Through the Looking Glass
Review by Jeremy Bray
Click here for PDF version

Seize the Future: How Australia Can Prosper in the New Century
by Alan Oxley
Allen and Unwin, 2000, $19.95, 270pp.Ê ISBN 1 86508205 8

The main argument of Alan OxleyÕs Seize the Future is quite simple. During the 1950s and 1960s our economy ran along nicely, delivering Australia a second Ôgolden ageÕ. The economic problems that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, however, lowered the nationÕs standard of living relative to those of other countries and initiated a souring of the national mood. But, as a result of the economic reforms of the last two decades, both the economy and our national mood have improved. Moreover, if we stay on our current policy course we will soon find ourselves experiencing a third Ôgolden ageÕ.

Oxley maintains that the economic reforms mentioned above occurred after our policymakers realised in the 1980s that the economy could no longer go on as it had, with the agricultural and resource sectors subsidising inefficient manufacturers and public utilities. It was recognised that the necessary economic restructuring would not be easy and would cause economic pain. But the situation would improve as utilities became efficient and the manufacturing sector became internationally competitive. That this is increasingly the case is demonstrated in a chapter devoted to discussing AustraliaÕs manufacturing industry.

Oxley, however, goes further: not only is our economy improving after a long period of underperformance, but Australia is on the verge of becoming a Ôglobal nationÕ, that is, a nation whose citizens Ôwill work and move effortlessly from one country to another and back to their ownÕ, by virtue of that nationÕs competitive economy, democratic institutions and open society. But Oxley warns that, if the nation is to realise its destiny, it must guard against returning to the old policies of industrial protection and restricted immigration, and must look to playing an active diplomatic role in the world.

OxleyÕs analysis of the Australian economy in the 1980s is quite negative and largely ignores the very real boom which occurred, along with significant structural change, in that decade. As is well known, the Accord policy transferred money away from wages to profits by obliging the unions to restrict their wage demands, thus giving business a large amount of cash which, along with money provided
by the newly-deregulated banks, funded the financial adventures of the 1980sÕ entrepreneurs. The result was a decade of extravagance for a few and a combination of widespread employment growth but falling real purchasing power for many, with the employment gains being removed in short order by the recession. In his analysis Oxley focusses only on the troubles created for the many by economic restructuring and neglects the fall in unemployment and strong economic growth which occurred during that time (even to the point of dismissing the seven-year expansion as a Ômini-boomÕ).

By contrast, the forecast for Australia to emerge as a global nation in the next century is unreservedly optimistic. The current policy course will deliver us to our prosperous destiny, with the benefits being shared among all Australians. All we need do is stay with that policy course, remember the lessons learned from our economic failures, work hard and continue augmenting our population by immigration, and prosperity will be ours.

This contrast exists for a definite reason: the purpose of this book is not to give an economic history of the last 20 years, nor is it to enunciate the causes of the wealth of nations in the 21st century: the purpose is to re-assure the mass of Australians who were victims of economic restructuring during the 1980s that this process will provide a better future, not only for the nation as a whole, but for them and their families as well. The focus on the economic bleakness of the 1980s serves both to appeal to the disappointment of those affected by the recession and to enhance the universal and unqualified benefits of the coming third Ôgolden ageÕ in AustraliaÕs economic history.

Written in a conversational style and intended for a wide audience, the book is an appeal to those disillusioned by the economic and social policies of the last 20 years to stay the course laid down for the nation by its policymakers. It is no wonder, then, that Oxley caustically criticises Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party, who first gave a voice, albeit visceral and incoherent, to popular unease with the prevailing policy consensus. He accuses Hanson of inviting the Australian people to Ôretreat from the future and build a nation on the pastÕ
(p. 71), that future being our destiny as a Ôglobal nationÕ, the future we are urged to seize.

The trouble in simplifying an argument so as it becomes clear and easily comprehensible is that it often results in inaccuracy. One example seen above is the unduly dim view of the expansion of the 1980s. Another occurs in OxleyÕs discussion of AustraliaÕs relationship with Asia. For example, he writes: ÔBetween Federation and the Second World War, Australia turned its back on AsiaÕ in order to ignore the ÔAsian BogeyÕ (p. 46). This statement ignores the fact that during that time most of the Asian nations served as an economic hinterland for the Western powers. The lack of active Australian involvement in the region was a consequence of these nations having little economic and political independence, rather than any conscious decision by Australia to ignore them. On the contrary, where engagement was possible, such as in providing the Japanese with industrial commodities, Australia was a vigorous participant.

