Global Education Policy:

austerity and profit

stephen j. ball

Global Education Policy:

austerity and profit

Traduccin
Antonio Francisco Canales Serrano

Servicio de Publicaciones

Universidad de La Laguna, 2012

Coleccin:
Publicaciones institucionales
Serie:
conferencias/5
Edita:
Servicio de Publicaciones
Universidad de La Laguna
Campus Central
38200 La Laguna. Santa Cruz de Tenerife
Telfono: +34 922 319 198
Diseo Editorial:
Jaime H. Vera.
Javier Torres. Cristbal Ruiz.
1 Edicin 2012
Prohibida la reproduccin total o parcial
de esta obra sin permiso del editor

Preimpresin:
Servicio de Publicaciones
Produccin:
FDC (Fabricacin Canaria del Disco)

Depsito Legal: TF 1.032/2012

ndice

Network governance .........................................................................................

Policy Epistemology ...........................................................................................
Profiting from Education . ................................................................................
Conclusion . .......................................................................................................

7
11
13
19

Gobernanza en red .............................................................................................

Epistemologa poltica .......................................................................................
Obtener beneficios de la educacin ..................................................................
Conclusin . .......................................................................................................

21
26
28
34

Bibliografa ............................................................................................................................................................. 37

I want to make the argument today, that increasingly, on a global

scale, education policy is being done in new ways, in new spaces by new
actors, and that many of these new spaces are private, in all senses of
that word, rather than public and democratic. As a result educational
governance and the educational state are being changed in some very
marked ways, and education itself is being reworked as an opportunity
for profit. Education services and education policy are now being commodified and bought and sold (Ball 2011b).
On this basis of this I also will argue that policy analysts and researchers need a new toolbox of methods and concepts appropriate to
the new post-national methods of policy and forms of policy relations.
Network governance

The changes, shifts and trends in education policy and in the form
and modalities of the state to with I refer are sometimes conceptualised
as the move from government to governance (or to new governance or network
governance). That is:
Whether one points to the grand narratives of network society (Castells
2000) or reflexive modernity (Giddens 1991) or the more concrete and
specific accounts of the formation and functioning of networks of public
agencies, private organisations and diverse groups and citizens (e.g. Rhodes
1988), one finds the articulation of a need for rearticulating our understanding of government and authority based on an ontological change that
has taken place in recent decades (Triantafillou 2004a, p. 489).

Network governance is a further move beyond the public bureaucracy state (Hood 1990) and a further reinventing of government
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992) a new kind of governing mechanism

stephen j. ball

which relies on a dense fabric of lasting ties and networks that provide
key resources of expertise, reputation and legitimization (Grabher 2004,
p. 104). In effect three sets of changes are complexly interwoven here.
One set involves a transmogrification of the form of the state; a second
involves the deployment of new state modalities; the third is bringing
about a new anthropology of policy and articulating new kinds of policy
subjects. Together these changes give rise to new methods of governing at
a distance through norms of efficiency, agency and accountability. This
is not a hollowing out of the state rather it is a new modality of state
power, agency and social action a form of metagovernance (Jessop
2002 p. 242).
Having said that there is a danger that in concentrating on governance in terms of what may be new and different, what has remained the
same may be inadequately attended to and that developments which do
not fit the world according to governance are downplayed or ignored.
The point is that there is no absolute change here but rather a shift in the balance
or mix between the different elements of government bureaucracies, markets and
networks. That is, more networks, more markets and less bureaucracy!
Network governance, although the term is used somewhat loosely and
diversely in political science to refer to a bewildering array of different
phenomena and governmental practices (Triantafillou 2004b, p. 2),
essentially involves the treatment of seemingly intractable public policy
problems wicked issues that defy efforts to delineate their boundaries
and to identify their causes (Rittel and Webber, 1973, p. 167 in Williams,
2002 p. 104) - through forms of managerial and organizational response
around collaboration, partnership and networking (Williams 2002).
That is, governments are increasingly catalyzing all sectors - public,
private and voluntary into action to solve their communitys problems
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992) and redefining themselves as facilitators
engaged in value chains and working through markets rather than
autarkic doers who owned, operated and produced everything themselves (Wanna 2009, p. 266). This is a shared problem-solving process or
what Wanna calls co-labouring. Janet Newman (2001, p. 108) elaborates,
pointing out that the governance literature views networks in terms of
plural actors engaged in a reflexive process of dialogue and information
exchange, or as Agranoff (2003, p. 28) puts it, networks provide venues
for collaborative solutions and mobilise innovations. In slightly stronger
terms, Rhodes argues that network governance refers to self-organising,
inter-organizational networks characterized by interdependence,

global education policy: austerity and profit

resource-exchange, rules of the game, and significant autonomy from

the state (Rhodes 1997, p. 15). It is argued by the advocates of network
governance, that this brings a greater degree of flexibility and adjustment
to the complexity of existing socio-economic conditions. Eggers (2008,
p. 23) argues: The traditional, hierarchical government model simply
does not meet the demands of this complex, rapidly changing age. Rigid
bureaucratic systems with command-and-control procedures, narrow
work restrictions and inward-looking cultures and operational models
are particularly ill suited to addressing problems that often transcend
organisational boundaries. Other writers argue that network governance
and policy networks can provide an environment for consensus building
and therefore limit the emergence of implementation resistance (Marin
and Mayntz 1991). As Besussi (2006, p. 18) puts it the promise of policy
networks and of the mode of governance they represent is to produce
more effective and legitimate policies, without resting upon the authority
and limitations of a single representative political body.
Through all of this, public services are increasingly delivered
through a mix of strategic alliances, joint working arrangements,
networks, partnerships and many other forms of collaboration across
sectoral and organizational boundaries (Williams 2002 p. 103) based
upon relations involving mutuality and interdependence as opposed
to hierarchy and independence (Peterson 2003 p. 1), although this
interdependence is clearly, as a number of commentators point out, asymmetric (see Rhodes 1997). In general terms this is the move towards
a polycentric state and a shift in the centre of gravity around which
policy cycles move (Jessop 1998 p. 32), although in many of the accounts
of network governance the role of the private sector in these movements
and interdependences is omitted entirely or dealt with only in passing.
And yet the private sector is an increasingly apparent and significant
constituent of new governance, in education and elsewhere.
Klijn and Koppenjan (2004) cut through some of this definitional
undergrowth with a simple rendition which is apposite and useful. They
say In the world of network governance, government is understood to
be located alongside business and civil society actors in a complex game
of public policy formation, decision-making and implementation (Klijn
and Koppenjan, 2004, p. 25).
Some versions of network governance relate the changes adumbrated above to a move to more democratic forms of governing (Srensen
and Torfing 2008) while other writers suggest that network governance

10

stephen j. ball

creates a democratic deficit as the processes of policy and governing

become more dispersed and more opaque (March and Olsen 1989).
That is, not only do policy networks blur the boundaries between state
and society but they also expose the policy making process to particularistic power games. The territory of influence (Mackenzie and Lucio
2005) over policy is expanded but at the same time the spaces of policy
are diversified and dissociated. As a result, as these new sites within the
contexts of policy influence and text production (Ball 1994) proliferate,
there is a concomitant increase in the opacity of policy making. Within
these new sites it is unclear what may have been said to whom, where,
with what effect and in exchange for what (see Cohen 2004) although,
to some extent, this has always been true of policymaking. As Skelcher
argues these new social and political relationships of policy are also part
of and contribute to other related features of the changing state they
contribute to what he (1998) calls the appointed state and what he also
(Skelcher 2000) describes as the congested state. Between them these
descriptors seek to capture both the proliferation and fragmented array
of agencies and actors involved in local and regional governance, and
in the provision of public services (Sullivan and Skelcher 2004) and
give some indication of the democratic deficit which results from the
increasing participation of quangos, executive agencies, businesses and
voluntary organizations in the governance of public institutions and
their weaker accountability, audit and governance standards (Skelcher,
1998, p. 181). Keast, Mandell and Brown (2006, p. 27) argue that: This
situation leads to governance complexity and what is contended to be a
crowded policy domain in which differing governance arrangements,
policy prescriptions, participants and processes bump up against and
even compete with each other to cause overlap and confusion....
In all of this, Shamir (2008, p. 6) argues, governments relinquish
some of their privileged authoritative positions. Increasingly, it would
appear, it is in these decentralized, and more or less regularized and
coordinated, interactions between state and societal actors that policy
making unfolds (Coleman and Skogstad 1990, p. 4). Wright-Mills calls
this, a new form of institutional mechanics (Wright-Mills 1959, p. 20)
and indeed, by examining networks we are looking at the institutionalization of power relations (Marsh and Smith 2000, p. 6) in a new
form. Such relationships are of course not entirely new; it is their extent,
specificity, directness and degree of integration with government and
state organisations that is different. That is to say, many different actors

global education policy: austerity and profit

11

and organizations, such as those referred to below, are now engaged in

various mundane and informal ways in the day-to-day business of the
state through face-to-face meetings, discussions, representations and
consultations. They are there to bring particular sorts of perspectives,
methods and interests to bear on and in the policy process.
This then is the scenario that I will explore in relation to current
trends in education policy. Trends that are evident in different ways
within specific national settings, but also trends that are represented in
the creation of new policy spaces beyond the nation state and separate
from existing multi-lateral organisations and NGOs. However, at many
points nationally and post-nationally the actors and agents who drive and inhabit
these trends are joined-up. They are joined up socially, politically, economically and discursively within social networks and they constitute an
epistemic policy community. They are both actors within, disseminators
and beneficiaries of policy.
Policy Epistemology

Discursively, these new policy communities are joined-up by a shared belief in state failure, that state-run public services are ineffective and
inefficient, resistant to innovation and self-interested (see box 2). Antonio
Olmedos (2012) quotation from Jose Maria Aznars speech at the VIth
European Forum on Education and Freedom, organised by ACADE (a
Spanish Private Education providers Association), is a good example of
the epistemology of reform the ex-prime minister (and President of FAES,
the Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis, an institution dedicated
to serving Spain and the concept of individual freedom (Website)) sees
the monopoly of the State as the explanation of what he calls the failure
of the Spanish educational system:
Education in Spain has suffered in the last twenty years the monopoly of insolvent and failed educational projects that have used it as an instrument to
shape society according to their prejudices. Young people and their future
are the main victims of these dreams of social engineering. (Aznar 2010, 9)

Set over and against such failures, and in response to the continuing intractability of social problems, is the market. As Bill Gates,
founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, puts it where states,

12

stephen j. ball

multilaterals and traditional non-governmental organisations had failed,

the market can succeed. Gates went on to say: the challenge here is to
design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive those principles to do more for the poor (Microsoft News
Center, 2008). Or in the words of the Clinton Global Initiative, founded
by ex-US President Bill Clinton:
Corporations are researching and developing better business practices
that meet social and environmental bottom lines while producing profits.
Non-profits are pioneering enterprise-based models that offer potential
for long-term sustainability. Governments are contributing their resources to encourage and support market-based approaches. (Clinton Global
Initiative, 2010)

Put succinctly, entrenched problems of educational development

and educational quality and access, as well as issues of gender equity,
health and well-being and environmental sustainability are now being
addressed, in national settings around the globe, through the involvement of social enterprises and businesses in the delivery of services,
both privately and on behalf of the state. In education the participation
of business and social enterprise organisations in the delivery of state
education services is evident in the US within the No Child Left Behind
programme (Burch 2009), and in England in the Academies programmes (Ball 2011a), in Sweden in the Free Schools programme (Arreman
and Holm 2011), and in Spain in the participation of concertada schools
(subsidised private schools) in the delivery of public education1. Private
alternatives to the state are also increasingly evident in the setting-up
of private storefront schools by local entrepreneurs and the creation of
school chains by multi-national education companies, in Africa and India
and elsewhere, in relation to the attempts of late-developing societies to
achieve their Millennium Development Goals and to provide mass access
to basic education. More and more international aid and philanthropy

1
Olmedo (2012) notes that As a result, Spain is now fourth in Europe in
terms of the number of pupils attending private schools. Though the percentage
of students in independent private schools is not particularly high (around 5%),
the introduction of subsidized private schools enrolment changes the figure
drastically (around 30%).

global education policy: austerity and profit

13

are no longer donated as grants to governments and NGOs but rather

are invested in edu-businesses and in the development of market and
social enterprise solutions to educational problems. Business methods
and social enterprise initiatives are advocated as more effective ways of
achieving wider access to and improved quality of education than, it is
argued, can be achieved by governments or via traditional aid or charity.
This approach is sometimes referred to as Corporate Social Capitalism based on investments that address social challenges and result
in sustainable business (Tony Friscia, AMR Research inc. 2009). The
shifts and moves involved here are made up of and driven by a complex
set of political and economic processes involving advocacy, by policy
entrepreneurs and Transnational Advocacy Networks (like the Atlas
Foundation Liberty Network, of which in Spain Institucin Futuro is
a member), and locally by think tanks like FAES (which has links with
the Clinton Foundation), and Fundacin Burke, and, more specifically
within the field of education, FUNDEL (Fundacin Europea Educacin
y Libertad) and ACADE (Olmedo 2012), but also by business interests,
venture philanthropies (Gates, Omidyar, IDP), and through the autoreform of the state. Indeed, perversely in some senses, the state is a vital
player here as market-maker, as initiator of opportunities, as re-modeler
and moderniser (Ball 2007a p. 82), increasingly states are acting more
and more as a collective commodifying agent [...] and even as a market
actor itself (Cerny 1997 p. 267). As Clarke and Newman put it:
Established typologies (the distinction between state and market or the
hierarchy, markets and networks framework) fall short of new organisational forms and governance arrangements that are identified through such
terms as boundary blurring or hybridity. Such terms mark the problem
of naming these new arrangements, but bring problems of their own.
(http://www.espanet-italia.net/conference2009/call-for-abstracts/18.php
accessed 21st May 2010)

Profiting from Education

Over the last 10 years I have been exploring and researching these trends on a number of fronts, with work on UK edubusinesses (Ball
2007b), on UK corporate philanthropy (Ball and Junemann 2012), on
policy entrepreneurship (Nambissan and Ball 2010) on global education

14

stephen j. ball

policy through the lens of neoliberalism (Ball 2012), and recently, with
Antonio Olmedo, on global philanthropy and policy networks (Ball and
Olmedo 2012).
Here I want to offer two examples to illustrate the fairly abstract
discussion presented so far. The examples involve Spain, and England
and Sweden, and join-up these locations in convoluted ways (see box 2).
These examples also represent one aspect of the role of the private and profit
in education policy in rather stark ways, that is the role of private equity
companies. The examples involve both private participation in the delivery of public sector services and private alternatives to the public sector.
Box 1. A private equity firm is an investment manager that
makes investments in the private equity of operating companies
through a variety of loosely affiliated investment strategies including leveraged buyout, venture capital, and growth capital.
Often described as a financial sponsor, each firm will raise funds
that will be invested in accordance with one or more specific
investment strategies.
Typically, a private equity firm will raise pools of capital,
or private equity funds that supply the equity contributions for
these transactions. Private equity firms will receive a periodic
management fee as well as a share in the profits earned (carried
interest) from each private equity fund managed.
Private equity firms, with their investors, will acquire a
controlling or substantial minority position in a company and
then look to maximize the value of that investment.
(Wikipedia)
Cognita Schools is one example of the interest and involvement
of international corporations in education. Cognita was created in 2004
in the UK and is backed by Englefield Capital LLP (renamed as Bregal
Capital LLP in 2010). Bregal Capital LLP, is a private equity firm with
fund commitments which have risen to more than 3 billion since its
creation. It is owned by Bregal Investments, a subsidiary of a holding
company: Cofra Holding AG. Among others, Cofras business activities
include C&A, a clothing retailing operation, Redevco, a large real estate
enterprise, and IBI, a retail financial services operation. In 2004 Cognita bought 17 schools from Asquith Court, then the UKs largest private

global education policy: austerity and profit

15

nursery school company, and now runs a chain of 62 schools across the
UK, Europe and South-Asia (Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam) and
is actively seeking for further acquisition opportunities (website). In
Spain it operates 7 schools in Catalonia, Madrid, Murcia, and Valencia.
In England Cognita have also been in discussions with groups interested in setting up government funded Free schools. The Chairman of
Cognita is Englands ex-Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead.
In June 2012 The Guardian newspaper reported that Cognita is under
investigation by the Department for Education over claims that it has
defrauded the generous state-run pension scheme for teachers (http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/10/woodhead-schools-firmpensions-probe?newsfeed=true).
The Chief Education Officer UK/Europe of Cognita is Jim Hudson OBE. Prior to his appointment at Cognita in 2005, he had been
Headteacher of three state schools, including Two Mile Ash Middle
School in Milton Keynes. He has also been an advisor to the Department
for Education, the Teacher Training Agency, and the National College
for School Leadership.
Box 2. Progressive Vision: Why do progressives fear profit so much?
The argument not to allow profit-making companies to
expand in health care (or schooling) revolves around the idea
that commercial interests and a commitment to quality are
somehow incompatible. How many times have we heard the lament that if the greedy capitalists are allowed to run a private
service, we will all suffer? Yet this expectation is not supported
by the evidence. On the contrary, a private firm that does not
give customer satisfaction through quality and value for money
will soon fail and close as customers simply drift away.
The Adam Smith Institute last year researched profitmaking in a Free Schools context. In doing so, they interviewed
Sir Chris Woodhead, chairman of Cognita, Britains largest
education chain with a total of 42 schools in England. he
said every commercial decision is driven by a fundamental
educational imperative: will what we are about to do or not
do result in an improvement to the education our pupils
receive?...We know that to succeed we have to convince our
parents that a Cognitaschool should be the school of choice.

16

stephen j. ball

This means offering the best possible education at the most

competitive price.
Progressive Vision is an independent campaigning think
tank, dedicated to promoting personal freedom through advocation of classical liberal policies in Britain. We believe that a
dramatic expansion of personal freedom would not only lead
to more fulfilling lives for individual men and women, but also
to a more peaceful, tolerant and wealthier society. Progressive
Vision is particularly interested in rolling back the state where
it has intruded into our daily lives. (Website)
Progressive Vision was founded in 2007 by Mark Littlewood, the Director General of the Hayekian Institute of Economic
Affairs. Co-founder was Shane Frith who is the Director of the
Brussels-based think tank New Direction. It runs a pro-tobacco
campaign and is a supporter and partner of the Amend the
Smoking Ban campaign, along with along with the Adam Smith
Institute, Forest and the Manifesto Club.
www,progressive-vision.org/blog/why-do-progressives-fear-profitso-much
Olmedo (2012) says of companies like Cognita operating in Spain,
and he identifies several others in his work:
As the State retreats from its role as the main actor in the provision of
educational services, new players, from different sectors, with different
interests, are beginning to flourish. Though these companies still operate
in the independent private sector, given the rapid spread of the market
principles within the Spanish education policy, it could be expected that
these schools would at some part begin to receive public funding, as already
argued for by the Spanish neoliberal advocates (Argadoa 1994; Arruada
1994; Martnez Lpez-Muiz 2001).

In Sweden edu-businesses are already active in the public sector

and in receipt of public funding. Sweden now has about 20% of its school
students educated in state funded Free schools most of which are owned
and run by private providers. There are 900 such schools with approximately 80,000 students from 1 to 18 years. Two of these companies are
now active in England, one, Kunskapsskolan sponsors and runs three
schools as part of the Academies programme, another EIS recently won

global education policy: austerity and profit

17

a 21m 10-year contract to run Breckland Free School in Suffolk. Many

other companies including the worlds largest provider of independent
education abroad, GEMS, are reported to be already working with
groups on setting set up Free schools in England, and Serco, Pearson
(the worlds largest edu-business, is already testing out its school model
in state schools in London) and Nord Anglia (which has a contract to
run government schools in Abu Dhabi), have also express their interest
in this development. In Spain FAES has been exploring and advocating
the adoption of the Swedish Free school model2
The largest of the Swedish Free school companies, is John Bauer,
with Upper Secondary schools in 20 locations, specialising in vocational
education and training such as IT, media, entrepreneurship, health
and physical, hotel management and catering. The John Bauer upper
secondary schools have around 10,000 students from 16 to 19 years and
almost 1,000 employees. Aside from the Swedish schools, John Bauer
runs international schools in Spain, hotel and catering colleges in India
and Norway, has other education ventures in China and Tanzania, and
has property development activities in Central America and Indo-China.
In 2007, the company had a turnover of SEK 757 million. In 2008 three
companies (Drivkraft Vrend, Fourfront, Ultra Education) within the
organisation were listed among the fastest growing companies in Sweden (Affrsvrlden, 2008). Also in 2008 the company announced that
it had been invited by the Ministry of Education in Abu Dhabi (in the
United Arab Emirates) to set up schools and introduce a similar system
as in Sweden for its independent schools (Ultra Education, 2008). And
John Bauer has indicated its aim to establish schools in other countries
considered to have good potential for economic growth.
We are therefore now seeing the beginning of strong growth in private
education in countries such as India, Nepal and Cambodia in order to cater

2
Bote, V. (2007). El cheque escolar para elegir en libertad la educacin
de nuestros hijos. La experiencia sueca. Cuadernos de Pensamiento Politico, 14,
pp. 173-184. Rojas, M. (2009). Libertad de eleccin y pluralismo. Propuestas
para una reforma de la educacin espaola inspiradas en la Experiencia Sueca.
Ideas para salir de la crisis, 26 http://www.fundacionfaes.org/es/documentos/
ideas_crisis/show/0091

18

stephen j. ball

for the needs of the growing number of students. Thus this trend, which
generally started or strengthened around 2000, creates a strong demand
for private education. /.../ the entrepreneurial spirit of the people behind
John Bauer International, always keen to engage in new projects and to
take the organization further, as well as a genuine desire to make a difference and contribute to the advancement of society through educational
development, especially in lesser developed countries, are the very reasons
for our existence (John Bauer International, website).

However, in 2009, John Bauer was bought by Denmarks largest

private equity company Axcel which then had investments valued at
DKK 14 billion. Axcels other main areas of investment are in housing,
fashion and pet foods. Following the purchase of John Bauer (JBO)
Axcel announced:
As part of the strategy for JBOs continued development, Axcel plans to
extend and strengthen the companys general management and board.
In realizing this strategy, the first move has been to appoint Alf Johansson
as chairman of the board of directors. Johansson is the former director
of Proffice, one of the largest recruitment companies in Scandinavia
with a turnover of approximately SEK 4 billion. (http://axcel.customers.
composite.net/content/us/media/2008/axcel_acquires_jbo_in_sweden)

These education companies exist in a blurred landscape of profit

and public service. Their employees cross between the public and private
sector. For their owners and funders, education services sit alongside
other profit opportunities fashion, pet-food, property development
- in diversified business portfolios. In times of austerity when other
sectors of business are in recession educational services offer attractive
alternative investment possibilities. Contracting out as a way of cutting
public expenditure is also attractive to governments, as is the flexibility
of contracts compared with bureaucracy. The companies are ambitious,
expanding, global businesses working across national settings, bringing
standardised practices curriculum, pedagogy and assessment - to bear.
In the case of Sweden part of state education is now owned and operated
by an overseas-based business. As yet we have little sense of the significance of the foreign ownership of national educational infrastructure
or services and the limits that this may place on national policy options
or the possibility that multi-national education businesses will use their
leverage to influence national policies in their interest or the possible

global education policy: austerity and profit

19

consequences of business failures for national governments. Each of

these examples, in different but related ways, indicate something of the
degree interest in education by business, and the size and value of the
various global markets in education services, but they only scratch the
surface. Here also we see the growth, through acquisitions and mergers
of global education brands which in some cases wield considerable financial influence in relation to education policy. These businesses and their
representatives play their part in the purposeful destatalisation and
commodification of education. The initiatives, ambitions and visions
of the companies, work on the education system, as a form of economic
attrition, converting public into private goods, bringing new practices,
values and sensibilities into play. They take up roles within the discourse
and infrastructure of education reform, converting education policy into
a different sort of language, invested with different sorts of relationships,
interests and purposes.
Concomitantly the roles and structure of the state are changing.
Increasingly states are monitors, contractors and target-setters rather
than responsible for service delivery. The state becomes a regulator
and market maker in a complex network of relations with a diverse set
of actors and organizations.
Conclusion

What I have been trying to represent and explore here, to borrow

from Ong (2006 p. 499), are new spaces of entangled possibilities which
are constituted and enacted within new global education policy networks.
It is tempting and somehow trite, but nonetheless true, to say that this is
a complex, unstable and difficult terrain of research. In many respects
we have neither the language and concepts nor the methods and techniques appropriate for researching these new landscapes and modes of
policy. These developments and changes in education policy, affecting
the forms and modalities of educational provision and organisation,
have out run the current purview of our research agenda and that we
need to adapt and adjust what it is we consider as research problems in
order to catch-up. We need to ask different questions and also to look in
different places for answers to these questions. We may also need some
new skills and sensibilities if we are going to address these developments
sensibly. In particular we must begin to draw upon forms of business and

20

stephen j. ball

financial analysis or to put it another way, we must follow the money.

