Advertisement

Neoliberalism and Beyond: The Possibilities of a Social Justice Agenda?

  • Mark OlssenEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.2k Downloads
Part of the Education Policy & Social Inequality book series (EPSI, volume 1)

Abstract

The paper will start with a short account of neoliberalism where I will survey the arguments offered in support of neoliberal reforms made initially by James Buchanan and the Public Choice School. Many scholars, especially those coming from a poststructuralist or post-Marxist position, see neoliberalism, as Troeger (2014, p. 1) has put it, “as a kind of bogeyman-placeholder for all that is wrong with the predominant political and economic system in the West”. In this paper I intend to ask whether some of the criticisms made of the old welfare state by neoliberals like Buchanan were not justified, and then seek to offer a more nuanced account assessing both the costs and benefits of neoliberal policies and strategies as they affect both higher education and society. Specifically, I will ask to what extent neoliberal orthodoxies are compatible with policies promoting equity and social justice? And what sort of social justice might this be? The extent to which neoliberal strategies are themselves adaptable, are undergoing change, have differential effects in relation to different policy arenas, or can be rendered congruent with social justice agendas, are the broader general questions I will then seek to address. In order to do this, I will initially present a survey of a number of key policy domains within the higher education field to be able to ascertain which specific policy areas contribute to increased inequality and frustrate social equity. This will underscore an important point that while at one level neoliberalism constitutes a general policy framework, its individual technologies must be seen to act variably and with different effects, not all of which are necessarily negative, in relation to different issues and domains. Indeed, I will argue that it is at least conceivable that a progressively orientated social democratic government could utilise some supply-side policy agendas and technologies to good effect. As an overarching policy framework, however, I will argue that neoliberalism as the agenda of free market economics is not likely to survive due to the very shortcomings that are now in the second decade of the twenty-first century becoming evident. By way of conclusion then, I will ask briefly what lies beyond neoliberalism as a broad policy framework? Is there a new settlement on the horizon?

Keywords

High Education League Table Disadvantaged Background Public Choice Theory Fund Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5 of this chapter draw from and reproduce some material from Olssen (2016a). The publishers are thanked for its inclusion in this context.

As the first section of this chapter represents a summative account of my position on neoliberalism, the ideas expressed, although reformulated for the context of this chapter, also generally build upon material that I have previously written and developed, notably Olssen et al. (2004) and Olssen and Peters (2005).

References

  1. Althaus, C. (1997). The application of agency theory to public sector management. In G. Davis, B. Sullivan, & A. Yeatman (Eds.), The new contractualism? (pp. 137–153). Melbourne: MacMillan Education.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality. Harvard: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. The Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, B. (1990). Political Argument (a reissue with a new introduction). New York, London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  6. Bendor, J. (1988). Review article: Formal models of bureaucracy. British Journal of Political Science, 18(3), 353–395.Google Scholar
  7. Bergman, M., & Lane, J. (1990). Public policy ibn a principal-agent framework. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 339–352.Google Scholar
  8. Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boston, J. (1991). The theoretical underpinnings of public sector restructuring in New Zealand. In J. Boston, et al. (Eds.), Reshaping the state: New Zealand’s bureaucratic revolution. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boston, J. (1996). Origins and destinations: New Zealand’s model of public management and the international transfer of ideas. In G. Davis & P. Weller (Eds.), New ideas, better government. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Boston, J. (1999). The funding of research in the tertiary sector. Access: Critical perspectives on cultural and policy studies in education, 18(2), 103–119.Google Scholar
  12. Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Brenner, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). After neoliberalization? Globalisations, 7(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  17. Bryson, J., & Smith-Ring, P. (1990). A transaction-based approach to policy intervention. Policy Studies, 23, 205–209.Google Scholar
  18. Buchanan, J. (1954a). Social choice, democracy, and free markets. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 114–123.Google Scholar
  19. Buchanan, J. (1954b). Individual choice in voting and the market. Journal of Political Economy, 62(3), 334–343.Google Scholar
  20. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buchanan, J. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Corbyn, Z. (2010). Nervous HEFCE ‘edging out’ of REF citations. Times Higher Education, Ist April.Google Scholar
  23. Coughlan, Sean, (14th January 2015). Did £9000.00 fees cut applications? BBC News, Education. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30684462. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  24. Curtis, A. (2007). The trap, Television documentary in three parts, Part 1: Fuck you buddy (11 March); Part II: The lonely robot (18 March); Part III: We will force you to be free (25 March), London: BBC Television.Google Scholar
  25. Dean, M. (2016). Foucault, Ewald, neoliberalism and the left. In D. Zamora & M. C. Behrent (Eds.), Foucault and neoliberalism (pp. 63–84). London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: the case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dill, D. D. (2007). Will market competition affect academic quality? An analysis of the UK and US experience. In Quarterly assurance in higher education (pp. 47–72, Volume 20 in series, Higher Education Dynamics). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Dorling, D. (2014). Growing wealth inequality in the UK is a ticking timebomb. The Guardian, Wednesday 15th October, Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/wealth-inequality-uk-ticking-timebomb-credit-suisse-crash. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  29. Dewey, J. (1915). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, L., & Quigley, N. (1996). University governance: Industrial organisation in the context of tertiary education. Victoria Economic Commentaries, 13(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  31. Ewart, B., & Boston, J. (1993). The separation of policy advice from operations: The case of defence restructuring in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 52(2), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fong, K. (2015). Check your reflexes on UK’s first private medical school. Times higher education, January 22nd. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/columnists/check-your-reflexes-on-uks-first-private-medical-school/2018047.article. Accessed 23 Sept 2015.
  33. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Gamble, A. (2014). Crisis without end: The unravelling of western prosperity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garner, R. (2012). University Challenge: Has the new tuition-fees regime affected students’ degree choices? The Independent on Sunday. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/university-challenge-has-the-new-tuition-fees-regime-affected-students-degree-choices-8130995.html (posted Sunday 20th September). Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
  37. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: an introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1–52). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hede, A. (1991). The next steps initiative for civil service reform in Britain: The emergence of managerialism in Whitehall? Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 65, 32–40.Google Scholar
  40. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). (2010). Research excellence framework. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/. Accessed 30 May 2010.
  41. HEFCE. (2015a). Ref 2015/14: Delivering opportunities for students and maximising their success: evidence for policy and practice, 2015–2020. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.Google Scholar
  42. HEFCE. (2015b). Causes of differences in student outcomes. London: King’s College London, ARC Network and the University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  43. HEFCE (2015c). POLAR3—Participation of Local Areas. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/analysis/yp/POLAR/POLAR3/. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  44. Hills, J., Bastagli, F., Cowell, F., Glennerster, H., Karagiannaki, E., & McKnight, A. (2013). Wealth in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hobhouse, L. T. (1911). Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  46. Hubble, S. (2011). Private higher education provision. House of commons library, standard note, SN/SP/6155, 8th December, Social Policy Section.Google Scholar
  47. Hutton, W. (2013). Tuition-fee rise has had ‘serious, damaging’ effect on mature students. Huffington Post UK/PA. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/12/tuition-fee-rise-mature-students_n_3911419.html (posted: 12/09/2013). Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
  48. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleikie, I., & Henkel, M. (Eds.). (2006). Transforming higher education: a comparative study (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Kolsaker, A. (2013). Relocating professionalism in an English university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: the implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matheson, A. (1997). The impact of contracts on public management. In G. Davis, B. Sullivan, & A. Yeatman (Eds.), The new contractualism? Melbourne: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Marginson, S. (1997). Competition and contestability in Australian higher education, 1987–1997. Australian Universities Review, 40(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  53. Marginson, S. (1999). Harvards of the antipodes? Nation building universities in a global environment. Access: Critical perspectives on cultural and policy studies in education, 18(2), 1–20.Google Scholar
  54. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Governance, strategy, reinvention. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. McCormick, R. E., & Meiners, R. E. (1988). University governance: A property rights perspective. The journal of law and economics, XXXI(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKean, R. (1974). Property rights within government, and devices to increase governmental efficiency. In E. G. Furubotn & S. Pejovich (Eds.), The Economics of Property Rights. Massachussetts: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  57. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  58. OFFA (Office for Fair Access). (2015). Quick facts. Available at: http://www.offa.org.uk/press/quick-facts/. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  59. Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neill, A.-M. (2004). Education policy: Globalisation, citizenship, democracy. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Olssen, M. (2016a). Neoliberal competition in higher education today: research, accountability, impact. British journal of the sociology of education, 37(1), 129–148.Google Scholar
  62. Olssen, M. (2016b). Foucault and neoliberalism: A critique of Zamora et al., and a new resolution. Keynote address presented to Foucault@90 Conference, 22nd—23rd June, 2016. Ayr, Scotland: University of West of Scotland.Google Scholar
  63. Perrow, C. (1986a). Economic theories of organisation. Theory and Society, 15(6), 11–45.Google Scholar
  64. Perrow, C. (1986b). Complex organisations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  65. Peters, M. (2011). Neoliberalism and after: Education, social policy and the crisis of western capitalism. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  66. Peters, M., & Marshall, J. D. (1996). Individualism and community: Education and social policy in the postmodern condition. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  67. Reuters. (2015). Richest 1 percent will own more than the rest by 2016: Oxfam, (Monday January 9th). Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN0KS0SW20150119. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  68. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2011). Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sá, F. (August, 2014). The effect of tuition fees on university applications and attendance: Evidence from the UK. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 8364. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8364.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2015.Google Scholar
  70. Sá, F. (August, 2015). Hard evidence: what happens to student applications when university fees go up? The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-what-happens-to-student-applications-when-university-fees-go-up-39837. Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
  71. Savage D. C. (2000). Academic freedom and institutional autonomy in New Zealand universities’. In Rob Crozier (Ed.), Troubled times: Academic freedom in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schumpeter, J. (1976) [1943]. Capitalism, socialism, democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Scott, G. (1997). The new institutional economics and the shaping of the state in New Zealand. In G. Davis, B. Sullivan, & A. Yeatman (Eds.), The new contractualism? (pp. 154–163). Melbourne: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  74. Scott, G., & Gorringe, P. (1989). Reform of the core public sector: New Zealand experience. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 48(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Scott, G., & Smelt, S. (1995). Ownership of universities. A paper for consideration of the New Zealand vice chancellors’ committee. Wellington: NZVCC.Google Scholar
  76. Simons, H. C. (1948). Economic policy for a free society. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  77. Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Stiglitz, J. (2011). Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. Vanity Fair News. Available at: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  79. Stiglitz, J. (2015). The divide. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  80. The Independent commission of fees (ICF). (2015). Final report, (July). Available at: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ICOF-REPORT-2015.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2015.
  81. Tight, M. (1988). So what is academic freedom? In M. Tight (Ed.), Academic freedom and responsibility (pp. 115–132). The society for research into higher education. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Troeger, V. (2014). Crisis without end: Review of Andrew Gambles book. Times higher education, 31 July.Google Scholar
  83. Trow, M. (1994). Managerialism and the academic profession: The case of England. Higher Education Policy, 7(2), 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. University and Colleges Union (UCU). (2010). Privatising our universities, February, available at: http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/9/6/ucu_privatisingouruniversities_feb10.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2015.
  85. UNESCO. (1997). Recommendations of the status of higher education teaching personnel. New York, NY: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  86. UUK/HESA. (2014). Patterns and trends in UK higher education. Universities UK in collaboration with Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).Google Scholar
  87. Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (1990). Government supply and government production failure: A framework based on contestability. Journal of Public Policy, 10, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Watermeyer, R., & Olssen, M. (2016). Excellence and exclusion: The individual costs of institutional competitiveness. Minerva, 54, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams, J. (2013). Consuming higher education: Why learning can’t be bought. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  90. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  91. Williamson, O. E. (1983). Organisational innovation: The transaction-cost approach. In J. Ronen (Ed.), Entrepreneurship (pp. 101–134). Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington.Google Scholar
  92. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  93. Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Williamson, O. E. (1992). Markets, hierarchies and the modern corporation: An unfolding perspective. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 17, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Williamson, O. E. (1994). Institutions and economic organization: The governance perspective. Paper Prepared for the World Bank’s annual conference on development economics, April 28–29 1994, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  96. Weingast, B. (1984). The congressional-bureaucratic system: A principal-agent perspective. Public Choice, 4, 147–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zamora, D. (Ed.) (2015). Critiquer Foucault: Les années 1980 et la tentation néolibérale. (with J.-L. Amselle, M. C. Behrent, M. S. Christofferson & J. Rehmann). Amsterdam: MCM.Google Scholar
  98. Zamora, D., & M. C. Behrent (Eds.). (2016). Foucault and neoliberalism (with M. S. Christofferson, M. Dean, L. Waquant, J Rehmann & J.-L. Amselle). London: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations