This paper introduces the notion of ‘layers of recontextualisation’ to conceptualise complexities in the reshaping of the Global Inclusive Education Policy (GIEP), advocated and promulgated globally by UNESCO, according to contextual dynamics in Pakistan.  GIEP concerns the 'ensemble' (Ball, 1993: p.14) of educational policies combating discrimination which are grounded in the Right to Education (United Nations, 1989).  The term 'global' denotes the extent of these policies through endorsement by member states of the United Nations.  We defined Inclusive Education (IE), as per UNESCO's (2019a) perspective on non-discrimination in education, as Education for All (EfA).  Additionally, we assume an inherent link between social and educational inclusion (Felder, 2018).  We present key findings that address our primary research question exploring the macro-level forces shaping GIEP in Pakistan following ratification by the Federal Government.

Our study established GIEP as situated in a tension between the structural-institutional image of states and their interpretative-plural practices.  We demonstrate this using a 'collaborative' education reform initiative in Pakistan, involving the Government of Punjab and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID), called the Punjab Education Roadmap (PER), and two associated media packages.  Through our analysis of in-depth interviews with elite policy actors we reveal the complex dynamics and disparate political agendas driving this reform effort.

While the PER set out to address Pakistan's educational challenges by improving school enrolments and reinforcing system accountability, our analysis exposes its entanglement in domestic and bilateral sociopolitical dimensions, including the War on Terror, aid accountability mechanisms, and local political intricacies rooted in political kinship, ultimately diluting the envisaged improvements.  Our conclusion posits that GIEP is ensnared in three critical yet often overlooked layers: multilevel policy structures founded on societal divisions; patronage-based kinship networks; and the positioning of states within the international political economy.

Contrary to prevalent discourses framing educational exclusion as a mere 'policy-implementation gap,' we advocate for a nuanced understanding that considers the contextual complexities inherent in these layers of recontextualisation.  By emphasising the entanglement of education policy within these layers, our analysis provides an alternative perspective to often oversimplified narratives of educational exclusion.  Instead, we direct attention to the broader sociopolitical dynamics shaping state practices mediating education policy.  In doing so, we contribute to a more comprehensive discourse on education exclusion, highlighting the multifaceted challenges associated with state-centric approaches in implementing global inclusive education policies.  We stress the importance of a deeper understanding of the broader socio-political factors at play, challenging the perception of education policy as a purely 'technical' issue.  Instead, we characterise the reshaping of GIEP in Pakistan as reflective of the politics of struggle, informality, and conflict in wider society, the outcome of which will unlikely reproduce the text of policy.

This paper has relevance for scholars interested in policy mobilities and the politics of education policy and governance in countries beyond the global North.  It also offers insights of broader relevance to scholars studying education policies, especially those aligned with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Four (SDG4) in countries in receipt of ‘ Official Development Assistance’ (ODA) from ‘donor’ nations.

The findings presented in this study are derived from in-depth interviews conducted with 14 elite policy actors representing multilateral and bilateral organisations, the Government of Pakistan, and external experts. Recognising the tendency to overlook elites in social science research on inequality, particularly in non-Western contexts, bar Political Settlements literature (Hickey & Hossain, 2019; Khan, 2010; Khan, 2018; Kelsall et al., 2022) which underscores the significance of domestic elites in reshaping policy, we followed a methodological approach sensitive to the role of domestic and international elites in mediating policy. Elites within or closely associated with the education policy domain were considered for interviews due to their potential to provide valuable insights into the political phenomena surrounding education policy (Savage & Willams, 2008). Interviewees were identified as elite based on their influence within or specialized knowledge of the education policy domain. We employed a combination of purposive sampling using a seed of personal contacts and process tracing (Tansey, 2007) to locate interviewees. Process tracing aided in reconstructing interviewees' experiences and interpretations related to the politics surrounding the Punjab Education Roadmap (PER), Alif Ailaan, and Zara Sochiye. To protect the identity of interviewees, pseudonyms were assigned, and identifying features were removed from quotes. The data analysis employed Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2021), emphasises the researcher's positionality as a tool for analysis rather than an element to be erased through anti-bias procedures (Varpio et al., 2017). This approach was particularly relevant, given the main authors seventeen years of residency in Pakistan, in moving beyond conventional explanations of educational exclusion as a mere 'policy-implementation gap'. Themes were generated through RTA based on their potential to offer unconventional or interesting results, exploring the intricacies and conflicts within the education policy domain (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2017). The study identified two overarching themes through this analysis: political agendas and state agency, both of which emerged as significant forces shaping the Global Inclusive Education Policy (GIEP) in Pakistan, as exemplified by the Punjab Education Roadmap and its associated media campaigns.

When the state is viewed as a site of struggle there is emphasis on one-upmanship and competition between organisations and high-level political actors (Lund, 2006; Migdal, 2001), drawing policy scholarship toward studying policy resilience. What is noteworthy about the PER, Alif Ailaan and Zara Sochiye is the way in which education provided a stage across which disparate political agendas converged. Not necessarily because of belief in the values imbued in EfA but because it was viewed as a benign space through which political agendas could be worked. Kingdon’s (2003) ‘policy window’ explains why the PER and associated media packages generated traction across domestic and international political actors but infers that support for EfA was based on political solidarity. Yet the political agendas lying behind the PER and attached media campaigns mark EfA as a common policy goal but founded instead on states’ self-interest than political solidarity. While global education policy 'orthodoxies' provide a framework to which national policies are attached, our findings suggest these policies undergo adaptation based on geopolitical and domestic contextual dynamics. Global education policy orthodoxies, like GIEP become convergence points for disparate political agendas. In Pakistan, GIEP is entangled in a complex web of layers, challenging the notion of neat demarcations between policy spheres. The tension between the structural-institutional image of the state and interpretative-plural practices complicates GIEP in Pakistan, leading to 'spill-over' effects across multiple political agendas. Peeling back the structural-institutional image reveals critical dynamics shaping education policy, emphasising three often overlooked layers: multi-level policy structures, patronage systems, and the state's position within the international political economy. Further exploration of these layers is crucial for moving beyond the 'policy-implementation gap,' deepening our understanding of the reshaping of education policy in Pakistan and beyond.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B.D. (2015). The Politics of Information: Problem Definition and the Course of Public Policy in America. University of Chicago Press Best, J. (2017). The rise of measurement-driven governance: The case of international development. Global Governance, 23, 163-181. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Goldsmith, A. A. (2005). Institutional dualism and international development: A revisionist interpretation of good governance. Administration & Society, 37(2), 199-224. Broschek, J. (2021). Boundary control and education policy in federal systems: explaining sub-federal resilience in Canada and Germany. Comparative Education, 57(4), 452-473. Cerny, P. (2001). From "iron triangles" to "golden pentangles"? Globalizing the policy process. Global Governance, 7(4), 397-410. Felder, F. (2018). The value of inclusion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 54-70. Gazdar, H., Masood, S. Q., & Naqvi, H. (2013). Bottom up or top down? Exclusion and citizenship in Pakistan. International Household Survey Network. Collection for Social Science Network. Retrieved online from: www.researchcollective.org Gewirtz, S., Maguire, M., Neumann, E., & Towers, E. (2019). What’s wrong with ‘deliverology’? Performance measurement, accountability and quality improvement in English secondary education. Journal of Education Policy, 36(4), 504-529. Gupta, A. (1995). Blurred boundaries: the discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state. American Ethnologist, 22(2), 375-402. Hickey, S. (2012). Turning governance thinking upside-down? Insights from ‘the politics of what works’. Third World Quarterly, 33(7), 1231-1247. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan: A hard country. Public Affairs. Low, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The political inheritance of Pakistan. Springer. Lund, C. (2006). Twilight institutions: public authority and local politics in Africa. Development and Change, 37(4), 685-705. Lyon, S. M. (2019). Political kinship in Pakistan: Descent, marriage, and government stability. Lexington Books. Migdal, J. S. (2001). State in society: Studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another. Cambridge University Press. Ozga, J. (2021). Problematising policy: The development of (critical) policy sociology. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 290-305. Savage, M., & Williams, K. (2008). Elites: remembered in capitalism and forgotten by social sciences. The Sociological Review, 56(1) 1-24. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State. Yale University Press. Tansey, O. (2007). Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling. Political Science & Politics, 40(4), 765-772.