especially as a focus within
45 the broader literature on development (Cornwall 2006; Edwards 2012; Leal 2007). In
46 addition to fleshing out the tenets of these three perspectives, we identify and discuss a
47 number of specific practices and policies related to each.
48 Three perspectives on participation in development and education49 governance
50 The three perspectives under which approaches to participation in development tend to fall
51 are: neoliberal, liberal, and progressive. Although each perspective is an ideal type with
52 characteristics that clearly set it apart from the other two, it should be noted that these three
53 paradigms are more continuous and overlapping than mutually exclusive (Cornwall, 2008).
54 Table 1 summarizes the general aspects of the three perspectives as well as the discussion,
55 below, of how they manifest in education governance.
56 Neoliberal perspective
57 At its core, this perspective is inspired by the supposed efficient operation of free markets,
58 as understood by the neoclassical school of economics. As such, proponents of neoliberal
59 development advocate strategies of privatization, deregulation, competition, and market
60 liberalization. The guiding principles of the neoliberal perspective have for many decades
61 been applied to educational governance. The result has been the promotion of educational
62 privatization, public-private partnerships, market-based solutions predicated on parental
63 choice and user fees, and accountability-based polices of school management decentral-
64 ization to the community level. On this last point, we note that the diversity of perspectives
65 on decentralization is equal to that for participation. For simplicity, we refer in this article
66 to decentralization at the community level, as described by Di Gropello (2006).
67 Policies from this perspective tend to reflect a few key qualities. The first is con-
68 sumerism—that is, the idea that parents and students are customers of education services
69 and that parents should choose from among competing schools, often through voucher
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
Tab
le1
Th
ree
per
spec
tiv
eso
np
arti
cip
atio
nin
dev
elo
pm
ent
and
edu
cati
on
go
ver
nan
ce
Char
acte
rist
ics
Neo
liber
alL
iber
alP
rogre
ssiv
e
Gover
nan
cebas
edon
…C
on
sum
eris
mR
educi
ng
stat
ere
spo
nsi
bil
ity
Incr
easi
ng
ind
ivid
ual
and
/or
com
mun
ity
resp
on
sib
ilit
y
Ex
isti
ng
inst
itu
tio
ns
(go
ver
nm
enta
l,n
on
go
ver
nm
enta
l,in
tern
atio
nal
)In
stit
uti
on
ally
dep
enden
tp
arti
cip
ato
ryp
roce
sses
Mea
nin
gfu
ldec
isio
n-m
akin
gpow
erfo
rin
div
idual
san
dg
rou
ps
Abil
ity
topurs
ue
alte
rnat
ive
form
sof
dev
elo
pm
ent
and
go
ver
nan
ceC
riti
qu
eo
fd
om
inan
tg
ov
ernm
enta
lst
ruct
ure
san
dd
evel
op
men
tp
oli
cy
Pri
mar
yp
rin
cip
les
Effi
cien
cyF
ree-
mar
ket
acco
un
tab
ilit
yC
om
pet
itio
n
Inst
rum
enta
lv
alu
eo
fp
arti
cip
atio
nA
gen
cyP
erso
nal
empow
erm
ent
Gro
up
acti
on
Str
uct
ura
ltr
ansf
orm
atio
no
fpoli
tica
l,ec
on
om
ic,
soci
al,
and
cult
ura
lsy
stem
s
Cen
tral
stra
teg
ies
incl
ud
e…
Mar
ket
-bas
edpoli
cies
/str
ateg
ies
com
munit
y-l
evel
dec
entr
aliz
atio
nvia
mar
ket
-bas
edac
cou
nta
bil
ity
mec
han
ism
sP
riv
atiz
atio
n
Inst
ituti
on
ally
spo
nso
red
con
sult
atio
ns
(e.g
.,p
ov
erty
redu
ctio
nst
rate
gy
pap
ers,
par
tici
pat
ory
pover
tyas
sess
men
ts),
sum
mit
s,ro
un
dta
ble
s,w
ork
shop
s,an
dco
nfe
ren
ces
Rep
rese
nta
tive
dem
ocr
acy
Con
scie
nti
zati
on
So
cial
mo
vem
ents
Civ
ilso
ciet
yorg
aniz
atio
nca
mpai
gns
Info
rmed
po
licy
dia
log
ue
Del
iber
ativ
edem
ocr
atic
dec
isio
n-
mak
ing
Em
pow
ered
par
tici
pat
ory
go
ver
nan
ce
Indiv
idual
par
tici
pat
ion
ing
ov
ernan
ceis
…A
sp
art
of
inv
isib
leh
and
(vo
tew
ith
mo
ney
,th
roug
hsc
ho
ol
cho
ice)
Th
roug
hsc
ho
ol
cou
nci
ls(i
ndec
entr
aliz
atio
n)
Via
soci
alp
ress
ure
(in
dec
entr
aliz
atio
n)
Inpar
tici
pat
ory
pover
tyas
sess
men
ts(e
.g.,
via
feed
bac
kp
rov
isio
n,
dat
aco
llec
tio
n,
dat
aan
aly
sis,
rep
ort
gen
erat
ion
,p
oli
cyre
com
men
dat
ion
s,an
d/o
rp
oli
cyd
ialo
gu
ew
ith
/on
beh
alf
of
faci
lita
tin
go
rgan
izat
ion
)V
iaci
vil
soci
ety
org
aniz
atio
nre
pre
sen
tati
on
Vo
tin
g(i
nre
pre
sen
tati
ve
dem
ocr
acy
)
Via
per
son
alem
po
wer
men
tA
sm
emb
ero
fso
cial
mov
emen
tco
llec
tive
or
acti
vis
tgro
up
As
par
tici
pan
tin
dec
isio
nm
akin
gro
ote
din
del
iber
ativ
ed
emo
crac
yV
iaci
vil
soci
ety
org
aniz
atio
nre
pre
sen
tati
on
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
Tab
le1
con
tin
ued
Char
acte
rist
ics
Neo
liber
alL
iber
alP
rogre
ssiv
e
Nat
ure
of
citi
zen
Rat
ion
al,
uti
lity
-max
imiz
ing
con
sum
erS
oci
ally
resp
on
sib
leci
tize
nM
emb
ero
fso
ciet
yw
ith
resp
on
sib
ilit
yto
par
tici
pat
ein
avai
lable
pro
cess
es
Po
liti
cal
bei
ng
Soci
alju
stic
e–ori
ente
dac
tivis
tM
emb
ero
fco
llec
tiv
e
Pri
mar
yca
taly
sts
bri
ng
ing
abo
ut
par
tici
pat
ory
stra
tegie
sIn
tern
atio
nal
finan
cial
inst
ituti
ons
Mu
lti-
and
bi-
late
ral
dev
elo
pm
ent
org
aniz
atio
ns
Conse
rvat
ive
thin
kta
nks
Inte
rnat
ion
alfi
nan
cial
inst
itu
tio
ns
Go
ver
nm
enta
lin
stit
uti
on
sM
ult
i-an
db
i-la
tera
ld
evel
op
men
to
rgan
izat
ion
sC
ivil
soci
ety
org
aniz
atio
ns
Cri
tica
lp
edag
og
ues
So
cial
mo
vem
ents
Act
ivis
tg
rou
ps
Civ
ilso
ciet
yo
rgan
izat
ion
s
Pri
mar
yac
tors
real
izin
gpar
tici
pat
ory
stra
teg
ies
Indiv
idual
sas
consu
mer
sor
clie
nts
Co
mm
unit
ies
asm
echan
ism
so
ffr
ee-
mar
ket
acco
un
tab
ilit
yR
edu
ced
bu
tst
rong
stat
eT
he
mar
ket
Go
ver
nm
enta
lin
stit
uti
on
sIn
tern
atio
nal
fin
anci
alin
stit
uti
on
sM
ult
i-an
db
i-la
tera
ld
evel
op
men
