1 Introduction

Financial Education (EF) has been a much-discussed subject in recent years, both nationally and internationally. The way this topic is understood depends on who is presenting it and what interests they have in developing it. In this sense, EF can be considered undefined (Mazzi and ^{Baroni, 2021}), taking on different strands and purposes, and can even be contradictory in nature.

^{Baroni (2021, p. 79)} emphasizes that Financial Education should seek to understand financial life “through a critical analysis of reality”, stating that knowing the paths of discussions on Financial Education is important to reflect on its role in society. Thus, in this paper¹, we aim to present some relevant historical aspects that have contributed to Financial Education gaining more prominence in our daily discussions. Figure 1 below summarizes the path we intend to follow. It should be noted that this is a possible trajectory, so that other researchers could highlight different elements that they consider important for presenting this path.

Figure 1 Historical aspects that influenced the development of Financial Education (Own elaboration, 2024) 

As highlighted in Figure 1, we will begin our discussion with the post-war period, culminating in the creation of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) shortly after the end of the Second World War. Next, we will present the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), its first steps and its main functions, until we reach the creation and development of the Financial Education Project, in 2003, which, after its conclusion, impacted several countries with regard to the act of educating citizens financially.

Subsequently, we will focus on Brazil, in particular the National Strategy for Financial Education (ENEF), established in 2010, which has drawn up proposals to promote EF in different contexts and in multiple ways. Finally, we will direct the discussions to the educational sphere, especially Mathematics Education, presenting some important understandings and contributions to the subject.

2 Historical aspects of the creation and development of the OECD

According to ^{Baumann (2021)}, in order for the European economy to participate in international trade again after the Second World War, it had to be rebuilt. The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was founded in 1948 with the aim of strengthening economic relations between European countries. After the continent’s reconstruction mission was completed in 1960, the Convention for the transformation of the OEEC into the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was signed in Paris.

The constitution of the OECD “has as its fundamental antecedent the multilateral efforts to administer the Marshall Plan² [...]” (^{Godinho, 2018}, p. 23). This plan was established as a response to the difficulties encountered in the initial reconstruction of the continent, on the one hand increasing the scale of US financial aid and, on the other, requiring the commitment of European countries to the creation of a multilateral body for the implementation of reconstruction.

According to the author, in July 1947, the Conference on European Economic Cooperation was held in Paris, which resulted in the formation of the Committee for Economic Cooperation (henceforth CCEE), whose aim was to design the economic recovery program. With US support for the proposals presented, the CCEE began to evaluate the possibility of “establishing a permanent organisation, dedicated to managing the Marshall Plan and focused on the objectives of promoting free trade, production growth, full employment and financial stability” (^{Godinho, 2018}, p. 24).

Thus, in April 1948, the OEEC was established in the Convention, composed of 16 countries³, accompanied by the United States of America (USA) and Canada, initially as observers and later as associate members. The development of the OEEC involved actions such as supporting the establishment of the European Payments Union (UEP) and the Code of Trade Liberalization, contributing to the recovery of European trade and regional growth (^{Godinho, 2018}).

According to this author, with the recovery of regional trade, the need for US imports and the accumulation of reserves in US dollars decreased, benefiting the financial position of European countries (^{Godinho, 2018}). However, due to factors such as the intensification of tensions associated with the Cold War⁴, the need to expand transatlantic cooperation beyond the areas reached by the OEEC and the disagreement between France and the United Kingdom, the transition from the OEEC to the OECD took place. The French, supported by the US, opposed the British plan to establish a free trade area within the framework of the OECD, which damaged the effectiveness of the OECD and made its Council meetings impossible from December 1958 onwards.

Following these events, the summit held in December 1959 in Paris, with the participation of the US, the UK, France and West Germany, opened up prospects for a new transatlantic partnership. In May of the following year, the Conference on the Reconstitution of the OEEC took place, in which the participation of the USA and Canada as full members was confirmed and the new model of organisation defined, with a nomenclature directed towards the objective of economic development, initiating the discussion on the Convention model (^{Godinho, 2018}). The new Organisation was established with

broader objectives and based on a universal vocation, aimed at consultation and coordination between member countries and based on the consolidation of the economic model of developed countries in the post-Second World War. In force from September 1961, the OECD Agreement (paper 1) stipulated the general objective of promoting policies to achieve greater sustainable economic growth and employment [...] in member countries and contribute to the solid economic expansion of member and non-member countries

(^{Godinho, 2018}, p. 27, author’s emphasis).

This means that this new Organisation sets a counterpoint to the OEEC (which aimed to solve the internal challenges of European countries) by looking beyond the continent, promoting policies aimed at achieving greater economic growth and sustainable employment in member countries. It also intended to contribute to the sound economic expansion of member and non-member countries.

However, during the 1960s, the development of the OECD showed a continuation and reorganization of the work carried out by the OEEC in the previous decade. The 1970s, on the other hand, were marked by more significant changes in the Organisation⁵, such as the establishment of the Environment Directorate, with environmental instruments in areas such as water pollution and use, recycling and transboundary pollution (^{Godinho, 2018}).

The scenarios of inflation and economic slowdown after the second oil crisis in the 1980s were challenges faced by the Organisation, which sought to renew itself with the International Coordination forum⁶. The discussion of issues such as expanding its membership and establishing external relations with other countries became necessary in the 1990s as a result of the “fall of the socialist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the emergence of large developing economies and greater attention to certain public policy topics” (^{Godinho, 2018}, p. 33).

3 The National Strategy for Financial Education: a focus on the Brazilian context

^{Vieira and Pessoa (2020)} state that discussions on Financial Education in Brazil are not recent and that some periods have contributed to the formalization of the subject. The authors point out that, until the mid-1990s, the country was marked by the destabilization of the national currency, with high inflation rates and little access to information, which restricted financial knowledge to people who had some kind of capital.

The concern at that time was based on investment tips to preserve or multiply resources, provided by specialists in financial market products. As a result, there was no intention of teaching people how to plan, and the high inflation rates, coupled with low levels of banking, created a scenario in which planning was practically impossible (^{Vieira and Pessoa, 2020}).

Another period highlighted by the authors as a milestone in the trajectory of Financial Education was the implementation of the Real Plan in 1994, which made it possible to stabilize the economy and reduce inflation. In that context, with the equilibrium of prices, there was an improvement in economic conditions, in the job market and in the expansion of credit (^{Lameira, 2004}).

The control of inflation, the increase in the number of people with access to the banking system in the 2000s and the availability of credit promoted by social and economic policies made it easier for Brazilians to buy new products and services. Under these circumstances, a favorable environment was created for the growth of consumption by the average citizen (^{Teixeira and Kistemann Jr., 2017}).

With this growth, there was a concern to educate the population about the “harms of excessive consumption and the importance of domestic and family planning to avoid debt and waste, preparing for a healthy and balanced financial future” (^{Vieira and Pessoa, 2020}, p. 663). The conditions of this period were beginning to make financial planning an achievable goal for the Brazilian middle class. Literary works¹² began to appear to meet this demand, but they were still intended to provide information on how to achieve prosperity and enrichment.

The availability of these works in the early 2000s was not enough “to re-educate financial behavior and avoid the economic crisis that hit our country, causing a series of defaults in the credit market” (^{Vieira and Pessoa, 2020}, p. 663-664). A result that comes as no surprise, since the focus was not really on helping the population.

For the authors, in the midst of this scenario and with the influences acquired through participation in committees created by the OECD, in which there were discussions regarding the importance of Financial Education, Brazil developed a state policy: the National Financial Education Strategy (ENEF).

Corroborating these authors, ^{Baroni (2021)} points out that, since 2007, there has been an intensification of actions focused on the issue, influenced by the movements of the OECD, highlighting actions that preceded the constitution of this public policy, for example, the creation of the Committee for the Regulation and Supervision of Financial Markets, Capital Markets, Insurance, Pensions and Capitalization (COREMEC¹³), by the federal government, and the founding of the Working Group (GT), made up of representatives from the government, the private sector and civil society, whose aim was precisely to develop the National Financial Education Project.

^{Martins (2013)} highlights the participation of the GT in the 3rd INFE Meeting in Paris, promoted at the initiative of the OECD in December 2009, where it was decided that the venue for the International Conference on Financial Education would be Rio de Janeiro in order to broaden the dialog on the subject in Latin America.

In mid-2009, “this GT presented a working proposal which later became the Master Plan for the Brazilian government’s National Financial Education Strategy (ENEF)” (^{Baroni, 2021}, p. 68). This plan aimed to consolidate ENEF and the actions set out in Decree No. 7.397/2010 (^{Brasil, 2010}), approved by Deliberation n. 2/2011 of the National Committee for Financial Education (CONEF), officially published on December 23, 2010 by the government.

In general terms, ENEF is a permanent state policy that aims to promote an ecosystem of financial and social security education, with a view to “contributing to the strengthening of citizenship, the efficiency and soundness of the national financial system and more autonomous and conscious decision-making by Brazilian society” (^{Brasil, 2018}, p. 3). With regard to CONEF, it was established by ENEF as its governance committee, made up of government bodies and entities, as well as four civil society¹⁴ organisations, and is responsible for drawing up guidelines for actions and projects to disseminate Financial Education in the country, taking into account the institution’s objectives and goals.

On May 16, 2007, Brazil was designated as a key-partner¹⁵ of the Organisation, which aims, with this commitment, to,

increase the involvement of major emerging economies in the daily work of the Organization, promote the sharing of perspectives and policy approaches through their partnerships with OECD bodies, adherence to OECD legal instruments and integration into the Organization’s statistical databases and policy indicators

(^{OECD, 2023}).

In this partnership perspective, a cooperation agreement between Brazil and the OECD was signed in July 2015, institutionalizing national participation in various forums developed by the Organisation. This agreement has deepened, systematized and strengthened ties between them. The most recent move in this partnership was made on January 25, 2022, when the OECD Council decided to open access discussions with Brazil (^{OECD, 2023}).

In the paths traced by ENEF, the influence of OECD ideals on its practices is increasingly evident. This is because, with each new decree, the role of education representatives on CONEF has been reduced. In 2019, for example, the institution of the Grupo de Apoio Pedagógico (GAP — Pedagogical Support Group) was revoked and, in 2020, the 2010 Decree was revoked in its entirety and replaced, on July 9 of that year, by Decree n. 10.393/2020¹⁶, which brings some changes.

One of these was the replacement of CONEF by the Brazilian Financial Education Forum (FBEF), which, despite being a similar body, made changes, such as replacing representatives of civil society (positions previously occupied by the Ministries of Finance and Social Security) with representatives of the secretariats that make up the Ministry of Economy. Furthermore, the free nature of Financial Education actions, guaranteed by the 2010 Decree, was removed from this new version and the Ministry of Education was downgraded to the last body responsible for directing, supervising and promoting the subject in the country (^{Brasil, 2020}).

In addition, the removal of topics such as citizenship, conscious consumption and decision-making from the discussion shows a Financial Education that is focused on insurance, social security and taxation (^{Melo et al., 2021}), influenced by the OECD. In this way, we highlight the setback caused by the new ENEF (^{Brasil, 2020}) by allowing people and companies to commodify Financial Education.

During the 13 years since it was set up, ENEF has been developing actions to expand Financial Education in Brazil, according to its own ideals (which are questionable). The main strategies are aimed at both Financial Education in schools and the program aimed at adults, which covers retirees with a maximum income of two minimum wages and women who benefit from Bolsa Família (^{Brazil, 2018}).

These plans are divided into sectoral (actions and programs developed by FBEF members), aligned with the guidelines proposed by ENEF and transversal programs (ENEF actions), which aim to address topics such as protection, financial planning, savings, investment, credit and consumer protection, and are not the exclusive responsibility of a particular body or entity (^{Brasil, 2018}). The National Financial Education Week, which aims to disseminate it throughout the country; the Financial Education in Schools Program, which proposes taking it into the school environment; the ENEF Seal, which aims to recognize initiatives related to it; the Itinerant Financial Education Project; the National Mapping of Initiatives; and the Financial Education Network are examples of these actions (^{Brasil, 2018}).

For ^{Vieira and Pessoa (2020)}, the activities developed by ENEF are important for disseminating the issue in Brazil. However, they are not enough to promote it in the country, as they need to be constantly problematized. In line with these authors, ^{Silva, Kistemann Jr. and Vital (2014)} state that the proposal to introduce Financial Education needs to be expanded.

Corroborating these authors, especially with regard to Financial Education in the context of Education, we understand that the implementation of Financial Education centers in only four Brazilian states — considering that the country has 26 states, in addition to the Federal District, which has approximately 5,568 municipalities (^{IBGE, 2023}) — exposes a great lack in the dissemination and effective implementation of the theme. This lack is also evident in the research data (which generated this paper), both in the lack of teacher training and teaching materials and in the problematization of the constitution of a market-based Financial Education, proposed by the aforementioned bodies.

4 Training in Financial Education: what the OECD and ENEF say?

The recommendation that Financial Education should start at school, taking into account the fact that people should be financially educated as early as possible, is mentioned in the Good Practices section of the second document published by the Organisation (OECD, 2005b). As for programs that favor the use of classrooms, it is suggested in the document that “educators should be provided with appropriate education and skills. In this sense, the development of ‘train the trainer’ programs and the provision of specific information material and tools for trainers should be encouraged” (OECD, 2005b, p. 7).

In view of the OECD’s directives on the need to promote the development of programs with the aim of financially training educators, as well as indicating that public policies should encourage the provision of information material and tools to these professionals, ^{Baroni (2021)} questions what the proper education and competence of educators would be, as explained in the document. The author points out that, between the lines of the definition, “the organisation assumes that there is a financial market and that Financial Education should ensure that people are aware of this market, using its products in the best possible way, thinking about the protection and financial well-being of the subject” (^{Baroni, 2021}, p. 67).

This is a view that seems to limit the scope of Financial Education to working with personal finances and consumer behavior, disregarding reflections on elements in the social, political and economic context. ^{Baroni (2021)} points out that, when it is suggested that trainers be trained, there seems to be a supremacy of techniques to be applied, to the detriment of these broader reflections. She also mentions that it is necessary to pay attention to the role of the teacher, especially the math teacher, so that “it is not reduced to teaching how to consume and teaching the calculations involved in financial negotiations, as if calculating and planning were sufficient actions to make a decision” (^{Baroni, 2021}, p. 177). In this direction, ^{Barbosa, Araújo and Paes (2020)} affirm the need for Financial Education that is not restricted to teaching types of bank investments and Financial Mathematics, from the Early Years of Primary School.

With regard to ENEF, the training, courses and programs developed, in general, are in partnership with private organisations, companies and banks that have the opportunity to further strengthen their neoliberal influences in education, seeking to guide their customers and users about financial products, in a way that transforms Financial Education into a commodity to be sold (^{Mundy, 2008}; ^{Savoia, Saito and Santana, 2007}). Teacher training programs, for example, have been intensified and expanded by the Association for Financial Education in Brazil (AEF¹⁷), in partnership with Serasa Consumidor and Serasa Experian (^{Brasil, 2018}), private bodies.

Although, in 2018, ENEF designed these training programmes and created extension, improvement and specialization courses in Financial Education for educators, the study by ^{Vieira and Pessoa (2020)}, when exploring how different countries organize their national Financial Education programmes and strategies, points out that Brazil’s Financial Education policy does not yet carry out this preparation in a systematic way.

These courses were set up through Technical Cooperation Agreements (ACTS) between the AEF, education departments and federal universities after the implementation of the four Financial Education hubs (in Tocantins, Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraíba) in the 2017-2018 biennium, as mentioned above. The development of these programs by ENEF, in partnership with private bodies, their non-systematization, as well as the emphasis on individual income management, promotion and market consolidation in their objectives (^{Brasil, 2017}), exalt the relevance of financial resources to the detriment of other factors, reinforcing the view brought by the OECD.

Although the BNCC presents it as a contemporary, cross-cutting theme that is pertinent to various areas of study, it does not clearly show what it considers Financial Education and summarizes it as aspects linked to Mathematics, highlighting only interest rates, inflation, investments and taxes when working, which limits the view of it.

Given the above, we can understand that the ideas present in these documents that guide Financial Education are related to educating for the market (^{Brasil, 2018}). In this way, it is up to the educational systems, networks and schools, in their respective spheres, to have the autonomy and competence to incorporate them into their curricula (^{Brasil, 2018}). However, this approach leaves aside the limitations and difficulties of each educational institution, allowing gaps to open up in relation to how to educate financially.

In this perspective of how to educate financially, the study by ^{Souza (2015)} presents a survey of training initiatives in Financial Education by institutions in Brazil, highlighting that there is little research aimed at training teachers to teach in Basic Education. Most focus on personal finance education, prioritizing “learning focused on personal finance planning and capital markets concepts. They show that knowledge is the basis for creating a culture of savings and wealth building in the country” (^{Souza, 2015}, p. 32).

This means that, apart from the OECD, the ENEF, the BNCC and their supporters in general, initiatives in Brazil are moving towards a focus on money and the commodification of Financial Education. We stress that we are not denying the possibility of individuals overcoming poverty and achieving financial independence. However, we emphasize that this is not the focus of Financial Education, especially for the OECD, ENEF and BNCC, “since they support an apathetic view of the citizen, who must get rich at any cost [...]” (^{Menecucci, 2022}, p. 26).

With this, we understand that, in addition to the problematization surrounding the principles and constitutions of the programs developed by ENEF (and their still precarious dissemination), other initiatives that could help educators, especially those in Mathematics, tend to have the same objectives as the aforementioned organisations. This makes it difficult to teach Financial Education in a critical and reflective way, going beyond individualism. This makes it even more necessary to develop research in this educational context, seeking to build Financial Education in a collaborative way, led by us teachers, for application in the classroom.

5 Final considerations

Discussions about Financial Education have developed over the years, bringing different proposals and approaches. The historical trajectory presented in this text is intended to contribute to a broader understanding of how the subject has developed over time. It begins with the creation of the OECD, an organisation that promoted international coverage of the subject, precisely because of the studies carried out and, consequently, the creation of the Financial Education Project, in 2003, until the institution of the New ENEF, in 2020, in Brazil.

From the measures and actions promoted by the OECD and ENEF, we can see a market-based view of Financial Education, which aims to enable individuals, in general, to have access to the tools they need to become responsible for all the financial situations that affect them: health care, pensions, security, etc. This is because they focus on economic aspects, proposing a look at the subject in order to educate for money, without much reflection or criticism of issues such as social inequality, unemployment, educational deficiencies, among many other aspects that go beyond the individual.

Over the years and with the maturing of discussions in the educational sphere and, in particular, in the context of Mathematics Education, our area of interest, researchers have fought for and defended a Financial Education that questions the neoliberal system and reflects on possible social transformations. From this perspective, Financial Education can be understood as a set of knowledge that contributes to a broad understanding of society, for example, the reason for keeping people in extreme poverty; the environmental impacts of excessive waste production; the issue of hunger and lack of water for various groups; as well as the fact that there are still people in situations analogous to slavery today; among many other necessary issues.