That is, among other things, policy researchers have to become regular
readers of the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, and stock market
reports and must learn to read company accounts.
There is also the need for methods and sensibilities which are
attuned to movement and flow rather than structure and place, that is
we have to avoid or move beyond flat and fixed ontologies, and think
outside of the national policy box. Furthermore, we need to think about
the temporality of processes, and the dynamic character of the interrelationships between heterogeneous phenomena (Rizvi and Lingard
2010) p. 7) as well as the dynamics of change in the global era, affected
by combinations of material shifts produced by new technologies and
mobilities, as well as non-material elements such as globally convergent
discourses and locally resisting traditions (p. 8). This is what Urry (2003
p. 157) calls the mobility turn and Beck (2006) calls a cosmopolitan
sociology with a focus on the interconnected, the reciprocal, the nonlinear and dialectical and the mutable and fragile. That is, a focus on the
spatialising of social relations, on travel and other forms of movement
and other transnational interactions, moments, sites, events and forms
of sociality, in relation to policy and policywork. The nation state is no
longer the appropriate level for policy analysis.

Quiero plantear hoy el argumento de que, de manera creciente y a

escala global, la poltica educativa se est haciendo de nuevas maneras,
en nuevos espacios, por nuevos actores, y que muchos de estos nuevos
espacios son ms privados, en todos los sentidos de esta palabra, que
pblicos y democrticos. Como resultado la gobernanza educativa y el
Estado educativo se estn transformando en sentidos muy marcados, y
la misma educacin est siendo reconceptualizada como una oportunidad para el beneficio. Los servicios educativos y la poltica educativa se
convierten en la actualidad en mercancas y son comprados y vendidos
(Ball 2011b).
Sobre esta base argumentar tambin que los analistas polticos y
los investigadores necesitan una nueva caja de herramientas de mtodos
y conceptos apropiados a los nuevos mtodos y formas de relaciones
polticas post-nacionales.
Gobernanza en red

Los cambios, desplazamientos y tendencias en la poltica educativa

y en la forma y las modalidades del Estado a las que me refiero son a
menudo conceptualizados como el trnsito del gobierno a la gobernanza
(o a la nueva gobernanza o gobernanza en red). Es decir:
Tanto si nos referimos a las grandes narrativas de la sociedad en red (Castells 2000) o a la modernidad reflexiva (Giddens 1991) o a las explicaciones
ms concretas y especficas de la formacin y funcionamiento de redes de
agencias pblicas, organizaciones privadas y diversos grupos y ciudadanos
(e.g. Rhodes 1988), nos encontramos con la articulacin de una necesidad
de rearticular nuestra comprensin del gobierno y la autoridad basada en
un cambio ontolgico que ha tenido lugar en dcadas recientes (Triantafillou 2004a, p. 489).

22

stephen j. ball

La gobernanza en red es un paso adicional ms all del Estado

burocrtico pblico (Hood 1990) y una nueva reinvencin de gobierno (Osborne y Gaebler 1992), un nuevo tipo de mecanismo de gobierno
que se basa en un tejido de lazos y redes duraderos que ofrecen recursos
claves de pericia, reputacin y legitimacin (Grabher 2004, p. 104). En
efecto, tres conjuntos de cambios se entretejen de manera compleja en
este punto. El primer conjunto supone una transmutacin de la forma
del Estado; un segundo implica el despliegue de nuevas modalidades
de Estado; y el tercero est dando lugar a una nueva antropologa de
la poltica y articulando nuevos tipos de sujetos polticos. Todos estos
cambios dan lugar a nuevos mtodos para gobernar a distancia a travs de
normas de eficiencia, agencia y rendicin de cuentas. Todo ello no supone
slo un vaciamiento del Estado, sino ms bien nueva modalidad de
poder estatal, agencia y accin social, una forma de metagobernanza
(Jessop 2002, p. 242).
Dicho esto, existe el peligro de que, al concentrarnos en la gobernanza en trminos de lo que puede ser nuevo y diferente, lo que ha
permanecido igual pueda ser atendido inadecuadamente y que los acontecimientos que no encajen en el mundo de acuerdo con la gobernanza
sean minimizados o ignorados. La cuestin es que aqu no hay un cambio
absoluto, sino ms bien un desplazamiento en el equilibrio o combinacin entre los
diferentes elementos de gobierno, burocracias, mercados y redes. Es decir, ms
redes, ms mercados y menos burocracia!
Aunque el trmino se usa de manera un tanto flexible y diversa en
ciencia poltica para referir a una desconcertante matriz de fenmenos
y prcticas gubernamentales diferentes (Triantafillou 2004b, p. 2), la
gobernanza en red supone esencialmente el tratamiento de problemas
polticos pblicos aparentemente intratables cuestiones perversas
que desafan los esfuerzos por delimitar sus fronteras e identificar sus
causas (Rittel y Webber, 1973, p. 167 en Williams, 2002, p. 104) a travs
de formas de respuesta gerencial y organizacional en torno a la colaboracin, la asociacin y la interconexin (Williams 2002). Es decir, cada
vez ms los gobiernos catalizan a todos los sectores pblico, privado y
voluntario hacia la accin para solucionar los problemas de su comunidad (Osborne y Gaebler 1992) y se redefinen como facilitadores
comprometidos en cadenas de valor empresariales que trabajan ms a
travs de mercados que como hacedores autrquicos que posean, operen y produzcan todo por ellos mismos (Wanna 2009, p. 266). Se trata
de un proceso compartido de resolucin de problemas o lo que Wanna

global education policy: austerity and profit

23

llama co-laborar. Janet Newman (2001, p. 108) puntualiza sealando

que la bibliografa sobre la gobernanza contempla las redes en trminos
de actores plurales comprometidos en un proceso reflexivo de dilogo
e intercambio de informacin, o, como agrega Agranoff (2003, p. 28),
las redes ofrecen espacios para soluciones colaborativas y movilizar
innovaciones. Rhodes defiende en trminos un poco ms fuertes que la
gobernanza en red refiere a redes auto-organizadas e inter-organizacionales caracterizadas por la interdependencia, intercambio de recursos,
reglas del juego y autonoma significativa con respecto al Estado (Rhodes
1997, p. 15). Los defensores de la gobernanza en red argumentan que
esto produce un mayor grado de flexibilidad y ajuste a la complejidad de
las condiciones socio-econmicas existentes. Eggers (2008, p. 23) arguye:
El modelo de gobierno jerrquico tradicional simplemente no satisface
las demandas de esta era compleja en rpida transformacin. Los sistemas
burocrticos rgidos con procedimientos de mando-y-control, estrechas
restricciones de trabajo y culturas y modelos operacionales que miran
hacia el interior, resultan particularmente poco adecuados para afrontar
problemas que a menudo trascienden las fronteras organizacionales.
Otros autores argumentan que la gobernanza en red y las redes de poltica pueden ofrecer un entorno para la construccin del consenso y, por
tanto, limitar la emergencia de resistencias a la implementacin (Marin
y Mayntz 1991). Como expresa Besussi (2006, p. 18), la promesa de
redes de poltica y del modo de gobernanza que representan producir
polticas ms efectivas y legtimas, que no descansen sobre la autoridad
y las limitaciones de un cuerpo poltico representativo nico.
A causa de todo esto, cada vez ms, los servicios pblicos se prestan
a travs de una mezcla de alianzas estratgicas, acuerdos de trabajo
conjuntos, redes, asociaciones y muchas otras formas de colaboracin
que traspasan las fronteras sectoriales y organizacionales (Williams
2002, p. 103), basadas en relaciones que implican reciprocidad e interdependencia en oposicin a jerarqua e independencia (Peterson
2003, p. 1), aunque esta interdependencia, sea como sealan numerosos
comentaristas, claramente asimtrica (vase Rhodes 1997). En trminos generales, esto supone un paso hacia un Estado policntrico y un
desplazamiento del centro de gravedad en torno al que se mueven los
ciclos polticos (Jessop 1998, p. 32), aunque en muchas de las versiones
de la gobernanza en red se omite completamente el papel del sector
privado en estos movimientos e interdependencias o simplemente se
trata de paso. Y sin embargo, cada vez ms el sector privado es un cons-

