Search results
1 – 10 of 797
The sudden rise of the socio-political importance of security that has marked the twenty-first century entails a commensurate empowerment of the intelligence apparatus. This…
Abstract
The sudden rise of the socio-political importance of security that has marked the twenty-first century entails a commensurate empowerment of the intelligence apparatus. This chapter takes the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 as a vantage point from where to address the political significance of this development. It provides an account of the powers the Act grants intelligence agencies, concluding that it effectively legalizes their operational paradigm. Further, the socio-legal dynamics that informed the Act lead the chapter to conclude that Intelligence has become a dominant apparatus within the state. This chapter pivots at this point. It seeks to identify, first, the reasons of this empowerment; and, second, its effects on liberal-democratic forms, including the rule of law. The key reason for intelligence empowerment is the adoption of a pre-emptive security strategy, geared toward neutralizing threats that are yet unformed. Regarding its effects on liberal democracy, the chapter notes the incompatibility of the logic of intelligence with the rule of law. It further argues that the empowerment of intelligence pertains to the rise of a new threat-based governmental logic. It outlines the core premises of this logic to argue that they strengthen the anti-democratic elements in liberalism, but in a manner that liberalism is overcome.
Details
Keywords
This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of discourses on equity found in OECD and Norwegian policy documents. This is an interesting area to study as the OECD is found to…
Abstract
This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of discourses on equity found in OECD and Norwegian policy documents. This is an interesting area to study as the OECD is found to be an important agenda setter for many countries' educational policies. A comparative analysis of OECD and Norwegian educational policies is especially interesting because the OECD is often found to be pressing for a neo-liberal agenda, while Norway has a socialist-alliance government. Combining Basil Bernstein's theoretical framework with key principles from Critical Discourse Analysis, the author investigates power relations within OECD and Norwegian educational policy documents. Two equity models serve as analytical tools: equity through equality and equity through diversity, which can be described along the three dimensions: de-/centralization, de-/standardization and de-/specialization. Using the analysis of two key documents on equity in education from the OECD and Norway, the author points out the similarities and differences in two documents. Both the OECD and Norwegian approaches to equity in education can be related to a centralized decentralization or a conservative modernization of education. However, there are also important differences between the two documents. For example, the Norwegian ministry has more emphasis on equity through equality and is less influenced by neo-liberalism and authoritarian populism than the OECD. In conclusion, the author argues that neither of the two described approaches appears to improve the inequities in education. A different way of targeting these inequities could be based on critical theory and research.
Schumpeter explained how capitalism has changed in such essential ways that it is evolving into a new kind of economic system. It is not entirely clear, however, what the nature…
Abstract
Schumpeter explained how capitalism has changed in such essential ways that it is evolving into a new kind of economic system. It is not entirely clear, however, what the nature of this new system will be. It will probably be centralist socialism, says Schumpeter, because the observable tendencies point in that direction, as does the logic of the historical situation. Yet, it could be guild socialism dominated by unions. He did not know and we do not know. It is even possible that the new social reorganisation could be one that is not socialist at all.
Although the existing literature indicates the strategy of decentralization adopted by the Chinese government has permitted the introduction of transnational higher education…
Abstract
Purpose
Although the existing literature indicates the strategy of decentralization adopted by the Chinese government has permitted the introduction of transnational higher education (TNHE) into mainland China at its very beginning in the 1980s, relatively little research has been conducted to explore the effects of the ensuing-released policies on the development of TNHE after then, especially at institutional level. The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap by presenting data/information about recent development of TNHE in China and analyzing teachers’/students’ perceptions of autonomy enjoyed by the newly emerging cooperation type, Sino-foreign cooperation universities.
Design/methodology/approach
Based upon the purposive sampling method, we chose University A and B as case studies in this research to ensure the representativeness, since they cooperate separately with the major exporters of TNHE in China. In addition, key informants and snowball sampling were adopted to select our respondents. In total 5 administrative staff and 12 students were interviewed to evaluate their working/ learning experience there. The detailed information about the interviewees are listed as Appendix.
Findings
The fieldwork conducted in 2014 and 2015 reveals the governance model toward Sino-foreign cooperation universities could be categorized as predominantly decentralized. Specifically, the authors listed the most obvious aspects showing the different level of autonomy enjoyed by different cooperation types below: the internal administrative structure, the enrollment capacity, the criteria of admission and the quality assurance method.
Originality/value
This paper critically explores how local education bureaus regulate these TNHE programs in general and monitor the operation of the overseas university campuses being founded in China in particular. In addition, this paper also reports the field interviews with faculty members and students, particularly their evaluation of working/learning experiences in the field of TNHE. Most important of all, this paper critically reflects upon the changing educational governance and explores what regulatory regime could better conceptualize the changing state-TNHE relations in China.
Details