Review of Educational Research

June 2008, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 330–363

DOI: 10.3102/0034654308317846
© 2008 AERA. http://rer.aera.net

Research on Globalization and Education

Joel Spring
Queens College and the Graduate Center
of the City University of New York

Research on globalization and education involves the study of intertwined

worldwide discourses, processes, and institutions affecting local educational
practices and policies. The four major theoretical perspectives concerning
globalization and education are world culture, world systems, postcolonial,
and culturalist. The major global educational discourses are about the knowl-
edge economy and technology, lifelong learning, global migration or brain cir-
culation, and neoliberalism. The major institutions contributing to global
educational discourses and actions are the World Bank, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Trade Organization, the
United Nations, and UNESCO. International testing, in particular the Trends
in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA), and instruction in English as the language of com-
merce are contributing to global uniformity of national curricula. Critics of
current global trends support educational alternatives that will preserve local
languages and cultures, ensure progressive educational practices that will pro-
tect the poor against the rich, and protect the environment and human rights.

KEYWORDS: globalization, international education/studies, multiculturalism,

economics of education.
Research on globalization and education involves the study of intertwined
worldwide discourses, processes, and institutions affecting local educational prac-
tices and policies. Researchers come from a variety of disciplines and often take
an interdisciplinary approach to their topics. The field is developing its own lan-
guage and conceptual frameworks, in particular with regard to “flows” and “net-
works.” Often, the terms societies or civilizations are used to identify groups of
peoples sharing similar characteristics who see themselves as connected across the
boundaries of nation-states. In addition, research on globalization and education is
currently divided into four overlapping theoretical perspectives about the causes
and processes of globalization.
In the first section of this article, I will define the field of globalization and edu-
cation. The second section discusses the major theoretical frameworks for interpret-
ing the field. Based on my definition of the field of globalization and education, the
remainder of the sections will review research on the different aspects of the field,

330
 Research on Globalization and Education
including the global curriculum, the knowledge economy and technology, lifelong
learning, global migration and brain circulation, multiculturalism, methods of
instruction, testing, gender equality, and English as a global language. Also, I will
discuss research on the intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations
contributing to the globalization of education such as the World Bank, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), UNESCO, the United Nations, and nongovernmental
organizations associated with human rights, environmental, and women’s education.
Defining Globalization and Education
The economist Theodore Levitt is credited with coining the term globalization
in 1985 to describe changes in global economics affecting production, consump-
tion, and investment (Stromquist, 2002). The term was quickly applied to political
and cultural changes that affect in common ways large segments of the world’s
peoples. One of these common global phenomena is schooling. As the opening edi-
torial to the new 2003 journal Globalisation, Societies and Education—the very
founding of this journal indicates the growing importance of globalization and edu-
cation as a field of study—states (Dale & Robertson, 2003), “Formal education is
the most commonly found institution and most commonly shared experience of all
in the contemporary world” (p. 7). However, globalization of education does not
mean that all schools are the same, as indicated by studies of differences between
the local and the global (Anderson-Levitt, 2003).
The language of globalization has quickly entered discourses about schooling.
Government and business groups talk about the necessity of schools meeting the
needs of the global economy. For example, the U.S. organization Achieve, Inc.
(2005), formed in 1996 by the National Governors Association and CEOs of major
corporations for the purpose of school reform, declared that “high school is now the
front line in America’s battle to remain competitive on the increasingly competitive
international economic stage” (p. 1). The organization provided the following def-
inition of the global economy with a publication title that suggested the linkages
seen by politicians and business people between education and globalization:
“America’s High Schools: The Front Line in the Battle for Our Economic Future”:
The integration of the world economy through low-cost information and com-
munications has an even more important implication than the dramatic expan-
sion of both the volume of trade and what can be traded. Trade and
technology are making all the nations of the world more alike. Together they
can bring all of the world’s companies the same resources—the same scien-
tific research, the same capital, the same parts and components, the same
business services, and the same skills. (p. 4)
In a similar fashion, the European Commission’s (1998) document Teaching
and Learning: On Route to the Learning Society describes three basic impulses for
globalization: “These three impulses are the advent of the information society, of
scientific and technical civilisation and the globalisation of the economy. All three
contribute to the development of a learning society” (p. 21).
The launching of the Globalisation, Societies and Education journal required
the editors to define their field of study. In the first issue, the editors stated that
globalization and education would be considered as an intertwined set of global

331
Spring
processes affecting education, such as worldwide discourses on human capital,
economic development, and multiculturalism; intergovernmental organizations;
information and communication technology; nongovernmental organizations; and
multinational corporations (Dale & Robertson, 2003).
The following represent some of the features alluded to by the editors as global
educational processes. With regard to educational discourses, most of the world’s
governments discuss similar educational agendas that include investing in educa-
tion to develop human capital or better workers and to promote economic growth.
As a consequence, educational discourses around the world often refer to human
capital, lifelong learning for improving job skills, and economic development. Also,
the global economy is sparking a mass migration of workers, resulting in global dis-
cussions about multicultural education. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs),
such as the United Nations, the OECD, and the World Bank, are promoting global
educational agendas that reflect educational discourses about human capital, eco-
nomic development, and multiculturalism. Information and communication tech-
nology is speeding the global flow of information and creating a library of world
knowledges. Global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), in particular those
concerned with human rights and environmentalism, are trying to influence school
curricula throughout the world. Multinational corporations, in particular those
involved in publishing, information, testing, for-profit schooling, and computers,
are marketing their products to governments, schools, and parents around the world.
As indicated by the journal’s title Globalisation, Societies and Education, these
intertwined global educational processes are analyzed in the framework of soci-
eties in contrast to nation-states. This framework makes it possible to talk about a
global society or societies. The term societies is meant to encompass something
broader than a nation-state by including economic and political organizations, civil
society, and culture. In this definition, the nation-state does not disappear but
becomes a subset of societies. In other words, particular societies might be identi-
fied as having similar political forms such as democratic and totalitarian, similar
economic organizations such as market-driven and planned, or similar religions
such as Islamic, Christian, and Hindu societies.
Whereas the founders of the journal chose the word societies to identify groups
of peoples sharing similar characteristics who see themselves as connected across
the boundaries of nation-states, others have chosen the word civilizations (Hayhoe
& Pan, 2001a; Huntington, 1996). The term civilizations can be used for the cate-
gories of east and west and north and south. However, these terms are so broad that
they defy any clear definition. In comparing the thinking of Asian and Western stu-
dents, Nesbitt (2003) defined his concept of Asian to be a civilization based on
Confucian ethical values, such as China, Korea, and Japan, and Western civiliza-
tion as based on the early works of Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.
Huntington (1996) popularized the idea of clashes of civilizations. His vision is of
a world divided by religious, cultural, and economic differences that override the
boundaries of the nation-state. His civilizational categories include Western, Latin
American, African, Islamic, Sinic (China and Korea), Hindu, Eastern Orthodox
Christianity, and Japanese. In the future, civilization clashes, he argues, will be
between Western, Islamic, and Sinic civilizations.
How is the study of globalization and education different from the traditional
field of comparative education? First, researchers on globalization and education
332
 Research on Globalization and Education
are not drawn exclusively from comparative education, although many of those
studying globalization are identified with the field of comparative education. As a
new field of study, researchers into the processes and effect of globalization on
educational practices and policies come from a variety of education disciplines,
including anthropology, curriculum studies, economics, history, sociology, educa-
tional policy, comparative education, psychology, and instructional methodolo-
gies. For instance, the book Globalizing Education: Policies, Pedagogies, &
Politics is edited by Michael Apple, a curriculum researcher, Jane Kenway, a soci-
ology of education researcher, and Michael Singh, an educational policy researcher
(Apple, Kenway, & Singh, 2005). As a consequence, at least in its initial stages,
research in this new field tends to be interdisciplinary. This does not preclude the
possibility that sometime in the future, researchers in the field of globalization and
education will be specialists educated in doctoral programs devoted to the topic.
Second, comparative education has traditionally focused on comparing the edu-
cational systems of nation-states. Referring to the “new world for comparative edu-
cation,” Dale (2005) wrote that with globalization, the world “can no longer
unproblematically be apprehended as made up of autonomous states, an assumption
that had been fairly fundamental to much work in comparative education, indeed,
the basis of the comparisons it undertook” (p. 123). Or, as Carnoy and Rhoten
(2002) asserted, “Before the 1950s, comparative education focused mainly on the
philosophical and cultural origins of national education systems” (p. 1). For Dale
(2005), globalization studies have given comparative education “a new lease of life”
(p. 118). In an editorial in Comparative Education, Broadfoot (2003) wrote that the
topic of globalization had a positive effect on the historic swings in the perceived
value of the field of comparative education: “At the present time we find ourselves
at the latter extreme [key educational policy tool], with governments around the
world anxious to learn about educational practices in other countries, as they scan
the latest international league tables of school performance” (p. 411). Researchers
in the field of comparative education have logically turned their attention to the issue
of globalization as indicated by the articles appearing in the Comparative Education
journal such as “Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education”
(Dale, 2005) and “Meeting the Global Challenge? Comparing Recent Initiatives in
School Science and Technology” (Jordan & Yeomans, 2003).
The study of the effect of globalization on educational processes is developing
its own academic language, originating in the work of Appadurai (1996) and
Castells (2000). Appadurai (1996) introduced the language of global flows of
ideas, practices, institutions, and people, such as ethnoscapes, the movement of
the world’s peoples; financescapes, the movement of trade, money, and capital;
technoscapes, the movement of technology; mediascapes, the movement of images
and ideas in popular culture; and ideoscapes, the movement of ideas and practices
concerning government and other institutional policies. Flow provides a general
conceptual framework for the process of globalization. Castells (2000) translates
the concept of global flows into networks; the various flows (financescapes, etc.)
move through networks that are capable of limitless expansion. Because of the
Internet, networks can compress time and space with communication becoming
instantaneous. Also, networks will continue to expand and attract members
because being in a network increases possibilities of success in most endeavors.
In studying the global transformation of political economy, Held, McGrew,
333
Spring
Goldblatt, and Perraton (1999) used the concepts of flows and networks to catego-
rize seven areas of globalization: military, governance, trade and finance, environ-
ment, migration, popular media, and communications and transportation. Also,
there are grassroots networks promoting democracy and social justice (Bandy,
2004; Smith, 2007). In their conceptualization of globalization, these areas stretch
across the boundaries of nation-states and continents with the local and the global
becoming enmeshed. Although these three approaches to globalization have pro-
vided conceptual frameworks and language to the study of globalization, they have
been criticized for not considering the role of human choice or agency in the glob-
alization process (Marginson & Sawir, 2005).
The following sections will review research related to the intertwined worldwide
discourses, processes, and institutions affecting educational practices and policies,
including in the next section the differing theoretical perspectives concerning glob-
alization and education. The review of worldwide discourses will include the knowl-
edge economy, lifelong learning, global migration and brain circulation, and
neoliberalism. Two sections will be devoted to research on the major global institu-
tions affecting worldwide educational practices and policies including the World
Bank, OECD, WTO/General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), United
Nations, UNESCO, and other intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), such as human rights, environmental, and
women’s organizations. The last section will discuss the growing uniformity of edu-
cational practices related to methods of instruction, testing, and use of English.
World Culture, World Systems, Postcolonialist, and Culturalist
Currently, there are four major interpretations of the process of educational glob-
alization. The first is an interpretation that posits the existence of a world culture that
contains Western ideals of mass schooling, which serves as a model for national
school systems. One premise of world culture scholars is that all cultures are slowly
integrating into a single global culture. Often called “neo-institutionalist,” this school
of thought believes that nation-states draw on this world culture in planning their
school systems (Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Boli & Thomas, 1999a; Lechner & Boli,
2005; Meyer, Kamens, & Benavot, 1992; Ramirez, 2003; Ramirez & Boli, 1987).
The other three interpretive models are sometimes overlapping, in particular
with regard to analysis of world knowledges and power. The world systems
approach sees the globe as integrated but with two major unequal zones. The core
zone is the United States, the European Union, and Japan, which dominates periph-
ery nations. The goal of the core is to legitimize its power by inculcating its values
into periphery nations (Arnove, 1980; Clayton, 1998; Wallerstein, 1984, 2004).
What I will call postcolonial analysis sees globalization as an effort to impose par-
ticular economic and political agendas on the global society that benefit wealthy
and rich nations at the expense of the world’s poor (Apple, 2005; Brown & Lauder,
2006; Gabbard, 2000; Olson, 2006; Weiler, 2001). The third interpretation empha-
sizes cultural variations and the borrowing and lending of educational ideas within
a global context (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Benhabib, 2002; Hayhoe & Pan, 2001b;
Schriewer & Martinez, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). This interpretive framework
draws on anthropological research and a culturalist theorist perspective.
World cultural theorists argue that schooling based on a Western model is now
a global cultural ideal that has resulted in the development of common educational
334
 Research on Globalization and Education
structures and a common curriculum model (Meyer & Kamens, 1992; Ramirez,
2003; Ramirez & Boli, 1987). As an ideal, this model of schooling is based on a
belief in educability of all people, the right to education, and the importance of edu-
cation in maintaining economic and democratic rights. As a participant in the evo-
lution of world culture theory by a group of sociologists at Stanford University in
the 1970s and 1980s, Francisco Ramirez (2003) wrote, “The [world] culture at
work, we later asserted, was articulated and transmitted through nation-states,
organizations, and experts who themselves embodied the triumph of a schooled
world ‘credential society’” (p. 242). In their pioneer survey of the world’s curric-
ula, world cultural theorists John Meyer and David Kamens (1992) concluded “that
through this century [20th] one may speak of a relatively clear ‘world primary cur-
riculum’ operating, at least an official standard, in almost all countries” (p. 166).
Why is there a common global primary school curriculum? Meyer and Kamens
claim that “as national elites define and develop curricular policy, they tend to draw
from the best developed models they and their consultants can find” (p. 168). These
ideal education models exist in a world educational culture.
In sharp contrast to world cultural theorists who believe that a Western
school model globalized because it was the best, world systems analysts believe
that the core countries are trying to legitimize their power by using aid agen-
cies, in particular through support of education, to teach capitalist modes of
thought and analysis (Arnove, 1980; Tabulawa, 2003; Wallerstein, 1984, 2004).
In a similar manner, postcolonialist analysis argues that Western schooling
dominates the world scene as the result of the imposition by European imperi-
alism and their Christian missionary allies. Simply stated, Western-style
schools spread around the globe as a result of European cultural imperialism
(Carnoy, 1974; Spring, 1998, 2006; Willinsky, 1998). With the breakup of colo-
nial empires after World War II, new forms of colonialism or postcolonialism
appeared through the work of IGOs, multinational corporations, and trade
agreements. In its current manifestation, postcolonialist power promotes mar-
ket economies, human capital education, and neoliberal school reforms all
designed to promote the interests of rich nations and powerful multinational
corporations. In the framework of postcolonialism, these critics argue, educa-
tion is viewed as an economic investment designed to produce better workers
to serve multinational corporations (Becker, 2006; Crossley & Tikly, 2004;
R. Rhoads & Torres, 2006; Spring, 1998; Stromquist, 2002; Stromquist &
Monkman, 2000). In describing what they consider to be the negative effects of
global IGOs and trade agreements on Latin American education, Schugurensky
and Davidson-Harden (2003) wrote, “We take a postcolonial perspective in con-
sidering the historical inequalities . . . mark the region’s relations with the
world’s richer countries. . . . [The WTO/GATS] has the potential to continue
the cycles of imperialism which have subdued Latin American countries’ devel-
opment since the time of colonisation” (p. 333).
In general, postcolonial analysis (Crossley & Tikly, 2004)
includes issues of slavery, migration and diaspora formation; the effects of
race, culture, class and gender in postcolonial settings; histories of resistance
and struggle against colonial and neo-colonial domination; the complexities
of identity formation and hybridity; language and language rights; the ongo-
ing struggles of indigenous peoples for recognition of their rights. (p. 148)
335
Spring
Postcolonial analysis considers a prevailing form of knowledge to be the result
of political and economic power. In contrast to world cultural theorists, those using
postcolonialist analysis believe that the global influence of Western thought is not
a result of it being right but of political and economic power. German political sci-
entist Weiler (2001) identifies the relationship between global knowledge and
power as involving a hierarchy of knowledge where one form of knowledge is priv-
ileged over another; where a particular knowledge is legitimated by power because
it legitimizes that power; and where a transnational system of power working
through global organizations, such as publishing corporations, research organiza-
tions, higher education institutions, professional organizations, and testing ser-
vices, legitimates one form of knowledge.
A common thread between postcolonial analysis and “culturalists” is the belief
in the existence of world knowledges and the subjugation of some knowledges by
others. Culturalists reject what they consider to be a simplistic view of world cul-
tural theorists that national elites select the best model of schooling from a world
culture of education. They also question the idea that models of schooling are sim-
ply imposed on local cultures. This group of theorists believes that local actors bor-
row from multiple models in the global flow of educational ideas. In contrast to the
concept of the existence of a world culture reflecting a single form of knowledge,
culturalists stress the existence of different knowledges and different ways of see-
ing and knowing the world (Hayhoe & Pan, 2001b; Little, 2003; Rahnema, 2001;
Zeera, 2001). In addition, culturalists argue that in the global flow, there are other
educational ideas besides human capital, such as religious, Freirian, human rights,
and environmental education, and multiple forms of progressive education
(Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Benhabib, 2002; Schriewer & Martinez, 2004; Spring,
2004, 2006; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). For instance, Beverly Lindsay (2005) argues
that universities in Zimbabwe and elsewhere should adopt “dynamic paradigms
to support peace and progressive development through university enterprises”
(p. 194). Choosing from these multiple educational models, local actors adapt them
to local circumstances sometimes against the desires of local elites. Summarizing
the case studies in her edited book, Steiner-Khamsi (2004) wrote,
Educational transfer from one context to another not only occurs for differ-
ent reasons, but also plays out differently. For example, despite all the polit-
ical and economic pressure on low-income countries to comply with
“international standards” in education, imported policies do not have homog-
enizing effects, that is, they do not lead to a convergence of educational sys-
tems. (pp. 202–203)
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that postcolonial analysis and cultural-
ists often overlap in their research because they share similar perspectives concern-
ing the existence of multiple knowledges and the subjugation of some knowledges
by others. However, the four major interpretive divisions in the field of globaliza-
tion and education do reflect differing approaches to the future of globalization.
The first two interpretive frameworks advocate a particular political agenda. World
culturalists support and want to improve the current dominant human capital model
of schooling. World systems theorists see this as a process to legitimize the actions
of rich nations. Believing in the value of a world culture, Baker and LeTendre
(2005) stress the existence of “a world culture of education shaping similar values,

336
 Research on Globalization and Education
norms, and even operating procedures in schools across all kinds of quite contrast-
ing nations. . . . Education change right now is a result of deepening of existing
institutional qualities more than the effect of outside forces” (p. 169). In other
words, the dominant model of schooling is okay and any educational change
should be focused on its improvement. In contrast, postcolonial analysis posits that
the dominant global school model is exploitive of the majority of humanity and
destructive to the planet. They would like to replace the dominant model of human
capital education with other more progressive forms designed to empower the
masses. For example, Franzway (2005) asks,
What can education policy actors and practitioners of new pedagogies do in
a world where the pressures of political and economic forces have reached a
global scale? What are the possibilities for progressive action when capital
and the state grasp at the flows of globalization, while communities, individ-
uals, and social institutions flounder in pessimism and passivity? (p. 265)
A general political agenda among culturalists is recognition of multiple knowl-
edges, alternative cultural frameworks for schooling, and the importance of study-
ing the interaction between the local and the global. As Hayhoe and Pan (2001b)
stated with regard to the study of world cultures and knowledges: “Of greatest
importance is the readiness to listen to the narrative of the other, and to learn the
lessons which can be discovered in distinctive threads of human cultural thought
and experience” (p. 20).
Global Discourses: The Knowledge Economy and Technology
Global educational discourses play an important role in creating common educa-
tional practices and policies. It is certain that a central global discussion is about the
knowledge economy. Contained within discourses about the knowledge economy
are discussions of technology, human capital, lifelong learning, and the global migra-
tion of workers. Brown and Lauder (2006) described the conceptual evolution of the
knowledge economy from the original work on human capital economics by Gary
Becker (1964, 2006), who argued that industrial development in the 20th century
relied on the knowledge and skills of an elite few but that, now, economies depend
on the skills and knowledge of all people. Coining the term postindustrial, Daniel
Bell (1973) predicted that there would be a shift from blue-collar to white-collar
labor, requiring a major increase in educated workers. In the 1990s, Peter Drucker
(1993) argued that in the new stage of economic development, knowledge rather than
ownership of capital generates new wealth and that power was shifting from owners
and managers of capital to knowledge workers. Growing income inequality between
individuals and nations, according to Robert Reich (1991), was a result of differences
in knowledge and skills. In summary, changes in human capital and postindustrial-
ism, according to these theorists, created a knowledge economy where wealth was
tied to knowledge workers and ultimately to educational systems.
Discourses about the knowledge economy focus on the necessity of educating
students with skills for the global workplace. In this regard, technology plays a
double role. First, students are to be educated so that they can continually adapt to
a work world where technological innovations are occurring almost daily
(Monahan, 2005; World Bank, 2003). The World Bank (2003) has phrased it this
way: “A knowledge-based economy relies primarily on the use of ideas rather than

337
Spring
physical abilities and on the application of technology. . . . Equipping people to
deal with these demands requires a new model of education and training” (p. xvii).
In turn, information technology and communications has made it easier for stu-
dents to access the world’s knowledges (Stromquist, 2002). Also, technological
innovations affect the process of education, as Stoer and Magalhaes (2004) wrote,
this makes the “knowledge inherent to the teaching–learning process . . . an
extension of the demands of economic globalization, on the one hand, and func-
tional to the new emerging needs of scientific and technological reconfiguration of
the processes of production and distribution” (p. 325). An important aspect of rapid
technological innovations is a demand for lifelong learning, which will be dis-
cussed in detail in the next section.
The knowledge economy plays a role in discussions about economic development
and competition between nation-states and supranational government organizations
such as the European Union. “The conventional wisdom,” David Guile (2006) wrote,
“is that knowledge now constitutes the most important factor of production in the
economies of advanced industrial societies; and as a corollary, the populations of
these countries require greater access to knowledge as represented by qualifications”
(p. 355). For developing countries, discourses on the knowledge economy hold out
the promise that expanded educational opportunities will result in economic growth
and modernization. “Like a gospel,” Grubb and Lazerson (2006) claimed, “it [the
rhetoric of the knowledge economy] has been accepted by an extraordinary range of
policymakers, reformers, many [but not all] educators, the business community, most
students wanting to get ahead, and much of the public” (p. 295).
Examples of the penetration of the knowledge economy discourse in educa-
tional planning can be found throughout the globe (Spring, 2006). The following
two examples are of an advanced economy, the European Union, and a develop-
ing economy, China. For example, the 2000 European Council’s Lisbon declara-
tion (Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2002) urged member nations
“to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and
greater social cohesion” (p. 7). The title of a European Commission report on
higher education exemplifies the penetration of knowledge economy discourses
into policy statements: “Mobilizing the Brainpower of Europe: Enabling
Universities to Make Their Full Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy” (Commission
of the European Communities, 2005).
Dale (2005) suggests, at least in the case of the European Union, that the dis-
course of the knowledge economy includes a limitation of the power of the nation-
state over education. “Previously, education had been assumed to be, under the
European treaty, an exclusively national responsibility,” Dale (2005) wrote, “but
the Lisbon statement included the promulgation of sets of Concrete Future
Objectives for Education Systems, and stated that these could only be met at the
level of the Community and not by individual Member States” (p. 136). Under the
Lisbon declaration, European Union schools are to educate their students to be high
skilled workers who would ensure success in global economic competition.
The global discourse about the knowledge economy has set the agenda for many
national educational policies (Spring, 1998, 2006). One example is the Chinese
government’s integration of economic and educational planning. In a World Bank
report about the knowledge economies in Hong Kong and Shanghai, Cheng and
338
 Research on Globalization and Education
Yip (2006) explained, “Both Hong Kong and Shanghai are facing challenges from
what is, conveniently, called a ‘knowledge society.’ As such, the education sys-
tems in both cities also face major challenges” (p. 4). The authors go on to describe
how discussions of the knowledge society are changing educational policies in
both cities, in particular with regard to lifelong learners: “The curriculum reforms
in both cities seem to point in the same direction—that of a general shift in orien-
tation from concrete knowledge and skills to generic abilities” (p. 34).
In contrast to the focus on increasing educational opportunities to prepare
needed workers for the knowledge economy, there is some research evidence that
suggests that there is an oversupply of higher education graduates. After analyz-
ing data on college graduates and their income, Brown and Lauder (2006) con-
cluded that, globally, the number of college graduates is larger than labor market
demand. The result is educational inflation with reduced wages for college gradu-
ates and people occupying jobs for which they are overtrained. They argue that
employers are primarily concerned with work attitudes and that good work atti-
tudes are associated with higher levels of education. In other words, their research
concludes that in some cases, a higher education degree merely serves the function
of identifying workers who have good work attitudes.
Global Discourse: Lifelong Education
Lifelong education is part of the discourse about the knowledge economy. In
this context, primary and secondary education becomes preparation for the lifelong
learning required by the rapidly changing technology of the knowledge economy.
As a consequence, concerns about lifelong learning have a direct effect on primary
and secondary curricula. What skills should students learn so that they can become
lifelong learners?
Lifelong learning became a worldwide topic of discussion in the 1970s with the
publication of a report by UNESCO (Borg & Mayo, 2005). Reflecting a humanist
background, this report called for lifelong education as part of individual cultural
growth (Faure et al., 1972). This humanist vision of lifelong learning is in sharp con-
trast to discussions in the late 1980s and 1990s. The OECD reconceptualized lifelong
learning by making it part of human capital theory (Field, 2001), and the European
Union gave it central prominence as part of the human capital requirements of the
knowledge economy (Commission of the European Communities, 2000). Now, life-
long learning is considered essential for individuals to keep pace with the constantly
changing global job market and technology (Borg & Mayo, 2005; Spring, 1998). The
European Union’s statement on lifelong learning defined it as “all purposeful learn-
ing activity, undertaken on an ongoing basis with the aim of improving knowledge,
skills and competence” (Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p. 3).
In discussions of the knowledge economy, preparation for lifelong learning
requires an emphasis in primary and secondary schools on learning basic skills, in
particular communication and math skills, interpersonal skills, and skills needed to
learn other subjects. In discussing the knowledge economy in Hong Kong and
Shanghai, Cheng and Yip (2006) explain the meaning of lifelong learning among
Chinese school officials wanting to prepare students for the knowledge economy:
“ability to learn new things, to work in teams, to communicate effectively, to man-
age oneself, to question and to innovate, to assume personal responsibility, etc.” (p. 34).
In one document issued by the European Union (Cedefop & Eurydice, 2001), the
339
Spring
skills needed for lifelong learning, skills that are to be taught in primary and sec-
ondary schools, are described as “the general elementary and/or cognitive compe-
tencies required for a whole series of jobs, indeed all jobs: mathematics, writing,
problem-solving, social communication and interpersonal competencies” (p. 31).
In the United States, several business surveys found corporate leaders believing that
the knowledge economy required primary and secondary students to learn compu-
tation, communication, problem-solving skills, and proper work attitudes (Olson,
2006). The report on the 2005 summit on U.S. high schools limited the recom-
mended core curriculum to 4 years of English (communication skills) and 4 years
of math, including data analysis and statistics. These were considered the only
essential subjects needed for preparation of students for lifelong learning in the
knowledge economy (Achieve, Inc., & National Governors Association, 2005).
In summary, discussions about lifelong learning for the knowledge economy
resulted in an emphasis in primary and secondary education on teaching communi-
cation and math skills as well as interpersonal skills (proper work attitudes). In addi-
tion, discussions of lifelong learning, similar to the effect of globalization on
comparative education, gave new life to the field of adult education (Armstrong,
Miller, & Zukas, 1997; Foley, 2004). The result is a flood of research on lifelong
learning and adult education. A review of this research is beyond the scope of this
review on globalization and education. However, it is important to note that global
discourses on education and knowledge economy changed the earlier humanist vision
of lifelong learning to one focused on the ability of workers to adapt to a changing
world of work along with increasing the importance of the field of adult education.
Global Migration, Brain Circulation, and Multiculturalism
One of the much studied aspects of the knowledge economy is the global migra-
tion of workers. The largest migration is from poorer to wealthier nations. As a
consequence, wealthier nations, which have 16% of the world’s workers, have
more than 60% of global migrants (Martin, 2005; Parker, 2005). The Report of the
Global Commission on International Migration (2005) declared,
International migration has risen to the top of the global policy agenda. . . .
In every part of the world, there is now an understanding that the economic,
social and cultural benefits of international migration must be more effec-
tively realized, and that the negative consequences of cross-border movement
could be better addressed. (p. vii)
Martin (2005) provided the current official description of global migrants for
the Global Commission on International Migration:
Migrants are defined by the United Nations as people outside their country of
birth or citizenship for 12 months or more. In a world of 190+ sovereign
nation states, each of which issues passports and regulates who can cross its
borders and stay in its sovereign territory, the UN’s Population Division esti-
mated there were 175 million migrants in 2000, including 65 million or 37
percent in “less developed” nations, which are those outside Europe and
North America, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, and the ex-USSR “where it is
presented as a separate area.” The number of migrants in less-developed
countries was stable in the 1990s, but the developing countries’ share of the
world’s migrant stock fell with their rising population. (p. 7)

340
 Research on Globalization and Education
Originally, the focus was on “brain drain,” a term, according to Vinokur (2006),
first used in the United Kingdom to describe the influx of Indian scientists and
engineers. Now, the focus is on the developing phenomenon of “brain circulation,”
where skilled and professional workers move between wealthy nations or return to
their homelands after migrating to another country. The Report of the Global
Commission on International Migration (2005) provided this justification for drop-
ping brain drain in favor of brain circulation:
Given the changing pattern of international migration, the notion of “brain
drain” is a somewhat outmoded one, implying as it does that a migrant who
leaves her or his own country will never go back there. In the current era, there
is a need to capitalize upon the growth of human mobility by promoting the
notion of “brain circulation,” in which migrants return to their own country
on a regular or occasional basis, sharing the benefits of the skills and
resources they have acquired while living and working abroad. (p. 31)
Brain circulation has been aided by national efforts to bring back educated work-
ers lost in the brain drain. In China, returning knowledge workers are called “turtles,”
as explained by Jiaojiao (2007): “Enticed by more opportunities in a blossoming
economy, many overseas Chinese—or ‘turtles’—are swimming home” (p. 20). The
Chinese government is offering special benefits to encourage turtles. Malaysia has
developed a national strategy to bring scientists home (Robertson, 2006).
Two important areas of educational research developed as a result of brain cir-
culation. One deals with the effect of the migration of skilled and unskilled work-
ers on the countries of origin and host countries. And the other related research area
is the accommodation in national school systems of migrant populations.
There is a great deal of debate about the effect of the movement of highly edu-
cated populations on the knowledge economies of nations. For instance, what is the
long-term effect of the fact that “many Central American and island nations in the
Caribbean had more that 50 percent of their university-educated citizens living
abroad in 2000” (Ozden & Schiff, 2006, p. 11). Nearly 40% of tertiary-educated
adults have left Turkey and Morocco, whereas Africa has lost 30% of its skilled pro-
fessions (Robertson, 2006). Early research literature emphasized the negative effect
of brain drain on countries losing highly educated workers. This literature stressed
that countries experiencing brain drain showed a decline in productivity, a loss of
health and education services because of a decline in professional workers, and a
decline in the tax base through loss of high paid workers (W. Adams, 1968; Grubel
& Scott, 1966; Johnson, 1967, 1968; Kapur & McHale, 2005; Kwok & Leland,
1982). Vinokur (2006) reported that training a worker in India to be a data process-
ing specialist in 2001 cost the Indian government from $15,000 to $20,000. If that
worker migrates to another country, then India loses the cost of the training plus the
worker’s potential contribution to the Indian economy, estimated at $2 billion.
Vinokur (2006) argued that the debate over “who wins, who loses and how much”
in brain circulation is “irresolvable—analytically and empirically” (p. 20).
Some researchers claim positive effects for countries experiencing brain drain.
One positive effect for nations losing educated people to wealthier nations are the
remittances sent home, with some of these remittances being used for education
and health care (R. Adams, 2006; Cox-Edwards & Ureta, 2003; McKenzie, 2006;
Mora & Taylor, 2006). Also, some researchers are suggesting that the migration

