GLOBALISATION AND THE GOVERNANCE OF NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS
5. THE NEW MODE OF GOVERNANCE
Like the state in general, the education system is to a large extent under the cross-pressure between local cultures, and the globalisation aspects. Education systems around the world are experiencing one or several of contradictory, for instance: unitarian vs. diversified curriculum; religious-moral vs. secular subjects;
local vs. national or international subjects; principally formation of human capital and merits vs. broad personality development; individual good vs. common good;
mother tongue vs. international language/s (Benhabib, 1998; McGinn, 1997;
Robertson, 1994).
SYSTEMS
some of Foucault´s (1991) thoughts into account, this definition seems to be too narrow as an analytical tool. For Foucault, governance does not necessarily have to be made by and through a government but may also be exerted by the market and civil forces (Pierre 2000:2). In Foucault´s (1991) view governance is “conduct of conduct”, and it may vary from conducting oneself to conducting political sovereignty. Governance may be seen as “a way of ordering the relationships between people and things” (Duffield, 2002, p. 116), or as a way for states to redefine their roles, and it does not necessarily mean a decline of the state but is rather of the state’s ability to adapt to external change (Pierre, 2000, p. 21). Also, govern is to create the minimal division of labour, to coordinate, to protect national societies from the most disruptive effects of globalisation (Hettne, 2002, p. 11) and
“to ensure at the different levels within this division of labour (between different spheres and actors in society) an effective presence of a democratic voice – so that the actions of a body at one level do not systematically negate decisions at another”
(Pierre, 2000, p. 25).
Hirst (2000) adds the dimension of political culture by specifying that governance is “the means by which an activity or ensemble of activities is controlled or directed, such that it delivers an acceptable range of outcomes according to some established social standard” (p. 24). The “social standard”, originally culturally conditioned, is increasingly judged in terms of market efficiency.
‘Govern’ thus ranges from deliberately control-oriented actions to those actions conditioning outcomes. The market and the civil sphere actors to a large extent now perform some of the roles that formerly were performed by the state. However, both spheres host ideals and goals other than those prevailing in the state. Markets cannot be the only form of co-ordination of the division of labour since they are not able or made to provide the platform and network that make their own existence possible.
Civil forces do not have the overview necessary for coordination. The number of NGOs, INGOs and IGOs has grown considerably (Mannin, 1996); the number of active INGOs was 200 in 1900 and 4,000 in 1980 (Boli & Thomas, 1999, p. 14). In many cases, at least in the South and in transition countries in Europe and Asia, NGOs and INGOs are forming new elites that de facto function as decision-makers or expertise in educational matters (Jaya & Pai, 2001; Kooimann, 2000; McGinn, 1997). However, only the state has the characteristics and perspectives needed for internal coordination and moderation of international organisations´ activities (Hirst, 2000).
In Kooiman´s (2000) view, political governance aims to solve societal problems or promote the common good. However, rationalisation of society is accompanied by a market oriented ideology suggesting that the individual good has priority over the common good, and that individuals should struggle for themselves, and societal problems is increasingly seen as private and individual problems.
According to Foucault (1982), the state may rely upon force, compliance, consent, surveillance, or economic rewards, and in order to make the individuals turn themselves into subjects, four technologies (of governance) are in play:
technologies of domination, technologies of self, technologies of production and technologies of sign systems (p. 223). This view may be translated into the domain
of educational governance, whereby some of the technologies appear or are combined in a certain mixed mode in management by objectives and market mechanisms. The New management system – patterned by private economic life – has been applied to the state apparatus as Management By Objectives (MBO), introduced also in the education system (Smehaugen, forthcoming). As Pierre (2000) argues, “the new public management increases some dimensions of central control through budgetary constraints, accounting procedures, and forms of inspection” (p.
20)
A commonly used economic strategy in the political economy during the past two decades – not least in the educational domain – has been to de-regulate, to contract-out activities and functions, to shift finance from the central to the local level, from the state to the economic and civil spheres and to use performance indicators (Jayal & Pai, 2001). This implies that lump sums are going from the central level to intermediate levels and then to schools in accordance with performance-based criteria (subsidies per pupil).
Decisions have different scopes, depths, and impact and, consequently, it makes a difference at what level and by whom decisions are made and actions are taken.
Kooiman (2000, p.154) discusses three levels of governing: first-order, second-order and meta-order. First-order governing involves problem-solving in everyday life activities and is to a large extent influenced by practical reason. Second-order governing consists of attempts to influence the conditions under which first-order problem-solving or generation of opportunities takes place. ‘Framework´decisions’
as described by McGinn & Welsh (1997:17) are situated at what Kooiman (2000) has termed meta or second-order levels. This is the level where most measures of managing, steering and guiding take place, while meta-order is about “who or what governs ultimately the governor” (Kooiman, 2000). Historically, God and religion have constituted the meta-level in many places and still does in some Muslim countries, whereas today it is a mixture of market and communitarian forces, while étatism (struggle for national sovereignty, the common good and equity, for instance) still is important in some national contexts. In most cases of decentralisation, a meta order exists, and it is from there that the policy of decentralisation, ways of implementation and monitoring and assessment emanate.
Procedures and processes of decentralisation are expected to follow pre-established frameworks and centrally defined levels of performance criteria. Underlying all this is a linear and teleological view of change and development (Hammouda, 1997). All countries are assumed and presumed to follow the path drawn by the history of the rich countries in the North (Siddique, 1997; Tenbruck, 1991).
Returning to the different modes of state intervention and looking into
‘Foucault’s (1991) analysis, we find that he sees a tendency in the West to regard government as both apparatus and savoirs (“knowledges”). The former is associated with bureaucracy, force and coercion and the latter with ideological and cultural production and dissemination. A move from regulation to the ideological mode of intervention is taking place, and within this mode, a differentiation and sophistication. Apart from the classical instruments of governance, such as curricula, syllabi, etc., the following factors have become more important: scientisation, information, persuasion, self-regulation, monitoring and assessment are now options
SYSTEMS
for the central state. Through this type of governance, the individual can be governed (by the state) at a distance. This is the case not only in domestic politics but also in the new mode of development cooperation (sector-wide approach, partnership, etc.) (Duffield, 2002).
What counts nationally and internationally, as knowledge is determined from the central level, while curriculum details and local funding are decided upon locally.
There has been a move away from pro-active control and regulation to retro-active monitoring and assessment. Such a combination of loose coupling in some areas and strong coupling in others (monitoring of goal achievement and efficiency in terms of per pupil subsidies, for instance) may, in fact, bind schools harder to the central level and make them less autonomous and make them lose some of their autonomy (Angus, 1994; Gurr, 1999; Robertson, 1994). On the other hand, several initiatives from grassroots level have reinforced the need for flexibility; home education, which can be seen as the ultimate combination of decentralisation and choice. This is one such example seems is one such example of initiative from below (Vynnycky, 2003).