international organizations, the “education–economic growth” black box, and the development of...

Comparative Education Review, vol. 50, no. 2.� 2006 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.0010-4086/2006/5002-0000$05.00

Comparative Education Review 173

International Organizations, the “Education–EconomicGrowth” Black Box, and the Development of World

Education Culture1

JULIA RESNIK

Introduction

Many approaches have attempted to explain the rapid expansion of edu-cation systems after World War II: convergence theories, stressing the mod-ernization process; neo-Marxist approaches, highlighting neocolonialism anda new type of imperialism; and neoinstitutionalism, focusing on world edu-cation culture and states’ need for legitimacy. In these approaches, intergov-ernmental organizations are considered to be tools in the hands of the capitalistclass or seen as part of states’ environments. Paraphrasing the title of PeterEvans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Scokpol’s book, however, I thinkthat it is time to “bring international organizations back in,” which meanstreating international organizations as agents of the global educational arenaand as producers of a global educational culture.2 As institutions, intergovern-mental organizations, which became central actors in the post–World War IIglobalized world, have their own histories, structures, and resources, along withtheir own interests and their own culture.

I contend that the participation of economists of education and inter-national organizations, mainly UNESCO and the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), in the “education expansion–economic growth” network contributed to the consolidation and diffusionof the education–economic growth black box throughout the world. Humancapital theory, the “residual factor,” and educational planning were at thebase of the education–economic growth black box created by economists ofeducation. This new subdiscipline, which developed after the Second WorldWar, sees education as a key factor in economic development. The econo-

1 My use of the term “world education culture” in the title is inspired by the term “world culture”coined by John Meyer and his colleagues; see John Boli and George M. Thomas, eds., Constructing WorldCulture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,1999). I use it to denote that certain educational models are diffused worldwide. This world educationculture has been increasingly accepted in countries all over the world, but I maintain that the worldeducation culture—centered around economic growth in the past or inspired by neoliberalism at pre-sent—is promoted by specific agents, be they scholars, experts, research institutes, or national or in-ternational organizations.

2 Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Scokpol, eds., Bringing the State Back In (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

174 May 2006

RESNIK

metric economics of education translates this education-economics link intoquantitative and predictive terms.3 Despite strong criticism and questionsraised regarding econometric methodology, in 1960 the General Assemblyof the United Nations adopted a resolution stressing the importance of ed-ucation for economic development.4 The adoption of the education–economic growth black box by international organizations improved the ac-ademic status of economists of education and simultaneously fostered theexpansion and empowerment of these organizations, making them the “worldeducation managers” of education expansion across the globe.5

Once the black box was legitimized by the United Nations, educationbudgets grew enormously, and an unprecedented wave of organizational ex-pansion was initiated around the world, mainly in developing countries. Ahuge apparatus, orchestrated by international organizations and aimed atencouraging education expansion in developing countries, was constructed(it included international conferences, national educational planning insti-tutions, organizations for regional cooperation, etc.). National leadersadopted the new education–economic growth discourse, which afforded newstates access to international aid. Developed countries, less influenced byinternational organizations, were encouraged to democratize their secondaryeducation in order to increase economic development. France and Sweden,as we will see, promoted reforms of their education systems based on eco-nomic considerations. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Greeceimproved their education systems with economic development in view. This

3 After a long period of gestation starting in the 1930s with the foundation of the Cowles Commission,which moved to the University of Chicago, econometric economics—called also mathematicaleconomics—began to predominate in the 1950s in U.S. universities in which institutionalism and neoclassical theorieswere dominant. The boom of econometric economics was due to its application (first by econometrists,mainly Jan Tinbergen and Trygve Haavelmo) to Keynesian macroeconomics, which became highly influ-ential after World War II in theoretical, applied, and policy work (Duo Qin, The Formation of Econometrics:A Historical Perspective [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997]; see also http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools). A systematic study of education by economists began, enhanced by the “mystery” of economicgrowth. After World War II, the need to explain education as a coherent process was raised in economics(Sandrine Michel, Education et croissance economique en longue periode [Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999], 108).This theoretical “need” turned econometric economists to education and fostered the creation of thenew discipline, “economics of education,” born at the end of the 1950s. According to E. A. G. Robinson,a president of the International Economic Association (IEA): “It became evident that the IEA wasinterested in studying more profoundly several residual factors that influenced economic growth, par-ticularly, education.” Notwithstanding critics of the economics of education approach, in 1963 theprestigious IEA organized the first conference on the economics of education (E. A. G. Robinson,“Introduction,” in The Economics of Education: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International EconomicAssociation, ed. John E. Vaizey [New York: Macmillan, 1966], xiii–xvii).

4 “Technical training, education and pre-investment assistance, whether undertaken by interna-tional organizations or by individual Governments, should be regarded as an important factor in theeconomic development of under-developed countries.” See resolutions adopted by the General Assemblyof the United Nations during its fifteenth session 1515 (XV) on concerted actions for economic de-velopment of economically less developed countries, 948th plenary meeting, December 15, 1960.

5 I am referring here to the term “state managers” as used by Fred Block in “The Ruling ClassDoes Not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State,” Socialist Revolution 33 (May–June 1977):6–28.


“EDUCATION–ECONOMIC GROWTH” BLACK BOX

enormous world machine, constructed around the new world education cul-ture, accorded to international organizations increasing influence and power.

This article has four sections. First, I will present a theoretical discussionof the different explanations regarding the explosion of education afterWorld War II. I will then focus on intergovernmental organizations as agentsthat promote a specific world education culture. I will explain how the actor-network theory—a theory of knowledge and of agency—enables us to un-derstand the formation of the education–economic growth black box. Rep-resenting a relational and process-oriented approach that treats agents,organizations, and devices as interactive effects, the actor-network theory willallow me to explain the formation of the education–economic growth net-work, a network in which UNESCO, the OECD, and the econometric econ-omists of education participated. It will also serve to elucidate the ways inwhich the collaboration of international organizations as central “allies” ofthe network contributed to the enhancement and diffusion of the educa-tion–economic growth black box, turning it into a component of the worldeducation culture.6 Second, the formation of the education–economic growthnetwork will be depicted through the evolution of the economics of educationin calculable and predictable terms. Three main allies constituted the basisof the education–economic growth network: (1) human capital theory, (2)the residual factor, and (3) education planning. Third, the critiques of theeducation–economic growth black box will be presented. Fourth, despite thefact that econometric economics of education was strongly criticized, theblack box was “warmly” adopted by the relevant international organizations.I shall discuss how the education–economic growth discourse became thebasis of educational policies throughout the world—a fact that contributedto the expansion and empowerment of international organizations. Finally,a concluding section will discuss the utility of an analysis of internationalorganizations as actors in furthering our understanding of the evolution ofa world education culture.

Theoretical Discussion

In their study of the convergent and divergent trends in national ed-ucation systems, Alex Inkeles and Larry Sirowy, from an equilibrium per-spective, argue that the major explanation for the convergence of edu-cational systems lies in the social pressure exerted by the requirements ofoperating a large-scale and complex technology-based economy and so-ciety.7 Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory became the point of

6 Allies can be “other scientists but also instruments and practices that embody the contribution,and arguments that justify it” (Yuval Yonay, “When Black Boxes Clash: Competing Ideas of What ScienceIs in Economics, 1924–1939,” Social Studies of Science 24, no. 1 [1994]: 39–80, n. 41).

7 Alex Inkeles and Larry Sirowy, “Convergent and Divergent Trends in National Education Systems,”Social Forces 62, no. 2 (1983): 305–33.

176 May 2006

RESNIK

departure for many neo-Marxist and other conflict perspective analyses ofeducation.8 For instance, Philip Altbach argued that educational neocolon-ialism perpetuates the economic dependency of poor countries on rich ones.9

Similarly, Martin Carnoy stated that schooling serves to “colonize” children’sminds in developed and underdeveloped countries so as to contribute tocapitalist accumulation.10

More recently, Annie Vinokur has argued that the discourse about ed-ucation in international organizations has changed over the past half centuryaccording to immediate labor force needs for capital accumulation. In eachperiod, the “economics of education” served as an instrument of legitimation,thus contributing to the depoliticization of one of the most politicized issuesin society.11 From a critical international relations perspective, Karen Mundyanalyzes international organizations as “arenas within which states and othersocial forces continue to struggle and construct the shape and meaning ofworld order itself.”12

From a completely different approach, the neoinstitutionalist school,headed by John Meyer, views international organizations as part of the worldsociety that has developed rapidly since World War II. Many features of thecontemporary nation-state, including economic, political, and educationalframeworks, derive from global models constructed and propagated by in-ternational organizations.13 Connie McNeely points to the influence of in-ternational organizations’ prescriptions regarding national educational pol-icies. International organizations define and promote overall world-levelprinciples and ideals that are then used to guide state policy.14 Colettte Chab-bott also makes an important contribution for understanding the evolutionof international organizations through her analysis of the “construction ofeducation for development.”15

Equilibrium, conflict, and neoinstitutional theories note the increasingrelevance of international organizations, and their role is taken into accountin their analyses. However, in these approaches, international organizationsare not seen as purposeful actors or agents with the ability to influence events

8 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System (New York: Academic Press, 1974).9 Philip Altbach, “Education and Neocolonialism,” Teachers College Record 72, no. 4 (1971): 543–58.10 Martin Carnoy, Education as Cultural Imperialism (New York: McKay, 1974).11 Annie Vinokur, “De la scolarisation de masse a la formation tout au long de la vie: Essai sur les

enjeux economiques des doctrines educatives des organisations internationales,” Education et Societe RevueInternationale de Sociologie de L’Education 12, no. 2 (2003): 91–104.

12 Ronald B. Cox, cited in Karen Mundy, “Educational Multilateralism and World (Dis)Order,”Comparative Education Review 42, no. 4 (November 1998): 448–78, 450–51.

13 John Meyer, John Boli, George Thomas, and Francisco Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State,” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 1 (1997): 144–81.

14 Connie McNeely, “Prescribing National Education Policies: The Role of International Organi-zations,” Comparative Education Review 39, no. 4 (1995): 483–507.

15 Colette Chabbott, Constructing Education for Development: International Organizations and Educationfor All (New York: Routledge, 2002).



or institutions but merely as reflecting “others’” interests or needs or asdiffusing others’ rational models worldwide.

In recent years, a corpus of research has emerged that attempts to un-derstand the way that international organizations function and how inter-national models are constructed. These approaches conceive of internationalorganizations as agents of economic or educational policies driven by theirown institutional targets, which themselves are determined by institutionalconstraints. Roser Cusso and Sabrina D’Amico, for instance, examine thepressure on UNESCO to adopt the OECD and the World Bank statisticalprocedures in order to remain relevant to the educational discourse of the1990s.16 Beatrice Hibou analyzes the changing discourse of the World Bankand the way that it influenced politics in Africa, mostly in unintended ways,by delegitimizing governments. Because of the nature of African states, lib-eralization and economic reforms had much greater sociopolitical effectsthan economic ones. She also underlines that the lax treatment by WorldBank functionaries vis-a-vis economic policies in such countries derived frombureaucratic constraints, namely, the motivation to go on disbursing fundsfor development, which represents the “raison d’etre” of the bank, and thenature of international bureaucrats, who, like any salaried workers, try to besuccessful managers and get ahead in their career.17 Romuald Normand’swork on the international comparison of education systems shows how theresults of studies carried out by the “school effectiveness” movement in Britainwere transformed into simplistic and standardized prescriptions, later onbecoming the basis of international indicators deployed since the mid-1990sto compare the performance of different education systems.18 In their studyon “the new world education order,” Christian Laval and Louis Weber arguethat even powerful states such as France tend to delegate decisions abouteducational priorities to the international organizations, decisions that areagreed on by the states without any public debate. Tracing the way thateducational decisions are made in Europe, the complexity of networks (in-cluding international organizations and states’ representatives), and the “hy-peractivity” of neoliberal speakers, the authors conclude that the educational

16 Roser Cusso and Sabrina D’Amico, “Vers une comparabilite plus normative des statistiquesinternationales de l’education: De l’education de masse aux competences” (paper presented at Inter-national Seminar, La mesure en education [Assessment in education], FOREDUC [e-forum on edu-cation], Vendome, December 20–21, 2004). See also Roser Cusso, La demographie dans le modele dedeveloppement de la Banque Mondiale: Entre la recherche, le controle de la population et les politiques neoliberales(Paris: EHESS, 2001).

17 Beatrice Hibou, “The Political Economy of the World Bank’s Discourse,” Etudes du CERI 39( January 2000): 44.

18 Romuald Normand, “Le mouvement de la ‘school effectiveness’ et sa critique dans le mondeanglo-saxon,” 2003, Sociologie, politique et critique en education, Revue de l’Institut de Sociologie Universite Librede Bruxelles 2001, nos. 1–4 (2003): 135–67.

178 May 2006

RESNIK

world order is not the product of an international conspiracy but rather theresult of a “laissez-faire” policy.19

I intend to analyze international organizations as agents, as institutionswith structures and resources that have an intrinsic tendency, as Robert Mich-els argues, to increase their power and resources.20 According to the actor-network theory, an actor is any element that bends space around itself, makesother elements dependent on it, and translates its will into a language of itsown.21 Common examples of actors include humans, collectivities of humans,texts, graphic representations, and technical artifacts. Actors, all of whichhave interests, seek to convince other actors so as to create an alignment ofthe other actors’ interests with their own interests. Thus, the actor-networktheory allows us to conceive of international agencies as agents, not merelyas receivers or transmitters of a preconceived educational model but as actorsthat produce and diffuse world educational models, thus creating the worldeducation culture.

Unlike neoinstitutionalists, who characterize international organizationsas vehicles for the diffusion of world education culture or of educationalmodels elaborated elsewhere, I see international organizations as coproducersof this world education culture. Since, as John Law argues, “knowledge” maybe seen to be a product or an effect of a heterogenous network containingmany dissimilar elements, intergovernmental agencies, by participating in theeducation–economic growth network and endorsing econometric economicsof education, have helped make this approach a central model of worldeducation culture, one to be imitated and applied around the world.22 Thisperspective stresses the role of scholars and experts, who, while seeking toincrease their power and influence, define and shape international educa-tional agendas that are part of the world education culture. But power, inthis approach, does not account for a preexisting structure but insteademerges from the actions of actors within the network, and from their abilityto align other actors’ interests with their own.

The actor-network approach will enable us to understand how and why

19 Christian Laval and Louis Weber, eds., Le nouvel ordre educatif mondial OMC, Banque Mondiale,OECD, Commission Europeenne (Paris: Editions Nouveaux Regards, 2002).

20 Robert Michels, Political Parties (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1959).21 Actor-network theory is an approach originating in studies of science and technology. Key ref-

erences are Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), further citations are tothe latter edition; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Michel Callon, “Society in the Making: The Studyof Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: NewDirections in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J.Pinch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 83–106; Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, “Unscrewing theBig Leviathan: How Actors Macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So,” inAdvances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward and Integration of Micro- and Macro- Sociologies, ed. KarinD. Knorr-Cetina and Aaron V. Cicourel (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 277–303.

22 John Law, “Note on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity,”Systems Practice 5, no. 4 (1992): 379–93.



some educational models, in this case the education-economic growth ap-proach, become central in international organizations. According to the ac-tor-network theory as developed by Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar, and MichelCallon, knowledge is a social product rather than something discovered orgenerated through the operation of a privileged scientific method.23 Thesuccess of a scientific approach is due mainly to the ability of researchers tobuild a large and consistent network.

Latour perceives scientists as involved in attempts to promote their owncontributions and make them into “black boxes,” that is, into knowledge thatis accepted and used on a regular basis as an unquestioned matter of fact.24

Scientists are involved in what Latour calls “trials of strength,” in which theytry to convince colleagues and outsiders that their contributions are valid,useful, or promising. In order to succeed in trials of strength, scientists, whocompete among themselves, have to marshal various “allies” in order tostrengthen their cases and make them more defensible.

From this perspective, the success of the education–economic growthapproach has to be understood not in terms of its inherent validity but, rather,as a consequence of the ability of the actors identified with it to build a largeand influential network. Both econometric economists of education and func-tionaries of UNESCO and the OECD participated in the construction of theblack box. Each actor tried to align the other actors with its own interests:(a) econometric economists “translating” their understanding of how edu-cation contributes to economic growth into practical educational policies tobe applied worldwide and (b) international organizations’ experts translatingeconomic theories into justifications for the expansion of education systemsand greater investment in education throughout the world.25 The networkassembled was comprised of various allies: human capital theory, the residualfactor enigma, educational planning (mainly, the “manpower” approach),education experts, demographers, and so forth.

The reinforcement of the education–economic growth network allowedeconometric economists of education to broaden their network andstrengthen their position as scholars representing valuable and legitimatescientific knowledge, on the one hand, and enabled international function-aries to enlarge their organizations and funding and to increase their radiusof influence and institutional power, on the other.

The adoption of the education–economic growth approach in the UnitedNations (1960) and its further implementation in UNESCO and OECD fo-rums represent successful trials, which Latour discusses as stages through

23 Latour and Woolgar, Laboratory Life; Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, “Do Not Throw Out theBaby with the Bath School,” in Science as Practice and Culture, ed. A. Pickering (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1992), 343–68.

24 In Yonay, “When Black Boxes Clash.”25 Ibid.

180 May 2006

RESNIK

which the contribution was incorporated into institutional practices.26 Havingcirculated since the late 1950s in international forums, the ideas at the baseof the education–economic growth approach became institutionalized in in-ternational conferences, study groups, international organizations docu-ments, recommended policies, and so on.27 After several years of cooperationbetween economists of education and functionaries of international orga-nizations in the education–economic growth network, this approach becamea black box and part of the world education culture. Having been institu-tionalized, the education–economic growth black box became “an obligatorypoint of passage” for the formulation of national educational policies andinternational aid grants.28 At the same time, the institutionalization of theblack box enlarged the domains of influence of international organizations,mainly their educational sections. States as well as bilateral and multilateralaid organizations were encouraged to multiply their education efforts andto support and contribute to the departments of education for economicdevelopment in UNESCO and the OECD. This, in turn, enabled the orga-nizations to expand and multiply their institutions, to gain access to increasedresources, and to accrue influence over state members, thus enlarging andreinforcing the education–economic growth network even more.

Actors in the Education–Economic Growth Network

After the Second World War, economic development was seen as a priorityfor economists as well as for international organizations. By the end of the1950s, education as a key factor of growth became a major issue of economicpolicies, following the issue of employment. Econometric economists of ed-ucation—a discipline still in its infancy after World War II—entailed a radicaltransformation of the way that the education system was conceived.

26 Latour, Science in Action.27 See, e.g., L. Walsh, “Capital Concept Applied to Man,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 49 (1935):

225–85; Jacob Mincer, “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income,” Journal of Political Economy66, no. 4 (1958): 281–302; Theodore W. Schultz, “Investment in Man: An Economist’s View,” SocialService Review 33 (1959): 106–17; Frederick Harbison and Charles A. Myers, Management in the IndustrialWorld (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959); Friedrich Edding, “Internationale Tendenzen in der EntwicklungderAusgaben fur Schulen und Hochschulen” [International trends in educational expenditure], KielerStudien 47 (1958): 24–71; Edward F. Denison, “Saving in the National Economy: From the Nation IncomePerspective,” Survey of Current Business (1955): 8–24; Ingvar Svennilson, Growth and Stagnation in theEuropean Economy (Geneva: Forenta Nationerna, 1954). Ideas on human capital were also circulating ininternational organizations. For instance, Tinbergen, the Dutch scholar considered the founding fatherof econometric economics (Nobel Economics Prize 1969), collaborated with international organizationsbetween 1936 and 1938 as an expert temporarily attached to the League of Nations Secretariat andfurther on with UNESCO and the OECD. Theodore W. Schultz (Nobel Economics Prize 1979), as aspecialist in economic development in developing countries, was the head of the Ford Foundation’sTechnical Assistance in Latin America in the mid-1950s. See Clifton Wharton Jr., “Theodore W. Schultz,Biographies Memoirs,” Proceedings of the American Philosophy Society 147, no. 3 (September 2003): 312–15.

28 Raymond F. Lyons, ed., Problems and Strategies of Educational Planning: Lessons from Latin America(Paris: UNESCO, IIEP, 1965); Casely Mate, “Addis Ababa in Retrospect: An Evaluation since the 1961Conference,” in Education in Africa: Research and Action, ed. Richard Jolly, published for the AfricanStudies Association of the United Kingdom (Nairobi: East African Publishing House, 1969), 5.



As long as economists saw education—beyond compulsory schooling—as an expense to be borne by the state, it was a matter for philosophersand educationists alone. As a consumption good, it depended on personalpreferences, family income, and the cost of education. During this period,postelementary education was almost a nonissue among economists. How-ever, the theory of human capital subsequently perpetrated a revolution:transformed into an investment, education became an issue for the state, andas such, it aroused real interest among a large and diverse group of experts,decision makers, politicians, sociologists, economists, statisticians, function-aries, and so on. As Eric Delamotte notes, the success of the economics ofeducation began in the 1960s: “Like a comet, this branch of economics wasrapidly acknowledged and within a few years was officially recognized by alarge audience of experts and decision makers.”29

In the first stage, economists of education focused their studies mainlyon descriptive international comparisons or on education planning based onlabor force estimations. Friedrich Edding, for instance, proposed that “itseems worthwhile to study in a descriptive way the factors influencing edu-cational expenditure and its relation to national aggregates in a number ofcountries.”30 Subsequently, human capital theory encouraged the develop-ment of econometric approaches: the cost of education, the rates of return,and the residual factor became key concepts.

Human Capital Theory

The contribution of education to economic development, according toSandrine Michel, had been noted by classical economists, namely, AdamSmith and John Stuart Mill, and by neoclassical economists such as AlfredMarshall. They regarded education as a part of capital (which, along withland and labor, represents factors in the production of wealth).31 In thenineteenth century, Thomas Malthus, who refuted Condorcet’s notions ofthe inevitability of progress, saw education as a means to make people moreprudent.32 In his Principles of Economics, the British economist Alfred Marshall(1842–1924) referred to education as a national investment. Marshall believedthat public education unleashed reserves of talent latent in the population.He also argued that the education–technical progress link was undeniable.This neoclassical economist contended that the economic value of a singleindustrial genius could largely compensate for the expenditure on education

29 Eric Delamotte, Une introduction a la pensee economique en education (Paris: Presses Universitairesde France, 1998), 84.

30 Friedrich Edding, “Expenditure on Education: Statistics and Comments,” in The Economics ofEducation: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International Economic Association, ed. E. A. G. Robinsonand J. E. Vaizey (London: Macmillan, 1966), 48.

31 Michel, Education et croissance economique en longue periode, 33–101.32 Thomas R. Malthus, Principles of Political Economy (1820; repr., London: Macmillan, 1973).

182 May 2006

RESNIK

in a whole city. He estimated that one invention, when applied to industrialsector, had the same significance as the work of 100,000 men.33

Despite these precedents, until the 1960s economists considered post-elementary schooling as a public expenditure. However, at the end of the1950s, basing their argument on empirical data, Theodore Schultz and GaryS. Becker attempted to quantify the contribution of education to economicgrowth.34 Studying postwar economic development in Europe, which hadlargely exceeded the estimated growth rate, Schultz (1902–98) developed thetheory of human capital, contending that investment in education should beanalyzed as an independent factor in production, separate from financialcapital but under its control.35

Based on the concept of human capital, Frederic Harbison constructedquantitative indicators of human resource development. These indicatorsallowed him to examine the relationship between human resources and eco-nomic development. The “stock” of human capital represents the level ofhuman resource development attained in a specific country. In general, theresults confirmed Harbison’s expectations: a high correlation between themeasures of the stock of human resources and the measures of economicdevelopment was found. For instance, there was a very high positive corre-lation between the composite index of human resource development andgross national product (GNP) per capita in U.S. dollars and a high negativecorrelation between the composite index and the percentage of the activepopulation engaged in agriculture.36 However, as Harbison himself con-cluded, these quantitative relationships do not establish causality: “The datado not permit a conclusion that an increase of X percent in second-level orhigher education will result in a Y percent increase in GNP per capita.”37

The Residual Factor

The residual factor is part of the lexicon of economics. Land, labor, andcapital are traditionally the factors that contribute to the GNP, and calcula-tions of national income are usually based on these three elements. But adifference exists between the rate at which GNP really grows and its estimatedgrowth rate. Economists call this difference the residual factor. Neoclassicalgrowth theory hypothesizes that a large part of this residual factor can beexplained by education, meaning that education may contribute to economic

33 Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (1890; repr., London: Macmillan, 1991).34 See Theodore W. Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review 51 (March

1961): 1–17, and The Economic Value of Education (New York: Wiley, 1963); see also Gary S. Becker,“Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy 70 (1962), and HumanCapital (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964), 9–49.

35 In Michel, Education et croissance economique en longue periode, 135.36 Frederic Harbison, “Quantitative Indicators of Human Resource Development,” in Robinson

and Vaizey, The Economics of Education, 349–80.37 Ibid., 370.



growth. Econometric economists of education have attempted to find em-pirical support for this intuition.

For instance, Edward F. Denison examined economic growth in the UnitedStates between 1909 and 1957 and found that education, in terms of both theimprovement of the labor force and the “advance of knowledge,” explained43 percent of the growth.38 Similarly, Ingvar Svennilson, Friedrich Edding, andLionel Elvin argued that education should be regarded as a production factor,because economic growth, which depends on the utilization of real capital inthe form of tools and machines, has to be coupled with educated workers,who know how to operate the new sophisticated machines. The contributionof education to the economy was assessed by using the income of educatedpeople as an indicator of the return on education.39

Education Planning

Following the “democratization of education” at the end of the 1950s, whichlargely increased education expenses, planning experts sought ways of assessingeducation costs as part of national budgets and forecasting the needs of ed-ucation systems. The rather rudimentary planning of the first period evolvedand became more sophisticated. Four basic approaches were developed:

1. The “social demand” approach assumes that the objective of policy isto provide a supply of facilities corresponding with the estimated de-mand for educational services.

2. The “pool of abilities” approach uses psychometric methods to estimatethe total number of children who are able to pass the different stagesof an educational system.

3. The “comparative” approach compares inputs and outputs of educa-tion systems of different countries.

4. The “manpower” approach focuses on projecting future requirementsof qualified manpower from which the future demand of output fromthe educational system can be derived.

This last approach gave rise to different methods that attempt to foresee theneeds of education systems in relation to economic requests, and it becamea key actor in the education–economic growth network.40 A well-known ex-ample is the work of Jan Tinbergen and H. C. Bos, who estimate the pro-

38 Similar to Schultz, Denison (“Measuring the Contribution of Education [and the Residual] toEconomic Growth,” in Study Group in the Economics of Education—the Residual Factor and Economic Growth[Paris: OECD, 1965], 13–57, 22) uses empirical data regarding personal income due to education inorder to obtain a first approximate measure of the social product.

39 Ingvar Svennilson, Friedrich Edding, and Lionel Elvin, “The Objectives of Education in Europefor the 1970s,” in Conference on the Economic Growth and Investment in Education Policies (Paris: OECD,1962), 103–31.

40 Delamotte, Une introduction a la pensee economique en education, 122.

184 May 2006

RESNIK

portion of different types of manpower (educated at the secondary and higherlevels of the system) needed to attain an expected rate of economic growth.41

The Education–Economic Growth Black Box Comes under Attack

These new econometric models were theoretically and methodologicallycriticized by “traditional” economists of education; the use of such modelsin shaping education policies was one of the critics’ main targets. Many ofthese economists of education saw attempts to formulate long-term educationpolicies as hopeless. Thomas Balogh observes that “to assume that somesimple sort of (and only numerically different) quantitative relationship holdsbetween education and economic progress in all countries is to fly in theface of all historical evidence,” adding that what “an overenthusiastic fringeof mathematical economists and econometricians . . . are prone to call im-provement of ‘technical knowledge’ should more appropriately be called ameasure of our ignorance.”42 In particular, Balogh identifies the false as-sumptions at the base of Tinbergen and Bos’s enquiry:

1. They assume that investment in education is not merely a cause (ratherthan the effect, or one of several conditions) but the sole and sufficientcause responsible for the whole, or a certain artificially selected portion,of this residual growth experienced in certain historical examples.

2. They then assume that this causal connection, which has not beenproven, would hold in completely different historical—and thus social,economic, and technical—contexts, establishing a kind of iron law ofeducation.

3. All calculations of the impact of education on economic progress derivefrom a model of the economic system that is completely static incharacter.43

Similarly, John Vaizey, a well-known British economist of education, ar-gued that the influence of education on economic growth was to lift people’smental horizons and give them an appetite for change, but he wondered:“How are we to quantify this?”44 And Trygve Haavelmo, Nobel laureate in1989 based at the Economic Institute of the University of Oslo, commented:

The big problem in the economics of education is to explain, preferably in quan-titative terms, the role of education in promoting economic expansion. This prob-

41 Jan Tinbergen and H. C. Bos, “A Planning Model for the Educational Requirements of EconomicDevelopment,” in OECD, Study Group in the Economics of Education, 147.

