Normas generales que deben cumplir los materiales

This introduction has already referred to neoliberalism as a market-model form of capitalism. To prepare more fully for a positioning of Widening Participation within this ideological context, this section will provide an overview of what neoliberalism is considered to be.

Neoliberalism is a concept constructed as a capitalist ideology. It is based on market models of free trade and reductions in state interference in the

governance of a free market but combined with aspirations of individual liberty and freedom. The distinction between the neoliberal form of capitalism and more generic capitalist action is the premise of democracy through wealth generation. This wealth is generated predominantly through a Knowledge Economy. The concept became dominant throughout the 20th _{century and was}

defined against a backdrop of global unrest and changing political and economic platforms. Boas and Gans-Morse (2009, p. 139) highlighted the changing uses of the term from an originally positive utilisation that literally indicated a new liberalism defined by the Freiberg School of Economics in the post-World War II period as ‘moderate in comparison to classical liberalism, both in its rejection of laissez-faire policies and its emphasis on humanistic values’. In short, it was used in a way that was ‘almost opposite of how it is commonly used today’ (Ibid).

Duménil and Lévy (2005) describe neoliberalism as: ‘...the ideology of the market and private interests as opposed to state intervention’ (p. 9). The lack however, of ‘a clearly defined set of invariant features’ enables neoliberalism to appear across ‘a wide range of social, political and economic phenomena at different levels of complexity’ (Saad-Filho and Johnston, 2005, p. 1). This

35

generates some neoliberal practices that are easily characterised yet others are more difficult to locate or identify. The result is neoliberalism becomes a catchall term. This fluidity in defining and identifying neoliberal apparatus, mechanisms and practices could be construed as a conceptual weakness. Certainly, as Boas and Gans-Morse (2009) identified in their survey of the use of the term in social science research outputs, the concept of neoliberalism is applied

asymmetrically: ‘it is used frequently by those who are critical of free markets, but rarely by those who view marketization more positively.’ (p. 138). They also identified that it is often left undefined within empirical research and in addition, it has such wide employment in research outputs that they do not help identify ‘what it actually means’ (pp. 138-9).

The wide utilisation and multifaceted interpretation of the term neoliberalism makes it difficult to identify within Higher Educational practices until it is

formulated into some kind of specific action or practice. This is because those who do view it positively rarely use it as an actual identifier or concept to describe their beliefs or actions (Boas and Gans-Morse, 2009, p. 138). Within this thesis, neoliberalism will be taken to mean a market model of capitalism that promotes a social justice and democracy through capitalist gain. To

understand this further I will now establish some of the wider discourse relating neoliberalism to Higher Education

1.5.1 The relationship between neoliberalism and Higher Education

The economic underpinnings of neoliberalism can be understood equally as a complex appropriation and reinterpretation of many different intersecting ideas. Clarke (2005) reiterates the notion that historically locating neoliberalism’s specific ‘starting point’ is not possible but traces it back to Adam Smith.

Lapavitsas (2005, p. 31) asserts that neoliberalism appeared out of the decline of post-war Keynesianism economics and this resulted in ‘little more than the re- emergence of the old belief that the capitalist economy is essentially crisis-free’. The work of Friedman in the 1970s as a response to the collapse of

Keynesianism ‘resurrected the Quantity Theory of Money...[and] argued that capitalist economies have a ‘natural rate’ of unemployment, and any attempt to bring the actual rate of unemployment below the ‘natural’ would merely lead to inflation’ (Ibid). In other words by restricting the money supply, inflation would

36

be controlled. Inflation, as the major economic problem of the 1970s was ‘treated by Friedman as a purely monetary phenomenon resulting from too much money chasing after too few goods’ (Ibid). Friedman’s previous work (1962) had outlined the belief that individuals should take responsibility for investing in their own Higher Education. He suggested that ‘individuals should bear the costs of investment in themselves and receive the rewards. They should not be prevented by market imperfections from making the investment when they are willing to bear the costs’ (p. 105).

Lapavitsas (2005) identified the evolution of Friedman’s work in that of Lucas in the 1980s who claimed ‘longlasting excess supply is not possible. If there is unemployment, that is the result of government policy itself, i.e. of wrong- headed attempts to force aggregate output above levels warranted by the free economic choices of those who participate in the capitalist economy’ (p. 34). The enduring influence of this work is summarised as the notion that

‘government macroeconomic intervention is worse than useless – it is actually counterproductive’ (Ibid). This revival of an individualist agenda assumes that individuals are rational and seek to maximise their own behaviour. This

contradicts a macroeconomic position that attempts to control and understand an economy in its national, regional and global iterations.

According to Boas and Gans-Morse (2009, p. 144) neoliberalism invokes ‘normative ideas about the proper role of individuals versus collectives and a particular conception of freedom as an overarching social value’. This is described by Marxist scholar Harvey (2007, p. 24) who identifies the

appropriation of certain ‘conceptual apparatus’ including traditional liberal ideas of ‘political ideals of individual liberty and freedom as sacrosanct as the central values of civilization’ (Ibid) but reinterpreted within a free market model of economics. The use of principles of freedom and liberty are, Harvey suggests, well chosen because of their assumed resonance with many people in

highlighting the potential for the individual growth and development. This enables the concept of neoliberalism to permeate through different forms of political agendas without necessarily being recognised as such. Harvey suggests this is a benefit particularly in the global post- World War II anxiety that manifested in tensions in South America and Asia in the 1970s. Here, Harvey suggests, notions of liberty and free trade were used by the UK and the

37

US in the 1980s as a rhetorical defence against the danger of ideologies rising up around the globe in opposition (for example, the US and UK governments’ support of the rule of Pinochet in Chile).

Crouch (2011) examined the idea that at one point towards the end of the 20th century, neoliberalism had appeared to have ‘run its course’, only to re-emerge in the early 21st century within, for example, the ‘Big Society’ manifesto of the Conservative Party (2010) in the UK General Election. The results of this manifesto include deregulation of services; increased numbers of free schools and academy chains; the increase of fees for studying in Higher Education and the reduction of Teaching Grants for the same. This ‘new social order’, currently undergoing its own form of globalisation (i.e. spreading across the globe) is described by Duménil and Lévy (2005) as referring to new rules of how capitalism functions. It is identified through the key characteristics of how the centre (i.e. lenders and shareholders) and the periphery (i.e. labour and labour management) relate to each other. In particular, the removal of state

intervention relating to development and welfare and the growth of financial institutions and new relationships between financial and non-financial sectors are highlighted (p. 10).

The promotion of a market model that creates a different social dynamic is a centralised idea within neoliberal practice. Apple (2001 p. 413) suggests that the market model is not a model of action, but a metaphor, one that can be marketed to those ‘who will exist in it and live with its effects’. Apple also highlights ‘[m]arkets, as well, are supposedly less subject to political

interference and the weight of bureaucratic procedures. Furthermore, they are grounded in the rational choices of individual actors. Thus, markets and the guarantee of rewards for effort and merit are to be coupled together to produce 'neutral yet positive, results’ (p. 413). The market model within neoliberal ideology functions to promote trade that is free from interference from

government and reduces constraints on how products (goods or services and more recently more abstract concepts like knowledge as a commodity or currency) are supplied and consumed.