Dear all,
Watching my own department here in Bristol being subject to the
`disclipline' of `profit-centres' (compulsory redundancies; calumny and
abusive rhetoric; subsequent actions of either withdrawal or militancy
from those involved) i found the call for a study of these phenomenon in
academia timely and reassuring in that we are not alone in this.
(i apologize for all the scare quotes, but the definitions currently
brandished by those terms are new and i cannot agree with them)
It seems that, within this university (not the department) cross-subsidy
has become a dirty word. This liberates those wealthy departments
(read: in receipt of industrial subsidies) to practice what can only be
described as a politics of greed. At the last uni council meeting some
deans of science and medicine stated very forcefully that they were
"tired" of seeing their surplus go to help subsidize those departments
(read: humanities like drama, policy studies, even law and politics) who
couldn't keep their budgets in order.
Of course, this calumny is cloked in the rhetoric of new business:
responsibility, profits, returns, `productivity', etc. Yet my
experience in the transport business tells me that all businesses
cross-subsidize to an extent. When an enterprise is very large, it is
inevitable that some branches, departments or services which are
necessary do not generate enough direct revenue to cover their
expenses yet are necessary in order to allow other departments to get on
with their revenue-generating concerns. There are a number of
accounting practices which formalize this and are treated as completely
legitimate business practice.
So, the logic of this shift to `internal markets' and profit-driven
productivity seems ideological at the core. Attempting to set up a
business providing an essential service to my provincial government in
Canada in the 1980s (a mini-Thatcherite regime) i encountered a letter
from the Premier acknowledging that privatisation and contracting out
would cost the province more than if the government supplied its own
services with the economies of scale and directness of application which
such services entailed. The letter went on to state that this did not
matter, however, because the policy was needed to break the hold of the
unions in order to encourage foreign investment and also to encourage an
increase of `entrepreneurialism' in the province. Ideologically,
`marketization' was preferable to government `centralism' regardless of
the cost.
So we have all seen this before -- in government and in industry.
Indeed i am now in academia because my chosen occupation (trucking) was
privatised beyond the ability of companies and drivers to make a living
(average return to trucking companies in Canada in the 1980s was between
+1% and -3% and truckers' wages have dropped in comparison to other
occupational groups to the point that the president of the provincial
trucking association admitted to me in an interview that there was a
severe shortage of quality employees and that this was directly due to
the increasing use of owner-operators and the subsequent drop in income
to drivers). Now it seems to be following me into academia....
All industries experience cycles of growth and retrenchment over the
long term. If i was bolder (and more pedantic) i would start talking
about regimes of accumulation -- but i won't. The production of
knowledge is no different. And yet we are learners. Can we not learn
from others who have suffered such changes and avoid some of the
heartbreak and pitfalls they have?
A project such as this -- an international data-base -- would be a very
useful tool, not only academically, but politically as well. It could
help reduce the feelings of isolation that we feel when encountering
this locally. It could illustrate worse (and best) practise, especially
in terms of managing change. And perhaps it could contribute towards
the changing of the meanings of academic work which are being foisted
upon us, often by people and institutions beyond our direct control.
(Meanings like: the humanities are a money-waster and sciences are
productive; all knowledges can be judged by one standard - money; etc.)
Perhaps as a start someone could collate information and the
experiences of those who have or are facing this assault on the
traditional meanings of social sciences. This data-base could then
become the source of further work sorting it and deriving lessons from
it.
So, a good idea and one i would like to support being carried further.
Not an unsuitable project for a forum for _critical_ geographers,
methinks.
regards
rhys evans
School For Policy Studies
University of Bristol
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|