【Research Brief】

Identifying Policy Puzzles for Discourse Analysis: The Vision of
Education in the Promotion of International Development
Ian Wash
Abstract
This research brief outlines how I identified a policy puzzle that initiated a political discourse analysis. The brief,
inspired by interpretive policy analysis that uses unexpected discoveries in policy fields as a precursor to deploymentof the discursive approach, is divided into two parts. First, it shows how background research into a question about
the ability of education to resolve development issues and reduce poverty in poor countries allowed me to unearth apolicy dilemma in the field of international education. Driven by the question of whether education is a ‘magic bullet’
for development, I explore a critical debate about the methodological and theoretical basis of a dominant argument.
Placed in the wider context of institutional goals, I explain how this conflicted dispute led me to an unanticipateddiscover y: that the vision of international education, previously thought of as a harmonious liberal pact, could
actually be a narrative riven by tension over whether education was an economic good. The final part summarises thediscoveries made and reflects on my breakthrough as a result of answering the initial question. I conclude by using
the identified puzzle to generate a research question capable of guiding a discourse analysis into the torn vision ofinternational education.
Keywords: applied linguistics, discourse analysis, international education, policy analysis

Introduction
The relatedness of language and politics has become more apparent through the field ofdiscourse studies: an interdisciplinary juncture where the political-turn in linguistics meets theideational turn in policy research. A prerequisite to undertaking a robust political discourse analysis
is the identification of a significant policy puzzle. Yanow (2000) makes the point that puzzles often reston the difference between what a researcher expects to find and what they actually experience fromtheir primary contact with the policy field (p. 8). In other words, it is the dilemma that comes to lightwhen the observed reality appears ‘different’ from that originally perceived. This article explains theinitial research process I went through to discover such a mismatch in the literature on education
for development. First contact with the puzzle was made whilst seeking an answer to a question thattroubled me: What are some reasons why education might not be a ‘magic bullet’ for development andpoverty reduction?
My expectation was that it would be difficult to find any logical explanations to contradict thenotion of education as panacea for socio-economic problems in poorer countries. My previous
reading of policy reports by international organizations and donor agencies seemed only to confirm
what I thought was a global consensus: that education was a ‘magic bullet’ for national development.
However, the challenge of the ‘magic bullet’ question forced me to take a critical view of these reports
and explore a limited body of background literature. Answering the question enabled me to engage
with two unforeseen aspects of the field of study. Firstly, that unquestioned support for education as a‘magic bullet’ was in fact misguided. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, that these ‘differences’
were part of a wider and more fascinating policy puzzle about the vision of international education that
could potentially be resolved through discourse analysis.

89

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

This essay is divided into two parts. The first part attempts to answer the ‘magic bullet’ question
by surveying a small sample of institutional and academic research. It takes a careful examinationof why arguments in support of education as a development remedy may in fact be mistaken, andcritically assesses the empirical evidence that warned against educational expansion in low-income
countries. The theoretical basis of the debate is critically examined along with relevant institutional
issues that cast doubt on education as a ‘magic bullet.’ Part two reflects on how, in answering thisquestion, my expectations of what I thought I would find were proven wrong. It also describes how
this reconsideration of what I originally thought was ‘right’ generated a research question to guide apiece of discourse analytical research.

Answering the ‘Magic Bullet’ Question
Proponents of education as a ‘magic bullet’ provide a range of evidence for investment inschooling that is seemingly difficult to argue against given the moral nature of the issue. Improved
productivity, increases in national income, economic growth, technological advances, and lower levels
of inequality are all put forward as advantages of more education (Birdsall, Ross, & Sabot, 1995, p.
502). In addition, Rose (2006) suggests that education delivers a range of social benefits such as better
health and reduced fertility rates (p. 163).
Claims that education can resolve poverty issues and boost development through economic
growth are contested. At the heart of this controversy is the way that Rates of Return (RoR) analysis,a form of cost-benefit analysis commonly used by policy analysts, tends to produce evidence that
contradicts the ‘magic bullet’ argument. Returns analysis is a favored analytical tool of researchers
who explain education through Human Capital Theory (HCT), defined as the acquisition of skills
and knowledge by individuals resulting in greater productivity that subsequently raises incomes andincreases economic growth (Woodhall, 2001, p. 6951). That the policies of international institutions
such as the World Bank and UN agencies are largely influenced by HCT is reflected in way they baseinvestment decisions on economic reasoning (Bennell, 1996, p. 184).

Bullet Stuck in the Chamber: RoR
A major challenge to the ‘magic bullet’ argument questions the supposed impact of education on
economic growth. This section examines how RoR analysis contributes towards doubts over whether
education could resolve development and poverty issues.
Pritchett uses regression analysis to show that the estimated impact of years of schooling on
GDP growth per worker is in fact small and negative (Pritchett, 1997, p. 6). These findings weaken
the link between education and economic growth (Bils & Klenow, 2000, p. 1160). This trend wasespecially prevalent in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa where investment in education has notstimulated growth, as highlighted in literature that draws comparisons with the experience of East
Asia. As Easterly (2002) points out, it is in this contrast that the lack of association between education
and GDP per capita growth becomes most evident (p. 73). Figure 1 illustrates this comparison bypresenting statistics for both regions. It shows that despite a huge education expansion in SubSaharan Africa relative to East Asia between 1960 and 1985, the former experienced only a fraction of
the growth enjoyed by the latter.
Central to this argument is the distinction between the private and social returns to schoolingwhich questions continued public investment in post-primary education. To return to Pritchett, RoR

90

IDENTIFYING POLICY PUZZLES FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

4.5
4% per annum

3.5
3
Educational capital growth
1960–85

2.5

GDP per capita growth
1960–85

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
East Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa
RegionFigure 1. Where did all the education go in Sub-Saharan Africa? Source: Easterly (2002, p. 75).

analysis indicates that higher levels of education lead to higher wages but do not increase output or
productivity and therefore will not result in GDP growth (Pritchett, 1997, p. 29). Therefore, although
education attainment increases consumption and demand for consumer goods, a highly-skilled labor
force will not be utilized to drive productivity and supply unless it can be put to work by a dynamic,
entrepreneurial, and diverse economy. Education economists at the World Bank have used thisevidence as justification to withhold donor funding beyond basic education in poorer countries(Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2002, p. 1). Such empirical evidence, supportive of HCT, enables thegovernments of powerful Western donors and international organizations to legitimise reductions
in public spending on schooling, often accompanied by the promotion of private sector provision.
Empirical evidence produced by RoR analysis challenged the conventional wisdom that education
was a ‘magic bullet’ for promoting development. However, the validity and reliability of data used inreturns estimates were themselves a source of controversy and brought these findings into dispute.

Dislodging the Jammed Bullet: Problems With RoR
Sampling errors, methodological discrepancies, and data reliability issues in returns analysis
contribute towards undermining the above claim that education is not a remedy to underdevelopment.
Since returns analysis is consulted in the policymaking process, it is only right that the validity of RoR
and investment decisions based in these estimates be scrutinized.
In macro-level studies, the sampling frame can skew data and distort findings on returns to
education. In many studies, a representative population sample at the household level was preferred
to measure RoR. Although in reality, sampling procedures were often prone to an urban bias as theytargeted large firms which resulted in the wages recorded being significantly greater than the average
market wage (Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2002, p. 2). Many influential studies employing RoR thatguided policy decision making repeated such sampling errors. Wages were further distorted in theway that formal sector employees contacted in samples only represented a small proportion of theoverall labor market (Bennell, 1996, p. 188). Informal workers that made up the majority of the labormarket in developing country studies were largely excluded. Furthermore, samples that focused
purely on the formal sector tended to exclude female workers in low-income countries, many of whom
are unwaged or work in the informal sector (Schultz, 2002, p. 208).
Methodological discrepancies have also been flagged up as being potential culprits of distortion,
especially when estimating private returns to education. Mainstream education economists

91

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

argue that methodological errors occur when independent variables such as occupation are
included in regression analysis, subsequently underestimating the impact of education on income(Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2002, p. 3). However, this position is contested by those who pointout that other variables such as years of schooling, ability, and family wealth are important whencalculating the wage function, and that excluding them can result in omitted variable bias (Bennell,
1996, p. 190; Schultz, 2002, p. 209).
The reliability of data used in RoR analysis has also been called into question. Without sufficient
controls to guarantee data quality, out-dated and patchy census figures can feed into statistical
calculations that influence key education indicators. Aggregated data used in World Bank studies
has been accused of being misleading on the grounds of being poor quality, out-dated, and having
parts of the data missing (Bennell, 1996, p. 186). On top of that, there is much controversy overinconsistencies between enrolment data, often collected by Education Ministries and incorporated
into returns analysis, and actual attendance or completion data. Arguably, enrolment acts as an aineffective proxy for human capital development as it ignores attendance and drop-out rates, thereby
distorting growth rates upwards (Pritchett, 1997, p. 24). To muddy the waters of data reliability
further, variability in the education systems of different countries reflected in the data can makecomparability of data sets highly problematic.
Questions over the sampling procedures, methodological choices, and quality of data have all
challenged the trustworthiness of RoR analysis and the credibility of its estimates. This casts further
doubt on counter-claims disputing the notion that education can cure development ills. The next
section explores the way that faith in RoR has been further eroded by challenges to the theory it
substantiates.

Disarming the Assailant: Challenging HCTHaving examined controversies surrounding RoR analysis and its central place in the ‘magicbullet’ debate, the critical lens is turned onto its theoretical basis. A summary of the limitations of HCTin explaining educational problems is followed by the proposal of an alternative model that perceives
education as a system of provision.
HCT has come under criticism from educationalists and development scholars who reject theidea of education as an economic good. Rose (2006) draws parallels with slavery in the way that thetheory reduces individual workers to property (p. 174). It has been pointed out that HCT represents
an un-opened ‘black box’ for education, offering no real analytical perspective on education and being
limited only to cost-benefit analysis (Fine & Rose, 2001, p. 156). Rose (2006) adds that this macroorientation results in a narrow focus on economic aspects of education which fails to take into accountits moral, social and cultural impact (p. 167).
A major concern over HCT questions the faith it places in the neoclassical economic principleof obsessive methodological individualism which is then applied to a collective of self-maximisingrational individuals. Perceiving education in this light, the theory misses social relationships as key
elements of education, evades issues of historical and social specificity, and appears redundant in
explaining why educational systems emerged and their evolutionary process (Rose, 2006, p. 174). In
addition, HCT operates on the assumption of full employment and perfect information in markets,
further detracting from its relevance to society and its imperfections. Its limitations in explaining
education as an economic good are even acknowledged by World Bank staff. This is especially true
in regards to the issue of education quality which researchers concede is difficult to measure at the92

IDENTIFYING POLICY PUZZLES FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

macro-level and can over-estimate the impact of schooling on growth (Pritchett, 1997, p. 32).
An alternative model suggests that it may be better to theorize education as a system of provision.
This model is based on market imperfections and considers education provision as part of country
specific socio-economic framework that rejects cost-benefit analysis of education such as RoR (Fine &Rose, 2001, p. 172). The focus of education as a system of provision is both economic and academic:
building of schools, curriculum planning; committed to interaction of a social, political, economic andcultural nature; and concerned with relations, processes and structures in the social arena (Rose,2006, p. 175). This approach arguably points to a more contextual model of micro-level country
specific education evaluation and planning.
Together with RoR analysis, HCT could be perceived as a fundamental part of the unstableknowledge-generating machinery responsible for dismissing the ‘magic bullet’ argument. The
dominance of this thinking on the wider institutional context is considered next.

Bullet Proof ? Institutional Barriers Obstructing the Bullet
Institutional obstacles further prevent education from being a development cure and a meansof poverty alleviation. Considering these barriers enables the ‘magic bullet’ debate to be located in
the wider context of globally accepted goals that supposedly promote the role of education in thedevelopment process.
Major institutional targets such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the
Education for All (EFA) initiative reflect the findings of RoR analysis and guide the direction ofinternational education policy. A key objective of EFA was to achieve universal primary school
completion by 2015. Bennell (1996) argues that this over-emphasis on basic education is a result of
RoR analysis conducted on behalf of the World Bank, a dominant actor in the goal-setting agenda, that
vastly overestimates the social returns to primary schooling (p. 184). Others agree that the targets are
too selective and divert attention away from adult literacy and higher education, considered by someas equally important for national development (King & Rose, 2005, p. 364).
Prescriptive targets in the MDGs and EFA initiative tend to overlook specific historical contexts.
Providing a ‘one size fits all’ solution, they seem to overlook the fact that education underperformancein Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia is linked with different starting points. In this manner, policies
start to mirror the shortfalls of HCT, demonstrating a lack of historical and social specificity. Further
criticisms of institutional targets claim that they reflect the inherent contradictions in neoliberalism.
This is because the goals are shaped by World Bank recommendations and require expansionary
fiscal policy to be achieved, yet the conditionalities attached to loans by the organization impose harsh
restrictions on public spending in recipient countries (Marphatia & Archer, 2005, p. 3). This situation
compounds the ‘magic bullet’ problem and prompts a potential rethink of more relevant targets andbetter planning of how they can be achieved.
In sum, widening the ‘magic bullet’ debate from a narrow focus on RoR analysis to makeconnections with institutional goals locates the argument in its global context. Doing so indicatesthat a set of dominant beliefs about education as an investment and an economic good possibly drove
the argument that education was not a panacea for development. This prompts reflection on how theabove debate feeds into a much larger policy puzzle and the implications this holds for a discourse
analysis capable of exposing what lay behind the powerful norms in the field.

93

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 1 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 1）

Summar y and Reflection on the Identified Puzzle
Answering the ‘magic bullet’ question forced me to examine a wide variety of reasons why
education alone may have been deficient in tackling underdevelopment and reducing poverty.
The presentation of statistical evidence produced by RoR analysis about the weak impact of public
spending on education at first seemed surprising. But the counterarguments, instead of restoring myfaith in the ‘magic bullet’ claim, encouraged me to reflect on the power struggles going on between
institutions, academics, and other actors that influenced the field. The dominance of neoliberal
thinking caused a reconsideration over whether the meaning of the EFA targets was ‘different’ fromwhat I had previously assumed. It is this process of reflection that transformed the ‘magic bullet’
debate into a gateway to a policy puzzle about the aspirations rival actors had for international
education.
One of the most striking discoveries from studying the debate was that my perception ofa functioning and harmonious liberal vision of international education had been tarnished. The
dominant discourse about advancing the perfectibility of people, societies, and nations throughinternational education now appeared to be a curious liberal façade. The ambitions actors had for
education in improving the lot of people in poor countries were far from compatible; they were in
conflict. Given the centrality of HCT in the debate, it appeared to me that the theory would be a
key part of the puzzle. Solving it would entail interpretation using a larger sample of documents tograsp the extent to which HCT, and its underlying neoliberal ideology, had dominated the conflictedvision of education. Reflecting on these tensions generated the following research question: what
was the vision driving international education during this period? With the puzzle identified, theinitial research question in hand, and primary ideas about the theoretical framework, I could begin
conducting a political discourse analysis.

References
Bennell, P. (1996). Rates of return to education: Does the conventional pattern prevail in Sub-SaharanAfrica? World Development, 24(1), 183–199. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00115-S
Bils, M., & Klenow, P. (2000). Does schooling cause growth? American Economic Review, 90(5),1160–1183. doi:10.1257/aer.90.5.1160
Birdsall, N., Ross, D., & Sabot, R. (1995). Inequality and growth reconsidered: Lessons from East Asia.
The World Bank Economic Review, 9(3), 477–508. doi:10.1093/wber/9.3.477
Easterly, W. (2002). The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in thetropics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fine, B., & Rose, P. (2001). Education and the post-Washington Consensus. In B. Fine, C. Lapavitsas,& J. Pincus (Eds.), Development policy in the twenty-first century: Beyond the post-Washington
Consensus (pp. 155–181). London: Routledge.
King, K., & Rose, P. (2005). Transparency or tyranny: Achieving international development targets
in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4), 362–367. doi:10.1016/
j.ijedudev.2005.04.001
Marphatia, A. A., & Archer, D. (2005). Contradicting commitments: How the achievement of Education
for All is being undermined by the International Monetary Fund. London: ActionAid. Retrieved
from https://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/default/files/doc_lib/132_1_contradicting_commitments.pdf

94

IDENTIFYING POLICY PUZZLES FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Pritchett, L. (1997). Where has all the education gone? Washington, DC: World Bank.
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (2002). Returns to investment in education: A further update.
Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/512891468739485757/Returns-to-investment-in-education-a-further-update
Rose, P. (2006). From Washington to post-Washington Consensus: The triumph of human capital. In
K. S. Jomo & B. Fine (Eds.), The new development economics: After the Washington Consensus(pp. 162–183). London: Zed Books.
Schultz, T. P. (2002). Why governments should invest more to educate girls. World Development,
30(2), 207–225. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00107-3
Woodhall, M. (2001). Human capital: Educational aspects. In N. J. Smelter & P. B. Baltes (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral science (Vol. 10, pp. 6951–6955). Oxford:
Elsevier.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

95