1

Somethingold,somethingnew,somethingborrowed:philanthropy,businessandthechangingrolesofgovernmentinglobaleducationpolicynetworks[Articleacceptedandforthcoming–OxfordReviewofEducation]AntonioOlmedoUniversityofRoehamptonAbstractThispaperfocusesontheroleofgovernmentsincontemporarynetworkedpoliticalframeworks.Suchnetworksconstitutepolicycommunities,usuallybaseduponsharedconceptionsofsocialproblemsandtheirsolutions.Byenablingsocial,politicalandeconomicconnectionsatlocal,regional,nationalandinternationallevels,thenetworkbecomesakeypolicyplayeraswellasapolicytechnologyindifferentspaces.Morespecifically,thepaperisorganisedaroundthreeinitiallyidentified“policyframeworks”inthefieldofeducationpolicy.Eachoneofthemisbasedona‘network-case’,thatisanassemblageoforganisationsandprogrammeswhichactivatenew‘methods’ofpolicyandfinancialexchange(e.g.venturephilanthropyandventurecapital,socialenterpriseandmicrofinance,andsocialcapitalism).Inthefirstframework,governmentsrepresentthemaindriverforpoliticalchangeinlegislatingalandscapethatcreatestheconditionsfornetworkstodeveloparounddifferentaspectswithinthepublicsphere(e.g.organisation,co-funding,delivery,etc.).Thisnovelmodelofgovernancebasedontheconceptof“governingthroughnetworks”,asMorgan-Trimmer(2010)callsit,offersnewtechniquesandtechnologiesofgoverningtogovernments,intheformofwhatJessopcallsmeta-governanceandmeta-heterarchy,thatis‘theorganisationoftheconditionsofself-organisationbyredefiningtheframeworkforheterarchyorreflexiveorganisation’(Jessop,2002,p.241).Thesecondpolicyframeworkfocusesontheactivitiesofanexistingnetworkinordertoengagewithexistingpoliticalconfigurationsasa“politicalactor”initsownright.Itrelatestowhatcouldbecalled“governingwith/alongsidenetworks”.Thekeypointhereistoacknowledgethechangesandinfluencethatexternalnetworksmightbeexertingoverexistingpolicyformationsandprogrammes.Thethirdpolicyframeworkfocusesoninstanceswherethenetworkoperatesdirectlyasa“state-maker”.Itcouldbeunderstoodas“governingwithinnetworks”,stressingthefactthatstatesneedtooperateinapoliticalspherethatwasinitiallycreatedbyanetworkedconfigurationwithinwhichgovernmentisoneamongstmanyotherplayers.Thisismorecommoninlate-developingcountriesdefinedbyanascentpublic-servicesystemand/orunregulatedpoliticalspheres,wherethereisanurgentneedtoconstructpoliticalstructures,configurenewroles,determineandassignresponsibilities,etc.Followingthelogicof“creativecapitalism”,suchfoundationalprocessesaretobeinitiatedandsharedbydifferentactors,whichwillinteractinnetworkedwayscreatingagreementsbutalsothroughconflictingnegotiationprocesses.

2

Keywords:networkgovernance,philanthropy,edu-businesses,creativecapitalismIntroductionSinceBillGates’speechattheWorldEconomicForuminDavosbackin2008,therehavebeenamyriadofacademicpapers,newspaperarticles,socialmediaentries,openlettersfromprofessionalbodies,andevenparliamentarydebatesandpoliticalprogrammes,celebratinganddevelopingfurthertheideasexpressedbythethenthirdrichestmanintheworld.Asalreadyanalysedinpreviouspapers(Ball&Olmedo,2012;Olmedo,2013,2016),creativecapitalismhasgeneratedwhatcouldbeunderstoodasan‘epistemiccommunity’(Adler&Haas,1992).Justtoreiterateoncemore,Gates’creativecapitalismisbasedonthebelievethat:

Thegeniusofcapitalismliesinitsabilitytomakeself-interestservethewiderinterest.(…)Buttoharnessthispowersoitbenefitseveryone,weneedtorefinethesystem.(…)Suchsystemwouldhaveatwinmission:makingprofitsandalsoimprovinglivesforthosewhodon’tfullybenefitfrommarketforces.Tomakethesystemsustainable,weneedtouseprofitincentiveswheneveryoucan.(…)Thechallengeistodesignasystemwheremarketincentives,includingprofitsandrecognition,drivethechange.(…)Iliketocallthisnewsystemcreativecapitalism–anapproachwheregovernments,businesses,andnonprofitsworktogethertostretchthereachofmarketforcessothatmorepeoplecanmakeaprofit,orgainrecognition,doingworkthateasestheworld’sinequities.1

Withinsuchepistemiccommunities,alsoidentifiedas‘communitiesofpractice’inthesociologicalliterature(seeCallon&Latour,1981)or‘knowledgenetworks’inmanagementstudies(Uzzi,1996),modelsandideascirculatethatfacilitatethecreationofnewpolicydiscoursesandtechnologies,whichtransformexistingstructuresandproceduresofcontrollingsocieties.Nevertheless,suchcommunities‘arenotinthebusinessofcontrollingsocieties;whattheycontrolareinternationalproblems.Theirapproachisinstrumental,andtheirlifeislimitedtothetimeandspacedefinedbytheproblemanditssolutions.Epistemiccommunitiesareneitherphilosophers,norkings,norphilosopherkings’(Adler&Haas,1992,p.371).Therefore,itwouldbeamistaketoinfercausalitywhileclaimingthatthesetofspecificoutcomesandresultsofprocessesofpolicyenactmentlinkedtosuchideasareadirectconsequenceoftheoperationsofonespecificepistemiccommunity.Thereareanumberofhistoricallyandgeographicallysituatedcontingencies,externalandinternalconstrains,publicandprivateinterests,politicalandeconomicpressures,etc.,thatareinoperationandthatintroducealevelofuncertainty,specificity,andcomplexitytosuchpolicyprocess.

1Thefullspeechcanbefoundat:https://news.microsoft.com/speeches/bill-gates-world-economic-forum-2008/

