blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 17:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20
Blurring boundaries: towards areconceptualisation of the privatesector in educationMartha Caddell & Laura Day AshleyPublished online: 19 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Martha Caddell & Laura Day Ashley (2006) Blurring boundaries: towards areconceptualisation of the private sector in education, Compare: A Journal of Comparative andInternational Education, 36:4, 411-419, DOI: 10.1080/03057920601024750
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920601024750
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
![Page 2: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Blurring boundaries: towards a
reconceptualisation of the private
sector in education
This Special Issue of Compare stems from papers presented to the eighth United
Kingdom Forum for International Education and Training (UKFIET) Oxford
International Conference on Education and Development in 2005. It draws, in
particular, on a set of panels focused on moving towards ‘Reconceptualising private
sector contributions to learning and livelihood’ which explored, from diverse
perspectives, how private education provision is understood and how livelihood both
shapes and results from private sector investment in learning. Emerging from the
conference discussions was a series of conceptual, methodological and practical
challenges concerning how the private sector’s changing role in education is
understood. The papers collected here reflect on and extend those debates and
consider the implications for policy, practice and academic research. Offering new
insights into these themes is particularly timely, firstly, given the increasing emphasis
on an enhanced role for the private sector in policy and programme development as
a partner in reaching Education for All; and secondly, given the related growth of
research into this area over recent years.
This collection extends the debate initiated in an earlier edition of Compare
which focused on decentralisation of education and the implications of such policy
and practice on the range of actors involved and provision on offer (Dyer & Rose,
2005). The Decentralisation issue highlighted the marginal position of private
sector debates in contemporary policy, how it is often by ‘default rather than
design’ that it has become an important player at all levels of education provision
(Rose, 2005, see also Bangay, 2005; Little & Evans, 2005). However, while much
can be gained by considering privatisation as a form of decentralisation (e.g.
Patrinos & Ariasingam, 1997; Bray & Mukundan, 2003), there are distinct
practical, political and conceptual concerns related to the private sector that require
exploration. Consequently, this Special Issue, devoted specifically to exploring the
private sector’s contribution to the education sector, has been developed. The
papers presented here extend discussion of the diversity of the ‘private sector’,
those schools and education enterprises that are commercially oriented and subject
to market-forces, and focus attention on the dynamics of the multi-faceted
EDITORIAL
Compare
Vol. 36, No. 4, December 2006, pp. 411–419
ISSN 0305-7925 (print)/ISSN 1469-3623 (online)/06/040411-9
# 2006 British Association for International and Comparative Education
DOI: 10.1080/03057920601024750
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 3: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
relationship between state and private education providers. Specifically, the
collection develops understanding of this arena by extending debates from
definition of the types of provision to exploring the contribution of the private
sector in the context of the political dynamics of educational decision-making and
schooling choice.
The changing faces of the private sector
The role of the private sector in development processes has come under scrutiny in
recent years. While the market triumphalism and economic liberalisation that
influenced much development thinking and practice in the 1980s has waned,
considerable debate remains over how to strike a balance between the role of
government, other socio-political institutions and the market (Sen, 1999, p. 126ff).
Boundaries between public and private providers are increasingly blurred (Ostrom,
1996) as new modalities for meeting development targets and promoting ‘good
governance’ are sought. Yet concern remains over the extent to which ‘public
goods’, investments that benefit society at large as well as proffering individual
opportunities, can or should be the focus of private enterprise (Colclough, 1996,
1997; Mehrotra & Delamonica, 2005).
In the education field there has been significant policy oscillation in how these
questions have been engaged with. The rhetorical focus of the 1990s and early 2000s
emphasised the importance of ‘new and revitalised partnerships’ between state and
non-state actors to contribute to the pursuit of EFA (EFA, 1990, 2000). Yet
practical and policy level engagement with private providers has largely been limited
to higher levels of education where private returns are considered of greater
significance (Psacharopolous & Patrinos, 2002; Lewin & Sayed, 2005). Despite
consideration in the 1980s (notably by the World Bank) of the possibility of charging
fees and adopting a market approach to primary education, such approaches have
largely been sidelined in favour of promoting fee-free access (Rose, 2003; Daniel,
2004).
