In September 1965, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) convened the World Congress of Ministers of Education on the Eradication of Illiteracy in Teheran, Iran. UNESCO itself described the congress as an “historic turning-point” (UNESCO, 1977, p. 242) and “an important, even perhaps a decisive, stage in the progress of the struggle against illiteracy” (UNESCO, 1965, p. 1). Delegates from 88 countries unanimously adopted an action plan to eradicate illiteracy worldwide as a contribution to both human rights and economic development.
At the congress, the concept of functional literacy was introduced as the primary educational objective—especially for countries classified as underdeveloped. Functional literacy was defined as basic reading, writing, and arithmetic skills needed for everyday communication, civic participation, and participation in the workforce of a modern society. Communities relying mainly on oral traditions were thus deemed ill-equipped for developmental transformation and knowledge acquisition (Goldstone, 1979; UNDP, 1976; UNESCO, 1965, 1977).
As a consequence, UNESCO, in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), launched the Experimental World Literacy Programme (EWLP) in 1966—the first large-scale international program to combat illiteracy in countries of the Global South such as Ethiopia, Madagascar, Sudan, and Tanzania. Its stated aim was not initially the creation of “[a] fully literate world” (Jones, 1988, Chapter 4; UNDP, 1976, p. 9; UNESCO, 1977). The programme, which ran until 1973, tested methods of literacy implementation and investigated the link between adult literacy and economic development. It was, however, only one of countless attempts in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by institutions, states, and organisations around the world to promote literacy (see also Merry & van Melik, 2026).
Since the late 1940s, UNESCO had already made the eradication of illiteracy and the promotion of basic education central to its agenda. Its early concept of fundamental education, designed as an alternative to the colonial and authoritarian notion of “mass education,” positioned literacy as a pillar of a broader humanistic project for formerly excluded groups (Boel, 2016; Castro Varela, 2020; UNESCO, 1947). Within this framework, books and access to libraries were considered indispensable tools for development; UNESCO’s constitution even declared “the conservation and protection of the world’s inheritance of books” as a core objective. Céline Giton has therefore described books as UNESCO’s “[w]eapons of [m]ass [d]istribution” (Giton, 2016, p. 49; UNESCO, 1945, Art. 1).
This strategy was not unique to UNESCO. Other international organisations similarly employed education as an instrument of governance and intervention. From the 1960s onwards, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) emerged as a central epistemic actor in education. The organisation pioneered the systematic economic valuation of education by translating it into the language of human capital. Education was reframed as an investment with measurable returns, a productive resource comparable to land, labour, and capital, thereby embedding schooling within the global growth paradigm. This marked a profound epistemic shift: education ceased to be primarily a cultural or civic good and became a quantifiable index for productivity and competitiveness (Bürgi, 2017; Leimgruber & Schmelzer, 2017; Rohstock, 2020; Schmelzer, 2016; Tröhler, 2013; Ydesen, 2019).
Since their creation in the aftermath of the Second World War, international organisations have played an increasingly important role in the global economic, political, and cultural arenas. These organisations—namely the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), the OECD, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)—were established at different times and with distinct mandates, but all played a role in shaping and consolidating the Western liberal order in the postwar context and amid the ideological struggle between East and West. UNESCO, by contrast, was explicitly entrusted with an educational mission from the outset. However, several of these organisations quickly and substantially moved beyond their original fields of activity to devote considerable attention to education, since they deemed it to be a decisive factor for economic development (Laval & Weber, 2002; Lessard, 2021, p. 2).
This growing involvement in education was accompanied by the development of knowledge tools through which international organisations sought to influence national and local education policies. By subjecting local and national education policies to the imperatives of globalised economic development—conceived as the inescapable horizon of “post-national” societies to which they must adapt—they have contributed to the delocalisation and denationalisation of education systems (Laval & Weber, 2002; Lessard, 2021, p. 3). Besides literacy campaigns, these organisations have promoted and continue to promote their ways of knowing in a variety of fields, such as environmental education (Bentele & Rohstock, 2025; Sauvé et al., 2007) and education for peace (UNESCO, 1972), across all educational sectors and age groups—while promising development, increased productivity, and progress to countries classified as ‘less developed’ (e.g., Hof, 2024; Mateos & Suárez-Díaz, 2020).
