Introduction

Policy convergence is an often- assumed outcome of transnational policy movement. The policy convergence thesis can be summarized in that, as a result of globalization pressures and the increasing role of international organizations in policy activities, systems tend to develop “similarities in structures, processes and performance” (Bennett, 1991, p 215). Yet, in recent years, different scholars have drawn attention to the limitations of conventional approaches to convergence and to the need to unpack and critically interrogate the assumptions that inform this line of inquiry. Some scholars have thus advanced towards a multidimensional understanding of convergence, going beyond the policy adoption stage and paying greater attention to local implementation and enactment dynamics. Others have turned to the study of divergence patterns in an attempt to identify those points of mediation that explain different responses to common pressures. It is thus possible to document a shift in emphasis, from a focus on convergence patterns to an emphasis on policy variation and its causes.

The global spread of performance- based accountability (PBA) offers an opportunity to engage in these debates in an empirically informed manner. Indeed, PBA has acquired so- called global status (see Steiner- Khamsi, 2004) in education reform agendas, with most middle- and high- income countries adopting national large- scale assessments with the purpose of measuring academic performance and making schools more accountable (Sahlberg, 2016). However, there is limited clarity as to whether the expansion of PBA can truly be equated to the advancement of a “world testing culture” or to the transition into a single, universal accountability regime. Different scholars have drawn attention to the heterogeneity of PBA regimes and practices in place, and to the uneven level of penetration of national assessments and accountability instruments in the daily life of schools. Nonetheless, the sources of variation behind such heterogeneity remain largely understudied.

In this chapter, we aim to overcome some of these limitations by interrogating the convergence thesis in relation to the policy implementation stage, based on a deductive design oriented at assessing the impact of theoretically plausible sources of variation. We depart from the premise that, despite the international expansion of PBA, its actual implementation in schools varies significantly across different countries.

In a world that is rapidly changing, increasingly connected and uncertain, there is a need to develop a shared applied policy analysis of welfare regimes around the globe. Research in Comparative and Global Social Policy is a series of books that addresses broad questions on how nation states and transnational policy actors manage globally shared challenges. In so doing, the series includes a wide array of contributions, which discuss comparative social policy history, development and reform within a broad international context. The series invites innovative research by leading experts on all world regions and global social policy actors, and aims to fulfill the following objectives: it encourages cross- disciplinary approaches that develop theoretical frameworks reaching across individual world regions and global actors; it seeks to provide evidence- based good practice examples that cross the bridge between academic research and practice; not least, it aims to provide a platform in which a wide range of innovative methodological approaches, whether these be national case studies, larger- N comparative studies or global social policy studies, can be introduced to aid the evaluation, design and implementation of future social policies.

Although sometimes challenged, there are still concerns that mainstream comparative and global social policy analysis has tended to overlook the critical welfare pillar of education. This is why we are delighted to be able to include in our book series the edited volume by Edwards, Verger, McKenzie and Takayama which explores a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches to study the movement of global education policies. More specifically, this book highlights the processes and mechanisms through which education policies are diffused, transferred and translated across different contexts, scales and geographies. The chapters in this edited volume illustrate how these approaches can help to understand and problematize the dynamics and effects of policy movement in various areas of education. This includes exploring areas such as charter schools, school accountability, inclusive education, gender equality, the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) and new public management.

More precisely, this ambitious contribution to our book series is a collection of 13 chapters that apply various analytical perspectives and approaches – namely cross- scalar, discursive, topological and decolonial – to analyze how and why the movement of policies in global education occurs and with what implications.

Introduction

Women's education and the inclusion of women in productive career paths are crucial for the development of societies and economies. Research on value change indicates a global trend towards more egalitarian and emancipatory gender norms (Welzel, 2013, p 109), which in part is a result of women's participation in education. “Feminization of society” (Inglehart, 2018, p 102) – that is, acceptance of gender equality as a dominant cultural norm – positively affects social developments, democratic empowerment of citizens and wellbeing.