42 Thomas Balogh, comments on Tinbergen and Bos’s paper: “A Planning Model for the Educa-tional Requirements of Economic Development,” in OECD, Study Group in the Economics of Education,180–87, 182.

43 Ibid.44 John Vaizey, “Towards a New Political Economy? Or Some Problems of Some Aspects of Eco-

nomics in the Light of ‘Human Resource’ Problems,” in OECD, Study Group in the Economics of Education,122.



lem we are not ready to tackle yet. To say this is to admit that in our present stateof “knowledge” we cannot answer such questions as to what the social “return” (interms of higher growth rates) of any additional expenditure on research, education,etc., would be, or whether it is better to train more engineers and scientists orspend more on business administration schools or management consultants. Topretend otherwise would be to abandon the scientific method and enter the realmof metaphysics—i.e., of unstable hypotheses which by their very nature cannot bedisproved.45

Finally, Michel Debeauvais reminds us that within an optimistic context, sim-plistic models such as Tinbergen’s, Cobb-Douglas’s production function, orHarbison’s indicators were applied without any serious scientific discussionand in spite of their evident weaknesses.46

The Expansion of the Education–Economic Growth Network and the Empowerment ofIntergovernmental Organizations

Despite the criticism directed at the econometric economics of educationapproach, UNESCO and the OECD were enthusiastic about it. Because oftheir prestige and magnitude, international organizations became a preciousally for the education–economic growth network. In 1960, the General As-sembly of the United Nations recognized the importance of education foreconomic development, contributing to a considerable degree to turning theeducation–economic growth approach into a black box. It seems that thecharacteristics of the education–economic growth idea—objectivity, neutrality,and calculability—suited the objectives of international organizations: to pro-mote and coordinate international cooperation on education problems in anapolitical manner. As it was specified in the recommendations: “UNESCO andthe IBE should combine their efforts to facilitate the coordination of workundertaken by educational research centers, in particular by organizing inter-national and regional conferences and by ensuring the diffusion of informationon educational research through journals”; in order to achieve this goal, “theOrganization is prohibited from intervening in matters, which are essentiallywithin their [the countries’] domestic jurisdiction.”47

This recognition opened the door to the large diffusion of the black boxthat became the basis for many international education policies, in developedas well as in developing countries. This brought about the expansion of the

45 Haavelmo, “Comments on ‘The Objectives of Education in Europe for the 1970s,’ by IngvarSvennilson, Friedrich Edding, and Lionel Elvin,” in OECD, Conference on the Economic Growth and Investmentin Education Policies, 132–43, 132.

46 Cited in Delamotte, Une introduction a la pensee economique en education, 46.47 See “Recommendation n� 60 to the Ministries of Eduation concerning the Organization of

Educational Research,” in International Conference on Public Education: Recommendations, 1934–1977, witha historical note by P. Rosello (Paris: UNESCO-IBE, 1978), 318.

186 May 2006

RESNIK

field of action of intergovernmental organizations, turning them into “worldeducational managers.”48

The Experience in Europe and Its Impact on International Organizations

International organizations, mainly UNESCO and the OECD, becamethe forums in which experts and researchers from “developed” countriesconstructed and diffused the education–economic growth ideology. The im-plementation of the Marshall Plan (from 1952) drew attention to the lowlevel of education in Europe. Most European countries participated in con-sultation activities about the framework of the Organization for EuropeanEconomic Cooperation (the forerunner of the OECD) and started to ques-tion the education structures inherited from the past.49 In the framework ofthe OECD, Western European ministers, civil servants, and scholars supportedeach other in their reformist endeavors through constant consultation andcooperative work.50 Experts and researchers who were part of this interna-tional network collaborated with political leaders in their countries in orderto expand and democratize their education systems.

The increasing pressure for democratizing education systems followingWorld War II was integrated into a pragmatic economic vision. Thus, albeit ina different manner, educational reforms in countries such as France and Swe-den combined both access to secondary education for a much larger propor-tion of the population and response to the need for economic development.The concept that each nation had a “pool of abilities” enabled the incorpo-ration of both visions. Restricting access to secondary education to childrenof high social status was viewed as limiting the number of individuals who couldmake significant contributions to the country’s economic development (bybecoming engineers, scientists, and high-level technicians).51

In France, Pierre Mendes-France, president of the State Council(1954–55) and minister of state (1956), denounced the lack of scientists inhis country and its consequences for future economic development. A panicregarding a “scientific and technical lag” and the fear that France would beleft behind in the international economic race brought about the introduc-tion of scientific tracks replacing classic elitist tracks in the lycees.52 In thesame vain, the Rueff-Armand Committee (1959) appointed by Prime Minister

48 According to McNeely, the role of international organizations is to prescribe national educationpolicies (Connie McNeely, Constructing the Nation-State: International Organization and Prescriptive Action[London: Greenwood, 1995]).

49 Maria D. Vasconcelos, “L’evolution des politiques educatives,” in L’ecole, l’etat des savoirs, ed.Agnes Van Zanten (Paris: La Decouverte, 2000).

50 The French historian Antoine Prost argues that the reformist initiatives in France, like similarones undertaken in other European countries, were not national but international (Education, societe etpolitiques [Paris: Editions du Seuils, 1997], 84).

51 Julia Resnik, “Globalization of Educational Models: Structural Reforms of the Education Systemin Israel and France” (PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, 2001).

52 Assemblee Nationale, Seance du 25 juillet 1957, 3968, cited in ibid., 215.



Michel Debre concluded that vast human resources were being wasted andthat to ameliorate the situation the French education system should be re-formed and developed.53

However, it was the collaboration of the Institut National d’Etudes De-mographiques (INED) with the Planning Commission (the French Plan) thatcoupled the problems of “inequality of education opportunities” and eco-nomic growth through a new dispositif—“educational planning.” A NationalEducation Colloquium devoted to “problems related to the education system,demographic growth and educational growth” took place in 1962 (after the1960 UN resolution) with the participation of high-ranking functionariesfrom the Ministry of Education, researchers from the INED (Alain Girard,Alfred Sauvy), and experts from the French Plan.54 Raymond Poignant andJean Fourastie (from the French Plan) explained that allowing education toevolve naturally would never close the gap between the quality and numberof students issuing from the education system and the needs for a larger andmore highly qualified workforce. This situation, in their view, would hinderthe economic development of the country. They urged the state to engagein educational planning based on a “social democratic conception in favorof providing the maximum of years of education to a maximum number ofchildren perfectly suited manpower forecasts according to economic needs.”55

Top officials at the Ministry of Education supported educational reformsand educational planning. Louis Gros, director-general of the General Ad-ministration of the Ministry of Education, explained the need to introducechanges into the education system, based on the report presented by thePlanning Commission. He argued that “the expansion of the national econ-omy will continue as long as the education system provides sufficient pro-fessionals.”56 Jean Capelle, general-director of the “Organization and SchoolCurriculum” Secretariat at the Ministry of Education, declared that “like anindustrialist, the state shall invest according to its own interest, and the Min-istry of Education, too, will aid students who orient themselves to professionsthe nation requires.”57

The education–economic growth discourse mobilized politicians and

53 Haim Gaziel, “The Comprehensive Middle School in France,” Comparative Education 25, no. 1(1989): 29–39.

54 “Colloque sur l’education nationale: Sous les auspices du Grand Orient de France” (1962), citedin Resnik, “Globalization of Educational Models,” 228.

