Steven J. Klees

A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: misleading analyses and failed policies

Neoclassical economics focuses on the efficiency of a free-market system and the associated role of the public sector. As a school of thought, it has been around for over a century, with antecedents going back to the work of Adam Smith in the eighteenth century. As a school of thought, it has dominated western economics in the post-World War II era. Nonetheless, there have been disagreements and debates among neoclassical economists, perhaps none so fundamental as the one between those that, in the United States, have been called ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ economists, the former represented by Paul Samuelson and others out of MIT, and the latter represented by Milton Friedman and others out of the University of Chicago. The central difference is that the liberals see a substantial need for government intervention to have an efficient and equitable economic system while the conservatives see much less of a need for such intervention. Secondarily, there is a related dispute about the primacy of government fiscal policy (the liberals) versus monetary policy (the conservatives). In the 1970s, the conservatives were strengthened by an offshoot called ‘public choice theory’, whose proponents made an even more extreme argument against government than did the conservatives. Public choice theory conceded that the free market might fail to operate well and therefore be inefficient and inequitable without government intervention. However, it argued, government was so incapable of making successful interventions that it was better not to have it intervene in the first place. In sum, public choice theory argues that government failure is worse than market failure. While this liberal/conservative split was reflected in the economics profession, for many years it was not very much reflected in practice. With some exceptions, a liberal version of neoclassical economics dominated public policy in the United States from the New Deal through the 1970s; and in many other countries as well. However, beginning in 1980, there was a visible sea change that brought conservatives and public choice economists to power. Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. He combined forces with Margaret Thatcher, already Prime Minister in the United Kingdom, leading to sweeping changes in national and international rhetoric and policy. International institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) changed hands and direction. The result has been a ‘Great Experiment’ that has systematically altered public policy on a global scale. Nowhere has that been more evident than in the sweeping change in economic

Reflections on Theory, Method, and Practice in Comparative and International Education

I have been very fortunate in my professional life in many ways. One way is that I get paid, in part, to reflect on some of the significant issues of our day. Over the years, my views have evolved, shaped by what I have seen, discussed, experienced, read, and studied. I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this presidential address to reflect on what I believe and how I came to believe it. I hold strong views about our field of comparative and international education, views that often clash with the dominant modes of theory, method, and practice. In this address, I wish to explain what I see as fundamental flaws in some of these dominant modes of thinking and explore what some of the alternatives to those views are. I will begin by saying a few words about how I see the field of comparative and international education and then discuss theory, method, and practice in turn.

Human Capital and Rates of Return: Brilliant Ideas or Ideological Dead Ends?

Human capital theory and rate of return methodology have long been a dominant framework in comparative and international education and other fields. While there have been criticisms since its inception, it has been ubiquitous and widely accepted as an important mechanism for educational planning, evaluation, and policy making. In this article, I raise fundamental questions about the internal logic of this framework. In particular, I examine the problems with its two strands of empirical work, dealing with the impact of education on income and economic growth, as well as with its conceptual base. In conclusion, I briefly examine some alternatives to using a human capital framework for educational planning, evaluation, and policy making.

World Bank and Education

The World Bank prides itself on being evidence- and research-based, but it is not. Its premises and conclusions are based on ideology, not evidence. The World Bank selects and interprets the research that fits with its ideology. In this sense, it resembles right wing ideological think tank institutions like the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation in the U.S. However, it differs in two important ways. First, everyone realizes Cato and Heritage are partisan. The World Bank, on the other hand, makes a pretense of objectivity and inclusiveness. Second, Cato and Heritage are private institutions with limited influence. The World Bank is a public institution, financed by taxes, which gives grants, loans, and advice around the world, yielding a vast global influence.

Neoliberalism and Education Revisited.

It is an honour to have the editors of Globalisation, Societies and Education solicit four thoughtful reviews of my article, and it is a privilege to have the opportunity to respond to them. These reviews provide a rich and sometimes extensive discussion of what I consider to be one of the most important issues of our time: the multiple and devastating impacts of neoliberal globalisation on education for more than a quarter of a century. In this response to those reviews, I am only able to consider some of the highlights of their arguments.

The political economy of education and inequality: reflections on Piketty

ABSTRACT Piketty’s Capitalism in the twenty-first century provides a superb, detailed historical analysis of the evolution of income and wealth inequality. Piketty demonstrates vast and increasing inequality that he argues might possibly be tempered in the future by economic growth and educational expansion supplemented by government redistributive policies. However, Piketty has little understanding of the reproductive nature of education, the limits of economic growth, or the fundamental problems of capitalism. In this paper, I depart from a political economy perspective to examine the bankruptcy of the underlying neoclassical economic theory he relies upon. In particular, I discuss how Piketty mistakenly sees capitalism as, in large part, a meritocracy, and the implications for education.

Alternatives to The World Bank’s Strategies For Education and Development

Over the past several decades, policy has become increasingly global. In economics, for example, policy has followed the so-called Washington Consensus of privatization, liberalization, and deregulation. In education, global policy has included the proliferation of strategies including standardized testing, paraprofessional teachers, user fees, and privatization. There are many problems with these neoliberal policies. Foremost among them, is the havoc they wreak on the lives of so many children and adults. Poverty, inequality, and myriad associated problems have reached new heights in this neoliberal era. Moreover, these policies have been adopted uncritically and alternative policies have been ignored, which leads to our focus here.

Will We Achieve Education for All and the Education Sustainable Development Goal

Comp Bloodied bodies in ambulances. The faces of kidnapped schoolgirls. The tiny lifejacket washed up on shore. Little hands taught to hold weapons. Tired limbs walking halfway around the world. These children’s stories of 2016 have no “Happily Ever After.” From the Boko Haram insurgency of Nigeria, to the devastated earthquake-hit communities of Nepal and the war-torn Syrian refugee camps, millions of girls and boys are condemned to childmarriage or labor or trafficked as children.Millionsmore are simply denied the teachers and classrooms they need. All are deprived of hope when they should be enjoying a quality education at school. In 2016, a quarter of a billion children and young people are out of school. Another 330 million are not learning because we fail to invest in them even when they are in school. We cannot accept another year or decade like this. It is time we started telling new stories about our children. Time we offered them not just safety, but a real future—not just freedom from fear, but the freedom to realize their potential through education.

Commercial satellite telecommunications and national development: Lessons from Peru☆

Abstract This article summarizes the major development lessons and issues derived from an evaluation of the Rural Communication Services Project conducted in Peru from June 1982 to February 1987. The evaluation aimed to provide development planners and donor agency officials with credible information concerning the impact and costs of commercial satellite telecommunications, emphasizing telephone and teleconferencing services in remote rural areas.

Liberia’s experiment with privatising education: a critical analysis of the RCT study

Abstract To experiment with the possible privatisation of its primary education system, Liberia initiated the Partnership Schools of Liberia (PSL), which turned over the management of 93 public schools to eight private contractors. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) study was initiated comparing the PSL schools with matched public schools and the results were recently published. This paper is a critical analysis of the PSL and its RCT study and has three main conclusions. First, increases in test score were more likely on the order of 35 percent to 45 percent instead of the reported 60 percent. Second, the increase in test scores had little, if anything, to do with the private management of schools. Test score gains likely resulted from policy changes that could be enacted in regular public schools. Third, the PSL is an extraordinarily expensive experiment, costing upwards of