Advertisement

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

  • Clara FontdevilaEmail author
  • Antoni Verger
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. 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/10.1177/0170840610372572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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/10.1086/431183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd, W. L. (2007). The Politics of Privatization in American Education. Educational Policy, 21(1), 7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806297728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.2011.578963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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/10.2307/27800543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bull, B., & McNeill, D. (2007). Development Issues in Global Governance. Public-private Partnerships and Market Multilateralism. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cave, T., & Rowell, A. (2014). A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain. London: The Bodley Head-Vintage.Google Scholar
  18. 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.2011.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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/10.1177/0895904813514132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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/10.1080/01619560701312947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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/10.1080/03050060220140j18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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/10.1177/0895904806297193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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=192Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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/10.1177/0895904813515330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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/10.1215/03616878-2006-012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.2004.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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/s11077-009-9077-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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/10.1080/01619560701312939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubienski, C. (2016). Sector Distinctions and the Privatization of Public Education Policymaking. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 193–212.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878516635332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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/10.1177/0895904813515329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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/10.1177/0895904808328532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Milbrath, L. W. (1963). The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  44. 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.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott, J. (2009). The Politics of Venture Philanthropy in Charter School Policy and Advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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/10.1177/0895904813515327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vergari, S. (2007). The Politics of Charter Schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806296508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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/10.1080/02680939.2017.1318453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 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/10.1080/14767724.2017.1330141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations