{"title":"借用更好的政策还是借用更好的政策?韩国和日本历史的经验教训","authors":"Luis Crouch , Deborah Spindelman","doi":"10.1016/j.ijedudev.2024.103161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this paper, we focus on two educational development paragons: Korea and Japan. We also present a framework for understanding policy borrowing. We then compare Korean and Japanese education policy borrowing strategies against our framework. We also contrast how this was done to the now-current policy lending approaches of two multilateral agencies, UNESCO and the World Bank, and two relatively new (at least in education) bilateral agencies, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Korea International Cooperation Agency. We conclude that the process of policy lending and borrowing today is, in many respects, much less productive than was historically the case when Korea and Japan borrowed so well, and that policy lending agencies and borrowing countries could learn a great deal from how Japan and Korea did it. We show that one likely reason Korea and Japan borrowed so well was the intensity with which they analyzed and then implemented or rejected what they saw, was that they saw education as perhaps the single most important factor in their development as nations. In our examination of educational development today, we argue, that centrality is largely missing, which may explain why policy borrowing processes comparatively weak.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48004,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Educational Development","volume":"111 ","pages":"Article 103161"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Borrowing policies better versus borrowing better policies? Lessons from the histories of Korea and Japan\",\"authors\":\"Luis Crouch , Deborah Spindelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijedudev.2024.103161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In this paper, we focus on two educational development paragons: Korea and Japan. We also present a framework for understanding policy borrowing. We then compare Korean and Japanese education policy borrowing strategies against our framework. We also contrast how this was done to the now-current policy lending approaches of two multilateral agencies, UNESCO and the World Bank, and two relatively new (at least in education) bilateral agencies, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Korea International Cooperation Agency. We conclude that the process of policy lending and borrowing today is, in many respects, much less productive than was historically the case when Korea and Japan borrowed so well, and that policy lending agencies and borrowing countries could learn a great deal from how Japan and Korea did it. We show that one likely reason Korea and Japan borrowed so well was the intensity with which they analyzed and then implemented or rejected what they saw, was that they saw education as perhaps the single most important factor in their development as nations. In our examination of educational development today, we argue, that centrality is largely missing, which may explain why policy borrowing processes comparatively weak.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Educational Development\",\"volume\":\"111 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Educational Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059324001883\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Educational Development","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059324001883","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在本文中,我们重点关注两个教育发展典范:韩国和日本。我们还提出了一个理解政策借鉴的框架。然后,我们将韩国和日本的教育政策借鉴战略与我们的框架进行比较。我们还对比了联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)和世界银行(World Bank)这两个多边机构以及日本国际协力事业团(Japan International Cooperation Agency)和韩国国际协力事业团(Korea International Cooperation Agency)这两个相对较新(至少在教育领域)的双边机构目前的政策借贷方法。我们的结论是,今天的政策借贷过程在许多方面远不如历史上韩国和日本借贷得那么好,政策借贷机构和借贷国可以从日本和韩国的做法中学到很多东西。我们表明,韩国和日本借贷如此成功的一个可能原因是,他们对所看到的东西进行了深入分析,然后加以实施或拒绝,因为他们认为教育可能是其国家发展中最重要的一个因素。我们认为,在我们对当今教育发展的研究中,这种中心地位在很大程度上缺失了,这或许可以解释为什么政策借鉴过程相对薄弱。
Borrowing policies better versus borrowing better policies? Lessons from the histories of Korea and Japan
In this paper, we focus on two educational development paragons: Korea and Japan. We also present a framework for understanding policy borrowing. We then compare Korean and Japanese education policy borrowing strategies against our framework. We also contrast how this was done to the now-current policy lending approaches of two multilateral agencies, UNESCO and the World Bank, and two relatively new (at least in education) bilateral agencies, the Japan International Cooperation Agency and the Korea International Cooperation Agency. We conclude that the process of policy lending and borrowing today is, in many respects, much less productive than was historically the case when Korea and Japan borrowed so well, and that policy lending agencies and borrowing countries could learn a great deal from how Japan and Korea did it. We show that one likely reason Korea and Japan borrowed so well was the intensity with which they analyzed and then implemented or rejected what they saw, was that they saw education as perhaps the single most important factor in their development as nations. In our examination of educational development today, we argue, that centrality is largely missing, which may explain why policy borrowing processes comparatively weak.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of the International Journal of Educational Development is to foster critical debate about the role that education plays in development. IJED seeks both to develop new theoretical insights into the education-development relationship and new understandings of the extent and nature of educational change in diverse settings. It stresses the importance of understanding the interplay of local, national, regional and global contexts and dynamics in shaping education and development. Orthodox notions of development as being about growth, industrialisation or poverty reduction are increasingly questioned. There are competing accounts that stress the human dimensions of development.