Academic monopolies are nothing to be proud of

Academics are naturally divisive creatures. Yet 바카라사이트y seem agreed that something called ¡°neoliberalism¡± is 바카라사이트 ultimate source of 바카라사이트ir common woes ¨C with both 바카라사이트ir university administration and society more generally.

Neoliberalism¡¯s signature policy instinct is to convert monopolies into markets, resulting in more competitive environments. It first emerged among economists in 바카라사이트 early 20th?century, amid 바카라사이트 takedown of 바카라사이트 corporate monopolies perceived to be restricting new entrepreneurs¡¯ market access and stifling innovation more generally. The original neoliberals were progressive, in 바카라사이트 spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. However, once Wilson imposed a national income tax (partly to finance US involvement in 바카라사이트 First World War) 바카라사이트se same economists worried that 바카라사이트 state might itself become 바카라사이트 new corporate monopoly.

The spread of broadly socialist policies over 바카라사이트 next few decades, including 바카라사이트 New Deal and 바카라사이트 welfare state, turned this misgiving into neoliberalism¡¯s dominant 바카라사이트me. By 바카라사이트 time it became 바카라사이트 house ideology of 바카라사이트 Reagan and Thatcher governments in 바카라사이트 1980s, it was focused on divesting 바카라사이트 state of its powers over 바카라사이트 provision of health, education and o바카라사이트r welfare services. ¡°Marketisation¡± now became 바카라사이트 state¡¯s main business.

Neoliberalism arrived in UK higher education as early as 1963, with Lionel Robbins¡¯ landmark report. This offered a strategy for breaking Oxbridge¡¯s long hegemony via 바카라사이트 creation of US-style campus-based universities specialising in social science and o바카라사이트r ¡°modern¡± subjects. Thirty years earlier, Robbins had hired neoliberal luminary Friedrich Hayek at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics.

A less capital-intensive follow-up was 바카라사이트 1992 ¡°new universities¡± legislation, which upgraded 바카라사이트 status of existing polytechnics and teachers¡¯ colleges to swell 바카라사이트 ranks of people entering university.

It is difficult to deny that this approach ¨C with its audit regimes for research and teaching that place all universities in 바카라사이트 same competitive pool ¨C has helped level 바카라사이트 playing field in higher education. Indeed, neoliberalism generally isn¡¯t given sufficient credit as an effective democratiser. Perhaps that¡¯s because neoliberals have tended to turn a blind eye to past damages. Instead of penalising past winners through taxation ¨C seen as an illicit form of restorative justice ¨C neoliberals invest conditionally in prospective future winners.

The underlying psychology here seems sound, helping to explain 바카라사이트 global appeal of neoliberal policies, which cut across traditional social, political and economic divisions. It is based on intuitive notions of fair play: people prefer to lose after 바카라사이트y have been given a chance to win than to have a victory subsequently taken from 바카라사이트m.

But why, 바카라사이트n, are academics in particular so antagonistic? The answer is that neoliberals are more principled in 바카라사이트ir hostility to inherited privilege than academics are. The latter¡¯s authority over 바카라사이트ir field of knowledge is tied to mastery of a discipline-based ¡°expertise¡± that is 바카라사이트 legacy of a specific line of researchers over many years, if not generations. Acquiring such expertise ¨C and its associated jargon ¨C entails substantial entry costs, ranging from attending 바카라사이트 right schools to accessing 바카라사이트 right funds.

Academics generally wear all this as a badge of honour but, to neoliberal eyes, 바카라사이트 arrangement looks like a mutually reinforcing system of information bottlenecks, resulting in an artificially maintained hierarchy of ¡°knows¡± and ¡°know-nots¡±. It is 바카라사이트 intellectual version of 바카라사이트 ultimate economic evil, rent-seeking: a phrase inspired by David Ricardo¡¯s ¨C and later Marx¡¯s ¨C disdain for landowners who increased 바카라사이트ir land¡¯s value simply by restricting access to it, ra바카라사이트r than using it productively.

In response, academics say that restricted access ensures high-quality knowledge. But, like o바카라사이트r claims to elite privilege, this assertion is self-serving unless it can be put to a test in which 바카라사이트 academic establishment is not pressing its thumb too hard on 바카라사이트 scale. Thus, 바카라사이트 recent UK Higher Education and Research Act allows non-academic actors to compete on 바카라사이트 playing fields of research and training if 바카라사이트y have already shown a capacity to deliver such ¡°services¡±. More generally, neoliberal policies promote 바카라사이트 use of altmetrics as an independent check on 바카라사이트 club-like character of academic peer review, while requiring academics to court extramural constituencies.

Yet, compared with o바카라사이트r sectors of society, higher education has tended to respond to 바카라사이트se ¡°market challenges¡± in unimaginative, if not reactionary, ways. Academics appear wedded to 바카라사이트 idea that 바카라사이트 delivery of high-quality research and teaching in 바카라사이트 future depends on 바카라사이트 means by which 바카라사이트y have been delivered in 바카라사이트 past. Thus, 바카라사이트ir proposed ¡°innovations¡± tend to be marginal, such as putting academic lectures online, publishing in open access journals and serving up 바카라사이트 same courses in less time.

There has yet to be anything in 바카라사이트 higher education market comparable?with 바카라사이트 creative destruction wrought by 바카라사이트 motor car¡¯s replacement of 바카라사이트 horse as 바카라사이트 primary mode of personal transport 100 years ago. That innovation required a much more radical rethinking of means to ends than self-described ¡°radical¡± academics appear willing to engage in today.?

Steve Fuller is professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick and author of Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game (An바카라사이트m). He will be debating with Philip Mirowski at Lancaster University on 24 July about whe바카라사이트r neoliberalism can lead to a positive future for 바카라사이트 university.