Advertisement

Serial Entrepreneurs, Angel Investors, and Capex Light Edu-Business Start-Ups in India: Philanthropy, Impact Investing, and Systemic Educational Change

  • Stephen J. Ball
Chapter

Abstract

Most work on the Global Education Industry (GEI) has focused on the role and growth of the ‘big players’—the multi-national corporations (e.g. Pearson, McKinsey, Microsoft, and News Corporation) or major global philanthropic foundations (Gates, Broad, Walton, Omidyar, etc.)—and has sought to map their national and global reach, their programs and investments, and ambitions for growth. Far less attention has been directed to the other end of the education market and the role of micro-, small-, and medium-sized edu-businesses. This chapter then has a primary focus on investment and the role of serial entrepreneurs and angel investors and the proliferation of education start-up businesses in India, but in doing so it also demonstrates the role of multi-national philanthropic foundations and local and international investment houses in the facilitation of the development of a global/local business eco-system ‘at the bottom of the pyramid’. I suggest that these investments in for-profit providers, of a variety of kinds, operating in ‘the education space’, are bringing about changes to the topology of Indian education and contributing to the construction of a shadow education state. Special attention is paid to the role of nodal actors or boundary spanners in policy and business development. The chapter also signals issues related to changes in education policy processes and governance and the concomitant changes to the form and modalities of the state and gestures toward the key role of technology—Ed-Tech—in the growth of the GEI and education reform.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Shelina Thawer for her support for and comments on this paper, and to Carolina Junemann and Antonio Olmedo for their comments.

References

  1. Amin, A. (1997). Placing Globalisation. Theory, Culture and Society, 14(2), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following Policy: Networks, Network Ethnography and Education Policy Mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (2017). Laboring to Relate: Neoliberalism, Embodied Policy, and Network Dynamics. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2015). Pearson and PALF: The Mutating Giant. Brussels: Education International. Retrieved from https://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/ei_palf_publication_web_pages_01072015.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  6. Ball, S. J., Junemann, C., & Santori, D. (2017). Edu.Net: Globalisation and Education Policy Mobility. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhanji, Z. (2012). Transnational Private Authority in Education Policy in Jordan and South Africa: A Case Microsoft Corporation. Comparative Education Review, 56(2), 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blowfield, M., & Dolan, C. S. (2014). Business as a Development Agent: Evidence of Possibility and Improbability. Third World Quarterly, 1(1), 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dussel, I. (2018). Digital Technologies in the classroom: A Global Education Reform? In E. Hultqvist, S. Lindblad, & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Critical Analyses of Educational Reforms in an Era of Transnational Governance. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Eggers, W., & Macmillan, P. (2013). Solution Revolution: How Business, Government, and Social Enterprises Are Teaming Up to Solve Society’s Toughest Problems. Deloitte Global Services.Google Scholar
  11. Goel, G. (2014). Impact Investing: Are Conventional Impact Measures Too Limiting? (Part 1 of 2). Online at: https://www.msdf.org/blog/2014/07/impact-investing-conventional-impact-measures-limiting-part-1-2/. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  12. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1997). Discipline and Practice: ‘The Field’ as Site, Method and Location in Anthropology. In A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). Pearson, Edu-business and New Policy Spaces in Education. EERA Annual conference.Google Scholar
  14. Intellecap. (2014). Invest. Catalyze. Mainstream: The Indian Impact Investing Story. Retrieved from https://www.microfinancegateway.org/sites/default/files/mfg-en-paper-invest-catalyze-mainstream-the-indian-impact-investing-story-apr-2014.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  15. Jessop, B. (1998). The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure. International Social Science Journal, 155(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Junemann, C., & Ball, S. J. (2018). On Network(ed) Ethnography in the Global Education Policyscape. In D. Beech (Ed.), Handbook of Ethnography. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  18. Larner, W., & Laurie, N. (2010). Travelling Technocrats, Embodied Knowledges: Globalising Privatisation in Telecoms and Water. Geoforum, 41(2), 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lazzarato, M. (2006). Biopolitics and Bioeconomics. Multitudes. Retrieved from http://www.multitudes.net/category/archives-revues-futur-anterieur-et/bibliotheque-diffuse/post-operaisme/lazzarato/. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  20. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2012). Assembling Urbanism: Following Policies and ‘Studying Through’ the sites and Situations of Policy Making. Environment and Planning, A44(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mundy, K. (2010). “Education for All” and the Global Governors. In M. Finnemore, D. Avant, & S. Sell (Eds.), Who Governs the Globe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ong, A. (2006). Mutations in Citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2–3), 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ong, A. (2007). Neoliberalism as a Mobile Technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peck, J. (2013). Explaining (with) Neoliberalism. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prahalad, C. K. (2008). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Ravitch, D. (2016, December 13). Big Foundations Paved the Way for Trump’s Assault on Public Schools. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://dianeravitch.net/?s=billionaire+boys+club. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
  28. Roy, A. (2012). Ethnographic Circulations: Space-time Relations in the Worlds of Poverty Management. Environment and Planning A, 44(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Selwyn, N. (2014). Digital Technology and the Contemporary University: Degrees of Digitalisation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shamir, R. (2008). The Age of Responsibilitization: On Market-Embedded Morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thillai Rajan, A., Koserwal, P., & Keerthana, S. (2014). The Global Epicenter of Impact Investing: An Analysis of Social Venture Investments in India. The Journal of Private Equity, 17(2), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The Privatization of Education: A Political Economy of Global Education Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wolch, J. (1990). The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition. New York: The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  34. Young, S. (2010). Gender, Mobility and the Financialisation of Development. Geopolitics, 15(3), 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations