February 6, 2014
Srivastava “Privatization and Education for All”
• Even while universal access to basic (and increasingly secondary) education is
highlighted as the state’s fundamental duty, reports show that private provision is
• Different forms of private education have risen, like low-fee private schooling, private
supplemental tutoring, publicly and privately financed vouchers, and targeted subsidies
enabling private or government assisted private school choice.
• EFA movement emerged from a gradual rapprochement of two seemingly incongruous
paradigms; neoliberal and pro-economic globalization, both endorsed by IMF and WB in
o EFA is conservative modernization that creatively stiches together different social
tendencies and commitments providing an unscrutinised space where
privatization strategies are more easily legitimised.
Thus, this movement allowed policy actors to make tactical use of the
globalization discourse to justify own political agendas or even legitimize
o WB considered only economic objectives in its education operations, while
neglecting social or cultural education objectives.
Thus, education was explicitly valued as achieving economic
development and subjected to cost-benefit analysis.
WB did this by exploiting weaknesses in education such as poor
governance and weak institutions.
o WB recommends that governments allow private schools to set their own tuition
and other fees and abolishing restrictions and regulation limiting tuition and other
fee levels, saying that such controls lead to the deterioration of quality by
This is a classic method of actors presenting particular options as the only
logical solution by using mobilizing frames. Here, the frames are;
• Scarce resources
o WB actors act as if the private sector will supplement the
public sector, where scarce resources may have resulted
in sub-par quality. However, evidence suggests otherwise
and the private sector certainly is not catering for the
This frame rests on a simplistic application of