Minerva

, 47:261 | Cite as

The “Indefinite Discipline” of Competitiveness Benchmarking as a Neoliberal Technology of Government

Article

Abstract

Working on the assumption that ideas are embedded in socio-technical arrangements which actualize them, this essay sheds light on the way the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) achieves the Lisbon strategic goal: “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”. Rather than framing the issue in utilitarian terms, it focuses attention on quantified indicators, comparable statistics and common targets resulting from the increasing practice of intergovernmental benchmarking, in order to tackle the following questions: how does the OMC go about co-ordinating Member States through the benchmarking of national policies? And to what extent does this managerial device impact the path of European construction? Beyond the ideological and discursive construction of the competitive imperative, this technology of government transforms it into an “indefinite discipline” (Foucault) which constantly urges decision-makers to hit the top of the charts. This contribution thus argues that the practice of intergovernmental benchmarking is far from being neutral in purpose and effect. On the contrary, it lays the foundation for building a “competitive Europe” which unites Member States through competition.

Keywords

Benchmarking Competitiveness Lisbon strategy Foucault Neoliberalism 

References

  1. Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. 1999. Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard [The New Spirit of Capitalism, London, Blackwell, 2007].Google Scholar
  2. Brandenburger, Adam M., and Barry J. Nalebuff. 1998. Co-opetition: A revolutionary mindset that combines competition and co-operation. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, Neil. 2000. Building “Euro-regions”. Locational politics and the political geography of neoliberalism in post-unification Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies 7 (4): 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruno, Isabelle, Sophie Jacquot, and Lou Mandin. 2006. Europeanization through its instrumentation: Benchmarking, mainstreaming and the open method of coordination… toolbox or Pandora’s box? Journal of European Public Policy 13 (4): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon, Michel, and Fabian Muniesa. 2005. Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies 26 (8): 1229–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camp, Robert. 1989. Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cave, Martin, Richard Joss, and Christopher Pollitt. 1994. International benchmarking as a tool to improve public sector performance: A critical overview. Public Management Occasional Paper 5: 7–22.Google Scholar
  8. CEC. 1993. Growth, competitiveness, and employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. White Paper COM (93) 700 final.Google Scholar
  9. CEC. 1996. Benchmarking the competitiveness of European industry. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM (96) 463 final.Google Scholar
  10. CEC. 1997. Benchmarking: Implementation of an instrument available to economic actors and public authorities. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Com (97) 153 final.Google Scholar
  11. CEC. 1999. The competitiveness of European industry: 1999 report. Working document of the services of the European Commission. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  12. CEC. 2000a. European competitiveness report 2000. Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1823.Google Scholar
  13. CEC. 2000b. Towards a European research area. Science, technology and innovation. Key Figures 2000. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  14. CEC. 2001. Towards a European research area. Indicators for benchmarking of national research policies. Key Figures 2001: Special edition. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  15. CEC. 2004. Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg: OOPEC.Google Scholar
  16. Cerny, Philip G. 1990. The changing architecture of politics: Structure, agency, and the future of the state. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. 1985. Global competition: The new reality. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Competitiveness Policy Council. 1992. Building a competitive America: First annual report to the President and Congress. Washington: Competitiveness Policy Council.Google Scholar
  19. Desrosières, Alain and Sandrine Kott (eds.). 2005. Quantifier. Genèses 58: 2–97.Google Scholar
  20. Dufresne, Anne. 2002. Oskar Lafontaine’s dream: An opportunity for economic policy co-ordination? In Social developments in the European Union, ed. Christophe Degryse, and Philippe Pochet, 85–113. Brussels: ETUI/OSE.Google Scholar
  21. Elissalt, François. 2001. La statistique communautaire au tournant du XXIème siècle: Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles contraintes. Courrier des statistiques 100: 41–51.Google Scholar
  22. European Council. 2000. Presidency conclusions. Lisbon summit. 23–24 March. Nr: 100/1/00.Google Scholar
  23. European Council. 2002. Presidency conclusions. Barcelona summit. 15–16 March. Nr: 100/1/02.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, Michel. 2008. The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Goody, Jack. 1977. The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haahr, Jens H. 2004. Open co-ordination as advanced liberal government. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (2): 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay, Colin, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy 9 (2): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. HLGB. 1999. First report by the High Level Group on Benchmarking. Benchmarking Papers 2.Google Scholar
  30. Ioannou, Demosthenes, and Arne Niemann. 2003. Taking stock of the open method of co-ordination: Nature, modus operandi and theoretical perspectives. Dresdner Arbeitspapiere Internationale Beziehungen 8.Google Scholar
  31. Jacquemin, Alexis, and Lucio R. Pench (eds.). 1997. Europe competing in the global economy: Reports of the competitiveness advisory group. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  32. Krugman, Paul. 1994. Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession. Foreign Affairs 73 (2): 28–44.Google Scholar
  33. Latour, Bruno. 2003. The promises of constructivism. In Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality, ed. Don Ihde, and Evan M. Selinger, 27–46. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mann, Leon, Danny Samson, and Julie R. Wolfram Cox. 1997. Benchmarking as a mixed metaphor: Disentangling assumptions of competition and collaboration. Journal of Management Studies 34 (2): 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD. 1994. Performance management in government: Performance measurement and results-oriented management. Public Management Occasional Paper 3. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. 1997. Benchmarking, evaluation and strategic management in the public sector. Papers presented at the 1996 Meeting of the Performance Management Network of the OECD’s Public Management Service. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  37. Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Cambridge: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rhodes, Martin. 2000. Lisbon: Europe’s “Maastricht for Welfare”? ECSA Review 13 (3): 2–4.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, Keith. 2000. Big business and the European agenda. SEI Working Paper 35. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/1-4-10-1.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2008.
  41. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic structures and the end of the Cold War. International Organization 48 (2): 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodrigues, Maria J. (ed.). 2002. The new knowledge economy in Europe: A strategy for international competitiveness and social cohesion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  43. Rosamond, Ben. 1999. Discourses of globalization and the social construction of European identities. Journal of European Public Policy 6 (4): 652–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosamond, Ben. 2002. Imagining the European economy: “Competitiveness” and the social construction of “Europe” as an economic space. New Political Economy 7 (2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strange, Susan. 1996. The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Strange, Susan. 1998. Who are EU? Ambiguities in the concept of competitiveness. Journal of Common Market Studies 36 (1): 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Apeldoorn, Bastian. 2000. Transnational class agency and European governance: The case of the European roundtable of industrialists. New Political Economy 5 (2): 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zängle, Michael. 2004. The European Union benchmarking experience. From euphoria to fatigue? European Integration Online Papers 8 (5). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-005a.htm. Accessed 2 Dec 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lille Centre for Politics and Administration (CERAPS)University of Lille 2LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations