This essay sets out to trace the factors of why and how girls' education became such a prominent development policy agenda. For this purpose, several development organisations and the methodologies of well-known reports will be scrutinised from both quantitative and qualitative angles, including diverse understandings and common themes. Ultimately, a brief outlook will be given.
In most parts of the Western world and beyond, almost no other topic of the development policy agenda can be considered as uncontested as the promotion of girls’ education (GE). Going hand in hand with liberal human values and as a means of justification for other developmental interventions, promoting GE is frequently perceived as one of only a few ‘truly global’ notions and indicators of progress. Chosen by the anti-extreme poverty ONE Campaign as the first two of their “10 quotes that tell us the importance of investing in girls’ education”, the quotes above highlight common themes associated with the empowerment of girls and women via the means of education: reasonable investment, societal progress and security.
Hardly contestable if not deconstructed, these quotes simultaneously represent entry points for more critical discussions of the anything but uniform notion of GE by raising, among others, the questions of: Which forms of stability? Strong, free and educated in which regards? Can there be a single ‘real development’? Can human beings be ‘(best) investments’ at all?
Table of Contents
1. Definitional and methodological blurredness of GE
2. GE as a panacea within a neoliberal policy framework
3. Conclusion and outlook
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay aims to analyze why and how girls' education (GE) has become such a prominent agenda item in international development policy. It argues that this prominence is driven by the term's extraordinary definitional and methodological ambiguity, which makes it appear common-sensical, and by its facilitation as a panacea within a broader neoliberal policy framework that prioritizes economic utility over intrinsic social value.
- The definitional and methodological blurredness of GE
- GE as a panacea within a neoliberal policy framework
- Critique of international development reports and indexes
- The role of GE in political agendas and global policy frameworks
- Economic versus social value of education
Excerpt from the Book
Definitional and methodological blurredness of GE
In contrast to many other development-related issues such as poverty or inequality, no meaningful and (almost) exhaustive sets of indicators for the genuinely multidimensional concept of GE have been agreed on by the international development community yet. Even though some primarily quantitative indicators such as literacy rate and school enrolment can be frequently found – which allow for (limited) comparisons of countries and over time – they are still far from accurately reflecting GE’s ascribed potential to improve the lived experiences of half of the world’s population. Whilst the exact reasons for this sub-operationalisation remain unknown, a reciprocally beneficial relationship between blurry indicators and ideological purpose cannot be excluded. More precisely, the collection/interpretation of GE-relevant data seemingly depends on the respective institution and its embedment in wider political and ideological structures. What evolves from this incoherence is a plethora of non-rivalling understandings – rendering GE a common-sensical pursuit for development organisations.
Summary of Chapters
Definitional and methodological blurredness of GE: This chapter highlights the lack of consistent, multidimensional indicators for girls' education and examines how diverse institutional interpretations render the concept intentionally vague to suit political agendas.
GE as a panacea within a neoliberal policy framework: This section critically analyzes how international development organizations utilize the concept of girls' education to justify neoliberal policies, emphasizing economic returns and market-based solutions over human rights.
Conclusion and outlook: The essay concludes that the prominence of girls' education as a policy agenda is largely due to its nature as an 'empty signifier' and its instrumentalization within a neoliberal framework, suggesting a need for a paradigm shift toward empowering education that is not profit-driven.
Keywords
Girls' Education, International Development, Neoliberalism, Policy Agenda, Gender Equality, Economic Growth, Empty Signifier, Development Indicators, Human Rights, Institutional Discourse, Malala Fund, World Bank, UNICEF, Beijing Platform for Action, Femonationalism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic work?
The work examines the factors contributing to the prominence of girls' education (GE) as a central agenda item in international development policy, arguing that its ambiguity and neoliberal framing are key drivers.
What are the central thematic fields explored?
The essay explores the intersection of international development, educational policy, neoliberalism, gender politics, and the discursive construction of 'progress' and 'empowerment'.
What is the primary research question or goal?
The goal is to trace why and how GE became a prominent policy agenda by scrutinizing the methodologies and ideological underpinnings used by major development organizations.
Which scientific method is utilized in this paper?
The paper employs a critical discourse analysis and an indicative comparison of methodologies and report structures from key development institutions, such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and the Malala Fund.
What aspects are addressed in the main body of the text?
The main body focuses on the definitional blurredness of GE, the uncritical use of economic indicators in global reports, and how GE is framed as a panacea for development concerns within a neoliberal political context.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Girls' Education, Neoliberalism, Policy Agenda, Gender Equality, Economic Growth, and Institutional Discourse.
How does the author characterize the term 'girls' education'?
The author identifies GE as an 'empty signifier' due to its common-sensical nature and the lack of a comprehensive, globally agreed-upon definition, which allows it to be easily co-opted by different political actors.
What role does the Beijing Platform for Action play in this argument?
The author uses the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action to demonstrate how the 'right' to GE has been universalized and embedded within a neoliberal social policy framework, often at the expense of more radical feminist demands.
Why is the concept of 'Femonationalism' mentioned?
The term is used to illustrate how constructing girls' education as a 'liberation tool' from specific 'others' (such as the Taliban) has been exploited to justify xenophobic and predatory military or political interventions.
- Quote paper
- Max Schmidt (Author), 2020, Factors that have led to girls' education becoming a prominent development policy agenda, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/978886
