Knowledge and its Enemies: Towards a New Case for Higher Learning ...

Centralised systems in Continental Europe are generally more consensual but are also viewed as being sluggish, compared to the Anglo systems where tighter regulatory control has been imposed through oversight (Goedegebuure et al. 1994b, 7; Scott and Hood 2004, 82). However, some of the Continental states have also managed to lift their research performance relative to the dominant position of the United States. While this has involved a degree of regulatory push, they have also sought to retain a measure of mutuality and access equity. This may support the proposition that state strength can derive from political legitimacy founded upon how well the state is ‘socially embedded’ (Seabrooke 2002, online) as much as it also needs to be institutionally embedded (Evans 1995, 10–17). Higher education would appear to be an ideal testing ground for this hypothesis, given the manner in which it tends to embody social and cultural norms.

Some other empirical evidence exists that may support tentative hypotheses about how state capacity mediates change. For example, from the 1960s, Britain fared reasonably well in the reform process because its institutions retained a larger degree of autonomy (Clark 1983, 142–145). This was in spite of what often appeared to be ‘brutal’ reforms but in fact led to little institutional change due to the restraint shown by the Treasury and the (then) University Grants Commission (Shils 1982, 462). This altered dramatically in the course of the Thatcher era that saw the introduction of central control ‘worthy of India, Cuba, Russia, or China at their most extreme’ (Stevens 2004, 45). Combined with a struggle over resources mostly induced by financial stringency, this consolidated a shift in the balance of authority from academics to institutional managers (Fulton 2002, 206–208). The trend continued under New Labour (Kogan and Hanney 2000, 46–47, 232–234) and was associated with rising concerns about standards and quality.

A similar scenario was played out in Australia as the aggressive embrace of market-based strategies raised concerns about the continued role of Australian universities as civil institutions (Macintyre and Marginson 2000, 53). Public controversy accompanied policy shifts, due to growing student-staff ratios, declining standards, and political intrusion