Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Regaining legitimacy in the context of global governance? UNESCO, Education for All coordination and the Global Monitoring Report

  • Research Note
  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research note shares insights which resulted from a larger study into the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) – during 2010–2014 – used its position as coordinator of the post-Dakar Framework for Action (initiated at the World Education Forum held in 2000 and designed to reinvigorate the Education for All initiative) to help it regain some of the legitimacy it had lost in the preceding decades. The research study focused on the role of both the UNESCO Education for All Follow-up Unit and the production of the Global Monitoring Report (GMR) during the 2000s because they were at the heart of UNESCO’s efforts to repair its image and renew its impact in one area of global governance, specifically in the global education policy field. The study’s findings were based on an analysis of documents, archives and interviews (n = 17) with key actors inside and outside UNESCO, including representatives of UNESCO’s peer institutions.

Résumé

Reconquérir une légitimité dans le contexte de la gouvernance mondiale ? UNESCO, la coordination de l’Education pour tous et le Rapport mondial de suivi – Cette note de recherche partage les constats résultant d’une assez vaste étude sur les moyens par lesquels l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO) a durant les années 2000–2014 utilisé sa position de coordinatrice du Cadre d’action de Dakar (inauguré en 2000 au Forum mondial sur l’éducation dans le but de redynamiser l’initiative Éducation pour tous), pour regagner en partie la légitimité qu’elle avait perdue au cours des décennies précédentes. Cette étude analyse au sein de l’UNESCO le rôle, au cours des années 2000, tant de l’Unité de suivi de Dakar que de la production du Rapport mondial de suivi. Ces deux éléments étaient en effet au cœur des efforts déployés par l’Organisation pour restaurer son image et raviver son impact dans un domaine de la gouvernance mondiale, à savoir dans les politiques mondiales d’éducation. Les résultats de l’étude reposent sur une analyse de documents, d’archives ainsi que d’entrevues (n = 17) menées avec des acteurs principaux à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de l’Organisation, dont des représentants d’institutions homologues affiliées.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Source: Adapted from Edwards et al. (forthcoming)

Notes

  1. The six EFA goals (agreed by 164 governments at the World Education Forum held in Dakar, Senegal, in 2000) were (1) to expand early childhood care and education; (2) provide free and compulsory primary education for all; (3) promote learning and skills for young people and adults; (4) increase adult literacy; (5) achieve gender parity; and (6) improve the quality of education (UNESCO 2000).

  2. Multilateral institutions are those institutions formed by three or more countries to work on designated issues.

  3. The Dakar Framework for Action (UNESCO 2000) was established as a result of the World Education Forum held in Dakar in 2000 and was designed to reinvigorate the Education for All (EFA) initiative.

  4. This research note shares key findings which are further elaborated and documented in Edwards et al. (forthcoming).

  5. There is a rich and extensive literature on UNESCO’s work in the education sector, including many publications by current and former staff of UNESCO and the GMR. A full list of these publications can be found in Appendix A of Edwards et al. (forthcoming).

  6. The first report to be published under this series label was entitled Education for All: Is the world on track? (UNESCO 2002).

  7. In this research note, we refer to our 17 interviewees as INT1–INT17.

  8. Also known as the Technical Working Group (TWG).

  9. Antoni Verger and Mario Novelli note that “‘civil society’ is a very broad and contested category”, including a variety of “organizations such as international and local NGOs, trade unions, community-based organizations, grassroots movements, independent research institutes, etc.” (Verger and Novelli 2012, p. 3). For our purposes, building on this definition, transnational civil society refers to those aforementioned actors who work in or across multiple countries.

  10. Eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were formulated at the United Nations Millennium Summit held in 2000. They aimed to (1) eradicate poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary education; (3) promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality; (5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for development (UN 2000).

  11. The Education for All FTI was launched in 2002 to encourage low-income countries to reach the Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education. The World Bank played an integral part in FTI’s conception and implementation. Over 30 donor agencies support the programme, including UNESCO and UNICEF. In 2012, FTI changed its name to Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and underwent an elaborate restructuring that entailed inclusion of civil society members on the its Board of Directors. GPE currently partners with 60 developing nations. For more information, see http://www.globalpartnership.org/ [accessed 18 May 2017].

  12. See Edwards et al. (forthcoming) for more on the restructuring of the EFA coordination architecture during 2011–2015.

  13. For further details on how this cycle played out in subsequent years, see Appendix C in Edwards et al. (forthcoming).