55 Jean Fourastie and Raymond Poignant, “Le developpement des enseignements du second degreet superieur et l’evolution de l’emploi” (paper presented at Colloque sur l’education nationale, Sousles auspices du Grand Orient de France, Palais de l’UNESCO, Paris, April 6–8, 1962), 55.

56 Louis Gros, “L’Administration de l’education nationale face a l’evolution economique et sociale”(paper presented at Colloque sur l’education nationale, Sous les auspices du Grand Orient de France,Palais de l’UNESCO, Paris, April 6–8, 1962), 87.

57 Jean Capelle, “Economie des programmes” (paper presented at Colloque sur l’education na-tionale, Sous les auspices du Grand Orient de France, Palais de l’UNESCO, Paris, April 6–8, 1962),181–82.

188 May 2006

RESNIK

high-ranking functionaries in France’s Ministry of Education to bring abouteducational structural reforms. They started with the Berthoin reform (1959),which succeeded in prolonging compulsory education until the age of 16and in eliminating entry examinations to the lycee, and which was followedby the Fouchet-Capelle (1963) and the Haby (1975) reforms, which alsorepresent progressive steps toward the democratization of education inFrance.58

The French experience in planning was beneficial to international or-ganizations as French economists, demographers, and educational expertsplayed an important role in the formation of the education–economic growthnetwork. Among others, Sauvy and Jean Bourgeois-Pichat from the INEDcollaborated extensively with UNESCO and the European Council.59 Similarly,Fourastie, an economist and demographer at the INED and advisor to theFrench Plan; Poignant, an expert from the French Plan; and Debeauvaisfrom the Institut d’Etude du Developpement Economique et Social (IEDES)were active members in UNESCO and the OECD.60

Similar to the French, Sweden also engaged in educational reforms basedon democratic ideals and economic needs, using educational planning toachieve the expected goals. However, contrary to those in France, structuralreforms in Swedish education were characterized by a “political consensusattained through . . . public dialogue,” allowing for their massive and rapidimplementation, including its avant-garde “9 years of comprehensive school”plan.61 As such, and because it was assumed that all European countries facedthe same basic educational problems—namely, democratizing education andaddressing economic needs—Sweden was seen as a “pilot country.” Educa-tional planning institutions created at the national administrative levels of

58 Resnik, “Globalization of Educational Models.”59 Sauvy, director of the INED, represented France in the UNESCO Population Commission from

1947 and chaired it from 1951 to 1953. Bourgeois-Pichat, the successor of Sauvy as director of the INED,was vice-director of the population division in the department of social affairs in UNESCO from 1954to 1962. This information is cited in Alain Girard, L’Institut National d’Etudes Demographiques—histoire etdeveloppement (Paris: Editions de l’Institut National d’Etudes Demographiques, 1986), 69–73.

60 Jean Fourastie, “Politiques de croissance economique et d’investissement dans l’enseignement”(paper presented at Conference de Washington II: Les objectifs de l’education en Europe pour 1970,OECD, Washington, DC, October 16–20, 1961). Raymond Poignant, director of the IIEP 1963–68,participated in large numbers of international conferences and workshops organized by the OECD andUNESCO (Resnik, “Globalization of Educational Models,” 261). Michel Debeauvais was vice-director ofthe Institut d’Etude du developpement Economique et Social (IEDES) Paris before his nomination aschief of unity in charge of the Ford Foundation Program for Latin America. He participated in thestudy group in the economics of education, financing of education for economic growth organized bythe OECD (Paris, September 21–24, 1964). He presented, with Daniel Blot, a paper entitled “EducationalExpenditure in Developing Areas: Some Statistical Aspects” (paper presented at a conference organizedby the Directorate for Scientific Affairs, Paris, September 21–24, 1964). He participated as an expertand consultant for the OECD at the Conference sur les Politiques d’Expansion de l’Enseignement,Rapport General, Politiques d’Enseignement pour la Decennie 1970/1980, Paris, June 3–5, 1970, or-ganized by the OECD. He was Director of IIEP from 1977 to 1982.

61 See OECD, ”Reviews of National Policies for Education, Sweden, 1969” (OECD, Paris, 1969),17.



the government and research carried out by national administrative agenciesand scholars in the research community were also considered elements cru-cial to the reforms’ success.62 Torsten Husen, a scholar considered the en-gineer of the Swedish educational reforms, worked closely with the Swedishgovernment and international organizations and, as such, was a key elementof the education–economic growth network.63 Husen was director of theInstitute of Educational Research at the School of Education, Stockholm(1956–71), and professor and director of the International Institute of Ed-ucation at Stockholm University (1971–82), as well as serving as chair of theGoverning Board of International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP;1970–80) and chair of the International Association for the Evaluation ofEducational Achievement (IEA; 1962–78). Husen also collaborated a greatdeal with the OECD.64

France, and to a greater extent Sweden, represent the more obvious ex-amples of the application of the education–economic growth black box inpractice. However, for most European countries “the importance of educationto economic growth [was] a significant feature in the activities of governments. . . [and constituted] a major argument for extending educational oppor-tunity.”65 As we have seen, educational planning, based mainly on “manpower”forecasting, was an important ally for the education–economic growth networkand a driving force for encouraging education expansion.

An educational planning apparatus that covered the world was launched.The IIEP was founded by UNESCO in 1963 in Paris with the support of theWorld Bank, the United Nations, and the Ford Foundation. Four IIEP re-gional centers were created at the beginning of the 1960s.66 The IIEP or-ganized training seminars and offered intensive instruction on educationplanning for directors and staff of the regional centers as well as for topofficials responsible for education in developing countries.67 The OECD alsocreated institutions—such as the Educational Investment and Planning Pro-

62 Ibid.63 Husen identifies the wastage of talent in selective education systems as the reason for this social

distortion. See Conference sur les Politiques d’Expansion de l’Enseignement, Rapport General, Poli-tiques d’Enseignement pour la Decennie 1970/1980, Paris, June 3–5, 1970.

64 Husen participated in Objectifs sociaux et planification de l’enseignement, groupe d’etude sur l’aspeteconomiques de l’enseignement [Study group on the economics of education, social objectives and educationplanning] (Paris: OECD, 1969). As an expert, he participated in the Conference sur les Politiquesd’Expansion de l’Enseignement, Rapport General, Politiques d’Enseignement pour la Decennie 1970/1980, Paris, June 3–5, 1970. He was responsible for the OECD report on “Education Policy in France:Notes et Etudes Documentaires” (OECD, Paris, February 12, 1971).

65 Barry J. Hake, Education and Social Emancipation—Some Implications for General Secondary Educationtowards the Year 2000, Plan Europe 2000, published under the auspices of the European Cultural Foun-dation (The Hague: Nijhoof, 1975), 4.

66 In 1962, UNESCO set up two training institutes, one at Beyrotuh for the Arab countries and atNew Delhi for Asia. The rest were held in Latin America; see Lyons, Problems and Strategies of EducationalPlanning.

67 1946 UNESCO 50 Years of Education (Paris: UNESCO, Education Sector, 1997), 64–65.

