Comments on: Shore and Wright on Neoliberalism https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/ Critical Ethnography & Higher Education Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:22:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.3.4 By: What is Neo-Taylorism? – Academography https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/#comment-877 Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:22:59 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=517#comment-877 […] most contemporary universities. While everyone reading this has likely heard the expression “neoliberalism,” most people won’t have heard of “Neo-Taylorism.” So I wrote up a little primer in Q & […]

]]>
By: The Academy and Freedom to Dissent – Academography https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/#comment-503 Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:23:31 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=517#comment-503 […] Shore, a well-known anthropologist of higher education whose work we’ve discussed before, sends in a critical commentary on current threats to academic […]

]]>
By: Davydd Greenwood https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/#comment-267 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:10:49 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=517#comment-267 No doubt you are right that the ostensible referent of NPM is the public sector and it is reasonable to remember that. But I think this more definitional approach overlooks the ideological-methodological expansion of market fundamentalism that underlies NPM, rational choice theory, casino capitalism, and the work of people like Gary Becker and those who have expanded market fundamentalism into genetics, ecology, psychology, and law. So yes, NPM is a public sector idea but for me, it is the public sector application of one basic ideology and practice of inequality. We can have the distinctions that you make and recognize the geneaology and osmolitic expansion of these ideas to so many other social realms. I take this to be the lesson of “institutional isomorphism”.

]]>
By: Eli Thorkelson https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/#comment-262 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:21:56 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=517#comment-262 Hi Davydd — Getting back to your comment very belatedly. I will read the Massey chapter and see what I make of it — thanks for the pointer.

About my admittedly rough distinction between NPM and “neoliberalism,” I think the specificity of NPM is, first of all, that it refers specifically to a form of *public management* which I think can be defined along three axes of contrast:

1. NPM contrasts with various older forms of state policy-making (particularly in Europe), such as the older French social democratic model where centrally administered public services were provided directly by the state apparatus and governed by ministerial decrees. (That contrasts with the NPM model of denationalized agents who are governed by the state through a series of incentives and contracts.)

2. NPM strictly picks out public-sector governmental action. Thus, similar practices pursued by non-state actors don’t count as NPM, because they aren’t public management. In other words, if a university marketing office implements a new neoliberal branding project (as in Bonnie Urciuoli’s work on Hamilton), I might call that “neoliberal” — Bonnie certainly would — but I wouldn’t call it “public management” because the operative party isn’t the state.

3. NPM tends to designate a practice of government rather than an academic “doctrine.” In this sense, NPM is narrower than “neoliberalism,” which can designate a mode of governance but also readily comes to designate a more philosophical form of market ideology. Thus “neoliberalism” gets used to talk about the Milton Friedman type of free market ideologues (I can’t really comment on how accurate that is, since I don’t read much economic theory) — but one would not readily call Chicago School economics a form of NPM, again because it is a theory of economy and society, not itself a mode of governance. Of course, since ideology and practice always permeate each other, this last distinction is not very clear-cut. Still, I find it useful to observe that public policymakers can implement NPM without necessarily being committed to a strong theory of market efficiency or something. (Sometimes you find people implementing NPM because they have to, or because their peers are doing it, or because the status quo is broken and they want to try something else, etc — in all of those cases you can find NPM being implemented without having to buy into a strong ideological superstructure, if you know what I mean.)

]]>
By: Davydd Greenwood https://academography.decasia.org/2017/07/22/shore-and-wright-on-neoliberalism/#comment-151 Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:16:37 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=517#comment-151 While these framings make lots of sense to me and I like using neoliberalization as a way to insist on a context specificity that is much needed, I am still puzzled by trying the pull the New Public Management out of the matrix as something different. Perhaps I just don´t get it but my reading of the NPM literature did not tell me anything I did not already know about “marketization” from Karl Polanyi. Perhaps it would be worth commenting on the very interesting chapter by Doreen Massey on “Vocabularies of the economy” in Hall, Massey, Rustin, After Neoliberalism_The Kilburn Manifesto and then take up the issue of the NPM and what difference it makes again.

]]>