Thus, education was used as a conduit for normative and strategic objectives—and for the promotion of specific knowledge practices and epistemologies, often presented as universally valid. Education was cast as a key driver of economic development, social cohesion, security, health, and global competitiveness (Lingard & Sellar, 2016). Standardised educational evaluation, in turn, has served both as a governance (or regulation) tool for education systems and as a pedagogical instrument for improving individual student learning outcomes (Mons, 2009; Mons & Pons, 2006). The epistemologies underpinning these frameworks, however, have been deeply modernist, managerial, and Western-centric. They have defined what counts as valid and valuable knowledge, effective pedagogy, and meaningful learning in ways that marginalise other (local) knowledge traditions and epistemic practices, particularly in and from the Global South.
Educational research across various subdisciplines has been crucial in documenting and resisting these dynamics. Scholars such as Leon Tikly (2011) have argued for approaches to educational quality that move beyond universalist benchmarks to centre issues of relevance, language, and cultural justice. Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2014) calls for epistemologies of the South and cognitive justice as a counter to what he terms the “epistemicide” enacted by global governance regimes. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018a) likewise insists on epistemic freedom as a condition for decolonising education. Together, these perspectives highlight the extent to which international organisations have shaped the epistemologies of education not only through cooperation, but also through epistemic violence that silences alternative ways of knowing.
A substantial body of educational research has examined the influence of international organisations on education policies, institutions, and knowledge production across different educational sectors (Jones, 2007; Mundy et al., 2016; Ydesen, 2019). This includes studies of their role in higher education (Amaral & Neave, 2009; Molla, 2014), as well as critical scholarship on epistemic hierarchies and the decolonisation of education (Andreotti et al., 2015; Asea, 2022; Kermoal & Gareau, 2019; Mbembe, 2016; Mondain & Goudiaby, 2022; Vanthuyne & Dussault, 2022; Wilson, 2001). While the decolonisation of hegemonically Westernised higher education curricula can serve as a powerful catalyst for achieving educational, cultural, political, and socio-economic development goals (Kermoal & Gareau, 2019; Le Grange, 2016, p. 4; Mondain & Goudiaby, 2022; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018b, p. 18; Vanthuyne & Dussault, 2022), current knowledge paradigms in the academies of developing countries remain Western, and are, paradoxically, still largely considered the most desirable (Dousa & Ibekwe-SanJuan, 2014; Ibekwe-SanJuan & Durampart, 2018). Much of the present curriculum in universities largely reflects Western worldviews (Heleta, 2016; Tonda, 2012). This issue, among other goals, aims at creating a space to (re)imagine education as something that inspires reflection, critical engagement, action, and the capacity to become agents of change—particularly by exploring alternative perspectives alongside the canonical West (Mbembe, 2016, p. 33; Sauvé et al., 2007; Wilson, 2001) – without falling into the trap of tokenism.
During periods of Islamic as well as Western colonisation in Africa, certain religious organisations (Christian and Islamic) encouraged the communities to set up local schools based on dialects or on the Koran, which formed part of the region’s indigenous education system (Paré-Kaboré, 2013; UNESCO, 1982). Despite opposition from administration authorities, these organisations encouraged people to take charge of their own education. Nowadays, in major urban centers in the Global South, traditional schools are emerging that enable certain urban communities and ethnic groups to benefit from an education inspired by their customs and ancestral values (Mungala, 1982; Yameogo, 2021).
Rather than treating international organisations as homogeneous actors or their epistemic authority as a given, this issue examines how such authority has been historically constructed, legitimised, contested, and transformed. Bringing together different theoretical, historical, and decolonial perspectives, it explores the knowledge practices through which international organisations have shaped educational agendas, established particular understandings of education, and negotiated their authority across different political and institutional contexts.
Alexander W. Wiseman opens with an analysis of how scientization and standardisation produce epistemic authority. Maren Elfert explores the role of scientism in global educational governance, while Jenny Ozga asks whether growing inequalities and right-wing populism challenge the authority of international organisations as knowledge brokers. Joakim Landahl traces the historical negotiations behind the IEA’s early civic education study. From a decolonial perspective, Ana Werkstetter Caravaca examines the epistemic hierarchies embedded in the OECD’s comparative regime, while Leon Tikly explores their reproduction in the African Union’s education strategy for 2026–2035. Iveta Silova and Sandra Nabulega investigate how international digital literacy agendas contribute to extractive economies and planetary defuturing. Christian Ydesen addresses the contested legitimacy of international organisations and alternative futures for global education. Finally, Walter Fritsch examines UNESCO’s stakeholder consultations, showing how they can generate legitimacy for both the organisation and its participants.