3

AsGlaeser(2010,p.48)suggests,thecaseforcreativecapitalismisbasednotonlyonthefailureofmarkets,astheyseemtohavecontributedtotheeverincreasinglevelsofsocialinequality,butonthe‘thefailureofgovernment’which,inhisopinion,‘havefaileddismally’intheirresponsibilitiestopublichealthcareandeducation.Gates’ideasarecertainlynotnew.Sincethe1980s,aseriesofresearchersinthefieldsofpoliticalscience(Rhodes,1988;Rhodes&Marsh,1992)andsociologyoforganisations(Powell,1990;Wellman,1988)havestudiedthedevelopmentofnetworksasaresponsetotheinadequacyofmarketsandhierarchiesinordertoexplaincontemporaryeconomiesandpoliticalconfigurations,or,atleast,theyhaveshownhowboth,marketsandhierarchies,arenotformedbyatomisticplayersoperatinginisolationbutareratherformedbyandinvolvedinamatrixofrelationshipswithinandacrosssectors.Sincethen,theinterestonpolicynetworkshasrisenexponentiallybothwithinandacrossdifferentdisciplines.Yet,asBörzel(1997,p.1)synthesises,‘neitheristhereacommonunderstandingofwhatapolicynetworkactuallyis,norhasitbeenagreeduponwhetherpolicynetworksconstituteameremetaphor,ananalyticaltoolorapropertheory’.Ataverygenerallevel,policynetworkscouldbedefinedas‘websofrelativelystableandongoingrelationshipswhichmobiliseandpooldispersedresourcessothatcollective(orparallel)actioncanbeorchestratedtowardthesolutionofacommonpolicy’(Kenis&Schneider,1991,p.36).Suchdefinition,nevertheless,doesnotsolvethequandariesoverthenature,useandexplanatorypowerofpolicynetworks.RhodesbeganhisanalysisontheconfigurationandfunctioningoftheBritishgovernmentwiththeaimofestablishing‘thevalidityofnetworksoforganisationsasthemostrevealingunitofanalysis’(1988,p.4,stressonoriginal);whereas,incontrast,Mayntzsuggeststhat‘thenotionof“policynetworks”doesnotsomuchrepresentanewanalyticalperspectivebutrathersignalsarealchangeinthestructureofthepolity’(1993,p.5).Accordingtothelatter,policynetworksshouldbeunderstoodasanewformofgovernancethatimpliesnotonlystructuralchangesandthecreationofnewinstitutionsandorganisations,butalsothetransformationofthenatureandrolesofexistingpolicyactors,andthecreationofnewmethodsofdoingpolicy.TheapproachinthispaperconcurswithDickensandhiscolleagues’exercisewhichaimstoreconcilebothepistemologicalpositions.Theyproposea‘relationalviewofnetworksasamethodology’where‘networksareneitherpurelyorganizationalformsnorstructures’.Accordingtothem,‘networksareessentiallyrelationalprocesses,which,whenrealisedempiricallywithindistincttime-andspace-specificcontexts,produceobservablepatternsintheglobaleconomy’(Dickenetal.,2001,p.91,stressonoriginal).Inwhatfollows,Iwilltrytoshowhowsuchobservablepatternsandstructuralchangescanbefoundnotonlyatthemacro-level,butalsomodifythecommon,everydaypracticesandformsoforganisationofpolicyactors“ontheground”.Idonotintendtosupporttheexistenceofdifferentterritoriallevelsinwhichpolicypracticesoperate,but,onthecontrary,showhowsuchartificialdivisionintolevels(e.g.global-local,international-national-regional,macro-meso-micro,etc.)isnotsufficientinordertounderstandthecapillaryorganisationofpowerrelationsandstructures

4

across21stcenturysociety(ies).Inthissense,myanalysiswillinterrogateandextendwhatSassencallsprocessesof‘denationalizationofsovereignty’,thatisthewaysinwhich‘certaincomponentsofsovereigntyhaveundercurrentconditionsbeenrelocatedtosupra-andsubnationalinstitutions,bothgovernmentalandnon-governmentalinstitutions,andbotholdandnewlyformedinstitutions’(Sassen,2000,p.373).However,asDickenetal.suggest,‘itisinsufficienttofocusexclusivelyonorganizationsandinstitutionsinordertounderstandglobalchanges.Wealsoneedtoexaminetheintentionalityandpowerrelationsamongsocialactorsintheseorganizationsandinstitutions’(2001,pp.92-93).Ourresearchagendaforthepastfiveyearshasfocusedonanalysesofnetworksformationsindifferentareasofeducationpolicy(see,forinstance,Ball,2012;Ball&Junemann,2012;Olmedo,2013).OurresearcheffortshaveaimedtofacethechallengeshighlightedbyBörzel(1997),anddevelopedanapproachtopolicynetworkanalysisthatisabletooffermorethanjustausefultoolboxinordertoanalysecontemporarypolicy-making.Shepointsouttheneedtoshowthat‘policynetworksdonotonlyexistbutarealsorelevantforpolicyprocessesandpolicyoutcomes’(1997,p.2).Alongside,shealsoadvocatesfortheneedtotackle‘theproblemoftheambiguity’ofpolicynetworkanalysisifwearetoshowhow‘policynetworkscanbothenhanceandreducetheefficiencyandlegitimacyofpolicy-making’(idem).Themainfocusofsuchstudieshasbeentheidentificationofthe“how”(s)ofnetworkgovernance,thesetofindividuals,institutions,organisations,businesses,etc.;thewaysinwhichtheyinterrelateandinteractwitheachother;andthenew“policysolutions”toeducationalproblemsthatarebeingenactedacrosstheglobe.Thisentailsacomparativeexerciseofpoliciesindifferentnation-states,butalsodifferentnetworkconfigurationsandpolicysettingswithinandacrosssuchbordersthatsuggesttheneedtoredrawthetraditionalgeographicalmapsthatweareusedtoworkingwith.Alongside,wehavebeguntosystematisetheimpactsoverthemultiplesocio,economicandpoliticalstructuresinandacrosswhichsuchnetworksareembedded.Inthispaper,Iwillgobacktothenetworkdatabasesandraiseanumberofquestionsaboutthenewrolesofgovernmentinthreepolicyframeworksidentifiedadhoc.Eachoneofthemisbasedona‘network-case’,thatisanassemblageoforganisationsandprogrammeswhichactivatenew‘methods’ofpolicyandfinancialexchange(e.g.venturephilanthropyandventurecapital,socialenterpriseandmicrofinance,andsocialcapitalism).Theempiricalevidenceineachcasewillbeindicativebutnotexhaustive,giventheconstantiterationoftheprocessesinvolvedandthehighspeedatwhichsuchchangestakeplace.Policyframework1:networksaspolicytechnologyThefirstframeworkidentifiedintheanalysisofpoliticalsettingswherenetworksoperaterelatestoconfigurationswheregovernmentsrepresentthemaindriverforpoliticalchangeinlegislatingalandscapethatcreatestheconditionsfornetworkstodeveloparounddifferentaspectswithinthepublicsphere(e.g.organisation,co-funding,delivery,etc.)(seeDiagram1).Thenetwork-caseforthisframeworkfocusesonthere-launchedAcademies

5

programme(seeGunter,2011)andthenewlycreatedFreeSchoolsschemeinEngland(Higham,2014).[InsertDiagram1aroundhere]BothprogrammesaresituatedunderthepoliticalumbrellaofwhatDavidCameron,theUKconservativeprimerminister,baptisedasthe‘BigSociety’inhisinauguralspeechbackin20102.TheBigSocietysharestherationaleofGate’screativecapitalism.Basedonarhetoricempowermentoflocalcommunities,businessesandindividuals,theBigSocietyimpliesadevolutionofpowerfromcentralgovernmenttolocalassociations,charities,non-profitandfor-profitsocialenterprises,whichwillbefromnowonthemainactorsoflocalandnationalpolicymakingandpolicyaccountability.ThisnewinitiativeisagoodexampleofwhatRose(1996:56)definedas‘anewpluralisationof“social”technologies’basedonstrategiesofdiversificationanddecentralisation.InasecondspeechintheHouseofCommonsayearlater,DavidCameronopenlydefendedthisnew‘duty’ofthegovernmentwithinanincreasinglyplural“networked-state”:

(…)whatwearetalkingabouthereisawholestreamofthingsthatneedtobedone.Firstofall,wehavegottodevolvemorepowertolocalgovernment,andbeyondlocalgovernment,sopeoplecanactuallydomoreandtakemorepower.Secondly,wehavegottoopenuppublicservices,makethemlessmonolithic,saytopeople:ifyouwanttostartupnewschools,youcan;ifyouwanttosetupaco-oporamutualwithinthehealthservice,ifyou’repartofthehealthservice,youcan(…)Idon’tbelievethatyoujustsortofrollbackthestateandtheBigSocietyspringsupmiraculously.Thereareamazingpeopleinourcountry,whoareestablishinggreatcommunityorganisationsandsocialenterprises,butwe,thegovernment,shouldalsobecatalysingandagitatingandtryingtohelpbuildtheBigSociety.3

WithintheBigSociety,theroleofthegovernmentisbasedonitsabilityandcapacitytosetupnewrulesforpartnerships,tofacilitateandsteerexchangesandcontrolthemovementsandtransactionswithinthenetworks.TheprocessesinvolvedherearenotentirelywhatRhodes(1996)identifiedas‘governingwithoutgovernment’.Onthecontrary,thisnewmodeofgovernanceoffersnewtechniquesandtechnologiesofgoverningtogovernments,intheformofwhatJessopcallsmeta-governanceandmeta-heterarchy,thatis‘theorganisationoftheconditionsofself-organisationbyredefiningtheframeworkforheterarchyorreflexiveorganisation’(2002,p.241).Farfroma‘roll-back’(Peck&Tickell,2002)oratotal‘hollowingout’(Rhodes,1994)ofthestate,thisnewmodelimpliesa“roll-out”ofgovernment,basedonthecreationofnewstructuresandtechnologiesofgovernancethatwouldredefineitsrolesandresponsibilitiesbut,atthesametime,wouldresituateitstrategicallybothinnormativeandinstitutionalterms.

2https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/big-society-speech3https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-big-society

6

Accordingtothisnewfashion,themodeloffundingandprovisionofeducationatprimaryandsecondarylevelsundertheAcademiesandFreeSchoolsprogrammesinEnglandmovesawayfromstate-centredformsofco-ordinationwhilenotdevelopingapurelymarket-basedmodel.Whatisofinteresttoushereisthefactthatitisthegovernmentwhotakestheinitiativeandintroducesnewformsofunderstandinganddeliveringpublicpolicy,usingthenetworkasapolicytechnology(seeBall,2007)todoit.FollowingtheEuropeantradition,herethenetworkisunderstoodasanewformofgovernancebasedonwhatMorgan-Trimmer(2010)calls‘governingthroughnetworks’.Infact,theresultingpicturereplacesthemwithmoreflexiblestructures(heterarchies)whererelationships,responsibilitiesandprocessesofdecision-makingaresharedatdifferentinstancesbyaheterogeneousgroupofoldandnewactorswithdifferentbackgrounds,profilesandinterests(Jessop,1998).Farfromsimplyimplyingnewrecycledlegislativeplans,thisprogrammeisfacilitatingthecreationofnewformsofhybridandinterconnectedensemblesthroughwhichphilanthropicinstitutions,non-profitventurefundsandbusinessesjoinforcestocompetewithtraditionalpublicandprivateeducationproviders(Hatcher,2011).AsofAugust2015,theDfErecognised4762AcademiesandFreeSchools4,whicharesponsoredby759organisations5.Someofthemaresingleschoolsbut,duringthelastfewyears,therehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofchainsofschools(seeTable1).

Table1.Top-15Academysponsors(intermsofnumberofschools)

AcademiesEnterpriseTrust(AET) 67SchoolPartnershipTrustAcademies(SPTA) 43OasisCommunityLearning 42KemnalAcademyTrust,The(TKAT) 41REAch2 40UnitedLearning 40PlymouthCAST 35ARKSchools 34DavidRossEducationTrust(DRET) 33OrmistonAcademiesTrust 29HarrisFederation 28ArchdioceseofBirmingham 25GreenwoodDaleFoundationTrust 25E-ACT 23AskelVeur-DioceseofTruro 22Source:DfE(updatedSept20156)

4https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development#history5https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/academy-sponsor-contact-list6https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-academies-and-academy-projects-in-development#history

7

Followingafractalfashion,thesechainsofschoolsaretheresultofnetworksthemselves.Forinstance,ArkSchoolsrunsachainof34academiesinEngland7(plus3morethatareindevelopment8).OntopofthefundingreceivedbytheDepartmentforEducation(DfE),thecharitablecompany9restsonthesupportofadensenetworkofindividuals,publicinstitutions,otherphilanthropicorganisationsandprivatebusinesses(seeNetwork1).ARKdoesnotonlyrunschoolsbutarealsoinvolvedinanumberofotherenterprisesbothintheUKandabroad(seeOlmedo,2013,2016).[InsertNetwork1aroundhere]Thelevelofcomplexityintermsofmanagingsuchadiverseandexpandingnetworkofschoolproviders(andtheirsub-networks)impliesachangeintherationaleofgovernmentalpractices.Infact,thefocusofheterarchicalgovernanceisnotbasedonthecontrolofeverysinglestepofthedeliveryprocessbuttooperateoverthecontextandconditionsinwhichthesesystemsfunction.Theaimistostrategicallyinfluenceothers’agendasandinternalprocessesofdecisionmaking,whileavoidingtheneedtobecomedirectlyinvolvedintheir“rawoperations”.ThisiswhatRoseandMiller(1992)identifiedasprocessesof‘governingatadistance’,whichencompassattemptsofcontinuousdialogueandthecreationofalliancesbetweenpoliticalandotheractorsfromdifferentfields.Theroleofgovernment,therefore,movestowardswhatcouldbeunderstoodas‘themonitoringstate’,asit‘declinestooffersolutionstoparticularproblemsbutdefinesthoseproblems,or“societalchallenges”,forwhichsolutionsmustbesought’(Hodgson,2012,p.539).Thisimplies,ontheonehand,afocusoncreatingtheconditionsfornewschoolproviderstoenterthesystemand,then,facilitatingandoverseeingsuchrelationshipswithinthenetwork.AsBesussi(2006)suggests,themainconcernatthisstageisnotalackofcontrolonthesideofgovernmentbutalackofinterestofuncooperativeproviders.Tosolvethatpotentialproblem,theEnglishgovernmentgrantedacontracttoacharitableorganisation,theNewSchoolsNetwork,whosestatedaimis‘toimprovethequalityofeducation–particularlyforthemostdeprived–byincreasingthenumberofindependent,innovativeschoolswithinthestatesector’10.Thecharitywasfoundedin2009byRachelWolf11,aformeradvisortoMichaelGove(thentheSecretaryofStateforEducation),whostartedcampaigningtoexpandtheacademies/freeschools

7http://arkonline.org/our-schools8http://arkonline.org/our-uk-schools/schools-development9ARKiscurrentlyregisteredasacompanylimitedbyguaranteewithcharitablestatusintheUK.Inessence,suchcharitablecompaniesareentitledtoownpropertyandgenerateprofit,whilestillremainingliablefortheirowndebts(thoughthisappliestothecharityandnotitsdirectors,whointhiscaseshouldbealsothetrustees,anditsmembers).Sucheconomicsurplus,generatedfromtheprovisionoftheservicesthattheyprovide,shouldbe“reinvested”withintheirownactivities,howeverthisdoesnotexcludethealternativepossibilityofusingtheireconomicassets,attheirowndiscretion,inordertotradeandpurchasecertainservicesandgoodswithotherpublicandprivateproviders.10http://www.newschoolsnetwork.org/about-us11MsWolfleftthecharityin2013andstartedworkingforAmplify,aneducationtechnologycompanybasedintheUS.ShehasrecentlycomebacktotheUKin2015toworkfortheDepartmentforEducationunderthecurrentconservativegovernment.

8

programmeafterherexperienceinNewYork,whereshehadstudiedtheoperationsofanumberofcharterschools.Ontheotherhand,itisimportanttohighlightthatthefocushereisonthenetworkandtherangeofrelationshipsthemselves,whileindividualplayersmightnotbethemostimportantfactor.Itcouldbearguedthateventhoughsingleproviderscanbe“replaced”,thereisaneedtokeepthenetworkenvironmentandconnectionsalive.Thereareanumberofsituationsthatexemplifythisnewfacetofgovernment.InaninterviewtotheTESbackin201112,SirBruceLiddintong,thendirectorgeneraloftheE-ACTmulti-academytrustandformerschoolscommissionerattheDfE,statedthattheexpectationsforthegroupwastoexpandfrom11to250schoolsby2016.However,thecompanywasalreadyinvolvedinanumberofpolemics.In2013and2014,aseriesofinvestigationsbytheEducationFundingAgencyproducednegativereportsandraisedimportantconcernsaboutthelackofclarity,weakinternalfinancialcontrolsystemsandcontroloverexpensesfortrustees,further‘extravagantexpenses’andirregularitiesintheuseoffinancialassets13bythemulti-academychain.Later,in2014,E-ACTwasrunning34state-fundedschoolswhen,followingaseriesofOfstedinspections14to16ofthem,theinspectorsconcludedthat:

• elevenacademieswerefailingtoprovidea‘good’education;includingfivethatwerejudgedtorequire‘specialmeasures’

• tenacademieshadnotimprovedsincetheirpreviousinspection(eitherasanacademyorasthepredecessorschool).Ofthese,sixacademieshaddeclinedintermsoftheirOfstedgrade(twohadbeensponsoredbyE-ACTforfouryearsormore)

• fouracademieswerejudgedtobe‘good’andonewasjudged‘outstanding’.15

Asaresult,E-ACTthendecidedtorelinquish10oftheiracademiesandhandthembacktotheDfE.ThereactionfromthegovernmentwasswiftandMichaelGove,thenSecretaryforEducation,insteadofconvertingthefailingschoolsbackintolocal-comprehensiveschoolsunderthecontroloftheirlocalauthorities,commencedasearchfornewsponsorswithintheacademiesframework.Theroleofthegovernmentherefocussedonavoidingthecollapseofthenetwork,whatSchrankandWhitford(2011)identifyas‘networkfailure’.Such

12https://www.tes.com/article.aspx?storycode=607339913SirLiddingtonwasforcedtoresignafterthecontroversygeneratedbythefirstofthosereportsand,also,theon-goingpressuresonhimsinceE-ACTpublicaccountsrevealedthatthegeneral-directorreceivedasalaryof£280,816in2010/11,plus£18,303forhispensionand£16,707inexpenses.14Itisimportanttorememberatthispointthattheinspectorateevaluatesindividualschoolsbutnotthegroupsandchainsbehindthem.15TheresultsoftheinspectionstoE-ACTschoolscanbefoundhere:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279545/Financial_management_and_governance_review_E-ACT.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/results-of-e-act-academy-inspections-published

9

failurecouldbematerialised,assuggestedearlier,intheformoflackofinterestonthesideoftheprovision,butalsothroughthecreationofprocessesofmonopolisationofthenetworkbyasmallnumberofproviders,bynegligentpractices,and/orthedevelopmentofdynamicsofunfaircompetitionwithinthenetworks.Allthosecouldpotentiallytranslateintodeeppowerimbalancesthatwouldriskthegovernment’sroleasnetworkleaderanditssteeringcapacitygiventhesizeandreachofover-grownproviders,or,consequently,resultinalackoftrustdynamicsthatcouldspoiltherelationshipsamongstthemultipleproviderswithinthenetworkand/orthemembersofthebroaderpolicycommunity(seeWright,1988)aroundtheAcademiesandFreeSchoolsprogrammes.Policyframework2:networkasapolicyactorThesecondpolicyframeworkisbasedontheactivitiesofexistingnetworksthatengagewithexistingpoliticalconfigurationsasa“politicalactors”intheirownright(seeDiagram2).Thenetwork-caseinthisframeworkfocusesontheactivitiesoftheTeachForAll(TfA)NetworkinEurope.Infact,thenatureandconfigurationoftheEuropeanUnionitselfconstituteaveryfavourablebreedinggroundfortheoperationofsuchnetworkedenterprises.AsBörzelsuggestsinheranalysisofEuropeangovernance,‘theEuropeanUnionthenisconceptualisedasamulti-levelsystemofgovernance,whereprivateandpublicactorsofthesupranational,nationalandsubnationallevelinteractwithinhighlycomplexnetworkstoproducepolicyoutcomes’(Börzel,1997,p.11).[InsertDiagram2aroundhere]TfAisanetworkofsocialenterprisesthatisreshapingthedefinitionofeducationandwhatitmeanstobeateacherthroughthedevelopmentofanewmodelofteachertraining.TFAoperatesatdifferentscalesandrhythmsacrosstheworldand‘incorporatesmultiplescalesofeconomic(alongwithpolitical,culturalandsocial)relations’(Dickenetal.,2001,p.90).TheTFAnetworkcurrentlyspreadsover37countries,withasignificantpresencewithintheEuropeanHigherEducationSpace(EHES)(13ofitsmembersarelocatedwithintheEU).EventhoughTFAmembersareindependentandencouragedtoembedthemselvessensitivelywithintheirownlocalandnationalcontexts,itispreciselytheirnetworkedconfigurationthathelpsthemlearnandbenefitfromtheirconnectionswitheachother.Adiscursive,culturalandepistemologicalsutureholdsthesedifferententerprisestogether,enablingTFAtodescribeitselfasa‘globalmovement’ofeducationalreformand‘TheGlobalNetworkforExpandingEducationalOpportunity’16.AcloserlookatthefundingschemeofTfAandeachoneoftheindividualcasesshowssimilaritieswiththepreviousexample.Anumberofinter/nationalbanks(examples),internationalconsultancyfirms(examples),andretailcompanies(examples)aredeeplyembeddedthroughoutthenetwork(seeNetwork2).[InsertNetwork2aroundhere]

16http://teachforall.org/en

10

Asanalysedinpreviouswork(seeBailey,2015;Olmedoetal.,2013),theprivatecompaniesinvolvedintheprogrammebenefitdirectlyorindirectlyinmultipleways.Forinstance,theGermansubsidiary,TeachFirstDeutschland,runstheso-called‘TeachFirst–joinlater’scheme.ThefollowingextractfromtheirwebsiteexemplifiesthemotivationsforMcKinsey&Co.inthiscasetopartnerwiththecharitablecompany:

McKinsey&CompanyInadditiontoyourapplicationatTeachFirstDeutschland,youareapplyingatMcKinsey&CompanyforthepositionofJuniorFellow,FelloworAssociateunderbewerbung.mckinsey.de.There,under‘Fillinapplication’youchoosetheoption‘teach-first–joinlater’.Subsequently,bothapplicationproceduresatTeachFirstGermanyandMcKinsey&Companywillrunparallel.Ifyouaresuccessfulinbothofthem,youwillreceiveanoffertostartonconditionthatyoufirstsuccessfullycompletethetwoyearfellowshipatTeachFirstGermany.17

