The World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology: real or rhetoric?

Policy Futures in Education Volume 10 Number 2 2012 www.wwwords.co.uk/pfie The World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology: real or rhetoric? RINO WISEMAN ADHIKARY Institute of Educational Development, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh ABSTRACT Some literature on World Bank education policies after 1999 tries to project a shift away of the Bank from its 1980s neoliberal mandate. This article argues that the shift is only in the form of rhetoric, which facilitates a hidden agenda of creating a worldwide higher education market, leaving the poor with primary education only. At the rhetorical level there is a greater concern for poverty and equity, showing the importance of primary education for the poor, but at an operational level the policies still are conducive to a market-driven approach to higher education. Introduction Markedly in the last two decades the World Bank (WB) has made its position clear as the strongest power for coordinating global initiatives in the field of educational development, and as having the best resources for doing so (Mundy, 2002, p. 483). At the same time, criticisms of WB s neoliberal ideological stance had been flourishing in the literature since the 1990s (see e.g. Kiely, 1998; Peet, 2003; p. 129; Oise, 2007, p. 47). The action and reaction of WB to these criticisms can be traced at least in the language and content of policy documents and strategic papers published after 1999 (see e.g. Klees, 2002; Oise, 2007), which seem to be indicative of a notable departure of the organisation from this neoliberal ideological stance (see e.g. Stiglitz, 1998; Gore, 2000; Oise, 2007). The aim of this article is to examine the nature of this shift away from neoliberal ideology. It argues that although at the rhetorical level the shift is evident, a rigorous critical analysis of a recent WB policy document gives a different picture. Through an interpretive textual analysis of the World Development Report 2007 (World Bank, 2007), the article establishes the point that the fundamental world view that the recent WB education policy stands upon is still neoliberal, and that the associated policy directives are still strongly conducive to a market-driven approach to education. At the rhetorical level there is a move towards social welfare and equity, but at the operational level the policies are market driven, highly economy centred and competition based. The 1990s neoliberal policies specified for mainly primary education are now being launched for higher education, and the rhetorical shift is to accommodate and support this shift in sectoral focus. Nonneoliberal equity-focused language has been used to show a greater concern for the education of the poor, but mostly in the form of primary education. However, the policy directives proposed at the operational level are conducive to the creation of a higher education market, where the public provision of higher education (which is the only effective means of higher education for the poor) has been hugely negated or even criticized, leaving nearly no room for higher education for the poor. In keeping with the above-mentioned aim, the article has been divided into four parts. The first part discusses neoliberalism and its fundamental assumptions for education. The part that follows looks into the WB s neoliberal policies between the years 1980 and 1999 in the light of relevant literature. The section after that identifies whether recently there has been a palpable 191 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2012.10.2.191

Rino Wiseman Adhikary change in WB policy rhetoric corresponding to a shift away from the neoliberal mandate. Through an interpretive textual analysis of the World Development Report 2007, the concluding section tries to establish the point that the shift is apparently evident only at the rhetorical level. Neoliberalism and Education This section discusses neoliberalism and its meaning for education, arguing that a neoliberal perception of education reshapes the aims and processes of education, putting free market at the centre of all educational activities and promoting education as a tradable service. Neoliberalism took its roots from the neoclassical economics of Adam Smith that advocated the efficiency of a free-market system and the associated role of the public sector. It dominated the post-world War II period, resulting into a debate between two economic creeds in the USA: the liberals (supporting state intervention as necessary for the economic system); and the conservatives (opposing government intervention). According to Klees (2008), the liberals dominance in the economic thought during the 1970s was eclipsed by the ascendancy of the conservatives in the 1980s. The conservatives, followers of the public choice theory, argued that economic failures are the result of the government s inefficient interventions, and hence that it is logical not to have government intervention at all. This doctrine got its fullest manifestation in economic policy through the then US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the early 1980s and since then has spread around the world. Neoliberalism also became a dominant force in the transnational organisations from then on. Defining neoliberalism theoretically is an elusive task. Some see it as a political philosophy (Blomgren, 