24

stephen j. ball

tituyente evidente y significativo de la nueva gobernanza, en educacin

y en otros mbitos.
Klijn y Koppenjan (2004) se abren camino a travs de esta maleza
conceptual con una interpretacin simple que resulta til y pertinente.
Explican estos autores que en el mundo de la gobernanza en red se entiende que el gobierno est situado al lado de las empresas y los actores de
la sociedad civil en un complejo juego de formacin de polticas pblicas,
toma de decisiones e implementacin (Klijn y Koppenjan 2004, p. 25).
Algunas versiones de la gobernanza en red relacionan los cambios
esbozados anteriormente con un avance hacia formas de gobierno ms
democrticas (Srensen y Torfing 2008); mientras otros autores sugieren
que la gobernanza en red crea un dficit democrtico, en la medida
en que los procesos de poltica y gobierno devienen ms dispersos y ms
opacos (March y Olsen 1989). Es decir, las redes polticas no slo difuminan las fronteras entre Estado y sociedad, sino que tambin exponen
el proceso de elaboracin de polticas a juegos particulares de poder.
El territorio de influencia (Mackenzie y Lucio 2005) sobre la poltica
se expande, pero al mismo tiempo los espacios de la poltica se diversifican y disocian. Como resultado, en la medida en que estos nuevos
lugares dentro de los contextos de influencia poltica y produccin de
texto (Ball 1994) proliferan, se produce un incremento anlogo de la
opacidad en la elaboracin de polticas. Dentro de estos nuevos lugares
no est claro lo que se puede decir, a quin, dnde, con qu efecto y a
cambio de qu (vase Cohen 2004), aunque, hasta cierto punto, esto
siempre ha sido as en la formulacin de polticas. Como argumenta
Skelcher, estos nuevos parentescos sociales y polticos de la poltica son
tambin parte de, y contribuyen a, otras caractersticas relacionadas
del Estado en cambio; contribuyen a lo que este autor (1998) llama el
Estado de designacin1 y a lo que tambin describe como el Estado
abarrotado (Skelcher 2000). Entre ellos, estos descriptores pretenden
captar tanto la proliferacin y la fragmentada variedad de agencias y
actores implicados en la gobernanza local y regional y en la provisin de
servicios pblicos (Sullivan y Skelcher 2004) como dar alguna indicacin
del dficit democrtico que se deriva de la creciente participacin de

1
Skelcher utiliza el trmino appointed (nombrado, designado) por oposicin a elegido. [Nota del Traductor]

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

25

quangos, agencias ejecutivas y organizaciones de negocios y voluntarias

en la gobernanza de instituciones pblicas y sus dbiles estndares de
rendicin de cuentas, auditora y gobernanza (Skelcher 1998, p. 181).
Keast, Mandell y Brown (2006, p. 27) argumentan que: Esta situacin
conduce a la complejidad de la gobernanza y a lo que se arguye que
constituye un mbito poltico atestado en el que diferentes disposiciones de gobernanza, prescripciones polticas, participantes y procesos
chocan entre s e incluso compiten los unos con los otros para causar
solapamiento y confusin.
Shamir (2008, p. 6) argumenta que en este contexto los gobiernos
renuncian a parte de sus posiciones privilegiadas de autoridad. Parecera que, cada vez ms, es en estas interacciones descentralizadas, y ms
o menos reguladas y coordinadas, entre el Estado y los actores sociales
donde se desarrolla la elaboracin de polticas (Coleman y Skogstad
1990, p. 4). Wright-Mills lo denomina una nueva forma de mecanismos
institucionales (Wright-Mills 1959, p. 20) y, en efecto, al examinar las
redes estamos prestando atencin a la institucionalizacin de las relaciones de poder (Marsh y Smith 2000, p. 6) de una nueva manera. Desde
luego, estas relaciones no son del todo nuevas; es su extensin, especificidad, carcter manifiesto y grado de integracin con el gobierno y las
organizaciones del Estado lo que es diferente. Es decir, muchos actores
y organizaciones diversas, como las que se han sealado con anterioridad, estn ahora implicados de varias formas prosaicas e informales en
los asuntos del da a da del Estado por medio de reuniones cara a cara,
discusiones, representaciones y consultas. Estn ah para aportar clases
particulares de perspectivas, mtodos e intereses que influyan sobre y
en el proceso poltico.
ste es, pues, el escenario que explorar en relacin con las tendencias actuales en poltica educativa. Tendencias que se manifiestan
de maneras diferentes en los marcos nacionales especficos, pero que
tambin estn presentes en la creacin de nuevos espacios polticos ms
all del Estado-nacin y separados de las organizaciones multi-laterales y
las ONG existentes. Sin embargo, los actores y los agentes que conducen y pueblan estas tendencias se unen en muchos puntos, a escala nacional y posnacional.
Se unen social, poltica, econmica y discursivamente dentro de redes
sociales y constituyen una comunidad poltica epistmica. Son actores,
a la vez, diseminadores y beneficiarios de la poltica.

26

stephen j. ball

Epistemologa Poltica

Discursivamente, estas nuevas comunidades polticas estn unidas

por una creencia compartida en el fracaso del Estado, en que los servicios pblicos gestionados por el Estado son ineficaces e ineficientes,
resistentes a la innovacin y auto-interesados (vase cuadro 2). La cita
de Antonio Olmedo (2012) del discurso de Jos Mara Aznar en el Sexto Foro Europeo sobre Educacin y Libertad, organizado por ACADE
(una asociacin espaola de centros de educacin privada), es un buen
ejemplo de la epistemologa de la reforma. El ex presidente de gobierno
(y presidente de la FAES; la Fundacin para el Anlisis y los Estudios
Sociales, una institucin que est al servicio de Espaa y al servicio de
la idea de libertad individual (Website)) ve en el monopolio del Estado
la explicacin de lo que l llama el fracaso del sistema educativo espaol:
La educacin espaola ha sufrido en los ltimos veinte aos el monopolio
de proyectos educativos insolventes y fracasados que la han utilizado como
instrumento para modelar la sociedad conforme a sus prejuicios. Los jvenes y su futuro son las principales vctimas de estos sueos de ingeniera
social. (Aznar 2010, 9)

Por encima y en contra de estos fracasos, dando respuesta a la

continua intratabilidad de los problemas sociales, se sita el mercado. Como Bill Gates, creador de la Fundacin Bill y Melinda Gates,
mantiene: all donde los Estados, las organizaciones multilaterales y
las organizaciones no gubernamentales tradicionales han fracasado,
el mercado puede tener xito. Gates prosigue diciendo: el reto aqu
es disear un sistema en el que los incentivos de mercado, incluyendo
los beneficios y el reconocimiento, conduzcan a esos principios a hacer
ms por los pobres (Microsoft News Center, 2008). O en palabras de
la Clinton Global Iniciative, fundada por el ex presidente de los Estados
Unidos Bill Clinton:
Las corporaciones estn investigando y desarrollando prcticas empresariales mejores que cumplan con las lneas bsicas sociales y medioambientales
a la vez que produzcan beneficios. Las organizaciones sin nimo de lucro
estn en la vanguardia de modelos basados en la empresa que ofrecen
potencial para la sostenibilidad a largo plazo. Los gobiernos estn contribuyendo con sus recursos a estimular y a apoyar los enfoques basados en
el mercado. (Clinton Global Initiative, 2010)

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

27

En pocas palabras, los problemas clsicos de desarrollo, calidad y

acceso a la educacin, as como cuestiones de equidad de gnero, salud y
bienestar y sostenibilidad medioambiental, se afrontan ahora, en marcos
nacionales alrededor del globo, por la va de la implicacin de empresas
sociales y de negocios en la prestacin de servicios tanto privadamente
como en nombre del Estado. En educacin la participacin de organizaciones empresariales sociales y de negocios en la prestacin de servicios
educativos del Estado es evidente en EEUU dentro del programa No Child
Left Behind (Burch 2009), en Inglaterra en los programas de Academies (Ball
2011a), en Suecia en el programa de Free Schools (Arreman y Holm 2011)
y en Espaa en la participacin de escuelas concertadas en la provisin
de educacin pblica2. Las alternativas privadas al Estado son tambin
cada vez ms evidentes en el establecimiento de escuelas improvisadas en
instalaciones comerciales por empresarios locales y la creacin de cadenas
de escuelas por compaas multinacionales de educacin, en frica e India
y en otros lugares, con relacin a los intentos de sociedades tardamente
desarrolladas de alcanzar sus objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio y ofrecer
acceso de masas a la educacin bsica. En la actualidad, ya no se sigue
donando ayuda internacional y filantrpica como subvencin a los gobiernos y a las ONGs, sino que ms bien se invierte en edu-empresas y en el
desarrollo de soluciones de mercado y de empresa social a los problemas
educativos. Los mtodos empresariales y las iniciativas de las empresas
sociales se propugnan como vas ms efectivas para alcanzar un acceso
ms amplio a la educacin y una mejora de su calidad que, se argumenta,
la accin de los gobiernos o la tradicional va de la ayuda o la caridad.
Este enfoque es a menudo conocido como Capitalismo Social Corporativo, basado en inversiones que responden a retos sociales y dan lugar
a empresas sostenibles (Tony Friscia, AMR Research inc. 2009). Los
cambios y mudanzas aqu implicados se componen de y son guiados por
un complejo conjunto de procesos polticos y econmicos que implican

2
Olmedo (2012) seala que como resultado, Espaa es ahora el cuarto
pas de Europa en trminos del nmero de alumnos que asisten a escuelas privadas. Aunque el porcentaje de alumnos de escuelas privadas independientes no
es particularmente alto (alrededor de un 5%), la consideracin de la matrcula
de las escuelas privadas subvencionadas altera la cifra drsticamente (alrededor
de un 30%).