However, recent trends suggest the need for re-engagement with this area of
debate, particularly in relation to schooling. Firstly, the focus on promoting EFA
and meeting primary schooling targets under the Millennium Development Goals
has placed considerable pressure on state finances available for the education sector
(International Finance Corporation, 2002; World Bank, 2002). Questions have been
asked about whether targets can be met through state-led provision alone.
Consequently, interest in decentralisation, community participation and the role
of non-state actors (including private providers) has emerged as a key point of policy
and academic investigation (see, for example, Dyer & Rose, 2005; Rose, 2005).
Secondly, and linked to this, a mushrooming of the private school sector in many
developing countries is evident, as is the considerable heterogeneity of the provision
on offer. There is a need, then, to consider the changing faces of the private sector.
With the freedom to deviate from nationally prescribed curricula, private
providers are able to impart the skills and offer the qualifications required for
seeking, and perhaps creating, new livelihoods in global, national and local
412 Editorial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 4: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
economies. Private institutions may also offer diversity in educational provision
in terms of religious, spiritual and cultural orientations that are associated with
the promotion of certain values, which may have implications for future
livelihood choices. The diversity of the sector is also highlighted in the groups
targeted by private education providers. For example, in addition to the traditional
elite institutions, there has been a rise in low fee private schooling (including at
primary and pre-primary levels) (see Srivastava, Mehrotra & Panchamukhi and
Tooley & Dixon, this volume). This has had a significant impact on the educational
choices open to learners and their families. Other modalities include private sector
operation of public schools under contract to states; private institutions serving
public purposes, such as providing free educational services or financing scholar-
ships and vouchers (King et al., 1997; Sandstrom & Bergstrom, 2005; Day Ashley,
this volume).
Much work on the private sector focuses on concerns about equity of access to
education and the quality of provision offered by different providers (e.g. Salmi,
2000). Developing mechanisms for ensuring private schooling is open to all those
who desire it has been a key strand of debate, with the potential of voucher schemes
and other incentive mechanisms a key area of consideration (Lassibille & Tan,
2001). Quality debates have tended to focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of
private/government schools on the basis of indicators such as physical facilities,
teacher training, student completion rates and examination results (Kingdon, 1996).
Yet, as the collection of papers presented here highlight, such a focus only partially
addresses issues of equality of educational opportunity. More amorphous,
contextually specific considerations associated with student and parental aspirations,
educational decision making strategies and perceptions of livelihood opportunities in
specific contexts need to be engaged with.
Cross-cutting many of these themes is the need for explicit engagement with the
relationships between the state and non-state actors in the education arena (Rose,
2006). This requires recognition of the specificities of the development of education
systems in particular state and intra-state contexts and the politically-charged nature
of popular and policy debates around education provision and providers.
Discussions about quality and access, for instance, involve exploration of relative
standards of state and non-state provision, the form and effectiveness of regulatory
mechanisms and understanding of the multiple levels of interaction and engagement
between students, teachers and education officials across public-private divisions.
This involves both the formally recognised interaction (through policy, formal
registration processes, training and so on) and more clandestine encounters such as
those associated with bribery and registration, party political involvement in schools
or parents’ dual enrolment of children to secure benefits from different institutions
(e.g. receiving free meals from government schools, whilst also enrolled at private
school, see Tooley & Dixon, this volume).
Finally, recognising the often opaque and politically-charged dynamics of private
education provision poses a number of methodological challenges for researchers
exploring this field. Access to and reliability of data must be given consideration,
Editorial 413
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 5: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
whether that be enrolment and fee figures or information about registration
processes and relations with state officials and education inspectors. Further, there is
the need to address head-on the ideologically charged nature of much of the
investigative and interpretive work in this field. As Bangay notes, ‘In few other areas
of debate are pre-conceptions more likely to be found than in that regarding private
education’ (2005, p. 168). It is critical, then, that there is explicit recognition of this
and that such reflection is used to open space for constructive dialogue and
evidence-based debate in academic and policy arenas. The collection gathered here
is offered in this spirit.
Towards a reconceptualisation of private sector schooling provision
The papers presented in this Special Issue encompass many of the themes emerging
from the discussions at the UKFIET Oxford conference and address the core issues
highlighted above. Individually they offer insights into specific cases and pose
particular questions about how we conceptualise private sector engagement in
education, and schooling in particular. Collectively, they point to the need for
critical consideration of the relationship between state and private provision of
education and the importance of developing specific case studies and comparative
analysis of this arena. They also highlight a range of methodological approaches that
can be taken to explore this field, striking a balance between cross context
comparison and detailed, context-specific case studies.
The first two papers (by Mehrotra & Panchamukhi and Tooley & Dixon)
introduce key themes and concerns that lie at the heart of current policy debate
about the potential of private providers to contribute to the extension of elementary
education and the meeting of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) and
Education for All (EFA) targets. Both papers explore issues of the relative quality
of provision in private and government schools, gender and social equity, school
efficiency and the role of state regulation. And they both take as their central focus
the questions ‘are private sector options superior to government schools?’ and
‘should policy makers be doing more to promote the role of the private sector?’ Yet,
the papers reach markedly different conclusions concerning the merits of private
provision of primary schooling and the policy implications this has for national
governments and international donors.
In the first paper in the collection, Santosh Mehrotra and Parthasarthi R.
Panchamukhi question the extent of the ‘private school advantage’. The paper
introduces material from eight states in India to provide a comparison of the
characteristics of state and private schools. They argue that, while some indicators
suggest that private provision is better than that offered in government schools, the
private sector does not contribute to promotion of gender and social equity and its
quality remains poor. Consequently, despite the rise in significance of the private
sector in the field of elementary schooling, it does not in and of itself present a
panacea for problems of quality and access facing Indian education. Mehrotra and
Panchamukhi conclude by arguing that, while it is important to improve the quality
414 Editorial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 6: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
of private schooling, comparative evidence demonstrates the dominant role of the
public system in promoting universal schooling.
In contrast, James Tooley and Pauline Dixon present findings from Ghana,
Nigeria and India to explore the potential that the rapid growth in private schools
holds out for inclusion of poor children in education. The paper questions why,
despite the widespread recognition by researchers and policy makers of parental
dissatisfaction with the education provided by the state, much current literature in
the field considers the trend towards privatisation to be ‘undesirable’ and a cause for
regret. Instead, they argue that private schools can provide better schooling more
efficiently than the state and, as such, are important partners in the pursuit of EFA.
In the interests of promoting UPE, they argue, modalities for working across state—
private boundaries are required to ensure equity of access and to further increase the
quality of provision in private schools. Such rethinking of relations between sectors,
the authors argue, needs to filter through to how international donor community
engages with the private sector.
Significantly, the papers converge around recognition that government school
systems are unlikely to be able to meet UPE targets and the potential role of private
providers in supporting these efforts. Both also highlight the need for a changed role
of the state vis-a-vis the private providers, including a revision of regulatory
mechanisms and the consideration of alternative ways of framing state-private
relations and modalities of operation. Private providers are significant players and
need to be engaged with and addressed in constructive and innovative ways.
Achieving improved access to schooling and increased quality of provision requires
engagement with the education sector as a whole. The evidence presented here
suggests that reducing the debate to a choice between either private or state
provision is of limited conceptual or practical significance in the education field.
Reconceptualising this interface emerges as a key area for further consideration at
multiple levels—from relations between school staff and local education officials to
cross-national comparisons and international policy development.
The second set of papers included here extends our understanding of the state-
private interface through exploration of specific cases and themes. In doing so, both
papers highlight the contested nature of education provision and tensions over what
and how learning should be promoted. The fraught nature of relations between the
state and private education providers touched upon in the first two papers is further
developed in Martha Caddell’s paper on schooling in Nepal in the context of violent
political conflict. The paper makes an explicit link between popular perceptions of
the relative quality of state and private education and the use being made of
schooling to advance the interests of particular political groups. It explores how
private schools have become metaphorical and actual ‘battlefields’—the focus of
local level struggles over recruitment, party political debates, and, in the context of a
de facto civil war, a site of military activities. Following the forced closure of many
private schools by Maoist insurgents, private school organisations emerged as
significant political actors and were drawn into a series of negotiations with
representatives of the Nepali state and the insurgents. While in many respects an
Editorial 415
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 7: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
‘extreme’ case, the arguments that Caddell presents help extend understanding of
the private sector’s political role more broadly, including the practical and political
challenge of regulation, the need to build trust and effective communication between
state and private providers and the ideological nature of debate around ‘appropriate’
education provision.
An important theme played on by private school organisations in Nepal is their
philanthropic orientation, the ‘social service’ that they are providing, which, they
argued, should exempt them from paying commercial rate taxes and afford them
further support from the state. This juxtaposition of social and market orientation of
private providers is also a central motif of Laura Day Ashley’s contribution. She
explores the phenomenon of ‘private school outreach’ in India, whereby private, fee-
charging institutions develop outreach programmes providing education to out-of-
school children. Through an exploration of two distinct cases, she highlights
different modalities for building partnerships between state and private education
providers at the local level. This in turn poses a challenge to how the state—private
divide is conceptualised; in these cases the boundaries are blurred. Indeed, the same
institution can be seen to be providing ‘elite’ education to those who can afford it
whilst also advancing a pro-poor agenda and extending educational opportunities to
disadvantaged groups. In the two cases these institutions also engage in developing
linkages with government schools. Significantly, it is the long-term commitment to
these activities that contributes to the building of trust and responsive inter-school
working in these contexts. Linked to this, she speaks to a further silence in much of
the literature—the cultural motivations and perceptions of appropriate development
and change that underpin education-oriented action. The challenge Day Ashley’s
work posits is thus not simply to disaggregate the ‘private sector’, but to consider
alternative ways of conceptualising and working across boundaries.
The final two papers in this collection explore how learners and their families
strategically engage with the private sector. In doing so, they reflect themes of equity,
inclusion and educational quality that cross-cut many of the contributions in this
volume while focusing in more explicitly on parental and learner perceptions of the
educational environment and the options open to them. Prachi Srivastava explores
the emergence of low fee private provision and considers how the expansion of this
sector has influenced household decision-making around girls’ schooling. Her paper
focuses on the ‘mental models’ through which individuals interpret the world, make
sense of changing contexts and make decisions. Drawing on case study material from
Uttar Pradesh, India, the paper explores how parents perceived the role of schooling
for their daughters’ future and why low fee private schools emerged as the
educational pathway of choice. Notably, particularly in light of the debates of the
first two articles in the volume, Srivastava’s findings suggest that households were
just as likely to choose low fee private schools for daughters and sons. This, she
argues, reflects household beliefs and expectations about the value of education in
relation to the marriage market and employment opportunities for their daughters.
Understanding the significance of the diversification of the private sector, and the
rise of low fee private provision in particular, requires looking at the meanings
416 Editorial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 8: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
attached to education and school attendance and the strategic context of household
decision-making.
In the last paper in the collection, Mark Bray looks beyond formal schooling to the
‘shadow’ education system of private supplementary tutoring. He explores the
growth of tutoring in specific contexts and as an increasingly global industry,
highlighting the emergence of trans-national tuition. Drawing on examples from a
range of country contexts, he highlights how private tuition is perceived and engaged
with by families from different income groups and by learners of diverse abilities.
The paper highlights the complexity of decision making in this field—while tutoring
does exacerbate social stratification, it would be an oversimplification to simply link
financial position, engagement in tutoring activities and educational advantage.
Wealthier parents may value their children having ‘free time’ rather than tutoring;
poorer parents may consider it to be cheaper to pay for tuition than having to pay for
their child to repeat a year. Further consideration needs to be given to the broader
context of educational decision making within the family and to the content and
quality of tutoring in the context of other schooling that the learner engages in. Bray
also explores a further dimension of the private/state education interface—the role of
individual tutors as both employees of the state (as school teachers, for example) and
as private tutors. This, he argues, can have a considerable impact on the income of
individual teachers, but may also have implications for what is taught (and not
taught) in mainstream school contexts. Much remains to be explored in this field;
while, as this Special Issue demonstrates, the private sector is gradually emerging
from the shadows of schooling policy, private supplementary tutoring remains an
under-explored phenomenon.
The papers presented here highlight a diversity of approaches to understanding
private schooling and the privatisation of education provision in developing
countries. While they do not offer in themselves a definitive new framework for
conceptualising the private sector and the complexity of relations with state and civil
society actors, they do signpost possible routes to take us in that direction. Such
pathways towards reconceptualising the sector require engagement with the
strategies and decision-making processes adopted by multiple actors—learners,
parents, private school providers, state officials and policy makers. They encourage
recognition of the ‘blurred boundaries’ that characterise interactions and the
politically and ideologically charged nature of the discussions and decisions that are
made. The collection also points to the need for further comparative work to
facilitate conceptual advances. Much research work, in this volume and beyond,
focuses on the Indian experience as an exemplar of the tensions between state policy
and the de facto emergence of private education enterprises. Comparison across
political regimes and between policy frameworks can, as this collection highlights,
open space for further theoretical reframing. It is through exploring these paths—the
routes they take in specific contexts and the international trends that can be
mapped—that alternative ways of understanding the private sector’s contribution to
education can be developed.
Martha Caddell and Laura Day Ashley
Editorial 417
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 9: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
References
Bangay, C. (2005) Private education: relevant or redundant? Private education, decentralisation
and national provision in Indonesia, Compare, 35(2), 167–180.
Bray, M. & Mukundan, M. V. (2003) Management and governance for EFA: is decentralisation
really the answer? Global Monitoring Report Background Paper, UNESCO. Available
online at http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID525755&URL_DO5DO_
TOPIC&URL_SECTION5201.html (accessed 7 November 2006).
Colclough, C. (1996) Education and the market: which parts of the neo-liberal solution are
correct?, World Development, 24(4), 589–610.
Colclough, C. (Ed.) (1997) Marketizing education and health in developing countries: miracle or
mirage? (Oxford, Clarendon Press).
Daniel, J. (2004) The price of school fees, Education Today Newsletter, July-Sept. Available online
at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-url_ID532496&URL_DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION5201.html (accessed 7 November 2006).
Dyer, C. & Rose, P. (2005) Decentralisation for educational development: an editorial
introduction, Compare, 35(2), 105–114.
EFA (1990) World declaration on education for all: meeting basic learning needs (New York, Inter-
Agency Commission).
EFA (2000) Education for all: framework for action (Dakar, Inter-Agency Commission).
International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2002) IFC strategic directions (Washington DC,
IFC).
King, E., Rawlings, L., Gutierrez, M., Pardo, C. & Torres, C. (1997) Columbia’s targeted
education voucher program: features, coverage, and participation, Development Economics
Research Group, The World Bank, working paper series on impact evaluation of education
reforms, paper no. 3.
Kingdon, G. (1996) The quality and efficiency of private and public education: a case study in
urban India, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58(1), 57–81.
Lassibille, G. & Tan, J. (2001) Are private schools more efficient than public schools? Evidence
from Tanzania, Education Economics, 9(2), 145–172.
Lewin, K. & Sayed, Y. (2005) Non state secondary schooling in Sub Saharan Africa? Exploring the
evidence in South Africa and Malawi (London, Department for International Development).
Little, A. W. & Evans, J. (2005) The growth of foreign qualification suppliers in Sri Lanka: de
facto decentralisation?’, Compare, 35(2), 181–192.
Mehrotra, S. & Delamonica, E. (2005) The private sector and privatization in social services. Is
the Washington Consensus ‘dead’?, Global Social Policy, 5(2), 141–174.
Ostrom, E. (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development, World
Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
Patrinos, H. A. & Ariasingam, D. L. (1997) Decentralisation of education: demand-side financing
(Washington DC, The World Bank).
Psacharopoulos, G. & Patrinos, H. (2002) Returns to investment in education: a further update, World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2881 (Washington DC, World Bank).
Rose, P. (2003) From the Washington to the post-Washington consensus: the influence of
international agendas on education policy and practice in Malawi, Globalisation, Education
and Societies, 1(1), 67–86.
Rose, P. (2005) Privatisation and decentralisation of schooling in Malawi: default or design?,
Compare, 35(2), 153–165.
Rose, P. (2006) Collaborating in education for all? Experiences of government support for non-
state provision of basic education in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, Public
Administration and Development, 26(3), 219–229.
Salmi, J. (2000) Equity and quality in private education: the Haitian paradox, Compare, 30(2),
163–178.
418 Editorial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
![Page 10: Blurring boundaries: towards a reconceptualisation of the private sector in education](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022100722/5750ac2e1a28abcf0ce512d1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sandstrom, F. M. & Bergstrom, F. (2005) School vouchers in practice: competition will not hurt
you, Journal of Public Economics, 89, 351–380.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as freedom (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
World Bank (2002) Private sector development strategy (Washington, DC, World Bank).
Editorial 419
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
th W
est U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
41 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014