Philanthropy as a trojan horse in education in emergencies
Education is both underfunded and inadequately funded. The need for increased funding is demonstrated in the Education Commission’s “calls for low and middle-income countries to increase domestic public expenditures on education from an estimated $1 trillion in 2015 to $2.7 trillion by 2030, or from 4 to 5.8 percent of GDP [….and] international financing for education will need to increase from today’s estimated $16 billion per year to $89 billion per year by 2030” (Education Commission, 2016). Meanwhile, this lack of funding for education is further compounded in emergencies. The 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, estimated that fifty-two per cent of the 69 million people displaced globally are under the age of 18. In order to support these displaced populations, initiatives and funds such as Education Cannot Wait (ECW) aims to “help close the $8.5 billion funding gap needed to reach 75 million children and youth” (Education Cannot Wait, 2019). However, more funding and support is needed.
In emergency and fragile contexts where the state lacks the capacity or willingness to deliver public services, the private sector is presented as a great opportunity to provide funds and expertise, offering innovation, efficiency, etc. Because of the great need and traditional neglect of education in emergencies, the promise of the private sector and philanthropists bringing funds and expertise is conceptualised as a ‘gift’. However, support from the private sector and philanthropy does not predicate accountability. In fact, it appears to be more like a ‘gift horse’ that you don’t look in the mouth, since their ‘generosity’ does not imply accountability.
Philanthropic organisations have an increasing influence in terms of shaping the education system. Some argue that they are promoting “policymaking through the backdoor” (Junemann & Olmedo, 2019), which raises questions about “democracy and democratic accountability. Either by promoting their own ideas on how to achieve social and political change or by supporting particular existing initiatives, a growing number of philanthropic organisations are self-assuming responsibilities and duties, bypassing the scrutiny and accountability governments and elected officials are subjected to”.
Yet, education is a right and children should be conceptualised as right-holders, not consumers or beneficiaries. Human rights are universal and inalienable, which means that individuals do not lose them because of emergency or conflict. In fact, “depending on the nature of the emergency, different regimes of international law also apply. Vis-à-vis the right to education these are: international human rights law, international humanitarian law (or the law of armed conflict), international refugee law and international criminal law” (Right to Education Initiative, 2018). However, in emergencies and conflicts, due to the disruption, undermining or destruction of education infrastructure, and redirection of resources, the right to education tends to be unfulfilled and often violated. Non-state actors are often crucial to provide relief in emergency situations, yet their legal responsibility is not as clear because human rights law is drafted having the state as the duty bearer, ascribing direct responsibility to the signatory state. In fact, it’s the responsibility of the state to protect people, acting to prevent, prohibit and remedy human rights violations by all persons within its jurisdiction.
Yet, emergencies multiply education needs, calling for urgent relief. Non-state actors, and more and more businesses, often acting as philanthropists, offer rapid and flexible solutions. But we need to be aware of the potential risks that partnering with businesses to provide education in emergencies entail: risks such as lack of accountability and potential human rights violations. In the context of emergency situations, the vulnerability of the recipients of these initiatives increases. Rather than being a ‘gift horse,’ businesses, disguised as philanthropists, may act as Trojan horses contributing to the dismantling of public responsibility and the commodification and commercialisation of education. The real motive of businesses may be to test out new products, create or expand into new markets, seek to establish their brand or build a dependency on their services. Their interventions may be patchy and hardly sustainable, they may exclude children who are not deemed profitable and there may be hefty hidden costs, diverting present or future public funds. As Naomi Klein’s (2007) put it in her book “the shock doctrine” makes the case that neoliberal reforms promoting the private sector are opportunistically pushed through during moments of crisis when neither the state nor civil society are positioned to resist” (Novelli, 2016: 17).
Even if the private sector intends to bring funds, expertise and innovation, which are much needed in education in emergencies, we need to be aware of the complex role of philanthropy as a new policy actor, frequently completely unaccountable and untransparent and often pushing neoliberal policy ideas and practices across the globe. Education in emergencies may be seen as a good laboratory to test new products for these firms, treating children as guinea pigs. As Junemann and Olmedo argue: “They openly promote market based solutions and dynamics of privatisation of education at all levels. For instance, funding of private and charter schools, developing new public management schemes, incubating new edu-tech businesses, advocating for new forms and methods of accountability and evaluation, etc” (Junemann & Olmedo, 2019). But as Novelli reminds us “This raises questions of legitimacy, morality, power, and the ethics of experimenting on vulnerable communities and nations. It also raises the question of who will step in and pick up the pieces if the initiative is unsuccessful or funders change their minds” (Novelli, 2016).
We need to be aware of these ‘trojan horses’ and their short, medium and long term impact on education systems around the world. To ensure that the education initiatives these private ventures offer do not result in human rights violations, there needs to be strong State structures to hold them accountable, which is precisely what is missing in emergency situations. Accountability issues are costly and time consuming, even for well-resourced states. Treated as ‘gift horses’ in emergencies, the agreements that take place between these firms and whoever is conducting the initiative on the ground are hardly ever scrutinised and due to the chaos that emergencies bring, they tend to be signed behind closed doors. When dealing with private provision of education there is a greater need for watchdog organizations to ensure that these schools comply with standards, and the capacity for monitoring and inspecting is particularly weak at state level in these situations, and highly biased when it is done by the business themselves.
In summary, the right to free and quality education does not stop because of conflict and displacement. Although the state has the main responsibility to protect and provide education, the increasing role in shaping policies of international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), donor agencies and businesses, have a duty to protect the right to education and to be accountable to the rights holders. When businesses or philanthropists engage in the education system, they need to be transparent, accountable and respect human rights, or not meddle at all. And Civil Society Organisations need to be more critical in their engagement with these gift horses and look at them very closely in the mouth, to make sure that we are not opening the door to a Trojan horse that will destroy the historic efforts we have made to make quality public education for all a reality one day.
Dr. Maria Ron-Balsera finished her PhD in Education from Bielefeld University (Germany) in 2014, with a Marie Curie Fellowship. She also holds an MSc in Human Rights from the London School of Economics and an LLM in Human Rights from Universidad Carlos III in Madrid. She has done research at the Institute of Education (UCL) as a Marie Curie Education as Welfare visiting research associate, and at UC Berkeley through a research exchange program.
Maria is currently working as Research and Advocacy Coordinator at ActionAid, where she is coordinates the project “Tax, Privatisation and the Right to Education: Influencing Education Financing Policy” in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda. This multi country project aims to influence education financing through progressive taxation to reverse the current trend of privatisation and ensure the right to free quality education for all children.
Maria has experience as a lecturer, consultant, researcher and as a teacher. She has also written several publications including articles in high impact academic journals.
The views expressed in this blog are the author's own.