Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Political Turn of Corporate Influence in Education: A Synthesis of Main Policy Reform Strategies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Researching the Global Education Industry

Abstract

The engagement of corporate actors in education policy processes connected to the advancement of a pro-market agenda has become more frequent in recent years. However, what remains unclear are the specific mechanisms that endow private actors with increased authority and legitimacy as policy advocates. This chapter examines the emerging strategies deployed by the corporate sector in education policy-shaping processes. Building on the results of a comprehensive literature review, we systematize five strategies articulated by the sector to promote education privatization reforms—lobbying, networking and brokerage, knowledge mobilization, support of grassroots advocacy, and sponsorship of pilot experiences. Our results suggest that the corporate sector is diversifying its repertoire of political strategies to promote education reform, and relying on an increasingly heterogeneous range of capitals (economic, political, and symbolic) for this purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term has frequently been used in opposition to outsider or insider strategies relying on public appeals, grassroots, and media mobilization or other forms of pressure, and roughly equates to the notion of insider lobbying (Heaney, 2006) or direct strategies (Binderkrantz, 2005).

References

  • Apple, M. W., & Pedroni, T. C. (2005). Conservative Alliance Building and African American Support of Vouchers: The End of Brown’s Promise or a New Beginning? Teachers College Record, 107(9), 2068–2105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (2015). Other People’s Policy: Wealthy Elites and Charter School Reform in Washington State. In W. Au & J. J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping Corporate Education: Power and Policy Networks in the Neoliberal State (pp. 147–164). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Au, W., & Lubienski, C. (2016). The Role of the Gates Foundation and the Philanthropic Sector in Shaping the Emerging Education Market: Lessons from the US on Privatization of Schools and Education Governance. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 27–43). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2017, November). Philanthropy and the Changing Topology of Global Education: The Economization of the Moral. Keynote Address at the Philanthropy in Education-Global Trends, Regional Differences and Diverse Perspectives Symposium, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden Privatisation in Public Education. Brussels: Education International Retrieved from http://download.ei-ie.org/docs/IRISDocuments/Research%20Website%20Documents/2009-00034-01-E.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M. (2013). The Good News from Pakistan: How a Revolutionary New Approach to Education Reform in Punjab Shows the Way Forward for Pakistan and Development Aid Everywhere. London: Reform Retrieved from www.reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/The_good_news_from_Pakistan_final.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. (2010). Building an Institutional Field to Corral a Government: A Case to Set an Agenda for Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 31(6), 777–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and Social Policy: An Institutionalist Perspective. Social Policy & Administration, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2005.00421.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfield, C., & Levin, H. M. (2005). Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology Trumps Evidence. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1086/431183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhanji, Z. (2016). The Business Case for Philanthropy, Profits, and Policy Making in Education. In K. Mundy, A. Green, R. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of Global Policy and Policy-making in Education (pp. 419–432). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00552.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, W. L. (2007). The Politics of Privatization in American Education. Educational Policy, 21(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806297728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkley, K. E., & Burch, P. (2011). The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Education: For-profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, B., Bøås, M., & McNeill, D. (2004). Private Sector Influence in the Multilateral System: A Changing Structure of World Governance? Global Governance, 10(4), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/27800543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, B., & McNeill, D. (2007). Development Issues in Global Governance. Public-private Partnerships and Market Multilateralism. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cave, T., & Rowell, A. (2014). A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain. London: The Bodley Head-Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2011). Distinguishing Between Political Brokerage & Political Entrepreneurship. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruycker, I. (2014). How Interest Groups Develop their Lobbying Strategies. The Logic of Endogeneity. Paper Prepared for the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference, Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary Organizations in Charter School Policy Coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBray-Pelot, E. H., Lubienski, C. A., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The Institutional Landscape of Interest Group Politics and School Choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2/3), 204–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz, J., & Beers, B. (2002). Education Management Organisations and the Privatisation of Public Education: A Cross-national Comparison of the USA and Britain. Comparative Education, 38(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060220140j18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz, J., & Hafid, T. (2007). Perspectives on the Privatization of Public Schooling in England and Wales. Educational Policy, 21(1), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806297193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, J. M., & Stanbury, W. T. (1985). Comparative Lobbying Strategies in Influencing Health Care Policy. Canadian Public Administration, 28(2), 269–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.1985.tb00514.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fusarelli, L. D., & Johnson, B. (2004). Educational Governance and the New Public Management. Public Administration and Management, 9(2), 118–127 Stable URL www.spaef.com/file.php?id=192

    Google Scholar 

  • Garsten, C., & Sörbom, A. (2017). Introduction: Political Affairs in the Global Domain. In C. Garsten & A. Sörbom (Eds.), Power, Policy and Profit Corporate Engagement in Politics and Governance (pp. 1–24). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edwar Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using Bibliometric and Social Media Analyses to Explore the “Echo chamber” Hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying Differences Between Review Designs and Methods. Systematic Reviews, (28), 1 Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F2046-4053-1-28.pdf

  • Heaney, M. T. (2006). Brokering Health Policy: Coalitions, Parties, and Interest Group Influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(5), 887–944. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2006-012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henig, J. R. (2008). Spin Cycle: How Research Gets Used in Policy Debates: The Case of Charter Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate Political Activity: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoke, T. T., Henig, J. R., Brown, H., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2009). Policy Dynamics and the Evolution of State Charter School Laws. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9077-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junemann, C., Ball, S., & Santori, D. (2016). Joined-up Policy: Network Connectivity and Global Education Governance. In K. Mundy, A. Green, R. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of Global Policy and Policy-making in Education (pp. 535–553). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirst, M. C. (2007). Politics of Charter Schools: Competing National Advocacy Coalitions Meet Local Politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(2/3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C. (2016). Sector Distinctions and the Privatization of Public Education Policymaking. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878516635332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C., Brewer, T. J., & La Londe, P. G. (2015). Orchestrating Policy Ideas: Philanthropies and Think Tanks in US Education Policy Advocacy Networks. The Australian Education Researcher, 43(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0187-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The Politics of Research Production, Promotion, and Utilization in Educational Policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C., Weitzel, P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2009). Is There a “Consensus” on School Choice and Achievement? Advocacy Research and the Emerging Political Economy of Knowledge Production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, E. M. (2013). Movimento Todos Pela Educação: Um projeto de nação para a educação brasileira (Master dissertation). Retrieved from Biblioteca Digital da UNICAMP. (Accession Order No 000915751).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, E. M., & Krawczyk, N. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial Influence in Brazilian Education Policies: The Case of Todos Pela Educação. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 78–89). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvetz, T. (2012). Murky Power: “Think Thanks” as Boundary Organizations. In D. Courpasson, D. Golsorkhi, & J. J. Sallaz (Eds.), Rethinking Power in Organizations, Institutions, and Markets (pp. 113–133). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Medvetz, T. (2014). Field Theory and Organizational Power. Four Modes of Influence among Public Policy “Think Tanks”. In M. Hilgers & E. Mangez (Eds.), Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Fields. Concepts and Applications (pp. 221–237). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbrath, L. W. (1963). The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambissan, G. B., & Ball, S. (2010). Advocacy Networks, Choice and Private Schooling of the Poor in India. Global Networks, 10(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2010.00291.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santa Cruz, E., & Olmedo, A. (2012). Neoliberalismo y creación de “sentido común”: Crisis educativa y medios de comunicación en Chile. PRO, 16(3), 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santori, D., Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2015). mEducation as a Site of Network Governance. In W. Au & J. J. Ferrare (Eds.), Mapping Corporate Education: Power and Policy Networks in the Neoliberal State (pp. 23–42). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2009). The Politics of Venture Philanthropy in Charter School Policy and Advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The Hub and the Spokes: Foundations, Intermediary Organizations, Incentivist Reforms, and the Politics of Research Evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, P. (2014, March). Contradictions and the Persistence of the Mobilizing Frames of Privatization: Interrogating the Global Evidence on Low-fee Private Schooling. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Comparative & International Education Society (CIES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, P. (2016). Questioning the Global Scaling Up of Low-fee private Schooling: The Nexus Between Business, Philanthropy, and PPPs. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 248–263). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, P., & Baur, L. (2016). New Global Philanthropy and Philanthropic Governance in Education in a Post-2015 World. In K. Mundy, A. Green, R. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of Global Policy and Policy-making in Education (pp. 433–448). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vergari, S. (2007). The Politics of Charter Schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806296508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Multiple Paths Towards Educational Privatization in a Globalizing World: A Cultural Political Economy Approach. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 757–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1318453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verger, A., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). The Emergence and Structuring of the Global Education Industry: Towards an Analytical Framework. In A. Verger, C. Lubienski, & G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry (pp. 3–24). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verger, A., Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Lubienski, C. (2017). The Emerging Global Education Industry: Analysing Market-making in Education Through Market Sociology. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1330141

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Clara Fontdevila & Antoni Verger

Authors
  1. Clara Fontdevila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antoni Verger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Fontdevila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Marcelo Parreira do Amaral

  2. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Gita Steiner-Khamsi

  3. Theory and History of Education, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Christiane Thompson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fontdevila, C., Verger, A. (2019). The Political Turn of Corporate Influence in Education: A Synthesis of Main Policy Reform Strategies. In: Parreira do Amaral, M., Steiner-Khamsi, G., Thompson, C. (eds) Researching the Global Education Industry. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04236-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04236-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04235-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04236-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation