Current Issues in Comparative Education - Will Brehm Issues in Comparative Education 5. such recent and still-ongoing changes in the contemporary aid environment, Klees’ proposals

Volume 13(1) / Fall 2010 • ISSN 1523-1615 • http://www.tc.edu/cice

Special SympoSium iSSue

Aid, development, And educAtion

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

3 Introduction to the Special Symposium Issue AndrewK.Shiotani

FEATURED ARTICLE

7 Aid, Development, and Education StevenJ.Klees

RESPONSES

27 The Ignorant Donor: A Radical Reimagination of International Aid, Development, and Education

WilliamC.BrehmandIvetaSilova

35 Improving Aid Effectiveness or Transforming the Global Capitalist System MarkGinsburg

42 The Aid Debate: Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide SangeetaKamat

49 Paradoxes and Prospects: Moving Beyond the Study of Foreign Aid KarenMundy

REPLY

54 Towards a Progressive View of Aid, Development, and Education StevenJ.Klees

Current Issues inComparative Education

2CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation

CURRENT ISSUES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATIONVolume13,Issue1(Fall2011)

SpecialSymposiumIssueEditors:AndrewShiotani,RyanHathaway,andMichelleHollett

EDITORIAL BOARD

Managing Editor MatthewHayden

Executive Editor AndrewShiotani

Senior Editors ToniCela,RyanHathaway,RuaridhMacLeod

Editors AnneGaspers,MollyHamm,RachelHatch,JasonMellon,CarinaOmoeva,Muntasir Sattar,AngyeRincon-Castillo

Web Editor AndrewShiotani

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARDMichaelApple,MarkBray,MichaelCross,SuzanneGrantLewis,NoelMcGinn,GaryNatriello,HaroldNoah,GitaSteiner-Khamsi,FrancesVavrus

COPYRIGHTUnlessotherwisenoted,copyrightsforthetextswhichcompriseallissuesofCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation(CICE)areheldbythejournal.ThecompilationasawholeisCopyright©byCurrentIssuesin Comparative Education, all rights reserved. Items published byCICEmay be freely shared amongindividuals,buttheymaynotberepublishedinanymediumwithoutexpresswrittenconsentfromtheauthor(s)andadvancenotificationoftheCICEeditorialboard.

CICEholdsexclusiverightsinrespecttoelectronicpublicationanddissemination.Thejournalmaynotbepostedorinanywaymirroredontheworld-wideweboranyotherpartoftheInternetexceptattheofficialpublication site atTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.CICE reserves the right to amendorchangethiscopyrightpolicy.Forthemostcurrentversionofthiscopyrightpolicy,pleasesee:http://www.tc.edu/cice/Main/guidelines.html.Questionsaboutthejournal’scopyrightpolicyshouldbedirectedtotheEditorialBoard.

DISCLAIMERTheopinionsandideasexpressedintheCICEaresolelythoseheldbytheauthorsandarenotnecessarilysharedbytheeditorsoftheJournal.TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity(CU)asapublishermakesnowarrantyofanykind,eitherexpressedorimplied,forinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE,whichareprovidedonan“asis”basis.TeachersCollege,CUdoesnotassumeandherebydisclaimanyliabilitytoanypartyforanylossordamageresultingfromtheuseofinformationonitsCICEWebsiteorinanyissueofCICE.

©2010CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,ALLRIGHTSRESERVEDCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1):3-6.

Editorial IntroductionSpecial Symposium Issue on Aid, Development, and Education

Andrew K. ShiotaniTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity

The editors of Current Issues in Comparative Education are extraordinarily pleased to offerthis special symposium issue organized around a seminal discussion bySteven J. Klees,

ProfessorofEducationattheUniversityofMaryland,aformerpresidentoftheComparativeandInternationalEducationSociety,andacontributortopreviousissuesofthisjournal.Inhisfocalarticleforthisissue,“Aid,Development,andEducation,”Kleesconductsaclosereadingofrecententriesintotheburgeoningdebateoverinternationalaidanddevelopment,andthenproceedstosetoutanarticulateandpassionatedefenseofa‘progressiveperspective’that,heargues,standsinstarkoppositiontoprevailingneoliberalandliberalviews.Klees’essayis followedbyfourresponses–byWilliamC.BrehmandIvetaSilova,MarkGinsburg,SangeetaKamat,andKarenMundy–thataremetinturnwithareplybyKleesthataimsatgivingfurtherelaborationtotheprogressiveperspective.

Klees’essayonaid,developmentandeducationcomesatatimewhenthefieldofinternationalaidanddevelopmenthasbecomeasiteofroilingcontention.Certainly,researchers,practitioners,andpolicymakershavelongdebatedamongthemselveswhetherinternationalaidhasdonemuchtoimprovethelivingconditionsandlifechancesoftheworld’sbillionsofpoorandimpoverished.Effortstoimprove“aideffectiveness,”whilegivenfreshimpetusoverthelastdecadethroughtheParisDeclarationandAccraAgendaforAction,arehardlynew.1Whatmakesthecontemporaryperiod remarkable, however, is thedegree of attention and influence that critiques of the aidindustry–suchasthosefoundinWilliamEasterly’sTheWhiteMan’sBurden(2006)andespeciallyDambisaMoyo’sDeadAid(2008)–havemanagedtogainamongbroaderaudiencesbeyondthosewithintheaidcommunityitself.Thesecritiqueshaveemerged,moreover,justasthefielditselfhasstartedtowitnesspotentiallysignificantstructuraltransformation,withhigh-levelinitiativessuchastheU.N.MillenniumDevelopmentGoalsunfoldingalongsidetheemergenceofavarietyofnewactors,rangingfromcelebritiesandinternet-fueledphilanthropiestoemergingeconomiessuch asChina andBrazil.What these developments suggest is thatwe are today confrontedwithasingularopportunity–andperhapsanincreasinglyurgentmoralandpoliticalobligation–tore-examinetheverypremisesofinternationalaidanditsimplicationsfordevelopment,ineducationandinothersectorsandarenas.

AsKlees’essaymakesclear,re-examinationrequiresustogobeyondthefamiliardebatesoverthemachineryofaiddelivery–or,toswitchtoamorefrequentedmetaphor,withthespecificsofthecurrent“aidarchitecture”–toquestionthefundamentalideologicalorientationsthatinformhowwe interpretpast and currentglobal realities, generatediagnoses andprescriptions, andconnectthesetoourprojectionsandhopesforthefuture.Kleesbeginshisarticlebyremindingusofthehorrificscaleofthehumancoststhatpovertyandinequalitycontinuetoexactontheworld’spoorandvulnerable.Addressingtheseproblemsrequiresnotonlythatwedo‘more,’butthatwealsoclarifyandadoptaprogressivestandpointthatmakesissuesofglobaljusticeandequalitycentraltoitsapproachtocontemporarydevelopment.However,asKleesacknowledges,a progressive voice remains relativelymuted in contemporary debates, and he argues in hisreviewoffivenotablerecentbooksonaidanddevelopment–thediscussionsbyEasterlyand


EditorialIntroduction

Moyo, alreadymentioned above, as well as Thomas Dichter’sDespite Good Intentions (2003),DavidEllerman’s HelpingPeopleHelpThemselves (2005), andRogerRiddell’sDoesForeignAidReallyWork? (2007) – that ‘mainstream’ perspectives adhere to either neoliberal prescriptionsorproposeliberalmeliorationsthatfailtodojustice,inbothamoralandintellectualsense,tothedemandsandrequirementsofgenuine,progressivedevelopment.WhileKleesallows thatneoliberalandliberalcritiquesofcurrentaidpracticesoccasionallyhitrealtargets,theyarebasedonamutualblindness to the fact that contemporary internationaldevelopmentwas foundedandpredicated,toaconsiderableextent,onbothneoliberalandliberalpremises.Indeed,Kleesargues thatdevelopment initiatives, including theMillenniumDevelopmentGoals–which iseasilythelargestcoordinatedorganizationalefforttherehasbeenininternationaldevelopment–aremostprofitablyunderstoodassituatedwithinadialecticof“compensatorylegitimation.”Inthisreading,aidisusednottofacilitateimprovementintheconditionsoftheworld’spoor,buttooffercompensationfortheeffectsofthedeepandmyriadinjusticesgeneratedbyanenduringbutfundamentallyunjustglobalorder.Onlyaprogressiveapproach,hesuggests,workstowardusingaidtotransformthatorderratherthantosmoothoutitsinternalcontradictions.

What Counts as Genuine Progressivism?IntheresponsesthatfollowKlees’essay,wefindextensiveareasofagreement,andsympathyfor the ideaofaprogressiveperspectiveandapproachto internationalaid,development,andeducation. However, the different authors challenge Klees on several points, and questionwhetherornothehasofferedusanadequatelyprogressiveunderstandingofprogressivism,sotospeak,orhasasuitablyspecifiedconceptionofhowinstitutionaltransformationispossible.Forinstance,both Mark Ginsburg and Sangeeta Kamat,intheirrespectiveresponses,challengeKlees to thinkmore deeply aboutwhat a radical and notmerely progressive transformationofglobalcapitalismandglobalinstitutionswouldbeneededinordertoachievethecommonaimsofjusticeandequalitythatthey,withKlees,wishtoupholdanddefend.Argumentsoverlabelssuchas“progressive”and“radical”mayseemlikesemanticquibbles,buttheseresponsesraise importantquestionsabout thekindsof theoretical lensandconceptual frameworks thatareneededtopreciselyidentifypotentialsources(andobstacles)todeepsocialtransformation.Doesaprogressivismthatattemptstodistinguishitselffromitsliberalandneoliberalopponentsmarkagenuineadvanceifitisunabletospecifyinstitutionalalternatives?BothGinsburgandKamatsuspectthatKlees,despitehisfidelitytoaprogressiveorientation,hasnotaccomplishedagenuinebreakfromstandardliberaleffortsto“improve”aidandmelioratetheconditionsoftheworld’spoor.Inreply,Kleessuggeststhatthedifferencesbetweenhisandtheseostensiblymoreradicalpositionsarenotassignificantastheyseem.Theargumenthearticulateshere,ratherthanbeingreadasafullydevelopedproposal,shouldinsteadbeseenasapromissorynoteforadditionaltheoretical–andpolitical–workthatislikelytomakethecommonalitiesandoverlapsbetweenhispositionandthoseofGinsburgandKamatmuchclearer.

Somewhat sharper differences become evident in relation to Karen Mundy’s response toKlees.Mundy, likeGinsburgandKamat, argues thatmuchmoreneeds tobedone to specifyinstitutionalalternativestothecurrentinternationalaidsystem.However,Mundystates,evenKlees’progressiveperspectivefailstogiveanadequateaccountofanapparentparadox:howcandevelopmentassistancebeapartofasystemofglobalinequalityandinjusticeandyetalsobeapartofaprogressivesolution?Moreover,thereismuchthatistakingplaceinthedevelopmentworld today that has not been adequately captured by familiar ideological orientations andpoliticaleconomyarguments.Newprivateandstateactors(rangingfromtheGatesFoundationtocelebritydonorsandrapidly-developingcountrieslikeChina)haveenteredthescene;noneseemparticularlybeholdento‘oldways’ofcarryingoutbusinessorconductingaiddebates.Inviewof

CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation5

suchrecentandstill-ongoingchangesinthecontemporaryaidenvironment,Klees’proposalsfortransformingtheexistingaidarchitecture–suchascallingfortheBrettonWoodsinstitutions(i.e.,theInternationalMonetaryFundandtheWorldBank)tobereplacedordismantled–seemmorerhetoricallysatisfyingthanconvincing.Kleesdisagrees,statingthatMundyunderestimatesthegenuinepotentialcontainedinaprogressiveapproach,andthatthechangingmembershipofthedevelopmentfieldcannotcountasanadequateargumentagainstitsbasicclaimsororientation.

Implications for Education?AsKleesacknowledges,muchofthefocusofhisdiscussionisonthefirsttwoofthethreetermsinthetitletohisarticle–thatis,onaidanddevelopmentratherthaneducation.Buttheimplicationsforeducationshouldbeclear.WiththeinstitutionalizationofglobalcompactssuchasEducationforAllandtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals,educationhascometooccupyacentralplaceinthecontemporaryinternationalaidsystem.Billionsofdollarsnowpoureachyearintofundingan array of international, national, and non-governmental organizations working to design,implement, research, and evaluate programs directed at promoting education. But howeverrhetoricallycommittedtheinternationalaidcommunityhasbeentotheidealsofauniversalrighttoeducationandtothenotionofeducation’sintrinsicvalueandworth,anotableconsequenceoftheseinitiativeshasbeentosanctionnewformsofglobalgovernance–ortousetheFoucauldianterm,“governmentality”–implementedthroughtime-boundtargets,indicators,andbenchmarksthatplacedeveloping countriesunderonerousburdensandperhapsunsustainable standardsandexpectations.Undercurrentassessmentframeworksanddevelopment targets,asMichaelClemens(2004)pointedoutinatrenchantanalysis,thehistoricallyunprecedentedratesofprogressmanycountrieshaveachievedinexpandingeducationalaccessandenrollmenthaveneverthelessbeencriticizedas insufficientorassignsof“failure”bydevelopmentexpertsapplyingglobalratherthannationally-orcontextually-drivenstandardsandcriteria.2

Inlightoftheseobservations,William C. Brehm and Iveta Silova’s“radicalreimagination”ofaid relationshipsprovides a stimulatingpoint fromwhich to viewKlees’s argument. In theiressay,BrehmandSilovauseJacquesRancière’sfamousdiscussionofJosephJacotot,the‘ignorantschoolmaster’whosoughttoreorienteducationalandpedagogicalpracticesaroundaprincipleofpresumedequality,ratherthanhierarchy,ofintelligenceandcapabilitybetweenteacherandstudent. Following Jacotot’s (and Rancière’s) lead, Brehm and Silova suggest that all of theideologicalorientationsKleesidentifies–theprogressiveperspectiveincluded–attempttocreatenewarchitecturesonthebasisofoldfoundations.Howeverunarticulated,theysuggest,currentpracticesinaidanddevelopmentrestonanimplicitsensethatthedevelopedworldisauthorizedtodictatetodevelopingcountriesthekindsofeducationalobjectivesandgoalstheyshouldbepursuing.Amoresatisfactoryapproach,perhaps,wouldbetoadoptthestanceofan“ignorantdonor,”onelesswillingtoinstrumentalizeeducationasameanstowardeconomicorotherends,infavorofasystemthatrecognizesgenuineequalityamongallpeoplestodeveloptheirintrinsiceducationalpotentialandvalues.Inresponse,KleesquestionswhetherornotBrehmandSilovaaremisinterpretingtheprogressiveposition,whichwouldfindtheseideascongenial.

ConclusionThedebatesintheseessaysarebutasinglecontributiontothemultitudeofintellectual,practical,andpoliticalquestionsthatmustbeaddressedifwe,asstudents,educators,andcitizens,wishtopersist inourcommitment toamoreequitableandhumaneworld.Certainly, the futureofinternationalaidanddevelopmentremainsdifficulttopredictwithanygreatsenseofassuranceorcertainty.However,theeditorsofCICEarethankfultoStevenKleesandhisrespondentsforhelpingtomakesomeofthepossibilitiesinfrontofusmuchclearer.


AcknowledgmentsIwish to offer special thanks toCICE editorsRyanHathaway andMichelleHollett for theirinvaluableassistanceinputtingthisissuetogether.IalsothankCICEmanagingeditorMatthewHaydenforhiscontinuedsupportandencouragementduringtheeditorialprocess,aswellasSteveKleesforhiscontributiontothisissueandforhislong-standingsupportofthisjournal.

Endnotes1. AsdevelopmenteconomistOwenBarder(2009)remindsus,thePearsonCommission’s1969

report,PartnersinDevelopment,cametomanyofthesamerecommendations–suchasuntyingaid and improving coordination among aid donors and recipients – that can be found incurrentprescriptionsandobjectivesincorporatedintothe‘aideffectiveness’agendasoftheParisDeclarationandtheAccraAgendaforAction(OECD,2011).

2. Similarly,Easterly (2009)makes thispointwith respect to theMDGsandAfrica,pointingout that indicators andmetrics used to assess progress toward theMDGsplace themostdisadvantagedcountries,mainlyinAfrica,underdisproportionatelyburdensomeexpectationsthatcauseevenhistoricallysignificantprogresstobeinterpretedasindicationsof“failure.”

ReferencesBarder, O. (2009). Beyond planning: Markets and networks for better aid. (Working Paper 185).Washington,DC:CenterforGlobalDevelopment.

Clemens,M. (2004).The longwalk to school: International education goals in historical perspective.Washington,DC:CenterforGlobalDevelopment.

CommissiononInternationalDevelopment.(1969).PartnersinDevelopment.NewYork:Praeger.

Easterly,W.(2006).Thewhiteman’sburden:Whythewest’seffortstoaidtheresthavedonesomuchillandsolittlegood.NewYork:PenguinPress.

Dichter,T. (2003).Despitegood intentions:Whydevelopmentassistance to the thirdworldhas failed.Amherst&Boston:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.

Easterly,W.(2009).HowthemillenniumdevelopmentgoalsareunfairtoAfrica.WorldDevelopment,37(1),26-35.

Ellerman,D.(2005).Helpingpeoplehelpthemselves:FromtheWorldBanktoanalternativephilosophyofdevelopmentassistance.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Moyo,D.(2009).Deadaid:WhyaidisnotworkingandhowthereisabetterwayforAfrica.NewYork:Farrar,Straus,andGiroux.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Paris declaration on aideffectivenessandAccraagendaforaction.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Riddell,R.(2007).Doesforeignaidreallywork?NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Copyright©2010CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducationTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity

AllRightsReserved.

©2010CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,ALLRIGHTSRESERVEDCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),7-26.

SPECIALSYMPOSIUMISSUE

Aid, Development, and Education

Steven J. KleesUniversityofMaryland

Ourworldfacespervasivepovertyandinequality:

• theworld’srich-poorgaphasmorethandoubledsincethe1960s;• 1.4billionpeopleliveonlessthan$1.25/day;• hungeraffects963millionpeopleworldwide;• nearly1billionpeoplelackaccesstosafedrinkingwater;• oneinthreechildrenindevelopingcountriessuffersfrommalnutrition;• about75millionchildrenwhoshouldbeinprimaryschoolarenot;and• everyyear,nearly10millionchildrenundertheageof5diefrompreventablecauses.

(BreadfortheWorld,2009;UNESCO,2009;Dichter,2003,p.1)

Hundreds of billions of dollars in international aidhave beengivenor loaned todevelopingcountries though bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, at least, ostensibly, in order to dosomethingabouttheseandotherproblems.Hassuchaidhelped?

Debates around this question have been ongoing for decades, perhaps intensifying in recentyears.This shouldnotbea surprise. It is far fromstraightforward to evendeterminehow toinvestigatethequestion.Atfirstglance,aresearchermightwanttolookbeforeandaftertoobservehowwell indicators, suchasofpovertyandeconomicgrowth, improvedovera specific timeperiod,andlinkthattochangesinaid,controllingforotherfactorsthatmightaffectpovertyandeconomicgrowth.Whilesomeresearchalongtheselinesexists,thisapproachisgenerallyanon-starter,especiallyonagloballevel,butalsoevenforspecificcountries.Thequestionisjusttoocomplicatedtobewell-specified–formanyreasons.Forinstance,thereisamyriadofinteractivefactorsthataffectpovertyandeconomicgrowthbesidesaid.Moreover,internationalaidservesmanypurposesotherthanthese,suchassupportingtheforeignpolicyofrichcountries,buildingnations, democratization, or fighting terrorism.Given that a supposedly ‘scientific’ approachcannotanswer thequestionof the impactofaid, it isnot surprising that thedebatesabout itrely heavily on anecdotal and idiosyncratic evidence marshaled from particular ideologicalperspectives.

Periodicstudiesandinternationalmeetingshavereviewedaidanddevelopmentlinkagesandmade recommendations for improvement. For example, the World Bank-sponsored PearsonCommission in 1970 argued that “external resources, by adding to the resources available toadeveloping country,hashadapositive impactupondevelopment” andmerited“large andsustained expansion” (Asante, 1985, p. 249). Subsequent studies like the Brandt CommissionReportsin1980and1983reinforcedtheseconclusions.Inrecentyears,internationalmeetings–Monterreyin2002,Romein2003,Marrakechin2004,andParisin2005–ledtoagreementsonaidanddevelopment.TheG-8meetinginScotlandin2005,withimpetusfromcelebritydonorsandentrepreneurialphilanthropists,promisedadoublingofaidtoAfricannations.Andperhapsmostimportantly,theParisDeclarationin2005laysoutaninternationalagendatoimproveforeignaid


S.Klees

bymakingitmoretransparent,accountable,aligned,harmonized,andeffective.

Despitethefactthatmostoftheseofficialviewsofaidenduparguingthatmoreisnecessary,foreignaidhaslonghaditscriticsfromallsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.Forexample,fromtheright,PeterBauer,anearlyneoliberaleconomistwritingbeforetheterm“neoliberal”wasevencoined,publishedin1972abookcalledDissentonDevelopmentthatsummarizedthecritiquehehadbeenmakingformanyyears.Hearguedthatratherthanhelping,“foreignaid…islikelytoobstruct”development(p.95)bycreatingdependency,distortingpriorities,fosteringcorruption,andexacerbatingmarket imperfections.His recommendationwas tomostly eliminate foreignaid.Thishasalsobeena long-termpoliticalpositionof theneoconservativemovement in theUnited States, as exemplified by themedia commentator and former Presidential candidate,PatrickBuchanan(1998).

Astrongcritiqueofforeignaidhascomefromsomeontheleftaswell.Forexample,inhisclassicarticleondependency,Frank(1967)arguesthatforeignaidisaformofneocolonialism.SamirAmin(1980),inhisbook,Delinking:TowardsaPolycentricWorld,arguestheneedfordevelopingcountriestodelinkfromworldtradeandaidsystemsinordertofocusoninternalneeds.Amindoesnotarguethattradeandaidshouldbeeliminated,justreduced.

Itisnotmypurposetodoahistoricalanalysisofthestateofaidanddevelopment.Idowishtogiveasenseofcurrentdebatesonthetopicandthenconcludebyofferingsomeofmyownviews.Inmyreviewoftheliteratureonaidanddevelopment,fiverecentbooksstoodoutasrepeatedlydiscussedandreferenced. I thereforeexaminebrieflyeachof theseworks, trying toprovideasense of each author’s argument in his or her ownwords. Thefirst three booksmostly offerneoliberalperspectives,whilethelasttwocomefrommoreliberalandprogressiveperspectives.I follow this examinationwith adiscussionof their views and concludewithmyownviewson aid anddevelopment, including implications for education. This paper spendsmore timeonaidanddevelopmentissuesthanoneducation,inpart,becauseIfoundIcouldnotsensiblydiscusseducation issueswithoutfirst examining thedebatesaboutaidanddevelopmentandtheirbroaderimplications.

Current Debates

Thomas DichterThomasDichter’s 2003 book is entitledDespiteGood Intentions:WhyDevelopmentAssistance totheThirdWorldHasFailed.Asyoumightsuspect,Dichter isabigfanofPeterBauer, theearlyneoliberaleconomistImentionedabove.Dichterisananthropologistwhospentmuchofhislifein thedevelopmentbusiness–asaPeaceCorpsvolunteerandcountrydirector,a foundationofficer,athinktankstaffmember,andaconsultantforsuchagenciesasUNDP,USAID,andtheWorldBank.Whileherecognizesthatdifferentpoliticalperspectivesmaywanttousesomeofhisarguments,heseeshimselfastakinga“pragmatic”stance(p.xi).Thebookisunusualinthatforeachanalyticalchapter,thereisaparallelchapterthatisactuallyashortstorybasedonthedailylivesofdevelopmentworkers.

Dichter’s(2003)mainargumentis

thataidhasbecomeabusinesswhosemainstake is itsownsurvival– [which]beginstoexplainwhytherehasbeensolittleapparentlearningorfundamentalchangeinhowthingsaredone,despitealltheevidenceoffailure,allthestudies…


Aid,Development,andEducation

andthemanyexpensiveevaluationsandretrospectivelooksatthishalfcenturyofwork,themajorityofwhichshowdepressingifnotalwaysnegativeresults.(p.4)

ForDichter,developmentis“staggeringlycomplex”(p.191).Heelaborates:

Developmentisnotasetofobstinateproblemsthewaycancerisbutahistoricalprocess thatcannotreallybeengineeredorcontrolled. Inshort,development isnota“challenge,”somethingwecandeliberately“attack”thewayfindingacureforcancercanbe.Certainly,anindustrysetuptoengineerchangethroughaseriesofshort-andmedium-termdirectinterventions(“projects”and“programs”)is,toputitmildly,agrossmismatchofmeansandends.(p.9)

Hegoeson(p.185,191):

Developmentprofessionalscontinuetohedgethequestionofwhetherdevelopmentassistance is about doing things. Increasingly, we know that the real keys todevelopment are neither tangible nor involvemuch “doing.” They are aboutinstitutions, attitudes, laws, andhuman resources…. [Rather than engineering]wecouldinsteadundertakemoresubtleandindirectinterventions,stimulating,encouraging,andcajoling.

