Educational Governance and Participation

Institute of International Education
Report 120
Educational Governance and Participation

With Focus on Developing Countries
Holger Daun & Karen Mundy
Stockholm, Sweden 2011

Department of Education
Educational Governance and Participation With

Focus on Developing Countries
Holger Daun & Karen Mundy
January 2011
Foreword
The Yellow Report Series is an integral part of the Institute of International
Education (IIE) strategy to promote and to disseminate academic writings of
national and international nature since the 1970s. This series allows first and
foremost academic and research staff as well as visiting researchers to publish
valuable research material acquired in the course of research and projects at
IIE. This series as all other IIE series, namely: (1) IIE Studies in International
and Comparative Education; (2) IIE Masters Degree Studies; and (3) IIE
Work-In Progress Reports serve to keep updated the institutions extensive
programmes, projects and activities for research, education, training,
scholarship, and networking in the field of International and Comparative
Education which are always inclusive and connect the Northern with the
Southern, the Eastern and the Western hemispheres.
The present report, Educational Governance and Participation With
Focus on Developing Countries is the 120th such report and deals with
Educational Governance, one of the main research areas of IIE over recent
years. Comparative research in developing countries is also a valuable
contribution to the vision of IIE. This particular research was funded by the
Swedish Research Council and I would like to express my deep appreciation
for its contribution. Most of all, I would like to thank Professor Holger Daun
of IIE and IIE visiting Professor Karen Mundy of the University of Toronto,
Canada for their contribution to the series.
Vinayagum Chinapah, Professor and Head of IIE
ii
iii
Table of Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. iv
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. vi
Table of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................. vii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. viii
Part I ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2. Some Key Concepts .......................................................................................... 3
Chapter 3. World System and Globalization ...................................................................... 4
The Economic World Systems Approach ...................................................................... 4
The Institutionalist/Culturalist World System Approach ............................................... 5
Globalization .................................................................................................................. 6
Education ........................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 4. The New Mode of Governance ......................................................................... 8
Chapter 5. Decentralization .............................................................................................. 11
Aspects of (De)centralization ....................................................................................... 11
Arrangements for Local Participation .......................................................................... 12
Chapter 6. Remarks on Development Policies ................................................................. 14
Part II .................................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter 7. Global Governance and Participation in Developing Countries ..................... 16
EFA Governance Reforms: The Core Agenda ............................................................. 16
Education, Governance and Social Citizenship ............................................................ 20
A Social Citizenship Lens at the Interface between Civil Society and the National
Polity............................................................................................................................. 27
Part III ................................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 8. Outcomes of the New Mode of Governance................................................... 30
General Features ........................................................................................................... 30
Focus on Participation .................................................................................................. 31
Case Studies Conducted in Eight Countries ................................................................. 33
Chapter 9. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 37
References ............................................................................................................................ 39
Index of Reports from the Institute of International Education, Department of Education,
Stockholm University ........................................................................................................... 52
iv
List of Abbreviations
CBE
DFID
GDP
EFA
HD
INGO
ICT
IEG
IGO
NG
NGO
PTA
SBCD
SBM
SDM
SBDM
SSDM
SWAP
TNC
UNDP
WB
WCEF
WDR
WS
Community-based Education
Department of International Development
Gross Domestic Product
Education for All
Human Development
International Non Governmental Organization
Information and Communication Technologies
Independent Evaluation Group
International Governmental Organization
New Governance
Non Governmental Organization
Parent Teacher Association
School based curriculum development
Site-based management
Shared decision making
School-based decision making
School-site decision making
Sector Wide Approach
Transnational Companies
United Nations Development Program
World Bank
World Conference on Education for All
Word Development Report
World System
vi
Table of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Mechanisms and Forces of the New Mode of Governance Assumed to Condition
Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 10
Table 1 Varieties of School Site Councils or Boards ........................................................... 13
Figure 2 Pluri-Scalar Governance of Education ................................................................... 18
vii
Acknowledgements
The accomplishment of this research review was made possible thanks to a grant from the
Swedish Research Council. On the basis of this grant, Professor Karen Mundy, University
of Toronto, Canada, was invited as Guest Professor at the Institute of International
Education, Department of Education, Stockholm University, Sweden.
viii
Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries
Part I
Chapter 1. Introduction
This report derives from a collaborative endeavour in reviewing research on educational
governance (especially decentralization) and its outcomes. The report consists of three
parts: (i) Overview of education reform and governance around the world; (ii) educational
governance and democratic participation in developing countries; and (iii) summary of
findings from case studies conducted at the local level in eight countries (Cambodia,
Greece, Nepal, Nicaragua, Norway, Senegal, and South Africa). The report is written in
collaboration between the two authors, but Holger Daun is principally responsible for
Chapters 1, 3-6, and 8, and Karen Mundy for chapter 7. For chapters 2 and 9 they share the
responsibility. The project was funded by the Swedish Research Council.
Over the past two decades, reforms to the way in which educational systems are
managed and governed have been attempted across a large number of countries. These
reforms typically draw upon an ideal governance agenda that includes decentralization,
the creation of public-private partnerships, and a variety of efforts to enhance participation
and overseeing at local level. As framed in the policies supported by major international
actors such as the World Bank, such governance reforms tend to be viewed instrumentally,
as a central component of efforts to enhance the efficiency of educational systems in
producing skilled human capital, with increasing attention to the skills of the poorest.
A package of educational reforms including introduction or reinforcement of
freedom of choice, privatization, decentralization and sometimes centralization of goal
formulation, curriculum, and outcomes-based assessment is being globalized and together,
they may be seen as a new type of governance (NG).The outcomes the NG seem to consist
of a hybridization of globalized features and policies filtered through the national system,
on the one hand, and local interpretations, meanings, intentions and actions, on the other
hand.
In practically all countries in the world, education has - at least since the beginning
of the 20th century - been an issue for the state (central and regional levels). The
contemporary reform agenda incorporates a theory of political change and political agency
that stresses the value of giving individual citizens of the management of local services,
drawing heavily upon concepts popularized through rational choice theory and the literature
on new public management. In this framing, political action at the local level is regarded as
good political agency when forms of public choice are introduced to limit the potential
for state corruption and maximize local incentives. Politics at the national level, on the
other hand, is widely viewed as negative or tainted. National level collective action and
even government itself, are viewed as marred by elite capture; the state, its bureaucracy,
and collective actors (as for example, teachers unions) are viewed as essentially
undemocratic and unresponsive to equality issues. However, the question of how the local
level voice developed through decentralization policies will feed into national level politics
is rarely considered.
Chapter 2. Some Key Concepts

The following key concepts will be discussed, problematized or defined here: civil society,
governance, community, participation. When discussing civil society and governance, it is
necessary also to refer to the political culture. The political culture and the type of state are
highly relevant in relation to the issue of governance. The political culture defines, for
example, what is appropriate for the state to do in society, the extent to which state
interventions are seen as legitimate and common people are expected to participate in
public decision-making (Almond and Verba, 1965; Inglehart, 1997). The legitimacy and
preparedness of the grassroots initiative and participation, and local interventions in school
affairs may be more or less expected and accepted. Also, cultures vary in their degree of
individual orientation and collective orientation (Shweder and Bourne, 1984).
There are numerous definitions of civil society. Some of them include ideas and
actions which are non-state, that is, both the market/economy and the civil sphere are
included. Other definitions reserve civil society for the non-profit and non-market ideas
and actions that citizens articulate and perform respectively in order to attain collective
goals, especially in relation to the state. The latter definition excludes the economy as well
as closed groups such as families1. We use a definition that excludes the market, since the
aims and purposes of individuals actions differ considerably between the market and the
civil arena. In the latter, people act on a voluntary and idealistic basis.
Governing and government refer to what public decision-makers do. Governing has
traditionally taken place through the following principal modes of state intervention: (i)
regulation; (ii) economic measures, and (iii) ideological measures. Regulation means to
establish pro-actively and more or less in detail the frame of action for different bodies and
actors. The second mode, economic measures, includes state allocation of subsidies and
services as well as extraction of resources. Ideological measures within the educational
domain include the definition and selection of knowledge to be handled in schools through
the national curriculum, syllabi, teacher guidelines, etc. These modes of intervention
overlap or combine when applied in practical policy.
Educational governance is a broader concept including significant forces
influencing the nature of the outcomes of educational activities and processes. (A more
detailed discussion follows in Chapter 4).
Participation: The definition presented by Arnstein (1971) has been useful when
describing and analyzing participation. Arnstein (1971) defines eight degrees or types of
participation, varying from the mere use of a service to participation in identification of
1
We use closed in the sense that they are not voluntarily entered and exited.
problems, the study of feasibility, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Arnstein

employs eight degrees or type of participation which then have been used in modified
forms. For example, Hart (1992, in Shaeffer, 1994, pp. 3. 16-17) uses seven stages: (1) the
mere use of a service (such as primary health care facility); (2) involvement through the
contribution (or extraction) of resources, materials and labour; (3) involvement through
attendance and the receipt of information (e.g., at parents meetings at school), implying
passive acceptance of decisions made by others; (4) involvement through consultation (or
feedback) on a particular issue; (5) participation in the delivery of a service, often as a
partner with other actors; (6) participation as implementation of delegated powers; and (7)
participation in real decision-making at every stage (identification of problems, the study
of feasibility, planning, implementation, and evaluation...). This implies the authority to
initiate action, a capacity for proactivity, and the confidence to get going on ones own.
Social citizenship is to be eligible and have the opportunity to take part in civil and
political activities such as organizational work, to have a fair share of welfare, to participate
in political organizations and elections, and so on.
Chapter 3. World System and Globalization

Globalization is changing the conditions for the traditional modes of state governance and
intervention by restructuring national societies. Therefore, we need to take the world
system and globalization seriously. The world system (WS) is here seen from principally
two theoretical perspectives: the politico-economic (Wallerstein, 2006), and the
institutionalist (Boli et al. 1985; Meyer et al. 1997), and for the globalization approach we
use elements from different social science theories on globalization (e.g. Cox, 2000;
Robertson, 1992; Sklair, 1995). The two types of WS theory (the politico-economic and the
institutionalist) differ in several aspects from each other and from globalization theories.
One such difference is that in WS theories, the dynamics of historical development is a
principal ingredient, while it is not in most globalization theories (Clayton (2004).
The Economic World Systems Approach
According to the politico-economic WS approach, the drive for competitiveness and profit
is the principal cause of or condition for what occurs globally (Cox, 2000; Elwell, 2006;
Wallerstein, 2006). Market forces and market ideals are reaching most places on the globe,
and to a large extent provide the foundation that conditions institutions and individuals
lives (Cox, 2000; Gill, 2000; Saul, 1997; Story, 2000). People are encouraged or compelled
to enter into commodified, monetized and priced exchanges as producers and consumers
and also to become competitive.
The world economic system is different from empires, since it does not correspond
to a single political unit and it emerges and functions regardless of political units and
frontiers. This system is based on an international division of labour that determines the
4
relationships between different actors around the globe. Wallerstein (2006) defines four
different categories of countries or areas: core, semi-periphery, periphery and external
areas. Different modes of labour usage develop in these areas. The periphery lacks strong
central governments, and the external areas have their own economies, which for the most
part exist outside the world economy. However, the system is dynamic and the
relationships within and between countries may vary a great deal over time.
The Institutionalist/Culturalist World System Approach
The institutionalist perspective assumes the existence of a world polity, which is not a
physical body or institution but a complex of cultural expectations (Meyer and Kamens,
1992; Meyer et al. 1987; Meyer et al. 1997). Some others call it governance without
government (Griffin, 2003). National decision-makers are assumed to have the ambition
or feel compelled to form modern states that fulfil the requirements of the world polity.
The world polity includes world models (for education, for instance). World models
consist of cognitive and ontological models of reality that specify the nature, purposes,
technology, sovereignty, control, and resources of nation-states and other actors (Meyer et
al., 1997, p. 144), and they have their core in policy documents stored in and disseminated
from international organizations. The world models signal, among other things, that
education is an instrument in the struggle for economic competitiveness. They also suggest
decentralization, school-based management, privatization, choice, outcomes to be
measured, and how to measure them (Wiseman and Baker, 2005). Furthermore, they also
include the market orientation as well as the modern communitarian orientation. The
market orientation derives from Homo Economicus, the utility-maximizing individual. On
the other hand, different ideas are embedded in the communitarian orientation. In this
orientation, the individual is seen as mainly driven by idealism and altruism (Doyal and
Gough, 1991; Reay and Ball, 1997). Orthodox communitarians reject large scale capitalist
and state arrangements (Etzioni, 1995).
A distinction can be made between traditional and modern communitarianism
(Barber, 1996; Flacks, 1995). The former is linked to the traditional local community based
on residence, kinship, religion or all of them (Wesolowski, 1995), and does not make part
of the world models but is strong in many local communities in low income countries. The
common good applies to the local community, the clan, the association, or some other unit,
intermediate between the central state and the individual (MacRae, 1969). On the other
hand, the modern variety of communitarianism is part of the world models and sees society
as atomized, the individual as autonomous and community as based on some type of
sameness among the community members (Offe, 1996). In this view, community does
not necessarily imply a geographical area or local group but could have worldwide
extension through the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), for
example. The key role assumed for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and civil
society involvement in the world models corresponds to the modern communitarian
orientation. The elements of the world models are combined in different ways across
countries, but the most common combinations make part of the NG.
The WS is the structure and relationships between different interdependent

components (nations, companies, organizations, etc.), while globalization is the processes
and flows that take place between the components of the WS. When the interdependencies
between the components become more extensive and form chains, networks, exchanges and
transactions, these processes may be seen as globalization.
Globalization
Almost any definition of globalization begins with the idea that the integration of human
societies across pre-existing territorial units has speeded up, assisted in part by the
development of new technologies that compress time and space (Harvey 1990). Central to
all theories of globalization is the notion that interregional and deterritorialized flows of
all kinds of social interaction have reached new magnitudes in recent history (Ruggie
2003).
A distinction may be made between: (i) general processes of globalization (indirect
influence on education), and (ii) spread of world models and borrowing, imposition, etc. of
educational features (direct influence on education). In the general processes of economic
globalization, there is a growing global interdependency between nations, companies,
organizations, individuals, and so on. High technology activities, growth and richness are
concentrated in a geographical zone including East and Southeast Asia, Western Europe,
Oceania and North America. The market order on a global scale is country-wise mediated
by national and local history, politics, economies and cultures.
Processes of competition and marginalization take place, and more countries than
ever before are affected by or involved in global economic processes. The frame of action even for those countries situated outside" the most intensive flows - is conditioned by
countries positions in the world system (Castells, 1993; Griffith-Jones and Ocampo, 1999;
Lipumba, 2003). However, globalization processes are uneven, also within one and the
same country. For example, Africa as a continent has low levels of connectivity in key
areas that drive globalization (finance, production, trade, etc) but at the same time, it has
high levels of connectivity in politics and policy-making (Bangura, 2001, p. 33). That is,
the continent has implemented the institutions and modes of policy-making suggested by
the international agencies, while the countries on this continent have to a large extent
become marginalized from the global economic flows.
The sector of the economy mostly involved in global processes consists of
companies that increasingly restructure themselves and demand a flexible labour force
(Waters, 2001), but for certain sections of the economies, the organization of production
and work is not very different from before (Carnoy, 1999; Lorenz, Lundvall and Valeyre,
2004).
Culturally, economic imperatives tend to dominate over all others (Ahmed, 1992;
Bauman, 1991; Saul, 1997). Globalization causes or encompasses standardization and
homogenization as well as particularization and heterogenization; secularization as well as
de-secularization and revitalization of moral and religious values (Berger, 1999; Norris and
Inglehart 2004). Modernity as disseminated through the world models and general
6
processes of globalization - even if not filtered through national policy making - encounter
the local realities, and something of glocalization and hybridization may occur (Nederven
Pieterse, 1995; Robertson, 1995). In the first case, the local is incorporated into the global
and in the second case; the global is transformed at the local level whereby the outcome is
something different from the originally global and the originally local. On the other hand,
particularization also occurs, meaning that values and beliefs linked to a specific group and
locality are revived.
For the state, globalization makes governance more complex. Politically,
globalization causes restructuring of the relationships between the national state, companies
and international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international NGOs, i.e. INGOs
(Zrn, 2003:341), but also between different levels within a society. It changes the
conditions for the functions of the state and its mode of governance, We have a global
economy but not a global polity and hence our ability to govern the market and ourselves
is weakened (Griffin, 2003 p. 1). Another important phenomenon involved in governance
is the increasing and extending networking among social movements and NGOs.
States now have to handle multiple and sometimes contradictory demands and
requirements: the consequences of economic restructuring (e.g. unemployment) (Freeman
and Soete, 1994), increasing complexity and specialization in the national society and, at
the same time, increasing networking in society and across societies (Castells, 1993;
Messner, 1997). As a result, states are restructuring themselves but not necessarily
shrinking themselves. Many states in fact do not spend a lower percentage of their GDP
than they did some decades ago (Pierre, 2000, p. 1) but spend less on social welfare as
percentage of GDP (Gilbert, 2004, p. 3). Resources are transferred towards coordinating,
supervising and monitoring functions.
Education
The two types of world systems, the politico-economic and the institutionalist/culturalist,
have different views on education. The former argues that education is restructured
according to the requirements and demands of the economy (to make people and countries
competitive in order to increase the profit of the transnational companies (TNCs) (Dale,
2000). The latter approach assumes that states structure themselves and their education
systems due to the cultural pressure from the IGOs (proposing the world models, for
example).
As mentioned before, globalization has direct as well as indirect effects on
education; the former is the borrowing or imitation of elements from world models
(Steiner-Khamsi, 2004) and the latter is the societal changes that the schools, teachers and
students experience related to globalizing economic and cultural features. Education is
generally seen as a fundamental social entitlement, and it came to be seen as one among a
core of institutions that links citizen to state, by integrating the individual into collective
aspirations for economic progress and social justice.
A common strategy in education during the past decades has been to decentralize
(shift funding from the central to the local level) and to privatize (shift from the state to the
7
economic and civil spheres). Subsidies are increasingly distributed in accordance with
performance-based criteria, and schools are more and more supposed to compete for pupils,
as they are funded on a per pupil basis. Through this type of governance, using rewards and
punishments through market mechanisms, individuals and organizations, such as schools,
can be governed at a distance.
On the other hand, there is a general tendency to link the measurement of
knowledge production and distribution (curriculum) and of the outcomes (evaluation,
assessment and monitoring) more firmly to the central state. The framework established at
the central level for participation conditions the way governance and participation tends to
occur at the local level. Such a combination of loose coupling in some aspects and strong
coupling in others may, in fact, bind schools strongly to the central level (Angus, 1994;
Gurr, 1999). Generally in the world, pro-active control and regulation of the education
system and schools from the central level has been somewhat relaxed, while retro-active
monitoring and steering by the means of assessments and evaluations has increased. The
mode of evaluating education and schools has also changed; local actors are/or should be
more involved than before, and in this context, self-evaluation has become a general feature
among schools.
Chapter 4. The New Mode of Governance

The requirements on, as well as the conditions for states steering of society have thus
changed. According to Foucault (1991), governance is a broad concept (conduct of
conduct) and may vary from conducting oneself to conduction of political sovereignty,
and in his words, one speaks of governing a household, souls, children (p. 90). Also, in
his view, too much attention has been directed towards institutions and too little towards
practices (Gordon, 1991). Governance is taking place vertically between the central state
and local bodies and actors but also horizontally between various social agencies, bodies
and systems at the same level (Kooiman, 2000).
According to Foucault (1991), governance is a broad concept, and too much
attention has been directed towards institutions and too little towards practices (Gordon,
1991). For Pierre (2000:25) political governance is to to ensure at the different levels
within this division of labour.....that the actions of a body at one level do not systematically
negate decisions at another. Barroso (2004) finds three tendencies that challenge the
processes of governance: (i) Increase in transnational regulation (i.e. regulation across
countries); (ii) hybridization of national regulation (e.g. mix of market and other forces and
mechanisms); and (iii) fragmentation of local regulation. The state is thereby confronted by
two principal challenges: To manage multi-regulation and to assure meta-regulation (p.
3).
The relocation of decision-making to lower levels, and introduction of market
mechanisms and educational choice allow non-state forces to affect the processes and
outcomes. Thus the broader concept of governance is applicable. Such an analysis deals
both with the vertical top-down dimension as well as the horizontal, among actors at the
same level, and requires a historical and broad perspective including economic, political
and cultural changes (Kooiman, 2000). Governance should not be seen merely as that
which is done from the national level in order to get policies implemented but also as the
forces that condition or determine the outcomes. It includes: (a) steering mechanisms
(forms of funding, accountability, school choice, etc.), and (b) steering forces
(socioeconomic conditions, cultural patterns, ideological orientations, etc.), which combine
and condition the outcomes. At the local level, mechanisms for involvement vary according
to the central intention behind the decentralization program. Local forces condition the
outcome, and together with forces situated outside of the domain of education, the
mechanisms constitute the mode of governance.
Deliberate steering mechanisms: (a) national curriculum (with or without detailed
instructions concerning the distribution of time per subject); (b) national goals or national
guidelines; (c) accountability requirements (including reporting of student achievement,
economic accounts, etc. from lower to higher levels or to boards/councils at the local level),
self-evaluation/self-assessment; (d) inspection, evaluation or monitoring from the central
level of attainment of national goals; (e) local arrangements for site
involvement/participation and decision-making; (f) market mechanisms (choice
possibilities, per pupil pay, vouchers, tax reduction, etc.) (Hamilton, 2003; Hannaway and
Woodroffe, 2003). Steering forces: Scope of decentralization program (general for all
sectors or specific to education); Constitutional status of decentralization (from simple
delegation or de-concentration to devolution protected in the Constitution); Socio-economic
and cultural context (economic level, political culture, cultural heterogeneity-homogeneity,
etc.); Ideological orientations in society; Gender.
Figure 1 Mechanisms and Forces of the New Mode of Governance Assumed to

Condition Outcomes
Deliberate steering mechanisms: (a) national curriculum (with or without detailed

instructions, national goals or national guidelines; (b) accountability requirements
(including reporting of student achievement, economic accounts, etc. from lower to
higher levels or to boards/councils at the local level), self-evaluation/self-assess-ment;
(c) inspection or monitoring of schools attainment of national goals; (d) choice
exerted by parents and students; (e) local arrangements for site involvement/
participation and decision-making;
Out-Comes
- ->
Steering forces: Scope of decentralization program (general for all sectors or specific
to education); Constitutional status of decentralization (from simple delegation or deconcentration to devolution protected in the Constitution); Socio-economic and
cultural context (economic level, political culture, cultural heterogeneityhomogeneity, etc.); Ideological orientations; Gender
in terms of
participation
Governance may be seen as the ways in which the relationships between the state,
the economy and the civil sphere are structured and monitored, and it now more than ever
before implies global level in addition to national and local levels. The state leaves - either
deliberately or due to pressure from globalization forces - to market and civil forces to
implement and administer educational issues.
Decision-making has been moved to lower levels, and market mechanisms have
been introduced, allowing other forces (than those driven by the state) to affect the
educational processes more than before. Consequently, also national and local forces, such
as local level, particularistic and de-secularizing forces are implied in the NG and condition
the outcomes. Thus governance in education involves a range of actions, from the
deliberately control-oriented to forces that condition outcomes more indirectly.
At least in the technologically advanced countries, the state employs ideological
measures more than before through: scienticization, information, persuasion and selfregulation, efforts to influence the public discourse, and retroactive monitoring by the help
of evaluations and commissioned research. This requires more information and more
effective flows of communication than ever before (Neocleous, 1996; Offe, 1984). Thus,
the NG presumes a sophisticated and ICT-based communication network for rapid
information flows horizontally and vertically in society. Governments in low income
countries tend to have a weak ability to shift governance to new forms requiring intense
production and flows of information. This has been a salient feature in Sub-Saharan Africa,
for example (Naidoo, 2005; Ribeiro, 2006).
As mentioned before, the components of the NG are here divided into steering
mechanisms and steering forces. At the local level, they are condensed and combined with
everyday practice, making school site councils ... micro political contexts (Beare, 1993,
10
p. 216).
Decentralization has been accompanied by the establishing of new and specific
bodies for steering, monitoring and assessment. In most cases where there is a national
curriculum, there is also central assessment, monitoring and/or inspection. This may take
the form of broad evaluation, national testing, reporting, self-evaluation, and so on (Riley
and Rawles, 1997). Reporting to higher levels is increasingly used and normally deals with
plans and outcomes and takes the form of self-evaluation/self-assessment, school reports,
school reviews, reporting of student achievement, and so on. When it comes to funding,
schools in most parts of the world have traditionally received a certain amount related to
their size and catchment area characteristics, but increasingly they are now subsidized on a
per student basis. Additional funds are often provided related to socio-economic conditions
of the geographical area and for children with learning difficulties and children from
minority or low income homes. However, several examples from different countries
demonstrate that these supplementary funds are not sufficient as compensation for the
economically weak situation of the area or the school district (Daun, 2004, Daun and
Arjmand, 2006).
Decentralization during the past two decades has often been combined with market
forces. For example, if choice exists, the flows of students between schools due to choice
determine the resources of the schools and this becomes one aspect of governance. For
some schools, to lose even a few students can have far reaching consequences if this loss
implies the most motivated students and if it means that classes have to be merged.
Chapter 5. Decentralization
Decentralization has most often been initiated from above, and behind this approach, there
is a rational, linear and deterministic view; people are assumed to behave rationally in
relation to the parameters established by the central state, by market forces or both (Esteva
and Prakash, 1998; Hammouda, 1997).
Aspects of (De)centralization
Issues or items generally decentralized/centralized are, according to Welsh and McGinn
(1999): Mission; operation; finance; clients; and staff. The most radical types of
decentralization from above are school-based management and some types of charter
schools. Generally, charter schools are required to establish a board whose members are
elected among and by the parents (Wells and Scott, 2001).
There are three principal types of decentralization - Deconcentration, Devolution,
and Delegation, They have different implications, especially for local participation and
democracy. Deconcentration is largely a shift of administrative and executive matters to
lower levels in the state administration, while devolution implies move of decision-making
power to lower levels and/or to bodies outside of the central state decision-making and
11
administrative bodies. It is evident that deconcentration and delegation do not necessarily

lead to more participatory approaches (Shaeffer, 1994). In Sub-Saharan Africa, Naidoo
(2005) found that the countries on this continent have tended to move towards
decentralization with limited authority for the local governments. Also, there is the pressure
to introduce market mechanisms in education, even in countries at a low level of GNP per
capita and with limited public resources.
Another aspect of educational decentralization is whether it makes part of a more
general decentralization program, something which has been the case in many countries
(Castillo, 2002; Hanson, 2001: Hudson and Lidstrm, 2001). In such reforms it is likely
that local communities have gained authority to lever tax in order to cover at least some of
the local expenditures.
Finally, decentralization is given different legal status - from being defined and
protected in the constitution to being regulated in administrative laws decided upon by the
government. Once provided for in the constitution, transfer of powers and functions can be
reversed only on the basis of an amendment to the appropriate law. Some countries have
amended to their constitution the decision-making rights to regional governments (BoliviaSida, 2000; Ethiopia-Sida, 2000).
Arrangements for Local Participation
The local arrangements for involvement, decision-making and the way in which the
participants have acquired their mandate seem to be decisive for the role of different
stakeholders and their decision-making power of various actors. These local arrangements
may be of different kinds, and - as Beare (1993, p. 215) argues - each model has an
internal logic of its own, and constitutes the role of teachers, parents, students, and the
government in quite different ways. Is there a school site body or not? Does the body
consist of school staff only, local people only or both? How have they become part of the
decision-making body and (d) what is their mandate? The mandate of the local decisionmaking body may vary from being a local body of the central state executing the states
decisions, to an autonomous and locally elected body with own power and economic
resources (extracted locally, unconditionally received from the central state or both).
School-based management has different varieties or different names: site-based
management (SBM), shared decision-making (SDM), school-based decision-making
(SBDM) or school-site decision-making (SSDM) and school-based curriculum development
(SBCD) (Abu-Duhou, 1999; Papagiannis, Easton and Owens, 1992). These different terms
may denote genuine varieties but may also be different terms for one and the same type of
decentralization. Since the local body seems to be strategic for participation opportunity,
this body will be discussed more in detail. According to David (1990 cited in Abu-Duhou,
1999, p. 33): the core of SBM is the idea of participatory decision-making at the school
site... With some varieties of SBM, school leaders are given more autonomy and more
freedom to take initiative, especially in budget matters, in different degrees of cooperation
with teachers, students, parents and/or other community members (Levacic, 1995).
Also, the composition of the local body varies considerably from one place to
12
another and from one decentralization arrangement to another. Sometimes professionals are
in majority, sometimes laymen (e.g. parents and/or politically elected members). The
number of members varies; the minimum seems to be five. In some cases, representatives
of teacher unions are automatically included - either as full members or as members
without vote. The members of the council or board may be nominated or appointed by
another authority (above or parallel) or they may be directly elected locally. Normally, in
the devolution approach, the members of the school site decision-making bodies are locally
elected in one way or the other.
As to the mandate or decision-making power, there are variations from the boards of
trustees producing a school charter to the setting of key objectives each year, controlling
management, reporting to community and appointing the head teacher and the teachers to
the opposite where the head teacher is recruited from above and the members of the local
body do not have very much power (Fiske and Ladd, 2003; Robertson, 1998.
Table 1 Varieties of School Site Councils or Boards

Varieties of School site body: 1) School-site or school-specific body responsible for one school. If not
school site, then: 2) local body commanded from the higher level in the state, or 3) locally elected
political body (representing a district, municipality, commune, etc.). 2 and 3 responsible for several
schools.
Varieties of Composition of the site body: a) Only members politically elected in general, local elections;
b) Politically elected members in majority; c) Professionals (school staff) in majority; d) Parents/laymen
in majority. Or mixed b + c; b+ d; c + d; or all three of these.
Varieties of Membership: Nominated, appointed, or elected representatives.
Variation in Number of members: 5- 20
Variation in Power of head teacher: Chairman of the site council/board. With or without veto. Hired and
fired by the site council/board.
Variation in the Mandate of the School Body: Deliberate and controlling or advisory simply being
involved.
Variation in Areas of decision-making: From details to budget, and recruitment of teachers and head
teacher.
13
Chapter 6. Remarks on Development Policies

In 1990, an educational conference was held in Jomtien, Thailand, and its theme was
Education for All (EFA). The conference was called the World Conference on Education
for All (WCEF). For the first time state agencies and representatives gathered together with
representatives of NGOs and private companies, and the conference set as a goal that all
countries in the world should be able to provide Education for All in 2010. NGOs and
private interests have since then been strongly involved in development policies and their
implementation. The Jomtien conference was followed up in Dakar, Senegal, in 2000. Due
to the fact that many countries still were far from attaining the goal set in Jomtien, the time
frame was postponed to 2015. It was evident at the Dakar conference that not only
educational quantity should be focus but also quality since spread of low quality would be a
wastage of resources.
When it comes to the form of development assistance, some changes have already
been mentioned above, but the most important change has perhaps been from project
orientation to the sector-wide approach (SWAP). The new forms of sector-wide support
and partnership have been accompanied by a decrease in bilateral assistance.
Development policies were reformulated in certain aspects: from project or program
support to principally sector support; from donor - receiver relationship to partnership and
ownership; from detailed and specific evaluations and assessments to sector assessments
and evaluations (involving local stakeholders and interests). As far as development
assistance is concerned, the following features may be mentioned: (a) its changing pattern;
it has been channelled over from poor and/or unstable countries to middle income and/or
stable countries (Vyrynen, 2002, p124); (b) it has come to be seen as an investment (and it
should serve social cohesion and financial stability); (c) its shrinking volume; (d) its
changing direction and form; and (e) its implementation increasingly relies upon NGOs.
Also in 1990, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) suggested the
concept of Human Development (HD) as an alternative to and a more appropriate approach
than human capital, basic human needs and human resource development. Individuals
should not be seen primarily as instruments to be improved or as passive receivers of items
satisfying their needs; they should be seen as active and complete persons instead.
Education should not, according to UNDP (1990), be seen only as something contributing
to more productive and technological competence but also to well-being in a wider sense,
etc. HD is a process that enlarges peoples choices and it is for people to lead a long and
healthy life, to acquire knowledge and to have access to resources needed for a decent
standard of living (p. 11). The framework for the construction of well-being should be
guaranteed by the state, but individuals themselves are assumed to have a potential for the
active construction of their own realities and, consequently, their own well-being. Apart
from the common themes of health conditions and material/economic things, poverty in
imagination and creativity are also important to combat.
14
15
Part II
Chapter 7. Global Governance and Participation in Developing
Countries
Though there is now in development policies rising emphasis on the role played by
partnership and participation in the achievement of good governance and democracy, the
conceptual underpinnings of these new norms are often framed in vague, and sometimes
contradictory terms, both by governments and by non-governmental actors, within the
educational arena.
This chapter first outlines the official governance reform agenda for Education
EFA (as set out primarily by the World Bank, the most powerful of international actors in
the education for development arena) are outlined suggesting some of its assumptions and
limits, as well as its more recent inclusions. This can be accomplished by conceptualizing
educational governance as a series of nested social compacts operating across sub-national,
national and global scales and increasingly supported by globally networked social
citizenship regimes.
EFA Governance Reforms: The Core Agenda
Although the past decade has seen the endorsement of a wide range of governance reforms
to support Education for All, it is fair to say that the governance reforms that occupy the
greatest space in officially sponsored programs and policies for educational development
revolve around the call for greater local accountability mechanisms and decentralization of
governance. In the 1990s and into the new millennium, large-scale experimental projects
and a substantial research literature emerged to support an expanded role for nongovernmental, community schools, and for local, decentralized accountability structures
within educational systems. The common sense view that emerged in the 1990s is typified
in the 1990 WCEF declaration and the following quote from the UK Department for
International Development (DFIDs) 2001 education sector policy paper:
Partnerships at the community levelshould be encouraged: they can help
harmonize activities, utilize resources more effectively, and mobilize additional
financial and human resources where necessary (WCEFA secretariat 1990:58).
DFID (2001:19) greater participation of parents and communities in education of

their children...plays a central role in stimulating education at a local level, in
building pressure for improving quality, and in developing accountability.
16
As summarized in documents, this reform agenda includes decentralization of

educational management and financing, the involvement of parents in school based
management, the provision of better information on school performance and student
achievement to parents and communities, the introduction of choice mechanisms (including
demand side mechanisms), and the expansion of NGO and public-private service provision
to stimulate competition and system reach.
Several ideological assumptions, and many pragmatic concerns, have fed into this
reform agenda. As Bray (1999), Carnoy (1999), Colclough (1991), Plank and Boyd (1994b)
and Rose (2003; 2006) among others have argued, the idea that centralized bureaucracies
are not the best or most equitable providers of educational services was key to the initial
framing of this reform agenda, as was a significant pragmatic interest in opportunities for
local level resource generation in situations of clearly deteriorating access to education.
The World Banks (2004) World Development Report (WDR) sets out perhaps the
clearest articulation of this official paradigm on localizing governance reforms in
education. Both the 2005 Millennium Development Task Force and the 2004 WDR, favor
short route accountability as the key to education for all (see also, for example DeStefano
and Crouch, 2006). "Short route" forms of accountability emphasize the power of clientcitizens as the main form for political agency in the education sector. Long route
accountability mechanisms which we would recognize as comprising both the
aggregation of interests at a national level and operation of formal democratic politics
(elections, legislative oversight of policies) are marginalized or viewed as relatively
impotent to the achievement of better services for the poor in the model. The promising
possibilities for action, looking at the WDR 2004 figure provided below, are to be found in
the bottom right corner, in the relationships between clients and providers -- even though
there is often an acknowledgement that not enough research exists to support the positive
outcomes idealized for local level governance reforms (Bray and Mukundan 2003;
IEG/World Bank 2005, 43;).
17
Figure 2 Pluri-Scalar Governance of Education
PLURI-SCALAR GOVERNANCE OF EDUCATION
Scale of Governance
SUPRA-NATIONAL
NATIONAL
SUBNATIONAL
Governance Activities
Institutions of
coordination
Funding
Ownership
w
Provision
STATE
MARKET
COMMUNITY
HOUSEHOLD
18
Regulation
The role envisaged for collective action at the national level in donor documents is
usually captured in a hortative call for greater engagement with civil society. But
engagement with civil society is usually either left quite vague, or is carefully
circumscribed (especially in contrast to the local accountability relationships). Thus
reference to civil society often excludes or marginalizes teachers unions or presents them
primarily as the bad sort of political agents, those involved in elite capture and blockage
of educational reform (c.f. Corrales 1999; Grindle 2004; Stein et al. 2006). Beyond the
exclusion of teachers unions, there is rarely much elaboration of the actors that belong to
nationally-organized civil society or any discussion of conflicts or tensions among them.
The overall theory of action for civil society that is set out in key official donor
documents on educational development focuses on using civil society for accountability
and service delivery purposes at the local level. Technical expertise trumps deliberation at
the national level; and teachers unions are typically viewed not as part of civil society, but
as an oppositional force to be managed and contained (Global Campaign 2002; WB 2002).
The concept of civil society is frequently used interchangeably with that of local level
participation, and local level accountability mechanisms are generally identified as the
optimal arena for civil society engagement in the education sector (WB 2002, pp. 256; 259;
26).
However, more recently there has been considerable mobilization around the idea of
an international compact for achieving education for all (Birdsall and Vaishnav 2005; EFA
Global Monitoring Report 2005; Millennium Project 2005; Pritchett 2004; Sperling 2001;
Sperling and Beru, 2005).
This new compact can be characterized as a rapprochement between the neo-liberal
approaches to development endorsed by the World Bank and the IMF; and the more equityfocused and globalization sceptical approaches to development adopted by the United
Nations (Mundy 2006, 2008; Ruggie 2003; Therien 2005). It also encompasses a compact
between developing countries and aid donors. Here, international donor organizations
promise to harmonize, pool and increase their development aid; and to focus aid more
acutely on social sector development. For their part, developing countries promise to take
the lead in developing a detailed and well-balanced national development and poverty
reduction plan, usually through the preparation of a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
(PRSP). For the compact to work, national ownership of sound development plans is
essential; and ownership has increasingly been seen as involving the endorsement of
citizens and organized non-governmental actors
Descriptions of this new compact in the education sector rely heavily on the notion
that local level accountability mechanisms and decentralized governance will mobilize
citizen voice in the achievement of education for all. Limited attention is paid to national
level collective action or to the idea that local citizen voice needs to be aggregated in some
way in order for the compact to work. Perhaps even more surprisingly particularly given
the path breaking efforts of transnational civil society networks in recent years
descriptions of the new compact say very little about the link between national and
transnational civil society actors in constructing citizen demand. In contrast, as we shall see
below, the theories of action being mobilized by transnational civil society actors focus
19
explicitly (although again without much evidence or research) on the efficacy of linking up
citizens demands for fundamental rights across national boundaries.
Education, Governance and Social Citizenship
Clearly, the idea that we need to harness democratic participation and the political in
order to achieve education for all has now been widely accepted across the international
community. However, the model of the political that underlies the officially sponsored
agenda for governance reforms in education is too thinly drawn: it is too focused on citizen
voice at the local level, lacks specificity and clarity about the nature of national level
politics and collective action; and provides mainly hortative (rather than analytically
grounded) attention to the transnational dimension of governance. If we look at the origins
of education as a fundamental social entitlement; we now have evidence about how and
why different types of democratic polities deliver and distribute such entitlements
differently; and the literature on globalization and its effects on social citizenship.
Education and Social Citizenship
What Plank and Boyd (1994a:4587) argued more than a decade ago remains true today
scholars and policy analysts of widely different persuasions find common ground in their
aversions to the politicization of educational issues, on the ground that choices about the
education of the young are too important to be made in the grubby and unpredictable arena
of interest conflict and compromise.
From the beginning of the 20th century, the relationship between the state and
education in terms of its provision, regulation, ownership and funding has become
increasingly complete and taken for granted (Dale 2003; Fuller and Rubinson 1992;
Ramirez and Boli-Bennett 1982). Although years of systematic borrowing and comparison
led many of the core institutional features of schooling to look quite similar across
industrialized countries, it can be argued that these varied governance and allocative
arrangements have remained distinctive, and that they produced and reinforced very
different popular imaginaries about the kind of polity to which schooling contributes.
Schooling came to be seen as one among a core of institutions that links citizen to state, by
integrating the individual into collective aspirations for economic progress and social
justice. As Robertson notes education has been a key institution for nation states in
constructing citizens, not only in terms of identity but also as potential workers and
members of a polity (2006:2). Education also became a major sight for claims-making by
citizens.
Recent research from political science and economics reinforces this idea, showing
first, that educational spending is strongly affected by the existence of left leaning political
leadership (Ansell n/d); by the extension of the franchise (Lindert 2004; Stasavage 2004);
and by the presence of various standard measures of democratic governance (Dable-Norris
and Gradstein 2004).
20
In short, although established industrialized states all have mass systems of education,
they differ fundamentally because they reflect very specific political settlements at the
national level (Myles and Quadagno 2002). Existing literature allows us to draw out three
ideal types of relationship between the state or polity, citizenship regime and the shape of
educational entitlements.
1) Corporatist conservative state forms in which there is a high level of collective
bargaining between state, capital and labour at the national level, and an ongoing
commitment to Christian conservatism, tend to have more centralized educational
systems with greater stratification and differentiation in educational pathways.
Educational stratification and inequality, however, is offset by greater employment
guarantees for those on different educational ladders, and larger expenditures on
social insurance for families.
2) Social democracies (primarily the Nordic countries) which have highly organized
and secularized forms of collective political agency and well developed leftist
parties at the national level, have educational systems that are comparatively wellfunded, and until quite recently, administratively centralized. These countries
achieve high levels of achievement and high equality of achievement in their
educational systems, and they spend little on private provision. They also used to
dedicate enormous resources to systems of income equalization and protection that
limited economic inequality and guarantee a common standard of living.
3) Finally, liberal states (usually Anglo-American states), in which there is less in the
way of nationally organized popular collective agency, typically have more
decentralized educational systems, strong traditions of local governance in
education, and greater levels of private and local funding of schools (Archer 1979;
Green 1990; Manzer 2003). In these contexts education is often heavily funded (i.e.,
at levels similar to those in social democracies), but it is seen more as an
alternative rather than a compliment to other forms of social redistribution,
preferred because it provides equality of opportunity without limiting the role of
markets in allocation of resources (Castles 1989; Hega and Hokenmaier 2002; Weir
2002). These systems produce higher levels of inequality in educational
achievement than either models 1 or 2 (Windzio et al. 2008, p. 14).
This typology, of course, is a rather rudimentary one no individual state conforms to all
the dimensions of the relationships between social entitlements, educational governance
and educational allocation as described above, and there are many additional distinctive
cultural and historical factors that have contributed to national differences across
educational systems. Much more research needs to be done if we wish to illuminate the way
in which different forms of state and collective action at the national level come together to
21
produce different types of educational entitlement and governance.

A set of simple lessons can be drawn from the existing research on educational
entitlements and the evolution of social citizenship in established industrial democracies, in
order to offer a counterpoint to the official view of ideal educational governance reforms
being advocated in the international community.
1. Forms of educational governance and allocation are tightly linked to the
evolution of different types of polities (Green 1990; Hega and Hokenmaier
2002; Heidenheimmer 1997).
2. As a starting point, we can conceptualize these polities in a typology that looks
both at the level of resources allocated to socially redistributive purposes, and at
the tradeoffs made in terms of social entitlements that are both different in type
(ie, education vs. income guarantees) and in organizational arrangement (level
or scale at which various aspects of the system are governed/controlled; the
rungs of the educational ladder) (Archer 1979; Green 1990; Hega and
Hokenmaier 1998;).
3. The variation in social citizenship entitlements across different ideal types of
polities generally reflects the evolution of different forms of negotiated
settlements among collective actors at the national level (Esping-Anderson
1990). Historically, the single most important factor in the expansion of socially
redistributive capacities in capitalist welfare states has been the establishment of
sustained forums for negotiating power in which working class/popular interests
are represented. This has usually depended on the formation of unions, left
leaning political parties, and the development of working class or popular and
middle class political alliances (Huber et. al. 1997; Rueschemeyer et al. 1992).
4. The interests of collective agents are not primordial or fixed (though they can
become sticky or path dependent). Such interests are socially and
historically constructed and therefore evolve as part of the political process of
institutionalization and re- (or de-) institutionalization of specific social
settlements (Anderson 1983; Esping Anderson 1990; Thelan 1999).
5. Sustained forms of socially redistributive policy rely heavily on state capacity to
shape such working class/middle class alliances around support for specific state
projects. One of these projects has been the introduction of a legislated right to
schooling and the institutionalization of a system of mass education.
Educational systems, in the words of Anderson, helped to construct an
imagined community lengthening social chains of interdependence
22
(Anderson 1983; 988; Boli et al. 1985; Weir 2002).

In short, collective action at the national level, although marginalized in current governance
reforms, has played an enormous and primarily positive - role in shaping the scope and
organization of educational entitlements across established industrialized democracies. The
shape and character of collective action yields different types of political compacts, and
has also shaped variations in the governance and allocative structures of educational
systems. Over time, national political compacts and the social citizenship regimes they set
in play, encompass and shape the evolution of educational systems, their governance
structures, and their allocative/redistributive roles.
Rather, and over the longer duration, it is the formation of a stable political
compromise or compact, negotiated among formalized collective actors at the national
level, that shapes the structure and redistributive capacity of educational systems
importantly influencing the extent to which citizens enjoy equitable educational (and other)
social entitlements, and the legitimacy and strength of various forms of popular claims
making in the educational arena.
Social Citizenship Regimes, Educational Entitlements and Globalization
The impact of globalization processes on social citizenship regimes has been hotly debated
by both policy makers and researchers. Many initial analysts pointed out that the
combination of a shift towards liberalization of economic markets and the rise of new forms
of transnational market power (mobile multinational corporations) and new global
institutions (e.g., the WTO), had significant impacts on the ability of governments, even in
rich countries, to generate the tax resources needed to sustain their social welfare and
redistributive policies. As inscribed in what came to be called the Washington consensus
(Maxwell 2005; Williamson 1993), these reforms typically included downsizing,
marketizing, and privatizing social welfare regimes (Mundy 2005).
Globalization also spawned a new kind of policy rhetoric about education one
increasingly focused on the creation of a competitive workforce (as opposed to the more
traditional goals of equality, redistribution of opportunity, and entitlement); and on
introducing decentralization and market-like incentives into educational systems (Ball
1998; Carnoy 1999; Dale 1997; Henry et. al. 2001; World Bank 1995). As such reform
endeavors became endemic to education systems and other of the core arenas for social
citizenship, governments often experimented with new forms of voice and accountability
seeking a kind of legitimation from the citizen-client that moved beyond the traditional
state-led granting of entitlements, and corresponds to the Human Development approach.
The broad shift towards a more globalized economy and globally networked state
clearly forced a renegotiation of the social settlements achieved in established
industrialized countries. But the outcomes of these renegotiations implied, yet again, that
very different sets of political actors, with distinctive, socially constructed identities and
interests, led to a heterogeneous change in social settlements at the national level. The
23
social meaning of decentralization and the move towards more direct participation could
look quite different in these different contexts, even when reforms were administratively
similar.
Furthermore, processes of globalization opened up new spaces for collective action.
Recent history has seen an explosion of global social movement activism in response to the
emergence of increasingly globalized forms of political and economic power (Keck and
Sikkink 1998; Smith 1997). It has also seen the emergence of new state-led efforts to
construct post-national social citizenship regimes, most notably within the European Union
(Habermas 2001); and significant efforts by international organizations to forge
partnerships with business aimed at engaging them in the construction of an international
public sphere which accords greater attention to basic rights and social equality (Ruggie
2004).
While the absence of a centralized government-like authority limits the ability of
these new actors to negotiate a global social settlement, they are proving important in two
ways. First, transnational actors have proven quite effective in leveraging changes on
specific issues within individual nations and within intergovernmental organizations (Keck
and Sikkink 1998). Second (and perhaps more significantly) they help to construct an
imagined global community in which the demand for basic rights and entitlements is
universalized that is to say, these organizations advocated for a form of global social
citizenship and for the means to realize it through both national citizenship and
transnational citizenship regimes (Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi 2005; Davies 2005;
Kabeer 2005; Nelson and Dorsey 2003). The net result of these developments is the gradual
(some might say tentative) construction of a global public sphere that is no longer
contained by states and their formal interstate relationships, and that is increasingly
capable of holding states accountable to its own goals (Held 2005; Ruggie 2004).
International organizations are now a permanent and expanding feature of an
increasingly multi-level (or what Dale (2004) terms pluriscalar) arena for educational
governance, challenging previous patterns of sovereignty even in some of the richest
countries. There is also a variety of new, non-state actors implicated in transnational
educational politics. National systems of schooling have wide and often well-organized
constituencies think of parents associations, teachers unions, student unions and other
professional associations. These constituencies have always challenged plans for
educational reform. What is new is that they increasingly see their interests as linked
transnationally, and are able to utilize new information technologies to mobilize. Around
the world burgeoning transnational social movements repeatedly turn to education as a
venue for demonstrating the negative impacts of globalization and the need for more
effective global governance (Mundy and Murphy 2001).
We can summarize these developments and their implications for the governance of an
education for all agenda in three points.
1) First, improving education is a central feature of national efforts to adjust to
globalization. But the approach to education reform (particularly the weight given to
24
equality concerns), as well as the meaning of key governance reforms (such as

decentralization or local participation), depends heavily upon the character of a
nations negotiated regime for citizenship.
2) Second, the rise of transnational forms of collective political action suggest that a
new avenue for political leverage and alliance is building around the idea of social
citizenship entitlements a form of collective action that transcends national
borders. However, transnational citizens movements are clearly a long way away
from negotiating a truly global social citizenship regime, in the sense of a
negotiated settlement comprised of state-sponsored projects for redistributive
justice.
3) Finally, the combination of neo-liberal governance reforms with a focus on
education (advocated by intergovernmental organizations), and of transnational
efforts to extend forms of global social citizenship, might be expected to produce an
especially active though highly contradictory era of multi-layered governance
experiments around education for all - especially directed at those countries
where the right to education is farthest from realization. There is a keen need to look
more closely at the articulation and effects of these new governance experiments in
the developing world.
A Social Citizenship Lens on Governance Reforms in the Developing World
A series of challenges arise in any effort to transpose the problematic of social citizenship
to the developing world not least because the construct itself has deep historical roots in
Western polities, and may further render local political processes illegible. However, a
social citizenship lens offers a corrective for the tendency within current development
thinking and practice, to make uncritical use of concepts like democracy, participation and
good governance that are drawn from an idealized model of the Western liberal polity.
Furthermore, we know that the evolution of the international aid regime itself has been
shaped and influenced by the emergence of social citizenship regimes in the North and
that transnational civil society actors also draw on this same Western repertoire in their
advocacy efforts (Lumsdaine 1993; Mundy and Murphy 2001; Noel 2005).
For many developing countries, independence and anti-colonialism struggles
revolved not only around the demand for political rights and equality. The demand for selfrule also focused on livelihoods and economic equality (Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi
2005). Furthermore, both the character of a countrys colonial administration and the nature
of a countrys anti-colonial struggle, are likely to have left an indelible imprint in national
politics. How popular constituencies were organized for collective action, and whether
armed conflict was part of that struggle, influenced independence policies, both in terms of
the later extension of civil and political rights and the structure of formal politics in a
country, and in terms of the allocation of social entitlements.
After independence, governments in many developing countries played a very weak
role in social redistribution; they quite frequently circumvented formal procedural
democracy and also denied basic civil and political rights.
25
In the 1990s, a wave of democratic transitions in the developing world fed

international interest in the question of how to structure new forms of accountability in
developing states not only to prevent elite capture but also to ensure a social foundation
for democracy -- leading to a rapid expansion of official interest in mobilizing civil
society (Blair 2000). Decentralization and local governance reforms often initially
motivated by a pragmatic interest in resource mobilization -- increasingly came to be seen
as essential to the construction of a social foundation for democracy.
Advocates of decentralization generally argue that it has great potential to
stimulate the growth of civil society organizations. Prevent widespread disillusionment
with new policies from turning into rejection of the entire democratic process [and] boost
legitimacy by making government more responsive to citizen needs (Diamond 1999, quoted
in Hiskey and Seligson 2003, p. 66). Governance and sector reform programs by donor
agencies created a profusion of sites in which citizens came to be enlisted in enhancing
accountability and state responsiveness (Manor 2004b). This view of a link between
decentralization and democracy and between democracy and social citizenship is also
reinforced by international civil society actors, whose years of work in participatory
approaches to local development condition lead them to favor locally controlled approaches
to development (Cornwall and Coelho, eds. 2007).
However, an increasing number of researchers dispute the idea that decentralization
of governance naturally leads to the effective mobilization of clients and citizens and the
institutionalization of more equitable and effective social sector policies. The overlay of
two contrasting motives the first for direct resource-mobilization and the second for
legitimation through the provision of citizenship entitlements -- often plays out in
contradictory and confusing ways in decentralization reforms that aim at greater
participation (Cornwall and Coelho, eds. 2007, p. 5; Robinson 2007;). Empirical research
has found that decentralization reforms are often shaped by mixed motives for example,
by governmental desire to offload responsibility or (alternatively) by governmental
resistance to ceding downward control (Cornwall and Coelho, eds. 2007). There are also
key administrative demands that make the institutionalization of good governance at the
local level as difficult as at the national level; opportunities for elite capture and patronage
relations at the local level are often just as great (Ahmad et al. 2005). Finally, when
decentralization reforms do not yield effective benefits, they can actually create greater
levels of distrust and disillusionment with democracy as a mode of operating (Hiskey and
Seligson 2003).
Overall, there is simply too little empirical research to tell us whether increased
participation in decentralized local governance structures either improves services
(Robinson 2007) or enhances democracy (Cornwall and Coelho 2007; Manor 2004 a, b)
across different contexts. A tendency to merge prescriptive and empirical accounts of what
is happening further blurs the debate. Overall, there is a need to unpack the category of
civil society, to examine who comes to represent citizens (Cornwall and Coelho, eds.
2007, p.6).
26
Social Citizenship Lens at the Community-School Interface

Most of us feel an instinctive affinity with the notion that local citizens and their voices
ought to matter in the shaping of educational services. We also know that a wide range of
democratic decentralization experiments are underway in developing country contexts.
For example, in recent field research in Africa we found widespread use of direct user
committees (primarily in the form of school management committees); devolution of
system oversight to elected local authorities; and a myriad of cross cutting experiments in
citizen engagement in education through social funds or funds placed at the discretion of
individual parliamentarians; and pilot projects focused on the creation of community
school report cards (Mundy, 2008).
A substantial body of mainly World Bank funded research supports such
experiments, by offering convincing examples of cases in which local level citizen voice
improves the quality of educational services. However, an equally large body of research
argues against such policies for many of the reasons noted in the section on democratic
decentralization experiments above. Thus, for example, there is often tension or lack of
clarity about how different decentralization experiments map onto one another, with the
relationships between local elected authorities and school committees particularly unclear
(Chapman et al. 2002; Mundy, 2008). Administrative challenges at the local level
undermine the implementation of democratic decentralization efforts; or lead to the creation
of highly scripted forms of engagement (Bray 1999, 2003; Cadell 2005; Gershberg 1999;
Mukundan 2003). Efforts to introduce private providers or to mobilize local level
contributions to schools operate at cross purposes to the message of citizenship entitlement
sent out by national promises of free education (Barrs 2005; Bray 1999; Chapman et al.
2005; Gershberg and Meade 200X; Kendall 2003; Miller Grandvaux and Yoder 2002; Rose
2002, 2003, 2005, 2006). Parents typically view these types of resource-mobilizing
engagement as temporary fixes on the path to state-led schooling in their communities
(Mfum-Mensah 2004). Researchers also find that these reforms re-produce intracommunity as well as inter- community inequality, limiting the redistributive scope of
central government (Bray 1999; Dyer and Rose 2005; Pryor 2005).
A Social Citizenship Lens at the Interface between Civil Society and the National
Polity
In a wave of recent research, political scientists have shown convincingly that a movement
towards free multiparty democracy reinforces promises of universal access to basic
education, and to increased spending for this purpose, at least in Africa and Latin America
(Brown 1999; Brown and Hunter 1997; Stasavage 2004, 2005). To some degree, formal
democracy seems to lock governments in to greater spending on the needs of the median
voter, for whom entitlement to basic education remains an important matter.
We also know that even across formal democracies, educational entitlements are
surprising varied both in terms of the extensiveness and structure. A sharp institutional
overhang from colonial policies seems to influence just how aggressively even newly
democratized societies pursue the later goal of universal basic education (Brown 2000),
27
even when economic factors are held constant. The character of the relationship between
civil society and the state, and the way in which popular voice has been institutionalized in
forms of collective agency vis vis the state, may be the defining factor in such variation.
28
29
Part III
Chapter 8. Outcomes of the New Mode of Governance
General Features
When success of decentralization reforms has been mentioned, this has most often been in
terms of factors such as degree of restructuring, new structures implemented, frequency of
activities and interactions (among stakeholders), generation of local resources and
reinforcement of existing regional and national bodies for monitoring, assessment and
evaluation or creation of new ones. Apart from this, it is not very evident in detail, to what
extent decentralization has led to greater participation. The literature, according to
Kemmerer (1994, p. 1414), suggests four factors that seem to determine the outcomes of
decentralization: (a) social, economic, and cultural context; (b) political support from
national leaders and local elites; (c) adequate planning and management and local
empowerment; and (d) the scope of reform.
The cultural and economic contexts around the globe vary enormously. The
geographical area where the school is situated or from where the pupils are recruited is a
steering force in itself. Various studies show that features at the local level are determined
both by initial conditions and measures taken from higher levels in order to steer the
situation (Abu-Duhou, 1999; Hanson, 1990, 2001; Levacic, 1995; Ornelas, 2000, 2004;
Santos Filho, 1993).
The central level often establishes the parameters for the local boards: mandate,
composition of the local bodies, and so on, guided by a linear view of the whole process:
decisions are made, implementation takes place and people at the local level interpret
centrally decided policies in the way intended by the central decision-makers.
The local ability to take over tasks defined at the central level differs, and is often
taken for granted. However, in order for decentralization to contribute to enlargement of the
space for decision-making to be for everybodys participation at the local level the local
conditions have to allow them to participate. In places as different as Mexico, Mozambique,
Nicaragua, Spain, Sweden and Tanzania, the local populations and school staff claim that
they were not prepared for their new roles (Hanson, 2001; Mmbaga, 2002; Ornelas, 2000;
Ruiz de Forsberg, 2006; Skolverket, 2001).
With the implementation of decentralization, new functions and roles emerge, and
individuals at local level receive more tasks and duties. Therefore, decentralization has
tended to carry ambiguity in regard to responsibility and authority (Elmore, 1993; EthiopiaSida, 2001; Samoff, 1999). Uncertainty as to decision-making competence and different
interpretations of the new rules tend to cause confusion and conflicts (Caldwell, 1993;
Elmore, 1993; Hannaway, 1993; Odden and Wohlstetter, 1993; Papagiannis, Easton and
Owens, 1992; Ruiz de Forsberg, 2006; Skolverket, 1999, 2000).
30
Focus on Participation
Participatory approaches to development are not neutral or value-free, but they are based
on a number of assumptions which need to be taken into account (Shaeffer, 1994).The roles
and functions of local bodies differ and they give school leaders, teachers and parents
varying opportunities to participate. However, both community and participation are
ambiguous terms. Community is often used without definition and specification. Bray
(1997) raises some questions in relation to this: Is community a geographical area, an
ethnic, racial or religious group, and so on? If community is seen as a geographical area,
the situation is that such areas are not homogenous units; communities vary from organic
units to artificial constructions created for administrative purpose. Municipalities and
districts tend to differ in the way local boards interpret and practice the decentralization
processes (Daun, 2003; Hanson, 2001; Levacic, 1995; Slater, 1993). Community tends to
become school community, i.e. the pupils attending the school in question and their
parents. This is especially the case when freedom of choice has been introduced, whereby
community becomes an aggregate of individual choosers (Blackmore, 2000) or only the
locale where the market operates (Angus, 1994, p. 30).
When it comes to participation, Beare (1993, p. 200) argues that the vocabulary
needs to be clarified. Various attempts have been made to define participation.
Participation implies a much more active role than involvement, a role established by right
(Shaeffer, 1994, p. 17). However, in reality, most often this is not the case. For instance, in
Nicaragua, rural women have the principal responsibility for the schooling but due to
poverty, they have to find an income in addition to their household and family tasks. With
their double work load, they are not able to participate in school life to any large extent.
Also, local elites can take advantage of the fact that power is relocated from higher levels
down to the local level, while common people cannot (Alternative Sud, 1997; Hamidou,
1997; Patrinos and Lakshmanan, 1997; Pryor, 2003; Siddique, 1997).
Analyzing the situation in some Sub-Saharan African countries, Durston and
Nashire, 1998) found six different models for community participation in educational
affairs mainly in terms of material input to the school: a) Pure community self-help
(community does everything); b) some measures of community support (coupled with
support from NGOs); c) community provides buildings, government provides teachers and
some materials; d) community is able to make contributions in order to elicit outside
funding; e) a private individual or company establishes its own school and funds 100 per
cent of the costs; f) major funding agencies are able to provide the majority of capital costs.
In most of the cases, participation means contributions.
The function of the head teachers in relation to the site council varies
considerably - even if he or she in most cases chairs the council meetings. At one extreme,
practically all power stays with the head teacher, and the other members are there just to
give advice or to legitimize the head teachers proposals. At the other extreme, the head
teacher is recruited by the site council or board and can be fired if the site board is not
satisfied with his or her performance. As far as the scope of the mandate is concerned, it
may vary from details within a framework set by an authority higher in the hierarchy to a
rather autonomous organ which decides on economic and staff issues and some of the
31
content of education.
Head teachers tend to enjoy more power than before and are satisfied with their new
role, although it is more demanding They also felt that they had more freedom over the
budget. On the other hand, they also felt that they were managing somebody elses agenda
(Abu-Duhou, 1999; Elmore, 1993; Levacic (1995; Samoff, 1999; Skolverket, 1999, 2000;
Weindling, 1998; Whitty, 1996). In most cases, administrative tasks take more of the head
teachers attention and time then before decentralization, at the expense of pedagogical
leadership (Power and Whitty, 1997).
However, head teachers have roles that are difficult to combine. Robertson (1998)
argues that the the head teacher has to deal with three conflicting roles for school leaders that of statesperson (leader of an institution), connoisseur (know the prerequisites for
learning), and entrepreneur (initiate change). Grace (1997) found that school leaders - in
the pressure between the state and the market - have to keep a balance between three broad
ideal types of roles: (i) head teachers-managers; (ii) head teachers-professionals; and (iii)
head teachers-resistors. The first category was managerialists in their professional
orientation, while the second were concerned about professional issues and the third
category reacted passively to the pressures and tasks. For example, during the first phase of
decentralization in Spain, many teachers volunteered to be director for the three year
period. By time, they became less and less interested in volunteering and the same
happened with parent representatives for the councils (Hanson, 2001, pp. 46-47). This trend
made the national authorities change the legislation in order to give head teachers more
power.
In several places, there have been tensions, if not to say conflicts, between the head
teacher, on the one hand, and the school council, on the other hand (Codd, 1994; Hanson,
2001; Harold, 1998). In all, head teachers have been pushed into more administrative and
management tasks at the expense of pedagogical leadership in a broad sense. This trend
seems to be stronger, the stronger market mechanisms (choice and vouchers) are applied.
Teachers participate in different degrees. In some schools, teachers have responded
positively to the reforms whereas in other schools they have been less enthusiastic. They
tend to become more actively involved in various interactions not directly related to
teaching and are less satisfied than the school leaders with their new situation (Abu-Duhou,
1999; Falkner, 1997; Whitty, 1996, 1997), and they have to face the different pressures
from parents to improve school, and as a result their workload has increased (Whitty,
1997). When decentralization is combined with market mechanisms and freedom of choice,
this increases the pressure on the teachers. Chosen schools have to handle an increasing
number of pupils, while schools not chosen tend to face economic problems. In the USA,
according to Daresh (1998, p. 325), teachers can no longer retain their separate identities
as those who are involved only in classroom activities. Teachers feel that their work has
been intensified and that they have to work with a broader area of issues than before, some
of which they do not feel competent to deal with (such as administration, financial issues,
and so on). In England teachers felt that: a) there had been an intensification of work, b)
they had to deal with issues of which they had no experience before, and c) the reforms had
been mandated by others (Southworth, 1998). Similar findings have been reported from
32
several other countries (Daun, Slenning and Waldow, 2004; Fiske and Ladd, 2003; Harold,
1998).
In all, teachers become more involved in different activities not directly related to
their teaching in the classroom, but it is not very clear to what extent they can influence the
decision-making in their school.
Parental involvement: Today, especially in low income countries, parents are
expected to contribute to school activities in various ways. The most common forms of are
fees, sponsoring, or that communities pay teacher salaries (Bray, 1998). Opportunities for
parental involvement may vary from sporadic school visits to a situation in which parents
form the majority in a school-site council with decision-making power. If these
arrangements allow strong parental participation, at least theoretically, then what happens is
to a large extent due to how much the parents are able to use their opportunities and this, in
its turn, tends to mirror societal and community structures and cultural patterns. The studies
reviewed show the anticipated pattern: parents with more cultural capital (especially
education) are more active and more than other parents elected to boards.
If decentralization leaves space for local initiative, it is then a matter of how this
is perceived and who exploits the new opportunities. In Mexico, local elites have, according
to Ornelas (2000, p. 21), taken advantage of the powers emanating from decentralization.
Case studies conducted in Ghana (Pryor, 2003), India (Leclercq, 2003), Cambodia (Pellini,
2006), Nicaragua (Ruiz de Forsberg, 2006), and Senegal (Clemons, 2006) illustrate this. In
the case of Mozambique, traditional chiefs were deliberately involved (Ribeiro, 2006).
Pryor (2003) found in a case study conducted in Ghana that no females were ever elected to
the school councils, and the majority of the members were teachers (as parents), while the
remaining ones were more well-off, and better educated people. Parents tend to be left with
the role to come in when called upon by the schools or to share costs with the state
(Leclercq, 2003; Parajuli, 2006; Pellini, 2006; Pryor, 2003). In South Africa (Grant Lewis
and Naidoo, 2006) and Nepal (Parajuli, 2006), parents participate on conditions formally or
informally established by the head teacher and the teachers. In Nicaragua, a great deal of
parental participation takes the form of parents attending school meetings and school fairs
and parents helping with school repair and painting (Ruiz de Forsberg, 2006).
In all, the pattern of local participation tends to mirror the socio-economic and
cultural (capital) distribution in the local area of the school. If we use the ladder of
participation presented by Arnstein (1971), we find that parent participation tends to take
place at lowest stages (1-4), which imply use of schooling, material contribution, attending
meetings for receiving information, or involvement in specific issues.
Case Studies Conducted in Eight Countries

Case studies conducted in eight countries during the period 2002-2005, most of them lowincome countries, show the following. These countries are similar to many other countries
in that decision-making, tasks and/or functions have been moved from higher levels to
33
school level. De-concentration and delegation have been most common or at least the most
commonly decided upon in the case countries as well as in several of the other cases
reviewed. In all countries except Norway the district level deals with primary and
secondary education. The low income countries among them have of strong national/local
cultures based in traditional communitarianism, whether they are relatively egalitarian or
highly stratified along caste, clan or purely socio-economic lines. These cultures do not
accept all the ingredients of neo-liberal modernity (e.g. individualism, profit-making).
Thus, the project of modernity disseminated through the world models and general
processes of globalization - if not filtered through national policy making - encounter the
local realities, and something of glocalization and hybridization occurs (Nederven Pieterse,
1995; Robertson, 1995). This means that universal features are translated and adapted to
local cultures and the universal and the local are more or less merged. All of these countries
increasingly are object of (I)NGO interventions. Since the (I)NGOs carry modern
communitarianism, the encounter with traditional communitarianism tends to result in
hybridization and glocalization. For example, in Cambodia, (I)NGOs make efforts to
implement specific structures for local decision-making and to use traditional pagoda
associations for modernization purpose (Pellini, 2006).
Basically, there is public funding from the central state but also some share is
expected to come from local or medium levels in the form of private funding (fees,
sponsoring). Cambodia is unique in that parents contribute a large proportion of the school
funds.
Comparisons across countries or even across provinces in one and the same country
have to take into consideration that: (i) the baselines differed when the implementation of
decentralization started; (ii) the levels, forms, types and issues of decentralization vary; and
(iii) some countries have combined decentralization with introduction of market forces
(choice arrangements, per student subsidy, etc.), while others have not. All of these features
have not been possible to study in detail here.
The most radical or comprehensive decentralization programs have been introduced
in Norway, Nicaragua, South Africa and (in community-based education - CBE) in
Senegal. All these programs imply devolution of decision-making and tasks from the
central level to the schools. This is combined with rather detailed instructions from above
concerning mandates and composition of the school-site bodies. When it comes to sitedbased body, most countries formerly did not have such bodies at regional level but at best a
PTA. The countries differ in involvement of parents or other local people in the school-site
bodies, and whether these bodies have decision-making power or not. Since the beginning
of the 1990s, all eight case countries have introduced a decision-making or advisory body
at the school. Decentralization efforts (mainly de-concentration) have been weakest in
Greece, and Mozambique, where most of the decision-making power has stayed at the
regional or district levels. In Greece, most of the decision-making takes place in deconcentrated state bodies, but in parallel to these, there are at school level (and other levels)
of the parent association with an advisory role. The schools have councils and committees
with an advisory role, and the real power stays with the head teacher.
As far as market mechanisms are concerned, they are most extensively used in
34
Norway and South Africa. In Norway, there are per student subsidies and almost unlimited
choice (at least theoretically). South Africa is similar in these regards but schools have also
spent time on fund raising. Nicaragua had per student subsidies, fund raising and school
fees from the start of the decentralization reform, but when it became evident that this was
in contradiction with the constitution, the fees became voluntary contributions from the
parents. In some of the other countries, there is choice (at least theoretically) in that
children can choose a private school
In all countries, there is a national administrative structure or framework and then
decentralized bodies for decision-making within this framework. The framework is week in
low income countries, and the central state has often weak capabilities, and this results in
lack of support to the local levels and problems for information to go in both directions upwards and down-wards. Within the national framework, local or community people are
expected to be involved, but this involvement most often takes the form of economic
contribution and rarely of genuine participation at the highest level of Arnsteins (1971)
ladder. Apart from the traditional regulative and steering mechanisms, retro-active
assessments conducted by the central state; choice exerted by parents and pupils; and per
pupil funding are steering mechanisms as suggested in the world model. This is of course
most elaborated in Norway where the levels of technology, income and competence are
sufficiently high and infrastructure exists for applying such measures.
Policies of school accountability have to a large extent been introduced; schools
have to report their activity, budgets and student achievement, often upwards in the
hierarchy as well as horizontally to school boards/councils or other bodies.
Norway has introduced essential elements of the world models for education:
market mechanisms, move of decision-making from national level to school level, and so
on. The school-site body in the case schools studied in Norway have an advisory role and
most power stays with the head teacher (Smehaugen, 2006). On the other hand, Greeces
has been reluctant to appropriate elements from the worlds models and has mostly
deconcentrated and delegated from the national to regional and prefectural levels (Siminou,
2006).
In South Africa, decision-making has been moved from national to provincial level
and school level. The provinces differ in regard to how much and what they have
decentralized to districts and schools. However, the general trend is devolution of decisionmaking to the school-site body. The country had such bodies before the shift to democracy,
but these bodies were organized along racial lines so in practice only white schools had
them. Nowadays, parents should have a strong voice, but it was found in the case study
schools that, in practice, the head teacher decides. Some resource generation has been
placed at local/school level; market mechanisms and outcomes-based performance tests
have been introduced (Grant Lewis and Naidoo, 2006).
Nicaragua implemented one of the most radical types of decentralization in that a
great deal of decision-making but also of funding from the national level to schools have
been devolved to the schools. According to the regulations, parents are in majority in the
school council but in reality, the head teacher decides in most matters. The school-site
35
council came with the decentralization in the 1990s (Ruiz de Forsberg, 2006).
In Senegal, the central state was pressured from international agents to increase
enrollment in the world wide endeavour to accomplish Education for All, and it was
internationally legitimized for the state to leave the complete responsibility for this new
type of community (CBE) schools to local communities and (I)NGOs. The only role taken
by the state is monitoring and supervision from the district (prefecture) level. The position
of the CBE schools is not quite clear, since they have been seen by the central state as
formal as well as non-formal. The school-site body is a new phenomenon in Senegalese
school matters and exists in the CBE schools. In practice, most decisions are made by NGO
representatives (Clemons, 2006).
Mozambique had not introduced market forces to any large extent and
decentralization had been made mainly to the regional and district levels, even if schools
will be required to take more responsibility than before. Mozambique has decided on a
policy implying the establishment of school-site councils including local people, but
implementation had not yet started when the field study was conducted in this country
(Ribeiro, 2006).
Cambodia is among the poorest in the world, but its population contributes
significantly to the direct funding of education (not via the tax system). There are local
pagoda associations but they are mostly staffed by people who participate by tradition. At
the local level, mechanisms for involvement vary. The composition of the school-site
bodies tend to reflect the socio-economic, gender and other inequalities in the local
community. Efforts are made to decentralize some of the formal and modern type of
decision-making, but these efforts seem not to have been successful in linking to the
traditional pagoda associations, which are handling a great deal of school matters at the
local level (Pellini, 2006).
In Nepal, schools were run by local communities until the end of the 1960s when
they were taken over by the central state. With the pressure from international community,
decentralization has been gradually implemented since the 1990s, principally as deconcentration to state bodies at the district level. Cambodia and Nepal have also deconcentrated but more so to the district level. Most decisions are made by officers in the deconcentrated district office (Parajuli, 2006).
36
Chapter 9. Conclusion
What ever the causes, reasons and mechanisms (imitation, borrowing, imposition, etc.) are,
governments have implemented essential elements similar to or of the same type as those
suggested in the world model for education. This has occurred, although all countries are
not economically incorporated into the most important flows of the world economy.
Societies are pressured by economic globalization to become competitive and the countries
with the lowest income are marginalized from economic flows.
Economic globalization itself does not require or cause decentralization but the
discourse of the world models carries a mixture of elements from the market orientation
and the communitarian orientation in which decentralization is explicitly pointed out. As
part of the NG, decentralization may be seen as an attempt to respond to the above
mentioned requirements but also to relocate wastage, uncertainty, risk, finance and
conflicts to local levels in society (Weiler, 1993). In fact, in many cases, the new type of
governance has not been demanded by local and national people and it does not always fit
local or national needs and demands.
When the NG is fully implemented, it includes components that logically belong
together. Decentralization can change the supply side in the education, but markets
mechanisms have to be introduced in order to enable parents, children and schools to
respond to the demands.
The outcomes of decentralization are conditioned by a large number of factors, such
as formulated policy, type of decentralization, whether market mechanisms have been
included, implemented policy, and local cultural, economic and political contexts. Also, the
outcomes are conditioned by the countries position in the world economic system by the
globalization forces and also by the pressure to implement features from the world model.
Hybridization and/or glocalization seem to occur from the encounter between the world
model and and local perspectives, beliefs and ideological orientations.
Parent participation at the highest levels as defined by Arnstein (1971) seems to be
rare. However, the fact that there exists a discourse on and policy of decentralization makes
it more legitimate than before for local people to use their voice in educational matters.
Governance in high income countries tends to be rather sophisticated and requires
advanced technology and is directed by a relatively strong central state. Abu-Duhou (1999,
p. 20) argues that the reform efforts have to balance increased diversification, flexibility
and local control, with an orderly delivered quality of education across geographical, socioeconomic and ethnic divisions of society. However, NG in itself does not seem to be able
to achieve this.
For decentralized education systems, the role of the central and regional
governments is critical in ensuring equity and protection of minority interests.
Decentralization might require careful planning and extensive training and more staff,
resources, and equipment, rather than less. From a policy point of view, since the
dimension of decentralization - centralization is one aspect of governance and others have
37
been introduced, it is difficult to establish what outcomes are due to what.

The country cases and the findings reported in the last chapter indicate that the
decentralization programs have been successful in changing existing administrative and
decision-making structures and in installing new ones, but they seem to have been less
successful in terms of genuine local participation and social citizenship. Generally, the
certain outcomes of governance reforms are then that they have been successful in the
implementation of structures and new type of governance but many such reforms have
failed to achieve other important objectives set for them.
38
References
Abu-Duhou, I. (1999). School-based management. Paris: Unesco/IIEP.
Ahmad, J., Devarajan S., S. Khemani & S. Shah. (2005). Decentralization and Service
Delivery. World Bank Policy Research Paper 3603.
Almond, G.A. & Verba, S. (1965). The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Alternative Sud (1997). Editorial: Pouvoirs locaux. Alternatives Sud, Vol. IV (3) 5-23.
Anderson, B.. (1983). Imagined Communities. New York: Verso.
Angus, J. (1994). Democratic Participation or Efficient Site Management: The School and
Political Location of the Self-Managing School, (pp. 11-33). In J. Smyth (ed.). A
Socially Critical View of the Self-Managing School. London: The Falmer Press.
Ansell, B. Teachers, Traders and Tyrants. Democracy, Globalization and Public
Investment in Education. Working Paper No. 06-01. Weatherhead Center for
International Affairs. Harvard University.
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/1060__BA_ TradesTeachers.pdf
Archer, D. (1994). The Changing Roles of Non-governmental Organizations in the Field of
Education. International Journal of Educational Development, Vol 14(3), 223-232.
Arnstein, S. R. (1971). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Royal Town
Planning Institute. Retrieved August 14, 2004.
Ball, S. (1998). Big policies, small world: An introduction to international perspectives in
education policy. Comparative Education, Vol 34(2), 119-130.
Bangura, Y. (2001). Globalization and African Development. In R. Suttner (ed.). Africa in
the New Millenium. Uppsala: The Nordic African Institute.
Barber B.R. (1996). An American Civic Forum: Civil Society Between Market Individuals
and the Political Community. In R. F. Paul & F. D. Miller, Jr. (eds). The
Communitarian Challenge to Liberalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barroso, J. (2004). Nouvelle tendences des politiques ducatives en Europe: La rgulation
de laction publique en ducation. Paper presented at Unesco workshop, April 1923, 2004.
Barrs, J. (2005). Factors contributed by community organizations to the motivation of
teachers in rural Punjab, Pakistan, and implications for the quality of teaching,
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 25, 333-348.
Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and Ambivalence. In Featherstone, M. (ed.) Global
Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, (pp. 143-169). London: Sage
Publications.
Beare, H. (1993). Different Ways of Viewing School-site Councils: Whose Paradigm Is in
the Use Here? In H. Beare & W.L. Boyd (eds.). Restructuring Schools. An
International Perspective on the Movement to Transform the Control and
Performance of School, (pp. 200-217). London: The Falmer Press.
Berger, P. L. (1999). The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview. In P. L.
Berger (ed.). The Desecularization of the World. Resurgent Religion and World
Politics, (pp. 1-19). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Birdsall, N. & Vaishnave, M. (2005). Education and the MDGs: Realizing the Millennium
39
Compact. Columbia Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 58 (2). 57-264.

Blackmore, J. (2000). Globalization: A Useful Concept for Feminists Rethinking Theory
and Strategies in Education? In N. Burbules & C. A. Torres (eds.). Globalization
and education. Critical Perspectives, (pp. 133-155). New York: Routledge.
Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery. World Development, Vol.
28(1), 21-39.
Boli, J., Ramirez, F.O. & Meyer, J. W. (1985). Explaining the origins and expansion of
mass education. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 29 (2), 145-170.
Bolivia - Sida (2000). Popular Participation, Decentralization and Education in Bolivia.
Paper presented at a seminar organized by the Swedish Development Cooperation
Authority, October 13, 2000, in Stockholm.
Bray, M. (1997). Community Financing of Education: Rationales, Mechanisms, and Policy
Implications in Less Developed Countries. In C. Colclough (ed.). Marketizing
Education and Health in Developing Countries: Miracle or Mirage? (pp. 185-201)
Oxford: Clanderon Press.
Bray, M. (1998). Financing Education in Developing Asia: Patterns, Trends and Policy
Implications. Hongkong: Asian Development Bank/The University of Hongkong.
Bray, M. (1999). Community Partnerships in Education: Dimensions, Variations and
Implications. EFA Thematic Study. Paris: UNESCO.
Bray, M. (2003). Community initiatives in education: Goals, dimensions, and linkages with
governments. Compare Vol. 33(1), 31-45.
Bray, M. & M.V. Mukundan (2003). Management and Governance for EFA: Is
Decentralization Really the Answer? Retrieved 11 March 2005 from
www.hku.hk/cere.
Brown, D. (1999). Reading Writing and Regime Type: Democracies and the Social Impact
of School Enrolment. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52(4), 681-707.
Brown, D. (2000). Democracy, Colonization and Human Capital in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Studies in Comparative International Development. 35(1), 20-40.
Brown, D. & W. Hunter (1997). Democracy and Human Capital Formation: Educational
Spending in Latin America 1980-1997. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 37(7):
842-864.
Caddell, M. (2005). Listening to local voices? International targets and decentralised
education planning in Nepal. International Journal of Education Development, Vol.
25 (2005) 456-469.
Caldwell, J. B. (1993). Paradox and Uncertainty in the Governance of Education. In H.
Beare and W.L. Boyd (eds.). Restructuring Schools. An International Perspective
on the Movement to Transform the Control and Performance of School, (pp. 158173). London: The Falmer Press.
Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and Educational Reform: What Planners Need to Know.
Paris: International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP).
Castells, M. (1993). The Informational Economy and the New International Division of
Labor. In M. Carnoy, M. Castells, S. S. Cohen & F.H. Cardoso The New Global
Economy in the Information Age, (pp.15-44). University Park, Penn.: The
Pennsylvania State University.
Castillo, J. B. (2002). Descentralizacin del estado y articulacin del espacio nacional. El
40
Caso de la Regin Sur del Ecuador . Third edition. Quito: Libre Mundi.
Castles, F. G. (1989). Explaining Public Education Expenditures in OECD Nations.
European Journal of Political Research Vol. 17(4), 431-48.
Chapman, D., D. W. Weidman, Cohen, M., & Mercer, M. (2005). The search for quality: A
five country study of national strategies to improve educational quality in Central
Asia. International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 25, 514-530.
Clemons, A. (2006). Decentralization in Senegal - Ambiguous Agendas for Community
Education. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing
Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots Responses (pp. 115-132).
Springer.
Colclough, C. (1991). Who Should Learn to Pay? An Assessment of Neo-Liberal
Approaches to Education Policy. In C. Coclough and M. Manor, M (eds.). States
or Markets? Neo-Liberalism and the Development Policy Debate (pp. 197-213).
Oxford: Clanderon Press.
Codd, J. A. (1994). Managerialism, Market Liberalism, and the Move to Self-Managing
Schools in New Zealand. In J. Smyth (ed.). A Socially Critical View of the SelfManaging School, (pp. 153-170). London: The Falmer Press.
Cornwall, A & V. Coelho (eds.). (2007). Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen
Participation in New Democratic Arenas. London: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. & C. Nyamu-Musembi. (2005). Why Rights, Why Now? Reflections on the
Rise of Rights in International Development Discourse. IDS Bulletin, Vol. 36(1), 917.
Corrales, J. (1999). The Politics of Education Reform: Bolstering the Supply and Demand;
Overcoming Institutional Blocks. The Education Reform and Management Series
Vol. 2(1). Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Cox R. W. (2000). Political Economy and World Order: Problems of Power and
Knowledge at the Turn of the Millenium. In R. Stubbs & G. R. D. Underhill (Eds.).
Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. 2nd edition, (pp. 25-37).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dable-Norris, E. & M. Gradstein. (2004) The Distributional Bias of Public Education:
Causes and Consequences. IMF Working Paper 04/214. Washtington D.C.:
International Monetary Fund.
Dale, R. (1997) The State and the Governance of Education: An Analysis of the
Restructuring of the State-Education Relation. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P.
Brown & A. Stuart Wells (eds.). Education, Culture, Economy, Society. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: demonstrating a common world educational
culture or locating a globally structured educational agenda? Educational Theory
50(4): 427-448.
Dale, R. (2003). Globalisation and the rescaling of educational governance: a case of
sociological ectopia. International Studies Association Conference, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Dale, R. (2004). Forms of Governance, Governmentality and the EUs Open Method of
Coordination. In W. Larner & W. Walters (eds.). Global Governmentality. (pp.
41
174-194). London: Routledge.

Daresh, J. C. (1998). Professional development for school leadership: The impact of U. S.
educational reform. International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 29, 299310.
Daun, H. (2003). Market Forces and Decentralization in Sweden - a Threat to
Comprehensiveness and Equity and an Impetus for School Development? In D. N.
Plank & G. Sykes (eds.). Choosing Choice. School Choice in International
Perspective, (pp. 92-111). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Daun, H. (2004). Privatization, Decentralization and Governance in Education in the Czech
Republic, England, France. Germany and Sweden. International Review of
Education, 50: 325-346.
Daun, H. (2006). How Does Educational Decentralization Work and What Has It
Achieved? In Daun, H. (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing
Governance. International Comparison of Grassroot Responses (pp. 27-54).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Daun, H. & R. Arjmand (2005). Education in Europe and Muslim Demands for
Competitive and Moral Education. International Review of Education, Vol. 51 (56): 403-426.
Daun, H., Slenning, K. & Waldow, F. (2004). Sweden. In E. Klieme (ed.). Educational
Standards in Some OECD Countries, (pp. 115-145). Mnster: Waxman.
Davies, L. (2002). Possibilities and limits for democratization in education. Comparative
Education, Vol. 38 (3), 251-266.
DeStefano, J. & L. Crouch (2006). Education Reform Support Today. Educational Quality
Improvement Program (EQUIP)2. Washington D.C.: USAID.
DFID - UK Department for International Development (2005). Using Drivers of Change to
Improve Aid Effectiveness. London: DFID.
Doyal, L and I. Gough. (1991). A Theory of Human Need. London: The MacMillam Press
Ltd.
Durston, S. & Nashire, N. (1998). Community Participation in Education: Policies,
Practices and Real Lives. Paper presented at the conference organized by the World
Comparative Education Societies, in Cape Town, July 1998.
Dyer, C. & P. Rose. (2005). Decentralisation for educational development? An editorial
introduction. Compare, Vol. 35(2), 105-113.
EFA/FTI Secretariat. (2005). Guidelines for Assessment and Endorsement of the Primary
Education Component of an Education Sector Plan. Available at:
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/efaafti/documents/assessementguidelines.pdf
, Retrieved 11 30 January 2005.
Elmore, R.F. (1993). School Decentralization: Who Gains? Who Looses. In J. Hannawy
and M. Carnoy (eds.). Decentralization and School Improvement. Can We Fulfill
the Promise?, (pp. 33-54). San Fransisco: The Jossey-Bass Publications.
Esping-Anderson, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.
:Princeton University Press.
Esteva, G. & Prakash, M. S. (1998). Grassroots Postmodernism. Rewaking the Soil of
Cultures, London: Zed Books.
Ethiopia-Sida (2001). Decentralisation in Education - Ethiopia Paper presented at a seminar
42
organized by the Swedish Development Cooperation Authority, in Stockholm,

October 13, 2000.
Etzioni, A. (1995). The Spirit of community. Rights, Responsibilities and the
Communitarian Agenda. London: Fontana Press.
Falkner, K. (1997). Lrare och skolans omstrukturering: Ett mte mellan
utbildningspolitiska intentioner och grundskollrares perspektiv p frndring i
den svenska skolan. (Teachers and school restructuring: An encounter between
education policy intentions and teachers perspective on change in the Swedish
School). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Fioramonti, L. (2007). The internal contradictions of global civil society What impact of
global democracy. Development Dialogue, Vol. 49, 131-141.
Fiske , E. B. & Ladd, H. F. (2003). School Choice in New Zealand: A Cautionary Tale. In
D. N. Plank and G. Sykes (eds.). Choosing Choice. School Choice in International
Perspective, (pp. 45-66). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Flacks, R. (1995). Think Globally, Act Politically: Some Notes toward New Movement
Strategy. In M. Darnovsky, B. Epstein and R. Flacks (eds.). Cultural Politics and
Social Movements, (pp. 251-263). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.). The
Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality. (pp.87-104). London:
Harvester/Whatsheaf.
Freeman, C. & L. Soete (1994). Work for all or Mass Unemployment. London: Pinter.
Fuller, B. & Rubinson, R. (1992). The Political Construction of Education: The State,
School Expansion and Economic Change. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press.
Gershberg, A. (1999) Education Decentralization Process in Mexico and Nicaragua:
Legislative versus Ministry Led Reform Strategies. Comparative Education Vol.
35(1), 63-80.
Gershberg, A. & B. Meade (2005). Parental Contributions, school level finance and
decentralization: an analysis of Nicaraguan autonomous school budgets.
Comparative Education Vol. 41(3), 291-308.
Gilbert, N. (2004). Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of the Public
Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gill, S. (2000). Knowledge, Politics, and Neo-Liberal Political Economy. In R. Stubbs and
G. R. D. Underhill (eds.). Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, (pp.
48-59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: an introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon
and P. Miller (eds.). The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, (pp. 1-51).
London: Harvester/Whatsheaf.
Grace, G. (1997). Politics, Markets and Democratic Schools: On the Transformation of
School Leadership. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. Stuart Wells
(eds). Education. Culture, Economy, Society (pp. 311-319). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Grant Lewis, S. & Naidoo, J. (2006). Technocratic School Governance and South Africas
Quest for Democratic Participation. Naidoo and Lewis In H. Daun (ed.). School
Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing Governance. International
Comparison of Grassroots Responses (pp. 133-158). Dordrecht: Springer.
43
Green, A. (1990). Education and State Formation. New York: St. Martins Press.
Griffin, K. (2003). Economic Globalisation and Institutions of Global Governance.
Development and Change, Vol. 34 (5), 789-807.
Griffith-Jones, S. & Ocampo, J. A. (1999). The Poorest Countries and the Emergin
International Financial Architecture. Report 1999:4 from the EGDI group.
Stockholm: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Grindle. M. (2004). Despite the Odds: The Contentious Politics of Education Reform.
Princeton University Press.
Gurr, D. (1999). From supervision to quality assurance: the case of the State of Victoria
(Australia). Paris: IIEP/Unesco.
Habermas, J. (2001). Constitutional Democracy - A paradoxical Union of Contradictory
Principles? Political Theory, Vol. 29 (6), 766-781.
Hamidou, M. (1997). Dcentrer ou decentraliser: un dilemme au Mali. Alternative Sud,
Vol. IV, 3, 148-158.
Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a Policy tool. Review of Research in Education, Vol.
27, 25-68.
Hammouda, H. B. (1997). Vers une nouvelle problmatique du savoir sur le
dveloppement. Alternative Sud, Vol. IV, 3, 25-36.
Hannaway, J. (1993). Decentralization in Two School Districts: Challenging the Standard
Paradigm. In J. Hannaway and M. Carnoy (eds.). Decentralization and School
Improvement. Can We Fulfill the Promise? (pp. 135-162). San Fransisco: The
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hannaway, J. & Woodroffe, N. (2003). Policy Instruments in Education. Review of
Research in Education, Vol. 27, 1-24.
Hanson, E.M. (1990). School-based Managemen and Educational Reform in he United
Sates and Spain. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 34 (4), 523-537.
Hanson, E. M. (2001). Democratization and Educational Decentralization in Spain: A
Twenty Year Struggle for Reform. Education Reform and Management
Publication Series, 1 (3).
Harold, B. (1998). Head-ing into the future: The changing role of New Zealands
principals. International Journal of Educational Research, 29: 299-310.
Harvey D. (1990. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change. Blackwell Press.
Hega, G., & K. Hokenmaier (2002). The Welfare State and Education: Comparison of
Social and Educational Policy in Advanced Industrial Societies. German Policy
Studies 2(1).
Heidenheimer, A. P. (1997). Disparate Ladders: Why School and University Policies Differ
in Germany, Japan and Switzerland. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Press.
Held, D. (2005). At the Global Crossroads: The End of the Washington Consensus and the
Rise of Global Social Democracy? Globalizations 2(1): 95-113.
Henry, M, B. Lingard, F. Rizvi, and S. Taylor. (2001). The OECD, Globalisation and
Education Policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hiskey, J. & M. Seligson (2003). Studies in Comparative International Development Vol.
37(4). 64-88.
44
Huber, E., D. Rueschemeyer and J. Stephens (1997). The Paradox of Contemporary

Democracy: Formal, Participatory and Social Dimensions. Comparative Politics
Vol. 29 (3), 323-342.
Hudson, C. & Lidstrm, A. (2001). National School Policy Changes in Britain and Sweden.
In C. Hudson. and A. Lidstrm (eds.). Local Education Policies. Comparing
Sweden and Britain, (pp. 27-64). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and
Political Changes in 43 Countries. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
Kabeer, N. (ed.). (2005). Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions. London: Zed
Books.
Keck and Sikkink. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. New York: Cornell University Press.
Kemmerer, F. (1994). Decentralization of Schooling in Developing Nations. In T. Husn
and N. Postleithwaite (eds). International Encyclopedia of Education, (pp. 14121416). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-Political
Interaction. In J. Pierre. (ed.). Debating Governance, (pp. 138-164). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Leclercq, F. (2003). Decentralisation and Quality of Teaching: A Field Study of Primary
Schools in Madhya Pradesh, India. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the
conference organized by United Kingdom Forum for International Education and
Training, in Oxford, England, September 9-12.
Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools. Analysis and Practice. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Lindert, P. (2004). Growing Public, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipumba, I. H. (2003). Globalization and Economic Development: Can Sub-Sahara Africa
Avoid Marginalization? Paper presented at the conference on Rich and Poor:
Current Development Research and Its Condition in Sweden, January, 2003, Lund
University, Lund, Sweden.
Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.-. Aand Valeyre, A. (2004). The Diffusion of New Forms of
Work Orgsanisation and Worker Outcomes: lessons from the European Case. Paper
prepared for the 2nd Globelics International Conference, in Beijing, China, October
16-20, 2004.
Lumsdaine, D. H. (1993). Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime
1949-1989. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Manor, J. (2004a). Democratisation with Inclusion: political reforms and peoples
empowerment at the grassroots. Journal of Human Development, 5(1): 5-29.
Manor, J. (2004b). User Committees: A Potentially Damaging Second Wave of
Decentralization? European Journal of Development Research , Vol. 16(1), 194213.
Manzer, R. (2003). Educational Regimes and Anglo-American Democracies. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
MacRae, D. (1969). Populism as an Ideology. In G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds.).
Populism - Its meanings and national characteristics, (pp. 153-179). London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
45
Maxwell, S. (2005). The Washington Consensus is Dead: Long Live the Meta-Narrative.
Working Paper 243. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Mmbaga, D. R. (2002). The Inclusive Classroom in Tanzania. Dream or Reality?
Stockholm: Institute of International Education.
Messner, D. (1997). The Network Society. Economic Development and International
Competitiveness as Problems of Social Governance. London: Frank Cass.
Meyer, J. W., J. Boli, G. M. Thomas and F. O. Ramirez (1997). World Society and NationState. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, 1, 144-181.
Meyer, J. W. & Kamens, D. H. (1992). Conclusion. In J. W. Meyer, D. H. Kamens and A.
Benavot (eds.). School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and Curricular
Categories in the Twentieth Century. London: Falmer.
Mfum-Mensah, O. (2004) Empowerment or impairment? Involving traditional
communities in school management. International Review of Education, 50:141155.
Millenium Project (2005). Retrieved 13 February 2008 from
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/
Miller-Grandvaux, Y. Yoder and K. Yoder. (2002) A Literature Review of Community
Schools in Africa: USAID. Retrieved December 15 2004 from
<http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/ PNACP215.pdf>.
Mundy, K. (2005). Globalization and Educational Change. In D. Leithwood and Bascia (
eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Policy. London: Kluwer
Publishers.
Mundy, K. (2006). Background Report and Cross Case Literature Review, Civil Society
and Education Sector Reform in Africa. Paper prepared for the Policy Branch of the
Canadian International Development Agency.
Mundy, K. (2008). Civil Society and it Role in the Achievement and Governance of
Education For All. Background Paper Prepared for the Unesco Education for All
Global Monitoring Report 2009: Overcoming Equality/The role of governance.
Available at
http%3a%2f%2funesdoc.unesco.org%2fimages%2f0017%2f001780%2f178020e.pd
f" target=_blank>http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001780/178020e.pdf</A
Mundy, K. & Murphy, L. (2001). Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging
evidence from the Field of Education. Comparative Education Review Vol. 45 (1),
85-126.
Myles, J. and J. Quadango. 2002. Political Theories of the Welfare State. Social Service
Review, 34-57.
Naidoo, J. (2005). Education Decentralization in Africa: Great Expectations and
Unfulfilled Promises. In D. P. Baker and A. W. Wiseman (eds.). Global Trends in
Educational Policy. Vol 6: International Perspectives on Education and Society,
(pp. 99-124). New York: Elsevier.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. N. (1995). Glocalization as Hybridization. In Featherstone, M., S.
Lash and R. Robertson (eds.). Global Modernities (pp. 45-69). London: Sage
Publications.
Nelson, P. & E. Dorsey. 2003. At the Nexus of Human Rights and Development: New
Methods and Strategies of Global NGOs. World Development ,31 (12):2013-2026.
46
Neocleous, M. (1996). Administering Civil Society. Towards a Theory of State Power.

London: Macmillam.
Noel, A. (2005). The New Politics of Global Poverty. (Mimeo).
Norberg, K. and Johansson, O. (2010). The Ethical Dimensions of Curriculum Leadership
in Scandinavian Countries, Curriculum Leadership, Vol. 48 (3), 327-336.
Norris, P. & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics Worldwide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Odden, A. & P. Wohlstetter (1993). Strategies for Making School-Based Management
Work. Consortium for Policy Research (CPRE), (pp. 6-10). New Brunswick.
Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Offe, C. (1996). Modernity and the State. East, West. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Ornelas, C. (2000). The politics of the educational decentralization in Mexico.
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 (5), 426-441.
Ornelas, C. (2004). Decentralization in Mexico. Paper presented at the annual
conference organized by Comparative and International Education Society, March
9-12, in Salt Lake City, the USA.
ztrk, G. (2010). Public Primary School Teachers Perceptions of Their Working
Conditions and Job Stress: Cases from Istanbul and Stockholm. (Unpublished
paper) Stockholm: Institute of International Education, Department of Education,
Stockholm University.
Papagiannis, G.J., P.A. Easton & Owens, J. T. (1992). The School Restructuring Movement
in the USA: an analysis of major issues and policy implications. Paris: Unesco.
Parajuli, M. N. (2006). Peoples Participation in School Governance? Realities of
Educational Decentralization in Nepal. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in
the Context of Globalizing Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots
Responses, (pp. 195-212). Dordrecht: Springer.
Patrinos, H. A. & Lakshmanan, A. (1997). Decentralization of Education, Demand-Side
Financing. Washington: World Bank.
Pellini, A. (2006). Decentralization and Community Participation: School Clusters in
Cambodia. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing
Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots Responses, (pp. 175-194).
Pierre, J. (2000). Introduction: Understanding Governance. In J. Pierre (ed.). Debating
Governance, (pp. 1-12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Plank, D. & W. Boyd. (1994a). Politics and Governance of Education. In T. Husn and N.
Postleithwaite (eds). International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 4587-4595).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Plank, D. & W. Boyd. (1994b) Antipolitics, Education, and Institutional Choice: The Flight
from Democracy. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31(2), 263-281.
Power, S. & Whitty, G. (1997). Managing the State and the Market: New Education
Management in Five Countries. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 45 (4),
342-362.
Pritchett, L. (2004). Towards A New Consensus for Addressing the Global Challenge of the
Lack of Education. (Copenhagen Consensus Challenge Paper). Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Consensus.
47
Pryor, J. (2003). Community Participation in Rural Schooling: a case study from Ghana.
Paper presented at the conference organized by United Kingdom Forum for
International Education and Training, in Oxford, England, September 9-12, 2003.
Pryor, J. (2005). Can community participation mobilise social capital for improvement of
rural schooling? A case study from Ghana. Compare, Vol. 35(2), 193-203.
Ramirez, F. & Boli-Bennet, J. (1982). Global Patterns of Educational Institutionalization.
In P. Altbach, R. Arnove, R. and G. P.Kelly, (eds.), Comparative Education. New
York: Macmillan.
Reay, D. & Ball, S. J. (1997). Spoilt for Choices: the working classes and educational
markets. Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 23, (1), 89-101.
Ribeiro, C. (2006). Educational Decentralization in Mozambique: A Case Study in the
Region of Nampula. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of
Globalizing Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots Responses (pp.
159-174). Dordrecht: Springer.
Riley, K. & D. Rawles (1997). Inspection and School Improvement in England and Wales.
In T. Townsend (ed.). Restructuring and Quality: Issues for Tomorrows Schools.
London: Routledge.
Robertson, J. M. (1998). From Managing in question to leadership perspectives.
International Journal of Education Research, Vol.29, 359-370.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage
Publications.
Robertson, R. (1995) Globalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. In M.
Featherstone, S.Lash and R.Robertson (eds.) Global Modernities. London: Sage
Publications.
Robertson, S. (2006). Globalisation, Rescaling National Education Systems and Citizenship
Regimes. In K. Roth and N. Burbules (eds)., Changing Notions of Citizenship
Education in Contemporary Nation-States. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Robinson, M. 2007. Does Decentralization Improve Equity and Efficiency in Public
Service Delivery? IDS Bulletin Vol. 38(1), 7-17.
Rose, P. (2002). Is None-state Education Sector Serving the Needs of the Poor? Evidence
from East and southern Africa. Paper presented at the Making Service Wok for Poor
People World Development Report 2004 Workshop, November 4-5 Oxford.
Rose, P. (2003). Community participation in school policy and practice in Malawi:
Balancing local knowledge, national policies and international agency priorities.
Compare Vol. 33(1), 47-64.
Rose, P. (2005) Privatisation and decentralisation of schooling in Malawi: default or
design? Compare, Vol. 35(2), 153-165.
Rose, P. (2006). Collaborating in Education for All: Experiences of Government Support
for Non-State Providers of Basic Education in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Public Administration and Development Vol. 26, 219-228.
Rueschmeyer, D., Huber Stephens, E. & Stephens, J. (1992). Capitalist Development and
Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruggie, J. G. (2003). The United Nations and globalization: patterns and limits of
institutional adaptation. Global Governance Vol. 9, 301-321.
Ruggie, J.G. (2004). Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors and
48
Practices. European Journal of International Relations 10(4): 499-531.

Ruiz de Forsberg, N. (2006). School Autonomy in Nicaragua: Two Case Studies. In H.
Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing Governance.
International Comparison of Grassroots Responses (pp. 95-114). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Saul, J. R. (1997). The Unconscious Civilization. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Santos Filho dos, C.J. (1993). The Recent Process of Decentralization and Democratic
Management of Education in Brazil. International Review of Education, 39 (5).
Shaeffer, S. (1994). Participation for Educational Change: A Synthesis of Experience.
UNESCO. Paris.
Shweder, R. A. & Bourne, E. J. (1982). Does the concept of the person vary crossculturally? In R.A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind,
self, and emotion . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siddique, N. A. (1997). Thories de la dcentralisation de ltat. Alternatives Sud, Vol. IV
(3), 23-40.
Siminou, P. (2006). Steps of Educational Decentralization in Greece: between Delegation
and Deconcentration. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of
Globalizing Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots Responses (pp.
77-94). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sklair, L. (1995). Sociology and the Global System. Second edition. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Skolverket (1999). Nationella kvalitetsgranskningen 1998. (The National Quality
Assessment 1998). Stockholm: National Agency for Education.
Skolverket (2000). Nationella kvalitetsgranskningen 2000. (The National Quality
Assessment 2000). Stockholm: The National Agency for Education.
Skolverket (2001). Attityder till skolan 2000. (Attitudes towards school). Stockholm: The
National Agency for Education.
Slater, R.O. (1993). On centralization, decentralization and school restructuring: A
sociological perspective. In H. Beare and W.L. Boyd (eds.). Restructuring Schools.
An International Perspective on the Movement to Transform the Control and
Performance of School, (pp. 174-183). London: The Falmer.
Smehaugen, A. (2006). The State Gives, the State Takes: Educational Restructuring in
Norway. In H. Daun (ed.). School Decentralization in the Context of Globalizing
Governance. International Comparison of Grassroots Response (pp. 55-76).
Smith, J. (1997). Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond
the State. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Southworth, G. (1998). Change and continuity in the work of primary headteachers in
England. International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 29, 311-321.
Sperling, G. (2001). Toward Universal Education: Making a Promise and Keeping It.
Foreign Affairs Vol. 80(5), 7-13.
Sperling, G. & R. Belu (2005). Designing a Global Compact in Education. Finance and
Development 42(2).
Stasavage, D. (2004). The role of democracy in Uganda: the Move to Universal Primary
Education. Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 43(1), 53-73.
49
Stasavage, D. (2005). Democracy and Education Spending in Africa. American Journal of

Political Science, Vol. 49(2), 343-358.
Stein, E., Tomassi, M. et al. (2006). Two Kinds of Education Politics. In E. Stein, M.
Tomassi, K Echebarria, E. Lora, M. Payne (eds.), The Politics of Policies. Economic
and Social Progress in Latin America. Report. Inter-American Development Bank
and David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University, pp.
221-241. Retrieved June 1 2007, from http://www.iadb.org/res/ipes/2006/chapter10
Story, J. (2000). The Emerging World Financial Order and Differents Forms of Capitalism.
In Stubbs, R. and Underhill, G. R.D. (Eds.). Political Economy and the Changing
Global Order, (pp. 129-140). Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teivainen, T. (2007). The political and its absence in the World Social Forum.
Development Dialogue, Vol. 49, 69-79.
Thelen, K. (1999. Historical Institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of
Political Science. 2:369-401.
Therien, J.P. (2005). The politics of international development: towards a new grand
compromise? Economic Policy and Law: Journal of Trade and Environmental
Studies Special Issue. Available at: www.ecomics-Internationa.org Retrieved15
March 2005.
UNDP (1990). Human Development Report, 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vyrynen, R. (2002). Reforming the World Order: Multi- and Plurilateral Approaches.
In Hettne, B. and Odn, B. (eds.). Global Governance.Alternative Perspectives on
World Order. Stockholm: EGDI/Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Wallerstein, I. (1991). Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World
System. In M. Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and
Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World
System Theory. Accessed 9 February 2006.
Waters, M. (2001). Globalization. London: Routledge.
Weiler, H. N. (1993). Control Versus Legitimation: The Politics of Ambivalence. In J.
Hannaway and M. Carnoy (eds.). Decentralization and School Improvement. Can
We Fulfill the Promise? San Fransisco: The Jossey-Bass Publications.
Weindling, D. (1998). Reform, restructuring, role and other R words: The effects of
headteachers in England and Wales. International Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 29, 299-310.
Weir, M. (2002). The American Middle Class and the Politics of Education. In O. Zunz, L.
Schoppa and N. Hiwatari (eds.), Social Contracts under Stress. (pp. 178-203). New
York: Russel Sage.
Wells, A. S. & Scott, J. (2001). Privatization and Charter School Reform: Economic,
Political and Social Dimensions. In H. M. Levin (ed.). Privatizing Education. Can
Marketplace Deliver Choice, Efficiency, Equity and Social Cohesion? (pp. 234259). Boulder: Westview Press.
Welsh, T. & McGinn, N. F. (1999). Decentralization of education: why, when, what and
how? Paris: IIEP/Unesco.
Wesolowski, W. (1995). The Nature of Social Ties and the Future of Postcommunist
Society: Poland After Solidarity. In J. A. Hall (ed.). Civil Society. Theory, History,
50
Comparison, (pp. 110-134). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Whitty, G. (1996). Creating Quasi-Markets in Education: A Review of Recent Research on
Parental Choice and School Autonomy in Three Countries. Oxford Studies in
Comparative Education, Vol. 8 (1).
Whitty, G. (1997). Marketization, the State and the Re-formation of the Teaching
Profession. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. Stuart Wells (eds).
Education. Culture, Economy, Society (pp. 299-310). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Williamson, J. (1993). Democracy and the Washington Consensus. World Development
Vol. 21(8), 1329-1336.
Windzio, M., R. Sackmann, and K. Martens. 2005. Types of governance in education: A
Quantitative analysis. Transtate Working Papers, No. 25. Tranformations of the
State Collaborative Research Centre 597, Universitat Breman, Hoschschule
Bremen, Internationale Universitat Breman.
Wiseman, A. W. & Baker, D. P. (2005). The Worldwide Explosion of Internationalized
Education Policy. In D. P. Baker and A. W. Wiseman (eds.). Global Trends in
Educational Policy. Vol 6: International Perspectives on Education and Society,
(pp. 1-22). New York: Elsevier.
World Bank (1995). Strategies for Education. Washington,DC: The World Bank.
World Bank (2002). World Development Report, 2002. Washington: World Bank.
World Bank (2005). World Development Report, 2005. Washington: World Bank.
Zrn, M. (2003). Globalization and Global Governance: from social to political
denationalization. European Review, Vol.11 (3), 341-364.
51
Index of Reports from the Institute of International

Education, Department of Education, Stockholm University
1.
Husn, Torsten Multi-National Evaluation of School Systems. Purposes and

Methodology. March 1973
2.
Brucefors, Agneta; Emanuelsson, Ingemar & Johansson, Per-Olof Skolan som

jmlikhetsinstrument. Ngra funderingar och frslag till forskning. March 1973
3.
Bergsten, Urban; Borgsten, Lena; Lindgren, Gunilla & Sjberg, Gun

terkommande utbildning. Bakgrund och utveckling. June 1973
4.
Mlck, Lars Frn gymnasium till hgre studier. Ngra analyser av olika
bakgrundfaktorers samband med valet att g vidare till universitet och hgskolor.
March 1974
5.
Bulcock, Jeffrey W. Achievement in Mother Tongue Literature. Some Strategies in

Causal Analysis. April 1974
6.
Bulcock, Jeffrey W. Fgerlind, Ingemar & Emanuelsson, Ingemar: Education and the
Socioeconomic Career. U.S. - Swedish Comparisons. May 1974
7.
Finn, Jeremy D. & Mattsson, Ingrid Multivariate Analysis in Educational Research.

Some Applications. June 1974
8.
Husn, Torsten International Evaluation of Educational Systems. Its Role in Building

Research Competence in Developing Countries. October 1974
9.
Husn, Torsten: Reshaping the Upper Secondary School Curriculum. November 1974
10.
Bulcock, Jeffrey W.; Fgerlind, Ingemar & Emanuelsson, Ingemar: Education and
the Socioeconomic Career II. A Model of the Resource Conversion Properties of
Family, School and Occupational Environments. March 1975
11.
Bergling, Barbro: Frldraintressets betydelse fr utbildningens lngd. Ngra

multivariata analyser samt jmfrelser USA Sverige. March 1975.
12.
Kifer, Edward W.; Mattsson, Ingrid & Carlid, Mats: Item Analysis Using the
Rasch Model. An Application on IEA Data. June 1975
13.
Bergling, Barbro: Pathanalys - en kausal modell. Introduktion till en multivariat

forskningsmetod. September 1975
14.
Mhlck, Lars & Mattsson, Ingrid: Rekrytering till hgre utbildning bland
gymnasister och ngra empiriska resultat. November 1975
15.
Husn, Torsten: Policy Implications of the IEA Findings and Some of Their
Repercussions on National Debates on Educational Policy. December 1975
52
16.
Mhlck, Lars: Om rekrytering till hgre naturvetenskapliga och tekniska studier:

Kunskapsniv och attityder hos elever frn Na- och Te-linjen. December 1975
17.
Engbom, Mette; Modin, Gunvor & Mhlck, Lars: Yrkesplaner och utbildningsval
bland gymnasister: En studie i knsdifferenser. December 1975
18.
Husn, Torsten: The Teenager and the School in Europe. December 1975
19.
Noonan, Richard & Wold, Herman: NIPALS Path Modelling with Latent Variables Analysing School Survey Data Using Nonlinear Interative Partial Least Squares.
February 1976
20.
Nystrm, Astrid: Manual for Selection, Production and Evaluation of Textbooks.

November 1976
21.
Bulcock, Jeffrey W. & Beene, Mona J.: Reading in the Structure of Scholastic
Performance. November 1976
22.
Berling, Kurt: Mtandet av det logiska tnkandet hos elever i Sverige, England,
Tyskland och USA. December 1976.
23.
Anderson, Jonathan: Comprehension Skills Sampled in the IEA Reading Surveys.

April 1977
24.
Fgerlind, Ingemar & Saha, Lawrence: Education and Development. An Evaluation

of an Interdisciplinary Program at the Doctoral Level. May 1977
25.
Bulcock, Jeffrey W.; Clifton, Rodney & Beebe, Mona J.: A Language Resource
Model of Science Achievement. Comparisons between 14 Year-olds in England and
India. May 1977
26.
Anderson, Jonathan & Kann, Ulla: The Measurement of Reading Comprehension. A

Follow-up of the National Education Survey in Botswana. November 1977
27.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: Socialistisk utbildning i Albanien. December 1977
28.
Obanya, P.A.I.: Educational Resources in Some Developed and Developing

Countries. December 1977
29.
Beebe, Mona J. & Fgerlind, Ingemar: The Effects of Instruction in the Native
versus a Foreign Language. March 1978
30.
Asp, Eva & Prestegaard, Marit: Kvinnor, arbete och inkomster. September 1978.
31.
Little, Angela: Occupational and Educational Expectations. A Study of Students in

Developed and Developing Countries. October 1978
32.
Little, Angela: Examination Orientation and Types of Achievement. December 1978
33.
Gorham, Alex B. Educational Development in a Pastoral Area. February 1979
34.
Marklund, Sixten: Skolverstyrelsen. Historik och nulge. April 1979
35.
Prestegaard, Marit; Fgerlind, Ingemar; Lennestedt, Kenneth, & Hartman, Ros

Mari: The Malm Longitudinal Study. August 1979
53
36.
Daun, Holger: Fiskeskolan i Kelibia. En utvrdering av ett SIDA-projekt i Tunisien.

August 1979
37.
Marklund, Sixten & Bergendal, Gunnar: Ngra huvudlinjer i det svenska

utbildningsvsendets utveckling efter andra vrldskriget. August 1979
38.
Noonan, Richard & Wold, Herman: PLS Path Modelling with Latest Squares - Part
II. August 1979
39.
Chinapah, Vinayagum & Fgerlind, Ingemar: The Role of Education in the Basic
Human Needs Strategy. August 1979
40.
Gorham, Alex B.: Education and Development in Kenya Maasailand 1920-1960.

August 1979
41.
Gorham, Alex B.: Inter-Ethnic Achievement in Reading Comprehension in Kenya

Maasailand. September 1979
42.
Mbamba, Mauno: The Namibia Education and Health Centres: A Study of SWAPO
Schools among Namibian Refugees in Namibia and Angola. November 1979
43.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: Enrollment Developments in China over Thirty Years in

Relation to Industrial Development and in Comparison with the Soviet Union and
Taiwan. February 1980
44.
Marklund, Sixten: Internationalization of Education. Some Concepts and Questions.

February 1980
45.
Kann, Ulla & Lecoge, Kelebogile: The 1976 National Education Survey in Botswana:
A Guide to Users. May 1980
46.
Kann, Ulla: Swedish Training Policy for Third World Students: A Historical
Overview. May 1980
47.
Marklund, Sixten: From Assessments of Individual Students to Evaluation of School

Systems. June 1980
48.
Daun, Holger: Contradiction and Correspondence in Education. Cases from Senegal

and Guinea-Bissau. December 1980
49.
Husn, Torsten: Present Trends in Education and Their Main Determinants. April
1981
50.
Fgerlind, Ingemar: Utvrdering av finsksprkig gymnasial utbildning. August 1981.
51.
Lind, Agneta: Literacy Campaigns and Nation-Building in Mozambique. First

Literary Campaign Including a Case-Study of One Literacy Center. August 1981
52.
Fgerlind, Ingemar & Munck, Ingrid: Attitudes towards School and Education in
Seven Countries. Comparisons between England, Finland, Hungary, India, Japan,
Sweden and the USA Based on IEA Data. September 1981
53.
Chinapah, Vinayagum & Daun, Holger: Swedish Missions and Education in the
Republic of Zaire: A Description and Diagnosis. November 1981
54
54.
Chinapah, Vinayagum & Daun, Holger: Educational Evaluation of the Swedish

Sister Churches in the Republic of Zaire. December 1981
55.
Fgerlind, Ingemar & Leal, Leonor Cunha: Mathematics in Portugal: The Influence
of School and Family Environment on Results in Grades 7, 8 and 9. January 1982
56.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: Bredare samarbete mellan Sverige och u-lnder i form av

person- och erfarenhetsutbyte. En kortfattad utvrdering av frsksperioden. February
1982
57.
Duncan, Wendy & Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: School Building, Teacher Training and
Village Development in Bangladesh. An Evaluation of Three Swedish NonGovernment Programmes. March 1982
58.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: Science Requirements in the People's Republic of China. May

1982
59.
Fgerlind, Ingemar: Frsksverksamhet med finsksprkig gymnasial utbildning.

Erfarenheter och uppfljning 1977-1982. September 1982.
60.
De Bresser, John & Fgerlind, Ingemar: Segmentation in Career Development. A

Description of Paths to and between Occupations. October 1982
61.
Gumo, Charles & Kann, Ulla: A Review of the Development of the Kenya Science
Teachers College. October 1982
62.
Strmqvist, Grel; Goldman, Madeleine & Gutebring, Maria: Kvinnors

arbetsmarknad i Sverige 1970-1980. En versikt av nringsgrenar och yrkesomrden.
February 1983
63.
Daun, Holger: Primary Learning Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Indigenous, Islamic

and Western Education. May 1983
64.
Marklund, Sixten: The IEA Project: An Unfinished Audit. October 1983
65.
Marklund, Sixten: Blockmnen och blockundervisning p grundskolans hgstadium.

December 1983
66.
Marklund, Sixten: rskursls skola och undervisning. Ngra erfarenheter av

alternativa arrangemang. February 1984
67.
Mbamba, A. Mauno & Chinapah, Vinayagum: Training in Educational Planning.

Report on a Course in Livingstone, Zambia. March 1985
68.
De Bresser, John: Technical and Vocational Teachers College. Luanshya, Zambia. A

Tracer Study of TVTC Graduates. April 1985
69.
Daun, Holger: Primary Learning Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cases from Senegal.
August 1985
70.
Sirn, Ulla: Sprkmiljer. En pilotstudie av barn till finsk-sprkiga mdrar. August

1985
55
71.
Gustafsson, Ingemar & McNab, Christine: Swedish Mission Education in Colonial

Africa - A Model for Rural Development? September 1985.
72.
Johnston, Anton & McNab, Christine: Nordic Research on Education in Developing

Countries 1975-1985. A Selected Bibliographic Review of Research and
Dissemination. December 1985
73.
Lind, Agneta: Adult Literacy in the Third World - A Literature Review. December
1985
74.
Noonan, Richard & Engstrm, Jan-ke: Kunskaper i naturorienterande mnen i

svenska skolor: resultat frn den andra IEA-underskningen om naturorienterande
mnen. October 1986
75.
Noonan, Richard & Engstrm, Jan-ke: Science Achievement in Swedish Schools:

Results from the IEA Second International Science Study. November 1986
76.
Makrakis, Vasilios: Computers in Education: Towards a New Pedagogy? January

1987
77.
Mcnab, Christine: Language Planning for Education in Ethiopia: Policy Development

and Implementation Processes. October 1987
78.
Fgerlind, Ingemar: Data Collection in the Malm Longitudinal Study. October 1987
79.
Eriksson, Riitta & Fgerlind, Ingemar: Erfarenheter av undervisning i svenska som

andrasprk - utvrdering av frsksverksamhet med finsksprkiga linjer i
gymnasieskolan i Stockholm. October 1987
80.
Tuijnman, Albert: Monitoring Adult Education - With Special Reference to Sweden.

November 1987
81.
Duncan, Wendy A.: School Dropout in Botswana. Gender Differences at Secondary

Level. February 1988
82.
Chikombah, Cowden E.M.: Education Issues in Zimbabwe since Independence.

September 1988.
83.
Riis, Ulla & Engstrm, Jan-ke: IEA Second International Science Study (SISS).
Den Svenska Lroplansanalysen: Rational, Anvisningar och Resultat. January 1989.
84.
Eriksson, Riitta: Elever som deltagit i finsksprkig utbildning i gymnasieskolan i

Stockholm. En utvrderingsrapport till Skolverstyrelsen. September 1989
85.
Duncan, Wendy A.: The English Language Social Sciences Programme at

Kungsholmen's Gymnasium. Interim Evaluation. September 1989
86.
Tuijnman, Albert: The Emerging Welfare Society: Sweden 1930s - 1980s. May 1990
87.
Steere, Marcia & Strmqvist, Grel: Evaluation of the English Language Social
Sciences Program at Kungsholmen Gymnasium. Report for the Swedish National
Board of Education. June 1990
56
88.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar; Engstrm, Jan-ke & Munck, Ingrid: Resultat- resurs- och
produktivitetsanalys av den samhllsvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Stockholms
universitet. April 1992.
89.
Furu, Margareta och Furu, Johan: Uppvxtvillkor och Hlsa - Kartlggning av

socioekonomiska frhllanden under tidiga barnar och tonr i relation till ngra
faktorer av vlfrdsintresse senare i livet. October 1992
90.
Bang, Hanne: Can Quality of Life be Measured? A Literature Review. December

1992
91.
Shangwu, Zhao: Case Study - Science Education in Chinese Secondary Schools. April
1993
92.
Tegborg, Maria: The National Literacy Programme in Namibia - Mobilization of

Learners and Support through Communication. June 1993
93.
Kolouh, Lidija: Education for Self-Reliance in Tanzania- A Case Study in Ilboru

Secondary School. June 1993
94.
Lfving, Anna & Nordlander, Ylva: Elimu Haina Mwisho - Education Has No End.
A Minor Field Study of the Literacy Work in Tanzania. September 1993
95.
Bang, Hanne: Religion, etnicitet och europeisk integration - Rapport Frn 4

Sonderingsresor. December 1993
96.
Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar: Education in Multi-Ethnic and Disadvantaged Areas: The Case

of Gansu in China. June 1994
97.
Gerdes, Paulus: Ethnomathematics and Education in Africa. January 1995.
98.
Lfving, Anna: Non-Govermental Organisation - Partners in the Development

Process. The Case of India. November 1994
99.
Bang, Hanne: Retirement and the Quality of Life. October 1995
100. Hellstrm, Zenia: The Malm Study. Data Collection 1994. April 1996
101. Borges-Mnsson, Alicia: Womens Literacy and the Question of Dropout: Two
Mozambican Case Studies. May 1996
102. Litsgrd, Leif: Elementary Education in the Swedish Parish of Westland 1686-1899.
July 1996
103. Kanaev, Alexander N. & Fgerlind, Ingemar: Citizenship Education in Central
Asia: Status and Possibilities for Cooperation. April 1996
104. Daun, Holger: National Forces, Globalization and Educational Restructuring.
December 1996
105. Odiwour, Wycliffe: Primary Schooling and the Language Policy Trends in
Kenya:Before and After Independence. January 1997
106. Daun, Holger: Pupils Self-Perception and School Processes: A Case Study in
Swedish Lower Secondary Schools (Grades 7-9). March 1997
57
107. Ankarsand, Anna och Fgerlind, Ingemar: terkommande utbildning, frvrvsliv

och inkomster. En 55-rig longitudinell studie av svenska kvinnor och mn. Augusti
1997
108. Daun, Holger & Ruiz de Forsberg, Nuzzly: Political-Economic Shifts and
Educational Restructuring: A Comparative Study of Education in Guinea-Bissau and
Nicaragua. February 1998
109. Daun, Holger & Benincasa, Luciana: Restructuring Education in Europe. Four
Country Studies. May 1998
110. Tuijnman, Albert: Education, Literacy and Wages in Poland in Comparative
Perspective. October 2000
111. Fredriksson, Ulf & Taube, Karin: Lsning bland elever med invandrarbakgrund: En
underskning av lsfrmga och bakgrundsfaktorer hos elever i rskurs 3 i Stockholm
1993-96. August 2001
112. Lfstedt, Jan-Ingvar (Ed.): Virtualization of Higher Education in the Era of
Globalization. Issues and Trends. November 2001
113. Bing, Liu & Daun, Holger: Gender and School Inequalities in China. Case study in
Five Beijing Schools. December 2001
114. Daun, Holger: Learning Skills and Life Situation: Case Studies in Guinea-Bissau,
Senegal and Tanzania. February 2002
115. Kolouh-Westin, Lidija: Democracy in Education in Bosnia-Hercegovina and FR
Yugoslavia. May 2002
116. Daun, Holger: World System, Globalization and Educational Change 2003
117. Karlsson, Pia & Mansory, Amir: Educational Reforms in the Context of
Globaisation and in Afghanistan. February 2004
118. Villalba, Ernest: Knowledge Management as a Strategy for Lifelong Learning A
Report for the European Social Fund Council in Sweden 2004
119. Daun, Holger; Arjmand, Reza; Strmqvist, Grel & Vrethem, Karolina:
Utbildning av svenska rektorer: En Lgesbedmning 2004, maj 2005 ISBN:91-7155099-2
58
ISBN 978-91-977959-4-4
ISSN 0348-8381

Department of Education
Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Sweden www.interped.su.se

Educational Governance and Participation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Governance and Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institute of International Education

Educational Governance and Participation

Holger Daun & Karen Mundy

Stockholm, Sweden 2011

Institute of International Education

Educational Governance and Participation With

Holger Daun & Karen Mundy

Table of Figures and Tables

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Chapter 2. Some Key Concepts

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

problems, the study of feasibility, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Arnstein

Chapter 3. World System and Globalization

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

The WS is the structure and relationships between different interdependent

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Chapter 4. The New Mode of Governance

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Figure 1 Mechanisms and Forces of the New Mode of Governance Assumed to

Deliberate steering mechanisms: (a) national curriculum (with or without detailed

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

administrative bodies. It is evident that deconcentration and delegation do not necessarily

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Table 1 Varieties of School Site Councils or Boards

Varieties of Membership: Nominated, appointed, or elected representatives.

Variation in Number of members: 5- 20

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Chapter 6. Remarks on Development Policies

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

DFID (2001:19) greater participation of parents and communities in education of

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

As summarized in documents, this reform agenda includes decentralization of

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Figure 2 Pluri-Scalar Governance of Education

PLURI-SCALAR GOVERNANCE OF EDUCATION

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

produce different types of educational entitlement and governance.

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

(Anderson 1983; 988; Boli et al. 1985; Weir 2002).

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

equality concerns), as well as the meaning of key governance reforms (such as

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

In the 1990s, a wave of democratic transitions in the developing world fed

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Social Citizenship Lens at the Community-School Interface

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Educational Governance and Participation With Focus on Developing Countries

Case Studies Conducted in Eight Countries