  14. Alluding to Cold War politics, the United States had withdrawn from UNESCO once before in 1984 after claims that it was “poorly managed, provided little functional value and had steadily engaged in issues which were beyond the scope of its constitutional mandate” (Mundy 1999, p. 42).

  15. At the same time, as interviewees pointed out, the creation of the FTI by the World Bank represented, according to some, a common-sense division of labour between the World Bank and UNESCO. The World Bank has expertise in finance and already had relationships with Ministers of Finance in countries which were struggling to meet the development goals.

References

  • Daniel, J. (2010). Mega-schools, technology and teachers: Achieving Education for All. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education for Change. (2014). External evaluation of the Education for All Global Monitoring Report: Final report. London: Education for Change. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://en.unesco.org/gem-report/sites/gem-report/files/External_evaluation_2014_GMR_final.pdf.

  • Edwards Jr., D. B., Okitsu, T., da Costa, R., & Kitamura, Y. (forthcoming). Organizational legitimacy in the global education policy field: Learning from UNESCO and the Global Monitoring Report. Comparative Education Review.

  • Jakobi, A. (2009). Global education policy in the making: International organisations and lifelong learning. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(4), 473–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. W. (1999). Globalisation and the UNESCO Mandate: Multilateral prospects for educational development. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(1), 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limage, L. (2007). Organizational challenges to international cooperation for literacy in UNESCO. Comparative Education, 43(3), 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limage, L. (2010). UNESCO reform: Mandate, governance and efficacy dilemmas for relevance in education, science and culture. Paper presented in the “UN reform in critical perspective” lecture series, American University of Paris, 3 November.

  • Limage, L. (2012). International education frameworks and goals: Agendas and the role of non-public actors. The EFA discourse 1990–2012 and beyond 2015. Paper presented at the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Privatisation in Education Research Initiative (PERI) Regional Conference on Globalization, Regionalization and Privatization in and of Education in Africa, 12–13 October, Johannesburg.

  • Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(2), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy, K. (1999). Educational multilateralism in a changing world order: Unesco and the limits of the possible. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, S. (2007). International EFA architecture: Lessons and prospects; a preliminary assessment. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2008. 2008/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/57. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Post, D. (2015). Does watching help? In search of the theory of change for educational monitoring. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 17(1), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, R. (2010). What do and might the EFA GMRs achieve? Norrag News, 43, 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, P. (2003). The Education Fast Track Initiative: A global campaign review of progress and recommendations for reform. London: ActionAid. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from https://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/145_1_fast_track_initiative.pdf.

  • Schweisfurth, M. (2010). Global Monitoring Reports: Reflections on real potential and realpolitik. Norrag News, 43, 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, E. (2010). Independent external evaluation of UNESCO: Final report. IOS/EVS/PI/107. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001895/189534E.pdf.

  • UN. (United Nations). (2000). United Nations Millennium declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 8th plenary meeting, 8 September. New York: UN. Retrieved 12 May 2017 from http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm.

  • UN. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. United Nations Sustainable development knowledge platform [online resource]. Retrieved 12 May 2017 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4.

  • UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf.

  • UNESCO. (2001a). Monitoring report on Education for All. UNESCO: Paris. Retrieved 18 May 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001241/124119e.pdf.

  • UNESCO. (2001b). High-Level Group on Education for All. First Meeting UNESCO, Paris 29–30 October. Report 2001. UNESCO: Paris. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001254/125463e.pdf.

  • UNESCO. (2002). Education for all: Is the world on track? Education for all global monitoring report (EFA-GMR) 2002. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 12 May 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001290/129053e.pdf.

  • UNESCO. (2004). Report of the fifth meeting of the Working Group on Education for All. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137360e.pdf.

  • UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action. Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all (Final draft for adoption). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 April 2017 from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/ED_new/pdf/FFA-ENG-27Oct15.pdf.

  • Verger, A., & Novelli, M. (Eds.). (2012). Campaigning for “Education for all”: Histories, strategies and outcomes of transnational advocacy coalitions in education. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    D. Brent Edwards Jr.

  2. Otsuma Women’s University, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Taeko Okitsu

  3. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Romina da Costa

  4. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuto Kitamura

Authors
  1. D. Brent Edwards Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taeko Okitsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Romina da Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuto Kitamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Brent Edwards Jr..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edwards, D.B., Okitsu, T., da Costa, R. et al. Regaining legitimacy in the context of global governance? UNESCO, Education for All coordination and the Global Monitoring Report. Int Rev Educ 63, 403–416 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9646-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9646-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation