Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education governance: A framework of perspectives and practices -- In Prospects

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

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11125-015-9367-9&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11125-015-9367-9&domain=pdf

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




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




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)


123




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


123




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


123




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


123




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


123




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.


123




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.


123




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


123




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


123




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


123




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.


123




http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/PRSP.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/PRSP.pdf

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.


123




http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059315000541

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059315000541

http://www.jubulee2000uk.org/policy_papers/bread010600.html

http://www.focusweb.org/publications/2001/THE-WORLD-BANK-AND-THE-PRSP.html

http://www.focusweb.org/publications/2001/THE-WORLD-BANK-AND-THE-PRSP.html

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.


123




http://www.lr.undp.org/documents/recentpublic/ppa_report.pdf

http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=6

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/1143333-1116505682469/20509255/ba-implementingba-laryy-SDp-25.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/1143333-1116505682469/20509255/ba-implementingba-laryy-SDp-25.pdf

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


123




http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/prsp/

http://www.worldbank.org/ieg/prsp/

Documents

Unpacking ‘‘participation’’ in development and education governance: A framework of perspectives and practices -- In Prospects