190 May 2006

RESNIK

gramme (EIP)—to promote educational planning.68 In 1960, educationalplanning groups were set up in a number of countries under the auspicesof the OECD to provide a model for the technical staff of national agenciesseeking to reorient education so as to encompass economic motives.69

UNESCO and the OECD recommended that their member states createpermanent educational planning bodies that were integrated into their gov-ernment structure.70

In the 1960s, all 22 member states of the OECD participated in educa-tional planning projects. Educational planning in Europe was initiated in thelate 1950s when the OECD launched the Regional Mediterranean Project.This large educational planning project, in which Spain, Portugal, Turkey,Yugoslavia, and Greece took part, aimed at forecasting education develop-ment according to future economic growth.71 Although more reticent thanthe above-mentioned countries to implement educational changes basedmainly on economic needs, Germany, Austria, and Ireland, among others,took part in the OECD’s Education Investment and Planning Programme.National planning institutes in these countries participated in this educationalplanning project, which was based on manpower forecasting.72

International Organizations and the Experience in Latin America

Once the education–economic growth model had been formally adoptedby international organizations, their various agencies urged “developing”countries to adopt it as well and to implement educational planning strategiesin order to expand their education systems. Many government officials inAfrica, Asia, and Latin America who participated in frequent internationalconferences and regional meetings, organized mainly by UNESCO, adoptedthe education–economic growth discourse.73 Moreover, in the postwar years,external aid for education improvement for developing countries increasedenormously. However, loans and aids were granted only when education

68 The EIP projects were presented by the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technical Personnel,cited in OECD, “Reviews of National Policies for Education, Sweden,” 8.

69 Friis Henning was the director of the Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen,Denmark; chairman, OECD Committee for Scientific and Technical Personnel; and the author of theintroduction for OECD Study Group in the Economics of Education, Organizational Problems in PlanningEducational Development (Paris: OECD, 1966), 9–12, 12.

70 Ibid.; see also George Papadopoulus, Education, 1960–1990 (Paris: OECD, 1994), 50–54.71 Herbert Parmers, The Mediterranean Regional Project: Forecasting Educational Needs for Economic and

Social Development (Paris: OECD, 1962), 61.72 Developpement des ressources humaines, Les previsions de main d’ouevre dans la planification

de l’enseignement, Direction des Affaires Scientifiques, OECD, Paris, 1967.73 For instance, regional conferences of ministers of education in Asia and the Pacific convened

by UNESCO have met regularly since 1962 (Tokyo in 1962, Bangkok in 1965, Singapore in 1972,Colombo in 1978, and Bangkok in 1985). “They were attended by both by ministers of education andthose responsible for economic planning in their countries. The composition of the Conferences com-prising both education and economic policy-makers has served to broaden the perspectives in whichthe development of education was viewed” (Raja Roy Singh, Education in Asia and the Pacific. Retrospect:Prospect [Bangkok: UNESCO, 1985], 1).



policies were formulated based on planning according to economic needs.74

Thus, state officials extensively employed the education–economic growthdiscourse, incorporating it into their political and administrative agendas.Constant follow-up by international organizations, their representatives, andgovernments themselves on governments’ improvements in education ac-cording to established schedules and planning goals formulated by bilateralor multilateral donors channeled education policies in the 1950s and 1960sinto this preconceived education–economic growth formula.75

UNESCO sent missions and experts to advise governments on creatingthe planning machinery. From the early 1960s, planning missions were sentto about 30 countries, and expert services were provided to 50 countries.76

At the end of the decade, most of countries in Latin America had establishededucational planning units on a formal basis.77 In addition, UNESCO par-ticipated in 10 international conferences in Latin America in 1961, 19 in1962, 16 in 1963, and 21 in 1964. They were all concerned with education,and several dealt specifically with policies and planning. It is easy to see, then,why it has been claimed that, since 1956, “UNESCO has actively intervenedin the development of primary education through numerous seminars andconferences.”78

The educational planning section of the Latin American Institute of Eco-nomic and Social Planning of UNESCO trained nationals of the countriesin the region. “In 1956 the first Regional Conference on Free and CompulsoryEducation in Latin America was held in Lima, it was the first of the meetingsconvened by UNESCO (and the OAS—Organization of American States) aspart of a program of worldwide action, aimed, first, at giving an impetus tothe development of primary education and, subsequently, at spreading theidea that educational planning should be related to economic and socialdevelopment in the different parts of the world.”79 The themes dealt with atthis regional conference were debated by a large number of top-level edu-cational administrators and specialists from different countries and variousinternational agencies.80 The conference drew attention to the effects ofeducational backwardness on the economic development of the countries in

74 See Lyons, Problems and Strategies of Educational Planning, v–vii; Mate, “Addis Ababa in Retrospect,”5.

75 See Mate, “Addis Ababa in Retrospect,” 3.76 Lyons, Problems and Strategies of Educational Planning, vi.77 Thomas N. Chirikos and John R. Shea, “Educational Development in Bolivia,” in Educational

Innovations in Latin America, ed. Richard Cummings and Donald Lemke (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow,1973), 207.

78 Laurence Gale, Education and Development in Latin America with Special Reference to Colombia andSome Comparison with Guyana, South America (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 110–12.

79 Jose Blat Gimeno, La educacion en America Latina y el Caribe en el ultimo tercio del siglo XX (Paris:UNESCO, 1981), 21.

80 Ibid.

192 May 2006

RESNIK

the region.81 It pointed out that plans for the development of primary ed-ucation (using modern planning techniques) should be drawn up and rec-ommended that such plans be coordinated with social and economic devel-opment plans.82 A special push was given to planning in Latin America bythe Conference on Education and Economic and Social Development inLatin America, held in Santiago in 1961 and attended by about 15 ministersof education.83

Richard Cummings and Donald Lemke point to initiatives and reformsundertaken by the different countries in order to respond to the conference’stargets.84 Subsequent regional conferences were held in Santiago (1963) andBuenos Aires (1966). The Santiago conference, which was a cooperative effortinvolving UNESCO, the Economic Commission for Latin America, the In-ternational Labor Organization, the Food and Agricultural Organization, andthe Organization of American States (OAS) among its sponsors, “made itclear what the role of education was as a factor of development and as aform of investment.”85

The education–economic growth ideology was not only disseminatedthrough these international conferences but was also discussed in regionalorganizations, such as the OAS. The seminar on “Planeamiento Integral dela Educacion” (1958), attended by ministers of education, was organized bythe OAS in Washington, DC. Three years later, another seminar on integralplanning (education and economics) was held in Punta del Este (1961). Inthe third Inter-American Conference (in the framework of the OAS) in Bo-gota (1963), attended by ministers of education, “the integration of educa-tional planning with national development plans” was one of the three pri-orities decided on, along with training of personnel and modernization ofeducational administration and research.86 Under the stimulus of interna-tional discussion, the ministers were able to see the objectives toward whichthey could work and declared their intent to undertake educational reform.Usually, in line with UNESCO, the OAS followed through on its declaredintentions throughout the next decade or so.87

International Organizations and the Experience in Asia

The first activity sponsored by UNESCO in Asia took place in 1960,namely, a meeting of government representatives known as the Karachi Plan.It was followed by the first meeting of ministers of education of Asian member