28

stephen j. ball

activismo de empresarios polticos y Redes Transnacionales de Influencia

Poltica (como la Atlas Foundation Liberty Network, de la cual es miembro en Espaa la Institucin Futuro), y localmente de think tanks como
la FAES (que tiene lazos con la Fundacin Clinton), la Fundacin Burke
y, ms especficamente dentro del campo de la educacin, FUNDEL
(Fundacin Europea Educacin y Libertad) y ACADE (Olmedo 2012),
pero tambin de intereses empresariales, filantropa de riesgo (Gates,
Omidyar, IDP), y a travs de la auto-reforma del Estado. Desde luego,
aqu el Estado es un jugador crucial, perversamente en algunos sentidos,
como constructor del mercado, como iniciador de oportunidades, como
re-modelador y modernizador (Ball 2007a, p. 82). De manera creciente
los estados estn actuando ms y ms como agentes mercantilizadores
colectivos [...] e incluso como actor de mercado mismo (Cerny 1997, p.
267). Como Clarke y Newman mantienen:
Las tipologas establecidas (la distincin entre Estado y mercado o el marco
de jerarqua, mercados y redes) no estn a la altura de las nuevas formas
organizativas y las disposiciones de gobernanza que se identifican a travs
de trminos tales como frontera borrosa o hibricidad. Estos trminos solventan el problema de nombrar estas nuevas disposiciones, pero conllevan
sus propios problemas.(http://www.espanet-italia.net/conference2009/
call-for-abstracts/18.php , consultado el 21 de mayo de 2010)

Obtener beneficios de la educacin

A lo largo de los ltimos diez aos he estado explorando e investigando estas tendencias en diferentes frentes, con trabajos sobre las eduempresas en el Reino Unido (Ball 2007b), sobre la filantropa corporativa
en el Reino Unido (Ball y Junemann 2012), sobre la emprendedura
poltica (Nambissan y Ball 2010), sobre la poltica educativa global a
travs de la ptica del neoliberalismo (Ball 2012), y recientemente, con
Antonio Olmedo, sobre las redes globales de poltica y filantropa (Ball
y Olmedo 2012).
Quiero ofrecer aqu dos ejemplos para ilustrar el debate bastante
abstracto que he presentado hasta el momento. Los ejemplos implican
a Espaa, Inglaterra y Suecia, y unen estos lugares por vas intrincadas
(vase cuadro 2). Estos ejemplos tambin representan de manera bastante
directa un aspecto de la funcin de lo privado y el beneficio en la poltica

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

29

educativa, es decir, la funcin de las compaas de inversin de capital.

Los ejemplos implican tanto la participacin privada en la prestacin de
servicios del sector pblico como las alternativas privadas al sector pblico.
Cuadro 1. Una compaa de inversin de capital es un
gestor de inversiones que realiza inversiones en el capital privado
de compaas que opera a travs de una variedad de estrategias
de inversin vagamente afiliadas, incluyendo compras financiadas
por terceros, capital de riesgo y capital de crecimiento. Descrita a
menudo como un patrocinador financiero, cada firma recaudar
fondos que se invertirn de acuerdo con una o ms estrategias de
inversin especficas.
De manera habitual, una firma de capital de inversin recaudar fondos de capital, o fondos de capital de inversin que
ofrecen las contribuciones de capital para estas transacciones. Las
firmas de capital de inversin recibirn una comisin de gestin
peridica as como una participacin en los beneficios logrados
(participacin diferida) por cada fondo de capital de inversin
gestionado.
Las firmas de capital de inversin, con sus inversores, adquirirn una posicin de control o de minora sustancial en una compaa y entonces buscarn maximizar el valor de esta inversin.
(Wikipedia)
Cognita Schools es un ejemplo del inters y la implicacin de
corporaciones internacionales en la educacin. Cognita fue creada en
2004 en el Reino Unido y est respaldada por Englefield Capital LLP
(renombrada como Bregal Capital LLP en 2010). Bregal Capital LLP
es una compaa de capital de inversin con compromisos de fondos
que han ascendido a ms de tres mil millones de euros desde su creacin. Es propiedad de Bregal Investments, una compaa subsidiaria
de un holding: Cofra Holding AG. Las actividades empresariales de
Cofra incluyen, entre otras, C&A, una operadora de venta de ropa al
menor, Redevco, una gran empresa inmobiliaria, e IBI, una operadora de servicios financieros al menor. En 2004 Cognita compr 17
escuelas a Asquith Court, en ese momento la mayor empresa privada
de guarderas del Reino Unido, y ahora opera una cadena de 62 escuelas distribuidas por el Reino Unido, Europa y Asia del Sur (Tailandia,

30

stephen j. ball

Singapur y Vietnam), y est buscando activamente nuevas oportunidades de adquisicin (website). En Espaa gestiona siete escuelas en
Catalua, Madrid, Murcia y Valencia. En Inglaterra, Cognita ha estado
tambin en conversaciones con grupos interesados en establecer Free
Schools financiadas por el gobierno. El presidente de Cognita es el ex
inspector jefe de Escuelas de Inglaterra, Chris Woodhead. En junio de
2012 el peridico The Guardian informaba de que Cognita estaba siendo
investigada por el Departamento de Educacin a causa de las denuncias
de fraude al generoso plan de pensiones gestionado por el Estado para
los profesores. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/10/
woodhead-schools-firm-pensions-probe?newsfeed=true).
El director de Educacin para el Reino Unido y Europa de Cognita
es Jim Hudson OBE. Antes de ocupar este cargo en Cognita, en 2005,
haba sido director de tres escuelas pblicas, incluyendo la Two Mile Ash
Middle School en Milton Keynes. Ha sido tambin asesor del Ministerio
de Educacin, la Agencia de Formacin del Profesorado y la Facultad
Nacional para el Liderazgo Escolar.
Cuadro 2. Progressive Vision: Por qu los progresistas temen
tanto al beneficio?
El argumento para no permitir a las empresas con nimo
de lucro expandirse en sanidad (o educacin) gira en torno a
la idea de que los intereses comerciales y el compromiso con la
calidad son del alguna manera incompatibles. Cuntas veces
hemos odo el lamento de que si se permite a los codiciosos
capitalistas gestionar un servicio privado, todos sufriremos?
Pero esta expectativa no est corroborada por la evidencia. Por el
contrario, una empresa privada que no d al cliente satisfaccin
a travs de la calidad y el valor por su dinero fracasar pronto y
cerrar, pues los clientes simplemente se alejarn.
El Adam Smith Institute el ao pasado investig la obtencin de beneficios en el contexto de las Free Schools. Para ello,
entrevistaron a Sir Chris Woodhead, presidente de Cognita, la
mayor cadena britnica de educacin con un total de 42 escuelas
en Inglaterra. Dijo que cada decisin comercial est guiada por
un imperativo educativo fundamental: se traducir lo que vamos
a hacer o a no hacer en una mejora en la educacin que nuestros
alumnos reciben?... Sabemos que para tener xito tenemos que