1997), some as a theory of political economic practices (Harvey, 2005), and some others as an ideological system (Mudge, 2008) emerging from a particular historical process (Mudge, 2008). At its heart, neoliberalism advocates the appreciation of the role of the free market over that of the state in redefining human life and ensuring human well-being socio-economically. It seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market (Harvey, 2005, p. 3). Harvey s (p. 2) definition of neoliberalism sees human well-being in terms of individual freedom in practising entrepreneurial skill within the context of free market and free trade, where private property right is of fundamental value. Human well-being is thought to be generated within the processes of market and through individual entrepreneurial undertakings. And the role of the state is restricted merely to providing the necessary environment for the market to run freely on its own logic, or to creating new markets for services. Torres (2009, p. 31) gives a clear explanation of the neoliberal logic for choosing market over state as a social system. According to him, the neoliberals consider that markets are more efficient and cost effective than the state bureaucratic structure in providing services, since at the heart of the market are forces like competition, that fosters accountability and efficiency. However, the definition provided by Blomgren (1997, p. 224) points at the possibility of a spectrum of interpretations of neoliberalism. Highlighting individual freedom and the right to private property, she explains that at one end of the spectrum there is anarcho-liberalism, arguing for complete laissez-faire, and at the other, classical liberalism, advocating for minimal government intervention where necessary. Considering the above discussion, some key tenets of neoliberalism can be identified. Neoliberalism is a political economic theory that advocates the free market as a better social system than a bureaucratic state system. It highlights individual freedom for promoting private entrepreneurial practices in the form of individual capital investment. The basic understanding is as follows: individuals with entrepreneurial freedom ought to work as individual investors/actors in the free market and the government ought to ensure the safety of their property as well as the security of the market. If there is a lack of market provisions in a particular entrepreneurial trend, the government ought to take initiatives to create that opportunity for entrepreneurs. Finally, all through this process, social welfare and human well-being are generated automatically on the basis of a natural law, where all humans are by nature social and the individual freedom to choose can give rise to a natural social order which is more just than that of an artificially created one (see e.g. Hayek, 1944, 1973; Friedman, 1962, 1980). However, the concern of this part of the article is also to explore a fundamental question: what does neoliberalism mean for education? To approach this question, it is necessary to understand the role of the state in education. Since the creation of education systems in the 192

World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology European modernity in the early nineteenth century, the nation-state was the key authority in determining the content, funding, process, institutional forms, structure and legislative aspects of education (Soysal & Strang, 1989). Thus, education services in the developing countries too were mostly state governed and publicly funded, and most of them are still so. A neoliberal perception of education in fact puts all educational activities into the marketplace as tradable services. Education is treated as a complementary process to the formation and smooth functioning of the market. The state funding for education gets substituted by private provisions for education, where students and parents become consumers of the education service. And since educational institutions become forprofit private institutions, the process of education comes under the corporate management structure, which puts more emphasis on efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and accountability. In all of these, the role of government ought to be one of safeguarding them with all the legal and institutional supports that ensure the smooth functioning of the service-market (e.g. education). Klees (2008) has emphasised three salient manifestations of a neoliberal perception of education in WB policy namely, privatization of more educational activities ; increased use of some form of user fees ; and the direct connection of management of financing of education to measurable output (p. 312). The first two directly create a market for education as a tradable service, the second one giving parents the freedom to choose from what is available; and the last one is the watch-over mechanism for ensuring competitiveness and efficiency. In line with this neoliberal perception of education, the following section looks into WB education policies during the 1980s and 1990s. The World Bank and Neoliberal Policies during the 1980s and 1990s This part undertakes a short historical review on neoliberalism s penetration into WB education policies. This is followed by identification of some of the key principles of WB neoliberal education policies during the 1980s and 1990s. It is argued in this section that the WB s focus on development