As globalization has rendered knowledge constitutive of global economic capital, scholars have shifted their attention regarding Bourdieu's (1973) notion of cultural capital from one focused on the reproduction of inequalities through the processes of distribution of "official knowledge" to a focus the processes whereby dominant groups maximize their control over its production (Apple 1993). This shift in emphasis has been particularly compelling to educational policy scholars who have proposed various ways in which Bourdieu's notions of field, habitus, and capital could advance our theoretical resources to explore the struggle among elite global policy actors for control over knowledge production in policy formation (Lingard, Rawolle & Taylor 2005; Rawolle and Lingard 2008). In almost every instance, however, these scholars come to the conclusion that Bourdieu's conceptual trilogy of field, habitus and capital are moving targets: just as one thinks one is reaching clarity, they are rendered obscure, either by Bourdieu's multivalent use of them, or because at closer inspection, they seem to point to a wild profusion of conceptual exceptions to Bourdieu's own formulations. In this article, I offer a case study that hopes to contribute to advancing Bourdieu's work as well as to the "wild profusion" of conceptual elaboration his work has inspired. The case study explores the ways in which domestic and international donor stakeholders negotiated control over knowledge production in Mozambique's Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP).