(iPoster) Global Education Policy in Germany: SDG 4.7 and the OECD PISA Innovative Domain

• In Event: Poster Sessions: Candidates and Elections; Education Politics and Policy; & Creating Spaces for Civic Engagement
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Education Politics and Policy

Abstract

The post–Cold War order—characterized by liberal-democratic ideals, accelerated globalization, and capitalist dominance—“is beginning to be ruptured” by geopolitical conflict, nationalism, and rising economic protectionism (Rizvi et al., 2022, p. 7). In Germany, this is reflected in the 2025 federal election, when the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), a right-wing extremist party, secured one-fifth of the vote. It is particularly concerning that the AfD is gaining disproportionate support from younger voters (Pfeifer, 2024), raising questions for political education: how are schools fostering democratic resilience - or failing to, and how could political education be improved to safeguard democracy?
One attempt to address this is the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4.7. It entails that by 2030 “all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”
This ideal is contrasted with a bleak reality: goals optimistically adopted by most member states in 2015 are currently significantly lagging, with only 17 percent on track, showing marginal progress, stagnation, or even regression, making SDG 4 and all other SDGs “failures” (Klees, 2024; see also Walter et al., 2023). Research on SDG 4.7 implementation in Germany specifically has so far relied on quantitative document analysis and reports a “medium to low overall quality of integration” (Holst et al., 2024).
This project examines why SDG 4.7 integration in Germany occurred where it did—and why it did not go further. It also considers whether PISA can influence national policy through its innovative domain: SDG 4.7 was operationalized as “global competence” in the 2018 cycle, which could have shaped national agendas, yet did not substantially advance implementation. This leads to the overarching research question: To what extent and why do global education policies—specifically the UN’s SDG 4.7 and the OECD PISA innovative domain—diffuse at the national level in Germany?
Methodologically, this project draws on a critical realist framework, using a qualitative micro-level design based on 25 semi-structured elite interviews with policymakers from national and Länder education committees and the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK). Verbatim transcripts are analyzed using template analysis (Brooks et al., 2015; King & Brooks, 2017).
This question ties into wider literature debates on policy diffusion, perceptions of legitimacy, and the workings of international institutions such as PISA on the national level.
The study conceptualizes diffusion under conditions where neither financial incentives nor binding regulation are available, and influence is exercised primarily through soft governance. By using elite interviews, the study moves beyond binary measures of “adoption” to examine how diffusion depends on actors’ perceptions of policy attributes that remain underexplored in diffusion research (Gilardi, Shipan, & Wüest, 2021; Gilardi & Wasserfallen, 2019; Mallison, 2020). It extends work on PISA by investigating the innovative domain, which—despite substantial investment—remains comparatively understudied (Barbot & Kaufman, 2025).
Lastly, this project speaks to contrasting assessments of international organizations’ influence on national education policy. On one side, PISA is frequently portrayed as a powerful driver of reform, with Germany’s ‘PISA shock’ often cited as emblematic (Sjøberg, 2019, p. 35; see also Niemann, Martens, & Teltemann, 2017; Niemann & Martens, 2018; Waldow & Steiner-Khamsi, 2019). On the other, scholarship emphasizes national agency and argues that international assessments and agendas are often mobilized strategically to legitimize or delegitimize domestic policy choices, sometimes even opposing PISA advice (Fischman et al., 2017; David & Entorf, 2019; Kingdon, 1984; Breakspear, 2014; Niemann, 2015).
Preliminary analysis indicates that the diffusion of SDG 4.7 is best understood as neither a top-down imposition by international organizations nor purely instrumental national ‘use’ of global agendas. Instead, many respondents describe genuine efforts to translate international goals into domestic policy, viewing UN frameworks as a source of legitimacy for reform. However, SDG-related themes are frequently described as low salience, and the PISA innovative domain ismostly unheard of. Lastly, both actors supportive of and opposed to SDG 4.7 often operate with divergent understandings, suggesting that definitional ambiguity and perceived complexity may hinder coherent integration.

Author

• Cora Alina Blau, University of Oxford