and poverty alleviation and the role of education in this was to disguise its market goals and to get the developing countries integrated into the international trade system. And the education policies that the WB publishes during this period promote the making of a private sector for the education service. Neoliberalism made its way into the WB mainly during the 1980s. Klees (2008) argues that the birth of a neoliberal economic creed in the 1980s under the strong patronage of the Reagan-Thatcher administration achieved its penetration into the WB through the Washington Consensus. Richard Peet (2003) describes President Reagan s role in the 1983 annual meeting where the Washington Consensus was imposed upon the WB with the threat of otherwise withdrawing a substantial amount of US contribution from the WB fund (p. 123). He also goes to the extent of arguing that this US influence was the main reason for the WB s adoption of the Washington Consensus as the fundamental core of the World Development Report 1987, with a direct impact on the education policies of the organisation that followed. During this period, the WB had been highly vocal in advocating a particular notion of development, and had intertwined poverty with it (Tarabini, 2009, p. 204). It is important to look into these two key notions chiefly because they are fundamentally connected to the WB s understanding of education, and hence they have implications for the organisation s educational policy making. It is this development poverty education triangle that can provide a clearer picture of the neoliberal element of the organisation s education policies. Colclough (2000) clarifies the neoliberal priorities in the idea of development as reasserting the primacy of economic growth amongst policy objectives, believing poverty will thereby be most effectively reduced (p. 6). He also points to the neoliberal argument that the slow progress made by developing countries has been mainly caused by excessive economic intervention by their own governments (Colclough, 2000, p. 6). Based on this logic, the WB policies after the 1980s strongly suggest that for the developing countries the way out of poverty is to have economic growth through taking part in the international market, mainly investing in their only asset, which is labour. And the developing countries must also invest in human capital development to prepare the labour force. In preparing this labour force, the role of the private sector in providing education services has been highlighted, whereas the role of the government in terms of public provision has been criticised highly on such grounds as efficiency, cost- 193

Rino Wiseman Adhikary effectiveness, accountability and competitiveness. This focus on human capital development actually both creates a new market for education and feeds the market by producing human capital fit to act in it. As Ilon (2002, p. 476) argues, the WB, primarily a development bank and a lending agency, started talking about poverty and development to disguise its market goals. What the WB achieved from this was legitimacy and the ability to continue its publicly declared mission of focusing on the lives of the world s poorest (Ilon, 2002, p. 476). The Articles of Agreement state that the WB s development goal is: the development of productive facilities and resources in less developed countries... to promote private foreign investment... [and] to promote the long-range balanced growth of international trade (World Bank, 2000; italics added). Therefore, development for the developing countries means getting prepared to be on a par with the international trade system in terms of what they have in abundance: the labour asset. The main aim of the WB is to get the developing countries plugged into the world trade system, meaning their integration into the international market. And an ideology that most fits this perspective is undoubtedly economic neoliberalism, because it speaks for a free market and uninterrupted international trade safeguarded by the government s role at the national level. The WB actually views the member countries as clients and perceives the countries state of development in terms of their economic achievement and wealth. In the WB s view, fighting poverty to achieve national development means achieving economic production by means of being competitive in the international market through human capital development (World Bank, 1990, p. 74; 1996, p. 86). As has been discussed earlier, in this view education actually serves the international market and avoids the other roles education can play: the social, the cultural and the political (Ilon, 2002, p. 447). This very economic view of development, poverty and education is by nature neoliberal, because what it promotes is the rule of the international market, subjugating the nation-state as auxiliary and merely supportive of the processes of international trade. Globalisation has resulted in world-scale economic changes leading to the emergence of a new model of accumulation and growth that crucially relies on the role of human capital (Tarabini, 2009). And investment in human capital, and especially in education has become an increasingly important means to achieve economic advantage in the global economy, as it is now widely recognised as the principal foundation for wealth creation (Brown & Lauder, 1997). Knowledge can play a key role in economic growth and national development, but at present it has become consolidated as the distinctive element of the new mode of production and as the driving force of the new global economy (Carnoy, 1993). Thus, learning, information and competence are the new raw materials of international trade (Brown & Lauder, 1997). And the focus on human capital means capitalising on the means of human capital development. The focus on human capital investment serves the market in two ways: first, it creates a labour force for the market; and second, it creates the consumers of the education service too. In line with this particular economic view of development, poverty and education, and of the specific policy drives that this entails, the WB education policy papers are classified as neoliberal by analysts. The key neoliberal policy directives from the WB in the field of education are: privatisation of education facilities; private public partnership (through a voucher scheme or contracting public operations to the private sector); and implementing user charges and student loans (World Bank, 1996, p. 115). In achieving all of these, policies recommend a decreased role of government via decentralisation (World Bank, 1996, p. 36); and a strong focus on economic growth is prescribed in education for developing countries with an aim of adapting to the needs of the international market (World Bank, 1996, p. 86). Policies during 1995 and onwards put more emphasis on user fees for primary schools, grounding on the logic of cost effectiveness (World Bank, 1996, p. 115). Policies also argued that this would make the education service more competitive and accountable to the public, leading to more systemic efficiency (World Bank, 1996, p. 114). WB policies also focused on the economic rate of return to determine the sector that public money should be channeled to. This led to policy proposals that suggested the channelling of public money from higher education to primary education. The WB also argued that, since developing countries have budget constraints, public money should be used more efficiently; the solution proposed was strong involvement of the private sector in education, especially in primary education. All of these measures have been highly criticised by critics and analysts (see e.g. Oise, 2007; Klees, 2008), who see them as coming from neoliberals promulgating a market-driven view of 194

World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology education. However, the section that follows briefly highlights the fact that WB education policies, mainly since the 2000s decade, encouraged a shift away from the neoliberal agenda. And the nature of this shift is examined in the next section. World Bank Education Policies after 1999: a shift? World Bank education policies since 2000, at least in rhetoric, bear the marks of a considerable change in thinking and an approach to education that indicates a move away from the neoliberal ideology. For example, a growing concern for channelling education towards the social alongside the economic is amply present in discussions made in the Annual Report 2005, where some major concerns are social protection, social development (p. 20), values of inclusion, cohesion, and social accountability (p. 17). There are adequate instances where the WB advocates the elimination of user fees, showing a greater concern for the poor (World Bank, 2002, p. 23). Another key anti-neoliberal critique against the WB concerning resource reallocation from higher education to primary education on the basis of a higher rate of return and systemic efficiency seems to be addressed in the World Development Report 2007, where the Bank exhibits its strong interest in promoting investment in post-primary and tertiary education too. However, the question as to whether the Bank is still neoliberal in its view of education and the policies that it entails can yet be posed. The rest of the study looks into that question, undertaking an interpretive textual analysis (which is a prominent form of discourse analysis) of the World Development Report 2007, which gives a particular view of education in the triangular context of development, poverty and the role of education. The 2007 Report is considered mainly on the grounds that it has a specific focus on education more substantially than the later annual publications of WB, which focus principally on world economic geography, mobility and environmental perspectives for development. A Look into the World Development Report 2007 The World Development Report 2007 (the Report hereafter) focuses on youth and the new generation, aiming to provide policy makers with an understanding of the future world and the role that young people ought to play in that world. Assigning education the key role, it also sets the preparation of today s youth against a particular world context characterised mainly by economic development. Like most predecessors, this Report exhibits a particular understanding of education for developing countries as a way of promoting national development and fostering poverty alleviation. To scrutinise the neoliberal elements in the policy directives, this section first looks into how the Report constitutes the understanding of development and poverty, and the associated function of education. The Report claims that the future of this world lies in the hands of today s young people, and that investing in their human capital development is the key to national growth and poverty reduction. The following extracts are relevant in that they provide an idea of the development poverty education perspective presented in the Report, a perspective which is meant to be the world view for the developing countries: 195..making sure that they [youth] are well prepared for their futures as workers, entrepreneurs, parents, citizens, and community leaders is thus enormously important to the course of poverty reduction and growth. (World Bank, 2007, p. 26) Because labor is the main asset of the poor, making it more productive is the best way to reduce poverty. This requires enhancing the opportunities to earn money and developing the human capital to take advantage of those opportunities. (World Bank, 2007, p. 2; italics added) The understanding of growth/development and poverty and the emphasised role of human capital development are highly economy centred and labour-market oriented. Development is perceived as economic development, poverty is the lack of an economically productive labour asset, and the proposed solution to poverty is human capital development (i.e. education). In fact, the phrase human capital appears 164 times in the Report, normatively suggesting that it is the ultimate means for the poor to produce economically productive adults who can promote economic growth and reduce poverty. The Report connects the economic aspect of human life with that of the social (e.g. the family or the communal way of life) in such a way that the economic aspect is principally

Rino Wiseman Adhikary the determinant of the others. And thus, the development of a nation is viewed by the Report in terms of national income: Navigating through the transitions of the next generation of workers, leaders, and entrepreneurs offers great potential (and poses great risks) for growth and poverty reduction in developing countries. The human and social capital of the young will determine national incomes. (World Bank, 2007, p. 45; italics added) The extract talks about the social capital alongside the human capital, but ultimately the Report sees them as instrumental to the generation of national income. This is a subjugation of all aspects of human life to economic principles at both individual and national levels. In the section The World Bank and Neoliberal Policies during the 1980s and 1990s it was established that this very economic view of development, poverty and education is neoliberal, since ultimately what it promotes is the rule of international trade subjugating nations to the economic principles that fails to address the importance of other principles of human life, such as the social, the political or the cultural. The idea of development and poverty is presented here in an economic mould and the solution to that is also economic: human capital production for preparing skilled labour. It has also been discussed earlier that human capital in the present world has become consolidated as the distinctive element of the new mode of production and the driving force of the new global economy. Therefore the overemphasis on human capital development is a way to promote the international market for education services. It also produces the skilled labour force necessary for the international market economy. Neoliberals also shared the argument that this lack of economic growth (i.e. less economic development, causing poverty) is the result of the government s inefficiency in managing the economic processes of the country. In an identical way to this neoliberal inefficiency logic, when speaking about human capital development of young people as a way of reducing poverty via economic development, the Report goes to the extent of claiming that the government s role is even insufficient and inappropriate in creating the provision, process and laws for the education service (World Bank, 2007, p. 45). But still another question should be posed at this juncture: are the proposed policy solutions to the government s failure market centred? Approaching this question requires foremost an examination of the nature of the human capital development process that the Report rather normatively recommends. First of all, human capital development is advised to be undertaken mainly by the parents and the youths in the form of individual economic investment. And the governments are advised to craft and implement policies that potentially create the suitable environment: Policies must stimulate young people, their parents, and their communities to invest in themselves. The Report describes the failures in markets, institutions, and policies that contribute to an unfavorable climate for human capital investments in young people. The good news is that reforms to correct for these failures may not be as costly to the public purse as direct investment. The bad news is that they may require more difficult political trade-offs. For example, the returns to investing in young people would be substantially enhanced by trade and labor market reforms that deploy human capital more efficiently through more open competition but this may threaten older workers who would like to maintain their entitlements. (World Bank, 2007, pp. 21-22; italics added) The foregoing extract strongly recommends the policy makers to formulate policies that advocate economic investment for human capital development at the individual and small-community level. It also claims that, in the past, amongst other failures, there has been a failure in the use of the market to facilitate human capital investment. It clearly shows a drive towards promoting a market-centred approach to facilitating human capital development through independent microeconomic investment. Policies and institutions can be public centred (state operated), private oriented (for the market) or a combination of both. But failures in them actually point to the government s failure, because it is the government that formulates them. And the solution provided for these failures here is market centred, since it promotes individual investment in human capital and at the same time emphasises the past failure in using the market to promote market-driven solutions. Therefore, the extract points to the fact that, albeit in a roundabout way, there had been a failure in the use of the market in facilitating human capital investments, 196

World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology supported by a failure in governmental interventions (such as policy making and institutional set up). To be more precise, four neoliberal elements can be identified from the extract in the previous paragraph. First of all, it promotes a private sector for human capital development, because it is the young people, the parents and the community who are investing for themselves and not the government. Second, the government is taking the role of facilitating this process as a legitimate auxiliary force through manifesting its policy-making power as reforms. And third, the marketdriven reforms are favoured over direct investment from the government, since the former is considered less expensive. This adheres to the neoliberal logic of cost-effectiveness. And, finally, the last sentence actually points to the fact that trade and labour market reforms are necessary to promote efficiency via competition. This emphasis on competitiveness and efficiency is undoubtedly another key neoliberal element. However, apart from this very overarching understanding of the development poverty human capital triangle as having a neoliberal adherence, there are specific operational policy directives, which can be deemed as neoliberal too. It has been mentioned earlier that, unlike most of its predecessors, the World Development Report 2007 puts a strong emphasis on promoting investment in post-primary and tertiary education. The 1990s neoliberal focus on economic rate of return, on the contrary, promoted the channelling of public investment into primary education rather than into post-primary and tertiary education, arguing that the rate of return is higher in the former (Klees, 2008, p. 315). But this shift in sectoral focus does not necessarily correspond to a shift away from neoliberal principles. This is because the proposed investment in post-primary and tertiary education is mainly grounded upon private operation, with no room for public provision. Rather, it is argued here that the whole neoliberal policy package for primary education of the 1980s is now being deployed for the post-primary and tertiary sector. Public private partnership (PPP), a widely criticised neoliberal policy measure, is placed in the Report as a policy directive to create and expand post-primary education (World Bank, 2007, p. 60). And in doing so, the underlying logic is the neoliberal reliance on systemic efficiency, user choice and competition. The Report asserts: Public private partnerships can expand and improve post-primary education. In addition to alleviating fiscal constraints, they improve learning outcomes and efficiency by increasing choice and competition. (World Bank, 2007, p. 80; italics added) Both a finance-driven approach and a competitiveness-driven approach to education reforms are present in the foregoing extract. Referring to Carnoy (1999), Tarabini (2009) argues that both of these approaches have been by nature neoliberal since their very genesis into WB policies because they put AN equity-driven approach into the secondary position (p. 206). The Report also states that systems combining public funding with private operation do best, and hence it propagates measures such as contracting with schools to enrol publicly funded students and voucher type programmes (World Bank, 2007, p. 80). Klees (2008) argues that privatisation of public educational activities in the form of contracts and implementing voucher scheme projects had been central to the WB s neoliberal education policies, which took root mainly in rich countries such as the USA (p. 319). He discusses in detail the issue of equity in relation to privatisation and the voucher scheme, and argues that these policies create inequalities, equipping the rich and the middle class with ability to opt for better provisions (mostly private) while making the public provisions a repository for poor students, who are usually weaker than their richer counterparts. This can even gradually lead to the extinction of public provisions, since the teachers get demoralised and their performance may decrease. The only difference is that the afore mentioned privatisation policy measures were deployed mainly in the primary education sector in the 1990s, but now they are advocated for higher education. Looking into the way the Report portrays the role of the government in facilitating the postprimary and tertiary education services would give a clearer picture of the neoliberal adherence. The Report states: Governments should finance more of the compulsory phase of secondary education, because of higher social benefits and lower unit costs relative to later education. Individuals, their families, and communities should finance more of post-compulsory education, particularly tertiary 197

