Susan Robertson (University of Bristol)

Global Competitiveness and Higher Education: Discourses, Logics and Selectivity

In this paper I examine two, linked, discursive shifts central to thereconstitution of higher education around the meta-narrative of global andinstitutional competitiveness. The first logic, 'comparativecompetitivism' resulted in the restructuring of universities, and thehigher education sector being constituted as part of an emerging educationservices sector. The second logic, 'competitive comparison', usesgovernmental techniques, such as rankings, indexes and benchmarks, tocreate a set of social identities for universities that in turn locatethem in a hierarchical relation to their competitors. This status andmoral economy works to ensure the unleashing of a telos towardparticipation in an imagined knowledge-based economy. In this paper I howthe dual  discursive logics work to structurally and strategically select,materialise and institutionalise a new kind of university, economy, andknowledgeable subject.

Detlef Sack (University of Bielefeld)

Selectivity, Meso-Level Analysis and Mechanisms: The Case of Public-Private Partnerships

The contribution to the panel aims at discussing mechanism of selectivity within the process of new public management (NPM) on a meso-level of analysis. The topic at stake is the distribution of the British PFI-scheme to Europe and to Germany in particular. This PFI-scheme is a complex form of contractual Public-Private Partnership in which private companies deliver public services over a long period (15-30 years). As a specific kind of commodification of services in general interest and contractualization of statehood PFI-schemes has to be considered as part of the NPM programme. The paper will argue in three steps.

First, Jessops concept of strategic selectivity will be scrutinized in order to identify concepts for case-studies on a meso-level. The concepts of cultural political economy on the one hand and a modernized variant of the actor-centered institutionalisms on the other will be compared. This comparison aims to discuss categories for policy analysis, their analogies and their mis-matches.

Second, the strengths and weaknesses of the categories will be discussed looking at  the case study at hand. The distribution of PFI schemes in Germany over the last two decades is subject of the research. It will be compared with the respective process in Britain since 1992.

Third, the contribution discusses mechanism of selectivity identified in the case study in order to generalize the finding on the one hand and to scrutinize how the approach of strategic selectivity can be fruitfully conceptualized for policy analysis on meso-level.

Margo van den Brink (University of Groningen)

The managerial turn in Dutch water management: discourse and framing theory

The central theme of this paper is public sector reform in Dutch water management. In particular, the paper focuses on the changing positioning and organisational transformation of Rijkswaterstaat, the policy-implementing agency of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. Rijkswaterstaat is well known for its powerful position in the development of transport and hydraulic infrastructure in the Netherlands, for its engineering expertise and for bringing the Dutch worldwide fame by realising major public works such as the Delta Works. In recent decades, however, Rijkswaterstaat's strong position of power and its technocratic working methods have been increasingly challenged. The explosive rise of the environmental movement, the democratisation of Dutch society and, from the 1980s, the rise of the neoliberal politico-economic ideology, gave rise to intense public debates about the functioning of this public organisation.

Adopting a discursive approach, I examine the way in which Rijkswaterstaat tried to construct a new organisational identity, in particular in the early years of the 21st century. First, I use a post-structuralist discourse-theoretical perspective to analyse the constitution, functioning and transformation of the hegemonic discourse within Dutch water management, the technocracy discourse. As the focus of discourse theory is mainly on structure, not on agency, I supplement the discourse-theoretical perspective with insights derived from framing theory - in particular the schools of thought referred to as frame-critical policy analysis and collective action framing - and introduce a relational approach to framing to analyse the concrete attempts by Rijkswaterstaat to adapt the technocracy discourse to the changing social and political circumstances. 

Subsequently, I explain how Rijkswaterstaat chose to reposition itself in particular by identification with the neoliberal managerial discourse, and how it domesticated elements and practices from the new neoliberal politico-economic perspective in its predominantly technocratic system of meaning. I refer to this development as the managerial turn in the technocracy discourse (1980s to the present). The period of the 1980s and 1990s constituted the first phase of this turn. In line with New Public Management ideas, Rijkswaterstaat introduced various management tools from private business to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. In the early years of the 21st century, the managerial turn accelerated under the influence of new external events, and Rijkswaterstaat became much more actively engaged in changing its organisation into a government business. I characterise its new organisational identity in terms of a managerial master frame. However, as a result of the managerial turn, Rijkswaterstaat's expert status came under pressure. The paper therefore ends with a critical reflection on the recent developments within Dutch water management

Barbara Dickhaus (University of Kassel)

The selectivity of translation: accountability regimes in Chilean and South African higher education

 This paper examines the translation of global educational norms of quality assurance in two countries with very different regulatory regimes in higher education, Chile and South Africa. The translation process is conceptualized here as a contested socio-political process of appropriation and creation of meaning. Drawing upon the strategic-relational concept of selectivity and re-conceptualizing it for a Meso-level analysis, the paper argues that quality assurance policies have become a hegemonic tool for re-organising higher education because a variety of - partly contradictory - meanings and interests can be attached to them: quality assurance is linked to rationales such as democratic transformation, re-establishing public governance, strengthening market governance, contributing to national competitiveness, internationalisation of higher education or positioning universities in the (global) education market. Looking at the translation of quality assurance policies with the concept of selectivity enables us to see how structure, agency, discourses and scales operate strategically-selective in creating compromises between different interests in higher education governance.