With this project, I investigate the continuities and discontinuities of educonomic philosophies in contemporary public policy. I conceptualize educonomic philosophies as ideas that enact education as an instrument for the economy. Such ideas have had a huge impact on education policy since the 1960’s, with the educonomic philosophy of human capital theory as the dominant example (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 2001; Madsen, 2022). Meanwhile, as growth-oriented economics are becoming controversial and new economic thinking is developing (Fioramonti, 2021), I wonder if new educonomic philosophies emerge. To this end, the project explores the following research question: How does new economic thinking affect educonomic philosophies in public policy? 

The project understands philosophies as ideas that materialize in practices. In policymaking, philosophies can be studied in both textual practices of policy formulation and calculative practices of measurement, simulation, and budgeting. The project compares such practices across Denmark and New Zealand, representing contexts of mainstream and new economic thinking respectively, as well as the OECD (which previously promoted human capital theory and now promotes new economic thinking), to study how educonomic philosophies change with new economic thinking.

Background: New economic thinking

Economic thinking and the necessity of economic growth have dominated policymaking for a century (Fourcade, 2009; Grek, 2024). However, recently a movement has emerged, promoting ideas labelled as ‘beyond GDP’ or ‘wellbeing economy’ that see the improvement of wellbeing, happiness, or quality of life as the key economic objective rather than increasing GDP (Mason & Büchs, 2023; Stiglitz, Fitoussi, & Durand, 2019). Countries, transnational organizations, and think tanks are all involved in this movement (Birkjær, Gamerdinger, & El-Abd, 2021). The proposed UN Pact for the Future (United Nations, 2024) includes a recommendation that all member states implement wellbeing indicators to supplement and potentially replace GDP as the ultimate indicator of a country’s success. However, a preliminary examination shows that most of the indicators that have been introduced are not new. For example, the OECD has deployed PISA scores in math and share of students with low skills as indicators in their “How’s life?”-reports (OECD, 2024). Similarly, New Zealand has included highest educational level of citizens and educational performance of students as indicators in their Living Standards Framework (New Zealand Government, 2021). Such preliminary findings either indicate that the new economic thinking has not (yet) spilled over into educonomic philosophies, or that new economic thinking merely deploys a new iteration of human capital theory as its educonomic philosophy.

State of the art: Educonomic philosophies in public policy

Educonomic philosophies have dominated education policy since the beginning of the Cold War, with the development of human capital theory by economists (Becker, 1962, 1976; Schultz, 1959, 1963) and its promotion by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its predecessor OEEC (Brøgger & Ydesen, 2025). Human capital theory philosophizes skills and knowledge as a form of capital and thus education as an investment in skills that can be exchanged for economic revenues, for example in the labor market (Schultz, 1961). Meanwhile, the philosophical underpinnings of human capital theory have shifted over time (Henry et al., 2001): from a Keynesian macro-economic perspective emphasizing the educational level of the entire population, such as the mathematics and natural sciences skills taught in schools, during the 1960s and 1970s (Bürgi, 2016), to a micro-economic perspective which gained prominence in the 1980s, emphasizing individual investments by rational human beings in a free educational market, in skills and competencies that can be exchanged for salaries and success in the labor market (Henry et al., 2001), and back to macro-perspectives as states sought to guide the free choices of rational human beings through incentive policies in the 2000s (Madsen, 2023). In Denmark, we now see a return to the Keynesian approach (Madsen, 2022), where education policy actively regulates the supply of skilled labor both in terms of sub-national geography (the Danish Government, 2021) and educational subjects and professions (the Danish Government, 2023). While education policy research has thus confirmed the influence of human capital theory on education policy, this research has rarely unpacked the ideational shifts within the theory, with Henry et al. (2001) an exception. Education policy research has furthermore not studied wellbeing economies and the educonomic philosophies embedded in them, despite broader attention to the wellbeing or quality of life movement (Francesconi et al., 2023; Steiner-Khamsi, 2025).

Human capital theory’s influence on education policy has mostly been studied by identifying statements about human capital theory and related concepts in policy texts and interviews with key actors. Such studies unpack philosophies embedded in policy discourse. However, as demonstrated by policy research following the material turn (for example, Asdal, 2015; Brøgger & Madsen, 2022) and my own previous research, there are also philosophies embedded in policy materiality such as indicators, economic models, and reform budgets (Madsen, 2021, 2022, 2024). For example, the graduate unemployment indicator in Danish higher education is permeated by, and materializes, an idea of education as a supplier of graduates that should match demand within sub-sections of the labor market (Madsen, 2022), and the Danish economic model DREAM is permeated by a philosophy of labor supply as a requirement for the future of the welfare state (Henriksen, 2013), leading to education policies that reduce the number of years spent in education. The emphasis on the political nature of calculative practices, such as cost-benefit analyses of policy proposals, is shared by public administration research (Fioramonti, 2021; Hertin, Jacob, Pesch, & Pacchi, 2009).

Theory and concepts: Philosophies and practices

In this study, philosophies are theorized as ideas that materialize in, and are reproduced through, practices (Law, 2012; Mol, 1999, 2002). From this perspective, philosophies are dynamic and material, and can be mapped and analyzed by examining practices. I conceptualize educonomic philosophies as ideas that enact education as an instrument for the economy. Within policymaking, such ideas materialize in textual practices of policy formulation and argumentation (Bacchi, 2009), as well as calculative practices (Piattoeva & Boden, 2020), for example economic models simulating the impact of a policy, budgets displaying the costs and revenues of a policy, and indicators used to motivate or monitor and evaluate a policy. In both textual and calculative practices, education and economy are related to each other in particular ways that make up materialized educonomic philosophies. However, as suggested by Pollitt’s distinction between discursive and operational convergence/divergence (Pollitt, 2007), textual practices may change while calculative practices remain unchanged, thereby suggesting a reproduction of educonomic philosophies. It is therefore important to study both.

Methodology: Comparison of textual and calculative practices

The project encompasses two sub-projects and a cross-cutting analysis. Sub-project 1 compares educonomic philosophies in education policy in Denmark and New Zealand. Sub-project 2 compares educonomic philosophies in the OECD then and now. Both sub-projects deploy a praxiographic analysis (Bueger & Gadinger, 2018; Mol, 2002), examining textual as well as calculative practices through document analysis. Textual practices are analyzed by coding policy proposals, whereas calculative practices are analyzed by coding method descriptions, data descriptions, and variable descriptions, as well as tables and graphs. Both sets of materials are coded thematically according to relationships between education and economy, through terms defined in a protocol. Based on these codings, one or more educonomic philosophies are formulated for each case. The cross-cutting analysis builds on these analyses of individual cases by identifying cross-cutting continuities and changes in educonomic philosophies.

Sub-project 1 (PhD project): Denmark and New Zealand

In terms of economic thinking, Denmark represents a national case of GDP-focused policymaking, currently rendering education policy a matter of labor supply (Laursen & Madsen, 2025; Madsen, 2022). In turn, New Zealand represents a frontrunner case of ‘beyond GDP’ policy assessment through its implementation of the Living Standards Framework in 2011 (New Zealand Government, 2021) and the wellbeing budget in 2019 (Gordon, 2024; Mintrom, 2019). Denmark and New Zealand thus represent two extremes in educonomic philosophies, at least at the rhetorical level. Denmark and New Zealand both rely strongly on economic expertise in policymaking (Campbell & Pedersen, 2014; Christensen, 2013; Henriksen, 2013). While differing in histories, educational spending, and GDP, they are comparable in population size, political values, and performance in PISA, and thus comparable societies.

Sub-project 1 examines two policy cases per country, each studied through a tracking-strategy of following the policy proposal (Marcus, 1995; Shore & Wright, 1997; Shore et al., 2011), in which the researcher collects documents until the entire policymaking process is mapped for each policy case (approximately 10-15 documents per policy case; in total 40-60). The empirical material includes documents describing policy proposals and calculative technologies (for example, procedural documents, indicator frameworks, white papers, policy proposals, communications). The collection of documents includes two one-week field visits to New Zealand to meet with researchers and government officials and, if relevant, visit national archives.

Sub-project 1 is a PhD project conducted by a PhD student recruited for the project through open competition. The PhD student should have a master’s degree in education science, political science, sociology, philosophy, intellectual history, or similar, and have training in document analysis. The project offers PhD training in the public policy of education with an emphasis on economic ideas that have previously received insufficient attention in education policy research. Sub-project 1 is supervised by the PI, who is experienced in comparative studies, and co-supervised by an experienced supervisor, selected by the PhD by the beginning of the project. The PhD will visit Tampere University (Professor Nelli Piattoeva, expert in policy analysis and STS) for 3-5 months.

Sub-project 2 (PI project): OECD then and now

OECD has since the early days of the Cold War transformed into a key actor promoting education as an instrument for economic policy (Bernotaite & Karseth, 2024; Bürgi & Tröhler, 2018; Gorur, 2014; Grek, 2020) and is now promoting wellbeing economy frameworks and influencing national frameworks such as the one adopted by New Zealand (Cook, Kaji, & Davíðsdóttir, 2023; Francesconi et al., 2023). Sub-project 2 examines changes in educonomic philosophies by comparing the Better Life Index framework (OECD, 2013, 2024) with historical analyses of OECD policy. The empirical material includes approximately 10 documents describing the Better Life Index (for example, indicator frameworks, white papers, reports, communications).

Sub-project 2 is conducted by PI, Associate Professor in Education Studies Miriam Madsen, who is an experienced STS researcher studying the impact of economic thinking and calculative instruments on educational thinking, and educated in education, public administration, and sociology. She will be supported by a student assistant. The PI has extensive experience in comparative and ethnographic research as well as management. The project will add PhD supervision and project management experience to her profile. The PI will visit Deakin University (Professor Radhika Gorur) for 1 month.

Cross-cutting analysis: The cross-cutting analysis investigates similarities and differences in educonomic philosophies across the sub-projects and relates the findings to the contexts of mainstream and wellbeing economy. It will be conducted by the PI and PhD in collaboration.

Project outputs: A research seminar, presentations at 3 conferences, 5 journal articles (3 case studies, 1 cross-cutting analysis, 1 thematic article), a special issue, and a PhD dissertation. The project team will furthermore engage in network meetings with the wellbeing economy movement, focusing on Denmark (the Wellbeing Economy Lab (WELA) and the Wellbeing Alliance (WEAll)) and the Nordic context (the Nordic Counsil of Ministers), to ensure social impact.

Project plan

The project duration is 3.5 years, from April 1, 2026, to September 30, 2029. 

Advisory board

The project’s advisory board includes Professor Radhika Gorur, Deakin University, with expertise in STS and the OECD; Professor Emeritus Cris Shore, Goldsmiths, University of London, with expertise in policy anthropology and New Zealand; and Associate Professor Lasse Folke Henriksen, Copenhagen Business School, with expertise in economic modelling in Denmark. The advisory board will meet twice.

Risks and feasibility

The main risk factor is gaining access to documents. The project will work with several complementary strategies: search for publicly accessible documents, apply for access to all relevant documents, and collaborate with ministries and the OECD to gain access. The project can, if necessary, be carried out solely using publicly available documents.