Crisis in Economic Theory and the Implications for PISA Derived Education Policy

  • Vince Wright
Part of the Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research book series (GCEP, volume 20)


In this chapter it is argued that the maxim that association does not mean causality has largely been ignored in the setting of educational policy globally. Many reforms in education globally suggest a faith in the free market derived from neo-classical economic theory. It critiques PISA, as an instrument of the OECD, and suggests that it needs to provide better information to participant countries about the strengths and weaknesses of students in relation to the assessment frameworks, be more transparent about its methods, including the items used, and how measurement error is calculated, and broaden the assessment focus to include a broader range of competencies.


Assessment Assessment frameworks Competencies Globalisation Education reforms Education policy Large-scale assessments OECD PIRLS PISA 


  1. Addey, C., & Sellar, S. (2017). Why do countries participate in PISA? Understanding the role of international, large-scale assessments in global education policy. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. K. Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. J. (2012). International evidence, national policy and classroom practice: Questions of judgement, vision and trust. Paper presented at the from regulation to trust: Education in the 21st century, Third Van Leer International Conference on Education, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  3. Araujo, L., Saltelli, A., & Schnepf, S. V. (2017). Do PISA data justify PISA-based education policy? International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 19(1), 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arestis, P., & Singh, A. (2010). Financial globalisation and crisis, institutional transformation and equity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(2), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arffman, I. (2010). Equivalence of translations in international reading literacy studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparative education, the ‘New Paradigm’ and policy borrowing: Constructing knowledge for educational reform. Comparative Education, 50(2), 129–155. Scholar
  7. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2016). PISA, policy and persuasion: Translating complex conditions into education ‘best practice’. Comparative Education, 52(2), 202–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, S. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieber, T., & Martens, K. (2011). The OECD PISA study as a soft power in education? Lessons from Switzerland and the US. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum, A., Goldstein, H., & Guerin-Pace, F. (2001). International adult literacy survey (IALS): An analysis of international comparisons of adult literacy. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 225–246.Google Scholar
  11. Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 71). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  12. Calude, C. S., & Longo, G. (2016). The deluge of spurious correlations in big data. Foundations of Science, 21, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnoy, M. (2015). International test score comparisons and educational policy: A review of the critiques. Boulder: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from Scholar
  14. Choi, A., & Jerrim, J. (2016). The use (and misuse) of PISA in guiding policy reform: The case of Spain. Comparative Education, 52(2), 230–245. Scholar
  15. Colander, D., Folmer, H., Haas, A., Goldberg, M. D., Juselius, K., Kirman, A. P., Lux, T., & Sloth, B. (2009). The financial crisis and the systemic failure of academic economics. Technical report, 98th Dahlem workshop.Google Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about U.S. education policy? New England Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), Article 4. Retrieved from:
  17. Drozdz, J., & Miškinis, A. (2011). Benefits and threats of free trade. Ekonomia Economics, 2(14), 40–48.Google Scholar
  18. Dutton, E., van der Linden, D., & Lynn, R. (2016). The negative Flynn effect: A systematic literature review. Intelligence, 59.(2016, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eivers, E. (2010). PISA: Issues in implementation and interpretation. The Irish Journal of Education, 38, 94–118.Google Scholar
  20. Ercikan, K., Roth, W.-M., & Asil, M. (2015). Cautions about inferences from international assessments: The case of PISA 2009. Teacher College Records, 117(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  21. Feniger, Y., & Lefstein, A. (2014). How not to reason with PISA data: An ironic investigation. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez-Cano, A. (2016). A Methodological Critique of the PISA Evaluations. RELIEVE, 22(1), art. M15. Scholar
  23. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive gains in 14 nations: What IQ test really measure? Psychology Bulletin, 101, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flynn, J. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter? Rising IQ in the twenty first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaber, S., Cankar, G., Marjanovic, L., & Tasner, V. (2012). The danger of inadequate conceptualisation in PISA for education policy. Compare, 42(4), 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstein, H. (2017). Measurement and evaluation issues with PISA. In L. Volante (Ed.), The PISA effect on global educational governance. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Gorur, R., & Wu, M. (2015). Leaning too far? PISA, policy and Australia’s ‘top five’ ambitions. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 647–664. Scholar
  28. Grek, S. (2013). Expert moves: International comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 695–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanushek, E. A. (2017). For long-term economic development, only skills matter. IZA World of Labor, 343.
  30. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2009). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation (IZA Discussion papers, No. 4575). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run impact of improving PISA outcomes. New York: OECD.Google Scholar
  32. Hoekman, B. (2015). Trade and growth – End of an era? The global trade slowdown: A new normal? eBook (pp. 3−19).Google Scholar
  33. Hopfenbeck, T. N., Lenkeit, J., El Masri, Y., Cantrell, K., Ryan, J., & Baird, J. (2018). Lessons learned form PISA: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on the programme for international students assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(3), 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, B., Hunter, A., Sonnemann, J., & Burns, T. (2012). Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Carlton: Grattan Institute. Online.
  35. Johnson, R. C. & Noguera, G. (2016). A portrait of trade in value added over four decades (Unpublished Manuscript). Boston: Dartmouth College (MIT).Google Scholar
  36. Kamens, D. H. (2015). A maturing global testing regime meets the world economy: Test scores and economic growth, 1960–2012. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 420–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kose, M. A., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., & Wei, S.-J. (2006). Financial globalization: A reappraisal (IMF Working Paper WP/06/189). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  38. Kose, M. A., Prasad, E. S., & Taylor, A. D. (2009). Thresholds in the process of international financial integration. IZA discussion papers, No. 4133, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.Google Scholar
  39. Kreiner, S., & Christensen, K. B. (2014). Analyses of model fit and robustness. A new look at the PISA scaling model underlying ranking of countries according to reading literacy. Psychometrika, 79(2), 210–231. Scholar
  40. Krugman, P. (2009). How did economists get it so wrong? New York Times Magazine (September 2) at
  41. Labaree, D. F. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record, 116(2014), 1–14.Google Scholar
  42. Lietz, P., & Tobin, M. (2016). The impact of large-scale assessments in education on education policy: Evidence from around the world. Research Papers in Education, 31(5), 499–501. Scholar
  43. Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2016). Globalisation of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 387–403). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Lo, A., Repin, D. V., & Steenbarger, B. N. (2005). Fear and greed in financial markets: A critical study of day-traders. America Economic Review, 95, 352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lu, Y., & Bolt, D. M. (2015). Examining the attitude-achievement paradox in PISA using a multilevel multidimensional IRT model for extreme response style. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 3, 2. Scholar
  46. Meyer, H. D., et al. (2014). Open letter to Andreas Schleicher on PISA. Accessed 15 Oct 2014.
  47. Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. Washington, DC: McKinsey. Online.
  48. Nortvedt, G. A. (2018). Policy impact of PISA on mathematics education: The case of Norway. European Journal of Psychology in Education, 33, 427–444. Scholar
  49. Ocampo, S., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). Capital market liberalisation and development. In J. A. Ocampo & J. E. Stiglitz (Eds.), Capital market liberalisation and development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD. (2010). Trade and the economic recovery: Why open markets matter?
  51. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD. Scholar
  52. Pont, B., & Viennet, R. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162). Paris: OECD.
  53. Ramirez, F. O., Luo, X., Shofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2006). Student achievement and national economic growth. American Journal of Education, 113(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 173–185. Scholar
  55. Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In E. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (1st ed.). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Schleicher, A., & Zoido, P. (2016). The policies that shaped PISA, and the policies that PISA shaped. In E. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (1st ed.). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Schmukler, S. L. (2008). The benefits and risks of financial globalisation. In J. A. Ocampo & J. E. Stiglitz (Eds.), Capital market liberalisation and development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sjoberg, S. (2015). PISA and global educational governance – A critique of the project, its uses and implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sjøberg, S. (2016). OECD, PISA and globalisation: The influence of the international assessment regime. In C. H. Tienken & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), Education policy perils: Tackling the tough issues (pp. 102–133). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Stiglitz, J. E. (2008). Capital market liberalisation, globalisation and the IMF. In J. A. Ocampo & J. E. Stiglitz (Eds.), Capital market liberalisation and development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stray, J. H., & Wood, B. (2018). Global-local education policy dynamics: A case study of New Zealand and Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
  62. Thrupp, M. (2014). When PISA meets politics – A lesson from New Zealand. Policy Futures in Education, 12(7), 880–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tobin, M., Nugrohob, D., & Lietz, P. (2016). Large-scale assessments of students’ learning and educational policy: Synthesising evidence across world regions. Research Papers in Education, 31(5), 578–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valickova, P., Havranek, T., & Horváth, R. (2013). Financial development and economic growth: A meta-analysis (IOS Working Papers, No. 331). Institut für Ost- und Südosteuropaforschung, Regensburg.Google Scholar
  65. Volante, L. (2016). The intersection of international achievement testing and educational policy: Global perspectives on large-scale reform. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Volante, L., Fabio, X., & Ritzen, J. (2017). The OECD and educational policy reform: International surveys, governance, and policy evidence. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 184, 34–48.Google Scholar
  67. Woodley, M., & Meisenberg, G. (2013). In the Netherlands the anti-Flynn effect is a Jensen effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 871–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yu, C. H., DoGangi, S., & Jannasch-Pennell, A. (2012). A time-lag analysis of the relationships among PISA scores, scientific research publication, and economic performance. Social Indicators Research, 107, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vince Wright
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education and ArtsAustralian Catholic University (Melbourne Campus)FitzroyAustralia

Personalised recommendations