The term “neoliberal university” gets bandied around a lot. But what does it mean?
Neoliberalism is hard to write about sensibly because there’s a lack of basic agreement about what the term means. This isn’t just about yahoos using “neoliberal” as a synonym for “The Man” or “something I happen to dislike” (though that does happen a lot); even those who want to write about the subject are faced with some real problems in defining it.
The definition of any –ism is bound to be the subject of some disagreement, but there is usually a core set of texts which can be examined and from which central defining principles can be derived. The interpretation of Marxism is still a live issue but there isn’t much doubt about its core principles. Reagan and Thatcher didn’t write much, but they had a list of concrete actions in government which could define their “isms” pretty clearly. Lenin, Stalin and Mao had both writings and track records in government.
Abstract -isms are tougher. The definition of socialism is still under debate after two centuries, but at least there are people who call themselves socialist, and who organize on behalf of socialism. Neoliberalism is a lot tougher to define because – apart from a couple of fairly non-specific paragraphs in a 1951 Milton Friedman essay, which mostly just called for competition and monetary stability – no one has ever written a neoliberal program from a positive standpoint the way Marx did with communism (though as Dani Rodrik recently noted there was a 1982 WaPo piece called “A Neo-Liberal’s Manifesto” by Charles Peters of the left-ish Washington Monthly, but the concepts he was describing bears only a passing resemblance to what most people who use the term “neoliberal” as an epithet have in mind when they use the term). Rather, “neoliberalism” is a term used by the left to describe a fairly wide variety of economic policies which – in their eyes – all share an origin in classic liberal laissez-faire economic policy. But because neoliberalism is in effect in the eye of the beholder, the list of specific policies which can earn the moniker “neoliberal” can vary substantial from one analyst to another. That doesn’t mean it’s an invalid concept, but it does mean it can be maddeningly imprecise one, and that’s before we deal with the fact that the term neoliberal is used as a term of abuse more often than as one of serious analysis.
Among the multiplicity of definitions of neoliberalism, what people can agree on is that it is about markets and introducing greater market logic into the organization of societal affairs. And there’s no doubt, for instance, that society nowadays broadly entrusts the market to manage things more than it did 50 years ago (though perhaps not more than it did 100 years ago). Where things get trickier, because the definition of neoliberal is so imprecise, is trying to expand the definition of neoliberalism into territory beyond this.
For instance, some will claim that under neoliberalism the notion of markets are inextricably entwined with ideas about competition and therefore anything involving competition is ipso facto neoliberal as well. Or, because in a world like higher education where competition involves quasi-markets as well as actual ones (think competitions for CFREF, or use of funding formulas), that anything that facilitates the functioning of quasi-markets, such as collecting performance data is thus inherently neoliberal. In fact, management itself is sometimes seen as neoliberal, since its techniques were honed and developed in the corporate world and since corporations exist in the market sphere, anything that emanates from them must be compromised by notions of markets and competition and hence neo-liberalism.
The most trivial definition of a “neoliberal university” is that which includes any university existing within a larger neoliberal system. This is not particularly helpful, methodologically speaking, since it means that all universities are neoliberal universities and there is no model outside neoliberalism to which one can assess universities. You might as well just call them “modern” universities or “twenty-first century universities”.
A more sophisticated analysis of the “neoliberal university” would focus on the four things I mentioned above: the role of markets, the role of competitions (in higher education at least, a broader notion than markets), the role of performance data and the role of management. And with respect to each, the analysis would ask: have universities changed very much over time, or have they always been this way? Are there now or have there ever been models of universities which operate in a different way? And to what extent are the effects of these four things beneficial or detrimental?
Over the next few days, I’ll be doing exactly that.
Tweet this post
Ah, and I thought that multiplicity was more likely me getting confused about something I didn’t understand. It’s strange to feel closer to grasping it due to a practically deliberate vagueness.
Thanks for this descriptive introduction, Alex. Happily anticipating your next posts!
This is an interesting start, though I would have hoped for a more tightly bound definition at least by the end of part one. Each of the four senses of neo-liberalism that you raise can be qualified in important ways.
– the role of markets – does not just mean the use of markets. In neo-liberalism, this means that markets are unregulated, or minimally, self-regulated. Socialist and mixed-market economies often employ regulated free markets.
– the role of competition – even the Soviet Union engaged in competition, for example, the Olympics, hockey tournaments, and more. Public entities in Canada likewise compete for staff, for resources, and for recognition. The role of competition in neo-liberalism is that it is an existential struggle – you cannot survive (as a company, as a person) unless you succeed in competition.
the role of performance data – not sure exactly what you’re up to here, but minimally, neo-liberalism endorses the idea of “you manage only what you can measure”, which rules out such things as well-being, happiness and tranquility as measures.
the role of management – in neo-liberalism, management is focused on the bottom line, to the exclusion of all else. There is no sense of management for other outcomes, such as social good, environmental good, etc., unless some entity is willing to pay for these.
I think it is important, if you are going to talk about the neo-liberal university, not to soft-sell neo-liberalism. It has a hard edge, and to the extent that it doesn’t, it’s not neo-liberalism.
In my mind, a neoliberal college or university would be private or would want to be privatized. Nevertheless, it would still want as much government funding as it could get, while arguing that government funding is bad for other players in the economy. It would seek deregulation, in particular with regard to tuition fees and labour standards. It would fight collective action by teachers and other employee groups, trying to offload as much risk and volitility onto its workforce as possible. It would make deals with businesses to do their training and research for them. It would have as few buildings and outsource as many aspects of its work as it could, including the actual teaching, to the point of existing mostly as a brand of education that can be marketed. It’s main goal is financial profit, and it would take advantage of any market failures or externalities that would increase profit, as long as they aren’t likely to be too risky.
Brett- Best and most clear definition came across
“Among the multiplicity of definitions of neoliberalism, what people can agree on is that it is about markets and introducing greater market logic into the organization of societal affairs.” I think that is too weak. The implicit premise behind neoliberal discourse is that society =should= be reorganized to maximize the size and scope of competitive markets. Implicitly, GDP growth is not important because it brings good things, GDP growth is really a =bonum in se=. And this leads to attacks on the parts of a university which are not oriented to training specialists in industries which seem to lead to ‘growth.’ There is an element of faith involved just like a communist’s faith that one day the oppressive states of actually existing communism will wither away.
When a medieval city promoted the faculty of medicine at its university, or the 19th century USA set up a school of engineering and surveying at West Point, they were not thinking “in 20 years, every family will have a little more money in its pockets.” They thought that these would have practical benefits, but measurable economic benefits were just one kind, and they were also interested in things like civic prestige or the national defense which they saw as =bona in se=.
Similarly, in neoliberalism the idea is not that “management is a good thing” (something which people from many points of view agree on) but “organizations should be managed like businesses in a competitive free market.” There are whole books on how the US military has borrowed ideas and gurus from the business world; Jona Lendering has a book on the culture clash as the American idea of the MBA or ‘professional manager’ spread to the Netherlands where traditionally managers were the older workers.
I am also a bit confused about what you plan to do with performance data, but importing business gurus often means using quack metrics. And setting up a competitive market to destroy some and save others around quack metrics based on unstated, controversial premises about the good can get ugly fast.
Wouldn’t disagree that neo-liberalism isn’t very well defined in many of the contexts in which it is used. I’d argue that there’s much more bound up in neo-liberalism conceptually than the stuff you mention above: all are tools oriented to attaining a certain vision or agenda for higher education. And of course when we talk tools, “if you’re a hammer everything is a nail,” right? So to what extent do the tools you mention — competition, metrics, markets and management — end up shaping the way we conceptualize the purpose of higher education? And what does that concept exclude? Neo-liberalism as I understand it is a political philosophy that takes some pretty clear moral positions on the respective roles of the state, markets and the individual. As you suggest neo-liberalism ought to be “spelled out” better, but focusing on its instrumental dimensions alone leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the role(s) that higher education ought to play in society.