New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education
| Author | Stephen J. Ball |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00722.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00722.x
New Philanthropy, New Networks and New
Governance in Education
Stephen J. Ball
Institute of Education, University of London
This article draws upon and contributes to a body of theory and research within political science which
is concerned with changes in the policy process and new methods of governing society; that is, with a shift
from centralised and bureaucratic government to governance in and by networks. This is sometimes
called the ‘Anglo-governance model’ and the most prominent and influential figure in the field is Rod
Rhodes. The article focuses on one aspect of these kinds of change within the field of education policy
and argues that a new form of ‘experimental’ and ‘strategic’ governance is being fostered, based upon
network relations among new policy communities. These new policy communities bring new kinds of
actors into the policy process, validate new policy discourses and enable new forms of policy influence
and enactment, and in some respects disable or disenfranchise established actors and agencies. The
argument is illustrated with examples of networks identified and mapped by the author. Some of the
relationships among participants who make up these new networks are traced and discussed, drawing
upon research into the privatisation of education funded by the ESRC. These relationships interlink
business, philanthropy, quangos and non-governmental agencies.
This article seeks both to add to a body of research within political science which
is concerned with changes in the policy process and new methods of governing
society, that is with the shift from ‘the government of a unitary state to governance
in and by networks’ ( Bevir and Rhodes, 2003, p. 41), and to make a modest
contribution to the conceptualisation of policy networks. The analysis of policy
networks is sometimes called the ‘Anglo-governance model’ and the most promi-
nent and influential figure in the field is Rod Rhodes (see Marinetto, 2005;
Rhodes, 1995; 1997; Rhodes and Marsh, 1992), although there is also a lively
US school of public network management research (see Agranoff and Maguire,
2001). In both these literatures a contrast is drawn wherein governance is
accomplished through the ‘informal authority’ of diverse and flexible networks,
while government is carried out through hierarchies or specifically bureaucracy.
Governance then, involves a ‘catalyzing of all sectors – public, private and
voluntary – into action to solve their community problems’ (Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992, p. 20) and ‘explores the changing boundary between state and civil
society’ ( Bevir and Rhodes, 2003, p. 42) – and as we shall see between state and
the economy. In general terms this is the move towards a ‘polycentric state’ and
‘a shift in the centre of gravity around which policy cycles move’ ( Jessop, 1998,
p. 32). All of this suggests that both the form and modalities of the state are
changing.‘The state, although not impotent [see below], is now dependent upon
a vast array of state and non-state policy actors’ (Marinetto, 2005, p. 599).
© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies Association
748
S T E P H E N J. B A L L
This article focuses on one aspect of these kinds of change within the field of
education policy and argues that a new form of ‘experimental’ and ‘strategic’
governance is being fostered, based upon network relations within new policy
communities. These new policy communities bring new kinds of actors into
the policy process, validate new policy discourses and enable new forms of
policy influence and enactment, and in some respects disable or disenfranchise
or circumvent some of the established policy actors and agencies. This is a
means of ‘governing through governance’ ( Bache, 2003, p. 301). However, in
deploying and discussing such changes I need to be clear that I am not sug-
gesting that this involves a giving up by the state of its capacity to steer policy;
this is not a ‘hollowing out’ of the state, rather it is a new modality of state
power, agency and social action and indeed a new form of state. That is, the
achievement of political ends by different means. It also needs to be pointed
out that networks do not tell us everything we need to know about policy and
the policy process. Network ‘methods’ and relations do not totally displace
other forms of policy formation and policy action but rather take their place
in ‘the judicious mixing of market, hierarchy and networks to achieve the best
possible outcomes’ ( Jessop, 2002, p. 242). Kooiman (2000) and others make the
same point.
Here then I offer a preliminary analysis of some examples of new communities
which have been formed in and around education policy, and consider some of
the ‘work’ that they do in bringing about changes in policy and changes in
governance.1 I trace some of the relationships among participants who make up
these new policy communities, drawing upon research into the privatisation of
education funded by the ESRC. Two kinds of data were used to identify the
networks discussed below (Figure 1a and b, Figure 2): a set of interviews with
senior figures in the education services industry and a set of detailed and
extensive internet searches focused on the education policy involvements of
these and other relevant policy actors. Senior executives from all except one of
the major UK education businesses, and several from smaller companies, were
interviewed about the work of their companies, twenty interviews in all (see
Ball, 2007 for more detail). The purpose of the interviews was to understand
the history and work of these businesses, the constitution and history of their
staffs and their engagement in and with current education policy processes. The
approach is roughly similar to that of Robert Agranoff (2003) but more modest
in scope and scale.
The article begins with a clarification of key terms. This is followed by an analytic
description of two specific education policy networks and a brief discussion of
business philanthropy and the ‘enterprise narrative’. Finally, the article moves on
to consider how these examples may contribute to the conceptual development
of policy network analysis, both in terms of the various roles and functions of the
networks – some reference is made here to Agranoff ’s work (2003) – and their
contribution to changes in the English education state.
© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008, 56(4)
P H I L A N T H RO P Y, N E T WO R K S A N D G OV E R N A N C E
749
Networks and Communities
There is a degree of misleading clarity about the concept of networks, as used in
the governance literature. It is either used very abstractly to describe general
changes in the form of government or deployed to refer to a very wide variety
of real and practical social relationships. Furthermore, some of the writing on
networks is normative and the distinction between prescription and analysis is
sometimes blurred. The idea of networks is used here as a descriptive and analytic
term, rather than in any normative sense, to refer to a form of governance that
interweaves and interrelates markets and hierarchies – a kind of messy hinterland
which supplements and sometimes subverts these other forms. It also indicates a
method, a means for tracing and representing social relations within the field of
policy.2 The vagaries of the term are avoided, as far as possible, by focusing on a
set of specific network relations, that is a ‘policy community’, which ‘catalyses’
business in the delivery of education services and reconfigures and disseminates
education policy discourses. Rhodes (1995, p. 9) uses ‘the term network to
describe the several interdependent actors involved in delivering services ... these
networks are made up of organizations which need to exchange resources
(money, information, expertise) to achieve their objectives’ – which is exactly the
case in these examples. He adds that ‘governance also suggests that networks
are self-organizing’ (Rhodes, 1995, p. 10). That is true here but only to a certain
extent. Janet Newman (2001, p. 108) elaborates, pointing out that the governance
literature views networks ‘in terms of plural actors engaged in a reflexive process
of dialogue and information exchange’, or as Agranoff (2003, p. 28) puts it,
‘networks provide venues for collaborative solutions’ and ‘mobilise innovations’,
but Newman (2001, p. 108) adds the important caveat that ‘Networks are informal
and fluid, with shifting membership and ambiguous relationships and account-
abilities’. Both comments have a relevance in this case.
The term policy community also presents some difficulties but such commu-
nities can be thought about on a continuum of social and ideological cohesion.
‘At one end of this continuum are policy communities, as integrated, stable and
exclusive policy networks; at the other end are issue networks of loosely con-
nected, multiple, and often conflict-ridden members’ (Skogstad, 2005, p. 5). The
examples offered in this article are closer to the former than the latter but are
not as integrated, stable and exclusive as all that. They are institutionalised and
stabilised via the work of various nodal actors (see below) and lead organisa-
tions (e.g. Academy Sponsors Trust, HSBC Educational Trust and Teach First).
They consist of ‘personal relationships within a shared framework’ (Rhodes
and Marsh,...
To continue reading
Request your trial