The global diffusion of gender equality is driven by different agencies. Previous research has shown that international organizations (IOs) in particular have played a significant role in this process by setting normative standards and disseminating them globally (Finnemore, 1993). Hence, IOs also facilitate the movement of education policies between countries. To date, however, systematic studies on the global spread of trends in women's education are rare, specifically with respect to the Global South. Research on the Global North demonstrates that the observed convergence in education systems and education policies can be partially attributed to initiatives of IOs (Martens et al, 2010). While domestic education reforms are moderated by national institutions, IOs set the basic aims for reforms by disseminating norms and values. In doing so, IOs are equipped with a portfolio of ideas allowing them to translate abstract policy goals into concrete policy recommendations (Niemann, 2022).

In this chapter, we focus on IOs that traditionally view education from an economic- centered perspective, focusing on the generation of human capital for the labor market. We argue that this neoliberal thinking, which was prevalent in these IOs in the early 1980s, distinctively framed the link between education and equal pay laws (EPLs). In particular, the World Bank (WB) and the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) lobbied for the improvement of human capital formation at all educational levels. Despite recent shifts in the IOs’ programs towards a more social integrative view on education that emphasizes human rights, social cohesion and social justice, their basic neoliberal paradigm still exists (Niemann, 2022). Both IOs assume a homo economicus who invests in education if the expected payoff is sufficiently large and outweighs the costs (Becker, 1964).

Introduction

In today's globalized world, education policies concerning inclusive education (IE) are increasingly borrowed and lent in multiple directions through international agencies and initiatives such as the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Education Goal (UN, 2015). Despite widespread interest, Shevlin (2019) notes that the term “IE” is difficult to define as a global construct since it is underpinned by a diverse ideological melange. The key interpretations of educational inclusion include: (i) the right to participate in education and wider society (UN, 1948); (ii) the need for school transformation to embrace diversity (Salend, 2015); and (iii) the removal of barriers that compromise access to education for all pupils (UN, 2006). Several studies have maintained that it might be difficult to arrive at a generally accepted definition of IE because the concept of inclusion is context- dependent (Grech and Soldatic, 2016; Shevlin, 2019; Kamenopoulou, 2020). More importantly, particular ideas about IE expressed in UN policy directives can have complex policy manifestations in recipient countries (Kamenopoulou, 2020). As Grech and Soldatic (2016) note, political, economic, cultural and historical specificities affect the ways in which policies are transferred, translated and enacted. These unique local variances, in addition to global exigencies and policy actors’ agendas, can have a collective effect on how IE policy moves across levels from the global to different local contexts and across time (Dale, 1999).

Due to the complexities involved in policy movement, the literature suggests that studies on the movement of IE policy require careful theoretical and methodological considerations (Grech and Soldatic, 2016). With this in mind, this chapter proposes the use of a critical realist discourse analysis approach to examine the movement of IE policy in a middle- income country context (in this case, Malaysia). The discussion is initiated with an overview of IE policy making in the Malaysian context and is followed by an examination of the theoretical underpinnings of critical realist discourse analysis. The theoretical framework and methodological discussion center on the key approaches employed when working from the critical realist ontology; in particular, it focuses on Reisigl and Wodak's (2009) discourse- historical approach (DHA) and Jessop's (2005) strategic relational approach (SRA).

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the ways in which education policy ideas and associated frameworks become mobilized by international organizations and other actors working across global, transnational, national and local levels. We concentrate on social and emotional learning (SEL) as the example of globally mobile education policy idea, illustrating the complex processes and underlying mechanisms enabling its mobilization and transfer across and within particular contexts. Our case study involves the formation of Lebanon's national SEL policies since the Syrian refugee influx in 2011. Empirically, we draw on two primary data sources generated in a larger comparative case study: policy document analysis and 51 semi- structured interviews conducted virtually from September 2020 to June 2021 with transnational–national actors, national policy makers and national–local actors. We emphasize findings related to transnational–national actors and national policy makers in order to (a) illustrate the emergence of SEL as global education policy (Edwards, 2021), and (b) show the ways that both endogenous education policy actor- oriented drivers and exogeneous cultural, political and economic drivers affected the institutionalization of SEL as national education policies in Lebanon.

This chapter especially illuminates the manner in which SEL, a USoriginated definition and its associated frameworks, was deterritorialized and prioritized as a global policy solution within and through a complex constellation of transnational–national policy actors. Transnational–national actors powerfully designed and managed education policy agendas on multiple scales. National policy makers’ interests in institutionalizing SEL were attributed mainly to political and economic reasons. In particular, they wanted to mediate domestic politics and to catch up with international standards for international funding opportunities. By focusing on the evolution of SEL policy formation in Lebanon, we illuminate the roles of transnational–national actors and national policy makers in mobilizing and activating global education policies in a particular crisis- affected context. In doing so, we show how their roles are reflective of unequal political, economic and cultural power within the global governance of humanitarian aid.

Introduction

The 21st century is intensifying policy formations that involve movement and interconnectivity. These formations are created through transnational migration, climate impacts, new forms of digital data movement and infrastructure, and the continuing development of networked governance. Indeed, policy making can now be said to increasingly stretch beyond, overflow and flatten the territorial borders of the traditional Westphalian nation state. The presence of the new policy formations, and the processes by which they are developed and disseminated suggest that policy research now requires novel conceptualizations and methodologies that can adequately attend to these emerging phenomena and that can provide both descriptive and analytical power.

In this chapter, we focus on policy mobilities as a broad term that captures work identifying and conceptualizing how policy moves through multiple and diffuse means, including nonscalar modalities. Policy mobilities work evolved a decade or so ago, connected to scholarship in urban, economic and critical geography (Peck and Theodore, 2010; McCann, 2011; Cochrane and Ward, 2012; Baker and Temenos, 2015), as well as the broader “mobility turn” in sociology (Sheller and Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007). Mobility concepts posit that social formations are in constant movement and mutation rather than being static and immutable (Cresswell, 2006; Gulson and Symes, 2017), and can be distinguished from previous cross- disciplinary scholarship that focused on policy transfer and diffusion models (for example, Meyer, 1971; Ramirez, 2012). Such approaches sought to downplay the political, social and economic influences of specific national and local contexts in favor of a policy isomorphism deemed to be shaped by the increasing demands of an imagined world society (Carney et al, 2012). Policy mobilities are related to but distinct from political science notions of policy diffusion, for example, via modalities such as borrowing from other nation states.

Mobility studies developed in relation to increased globalization and a more relational orientation to space, which understood geographical scale (for example, the nation state and the subnational) as socially constructed rather than inherent and immutable (Amin, 2002). A policy focus within the mobility turn was explored initially by human geographers, who were suspicious of essentializing the national as the ultimate a priori reference point in discussions of policy transfer and diffusion.

Historically, there is nothing new about the movement of policy ideas and ideologies across national borders and systems of education. Indeed, the basic architecture of colonialism was only sustainable through the movement of policy ideas and ideologies, with directives coming from the metropole on how systems of education should be developed and managed to cultivate compliant colonial subjects. At the same time, some ideas and innovations of policy and practice in the colonies made their way back to the metropole, though they became authoritative only with the metropole's imprimatur. Similarly, the Catholic Church has long acted as a supranational organization, seeking to implement its policies and practices through its systems of Catholic schools and universities around the world.

During most of the 20th century, educational policies continued to move from the West to the Rest, shaping the policy priorities of educational systems everywhere, based on the assumptions of the inherent superiority of the Anglo- American norms. These assumptions were legitimized through the invocation of such ideologies as modernization, industrialization and, more recently, globalization. As new nations came into existence, they continued to subscribe to these ideologies. Their reliance on overseas aid, technical expertise and other resources they needed to forge their own systems of educational governance invariably meant adopting ideas that were developed elsewhere. Moreover, the idea of “educational development” in the image of the West played a key role in constituting and defining “new” nations and their perspectives on education.