to
rgan
izat
ion
sIn
div
idu
als
and
com
mu
nit
ies
(as
inp
uts
)
Cri
tica
lp
edag
og
ues
Co
mm
unit
ies
asco
llec
tiv
esS
oci
alm
ovem
ents
,ac
tivis
tg
roups
Civ
ilso
ciet
yo
rgan
izat
ion
sT
ran
sfo
rmed
go
ver
nm
ent
and
/or
econ
om
y
Port
rayal
of
stat
ean
dm
arket
Sta
teas
sum
edto
be
inef
fici
ent
and
inef
fect
ive,
but
per
spec
tive
reli
eso
nst
rong
stat
eto
imp
lem
ent
po
lici
es
No
tan
tim
ark
et;
lib
eral
par
tici
pat
ion
lay
ered
up
on/c
oex
ists
wit
hm
ark
et-
bas
edap
pro
ach
Cri
tica
lo
fre
pro
du
ctiv
en
atu
reo
fb
oth
stat
ean
dm
ark
et
So
urc
e:A
dap
ted
from
Ed
war
ds
and
Kle
es(2
01
2)
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
70 schemes, although charter schools are becoming an increasingly popular avenue for pol-
71 icymakers (Fabricant and Fine 2012; Munn 1993). Second, these policies encourage the
72 reduction of state responsibility for educational provision and funding. Two prime
73 examples are public-private partnerships and the wholesale privatization of the provision
74 of public education services (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guaqueta 2009; World Bank
75 2009). Third, and concomitantly, these policies increase individual and/or community
76 responsibility for outcomes; for example, through user fees or school governance decen-
77 tralization (Thobani 1984; World Bank 2003).
78 The above characteristics are not to suggest that the neoliberal perspective envisions a
79 weak central state, however. Indeed, neoliberal policies rely on a strong central state to
80 design curricula, implement policies, manage voucher initiatives, and hold schools
81 accountable for student achievement (Meade and Gershberg 2008). In short, neoliberal
82 education policies expect the state to be able to create and maintain appropriate marketlike
83 conditions.
84 Justifying these policies are the principles of efficiency, competition and ‘‘free market’’
85 accountability (Gross, Shaw, and Shapiro 2003). Schools must respond to either individual
86 parental choice or to community management, or else face repercussions from the central
87 level, or possibly from a school council made up of parents with some degree of admin-
88 istrative, budgetary, or personnel management authority, in the most extreme examples (Di
89 Gropello 2006; World Bank 2003). Under these scenarios, some find that schools will
90 respond to the desires and pressures of their consumers and will use their resources more
91 efficiently and effectively (Chubb and Moe 1990). Critics, however, assert that, to the
92 extent that neoliberalism relies on policies based on choice, competition, and the market, it
93 attempts to ‘‘delegitimate and disengage government and society from any collective
94 responsibility for social welfare’’ (Klees 1999, p. 21). That is, for critics, neoliberal policies
95 are as much about discrediting the state as they are about the primacy of efficiency and
96 accountability.
97 While the focus of the present article is not accountability, it is important to note that the
98 liberal and progressive perspectives have their own conceptions of this term. The liberal
99 perspective would view accountability as the process in which individuals within orga-
100 nizations (be they schools or other organizations involved in educational services or pol-
101 icymaking) participate as they justify—typically, to the state, to governmental auditors, or
102 to the public—the actions they took as they worked to meet the goals of a public school
103 system (Leithwood and Earl 2000). The progressive perspective, on the other hand, con-
104 trasts with the neoliberal perspective in that it focuses on the ways in which groups,
105 communities, collectives, or families can work together (not as individual consumers but as
106 actors in solidarity) to ensure certain outcomes from public or private entities for them-
107 selves or others—e.g., by supporting students, by pressuring politicians, or by mobilizing
108 against certain policies, such as privatization (Gross, Shaw, and Shapiro 2003).
109 With regard to participation in education governance specifically, the perspective of
110 neoliberalism conceptualizes two main forms: individual participation in the market and
111 community participation in school councils. If we make schools respond either to the
112 invisible hand of the market (as with school choice) or to the desires of parents and
113 communities (as with decentralization), then participation can be equated with having a
114 role in the governance of education (Chubb and Moe 1990; Di Gropello 2006). Market-
115 based policies assume individuals participate by choosing among available options for
116 where to send their child to school; accountability-based decentralization policies assume
117 parents participate by applying pressure to or through the councils governing education at
118 the community level. Neoliberal policies thus advance consumer decisions in place of
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
119 governance structures that allow other forms of participation. To neoliberal critics, market-
120 based policies are a weak form of participation in governance because that participation
121 either presupposes the possession of sufficient resources to attend private school, relies on
122 the ability of parents to select among schools, is confined to the school’s governing council
123 (which includes parents or, in some cases, is made up entirely of parents; see Di Gropello
124 2006), or takes place indirectly, outside of formal decision-making processes, through
125 social pressure at the community level.
126 In the case of this last example, the rhetoric of decentralization assumes that community
127 members not on school governing councils will motivate the council to manage the school
128 more efficiently and the teachers to teach more effectively by applying pressure informally:
129 through social mechanisms or by visiting the school. This form of participation can be
130 labelled ‘‘accountability-via-transparency’’; the idea is that—as a result of parental
131 involvement in school councils—‘‘so much is visible in each school that its watchers and
132 constituents … routinely ‘regulate’ it through market-style mechanisms rather than com-
133 mand-and-control structures’’ (Finn, Manno, and Vanourek 2000, as cited in Gross, Shaw,
134 and Shapiro 2003, p. 19). While this statement is also true of school choice and privati-
135 zation arrangements, the point here is that, in community-level decentralization, partici-
136 pation occurs both directly through school councils and indirectly through the pressure
137 created when the school knows that it is being watched. In that community-level decen-
138 tralization engenders participation in education governance that operates through informal
139 channels of social interaction, such policies lead to what has been called ‘‘governing
140 without governing’’ (Olssen 1996, p. 340, as cited in Fischman, Ball, and Gvirta 2003, p. 4;
141 see also Peters and Pierre 1998). By instituting such policies, the state creates a situation in
142 which it moves away from the direct management of schools and toward oversight at a
143 distance.
144 To summarize: participation, in the neoliberal perspective, materializes through eco-
145 nomic and managerial decisions. Individuals and communities participate as self-interested
146 consumers or as a links in an accountability mechanism that will lead schools to enhance
147 their efficiency and improve educational outcomes.
148 Liberal perspective
149 Whereas approaches from the neoliberal perspective can be characterized as ‘‘rolling down
150 the State’’ to introduce market mechanisms (Greig, Hulme, and Turner 2007, p. 229), the
151 liberal perspective can be characterized as bringing individuals and groups into the state
152 and other established institutions—be they national or international, governmental or
153 nongovernmental in nature (Dingwerth and Nanz forthcoming; Long 2001; Robb 2001).
154 Moreover, those who advocate these approaches frequently found them on an underlying
155 rationale of instrumentalism, and, because existing institutions fund and manage these
156 policies, they tend to maintain the status quo. It is important to note, as well, that the liberal
157 perspective is not necessarily opposed to neoliberal approaches to development and edu-
158 cational governance; liberal and neoliberal approaches can coexist.
159 Representative democracy, with its emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of citizen
160 participation in regular elections, is perhaps the most general and obvious form of liberal
161 participation (Held 1996). However, in the development arena, international, bilateral, and
162 multilateral institutions organize the most highly visible and touted participation processes.
163 As Samoff (2007) points out, the presence of these institutions is a fixed feature of
164 development: ‘‘they are the furniture, the paint on the walls, the air in the room—a part of
165 the setting’’ (p. 52). The liberal perspective does not consider participatory processes
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
166 structured by these organizations to be problematic; on the contrary, that perspective is
167 concerned with how these institutions can positively contribute to development by facil-
168 itating participatory processes for specific purposes. To that end, and with regard to both
169 development generally and educational governance specifically, the most common forms
170 of liberal participation include: participatory poverty assessments (PPAs), poverty reduc-
171 tion strategy papers (PRSPs), and the formation of organizational or governmental policies.
172 We discuss each in turn.
173 Participatory poverty assessments (PPA) are a well-known set of mechanisms or pro-
174 cesses used ‘‘to include poor people in the analysis of poverty with the objective of
175 influencing policy’’ (Robb 2001, 4). One example of a common PPA used by the World
176 Bank is beneficiary assessment (BA). Policymakers first design an assessment tool to
177 facilitate poverty analysis, and then researchers conduct focus groups and interviews in a
178 sample of communities to inform project managers and to influence project design (Robb
179 2001). Another type of PPA is participatory policy research (PPR). As Robb (2001)
180 explains: ‘‘PPR uses tools from various methodologies … [for] the creation of policy
181 messages with communities contributing to the analysis’’ (17). This strategy thus deepens
182 the level of participation by making poor individuals and communities co-analysts of data
183 and co-constructors of policy recommendations.
184 PPA strategies are commonly employed in development; they regularly encompass and
185 go beyond the education system. Indeed, PPAs often cover not only social but also eco-
186 nomic and infrastructural issues. In a relatively recent PPA from Liberia, researchers
187 selected three communities (one urban, one rural, and one remote) from each of the
188 country’s 15 counties in order to gather information and understand perspectives from the
189 local level on peace and security, governance, the economy, the environment, health, and
190 education (LISGS 2008). More targeted PPAs are also common, however, as when an
191 international institution might conduct a BA in order to assess how communities and
192 students are impacted by a school meals program, for example (Salmen and Amelga 1998).
193 Less evidence exists—either within or beyond the education sector—around the applica-
194 tion in practice of PPRs, wherein communities contribute to data analysis and the elabo-
195 ration of recommendations. As such, across PPAs, the role of people at the local level is
196 principally restricted to that of data providers. Critics thus point out that such strategies
197 serve, at best, to communicate community-level feedback and, at worst, to extract infor-
198 mation from the poor while unreasonably raising their expectations and legitimizing
199 institutions’ or government’s preselected courses of action.
200 Poverty-reduction strategy papers (PRSPs) are another well-known participatory strat-
201 egy in which the government and all relevant stakeholders engage in order to produce a
202 document to guide a country’s general development strategy. After the Southeast Asian
203 economic crisis of the late 1990s, the World Bank (‘‘the Bank’’) and the IMF agreed that
204 they must—jointly—begin with a PRSP before engaging in lending. To summarize: PRSPs
205 should (a) lay out a plan ‘‘to foster growth and reduce poverty’’ that will serve as a basis for
206 future work; (b) be country owned, with the Bank and the IMF playing advisory roles; and
207 (c) be developed with the widespread participation of all stakeholders, from other donors to
208 grassroots organizations (World Bank 2001). In the Bank’s (2000) words, the approach of
209 PRSPs
210 promotes participatory processes in all principal sectors of society, at all levels
211 within the government, and establishes mechanisms that link the national and local
212 levels and in civil society at both the national and local levels, paying particular
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
213 attention to excluded and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and disabled, women,
214 and youth. (p. 240)
215 While many civil society organizations (CSOs) initially hoped that this would be a
216 fundamental change in the orientation and operation of the Bank and the Fund,
217 considerable disappointment has resulted, and even the Bank’s own evaluations show little
218 PRSP adherence, to date, to the proposed principles (Rowden and Irama 2004; World Bank
219 2004, 2005). Participation has been restricted by donors to consultation, and observers
220 described that consultation as rushed, superficial, and half-hearted (Rowden and Irama
221 2004). Furthermore, the content of PRSPs has looked little different from the traditional
222 requirements of structural adjustment programs in that they have reflected limited attention
223 to social sector protection and contained the same stringent loan conditions (Dijkstra 2005;
224 Gottschalk 2005; Grusky 2000). Moreover, an evaluation by CSOs of PRSP experiences in
225 Africa, Asia, and Latin America found that ‘‘[e]xternally sparked top-down participation
226 tended to take the form of the participation of selected CSO[s] in selected meetings with
227 preselected parameters to discuss pre-existing plans’’ (Guttal, Bendana, and Wanguza
228 2001, 4). (In domestic and international contexts, the persistent efforts of civil society
229 networks toward pursuing alternative development strategies and ‘‘linking up citizens’
230 demands for fundamental rights across national boundaries’’ demonstrate the progressive
231 leanings and tendencies of many CSOs, even as they engage in predominantly liberal
232 forums for change (Mundy 2008, p. 5). See Edwards and Brehm (2015) for a case study of
233 the liberal-progressive tensions inherent in recent efforts by the Global Campaign for
234 Education to elevate the participation of national civil society organizations in education
235 policymaking.)
236 Caillods and Hallak (2004) review the role of the education sector in the construction of
237 PRSPs. As they detail, the prime minister (or the minister of planning or finance) creates a
238 PRSP team comprised of representatives of relevant stakeholders (including cabinet rep-
239 resentatives, different layers of government, the private sector, and civil society). This
240 team leads the process of involving other stakeholders through working groups and con-
241 sultative national, regional, and local forums in order to gather information. This PRSP
242 team also formulates the PRSP itself, with the support of a technical secretariat. Impor-
243 tantly, representatives from each of the line ministries—including education—participate
244 in the working groups; in addition, education-related CSOs participate in the relevant
245 consultations, conferences, and forums organized by the lead PRSP team. As Caillods and
246 Hallak (2004) also note, despite this broad and multilevel participation, the final education
247 content of PRSPs tends to be guided not by local-level input but, rather, by preexisting
248 governmental education-sector strategies and by the international agenda for education
249 (e.g., Education For All and the Millennium Development Goals). Not surprisingly, they
250 conclude as well that the level of participation also depends on the strength of civil society
251 across countries.
252 Of course, in the development of strategy documents, PRSPs are only one example of
253 the liberal approach. Governments—many times with the assistance of international
254 organizations—often carry out similarly inclusive participatory processes, even when they
255 are not prompted to do so for the purpose of a PRSP. The goal may be, for instance, to
256 elaborate an overarching ten-year plan to guide general policy actions in the education
257 sector (Edwards, Victoria, and Martin 2015). On the other hand, multilateral organizations
258 have increasingly invited a range of stakeholders into their own policy formation processes
259 (Miller-Adams 1999). With relevance to education, in 2010 the World Bank led one of the
260 highest profile processes, to gather input and feedback for its current strategy document
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
261 Learning for All (Verger, Edwards, and Kosar-Altinyelken 2014). In this case, two rounds
262 of consultation took place with representatives from government, bilateral institutions,
263 academia, and international and national CSOs. In all, this process entailed 34 meetings in
264 24 different countries—with a total of 69 nations represented.
265 Despite their differences, the liberal approaches to participation share three common-
266 alities. The first is that they occur in spaces, through processes, and with resources that a
267 range of governmental, nongovernmental, and development institutions provide. Indeed, in
268 all cases, participation by community members or civil society occurs through formal
269 processes that actors—who originate outside the community context—initiate and manage.
270 Second, in these liberal approaches, governmental, nongovernmental, and/or development
271 institutions invite community members, their representatives, and/or CSOs acting on their
272 behalf to engage in dialogue, information sharing, and (less commonly) agenda setting,
273 strategy development, and policymaking.
274 Third, these approaches underscore participation’s instrumental value, leading to what
275 Weiler (1983) referred to as ‘‘compensatory legitimation’’. In other words, liberal
276 approaches tend to enable and sustain participation only as a front-end process that does
277 not carry over to program management or policy implementation (Dingwerth and Nanz
278 forthcoming). Representatives of governmental, nongovernmental, and/or development
279 institutions value these forms of participation to the extent that they result in better data
280 analysis and problem identification and engender increased ownership and buy-in from
281 stakeholders. As such, they tend to reify, rather than redirect, those processes and structures
282 into which they are fed—an assertion that some have made, for example, in relation to the
283 creation of the World Bank’s Learning for All strategy document (Arnove 2012; Steiner-
284 Khamsi 2012). Put another way, liberal participation maintains rather than challenges the
285 status quo.
286 Though the liberal perspective prides itself on its ability to accommodate the voices of
287 individuals and communities in participatory processes, many criticize it for the above-
288 mentioned tendencies. Detractors point to the nature of institutions and their representa-
289 tives to ensure their own longevity and survival, despite calls for and claims of the
290 participation that will benefit those most in need (Cooke and Kothari 2001; Rowden and
291 Irama 2004; Samoff 1999). (See the discussion in the following section for more pro-
292 gressive criticisms, as well as Cooke and Kothari [2001].) Take the following quote by
293 Kapoor (2004), for example:
294 Participation is … molded to fit bureaucratic or organizational needs: people can
295 meet, but decisions have to be taken quickly to obey budgetary or reporting dead-
296 lines; community input is good, but quantitative information (e.g., counting votes) is
297 privileged over qualitative information (e.g., women’s narratives); or … participation
298 takes place, but it is supported by insufficient technical and financial capacity, or is
299 even used instrumentally to ‘legitimize the implementing agency as grassroots ori-
300 ented’. In this scheme of things, participation is ‘managed’ and ‘institutionalized’; it
301 becomes ‘tokenistic,’ with the alleged beneficiaries treated ‘largely [as] objects
302 rather than subjects’. … Under the managerialist cloak, then, participation stands far
303 from community empowerment, wherein facilitating organizations are meant to work
304 themselves out of a job; it stands, rather, for the aggrandizement of institutional
305 authority. (pp. 126–127)
306 Progressives recognize these tendencies and, thus, seek to transform larger structures such
307 that they foster more meaningful forms of participation, as will be discussed in the
308 subsequent section.
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
309 Neoliberals also criticize liberal processes, though for entirely different reasons.
310 Specifically, they interpret liberal mechanisms of participation as inefficient, ineffective,
311 and inequitable. From the neoliberal perspective, participation in education governance
312 through market-based mechanisms is most desirable because they induce efficiency and
313 therefore produce better outcomes; in contrast, this perspective sees liberal forms of par-
314 ticipation as analogous to forms of market interventionism.
315 Progressive perspective
316 The progressive paradigm begins with a critique of current structures of development and
317 governance (Cleaver 1999). These include the market and representative democracy, not
318 only because they reduce participation to consumerism and periodic voting but also
319 because they tend to reproduce the existing social order and various systems of oppression,
320 such as capitalism, patriarchy, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism, among others.
321 (See Edwards [2014] for an example of a progressive critique of the liberal perspective on
322 education, democracy and development.) Furthermore, the mainstream development
323 approach of market liberalization, privatization, and conservative fiscal policy suppresses
324 wages, cuts social programs, promotes an export economy, and exacerbates inequalities
325 (Korzeniewicz and Smith 2000), and therefore many see it as a form of violence against the
326 poor (see, e.g., Rahnema 1992). To the extent that current systems are reproductive and
327 disenfranchising, they are seen by progressives as disempowering, and therefore inherently
328 non-participatory.
329 Progressives, then, understand participation differently—in a way that goes beyond
330 people being actors in the market or instrumental inputs in an institutional process. For
331 progressives, participation must lead to and reflect more just and democratic relations
332 among peoples (Hickey and Mohan 2005). Participation must involve empowerment,
333 where empowerment
334 is regarded as a process which enables individuals or groups to change balances of
335 power in social, economic and political relations in a society. It refers to many
336 activities, including but not confined to awareness of the societal forces which
337 oppress people and to actions which change power relationships. (UNDP 1994,
338 p. 86, emphasis added, as cited in Ahmed 1999, pp. 86–87)
339 The progressive perspective thus understands empowerment as a process of change in
340 which people address various social, economic, and political power relationships and
341 replace them with alternative ways of organizing a society (Cleaver 2002). These
342 alternative forms should not only exhibit more equal and equitable relationships but should
343 also facilitate the involvement of people from the local or grassroots level in making and
344 implementing decisions and policies that affect their lives (Edwards 2010b).
345 Accordingly, for progressives, the issue of participation in development generally and in
346 education specifically is about the transformations mentioned above. Consequently, we can
347 distil three broad points that guide and characterize progressive participation: (1) personal
348 transformation through the development of an awareness of oppression and a critical
349 consciousness; (2) purposeful individual and group action against oppressive political,
350 economic, and social systems; and (3) work toward actual transformation of those systems.
351 Though progressive approaches to participation ultimately have in common the above
352 agenda, the strategies that proponents pursue vary widely. Furthermore, not all progressive
353 approaches incorporate each of the three points delineated above, neither in development
354 generally nor with regard to education governance.
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
355 A few examples make this clear. Approaches such as popular education focus more on
356 how to achieve personal transformation—using education as the means, first, to develop
357 critical consciousness, or ‘‘conscientization’’ as Freire (1970) famously labelled it, and,
358 second, to motivate targeted action against oppressive structures and policies (Kane 2001).
359 In this way, individuals learn to read the word and read the world (Freire 1997). (The
360 approach to education popularized by Freire is known as ‘‘critical pedagogy’’ in North
361 America and as ‘‘popular education’’ in Latin America.)
362 Other progressive approaches to participation in education governance focus more on
363 the second point—that is, on mobilizing individuals to participate in social movements
364 (Anyon 2005). The Landless People’s Movement of Brazil is a prime example. Here,
365 participation by teachers, students, and the community is integral both to the governance of
366 education and the success of the movement more generally as it engages in ‘‘the struggle
367 for land reform’’ and develops ‘‘radical new forms of grassroots democracy, environmental
368 care and co-operative production’’ (McCowan 2003, p. 1; see also Tarlau 2013).
369 Relatedly, domestic and international CSOs, as representatives of citizens’ demands and
370 interests, often embody the participation of marginalized groups. They push on their behalf
371 for, among other things, fundamental modifications to dominant approaches of develop-
372 ment and the governance and provision of education (Mundy and Murphy 2001). They do
373 this proactively—and often transnationally—within and beyond those processes that
374 governments and donor institutions fund and structure. In that they embody the partici-
375 pation of civil society generally while they struggle for changes in the governance and
376 provision of education, these organizations represent progressive forms of participation in
377 development. A prime example is the sustained efforts by Oxfam and ActionAid (both
378 development NGOs from the North with success in fostering partnerships with NGOs in
379 the South), along with Education International (an international association of teachers’
380 unions, with 23 million members) in the Global Campaign for Education—efforts that
381 began in the fall of 1999 and have continued (Mundy 2012; Mundy and Murphy 2001,
382 p. 103). See Verger and Novelli (2012), for additional examples of progressive partici-
383 pation by CSOs in educational governance in a number of different countries.
384 In the search for alternatives to techno-rational development, one of the best-known
385 options is deliberative democracy (Crocker 2008). This is a participatory and potentially
386 transformative decision-making approach in which decisions center on deliberation and
387 dialogue by those (or their representatives) affected by decisions on a given policy. This
388 approach understands the average person as not only capable of engaging in reasoned
389 judgment but, significantly, as integral to a legitimate decision-making system (Held
390 1996). Proponents of deliberative democracy promote it because of the intrinsic value
391 associated with increasing individual agency through political participation, as well as on
392 constructive (as in the educative power of the process), instrumental (as in the community-
393 generating power of the process), and utilitarian (as in the correctness of outcomes)
394 grounds (Dreze and Sen 2002). In that education affects society as a whole as well as
395 individuals’ ability to exercise their agency, proponents of deliberative democracy suggest
396 that the principles of this approach should apply not only to government generally but also
397 to the education sector in particular (Dreze and Sen 2002).
398 The theory of empowered participatory governance (EPG) elaborated by Fung and
399 Wright (2003) takes the decision-making principles of deliberative democracy and com-
400 bines them with institutional principles that call for a transfiguration of commonly found
401 institutional arrangements. Beyond the devolution of public decision-making authority to
402 local units, these institutional principles necessitate two developments: (1) ‘‘formal link-
403 ages of responsibility, resource distribution, and communication that connect these units to
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
404 each other and to superordinate, centralised authorities’’, and (2) ‘‘the use and generation of
405 new state institutions to support and guide these decentred problem-solving efforts’’ (Fung
406 and Wright 2003, pp. 15–16). In effect, EPG is a form of decentralization based on
407 deliberative democratic decision-making with the addition of formal and reciprocal
408 institutional relationships that ensure localities are connected to other localities and to the
409 central ministries for the purpose of resource distribution, training, and general support. In
410 practice, municipalities in Brazil such as Porto Alegre, the fourth-largest city in that
411 country, have shown that it is possible to create within the state itself concentric demo-
412 cratic forums at the school, community, and municipal levels that serve as spaces in which
413 to determine curricula, elect principals, and establish overarching normative goals (Ed-
414 wards 2010a).
415 Separately, Reimers and McGinn (1997) elaborate and provide examples of an approach
416 to policymaking at the national level known as ‘‘informed dialogue’’, which is both liberal
417 and progressive in nature. In that policymaking is here based on an institutionally
418 dependent process of research-informed, national-level dialogue among a broad base of
419 participants from across government, civil society, and the private sector, it is liberal.
420 However, in that the process of informed dialogue is iterative and emphasizes inclusive-
421 ness, deliberative democratic decision-making, the importance of trust among participants,
422 and the social construction of knowledge, it is progressive. Honest deliberation can often
423 lead to conscientization, and an emphasis on the social construction of knowledge means
424 that decision making departs from the perspectives of those who face the challenges being
425 addressed. Informed dialogue thus demonstrates improvement over more tokenistic ver-
426 sions of participation in policymaking and is at once liberal as well as progressive.
427 In contrast, more radical progressive approaches address the nexus of politics, eco-
428 nomics, and ownership of the means of production more generally (Alperovitz 2013). One
429 particular example of how a group has acted to bring to fruition all three points of the
430 progressive agenda is that of the Zapatistas, a group of assorted indigenous peoples from
431 southern Mexico who engaged in armed resistance with the Mexican government in the
432 1990s to achieve full autonomy. They dedicated themselves to working against the inju-
433 rious neoliberal economic policies and destructive bilingual education policies of the
434 Mexican state—to pursue, instead, political sovereignty, sustainable economic develop-
435 ment, and alternative education policies (Baronnet 2008). Importantly, the Zapatistas are
436 just one example of an indigenous people who seek alternative development through
437 ontologies and epistemologies that are incompatible with the ways of being and knowing
438 advanced by Western, rationalist, functionalist, and capitalist approaches (see, for instance,
439 Grande 2004).
440 While not each of these three points we lay out above are present in all progressive
441 approaches, what each progressive approach does have in common is an emphasis on the
442 empowerment and transformation of individuals and groups to meaningfully contribute to
443 alternative forms of development and education governance. Because progressive
444 approaches to development and education governance respond to the status quo and seek
445 alternatives to it, the strategies they engage with and the replacement structures they create
446 look different across contexts and focus on one or many levels of engagement, ranging
447 from the local to the global, as our examples have shown.
448 Like the neoliberal and liberal paradigms, progressive approaches are not without their
449 flaws. In particular, progressive conceptions of development and education governance
450 presuppose participation in various forms, but individuals and groups may not be predis-
451 posed to participate. Ideally, participation is a dialogical and negotiated process, not for
452 policymakers or anyone else to impose, but for those affected and their allies to develop
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
453 from below. It may not always proceed in this fashion, however. In response, progressives
454 would argue that the continuing economic, political, technological, and cultural global-
455 ization will increasingly affect the day-to-day lives of the world’s population, and that, for
456 this reason, the challenge is to democratize this force, and this implies fostering widespread
457 participation (Mundy 2007). That is, given the reality of globalization, many suggest that it
458 is necessary to engage with and transform it—preferably through participatory and
459 democratic means.
460 Discussion and conclusions
461 The preceding discussion, summarized by Table 1, argues that neoliberals found their
462 perspective in the principles of efficiency, accountability, and competition. This perspec-
463 tive emphasizes market- and narrow accountability-based forms of school management. In
464 theory, community-based educational governance, from this perspective, could involve
465 significant participation from parents. In practice, however, parents ideally act as an
466 accountability mechanism that has the ability to hire, fire, and incentivize teachers. Liberal
467 forms overlap with the neoliberal approach. Such forms generally use ad hoc approaches to
468 participation as an instrumental means to compensate for the lack of formal participation
469 by individuals and community members in macro-level policymaking or project design.
470 Existing multilateral institutions and nongovernmental organizations of structure and
471 facilitate such efforts and thus often serve institutional needs more than those of the people
472 for whom they enhance participation. In contrast to these perspectives, the progressive
473 approach begins with a critique of the market and the state and seeks alternatives to them
474 that allow for robust participatory governance and sustainable and just development.
475 Consequently, this approach pursues strategies that result in personal conscientization,
476 group action, and structural transformation. These three perspectives, while they overlap
477 somewhat, clearly originate from and strive for distinct versions of development and
478 education governance. Yet, interestingly, all three can be—and often are—present in a
479 single country context; Edwards and Klees (2012) have shown this to be the case in El
480 Salvador, for example. Interested readers can find more extensive discussions of the
481 neoliberal example in Edwards 2015 and forthcoming; of the liberal example, in Edwards
482 2013; and of the progressive example, in Edwards and Avalos 2015.
483 Separately, we would like to make a point with regard to institutions, particularly
484 government institutions. That is, our focus above on liberal participation’s reliance on
485 existing governmental institutions is not meant to suggest that the neoliberal and pro-
486 gressive perspectives on participation do not also allow for or assume the presence of such
487 institutions. The difference, however, is the ends sought—or thought to result—from
488 reliance on them. For example, the neoliberal perspective does not object to governmental
489 (or, of course, private) institutions, so long as market principles guide or further their
490 governance of development and education initiatives. On the other hand, the progressive
491 perspective begins from the premise that we must transform those governmental and
492 private-sector institutions—that both liberals and neoliberals create—in such a way that
493 those institutions allow for empowerment and create opportunities for more meaningful
494 participation.
495 In the end, we do not claim that the three perspectives delineated here are all-encom-
496 passing or always applicable. Nor do we wish to claim that it is always clear within which
497 framework a particular example of participation operates. What we do argue is that calls
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
498 for and examples of participation are always political and ideological; our elaboration of
499 these three approaches focuses attention on that fact. This is extremely important. Calls for
500 (and attempts at) participation have become ubiquitous, but they are usually undifferen-
501 tiated and, often, all are assumed to be of positive value. Yet, predominant discussions of
502 and attempts at participation are neoliberal-instrumentalist in purpose, limited in nature,
503 and imbued with market ideology. It is important to recognize that neoliberal forms of
504 participation may simply reproduce inequality (as do neoliberal reforms more generally).
505 And it is also important to recognize that deeper, stronger forms of participation exist, as
506 discussed throughout this paper.