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

31

convencer a nuestros padres y madres de que una escuela Cognita debera ser la escuela de su eleccin. Esto significa ofrecer
la mejor educacin posible al precio ms competitivo.
Progressive Vision es un combativo think tank independiente,
dedicado a promover la libertad personal a travs de la defensa de
las polticas liberales clsicas en Gran Bretaa. Pensamos que una
drstica expansin de la libertad personal conducira no slo a vidas
ms plenas para los hombres y mujeres individuales, sino tambin a
una sociedad ms pacfica, tolerante y opulenta. Progressive Vision
est particularmente interesada en hacer retroceder al Estado all
donde ha irrumpido en nuestras vidas cotidianas (Website).
Progressive Vision fue fundada en 2007 por Mark Littlewood, el director general del Hayekian Institute of Economic
Affairs. Su cofundador fue Shane Frith, quien es director del
think tank radicado en Bruselas New Direction. Gestiona una
campaa protabaco y es un partidario y socio de la campaa
Amend the Smoking Ban, junto con el Adam Smith Institute, Forest
y el Manifesto Club.
www,progressive-vision.org/blog/why-do-progressives-fearprofit-so-much
Olmedo (2012) trata de compaas como Cognita que operan en
Espaa, e identifica otras muchas en su trabajo:
En la medida en que el Estado se retira de su funcin como actor principal
en la provisin de servicios educativos, nuevos jugadores, de sectores diversos, con intereses diversos, empiezan a surgir. A pesar de que estas empresas
todava operan en el sector privado independiente, dada la rpida difusin
de los principios de mercado en el seno de la poltica educativa espaola,
puede esperarse que estas escuelas empiecen en parte a recibir financiacin pblica parcial, como ya reclaman los defensores del neoliberalismo
espaol. (Argadoa 1994; Arruada 1994; Martnez Lpez-Muiz 2001).

En Suecia las edu-empresas ya son activas en el sector pblico y en

la recepcin de financiacin pblica. El 20% de los escolares de Suecia
se educa ahora en Free Schools financiadas por el Estado, la mayora de las
cuales son propiedad de y estn gestionadas por proveedores privados.
Existen 900 de tales escuelas con aproximadamente 80.000 alumnos
de uno a 18 aos. Dos de estas empresas actan ahora en Inglaterra;

32

stephen j. ball

una, Kunskapsskolan, patrocina y gestiona tres escuelas como parte del

programa de Academies, otra, EIS, gan recientemente un contrato de 21
millones de libras a diez aos para gestionar la Breckland Free School
en Suffolk. Se ha informado de que otras muchas empresas, incluyendo
el mayor proveedor del mundo de educacin independiente, GEMS,
estn ya trabajando con grupos en el establecimiento de Free Schools en
Inglaterra, y Serco, Pearson (la mayor edu-empresa del mundo que ya
est ensayando su modelo escolar en escuelas pblicas de Londres) y
Nord Anglia (que tiene un contrato para gestionar escuelas pblicas en
Abu Dabi) han expresado tambin su inters en este proceso. En Espaa
la FAES ha estado explorando y defendiendo la adopcin del modelo
sueco de Free Schools 3.
La mayor de las compaas suecas de Free Schools es John Bauer,
con escuelas secundarias superiores en 20 lugares, que se especializan en
formacin profesional en campos como tecnologa de la informacin, media, emprendedura, salud y actividad fsica, gestin de hoteles y catering.
Las escuelas secundarias superiores John Bauer cuentan con alrededor de
diez mil alumnos de entre 16 y 19 aos y al menos mil empleados. Aparte
de las escuelas suecas, John Bauer gestiona escuelas internacionales en
Espaa y facultades de gestin hotelera y catering en la India y Noruega,
y tiene otras empresas educativas en China y Tanzania, y actividades de
desarrollo inmobiliario en Amrica Central e Indochina. En 2007, la
compaa tuvo un volumen de negocio de 757 millones de coronas suecas. En 2008 tres empresas dentro de la organizacin (Drivkraft Vrend,
Fourfront, Ultra Education) fueron incluidas en la lista de las empresas
de crecimiento ms rpido en Suecia (Affrsvrlden, 2008). Tambin
en 2008 la empresa anunci que haba sido invitada por el Ministerio de
Educacin en Abu Dabi (en los Emiratos rabes Unidos) para establecer
escuelas e introducir un sistema similar al de Suecia para sus escuelas
independientes (Ultra Education, 2008). Y John Bauer ha manifestado

3
Bote, V. (2007). El cheque escolar para elegir en libertad la educacin
de nuestros hijos. La experiencia sueca. Cuadernos de Pensamiento Poltico, 14,
pp. 173-184; Rojas, M. (2009). Libertad de eleccin y pluralismo. Propuestas
para una reforma de la educacin espaola inspiradas en la Experiencia Sueca.
Ideas para salir de la crisis, 26 http://www.fundacionfaes.org/es/documentos/
ideas_crisis/show/0091

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

33

su intencin de establecer escuelas en otros pases que se considera que

presentan un buen potencial para el crecimiento econmico.
En la actualidad estamos asistiendo pues al comienzo de un fuerte crecimiento de la educacin privada en pases como la India, Nepal y Camboya
con el fin de atender a las necesidades del creciente nmero de estudiantes.
As esta tendencia, que de manera general empez o se fortaleci sobre
el ao 2000, crea una fuerte demanda para la educacin privada. [...] el
espritu empresarial de la gente que se encuentra tras John Bauer International, siempre dispuesta a participar en nuevos proyectos y a llevar ms all
a la organizacin, tanto como un genuino deseo de marcar la diferencia y
contribuir al avance de la sociedad a travs del desarrollo educativo, especialmente en los pases menos desarrollados, son las verdaderas razones
de nuestra existencia (John Bauer International, website).

Sin embargo, en 2009, John Bauer fue adquirida por la mayor empresa de capital de inversin de Dinamarca, Axcel, que entonces tena
inversiones valoradas en 14.000 millones de coronas danesas. Otras reas
principales de inversin de Axcel eran la vivienda, la moda y la comida
para mascotas. Tras de la compra de John Bauer (JBO), Axcel anunci:
Como parte de la estrategia para el desarrollo continuado de JBO, Axcel
planea extender y fortalecer la gestin y la direccin general de la compaa. En la realizacin de esta estrategia, el primer paso ha sido contratar a
Alf Johansson como presidente de la junta de directores. Johansson es el
ex director de Proffice, una de las mayores empresas de contratacin de
personal en Escandinavia con un volumen de negocio de aproximadamente
cuatro mil millones de Coronas Suecas.
(http://axcel.customers.composite.net/content/us/media/2008/axcel_acquires_jbo_in_sweden)

Estas empresas de educacin existen en un paisaje borroso de beneficio y servicio pblico. Sus empleados entrecruzan el sector pblico
y el privado. Para sus propietarios y fundadores, los servicios educativos
se sitan entre otras oportunidades de beneficio moda, comida de
mascotas, desarrollo inmobiliario, en portafolios de negocio diversificados. En tiempos de austeridad, cuando otros sectores de negocio
estn en recesin, los servicios educativos ofrecen atractivas posibilidades
alternativas de inversin. El recurso a la externalizacin como forma de
recortar el gasto pblico resulta tambin atractivo para los gobiernos,
como lo es la flexibilidad de los contratos comparada con la burocra-

34

stephen j. ball

cia. Las compaas son ambiciosas empresas globales en expansin

que trabajan a travs de los marcos nacionales, estableciendo prcticas
estandarizadas: currculo, pedagoga y evaluacin. En el caso de Suecia
parte de la educacin estatal es ahora propiedad de y est gestionada por
empresas localizadas en el extranjero. Hasta el momento no nos hemos
dado cuenta de la relevancia de que la infraestructura o los servicios
educativos nacionales sean de propiedad extranjera y los lmites que esto
puede introducir en las opciones de la poltica nacional o la posibilidad
de que empresas educativas multinacionales usen su poder para influir
en las polticas nacionales en su inters o las posibles consecuencias
de la quiebra de empresas para los gobiernos nacionales. Cada uno de
estos ejemplos, de formas diferentes pero relacionadas, revela algo del
grado de inters por parte de las empresas en la educacin, y del tamao y el valor de los diversos mercados globales de servicios educativos,
pero apenas araan la superficie. Aqu vemos tambin el crecimiento,
a travs de adquisiciones y fusiones, de marcas educativas globales que
en algunos casos ejercen una influencia considerable con relacin a la
poltica educativa. Estas empresas y sus representantes desempean su
papel en la decidida desestatalizacin y mercantilizacin de la educacin. Las iniciativas, ambiciones y visiones de las empresas someten
al sistema educativo a una especie de desgaste econmico que convierte
bienes pblicos en bienes privados, poniendo en juego nuevas prcticas,
valores y sensibilidades. La empresas desempean roles en el discurso
y la infraestructura de la reforma educativa, convirtiendo la poltica
educativa en una suerte de lenguaje diferente, investido con diferentes
tipos de relaciones, intereses y propsitos.
Al mismo tiempo las funciones y la estructura del Estado estn
cambiando. De manera creciente los Estados son ms supervisores,
contratistas y fijadores de objetivos que responsables de la prestacin del
servicio. El Estado se convierte en un regulador y creador de mercado
en una compleja red de relaciones con un conjunto diverso de actores
y organizaciones.
Conclusin

Lo que he estado tratando de exponer y explorar aqu son, tomando prestada la expresin de Ong (2006 p. 499), nuevos espacios
de posibilidades enmaraadas que se constituyen y promulgan en el

poltica educativa global: austeridad y beneficio

35

seno de nuevas redes globales de poltica educativa. Resulta atractivo y

en cierto modo trillado, aunque sin embargo cierto, decir que se trata
de un terreno de investigacin complejo, inestable y difcil. En muchos
aspectos no disponemos siquiera del lenguaje y los conceptos, ni de los
mtodos y tcnicas apropiados para investigar estos nuevos paisajes y
modos de poltica. Estos desarrollos y cambios en la poltica educativa,
que afectan a las formas y a las modalidades de la provisin y la organizacin educativa, han agotado el alcance actual de nuestra agenda de
investigacin y necesitamos adaptar y ajustar qu es lo que consideramos
como problemas de investigacin para ponernos al da. Necesitamos
plantear preguntas diferentes y buscar las respuestas en lugares tambin
diferentes. Podemos necesitar de algunas nuevas destrezas y sensibilidades si vamos a enfocar estos desarrollos de manera sensata. En particular,
debemos empezar a recurrir a formas de anlisis financiero y de negocios
o, para decirlo de otra manera, debemos seguir al dinero. Es decir, los
investigadores de la poltica, entre otras cosas, tienen que convertirse
en lectores regulares del Financial Times y del Wall Street Journal y de los
informes del mercado de acciones, y deben aprender a leer los balances
de las empresas.
Resultan tambin necesarios mtodos y sensibilidades que estn
en consonancia con el movimiento y el flujo ms que con la estructura y
el lugar, es decir, tenemos que evitar o ir ms all de las ontologas planas y fijas y pensar fuera de la caja de la poltica nacional. Adems,
necesitamos pensar sobre la temporalidad de los procesos y el carcter
dinmico de las interrelaciones entre fenmenos heterogneos (Rizvi y
Lingard 2010, p. 7), y tambin sobre las dinmicas de cambio en la era
global, afectadas por las combinaciones de cambios materiales producidos por las nuevas tecnologas y movilidades, as como por elementos no
materiales como los discursos globalmente convergentes y las tradiciones
locales de resistencia (p. 8). Esto es lo que Urry (2003, p. 157) llama
el giro hacia la movilidad y Beck (2006) denomina una sociologa
cosmopolita con un foco en lo interconectado, lo no lineal y dialctico
y lo mutable y frgil. Es decir, un foco en la espacializacin de las
relaciones sociales, en los viajes y otras formas de movimiento y otras
interacciones transnacionales, momentos, lugares, eventos y formas de
sociabilidad, con relacin a la poltica y al trabajo poltico. El Estado
nacin ya no es el nivel apropiado para el anlisis de la poltica.

References / Bibliografa
Agranoff, R. (2003). A New look at the value-adding functions of intergovernmental
networks. Paper presented at the 7th National Public Management Research
Conference, Georgetown University.
Arreman, I.E., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). School as Edubusiness: Four serious
players in the Swedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry,
2(4), 637-657.
Ball, S.J. (1994). Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ball, S.J. (2007a). Education Plc: Understanding private sector participation in public
sector education. London: Routledge.
Ball, S.J. (2007b). Privatising Education, Privatising Education Policy, Privatising
Educational Research: network governance and the competition state.
The Routledge Lecture, British Educational Research Association. London.
Ball, S.J. (2011a). Academies, policy networks and governance. In H. Gunter (Ed.),
The state and education policy: the academies programme. London: Continuum.
Ball, S.J. (2011b). Exporting Policy: the growth of multinational education
policy businesses and new policy assemblages. In C. Holden, M. Kilkey
& G. Ramia (Eds.), Social Policy Review 23: Analysis and debate in social policy,
2011. Britsol: Policy Press.
Ball, S.J. (2012). Global Ed. Inc.: new policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary.
London: Routledge.
Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Edicin espaola:
La mirada cosmopolita a la guerra es la paz. Barcelona: Paids, 2005].
Bessusi, E. (2006). Mapping European Research Networks. Working Papers Series
No. 103 Retrieved 07.08.09, from Mapping European Research Networks.
Burch, P.E. (2009). Hiddens Markets: The New Educational Privatization. New York:
Routledge.

38

bibliografa

Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture. Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell. [Edicin espaola:
La era de la informacin: economa, sociedad y cultura. Madrid: Alianza, 2001].
Cerny, P. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political
globalisation. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251-274.
Cohen, N. (2004). Pretty Straight Guys. London: Faber and Faber.
Coleman, W.D., & Skogstad, G. (Eds.). (1990). Policy Communities and Public Policy
in Canada. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Eggers, W. (2008). The changing nature of government: network governance.
In J. OFlynn & J. Wanna (Eds.), Collaborative governance: a new era of public
policy in Australia? (pp. 23-28). Canberra: ANU E Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity. [Edicin espaola: Modernidad e identidad del yo. Barcelona: Pennsula, 1995].
Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban and
Regional Studies, 11(2), 103-123.
Hood, C. (1990). Beyond the public bureaucracy state: public administration in the
1990s. London: LSE.
Jessop, B. (1998). The Rise of Governance and the risks of failure. International
Social Science Journal, 155(1), 29-45.
Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.
Keast, R., Mandell, M., & Brown, K. (2006). Mising state, market and network
governance modes: the role of government in crowded policy domains.
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(1), 27-50.
Klijn, E-H. & Mandell, Hopperijan, J. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks.
London: Routledge.
Mackenzie, R., & Lucio, M.M. (2005). The Realities of Regulatory Change: Beyond
the Fetish of Deregulation. British Journal of Sociology, 39(3), 499-517.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: the organisational basis
of politics. New York: Free Press.
Marsh, D., & Smith, M. (2000). Understanding policy networks: towards a dialectical approach. Political studies, 48, 4-21.
Nambissan, G.B., & Ball, S.J. (2010). Advocacy networks, choice and private schooling of the poor in India. Global Networks, 10(3), 324-343.

bibliografa

39

Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
Olmedo, A.J. (2012). Policy makers, market advocates and edu-businesses: New
and renewed players in the Spanish education policy arena. Journal of
Education Policy.
Ong, A. (2006). Mutations in Citizenship. Theory, Culture and Society, 23(2-3),
499-531.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Re-inventing Government. Reading: Mass:
Addison-Wesley. [Edicin espaola: Reinvencin del gobierno. Barcelona:
Paids, 1994].
Peterson, J. (2003). Policy networks. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1988). Policy networks, territorial communities and British government, paper presented to the Workshop on Public Policy in Northern Ireland: Adoption or Adaptation, Policy Research Institute. University of Ulster, 4 March 1988.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding Goverance: Policy Networks, Goverance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge.
Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilitization: on market-embedded morality.
Economy and Society, 37(1), 1-19.
Skelcher, C. (1998). The Appointed State. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing Images of the State - Overloaded, Hollowed-out,
Congested. Public Policy and Administration, 15(3), 3-19.
Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy in Collaborative Spaces: Why context matters in
researching governance networks. In J. Torfing (Ed.), Democratic Network
Governance in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Srensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2008). Theories of democratic network governance.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2004). Working Across Boundaries (Government Beyond
the Centre). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Triantafillou, P. (2004a). Addressing network governance through the concepts
of governmentality and normalization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 26,
489-508.
Triantafillou, P. (2004b). Conceiving network governance: the potential of the concepts of governmentality and normalization: Centre for Democratic Network
Governance.

40

bibliografa

Urry, J. (2003). Social networks, travel and talk. British Journal of Sociology, 54(2),
155-175.
Wanna, J. (2009). Political Chronicles, Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2008. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 55(2), 261-315.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration,
80(1), 103-124. [Edicin espaola: La elite del poder. Mxico: Fondo de
Cultura Econmica, 1969].
Wright-Mills, C. (1959). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
[Edicin espaola: La elite del poder. Mxico: Fondo de Cultura Econmica,
1969].