The Editorial Team
References
Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009). The OECD and its influence in higher education: A critical revision. In R. Bassett & A. Maldonado-Maldonado (Eds.), International organizations and higher education policy: Thinking globally, acting locally? (pp. 82–98). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876664-12
Andreotti, V. D. O., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40.
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22168
Asea, W. B. (2022). Epistemic decoloniality of westernised higher education: A discourse on curriculum justice and knowledge integration at historically white universities in South Africa. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 21(4), 375–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14740222221104343
Bentele, J., & Rohstock, A. (2025). Von Kriegen, Krabben und Kybernetik: Umwelterziehungsdiskurse seit den 1970er Jahren. In A. Eis, C. Grabau, & D. Salomon (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Pädagogik 2024: Deglobalisierung (pp. 160–182). Beltz Juventa.
Boel, J. (2016). UNESCO’s fundamental education program, 1946–1958: Vision, actions and impact. In P. Duedahl (Ed.), A history of UNESCO: Global actions and impacts (pp. 153–167). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-58120-4_8
Bürgi, R. (2017). Die OECD und die Bildungsplanung der freien Welt: Denkstile und Netzwerke einer internationalen Bildungsexpertise. Verlag Barbara Budrich.
https://doi.org/10.3224/84740557
Castro Varela, M. D. M. (2020). Fundamental education and decolonization of the mind. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 3(7).
https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2020.7.10
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.
Dousa, T. M., & Ibekwe-SanJuan, F. (2014). Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs): The case of analytico-synthetic KOSs. In W. Babik (Ed.), Knowledge organization in the 21st century: Between historical patterns and future prospects (pp. 152–159). Ergon.
https://hal.science/hal-01066220
Giton, C. (2016). Weapons of mass distribution: UNESCO and the impact of books. In P. Duedahl (Ed.), A history of UNESCO: Global actions and impacts (pp. 49–72). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-58120-4_3
Goldstone, M. F. (1979). The Experimental World Literacy Programme and its assessment. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 9(1), 45–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792790090104
Heleta, S. (2016). Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and Eurocentrism in South Africa. Transformation in Higher Education, 1(1), Article a9.
https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1.9
Hof, B. (2024). Knowledge for free? Why two US American “mobile radioisotope training laboratories” embarked on a world tour in 1958. In D. Matasci & R. R. Coutaz (Eds.), Educational internationalism in the Cold War (pp. 89–104). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247814-8
Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., & Durampart, M. (2018). Le pluralisme épistémologique et méthodologique en recherche scientifique. Les Cahiers du numérique, 14(2), 11–29.
https://doi.org/10.3166/lcn.14.2.11-29
Jones, P. W. (1988). International policies for Third World education: UNESCO, literacy and development. Routledge.
Jones, P. W. (2007). World Bank financing of education: Lending, learning and development (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965931
Kermoal, N., & Gareau, P. (2019). Réflexions sur l’autochtonisation des universités, un cours à la fois. Cahiers franco-canadiens de l’Ouest, 31(1), 71–88.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1059126ar
Laval, C., & Weber, L. (Eds.). (2002). Le nouvel ordre éducatif mondial: OMC, Banque Mondiale, OCDE, Commission européenne. Nouveaux Regards/Syllepse.
Le Grange, L. (2016). Decolonising the university curriculum. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.20853/30-2-709
Leimgruber, M., & Schmelzer, M. (Eds.). (2017). The OECD and the international political economy since 1948. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60243-1
Lessard, C. (2021). Les organisations internationales et l’éducation dénationalisée d’un apprenant perpétuel et adaptable. Revista Educativa – Revista de Educação, 24(1), 1–37.