341
Spring
results in demands for greater government spending on education (brain gain) by
populations in less-developed countries wanting to migrate (Mountford, 1997;
Stark, 2004). These researchers, according to Schiff (2006), believe that this can
result in a “net brain gain [for countries losing educated workers], that is, a brain
gain that is larger than the brain drain; and a net brain gain raises welfare and
growth” (p. 202). In the most recent study for the World Bank, Schiff (2006) con-
cluded that previous studies had been overly optimistic about the positive effects
of brain drain on countries experiencing the loss of educated workers. His conclu-
sions for the World Bank study were the following: “The [effect of] brain drain on
welfare and growth is likely to be significantly greater than reported” (p. 203).
The brain gain for developing nations has resulted, according to some
researchers, in a movement of high skilled jobs from developed to developing
countries. For instance, Brown and Lauder (2006) found software companies
relocating from the United States and the European Union to India. In the
United States, according to Brown and Lauder, software developers earned in
1997 from $49,000 to 67,500 as compared with $15,700 to 19,200 in India. The
implication of these findings is that rather than India experiencing a brain
drain, they could be experiencing a gain in brain-related jobs. Or, in other
words, the United States could experience a loss of jobs requiring highly
skilled workers to countries with lower wages and an increasing number of col-
lege graduates.
What are the effects of educated and skilled migrants and foreign students
on the destination country? Researchers find contradictory effects. In the most
recent research for the World Bank, Chellaraj, Maskus, and Mattoo (2006) con-
cluded that reducing the flow of students and skilled workers to the United
States would have a strong negative effect on innovation in contrast to raising
the number of foreign graduate students by 10%, which would increase the
number of patent applications by 4.7%. On the other hand, researchers have
found no significant increases in wages for college graduates in developed
countries, such as the United States and Great Britain, except for those few
entering at the top of the wage scale (Mishel & Bernstein, 2003). Two possi-
ble implications of these findings is that developed countries are experiencing
an oversupply of college graduates, which would reduce wages, and that the
brain gain from migration might be depressing wages for college graduates
(Brown & Lauder, 2006).
However, the most dramatic effect on developed nations experiencing brain
gain through migration has been an increase in multicultural populations and
resulting concerns about cultural and religious conflicts and multicultural educa-
tion. Can societies remain socially cohesive with increased global migration? In
2007, the British government faced the problem of an attempted suicide bombing
at the Glasgow airport by an Islamic militant who migrated to the United Kingdom
as part of the country’s brain gain of medical workers (Thomas & Hosenball, 2007;
Timmons, 2007).
The problem of maintaining social cohesion with global migration is a main
concern of the Global Commission on International Migration, which listed it as
one of its six “Principles of Action.” Under the heading “Strengthening Social
Cohesion Through Integration,” the Commission declared (Report of the Global
Commission on International Migration, 2005),
342
 Migrants and citizens of destination countries should respect their legal oblig-
ations and benefit from a mutual process of adaptation and integration that
accommodates cultural diversity and fosters social cohesion. The integration
process should be actively supported by local and national authorities,
employers and members of civil society, and should be based on a commit-
ment to non-discrimination and gender equity. It should also be informed by
an objective public, political and media discourse on international migration.
(p. 4)
The problem of social cohesion resulting from global migration has stimulated
multicultural education research. It is not possible in the limited space of this
review to cover all of this research. Therefore, I will limit my review of research
to multicultural education issues in a global context in contrast to reviewing the
multicultural education research of a particular nation-state such as the United
States or Great Britain. For instance, there is research comparing multicultural edu-
cation programs in differing countries (Banks, 2007; Grant & Lei, 2001; Rotberg,
2004; Stoer & Cortesao, 2000). There are also discussions of global citizenship.
Some of these are theoretical works dealing with the ability of nation-states, in par-
ticular those having representative or democratic governments, to function with
multicultural populations (Appadurai, 1996; Appiah, 2005, 2006; Benhabib, 2002;
Kymlicka & Baogang, 2005; Taylor et al., 1994). There are also works on educat-
ing global citizens for a multicultural world (R. Adams, 2006; Bryan & Vavrus,
2005; Dower, 2003; Gaudelli, 2003; Hufford & Pedrajas, 2007; Matthews &
Sidhu, 2005; McDonough & Feinberg, 2006; Noddings, 2005; Suárez-Orozco &
Qin-Hilliard, 2004).
Global Discourse: Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is an important part of educational discourses in IGOs, such as the
World Bank, OECD, and WTO, and within national governments; I will discuss the
work of the World Bank, OECD, and WTO in the next section. Neoliberalism is
often traced to the work of Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian economist and Nobel Prize
winner, who moved to the United States to teach at the University of Chicago from
1950 to 1962 where he founded what is now called the Chicago School of
Economics. First published in 1944, Hayek’s (2007) The Road to Serfdom led to
criticisms of government bureaucracies, including educational bureaucracies. He
argued that free markets, rather than government control and bureaucracy, were the
best means of determining production and pricing of goods along with the control
of other social institutions including schools. Ideally, traditional government ser-
vices, such as schooling, should be privatized and control turned over to the forces
of the marketplace. Milton Friedman, a colleague of Hayek’s at the University of
Chicago and 1976 Nobel Prize winner, became the first American to advocate the
use of vouchers as a means of providing school choice (Friedman, 1962).
Hayek and some of his followers such as Murray Rothbard wanted to com-
pletely privatize education and remove all government control (Rothbard, 1970).
However, neoconservatives did not want government to relinquish control over the
standards and curriculum of schools and, as a consequence, urged privatization of
education with government control through curriculum standards and testing
(Apple, 2000; Spring, 2005). In general, the plea of neoliberals is for a combina-
tion of free markets and privatization with government regulation or, as it is

343
Spring
known, the “reinvention of government” (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993).
Government-provided services, such as schools, are to be privatized but kept under
government regulation. Competition is to be the driving force of social institutions
along with global and national economies (Apple, 2000; Lauder, Brown,
Dillabough, & Halsey, 2006; Stromquist, 2002; Torres & Rhoads, 2006). The ideal
of neoliberalism is to create global free markets (Gray, 2004).
Neoliberal school reforms are designed to privatize traditional government
school services and return them to the marketplace in the form of school choice and
for-profit schooling (Apple, 2000; Apple et al., 2005; Brown & Lauder, 2006;
Burbules & Torres, 2000; Crossley & Tikly, 2004; Dale, 2005; Gabbard, 2000;
Olssen, 2004; Peters, Marshall, & Fitzsimons, 2000; Stromquist, 2002). Illustrating
this argument, Apple (2005) wrote, “Neoliberals are the most powerful element
within the alliance supporting conservative modernization. . . . Underpinning this
position is a vision of students as human capital . . . as future workers” (p. 214).
Many of the critics of neoliberalism are associated with the antiglobalization
movement (Lechner & Boli, 2005). Many critics use postcolonial analysis, which
leads them to conclude that neoliberalism is an ideology designed to ensure that
privileged nations and people retain their wealth and power in a globalized econ-
omy (Becker, 2006; Crossley & Tikly, 2004; R. Rhoads & Torres, 2006; Spring,
1998; Stromquist, 2002; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Carney (2003) concluded
that neoliberal school policies are out of touch with demands of local cultures. With
regard to Latin American education, Schugurensky and Davidson-Harden (2003)
concluded that the application of neoliberal policies resulted in “social polarisa-
tion in access to education” (p. 339).
World cultural theorists Lechner and Boli (2005) see the limitations of neoliber-
alism: “Models such as neoliberalism . . . would seem irrelevant in West African
states on the verge of collapse. We agree that the relevance of world culture can vary
in this way, but this does not diminish its significance as a feature of world society”
(p. 28). For world cultural theorists, neoliberalism and its critics are variations
on the basic values of world culture and the debate contributes to the evolution of
world culture. Lechner and Boli stated, “Appeals to human rights and affirmations
of equality, characteristic of much of the movement [antiglobalization and anti-
neoliberalism], also adapt world-cultural content for new purposes” (p. 168).
Critics concerned with neoliberal policies with regard to global education poli-
cies often, as I will describe in the next section, target the World Bank, OECD, and
WTO (Lingard, 2000; Olssen, 2004; Rizvi & Lingard, 2006; Rose, 2003; Spring,
1998). It is these organizations, according to critics, that have spread neoliberal
education ideas around the globe.
The World Bank, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and World Trade
Organization/General Agreement on Trade in Services
The World Bank, OECD, and WTO/GATS are often linked because of their
similar approaches to education and world trade (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor,
2001; Peet, 2003; Rizvi & Lingard, 2006; Spring, 1998). World culture theorists
consider these organizations as contributing to the development of a world culture
(Chabbott, 1999; Sklair, 2004), whereas, as discussed in the previous section, crit-
ics of neoliberalism consider them part of postcolonial institutions. Founded in
344
 Research on Globalization and Education
1946, the World Bank has provided educational loans to developing nations based
on human capital economics (Chabbott, 1999; Spring, 1998; World Bank, 2003,
2007a). The five largest shareholders of the World Bank are the United States,
Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom (World Bank, 2007b).
Educational development became a goal of the World Bank in 1968 when the
then-president of the bank Robert McNamara announced, “Our aim here will be to
provide assistance where it will contribute most to economic development. This
will mean emphasis on educational planning, the starting point for the whole
process of educational improvement” (Goldman, 2005, p. 69). McNamara went on
to explain that it would mean an expansion of its educational activities.
The World Bank continues to present its educational goals in the framework of
economic development: “Education is central to development. . . . It is one of the
most powerful instruments for reducing poverty and inequality and lays a founda-
tion for sustained economic growth” (World Bank, 2007b).
Nothing better expresses the World Bank’s commitment to the idea of a knowl-
edge economy and the role of education in developing human capital than its pub-
lication Lifelong Learning in the Global Knowledge Economy (World Bank, 2003).
The book provides a road map for developing countries on how to prepare their
populations for the knowledge economy to bring about economic growth. A key
to this is instituting, according to the book, lifelong learning from early childhood
to retirement and to adapt populations in developing countries to the changing
needs of the global economy and technology. In addition to loaning money to pro-
mote human capital education, the World Bank has been emphasizing privatiza-
tion and the restructuring of school systems (Rideout, 2000). The World Bank
supports private education in developing countries when governments cannot
afford to support public schools for all:
However, in many countries there are other providers of education. Private
education encompasses a wide range of providers including for-profit schools
(that operate as enterprises), religious schools, non-profit schools run by
NGOs, publicly funded schools operated by private boards, and community-
owned schools. In other words, there is a market for education. In low-income
countries, excess demand for schooling results in private supply when the
state cannot afford schooling for all (World Bank, 2007d).
In addition, the World Bank encourages private investment in education through
EdInvest, operated by the bank’s International Finance Corporation (2007).
Founded in 1961 as an outgrowth of the Marshall plan in Europe, the OECD is
currently made up of 30 of the world’s most economically developed countries
including the countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
Turkey, Canada, and the United States, along with partner countries (OECD,
2007a). The OECD is hailed by world cultural theorists as an important contribu-
tor to creating global free markets (Gray, 2004). Similar to the World Bank, the
OECD takes a human capital approach to education with a concern about social
cohesion as related to global migration: “Both individuals and countries benefit
from education. For individuals, the potential benefits lie in general quality of life
and in the economic returns of sustained, satisfying employment. For countries,
the potential benefits lie in economic growth and the development of shared val-
ues that underpin social cohesion” (OECD, 2007c).

345
Spring
The OECD operates four important education programs: Centre for Educational
Research and Innovation (CERI), the Programme on Institutional Management in
Higher Education (IMHE), the Programme on Educational Building (PEB), and the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2006, 2007d). In
recent years, these programs adopted a neoliberal agenda. Rizvi and Lingard (2006)
state, “OECD . . . has largely constituted globalization in a performative way as
neo-liberal ideology applied to the whole globe . . . [including for education] mar-
ketization and privatization on the one hand and strong systems of accountability on
the other” (p. 259). A defender of the OECD, Malcolm Skilbeck (2003), the deputy
director for education for the OECD, claimed that the OECD’s acceptance of neolib-
eral policies was “because these tendencies prevail in the world of which it is an extri-
cable part. Yes, it is a think tank but, as with all our thoughts, those of the OECD are
embedded in the lifeworlds and cultural settings of its members” (p. 114).
Besides, as stated above, supporting policies similar to the World Bank, the
OECD has played a major role in the global standardization of education through
its assessment program PISA (Rizvi & Lingard, 2006). Sixty OECD countries and
partners participate, which the OECD (2007e) claims represents “90 percent of the
world economy” (p. 6). PISA is designed to test skills needed by the knowledge
economy:
Developed jointly by OECD member countries through the OECD’s
Directorate for Education, the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) aims to measure how far students approaching the end of
compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essen-
tial for full participation in the knowledge society. (p. 4)
By becoming an international standard, PISA has the direct potential for deter-
mining the curriculum content in the areas tested, which are mathematics, reading,
and science.
The OECD’s CERI offers the researcher a large collection of publications and sta-
tistics including case studies, country surveys, research publications, and reports
(OECD, 2007b). The OECD’s neoliberal agenda of privatization and markets is pro-
moted by its higher education department IMHE: “Higher education is undergoing
far-reaching change. . . . Among the changes are shifts in the balance between state
and market, global and local, public and private, mass education and individualisa-
tion, and competition and cooperation” (OECD, 2007g). Similar to CERI, IMHE
offers the researcher a wealth of studies and reports on global higher education.
The OECD is contributing to a world culture of schooling through its testing,
research, and higher education programs. In fact, one of its programs promotes the
international sharing of educational ideas (OECD, 2007f):
The OECD Programme on Educational Building (PEB) promotes the
exchange and analysis of policy, research and experience in all matters related
to educational building. The planning and design of educational facilities—
schools, colleges and universities—has an impact on educational outcomes
which is significant but hard to quantify.
Education is among the services covered by the GATS. Legal scholar
Christopher Arup (2000) wrote about the potential global effect of the GATS:
“Services, particularly those with intellectual content, carry far deeper messages

346
 Research on Globalization and Education
than goods” (p. 97). The global market in educational services is estimated by
Merrill Lynch to be worth outside of the United States $111 billion a year with a
“potential consumer base of 32 million students” (Schugurensky & Davidson-
Harden, 2003, p. 322). Educational Testing Services (ETS, 2007) described its
global marketing:
ETS’s Global Division and its subsidiaries fulfill ETS’s mission in markets
around the world. We assist businesses, educational institutions, govern-
ments, ministries of education, professional organizations, and test takers by
designing, developing and delivering ETS’s standard and customized mea-
surement products and services which include assessments, preparation mate-
rials and technical assistance.
Other examples are Laureate Education, Inc., and the Apollo Group, Inc.
Laureate Education has a presence in 15 countries serving 240,000 students with
ownership in the United States of Walden University and 23 other universities in
Asia, Europe, and the Americas (Laureate Education, Inc., 2007a). In 2007, the
company announced (Laureate Education, Inc., 2007c),
Laureate International Universities, one of the world’s largest networks of
private higher education institutions, and the University of Liverpool today
announced the expansion of a unique partnership to leverage programs and
expertise to create the next generation of international programs for students
worldwide.
In 2007, Laureate Education divested itself of the K–12 education business, the
Sylvan Learning Centers, to create Sylvan Learning Systems, which, according to
Douglas Becker, chairman and CEO of Sylvan Learning Systems, will serve a
“global demand for university-level education [that] has been growing at an explo-
sive rate” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2007b). Educate, Inc., owns Sylvan Learning
Centers, Hooked on Phonics, and Catapult Learning with its products marketed in
Europe under the Schülerhilfe brand (Educate, Inc., 2007). Apollo Group, Inc.,
owns the University of Phoenix (including University of Phoenix Online and
Western International University; Apollo Group, Inc., 2007).
Some public librarians fear that the neoliberalism embedded in the GATS
will result in a reduction of government support of public libraries in favor of
for-profit knowledge companies (Trosow & Nilsen, 2006). There are many
so-called global knowledge companies including publishers who benefit from
a global free market such as Bertelsmann (2007), HCIRN (2007a, 2007b),
Holtzbrinck Publishers (2007), Informa (2007a, 2007b), Pearson Education
(2007), Reed Elsevier (2007), The McGraw-Hill Companies (2007), and
Thomson (2007a). All of these companies include publishing and vast informa-
tion systems. For instance, HCRIN stands for Human–Computer Interaction
Resource Network, and the company, among other products, owns Kluwer
Academic Publishers (HCIRN, 2007b). Informa, which advertises itself as a
“Specialist Information for Global Markets,” owns an array of publications
including the Taylor & Francis Group, which includes Routledge, Garland
Science, and Psychology Press (Informa, 2007b). Besides publishing books,
Thomson provides what they call “Information Brands,” which are integrated
scientific databases (Thomson, 2007b).

347
Spring
Many of these global information and publishing corporations target develop-
ing countries such as Springer Science+Business Media (2007), which stated in its
Developing Countries Initiatives,
As a global scientific, technical and medical publisher, we are aware of the role
we play in the distribution of scientific information and access to knowledge
and research. We make a concerted effort to ensure that the knowledge we
manage is also accessible in those parts of the world that are still developing.
The OECD and GATS have promoted a global market in higher education by
turning some university administrations into business centers concerned about
profitability through expansion into foreign markets (G. Rhoads & Slaughter,
2006; Schugurensky, 2006; Sidhu, 2006). Also, educational products are to be
traded within a global free market as explained by Raduntz (2005):
Universities as idea-generating powerhouses are prime targets for investment,
by those knowledge-based industries involved in telecommunications, com-
puters, electronics, and biotechnology. As lucrative sites of investment, their
potential has been enhanced by the protection of ideas, as intellectual prop-
erty generated by research, under copyright and patent laws and global trade
agreements. (pp. 242–243)
The Laureate Education corporation claims to potential investors that the global
market for for-profit higher education is increasing because of a global expansion
of the middle class, expanding youth populations in Latin America and Asia, the
need for educated human capital, and most important, the difficulties faced by gov-
ernments in financing public higher education (Laureate Education, Inc., 2007b).
On its Web site, the Apollo Group (2007) reports that its founder “John Sperling,
believed—and events proved him right—that lifelong employment with a single
employer would be replaced by lifelong learning and employment with a variety
of employers. Lifelong learning requires an institution dedicated solely to the edu-
cation of working adults.”
Intergovernmental and Nongovernmental
Organizations: Human Rights, Environmentalism,
and Women’s Education
Along with the World Bank, OECD, and GATS, other IGOs and NGOs are
playing a role in globalizing education. World cultural theorists believe that IGOs
and NGOs are the key to creating a world culture (Boli, Loya, & Loftin, 1999; Boli
& Thomas, 1999b; Iriye, 2002). From the standpoint of education, IGOs and NGOs
have contributed both to the globalization of educational practices and to dissent
from neoliberal education policies (Bandy, 2004; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Spring,
2004; Stromquist, 2002).
Some of the IGOs and NGOs work together. For instance, in 1990, the United
Nations launched the campaign Education for All at a conference with representa-
tives from 155 nations and 150 NGOs (Spring, 1998). Today, the major partners
in Education for All include four branches of the United Nations and the World
Bank (UNESCO, 2007a).
Human rights education represents another area of cooperation. Human rights
organizations represent the largest number of global NGOs (Keck & Sikkink,

348
 Research on Globalization and Education
1998). The major NGO for human rights education is Human Rights Education
Associates, which works with UNESCO and other human rights organizations,
such as Amnesty International and the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights (Human Rights Education Associates, 2007a). The Human Rights
Education Association offers a vast online library of research and curriculum
materials in human rights education (Human Rights Education Associates, 2007b).
Also, the United Nations’s Cyberschoolbus offers similar research along with
interactive learning games, curricula, and lessons (United Nations, 2007).
Second in number to human rights organizations, environmental NGOs have
been the major critics of human capital education and neoliberal reforms
(Caldwell, 1996; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Palmer, 1998; Spring, 2004; Stromquist,
2002). World cultural theorists believe that human rights and environmental
activism are part of the process of building a global culture (Lechner & Boli, 2005).
The major emphasis in the global environmental education movement is the teach-
ing of sustainability (Sterling, 2001; UNESCO, 1997). It is currently the United
Nations decade (2005-2014) for education for sustainable development, with pub-
lications and curriculum guides available on the UNESCO Web site (UNESCO,
2007b). The more radical environmental groups advocate ecotage or violent acts
to stop environmental destruction (Foreman & Haywood, 1993; Spring, 2004).
IGOs and NGOs are actively involved in the global spread of concern with
women’s rights and education. World cultural theorists argue that the international
push for women’s rights and equal education is part of the Western ideology embed-
ded in world culture (Berkovitch, 1999). Women’s international activism for equal
rights has a long history (Boulding, 1977). The equal education of women and protec-
tion of their rights is a significant factor in changing global labor markets (Kenway &
Kelly, 2000; Lakes & Carter, 2004). In 1995, representatives from world governments,
IGOs, and NGOs met in Beijing for the United Nations Fourth World Conference on
Women, where they adopted a Platform for Action that, among many objectives,
included the goal of equal access of women to education and the eradication of female
illiteracy (Division for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, 2007b). The conference’s education platform reflects the global dis-
course on the knowledge economy and human capital education. For instance, another
educational objective of the platform was improving women’s access to vocational
training, science and technology, and continuing education for “young women and
women re-entering the labour market, to provide skills to meet the needs of a chang-
ing socio-economic context for improving their employment opportunities” (Division
for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007c).
The same concern with human capital and the knowledge economy was contained in
the objective of promoting lifelong learning for girls and women (Division for the
Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007d).
UNESCO’s Education for All and the World Bank are the two major global
campaigns supporting equal education for women (Abu-Ghaida & Klasen, 2004;
UNESCO, 2007a; World Bank, 2000, 2007c). The original goal of Education for
All was to achieve gender equity by 2005, a goal that wasn’t met (UNESCO,
2007a). Research material on the globalization of women’s rights and education is
available through the United Nations (Division for the Advancement of Women:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007a), the World Bank (2007c), and
the campaign for Education for All (UNESCO, 2007a).
349
 Global Uniformity: Instruction, Testing, and English
As discussed previously, the GATS stimulated an existing global trade in educa-
tion services, contributing to a global uniformity of educational practices. In addition,
aid agencies, such as the World Bank and OECD, have championed particular instruc-
tional methods and research on those methods (Carney, 2003; Tabulawa, 2003). This
is creating, according to world culture theorists, a global culture of schooling (Baker
& LeTendre, 2005; Meyer et al., 1992). World system and postcolonial theorists see
this process as part of the domination of the core over the periphery (Spring, 2006;
Tabulawa, 2003). On the other hand, culturalists see this process as resulting in pos-
sible failure or a detrimental loss of local cultural values (Carney, 2003; Jungck &
Kajornsin, 2003; May & Aikman, 2003; Warschauer, 2004).
Of particular importance for creating global uniformity of educational practices
is global comparison of international test scores. These global comparative test
scores might cause national education policy leaders to organize their national cur-
riculum to meet the standards set by these global tests. In the section on Global
Education Policies, I have already discussed the importance of the OECD’s PISA
and the Educational Testing Service’s Global Division. In addition, the International
Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA) administers
the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in
International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) assessments along with providing
the TIMSS–R Video Study of Classroom Practices (International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2007). All three of these global testing
efforts (OECD, ETS, and IEA) provide valuable data to researchers on assessment
and global trends in learning (ETS, 2007; International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 2007; OECD, 2007b, 2007e).
World cultural theorists argue that a combination of international tests and the
sharing of international research is resulting in a global uniformity of instructional
practices. In their analysis of the TIMSS, Baker and LeTendre (2005) found that
“if current trends continue, we should expect to see continued standardization of
core teaching practices within academic subjects around the world. The curricu-
lum is already highly standardized, and measures of assessment are following close
at hand” (p. 115).
Not all researchers agree with Baker and LeTendre. Carney (2003) argued that
school effectiveness research using test results as promoted by international donor
nations has resulted in a global emphasis on cognitive achievement without a con-
sideration of what local values might define as a good education. Carney proposes
that rather
than attempting to shape stakeholders to the needs of some internationally
defined conception of progress . . . [research might] explore ways in which
schooling might take account of the aspirations of stakeholders in order that it
might be meaningful to their lives and to their own development needs. (p. 97)
Warschauer (2004) argued that in his study of the introduction of educational
technology to improve instruction and learning in Egypt, the inculcation of Western
values was made paramount by the aid agency in charge of sending Egyptian edu-
cators to the United States and showcasing U.S. hardware and software. “This
underlying emphasis on Westernization,” Warshauer concluded, “weakened the
project’s potential contribution to educational improvement” (p. 377). Tabulawa
350
 Research on Globalization and Education
(2003) argued that aid agencies were implementing student-centered instruction as
part of the effort to spread the doctrines of neoliberalism.
Many indigenous cultures openly resist the Western instructional methods and
seek to implement traditional methods (Benham & Cooper, 2000; May & Aikman,
2003). In fact, indigenous peoples may be the most vocal in their denunciation of
the globalization of educational practices. As one group of defenders of indigenous
knowledge and learning stated (Dei, Hall, & Rosenberg, 2000), “Increasingly
within [indigenous] communities, refreshing critical voices are emerging to ques-
tion the processes of knowing and validating knowledge and disseminating it
across national and global spaces” (p. 3).
The study of English is a common feature of what Meyer et al. (1992) consider
to be a standardized global curriculum. According to Tsui and Tollefson (2007),
“Globalization is effected by two inseparable mediational tools, technology and
English; proficiencies in these tools have been referred to as global literacy skills”
(p. 1). Although the percentage may have increased by now, when they did their
study in the early 1990s, they found that 72% of the world’s secondary schools
taught English as a modern foreign language (Meyer et al., 1992). Their data
demonstrate the 20th-century growth of English as a global language. From 1900
to 1919, only 26.5% of the world’s secondary schools taught English whereas
54.3% taught French and 27.8% taught German. By 1970 to 1986, the percentages
changed dramatically, with 72% teaching English, whereas 17.6% taught French
and 0.8% taught German (Meyer et al., 1992). Also, some non-English-speaking
countries have, after much debate, adopted English as the medium of instruction
in higher education (Tollefson & Tsui, 2004).
Despite the growth of English as a global literacy skill, it is important to note
that Huntington (1996) found that the actual percentage of the world’s population
speaking English actually declined from 9.8% in 1958 to 7.6% in 1992, whereas
Hindi language speakers as a percentage of the world’s population increased from
5.2% in 1958 to 6.4% in 1992, and Mandarin speakers as a percentage of the
world’s population were 15.2% in 1992. Although these figures indicate that
English is still a minority language among the world’s population, the study of
English as a foreign language, as noted above, is offered by most national school
systems. Also, Huntington argues that his data should not overshadow the impor-
tance of English as a form of intercultural communication between diplomats, air-
line pilots, scientists, business people, and tourists.
How has English become a global literacy skill and a form of intercultural
communication? First, it should be noted that a conscious attempt has been
made since the 19th century to make Esperanto the global language.
Developed by Lazar Ludwik Zamenhof in the 1880s with the belief that a
common global language would promote world peace, Esperanto was
designed to be easily learned by all people including the poor and not to be
associated with any particular nation-state (Janton, 1993). Although
Esperanto failed to become the global language, Phillipson (1992) argued that
English became the global language as the result of imperialist language poli-
cies, in particular by Great Britain. Although British imperialist policies
might be responsible for English as a global language, the actual spoken gram-
mar and pronunciation of English varies around the world, resulting in what
is called world Englishes (Kachru, 1990).
351
Spring
Some researchers worry that the growth of English as a global language threat-
ens local cultures and identities and could result in the loss of other languages
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). As a result, Skutnabb-Kangas
(2000) proposes an international language rights agreement that would guarantee
the preservation of minority languages. Maiga (2005) argues that, in Africa, the
continued use in the classroom of languages imposed by European colonial pow-
ers is undermining educational achievement. This is a result of imposed languages
undermining local indigenous cultures and the ability of students to understand
their cultural identity. He concludes, “As empirical inquiries . . . demonstrate,
beneficial effects are produced when the language of education is the language of
culture, that is, when the content and pedagogy permit students to see themselves
and to experience their cultural heritage in the curriculum” (p. 180).
Despite concerns about English usage destroying local cultures, Huntington
(1996) argued that English today has become de-ethnicized and is no longer
associated with any particular culture. Karmani and Pennycook (2005) reach a
similar conclusion and point out that the 9/11 Islamic terrorists all spoke fluent
English while denouncing American culture. Vaish (2005) concluded from her
research in India that despite earlier British use of English instruction for pur-
poses of cultural imperialism, English is studied today in India for mainly
economic purposes. She agrees with Huntington that English is no longer asso-
ciated with a particular national culture but is a tool for participating in the global
economy. Spring (2006) argued that English is now the language of a global
industrial-consumer culture.
Conclusion
Uniformity of global curriculum, instruction, and testing might be the result of
worldwide trends discussed in this article. Global educational discourses on the
knowledge economy, lifelong learning, and human capital education are influenc-
ing the decisions of national policy makers. Research shows that most IGOs and
NGOs, in particular the World Bank and OECD, are also supporting educational
plans tied to the knowledge economy and human capital development. Gender
equality in education is a priority of most global organizations. Uniformity of global
curricula is being supported by international comparisons of scores resulting from
the TIMSS and PISA. Neoliberal discourses and the GATS have stimulated a push
for global privatization of educational services, in particular in higher education and
the sale of information services and books by multinational corporations. Brain cir-
culation might also contribute to a growing uniformity of global educational prac-
tices because of local pressures to ensure an education that will help graduates
participate in the global economy. The growth of English as the language of global
commerce is making the teaching of English a fixture in most national curricula.
There is considerable criticism of the growing global uniformity in education.
World systems theorists argue that it is part of a process for legitimizing the actions
of rich over poor nations. Those using postcolonial analysis criticize the trend by
arguing that it will ensure the hegemony of global elites. Along with many cultur-
alists, postcolonial analysis supports alternative forms of education to those geared
for the knowledge economy and human capital, such as progressive and Freirian
educational methods. Research done by culturalists concludes that local popula-
tions adapt educational practices to local needs and culture, and therefore, rather
352
 Research on Globalization and Education
than uniformity, there is developing hybrid educational practices combining the
local and the global. NGOs, in particular human rights and environmental organi-
zations, are supporting an agenda of progressive human rights and environmental
education. And, in sharp contrast to dominant global trends, indigenous groups are
demanding the right to use traditional educational practices. Also, some groups are
concerned about the loss of local cultures and identity with the trend to making
English the global language. These disputes are reinforcing the importance of
global educational practices while, at the same time, ensuring possible changes in
their current development.
References
Abu-Ghaida, D., & Klasen, S. (2004). The economic and human development costs of miss-
ing the millennium development goal on gender equity. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Achieve, Inc. (2005). An action agenda for improving America’s high schools: 2005
national summit on high schools. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., & National
Governors Association.
Achieve, Inc., & National Governors Association. (2005). America’s high schools: The
front line in the battle for our economic future. Washington, DC: Author.
Adams, R. (2006). Remittances and poverty in Guatemala. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff
(Eds.), International migration, remittances and the brain drain (pp. 53–80).
Washington, DC: World Bank & Palgrave Macmillan.
Adams, W. (Ed.). (1968). The brain drain. New York: Macmillan.
Anderson-Levitt, K. (2003). A world culture of schooling? In K. Anderson-Levitt
(Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory
(pp. 1–26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Apollo Group, Inc. (2007). About Apollo Group. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from
http://www.apollogrp.edu/About.aspx
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Appiah, K. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Apple, M. (2000). Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: Education and con-
servatism in a global context. In N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and
education: Critical perspectives (pp. 57–78). New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (2005). Are new markets in education democratic? In M. Apple, J. Kenway,
& M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies, & politics
(pp. 209–230). New York: Peter Lang.
Apple, M., Kenway, J., & Singh, M. (Eds.). (2005). Globalizing education: Policies,
pedagogies, & politics. New York: Peter Lang.
Armstrong, P., Miller, N., & Zukas, M. (Eds.). (1997). Crossing borders. Breaking
boundaries: Research in the education of adults. Proceedings of the 27th annual
SCUTREA conference, Birkbeck College, London.
Arnove, R. (1980). Comparative education and world-systems analysis. Comparative
Education Review, 24(1), 48–62.
Arup, C. (2000). The new World Trade Organization agreements: Globalizing law
through services and intellectual property. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.

353
Spring
Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World cul-
ture and the future of schooling. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bandy, J. (2004). Coalitions across borders: Transnational protest and the neoliberal
order. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
Banks, J. (Ed.). (2007). Diversity and citizenship education: Global perspectives. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Becker, G. (2006). The age of human capital. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough,
& H. Halsey (Eds.), Education, globalization & social change (pp. 292–295).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of the post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Benham, M., & Cooper, J. (2000). Indigenous educational models for contemporary
practice: In our mother’s voice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berkovitch, N. (1999). The emergence and transformation of the international women’s
movement. In J. Boli & G. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International
nongovernment organizations since 1875 (pp. 100–126). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bertelsmann. (2007). Corporate divisions. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://www
.bertelsmann.com
Boli, J., Loya, T., & Loftin, T. (1999). National participation in world-polity organiza-
tion. In J. Boli & G. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International non-
government organizations since 1875 (pp. 50–79). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (Eds.). (1999a). Constructing world culture: International non-
government organizations since 1875. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (1999b). INGOs and the organization of world culture. In J. Boli
& G. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International nongovernment
organizations since 1875 (pp. 13–49). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (2005). The EU memorandum on lifelong learning. Old wine in
new bottles? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2), 203–225.
Boulding, E. (1977). Women in the twentieth century. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Broadfoot, P. (2003). Editorial. Globalisation in comparative perspective: Macro and
micro. Comparative Education, 39(4), 411–413.
Brown, P., & Lauder, H. (2006). Globalization, knowledge and the myth of the mag-
net economy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 25–57.
Bryan, A., & Vavrus, F. (2005). The promise and peril of education: The teaching of
in/tolerance in an era of globalization. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(2),
183–202.
Burbules, N., & Torres, C. (2000). Globalization and education: An introduction. In
N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives
(pp. 1–26). New York: Routledge.
Caldwell, L. (1996). International environmental policy: From the twentieth to the
twenty-first century (3rd ed.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Carney, S. (2003). Globalisation, neo-liberalism and the limitations of school effec-
tiveness research in developing countries: The case of Nepal. Globalisation,
Societies and Education, 1(1), 87–101.
Carnoy, M. (1974). Education as a form of cultural imperialism. New York: David
McKay.

354
 Research on Globalization and Education
Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for education change?
A comparative approach. Comparative Education, 46(1), 1–9.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cedefop & Eurydice. (2001). National actions to implement lifelong learning in
Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.
Chabbott, C. (1999). Development INGOs. In J. Boli & G. Thomas (Eds.),
Constructing world culture: International nongovernment organizations since 1875
(pp. 222–248). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chellaraj, G., Maskus, K., & Mattoo, A. (2006). Skilled immigrants, higher education,
and U.S. innovation. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International migration, remit-
tances and the brain drain (pp. 245–260). Washington, DC: World Bank & Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cheng, K., & Yip, H. (2006). Facing the knowledge society: Reforming secondary edu-
cation in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Clayton, T. (1998). Beyond mystification: Reconnecting world-system theory for com-
parative education. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 479–496.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000). Commission staff working paper.
A memorandum on lifelong learning. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Commission of the European Communities. (2005). Communication from the commis-
sion, mobilizing universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon strategy.
Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Cox-Edwards, A., & Ureta, A. (2003). International migration, remittances and school-
ing: Evidence for El Salvador. Journal of Economic Development Economics, 72(2),
429–461.
Crossley, M., & Tikly, L. (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and inter-
national research in education: A critical introduction. Comparative Education,
40(2), 147–156.
Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education.
Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149.
Dale, R., & Robertson, S. (2003). Editorial. Introduction. Globalisation, Societies and
Education, 1(1), 3–11.
Dei, G., Hall, B., & Rosenberg, D. (2000). Introduction. In G. Dei, B. Hall, &
D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings
of our world (pp. 3–17). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
Directorate-General for Education and Culture. (2002). Education and training in
Europe: Diverse systems, shared goals for 2010. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Division for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
(2007a). About the division. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.un.org/
womenwatch/daw/daw/index
Division for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
(2007b). The United Nations fourth world conference on women, Beijing, China-
September 1995: Action for equality, development and peace: Platform for action:
Education and training of women. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.un.org/
womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/educa.htm
Division for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
(2007c). The United Nations fourth world conference on women, Beijing, China-
September 1995: Action for equality, development and peace: Platform for action:
Education and training of women: Strategic objective B.3. Retrieved July 23, 2007,
from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/educa.htm#object3

355
Spring
Division for the Advancement of Women: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
(2007d). The United Nations fourth world conference on women, Beijing, China-
September 1995: Action for equality, development and peace: Platform for action:
Education and training of women: Strategic objective B.6. Retrieved July 23, 2007,
from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/educa.htm#object6
Dower, N. (2003). An introduction to global citizenship. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Edinburgh University Press.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. London: Butterworth/Heinemann.
Educate, Inc. (2007). About us. Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.educateinc
.com/aboutus.html
Educational Testing Services. (2007). ETS global. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://
www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitrn.435c0bd0ae7015d9510c3921509/?vgnextoid=
d04b253b164f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD
European Commission. (1998). Teaching and learning: On route to the learning soci-
ety. Luxembourg: SEPO-CE.
Faure, E., Herrera, F., Kaddoura, A. R., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A., Rahnema, M., et al.
(1972). Learning to be. The world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO.
Field, J. (2001). Lifelong education. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
20(1), 3–15.
Foley, G. (Ed.). (2004). Dimensions of adult learning: Adult education and training in
a global era. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Foreman, D., & Haywood, B. (1993). Ecodefense: A field guide to monkeywrenching.
Chico, CA: Abbzug Press.
Franzway, S. (2005). Making progressive educational politics in the current globaliza-
tion crisis. In M. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education:
Policies, pedagogies, & politics (pp. 265–279). New York: Peter Lang.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capital and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gabbard, D. (2000). Introduction. In D. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and power in the
global economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform (pp. xiii–xxiii). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gaudelli, W. (2003). World class: Teaching and learning in global times. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social jus-
tice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Grant, C., & Lei, J. (Eds.). (2001). Global constructions of multicultural education;
Theories and realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gray, J. (2004). From the great transformation to the global free market. In F. Lechner
& J. Boli (Eds.), The globalization reader (pp. 22–28). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Grubb, W., & Lazerson, M. (2006). The globalization of rhetoric and practice: The edu-
cation gospel and vocationalism. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. Halsey
(Eds.), Education, globalization & social change (pp. 295–316). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Grubel, H., & Scott, A. (1966). The international flow of human capital. American
Economic Review, 56(1/2), 268–274.
Guile, D. (2006). What is distinctive about the knowledge economy? Implications for
education. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. Halsey (Eds.), Education,
globalization & social change (pp. 355–370). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hayek, F. (2007). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1944)

356
 Research on Globalization and Education
Hayhoe, R., & Pan, J. (2001a). A contribution of dialogue among civilizations. In
R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across culture: A contribution to the dialogue
among civilisations (pp. 1–21). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Hayhoe, R., & Pan, J. (Eds.). (2001b). Knowledge across culture: A contribution to the
dialogue among civilisations. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre,
The University of Hong Kong.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformation:
Politics, economics, and culture. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalization and
education policy. Amsterdam: IAU/Pergamon.
Holtzbrinck Publishers. (2007). Who we are. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from
http://www.holtzbrinckus.com/about/about_who.asp
Hufford, L., & Pedrajas, T. (Eds.). (2007). Educating for a worldview: Focus on glob-
alizing curriculum and instruction. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Human–Computer Interaction Resource Network. (2007a). Human–Computer
Interaction Resource Network. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.hcirn.com
Human–Computer Interaction Resource Network. (2007b). Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.hcirn.com/res/kap.php
Human Rights Education Associates. (2007a). HREA partners. Retrieved July 20,
2007, from http://www.hrea.org/partners.html
Human Rights Education Associates. (2007b). Resource centre. Retrieved July 20,
2007, from http://www.hrea.org/erc/index.html
Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Informa. (2007a). About. Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://www.informa.com
Informa. (2007b). Divisions: Taylor and Francis. Retrieved July 14, 2007, from http://
www.informa.com/corporate/divisions/academic_scientific/taylor_francis.htm
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2007).
Mission statement. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.iea.nl/mission_
statement.html
International Finance Corporation. (2007). EdInvest. Retrieved July 18, 2007, from
http://www.ifc.org/edinvest/
Iriye, A. (2002). Global community: The role of international organizations in the mak-
ing of the contemporary world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Janton, P. (1993). Esperanto: Language, literature, and community. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Jiaojiao, R. (2007, May 30). The turning tide. China Daily, p. 20.
Johnson, H. (1967). Some economic aspects of the brain drain. Pakistan Development
Review, 7(3), 379–411.
Johnson, H. (1968). An “internationalist” model. In W. Adams (Ed.), The brain drain
(pp. 69–91). New York: Macmillan.
Jordan, S., & Yeomans, D. (2003). Meeting the global challenge? Comparing recent
initiatives in school science and technology. Comparative Education, 39(1), 65–81.
Jungck, S., & Kajornsin, B. (2003). “Thai wisdom” and globalization: Negotiating the
global and local in Thailand’s national education reform. In K. Anderson-Levitt
(Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory
(pp. 27–49). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kachru, B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-
native Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

357
Spring
Kapur, D., & McHale, J. (2005). Give us your best and brightest: The global hunt for
talent and its impact on the developing world. Washington, DC: Center for Global
Development.
Karmani, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Islam, English, and 9/11. Journal of Language,
Identity, and Education, 4(2), 157–172.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists across borders: Advocacy networks in inter-
national politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kenway, J., & Kelly, P. (2000). Local/global labor markets and the restructuring of
gender, schooling, and work. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization
and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 173–195). Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kwok, V., & Leland, H. (1982). An economic model of the brain drain. American
Economic Review, 72(1), 91–100.
Kymlicka, W., & Baogang, H. (Eds.). (2005). Multiculturalism in Asia. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Lakes, R., & Carter, P. (Eds.). (2004). Globalizing education for work: Comparative
perspectives on gender and the new economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J., & Halsey, H. (2006). Introduction: Prospects for
education. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. Halsey (Eds.), Education,
globalization & social change (pp. 1–70). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Laureate Education, Inc. (2007a). About Laureate. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from
http://www.laureate-inc.com
Laureate Education, Inc. (2007b). Global post-secondary education market. Retrieved
July 15, 2007, from http://www.laureate-inc.com/GPSEM.php
Laureate Education, Inc. (2007c). Investors relations: News and information.
University of Liverpool and Laureate International Universities announce expanded
international collaboration. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://phx.corporate-ir
.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=91846&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=993862&highlight=
Lechner, F., & Boli, J. (2005). World culture: Origins and consequences. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Lindsay, B. (2005). Initiating transformations of realities in African and African American
universities. In J. King (Ed.), Black education: A transformative research and action
agenda for the new century (pp. 183–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lingard, B. (2000). It is and it isn’t: Vernacular globalization, educational policy, and
restructuring. In N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education:
Critical perspectives (pp. 79–108). New York: Routledge.
Little, A. (2003). Extended review. Clash of civilisations: Threat or opportunity?
Comparative Education, 39(3), 391–394.
Maiga, H. O. (2005). When the language of education is not the language of culture:
The epistemology of systems of knowledge and pedagogy. In J. King (Ed.), Black
education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century
(pp. 159–182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2005). Interrogating global flows in higher education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3(3), 281–309.
Martin, P. (2005). Migrants in the global labor market: A paper prepared for the pol-
icy analysis and research programme of the Global Commission on International
Migration. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Commission on International Migration.
Matthews, J., & Sidhu, R. (2005). Desperately seeking the global subject: International
education, citizenship and cosmopolitanism. Globalisation, Societies and Education,
3(1), 49–66.

358
 Research on Globalization and Education
May, S., & Aikman, S. (2003). Indigenous education: Addressing current issues and
developments. Comparative Education, 39(2), 139–145.
McDonough, K., & Feinberg, W. (Eds.). (2006). Citizenship and education in
liberal–democratic societies: Teaching for cosmopolitan values and collective iden-
tities. New York: Oxford University Press.
McKenzie, D. (2006). Beyond remittances: The effects of migration on Mexican house-
holds. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International migration, remittances and the
brain drain (pp. 123–147). Washington, DC: World Bank & Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer, J., & Kamens, D. (1992). Conclusion: Accounting for a world curriculum. In
J. Meyer, D. Kamens, & A. Benavot (Eds.), School knowledge for the masses: World
models and national primary curricular categories in the twentieth century
(pp. 165–179). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Meyer, J., Kamens, D., & Benavot, A. (1992). School knowledge for the masses: World
models and national primary curricular categories in the twentieth century. Bristol,
PA: Falmer Press.
Mishel, L., & Bernstein, J. (2003). The state of working America 2002/2003. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. New
York: Routledge.
Mora, J., & Taylor, E. (2006). Determinants of migration, destination, and sector
choice: Disentangling individual, household, and community effects. In C. Ozden &
M. Schiff (Eds.), International migration, remittances and the brain drain
(pp. 21–52). Washington, DC: World Bank & Palgrave Macmillan.
Mountford, A. (1997). Can a brain drain be food for growth in the source economy?
Journal of Development Economics, 53(2), 287–303.
Nesbitt, R. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently . . . and why. New York: Free Press.
Noddings, N. (Ed.). (2005). Educating citizens for global awareness. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Olson, L. (2006). Ambiguity about preparation for workforce clouds efforts to equip
students for future. Education Week, 25(38), 1, 18–20.
Olssen, M. (2004). Neoliberalism, globalization, democracy: Challenges for education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(2), 231–275.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). OECD work on
education: 2005-2006. Paris: Author.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007a). About OECD.
Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007b). Centre for
Educational Research and Innovation. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_35845581_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007c). Education.
Retrieved July 15, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_37455
_1_1_1_1_37455,00.html
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007d). Our programmes.
Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649
_35845295_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007e). Pisa—Programme
for international student assessment. Paris: Author.

359
Spring
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007f). Programme on
Educational Building (PEB). Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/
department/0,3355,en_2649_35961311_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007g). Programme
on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE). Retrieved July 19,
2007, from http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_35961291_1_1_1_
1_1, 00.html
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial
spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Penguin.
Ozden, C., & Schiff, M. (2006). Overview. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.),
International migration, remittances and the brain drain (pp. 1–18). Washington,
DC: World Bank & Palgrave Macmillan.
Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, and
progress. London: Routledge.
Parker, J. (2005). International migration data collection: A paper prepared for the
policy analysis and research programme of the Global Commission on International
Migration. Geneva, Switzerland: Global Commission on International Migration.
Pearson Education. (2007). About Pearson Education. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from
http://www.pearsoned.com
Peet, R. (2003). Unholy trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO. London: Zed Books.
Peters, M., Marshall, J., & Fitzsimons, P. (2000). Managerialism and educational pol-
icy in a global context: Foucault, neoliberalism, and the doctrine of self-manage-
ment. In N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical
perspectives (pp. 109–132). New York: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Raduntz, H. (2005). The marketization of education within the global capitalist econ-
omy. In M. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies,
pedagogies, & politics (pp. 231–245). New York: Peter Lang.
Rahnema, M. (2001). Science, universities and subjugated knowledges: A “third world
perspective.” In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across culture: A contribu-
tion to the dialogue among civilisations (pp. 45–54). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Ramirez, F. O. (2003). The global model and national legacies. In K. Anderson-Levitt
(Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory
(pp. 239–255). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ramirez, F. O., & Boli, J. (1987). The political construction of mass schooling: European
origins and worldwide institutionalization. Sociology of Education, 60(1), 2–17.
Reed Elsevier. (2007). About us. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www.reed-
elsevier.com
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: A blueprint for the future. New York: Vintage.
Report of the Global Commission on International Migration. (2005). Migration in an
interconnected world: New directions for action. Geneva, Switzerland: Global
Commission on International Migration.
Rhoads, G., & Slaughter, S. (2006). Academic capitalism and the new economy:
Privatization as shifting the target of public subsidy in higher education. In R. Rhoads
& C. Torres (Eds.), The university, state, and market: The political economy of glob-
alization in the Americas (pp. 103–140). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rhoads, R., & Torres, C. (Eds.). (2006). The university, state, and market: The politi-
cal economy of globalization in the Americas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Press.

360
 Research on Globalization and Education
Rideout, W. (2000). Globalization and decentralization in sub-Saharan Africa: Focus
Lesotho. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education:
Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 255–274). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2006). Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD’s
educational work. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, & H. Halsey (Eds.),
Education, globalization & social change (pp. 247–260). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Robertson, S. (2006). Editorial. Brain drain, brain gain and brain circulation.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 1–5.
Rose, P. (2003). From the Washington to the post-Washington consensus: The influ-
ence of international agendas on education policy and practice in Malawi.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(1), 67–86.
Rotberg, I. (Ed.). (2004). Balancing change and tradition in global education reform.
Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.
Rothbard, M. (1970). Man, economy, and state: A treatise of economic principles. Los
Angeles: Nash.
Schiff, M. (2006). Brain gain: Claims about its size and impact on welfare and growth
are greatly exaggerated. In C. Ozden & M. Schiff (Eds.), International migration,
remittances and the brain drain (pp. 201–226). Washington, DC: World Bank &
Palgrave Macmillan.
Schriewer, J., & Martinez, C. (2004). Constructions and internationality in education.
In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), The global politics of educational borrowing and lend-
ing (pp. 29–54). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schugurensky, D. (2006). The political economy of higher education in the time of
global markets: Whither the social responsibility of the university? In R. Rhoads &
C. Torres (Eds.), The university, state, and market: The political economy of glob-
alization in the Americas (pp. 301–320). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schugurensky, D., & Davidson-Harden, A. (2003). From Córdoba to Washington:
WTO/GATS and Latin American education. Globalisation, Societies and
Education, 1(3), 321–357.
Sidhu, R. (2006). Universities and globalization: To market, to market. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skilbeck, M. (2003). Book reviews. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(1),
112–115.
Sklair, L. (2004). Sociology of the global system. In F. Lechner & J. Boli (Eds.), The
globalization reader (pp. 70–76). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, J. (Ed.). (2007). Social movements for global democracy. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Spring, J. (1998). Education and the rise of the global economy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spring, J. (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spring, J. (2005). Political agendas for education: From the religious right to the
Green party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spring, J. (2006). Pedagogies of globalization: The rise of the educational security
state. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

361
Spring
Springer Science+Business Media. (2007). Developing Countries Initiatives. Available
July 23, 2007, from http://www.springer-sbm.com
Stark, O. (2004). Rethinking the brain drain. World Development, 32(1), 15–22.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). Blazing a trail for policy theory and practice. In G. Steiner-
Khamsi (Ed.), The global politics of educational borrowing and lending
(pp. 201–220). New York: Teachers College Press.
Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Devon,
UK: Green Books.
Stoer, S., & Cortesao, L. (2000). Multiculturalism and educational policy in a global
context (European perspectives). In N. Burbules & C. Torres (Eds.), Globalization
and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 253–274). New York: Routledge.
Stoer, S., & Magalhaes, A. (2004). Education, knowledge and the network society.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(3), 319–335.
Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic
power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Stromquist, N., & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its impli-
cations on knowledge and education. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.),
Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures
(pp. 3–25). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Suárez-Orozco, M., & Qin-Hilliard, D. (Eds.). (2004). Globalization: Culture and edu-
cation in the new millennium. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centred pedagogy and politi-
cal democratization: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26.
Taylor, C., Appiah, K., Habermas, J., Rockefeller, S., Walzer, M., & Wolf, S. (1994).
Multiculturalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
The McGraw-Hill Companies. (2007). Education. Financial Services. Information &
Media. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.mcgraw-hill.com
Thomas, E., & Hosenball, M. (2007). Doctor of death: A busted terror plot in Britain
puts the spotlight on radicalized Muslim professionals. Newsweek, 150(3), 38–40.
Thomson. (2007a). About scientific. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://scientific
.thomson.com/aboutus
Thomson. (2007b). Information brands. About scientific. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from
http://scientific.thomson.com/brands
Timmons, H. (2007, July 12). Attacks in Britain worry India Muslims. The New York
Times, p. C5.
Tollefson, J., & Tsui, A. (Eds.). (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda?
Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Torres, A., & Rhoads, R. (2006). Introduction: Globalization and higher education in
the Americas. In R. Rhoads & C. Torres (Eds.), The university, state, and market:
The political economy of globalization in the Americas (pp. 3–39). Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Trosow, S., & Nilsen, N. (2006). Constraining public libraries: World Trade Organization’s
General Agreement on Trade in Services. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (Eds.). (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian
contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
UNESCO. (1997). Declaration of Thessaloniki, international conference environment
and society: Education and public awareness for sustainability. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (2007a). About Education for All: Partnerships. Retrieved July 19, 2007,
from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=47047&URL_DO=
DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

362
 Research on Globalization and Education
UNESCO. (2007b). Education for sustainable development: United Nations decade
(2005-2014). Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://portal.unesco.org/ education/
en/ev.php-URL_ID=27234&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION= 201.html
United Nations. (2007). Cyberschoolbus. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://www.un
.org/cyberschoolbus
Vaish, V. (2005). A periherist view of English as a language of decolonization in post-
colonial India. Language Policy, 4(2), 187–206.
Vinokur, A. (2006). Brain migration revisited. Globalisation, Societies and Education,
4(1), 7–24.
Wallerstein, I. (1984). The politics of the world-economy: The states, the movements,
and the civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Warschauer, M. (2004). The rhetoric and reality of aid: Promoting educational tech-
nology in Egypt. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(3), 377–390.
Weiler, V. (2001). Knowledge, politics, and the future of higher education: Critical obser-
vations on a world wide transformation. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge
across culture: A contribution to the dialogue among civilisations (pp. 25–45). Hong
Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
World Bank. (2000). Education for all: From Jomtien to Dakar and beyond. Washington,
DC: Author.
World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges
for developing countries. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2007a). A guide to the World Bank (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (2007b). About us: Organization: Boards of Directors. Retrieved July 17,
2007, from http://www.worldbank.org/
World Bank. (2007c). Girls education: A World Bank priority. Retrieved July 19, 2007,
from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/
0,,contentMDK:20298916~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:282386,00
.html
World Bank. (2007d). Topics: Education; Priorities & topics: Economics of educa-
tion: Public–private partnerships in the education sector. Retrieved July 18, 2007,
from http://www.worldbank.org/education/
Zeera, Z. (2001). Paradigm shifts in the social sciences in the east and west. In
R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across culture: A contribution to the dialogue
among civilisations (pp. 55–74). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Author
JOEL SPRING is a Professor at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York; e-mail jspring3@ix.netcom.com. His research interests include
the politics of education, multicultural education, globalization of education, history of
education, and Indigenous studies.

363