While many pages are devoted to discussing AustraliaÕs international relations, the book contains very little discussion of possible policy solutions to problems that will hinder our ability to realise our destiny as a global nation, such as the weakness of the currency and the problems facing higher education. For example, in chapter 14 Oxley makes the point that there ought to be more funding of higher education and research, especially of the CSIRO and of science and engineering. There is no discussion, however, of how the current levels of funding came to be inadequate, nor of what level of funding might be deemed adequate. Moreover, there is no mention of policy alternatives for education and training that have been presented in the media, both in these pages and elsewhere.

A more serious problem lies in OxleyÕs central thesis: that AustraliaÕs policy-making bodies will unambiguously deliver it a third golden age. This is asserted in spite of the fact that all of the historical problems mentioned by OxleyÑthe inefficiency of the manufacturing sector, the insufficiency of diplomatic engage-ment, the boom and bust of the 1980sÑwere largely the result of policy mistakes. The reader is asked to believe that further grave policy mistakes will not revisit the country, without there being an explanation of how the nationÕs policymaking bodies lost the fallibility to which they were so prone in the past.

In Seize the Future Alan Oxley is seeking to reassure his fellow Australians that the reforms undertaken over the last two decades have been worthwhile and will bear fruit, provided that we stay on the policy course laid down for us. Whether he will be successful or not is beyond the scope of this reviewer to say. The bookÕs account of AustraliaÕs economic and social conditions of the last 20 years appears unduly negative, and the forecast for Australia to become a Ôglobal nationÕ is not convincing. The book is thus best read in conjunction with other texts discussing AustraliaÕs economic and social history, and the choices facing the nation.

Review by Richard Grant

The Politics of Australian Society: Political Issues for the New Century
Edited by Paul Boreham, Geoffrey Stokes and Richard Hall
Sydney, Longman / Pearson Education, 350pp., $36.95, 2000Ê ISBN 073390212X

The Politics of Australian Society is a critique of contemporary issues on the Australian political landscape. Its intent is to provide insights into the shape of current political debates and the forces that underpin them. Accordingly, the book is subdivided into three parts: political ideas, political institutions and public policies. The first, on political ideas, contains chapters on the philosophy of the two major parties, the relationship between populism and conservatism, and the issues of feminism and indigenous rights. The second part details the party system, the High Court, human rights, the media and the welfare state. The third looks more closely at some of the policy debates that involve these political ideas and institutions.

For the seasoned observer of this genre, one looks for two things. First, what is its glue and how well does this central theme or themes hold the collection together. Politics One texts are often guilty of compromising cogency and focus for breadth. The second aspect concerns the contributors themselves. Just as in newspaper comment, in the relatively small Australian academic market, ideologies and pet leanings are often tiresome. If we are to judge the book for its contribution to the discipline, issues ought to be explained rather than presumed to be important, and changed circumstances acknowledgedÊ where appropriate.

On these tests, The Politics of Australian Society is refreshing. Its structure works well, achieving a good sense of the value of concepts and the power of institutions from which to address the various policy debates. There is overlap in places, though this generally serves to reinforce rather than labour ideas. Most of the chapters develop chronologically, ending with thoughts on the future. There have probably been better accounts of the mechanics of the Australian political system and its institutions, but few that have combined an interest in this system and its underpinning ideas with the challenges posed by contemporary policy debates.

Andrew NortonÕs chapter on the Liberal Party plots the relationship between liberalism and conservatism, suggesting that the balance between the two has and will change depending on the success of the partyÕs free market policy agenda and the personal convictions of its leaders. Norton foresees the PartyÕs policy success leading to a more conservative stance in the future.

Tim Battin canvasses the standard arguments on the ALPÕs transition over the 1980s. His conclusion is that LaborÕs practice of moderating market-based policies with remedial social policies is no longer palatable politically. Battin rebuts Mark LathamÕs argument that there has been a fundamental transition to post-Fordist (i.e. differentiated and customised) production, believing that the ALP could revive its traditional objectives and re-establish an economic alternative.

Gregory Melleuish explores the rise of conservative populism in Australia, borrowing the distinction of ÔhardÕ and ÔsoftÕ Hansonism. The former refers to the One Nation PartyÕs grievances, the latter to a more generic protest against economic rationalism. The inter-esting point in MelleuishÕs chapter is the use of the term Ôconservative pop-ulismÕ, which was harn-essed by Governments in the Australian Settlement days, but aroused by their treatment of the rapid economic and social changes over the past 30 years.