507508
509 References
510 Ahmed, S. (1999). Empowering local communities: Comilla approaches and experiences. In J. Mullen (Ed.),511 Rural poverty, empowerment and sustainable livelihoods (pp. 80–102). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.512 Alperovitz, G. (2013). What then must we do? Straight talk about the next American revolution. White River513 Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.514 Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New515 York: Routledge.516 Arnove, R. (2012). The World Bank’s ‘‘Education Strategy 2020’’: A personal account. In C. Collins & A.517 Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the World Bank’s education518 policy (pp. 63–80). Bingley, UK: Emerald.519 Baronnet, B. (2008). Rebel youth and Zapatista autonomous education. Latin American Perspectives, 28(4),520 112–124.521 Caillods, F., & Hallak, J. (2004). Education and PRSPs: A review of experiences. Paris: UNESCO. http://522 www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/PRSP.pdf.523 Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings524 Institute.525 Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participatory approaches to development.526 Journal of International Development, 11(4), 597–612.527 Cleaver, F. (2002). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In B.528 Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 36–55). New York: Zed Books.529 Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? New York: Zed Books.530 Cornwall, A. (2006). Historical perspectives on participation in development. Commonwealth and Com-531 parative Politics, 44, 49–65.532 Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘‘participation’’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development533 Journal, 43(3), 269–283.534 Crocker, D. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. New535 York: Cambridge University Press.536 Di Gropello, E. (2006). A comparative analysis of school-based management in Central America. Working537 paper no. 72. Washington, DC: World Bank.538 Dijkstra, G. (2005). The PRSP approach and the illusion of improved aid effectiveness: Lessons from539 Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua. Development Policy Review, 23(4), 443–464.540 Dingwerth, K., & Nanz, P. (forthcoming). Participation. In I. Johnstone, J. Katz Cogan, & I. Hurd (Eds.),541 Oxford handbook on international organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.542 Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. New York: Oxford University Press.543 Dudley, E. (1993). The critical villager: Beyond community participation. New York: Routledge.544 Edwards, D. B. (2010a). A comparison of local empowerment in education: Porto Alegre, Brazil and545 Chicago, USA. Research in Comparative and International Education, 5(2), 176–184.546 Edwards, D. B. (2010b). Trends in governance and decision-making: A democratic analysis with attention to547 application in education. Policy Futures in Education, 8(1), 111–125.548 Edwards, D. B. (2012). The approach of the World Bank to participation in development and education549 governance: Trajectories, frameworks, results’’. In C. Collins & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Education550 strategy in the developing world: Understanding the World Bank’s education policy revision (pp.551 249–273). Bingley: Emerald.
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
552 Edwards, D. B. (2013). International processes of education policy formation: An analytic framework and553 the case of Plan 2021 in El Salvador. Comparative Education Review, 57(1), 22–53.554 Edwards, D. B. (2014). Book review: Education, democracy and development: Does education contribute to555 democratisation in developing countries? Comparative Education Review, 58(4), 745–748.556 Edwards, D. B. (2015). Rising from the ashes: How the global education policy of community-based557 management was born from El Salvador’s civil war. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(3),558 411–432.559 Edwards, D. B. (forthcoming). International education policy and the global reform agenda: Education with560 community participation in El Salvador. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.561 Edwards, D. B., & Avalos, E. (2015). Santa Marta y el programa EDUCO: Una experiencia de resistencia,562 adaptacion e inversion de la logica neoliberal [Santa Marta and the EDUCO program: Resistance,563 adaptation and inversion of neoliberal logic]. San Salvador: Talleres Graficos, Universidad564 Centroamericana.565 Edwards, D. B., & Brehm, W. (2015). The emergence of Cambodian civil society within global educational566 governance: A morphogenetic approach to agency and structure. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2),567 275–293.568 Edwards, D. B., Victoria, J. A., & Martin, P. (2015). The geometry of policy implementation: Lessons from569 the political economy of three education reforms in El Salvador during 1990–2005. International570 Journal of Educational Development, 44, 28–41. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/571 S0738059315000541.572 Edwards, D. B., & Klees, S. (2012). Participation in international development and education governance. In573 A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. Kosar-Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international574 development: New agendas, issues and programmes (pp. 55–77). New York: Continuum.575 Fabricant, M., & Fine, M. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s576 at stake? New York: Teachers College Press.577 Finn, Jr., C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Accountability via transparency: Solving a charter578 school puzzle. Education Week, 43–45.579 Fischman, G., Ball, S., & Gvirtz, S. (2003). Introduction: Toward a neoliberal education? In S. Ball, G.580 Fischman, & S. Gvirtz (Eds.), Crisis and hope: The educational hopscotch of Latin America (pp.581 1–18). New York: Routledge.582 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.583 Freire, P. (Ed.) (1997). Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Friere. New York: Peter Lang.584 Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E.585 O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory gov-586 ernance (pp. 3–44). New York: Verso.587 Gottschalk, R. (2005). The macro context of PRSPs: Assessing the need for a more flexible macroeconomic588 policy framework. Development Policy Review, 23(4), 419–442.589 Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. New York: Rowman &590 Littlefield.591 Greig, A., Hulme, D., & Turner, M. (2007). Challenging global inequality: Development theory and592 practice in the 21st century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.593 Gross, S., Shaw, K., & Shapiro, J. (2003). Deconstructing accountability through the lens of democratic594 philosophies: Toward a new analytic framework. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 1(3),595 5–27.596 Grusky, S. (2000). The IMF and the World Bank initiate a new reform package—The poverty reduction597 strategy papers: An initial NGO assessment. Bread for the World Institute Debt and Development598 Dossier, No. 3 (April 2000). http://www.jubulee2000uk.org/policy_papers/bread010600.html.599 Guttal, S., Bendana, A., & Wanguza, H. (2001). The World Bank and the PRSP: Flawed thinking and failing600 experiences. Ottawa, Canada: Jubilee South, Focus on the Global South, AWEPON, and the Centro de601 Estudios Internacionales. http://www.focusweb.org/publications/2001/THE-WORLD-BANK-AND-602 THE-PRSP.html.603 Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.604 Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2005). Relocating participation within a radical politics of development.605 Development and Change, 36(2), 237–262.606 Kane, L. (2001). Popular education and social change in Latin America. London: Latin American Bureau.607 Kapoor, I. (2004). Concluding remarks: The power of participation. Current Issues in Comparative Edu-608 cation, 6(2), 125–129.609 Klees, S. J. (1999). Privatization and neoliberalism: Ideology and evidence in rhetorical reforms. Current610 Issues in Comparative Education, 1(2), 19–26.
