UNESCO, the World Bank, and the struggle over education for development through the lens of the Faure report (1972) and the Delors report (1996)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reports Learning to be (the Faure report), published in 1972, and Learning: The treasure within (the Delors report), published in 1996, commissioned by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), are known to belong to the foundational literature on lifelong learning. This paper, which draws on primary and secondary sources, will focus on a much lesser known aspect of these reports: their views on international development. The Faure report represented a counter perspective to the dominant development discourse based on “modernization”, in that it favoured “endogenous development” and anticipated the claims of the New International Economic Order (NIEO) that called for fairer redistribution of resources from developed to developing countries. The Delors report reacted to the extension of neoliberalism to the field of development through the Washington Consensus and criticized the structural adjustment programs implemented by the IMF and the World Bank. Both reports reveal a great deal about the debates and contested ideas on development, the conflicts between educators and economists over educational planning and the shifting position of UNESCO in the multilateral arena between the 1960s and the 1990s. The author argues that both reports got entangled in the struggle over “global governance” in education for development and proved unsuccessful in asserting their worldviews against powerful counter-ideologies promoted by competing organizations such as the World Bank.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".