Dichter, likemost of the other critics discussed below, does not deny that there are aid anddevelopmentsuccessstories:

Forexample,moreaccesstoprimaryeducationhasresultedinmorepeoplewithbasic literacyandunder theWorldHealthOrganizationadecade-longeffort towipeoutsmallpoxsucceeded.Inthe1990sforthefirsttimeweseeadeclineinthefertilityrateofthedevelopingcountriesowingtoaloweringofinfantmortalityandadecreaseindeathrates.(p.2)

ButforDichterthesearetheexceptions.Hisconcludingchapterisentitled“TheCaseforaRadicalReductioninDevelopmentAssistance.”Heelaborates:

Doesthismeanthatwesay,“Well,then,let’sleavewellenoughalone,letthem(thepoorofdevelopingnations)be.Lettheforcesoftheinternationalmarketplacebringondevelopment.Letglobalizationreign”...Yes,itmightmeanthat.(p.10)

ButDichterinsistshisconclusionisnot“gloomy”(p.10).Hissourcesforhopearethepotentialfor telecommunications, the migration of the poor towards better opportunities, and theoverallworkings of themarket and theprivate sector in the interests of development.Whileacknowledgingthecontinuedneedforhumanitarianassistance,heneverthelessconcludes:“Itistimeforustoentertaintheseriouspossibilitythatdevelopmentassistanceisnotnecessaryfordevelopment”(p.293).

William EasterlyThetitleofWilliamEasterly’s2006bookisTheWhiteMan’sBurden:WhytheWest’sEffortstoAidtheRestHaveDonesoMuchIllandSoLittleGood.Asyoumightsuspect,EasterlyisalsoabigfanofBauer.Easterlyisalsowell-knownasacriticofeconomicorthodoxywhowaspushedoutoftheBankbecauseofhisdissenting,moreliberal,opinions.Butinthisbook,Easterlythecriticof


S.Klees

economicorthodoxy is lessevident thanEasterly thebeliever inmarketsolutions.Heoffersastrongcritiqueofinternationalaidasa

tragedyinwhichtheWestspent$2.3trilliononforeignaidoverthelastfivedecadesandstillhadnotmanagedtogettwelve-centmedicinestochildrentopreventhalfofallmalariadeaths.TheWestspent$2.3trillionandstillhadnotmanagedtogetfour-dollarbednetstopoorfamilies....TheWestspent$2.3trillionandAmartech[anEthiopiangirl]isstillcarryingfirewoodandnotgoingtoschool.(p.4)

Healsoseesthefailureasrootedintheinherentproblemswithplanningandsocialengineering:

Let’scall theadvocatesofthetraditionalapproach[toforeignaid]thePlannerswhilewecalltheagentsforchangein…[my]alternativeapproachtheSearchers.Theshortansweronwhydyingpoorchildrendon’tget twelve-centmedicines,while healthy rich people do get Harry Potter [delivered around the worldovernight], is that twelve-centmedicinesaresuppliedbyPlannerswhileHarryPotterissuppliedbySearchers.

ThisisnottosaythateverythingshouldbeturnedovertothefreemarketthatproducedanddistributedHarryPotter.ThepoorestpeopleintheworldhavenomoneytomotivatemarketSearcherstomeettheirdesperateneed.However,thementalityofSearchersinmarketsisaguidetoaconstructiveapproachtoforeignaid.(p.5)

WhileEasterlyexhibitsaliberal’ssensitivitytoissuesofequity,itisintegratedinanextremelyneoliberalfaithintheworkingofmarketsandacorrespondingbeliefintheproblematicnatureofgovernment,asexemplifiedinthequotesaboveandinthetitleofthefifthchapter,“TheRichHaveMarkets,ThePoorHaveBureaucrats.”

Intheend,Easterlyrecommendsamuchreducedroleandscopeforforeignaid.Hesuggeststhataidbeorientedtowardsprogramsthatseektohaveadirectandconcreteimpactonthepoor,andawayfrombroadgoalslikedevelopmentandbroadpolicieslikestructuraladjustmentpolicies(SAPs)andpovertyreductionstrategyplans(PRSPs).Heconcludeswithprinciplesforon-the-groundassistance:

...Ifyouwanttoaidthepoor,then:

1. Haveaidagentsindividuallyaccountableforindividual,feasibleareasforactionthathelppoorpeopleliftthemselvesup.

2. Letthoseagentssearchforwhatworks,basedonpastexperienceintheirarea.3. Experiment,basedontheresultsofthesearch.(Easterly,2006,p.382)

Easterlyprovidesadditionalprinciplesthatfocusontheneedforevaluationresultstogovernrewardsandpenalties,tyingtheseincentivestoaidagentactions.

Dambisa MoyoDambisaMoyo’s(2009)recentandhotlydebatedbookisentitledDeadAid:WhyAidisNotWorkingandHowThere is a BetterWay forAfrica (for somedebate, seeKing, 2009b).Moyo is a youngZambian economist, educated atHarvard andOxfordUniversities,whohas spent two years



workingattheWorldBankandeightatGoldmanSachs.SheisanotherPeterBauerfan;infact,thebookisdedicatedtohim,andherdismalargumentechoeshis:

[H]asmore thanUS $1 trillion in development assistance over the last severaldecadesmadeAfricanpeoplebetteroff?No.Infact,acrosstheglobetherecipientsofthisaidareworseoff;muchworseoff.Aidhashelpedmakethepoorpoorer,andgrowthslower.Yetaidremainsacenterpieceoftoday’sdevelopmentpolicyandoneofthebiggestideasofourtime.

Thenotion thataidcanalleviate systemicpoverty, andhasdoneso, isamyth.MillionsinAfricaarepoorertodaybecauseofaid;miseryandpovertyhavenotendedbutincreased.Aidhasbeen,andcontinuestobe,anunmitigatedpolitical,economic,andhumanitariandisasterformostpartsofthedevelopingworld….[Countriesget]…trappedinaviciouscircleofcorruption,marketdistortion,andfurtherpoverty–andthusthe‘need’formoreaid.[Moyo,2009,p.xix]

Moyodoesmakeclearthatsheistalkingaboutofficialdevelopmentassistance(ODA)only,nothumanitarianaid.Herargumentthataidisnotjust“innocuous”butactually“malignant”(p.47)restsonattributingtoaidahostofills:mostespecially,fosteringcorruption,butalsodiminishingsocialcapital,increasingconflict,decreasingsavingsandinvestments,increasinginflation,hurtingexports,andincreasingbottlenecks.Theresultisacultureof“aid-dependency”or“addiction”(pp.66,75)thatisfosteredbywhatwemightcallaninternationalaidcomplexemployinghalfamillionpeople.Thiscomplexgenerates“pressuretolend”(p.54)and“engenderslazinessonthepartofAfricanpolicymakers…inremedyingAfrica’scriticalwoes”(p.66).Contrarytomanyresearchers’callsformoredemocracyaspartofasolutiontotheseproblems,Moyoargues:

Theuncomfortabletruthisthatfarfrombeingaprerequisiteforeconomicgrowth,democracy can hamper development as democratic regimes find it difficult topushthrougheconomicallybeneficiallegislation….Inaperfectworld,whatpoorcountriesatthelowestrungsofeconomicdevelopmentneedisnotamulti-partydemocracy,butinfactadecisivebenevolentdictatortopushthroughthereformsrequiredtogettheeconomymoving….(p.42)

TheevidenceMoyousestosupportherargumentsarealmostwhollyanecdotalandcorrelational,andtherationaleisthatofaneoliberaleconomistconvincedofthenecessityofmarketsolutions.AsMoyosays:

ItshouldcomeasnosurprisethattheDeadAidprescriptionsaremarket-based,since no economic ideology other than one rooted in themovement of capitalandcompetitionhassucceededingettingthegreatestnumbersofpeopleoutofpovertyinthefastesttime”(p.145).

Moyoconcludesbycallingforacompletephase-outofODAovera5to10yearperiod.Anumberofmarket-basedprescriptionsareofferedaswaystoreplace,inamoreproductivemanner,thecapital thatwouldbelost:borrowingoninternationalcapitalmarkets;attractingmoreforeigndirect investment (China’s activities in this sphere are praised); promoting trade; expandingmicroloans; facilitating remittances; incentivizing savings; and employing conditional cashtransfers.


S.Klees

Moyo,intheend,asks,“Whatwouldhappen?”ifherrecommendationswereputintoeffect:

Wouldmanymoremillions inAfrica die frompoverty andhunger? Probablynot…Isn’titmorelikelythatinaworldfreedofaid,economiclifeforthemajorityof Africans might actually improve, that corruption would fall, entrepreneurswouldriseandAfrica’sgrowthenginewouldstartchugging? This is themostprobableoutcome….(pp.144-145).

Roger RiddellRoger Riddell’s 2007 book,Does Foreign Aid ReallyWork?, has no subtitle, thus intentionallydeprivingus of the “sound-bite” (p. xvii) summarypresent in the other books.Riddell is aneconomistanddevelopmentspecialistwhoiscurrentlyInternationalDirectorforChristianAid,amajorU.K.reliefanddevelopmentagency.Riddellhasworkedinthedevelopmentindustryforthreedecades,halfofwhichwasspentatBritain’sOverseasDevelopmentInstitute.Heistheauthorofpreviousstudiesonforeignaid.

Thisbookdiffersfromtheothersinanumberofways.First,inadditiontoafocusonODA,italso lookscloselyathumanitarianandemergencyaidandataidprovidedbyNGOs.Second,itconsidersprovidingaidwithinahumanrightsframework.Third,itoffersthemostdetailedreviewofforeignaidandofstudiesofitsimpact.

Thedegreetowhichaidistiedtopoliticalandcommercialinterestsisemphasized.Forexample,oftheroughly$100billioninODAin2005,fully40%wentfortechnicalassistance(p.202)and60%wastiedtospendinginthedonorcountry(p.358).Riddellpointsouthowmuchaidfollowsdonor countrypolitical interests, as exemplifiedby the amountof aiddevotedby theU.S. toIraq,Afghanistan,andPakistan.HespendstimeexaminingtheWashingtonConsensusandloanconditionalities,andoffersatrenchantcritiqueoftheconceptof“countryownership”inpractice:

Predominantly for the IMF and…World Bank, ownership is understood as theprocess whereby recipient countries come round to accepting…the respectivefinancial institution’s programmes, policies, and approaches to development,growth,andpovertyreduction.(pp.240-241)

Afteranexhaustivereviewofempiricalstudies,Riddellconcludeswithamuchmorebalancedviewthantheotherbooksexaminedhere:

Doesaidreallywork?Earlierpartsofthisbookhavereviewedthebestavailableevidencetoconcludethatlargeamountsofdevelopmentandemergencyaidhavesaved lives, bothdirectly and indirectly. They have led to tangible benefits formillions of poor people, andmade somepositivewider contributions to poor-country economies and societies. Some aid interventions, however, have beenfailures,andlargeamountsofdevelopmentaidhavenothadasignificant,long-term, systemic, or sustainable impact. Emergency aid has succeeded in savingmanylives,but liveshavebeen lostbecauseofashortageof funds.Thefailuretocoordinatethehumanitarianresponseeffectivelyhasmeantthatmuchaidhasbeenwasted,whilelargenumbersofthosecaughtupinemergenciesanddisasterremaininadequatelyprotected.(p.355)



AnearlierpassagefocusedonODAmakestheauthor’spositionclearer,reinforcingthepointIraisedatthebeginningofthisarticle:

Buthasmostofficialdevelopmentaidworked,orfailed?Thehonestansweristhatwestilldon’tknow–notforlackoftrying,butduetotheinherentdifficultiesoftracingitscontribution.Aftermorethanfivedecadesofaid-giving,thebulkofthemostreliableandaccessibleinformationonimpactrelatestodiscreteprojects,supplementedinthelastdecadebysomeassessmentsofthecontributionmadebyindividualdonorsinparticularcountries.Cross-countrystudiesseekingtofindtheanswertothequestion“Doesaidwork?’donotprovideareliableguideontheoverallandexplicitcontributionofaidtodevelopmentandpovertyreduction.Theyneverwill.(p.254)

Towardstheendofthebook,Riddellsummarizesthefivefundamentalproblemsheseeswiththecurrentsystemofaid:

1. Aidisstillnotprovidedinsufficientoverallquantitiestomeetthedifferentneedsofpoorcountries….

2. Theaidwhichisprovidedisnotallocatedinanysystematic,rational,orefficientwaytothosewhoneeditmost….

3. The aggregate amounts of aid provided to recipient countries are volatile andunpredictable….

4. Developmentaidrelationshipsarestilldominatedbyrecipientshavingtointeractwithscores,and,attheextreme,hundredsofdifferentofficialdonorsanddonoragencies…[and]manythousandsofindividualprojectsandprogrammes….

5. Whiledonorsregularlyarticulatethecentralityofrecipientownershipandpartnershipbetweendonorsandrecipientsascriticalforaidtohaveapositiveimpact,inpractice,theoverallaidrelationshipremainsextremelylopsidedwithdonorsremainingalmostwhollyincontrol.(pp.386-7)

Inhistwoconcludingchapters,Riddellboldlyproposesanoverhauloftheentireaidarchitecture.Thisnewstructurewouldtakealotofthecurrentpoliticsoutofaiddistribution,usinga“humanrightsapproachtodevelopment…whichgivesprominencetotheinvolvementandparticipationofrecipients indecisionsabouthowaidshouldbeused….”(p.390).Forofficialdevelopmentassistance, a new International Aid Office and Fund would be financed by compulsorycontributionsfromrichcountriesandallocatedbyneedwithtransparentcriteriaoperationalizedbyatechnicalstaffineachcountry.Inthecaseofseverelyinadequateorcorruptgovernments,alternativedistributionmechanismswouldbeused.Forhumanitarianaid,currentimprovementsincoordinationandcentralfundingwouldbeextended.AndforNGOs,codesofconductandothereffortswouldmaketheirworkmoretransparentandproductive.

David EllermanDavidEllerman’s2005book,HelpingPeopleHelpThemselves:FromtheWorldBanktoanAlternativePhilosophyofDevelopmentAssistance,alsocritiquesthe‘bigpush’socialengineeringsideofforeignaidandoffers in its steadamodelbasedon incrementalismandself-help.Ellerman isanex-WorldBankstafferwho,beforeretiringfromtheagency,wasanadvisortoJosephStiglitzandotherWorldBankchiefeconomists.EllermanwasaninternalBankcriticandnowhasbecomeanexternalone.MuchofthebookdrawsonhisexperienceswiththeBank,mostlyasexamplesofwhatnottodo.


S.Klees

Ellerman(2005,p.xvii)highlightsthegenerallackofdebatewithintheBankanddescribesthe“usualBankprocedureoftryingtogive…theanswers”buttressedbyanintimidatingbarrageofone-sideargumentsandbiasedstatistics.”WithrespecttotheBank’sattempttobea“KnowledgeBank,”hearguesthatit“shouldtakeacuefromuniversitiesandotherscientificinstitutionsandnothave‘officialviews’oncomplexquestionsofknowledge.”Inanearlierpaper(Klees,2002),IarguedthattheBankwasn’treallyaKnowledgeBankbutaMonopolyOpinionBank(a.k.a.,theMOB!).Ellermanseemstoagree:

OnemightthinkthatalltheeconomistsinpositionsofpowerintheBankwouldrecalltheircatechismsabouttheproblemofmonopoly.Butitwouldseemthattheyaremoreattractedtothenotionof“global”thantheyarerepelledbythenotionof“monopoly.”Alltherhetoricaboutaglobalagencyhavingaglobalroletogatherglobalknowledge to solveglobalproblemsseems tobe somuchglobaloney tojustifythemonopolisticworldwideroleoftheWorldBank.(p.242)

Ellermanrevealshowthe“thoughtpolice”intheBankandtheIMFrestrictdebateandpromoteapartyline(p.xix,153).Healsowarnshowtheubiquitouscallfor“countryownership”ofitspolicies andprograms canbeperverted, “turning thegovernment into amarionette thatwillbelieveanddowhatitistoldaslongastheaidorloanisforthcoming”(p.136).

However,theproblemsEllerman(2005,p.2)seesgofarbeyondtheBank:“thedevelopmentofwholesocietiesmustsurelybeoneofthemostcomplextasksfacinghumanity.”Hesays:

Afterahalfcenturyonthepathofofficialdevelopmentassistance,wefindourselveslost….Developmentwillnotyieldtosocialengineeringnomatterhowmuchaidisprovided.Afundamentallydifferentphilosophyofdevelopmentassistanceisneeded…(p.241)

ThatfundamentallydifferentphilosophyforEllermanmeansrethinkingtherelationsbetween‘helpers’and‘doers.’

Helpingorassistanceisarelationshipbetweenthoseofferingassistanceinsomeform,thehelperorhelpers,andthosereceivingtheassistance,thedoerordoers.The helpers could be individuals, NGOs, or official bilateral or multilateraldevelopment agencies and the doers could be individuals, organizations, orvariouslevelsofgovernmentinthedevelopingcountries.(p.4)

Ellerman’s(pp.253-61)differentphilosophyissummedupinfive“do”and“don’t”principles:

FirstDo:StartingfromWheretheDoersAre…SecondDo:SeeingThroughtheDoers’Eyes…FirstDon’t:Don’tTrytoImposeChangeonDoers…SecondDon’t:Don’tGiveHelpasBenevolence…ThirdDo:RespectAutonomyofDoers

Thebookcloseswiththefollowingremark(p.252):

Helpers cannot and should not try “to do development.” Helpers can at bestuse indirect, enabling, andautonomy-respectingmethods tobringdoers to the



threshold.Thedoershavetodotherestontheirowninordertomakeittheirown.Thedoersacquiredevelopmentonlyasthefruitsoftheirownlabor.

DiscussionSo,what arewe tomake of all this? Clearly, all the authors offer some dismal analyses anddepressingconclusions.Ofcourse,thisisnotsurprisinggiventhecurrentstateofglobalpovertyandinequality.Onewouldhavehopedthat60yearsofinternationalaidwouldhaveledtoclearimprovement.However,thebestthatanyonecansayisthatthesituationcouldhavebeenalotworsethanitisnowhadtherebeennoaid.AndonlyRiddellmakesthisargumentexplicitly.

However,thesebooksdodifferfromoneanother.Ifinditusefultodividetheworldofpoliticaleconomy into three broad paradigms: neoliberal, liberal, and progressive. Neoliberalism,whichpredominatestoday,focusesonmarketsolutions,criticizingtheefficiencyandequityofgovernment interventions.A liberalperspectiveoffers greater recognitionof the inefficienciesandinequitiesofmarketsandputsmorefaithingovernment.Finally,aprogressiveperspective,focusesonthereproductivenatureofboththemarketandthestateundercurrentworldsystemstructures like capitalism,patriarchy, and racism, andputsgreater relianceon transformationfrombelowthroughmoreparticipatoryformsofdemocracyandcollectiveaction.Itshouldbenotedthattheseparadigmsaremorecontinuousandoverlappingthanmutuallyexclusive.

Thepredominantargumentinthesebooks–inparticular,thosebyDichter,Moyoand,toalargeextent,Easterly–isneoliberal.Aidisseenashavingbeenalmostacompletewasteatbest,ifnotanunmitigateddisaster,whilethesolutionliesinminimizinggovernmentandmaximizingfreemarketsandtrade.Thisisnotsurprisingeither,giventhatforthelastthreedecadesaneoliberalviewhasdominatedinmuchoftheworld.AsMoyo(2009,p.67)pointsout,intheliberaleraofthe1960sand1970s(whengovernmentinterventionenjoyedmuchgreaterlegitimacy),PeterBauerwasa“lonedissentingvoice,”whilehisviewsnowhavewidersupport.But,itisveryinterestingtonote that, inpractice, thissupport is ratherambiguous.WhileDichter,Moyo,Easterly,andotherneoliberalcommentatorsontheproblemsofaidhavereceivedalotofattention,itiswelltorememberthatneoliberalshavegenerallybeeninchargeforthelastthreedecadesduringthebiggestbuild-upininternationalaidtheworldhaseverseen.NeoliberalshavebeeninchargewhiletheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs)–perhapsthemostsweepingcallforaidandsocialengineering inhistory–were instituted.At leaston thesurface, this implies thatmanyneoliberalshavemaintainedsomebeliefintheefficacyofaid–orperhapsitisaresultofneoliberalguiltgiventheworseningofpovertyandinequalitycausedbytheirpolicies.

Orperhapsthereissomethingelseoperatinghere.Asaprogressivepoliticaleconomist,criticalof bothneoliberals and liberals, I see theneocolonialdimensionsof aid in theworld system,asFrank(1967)pointedout.Fromthisperspective,internationalaidandtheMDGsareaformofwhatWeiler(1984)calledcompensatorylegitimation;morecolloquially,Iseeitasaformof“goodcop,badcop.”Internationalcrises,shakyandpoorly-performingeconomies, increasingpovertyandinequality,widespreadconflicts,andtheequivalentofstructuraladjustmentpolicieseverywhere,allcall intoquestionthelegitimacyoftheneoliberalsocialorder–thisisthebadcop.Tocompensateforthis,actorsintheworldsystemofneoliberalglobalizationmustintroducepolicessuchasaidandtheMDGsthatareaimedatamelioratingsomeproblematicconditionsandthusrestoringsystemlegitimacy–thisisthegoodcop.This argumentdoesnotquestion thegood intentionsof theproponentsof thesepolicies, butit does question their effects. Put simply, the existence of these policiesmay be sufficient for


S.Klees

compensatorylegitimation;whethertheyareeffectiveseemstobelessimportant.AllofthebooksIreviewedwerewrittenbeforethecurrenteconomiccrisis.Thiscrisischangesthingsinthatitcallsintomoreseriousquestiontheentireneoliberalregimeandposesaglobalchallengetoitslegitimacy.For thefirst time in threedecades,whetherneoliberalismwill survive isnotclear.If itdoes,however, itwillprobablynotbeatimeforpolicymakerstoheedthecallsofpeoplelikeDichter,Moyo,andEasterly,asevengreatercompensatorylegitimationwillbeneeded.Theworldsystemmustlooklikesomethingisbeingdonetoimprovethesituationevenifitisnot.

I do notmean to argue that all policies are the result of systemic forces that reproduce andlegitimatetheunequalwordorder.Iamafirmbelieverthatneoliberalpoliciesarecontinuallychallengedbyindividuals,organizations,socialmovements,andleft-of-centergovernments.TheexistenceofaidandtheMDGsrepresentsrealgainsfortheworld’sdisenfranchised,asdoes,forexample,themoreparticipatoryprocessescalledforinPRSPs.However,inthisneoliberalera,thesepoliciesunfortunatelybearlittlefruit.

It is interestingtonotethatonecouldmaketheargumentthataidwasmoresuccessfulintheliberaleraofthe1960sand1970sthanithasbeenintheneoliberalerathatfollowed.EvenMoyo(2009,p.5)admitsthatAfricawasdoingmuchbetterinthe1970sthantoday,anditwas“awash”with aid then.A big difference is that the 1980s introduced neoliberal StructuralAdjustmentPrograms (SAPs) throughout Africa, cutting government and liberalizing trade. Even manyneoliberaleconomistsadmittedthesepolicieshadharmful,ifnotdevastating,consequences.Yetcurrent-daymechanismssuchasthePovertyReductionStrategyProcess(PRSP)andthePovertyReductionandGrowthFacility(PRGF)continuetoproduceresultsthatlookverysimilartothoseproducedbythebankruptSAPs.

RiddellandEllermanproceedfromapredominantlyliberalperspective,althoughbothhavesomeprogressiveelements.Riddellisverycriticalofaidanditstiestocommercialandpoliticalinterests,butherecognizesthatmuchaidhashadapositiveimpact.Hisconclusionforincreasingaidandrestructuringaidarchitectureofferssomeprogressivealternativesworthconsidering.Ellermanalsocritiques thestructureofaidandtheabilityofbilateralandmultilateralaidagencies liketheWorldBanktosociallyengineerabetterworld.Hissolution,torelymoreonrespectingtheautonomouseffortsofthe“doers,”especiallyatthegrassrootslevel,fitswithamoreprogressiveperspective.

Myreadingofadditional literaturerelated toaidanddevelopment indicates tome that thesefivebooksarerepresentativeofthedebate.Aneoliberalperspectivepredominates.Liberalviewsare reasonably represented, especially if you includeworks that are indirectly about aid anddevelopment(e.g.,Collier,2007;Sachs,2005).Scarcerareworksfromaprogressiveperspective.Inanexcellentpaperfromthispointofview,Samoff(2009)comestoquitedifferentconclusionsthantheauthorsabove:theaidsystem“isinfactworkingverywell.Itsessentialroleisnottoachievepubliclystatedobjectivesbutrathertomaintainaglobalpoliticaleconomyofinequality”(p.24).

IagreewithSamoff.But,asIamsurehewouldagree,thisisnotacallfordespair.Itisacallfortransformation.Ibelieve,asdomanywhoshareaprogressiveperspective,thatthattransformationwillhavetocomefromwidespreadcollectiveaction.Partof thatactionis thinkingaboutanddiscussingwhatsuchtransformationmightentail.Inwhatfollows,Ioffermyownperspectivesoncertainkeystepsthatneedtobetakenwithregardtoaid,development,andeducation.



Implications for Aid, Development, and Education

Much more money is needed.Intoday’sworld,ithasbecomefashionabletosay‘don’tthrowmoneyatsocialproblems,’‘moneyisnotthemainissue,’and‘bettermanagementandstrongeraccountabilityiswhatisneededtofixtheproblem.’Thismentalityhasbeenanexcuseforinaction.Ofcoursemoremoneyisneeded,muchmore.TotalODApercapitacomestoabout$10.Whatkindofdevelopmentdowethinkwecanbuyfor$10perheadperyear?Richcountriesspendlessthan1%oftheirGDPonODA.Theyareunwillingtoevencomeclosetothe0.7%ofGDPgoalthattheysetforthemselves.Inthisunfairandvastlyunequalworld,whatkindofdevelopmentdowethinkwecanbuyforlessthanameasly1%ofGDP?In2008,ODAtoallofAfricawasabout$35billion,lessthantheU.S.bailoutof theauto industry;StephenLewiscalls thisamountofaid“picayuneandmarginal”(AureaFoundation,2009).

ItisworthnotingthattheMarshallPlanforreconstructionafterWWIIspentasmuchonEuropeastherichcountriesdoontotalODAforalldevelopingcountriesnow(Moyo,2009,p.12).Onapercapitabasis, theMarshallPlanreceivedabout8 timesasmuchmoneyasODAreceivesnow.AndforEuropethedevelopmentproblemwasmucheasierthanthatfacedbydevelopingcountriestoday:Europewasalreadyindustrializedwithaneducatedworkforce;itonlyneededtorebuild thephysical infrastructuredamagedin thewar.DevelopingcountriesneedamuchmoreintenseeffortthantheMarshallPlan.Thepointisthatwehaven’tbeenthrowingmoneyatoursocialproblems;insteadwe’vebeenmiserly.Inasimilarvein,King(2009b,pp.8-9)pointsoutthehugeamountofaid–perhapsmorethanwhathasgonetoallofAfrica–thatwenttotransformonecountry,SouthKorea,andthegreatamountofresourcesthatGermanyisputtingintothedevelopmentoftheformerEastGermany.

AttemptstocostwhatitwouldtaketoachievetheMDGshaveproducedestimatesofatleastanadditional$120to$190billionayear,andthatmaywellbeanunderestimation(UNMillenniumProject,2006;Moyo,2009,p.45).Itneedstoberememberedandhighlightedthatwhetheryouasanindividualareinneedoftheseresourcesissimplyanaccidentofbirth.Intoday’sworld,shouldn’tweworktowardsmakingtheaccidentofwhereyouarebornanillegitimatebasisfordeterminingyourwell-being?Foralongtime,IhavethoughtofdoingastudyintheU.S.ofthevastdifferencesintheinvestmentwemakeinthechildrenoftherichversusthechildrenofthepoor.Thiswouldinvolvelookingatfamily,school,andsocialinvestments–everythingfrompre-natalcaretohomeenvironmentstocollege.Whilequantifyingallofthatwouldbedifficult,myguessistheresultswouldbeastounding,showingdifferencesof500or1,000to1.ImaginehowmuchgreaterwouldbethedisparitybetweentheinvestmentinarichchildintheU.S.andapoorchildinAfrica–perhapsasmuchas10,000to1.Whateverthenumbers,thesehugedifferencesshouldbeseenascompletelyillegitimateandimmoral.Muchmoreaidisneeded.

Education,likeothersocialsectors,hasbeenavictimoftheneoliberalonslaughtthathasarguedthatschoolsgenerallydonotneedmoremoneybutneedtospenditmorewisely(Klees,2008a).Whatnonsense!Ofcourse,spendingwiselyisimportant,butmoremoneyisdesperatelyneeded.Wehave75millionchildrenofprimaryschoolageoutofschool (UNESCO,2009).Theyneedteachers,classrooms,andlearningmaterials.UniversalprimaryeducationandotherEFAgoalsare estimated to require an additional $16 billion per year (UNESCO, 2010). The Fast TrackInitiative(FTI)hasonlybeensupplyingabout$300millionperyear.Moreover,wehavemanymoremillionsofstudentsreceivingaverylowqualityprimaryeducationwhoneedmoreandbettereducatedteachers,improvedfacilities,andbetterlearningmaterials.Thisdoesnotinclude


S.Klees

thehugesecondaryschoolcoveragedeficit.Furthermore,theproblemisnotlimitedtodevelopingcountries. In theU.S., forexample, there isahugeachievementgapbetweenadvantagedanddisadvantagedchildren,andthatisadirectresultofthehugeinvestmentgapthatstartsatbirth,asIdiscussedearlier.

Disburse some of that money directly to the poor.Justas she isputting thefinishing touchesonherargument toeliminateallaid,Moyo (2009)somewhatsurprisinglysuggeststheideaofgivingaidbydirectcashtransferstothepoor:

InsteadofwritingoutasingleUS$250millionchequetoacountry’sgovernment,why not distribute the money equally among its population,,,[incorporating]notionsofaccountabilityandrepayment….Itisworthpointingoutthattherehasbeensomenotablesuccesswithaconceptknownas‘conditionalcashtransfers’;thesearecashpayments…madetogivethepooranincentivetoperformtasksthatcouldhelpthemescapepoverty(forexample,goodschoolattendance,workinga certainnumberofhours, improving test scores, seeingadoctor).The ideaofconditional cash transfers hasmetwithmuch success in developing countriessuch asBrazil,Mexico,Nicaragua, andPeru… studies show the schemeshavebeeninstrumentalindecreasingmalnutrition,increasingschoolattendance,anddecreasingchildlabour….[W]hyhasthistypeofprogrammenotbeenrolledoutaggressivelyacrossAfrica?(pp.150-151)

ConditionalcashtransfersarenowtoutedbytheBankandotheragencies,buttheyarenotrolledoutbecausedonorsarenotwillingtoputupthemoneytodoso.Riddellalsoconcludeswithacoupleofpagesarguingforcashtransfers.He,likeI,wouldquestionMoyo’sargumentthatallmoneyshouldbedistributedthiswayandthatitneedberepaid(thesearenotmicroloans).Riddellcontends:

Formany years, humanitarian agencies have handed out goods free to those in needduringemergencies, especially food.More recently, both humanitarian and other aid agencies havegiven foodaid in return forworkand,more recently, cash forwork.However,very little aidhasbeenprovided for those inneedsimplyas ‘freecash’enablingpeople tospend itas theythinkfit.Thoughincreasinglywishingtomakeatangibledifferencetoverypoorpeople,donorshaveshiedawayfromprovidingcashforextremepoverty.Historicallyareluctancetogivecashdirectlytopoorpeoplehasoftenbeenbasedonthebeliefthattheywillspendit…[unwisely]…andon the linkedpaternalistic, andcondescending,view thatpoorpeopledonotknowhowbesttouseit.Thesebeliefssituncomfortablyalongsidetheincreasinglymainstreamviewthatbeneficiarychoiceandparticipationarefundamentaltotheaidrelationship.(p.407)

Riddellgoesontoreviewtheevidencefortheeffectivenessofcashtransfersandarguesthecaseis“compelling”(p.407).Inthe1970s,therewasamuchdiscusseddevelopmentstrategycalled“equitybeforegrowth,”whicharguedthatthetraditionalapproachthatreliedongrowthbeforeeventuallyachievinggreaterequitywasineffective,andhaditbackwards:globalredistributionwas needed first to direct growth in differentways and especially towards the needs of thedisadvantaged.Neoliberalscametopowerbeforethisstrategyhadgainedmuchtraction,butitremainsamuchmoresensibleapproachtodevelopment.Resourcesredistributedtothepoorcanhelpre-directtheeconomytowardstheirneedsand,whencombinedwithjobcreationefforts,canhelpsetupaself-sustainingsystem.



Someoftheresearchmentionedabovepraisingconditionalcashtransfersisineducation.Therearesmall-andlarge-scaleprogramsindevelopingcountries(e.g.,BrazilandMexico)thatpaypoorchildrentogotoschool,conditionalonattendanceandpassing.Giventhepersistenceofuserfeesandtheverylargeopportunitycostsofchildlaborfacedbypoorparents,offeringscholarshipssuchastheseonaverylargescalewillbetheonlywaytoachieveUPE.ThecostsofdoingsoarenotincludedintheUPEcostestimatesabove,raisingtheamountofmoneyneededconsiderablyiftheMDGsandEFAgoalsaretobetakenseriously.

Real and strong participation should be the fundamental basis for governance.Moyo (2009) commentson the “riseof glamour aid” inwhich actors, rock stars, and the likebecomeveryvisibleproponentsofaid:

Scarcely does one seeAfrica’s (elected) officials or thoseAfrican policymakerscharged with the development portfolio offer an opinion on what should bedone,orwhatmightactuallyworktosavethecontinent….Thisvery importantresponsibility has, for all intents and purposes, and to the bewilderment andchagrinofmanyanAfrican,beenlefttomusicianswhoresideoutsideAfrica.(pp.26-27)

While I see some value to “glamour aid,”Moyo’s point is well-taken.Who or what directsand shoulddirect the aid system? There ismuch talk of “country ownership.”The bilateralandmultilateralaidagenciesallclaimthatthecountryisinchargeandthattheyonlyhaveanadvisoryrole.Butthatissimplynottrue,asRiddell’searlierquotemakesclear.Theaidagencieshaveoverwhelmingpowerintheaidrelationship,specificallythroughtheconditionalitiestheyrequireandgenerallythroughthepowertowithholdanddirectaid.Thispowerisevengreaterunder the currently fashionable SWAps (sectorwide approaches) throughwhich the gang ofdonorseffectivelymakescountrypolicy.Foraidtobeeffective,wemustcurtailthepowerofaidagenciesandmovebeyondcountryownershiptorelyonwidespreadparticipation.

Participationinaidprocessesbythedisadvantagedthemselvesandtheiradvocatesincivilsocietyhaslongbeendiscussed.Instrumental,idiosyncratic,andsporadicusesofparticipationhavebeencommon.Butitisrarethatparticipationtakesonrealandstrongrolesingovernance.Therhetoricisoftenlofty,buttherealityisweak.Forexample,theformulationofpovertyreductionstrategypapers(PSRPs)thataresupposedtoguideallWorldBankandIMFaidtoacountryinprinciplerequireextensiveparticipationbycivil society. Inpractice, consultation replacesparticipation,andtheconsultationishurriedandsuperficial,withcivilsocietyhavinghardlyanysayinthefinalproduct.Asmentionedearlier,thefinalresultarepoliciesthatbearstrongsimilaritiestothedraconianandunsuccessfulSAPs.

Thiscallforseriousparticipationinthegovernanceofpublicpoliciesandprogramsisacallforreforminrichcountriesasmuchasforreforminpoorcountriesandglobalinterrelationships.Representativedemocracyhashadmanypositivefeatures,butithasledtoasystemthatisstronglyreproductive, protecting the interests of the advantaged at the expenseof thedisadvantaged.Underlabelsof‘participatory,’‘deliberative,’and‘strongdemocracy,’therehavebeenmanycallsforreforminlinewithwhatIamcallingforhere(Crocker,2009;Barber,2003).

Neoliberalism strongly promotes privatization, including in the education sector. Calls forvoucher schemes and subsidizing and strengtheningprivate schoolinghavebeenubiquitous.Neoliberalsconsiderrelyingonthemarketasaformofparticipation.Whatnonsense!Therewas


S.Klees

an economics textbook entitledParticipationwithout Politics thatwas a typicalmicroeconomicexaminationofasupposedfreemarketsystem(Brittan,1979).Thereisnoparticipationwithoutpolitics;participationisinherentlypolitical.Asinalldevelopmentendeavors,educationneedsmuchdeeperandmorewidespreadformsofparticipation.Attheirbest,theyconnectwithabroadapproachtocriticalpedagogygoverningtheadministration,content,andprocessofeducation,suchaswiththeCitizenSchoolmovementinBrazil(FischmanandGandin,2007;GandinandApple,2002).

Replace the World Bank and the IMF.TheBankandtheFundarecompletelyideologicalinstitutions.Eveninsiderspointtotheinternal“thoughtpolice”whoreinforceorthodoxyandsuppressdissent.Forthelastthreedecades,thatideologyhasbeenneoliberalism.Neoliberalismhasbeenatotalfailureintermsofdevelopmentandhasresultedinthemostincredibleconcentrationofwealththeworldhaseverseen.Itwasafailurebeforethecurrenteconomiccrisis,andnowthatfailureisevenmoreapparent.LiberalandprogressiveeconomistshavehadhardlyanyvoiceintheBankortheFundsincethe1970s.Neitherhavenon-economists, civil society,ordevelopingcountries.The resulthasbeen threedecadesofbad,one-sidedadvice.

ClearlytheBankandtheFundhavefunctionsthatneedtobefulfilled,inparticular,givinggrantsandloansfordevelopmentandforeconomiccrises.Butweneedanentirelynewarchitecturefordoingso,perhapspartlyalongthelinesRiddellhassuggested.Giventhefundamentaldebatesamongeconomists,oneschoolofeconomicthoughtshouldnotdominateasitdoesnow.Moreover,giventhateconomicissuesshadeintoallsortsofothersocialissues,economistsshouldnotbeincharge.Inkeepingwithmypreviouspoint,governanceshouldbeparticipatory,withdevelopingcountriesandcivilsocietyhavingaconsiderablesay.TheGlobalFundforAids,Tuberculosis,andMalaria,eventhoughitishousedwithintheBank,offersoneexampleofanattempttodevelopamoreparticipatoryandconsensus-basedprocess.

Ideally,muchofODAwouldbechanneledthroughanewaidarchitecture,reducingconsiderablythemultiplicityofdemandsondevelopingcountriesfrombilateralandmultilateralaidagencies.Riddell(2007,p.360)pointsout:“Eachyear,over35,000separateofficialaidtransactionstakeplaceand,onaverage,eachaidrecipienthastodealwithmorethan25differentofficialdonors”(also seeKnack andRahman, 2008).Working in developing countries, one is simply amazedbytheproliferationofaid-fundedprojects,thecontradictionsbetweenthem,andtheincredibledemandstheyputonlocalagenciesinimplementationandmonitoring.

Ibelievefuturehistorianswillshaketheircollectiveheadinwonderthattheworldtodayallowedabanktobethegloballeaderindevelopingandenforcingeducationalpolicy.Whatnonsense!WeneedtogetridoftheBankandtheFund.TheFundisperhapsthebiggestobstacletoEducationforAll(EFA)intheworldtodayasitsnarrowinflationtargetsleadittorequiredevelopingcountriesto cut their teaching force as a way of scaling back government (Rowden, 2010;Marphatia,Moussie,Ainger,andArcher,2007;Archer,2006).TheBank’sFastTrackInitiativehasbeenusefulingettingsomemoneytosomecountriestohelpwithEFAcosts,butfartoolittlemoneyhasbeenallocated, theprocesshasbeencumbersomeandslowandsubject toendlessBankregulation,andtheBankhasimposedarbitraryeducationalbenchmarksonwhoshouldqualifyforfunds(Benavot,etal.2010;Klees,Winthrop,andAdams,2010;CambridgeEducation,MokoroLtd.,andOxfordPolicyManagement,2009).TherehasbeenacalltoreplaceFTIwithaGlobalFundforEducation(evenendorsedatonepointbyPresidentObama)(Oxfam,2010;Sperling,2009).Itishightime.TheBank’sideologicalroleasglobaleducationcopmustend.



There are global development priorities that might be agreed upon.Thispaperismostlyabouttheaidprocess.Arguingforamuchmoreparticipatoryprocessdoesnotmeandevelopmentbecomeschaoticorstrictlylocally-determined.Theremaywellbesomeglobalprioritiesthatcouldbeagreedupon.Mysuggestionsforsomeoftheseareasfollows:

• Impactthepoor:Clearly,wewanttodoamuchbetterjobofhavingaidreachitsintendedbeneficiaries.

• Emphasizegender:Theinequalitiesanddiscriminationfacedbygirlsandwomenareunjustandhavebeenamajorbarriertodevelopment.

• Gotoscale:Wehavehadthousandsofveryeffectivepilotprojectsatalocallevel,oftenrunbyNGOs;weneedtoimplementmanyofthemonalargescale.

• Considertheenvironment:Wearefacingaglobalecologicalcrisis,andaidrequiresanintegralexaminationofitsimpactontheenvironment.

• Payattentiontoissuesofpeaceandconflict:Over40countriesareinastateofconflictorpost-conflict,andweliveinaworldwhereaggressionisubiquitous(Fischer,n.d.).

• Useahumanrightsframework:WehavemanyUnitedNationsagreementsabouthumanrights,butaidagenciesgenerallyignorethem.

All of the development priorities above are as relevant to education as they are to broaderdevelopmentstrategies.Offundamentalimportanceistobaseeducationpolicyontherighttoeducation.UNESCOandUNICEFhavealreadymovedinthisdirection,buttheBankandtheFund resist. In part, that is because such a changewouldwreak havocwith an instrumentalhuman capital framework where education is only valued for its impact on earnings andeconomicgrowth,notseenasanendinitself.Alsospecifictoeducation,Iwouldadd,thatthereisaneedtobringacriticalpedagogyframeworktoalleducation,onethatstartswherelearnersare,examinesthehistoryandnatureoftheirplaceintheworldsystem,andconsidersstrategiesfortransformation(McLarenandKincheloe,2007).

More of the same research is not needed.Moststudiesendwithacallforfurtherresearch.Doingresearchhasbeenanothermajorexcuseforinaction.Unfortunately,mostresearchofferslittleguidanceaboutwhattodo.Whileallfivebooksindicatetheneedformoreresearch,anumberofthem,andotherrelatedworks,recognizehow little research has to offer. Ellerman (2005, p. 18) talks of “helpers… supplying biasedinformation, partisan econometrics, and one-sided arguments.” Riddell (2003, p. 174) arguesthat,giventhe“complexitiesofdevelopment…itwouldseemtobeover-ambitioustobelieveitpossibletoquantifypreciselytherelationshipbetweenaidandgrowth,aidanddevelopment,aidandpovertyreduction.”Hoebink(2009,p.35)pointsoutthatregressionanalysesindevelopmentresearch“arehighlycontested.”Inamorerecentwork,Easterly(2008)argues:

Theliterature[onaidandgrowth]suffersfromsuchunrestrictedspecificationsandendlessiterationamongthesespecificationsthatvirtuallyanyresultonaidandgrowthispossibleandindeedallpossibleresultshavealreadybeenpresentedintheliterature:aideffectsareconditionalongoodpolicies,theyarenotconditionalongoodpolicies;aidhasapositiveeffectongrowth,aidhasnoeffectongrowth;aidhasalineareffectongrowth,aidhasaquadraticeffectongrowth;onlycertaintypesofaidmatters,alltypesofaidareequivalent...Growthregressionsingeneralhavebeencriticizedonthegroundsofdataminingandspecificationsearching...[Theresultisthat]…theregressionwarsonforeignaidandgrowthshownosignofendinganytimesoon.(p.18)


S.Klees

Thecompleteindeterminacyofthiskindofquantitativeresearchisnotconfinedtotheliteratureaboutaidanddevelopment.AsIhavearguedelsewhere(Klees,2008b),forquantitativeresearchmethods to yield reliable cause-effect information requires fulfilling impossible conditions.Regression analysis, the most frequently used methodology, requires three conditions: allindependentvariables that affect thedependentvariableare in the equation, allvariables aremeasuredcorrectly,andthecorrectfunctionalformisspecified.Inpractice,theseconditionsareneverfulfilledandcanneverbefulfilled.Regressionanalysisstudiesthusbecomeabattlegroundovermodelspecificationwhichformsthebasisforanendlessdebateoverresultsin,forexample,literatures on economic growth, student achievement,welfare policies,Head Start, class size,vouchersforschoolsorhousing,andmanyothers.

Itiscurrentlyfashionabletocallforanalternativetoregressionanalysis–randomizedexperiments(DufloandKremer,2008).Intheory,well-controlledexperimentsaresupposedtomakeiteasytomakecause-effectinferences.Inpractice,realworldexperiments,outsidethelaboratory,areneverwellcontrolled.Therefore,randomizationbuysyoulittle,andcontrolgroupsalwaysdifferfromexperimental groups.Researchers acknowledge this and try tomake compensatory statisticaladjustments,buttheyarealwaysadhocandeasilycontestable.Basically,realworldexperimentsrevertrightbacktotheneedforproperregressionanalysisspecificationtountanglecause-effectrelationships,asevidencedinmanyofthesameliteraturesmentionedabove.

Thisisamajorconundrum.Wedoneedresearchandevaluationtohelpfigureoutwhatworks,yetresearchandevaluationresultsarealwayscontestedandcontestable.Myonlyansweristoreturntothecentralityofparticipation.Participatoryresearchandevaluation–withparticipationbybeneficiariesandotherstakeholdersaswellasbyanalystswhodepartfromdifferentframeworks–maynotyieldclearanswers,butitcanputourdebatesonthetable.Drawingonquantitative,qualitative, and critical research and evaluation methodologies (Mertens, 2004; Denzin andLincoln, 2000), the resulting information and arguments should become part of participatorydecision-makingprocesses.Whentruthbecomesaproblematicgoal,thelegitimacyofpoliticalprocessesbecomesparamount.

Educational research and evaluation are as biased, indeterminate, and contested as anyother.Again,Idonotmeanthisasacalltohaltallresearch.Idomeanthatmostoftheaboverecommendationsdonotdependonfurtherresearch.Ialsomeanthatwhenresearchisneeded,theprincipalformofresearchthatmakessenseisparticipatoryresearch.

Inclosing,Moyo’sconcludingthoughtaboutwhethermillionsmorewoulddieifaidweretobestoppedshouldbecentraltotheconsiderationofthechoicesweface.TheindicatorsthatIbeganthispaperwitharehorrendous.Rightnowmillionsaredyinganddyingneedlessly;millionsmorearebarelysurvivingatthemargins.Relativelyfewresourcesareneededtochangethis.Themarketmechanismdoesnotworkforbillionsofpeopleandaidisinsufficientandmisdirected.Transformationispossible.Wecanturnthisaroundandmakethe21stcenturythefirstonethatisjustandhumane.

ReferencesAlperovitz,G.(2004).Americabeyondcapitalism:Reclaimingourwealth,ourliberty,andourdemocracy.NewYork:JohnWiley.

Amin,S.(1985).Delinking:Towardsapolycentricworld.LondonandNewJersey:ZedBooks.



Archer,D.(2006).TheimpactoftheWorldBankandIMFoneducationrights.Convergence,39,2-3.

Asante, S. (1985). International assistance and international capitalism: Supportive orcounterproductive?InCarter,G.&O’Meara,P.(Eds.),Africanindependence:Thefirsttwenty-fiveyears.Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress.

AureaFoundation (2009, June1)Foreign aiddebates.Retrieved fromhttp:/www.munkdebates.com/debates/.

Barber,B.(2003)Strongdemocracy:Participatorypoliticsforanewage.LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Bauer,P.(1972)Dissentondevelopment:Studiesanddebates indevelopmenteconomics.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Benavot,A.,Archer,D.,Moseley,S.,Mundy,K.,Phiri,F.,Steer,L.,&Wiking,D.(2010).Internationalaidtoeducation.ComparativeEducationReview,54(1),105-24.

BreadfortheWorld(2009).Hungerandpovertyfacts.Accessedon9/30/2009fromhttp://www.offeringofletters.org/foreign-aid-basics/factsandfigures.

Brittan,S.(1979).Participationwithoutpolitics:Ananalysisofthenatureandtheroleofmarkets.London:InstituteofEconomicAffairs.

Buchanan,P.(1998)Thegreatbetrayal:HowAmericansovereigntyandsocialjusticearebeingsacrificedtothegodsoftheglobaleconomy.NewYork:Little,Brown&Co.

CambridgeEducation,MokoroLtd.,&OxfordPolicyManagement(2009)MidtermevaluationoftheEFAFastTrackInitiative.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeEducation.

Chan, J. (2007).Betweenefficiency,capability,andrecognition:Competingepistemes inglobalgovernance.ComparativeEducation43(3),359-376

Collier,P.(2007).Thebottombillion:Whythepoorestcountriesarefailingandwhatcanbedoneaboutit.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Crocker, D. (2009) Ethics of global development: Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Denzin,N.&Lincoln,Y.(2000).Thedisciplineandpracticeofqualitativeresearch.InN.Denzin&Y.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbookofqualitativeresearch(2nded.)(pp.1-28).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Dichter,T. (2003).Despitegood intentions:Whydevelopmentassistance to the thirdworldhas failed.Amherst&Boston:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.

Duflo,E.&Kremer,M.(2008).Useofrandomizationintheevaluationofdevelopmenteffectiveness.InW.Easterly(Ed.),Reinventingforeignaid(pp.93-120).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.


S.Klees


Easterly,W.(2008).Introduction:Can’ttakeitanymore?InW.Easterly(Ed.),Reinventingforeignaid(pp.1-44).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.


Fischer,M. (n.d.).Recovering from violent conflict: Rengeneration and re-integration as elements ofpeacebuilding.Retrievedfromhttp://www.berghof-handbook.net.

Fischman,G.,&Gandin,L.(2007).Escolacidadaandcriticaldiscoursesofeducationalhope.InP.McLarenandJ.Kincheloe(Eds.),Criticalpedagogy:Wherearewenow?(pp.209-222).NewYork:PeterLang.

Frank,A.(1967).Thedevelopmentofunderdevelopment.MonthlyReview,XVIII(4),17-31.

Gandin,L.,&Apple,M. (2002).Challengingneoliberalism, buildingdemocracy:Creating thecitizenschoolinPortoAlegre,Brazil.JournalofEducationPolicy,17(2),259-279.

Hahnel, R. (2005). Economic justice and democracy: From competition to cooperation. New York:RoutledgePress.

Hoebink,P. (2009)Amatterofevidence?NorragNews,42,34-37.Retrievedfromhttp://www.norrag.org/issues/42/en/a-safari-towards-aid-effectiveness.html.

Huffington Post. (2009,August 14). Income inequality is at an all-time high. Retrieved fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-an-all-time-high.

King,K.(Ed.).(2009,June).Asafaritowardsaideffectiveness?AcriticallookattheParisDeclarationandtheAccraAgendaforActionaspartof thenewaidreformarchitecture.NorragNews,42.Retrievedfromhttp://www.norrag.org/issues/42/en/a-safari-towards-aid-effectiveness.html.

King,K.(2009,June)MoyoonaideffectivenessandChinainAfrica,NorragNews42(SpecialIssue),7-13.Retrievedfromhttp://www.norrag.org/issues/42/en/a-safari-towards-aid-effectiveness.html.

Klees,S.(2008a).Aquartercenturyofneoliberalthinkingineducation:Misleadinganalysesandfailedpolicies.Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation,6(4),311-348.

Klees,S.(2008b).Reflectionsontheory,method,andpracticeincomparativeandinternationaleducation.ComparativeEducationReview,52(3),301-328.

Klees,S.(2002).WorldBankeducationpolicy:Newrhetoric,oldideology.InternationalJournalofEducationalDevelopment,22,451-474.

Klees, S.,Winthrop,R.,&Adams,A. (2010).Manypaths to universal primary education:Time to



replace the indicative frameworkwith a real country-driven approach. (Brookings InstitutionPolicyBriefs,GlobalViewsNo.13).WashingtonDC:CenterforUniversalEducation.

Knack,S.,&Rahman,A.(2008).Donorfragmentation.InW.Easterly(Ed.),Reinventingforeignaid(p.333-348).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Marphatia,A.,Moussie,R.,Ainger,A.,&Archer,D.(2007).Confrontingthecontradictions:TheIMF,wagebillcaps,andthecaseforteachers.London:ActionAid.

McLaren,P.,&Kincheloe,J.(Eds.)(2007).Criticalpedagogy:Wherearewenow?NewYork:PeterLang.

Mertens,D.(2004).Researchmethodsineducationandpsychology:IntegratingdiversitywithquantitativeandqualitativeApproaches(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.


OxfamInternational.(2010).Rescuingeducationforall:Howreformofthefasttrackinitiativeshouldleadtoaglobalfundforeducation.Washington,DC:OxfamInternational.

Radelet,S.(2006).Aprimeronforeignaid.(WorkingPaperNumber92).Washington,DC:CenterforGlobalDevelopment.


Rowden,R.(2010)Thedeadlyideasofneoliberalism:HowtheIMFhasunderminedpublichealthandthefightagainstAIDS.London:Zed

Sachs,J.(2005).Theendofpoverty:Economicpossibilitiesforourtime.NewYork:Penguin.

Samoff,J.(2009).Thefasttracktoplanneddependence:EducationaidtoAfrica.PaperpresentedattheInternationalPoliticalScienceAssociationXXIWorldCongress,Santiago,Chile,12-16July.

SperlingG. (2009). A global education fund: Towards a true global compact on universal education.Washington,DC:CenterforUniversalEducation.

Stiglitz,J.(2009,July).WallStreet’stoxicmessage.VanityFair.

UNESCO. (2010).Education forallglobalmonitoringreport2010:Reaching themarginalized.Paris:UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2009). Education for all global monitoring report 2009: Overcoming inequality. Paris:UNESCO.

UN Millennium Project. (2006). Cost and benefits of the mdgs. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/costs_benefits2.htm.

Waisbord,S.(2008,November1).Areinternationalaidandcommunityparticipationinevitably


S.Klees

atodds?TheCommunicationInitiativeNetwork.Retrievedfromhttp://www.comminit.com/en/print.

Watkins,K.(2009,June).MissingthepointwithMoyo.NorragNews,42,19-22.Retrievedfromhttp://www.norrag.org/issues/article/1196/en/missing-the-point-with-moyo.html.


AllRightsReserved.


Responses

The Ignorant Donor: A Radical Reimagination of International Aid,

Development, and Education

William C. Brehm1

ThisLifeCambodiaIveta Silova1LehighUniversity

The logic behind international aid to development has typically centered on economics.Notwithstandingthevariationinfocus–frommacroeconomicmonetaryandtradepolicies,

toeconomicwealthprogramsaimedatcreatingjobs,tosupply-anddemand-sidereforms–thecentraldiscourseoninternationalaidhasbeendominatedbyapoliticaleconomist’sviewpoint.StevenKlees’article,“Aid,Development,andEducation”continuestouseaneconomicperspectiveby challenging some of the neoliberal economic assumptions made within the developmentindustrysincethe1970s.2Heoffersarefreshingprogressivealternativetothedominantneoliberalagendaanditsinstitutions.Hisinitialquestion–hassuchaidhelped?–hasaclearanswerinalloftheliteraturehereviews:no,aidhasnotbeenaseffectiveas itcouldhavebeen.Buthiscall for a “new architecture” of international development derives from “old” foundations,reinforcingtheestablishedpillarsoftheeconomicdevelopmentcontinuum–neoliberal,liberal,andprogressive.Willaprogressivedevelopmentarchitectureproduceadifferentoutcomethanthatof(neo)liberalismwithoutrebuildingthephilosophicalfoundationsofinternationalaid?Isareimaginationofinternationalaidalongradicallynewphilosophicallinespossible?Ifso,whatwoulditlooklike?

Asthedevelopmentindustryisbecomingincreasinglyinstitutionalizedasascience,business,andfashion–afterall,anyone(fromWesternacademicstoStarbuckscustomerstocelebrities)cannowbecomedevelopment“experts”–wewouldliketochallengetheveryfoundationonwhich the contemporary development architecture rests. Turning to an 18th-century Frenchteacher named Joseph Jacotot, who attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to reconceptualizeeducation as an “intellectual emancipation” by implicating teacher expertise in perpetuatinginequality,weponderthepossibilityofaradicalreimaginationofinternationalaidalongsimilarlines.InsteadofreinforcingtheedificeofWesterndevelopmentexpertise(seekingbetter“bestpractices,”identifyingmoreefficientdevelopmentmethods,ormobilizingadditionalresourcesforinternationalaid),perhapswhatwereallyneedisan“ignorantdonor”–adonorwhoentersthe development scenewithout the baggage of international aid politics and the concerns ofeconomicprogress;whoassumesanequalityof intelligence inall stakeholders;andwhoseesempowerment, participation, and education as the ends in the process of international (andnational)aid.

On Expertise and Ignorance in International DevelopmentAttheendofthe18thcenturyduringtheprehistoryofmassschooling,Jacototdiscoveredastyleofteachingbasedonemancipationcalledpanecastic.3InTheIgnorantSchoolmaster,Rancière(1991)recountsthestoryofJacotot,whocametotherealizationthatexplicationstultifieseducationbycurtailingtheindependentlearningstudentsareabletoaccomplishontheirown.KnowingnoFlemish,JacototrealizedthathecouldsuccessfullyteachFlemishstudentswhodidnotknowany


W.BrehmandI.Silova

Frenchthroughtheuseofatranslatedbook:

To prevent stultification theremust be something between themaster and thestudent.Thesamethingwhichlinksthemmustseparatethem.Jacototpositedthebookasthatin-betweenthing.Thebookisthatmaterialthing,foreigntoboththemasterandthestudent,wheretheycanverifywhatthestudenthasseen,whathehastoldaboutit,whathethinksofwhathehastold.(Rancière,2004,p.7)

Purposefully unaware of teaching methods and pedagogy, an ignorant schoolmaster could“teach”anythingtoanybodybyencouragingstudentstosee,totell,andtoverify:“[Theteacher]hadonlygiven[thestudents]theordertopassthroughaforestwhoseopeningsandclearingshehimselfhadnotdiscovered.Necessityhadconstrainedhimtoleavehisintelligenceentirelyout of the picture” (Rancière, 1991, p. 9). Instead of worshipping an intellectual hierarchyinstitutionalizedinmassschooling,Jacototproposedamethodofintellectualemancipationbasedontheprinciplethatallhumanshaveequalintelligence,caninstructthemselves,andeverythingisineverything.4Universalteachingshatteredthe“pedagogicalmyth”claimingthat“thereisaninferiorintelligenceandasuperiorone”wherethe“superiorintelligenceknowsthingsbyreason,proceedsbymethod,fromthesimpletothecomplex,fromtheparttothewhole”(Rancière,1991,p.7).Viewingeducationastheactofemancipation,Jacototbelievedtheequalityofintelligencewastheonlystartingpointforanyeducationalexperience.Thepowerofeducationwasthereforenotinhisabilitytocontrolthedistancebetweenstudentandteacher’sknowledgebutratherinateacher’signoranceofhisownintelligenceduringtheveryactofteaching.

While the lessonsof Jacotot receivedabriefflurryofattentionat theendof the18thcentury,theyquicklyfellintooblivionaseducationbecameinstitutionalizedintheformofmodernmassschooling(Ross,1991).MassschoolingbecametheantithesisofJacotot’srevolutionaryideasastoday’seducationalrhetoricattestswithitsrelentlessinsistenceonstandards(for“bestpractice”),achievement(ofminimumintelligence),andaccountability(forproceduralequality,amongotherthings).Builtaroundthe19thcenturymythof“progress,”educationalinstitutionshaveforcefullydisplacedthenotionofequalityofintelligencewhilemaintaining“oldintellectualhierarchies”(Rancière,1991,p.109)throughthedivisionoftheworldintotheknowingandtheignorant,theenlightened and theuninformed, thedeveloped and thedeveloping.These “partitions of thesensible”are“allegoriesofinequality”(Rancière,2004,p.6)wherebymassschoolingreinscribesanendlessdependencyoflearnerson“expert”knowledgeandperpetuatesthegapbetweentheknowledgeableandtheunintelligent.

The presupposition of the inequality of intelligence has penetrated not only modern massschoolingbutalsointernationaldevelopmentefforts.Notwithstandingthedifferentapproaches(whether neoliberal, liberal, or progressive), the development industry continues to placepeople, organizations, and countrieswith power at a (perceived) higher intellectual positionthanthoseonthereceivingend.Moreimportantly,themechanismsofpowerinstitutionalizingthe inequality of intelligence in internationaldevelopment are becoming increasingly refined,polished,andnormalized.AsEscobar(1998)explains,“theformsofpowerthathaveappearedactnotsomuchbyrepressionasbynormalization;notbyignorancebutbycontrolledknowledge;not by humanitarian concern but by the bureaucratization of social action” (p. 92). In thiscontext,equalitywillneverbepossible:“Neverwillthestudentcatchupwiththemaster,northepeoplewithitsenlightenedelite;butthehopeofgettingtheremakesthemadvancealongthe good road…” (Rancière, 1991, p. 120). In the context of international development, neverwillthe“developing”nationscatchupwiththe“developed,”theRestwiththeWest.Itisthis


TheIgnorantDonor

foundationalassumptionoftoday’sinternationaldevelopmentframework–thepresuppositionof the inequality of intelligence – that needs to be dismantled beforemaking any attempt atbuilding“anewarchitecture”ofinternationaldevelopmentandaid.

New Architecture, Old Foundation ThedevelopmentcontinuumoutlinedbyKleesprovidesusefulinsightsintothedifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthedominantparadigmsofinternationalaid.Ononeendofthecontinuum,developmentexpertsseemarketsolutionsasmoreeffectivethangovernmentinterventions,asinDichter,Easterly,andMoyo’sneoliberalreconceptualizationsofaid.Inthemiddleareliberal(withprogressivetendencies)expertslikeEllerman,Riddell,andSachswhocallforincreasingthescopeandimprovingtheeffectivenessofaiddeliverytothose inneed;whorecognizethecomplexityandlopsidednessofdonor-doneerelationships;andwhoadvocateforahumanrightsapproachtoaid.Ontheotherendofthecontinuum,Kleesproposesabroadlydefinedapproachfocusedprimarilyon“equitybeforegrowth”–the1970sideaproposingaglobalredistributionofwealth towards the needs of the disadvantaged. Equity before growth, combinedwith anincreaseintotalOfficialDevelopmentAssistance(comparableinsizetotheMarshallplan)andtheeliminationoftheWorldBankandtheInternationalMonetaryFund,areKlees’broadoutlinesforanewparadigm.Basedona“participatoryprocess”ofagreeduponpriorities(e.g.,impactthepoor,emphasizegender,gotoscale,andconsidertheenvironment),Klees’progressiveparadigmofinternationaldevelopmentwouldnotrequiremoreresearchbutmoreactionto“makethe21stcenturythefirstonethatisjustandhumane.”

Klees’argumentforaprogressiveparadigmofdevelopmentassistanceappearstoreflectradicalideas;.Afterall,theverynotionofredistributingwealthwouldmakemostconservativesintheUScringe.CitingJoelSamoff(2009),Klees(2010)agreesthattheaidsystem“isinfactworkingverywell.Itsessentialroleisnottoachievepubliclystatedobjectivesbutrathertomaintainaglobalpolitical economyof inequality” (p. 16). Inequality is a result of neoliberal ideas –notprogressive ideas – the logic goes. But howwould inequalitynot bepresent in a progressiveparadigm?Kleesdoesnot–andprobablycannot–provideananswer,butratherpointsouttheliberal-progressive’semphasisonahumanrightsframeworkandtheneedforacriticalpedagogyperspectiveineducationreform.Whilethecontributionsofcriticalpedagogyareundeniable(mostimportantly,itenrichededucationpolicyandpracticebyintroducingsuchpowerfulconceptsasideology,hiddencurriculum,andofficialknowledge),ithasnotsolvedtheproblemofinequality.Similartoconservativeeffortsofeducationreform,criticalpedagogycontinuestoseeinequalityas“ataken-for-granted,evenobviousstateofaffairstobeconfrontedbytherightmixturesofpoliciesandpraxis”(Friedrich,Jaastad&Popkewitz,2010,p.573).5Ironically,itisthisbeliefinthehumanabilitytomanageinequalitythatcreatessuchstarksimilaritiesbetweentheneoliberal,liberal,andprogressiveparadigms.

Whatremainsunchallenged(andwhatcloselyconnectstheneoliberal,liberal,andprogressiveparadigms)isthefoundationalbeliefin“progress,”anunrelentingassumptionthatinternationaldevelopment is linear, basedon rationality, andprogressing towards a “better”world for all.Kleeshimselfconfirmsthesesimilarities:“theseparadigmsaremorecontinuousandoverlappingthanmutuallyexclusive”(p.10).Indeed,neoliberals,liberals,andprogressivesmaydisagreeonwhatisthe“right”wayormethodtowardsabetterfuture,butallagreeabouttheoverallvision.Forexample,someargueforaradicalreductionorcompleteeliminationofinternationalaid(seeDichter,Easterly,Moyo),whileothersinsistonaradicalexpansionofaid(seeKlees,Riddell).Somemayprescribesupply-sidereforms(moreschools,teachers,andmaterials),whileothersfocusonthedemand-sidereforms(moreconditionalcashtransfers,vouchers,andstipends).Yet,theyall


W.BrehmandI.Silova

speakfromthesharedconceptualfoundationofWesternmodernity.Withacademicdegreesineconomicsordevelopment studies, these areworld-renownedexpertswhohave studied andworkedinthedevelopmentindustry.Theytherefore“know”theremedies–almostaperverseformofhumanalchemy–necessaryforsocietiestoprogresstowardsthearchetypalDevelopedWorld.Theycanevenmeasure(althoughmaydisagreeovermethodology)wherecountriesareonthislinearpathtoo.

Todisruptthelinearityofmodernity’sdevelopmentparadigmsandtodemystifytheir“charismaticpower of attraction” (Peet&Hartwick, 2009, p. 1), it is important to carefully examine someofthesharedassumptionsmadebyinternational“experts”acrossthedevelopmentcontinuumdescribedbyKlees.Forthepurposeof thisshortresponse,wewill focusontwoassumptionsthat seemtomost forcefullyentrench inequality incontemporarydevelopmentdiscourseandpractice.Theseare(1)thelogicofrescuethatguidesmostdevelopmenteffortsand(2)thefocuson education, empowerment, and participation as the means (not the ends) of internationaldevelopmentinitiativesaimedatachievingequality.Combined,theseunderlyingassumptionsnotonlymaintainthegapbetweenthoseinpowerandthoseinneed,butalsopostponeequalityindefinitely.

The logic of rescueThelogicofrescueisperhapsthemoststrikingmanifestationofthegapbetweentheknowledgeableand the unintelligent, the presuppositionmade by Jacotot’s “stultifyingmaster”: “themasterpresupposesthatwhatthestudentlearnsisthatsamethingaswhatheteacheshim”(Rancière,2004,p.7).Theteacherholdsknowledgestudentshaveyettolearn,andonlyatthecorrecttimewillthestultifyingmasterexplicatethisknowledgetotheunintelligent.Thisknowledgeistransmittedhomogeneously,withoutvariation.Butasstudentsprogressbylearningthemaster’sknowledge,itbecomesapparentthatthestudentwillneverknoweverythingthemasterdoes.Themastercontrolsknowledgeandhasthepowertodistributeitatwill.Internationalaidactsinasimilarfashion.Thegapbetweenthosewhoare“helping”andthosewhoare“helped”isnodifferentthanthe stultifyingmaster andhis students:helpers (development experts,development agencies,developedcountries,andordinarycitizens)presupposethat(1)helpisactuallyneeded;(2)theirapproachiscorrectforthesituation;(3)thepeoplereceivinghelpcannothelpthemselves;and(4)theirhelp(iffolloweddirectly)willresultinabetteroutcome.Inherentwithinthislogicofrescueareclearspatialdemarcationsanddistancesbetween“good”knowledge,“bad”knowledge,and“no”knowledge.Helperscontrolthe“good”knowledgeandseeitastheirresponsibilitytopassitontotheperceivedunintelligent.

Althoughthedivisionbetweenthosegivingandreceivinghelpisclear,developmentagenciesneverthelessspeakoftheireffortsasworkingtowardsequality.Thelogicofrescueisthusemployedtoclosethegapbetweentheknowledgeableandtheunintelligentinhopesofachievinguniversalequality.Yet,theverysuppressionofthisgapcreatesafalsesenseofequality(Rancière’snotionof“thegoodroad”),andonlyperpetuatesthefoundationalassumptionofinequalityofintelligence.Klees’notionof“compensatory legitimation”by“goodcops”whocomeupwithsolutions toinequality and“bad cops”whoquestion the legitimacyof theworldorder is anotherwayofmakingthesamepoint.EducationforAll(EFA)andtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs),forexample,arewaysofincludingeveryoneintheutopiaofequality.Itisthoughtthatthedistancebetweentheknowledgeableandtheunintelligentissuppressedwithinthisparadigm.Byusingnotionssimilar toPopkewitz’s (2008)abjection, itbecomesclear thatspeakingof inclusionbyreferencingonlythosewhoareexcludedreinforcestheinequalitythatthevariousinternational(andnational)campaignsforequalitytrytoremedy.Inotherwords,theveryattempttosuppress


TheIgnorantDonor

thedistancebetweentheknowledgeableandtheunintelligentinthenameofequalityperpetuatesinequality.

With the logic of rescue penetrating all layers of society (including development agencies,governments, and now ordinary citizens), the notion of “help” has become increasinglyindividualized.Everyoneisexpectedto“help”inonewayoranother–wemustbuyproduct(RED)™,wemustdonatetoHaitiviacellphone,wemustmaketheworld“abetterplace.”Fromaltruistichelptoobligatedhelptochichelp–helpinghastakenonmultipleforms,becomingattractive to an increasingly large audience of potential helpers. In away, suchmassificationof “help” has opened new opportunities for anyone (irrespective of geographic location,socioeconomicbackground,orpoliticalorientation)tobecomeinvolvedintheactof“helping,”thusstrengtheningthegapbetweenthe“helpers”andthoseinneedthroughacollectiveactionofrescue.As(RED)™proclaims,“Buy(RED)™,savelives.Itisassimpleasthat.”Inotherwords,anyonecannow“help”saveaperson’slifewhileshoppingatGAPorbuyingaStarbuckscoffee.Wearealsoassuredthatsmallactsof“help”arevalued.Wearenotexpectedtosavethewholeworld(at leastnotrightaway);wecanbeginbysaving“onechildata time,”“oneheartatatime,”“oneschoolata time,”or“onevillageata time”–allbybuyingonecoffeeata time.Byspinningtheactofhelpasmanageableandinternationalaidas“young,chic,andpossible”(Richey&Ponte,2008,p.711),suchanunprecedentedmassificationof“help”furthercementstheconceptofinequality–theverygapbetweenthosewhoknowandthosewhodonot–asthefoundationalassumptionoftheexistingdevelopmentpoliciesandpractices.

The means/ends of developmentThecontemporarydevelopmentparadigmseeseducation,participation,andempowermentasmeanstoanend,beittheeliminationofpoverty,thegrowthofaneconomy,ortheattainmentofpeace.Fromthisperspective,educationbecomesatoolthat,ifusedcorrectly,shouldleadtosomedesired(andpredetermined)outcome–educationforpeace(seeUNICEF,1999),educationfordemocracy(seetheUSCongress,2001),educationtoendpoverty(seeMDGgoal2),oreducationtofightterrorism(seeMortenson&Relin,2008).Thisconceptualizationisproblematicfortworeasons.First, it reduces theroleofeducationtoaverytechnicalprocess,whichcanbeeasilycontrolledandmanagedfor“better”outcomes.Itassumesthatequalitycouldbeachievedgiventherightcombinationofeducationpoliciesandpractices.AsRancière (1999)warns,however,this logic canonly lead tooneoutcome:“the integralpedagogizationof society– thegeneralinfantilizationoftheindividualsthatmakeitup”(p.133).Byextension,thefailuretoachieveequalityisblamedontheveryact(andsystem)ofeducationitself.Educationthereforebecomesascapegoatwhentheultimateend–achievingequality–isnotmet.

Second,andmoreimportantly,thedevelopmentparadigmviewsequalityasagoal,anendto“development.”Withinthisconceptualizationitbecomesclearthatthefoundationalassumptionofthecontemporarydevelopmentparadigmdoesnotcenteronequalityatall.Equality,rather,issomethingweallmustworktowards,mustachievethroughtherightcombinationofpoliciesandpractices.Withaphilosophicalstartingpointofinequality(whichissharedbyneoliberal,liberal,andprogressivedevelopmentparadigmsalike),itisnotsurprisingthatinequalitycontinuestopersist.Inotherwords,settingequalityasagoaldeniespeopletheabilitytoassumeanequalityof intelligenceandpracticeequalityonadailybasis.Ultimately,what isdone in thenameofequalityresults in thereproductionofsocialdependenciesandintellectualhierarchies (Biesta,


W.BrehmandI.Silova

2010,p.57).AsRancière(2004)explains:

Equalityisnotagoalthatgovernmentsandsocietiescouldsucceedinreaching.Toposeequalityasagoalistohanditovertothepedagoguesofprogress,whowiden endlessly thedistance theypromise that theywill abolish. Equality is apresupposition,aninitialaxiom–oritisnothing.(p.223)

Bynarrowlyviewingeducationasameanstoachieveothergoals,wethusfailtoperceiveitasavaluebyitself.Butwhatif“participation,”“education,”and“empowerment”becametheendsof thedevelopmentprocess?Andwhat if equalitywereviewedas the startingpoint (not thefinishline)ofanyeducationalreform?Whatanindividualwilldowitheducationandfreedomiscompletelyuptoher.Withtheseends,anewstartingpointemergessimilartoJocotot’s:thebeliefintheequalityofintelligenceinallpeople.Yetnowhereinthecontemporarydevelopmentpolicycirclesisthenotionofequalityofintelligencerecognized,supported,orrecommended,letalonefunded.Whatmatters,therefore,“isnotthatwearecommittedtoequality,democracy,andemancipation,buthowwearecommittedtotheseconceptsandhowweexpressandarticulatethiscommitment”(Biesta,2010,p.57).Equality,inotherwords,ispracticed–notachieved.

ConclusionThe threedominantdevelopmentparadigms (neoliberal, liberal, andprogressive)outlinedbyKleessupportthefoundationalassumptionofonegroupofpeopleknowingmorethananother.ThisassumptionofinequalityisnodifferentthanwhatJacototsawburgeoninginmassschoolinginthe18thcentury:theveryattemptsforequalityineducationwere–andcontinuetobe–rootedinprofoundideologiesofinequality.Insteadofbuilding“anewarchitecture”ontheoldfoundationofWesternmodernity,perhapsitistimetosearchfornewphilosophicalstartingpointstohelpusthinkaboutinternationaldevelopment,aid,andeducation.Itisnotourjobinthisconclusiontocreateanewfoundation,butrathertobeginponderingthepossibilityofplacinganequalityofintelligenceasthecentralassumptionwithininternationaldevelopment.Byescapingthelogicofrescueandflippingthemeansandtheendsofdevelopment,wecanbegintoimaginenewwaysofconceptualizingaid.

Aparadigmbasedontheconceptofequalityofintelligenceallowsustoreimaginetheverynotionofequality.AsJacototrealizedinhis18th-centuryclassroom,“equalityisnotgiven,norisitclaimed;itispracticed,itisverified”(Rancière,1991,p.137).Thethreedominantdevelopmentparadigmssee internationaldevelopmentpractitioners (governments,NGOs, internationalorganizations,and,increasingly,ordinarycitizens)givingequality–theveryepitomeofinequalitybecauseofthepowerrelationsinherentintheideaof“giving.”Thenotionof“handingouteducation”to“onechildatatime”becomesanachronisminthisnewparadigm.Toworktowardsequality,thestultifyingdonorsofthepresentwillhavetolearntobeignorant.

Theignorantdonorwillignorethegapbetweenthepresupposedintelligenceofthepoorandthatoftherichandletthepoorandvulnerable“passthroughaforestwhoseopeningsandclearingshehimselfhadnotdiscovered,”fortheignorantdonorisnotpoororvulnerable.Themethodofpassingthroughthisforestandwhatisactuallylearnedintheprocessofpassingwillnotbeofconcerntotheignorantdonoreither.Whyfearthatdevelopmentmaybecomea“chaotic,strictlylocallydeterminedphenomenon”(Klees,2010,p.21)?Whynotrespectthedecisionsmadelocallyandrepositionresponsibilityforre-envisioningone’sfuture?Whatiftheendissimplycreatingthecircumstancesfora“childinneed”topass,nomatterwhathappensafterwards?Assuminganequalityofintelligenceasastartingpointofinternationaldevelopmentwouldthusrequire


TheIgnorantDonor

thedonorofyoretorelinquishcontrolofthedevelopmentindustry’sstultifyinglogicandinsteadpracticeequality,embracingtheunpredictable,uncertain,anddiverseoutcomesinevitableintheprocess.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Hugh McLean for introducing us to the Ignorant Schoolmaster. Ourconversationsabouttheimplicationsoftradingshort-termsuccessforlong-terminequalityhavehelpedusseeandarticulatenewphilosophicalpossibilitiesindevelopment,aid,andeducation.

Endnotes1. BothauthorsorganizedtheCIESNortheastRegionalConferenceheldatLehighUniversityin

October2009whereStevenKleesfirstdeliveredthepaperunderexaminationinthisspecialissueofCICE.

2. WewilllimitourresponsetoKlees’timeline,developmentaidsincethelate1970s,ormorebroadly defined as the Ronald Reagan-Margaret Thatcher era; however, the pointsmadewithinthispapercanextendtotheearlierperiodofpost-WorldWarIIreconstruction.

3. PanecasticstemsfromtheFrenchwordpanécastique,meaning“everythingineach.”4. Panecasticism,oruniversalteaching,movedtowardstheempowermentofpeoplethrough

theirabilitytotakeknowledgeandpracticeequality–notreceivethembyphilosopher-kingswhoexplicatedinfrontofclassrooms.Thecentralquestionforuniversalteachingwas“whatdoyouthinkaboutit?”Studentsthereforeweregiventheopportunitytosee,compare,reflect,imitate,try,andcorrect–bythemselves.

5. For amore elaborate critique of the relationship between equality/inequality and criticalpedagogy,seeFriedrich,Jaastad&Popkewitz(2010)andBiesta(2010).

References Biesta,G.(2010).Anewlogicofemancipation:ThemethodologyofJacquesRancière.EducationalTheory,60(1),39-59.

Escobar,A.(1998).Themakingandunmakingofthethirdworldthroughdevelopment.InM.Rahnema&V.Bawtree(Eds.),Thepost-developmentreader(pp.85-93).LondonandNewJersey:ZedBooks.

Friedrich,D.,Jaastad,B.,&Popkewitz,T.S.(2010).Democraticeducation:An(im)possibilitythatyetremainstocome.EducationalPhilosophyandTheory,42(5-6),571-587.

Mortenson,G.&Relin,D.O.(2008).Threecupsoftea:Oneman’smissiontopromotepeaceoneschoolatatime.St.Louis:SanVal.

Peet,R.&Hartwick,E. (2009).Theoriesofdevelopment:Contentions,arguments,alternatives.NewYork:GuilfordPress.

Popkewitz,T.S.(2008).Cosmopolitanismandtheageofschoolreform:Science,education,andmakingsocietybymakingthechild.NewYork:Routledge.

Rancière,J.(2004).Thepoliticsofaesthetics.London:Continuum.


W.BrehmandI.Silova

Rancière,J.(1991).Theignorantschoolmaster:Fivelessonsinintellectualemancipation.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Ross,K.(1991).Translator’sintroduction.InJ.Rancière,Theignorantschoolmaster:Fivelessonsinintellectualemancipation(pp.vii-xxiii).Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

UNICEF.(1999).PeaceeducationinUNICEF[WorkingPaper].NewYork:UNICEF.Retrievedfromhttp://www.unicef.org/education/files/PeaceEducation.pdf.

UnitedStatesCongress. (2001,February28).Education fordemocracy act.Washington,DC:TheUnitesStatesCongress.


AllRightsReserved.


Improving Aid Effectiveness or Transforming the Global Capitalist System

Mark GinsburgGlobalEducationCenter,AcademyforEducationalDevelopmentInternationalEducationalPolicyProgram,UniversityofMaryland

Intheintroductiontohisarticle,“Aid,Development,andEducation,”Klees(2010)posesthequestion,hasthe“hundredsofbillionsofdollarsininternationalaid…loanedto[orotherwisetargeted to “assist”] developing countries through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms …helped?” (p. 6).He then posits the question to be “too complicated to bewell specified” forempirical study, in part because “there are amyriad of interactive factors that affect povertyandeconomicgrowthbesidesaid”and“internationalaidservesmany[other]purposes.”Afterreviewingasetofrecentbooksonaid(Dichter,2003;Easterly,2008;Moyo,2009;Riddell,2007)framedmainlybyauthorssubscribingtoaneoliberalcapitalistperspective,Kleesconcludesbystatingthat“thebestanyonecansayisthatthesituationcouldhavebeenalotworsethanitisnowwithoutaid.”Ironically,though,thisconclusionmayapplyto:a)thequalityoflifeforallhumanbeingsand/orb) the compensatory legitimation (Weiler, 1988)of theworldeconomicsystemandnationalpoliticaleconomies.

IbasicallyagreewithKlees’analysisof the issuesandhiscriticalreviewof theseassessmentsof aid.However, Iwould take the critique further andpromote amore radical – and, inmyview,morehumane–agendaforchange.Tobeginwith,Iwouldproblematize“development”muchmorethanKleesdoes.Althoughthequestionheposed(above)isframedaroundtheterm“aid,”he appropriately includes the term“development” in the title of his article, given thatmostofthefocusisonoverseasorforeigndevelopmentassistance.KleesdoesreferenceFrank’s(1967)criticalanalysisoftheglobaleconomicsystem,butrefrainsfromnamingthesystem(Yates,2003),1 let alone calling for a transformation of global capitalist relations (e.g., Skocpol, 1977;Wallerstein,1984).Instead,hisargumentcouldbe(mis)interpretedasclaimingthat“povertyandinequality”result from–andarebeingreproducedby–neoliberalism.2 IshareKlees’critiqueofneoliberalism,butwouldemphasizethatitisonlyoneofseveralideologies(andassociatedpoliciesandactions)which,historically,havebeenmarshaled(withsomesuccess)tomobilizesupport for and demobilize opposition to theworld capitalist system.3 Thus, inmy opinion,weneedtobeverycareful inusingtheterm“development,”giventhat itsmeaninghasbeencapturedwithinacapitalistframework.Onemightwanttotrytorescuethetermbyreferencingsocialdemocratic,socialist,eco-feminist,orsustainable,humanrights-baseddevelopment,butperhaps it isbetter tofocusourattentionandenergiesontransformingtheunjust“capitalist”worldsystem.4

Inbrief, capitalismrefers toamodeofproductiveandattendantsocial relations inwhich themeans of production are privately owned and theprofits derived from the sale of the goodsandservicesproducedareprivatelyaccumulated.FromaMarxistperspective,a fundamentalcontradiction of capitalism is that “althoughproduction is [increasingly] a social activity, theownershipandcontrolofthemeansofproductionareprivatelyconcentrated”(Ginsburg,1988,p.8;seealsoMaoTse-Tung,1971).Becausethelogicofcapitalismiscapitalaccumulation(i.e.,growthandconcentrationofcapitalviaincreasingprofitsorsurplusvalue),therearesystemicpressuresagainsttheneedsofthemajorityofpeoplebeingmet.Thisresultsfrom“therestrictions


M.Ginsburg

capitalismimposesontheindividualandsocialconsumptionoftheworkers...becausetheaimofcapitalistproductionistomaximisesurplusvalue,andthisnecessitateslimitingthegrowthofrealwages”(DemocraticSocialistPerspective,2006).

According toMarx (1875/1972, p. 388), there would be a quite different logic underpinningsocialist or communistproductive/social relations: “Fromeachaccording to [one’s] ability, toeachaccordingto[one’s]needs.”5Thislogicorethicalstance,ofcourse,isnotlimitedtoMarxism.Forexample,withinthe“ActsoftheApostles”intheNewTestament,itiswrittenthattheapostles“soldtheirpossessionsandgoodsanddistributedthemtoall,accordingasanyonehadneed”(Acts2:45).Morerecently,theU.N.DeclarationofHumanRights(1948)statesthateveryperson–“withoutdistinctionofanykind,suchasrace,color,sex,language,religion,politicalorotheropinion,nationalorsocialorigin,property,birthor…thepolitical,jurisdictionalorinternationalstatusof thecountryor territory towhichapersonbelongs” (Article2)–has therights to:a)“employment[with]…justandfavorableconditionsofwork…[and]remuneration”aswellasb)“astandardoflivingadequateforthehealthandwell-beingof[one]selfandof[one’s]family,includingfood,clothing,housingandmedicalcareandnecessarysocialservices”(Article25).6

Toillustrate,onecanconceiveofcapitalismasstructuredsimilarlytothegoalsandrulesoftheMiltonBradleyboardgame“Monopoly.”7Thegoal for individualplayers is toaccumulateasmuchproperty andother assets aspossible.Onewins thegamewhenotherplayershavenoassetsorgiveupbecausetheirchancesofacquiringassetsseemtoolimited.Therearenorulesthatrequiresharingresourcesorthebenefitsofsuch,thoughrulesdonotproscribeplayersfrommakingloansorevenoutrightcashtransfersorgrantstoeachother,sometimesdoneasanactofhumankindnessormerelytoprolongthegame.Inasense,thegamecanbesummarizedas“fromeachaccordingtoone’sability(orluck),toeachaccordingtoone’sgreed.”8

Howwouldthegame,whichIwillcall“Utopia,”bestructuredifitwerebasedonthelogicorethicreferencedabove:“fromeachaccordingtoone’sability,toeachaccordingtoone’sneeds?”Tostartwith,thegoalofthisgamewouldnotbetoaccumulatepropertyandotherassests(i.e.,capital),buttoidentifyandmobilizeallplayers’abilitiestoparticipatecollectivelyindeterminingtheneedsofvariouspeople(e.g.,basedonahumanrightsframework),todevelopthe“needed”kindsofgoods/servicesandpolicies,andtoengageinpracticesthatguaranteeanequitableandappropriate distribution of goods/services and realization of rights.Notice that in the gameof “Utopia,” meeting other players’ needs and insuring their rights would not be left to anafterthought,anactofkindness,oradesiretoprolongthegame.Instead,suchactionsconstitutethecore–thegoalsandrules–ofthegame.

Imaginehowthisgamemightbetranslatedintotherealworldofhumanaction.Pursuingthe“Utopian”gameoflifewouldentailworkingcollaboratively,butlikelyalsostrugglingtofocuslocal,national, andglobalpolitical, economic, andcultural systems todetermineand tomeethumanneeds.Inthisrealitysomeofwhatistermed“developmentassistance”or“aid”–helpingpeopletomeettheirneedsandrealizetheirrights–wouldbecomecoreactivitiesofthesystemrather than voluntary, supplementary, or compensatory actions when wealthy individuals,groups,ornationsweresoinclinedorthoughtsuchactionswereintheirbestinterest.Thatis,toreferenceatermFreire(1970)usedindiscussingthepaternalismofsocialwelfareprograms,wewoulddoawaywith“falsegenerosity.”

Another implication of thisUtopian version of human experience is that attentionwould befocusedontheprivatesector,notasamodelbutasasite foranalysisandstruggle– tofocus


ImprovingAidEffectivenessorTransformingtheGlobalCapitalistSystem

local,national,andmultinationalcorporateactivitysothatitwouldhelptomeethumanneedsand realizehuman rights.Oneofmy concerns about thedebates regarding aid effectiveness,includingthecontributionbyKlees,isthatcorporationsarenotincludedinthepicture.Kleesandothersnotethatasizeableproportionoftherelativelylimitedproportionofwealthycountries’GDPdevotedtoaidendsuppurchasinggoodsandservicesfromfor-profitandnon-profitentitiesinthesecountries.However,onealsoneedstoexaminehowtheeverydayactionsofmultinationalcorporations,forexample,reinforceorcontradictthestated“development”goalsofbilateralandmultilateral internationaldonororganizations.Thiswouldofferamorecomplexandaccuratepictureoftheworkingsoftheworldsystemthanisprovidedbyafocusongovernmentactionsonly.Attentiontomultinationalcorporateactivitymaybeespeciallyimportant,inthatatleastinthemid-1990sitwasestimatedthat“morethanaquarteroftheworld’seconomicactivity…stemsfromonlytwohundredcorporations,whileapproximatelyone-thirdofworldtradetakesplaceamongdifferentunitsofasingleglobalcompany”(Braun,1997,p.143).

Some readersmay thinkproposals for ‘socializing’ the responsibilityandbenefitof economicactivityaretooradicaltobeconsideredinthecurrentsituation.Ifso,thiswouldindicatethatneoliberal and other pro-capitalist ideologies are functioning well, foreclosing alternativediscourses, let alone actions. Such readers, however, might be interested to learn about tworecommendationsmadebyoneoftheneoliberaleconomistswhosebookKleesdiscussed.Inherprovocativelytitledvolume,DeadAid,Moyo(2009)callsforendingbilateralandmultilateralaidprogramsandbasicallysubjectingthoselivinginpoorcountriestothe“invisiblehand”(Smith,1776/1976)ofthemarket.Forinstance,shestatesthat“itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatthe…prescriptionsaremarket-based,sincenoeconomicideologyotherthanonerootedinthemovementofcapitalandcompetitionhassucceededingettingthegreaternumberofpeopleoutofpoverty,inthefastesttime”(Moyo,2009,p.145;emphasisadded).Whetheroneagreesornotwithherconclusion,however,itisinterestingthatshealsorecommendswhatIwouldtermsocializingtherisks,responsibilities,andbenefitsofa)individualstakingoutloansformicro-enterprisesandb)nationstakingoutloanstomoveontheir‘development’agendas.

LetmenowturntotherecommendationsthatKleesmakesinhisarticleinthisissueofCICE–bothinrelationtoaidanddevelopmentingeneralandwithreferencetoeducationmorespecifically:

• Muchmoremoneyisneeded.Iagree,buteffortsshouldbemadetotransformtheglobalpoliticaleconomicsystemsothathumanneedsandhumanrightsarethemainfocus,ratherthansomeproportionate compensatorymeasure.Moreover, thisappliesboth to funds thatnowflowthrough bilateral andmultilateral development assistance channels and to how economicenterprisesoperate.

• Disbursesomeofthatmoneydirectlytothepoor.Iagree,althoughitisimportanttochangethenatureofthe“game.”Asthoseofuswhohaveplayedinmarathonsessionsof“Monopoly”gamesknow,evenifallplayersstartoutwiththesameresourcesatthebeginningofeachgame,thegoalsandrulesofthegameleadtoaconclusion:a“winner”(withmostorallofthepropertyandotherassets)and“losers”(withzeroorlimitedpropertyandotherassets).I suspect that, although it would be an interesting experiment to annually (re)distributeresourcesequallytoallpeopleintheworld,underthecurrent“rulesofthegame,”bytheendofeachyeareveryone’sneedswouldnotbemetandeveryone’srightswouldnotberealized.

• Realandstrongparticipationshouldbethefundamentalbasis forgovernance. Iagree,butwouldaddthatsuchgovernanceshouldfocusontheeconomyaswellasthepolity.Asnoted,Iview


M.Ginsburg

collectivedecisionmakingascriticalinrelationtodeterminingandmeetingneeds.

• ReplacetheWorldBankandtheIMF.PerhapsitwouldbetoonaïvetoconsidertryingtotransformthesetwoBrettonWoodsinstitutionsaswellastheWorldTradeorganization,whichhasthepotential(becauseoftheGeneralAgreementonTradeofServices)toimpactmanyaspectsofhumanactivity,includingcultureandeducation(Ginsburgetal.,2005).Woulditbepossibletoenvision,letaloneaccomplish,atransformationofglobalinstitutions,whichwerenotonlymoredemocraticintheirfunctioningbutalsoprofoundlyfocusedonmeetinghumanneedsandrealizinghumanrights?

• There are development priorities thatmight be agreed upon.Although I am not proposingweapproachthesocialproblemsthatfacehumanityinacompensatory“aid”framework,IagreewithKleesthatweneedtofocusgovernment,NGO,andprivatesectoractivitysothatithasa(positive)impactonthepoor.Likely,someeducationalandotherassistancemaybeneededsothatthecurrentlymoreadvantagedpopulationsactivelyandeffectivelyengageinactionsthatsupport(anddonotcontradict)thegoalsofmeetinghumanneedsandrealizinghumanrights.9 Iwouldarguesimilarlyforemphasizinggender,givingattentiontotheneedsandrightsofgirlsaswellasboys,whilehelpingbothgendersdevelopcapacitiesandcommitmentsformeetingallpeople’sneeds.Ofcourse,IagreewithKleesthatweneedto“gotoscale,”butonglobalaswellasnationallevelsandinrelationtoactionsofgovernmentsandeconomicenterprises. I also agreewith Klees regarding the importance (not adequately articulatedabove)ofconsideringissuesregardingtheenvironmentaswellaspeaceandconflict,bothofwhichrelatedirectlytohumanneeds.

• Usehumanrightsasaframework.Assketchedabove,Iviewahumanrightsframeworkasanimportantstartingpoint(seealsoGinsburgetal.,2010).ThisincludesArticle26oftheUNDeclaration(UnitedNations,1948),whichgrantsto“allpeoplesandallnations”therighttofreeandcompulsory“education…atleastintheelementary…stage”aswellastheavailabilityandmerit-basedaccessto“technicalandprofessionaleducation…andhighereducation.”10HereIshouldnotethatalthoughIunderstandtheargumentsthatunderexistingarrangementshighereducationmayhavemoreprivate/individualthanpublicbenefits,Iwouldarguethatfundingforhighereducation,whichpreparesindividualstofunctioninasystemfocusedonmeetinghumanneedsandrealizinghumanrights (rather thanonan individual student’sfuturestatusandremuneration),raisesadifferentsetofissues.11

• Moreresearchisnotneeded.IshareKlees’viewthat“doingresearch”shouldnotbe“anotherexcuseforinaction,”butIbelievemoreactionresearchanddecision-orientedresearchwillbeneeded.Suchinquirywouldnotbedoneby“external”agentstoidentifytheproblem,butundertakenbylocal,national,andglobalactorsastheyseektoidentifyneedsandevaluate(inaformativesense)effortstomeettheneedsandrealizetherightsofallpeople.

Itmaytakeafewyears,Isayoptimistically,tochangethegame(includingitsgoalsandrules)from“Monopoly”capitalismtoasocialist,religious,orethical“Utopia.”IwishIcouldbeassanguineasKlees seems tobe that the 2008globalfinancial crisishaswipedaway the ideological andrepressiveapparatuses(seeAlthusser,1971)thathavetendedtolimitthoughtsandactionsaimedatfundamentallychangingtheglobaleconomicsystem.Whileclearlyasignificantdevelopment,thismostrecentcrisisisbutoneinalonghistoryofcrises.Moreover,thethoughtsandactionsofmillionsofpeoplewhoweresufferingeconomicallyandotherwisebefore2008aretestimonytothefactthatitmaytakemorethanexperiencingaproblemtobewillingandabletoidentifyand



worktofixitssource.AsYates(2003)comments:

The…viewthatworkers’consciousnesswill[necessarily]becomemoreradicalasaresultofeconomiccrisesprovidesaverymechanisticviewofpeople’sthoughtsand actions. Unemployment is as likely tomake people drink heavily or hatethemselves as it is to make them revolutionaries.A crisis might make peoplesusceptible toright-wingpropaganda,morewillingtobashimmigrantworkersthantoorganizewiththem.Itiswisetorememberthatthe1930sgaveusfascismaswellasradicalcommunism.(p.193)

Indeed, recent developments provide support for Yates’ analysis, while at the same timeemphasizingthatthecontradictionsofcapitalism–andthecrisesthatarisebecauseofthem–potentiallyprovidethespaceforrecognizingthesourceoftheproblem(capitalism)andjoiningwithotherstoconstructadifferentglobalpoliticaleconomy(Ginsburg,1988).However,thisdoesnot happen easily or automatically. Thepoint is not to sit aroundwaiting for radical changetohappen,but toengage insocialmovementsaswellasstruggles ineverydayworkand life(Ginsburg and Cooper, 1991). Thus, while some efforts should be directed in the short termto improve the effectivenessof “developmentaid,” even suchactions shouldbeanimatedbyconcernstoward–andafocuson–transformingtheglobalcapitalistsystem.

Endnotes1. AsYates(2003,p.33)observes,“oureconomicsystemisseldomcalledbyitspropername.

Wehearofthemarketeconomyorthefreeenterprisesystem,neitherofwhichtellsuswhatweneedtoknow.”

2. IdrawthisconclusionbasedonthewayKleesframeshisoverallargumentandbecauseheidentifies“neoliberalpolicies”asthefocusofthe“challenge[s]byindividuals,organizations,socialmovements,andleft-of-centergovernments.”Intermsofsuchchallenges,onemightinsteadframesucheffortsaschallengingglobalcapitalist relations (e.g., seeBrecheretal.,2000;DanaherandBurbach,2000).

3. Forsimilarreasons,IreinterpretHanfetal.’s(1975,p.68)conclusionthat“formaleducationinAfricaandAsiainitspresentformtendstoimpedeeconomicgrowthandpromotepoliticalinstability; in short, education inAfrica andAsia today is an obstacle to development.”Certainly,therewere–andstillare–problemswitheducationinAfricaandAsiaandotherregionsoftheworld,butweneedtounderstandtheseproblemsatleastinpartasresultingfromthe fact that theeducationsystemshavebeenconstructedwithin–andwithat leastsomeattentiontoservingthe‘needs’of–theglobalcapitalistsystem.

4. Here I should note,with caveats,my agreementwithWallerstein (1984, p. 35) that “therearetodaynosocialistsystemsintheworld-economyanymorethantherearefeudalsystemsbecausethereisonlyoneworldsystem.Itisaworld-economyanditisbydefinitioncapitalistinform.”Thisisnottosuggestthatnationalandsubnationalinitiativeswere–andare–beingundertaken to carveout some counter-hegemonic space, and that someof these efforts areinformedbyMarxistorsocialistideas/practices.

5. Inthesamewriting,Marx(1875/1972)indicatesthatundersocialismthedictumwouldlikelybedifferent,fromeachaccordingtoone’sability,toeachaccordingtoone’s“contribution.”

6. NotethatwemayneedtoreconsidersomeoftheeconomicrightsenshrinedinthisDeclaration,giventhattheyreflectacommitmentto,oratleastacompromisewith,capitalism.Forexample,Article17stipulatestherightto“ownpropertyaloneaswellasinassociationwithothers.”


M.Ginsburg

7. Adifferentconceptionofcapitalismisprovidedbyanotherboardgame,“ClassStruggle.”“Theobjectofthegameistowintherevolution…Untilthen,classes–representedbydifferentplayers–advancearoundtheboard,makingandbreakingalliances,andpickingupstrengthsandweaknessesthatdeterminetheoutcomeoftheelectionsandgeneralstrikeswhichoccuralongtheway”(Ollman,1978,p.1).

8. The radical economist Yates (2003, p. 161; emphasis added) explains that neoclassicaleconomists“claimtoshowthataneconomy[i.e.,capitalism]basedonself-interestwillbeonethatsatisfiessociety’smostpressingneedsanddoessobetter thanothersystems…[and]studieshaveshownthatstudentswhotakeacourseineconomics[normallymonopolizedbyneoclassicaleconomists’ideas]aremorelikelytobehaveselfishlythanthosewhohavenot.”

9. Inthissense,atleastduringatransitionawayfromtheexistingsystem,Freire’s(1970)ideasfora“pedagogyoftheoppressed”wouldlikelyneedtobecomplementedbyCurry-Stevens’(2004)proposalsfora“pedagogyfortheprivileged.”

10. In addition to education, and the economic rights referenced earlier, attention should begiventopolitical/civilrights (e.g.,nottobeing“subjectedtotortureortocruel, inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment”[Article5];“equalprotectionofthelaw”[Article7];“afairandpublichearingbyanindependentandimpartialtribunal”[Article10];“takepartinthegovernmentof[one’s]country,directlyorthroughfreelychosenrepresentatives”[Article23]) and social/cultural rights (e.g., “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” [Article18];“freedomofopinionandexpression…andtoseek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasthroughanymediaandregardlessoffrontiers”[Article19];“freelyparticipateintheculturallifeofthecommunity,…enjoythearts,and…shareinscientificadvancementanditsbenefits”[Article27]).

11. However,unless–anduntil–resourcesare(re)distributedonanannualbasistoallpeople,Ibelievethatsubsidiesforattendinghighereducationprogramsshouldbebasedonfinancialneed,withthepoorestbenefitingfromfreeorevencompensatedenrollment.

ReferencesAlthusser,L.(1971).Leninandphilosophyandotheressays.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.

Braun,D.(1997).Therichgetricher:TheriseofincomeinequalityintheUnitedStatesandtheworld.(2nded.)Chicago,IL:Nelson-HallPublishers.

Brecher, J., Costello, T., & Smith, B. (2000). Globalization from below: The power of solidarity.Cambridge,MA:SouthEndPress.

Curry-Stevens,A.(2004).Pedagogyfortheprivileged:Buildingcivicvirtuesinpoliticalleaders.Retrieved from at http://www.tlc.oise.utoronto.ca/conferences2003/Proceedings/Curry-Stevens.pdf.

Danaher,K.&Burbach,R.(2000).Globalizethis:ThebattleagainsttheWorldTradeOrganizationandcorporaterule.Monroe,ME:CommonCouragePress.

DemocraticSocialistPerspective (2006).The contradictions of capitalism.Retrieved fromhttp://www.dsp.org.au/node/31.

Dichter,T. (2003).Despitegood intentions:Whydevelopmentassistance to the thirdworldhas failed.Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.

Easterly,W.(Ed.).(2008).Reinventingforeignaid.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.



Freire,P.(1970).Pedagogyoftheoppressed.NewYork:SeaburyPress.

Ginsburg,M.(1988).Contradictionsinteachereducationandsociety.London:FalmerPress.

Ginsburg, M., & Cooper, S. (1991). Educational reform, the state, and the world economy:Understandingandengaginginideologicalandotherstruggles.InM.Ginsburg(Ed.),Understandingeducationalreforminglobalcontext:Economy,ideology,andthestate(pp.369-88).NewYork:Garland.

Ginsburg,M.,Espinoza,O.,Popa,S.,&Terano,M.(2005).GlobalizationandhighereducationinChileandRomania:TherolesoftheInternationalMonetaryFund,WorldBank,andWorldTradeOrganization.InJ.Zajda(Ed.),Internationalhandbookonglobalization,educationandpolicyresearch:Globalpedagogiesandpolicies.Secaucus,NJ:Springer.

Ginsburg, M., Pigozzi, M., & Moseley, S. (2010). Reforming education for transformation:Opportunitiesandchallenges.Development53(4),51-56.

Hanf,T.,Ammann,K.,Dias,P.,Fremerey,M.&Weiland,H.W.(1975).Education–anobstacletodevelopment?ReflectionsonthepoliticalfunctionofeducationinAsiaandAfrica.ComparativeEducationReview19(1),68-87.

Klees,S.(2010).Aid,development,andeducation.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation13(1),pp.6-26.

Mao,Tse-Tung(1971).SelectedreadingsfromtheworksofMaoTse-Tung.Beijing:ForeignLanguagePress.

Marx,K.(1972).CritiqueoftheGothaprogram.ReprintedinR.Tucker(Ed.),TheMarx-Engelsreader.NewYork:W.W.NortonCompany.(Originalpublishedin1875).

Moyo,D.(2009).Deadaid:WhyaidisnotworkandhowthereisabetterwayforAfrica.NewYork,NY:Farrar,Straus,andGiroux.

Ollman,B.(1978).Classstruggle:Fullrulesandsomestrategies.NewYork:ClassStruggle,Inc.

Riddell,R.(2007).Doesforeignaidreallywork?NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Skocpol, T. (1977). Wallerstein’s world capitalist system: A theoretical and historical critique.AmericanJournalofSociology,82(4),1075-1090.

Smith, A. (1776/1976).An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

UnitedNations(1948).UNdeclarationofhumanrights.NewYork:UnitedNations.

Wallerstein,E.(1984).Thecapitalistworld-economy.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Weiler,H.(1988).ThepoliticsofreformandnonreforminFrenchEducation.ComparativeEducationReview,32(3),251-65.

Yates,Michael(2003).Namingthesystem:Inequalityandworkintheglobaleconomy.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.


AllRightsReserved.


The Aid Debate: Beyond the Liberal/Conservative Divide

Sangeeta KamatUniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst

Towardstheendofthetwentiethcenturyasicknessstrucktheworld.Noteveryonedied,butallsufferedfromit.Theviruswhichcausedtheepidemicwascalledthe‘liberalvirus.’(Amin,2003,p.6)

InKlees’ reviewof recentworks that assesswhetherdevelopmenthas beenwell served, orservedatall,byinternationalaid,theassessmentisoverwhelminglypessimisticandinfavorofthemarketastheantidotetointernationalaid.ThreeofthebooksthatKleesreviews–Easterly(2006),Moyo(2009),andDichter(2009)–concludethatthemarketisamorepotentmechanismforalleviatingpovertyandensuringdevelopmentthanareaidinstitutions.Thesewritingsreflectthenormalizationoftheneoliberal logicthatendorsesamarketsolutiontoallsocio-economicissues and argues for private capital to stimulate economicdevelopment in theThirdWorld.Theunderlyingassumptionisthateconomicgrowthandprivateenterprisewillhavespillovereffectsonsociallifeandassureimprovementsinhealthandeducationindices,asortoflateralversionof the“trickledown”ofmodernization theory.While thisassumption isnotnewandrepresentsclassicliberalthinking,theneoliberallogicinsertsanadditionaltwistandendorsesprivateentrepreneurshipandquasi-marketbehaviorinsocialsectorsofeducationandhealthtosubstituteforstateandinternationalaidinvestments.

As Klees states at the outset, to find this view expressed by development experts is hardlysurprising.ToextendKlees’argumentabouttheascendancyoftheneoliberalperspectiveoverthelastthreedecades,Iwouldappendthreemomentsthathavebeeninstrumentalinmobilizingneoliberalismasthenew“commonsense”:i)thefallofcommuniststatesandthe“endofhistory”that anointed western “free market” ideology as the heir apparent of a new post-cold wargeopolitics;ii)thecapitulationofThirdWorldandpost-socialiststatestoneoliberalpolicyregimes;andiii)thesuccessofthe“neocon”propagandacampaignthatequatesmarketswithdemocracy.Kleesprovidesafaithfulreviewoftheperspectivesofthefiveauthorsandrightlysituatestheirworkasrepresentingoneoftwomaintheoretical/politicalframeworks:theneoliberalandtheliberal.Healsoidentifiesathirdpoliticalframework,theprogressive,withwhichheisalignedandthathefindsratherscarceinthescholarshiponinternationalaid.Inhisessay,Kleesdoesnotadequatelycompensateforthislacuna;asaresultwehaveamoreextensiveportrayaloftheneoliberalandliberalframeworksthatconstitutethemainstreamandarethereforemorewidelyavailabletostudentsofinternationalaidanddevelopment.Asinthescholarship,inKlees’essaytheprogressiveperspectiveisreferencedinverylimitedwaysandiseffectivelymarginalized.Indoingsotheessayfollowsotherworksonthistopicinmisleadingreaderstoconcludethattheprogressiveperspectiveisvirtuallyathingofthepast,orexistsasaresidualfringeelementamongdevelopmentscholars.1

Myinterestinthisessayistoextricatetheprogressiveperspective(asdefinedbyKlees)fromitsprematureburialandelaborateonprogressiveanalysisonthefutureofaidanddevelopment.Idothisbyfirstparsingtheverycategoryof“progressive”andcontendthatitstypicalusagewithinU.S.politicaldiscourseobfuscatesratherthanclarifiespoliticalanalysis. Ibuildonthis


TheAidDebate:BeyondtheLiberal/ConservativeDivide

pointtoarguethatthewaysinwhichthe“progressive”perspectiveiscircumscribedinKlees’essayandwithingeneralU.S.politicaldebaterulesoutleftradicalcritiquesofinternationalaidandthealternativesproposedfromwithinthisframework.Finally,Ioutlinesomerecentpolicyactionsandpeople’sstrugglesindifferentpartsoftheThirdWorldthatillustratealeftradicalperspectiveonaidanddevelopmentquitedistinctfromtheliberalprogressivecritiquesthatwehaveonthetablethusfar.

It shouldbeabundantlyclearbynowthatmyresponse isnotasanopponentofSteveKlees,ascholarwhoseworkinstructsandinspiresmyown,andacolleaguewhomIdeeplyrespect,admireandvalue.InfactthereisverylittleIdisagreewithintermsofthecontentofhisessay.Myconcerniswithwhatheexcludesandelidesthatunfortunatelyisnotspecifictohisessaybutreferstoamoregeneralconditionofpoliticaldebateinthiscountry.Myparticipationinthisdebateisasanally,thatis,asacolleaguewhosharesmembershipinthesameprogressivecampthatKleesidentifieswithinhisessay.Thusmycritiqueisnotdirectedattheneoliberalcamp,something thatKlees, Samoff, Stromquist,Arnove, andmany others in and outside our fieldhavedoneadmirably.Rather,Iwishtoengagemyfellow“progressives”whoeschewthemarketasasolutiontotheunrelentingpoverty,impoverishment,andmarginalizationofpeopleintheThirdWorldandwhoseekmorehumaneandefficacioussolutionstothesepressingdevelopmentissues.

Restating the Terms of the DebateThemainstayofmycritiqueisthemannerinwhichthecategoriesofconservative,liberal,andprogressivearedeployedasdistinctandoppositionalpositionsonaidanddevelopment,whenin actuality thesepositionsmay share a lot in commonandeven converge in their responsestospecificsituationsofinternationaldevelopmentassistance.ThecaseofU.S.interventionandaid inAfghanistan presents uswith a classic instance of the convergence among these threepositions.Alongwithneoconservatives,onefindsself-identifiedliberals,progressives,andleftistssupportingthewarandaideffortinAfghanistanindefenseofwomen’srightsanddemocracy.2Left theologianMcCarraher (2010) puts it succinctlywhen explainingwhy PresidentObamawaswidelyperceivedasprogressiveandeven,onoccasion,aleftistbytheU.S.electorateandintelligentsia:

Liberalism–orprogressivism, anutterlyemptyword thatmashes togethera lotof verydifferent tendencies on theLeft – is nowmore than ever the leftwingof capitalism, the same benediction of capitalist property relations but with arenovatedracialandsexualpolitics.(McCarraher,2010,italicsintheoriginal)

EarlyinhisessayKlees(2010)remarksthat“theseparadigmsaremorecontinuousandoverlappingthanmutuallyexclusive”(p.15),afeaturethatisnotpredeterminedornaturalbutneedstobehistoricized.Thetermprogressiveperformspreciselytheworkofallowingawideumbrella,underwhichdistinctstrandsoftheideologicalspectrumcangatherandclaimallegiancetonotionsofjustice,equality,anddemocracywhileremainingvagueaboutwhatexactlyeachofthesemeanandforwhom.Anironicpoliticsunfoldswherethetermprogressivemeans“somethingroughlyleftist,roughlyliberal,androughlyradical,allatthesametime”(Shah,2009).Shah(2009)explainstheuseofprogressiveinthisparticularwayas“uniquelyAmerican”andnotcommontootherpartsoftheworld.3

The term “progressive”makes it impossible to distinguish between liberal and left, and this


S.Kamat

confusionisevidentinKlees’essaywhenheconcludesthat“RiddellandEllermanproceedfromapredominantlyliberalperspective,althoughbothhavesomeprogressiveelements”(p.16).Thiselisionhas several troubling implications:first, itperpetuates the illusion that conservativismis theoppositeof liberalism;andsecond, it forcesa falserapportbetween liberalismandLeftpolitics. Inhermasterful critiqueof liberalism,Brown (2002) clarifies that“liberalism isnotapoliticalpositionopposite toconservatismbutapoliticalorder that replacesTudormonarchyrooted in explicit classprivilegewithmoderndemocratic constitutionalism rooted in abstractindividualism” (p. 5). Further, liberalism is contrary to Left politics in that the former has apotentially problematic relation to the question of distribution because of “the effects of thedepoliticized status of political economy in liberal orders” (Brown, 2002, p. 7). TheMarxianemphasis on the distribution of power and resources should be understood as distinct fromliberalism’semphasisonsocialequalityandtheequaldistributionofindividuals’rights.ItistheemphasisontheindividualinliberalismthatIhighlighthereasbeingdistinctfromtheMarxianemphasisonclasses,alongwiththedepoliticizationofpoliticaleconomy–twodistinctionsthatvanishwhenliberalismsubsumestheLeftunderthelabelofprogressivism.

BothRiddell’sDoesForeignAidWork? andEllerman’sHelpingPeopleHelpThemselves aregoodexamples ofwhat separates liberal analysis from left radical analysis. For reasons of space, Iwill discussEllerman to illustratemy case. Ellerman’suse of the categories of “helpers” and“doers” invitesus to imagineafictionalworldof“do-gooders” (helpers inhis language)andenterprisingpoorindividuals(doers)thattheinvisiblehandofdemocracywillbringtogether.Heredevelopmentisenvisionedalmostasamarketplacethatbringstogetherhelpersanddoersinsomekindofnaturalconfluence.Throughtheuseofapoliticalcategoriessuchas“helpers”and “doers,” Ellerman presents us with a liberal populist fantasy where structures, classes,institutions,andhistoricalpowerrelationsmeltaway. Inotherwords,Ellerman’s formulationdepictsthedepoliticizedpoliticaleconomythatisfoundationaltoliberalpoliticalthought(seeBrown,2002).Moreover,Ellerman’sliberalconceptionisnotverydifferentfromEasterly’smoreexplicitneoliberalrecommendationthat“[A]gentsofassistancehavetohaveincentivestosearchforwhatworkstohelpthepoor”(Easterly,2006,p.382).Thisisanotherinstanceofdemocracyconstruedasamarketwhereagents(or“helpers”)canbeincentivizedtoworkforthebenefitofthepoor.Bothauthorsseektotranscendtherealitiesofinternationalpoliticaleconomybycallingfordirectrelationsbetween“developers”andthe“poor”mediatedbymarketrulesofdemandandsupplyorindividualgoodwill.4

Changewithin the liberalperspective turnsout tobewhatEagleton (2003) calls “thepresentplusmoreoptions”(p.7).RiddellandEllerman’srecommendationsfallwithinthisambitintheircallsforgreater“involvementandparticipationofrecipientsindecisions,”“transparentcriteria,”“alternative distributionmechanisms,” “improvements in coordination,” “codes of conduct,”and “incrementalism and self-help,” even as they warn us that many of the present policyreformsechoexactlytheseobjectivesbutaccomplishverylittlebywayofrealchange.Directcashtransfersadvocatedasaprogressivemeasuremayprovidesomesuccortopoorhouseholds,butthesetoo,Iargue,arenotdirectedtowardsnurturingaleftradicalpoliticsandarepartofaliberalframeworkofdistributinglargessetoindividualhouseholds.Directcashtransfersconstruethepoorprimarilyas consumers inamarket economywhosepovertymaybeeasedbyallowingforslightlybetteraccesstothemarket.Insofarasdevelopmentandwell-beingaretiedtoanindividual’sparticipation in themarket, integratingpoorpeople into thedominantneoliberalcapitalisteconomyisapredeterminedoutcomeofsuchschemes.Inotherwords,thetermsofthe(neo)liberaleconomyarenotcontested;rather,thedemandisforashareofitsprovisions.5Directcashtransfersfindingfavoramongprogressivesisindicativeofliberalismconstitutingtheouter



limitsofprogressivepoliticsinthiscountry,adistinctiononceagainclarifiedbyBrown(2003):

Indeed,muchoftheprogressivepoliticalagendainrecentyearshasbeenconcernednotwithdemocratizingpowerbutwithdistributinggoods,andespeciallywithpressuring the state to buttress the rights and increase the entitlements of thesocially vulnerable or disadvantaged: people of color, homosexuals, women,endangeredanimalspecies,threatenedwetlands,ancientforests,thesick,andthehomeless.(ascitedinShah,2009)

Myargumentthusfarhasbeentoshowhowtheterm“progressive”concedesgroundtoliberalandneoliberalperspectivesandrenderstheradicalleftperspectiveunintelligibleandambiguous,andperhapsevenout-datedandirrelevant.Assimilatingtheleftwithintheprogressiveexemptsus fromengagingwith the leftpositionasadistinct, substantial,andpromisingway forwardonissuesofaidanddevelopment.Bywayofconclusion,Ibrieflyoutlinetheperspectivesandanalysisonaidanddevelopmentfromaradicalleftperspectivethatarepartofthecontemporarypoliticalscenario.

Toward a Left Radical Critique of International AidThereareseveralreferencesscatteredthroughKlees’essaythatspeakofaleftradicalpositiononaid.Inparticular,heagreeswithSamoff(2009)thattheaidsystem’s“essentialroleisnottoachievepubliclystatedobjectivesbutrathertomaintainaglobalpoliticaleconomyofinequality”(quoted inKlees, 2010,p. 16).To counteract the structural inequities securedby internationalaid,Kleescallsforatransformativepoliticsthatisrootedin“widespreadcollectiveaction”(p.16).Icouldnotagreemore,thoughIbelievehisrecommendationsIbelieveremainfaithfultoaliberalperspectiveonaidanddevelopmentanddonotarticulatea transformativepolitics.ToeachofKlees’fourrecommendationsIwouldattachthefollowingcaveatsthatofferadistinctlyleftradicalperspectiveonaidanddevelopment.Noneoftheseareofcourseexhaustiveofaleftradicalpolitics,butaremeantmerelytoillustratethedistancebetweenaliberalperspectiveandaleftradicalperspective.

1. Debtcancellationandreparations:Inadditiontomoreaid,weneedtosupportpoliticalcampaignsthatcallfordebtcancellationandaboycottoftheforeigndebtthatiscrushingThirdWorldeconomies.Themostrecentsuchcall forunconditionaldebtcancellationhascomefromanationalallianceofpoliticalparties,tradeunions,andNGOsinPakistanthatopposemoreaidastheanswertoPakistan’seconomicandhumanitariancrisis.ThenationalcampaignthatheldmassralliesinthemajorcitiesofPakistaninSeptemberthisyearalsodemandedthatthegovernmentrefuseanyfurtherloansandonlyacceptgrantsforinfrastructurebuilding

FollowingtheJanuary2010earthquakeinHaiti,therehavebeensimilarcallsforHaiti’sdebttobecancelled.A2004WorldBank/IMFstudyfoundthatincountriesreceivingdebtrelief,povertyreductioninitiativesdoubledbetween1999and2004.Tocitebutafewexamplesfromthereport,Tanzaniausedsavingstoeliminateschoolfees,hiremoreteachers,andbuildmoreschools,BurkinaFasodrasticallyreducedthecostoflife-savingdrugsandincreasedaccesstocleanwater,andUgandamorethandoubledschoolenrollment(seejubileeusa.org).

2. Right to livelihood: Instead of channeling cash directly to poor households, conditionalor otherwise, states need to institute a national policy that guarantees livelihood andemploymenttopoorhouseholds.In2005,undertheconstitutionaldirectiveoftheRightto


S.Kamat

Work,6theNationalRuralEmploymentGuaranteeActwasenactedaslawthatentitleseveryruralhouseholdaminimumof100daysofemploymentayearatstatutoryminimumwages.ThedetailsoftheActwereformulatedinconsultationwithsocialmovementorganizationsanddevelopment economistswho inserted terms such as “meaningful employment” and“communitydevelopmentworks”aspartoftheAct.CoupledwiththeRighttoInformationAct and social audits where locals examine state allocations and expenditures for ruraldevelopment programs in their areas, the national employment program has facilitatedcollectiveactionwhere locals identifyareasofvillagedevelopmentonwhichtoworkandreceivepublicremunerationforthese.7

Incontrast,directcashtransferscontinuetoprivilegethemarketandindividualresponsibility,that is,risk isuponthe individualbeneficiarytomakebestuseof thismeagerresource. Itdoesnotentailstateprovisionfordevelopmentworks,nordoesitfostercollectiveaction.ItisthereforenotsurprisingthatMoyo,aneoliberaleconomistwouldenthusiasticallyendorseconditionalcashtransfers.Weliveunderconditionsofpredatorycapitalismthatsanctions“accumulationbydispossession”wherethepoorareincreasinglydisposablelaborandcanbeexpungedfromtheeconomy.Theprofitabilityofnaturalresourcessuchasminerals,oil,waterandlandareinfinitelygreater,arealitythatislivedbymanyinAfrica,theMiddleEastandAsia.Whenthematerialbasisforadecentlivelihoodandalifeofdignityceasetoexist,towhatendswouldthepoorutilize theircashbenefits?AnationalpublicworksprogramliketheoneIdescribeaboveaimstoprovidestableincomestopoorhouseholdsandgeneratecollectiveactionondevelopment.

3. Socialmovements:Participation,Iagree,isbasictodemocraticgovernance,buthereagainKleesleavesoutmentionofsocialmovementsthatareessentialtobuildingrobustdemocracies.Thestate or other institutionsofdevelopment are siteswhere thepoor can contest and shapedevelopmentperspectivesonlyonthebasisofstronganddynamicsocialmovements thatinclude labor unions and other mass organizations. Klees recognizes that participationprescribedbyofficialaidinstitutionsismostofteninstrumentalandsuperficial.Itisunclearhoweverhow“realandstrongparticipation”ingovernancecanberealizedwithoutsupportforsocialmovementsandmovementorganizations.Socialmovementsandpeople’sorganizationsaretheonlyviablemechanismsthroughwhichpoliticalparticipationcanbemobilizedandarenecessaryelementsforasubstantivedemocracy.WhetheritistheinternationalCampaignfortheAbolitionofThirdWorldDebt,theNationalRuralEmploymentGuaranteeProgramin India, or Citizen Schools in PortoAlegre (referenced by Klees), these have come intobeingonthebasisofstrongorganizingbypeople’sorganizationsfromthegrassrootsleveltonationaland internationalcampaigning.Commitment toparticipation therefore impliessolidaritywithprogressivesocialmovementsandpeople’sstrugglestoadvanceconditionsforgenuinepeople’sparticipationingovernanceandpolicymaking.WithincreasingrelianceonsubcontractingtoNGOsandprivateagents,participationintheaidindustryistodayahighlyprofitable business. People’s participation is reduced to amere formality or performance.Thereforeonehastolookbeyondtheaidinfrastructureformeaningfulself-organizingeffortsamonglaborgroups,women’sgroups,urbandwellers,peasants,teachers,politicalparties,indigenousstruggles,andcommunityorganizations,andsupporttheseeffortswithoutco-optingthemintotheaidinfrastructure.

4. Bank of theSouth:Aidhas servedasavital toolof foreignpolicy since theBrettonWoodsInstitutionscameintoexistence.ThepowerfulmandateandoperatingstructuresoftheWorldBankandtheIMFneeddrasticreformbutequallywejustasimportantlyneeddifferentlending



institutionsthatwillshiftthebalanceofpowerbetweendonorandrecipientcountries.TheBankoftheSouth,foundedin2009lastyearwith$20billioninstart-upcapitalbysevenSouthAmericancountries isanattempttoestablisharegionaldevelopmentbankthatwillserveitsmembercountries.ItrepatriatesthecapitalreservesofthesecountriesheldthatareintheIMF,WorldBankandotherforeignbankstoadevelopmentbankestablishedandcontrolledby SouthAmericannations.Weneedmore such regional partnerships and institutions intheSouthtoemergethatwillcorrecttheasymmetricalrelationshipbetweenFirstandThirdWorldcountries.

ThefourcaveatsIoutlineabovehelpdiscernbetweenaliberalperspectiveandaleftradicaloneandalsoshowonoccasiontheslippagebetweentheliberalandneoliberalperspectiveonthefutureofaidanddevelopment.TherecentfinancialcrisisintheU.S.givesusaninvaluableopportunityto question whether sustainable development is a viable project under capitalist economicarrangements andwhetherparticipation in theglobal capitalistmarket canprovide equitableopportunitiesandsecurityforpeopleindevelopedanddevelopingeconomies.Ultimately,theleftradicalperspectiveispremisedonthehopethatcapitalismisnottheoutermostlimitofsocialandpoliticalpossibilityandthatsomethingbeyondcapitalismisnotonlyjustpossiblebutalsonecessaryforglobalsocialandeconomicdevelopmentoftheplanet.However,thetriumphofliberalismsymbolizestheimpoverishmentofthepoliticalvisionthataspirestoandfightsforasystemsomethingbeyondglobalcapitalismisaspiredandfoughtfor.

Endnotes1. HereKleesreferstodependencytheoristsandanti-colonialwritingsthatsawtheirheydays

from the 1960s-1980s, suggesting that only lone voices, such as those of Joel Samoff andhimself,remain.

2. WellknownexamplesarethecommentatorandNewYorkTimescolumnistThomasFriedmanand leftist journalist ChristopherHitchens. The entire progressive movement in theU.S.remainsmuddled in itspositionon thewar inAfghanistanandPakistan.While the Iraqwarwasframedasthe“badwar”undertakentodefendU.S.nationalinterestsratherthanputativelydemocraticideals,thewarinAfghanistanandPakistanhasbeenframedasa“goodwar.”YetathisWestPointspeechin2009,PresidentObamaacknowledgedthatitis“nationalinterests”thatrequireescalationofU.S.militaryinterventioninAfghanistan,andonehastolookonlyatthemaptorealizethatthewareffortisforU.S.dominanceintheregion.

3. Shah(2009)locatesthisusageasanexpressionofanti-MarxisttendenciesamongtheU.S.Leftandtheanti-communistMcCarthyerapoliticswhenMarxistshadtotakerefugeunderthetermprogressivethataccommodatedarangeofliberals, includingfreemarketlibertariansandpro-stateneoconservatives.

4. Thequestionfromaradicalleftperspectivewouldbe:Whatifthepooragreethatwhatworksforthemisasocialmovementtoredistributepowerandresources?Wouldthatbeanincentivefor“helpers”toworkwith“doers”inthisproject?

5. Resourcesredistributedtothepoorcanhelpre-directtheeconomytowardstheirneedsand,whencombinedwithjobcreationefforts,canhelpsetupaself-sustainingsystem.

6. Article39oftheIndianconstitutionurgestheStatetoensurethat“citizens,menandwomenequally,havetherighttoanadequatemeanstolivelihood.”Further,Article41stressesthat“theState,shallwithinthelimitsofitseconomiccapacityanddevelopment,makeeffectiveprovisionforsecuringRighttoWork…”

7. India’s national rural employment guarantee program harkens to Roosevelt’s New Dealprogram of the 1930s where, as a policy response to economic depression, people wereemployedon“publicworks”projectssuchastheaters,libraries,andparks.


S.Kamat

ReferencesAmin,S.(2003).Theliberalvirus:PermanentwarandtheAmericanizationoftheworld.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.

Brown,W.,&Halley,J.(2002).Introduction.InW.BrownandJ.Halley(Eds.).Leftlegalism/leftcritique (pp.1-37).DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

Dichter,T.(2003).Despitegoodintentions:Whydevelopmentassistancetothethirdworldhasfailed.Amherst,MA:UniversityofMassachusettsPress.

Eagleton,T.(2003).Aftertheory.NewYork:BasicBooks.


Klees,S.(2010).Aid,development,andeducation.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),7-26.

McCarraher,E.(2010).Meetthenewboss,sameastheoldboss:AninterviewwithEugeneMcCarraher,partoneofthree.TheOtherJournalatMarsHillGraduateSchool.Retrievedfromhttp://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=924.


Shah,S.P.(2009).Sexualityand“theleft”:Thoughtsonintersectionsandvisceralothers.TheScholarandFeministOnline,7(3).Retrievedfromhttp://www.barnard.edu/sfonline/sexecon/shah_01.htm.


AllRightsReserved.

©2010CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,ALLRIGHTSRESERVEDCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation13(1),49-53.

Paradoxes and Prospects: Moving Beyond the Study of Foreign Aid

Karen MundyOntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation,UniversityofToronto

Inhisarticle,“Aid,Development,andEducation,”SteveKlees(2010)tellsustwostoriesaboutforeignaid.Thefirstisthatforeignaiddoesnot“work”toalleviateworldpoverty,nomatterwhetheronetakesaneo-Marxistorliberalapproachtounderstandingit.Aidismoreaboutself-interestandgeopolitics thananythingelse–atbest it isa formof compensatory legitimationpracticedbytheworld’srichestgovernmentstoputaband-aidoninequality.QuotingJoelSamoff,Kleestellsusthataid’s“…essentialroleisnottoachievepubliclystatedobjectives,butrathertomaintainaglobalpoliticaleconomyofinequality”(p.16).

Atthesametime,Kleestellsusthataidisnot“allbad.”Ithasaprogressiveandtransformativecomponent.Ifreformed,andrevamped,itcanservethecommongood.Moremoney,provideddirectlytothepoor,gettingridoftheWorldBank,focusingonkeypriorities,changingtheroleof research in theaid regime, and increasing formsofdemocraticparticipationandcollectiveagendasettingareallpartsofKlees’remedy.

Iwanttoraisetwoquestionsinthisresponse.First,howcanwe(criticalscholars)haveitbothways?Thatistosay,howcandevelopmentassistancebebothakeyinstrumentofunequalsocialrelationsandpartofaprogressivesolution?Second,whatismissingfromKlees’diagnosisoftheaidregimeandhisprescriptionsforaidreform?

What Is Aid Really About?Inthefieldofcomparativeeducation,Iwouldarguethatwehave(foraverylongtime)beendominatedbyarelativelythindescriptionofinternationalpoliticaleconomywhenitcomestoforeignaid.Tounpackforeignaidweneedamuchmorecompletetheoryofworldpoliticsandworldorder,includingabasicexplanationforthebehaviors,motives,andvaluesofkeyactorswithinourchangingworldorderthatrecognizesagency.

Here iswhatweknow.First, foreignaid itself isaphenomenonof thepost-WorldWarIIera,dominatedbytheactivitiesofasmallnumberofWesternstates.Inoriginsandorganization,itowesagreatdealtothepowerpoliticsofabipolarworldorderthatemergedduringtheColdWar.

At thesametime,wewouldbeamiss ifwe imagined thataidhasnotalsobeenaproductofthe evolution of theWestern capitalistwelfare state and the evolution of a social compact orcompromisewithinthosestates.Thuswhilegeopoliticsandself-interesthavebeenveryimportantinshapingthethematicandgeographicallocationofaid,atthesametime,certaintrendssuggestthat aidhas also reflected thebroaderprocess throughwhich capitalistnation states adoptedcompensatory, Keynesian, or redistributive public policies at home. For example, over time(andwithoneshortperiodofregression)aidhasbecomemorepooledandmultilateral,andithasslowlymovedtowardstheprovisionofenlargedsharestothepoorestcountriesandtheirpoorestpopulations.Aidtoeducationhasalso,overthelastdecade,cometofocusmoreonbasiceducationandonfinancingtherecurrentcostsofbasiceducation.


K.Mundy

Klees suggests that onewayofunderstanding aidpolicies is as amechanism throughwhichpowerfulstatesoffsettheproblemsofinequalityandlegitimatetheirownpower.Thisisarelativelystaticandfixedargument;intheend,aidisstructurallyreducedtomotivesandincentivesthatmeanitcanneverriseabovebeingabandageonhumanmisery.

Asecondviewofthepoliticaleconomyofaidmightbetoseeitastheproductofrealhistoricalcontestsamongbothstatesandwidersocial forces in theconstructionofworldorder.Suchaviewmightdrawupontheampleresearchtraditionthatseesthewelfarestateastheoutcomeof the organizeddemands of civil societyupon the state. Foreign aidhas come to reflect thedevelopmentofsocietalcompromiseorsocialcontractsbetweencitizensandgovernmentswithinWesternwelfarestates,whicharemirroredinglobalnormsandaspirationsforachievingequalityand social justice throughdevelopment assistance.Over time, thepublics ofWesternwelfarestateshavecometoseeforeignaidasafundamentalpieceofglobalredistributivejustices–and(especiallyoutsidetheU.S.)thesepublicsonthewholeremainextremelysupportiveofforeignaid.Developmentaidmaythereforebeseennotonlyasanexpressionoftherulingelitesandtheirneedfor“compensatorylegitimation,”butalsoastheresultofrealpressuresfromwidersocialforcesforgreaterandmorerealequality,domesticallyandabroad.

Thisseemingparadoxmeansthatinstudyingforeignaid,ourjobisadifficultone.Wehavetoask:whatformsofpowerandself-interestshapethecurrentorganizationofforeignaid?Atthesametime,wealsoneedtoaskthequestion:whathistoricalandcontemporarylevers,andwhichagents,mightdriveimprovementofforeignaid?Furthermore,whatnewinstitutionalstructuresareneededandwhatbarrierstotheircreationexist?ItakethisasanunderlyingpartofKlees’argument,butIthinkitbearsrestatingintheseterms.

New Features Require New ThinkingWhileIagreewithmanyaspectsoftheargumentsKleesputsforward,Iwanttosuggestthatnewfeaturesoftheglobalpolityrequireustothinkinnewwaysabouttheprospectsandpurposesof internationaldevelopmentaid. In thebroadest sense,weneed tounpackandexamine themotivesandincentivesbehindbothofficialdevelopmentassistanceandtherapidexpansionofprivatelyfundeddevelopmentactivities.Wealsoneedtoexaminewhichsocialforcesaremostlikelytoleveragechange,andwhatglobalinstitutionsormechanismsaremorelikelythanotherstodeliveronwhatKleescalls“transformative”goals,suchastherealizationofeducationasabasichumanright.

First,weneedtoacknowledgethathistoryhaschangedtheplayersandinstitutionsthatunderliecontemporaryformsofdevelopmentaid.Ourstoryaboutforeignaidwillbetoothinifwedonotacknowledgethat:

• Thehugedownturnofofficial(state-provided)developmentaidintheearly1990s(causedinpartbytheendoftheColdWar),wasreplacedbyadecadeofmorecollective,redistributiveapproachestoofficialaidintheperiodafter1996.Whilestillrepresentingasmall“slice”ofWesterngovernments,therehasbeenrealmomentumaroundtheideaofcollectiveactionon“educationforall”overthepastdecadetoadegreenotpreviouslyseenintheworldsystem.

• Therehasbeena rapidexpansionofprivatesourcesofdevelopmentaid (Severino&Ray,2010).Statemonopolyofdevelopmentaidisathingofthepast,withestimatesofupwardsof $10 billion provided by international non-governmental organizations in 2006. In theUnitedStatesalone,recentestimatessuggestthatprivatesourcesoffundingforinternational


ParadoxesandProspects

developmentnowexceedofficial (state)provideddevelopmentaid.Someof theseprivateflows are highly corporatized.However, small-scale philanthropy is also on the rise. Foreducation, suchsmall-scaleprivategiving isparticularlyextensive:go toanyschool, faithorganization,orcommunitygroupinNorthAmerica,forexample,andyouarelikelytofindsomesortofscholarshiporchildsupporteffortinaction.Thisimpliesthatthereisbroad,on-the-groundsupportfortheideaofaglobalsocialsafetynet.

• Thediversityofinstitutionalactorsdoinginternationaldevelopmenthasincreased–oftenintheformofmulti-stakeholderpartnershipsbetweengovernments,privatephilanthropy,andbusinesses.Kleesgivesoneexampleofthis:theGlobalFund.Thisfundisfinancedbydiversepartners, includingBono’sRedcampaign, theGatesFoundation,bilateralandmultilateralorganizations,andisorganizedaroundperformanceoutcomes.Weneedtoasksomehardquestions about these new institutionalized “public private” partnerships. Critics haveargued thatneitherGAVI (GlobalAlliance forVaccinesandImmunisation)nor theGlobalFundarethepositivemodelforparticipationthatKleesimpliesinhisarticlebecausetheycircumventgovernmentsandraisethepowerofnon-stateactorswithlimitedaccountabilitytotheirfundersandtheir“clients”(seeforexampleGarrett,2007;Doyle&Patel,2008;andforalargercritique,Scholte,2005).1

• New states are becoming actively involved in development aid, and the center of globalpowerisshiftingtowardsanewgroupofcountries(Steer&Wathne,2009).TheemergenceoftheG20isjustonefeatureofthispowershift(Kumar,2010).TheriseofChinaasanaiddonorisanother(Gu&Messner,2008;Woods,2008).Weknowrelativelylittleabouttheapproachtodevelopmentortoglobalinstitutionsthatwillbetakenbythesenewworldpowers.Buttheywillcertainlyreshapetheinstitutionsofglobalgovernanceandthefieldofeducationaldevelopmentoverthenextdecade.

Ouroldpoliticaleconomyapproachesneedtobeupdatedtoexplainthesurgeofnewprivateand state actors in internationaldevelopment activity.This is no longer a story simply aboutstatepower,thepowerofcapital,orcompensatorylegitimationamongstates.Systemiccritiquesof capitalism and states fail to capture the diversemotives and objectives of new actors andactorconfigurations,andtheyprovideuswithfewtoolsormodelsforunderstandingpointsoftransformativeleverage.Evenmyownpreferrednarrative,whichrevolvesaroundthenotionofsocialforcesworkingtoembedredistributionasanimportantpurposeofpublicpolicy,seemstoothintobeuseful.

In this regard, I would like to end by questioning two of the remedies offered by Klees:“participation”andgettingridoftheWorldBank.

Whatwehaveseenoverthepastdecadeisamassivegrowthinthe“participation”ofvoluntaryactorsinthefieldofinternationaldevelopment.Yetdespitethisdevelopment,we’vedonerelativelylittleinourfieldtospecifywhattransparency,accountability,anddeeplevelsofpublicengagementlook like for transnationalandlocalnon-stateactors,andhow(inan idealworldorder) theseactorsshouldrelatetodemocraticandrepresentativeinstitutionsofgovernance.Itseemstomethatprivateeffortsofallkinds(fromindividualvoluntarygivingtocorporatephilanthropy)needtobebettercoordinated,regulated,andembeddedwithinrepresentativedemocraticstructures–movingfromthecommunity,tothestate,totheregionalandtransnational(withoverlapsinbetween).“Participation”isnoquickfix,ifwhatwemeanbythisistheconstructionofanewsocialcontractamongtheworld’scitizensandtheirgovernmentsatthesedifferentscales.


K.Mundy

GettingridoftheWorldBankisacallthatmayhaveimportantrhetoricalvalue:overthepasttwo decades, it has clearly helped advocates and campaigners to highlight the major faultswithinthatinstitution.Butinatimeofmajoreconomiccrisis,andgiventhehugeshiftsinthekeyactorswithintheinternationaldevelopmentregime,Ibelieveitisirresponsibletocallfortheendofoneinstitutionwithoutcarefulmodelinganddebateaboutalternativearchitecturesfordeliveringonthepromiseofaglobalsocialcontract.Inthemeantime,weshouldaskourselves:dowereallybelievethatcontemporaryworldpowersandotherkeydevelopmentstakeholders(suchascorporateNGOsandlargefoundations,likeGates)arelikelytoreplacetheBankwithsomethingthatisdramaticallybetter?Oristhemorelikelyoutcomeanevenmorechaoticanddividedarenafordeliveringonglobaleducationforallpromises,withmanyverticalfundsandmulti-stakeholderpartnerships,andnoanchoring institution thatwecanholdresponsible fordeliveringaglobalsocialcontract?Togiveitcredit,theBankremainsamongthemosttransparentand accountable of our international institutions (see the analysis provided by Easterly andPfutze,2008);itprovidesmoredirectbudgetsupportthatanyotheraidprovider;and,becauseofitsdirectrelationshipwiththeIMFandministriesoffinancearoundtheworld,ithastheabilitytoadvocateforeducationandothersocialexpendituremoreforcefullythananyotherexistingglobalinstitution.Italsooffersanimportantfocalpointforeffortstoinfluenceandsocializenewglobalgovernors–suchasChina,nowtheBank’ssecondlargestshareholder(Woods,2008).

LikeKlees,Idonotbelievethatmoreaid–orevenmoreeffectiveaid–shouldbeoursoleobjectivewhenwethinkaboutreformingthecurrentinternationaldevelopmentregime.However,ifourultimateobjectiveisaworldordercharacterizedbydemocraticformsofgovernancethatscaleuptoactasbothanchorandleverforanewglobalsocialcontract,wehaveagreatdealoffurtherthinking to do.Hortatory calls for participation, and “50 years is enough” simplywon’t getus there.Asstartingpoints,wewillneedamuch thickerdescriptionof internationalpoliticaleconomy, including new state and non-state actors. We will also need to pay much greaterattentiontomodelingalternativeinstitutionsforanemergentworldpolity.

Endnotes1. Asanexample,theGlobalFundhasbeencriticizedforfundinginitiativesthatbypassbothUN

organizationsandgovernments.Theyhavebeenaccusedoftiltinghealthspendingtowardsnon-stateserviceprovision(Doyle&Patel,2008;Rivishankaretal.,2009;Sagorsky,2010).

ReferencesBermingham, D. (2010). Reviving the global education compact: Four options for global educationfunding.Washington,DC:Center forGlobalDevelopment.Retrievedfromhttp://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1423802.

Doyle,C.,&Patel,P.(2008).Civilsocietyorganizationsandglobalhealthinitiatives:Problemsoflegitimacy.SocialScienceandMedicine,66,1928-1938.

Easterly,W.,&Pfutze,T.(2008).Wheredoethemoneygo?Bestandworstpracticesinforeignaid.JournalofEconomicPerspectives,22(2/Spring),29-52.

Gu,J.,&Messner,D.(2008).Globalgovernanceanddevelopingcountries:TheimplicationsoftheriseofChina.WorldDevelopment,36(2):274-292.

Kumar,R. (2010).Adevelopmentagendafor theG-20.Policybriefpreparedfor theEuropean


ParadoxesandProspects

think-tankforGlobalAction,ClubMadrid,andtheGovernmentofKorea.Retrievedfromhttp://fride.org/publication/801/a-development-agenda-for-the-g20.

Rivishankar,N.,Gubbins,P.,Coolly,R.,Leach-Kemon,K.,Michaud,C.,Jamenson,D.,&Murray,C.(2009).Financingglobalhealth:Trackingdevelopmentassistanceforhealthfrom1990to2007.TheLancet,373,2113-2124.

Sagorsky,T.(2010).Reformingtheglobalaidarchitectureforeducation:LessonslearnedfromtheglobalfundforAIDS,tuberculosisandmalaria.OpenSocietyInstitute.

Scholte,J.A.(2005).Civilsocietyanddemocracyinglobalgovernance.InR.Wilkinson(Ed.),Theglobalgovernancereader(pp.322-340).LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Severino,J.M.,&Ray,O.(2009).Theendofoda:Deathandbirthofglobalpublicpolicy. WorkingPaper167.Washington,DC:CenterforGlobalDevelopment.

Steer,L.,&Wathne,C.(2009).Achievinguniversalbasiceducation:Constraintsandopportunitiesindonorfinancing.London:OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.

Woods,N.(2008).Whoseaid,whoseinfluence?China,emergingdonorsandthesilentrevolutionindevelopmentassistance.InternationalAffairs,84(6),1-17.


AllRightsReserved.

©2010CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,ALLRIGHTSRESERVEDCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation13(1),54-60

Reply

Towards a Progressive View of Aid, Development, and Education

Steven J. KleesUniversityofMaryland

IfeelhonoredandprivilegedthattheeditorsofCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducationdecidedtosolicitresponsestomyarticleinthisvolume(Klees,2010)andthattheresponseswerebysuchthoughtfulandwell-regardedscholars.Whilethereareareasofdisagreement,Ifindthatourdisagreementsaremuchlessimportantthanourcommonalities.Itrytodetailbothinmyreply,butIfocusonhowmyrespondentsandIsharewhatIcallaprogressiveperspective–eventhoughnoneofthemchoosethatparticularlabeltodescribetheirpointofview.Themeaningofaprogressiveperspectivenecessarilyreflectsastruggleovertheoryandpraxis.Itisconstantlybeingformedandre-formed.Thedebateinthisissueispartofthatstruggle.

Beyond EconomicsBrehm and Silova’s (2010) intriguing “radical reimagination” of aid argues that the “centraldiscourse on international aid has been dominated by” economists’ viewpoints and thatmypaperisnoexception.Inmypaper,Ididnothavespaceenoughtodomorethanathumbnailsketchoftheneoliberal,liberal,andprogressiveperspectivesIusedtoframethediscussionofaid,education,anddevelopment.Theprogressiveperspective,whichIfavorandwhichformedthebasisformyrecommendations,isnotaneconomicsperspective1butaremarkableconfluenceofinterrelatedcriticaltheoriesandperspectivesthatcrossdisciplinesandappliedfields,including:dependency,worldsystems,critical,neomarxist,economicreproduction,culturalreproduction,resistance,feministstandpoint,genderanddevelopment,socialistfeminist,criticalrace,queer,intersection, critical postmodern, poststructural, postcolonial, and critical pedagogy.And thisdoesnotincludealltherelatedcriticaltheorieswithineachsocialscienceandappliedfield.

I am not saying that these theories offer identical perspectives, just that they share essentialcommonalitieswithrespecttoaddressingthetwomajorquestionssocialtheoriesface:“Howdoweunderstandoursocialworld?”and“Whatcanwedotochangeit?”Intermsofunderstandingtheworld,mostfundamentally,allthesetheoriesfocusonmarginalization.Theyseetheworldascomposedofsystemsandstructuresthatmaintain,reproduce,andlegitimateexistinginequalities.From these perspectives, inequalities are not system failures but the logical consequence ofsuccessfulsystemfunctioning.Intermsofwhattodo,whilemostofthesetheoriesrecognizethatreproductionispervasive,theyalsoagreethatthereareseriouschallengestoreproduction.Thereisgeneralagreementthatthosechallengeshavetwointerrelatedsources.Oneisthatthesystemsandstructuresthatdominatearenotmonolithicbutarepervadedbycontradictions,suchasthatbetween thestatedvalueofpoliticaldemocracyand therealityofeconomicauthoritarianism,orthatbetweenthestatedvalueofhumanequalityandtherealityofsystematic inequityanddiscrimination.Theotherisabeliefinhumanagency,inthatoppressioncanberecognizedandfoughtindividuallyandcollectively(seeKlees,2008b,formoredetails).

BrehmandSilovapaintapictureoftheprogressiveparadigmasnodifferentthantheneoliberalorliberal.Tothecontrary,mostprogressiveswouldagreewiththeimportantpointsBrehmand


TowardsaProgressiveViewofAid

Silovamakeintheirarticle.Forexample,theyarguethatequalitymustbethestartingpointforanewaidrelationship,but:

[similar]toconservativeeffortsofeducationreform,criticalpedagogycontinuestoseeinequalityas‘ataken-for-granted,evenobviousstateofaffairstobeconfrontedbytherightmixturesofpoliciesandpraxis’(Friedrich,Jaasted,&Popkewitz,2010,p.573).Ironically,itisthisbeliefinthehumanabilitytomanageinequalitythatcreates such stark similarities between the neoliberal, liberal, and progressiveparadigms.(BrehmandSilova,2010,p.29)

While,atfirstglance,thismayseemaccurateinthatallthreeparadigmsrecognizetheexistenceof inequality, the progressive paradigm clearly recognizes the “equality of intelligence” andhumanity that Brehm and Silova emphasize as essential. Paulo Freire, in developing criticalpedagogy,clearlyrecognizedtheessentialequalityofteacherandstudent(Freire,2005).Andaprogressiveperspectivedoesnotseea“humanabilitytomanageinequality,”butratherastrugglebythosewhoaremarginalizedandtheiralliestoconfrontinequality.

Similarly, Brehmand Silova (2010) paint an inaccurateportrait of a progressiveparadigmonotherimportantdimensions.First,theyaccuseitof“anunrelentingassumptionthatinternationaldevelopmentislinear,basedonrationalityandprogressingtowardsa‘better’worldforall”(p.29).Ifanything,theprogressiveparadigmseestheexactopposite;capitalistdevelopmentisnotatalllinearandiscertainlynotprogressingtowardsabetterworldforall.Second,BrehmandSilovaseeintheprogressiveparadigma“focusoneducation,empowerment,andparticipationasthemeans(nottheends)ofinternationaldevelopmentinitiatives”(p.30).Again,theoppositeistrueformostprogressives–education,empowerment,andparticipationareseenasimportantdevelopmentends.Theboxesweusetoclassifyperspectivesarealwaysproblematicandit iseasytocreatestrawpersons.BrehmandSilovaofferussomethoughtfulperspectivesonwhatisneeded,buttheyshouldnotbesoquicktodiscardperspectivesthatcomplementtheirs.

Capitalism and DevelopmentGinsburg(2010)faultsmefornotfocusingoncapitalismandfornotsufficientlyproblematizing“development.”Iagree.Theterm“development”or“developing”toooftenimpliesweareonalinearpathtoprogresswhenwearefarfromthat(asabove).Thesetermsaretoooftenusedinanarrowwaytofocusoneconomicgrowth.Ginsburgsuggeststhat“onemightwanttotrytorescuethe termbyreferencingsocialdemocratic,socialist,eco-feminist,orsustainablehumanrights-baseddevelopment”(p.35).Otherpossibilitiesincludeparticipatoryorlocaldevelopment.2Eachofthesetermscaptureselementsfromaprogressiveparadigmtoqualify“development”buteachhasbaggageofitsown.ForthepresentIusetheterm“development”becausetherearenogoodsubstitutes,butitalwaysneedstobequalified.

The world system of capitalism is central to the problems facing development (Wallerstein,1984).Capitalismisbynomeansouronlyproblem.Patriarchy,racismandethnicprejudiceandhatred,heterosexismandhomophobia,ableism,andotherstructuresthatsupportinequalityandinhumanityintertwine.Butcapitalismisfundamentallydifferentinatleastoneway.Theotherstructures Imentionarewidely recognizedasunfair,asviolatinghumanrights.On theotherhand,capitalism,throughoutmuchoftheworld,getsgoodpress.Schoolchildrenaretaughtitsvirtues.Ideologuesportrayitasthe“onebestsystem,”astheculminatingpointofhistory.

Inmypaper,whenItalkedofneoliberalism,Iwastalkingaboutwhathasbeendominantthe


S.Klees

last30years,neoliberalcapitalism(Klees,2008a),andwhenIwastalkingaboutliberalism,Iwastalkingaboutliberalcapitalismthatwasdominantinmanyplacesfromthe1930stothe1970s.Some progressives, dismayed by the human and environmental destruction and inequalitiesassociatedwithneoliberal capitalism, look toa return to the liberalpast,withmoreattentionto inequalityand thenecessity for theState toput limitson capitalism.But inequalitieswererampantduringtheliberalera;thedifferencebetweenliberalandneoliberalcapitalismwasmorerhetoricthanreality.AsIimpliedabove,undercapitalism,poverty,inequality,andenvironmentaldestructionarenot failuresof thecapitalistsystem,as theyareusuallyseen. Instead, theyarelogicalconsequencesofthesystem,theresultsofawell-functioningsuccessfulsystem.Onemightarguethat,contrarytotheideologues,capitalismisoneofthemostinefficientpoliticaleconomicsystemsinhistory.Intoday’sworld,thereareprobablymuchmorethantwobillionpeoplewhoareunemployedorunderemployed, livingat themarginsofoursociety.Capitalism isunabletocreatetheopportunitiesthatcouldmakeallthesepeopleanintegralandvaluedpartofoursociety,tothebenefitofusall.

Ginsburg (2010) captures some of these issues in his wonderful gamemetaphor, contrastingwinner-take-allMonopolywithhisinventedgame,Utopia,whichwould“identifyandmobilizeallplayers’abilitiestoparticipatecollectivelyindetermining”needs(p.36).InaUtopianworld,Ginsburggoeson tosay,“someofwhat is termed ‘developmentassistance’or ‘aid’–helpingpeopletomeettheirneedsandrealizetheirrights–wouldbecomecoreactivitiesofthesystem”(p.36).WhilemanywouldconsiderGinsburg’sversionofUtopiaanimpossibility,therearemanyanalysesandexamplesofhowwearemovinginthatdirection(Broad&Cavanagh,2009;Hahnel,2005;Alperovitz,2004).IdonotmeantobesanguineaboutthefutureasGinsburgchargesme.Isaidthatthecontinuingglobaleconomiccrisisraisesfurtherquestionsaboutthelegitimacyofthecapitalistsystem,butGinsburgiscorrectthatcapitalismhasfacedandweatheredmanycrises.Nonetheless,IamanoptimistinthatovertimeIseemoreandmorepeoplearoundtheworldstrivingtofindandimplementbetteralternatives.

Progressive versus Left Radical Perspectives?Kamat(2010)beginsbysayingthat:“Infact,thereisverylittleIdisagreewithintermsofthecontentofhis[my]essay”(p.43).Iwouldsaythesameaboutheressay.WhatKamatoffersisamuchdeeperanalysisofwhataprogressiveor(asshecallsit)“leftradical”perspectivemeansandwhatitimpliesforsocialtransformation.Inpart,wehaveadifferenceofterminology,onethatKamatconsidersimportant.She,andsomeoftheauthorswhomshecites,equatesaprogressiveperspectivewitha liberalone.And indeed, today in theU.S. some liberals,PresidentObamabeingaveryvisibleexample,havetakentocallingthemselvesprogressives,giventheneoliberalattackon the label“liberal.”Nonetheless, the term“progressive”hasa longhistorical lineagereferringtomoreradicalleftviews,and,asIindicatedintheopeningofthisreply,Iintendedtouseitinthatway.Indeed,Imadeclearinmyoriginalarticle(Klees,2010)thatIwasreferringtomuchmorethanliberalversionsofso-calledprogressivepolitics.Isaid:

aprogressiveperspectivefocusesonthereproductivenatureofboththemarketandtheStateundercurrentworldsystemstructures likecapitalism,patriarchy,andracism,andputsgreaterrelianceontransformationfrombelowthroughmoreparticipatoryformsofdemocracyandcollectiveaction.(p.15)

Thus,IseeKamataddingtomyargumentmorethanofferingadifferentdirection.AsIsaid,Idon’tdisagreewiththetenorofherargument,justwithsomeofthedetails.KamatobjectstomyfindingsomeprogressiveelementsinEllerman(2005)andRiddell’s(2007)books,andshemakes



somegoodpoints.ButEllerman’scritiqueoftheWorldBankanddevelopmentandhisrespectforautonomyofthosewhoaremarginalizedarenotstandardliberalfare,norisRiddell’sradicalreconstructionofaidarchitecture.

Kamat(2010)spendssometimeelucidatingthelimitationsofcashtransferstothepoor,dismissingitas“distributinglargesse”(p.44).Admittedly,aidaslargessebythewealthyunderliesneoliberaland liberalperspectives,andgoesagainst the“equality” frameworkofBrehmandSilova, the“utopian” frameworkofGinsburg, and theprogressive/left radical frameworkofKamat andmyself.Butthatdoesnotmeanweshouldshutaiddownnornottrytodistributeaidindifferentforms.Fromaprogressiveperspective,today’sgrossinequalitiesofwealthareillegitimate–aresultofcolonialism,neocolonialism,unfairtrade,andvastlyunequaldistributionofresources–andaidandcashtransfersshouldbearightaslongastheworldsystemremainssounequal.InBrazil’slarge-scalecashtransferprograms,oftenupheldasamodel,weretheresultofstrugglebysocialmovementsthatelectedLulaaspresidentandpushedforsuchpolicies,notlargessebytherich(Avritzer,2009).

Kamatpushesfortransformationthatgoesbeyondaidpolicies.Iagree,andIalsodidsointermsofarguingforparticipationascentral,agreeingoncertaindevelopmentpriorities,eliminatingtheWorldBankandtheIMF,andrethinkingtheover-emphasisonresearch(Klees,2010).Kamataddsfourconsiderations.First,theneedfordebtcancellation(whichcouldbeseenaslargesseortheresultofstruggle).Second,the“righttolivelihood.”IhavelongarguedthatwewillneverhaveEducationforAllwithoutJobsforAll(Klees,2008b).Ginsburgpointsouthowthisrightiscentralinthe1948UnitedNationsDeclarationofHumanRights.Itisthisrightthatismostdestructiveofthecapitalistorderwhichcannotandwillnotprovidesustainablelivelihoodsforall.Third,KamatpointstotheexampleoftheBankoftheSouthasanalternativetotheWorldBankandIMF.Fourth,shearguesthatsocialmovementsarecentraltotheseandotherattemptsatsocialtransformation.Iagreethatthesefourpointsareimportant,butotherscouldbeadded.There is no blueprint forwhat a progressiveworld beyond capitalismmight look like. Fromaprogressiveframework,weneedbothtoenvisionalternativesandtostruggletocollectivelytransformourworld.

The Reality of AidMundy (2010)questionsmyanalysiswhen she askshow I andother critical scholars,herselfincluded, can have it both ways. That is, “how can development assistance be both a keyinstrumentofunequalsocialrelationsandpartofaprogressivesolution?”(p.49).Butthisiswhatcontradictionsareallabout.Mundyseemstofaultmeforsuggestingthat:

onewayofunderstandingaidpoliciesisasamechanismthroughwhichpowerfulstates...legitimate their own power...; in the end, aid is structurally reduced tomotives and incentives thatmean it can never rise above being a bandage onhumanmisery.(p.50)

Thisistrue,butonlyinpart.Inmypaper,Iamcarefultopointoutthatwhilereproductionofthesocialorderisastrongfeatureofaid:

Iamafirmbelieverthatneoliberalpoliciesarecontinuallychallengedbyindividuals,organizations,socialmovements,andleft-of-centergovernments.TheexistenceofaidandtheMDGsrepresentrealgainsfortheworld’sdisenfranchised,asdoes,forexample, themoreparticipatoryprocesses called for inPRSPs.However, in


S.Klees

thisneoliberalera,thesepoliciesunfortunatelybearlittlefruit.(Klees,2010,p.16)

Intheend,Mundy(2010)seemstoagreewithme:

Developmentaidmaythereforebeseennotonlyasanexpressionof therulingelitesandtheirneedfor‘compensatorylegitimation,’butalsoastheresultofrealpressuresfromwidersocialforcesforgreaterandmorerealequality,domesticallyandabroad.(p.50)

Mundy also argues that “to unpack foreign aid we need a much more complete theory ofworldpoliticsandworldorder”(p.49). Inthisregard,shesignalstheriseof“privatesourcesofdevelopmentaid,”new institutionalactorssuchas theGlobalFundforAids,Tuberculosis,andMalaria,andnewStateactorssuchasChina.Iagreetheseareimportantdevelopmentsbuttheyarewell-knownanddonotchangemyanalysisortherecommendationsIdrewfrommyanalysis. In response tomyusing theGlobal Fund as an example of alternativemechanismsMundypointstoproblemswiththeGlobalFund’scircumventionofgovernmentanditsraising“thepowerofnon-stateactorswith limitedaccountability to their funders” (p. 51).But thosesameweaknessesalsoembodystrengths suchasallowing foramoreprominent role for civilsocietyorganizationsanddevelopingnewapproachestoaccountability.Anewandtransformedworldorderneedsnewdevelopmentmechanisms,andtheGlobalFundisoneresultofneededstruggleandexperimentation.

ThislasttopicrelatescloselytoMundy’sfinalcommentsthatquestiontwoofmyrecommendations–thecallforstrongerformsofparticipationandthereplacementoftheWorldBankandtheIMF.Wemaynotdisagreeaboutparticipation.Mundy’sprincipalpointisthatwhatparticipationmeansinpracticeneedstopayattentiontohowitrelatesto“democraticandrepresentativeinstitutionsofgovernance”(p.51).Iagreebutwouldpointoutthathowstateandnon-stateactorsrelateisnotdecidedbysomerationalallocationofroles,butratherreflectspopularstrugglesforpowerandrights.Mundyalsopointsoutthatparticipationisno“quickfix,”whichiscertainlytrue(p.51).

WhereMundy and I disagree is over the elimination of the Bank and the Fund. Frommyperspective, she offers a series of invalid excuses formaintaining the status quo:we are in a“majoreconomiccrisis;”given“contemporaryworldpowers”itwouldbeunlikelytoreplacetheBankwithsomething“dramaticallybetter;”andtheBankshouldbelaudedforitstransparencyandaccountability,itsabilitytodelivera“globalsocialcontract,”anditsadvocacyforeducation.Tothecontrary,wearealwaysinonesortofeconomiccrisisoranotherandtheBankandtheFundfollowneoliberalpoliciesthatresolvethecrisis intheinterestsoftheadvantaged.Ithasbeenmorethan60yearssincetheBrettonWoodsagreementthatcreatedtheBankandtheFund.AsMundywouldadmit,wehaveatotallydifferentworldpolityandsocialethos.AnewBrettonWoodsconferencewouldhavealargearrayofnewactorsatthetablewithnewperspectivesoneconomicsandaid.Thestruggletodefinethesenewinstitutionswouldinvolvethesenewactorsandcouldresultinnewinstitutionsmuchmorefavorabletothedevelopingworld.

Also,contrarytoMundy’sassertion,theBankhasverylimitedtransparencyandaccountability.Inwhoseinterestsisthesocialcontractitdelivers,andwherehasitsadvocacyforeducationgottenus?Whatkindofeducationandforwhom?ThegoalsofEducationforAllandtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalswillneedtobepostponedonceagain,fordecades,ifweproceedwithbusinessasusual.Moreover,educationundertheaegisoftheBankisdominatedbyexceedinglynarrow



goalsandmeasures.IpointedoutinmypaperhowtheBankandtheFund–accordingtotheirownstaff–arerunbytheirneoliberal“thoughtpolice.”Thisiswell-knowntoanylongtimeobserveroftheseinstitutions.Howcanwepossiblycontinuetohaveconfidenceintheseinstitutions,whicharerunbyoneaberrantsect’sthoughtpolice?Mundyarguesitis“irresponsible”tocallforthereplacementoftheseinstitutionswithoutanalternativearchitectureinplace.3Tothecontrary,itisirresponsibletocontinuetosupportsuchideologicalandproblematicinstitutions.

ConclusionWhilesomecouldseemuchofthisdebateassemantics,itisnot.Theissueofwhetherwelabelour critique as progressive, left radical, or anti-capitalist is minor; it is the substance of thecritiquethatmatters,andtheperspectivesabovecombinetofleshoutaprofoundcritiqueofandalternativedirectionsforourworldsystem.Thesedebatesarenotjustaboutaidandeducation.Theyareaboutwhatkindofworlddowenowhave,whatkindofworlddowewant,andhowcanwegetthere.

Thedeprivationsenduredeverydaybysomanymarkhowprimitiveanduncivilizedweare.Savageandillegitimateincomeandwealthdifferences,determinedprincipallybyanaccidentofbirth,decidewhosurvivesandhowwell.Futurehistorians,ifhumanitymanagestosurvivetheprofoundcrisesweface,willlookbackatusandshaketheirheadsincollectivedisgustathowsomuchknowledgecouldhavebeenusedsopoorly.Wehavetheresourcesandknowledgeneededtotransformourworldsystemnow,notin30,50,100years.Weneedtoworkonthepolitics.

Endnotes1. Iusedtheterm“politicaleconomy”insteadof“economics”torefertoallthreeperspectives.

Evenneoliberalandliberalpoliticaleconomyperspectiveshavecultural,political,andsocialdimensionsinadditiontoeconomicones.

2. BrehmandSilovaquestionwhyInotethatdevelopmentshouldnotbecomeastrictlylocalphenomenon.Theansweristhatwith6+billionpeopleontheplanetfilledwithtechnologieswithpervasiveimpacts,thelocalandtheglobalareinextricablyintertwined.Wecannomoreleavedevelopmenttothelocalthanwecantotheglobal.

3. AnewBrettonWoodsconferencecouldeasilydesignanalternativearchitecture. Idonotmeanbythistosayanalternativearchitecturewillbeeasilyagreedupon,sinceitwillrightlybetheobjectofconsiderablestrugglebetweenalternativepoliticalandeconomicviews.ButdesigningandimplementinganalternativetotheBankandtheFundisanessentialelementintransformingourworldsystem.

ReferencesAlperovitz,G.(2004).Americabeyondcapitalism:Reclaimingourwealth,ourliberty,andourdemocracy.NewYork:JohnWiley.

Avritzer,L.(2009).ParticipatoryinstitutionsindemocraticBrazil.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkins.

Brehm,W.,&Silova,I.(2010).Theignorantdonor:Aradicalreimaginationofinternationalaid,development,andeducation.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),27-34.

Broad,R.,&Cavanagh,J.(2009).Developmentredefined:Howthemarketmetitsmatch.Boulder,CO:Paradigm.


S.Klees


Freire,P.(2005).Teachersasculturalworkers.Boulder,CO:Westview.

Friedrich,D.,Jaastad,B.,&Popkewitz,T.(2010).Democraticeducation:An(im)possibilitythatyetremainstocome.EducationPhilosophyandTheory,42(5-6),571-587.

Ginsburg,M. (2010). Improvingaideffectivenessor transforming theglobal capitalist system.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),35-41.

Hahnel, R. (2005). Economic justice and democracy: From competition to cooperation. New York:Routledge.

Kamat, S. (2010). The aid debate: Beyond the liberal conservative divide. Current Issues inComparativeEducation,13(1),42-48.

Klees,S.(2008a).Aquartercenturyofneoliberalthinkingineducation:Misleadinganalysesandfailedpolicies.Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation,6(4),311-348.

Klees,S.(2008b).Reflectionsontheory,method,andpracticeincomparativeandinternationaleducation.ComparativeEducationReview,52(3),301-328.

Klees,S.(2010).Aid,development,andeducation.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),7-26.

Mundy,K. (2010).Paradoxesandprospects:Movingbeyond the studyof foreignaid.CurrentIssuesinComparativeEducation,13(1),49-53.


Wallerstein,E.(1984).Thecapitalistworld-economy.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.


AllRightsReserved.



current issues in compArAtive educAtion

cAll for pApersVolume 13, Number 2 (Spring 2011)

Evaluation, Assessment, and Testing

ForitsSpring2011issue(Volume13,Issue2),theeditorsofCurrentIssuesinComparativeEducationaresolicitingsubmissionsonevaluationandassessmentinschooling.Evaluation,assessment,and

testinghavebeenanimportant,nottosay,controversial,partofeducationforaslongaseducatorshaveattemptedtofindoutiftheirstudentshavelearnedwhattheyintendedtoteachthem.Beyondtheireveryday,situationaluseinverbalquestion-and-answersessionswithinthecourseofaclassexercise,mostattentionhasbeenconcentratedontheefficacyof themore formal,usuallywrittenformof state or national testingused as a benchmarkwithin individual school systems. Further,thegrowthof internationallycomparative testssuchasTIMMSandPISAhavebeenfueledbyanincreasinglyglobalizedworld ineducation,one inwhichteachers,systems,andcountriesborrowandattempttolearnfromeachotherinthehopeoffindingbetterwaystodetermineifstudentshaveactuallylearned.CICEisinterestedtofindoutthestateofevaluation,assessment,andtestingaroundtheworld.

Possible topics include theusesofevaluation,assessment,and/or testing in studentpopulations;testingforteachereffectiveness;usein‘highstakes’environmentswhichcouldincludehighstakesfor students, teachers,oradministrators;orglobalanalysesof testing.Other topicsmight includeanalyses of cross-national comparisons or the ‘portability’ of scores from one system to another.Thegrowthininternationalschoolsoverthelasttwentyyearsmayhaveproducedresearchonthedifferent perspectives held by national/public schools and international/private institutions. Istestingutilizedorvalueddifferentlyindifferentcontextsandwhataretheresultsofthesedifferentperspectives?Are theredifferentapplicationsof evaluation, assessment, and testing indevelopednationsascomparedtothepracticesindevelopingnations?WhatformsdothesepracticestakewheninstitutedbyforeigneducationaldevelopmentasaresultofglobalinitiativessuchastheMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDGs)orEducationforAll(EFA)?

Whilemost submissionsare likely tobequantitativeordata-driven,wealsowelcomeconceptualanalysesof evaluation, assessment, and testing,particularly as theyare seen indifferent contexts–suchasthedifferent forms(oral,written,visual) theymaytakewithin/at theendof individuallessonsorlearningsituations,aswellasinthemoreobviousformofwhole-schoolandnationwideexercises–asrepresentativeoradequatemeasurementsoflearning.Sucharticlescouldquestiontheefficacyofcross-nationalcomparisonsoftestingdata(i.e.PISA,TIMMS,etc.),orquestiontheiruseinhighstakes,summative judgmentsof learningorteaching(asopposedto instructionalpracticeaidsas formative judgments).Othersmightexaminehowevaluation,assessment, and testingareconceived;wheresomesystemsmightseesynonyms,othersmightseethreedifferentprocesseswithdifferentpurposesandapplications.Additionally,submissionsarenotrestrictedonlytoscholarsinthefieldofcomparativeandinternationaleducation,butthosefromotherdisciplines(i.e.Anthropol-ogy,History,Philosophy,Sociology,tonameonlyafew)conductingresearchinthefieldarewelcometosubmitaswell.

Submission Deadline: March 1, 2011For more information, go to: http://www.tc.edu/cice/Main_Pages/call_for_papers.html.

Documents

Current Issues in Comparative Education - Will Brehm Issues in Comparative Education 5. such recent and still-ongoing changes in the contemporary aid environment, Klees’ proposals