https://doi.org/10.18224/educ.v24i1.8649
Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2016). The changing organizational and global significance of the OECD’s education work. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 357–373). Wiley Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468005.ch19
Mateos, G., & Suárez-Díaz, E. (2020). Creating the need in Mexico: The IAEA’s technical assistance programs for less developed countries (1958–68). History and Technology, 36(3–4), 418–436.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2020.1864116
Mbembe, A. (2016). Decolonizing the university: New directions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022215618513
Merry, M. S., & van Melik, R. (2026). Can schools and libraries curb the functional illiteracy crisis? Insights from the Netherlands. Critical Studies in Education, 67(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2024.2418105
Molla, T. (2014). Knowledge aid as instrument of regulation: World Bank’s non-lending higher education support for Ethiopia. Comparative Education, 50(2), 229–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.807645
Mondain, N., & Goudiaby, J. A. (2022). Décoloniser les pédagogies universitaires au Canada et au Sénégal. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, 53(2), 156–176.
https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.5745
Mons, N. (2009). Effets théoriques et réels des politiques d’évaluation standardisée. Revue française de pédagogie, 169, 99–140.
https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.1531
Mons, N., & Pons, X. (2006). Les standards en éducation dans le monde francophone: Une analyse comparative. IRDP.
Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of global education policy. Wiley Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468005
Mungala, A. S. (1982). L’éducation traditionnelle en Afrique et ses valeurs fondamentales. Ethiopiques: revue socialiste de culture négro-africaine, 29, 51–71.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2018a). Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and decolonization. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429492204
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2018b). The dynamics of epistemological decolonisation in the 21st century: Towards epistemic freedom. The Strategic Review for Southern Africa, 40(1), 16–45.
https://doi.org/10.35293/srsa.v40i1.268
Paré-Kaboré, A. (2013). L’Éducation traditionnelle et la vie communautaire en Afrique: Repères et leçons d’expériences pour l’éducation au vivre-ensemble aujourd’hui. Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 48(1), 15–33.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1018399ar
Rohstock, A. (2020). Wie wir Bildung schätzen lernten: Wert und Preis von Bildung in der Spätmoderne – eine bildungshistorische Perspektive. In U. Binder & J. Drerup (Eds.), Der Preis der Bildung (pp. 41–70). transcript Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839455708-003
Sauvé, L., Berryman, T., & Brunelle, R. (2007). Three decades of international guidelines for environment-related education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 33–54.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842780.pdf
Schmelzer, M. (2016). The hegemony of growth: The OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316452035
Tikly, L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in low‐income countries. Comparative Education, 47(1), 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.541671
Tonda, J. (2012). L’impossible décolonisation des sciences sociales africaines. Mouvements, 72(4), 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.3917/mouv.072.0108
Tröhler, D. (2013). The OECD and Cold War culture: Thinking historically about PISA. In H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp. 141–161). Symposium Books.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (1976). The Experimental World Literacy Programme: A critical assessment. The UNESCO Press.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000016574
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1945). Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/constitution
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1947). Fundamental education: Common ground for all peoples.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000187221
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1965). Report of the Director-General on the World Congress of Ministers of Education on the Eradication of Illiteracy (Teheran).
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000213997
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1972). Promotion of international understanding and peace through school education (RMO.72/CONF.2/4(B)). Collective Consultation of Secretaries of National Commissions, UNESCO House, Paris, 11–23 September 1972.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000001529
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1977). Thinking ahead: UNESCO and the challenges of today and tomorrow.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000024762
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (1982). L’éducation et le développement endogène en Afrique: Évolution, problèmes et perspectives. Conférence des ministres de l’éducation et des ministres chargés de la planification économique des Etats membres d’Afrique, Harare, 28 juin–3 juillet.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000048890_fre
Vanthuyne, K., & Dussault, C. (2022). La décolonisation de l’enseignement universitaire à l’épreuve du colonialisme d’occupation. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques, 53(2), 67–91.
https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.5625
Wilson, C. (2001). [Review of the book Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples, by L. T. Smith]. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, 214–217.
https://msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj17/decolonizing-methodologies-research-and-indigenous-peoples.html
Yameogo, I. (2021). De l’éthique de l’éducation en Afrique: Sur les traces de Joseph Ki‑Zerbo. Éthique en éducation et en formation, (10), 94–107.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1076822ar
Ydesen, C. (Ed.). (2019). The OECD’s historical rise in education: The formation of a global governing complex. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33799-5
Recommended Citation
Editorial Team (2026). Knowing, governing, and measuring: The epistemic power of international organisations. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 9(24).
https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2026.24.0
Do you want to comment on this article? Please send your reply to editors@oneducation.net. Replies will be processed like invited contributions. This means they will be assessed according to standard criteria of quality, relevance, and civility. Please make sure to follow editorial policies and formatting guidelines.
