Lifelong learning is seen as a solution to long-standing social and economic problems, despite criticism of adult education colonisation unleashing libratory forces, scholars pointing out bifurcation of labour market, and the ever-existing criticism of political shift towards neoliberalvalue. The article deals with the tussle between the viewpoints of UNESCO and OECD. Lifelong learning, initially thought to be an answer to societal and economic crises, was launched by OECD in 1948 to help Western Europe's economic revival under Marshall Plan and it was referred to as Vocational Training. unprecedented enrolment in 1960s due to economic growth caused stir and resulted in oversupply of graduates who could not be fully absorbed and said that recurrent education should be distributed along lifespan, with work, leisure and retirement. Later it adopted the concept as a long-term strategy and created two axes, vertical, to integrate educational opportunities against disrupted childhood learning and a horizontal, for further education according to requirements of labour, research and opportunities. Behind the belief of additional opportunities, economic stability, knowledge, satisfaction, there exist pragmatic issues like non-achievement of equality and opportunity.
Due to 1968 student revolt, UNESCO realised that education export from First World to Third failed to meet latter's need. Faure commission was set up to meet the educational challenge and for growth of scientific mind by promoting lifelong modern learning. Although starting point approach was overlapping, there are fundamental differences in later approach. While OECD is unable to connect education with labour potential, UNESCO stops short at educational modernisation. If oecd's aim is to bring non-traditional students into the educated cluster, unesco's goal is to make education basis of democratic process. While first is focussed on industrialised nations, second has global outlook. While first approaches from technical updating point of view, second sees it as a tool of equality and wants a learning world society. It wants to provide the educational facility at any point with a worldwide dimension. There is a suggestion of classless society in the concept and seventies onwards, lifelong learning has figured in the national policy of many nations.
With globalisation, capitalism has erupted and oecd stressed on education as need of changing society and its reports links education with economy. Second generation of human capital theory questioned the relevance of initial approaches and firmly placed the lifelong educators in labour market/unemployment. Both EC and oecd concentrated more on learning, than on education and human resources became more important now.
Article also says that by then unesco had lost its importance on educational issues. The new Commission reported the tension between global, national, regional and local vested interests, tension between individual and universal, tradition v. modernity, long-term v. short-term, spiritual v. material etc. Even from outside, they are regarded differently. Unesco has humanistic tradition and intellectual role while oecd is regarded as capitalistic. While presenting the two paradigms connected to two world views, the article has