This presentation focuses on the creation of new spaces of policy (new actors and places) regarding new philanthropy in global education governance. To this end, it takes the Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD) as an example of the rising of new transnational policy networks in global education governance. Created by the OECD in 2012, netFWD gathers some of the world's most important private philanthropy for development providers “with policymakers and OECD experts to address the world's most pressing development challenges” (netFWD, 2021). Aiming to present some light on an understudied empiric object, the netFWD, the presentation draws on the literature of education governance, policy networks and new philanthropy.

In the last decades, education governance became an interactive, multiscale, and multi-actor space, shaped by and through knowledge circulation (Lawn & Lingard, 2002). Global policy actors, such as UNESCO, World Bank, UN, EU, FMI, OECD and other non-state actors, such as non-governmental organisations, think tanks, private and philanthropic foundations turned key players in education policy, looking after policy advocacy, mobilizing ideas, data and technical assistance as sources of legitimacy and influence (soft power) in education policy (Verger, 2016). As consequence, the new interdependencies between national public authorities, supranational organisations, and other non-state actors result “in complex global networks that are redistributing power and influence across political spaces in new ways reshaping the forms of evidence, expertise and influence that shape education policies” (Savage et al. 2021, p. 311-312).

Private foundations and philanthropic organizations have grown their visibility and influence in these networks, promoting new cognitive and social operations for the education systems. Furthermore, moving from a 'charity for development' to a 'new philanthropy' or 'philanthropy 3.0' (Ball & Olmedo, 2011), private foundations became more business-aligned and concerned with measurable impacts of its action, more committed to capacity building, training and skills development, consulting, and entrepreneurial innovation, adopting a hands-on approach (see, e.g., Adhikary, 2019; Ball 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2011; Hogan, Sellar & Lingard, 2015; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Thompson, Savage & Lingard, 2016). This reconfiguration of philanthropy calls for more data and knowledge-based interventions, which, in its turn, assures their legitimacy to influence the public sphere, promoting new cognitive operations in global education governance. Therefore, within these new policy networks, private foundations gain access to expertise, knowledge, and influence, allowing them to act as important nodes in these policy networks (Ball, 2008; Ball & Olmedo, 2011; Exley, 2014),

In this theoretical framework, my interest is to describe netFWD as an emergent transnational network of global policy actors, that seeks to bring together private foundations, public authorities, and the OECD, pursuing new philanthropy reasoning for education in global education governance. The paper focus on netFWD intermediary agency (Nay & Smith, 2002; Viseu & Carvalho, 2021) regarding its: a) social dimension, mapping its collective and individual actors, to show how this transnational network brings together philanthropist, policymakers, and OECD experts; b) cognitive dimension, to illustrate how, within this network, expert knowledge on new philanthropy in education is produced and disseminated.

The exploratory study was focused on netFWD’ actors and their interdependencies, its activities (who and how), to describe netFWD social dimension; netFWD objectives and their self-justification (why), to understand netFWD cognitive dimension. The research design was inspired by recent policy studies in education that resort to network ethnography (see, for instance, Hogan, 2016; Baek et al., 2018; Ball, 2016; Olmedo et al., 2013; Avelar & Ball, 2019), using document analysis, social network analysis and an interview. Through document analysis, based on internet searches on the OECD and netFWD websites, I’ve gathered a collection of reports, press clipping and flyers. This procedure allowed to map the collective actors engaged in netFWD activities and, using social network analysis (SNA) (Scott, 2000) to create a sociogram for the visualization of the network and UCINET 6.0 software (idem) to calculate the organizations’ centrality degree. To understand netFWD actors’ interdependencies and what holds them, as well as to go deep in comprehending netFWD reasons to act, I interviewed a netFWD manager. The interview allowed to gather new information and to get an inside picture about netFWD, providing data to explain actors’ role and engagement in netFWD, as well as its agenda for philanthropy and education.

The preliminary data analyses point to the description of netFWD as a global policy actor, on its intertwined social and cognitive dimensions. Regarding its social dimension, OECD plays a central role within the network, followed by some of the world's most important private philanthropy for development providers that have a long-established presence in the global education scenario. OECD centrality stems from by the displaying of a certain modus operandi adopted by OECD in global governance, acting as a place of production of knowledge and social order. Regarding the cognitive dimension, netFWD is building an education agenda, focused on access to schooling, skills development and evaluation of learning outcomes based on standardised data.

Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political studies, 56(4), 747-765. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00722.x. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Policy Press. Carvalho L. M. (2020). Revisiting the Fabrications of PISA. In G. Fan, & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Studies (pp. 259-273). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8343-4_14. Exley, S. (2014). Think tanks and policy networks in English education. In M. Hill (Ed.), Studying public policy: An international approach (pp. 179-190). Policy Press. Grek, S. (2014). OECD as a site of coproduction: European education governance and the new politics of ‘policy mobilization’. Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 266-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.862503. Hogan, A. (2016). Network ethnography and the cyberflâneur: Evolving policy sociology in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(3), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1053159. Lawn, M., & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European Policy Space in Educational Governance: The Role of Transnational Policy Actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2002.1.2.6. Nay, O. & Smith, A. (2002). Les intermédiaries en politique: Mediation et jeux d’instituitions. In O. Nay & A. Smith (Dir.), Le gouvernement du compromise: Courtiers et generalistes dans l’action politique (pp. 1-21). Economica. netFWD (2021). Who we are. Network of Foundations Working for Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/development/networks/ . Accessed July, 13 2021. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self‐evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930902733121. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44, 652-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x. Savage, G., Gerrard, J., Gale T., & Molla, T. (2021). The politics of critical policy sociology: mobilities, moorings and elite networks. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 306-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1878467. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013a). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 710-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.779791. Thompson, G., Savage, G. C., & Lingard, B. (2016). Introduction: Think tanks, edu-businesses and education policy: Issues of evidence, expertise and influence. Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 1-13. doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0195-y. Verger, A. (2016). Global Policy Actors- Introduction. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.). Handbook of global education policy (pp. 341 – 317). John Wiley & Sons. Viseu, S., & Carvalho, L. M. (2021). Policy Networks, Philanthropy, and Education Governance in Portugal: The Raise of Intermediary Actors. Foro de Educación, 19(1), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.818.