The first section ends with chapters on indig-enous issues and feminism. Chilla Bullbeck claims the traditional strictures of feminism have been changed by the attitudes of young women, although the over-whelming impression is of the disparate and confused nature of gender issues. Geoffery Stokes and Peter Jull proffer a defence of the ATSIC admin-istration and optimism for the recon-ciliation process based on learning from international precedent.

The bookÕs second part Ðon institutions Ð begins with a chapter on Parliament and the executive. Liz Young rejects the notion that the ParliamentÕs power has declined, citing the revival of the Committee system and the SenateÕs obstructionism over the 1990s. The predominance of the Executive remains, but is qualified by the failure of Government to hold power in the Senate. Young does recognise both the Keating and Howard Governments as having exercised Ômandate-styleÕ argum-ents in opposition to Senate interference.

Ian MarshÕs chapter on the party system recognises the major partiesÕ need to adapt in the face of a more diffuse electorate, the growing political success of minority interests, and a wider range of policy problems. The Senate, with its system of proportional representation, is a continuing reminder of the presence and power of these factors. Marsh foresees the possibilities of a major/minor party alliance, the major parties seeking to capture minority interests by broadening their policy base, or the minor parties using their Senate influence to challenge the policymaking of the major parties.

Richard HallÕs subsequent chapter on the High Court continues the theme of institutions under pressure from outside influence. The CourtÕs major cases since the early 1900s are detailed. But the issue of growing politic-isation is of most interest. Hall pours water on the various critiques of the High CourtÕs alleged intrusion into matters legislative and parlia-mentary, claiming the Court to have always been a political institution. Hall protests against the idea that highly politicised institutions such as native title can be desensitised by the judiciary.

The section on public institutions finishes with chapters on the news media (Rodney Tiffen) and the welfare state (Stephen Bell), recognising the commercial pressures that challenge the democratic character of both. Bell argues that AustraliaÕs welfare system has always been residual and that the main failure rests in the labour marketÕs ineffective distribution of both income and jobs. BellÕs arguments are a good introduction to the third part of the book on public policy issues. The section is pitched in terms of the upheaval of traditional Australian institutions over the 1980s and 1990s and recommends that Government reassume a regulatory role. Here, there is considerable overlap between the parts with the central theme being the challenge that globalisation presents to national economies.

Mark BeesonÕs chapter on global-isation argues that the internationalisation of the Australian economy needs to be managed by the state to ensure co-operation with transnational bodies to regulate trade and development. Roy GreenÕs chapter on industry policy similarly advocates strategic intervention by the Government. Specifically, he argues that attention should be paid to specific sectors to promote regional development.

Bill HarleyÕs chapter on industrial relations questions the benefits of enterprise-based bargaining given that the old-style adversarial nature of the employer/employee contract remains. Paul Boreham, the section editor, continues the theme with an attack on the impact of microeconomic reform on workplace arrangements. Boreham lists a role for large public capital expenditures and a return to centralised incomes policy in reducing structural unemployment.

Jocelyn Pixley writes a heavily ideological piece on the failure of markets to provide adequate standards of subsistence. Pixley argues that given the trend towards a part-time, casualised workforce, the wage-earnerÕs welfare state in Australia compromises the well-being of an ever-larger portion of the population.

The section, and the book, concludes with chapters endorsing further immigration (Jock Collins) and a long-term commitment to environmental protection (Giorel Curran). Overall, The Politics of Australian Society is a useful addition to the literature for under-graduates. It covers a lot of territory and integrates its three parts well. Norton and MelleuishÕs contributions give the first section a good balance. The third could have done with a chapter defending existing and past policy settings, or at least an authoritative explanation as to why governments of the past two decades felt obliged to pursue the course they did.

Review by Sean Johnson

HowardÕs Agenda
Edited by Marian Simms and John Warhurst
UQP Australian Studies, 2000,Ê 231pp, ISBN 0-7022-3163-0ÊÊ

This is not, as the title might suggest, an exploration of the Howard GovernmentÕs political agenda. Rather, HowardÕs Agenda is a mostly scholarly collection of essays on the 1998 Federal Election from a number of well known political commentators and actors. At one level the book provides a quality analysis of the election result, while at another it offers some insightful, and at times humorous, commentary on Australian contemporary politics and campaigning.

Clive Bean and Ian McAllister, in their chapter ÔVoting BehaviourÕ, detail the factors influencing voters in the 1998 election. Based on an analysis of data
from the Australian Electoral Study they found that, unlike the 1996 election, the 1998 election saw issues as a bigger factor influencing voter behaviour than attitudes to party leaders. As expected, the study found the two big issues were taxationÑboth the GST and other tax reformsÑand health, particularly Medicare. What was unexpected was that taxation delivered a small net benefit to the Coalition of 1%, greater than the benefit delivered to Labor in health (0.5%).
Bean and McAllister argue that the reason taxation helped the Coalition was due to their ability to convince voters of the importance of tax reform and the superiority of CoalitionÕs tax package over LaborÕs. Though not stated by Bean and McAllister, the ability of the Coalition to convince voters of the need for tax reform could beÊ tied to the communityÕs perception of the Coalition as better economic managers than Labor.

Another interesting finding of the Electoral Study was that voting behaviour was not influenced by the secondary leadership figuresÑGareth Evans, Peter Costello, Cheryl Kernot et al. As such, it would appear that the CoalitionÕs targeting of Evans, and LaborÕs promotion of Kernot as a vote winner, were wasted efforts. This is backed by earlier research from Bean and Kelley in 1988 which found only the leaders of the major parties have an impact on voter behaviour.

HowardÕs Agenda also includes a state and region analysis of the election. Considering the importance of NSW to the election result, one of the more interesting contributions is by Elaine Thompson, who amongst other things, looks at the failure of Labor in the ÔnaturalÕ Labor state. Two factors appear to have counted against Labor. Polls showed that despite campaigning heavily in NSW Kim Beazley had a low recognition rating amongst NSW voters, especially in marginal seats. Thompson also points to tensions between the Federal and State machines for LaborÕs poor result. The national secretary, Gary Gray argued for a stronger anti-GST message in NSW, while NSW secretary John Della Bosca complained that LaborÕs capital gains tax changes were an electoral turn off to the relatively affluent voters of NSW. Based on Bean and McAllisterÕs analysis mentioned earlier, Della Bosca would appear to be correct in his judgement.Ê

Bligh Grant and Tony Sorensen examine the complex relationship between the One Nation vote and marginality and regionalism. The authors point out that when Pauline Hanson first appeared on the political stage in 1996 she was only associated with the politics of race, immigration and AustraliaÕs connection with Asia. It was only after the success of One Nation in the Queensland election in June 1998 that her party came to be associated with the new iconography of the Ôdire socioeconomic plight of regional Australia.Õ

This characterisation of rural Australia as consisting only of marginalised rural battlers was as much a fabrication as previous romantic images of rural Australia. What it also ignored is the socioeconomic disadvantage of people in urban areas, particularly in some urban fringes where the One Nation vote was quite high. For instance, Wide Bay, an urban fringe resort area north of the Gold Coast recorded the largest One Nation vote at the 1998 election.

A good counterpoint to the previous contributions is provided by Haydon Manning and Robert PhiddianÕs ÔWhereÕs the Clown?Õ, which examines the use of cartoons and satire in the 1998 election. The authors argue that political cartoonists are relativelyÊ tame compared to the sharp satire of the 1970s and 1980s. ÔThis is more the age of Leunig than of Tandberg, an age of doubts rather than angry certainties.Õ Moreover, cartoonists were denied good satirical ÔcopyÕ due to the tight control exercised by the major parties over the campaign, One Nation being the only exception!

The main themes of cartoonists were voter boredom and disinterest due to the election clashing with the Commonwealth Games and the football finals. One of the better cartoons was by Peter Nicholson in The Australian, which portrayed John Howard and his Ministers delivering his GovernmentÕs second term to a household and asking the family to not look up from the TV ÔItÕs just a delivery. . . sign here.Õ

Similarly, Michael Atchinson from The Advertiser shows Kim Beazley leaning over a couch trying to get a coupleÕs attention as they watch the Commonwealth Games. ÔListen . . .Ê I said, Howard has deliberately called the . . . Oh, OK . . . How many golds have we got so far?Õ One of the few cartoons to reach the Ôhigh country of satireÕ was Bill LeakÕs post election portrayal of a prostate John Howard apologising to Mal Colston and asking for his support in the Senate.ÊÊ

Another humorous and thoughtful contribution is made by former NSW Education Minister Rodney Cavalier, who explains why he got the election result so wrong. ÔUnlike 1996 where I was dead right within one seat, in 1998 I was dead wrong.Õ Cavalier had expected NSW to lead the nation in a big swing against the Government. But in hindsight, Cavalier points out that Sydney, with its high real estate prices, was never going to vote for a party which promised to remove pre- 1985 exemptions on capital gains tax. He dismisses claims from the Labor National Secretariat that the partyÕs poor result in NSW was due to a fall in the campaigning skills of the much revered NSW machine. ÔTo believe that, you have to have subscribed to the myth of their campaigning skills in the first place, which I have never done, unlike the Liberal Party which got itself thoroughly spooked about this invented faculty.Õ

HowardÕs Agenda is of varying quality and can sometimes be difficult to read due to the plethora of statistics and tables. However, for anyone interested in the factors influencing the 1998 electionÑmany of which could be relevant to the outcome of the next election in 2001Ñit is worth reading.

Review by David Kelly

ChinaÕs Future: Constructive Partner or Emerging Threat
Ted Galen Carpenter and James A. Dorn
Cato Institute, 2000, 378pp, $US10.95Ê ISBN 1-882577-88-4

The equivalent book published in China would be entitled America: Outright Obstacle to ChinaÕs Emergence. It is one of the disturbing asymmetries of our time that for observers in the US, the ÔthreatÕ posed by China is cloaked in ambiguity and irony, whereas for many people in China nothing seems clearer than an imperative American urge to cramp ChinaÕs style. The main ÔthreatÕ interested outsiders identify is of a ratcheting of perceptions, whereby any policy shift in Washington is read as manoevre demanding a stand on principle.

As a whole ChinaÕs Future, drawn from a September 1999 Cato Institute conference, is an exercise in public advocacy rather than scrupulously disinterested scholarship. It castigates the Clinton regimeÕs strategic drift (especially as regards controls on the transfer of strategic technologies). It supports market liberalism (i.e. free trade, PNTR and ChinaÕs accession to the WTOÑnow virtual policy fait accomplis) and hopes that, as a package, this will promote rather than damage the cause of human rights in China. And it advocates Ônormal diplo-macyÕ with China in language that suggests that this is a novel and problematic initiative.

Advocacy should not be taken to mean that respectable academic scholarship is missing from the book. Part One, ÔA Half Century Of Turbulent ChangeÕ contains a number of lucid accounts of ChinaÕs evolution from a ÔpoliticalÕ to an ÔeconomicÕ society. There are likewise solid and informative discussions of trade policy and the course of economic reform. As virtually every author concedes, the transition is far from complete. Outside perceptions of China are ambiguous, in large part because they are trained on an object which itself refuses to settle into a fixed, predictable shape. Robert A. Manning addresses this in ÔLiving with Ambiguity? US-China Relations in an Era of TransitionÕ, which concludes:

The discomfiting reality is that China defies our comfortable stereotypes. It is in the midst of a social and economic trans-formation whose outcome remains uncertain (p. 205).

As he points out, China may emerge as open and ecumenical on one set of issues, but Ôturned inward and confrontationalÕ on others (p. 191). Manning contrasts ChinaÕs apparent commitment to get into the WTO and other international regimes with its intractability on national sovereignty, Taiwan and arms modern-isation. But as it transpires from Barry NaughtonÕs ÔChinaÕs Trade Regime at the End of the 90sÕ, even within the WTO issue China has hovered between contradictory commitments, between becoming open and staying closed. Thomas Rawski (ÔChinaÕs Move to MarketÕ) is even more sceptical of ChinaÕs claims to rate as a Ômarket economyÕ, pointing to its Ôlargely unresolved investment mechanismÕ (p. 331).

And the economy is often portrayed as the ÔeasyÕ part of the China puzzle! The area of human rights and freedom is if anything more of a patchwork. It is now possible to buy HayekÕs The Fatal Conceit in bookstores in downtown Beijing, yet a contributor to ChinaÕs Future and public advocate of Hayek, Liu Junning, was removed from his academic job earlier this year, and is effectively shut out of the intellectual arena. Liu writes with intriguing optimism about the Internet as a vector of liberal ideas (p. 55ff)

The government has now tightened regulation on the Internet, making site operators responsible for the political correctness of their pages. As Liu and other enthusiasts argue, the nature of the Internet itself, and its importance to the economy, makes it hard for such a campaign to have teeth in the long run. But speaking frankly about politics will continue to have its risks. The uneasy prospects of ChinaÕs Ôcreeping democratisationÕ or Ôrevolution from belowÕ are noted by a number of the authors, in particular co-editor Dorn (ÔThe Tao of TradeÕ).

The chapters comprising part two are the core of the book and are organised around the question ÔFriendly Neighbour Or Expansionist Power?Õ The answer, eschewing either extreme, is broadly one of cautious optimism. Peter Rodman (ÔBetween Friendship and RivalryÕ) finds that alarmism is overblown (p. 145) and classifies ChinaÕs posture as classically geopolitical rather than ideological. Later, however, he recasts this to allow for nationalism, an admittedly more plastic ideological medium.

Selig Harrison (ÔChina and the United States in Asia: the ÒThreatÓ in PerspectiveÕ) questions whether China has the capacity to shift from its mainly defensive, inward looking posture to an expansionist one. In the eyes of ChinaÕs neighbours, this may be an academic question. For Southeast Asia in particular, ChinaÕs apparent intentions may speak louder than its capacity. Marvin C. Ott (ÔThe DragonÕs Reach: China and Southeast AsiaÕ) speaks of AmericaÕs Ôstrategic driftÕ and need for greater strategic clarity in this theatre.

The upshot, as expressed in the introduction to the book, is that China is a Ônormal great powerÕ, i.e., neither an enemy nor a strategic partner. There is an issue here. The book treats this latter term as over-blown rhetoric of the Clinton era, which is only partly the case. China itself has built up a system of strategic partnerships pitched at a series of levels. A signed and sealed strategic partnership accord is an eagerly sought badge of merit in dealings with the Chinese leadership, especially for middle sized powers. The book as a whole pays scant regard to the orchestration of ChinaÕs diplomacy from BeijingÕs point of view, in which the US relationship, although the main game, is not the only one in town. Strategic partnership is a besieged, politcally incorrect formulation by the US for what often seem to be partisan reasons. In China it is probably becoming a synonym for normal diplomacy.

ÔIt is manifest hubrisÕ, writes Selig Harrison, Ôto think that the United States can forever dominate a region that contains nearly a third of the worldÕs population.Õ Similarly, as William McGurn opines, ÔThe delusion of both the right and the left is the notion that we can come up with some legal
blueprint for China andÑvoilˆ! øChina will be freeÕ (p. 66).

These are noble expressions of renunciation but not especially reassuring. True, those of us who donÕt get to vote in American elections tend to perceive hubris a little more readily than those who do. Hubris is bad and it would be great to do away with it, but policy drift is more regularly manifest.

The painful division of the US electorate in the November 2000 presidential elections may usher in a period of even greater uncertainty in policymaking there. The ambiguity of American perceptions, which this book perceptively maps, deserves to be labelled as one the driving forces in ChinaÕs international behaviour. It matters to us in the outside world that both American and Chinese decisionmakers learn to deal with this ambiguity better than they have been doing lately.

It is hard to write lead articles on ambiguity and uncertainty. There will always be a market for alarmist extremes. Public advocacy in the style of this volumeÑwell-informed, reasoned and literateÑis all the more vital in helping determine which prophecies get to fulfil themselves.

Review by Andrew Norton

The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia
Simon Marginson and Mark Considine
Cambridge University Press Melbourne,Ê 272pp,Ê $34.95, ISBN 0521 79448 X.

Simon Marginson, co-author of The Enterprise University, isnÕt keen on my higher education views. Speaking to The Bulletin last August he said I was Ôrecycling the neo-liberal critique of education, that all ills can be traced to a lack of market mechanisms . . . His argument is bankrupt. ItÕs not the real debate we need to have.Õ

The debate we do need to have, if this book is a guide, is about the forces shaping university governance and identity, especially since the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s.

The core of The Enterprise University reports on a large survey of Australian universities in the mid-1990s. It covers all major types of Australian university, labeling them ÔsandstoneÕ, the first university in each state; the ÔredbricksÕ, Monash, ANU and UNSW; the ÔgumtreesÕ, post-war and pre-Dawkins general universities but without the sandstonesÕ and redbricksÕ research strength; the ÔunitechsÕ, the old institutes of technology more focused on their links with the world than on basic research; and the Ônew universitiesÕ, the former colleges of advanced education.

Despite the diversity on display in these classifications, Marginson and Considine believeÊ the universities are suffering from isomorphism, Ôimitating behaviourÕ, which the authors believe is due to a greater reliance on outside funding and competition.

There are common trends in university governance, most obviously the declining authority of collegial and democratic bodies, and the rise of university senior executives, often backed by smaller and more focused Councils or Senates.

These senior executives changed their universities in similar ways. Most universities diversified their income sources to compensate for static or declining government revenues, and this has greatly changed the social composition of their campuses, with overseas students now a very visible presence. UniversitiesÕ research effort became more closely controlled by their research offices, using their expertise in applying for grants.

Research centres proliferated, partly to facilitate interdisciplinary research, but also because they are more easily controlled by the executive than traditional depart-ments. Ties with business became more actively sought than in the past, with parallel firms established to commer-cialise university research and activities.Ê

I believe that whether or not all these trends are entirely desirable, they were necessary in the circumstances of tight fiscal and regulatory control. Strong senior executives, capable of imposing internal cuts and focusing on outside revenue sources, were needed to avoid complete collapse. Facing similar problems, is it unsurprising that universities Ôisom-orphedÕ around the few readily available survival strategies.

While on balance Marginson and Considine believe the universities are converging, in some ways, they argue, the universities are diversifying. Universities do develop new niches and new activities, and, they believe, the Ôgovernment-constructed market is leading to greater vertical differentiation between the institutionsÕ, meaning that the university system is becoming more hierarchical.

Marginson believes I think all ills can be traced back to a lack of markets, and he shows an equally strong tendency to believe that all ills can be traced back to the existence of markets, both the isomorphism and the undesirable vertical differentiation. Which side does the evidence support?

The trouble with declaring markets to blame in higher education is that they were barely present. While there has been a trend toward markets, by allowing fee-paying overseas students and then fee-paying postgraduate students, universities remain relics of a command economy. Most of their student places are allocated by government quota, at a price determined by the government. Beyond a non-academic amenities fee, the typical university has no financial relationship with around 80% of its students.

It is the absence, not the presence, of markets and the income they could bring that has led to many of the numerous shortcomings of Australian universities. Tight federal Budgets has seen per capita student funding decline almost every year since 1983, placing huge financial pressure on every university. The pressure could have been eased by letting universities charge local undergraduates fees, but this did not happen. Instead the pressure prompted the rather similar set of strategies identified in Marginson and ConsidineÕs survey, and the lack of scope for innovation, with many desirable possibilities out of the question because there was no way of recovering their cost.

In the case of increased Ôvertical differentiationÕ not only is the market suspect absent but also the crime. Government intervention has minimised, not increased, both vertical and horizontal differences between the universities. There are no government funding differentials between university types, and the ban on undergraduate fees has prevented the sandstones and redbricks charging for their prestige, or anyone charging for innovation. The quota system stops successful universities growing and preserves student numbers for under-performers, destroying one incentive for innovation and quality control.

Perhaps because of these leveling policies, student outcomes are not predetermined by university type. The top five universities for getting jobs includes one redbrick, one unitech, one new and two sandstones. The top five for graduate starting salaries include one redbrick, one gumtree, one new and two sandstones. Only one university, UNSW, appears in both top fives. The only consistent outcomes difference is in student perceptions of the quality of their teaching and overall satisfaction, and in that the new universities usually do better. Based on data from the Course Experience Questionnaire, sent to all students on completing their degrees, I was able to do 63 comparisons of Group of Eight universities (the sandstones less Tasmania plus the redbricks) with a new university in their state. Of the 63, the new came out ahead in 53.

If you read The Enterprise University in conjunction with Simon MarginsonÕs earlier book, Markets in Education (1997), you will better understand why he is so unwilling to consider lifting government control over universities. In the earlier book, MarginsonÕs leftism is much more prominent. He thinks competition in education functions as Ôa system of reproducing the professions and preserving social advantageÕ, to him a bad thing. Since markets let people help their kids by investing in education social levelers oppose them. AustraliaÕs universities are one of the LeftÕs
greatest successes, since nowhere else have they come so close to imposing equality of outcome.

Unfortunately the institutions conducive to equality are inimical to excellence. Given the Budget constraints of government and the limits of student potential, similar outcomes can only be produced by creating a generalised mediocrity. Whether we should accept this trade-off is I think the debate we should be having. While Simon MarginsonÕs academic writing style makes his books heavy going, he is the best-informed representative of the ÔYesÕ
case.

Review by John Roskam

Reclaiming Education
by James Tooley
Cassell, London,Ê 2000Ê 258pp, $35.00, ISBN 0 304 70567 5

This is an important book on school education and the state.Ê Unfort-unately it comes out 122 years too late.Ê In 1872 Victoria abolished state aid and started to take control of school education, followed closely over the years by the other states.Ê By 1915 H. V. Evatt in his famous essay ÔLiberalism in AustraliaÕ was already having to the deny the charges that state education had become ÔstandardisedÕ, ÔsocialisticÕ, and made no provision for local effort. The debate continues.

James Tooley is Professor of Education Policy at the University of Newcastle, UK and Director of the Education and Training Unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.Ê The publicity blurb on the back cover of the book claims he is the Ômost controversial educationalist of our timeÕ and judging by the howls of protest that greeted his appointment as Professor a few years ago this claim is probably justified.Ê

Reclaiming Education is TooleyÕs attack upon nearly every feature of the administration of school education in the UK, and by implication education in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.Ê Tooley wants to reclaim education from the state, and this is the basis of a series of arguments questioning the basic assumptions about government intervention in education.Ê

Tooley accepts school education (however its precise content is defined) for all members of a community as a necessary precondition for a free and democratic society.Ê However, this is as far as he will agree with the advocates of government intervention in education.Ê

Reclaiming Education argues such an aim can be achieved without the state providing education, funding education, or regulating education.Ê Pretty radical, given that even the most fervent advocates of vouchers would countenance some form of public funding, if not state provision or regulation.

Indeed, supporters of vouchers receive little succour from Tooley, for he believes that without a massive expansion in the supply of education services vouchers on their own would do little to improve the education.

Tooley analyses each of the arguments about the provision, funding, and the regulation of education.Ê In the case of the provision of education he maintains that the private sector, in combination with the philanthropy of individuals could easily both provide and in due course fund universal education, while an active market in education in which there was real parental choice would be self-regulating.Ê

Although he doesnÕt call it that, Tooley looks back to a Ôstate of natureÕ (or in other words the time before state intervention in education) and finds that it wasnÕt all bad.Ê For example, to the claim that prior to government involvement in education in 1870 in the UK there was Ô70% illiteracyÕ Tooley reasonably convincingly replies that in fact such a figure resulted from a manipulation of the data, and that without government intervention prior to the 1870s school attendance and literacy rates were 90% or above.

For Tooley, all previous attempts at education reform have failed because they have not created a market for education.Ê Efforts to devolve responsibility to schools and provide choice to parents are fine as far as they go but they do not increase the range of education options available from different suppliers.Ê According to Tooley most of the debate about ÔchoiceÕ in the UK and the US is fairly meaningless as nowhere has real education choice been implemented, because ÔchoiceÕ is only Ôpermitted within a heavily regulated, state provided and funded schooling systemÕ and there is no price competition.

Choice is advocated as a means of improvement without relying on the philosophical argument that parents have the right to choose their childÕs education.Ê Tooley assumes this position to avoid a debate with those who are unwilling to concede parentsÕ rights.Ê Some would argue that to concede this point to his critics is to concede too much.Ê Perhaps some of his ambivalence about choice stems from the position of non-government education in the UK.Ê Tooley is deeply conscious of the class assumptions madeÊ about non-government education in the UK, which is attended by a relatively small percentage of children. The much higher proportion of Australian students in non-government schools gives parents more conf-idence in making a choice and in asserting their rights to choice.

Tooley discusses how education choice could break down the monopoly provision of education, and then through competition improve standards.Ê An efficient education market in TooleyÕs terms would involve not only a large number of schools, but other suppliers of education such as technology companies, local community associations, and groups of families all providing different elements of education and all competing vigorously with each other.

The sections of Reclaiming Education rebutting the justification for state intervention in education are by far the most interesting, and the most innovative parts of the book.Ê

Reclaiming Education makes a plea for a reconception of education away from what is delivered in schools towards an understanding that there are many contexts in which children learn.Ê Tooley wants to make the family the centre of childrenÕs learning, and demands of educators that they appreciate the role of the media and information technology in encouraging learning.Ê Tooley appreciates that these debates about the Ônature of schoolingÕ are not new, and have been alive and well since at least the publication of Ivan IllichÕs Deschooling Society in 1971, but given the Blair GovernmentÕs preoccupation with schools as institutions Tooley feels it necessary to reiterate the message.

While Reclaiming Education is written for a UK audience, and Tooley unashamedly uses it as a vehicle to rebut his fellow academics, it has undoubted relevance to Australia.Ê It is refreshing to read a work about education reform that starts from scratch, doesnÕt assume anything and forces one to rethink oneÕs assumptions.Ê Given its success in doing this it is probably asking too much to seek from Tooley a practical Ôhow-to guideÕ for achieving his aims.Ê

The optimistic assumption at the conclusion of Reclaiming Education is that parents will inevitably start to demand a better education for their children which will give rise to government gradually freeing up the school sector.Ê Some might believe that this is altogether too sanguineÑat least as it applies to Australia.Ê Perhaps in 122 years the situation might be different.

Policy is the quarterly review of The Centre for Independent Studies. For more information on subscribing to Policy, click HERE

If you are interested in the Centre's activities and publications, why not subscribe to e-PreCIS, our regular email update on the latest news and events.

(e-PreCIS requires html capable email facilities, such as Microsoft Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger)