Page 113 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 113
. štremfel ■ european neoliberal discourse and slovenian educational space
within a certain context of comparisons. In this regard, the leading as-
sumption is that the most efficient (rationalist approach) and the most
suitable (constructivist approach) decisions are adopted on the basis of ob-
jective data (March and Olsen, 1998). International comparative achieve-
ment scales hence exert double pressure on EU member states [the sense of
their own (un)competitiveness compared with the performance of other
members states, the feeling of ineffectiveness resulting from (non)achieve-
ment of common goals] and direct them towards achieving the strategic
goals of the EU (Alexiadou, 2007; Ioannidou, 2007). Some authors (e.g.
Nóvoa and Yariv-Mashal, 2003) point out that in this respect, governance
by comparison not only creates convergence (of goals and outcomes), but
may also lead to uniformity in activity and thinking. Within the neolib-
eral philosophy, such competitive neutrality establishes relationships of ri-
valry as a means of increasing productivity, accountability and oversight.
Governance of Problems/Crisis
As far as transnational problem resolution is concerned, the governance
of problems pertains to a situation wherein a group of countries recognise
a common policy problem and unite their efforts in resolving this prob-
lem. Nóvoa (2002: p. 145) argues that the ‘expert discourses’ that emerge
from the European Commission tend to homogenise ‘problems’ and ‘solu-
tions’ and create the illusion of a common agenda. When an EU member
state perceives a policy-related problem based on its ranking on an inter-
national comparative achievement scale, the most efficient policy models
for problem resolution have often already been developed at the EU lev-
el. Member state uncertainty, how to resolve the problem itself and the
pressure of competitiveness can explain their receptiveness to apparently
neutral external solutions. Under this approach, then, the EU governance
is seen as a way of gradually solving national problems by shifting prob-
lem solving capacity from the national to the supranational level (see also
Alexiadou, 2014: p. 128).
Nordin (2014) points out that crisis discourse presents an important
instrument of EU neoliberal educational governance.5 The crisis discourse
has an epistemological approach coordinating ideas and exercising per-
suasive power to guide human thinking and action in a certain direction
when communicated by powerful policy actors such as the EU. The crisis
5 Nordin (2014) recognised the similarities between crisis discourse and risk society (Beck,
1992). He argues that “While the risk society calculates possible risks in a distant and un-
known future, the crisis discourse calls for immediate action in response to a situation al-
ready known (at least for those powerful actors communicating the crisis), changing the
time horizon for those involved in the policy-making process in a more reactive direction”
(Nordin, 2014: pp. 122–123).
111
within a certain context of comparisons. In this regard, the leading as-
sumption is that the most efficient (rationalist approach) and the most
suitable (constructivist approach) decisions are adopted on the basis of ob-
jective data (March and Olsen, 1998). International comparative achieve-
ment scales hence exert double pressure on EU member states [the sense of
their own (un)competitiveness compared with the performance of other
members states, the feeling of ineffectiveness resulting from (non)achieve-
ment of common goals] and direct them towards achieving the strategic
goals of the EU (Alexiadou, 2007; Ioannidou, 2007). Some authors (e.g.
Nóvoa and Yariv-Mashal, 2003) point out that in this respect, governance
by comparison not only creates convergence (of goals and outcomes), but
may also lead to uniformity in activity and thinking. Within the neolib-
eral philosophy, such competitive neutrality establishes relationships of ri-
valry as a means of increasing productivity, accountability and oversight.
Governance of Problems/Crisis
As far as transnational problem resolution is concerned, the governance
of problems pertains to a situation wherein a group of countries recognise
a common policy problem and unite their efforts in resolving this prob-
lem. Nóvoa (2002: p. 145) argues that the ‘expert discourses’ that emerge
from the European Commission tend to homogenise ‘problems’ and ‘solu-
tions’ and create the illusion of a common agenda. When an EU member
state perceives a policy-related problem based on its ranking on an inter-
national comparative achievement scale, the most efficient policy models
for problem resolution have often already been developed at the EU lev-
el. Member state uncertainty, how to resolve the problem itself and the
pressure of competitiveness can explain their receptiveness to apparently
neutral external solutions. Under this approach, then, the EU governance
is seen as a way of gradually solving national problems by shifting prob-
lem solving capacity from the national to the supranational level (see also
Alexiadou, 2014: p. 128).
Nordin (2014) points out that crisis discourse presents an important
instrument of EU neoliberal educational governance.5 The crisis discourse
has an epistemological approach coordinating ideas and exercising per-
suasive power to guide human thinking and action in a certain direction
when communicated by powerful policy actors such as the EU. The crisis
5 Nordin (2014) recognised the similarities between crisis discourse and risk society (Beck,
1992). He argues that “While the risk society calculates possible risks in a distant and un-
known future, the crisis discourse calls for immediate action in response to a situation al-
ready known (at least for those powerful actors communicating the crisis), changing the
time horizon for those involved in the policy-making process in a more reactive direction”
(Nordin, 2014: pp. 122–123).
111