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
611 Korzeniewicz, R. P., & Smith, W. C. (2000). Poverty, inequality and growth in Latin America: Searching for612 the high road to globalization. Latin American Review, 35(3), 7–54.613 Leal, P. A. (2007). Participation: The ascendancy of a buzzword in the neo-liberal era. Development in614 Practice, 17(4–5), 539–548.615 Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody616 Journal of Education, 75(4), 1–18.617 LISGS [Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services] (2008). Liberia participatory poverty618 assessment. http://www.lr.undp.org/documents/recentpublic/ppa_report.pdf.619 Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives: Taking their rightful place. Sterling,620 VA: Earthscan.621 McCowan, T. (2003). Participation and education in the Landless People’s Movement of Brazil. Journal for622 Critical Education Policy Studies, 1(1). http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=6.623 Meade, B., & Gershberg, A. I. (2008). Making education reform work for the poor: Accountability and624 decentralization in Latin America. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 299–322.625 Miller-Adams, M. (1999). The World Bank: New agendas in a changing world. New York: Routledge.626 Mundy, K. (2007). Global governance, educational change. Comparative Education, 43(3), 339–357.627 Mundy, K. (2008). Civil society and its role in the achievement and governance of ‘‘Education for All’’.628 Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global monitoring report 2009. Paris: UNESCO.629 Mundy, K. (2012). The global campaign for education and the realization of ‘‘Education for All’’. In A.630 Verger & M. Novelli (Eds.), Campaigning for ‘‘Education for All’’: Histories, strategies and outcomes631 of transnational social movements in education (pp. 17–30). Rotterdam: Sense.632 Mundy, K., & Murphy, L. (2001). Transnational advocacy, global civil society: Emerging evidence from the633 field of education. Comparative Education Review, 45(1), 85–126.634 Munn, P. (Ed.) (1993). Parents and schools: Customers, managers, or partners? New York: Routledge.635 Olssen, M. (1996). In defense of the welfare state and publicly provided education. Journal of Education636 Policy, 11, 337–362.637 Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guaqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public–private part-638 nerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank.639 Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration.640 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.641 Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as642 power (pp. 116–131). New Jersey: Zed Books.643 Reimers, F., & McGinn, N. (1997). Informed dialogue: Using research to shape education policy around the644 world. Westport, CT: Praeger.645 Robb, C. M. (2001). Can the poor influence policy? Participatory poverty assessments in the developing646 world (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank.647 Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. The American Review of648 Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.649 Rowden, R., & Irama, J. O. (2004). Rethinking participation: Questions for civil society about the limita-650 tions of participation in PRSPs. ActionAid USA/ActionAid Uganda Discussion Paper. Washington,651 DC: Action Aid.652 Salmen, L., & Amelga, M. (1998). Implementing beneficiary assessment in education: A guide for prac-653 titioners (with examples from Brazil). Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.654 org/INTPCENG/1143333-1116505682469/20509255/ba-implementingba-laryy-SDp-25.pdf.655 Samoff, J. (1999). Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national656 ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4–5), 249–272.657 Samoff, J. (2007). Institutionalizing international influence. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Com-658 parative education: The dialectic of the global and the local (3rd ed., pp. 47–79). New York: Rowman659 & Littlefield.660 Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). For all by all? The World Bank’s global framework for education. In S. Klees, J.661 Samoff, & N. Stromquist (Eds.), The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (pp. 3–20).662 Rotterdam: Sense.663 Tarlau, B. (2013). Coproducing rural public schools in Brazil: Contestation, clientelism and the MST.664 Politics and Society, 41(3), 395–424.665 Thobani, M. (1984). Charging user fees for social services: Education in Malawi. Comparative Education666 Review, 28(3), 402–423.667 Verger, A., Edwards, D. B., & Kosar-Altinyelken, H. (2014). Learning from all? The World Bank, aid668 agencies and the construction of hegemony in education for development. Comparative Education,669 50(4), 1–19.
D. B. Edwards Jr., S. J. Klees
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4
RE
VIS
ED
PR
OO
F
670 Verger, A., & Novelli, M. (2012). Campaigning for ‘‘Education for All’’: Histories, strategies and outcomes671 of transnational advocacy coalitions in education. Rotterdam: Sense.672 Weiler, H. (1983). Legalization, expertise, and participation: Strategies of compensatory legitimation in673 educational policy. Comparative Education Review, 27(2), 259–277.674 World Bank (2000). Poverty reduction strategies: A sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.675 World Bank (2001). Poverty reduction strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/676 ieg/prsp/.677 World Bank (2003). World development report 2004. Washington, DC: World Bank.678 World Bank (2004). The poverty reduction strategy initiative: An independent evaluation of the World679 Bank’s support through 2003. Washington, DC: World Bank.680 World Bank (2005). The poverty reduction strategy initiative: Findings from 10 country case studies of681 World Bank and IMF support. Washington, DC: World Bank.682 World Bank (2009). Global Monitoring Report 2009: A development emergency. Washington, DC: World683 Bank.
684
685 D. Brent Edwards Jr. (United States) is an assistant clinical professor of educational administration and686 international education at Drexel University, Philadelphia. His primary interest is the political economy of687 education reform and global education policies, with a focus on low-income countries. Edwards has worked688 with the University of Tokyo; the University of California–Berkeley; the University of Amsterdam; the689 Autonomous University of Barcelona; George Washington University; the Central American University;690 and the World Bank. His work appears in several journals, including Comparative Education Review;691 Comparative Education; International Journal of Educational Development; Globalisation, Societies and692 Education; Journal of Education Policy; Prospects; and Education Policy Analysis Archives, and he has two693 forthcoming books: International Education Policy and the Global Reform Agenda and The Political694 Economy of Schooling in Cambodia (both with Palgrave MacMillan).
695 Steven J. Klees (United States) is the R. W. Benjamin Professor of International and Comparative696 Education at the University of Maryland. He earned his Ph.D. at Stanford University and has taught at697 Cornell University, Stanford University, Florida State University, and the Federal University of Rio Grande698 do Norte (Brazil); on two occasions he was a Fulbright Scholar at the Federal University of Bahia (Brazil).699 Klees examines the political economy of education and development, with specific research interests in700 globalization, neoliberalism, and education; the role of aid agencies; education, human rights, and social701 justice; the education of disadvantaged populations; the role of class, gender, and race in reproducing and702 challenging educational and social inequality; and alternative approaches to education and development.
703
Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education…
123
Journal : Small 11125 Dispatch : 25-11-2015 Pages : 17
Article No. : 9367 h LE h TYPESET
MS Code : PROS_4504_Edwards h CP h DISK4 4