This article introduces the term “neoprivatisation” in the literature of economics of education.  It exposes the consequence of privatisation in education to public school by taking a community as a case and studying in a mixed-method paradigm.  The study uncovers that public schools suffer from lesser preference by parents, and underuse or misuse of public expenditure, so that, like private schools, have added the facilities of English medium, extra-class, preparing students for test by charging fees, as well as advertising to attract more students. As a result, the narrow focus to achievement score rather than developing qualities in students as expected by curriculum has threatened the presumption of ‘quality education’; and the commodification and commercialisation of education along with diminishing professional accountability of teacher victimise students with the undue burden of irrational extra-classes and fees.  Therefore, the added facilities rouse for discriminating students in access to education and larceny of ‘right to free education’.  These undesirable phenomena are the consequences of privatisation in education, which has been thus conceptualized as “neoprivatisation”.

No abstract

This article discusses how the insured persons learn to be responsible for managing the risk via insurance and the role of agents in this process. So that, a dozen of purposively selected persons were interviewed with unstructured and open-ended questions. Interpretation of so generated qualitative information suggests that people rarely appreciate insurance, and agents are as dominant as the product in buying decisions. Employing informal education to make citizens responsible for their risk management is almost ineffective. The role of agents in enabling customers as prudent risk managers by raising their awareness about different insurance products is observed as a conflict of interests between the state and the agent. In a liberal society, persuading people by a profit-making company is dominant than the state-delivered awareness program. These findings not only question the role of the insurance agent, a human resource for facilitating people to learn about insurance, as commission-based workers instead of professional but also problematize the legitimacy of transferring the state's responsibility of educating citizens to the private companies.

No abstract

No abstract