Rino Wiseman Adhikary education. Contributions from those able and willing to pay can promote engagement and accountability. (World Bank, 2007, p. 80) This is a clear drive towards promoting a post-compulsory education service that is dictated by consumer choice a key element of neoliberal economic thought. And the ownership of the modes of education service is characterised by direct private operation, public private partnership or private contracting, since the government is not funding (or operating) tertiary education. The role of the state in providing public funding is thus nullified through the policy implication... [that] shift[s] the focus from tuition subsidies to getting individuals ready for college through learning investments before college (World Bank, 2007, p. 85). Fundamentally, the government is advised to stay away from the public funding of higher education, focusing more on primary education. The 1990s WB education policy had a similar approach to higher education financing, as can be found substantially described in Klees (2008), who clarifies the 1990s neoliberal logic for making higher education free off government subsidies and public funding. The neoliberal argument is that if public universities are privatised, the public money saved from that could be used for the primary education (p. 315). And this would be equitable because the poor are the ones who derive most benefit from the primary education. The other logic was that the rate of return from primary education was higher than that of higher education (Klees, 2008, p. 315). In terms of operation, this policy suggestion mentioned in the extracted text is identical to Klees depiction of the WB s neoliberal focus on primary education. But in terms of logic, the higher rate of return takes the rhetorical form of higher social benefits and lower unit costs. Therefore it is obvious that this shift is in rhetoric only, and that a greater concern is shown for the social role of education and equity; but in terms of operational measures the aim is the same: privatisation. The neoliberal element can also be traced on equity grounds through a look into what the Report thinks of higher education provision for the poor. The policy priority for the funding of higher education is to diversify the sources of funding. And the operational measures in realising that policy principle are aimed at mobiliz[ing] more resources through fees, public private partnerships, and donor support (World Bank, 2007, p. 13). For the poor population, tertiary education is thought of in terms of their ability: What is clear is that free tuition for universities is neither financially sustainable nor directing benefits to the poor, because so few poor students seek entry to tertiary institutions. (World Bank, 2007, p. 13) The Bank gives the example of Uruguay, where 60% of the free tuition fee for tertiary education is enjoyed by the two richest quintiles. The point is that higher education does not really have to deal much with the poor. It is for those who can afford it. On equity grounds, this policy shows neoliberal adherence because the policy approach is clearly finance driven and not equity driven. It takes the lack of attendance of the poor in tertiary education as something natural and hence does not want to improve it. It even instrumentally uses this absence of the poor as a ground for diminishing free tertiary education provision, which is inequitable for the poor. To be more concise, this policy measures rather excludes the poor from higher education. Some of the measures that have been proposed for the poor are of the kind that has been strongly criticised in the past as neoliberal; they are: paying credits (World Bank, 2007, p. 57); student loans (p. 80); and voucher schemes (p. 80). Conclusion Some analysts think that due to the enormous number of critiques, there was a new trend palpable in WB s thinking marking a gradual shift away from the neoliberal mandate in the last decade, which has been termed as the Post-Washington Consensus (Stiglitz, 1998; Gore, 2000). Some other critiques are of the view that the new development-poverty agenda and role of education that this will entail in this Post-Washington Consensus era is just a continuation of neoliberal policy practices (Tarabini, 2009). This article has argued that the very world view of the World Bank on which the education policies are standing is based upon neoliberal ideology. And so are the specific policy directives that it entails. The shift away from neoliberal thinking is only in terms of rhetoric exhibiting a greater concern for social aspects of human life, with a rhetorical concern for the poor on equity grounds. But this rhetorical shift is used to construct logics that support market-centred 198

World Bank s Shift away from Neoliberal Ideology policy measures to promote a post-compulsory education service market scaffolded by all the neoliberal policy measures similar to the neoliberal policies applied during the 1980s and 1990s for primary education. As Klees (2008) has aptly pointed out, this need for promoting higher education has to deal with the fact that it is now more profitable for foreign capital to move to poorer countries in order to undercut the costs of skilled labour in wealthier countries... than, as before, to find cheaper unskilled labour (p. 318). At the same time, preparing this cheap skilled labour force can create the market for higher education. 199 References Blomgren, A. (1997) Neo-liberal Political Philosophy: a critical analysis of Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick and FA Hayek, trans. Dag Einar Thorsen. Nora: Bokförlaget Nya Doxa. Brown, P. & Lauder, H. (1997) Education Globalization and Economic Development, in A.H. Halsey H. Lauder, P. Brown & A. Stuart Wells (Eds) Education, Culture, Economy and Society, pp. 72-192. New York: Oxford University Press. Carnoy, M. (1993) Multinationals in a Changing World Economy: whither the nation states?, in M. Carnoy, M. Castells, S. Cohen & F.-H. Cardoso (Eds) The New Global Economy in the Information Age: reflections on our changing world, pp. 45-96. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Carnoy, M. (1999) Globalization and Educational Reform: what planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO. Colclough, C. (2000) Who Should Learn to Pay? An Assessment of Neo-liberal Approaches to Education Policy, in C. Colclough & J. Manor (Eds) States or Markets? Neoliberalism and the Development Policy Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. (1980) Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Gore, C. (2000) The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries, World Development, 28(5), 789-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00160-6 Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Hayek, F. (1944) The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge. Hayek, F. (1973) Law, Legislation and Liberty: a new statement of the liberal principles and political economy. Vol. I: Rules and Order. London: Routledge. Ilon, L. (2002) Agent of Global Markets or Agent of the Poor? The World Bank s Education Sector Strategy Paper, International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 475-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0738-0593(02)00007-x Kiely, R. (1998) Neo-liberalism Revised? A Critical Account of World Bank Concepts of Good Governance and Market-Friendly Intervention, Capital and Class, 64, 63-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030981689806400106 Klees, S.J. (2002) World Bank Education Policy: new rhetoric, old ideology, International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 451-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0738-0593(02)00006-8 Klees, S.J. (2008) A Quarter Century of Neoliberal Thinking in Education: misleading analyses and failed policies, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4), 311-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720802506672 Mudge, S.L. (2008) What is Neo-liberalism?, Socio-Economic Review, 2008(6), pp. 703-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn016 Mundy, K.O. (2002) Retrospect and Prospect: education in a reforming World Bank, International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 483-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0738-0593(02)00008-1 Oise, F.M. (2007) World Bank Education Policy: do the neoliberal critiques still apply?, McGill Journal of Education, 42(1), 47-60. Peet, R. (2003) Unholy Trinity: the IMF, World Bank and WTO. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Soysal, Y.N. & Strang, D. (1989) Construction of the First Mass Education System in Nineteen Century Europe, Sociology of Education, 62(4), 277-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112831 Stiglitz, J. (1998) Towards a New Paradigm of Development: strategies, policies and processes. Prebisch Lecture, Geneva, October 19. Tarabini, A. (2009) Education and Poverty in the Global Development Agenda: emergence, evolution and consolidation, International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 204-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.009

Rino Wiseman Adhikary Torres, C.A. (2009) The Banking Education of the World Bank: expert knowledge, external assistance, and educational reform in the age of neoliberalism a critique of the World Bank, in C.A. Torres Education and Neoliberal Globalization New York: Taylor & Francis. World Bank (1990) World Development Report 1990: poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank (1996) World Development Report 1996: from plan to market. New York: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001: attacking poverty. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press. World Bank (2002) Opening Doors: education and the World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/education/resources/opendoors.pdf World Bank (2005) The World Bank Annual Report 2005: year in review. http://web.worldbank.org/wbsite/external/extaboutus/extannrep/extannrep2k5 /0,,contentMDK:20655910~menuPK:1578915~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1397343,0 0.html World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2007: development and the next generation. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. RINO WISEMAN ADHIKARY is a lecturer at the Institute of Educational Development, BRAC University, 66 Mohakhali C/A, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh. Currently he is studying for a European Master s in Lifelong Learning Policy and Management at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark. Correspondence: rinowiseman@gmail.com 200