81 Gale, Education and Development in Latin America, 110.82 Gimeno, La educacion en America Latina y el Caribe.83 Lyons, Problems and Strategies of Educational Planning, vii.84 Richard Cummings, “Dynamics Affecting Education,” in Cummings and Lemke, Educational

Innovations in Latin America, 7.85 Gale, Education and Development in Latin America, 112, 20–21.86 Ibid., 22.87 Ibid., 110.



states (that participated in the Karachi Plan) in Tokyo (1962). The KarachiPlan established that “every country of this region should provide a systemof universal, compulsory education and free primary education of seven yearsor more within the period of not more than 20 years (1960–1980).”88 Teamsof educational planning experts were sent to the countries to help themdevelop national projections for educational development, as recommendedby MINEDAS I (the first ministerial meeting).89 The regional conferenceheld in Bangkok in 1965 was the first conference in the region to which boththe ministers of education and the ministers of economic planning wereinvited. Since then this has become an established pattern.90 The concept ofeducational planning as a tool of educational development in the frameworkof overall development was becoming accepted wisdom.91

International Organizations and the Experience in Africa

In Africa, governments viewed the Addis Ababa conference (1961), spon-sored by UNESCO and Economic Commission for Africa, as a forum forAfrican states to decide on their priorities and educational needs and topromote economic and social development in Africa.92 In this context, gov-ernments sought to establish tentative short-term and long-term plans foreducational development on the continent.93 This conference was followedby subsequent UNESCO conferences and the creation of institutions sup-ported mainly by UNESCO and aimed at implementing educational planningaccording to economic needs. These included the Paris meeting of Africanministries of education (March 1962), the Tanarive Conference on the De-velopment of Higher Education in Africa (September 1962), the AbidjanRegional Conference (March 1964), and the Lagos Conference (July–August1964).94

In other countries, the education–economic growth ideology was alsoinfluential. In the 1950s, for instance, the entire education system in Egyptbecame geared toward economic growth and public enlightenment.95 Fur-ther, the primary consideration in the task of building an independent na-tional educational system in Mali was to tailor educational development to-ward overall national growth, particularly in the economic sphere.96

88 See Muhammad Shamsul Huq, Education and Development Strategy in South and Southeast Asia(Honolulu: East-West Center Press), vii.

89 Singh, Education in Asia and the Pacific, 8.90 Ibid., 9.91 Ibid., 10.92 See Mate, “Addis Ababa in Retrospect,” 5.93 Filomina Indire, “Education in Kenya,” in Education in Africa—a Comparative Survey, ed. A. Babs

Fafunwa and J. U. Aisiku (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982), 123.94 See Mate, “Addis Ababa in Retrospect,” 8.95 Abdelaziz Soliman, “Education in Egypt,” in Jolly, Education in Africa, 51.96 Ahmadu Toure, “Education in Mali,” in Jolly, Education in Africa, 191.

194 May 2006

RESNIK

Conclusions

In the literature on the expansion of education systems after the SecondWorld War, international organizations have been considered to be tools ofcapitalists or vehicles of a consensual world education culture. This articleattempts to demonstrate that intergovernmental organizations played a keyrole, and not merely as transmitters but as actors, in the creation of a worldeducation culture that encouraged educational expansion. Economists ofeducation and functionaries of international organizations participated inthe formation and expansion of the education–economic growth network.This network diffused the education–economic growth approach, turning itinto a black box that became the basis of world education culture after WorldWar II.

The enthusiastic support for the black box on the part of internationalorganizations has to be understood from a perspective that conceives ofinternational organisms as self-purposive actors, as institutions with an in-herent tendency to increase their field of action and radius of influence. Theeducation–economic growth black box enabled the organizations to becomeworld managers of an emerging “global education industry” while respectingtheir basic mandates as coordinators and mediators of educational endeavors.

Simultaneously, UNESCO’s and the OECD’s support of the educa-tion–economic growth black box and the organizations’ legitimacy contrib-uted to increasing the credibility and scientific relevance of an infant anduncertain subdiscipline, the econometric economics of education, whosemembers contributed to developing and diffusing this black box. On thebasis of the assumptions contained within the black box, international or-ganizations enlarged their educational institutions, which thus expandedthroughout the world, as can be seen through the foundation of the IIEP,international conferences, regional agencies, educational planning seminars,special missions, and so on. The education–economic growth network grewvertiginously. Exposed to the new world education culture, many top gov-ernment functionaries, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, adoptedthe black box ideology and launched ambitious education programs. Thus,the enlargement and reinforcement of the education–economic growth net-work brought about the hermetic closure of the black box, enhancing theacademic status of economists of education, on the one hand, and leadingto the enlargement and empowerment of international organizations and anincrease in the influence of these organizations on educational policies inthe world, on the other.

My analysis of the evolution of international organizations is restrictedto a specific period of time. Nevertheless, the period I focus on—the 1950sand 1960s—is of special significance. It was after World War II, while a newworld order was being created, that the basic structure of this world educationorder (cooperation between states and international organizations) was es-



tablished. The world education culture has most certainly transformed overtime as certain actors, such as the World Bank, have become progressivelymore involved, and new actors, such as nongovernmental organizations, haveentered the scene and taken on increasingly relevant roles.97 However, thesechanges have taken place within a preestablished, and thus somewhat con-straining, world education apparatus (i.e., an institutional world organizationthat supports the world education culture: international organizations’ fo-rums, conferences, institutes, internet sites, assemblies, etc.) in which a basic“education–economic catechism” was already embedded.98

Despite a decade of large investment in education, faith in economicgrowth resulting from educational expansion began to fade in the early1970s.99 At that time, the world education apparatus was already institution-alized, serving as infrastructure for new world education cultures and inter-national policies dealing with school autonomy, decentralization, and man-agerialism. Chabbott maintains that the oil crisis in the mid-1970s transformedthe educational discourse, and countries were advised to manage their re-sources more efficiently and effectively. In the last decade of the twentiethcentury, at the World Bank, where investment in educational projects grew,faith in education was transformed: no longer simply an engine of economicgrowth, education became a means of reducing poverty and promoting sus-tainable development.100

I hope that the analysis presented herein encourages more research thattakes international organizations seriously, as key actors of a world educationculture that influences education systems throughout the world.101 This en-tails examining their structures, histories, and culture; their pattern of con-flicts and networks (among them and with states); as well as their impact onsocieties. Although a growing literature, mentioned here, has accumulatedlately, much more research needs to be undertaken in order to increase ourunderstanding of international organizations, institutions whose significanceis likely to continue to grow in our global world.

97 Karen Mundy and Lynn Murphy, “Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evi-dence from the Field of Education,” Comparative Education Review 45, no. 1 (February 2001): 85–126.

98 I borrow here from Hibou’s expression “economic catechism,” which refers to the World Bankeconomic ideology (“The Political Economy of the World Bank’s Discourse”).

99 See Hans N. Weiler, “Education and Development: From the Age of Innocence to the Age ofSkepticism,” Comparative Education 14, no. 3 (1978): 179–98; Kenneth Blakemore and Brian Cooksey, ASociology of Education for Africa (London: Allen & Unwin, 1981).

100 Chabbott, Constructing Education for Development, 62.101 I refer to the suggestion to take states seriously made in Margaret M. Weir and Theda Scokpol,

”State Structures and the Possibilities for ‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden,Britain, and the United States,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Scokpol, Bringing the State Back In.

international organizations, the “education–economic growth” black box, and the development of...

Documents