Thistypeof“deferredentry”schemeconstitutesasourceofeconomicprofitfortheprivatecompaniesinvolved.Throughthem,suchcorporatepartnersguaranteeahighleveloftrainingandcapacitationaswellasvaluableskillsandqualificationspriortoemployment.Assuggestedbefore,‘thereisacapitalisationonandacommodificationoftheTeachForAllparticipanthere.Theyhaveanattributedcommercialvalue(inhumancapital)whichisnotonly“proven”butapparently‘enhanced’throughthecompletionoftheprogramme’(Olmedoetal.,2013,p.505).Astrongfinancialandpoliticalsupportfromnationalgovernmentscanbeobserved.InEngland,forinstance,TeachFirstisfundedmainlybytheUKgovernment.Accordingtothecharitableenterprise’s2013-14TrusteesAnnualReportandAccounts18,comparedtothe£6.6mreceivedfrom“Corporate,trustsandothercontributions”plus“Donationsinkind”,TeachFirstreceives£12.4mfrom“Governmentgrants”(whichcoverstheyearlygrantpaidbythegovernmentpertrainee),£22.9mfromtheir“InitialTeacherTrainingContract”(acontractthatthecharity’ssubsidiary,TeachFirstInitialTeacherDevelopment,hassecuredwiththeNationalCollegeforTeachingandLeadership,anUKgovernment’sexecutiveagency),and£8.1mfrom“Feespaidbyschools”.In2014,TeachFirstrecruited1,426traineesinadditiontothe1,066thatcontinuedfromthepreviousyear.However,whatisofinterestfortheaimofthispaperisnotonlythefactthatthenetworkissupportinggovernmentsbytrainingteachersontheirbehalf,butalsothefactthattheideasandsolutionsofferedbythenetworkareputtingintoquestionandtransformingexistingpoliticalschemesandprogrammesinthepublicrealm.Asanexample,theTeachFirstmodelservedasthebasisforthenewinitialteacher-trainingschemeinEngland(SchoolsDirect)17http://www.teachfirst.de/teachfirstjoinlater18Thisisthelatestavailableontheirwebsitetodate.Availableat:http://www.teachfirst.org.uk/sites/default/files/press/pdf/2013-14%20Trustees%27%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%20-%20final%20signed%20version%20GT%20for%20CC.pdf

11

launchedbytheconservativegovernmentin201219.Suchmovementofideasdoesnothappenserendipitouslyorinavacuum(seeNetwork3).Onthecontrary,itistheeffectoftheprolongedeffortsandinfluencesexertedwithinandacrosspolicynetworks(see,forinstance,Ball,2007;Ball&Junemann,2012;Olmedo,2012).Inourcase,forinstance,LordAndrewAdonisisoneofTeachFirst’sfoundingambassadors.MemberoftheLabourPartyfrom1995until2015,hewasSecretaryofStateforTransport,MinisterforSchools,HeadoftheNo.10PolicyUnit,andseniorNo.10adviseroneducation,publicservicesandconstitutionalreform.Whileingovernment,hewasthepoliticalarchitectoftheinitialAcademiesprogramme(seePolicyFramework1)amongstotherreformsofkeypublicservices.Morerecently,SamFreeman,aformerseniorpolicyadvisertoMichaelGovewhenthelatterwasUKSecretaryofStateforEducation,joinedTeachFirstin2013asDirectorofResearch,EvaluationandImpactandiscurrentlytheExecutiveDirectorofProgrammesatTeachFirst.HealsositsontheboardofFloreatEducation,anAcademysponsorthatruns5schoolsinLondon(onceagain,itisworthnotingtheoverlapswithPolicyFramework1).Thelistofconnectionswithgovernmentbodies,privatecompaniesandotherphilanthropicorganisationsisgargantuanacrossTeachFirst’sboardoftrustees,executiveandseniorleadershipteams,ambassadors,etc.[InsertNetwork3aroundhere]ThemodelnurturedbytheTfAnetworkimpliesanalternativeto“traditional”formsofteachertrainingacrossEuropeand,also,putspressureonnationalgovernmentswhoarecompelledtomodifyexistingregulationtoordertomakeroomandaccommodatethenewinitiative.Thisnewmodeofgovernancerelatestowhatcouldbecalled“governingwith/alongsidenetworks”.Here,unlikethepreviouscase,thenetworkisnottheeffectofgovernmentalactionbutanexternalplayerthatwillcollaborateand/orcompetewithtraditionalpolicyactors.Bydoingso,thenetworkisexertingchangesovertherolesofsuchactors(governmentdepartments,politicalparties,unions,universities,schools,etc.)whoareforcedtodevelopstrategiesandpolicytechnologiesinordertoincorporateand/orresisttheinfluenceexertedbysuchexternalnetworkedpolicyformations.Policyframework3:networkasstate-makerFinally,thethirdpolicyframeworkidentifiedfocusesoninstanceswherenetworkconfigurationsoperatedirectlyasa‘state-maker’.Thisismorecommon,thoughnotexclusively,inlate-developingcountriesdefinedbyanascentpublic-servicesystemand/orunregulatedpoliticalspheres,wherethereisanurgentneedtoconstructpoliticalstructures,configurenewroles,determineandassignresponsibilities,etc(seeDiagram3).Thenetwork-caseinthisframeworkwillfocusonthedevelopmentoftheUgandanUniversalSecondaryEducation(USE)programme.[InsertDiagram3aroundhere]

19ResearchinterviewconductedwiththeHeadofResearchatTeachFirst.

12

Duringthelastdecade,theoverallgrowthinpopulationinUganda,alongsidetheriseinthenumberofstudentscompletingPrimaryEducation(asaresultoftheenactmentofthefreeUniversalPrimaryEducationprogramme),aregeneratingstrongdifficultiesforthegovernmenttoattendtotheincreasingdemandsforschoolplacementsatSecondarylevels.SuchpressuresareexperiencednotonlyinthefieldofeducationbutalsoinothersectorsoftheUgandanpublicservices.Totacklethesituation,in2010thegovernmentannouncedanewstrategicframework,theNationalDevelopmentPlan(NDP),withaclearvision:‘atransformedUgandansocietyfromapeasanttoamodernandprosperouscountrywithin30years’20.Todoso,thegovernmentisopenlycommittedtoallowingprivateinvestmentandparticipationtoplayamoresignificantroleinthemodernisationofthecountry.OntheForewordoftheNDPdocument,PresidentMusevenistated:‘Iurgetheprivatesector,civilsocietyandacademiatoworktogetherwithGovernmentandtoaligntheirdevelopmenteffortstowardsachievingtheNDPobjectivesandthecountry'sVision’21.Inthesameline,areviewoftheUgandanNDPpreparedbytheInternationalDevelopmentAssociation(IDA)andtheInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF)highlights:

TheNDPbroadensthestrategicfocusoftheauthoritiesfrom`povertyreduction'to`structuraltransformation'inordertoraisegrowthandlivingstandards.Inrecentyears,theauthorities'policieshaveincreasinglytargetedariseinpotentialgrowthandreductioninincomepoverty.BuildingontheachievementsunderthePEAP,theNDPaimsatfosteringskilledemploymentgrowthandasectoralshifttohighervalue-addedactivities.Itgivesthegovernmentastrategicroleinthisprocessbyeliminatingremaining,persistentbarrierstogrowthandpromotingprivatesectorinvolvementinselectedpriorityareas.TheNDPidentifiesfourprioritytargets:humanresourcesdevelopmentthroughhealth,educationandskillsbuilding;boostingupphysicalinfrastructure,particularlyintheenergyandtransportationareas;supportingscience,technologyandinnovation;andfacilitatingprivateaccesstocriticalproductioninputs,particularlyinagriculture.22

Inthefieldofeducation,thenewlandscapesketchedintheNDPaddstoexistingpressuresforthecountrytomeettheEducationForAll(EFA)andMillenniumDevelopmentGoals(MDG).Asaresponse,theUgandanMinistryofEducationandSports(MoES)launchedtheUniversalSecondaryEducationprogrammein2007.TheschemeispartofthebroaderUniversalPostPrimaryEducationandTraining(UPPET)programandfollowsthePublic-PrivatePartnerships(PPPs)model.AsVerger(2012,p.110)suggests,PPPsare‘programmatic ideas’, that is ‘technical ideas that provide the interpretation of a policy problem and its causes and prescribe a precise course of policy action to solve the problem’. Inshort,PPPsarean“umbrellanotion”thatcoversdifferentcontractualarrangementsbetweentheprivateandcivilsocietyorganisationsandpublic

20http://npa.ug/development-plans/ndp-201011-201415/21Idem.22https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10142.pdf

13

institutionsinordertoprovideand/oroperateinfrastructureand/ordeliverpublicservices(seeEducationInternational,2009;Patrinosetal.,2009).Accordingtoitsadvocates,thePPPsprogrammewillhelp‘maximizethepotentialforexpandingequitableaccesstoschoolingandforimprovingeducationoutcomes,especiallyformarginalizedgroups’(Patrinosetal.,2009,p.9).However,criticshaveraisedconcernsandwarnedthat,insomecases,theuseofPPPsisacover-upforformof‘hiddenprivatization’,wherethe‘word“partnership”isbeingusedtorender“privatization”morepalatabletopublicopinion’(EducationInternational,2009,p.147).ThePPPsolutionthatconformsthebasisfortheUgandanUSEprogrammeisdifferentfromothermorefamiliarschemes(Brans,2011).Inthiscase,thegovernmentpaysafixedper-capitafeedirectlytoprivatesecondaryschoolsthataresituatedinsub-countiesthatarenotservedbygovernment-aidedorpublicschools.Tobeeligible,privateschoolsmustmeetasetofcriteriaandqualitybenchmarks:(i)beingregisteredwiththeMoES,(ii)haveadequateinfrastructure,(iii)showdemonstratedsupportfromlocallyelectedofficialsandeducationofficials,(iv)instituteaboardofgovernorswithgovernmentandparentalmembershipand(v)havesufficientcertifiedteachingstaff(Barrera-Osorioetal.,2015,p.4).However,thespecifictermsofeachcontractareincludedinaMemorandumofUnderstandingthatissignedbetweenthegovernmentandtheindividualprivateschooloperator.Asaresult,asBrans’researchshows,intheUgandancase‘thepolicyenvironmentswherethePPPsarediscussedarecharacterizedbynon-transparency,lackofdissensionanddecreasingspaceforcivilsocietyengagement’(2011,p.48).TheWorldBankisoneofthemainpromotersofthePPPprogrammeinUganda,botheconomicallyandintermsofpoliticaladvocacyandconsultancy(seeNetwork4).Infact,sincethelaunchoftheUPPETprogramme,theWBhascontributed20percentoftheprogramme’sbudget($150million)throughanAdjustableProgramLoan[APL]tobeimplementedinthreephasesovera10-yearperiod.Alongside,externalsupportisalsoprovidedbyotherdevelopmentpartners,whichincludestheAfricanDevelopmentBank(AfDB),GermanTechnicalAssistanceAgency(GTZ),theBelgianEmbassy/TechnicalCooperation,EmbassyofIreland,theJapanInternationalCooperationAgency(JICA),theUnitedNationsPopulationFund(UNPF)andtheNetherlandsEmbassy23.Thepresenceofpoliticalinternationalandnationalorganisations(throughembassies,foreignaffairsministries,nationaldevelopmentagencies,etc.)reinforcesSassen’sconclusionthatsuggestedthat‘manygovernmentsnowseetheirresponsibilitiesgoingbeyondforeignpolicyastraditionallyconceptualizedandextendingintoworldtrade,theglobalenvironmentandglobaleconomicstability’(2000,p.383).[InsertNetwork4aroundhere]In2010,theIFC,inpartnershipwiththeAfDB,launchedtheAfricaSchools

23http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2010/08/31/post-primary-education-program-increases-student-enrollment-in-uganda

14

UgandaProgram‘tosupportimprovementstoprivatesecondaryandtertiaryschoolsinUganda,whilehelpingthousandsofstudentsinthecountrytoaccesshigh-qualityeducation’24.Theplanaimstoprovidesupportandadvisoryserviceto500schoolsacrossthecountry,helpingthemaddressfinancialandmanagementissuessotheycanofferimprovededucationalservices.Moreover,itwillalsofacilitateaccesstofinancialresourcesthroughlocalcommercialbanks,suchusDiamondTrustBank,DFCU,andBankofAfrica.Onthedeliveryside,thenumberofprivateeducationalprovidershasincreasedrapidlysincetheinitialphasesoftheenactmentoftheUPPETprogramme.In2008,MinistryofEducation,Science,TechnologyandSportscreatedthePrivateSchoolsandInstitutionsdepartmenttooversee‘thevibrantandeverexpandingprivateinvestmentineducation’25.Todate,accordingtothedepartment’swebsite26,thenumberofprivatesecondaryschools(over4000)ismorethandoublethenumberofpublicschoolsinthecountry.Theprofileoftheformervariesdramaticallyintermsoftheirmotto(confessional/secularcharacter),organisationalstructure(single/chainsofschools),andeconomicrational(for/not-forprofit).OneofthebiggestprovidersthatcurrentlyoperateinUgandaisPEAS(PromotingEqualityinAfricanSchools),aUK-registeredcharitythatrunsachainof24secondaryschoolsinUgandainanot-for-profitbasis.PEAS,onceagain,countswithabroadnetworkofpartners(seeNetwork3).Thecharity’sschoolmodel,labelledas“SmartAidSchoolsinAfrica”,isbasedontheprincipleof‘self-sustainability’andeachoftheirschoolsaimtobecomefinanciallyindependentfromanysourceofexternalfundingfromthemomentinwhichtheyareopened:

PEASUKfundraisestolaunchasecondaryschool,allowingittoopendebtfree.Then,acombinationofsubsidiesfrompioneeringpublic-privatepartnerships(PPPs)withtheUgandanandZambiangovernment,boardingschoolfeesandschoolfarms,meanthatwithintwoyears,theschoolitselfwillgenerateenoughrevenuetocoveritsrunningcosts,includingteachersalaries,indefinitely.27

ThecharitablecompanyhasofficesinLondon(UK),Kampala(Uganda)andNdola(Zambia)andtheyhavebeencloselyinvolvedwiththeUgandangovernmentinthedesignanddevelopmentofthePPPschemesinceitsinception28.Morerecently,newdevelopmentsontheUPPETprogramme,whichundertheinfluenceoftheWBwasexpandedtoallprivateschoolsincludingfor-profitventures(seeBrans,2011),hascalledtheattentionofnewplayersandedu-

24http://ifcext.ifc.org/IFCExt/pressroom/IFCPressRoom.nsf/0/9847924459B1E31B852577AD0049C5C1?OpenDocument25http://www.education.go.ug/data/smenu/50/Private%20Schools%20and%20Institutions.html26Idem.27http://www.peas.org.uk/about-us/sustainability28ResearchinterviewconductedwithJohnRendell,CEOofPEAS.

15

businesses.Forinstance,inFebruary2015BridgeInternationalAcademiesopenedsevenschoolsinUganda.ThecompanyoperatesinadiametricallyopposedfashionthanPEAS.Bridgedefinesitselfas‘theworld’slargesteducationinnovationcompany’29.Theyoperateinafor-profitbasisandtheirrationalisclear:

Wearedata-drivenandtechnology-enabled.Usingsmartphonesandtablets,our“closedloop”LearningLabenablesustomonitorteacherandstudentperformanceinrealtime,constantlyreviewingandrevisingtoensurethatweareofferingaworldclasseducationthatwillprepareourstudentsforthe21stcentury.30

BIAopeneditsfirstschoolinNairobi(Kenya)in2009.Todate,thecompanyruns414schoolsinthreedifferentcountries(Kenya,NigeriaandUganda)andispreparingtoexpandinIndiainthenearfuture.Amongstitsmaininvestorsthereareanumberofindividuals(e.g.BillGatesandMarkZuckerberg);venturecapitalfirms(KhoslaVentures;NEA;NOVASTAR;PanAfricanInvesmentCo.);edu-businesses(LearnCapital[partofPearsonPLC];RethinkEducation);philanthropicorganisations(OmidyarNetwork)internationalorganisations(IFC)andalsonationalgovernmentagencies(UKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment[DfID];theOverseasPrivateInvestmentCorporation[OPIC],theUSgovernment’sdevelopmentfinanceinstitution).Finally,in2011theUgandanNationalCurriculumDevelopmentCentre(NCDC)hiredCambridgeEducationtodeveloptheSecondaryEducationCurricula,AssessmentandExaminationsReform(CURASSE)31.Theactivitiestobeperformedbythecompanyduringthe40-monthdurationofthecontractincluded:writingthecurriculum;developingteachingandlearningmaterials,examinationsandassessmentreforms;andcreatingateachersupportprogramme32.CambridgeEducationisa‘globaleducationservicescompany’33,partoftheMottMacDonaldLtd.(aglobalindependenteducation,health,managementandconstructionconsultancy).ThecompanyisinvolvedinanumberofactivitieswithpartnersintheUKandabroad,suchas:publicandprivateschools(includinganumberofEnglishacademiesmentionedaboveinpolicyframework1),localauthorities,publicsectoragencies,governments,etc.Theexamplesshownaboveareproofofthecausalpowerofnetworkrelationships.Thisfinalpolicyframeworkcasestressesthefactthatstates,or,atleast,sectionswithinthem,areformedinapoliticallandscapethattakestheshapeofnetworkedconfigurationswithinwhichthegovernmentisoneamongstmanyotherplayers.Thismodeofgovernancecouldbeunderstoodas“governingwithinnetworks”.Followingthelogicof‘creativecapitalism’,suchfoundational

29http://www.bridgeinternationalacademies.com/company/about/30Idem.31http://www.ncdc.go.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185:curasse-phase-1-inception-report&catid=109&Itemid=54432http://www.camb-ed.com/Experience/Casestudies/CurriculumAssessmentandExaminationReform.aspx33https://www.camb-ed.co.uk/Aboutus.aspx

16

processesaredesignedandsharedbydifferentactors,whichwillinteractinanetworkedwayscreatingagreementsbutalsothroughconflictingnegotiationprocesses.ThisresembleswhatRhodesunderstoodas‘thedifferentiatedpolitywithnosinglecentre’(1988,p.1).Here,thegovernmentispossiblytheinitiatorofsuchprocessesbutnotnecessarilythemainregulatorofthedirectionandtheparticipantsonthem(seeBall,2012).Sofar…Throughoutthispaper,Ihavebeguntosketchaconceptualmodelthataimstofacilitatetheanalysisofwhatcouldbeunderstoodasprocessesof“networkgovernanceinaction”.Aswealreadyknow,networkconfigurationsarecomplexanddifferentbothstructuralandsemantically.Policynetworksareconsideredasonekindofnewglobal“social”(Ball&Olmedo,2012),wherenewvoicesaregivenspacewithinpolicytalk.Byenablingglobalsocial,politicalandeconomicconnections,thesebecomekeyplayersspacesinthefieldsofsocialandeducationpolicy(Ball,2012).Theyconstitutepolicycommunities,usuallybaseduponsharedconceptionsofsocialproblemsandtheirsolutions.However,farfromhavingcreatedamoredemocraticenvironmentwherehorizontalrelationshipsfacilitateanenvironmentwheremultiplevoicesareconsideredanddifferentcollectivesareabletoparticipateinequalconditionsinpolicy-makingprocesses(Sørensen&Torfing,2007),newverticalandhierarchicalrelationshipscanbeacknowledged.Powerimbalancewithinnetworksisbasedonthecontrolofresources(physical,political,economic,socialandtechnological)bycertainactors,andthecapacityofthelattertomobilisesuchresourcesthroughthem.Inthissense,itshouldbenotedthat‘powershouldbeconceivedasapracticeratherthanapositionwithinanetwork’(Dickenetal.,2001,p.93)Börzel(1997,p.15)concludesherpaperbyaffirmingtheneedtonotonlyshowthatpolicynetworksexistbutalsothattheyarerelevant.Havingspendthelastfewyearsidentifyingandmappingtheconstructionofneoliberalpolicynetworksinmultiplecontexts,thispaperbeginstoconceptualisethechanging,multiple,clashingand,attimes,incoherentrolesthatdifferentplayersexertthroughoutthem.Morespecifically,hereIhavefocusedontheroleofgovernmentsinthreeinitiallyidentified“policyframeworks”(networkasapolicytechnology;networkasapolicyactor;andnetworkasastate-maker),whichcorrespondswiththreedifferentmodesofgovernance(governingthroughnetworks;governingwith/alongsidenetworks;governingwithinnetworks).AsDickenandhiscolleaguessuggest,“thereexists,then,aparticularconstellationofpowerrelationsimplicitinanyunderstandingoftheglobaleconomy”(2001,p.90).Suchpowerrelationscanonlybediscoveredandunderstood(ifatallpossible)throughtheeverydaypractices(meetings,contracts,agreements,statements,informalconversations,emailexchanges,etc.)andspaces(meetingroomsandoffices,corridors,conferences,airports,restaurants,etc.)inwhichtheyarerealised.Itisherewherethetediousexerciseoftriangulatinginformationinnewspaperarticles,pursuingeverylinkona

17

website,interrogatingdiariesandpassports,settingupTwitteralertsandfollowingpeopleandcompaniesonFacebook,justtomentiononlyafewofthemultipletasksthatareinvolvedinreconstructingpolicynetworks,couldshedsomelightontheanalysisofwhat,followingPeckandTheodore(2015),couldbeidentifiedastheeraof‘fastpolicy’.BibliographyAdler,E.,&Haas,P.M.(1992).Conclusion:Epistemiccommunities,worldorder,

andthecreationofareflectiveresearchprogram.InternationalOrganization,46(1),367-390.

Bailey,P.L.(2015).Consultantsofconduct:newactors,newknowledgesandnew‘resilient’subjectivitiesinthegoverningoftheteacher.JournalofEducationalAdministrationandHistory,47(3),232-250.

Ball,S.J.(2007).EducationPlc:UnderstandingPrivateSectorParticipationinPublicSectorEducation.London:Routledge.

Ball,S.J.(2012).GlobalEducationInc.NewPolicyNetworksandtheNeoliberalImaginary.Abigndon,Oxon:Routledge.

Ball,S.J.,&Junemann,C.(2012).Networks,NewGovernanceandEducation.Bristol:PolicyPress.

Ball,S.J.,&Olmedo,A.(2012).GlobalSocialCapitalism:usingenterprisetosolvetheproblemsoftheworld.Citizenship,SocialandEconomicsEducation,10(2&3),83-90.

Barrera-Osorio,F.,deGalbert,P.,&Sabarwal,S.(2015).TheImpactofPublic-PrivatePartnershipsonPrivateSchoolPerformance:EvidencefromaRandomizedControlledTrialinUganda.PaperpresentedattheRISEConference2015,WashingtonDC.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ID9IWQ_bfXcJ:https://www.rise.ox.ac.uk/content/impact-public-private-partnerships-private-school-performance+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari

Besussi,E.(2006).Policynetworks:conceptualdevelopmentsandtheirEuropeanapplications.WorkingPaperSeries,Paper102

.https://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa/pdf/paper102.pdfBörzel,T.A.(1997).What'ssospecialaboutpolicynetworks?Anexplorationof

theconceptanditsusefulnessinstudyingEuropeangovernance.EuropeanIntegrationOnlinePapers,1(016).http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/1997-016.pdf

Brans,B.-J.(2011).PPPs-PublicPrivatePartnershipsineducation.AnalyzingPPPsasapolicytoolforUniversalSecondaryEducationinUganda.Retrievedfromhttps://educationanddevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ppps-in-uganda-bo-joe-brans.pdf

Callon,M.,&Latour,B.(1981).UnscrewingthebigLeviathan:Howactorsmacro-structurerealityandhowsociologistshelpthemtodoso.InK.Knorr-Cetina&A.V.Cicourel(Eds.),AdvancesinSocialTheoryandthodology.TowardanIntegrationofMicro-andMacro-Sociologies.(pp.277-303).Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul.

18

Dicken,P.,Kelly,P.F.,Olds,K.,&Wai-ChungYeung,H.(2001).Chainsandnetworks,territoriesandscales:towardsarelationalframeworkforanalysingtheglobaleconomy.GlobalNetworks,1(2),89-112.

EducationInternational.(2009).PublicPrivatePartnershipsinEducationRetrievedfromhttp://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/200909_publication_Public-Private-Partnership-in-Education_en.pdf

Glaeser,E.(2010).Thecaseforcreativecapitalism.InM.Kinsley(Ed.),Creativecapitalism.ConversationswithBillGates,WarrentBuffettandothers.London:PocketBooks.

Gunter,H.(2011).TheStateandEducationPolicy:TheAcademiesProgramme.London:Continuum.

Hatcher,R.(2011).TheConservative-LiberalDemocratCoalitiongovernment’s“freeschools”inEngland.EducationalReview,63(4).

Higham,R.(2014).FreeschoolsintheBigSociety:themotivations,aimsanddemographyoffreeschoolproposers.JournalofEducationPolicy,29(1),122-139.

Hodgson,N.(2012).‘TheOnlyAnswerisInnovation…’:Europe,Policy,andtheBigSociety.JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,46(4),532-545.

Jessop,B.(1998).Theriseofgovernanceandtherisksoffailure:thecaseofeconomicdevelopment.Internationalsocialsciencejournal,50(155),29-45.

Jessop,B.(2002).TheFutureoftheCapitalistState.Cambridge:Polity.Kenis,P.,&Schneider,V.(1991).Policynetworksandpolicyanalysis:

Scrutinizinganewanalyticaltoolbox.InB.Marin&R.Mayntz(Eds.),Policynetworks:empiricalevidenceandtheoreticalconsiderations.FrankfurtamMain:CampusVerlag.

Mayntz,R.(1993).Modenizationandthelogicofinterorganizationalnetworks.KnowledgeandPolicy:TheInternationalJournalofKnowledgeTransferandUtilization,6(1),3-16.

Morgan-Trimmer,S.A.(2010).GoverningThroughNetworks:ParticipationDynamicsinNewDealforCommunities.(PhD),UniversityofBath.

Olmedo,A.(2012).Policy-makers,marketadvocatesandedu-businesses:newandrenewedplayersintheSpanisheducationpolicyarena.JournalofEducationPolicy,28(1),55-76.

Olmedo,A.(2013).FromEnglandwithlove…ARK,heterarchiesandglobal‘philanthropicgovernance’.JournalofEducationPolicy,29(5),575-597.doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.859302

Olmedo,A.(2016).Philanthropicgovernance:charitablecompanies,thecommercialisationofeducationandthatthingcalled‘democracy’.InA.Verger,C.Lubienski,&G.Steiner-Khamsi(Eds.),WorldYearbookofEducation2016:TheGlobalEducationIndustry.NewYork:Routledge.

Olmedo,A.,Bailey,P.L.,&Ball,S.J.(2013).ToInfinityandBeyond…Heterarchicalgovernance,theTeachforAllnetworkinEuropeandtheMakingofProfitsandMinds.EuropeanEducationResearchJournal,12(4),492-512.

Patrinos,H.A.,Barrera-Osorio,F.,&Guáqueta,J.(2009).TheRoleandImpactofPublic-PrivatePartnershipsinEducation.WashingtonDC:TheWorldBank.

19

Peck,J.,&Theodore,N.(2015).FastPolicy.ExperimentalStatecraftattehThresholdofNeoliberalism.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Peck,J.,&Tickell,A.(2002).Neoliberalizingspace.Antipode,34(3),380-404.Powell,W.W.(1990).Neithermarketnorhierarchy:Networkformsof

orgnaization.ResearchinOrganizationalBehaviour,12,295-336.Rhodes,R.A.W.(1988).BeyondWestminsterandWhitehall.TheSub-central

GovernmentsofBritain.London:Routledge.Rhodes,R.A.W.(1994).Thehollowingoutofthestate:thechangingnatureof

thepublicserviceinBritain.ThePoliticalQuarterly,65(2),138-151.Rhodes,R.A.W.(1996).Thenewgovernance:Governingwithoutgovernment.

PoliticalStudies,XLIV,652-667.Rhodes,R.A.W.,&Marsh,D.(Eds.).(1992).PolicyNetworksinBritish

Government..Oxford:ClarendonPress.Rose,N.,&Miller,P.(1992).PoliticalpowerbeyondtheState:problematicsof

government.TheBritishJournalofSociology,43(2),173-205.Sassen,S.(2000).Territoryandterritorialityintheglobaleconomy.

InternationalSociology,15(2),372-393.Schrank,A.,&Whitford,J.(2011).Theanatomyofnetworkfailure.Sociological

Theory,29(3),151-177.Sørensen,E.,&Torfing,J.(2007).GovernanceNetworkResearch:Towardsa

SecondGeneration.InE.Sørensen&J.Torfing(Eds.),TheoriesofDemocraticNetworkGovernance(pp.1-21).Basingstoke:Palgrave-Macmillan.

Uzzi,B.(1996).Thesourcesandconsequencesofembeddednessfortheeconomicperformanceoforganizations:Thenetworkeffect.Amer.SociologicalRev.,61,674–698.

Verger,A.(2012).Framingandsellingglobaleducationpolicy:thepromotionofpublic–privatepartnershipsforeducationinlow-incomecontexts.JournalofEducationPolicy,27(1),109-130.

Wellman,B.(1988).Structuralanalysis:frommethodandmetaphortotheoryandsubstance.InB.Wellman&S.D.Berkowitz(Eds.),SocialStructures:ANetworkApproach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wright,M.(1988).PolicyCommunity,PolicyNetworkandComparativeIndustrialPolicies.PoliticalStudies,36(4),593-612.

20

Diagram1:Networkasapolicytechnology

Keyaspects:Modeofgovernance:

- Governingthroughnetworks

Networkcase:- AcademiesandFreeSchools

Location/geographicalreach:

- England/National

Diagram2:Networkasapolicyactor

Keyaspects:Modeofgovernance:- Governingwith/alongsidenetworks

Networkcase:- TeachforAllNetwork/EuropeanHigherEducationSpace

Location/geographicalreach:- EuropeanUnion/International- England,Germany,Spain/National

Diagram3:Networkasastate-maker

21

Keyaspects:Modeofgovernance:

- Governingwithinnetworks

Networkcase:- PublicPrivatePartnership/SocialImpactBond

Location/geographicalreach:

- Rwanda/National- Internationalplayers/Global