However, as reliant as the newly independent nations were on policies designed elsewhere, there were always “slippages” in the implementation processes, between the grand designs and the practices on the ground. A great deal of literature has pointed to the unintended consequences of policies unsuited to local conditions, disconnected from local traditions and often oblivious or insensitive to local resistance. Implementation processes have clearly been shown to be a great deal more complex than expected, demonstrating the limits of technicism and instrumental rationality in a field of practice as contingent and complicated as education. Policies, it is now widely recognized, cannot be implemented by edict and instructions alone.

Introduction: the Programme for International Student Achievement and East Asia

The rise of large- scale assessments (LSAs) has created a new context of education policy making. High- achieving countries and economies in those assessments are now recognized as reference societies, a key point of reference for domestic policy discussion in many countries. The Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD)'s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been instrumental in “challenging historically based reference societies for many nations in respect of schooling systems” (Lingard and Rawolle, 2011, p 492; Sellar and Lingard, 2013). The recent international attention given to Finland, Shanghai and Singapore is one such example, where a country and a city, known for its educational commitment in its own regional context, suddenly became the “mecca” for education policy makers and researchers around the world.

Most notable among those that are now acting as new reference societies – particularly for observers in Anglo- American countries – are East Asia countries and economies that topped the recent PISA rankings. Traditionally, East Asia has rarely been a popular source of education policy ideas on a global scale. According to Japanese and East Asian education specialist William Cummings, any call to learn from East Asia meets “the vehement defensiveness of Western educators and researchers” and results from “anxieties around their assumptions (about education) … being challenged and even threatened by the often contrasting eastern Asian approach” (Cummings, 1997, p 291). The defensiveness is underpinned by the widely held dismissive view of East Asian society and education: East Asia is authoritarian, the central government dictates what is to be taught and teachers dominate classroom discourse. Students study under enormous parental and societal pressure for academic competition and success, and engage in factual recall and rote learning. As a result, though they achieve well in standardized assessments, including international testing, they lose joy in learning and are weak in creativity, critical and independent thinking, and problem- solving skills (Takayama, 2017).

Introduction

Policy movement is a multidimensional concept which covers various study areas in comparative and international education such as global education policy (see Edwards, 2021) and policy transfer (see Beech, 2006; Perry and Tor, 2008). Scholars studying global education policies often focus on the role and labor of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) – such as the Organisation of Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) – to explain the manifold interplay between global educational discourse and national policy making (for example, Kallo and Rinne, 2006; Beech, 2009; Grek, 2009; Lingard and Sellar, 2014). Research on the reception side of global education policies sheds light on the divergence of local responses, drawing on the body of literature on policy transfer (for example, Steiner- Khamsi and Waldow, 2012). Approaches that acknowledge divergence in the nature of policy transfer explore how external policy ideas and models are recaptioned, resisted, recontextualized and internalized by local power politics or culture (Anderson- Levitt, 2003; Phillips and Ochs, 2004; Steiner- Khamsi and Waldow, 2012). While global education policies are extensively studied in the field, the abstract notion of the “global” is often used without a critical discussion on what the “global” actually is and how it is made. These are the issues that this chapter primarily aims to address by making a contribution to policy movement research.

Besides the notion of the “global,” this chapter challenges the hierarchal, static and binary conception of global/ local. Studies are often built on the tenet that IGOs play the key role in identifying, developing and disseminating certain education policies to the “local” level, which is customarily interpreted as a country or a subnational unit (see for example, Kallo and Rinne, 2006; Beech, 2009). The divergence approach does not perceive local recipients as passive emulators, but nevertheless retains and reproduces binaries such as convergent/ divergent, global/ local and real/ imagined (Silova et al, 2020). Such dichotomies may narrow down or already prescribe our understanding of policy movement, perceiving, for instance, the global as an entity of “the abstract, the ubiquitous, something out there, out of control and inevitable” (Beech and Artopoulos, 2021, p 435; see also Larsen and Beech, 2014).