Transcript Public Goods and Private Commodities-

John Hawkins and Deane Neubauer
IFE 2020
23 Feb-6 March 2009
 The
pervasive ideology of contempoary
globalization is neo-liberalism
 Developed out of Reagan-Thatcherism, but
has spread widely with countries borrowing
selectively from it to suit their local
purposes.
Rule of the market--freedom for capital, goods and
services
 Market self-regulating allowing trickle down notion of
wealth distribution
 Reducing public expenditures--e.g. health and education
 Decreased taxation (especially on upper incomes) to
promote investment and consumption
 Deregulation to allow market to self regulate
 Privatization of public enterprise (from water to internet)
 Changing perceptions of public and community good to
individual and individual responsibility
(Martinez and Garcia, 1997)







Grew out of liberal traditions of a market society (as opposed
to state dominated) to provide opportunities for private
capital.
A public good was one intended for all by virtue of citizenship
in state.
The public good is the benefit derived from the whole of
society by a given activity, e.g. the health of its population,
security from external threat, etc.
Higher education a private good, tied to religious organizations
before the mid-19th century.
Invention of the Land Grant University in the mid 19-the
century to provide public higher education
Growing sense within progressive tradition of education as
contributing to the public good—underlying notions of general
education


Private education supported by individuals or groups exists in the
private sector--under state charter (regulation ranges from limited to
relatively comprehensive.)
Public Education
 First at state level--presumption of a “state pays” role.
 Different developmental course--some state public universities
become among the best, e.g. Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, California
 Significant expansion from 1960’s on with creation of multi-level
university systems: research universities, state colleges, community
colleges.
 Reduced funding in 1980s and again in late 1990’s
 Funding crisis: impose managerialism, raise student fees, develop
stronger external funding, entrepreneurial activity. All of which
equals a move toward the private sector.
Private Education--Increasing secular trend over 19th
century; creation of the “modern scientific
university”; special role of liberal arts colleges-social role of “reproduction of elites.”
 Emphasis on “general education” from Harvard in
1829 on.
 Capitalist tradition of giving to private education
 Post-war complexity of higher education
development: Elite, Mass, and Convenience
Institutions, and role of public/private investment

Who authorizes and assures quality? Unique role of
US associational model. Increased federal role in
process.
 The cost of higher education. GI Bill, Student Loans,
Tuition costs--the theory of educational investment
as a public good (hand out)
 The alignment issue and the vocationalization of
higher education: what should HE be for?
 The down sides of managerialism (loss of tenuretrack faculty, dependence on business and
government for finance, loss of academic freedom.)









Different traditions of absolutism
Absence of sovereignty assignment to “the people”
Ideas of “public” inseparable from government
Strong tradition of invested governmental bureaucracies
Higher education’s purpose to meet needs of the state,
e.g. Meiji Restoration
Complex history of colonialism, imperialism and
subsequent institutional creations of both public and
private sectors
Sense that “the duties, rights and privileges” of the
private sector have been delegated from governmental
authority
Issues of quality strongly linked to administrative authority
Declining public budgetary support-cost shifting
and user charges
 Managerialism and academic capitalism as tools
for running universities
 The alignment issue: how do university outcomes
align with economic needs?
 Pressures to “vocationalize” the curriculum
 Differential internal financing--shorting noneconomic aligned disciplines
 Shift in discourses away from those of the liberal
tradition.
 In light of current global financial meltdown,
where has neo-liberalism led us?

 Carries
the “logic” of a consumer society
and commodification: s/he who can pay,
gets.
 “Quality” referenced against what the
market is willing to pay for. Vocational
reductionism.
 Content of higher education follows
market, including private research
funding--who does “pure research” in
such a relationship?
 Non-vocationally oriented subjects get
ignored.
Issues of differentiated and expanded access:
with massification, who gets what under what
conditions?
 The Globalization of Research--who does what?
Where does the funding come from?
 Social Mobility--the differential “value” of higher
education to different classes of “consumers”
 Decentralization and autonomy--who benefits
from “liberalization of control?”
 Higher Education ranking behavior as an
introduction of a market mechanism—coupled
with idea of “globally competitive universities.”





Can there be some irreducible meaning to “the public
good” that might be associated with higher education?
What would it be?
Can we derive essential elements of public and private
sectors that cover the range of differences between Asian
and non-Asian experiences?
Is neo-liberalism a particular form of “privatization” as it
is applied to higher education? Are there significant
differences between the emergence of neo-liberal regimes
in the west and the eclectic borrowings of neo-liberal
elements in Asia?
Does public higher education always contribute to “the
public good”? Under what circumstances might it be
viewed as non-contributory?





Are there irreducible roles for the state in HE?
Will the global financial crisis result in a new
interventionist role for the state?
Given the many different ways of discussing public /
private may we not need a new language to talk about
what is going on in HE?
What is the role and function of higher education and its
transformative functions, for both the individual and
society? How does one get the leadership necessary in this
new context?
Need to differentiate the missions of individual
institutions. When the market fails, how will the state step
in to regulate in order to protect higher education
institutions which are now dependent upon the market for
funding.