This aspect strengthened existing budget monitoring efforts by adding a political analysis of the power dynamics/control of international institutions (and their neoliberal approach to development) over national governments. The fundamental questions were: why has the IMF got this type of influence on national development needs and how can it continue to be allowed to have such a detrimental impact on the lives of millions of children who are denied their right to quality education?

Our research found that how much countries can spend on education and wages is partly determined by the national macroeconomic framework, which includes monetary (working with the supply and availability of money to meet inflation targets) and fiscal (fiscal deficit, public expenditure rates, including the wage bill, and taxation) policy targets. Overall, the pressure to either decrease or maintain inflation rates and fiscal deficits to low single-digits influences efforts to generate national revenue, the rate of employment and growth, all of which determined the size of the national budget. What governments could then actually spend and on what sector is also influenced by the IMF because of the belief that public spending can be inflationary and lead to unsustainable budget deficits, and thus macroeconomic instability. Unfortunately, decisions on social sector investment are often made well after the macroeconomic targets are set, leaving education and health care to scramble for resources. The impact of macro policies on educational outcomes, and the rights of citizens is seldom considered despite evidence showing that IMF policies have adversely affected poverty, public spending, employment, and growth.

In 2007, we sharpened our research and advocacy in response to the IMF’s claims of making progress on alleviating the impact of macroeconomic conditionalities on education. Research focusing specifically on the impact of IMF-imposed wage ceilings (through which all public sector workers including teachers and health workers are hired) was undertaken in Malawi, Mozambique and Sierra Leone. Findings from Confronting the Contradictions echoed the 2005 report, showing that the policy which places ceilings on wage bills continued to constrain spending on teachers, primarily because they make up the largest share of expenditure on public sector workers given the sheer number needed to staff schools. Faced with increasing enrolment in schools and fewer resources (or resources not going to scale) governments were pursuing the more ‘cost efficient’ solution of hiring under qualified or untrained teachers. Lacking a certificate of diploma, these teachers could be paid much less. However, missing from this policy was the consideration of the impact these under prepared teachers would have on children’s learning and thus their educational outcomes. We were also able to show that in other contexts blocks on teacher recruitment led to very high class sizes (of 100 to 1 – meaning no children could learn).

The IMF subsequently (in October 2007) reversed its policies on wage ceilings. Indeed, the 2009 report by the Global Campaign on Education (GCE), Education on the Brink, confirms that there are only 3 countries with a cap on wage bills in IMF agreements. However, the overall policies of low inflation and fiscal deficit continue to influence the size of the wage bill. Even without a formal conditionality on wage bills, in order to maintain macroeconomic stability governments themselves are placing low ceilings on wage bills. The result is the same as before: fewer resources for education, a growing pupil teacher ratio (PTR) of over 100:1 in some countries and hiring of under qualified teachers. All of these have serious implications for the quality of education children receive in school.

In 2009 ActionAid is partnering with Education International and the Global Campaign for Education to build the capacity of Teachers Unions and education coalitions on education finance issues. The Toolkit on Education Financing offers information and practical tools on education financing ranging from monitoring budgets at the school and community level to tracking the impact of IMF conditionalities on the education budget, and specifically teachers.  The aim is to shift our focus to enabling national campaigners in each country to hold their Ministry of Finance to account for the policies they agree with the IMF – and to help campaigners make the case for more investment in education as a sound medium and long term economic policy.

We are also exploring how alternative macroeconomic policies such as those advocated by ‘feminist economists’ can offer the opportunity to increase spending on education. It is not just about striking the right balance between macroeconomic stability and social sectors. Rather, it requires redefining what we mean by stability and effectiveness. Under this perspective, the soundness of economic policies would not be based on market criteria, per se, but in terms of whether they ultimately succeed in bringing societies accessing their rights to quality education and health care, and achieving social justice.  From a human rights perspective, by insisting on overly restrictive macroeconomic policies and capping public expenditure (either directly or indirectly), the IMF is constraining the ability of the state to provide more of the resources required to fulfill fundamental rights. These conditionalities, then, may also be seen as a breach of human rights obligations as governments are committed to progressively realize education (and other rights) to the maximum of their abilities.

It is therefore essential to take a human rights and feminist perspective to education financing, and apply appropriate tools to monitor budgets and advocate for increased resources for education, and especially for groups whose rights continued to be denied, such as girls, ethnic minorities and the disabled. Among other topics, the Right to Education Project (a joint initiative of ActionAid, GCE and Amnesty International) is currently carrying out research on education budget/financing and the development of right to education indicators. These efforts are based on a human rights framework whereby Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination, Empowerment and Law are the core principles. They view the essential requirements of education through the 4-A framework for state obligations (Accessibility, Availability, Adaptability and Acceptability).

Looking at education as a right means assessing the obligations of states and verifying what the constitution, law and policies say about the level of financing and for what purpose and end goal. In this light, budget analysis can help to monitor if the state is allocating funds in a way that appropriately matches its obligations: for example, is it allocating funds for making education accessible not only economically (free from fees or costs) but also administratively and in a non-discriminatory manner (for citizens and immigrants alike; for girls and boys alike)? It also presents the opportunity to monitor and document possible violations (a government’s ‘inappropriate’ expenditure can actually be one of the causes of violations of the right to education). A rights-based approach to education and budget analysis also means that how the state invests its money is as important as what it spends it on. It allows assessing, measuring and monitoring education budgets/financing efforts by using rights-based indicators specifically designed for tracking the fulfillment of the right to education. For example, reviewing budgets in the light of an emphasis on the quality of education and not simply on access to education; fully and broadly questioning the expenditure allocated to teachers’ salaries, etc. This also includes looking at how well the state consults with beneficiaries, civil society, teachers, communities and noting if there are mechanisms in place to monitor the budget (by independent bodies).